Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

ISSN 1725-2431
## C 294 E
# Official Journal
#### of the European Union

**Volume 56**
##### English edition Information and Notices 10 October 2013

_Notice to reader_

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

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

### **EN**

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 1

IV

_(Notices)_

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES

AND AGENCIES

###### EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

**WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER**

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

**by a European Union institution**

(2013/C 294 E/01)

**Contents** **Page**

**E-008418/12** by Salvador Sedó i Alabart to the Commission
_Subject:_ Data belonging to EU air passengers

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

**P-008525/12** by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission
_Subject:_ PNR (passenger name record) Spain‐United States

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 15
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 17

**E-008915/12** by Philippe Boulland to the Commission
_Subject:_ Mediation in cases of cross-border divorce conflicts

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 18
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 19

**E-008916/12** by Philippe Boulland to the Commission
_Subject:_ Compliance by Germany with the principle of the free movement of persons, in divorce cases

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 20
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 21

**E-008920/12** by Philippe Boulland to the Commission
_Subject:_ Bisphenol A

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 23
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 24

**E-008922/12** by Philippe Boulland to the Commission
_Subject:_ INDECT project

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 25
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 26

C 294 E / 2 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

**E-008923/12** by Philippe Boulland to the Commission
_Subject:_ Trade in Japanese products

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 27
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 28

**E-008924/12** by Philippe Boulland to the Commission
_Subject:_ Maximum permitted levels of radioactive contamination

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 29
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 30

**E-008925/12** by Philippe Boulland to the Commission
_Subject:_ Foreign investments

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 31
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 32

**E-008926/12** by Philippe Boulland to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Setting up of a strategic investment review body

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 33
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 34

**E-008928/12** by Philippe Boulland to the Commission
_Subject:_ Arrangements for housing children seeking asylum

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 35
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 36

**E-008929/12** by Philippe Boulland to the Commission
_Subject:_ Cloud computing

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 37
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 38

**E-008930/12** by Philippe Boulland to the Commission
_Subject:_ Canada-EU Trade Agreement (CETA)

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 39
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 40

**E-008931/12** by Gilles Pargneaux to the Commission
_Subject:_ Environment/health plan

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 41
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 42

**P-008932/12** by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Arrest of police officers

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 43
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 45

**E-009130/12** by Takis Hadjigeorgiou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Kidnapping by the illegal Turkish-Cypriot occupying force of three police officers from the Republic of
Cyprus

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 43
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 45

**E-008935/12** by Fiorello Provera to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Member of Parliament stabbed to death in the Maldives

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

**E-008936/12** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Mechanism to remove substances from the list of priority substances

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

**E-008937/12** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Wind farms to meet growing energy needs

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 51
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 52

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 3

**E-008938/12** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Air quality and geographical areas: possible new parameters

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 53
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 54

**E-008939/12** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Cross-border recognition of civil status documents: unresolved problems

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 55
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 56

**E-008940/12** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Network of support and psychological assistance centres for victims of trafficking

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 57
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 58

**E-008941/12** by Petru Constantin Luhan to the Commission
_Subject:_ Recognition of unpaid traineeships

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 59
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 60

**E-008942/12** by Monika Flašíková Beňová to the Commission
_Subject:_ Gender discrimination in setting insurance prices

Slovenské znenie ............................................................................................................................................................... 61
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 62

**E-008944/12** by Mario Borghezio to the Commission
_Subject:_ The Liikanen report and the need for a separation between banking activities and financial speculation

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 63
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 64

**P-008945/12** by Francisco Sosa Wagner to the Commission
_Subject:_ Funding of Erasmus grants

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 65
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 66

**P-008946/12** by Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz to the Commission
_Subject:_ Insurance contracts which discriminate against women

Magyar változat ................................................................................................................................................................. 67
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 68

**E-008947/12** by Sergio Gaetano Cofferati to the Commission
_Subject:_ Situation at FNAC (Italy)

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 69
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 70

**E-008950/12** by Ryszard Antoni Legutko to the Commission
_Subject:_ Upgrading of rail connections in border areas

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 71
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 72

**E-008951/12** by María Irigoyen Pérez to the Council
_Subject:_ Lack of resources for the Erasmus programme

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 73
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 74

**E-008952/12** by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Air transport in Greece

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 75
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 76

**E-008953/12** by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Nuclear reactors in the EU

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 77
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 78

C 294 E / 4 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

**E-008955/12** by Fiorello Provera to the Commission
_Subject:_ Greece to spend EUR 100 million on Formula One racetrack

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 79
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 80

**E-008956/12** by Giancarlo Scottà to the Commission
_Subject:_ Impact of the application of the Bolkestein Directive on tourism in Italy

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 81
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 82

**E-008957/12** by Judith Sargentini to the Commission
_Subject:_ Compliance by the Netherlands with Article 9(2) of the Visa Code

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 83
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 84

**P-008958/12** by Véronique Mathieu to the Commission
_Subject:_ Trade in agricultural inputs within the EU

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 85
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 86

**P-008959/12** by Justas Vincas Paleckis to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU‐Belarus relations after the recent Belarusian parliamentary elections

Tekstas lietuvių kalba ....................................................................................................................................................... 87
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 88

**E-008960/12** by Sylvana Rapti to the Commission
_Subject:_ Use of sign language in broadcasts of EU institution speeches and press interviews

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 89
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 90

**E-008961/12** by Raül Romeva i Rueda, Nicole Kiil-Nielsen, Margrete Auken and Jill Evans to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Freedom Flotilla III

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 91
Dansk udgave .................................................................................................................................................................... 92
Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 93
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 94

**E-008962/12** by Alyn Smith to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU energy cooperation with the Arab peninsula

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

**E-008963/12** by Alyn Smith to the Commission
_Subject:_ Carbon capture and OPEC

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

**E-008965/12** by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Illiteracy in the EU

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 97
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 98

**E-008966/12** by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Violation of children's rights in Syria

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 99
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 100

**E-009023/12** by Mariya Gabriel to the Commission
_Subject:_ Resumption of funding for the Erasmus programme

българска версия ............................................................................................................................................................... 101
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 108

**E-008967/12** by Ana Miranda to the Commission
_Subject:_ Budgetary position of the Erasmus programme

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 102
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 108

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 5

**E-009113/12** by Sergio Berlato to the Commission
_Subject:_ Funding for the Erasmus programme may run out

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 104
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 109

**E-009747/12** by Filip Kaczmarek to the Commission
_Subject:_ Commission strategy concerning the Erasmus programme

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 106
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 109

**E-009086/12** by Rareş-Lucian Niculescu to the Commission
_Subject:_ Financial situation regarding the European Social Fund and the Erasmus programme

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 107
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 109

**E-008968/12** by Piotr Borys to the Commission
_Subject:_ Advance payments for beneficiaries under cross-border cooperation programmes in the context of
European Territorial Cooperation

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 111
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 112

**E-008969/12** by Morten Løkkegaard to the Commission
_Subject:_ New advertising tax in Denmark

Dansk udgave .................................................................................................................................................................... 113
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 114

**E-008970/12** by Niccolò Rinaldi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Extension of the Colle Fagiolara landfill site in the municipality of Colleferro (Province of Rome) and
identification of a site for a bio-mechanical waste treatment plant

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 115
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 117

**P-008971/12** by Sophocleous Sophocles to the Commission
_Subject:_ State of nuclear reactors within European territory

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 118
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 119

**P-008972/12** by Clemente Mastella to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — EU action to secure the release of two young Italians sentenced to life imprisonment in India

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 120
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 121

**E-008973/12** by Morten Løkkegaard to the Commission
_Subject:_ The Trans-Pacific Partnership and the WTO

Dansk udgave .................................................................................................................................................................... 122
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 123

**E-008974/12** by Andreas Mölzer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Escalation of the conflict between Syria and Turkey

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 124
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 126

**E-009788/12** by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Turkey's accession to the European Union and relations with Syria

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 125
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 126

**E-008975/12** by Andreas Mölzer to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Escalation of the conflict between Syria and Turkey

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 128
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 129

C 294 E / 6 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

**E-008977/12** by Morten Løkkegaard to the Commission
_Subject:_ Erasmus Masters loan guarantee facility

Dansk udgave .................................................................................................................................................................... 130
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 131

**P-008978/12** by Catherine Stihler to the Commission
_Subject:_ Application process of a new state to join the EU

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 132

**E-008979/12** by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells and Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Council
_Subject:_ The director of _El Mundo_ newspaper compares the Camp Nou stadium and the Catalan flag to the fascist
salute and to 1936 Berlin in blatant opposition to the fundamental values of the European Union

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 133
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 134

**E-008980/12** by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells and Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission
_Subject:_ The director of El Mundo newspaper compares the Camp Nou stadium and the Catalan flag to the fascist
salute and to 1936 Berlin in blatant opposition to the fundamental values of the European Union

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 135
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 136

**E-008981/12** by Sophocles Sophocleous to the Council
_Subject:_ Cypriot police officers unlawfully arrested by the occupation regime

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 137
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 138

**E-008982/12** by Sophocles Sophocleous to the Commission
_Subject:_ Cypriot police officers unlawfully arrested by the occupation regime

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 139
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 140

**E-008983/12** by Philippe Boulland to the Commission
_Subject:_ Purchase of TNT by UPS (United Parcel Service)

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 141
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 142

**E-008984/12** by Philippe Boulland to the Commission
_Subject:_ Ivory trafficking

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 143
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 144

**E-008985/12** by Philippe Boulland to the Commission
_Subject:_ ‘LiquidFeedback’ software

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 145
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 146

**E-008986/12** by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Co-funded programmes in Greece — Delay in achieving objectives

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 147
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 148

**E-008987/12** by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Retroactive changes to the support scheme for commissioned renewable energy projects

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 149
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 150

**E-008988/12** by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the Commission
_Subject:_ Impact of the revised Emission Trading Scheme on the EU economy

Suomenkielinen versio ..................................................................................................................................................... 151
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 152

**E-008989/12** by Jorgo Chatzimarkakis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Recognition of German vocational training for professional drivers under EU Directive 2003/59/EC

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 153
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 154

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 7

**E-008990/12** by Ole Christensen to the Commission
_Subject:_ Sufficient evidence in the case concerning hourly-paid teachers

Dansk udgave .................................................................................................................................................................... 155
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 156

**E-008992/12** by Louis Grech to the Commission
_Subject:_ Recognition of skills gained outside school and university

Verżjoni Maltija ................................................................................................................................................................. 157
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 158

**E-008993/12** by Louis Grech to the Commission
_Subject:_ Seabed mapping — blue growth and jobs

Verżjoni Maltija ................................................................................................................................................................. 159
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 160

**E-008994/12** by Louis Grech to the Commission
_Subject:_ Unaccompanied minors

Verżjoni Maltija ................................................................................................................................................................. 161
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 162

**E-008995/12** by Mathieu Grosch to the Commission
_Subject:_ Age restriction on volunteering

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 163
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 164

**E-008996/12** by Ioannis A. Tsoukalas to the Commission
_Subject:_ Centre for Research and Technology Hellas (CERTH)

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

**E-008997/12** by Sergio Gutiérrez Prieto, Iratxe García Pérez and Enrique Guerrero Salom to the Council
_Subject:_ Continuation of the European programme of food aid for the most deprived persons

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 167
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 168

**E-008998/12** by Pino Arlacchi, David-Maria Sassoli, Vittorio Prodi, Salvatore Caronna, Silvia Costa, Sergio
Gaetano Cofferati, Andrea Cozzolino, Gianni Pittella and Rita Borsellino to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 169
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 171

**E-008999/12** by João Ferreira to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Statements by the UN Special Rapporteur concerning torture in Morocco

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

**E-009000/12** by João Ferreira to the Commission
_Subject:_ World Teachers' Day — Situation of teachers in Portugal

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 174
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 176

**E-009001/12** by João Ferreira and Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Destruction of weapons and elimination of nuclear arsenals

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

**E-009002/12** by João Ferreira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Co-existence of genetically modified crops (following the ECJ ruling)

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

**E-009003/12** by João Ferreira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Fresh proposal on flight time limitations

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

C 294 E / 8 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

**E-009004/12** by João Ferreira to the Commission
_Subject:_ GM pollen in honey

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

**E-009005/12** by João Ferreira and Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — End of the embargo against Cuba

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 186
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 187

**E-009006/12** by João Ferreira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Situation in Guinea-Bissau — EU-funded projects

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 188
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 189

**E-009007/12** by João Ferreira to the Commission
_Subject:_ UN report on cuts to official development assistance

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 190
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 193

**E-009443/12** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Development aid

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 190
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 193

**E-009908/12** by Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă to the Commission
_Subject:_ European Year for Development

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 192
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 193

**E-009008/12** by Hans-Peter Martin to the Commission
_Subject:_ Technological support for EU languages

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 195
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 196

**E-009010/12** by Michèle Striffler to the Commission
_Subject:_ Revision of the Working Time Directive

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 197
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 198

**E-009011/12** by Nikolaos Salavrakos to the Commission
_Subject:_ Problems with Greek fisheries

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 199
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 200

**E-009012/12** by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Tax havens

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 201
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 202

**E-009013/12** by Marian Harkin to the Commission
_Subject:_ Free movement of goods and consumer rights within the EU

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 203

**E-009014/12** by Marian Harkin to the Commission
_Subject:_ Free movement of goods and consumer rights within the EU

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 203

**E-009015/12** by Sophia in 't Veld, Joanna Senyszyn, Cornelis de Jong and Marietje Schaake to the Commission
_Subject:_ Blasphemy laws within the European Union

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 204
Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 206
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 208

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 9

**E-009017/12** by Sophia in 't Veld, Joanna Senyszyn, Olle Schmidt and Ana Miranda to the Commission
_Subject:_ Alleged illegal state aid granted by Italy to religious entities and not-for-profit organisations

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 210
Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 211
Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 212
Svensk version ................................................................................................................................................................... 213
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 214

**E-009018/12** by Nikolaos Salavrakos to the Commission
_Subject:_ Fishing licences issued during breeding periods

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

**E-009019/12** by Nikolaos Salavrakos to the Commission
_Subject:_ High price of consumer staples

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

**E-009020/12** by Nikolaos Salavrakos to the Commission
_Subject:_ Dementia and Alzheimer's disease

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

**E-009021/12** by Francisco Sosa Wagner to the Commission
_Subject:_ Linguistic discrimination in public procurement procedures

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 221
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 222

**E-009022/12** by Daciana Octavia Sârbu to the Commission
_Subject:_ Alcohol consumption

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 223
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 224

**E-009025/12** by Catherine Stihler to the Commission
_Subject:_ Library access to eBooks

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

**E-009026/12** by Liisa Jaakonsaari to the Commission
_Subject:_ Tax havens on EU territory

Suomenkielinen versio ..................................................................................................................................................... 226
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 227

**E-009027/12** by Edward Scicluna to the Commission
_Subject:_ Cohesion policy funds — state of play

Verżjoni Maltija ................................................................................................................................................................. 228
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 229

**E-009028/12** by Ian Hudghton to the Commission
_Subject:_ Timeshare selling in perpetuity and the consequences for descendants of original purchasers

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 230

**E-009029/12** by Giancarlo Scottà to the Commission
_Subject:_ Counterfeit ‘Italian-made’ products: powdered wine on sale in the United Kingdom

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 231
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 232

**E-009030/12** by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Clearance of EAGGF and EAFRD accounts

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 233
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 234

**E-009032/12** by Hans-Peter Mayer to the Commission
_Subject:_ General aviation safety strategy

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 235
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 236

C 294 E / 10 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

**E-009033/12** by Philip Claeys to the Commission
_Subject:_ Border controls accompanied by a requirement to pay a toll; non-recognition of vehicle insurance in
Cyprus

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 237
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 238

**E-009034/12** by Nessa Childers to the Commission
_Subject:_ High-Level Group of Independent Stakeholders

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 239

**E-009035/12** by Fiorello Provera to the Commission
_Subject:_ French and Belgian Jews on high alert

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

**E-009036/12** by Lorenzo Fontana to the Commission
_Subject:_ Risks posed by high-frequency trading systems

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 242
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 243

**E-009038/12** by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission
_Subject:_ Amendment to Directive 84/500/EEC regarding new limits for the migration of metals contained in
ceramic articles to foodstuffs

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 244
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 246

**E-009039/12** by Rebecca Harms to the Commission
_Subject:_ Financial irregularities during the preparation of big sports events

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 247
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 249

**E-009040/12** by Auke Zijlstra to the Commission
_Subject:_ Effects and consequences of opt-outs

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 251
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 252

**E-009041/12** by Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă to the Commission
_Subject:_ The EU budget as a means of stimulating growth and employment

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 253
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 254

**E-009042/12** by Norbert Neuser to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU sanctions against rebels in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 255
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 256

**E-009043/12** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ The impossibility of identifying police officers during rallies and demonstrations: impunity for abuses
and violations of the law

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 257
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 258

**E-009044/12** by Jutta Steinruck to the Commission
_Subject:_ Contaminated aircraft cabin air

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 259
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 261

**E-009045/12** by Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz to the Commission
_Subject:_ Public information on crimes committed by totalitarian regimes

Magyar változat ................................................................................................................................................................. 263
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 264

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 11

**E-009046/12** by Andres Perello Rodriguez to the Commission
_Subject:_ Recognition of professional qualifications of European doctors who have specialised outside the
European Union

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 265
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 266

**E-009047/12** by Andres Perello Rodriguez to the Commission
_Subject:_ Adverse reactions to the vaccine against human papillomavirus (HPV)

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 267
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 268

**P-009048/12** by Bernd Posselt to the Commission
_Subject:_ Trial contrary to the rule of law in Serbia

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 269
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 270

**E-009049/12** by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission
_Subject:_ Labelling system for cosmetic products

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

**E-009050/12** by Michael Cashman, Ulrike Lunacek, Sophia in 't Veld, Raül Romeva i Rueda, Sirpa Pietikäinen,
Cornelis de Jong and Marije Cornelissen to the Commission
_Subject:_ Legal developments in Ukraine and visa liberalisation and facilitation

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 273
Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 275
Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 277

Suomenkielinen versio ..................................................................................................................................................... 279
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 280

**E-009099/12** by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission
_Subject:_ Erasmus and the European Social Fund: a new corrective budget for 2012

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 281
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 283

**E-009051/12** by João Ferreira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Budget shortfall for the Erasmus programme and other ESF programmes

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 282
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 283

**E-009052/12** by Françoise Grossetête to the Commission
_Subject:_ Recognition of medicine prescriptions

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 285
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 286

**E-009053/12** by Salvador Sedó i Alabart and Werner Langen to the Commission
_Subject:_ The EU pharmaceutical industry

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 287
Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 288
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 289

**E-009054/12** by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission
_Subject:_ Follow-up to answer to Written Question E-004856/2012

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 290
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 291

**E-009055/12** by Amelia Andersdotter to the Commission
_Subject:_ Protection of personal data belonging to EU citizens in the context of the EU's proposed DCFTA with
Armenia

Svensk version ................................................................................................................................................................... 292
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 293

C 294 E / 12 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

**E-009058/12** by Morten Løkkegaard to the Commission
_Subject:_ Public Procurement III

Dansk udgave .................................................................................................................................................................... 294
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 295

**E-009059/12** by Michael Theurer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Implementation of public procurement legislation in Baden-Württemberg (Germany): an example of
bureaucratic costs in connection with an ERDF-funded project

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 296
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 297

**E-009060/12** by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission
_Subject:_ SAICA (networks to monitor quality data) and SAIH (networks to monitor water level and flow data)

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 298
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 300

**E-009061/12** by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission
_Subject:_ SAIH: networks to monitor water level and flow data

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 298
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 300

**E-009062/12** by Struan Stevenson to the Commission
_Subject:_ Draft broadband state aid guidelines

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 302

**E-009063/12** by Andrea Cozzolino to the Commission
_Subject:_ Maritime links

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 303
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 304

**E-009064/12** by Fiorello Provera to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — The Egyptian constitution

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

**E-009065/12** by Nicole Sinclaire to the Commission
_Subject:_ Erasmus funding

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 307

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 13

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008418/12**

**to the Commission**
**Salvador Sedó i Alabart (PPE)**

_(25 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Data belonging to EU air passengers

On 6 May 2012, a journalist of Colombian nationality resident in Paris who was travelling to Cuba from Spain was
left behind because an official in the US embassy prevented him from embarking. The official alleged that the person
in question was on the list of persons who may mount an attack on the US.

The agreement on Passenger Name Records (PNR) approved by the European Parliament and signed in
December 2011 by the US and the European Commission does not apply to this case, since the agreement imposes a
duty on European air companies to supply passenger names to the US Department of Homeland Security solely for
flights to or from the US. However, since March the North American authorities have been unilaterally requiring all
European airlines to send, prior to take-off, the name, date of birth and gender of passengers on aeroplanes flying over
US territory. The US cites security grounds to justify this practice.

1. The agreement between the US and the EU does not refer to flying over US air space, as reflected in Article 2
thereof. How does the Commission hope to resolve this situation?

2. This policy affects thousands of passengers in Spain flying to Cuba, Mexico and Canada. However, the
companies flying to these destinations do not duly provide information on the transfer of these data, and are
therefore infringing the data protection law. What guarantees can the Commission offer regarding the handling of
these data?

**Preliminary answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission**

_(13 November 2012)_

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the questions. It will communicate its findings as
soon as possible.

**Supplementary answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission**

_(9 January 2013)_

The case appears to relate to the _Secure Flight Program_ of the United States which is managed by the US Transport
Security Agency (TSA) to safeguard aviation security. The TSA conducts pre-screening of information for flights
against watch lists of people who are considered to pose a threat to the security of a flight.

Under the program, air carriers are required to collect on behalf of TSA a few data elements and provide them to TSA.
TSA uses these data to prevent individuals on the US _No Fly List_ from boarding an aircraft and to identify individuals
on the US _Selectee List_ for enhanced screening. After matching the collected data against government watch lists, the
TSA may request air carriers to deny boarding to the specific person or it ask the relevant authorities to carry out a
closer examination of that person before a decision is made whether to deny boarding.

The transfer of data under this program does not fall under the EU-US PNR Agreement. It is part of a wider set of
issues concerning transfers of Advance Passenger Information (API) to third countries. That issue is complex due to
the legal questions involved and the extent to which API data is used globally (EU Member States and 32 other
countries already collect API data on air passengers, and API systems are anticipated in another 25 countries).

The Commission is currently examining the issue of transfers of API data to third countries, and the US _Secure Flight_
_Program_ . The article 29 Working Party on Data Protection is also looking into these issues and is expected to deliver
an opinion in early 2013.

The Commission will keep the Parliament informed of its work and propose a way forward.

C 294 E / 14 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-008418/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Salvador Sedó i Alabart (PPE)**

_(25 de septiembre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Datos de los pasajeros aéreos de la UE

El pasado 6 de mayo, un periodista de nacionalidad colombiana residente en París que viajaba a Cuba desde España se
quedó en tierra porque un funcionario de la Embajada estadounidense le impidió embarcar. El funcionario alegó que
la persona en cuestión se encontraba en la lista de personas que pueden atentar contra los EE.UU.

El acuerdo aprobado por el Parlamento Europeo, firmado en diciembre de 2011 por EE.UU. y la Comisión Europea,
sobre el registro de datos de pasajeros (PNR) no sería aplicable a este caso, ya que el acuerdo obliga a las compañías
aéreas europeas a suministrar al Departamento de Seguridad del Territorio Nacional estadounidense datos de
pasajeros únicamente cuando se trata de vuelos con origen o destino en los EE.UU. Sin embargo, las autoridades
norteamericanas exigen unilateralmente desde marzo a todas las aerolíneas europeas que envíen antes del despegue el
nombre, la fecha de nacimiento y el sexo de los pasajeros de aviones que sobrevuelen el espacio de los Estados Unidos.
Los EE.UU. alegan razones de seguridad para justificar dicha práctica.

1. El acuerdo entre los EE.UU. y la UE no hace alusión al sobrevuelo del espacio aéreo estadounidense, tal y como
queda reflejado en su artículo segundo. ¿Cómo espera la Comisión resolver esta situación?

2. Dicha política afecta a miles de pasajeros en España con destino a Cuba, México y Canadá. Sin embargo, las
compañías que operan a estos destinos no informan debidamente de la cesión de dichos datos, vulnerando, por
consiguiente, la ley de protección de datos. ¿Qué garantías puede ofrecer la Comisión en cuanto al tratamiento de
estos datos?

**Respuesta provisional de la Sra. Malmström en nombre de la Comisión**

_(13 de noviembre de 2012)_

La Comisión está recogiendo la información necesaria para contestar a su pregunta. Comunicará sus conclusiones lo
antes posible.

**Respuesta complementaria de la Sra. Malmström en nombre de la Comisión**

_(9 de enero de 2013)_

El caso parece estar relacionado con el _Programa Vuelo Seguro_ ( _Secure Flight Program_ ) de los Estados Unidos, que es
gestionado por la Agencia de Seguridad del Transporte de los EE.UU. ( _Transport Security Agency_, TSA) para
salvaguardar la seguridad de la aviación. La TSA lleva a cabo una preselección de la información relativa a los vuelos
cotejándola con listas de control de las personas que se consideran una amenaza para la seguridad de un vuelo.

Con arreglo a dicho Programa, las compañías aéreas están obligadas a recoger, en nombre de la TSA, unos pocos
datos y entregárselos a la TSA. La TSA utiliza esos datos para evitar que quienes figuran en la lista de personas que
tienen prohibido volar en los EE.UU. ( _US_ _No Fly List_ ) puedan subir a un avión, y para identificar a los individuos que
figuran en la Lista Restringida _(Selectee List)_ de los EE.UU. con vistas a una detección reforzada. Tras comparar los
datos obtenidos con las listas de control del Gobierno, la TSA puede solicitar a las compañías aéreas que denieguen el
embarque a la persona específica o solicitar a las autoridades competentes que lleven a cabo un examen más detenido
de esa persona antes de decidir si se le debe o no denegar el embarque.

La transferencia de los datos en virtud de este programa no entra en el ámbito de aplicación del Acuerdo UE-EE.UU.
sobre los registros de datos de los pasajeros (PNR). Forma parte de un conjunto más amplio de cuestiones relativas a
las transferencias de información anticipada sobre pasajeros (API) a terceros países. Esta cuestión es compleja debido a
las cuestiones legales involucradas y a la medida en que los datos de la API se utilizan a nivel mundial (los Estados
miembros de la UE y otros 32 países ya recogen datos API sobre los pasajeros de líneas aéreas y se prevé el uso de
sistemas API en otros 25 países).

La Comisión está examinando la cuestión de las transferencias de datos API a terceros países, así como el _Secure Flight_
_Program_ de EE.UU. El Grupo de Trabajo del Artículo 29 sobre Protección de Datos también está estudiando estos
temas y se espera que emita un dictamen a principios de 2013.

La Comisión mantendrá informado al Parlamento de su trabajo y propondrá un camino a seguir.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 15

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita P-008525/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)**

_(26 de septiembre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ PNR (registro de nombres de los pasajeros) España-Estados Unidos

Según el acuerdo bilateral entre España y los Estados Unidos, las aerolíneas españolas que sobrevuelan territorio
estadounidense deben entregar la información de sus pasajeros a los EE.UU.

El portavoz para asuntos de Justicia e Interior, Michele Cercone, afirmó, en declaraciones a la Cadena SER, que «este es
un tema cubierto por acuerdos bilaterales entre algunos países europeos y los Estados Unidos, y España está entre
ellos. O sea que cualquier información sobre este tema, las negociaciones o el contenido del acuerdo para sobrevuelos
debe dirigirse a las autoridades nacionales porque este es un tema de competencia nacional».

Cabe recordar que el acuerdo europeo para la transferencia de datos de los pasajeros de avión europeos con destino a
los Estados Unidos (PNR) fue inicialmente rechazado por el Parlamento Europeo, en mayo del año 2010, y luego fue
adoptado en abril de 2012.

Dado el espacio de Schengen y el libre movimiento de las personas de la UE, muchos ciudadanos europeos pueden
utilizar el servicio de aerolíneas españolas, pasando o no por ese país, para realizar vuelos intercontinentales que
sobrevuelen los EE.UU. Es, por tanto, de imperiosa necesidad limitar ciertos acuerdos bilaterales y asegurar la
protección de datos y el derecho a la privacidad de toda la ciudadanía europea, así como su derecho a circular
libremente dentro de la UE. Cabe recordar asimismo la incompatibilidad del actual acuerdo UE-EE.UU. sobre PNR con
la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la UE.

1. ¿Qué opina la Comisión de este acuerdo entre España y los EE.UU.? ¿Cree que estos acuerdos limitan la
capacidad de negociación colectiva de la UE con otros socios como los EE.UU., restringiendo así el espíritu del
Tratado de Lisboa?

2. ¿Qué mecanismos piensa adoptar la Comisión para intervenir ante dichos acuerdos bilaterales y garantizar el
derecho principal de libre circulación así como los derechos fundamentales de la ciudadanía europea?

**Respuesta provisional de la Sra. Malmström en nombre de la Comisión**

_(29 de octubre de 2012)_

La Comisión está recopilando la información necesaria para contestar a las preguntas. Comunicará sus conclusiones
lo antes posible.

**Respuesta complementaria de la Sra. Malmström en nombre de la Comisión**

_(9 de enero de 2013)_

El caso parece estar relacionado con el _Programa Vuelo Seguro_ ( _Secure Flight Program_ ) de los Estados Unidos, que es
gestionado por la Agencia de Seguridad del Transporte de los EE.UU. ( _Transport Security Agency_, TSA) para
salvaguardar la seguridad de la aviación. La TSA lleva a cabo una preselección de la información relativa a los vuelos
cotejándola con listas de control de las personas que se consideran una amenaza para la seguridad de un vuelo.

Con arreglo a dicho Programa, las compañías aéreas están obligadas a recoger, en nombre de la TSA, unos pocos
datos y entregárselos a la TSA. La TSA utiliza esos datos para evitar que quienes figuran en la lista de personas que
tienen prohibido volar en los EE.UU. ( _US_ _No Fly List_ ) puedan subir a un avión, y para identificar a los individuos que
figuran en la Lista Restringida _(Selectee List)_ de los EE.UU. con vistas a una detección reforzada. Tras comparar los
datos obtenidos con las listas de control del Gobierno, la TSA puede solicitar a las compañías aéreas que denieguen el
embarque a la persona específica o solicitar a las autoridades competentes que lleven a cabo un examen más detenido
de esa persona antes de decidir si se le debe o no denegar el embarque.

La transferencia de los datos en virtud de este programa no entra en el ámbito de aplicación del Acuerdo UE-EE.UU.
sobre los registros de datos de los pasajeros (PNR). Forma parte de un conjunto más amplio de cuestiones relativas a
las transferencias de información anticipada sobre pasajeros (API) a terceros países. Esta cuestión es compleja debido a
las cuestiones legales involucradas y a la medida en que los datos de la API se utilizan a nivel mundial (los Estados
miembros de la UE y otros 32 países ya recogen datos API sobre los pasajeros de líneas aéreas y se prevé el uso de
sistemas API en otros 25 países).

C 294 E / 16 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

La Comisión está examinando la cuestión de las transferencias de datos API a terceros países, así como el _Secure Flight_
_Program_ de EE.UU. El Grupo de Trabajo del Artículo 29 sobre Protección de Datos también está estudiando estos
temas y se espera que emita un dictamen a principios de 2013.

La Comisión mantendrá informado al Parlamento de su trabajo y propondrá un camino a seguir.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 17

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-008525/12**

**to the Commission**
**Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)**

_(26 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ PNR (passenger name record) Spain‐United States

Under the bilateral agreement between Spain and the United States, Spanish airlines flying over US territory must
hand over information on their passengers to the US.

Speaking to the SER radio network, the spokesperson for justice and home affairs, Michele Cercone, said that this was
a matter covered by bilateral agreements between some European countries, including Spain, and the United States.
This meant that any information on this issue, negotiations or the content of the agreement on overflying should be
sent to the national authorities, since this matter fell within national competence.

It might be pointed out that the European agreement on the transfer of European air passenger data to the United
States (PNR) was initially rejected by the European Parliament in May 2010 and finally adopted in April 2012.

Thanks to the Schengen area and the free movement of people within the EU, many European citizens are able to use
Spanish airlines for intercontinental flights overflying the US, whether or not they pass through Spain. It is therefore
vital to limit certain bilateral agreements and guarantee that all European citizens enjoy data protection and the right
to privacy, as well as the right to move freely within the EU. Attention might also be drawn to the incompatibility
between the current EU‐US agreement on PNR and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

1. What view does the Commission take of this agreement between Spain and the US? Does it believe that these
agreements restrict the EU's collective negotiating ability vis-à-vis other partners such as the US, thereby placing a
constraint on the spirit of the Lisbon Treaty?

2. What mechanisms will the Commission use to intervene in relation to these bilateral agreements and guarantee
the primary right to free movement and the fundamental rights of European citizenship?

**Preliminary answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission**

_(29 October 2012)_

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the questions. It will communicate its findings as
soon as possible.

**Supplementary answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission**

_(9 January 2013)_

The case appears to relate to the _Secure Flight Program_ of the United States which is managed by the US Transport
Security Agency (TSA) to safeguard aviation security. The TSA conducts pre-screening of information for flights
against watch lists of people who are considered to pose a threat to the security of a flight.

Under the program, air carriers are required to collect on behalf of TSA a few data elements and provide them to TSA.
TSA uses these data to prevent individuals on the US _No Fly List_ from boarding an aircraft and to identify individuals
on the US _Selectee List_ for enhanced screening. After matching the collected data against government watch lists, the
TSA may request air carriers to deny boarding to the specific person or it ask the relevant authorities to carry out a
closer examination of that person before a decision is made whether to deny boarding.

The transfer of data under this program does not fall under the EU-US PNR Agreement. It is part of a wider set of
issues concerning transfers of Advance Passenger Information (API) to third countries. That issue is complex due to
the legal questions involved and the extent to which API data is used globally (EU Member States and 32 other
countries already collect API data on air passengers, and API systems are anticipated in another 25 countries).

The Commission is currently examining the issue of transfers of API data to third countries, and the US _Secure Flight_
_Program_ . The article 29 Working Party on Data Protection is also looking into these issues and is expected to deliver
an opinion in early 2013.

The Commission will keep the Parliament informed of its work and propose a way forward.

C 294 E / 18 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008915/12**

**à la Commission**
**Philippe Boulland (PPE)**

_(4 octobre 2012)_

_Objet:_ Médiation en cas de conflit binational en matière de divorce

En cas de divorce, outre les solutions judiciaires qui sont souvent longues et coûteuses, il existe la médiation. Ce
principe permet aux deux parties (les parents) de se réunir autour d'un acteur reconnu et neutre afin de négocier un
arrangement sur tous les aspects du divorce: enfants, acquêts, etc.

Lorsqu'un couple binational divorce, et selon les statistiques, ils sont de plus en plus nombreux, proportionnellement
à l'augmentation du nombre de mariages binationaux, la médiation s'avère plus délicate.

Les agences de médiation nationale peinent à réunir les acteurs.

Mme Roberta Angelilli, médiatrice du Parlement européen pour les enfants, est confrontée dans son rôle aux
difficultés de médiation entre un ancien couple binational.

Pourtant, la médiation permet souvent d'éviter des années de procédures judiciaires, coûteuses et parfois inutiles qui
ne mènent à aucune solution.

La Commission réglemente de plus en plus souvent en matière de divorce grâce au règlement Bruxelles 2 _bis,_ puis à
celui sur le choix de la législation de son divorce, mis en œuvre le 23 juin 2012.

La Commission compte-elle imaginer un système de médiation en matière de divorce plus efficace, notamment par le
biais d'une convocation obligatoire en cas de conflit prolongé entre un ancien couple binational?

Que pense la Commission d'un système qu'un citoyen de l'Union européenne, marié ou anciennement en couple ou
marié, puisse saisir pour demander une convocation de l'autre partie devant les instances des deux États membres
concernés, afin de discuter ou négocier autour d'un divorce?

Quel système la Commission pourrait-elle favoriser pour aider les citoyens de l'Union européenne à faire appel à la
médiation?

**Réponse donnée par Mme Viviane Reding au nom de la Commission**

_(27 novembre 2012)_

La directive sur la médiation de 2008 est applicable à tous les litiges civils transfrontières, dont les conflits familiaux.
Elle contribue de façon décisive au développement de la médiation, y compris dans le domaine du droit de la famille.
La Commission partage le point de vue de l'Honorable Parlementaire selon lequel la justice n'est pas toujours
convenablement rendue par les voies juridiques. C'est pourquoi la médiation a été désignée comme un élément clef du
fonctionnement efficace des systèmes judiciaires.

La Commission estime que le cadre juridique européen existant est suffisamment flexible pour qu'un État membre qui
le souhaiterait puisse introduire un système de médiation familiale obligatoire. Elle fournit également une base solide
pour élaborer des initiatives plus approfondies en vue de promouvoir la médiation familiale dans les cas de divorces
transfrontières. La mise sur pied d'un groupe de travail sur la médiation familiale, sous l'égide du réseau judiciaire
européen, serait un exemple de cette approche pragmatique. La Commission contribue également à la médiation
familiale avec la traduction du guide de bonnes pratiques en matière de médiation relatif à la convention de La Haye
sur l'enlèvement d'enfants.

La Commission a commandité une étude sur la transposition de la directive sur la médiation par les États membres, en
gardant à l'esprit que celle-ci ne concerne que les litiges transfrontières. En outre, cette étude évalue également
l'efficacité des systèmes nationaux de médiation, puisque l'application des principes de la directive aux affaires
nationales est également encouragée (cf. considérant 8). De plus, l'étude s'intéresse à différentes méthodes de
médiation, en vue d'une justice plus conviviale pour les citoyens. En s'appuyant sur les informations recueillies, la
Commission pourra estimer si des mesures supplémentaires sont utiles à la promotion de la médiation, y compris
dans les affaires de droit de la famille.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 19

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008915/12**

**to the Commission**
**Philippe Boulland (PPE)**

_(4 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Mediation in cases of cross-border divorce conflicts

Divorce cases can be resolved not only via — often long and costly — judicial processes, but also via mediation. This
allows both parties (the parents) to meet with a recognised and neutral player and negotiate the arrangements
applicable to all aspects of the divorce, concerning children and acquired property, etc.

When people from different countries divorce — and according to statistics this is happening more and more
frequently, in line with the increase in the number of bi‐national marriages — mediation becomes more complex.

Mediation agencies in the respective countries find it difficult to bring the parties together.

In her role as the European Parliament’s Mediator for International Child Abduction, Roberta Angelilli, has to face the
difficulties involved in mediating between former spouses from different countries.

Mediation can, however, often enable them to avoid years of long, costly, and sometimes futile judicial proceedings
that resolve nothing.

Council regulations are increasingly becoming applicable in divorce matters: the Brussels IIa regulation and the
regulation on the choice of applicable divorce law, implemented on 23 June 2012.

Does the Commission intend to conceive a more effective system of divorce mediation, not least by making it
obligatory for former spouses from different countries to appear before a competent body?

How would it view a system under which an EU citizen who is married, or has been married or in a partnership, could
apply to the courts for their (former) spouse or partner to be summoned to appear before the competent bodies of the
two Member States concerned, in order to conduct divorce negotiations?

What kind of system could it promote to help EU citizens access mediation?

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

_(27 November 2012)_

The 2008 Mediation Directive applies to all cross-border civil disputes including family disputes. It contributes in a
decisive way to the development of mediation also in the family law area. The Commission fully shares the views of
the Honourable Member that the need for justice is not always met through the Courts. Mediation has been therefore
identified as a key element for the efficient functioning of justice systems.

The Commission considers that the existing EU legal framework is flexible enough to allow for a compulsory family
mediation if a Member State would like to introduce such a system. It also provides for a solid basis to develop further
initiatives to promote family mediation in cross-border divorce conflicts. Setting up a WG on family mediation under
auspices of the European Judicial Network is an example of such pragmatic approach. The Commission also
contributes to the family mediation by the translation of the Practice Guide on Mediation relating to the Hague Child
Abduction Convention.

The Commission has requested a study to analyse the transposition of the Mediation Directive by the Member States,
bearing in mind that the directive concerns only cross-border disputes. Beyond that the study also evaluates the
effectiveness of the national mediation systems, since the application of the directive's principles to domestic cases is
also encouraged (ref. Recital 8). Furthermore, the study deals with different methods of mediation for a more citizen's
friendly justice. On the basis of the information gathered, the Commission may consider if further measures are useful
to promote the use of mediation, also in the family law cases.

C 294 E / 20 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008916/12**

**à la Commission**
**Philippe Boulland (PPE)**

_(4 octobre 2012)_

_Objet:_ Respect par l'Allemagne de la libre circulation des personnes en cas de divorce

Un parent allemand qui, après un divorce, estime que son ex-conjoint possédant un droit de garde souhaite enlever
l'enfant, peut, avec l'aide du Jugendamt, présenter au juge aux affaires familiales une demande de retrait de l'autorité
parentale sur la base de soupçons d'enlèvement et ce, grâce à la procédure d'urgence prévue à l'article 51 du FamFG.

Un parent non-allemand qui possède l'autorité parentale est plus susceptible de vouloir quitter le territoire allemand
avec son enfant pendant une visite autorisée afin de le montrer à sa famille d'origine, qu'un parent allemand qui
restera sur le territoire du pays, n'ayant pas d'attaches familiales à l'étranger.

Or l'article 51 du FamFG se basant sur des soupçons d'enlèvements, ces soupçons sont plus susceptibles de concerner
des parents non-allemands en Allemagne, puisqu'un enlèvement parental semble plus probable lorsque l'enfant quitte
le territoire allemand. Conséquence: les parents non-allemands qui divorcent et qui souhaitent rentrer chez eux et y
emmener de temps en temps leur enfant resté en Allemagne avec l'autre parent, obtiennent plus difficilement
l'autorisation de la justice allemande. De plus, les soupçons d'enlèvement étant plus forts, certains parents se voient
accuser, sans preuves, de vouloir enlever leur enfant tout simplement parce qu'ils souhaitent emmener leur enfant le
temps de leur garde partagée. Ou bien, ils se voient refuser tout déplacement de l'enfant hors d'Allemagne.

Un choix s'impose presque par défaut: si un parent souhaite revoir son enfant, il doit rester en Allemagne. Cet état de
fait, qui s'est vérifié dans plusieurs pétitions reçues au Parlement européen, n'est-il pas une entrave à la libre
circulation des personnes?

La Commission estime-t-elle normal qu'un parent divorcé ait comme seul choix de rester en Allemagne et de voir son
enfant, ou de déménager et de se séparer ainsi quasi définitivement de l'enfant?

Le règlement «Bruxelles II bis», ne pourrait-il pas aller plus loin en évoquant cette question du déplacement autorisé
des enfants en matière de droit de garde pour favoriser les déplacements d'enfants citoyens européens et biculturels?

**Réponse donnée par Mme Viviane Reding au nom de la Commission**

_(6 décembre 2012)_

La Commission renvoie l'Honorable Parlementaire aux réponses qu'elle a données aux questions E-007539/2012 et
P-0003679/2012 ( [1] ).

En ce qui concerne l'effet éventuel de décisions attribuant la garde d'enfants à des parents allemands sur l'exercice du
droit à la libre circulation des parents non allemands mais citoyens européens, la Commission admet que ces
décisions peuvent influer sur la décision des personnes concernées de rester en Allemagne ou de retourner dans leur
État membre d'origine.

Le règlement (CE) n [o] 2201/2003 ( [2] ), qui constitue le principal instrument dans le domaine du droit européen de la
famille, fournit des règles communes concernant la compétence, la reconnaissance et l'exécution des décisions en
matière matrimoniale et en matière de responsabilité parentale. Les règles de fond sur la circulation autorisée des
enfants et sur le droit de garde ne relèvent cependant pas du champ d'application du règlement.

Au vu des effets éventuels des décisions nationales mentionnés ci-dessus, et afin de renforcer la confiance mutuelle
dans les cas de garde d'enfant, la Commission a organisé un atelier ( [3] ) sur la participation des services de protection de
l'enfance dans ces affaires. Des échanges d'idées féconds sur les pratiques observées dans ce domaine ont eu lieu, au
cours desquels l'importance de fournir des informations pertinentes aux enfants et aux parents, et une formation
appropriée aux professionnels a été soulignée. La Commission encourage par des financements européens ( [4] ) la
formation de professionnels en ce qui concerne la participation des enfants dans les systèmes judiciaires.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/fr/parliamentary-questions.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) JO L 338 du 23.12.2003, p. 1.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Au cours du 7 [e] Forum pour les droits de l'enfant, les 13 et 14 novembre 2012.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Programme «Droits fondamentaux et citoyenneté», http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants/programmes/fundamental-citizenship/index_fr.htm

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 21

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008916/12**

**to the Commission**
**Philippe Boulland (PPE)**

_(4 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Compliance by Germany with the principle of the free movement of persons, in divorce cases

Any German parent who, following a divorce, feels that a former partner who has been awarded a right of custody
wishes to abduct the child may, with the assistance of the _Jugendamt_ and under Article 51 of the ‘FamFG’ Law, file with
the judge competent for such family matters an application to have their parental authority withdrawn on suspicions
of an intention to abduct.

A parent with parental authority who is not German is more liable to want to leave Germany with their child to visit
their family of origin during their authorised visiting time than is a German parent who does not have such family ties
outside the country, and who would therefore remain in Germany.

This means that because Article 51 of the ‘FamFG’ is based on suspicions of an intention to abduct, those suspicions
are more likely to relate to non‐German parents living in Germany, since a potential abduction would appear more
probable in case where the child is being taken outside Germany. The upshot of this is that non‐German parents who
divorce and want to return to their home country and occasionally bring a child to visit them there if the child has
remained in Germany with the other parent find it more difficult to obtain authorisation from the German justice
system. Moreover, if there are strong suspicions of an intention to abduct, some parents find themselves accused,
without any evidence, of wanting to abduct their child simply because they wish to take their child out of Germany
during their shared custody periods with them. In other words, they find that they cannot take their child outside
Germany at all.

Parents are thus left with just one choice, which is that if they want to see their children, they have to stay in Germany.
Does the Commission not consider this situation, which has been cited in several petitions received by Parliament, to
be an impediment to the free movement of persons?

Does it consider it normal for a parent who is divorced have no choice but to remain in Germany and see their child,
or to move and thereby almost definitively alienate themselves from that child?

Might not the Brussels IIa regulation be taken further, to cover this issue of the authorised movement of children and
their custody, so as to facilitate the movement of children of parents who are nationals of different EU Member States?

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

_(6 December 2012)_

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to its replies to Questions E-007539/2012 and
P-0003679/2012 ( [1] ).

As regards the possible impact of such decisions attributing custody to the German parents on the exercise of the
right to free movement of the non-German parents who are EU citizens, the Commission understands that such
decisions can be a factor influencing the decision of the persons concerned to remain in Germany or to return to their
Member State of origin.

Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 ( [2] ), which represents the main instrument in the EU family law area, provides
common rules on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the
matters of parental responsibility. Substantive rules on authorised movement of children and their custody fall
outside the scope of the regulation.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 338, 23.12.2003, p. 1.

C 294 E / 22 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

Given the possible impact that national decisions can have, as mentioned above, and in order to contribute to the
mutual trust in child custody cases, the Commission held ( [3] ) a workshop on the involvement of child welfare
authorities in such cases. Fruitful exchange of views took place on practices in this area and highlighted the
importance of providing relevant information to children and parents and appropriate training to practitioners. The
Commission encourages through EU funding ( [4] ) the training of professionals regarding the participation of children
in judicial systems.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) During the 7th Forum on the Rights of the Child on 13 and 14 November 2012.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Fundamental Rights and Citizenship Programme, http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants/programmes/fundamental-citizenship/index_en.htm;.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 23

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008920/12**

**à la Commission**
**Philippe Boulland (PPE)**

_(4 octobre 2012)_

_Objet:_ Bisphénol A

L'Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l'alimentation, de l'environnement et du travail (Anses) a souhaité,
vendredi 28 septembre 2012, un classement plus sévère pour le bisphénol A. L'Anses a demandé à l'Agence
européenne des produits chimiques (ECHA) de changer le classement du bisphénol A de toxicité «suspectée» pour la
reproduction humaine à «toxicité pour la reproduction humaine». Cela impliquerait des règles plus strictes, comme la
substitution, voire l'interdiction, du bisphénol A dans des produits destinés aux consommateurs.

La Commission se prépare-t-elle à agir en cas de reconnaissance de la toxicité du bisphénol A par l'Agence
européenne des produits chimiques? Dans quelle mesure?

Les différents avertissements provenant d'agences ainsi que d'études sur la dangerosité du bisphénol A vont-ils faire
réagir la Commission?

Après avoir interdit le bisphénol A dans les biberons, la Commission compte-t-elle l'interdire dans tous les produits?

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

_(21 décembre 2012)_

La Commission suit de près l'évolution de la situation relative au bisphénol A, y compris la proposition actuellement
examinée par l'Agence européenne des produits chimiques (ECHA) concernant le reclassement du bisphénol A de la
catégorie «suspicion de toxicité pour la reproduction humaine» dans la catégorie «à toxicité pour la reproduction
humaine». La proposition fera l'objet d'une consultation publique au cours de laquelle toutes les informations
pertinentes concernant les risques liés au bisphénol A pourront être présentées. Si, sur la base de la proposition et des
informations communiquées lors de la consultation publique, l'avis du comité d'évaluation des risques de l'ECHA
(CER) sur la proposition recommande le reclassement du bisphénol A, la Commission envisagera de réviser
l'annexe VI du règlement CLP et d'évaluer s'il est nécessaire d'adopter des mesures supplémentaires.

Toutes les évaluations pertinentes disponibles effectuées par d'autres agences ainsi que les recherches les plus récentes
sur les risques associés au bisphénol A seront prises en considération dans le cadre de la réévaluation des risques liés à
l'utilisation du bisphénol A dans les matériaux en contact avec les denrées alimentaires actuellement menée par
l'Autorité européenne de sécurité des aliments (EFSA). Il est prévu que l'avis de l'EFSA soit finalisé au plus tard en
mai 2013.

En 2010, la Commission a jugé opportun d'appliquer le principe de précaution dans le cas des enfants en bas âge
uniquement. La Commission envisagera de nouvelles mesures réglementaires si l'évaluation des risques de l'EFSA
révèle que l'utilisation actuelle du bisphénol À présente un risque pour la santé publique.

C 294 E / 24 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008920/12**

**to the Commission**
**Philippe Boulland (PPE)**

_(4 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Bisphenol A

On Friday, 28 September 2012, the French National Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health Safety
ANSES called for a more stringent classification for Bisphenol A. ANSES asked the European Chemicals Agency
(ECHA) to alter its classification from ‘suspected toxicity to human reproduction’ to ‘toxicity to human reproduction’.
This would entail stricter rules, such as replacing Bisphenol A in products intended for consumers or even banning its
inclusion in such products.

Is the Commission preparing to act in the event of ECHA’s recognising the toxicity of Bisphenol A? To what extent?

Will the Commission respond to various indications from agencies and from research of the hazards associated with
Bisphenol A?

After having banned Bisphenol A from babies’ bottles, will the Commission ban it from all products?

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

_(21 December 2012)_

The Commission follows closely developments related to Bisphenol A, including the current proposal submitted to
the European Chemical Agency (ECHA) to reclassify Bisphenol A from ‘suspected toxicity to human reproduction’ to
‘toxicity to human reproduction’. The proposal will be subject to a public consultation during which all relevant
information concerning the hazards of Bisphenol A can be submitted. If, based on the proposal and information
submitted during the public consultation, the opinion of ECHA's Risk Assessment Committee (RAC) on the proposal
recommends that Bisphenol A should be reclassified, the Commission will consider revising Annex VI of the CLP
Regulation and assessing whether there is a need for additional measures.

All available and relevant evaluations from other agencies and the newest research on the hazards associated with
Bisphenol A, will be considered in the ongoing re-evaluation of the risks connected to the use of Bisphenol A in food
contact materials by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The EFSA opinion is expected to be finalised by
May 2013.

In 2010 the Commission considered it adequate to apply precautionary principle in the case of infants only. The
Commission will consider further regulatory measures if EFSA's risk assessment indicates that the current use of
Bisphenol A poses a health risk to the population.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 25

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008922/12**

**à la Commission**
**Philippe Boulland (PPE)**

_(4 octobre 2012)_

_Objet:_ Projet Indect

Violences dans le train, mouvements d'une foule paniquée et hooligans dans un stade: le projet Indect semble
constituer la contre-attaque des États membres aux comportements criminels. Le projet de recherche Indect —
système d'information intelligent soutenant l'observation, la recherche et la détection pour la sécurité des citoyens en
milieu urbain — cofinancé par l'Union européenne dans le cadre du 7 [e] programme de recherche et d'innovation et par
douze États membres mobilisant leurs chercheurs, crée actuellement la controverse. Indect vise à renforcer les
possibilités de surveillance généralisée en utilisant les procédures existantes en la matière — photos et vidéos — mais
en les automatisant et en les améliorant pour mieux répondre aux situations de crise.

Cette surveillance automatisée couplée à la collecte de données personnelles peut constituer une menace pour les
libertés individuelles:

Ce projet vise-t-il la création d'un nouveau cadre réglementaire pour contrôler les échanges de données et le traçage
des activités criminelles sur l'internet?

Quelle suite législative la Commission compte-t-elle donner au projet s'il répond à ses attentes?

L'édition d'un système de reconnaissance de délit automatique sur l'internet et dans la rue est-elle vouée à l'élaboration
d'une vaste banque de données?

Enfin, la Commission compte-t-elle rendre un rapport sur les activités de recherche, les résultats obtenus et les
objectifs clairs visés par Indect de manière à mettre fin aux interrogations légitimes des citoyens européens?

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

_(26 novembre 2012)_

La Commission aimerait informer l'Honorable Parlementaire qu'Indect fait partie des projets de recherche du 7 [e] PC et
ne fournira pas de systèmes opérationnels. Le projet effectue des recherches en matière de nouvelles technologies de
surveillance permettant de maintenir la sûreté et la sécurité publiques. Indect n'élabore pas de cadre réglementaire.
Indect, en tant que projet de recherche, n'aboutira à aucune initiative législative. La Commission n'a pas l'intention de
créer une base de données exhaustive sur la détection de la criminalité comportant des données personnelles. Indect,
comme tous les projets de recherche du 7 [e] PC, est juridiquement tenu de publier des rapports sur ses activités,
résultats et objectifs. Toutes ces informations sont publiques et accessibles sur le site web du projet ( [1] ).

La protection des données personnelles et de la vie privée est un droit fondamental, que la Commission européenne
protège et garantit fermement et résolument et qui figure dans la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l'Union
européenne.

Le projet de recherche Indect lui-même et l'utilisation de toute technologie au titre du projet doivent respecter cette
charte ainsi que la Convention européenne des Droits de l'homme et les règles de l'UE concernant la protection des
données. C'est pourquoi nous suivons de près l'avancement du projet et ses implications.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.indect-project.eu/.

C 294 E / 26 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008922/12**

**to the Commission**
**Philippe Boulland (PPE)**

_(4 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ INDECT project

In response to violence on trains, stampeding crowds, football hooliganism and other similar problems, Member
States are implementing the INDECT project to tackle criminal behaviour. Co-funded by the EU under the seventh
framework programme for Research and involving researchers in 12 Member States, the INDECT project (Intelligent
information system supporting observation, searching and detection for security of citizens in urban environment) is
currently causing controversy. The project is designed to enhance the way existing mass surveillance tools, such as
photographs and video footage, are used by improving the relevant procedures and making them automatic in an
effort to ensure that crisis situations are dealt with more effectively.

However, the use of automatic surveillance techniques of this kind combined with the systematic collection of
personal data could undermine individual freedoms.

Does the project include plans for a new regulatory framework to monitor exchanges of data and the detection of
criminal activity on the Internet?

If the project is successful, how does the Commission intend to follow it up in legislative terms?

Is the introduction of an automatic system for detecting crime on the Internet and on the street part of a plan to create
a huge database?

Lastly, does the Commission intend to produce a report on the research activities, outcome and precise objectives of
INDECT in order to address once and for all people’s legitimate misgivings about the project?

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

_(26 November 2012)_

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that INDECT is an FP7 research project and will not
produce operationally ready systems. The project conducts research into new surveillance technologies for use in
maintaining public safety and security. INDECT is not developing a regulatory framework. INDECT as a research
project will not lead to any legislative initiatives. There is no Commission plan to create an extensive database on
crime detection comprising personal data. INDECT, like all FP7 research projects, is legally obliged to publish reports
on their activities, results and objectives. All this information is publicly available on the website of the project ( [1] ).

The protection of personal data and private life are fundamental rights — rights the European Commission firmly and
resolutely protects and guarantees, which are enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The INDECT research project itself, and the use of any technologies pursuant to the project, must respect the EU
Charter of Fundamental Rights and must comply with the European Convention on Human Rights as well as EU rules
on data protection — and we are closely monitoring the progress of the project and its implications.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.indect-project.eu/.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 27

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008923/12**

**à la Commission**
**Philippe Boulland (PPE)**

_(4 octobre 2012)_

_Objet:_ Commerce des produits japonais

Il est difficile de connaître précisément l'ampleur de la contamination radioactive des eaux océaniques après la
catastrophe nucléaire de Fukushima au Japon. Cependant, certains indicateurs, comme les thons rouges provenant du
Japon, pêchés en Californie et porteurs de matériaux radioactifs, peuvent nous éclairer sur les risques liés au
commerce de ces animaux migrateurs.

À la suite de la catastrophe nucléaire japonaise, la Commission européenne a rapidement appliqué le principe de
précaution en publiant le règlement d'exécution du 25 mars 2011 relatif à l'importation de denrées alimentaires et
d'aliments pour animaux en provenance du Japon. Cette réglementation s'applique donc exclusivement pour les
importations japonaises de poissons.

En ce sens, des produits japonais qui ne peuvent pas directement être importés du Japon pourraient tout de même être
commercialisés en Europe en étant importés d'autres pays tiers, sachant que ces produits ne sont pas touchés par le
règlement en vigueur.

1. Quel contrôle la Commission a-t-elle mis en œuvre pour les importations de produits de la mer provenant de
pays peu éloignés du Japon, dont les produits de la mer ont pu subir une contamination radioactive à l'instar du thon
rouge pêché en Californie?

Par ailleurs, le programme alimentaire mondial a récemment autorisé que des produits tels que le maquereau ou les
sardines péchées au large des côtes japonaises soient envoyés dans cinq pays en voie de développement, à l'image du
Cambodge, en tant qu'aide alimentaire.

2. Sans stigmatiser la pêche japonaise, la Commission considère-t-elle que ces pratiques sont sans risque pour la
population cambodgienne?

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

_(3 décembre 2012)_

Par le truchement du système d'alerte rapide pour les denrées alimentaires et les aliments pour animaux _(RASFF news_
_notification 11-0653),_ la Commission a recommandé aux États membres de contrôler la présence de césium-134 et de
césium-137 dans les poissons pélagiques migrateurs et leurs produits dérivés ou transformés provenant de la zone de
pêche n [o] 61 de l'Organisation pour l'alimentation et l'agriculture (FAO). Les espèces pélagiques migratrices
concernées sont les thons (thon blanc, thon rouge, thon obèse et bonite à ventre rayé) et les poissons à rostre
(espadon, marlins). Tous les résultats communiqués par les États membres indiquent une contamination nulle ou très
faible [à savoir inférieure à 10 Becquerel (Bq) par kg]. Le niveau de radioactivité du thon rouge capturé en Californie
était à peu près de 5 Bq/kg.

Les autorités japonaises contrôlent méticuleusement la présence de radioactivité dans les poissons et les produits de la
pêche provenant des zones côtières et des eaux internationales. Elles ont fait état de la contamination de poissons
dans les zones côtières de la préfecture de Fukushima et des préfectures voisines. La pêche a cessé dans ces préfectures.
La pêche des espèces contaminées a aussi été interrompue.

Le contrôle des poissons et des produits de la pêche provenant des zones côtières des autres préfectures et des eaux
internationales n'a permis de constater qu'une contamination nulle ou très faible.

Nous n'avons pas d'information sur l'aide alimentaire du programme alimentaire mondial, mais les mesures
effectuées indiquent que les niveaux de contamination des sardines et des maquereaux ne sont plus préoccupants.

C 294 E / 28 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008923/12**

**to the Commission**
**Philippe Boulland (PPE)**

_(4 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Trade in Japanese products

It is hard to determine with any accuracy the extent of offshore radioactive contamination caused by the Fukushima
disaster in Japan. However, some indicators, such as levels of radioactivity in bluefin tuna from Japan caught in
California, can provide an insight into the risks connected to trade in these migratory species.

The Commission was quick to apply the precautionary principle following the disaster and published Implementing
Regulation (EU) No 297/2011 of 25 March 2011 imposing special conditions governing the import of feed and food
originating in or consigned from Japan, which applies uniquely to Japanese fish exports.

Japanese products — although banned for import into the EU from Japan — can still, therefore, be marketed in
Europe if they are exported from other countries, as they then fall outside the scope of these rules.

1. What controls has the Commission implemented on imports of fisheries products from countries near Japan,
whose produce may, like bluefin tuna caught in California, have suffered radioactive contamination?

The World Food Programme has recently authorised products such as mackerel or sardines caught off the coast of
Japan to be sent as food aid to five developing countries, including Cambodia.

2. Without casting aspersions on Japanese fisheries products, does the Commission consider this to be safe for the
Cambodian people?

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

_(3 December 2012)_

The Commission has recommended to Member States, through the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF)
news notification 11-0653, to monitor for the presence of Caesium‐134 and Caesium-137 migratory pelagic fish in
FAO Major Fishing Area 61 and derived/processed products thereof. Migratory pelagic fish species of relevance are
tuna (albacore, bluefin, bigeye and skipjack) and bill fishes (swordfish, marlin). All results reported by Member States
indicate no contamination or at very low level (i.e. less than 10 Becquerel (Bq) per kg). The level of radioactivity in the
bluefin tuna caught in California was approximately 5 Bq/kg.

The Japanese authorities monitor intensively the presence of radio-activity in fish and fishery products in coastal areas
and international waters. Fish in the coastal areas of the Fukushima prefecture, and neighbouring prefectures, have
been found contaminated. Fishing has stopped in Fukushima and in neighbouring prefectures. Fishing for species
where contamination has been measured is also stopped.

Fish and fishery products from the coastal areas of other prefectures and the international waters have been found not
to be contaminated or only at very low levels.

We have no information on the World Food Programme food aid but measurements indicate that levels of
contamination in sardines and mackerel are now below levels that cause concern.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 29

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008924/12**

**à la Commission**
**Philippe Boulland (PPE)**

_(4 octobre 2012)_

_Objet:_ Niveaux admissibles de contamination radioactive

À la suite de la catastrophe de Fukushima, plusieurs députés ont évoqué le fait que la réglementation communautaire
était relativement «confuse» en ce qui concerne les valeurs limites de contamination radioactive admissibles pour les
denrées alimentaires et les aliments pour bétail. À ce titre, deux règlements s'appliquent: le règlement (Euratom)
n [o] 3954/87 du Conseil et le règlement (CEE) n [o] 737/90 spécialement établi pour l'importation de produits agricoles à
la suite de l'accident de Tchernobyl.

Ainsi, la Commission peut-elle préciser certains points:

Qui fixe les valeurs limites de contamination radioactive admissibles pour les denrées alimentaires et les aliments pour
bétail importés sur le territoire européen?

L'autorité européenne de sécurité des aliments a‐t‐elle un droit de regard sur la fixation des niveaux admissibles de
contamination radioactive?

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

_(28 novembre 2012)_

1. Les niveaux maximaux admissibles de contamination radioactive pour les denrées alimentaires et les aliments
pour bétail après un accident nucléaire ou dans toute autre situation d'urgence radiologique sont fixés par le Conseil
dans son règlement (Euratom) n [o] 3954/87. En vertu de ce règlement, la Commission peut adopter des règlements
d'exécution rendant applicables ces niveaux maximaux admissibles, si elle reçoit des informations officielles sur des
accidents ou toute autre situation d'urgence radiologique, lesquelles indiquent que ces taux sont susceptibles d'être
atteints ou ont été atteints ( [1] ).

À la suite de l'accident Fukushima, la Commission a adopté des règlements d'exécution sur l'importation de denrées
alimentaires et d'aliments pour animaux en provenance du Japon, sur la base du traité sur le fonctionnement de
l'Union européenne. Le dernier en vigueur est le règlement d'exécution (UE) n [o] 996/2012 de la Commission du
26 octobre 2012 ( [2] ).

2. L'Autorité européenne de sécurité des aliments ne fixe pas les niveaux maximaux admissibles de contamination
radioactive, mais peut être chargée de procéder à une analyse des risques relative à la présence de radionucléides dans
les denrées alimentaires et les aliments pour bétail.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Article 2 du règlement.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) JO L 299 du 27.10.2012.

C 294 E / 30 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008924/12**

**to the Commission**
**Philippe Boulland (PPE)**

_(4 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Maximum permitted levels of radioactive contamination

In the wake of the Fukushima disaster a number of MEPs have pointed out that EU regulations are quite confusing as
regards the maximum permitted levels of radioactive contamination of foodstuffs and of feedingstuffs. In this area
there are two regulations which apply: Council Regulation (Euratom) No 3954/87 and Regulation (EEC) No 737/90,
which was adopted specifically to govern imports of agricultural products following the Chernobyl accident.

Could the Commission answer the following questions:

Who sets the maximum permitted radioactive contamination levels for foodstuffs and feedingstuffs imported into
Europe?

Does the European Food Safety Authority have any say on the setting of the maximum permitted radioactive
contamination levels?

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

_(28 November 2012)_

1. Maximum permitted levels of radioactive contamination of food and feed following a nuclear accident or any
other case of radiological emergency have been established by the Council in its Regulation (Euratom) No 3954/87.
Under this regulation, the Commission can adopt implementing regulations which render applicable those maximum
permissible levels, in the event it receives official information on accidents or on any other case of radiological
emergency substantiating that these levels are likely to be reached or have been reached ( [1] ).

Following the Fukushima accident, the Commission has adopted implementing regulations for the import of food
and feed from Japan,on the basis of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The latest regulation in
force is Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 996/2012 of 26 October 2012 ( [2] ).

2. The European Food Safety Authority does not set maximum permitted levels of radioactive contamination,
however this Authority can be requested to provide a risk assessment on the presence of radionulides in food and
feed.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Article 2 of the regulation.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 299 of 27.10.2012.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 31

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008925/12**

**à la Commission**
**Philippe Boulland (PPE)**

_(4 octobre 2012)_

_Objet:_ Investissements étrangers

Les investissements étrangers représentent une aubaine pour certains secteurs en crise en Europe. Cependant, cela
pose des questions d'indépendance de nos investissements en Europe et de la gestion de notre patrimoine industriel.

La Chine investit partout en Europe, par exemple, dans le rachat pour 3,3 milliards d'euros, en 2010, de la concession
du port du Pirée en Grèce, lequel représente une porte d'entrée pour le marché européen. Le Qatar investit, par
exemple, des milliards d'euros en France afin d'acquérir des entreprises florissantes ou participer à leur capital.
L'industrie du luxe est à ce titre particulièrement concernée.

La France facilite cet investissement grâce à une convention fiscale signée en 1990 avec le Qatar qui accorde des
avantages majeurs aux investissements du Qatar en supprimant notamment toute imposition sur les plus-values
immobilières.

La Commission prend‐elle en considération le patrimoine industriel des États membres dans sa volonté de
réindustrialisation de l'Europe? Quelles mesures peut‐elle prendre pour éviter que les investissements en matière de
recherche et d'innovation effectués par l'Europe ne se retrouvent trop rapidement entre des mains étrangères?

En somme, y a-t-il une vigilance et une limite aux «investissements étrangers directs» évoqués à l'article 206 du traité?

Qu'en est‐il de la proposition présentée en décembre 2010 par Antonio Tajani, le commissaire européen chargé de
l'industrie et de l'entrepreneuriat, concernant la création d'une Autorité européenne chargée du contrôle des
investissements étrangers en Europe à l'instar du CFIUS, le comité chargé des investissements étrangers aux ÉtatsUnis?

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

_(27 novembre 2012)_

La Commission convient qu'il importe de préserver et de promouvoir une solide base industrielle en Europe. Le
«patrimoine industriel» européen doit être pris en considération dans une perspective d'avenir. Le meilleur moyen d'y
parvenir consiste à créer des conditions propices au développement du meilleur environnement commercial possible
afin de garantir la productivité et la compétitivité de l'Europe. La Commission a présenté, en octobre 2012, une
nouvelle communication sur sa politique industrielle ( [1] ). Le climat des investissements constitue la trame de cette
communication, axée sur les thèmes utiles pour promouvoir les investissements productifs, notamment l'accès aux
moyens de financement, les investissements destinés à l'innovation, le fonctionnement du marché intérieur et les
conditions du marché international. Cette communication préconise expressément le maintien d'un «environnement
ouvert et non discriminatoire afin de renforcer encore l'attrait des investissements dans l'UE».

Pour ce qui est de la «vigilance» à l'égard des investissements étrangers directs, la Commission réfléchit, en étroite
coopération avec les États membres et le Parlement européen, à la manière d'utiliser sa politique en la matière, pour
garantir et renforcer la compétitivité de l'Europe. Il reste toutefois clair que l'Union européenne est une économie très
ouverte et que cela a contribué au bien-être économique général; tel est et demeure le point de vue de la Commission.

Certains aspects des investissements étrangers font actuellement l'objet de débats. Ces discussions sont loin d'être
nouvelles. Il est logique que le commissaire à l'industrie et à l'entreprenariat y prenne part. Toutes ses déclarations
doivent être interprétées dans ce contexte. Aucune proposition concrète n'a été formulée en vue de modifier la
politique en la matière.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 582 final.

C 294 E / 32 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008925/12**

**to the Commission**
**Philippe Boulland (PPE)**

_(4 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Foreign investments

Foreign investments are a boon to some of the sectors in crisis in Europe. However, they also raise questions about the
independence of our investments in Europe and the management of our industrial heritage.

China is investing right across Europe; for example, in the EUR 3.3 billion purchase in 2010 of the concession to
operate the port of Piraeus in Greece, which is a gateway to the European market. And Qatar is investing billions of
euros in France to acquire or take a stake in successful companies. The luxury goods industry is particularly affected
by this.

France facilitates these investments thanks to a tax agreement signed with Qatar in 1990, which grants significant
advantages to Qatari investments, including the waiver of all capital-gains taxes on property.

In its desire to reindustrialise Europe, is the Commission taking into account the Member States’ industrial heritage?
What measures can it take to avoid European investments in research and innovation ending up too quickly in
foreign hands?

Is there any vigilance with regard to the ‘foreign direct investment’ referred to in Article 206 of the Treaty, or any
limit?

What has become of the proposal put forward in December 2010 by Antonio Tajani, the Commissioner for Industry
and Entrepreneurship, for a European authority responsible for reviewing foreign investments in Europe, along the
lines of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States?

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

_(27 November 2012)_

The Commission agrees that it is important to preserve and promote a strong industrial base in Europe. Europe's
‘industrial heritage’ needs to be taken into account in a forward-looking manner. The best way to do this is to create
the appropriate conditions for the best possible business environment to produce and compete from Europe. The
Commission presented a new Industrial Policy Communication in October 2012 ( [1] ). The investment climate is a
major basis for that Communication, and it focuses on themes relevant for promoting productive investments (access
to finance, investments for innovation, the functioning of the internal market, and international market conditions).
That Communication explicitly calls for an ‘open and non-discriminatory environment in order to further increase
the attractiveness of investing in the EU’.

As to ‘vigilance’ concerning FDI, the Commission is working in close cooperation with Member States and the
European Parliament on how our FDI policy should be exercised in order to secure and strengthen European
competitiveness. It remains clear, however, that the EU is a highly open economy, and this has contributed to the
overall economic well-being. This is and remains the basic position of the Commission.

There is an ongoing debate about some aspects of foreign investments. This has been the case for a long time. It is
natural for the Commissioner for Industry and Entrepreneurship to participate in this discussion, and any statement
should be seen in that context. There is no conctrete proposal for a policy change on this topic.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 582 final.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 33

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008926/12**
**à la Commission (Vice-Présidente/Haute Représentante)**

**Philippe Boulland (PPE)**

_(4 octobre 2012)_

_Objet:_ VP/HR — Création d'un organisme chargé d'évaluer les investissements stratégiques

Les États-Unis disposent d'un Comité pour l'investissement étranger aux États-Unis (CFIUS) chargé d'évaluer les
investissements stratégiques étrangers.

À ce titre, le Président Barack Obama a annulé, le 28 septembre 2012, l'achat par une entreprise chinoise _(Ralls_
_Corporation)_ de quatre projets de fermes éoliennes près de l'espace aérien restreint d'un site de la marine américaine,
dans l'Oregon. Les autorités américaines ont invoqué, pour annuler la transaction, des risques pour la sécurité
nationale.

Le Service européen d'action extérieure peut-il mettre en garde un État membre contre un investissement étranger
dans un domaine considéré comme sensible pour les intérêts diplomatiques ou militaires européens?

La multiplication des investissements étrangers en Europe, notamment grâce à des liens en matière de politique
étrangère comme la relation entre la France et le Qatar, ne va-t-elle pas nuire à la liberté de l'Union européenne en
matière de politique étrangère?

Le SEAE est-il conscient de l'utilité d'un organisme chargé d'évaluer ex ante les investissements stratégiques étrangers
sur le modèle du CFIUS afin d'avoir une vision claire des entreprises opérant et investissant sur le sol européen?

**Réponse donnée par M. De Gucht au nom de la Commission**

_(6 décembre 2012)_

L'évaluation des investissements étrangers peut porter sur la politique étrangère et de sécurité commune de l'UE, mais
également, pour certains de ses aspects, sur la politique commerciale commune. Le traité sur le fonctionnement de
l'Union européenne expose de manière claire l'attachement de l'UE au principe d'ouverture aux investissements
directs étrangers (IDE), y compris en provenance de pays tiers. Première source et première destination des IDE à
l'échelle mondiale, l'Union européenne bénéficie largement d'un système économique mondial ouvert et est résolue à
faire en sorte que les marchés conservent cette ouverture. Actuellement, l'examen des IDE au regard de la sécurité
nationale est effectué à l'échelon de chaque pays. La SEAE ne conseille pas les États membres au sujet des implications
des investissements étrangers pour leur sécurité nationale.

C 294 E / 34 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008926/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Philippe Boulland (PPE)**

_(4 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Setting up of a strategic investment review body

The United States has a Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) whose role is to review foreign
strategic investments.

In that context, on 28 September 2012 President Barack Obama blocked the purchase by the Ralls Corporation, a
Chinese firm, of four wind farm projects close to restricted airspace used by the US Navy in Oregon. In blocking the
transaction, the US authorities cited national security concerns.

Can the European External Action Service warn a Member State about a foreign investment in an area considered
sensitive for European diplomatic or military interests?

Does the proliferation of foreign investment in Europe, particularly through foreign policy links, such as the
relationship between France and Qatar, not risk harming the EU’s foreign policy freedom?

Does the EEAS recognise the usefulness of having a body specifically responsible for reviewing foreign strategic
investments before they go ahead, along the lines of the CFIUS, in order to have a clear view of firms that are
operating and investing in Europe?

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

_(6 December 2012)_

The review of foreign investment can touch on the EU’s common foreign and security policy, but equally has aspects
pertaining to the Common Commercial Policy. The Treaty on the European Union sets out clearly the EU's
commitment to openness towards foreign direct investment (FDI) including from third countries. As the world's
largest source and destination of FDI, the EU is a major beneficiary of an open world economic system and is
committed to ensuring that markets remain open. At present, national security reviews of foreign direct investment
are carried out at national level. The EEAS does not advise Member States on the national security implications of
foreign investments.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 35

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008928/12**

**à la Commission**
**Philippe Boulland (PPE)**

_(4 octobre 2012)_

_Objet:_ Dispositifs d'accueil pour les enfants demandeurs d'asile

En 2010, 10 295 mineurs isolés ont présenté une demande d'asile dans l'un des 27 pays de l'Union européenne, ce qui
correspond à 74 % des mineurs isolés demandeurs d'asile du monde. Caractérisés par une situation extrêmement
précaire, ces enfants constituent un groupe fortement exposé, du fait de sa vulnérabilité, à des risques de violation des
Droits de l'homme.

De plus, les dispositifs d'accueil et d'hébergement dans les États membres demeurent généralement très insuffisants.
Les enfants vivent souvent dans des lieux inadaptés, parfois insalubres, notamment en détention, même s'ils n'ont
commis aucun délit, ou dans des lieux d'hébergement qui appliquent des règles de couvre-feu très strictes.
Insuffisamment informés sur les moyens juridiques dont ils disposent, les enfants demandeurs d'asile se retrouvent
souvent en perdition au sein même de l'État membre dans lequel ils cherchaient refuge.

Cette situation inacceptable ne peut perdurer et constitue un défi sur le plan des Droits de l'homme pour l'Union
européenne, compte tenu de la disparité des systèmes d'accueil des États membres.

Afin d'assurer enfin un dispositif d'accueil et d'accompagnement décent, la Commission compte-t-elle rapidement
proposer la création d'un système clairement établi de protection des enfants séparés demandeurs d'asile dans
l'Union européenne?

**Réponse donnée par Mme Malmström au nom de la Commission**

_(22 novembre 2012)_

La Commission est particulièrement préoccupée par la situation des mineurs non accompagnés qui demandent l'asile
dans les États membres de l'Union européenne. La Commission a traité le problème de leur vulnérabilité spécifique à
la fois par des actes législatifs et par des mesures de coopération pratique.

L'acquis de l'UE en matière d'asile prévoit des garanties spécifiques quant au traitement des mineurs non accompagnés
demandeurs d'asile. Elles comprennent l'accès à une représentation, un logement, une éducation et des soins de santé
appropriés pendant toute la durée de l'examen de leur demande d'asile.

Les propositions de la Commission visant à modifier les instruments en matière d'asile introduisent des règles plus
harmonisées et plus protectrices à cet effet. Notamment, la directive modifiée relative aux conditions d'accueil
contraint les États membres à garantir que les mineurs non accompagnés disposent d'une représentation légale et d'un
logement adapté à leur âge (avec accès à des activités récréatives) et que la détention n'intervienne que dans des
circonstances exceptionnelles où la protection de l'intérêt supérieur de l'enfant l'exige. Cette directive devrait être
adoptée par les co-législateurs d'ici la fin 2012.

La proposition de la Commission visant à modifier la directive sur les procédures d'asile prévoit des garanties
supplémentaires pour les mineurs non accompagnés. Surtout, elle envisage que ces derniers soit exclus de certains
types de procédures, telles que la procédure à la frontière, et que leur soit automatiquement reconnu le droit de
demeurer sur le territoire. La proposition modifiée est en cours de négociation entre le Parlement européen et le
Conseil. La Commission espère que les exigences élevées qu'elle a proposées seront retenues dans le texte définitif.

Du point de vue de la coopération pratique, des efforts considérables sont actuellement fournis par les BEAA,
notamment en vue d'améliorer les pratiques des États membres dans le domaine de l'évaluation de l'âge.

C 294 E / 36 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008928/12**

**to the Commission**
**Philippe Boulland (PPE)**

_(4 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Arrangements for housing children seeking asylum

In 2010in the 27 Member States, 10 295 unaccompanied minors applied for asylum, a figure representing 74% of
unaccompanied minors seeking asylum in the world. These children live in very precarious conditions and are at
particular risk of suffering human rights violations.

What is more, arrangements for receiving and housing such asylum‐seekers in Member States are generally very poor:
children often are made to live in unsuitable and sometimes insalubrious conditions and are often incarcerated —
even if they have committed no crime — or housed in facilities that impose stringent curfews. These children are
often live in distress in the very Member State in which they seek asylum as they are insufficiently aware of the legal
means at their disposal

This unacceptable state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue and constitutes a human rights challenge for the
European Union, given the disparity of arrangements from Member State to Member State.

With a view to laying down arrangements for decent housing and support, does the Commission intend to propose a
separate, clearly defined system to protect children seeking asylum in the European Union?

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

_(22 November 2012)_

The Commission is particularly concerned about unaccompanied minors who seek asylum in the EU Member States.
The Commission has acknowledged their particular vulnerability, both through legislation and practical cooperation

measures.

The EU asylum _acquis_ includes specific safeguards on the level of treatment for unaccompanied minors seeking
asylum. These include access to appropriate representation, housing, education and healthcare throughout the
examination of their asylum application.

The Commission proposals amending the asylum instruments introduce more protective and harmonised rules in
this respect. In particular, the amended Reception Conditions Directive obliges Member States to ensure that
unaccompanied minors are provided with legal representation, age specific housing (including access to recreational
activities), and that detention takes place only in exceptional circumstances when it is needed in view of protecting the
child's best interests. The directive is expected to be adopted by co-legislators by the end of 2012.

The Commission proposal amending the Asylum Procedures Directive includes further safeguards for
unaccompanied minors. Most importantly, it envisages their exemption from certain procedures concepts, such as
the border procedure and the non-automatic right to remain on the territory. The amended proposal is currently
being negotiated in the European Parliament and the Council. The Commission hopes that its proposed high
standards will be retained in the final text.

On the practical cooperation side, significant efforts are being made by EASO, for instance in view of ameliorating
Member States practices in the area of age assessments.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 37

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008929/12**

**à la Commission**
**Philippe Boulland (PPE)**

_(4 octobre 2012)_

_Objet:_ Informatique dématérialisée

Le jeudi 27 septembre 2012, Nelly Kroes, commissaire européenne à la concurrence, a présenté les futures mesures de
la Commission en faveur de l'informatique dématérialisée, qui représente le traitement de stockage de données sur des
serveurs internet centralisées.

La Commission prévoit-elle d'inscrire les mesures en faveur de l'informatique dématérialisée dans une approche
uniforme des autorités de contrôle?

Quelles garanties l'informatique dématérialisée apporte-t-elle à la protection des données personnelles? À la
protection du droit d'auteur?

**Réponse donnée par Mme Kroes au nom de la Commission**

_(30 novembre 2012)_

La communication «Exploiter le potentiel de l'informatique en nuage en Europe» ( [1] ) souligne la nécessité d'aborder le
développement de l'informatique en nuage de manière cohérente et uniforme, non seulement en Europe mais
également au niveau mondial.

La communication met l'accent sur le fait que la Commission doit associer l'Europe à la dynamique de croissance
mondiale de l'informatique en nuage en réexaminant les clauses contractuelles types applicables aux transferts de
données personnelles vers des pays tiers et en invitant les autorités nationales de protection des données à approuver
des règles d'entreprise contraignantes spécifiques pour les prestataires de services en nuage ( [2] ) dans le cadre ménagé
pour l'informatique en nuage.

La réforme de la protection des données ( [3] ), adoptée par la Commission le 25 janvier 2012, tient compte de
l'évolution de l'informatique en nuage et de la nécessité de moderniser les règles relatives à la protection des données à
caractère personnel. Cette réforme repose sur un règlement qui clarifie et harmonise, de façon neutre du point de vue
technologique, les règles auxquelles sont soumis notamment les prestataires de services en nuage, tout en renforçant
et en modernisant les droits des personnes concernées. Elle comprend un mécanisme conçu pour garantir la
cohérence des décisions et des mesures d'exécution prises par les autorités nationales de protection des données.

Le contenu fourni par les prestataires de services en nuage peut être protégé par des droits d'auteur ou des droits
voisins conformément aux dispositions législatives de l'UE encadrant les droits d'auteur ( [4] ), ce qui exige la conclusion
d'accords de licence spécifiques entre titulaires de droits et prestataires de services. En outre, la proposition de
directive sur la gestion collective des droits permettra de répondre, dans une large mesure, aux besoins en matière
d'octroi de licences transnationales pour l'accès au contenu du nuage en matière musicale. La Commission envisage
aussi d'autres actions dans le cadre du suivi du livre vert sur l'audiovisuel ( [5] ) : par exemple, promouvoir et faciliter
l'octroi de licences pour la distribution en ligne d'œuvres audiovisuelles.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 529 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Les avis pertinents du groupe de travail «article 29» (voir WP 195 et WP 153) expliquent le fonctionnement des règles d'entreprise contraignantes.

Les règles d'entreprise contraignantes constituent un des moyens permettant de transférer légalement des données au niveau international: elles
contiennent des dispositions applicables à la manière dont les différentes entités d'une entreprise, où qu'elles soient établies dans le monde, traitent
les données à caractère personnel.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Proposition de règlement du Parlement européen et du Conseil relatif à la protection des personnes physiques à l'égard du traitement des données

à caractère personnel et à la libre circulation de ces données (règlement général sur la protection des données), COM(2012)11 final — 2012/0011
(COD).

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) En particulier, les droits de reproduction et de mise à disposition du public consacrés par les articles 2 et 3 de la directive 2001/29/CE.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Livre vert sur la distribution en ligne d'œuvres audiovisuelles dans l'Union européenne: perspectives et défis sur la voie d'un marché unique du

numérique, COM(2011)427.

( **|**

⋅3∙ **|** )

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

⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

C 294 E / 38 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008929/12**

**to the Commission**
**Philippe Boulland (PPE)**

_(4 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Cloud computing

On Thursday, 27 September 2012, Nelly Kroes, European Commissioner for Competition, presented the
Commission’s plans for cloud computing, which is concerned with the processing of data storage via centralised
Internet servers.

Does the Commission intend to include measures promoting cloud computing in a uniform approach for monitoring
authorities?

What guarantees are given by cloud computing concerning the protection of personal data? And the protection of
copyright?

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

_(30 November 2012)_

The communication ‘Unleashing the Potential of Cloud Computing in Europe’ ( [1] ) underlines the need to have a
coherent and uniform approach as regards the development of cloud computing not only in Europe, but also
globally.

The communication underlines the need for the Commission to facilitate Europe's participation in the global growth
of cloud computing by: reviewing standard contractual clauses applicable to transfer of personal data to third
countries and by calling upon national data protection authorities to approve Binding Corporate Rules for cloud
providers ( [2] ) within the framework of cloud computing.

The Data Protection reform ( [3] ) adopted by the Commission on 25 January 2012 takes into account the development
of cloud computing and the need for modernized rules regarding the protection of personal data. The reform is based
on a regulation which clarifies and harmonises the rules applicable notably to cloud providers in a technology neutral
way, while strengthening and modernizing data subject rights. It includes a mechanism designed to ensure the
consistency of decisions and enforcement actions of national data protection authorities.

Content provided by cloud-based services may be protected by copyright or related rights under the EU copyright
framework ( [4] ), requiring specific licensing agreements to be concluded between the right holders and service
providers. Moreover, the proposal for a directive on Collective Rights Management will address many of the crossborder licensing needs for cloud content as regards music. The Commission is also considering further actions as a
follow-up to the Audiovisual Green Paper ( [5] ), for example by promoting and facilitating the licensing of audiovisual
works for online distribution.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 529 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) The relevant opinions of the article 29 Working Party (See: WP 195 and WP 153) explain the functioning of Binding Corporate Rules. Binding

Corporate Rules are one means to allow for legal international data transfers: they govern in an enforceable manner how the different parts of a
corporation, regardless of their international location, deal with personal data.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal

data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation)' COM(2012) 11 final 2012/0011 (COD).

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) In particular pertaining to the reproduction and making available rights as laid down in Articles 2 and 3 of the directive 2001/29/EC.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Green Paper on the online distribution of audiovisual works in the European Union: opportunities and challenges towards a digital single market,

COM(2011) 427.

( **|**

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

⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 39

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008930/12**

**à la Commission**
**Philippe Boulland (PPE)**

_(4 octobre 2012)_

_Objet:_ Accord commercial CETA

Des allégations de ressemblance frappante entre le traité anti-contrefaçon (ACTA) rejeté par le Parlement européen et
le projet d'accord commercial entre l'Union européenne et le Canada (CETA), en cours de négociation, sont parues
récemment dans la presse et secouent la société civile, en particulier la communauté anti-ACTA.

Quels que soient les arguments et la pression démocratique exercée sur le Parlement européen, la Commission a-t-elle
bien pris conscience du fait que refaire passer un texte par la petite porte, avec des critères et/ou une finalité
identiques, va provoquer une défiance supplémentaire de la part des citoyens européens envers nos institutions? La
Commission compte-t-elle user régulièrement de ce type de pratique pour faire passer des textes de loi en dépit de
l'avis des représentants des citoyens européens?

**Réponse donnée par M. De Gucht au nom de la Commission**

_(20 novembre 2012)_

Comme indiqué dans la réponse à la question E-006888/2012, la Commission respecte totalement le vote du
Parlement concernant l'ACTA et ne fera aucune tentative visant à introduire les dispositions controversées de cet
accord dans d'autres négociations.

Le résultat final du chapitre sur les droits de propriété intellectuelle (DPI) dans l'accord commercial entre le Canada et
l'UE (CETA) devrait être pleinement conforme à la législation de l'UE, sans aller au-delà ou sans la modifier, et
semblable aux chapitres sur les DPI figurant dans d'autres accords de libre-échange, comme celui qui a été récemment
conclu avec la Corée du Sud.

C 294 E / 40 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008930/12**

**to the Commission**
**Philippe Boulland (PPE)**

_(4 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Canada-EU Trade Agreement (CETA)

Allegations that there is a striking resemblance between the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which was
rejected by the European Parliament, and the draft trade agreement between the European Union and Canada (CETA)
currently under negotiation, have recently appeared in the press and are causing reverberations in civil society,
particularly among the anti-ACTA community.

Whatever the arguments and however much democratic pressure has been put on the European Parliament, is the
Commission aware that a repeated attempt to have a text with the same criteria and purpose adopted through the
back door will lead to even greater distrust of the institutions of the EU on the part of European citizens? Does the
Commission intend to make frequent use of this means of having legislative texts adopted, in spite of the opinion of
the European citizens’ representatives?

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

_(20 November 2012)_

As stated in the reply to Question E-006888/2012, the Commission fully respects the vote of the Parliament
regarding ACTA and will not make any attempt to introduce the controverted provisions of that agreement in other
negotiations.

The final result of the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) chapter of Canada-EU Trade Agreement (CETA) should be
fully in line with EU legislation, without exceeding or modifying it, and similar to IPR chapters existing in other free
trade agreements, such as the one recently concluded with South Korea.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 41

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008931/12**

**à la Commission**
**Gilles Pargneaux (S&D)**

_(4 octobre 2012)_

_Objet:_ Plan environnement-santé

Le thème des liens entre la santé et l'environnement est celui qui suscite le plus d'attentes de la part des citoyens
européens. Dans le cas de la France, un sondage IFOP rendu public deux jours avant la conférence environnementale
des 14 et 15 septembre 2012 a montré que les Français placent clairement les liens entre santé et environnement en
tête de leurs préoccupations et souhaitent à 52 % que des décisions soient prises dans ce domaine en priorité.

Dans ce contexte, on peut regretter que la dernière initiative de la Commission qui lie les problématiques de santé et
d'environnement remonte à 2003 avec l'adoption du plan environnement-santé 2004-2010.

Les recommandations formulées par le Conseil des ministres européens de l'environnement le 20 décembre 2010
quant à la mise en place d'un nouveau plan sont restées lettre morte. Elles y invitaient la Commission à promouvoir
davantage la santé dans le cadre de la politique environnementale en élaborant dès que possible un nouveau plan.

Deux importantes recommandations avaient été faites concernant l'adoption de ce nouveau plan en demandant la
mise en place d'une base de données harmonisée et l'établissement de mesures spécifiques pour les nanomatériaux en
ce qui concerne l'évaluation ainsi que la gestion du risque. Le Conseil des ministres avait également évoqué la nécessité
d'établir des mesures spécifiques pour les perturbateurs endocriniens et d'évaluer le risque cumulé résultant des effets
combinés des substances chimiques.

La Commission peut-elle m'indiquer les raisons qui l'ont poussée à renoncer à l'adoption d'un nouveau plan
environnement-santé? Au regard des attentes des citoyens européens et de la recrudescence des cancers liés à des
facteurs environnementaux, quelle stratégie intégrée envisage-t-elle de mettre en œuvre en la matière?

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

_(13 décembre 2012)_

Afin de veiller à ce que la protection de la santé humaine soit prise en compte dans toutes les politiques et actions de
l'Union, comme le prévoit le traité CE ( [1] ), la Commission a mis au point une stratégie relative à la santé pour la
période 2008-2013 ( [2] ), laquelle porte sur tous les domaines d'action pertinents, en particulier les politiques sociale et
régionale, la fiscalité, l'environnement, l'éducation et la recherche.

La Commission a adopté, le 29 novembre 2012, une proposition de septième programme d'action pour
l'environnement (7 [e] PAE) sous le titre «Bien vivre, dans les limites de notre planète». Le 7e PAE propose un programme
visant à relever les défis environnementaux auxquels l'Europe est confrontée. Il établit en particulier comme un
objectif prioritaire de protéger les citoyens de l'Union européenne contre les pressions liées à l'environnement et les
risques pour la santé et le bien-être. L'amélioration de la santé publique a été et restera un élément essentiel de la
politique environnementale, en particulier lorsqu'il s'agit d'évaluer les avantages d'une action ainsi que d'associer la
recherche à la politique.

En ce qui concerne plus particulièrement la question des nanomatériaux, des perturbateurs endocriniens et des
mélanges chimiques soulevée par l'Honorable Parlementaire, ces sujets font déjà l'objet d'initiatives stratégiques en
cours. L'examen réglementaire relatif aux nanomatériaux a été récemment adopté [COM(2012)572 final
du 3.10.2012], tout comme une communication relative aux effets des mélanges chimiques [COM(2012)252 final
du 31.5.2012]. La Commission prévoit de présenter des critères législatifs croisés afin d'identifier les perturbateurs
endocriniens, ainsi qu'une nouvelle stratégie au cours de l'année 2013.

Dans ce contexte général, la Commission n'a pas l'intention de présenter de nouveau plan d'action distinct en faveur
de l'environnement et de la santé.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Article 152 du traité CE.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Livre blanc — Ensemble pour la santé: une approche stratégique pour l'UE 2008-2013: http://ec.europa.eu/health-eu/doc/whitepaper_fr.pdf

C 294 E / 42 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008931/12**

**to the Commission**
**Gilles Pargneaux (S&D)**

_(4 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Environment/health plan

The subject of the links between health and the environment is paramount among the concerns of Europe’s citizens.
In the case of France, an IFOP survey published two days before the environment conference on 14 and
15 September 2012 showed that the French put links between health and the environment firmly at the top of their
list of concerns and that 52% of them would like to see decisions in this area given priority.

It is therefore to be regretted that the Commission’s most recent initiative linking health and the environment dates
from 2003, when the 2004‐10 environment/health plan was adopted.

The recommendations drawn up by the Council of European Environment Ministers on 20 December 2010
concerning the formulation of a new plan have gone unheeded. These called on the Commission to improve its
promotion of health in the environment policy through a new plan to be drawn up as soon as possible.

Two major recommendations were put forward concerning the adoption of the new plan: the creation of a
harmonised database and the establishment of specific measures for the evaluation and risk assessment of
nanomaterials. The Council of Ministers had also referred to the need to formulate specific measures for endocrine
disruptors and evaluate the cumulative danger arising from the combined effects of chemical substances.

Will the Commission state why it has abandoned the idea of adopting a new environment/health plan? In the light of
European citizens’ expectations and the increase in cancers linked to environmental factors, what integrated strategy
does the Commission intend to implement in this area?

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

_(13 December 2012)_

To ensure that human protection is integrated in all Community policies and activities as requested by the
EC Treaty ( [1] ), the Commission has developed a 2008-2013 health strategy ( [2] ) involving all relevant policy areas, in
particular social and regional policy, taxation, environment, education and research.

The Commission adopted on 29 November 2012 a proposal for a Seventh Environment Action Programme
(7th EAP) under the title ‘Living well, within the limits of our planet’. The 7th EAP proposes a programme to address
the environmental challenges Europe is facing. It in particular sets out as a priority objective to safeguard EU citizens
from environment-related pressures and risks to health and wellbeing. Improving public health has been, and will
therefore continue to be, a key determinant underpinning environment policy especially as regards assessing the
benefits of action, as well as linking research to policy.

As regards specifically the issues of nanomaterials, endocrine disruptors and chemical mixtures raised by the
Honourable Member, these are already the subject of ongoing policy initiatives. The regulatory review on
nanomaterials was recently adopted (COM(2012) 572 final of 3.10.2012) as was a communication on Mixture
Effects (COM(2012) 252 final of 31.5.2012). The Commission is planning to come forward with cross legislative
criteria to identify endocrine disruptors and a new strategy during the course of 2013.

In this general context, the Commission does not intend to put forward a separate new environment and health
action plan.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Article 152 of the EC Treaty.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) [White Paper Together for Health: A Strategic Approach for the EU 2008-2013, http://ec.europa.eu/health-eu/doc/whitepaper_en.pdf](http://ec.europa.eu/health-eu/doc/whitepaper_en.pdf)

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 43

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης P-008932/12**

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

_(4 Οκτωβρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Σύλληψη αστυνομικών

Ο τουρκικός στρατός που βρίσκεται παράνομα στην Κύπρο συνέλαβε την περασμένη εβδομάδα τρεις Κύπριους
αστυνομικούς που καταδίωκαν έναν τουρκοκύπριο έμπορο ναρκωτικών εντός της γραμμής κατάπαυσης του πυρός. Η
περιοχή αυτή αποτελεί τμήμα της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας και ελέγχεται από την Ειρηνευτική Δύναμη Κύπρου. Εγείρονται τα
εξής:

—
Θέματα ασφάλειας, αφού η Ειρηνευτική Δύναμη απέτυχε να αποτρέψει τη σύλληψη των τριών Κυπρίων αστυνομικών,
μέσα σε περιοχή ελεγχόμενη από τα Ηνωμένα Έθνη.

—
Θέματα παράνομης σύλληψης, αφού τα όργανα του Νόμου συνελήφθησαν κατά τη διάρκεια άσκησης των
καθηκόντων τους, που είναι η προάσπιση των Κυπρίων πολιτών από εγκληματικές ενέργειες, όπως είναι η διακίνηση
ναρκωτικών, για την οποία καταδίωκαν τον τουρκοκύπριο.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

1. Πώς μπορεί να παρέμβει ώστε να διασφαλίζεται ότι τα εδάφη της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας που είναι ευρωπαϊκά εδάφη,
και τελούν υπό τουρκική κατοχή, θα προστατεύονται από εγκληματικές ενέργειες παρανόμων, που συνήθως
προσφεύγουν στα κατεχόμενα, όπου τους παρέχεται «προστασία» από το ψευδοκράτος;

2. Πώς μπορεί να ανέχεται «παράνομα ψευτοδικαστήρια» ενός παράνομου ψευδοκράτους να ζητούν παράλογα ποσά
(7 000 ευρώ ανά συλληφθέντα), προσάπτοντας μάλιστα κατηγορίες για δήθεν παραβίαση συνόρων ενός
ψευδοκράτους, που δεν αναγνωρίζεται από Διεθνείς οργανισμούς και κανένα κράτος, και επιμένει να λαθροβιεί
παράνομα σε βάρος της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας, που είναι κράτος μέλος της ΕΕ και του ΟΗΕ;

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-009130/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Takis Hadjigeorgiou (GUE/NGL)**

_(11 Οκτωβρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Απαγωγή τριών Κυπρίων αστυνομικών από το Τουρκοκυπριακό παράνομο κατοχικό καθεστώς

Στις 30 Σεπτεμβρίου 2012 το παράνομο κατοχικό καθεστώς της Τουρκίας στην Κύπρο προχώρησε στην απαγωγή τριών
αστυνομικών της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας στην υπό επιτήρηση των Ηνωμένων Εθνών νεκρή ζώνη. Σύμφωνα με τις
πληροφορίες, η απαγωγή των αστυνομικών έγινε κατά την διάρκεια καταδίωξης υπόπτου για διακίνηση ναρκωτικών. Αυτή τη
στιγμή οι τρεις αστυνομικοί κρατούνται παράνομα στα κρατητήρια των κατοχικών αρχών.

Υπενθυμίζουμε στην Επιτροπή την απόφαση του Ευρωπαϊκού Δικαστηρίου Ανθρωπίνων Δικαιωμάτων (1996) ότι η Τουρκία
είναι μια κατοχική δύναμη υπεύθυνη για τις πολιτικές και τις ενέργειες των «αρχών» στις κατεχόμενες περιοχές και οι
τουρκοκυπριακές «αρχές» είναι η «υποτελής τοπική διοίκηση» της Τουρκίας.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή ποια μέτρα προτίθεται να λάβει έτσι ώστε να υποχρεώσει την Τουρκία να προχωρήσει σε άμεση
απελευθέρωση των τριών αστυνομικών των οποίων τα βασικά ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα καταπατούνται με τον πιο βάναυσο
τρόπο.

**Κοινή απάντηση του κ. Füle εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(30 Οκτωβρίου 2012)_

Η Επιτροπή γνωρίζει το λυπηρό συμβάν στο οποίο αναφέρεται το Αξιότιμο Μέλος του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου και
εκφράζει ικανοποίηση για το γεγονός ότι οι αρχές της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας αντέδρασαν με σύνεση ούτως ώστε να
αποφευχθούν μελλοντικές εντάσεις.

C 294 E / 44 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

Αυτά τα θέματα αποδεικνύουν για μια ακόμα φορά την ανάγκη ταχείας και ολοκληρωμένης διευθέτησης του Κυπριακού,
γεγονός που θα κάλυπτε εξίσου τις ανησυχίες του Αξιότιμου Μέλους. Σε μια πρόσφατα παρουσιασθείσα ανακοίνωση για τη
στρατηγική διεύρυνσης και τις κυριότερες προκλήσεις για το διάστημα 2012-2013, η Επιτροπή τόνισε την ανάγκη
επανέναρξης των διαπραγματεύσεων με στόχο να επιτευχθεί ταχεία ολοκλήρωση των διαπραγματεύσεων, με βάση τη μέχρι
σήμερα σημειωθείσα πρόοδο.

Εν τω μεταξύ, η Επιτροπή βρίσκεται σε επαφή με όλους τους ενδιαφερόμενους για να αντιμετωπίσει ορισμένα από τα
ζητήματα που έθιξε το Αξιότιμο Μέλος. Η Επιτροπή εκδίδει ετήσια έκθεση σχετικά με τη λειτουργία του κανονισμού για την
πράσινη γραμμή (κανονισμός 866/2004) στην οποία καλύπτονται σε σημαντικό βαθμό τα ζητήματα της
λαθρομετανάστευσης και της λαθρεμπορίας. Στο πλαίσιο του προγράμματος βοήθειας για την Τουρκοκυπριακή κοινότητα, η
Επιτροπή ρυθμίζει και χρηματοδοτεί μέσω της TAIEX (τεχνική βοήθεια και ανταλλαγή πληροφοριών) την παροχή βοήθειας
εμπειρογνωμόνων η οποία επικεντρώνεται, μεταξύ άλλων, στην καταπολέμηση της νομιμοποίησης εσόδων από παράνομες
δραστηριότητες.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 45

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-008932/12**

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

_(4 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Arrest of police officers

The Turkish military, which is illegally present in Cyprus, last week wrongfully arrested three police officers from the
Cyprus Republic, who had pursued a Turkish drugs dealer into the buffer zone, which is situated in the territory of the
Cyprus Republic and is patrolled by the Cyprus peacekeeping force.

This raises the following issues:

—
Security, given that the peacekeeping force was unable to prevent the arrest of the three officers within a zone
being patrolled by UN forces.

—
Illegal arrest, given that the officers were arrested in the line of duty whilst in pursuit of a Turkish Cypriot
fugitive, their duty being to protect Cyprus citizens from criminal activities such as, in this case, drugs
trafficking.

In view of this:

1. What action can the Commission take to ensure that the territory of the Cyprus Republic, which is also
European territory and partly under Turkish occupation, is shielded from the activities of criminals who
generally enjoy the ‘protection’ of the self-styled ‘state’?

2. How can it be admissible for the illegal pseudo-courts of an illegal self-styled ‘state’ to demand extortionate
amounts (EUR 7 000 per arrestee) on charges of violating borders not recognised by any international
organisation or by any government but continuing to exist outside the law and at the expense of the Cyprus
Republic, which is a member of both the EU and UN?

**Question for written answer E-009130/12**

**to the Commission**
**Takis Hadjigeorgiou (GUE/NGL)**

_(11 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Kidnapping by the illegal Turkish-Cypriot occupying force of three police officers from the Republic of
Cyprus

On 30 September 2012, member of the illegal Turkish occupying force in Cyprus abducted three police officers from
the Cyprus Republic in the UN-controlled buffer zone. According to reports, the officers were in pursuit of a
suspected drugs dealer.

They are now being illegally held in jail by the occupying authorities.

In view of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in 1996 that Turkey is an occupying force responsible
for the policies and actions of the authorities in the occupied areas and that the Turkish-Cypriot authorities are a
‘subordinate local administration’ answerable to Turkey:

What pressure does the Commission intend to bring to bear on Turkey with a view to securing the immediate release
of the three officers, whose basic human rights are being blatantly infringed?

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

_(30 October 2012)_

The Commission is aware of the regrettable incident the Honourable Members refer to, and it welcomes that the
authorities of the Republic of Cyprus reacted with prudence so as to avoid further tensions.

C 294 E / 46 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

These questions once again show the need for a rapid comprehensive settlement in Cyprus, which would constitute
an effective remedy to address the concerns of the Honourable Member. In its recently presented Communication on
the Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2012-2013, the Commission underlined the necessity to re-launch the
negotiations with the aim of reaching a swift conclusion of the talks, building on the progress achieved to date.

In the meantime, the Commission is in contact with all stakeholders to tackle some dimensions of the issues raised by
the Honourable Members. The Commission issues an annual report on the functioning of Green Line Regulation
(Regulation 866/2004) where, for instance the issues of illegal migration and smuggling are covered prominently. In
the context of the Aid Programme to the Turkish Cypriot community, the Commission arranges and finances
through TAIEX the delivery of expert assistance focusing _inter alia_ on the fight against money laundering.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 47

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008935/12**

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

**Fiorello Provera (EFD)**

_(4 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Deputato accoltellato a morte alle Maldive

Il 1 [o] ottobre 2012 Afrasheem Ali, islamico moderato deputato al parlamento delle Maldive, è stato accoltellato a
morte mentre rientrava nella sua abitazione dopo aver preso parte a una trasmissione televisiva. Afrasheem Ali era
noto per le sue posizioni a favore di un'interpretazione liberale dell'Islam, a causa delle quali era già stato aggredito
due volte. Il deputato aveva fra l'altro affermato che non ci fosse nulla di non islamico nella musica. L'uomo
sospettato dell'aggressione è stato sottoposto a fermo.

Si teme che l'arcipelago dell'Oceano Indiano si trovi a rischio di una sempre più crescente diffusione dell'Islam, in
particolare in seguito alla caduta del presidente Mohamed Nasheed nel colpo di stato di matrice islamica del febbraio
scorso. L'Islam è l'unica religione ufficiale ai sensi della costituzione delle Maldive. Le isole sono molto popolari tra i
turisti benché, stando a _The Times_, nel paese si siano già verificati diversi tentativi di proibire i centri di benessere negli
alberghi di lusso o il ballo in pubblico. La morte di Afrasheem Ali, membro del partito al potere, il partito
progressista, è il primo omicidio di un deputato alle Maldive. Anche Hilath Rasheed, giornalista e critico degli islamici
estremisti, è stato aggredito lo scorso giugno e ha rischiato la vita dopo essere stato accoltellato alla gola.

1. È il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante disposto a rilasciare una dichiarazione sull'assassinio di Afrasheem Ali?

2. Qual è la posizione del Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante in merito al riportato aumento dell'estremismo
islamico alle Maldive?

3. Quali azioni intende intraprendere l'UE a favore di movimenti della società civile e ONG a rischio di attacco da
parte di gruppi radicali islamici, a causa del loro lavoro?

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

_(14 dicembre 2012)_

L’assassinio del deputato Afrasheem rappresenta un tragico evento in un paese attraversato da costanti tensioni
politiche, sfociate in gravi episodi di violenza. L’Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente ha rilasciato numerose
dichiarazioni che invitano alla cooperazione tra fazioni politiche, al fine di rafforzare i diritti dell’uomo e proteggere
personalità di spicco.

L’Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente è fermamente convinta che per combattere l’intensificarsi dell’estremismo è
indispensabile che tutti i gruppi politici moderati si uniscano per dimostrare che i gravi problemi economici e sociali
delle Maldive possono essere affrontati democraticamente.

I capi missione dell’UE con sede a Colombo hanno visitato Malé nel luglio 2012. Nel corso delle riunioni con i
rappresentanti della società civile si è discusso della situazione politica, nonché delle limitate risorse finanziarie a loro
disposizione e della necessità di assistenza tecnica. Poche ONG locali presenti nelle Maldive hanno legami con ONG
insediate in Europa e si teme che alcune di esse siano allineate con programmi politici. L’Unione europea continuerà a
seguire molto attentamente gli sviluppi nelle Maldive e intende adoperarsi per preparare il paese alle elezioni.

C 294 E / 48 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008935/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD)**

_(4 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Member of Parliament stabbed to death in the Maldives

On 1 October 2012, Afrasheem Ali, a moderate Muslim member of parliament in the Maldives, was stabbed to death
on his way home from a TV show that he hosted. Mr Ali was known for his views advocating a liberal interpretation
of Islam. He had already been attacked twice for his views, which included saying there is nothing un-Islamic about
music. The man who is believed to have been behind the attack has been taken into custody.

There are fears that the islands in the Indian Ocean are at risk of rising Islamism, especially after the fall of President
Mohamed Nasheed in an Islamist-backed coup in February. Islam is the only official religion under the Maldives’
Constitution. The islands are popular among tourists, yet according to _The Times_, there have been attempts to ban
spas in luxury hotels and public dancing in the country. The death of Afrasheem Ali is the first killing of an MP in the
Maldives. Mr Ali was from the ruling party, the Progressive Party of Maldives. Hilath Rasheed, a journalist and critic of
hard-line Islamists, was also attacked in June. He almost died after having his throat cut.

1. Is the Vice-President/High Representative prepared to make a statement on the killing of Afrasheem Ali?

2. What is the position of the VP/HR regarding the reported rise in Islamic extremism in the Maldives?

3. What action is the EU currently taking to reach out to civil society movements and NGOs which are at risk of
attacks from radical Islamic groups as a result of their work?

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

_(14 December 2012)_

The murder of MP Afrasheem is a tragic development in a country which has seen constant political tensions leading
to serious outbreaks of violence. The HR/VP has issued several statements calling for cooperation between the
political factions, with a view to reinforcing human rights and protecting prominent figures.

The HR/VP firmly believes that the only way to combat the growth of extremism is for all moderate political
groupings to join together in order to demonstrate that the severe social and economic problems Maldivians are
facing can be addressed by democratic means.

EU Heads of Mission based in Colombo visited Malé in July 2012. During meetings with civil society representatives,
the political situation as well as their current limited financial resources and the need for technical assistance were
discussed. Local NGOs with links to European based NGOs have a small presence in the Maldives, and there is
concern that some are aligned with political agendas. The EU will continue to follow developments in the Maldives
with close attention and intends to play a role in preparing the country for elections.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 49

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008936/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(4 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Procedimento per l'eliminazione di sostanze dall'elenco delle sostanze prioritarie

Il relatore del progetto di relazione ( [1] ) sulla proposta di direttiva del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio recante
modifica delle direttive 2000/60/CE e 2008/105/CE per quanto riguarda le sostanze prioritarie nel settore della
politica delle acque, pubblicato il 17 luglio 2012, ha suggerito di mantenere le tre sostanze farmaceutiche proposte
(etinilestradiolo, estradiolo e diclofenac) nell'elenco delle sostanze prioritarie, ma senza standard di qualità ambientale
(SQA). Ciò significa che vi sono ancora molti quesiti scientifici cui occorre dare una risposta nel corso della prossima
revisione dell'elenco da parte della Commissione.

Qualora fosse possibile fornire una risposta soddisfacente a tali quesiti, e le risposte rivelassero che queste sostanze
farmaceutiche non rappresentano un rischio significativo per o attraverso l'ambiente acquatico, ai sensi dell'articolo
16, paragrafo 2, della direttiva 2000/60/CE, può la Commissione far sapere quale procedimento è possibile
intraprendere per eliminarle dall'elenco?

**Risposta di Janez Potočnik a nome della Commissione**

_(22 novembre 2012)_

La Commissione è del parere che vi siano dati sufficienti per stabilire adesso gli standard di qualità ambientale (SQA)
per le tre sostanze farmaceutiche in questione, e questa posizione è suffragata dall’esame scientifico.

Non sarebbe utile disporre di ulteriori dati di monitoraggio per la determinazione degli SQA che sono stabiliti in base
alle proprietà intrinseche delle sostanze. Tuttavia, se tali dati dimostrassero in maniera incontrovertibile che le tre
sostanze non presentano un rischio significativo, saranno tenuti in considerazione nel riesame successivo.

L’articolo 16, paragrafo 4, della direttiva 2000/60/CE (direttiva quadro in materia di acque) ( [2] ) dispone che la
Commissione esamini l’elenco delle sostanze prioritarie almeno ogni quattro anni. Tale riesame può comprendere
proposte per l’eliminazione delle sostanze.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/envi/pr/909/909091/909091en.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) GU L 327/1 del 22.12.2000, pag. 1.

C 294 E / 50 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008936/12**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(4 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Mechanism to remove substances from the list of priority substances

The rapporteur of the draft report ( [1] ) on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council
amending Directives 2000/60/EC and 2008/105/EC as regards priority substances in the field of water policy,
published on 17 July 2012, has suggested keeping the three suggested pharmaceutical substances (ethinyl-estradiol,
estradiol and diclofenac) on the priority substances list, but with no Environmental Quality Standards (EQS). This
means there are a number of scientific questions that need to be answered in the Commission’s upcoming review of
the list.

If the questions can be satisfactorily answered, and the answers reveal that these pharmaceutical substances do not
present a significant risk to or via the aquatic environment in terms of Article 16(2) of Directive 2000(60/EC, what
mechanism is available to remove them from the list?

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

_(22 November 2012)_

The Commission's view is that there are sufficient data to set the Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) now for the
three pharmaceutical substances in question, and this position is supported by scientific review.

Additional monitoring data would not be relevant to determining the EQS which are set on the basis of the intrinsic
property of the substances. However, if such monitoring data were to show conclusively that the three substances did
not pose a significant risk, this would be taken into account in the next review.

Article 16.4 of Directive 2000/60/EC ( [2] ) (Water Framework Directive) requires the Commission to review the list of
priority substances at least every four years. Such review may include proposals for the removal of substances.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/envi/pr/909/909091/909091en.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 327/1, 22.12.2000.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 51

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008937/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(4 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Wind farm per soddisfare il crescente fabbisogno energetico

Il fabbisogno energetico del pianeta è in costante aumento e il tema dell'energia ha acquisito un ruolo di primo piano
nell'agenda europea. L'energia eolica, in particolare, è la prima fonte di energia elettrica a bassissimo impatto
sull'ambiente.

Secondo i dati riportati dall'European Wind Energy Association (EWEA), nel 2011 l'energia eolica prodotta in Europa
(93,957 MW) ha permesso di coprire il 6,3 % dell'energia elettrica necessaria e rappresenta il 21,4 % delle cosiddette
«nuove energie». È importante mettere in luce che l'industria eolica ha avuto una crescita media annua del 15,6 % negli
ultimi 17 anni (1995-2011).

Un recente studio condotto dal Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ha dimostrato che potenzialmente impianti
eolici d'alta quota, che sfruttano le correnti atmosferiche più stabili e più veloci rispetto a quelle di superficie,
potrebbero ampiamente coprire il fabbisogno energetico planetario del prossimo futuro. Le turbine atmosferiche che
trasformano in energia la forza dei venti sarebbero più efficaci se poste ad alta quota e sarebbero in grado di generare
1.800 TW/h l'anno; in tal modo, queste turbine potrebbero generare una potenza pari a 100 volte il fabbisogno
terrestre di energia, che è quantificabile in 18 TW. Le turbine poste a terra o in prossimità dei mari, invece, producono
un'energia di 400 TW/h l'anno e, se distribuite uniformemente sulla superficie terrestre, potrebbero generare una
potenza pari a 20 volte il fabbisogno terrestre. Secondo questo studio, una distribuzione di wind farm non localizzate
esclusivamente in alcune aree del pianeta potrebbe soddisfare ampiamente le necessità energetiche di diversi paesi,
ovviando in tal modo all'acquisto di energia da altri Stati.

Considerando che secondo la ricerca in questione il futuro dell'energia eolica sarà determinato da restrizioni di tipo
economico, politico e tecnico, piuttosto che da limiti geofisici, può la Commissione far sapere quale politica intende
attuare per incentivare ancor di più l'impiego di energie a ridotte emissioni?

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

_(22 novembre 2012)_

A livello di UE lo sviluppo di fonti energetiche a basse emissioni è promosso sia tramite il sistema di scambio di quote
di emissioni (ETS) ( [1] ), la direttiva sulle energie rinnovabili ( [2] ) e i Fondi strutturali, sia mediante i finanziamenti per la
ricerca su nuove tecnologie a basse emissioni erogati nel quadro dell’attuale Settimo programma quadro (2007-2013)
e del futuro programma Orizzonte 2020 (2014-2020).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Direttiva 2009/29/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 23 aprile 2009, che modifica la direttiva 2003/87/CE al fine di perfezionare ed

estendere il sistema comunitario per lo scambio di quote di emissione di gas a effetto serra, GU L 140 del 5.6.2009.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Direttiva 2009/28/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 23 aprile 2009, sulla promozione dell’uso dell’energia da fonti rinnovabili,

recante modifica e successiva abrogazione delle direttive 2001/77/CE e 2003/30/CE, GU L 140 del 5.6.2009.

( **|**

C 294 E / 52 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008937/12**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(4 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Wind farms to meet growing energy needs

The earth’s energy needs are constantly growing and the subject of energy has moved to the forefront of the EU’s
agenda. Wind power, in particular, is the primary source for very low environmental impact electric power.

According to data from the European Wind Energy Association (EWEA), in 2011 wind power generated in Europe
(93.957 MW) supplied 6.3% of the electric power needed and accounted for 21.4% of the so-called ‘new energies’. It is
important to highlight that the wind farm industry has grown by an average of 15.6% per year in the past 17 years
(1995-2011).

A recent study by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has shown that high altitude wind turbines, which
exploit winds that are steadier and faster than surface ones, could amply supply the energy needs of the planet in the
near future. Turbines that convert the wind’s strength into energy would be more efficient at a high altitude and
would be able to generate 1 800 TW/hr per year. This would mean these turbines could generate power equal to 100
times the earth’s energy needs, calculated at 18 TW. Ground-based turbines or ones near to the sea, on the other hand,
produce 400 TW/hr per year and, if distributed uniformly across the earth’s surface, could generate power equal to 20
times the earth’s needs. According to this study, by spreading wind farms out and not clustering them in just some
areas of the planet, the energy needs of several countries could be met without their needing to purchase energy from
other countries.

According to this research, the future of wind power will be determined by economic, political and technical
restrictions, rather than by geophysical limitations. Can the Commission say how it plans to incentivise further the
use of low emissions energy?

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

_(22 November 2012)_

The development of low emissions energy is stimulated at EU level through the ETS-system ( [1] ), the Renewable Energy
Directive ( [2] ) and the Structural Funds on the one hand, and through funding research into new low-emission
technology, within the current 7th Framework Programme (2007-2013) and the future Horizon 2020 (2014-2020)
programme, on the other hand.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2009/29/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to improve and extend the

greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme of the Community, OJ L 140, 5.6.2009.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directive 2009/28/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and

amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, OJ L 140, 5.6.2009.

( **|**

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 53

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008938/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(4 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Qualità dell'aria e aree geografiche, nuovi parametri?

L'aria e l'ambiente italiano sono sempre più inquinati e l'Italia, nel corso degli anni, non è riuscita ad adeguarsi ai limiti
imposti dalle varie direttive europee (direttive 2004/107/CE, 2008/50/CE e 2010/75/UE).

La salute degli italiani è in serio pericolo e, peraltro, l'81 % della popolazione europea è esposto a livelli di
inquinamento più elevati rispetto ai limiti raccomandati dall'OMS. A definire l'aria italiana come non salubre è il
rapporto 2012 dell'Agenzia europea per l'ambiente (AEA) relativo al periodo 2001-2010; infatti, l'Italia assieme ad
alcuni Paesi dell'Europa dell'Est ha sforato i limiti per le sostanze più dannose per la salute umana, come polveri sottili,
particolato (in particolare nelle zone rurali), monossido di carbonio e benzene, nonché nickel e ozono. Ad essere
coinvolte sono le regioni del Nord Italia ove il clima non è assolutamente caratterizzato da forti venti e piogge, anzi a
far da padrona è la nebbia; infatti, in città come Novara, Bergamo e Milano le concentrazioni di ozono hanno
superato di oltre 2 volte la soglia limite.

Dall'analisi di questi dati risulta che è dovere e responsabilità collettiva incentivare una politica per la mobilità
sostenibile, controllare le emissioni industriali, sviluppare interventi a favore di piani urbani, trasporti locali, trasporto
merci e ferrovie sostenibili. Nondimeno è necessario sensibilizzare la popolazione e le amministrazioni per
un'informazione capillare che possa favorire una riduzione del traffico privato incentivando l'utilizzo di mezzi di
trasporto sostenibili (biciclette e auto elettriche) che possano consentire spostamenti rapidi e integrati con servizi
pubblici locali che devono essere anch'essi potenziati per offrire un servizio capillare ed efficiente a tutti i cittadini.

Posto che:

—
l'inquinamento atmosferico riduce l'aspettativa di vita di circa 2 anni nelle città e nelle regioni più inquinate;

—
la politica perseguita dall'Unione europea è riuscita a ridurre le emissioni di molte sostanze inquinanti nel corso
dell'ultimo decennio in diversi Paesi ma non in Italia e che, nonostante ciò, le concentrazioni di sostanze
inquinanti rimangono sopra i limiti legali raccomandati e stabiliti per proteggere la salute dei cittadini europei,

intende la Commissione definire parametri specifici per le varie zone europee analizzate, che considerino soprattutto
la posizione geografica e l'andamento meteorologico delle zone coinvolte da fenomeni di inquinamento, poiché la
pianura padana in particolare non è soggetta a eventi atmosferici (venti e precipitazioni) così frequenti da poter
contrastare i livelli di inquinamento dell'aria?

**Risposta di Janez Potočnik a nome della Commissione**

_(20 novembre 2012)_

La Commissione è a conoscenza del fatto che alcune regioni europee sono caratterizzate da particolari condizioni
meteorologiche e geografiche che rendono nettamente più difficile la riduzione dei livelli di inquinamento
atmosferico. Tuttavia, la normativa UE in materia di qualità dell'aria è intesa a prevenire o ridurre gli effetti nocivi per
la salute umana e l'ambiente in generale attraverso un livello comune di protezione di base per tutti i cittadini europei.
Per queste ragioni la Commissione non ritiene opportuno stabilire parametri specifici per singole regioni.

Al fine di aiutare gli Stati membri ad adeguarsi nei casi in cui le condizioni locali siano difficili, la Commissione ha
messo a disposizione varie attività di supporto (scambio di informazioni sulle buone pratiche, linee guida, seminari) e
si è impegnata a rafforzare la cooperazione con gli Stati membri (si veda il documento di lavoro dei servizi della
Commissione sull'attuazione della politica in materia di qualità dell'aria dell'UE e che ne prepara un riesame
globale ( [1] )).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) SEC(2011)342.

C 294 E / 54 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008938/12**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(4 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Air quality and geographical areas: possible new parameters

The air and the environment are becoming increasingly more polluted in Italy, which has not managed over the years
to bring itself into line with the limits laid down by the various European directives (Directives 2004/107/EC,
2008/50/EC, and 2010/75/EU).

The health of the Italian people is in grave danger; 81% of Europe’s population are, moreover, being exposed to
pollution levels above the WHO recommended limits. Italian air has been described as unhealthy by the 2012 report
of the European Environment Agency (EEA), covering the period from 2001 to 2010; Italy, along with some Eastern
European countries, has breached the limits for the substances most harmful to human health, including fine dust,
particulate matter (especially in rural areas), carbon monoxide, benzene, nickel, and ozone. The regions affected lie in
the North, which tends to escape strong winds and heavy rain but is, however, very prone to fog; in Novara, Bergamo,
and Milan, for example, ozone concentrations have risen to more than double the limit.

These facts show where the collective duty and responsibility lies, namely in encouraging a policy for sustainable
mobility, controlling industrial emissions, and taking measures to promote town planning and sustainable local,
freight, and rail transport. That said, it is also necessary to raise awareness among the public and the authorities
through widely disseminated information seeking to reduce private traffic by encouraging the use of sustainable
means of transport (bicycles and electric cars) making it possible to move at speed and integrate journeys with local
public services, which should also be developed in order to provide a comprehensive, efficient service to all citizens.

Given that:

—
atmospheric pollution is lowering life expectancy by about two years in the most polluted cities and regions;

—
although EU policy has over the past decade served largely to reduce pollutant emissions in countries other
than Italy, pollutant concentrations are still above the recommended legal limits laid down to protect the health
of European citizens,

will the Commission define specific parameters for the European regions being monitored, taking into account above
all the geographical location of, and weather patterns in, the areas affected by pollution, bearing in mind, especially
where the Po Valley is concerned, that weather events (winds and precipitation) do not occur frequently enough to
counteract the air pollution levels?

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

_(20 November 2012)_

The Commission is aware that in some European regions, there are particular weather and geographical conditions
that make it significantly more difficult to bring down air pollution levels. However, the EU Air Quality legislation
aims to prevent or reduce harmful effects on human health and the environment as a whole, with a common level of
basic protection for every European. For these reasons, the Commission does not consider it appropriate to define
specific parameters for individual regions.

To help Member States reach compliance in cases where local conditions are difficult, the Commission has provided a
number of support activities (exchange of information on best practices, guidelines, workshops) and has committed
itself to reinforce cooperation with Member States (see the Commission Staff Working Paper on the implementation
of EU Air Quality Policy and preparing for its comprehensive review ( [1] )).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) SEC(2011) 342.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 55

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008939/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(4 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Riconoscimento transfrontaliero dei documenti di stato civile: problematiche irrisolte

Per i cittadini che si trasferiscono in altri Stati Membri è necessario e fondamentale il riconoscimento dei documenti di
stato civile che riguardano gli «eventi della vita» (ad esempio nascita, matrimonio, unione registrata, divorzio,
adozione o nome). Tuttavia, i registri e i sistemi amministrativi degli Stati membri presentano regimi differenti
all’interno dell’UE, con conseguenti problemi legati al riconoscimento transfrontaliero e al pari trattamento dei
cittadini che intendano agire presso le opportune sedi giudiziarie.

I cittadini si trovano di fatto coinvolti in una catena di burocrazia che li obbliga ad adempiere formalità lunghe e
costose (traduzione, prova aggiuntiva di autenticità dei documenti), — fino agli estremi — a vedersi rifiutare il libero
esercizio dei propri diritti.

Considerato che:

—
in applicazione del principio comunitario di libera circolazione delle persone, l'UE dovrebbe garantire ai
cittadini un rapido accesso alla giustizia civile e penale, in condizioni di uguaglianza in tutti gli Stati Membri;

—
secondo le stime ufficiali i cittadini dell’UE coinvolti in procedimenti transfrontalieri sono in continuo
aumento, a causa della scarsa conoscenza delle norme procedurali indispensabili per far valere i propri diritti
nei tribunali di un altro Stato membro,

chiedo alla Commissione quali misure intende predisporre per garantire un più facile e rapido accesso alla giustizia
civile e penale, per tutti i cittadini europei che intendano attivare una procedura di riconoscimento transfrontaliero
dei documenti (ad. es. certificati di nascita); — al fine di dare una migliore attuazione al principio di libera circolazione
delle persone, se intende predisporre misure e strumenti che in concreto possano garantire una maggiore conoscenza
ed una maggiore reperibilità delle informazioni in materia di giustizia.

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

_(4 dicembre 2012)_

La Commissione desidera informare l'onorevole parlamentare che è in fase di preparazione un'iniziativa volta a
rendere più agevole l'esercizio del diritto del cittadino alla libera circolazione all'interno dell'UE attraverso la riduzione
delle formalità burocratiche e misure per facilitare l’autenticazione dei documenti pubblici richiesti in situazioni
transfrontaliere. Tale iniziativa sarà un contributo concreto all'Anno europeo dei cittadini 2013, nonché al
programma «Giustizia per la crescita».

C 294 E / 56 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008939/12**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(4 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Cross-border recognition of civil status documents: unresolved problems

When citizens move to other Member States, they need their civil status documents to be recognised, since these
record the ‘big events’ in their lives (for example birth, marriage, a registered partnership, divorce, adoption, or their
name). However, the fact that Member States’ registers and administrative systems are governed by different rules
leads to problems as regards cross-border recognition and equal treatment of citizens dealing with the relevant courts.

In practice, citizens become entangled in red tape and are consequently obliged to complete protracted and costly
formalities (translation or additional proof of the authenticity of documents); in extreme cases, they may be denied
the freedom to exercise their rights.

Given that:

—
in order to implement the Europe-wide principle of free movement of persons, the EU should ensure that
citizens can gain access to civil and criminal justice without delay and on equal terms in all Member States;

—
according to official estimates, EU citizens are becoming involved increasingly frequently in cross-border
proceedings because they are largely ignorant of the essential procedural rules enabling them to assert their
rights in the courts of other Member States,

what steps will the Commission take to guarantee easier and swifter access to civil and criminal justice whenever
European citizens seek to initiate cross-border recognition procedures concerning birth certificates or other
documents — the object being to give more useful effect to the principle of free movement of persons? Will it lay
down measures and means serving at the practical level to improve understanding and to make information about
court procedures more readily obtainable?

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

_(4 December 2012)_

The Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member that it currently prepares an initiative in order to make it
easier for citizens to exercise their rights to freedom of movement within the EU by reducing red tape and facilitating
the authentication of public documents required in cross-border situations. That initiative will be a concrete
contribution to the European Year of Citizens 2013 as well as to the policy of the ‘Justice for Growth’.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 57

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008940/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(4 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Una rete di centri di sostegno e assistenza psicologica per le vittime della tratta

La tratta degli esseri umani è la moderna forma di schiavitù. In Europa questa realtà è in costante aumento e coinvolge
sempre più persone che non hanno la possibilità di opporsi a questa condizione e che la crisi economica ha reso
ancora più deboli. Nonostante le organizzazioni criminali internazionali incentrino i loro profitti prevalentemente sul
traffico di sostanze stupefacenti, un trend in costante crescita è il traffico di essere umani: 21 milioni sono le persone
coinvolte, di cui oltre 5 milioni sono bambine e bambini. Il destino dei tre quarti di essi è di essere sfruttati
sessualmente e subire violenze, ossia diventare schiavi del sesso: 21 % sono ragazzi e uomini, il restante 79 % è donna
— nello specifico il 12 % è minorenne — ed è vittima del commercio del sesso. Queste persone provengono
principalmente da Bulgaria, Romania, Polonia e Ungheria, ma anche da Paesi al di fuori dell'UE come Cina, Ucraina,
Nigeria, Vietnam; con un viaggio (il più delle volte clandestino) giungono nei Paesi più ricchi, sono costrette a
prostituirsi e subire violenze, nonché a tenere un legame costante e difficilmente dissolubile con il malavitoso di
riferimento che ricetta i soldi e li reinveste in stupefacenti o immobili.

Considerato che la direttiva 2011/36/UE concerne la prevenzione e la repressione della tratta di esseri umani e la
protezione delle vittime, e adotta un'impostazione globale e integrata incentrata sui diritti dell'uomo e sulle vittime
riconoscendo la specificità «di genere»; che la tratta è un crimine e di conseguenza viene portato avanti
clandestinamente e pertanto deve essere punito dagli Stati membri coinvolti che devono adottare misure necessarie
per affrontare tale fenomeno; che in tempi di crisi i Paesi più disagiati sono oggetto di continue emigrazioni per
raggiungere condizioni di vita e lavoro più idonee; che i diritti umani e dei minori devono essere tutelati, intende la
Commissione supportare le priorità fondamentali proposte nella comunicazione COM(2012)0286 e incentivare lo
sviluppo nonché la creazione di una rete di centri di sostegno e assistenza psicologica dedicata alle vittime, nella
fattispecie ai minori? Inoltre, intende la Commissione predisporre misure di finanziamento e programmi europei ad
hoc al fine di tutelare sotto il profilo psico-fisico le vittime di tratta?

**Risposta di Cecilia Malmström a nome della Commissione**

_(16 novembre 2012)_

La direttiva 2011/36/UE, concernente la prevenzione e la repressione della tratta di esseri umani e la protezione delle
vittime, e che sostituisce la decisione quadro del Consiglio 2002/629/GAI ( [1] ), riconosce l’importanza di mettere a
disposizione delle vittime della tratta il sostegno necessario prima, durante e per un congruo periodo di tempo dopo i
procedimenti penali; obbliga inoltre gli Stati membri a tenere conto delle esigenze specifiche delle vittime, in
particolare di circostanze relative alla salute quali lo stato di gravidanza, disturbi mentali o psicologici, o l’aver subito
gravi forme di violenza psicologica o sessuale, e a predisporre servizi adeguati alle esigenze specifiche dei minori
vittime della tratta.

Individuare, proteggere e assistere le vittime della tratta è una delle priorità indicate nella strategia dell’UE per
l’eradicazione della tratta degli esseri umani (2012-2016) ( [2] ). Per condividere meglio le esperienze e le buone prassi in
materia di assistenza e protezione delle vittime, la Commissione istituirà una piattaforma dell’UE per le
organizzazioni e i prestatori di servizi della società civile. Prenderà inoltre iniziative volte a migliorare l’individuazione
delle vittime e i meccanismi per indirizzarle alle autorità competenti, compresi i prestatori di servizi sociali e sanitari.
La Commissione ha finanziato un progetto ( [3] ) destinato a estendere la cooperazione tra esperti di tratta degli esseri
umani dai settori della polizia, della magistratura e delle ONG alle autorità sanitarie, ai prestatori di cure sanitarie e
alle guardie di frontiera. Il progetto in corso presta particolare attenzione all’assistenza sanitaria e alla riabilitazione.
Per rafforzare la protezione dei minori vittime della tratta, la Commissione intende elaborare orientamenti in materia.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) GU L 101 del 15.4.2011, pag. 1.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2012)286 final.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) «Joint Efforts of Police and Health Authorities in the EU Member States and Third Countries to Combat and Prevent Trafficking in Human Beings

and Protect and Assist Victims of Trafficking» (Impegno comune delle autorità di polizia e sanitarie negli Stati membri dell’UE e nei paesi terzi per
combattere e prevenire la tratta di esseri umani e per proteggere e assistere le vittime della tratta).

C 294 E / 58 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008940/12**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(4 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Network of support and psychological assistance centres for victims of trafficking

Trafficking in human beings is the modern form of slavery. In Europe it is an ever growing phenomenon increasingly
affecting those who, having been rendered even more vulnerable by the economic crisis, are in no position to resist.
Although international criminal organisations make most of their profits from drug trafficking, the trend towards
human trafficking is continuing to rise: there are 21 million people caught up in the latter, more than 5 million of
whom are boys and girls. Three quarters of these victims are doomed to suffer sexual exploitation and violence, in
other words to become sex slaves — 21% of them are boys and men, and the remaining 79% are women, of whom
12% are under age — and fodder for the sex trade. They come mainly from Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, and Romania
and to some extent from China, Ukraine, Nigeria, Vietnam, and other non-EU countries. Having been brought to (or
more often than not smuggled into) richer countries, they are forced to become prostitutes and endure violence, as
well as to remain in the near-unbreakable grip of their gangster masters, to whom they pay their money and who
reinvest it in drugs or property.

Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims takes an
integrated global approach centring on human rights and the victims while recognising the ‘gender-specific’ aspect.
Given that trafficking in human beings is a crime and as such carried on in secret, it has to be punished by the Member
States affected, which must take the steps required to tackle it. In times of crisis there is a constant exodus from poorer
countries as people go in search of more decent living and working conditions. Finally, human rights and the rights of
the child must be protected. In view of all these facts, will the Commission endorse the core priorities proposed in
communication COM(2012)0286 and offer the encouragement necessary for the purpose of developing and setting
up a network of support and psychological assistance centres for victims and especially children? Will it in addition
lay down funding measures and European programmes aimed specifically at safeguarding the physical and mental
health of the victims of trafficking?

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

_(16 November 2012)_

Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and
replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA ( [1] ) recognises the importance of ensuring that victims of
trafficking in human beings have the necessary support available to them before, during and for an appropriate time
after criminal proceedings. The directive obliges Member States to attend to victims with special needs, including
health related issues such as pregnancies, mental or psychological disorders, or a serious form of psychological or
sexual violence they have suffered and to provide appropriate services for special needs of child victims.

Identifying, protecting and assisting victims of trafficking is one of the key priorities identified in the EU Strategy
towards the Eradication of Trafficking in Human Beings 2012-2016 ( [2] ). To better share experiences and best practices
on assistance and protection of victims, the Commisison will establish an EU Platform for civil society organisations
and service providers. The Commission will also take action to improve the identification and referral of victims to
relevant authorities, including social and health providers. The Commission has funded a project ( [3] ) which aims at
extending cooperation among experts on trafficking in human beings from law enforcement, the judiciary and NGOs
to health authorities, healthcare providers and border guards. This ongoing project pays special attention to health
assistance and rehabilitation. To strenghten the protection of child victims of human trafficking, the Commission will
develop guidelines on child protection systems.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ 2011 L 101, p. 1.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 286 final.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Joint Efforts of Police and Health Authorities in the EU Member States and Third Countries to Combat and Prevent Trafficking in Human Beings

and Protect and Assist Victims of Trafficking.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 59

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-008941/12**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE)**

_(4 octombrie 2012)_

_Subiect:_ Recunoașterea stagiilor neremunerate

În recenta propunere a Comisiei Europene de recomandare a Consiliului privind validarea învățării non-formale și
informale, COM(2012)0485, se specifică faptul că lipsa de omogenitate a politicilor și practicilor naționale privind
validarea experiențelor de învățare și disparitățile existente între statele membre reduc comparabilitatea și
transparența sistemelor de validare la nivel unitar. De aceea, cetățenilor le este greu să combine rezultatele învățării
obținute în contexte, la niveluri și în țări diferite. De asemenea, se face o distincție clară între învățarea formală, cea
non-formală și cea informală, care sunt definite și exemplificate.

Din păcate, însă, nici în conținutul recomandării și nici în definițiile prezentate în Anexa I nu se regăsește vreo
mențiune referitoare la stagiile remunerate sau neremunerate.

În majoritatea țărilor Uniunii Europene, stagiile de pregătire practică de specialitate sunt obligatorii în cadrul învățării
formale superioare, fiind reglementate ca durată de desfășurare și conținut tematic, dar și integrate ca parte
componentă a parcurgerii unui program universitar sau post-universitar.

Însă stagiile (internships/traineeships) efectuate după finalizarea studiilor, cum este exemplul celor oferite chiar de
către instituțiile europene, nu sunt considerate activități de învățare. În unele țări din estul Europei, cum este și cazul
României, stagiile remunerate sunt apreciate, în majoritate, ca experiență profesională. Însă stagiile neremunerate nu
sunt recunoscute de angajatori ca experiență profesională și nici nu pot fi asimilate activităților de voluntariat,
întrucât nu respectă condițiile acestora. Totodată, nu pot fi încadrate nici ca forme de învățare alternativă, întrucât în
România învățarea non-formală și cea informală nu sunt recunoscute.

Întrebarea pe care v-o propun spre analiză este:

În ce categorie vor fi incluse stagiile neremunerate, dar și cele remunerate, la nivel unitar european, astfel încât tinerii
care participă în astfel de programe să le poată fructifica sub formă de plus-valoare în competiția acerbă de pe piața
muncii?

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

_(29 noiembrie 2012)_

Nu există categorii europene „uniforme” pentru stagiile de formare. Un studiu recent realizat de Comisie identifică
cinci categorii de stagii: stagii ca parte a programelor educaționale, stagii care fac parte din formarea profesională
obligatorie, stagii ca parte a politicilor active pe piața muncii, stagii de piață deschise și stagii transnaționale. Studiul
concluzionează, de asemenea, că există diferențe importante în ceea ce privește gradul de reglementare a stagiilor, atât
între statele membre ale UE, cât și între categoriile de stagii.

În prezent, Comisia lucrează la instituirea unui Cadru de calitate pentru stagii. În acest scop, ea a lansat în aprilie 2012
o consultare publică privind o propunere de cadru de calitate pentru stagii; au fost primite peste 260 de răspunsuri. În
septembrie 2012, Comisia a consultat partenerii sociali europeni privind acțiune a UE privind stagiile. Partenerii
sociali sunt de acord cu necesitatea de a crește calitatea stagiilor, dar au opinii divergente cu privire la modul în care
acest lucru ar trebui să fie realizat. Următoarea etapă ar fi o a doua rundă de consultări cu partenerii sociali cu privire
la conținutul cadrului de calitate preconizat. Această consultare ar putea fi demarată ca parte a Pachetului de ocupare
a forței de muncă pentru tineri în decembrie 2012.

C 294 E / 60 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008941/12**

**to the Commission**
**Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE)**

_(4 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Recognition of unpaid traineeships

A recent Commission proposal for a Council recommendation on the validation of non‐formal and informal learning
(COM(2012) 0485) specifies that the ‘uneven availability of national validation policies and practices concerning the
validation of learning, as well as existing disparities between Member States, reduces the uniform comparability and
transparency of validation systems’ and that this ‘makes it difficult for citizens to combine learning outcomes
acquired in different settings, on different levels and in different countries’. Similarly, it makes a clear distinction
between formal, non‐formal and informal learning, for which it gives definitions and examples.

Unfortunately, however, neither in the body of the recommendation, not in the definitions set out in Annex I to it is
there any mention of paid and/or unpaid traineeships.

In most EU Member States, specialist workplace traineeships are a compulsory part of formal higher education, there
are rules on their length and content and they also form an integral part of university courses and post‐graduate

programmes.

On the other hand, internships/traineeships following the completion of studies — e.g. those offered by the EU
institutions themselves — are not considered to be ‘learning’ periods. In some Eastern European countries, like
Romania, most paid traineeships are viewed as constituting professional experience. However, unpaid traineeships
are not recognised by employers as being professional experience, and neither do they qualify as voluntary work, as
they do not fit with the conditions for this. Nor can they be classified as an alternative form of learning, since non‐
formal learning and informal learning are not recognised in Romania.

In the light of the above, can the Commission indicate into which uniform European category it is that unpaid and
paid traineeships will be placed to ensure that young people participating in programmes like those mentioned above
can draw benefit from them when entering the keenly competitive job market?

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

_(29 November 2012)_

There are no ‘uniform’ European categories for traineeships. A recent study by the Commission identifies five
categories of traineeships: traineeships as part of educational programmes, traineeships that are part of compulsory
professional training, traineeships as part of active labour market policies, open market traineeships and transnational
traineeships. The study also concludes that there are important differences in the degree of regulation of traineeships
both across EU Member States and across categories of traineeships.

The Commission is currently working towards a Quality Framework on Traineeships. To that end, it launched in
April 2012 a public consultation on a proposal for a Quality Framework for Traineeships; more than 260 replies
have been received. In September 2012 the Commission consulted European social partners on the possible direction
of EU action on traineeships. Social partners agree with the need for increasing the quality of traineeships, but they
have diverging views on how this should be achieved. The next step would be a second round of social partner
consultations on the content of the envisaged quality framework. This consultation could be launched as part of the
Youth Employment Package in December 2012.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 61

_(Slovenské znenie)_

**Otázka na písomné zodpovedanie E-008942/12**

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

_(4. októbra 2012)_

_Vec:_ Diskriminácia pohlavia pri určovaní ceny poistného

Európska komisia prijala 22. decembra 2011 usmernenie, na základe ktorého musia poisťovne členských štátov
Európskej únie upraviť svoje ponuky tak, aby neboli diskriminačné, čo v praxi znamená zvýšenie ceny ponúkaných
produktov pre menej rizikové skupiny. Uvedenú problematiku rodovej rovnosti upravovala smernica, podľa ktorej
bolo možné ponúkať rovnaký poistný produkt za rôznu cenu v závislosti od pohlavia, ak empirické dáta ukazovali,
že pohlavie je pre vznik poistnej udalosti dôležitý faktor. Európska komisia ale rozdielnu výšku poistného považuje
za natoľko neprijateľnú, že svojím rozhodnutím radšej spôsobí zvýšenie ceny poistného nízkorizikových klientov.
V praxi totiž dôjde k celkovému zvýšeniu cenovej hladiny poistenia a k čiastočnému zníženiu ceny pre rizikových
klientov. Pre niektoré riziká (napr. riziko úmrtia, dlhovekosti, invalidity) sú na základe štatistických pozorovaní
kľúčovými faktormi, slúžiacimi na rozdelenie do homogénnych skupín, najmä pohlavie, vek a zdravotný stav. Preto
akýkoľvek zákaz používať ich v poisťovníctve by prakticky spôsobil diskrimináciu.

Na základe analýzy, ktorú dala vypracovať Európska federácia poisťovní a zaisťovní, tak zdražie životné poistenie pre
ženy v Európe až o tridsať percent. Týmto novým pravidlom sa narúša základný princíp poistenia, pri ktorom je
najdôležitejším faktorom zohľadnenie rizika každého klienta. V konečnom dôsledku tak vlastne dôjde k diskriminácii
antidiskriminačnou legislatívou. Nová úprava musí byť implementovaná do 21. decembra 2012.

— Akým spôsobom sa Komisia vyrovná s takýmto negatívnym následkom a kontraproduktivitou predmetnej
právnej úpravy najmä vzhľadom na fakt, že medzi ciele EÚ patrí najmä posilnenie postavenia žien v spoločnosti?

**Odpoveď pani Redingovej v mene Komisie**

_(14. novembra 2012)_

Výklad právnych predpisov EÚ je vo výlučnej právomoci Súdneho dvora Európskej únie, aby sa zabezpečil jednotný
výklad a uplatňovanie vo všetkých členských štátoch. Komisia má na základe rozsudku Súdneho dvora vo veci TestAchats ( [1] ) povinnosť zabezpečiť, aby boli právne predpisy EÚ v súlade s výkladom Súdneho dvora riadne
implementované.

V tomto rozsudku Súdny dvor dospel k záveru, že v právnych predpisoch EÚ o rovnakom zaobchádzaní existuje
výnimka umožňujúca cenové rozlíšenie medzi mužmi a ženami, ktorá nie je zlučiteľná so zásadou stanovovania
jednotných cien pre obe pohlavia uvedenou v týchto právnych predpisoch. Cieľom usmernení prijatých Komisiou
v decembri 2011 ( [2] ) je uľahčiť vykonávanie tohto rozsudku na vnútroštátnej úrovni, čo je v záujme spotrebiteľov aj
poisťovacích spoločností. V usmerneniach sa predovšetkým objasňuje, že rozsudok sa týka len používania pohlavia
ako faktora pre posúdenie rizika pri stanovovaní poistného a zliav pre jednotlivcov a neovplyvňuje používanie iných
faktorov ako napríklad vek alebo zdravotný stav.

Je pravdepodobné, že tento rozsudok bude mať určitý vplyv na výšku individuálneho poistného. V závislosti od
príslušného produktu sa poistné môže zvýšiť alebo znížiť pre mužov alebo ženy. Aj keď je v prípade žien
pravdepodobné, že dôjde k zvýšeniu poistného pri životnom poistení na dobu určitú, mali by mať prospech zo
stanovovania jednotných cien pre obe pohlavia, pokiaľ ide o zľavy z ročných splátok poistného.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Rozsudok z 1. marca 2011 vo veci C-236/09, Ú. v. EÚ C 130, 30.4.2011, s. 4.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Usmernenia k uplatňovaniu smernice Rady 2004/113/ES pri poistení na základe rozsudku Súdneho dvora Európskej únie vo veci C-236/09 (Test
Achats), Ú. v. EÚ C 11, 13.1.2012, s. 1.

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

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

C 294 E / 62 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008942/12**

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

_(4 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Gender discrimination in setting insurance prices

On 22 December 2011, the Commission adopted guidelines on the basis of which insurance undertakings in the
European Union must adapt the insurance products they offer to ensure that they are not discriminatory, which in
practice means increasing the cost of these products for lower-risk groups. The issue of gender equality had been
governed by a directive allowing the same insurance product to be offered at different prices depending on the gender
of the client, since empirical data showed that gender was a significant factor in the risk to be insured against.
However, the Commission regards variable premiums of this kind as so unacceptable that it would rather take a
decision that causes the cost of insurance for low-risk clients to rise, for in practice the result will be an overall
increase in insurance premium levels with a partial drop in price for high-risk clients. For certain risks (e.g. death,
longevity, invalidity), statistical analysis shows that the key factors used in allocating clients to homogeneous groups
are gender, age and state of health. Therefore, a ban on the use of these factors in insurance would in practice amount
to discrimination.

On the basis of an analysis commissioned by the European Insurance and Reinsurance Federation, the cost of life
assurance for women in Europe will rise by up to 30%. This new rule violates the fundamental principle of insurance,
whereby the key factor is to assess the individual risk of each client. The end result will in fact be to impose
discrimination by means of anti-discrimination legislation. The new ruling must be implemented by
21 December 2012.

— How can the Commission come to terms with this negative impact and the counter-productiveness of its proposed
new regulation given that one of the main objectives of the European Union is to strengthen the position of women in
society?

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

_(14 November 2012)_

It is an exclusive competence of the Court of Justice of the European Union to interpret EC law in order to ensure its
uniform interpretation and application in all the Member States. The Commission is, after the Court ruling in the
Test-Achats case ( [1] ), under the obligation to ensure that EC law, as interpreted by the Court, is properly implemented.

In the ruling, the Court found an exception in EU equal treatment legislation allowing for price differentiation
between men and women incompatible with the principle of unisex pricing contained in the same legislation. The
objective of the guidelines adopted by the Commission in December 2011 ( [2] ) is to facilitate the implementation of the
ruling at national level, in the interest of both consumers and insurance companies. The guidelines notably clarify that
the ruling only concerns the use of gender as a risk-rating factor in setting individuals' premiums and benefits, and
does not affect the use of other factors such as age or state of health.

It is likely that the ruling will have some effects on individual premiums. Depending on the product concerned,
premiums might increase or decrease for men or women. If women are likely to experience premium increases for
term-life insurance, they should benefit from unisex pricing as far as annuity benefits are concerned.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Judgment of 1 March 2011 in Case C-236/09, OJ C 130 of 30.4.2011, p. 4.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Guidelines on the application of Council Directive 2004/113/EC to insurance, in the light of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European

Union in Case C-236/09 (Test-Achats), OJ C 011 of 13.01.2012, p. 1.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 63

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008944/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Mario Borghezio (EFD)**

_(4 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Il rapporto Liikanen e la necessità di una separazione delle attività bancarie da quelle di speculazione
finanziaria

Il rapporto redatto dal gruppo di esperti guidato da Erkki Liikanen, presidente della Banca Centrale della Finlandia,
presentato alla Commissione il 2 ottobre, si focalizza sulla necessità di una seria riforma del settore bancario europeo.
Soprattutto si richiede che in presenza di attività a rischio di trading, tra il 15 e il 25 % del capitale detenuto o a un
attivo superiore ai 100 miliardi di euro, si debba procedere alla netta separazione fra le attività bancarie e quelle di
speculazione finanziaria. Questo senza compromettere, come suggerisce il rapporto, la capacità di investimento delle
banche di deposito, che potrebbero continuare a operare in alcuni settori finanziari, ossia nella copertura di rischi,
nella gestione di portafogli di liquidità, nello scambio di valuta e in certe operazioni di swaps. Il rapporto evidenzia
come la separazione delle attività tramite, ad esempio, la creazione di specifiche filiali, possa migliorare la capacità di
sostenere gli istituti in difficoltà mantenendo la solidità finanziaria.

1. Ritenendo che una revisione del sistema bancario europeo sia urgente e necessaria, in che modo la
Commissione intende considerare il rapporto Liikanen in relazione alla proposta di un'unione bancaria?

2. La Commissione prevede di avanzare proposte legislative per attuare tale separazione di attività distinte?

**Risposta di Michel Barnier a nome della Commissione**

_(5 dicembre 2012)_

La relazione del gruppo di esperti ad alto livello sulla riforma della struttura del settore bancario dell’UE è stata
presentata alla Commissione europea in data 2 ottobre 2012.

Come evidenziato dal gruppo, le raccomandazioni contenute nella relazione potrebbero integrare le proposte relative
all’unione bancaria. In particolare, la riduzione della complessità potrebbe facilitare la vigilanza e la risoluzione
bancaria.

Il 13 novembre 2012 si è conclusa una consultazione pubblica delle parti interessate riguardante la relazione e le
raccomandazioni in essa contenute. Il Collegio deciderà sulle azioni future al momento opportuno, sulla base della
relazione, dei risultati della consultazione e delle altre attività volte a calibrare alcune delle raccomandazioni.

C 294 E / 64 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008944/12**

**to the Commission**
**Mario Borghezio (EFD)**

_(4 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ The Liikanen report and the need for a separation between banking activities and financial speculation

The report submitted to the Commission on 2 October by the group of experts headed by Erkki Liikanen, President of
the Finnish Central Bank, focuses on the need for a serious reform of European banking. Above all, it observes that,
where risky trading activity is pursued using between 15 and 25% of the capital held or where the activity exceeds
EUR 100 billion, a clear separation should be made between banking activities and financial speculation activities.
The report suggests that this could be done without compromising the investment capacity of deposit banks, which
could continue to operate in some financial sectors, viz. risk cover, managing liquidity portfolios, currency exchange
and certain swap operations. The report shows that separating activities by, for example, setting up specific branches
could improve capacity to support institutions in difficulties, preserving their financial soundness.

1. On the basis that a revision of the European banking system is both urgent and necessary, how will the
Commission consider the Liikanen report in relation to the proposal for a banking union?

2. Will the Commission submit legislative proposals to bring about this separation of different types of activity?

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

_(5 December 2012)_

The report of the High-level Expert Group on reforming the structure of the EU banking sector was presented to the
European Commission on 2 October 2012.

As highlighted by the Group, the recommendations in the report could complement the banking union proposals.
Notably, the reduction in complexity could make it easier to supervise and resolve banks.

A public stakeholder consultation on the report and its recommendations ended on 13 November 2012. The College
will decide on next steps in due course, on the basis of the report, the consultation replies and further work to
calibrate some of the recommendations.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 65

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita P-008945/12**

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

_(4 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Financiación de las becas Erasmus

Un alto funcionario de la Oficina de Presupuestos de la Comisión Europea ha anunciado que los fondos destinados a
financiar el programa de las becas Erasmus estarían a punto de agotarse, cuando aún no ha concluido el presente
ejercicio.

La noticia es de una gravedad extraordinaria porque afecta a la formación y a la mayor solidez intelectual de los
ciudadanos europeos. Además, el referido programa es un pilar fundamental de la integración de Europa.

Por ello, a este diputado le parece fundamental que se arbitren a la mayor brevedad posible los fondos necesarios
procedentes de otras partidas presupuestarias que puedan no haber sido enteramente utilizadas para solucionar la
situación denunciada desde la Oficina de Presupuestos.

¿Qué medidas va a aprobar la Comisión para resolver de inmediato y para este año la grave situación denunciada?

¿Cómo es posible difundir tan irresponsablemente un asunto que probablemente tiene una solución burocrática?

¿Qué previsiones piensa adoptar la Comisión en el futuro, por la vía del Presupuesto o —más allá— de las
«perspectivas financieras 2014-2020», para dotar de una cobertura económica amplia, digna y estable al programa
Erasmus?

**Respuesta dada por el Sr. Lewandowski en nombre de la Comisión**

_(15 de noviembre de 2012)_

La escasez de créditos de pago afecta a varios programas y a casi todas las rúbricas de gastos del presupuesto de
la UE ( [1] ). La Comisión está haciendo uso de todas las opciones que le brinda el marco jurídico para gestionar la
situación, incluida la propuesta de redistribución de los fondos sin utilizar: la Comisión de Presupuestos del
Parlamento aprobó recientemente la «Transferencia global» para la reasignación de casi 420 millones de euros en
créditos de pago entre distintos programas de gastos. Sin embargo, los créditos de pago autorizados en el presupuesto
de 2012 son insuficientes para cubrir las necesidades pendientes.

El acuerdo entre el Parlamento y el Consejo sobre el presupuesto de 2012 supuso un recorte de casi 3 600 millones
de euros en créditos de pago, en comparación con el importe propuesto por la Comisión en el Proyecto de
Presupuesto (PP). La Comisión ha advertido en repetidas ocasiones de que el nivel de los créditos de pago era
demasiado bajo para cubrir todas las necesidades. Para remediar esta situación, aprobó un Proyecto de Presupuesto
Rectificativo (PPR) ( [2] ) solicitando pagos adicionales en el presupuesto de 2012 por un importe de 9 000 millones
de euros, de los que 180 millones de euros corresponden al Programa de Aprendizaje Permanente (PAP), cubriéndose
la carencia para el programa Erasmus con la mitad de esta cantidad. La Comisión cuenta con el apoyo del Parlamento
y del Consejo en esta propuesta.

En su procedimiento presupuestario anual, la Comisión realiza una cuidadosa valoración de las necesidades, que se ve
reflejada en la propuesta del PP. La Autoridad Presupuestaria es la que toma la decisión definitiva. El PP de 2012
estableció el nivel de los créditos de pago para el PAP en 1 000 millones de euros; el importe final acordado por la
Autoridad Presupuestaria ascendió a 907 millones de euros. Para el año 2013, la Comisión ha propuesto
1 140 millones de euros en pagos para apoyar al PAP, de los que aproximadamente 490 millones de euros se
destinarían a becas Erasmus para los intercambios de estudiantes y de personal académico ( [3] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Sección III.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) PPR 6/2012 de 23 de octubre de 2012.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Puede encontrarse más información en: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-12-785_es.htm

C 294 E / 66 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-008945/12**

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

_(4 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Funding of Erasmus grants

A senior official at the Commission’s Budget Office has announced that the funds earmarked for the funding of the
Erasmus grants programme will be exhausted before the end of this year.

This is extremely serious, as it affects the education of European citizens and efforts to give them a sounder
intellectual grounding. In addition, the programme in question is a vital pillar of European integration.

The tabler of this question considers it essential that the necessary funds should be reallocated as soon as possible
from other budget lines which may not have been used in their entirety in order to resolve the situation described by
the Budget Office.

1. What steps will the Commission take to resolve immediately, for this year, the serious situation described
above?

2. How is it possible to announce so irresponsibly a problem for which a solution could probably be found within
the administration?

3. What measures will the Commission take in future, by means of the Budgets or — going beyond them — the
Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020, to provide the Erasmus programme with ample, decent and stable
funding?

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

_(15 November 2012)_

The shortage in payment appropriations concerns several programmes and almost all expenditure headings of the EU
budget ( [1] ). The Commission is making use of all options within the legal framework to manage the situation,
including proposing to reallocate unused funds: the Parliament Committee on Budgets recently approved the ‘Global
Transfer’ for redeployment of almost EUR 420 million in payment appropriations across spending programmes.
However, payment appropriations authorised in the 2012 budget are insufficient to cover outstanding needs.

Agreement between Parliament and Council on the 2012 budget entailed a cut of almost EUR 3.6 billion in payment
appropriations compared to the amount proposed by the Commission in the Draft Budget (DB). The Commission has
repeatedly warned that the level of payment appropriations was too low to cover all needs. To redress the situation it
adopted a Draft Amending Budget ( [2] ) requesting additional payments for an amount of EUR 9 billion in the 2012
budget, of these EUR 180 million concerns the Lifelong Learning (LLL) programme, covering, with half this sum the
shortfall for Erasmus. The Commission counts on the Parliament and Council to support this proposal.

In its annual budgetary procedure the Commission makes a careful needs assessment which is reflected in the DB
proposal. The final decision is taken by the Budget Authority. The 2012 DB set the level of payment appropriations
for the LLL programme at EUR 1 billion; the final amount adopted by the Budgetary Authority was EUR 907 million.
For 2013, the Commission has proposed EUR 1.14 billion in payments to support the LLL Programme, of which
roughly EUR 490 million would be spent on Erasmus grants for students and academic staff exchanges ( [3] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Section III.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) DAB 6/2012 of 23 October 2012.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Further information may be found at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-12-785_en.htm

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 67

_(Magyar változat)_

**Írásbeli választ igénylő kérdés P-008946/12**

**a Bizottság számára**
**Gáll-Pelcz Ildikó (PPE)**

_(2012. október 4.)_

_Tárgy:_ A nőket diszkrimináló biztosítási szerződésekről

Bár a férfiak és nők közötti esélyegyenlőség érvényesítéséről szóló irányelv célja az, hogy a biztosítók ne tehessenek
hátrányos különböztetést a nemek között, éppen ennek ellenkezőjét eredményezheti a 2012. december 21‐e után
kötött biztosítási szerződésekre nézve. Önellentmondás, hogy a biztosítók belső kockázatkezelési gyakorlatában
továbbra is megkülönböztethetők a nők és a férfiak, a díjakra azonban ez a jövőben már nem vonatkozik. A férfiak és
a nők halálozási valószínűsége között egyre nagyobb a különbség: az előbbieké kétszerese, háromszorosa is lehet az
utóbbiakénak. A halálozási valószínűség mellett az egyes betegségtípusok tekintetében is jelentős különbség van a két
nem között. Eddig tehát a magasabb kockázat magasabb díjakat indokolt, az átlagárazást alkalmazó új rendszer
azonban méltánytalan lehet. Az Oxera adatai szerint például Németországban a nemek szerinti árazással a férfiak a
befizetett díj 94%-át, a nők 89%-át kapják vissza biztosítási szolgáltatással. Az új rendszerben viszont a férfiak a
befizetett díj 103%-át, a nők 67%-át kaphatják vissza. Ezen adatok szerint tehát nem a régi, hanem az új rendszer
diszkriminálja igazán a nőket. Mióta Belgiumban bevezették az uniszex kgfb‐árazást, a fiatal férfiaknál 3‐4%‐os
díjcsökkenés, a fiatal nőknél 7‐17%-os díjemelkedést okozott az áttérés. További negatív következmény lehet, hogy a
nem uniós országból érkező biztosítók továbbra is folytathatnak diszkriminatív árazást, így ad absurdum egy svájci
biztosítónál csak nők, egy uniósnál pedig csak férfiak fognak biztosítást kötni.

Mindezek alapján a következő kérdéseket szeretném feltenni a Bizottságnak:

Egyetért-e a Bizottság a fenti a következtetésekkel? Amennyiben igen, nem tartja‐e mindezt diszkriminatívnak, s ha
igen, hogyan kívánja ezt az ellentmondást rövid távon feloldani? Nem tart‐e attól a Bizottság, hogy a nők
díjarányosan jóval kevesebb szolgáltatást kapnak majd, mint a férfiak, és akár az is előfordulhat, hogy az Unión kívüli
biztosítók a nők, az uniós biztosítók pedig a férfiak szolgáltatójává válnak?

**Viviane Reding válasza a Bizottság nevében**

_(2012. október 31.)_

Az uniós jog értelmezése – az összes tagállamban megvalósuló egységes értelmezésének és alkalmazásának
biztosítása érdekében – az Európai Unió Bíróságának kizárólagos hatáskörébe tartozik. A Bíróság Test-Achats-ügyben
hozott ítéletét ( [1] ) követően a Bizottság kötelezettsége a Bíróság által értelmezett uniós jog megfelelő végrehajtásának
biztosítása.

A Bizottság tudatában van annak, hogy az ítéletnek következményei lesznek a tagállamokra és a biztosítási ágazatra
nézve. A Bizottság 2011 decemberében iránymutatást fogadott el az ítélet értelmezésével kapcsolatban ( [2] ), hogy
megkönnyítse annak nemzeti szintű végrehajtását. A Bíróság ítéletének valószínűleg lesznek bizonyos hatásai az
egyéni biztosítási díjakra nézve. A díjak az érintett terméktől függően emelkedhetnek vagy csökkenhetnek a férfiak,
illetve a nők esetében. Az ítélet nyomán egyes biztosítási termékek nőkre és férfiakra vonatkozó díjainak közeledniük
kell egymáshoz. Egy átmeneti időszak során a piacnak is igazodnia kell majd az új keretszabályozáshoz. Az EU
területén szolgáltatást nyújtó külföldi biztosítók kötelesek lesznek az uniszex árazás alkalmazására.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) A C-236/09. sz. ügyben 2011. március 1-jén hozott ítélet (HL C 130., 2011.4.30., 4. o.).
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Iránymutatás a 2004/113/EK tanácsi irányelv biztosítási ágazatban történő alkalmazásához, az Európai Unió Bíróságának C-236/09. sz., Test
Achats-ügyben hozott ítéletére figyelemmel (HL C 11., 2012.1.13., 1. o.).

C 294 E / 68 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-008946/12**

**to the Commission**
**Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE)**

_(4 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Insurance contracts which discriminate against women

Although one objective of the directive on implementing equality of opportunity between men and women is to
ensure that insurers do not discriminate between the sexes, insurance contracts concluded after 21 December 2012
might well have the opposite effect. It is a self-contradiction that insurers’ internal risk management practice should
continue to discriminate between men and women but that this should not in future apply to fees. The difference
between men and women in terms of the likelihood of their dying is increasing all the time: for men there is twice the
likelihood, whilst for women the figure is three times. In addition, there is a significant difference between the sexes in
terms of certain kinds of illness. In the past, higher fees were justified by higher risk; however, the new system with its
use of mean pricing would be unfair. According to data provided by Oxera, pricing by gender means that in Germany,
for example, men get back 94% and women 89% of the fees paid when using insurance services. Under the new
system, men would get back 103% and women 67%. The data suggest that it is the new system rather than the old
which will discriminate against women. Since the unisex MTPL pricing was introduced in Belgium, fees for young
men have fallen by 3-4% whilst those for women have risen by 7-17%. There would be a further negative outcome if
insurance companies arriving from non-Member States were able to continue to apply discriminatory pricing, with
the absurd situation that only women would take out policies with a Swiss insurer whilst only men would do so with
an EU‐based insurer.

Does the Commission agree with these conclusions? If so, does it not consider the above to be discriminatory? If it
does, how does it intend to resolve this contradiction in the short term? Is the Commission not concerned that
women will receive far fewer services than men in proportion to the fees paid? And might the situation not arise
whereby insurers from outside the EU provide services to women and those within the EU do so for men?

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

_(31 October 2012)_

It is an exclusive competence of the Court of Justice of the European Union to interpret EC law in order to ensure its
uniform interpretation and application in all the Member States. The Commission is, after the Court ruling in the
Test-Achats case ( [1] ), under the obligation to ensure that EC law, as interpreted by the Court, is properly implemented.

The Commission is aware that the ruling will have repercussions for the Member States and for the insurance
industry. In order to facilitate its implementation at national level, the Commission adopted guidelines on the
interpretation of the ruling in December 2011 ( [2] ). It is likely that the Court's judgment will have some effects on
individual premiums. Depending on the product concerned, premiums might increase or decrease for men or
women. For some insurance products the ruling should lead to a convergence of premiums for women and men. In a
transitory period, the market will also need to adapt to a new regulatory framework. Foreign insurers providing
services in the EU will be obliged to apply unisex pricing.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Judgment of 1 March 2011 in Case C-236/09, OJ C 130 of 30.4.2011, p. 4.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Guidelines on the application of Council Directive 2004/113/EC to insurance, in the light of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European

Union in Case C-236/09 (Test-Achats), OJ C 011 of 13.01.2012, p. 1.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 69

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008947/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D)**

_(4 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Situazione Fnac Italia

La sede centrale di Fnac ha annunciato un'imponente ristrutturazione dell'azienda in un comunicato stampa del
13 gennaio 2012, in cui si delineavano le strategie di risparmio programmate per ciascun paese dove la catena è
presente, ma veniva anche sostanzialmente chiusa la prospettiva di una permanenza del gruppo in Italia, giacché: «In
Italia, dove non sussistono più le condizioni per un'attività in proprio, la Fnac vaglierà tutte le possibili opzioni e
prenderà una decisione entro l'anno».

Nonostante numerose sollecitazioni, successivamente a tale comunicato stampa nessun'altra informazione o
chiarimento è stato dato ai lavoratori o alle autorità pubbliche rispetto alle precise intenzioni della dirigenza né per
quanto riguarda il destino di Fnac Italia né per quanto riguarda il futuro dei suoi 600 lavoratori. Questo causa oggi
un'inaccettabile situazione di totale incertezza.

La mancanza di un piano per il mantenimento dei posti di lavoro e dei punti vendita, eventualmente anche attraverso
la loro cessione ad altri soggetti, aumenta le preoccupazioni per una chiusura che comporterebbe gravissime
conseguenze occupazionali e sociali, nonché un impoverimento culturale delle realtà coinvolte, dove i punti vendita
sono realtà consolidate.

Alla luce di quanto sopra esposto, e anche della sua recente comunicazione in materia di responsabilità sociale di
impresa, in cui si invitano le imprese a assumersi la responsabilità «per il loro impatto sulla società», anche attraverso
il dialogo ed il coinvolgimento delle parti interessate e dei sindacati, e a integrare quindi anche «le questioni sociali»
nelle loro «operazioni commerciali e nella loro strategia di base», può la Commissione riferire:

quali azioni intende adottare per garantire, nei confronti dei lavoratori di Fnac Italia, il rispetto della direttiva
2002/14/CE, che istituisce un quadro generale relativo all'informazione e alla consultazione dei lavoratori, e per
favorire il necessario dialogo tra la dirigenza e i rappresentanti dei lavoratori;

se ritiene che il comportamento della dirigenza di Fnac Italia risponda ai principi di una corretta integrazione nella
strategia aziendale dei principi di responsabilità sociale di impresa?

**Risposta di László Andor a nome della Commissione**

_(28 novembre 2012)_

La direttiva 2002/14/CE concernente il diritto all'informazione e alla consultazione dei lavoratori a livello nazionale è
stata recepita in Italia con il decreto legislativo n. 25/2007. Spetta ora alle autorità nazionali competenti, compresi i
tribunali, assicurare che la legislazione nazionale summenzionata sia applicata in modo corretto ed efficace in linea
con le disposizioni dell'UE, tenendo conto delle circostanze specifiche dei singoli casi.

Con la sua politica in tema di responsabilità sociale delle imprese (RSI) la Commissione incoraggia le imprese ad
inserire le tematiche della RSI nella condotta delle loro operazioni commerciali. Gli aspetti sociali dovrebbero essere
parte di questa politica integrata. La Commissione ribadisce che il rispetto, ad opera delle imprese, della legislazione
vigente in materia sociale e di contratti collettivi è il requisito essenziale per far fronte a tale responsabilità.

C 294 E / 70 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008947/12**

**to the Commission**
**Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D)**

_(4 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Situation at FNAC (Italy)

In a press release of 13 January 2012, FNAC’s headquarters announced a major restructuring of the group, setting out
the strategies for cutting expenditure in each country where the chain is represented, but at the same time basically
indicating that there was no likelihood of the group’s remaining in Italy in the long term, because ‘In Italy, where the
conditions are no longer conducive to continued business activity by the group itself, FNAC will assess all possible
options and take a decision before the end of the year’.

Despite numerous requests, since this press release was issued no further information or clarification has been given
to employees or the public authorities regarding the exact intentions of the management for the future of FNAC Italy
or of its 600 employees. This is giving rise to an unacceptable situation marked by complete uncertainty.

The lack of a plan for the preservation of the jobs and sales outlets, possibly by surrendering them to other operators,
is adding to concerns that the company may be closed down, which would have a very serious impact on
employment and social welfare, as well as bringing about a cultural impoverishment of the entities affected, where the
sales outlets are well established.

In the light of the above, and also of its recent communication on corporate social responsibility, in which
undertakings are asked to take responsibility ‘for their impacts on society’, including through dialogue and the
involvement of stakeholders and trade unions, and thus also to integrate ‘social concerns’ into their ‘business
operations and core strategy’, can the Commission indicate:

—
what action it intends to take to ensure that directive 2002/14/EC — which establishes a general framework for
information and consultation of employees — is complied with in relation to the employees of FNAC Italy and
to promote the necessary dialogue between management and representatives of the workforce?

—
whether it believes that the conduct of FNAC Italy’s management complies with the precepts governing the
correct inclusion of corporate social responsibility principles in a business strategy?

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

_(28 November 2012)_

Directive 2002/14/EC regarding the right of information and consultation of employees at national level has been
transposed in Italy through Legislative Decree n° 25/2007. It is for the competent national authorities, including the
courts, to ensure that the aforementioned national legislation is correctly and effectively applied in line with the EU
requirements, having regard to the specific circumstances of each case.

Through its Corporate social responsibility (CSR) policy, the Commission encourages companies to mainstream CSR
throughout their business operations. Social aspects should be part of such an integrated policy. The Commission
underlines that respect by companies of applicable legislation on social matters and of collective agreements in place
is a prerequisite for meeting that responsibility.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 71

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-008950/12**

**do Komisji**
**Ryszard Antoni Legutko (ECR)**

_(4 października 2012 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Modernizacja połączeń kolejowych na terenach przygranicznych

Jednym z priorytetów polityki władz Unii Europejskiej jest stworzenie spójnej polityki transportowej. W związku
z powyższym władze UE od wielu lat przeznaczają znaczne środki finansowe w ramach funduszu spójności na
realizację tego celu.

Polska znacznym wysiłkiem finansowym stara się zmodernizować linie kolejowe tak, żeby uzyskać zadowalające
połączenie z Europą Zachodnią. W tym celu m.in. zmodernizowano po stronie polskiej linie kolejowe na odcinkach:
od Warszawy do granicy niemieckiej; od Wrocławia do granicy w miejscowości Zgorzelec, oraz od Wrocławia do
granicy w kierunku Berlina. Niestety po stronie niemieckiej modernizacja linii kolejowych nie następuje. Taka
sytuacja prowadzi do odcięcia Polski od systemu komunikacji kolejowej w Europie. Należy zaznaczyć, że
wspomniane linie kolejowe są również częścią korytarzy paneuropejskich m.in. E 30.

W związku z powyższym proszę o odpowiedź na następujące pytanie:

—
czy Komisja podejmie działania, których celem będzie zmobilizowanie strony niemieckiej do przyspieszenia
modernizacji linii kolejowych, które są niezbędne do stworzenia spójnego systemu komunikacji kolejowej
w Unii Europejskiej?

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

_(7 listopada 2012 r.)_

Dnia 19 października 2011 r. Komisja przyjęła wnioski dotyczące nowych wytycznych dla transeuropejskiej sieci
transportowej (TEN-T) i dla instrumentu „Łącząc Europę” ( [1] ). Wniosek dotyczący wytycznych dla TEN-T ma na celu
stworzenie i budowę kompletnej i zintegrowanej sieci, obejmującej wszystkie państwa członkowskie i regiony,
poprzez wdrożenie dwupoziomowej struktury, na którą składać się mają: sieć bazowa (ma zostać ukończona do
2030 r.) oraz sieć kompleksowa (ma zostać ukończona do 2050 r.).

Zgodnie z wnioskiem dotyczącym wytycznych dla TEN-T w skład sieci bazowej TEN-T wchodzą linie kolejowe na
trasach Warszawa-Frankfurt nad Odrą-Berlin, Wrocław-Zgorzelec-Magdeburg oraz Wrocław-Zgorzelec-Drezno.

Linia Warszawa-Frankfurt nad Odrą stanowi część sieci bazowej dla transportu towarowego i pasażerskiego; jest ona
zelektryfikowana i została sklasyfikowana jako „linia konwencjonalna przewidziana do modernizacji w celu
dostosowania do dużych prędkości”.

Linia Wrocław-Zgorzelec-Magdeburg stanowi część sieci bazowej dla transportu towarowego; jest ona częściowo
niezelektryfikowana (odcinek od polskiej granicy do Hoyerswerdy), częściowo zelektryfikowana (odcinek
Hoyerswerda-Magdeburg) i została sklasyfikowana jako „linia konwencjonalna ukończona”.

Linia Wrocław-Zgorzelec-Drezno stanowi część sieci bazowej dla transportu pasażerskiego; jest ona
niezelektryfikowana i została sklasyfikowana jako „linia konwencjonalna ukończona”.

Zgodnie z wnioskiem Komisji sieć bazowa ma zostać ukończona i być w pełni zgodna ze stosownymi przepisami do
2030 r. Spełnienie wymagań odpowiednich przepisów obejmuje pełną elektryfikację linii kolejowych. W związku
z tym główne międzygraniczne połączenia kolejowe między Polską i Niemcami muszą zostać ukończone do 2030 r.

Ponadto Komisja zaproponowała ustanowienie korytarzy sieci bazowej, które mają zapewnić koordynację procesu
planowania inwestycji transgranicznych. Jeden z proponowanych korytarzy biec będzie z Warszawy do Berlina
i dalej.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 650 final/2 oraz COM(2011) 665 final.

C 294 E / 72 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008950/12**

**to the Commission**
**Ryszard Antoni Legutko (ECR)**

_(4 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Upgrading of rail connections in border areas

One of the EU’s policy priorities is to create a coherent transport policy. Significant funding has been allocated under
the Cohesion Fund over many years with the aim of achieving this goal.

Poland is investing substantial financial resources into upgrading its railways so as to have good rail links with
western Europe. The sections already upgraded on the Polish side include the line from Warsaw to the German
border, from Wrocław to the border in the town of Zgorzelec, and from Wrocław to the border in the direction of
Berlin. Unfortunately, the lines on the German side of the border are not being upgraded. This is having the effect of
cutting Poland off from the rail transport system in Europe. It should be noted that these railway lines also form part
of various pan-European corridors, including the E 30.

In connection with the above:

—
Will the Commission take action to encourage Germany to speed up the modernisation of its railway lines,
which are essential to the creation of a coherent rail transport system in the European Union?

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

_(7 November 2012)_

The Commission adopted on 19 October 2011 proposals for new Guidelines for the trans-European network for
transport (TEN-T) and for the Connecting Europe Facility ( [1] ). The TEN-T Guidelines proposal aims to establish and
develop a complete and integrated network, covering all Member States and regions, by implementing a dual layer
structure consisting of a core network to be completed by 2030 and of a comprehensive network to be completed by
2050.

The railway lines Warsaw-Frankfurt/Oder-Berlin,Wroclaw-Görlitz-Magdeburg and Wroclaw-Görlitz-Dresden are all
part of the TEN-T core network, as defined in the TEN-T Guidelines proposal.

The line Warsaw-Frankfurt/Oder is part of the core network for freight and passenger transport, electrified and
categorised as ‘conventional to be upgraded to high speed’.

The line Wroclaw-Görlitz-Magdeburg is part of the core network for freight transport, partly non-electrified (Polish
border-Hoyerswerda), partly electrified (Hoyerswerda-Magdeburg) and categorised as ‘conventional completed’.

The line Wroclaw-Görlitz-Dresden is part of the core network for passenger transport, non-electrified and categorised
as ‘conventional completed’.

According to the Commission's proposal, the core network shall be completed and fully comply with the relevant
provisions by 2030. Compliance with the relevant provisions includes full electrification of the railway lines.
Consequently, by 2030, the main cross-border rail connections between Poland and Germany shall be completed.

Furthermore, the Commission proposed the setting up of Core Network Corridors that shall guarantee the
coordinated planning of investments across borders. One of the Corridors proposed will connect Warsaw to Berlin
and beyond.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 650 final/2 and COM(2011) 665 final.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 73

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-008951/12**

**al Consejo**
**María Irigoyen Pérez (S&D)**

_(4 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Falta de recursos para el Programa Erasmus

Esta semana la Comisión Europea ha hecho pública la falta de recursos para todos los programas de aprendizaje
permanente —siendo el Programa Erasmus su cara más visible—, pese a que estos programas son clave para impulsar
la movilidad laboral, el espíritu emprendedor y la inserción laboral de los jóvenes.

Por ello, la Comisión ha anunciado que pedirá a finales de este mes a los Estados miembros una ampliación del
presupuesto para poder pagar un tercio de la becas de aquí a final de año.

En septiembre de 2011, pregunté a la Comisión (E-008262/2011) si pensaba aumentar la dotación destinada a las
acciones de los programas de Aprendizaje Permanente y el programa La Juventud en Acción como forma de impulsar
la inserción en el mundo laboral de los jóvenes. La respuesta que obtuve fue que la Comisión defendía para el próximo
presupuesto financiero plurianual la inclusión de propuestas relativas al programa Erasmus para todos 2014-2020,
con un incremento propuesto del presupuesto superior al 70 % (un total de 15 200 millones de euros para el período
de siete años), con el objetivo de reforzar el impacto de la actuación europea en la educación y la empleabilidad de los
jóvenes.

¿Cómo piensa garantizar el Consejo que los Estados miembros cooperen para que no se interrumpan estos programas
de reconocido éxito? ¿Se compromete el Consejo a no reducir las partidas destinadas a este programa en los
presupuestos de 2013? ¿Mantendrá el Consejo su compromiso con este programa en el próximo Marco Financiero
Plurianual 2014-2020 o los recortes afectarán también a esta partida?

**Respuesta**
_(10 de diciembre de 2012)_

Se ruega a Su Señoría que se remita a la respuesta aportada por el Consejo en la sesión del Parlamento Europeo del
25 de octubre de 2012.

C 294 E / 74 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008951/12**

**to the Council**
**María Irigoyen Pérez (S&D)**

_(4 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Lack of resources for the Erasmus programme

This week, the European Commission announced that there was a lack of resources to cover all the lifelong learning
programmes — the most visible of these being the Erasmus programme —, despite these programmes being of key
importance for encouraging labour mobility, entrepreneurship and youth employment.

Consequently, the Commission has announced that at the end of this month it will ask Member States for an increase
in the budget in order to pay a third of the grants by the end of the year.

In September 2011, I asked the Commission (E‐008262/2011) if it was intending to increase the sums allocated to
actions under the lifelong learning programmes and the Youth in Action programme as a way of helping young
people to gain employment. The reply which I received was that for the next multiannual financial budget the
Commission was supporting the inclusion of proposals for an ‘Erasmus for all’ programme 2014-20, with a proposed
increase in budget of more than 70% (in total EUR 15.2 billion for the seven-year period) with the aim of reinforcing
the impact of European action on education and the employability of young people.

How will the Council ensure that Member States cooperate to avoid interrupting these extremely successful
programmes? Is the Council committed to not reducing the budget items allocated to this programme in the 2013
budget? Will the Council keep its commitment to this programme in the next Multiannual Financial Framework
2014-2020, or will the budget cuts also affect this budget item?

**Reply**
_(10 December 2012)_

The Honourable Member is invited to refer to the answer given by the Council during the part‐session of the
European Parliament on 25 October 2012.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 75

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-008952/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)**

_(4 Οκτωβρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Αεροπορικές μεταφορές στην Ελλάδα

Ανησυχία προκαλούν δημοσιεύματα ότι απειλείται ακόμα και η βιωσιμότητα των αεροπορικών επιχειρήσεων που
λειτουργούν στην Ελλάδα, εξαιτίας κυρίως του υφεσιακού περιβάλλοντος που έχει δημιουργηθεί από αφόρητα μέτρα
λιτότητας που επιβάλλονται με τα συνεχή Μνημόνια.

Σύμφωνα με τα δημοσιεύματα, κάθε προσπάθεια περιστολής του κόστους εκ μέρους των αεροπορικών εταιριών, προσκρούει
στα «ανελαστικά» και ιδιαίτερα υψηλά τέλη του αεροδρομίου Ελ. Βενιζέλος, αλλά και στο σχέδιο ιδιωτικοποίησης 39
περιφερειακών αερολιμένων της χώρας, που ενδεχομένως θα προκαλέσει περαιτέρω αύξηση των τελών που ήδη ισχύουν.

Με δεδομένη α) τη σημασία των αεροπορικών μεταφορών στην οικονομία και τη γεωγραφική συνοχή της χώρας, ιδιαίτερα
όσον αφορά στις νησιωτικές και απομακρυσμένες περιοχές, και την ιδιαίτερα δυσχερή θέση στην οποία έχει περιέλθει η
ελληνική οικονομία, η οποία δυσκολεύεται πλέον να επιδοτεί αεροπορικές αλλά και θαλάσσιες μεταφορές σε «άγονες»
περιοχές, και ανεξάρτητα από την άποψη που έχει κανείς για την ιδιωτικοποίηση τέτοιου είδους υποδομών, ερωτάται η
Επιτροπή:

1. Στις όποιες διαπραγματεύσεις γίνονται για τη χρονική επέκταση της σύμβασης διαχείρισης του Αερολιμένα Αθηνών
εξαιτίας της πώλησης του εναπομείναντος μεριδίου μετοχών του Δημοσίου, υπάρχει νομική δυνατότητα για την άμεση
μείωση των απαράδεκτα υψηλών τελών που χρεώνει τώρα το Ελ. Βενιζέλος;

2. Όσον αφορά στην ιδιωτικοποίηση των περιφερειακών αερολιμένων, μπορεί να βεβαιώσει η Επιτροπή ότι η παραχώρηση
αυτών των αεροδρομίων δεν θα επιφέρει υψηλότερα τέλη σε βάρος των επιβατών και των εμπορευμάτων ή ότι δεν θα
προκαλέσει μεγαλύτερες ακόμα επιδοτήσεις εκ μέρους του κράτους;

3. Μπορεί να προσδιορίσει σε ποιο στάδιο βρίσκονται οι διαδικασίες ιδιωτικοποίησης των 39 περιφερειακών
αερολιμένων, αλλά ιδιαίτερα του Διεθνή Αερολιμένα Αθηνών (Ελ. Βενιζέλος);

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

_(30 Νοεμβρίου 2012)_

Η τρέχουσα περίοδος παραχώρησης για τον Διεθνή Αερολιμένα Αθηνών λήγει σε 15 χρόνια. Οι διαπραγματεύσεις για την
ανανέωση της παραχώρησης βρίσκονται σε εξέλιξη και θα ολοκληρωθούν πιθανότατα το πρώτο εξάμηνο του 2013. Στόχος
της ιδιωτικοποίησης των περιφερειακών αερολιμένων στην Ελλάδα είναι η προσαρμογή του ρυθμιστικού καθεστώτος στην
πρακτική που ισχύει στην Ευρώπη, δηλαδή η προσαρμογή στον διαχωρισμό μεταξύ εκμετάλλευσης και ρύθμισης των
αερολιμένων. Ένας ακόμη στόχος είναι η μείωση των δαπανών του ελληνικού κράτους για τους αερολιμένες. Η Επιτροπή δεν
μπορεί να υποδείξει στις ελληνικές αρχές τα τέλη που πρέπει να χρεώνονται στους αερολιμένες, είναι όμως πολύ απίθανο να
απαιτηθούν υψηλότερες κρατικές επιδοτήσεις μετά την ιδιωτικοποίηση, δεδομένου ότι ο στόχος είναι ακριβώς ο αντίθετος.

Επί του παρόντος, ο Διεθνής Αερολιμένας Αθηνών λειτουργεί ως εταιρεία παραχώρησης με συμμετοχή του ελληνικού
κράτους κατά 55% και συμμετοχή ιδιωτών επενδυτών κατά 45%. Έως το τέλος του 2012, οι ελληνικές αρχές προτίθενται να
δημοσιεύσουν πρόσκληση υποβολής προσφορών για την ιδιωτικοποίηση 37 περιφερειακών αερολιμένων προς το τέλος του
2012.

C 294 E / 76 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008952/12**

**to the Commission**
**Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)**

_(4 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Air transport in Greece

Worrying articles are claiming that Greek airlines’ viability is at risk, mainly as a result of the recession brought about
by intolerable austerity measures implemented through the never-ending memoranda.

According to these articles, any attempt made by airlines to reduce costs is thwarted by the ‘inelastic’ and particularly
high fees charged by Athens International Airport (Eleftheros Venizelos) airport as well as the plan to privatise 39 of
the country’s regional airports, which could lead to further increases in current fees.

Given a) the importance of air transport to the country’s economic and geographic cohesion, particularly with regards
to island and peripheral regions and b) the plight of the Greek economy, which is struggling to support both air and
maritime transport in ‘barren’ regions, and regardless of any personal opinions on the privatisation of such
infrastructure, will the Commission answer the following:

1. In the context of the current negotiations to extend the Athens International Airport management contract as a
result of the sale of the State’s residual shareholding, are there any legal means to immediately reduce the
unacceptably high fees Eleftheros Venizelos airport now charges?

2. With regard to the privatisation of regional airports, can the Commission confirm that the transfer of these
airports will not lead to higher fees for passengers and goods and that it will not require even higher State
subsidies?

3. Could it specify the current status of the privatisation procedures for the 39 regional airports and, in particular,
Eleftheros Venizelos?

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

_(30 November 2012)_

The current concession for Athens International Airport still has 15 years to run. Negotiations are underway for the
renewal of the concession, which will most likely be concluded in the first half of 2013. The objective of the
privatisation of the regional airports in Greece is to adapt the regulatory regime to the prevailing practice in Europe: a
split between operation and regulation of the airports. Another objective is to lower the expenditure of the Greek
state for the airports. The Commission cannot instruct the Greek authorities on the charges to be levied at airports,
but it seems very unlikely that higher State subsidies will be required after privatisation, as the goal is exactly the
opposite.

Athens International Airport is currently operated under a concession, which is for 55% in the hands of the Greek
state and for 45% in the hands of private investors. It is the objective of the Greek authorities to launch a tender for
the privatisation of 37 regional airports towards the end of 2012.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 77

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-008953/12**

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

_(4 Οκτωβρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Πυρηνικοί αντιδραστήρες στην ευρωπαϊκή επικράτεια.

Μετά τη διενέργεια των τεστ αντοχής (stress tests) στους 134 εγγεγραμμένους πυρηνικούς αντιδραστήρες που βρίσκονται
στην ευρωπαϊκή επικράτεια, καταγράφηκε, σε πολλούς από αυτούς, μεγάλος αριθμός προβλημάτων, που θα μπορούσαν να
προκαλέσουν διαρροές με καταστροφικές συνέπειες σε περίπτωση φυσικών φαινομένων όπως σεισμοί ή πλημμύρες.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

1. Τι προτίθεται να κάνει για να αντιμετωπίσει την κατάσταση;

2. Πώς αντιμετωπίζει το ενδεχόμενο κλείσιμο κάποιων πυρηνικών αντιδραστήρων, και ποια σχέδια υπάρχουν για άμεση
αντικατάσταση αυτής της ενέργειας, εάν αυτό καταστεί αναγκαίο;

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

_(22 Νοεμβρίου 2012)_

1. Στην ανακοίνωση της Επιτροπής σχετικά με την προσομοίωση ακραίων καταστάσεων ( [1] ) περιλαμβάνονται οι
διαπιστώσεις από την επανεξέταση του πλαισίου της ΕΕ για την πυρηνική ασφάλεια ( [2] ) και οι απαιτούμενες βελτιώσεις της
ασφάλειας των πυρηνοηλεκτρικών σταθμών στην ΕΕ.

Η εφαρμογή των συστάσεων που προέκυψαν από τις προσομοιώσεις ακραίων καταστάσεων αποτελεί εθνική αρμοδιότητα. Οι
εθνικές ρυθμιστικές αρχές θα καταρτίσουν, έως τα τέλη του 2012, εθνικά σχέδια δράσης με χρονοδιαγράμματα υλοποίησης,
τα οποία θα αξιολογηθούν από ομότιμους κριτές για να ελεγχθεί κατά πόσον οι συστάσεις που προέκυψαν από τις
προσομοιώσεις ακραίων καταστάσεων έχουν εφαρμοστεί με διαφάνεια σε ολόκληρη την Ευρώπη. Εξάλλου, η Επιτροπή
προτίθεται να προτείνει, μέχρι τις αρχές του 2013, νομοθετικές βελτιώσεις.

2. Εναπόκειται στα κράτη μέλη να αποφασίσουν να επιλέξουν μεταξύ διαφορετικών ενεργειακών πόρων και ο σκοπός τους
είναι να συγκροτηθεί στην ΕΕ εσωτερική αγορά που να εγγυάται ανταγωνιστικό, ασφαλή και αειφόρο ενεργειακό εφοδιασμό.
Τα ζητήματα αυτά, και ειδικότερα ο τρόπος για να παρέχονται τα κατάλληλα μηνύματα για νέες επενδύσεις, θα αναλυθούν
διεξοδικά στην προσεχή ανακοίνωση σχετικά με την εσωτερική αγορά ενέργειας.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Ανακοίνωση της Επιτροπής προς το Συμβούλιο και το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο που αφορά τη συνολική αξιολόγηση των κινδύνων και της ασφάλειας

(προσομοίωση ακραίων καταστάσεων) των πυρηνοηλεκτρικών σταθμών στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και τις συναφείς δραστηριότητες, COM (2012) 571
τελικό, αναρτημένη στην ιστοσελίδα: Http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/safety/stress_tests_en.htm

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Συμπεριλαμβανομένων διαπιστώσεων σχετικά με τα μέτρα ασφαλείας των υφιστάμενων πυρηνικών σταθμών ηλεκτροπαραγωγής, σχετικά με τις διαδικασίες

και τα πλαίσια ασφάλειας, καθώς και σχετικά με το νομικό πλαίσιο για την ασφάλεια και την εφαρμογή του.

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

C 294 E / 78 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008953/12**

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

_(4 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Nuclear reactors in the EU

Following the stress tests carried out on the 134 nuclear reactors registered in the EU, a large number of problems
were recorded in many of them which could cause leakages, with catastrophic consequences in the event of natural
disasters such as earthquakes or floods.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

1. What does it intend to do to deal with this situation?

2. How is it handling the potential closure of some nuclear reactors and what plans does it have for the immediate
replacement of this energy, if necessary?

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

_(22 November 2012)_

1. The Commission Communication on the stress tests ( [1] ) reports on findings from the review of the EU nuclear
safety framework ( [2] ) and on the safety improvements needed in nuclear power plants in the EU.

Implementation of the recommendations of the stress tests is a national responsibility. National action plans with
timetables for implementation will be prepared by national regulators by the end of 2012, and these will be peerreviewed in order to verify that the stress-test recommendations are consistently implemented in a transparent way
throughout Europe. The Commission also intends to propose legislative improvements by early 2013.

2. It is for the Member States to decide on the choice between different energy resources, and it is their joint aim in
the EU to have an internal market that ensures competitive, secure and sustainable energy supply. These issues, and in
particular how to provide adequate investment signals for new investments, will be extensively addressed in the
upcoming Communication on the Internal Energy Market.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Communication from the Commission to the Council and the Parliament on the comprehensive risk and safety assessments (stress tests) of

nuclear power plants in the European Union and related activities, COM(2012)571 final, available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/safety/stress_tests_en.htm

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Including findings on safety measures in existing nuclear power plants, findings on safety procedures and frameworks, and findings on the legal

framework for safety and its implementation.

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 79

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008955/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Fiorello Provera (EFD)**

_(4 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ La Grecia prevede una spesa di 100 milioni di euro per un circuito di Formula Uno

Il 2 ottobre 2012, diversi mezzi di comunicazione hanno riferito che il governo greco, nonostante il paese stia
attraversando una recessione, intende procedere con i lavori di costruzione di un circuito di Formula Uno a
Xalandritsa, vicino a Patrasso. Il costo stimato per il progetto del circuito, che in futuro dovrebbe ospitare corse di
Formula Uno, è di 94,6 milioni di euro.

Sulla base del progetto di bilancio della Grecia per il 2013, il ministero delle Finanze prevede per il prossimo anno
una contrazione del PIL del paese pari al 3,8 %, che fa seguito a una riduzione del 6,5 % di quest'anno. La Grecia deve
dimostrare di essere in grado di finanziare un pacchetto di austerità per un ammontare di 13,5 miliardi di euro, e
potrebbe necessitare aiuti dall'UE nel corso dei prossimi otto anni. Si prevede che il primo ministro greco, Antonis
Samaras, si focalizzi sui tagli alle pensioni, ai sussidi e agli stipendi dei dipendenti pubblici per sbloccare il pagamento
dei prossimi 31 miliardi di euro promessi dall'UE.

In che modo può la Commissione controllare le modalità di utilizzo dei fondi unionali per finanziare il presente
progetto?

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

_(30 novembre 2012)_

Stando alle informazioni ricevute dalle autorità greche, il progetto relativo alla costruzione di un circuito di Formula 1
a Xalandritsa, nella Grecia occidentale, non è cofinanziato dai Fondi strutturali dell'UE.

C 294 E / 80 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008955/12**

**to the Commission**
**Fiorello Provera (EFD)**

_(4 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Greece to spend EUR 100 million on Formula One racetrack

On 2 October 2012, various media sources reported that the Greek Government, despite the country being in the
midst of a recession, is to push ahead with the construction of a Formula One racetrack at Xalandritsa, near Patras.
The cost of this project is estimated at EUR 94.6 million, and the intention is that the circuit will be able to host
Formula One races in the future.

Greece’s draft budget for 2013 shows that the finance ministry expects the country’s GDP to contract by 3.8% next
year, after having shrunk by 6.5% this year. Greece must prove that it is capable of financing an austerity package of
EUR 13.5 billion, and is likely to need help from the EU over the next eight years. The Greek Prime Minister, Antonis
Samaras, is expected to target cuts in pensions, benefits and civil service pay in order to unlock the next
EUR 31 billion payment promised by the EU.

What powers of oversight does the Commission have in terms of EU funds being used to finance the above project?

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

_(30 November 2012)_

According to the information received from the Greek authorities, the project concerning the construction of a
racetrack (Formula 1) in Xalandritsa in Western Greece is not co-financed by the EU Structural Funds.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 81

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008956/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Giancarlo Scottà (EFD)**

_(4 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Conseguenze sul sistema turistico italiano nell'applicazione della direttiva Bolkestein

L'applicazione della direttiva Bolkestein, in particolare per quanto riguarda la liberalizzazione dei servizi nell'ambito
delle concessioni demaniali marittime, rischia di avere pesanti conseguenze su molte imprese italiane del settore,
nonché sull'intero sistema turistico — ricreativo del Paese.

L'applicazione della direttiva prevede infatti che le aree demaniali marittime siano messe all'asta e cedute al miglior
offerente, senza considerare aspetti quali la tipicità e la peculiarità delle imprese balneari, che può essere mantenuta
solo attraverso una gestione continuativa di tali aree. In Italia il settore conta circa 30 000 imprese, quasi sempre
condotte dallo stesso gestore da anni, che corrono il rischio di dover chiudere con la conseguente perdita del lavoro
per molte persone.

Può la Commissione dire se esiste la possibilità di applicare eventuali deroghe?

**Risposta di Michel Barnier a nome della Commissione**

_(21 novembre 2012)_

Come già osservato nelle risposte alle interrogazioni scritte E-5588/2009, E-3090/2010, E-3629/2010,
E-4502/2011, E-4064/2012 ed E-1282/2012 ( [1] ), l’articolo 12 della direttiva 2006/123/CE (direttiva Servizi) ( [2] ) si
applica ad autorizzazioni disponibili in numero limitato per via della scarsità delle risorse naturali o delle capacità
tecniche utilizzabili, come nel caso delle concessioni demaniali marittime in Italia. In sostanza, gli Stati membri sono
tenuti a seguire una procedura di selezione che garantisca la trasparenza e la parità di trattamento dei potenziali
candidati.

Non vi è alcuna possibilità di derogare a tale disposizione della direttiva Servizi; quest’ultima consente tuttavia alle
autorità di tenere conto, nell’ambito delle procedure di selezione, delle specificità delle spiagge italiane, stabilendo ad
esempio criteri giustificati da considerazioni relative alla protezione dell’ambiente e alla salvaguardia del patrimonio
culturale, purché detti criteri siano applicati secondo i principi generali di non discriminazione, necessità e
proporzionalità.

Inoltre, accrescendo il grado di trasparenza e di concorrenza, l’attuazione dell’articolo 12 e, in generale, della direttiva
sui servizi, dovrebbe non soltanto migliorare la qualità dei servizi balneari, ma avere ripercussioni positive anche per
l’occupazione e la crescita.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Direttiva 2006/123/CE relativa ai servizi nel mercato interno.

C 294 E / 82 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008956/12**

**to the Commission**
**Giancarlo Scottà (EFD)**

_(4 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Impact of the application of the Bolkestein Directive on tourism in Italy

The application of the Bolkestein Directive, particularly as regards the liberalisation of services in the field of
concessions on State-owned maritime property, is liable to have a serious impact on many businesses in Italy
operating in this sector, as well as on tourism and recreation as a whole in the country.

The directive requires areas of State-owned maritime property to be put out to auction and the concession awarded to
the highest bidder without considering such aspects as the specific character of beachside businesses, which can be
maintained only by means of continuous management of the areas concerned. In Italy there are some 30 000
businesses in the industry, nearly all of which have been managed by the same person for years, and they run the risk
of having to close down, causing many job losses.

Is there any scope for derogations?

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

_(21 November 2012)_

As it has been already pointed out in the answers to written questions E-5588/2009, E-3090/2010, E-3629/2010,
E-4502/2011, E-4064/2012 and E-1282/2012 ( [1] ), Article 12 of Directive 2006/123/EC (the ‘Services Directive’) ( [2] )
applies to authorisations limited in their number because of the scarcity of available natural resources or technical
capacity, as in the case of ‘beach concessions’ in Italy. In essence, Member States are required to apply a selection
procedure that guarantees the transparency and the equal treatment of potential candidates.

There is no possibility to derogate from that provision of the Services Directive. However, the Services Directive
allows authorities, in the selection procedures, to take into account the specificities of the Italian beaches, for example
criteria justified by reasons such as the protection of the environment and the preservation of cultural heritage,
provided that these criteria are applied in conformity with the general principles of non-discrimination, necessity and
proportionality.

Moreover, through the introduction of more transparency and competition the implementation of Article 12 and the
Services Directive in general is expected not only to increase the quality of beachside services, but also to be beneficial
for jobs and growth.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directive 2006/123/EC on Services in the internal market.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 83

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-008957/12**

**aan de Commissie**
**Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE)**

_(4 oktober 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Correcte naleving van artikel 9, lid 2, van de Visumcode door Nederland

Uit correspondentie met burgers blijkt dat Nederland bij het maken van een afspraak voor het indienen van een
aanvraag voor een visum, de in artikel 9, lid 2, van de Visumcode (Verordening (EG) nr. 810/2009) vermelde
wachttijd van „… in de regel ten hoogste twee weken…” overschrijdt.

Paragraaf 3.2.2 van het „Handboek Visumcode” (C(2010)1620) geeft aan dat: „The deadlines for obtaining an
appointment shall as a rule not exceed two weeks. The capacity of Member States' consulates to handle visa
applications should be adapted so that this deadline is complied with even during peak seasons.”

1. Kan de Commissie aangeven of (en zo ja, hoe vaak) de wachttijd voor een afspraak voor het indienen van een
aanvraag zoals aangegeven in artikel 9, lid 2, van de Visumcode in de Nederlandse praktijk de „… in de regel ten
hoogste twee weken…”, wordt overschreden?

2. Kan de Commissie aangeven welke maatregelen Nederland dient te nemen om te kunnen voldoen aan artikel 9,
lid 2, van de Visumcode en paragraaf 3.2.2 van het „Handboek Visumcode” dat stelt: „The capacity of Member States'
consulates to handle visa applications should be adapted so that this deadline is complied with even during peak
seasons”?

3. Is de Commissie bereid om Nederland aan te spreken op de overschrijding van de wachttijd voor een afspraak
voor het indienen van een visumaanvraag? Zo nee, waarom niet?

**Antwoord van mevrouw Malmström namens de Commissie**

_(28 november 2012)_

De Commissie heeft in de afgelopen maanden van onderdanen van derde landen en autoriteiten van derde landen
klachten ontvangen over stelselmatige buitensporig lange termijnen bij de afsprakensystemen voor het aanvragen
van een Schengenvisum bij sommige consulaten van EU-lidstaten. De Commissie heeft dit wijdverbreide probleem
dan ook grondig onderzocht aangezien dit een werkelijke en betreurenswaardige hinderpaal voor visumaanvragers

zou vormen.

Uit de bewoordingen van artikel 9, lid 2, van de Visumcode („in de regel”) volgt dat deze bepaling geen absolute
termijn van twee weken voor het krijgen van een afspraak oplegt. Het zou dan ook te ver gaan te beweren dat steeds
wanneer in een afzonderlijk geval een afspraak wordt gegeven die de periode van twee weken overschrijdt, dit een
inbreuk op artikel 9, lid 2, van de Visumcode inhoudt. Een situatie waarin bij een consulaat de wachttijd van twee
weken voor alle visumaanvragers gedurende het gehele jaar of bepaalde perioden van het jaar stelselmatig wordt
overschreden kan evenwel niet worden geduld aangezien dit naar de mening van de Commissie strijdig zou zijn met
artikel 9, lid 2.

De diensten van de Commissie zullen deze kwestie horizontaal met alle betrokken lidstaten aanpakken. Hiertoe heeft
zij gegevens uit alle beschikbare bronnen onderzocht, waaronder websites van consulaten, hun elektronische
afsprakensystemen, beschikbare verslagen en individuele klachten. De Commissie is op ogenblik bezig met het
afronden van haar analyse van deze kwestie en zal vervolgens als hoedster van de Verdragen stappen tegen lidstaten
ondernemen wanneer zij een inbreuk op artikel 9, lid 2, van de Visumcode vaststelt.

C 294 E / 84 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008957/12**

**to the Commission**
**Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE)**

_(4 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Compliance by the Netherlands with Article 9(2) of the Visa Code

Correspondence with members of the public indicates that, when arranging appointments for the lodging of visa
applications, the Netherlands is exceeding the time limit of ‘as a rule (…) two weeks’ laid down in Article 9(2) of the
Visa Code (Regulation (EC) No 810/2009).

Section 3.2.2 of the ‘Visa Code Handbook’ (C(2010)1620) indicates that: ‘The deadlines for obtaining an appointment
shall as a rule not exceed two weeks. The capacity of Member States’ consulates to handle visa applications should be
adapted so that this deadline is complied with even during peak seasons.’

1. Can the Commission indicate whether (and if so, how often) the time limit of ‘as a rule (…) two weeks’ for
obtaining an appointment to submit an application as indicated in Article 9(2) of the Visa Code is exceeded in the
Netherlands in practice?

2. Can the Commission indicate what measures the Nederland ought to take to be able to comply with Article 9(2)
of the Visa Code and Section 3.2.2 of the ‘Visa Code Handbook’, which states: ‘The capacity of Member States’
consulates to handle visa applications should be adapted so that this deadline is complied with even during peak
seasons’?

3. Will the Commission contact the Netherlands about the exceedance of the maximum waiting time for
appointments to submit visa applications? If not, why not?

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

_(28 November 2012)_

The Commission has received in the last months several complaints from third-country nationals and authorities of
third countries about systematic excessive delays in the appointment systems to lodge a Schengen visa application in
certain consulates of EU Member States. The Commission has therefore examined this widespread issue in-depth as it
would be a real, regrettable obstacle to visa applicants.

It flows from the wording of Article 9(2) of the Visa Code (‘as a rule’), that this provision does not impose an absolute
deadline of two weeks for having an appointment. It would thus go too far to state that each case of an appointment
given in an individual case beyond the two weeks period would constitute an infringement of Article 9(2) of the Visa
Code. However, a systematic waiting period longer than the two-weeks rule in a consulate for all visa applicants
throughout the year or certain periods of the year could not be tolerated as it would not in the Commission's view be
in compliance with Article 9(2).

The Commission services undertake to tackle this issue in a horizontal way with all Member States concerned. For this
purpose, the Commission has examined information from all available sources, including websites of consulates,
their electronic appointment systems, available reports and individual complaints. The Commission is finalising its
analysis of this issue and will then act in its role of guardian of the Treaties vis-à-vis Membes States where it finds
infringement of Article 9(2) of the Visa Code.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 85

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite P-008958/12**

**à la Commission**
**Véronique Mathieu (PPE)**

_(5 octobre 2012)_

_Objet:_ Commerce des intrants agricoles à l'intérieur de l'Union européenne

Le commerce d'engrais organiques entre la France et les Pays-Bas est avantageux, car les agriculteurs français
bénéficient d'engrais plus économique et plus respectueux des sols et les Pays-Bas écoulent leurs surplus.

Néanmoins, ce commerce n'est plus correctement réglementé. En effet, les agriculteurs rapportent que les prix
augmentent fortement et de manière injustifiée, la marge des intermédiaires étant notamment en cause.

Quelles solutions sont mises en place par la Commission afin de remédier aux pratiques abusives concernant le
commerce d'intrants agricoles à l'intérieur de l'Union européenne?

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

_(13 novembre 2012)_

La Commission, et plus particulièrement sa direction générale de la concurrence, examine toute plainte concrète
portant sur des pratiques anticoncurrentielles qui pourraient restreindre le jeu de la concurrence sur les marchés
concernés et qui affectent le commerce entre États membres.

Depuis le début de l'année, la direction générale de la concurrence dispose d'une task force spécifiquement chargée
des secteurs relevant de la chaîne agroalimentaire, y compris la fourniture d'engrais aux agriculteurs. Cette task force
examine les allégations de comportement anticoncurrentiel des acteurs de la chaîne d'approvisionnement alimentaire.
Toutefois, la simple augmentation des prix d'un produit donné ne dénote pas nécessairement l'existence de pratiques
anticoncurrentielles; la Commission aurait besoin de davantage d'informations sur les échanges des produits
concernés pour déterminer si le marché est réellement affecté par de telles pratiques.

La Commission tient par ailleurs à signaler l'existence du Réseau européen de la concurrence, au sein duquel elle
coopère avec les autorités nationales de concurrence des États membres. Conformément au règlement n° 1/2003 ( [1] ),
ces autorités sont aussi compétentes pour appliquer les articles 101 et 102 du TFUE lorsque les échanges à l'intérieur
de l'Union sont susceptibles d'être affectés.

En l'espèce, l'autorité nationale de concurrence française ou néerlandaise pourrait être mieux placée pour examiner les
informations disponibles.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) JO L 1 du 4.1.2003, p. 1.

C 294 E / 86 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-008958/12**

**to the Commission**
**Véronique Mathieu (PPE)**

_(5 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Trade in agricultural inputs within the EU

The trade in organic fertilisers between France and the Netherlands is mutually beneficial, as it enables French farmers
to purchase cheaper fertilisers which are better for their land and the Netherlands is able to clear its surplus stock.

Nevertheless, this trade is no longer properly regulated. Farmers are reporting sudden, unjustified price hikes,
principally due to intermediaries trying to increase their profit margin.

What solutions can the Commission apply in order to put an end to these abusive practices in relation to the trade in
agricultural inputs within the EU?

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

_(13 November 2012)_

The Commission, and specifically its Directorate-General for Competition, investigates any concrete complaint
concerning anti-competitive practices which could restrict competition in the relevant markets and which affect trade
between Member States.

Since the beginning of 2012 the Directorate-General for Competition has a Task Force dedicated to the sectors
integrating the food supply chain, including the supply of fertilisers to farmers. This Food Task Force is in charge of
investigating alleged anti-competitive practices by actors in the food supply chain. However, the mere increase of
prices for a given product is not necessarily a sign of anti-competitive practices; the Commission would require more
information about the trade of such products to assess whether there are indeed anti-competitive practices in this
market.

The Commisison would also like to make the reference to the European Competition Network (ECN) in which the
Commission cooperates with the National Competition Authorities (NCAs) of the Member States. In accordance with
Regulation No 1/2003 ( [1] ), the NCAs shall also apply Articles 101 and 102 of the TFEU in case intra-Union trade may
be affected.

In the case at hand, the National Competition Authority of France or the Netherlands might be better placed to
examine the available information.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 87

_(Tekstas lietuvių kalba)_

**Klausimas, į kurį atsakoma raštu, Nr. P-008959/12**

**Komisijai**
**Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D)**

_(2012 m. spalio 5 d.)_

_Tema:_ ES ir Baltarusijos santykiai po neseniai įvykusių Baltarusijos parlamento rinkimų

Neseniai įvykę Baltarusijos parlamento rinkimai parodė, kad vis dar esama didelių kliūčių tikrai demokratijai ir
žmogaus teisėms. Nurodoma, kad rinkimuose dalyvavo 74,3 % rinkėjų, tačiau plačiai paplito nuomonė, kad šis
skaičius gerokai padidintas, be to, gauta daug pranešimų apie rinkėjų bauginimą ir represijas prieš opozicines partijas,
nors rinkimai vyko dalyvaujant tarptautiniams stebėtojams. ESBO nustatė, kad rinkimai neatitiko tarptautinių
demokratijos standartų. ES taikomos tikslinės ekonominės sankcijos ir draudimas keliauti per jos teritoriją
Baltarusijos režimui turėjo tik nedidelį poveikį. Ekspertai yra kritikavę ES, kad ji įsitraukia į A. Lukašenkos žaidimus,
susijusius su politiniais kaliniais, ir pažymi, kad, susiedamas stipresnius ryšius su ES ir politinių kalinių paleidimą,
Baltarusijos režimas išvengia prievolės vykdyti su demokratinėmis reformomis susijusias sąlygas.

Kokių priemonių ketina imtis Komisija, kad dabartiniai ES ir Baltarusijos santykiai taptų atviresni ir skatintų
demokratijos normų Baltarusijoje sklaidą?

**Sąjungos vyriausiosios įgaliotinės ir Komisijos pirmininko pavaduotojos Catherine Ashton atsakymas**

**Komisijos vardu**
_(2012 m. lapkričio 15 d.)_

Po 2010 m. gruodį vykusių Baltarusijos prezidento rinkimų, kuomet buvo pažeisti rinkimų standartai, ir po vėliau
vykdytų represijų dar labiau sustiprėjo Prezidento A. Lukašenkos autoritarinis valdymas ir šalyje pablogėjo su
žmogaus teisėmis susijusi padėtis. 2012 m. rugsėjo mėn. vykę parlamento rinkimai neatitiko tarptautinių standartų.

ES politika pagrįsta principais ir turi aiškų tikslą – priimti Baltarusiją į demokratinių ir modernių valstybių šeimą. ES
tebevykdo kritiniu vertinimu pagrįstą santykių politiką ir ragina nekeliant jokių sąlygų paleisti bei reabilituoti visus
politinius kalinius, taip pat reikalauja, kad dvišaliams ES ir Baltarusijos santykiams ir toliau būtų taikoma pažangos
žmogaus teisių, teisinės valstybės ir demokratinių principų srityje sąlyga. ES tebėra pasirengusi pritaikyti ribojamąsias
priemones pagal būsimus pokyčius, kokie jie bebūtų. Be to, ES nekeičia pasiūlymo pradėti derybas dėl vizų režimo
supaprastinimo ir readmisijos susitarimų, kurie būtų naudingi plačiajai visuomenei.

ES toliau laikysis savo įsipareigojimų Baltarusijos pilietinei visuomenei tiek vykdydama paramos projektus, tiek
dalyvaudama Europos modernizavimo dialoge, prie kurio Baltarusijos valdžios institucijos taip pat kviečiamos
prisijungti ekspertų lygiu. ES techniniais bei diplomatiniais kanalais ir toliau palaiko darbinius santykius su
Baltarusija.

C 294 E / 88 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-008959/12**

**to the Commission**
**Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D)**

_(5 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ EU‐Belarus relations after the recent Belarusian parliamentary elections

The recent parliamentary elections in Belarus demonstrated that serious obstacles to a just democracy and human
rights still exist. The estimated voter turnout of 74.3% has been widely labelled as much too high, and reports of voter
intimidation and repression of opposition parties have been widespread despite the presence of international
observers. The OSCE stated that the elections had failed to meet international democratic standards. The targeted
economic sanctions and travel bans imposed by the EU have only had a limited effect on the regime in Belarus.
Experts have criticised the EU for engaging with Lukashenko in his games involving political prisoners, noting that by
linking enhanced relations with the EU to the release of political prisoners, the Belarusian regime is avoiding having to
satisfy conditions relating to democratic reform.

What steps does the Commission intend to take in order to shift current EU‐Belarus relations towards a more open
relationship that fosters the spread of democratic standards in Belarus?

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

_(15 November 2012)_

Since violations of electoral standards in the December 2010 Belarus presidential elections and the subsequent
crackdown in the aftermath of them, the authoritarian rule of President Lukashenka has been further strengthened
and the human rights situation in the country has worsened. The September 2012 parliamentary elections fell short
of international standards.

The EU’s policies are principled and with the clear goal of including Belarus in the family of democratic and modern
nations. The EU continues its policy of critical engagement and calls for the unconditional release and rehabilitation
of all political prisoners and insists that the development of bilateral relations between the EU and Belarus remain
conditional on progress in the field of human rights, the rule of law and democratic principles. The EU remains
prepared to adapt restrictive measures to future developments, whether positive or negative. The EU equally
maintains its offer to start negotiations on visa facilitation and readmission agreements to the benefit of the pubic at
large.

The EU will continue its engagement with Belarus civil society, be it through its assistance projects or through the
European Dialogue on Modernisation, in which the Belarusian authorities are also invited to participate at expert
level. The EU continues to maintain a working relationship with Belarus through technical and diplomatic
communication channels.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 89

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-008960/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Sylvana Rapti (S&D)**

_(5 Οκτωβρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Χρήση της νοηματικής γλώσσας στη μετάδοση ομιλιών και συντεντεύξεων Τύπου των θεσμικών φορέων της
Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης

Με αφορμή την ομιλία του Προέδρου της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής κ. Μπαρόζο στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο στις
12 Σεπτεμβρίου 2012 σχετικά με την κατάσταση στην Ένωση, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση Κωφαλάλων (EUD) απηύθυνε ένα
ερώτημα — διαμαρτυρία ( [1] ) προς τον κ. Πρόεδρο της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής σχετικά με την απουσία μετάδοσης της ομιλίας
του και στη νοηματική γλώσσα.

Το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο με τα ψηφίσματά του A2-302/87 της 17ης Ιουνίου 1988 και B4-095/98 της 18ης Ιουνίου
1998 αναγνωρίζει την ανάγκη για τη διερμηνεία της νοηματικής γλώσσας και καλεί την Επιτροπή να εξασφαλίσει ότι στις
δημόσιες συνεδριάσεις που διοργανώνουν τα θεσμικά όργανα της ΕΕ θα έχουν πρόσβαση οι κωφάλαλοι, εφόσον θα
προβλέπεται υπηρεσία διερμηνείας της γλώσσας σημάτων, όποτε τούτο ζητείται.

Το 2010, εκπρόσωποι όλων των εθνικών οργανώσεων κωφαλάλων των κρατών μελών της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης υπέγραψαν τη
Διακήρυξη των Βρυξελλών σχετικά με τις Νοηματικές Γλώσσες στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, η οποία καλούσε την Ευρωπαϊκή
Ένωση, λειτουργώντας ως παράδειγμα, να προσφέρει υπηρεσίες διερμηνείας στη νοηματική γλώσσα.

Η ίδια η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή, στην ανακοίνωσή της σχετικά με την Ευρωπαϊκή Στρατηγική για την Αναπηρία 2010-2020
(COM(2010)0636), αναφέρεται στη βελτίωση της πρόσβασης των κωφαλάλων σε υπηρεσίες, συμπεριλαμβανομένων των
οπτικοακουστικών, καθώς και στην εξέταση τρόπων για τη χρήση της νοηματικής γλώσσας στην αλληλεπίδραση των πολιτών
με τους θεσμούς της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.

Ερωτάται η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή αν έχει διερευνηθεί η δυνατότητα, σε συνεργασία με το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο και το
Ευρωπαϊκό Συμβούλιο, της ταυτόχρονης μετάδοσης στη νοηματική γλώσσα των σημαντικών ομιλιών και συνεντεύξεων
Τύπου των θεσμικών εκπροσώπων της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.

**Απάντηση της κας Reding εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(6 Δεκεμβρίου 2012)_

Η Επιτροπή είναι ενήμερη για την ανάγκη διερμηνείας στη νοηματική γλώσσα σε μια σειρά καταστάσεων στο πλαίσιο των
θεσμικών οργάνων της ΕΕ. Ειδικότερα, οι ανακοινώσεις της Επιτροπής, του Συμβουλίου και του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου
που προορίζονται για το ευρύ κοινό αξίζουν συστηματικότερη ταυτόχρονη μετάδοση στη νοηματική γλώσσα.

Η Γενική Διεύθυνση Διερμηνείας ανταποκρίνεται σε ειδικά αιτήματα που προέρχονται από τις υπηρεσίες της Επιτροπής ή
περιστασιακά από άλλα θεσμικά όργανα της ΕΕ για την παροχή διερμηνείας στη νοηματική γλώσσα. Κατά μέσο όρο, η Γενική
Διεύθυνση Διερμηνείας παρέχει ετησίως 15 ημέρες διερμηνείας αυτού του είδους. Κατά κανόνα, ζητείται διερμηνεία στη
διεθνή νοηματική γλώσσα. Περιστασιακά, υπάρχουν αιτήματα για εθνικές νοηματικές γλώσσες. Κατά κανόνα, αυτού του
είδους η διερμηνεία ζητείται για μεγάλες συνεδριάσεις στις οποίες μετέχουν αντιπροσωπείες από ολόκληρη την ΕΕ και συχνά
όταν συζητούνται ή περιλαμβάνονται στην ημερήσια διάταξη θέματα αναπηρίας ή κοινωνικής ένταξης.

Η Επιτροπή θα εφαρμόσει το προσεχές έτος ένα πιλοτικό σχέδιο που προτάθηκε από το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο για τη
διευκόλυνση της χρήσης της νοηματικής γλώσσας στα θεσμικά όργανα της ΕΕ. Οι προετοιμασίες θα ξεκινήσουν μόλις
εγκριθεί ο προϋπολογισμός.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2SFdmzEDNw.

C 294 E / 90 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008960/12**

**to the Commission**
**Sylvana Rapti (S&D)**

_(5 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Use of sign language in broadcasts of EU institution speeches and press interviews

Following the State of the Union address given by the President of the European Commission, Mr Barroso, at the
European Parliament on 12 September 2012, the European Union of the Deaf (EUD) challenged ( [1] ) the President over
the absence of a sign language interpretation of his address.

In Resolutions A2-302/87 of 17 June 1988 and B4-095/98 of 18 June 1998, the European Parliament recognises the
need for interpretation into sign languages and calls on the Commission to ensure that public meetings organised by
EU institutions are accessible to deaf people by providing a sign language interpretation service on request.

In 2010, representatives of all National Associations of the Deaf in the EU Member States signed the 2010 Brussels
Declaration on Sign Languages in the European Union which invited the EU to provide sign language interpretation
services within its institutions to model best practice.

In its communication on the European Disability Strategy 2010‐2020 (COM(2010)0636), the Commission refers to
improving access to services for the deaf, including audiovisual services, and exploring ways for citizens to use sign
language to interact with the EU institutions.

Will the Commission say if it has explored the possibility, in cooperation with the European Parliament and the
European Council, of simulcasting in sign language important speeches and press interviews given by representatives
of the EU institutions?

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

_(6 December 2012)_

The Commission is aware of the need for interpretation into sign languages in a multitude of situations within the EU
institutions. In particular the communications of the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament that are
destined for the general public merit more systematic simulcasting in sign language.

The Directorate-General for Interpretation responds to specific requests coming from the services of the Commission,
or occasionally from the other EU institutions, to provide sign-language interpretation. On average, the DirectorateGeneral for Interpretation provides 15 interpreter days per year of such interpretation. In general, the request is for
international sign language interpretation. Occasionally requests are received for national sign languages. In general,
such interpretation is requested for large meetings involving delegates from across the EU and most frequently where
issues such as disability or inclusion are being discussed or are included on the agenda.

The Commission will implement next year a pilot project proposed by the European Parliament to facilitate the use of
sign language in the EU institutions. Preparations will start as soon as the budget is approved.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2SFdmzEDNw.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 91

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-008961/12**

**a la Comisión (Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante)**
**Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), Nicole Kiil-Nielsen (Verts/ALE), Margrete Auken (Verts/ALE) y Jill Evans**

**(Verts/ALE)**
_(5 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ VP/HR — III Flotilla de la Libertad

El buque _Estelle_, que forma parte de la III Flotilla de la Libertad, navega desde La Spezia rumbo a Nápoles, su última
escala antes de dirigirse a Gaza. Según ha informado el canal de noticias israelí Arutz Sheva, el Ministerio de Asuntos
Exteriores israelí ha confirmado su exhortación a los países con ciudadanos a bordo del _Estelle_ a que no permitan que
la nave «se acerque» a Gaza.

Resultaría inaceptable que la UE cediera ante esta presión actuando en contra de sus propios ciudadanos y de su flota
marítima. Reviste especial gravedad que se adopten tales medidas con el fin de detener una actividad pacífica y
humanitaria que cuenta con un amplio apoyo público y político, como demuestra la petición de acabar con el
bloqueo ilegal e inhumano de Gaza suscrita por miles de personas de todo el mundo en los últimos días.

¿Ha recibido la alta representante alguna conminación por parte del Gobierno de Israel con objeto de impedir que la
III Flotilla de la Libertad zarpe de los puertos europeos? ¿Ha intercedido el cuerpo diplomático europeo para evitar
amenazas a algunos países de la UE relacionadas con esta cuestión? ¿Qué medidas adoptará la alta representante para
garantizar que la III Flotilla de la Libertad pueda navegar libremente y que los ciudadanos europeos que se encuentren
a bordo estén a salvo?

**Respuesta de la Alta Representante/Vicepresidenta Sra. Ashton en nombre de la Comisión**

_(4 de diciembre de 2012)_

La Alta Representante/Vicepresidenta no ha recibido dicha petición.

La UE ha expresado claramente, incluso en el marco del Cuarteto, su posición en relación con la navegación de
flotillas hacia Gaza. En junio de 2010, el Cuarteto declaró que todos los que deseasen entregar mercancías deberían
hacerlo a través de los canales establecidos, de forma que su cargamento pudiera inspeccionarse y transferirse a Gaza
por los pasos terrestres. También declaró que podía evitarse todo enfrentamiento innecesario y que todas las partes
deberían actuar de manera responsable a la hora de satisfacer las necesidades de la población de Gaza. En abril de
2011, en las conclusiones del Presidente del Comité de Enlace Ad Hoc (CEAH) se reiteró el llamamiento a todos los
agentes internacionales para que hicieran uso de los actuales pasos terrestres a fin de canalizar su ayuda a Gaza y para
que se abstuvieran de provocaciones.

Al mismo tiempo, Israel debe respetar el derecho internacional en su interacción con toda flotilla entrante. La UE
continúa pidiendo a Israel que levante su bloqueo, incluido el naval, a Gaza.

C 294 E / 92 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(Dansk udgave)_

**Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-008961/12**
**til Kommissionen (Næstformand / Højtstående repræsentant)**
**Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), Nicole Kiil-Nielsen (Verts/ALE), Margrete Auken (Verts/ALE) og Jill Evans**

**(Verts/ALE)**
_(5. oktober 2012)_

_Om:_ VP/HR — Freedom Flotilla III

Skibet Estelle, som er en del af Freedom Flotilla III, er undervejs fra La Spezia i retning mod Napoli — skibets sidste
stop, inden det sætter kursen mod Gaza. Det israelske udenrigsministerium har bekræftet, at det lægger pres på de
lande, hvis statsborgere er om bord på Estelle, for at de skal forhindre skibet i at »nærme sig« Gaza, som rapporteret af
den israelske nyhedskanal Arutz Sheva.

Det vil være uacceptabelt, hvis EU bøjer sig for et sådant pres og vender sig mod dets egne borgere og dets skibsflåde.
Det er særligt alvorligt, når sådanne foranstaltninger træffes med henblik på at standse en fredelig og humanitær
aktion, som har bred offentlig og politisk opbakning. En opbakning, der er demonstreret gennem den
underskriftsindsamling for at få standset den ulovlige og umenneskelige blokade af Gaza, som i de seneste dage har
modtaget tusindvis af underskrifter fra folk i hele verden.

Har den højtstående repræsentant modtaget en anmodning fra Israels regering om at forhindre, at Flotilla III afsejler
fra europæiske havne? Har det europæiske diplomatkorps taget affære for at forhindre, at der i denne forbindelse
fremsættes trusler mod visse EU‐lande? Hvilke skridt agter den højtstående repræsentant at tage for at sikre Flotilla III
retten til at sejle og ukrænkeligheden af de EU‐borgere, der er om bord?

**Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af den højtstående repræsentant/næstformand Catherine Ashton**

_(4. december 2012)_

Den højtstående repræsentant/næstformand har ikke modtaget en sådan anmodning.

EU har klart givet udtryk for sin holdning, hvad angår flotillesejlads til Gaza, bl.a. inden for rammerne af Kvartetten. I
juni 2010 udtalte Kvartetten, at alle, der ønsker at levere varer til Gaza, bør gøre dette gennem etablerede kanaler, så
lasten kan undersøges og overføres via etablerede grænseovergange. Den anførte desuden, at der ikke er behov for
unødige konfrontationer, og at alle parter bør handle ansvarligt i imødekommelsen af behovene hos befolkningen i
Gaza. I april 2011 gentog konklusionerne fra formanden for ad hoc-forbindelsesudvalget opfordringen til alle
internationale aktører om at gøre brug af de eksisterende grænseovergange for at kanalisere deres støtte til Gaza og
afstå fra provokationer.

Samtidig skal Israel respektere folkeretten i behandlingen af alle indkommende flotiller. EU fortsætter med at
opfordre Israel til at ophæve sin blokade af Gaza, herunder flådeblokaden.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 93

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008961/12**
**à la Commission (Vice-Présidente/Haute Représentante)**
**Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), Nicole Kiil-Nielsen (Verts/ALE), Margrete Auken (Verts/ALE) et Jill Evans**

**(Verts/ALE)**
_(5 octobre 2012)_

_Objet:_ VP/HR — Flottille de la Liberté III

Le navire _Estelle_, qui fait partie de la Flottille de la Liberté III, a quitté La Spezia et se dirige vers Naples, sa dernière
escale avant d'atteindre Gaza. Le ministère israélien des affaires étrangères a confirmé qu'il demandait instamment aux
pays dont les ressortissants sont à bord de l' _Estelle_ d'empêcher le navire d'«approcher» Gaza, comme le déclare la
chaîne d'information israélienne Arutz Sheva.

Il serait inacceptable que l'Union européenne cède à une telle pression, qui s'exercerait sur ses propres citoyens et sa
flotte maritime. Elle est d'autant plus grave qu'elle vise à bloquer une action pacifique et humanitaire jouissant d'un
large soutien public et politique, qui s'est traduit par la pétition, signée récemment dans le monde entier par des
milliers de personnes, appelant à mettre fin au blocus illégal et inhumain de Gaza.

La Vice-Présidente/Haute Représentante a-t-elle reçu du gouvernement israélien une demande visant à empêcher la
Flottille III de quitter les ports européens? Le corps diplomatique européen est-il intervenu pour éviter que des
menaces en ce sens soient dirigées contre certains pays européens? Quelles initiatives la haute représentante prendrat-elle pour garantir la liberté de navigation de la Flottille III et l'intégrité des citoyens européens qui sont à bord?

**Réponse donnée par la Vice‐présidente/Haute Représentante Ashton au nom de la Commission**

_(4 décembre 2012)_

La Vice‐présidente/Haute Représentante n'a reçu aucune demande de ce genre.

L'UE a clairement exprimé sa position en ce qui concerne le voyage des flottilles vers Gaza, notamment dans le cadre
du Quartet. En juin 2010, le Quartet a déclaré que tous ceux qui souhaitent fournir des marchandises doivent utiliser
les canaux établis afin que les cargaisons puissent être inspectées et transférées en empruntant les points de passage
terrestres vers la bande de Gaza. Il a déclaré en outre que les confrontations sont inutiles et que toutes les parties
doivent agir de façon responsable lorsqu'il s'agit de répondre aux besoins de la population de Gaza. En avril 2011,
dans ses conclusions, la présidence du comité de liaison ad hoc (AHLC) a rappelé son appel à tous les acteurs
internationaux afin qu'ils empruntent les points de passage terrestres pour apporter leur aide à Gaza, et qu'ils
s'abstiennent de toute provocation.

Parallèlement, Israël doit respecter le droit international dès lors qu'il s'agit de l'arrivée de d'une flottille. L'UE continue
d'appeler Israël à lever son blocus de Gaza, y compris le blocus maritime.

C 294 E / 94 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008961/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**
**Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), Nicole Kiil-Nielsen (Verts/ALE), Margrete Auken (Verts/ALE) and Jill**

**Evans (Verts/ALE)**

_(5 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Freedom Flotilla III

The ship _Estelle_, which is part of Freedom Flotilla III, is sailing from La Spezia in the direction of Naples, its last stop
before heading to Gaza. The Israeli news channel Arutz Sheva has reported that the Israeli Foreign Ministry has
confirmed it is pressing countries whose citizens are on board the _Estelle_ not to allow the ship to ‘approach’ Gaza.

It would be unacceptable for the EU to yield to such pressure, turning against its own citizens and its maritime fleet. It
is especially serious when such actions are taken to stop a peaceful and humanitarian action that has wide public and
political support, as demonstrated by the petition to end the illegal and inhumane blockade of Gaza, which has been
signed by thousands of people around the world in recent days.

Has the High Representative received a request from the Government of Israel to prevent Freedom Flotilla III
departing from European ports? Has the European diplomatic corps interceded to prevent threats connected to this
being made to some EU countries? What steps will the High Representative take to ensure that Freedom Flotilla III can
sail freely and that the European citizens on board are safe?

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

_(4 December 2012)_

The High Representative/Vice-President has received no such request.

The EU has clearly expressed its position as regards the sailing of flotillas to Gaza, including in the framework of the
Quartet. In June 2010 the Quartet stated that all those wishing to deliver goods should do so through established
channels so that their cargo can be inspected and transferred via land crossings into Gaza. It also stated there is no
need for unnecessary confrontations, and all parties should act responsibly in meeting the needs of the people of
Gaza. In April 2011 the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee (AHLC) Chair’s Conclusions reiterated a call on all international
actors to make use of the existing land crossings to channel their support to Gaza, and to abstain from provocations.

At the same time, Israel must abide by international law when dealing with any incoming flotilla The EU continues to
call on Israel to lift its blockade of Gaza, including the naval blockade.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 95

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008962/12**

**to the Commission**
**Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE)**

_(5 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ EU energy cooperation with the Arab peninsula

The Gulf Cooperation Council States have in the past shown interest in cooperating with the EU on the development
of renewable energy sources.

Can the Commission state what has been done to turn this intent to cooperate on renewable energy into concrete
action?

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

_(22 November 2012)_

The EU established bilateral relations with the GCC countries through a cooperation agreement signed in 1988. Its
objective is to contribute to a strengthening of relations between the two regions and to broaden and consolidate
economic and technical cooperation, including in the field of energy. In the 2010 Ministerial Meeting in Luxembourg,
ministers endorsed the ‘Joint Action Programme’ which builds on the good cooperation that was already ongoing,
e.g. in the fields of clean energy and research and development, with the intent of strengthening the cooperation
efforts.

Work has been progressing and the EU-funded Clean Energy Network has been set-up, which focuses amongst other
topics on cooperation on the use of renewable energy sources. In April 2011, the GCC authorities appointed an
official partner for the Network in the Gulf: the Masdar Institute. At the EU Sustainable Energy Week in Brussels in
June this year, the EU-GCC Clean Energy Network organised a high-level event entitled ‘Clean Energy for the Future:
How to Foster Cooperation between the EU and the Gulf Region’. More information about the activities in the
framework of the EU-GCC Clean Energy Network can be found at http://www.eugcc-cleanergy.net/.

C 294 E / 96 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008963/12**

**to the Commission**
**Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE)**

_(5 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Carbon capture and OPEC

The EU and OPEC have enjoyed years of fruitful exchange through the EU‐OPEC Energy Dialogue. Carbon capture
and storage (CCS) has previously been noted as an area of common interest (EU‐OPEC Round Table on Carbon
Capture and Storage, 31 October 2008).

However, in light of the fact that CCS was not mentioned at the ninth meeting of the EU‐OPEC Energy Dialogue, can
the Commission outline what the current state of EU‐OPEC cooperation on CCS is?

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

_(22 November 2012)_

While Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) was not addressed specifically at the last meeting of the EU-OPEC Energy
Dialogue, it constitutes an important topic for mutual cooperation, among others within the discussions on the EU
Energy Roadmap 2050 ( [1] ). In this context the EU continues to exchange views with OPEC on necessary steps and
desired developments to bring CCS to the market.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011)885 final.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 97

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-008965/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(5 Οκτωβρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Αναλφαβητισμός στην ΕΕ

Παρά τους διακηρυγμένους στόχους της Στρατηγικής Ευρώπη 2020 οι χαμηλές δεξιότητες ή ακόμα και ο αναλφαβητισμός
στην ΕΕ παραμένουν σε πολύ υψηλά επίπεδα (περίπου 26,6 % για τα αγόρια και 13,3 % για τα κορίτσια).

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

1. Διαθέτει συγκριτικά στοιχεία σχετικά με το ποσοστό του αναλφαβητισμού στα κράτη μέλη της ΕΕ; Ποια η περίπτωση
της Ελλάδας;

2. Είναι σε θέση να με ενημερώσει για τις πρωτοβουλίες της Επιτροπής για την καταπολέμηση του αναλφαβητισμού στα
κράτη μέλη; Υπάρχουν μετρήσιμα αποτελέσματα που να επιβεβαιώνουν την επιτυχία των προγραμμάτων αυτών;

3. Διαθέτει η Επιτροπή στοιχεία σχετικά με τη σύνδεση των χαμηλών δεξιοτήτων και των ευκαιριών για εργασία; Είναι σε
θέση να μου τα παραθέσει;

**Απάντηση της κ. Βασιλείου εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(29 Νοεμβρίου 2012)_

Το 2011 σχεδόν 73 εκατομμύρια ενήλικες (25-64 ετών) στην Ευρώπη είχαν ολοκληρώσει μόνο το επίπεδο πρώτου κύκλου
δευτεροβάθμιας εκπαίδευσης ή και χαμηλότερο και πολλοί εξ αυτών εμφανίζουν χαμηλές δεξιότητες αλφαβητισμού. Η πιο
πρόσφατη έρευνα PISA (Πρόγραμμα Διεθνούς Αξιολόγησης Μαθητών) που αφορά τους εφήβους καταδεικνύει μια βελτίωση
στην επίδοσή τους σε πολλά κράτη μέλη. Στις 18 χώρες της ΕΕ που συμμετείχαν στην εν λόγω έρευνα, το ποσοστό των
μαθητών που είχαν χαμηλές επιδόσεις στην ανάγνωση σημείωσε πτώση από 21,3% το 2000 σε 20% το 2009. Στην Ελλάδα,
το ποσοστό των ατόμων με χαμηλές επιδόσεις στην έρευνα PISA ήταν 24,4% το 2000 και μειώθηκε στο 21,3% το 2009.

Η ΕΕ στηρίζει τα έργα για τον αλφαβητισμό μέσω των δράσεων Comenius (για τα σχολεία) και Grundtvig (για τους ενήλικες)
του προγράμματος διά βίου μάθησης. Η Επιτροπή ξεκίνησε, επίσης, την εκστρατεία με τίτλο «Η Ευρώπη αγαπά το διάβασμα»
με σκοπό την προώθηση της ανάγνωσης για ψυχαγωγικούς σκοπούς και δημοσίευσε πρόσφατα μια έκθεση της ομάδας
υψηλού επιπέδου για τον αλφαβητισμό, η οποία υπέβαλε συστάσεις σχετικά με το πώς θα γεφυρωθεί το χάσμα στο εν λόγω
πρόβλημα. Τον Σεπτέμβριο, η Επιτροπή δημιούργησε νέες ιστοσελίδες αφιερωμένες σε θέματα αλφαβητισμού με σκοπό να
επισημάνει τις σχετικές δράσεις τόσο σε επίπεδο ΕΕ όσο και σε επίπεδο κρατών μελών:

http://ec.europa.eu/education/literacy/index_en.htm

Η ετήσια έρευνα εργατικού δυναμικού (ΕΕΔ) περιέχει τακτικές επικαιροποιήσεις σχετικά με τις τάσεις απασχόλησης. Τα
αποτελέσματα του 2011 καταδεικνύουν ότι τα ακαδημαϊκά προσόντα εξακολουθούν να αποτελούν την καλύτερη επένδυση
ενάντια στην ανεργία. Το ποσοστό ανεργίας στις ηλικίες 25-64 ετών στην ΕΕ ήταν 14,7% για αυτούς που διέθεταν δίπλωμα
επιπέδου πρώτου κύκλου δευτεροβάθμιας εκπαίδευσης ή και χαμηλότερο· 7,6% για αυτούς που διέθεταν δίπλωμα ανώτερης
δευτεροβάθμιας εκπαίδευσης· και 5% για όσους διέθεταν δίπλωμα τριτοβάθμιας εκπαίδευσης. Για στοιχεία ειδικά ανά χώρα
επισκεφτείτε την ιστοσελίδα:

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database?
_piref458_1209540_458_211810_211810.node_code=tps00066

C 294 E / 98 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008965/12**

**to the Commission**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(5 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Illiteracy in the EU

In spite of the stated targets of the Europe 2020 Strategy, the number of low-skilled and even illiterate persons in
the EU remains very high (around 26.6% for boys and 13.3% for girls).

Will the Commission answer the following:

1. Does it have any comparative data on the percentage of illiteracy in the EU Member States? What is the
situation in Greece?

2. Is it in a position to provide information on the Commission’s initiatives to combat illiteracy in the Member
States? Are there any measurable results to confirm the success of these initiatives?

3. Does the Commission have any data on the link between low skills and job opportunities? Is it in a position to
provide this information?

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

_(29 November 2012)_

In 2011, across Europe approximately 73 million adults (25-64 year-olds) had reached only lower secondary
education level or less, and many of them have weak literacy skills. For adolescents the most recent PISA-study
(Programme for International Student Assessment) shows an improvement in performance in many Member States.
In the 18 EU countries participating, the share of low achieving pupils in reading declined from 21.3% in 2000 to
20% in 2009. In Greece the percentage of low achievers in PISA was 24.4% in 2000 and reduced to 21.3% in 2009.

The EU supports literacy projects within the Comenius (schools) and Grundtvig (adults) actions of the Lifelong
Learning programme. The Commission has also started a ‘Europe loves reading’ campaign to promote reading for
pleasure and has recently published the report of the high-level group on literacy which put forward
recommendations on how to bridge the literacy gap. In September, the Commission launched new webpages
dedicated to literacy issues, to highlight relevant actions both at EU and Member State levels:
http://ec.europa.eu/education/literacy/index_en.htm

The annual Labour Force Survey (LFS) contains a regular update on employment trends. The 2011 results show that
educational qualifications are still the best insurance against unemployment. The unemployment rate of 25-64 year
olds in the EU was 14.7% among those with a qualification on the level of lower secondary or less; with an upper
secondary qualification, 7.6%; and with a tertiary qualification it was 5%. For country-specific data:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database?
_piref458_1209540_458_211810_211810.node_code=tps00066

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 99

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-008966/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(5 Οκτωβρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Παραβίαση δικαιωμάτων των παιδιών στη Συρία

Με έκκλησή της στις 25.9.2012 προς τον ΟΗΕ, η μη κυβερνητική οργάνωση «Σώστε τα παιδιά» ζήτησε να επισπευτεί η
έρευνα για τις παραβιάσεις των δικαιωμάτων των παιδιών στη Συρία, τονίζοντας ότι πολλά από αυτά έχουν υποστεί ψυχικά
τραύματα, καθώς έχουν υπάρξει μάρτυρες δολοφονιών, βασανιστηρίων και άλλων αγριοτήτων. Η οργάνωση «Σώστε τα
παιδιά» τόνισε ότι της αρνήθηκαν την πρόσβαση στη Συρία, αλλά επεσήμανε ότι «οι μαρτυρίες των παιδιών στην πλειονότητά
τους επαληθεύουν τις παραβιάσεις στις οποίες έχουν αναφερθεί τους τελευταίους μήνες τα Ηνωμένα Έθνη και οι οργανώσεις
των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων».

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

1. Βρίσκεται σε επαφή με το Συριακό Παρατηρητήριο των Ανθρωπίνων Δικαιωμάτων προκειμένου να διαπιστώσει και να
έχει επίγνωση των παραβιάσεων των δικαιωμάτων των παιδιών στη Συρία; Σημειώνεται ότι μεταξύ των νεκρών είναι
περισσότερα από 2 000 παιδιά μέχρι σήμερα.

2. Έχει ή σκοπεύει να καταστρώσει σχέδιο δράσης προκειμένου να συμβάλει στην προστασία των παιδιών στη χώρα; Ποια
θα είναι ακριβώς τα χαρακτηριστικά του μηχανισμού αυτού, ποιες δράσεις προβλέπονται και με πόσα κονδύλια
αναμένεται να ενισχυθεί;

**Απάντηση της Ύπατης εκπροσώπου/Αντιπροέδρου κας Ashton εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(4 Δεκεμβρίου 2012)_

H ΕΕ είναι σε επαφή με το Παρατηρητήριο της Συρίας για τα δικαιώματα του ανθρώπου. Παρότι είναι αδύνατον να ελεγχθούν
τα αριθμητικά στοιχεία, η ΕΕ δυστυχώς γνωρίζει ότι μεταξύ των νεκρών στη συριακή σύγκρουση υπάρχει μεγάλος αριθμός
παιδιών. Η ΕΕ καταδικάζει έντονα τις βίαιες επιθέσεις και τις εκτεταμένες παραβιάσεις των δικαιωμάτων του ανθρώπου που
επιβάλει το συριακό καθεστώς στον πληθυσμό, περιλαμβανομένων των παιδιών. Απηύθυνε έκκληση για πλήρη διερεύνηση
των πορισμάτων της ανεξάρτητης διεθνούς ερευνητικής επιτροπής, η οποία επισήμανε εγκλήματα κατά της ανθρωπότητας
και επιβεβαίωσε ότι οι δράστες τέτοιου είδους εικαζομένων εγκλημάτων πρέπει να προσαχθούν στη δικαιοσύνη.

Η ΕΕ ζήτησε επανειλημμένα από το καθεστώς να θέσει αμέσως τέλος στη βία και να διασφαλίσει την απρόσκοπτη πρόσβαση
των ανθρωπιστικών οργανώσεων προκειμένου να διευκολυνθεί η παροχή βοήθειας σε όσους την έχουν ανάγκη. Προκειμένου
να αυξήσει την πίεση προς το συριακό καθεστώς για να συμμορφωθεί προς τα αιτήματα αυτά, η ΕΕ επέκτεινε τα περιοριστικά
της μέτρα 19 φορές από τον Μάιο του 2011. Συνεχίζει να ασκεί πίεση για την ανάληψη σθεναρής δράσης των ΗΕ στη Συρία,
εκφράζοντας την πλήρη υποστήριξή της προς τον κοινό ειδικό απεσταλμένο των ΗΕ και του Αραβικού Συνδέσμου,
κ. Lakhdar Brahimi. Η συνολική ανθρωπιστική βοήθεια και λοιπή βοήθεια προς τους Σύριους εντός και εκτός Συρίας,
περιλαμβανομένων των προσφύγων στις γειτονικές χώρες, ανήλθε σε 266 εκατομ. ευρώ. Η ΕΕ είναι ο πρώτος χορηγός
ανθρωπιστικής βοήθειας στην κρίση της Συρίας. Η υποστήριξη αυτή διοχετεύεται μέσω οργανισμών των ΗΕ,
περιλαμβανομένων της UNHCR και της Unicef, καθώς και άλλων επιχειρησιακών εταίρων.

Η προστασία και προώθηση των δικαιωμάτων του παιδιού αποτελεί πρωταρχικό στόχο των εξωτερικών και εσωτερικών
πολιτικών της ΕΕ. Συγκεκριμένα, η ΕΕ προσδίδει υψηλή προτεραιότητα στη βοήθεια των παιδιών που αντιμετωπίζουν ένοπλες
συγκρούσεις. Οι κατευθυντήριες γραμμές της ΕΕ όσον αφορά τα παιδιά που θίγονται από ένοπλες συγκρούσεις δεσμεύουν
την ΕΕ να αντιμετωπίσει με συνεκτικό τρόπο τις επιπτώσεις των ένοπλων συγκρούσεων στα παιδιά.

C 294 E / 100 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008966/12**

**to the Commission**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(5 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Violation of children's rights in Syria

In its appeal on 25 September 2012 to the UN, the non-governmental organisation ‘Save the Children’ called for an
investigation into the violation of children’s rights in Syria, stressing that many of these children have suffered mental
traumas as they have witnessed murders, torture and other savage acts. Save the Children stated that it was denied
access to Syria but stressed that ‘the accounts of the majority of children confirm the violations reported by the United
Nations and human rights organisations over the last few months’.

In view of the above, will the Commission answer the following:

1. Is it in contact with the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights for the purpose of keeping informed of the
violations of children’s rights in Syria? Does it agree that more than 2 000 children are among those who have
died to date?

2. Does it have or does it intend to draw up an action plan to help protect children in the country? What would
the precise characteristics of this mechanism be, what actions are planned and how much funding will be
provided for it?

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

_(4 December 2012)_

The EU is in contact with the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Although numbers are impossible to verify,
the EU is sadly aware that there are a great number of children among those who have died in the Syrian conflict. The
EU has strongly condemned the brutal attacks and widespread human rights violations inflicted by the Syrian regime
on its population, including children. It has called for a full investigation of the findings of the Independent
International Commission of Inquiry, which has pointed to crimes against humanity, and affirmed that the
perpetrators of such alleged crimes must be brought to justice.

The EU has repeatedly urged the regime to immediately end the violence and grant unimpeded access to
humanitarian organisations to enable them to assist those in need. To increase pressure on the Syrian regime to
comply with these demands, the EU has extended its restrictive measures 19 times since May 2011. It continues to
press for strong UN action on Syria, expressing full support to UN-Arab League Joint Special Representative Lakhdar
Brahimi. The total EU humanitarian aid and other aid to Syrians inside and outside Syria including refugees in
neighbouring countries has reached EUR 266 million. The EU is the first humanitarian donor to the Syrian crisis. This
support is channelled through UN agencies including UNHCR and Unicef, as well as other implementing partners.

The protection and promotion of the rights of the child is an overarching objective in the EU's external and internal
policies. In particular, the EU accords a high priority to helping children facing armed conflicts. The EU Guidelines on
Children Affected by Armed Conflicts commit the EU to addressing this issue in a comprehensive manner.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 101

_(българска версия)_

**Въпрос с искане за писмен отговор E-009023/12**

**до Комисията**
**Mariya Gabriel (PPE)**

_(8 октомври 2012 г.)_

_Относно:_ Подновяване на средствата за програма „Еразъм“

Програма „Еразъм“ подпомага увеличаването на мобилността във висшето образование, като целта ѝ е да насърчи
общоевропейския подход в сферата на висшето образование. Като предлага на студентите достъп до други държави и
култури, програмата обогатява техния учебен опит. В същото време тя насърчава една по-европейски мислеща, гъвкава
и мобилна работна сила, която подобрява конкурентоспособността на Европа и нейния потенциал за иновации.

От бюджетната комисия в ЕП съобщават, че средствата по програмата са изчерпани поради бюджетни съкращения за
2012 г.

1. Какви мерки смята да предприеме ЕК, за да продължи политиката на младежка мобилност, по-конкретно в
сферата на висшето образование и научните изследвания?

2. Какви средства се предвиждат за програмата „Еразъм“ за периода 2014‐2020 г.?

3. Смята ли ЕК да открие нова програма „Еразъм“ за преподаватели?

**Съвместен отговор, даден от г-жа Василиу от името на Комисията**

_(7 декември 2012 г.)_

На 23 октомври 2012 г. Комисията поиска от държавите членки и от Парламента да гласуват отпускането на
допълнителен бюджет в размер на 9 млрд. евро за плащания, така че наличните бюджетни кредити за плащания да
съответстват по-точно на задълженията, които вече бяха гласувани от бюджетния орган при приемането на бюджета за
2012 г. По-специално Комисията поиска допълнителни средства в размер на 180 млн. евро за програмата за учене през
целия живот, с които следва да се гарантира, че ще могат да бъдат посрещнати потребностите от плащания до края на
годината. Според изчисленията делът за програма „Еразъм“ възлиза на 90 млн. евро.

Студентите, които заминават в чужбина по програма „Еразъм“ през първия семестър на академичната 2012‐2013 г., не
би следвало да имат никакви проблеми, тъй като 99 % от наличните през 2012 г. бюджетни кредити за плащания вече
са изплатени на националните агенции в държавите членки, които изпълняват програмата. Ако, обаче, коригираният
бюджет не бъде гласуван от бюджетния орган, през 2013 г. вероятно ще има сериозни проблеми ( [1] ).

Реакциите в европейската и дори в световната преса са показателни сами по себе си: в този период на неприемливо
висока младежка безработица предоставянето на възможности за обучение и мобилност за младите хора в Европа може
да обогати значително техния опит, да увеличи шансовете им да бъдат наети на работа и да промени живота им в
положителна насока. Поради тази причина е жизненоважно да не се прекъсва нито националното, нито получаваното
от ЕС финансиране за студентите.

За бъдещата програма „Еразъм за всички“ (2014‐2020 г.) Комисията предложи бюджет в размер на 19 млрд. евро ( [2] ), с
който би могло да се предостави подкрепа по-специално за мобилността на около 2,2 млн. студенти (включително в/от
трети държави), както и над 1 млн. служители от всички сектори на образованието.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) На 23 октомври Европейската комисия публикува подробно обяснение на ситуацията: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-1137_bg.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) По текущи цени. Предвижда се близо 2 млрд. от тези 19 млрд. евро да бъдат получени от инструменти в областта на развитието и външните

отношения.

C 294 E / 102 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-008967/12**

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

_(5 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Situación presupuestaria del Programa Erasmus

El Programa Erasmus, con 25 años de trayectoria, es uno de los programas más efectivos en la consolidación de la
idea de una Europa unida, tolerante y solidaria. Bajo la cobertura Erasmus, 3 millones de jóvenes han accedido a
intercambios formativos y de convivencia en los diferentes Estados miembros, lo que ha contribuido a mejorar la
capacidad profesional y lingüística de la juventud europea y ha consolidado los valores que representa la UE y su
acervo comunitario, rompiendo fronteras y abriendo puentes intereuropeos. Beneficiaria del programa en 1993-94,
puedo asegurar, por haberlo vivido, que es uno de los programas más beneficiosos para la construcción europea.

La Comisión ha informado públicamente que está en riesgo la financiación de este programa y, por lo tanto, el pago
de la beca a unos 213 000 estudiantes para lo que queda de año. Además, la Comisión ha declarado que ha tenido que
recurrir a una transferencia interna de 420 millones de euros desde otras partidas hacia el Erasmus. Según diversas
informaciones publicadas, citando fuentes del Ejecutivo de la UE, esto se debe a que el presupuesto inicialmente
aprobado era insuficiente para atender a la demanda y, por otro lado, a que los Estados miembros no están haciendo
frente a sus compromisos financieros con este programa concreto para el presente año.

Teniendo en cuenta la importancia del Programa Erasmus, máxime en una situación de aguda crisis económica que
hace más necesario que nunca una decidida apuesta por la educación y formación:

1. ¿Considera la Comisión que está garantizada la continuidad del Programa Erasmus para este año y para los
venideros?

2. ¿Cómo va a garantizar la Comisión que los estudiantes afectados reciban el 100 % de la beca en caso de que los
Estados miembros no aporten el financiamiento que les corresponde?

3. ¿Cuál es el déficit que acumula el Programa Erasmus?

4. ¿Cuál es el número de estudiantes afectados por la insuficiencia presupuestaria?

5. ¿Qué presupuesto anual estima la Comisión suficiente para cubrir la demanda que genera este programa?

**Respuesta conjunta de la Sra. Vassiliou en nombre de la Comisión**

_(7 de diciembre de 2012)_

El 23 de octubre de 2012, la Comisión pidió a los Estados miembros y al Parlamento Europeo que aprobaran un
presupuesto adicional de 9 000 millones de euros para pagos a fin de que los créditos de pago disponibles se
adecuaran más al nivel de compromisos ya aprobados por la Autoridad Presupuestaria en el presupuesto de 2012. En
particular, la Comisión solicitó un importe de 180 millones de euros adicionales para el programa de aprendizaje
permanente, que debe asegurar el cumplimiento de las necesidades de pago hasta final de año. La cuota
correspondiente a Erasmus puede estimarse en 90 millones de euros.

No se prevé que los estudiantes Erasmus que se desplacen al extranjero en el primer semestre del año académico
2012-2013 tengan problemas, ya que un 99 % de los créditos de pago disponibles en 2012 ya han sido abonados a
las agencias nacionales en los Estados miembros que aplican el programa. No obstante, si la Autoridad Presupuestaria
no aprobara el presupuesto, podría haber graves problemas en 2013 ( [1] ).

Las reacciones en la prensa de toda Europa, e incluso de todo el mundo, hablan por sí solas: en esta época, en la que
hay un nivel de desempleo juvenil inaceptablemente alto, el hecho de proporcionar a los jóvenes europeos
oportunidades de aprendizaje y de movilidad en universidades o empresas en el extranjero puede ampliar
considerablemente su experiencia, aumentar su empleabilidad y mejorar su vida. Por ello es absolutamente decisivo
no interrumpir la financiación nacional o de la UE a los estudiantes.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) El 23 de octubre la Comisión Europea publicó una explicación detallada de la situación: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-1137_en.htm

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 103

La Comisión ha propuesto un presupuesto de 19 000 millones de euros ( [2] ) para el futuro programa Erasmus para
todos (2014-2020), que podrían servir, en particular, para financiar la movilidad de aproximadamente 2,2 millones
de estudiantes (también a/desde terceros países), y de más de 1 millón de personas que trabajan en todos los sectores
de la educación.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Expresados en precios corrientes. De esos 19 000 millones de euros, se estima que casi 2 000 millones proceden de instrumentos en el ámbito del
desarrollo y las relaciones exteriores.

C 294 E / 104 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009113/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Sergio Berlato (PPE)**

_(10 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Rischio concreto di prosciugamento delle risorse finanziarie per il programma Erasmus

Il programma dell'Unione europea Erasmus per l'interscambio degli studenti universitari è oggi uno dei maggiori
successi dell'Unione europea, ed è il più conosciuto e il più accessibile tra i programmi di finanziamento europei. Dal
suo lancio, nel 1987, il numero dei giovani europei che hanno partecipato ogni anno al programma è aumentato di
oltre 65 volte. In 25 anni di attività, oltre 2 milioni di studenti hanno potuto usufruire di questa forma di scambio tra
studenti e docenti in varie università europee. Secondo stime recenti riferite all'anno accademico 2010-2011,
218.266 studenti europei hanno potuto beneficiare, per la durata di uno o due semestri, di un posto all'estero presso
una struttura associata al proprio istituto di studi.

Tuttavia, a causa del perdurare della crisi economico-finanziaria, in questi tempi di austerità fiscale i governi europei
hanno limitato la spesa dell'Unione europea per il 2012 a 129 miliardi di EUR, vale a dire 4 miliardi in meno rispetto
alle richieste della Commissione e del Parlamento europeo.

Le conseguenze di questo taglio di bilancio sono drammatiche per il futuro del programma Erasmus: le risorse
finanziarie per sostenere questo programma europeo si stanno esaurendo e, in assenza di un intervento rapido e
concreto, nel 2013 Erasmus non disporrà di sovvenzioni sufficienti e sarà condannato inevitabilmente a scomparire.

Ciò premesso, si interroga la Commissione per sapere:

1. se essa non ritenga che il programma Erasmus rappresenti la più grande conquista dell'Unione europea e che,
pertanto, vada difeso con determinazione;

2. quali azioni concrete intenda attuare per salvare dalla scomparsa il programma in oggetto;

3. considerato, inoltre, che non devono essere i giovani a pagare il prezzo delle misure di austerità dei governi
europei, e alla luce del costante peggioramento dei dati sulla disoccupazione dei giovani di età inferiore ai 35
anni (il 25 % in Europa e circa il 36 % in Italia), se essa non consideri inaccettabile qualsiasi ipotesi di riduzione
dei finanziamenti destinati a questo programma?

**Risposta congiunta di Androulla Vassiliou a nome della Commissione**

_(7 dicembre 2012)_

Il 23 ottobre 2012 la Commissione ha chiesto agli Stati membri e al Parlamento di votare un bilancio addizionale di 9
miliardi di euro per pagamenti, in modo da far sì che gli stanziamenti di pagamento disponibili corrispondano più da
vicino al livello degli impegni già votati dall'autorità di bilancio nel bilancio 2012. In particolare, la Commissione ha
chiesto ulteriori 180 milioni di euro per il Programma di apprendimento permanente che dovrebbero consentire di
soddisfare le esigenze di pagamento fino alla fine dell'anno. La parte relativa a Erasmus può essere stimata a 90
milioni di euro.

Gli studenti Erasmus che si recano all'estero nel primo semestre dell'anno accademico 2012-2013 non dovrebbero
incontrare problemi poiché il 99 % degli stanziamenti di pagamento disponibile nel 2012 è già stato pagato alle
agenzie nazionali negli Stati membri che attuano il programma. Se il bilancio modificato non sarà però votato
dall'autorità di bilancio, si registreranno probabilmente gravi problemi nel 2013 ( [1] ).

Le reazioni sulla stampa in Europa e nel mondo intero parlano da sole: in questo periodo di disoccupazione giovanile
inaccettabilmente elevata il fatto di offrire ai giovani europei opportunità di apprendimento e di mobilità in università
o imprese all'estero può ampliare in modo significativo le loro esperienze, accrescere la loro occupabilità e cambiare
in meglio la loro vita. Questo è il motivo per cui è assolutamente essenziale non interrompere il finanziamento
nazionale o unionale per gli studenti.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Una spiegazione dettagliata della situazione è stata pubblicata dalla Commissione europea il 23 ottobre: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP12-1137_en.htm

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 105

La Commissione ha proposto un bilancio di 19 miliardi di euro ( [2] ) per il futuro programma Erasmus per tutti (20142020), che potrebbe supportare in particolare la mobilità di circa 2,2 milioni di studenti (anche verso/da paesi terzi)
nonché quella di più di un milione di personale attivo in tutti i settori dell'istruzione.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) A prezzi attuali. Su questi 19 miliardi di euro circa 2 miliardi dovrebbero provenire da strumenti del campo dello sviluppo e delle relazioni

esterne.

C 294 E / 106 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-009747/12**

**do Komisji**
**Filip Kaczmarek (PPE)**
_(24 października 2012 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Strategie Komisji Europejskiej dotyczące programu Erasmus

Program Erasmus powstał w 1987 r. jako program wymiany studentów. Polska bierze udział w programie Erasmus
od roku 1998/99. W latach 1995-2006 Erasmus wchodził w skład wspólnotowego programu Socrates, a od roku
akademickiego 2007/2008 jest częścią programu „Uczenie się przez całe życie” (LLP – the Lifelong Learning
Programme), programu Unii Europejskiej w dziedzinie edukacji i doskonalenia zawodowego, przewidzianego na lata
2007-2013.

W ostatnim czasie pojawiły się opinie, że program Erasmus czeka bankructwo związane z nową perspektywą
budżetową. Z publicznych wypowiedzi, m.in. komisarza Janusza Lewandowskiego, wynika, że w tym roku
Erasmusowi nic nie grozi, a studenci na zagranicznych uczelniach są bezpieczni. Jednak program może paść ofiarą
kryzysu finansowego w następnych latach.

Zwracam się z zapytaniem:

1. Jaka jest strategia Komisji w przypadku wyczerpania środków budżetowych przewidzianych na realizację
programu?

2. Jakie konsekwencje niesie ze sobą wyczerpanie środków budżetowych, w ramach programu Erasmus, dla
studentów, którzy będą przebywali w tym czasie na wymianie? Czy uczestnicy programu będą mieli
zagwarantowane bezpieczeństwo?

**Wspólna odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarz Androullę Vassiliou w imieniu Komisji**

_(7 grudnia 2012 r.)_

W dniu 23 października 2012 r. Komisja zwróciła się do państw członkowskich i Parlamentu o przegłosowanie
dodatkowego budżetu w kwocie 9 mld EUR, tak aby kwota środków na płatności odpowiadała w większym stopniu
kwocie zobowiązań przegłosowanych już przez władzę budżetową w ramach budżetu na rok 2012. W szczególności
Komisja zwróciła się o przyznanie dodatkowych 180 mln EUR na program „Uczenie się przez całe życie”, które
powinny pokryć związane z nim potrzeby finansowe do końca roku. Część powyższej kwoty przypadającą na
program Erasmus szacuje się na 90 mln EUR.

Studenci wyjeżdżający za granicę w pierwszym semestrze roku akademickiego 2012/2013 w ramach programu
Erasmus nie powinni mieć żadnych problemów z otrzymywaniem stypendium, ponieważ 99 % środków na
płatności dostępnych w 2012 r. zostało już wypłacone instytucjom krajowym w państwach członkowskich
odpowiedzialnych za realizację programu. Jeżeli jednak zmieniony budżet nie zostanie przegłosowany przez władzę
budżetową, w 2013 r. mogą wystąpić w tej kwestii poważne problemy ( [1] ).

Reakcje w prasie nie tylko na terenie Unii, lecz również na całym świecie, mają jasną wymowę: w czasach
niedopuszczalnie wysokiego poziomu bezrobocia osób młodych zagwarantowanie im możliwości wyjazdu,
kształcenia się na zagranicznych uniwersytetach oraz rozwoju umiejętności w przedsiębiorstwach za granicą może
znacznie wzbogacić ich doświadczenie, zwiększyć szanse na rynku pracy i polepszyć jakość ich życia. Właśnie z tego
powodu kwestią absolutnie kluczową jest teraz utrzymanie dalszego finansowania studentów z budżetu krajowego
lub unijnego.

Na przyszły program „Erasmus dla wszystkich” (2014‐2020) Komisja zaproponowała budżet w wysokości
19 mld EUR ( [2] ). Program ten mógłby w szczególności wesprzeć możliwość wyjazdu zagranicznego dla około 2,2 mln
studentów (włącznie z wyjazdami do państw trzecich i pobytami studentów z tych państw), jak i ponad miliona
pracowników zatrudnionych we wszystkich sektorach edukacji.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) W dniu 23 października Komisja Europejska opublikowała szczegółowe wyjaśnienie omawianej sytuacji:

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-1137_pl.htm.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Kwotę wyrażono w cenach bieżących. Przewiduje się, że prawie 2 z danych 19 mld EUR będą pochodziły z instrumentów w zakresie rozwoju

i stosunków zewnętrznych.

( **|**

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 107

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-009086/12**

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

_(10 octombrie 2012)_

_Subiect:_ Situația financiară a Fondului social european și a Programului Erasmus

Date fiind îngrijorările în rândul cetățenilor cu privire la informațiile vehiculate recent referitor la situația financiară a
Fondului social european și a Programului Erasmus dedicat studenților, Comisia este rugată să prezinte un punct de
vedere oficial.

**Răspuns comun dat de dna Vassiliou în numele Comisiei**

_(7 decembrie 2012)_

La 23 octombrie 2012, Comisia a solicitat statelor membre și Parlamentului să voteze un buget suplimentar de 9
miliarde EUR pentru plăți, astfel încât creditele de plată disponibile să corespundă într-o mai mare măsură nivelului
angajamentelor deja aprobate de Autoritatea bugetară în bugetul pe 2012. În special, Comisia a solicitat o sumă
suplimentară de 180 milioane EUR pentru Programul de învățare pe tot parcursul vieții, care ar garanta satisfacerea
necesarului de plăți până la sfârșitul anului. Cota pentru Erasmus poate fi estimată la 90 milioane EUR.

Studenții Erasmus care merg în străinătate în primul semestru al anului universitar 2012-2013 nu ar trebui să aibă
niciun fel de probleme, dat fiind că 99% dintre creditele de plată disponibile în 2012 au fost deja plătite agențiilor
naționale din statele membre care pun în aplicare programul. Cu toate acestea, dacă bugetul rectificativ nu este
aprobat de Autoritatea bugetară, pot să apară probleme serioase în 2013 ( [1] ).

Reacțiile presei din întreaga Europă și chiar din întreaga lume sunt elocvente: în această perioadă în care șomajul a
atins niveluri inacceptabile în rândul tinerilor, a le oferi tinerilor europeni oportunități de învățare și de mobilitate în
cadrul unor universități sau întreprinderi din străinătate le poate îmbogăți considerabil experiența, le poate crește
șansele de angajare și le poate schimba viața în bine. Din acest motiv, este absolut esențial să nu se întrerupă
finanțarea națională sau din partea UE pentru studenți.

Comisia a propus un buget în valoare de 19 miliarde EUR ( [2] ) pentru viitorul program Erasmus pentru toți (20142020), care ar putea sprijini în special mobilitatea a aproximativ 2,2 milioane de studenți (inclusiv către/din țări terțe),
precum și a peste un milion de persoane care lucrează în toate sectoarele educației.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) La 23 octombrie, Comisia Europeană a publicat o explicație detaliată a situației: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-1137_ro.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Exprimat în prețuri curente. Din cele 19 miliarde EUR, se estimează că aproape 2 miliarde vor proveni din instrumente din zona dezvoltării și a

relațiilor externe.

C 294 E / 108 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008967/12**

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

_(5 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Budgetary position of the Erasmus programme

The Erasmus programme, which has been running for 25 years, is one of the most effective programmes in
consolidating the idea of a united, tolerant Europe that is based on solidarity. Under the Erasmus programme, three
million young people have been able to take part in educational exchanges and live in different Member States, which
has helped to improve the professional and linguistic skills of young people in Europe and has strengthened the
values represented by the European Union and its _acquis communautaire_ by breaking down barriers and building interEuropean bridges. Having passed through the programme in 1993-94, I can assert, from my own experience, that it is
one of the most advantageous programmes for European integration.

The Commission has publicly stated that the funding for this programme is at risk, which means that the payment of
the grant to some 213 000 students for the remainder of this year is also at risk. In addition, the Commission has
stated that it has had to resort to an internal transfer of EUR 420 million from other budget items to the Erasmus
programme. According to various reports published, quoting Commission sources, this is due to the initially
approved budget not being sufficient to meet the demand and, also, to Member States failing to fulfil their financial
commitments to this particular programme for the current year.

Bearing in mind the importance of the Erasmus programme, especially during a period of serious economic crisis,
which makes firm commitment to education and training more important than ever:

1. Does the Commission think that the continuation of the Erasmus programme isguaranteed this year and in
years to come?

2. How is the Commission going to ensure that the affected students receive 100% of thegrant in the event of
Member States not contributing the corresponding funding?

3. What is the deficit of the Erasmus programme?

4. How many students are affected by the inadequate budget resources?

5. What annual budget does the Commission consider to be sufficient to meet the demandfor the programme?

**Question for written answer E-009023/12**

**to the Commission**
**Mariya Gabriel (PPE)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Resumption of funding for the Erasmus programme

The Erasmus programme helps to increase mobility in higher education, its aim being to encourage a pan-European
approach in the higher-education field. By offering students access to other countries and cultures the programme
enriches their learning experience. At the same time it fosters a more European-minded, flexible and mobile
workforce and enhances Europe’s competitiveness and its potential for innovation.

We are told by Parliament’s Committee on Budgets that the funding for the Erasmus programme has run out as a
result of cuts in the 2012 budget.

1. What measures does the Commission intend to take to pursue the policy of youth mobility, specifically in the
field of higher education and research?

2. What funding is earmarked for the Erasmus programme in the 2014-2020 budget period?

3. Does the Commission intend to open a new section of the Erasmus programme for teaching staff?

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 109

**Question for written answer E-009086/12**

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

_(10 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Financial situation regarding the European Social Fund and the Erasmus programme

Can the Commission issue an official statement in response to public concerns aroused by recent reports regarding
the financial situation of the European Social Fund and the Erasmus student Programme?

**Question for written answer E-009113/12**

**to the Commission**
**Sergio Berlato (PPE)**

_(10 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Funding for the Erasmus programme may run out

The European Union’s Erasmus university student-exchange programme is one of its greatest successes. It is the bestknown and most accessible EU-funded programme. Since it launched in 1987, the number of participants each year
has increased more than 65‐fold. In the 25 years it has been running, over two million students have taken advantage
of this exchange scheme between students and teachers in various European universities. According to recent
estimates for the academic year 2010‐11, 218 266 European students have benefited from a post abroad at a twinned
institution, for one or two semesters.

However, due to the persisting economic and financial crisis and fiscal austerity, European governments have limited
EU 2012 spending to EUR 129 billion, four billion less than requested by the Commission and the European
Parliament.

This budget cut has dire consequences for the future of Erasmus: funding to support this EU programme is running
out and, without rapid and concrete action, in 2013 Erasmus’s funding will be insufficient and it will inevitably be
doomed to disappear.

1. Does the Commission believe that the Erasmus programme is the European Union’s greatest achievement and
that it should be staunchly defended?

2. What concrete action will it take to save the programme?

3. Moreover, considering that young people should not pay the price for European governments’ austerity
measures and considering that unemployment figures for young people under 35 (25% in Europe and approximately
36% in Italy) continue to worsen, does it think that funding cuts for this programme are unacceptable?

**Question for written answer E-009747/12**

**to the Commission**
**Filip Kaczmarek (PPE)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Commission strategy concerning the Erasmus programme

Erasmus was established in 1987 as a student exchange programme. Poland has been participating in the programme
since 1988/89. In the period 1995-2006 Erasmus was part of the Community programme known as Socrates. Since
the 2007/2008 academic year it has been part of the Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP), the EU’s education and
vocational training programme for the period 2007-2013.

According to some people, the Erasmus programme is about to run out of money as a result of the new budgetary
perspective. Public statements by, among others, Commissioner Janusz Lewandowski, indicate that there is no such
threat to Erasmus this year and that students at foreign universities are secure. However, the programme may fall
victim to the financial crisis in the coming years.

In light of the above:

1. What is the Commission’s strategy in the event that the budgetary funds allocated to this programme are
exhausted?

C 294 E / 110 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

2. What would be the consequences for students actually on exchange placements should the budgetary funds for
the Erasmus programme be exhausted? Would the security of the programme participants be guaranteed?

**Joint answer given by Ms Vassiliou on behalf of the Commission**

_(7 December 2012)_

On 23 October 2012 the Commission has asked the Member States and the Parliament to vote an additional budget
of EUR 9 billion for payments so that the available payment credits match more closely the level of commitments
already voted by the Budgetary Authority in the 2012 budget. In particular, the Commission has requested additional
EUR 180 million for the Lifelong Learning Programme, which should ensure meeting payment needs until the end of
the year. The share for Erasmus can be estimated at EUR 90 Million.

Erasmus students going abroad in the first semester of the academic year 2012-2013 should not have any problems
as 99% of the payment credits available in 2012 have already been paid to the National Agencies in the Member
States which implement the programme. However, if the amended budget is not voted by the Budgetary Authority,
severe problems would be likely to occur in 2013 ( [1] ).

Reactions in the press across Europe and even worldwide speak for themselves: at this period of unacceptably high
youth unemployment, providing Europe's young people with learning and mobility opportunities in universities or
enterprises abroad can significantly widen their experience, increase their employability and change their life for the
better. This is why it is absolutely crucial to not interrupt national or EU funding to students.

A budget of EUR 19 billion ( [2] ) has been proposed by the Commission for the future programme Erasmus for All
(2014-2020), which could support in particular the mobility of about 2.2 million students (including to/from third
countries) as well as more than 1 million staff in all sectors of education.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) A detailed explanation of the situation has been published by the European Commission on 23 October: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP
12-1137_en.htm

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Expressed in current prices. Out of these EUR 19 billion, almost EUR 2bn is projected to come from instruments in the area of development and

external relations.

( **|**

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 111

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-008968/12**

**do Komisji**
**Piotr Borys (PPE)**
_(5 października 2012 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Płatności zaliczkowe dla beneficjentów programów współpracy transgranicznej w ramach Europejskiej
Współpracy Terytorialnej

W nawiązaniu do debaty toczonej wokół pakietu legislacyjnego dla polityki spójności na lata 2014-2020, zwracam
się z prośbą o przedstawienie stanowiska Komisji Europejskiej dotyczącego zastosowania płatności zaliczkowych dla
beneficjentów programów współpracy transgranicznej w ramach Europejskiej Współpracy Terytorialnej.

Programy i projekty współpracy transgranicznej są cennym instrumentem wspierającym politykę likwidowania
dysproporcji rozwojowych w obszarach nadgranicznych. Poprzez wysoki poziom współpracy oraz jakości
transgranicznej dostarczają jednoznacznie pozytywnych efektów dla społeczności zamieszkującej pogranicze.

Wśród potencjalnych beneficjentów Programów EWT są podmioty sektora finansów publicznych, organizacje
społeczne, stowarzyszenia o charakterze non-profit oraz MŚP. Jednakże odsetek podmiotów o charakterze
społecznym i ekonomicznym, które uzyskują dofinansowanie, jest znikomy. Powodem takiej sytuacji jest zasada
refundacji wydatków poniesionych w ramach realizacji projektów oraz długotrwały proces ich weryfikacji oraz
certyfikacji. Beneficjenci mają problemy z zachowaniem płynności finansowej, podejmując się zadań często
prowadzących na skraj upadłości. Również jednostki samorządu terytorialnego – obecnie najaktywniejsza grupa
beneficjentów – w przyszłości mogą okazać się niezdolne do dalszej realizacji projektów EWT. Wiele z nich
zmuszonych jest do zaciągania kredytów bankowych, co zbliża je do granicy 60 % zadłużenia, powyżej której,
zgodnie z polskimi przepisami, nie można zaciągać dalszych zobowiązań kredytowych. Wprowadzenie płatności
zaliczkowych, z sukcesem stosowanych w innych mechanizmach wsparcia realizowanych w ramach polityki
spójności, pomoże rozwiązać te problemy.

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Johannesa Hahna w imieniu Komisji**

_(13 listopada 2012 r.)_

Komisja ma świadomość tego, że niewystarczający przepływ pieniężny może w pewnych przypadkach utrudniać
beneficjentom realizację projektów w ramach programów Europejskiej współpracy terytorialnej.

Na okres 2014‐2020 Komisja zaproponowała zaliczkowanie władz krajowych i regionalnych, umożliwiające im
z kolei dokonywanie płatności zaliczkowych na rzecz beneficjentów. Ponadto Komisja zaproponowała
zobowiązanie władz do dokonywania płatności na rzecz beneficjentów jeszcze przed zadeklarowaniem
poniesionych wydatków Komisji, zapewniając w ten sposób beneficjentom należny zwrot kosztów bez opóźnień.

Komisja jest zdania, że powyższe środki zapewnią możliwość skutecznego zaradzenia problemom beneficjentów
w kontekście przepływu pieniężnego i płynności.

C 294 E / 112 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008968/12**

**to the Commission**

**Piotr Borys (PPE)**

_(5 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Advance payments for beneficiaries under cross-border cooperation programmes in the context of European
Territorial Cooperation

With reference to the debate on the legislative package for cohesion policy for 2014-2020, I would like to know the
Commission’s position on advance payments to beneficiaries under cross-border cooperation programmes in the
context of European Territorial Cooperation (ETC).

Cross-border cooperation programmes and projects are a valuable policy instrument for tackling development
disparities in border areas. High-quality cross-border cooperation has an unambiguously positive impact on
communities living in border regions.

The potential beneficiaries of ETC programmes include public finance sector entities, civil society organisations, nonprofit associations and SMEs. However, the proportion of socioeconomic entities which obtain funding is very small.
The reason for this is the principle that expenses incurred in the implementation of projects are refunded
subsequently, as well as the lengthy verification and certification process. Beneficiaries have problems maintaining
liquidity, taking on tasks which often lead them to the brink of bankruptcy. Also, local authorities — currently the
most active group of beneficiaries — may in future be unable to continue implementing ETC projects. Many of them
are forced to take out bank loans, bringing them close to the 60% borrowing limit above which, in accordance with
Polish law, they are not permitted to take on further borrowing. The introduction of pre-financing payments, which
are successfully used in other support mechanisms implemented under the cohesion policy, will help to resolve these
problems.

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

_(13 November 2012)_

The Commission is aware that insufficient cash flow can, at times, present difficulties for beneficiaries implementing
projects under European Territorial Cooperation programmes.

For the 2014-2020 period, the Commission has proposed pre-financing by the Commission to the national and
regional authorities which will allow them to make advance payments to beneficiaries. In addition, it has proposed an
obligation for authorities to pay beneficiaries before declaring the expenditure incurred to the Commission, ensuring
that beneficiaries receive reimbursements due without delay.

The Commission considers that these measures will ensure that the cash flow and liquidity concerns of beneficiaries
can be addressed in an effective manner.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 113

_(Dansk udgave)_

**Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-008969/12**

**til Kommissionen**
**Morten Løkkegaard (ALDE)**

_(5. oktober 2012)_

_Om:_ Ny reklameafgift i Danmark

Den danske regering har for nyligt fremlagt forslag til en ny reklameafgift på husstandsomdelte reklamer. Afgiften
blev vedtaget som en del af finansloven for 2012, men træder først i kraft fra 2013.

Den nye reklameafgift bliver efter alt at dømme en vægtafgift. Det vil sige, at udgiveren betaler et fast beløb — for
eksempel 3 DKK — pr. kg. husstandsomdelte reklamer.

Afgiften, der ifølge lovforslaget vil blive pålagt husstandsomdelte reklamer, f.eks. tilbudsaviser fra supermarkeder og
kædeforretninger, skal give ca. en halv mia. DKK i provenu, der forventes anvendt til tilskud på miljøområdet.

Mener Kommissionen, at afgiften diskriminerer mod husstandsomdelte tryksager i forhold til f.eks. reklamer i
ugeaviser, eller reklamer, som forbrugerne selv henter i butikkerne, da den forskelsbehandler produkter, der er i
konkurrence med hinanden?

Vil Kommissionen se nærmere på, om forskelsbehandlingen kan forklares ud fra de hensyn, lovgiveren forsøger at
tage, i dette tilfælde miljøhensyn?

Kan Kommissionen i øvrigt godkende forslaget, som det foreligger, eller vurderer den, at afgiften er i strid med EU's
regler om statsstøtte?

**Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Algirdas Šemeta**

_(4. december 2012)_

Der er ingen harmoniserede EU-bestemmelser for afgifter på husstandsomdelte reklamer. Medlemsstaterne kan derfor
frit pålægge indenlandske afgifter på sådanne produkter, så længe disse afgifter ikke giver anledning til formaliteter i
forbindelse med grænsepassage mellem medlemsstaterne. Når en medlemsstat beslutter at indføre en sådan afgift, skal
den sikre, at den nye lovgivning er forenelig med alle bestemmelserne i EU-lovgivningen, herunder især reglerne om
ikke-diskriminering inden for beskatning af samme type produkter fra andre medlemsstater. Et indenlandsk
afgiftssystems eventuelle forskelsbehandling af forskellige typer reklamer uden hensyntagen til deres oprindelse er i
den forbindelse ikke et anliggende, som Kommissionen tager op med en medlemsstat.

Hvis den pågældende foranstaltning udgør statsstøtte, vil der i statsstøttevurderingen blive taget hensyn til
foranstaltningens miljømål.

C 294 E / 114 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008969/12**

**to the Commission**
**Morten Løkkegaard (ALDE)**

_(5 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ New advertising tax in Denmark

The Danish Government recently proposed a new tax on advertising material distributed to households. The tax was
adopted as part of the budget for 2012, but will only take effect from 2013.

The new advertising tax is, to all appearances, a tax by weight: i.e. the publisher pays a fixed amount — e.g. 3 Danish
crowns — per kilo of advertising material distributed to households.

The tax which, under the proposal, will be imposed on advertising material distributed to households such as flyers
from supermarkets and chain stores, is intended to raise around half a billion Danish crowns to be used for
environmental support measures.

Does the Commission consider that the tax discriminates against material distributed to households compared with
other advertising material such as adverts placed in weekly newspapers or flyers picked up in shops by consumers
themselves, since it discriminates between products that are in competition with each other.

Will the Commission look into whether the difference in treatment can be explained on the grounds of the objective
pursued by the lawmakers, in this case environmental concerns?

Can the Commission approve the proposal as it stands, or is the tax deemed to be contrary to EU rules on state aid?

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

_(4 December 2012)_

There are no harmonised EU provisions for taxes levied on advertisements delivered door-to-door. Member States
may therefore apply domestic taxes on such products as long as those taxes do not give rise to formalities connected
with the crossing of frontiers between Member States. A Member State which decides to impose such a tax is obliged
to ensure that new legislation is compatible with all provisions of EC law, and in particular the rules ensuring nondiscrimination in the taxation of the same products from other Member States. In this respect, the possible difference
in the treatment of various types of advertisements under a domestic system of taxes, which is applied without regard
to the origin of the products, is not an issue which the Commission may raise with a Member State.

In so far as the measure would constitute state aid, the environmental objective of the measure would be taken into
account in the state aid assessment.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 115

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008970/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Niccolò Rinaldi (ALDE)**

_(5 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Ampliamento della discarica in località Colle Fagiolara a Colleferro (RM) e identificazione del sito per un
impianto di trattamento meccanico biologico dei rifiuti (TMB)

Nel 1992 fu aperto il sito di stoccaggio provvisorio per RSU in località Colle Fagiolara nel comune di Colleferro (RM),
nella Valle del Sacco, trasformato nel 1997 in discarica permanente e dichiarato nel 2005 sito di interesse nazionale
emergenza ambientale (SIN) per la bonifica di terreni inquinati dal βHCH (betaesaclorocicloesano) a causa
dell'interramento illegale di fusti tossici.

La chiusura della discarica, prevista per il 2009, ha ottenuto una proroga di 10 anni e nel 2008 la Regione Lazio ha
autorizzato un ampliamento per un milione e mezzo di m [3] di rifiuti.

La società AgenSEL, gestore della discarica, intende costruire nell'area un impianto di TMB (trattamento meccanico
biologico) della capacità di 300 000 t/anno. Ritiene la Commissione che:

1. la continuazione dell'attività di discarica sia in linea con la normativa europea?

2. in aree SIN possano essere avviate attività di concentrazione di rifiuti, con la realizzazione di nuovi impianti che
producono combustibili da rifiuti estranei a quelli prodotti all'interno dell'area già contaminata e senza il
pronunciamento dell'Alto Commissario per la bonifica?

3. tali scelte possano ricadere su un territorio già ora sottoposto a indagini epidemiologiche e senza tenere in
considerazione quanto si evince dalla relazione della Commissione bicamerale del parlamento italiano sullo
smaltimento illecito dei rifiuti da parte di organizzazioni criminali, che descrive questo territorio come crocevia
di interessi illegali?

4. Infine, intende la Commissione sollecitare lo Stato italiano e gli altri enti locali a procedere a una definitiva
bonifica dei siti inquinati e bloccare l'ulteriore smaltimento di rifiuti nell'area, prevedibilmente non in linea con
gli standard stabiliti dalla direttiva 1999/31/CE, e intervenire a tutela della salute dei cittadini e dell'ambiente in
cui risiedono?

**Risposta di Janez Potočnik a nome della Commissione**

_(6 dicembre 2012)_

La discarica di Colle Fagiolara è operativa da diversi anni. La decisione di rinviare la sua chiusura è stata adottata dalle
autorità italiane competenti. La Commissione non ha prove che il proseguimento dell’attività della discarica possa
costituire una violazione della normativa dell’UE in materia di rifiuti.

Il progetto di costruire un nuovo impianto TMB (trattamento meccanico-biologico) nel sito della discarica non è
censurabile, a condizione che sia conforme ai requisiti pertinenti fissati dalla normativa dell’UE. In realtà il nuovo
impianto TMB dovrebbe garantire una migliore gestione della discarica mediante la separazione dei materiali
riciclabili e, quanto meno, la stabilizzazione della frazione organica dei rifiuti.

Le decisioni circa l’ubicazione e la costruzione di impianti di trattamento dei rifiuti (come impianti biomeccanici di
trattamento dei rifiuti), nonché la valutazione dei rischi significativi devono essere adottate ed eseguite dalle autorità
competenti negli Stati membri interessati. La Commissione non può interferire con tali decisioni, a condizione che
siano adottate in conformità alle disposizioni pertinenti della normativa dell’UE, in particolare della direttiva
2011/92/UE concernente la valutazione dell’impatto ambientale di determinati progetti pubblici e privati (la «direttiva
VIA») ( [1] ) e della direttiva 2008/98/CE relativa ai rifiuti (la «direttiva quadro sui rifiuti») ( [2] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Direttiva 2011/92/UE concernente la valutazione dell’impatto ambientale di determinati progetti pubblici e privati (GU L 26 del 28.1.2012,

pag. 1).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Direttiva 2008/98/CE relativa ai rifiuti e che abroga alcune direttive (GU L 312 del 22.11.2008, pag. 3).

( **|**

C 294 E / 116 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

La Commissione ha ricevuto diverse denunce in materia di smaltimento illegale di rifiuti pericolosi misti a rifiuti
urbani in Italia e si sta adoperando per risolvere il problema. Tale questione è stata uno degli argomenti discussi in un
recente seminario sulla gestione dei rifiuti urbani nel centro e nel sud Italia. Qualora la Commissione dovesse ricevere
prove di violazioni della normativa UE adotterà misure adeguate.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 117

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008970/12**

**to the Commission**
**Niccolò Rinaldi (ALDE)**

_(5 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Extension of the Colle Fagiolara landfill site in the municipality of Colleferro (Province of Rome) and
identification of a site for a bio-mechanical waste treatment plant

In 1992 a temporary storage facility for solid urban waste was opened at Colle Fagiolara, in the municipality of
Colleferro (Province of Rome), in the Valle del Sacco. It was turned into a permanent landfill site in 1997, and in 2005
it was declared to be an ‘environmental emergency’ Site of National Interest for the treatment of soil polluted by beta‐
hexachlorocylohexane (β-HCH) from illegally buried drums of toxic waste.

The landfill site was due to be closed down in 2009. However, its closure was postponed for 10 years and in 2008 the
Lazio Region authorised its extension to take 1.5 million m [3] of waste.

Agensel, the company which operates the landfill site, intends to construct a bio-mechanical waste treatment plant
with a capacity of 300 000 tonnes per annum nearby.

1. Does the Commission consider that the continued operation of the landfill site is consistent with European law?

2. Can waste be concentrated at Sites of National Interest by constructing new facilities to produce fuel from waste
other than that produced inside the polluted area, and without consulting the High Commissioner for Land
Rehabilitation?

3. Can decisions of this kind be taken in an area which is already the subject of epidemiological studies and
without taking account of the findings of the report of the bicameral committee of the Italian Parliament on the illegal
disposal of waste by criminal organisations, which described the area as criss-crossed by intersecting illegal interests?

4. Finally, does the Commission intend to urge the Italian State and the local authorities to definitively clean up the
polluted areas, to prevent any further disposal of waste in the area, which is unlikely to be meet the standards laid
down in Directive 1999/31/EC, and to take action to protect the health of citizens and the environment in which they
live?

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

_(6 December 2012)_

The landfill Colle Fagiolara has been in operation for several years. The decision to postpone its closure has been
taken by the Italian competent authorities. The Commission has no evidence that the continued operation of the
landfill may be in breach of EU waste legislation.

The project to construct a new MBT (Mechanical Biological Treatment) plant on the landfill site is not objectionable,
provided that it complies with the relevant requirements under EC law. The new MBT plant should in fact ensure a
better management of the landfill through the separation of recyclable materials and, at least, the stabilisation of the
organic waste fraction.

Decisions about the location and construction of waste treatment installations (such as bio-mechanical waste
treatment plants) as well as assessment of relevant risks are to be taken by competent authorities in the Member States
concerned. The Commission cannot interfere with such decisions, provided that they are taken in compliance with
the relevant requirements in EC law, particularly Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain
public and private projects on the environment (the ‘EIA Directive’) ( [1] ) and Directive 2008/98/EC on Waste (the
‘Waste Framework Directive’) ( [2] ).

The Commission has received several allegations concerning illegal disposal of hazardous waste mixed with
municipal waste in Italy, and is addressing the issue. This issue was one of the topics discussed at a recent seminar on
management of municipal waste in Central and Southern Italy. Should the Commission receive evidence of breach of
EU legislation, appropriate action will be taken.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ L 26, 28.1.2012, p. 1).
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directive 2008/98/EC on waste and repealing certain Directives (OJ L 312, 22.11.2008, p. 3).

C 294 E / 118 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης P-008971/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Sophocles Sophocleous (S&D)**

_(8 Οκτωβρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Κατάσταση πυρηνικών αντιδραστήρων εντός της ευρωπαϊκής επικράτειας

Σύμφωνα με δημοσιεύματα σε διεθνή ΜΜΕ, τα «stress tests» που διενεργήθηκαν εκ μέρους της Επιτροπής στους 134
πυρηνικούς αντιδραστήρες εντός της ΕΕ, καταδεικνύουν ότι υπάρχουν σοβαρές ρωγμές σε μεγάλο αριθμό από αυτούς.
Εκτιμάται δε, πως σε περίπτωση σεισμών η πλημμυρών ελλοχεύει ο κίνδυνος σοβαρού πυρηνικού ατυχήματος, παρομοίων
διαστάσεων με αυτό της Φουκουσίμα στην Ιαπωνία.

Στο πλαίσιο της αρχής της διαφάνειας, παρακαλώ να μου δοθεί πλήρης ενημέρωση για τα ευρήματα της έρευνας που
διενέργησε η Επιτροπή σχετικά με τους ευρωπαϊκούς αντιδραστήρες.

Παράλληλα με την ανησυχητική διάσταση που παίρνει το θέμα της πυρηνικής ενέργειας στην επικράτεια της ΕΕ, ποια είναι η
στάση της Επιτροπής σχετικά με τους σχεδιασμούς της Τουρκίας για τη δημιουργία τριών πυρηνικών αντιδραστήρων, ένας εκ
των οποίων θα είναι σε πολύ κοντινή απόσταση από την Ελλάδα και την Κύπρο;

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

_(13 Νοεμβρίου 2012)_

1. Η Επιτροπή διαβίβασε πρόσφατα στο Συμβούλιο και το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο την τελική της έκθεση για τις
προσομοιώσεις ακραίων καταστάσεων ( [1] ). Το υπηρεσιακό έγγραφο εργασίας της Επιτροπής ( [2] ) που συνοδεύει την ανωτέρω
ανακοίνωση περιλαμβάνει λεπτομερή πορίσματα σχετικά με τα επίπεδα ανά επιμέρους αντιδραστήρα και χώρα.

2. Η Επιτροπή παραπέμπει επίσης το Αξιότιμο Μέλος στις απαντήσεις που έδωσε στη γραπτή ερώτηση E-5692/2012 του
κ. Κουμουτσάκου ( [3] ).

Η Επιτροπή συμφώνησε με τις γειτονικές χώρες της ΕΕ, συμπεριλαμβανομένης και της Τουρκίας, για τη διενέργεια
προσομοιώσεων ακραίων καταστάσεων ( [4] ). Η Τουρκία υπέβαλε πρόσφατα έκθεση προσομοίωσης ακραίων καταστάσεων με
βάση την ίδια μεθοδολογία όπως στην έκθεση της ΕΕ. Στην τουρκική έκθεση αναφέρεται ότι η Τουρκία δεν διαθέτει σήμερα
πυρηνικούς σταθμούς ηλεκτροπαραγωγής, αλλά εξετάζεται η κατασκευή ενός τέτοιου σταθμού στο Akkuyu. Η έκθεση
περιλαμβάνει πληροφορίες σχετικά με τα χαρακτηριστικά πυρηνικής ασφάλειας και αντοχής έναντι σεισμών του μελλοντικού
σταθμού. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ομάδα Ρυθμιστικών Αρχών Πυρηνικής Ασφάλειας εξετάζει τώρα τις λεπτομέρειες ανασκόπησης της
εν λόγω έκθεσης από ομοτίμους χρησιμοποιώντας παρόμοια μεθοδολογία όπως αυτή που εφαρμόστηκε στις εκθέσεις των
κρατών μελών της ΕΕ.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Ανακοίνωση της Επιτροπής προς το Συμβούλιο και το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο που αφορά τη συνολική αξιολόγηση των κινδύνων και της ασφάλειας

(προσομοίωση ακραίων καταστάσεων) των πυρηνοηλεκτρικών σταθμών στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και τις συναφείς δραστηριότητες, COM(2012)571 τελικό,
η οποία είναι διαθέσιμη στο: .
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/safety/doc/com_2012_0571_en.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Διαθέσιμο στο: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/safety/doc/swd_2012_0287_en.pdf.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Βλέπε την κοινή δήλωση της Επιτροπής και γειτονικών προς την ΕΕ χωρών κατά τη συνάντηση υψηλού επιπέδου της 23ης Ιουνίου 2011, η οποία είναι

διαθέσιμη στο: . http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/safety/doc/20110623_stress_test_joint_declaration_eu_neighbouring_countries.pdf.

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

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 119

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-008971/12**

**to the Commission**
**Sophocles Sophocleous (S&D)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ State of nuclear reactors within European territory

According to the international media, stress tests carried out on behalf of the Commission in 134 nuclear reactors
within the EU have revealed that many of them are seriously fissured. It is feared that there is accordingly a serious risk
of nuclear incidents similar in proportion to that which occurred in Fukushima in Japan, should earth tremors or
flooding occur.

In accordance with the principle of transparency, can the Commission provide full information regarding the findings
of its investigation into European reactors?

Given the alarming proportions being assumed by the EU nuclear energy controversy, what view does the
Commission take of the projected construction of three nuclear reactors in Turkey, one of which will be very close to
Greece and Cyprus?

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

_(13 November 2012)_

1. The Commission has recently transmitted to the Council and the European Parliament its final report on stress
tests ( [1] ). The Commission Staff Working Document ( [2] ) accompanying the above Communication includes detailed
findings on reactor and country specific levels.

2. The Commission would also like to refer the Honourable Member to its replies to Written Question
E-5692/2012 by Mr Koumoutsakos ( [3] ).

The Commission has agreed with EU neighbouring countries, including Turkey, to carry out stress tests ( [4] ). Turkey
recently submitted a stress test report based on the same methodology as the EU report. The Turkish report states that
Turkey currently has no nuclear power plants, but the construction of one is being considered at Akkuyu. The report
includes information on the nuclear safety characteristics and earthquake resistance of the future plant. The European
Nuclear Safety Regulators Group is actually examining the modalities to peer review this report using a similar
methodology as the one applied to the reports of the EU Member States.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Communication from the Commission to the Council and the Parliament on the comprehensive risk and safety assessments (‘stress tests’) of

nuclear power plants in the European Union and related activities, COM(2012)571 final; available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/safety/doc/com_2012_0571_en.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/safety/doc/swd_2012_0287_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) See the joint declaration of the Commission and EU neighbouring countries at the high level meeting of 23 June 2011, available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/safety/doc/20110623_stress_test_joint_declaration_eu_neighbouring_countries.pdf

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

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

C 294 E / 120 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta P-008972/12**

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

**Clemente Mastella (PPE)**

_(8 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Intervento UE per il rilascio dei due ragazzi italiani condannati all'ergastolo in India

Nei giorni scorsi è stato respinto l'appello contro l'ergastolo inflitto a Tommaso Bruno ed Elisabetta Boncompagni, i
due giovani italiani che da due anni e mezzo si trovano rinchiusi in carcere a Varanasi, in India, accusati di omicidio
per la morte dell'amico e compagno di viaggio Francesco Montis, avvenuta in una camera d'albergo della città.

Tutto ciò, nonostante la loro difesa abbia strenuamente sostenuto la loro assoluta estraneità, un'autopsia piena di
contraddizioni ed errori, svolta da un oculista anziché un anatomopatologo, un quadro accusatorio lacunoso e
l'evidente inattendibilità di alcuni testimoni.

Si chiede, pertanto, all'Alto Rappresentante Sig.ra Ashton:

—
se sia a conoscenza dei fatti sopra esposti e se disponga di ulteriori informazioni sul caso in questione;

—
se non ritenga opportuno intervenire presso le competenti autorità indiane, in quanto si configurerebbe una
palese violazione del diritto internazionale a danno di uno Stato membro dell'Unione europea e ciò
rappresenterebbe anche un pericoloso precedente per tutti i cittadini europei che potrebbero un giorno capitare
nelle maglie delle procedure giudiziarie di quel Paese;

—
di indicare quali azioni intenda intraprendere a sostegno della diplomazia italiana, già da mesi oramai
impegnata nel caso del rilascio dei due marò, al fine di agevolare la liberazione ed il pronto rimpatrio dei due
ragazzi italiani.

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

_(16 novembre 2012)_

L’Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente è a conoscenza del caso cui si fa riferimento nell’interrogazione scritta e la
delegazione dell’UE a Nuova Delhi lo segue in collegamento con i servizi consolari dell’Ambasciata italiana. L’UE non
ha alcuna competenza in materia ma è disponibile ad offrire il proprio sostegno, qualora il governo italiano lo
chiedesse.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 121

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-008972/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Clemente Mastella (PPE)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — EU action to secure the release of two young Italians sentenced to life imprisonment in India

An appeal against the life sentences meted out to Tommaso Bruno and Elisabetta Boncompagni, two young Italians
who have been in prison in Varanasi, India, for two and a half years, was recently rejected. The two young people have
been charged with the murder of their friend and travelling companion, Francesco Montis, in a hotel room in the city.

This was despite the fact that their defence team had strenuously argued that the two Italians had absolutely nothing
to do with the matter, that the autopsy had been full of contradictions and errors and had been performed by an
ophthalmologist instead of a pathologist, that the charges were made on a very flimsy basis and that several witnesses
were clearly unreliable.

Can the Vice-President/High Representative therefore answer the following questions:

—
Is she aware of these facts, and does she have any further information on the case in question?

—
Does she not agree that it might be appropriate to make representations to the relevant Indian authorities,
given that this constitutes a clear violation of international law to the detriment of a Member State of the
European Union and is also a dangerous precedent for all EU citizens who could one day find themselves
trapped in the net of judicial proceedings in that country?

—
What measures does she intend to take to support Italian diplomacy, which for months now has already been
working hard to secure the release of two marines, with a view to facilitating the release and prompt return of
the two young Italians?

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

_(16 November 2012)_

The HR/VP is aware of the case referred to in the Written Question, and the EU Delegation in New Delhi is following it
in liaison with the consular services of the Italian Embassy. The EU has no competence to intervene in this case, but is
available to give appropriate support should the Italian Government request it.

C 294 E / 122 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(Dansk udgave)_

**Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-008973/12**

**til Kommissionen**
**Morten Løkkegaard (ALDE)**

_(8. oktober 2012)_

_Om:_ Stillehavspartnerskabet og WTO

Forhandlingerne om Stillehavspartnerskabet (TPP) — en foreslået frihandelsaftale, som vil integrere økonomierne i
Asien-Stillehavsregionen, omfatter i øjeblikket 9 lande på tre kontinenter: New Zealand, Brunei, Chile, Singapore,
Australia, Peru, USA, Malaysia og Vietnam (mens endnu to, Canada og Mexico, også er mulige medlemmer). Formålet
er at skabe en »aftale af høj kvalitet for det 21. århundrede« med sigte på at åbne markeder for konkurrence mellem
partnerlandene i forskellige sektorer fra varer og tjenesteydelser til investeringer.

Dagsordenen for forhandlingerne omfatter også regler om intellektuelle ejendomsrettigheder, beskyttelse af
arbejdstagere og miljøbevarelse.

1. TPP kan med tiden udvikle sig til et fuldt udviklet frihandelsområde for Asien-Stillehavsregionen. Hvis målene
med TPP nås — og antallet af lande hele tiden bliver større — hvordan vurderer Kommissionen så konsekvenserne
(som muligvis er negative) for de igangværende bestræbelser på at rykke videre frem ad WTO-vejen og med Dohaudviklingsrunden?

2. Er der ikke risiko for, at TTP er en trussel mod WTO-systemets og Doha-rundens fremtid, og er det ikke
sandsynligt, at dette vil undergrave viljen til at fortsætte ad denne vej?

**Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Karel De Gucht**

_(30. november 2012)_

Medlemmerne af Stillehavspartnerskabet (Trans-Pacific Partnership — TPP) har givet udtryk for deres mål om at indgå
en ambitiøs næstegenerations-Asien-Stillehavs-handelsaftale. De oprindelige ni forhandlende medlemmer har nu fået
selskab af Canada og Mexico. Kommissionen følger disse forhandlinger nøje, fordi EU allerede har forhandlet eller
stadig er i færd med at forhandle om ambitiøse handelsaftaler med mange af de enkelte TPP-medlemmer. I
betragtning af at TPP-forhandlingerne fortsat pågår, og at mange vigtige spørgsmål stadig er udestående, kan
Kommissionen ikke give en endelig vurdering af den potentielle indvirkning af en sådan aftale. Overordnet set
betragter Kommissionen ikke regionale integrationsinitiativer som værende i strid med
Verdenshandelsorganisationen (WTO), forudsat at de fører til yderligere liberalisering og ikke til
handelsforvridninger, jf. kravene i artikel XIV i den almindelige overenskomst om told og udenrigshandel (GATT).

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 123

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008973/12**

**to the Commission**
**Morten Løkkegaard (ALDE)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ The Trans-Pacific Partnership and the WTO

The negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a proposed multilateral free trade agreement that would
integrate the economies of the Asia-Pacific region, currently concern nine countries on three continents: New
Zealand, Brunei, Chile, Singapore, Australia, Peru, the US, Malaysia and Vietnam (with two more, Canada and Mexico,
as additional potential members). The aim is to create a ‘high quality, twenty-first century agreement’ to open up
markets to competition between the partner countries in sectors ranging from goods and services to investment. The
negotiation agenda also includes rules on intellectual property rights, labour protection and environmental
conservation.

1. The TPP could eventually become a fully-fledged free trade agreement for the Asia-Pacific region. However, if
the aims of the TPP are reached — and if the number of participating countries continues to grow — how would the
Commission assess the (possibly negative) consequences for the ongoing efforts towards further progress in terms of
the WTO path and the Doha Development Round?

2. Does the TPP not pose a risk to the future of the WTO system and the Doha Round, and is it not likely to
undermine the willingness of parties to pursue that path?

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

_(30 November 2012)_

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Members have stated their objective of concluding an ‘ambitious, next-generation
Asia-Pacific trade agreement’. The originally nine negotiating members have now been joined by Canada and Mexico.
The Commission is following these negotiations closely, given that the EU has already or is still negotiating ambitious
trade agreements with many of the individual TPP members. Given that the TPP negotiations are ongoing with many
issues of substance still open, the Commission cannot give a definitive assessment of the potential impact of such an
agreement. From a general perspective, the Commission does not see regional integration intiatives as contrary to the
World Trade Organisation (WTO), provided that it leads to further liberalisation and not to trade diversion in line
with the requirements of Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).

C 294 E / 124 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-008974/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Andreas Mölzer (NI)**

_(8. Oktober 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Eskalation der Auseinandersetzung Syrien-Türkei

Nach einem tödlichen Granatenbeschuss aus Syrien auf ein türkisches Grenzdorf hat Ankara Vergeltungsangriffe
gestartet. Die Vergeltungsschläge der Türkei gegen Syrien, nachdem aus Syrien abgefeuerte Granaten in einem
türkischen Grenzdorf mehrere Menschen getötet hatten, zeigen einmal mehr, wie tief Ankara in die Konflikten des
Nahen Ostens verstrickt ist. Die Türkei ist durch ihre Unterstützung der syrischen Rebellen längst zu einer Partei des
dortigen Bürgerkriegs geworden.

Nach der jüngsten Eskalation der Lage ist nicht mehr auszuschließen, dass die Türkei militärisch in Syrien
intervenieren wird. Sollte es dazu kommen, könnte eine höchst gefährliche Kettenreaktion ausgelöst werden. Denn
Syrien ist bekanntlich nicht der einzige Konfliktherd in der Region. Es ist nicht auszuschließen, dass die Türkei mit
weiteren Nachbarstaaten in einen Konflikt gerät, und die Lage in den türkischen Kurdengebieten, wo ein Kleinkrieg
zwischen der türkischen Armee und der verbotenen Kurdischen Arbeiterpartei PKK tobt, droht sich zu
verschlimmern. Sollte die Türkei EU-Mitglied werden, läuft die EU Gefahr, selbst zu einem Frontstaat im Nahen Osten
zu werden, was mit Sicherheit nicht im europäischen Interesse liegt.

1. Welchen Einfluss auf die EU-Beitrittsgespräche hat die Tatsache, dass die Türkei durch ihre Unterstützung der
syrischen Rebellen längst zu einer Partei des dortigen Bürgerkriegs geworden ist?

2. Welchen Einfluss auf die EU-Beitrittsgespräche mit Ankara hat bzw. hätte eine zunehmende Verschlechterung
der Lage der Kurden?

**Gemeinsame Antwort von Frau Ashton — Hohe Vertreterin/Vizepräsidentin im Namen der Kommission**

_(14. Dezember 2012)_

Die EU plädiert weiterhin für eine politische Lösung der Syrien-Krise. Eine weitere Militarisierung des Konflikts würde
noch mehr Leid über die syrische Bevölkerung und die Nachbarländer Syriens bringen. Die EU würdigt die
humanitäre Unterstützung, die die Türkei den syrischen Flüchtlingen in der Türkei gewährt. Die EU und die Türkei
arbeiten in Bezug auf die Syrien-Krise eng zusammen und die EU unterstützt die Bemühungen der Türkei, die
restriktiven Maßnahmen der EU gegenüber dem syrischen Regime durchzusetzen.

Die EU hat die syrische Opposition aufgerufen, eine gemeinsame Plattform zu bilden, und begrüßt daher die Bildung
einer neuen Struktur am 11. November 2012 in Doha, die auf eine stärkere Koordinierung zwischen den
verschiedenen Oppositionsgruppen abzielt und der internationalen Gemeinschaft einen einzigen, alle Gruppen
umfassenden Ansprechpartner bietet.

In Bezug auf den Einfluss dieser Entwicklungen auf die Beitrittsgespräche verweist die Kommission den Herrn
Abgeordneten auf die von allen Mitgliedstaaten 2005 im Verhandlungsrahmen vereinbarten Bestimmungen sowie
auf den Beschluss des Rates vom Dezember 2006.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 125

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009788/12**

**à Comissão**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**
_(25 de outubro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Adesão da Turquia à União Europeia e relações com a Síria

Considerando que:

—
A Turquia fez o seu pedido de adesão à União Europeia a 14 de abril de 1987, tendo, desde então, aprofundado
a sua relação com a União Europeia, através de um alinhamento pelos valores europeus e de uma aproximação
à legislação europeia;

—
A 3 de outubro de 2005 foram iniciadas as negociações formais para a plena adesão da Turquia à União
Europeia e que várias reformas têm vindo a ser desenvolvidas no sentido de concretizar o seu processo de
adesão à União Europeia;

—
O Curdistão é uma região com cerca de 500 000 km [2] distribuídos em sua maior parte na Turquia e o restante
na Síria, no Iraque, no Irão, na Arménia e no Azerbaijão, e que atualmente os Curdos são a mais numerosa etnia
sem Estado no mundo;

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

1. Pode a situação atual na Síria e a tomada de posição da Turquia neste conflito vir a se repercutir no processo de
adesão desta última à União Europeia? Em que termos?

2. Até que ponto poderá a União Europeia intervir, tendo em conta a situação de fronteira entre estes Estados e a
região do Curdistão, ao abrigo da sua estratégia de alargamento e tendo em conta os compromissos assumidos
ao abrigo desta pelo Estado turco?

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

_(14 de dezembro de 2012)_

A UE continua a apelar a uma solução política para a crise síria. Uma maior militarização do conflito só poderá trazer
mais sofrimento ao povo da Síria e aos países vizinhos. A UE felicita a Turquia pela ajuda humanitária prestada aos
refugiados da Síria na Turquia. A UE e a Turquia estão a cooperar estreitamente nesta matéria, estando a UE a apoiar
os esforços deste país para fazer cumprir as medidas restritivas da UE contra o regime sírio.

A UE instou a oposição síria a formar uma plataforma comum e congratula-se com a criação de uma nova estrutura
em Doha, em 11 de novembro de 2012, que tem como objetivo reforçar a coordenação entre os vários grupos da
oposição e oferecer um interlocutor inclusivo à comunidade internacional.

Relativamente ao eventual impacto nas conversações para a adesão da Turquia, a Comissão chama a atenção do
Senhor Deputado para as disposições estabelecidas no quadro de negociação acordado por todos os EstadosMembros em 2005, assim como para a Decisão do Conselho de dezembro de 2006.

C 294 E / 126 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008974/12**

**to the Commission**
**Andreas Mölzer (NI)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Escalation of the conflict between Syria and Turkey

Ankara has launched retaliatory attacks following the deadly shelling of a Turkish border town by Syria. These attacks
by Turkey on Syria after artillery fire from Syria had killed several people in a Turkish border town show once again
how deeply embroiled Ankara is in Middle Eastern conflicts. Turkey has, through its support for the Syrian rebels,
long been involved in the civil war raging there.

Following this latest escalation of the situation, Turkish military intervention in Syria can no longer be ruled out. If
this were to happen, it could trigger an extremely dangerous chain reaction, as Syria is obviously not the only source
of conflict in the region. It is quite possible that Turkey could enter into conflict with other neighbouring countries
and there is a danger of the situation deteriorating in Turkey’s Kurdish areas, where there is warring between the
Turkish army and the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). If Turkey were to become an EU Member State,
the EU would then run the risk of itself becoming a front-line state in the Middle East, which is certainly not in the
interests of Europe.

1. What is the impact on the EU accession talks of the fact that Turkey has, through its support for the Syrian
rebels, long been involved in the civil war raging there?

2. What is, or would be, the impact on the EU accession talks of a further deterioration in the situation regarding
the Kurds?

**Question for written answer E-009788/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**

_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Turkey's accession to the European Union and relations with Syria

Whereas:

—
Turkey applied for European Union membership on 14 April 1987, having since then deepened its relations
with the EU by drawing closer to European values and progressive alignment with European legislation;

—
On 3 October 2005 formal negotiations began for Turkey’s full accession to the European Union, and a
number of reforms have been implemented with a view to implementing the EU accession procedure;

—
Kurdistan is a region of some 500 000 km [2], the bulk of which lie in Turkey and the remainder in Syria, Iraq,
Iran, Armenia and Azerbaijan, and the Kurds are currently the largest ethnic group in the world without a state;

the Commission is asked:

1. If the current situation in Syria and Turkey’s stance in the conflict could have an impact on the process of
Turkey’s access to the EU? If so, how?

2. Up to what point can the EU intervene — in the light of the situation on the border between the two countries
and the Kurdish region — as part of its enlargement strategy and bearing in mind the undertakings entered into
by Turkey under this strategy?

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

_(14 December 2012)_

The EU continues to call for a political solution to the Syrian crisis. Any further militarisation of the conflict would
only bring further suffering to the Syrian people and to the neighbouring countries. The EU commends Turkey's
humanitarian support to Syrian refugees in Turkey. The EU and Turkey are cooperating closely on Syria and the EU is
supporting Turkey's efforts to enforce the EU's restrictive measures against the Syrian regime.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 127

The EU has called on the Syrian opposition to form a common platform and welcomes the creation of a new structure
in Doha on 11 November 2012, which aims at reinforcing the coordination between the various opposition groups
and offering an inclusive interlocutor to the international community.

Regarding a potential impact on the accession talks, the Commission would like to draw the Honorable Member's
attention to the provisions set out in the Negotiating Framework agreed by all Member States in 2005 as well as the
Council Decision of December 2006.

C 294 E / 128 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-008975/12**
**an die Kommission (Vizepräsidentin/Hohe Vertreterin)**

**Andreas Mölzer (NI)**

_(8. Oktober 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ VP/HR — Eskalation der Auseinandersetzung Syrien-Türkei

Nach einem tödlichen Granatenbeschuss aus Syrien auf ein türkisches Grenzdorf hat Ankara Vergeltungsangriffe
gestartet. Die Ortschaft Akcakale liegt unmittelbar an der Grenze zu Syrien und nahe des lange umkämpften
Grenzübergangs Tell Abjad, den syrische Rebellen nach zweitägigen Gefechten eingenommen hatten.

1. Welche Reaktionen wurden anlässlich dieser Eskalation gesetzt bzw. welche Maßnahmen sind noch geplant?

2. Inwieweit versucht die EU zwischen Syrien und der Türkei zu vermitteln und die Kommunikation zu syrischen
Behörden aufrechtzuerhalten, um eine weitere Zunahme der Spannungen zu vermeiden?

**Antwort von Frau Ashton — Hohe Vertreterin/Vizepräsidentin im Namen der Kommission**

_(5. Dezember 2012)_

Die EU hat den Beschuss des türkischen Grenzortes Akcakale durch die syrischen Streitkräfte, bei dem mehrere
Menschen ums Leben kamen, scharf verurteilt und ihre Solidarität gegenüber dem türkischen Volk und seiner
Regierung zum Ausdruck gebracht. Dabei bedauerte sie den Verlust von Menschenleben und sprach den Opfern und
ihren Familien ihr Beileid aus. Die Hohe Vertreterin/Vizepräsidentin nahm auch Kontakt zu Außenminister
Davutoglu auf, um ihm die Solidarität der EU mit dem türkischen Volk und seiner Regierung zu bekunden.

Der Zwischenfall zeigt, dass die Krise in Syrien, die bereits auf benachbarte Länder übergreift und deren Sicherheit
und Stabilität bedroht, dringend beendet werden muss. Die EU appelliert an die syrischen Behörden, der Gewalt
umgehend ein Ende zu setzen und die territoriale Unversehrtheit und Souveränität aller benachbarten Staaten
uneingeschränkt zu achten. Derartige Zwischenfälle können nicht toleriert werden. Zudem hat die EU alle Seiten zur
Zurückhaltung aufgerufen, um eine Eskalation der Situation zu vermeiden.

Die EU plädiert weiterhin für eine politische Lösung der Syrien-Krise. Eine weitere Militarisierung des Konflikts würde
weiteres Leid über die syrische Bevölkerung und die Nachbarländer Syriens bringen. Die EU und die Türkei arbeiten in
der Syrien-Frage eng zusammen. Wie die EU plädiert auch die Türkei für eine politische Lösung des Konflikts, und die
EU unterstützt die Bemühungen der Türkei, das Waffenembargo gegen das syrische Regime durchzusetzen. Die EU
würdigt zudem die großzügige humanitäre Unterstützung, die die Türkei den syrischen Flüchtlingen in der Türkei
gewährt.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 129

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008975/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Andreas Mölzer (NI)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Escalation of the conflict between Syria and Turkey

Ankara has launched retaliatory attacks following the deadly shelling of a Turkish border town by Syria. The town of
Akçakale lies right on the border with Syria and close to the long-disputed border crossing of Tel Abyad, which Syrian
rebels had taken after two days of fighting.

1. What has been the reaction to this escalation and what measures are planned?

2. To what extent is the EU trying to mediate between Syria and Turkey and to keep open channels of
communication with the Syrian authorities in order to avoid a further increase in tension?

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

_(5 December 2012)_

The EU condemned the shelling from Syrian forces in the Turkish border town of Akçakale that resulted in casualties.
The EU expressed its solidarity to the Turkish people and government, deploring the loss of life and expressing
sympathy for the victims and their families. The High Representative/Vice-President was also in contact with Foreign
Minister Davutoglu, expressing our solidarity to the Turkish people and government.

The incident illustrates the urgent need to end the crisis in Syria, which has serious spill-over effects on neighbouring
countries in terms of security and stability. The EU urges the Syrian authorities to put an end to the violence now and
fully respect the territorial integrity and sovereignty of all neighbouring countries; such incidents cannot be tolerated.
It called on restraint by all parties to avoid escalation of the situation.

The EU continues to call for a political solution to the Syrian crisis. Any further militarisation of the conflict would
only bring further suffering to the Syrian people and to the neighbouring countries. The EU and Turkey are
cooperating closely on Syria. As the EU, Turkey advocates a political solution to the conflict, and the EU is supporting
Turkey's efforts to enforce an embargo on military equipment to the Syrian regime. The EU also commends Turkey's
generous humanitarian support to Syrian refugees in Turkey.

C 294 E / 130 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(Dansk udgave)_

**Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-008977/12**

**til Kommissionen**
**Morten Løkkegaard (ALDE)**

_(8. oktober 2012)_

_Om:_ Lånegarantiordning for Erasmus-masterstuderende

Kommissionens forslag til forordning om et nyt flerårigt program for almindelig og faglig uddannelse, ungdom og
sport introducerer en ny lånegarantiordning for Erasmus-masterstuderende. Under dette program yder EU en delvis
garanti til pengeinstitutter, der tilbyder lån på gunstige vilkår til studerende, der følger masterstudier i en anden
medlemsstat.

1. Hvordan vil Kommissionen udvælge de pengeinstitutter, der skal udstede lånene?

2. Vil disse banker blive forpligtet til at tilbyde lån til støtteberettigede studerende, når de først har accepteret at
deltage i ordningen, eller vil de frit kunne bestemme, hvem der skal have adgang til lånene?

3. Agter Kommissionen at indføre en kontrolordning for at sikre, at de studerende gør tilfredsstillende fremskridt i
deres studier og går op til de obligatoriske eksamener under deres studieophold i en anden medlemsstat?

**Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Androulla Vassiliou**

_(3. december 2012)_

1. Udvælgelsen af de pengeinstitutter, som skal gennemføre lånegarantiordningen, vil blive baseret på en
gennemsigtig procedure, der udføres af en bemyndiget enhed (f.eks. Den Europæiske Investeringsfond (EIF)). Både
offentlige og private pengeinstitutter, herunder nationale garantiordninger og institutter, der er specialiserede i lån til
studerende, vil være berettigede til at deltage i ordningen.

Efter en indkaldelse af interessetilkendegivelser vil udvælgelsen blive baseret på overensstemmelse med
minimumskravene i ordningen, udbytte af de offentlige investeringer, bl.a. løftestangseffekten (beløb, der er til
rådighed for lån til gengæld for garantien), og i hvilken udstrækning formidlerne yder de studerende sikkerhed, der
rækker ud over minimumskravene (f.eks. rentesatser, perioder med rente‐ og afdragsfrihed osv.).

[Eksempler på lignende ansøgningsprocedurer, der varetages af EIF, findes på EIF's websted: http://www.eif.org/.](http://www.eif.org/)

2. De deltagende formidlere vil bevare retten til at afvise lån til individuelle studerende på grundlag af behørigt
begrundede årsager (f.eks. tidligere misligholdelse af lån), men ikke på grundlag af f.eks. social baggrund eller
studievalg. Overholdelse af disse kriterier vil blive overvåget af Kommissionen på grundlag af oplysninger om lån, der
er ydet og afvist af formidlerne. Der træffes korrigerende foranstaltninger, hvis det er nødvendigt.

3. De studerende skal være godkendt til en kandidatuddannelse på et universitet, der har undertegnet
Erasmusuniversitetschartret. Hvis fremskridt i uddannelsen er afhængig af beståede eksamener (f.eks. optagelse på
andet år af en toårig kandidatuddannelse), vil der blive krævet dokumentation for, at denne betingelse er opfyldt.
Kommissionen agter ikke at tildele eller tilbagekalde lån afhængigt af beståede individuelle eksamener eller opnåede
karakterer.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 131

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008977/12**

**to the Commission**
**Morten Løkkegaard (ALDE)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Erasmus Masters loan guarantee facility

The Commission proposal for a regulation on a new multiannual programme for education, training, youth and sport
launches a new Erasmus Masters loan guarantee facility. Under this programme, the EU would provide a partial
guarantee to financial institutions offering students loans on favourable terms for undertaking master’s level studies in
another Member State.

1. How does the Commission intend to select the financial institutions that will make the loans?

2. Will these banks be obliged to offer loans to eligible students once they agree to participate in the scheme, or
will they be free to decide on who will receive the loans?

3. Finally, does the Commission intend to introduce a monitoring system to ensure that the students make
satisfactory progress in their studies and sit the exams foreseen for their study period abroad?

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

_(3 December 2012)_

1. Selection of the financial institutions to implement the Loan Guarantee scheme will be based on a transparent
process conducted by an entrusted entity (e.g. the European Investment Fund — EIF). Public or private financial
institutions, including national guarantee schemes and student loan agencies, would be eligible to participate in the
scheme.

Following a call for expressions of interest, selection would be based on conformity with the minimum requirements
of the scheme, the return on public investment, in particular the leverage effect (amount available for loans in return
for the guarantee) and the extent to which the intermediaries go beyond the minimum requirements in terms of
protections for students (e.g. interest rates, grace and payment holiday periods etc.).

[Examples of similar application processes conducted by the EIF can be found on the EIF website: http://www.eif.org/.](http://www.eif.org/)

2. Participating intermediaries would retain the right to reject an individual student for a loan based upon duly
justified reasons (e.g. past credit default) but not on grounds such as social background or study choice. Adherence to
these criteria will be monitored by the Commission, on the basis of data concerning loans awarded and refused by
intermediaries. Corrective measures will be taken where necessary.

3. Students must have been accepted on a Masters study programme at a university holding the Erasmus
University Charter. Where progress in the programme is dependent on success in examinations (e.g. progress to the
second year for a two-year master programme), proof will be required that this condition has been satisfied. There is
no intention to allocate or revoke loans depending upon the success of individual examinations or grades attained.

C 294 E / 132 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-008978/12**

**to the Commission**
**Catherine Stihler (S&D)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Application process of a new state to join the EU

Given that there will be a referendum on Scottish independence in 2014, can the Commission confirm that if part of
an existing Member State becomes independent, in order to become a new Member State of the EU, under treaty
terms it would be compulsory to adopt the euro, join the Schengen Area, and renegotiate or sacrifice any rebate
agreements previously concluded?

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

_(5 November 2012)_

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Question E-000395/2012 ( [1] ) by Mr Tremosa i
Balcells.

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

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 133

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-008979/12**

**al Consejo**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE) y Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)**

_(8 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ El director de El Mundo compara el Camp Nou y la bandera catalana al saludo fascista y a Berlín 1936 en
flagrante oposición a los valores fundamentales de la Unión Europea

El 3 de octubre de 2012, J. Ramírez, director de _El Mundo_, comparó el Camp Nou con el Berlín de 1936 por la llamada
a exhibir esteladas y el 4 de octubre de 2012 acompañó a la noticia sobre el mosaico gigante con la bandera con el
saludo fascista _Sieg Heil (_ [1] _)_ . Tales comentarios son una reliquia del pasado y completamente fuera de lugar en la Unión
Europea de hoy. Este tipo de observaciones van en contra de todo lo que los demócratas han luchado en los últimos
60 años.

Estas declaraciones están en flagrante oposición con los valores fundamentales de la Unión Europea y, en particular,
con los artículos 12 y 22 de la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la UE que se refieren a la libertad de reunión y
de asociación y al respeto de la diversidad cultural, religiosa y lingüística ( [2] ). Además, estas declaraciones están en
contradicción con la Decisión Marco 2008/913/JAI del Consejo, de 28 de noviembre de 2008, relativa a la lucha
contra determinadas formas y manifestaciones de racismo y xenofobia mediante el Derecho penal ( [3] ). En el artículo 1
de este documento se afirma:

«1. Cada Estado miembro adoptará las medidas necesarias para garantizar que se castiguen las siguientes conductas
intencionadas:

a) la incitación pública a la violencia o al odio dirigidos contra un grupo de personas o un miembro de tal grupo,
definido en relación con la raza, el color, la religión, la ascendencia o el origen nacional o étnico;».

¿Está el Consejo al corriente de estas gravísimas declaraciones que violan los derechos y valores fundamentales
de la UE?

En conformidad con los Tratados y la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea, ¿qué medida tomará
el Consejo para garantizar el respeto de estos derechos?

**Respuesta**
_(26 de noviembre de 2012)_

No corresponde al Consejo formular observaciones sobre artículos de prensa.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.naciodigital.cat/noticia/47345/pedro/ramirez/compara/camp/nou/amb/berlin/1936

https://twitter.com/pedroj_ramirez/status/253447744042201089
http://www.naciodigital.cat/noticia/47332/anc/crida/omplir/estadis/estelades/cap/setmana.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:328:0055:0058:ES:PDF.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32008F0913:ES:NOT.

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

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

C 294 E / 134 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008979/12**

**to the Council**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE) and Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ The director of _El Mundo_ newspaper compares the Camp Nou stadium and the Catalan flag to the fascist salute
and to 1936 Berlin in blatant opposition to the fundamental values of the European Union

On 3 October 2012, J. Ramírez, the director of _El Mundo_, compared the Camp Nou stadium with 1936 Berlin because
of the call to display the starred Catalan flag, and on 4 October 2012 he accom _p_ anied the news article about the giant
mosaic of the official flag of Catalonia with the fascist salute, _Sieg Heil (_ [1] _)_ . These comments belong to the past and are
completely out of place in today's European Union. This type of observation goes against everything democrats have
fought for over the last 60 years.

These remarks are blatantly opposed to the fundamental values of the European Union and, in particular, to
Articles 12 and 22 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which refer to freedom of assembly and freedom of
association and respect for cultural, religious and linguistic diversity ( [2] ). Furthermore, these comments are contrary to
Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA, of 28 November 2008, on combating certain forms and expressions of
racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law ( [3] ). Article 1 of this document states that:

‘1. Each Member State shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the following intentional conduct is
punishable:

(a) publicly inciting to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined
by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin.’

1. Is the Council aware of these extremely serious remarks which violate the fundamental rights and values of the
EU?

2. In accordance with the Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, what measures
will the Council take to guarantee that these rights are respected?

**Reply**
_(26 November 2012)_

It is not for the Council to comment on articles appearing in the press.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) [http://www.naciodigital.cat/noticia/47345/pedro/ramirez/compara/camp/nou/amb/berlin/1936](http://www.naciodigital.cat/noticia/47345/pedro/ramirez/compara/camp/nou/amb/berlin/1936)

https://twitter.com/pedroj_ramirez/status/253447744042201089
http://www.naciodigital.cat/noticia/47332/anc/crida/omplir/estadis/estelades/cap/setmana

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:328:0055:0058:ES:PDF
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32008F0913:ES:NOT

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

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 135

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-008980/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE) y Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)**

_(8 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ El director de El Mundo compara el Camp Nou y la bandera catalana al saludo fascista y a Berlín 1936 en
flagrante oposición a los valores fundamentales de la Unión Europea

El 3 de octubre de 2012, J. Ramírez, director de _El Mundo_, comparó el Camp Nou con el Berlín de 1936 por la llamada
a exhibir esteladas y el 4 de octubre de 2012 acompañó a la noticia sobre el mosaico gigante con la bandera con el
saludo fascista _Sieg Heil (_ _[1]_ _)._ Tales comentarios son una reliquia del pasado y completamente fuera de lugar en la Unión
Europea de hoy. Este tipo de observaciones van en contra de todo lo que los demócratas han luchado en los últimos
60 años.

Estas declaraciones están en flagrante oposición con los valores fundamentales de la Unión Europea y, en particular,
con los artículos 12 y 22 de la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la UE que se refieren a la libertad de reunión y
de asociación y al respeto de la diversidad cultural, religiosa y lingüística ( [2] ). Además, estas declaraciones están en
contradicción con la Decisión Marco 2008/913/JAI del Consejo, de 28 de noviembre de 2008, relativa a la lucha
contra determinadas formas y manifestaciones de racismo y xenofobia mediante el Derecho penal ( [3] ). En el artículo 1
de este documento se afirma:

«1. Cada Estado miembro adoptará las medidas necesarias para garantizar que se castiguen las siguientes conductas
intencionadas:

a) la incitación pública a la violencia o al odio dirigidos contra un grupo de personas o un miembro de tal grupo,
definido en relación con la raza, el color, la religión, la ascendencia o el origen nacional o étnico;».

¿Está la Comisión al corriente de estas gravísimas declaraciones que violan los derechos y valores fundamentales
de la UE?

En conformidad con los Tratados y la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea, ¿qué medida tomará
la Comisión para garantizar el respeto de estos derechos?

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

_(27 de noviembre de 2012)_

La Comisión no tiene nada que decir sobre la situación a la que se refiere Su Señoría.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.naciodigital.cat/noticia/47345/pedro/ramirez/compara/camp/nou/amb/berlin/1936

https://twitter.com/pedroj_ramirez/status/253447744042201089
http://www.naciodigital.cat/noticia/47332/anc/crida/omplir/estadis/estelades/cap/setmana

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:328:0055:0058:ES:PDF
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32008F0913:ES:NOT

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

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

C 294 E / 136 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008980/12**

**to the Commission**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE) and Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ The director of El Mundo newspaper compares the Camp Nou stadium and the Catalan flag to the fascist
salute and to 1936 Berlin in blatant opposition to the fundamental values of the European Union

On 3 October 2012, J. Ramírez, the director of _El Mundo,_ compared the Camp Nou stadium with 1936 Berlin because
of the call to display the starred Catalan flag, and on 4 October 2012 he accompanied the news article about the giant
mosaic of the official flag of Catalonia with the fascist salute, _Sieg Heil (_ [1] _)_ .These comments belong to the past and are
completely out of place in today's European Union. This type of observation goes against everything democrats have
fought for over the last 60 years.

These remarks are blatantly opposed to the fundamental values of the European Union and, in particular, to
Articles 12 and 22 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which refer to freedom of assembly and freedom of
association and respect for cultural, religious and linguistic diversity ( [2] ). Furthermore, these comments are contrary to
Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA, of 28 November 2008, on combating certain forms and expressions of
racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law ( [3] ). Article 1 of this document states that:

‘1. Each Member State shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the following intentional conduct is
punishable:

(a) publicly inciting to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined
by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin;’.

1. Is the Commission aware of these extremely serious remarks which violate thefundamental rights and values of
the EU?

2. In accordance with the Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EuropeanUnion, what measures
will the Commission take to guarantee that these rights arerespected?

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

_(27 November 2012)_

The Commission has no comment to make on the situation referred to by the Honourable Member.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.naciodigital.cat/noticia/47345/pedro/ramirez/compara/camp/nou/amb/berlin/1936

https://twitter.com/pedroj_ramirez/status/253447744042201089
http://www.naciodigital.cat/noticia/47332/anc/crida/omplir/estadis/estelades/cap/setmana

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:328:0055:0058:ES:PDF
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32003R1782:DE:NOT

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

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 137

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-008981/12**

**προς το Συμβούλιο**
**Sophocles Sophocleous (S&D)**

_(8 Οκτωβρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Παράνομη σύλληψη αστυνομικών της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας από το κατοχικό καθεστώς

Στις 30 Σεπτεμβρίου 2012, τρείς αστυνομικοί του τμήματος τροχαίας της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας, στην προσπάθειά τους
να ερευνήσουν ύποπτο όχημα εισήλθαν στην «νεκρή ζώνη», περιοχή που αποτελεί κυρίαρχο έδαφος της Κυπριακής
Δημοκρατίας. Με την είσοδό τους στην «νεκρή ζώνη» συνελήφθησαν από τις τουρκικές κατοχικές δυνάμεις. Οι αστυνομικοί
παραπέμφθηκαν σε «δίκη» από το ψευδοδικαστήριο.

Η πιο πάνω προκλητική ενέργεια παραβιάζει κάθε αρχή διεθνούς δικαίου και έννομης τάξης και υπονομεύει την οντότητα
ενός κράτους μέλους όπως είναι η Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία που σήμερα προεδρεύει στο Συμβούλιο της ΕΕ. Υπονομεύει δε και
την ίδια την ΕΕ στο σύνολό της.

Ερωτάται το Συμβούλιο:

1. Ποιές ενέργειες προτίθεται να αναλάβει για να αντιμετωπίσει την τουρκική επιθετικότητα;

2. Καταδικάζει την απαράδεκτη ενέργεια του κατοχικού καθεστώτος;

3. Θεωρείτε ότι οι πιο πάνω ενέργειες της υποτελούς διοικήσεως της Τουρκίας αρμόζει να στηρίζονται και να
ενθαρρύνονται από την Τουρκία που είναι μια υποψήφια προς ένταξη χώρα;

**Απάντηση**
_(18 Φεβρουαρίου 2013)_

Το Συμβούλιο δεν έχει συζητήσει σχετικά με τα συγκεκριμένα γεγονότα στα οποία αναφέρεται ο αξιότιμος κ. βουλευτής.

Γενικότερα, η Ένωση έχει δηλώσει επανειλημμένα ότι υποστηρίζει τις τρέχουσες διαπραγματεύσεις στην Κύπρο που
αποσκοπούν σε μια δίκαιη, συνολική και βιώσιμη διευθέτηση του κυπριακού στο πλαίσιο του ΟΗΕ, σύμφωνα με τις σχετικές
αποφάσεις του Συμβουλίου Ασφαλείας του ΟΗΕ και τις αρχές επί των οποίων εδράζεται η Ένωση.

Όπως αναφέρεται σε πολλά συμπεράσματα του Συμβουλίου, πλέον πρόσφατα δε στις 11 Δεκεμβρίου 2012, το Συμβούλιο
αναμένει ότι η Τουρκία θα υποστηρίξει ενεργά τις τρέχουσες διαπραγματεύσεις με στόχο τη διευθέτηση αυτή. Η δέσμευση
της Τουρκίας για μια συνολική διευθέτηση και η συγκεκριμένη συμβολή της σε αυτήν έχει καίρια σημασία.

C 294 E / 138 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008981/12**

**to the Council**
**Sophocles Sophocleous (S&D)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Cypriot police officers unlawfully arrested by the occupation regime

On 30 September 2012, three Cypriot traffic and transport police officers entered the ‘dead zone’, while investigating
a suspicious vehicle and were arrested by Turkish occupation forces. This area is part of the Republic of Cyprus’s
sovereign territory. The police officers were then committed for ‘trial’ by the pseudo-court.

This provocative action violates every principle of international law and legal order and undermines Cyprus’s EU
Presidency and Member State status. It also undermines the EU in its entirety.

In view of the above, will the Council answer the following:

1. What will it do to tackle Turkish aggression?

2. Does it condemn this unacceptable action of the occupation regime?

3. Does it think that it is proper for these actions by the subordinate Turkish administration to be supported and
encouraged by Turkey, which is a candidate country for EU accession?

**Reply**
_(18 February 2013)_

The Council has not discussed the specific events to which the Honourable Member refers.

On a more general level, the Union has repeatedly expressed its support for the ongoing negotiations in Cyprus aimed
at a fair, comprehensive and viable settlement of the Cyprus problem within the UN framework, in accordance with
the relevant UN Security Council resolutions and in line with the principles on which the Union is founded.

The Council, as stated in several Council conclusions, most recently on 11 December 2012, expects Turkey to
actively support the ongoing negotiations aimed at such a settlement. Turkey’s commitment and contribution in
concrete terms to such a comprehensive settlement is crucial.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 139

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-008982/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Sophocles Sophocleous (S&D)**

_(8 Οκτωβρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Παράνομη σύλληψη αστυνομικών της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας από το κατοχικό καθεστώς

Στις 30 Σεπτεμβρίου 2012, τρείς αστυνομικοί του τμήματος τροχαίας της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας, στην προσπάθειά τους
να ερευνήσουν ύποπτο όχημα εισήλθαν στην «νεκρή ζώνη», περιοχή που αποτελεί κυρίαρχο έδαφος της Κυπριακής
Δημοκρατίας. Με την είσοδό τους στην «νεκρή ζώνη» συνελήφθησαν από τις τουρκικές κατοχικές δυνάμεις. Οι αστυνομικοί
παραπέμφθηκαν σε «δίκη» από το ψευδοδικαστήριο.

Η πιο πάνω προκλητική ενέργεια παραβιάζει κάθε αρχή διεθνούς δικαίου και έννομης τάξης και υπονομεύει την οντότητα
ενός κράτους μέλους όπως είναι η Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία που σήμερα προεδρεύει στο Συμβούλιο της ΕΕ. Υπονομεύει δε και
την ίδια την ΕΕ στο σύνολό της.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

1. Ποιές ενέργειες προτίθεται να αναλάβει για να αντιμετωπίσει την τουρκική επιθετικότητα;

2. Καταδικάζει την απαράδεκτη ενέργεια του κατοχικού καθεστώτος;

3. Θεωρείτε ότι οι πιο πάνω ενέργειες της υποτελούς διοικήσεως της Τουρκίας αρμόζει να στηρίζονται και να
ενθαρρύνονται από την Τουρκία που είναι μια υποψήφια προς ένταξη χώρα;

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

_(20 Νοεμβρίου 2012)_

Η Επιτροπή έχει λάβει γνώση του λυπηρού περιστατικού στο οποίο αναφέρεται το Αξιότιμο Μέλος, και εκφράζει την
ικανοποίησή της για το γεγονός ότι οι αρχές της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας αντέδρασαν με σύνεση, ώστε να αποφευχθούν
περαιτέρω εντάσεις.

Καταδεικνύεται για μια ακόμη φορά η ανάγκη ταχείας και συνολικής διευθέτησης του Κυπριακού, η οποία θα συνιστούσε
αποτελεσματικό μέσο για την εξάλειψη των ανησυχιών που εκφράζει το Αξιότιμο Μέλος. Στην προσφάτως υποβληθείσα
ανακοίνωσή της σχετικά με τη στρατηγική της διεύρυνσης και τις κυριότερες προκλήσεις για την περίοδο 2012-2013, η
Επιτροπή υπογράμμισε την αναγκαιότητα επανέναρξης των διαπραγματεύσεων με σκοπό να ολοκληρωθούν σύντομα οι
συνομιλίες, με βάση τη μέχρι στιγμής σημειωθείσα πρόοδο.

Κάλεσε επίσης την Τουρκία να δραστηριοποιηθεί με θετικό πνεύμα από κοινού με τα άλλα μέρη ούτως ώστε να διευκολύνει
την επιτυχή ολοκλήρωση της διαδικασίας.

C 294 E / 140 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008982/12**

**to the Commission**
**Sophocles Sophocleous (S&D)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Cypriot police officers unlawfully arrested by the occupation regime

On 30 September 2012, three Cypriot traffic and transport police officers entered the ‘dead zone’, while investigating
a suspicious vehicle and were arrested by Turkish occupation forces. This area is part of the Republic of Cyprus’s
sovereign territory. The police officers were then committed for ‘trial’ by the pseudo-court.

This provocative action violates every principle of international law and legal order and undermines Cyprus’s EU
Presidency and Member State status. It also undermines the EU in its entirety.

In view of the above, will the Commission answer the following:

1. What will it do to tackle Turkish aggression?

2. Does it condemn this unacceptable action of the occupation regime?

3. Does it think that it is proper for these actions by the subordinate Turkish administration to be supported and
encouraged by Turkey, which is a candidate country for EU accession?

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

_(20 November 2012)_

The Commission is aware of the regrettable incident the Honourable Members refers to, and it welcomes that the
authorities of the Republic of Cyprus reacted with prudence so as to avoid further tensions.

These questions once again show the need for a rapid comprehensive settlement in Cyprus, which would constitute
an effective remedy to address the concerns of the Honourable Member. In its recently presented Communication on
the Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2012-2013, the Commission underlined the necessity to re-launch the
negotiations with the aim of reaching a swift conclusion of the talks, building on the progress achieved to date.

It is also called upon Turkey to engage positively with all parties in order to facilitate a successful completion of the

process.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 141

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008983/12**

**à la Commission**
**Philippe Boulland (PPE)**

_(8 octobre 2012)_

_Objet:_ Rachat de la société TNT par UPS (United Parcel Service)

Le projet de rachat de la société néerlandaise TNT Express, numéro deux européen de la distribution des petits colis,
par la société américaine UPS, leader mondial du secteur, risque de créer une situation de position dominante sur le
marché européen et donc de concurrence déloyale pour les autres entreprises de messagerie basées en Europe.

1. Pour la Commission, ce risque de position monopolistique résulte‐t‐il de la fusion de sociétés actives dans le
même secteur? Dans quelle mesure cette fusion peut‐elle influencer le marché européen?

Par ailleurs, UPS souhaiterait utiliser ses propres ressources aériennes uniquement pour effectuer le travail dont se
charge actuellement la TNT Airways. Or, la réciprocité n'est pas autorisée aux États‐Unis car les pilotes européens ne
peuvent travailler sans licence américaine conditionnée par l'obtention d'une «green card».

2. La Commission ne pense‐t‐elle pas que cette fusion pourrait également léser le personnel aérien européen?

3. La Commission peut‐elle peser sur les modalités de la fusion?

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

_(10 décembre 2012)_

1. La Commission a ouvert une enquête approfondie sur le projet de fusion entre UPS et TNT et a constaté des
problèmes de concurrence en ce qui concerne les petits envois express au sein de l'EEE pour un grand nombre de
clients.

L'enquête a notamment révélé que i) des entreprises non intégrées, comme DPD et GLS, ne peuvent exercer qu'une
faible pression sur les parties présentes sur ce marché et que ii) FedEX ne semble guère en mesure d'exercer une
contrainte suffisante sur l'entité issue de la concentration et le seul autre intégrateur restant, DHL.

Le projet de concentration entraînerait donc une forte augmentation de la concentration du marché, UPS et TNT
détenant une part de marché cumulée importante dans un grand nombre de pays de l'EEE. Cette opération est
susceptible de provoquer une hausse des prix pour les consommateurs.

La Commission poursuit son enquête approfondie sur l'opération envisagée et veillera à la défense des intérêts des
entreprises qui utilisent ces services.

2. La Commission considère que la fusion proposée peut avoir des conséquences pour les salariés de TNT Airways.

Selon les règles de propriété et de contrôle et l'accord sur le transport aérien conclu en 2007 entre l'UE et les États‐
Unis ( [1] ), les compagnies aériennes disposant d'une totale liberté d'exploiter toutes les liaisons au sein de l'UE doivent
être détenues par des intérêts européens ( [2] ). Seuls les transporteurs aériens de l'UE peuvent opérer avec pleins droits de
trafic sur toutes les liaisons dans l'UE. Le règlement (CE) n° 1008/2008 ( [3] ) prévoit qu'UPS ne peut, à elle seule, détenir
et assurer le contrôle effectif de TNT Airways mais devrait conclure un partenariat commercial avec une entreprise de
l'UE. Toute décision qui a une incidence sur une entreprise établie dans l'UE doit respecter les exigences minimales de
protection des droits des travailleurs prévues par la législation de l'UE sur le travail et les règles nationales du pays où
elle est établie.

3. L'opération envisagée a été notifiée à la Commission le 15 juin 2012. L'échéance actuelle pour l'adoption de la
décision finale est fixée au 15 janvier 2013.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Décision 2007/339/CE du Conseil du 25 avril 2007 (JO L 134 du 25.5.2007, p. 1), modifiée par la décision 2010/465/UE du Conseil du 24 juin

2010 (JO L 223 du 25.8.2010, p. 1).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Un transporteur aérien est considéré comme étant de l'UE s'il est détenu et effectivement contrôlé à plus de 50 % par des États membres et/ou leurs

ressortissants.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Article 4, point f), du règlement (CE) n° 1008/2008 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 24 septembre 2008 établissant des règles communes

pour l'exploitation de services aériens dans la Communauté (refonte).

( **|**

( **|**

C 294 E / 142 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008983/12**

**to the Commission**
**Philippe Boulland (PPE)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Purchase of TNT by UPS (United Parcel Service)

The planned purchase of the Dutch TNT Express company, Europe’s second-largest small parcels delivery service, by
the American UPS company, the world leader in this sector, is likely to lead to a position of dominance in the
European market and give rise to unfair competition vis-à-vis other courier companies based in Europe.

1. Does the Commission think that this danger of a monopoly position is the result of a merging of companies
operating in the same sector? To what extent might this merger influence the European market?

UPS also plans to use its own aircraft to do the work currently undertaken by TNT Airways. However, reciprocity is
not possible in the USA, since European pilots cannot work there without an American licence, for which they must
obtain a Green Card.

2. Does the Commission not think that this merger might put harm European air crews at a disadvantage?

3. Will the Commission give its views on the arrangements for the merger?

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

_(10 December 2012)_

1. The Commission opened an in-depth investigation into the proposed UPS/TNT merger and identified
competition concerns for intra-EEA small packages express services for a significant number of customers.

The investigation indicated in particular that (i) non-integrated companies, such as DPD and GLS, can exert only a
weak constraint on the Parties in that market and (ii) FedEx seems unlikely to be in a position to constrain sufficiently
the merged entity and the only other remaining integrator, DHL.

The proposed concentration would thus lead to a significant increase in market concentration with a strong
combined market position of UPS and TNT in a large number of EEA countries and is likely to lead to higher prices
for customers.

The Commission continues to investigate the proposed transaction thoroughly and will ensure that the interests of
the companies using these services are protected.

2. The Commission understands that the proposed merger may have implications for the employees of TNT
Airways.

According to the ownership and control rules and the 2007 EU-US air transport agreement ( [1] ), airline companies
having full freedom to operate all EU routes must be detained by European interests ( [2] ). Only EU air carriers have full
traffic rights to operate all EU routes. Under Regulation 1008/2008 ( [3] ), UPS alone cannot own and effectively control
TNT Airways and would need to conclude a commercial partnership with an EU company. Decisions affecting a
company in the EU must comply with the minimum requirements of EU labour law on workers' rights protection and
with national rules of the country where it is located.

3. The proposed transaction was notified to the Commission on 15 June 2012. The current deadline for adoption
of the final decision is 15 January 2013.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) By means of Council Decision 2007/339/EC of 25 April 2007, OJ L 134/1, 25.5.2007; and as amended by Council Decision 2010/465/EU of

24 June 2010, OJ L 223, 25.8.2010, p. 1.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) An EU air carrier is defined as being more than 50% owned and effectively controlled by Member States and/or their nationals.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Regulation (EC) 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services

in the Community (Recast), Article 4 (f).

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

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 143

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008984/12**

**à la Commission**
**Philippe Boulland (PPE)**

_(8 octobre 2012)_

_Objet:_ Trafic d'ivoire

Le commerce illégal d'ivoire est en recrudescence en 2012, en partie à cause des importations exponentielles
chinoises et thaïlandaises. L'an dernier, le braconnage avait déjà atteint son niveau le plus élevé depuis la création de
dispositifs de contrôles internationaux en 2002, et l'année 2011 avait également été celle du record de saisie d'ivoire
illégal à travers le monde: 3,8 tonnes (soit plus de 4 000 éléphants).

L'augmentation du trafic de défenses d'éléphants s'appuie essentiellement sur l'action d'une nébuleuse criminelle
regroupant une multitude d'acteurs comme des guérillas armées, des paysans pauvres ou bien des trafiquants
expérimentés.

Interdit en 1989, le commerce d'ivoire est régulièrement débattu dans le cadre des réunions de la CITES (Convention
sur le commerce international des espèces de faune et de flore sauvages menacées d'extinction). Amendé en 1983, le
texte de la CITES est devenu un règlement communautaire qui fait de l'Union européenne un partenaire
incontournable via le règlement (CE) n° 338/97 du 9 novembre 1996. Par ailleurs, un changement de paradigme
semble être apparu lors de la dernière session de juillet 2012, où il a été débattu d'un document essentiel intitulé
«Mécanisme de prise de décisions et conditions nécessaires pour un futur commerce de l'ivoire de l'éléphant
d'Afrique».

Compte tenu de ce qui précède, quelle position la Commission compte-t-elle adopter lors de la prochaine conférence
de la CITES, prévue en mars 2013 à Bangkok, concernant le commerce de l'ivoire?

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

_(27 novembre 2012)_

Au sein de l'Union, l'interdiction sur le commerce de l'ivoire est mise en œuvre par le règlement (CE) n° 338/97 du
Conseil relatif à la protection des espèces de faune et de flore sauvages ( [1] ). Garantir le respect de l'interdiction du
commerce de l'ivoire est une priorité pour les agences responsables du commerce des espèces sauvages dans les États
membres de l'Union. En 2011, il est estimé qu'environ 100 kilogrammes d'ivoire ont été saisis dans l'Union; la plupart
des produits ont été saisis lors de leur transit entre l'Afrique et l'Asie.

Au niveau mondial, le braconnage des éléphants et le commerce illégal de l'ivoire ont atteint des niveaux record
en 2011. C'est un grave sujet de préoccupation pour la Commission. La Chine est vraisemblablement la principale
destination finale pour une partie importante de l'ivoire exporté illégalement d'Afrique. Les efforts déployés par les
autorités chinoises pour lutter contre le trafic de l'ivoire doivent être poursuivis. Le respect de l'interdiction et les
sanctions doivent également être renforcés dans les pays d'origine et de transit. L'Union soutient les mesures prises à
cet effet par le consortium international sur la lutte contre la criminalité environnementale (ICCWC) récemment mis
sur pied. Celui-ci regroupe cinq instances internationales spécialisées dans l'application du droit, le trafic de la faune
sauvage et la gestion de projets.

Le commerce international de l'ivoire est interdit en vertu de la convention CITES. La Commission européenne
prépare actuellement la position de l'Union pour la prochaine conférence des parties à la convention CITES, qui se
tiendra à Bangkok en mars 2013. La Commission veillera à ce que toute décision prise dans le cadre de la convention
CITES prenne pleinement en compte la situation préoccupante des populations d'éléphants dans un certain nombre
des États de l'aire de répartition et la nécessité de mesures fortes pour améliorer cette situation.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) JO L 061 du 3.3.1997.

C 294 E / 144 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008984/12**

**to the Commission**
**Philippe Boulland (PPE)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Ivory trafficking

The illegal trade in ivory has been on the rise in 2012, partly owing to rapidly increasing demand for imports from
China and Thailand. Last year, poaching reached its highest level since the introduction of international monitoring
measures in 2002, and 2011 was also a record year for seizures of illegal ivory throughout the world: 3.8 tonnes (the
equivalent of more than 4 000 elephants).

The growth in the trafficking of elephant tusks is mostly due to the actions of an obscure and diverse criminal
organisation bringing together armed guerilla groups, poor farmers and experienced traffickers.

The ivory trade, which was banned in 1989, has been a regular subject of debate at CITES (Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) meetings. Amended in 1983, the CITES text then
became a Community regulation, making the European Union a crucial partner in the fight against the ivory trade
through Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 November 1996. Furthermore, a paradigm shift seems to have occurred at
the July 2012 part-session, when a key document entitled ‘Decision‐making Mechanisms and Necessary Conditions
for a Future Trade in African Elephant Ivory’ was debated.

In the light of the above, what position does the Commission plan to adopt at the next CITES conference, planned for
March 2013 in Bangkok, on the trade in ivory?

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

_(27 November 2012)_

Within the EU, the prohibition on ivory trade is implemented through Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 ( [1] ) on the
protection of species of wild fauna and flora. Enforcing the ban on ivory trade is a priority for the agencies in charge
of wildlife trade in the EU Member States. In 2011, it is estimated that around 100 kg of ivory were seized in the EU;
most of the seized items were on transit from Africa to Asia.

At the global level, elephant poaching and illegal ivory trade reached record levels in 2011. This is a source of serious
concern to the Commission. China is likely to be the main end destination for a large part of the ivory smuggled out
of Africa. The efforts by the Chinese authorities against ivory trafficking need to be pursued. Enforcement and
sanctions also need to be reinforced in countries of origin and transit. The EU supports the action taken to this end by
the recently created International Consortium for Combating Wildlife Crime (ICCWC), which comprises five
international organisations with expertise in law enforcement, wildlife trafficking and project management.

International trade in ivory is prohibited under the CITES Convention. The European Commission is currently
preparing the EU position for the upcoming Conference of the Parties to the CITES Convention, which will be held in
Bangkok in March 2013. The Commission will be endeavouring that any decision within the CITES Convention takes
fully into account the worrying situation of elephant populations in a number of range States and the need for strong
measures to improve that situation.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 061, 03/03/1997.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 145

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008985/12**

**à la Commission**
**Philippe Boulland (PPE)**

_(8 octobre 2012)_

_Objet:_ Logiciel «Liquidfeedback»

Le logiciel libre disponible sur l'internet, Liquidfeedback, permet aux membres d'une association de prendre part aux
processus décisionnels par référendum ou par vote.

Ce système, rebaptisé «démocratie liquide» et adopté par plusieurs partis pirates du monde entier, permet de débattre,
d'adopter des motions et de prendre part aux élections. Ces nouveaux logiciels ouvrent la voie à une véritable
révolution démocratique sur l'internet, à condition d'être contrôlés et certifiés par des autorités indépendantes.

— La Commission compte-t-elle s'inspirer de ces systèmes innovants pour faire plébiscitercertains projets législatifs
par les citoyens européens?

— Ce type d'instrument pourrait-il être mis en avant lors de l'année européenne de lacitoyenneté en 2013?

**Réponse donnée par Mme** **Viviane Reding au nom de la Commission**

_(3 décembre 2012)_

La question a trait aux outils permettant de faire participer les citoyens et leurs organisations aux débats sur les
questions européennes, notamment les propositions législatives. La Commission a pour priorité de veiller à ce que les
citoyens de l'Union puissent exercer les droits qui leur sont conférés, notamment leurs droits électoraux, quel que soit
l'endroit de l'Union où ils se trouvent; aussi se réjouit-elle de toute initiative qui facilite la participation des citoyens à
des consultations et des élections.

Cela dit, la Commission n'a pas l'intention d'exploiter le logiciel Liquidfeedback ou tout autre logiciel similaire
disponible sur internet pour la consultation des citoyens, car elle dispose déjà des logiciels adaptés à ses besoins
spécifiques.

En 2013, dans le cadre de l'Année européenne des citoyens, l'attention des citoyens sera attirée sur les outils
[démocratiques de participation comme les consultations en cours (http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/index_fr.htm) et sur](http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/index_fr.htm)
[la possibilité nouvellement introduite de lancer une initiative citoyenne (http://www.citizens-initiative.eu/).](http://www.citizens-initiative.eu/)

En outre, dans le cadre du programme «L'Europe pour les citoyens» (2007-2013), la Commission encourage les
initiatives visant à rapprocher l'Union des citoyens et à faciliter la participation active de ces derniers à la vie civique et
démocratique de l'Union. Elle finance, au titre de ce programme, des projets utilisant des méthodes innovantes de
débat sur les questions européennes. Les organisations désireuses d'essayer des méthodes innovantes de consultation
des citoyens peuvent introduire des projets dans le contexte du programme «L'Europe pour les citoyens», action 1
«Des citoyens actifs pour l'Europe», mesure 2.1 «Projets citoyens».

C 294 E / 146 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008985/12**

**to the Commission**
**Philippe Boulland (PPE)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ ‘LiquidFeedback’ software

LiquidFeedback is a software programme available free on the Internet that enables the members of an organisation to
take part in decision‐making processes by way of a referendum or vote.

This system, renamed ‘Liquid Democracy’ and now employed by a number of pirate parties throughout the world,
facilitates debate, the adoption of motions and participation in elections. New software programmes of this kind can
open the way for a genuine democratic revolution on the Internet if they are monitored and certified by independent
authorities.

— Does the Commission intend to draw on these systems to conduct EU-wide polls on certain legislative proposals?

— Could such an instrument be promoted during the European Year of Citizens in 2013?

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

_(3 December 2012)_

The question posed by the Honourable Member of Parliament concerns tools to involve citizens and their
organisations in debates on EU matters and notably legislative initiatives. It is a priority for the Commission to make
sure that EU citizens can exercise their EU rights wherever they are in the EU and notably their electoral rights, and
therefore the Commission welcomes any initiative which makes it easier for citizens to participate in consultations
and elections.

However, the Commission itself does not intend to draw on the ‘LiquidFeedback’ Software or similar software
programmes available on the Internet to carry out citizens' consultations as it disposes already of appropriate
software programmes adapted to its specific needs.

During the European Year of Citizens 2013, the attention of the citizens will be drawn to democratic instruments for
[participation such as ongoing consultations (http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/index_en.htm) and the newly introduced](http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/index_en.htm)
[possibility to launch a Citizens' Initiative (http://www.citizens-initiative.eu/).](http://www.citizens-initiative.eu/))

Furthermore, within the Europe for Citizens Programme (2007-2013) the Commission promotes initiatives bringing
the EU closer to the citizens and facilitating the active participation of citizens in the civic and democratic life of
the EU. Within this programme, the Commission is funding projects using innovative methods for the debate on
European issues. Organisations wishing to test new innovative methodologies to consult citizens may introduce
projects under the Measure 2.1 ‘Citizens Projects’ of Action 1 ‘Active Citizens for Europe’ of the Europe for Citizens

programme.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 147

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-008986/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 Οκτωβρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Συγχρηματοδοτούμενα προγράμματα στην Ελλάδα — Υστέρηση από τους στόχους

Σύμφωνα με δημοσιογραφικές πληροφορίες, η απορρόφηση των συγχρηματοδοτούμενων από την ΕΕ προγραμμάτων στην
Ελλάδα, παρουσιάζει σημαντική υστέρηση από το στόχο που είχε τεθεί στο Μνημόνιο.

Με δεδομένα την τραγική κατάσταση της οικονομίας, τις ιδιαίτερα χαμηλές επενδύσεις και την τεράστια ανεργία που συνεχώς
αυξάνεται, ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

—
Ποιος είναι ο στόχος που έχει τεθεί στο Μνημόνιο για την απορρόφηση κοινοτικών πόρων μέχρι και το τέλος του
2012; Ποιο είναι το ύψος και ο ρυθμός απορρόφησής τους μέχρι σήμερα; Πώς προσδιορίζονται ανά ταμείο; Πώς
σχολιάζει σχετικά;

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

_(13 Δεκεμβρίου 2012)_

Ο συνολικός ετήσιος στόχος αιτήσεων πληρωμών ανέρχεται σε 3,73 δισ. ευρώ, εκ των οποίων 2,85 δισ. ευρώ προέρχονται
από το Ευρωπαϊκό Ταμείο Περιφερειακής Ανάπτυξης (ΕΤΠΑ) και το Ταμείο Συνοχής και 0,88 δισ. ευρώ από το Ευρωπαϊκό
Κοινωνικό Ταμείο (ΕΚΤ). Η αξιολόγηση της συμμόρφωσης με τους στόχους πρέπει να βασίζεται σε πιστοποιημένα στοιχεία.
Το δεύτερο Πρόγραμμα Οικονομικής Προσαρμογής για την Ελλάδα (Μάρτιος 2012) θέτει συγκεκριμένους στόχους τους
οποίους η Ελλάδα πρέπει να επιτύχει προκειμένου να αυξήσει τους ρυθμούς απορρόφησης κεφαλαίων των διαρθρωτικών
ταμείων.

Όσον αφορά τη διαχείριση προγραμμάτων και την απλοποίηση των διαδικασιών, έχουν γίνει πολλές βελτιώσεις οι οποίες
αναμένεται να επιταχύνουν την απορρόφηση ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-12-784_el.htm

C 294 E / 148 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008986/12**

**to the Commission**
**Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Co-funded programmes in Greece — Delay in achieving objectives

According to press releases, the absorption rate of programmes co-funded by the EU in Greece shows a significant
delay in achieving targets set in the Memorandum.

In view of the poor economic state, particularly low investment levels and huge, and continually rising,
unemployment, will the Commission answer the following:

—
What is the objective established in the Memorandum for EU resource absorption by the end of 2012? To what
extent and at what rate have they been absorbed to date? How are they determined for each fund? How does the
Commission view this?

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

_(13 December 2012)_

The total annual target for payment claims is EUR 3.73 bn, whereby EUR 2.85 bn falls under the European Regional
Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund, and EUR 0,88 bn under the European Social Fund (ESF). Compliance
with the targets shall be measured by certified data. The Second Economic Adjustment Programme for Greece
(March 2012) set specific targets that Greece has to meet to raise absorption rates of Structural Funds.

Numerous improvements have been made to project management and in the simplification of procedures that are
expected to accelerate the absorption ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-12-784_en.htm

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 149

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-008987/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 Οκτωβρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Αναδρομικές αλλαγές στο καθεστώς στήριξης των εν λειτουργία έργων ΑΠΕ

Σύμφωνα με δημοσιεύματα του Τύπου η ελληνική κυβέρνηση προτίθεται να επιφέρει αναδρομικές αλλαγές στο καθεστώς
στήριξης των εν λειτουργία έργων ΑΠΕ (Ανανεώσιμων Πηγών Ενέργειας), επιβάλλοντας «έκτακτη εισφορά και μάλιστα
αναδρομικά στον τζίρο των εν λειτουργία έργων ΑΠΕ, και ειδικά στα φωτοβολταϊκά».

[Με δεδομένο ότι σε προηγούμενη ερώτησή μου (E-005660/2011), η Επιτροπή στις 22.7.2012 είχε απαντήσει «Η Επιτροπή](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=WQ&reference=E-2011-005660&language=EL)
δεν είναι ενήμερη για συζητήσεις στην Ελλάδα σχετικά με την επαναδιαπραγμάτευση των συμβάσεων και τη μείωση των
εγγυημένων τιμών των ανανεώσιμων πηγών ενέργειας. Η Επιτροπή έχει επανειλημμένως και δημοσίως αντιταχθεί στις
αναδρομικές αλλαγές των καθεστώτων στήριξης των ανανεώσιμων πηγών ενέργειας, με τις οποίες είναι αντίθετος ο κλάδος
και υπονομεύουν την εμπιστοσύνη των επενδυτών»

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Μπορεί να είναι το ίδιο κατηγορηματική ότι δεν θα υπάρξουν «αναδρομικές αλλαγές των καθεστώτων στήριξης των
ανανεώσιμων πηγών ενέργειας, με τις οποίες είναι αντίθετος ο κλάδος και υπονομεύουν την εμπιστοσύνη των επενδυτών».

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

_(3 Δεκεμβρίου 2012)_

Η Επιτροπή είναι ενήμερη σχετικά με τα ελληνικά σχέδια για προσωρινό φόρο επί των φωτοβολταϊκών εγκαταστάσεων.
Επιβεβαιώνει την αρνητική της στάση σε τέτοιες αλλαγές με αναδρομική ισχύ για τα καθεστώτα στήριξης.

Η κανονιστική ρύθμιση των καθεστώτων των μηχανισμών στήριξης παραμένει ωστόσο ζήτημα υπαγόμενο στην αρμοδιότητα
των κρατών μελών. Όπως αναφέρεται στην ανακοίνωση με τίτλο «Ενέργεια από ανανεώσιμες πηγές: σημαντικός παράγοντας
στην ευρωπαϊκή αγορά ενέργειας» ( [1] ), προκειμένου να διασφαλίσει ότι οι αλλαγές στα καθεστώτα δεν υπονομεύουν
περαιτέρω την εμπιστοσύνη των επενδυτών, η Επιτροπή ετοιμάζει επί του παρόντος έγγραφο καθοδήγησης σχετικά με τη
μεταρρύθμιση των καθεστώτων στήριξης.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012)271 τελικό, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0271:FIN:EL:PDF.

C 294 E / 150 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008987/12**

**to the Commission**
**Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Retroactive changes to the support scheme for commissioned renewable energy projects

According to press releases, the Greek Government intends to make retroactive changes to the support scheme for
commissioned renewable energy projects, imposing an ‘exceptional retroactive levy with on the turnover of
commissioned renewables projects, especially photovoltaics’.

[On 22 July 2012, the Commission answered a previous question (E-005660/2011) as follows: ‘The Commission is](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=WQ&reference=E-2011-005660&language=EL)
not aware of any discussion in Greece surrounding the renegotiation of contracts and lowering guaranteed prices for
renewable energy. The Commission has consistently and publicly opposed retroactive changes to renewable energy
support schemes which are opposed by industry and undermine investor confidence.’ Therefore, will the Commission
answer the following:

Can it still say that there will be no ‘retroactive changes to renewable energy support schemes which are opposed by
industry and undermine investor confidence’?

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

_(3 December 2012)_

The Commission is aware of Greek plans for a temporary tax on photovoltaic installations. It confirms its negative
stance on such retroactive changes to support schemes.

The regulation of support scheme regimes remains, however, a Member State competence. As announced in the
communication entitled ‘Renewable Energy: a major player in the European energy market’ ( [1] ), in order to ensure that
changes to the regimes do not further undermine investor confidence, the Commission is currently preparing a
Guidance document on support scheme reform.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 271final, http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/communication_2012_en.htm

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 151

_(Suomenkielinen versio)_

**Kirjallisesti vastattava kysymys E-008988/12**

**komissiolle**
**Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE)**

_(8. lokakuuta 2012)_

_Aihe:_ Muutetun päästökauppajärjestelmän vaikutukset EU:n talouteen

Komission puolesta antamassaan vastauksessa (E-003155/2012) komission jäsen Connie Hedegaard toteaa, että
jäsenvaltiot voivat sähkön hinnoissa huomioon otettujen, kasvihuonekaasupäästöihin liittyvien epäsuorien
kustannusten osalta ottaa käyttöön taloudellisia toimenpiteitä niiden alojen tukemiseksi, joita tilanne kaikkein eniten
koskee, ja että näitä taloudellisia toimenpiteitä koskevien valtiontuen suuntaviivojen on määrä valmistua vuonna
2012. Valtiontukea todellakin tarvitaan, jotta lukuisten eurooppalaisten energiavaltaisten laitosten välitön
sulkeminen voidaan välttää, mutta se ei voi olla pysyvä ratkaisu: kaikki jäsenvaltiot eivät voi myöntää
energiavaltaisille teollisuusaloilleen valtiontukea taloudellisista syistä.

Pohjoismaiden ministerineuvostolle on sitä paitsi selvinnyt ( [1] ), että Pohjoismaiden energiavaltaisten teollisuusalojen
(metsä-, metalli‐ ja kemianteollisuus) tuotanto vähenisi 8 prosenttia vuosittain, mikäli EU pitää kiinni yksipuolisesta
ilmastopolitiikastaan ja muut eivät seuraa perässä. Mikäli nämä tappiot korvattaisiin täysimääräisesti Pohjoismaiden
energiavaltaisille teollisuusaloille, olisi pelkästään kyseisissä maissa maksettava valtiontukea 17 miljardia euroa
vuosittain. On selvää, että kaikki unionin jäsenvaltiot eivät voi ottaa käyttöön tämän kokoluokan valtiontukea. Sen
sijaan meidän on löydettävä pysyvä ratkaisu korkeiden sähköhintojen ongelmaan, ja yksi tällainen on Euroopan
sähkömarkkinoille ehdotettu uusi markkinamalli ( [2] ).

Komissio toteaa vastauksessaan tarkastelleensa myös huolellisesti [parlamentin jäsenen ehdottamaa] vaihtoehtoista
lähestymistapaa, mutta koska kyseinen lähestymistapa arvioitiin jo muutama vuosi sitten, jolloin siinä havaittiin
useita puutteita, sitä ei ehdotettu pantavaksi täytäntöön.

1. Onko komission suorittamasta arvioinnista saatavilla selontekoa?

2. Mitä puutteita havaittiin ehdotettua uutta markkinamallia koskevassa arvioinnissa?

**Connie Hedegaardin komission puolesta antama vastaus**

_(6. joulukuuta 2012)_

1. Mainitussa Pohjoismaiden ministerineuvoston teetättämässä raportissa todetaan, että energiaintensiiviset
Pohjoismaat joutuvat käsittelemään perustavanlaatuisia pitkän aikavälin muutoksia globaalissa kilpailuympäristössä,
kun kysyntä lisääntyy kehitysmaissa; tilanteeseen vaikuttavat myös työmarkkinakehitykset, Pohjoismaille tyypillisiin
luonnonvaroihin kohdistuvat paineet ja hiilidioksipäästöjen vähentäminen ( [3] ). Olisi väärin olettaa, että tiettyjen alojen
mahdolliset tappiot johtuvat ainoastaan EU:n päästökauppajärjestelmästä.

Tarkistettuun päästökauppadirektiiviin liittyvässä vaikutusten arvioinnissa on tarkasteltu niitä lähestymistapoja
mahdollisten kilpailukykykysymysten käsittelemiseksi, joista sidosryhmät eniten keskustelevat ( [4] ). Lähestymistavasta,
jota arvoisa jäsen ehdottaa, ei ole laadittu muita erityisiä selvityksiä.

2. Tehokkaiden sähkömarkkinoiden edellytyksenä on, että hiilidioksidin hinnoittelu koskee kaikkia toimijoita sen
sijaan, että se poistettaisiin joidenkin osalta. On itse asiassa taloudellisesti tehokasta, että hiileen liittyvät kustannukset
näkyvät sähkön rajahinnoissa.

Joka tapauksessa analyysit osoittavat, että päästöoikeuksien jakomenetelmällä ei ole merkittävää vaikutusta sähkön
hintaan, koska velvoite palauttaa päästöoikeuksia luo joka tapauksessa vaihtoehtokustannuksen tuottajalle ( [5] ).
Sähköntuottajalle myönnettävä tuki tarkoittaisi päästöoikeuksien ilmaisjakoa siten, että sähkön hinnanlaskusta ei
olisi varmuutta mutta riski windfall-voitoista jatkuisi. Lisäksi kyseisestä järjestelmästä aiheutuvia hallinnollisia
kustannuksia ja ‐menettelyjä ei tulisi aliarvioida.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Implication of EU emission trading in the Nordic countries, VATT valmisteluraportit 12, Valtion taloudellinen tutkimuskeskus, elokuu 2011,

Janne Niemi ja Juha Honkatukia.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Pöyry Oy.n tutkimus Teknologiateollisuuden uudesta sähkömarkkinamallista, 3. kesäkuuta 2009.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) J. Niemi and J. Honkatukia, Implications of EU emission trading in the Nordic countries, VATT valmisteluraportit 12, Valtion taloudellinen

tutkimuskeskus, elokuu 2011.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) SEC(2008) 52.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Pöyry Oy:n tutkimus Teknologiateollisuuden uudesta sähkömarkkinamallista, 3.6.2009.

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

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

C 294 E / 152 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008988/12**

**to the Commission**
**Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Impact of the revised Emission Trading Scheme on the EU economy

The answer given by Commissioner Hedegaard to my Written Question E‐003155/2012 states: ‘(…) for indirect cost
relating to GHG emissions passed on in electricity prices the Member States may adopt financial measures in favour
of the most exposed sectors. The state aid guidelines for these financial measures are to be finalised in 2012’. Indeed,
state aid is needed in order to prevent the immediate shutdown of numerous energy-intensive installations in Europe,
but it cannot be a permanent solution: not all Member States have the financial resources that would enable them to
allocate state aid to their energy-intensive industries.

Furthermore, the Nordic Ministerial Council ( [1] ) has concluded that the loss of output for energy-intensive industries
(forestry, metallurgy and chemicals) in the Nordic countries could be as high as 8% per annum by 2020 if the EU
continues with its unilateral climate policy while others do not follow. To fully compensate the Nordic energyintensive industries for this loss would involve an annual total of EUR 17 billion in state aid for the Nordic countries
alone. It is obvious that this level of state aid cannot be adopted by all EU Member States. Instead, we need a
permanent solution to the problem of high electricity costs, one possible solution being the proposed new market
design for the European electricity market ( [2] ).

The Commission’s answer further states: ‘The alternative approach proposed by the Honourable Member has been
carefully considered. However, this type of approach was already assessed some years ago and was found to have a
number of shortcomings, which is the reason why it was never proposed for implementation’.

1. Is there a report available on the assessment carried out by the Commission?

2. What shortcomings were identified in the assessment of the proposed new market design?

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

_(6 December 2012)_

1. According to the report referred to, commissioned by the Nordic Council of Ministers, the energy-intensive
industries in Nordic countries face fundamental, long-term changes in the global competitive environment as the
demand increases in the developing countries, in addition to labour market developments, pressure on natural
resources typical to Nordic countries, and CO 2 mitigation ( [3] ). It would be wrong to attribute any potential losses for
certain industries to the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) alone.

The approaches most widely discussed by the stakeholders to address potential competitiveness issues have been
considered in the impact assessment accompanying the proposal for the revised ETS Directive ( [4] ). There is no other
report specifically on the approach proposed by the Honourable Member.

2. Pricing of the CO 2 for all actors, rather than suppressing it for some, is a prerequisite for an efficient electricity
market. Indeed, it is economically efficient that marginal electricity prices reflect carbon costs.

In any case, analyses show that the method of allocation of allowances does not have a significant impact on the
electricity price, because the obligation to surrender allowances in any case creates an opportunity cost to the
producer ( [5] ). The subsidy to an electricity producer would just act as free allocation with no certain decrease in the
electricity price and a continued risk of windfall profits. Also, the administrative costs and procedures needed for such
a system should not be underestimated.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) J. Niemi and J. Honkatukia, ‘Implications of EU emission trading in the Nordic countries’, Policy Reports 12, Finnish Government Institute for

Economic Research, August 2011.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Pöyry Energy Oy / Federation of Finnish Technology Industries, ‘New Design for the Electricity Market’, 3 June 2009.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) J. Niemi and J. Honkatukia, ‘Implications of EU emission trading in the Nordic countries’, Policy Reports 12, Finnish Government Institute for

Economic Research, August 2011.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) SEC(2008) 52.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Pöyry Energy Oy/Federation of Finnish Technology Industries, ‘New Design for the Electricity Market’, 3 June 2009.

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

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

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 153

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-008989/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Jorgo Chatzimarkakis (ALDE)**

_(8. Oktober 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Anerkennung deutsche Weiterbildung von Berufskraftfahrern nach EU-Richtlinie 2003/59/EG

Berufskraftfahrer müssen gemäß EU-Richtlinie 2003/59/EG nach Ablauf von fünf Jahren eine Weiterbildung
(35 Stunden) absolvieren. Ein entsprechender Nachweis muss mitgeführt werden.

Nach Artikel 9 kann eine Weiterbildung auch im Land des Arbeitsgebers erfolgen. Dies ist insofern von zentraler
Bedeutung, als im Zuge des zusammenwachsenden Europas immer mehr Berufskraftfahrer jenseits der Grenze
arbeiten bzw. eine solche Bescheinigung in einem anderen Mitgliedstaat vorweisen müssen.

Als Europaabgeordneter meines Wahlkreises Saarland, der an Frankreich angrenzt, erhalte ich immer wieder
Hinweise, dass in Deutschland absolvierte Kurse von den französischen Behörden nicht anerkannt werden.

Deutsche Führerscheinstellen erkennen eine in Frankreich absolvierte Weiterbildung in aller Regel an.

1. Sieht die Kommission in der prinzipiellen Nichtanerkennung der Weiterbildungsbescheinigungen in einzelnen
Mitgliedstaaten eine Verletzung der entsprechenden Artikel von EU-Richtlinie 2003/59/EG?

2. Sollte dies der Fall sein: Plant die Kommission hier entsprechend tätig zu werden?

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

_(20. November 2012)_

Bei der Verabschiedung der Richtlinie über die Grundqualifikation und Weiterbildung von Berufskraftfahrern  ( [1] )
haben sich die Gesetzgebungsorgane dagegen entschieden, die Mitgliedstaaten zur gegenseitigen Anerkennung der
Bescheinigungen über die Berufsausbildung zu verpflichten. Stattdessen können die Mitgliedstaaten wählen, ob sie
einen Code im Führerschein vermerken oder einen Fahrerqualifizierungsnachweis ausstellen, wenn ein Fahrer eine
Weiterbildung absolviert hat.

Um das von Ihnen beschriebene Problem zu lösen, stellen mehrere Mitgliedstaaten Fahrern, die ihren Führerschein in
einem anderen EU-Mitgliedstaat erworben haben, Fahrerqualifizierungsnachweise aus, wenn sie die Weiterbildung
absolviert haben. Im Gegensatz zu Bescheinigungen über die Berufsausbildung müssen diese
Fahrerqualifizierungsnachweise in allen Mitgliedstaaten anerkannt werden. Bei einer Ausschusssitzung im Juni 2012
hat die Kommission die Mitgliedstaaten aufgerufen, sich dieser Praxis zur Lösung des Problems anzuschließen.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Richtlinie 2003/59/EG, ABl. L 226 vom 10.9.2003, S. 4.

C 294 E / 154 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008989/12**

**to the Commission**
**Jorgo Chatzimarkakis (ALDE)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Recognition of German vocational training for professional drivers under EU Directive 2003/59/EC

Under EU Directive 2003/59/EC, professional drivers must follow a 35-hour programme of periodic vocational
training every five years. They must keep the certificate proving they have done so with them while driving.

Under Article 9, this periodic training may also take place in the country of their employer. This point is of major
importance since, with the increasing degree of integration in Europe, more and more professional drivers work
abroad or must produce such a certificate for inspection in another Member State.

As MEP for my constituency, the Saarland, I receive innumerable indications that training courses followed in
Germany are not recognised by the French authorities.

German driving licence authorities, on the other hand, do generally recognise certificates obtained in France.

1. Does the Commission regard the refusal by some Member States to recognise vocational training certificates
from other countries as a breach of the relevant article of EU Directive 2003/59/EC?

2. If so, is it planning to take any action on this matter?

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

_(20 November 2012)_

When adopting the directive on professional driver's training ( [1] ) the legislator has chosen not to stipulate that
vocational training certificates have to be mutually recognised by Member States. Instead, Member States have the
choice between inserting a code on the driving licence or issuing a driver qualification card when a driver passed the
training.

In order to resolve the problems described by the Honourable Member, several Member States are issuing driver
qualification cards to holders of driving licences of another EU Member State after they have passed the training. In
contrast to vocational training certificates these drivers' qualification cards have to be recognised in all Member States.
The Commission has called upon Member States during a committee meeting in June 2012 to follow these practices
to resolve the problem.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2003/59/EC, OJ L 226, 10.09.2003, p.4.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 155

_(Dansk udgave)_

**Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-008990/12**

**til Kommissionen**
**Ole Christensen (S&D)**

_(8. oktober 2012)_

_Om:_ Tilstrækkeligt bevismateriale i timelærersag

I svar til mig den 17.8.2012 foreslår Kommissionen at lukke timelærersagen, som har stået på over en årrække
mellem timelærere ansat i undervisningssektoren af den danske stat. Kommissionen mener blandt andet, at der i den
konkrete sag ikke foreligger beviser af en sådan beskaffenhed, at det kan anvendes over for EU-Domstolen i en
eventuel sag mod Danmark.

I mellemtiden er der dog kommet nye beviser frem, som kan bruges i sagen. Blandt andet har Rigsrevisionen i
Danmark fremlagt en rapport (vedhæftet), hvor den sår tvivl om den danske stats praksis i forhold til eksterne
lektorers og undervisningsassistenters ansættelsesforhold, som er ansat på deltid. Undersøgelsen er igangsat på eget
initiativ af Rigsrevisionen i 2011 efter, at den er blevet bekendt med, at reglerne i flere tilfælde ikke efterleves.

Blandt hovedkonklusionerne er, at eksterne lektorers og undervisningsassistenters ansættelsesforhold ikke forvaltes
tilfredsstillende i Danmark. Endvidere fastslår Rigsrevisionen, at universiteterne i Danmark i flere tilfælde ikke har
efterlevet reglerne for eksterne lektorers og undervisningsassistenters ansættelse og arbejdsomfang.

1. På baggrund af ovenstående, vil Kommissionen tage stilling til Rigsrevisionens konklusioner samt vurdere
tilstrækkeligheden i bevismaterialet i forhold til at igangsætte en eventuel sag mod Danmark?

2. Vil Kommissionen endvidere tage stilling til, hvad den mere generelt vurderer som tilstrækkeligt bevismateriale
ud over, at det ikke må være fortrolighedsstemplet eller vagt — som Kommissionen har tilkendegivet i sin skrivelse
den 17.8.2012 — og give nogle mere konkrete eksempler på, hvad den anser som tilstrækkeligt bevismateriale?

**Foreløbigt svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af László Andor**

_(5. december 2012)_

Kommissionen er i øjeblikket ved at udføre en grundig analyse af de rejste spørgsmål og foretager herunder også en
oversættelse af det dokument, der var vedlagt det ærede medlems spørgsmål. Kommissionen underretter det ærede
medlem om resultatet så hurtigt som muligt.

**Supplerende svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af László Andor**

_(29. januar 2013)_

1. Kommissionen har undersøgt den omfattende dokumentation samt den rapport, som det ærede medlem har
fremlagt, og har konkluderet, at det ikke udgør bevis for traktatbrud. I rapporten nævnes det udtrykkeligt, at reglerne
er klare, men at de pågældende arbejdsgivere (universiteterne) har undladt at overholde og anvende dem korrekt.

I rapporten nævnes ingen fejl i de danske bestemmelser, der har indarbejdet EU-retten. En traktatbrudsprocedure kan
derfor ikke iværksættes af Kommissionen på dette grundlag. Situationen ville være anderledes, hvis en fast
administrativ praksis i strid med EU-retten tolererede en sådan arbejdsgiveradfærd, men rapporten viser det modsatte.

I rapporten står det klart, at ansvaret for at kontrollere og, hvor det er nødvendigt, for at straffe arbejdsgivere for en
sådan adfærd ligger hos Styrelsen for Universiteter og Internationalisering. Som Kommissionen har påpeget, bør de,
som er negativt påvirket af denne situation, derudover benytte de midler, der er til rådighed, f.eks. retssager, for at
håndhæve deres rettigheder i henhold til national ret.

2. Med hensyn til formålet med traktatbrudsproceduren er der behov for dokumentation for, at de nationale regler
ikke er i overensstemmelse med kravene i det pågældende direktiv. Individuelle arbejdsgiveres ukorrekte anvendelse
udgør ikke en sådan dokumentation, medmindre den er baseret på fast administrativ praksis. Et eksempel på relevant
bevismateriale kunne være lovgivning eller kollektive overenskomster, der stiller deltidsansatte mindre gunstigt end
fuldtidsansatte, som f.eks. de oplysninger om lærere i uddannelsessystemet på kommunalt plan, der citeres i
Kommissionens brev af 17. august 2012, som det ærede medlem henviser til.

C 294 E / 156 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008990/12**

**to the Commission**
**Ole Christensen (S&D)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Sufficient evidence in the case concerning hourly-paid teachers

In its reply to me of 17 August 2012 the Commission proposes to close the file concerning hourly-paid teachers
employed by the Danish State, which has been a contentious issue for years. The Commission argues, among other
things, that there is no evidence in this specific case that could be used before the European Court of Justice in an
action brought against Denmark.

Meanwhile, however, new evidence has emerged which may be used to this end. The Office of the Auditor-General of
Denmark has issued a report (enclosed) in which it raises doubts about the practice followed by the Danish State with
regard to the employment of external lecturers and teaching assistants working part-time. The Office of the AuditorGeneral opened the inquiry in 2011 on its own initiative, after it had become aware of several cases in which the rules
had not been complied with.

Among its key conclusions the report points out shortcomings in the way external lecturers' and teaching assistants'
employment contracts are managed in Denmark. Further, the Office of the Auditor-General finds that, in several
cases, Danish universities have not complied with the rules concerning the hiring of external lecturers and teaching
assistants and the scope of their duties.

1. Based on the above, would the Commission consider the conclusions drawn by the Office of the AuditorGeneral and assess whether there is sufficient evidence to open infringement proceedings against Denmark?

2. Further, would the Commission elaborate, in general terms, on what the requirements are for evidence to be
considered sufficient, other than — as stated in its letter of 17 August 2012 — not being vague or classed as
confidential, and give some concrete examples of what is considered sufficient evidence?

**Preliminary answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission**

_(5 December 2012)_

The Commission is conducting a detailed analysis of the issues raised, including translating the document which was
annexed to the Honourable Member's question and will inform the Honourable Member of the outcome as soon as
possible.

**Supplementary answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission**

_(29 January 2013)_

1. The Commission has examined the extensive documentation and the report provided by the Honourable
Member and has concluded that they provide no evidence of any infringement. The report states explicitly that the
rules are clear, but that the employers concerned (the universities) have failed to observe or apply them correctly.

The report makes no reference to defects in the Danish national rules transposing EC law. Consequently, no
infringement procedure can be launched by the Commission on that ground. The situation would be different if such
behaviour on the part of an employer were to be condoned by constant administrative practice contrary to EC law,
but the report indicates the opposite.

The report makes it clear that responsibility for verifying and, where necessary, for penalising the employers
concerned for such behaviour lies with the Danish Agency for Universities and Internationalisation _._ Furthermore, as
the Commission has pointed out, those adversely affected by the situation should use the means available, such as
litigation, to enforce their rights under national law.

2. In view of the purpose of the infringement procedure, evidence is needed that the national rules do not comply
with the requirements of the directive in question. Incorrect application by individual employers does not constitute
such evidence, unless it is based on constant administrative practice. An example of evidence of relevance would be
the text of legislation or collective agreements treating part-time staff less favourably than full-time staff, such as that
regarding teachers in the education system at municipal level, cited in the Commission’s letter of 17 August 2012 to
which the Honourable Member refers.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 157

_(Verżjoni Maltija)_

**Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub E-008992/12**

**lill-Kummissjoni**
**Louis Grech (S&D)**

_(8 ta' Ottubru 2012)_

_Suġġett:_ Rikonoxximent ta' ħiliet miksuba barra mill-iskola u mill-università

Il-proposta tal-Kummissjoni għal rakkomandazzjoni tal-Kunsill dwar il-validazzjoni tat-tagħlim mhux formali u
informali, ippreżentata fil-bidu ta' Settembru 2012, tħejji l-pedament għar-rikonoxximent mill-UE tal-ħiliet u lkompetenzi miskuba miċ-ċittadini barra mill-iskola jew mill-università. Bħalissa, jidher li l-Finlandja, Franza, ilLussemburgu u l-Pajjiżi l-Baxxi biss għandhom sistemi komprensivi fis-seħħ għall-validazzjoni tat-tagħlim mhux
formali u informali. Id-dokument tal-Kummissjoni beda jagħmel tibdiliet dwar dan.

Din l-inizjattiva hija mmirata l-aktar għaż-żgħażagħ qiegħda u dawk bi ftit kwalifiki formali, kif ukoll għall-ħaddiema
akbar fl-età u b'ħiliet baxxi. Jien naqbel li l-metodoloġiji informali u mhux formali huma għodda ta' tagħlim
fundamentali li jikkontribwixxu għall-iżvilupp personali u l-impjegabilità ta' individwu u jgħinu l-integrazzjoni ta’ dik
il-persuna fis-soċjetà kollha billi jinkoraġġixxu ċ-ċittadinanza attiva.

Din il-proposta kif se tikkomplementa l-parti “formali” tal-ispettru tat-tagħlim (u b'hekk il-Qafas Ewropew talKwalifiki)? Se toħloq opportunitajiet ta' tagħlim ta' kwalità għolja u sostenibbli li se jservu bħala alternattivi għal dawk
offruti mill-edukazzjoni formali?

Aħna se jkollna bżonn informazzjoni sempliċi, effikaċi u f'waqtha jekk irridu nibdlu l-perċezzjoni negattiva li ċerti
ċittadini u wħud fl-oqsma tal-impjieg u tal-edukazzjoni għandhom tal-edukazzjoni informali. Il-Kummissjoni qed
tħeġġeġ lill-Istati Membri jistabbilixxu sistemi nazzjonali għall-validazzjoni tat-tagħlim mhux formali u informali.

F'liema stadju nistgħu nistennew li l-Istati Membri jintroduċu dawn l-istrutturi, speċjalment meta wieħed jikkunsidra
li wħud minnhom għadhom ma adottawx id-direttiva dwar il-kwalifiki?

**Tweġiba mogħtija mis-Sinjura Vassiliou f'isem il-Kummissjoni**

_(26 ta' Novembru 2012)_

Il-proposta tal-Kummissjoni għal Rakkomandazzjoni tal-Kunsill dwar il-validazzjoni ta' tagħlim mhux formali u
informali għandha l-għan li tikkumplimenta l-parti formali tal-ispettru tat-tagħlim, billi din tirrakkomanda li l-Istati
Membri jagħtu l-opportunità liċ-ċittadini biex jiksbu kwalifika sħiħa, jew partijiet minnha, skont esperjenzi validati ta'
tagħlim mhux formali u informali. Il-proposta tal-Kummissjoni tiffoka fuq ir-riżultati tat-tagħlim li ġejjin minn
tagħlim mhux formali u informali. L-għan tagħha mhuwiex li toħloq opportunitajiet ta’ tagħlim alternattivi għalledukazzjoni formali.

Il-proposta tikkomplimenta r-Rakkomandazzjoni tal-Parlament u tal-Kunsill dwar l-istabbiliment tal-Qafas Ewropew
tal-Kwalifiki għat-tagħlim tul il-ħajja (QEK). Kemm il-proposta kif ukoll ir-Rakkomandazzjoni tal-QEK isegwu lapproċċ tar-riżultati tat-tagħlim li fil-qalba tiegħu hemm l-għarfien, il-ħiliet u l-kompetenzi miksuba. Filwaqt li rRakkomandazzjoni tal-QEK tiffoka prinċipalment fuq il-kwalifiki, din tiddikjara wkoll li l-validazzjoni ta' tagħlim
mhux formali u informali għandha tiġi promossa.

Il-Kummissjoni pproponiet l-2015 bħala d-data għall-istabbiliment tas-sistemi nazzjonali għall-validazzjoni. Id-data
hija kompatibbli mal-implimentazzjoni attwali tar-Rakkomandazzjoni tal-QEK mill-Istati Membri. Sa l-aħħar tal2012, 15-il Stat Membru u pajjiż kandidat se jkunu rreferew il-kwalifiki nazzjonali tagħhom għall-Qafas Ewropew
tal-Kwalifiki. Fl-2013, 12-il Stat Membru, żewġ pajjiżi kandidati u pajjiż taż-ŻEE qed jippjanaw li jsegwuhom.

Il-proposta tal-Kummissjoni dwar il-validazzjoni ta' tagħlim mhux formali u informali bħalissa qed tiġi diskussa filKunsill mill-Istati Membri.

C 294 E / 158 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008992/12**

**to the Commission**
**Louis Grech (S&D)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Recognition of skills gained outside school and university

The Commission proposal for a Council recommendation on the validation of non-formal and informal learning,
submitted in early September 2012, lays the groundwork for the recognition by the EU of skills and competences
gained by citizens outside school or university. Currently, it seems that only Finland, France, Luxembourg and the
Netherlands have comprehensive systems in place for the validation of non-formal and informal learning. The
Commission paper has begun to change this.

This initiative targets mainly young unemployed persons and those with few formal qualifications, as well as older
and low-skilled workers. I agree that informal and non-formal methodologies are fundamental learning tools which
contribute to the personal development and employability of an individual and help integrate that person into the
wider society by encouraging active citizenship.

How will this proposal complement the ‘formal’ side of the learning spectrum (and therefore the European
Qualifications Framework)? Will it create high-quality and sustainable learning opportunities which will serve as
alternatives to those offered by formal education?

We will require simple, effective and timely information if we are to change the negative perception that some
citizens and some in employment and educational milieux have of informal education. The Commission is
encouraging Member States to establish national systems for the validation of non-formal and informal learning.

At what stage can we expect Member States to introduce these structures, especially when one considers that some of
them have not yet adopted the qualifications directive?

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

_(26 November 2012)_

The Commission proposal for a Council Recommendation on the validation of non-formal and informal learning
aims to complement the formal side of the learning spectrum, as it recommends that Member States provide the
opportunity for citizens to obtain a full qualification, or parts thereof, on the basis of validated non-formal and
informal learning experiences. The Commission proposal focuses on the learning outcomes resulting from nonformal and informal learning. Its objective is not to create alternative learning opportunities to formal education.

The proposal is complementary to the recommendation of the Parliament and the Council on the establishment of
the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning (EQF). Both the proposal and the EQF Recommendation
follow the learning outcomes approach in which the knowledge, skills and competences acquired are central. While
the EQF Recommendation mainly focuses on qualifications, it also states that the validation of non-formal and
informal learning should be promoted.

The Commission proposed 2015 as the date for the establishment of national systems for validation. The date is
compatible with the current implementation of the EQF Recommendation by the Member States. By the end of 2012,
15 Member States and one candidate country will have referenced their national qualifications to the European
Qualifications Framework. 12 Member States, two candidate countries and one EEA country are planning to follow in
2013.

The Commission proposal on the validation of non-formal and informal learning is currently being discussed by the
Member States in the Council.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 159

_(Verżjoni Maltija)_

**Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub E-008993/12**

**lill-Kummissjoni**
**Louis Grech (S&D)**

_(8 ta' Ottubru 2012)_

_Suġġett:_ L-immappjar ta' qiegħ il-baħar — tkabbir u impjiegi fis-settur tal-baħar

Il-ġestjoni aħjar tal-oċeani u l-ibħra ta’ madwar l-Ewropa se toffri potenzjal ġdid għat-tkabbir u l-impjiegi fi ħdan ilqafas tal-għanijiet tal-UE 2020. Fl-aħħar ta' Awwissu 2012, il-Kummissjoni adottat il-Green Paper tagħha rigward “lGħarfien dwar il-Baħar” u nediet konsultazzjoni dwar kif jistgħu jintlaħqu l-għanijiet li tistabbilixxi. Il-Kummissjoni
tipproponi li sal-2020 tinħoloq mappa diġitali ta' qiegħ il-baħar tal-ilmijiet Ewropej billi tinġabar id-data kollha
eżistenti f'bażi ta' data unika aċċessibbli għal kulħadd.

Jidher li l-inizjattiva tal-Kummissjoni se tkun sistema li se tkun aċċessibbli u interoperabbli, ħielsa minn
restrizzjonijiet fuq l-użu, u li se tgħin lill-Istati Membri jimmassimizzaw il-potenzjal tal-programmi tagħhom ta'
stħarriġ, teħid ta' kampjuni u osservazzjoni tal-baħar.

Nemmen li sabiex niksbu dan, l-istruttura attwali fejn id-data hija frammentata u miżmuma minn diversi
istituzzjonijiet fi ħdan l-Ewropa teħtieġ tiġi riveduta b'mod radikali u mibdula f'punt ta' informazzjoni waħdieni,
uniku u ssimplifikat għall-industrija kollha, għal dawk li jaħdmu jew joperaw fuq il-baħar, għal dawk kollha li jinvestu
ħafna — jew jixtiequ jinvestu — f'din ir-riżorsa, u għall-awtoritajiet pubbliċi b'mod ġenerali.

Din l-inizjattiva sservi wkoll bħala opportunità tajba biex tingħata ħajja ġdida lill-kunċett rivoluzzjonarju propost ftit
deċennji ilu minn Arvid Pardo (eks-Ambaxxatur Malti għan-NU), li argumenta li l-oċeani jmorru lil hinn millġurisdizzjoni nazzjonali u huma tabilħaqq “il-wirt komuni tal-bniedem”. Is-sejħa ta' Pardo lill-pajjiżi kollha — biex
jipproteġu r-riżorsi tal-oċeani u jipprevjenu l-approprjazzjoni arbitrarja tagħhom, inaqqsu t-tniġġis u jinfurzaw
regolamenti li jiżguraw il-paċi fuq il-baħar — għadha kruċjali għat-tħaddim u s-sostenibilità tal-aħħar proposta talKummissjoni, mhux tal-anqas fil-Mediterran, u b'mod partikolari għal istati gżejjer bħal Malta.

Tista' l-Kummissjoni tispjega kif l-espansjoni tal-ekonomija blu tista' tiġi żviluppata, avvanzata u żgurata,
partikolarment għall-Istati Membri gżejjer bħal Malta?

**Tweġiba mogħtija mis-Sinjura Damanaki f'isem il-Kummissjoni**

_(17 ta' Diċembru 2012)_

Stati gżejjer bħal Malta se jibbenefikaw b’mod partikolari mill-Aġenda tal-Baħar u Marittima għat-Tkabbir u l-Impjiegi
li ġiet adottata mill-ministri tal-UE responsabbli għall-affarijiet marittimi fit-8 ta’ Ottubru 2012.

L-ewwel nett, dan jista’ jseħħ billi jsir użu sħiħ mill-istrumenti disponibbli tal-UE, inkluż billi wieħed iħares lejn ilpotenzjal tal-għotjiet ta' finanzjament strutturali tal-UE jew il-Bank Ewropew tal-Investiment li jsellef biex
jippromwovi l-investimenti u l-programm ta' riċerka Orizzont 2020 biex jistimula l-innovazzjoni. L-enfasi se tkun
fuq l-akkwakultura, it-turiżmu ta’ mal-kosta, l-enerġija rinnovabbli, l-estrazzjoni minn qiegħ il-baħar u lbijoteknoloġija blu.

It-tieni nett, il-Kummissjoni qed tiżviluppa strumenti speċifiċi tal-politika marittima, bħall-ippjanar tal-ispazju
marittimu u mappa diġitali ta’ qiegħ il-baħar. Għal dan il-għan, se jinħoloq netwerk ta’ organizzazzjonijiet għażżamma tad-dejta biex jipprovdi punt ta’ informazzjoni uniku simplifikat għal dawk kollha li jaħdmu jew joperaw fuq
il-baħar.

Il-Kummissjoni fetħet konsultazzjonijiet wiesgħa dwar dawn l-inizjattivi sabiex tiżgura li l-istrumenti tal-UE
jikkumplimentaw l-inizjattivi lokali u jissodisfaw il-prijoritajiet lokali.

C 294 E / 160 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008993/12**

**to the Commission**
**Louis Grech (S&D)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Seabed mapping — blue growth and jobs

Better management of the oceans and seas surrounding Europe will offer new potential for growth and jobs within
the framework of the EU 2020 goals. At the end of August 2012, the Commission adopted its Green Paper on ‘Marine
Knowledge’ and launched a consultation on how the aims it sets out can be achieved. The Commission proposes that
a digital seabed map of European waters be created by 2020 by means of collecting all existing data into a single
database accessible to all.

The Commission’s initiative promises to be a system which will be accessible and interoperable, will be free of
restrictions on use, and will help Member States maximise the potential of their marine observation, sampling and
surveying programmes.

I believe that in order to achieve this, the current structure whereby data is fragmented and held by various
institutions within Europe must be overhauled and transformed into a single and streamlined one-stop information
point for all the industry, for all those who work or operate at sea, for all who heavily invest — or wish to invest — in
this resource, and for public authorities in general.

This initiative would also serve as a fine opportunity to give new life to the ground-breaking concept proposed some
decades ago by Arvid Pardo (former Maltese Ambassador to the UN), who argued that oceans go beyond national
jurisdiction and are indeed ‘the common heritage of mankind’. Pardo’s call to all countries — to protect ocean
resources and prevent their arbitrary appropriation, to curb pollution and to enforce regulations securing peace at sea
— remains key to the workability and sustainability of the Commission’s latest proposal, not least in the
Mediterranean, and in particular for island states like Malta.

Can the Commission explain how the expansion of the blue economy can be developed, furthered and secured,
particularly for island Member States such as Malta?

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

_(17 December 2012)_

Island States such as Malta will particularly benefit from the Marine and Maritime Agenda for Growth and Jobs that
was adopted by EU ministers responsible for maritime affairs on 8 October 2012.

Firstly, this can be done by making maximum use of available EU instruments, including by looking at the potential of
EU structural funding grants or European Investment Bank lending to promote investments and the Horizon 2020
research programme to stimulate innovation. The focus will be on aquaculture, coastal tourism, renewable energy,
seabed mining and blue biotechnology.

Secondly, the Commission is developing specific maritime policy instruments, such as maritime spatial planning and
a digital seabed map. For this, a network of data-holding organisations will be put in place to provide a single and
streamlined one-stop information point for for all those who work or operate at sea.

The Commission is consulting widely on these initiatives in order to ensure that EU instruments complement local
initatives and meet local priorities.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 161

_(Verżjoni Maltija)_

**Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub E-008994/12**

**lill-Kummissjoni**
**Louis Grech (S&D)**

_(8 ta' Ottubru 2012)_

_Suġġett:_ Minuri mhux akkumpanjati

Ir-rapport ta' nofs il-perjodu riċenti tal-Kummissjoni dwar l-implimentazzjoni tal-Pjan ta' Azzjoni tal-UE rigward ilMinuri mhux Akkumpanjati (2010-2014) jikkonkludi b'mod inekwivoku li l-wasla ta' minuri mhux akkumpanjati
minn pajjiżi terzi fl-Ewropa la hija problema ta’ ftit żmien u lanqas ma hija waħda temporanja, iżda hija tabilħaqq
aspett li jżid b'mod sinifikanti l-kumplessitajiet diġà eżistenti fir-rigward tal-flussi migratorji li jaffettwaw il-fruntieri
tal-UE u li sar parti integrali minnhom.

Il-Kummissarju għall-Affarijiet Interni, Cecilia Malmström, iddikjarat li: “Jeħtieġ li ntejbu l-proċeduri tagħna biex
niżguraw li dawn it-tfal jintlaqgħu b'mod dinjituż fil-fruntieri tal-Ewropa. Dan jinkludi kooperazzjoni u kondiviżjoni
tal-informazzjoni aħjar bejn il-pajjiżi tal-UE.”

1. L-UE-27 sa liema punt qed jikkooperaw bejniethom biex iwettqu dan il-Pjan ta' Azzjoni? Liema huma lkwistjonijiet l-aktar urġenti u pressanti li l-Istat Membru riċevitur ikkonċernat jeħtieġ jibda jindirizza minnufih malwasla ta' dawn il-minuri?

2. Il-Kummissjoni hija sodisfatta li qed jitqiesu b'mod sħiħ l-aħjar interessi u l-benessri tat-tfal ikkonċernati jekk
eventwalment jiġu rilokati, kemm jekk f'pajjiż terz jew fl-Ewropa stess? Fil-każ tar-rilokazzjoni, l-Istati Membri jistgħu
jagħmlu iktar biex jiżguraw li t-tranżizzjoni tkun mingħajr xkiel u li t-taqlib għat-tfal ikun kemm jista' jkun minimu?

**Tweġiba mogħtija mis-Sinjura Malmström f'isem il-Kummissjoni**

_(28 ta' Novembru 2012)_

Kif iddikjarat mill-Kummissjoni fir-rapport ta’ nofs it-terminu dwar l-implimentazzjoni tal-Pjan ta’ Azzjoni tal-UE
dwar Minuri mhux Akkumpanjati (2010-2014), ittieħdu bosta inizjattivi biex jitrawmu l-kooperazzjoni u l-qsim talinformazzjoni bejn il-pajjiżi tal-UE.

Fl-2011, Frontex nediet operazzjoni konġunta fil-fruntieri tal-ajru, li rriżultat f'linji gwida għall-benefiċċju tal-gwardji
tal-fruntiera dwar kif għandhom jiġu ttrattati t-tfal. Bħalissa l-EASO jamministra programm ta' taħriġ vokazzjonali
maħsub għall-ħaddiema f'każ ta' ażil tal-Istati Membri tal-UE, li jinkludi modulu dwar l-intervisti lit-tfal. L-EASO
dalwaqt se joħroġ ukoll manwal dwar il-kalkolu tal-età, abbażi ta' diversi laqgħat tal-esperti li saru aktar kmieni din issena. L-esperti qabblu l-merti ta’ tekniki differenti u kif dawn għandhom jiġu applikati b'mod li jifmuhom it-tfal.

Il-Kummissjoni waqqfet Grupp ta’ Esperti dwar il-minuri mhux akkumpanjati, li ddiskuta l-kurazija (Ġunju 2011) u ttraċċar tal-familji (Marzu 2012), elementi kruċjali biex jiġi żgurat li l-aħjar interessi tat-tfal jiġu rispettati. Ir-rapporti
huma disponibbli pubblikament fuq ir-reġistru tal-Kummissjoni.

Il-minuri mhux akkumpanjati huma identifikati bħala “grupp vulnerabbli”. Sa issa, l-ebda minuri mhux akkumpanjati
ma ġew rilokati skont il-proġetti ta' Rilokazzjoni Ewropea minn Malta, iżda hemm tliet każijiet ta' rilokazzjoni
permezz ta' arranġamenti bilaterali. F'kull każ dan sar bl-għan li dawn jiġu rilokati sabiex jgħixu mal-membri talfamilja tagħhom skont l-aħjar interessi tat-tfal.

C 294 E / 162 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008994/12**

**to the Commission**
**Louis Grech (S&D)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Unaccompanied minors

The Commission’s recent mid-term report on the implementation of the EU Action Plan on Unaccompanied Minors
(2010-2014) unequivocally concludes that the arrival of unaccompanied minors from third countries into Europe is
neither a brief nor a fleeting problem, but indeed an aspect which has significantly added to and become an integral
part of the already existent complexities relating to the migratory flows affecting the EU’s borders.

The Commissioner for Home Affairs, Cecilia Malmström, has stated that: ‘We need to improve our procedures to
ensure that these children receive a dignified welcome at Europe’s borders. This includes better cooperation and
information sharing between EU countries.’

1. To what extent are the EU-27 cooperating amongst themselves to see the realisation of this Action Plan? What
are the most urgent and pressing issues that the recipient Member State in question must start to tackle immediately
on the arrival of these minors?

2. Is the Commission satisfied that full account is being taken of the best interests and welfare of the children
concerned if they are eventually relocated, whether to a third country or within Europe itself? In the case of relocation,
is there more that Member States can do to ensure that the transition is smooth and that the upheaval for the child is
as minimal as possible?

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

_(28 November 2012)_

As stated in the Commission's mid-term report on the implementation of the EU Action Plan on Unaccompanied
Minors (2010-2014), several initiatives have been taken to foster cooperation and information sharing between EU
countries.

In 2011, Frontex conducted a joint operation at air borders, which resulted in guidelines for the benefit of border
guards on how to deal with children. EASO currently administers a vocational training programme devoted to
Asylum Case Workers of EU Member States, which includes a module on interviewing children. EASO will also
shortly issue a handbook on age assessment, based on several expert meetings which took place earlier this year. The
experts compared the merits of different techniques and how to apply them in a child-friendly manner.

The Commission established an Expert Group on unaccompanied minors, which has discussed guardianship
(June 2011) and family tracing (March 2012), crucial elements in ensuring the best interests of the child can be
respected. The reports are publicly available on the Commission's registry.

Unaccompanied minors are identified as a ‘vulnerable group’. So far, no unaccompanied minors have been relocated
under the European Relocation from Malta projects, but there are three cases of relocation through bilateral
arrangements. In each case it has been for the purpose of relocating them to live with family members in line with the
best interests of the child.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 163

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-008995/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Mathieu Grosch (PPE)**

_(8. Oktober 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Altersbeschränkung bei ehrenamtlicher Tätigkeit

Die Europäische Union setzt sich für die Förderung der Freiwilligenarbeit ein und zudem ist dieses Jahr das
„Europäische Jahr für aktives Altern und Solidarität zwischen den Generationen“. Aus der Kombination dieser beiden
Aspekte und der Tatsache, dass es ein Verbot der Diskriminierung aufgrund des Alters gibt, erscheint es
problematisch, dass es innerhalb der EU ehrenamtliche Organisationen gibt, die eine Altersbegrenzung für
ehrenamtlich tätige Mitglieder vorsehen.

1. Sind solche Altersbegrenzungen vereinbar mit europäischer Gesetzgebung?

2. Ziel des Europäischen Jahres für aktives Altern ist es, die Schaffung einer Kultur des aktiven Alterns zu
erleichtern. Widersprechen Altersobergrenzen im Ehrenamt diesen Zielen nicht?

3. Was gedenkt die Kommission zu tun, um Altersdiskriminierungen im Ehrenamt zu verhindern?

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

_(7. Dezember 2012)_

Gemäß der Richtlinie 2000/78/EG ist die Diskriminierung aufgrund des Alters in Beschäftigung und Beruf verboten.
Dieses Verbot erstreckt sich jedoch nicht auf die Freiwilligenarbeit, da diese weder Beschäftigung noch Beruf darstellt.
Deshalb sind Altersbegrenzungen, die von ehrenamtlichen Organisationen festgelegt werden, nicht durch das EURecht verboten.

Die Kommission engagiert sich im Rahmen ihrer Zuständigkeiten umfassend für die Verhinderung der
Altersdiskriminierung, indem sie die Nichtdiskriminierung in allen EU-Politikbereichen verankert und mit
Sensibilisierungskampagnen gegen Stereotypen ankämpft ( [1] ). Die Kommission bietet zudem nationalen Behörden
und der Zivilgesellschaft über das Programm Progress finanzielle Unterstützung zur Bekämpfung der
Altersdiskriminierung.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Die Kampagne „Für Vielfalt — gegen Diskriminierung“ (http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fdad) läuft seit 2003.

C 294 E / 164 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008995/12**

**to the Commission**
**Mathieu Grosch (PPE)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Age restriction on volunteering

The European Union is committed to promoting voluntary work and 2012 is also the ‘European Year for Active
Ageing and Solidarity between Generations’. Given the combination of these two aspects and the fact that
discrimination on grounds of age is prohibited, it seems problematic that within the EU there are voluntary
organisations which place an age limit on volunteers.

1. Are such age limits compatible with European legislation?

2. The aim of the European Year for Active Ageing is to help create a culture of active ageing. Are upper age limits
on voluntary work not contrary to this aim?

3. What does the Commission intend to do to prevent age discrimination in volunteering?

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

_(7 December 2012)_

According to Directive 2000/78/EC, discrimination on grounds of age is prohibited in employment and occupation.
This prohibition does however not extend to voluntary work because this represents neither employment nor
occupation. Therefore age limits imposed by organisations relying on voluntary work are not prohibited by EC law.

The Commission is fully committed within the boundaries of its competences to prevent age discrimination by
mainstreaming non-discrimination in all EU policies and through awareness raising campaigns to fight against
stereotypes ( [1] ). The Commission also provides financial support to national authorities and civil society to combat age
discrimination through PROGRESS programme.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) The ‘For Diversity, Against Discrimination’ campaign (http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fdad) has been running since 2003.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 165

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-008996/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Ioannis A. Tsoukalas (PPE)**

_(8 Οκτωβρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Εθνικό Κέντρο Έρευνας και Τεχνολογικής Ανάπτυξης (CERTH)

Το Εθνικό Κέντρο Έρευνας και Τεχνολογικής Ανάπτυξης (ΕΚΕΤΑ — CERTH) είναι ένα ερευνητικό ινστιτούτο, μη
κερδοσκοπικού χαρακτήρα νομικό πρόσωπο ιδιωτικού δικαίου, εποπτευόμενο από το ελληνικό Υπουργείο Παιδείας, που
παρουσιάζει εξαιρετικές επιδόσεις στους τομείς της έρευνας και τεχνολογικής ανάπτυξης και συμβάλλει αποφασιστικά στην
ανάπτυξη της Βόρειας Ελλάδας μέσα από πλήθος ανταγωνιστικών ερευνητικών προγραμμάτων. Το ΕΚΕΤΑ παρουσιάζει
εξαιρετικές επιδόσεις σε πανευρωπαϊκό επίπεδο: σύμφωνα με την πρόσφατη έκθεση αξιολόγησης του 7ου ΠΠ για την έρευνα
( _Fifth FP7 monitoring report, 29.8.2012, σελ. 13_ ), το ΕΚΕΤΑ βρίσκεται στην 18η θέση πανευρωπαϊκά μεταξύ των
ερευνητικών κέντρων με την υψηλότερη συμμετοχή σε ερευνητικά έργα του 7ου ΠΠ για τα έτη 2007-2011, με 128
συμμετοχές. Μόλις 7% του προϋπολογισμού του ΕΚΕΤΑ (2011) καλύπτεται από κρατική χρηματοδότηση. Παρόλα αυτά το
ελληνικό Υπουργείο Οικονομικών εντάσσει το ΕΚΕΤΑ στη λίστα των δημοσίων επιχειρήσεων και οργανισμών που υπάγονται
στο κεφάλαιο Α' του νόμου 3429/2005, με αποτέλεσμα το ΕΚΕΤΑ να αντιμετωπίζεται ουσιαστικά ως προβληματική
δημόσια επιχείρηση και να συναντά σημαντικότατους περιορισμούς στη λειτουργία του, που δυσχεραίνουν την εκπλήρωση
του ερευνητικού, καινοτομικού και αναπτυξιακού του ρόλου.

Με βάση τα παραπάνω, ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

—
Έχει υπόψη της τις υψηλές επιδόσεις του ΕΚΕΤΑ σε δράσεις Ε&ΤΑ; είναι σε γνώση της η ένταξη του ΕΚΕΤΑ από το
Υπουργείο Οικονομικών στη λίστα εποπτευόμενων φορέων του Ν. 3429/2005 και οι συνεπακόλουθες
δυσλειτουργίες που αυτή προκαλεί στην επιτυχημένη λειτουργία του ερευνητικού ινστιτούτου;

—
Θεωρεί εύλογη την, με οριζόντιο τρόπο, ένταξη του ΕΚΕΤΑ και άλλων αντίστοιχων επιτυχημένων, κερδοφόρων
οργανισμών, σε κοινό πλαίσιο ελέγχων και περιορισμών μαζί με πλήθος ετερόκλητων προβληματικών επιχειρήσεων;
Θεωρεί ότι η προσέγγιση αυτή μπορεί να εμποδίσει την επιτυχημένη πορεία ενός ερευνητικού ινστιτούτου κρίσιμου
για την ανάπτυξη στην Ελλάδα και την ΕΕ;

—
Είναι διατεθειμένη να θέσει το θέμα, μέσω του εκπροσώπου της στην Τρόικα, στις ελληνικές αρχές, ώστε να
διασφαλίσει ότι επιτυχημένοι φορείς, όπως το ΕΚΕΤΑ, που μπορούν να θέσουν την Ελλάδα σε τροχιά καινοτομικής
ανάπτυξης, θα εξαιρεθούν αυτής της ισοπεδωτικής οριζόντιας λογικής;

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

_(14 Ιανουαρίου 2013)_

Η Επιτροπή γνωρίζει ότι το ΕΚΕΤΑ έχει ταξινομηθεί εντός της γενικής κυβέρνησης ως νομικό πρόσωπο ιδιωτικού δικαίου το
οποίο ανήκει στο κράτος. Η ταξινόμηση αυτή δεν συνεπάγεται την πλήρη εξάρτηση από την κυβέρνηση, αλλά περισσότερο
από το ιδιοκτησιακό καθεστώς της εταιρείας και από τη φύση της διεξαγόμενης δραστηριότητας. Στην Ελλάδα, η ΕΛΣΤΑΤ
(Ελληνική Στατιστική Αρχή) είναι υπεύθυνη για την ταξινόμηση των οντοτήτων στον τομέα της γενικής κυβέρνησης σύμφωνα
με τα κριτήρια που σκιαγραφούνται από το Ευρωπαϊκό Σύστημα Εθνικών Λογαριασμών (ΕΣΟΛ95).

Ως κρατική επιχείρηση, το ΕΚΕΤΑ υπόκειται στο νέο πλαίσιο παρακολούθησης και επιβολής που ορίζεται από τον νόμο,
σύμφωνα με το οποίο για κάθε κρατική επιχείρηση καθορίζονται συγκεκριμένοι στόχοι ως προς τα δημοσιονομικά
αποτελέσματα και επιβάλλονται κυρώσεις για την υλοποίηση και την πρόληψη τυχόν αποκλίσεων από τον στόχο ( [1] ).

Το νέο σύστημα στοχεύει μόνο στην εμπέδωση της δημοσιονομικής ευθύνης και προορισμός του δεν είναι να επηρεάζει την
απόδοση των κρατικών επιχειρήσεων.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Βλ. http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/occasional_paper/2012/pdf/ocp94_en.pdf σ. 27.

C 294 E / 166 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008996/12**

**to the Commission**
**Ioannis A. Tsoukalas (PPE)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Centre for Research and Technology Hellas (CERTH)

CERTH is a legal, non-profit private research institute under the auspices of the Greek Ministry of Education. It has an
excellent record in research and technological development and makes a substantial contribution to Northern
Greece’s development through many competitive research programmes. CERTH produces outstanding results at panEuropean level: according to the recent Seventh Framework Project (FP7) research evaluation report (Fifth
FP7 monitoring report, 29.8.2012, page 13), CERTH is listed as the 18th-highest contributor in Europe among
research centres to FP7 research work for 2007‐2011, with 128 contributions. Just 7% of the CERTH budget (2011)
is covered by state funding. Despite this, the Greek Ministry of Economy and Finance has included CERTH on a list of
public enterprises and organisations governed by Chapter A of Law 3429/2005, meaning that CERTH is essentially
viewed as a problematic public enterprise and its operation is facing severe restrictions. This makes it more difficult
for it to fulfil its research, innovation and development role.

In view of the above, will the Commission answer the following:

—
Is it aware of CERTH’s excellent performance in research and technological development? Does it know that the
Greek Ministry of Economy and Finance has included CERTH on a list of public enterprises and organisations
governed by Law 3429/2005, which will adversely affect its successful operation?

—
Does it think it justifiable to include CERTH and other, similarly successful and profitable organisations in a
common controls and restrictions framework on the same basis as many heterogeneous problematic
enterprises? Does it think that this approach may prevent the successful progress of a research institute that is
crucial for Greek and EU development?

—
Will it ask the Greek authorities, through its Troika representative, to ensure that successful entities such as
CERTH, which can aid Greece in innovative development, are exempt from this levelling horizontal logic?

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

_(14 January 2013)_

The Commission is aware that the CERTH is classified within the general government as a private law entity owned by
the State. The classification does not require full dependence on the Government, but rather upon the ownership of
the company and on the nature of the activity carried out. In Greece, ELSTAT (Hellenic Statistics Authority) is
responsible for the classification of entities in the General Government sector according to criteria outlined in the
European system of national accounts (ESA95).

As a State Owned Enterprise (SOE), CERTH is subject to the new monitoring and enforcement framework provided
by Law according to which specific targets are fixed for the financial results of each SOE and sanctions are imposed to
enforce and prevent any deviations from the target ( [1] ).

The new system aims at ensuring fiscal responsibility only and it is not directed to interfere with the performance of
the SOEs.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/occasional_paper/2012/pdf/ocp123_en.pdf p27.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 167

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-008997/12**

**al Consejo**
**Sergio Gutiérrez Prieto (S&D), Iratxe García Pérez (S&D) y Enrique Guerrero Salom (S&D)**

_(8 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Mantenimiento del Programa Europeo de Ayuda Alimentaria a las personas más necesitadas

La persistencia y profundidad de la crisis financiera y económica que golpea a amplias capas de la población, junto a
las políticas de recortes de derechos en sanidad, educación y política social, han incrementado el número de personas
en situación de vulnerabilidad.

Se hace absolutamente necesario el mantenimiento del Programa Europeo de Ayuda Alimentaria más allá de 2013, en
un momento en que la pobreza en Europa sigue aumentando.

El mantenimiento de este programa y el establecimiento de un marco de estabilidad presupuestaria son
imprescindibles en la actual situación económica y social. Sin embargo, desde 2011 se han visto amenazados debido
a las presiones de algunos miembros del Consejo Europeo.

Finalmente, tras las presiones del Parlamento Europeo, se han despejado las incertidumbres sobre su aplicación hasta
2014.

Con independencia de la partida presupuestaria donde se sitúe, es de vital importancia seguir luchando por el
mantenimiento del Programa más allá de 2014 y que este cuente con una financiación suficiente.

Resulta vital que se mantenga la financiación del Programa Europeo de Ayuda en el próximo Marco Financiero
Plurianual para que los Estados Miembros puedan reforzar el presupuesto nacional destinado a los Bancos de
Alimentos; ambos mecanismos son de enorme importancia para responder a la acuciante situación de una parte cada
vez mayor de la sociedad europea.

En este sentido, ¿qué iniciativas se están tomando en el seno del Consejo para garantizar la continuidad del Programa
Europeo de Ayuda Alimentaria a las personas más necesitadas más allá de 2014, sea cual sea su base jurídica?

**Respuesta**
_(7 de enero de 2013)_

Teniendo en cuenta que la creciente inflación de los precios de los alimentos y la situación económica actual han
conducido a un incremento del número de personas dependientes de las ayudas alimentarias, el Consejo acordó, en
diciembre de 2011, prorrogar el programa de distribución de alimentos a las personas más desfavorecidas de la Unión
Europea ( [1] ), asegurando así la financiación continua del programa durante dos años adicionales, hasta finales de
2013. En la actualidad, se benefician de este programa ( [2] ) más de 18 millones de ciudadanos europeos.

En lo que respecta al mantenimiento del programa europeo de ayuda alimentaria para los más desfavorecidos después
de 2014, la Comisión Europea propuso, el 24 de octubre de 2012, crear un nuevo Fondo de Ayuda Europea para los
Más Necesitados ( [3] ).

El 24 de octubre de 2012 ( [4] ), se transmitió al Consejo la propuesta de Reglamento del Parlamento Europeo y del
Consejo relativa al Fondo de Ayuda Europea para los Más Necesitados. La base jurídica de este nuevo instrumento
reside en el artículo 175 del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea (TFUE). De acuerdo con el
procedimiento legislativo ordinario, el Parlamento Europeo desempeñará el papel de colegislador. En estas
circunstancias, el Consejo entablará los debates al respecto próximamente.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Doc. 18686/11.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 643 final.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 617 final.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Doc. 15865/12.

C 294 E / 168 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008997/12**

**to the Council**
**Sergio Gutiérrez Prieto (S&D), Iratxe García Pérez (S&D) and Enrique Guerrero Salom (S&D)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Continuation of the European programme of food aid for the most deprived persons

The serious and lasting financial and economic crisis currently affecting large sections of the population, coupled with
policies curtailing people’s rights in the fields of health, education and social policy, have increased the number of
people in vulnerable situations.

At a time when poverty in Europe is on the increase, it is absolutely vital that the European programme of food aid
continues beyond 2013.

In the current economic and social climate, it is essential that this programme continues and that a framework of
budgetary stability is established. However, since 2011, these two things have been under threat owing to pressure
from some members of the European Council.

Eventually, after pressure from the European Parliament, uncertainty over the programme’s continued existence was
dispelled until 2014.

Regardless of the budget heading that this programme comes under, it is crucial that we carry on fighting to ensure
that it continues beyond 2014 and that it receives adequate funding.

It is vital that funding for the European programme of food aid is maintained in the next multiannual financial
framework so that Member States can increase national budgets allocated to food banks; both of these mechanisms
are of the utmost importance in order to respond to the urgent situation facing a growing proportion of European
society.

In the light of this, what initiatives are being taken within the Council to guarantee the continued existence of the
European programme of food aid for the most deprived persons beyond 2014, whatever the legal basis?

**Reply**
_(7 January 2013)_

Against the background that rising food prices and the economic situation have led to an increase in the number of
people depending on food aid, the Council agreed in December 2011 to extend the duration of the programme for
distribution of food to the most deprived persons in the European Union ( [1] ), thereby securing the continued funding
of the programme for two more years until the end of 2013. More than 18 million EU citizens are currently
benefitting from the programme ( [2] ).

As regards the continuation of the European programme of food aid for the most deprived persons beyond 2014, on
24 October 2012 the European Commission proposed setting up a new Fund for European Aid to the Most
Deprived ( [3] ).

This proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Fund for European Aid to the
Most Deprived was transmitted to the Council on 24 October 2012 ( [4] ). The legal basis for this new instrument is
Article 175 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The European Parliament will be colegislator under the ordinary legislative procedure. On this basis the Council will commence discussions in the near
future.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) 18686/11.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 634 final.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 617 final.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) 15865/12.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 169

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008998/12**

**alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)**
**Pino Arlacchi (S&D), David-Maria Sassoli (S&D), Vittorio Prodi (S&D), Salvatore Caronna (S&D), Silvia**

**Costa (S&D), Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D), Andrea Cozzolino (S&D), Gianni Pittella (S&D) e Rita**

**Borsellino (S&D)**

_(8 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Diritti umani nella Repubblica democratica del Congo

Il 24 settembre, dopo aver marciato da Reggio Emilia a Bruxelles per quasi due mesi, gli attivisti del «Comitato per la
Marcia dal Congo all'Europa» sono stati ricevuti al Parlamento europeo dalla delegazione italiana del Partito
democratico. Il movimento si propone di esortare le istituzioni europee a rompere il silenzio sulla guerra in atto nel
Paese e di chiedere la creazione di una roadmap per la pace nella Repubblica democratica del Congo (RDC) e nella
zona dei Grandi Laghi, nonché un'eventuale revisione dei trattati bilaterali con il Ruanda. Negli ultimi mesi, in seguito
agli scontri tra le forze armate della RDC e le milizie del Congresso nazionale per la difesa del popolo (Cndp), la
situazione umanitaria e le condizioni sanitarie nella Repubblica democratica del Congo si sono seriamente aggravate.
Il rapporto ONU del gennaio 2012 sulla situazione dei diritti umani nella RDC documenta, infatti, la costante
violazione di tali diritti, soprattutto nella zona orientale del Paese, nel Kivu. Esecuzioni arbitrarie, detenzioni illegali,
torture, violenze sessuali e reclutamento di bambini soldato da parte dei gruppi armati sono all'ordine del giorno.

La debolezza strutturale della magistratura, sommata alle diffuse pratiche di corruzione, favorisce inoltre l'impunità e
la violazione sistematica dello stato di diritto.

Il rapporto mette anche in evidenza che uno dei maggiori fattori di destabilizzazione della situazione nella RDC è
l'interferenza del Ruanda, il quale fornisce supporto logistico, finanziario, nonché militare ai gruppi armati presenti
nella RDC.

Nella sua dichiarazione del 10 luglio 2012, il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante Ashton ha ribadito la sua grande
preoccupazione per il precipitare della situazione umanitaria nella zona orientale del Congo. Alla luce di questo e di
quanto detto sopra:

1. quali iniziative urgenti ha assunto il SEAE di fronte all'aggravarsi della situazione di conflitto nella Repubblica
democratica del Congo? Esiste una roadmap europea per la pace nella Repubblica democratica del Congo e
nella zona dei Grandi Laghi?

2. Cosa intende fare il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante a proposito del ruolo sempre maggiore assunto dal
Ruanda nel rifornimento militare ai gruppi armati e nella destabilizzazione dell'intera regione?

3. Può il SEAE attivarsi concretamente per contribuire a riaffermare lo stato di diritto in RDC?

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

_(17 gennaio 2013)_

L’Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente ha manifestato in più occasioni serie preoccupazioni per il peggioramento della
situazione nell’est della Repubblica democratica del Congo e per le conseguenze a livello regionale. La posizione
dell’UE in merito è stata espressa innanzitutto agli inizi di giugno in una dichiarazione rilasciata dall'AR/VP a nome
dell'Unione, seguita poi dalle conclusioni del Consiglio «Affari esteri» di giugno e da ulteriori dichiarazioni dell’AR/VP.
L’Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente si è occupata personalmente della questione, inviando chiari messaggi ai
presidenti Kagamé e Kabila mediante i canali diplomatici.

Il Consiglio «Affari esteri» di novembre ha invitato l’AR/VP e la Commissione a presentare proposte per un approccio
strategico dell'UE alle molteplici sfide in materia di sicurezza e sviluppo cui è confrontata la regione orientale della
RDC. Tale approccio verrà elaborato al fine di promuovere e sostenere le attuali iniziative coordinate a livello
nazionale, regionale e internazionale.

C 294 E / 170 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

L'Unione europea ha preso atto della relazione che il gruppo di esperti delle Nazioni Unite ha trasmesso al comitato
delle sanzioni istituito ai sensi della risoluzione 1533 ed è profondamente preoccupata dalle informazioni relative al
proseguimento del sostegno esterno fornito ai gruppi di ribelli nell’est della RDC. L’UE invita le parti coinvolte a
interrompere immediatamente ogni forma di sostegno e a rispettare la sovranità e l'integrità territoriale della RDC. In
coordinamento con altri membri della comunità internazionale, l'UE valuterà opportune misure di follow-up, tra cui
sanzioni individuali mirate e decisioni del Consiglio di sicurezza dell'ONU, nonché misure destinate a incoraggiare gli
attori regionali a un atteggiamento costruttivo.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 171

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008998/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**
**Pino Arlacchi (S&D), David-Maria Sassoli (S&D), Vittorio Prodi (S&D), Salvatore Caronna (S&D), Silvia**

**Costa (S&D), Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D), Andrea Cozzolino (S&D), Gianni Pittella (S&D) and Rita**

**Borsellino (S&D)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

On 24 September, after a march of almost two months from Reggio Emilia to Brussels, activists belonging to the
‘Committee for the march from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Europe’ were received at the European
Parliament by the Italian delegation of the Democratic Party. The group aims to urge the European institutions to
break their silence on the war taking place in the Congo and to call for a roadmap for peace in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo (DRC) and the Great Lakes region, as well as a possible review of the bilateral treaties with
Rwanda. In recent months, following clashes between the armed forces of the DRC and National Congress for the
Defence of the People (NCDP) militias, the humanitarian and health situation in the DRC has taken a further serious
turn for the worse. The UN report of January 2012 on the state of human rights in the DRC documents constant
human rights violations, particularly in Kivu, in the east of the country. Arbitrary execution, illegal detention, torture,
violent sexual abuse and the recruitment of child soldiers by armed groups are the order of the day.

The structural weaknesses of the judicial system, combined with widespread corruption, foster impunity and the
systematic violation of the rule of law.

The report also highlights the fact that one of the major causes of destabilisation in the DRC is interference by
Rwanda, which is providing logistical, financial and military support to the armed groups operating in the DRC.

In her statement of 10 July 2012, Vice-President/ High Representative Ashton expressed serious concern about the
deteriorating humanitarian situation in the eastern part of the DRC. In view of that concern and the situation outlined
above:

1. What urgent action has the European External Action Service (EEAS) taken in response to the worsening
conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo? Is there a European roadmap for peace in the DRC and the
Great Lakes region?

2. What does the Vice-President/ High Representative intend to do about the ever-greater role played by Rwanda
in supplying arms to armed groups and destabilising the whole area?

3. Can the European External Action Service take concrete measures aimed at reasserting the rule of law in the
RDC?

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

_(17 January 2013)_

The HR/VP has expressed her grave concerns on several occasions regarding the deteriorating situation in eastern
DRC and its regional implications. The EU position was first reflected in early June through a HR/VP statement taken
on behalf of the EU. This was followed by the June FAC conclusions and HR/VP subsequent statements. The HR/VP
has been personally involved in the matter by passing clear messages both to Presidents Kagamé and Kabila through
diplomatic channels.

The November FAC has invited the HR/VP and the Commission to bring forward proposals for a stategic EU
approach to the multi-faceted security and development challenges facing the eastern DRC. This approach will be
drafted with a view to promoting and supporting coordinated ongoing national, regional and international efforts.

The EU has taken note of the report of the UN Group of Experts to the Sanctions Committee 1533 and is deeply
concerned at reports of continued external support to rebel groups in the eastern DRC. It calls on those concerned to
cease all such support immediately and to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the DRC. In coordination
with other members of the International Community, the EU will consider appropriate follow-up steps, including
targeted individual sanctions to deliberations in the UNSC, as well as measures to encourage a constructive attitude of
the regional actors.

C 294 E / 172 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008999/12**

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

**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 de outubro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Afirmações do Relator Especial da ONU sobre a prática de tortura em Marrocos

O Relator Especial da ONU para a tortura, Juan Mendez, afirmou que a tortura de manifestantes e o tratamento
desumano e cruel «é muito frequente» em Marrocos, tendo lamentado o aumento da repressão dos protestos.

Segundo afirmou, esse tipo de tratamento inclui espancamentos, choques elétricos, abusos sexuais e queimaduras
com cigarros, segundo «relatórios credíveis» e testemunhos recolhidos. Mendez disse também que a tortura parece ser
«muito mais cruel e sistemática» nos casos de detidos suspeitos de atentado à segurança nacional.

O perito da ONU alertou também para «um pico» na utilização de força policial excessiva para dispersar
manifestações, frequentes em Marrocos desde o início da chamada primavera árabe, em 2011.

Afirmou ainda que «parece ser norma os procuradores e juízes de inquérito rejeitarem as queixas de tortura e não
investigarem esse tipo de alegações».

Em face do exposto, solicito à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante que me informe sobre o seguinte:

1. Tem conhecimento das afirmações do Relator Especial da ONU? Que avaliação faz das mesmas?

2. Que consequências práticas daqui retira para o futuro das relações da UE com Marrocos, nomeadamente tendo
em conta os acordos assinados entre a UE e este país e as habituais cláusulas que preveem a sua denúncia em
caso de violações de direitos humanos?

3. Não considera que estamos perante uma política de dois pesos e duas medidas por parte da UE, tendo em conta
a reação diferente que tem tido com outros países?

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

_(26 de novembro de 2012)_

A Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente tem conhecimento das declarações feitas pelo Relator Especial das Nações
Unidas, Juan Méndez, sobre a prática de tortura em Marrocos. O respeito pelos direitos humanos está no centro do
diálogo da UE com Marrocos e por conseguinte, esta questão é regularmente abordada nas reuniões dos organismos
conjuntos estabelecidos ao abrigo do Acordo de Associação com Marrocos. Neste quadro, as conclusões preliminares
elaboradas por Juan Méndez foram discutidas com as autoridades marroquinas durante a sétima reunião do
Subcomité dos Direitos Humanos, Governação e Democracia, que teve lugar em Rabat em 16-17 de outubro de
2012.

Com base nas disposições pertinentes do Acordo de Associação, a Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente está
plenamente empenhada no diálogo com Marrocos sobre os direitos humanos. Durante os últimos anos fizeram-se
progressos significativos no âmbito das relações entre a UE e este país, que contribuíram para o desenvolvimento de
um vasto processo de reformas democráticas. No entanto continuam a ser necessários novos progressos,
designadamente para pôr termo à tortura e aos maus tratos. A este respeito, o reforço das liberdades fundamentais e
dos princípios democráticos na nova Constituição e a criação e consolidação das prerrogativas do Conselho Nacional
para os Direitos Humanos são evoluções positivas. Além disso, o «Estatuto Avançado», concedido a Marrocos nas
suas relações com a UE, implica que continuem a ser realizados progressos neste domínio, estando a União Europeia
empenhada em garantir um acompanhamento atento deste processo.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 173

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008999/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Statements by the UN Special Rapporteur concerning torture in Morocco

The UN Special Rapporteur on torture, Juan Méndez, has said that the torture of demonstrators and inhumane and
cruel treatment are events which happen ‘frequently’ in Morocco, and has deplored the ruthlessness with which
protests are put down.

According to the Special Rapporteur, treatment of this kind includes beatings, electric shocks, sexual assault, and
cigarette burns, as described in ‘credible reports’ and testimonies obtained. He also notes that torture appears to
become much more brutal and systematic when detainees are suspected of posing a threat to national security.

The UN expert has spoken in addition of the ‘spike’ in which excessive force rises when the police attempt to break up
demonstrations, a regular occurrence in Morocco since the start of the ‘Arab Spring’ in 2011.

Furthermore, ‘it appears’, in his words, ‘to be the norm that prosecutors and investigative judges dismiss complaints of
torture or fail to investigate such allegations’.

1. Does the Vice-President/High Representative know about by statements by the UN Special Rapporteur? What is
her assessment?

2. What does she believe to be the practical implications for the EU’s future relations with Morocco, bearing in
mind not least that EU-Morocco agreements contain the usual clauses providing for denunciation in the event of
human rights violations?

3. Does she not consider the EU to be applying double standards, given that its response has been different where
other countries are concerned?

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

_(26 November 2012)_

The HR/VP is aware of the statements made by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Juan Méndez on the situation in
Morocco. Respect for human rights is at the heart of the EU's dialogue with Morocco and consequently this issue is
regularly addressed in the meetings of the relevant joint bodies established under the EU Morocco Association
Agreement. In this framework, the preliminary conclusions drawn up by Juan Méndez were discussed with the
Moroccan authorities during the 7th meeting of the EU-Morocco Sub-Committee on Human Rights, Governance and
Democracy which took place in Rabat on 16-17 October 2012.

On the basis of the relevant provisions of the EU-Morocco Association Agreement the HR/VP is fully engaged in the
dialogue on human rights with Morocco. EU-Morocco relations have made significant progress in recent years and
have contributed to a wide process of democratic reform in that country, although further progress is necessary,
notably efforts to eradicate torture and ill-treatment. The strengthening of fundamental freedoms and democratic
principles by the new Constitution and the establishment, and consolidation of prerogatives, of the National Council
for Human Rights are positive developments in this regard. Moreover, the Advanced Status, to which Morocco has
acceded in its relations with the EU, implies that progress is being made in this area and the EU is committed to
ensuring close follow-up in this regard.

C 294 E / 174 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009000/12**

**à Comissão**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 de outubro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Dia Mundial do Professor — Situação dos professores em Portugal

Na mensagem do Secretário-Geral das Nações Unidas hoje divulgada — por ocasião do Dia Mundial do Professor que
hoje se assinala — é valorizado o papel do professor, «os guardiões da aprendizagem». Afirma-se que «não devemos
permitir que professores e crianças paguem o custo da crise, temos de proteger os nossos sistemas educativos das
atuais pressões financeiras e restrições orçamentais». A finalizar, refere-se que «investir em professores é um
investimento sábio no conjunto dos nossos esforços para construir economias fortes, sociedades coesas e um futuro
onde existam dignidade e oportunidades para todos».

Ora, em Portugal o programa FMI-UE tem dado cobertura ao maior ataque alguma vez dirigido contra a escola
pública e contra os professores desde a revolução de abril de 1974.

Destaca-se o forte aumento do desemprego entre os professores. Até agora, ficaram no desemprego cerca de 10 000
docentes a mais do que no ano passado, devendo atingir-se os 18 000 ao longo do ano. Foi criada uma bolsa de
docentes com horário‐zero que inicialmente atingiu os 15 000 docentes, podendo agora ter ficado pelos 7 000 a
8 000. Isto ao mesmo tempo que aumenta o número de alunos por turma, degradando as condições de ensino e de
aprendizagem.

Em face do exposto, solicito à Comissão que me informe sobre o seguinte:

1. Dispõe de informações atualizadas relativamente à situação social e profissional dos professores em cada um
dos 27 Estados‐Membros, incluindo sobre o desemprego docente? Dispõe de informações relativamente ao
número de professores por cada 100 000 habitantes e ao número médio de alunos por turma nos diferentes
Estados‐Membros?

2. Como justifica as gravosas medidas de ataque à escola pública e aos professores incluídas no memorando da
«troika»? Que análise foi efetuada acerca do seu impacto? Que acompanhamento está a ser feito da sua execução
e das suas consequências?

3. Tendo em conta as evidentes responsabilidades da Comissão neste domínio, em virtude do supracitado
programa FMI-UE, que medidas pensa adotar para acolher as recomendações do Secretário-Geral da ONU
agora divulgadas?

**Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão**

_(21 de dezembro de 2012)_

As informações de que a Comissão dispõe relativamente à situação socioprofissional dos professores nos Estados‐
Membros provêm do Eurostat, da OCDE e dos pontos de contacto da rede Eurydice nos Estados‐Membros.

Os dados mostram que alguns Estados‐Membros reduziram ou congelaram os salários dos professores nos últimos
dois anos. Em Portugal, os ganhos conseguidos nesses salários na primeira década do século, em termos de poder de
compra real dos professores, sofreram efetivamente um retrocesso, devido às medidas de crise tomadas ( [1] ).

Por outro lado, o rácio de alunos por professor no ensino primário e secundário continua a ser muito baixo em
Portugal, no contexto europeu ( [2] ). Quanto ao número de horas de ensino por semana, os professores portugueses
estão mais ou menos ao nível da média europeia ( [3] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Eurydice (2012) Teachers' and School Heads' Salaries and Allowances in Europe, 2011/12, figuras 4, 5 e 6 e página 64:

http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/facts_and_figures/salaries.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Eurydice (2012), Key Data on Education in Europe 2012, p. 155 e figuras F9 e F10:

http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/key_data_series/134EN.pdf

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Eurydice (2012), Key Data on Education in Europe 2012, figura E8:

http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/key_data_series/134EN.pdf

( **|**

( **|**

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 175

No que respeita aos resultados do sistema de ensino português, tem havido melhorias notáveis, por exemplo nas
competências básicas ( [4] ) e ao nível da redução do abandono escolar precoce. Subsiste, no entanto, uma grande
margem para melhorias ( [5] ).

O sistema de ensino em Portugal continua a necessitar de reformas e, para melhorar a sua eficiência, há que controlar
de perto os custos. No quadro do programa de ajustamento económico, o Governo Português iniciou uma série de
reformas cruciais neste domínio, cuja concretização tem atingido níveis elevados.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Education and Training Monitor 2012, p. 29.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Education and Training Monitor 2012, p. 15.

C 294 E / 176 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009000/12**

**to the Commission**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ World Teachers' Day — Situation of teachers in Portugal

The message from the UN Secretary-General to mark World Teachers’ Day, 5 October, emphasises the role of
teachers, the ‘custodians of learning’. The Secretary-General maintains that ‘We should not let teachers and children
pay the cost of the crisis; we must protect our education systems from current financial pressures and budgetary
constraints’. He concludes by saying that ‘investing in teachers is a wise investment in our efforts to build strong
economies, cohesive societies and a future of dignity and opportunity for all’.

In Portugal, however, the IMF-EU programme has been serving as the pretext for the most thoroughgoing assault on
state education, and on teachers, since the April 1974 revolution.

Unemployment among teachers has increased sharply. There are currently about 10 000 more teachers out of work
than in 2011, and that figure is likely to rise to 18 000 in the course of the year. The grant established for those with
no classes to teach initially covered 15 000 teachers, but the number may now range between 7 000 and 8 000.
Meanwhile, class sizes are increasing, resulting in poorer teaching and learning conditions.

1. Does the Commission have up-to-date information about the social and professional situation of teachers in
each of the 27 Member States, including where unemployment is concerned? Does it have information about the
number of teachers per 100 000 inhabitants and average class sizes in the Member States?

2. Can it say why the Troika memorandum includes measures amounting to a swingeing attack on state education
and teachers? What assessment has been made of their impact? What is being done to keep their implementation and
their effects under review?

3. Given that the Commission clearly bears some share of responsibility in this area, on account of the
abovementioned IMF-EU programme, what steps will it take to comply with the UN Secretary-General’s newly
published recommendations?

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

_(21 December 2012)_

The Commission has information available related to the social and professional situation of teachers in Member
States, from Eurostat, OECD, and the Eurydice Network-contact points in the Member States.

The data shows that several Member States have reduced or frozen teacher salaries in the last two years. In Portugal,
the advances in teacher salaries, in terms of actual power purchasing standards, gained during the 2000s have
effectively been rolled back due to crisis measures. ( [1] )

At the same time, the student/teacher ratio in primary and secondary schools remains very low in Portugal, seen
within the EU context, ( [2] ) while teachers teach more or less the same amount of hours per week as the EU average. ( [3] )

With regard to the outcomes of the Portuguese education system, there have been remarkable improvements, for
example in basic skills ( [4] ) and the reduction of early school leaving. However, the scope for improvement was also,
and remains, large. ( [5] )

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Eurydice (2012) Teachers' and School Heads' Salaries and Allowances in Europe, 2011/12, figures 4, 5, and 6, and p. 64.

http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/facts_and_figures/salaries.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Eurydice (2012). Key Data on Education in Europe 2012, p. 155, and Figures F9 and F10.

http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/key_data_series/134EN.pdf

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Eurydice (2012). Key Data on Education in Europe 2012, Figure E8.

http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/key_data_series/134EN.pdf

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Education and Training Monitor 2012, p. 29.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Education and Training Monitor 2012, p. 15.

( **|**

( **|**

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

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 177

The education system in Portugal continues to be in need of reform. Costs have to be closely controlled to increase
the efficiency of the overall system. In the framework of the economic adjustment programme the Portuguese
Government has started a number of crucial reforms in this regard, and implementation performance has been
strong.

C 294 E / 178 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009001/12**

**à Comissão (Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante)**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) e Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 de outubro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Destruição de armas e eliminação dos arsenais nucleares

A manutenção de arsenais de armas nucleares estratégicas e táticas e a sua modernização, assim como as novas
doutrinas que estabelecem os fundamentos para a sua possível utilização, representam uma séria ameaça para a
Humanidade. O Tratado de Não Proliferação (TNP) não estabelece o direito indeterminado dos Estados que detêm
armas nucleares a manterem os seus arsenais nucleares. Os Estados partes do TNP ainda não cumpriram com a
obrigação que assumiram, em virtude do artigo VI do TNP, de destruir todas as armas nucleares dentro de um prazo
determinado.

Neste contexto, solicitamos à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante que nos informe sobre o seguinte:

1. Que diligências fez ou pretende fazer junto dos Estados signatários do TNP e de países não signatários do
mesmo tratado no sentido de defender a celebração de acordos e compromissos com prazos concretos, tendo
em vista a eliminação dos seus arsenais nucleares?

2. Houve alguma discussão ao nível do Conselho sobre a necessidade urgente de estabelecer prazos para que os
arsenais nucleares existentes nos países da UE sejam eliminados?

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

_(4 de dezembro de 2012)_

Em conformidade com a Estratégia contra as armas de destruição maciça adotada pelo Conselho Europeu em 12 de
dezembro de 2003, a UE tem participado de forma ativa nas instâncias internacionais relevantes neste domínio. A UE
tem insistido em que é absolutamente necessário que todos os Estados Partes garantam a plena observância de todas
as disposições do Tratado de Não-Proliferação das Armas Nucleares. A UE congratulou-se com os esforços envidados
pelos P5 no sentido de reconfirmar o princípio da irreversibilidade no domínio do desarmamento nuclear e do
controlo do armamento. Com base na Decisão 2010/212/PESC, a UE continuará a defender uma maior transparência
relativamente aos arsenais nucleares, a inclusão das armas nucleares não estratégicas no processo de desarmamento
nuclear, a transparência e a implementação de medidas de instauração da confiança, assim como a realização de
novas reduções nos arsenais nucleares. Para atingir o seu objetivo de alcançar um mundo livre de armas nucleares, a
UE ofereceu-se para colaborar na aplicação do Tratado de Pelindaba e tem trabalhado ativamente na criação de uma
zona livre armas de destruição maciça no Médio Oriente.

A UE disponibilizou um importante apoio, tanto a nível político como financeiro (15 milhões de euros), para a
entrada em vigor deste tratado, que proíbe a realização de testes nucleares, tendo também insistido no início das
negociações para a conclusão de um tratado de proibição da produção de material cindível. A UE prestou também o
seu apoio à Parceria Mundial do G8 para a reorientação de antigos cientistas especializados em armas de destruição
maciça.

A UE apelou ainda à elaboração de acordos de verificação adequados e juridicamente vinculativos com a Agência
Internacional de Energia Atómica, para a remoção de forma irreversível de materiais cindíveis que já não sejam
necessários para fins militares nos Estados detentores de armas nucleares.

A UE acolheu com agrado o novo acordo START, tendo incentivado sistematicamente a realização de novas
reduções.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 179

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009001/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) and Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Destruction of weapons and elimination of nuclear arsenals

The continued existence, and the modernisation, of strategic and tactical nuclear arsenals, as well as the new doctrines
paving the way to their possible use, constitute a serious threat to humanity. The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) does
not give countries an unlimited right to possess nuclear weapons or maintain their nuclear arsenals. The parties to the
NPT have still not fulfilled their obligation under Article VI to destroy all nuclear weapons within a given time-frame.

1. What has the Vice-President/High Representative already done, and what steps does she intend to take, in order
to press individual countries, whether or not they have signed the NPT, to enter into agreements and commitments
laying down clear-cut time limits with a view to eliminating their nuclear arsenals?

2. Has there been any discussion within the Council on the urgent need to set dates for the elimination of nuclear
arsenals in Member States?

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

_(4 December 2012)_

The EU has been active in the relevant international fora pursuant to the WMD Strategy adopted by the European
Council on 12 December 2003. The EU has in particular consistently stressed the absolute necessity of full
compliance with all the provisions of the NPT by all States Parties. It has welcomed P5 efforts to reconfirm the
principle of irreversibility with regard to nuclear disarmament and arms control, and — based on Council Decision
CFSP/212/2010 — will continue to advocate for increased transparency of nuclear arsenals, inclusion of nonstrategic nuclear weapons into the nuclear disarmament process, transparency and confidence-building measures,
and further reductions in nuclear arsenals. To underpin its support towards the ultimate aim of a nuclear weapons
free world, the EU has offered to support the implementation of the Pelindaba Treaty and has worked actively on
supporting the establishment of a WMD-free zone in the Middle East.

EU has provided strong political and financial support (EUR 15 million) for the entry into force of the CTBT, the
treaty banning tests of nuclear weapons, and has constantly called for starting negotiations on a Fissile material cutoff treaty (FMCT). It has provided support to the G8 Global Partnership for assisting redirection of former WMD
scientists.

EU has called for the development of appropriate legally binding verification arrangements with IAEA for the
irreversible removal of fissile material of the nuclear-weapon States no longer required for military purposes.

EU has welcomed the new START Agreement, and has consistently encouraged further reductions.

C 294 E / 180 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009002/12**

**à Comissão**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 de outubro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Coexistência de culturas geneticamente modificadas (na sequência do acórdão do TJE)

Relativamente à organização da coexistência de culturas geneticamente modificadas — quer por razões comerciais,
quer por razões de investigação — a Comissão, em resposta à pergunta E‐008319/2011 (datada de 28 de outubro de
2011), referiu que estava a explorar formas de abordar estas questões com os Estados-Membros. Além de discussões
no Comité Permanente, a Comissão afirmou ter debatido com as partes interessadas — incluindo apicultores,
organizações de agricultores e a indústria alimentar — com vista a conhecer as suas preocupações e questões.

A Comissão pode informar quais são as conclusões dos trabalhos efetuados, que iniciativas foram tomadas e que
iniciativas pensa tomar, bem como quais as medidas que permitem hoje garantir que o mel importado de países
terceiros não contém pólen proveniente de culturas geneticamente modificadas que não são autorizadas na UE para
cultivo ou para alimentação humana ou animal?

**Resposta dada por Maroš Šefčovič em nome da Comissão**

_(26 de novembro de 2012)_

A Comissão pediu ao Gabinete Europeu de Coexistência ( [1] ) para analisar a questão da apicultura quando atualizar o
seu documento de boas práticas sobre o milho geneticamente modificado até ao final de 2012. O seu documento de
boas práticas, que é elaborado em colaboração com peritos dos Estados-Membros, irá providenciar apoio técnico
para ajudar os Estados-Membros a criar, se assim o desejarem, medidas para garantir a coexistência de organismos
geneticamente modificados (os OMG) com colmeias.

Quando às importações de países terceiros, os Estados-Membros têm de garantir que as inspeções e outras medidas de
controlo, incluindo os controlos por amostragem e os testes necessários, são implementadas para assegurar a
conformidade com a legislação em matéria de OGM. Para este feito, o laboratório da UE de referência no domínio dos
OGM publicou métodos de deteção para facilitar os controlos oficiais nos Estados-Membros de OGM que estão
autorizados na EU, ou que estão em vias de ser autorizados. Nos casos em que foi necessário, a Comissão adotou
também decisões de emergência em relação a OGM não autorizados (LL Rice 601, Bt73 e outras ocorrências em
alimentos originários da China), que fornecem métodos de controlo adequados aos Estados-Membros.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ecob.jrc.ec.europa.eu/.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 181

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009002/12**

**to the Commission**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Co-existence of genetically modified crops (following the ECJ ruling)

In its answer of 28 October 2011 to Question E-008319/2011, the Commission said, in relation to the organisation
of co-existence with genetically modified crops — whether grown for commercial or for research reasons — that it
was exploring ways to address these issues with the Member States. In addition to discussions in the Standing
Committee, the Commission said that it had held discussions with stakeholders — including beekeepers, farmers'
organisations and the food industry — to hear their concerns and queries.

Can the Commission outline the conclusions of the work carried out? What initiatives have been taken and what
initiatives will it take? What measures currently make it possible to guarantee that honey imported from third
countries does not contain pollen from genetically modified crops that are not authorised in the EU for cultivation or
for food or feed use?

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

_(26 November 2012)_

The Commission has asked the European Coexistence Bureau ( [1] ) to consider the issue of beekeeping when updating
its best practice document on GM maize by the end 2012. This best practice document, which is established in
cooperation with experts of the Member States, will provide technical support to help Member States establishing, if
they wish, measures to ensure coexistence between GMO crops fields and hives.

With respect to imports from third countries, Member States have to ensure that inspections and other control
measures, including sample checks and testing as appropriate, are carried out to ensure compliance with the GMO
legislation. To this purpose the EU Reference Laboratory for GMOs has published detection methods to facilitate
official controls in Member States for GMOs which are authorised in the EU or in the process of being authorised.
Where necessary, the Commission has also adopted emergency decisions concerning unauthorised GMOs (LL Rice
601, Bt73 and other events present in food originating from China) which provide appropriate methods of controls
to Member States.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ecob.jrc.ec.europa.eu/.

C 294 E / 182 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009003/12**

**à Comissão**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 de outubro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Nova proposta para regular as limitações do tempo de voo

Os pilotos da aviação têm vindo a contestar a proposta da Agência Europeia para a Segurança da Aviação (EASA),
relativa às limitações do tempo de voo. Segundo estes profissionais, esta proposta põe «em risco a segurança dos
passageiros». De acordo com o Sindicato dos Pilotos da Aviação Civil (Portugal), um dos aspetos mais preocupantes é
a possibilidade de um piloto aterrar um avião ao fim de 22 horas acordado. Os pilotos acusam a EASA de «ignorar
pareceres científicos que são unânimes» e criticam que sejam propostas noites de voo com mais de 12 horas, quando
os especialistas definem um tempo limite de 10 horas.

O presidente da «European Cockpit Association» (ECA), órgão que representa mais de 38 000 pilotos de toda a
Europa, considerou que «a EASA está apenas concentrada em ganhos marginais para as companhias aéreas,
negligenciando que a sua proposta vai permitir alargar horários de trabalho e sujeitar os pilotos a voar, quando estão
perigosamente cansados».

Tendo em conta a relevância do problema, solicito à Comissão que me informe sobre o seguinte:

1. Que avaliação faz das críticas dos pilotos, nomeadamente quanto ao facto de com esta proposta estarem a ser
ignorados pareceres científicos?

2. Quais as intenções da Comissão relativamente a este assunto?

**Resposta dada por Siim Kallas em nome da Comissão**

_(30 de novembro de 2012)_

A Agência Europeia para a Segurança da Aviação (EASA) facultou recentemente à Comissão Europeia o seu parecer
formal sobre a revisão das regras vigentes em matéria de limitações do tempo de voo, após consulta exaustiva a todas
as partes interessadas e a um acervo substancial de material científico.

Relativamente ao seu parecer, a EASA declarou que, na elaboração da proposta, tivera em devida conta todos os
estudos científicos pertinentes e publicamente disponíveis. Deve notar-se, a este respeito, que os resultados de
diversos estudos científicos realizados num contexto bastante distinto do do quadro regulamentar europeu
(designadamente em termos de requisitos de repouso) ou num contexto operacional muito específico, não podiam
ser tomados à letra. Por essa razão, a EASA decidiu limitar as alterações das regras vigentes às questões em que os
dados científicos tinham identificado uma necessidade clara de melhoramento potencial da segurança e propôs que o
regime revisto fosse reavaliado, com base em dados operacionais recolhidos durante um período extenso após a sua
entrada em vigor.

A Comissão está atualmente a avaliar as propostas da EASA em todo o pormenor. Neste contexto, tendo
conhecimento de opiniões quer positivas quer negativas sobre essas propostas, a Comissão tem analisado com o
máximo cuidado todos os pareceres expressos, antes de decidir a via a adotar.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 183

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009003/12**

**to the Commission**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Fresh proposal on flight time limitations

Pilots have again been contesting the proposal from the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) on flight time
limitations. According to pilots, this proposal will put passenger safety at risk. The Portuguese civil aviation pilots'
union notes that one of the most worrying aspects of the proposal is the possibility that a pilot could land a plane
after having been awake for 22 hours. Pilots are accusing the EASA of disregarding unanimous scientific advice and
criticise the fact that night flights of more than 12 hours are being proposed, whereas experts set the limit at 10 hours.

The President of the European Cockpit Association (ECA), an organisation representing more than 38 000 pilots
from across Europe, has said that ‘by focusing on some marginal improvements (…), EASA deflects from the fact that
its proposal will permit work schedules that will make pilots fly whilst being dangerously fatigued’.

Given that this is an extremely important issue, can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. What is its assessment of the criticism made by pilots, in particular as regards the fact that the proposal
disregards scientific advice?

2. How does the Commission intend to proceed on this issue?

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

_(30 November 2012)_

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has recently provided to the European Commission its formal Opinion
concerning the revision of the current rules concerning flight time limitations after having thoroughly consulted all
stakeholders and an extensive amount of scientific material.

With regard to its Opinion, EASA stated that it took due account of all relevant, publicly available scientific studies
when drafting its proposal. It has to be noted in this respect that the results of a number of scientific studies which
were conducted in a context significantly different than that of the European regulatory framework (in particular in
terms of rest requirements) or in a very specific operational context, could not be taken into account literally. For this
reason, EASA decided to limit the changes to the current rules to issues where scientific evidence had identified a clear
need for potential safety improvement and has proposed to conduct a review of the revised regime based on
operational data gathered on long term basis after its entry into force.

The Commission is currently assessing in all its detail the EASA proposals. In this context, the Commission is aware of
both positive as well as negative views on such proposals and it is analysing with great care all the views expressed
before deciding on the way forward.

C 294 E / 184 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009004/12**

**à Comissão**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 de outubro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Presença de pólen transgénico no mel

Em resposta à pergunta E-008319/2011, sobre a decisão do Tribunal de Justiça Europeu relativa ao mel contaminado
com pólen transgénico, a Comissão Europeia refere que solicitou à AESA (em 4 de outubro de 2010) que apresentasse
uma declaração específica sobre a segurança do pólen MON 810 no mel.

Recentemente, a Comissão apresentou uma Proposta de Diretiva do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho que altera a
Diretiva 2001/110/CE relativa ao mel. Na sequência do acórdão do Tribunal de Justiça no Processo C-442/092, é
objetivo desta proposta, explicitar o estatuto do pólen como um componente especial do mel em vez de um
ingrediente do mel (como havia sido interpretação do Tribunal Europeu de Justiça no referido acórdão).

Solicito à Comissão que me informe sobre o seguinte:

1. Em face do quadro legislativo proposto, como poderão os produtores de mel, no futuro, garantir a inexistência
de pólen proveniente de Organismos Geneticamente Modificados no seu mel?

2. Como poderão os consumidores, no futuro, estar certos da inexistência de pólen proveniente de Organismos
Geneticamente Modificados no mel que adquirem?

3. Qual a posição tomada pela AESA relativamente à «segurança do pólen MON 810 no mel»? Qual a
fundamentação científica dessa posição?

**Resposta dada por Maroš Šefčovič em nome da Comissão**

_(28 de novembro de 2012)_

1. e 2. A proposta tem como objetivo clarificar que o pólen não é um ingrediente do mel, mas antes um dos seus
componentes, para que se reflita adequadamente na legislação a origem natural do pólen no mel, em conformidade
com os padrões internacionais. Esta proposta não impedirá os Estados-Membros de tomar medidas adequadas, de
acordo com os princípios de coexistência enunciados no artigo 26.° da Diretiva 2001/18/CE ( [1] ), ou os apicultores dos
Estados-Membros de implementar estas medidas se desejarem limitar a presença de pólen GM no seu mel. Tal como
foi indicado na resposta à pergunta E-009002/2012, o Gabinete Europeu de Coexistência (ECoB) está a trabalhar para
atualizar o seu documento de boas práticas em relação ao milho GM para incluir a questão da coexistência de milho
GM com colmeias. Tal proporcionará orientação técnica aos Estados-Membros quando estes desenvolverem medidas
de coexistência adequadas.

3. No seguimento de um pedido da Comissão, a Autoridade Europeia para a Segurança dos Alimentos (AESA)
concluiu em 20 de outubro de 2011 que o pólen MON810 é tão seguro como qualquer pólen de milho convencional.
A AESA baseou a sua apreciação em dados constantes dos ficheiros já apresentados sobre o MON810 e na análise de
literatura sobre a segurança do pólen de milho em geral e do pólen de milho MON810 em particular.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) JO L 106 de 17.4.2001.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 185

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009004/12**

**to the Commission**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ GM pollen in honey

In reply to Question E-008319/2011, relating to the Court of Justice ruling on honey contaminated by GM pollen,
the Commission indicated that it had asked the EFSA (on 4 October 2010) to produce a specific statement on the
safety of MON 810 pollen in honey.

The Commission has recently submitted a proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive amending
Directive 2001/110 on honey. Prompted by the Court ruling in Case C-442/092, the proposal is intended to establish
that pollen is a component of honey and not an ingredient (the Court having based its ruling on the latter
interpretation).

1. Taking into account the proposed legislative framework, how will honey producers be able to guarantee in the
future that their honey will be free of GM pollen?

2. How can consumers be certain in the future that there will be no GM pollen in the honey that they buy?

3. What position has the EFSA taken on the ‘safety of MON 810 pollen in honey’? What is the scientific basis for
that position?

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

_(28 November 2012)_

1-2. The objective of the proposal is to clarify that pollen is not an ingredient in honey but a constituent in order to
adequately reflect in the legislation the natural origin of pollen in honey, in line with international standards. This
proposal will not prevent Member States to take appropriate measures, along the principles of coexistence as set out
in Article 26 of Directive 2001/18/EC ( [1] ), or the beekeepers in the Member States to implement these measures if they
wish to limit the presence of GM pollen in their honey. As indicated in the response to Question E-009002/2012, the
European Coexistence Bureau (ECoB) ( [2] ) is undertaking work to update the best practice document on GM maize to
include the issue of coexistence of GM maize with hives. This will provide technical guidance for the Member States
when developing appropriate co-existence measures.

3. Following a request from the Commission, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concluded on
20 October 2011 that MON810 pollen is as safe as any conventional maize pollen. EFSA has based its assessment on
data present in already submitted files on MON810 and on a review of the literature on the safety of maize pollen in
general and MON810 maize pollen in particular.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 106, 17.4.2001.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ecob.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

C 294 E / 186 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009005/12**

**à Comissão (Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante)**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) e Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 de outubro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Fim do bloqueio a Cuba

Os prejuízos materiais resultantes de mais de 50 anos de bloqueio dos EUA a Cuba ascendem a um bilião de dólares
(considerando a desvalorização do dólar face ao ouro), ao que acrescem os incalculáveis danos humanos provocados
a cada família cubana desde fevereiro de 1962.

Desde o início da administração de Barack Obama foram impostas multas de dois mil milhões de dólares a empresas e
cidadãos estrangeiros que mantenham negócios com Cuba. Não obstante, e apesar de o governo norte-americano
manter o país no discricionário rol de «países patrocinadores do terrorismo» para justificar o bloqueio, Cuba tem
reiterado a vontade de «normalizar as relações» com os EUA «mediante o diálogo em pé de igualdade».

Em face do exposto, perguntamos à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante:

—
Que esforços foram feitos até à data, ou vão ainda ser, junto do governo dos EUA no sentido deste terminar
com o bloqueio unilateral a Cuba que dura há mais de 50 anos, tendo em conta que esta tem sido também uma
exigência por várias vezes repetida através de resoluções da Assembleia-Geral da ONU?

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

_(30 de novembro de 2012)_

A União Europeia está convencida de que a política comercial aplicada pelos Estados Unidos a Cuba é
fundamentalmente uma questão bilateral. Não obstante, a União Europeia e os seus Estados-Membros manifestaramse claramente contra da extensão extraterritorial do embargo dos Estados Unidos a Cuba, nomeadamente prevista no
_Cuban Democracy Act_ de 1992 e no _Helms-Burton Act_ de 1996.

Em novembro de 1996, a UE adotou medidas para proteger os interesses das pessoas singulares ou coletivas
residentes no território da União Europeia dos efeitos da aplicação extraterritorial da lei Helms-Burton, proibindo o
cumprimento dessa legislação. Além disso, em 18 de maio de 1998, na cimeira entre a União Europeia e os Estados
Unidos realizada em Londres, foi acordado um pacote de medidas que incluíram isenções aos títulos III e IV da lei
Helms-Burton e foi obtido um compromisso por parte da administração dos Estados Unidos de evitar este tipo de
legislação extraterritorial no futuro, bem como um acordo relativo às medidas de reforço da proteção dos
investimentos. A União Europeia continua a apelar aos Estados Unidos para que apliquem o Acordo de 18 de maio de
1998.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 187

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009005/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) and Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — End of the embargo against Cuba

The material damage caused by more than 50 years of US embargo against Cuba amounts to 8 000 billion dollars
(taking account of the devaluation of the dollar against gold prices), on top of the incalculable harm done to every
Cuban family since February 1962.

Since the start of the Obama Administration, fines amounting to 2 billion dollars have been imposed on foreign
undertakings and citizens who have conducted business with Cuba. Nevertheless, even though the US government
still includes Cuba on the discretionary list of ‘state sponsors of terrorism’ in order to justify the embargo, Cuba has
reiterated its willingness to normalise relations with the US through dialogue on an equal footing.

In this light, can the Vice-President/High Representative answer the following question:

—
What steps have been taken or will be taken vis-à-vis the US government with a view to persuading it to end the
unilateral embargo against Cuba that has been in place for more than 50 years, bearing in mind that this appeal
has also been reiterated several times through resolutions of the UN General Assembly?

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

_(30 November 2012)_

The European Union believes that the United States trade policy towards Cuba is fundamentally a bilateral issue.
Notwithstanding, the European Union and its Member States have clearly expressed their opposition to the
extraterritorial extension of the United States embargo, such as that contained in the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992
and the Helms-Burton Act of 1996.

In November 1996, the EU adopted measures to protect the interest of natural or legal persons resident in the
European Union against the extraterritorial effects of the Helms-Burton legislation, prohibiting compliance with that
legislation. Moreover, on 18 May 1998, at the European Union/ United States Summit in London, a package was
agreed covering waivers to titles III and IV of the Helms-Burton Act; a commitment by the United States
administration to resist future extraterritorial legislation of that kind; and an understanding with respect to disciplines
for the strengthening of investment protection. The European Union continues to urge the United States to
implement the 18 May 1998 Understanding.

C 294 E / 188 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009006/12**

**à Comissão**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 de outubro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Situação na Guiné-Bissau — projetos da UE em curso no país

Em resposta à pergunta E-004421/12, sobre a situação na Guiné-Bissau após o golpe militar que teve lugar no país, a
Comissão refere que «acompanha a situação na Guiné‐Bissau, encontrando-se em estreita ligação com as
organizações não-governamentais internacionais, a Cruz Vermelha e os parceiros da ONU no terreno».

Solicito à Comissão que me informe sobre o seguinte:

1. Que avaliação faz da evolução da situação?

2. Qual o ponto da situação dos projetos da UE (ou financiados pela UE) que estavam em curso no país à data do
golpe?

3. Qual o ponto da situação relativamente aos projetos futuros, cuja preparação estava em curso à data do golpe e
que não chegaram a arrancar?

4. Que meios de apoio às populações (incluindo alimentos, medicamentos, água, combustíveis e outros) foram até
à data mobilizados pela UE?

**Resposta dada por Andris Piebalgs em nome da Comissão**

_(6 de dezembro de 2012)_

1. A Comissão acompanha muito atentamente a evolução da situação na Guiné-Bissau e está muito preocupada
com a situação dos direitos humanos. Os recentes atos de violência, que são os últimos de uma longa série de
intervenções violentas por parte das forças armadas da Guiné‐Bissau, evidenciam, uma vez mais, a necessidade
urgente de pôr termo ao controlo do poder civil pelas forças armadas e de proceder a uma reforma, genuína e
profunda, do setor da segurança. A Comissão está convicta de que a solução reside numa abordagem
verdadeiramente inclusiva, e está disposta a apoiá-la, nomeadamente incentivando o Governo de transição a
organizar um processo eleitoral credível e democrático.

2. Na sequência da sublevação de abril de 2010, a ajuda da UE à Guiné-Bissau foi suspensa, à exceção dos projetos
de apoio direto à população, que prosseguirão. Uma decisão do Conselho da UE estabeleceu uma lista de
compromissos para o reatamento gradual da cooperação, em três fases. Na sequência do golpe de Estado perpetrado
pelas forças armadas em 12 de abril de 2012, o Conselho da UE prorrogou a aplicação destas medidas até julho de
2013 ( [1] ).

3. Em 2013, será lançado apenas um projeto em favor da população, no âmbito da Iniciativa relativa aos Objetivos
de Desenvolvimento do Milénio (ODM). O projeto (5,5 milhões de euros) visa a redução da mortalidade infantil e
materna e será executado por ONG.

4. Até ao momento, a Comissão tem ajudado a população da Guiné‐Bissau mediante um apoio multissetorial:
melhoria das infraestruturas sociais (saúde e educação), melhoria do acesso aos medicamentos e cuidados de saúde e
abastecimento de água em meio rural.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Decisão 2012/387/UE, de 16 de julho de 2012.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 189

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009006/12**

**to the Commission**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Situation in Guinea-Bissau — EU-funded projects

In its answer to Written Question E-004421/12 on the situation in Guinea-Bissau following the military coup, the
Commission said that it ‘is monitoring the situation in Guinea-Bissau and liaising closely with international nongovernmental organisations, the Red Cross, and UN partners on the ground’.

1. What is the Commission’s assessment of the unfolding situation in Guinea-Bissau?

2. What is the situation in relation to EU projects (or EU-funded projects) already underway in Guinea-Bissau at
the time of the coup?

3. What is the state of play concerning future projects, which were already at the planning stage when the coup
took place?

4. What forms of support (including food, medicines, water, fuel, etc) has the EU provided so far to the people of
Guinea-Bissau?

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

_(6 December 2012)_

1. The Commission follows very carefully the evolution of the situation in Guinea-Bissau and is very concerned
about the human rights situation. The recent acts of violence are the latest in a long series of violent interventions by
the armed forces of Guinea-Bissau; these events highlight once more the urgent need to remove the grip by the armed
forces on the civilian powers and to proceed with a genuine and deep reform of the security sector. The Commission
is convinced that a truly inclusive approach is the solution and push for it, especially by encouraging the transition
government to set up a credible and democratic electoral process.

2. Following the April 2010 mutiny, EU aid to Guinea-Bissau was suspended, except for projects directly
supporting the population which will continue. A decision by the Council of the EU determined a schedule of
commitments for the gradual resumption of cooperation in three stages. Following the coup of 12 April 2012 by the
armed forces, the Council of the EU extended the application of these measures until July 2013 ( [1] ).

3. Only one project will be launched in 2013, in favor of the population, in the framework of the Millenium
Development Goals (MDGs) Initiative. The project (EUR 5.5 million) aims at decreasing infant and mother mortality
and will be implemented by NGOs.

4. So far, the Commission has helped the population of Guinea-Bissau by delivering a multi-sectoral assistance:
improvement of social infrastructure (health and education), improvement of access to medicines and healthcare, and
rural water supply.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Decision 2012/387/EU, 16 July 2012.

C 294 E / 190 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009007/12**

**à Comissão**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 de outubro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Relatório da ONU sobre a redução da ajuda pública ao desenvolvimento

Segundo um relatório recente do Secretário-Geral das Nações Unidas, a diminuição da ajuda ao desenvolvimento vem
pôr em causa alguns dos objetivos de desenvolvimento traçados, incluindo mesmo alguns relativamente aos quais se
registaram avanços significativos nos últimos anos.

O relatório alerta para o facto de, apesar de várias metas globais importantes terem sido atingidas antes do prazo de
2015, «pela primeira vez em muitos anos a ajuda ao desenvolvimento representa um declínio que pode fazer
abrandar o ímpeto de ganhos significativos». E continua, dizendo que sem o compromisso aparente dos governos
doadores no sentido de inverter esta tendência, é possível que menos Objetivos de Desenvolvimento do Milénio
(ODM) — as metas de redução da pobreza das Nações Unidas — sejam atingidos em menos países até 2015, altura
em que termina o prazo definido.

É referida uma diferença de 167 mil milhões de dólares entre os atuais gastos e os valores inicialmente prometidos.

O relatório do Grupo de Reflexão sobre os Atrasos na realização dos ODM afirma que dos 23 doadores que são
membros do Comité de Ajuda ao Desenvolvimento (CAD) da OCDE, 16 reduziram a ajuda em 2011, essencialmente
devido a restrições relacionadas com a crise económica.

Em face do exposto, solicito à Comissão que me informe sobre o seguinte:

1. Que avaliação faz deste relatório?

2. Que medidas irá propor a Comissão — seja no plano do orçamento comunitário ou noutros — para superar a
lacuna entre os gastos atuais e os valores inicialmente previstos?

3. Quais são os países da UE que diminuíram os orçamentos consagrados à ajuda pública ao desenvolvimento?
Quais são os montantes em causa?

4. Qual é a situação relativamente ao cancelamento da dívida dos países altamente endividados, tendo em conta
que o relatório identifica 20 países vulneráveis de baixos rendimentos que se encontram em situação de dívida
ou em alto risco? Que esforços tem vindo a desenvolver a UE com vista ao cancelamento da dívida destes
países?

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009443/12**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(17 de outubro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Ajuda ao Desenvolvimento

Segundo as conclusões de um inquérito do Eurobarómetro sobre a ajuda ao Desenvolvimento, 85 % dos cidadãos da
UE consideram que, apesar da crise económica atual, a Europa deve continuar a ajudar os países em desenvolvimento.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

Dadas as contingências económicas extraordinárias que a UE atravessa, prevê rever os valores com os quais a União
contribui enquanto doadora para a ajuda aos países em desenvolvimento?

**Resposta conjunta dada por Andris Piebalgs em nome da Comissão**

_(11 de dezembro de 2012)_

A Comissão remete os Senhores Deputados para a resposta à anterior pergunta escrita E‐006649/2012 ( [1] ), que trata
de temas conexos. Relativamente a estas questões específicas:

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/fr/parliamentary-questions.html?tabType=all#sidesForm.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 191

A Comissão toma nota do relatório do Secretário‐Geral das Nações Unidas a que o Senhor Deputado se refere. A
Comissão gostaria de chamar a atenção dos Senhores Deputados para o Relatório sobre a responsabilização da UE em
matéria de financiamento do desenvolvimento ( [2] ), adotado pela Comissão em 9 de julho de 2012, que apresenta uma
descrição detalhada dos esforços envidados pela UE e pelos seus Estados‐Membros no sentido de apoiar os diversos
aspetos do financiamento do desenvolvimento, incluindo os que são mencionados no relatório das Nações Unidas.

A Comissão está ciente da situação relativamente aos níveis de ajuda da UE e continua a instar os Estados‐Membros a
alcançarem os objetivos acordados em matéria de objetivos de Ajuda Pública ao Desenvolvimento (APD), em
conformidade com os compromissos coletivos e individuais da UE. Por outro lado, a Comissão gostaria de salientar
que os Estados‐Membros confirmaram o seu compromisso de alcançar os objetivos em matéria de APD no Conselho
Negócios Estrangeiros de maio de 2012 e no Conselho Europeu de junho de 2012. A proposta da Comissão para o
próximo Quadro Financeiro Plurianual, se for aprovada pela Autoridade Orçamental, garantirá que o orçamento da
UE contribui proporcionalmente para o aumento necessário.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/development-policies/financing_for_development/accountability_report_2012_en.htm

C 294 E / 192 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-009908/12**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D)**

_(30 octombrie 2012)_

_Subiect:_ Anul european pentru dezvoltare

Consider benefică ideea declarării anului 2015 ca „An European pentru dezvoltare”, având în vedere că trei din
principalii cinci donatori la nivel mondial de ajutor pentru dezvoltare sunt țări ale Uniunii. Din păcate, media
europeană nu este mai mare de 0,43% din produsul intern brut al statelor UE, ceea ce înseamnă că un efort colectiv
important trebuie să fie realizat pentru a atinge obiectivul de 0,7% din PIB până în 2015.

Cum intenționează Comisia să acționeze pentru a atinge acest obiectiv împreună cu statele membre și prin atragerea
altor parteneri externi?

**Răspuns comun dat de dl Piebalgs în numele Comisiei**

_(11 decembrie 2012)_

Comisia le recomandă distinșilor deputați să consulte răspunsul la întrebarea anterioară cu solicitare de răspuns scris
E-006649/2012 ( [1] ), care se referă la aspecte conexe. Cu privire la întrebările specifice:

Comisia ia notă de raportul Secretarului General al Organizației Națiunilor Unite (ONU), la care se referă distinșii
deputați. Comisia ar dori să le atragă atenția distinșilor deputați asupra Raportului pe 2012 privind răspunderea UE ( [2] )
adoptat de Comisie la 9 iulie 2012, care conține o prezentare detaliată a eforturilor depuse de UE și de statele sale
membre pentru a sprijini diverse aspecte ale finanțării pentru dezvoltare, inclusiv pe cele menționate în raportul
ONU.

Comisia este conștientă de situația privind nivelurile ajutoarelor acordate de UE și continuă să invite statele membre
să îndeplinească obiectivele convenite în materie de asistență oficială pentru dezvoltare (AOD), în conformitate cu
angajamentele colective și individuale asumate de către UE. În plus, Comisia dorește să sublinieze faptul că statele
membre și-au confirmat angajamentul de a atinge obiectivele AOD în cadrul Consiliului Afaceri Externe din mai
2012 și al Consiliului European din iunie 2012. Propunerea Comisiei pentru următorul cadru financiar multianual, în
cazul în care va fi aprobată de autoritatea bugetară, ar asigura faptul că bugetul UE contribuie proporțional cu
creșterea necesară.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/ro/parliamentary-questions.html?tabType=all.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/development-policies/financing_for_development/accountability_report_2012_en.htm

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 193

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009007/12**

**to the Commission**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ UN report on cuts to official development assistance

A recent report from the Secretary-General of the United Nations notes that the decline in official development
assistance is jeopardising some of the development goals set, including some on which significant progress had been
made in recent years.

The report warns that, even though a number of key global targets have been met before the 2015 deadline, ‘official
development assistance (ODA) fell for the first time in many years’ and ‘for the first time there are signs of
backsliding’. It goes on to say that, unless donor governments give a clear commitment to reverse this trend, it is
possible that fewer Millennium Development Goals (MDGs, the United Nations poverty reduction targets) will be
reached in fewer countries by 2015, when the deadline expires.

The gap between actual disbursements and the amounts initially pledged is put at 167 billion dollars.

The report by the MDG Gap Task Force states that, of the 23 donors that are members of the Development Assistance
Committee (DAC) of the OECD, 16 reduced their aid in 2011, mainly as a result of constraints related to the
economic crisis.

1. What is the Commission's assessment of this report?

2. What steps will the Commission propose — in relation to the Community budget or at other levels — in order
to bridge the gap between actual disbursements and the amounts initially pledged?

3. Which EU countries have cut the budgets allocated to official development assistance? What amounts are
involved?

4. What is the situation with regard to cancelling the debt of highly indebted countries, bearing in mind that the
report identifies 20 vulnerable low-income countries that are in debt or at high risk? What efforts has the EU been
making with a view to cancelling these countries' debts?

**Question for written answer E-009443/12**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(17 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Development aid

According to the conclusions of a Eurobarometer survey on development aid, 85% of EU citizens consider that
despite the current economic crisis, Europe should continue to help developing countries.

I would therefore ask the Commission:

Given the extraordinary economic situation which the EU is facing, does it plan to review the sums which the Union
contributes as a donor of aid to developing countries?

**Question for written answer E-009908/12**

**to the Commission**
**Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D)**

_(30 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ European Year for Development

In view of the fact that three of the world’s leading five aid donors are EU countries, it would seem a worthwhile idea
to declare 2015 the ‘European Year for Development’. Unfortunately, the EU’s aid donation average is no more than
0.43% of the Member States’ gross domestic product, meaning that a major collective effort is required in order to
reach the target of 0.7% of GDP by 2015.

What action will the Commission take, in conjunction with the Member States and with the involvement of other,
external, partners, in order to attain that target?

C 294 E / 194 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

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

_(11 December 2012)_

The Commission kindly refers the Honourable Members to the answer to previous Written Question
E-006649/2012 ( [1] ), which adresses linked issues. On the specific questions:

The Commission takes note of the United Nations (UN) Secretary-General report to which the Honourable Members
refer. The Commission would like to draw the attention of the Honourable Members to the EU Accountability Report
2012 ( [2] ) adopted by the Commission on 9 July 2012, which presents a detailed overview of the efforts of the EU and
its Member States to support the various aspects of financing for development, including those mentioned in the UN
report.

The Commission is aware of the situation with regard to EU aid levels and continues to call on Member States to
deliver on the agreed Official Development Assistance (ODA) targets, in line with the EU's collective and individual
commitments. Furthermore, the Commission wishes to point out that the Member States confirmed their
commitment to reach the ODA targets at the Foreign Affairs Council of May 2012 and the European Council of
June 2012. The Commission proposal for the next Multiannual Financial Framework, if agreed by the Budgetary
Authority, would ensure that the EU Budget contributes proportionally to the increase needed.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/fr/parliamentary-questions.html?tabType=all#sidesForm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/development-policies/financing_for_development/accountability_report_2012_en.htm

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 195

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009008/12**

**an die Kommission**

**Hans-Peter Martin (NI)**

_(8. Oktober 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Technologische Unterstützung von EU-Sprachen

Das Spitzenforschungsnetzwerk „Multilinguale Europäische Technologie Allianz“ (META-NET) veröffentlichte im
September 2012 ein Weißbuch, welches die Unterstützung von 30 europäischen Sprachen bei
Computertechnologien analysierte. Insbesondere Litauisch, Lettisch und Maltesisch schneiden in allen durch die
Studie untersuchten Kategorien mit dem Ergebnis „kaum/keine Unterstützung“ ab. Die Autoren schreiben in ihrer
Schlussfolgerung: „Die Ergebnisse unserer Weißbuch-Serie zeigen, dass dramatische Unterschiede hinsichtlich der
Technologieunterstützung zwischen den europäischen Sprachen existieren. Für einige Sprachen und
Anwendungsbereiche stehen Software und Ressourcen zur Verfügung, bei anderen wiederum, vor allem den
kleineren Sprachen, bestehen erhebliche Lücken. Vielen Sprachen mangelt es an Basistechnologien für die
Textanalyse sowie an ausreichenden Ressourcen.“

1. Verfügt die Kommission über eine eigene Untersuchung der Unterstützung von in der EU gebräuchlichen
Sprachen im digitalen Raum?

2. Kann die Kommission einen Überblick darüber geben, welche EU-Programme und Projekte derzeit darauf
abzielen, die technologische Unterstützung von EU-Sprachen (im speziellen in den von META-NET untersuchten
Bereichen der Verarbeitung gesprochener Sprache, der maschinellen Übersetzung, der Textanalyse und der
Verfügbarkeit von Sprach‐ und Textressourcen) zu fördern?

3. Verfügt die EU über eine Strategie, die technologische Unterstützung der in der EU gebräuchlichen Sprachen zu
verbessern? Wenn nicht, plant die Kommission, eine solche Strategie vorzuschlagen?

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

_(26. November 2012)_

Das Exzellenznetz META-NET wird aus dem Budget des 7. Rahmenprogramms für Forschung und Entwicklung (RP7)
kofinanziert.

Derzeit unterstützt die Kommission über den IKT-Bereich (Informations‐ und Kommunikationstechnologien) des
RP7 und das Programm zur Unterstützung der IKT-Politik aus dem Rahmenprogramm für Wettbewerbsfähigkeit und
Innovation ( [1] ) etwa 60 Forschungs‐ und Innovationsprojekte mit Finanzmitteln in Höhe von insgesamt nahezu
150 Millionen EUR. Zwei Aufforderungen zur Einreichung von Vorschlägen im Bereich der Sprachtechnologie und ‐
analyse ( [2] ) stehen gegenwärtig offen.

Was künftige Finanzierungstätigkeiten betrifft, so ist im Bereich „Telekommunikation“ des Kommissionsvorschlags
für die Fazilität „Connecting Europe“ (2014-2020) eine digitale Dienstinfrastruktur vorgesehen, die „mehrsprachigen
Zugang zu Online-Diensten“ bieten soll. Ziel ist es, eine Sprachressourcen-Infrastruktur einzurichten, so dass
Anbieter von Online-Inhalten und ‐Diensten ihre Angebote problemlos in allen EU-Amtssprachen zur Verfügung
stellen können.

Darüber hinaus arbeitet das Netz META-NET an einer strategischen Forschungsagenda ( [3] ) mit Vorschlägen für
künftige Forschungs‐ und Innovationsmaßnahmen in diesem Bereich. In diesem Rahmen sollen auch Möglichkeiten
zur Überwindung vorhandener Barrieren erörtert werden, um alle EU-Sprachen in stärkerem Maße als gleichrangig zu
behandeln.

Ferner leistet die Kommission einen Beitrag zur Entwicklung natürlicher Sprachlösungen, indem sie das gesamte EURecht — den größten mehrsprachigen Korpus von Rechtsvorschriften, der parallel 22 Sprachen umfasst —,
Forschern und Entwicklern im Bereich sprachgestützter Systeme und Dienste frei zur Verfügung stellt ( [4] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/language-technologies/projects_en.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/language-technologies/upcoming_en.html
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.meta-net.eu/sra-en.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://langtech.jrc.it/JRC-Acquis.html

C 294 E / 196 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009008/12**

**to the Commission**

**Hans-Peter Martin (NI)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Technological support for EU languages

In September 2012 the Multilingual European Technological Alliance (META-NET), a research network of excellence,
published a white paper series analysing computer technology support for 30 European languages. For Lithuanian,
Latvian and Maltese in particular — in all categories examined by the study — the rating is ‘weak/no support’. The
authors state the following in their conclusions: ‘The results of this white paper series show that there is a dramatic
difference in language technology support between European languages. While there are good quality software and
resources available for some languages and application areas, other (usually smaller) languages have substantial gaps.
Many languages lack basic technologies for text analysis and the essential resources.’

1. Is there a Commission study on digital support for the EU’s more commonly used languages?

2. Can the Commission provide an overview of the EU programmes and projects seeking to promote
technological support for EU languages (in particular in the areas examined by META-NET: speech processing,
machine translation, text analysis, and speech and text resources)?

3. Is there an EU strategy to improve technological support for the EU’s more commonly used languages? If not, is
the Commission planning to propose such a strategy?

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

_(26 November 2012)_

The META-NET network of excellence is co-funded through the 7th Framework Programme for Research and
Development (FP7).

Currently, the Commission supports around 60 research and innovation projects with a total funding of nearly
150 million EUR through the ICT (information and communication technologies) strand of the FP7 and the ICTPolicy Support Programme of the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) ( [1] ). Two calls for
proposals are currently open for submission in the area of language technology and analytics ( [2] ).

With regard to future funding, the ‘Telecommunications’ strand of the Commission proposal for the Connecting
Europe Facility (2014-2020) foresees a digital service infrastructure providing ‘Multilingual access to online services’.
Its purpose is to deploy a language resource infrastructure so that all providers of online content and services can
easily make their offers available in all official EU languages.

Moreover, the META-NET network is working on a Strategic Research Agenda which will propose future research
and innovation actions in the field and examine how best to overcome existing barriers in order to place all EU
languages on a more equal footing ( [3] ).

The Commission is also making a contribution to the development of natural language solutions by making the body
of EU legislation — the largest parallel multilingual corpus comprising of 22 languages — freely available to
researchers and developers of language-enabled systems and services ( [4] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/language-technologies/projects_en.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/language-technologies/upcoming_en.html
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.meta-net.eu/sra-en.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://langtech.jrc.it/JRC-Acquis.html

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 197

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-009010/12**

**à la Commission**
**Michèle Striffler (PPE)**

_(8 octobre 2012)_

_Objet:_ Révision de la directive «Aménagement du temps de travail»

L'actuelle directive 2003/88/CE, dite directive sur l'aménagement du temps de travail, ne semble plus adaptée à la
réalité socio-économique actuelle en Europe.

En ne prévoyant pas suffisamment de flexibilité dans l'aménagement du temps de travail, cette directive met en péril
de nombreux systèmes de secours européens qui reposent pour la plupart sur l'engagement volontaire.

En effet, l'actuelle directive assimile les activités de secours (et notamment celles des pompiers) à un travail salarié,
avec un encadrement strict du temps d'activité, ce qui porte atteinte à l'efficacité des interventions d'urgence des forces
de secours et au rôle prépondérant des volontaires au sein de celles-ci.

La Commission a t elle l'intention de tenir compte de la diversité des statuts liés aux forces de secours, en proposant
des dispositions spécifiques sur le volontariat lors de la révision de cette directive?

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

_(26 novembre 2012)_

La Commission invite l'auteur de la question à se reporter à la réponse à la récente question E-004590/2012 ( [1] ).

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

C 294 E / 198 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009010/12**

**to the Commission**
**Michèle Striffler (PPE)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Revision of the Working Time Directive

Directive 2003/88/EC, known as the Working Time Directive, no longer reflects socioeconomic realities in Europe.

By restricting the degree of flexibility which may be incorporated into working-time arrangements, the directive is
putting at risk the operation of many European emergency services, which are largely based on the work of
volunteers.

The directive equates the activities of the emergency services (and, in particular, of the fire service) with employment,
laying down strict rules to govern working time, hampering the effectiveness of responses to emergencies and calling
into question the vital role played by volunteers.

Does the Commission intend to take account of the involvement of both volunteers and workers in the emergency
services by proposing specific provisions on volunteering in the context of the revision of the Working Time
Directive?

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

_(26 November 2012)_

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply already given in the recent Question
E-004590/2012 ( [1] ).

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

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 199

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-009011/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD)**

_(8 Οκτωβρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Προβλήματα στην αλιευτική παραγωγή της Ελλάδας

Σύμφωνα με πρόσφατο άρθρο της «Καθημερινής» ανησυχία προκαλεί το γεγονός ότι στην Ελλάδα επιτρέπεται το ψάρεμα για
όλα τα αλιευτικά εργαλεία και την περίοδο από τον Απρίλιο έως το Μάιο, παρά το ότι είναι η βασική περίοδος αναπαραγωγής
των περισσότερων ειδών. Το αποτέλεσμα είναι αυγωμένα ψάρια ή ψάρια-νεογνά να καταλήγουν στον καταναλωτή.

Ως προς το ελάχιστο επιτρεπόμενο μέγεθος αλιευμάτων, οι έλεγχοι δεν είναι επαρκείς και έτσι πωλούνται ανεξέλεγκτα στις
αγορές ιχθύδια, παρά το ότι η τακτική αυτή είναι παράνομη.

Σημειώνεται ακόμα ότι η αλιευτική παραγωγή της Ελλάδας τα τελευταία χρόνια έχει μειωθεί κατά 50%, ενώ, σύμφωνα με
στοιχεία της Επιτροπής, το 65%-70% των εμπορικών ειδών στη χώρα βρίσκεται εκτός ασφαλών βιολογικών ορίων.

Δεδομένου ότι η διατήρηση των θαλάσσιων πόρων είναι ένας από τους έξι τομείς πολιτικής για τους οποίους η Συνθήκη της
Λισαβόνας αναθέτει στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση αποκλειστική αρμοδιότητα, ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

—
Προτίθεται, κάνοντας χρήση του δικαιώματος της πρωτοβουλίας, να λάβει τα κατάλληλα μέτρα ούτως ώστε να
απαγορευτεί η αλίευση σε περιόδους αναπαραγωγής των ιχθυαποθεμάτων;

—
Με ποιους συγκεκριμένους τρόπους προτίθεται να ενισχύσει τους ελέγχους ώστε να μην αλιεύονται ψάρια κατώτερα
του επιτρεπόμενου μεγέθους και ειδικότερα τους ελέγχους στις ιχθυόσκαλες ώστε να μην διοχετεύονται ιχθύδια στην
αγορά;

**Απάντηση της κας Δαμανάκη εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(10 Δεκεμβρίου 2012)_

Η Επιτροπή παραπέμπει το Αξιότιμο Μέλος στην απάντησή της, της 27ης Ιανουαρίου 2012, στη γραπτή ερώτηση E9018/2012 ( [1] ). Στην εν λόγω απάντησή της η Επιτροπή επισημαίνει ότι κάθε κράτος μέλος είναι αρμόδιο για τον καθορισμό
της πλέον ενδεδειγμένης διαχείρισης της αλιευτικής του παραγωγής, συμπεριλαμβανόμενων των περιόδων απαγόρευσης της
αλιείας.

Η Επιτροπή θεωρεί ιδιαίτερα σημαντικό το ζήτημα της εκφόρτωσης ψαριών με μέγεθος μικρότερο του ελάχιστου
επιτρεπόμενου ορίου. Ο κανονισμός για τη Μεσόγειο καθορίζει τις ελάχιστες απαιτήσεις για την επιλεκτικότητα των
αλιευτικών εργαλείων και ορίζει, για σειρά ειδών, το ελάχιστο επιτρεπόμενο μέγεθος των ψαριών που πρέπει να τηρείται τόσο
κατά τη στιγμή της αλίευσης όσο και κατά την εκφόρτωση. Το τελευταίο στοιχείο αποτελεί σημαντική συνισταμένη που
εξασφαλίζει εξαρχής την αποφυγή ανεπιθύμητων αλιευμάτων, στον μέγιστο δυνατό βαθμό.

Τα κράτη μέλη είναι αρμόδια για την επιβολή των κανόνων αυτών. Η Επιτροπή διεξάγει τακτικούς ελέγχους προκειμένου να
εξασφαλίσει ότι οι κανόνες σχετικά με το ελάχιστο επιτρεπόμενο μέγεθος των ψαριών επιβάλλονται και εφαρμόζονται σωστά
από τις ελληνικές αρχές. Οι έλεγχοι σχετικά με το ελάχιστο επιτρεπόμενο μέγεθος των ψαριών διεξάγονται από τις ελληνικές
αρχές κατά την εκφόρτωση. Τα ψάρια με μέγεθος μικρότερο του επιτρεπόμενου ορίου κατάσχονται και επιβάλλεται πρόστιμο
στον διαχειριστή του σκάφους.

Η ΕΕ στηρίζει χρηματοδοτικά την εφαρμογή του κανονισμού για τη Μεσόγειο και την τήρηση των υποχρεώσεων ελέγχου εκ
μέρους των κρατών μελών. Στο μέτρο 2.3 του Ευρωπαϊκού Ταμείου Αλιείας (κανονισμός (ΕΚ) αριθ. 1198/2006)
προβλέπεται η συγχρηματοδότηση των επενδύσεων σε αλιευτικά σκάφη, συμπεριλαμβανομένης της βελτίωσης της
επιλεκτικότητας των αλιευτικών διχτυών. Η Ελλάδα έχει δημοσιεύσει πρόσκληση εκδήλωσης ενδιαφέροντος ύψους 22 εκατ.
ευρώ, με στόχο τη στήριξη προγραμμάτων στο πλαίσιο του εν λόγω μέτρου. Στον τομέα του ελέγχου, η Επιτροπή
συγχρηματοδότησε το 2011 και το 2012 δύο ελληνικά προγράμματα για την αγορά κατάλληλων οργάνων μέτρησης των
διχτυών. Τα εν λόγω προγράμματα έχουν ήδη ξεκινήσει.

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

C 294 E / 200 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009011/12**

**to the Commission**
**Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Problems with Greek fisheries

A recent article in the Kathimerini expresses concern that the Greek authorities are allowing fishing activities with all
types of fishing gear even in the period from April to May, the main breeding period for many species. As a result,
berried fish or fry are being purchased by consumers.

Inspections to ensure compliance with smallest allowable catch sizes are inadequate, with the result that fry are being
sold illegally without any prior checks.

Catches by Greek fishermen have fallen by around 50% over the last few years while, according to the Commission,
65 to 70% of commercial species are outside safe biological limits.

Given that the sustainability of marine resources is one of the six policy areas for which the European Union has sole
responsibility under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty:

—
Will the Commission, using its right of initiative, take the necessary measures to ban fishing during breeding
periods, when fish stocks are replenished?

—
What steps will it take to step up monitoring activities so as to prevent the landing of undersized fish and, in
particular, inspections at fish wharves so as to prevent the selling of fry?

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

_(10 December 2012)_

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to its reply to Written Question E-9018/2012 ( [1] ). As indicated in
that reply it is up to the Member States to define the most appropriate management of their fisheries, including the
closing seasons

The Commission takes very seriously the issue of undersized fish landings. The Mediterranean Regulation defines
minimum requirements to improve the selectivity of the fishing gears, and sets a minimum catching size for several
species that has to be respected at the time of the capture and not only at the landing. The last element is a strong
driving force to ensure that unwanted catches are avoided as much as possible in the first place.

The responsibility to enforce these rules lays with Member States. The Commission carries out regular verifications to
establish whether there is proper control and enforcement of the minimum catching size by the Greek authorities.
Control on minimum fish size is carried out by the Greek authorities at landing. Undersized fish is seized and a fine is
applied to the operator.

The EU provides funding to support the implementation of the Mediterranean Regulation and the control obligations
of Member States. Measure 2.3 of the European Fisheries Fund (EC Regulation 1198/2006) provides for the cofinancing of on-board investments of fishing vessels, including the improvement of the selectivity of the nets. Greece
has issued a call for expression of interest amounting to EUR 22 million to support projects under this measure. In the
area of control, the Commission co-financed in 2011 and 2012 two Greek projects for the purchase of appropriate
net measuring instruments. These projects are in the process of being materialised.

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

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 201

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-009012/12**

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

_(8 Οκτωβρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Φορολογικοί παράδεισοι

Από στοιχεία που είδαν πρόσφατα το φως της δημοσιότητας στην Ελλάδα, μεγάλος αριθμός πολιτών φοροδιαφεύγουν
φυγαδεύοντας τεράστια ποσά στην Ελβετία και σε άλλες χώρες του εξωτερικού που είναι γνωστές ως «φορολογικοί
παράδεισοι».

Γνωστή είναι η «λίστα Λαγκάρντ» με 1 991 Έλληνες πολίτες που διατηρούν λογαριασμούς σε τράπεζες της Ελβετίας που
συνδέονται πιθανόν με ξέπλυμα μαύρου χρήματος.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

—
Τι προτίθεται να πράξει ώστε να τεθεί τέρμα σ’ αυτό το φαινόμενο που είναι καταστροφικό και άδικο για την οικονομία
διαφόρων ευρωπαϊκών χωρών;

—
Προτίθεται να συνάψει συμφωνία με την Ελβετία, ή άλλες χώρες που θεωρούνται «φορολογικοί παράδεισοι», για
ανταλλαγή εμπιστευτικών στοιχείων σε μια προσπάθεια καταπολέμησης της φοροδιαφυγής;

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

_(22 Νοεμβρίου 2012)_

Η Επιτροπή δεν έχει αρμοδιότητα να διενεργεί φορολογικές έρευνες του είδους που αναφέρεται στην ερώτηση του Αξιότιμου
Μέλους του Κοινοβουλίου. Οι ελληνικές αρχές είναι εκείνες που προβαίνουν στις σχετικές ενέργειες για τη φορολόγηση
επενδύσεων στο εξωτερικό που ανήκουν σε Έλληνες υπηκόους.

Χάρη στην «οδηγία για τις αποταμιεύσεις» ( [1] ), δίνονται πληροφορίες στα κράτη μέλη σχετικά με τους τόκους που
εισπράττουν οι μόνιμοι κάτοικοι καθενός από αυτά από τις αποταμιεύσεις που έχουν επενδυθεί σε άλλα κράτη μέλη.
Ταυτόχρονα η Επιτροπή έχει υπογράψει συμφωνίες με πέντε άλλα κράτη που συνορεύουν με την Ένωση, μεταξύ των οποίων
και η Ελβετία, οι οποίες προβλέπουν την εφαρμογή μέτρων ισοδύναμων με την οδηγία υπό τη μορφή φόρου
παρακρατούμενου στην πηγή. Η Επιτροπή έχει προτείνει στο Συμβούλιο να βελτιωθεί η εν λόγω οδηγία ( [2] ), καθώς και να της
δοθεί εξουσιοδότηση να διαπραγματευθεί βελτιώσεις των σχετικών συμφωνιών για τις αποταμιεύσεις.

Επιπλέον, η πρόσφατη ανακοίνωση σχετικά με τη φορολογική απάτη και τη φοροδιαφυγή ( [3] ), θα υποστηρίζεται σύντομα από
ένα σχέδιο δράσης, το οποίο θα προσδιορίζει συγκεκριμένα μέτρα που θα πρέπει να ληφθούν σε επίπεδο κρατών μελών
και ΕΕ.

Εάν τα κράτη μέλη ενεργήσουν προς το κοινό συμφέρον, ιδίως εξουσιοδοτώντας την Επιτροπή να διαπραγματευθεί
βελτιωμένη συμφωνία για τις αποταμιεύσεις με την Ελβετία και άλλα κράτη που συνορεύουν με την Ένωση, η θέση όλων των
κρατών μελών όσον αφορά την ορθή φορολόγηση επενδύσεων που διατηρούνται στο εξωτερικό θα ενισχυθεί.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Οδηγία 2003/48/ΕΚ του Συμβουλίου, της 3ης Ιουνίου 2003, για τη φορολόγηση των υπό μορφή τόκων εισοδημάτων από αποταμιεύσεις, ΕΕ L 157 της

26.6.2003, σ. 38.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2008)727 τελικό της 13.11.2008.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/common/publications/com_reports/taxation/COM (2012) 351_el.pdf

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

C 294 E / 202 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009012/12**

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

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Tax havens

It has recently emerged that in Greece many individuals are evading taxes by channelling enormous amounts of
money into Switzerland and other foreign countries known to be tax havens.

Furthermore, 1 991 Greek citizens holding accounts in Switzerland and suspected of money laundering have been
entered on the ‘Lagarde list’.

In view of this:

—
What action will the Commission take to end such iniquitous practices, which are causing untold harm to the
economies of a number of European countries?

—
Will the Commission conclude an agreement with Switzerland or other countries regarded as tax havens for
the exchange of reliable information with a view to combating tax evasion?

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

_(22 November 2012)_

The Commission does not have the powers to carry out the type of tax investigations referred to in the Honourable
Member's question. It is the Greek authorities who act in relation to taxing investments held abroad by Greek
nationals.

Thanks to the ‘Savings Directive’ ( [1] ), information is given to Member States on interest earned by their residents on
savings invested in other Member States. At the same time the Commission has signed agreements with five other
States neighbouring the Union, including Switzerland, that provide for the application of equivalent measures to the
directive in the form of a withholding tax. The Commission has proposed to the Council to improve that directive ( [2] ),
as well as an authorisation to negotiate enhancements of the related Savings Agreements.

Furthermore, the recent communication on tax fraud and tax evasion ( [3] ), will shortly be supported by an action plan
identifying concrete steps that should be taken at Member State and EU level.

If Member States act in the common interest, in particular by authorising the Commission to negotiate an enhanced
Savings Agreement with Switzerland and other States neighbouring the Union, the position of all Member States in
relation to properly taxing investments held abroad will be strengthened.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Council Directive 2003/48/EC of 3 June 2003 on taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments OJ L 157, 26.6.2003, p. 38.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2008) 727 final of 13.11.2008.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/common/publications/com_reports/taxation/com(2012)351_en.pdf

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 203

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009013/12**

**to the Commission**
**Marian Harkin (ALDE)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Free movement of goods and consumer rights within the EU

Could the Commission please state its legal opinion on the following situation as regards the free movement of goods
and consumer rights.

An Irish citizen living in Ireland sought to purchase a specific product online from a company in another EU Member
State. This company has a contract with an Irish distributor and therefore it is refusing to sell the specific product
online to the Irish citizen because he is resident in Ireland. If, however, he was resident in the UK, he would be able to
purchase the product online.

Does the Commission agree that such a situation is in contravention of the rights of an EU citizen and in breach of
EC law in terms of the free movement of goods as defined under Articles 34-36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of
the European Union?

**Question for written answer E-009014/12**

**to the Commission**
**Marian Harkin (ALDE)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Free movement of goods and consumer rights within the EU

Could the Commission please state its legal opinion on the following situation as regards the free movement of goods
and consumer rights.

An Irish citizen living in Ireland sought to purchase a specific product online from a company in another EU Member
State. He was refused the right to purchase online because the policy of the company in question prevents shipping
across borders.

Does the Commission agree that such a situation is in contravention of the rights of an EU citizen and in breach of
EC law in terms of the free movement of goods as defined under Articles 34-36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of
the European Union?

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

_(12 December 2012)_

Discrimination by service providers falls under Art. 20(2) of the Services Directive ( [1] ): ‘Member States shall ensure that
the general conditions of access to a service […] do not contain discriminatory provisions relating to the nationality
or place of residence of the recipient […]’. However, differences in access conditions are allowed when ‘those
differences are directly justified by objective criteria’.

In June 2012, the Commission published a document on this provision ( [2] ) which illustrates the typical situations
where service recipients are treated differently or refused a service on grounds of nationality or residence, and the
justifications that might be invoked by businesses. It also provides some general indications as to when these
differences in treatment may or may not be objectively justified so that national authorities are better equipped to
undertake the necessary case-by-case analysis. Distribution agreements, including for the distribution of goods, are
one of the issues at stake. Service providers cannot be obliged to breach contracts they have validly entered.

In any event, Article 8 of the Consumer Rights Directive ( [3] ) requires trading websites to indicate clearly by the
beginning of the ordering process whether any delivery restrictions apply.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Commission Staff Working Document with a view to establishing guidance on the application of Article 20(2) of Directive 2006/123/EC on

services in the internal market, accessible at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/services/services-dir/rights_of_recipients_en.htm

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parlaiment and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights.

( **|**

C 294 E / 204 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-009015/12**

**aan de Commissie**
**Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), Cornelis de Jong (GUE/NGL) en Marietje Schaake (ALDE)**

_(8 oktober 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Godslasteringswetten in de Europese Unie

De recente golf van geweld in de moslimwereld als reactie op een online video waarin Mohammed wordt afgebeeld,
heeft vele Europese leiders ertoe gebracht het recht op vrijheid van meningsuiting te verdedigen tegen de
beschuldigingen van godslastering. Tegelijkertijd zijn er in de EU nog steeds lidstaten die godslasteringswetten hebben
en uitvoeren. Dit werd onder meer aangetoond door de recente arrestatie van een 27-jarige man door de Griekse
autoriteiten ( [1] ) en de vervolging van een artiest door de Spaanse autoriteiten voor een werk dat hij tientallen jaren
eerder maakte ( [2] ).

De Commissie van Venetië, in haar verslag van 23 oktober 2010, en de Parlementaire Vergadering van de Raad van
Europa, in de aanbeveling 1805(2007) van 29 juni 2007, hebben erop gewezen dat in een minderheid van de
lidstaten van de EU (Oostenrijk, Denemarken, Finland, Griekenland, Italië, Ierland en Nederland) nog steeds
godslasteringswetten van kracht zijn, maar slechts zelden worden uitgevoerd. Iets dat vergelijkbaar is met
godslastering — „godsdienstbelediging” — is nog steeds een misdrijf in een groot aantal lidstaten (Cyprus, de
Tsjechische Republiek, Denemarken, Spanje, Finland, Duitsland, Griekenland, Italië, Litouwen, Nederland, Polen,
Portugal en Slowakije). Zowel de Commissie van Venetië als de Parlementaire Vergadering deden de aanbeveling het
misdrijf van godslastering en godsdienstbelediging af te schaffen, met het oog op de artikelen 10 (vrijheid van
meningsuiting) en 9 (vrijheid van gedachte, geweten en godsdienst) van het EHRM ( [3] ), die ook worden weerspiegeld in
de artikelen 11 en 10 van het EU-Handvest van de grondrechten. Artikel 20, lid 2, van het Internationaal Verdrag
inzake burgerrechten en politieke rechten bepaalt dat „het propageren van op nationale afkomst, ras of godsdienst
gebaseerde haatgevoelens die aanzetten tot discriminatie, vijandigheid of geweld, wordt bij de wet verboden”.

1. Is de Commissie van mening dat wetten tegen godslastering en godsdienstbelediging in strijd zijn met de
vrijheid van meningsuiting?

2. Is de Commissie van mening dat de arrestatie en veroordeling van Europese burgers op grond van godslastering
in overeenstemming is met de EU-verdragen en het Handvest van de grondrechten?

3. Roept de Commissie in haar extern beleid op tot de afschaffing van godslasteringswetten?

4. Is de Commissie voornemens om, binnen het kader van internationale organisaties als de VN, te pleiten voor
een wereldwijd verbod op godslasteringswetten?

5. Hoe denkt de Commissie ervoor te zorgen dat de vrijheid van meningsuiting niet kan worden beperkt door
wetten tegen godslastering en godsdienstbelediging zowel binnen als buiten de Europese Unie?

**Antwoord van mevrouw Reding namens de Commissie**

_(3 januari 2013)_

De Commissie verwijst naar haar antwoord op schriftelijke vragen E-001542/2008 en E‐003725/2009 ( [4] ). Vrijheid
van meningsuiting is een van de belangrijkste pijlers van onze democratische samenlevingen en zij is verankerd in het
Handvest van de grondrechten van de Europese Unie en het Europees Verdrag voor de rechten van de mens. Volgens
artikel 51, lid 1, van het Handvest van de grondrechten van de Europese Unie zijn de bepalingen ervan echter
uitsluitend tot de lidstaten gericht wanneer zij het recht van de Unie ten uitvoer brengen. Wanneer lidstaten nationale
blasfemiewetten vaststellen of handhaven, geven de betrokken lidstaten geen uitvoering aan EU-wetgeving. Het is dan
ook aan deze lidstaten om ervoor te zorgen dat hun verplichtingen met betrekking tot de grondrechten — die
voortvloeien uit internationale overeenkomsten en uit hun nationale wetgeving — worden nageleefd.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.rtbf.be/info/societe/detail_grece-arrete-pour-blaspheme-pour-avoir-caricature-un-moine-sur-facebook?id=7844541.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/may/28/spanish-artist-cook-christ-film.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) De Parlementaire Vergadering van de Raad van Europa stelt dat „met het oog op de grote diversiteit van godsdiensten in Europa en het

democratische principe van de scheiding tussen kerk en staat, moeten godslasteringswetten door de lidstaten en parlementen worden herzien” en
dat „godslastering, als een belediging van de godsdienst, niet mag worden aanzien als crimineel misdrijf”.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/nl/parliamentary-questions.html

( **|**

⋅4∙ **|** )

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 205

Wat betreft het externe beleid van de EU heeft de Raad in zijn conclusies van november 2009 er zijn diepe
bezorgdheid over geuit dat landen die een wetgeving over de belastering van godsdiensten hebben, die wetgeving
vaak hebben gebruikt om religieuze minderheden slecht te behandelen en de vrijheid van meningsuiting en de
vrijheid van godsdienst en overtuiging in te perken. De Raad benadrukte verder dat er geen beperkingen aan die
rechten mogen worden gesteld uit religieuze motieve en dat men zich nooit op godsdienst mag beroepen om de
beperking of schending van individuele rechten te verantwoorden of te vergoelijken.

C 294 E / 206 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-009015/12**

**do Komisji**
**Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), Cornelis de Jong (GUE/NGL) oraz Marietje Schaake**

**(ALDE)**
_(8 października 2012 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Przepisy dotyczące bluźnierstwa w Unii Europejskiej

Niedawna fala przemocy w świecie muzułmańskim w następstwie opublikowania w Internecie filmu ukazującego
Mahometa sprowokowała licznych przywódców UE do obrony swobody wypowiedzi i opinii przed zarzutami
bluźnierstwa. Jednocześnie w UE niektóre państwa członkowskie wciąż mają i stosują przepisy dotyczące
bluźnierstwa, o czym świadczy niedawne aresztowanie 27-letniego mężczyzny przez władze greckie ( [1] ) oraz ściganie
pewnego artysty przez władze hiszpańskie za dzieło powstałe przed dziesiątkami lat ( [2] ).

Komisja wenecka w sprawozdaniu z dnia 23 października 2010 r., a także Zgromadzenie Parlamentarne Rady
Europy w zaleceniu 1805 (2007) z dnia 29 czerwca 2007 r. podkreśliły, że przepisy dotyczące bluźnierstwa nadal
istnieją w mniejszości państw członkowskich UE (Austria, Dania, Finlandia, Grecja, Włochy, Irlandia i Holandia),
gdzie są rzadko stosowane, oraz że przepis podobny do przepisu o bluźnierstwie – „obraza uczuć religijnych” – wciąż
stanowi przestępstwo w wielu państwach członkowskich (Cypr, Republika Czeska, Dania, Hiszpania, Finlandia,
Niemcy, Grecja, Włochy, Litwa, Holandia, Polska, Portugalia i Słowacja). Zarówno komisja wenecka, jak
i Zgromadzenie Parlamentarne, zaleciły depenalizację bluźnierstwa i obrazy uczuć religijnych na mocy art. 10
(swoboda wypowiedzi) oraz art. 9 (swoboda myśli, przekonań i wyznania) Konwencji o ochronie praw człowieka
i podstawowych wolności ( [3] ), które mają swoje odzwierciedlenie także w art. 11 i 10 Karty praw podstawowych UE.
Artykuł 20 ust 2 MPPOiP stanowi, że „popieranie w jakikolwiek sposób nienawiści narodowej, rasowej lub religijnej,
stanowiące podżeganie do dyskryminacji, wrogości lub gwałtu, powinno być ustawowo zakazane”.

1. Czy Komisja uważa przepisy dotyczące bluźnierstwa i obrazy uczuć religijnych za sprzeczne ze swobodą
wypowiedzi?

2. Czy Komisja uważa, że aresztowanie i skazywanie obywateli UE za bluźnierstwo jest zgodne z traktatami UE
oraz z kartą praw podstawowych?

3. Czy Komisja wzywa w swojej polityce zewnętrznej do abolicji przepisów dotyczących bluźnierstwa?

4. Czy Komisja będzie popierać na szczeblu międzynarodowych organizacji, takich jak ONZ, ogólnoświatowy
zakaz przepisów dotyczących bluźnierstwa?

5. Jak Komisja zagwarantuje, że swoboda wypowiedzi nie będzie ograniczana przez przepisy dotyczące
bluźnierstwa i obrazy uczuć religijnych, zarówno w UE, jak i poza nią?

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

_(3 stycznia 2013 r.)_

Komisja pragnie odwołać się w tym względzie do odpowiedzi udzielonych na pytania wymagające odpowiedzi na
piśmie nr E-001542/2008 oraz E-003725/2009 ( [4] ). Wolność słowa stanowi jeden z fundamentów naszych
demokratycznych społeczeństw, zapisanych w Karcie praw podstawowych Unii Europejskiej oraz Europejskiej
konwencji o ochronie praw człowieka i podstawowych wolności. Zgodnie z art. 51 ust. 1 Karty praw podstawowych
UE, jej postanowienia mają jednak zastosowanie do państw członkowskich wyłącznie w przypadkach, w których
stosują one prawo Unii. Wprowadzając lub utrzymując w mocy krajowe przepisy dotyczące bluźnierstwa,
zainteresowane państwa członkowskie nie stosują prawa Unii. W tej sprawie zatem obowiązek zapewnienia
przestrzegania zobowiązań w zakresie praw podstawowych wynikających z prawa wewnętrznego danego państwa
i zawartych porozumień międzynarodowych spoczywa wyłącznie na tych państwach członkowskich.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.rtbf.be/info/societe/detail_grece-arrete-pour-blaspheme-pour-avoir-caricature-un-moine-sur-facebook?id=7844541.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/may/28/spanish-artist-cook-christ-film.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) ZPRE stwierdziło, że „z myślą o większej różnorodności przekonań religijnych w Europie oraz o demokratycznej zasadzie rozdziału państwa od

religii państwa członkowskie i parlamenty powinny dokonać przeglądu przepisów dotyczących bluźnierstwa” oraz że „bluźnierstwo, stanowiące
obrazę uczuć religijnych, nie powinno być uważane za przestępstwo kryminalne”.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/pl/parliamentary-questions.html

( **|**

⋅4∙ **|** )

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 207

W odniesieniu do polityki zewnętrznej UE, w swoich konkluzjach z listopada 2009 r. Rada wyraziła głębokie
zaniepokojenie faktem, że w państwach, w których prawodawstwo zawiera przepisy dotyczące obrazy uczuć
religijnych, przepisy te są często wykorzystywane w celu gnębienia mniejszości religijnych, a także ograniczania
wolności wypowiedzi oraz wolności religii i przekonań. Rada podkreśliła także, że praw tych nie można ograniczać
ze względów religijnych i że religia nie może być nigdy wykorzystywana do uzasadnienia lub usprawiedliwienia
przypadków ograniczania lub naruszania praw jednostki.

C 294 E / 208 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009015/12**

**to the Commission**
**Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), Cornelis de Jong (GUE/NGL) and Marietje Schaake**

**(ALDE)**
_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Blasphemy laws within the European Union

The recent wave of violence in the Muslim world following the online posting of a video depicting Mohammed has
led numerous EU leaders to defend freedom of expression and opinion against accusations of blasphemy. At the same
time, in the EU, some Member States still have and implement blasphemy laws, as demonstrated by the recent arrest
of a 27-year-old man by the Greek authorities ( [1] ) and the prosecution of an artist by the Spanish authorities for a work
he produced decades ago ( [2] ).

The Venice Commission, in its report of 23 October 2010, and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe,
in its Recommendation 1805 (2007) of 29 June 2007, pointed out that blasphemy laws are still in place in a minority
of EU Member States (Austria, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Italy, Ireland and the Netherlands) and are rarely
implemented, and that something similar to blasphemy — ‘religious insult’ — is still an offence in a large number of
Member States (Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain, Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, the
Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Slovakia). Both the Venice Commission and the Parliamentary Assembly
recommended abolishing the offences of blasphemy and of insult to religious feelings, in view of Articles 10 (freedom
of expression) and 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the ECHR ( [3] ), which are also mirrored in
Articles 11 and 10 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Article 20(2) of the ICCPR stipulates that ‘any advocacy
of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be
prohibited by law’.

1. Does the Commission consider that laws against blasphemy and religious insult are contrary to freedom of
expression?

2. Does the Commission consider that the arrest and conviction of EU citizens on charges of blasphemy is
compatible with the EU Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights?

3. Does the Commission call for the abolition of blasphemy laws in its external policies?

4. Will the Commission advocate a worldwide ban on blasphemy laws within international organisations such as
the UN?

5. How will the Commission ensure that freedom of expression cannot be restricted by laws against blasphemy
and religious insult both within and outside the EU?

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

_(3 January 2013)_

The Commission refers to its answer to Written Questions E-001542/2008 and E-003725/2009 ( [4] ). Freedom of
expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of our democratic societies, enshrined in the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights. However, according to
Article 51 (1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, its provisions are addressed to the Member States only when they
are implementing Union law. When enacting or maintaining national blasphemy laws the Member States concerned
do not act in the course of implementation of EC law. In that matter it is thus for these Member States alone to ensure
that their obligations regarding fundamental rights — as resulting from international agreements and from their
internal legislation — are respected.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.rtbf.be/info/societe/detail_grece-arrete-pour-blaspheme-pour-avoir-caricature-un-moine-sur-facebook?id=7844541.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/may/28/spanish-artist-cook-christ-film.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) The PACE stated that ‘in view of the greater diversity of religious beliefs in Europe and the democratic principle of the separation of state and

religion, blasphemy laws should be reviewed by member states and parliaments’ and that ‘blasphemy, as an insult to a religion, should not be
deemed a criminal offence’.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

( **|**

⋅4∙ **|** )

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 209

As regards the EU's external policy, the Council expressed in its November 2009 conclusions its deep concern that in
countries that have legislation on defamation of religions, such legislation has often been used to mistreat religious
minorities and to limit freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief. The Council furthermore underlined
that no restrictions in the name of religion may be placed on those rights and that religion may never be used to
justify or condone the restriction or violation of individual rights.

C 294 E / 210 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009017/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), Olle Schmidt (ALDE) y Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE)**

_(8 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Ayuda pública, presuntamente ilegal, concedida en Italia a entidades religiosas y organizaciones sin ánimo de
lucro

En una carta fechada el 12 de octubre de 2010, la Comisión Europea informaba a Italia de su decisión de iniciar un
procedimiento en relación con la ayuda pública, presuntamente ilegal, concedida en Italia a entidades religiosas y
organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro, en virtud del artículo 108, apartado 2, del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión
Europea. En esta misma carta, la Comisión también informaba a Italia de que ya había iniciado un procedimiento por
una ayuda ya existente, relativa a la exención fiscal del 50 %, concedida a diferentes beneficiarios de las categorías ya
mencionadas.

1. ¿Podría informar la Comisión sobre el estado de estos procedimientos, ahora que han pasado ya dos años desde
la publicación de la carta sobre el artículo 108 del TFUE, teniendo en cuenta además que el artículo 7, apartado 6, del
Reglamento (CE) n° 659/1999 afirma que «en la medida de lo posible, la Comisión procurará adoptar una decisión en
el plazo de dieciocho meses después de iniciar el procedimiento»?

2. Asimismo, habida cuenta de la reciente introducción del impuesto IMU de bienes inmuebles, que sustituye al
antiguo impuesto municipal ICI, y con él a la exención que dio pie a los procedimientos mencionados más arriba,
¿puede aclarar la Comisión si, en caso de considerar que las nuevas normas cumplen con la legislación sobre ayudas
estatales, se procederá o no a la recuperación de las ayudas ilegales concedidas mientras estuvo en vigor la exención
del ICI?

3. Por último, ¿podría la Comisión ponernos al día sobre el estado de los procedimientos incoados mediante la
carta del 12 de octubre de 2010?

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

_(27 de noviembre de 2012)_

Sus Señorías se remiten, correctamente, al plazo de dieciocho meses, tal como se establece en el artículo 7, apartado 6,
del Reglamento (CE) n° 659/1999 ( [1] ), a título indicativo, ya que «se puede ampliar de mutuo acuerdo entre la
Comisión y el Estado miembro de que se trate». Esta práctica es habitual en casos más complejos.

En lo que concierne a la investigación iniciada el 12 de octubre de 2010, sobre la exención del impuesto municipal
sobre bienes inmuebles (ICI), concedida a entidades no comerciales para fines específicos, las autoridades italianas
aprobaron una nueva ley en marzo de 2012 para abordar, entre otras cosas, las cuestiones relacionadas con las
ayudas estatales relativas a dicho impuesto. En octubre de 2012, la legislación de aplicación se hallaba aún en fase de
adopción.

En principio, cuando se adoptan decisiones no favorables, como es el caso de las ayudas ilegales, la Comisión exige el
reembolso de la ayuda, a menos que ello sea contrario a un principio general del Derecho de la UE. Con respecto a la
exención del ICI, cualquier posición adoptada por la Comisión, incluido un posible reembolso, dependerá del
resultado de la investigación por ella realizada.

Tal y como se indica en la decisión de incoar un procedimiento sobre la exención del ICI ( [2] ), la Comisión considera
que la reducción del impuesto de sociedades, prevista por el artículo 6 del Decreto Presidencial n° 601/73 para
entidades específicas ( [3] ), podría constituir una ayuda estatal, En este contexto, la Comisión indicó que se iba a abrir un
procedimiento sobre las ayudas existentes en relación con esta medida del impuesto sobre sociedades. De hecho, en
febrero de 2011, se envió a Italia una carta de apertura del procedimiento de cooperación y en mayo de 2011 dicho
país presentó sus observaciones. Este procedimiento sigue abierto.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) DO L 83 de 27.3.1999, p. 1.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Véase el punto 18 de la Decisión de la Comisión de 12 de octubre de 2010 (DO C 348 de 21.12.2010, p. 17).

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:348:0017:0025:ES:PDF.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Véase el punto 1 de la Decisión de la Comisión de 12 de octubre de 2010 (DO C 348,21 de 21.12.2010, p. 17) las entidades interesadas figuran en

el artículo 6 del Decreto Presidencial n° 601/73.

( **|**

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 211

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-009017/12**

**aan de Commissie**
**Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), Olle Schmidt (ALDE) en Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE)**

_(8 oktober 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Vermeende illegale staatssteun verleend door Italië aan religieuze entiteiten en non-profit organisaties.

De Europese Commissie heeft Italië er in haar brief van 12 oktober 2010, van in kennis gesteld dat zij heeft besloten
krachtens artikel 108, lid 2, van het Verdrag betreffende de werking van de Europese Unie een procedure in te leiden
met betrekking tot de vermeende illegale staatssteun die door Italië werd verleend aan religieuze entiteiten en nonprofit organisaties. In dezelfde brief meldde de Commissie Italië tevens dat zij reeds begonnen was met een procedure
betreffende de bestaande steun met betrekking tot de 50 % belastingvrijstelling die werd verleend aan een aantal
begunstigden uit de bovengenoemde categorieën.

1. Kan de Commissie meer informatie geven over de status van de bovengenoemde procedures nu er twee jaar zijn
verstreken sinds artikel 108, lid 2, van de VWEU van kracht is geworden, rekening houdend met artikel 7, lid 6, van
Verordening (EG) nr. 659/1999, dat voorziet dat de Commissie „streeft er zoveel mogelijk naar binnen 18 maanden
na de inleiding van de procedure een beschikking aan te nemen”?

2. Zou de Commissie voorts kunnen verduidelijken, rekening houdend met de recente invoering van de nieuwe
onroerendgoedbelasting (IMU), die de oude gemeentelijke onroerendgoedbelasting (ICI) vervangt en de hieraan
verbonden ICI-vrijstelling die de aanzet gaf tot bovengenoemde procedures, of zij, indien zij van mening is dat de
nieuwe regelgeving in overeenstemming is met de wetgeving betreffende staatssteun, de teruggave zal eisen van de
illegale staatssteun door middel van de ICI-vrijstelling?

3. Kan de Commissie, ten slotte, de meest recente stand van zaken geven met betrekking tot de
bestaande hulpprocedures, die werden gestart op 12 oktober 2010?

**Antwoord van de heer Almunia namens de Commissie**

_(27 november 2012)_

De geachte Parlementsleden noemen de periode van 18 maanden, die is vastgelegd in artikel 7, lid 6, van Verordening
659/1999 ( [1] ), terecht indicatief, aangezien deze „kan worden verlengd in onderlinge overeenstemming tussen de
Commissie en de betrokken lidstaat”. Dit is in complexere gevallen niet ongebruikelijk.

Wat de procedure betreft die op 12 oktober 2010 is ingeleid ten aanzien van de vrijstelling van de gemeentebelasting
op onroerend goed (ICI), welke wordt verleend aan niet-commerciële entiteiten die bepaalde activiteiten verrichten,
hebben de Italiaanse autoriteiten in maart 2012 een nieuwe wet aangenomen om onder andere de
staatssteunvraagstukken in verband met deze belasting te onderzoeken. In oktober 2012 was de
uitvoeringswetgeving nog steeds in behandeling.

In beginsel gelast de Commissie, indien negatieve beschikkingen worden gegeven voor onrechtmatige steun,
terugvordering van de steun, tenzij zulks in strijd is met een algemeen beginsel van het recht van de Unie. Wat de
vrijstelling van de ICI betreft zal het standpunt dat de Commissie inneemt, ook wanneer dit eventuele terugvordering
inhoudt, afhangen van het resultaat van haar onderzoek.

Zoals in het besluit tot inleiding van de procedure ten aanzien van de vrijstelling van de ICI werd aangegeven ( [2] ), stelde
de Commissie dat de vermindering van de vennootschapsbelasting, die in artikel 6 van presidentieel besluit nr.
601/73 voor bepaalde entiteiten is vastgelegd ( [3] ), staatssteun zou kunnen behelzen. In dat verband gaf de Commissie
aan dat zij een procedure voor bestaande steun zou inleiden ten aanzien van deze belastingmaatregel. Een brief ter
inleiding van de samenwerkingsprocedure is in februari 2011 aan Italië gezonden en de Italiaanse autoriteiten zonden
in mei 2011 hun opmerkingen. Deze procedure is nog steeds gaande.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) PB L 83 van 27.3.1999, blz. 1.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Zie punt 18 van het besluit van de Commissie van 12 oktober 2010 (PB C 348 van 21.12.2010, blz. 17).

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:348:0017:0025:NL:PDF.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Zie punt 1 van het besluit van de Commissie van 12 oktober 2010 (PB C 34 van 21.12.2010, blz. 17); de entiteiten in kwestie worden opgesomd

in artikel 6 van presidentieel besluit nr. 601/73.

( **|**

C 294 E / 212 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-009017/12**

**do Komisji**
**Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), Olle Schmidt (ALDE) oraz Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE)**

_(8 października 2012 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Domniemane nielegalne przyznanie przez Włochy pomocy organizacjom religijnym i non-profit

Pismem z dnia 12 października 2010 r. Komisja Europejska powiadomiła Włochy, że podjęła decyzję o wszczęciu
postępowań na mocy art. 108 ust. 2 Traktatu o funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej w związku z domniemanym
nielegalnym przyznaniem przez Włochy pomocy organizacjom religijnym i non-profit. W tym samym piśmie
Komisja poinformowała również, że rozpoczęła postępowanie dotyczące istniejącej pomocy w postaci 50 %
zwolnienia z podatku przyznanego pewnej liczbie beneficjentów należących do tych dwóch kategorii.

1. Czy Komisja może udzielić informacji na temat obecnego stanu zaawansowania tych postępowań – dwa lata po
zastosowaniu art. 108 ust. 2 TFUE – biorąc również pod uwagę, że art. 7 ust. 6 rozporządzenia (WE) nr 659/1999
stanowi, iż „Komisja podejmuje zależnie od możliwości wysiłki w celu podjęcia decyzji w terminie 18 miesięcy od
wszczęcia procedury”?

2. Ponadto, uwzględniając niedawne wprowadzenie podatku IMU, który zastąpił podatek ICI będący podstawą
przyznanych zwolnień, które z kolei spowodowały wszczęcie wspomnianych procedur, czy Komisja może wyjaśnić,
czy w przypadku uznania nowych zasad za zgodne z przepisami dotyczącymi pomocy państwowej nakaże
odzyskanie nielegalnej pomocy przyznanej w postaci zwolnień od podatku ICI?

3. Wreszcie, czy Komisja może podać aktualne informacje na temat stanu prowadzonych postępowań
rozpoczętych pismem z dnia 12 października 2010 r.?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Joaquína Almunię w imieniu Komisji**

_(27 listopada 2012 r.)_

Szanowni Posłowie słusznie zwracają uwagę na termin 18 miesięcy określony w art. 7 ust. 6 rozporządzenia
659/1999 ( [1] ), który jest terminem orientacyjnym, ponieważ „może zostać przedłużony na podstawie porozumienia
między Komisją a zainteresowanym państwem członkowskim”. Nie jest to rzadkie w bardziej złożonych sprawach.

Jeśli chodzi o postępowanie wszczęte dnia 12 października 2010 r. dotyczące zwolnienia z podatku komunalnego
od nieruchomości (ICI), udzielonego podmiotom niekomercyjnym prowadzącym określoną działalność, w marcu
2012 r. władze włoskie wydały nowe przepisy, aby rozwiązać m.in. kwestię pomocy państwa związaną z tym
podatkiem. W październiku 2012 r. nadal trwał proces przyjmowania przepisów wykonawczych.

Zasadniczo, jeśli zostaje podjęta decyzja uznająca pomoc państwa za niezgodną z prawem, Komisja nakazuje
odzyskanie pomocy, chyba że byłoby to sprzeczne z ogólną zasadą prawa unijnego. Jeśli chodzi o zwolnienie z ICI,
stanowisko, jakie zajmie Komisja, również w sprawie ewentualnego odzyskania, będzie zależało od wyniku
postępowania Komisji.

Jak wskazano w decyzji o wszczęciu postępowania w sprawie zwolnienia z ICI ( [2] ), Komisja stwierdziła, że zwolnienie
z podatku od osób prawnych, przewidziane w art. 6 dekretu prezydenckiego nr 601/73 w odniesieniu do
konkretnych podmiotów ( [3] ), może wiązać się z pomocą państwa W tym kontekście Komisja stwierdziła, że
w odniesieniu do tego środka podejmie postępowanie dotyczące istniejącej pomocy. W lutym 2011 r. do Włoch
przesłano pismo wszczynające procedurę współpracy, a w maju 2011 r. Włochy przekazały swoje uwagi.
Postępowanie nadal się toczy.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Dz.U. L 83 z 27.3.1999, s. 1.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Zob. pkt 18 decyzji Komisji z dnia 12 października 2010 r. (Dz.U. C 348 z 21.12.2010, s. 17).

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:348:0017:0025:PL:PDF.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Zob. pkt 1 decyzji Komisji z dnia 12 października 2010 r. (Dz.U. C 348 z 21.12.2010, s. 17); dane podmioty są wymienione w art. 6 dekretu

prezydenckiego nr 601/73.

( **|**

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 213

_(Svensk version)_

**Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-009017/12**

**till kommissionen**
**Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), Olle Schmidt (ALDE) och Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE)**

_(8 oktober 2012)_

_Angående:_ Påstått olagligt statligt stöd till religiösa organisationer och ideella föreningar i Italien

I en skrivelse av den 12 oktober 2010 informerade kommissionen Italien om att den hade beslutat att väcka talan i
enlighet med artikel 108.2 i EUF‐fördraget angående olagligt statligt stöd som Italien påstås ha gett till religiösa
organisationer och ideella föreningar. I samma skrivelse informerade kommissionen också Italien om att den redan
hade inlett ett rättegångsförfarande angående befintligt stöd som getts via det femtioprocentiga skatteavdrag som
beviljats en rad företrädare för ovannämnda kategorier.

1. Kan kommissionen, två år efter skrivelsen om artikel 108.2 i EUF‐fördraget, redogöra för hur det går med den
talan som kommissionen hade beslutat väcka, också med beaktande av vad som föreskrivs i artikel 7.6 i förordning
(EG) nr 659/1999: ”Kommissionen skall i möjligaste mån sträva efter att anta ett beslut inom 18 månader efter det att
förfarandet har inletts”?

2. Den nya fastighetsskatten IMU har nyligen ersatt den gamla kommunala ICI‐skatten och det därmed förbundna
ICI‐undantag som var anledningen till att väcka ovannämnda talan. Med beaktande av detta, kan kommissionen – om
den bedömer att de nya reglerna är förenliga med lagstiftningen om statligt stöd – klargöra huruvida den kommer att
begära återbetalning av det olagliga statliga stöd som getts via ICI‐undantaget?

3. Kan kommissionen slutligen också redogöra för läget för det rättegångsförfarande om befintligt stöd som
nämndes i skrivelsen av den 12 oktober 2010?

**Svar från Joaquín Almunia på kommissionens vägnar**

_(27 november 2012)_

Parlamentsledamöterna hänvisar med rätta till den tidsfrist på 18 månader som avses i artikel 7.6 i förordning
(EG) nr 659/1999 ( [1] ) som vägledande, eftersom den ”kan förlängas i samförstånd mellan kommissionen och den
berörda medlemsstaten”. Detta är inte ovanligt i mer komplexa fall.

Med hänvisning till den undersökning som inleddes den 12 oktober 2010 om undantag från kommunal
fastighetsskatt som beviljas icke-kommersiella enheter som bedriver särskild verksamhet antog de italienska
myndigheterna i mars 2012 en ny lag som bl.a. behandlar frågor gällande statligt stöd i samband med denna skatt. I
oktober 2012 var genomförandelagstiftning fortfarande under antagande.

När negativa beslut fattas angående olagligt stöd ska kommissionen i princip kräva tillbaka stödet, om detta inte står i
strid med någon allmän princip i EU:s lagstiftning. När det gäller det aktuella undantaget kommer kommissionens
ståndpunkt, inbegripet eventuella återkrav, att bero på resultatet av kommissionens undersökning.

Enligt vad som anges i beslutet om ett inleda ett förfarande beträffande skattebefrielsen ( [2] ) ansåg kommissionen att
den bolagsskatteminskning som fastställs i artikel 6 i presidentdekret nr 601/73 för särskilda enheter ( [3] ) skulle kunna
innefatta statligt stöd. I detta sammanhang har kommissionen angett att ett statligt stödärende skulle inledas med
hänvisning till denna bolagsskatteåtgärd. En skrivelse om att inleda samarbetsförfarandet översändes till Italien i
februari 2011 och Italien lämnade sina synpunkter i maj 2011. Detta förfarande pågår fortfarande.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) EGT L 83, 27.03.1999, s. 1.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Se punkt 18 i kommissionens beslut av den 12 oktober 2010 (EUT C 348, 21.12.2010, s. 17).

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:348:0017:0025:SV:PDF.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Se punkt 1 i kommissionens beslut av den 12 oktober 2010 (EUT C 348, 21.12.2010, s. 17). De berörda enheterna förtecknas i artikel 6 i

presidentdekret nr 601/73/EG.

( **|**

C 294 E / 214 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009017/12**

**to the Commission**
**Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), Olle Schmidt (ALDE) and Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Alleged illegal state aid granted by Italy to religious entities and not-for-profit organisations

By letter dated 12 October 2010, the European Commission informed Italy that it had decided to initiate proceedings
pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in relation to alleged illegal state
aid granted by Italy to religious entities and not-for-profit organisations. By the same letter, the Commission also
informed Italy that it had started proceedings for existing aid related to the 50% tax exemption granted to a number of
beneficiaries of the abovementioned categories.

1. Can the Commission inform on the status of the abovementioned proceedings now that two years have lapsed
since the article 108(2) TFEU letter was issued, also taking into account that Article 7(6) of Regulation (EC)
No 659/1999 provides that the Commission ‘shall as far as possible endeavour to adopt a decision within a period of
18 months from the opening of the procedure’?

2. Furthermore, taking into consideration the recent introduction of the IMU property tax which replaced the old
ICI municipal tax and the related ICI exemption which gave rise to the aforementioned proceedings, can the
Commission clarify whether, should it deem the new rules compliant with state aid legislation, it will order the
recovery of the illegal aid granted through the ICI exemption?

3. Finally, can the Commission provide an update on the status of the existing aid proceedings initiated by the
12 October 2010 letter?

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

_(27 November 2012)_

The Honourable Members rightly refer to the 18-month period, as laid down in Article 7(6) of Regulation
659/1999 ( [1] ), as indicative, since it ‘may be extended by common agreement between the Commission and the
Member State concerned’. This is not uncommon in more complex cases.

With reference to the investigation opened on 12 October 2010 on the municipal real estate tax (ICI) exemption,
granted to non-commercial entities carrying out specific activities, in March 2012 the Italian authorities passed a new
law to address, among others, the state aid issues concerning this tax. In October 2012 the implementing legislation
was still in the process of being adopted.

In principle, where negative decisions are taken for unlawful aid, the Commission orders recovery of the aid, unless
this would be contrary to a general principle of EC law. As regards the ICI exemption, any position taken by the
Commission, including possible recovery, will depend on the outcome of the Commission investigation.

As indicated in the opening decision on the ICI exemption ( [2] ), the Commission considered that the corporate tax
reduction, foreseen by Article 6 of Presidential Decree No 601/73 for specific entities ( [3] ), could entail state aid. In that
context, the Commission indicated that it would open an existing aid procedure with reference to this corporate tax
measure. Indeed, a letter initiating the cooperation procedure was sent to Italy in February 2011 and Italy submitted
its observations in May 2011. This procedure is still open.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 83, 27.03.1999, p. 1.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) See paragraph 18 of Commission decision of 12 October 2010 (OJ C 348, 21.12.2010, p. 17),

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:348:0017:0025:EN:PDF.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) See paragraph 1 of Commission decision of 12 October 2010 (OJ C 348,21.12.2010, p. 17); the entities concerned are listed in Article 6 of

Presidential Decree n. 601/73.

( **|**

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 215

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-009018/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD)**

_(8 Οκτωβρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Άδειες αλιείας στην περίοδο αναπαραγωγής

Σύμφωνα με άρθρο της εφημερίδας «Δημοκρατία», περιφερειάρχες χορηγούν άδειες αλιείας κατά τη διάρκεια της περιόδου
αναπαραγωγής των ψαριών, θέτοντας σε άμεσο κίνδυνο τα αλιευτικά αποθέματα στις ελληνικές θάλασσες.

H επέκταση της αλιευτικής περιόδου της μηχανότρατας κατά τους θερινούς μήνες βρίσκεται σε ασυμφωνία με τα
προτεινόμενα ολοκληρωμένα σχέδια διαχείρισης της αλιείας με μηχανότρατα και οδηγεί σε άνοδο της αλιευτικής
θνησιμότητας.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

—
Είναι ενήμερη για αυτές τις καταγγελίες και ποια μέτρα προτίθεται να λάβει για να διαφυλαχτούν τα ιχθυαποθέματα
και το μέλλον της αλιείας από τέτοιες ενέργειες;

**Απάντηση της κας Δαμανάκη εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(10 Δεκεμβρίου 2012)_

Ένα από τα χαρακτηριστικά της αλιείας στη Μεσόγειο είναι ότι αφορά πολλά είδη αλιευμάτων. Οι περίοδοι αναπαραγωγής
ποικίλουν μεταξύ των ειδών λόγω διαφορετικών βιολογικών κύκλων. Για την αντιμετώπιση αυτού του πολύπλοκου θέματος,
ο κανονισμός για τη Μεσόγειο ( [1] ) προβλέπει διαφορετικά παράλληλα μέτρα όσον αφορά την επιλεκτικότητα των διχτυών και
την προστασία των παράκτιων περιοχών, που αποτελούν περιοχές ωοτοκίας. Τα κράτη μέλη μπορούν να λάβουν πρόσθετα
μέτρα με βάση συγκεκριμένες εκτιμήσεις όσον αφορά την αλιεία τους. Αυτό ισχύει για την Ελλάδα, η οποία απαγορεύει την
αλιεία με μηχανότρατα κάθε χρόνο από την 1η Ιουνίου έως τις 30 Σεπτεμβρίου. Επιπλέον, η Ελλάδα εφαρμόζει προσωρινή ή
οριστική απαγόρευση για τράτες και σκάφη αλιείας με γρίπο σε πολλές παράκτιες περιοχές. Οι άδειες αλιείας που εκδίδονται
για τα εν λόγω εργαλεία πρέπει να συμμορφώνονται με αυτούς τους περιορισμούς και έως σήμερα η Επιτροπή δεν έχει λάβει
στοιχεία που να αποδεικνύουν ότι οι αρμόδιες ελληνικές αρχές δεν τηρούν τον εν λόγω κανόνα.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Κανονισμός (EΚ) του Συμβουλίου αριθ. 1967/2006 σχετικά με μέτρα διαχείρισης για τη βιώσιμη εκμετάλλευση των αλιευτικών πόρων στη Μεσόγειο
Θάλασσα.

C 294 E / 216 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009018/12**

**to the Commission**
**Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Fishing licences issued during breeding periods

According to the ‘ _Dimokratia_ ’ newspaper, a number of regional authorities are licensing fishing activities during the
breeding season, thereby placing Greek fish stocks in direct jeopardy.

As a result, the duration of the summer trawling season is out of step with proposed integrated fisheries management
plans in respect of trawling, thereby increasing fish mortality.

In view of this:

—
Is the Commission aware of these concerns and what measures will it take to prevent such inadmissible
practices and thereby safeguard fisheries stocks and the future of the fisheries sector?

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

_(10 December 2012)_

One of the characteristics of Mediterranean fisheries is that they are largely multi-species. Breeding seasons vary
amongst species due to different biological cycles. To address this complex issue, the Mediterranean Regulation ( [1] )
establishes different concurrent measures regarding the selectivity of the nets and the protection of coastal areas,
which are spawning areas. Member States can take additional measures on the basis of specific considerations
regarding their fisheries. This is the case for Greece, who closes the trawling fisheries every year from 1 June to
30 September. In addition, Greece applies temporary or permanent prohibitions for trawlers and purse seiners in a
large number of coastal areas. Fishing authorisations issued for these gears have to comply with these limitations, and
so far the Commission has not received any evidence that the Greek competent authorities do not respect this rule.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Council Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 concerning management measures for the sustainable exploitation of fishery resources in the
Mediterranean Sea.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 217

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-009019/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD)**

_(8 Οκτωβρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Υψηλές τιμές βασικών προϊόντων

Παρά την πολυετή ύφεση και τη μεγάλη μείωση των εισοδημάτων, οι τιμές δεν υποχωρούν ανάλογα, και η Ελλάδα
εξακολουθεί να παραμένει μία από τις ακριβότερες χώρες της ΕΕ σε βασικά είδη, όπως αναγνωρίζει και το υπουργείο
Ανάπτυξης της χώρας.

Ενδεικτικά, σύμφωνα με τα στοιχεία της Eurostat του 2011, η Ελλάδα βρίσκεται στην πρώτη θέση της ΕΕ σε ότι αφορά τις
τιμές σε γαλακτοκομικά και αβγά, με απόκλιση τιμών 31,5% σε σχέση με τον μέσο όρο της ΕΕ.

Δεδομένης της ύφεσης που υπάρχει στη χώρα, οι υψηλές τιμές σε βασικά είδη δυσχεραίνουν το βιοτικό επίπεδο των πολιτών,
ενώ αποτελούν τροχοπέδη στην ανάπτυξη και ανταγωνιστικότητα της χώρας.

Λαμβάνοντας υπόψη ότι η Επιτροπή έχει αποκλειστική αρμοδιότητα στους τομείς του ανταγωνισμού και της ομαλής
λειτουργίας της εσωτερικής αγοράς, ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

1. Προτίθεται να μελετήσει την κατάσταση του ανταγωνισμού στην Ελλάδα και να μας γνωστοποιήσει που αποδίδονται
αυτές οι δυσλειτουργίες στην αγορά;

2. Σε περίπτωση που έχει ήδη κάνει κάποια μελέτη επ'αυτού, μπορεί να μας γνωστοποιήσει τα πορίσματά της;

3. Ποια μέτρα προτίθεται να λάβει για την αποκατάσταση των στρεβλώσεων και για την ομαλή λειτουργία της αγοράς
στην Ελλάδα;

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

_(29 Νοεμβρίου 2012)_

Η Επιτροπή παρακολουθεί την κατάσταση του ανταγωνισμού στις αγορές τροφίμων στην Ευρώπη, αλλά μοιράζεται την
ευθύνη για τον ανταγωνισμό στην ΕΕ με τις εθνικές αρχές ανταγωνισμού (ΕΑΑ). Σύμφωνα με τον κανονισμό 1/2003 ( [1] ), η
Επιτροπή ερευνά, κατά γενικό κανόνα, τις περιπτώσεις εκείνες που μπορεί να επηρεάσουν το εμπόριο μεταξύ κρατών μελών.

Πολλές αγορές τροφίμων είναι εθνικές και η ελληνική ΕΑΑ είναι ο κατάλληλος φορέας για να διεξάγει τις σχετικές έρευνες
που αφορούν τον ανταγωνισμό προϊόντων διατροφής που παρέχονται στην Ελλάδα. Όπως προκύπτει από την έκθεση του
Ευρωπαϊκού Δικτύου Ανταγωνισμού σχετικά με τις «Δραστηριότητες στον τομέα των τροφίμων» ( [2] ), η ελληνική ΕΑΑ
διεξήγαγε μια σειρά ερευνών, τόσο στον τομέα της παραγωγής τροφίμων όσο και στον τομέα της λιανικής πώλησης. Για
παράδειγμα, το 2011 ξεκίνησε τομεακή έρευνα στον τομέα των οπωροκηπευτικών και διεξάγει σήμερα μια σειρά ερευνών σε
αυτόν τον τομέα.

Η διαμόρφωση των τιμών στις αγορές τροφίμων εξαρτάται από εξωτερικούς και εσωτερικούς παράγοντες, όπως το κόστος
των εισροών, οι διαρθρώσεις της αγοράς και τα κανονιστικά πλαίσια. Η Eurostat συνεχίζει να αναπτύσσει το _Μέσο_
_Παρακολούθησης των Ευρωπαϊκών Τιμών Τροφίμων (_ [3] _)_ για να αυξήσει τη διαφάνεια και την προβλεψιμότητα των τιμών με
την υποστήριξη του φόρουμ υψηλού επιπέδου για τη βελτίωση της λειτουργίας της αλυσίδας εφοδιασμού τροφίμων στην
Ευρώπη. Ωστόσο, η Επιτροπή δεν μελετά άμεσα την ιδιαίτερη κατάσταση των αγορών τροφίμων στην Ελλάδα.

Η Επιτροπή είναι έτοιμη να εξετάσει τα πραγματικά περιστατικά και τα νομικά θέματα που θα της γνωστοποιηθούν σε σχέση
με κάθε αντιανταγωνιστική συμπεριφορά εντός της ΕΕ, όπως η εφαρμογή διακρίσεων ως προς τις τιμές ή η κατάτμηση της
αγοράς από επιχειρηματίες του τομέα των τροφίμων κατά τον εφοδιασμό τρίτων μερών.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Κανονισμός (EΚ) αριθ. 1/2003 του Συμβουλίου, της 16ης Δεκεμβρίου 2002, για την εφαρμογή των κανόνων ανταγωνισμού που προβλέπονται στα άρθρα

81 και 82 της Συνθήκης, ΕΕ L 1 της 4.1.2003, σ. 1.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) ΕΔΑ Δραστηριότητες στον Τομέα των Τροφίμων (Μάιος 2012).
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/hicp/methodology/prices_data_for_market_monitoring.

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

C 294 E / 218 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009019/12**

**to the Commission**
**Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ High price of consumer staples

Despite the years of recession and the drastic fall in incomes, prices are failing to keep step and Greece remains one of
the EU Member States in which the price of consumer staples remains highest, a fact acknowledged by the Greek
Ministry for Development.

According to Eurostat data for 2011, the price of dairy products and eggs is higher in Greece than anywhere else in
the EU, 31.5% higher than the EU average.

Against the backdrop of recession, the high price of consumer staples is undermining individual living standards and
hampering development and competitiveness in Greece.

In view of the fact that the Commission has sole responsibility for competitiveness and the effective working of the
internal market:

1. Will it examine the situation regarding competition in Greece and indicate the reasons for these market
imbalances?

2. If it has already investigated the situation can it indicate its findings?

3. What measures will it take with a view to remedying distortions and rebalancing the market in Greece?

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

_(29 November 2012)_

The Commission is monitoring the competititive situation of food markets in Europe but it shares responsibility for
competition in the EU with the National Competition Authorities (NCAs). According to Regulation 1/2003 ( [1] ), as a
general rule the Commission investigates those cases that may affect trade between Member States.

Many food markets are national and the Greek NCA is well-placed to carry out the relevant investigations concerning
competition in food products supplied in Greece. As shown in the European Competition Network (ECN) Report on
‘Activities in the Food sector’ ( [2] ), the Greek NCA has undertaken a series of investigations, both in food production
and in the retail sector. For example it launched in 2011 a sector inquiry in the fruit and vegetables sector, and has a
series of ongoing investigations in the sector.

Price formation in food markets depends on external and internal factors, such as the cost of inputs, market structures
and regulatory frameworks. Eurostat is continuing to develop the _Food Price Monitoring Tool (_ [3] ) to increase price
transparency and predictability with the support of the High Level Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply
Chain. However the Commission is not directly studying the particular situation of food markets in Greece.

The Commission stands ready to carefully look into factual and legal issues brought to its attention with respect to
any anti-competitive behaviour such as intra-EU price discrimination or market segmentation by food sector
operators in supplying third parties.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of

the Treaty, OJ L 1, 04.01.2003, p. 1.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) ECN Activities in the Food Sector" (May 2012).
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/hicp/methodology/prices_data_for_market_monitoring.

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

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 219

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-009020/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD)**

_(8 Οκτωβρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Άνοια και Αλτσχάιμερ

Η άνοια, και συγκεκριμένα το Αλτσχάιμερ, αποτελούν τις κυριότερες αιτίες εξαφάνισης ηλικιωμένων σύμφωνα με στοιχεία
της υπηρεσίας Silver Alert, της ειδοποίησης για την εξαφάνιση ηλικιωμένων που αναμεταδίδεται μέσω ΜΜΕ.

Εκτιμάται ότι 10 εκατομμύρια Ευρωπαίοι πάσχουν από άνοια, και η συντριπτική πλειονότητα των περιπτώσεων πάσχουν από
Αλτσχάιμερ.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

1. Ποιες ενέργειες έχει κάνει ή προτίθεται να κάνει για την έγκαιρη διάγνωση και την πρόληψη της ασθένειας, την έρευνα
και τη δημιουργία κατάλληλων υπηρεσιών υγείας, καθώς και για την ενίσχυση των οικογενειών των πασχόντων;

2. Ποια χρηματοδοτικά μέσα παρέχονται στα κράτη μέλη για την αντιμετώπιση της νόσου, καθώς και για τη δημιουργία
υπηρεσιών για την υποστήριξη των πασχόντων και των οικογενειών τους;

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

_(26 Νοεμβρίου 2012)_

Η ανακοίνωση της Επιτροπής του 2009 σχετικά με την ευρωπαϊκή πρωτοβουλία για τη νόσο του Αλτσχάιμερ και άλλες
μορφές άνοιας ( [1] ) καθορίζει την προσέγγιση της Επιτροπής στο εν λόγω πεδίο. Οι βασικοί στόχοι της πρωτοβουλίας αυτής
είναι η εξασφάλιση της έγκαιρης διάγνωσης της άνοιας, η προαγωγή της καλής διαβίωσης σε μεγάλη ηλικία, η βελτίωση των
επιδημιολογικών στοιχείων και ο συντονισμός της έρευνας, καθώς και η υποστήριξη της ανταλλαγής βέλτιστων πρακτικών
για τη φροντίδα των ατόμων που πάσχουν από άνοια.

Βασική δραστηριότητα για την εφαρμογή της στρατηγικής αυτής συνιστά η κοινή δράση «ALzheimer COoperative
Valuation in Europe», η οποία εντοπίζει τις ήδη υπάρχουσες και τις υπό σχεδιασμό ορθές πρακτικές σχετικά με τη θεραπεία,
την έγκαιρη διάγνωση και τη φροντίδα των ατόμων που πάσχουν από τη νόσο Αλτσχάιμερ και από άλλες μορφές άνοιας,
καθώς και βελτιώνει τη διάδοση και την εφαρμογή τέτοιων πρακτικών.

Η Επιτροπή έχει επενδύσει περισσότερα από 1,7 δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ από το 7ο Πρόγραμμα Πλαίσιο στην έρευνα των
εγκεφαλικών διαταραχών, συμπεριλαμβανομένης και της άνοιας. Επιπλέον, η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή συμβάλλει στην
πρωτοβουλία κοινού προγραμματισμού για τη νόσο του Αλτσχάιμερ και τις νευροεκφυλιστικές νόσους, βάσει της οποίας τα
κράτη μέλη συντονίζουν τις ερευνητικές δραστηριότητές τους σε αυτό το πεδίο, χρηματοδοτώντας την εν λόγω πρωτοβουλία
με σχεδόν 2 εκατομμύρια ευρώ.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM (2009)380.

C 294 E / 220 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009020/12**

**to the Commission**
**Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Dementia and Alzheimer's disease

According to Silver Alert, a media notification system to broadcast information about missing elderly persons, the
principle reason for elderly persons going missing is dementia, in particular Alzheimer’s disease.

It is estimated that around ten million Europeans suffer from dementia, which in the overwhelming majority of cases
takes the form of Alzheimer’s disease.

In view of this:

1. What measures has the Commission taken or will it take to ensure the prompt diagnosis and prevention of the
disease, promote research, provide suitable care and offer support services to the families of dementia sufferers?

2. What funding is being allocated to Member States to deal with the problem and provide support services for
dementia sufferers and their families?

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

_(26 November 2012)_

The 2009 Commission Communication on a European initiative on Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias ( [1] )
established the Commission's approach in this field. The main objectives are to help ensure early diagnoses of
dementia, to promote well-being with age, to improve epidemiological knowledge and coordination of research and
to support the sharing of best practices for care of people suffering from dementia.

The key activity to implement this strategy is the Joint Action ‘ALzheimer COoperative Valuation in Europe’, which
maps existing and emerging good practices related to treatment, early detection and care for persons suffering from
Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia, and improves the dissemination and application of such practices.

The Commission has invested more than EUR 1.7 billion from the 7th Framework Programme in research into brain
disorders, including dementia. In addition, the European Commission contributes close to EUR 2 million to the Joint
Programming Initiative on Alzheimer’s disease and neurodegenerative diseases, under which Member States
coordinate their research activities in this field.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2009)380.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 221

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009021/12**

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

_(8 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Discriminación lingüística en las licitaciones públicas

La Diputación foral de Guipúzcoa es una Administración local española que tiene la condición de «poder adjudicador»
según la Directiva 2004/18/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 31 de marzo de 2004, que regula la
coordinación de los procedimientos de adjudicación de los contratos públicos de obras, de suministro y de servicios.
Recientemente, los órganos de dicha Diputación han acordado que será requisito indispensable para concurrir a los
concursos públicos convocados para la adjudicación de contratos acreditar en la documentación que se presente
junto a la oferta de la empresa que los directivos conozcan perfectamente el idioma vascuence. En concreto, hace
unos días, la portavoz de dicha Diputación anunció que una empresa ya había sido excluida de la licitación de la
convocatoria del contrato de servicio de asistencia a la dirección de las obras de la variante de la GI-632, que conecta
los municipios de Beasain y Bergara, cuya cuantía supera los dos millones de euros. La empresa no había acreditado
que «dos personas de la dirección de la obra [disponían] del título EGA u otro equivalente», que acredita un
conocimiento suficiente del vascuence.

Es sabido que el artículo 2 de la citada Directiva impone como principios de la adjudicación de los contratos «un
tratamiento igualitario y no discriminatorio y [que los poderes adjudicadores obren] con transparencia».

Teniendo en cuenta que en el ámbito territorial de esa Administración local los idiomas oficiales son el castellano y el
vascuence y que, además, resulta cada vez más frecuente por parte de las empresas presentar la documentación en
otras lenguas europeas:

1. ¿No considera la Comisión Europea que la Diputación foral de Guipúzcoa infringe el Derecho de la Unión
Europea al discriminar a las empresas por motivos lingüísticos?

2. ¿No cree la Comisión Europea que tales medidas impiden la unidad de mercado, el mercado común europeo, al
levantar barreras discriminatorias entre los empresarios?

3. ¿Abrirá la Comisión Europea una investigación? ¿Adoptará alguna medida para que se cumpla la normativa
europea?

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

_(30 de noviembre de 2012)_

De acuerdo con lo dispuesto en el artículo 2 de la Directiva 2004/18/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de
31 de marzo de 2004, sobre coordinación de los procedimientos de adjudicación de los contratos públicos de obras,
de suministro y de servicios, los poderes adjudicadores deben dar a los operadores económicos un tratamiento
igualitario y no discriminatorio y obrar con transparencia.

Esta obligación garantiza la libre circulación de bienes y servicios y la apertura de la contratación pública a una
competencia leal en los Estados miembros.

En términos generales, la Comisión Europea ha declarado, en repetidas ocasiones, que las lenguas deben ser un factor
de integración en vez de exclusión, y que los requisitos que limitan la libertad de circulación o el acceso a los
mercados por razones de competencias lingüísticas deben justificarse debidamente.

En este caso concreto, la Comisión desea informar a Su Señoría de que no dispone de información suficiente sobre los
hechos aludidos en la pregunta escrita, por lo que no está en condiciones de presentar a Su Señoría un análisis jurídico
oficial de esta cuestión.

En caso de facilitar Su Señoría datos más concretos sobre este asunto, los servicios de la Comisión procederán a un
análisis detenido y decidirán sobre medidas adecuadas al respecto.

C 294 E / 222 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009021/12**

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

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Linguistic discrimination in public procurement procedures

The Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa is a Spanish local administration which acts as a ‘contracting authority’ under the
terms of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 31 March 2004, regulating the
coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public services
contracts The offices of this administration recently decided that it should be a basic requirement in all public
procurement procedures for the documents supporting the bid for tender to include proof that the persons directing
the project have a perfect knowledge of the Basque language. A few days ago, the spokesperson for the Diputación
announced that one firm had already been excluded from tendering for the contract to provide support services to the
project management of the GI-632 relief road connecting the municipalities of Beasain and Bergara, worth more than
two million euros. The firm had failed to provide evidence that ‘two people on the project management team [held]
the EGA or other equivalent diploma’ testifying to their proficiency in the Basque language.

It is common knowledge that Article 2 of the abovementioned Directive requires contracting authorities to ‘treat
economic operators equally and non-discriminatorily’ and ‘act in a transparent way’.

Bearing in mind that the official languages in the territory covered by this local administration are Spanish and Basque
and that it is increasingly common practice for companies to present documentation in other European languages:

1. Does the Commission not consider the regional government of Guipúzcoa to be infringing EC law by
discriminating against firms on linguistic grounds?

2. Does the Commission not believe that these measures prevent market unity and the European common market
by raising discriminatory barriers between companies?

3. Will the Commission launch an investigation? Will it take steps to ensure European law is complied with?

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

_(30 November 2012)_

According to Article 2 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of 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 ‘contracting authorities shall treat economic operators equally and non-discriminatorily and shall act in a
transparent way’.

This obligation ensures the free movement of goods and services and the opening-up of public procurement to
undistorted competition in Member States.

As a general rule, the European Commission has repeatedly stated that languages should be a factor of integration,
rather than of exclusion, and that conditions limiting the freedom of circulation or the access to markets on the basis
of language competences should be duly justified.

As regards the specific case at hand, the Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that it does not
possess sufficient information concerning the facts presented in the written question and is therefore not in a position
to provide the Honourable Member with a formal legal analysis in relation to this matter.

Should the Honourable Member submit more precise information regarding the case at stake, the Commission
services will duly analyse them and decide about the appropriate follow-up.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 223

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-009022/12**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D)**

_(8 octombrie 2012)_

_Subiect:_ Consumul de alcool

Deși consumul de alcool a scăzut în Uniunea Europeană, proporția tinerilor care consumă alcool a crescut, 10% din
mortalitatea în rândul femeilor tinere și 25 % din decesele din rândul bărbaților tineri se datorează consumului excesiv
de alcool. Este nevoie de măsuri coerente atât de prevenție, cât și de tratare a dependenței de alcool.

Având în vedere faptul că Strategia Uniunii Europene privind consumul de alcool se încheie în anul 2012, consideră
Comisia oportune următoarele măsuri:

1. Finanțarea de campanii în școli și facultăți pentru prevenirea sau limitarea consumului de alcool în rândul
elevilor și studenților, în următoarea perioadă bugetară?

2. Cofinanțarea din bugetul Uniunii a clinicilor de dezalcoolizare care vor fi stabilite în statele membre în
următorul cadru financiar?

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

_(19 noiembrie 2012)_

Deși statele membre au principala responsabilitate pentru informarea și educarea persoanelor cu privire la efectele
nocive ale alcoolului, Comisia a cofinanțat, atât în cadrul Programului în domeniul sănătății, cât și al Programuluicadru de cercetare, o serie de proiecte în vederea dezvoltării și a diseminării bunelor practici în ceea ce privește
educația privind consumul de alcool și prevenirea efectelor nocive ale acestuia în rândul tinerilor, precum și pentru a
evalua eficacitatea acțiunilor de prevenire orientate către tineri.

Organizarea și furnizarea serviciilor de sănătate și de îngrijire medicală este responsabilitatea statelor membre. În
cadrul sferei sale de competență limitate, Comisia oferă un sprijin suplimentar privind depistarea, intervențiile și
tratamentul în ceea ce privește afecțiunile cauzate de alcool prin cofinanțarea schimbului de bune practici și a
proiectelor de cercetare.

C 294 E / 224 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009022/12**

**to the Commission**
**Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Alcohol consumption

Even though alcohol consumption has fallen in the European Union, the proportion of young people who consume
alcohol has risen. Excessive consumption of alcohol is responsible for 10% of deaths among young women and 25%
of deaths among young men. There is a need for coherent measures geared to both prevention and treatment of
alcohol dependence.

Bearing in mind that the EU alcohol strategy will come to an end in 2012, does the Commission believe that the
following measures are advisable:

1. Funding campaigns in schools and universities, in the forthcoming budgetary period, aimed at preventing or
limiting alcohol consumption among pupils and students?

2. Co-financing clinics set up to provide alcoholism treatment in the Member States from the EU budget, in the
forthcoming financial framework?

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

_(19 November 2012)_

While Member States have the main responsibility for informing and educating people on alcohol related harm, the
Commission has been co-financing, both under the Health Programme and the Research Framework Programme, a
range of projects to develop and disseminate good practice in alcohol education and harm prevention among young
people, and to assess the effectiveness of prevention approaches targeted to the young.

Organising and delivering health and medical care is Member States' responsibility. Within its limited competence,
the Commission is supporting further development of screening, interventions and treatment for alcohol related
disorders through the co-financing of good practice exchange and research projects.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 225

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009025/12**

**to the Commission**
**Catherine Stihler (S&D)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Library access to eBooks

At present in Scotland there are significant disagreements about ensuring authors are properly recompensed for their
work on eBooks, and disagreements between publishers and libraries to find a fair way forward.

Does the Commission intend to bring forward legislation to regulate the market relationship between publishers,
libraries and authors, especially given the difference eBooks can make for visually impaired people in enabling them
to access texts that would otherwise not be available to them?

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

_(12 December 2012)_

The European Commission seeks to improve the access of visually impaired and print-disabled persons to books, _inter_
_alia_, by supporting the future treaty that is currently being negotiated in the World Intellectual Property Organisation
(WIPO) to this end. The Commission is conscious of the outstanding role e-books play in improving blind people's
access to education and culture and it also recognises the key role libraries play in this respect.

The Commission believes that the future WIPO treaty can deliver a solution to the problems of visually impaired and
print-disabled persons with a balanced and targeted intervention and without proposing new legislation at European
level that could unnecessarily restrict the contractual freedom enjoyed by rights holders and libraries.

C 294 E / 226 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(Suomenkielinen versio)_

**Kirjallisesti vastattava kysymys E-009026/12**

**komissiolle**
**Liisa Jaakonsaari (S&D)**

_(8. lokakuuta 2012)_

_Aihe:_ Veroparatiisit EU:n alueella

EU:n jäsenvaltioiden kamppaillessa talousvaikeuksissa huomattava osa yrityksistä, joiden olisi maksettava kyseisille
maille veroa, välttää verot käyttämällä veroparatiiseja paikkana toimintansa harjoittamiseen. Hallitukset kaikkialla
maailmassa menettävät arviolta 250 miljardia Yhdysvaltain dollaria veroja pelkästään sen seurauksena, että varakkaat
henkilöt säilyttävät varojaan ulkomailla. Yritysverojen kiertämisestä johtuvat verotulojen menetykset ovat paljon
suurempia. Yritysten veronkierto haittaa myös EU:n sisämarkkinoita ja toimii huomattavana oikeudenmukaisen
kilpailun esteenä. Esimerkiksi noin 100 000 yritystä on rekisteröity Yhdistyneelle kuningaskunnalle kuuluville
Caymansaarille, ja niiden lukumäärä kasvaa vuosittain 8 000:lla. Poliittiset päätöksentekijät EU:ssa sanovat, että he
haluavat saada veronkierron loppumaan, mutta sallivat sen edelleen tapahtuvan edustamiensa maiden alueella.

Veroparatiisit saavat aikaan mikrotaloudellisia häiriöitä, jotka haittaavat markkinakilpailua, ja niiden avoimuuden
puute nostaa riskipreemioita. Ne tarjoavat ihmisille tai yrityksille mahdollisuuden kiertää muiden valtioiden
oikeusjärjestelmien mukaisia sääntöjä, lakeja ja asetuksia hyödyntämällä salaisuutta tärkeimpänä välineenään.

1. Ottaen huomioon EU:n jäsenvaltioiden vuosittain menettämän verotulojen määrän voisiko komissio ilmoittaa,
mitä se aikoo tehdä ratkaistakseen tämän kysymyksen nopeasti?

2. Mihin toimenpiteisiin komissio aikoo ryhtyä varmistaakseen täydellisten tietojen julkaisemisen trustien,
yhtiöiden, säätiöiden ja vastaavien oikeudellisten yhteisöjen todellisista omistajista?

3. Miten komissio aikoo varmistaa, että EU:n jäsenvaltioiden alueella sijaitsevat veroparatiisit ovat tulevaisuudessa
avoimia eikä niitä käytetä enää rikollisjärjestöjen rahoittamisen salaamiseen? Mihin toimenpiteisiin se aikoo ryhtyä
määritelläkseen veronkierron korruptioksi?

**Algirdas Šemetan komission puolesta antama vastaus**

_(13. joulukuuta 2012)_

1. Komissio hyväksyi 6. joulukuuta 2012 veropetosten ja veronkierron torjunnan tehostamiseksi
toimintasuunnitelman ( [1] ) ja antoi asiaa koskevia suosituksia ( [2] ). Suosituksia antamalla pyritään muun muassa
kehittämään kaikille jäsenvaltioille yhteinen yleinen lähestymistapa ja kannustamaan kolmansia maita positiivisten ja
negatiivisten toimenpiteiden avulla soveltamaan hyvän hallintotavan vähimmäisvaatimuksia verotusalalla.
Lähestymistavassa on otettu erityisesti huomioon ns. veroparatiisit. Tältä osin on tärkeää huomata, että Caymansaaret
on assosioitu Euroopan unioniin merentakaisena maana ja alueena (SEUT-sopimuksen 198 artikla), jolla ei muutoin
sovelleta unionin lainsäädäntöä, minkä vuoksi ne olisi katsottava tässä yhteydessä kolmanneksi maaksi ( [3] ).

2. Edellä mainituissa suosituksissa ehdotetaan toimenpiteitä, joita jäsenvaltiot voivat toteuttaa kolmansien
maiden suhteen. Tavoitteena on parantaa niiden toimien tehokkuutta, joita jäsenvaltiot toteuttavat suojatakseen
verojärjestelmiään kohtuuttomalta veropohjan heikkenemiseltä avoimuuden, tietojenvaihdon ja oikeudenmukaisen
verokilpailun vakiintuneita periaatteita noudattaen.

Rahanpesun torjunnasta annettua direktiiviä olisi tarkasteltava uudelleen uusien veropetosten ja veronkierron
torjuntaa koskevien suositusten perusteella. Suositelluissa rahanpesun torjuntaa koskevissa toimenpiteissä on uusia
säännöksiä oikeushenkilön tai oikeudellisen järjestelyn todellisia omistajia koskevien tietojen saataville asettamisesta.
Tätä varten toteutetaan toimenpiteitä, joilla pyritään lisäämään selkeyttä ja saatavuutta, ja otetaan käyttöön
kansainvälistä yhteistyötä koskevat erityisvaatimukset ( [4] ).

3. Veronkierron osalta komissio viittaa 27. kesäkuuta 2012 antamaansa tiedonantoon, jossa analysoidaan
nykytilannetta ja ehdotetaan konkreettisia etenemistapoja, joita esitellään yksityiskohtaisemmin
toimintasuunnitelmassa ( [5] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) KOM(2012) 722 lopullinen.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) C(2012) 8806 lopullinen, C(2012) 8805 lopullinen.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Ks. myös kysymys E-008428/2012.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Ks. myös kysymys E-007684/2012.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Ks. myös kysymys E-008428/2012: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 227

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009026/12**

**to the Commission**
**Liisa Jaakonsaari (S&D)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Tax havens on EU territory

While EU Member States are struggling financially, a large proportion of the companies that should pay tax to those
countries are avoiding doing so by using tax havens as their place of operation. An estimated USD 250 billion is lost
in taxes by governments worldwide solely as a result of wealthy individuals holding their assets offshore. The revenue
losses from corporate tax avoidance are much greater. Tax evasion by companies also distorts the EU’s internal
market and acts as a significant obstacle to fair competition. For example, some 100 000 companies are registered in
the Cayman Islands, which belong to the UK, and their numbers are increasing by some 8 000 every year. Political
decision-makers in the EU say that they want to put an end to tax evasion, but still allow it to happen on the territory
of the countries they represent.

Tax havens create microeconomic distortions which harm market competition, and their lack of transparency raises
risk premiums. They also provide facilities for people or entities to get round the rules, laws and regulations of other
jurisdictions, using secrecy as their prime tool.

1. Given the amount lost in tax revenues every year by EU Member States thanks to tax havens, could the
Commission explain what it intends to do in order to resolve this issue swiftly?

2. What actions will the Commission take to ensure full public disclosure in respect of beneficial ownership of
trusts, companies, foundations and similar legal entities?

3. How will the Commission ensure that tax havens located within the territory of EU Member States practise
transparency in future and are no longer used to conceal the financing of criminal organisations? What steps will it
take to define tax evasion as a corrupt activity?

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

_(13 December 2012)_

1. On 6 December the Commission adopted an Action Plan ( [1] ) to strengthen the fight against tax fraud and tax
evasion together with recommendations ( [2] ). One aspect of those recommendations consists in the development of a
general approach common to all Member States and intended to promote, through positive and negative measures,
compliance by third countries with minimum standards of good governance in tax matters. This approach includes in
particular so-called ‘tax havens’. In this regard, it is important to note that the Cayman Islands are associated with
the EU as overseas countries and territories (Article 198 TFUE), but are otherwise not covered by Union law and
should therefore be considered as third countries in this context ( [3] ).

2. The aforementioned recommendations propose measures to be implemented by Member States in regard to
third countries. The intention is to improve the effectiveness of Member States’ actions to protect their tax systems
against unfair tax base erosion, in line with established principles of transparency, information exchange and fair tax
competition.

The new FATF Recommendations, in the light of which Anti-Money Laundering Directive should be reviewed, in the
context of anti-money laundering measures contain new provisions on making information available on the
beneficial ownership of a legal person or legal arrangement by imposing measures aimed at providing clarity and
accessibility and including specific requirements for international cooperation ( [4] ).

3. As regards the fight against tax evasion, the Commission refers to its communication of 27 June 2012 which
analyses the existing situation and proposes concrete ways forward which are further detailed in the action plan ( [5] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 722 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) C (2012) 8806 final, C (2012) 8805 final.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) In addition, please refer to E-008428/2012.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) In addition, please refer to E-007684/2012.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) In addition, please refer to E-008428/2012; http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

C 294 E / 228 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(Verżjoni Maltija)_

**Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub E-009027/12**

**lill-Kummissjoni**
**Edward Scicluna (S&D)**

_(8 ta' Ottubru 2012)_

_Suġġett:_ Il-fondi tal-politika ta' koeżjoni — is-sitwazzjoni attwali

Fir-risposta tal-Kummissjoni għal mistoqsija tal-5 ta' Lulju 2011 dwar il-fondi tal-politika ta’ koeżjoni għal Malta
skont il-programm 2007-2013, il-Kummissarju Hahn qal li, fil-mument, il-Kummissjoni “ma kellha l-ebda
preokkupazzjoni dwar Malta” u “tinsab konvinta li [Malta] fil-fatt se tilħaq il-miri ta’ nfiq miftiehma tagħha”.

Fid-dawl tal-evalwazzjoni ta’ nofs il-perjodu mwettqa mill-Kummissjoni fl-2011:

1. Il-Kummissjoni għandha xi preokkupazzjonijiet f’dak li għandu x’jaqsam mal-livelli tan-nefqa rigward fondi
ddikjarati u ċċertifikati fl-2012?

2. X’persentaġġ tal-fondi allokati għall-2009 (li għandhom jiġu impenjati mill-ġdid sal-2012) ġew iċċertifikati u
kellhom id-dikjarazzjoni tan-nefqa tagħhom ippreżentata lill-Kummissjoni?

3. Malta se jkollha tuża parti mill-pagament bil-quddiem ipprovdut mill-UE biex tkopri l-allokazzjoni tal-2009?

4. Il-Kummissjoni tista' tispjega s-sitwazzjoni attwali fir-rigward tal-ammont totali ta’ fondi allokati lil Malta li ġew
iċċertifikati u ddikjarati lilha għall-programm 2007-2013?

5. X’inhuma l-fatturi ewlenin li qed ixekklu lil Malta milli żżomm aġġornata d-dikjarazzjoni tan-nefqa tagħha lillKummissjoni?

**Tweġiba mogħtija f'isem il-Kummissjoni**

_(6 ta' Diċembru 2012)_

Malta turi prestazzjoni tajba fl-implimentazzjoni tal-politika ta' koeżjoni, bi 80 % tal-fondi disponibbli allokati għal
proġetti speċifiċi. Il-ftit dewmien tagħha fl-assorbiment finanzjarju tal-fondi meta mqabbel mal-medja tal-UE huwa
primarjament minħabba l-implimentazzjoni aktar bil-mod ta' proġetti attwali.

Mill-31 ta’ Ottubru 2012, is-sitwazzjoni ta' assorbiment fir-rigward tal-Fond Ewropew għall-Iżvilupp Reġjonali
(FEŻR), il-Fond ta' Koeżjoni (FK) u l-Fond Soċjali Ewropew (FSE) hija kif ġej:

FK: EUR 103 miljun (36,4 %) tħallsu minn allokazzjoni totali ta' EUR 284 miljun. Dan jinkludi pagament bil-quddiem
ta' EUR 30 miljun. L-impenji kollha tal-FK sal-2009 diġà tħallsu (86 % mingħajr pagamenti bil-quddiem).

FEŻR: EUR 144 miljun (32,5 %) tħallsu minn allokazzjoni totali ta' EUR 444 miljun, dan jinkludi pagament bilquddiem ta' EUR 40 miljun. Disgħin fil-mija tal-impenji totali tal-FEŻR sal-2009 diġà tħallsu (65 % mingħajr
pagamenti bil-quddiem).

FSE: EUR 31 miljun (28 %) tħallsu minn allokazzjoni totali ta' EUR 112-il miljun, dan jinkludi pagament bil-quddiem
ta' EUR 10 miljun. L-impenji kollha tal-FSE sal-2009 diġà tħallsu (87 % mingħajr pagamenti bil-quddiem).

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 229

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009027/12**

**to the Commission**
**Edward Scicluna (S&D)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Cohesion policy funds — state of play

In the Commission’s answer to a question of 5 July 2011 concerning cohesion policy funds for Malta under the 20072013 programme, Commissioner Hahn said that, at that point in time, the Commission ‘had no concerns about
Malta’ and ‘was convinced that [Malta] was actually going to achieve its agreed spending targets’.

In view of the mid-term evaluation carried out by the Commission in 2011:

1. Does the Commission have any concerns relating to the levels of expenditure as regards funds declared and
certified in 2012?

2. What percentage of the funds allocated for 2009 (to be recommitted by 2012) have been certified and had their
declaration of expenditure submitted to the Commission?

3. Will Malta have to use part of the advance payment provided by the EU in order to cover the 2009 allocation?

4. Can the Commission explain the current state of play with regard to the total amount of funds allocated to
Malta which have been certified and declared to it for the 2007-2013 programme?

5. What are the main factors hindering Malta from keeping up to date with its declaration of expenditure to the
Commission?

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

_(6 December 2012)_

Malta shows a good performance in the implementation of cohesion policy, with 80% of available funds allocated to
specific projects. Its slight delay in the financial absorption of funds compared to the EU average is primarily due to
slower implementation of selected projects on the ground.

As of 31 October 2012, the absorption situation with regard to the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF),
the Cohesion Fund (CF) and the European Social Fund (ESF) looks as follows:

CF: EUR 103 million (36.4%) has been paid out of a total allocation of EUR 284 million. This includes an advance
payment of EUR 30 million. All CF commitments up to 2009 have already been paid (86% without the advance
payment)..

ERDF: EUR 144 million (32.5%) has been paid out of a total allocation of EUR 444 million, including an advance
payment of EUR 40 million. 90% of the total ERDF commitments up to 2009 have already been paid (65% without
the advance payment).

ESF: EUR 31 million (28%) has been paid out of a total allocation of EUR 112 million, including an advance payment
of EUR 10 million. All ESF commitments up to 2009 have already been paid (87% without the advance payment).

C 294 E / 230 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009028/12**

**to the Commission**
**Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Timeshare selling in perpetuity and the consequences for descendants of original purchasers

A constituent has recently informed me of the situation that he and other timeshare owners are currently
experiencing, whereby he has inherited a timeshare contract following the death of a parent and is, due to the terms of
the contract, bequeathed the legal responsibility and obliged to continue various payments as agreed in the original
contract, such as maintenance payments. Given the weakness of the timeshare property market that makes selling the
timeshare nearly impossible, and the binding nature of the perpetuity agreement that ties my constituent to a contract
to which he never originally consented, it appears that the descendants of original timeshare contract holders are
forced to accept consequences of contracts into which they had no original input.

In the light of this:

1. Has the Commission a view on the situation regarding timeshare selling ‘in perpetuity’ and any adverse
consequences for descendents of original purchasers?

2. Does the Commission consider that measures allowing descendants to extricate themselves from timeshare
contracts could be justified?

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

_(27 November 2012)_

EU rules in the area of timeshare were revised with the adoption, on 14 January 2009, of Directive 2008/122/EC,
which became applicable on 23 February 2011 and replaced the previous Directive 94/47/EC. The new Directive has
considerably enhanced consumer rights in this area, particularly through stronger rules related to the information the
trader has to provide to the consumer and regarding the consumer's right of withdrawal. Member States have
transposed this directive into their national law and are in charge of its application.

However, the Timeshare Directive only deals with certain aspects of timeshare contracts, particularly in relation to
consumer rights when entering the contract, whilst the issues outside its scope of regulation, such as termination of
timeshare contracts or inheritance of timeshare rights and obligations, remain regulated by national laws of the
Member States. In addition to the Timeshare Directive, there are EU rules on unfair contract terms in consumer
contracts (Directive 93/13/EEC) and on unfair commercial practices (Directive 2005/29/EC), which may be relevant
in assessing a concrete timeshare contract by the competent national authorities and courts.

_The Times_ hare Directive requires the Commission to review its application and report to the European Parliament and
the Council in 2014. As part of the review the Commission will look into the various problems faced by consumers
regarding timeshare contracts.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 231

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009029/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Giancarlo Scottà (EFD)**

_(8 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Contraffazione delle produzioni enoiche «made in Italy» — vino in polvere commercializzato nel Regno
Unito

L'esistenza di «wine-kit» prodotti in Gran Bretagna e contenenti polveri solubili in acqua per produrre vini quali
«Barolo, Chianti, Valpolicella, Montepulciano e Nero d'Avola» costituisce un gravissimo danno economico e di
immagine alla produzione enoica «made in Italy».

Questi prodotti sono vini DOC o DOCG che dovrebbero essere tutelati, considerando soprattutto il fatto che la Gran
Bretagna è membro dell'Unione europea.

Inoltre, queste contraffazioni inducono il consumatore straniero a considerare il falso prodotto «made in Italy»,
prodotto in realtà all'estero, come vino nazionale di qualità, rischiando così di minare la fiducia dei consumatori.

A questo punto si chiede: come intende agire la Commissione per contrastare la questione della contraffazione in
riferimento ai prodotti DOC e DOCG sul territorio dell'Unione europea e cosa ha intenzione di fare in questo caso
particolare?

**Risposta di Dacian Cioloș a nome della Commissione**

_(15 novembre 2012)_

La Commissione è stata informata delle pratiche commerciali a cui si fa riferimento nell’interrogazione e, durante
l’ultima riunione del Comitato di gestione dell’OCM unica (10 ottobre 2012), ha provveduto ad informare le
delegazioni degli Stati membri che tali pratiche violano le norme in materia di etichettatura nel settore vitivinicolo
stabilite dalla legislazione europea.

La Commissione ha precisato che i prodotti in questione non possono essere commercializzati utilizzando una
denominazione di origine protetta (DOP) o un’indicazione geografica protetta (IGP), nemmeno attraverso una
semplice evocazione del nome.

Gli Stati membri devono adottare tutti i provvedimenti necessari a prevenire l’uso illecito del nome di una DOP o di
un’IGP ritirando dal mercato tali prodotti. In particolare, in questo caso sono stati presi contatti con le autorità italiane
e britanniche al fine di vietare la commercializzazione dei prodotti in questione.

C 294 E / 232 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009029/12**

**to the Commission**
**Giancarlo Scottà (EFD)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Counterfeit ‘Italian-made’ products: powdered wine on sale in the United Kingdom

The existence of ‘wine kits’ produced in the UK containing a powder that can be dissolved in water to obtain ‘wine’
that purports to be Barolo, Chianti, Valpolicella, Montepulciano or Nero d'Avola is seriously damaging, in economic
and reputational terms, to wines produced in Italy.

The DOC or DOCG wines in question should be protected, particularly in view of the fact that the UK is a member of
the European Union.

Moreover, counterfeit products masquerading as Italian, but actually produced elsewhere, mislead foreign consumers
into assuming that they are purchasing high-quality national wines, thereby undermining consumers’ confidence.

What action does the Commission intend to take to tackle the problem of counterfeit DOC and DOCG products in
the European Union, and what does it intend to do in this particular instance?

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

_(15 November 2012)_

The Commission was informed of the commercial practices referred to in the question and informed the delegations
of the Member States, during the last meeting of the management committee of the single CMO (10 October 2012),
that these practices were in infringement with the rules of labelling laid down in the wine sector by the European
legislation.

The Commission specified that the products concerned cannot be marketed by using a protected designation of
origin (PDO) or a protected geographical indication (PGI), even by simple evocation of that name.

Member States must take the necessary measures to prevent the illicit use of the name of a PDO or a PGI by
withdrawing from the market these products. In this situation in particular contacts were established with the Italian
and United Kingdom's authorities in order to prohibit the marketing of the products concerned.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 233

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-009030/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 Οκτωβρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Στοιχεία εκκαθάρισης λογαριασμών ΕΓΤΕ/ΕΓΤΑΑ

Η Επιτροπή επιδιώκει την εξασφάλιση της νομιμότητας και κανονικότητας των δαπανών των ΕΓΤΕ και ΕΓΤΑΑ, μέσω της
διαδικασίας «εκκαθάρισης λογαριασμών». Σε περίπτωση δε, ελλιπών ελέγχων και μη εφαρμογής της κοινοτικής νομοθεσίας, η
Επιτροπή επιβάλλει στα κράτη μέλη δημοσιονομικές διορθώσεις.

Μπορεί η Επιτροπή να με ενημερώσει σχετικά με τα συνολικά ποσά δημοσιονομικών διορθώσεων/παρακρατήσεων που έγιναν
για κάθε κράτος μέλος, από το 2007 έως σήμερα;

Όσον αφορά στην Ελλάδα, μπορεί να μας ενημερώσει για το ύψος των ποινών που έχουν βεβαιωθεί ανά καθεστώς ενίσχυσης,
το έτος στο οποίο η κάθε ποινή αναφέρεται και τους λόγους επιβολής της; Βρίσκονται κάποιες από τις ποινές σε στάδιο
διαβούλευσης της ελληνικής κυβέρνησης με την επιτροπή των γεωργικών ταμείων, σύμφωνα με τη δυνατότητα που παρέχεται
στο άρθρο 11 παρ. 4 του 885/2006/ΕΚ, όπως τροποποιήθηκε από τον Εκτελεστικό Κανονισμό ΕΕ αριθ. 375/2012; Ποιες
είναι αυτές;

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

_(19 Νοεμβρίου 2012)_

Η δημοσιονομική επίπτωση των διορθώσεων που επιβάλλει η Επιτροπή σε όλα τα κράτη μέλη στο πλαίσιο της συμμόρφωσης
προς την απόφαση εκκαθάρισης από το 2007 συνοψίζεται στο παράρτημα 1 ( [1] ). Η επιμερισμένη ανάλυση ανά ταμείο και
απόφαση για την Ελλάδα περιλαμβάνεται στο παράρτημα 2. Οι λόγοι για τις δημοσιονομικές διορθώσεις είναι πολυάριθμοι
και αναφέρονται στα παραρτήματα των αποφάσεων. Για το εν λόγω θέμα γίνεται αναφορά στις επίσημες εφημερίδες, στις
οποίες έχουν δημοσιευθεί.

Όσον αφορά την αναβολή της εκτέλεσης των δημοσιονομικών διορθώσεων, που προβλέπεται στο άρθρο 11 παράγραφος 4
του κανονισμού της Επιτροπής (ΕΚ) αριθ. 885/2006 ( [2] ), όπως τροποποιήθηκε τελευταία με τον εκτελεστικό κανονισμό (ΕΕ)
αριθ. 375/2012 ( [3] ), η Ελλάδα ζήτησε την εφαρμογή της διαδικασίας αναβολής τον Μάιο του 2012. Με την απόφαση της
Επιτροπής C(2012)4293 της 28/06/2012 αναβάλλεται, έως τις 31/12/2013, η εκτέλεση της δημοσιονομικής διόρθωσης
που επιβλήθηκε στην Ελλάδα. Μέχρι σήμερα η αναβολή αφορά τα ακόλουθα ποσά: 104 εκατ. ευρώ που περιλαμβάνονται
στην απόφαση 38, 0,02 εκατ. ευρώ από την απόφαση 39 και 287 εκατ. ευρώ για δημοσιονομικές διορθώσεις από τις
αποφάσεις 34 και 35 που είχαν προγραμματιστεί για το 2012 και το 2013 βάσει προηγουμένων αποφάσεων που
προέβλεπαν την επιστροφή των δημοσιονομικών διορθώσεων σε δόσεις. Στο τέλος του 2013, κατά συνέπεια, θα προκύψουν
συνολικά 392 εκατ. ευρώ από αναβληθείσες δημοσιονομικές διορθώσεις (μη συμπεριλαμβανομένων των τυχόν πρόσθετων
διορθώσεων οι οποίες θα περιληφθούν σε άλλες αποφάσεις συμμόρφωσης που θα εκδοθούν ενδιάμεσα).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Τα παραρτήματα αποστέλλονται απευθείας στο Αξιότιμο Μέλος και τη Γραμματεία του Κοινοβουλίου.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) ΕΕ L 171 της 23.6.2006, σ. 90-110.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) ΕΕ L 118 της 3.5.2012, σ. 4-5.

C 294 E / 234 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009030/12**

**to the Commission**
**Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Clearance of EAGGF and EAFRD accounts

In order to ensure the legality and regularity of EAGGF and EAFRD expenditure, the Commission applies the
clearance of accounts procedure, imposing financial corrections on Member States for inadequate controls and failure
to apply EU legislation.

Can the Commission indicate the amounts accordingly deducted or withheld in this manner from each Member State
since 2007?

With regard to Greece, can the Commission indicate the amount of such penalties with regard to each funding
scheme, giving the year and the reasons for this? Are any of these penalties currently being discussed by the Greek
Parliament with the Committee on the Agricultural Funds, as provided for in Article 11(4) of Commission Regulation
(EC) No 885/2006, amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 375/2012? What is the nature
thereof?

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

_(19 November 2012)_

The financial impact of the corrections imposed by the Commission on all Member States in the framework of the
conformity clearance decision since 2007 is presented in Annex a ( [1] ). The split per Fund and per Decision for Greece
is included in Annex a. The reasons for financial corrections are numerous and can be found in the annexes of the
decisions. In this respect the references to the Official Journals, in which they are published, have been quoted.

As regards the deferral of the execution of the financial corrections, as provided for in the article 11(4) of Commission
Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 ( [2] ) as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 375/2012 ( [3] ),
Greece requested the application of the deferral procedure in May 2012. Commission Decision C(2012)4293 of
28/06/2012 defers, until 31/12/2013, the execution of the financial correction imposed on Greece. Until now the
following amounts have been covered by the deferral: 104 m EUR included in Decision 38, 0.02 m EUR from
Decision 39 and 287 m EUR in financial corrections from Decisions 34 and 35 which had been scheduled to be
executed in 2012 and 2013 under previous decisions granting the reimbursement of financial corrections in
instalments. At the end of 2013, therefore, there will be a total of 392 m EUR in deferred financial corrections (not
including any additional corrections which will be included in other conformity decisions which will be adopted in
the meantime).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Annexes are sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat of Parliament.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 171, 23.6.2006, p. 90‐110.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) OJ L 118, 3.5.2012, p. 4‐5.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 235

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009032/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Hans-Peter Mayer (PPE)**

_(8. Oktober 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Strategie für die Allgemeine Luftfahrt

Am 18. September 2012 sprach der Verwaltungsrat der EASA seine Unterstützung für die neue Strategie für die
Allgemeine Luftfahrt (European General Aviation Safety Strategy) aus. Die neue Strategie betrifft die
nichtkommerzielle Luftfahrt, die zum großen Teil in Luftsportvereinen organisiert ist.

Die Strategie greift die Mitteilung der Kommission auf: „Agenda für eine nachhaltige Zukunft der allgemeinen
Luftfahrt und der Geschäftsreiseluftfahrt“ (KOM(2007)0869), die angemessene Regeln für diesen Teilbereich der
Luftfahrt fordert und im Europäischen Parlament breite Unterstützung findet (Entschließung 2008/2134(INI) vom
3. Februar 2009).

Die Strategie schlägt eine grundlegende Überarbeitung des europäischen Regelwerkes für die nichtkommerzielle
Luftfahrt vor. Das neue Regelwerk soll die Besonderheiten der „kleinen“ Luftfahrt berücksichtigen und insbesondere
davon Abstand nehmen, die rigiden und nicht angemessenen Regeln der kommerziellen Luftfahrt anzuwenden.
Dabei soll u. a. auf Ebene der Luftsportverbände die Sicherheitskultur gefördert werden.

Etwa fünf Jahre nachdem die Kommission ihre Mitteilung (KOM(2007)0869) veröffentlicht hat, bietet sich nun also
die Gelegenheit, die lang etablierten Prinzipien umzusetzen.

1. Wie wird die Kommission die konkrete Umsetzung der Strategie organisieren und dabei eine Einbindung der
betroffenen Luftsportorganisationen garantieren?

2. Erwägt die Kommission eine Neuregelung der bereits bestehenden Durchführungsverordnungen, z. B. im
Bereich der Wartung und des Lizenzwesens?

3. Inwieweit und wann muss die sogenannte Basisverordnung (EG) Nr. 216/2008 einer Novellierung unterzogen
werden?

4. Wann wird die Kommission dem Parlament über die Umsetzung der Mitteilung (KOM(2007)0869) berichten,
wie es das Parlament in seiner Entschließung bis spätestens Ende 2009 gefordert hat?

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

_(4. Dezember 2012)_

Es sei darauf hingewiesen, dass die Kommission bereits einen risikobasierten Ansatz bei der Ausarbeitung und
Annahme von Durchführungsvorschriften in Bezug auf die allgemeine Luftfahrt verfolgt.

Die vor kurzem angenommenen Vorschriften in den Bereichen Pilotenlizenzen ( [1] ) und Lufttüchtigkeit ( [2] ) sind gute
Beispiele dafür.

Auf der Grundlage der vor kurzem vom EASA-Verwaltungsrat angenommenen europäischen Strategie für die
Sicherheit der allgemeinen Luftfahrt wird die Kommission einen Fahrplan für die nächsten Schritte unter
Zugrundelegung des Inputs von Mitgliedstaaten und beteiligten Kreisen ausarbeiten.

In diesem Zusammenhang sollte dann geprüft werden, ob eine Änderung der geltenden Durchführungs‐vorschriften
oder der Basisverordnung erforderlich ist.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Verordnung (EU) Nr. 290/2012 der Kommission vom 30. Juli 2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Verordnung (EU) Nr. 748/2012 der Kommission vom 5. August 2012.

C 294 E / 236 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009032/12**

**to the Commission**
**Hans-Peter Mayer (PPE)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ General aviation safety strategy

On 18 September 2012 the Management Board of the European Aviation Safety Agency gave its backing to the new
‘European General Aviation Safety Strategy’. The new strategy covers non-commercial aviation, much of which is
organised in aeroclubs.

The strategy takes up the Commission communication entitled ‘An Agenda for Sustainable Future in General and
Business Aviation’ (COM(2007)0869), which calls for appropriate rules for this section of aviation and has wide
supported in Parliament (resolution of 3 February 2009 (2008/2134(INI)).

The strategy proposes a fundamental overhaul of European rules on non-commercial aviation. The new regulatory
framework should take account of the specific features of small-scale aviation and dispense with the inflexible and
inappropriate rules which govern commercial aviation. In the process, a safety culture is to be promoted, _inter alia_,
within aeroclub associations.

Now, some five years after the Commission issued its communication COM(2007)0869, the opportunity is there to
put long-established principles into practice.

1. How will the Commission put the strategy into practice and ensure that the relevant aeroclub organisations are
involved in the process?

2. Is the Commission considering revising existing implementing regulations, e.g. in the area of maintenance and
licensing?

3. To what extent, and when, must the basic regulation ((EC) No 216/2008) be amended?

4. When will the Commission report to Parliament on implementation of communication COM(2007)0869,
given that Parliament, in its resolution, called for this to be done by the end of 2009 at the latest?

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

_(4 December 2012)_

It has to be noted that the Commission is already taking a risk-based approach when designing and adopting
implementing rules related to General Aviation.

Recently adopted rules in the field of pilot licensing ( [1] ) and airworthiness ( [2] ) are a good example.

On the basis of the ‘European General Aviation Safety Strategy’ recently adopted by the Management Board of EASA,
the Commission will prepare a roadmap, in view of elaborating steps forward, on the basis of input by Member States
and stakeholders.

In this context, the possible necessity to amend existing implementig rules or the Basic Regulation should be assessed.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COMReg. No 290/2012 of 30 July.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COMReg. No 748/2012 of 5 August.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 237

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-009033/12**

**aan de Commissie**

**Philip Claeys (NI)**

_(8 oktober 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Grenscontrole met verplichting tot betaling tol, niet-erkenning verzekering voertuigen op Cyprus

In principe werd het ganse grondgebied van Cyprus erkend als onderdeel van de EU, beschikken ook de Turkse
inwoners van Noord-Cyprus over door de EU erkende identiteitsdocumenten en kunnen zij ook genieten van het vrij
verkeer van personen.

Het omgekeerde geldt echter niet. Een EU-onderdaan die Noord-Cyprus wil bezoeken moet aan een soort „grenspost”
een bedrag betalen, al dan niet in samenhang met het feit dat indien men een personenwagen wil gebruiken een
verzekering afgesloten in Zuid-Cyprus blijkbaar niet erkend wordt in het noorden.

Graag deze vragen:

1. Is het aanvaardbaar dat op Cyprus EU-onderdanen die het noorden willen bezoeken een bedrag moeten
betalen? Is dit geen vorm van tol‐ of belastingheffing die onverenigbaar is met het feit dat gans Cyprus erkend
werd als onderdeel van de EU?

2. Is het aanvaardbaar dat een rechtsgeldig in Zuid-Cyprus afgesloten verzekering voor een auto in het noorden
niet erkend wordt, en dat een soort „afkoopsom” daarvoor geëist wordt? Is dit verenigbaar met het vrije verkeer
van goederen en diensten?

3. Via welke kanalen spreekt de EU met het gezag in Noord-Cyprus? Zal de EU bij haar gesprekspartners in het
noorden eisen dat deze zaken onmiddellijk beëindigd worden?

4. Indien men niet bereid is hiermee te stoppen, welke gevolgen verbindt de EU daaraan? Is het aanvaardbaar dat
EU-geld naar het noorden van Cyprus stroomt zolang deze zaken doorgaan? Is het aanvaardbaar dat EU-geld
naar kandidaat-lidstaat Turkije stroomt zolang deze zaken doorgaan?

**Antwoord van de heer Füle namens de Commissie**

_(5 december 2012)_

Uit juridisch oogpunt is het noordelijk deel van Cyprus een gebied van de Republiek Cyprus waar de regering van de
Republiek Cyprus geen feitelijk gezag uitoefent. Op grond van Protocol nr. 10 over Cyprus bij de Toetredingsakte van
2003 is in dit gebied de toepassing van het EU-acquis tijdelijk geschorst, totdat een allesomvattende regeling wordt
bereikt voor het probleem in Cyprus. Daarom is het geen inbreuk op het vrije verkeer van goederen of het vrij
verrichten van diensten wanneer het noordelijk deel van Cyprus buiten de dekking van een autoverzekering valt.

De Commissie wijst het geachte Parlementslid erop dat om diezelfde reden Turks‐Cyprioten ook verplicht zijn om
een aanvullende autoverzekering te kopen wanneer zij de Groene Lijn oversteken naar de gebieden waar de regering
het gezag uitoefent.

De problemen die het geachte Parlementslid noemt, benadrukken nogmaals dat een snelle allesomvattende regeling in
Cyprus noodzakelijk is. De Commissie heeft in haar recente mededeling over de uitbreidingsstrategie en de
belangrijkste uitdagingen 2012-2013 ( [1] ) herhaald dat de onderhandelingen nieuw leven moet worden ingeblazen en
dat zij snel zouden moeten worden voltooid, waarbij wordt voortgebouwd op de vooruitgang tot nu toe.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 600 final.

C 294 E / 238 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009033/12**

**to the Commission**

**Philip Claeys (NI)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Border controls accompanied by a requirement to pay a toll; non-recognition of vehicle insurance in Cyprus

In principle, the whole territory of Cyprus is recognised as part of the EU, and Turkish residents of Northern Cyprus
also hold identity documents recognised by the EU and enjoy the right to free movement of persons.

However, the converse is not true. An EU citizen wishing to visit Northern Cyprus must pay a sum of money at a kind
of border control post, whether or not in connection with the fact that, if one wishes to use a private car, an insurance
policy concluded in Southern Cyprus is evidently not recognised in the North.

1. Is it acceptable that in Cyprus EU citizens who wish to visit the North are compelled to pay a sum of money? Is
this not a form of toll or taxation which is incompatible with the fact that the whole of Cyprus is recognised as
forming part of the EU?

2. Is it acceptable that a car insurance policy which has been taken out in a legally valid manner in Southern
Cyprus should not be recognised in Northern Cyprus, and that a kind of ransom should be demanded instead? Is this
compatible with the free movement of goods and services?

3. Through what channels does the EU communicate with the authorities in Northern Cyprus? Will the EU
demand that its dialogue partners in the North to put an immediate end to such practices?

4. If they are not prepared to put an end to these practices, what action will the EU take in response? Is it
acceptable for EU funding to be channelled to Northern Cyprus while such practices continue? Is it acceptable for EU
funds to be channelled to Turkey, a candidate for accession to the EU, while such practices continue?

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

_(5 December 2012)_

Legally, the northern part of Cyprus is an area of the Republic of Cyprus in which the Government of the Republic of
Cyprus does not exercise effective control. Pursuant to Protocol 10 on Cyprus to the Act of Accession 2003 the
application of the EU _acquis_ is temporarily suspended in this area, until a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus
problem is reached. Therefore, the exclusion of the northern part of Cyprus from the coverage of car insurances does
not constitute an infringement on the free movement of goods or the freedom to provide services.

The Commission would like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the fact that, for the same reasons,
Turkish Cypriots are also obliged to buy additional car insurance, when crossing the Green Line into the governmentcontrolled areas.

The issues raised by the Honourable Member once again underline the need for a rapid comprehensive settlement in
Cyprus. In its recently presented Communication on the Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2012-2013 ( [1] ),
the Commission underlined the necessity to re-launch the negotiations with the aim of reaching a swift conclusion of
the talks, building on the progress achieved to date.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 600 final.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 239

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009034/12**

**to the Commission**
**Nessa Childers (S&D)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ High-Level Group of Independent Stakeholders

What is the Commission’s position on the concerns about the High-Level Group of Independent Stakeholders as
regards the reduction of administrative burdens and its proposed new mandate as expressed by the consumer,
environmental and trade union organisations who nominated members for appointment to the Group, and what
steps if any will the Commission take to address those concerns?

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

_(27 November 2012)_

The High Level Group on Administrative Burdens has provided advice on possible ways to reduce administrative
burdens. Its work included the preparation of a report on best practice in Member States to implement EU legislation
in the least burdensome way ( [1] ), to which consumer, environmental and trade union organisations contributed.

The Commission is now finalising the new mandate for the period January 2013 to October 2014. Consideration is
being given to a mandate for the Group to continue to advise on improving the overall competitiveness of the EU by
reducing unnecessary regulatory burden resulting from EU legislation and on how to make public administration in
Europe more efficient and responsive to the needs of stakeholders, in particular for SMEs and micro companies. This
mandate could include following up with Member States on the effective implementation of the measures adopted
under the EU Administrative Burden Reduction Programme as part of a wider approach to smart regulation, drawing
on the Best Practice report.

Group membership reflects a variety of different professional and organisational backgrounds. The Commission will
continue to ensure that the interests of businesses, in particular SMEs and micro companies, social partners,
consumer and environmental organisations, including non-governmental organisations, are adequately represented.
The Group respects the Commission policy on expert groups ( [2] ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/admin_burden/best_practice_report/best_practice_report_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Communication from the President to the Commission of 10 November 2010 — Framework for Commission expert groups: horizontal rules and

public register — C(2010)7649.

C 294 E / 240 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009035/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Fiorello Provera (EFD)**

_(9 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Comunità ebraica francese e belga in stato di allerta

Secondo quanto riportato da diversi mezzi di comunicazione, il 6 ottobre 2012 nel sobborgo parigino di Argenteuil
un gruppo di uomini ha attaccato una sinagoga sparando proiettili a salve nel corso di una funzione religiosa.
Fortunatamente non ci sono stati feriti, ma le funzioni sono state cancellate. L'attacco ha avuto luogo a seguito di una
serie di blitz effettuati dalla polizia in tutta la Francia alla ricerca di una presunta cellula terroristica organizzata da
giovani francesi convertiti all'Islam. Tra gli islamisti radicali sospettati si annovera anche Jeremy Louis-Sidney,
ritenuto responsabile di aver gettato una bomba incendiaria in un negozio di generi alimentari kasher di Parigi lo
scorso settembre, ucciso durante il blitz in uno scontro a fuoco con la polizia. Altre undici persone sono state
arrestate. I capi della comunità ebraica francese hanno riferito un drastico aumento di episodi antisemitici a seguito
dell'attacco avvenuto a Tolosa a marzo, dove sono rimasti uccisi tre bambini ebrei. Il presidente francese François
Hollande ha dichiarato che saranno prese misure per contrastare la «minaccia terroristica».

Il 4 ottobre 2012, una sinagoga della cittadina di Forest nei pressi di Bruxelles è stata imbrattata di scritte antisemite
come «morte agli ebrei». Non è stato finora fermato nessun sospettato. Nel 2009, la stessa zona è stata testimone di un
altro attacco antisemita durante il quale è stata lanciata una bomba molotov.

Può la Commissione dire:

1. quali azioni intraprende all'ora attuale, alla luce degli attacchi alle sinagoghe di Argenteuil e Bruxelles, al fine di
combattere gli attacchi antisemiti;

2. se ha un piano di azione per individuare le fonti della propaganda antisemita alla base dell'aumento di attacchi
dell'ultimo anno;

3. quali misure esso adotta per contrastare l'antisemitismo nell'UE?

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

_(6 dicembre 2012)_

La Commissione europea condanna con vigore qualsiasi forma o manifestazione di antisemitismo, razzismo e
xenofobia, che si impegna a combattere con tutti i poteri che le conferiscono i trattati.

Per quanto riguarda la lotta contro l'antisemitismo nell'Unione europea, la Commissione rimanda l'onorevole
deputato alle risposte alle interrogazioni scritte E-5192/12 ed E-943/11 ( [1] ) in cui figurano anche informazioni sulla
decisione quadro 2008/913/GAI ( [2] ) che vieta l'incitamento all'odio e punisce i reati di stampo antisemita.

La Commissione non ha i mezzi per individuare sistematicamente tutte le fonti di propaganda antisemita, ma sostiene
le attività dell'Agenzia dell'Unione europea per i diritti fondamentali finalizzate alla raccolta di dati sugli incidenti e sui
casi di antisemitismo, contribuendo così a comprendere meglio l'entità di questo inaccettabile fenomeno e le ragioni
su cui si incardina ( [3] ).

Infine, la Commissione sottolinea con forza la necessità di prevenire il terrorismo combattendo tutte le forme di
estremismo e radicalizzazione violenta, indipendentemente dalle motivazioni e dal _modus operandi_, che è una delle
priorità di sicurezza interna. A tal fine la Commissione ha istituito la rete dell'UE per la sensibilizzazione in materia di
radicalizzazione, che collegherà le principali parti impegnate nella lotta all'estremismo e alla radicalizzazione
violenta. Tra le questioni importanti che la rete dovrà esaminare rientra indubbiamente il ruolo strumentale di
Internet nel processo di radicalizzazione. Informazioni dettagliate sulla rete e su precedenti iniziative della
Commissione figurano nelle risposte alle interrogazioni scritte E-8264/11 ed E-4510/10 ( [4] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/it/parliamentary-questions.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:328:0055:0058:it:PDF.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Per ulteriori informazioni, cfr. http://fra.europa.eu/en/theme/racism-related-intolerances.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/it/parliamentary-questions.html

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 241

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009035/12**

**to the Commission**
**Fiorello Provera (EFD)**

_(9 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ French and Belgian Jews on high alert

According to various media reports, on 6 October 2012 a synagogue in the Paris suburb of Argenteuil was attacked
by men firing blank bullets while people were attending a service. Luckily no one was hurt, but services were
cancelled. The attack was made after French police had carried out raids across France targeting a suspected jihadist
cell organised by young Frenchmen who had converted to Islam. One of the suspected radical Islamists included
Jeremy Louis-Sidney, held responsible for throwing a grenade into a kosher grocery in Paris in September, who was
killed during the raid in a police shoot-out. Eleven other people were arrested. Jewish leaders in France had reported a
sharp increase in anti-Semitic incidents following an attack in Toulouse in March when three Jewish school children
were shot dead. French President François Hollande said that steps would be taken to combat the ‘terrorist threats’.

On 4 October 2012, a synagogue in the Brussels municipality of Forest was daubed with graffiti expressing
sentiments such as ‘death to the Jews’. No suspects have been apprehended. In 2009, the same area was a witness to
another anti-Semitic attack when a Molotov cocktail was thrown.

1. In light of the attack on the synagogues in Argenteuil and in Brussels, what is the Commission currently doing
to combat anti-Semitic attacks?

2. Does the Commission have any plan to track down the sources of the anti-Semitic propaganda that lies behind
the rise of attacks over the past year?

3. What steps is the Commission is taking to tackle anti-Semitism in the EU?

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

_(6 December 2012)_

The European Commission strongly condemns all forms and manifestations of antisemitism, racism and xenophobia
and is committed to fighting against them by making use of all powers available under the Treaties.

As for combating antisemitism in the EU, the Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to its replies to
written questions E-5192/12 and E-943/11 ( [1] ), including information for instance on Framework
Decision 2008/913/JHA ( [2] ) which prohibits also antisemitic hate speech and crime.

The Commission does not have means at its disposal to systematically track down the sources of antisemitic
propaganda. However, it supports the work of the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights to collect data on incidents and
experiences of antisemitism, which will contribute to gaining a better understanding of the scope of and the reasons
underlying this unacceptable phenomenon ( [3] ).

Finally, the Commission has strongly emphasised the need to prevent terrorism by addressing all forms of
radicalisation and violent extremism regardless of their motivation and modus operandi as one of the priorities for
the internal security. To this end, the Commission has launched the EU Radicalisation Awareness Network (RAN)
which will connect key stakeholder groups involved in countering violent radicalisation and extremism. The use of
the Internet in the process of radicalisation will certainly be one of the important issues to be examined by the
Network. Details on the RAN and past initiatives from the Commission have been given in its answers to written
questions E-8264/11 and E-4510/10 ( [4] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/racism-xenophobia/framework-decision/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) For further information, please see http://fra.europa.eu/en/theme/racism-related-intolerances.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

C 294 E / 242 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009036/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Lorenzo Fontana (EFD)**

_(9 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Rischi derivanti dai sistemi di trading automatico ad alta frequenza

Il sistema di trading automatico ad alta frequenza (di seguito, HFT), evoluzione del classico sistema del trading on-line,
consente l'esecuzione, automatizzata e istantanea, mediante algoritmi matematici, di milioni di ordini di
compravendita, in contemporanea, sui diversi mercati finanziari.

Tale tecnologia, basata sul «vantaggio dei trenta millisecondi», permette al software-trader di inserirsi nel sistema
subito dopo l'emissione di un ordine di compravendita da parte di un trader «umano», intercettandolo ed
analizzandolo prima che lo stesso sia reso pubblico. Acquisita l'informazione, il software compra tutti i lotti
disponibili di titoli che il trader «umano» era intenzionato ad acquistare, al prezzo visualizzato dallo stesso,
rimuovendo la possibilità per l'investitore di trovare titoli al prezzo che aveva precedentemente osservato come
quotato. Venderà, in seguito, i titoli a un investitore che abbia emesso un ordine di acquisto a un prezzo superiore,
realizzando grandi profitti con una sola operazione. Tali operazioni, considerata la loro velocità, non sono
rintracciabili dalle Autorità di vigilanza.

Solo un numero esiguo di operatori possiede attualmente l'HFT, tecnologia che, dalla sua introduzione nel 2005, è
stata criticata dagli esperti del settore finanziario, in quanto sospettata di consentire una vera e propria manipolazione
dei mercati da parte dei possessori della stessa a scapito dei concorrenti e della maggioranza degli investitori.

Considerando che attualmente l'HFT controllerebbe, dove permesso, la metà delle transazioni finanziarie, che un
cattivo utilizzo o una violazione della sicurezza di un sistema HFT potrebbe avere gravi ripercussioni sui mercati
finanziari, già compromessi dalla crisi economica attuale e che un recente episodio (caso Sergey Aleynikov),
riguardante la violazione del sistema HFT del gruppo bancario Goldman Sachs, avrebbe provocato la richiesta di
intervento della Securities and Exchange Commission da parte del Congresso degli Stati Uniti, pena la presentazione
di un disegno di legge volto a vietare l'uso del sistema HFT, si chiede alla Commissione, relativamente al caso sopra
esposto, se non ritenga urgente intervenire per chiarire i rischi del sistema e il ruolo dell'HFT nella crisi economica
attuale e per valutare un eventuale divieto dell'uso di tale sistema all'interno della zona Euro.

**Risposta di Michel Barnier a nome della Commissione**

_(21 novembre 2012)_

Uno degli obiettivi delle proposte della Commissione che modificano la direttiva relativa ai mercati degli strumenti
finanziari (riesame della MiFID) ( [1] ) è di affrontare i cambiamenti tecnologici e avvalersi degli insegnamenti tratti dalla
crisi finanziaria. Tra gli sviluppi più significativi del mercato negli ultimi decenni c'è la tendenza sempre maggiore ad
utilizzare il trading automatico detto trading algoritmico, incluse le negoziazioni ad alta frequenza (HFT).

Il riesame della MiFID contiene una serie di disposizioni volte ad affrontare i rischi associati al trading algoritmico.
Tali disposizioni introducono una serie di garanzie relative agli operatori del mercato che utilizzano algoritmi
nell'ambito delle loro strategie di trading e alle sedi delle negoziazioni algoritmiche e ad alta frequenza.

Al contempo la Commissione ha adottato le proposte di revisione della direttiva sugli abusi di mercato ( [2] ), intese a
chiarire in che modo le disposizioni in materia di abuso di mercato vadano applicate a determinate forme di trading
algoritmico. Tali proposte sono attualmente in fase di negoziato presso il Parlamento europeo e il Consiglio secondo
la procedura legislativa ordinaria.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Proposta di regolamento del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio sui mercati degli strumenti finanziari e che modifica il regolamento [EMIR] sugli

strumenti derivati OTC, le controparti centrali e i repertori di dati sulle negoziazioni (COM(2011)652) e Proposta di direttiva del Parlamento
europeo e del Consiglio relativa ai mercati degli strumenti finanziari che abroga la direttiva 2004/39/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio
(COM(2011)656). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0656:FIN:IT:PDF.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Proposta di regolamento del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio relativo all'abuso di informazioni privilegiate e alla manipolazione del mercato

(abusi di mercato) (COM/2011/0651) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0651:FIN:IT:HTML.

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 243

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009036/12**

**to the Commission**

**Lorenzo Fontana (EFD)**

_(9 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Risks posed by high-frequency trading systems

High-frequency trading (hereinafter HFT), a development of the conventional online trading system, employs
mathematical algorithms to execute millions of orders automatically and instantaneously on several financial markets

at once.

This technology, based on the ‘30 millisecond advantage’ enables the ‘trading’ software to penetrate the system
immediately after an order has been issued by a ‘human’ trader, and to intercept and analyse the order before it is
made public. Having obtained the information, and ‘peeked’ at the price, it buys up all available parcels of the shares
which the human trader intended to buy; as a result, investors cannot find any shares at the quoted price that they
previously saw. The software will then sell the shares to an investor who had issued an order to purchase at a higher
price, and thus make a substantial profit on a single transaction. Because of their speed, operations of this type are
impossible for supervisory authorities to trace.

Only a handful of traders currently have HFT, a technology which, since it was introduced in 2005, has been criticised
by financial sector experts, who suspect it of opening the way to out-and-out market manipulation by its users at the
expense of rivals and most investors.

In the places where it is allowed, HFT is thought at present to control half of all financial transactions. Improper use of
an HFT system or a security breach could have serious repercussions on the financial markets, already undermined by
the current economic crisis. Responding to a recent instance of HFT abuse by the Goldman Sachs banking group (the
Sergey Aleynikov case), the US Congress apparently called on the Securities and Exchange Commission to intervene
and, failing that, threatened to table a bill banning the use of HFT. In the light of this case, and of the above facts, does
not the Commission see an urgent need to determine the risks posed by HFT and its role in the current economic
crisis and to consider whether its use might be prohibited within the euro area?

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

_(21 November 2012)_

One of the objectives of the Commission proposals amending the directive on Markets in Financial Instruments (the
MiFID review) ( [1] ) is to address technological changes and to incorporate lessons learned from the financial crisis. One
of the most significant market developments over the past few decades has been the increasing trend towards the use
of automated electronic trading known as algorithmic trading which includes high frequency trading (HFT).

The MiFID review contains a number of provisions to address the risks associated with algorithmic trading. These
provisions introduce a series of safeguards both on market participants who use algorithms as part of their trading
strategies, as well as on trading venues where algorithmic and high-frequency trading takes place.

At the same time, the Commission adopted its proposals to review the Market Abuse Directive ( [2] ). These proposals
clarify how the market abuse provisions apply to certain forms of algorithmic trading. All these proposals are
currently under negotiation in the European Parliament and the Council under the ordinary legislative procedure.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Markets in financial instruments and amending Regulation [EMIR] on

OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories (COM(2011)652) and Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the
Council on markets in financial instruments repealing Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (COM(2011)656).
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0656:FIN:EN:PDF.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse)

(COM/2011/0651) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0651:FIN:EN:HTML.

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

C 294 E / 244 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009038/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(9 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Modificación de la Directiva 84/500/CEE referente a los nuevos límites de cesión de metales a los productos
alimenticios por materiales y objetos cerámicos

En referencia a la voluntad de la Dirección General de Salud y Consumidores de la CE de modificar la Directiva
84/500/CEE. Esta modificación supondría reducir los niveles de cesión de cadmio y plomo de la cerámica en 400
veces los niveles actuales, es decir un 99,75 % el límite vigente. El Reglamento (CE) n° 1881/2006 de la Comisión de
19 de diciembre de 2006 fija el contenido máximo de cadmio y plomo en los productos alimenticios y permite que el
alimento contenga cantidades importantes de dichos metales ( [1] ). Por este motivo la «Associació de Terrissaires i
Ceramistes de les Comarques Gironines» ( [2] ) considera que es innecesario dedicar esfuerzos a conseguir un contenido
extremadamente bajo de dicho metales en la cerámica que contienen alimentos, puesto que la cantidad de cadmio y
plomo que puede ceder al alimento será irrelevante considerando los niveles permitidos en los propios alimentos. Si
se aplicara este cambio en la normativa, las empresas centenarias catalanas estarían obligadas a desaparecer y
supondría la pérdida de 26 000 puestos de trabajo en todo el territorio español.

¿En qué se basa la propuesta de disminuir tan drásticamente los límites de cesión de cadmio y plomo en los productos
de cerámica comparándolos con el agua? ¿Y por qué en alimentos de consumo común se permite de 10 a 150 veces
más de contenido de cadmio y plomo respecto a dicha propuesta?¿Cómo se puede entender que la cesión de cadmio y
plomo propuesta en casos extremos de uso (solo cuando se utilice el envase cerámico con ácidos como vinagre,
limón,…) sea de 10 a 150 veces inferior al contenido de cadmio y plomo permitido en alimentos de uso común
cuando estos serán ingeridos al 100 % y la cerámica será por cesión (en un 99 % de los casos no se utiliza la cerámica
con ácidos, siendo la liberación de cadmio y plomo del 0 %)?

¿Cuántos casos de intoxicación por plomo o cadmio se han registrado en la Unión Europea como consecuencia del
uso de cerámica para uso alimentario elaborada en la CE?

¿Qué medidas tomará la Comisión para controlar los materiales cerámicos procedentes de otros continentes y que al
parecer no cumplen los requisitos de la CE?

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

_(28 de noviembre de 2012)_

La cesión de plomo y cadmio de los objetos de cerámica destinados a entrar en contacto con los alimentos (MCA) está
regulada por la Directiva 84/500/CEE del Consejo ( [3] ). Los límites actuales son 4 mg/l para el plomo y 0,3 mg/l para el
cadmio.

Los nuevos datos científicos (dictamen de la EFSA de 2010 sobre el plomo ( [4] ) y dictamen de la EFSA de 2009 sobre el
cadmio ( [5] )), los nuevos supuestos relativos a las normas de gestión de riegos para los MCA y las consideraciones para
determinar las cantidades cedidas, indican que, para proteger la salud, puede ser necesaria una reducción del límite
actual en un factor de 400 para el plomo y en un factor de 60 para el cadmio.

Algunos alimentos contienen estos metales como contaminación ubicua. Por consiguiente, se aplican supuestos
diversos que resultan en límites diferentes. Estos deben distinguirse del uso intencionado en los MCA de cerámica.

Con objeto de determinar la acción futura, la Comisión lleva a cabo una consulta con los Estados miembros y la
industria sobre posibles soluciones, entre otras, nuevas pruebas de laboratorio que reflejen los usos que hacen los
consumidores de los MCA de cerámica y la necesidad de adoptar medidas con respecto a las importaciones
procedentes de terceros países.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:364:0005:0024:ES:PDF.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.foeg.cat/associats.php?lng=ca&idgr=65&subarea=gremsec&id_sub=13&id_seccion=3575.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) DO L 277 de 20.10.1984.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) EFSA Journal 2010; 8(4):1570.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) EFSA Journal 2009:980.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 245

La Comisión es consciente de los casos de envenenamiento que se han producido en Suecia debido a los MCA de
cerámica procedentes de Grecia ( [6] ), pero desea señalar que los límites se basan en el riesgo para la salud y no el
envenenamiento agudo.

( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Int Arch Occup Environ Health (2006) 79: 165‐168.

C 294 E / 246 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009038/12**

**to the Commission**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(9 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Amendment to Directive 84/500/EEC regarding new limits for the migration of metals contained in ceramic
articles to foodstuffs

The European Commission’s Directorate-General for Health and Consumers is seeking to amend
Directive 84/500/EEC. This amendment would mean that migration levels of cadmium and lead from ceramic articles
would have to be reduced by 400 times from current levels; that is to say, a reduction of 99.75% from the present
limit. Commission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 of 19 December 2006 specifies the maximum permitted levels of
cadmium and lead in foodstuffs and allows for food to contain substantial quantities of these metals. ( [1] ) For this
reason, the Association of Potters of the Region of Girona (Associació de Terrissaires i Ceramistes de les Comarques
Gironines) ( [2] ) believes that it is unnecessary to strive to achieve extremely low levels of these metals in ceramic articles
that come into contact with foodstuffs since, considering the levels of metals that are permitted in the food itself, the
quantities of cadmium and lead that might be transferred to the food would be irrelevant. If the above amendment is
made, centuries-old Catalan companies will be forced to close down, resulting in the loss of 26 000 jobs across Spain.

What is the basis for the proposal to reduce the migration limits of cadmium and lead from ceramic articles so
drastically in comparison with water? Furthermore, why are staple foods allowed to contain 10 to 150 times more
cadmium and lead in comparison to the above proposal? How is one to understand that the quantities of cadmium
and lead transferred from ceramic objects in extreme cases (namely when ceramic containers are used to store acids
such as vinegar or lemon juice) are still 10 to 150 times lower than the cadmium and lead content permitted in staple
foods, despite the fact that 100% of the metals present in food are ingested whereas ceramic articles only transfer
some of these metals (in 99% of cases, ceramic objects are not used for acidic products, meaning that the migration of
cadmium and lead is 0%)?

How many cases of lead or cadmium poisoning resulting from the contact of foodstuffs with EU-made ceramic
articles have been recorded in the European Union?

What measures will the Commission take to monitor ceramic objects made outside the EU, which currently do not
seem to comply with EU standards?

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

_(28 November 2012)_

Lead and cadmium release from ceramic Food Contact Materials (FCM) is currently regulated by Council
Directive 84/500/EEC ( [3] ). The current limits are 4 mg/l for lead and 0.3 mg/l for cadmium.

New scientific information (2010 EFSA opinion ( [4] ) on lead, 2009 EFSA opinion on cadmium ( [5] )), standard risk
management assumptions for FCM and considerations on the determination of the released quantities, indicate that
to safeguard health a reduction of the current limit for lead by a factor 400 and for cadmium by a factor 60 may need
to be envisaged.

Some foods contain these metals as ubiquitous contamination. Hence different assumptions are applied that result in
different limits. These have to be differentiated from the intentional use in ceramic FCM.

To determine further action the Commission is consulting with Member States and industry on potential solutions,
amongst others new laboratory tests which better reflect the way ceramic FCM are used by consumers and the
necessity of measures regarding imports from third countries.

The Commission is aware of poisoning cases from Greek made ceramic FCM in Sweden ( [6] ), but notes the basis for the
limits is health risk and not acute poisoning.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:364:0005:0024:EN:PDF.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.foeg.cat/associats.php?lng=ca&idgr=65&subarea=gremsec&id_sub=13&id_seccion=3575.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) OJ L 277, 20.10.1984.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) EFSA Journal 2010; 8(4):1570.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) EFSA Journal 2009:980,.
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Int Arch Occup Environ Health (2006) 79: 165‐168.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 247

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009039/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Rebecca Harms (Verts/ALE)**

_(9. Oktober 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Finanzielle Unregelmäßigkeiten bei der Vorbereitung großer Sportveranstaltungen

Artikel 165 Absatz 3 des Vertrags über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union (AEUV) lautet: „Die Union und die
Mitgliedstaaten fördern die Zusammenarbeit mit dritten Ländern und den für den Bildungsbereich und den Sport
zuständigen internationalen Organisationen, insbesondere dem Europarat“.

Das Referat Sport der Kommission erklärt, dass Korruptionsprobleme mit einer europäischen Dimension auf
europäischer Ebene bekämpft werden müssen.

Die Union hat ein allgemeines Recht, in dem im AEUV festgelegten Rahmen Antikorruptionsmaßnahmen zu
ergreifen. Nach Artikel 67 AEUV ist die Union dazu verpflichtet, ein hohes Maß an Sicherheit zu gewährleisten, unter
anderem durch Kriminalitätsverhütung und ‐bekämpfung sowie durch eine Angleichung der strafrechtlichen
Rechtsvorschriften. Gemäß Artikel 83 AEUV ist Korruption ein Bereich besonders schwerer Kriminalität mit
grenzüberschreitender Dimension.

Bei den Vorbereitungen für die UEFA Euro 2012 wurden mehrere Fälle von finanziellen Unregelmäßigkeiten
festgestellt.

In diesem Zusammenhang wird die Kommission um die Beantwortung folgender Fragen gebeten:

1. Welche Maßnahmen hat die Kommission ergriffen, um bei großen Sportveranstaltungen die
Bauvorbereitungen zu überwachen und finanzielle Unregelmäßigkeiten zu verhindern?

2. Hat die Kommission die UEFA um einen Bericht über die zuvor genannten finanziellen Unregelmäßigkeiten
während der Vorbereitungen für die Euro 2012 gebeten? Wenn ja, wird sie eine kurze Zusammenfassung der
Ergebnisse zur Verfügung stellen?

3. Hat die Kommission Informationen über die Vorgehensweise im Hinblick auf Instrumente zur Überwachung
von Sportveranstaltungen erhalten, die im erweiterten Teilabkommen über Sport (EPAS) vorgesehen sind?
Welche Maßnahmen wurden im Allgemeinen von der Kommission ergriffen, um Korruption bei der
Vorbereitung von Sportveranstaltungen zu verhindern? Welche Maßnahmen wurden von der Kommission im
Hinblick auf die Euro 2012 ergriffen?

4. Plant die Kommission, bei zukünftigen Sportveranstaltungen mehr Transparenz bei deren Vorbereitung zu
fordern? Welche Maßnahmen sind vorgesehen oder geplant?

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

_(14. Dezember 2012)_

Im Rahmen des im Juni 2011 eingerichteten Berichterstattungsmechanismus verfolgt die Kommission die
Korruptionsbekämpfungsmaßnahmen in allen Mitgliedstaaten. Der erste EU-Korruptionsbekämpfungsbericht, der
sowohl bereichsübergreifende als auch länderspezifische Empfehlungen enthält, wird im Jahr 2013 veröffentlicht.

Bei der Korruptionsbekämpfung im Sport konzentriert sich die Kommission schwerpunktmäßig auf die Bekämpfung
von Spielabsprachen und die Förderung von Good Governance im Sport.

Im Zusammenhang mit der Organisation der Fußballeuropameisterschaft EURO 2012 mussten alle
Infrastrukturprojekte der polnischen Behörden den Vorschriften für die Vergabe öffentlicher Aufträge, den
Umweltschutzvorschriften und den Vorschriften für staatliche Beihilfen entsprechen, was von den zuständigen
nationalen Prüfbehörden kontrolliert wurde. Der Kommission sind in diesem Zusammenhang weder Betrugs‐ oder
Korruptionsfälle bekannt noch wurden in den Kontakten zur UEFA mutmaßliche finanzielle Unregelmäßigkeiten
thematisiert.

Das erweiterte Teilabkommen über Sport (EPAS) ist ein Instrument des Europarats. Die Kommission arbeitet derzeit
an einer Konvention gegen die Manipulation von Sportergebnissen mit dem Schwerpunkt illegale Wetten.

C 294 E / 248 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

Die Expertengruppe „Good Governance“, die im Zuge der Umsetzung des Arbeitsplans für den Sport vom Rat
eingesetzt wurde, beschäftigt sich derzeit mit der Entwicklung von Transparenzgrundsätzen für Good Governance in
Sportorganisationen, die dem Rat im Jahr 2013 vorgelegt werden sollen.

Ferner möchte die Kommission auf ihre Antwort auf die schriftliche Anfrage E-008249/2012 von Herrn David
Martin zu Geldwäsche verweisen.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 249

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009039/12**

**to the Commission**
**Rebecca Harms (Verts/ALE)**

_(9 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Financial irregularities during the preparation of big sports events

Article 165(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) states that ‘the Union and the Member
States shall foster cooperation with third countries and the competent international organisations in the field of
education and sport, in particular the Council of Europe’.

The Commssion’s Sport Unit states that ‘corruption problems which have a European dimension need to be
combated at European level’.

The Union has a general right to act in the field of anti-corruption policies within the limits established by the TFEU.
Article 67 of the TFEU stipulates the Union’s obligation to ensure a high level of security, including through
prevention and combating of crime and approximation of criminal laws. Article 83 of the TFEU lists corruption as
one of the particularly serious crimes with a cross-border dimension.

Several cases of financial irregularities during preparations for UEFA Euro 2012 have been detected.

In view of the above, the Commission is asked to answer the following:

1. What measures has the Commission taken to monitor construction preparations and prevent financial
irregularities during major sports events?

2. Did the Commission ask UEFA for an account of the aforementioned financial irregularities during the Euro
2012 preparations? If so, will it provide a short summary of the outcome?

3. Has the Commission received any information about the procedure regarding the instruments for monitoring
sport events provided for in the Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport (EPAS)? What measures has it taken to
prevent corruption during the preparation of sport events in general? What measures has it taken regarding
Euro 2012?

4. Is the Commission planning on asking for enhanced transparency in the preparation of sport events in the
future? What measures have been envisioned or planned?

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

_(14 December 2012)_

The Commission follows the implementation of anti-corruption policies in all Member States within the framework
of the EU anti-corruption reporting mechanism ( [1] ) set up in June 2011. The first EU Anti-Corruption Report
comprising both cross-cutting and country-specific recommendations will be published in 2013.

Concerning the fight against corruption in sport, the Commission has prioritised the fight against match-fixing and
the promotion of good governance in sport.

Regarding the organisation of EURO 2012, all infrastructural projects undertaken by the Polish authorities had to
respect the laws concerning public procurement, the environment and state aids and were under the control of the
relevant national audit authorities. The Commission is not aware of any findings of fraud or corruption in this
respect. Nor has it discussed any allegations of financial irregularity in its contacts with UEFA.

The Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport (EPAS) is an instrument of the Council of Europe. The Commission is
following the steps to set up a convention on the manipulation of sport results, focusing on illegal betting.

An expert group on good governance set up in the framework of the implementation of the Work Plan for Sport of
the Council is currently working on the development of transparency principles concerning good governance in
sport organisations. They will be submitted to the Council in 2013.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Commission decision of 6 June 2011 establishing an EU Anti-corruption reporting mechanism for periodic assessment (‘EU Anti-corruption
Report’) — C(2011) 3673 final.

C 294 E / 250 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

Furthermore, the Commission would like to refer to the answer to the Written Question E-008249/2012, by
Mr David Martin on money laundering ( [2] ).

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

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 251

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-009040/12**

**aan de Commissie**

**Auke Zijlstra (NI)**

_(9 oktober 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Effecten en gevolgen van uitzonderingsbepalingen („opt out”)

De _Sunday Times_ schrijft dat David Cameron binnenkort zal aankondigen dat de Britse overheid meer dan honderd
misdaad‐ en politiewetten gaat invoeren.

Diverse protocols bij het Verdrag van Lissabon, voorzien in vrijstellingen en rechten voor verschillende lidstaten
(bijvoorbeeld Protocol nr. 21 betreffende de positie van het Verenigd Koninkrijk en Ierland inzake vrijheid, veiligheid
en justitie).

1. Is de Commissie op de hoogte van dit artikel en de opzet van de heer Cameron?

2. Hoe kan het solidariteitsprincipe tussen de lidstaten de overhand hebben als het VK volledige vrijstelling geniet
wat betreft de uitvoering van het Europees beleid, waarop het toch een sterke invloed uitoefent — zoals in het geval
van het migratiebeleid?

3. Deelt de Commissie de mening dat, als resultaat van deze vrijstellingen, de lidstaten die volledig deelnemen aan
de uitvoering van het Europese beleid, op bepaalde gebieden onderworpen zijn aan meer verplichtingen en dus
minder vrijheid genieten dan de lidstaten die vallen onder de uitzonderingsbepalingen?

4. Beseft de Commissie dat lidstaten deze uitzonderingen op de Europese wetgeving vragen omdat zij de wettelijke
bepalingen onredelijk vinden, en beladen met onnodige regels? Denkt de Commissie op die manier
bepaalde doelstellingen te bereiken?

**Antwoord van de heer Barroso namens de Commissie**

_(30 november 2012)_

1. De Commissie is op de hoogte van de verklaring die de minister van Binnenlandse Zaken op 15 oktober 2012
in het Lagerhuis heeft afgelegd en verwijst naar het Protocol 36 bij het Verdrag van Lissabon.

2. Solidariteit is een van de waarden waarop de Europese Unie berust, zoals in artikel 2 van het VEU wordt
vermeld. De Commissie is niet van mening dat de opting-outclausules voor bepaalde in het Verdrag opgenomen
beleidsterreinen tegen dit principe indruisen.

3. In het algemeen is de Commissie van mening dat de lidstaten erbij gebaat zijn om deel te nemen aan alle EUbeleidsterreinen. Op die manier zijn de lidstaten volledig betrokken bij de besluitvorming en kunnen zij gebruik
maken van de voordelen die hiermee gepaard gaan. Dit heeft ook tot gevolg dat zij gebonden zijn aan de hieruit
voortvloeiende verplichtingen.

4. Opting-outclausules voor lidstaten zijn uitzonderlijk en houden verband met bijzondere omstandigheden. De
reikwijdte van de opting-outclausules en de omstandigheden waarop zij betrekking hebben, worden in de verdragen
duidelijk gedefinieerd en omschreven.

C 294 E / 252 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009040/12**

**to the Commission**

**Auke Zijlstra (NI)**

_(9 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Effects and consequences of opt-outs

The _Sunday Times_ reports that David Cameron will soon announce that the UK Government will repatriate some
100+ crime and policing laws ( [1] ).

There are several protocols to the Lisbon Treaty that provide various exemptions and rights to particular Member
States (for example Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of
freedom, security and justice).

1. Is the Commission familiar with this article and with the intention of Mr Cameron?

2. How can the principle of solidarity between the Member States prevail if the UK enjoys full exemption in the
implementation of EU policies, where it often — as in the case of immigration policy — wields a strong influence?

3. Does the Commission agree that, as a result of these exemptions, Member States that participate fully in the
implementation of EU policies are, in certain areas, subject to more obligations, and enjoy less freedom, than those
Member States that have the opt-outs?

4. Does the Commission realise that Member States demand exemptions from EU regulation because they find the
legal obligations unreasonable and often encumbered by unnecessary rules? Does the Commission think that the
goals set in certain areas are achieved in this way?

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

_(30 November 2012)_

1. The Commission is aware of the statement made in the House of Commons by the Home Secretary on
15th October 2012 and referring to the Protocol 36 of the Lisbon Treaty.

2. Solidarity is one of the values upon which the European Union is based, as mentioned in Article 2 of the TEU.
The Commission does not consider that the arrangements for opt-outs in specific areas under the Treaty are
inconsistent with this principle.

3. In general, the Commission considers that it is in the Member States' interests to participate in all EU policies.
This allows Member States to be fully associated to the decision making and enjoy their benefits. This also implies
being bound by corresponding obligations.

4. Member State opt-outs are exceptional and related to particular circumstances. The scope of opt-outs and the
circumstances to which they relate are clearly defined and circumscribed by the Treaties.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.openeurope.org.uk/Article?id=9326.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 253

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-009041/12**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D)**

_(9 octombrie 2012)_

_Subiect:_ Bugetul UE: un mod de a încuraja creșterea și ocuparea forței de muncă

Pentru combaterea crizei este nevoie să se investească mai mult în cercetare, IMM-uri și inovare, ceea ce demonstrează
că bugetul Uniunii Europene ar trebui gândit ca un buget pentru investiții. Fondurile la nivel european au un succes
mult mai mare decât cele de la nivel național, de exemplu, în știință și cercetare, un euro investit din bugetul UE aduce
un câștig de 14 euro. Nu se poate crește nivelul ocupării forței de muncă fără să sprijine cercetarea și inovarea, iar
investițiile sunt esențiale pentru încurajarea creșterii și ocupării forței de muncă.

În acest context, cum apreciază Comisia că Uniunea își va îndeplini obiectivele propuse în conformitate cu Strategia
UE 2020, în condițiile în care bugetul destinat cercetării și inovării se va reduce?

**Răspuns dat de dna Geoghegan-Quinn în numele Comisiei**

_(29 noiembrie 2012)_

Programul-cadru al UE pentru cercetare și inovare, Orizont 2020, constituie un instrument esențial pentru
îndeplinirea obiectivelor Strategiei Europa 2020 și ale inițiativei emblematice „O Uniune a inovării” din cadrul
acesteia ( [1] ). Programul canalizează acordarea de sprijin către cazurile în care acțiunile UE sunt mai eficiente decât cele
întreprinse individual de către statele membre și va genera produse, întreprinderi și piețe noi, care vor stimula
creșterea și ocuparea forței de muncă. Din acest motiv, în cadrul propunerii Comisiei privind cadrul financiar
multianual 2014‐2020 a fost alocată o cotă importantă pentru cercetare și inovare. Comisia speră ca Parlamentul și
Consiliul să sprijine alocarea bugetară asociată propunerii privind Orizont 2020.

Pe lângă Orizont 2020, Comisia mai prevede și o creștere considerabilă a utilizării fondurilor de coeziune, în special
pentru investiții în cercetare și inovare. Pentru a se asigura că toate fondurile se consolidează și se completează
reciproc, Comisia propune măsuri îmbunătățite de punere în aplicare, care să faciliteze combinarea surselor de
finanțare și să stimuleze cooperarea interregională. Având în vedere finanțarea suplimentară ce va fi alocată pentru
infrastructuri și consolidarea capacităților, precum și introducerea specializării inteligente, ca o condiție _ex ante_,
Comisia preconizează că regiunile mai puțin dezvoltate și cele aflate în tranziție vor deține o poziție mult mai
puternică pentru a se implica în viitorul program de cercetare și pentru a contribui în mod semnificativ la strategia
Europa 2020.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/index_en.cfm.

C 294 E / 254 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009041/12**

**to the Commission**
**Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D)**

_(9 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ The EU budget as a means of stimulating growth and employment

Since there is a need to invest more in research, SMEs and innovation in order to tackle the crisis, the EU budget
should be conceived as an investment budget. European‐level funding has been far more successful than national‐
level funding, for example, in the fields of science and research, where one euro invested from the EU budget has
yielded a 14 euro return. The employment rate will not increase unless support is provided for research and
innovation, and investment is essential for stimulating growth and employment.

In the light of this, can the Commission state how it considers the EU will meet the objectives it set itself in the EU
2020 strategy when the budget for research and innovation is to decrease?

**Answer given by Ms Geoghegan-Quinn on behalf of the Commission**

_(29 November 2012)_

Horizon 2020, the EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation constitutes a key tool to achieve the
objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy and of its ‘Innovation Union’ flagship initiative ( [1] ). It focuses support where EU
actions are more effective than Member States acting alone, and will generate new products, start-ups and markets,
helping to boost growth and employment. This is why in the Commission's proposal for the Multiannual Financial
Framework 2014-2020, an important share is allocated to Research and Innovation. The Commission hopes that the
Parliament and the Council will support the budgetary allocation associated to its Horizon 2020 proposal.

In addition to Horizon 2020, the Commission also foresees a considerable increase in the use of cohesion funds to be
used specifically for the purpose of investment in research and innovation. To ensure that all funds are mutually
reinforcing and complementary, the Commission is proposing improved implementing measures to facilitate
combining funding sources and to enhance better interregional cooperation. With increased funding to be dedicated
towards infrastructures and capacity building, as well as through the introduction of smart specialisation as an _ex ante_
conditionality, the Commission expects that less developed and transitional regions will be in a much stronger
position to engage in the future research programme and to contribute significantly towards the Europe
2020 strategy.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/index_en.cfm.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 255

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009042/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Norbert Neuser (S&D)**

_(9. Oktober 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ EU-Sanktionen gegen Rebellen im Osten der Demokratischen Republik Kongo

Auf die gegenwärtige Krise im Osten der Demokratischen Republik Kongo, wo eine nunmehr sechs Monate
andauernde Rebellion Hunderttausende Menschen zur Flucht aus ihrer Heimat gezwungen hat, muss die Europäische
Union unverzüglich reagieren. Laut einem unabhängigen Bericht der Vereinten Nationen ist die Rebellengruppe
„M23“, die angeblich von ausländischen Staaten unterstützt wird, die treibende Kraft hinter der Rebellion.

In früheren Erklärungen hat die Kommission angemerkt, dass die Europäische Union gemäß der Verordnung (EG)
Nr. 1183/2005 des Rates Sanktionen gegen Personen oder Organisationen verhängt hat, die illegale bewaffnete
Gruppen im Osten der Demokratischen Republik Kongo unterstützen, teilweise finanziert durch illegalen Handel mit
natürlichen Ressourcen.

Welche Maßnahmen ergreift die Kommission, um für die Verhängung von Sanktionen gegen alle Personen oder
Organisationen zu sorgen, die die M23-Rebellion unterstützen?

**Antwort von Frau Ashton — Hohe Vertreterin/Vizepräsidentin im Namen der Kommission**

_(21. Dezember 2012)_

Nach der Veröffentlichung des Berichts der UN-Expertengruppe brachte der Sicherheitsrat der Vereinten Nationen
seine Absicht zum Ausdruck, gegen die Führung von M23 und Personen, die gegen die Sanktionsregelung und das
Waffenembargo verstoßen, gezielte Sanktionen zu verhängen. Darüber hinaus forderte er alle Mitgliedstaaten auf,
dem Sanktionsausschuss dringend Vorschläge mit den Namen weiterer Personen und/oder Organisationen zu
unterbreiten, die auf die Sanktionsliste gesetzt werden könnten.

Am 28. November wurden diese Vorschläge im Rahmen einer Debatte im UN-Sicherheitsrat zur Lage im Osten der
DRK erörtert. Auf der Grundlage früherer Resolutionen des UN-Sicherheitsrats hat die EU in der Vergangenheit
Sanktionen gegen Einzelpersonen oder Einrichtungen verhängt, die illegale bewaffnete Gruppe im Osten der DRK
u. a. durch Finanzierung aus dem illegalen Handel mit natürlichen Ressourcen unterstützen.

Die EU ist bereit, die Änderungen, die durch die neue Resolution oder durch weitere Einträge in die Sanktionsliste
bewirkt werden, so schnell wie möglich anzunehmen. Die Annahme der Änderungen erfolgt durch den Rat auf der
Grundlage des Beschlusses 2010/788/GASP über restriktive Maßnahmen gegen die DRK, während die Umsetzung
von Aspekten des EU-Rechts nach der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1183/2005 des Rates geschieht.

C 294 E / 256 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009042/12**

**to the Commission**
**Norbert Neuser (S&D)**

_(9 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ EU sanctions against rebels in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo

The current crisis in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where a six-month rebellion has forced hundreds
of thousands of people to flee their homes, must be met with immediate action by the EU. According to an
independent United Nations report, the M23 rebel group is the driving force behind the rebellion, allegedly with the
support of foreign states.

In previous statements, the Commission has noted that the EU has imposed, under Council Regulation (EC)
No 1183/2005, sanctions against individuals or entities providing support — financed in part through illicit trade of
natural resources — to illegal armed groups in the eastern part of the DRC.

What steps is the Commission taking to ensure that sanctions are imposed against all individuals or entities found to
be supporting the M23 rebellion?

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

_(21 December 2012)_

Following the release of the report of the UN group of experts, the UNSC expressed its intention to apply targeted
sanctions against the leadership of the M23 and those acting in violation of the sanctions regime and the arms
embargo. It also called on all Member States to submit, as a matter of urgency, proposals with names and/or
organisations that could be added to the sanctions list to the 1533 Committee.

A debate of the UNSC on the situation in Eastern DRC took place on 28 November to examine such proposals. On
the basis of previous UNSC Resolutions, the EU has, in the past, imposed sanctions against individuals or entities
providing support, including funding through illicit trade of natural resources for the benefit of illegal armed groups
in the eastern part of the DRC.

The EU is ready to move to adopt the changes brought about by the new Resolution and any further listings
introduced by the Sanctions Committee as quickly as possible. They will be adopted by the Council under
Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the DRC and aspects of EC law will be implemented
under Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 257

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009043/12**

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

_(9 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Imposibilidad de identificar a los agentes de la policía en las concentraciones y manifestaciones: impunidad
ante los abusos y las violaciones de la ley

Por la dramática situación económica, política y social que padecen millones de ciudadanos y ciudadanas europeas,
principalmente como consecuencia de las políticas neoliberales que se están aplicando en muchos Estados miembros
de la UE y que se basan en los recortes en los servicios públicos, las privatizaciones y la supresión de derechos, el
malestar ciudadano ha aumentando incrementándose con éste los actos legítimos de protesta y de lucha democrática
como manifestaciones, huelgas y concentraciones.

En concreto, en España la lucha y la movilización social contra la aplicación de esas políticas neoliberales,
movilización basada en derechos humanos de primera generación y libertades políticas, como el derecho de reunión
o la libertad de expresión, está siendo violentada por la criminalización y el hostigamiento contra los ciudadanos y
ciudadanas que deciden hacer uso del mismo.

Entre otras ilegalidades e irregularidades, viene siendo una práctica habitual que durante las manifestaciones los
agentes de las fuerzas y seguridad del Estado, desplegados supuestamente en estos actos de protesta para asegurar el
orden público y garantizar el derecho de los ciudadanos a manifestarse pacíficamente, oculten su identificación,
hecho que les otorga una impunidad en la práctica blindándose de posibles denuncias por violaciones de la ley como
actuaciones violentas desproporcionadas, agresiones, daños y/o amenazas. Así, tal y como han denunciando en
multitud de ocasiones miles de ciudadanos, organizaciones en defensa de los derechos humanos y asociaciones, la no
identificación de los policías imposibilita que se pueda reclamar y llevar ante la justicia los posibles abusos cometidos
por los agentes en el ejercicio de sus funciones, quedando estos sin ningún tipo de consecuencia judicial al no poder
individualizarse las agresiones por no poderse identificar al infractor.

Recientemente, la Comisión Europea inició la elaboración de un Libro Verde de buenas prácticas de los cuerpos y
fuerzas de seguridad en todos los Estados miembros, ¿piensa la Comisión Europea incluir la necesidad de que los
agentes de seguridad vayan visiblemente identificados, sobre todo, cuando de esta identificación, como es el caso de
las manifestaciones y concentraciones, dependa la garantía y el cumplimiento de los derechos humanos?

**Respuesta de la Señora Malmström en nombre de la Comisión**

_(10 de diciembre de 2012)_

La Comisión Europea no tiene competencias para intervenir en las medidas policiales ni en la organización de las
fuerzas nacionales de policía. El artículo 72 del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea establece claramente
que los propios Estados miembros son responsables del mantenimiento del orden público y de la seguridad interior
en su territorio.

Dentro de sus competencias, la Comisión siempre se ha comprometido con firmeza para garantizar que la libertad de
expresión y de reunión fuera respetada de manera estricta, ya que constituyen los cimientos de una sociedad libre,
democrática y plural. No obstante, las atribuciones de la Comisión en lo que respecta a los actos y omisiones de los
Estados miembros se limitan a la supervisión de la aplicación del Derecho comunitario, bajo el control del Tribunal de
Justicia de la Unión Europea. Cuando los Estados miembros actúan fuera del ámbito de aplicación de la legislación de
la Unión, son las autoridades nacionales las que deben garantizar que cumplen con sus obligaciones relativas a los
derechos fundamentales, derivadas de los acuerdos internacionales y de la legislación interna. Los Estados miembros
están obligados a aplicar el Convenio Europeo para la Protección de los Derechos Humanos y de las Libertades
Fundamentales.

C 294 E / 258 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009043/12**

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

_(9 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ The impossibility of identifying police officers during rallies and demonstrations: impunity for abuses and
violations of the law

Owing to the dire economic, political and social situation that millions of European citizens currently find themselves
in — mainly as a result of the neo-liberal policies based on cutting public services, privatisation and curtailing rights
that many EU Member States are busy implementing — social uneasiness is spreading, accompanied by growing
numbers of legitimate acts of protest and democratic struggle, such as demonstrations, strikes and rallies.

In Spain, the protest movement fighting against the implementation of these neo-liberal policies — a protest
movement based on first-generation human rights and political freedoms, such as the right of assembly and freedom
of expression — is being attacked through the criminalisation and harassment of citizens who wish to exercise these
rights.

In addition to other illegalities and irregularities, it is becoming common practice during demonstrations for state
security forces — who are supposedly dispersed throughout these protests to maintain public order and safeguard the
right of citizens to demonstrate peacefully — to conceal their identification details. In practice, this gives officers
impunity and protects them from being reported for possible violations of the law, such as the disproportionate use
of violence, assault, inflicting injury and/or making threats. Consequently, as thousands of citizens, human rights
organisations and other associations have already stated on many occasions, the non-identification of police officers
means that it is impossible to make a complaint and bring officers who have committed possible abuses whilst
carrying out their duties to justice. This means that officers do not face any sort of judicial follow-up as the assaults
cannot be traced back to an individual since it is impossible to identify the offender.

Recently, the Commission started work on a Green Paper on best practices in the state security forces of the EU
Member States; does the Commission plan to include a stipulation that all security officers should be clearly
identified, especially when respect for human rights is dependent on it, as is the case during demonstrations and
rallies?

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

_(10 December 2012)_

The European Commission has no competence to intervene in policing measures and the organisation of national
police forces. Article 72 of the Treaty on Functioning of the European Union makes clear that Member States
themselves are responsible for the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security in their
country.

Within its competences, the Commission has always been strongly committed to ensuring that freedom of expression
and freedom of assembly are strictly respected since they lie at the very base of a free, democratic and pluralist society.
However, the Commission's powers regarding acts and omissions by Member States are limited to overseeing the
application of Union law, under the control of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Where Member States act
outside the implementation of Union law, it is for the national authorities to ensure that their obligations regarding
fundamental rights — as resulting from international agreements and from internal legislation — are respected.
Member States are bound to respect the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 259

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009044/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Jutta Steinruck (S&D)**

_(9. Oktober 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Kontaminierte Kabinenluft in Flugzeugen

Ende 2010 entging ein Airbus der Fluggesellschaft Germanwings nur knapp einer Katastrophe. Giftstoffe waren in
das Cockpit des Airbus 319 gelangt. Nur mit Mühe gelang es den Piloten, die 149 Passagiere wieder sicher zu landen.
Bei einer Anhörung im Tourismusausschuss am 21. September 2011 im Deutschen Bundestag haben Experten
nachdrücklich auf die Gefahren aus giftigen Bestandteilen in der Kabinenluft infolge von technischen Mängeln im
Zapfluftsystem hingewiesen.

[Die Kommission hat auf die schriftliche Anfrage E-009668/2011 der Verfasserin mitgeteilt, dass im Rahmen der](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=WQ&reference=E-2011-009668&language=DE)
Verordnung (EU) Nr. 996/2010 keine Meldepflicht für Ereignisse im Zusammenhang mit der Kabinenluft besteht,
wohl aber aufgrund der Richtlinie über die Meldung von Ereignissen in der Zivilluftfahrt. Die Mitgliedstaaten sind
dafür verantwortlich, dass die Beteiligten dieser Richtlinie nachkommen. Dem deutschen Bundesverkehrsministerium
wurde bereits im November 2010 in einem Schreiben des Luftfahrt-Bundesamtes mitgeteilt worden, dass
meldepflichtige Störungen den zuständigen Behörden durch deutsche Fluglinien oftmals nicht angezeigt werden.

1. Ist die Kommission schon zu einem Ergebnis gekommen, nachdem sie in ihrer Antwort auf die vorherige
Anfrage (E-011143/2011) ankündigte, die geltenden Vorschriften über die Meldung von Ereignissen zu aktualisieren
und zu verbessern?

2. Was wird die Kommission unternehmen, um die Einhaltung der RL 2003/42/EG in Deutschland und in
anderen Mitgliedstaaten zu gewährleisten?

3. Wird die Kommission den deutschen Bundesverkehrsminister in die Pflicht nehmen, damit dieser endlich die
Einhaltung der Meldepflicht und die Gewährleistung der Flugsicherheit in Deutschland verlässlich garantiert?

4. Wird die Europäische Kommission eine Untersuchung einleiten, um eine mögliche Desinformation seitens
Germanwings und damit einen Verstoß gegen die RL 2003/42/EG zu untersuchen?

5. Welche Meinung vertritt die Kommission im Zusammenhang mit der Ankündigung des deutschen
Bundesverkehrsministers, die Angelegenheit europäisch zu regeln?

6. Gab es bisher diesbezügliche Anfragen des deutschen Verkehrsministers?

7. Das Bundesverkehrsministerium teilte mit, dass das Thema kontaminierter Kabinenluft auf europäischer Ebene
verhandelt würde. Welche Erkenntnisse hat die Kommission über diese „Verhandlungen“?

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

_(30. November 2012)_

Wenn es um die Gefahr einer Kontamination der Kabinenluft geht, ist der Schutz der Sicherheit und Gesundheit von
Passagieren und Besatzung ein Hauptanliegen der Kommission.

Die Kommission wird bei ihren Bemühungen von der EASA (Europäische Agentur für Flugsicherheit) unterstützt, die
sich bei ihren Empfehlungen auf Studien und weltweite Erfahrungen stützt. Auf der Grundlage der vorliegenden
Studien und Berichte sowie der Analyse von Informationen, die im Rahmen einer öffentlichen Aufforderung zur
Informations‐übermittlung im Jahre 2009 gesammelt wurden, kam die EASA im Januar 2012 zu dem Schluss, dass
kein Sicherheitsproblem mit unmittelbarem Handlungsbedarf vorliegt, und dass ein kausaler Zusammenhang
zwischen Gesundheitssymptomen und einer Kontamination der Kabinenluft nicht nachgewiesen werden konnte.

Die Kommission und die EASA werden die laufenden Forschungen und Bewertungen verschiedener Stellen
aufmerksam verfolgen, um im Rahmen ihrer Zuständigkeiten rasch und zielführend handeln zu können, falls dies
erforderlich werden sollte. Die Untersuchung von Störungen ist allerdings Sache der Mitgliedstaaten.

C 294 E / 260 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

Um eine bessere Sensibilisierung für dieses Problem zu erreichen, wurden die Mitgliedstaaten auf der Ratstagung
Verkehr vom 29. Oktober 2012 daran erinnert, dass Fälle von Kontaminationen der Kabinenluft über
Ereignismeldesysteme mitgeteilt werden sollten. Die Kommission bereitet derzeit eine Revision der Richtlinie (EG)
Nr. 42/2003 ( [1] ) vor.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Richtlinie 2003/42/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 13. Juni 2003 über die Meldung von Ereignissen in der Zivilluftfahrt, ABl.
L 167 vom 4.7.2003, S. 23.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 261

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009044/12**

**to the Commission**
**Jutta Steinruck (S&D)**

_(9 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Contaminated aircraft cabin air

In late 2010 an Airbus 319 operated by the airline _Germanwings_ only narrowly avoided disaster. Poisonous fumes
found their way into the cockpit and only with great difficulty was the pilot able to bring the plane and its 149
passengers to a safe landing. At a hearing held by the Tourism Committee of the German Bundestag on
21 September 2011 experts issued clear warnings about the dangers posed by poisonous fumes which become mixed
with cabin air following technical problems affecting a plane’s air bleed system.

In its answer to my Written Question E-011143/2011 the Commission stated that there is no requirement to report
cabin fume events under Regulation (EU) No 996/2010, but that they should be reported under
Directive 2003/42/EC on occurrence reporting in civil aviation. The Member States are responsible for ensuring that
stakeholders comply with this directive. As long ago as in November 2010 the German Ministry of Transport
received a letter from the German Federal Civil Aviation Authority stating that German airlines often fail to inform
the competent authorities of incidents covered by the reporting requirement.

1. In the light of its answer to my previous question (E-011143/2011), has the Commission identified ways of
modernising and strengthening the current rules on occurrence reporting?

2. What steps will the Commission take in order to guarantee compliance with Directive 2003/42/EC in Germany
and other Member States?

3. Will the Commission remind the German Minister of Transport of his responsibilities so that he finally takes
proper steps to guarantee compliance with the reporting requirement and, hence, aviation safety in Germany?

4. Will the Commission open an investigation with a view to determining whether _Germanwings_ deliberately
released false information and thus breached Directive 2003/42/EC?

5. What view does the Commission take of the statement by the German Minister of Transport that this matter
should be dealt with at European level?

6. Has the German Minister of Transport raised this matter in the past?

7. The German Ministry of Transport has claimed that the issue of contaminated cabin air is the subject of
negotiations at EU level. What can the Commission tell me about these ‘negotiations’?

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

_(30 November 2012)_

With regard to the risk of contamination of cabin air, the Commission's concern is to protect the safety and health of
passengers and crew members.

The Commission is assisted by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) which bases its recommendations on
studies and worldwide experience. According to the existing study reports and after the analysis of the information
collected by a public call for information launched in 2009, EASA concluded in January 2012 that there was no
safety case that would recommend an immediate action and that a causal relationship between health symptoms and
cabin air contamination could not been established.

The Commission and EASA continue to follow carefully ongoing research and assessment done by different bodies in
this area in order to ensure timely and appropriate actions under its remit which could be necessary. The incident
investigation is however of the responsibility of the Member States.

C 294 E / 262 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

With a view to allowing a better awareness of this issue, Member States were reminded during the Transport Council
of 29 October 2012 that events of cabin air contamination should be reported through occurrence reporting systems.
The Commission is currently preparing a revision of Directive (EC) No 42/2003 ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2003/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2003 on occurrence reporting in civil aviation, OJ L 167,
4.7.2003, p. 23-36.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 263

_(Magyar változat)_

**Írásbeli választ igénylő kérdés E-009045/12**

**a Bizottság számára**
**Gáll-Pelcz Ildikó (PPE)**

_(2012. október 9.)_

_Tárgy:_ A nyilvánosság tájékoztatása a totalitárius diktatúrák által elkövetett bűncselekményekről

Az Európai Unió bel‐ és igazságügy-miniszterei által 2011 júniusában elfogadott felterjesztés értelmében augusztus
23-át a totalitárius diktatúrák áldozatainak európai emléknapjává nyilvánították. Mind a nemzeti szocialista, mind
pedig a kommunista rendszer semmibe vette az emberi életet és méltóságot, erélyesen tiporta az alapvető emberi
jogokat, a szabadságot, a demokráciát és a jogállamiságot, ami nélkül ma a közös Európa elképzelhetetlen lenne. A
diktatúrák tehát üldözték és megvetették az Európai Unió alapjait jelentő közös értékeket. Augusztus 23. a közös
európai emlékezet fenntartására hivatott; arra, hogy az önkényuralmi rendszerek által elkövetett bűncselekményeket
mindannyian megőrizzük kollektív emlékezetünkben. Nagy szükség van az emlékezésre a történelmi megbékélés és a
békés egymás mellett élés érdekében, de talán még ennél is fontosabb, hogy ez segíthet megakadályozni a múlt
borzalmainak megismétlődését. A tanácsi következtetés kiemeli az Unió érdemi szerepét Európa múltjának
megismertetésében, és a totalitárius rendszerek által elkövetett bűnök tudatosításában, és megosztásában. A
következtetés emellett kihangsúlyozza, hogy az Uniónak a közös értékei által folyamatos lendületet és bátorítást kell
adni a múlt szenvedéseinek feldolgozására törekvő államok számára. Az Unió számára fent meghatározott célok
előmozdítása érdekében a Bizottság számos feladat címzettje.

Mindezek alapján a következő kérdéseket szeretném feltenni a Bizottságnak:

A tanácsi következtetésben foglaltaknak megfelelően a Bizottság milyen kezdeményezéseket indított el vagy
támogatott annak érdekében, hogy a nyilvánosságot megismertesse Európa múltjának totalitárius időszakaival?
A Bizottság mennyiben lépett előre a jövőre vonatkozó finanszírozási keretek meghatározásában, amellyel az
érdekeltek/tagállamok ilyen irányú kezdeményezéseit, projektjeit támogathatja? Történtek-e Eurobarometerfelmérések, melyekben az uniós polgárokat a totalitárius rendszerekről való ismereteikről kérdezték?

**Viviane Reding válasza a Bizottság nevében**

_(2012. december 3.)_

A Bizottság az „Európa a polgárokért” elnevezésű program (2007‐2013) és különösen az „Aktív európai emlékezés”
című 4. fellépés révén támogatja Európa múltjának megismertetését és a totalitárius rendszerek által elkövetett bűnök
tudatosítását. Ezen fellépés célja, hogy megőrizze a nemzetiszocializmus és a sztálinizmus áldozatainak emlékét,
egyrészt a múlt lezárásaként, másrészt azért, hogy az emlékeket továbbörökítse a fiatal európai generációkra. A
program célkitűzéseivel összhangban a konkrét fellépés célja kettős: „támogatni az európai polgársággal és a
demokráciával, a közös értékekkel, történelemmel és kultúrával kapcsolatos megmozdulásokat, eszmecseréket és
gondolatokat” és „közelebb hozni Európát a polgárokhoz, az európai értékek és vívmányok népszerűsítése által,
miközben a múlt emlékei sem merülnek feledésbe”.

A 4. fellépés keretében minden évben mintegy 50 projekt részesül finanszírozásban. Az eddig támogatásban
részesített kezdeményezések közé tartoznak többek között a következők: a Mauthausen Bizottság Ausztriában, a
Totalitárius Rendszerek Tanulmányozására Alapított Intézet Csehországban, a Magyar Tudományos Akadémia
Szociológiai Intézete, a _Mémorial de la Shoah_ (Holokauszt Emlékház) Franciaországban, a Terezini Kezdeményezés
Intézet, a Roma Sajtóközpont Szövetség, a _Comité International de Dachau_ (Nemzetközi Dachau Bizottság), a Lidicei
Tragédia Emlékműve, az írországi Holokausztoktatási Alap és az Auschwitz-Birkenau Állami Múzeum.

A 4. fellépés költségvetése 2011-ben 1,7 millió EUR volt, 2012-ben pedig – a tervezett kismértékű növekedés
eredményeként – 2,4 millió EUR.

A program új generációjára (2014‐2020) vonatkozóan a Bizottság arra tett javaslatot, hogy a program
költségvetésének a megemlékezést, az emlékeket és az EU alapvető értékeit célzó kezdeményezésekre és projektekre
fordítható részarányát 4%-ról emeljék 20%-ra.

Eddig nem készült olyan Eurobarométer felmérés, amely a totalitárius rendszerekre vonatkozó ismereteket vizsgálta
volna.

Ezenkívül a Bizottság nyilatkozatokat tett közzé 2012. augusztus 23-án.

C 294 E / 264 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009045/12**

**to the Commission**
**Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE)**

_(9 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Public information on crimes committed by totalitarian regimes

Pursuant to the recommendation which was adopted in June 2011 by the Justice and Home Affairs Ministers of the
European Union, 23 August has been declared European Day of Remembrance for the Victims of Totalitarian
Regimes. The National Socialist and Communist systems both disregarded human life and dignity and ruthlessly
trampled on fundamental human rights, freedom, democracy and the rule of law, without which a unified Europe
would be inconceivable. Dictatorships persecuted and held in contempt the common values which form the
cornerstone of the European Union. 23 August has been designated as a day for Europe jointly to remember, and for
us all to preserve in our collective memory the crimes committed by despotic regimes. Remembering is vital for the
process of historical reconciliation and peaceful coexistence, but — perhaps more importantly — it may help prevent
a repetition of past horrors. The Council conclusions stress the EU’s active role in raising awareness of Europe’s past
and the crimes committed by totalitarian regimes. It also underlines the fact that the EU must, through its shared
values, give continuous impetus and encouragement to countries endeavouring to come to terms with past traumas.
The Commission has a number of tasks in promoting the EU objectives set out above.

In the light of the Council conclusions, what initiatives has the Commission introduced or supported in order to make
people aware of the totalitarian regimes from Europe’s past? What progress has the Commission made in establishing
the future financial frameworks which interested parties/the Member States might use to fund such initiatives and
projects? Have there been any Eurobarometer surveys asking EU citizens about their knowledge of totalitarian
regimes?

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

_(3 December 2012)_

The Commission supports awareness raising of Europe’s past and the crimes committed by totalitarian regimes
through the Europe for Citizens Programme (2007-2013), in particular Action 4 ‘Active European Remembrance’.
This Action is intended to commemorate the victims of Nazism and Stalinism, both as a means of moving beyond the
past and to pass the memory on to the young generation of Europeans. The aims of this specific Action, in line with
the objectives of the Programme as a whole, are twofold: ‘fostering action, debate and reflection related to European
citizenship and democracy, shared values, common history and culture’ and ‘bringing Europe closer to its citizens by
promoting Europe’s values and achievements, while preserving the memory of its past’.

Around 50 projects are financed by Action 4 every year. Supported initiatives so far include the Mauthausen
Committee Austria, the Czech Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes, the Institute of Sociology of the
Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Mémorial de la Shoah France, the Terezin Initiative Institute, the Roma Press Centre
Association, the Comité International de Dachau, the Lidiče Memorial, the Irish Holocaust Education Trust, and the
Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, among many others.

The budget for Action 4 was EUR 1.7 million in 2011 and a slight increase is planned for 2012, to EUR 2.4 million.

For the next generation of the programme (2014-2020), the Commission has proposed increasing from 4% to 20%
the programme budget for initiatives and projects dedicated to remembrance, memory and the founding values of
the EU.

No Eurobarometer survey has so far been carried out on knowledge of totalitarian regimes.

The Commission has also issued statements on 23 August 2012.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 265

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009046/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Andres Perello Rodriguez (S&D)**

_(9 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Reconocimiento de los títulos de los médicos europeos con especialidad realizada fuera de la Unión Europea

La comunidad de médicos que han cursado su especialidad fuera del territorio de la Unión Europea ha denunciado los
problemas con los que se encuentran en España a la hora de ver homologados sus títulos según la interpretación que
las autoridades españolas han dado de la Directiva 2005/36/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo del 7 de
Septiembre de 2005 relativa al reconocimiento de las cualificaciones profesionales.

La Directiva y el Real Decreto 1837/2008 por la que se incorpora al ordenamiento jurídico español la Directiva,
establecen criterios compensatorios que tienen en cuenta la formación complementaria (Master, doctorado,
investigaciones, ciclos de capacitación, etc.) y la experiencia laboral para el cómputo del número de años requeridos
para ver homologado el título.

Sin embargo, el Real Decreto 459/2010 que regula en particular el reconocimiento profesional de títulos
extracomunitarios de médicos especialistas y la aplicación del mismo que están efectuando las autoridades españolas,
no recogen estos criterios compensatorios y establecen la estricta exigencia de que el número de años del periodo
formativo de la especialidad coincida exactamente con los años de formación estipulados en la Directiva.

Como consecuencia de esta interpretación que las autoridades españolas hacen del texto de la Directiva, alrededor de
5 000 profesionales se encuentran en una situación precaria, al no reconocer las autoridades españolas la
homologación de sus títulos de especialistas.

¿Tiene constancia la Comisión de los problemas con los que se está encontrando la comunidad de médicos que ha
realizado su especialización fuera del territorio de la Unión para ver homologados sus títulos en España?

¿Qué medidas tiene previsto adoptar la Comisión para facilitar el reconocimiento de los títulos de médicos
especialistas?

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

_(21 de noviembre de 2012)_

El reconocimiento de las cualificaciones profesionales permite al beneficiario acceder a una determinada profesión en
el Estado miembro de acogida y ejercerla con los mismos derechos que los nacionales de dicho Estado miembro.

El ámbito de aplicación de la Directiva 2005/36/CE ( [1] ) («la Directiva») se limita a los nacionales del EEE que posean
alguno de los títulos de formación de uno de los Estados miembros del EEE. La única disposición que afecta a terceros
países es el artículo 3, apartado 3, de la Directiva, según la cual queda equiparado a un título de formación, con
arreglo a la Directiva, cualquier título de formación expedido en un tercer país, siempre que su titular tenga, en la
profesión de que se trate, una experiencia profesional de tres años en el territorio del Estado miembro que haya
reconocido inicialmente dicho título de formación.

Los Estados miembros deciden acerca de la admisión de nacionales de terceros países y del reconocimiento inicial de
los títulos de terceros países, de acuerdo con sus propias normas. Sin embargo, las cualificaciones que pueden ser
reconocidas deben cumplir, en cualquier caso, determinadas condiciones mínimas de formación armonizadas
aplicables a los médicos especialistas.

Por consiguiente, siempre que se cumplan los requisitos mínimos de formación en el reconocimiento inicial,
corresponde a los Estados miembros decidir acerca de los criterios aplicables al reconocimiento de las especialidades
médicas de terceros países.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directiva 2005/36/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 7 de septiembre de 2005, relativa al reconocimiento de cualificaciones
profesionales, DO L 255 de 30.9.2005.

C 294 E / 266 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009046/12**

**to the Commission**
**Andres Perello Rodriguez (S&D)**

_(9 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Recognition of professional qualifications of European doctors who have specialised outside the European
Union

Doctors who have completed specialist training outside the European Union have reported the problems which they
face in Spain when having their qualifications compared and approved because of the way the Spanish authorities
have interpreted Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the
recognition of professional qualifications.

The directive and Royal Decree 1837/2008, by means of which the directive has been transposed into Spanish law,
establish compensatory criteria which take into consideration further training (master's degrees, doctorates, research,
training courses, etc.) and work experience in order to calculate the number of years required for the qualification to
be approved.

However, Royal Decree 459/2010, which governs the recognition of specialist doctors' non-EU professional
qualifications, and the way in which this law is being applied by the Spanish authorities do not take into account these
compensatory criteria. Instead, they lay down the strict requirement that the duration of the specialist training period
must be exactly the same as the number of years the directive stipulates for training.

As a consequence of the Spanish authorities' interpretation of the directive, around 5 000 professionals find
themselves in an uncertain situation as the Spanish authorities do not recognise their specialist qualifications.

Is the Commission aware of the problems faced by doctors who have completed specialist training outside the
European Union when having their qualifications compared and approved in Spain?

What measures does the Commission plan to adopt to facilitate the recognition of specialist doctors' qualifications?

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

_(21 November 2012)_

The recognition of professional qualifications allows the beneficiary to gain access to a given profession in the host
Member State and to pursue it under the same conditions as a national of that Member State.

The scope of Directive 2005/36/EC ( [1] ) (‘the directive’) is limited to EEA nationals holding qualifications from one of
the Member States of the EEA. The only provision concerning third countries is Article 3 (3) of the directive. This
provision provides that evidence of formal qualifications, obtained by EEA nationals, but issued by a third country
shall be regarded as evidence of formal qualifications under the directive, if the holder has three years' professional
experience in the profession concerned on the territory of the Member State which had initially recognised that
evidence of formal qualification.

Member States decide on the admission of third-country nationals and the initial recognition of a third-country
qualification according to their national rules. However, the qualification which may be recognised must in any case
respect the harmonised minimum training conditions for medical specialists.

Therefore, as long as the minimum training requirements are respected during the initial recognition, it is up to the
Member States to decide on the criteria of the recognition of third-country medical specialisations.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2005/36/EC of Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, OJ L 255,
30.9.2005.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 267

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009047/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Andres Perello Rodriguez (S&D)**

_(9 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Reacciones adversas de la vacuna contra el virus del papiloma humano (VHP)

En el año 2007, el Ministerio de Sanidad de España aprobó la inclusión de la vacuna del virus del papiloma humano
(VHP) en el sistema sanitario público, recomendando su administración y participando en su financiación a fin de que
esta fuera ofrecida de manera gratuita a toda menor de 14 años de edad.

La aparición de numerosas reacciones adversas producidas tras la administración de la vacuna ya se había observado
en otros países que habían iniciado las vacunaciones y buena parte de la comunidad sanitaria cuestionó tal decisión,
expresando sus dudas sobre la seguridad, capacidad, eficacia y elevado precio de la vacuna. A pesar de ello, las
autoridades sanitarias españolas han llevado a cabo una campaña de vacunación sistemática, omitiendo cualquier
riesgo relacionado con la administración de la vacuna. Estas mismas autoridades han venido insistiendo en la
seguridad de la vacuna de forma rotunda pese a tratarse de un fármaco nuevo en el mercado; sin informar en los
prospectos ni en la campañas informativas de las posibles reacciones adversas ya conocidas, como el riesgo para los
pacientes predispuestos por intoxicación por metales. Tampoco se ha informado a las menores ni a sus padres de la
existencia de alternativas a la vacunación, la incidencia real del virus y su relación con el cáncer.

En España hay notificados más de 750 efectos adversos, algunos muy graves y dramáticos como el reciente
fallecimiento de una niña de 13 años en Gijón, por una crisis asmática asociada a la administración de la vacuna.

¿Tiene conocimiento la Comisión de las reacciones adversas notificadas por la administración de la vacuna contra el
virus del papiloma humano?

¿Ha realizado la Comisión alguna investigación sobre las causas de dichas reacciones adversas?

¿Le consta a la Comisión que los gobiernos nacionales informan adecuadamente a las ciudadanas de la Unión de los
posibles efectos adversos?

¿Conociendo el número de notificaciones adversas, puede la Comisión explicar las causas y consecuencias de dichas
reacciones adversas?

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

_(29 de noviembre de 2012)_

La Comisión conoce los casos a que se refiere Su Señoría. La autoridad competente española los comunicó a través de
la base de datos Eudravigilance, de la Agencia Europea de Medicamentos (EMA).

En el contexto de la red reguladora de la UE para la autorización de los medicamentos, los titulares de autorizaciones
de comercialización, la EMA y las autoridades nacionales competentes controlan continuamente los datos disponibles
para determinar si existen riesgos nuevos, qué riesgos han cambiado y si estos tienen un impacto en la relación
beneficio-riesgo general.

La información sobre el medicamento autorizado (resumen de las características del producto y prospecto) detalla
adecuadamente el perfil de seguridad y el uso seguro y eficaz de las dos vacunas contra el virus del papiloma humano
(VPH), incluidas las posibles reacciones adversas, sobre la base de la información científica actualmente disponible. El
Centro Europeo para la Prevención y el Control de las Enfermedades ha actualizado recientemente sus directrices
sobre la introducción de vacunas contra el VPH en los países de la Unión Europea ( [1] ), que incluyen las últimas pruebas
sobre la seguridad y la eficacia de estas vacunas.

El balance beneficio-riesgo de las vacunas contra el VPH autorizadas ha sido reevaluado durante los respectivos
procedimientos de renovación de la autorización de comercialización de estos productos, y el Comité Científico de la
EMA ha concluido que el perfil de beneficio-riesgo de ambas vacunas sigue siendo favorable. La Comisión, en
cooperación con la EME, va a seguir supervisando estrechamente cualquier posible reacción adversa de las vacunas
contra el VPH en la Unión Europea.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/20120905_GUI_HPV_vaccine_update.pdf

C 294 E / 268 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009047/12**

**to the Commission**
**Andres Perello Rodriguez (S&D)**

_(9 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Adverse reactions to the vaccine against human papillomavirus (HPV)

In 2007, the Spanish Ministry of Health approved the vaccine against human papillomavirus (HPV) for inclusion in
the public health system. It recommended that it be administered, and it contributed to the funding of the vaccine so
that it could be offered free of charge to all 14-year-old girls.

Many adverse reactions experienced after receiving the vaccine had already been seen in other countries which had
previously begun administering it. A large section of the health community questioned the decision, while expressing
doubts in relation to capacity and effectiveness, as well as the high price of the vaccine. Despite this, the Spanish
health authorities have carried out a systematic vaccination campaign, failing to mention any risk related to
administering the vaccine. The health authorities have been strongly insisting that the vaccine is safe, despite it being
new to the market; neither the patient information leaflet nor the information campaigns mention the possible
adverse reactions, such as the risk for patients who are prone to metal poisoning. They have also not informed the
girls or their parents about alternatives to this vaccine, the prevalence of the virus, or its link to cancer.

In Spain there have been 750 reported cases of adverse reactions to the vaccine, some of which were very serious,
such as the recent death of a 13-year-old girl in Gijón from an asthma attack related to the vaccine.

Is the Commission aware of the reported cases of adverse reactions to the vaccine against human papillomavirus?

Has the Commission carried out any research into the causes of these adverse reactions?

Is the Commission certain that national governments are providing adequate information to European Union citizens
about the possible adverse reactions to the vaccine?

Considering the number of cases reported, can the Commission explain the causes and effects of these adverse
reactions?

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

_(29 November 2012)_

The Commission is aware of the cases mentioned by the Honorable Member. The Spanish competent authority has
reported these cases through the Eudravigilance database hosted by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

Within the context of the operation of the EU regulatory network for authorisation of medicinal products, the
marketing authorisation holders, EMA and national competent authorities continously monitor the data available to
determine whether there are new risks, whether risks have changed and whether those risks have an impact on the
overall benefit-risk balance.

The authorised product information (Summary of Product Characteristics and Patient Information Leaflet) provides
adequate information on the safety profile and on the safe and effective use of the two HPV vaccines, including
possible adverse reactions based on the current scientifc information available. The European Centre for Disease
Prevention and Control has recently updated it's guidance on the introduction of HPV vaccines in European Union
countries ( [1] ), including the latest evidence on the safety and efficacy of these vaccines.

The benefit risk balance of the authorised HPV vaccines has been re-evaluated during the respective renewal
procedures for the marketing authorisations of these products and EMA's scientific committee has concluded that the
benefit risk profiles of both vaccines continue to be favourable. The Commission, in cooperation with EMA, will
continue to closely monitor any possible adverse reactions of HPV vaccines in the European Union.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/20120905_GUI_HPV_vaccine_update.pdf

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 269

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung P-009048/12**

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

_(9. Oktober 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Rechtsstaatswidriger Prozess in Serbien

Der Distriktsgerichtshof in Belgrad, ein Spezialgericht für Kriegsverbrechen, hat am 19. September 2012 elf ethnische
Albaner (Agush Memishi, Samet Hajdari, Nazif Hasani, Ahmet Nasani, Burim Fazliu, Selimon Sadiku, Faton Hajdari,
Ferat Hajdari, Kamber Sahiti, Sadik Aliu, Shefqet Musliu) aus den südserbischen Gemeinden Preševo und Bujanovac
zu insgesamt 116 Jahren Gefängnis verurteilt. Gegen den Prozess gibt es erhebliche rechtsstaatliche Zweifel, und nach
den Dokumenten von EULEX war der Hauptbelastungszeuge im Jahr 1999, als die Verurteilten angeblich im Kosovo
Kriegsverbrechen gegen Serben begangen haben, überhaupt nicht dort.

Nun geht der Fall zum Appellationsgericht, das schon ein erstes solches Urteil als unfair annulliert hat.

Wie beurteilt die Kommission dieses Verfahren in einem Kandidatenland mit Blick auf die rechtsstaatlichen Maßstäbe
der EU, und wäre es nicht Sache von EULEX, über angebliche Verbrechen zu urteilen, die sich auf dem Boden des
Kosovo zugetragen haben sollen?

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

_(16. November 2012)_

Die Europäische Kommission achtet die Unabhängigkeit einzelstaatlicher Gerichte und kann daher nicht in
Einzelfällen eingreifen, für die die serbische Verwaltung oder Justiz zuständig ist. Darüber hinaus äußert sich die EU
nicht zu laufenden Gerichtsverfahren. EULEX arbeitet im Justizbereich mit den entsprechenden Behörden in Belgrad
eng zusammen. Fragen zur Rechtsprechung werden im Rahmen der internationalen Rechtshilfe geklärt. Auf
Informationen über derartige Fälle stützt sich die Kommission bei ihrer Beurteilung der derzeitigen Fortschritte
Serbiens im Hinblick auf die Rechtsstaatlichkeit und die Justiz.

Die Achtung der Rechtsstaatlichkeit ist eine wesentliche Voraussetzung für Serbiens Weg in die EU, und so betont die
Kommission regelmäßig deren Bedeutung. Im Fortschrittsbericht 2012 über Serbien wurde festgehalten, dass das
Land im Bereich Rechtsstaatlichkeit und insbesondere im Justizwesen nur geringe Fortschritte erzielt hat. Die
Europäische Kommission wird daher auch weiterhin die Achtung der Rechtsstaatlichkeit in Serbien genau
überwachen und mit den serbischen Behörden in Kontakt bleiben, um auf diesem Gebiet zu greifbaren Ergebnissen zu
kommen.

Darüber hinaus wird im jüngsten Strategiepapier der Europäischen Kommission zur Erweiterung betont, dass „die
Stärkung der Rechtsstaatlichkeit und der öffentlichen Verwaltung (…) für die Annäherung der Erweiterungsländer an
die EU und letztlich (für) die vollständige Erfüllung der mit der Mitgliedschaft verbundenen Verpflichtungen von
entscheidender Bedeutung (ist)“.

C 294 E / 270 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-009048/12**

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

_(9 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Trial contrary to the rule of law in Serbia

On 19 September 2012 the Belgrade District Court, a special court for war crimes, sentenced 11 ethnic Albanians
(Agush Memishi, Samet Hajdari, Nazif Hasani, Ahmet Nasani, Burim Fazliu, Selimon Sadiku, Faton Hajdari, Ferat
Hajdari, Kamber Sahiti, Sadik Aliu and Shefqet Musliu) from the south Serbian municipalities of Preševo and
Bujanovac to a total of 116 years in prison. There are serious doubts about the trial’s compatibility with the rule of
law, and according to the documents held by Eulex the main witness for the prosecution was not even present when
the defendants allegedly committed war crimes against Serbians in Kosovo in 1999.

The case is now going to the Court of Appeal, which has already overturned one such judgment as unfair.

What is the Commission’s view of these proceedings in a candidate country given that the rule of law is one of the
EU’s governing principles, and ought it not to be for Eulex to rule on criminal offences allegedly committed on
Kosovo soil?

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

_(16 November 2012)_

The European Commission respects the independence of national courts and therefore cannot interfere in individual
cases which fall within the scope of the Serbian administration or judiciary. Further, the EU does not comment on
pending judicial proceedings. EULEX has a standing judicial cooperation with the relevant authorities in Belgrade.
Issues of jurisdiction are solved within the context of international legal assistance. Information received about such
cases informs the Commission's assessment as to how the rule of law and judiciary are actually progressing in Serbia.

The respect for the rule of law is a crucial element on Serbia's way towards the EU and the Commission regularly
underlines its importance. The 2012 Progress Report on Serbia assessed that the country has made only little progress
in the area of rule of law and notably the judiciary. The European Commission will continue to monitor the respect
for the rule of law in Serbia closely and stay in contact with the Serbian authorities in order to allow for tangible
results on the ground.

In addition, the latest European Commission Strategy Paper underlines that ‘strengthening the rule of law and public
administration is essential for enlargement countries to come closer to the EU and eventually to fully assume the
obligations of membership’.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 271

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009049/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Cristiana Muscardini (PPE)**

_(9 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Sistema di etichettatura per i prodotti cosmetici

La direttiva 76/768/CEE del Consiglio vieta l'immissione sul mercato, a partire dall'11 marzo 2013, di prodotti
cosmetici testati su animali o contenenti ingredienti testati su animali.

Da questa data in avanti, i prodotti delle aziende che operano esclusivamente all'interno dell'UE non potranno in
alcun caso essere testati su animali, mentre alcune multinazionali del settore cosmetico potranno decidere di
sottoporre i prodotti destinati ad altri mercati a sperimentazione animale al di fuori dell'UE.

Può la Commissione dire:

1. se intende introdurre un sistema di etichettatura per i prodotti cosmetici che consenta alle aziende che non
ricorrono, direttamente o indirettamente, alla sperimentazione animale, ovunque nel mondo, di distinguersi
dalle aziende che continueranno a testare ingredienti e prodotti cosmetici su animali al di fuori dell'UE dopo
l'introduzione della scadenza del 2013;

2. come intende la Commissione monitorare l'introduzione di prodotti e ingredienti cosmetici utilizzati per la
prima volta nell'UE dopo l'11 marzo 2013, così da garantire che non siano stati testati su animali al di fuori
dell'UE dopo la scadenza del 2013?

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

_(14 novembre 2012)_

1. L'articolo 6, paragrafo 3, della direttiva Cosmetici ( [1] ) prevede la possibilità di rivendicare su un prodotto
cosmetico che quest'ultimo è stato sviluppato senza fare ricorso alla sperimentazione animale. Tale disposizione non
fa distinzione tra i test condotti all'interno o all'esterno dell'UE ed è stata mantenuta nell'articolo 20 del regolamento
sui cosmetici ( [2] ). La Commissione ha emanato linee guida sull'uso delle indicazioni facenti riferimento all'assenza di
prove su animali ( [3] ). La Commissione non ritiene pertanto necessario introdurre requisiti addizionali in tema di
etichettatura per quanto concerne la sperimentazione animale.

2. Conformemente all'articolo 22 del regolamento sui cosmetici la sorveglianza del mercato incombe agli Stati
membri che sono tenuti a dotare le autorità preposte alla sorveglianza del mercato dei poteri, delle risorse e delle
conoscenze necessarie per espletare adeguatamente i loro compiti. Lo strumento principale per verificare se un
prodotto cosmetico o i suoi ingredienti siano stati oggetto o meno di sperimentazione animale onde accertare se
soddisfi i requisiti sui cosmetici è costituito dalla documentazione informativa sul prodotto.

La cooperazione tra gli Stati membri in tema di sorveglianza del mercato è in generale promossa dalla Commissione
per il tramite della Piattaforma delle autorità preposte alla sorveglianza del mercato dei prodotti cosmetici (PEMSAC).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Direttiva del Consiglio del 27 luglio 1976 concernente il ravvicinamento delle legislazioni degli Stati membri relative ai prodotti cosmetici, GU L

262 del 27.9.1976, pag. 169.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Regolamento (CE) n. 1223/2009 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 30 novembre 2009, sui prodotti cosmetici, GU L 342 del

22.12.2009, pagg. 59-209.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Raccomandazione della Commissione del 7 giugno 2006 che stabilisce linee guida sull'uso di dichiarazioni relative all'assenza di sperimentazioni

animali, ai sensi della direttiva 76/768/CEE del Consiglio, (2006/406/CE).

( **|**

( **|**

C 294 E / 272 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009049/12**

**to the Commission**
**Cristiana Muscardini (PPE)**

_(9 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Labelling system for cosmetic products

Council Directive 76/768/EEC prohibits the marketing of animal-tested cosmetic products as well as cosmetic
products containing such ingredients from 11 March 2013.

After that date, products of companies operating solely within the EU will be entirely free of animal testing, whereas
some multinational cosmetics companies may opt to test on animals outside the EU for other markets.

1. Will the Commission introduce a system of labelling for cosmetic products that allows companies operating
without carrying out or commissioning any animal testing, anywhere in the world, to distinguish themselves from
companies that will continue to test cosmetic ingredients and products outside the EU after the introduction of the
2013 deadline?

2. How will the Commission monitor the introduction of cosmetic products and ingredients used for the first time
in the EU after 11 March 2013 in order to ensure that they will not have been tested on animals outside the EU after
the 2013 deadline?

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

_(14 November 2012)_

1. Article 6 (3) of the Cosmetics Directive ( [1] ) provides for the possibility to claim on a cosmetic product that no
animal testing was carried out in relation to its development. This provision does not differentiate between testing
inside or outside the EU and has been retained in Article 20 of the Cosmetics Regulation ( [2] ). The Commission has
issued guidelines on the use of such claims referring to the absence of tests on animals ( [3] ). The Commission does
therefore not see any need to introduce any additional labelling in relation to animal testing.

2. Market surveillance is in accordance with Article 22 of the Cosmetics Regulation the responsibility of Member
States, who are obliged to entrust to market surveillance authorities the necessary powers, resources and knowledge
in order to properly perform their tasks. The main means of verifying whether or not a cosmetic product, or its
ingredients, have been subject to animal testing in order to meet the requirements of the Cosmetics Regulation is via
the product information file.

Cooperation between Member States on market surveillance is generally supported by the Commission through the
Platform of European Market Surveillance Authorities (PEMSAC).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Council Directive of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products, OJ L 262, 27.9.1976,

p. 169.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products, OJ L 342,

22.12.2009, p. 59-2009.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Commission Recommendation of 7 June 2006 Establishing guidelines on the use of claims referring to the absence of tests on animals pursuant to

Council Directive 76/768/EEC, (2006/406/EC).

( **|**

( **|**

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 273

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009050/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Michael Cashman (S&D), Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Raül Romeva i Rueda**

**(Verts/ALE), Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE), Cornelis de Jong (GUE/NGL) y Marije Cornelissen (Verts/ALE)**

_(9 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Evolución de la legislación en Ucrania y liberalización y facilitación de visados

El 2 de octubre de 2012, el Parlamento ucraniano aprobó el proyecto de ley 8711 en primera lectura. Este proyecto
de ley contempla sanciones penales y elevadas multas para personas físicas o jurídicas que sean declaradas culpables
de «propaganda a favor de la homosexualidad», un término que no se define en la propia ley. Textos similares, como
las leyes 10290 y 10729, definen esta «propaganda» como la distribución intencionada de cualquier información
positiva acerca de la homosexualidad. Estas propuestas impondrían penas de prisión de hasta cinco años o multas de
hasta 900 veces el salario mínimo del país.

Este proyecto de ley limita la libertad de expresión en relación con la orientación sexual y la identidad de género, por
lo que vulnera los artículos 10 y 14 del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos, así como el artículo 19 del Pacto
Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos. También infringe la recomendación del Comité de Ministros del Consejo
de Europa, de 31 de marzo de 2010, sobre las medidas para combatir la discriminación basada en la orientación
sexual o la identidad de género (CM/Rec(2010)5).

Estas leyes han suscitado duras críticas: del Defensor del Pueblo ucraniano; del Parlamento Europeo, en su Resolución
de 24 de mayo de 2012 sobre la lucha contra la homofobia en Europa ( [1] ); del Servicio Europeo de Acción Exterior, en
una declaración sobre acontecimientos recientes sobre cuestiones relacionadas con la tolerancia y la no
discriminación en la Federación de Rusia, Ucrania y la República de Moldavia (1146 [a] reunión de Delegados de los
Ministros del Comité del Consejo de Europa del 20 de junio de 2012); del Secretario General del Consejo de Europa;
del Alto Comisionado para los Derechos Humanos de las Naciones Unidas y del Relator Especial sobre el derecho a la
libertad de opinión y expresión; de organizaciones no gubernamentales, incluidas Amnistía Internacional, Human
Rights Watch, la Comisión Internacional de Juristas e ILGA Europe (Asociación Internacional de Lesbianas y Gays); así
como de organizaciones ucranianas por los derechos humanos.

¿Cuál es la valoración de la Comisión sobre las propuestas arriba mencionadas a la luz de la búsqueda activa de
«recomendaciones específicas de organismos de las Naciones Unidas, de la OIDDH (Oficina de las Instituciones
Democráticas y de los Derechos Humanos) de la OSCE (Organización para la Seguridad y la Cooperación en Europa),
del Consejo de Europa y la ECRI (Comisión Europea contra el Racismo y la Intolerancia) y de organizaciones
internacionales por los derechos humanos a la hora de aplicar políticas contra la discriminación, proteger a las
minorías y combatir los delitos motivados por el odio», tal y como exige el Plan de Acción UE-Ucrania sobre la
liberalización de visados?

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

_(5 de diciembre de 2012)_

La UE ha expresado su profunda decepción y su inquietud —incluso a través de declaraciones oficiales ante el Consejo
de Europea ( [2] ) y la OSCE ( [3] )— tras la decisión adoptada por el Parlamento ucraniano de reincorporar a la fase de
debate el proyecto de ley 8711, sobre la modificación de determinados actos legislativos (referente a la protección de
menores en un entorno de información seguro). Además, el Jefe de la Delegación de la UE en Ucrania envió una nota
al Presidente del Parlamento ucraniano, con copias a los portavoces de los grupos parlamentarios y al Gobierno.

La Comisión desearía recordar que la UE presentó a Ucrania el Plan de Acción para la Liberalización de Visados en
noviembre de 2010 y que se publicaron, además, dos informes sobre su ejecución. La Comisión prosigue actualmente
su evaluación de la legislación y las políticas pendientes conforme al Plan de Acción. La iniciativa legislativa
mencionada, es decir, el proyecto de ley 8711, es contraria a todas luces a los valores de referencia del Plan de Acción.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Textos adoptados, P7_TA(2012)0222.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/council_europe/press_corner/all_news/news/2012/20121010_en.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/vienna/documents/eu_osce/permanent_council/2012/pc_925_eu_on_lgbt.pdf

C 294 E / 274 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

La Comisión ha tomado nota de las posiciones expresadas por el Ministro ucraniano de Asuntos Exteriores y el
Defensor del Pueblo ucraniano, que han expresado preocupaciones similares y han manifestado su esperanza de que
el Parlamento, en su reconsideración de esta iniciativa legislativa, tenga plenamente en cuenta los compromisos
internacionales de Ucrania.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 275

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009050/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Michael Cashman (S&D), Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Raül Romeva i Rueda**
**(Verts/ALE), Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE), Cornelis de Jong (GUE/NGL) und Marije Cornelissen (Verts/ALE)**

_(9. Oktober 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Entwicklung der Rechtslage in der Ukraine, Visa-Liberalisierung und ‐Erleichterung

Am 2. Oktober 2012 nahm das ukrainische Parlament in erster Lesung den Gesetzesentwurf 8711 an. In diesem
Gesetzesentwurf sind Strafsanktionen und empfindliche Geldstrafen für natürliche oder juristische Personen
vorgesehen, welche der „Propaganda für Homosexualität“ überführt wurden, einem Begriff, der im Entwurf selbst
nicht weiter definiert wird. In ähnlichen Gesetzestexten wie den Gesetzesentwürfen 10290 und 10729 wird derartige
„Propaganda“ als willentliche Verteilung jedweder positiver Informationen zu Homosexualität definiert. In diesen
Gesetzesvorschlägen sind Haftstrafen von bis zu fünf Jahren oder Geldstrafen bis zu einem Betrag in Höhe des 900fachen nationalen Mindestlohns vorgesehen.

Dieser Gesetzesentwurf schränkt die Meinungsfreiheit im Zusammenhang mit der sexuellen Orientierung und der
Geschlechtsidentität ein und verstößt somit gegen die Artikel 10 und 14 der Europäischen
Menschenrechtskonvention sowie gegen Artikel 19 des Internationalen Paktes über bürgerliche und politische
Rechte. Er läuft ebenso der Empfehlung des Ministerkomitees des Europarates vom 31. März 2010 über Maßnahmen
zum Kampf gegen Diskriminierung aufgrund von sexueller Orientierung und Geschlechtsidentität (CM/Slg. (2010)5)
zuwider.

Diese Gesetzesentwürfe wurden scharf kritisiert: vom ukrainischen Ombudsmann, vom Europäischen Parlament in
seiner Entschließung vom 24. Mai 2012 zur Bekämpfung von Homophobie in Europa ( [1] ), vom Europäischen
Auswärtigen Dienst in einer Stellungnahme zur jüngsten Entwicklung in Fragen im Zusammenhang mit Toleranz
und Nichtdiskriminierung in der Russischen Föderation, der Ukraine und in der Republik Moldawien (Abgeordnete
des Ministerkomitees des Europarates, 1146. Versammlung am 20. Juni 2012), vom Generalsekretär des Europarates,
vom Hohen Kommissar der Vereinten Nationen für Menschenrechte und vom Sonderberichterstatter für Meinungs‐
und Redefreiheit, von NROs, darunter Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, der Internationalen
Juristenkommission und ILGA Europe, und von ukrainischen Menschenrechtsorganisationen.

Im Aktionsplan der EU und der Ukraine zur Visa-Liberalisierung ist vorgesehen, dass die spezifischen Empfehlungen
der VN-Gremien, der OSZE/ODHIR, des Europarates/ECRI und der internationalen Menschenrechtsorganisationen
zur Umsetzung von Antidiskriminierungsmaßnahmen, zum Schutz von Minderheiten und zur Bekämpfung von
Hassverbrechen aktiv zu befolgen sind. Wie schätzt die Kommission die vorgenannten Gesetzesvorschläge vor
diesem Hintergrund ein?

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

_(5. Dezember 2012)_

Die EU ist tief enttäuscht und besorgt über den Beschluss des ukrainischen Parlaments, die Erörterung des
Gesetzentwurfes 8711 „Über die Änderung einiger Gesetzgebungsakte betreffend das Recht von Kindern auf einen
sicheren Informationsraum“ wieder aufzunehmen, und hat dies unter anderem durch Erklärungen im Europarat ( [2] )
und in der OSZE  ( [3] ) zum Ausdruck gebracht. Zudem richtete der Leiter der EU-Delegation in der Ukraine ein
Schreiben an den Sprecher des ukrainischen Parlaments, wobei er den Fraktionsvorsitzenden und der Regierung eine
Kopie hiervon übermittelte.

Die Kommission erinnert daran, dass der Aktionsplan zur Visa-Liberalisierung der Ukraine im November 2010 von
der EU vorgestellt wurde und seither zwei Berichte über dessen Umsetzung herausgegeben wurden. Die Kommission
setzt die Prüfung von noch ausstehenden Rechtsvorschriften und Maßnahmen im Rahmen dieses Aktionsplans fort.
Ein Gesetzentwurf wie der Entwurf 8711 steht im Widerspruch zu den Anforderungen der entsprechenden
Benchmarks des Aktionsplans.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Angenommene Texte, P7_TA(2012)0222.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/vienna/documents/eu_osce/permanent_council/2012/pc_925_eu_on_lgbt.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/council_europe/press_corner/all_news/news/2012/20121010_en.htm

C 294 E / 276 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

Die Kommission hat die Stellungnahmen des ukrainischen Außenministers und des ukrainischen Ombudsmanns zur
Kenntnis genommen, die sich ebenfalls besorgt zeigen und die Erwartung geäußert haben, dass das Parlament die
internationalen Verpflichtungen der Ukraine bei der weiteren Behandlung des Gesetzentwurfes vollständig
berücksichtigt.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 277

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-009050/12**

**aan de Commissie**
**Michael Cashman (S&D), Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Raül Romeva i Rueda**

**(Verts/ALE), Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE), Cornelis de Jong (GUE/NGL) en Marije Cornelissen (Verts/ALE)**

_(9 oktober 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Juridische ontwikkelingen in Oekraïne, visumliberalisering en ‐facilitering

Op 2 oktober 2012 heeft het Oekraïense parlement wetsvoorstel 8711 na eerste lezing goedgekeurd. Dit
wetsvoorstel voorziet in strafrechtelijke sancties en zware boetes voor natuurlijke en rechtspersonen die schuldig
worden bevonden aan „propaganda voor homoseksualiteit”, een term die in het wetsvoorstel zelf niet nader wordt
gedefinieerd.

Gelijksoortige teksten, waaronder de wetsvoorstellen 10290 en 10729, definiëren „propaganda” als de opzettelijke
verspreiding van positieve informatie over homoseksualiteit. Deze voorstellen zouden gevangenisstraffen tot 5 jaar
inhouden of boetes van 900 maal het nationale minimuminkomen.

Zij beperken de vrijheid van meningsuiting met betrekking tot seksuele geaardheid en genderidentiteit en staan haaks
op de artikelen 10 en 14 van het Europees Verdrag voor de rechten van de mens, evenals artikel 19 van het
Internationaal Verdrag inzake burgerrechten en politieke rechten Het druist ook in tegen de aanbeveling van 31 maart
2010 van het Comité van ministers van de Raad van Europa betreffende maatregelen om discriminatie op grond van
seksuele geaardheid of genderidentiteit (CM/Rec (2010)5) te bestrijden.

Deze wetsvoorstellen worden sterk bekritiseerd: door de Oekraïense ombudsman; door het Europees Parlement in de
resolutie van 25 mei 2012 over de strijd tegen homofobie in Europa ( [1] ); door de Europese Dienst voor extern
optreden, in een verklaring over de recente ontwikkelingen in kwesties aangaande tolerantie en non-discriminatie in
de Russische Federatie, Oekraïne en de Republiek Moldavië (Comité van ministers van de Raad van Europa, 1146ste
vergadering op 20 juni 2012); door de secretaris-generaal van de Raad van Europa; door de Hoge Commissaris van de
Verenigde Naties voor de mensenrechten en de speciale rapporteur inzake het recht op vrije meningsuiting; door nietgouvernementele organisaties, inclusief Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, de Internationale Commissie
van Juristen en ILGA-Europa; en door de Oekraïense mensenrechtenorganisaties.

Wat is het standpunt van de Commissie betreffende bovenstaande voorstellen met het oog op de actieve opvolging
van de „specifieke aanbevelingen van de VN-organen, de OVSE en het ODIHR, de Raad van Europa/ECRI en diverse
internationale mensenrechtenorganisaties voor het uitvoeren van een antidiscriminatiebeleid, de bescherming van
minderheden en de strijd tegen haatmisdrijven”, zoals het Europese actieprogramma inzake visumliberalisering in
Oekraïne vereist?

**Antwoord van de heer Füle namens de Commissie**

_(5 december 2012)_

De EU heeft, onder meer door verklaringen in de Raad van Europa ( [2] ) en de OVSE ( [3] ), haar diepe teleurstelling en
bezorgdheid geuit over de beslissing van het Oekraïense Parlement om wetsvoorstel 8711 „houdende wijziging van
sommige wetgevingshandelingen” (voor de bescherming van de rechten van het kind op het vlak van veilige
informatie) opnieuw in behandeling te nemen. Het hoofd van de EU-delegatie in Oekraïne heeft ook een brief
gestuurd aan de voorzitter van het Oekraïense Parlement, met afschrift aan de fractievoorzitters en de regering.

De Commissie wijst erop dat het actieprogramma inzake visumliberalisering in november 2010 door de EU aan
Oekraïne werd gepresenteerd en dat twee verslagen werden gepubliceerd over de uitvoering ervan. De Commissie
beoordeelt momenteel de uitstaande wetgeving en het uitstaande beleid in het kader van het actieprogramma. Een
dergelijk wetgevingsinitiatief — d.w.z. wetsvoorstel 8711 — is in strijd met de voorwaarden van de benchmarks van
het actieprogramma.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Aangenomen teksten, P7_TA(2012)0222.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/council_europe/press_corner/all_news/news/2012/20121010_en.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/vienna/documents/eu_osce/permanent_council/2012/pc_925_eu_on_lgbt.pdf

C 294 E / 278 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

De Commissie heeft nota genomen van de standpunten van het ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken en de ombudsman
van Oekraïne. Deze standpunten tonen aan dat zij gelijksoortige bezorgdheden hebben en geven te kennen dat zij
verwachten dat het Parlement rekening zal houden met de internationale verbintenissen van Oekraïne bij zijn verdere
bespreking van dit wetgevingsinitiatief.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 279

_(Suomenkielinen versio)_

**Kirjallisesti vastattava kysymys E-009050/12**

**komissiolle**
**Michael Cashman (S&D), Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Raül Romeva i Rueda**

**(Verts/ALE), Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE), Cornelis de Jong (GUE/NGL) ja Marije Cornelissen (Verts/ALE)**

_(9. lokakuuta 2012)_

_Aihe:_ Ukrainan oikeudelliset kehitykset, viisumivapaus ja viisumin myöntämisen helpottaminen

Ukrainan parlamentti hyväksyi 2. lokakuuta 2012 ensimmäisessä käsittelyssä lakiesityksen nro 8711. Lakiesityksen
mukaan ”homoseksuaaliseen propagandaan” syylliseksi todettu luonnollinen henkilö tai oikeushenkilö voidaan
tuomita rikosoikeudelliseen rangaistukseen tai suuriin sakkoihin. Kyseistä termiä ei määritellä lakiesityksessä.
Samantapaiset lakiesitykset nro 10290 ja nro 10729 määrittelevät tämän ”propagandan” olevan tietoista myönteisen
informaation levittämistä homoseksuaalisuudesta. Rangaistus olisi jopa viisi vuotta vankeutta tai sakkoja, jotka ovat
900 kertaa suuremmat kuin vähimmäispalkka Ukrainassa.

Lakiesitykset rajoittavat seksuaaliseen suuntautumiseen ja sukupuoli-identiteettiin liittyvää ilmaisunvapautta ja
rikkovat näin ollen Euroopan ihmisoikeussopimuksen 10 ja 14 artiklaa sekä kansalaisoikeuksia ja poliittisia oikeuksia
koskevan kansainvälisen yleissopimuksen 19 artiklaa. Ehdotus on myös vastoin Euroopan neuvoston
ministerikomitean 31. maaliskuuta 2010 antamaa suositusta toimenpiteistä seksuaaliseen suuntautumiseen tai
sukupuoli-identiteettiin perustuvan syrjinnän torjumiseksi (CM/Rec(2010)5).

Lakiesityksiä ovat kritisoineet voimakkaasti Ukrainan oikeusasiamies, Euroopan parlamentti homofobian torjunnasta
Euroopassa 24. toukokuuta 2012 antamassaan päätöslauselmassa ( [1] ), Euroopan ulkosuhdehallinto selonteossaan
Venäjän federaation, Ukrainan ja Moldovan tasavallan viimeaikaisesta kehityksestä liittyen suvaitsevaisuuteen ja
syrjinnän torjumiseen (Euroopan neuvoston ministerivaltuuskunnan 1146. kokous 20. kesäkuuta 2012), Euroopan
neuvoston pääsihteeri, YK:n ihmisoikeusvaltuutettu sekä mielipiteen‐ ja ilmaisunvapautta käsittelevä erityisedustaja,
kansalaisjärjestöt, kuten Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, kansainvälinen lakimieskomissio ICJ, ILGA
Europe ja Ukrainan ihmisoikeusjärjestöt.

YK:n elimet, Etyjin demokraattisten instituutioiden ja ihmisoikeuksien toimisto, Euroopan neuvoston rasismin ja
suvaitsemattomuuden vastainen eurooppalainen komissio (ECRI) ja kansainväliset ihmisoikeusjärjestöt ovat antaneet
erityissuosituksia syrjinnän vastaisten politiikkojen täytäntöönpanemiseksi, vähemmistöjen suojelemiseksi ja
viharikosten taltuttamiseksi. EU:n ja Ukrainan välisessä viisumivapautta koskevassa toimintasuunnitelmassa on
vaadittu aktiivista pyrkimistä näiden erityissuositusten noudattamiseen. Mikä on komission kanta edellä mainittuihin
lakiesityksiin?

**Štefan Fülen komission puolesta antama vastaus**

_(5. joulukuuta 2012)_

EU on ilmaissut muun muassa Euroopan neuvostossa ( [2] ) ja Etyjissä ( [3] ) esittämissään julkilausumissa olevansa pettynyt
ja huolestunut siitä, että Ukrainan parlamentti on päättänyt jatkaa lakiesityksen 8711 (joka koskee tiettyjen, lasten
suojelusta vahingolliselta tiedolta annettujen säädösten muuttamista) käsittelyä. Lisäksi EU:n Ukrainan-edustuston
päällikkö on lähettänyt asiasta kirjeen Ukrainan parlamentin puhemiehelle ja kopion kirjeestä Ukrainan poliittisten
ryhmien johtajille ja Ukrainan hallitukselle.

Komissio muistuttaa, että EU esitti Ukrainalle viisumivapautta koskevan toimintasuunnitelman marraskuussa 2010,
ja sen täytäntöönpanosta on laadittu kaksi kertomusta. Komissio jatkaa edelleen puuttuvan lainsäädännön ja
politiikkojen tarkastelua toimintasuunnitelman mukaisesti. Lakiesitys 8711:n kaltainen lainsäädäntöaloite on
ristiriidassa toimintasuunnitelman vaatimusten kanssa.

Komissio on pannut merkille Ukrainan ulkoministeriön ja oikeusasiamiehen lausunnot, joissa on oltu niin ikään
huolissaan asiasta ja vaadittu parlamentin ottavan lakialoitetta käsitellessään huomioon Ukrainan kansainväliset
sitoumukset.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Hyväksytyt tekstit, P7_TA(2012)0222.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/council_europe/press_corner/all_news/news/2012/20121010_en.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/vienna/documents/eu_osce/permanent_council/2012/pc_925_eu_on_lgbt.pdf

C 294 E / 280 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009050/12**

**to the Commission**
**Michael Cashman (S&D), Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Raül Romeva i Rueda**
**(Verts/ALE), Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE), Cornelis de Jong (GUE/NGL) and Marije Cornelissen (Verts/ALE)**

_(9 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Legal developments in Ukraine and visa liberalisation and facilitation

On 2 October 2012, the Ukrainian Parliament adopted Bill 8711 at first reading. This draft law provides for penal
sanctions and heavy fines for physical or legal persons found guilty of ‘propaganda for homosexuality’, a term
undefined in the bill itself. Similar texts, Bills 10290 and 10729, define such ‘propaganda’ as the intentional
distribution of any positive information about homosexuality. These proposals would impose prison terms of up to
five years or fines up to 900 times the national minimum income.

This draft legislation limits freedom of expression in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity, thus breaching
Articles 10 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as Article 19 of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights. It also runs against the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers’ recommendation of
31 March 2010 on measures to combat discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity
(CM/Rec(2010)5).

These bills have been strongly criticised: by the Ukrainian Ombudsman; by the European Parliament, in its resolution
of 24 May 2012 on the fight against homophobia in Europe ( [1] ); by the European External Action Service, in a
statement on recent developments on questions related to tolerance and non-discrimination in the Russian
Federation, in Ukraine and in the Republic of Moldova (Council of Europe Committee of Ministers’ Deputies,
1146th meeting of 20 June 2012); by the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe; by the UN High Commissioner
for Human Rights and Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression; by non-governmental
organisations including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the International Commission of Jurists and
ILGA Europe; and by Ukrainian human rights organisations.

What is the Commission’s assessment of the aforementioned proposals in the light of the active pursuit of ‘specific
recommendations of UN bodies, OSCE/ODIHR, the Council of Europe/ECRI and international human rights
organisations in implementing anti-discrimination policies, protecting minorities and combating hate crimes’, as
required by the EU-Ukraine visa liberalisation action plan?

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

_(5 December 2012)_

The EU has expressed deep disappointment and concern that the Parliament of Ukraine has decided to revert to
discussing the draft law 8711 ‘On Amending Some Legislative Acts’ (regarding protection of children’s rights in the
safe information sphere), including through EU statements at the Council of Europe ( [2] ) and OSCE ( [3] ). In addition, a
letter was addressed by the Head of the EU Delegation in Ukraine to the Speaker of the Ukrainian Parliament, with
copies to the heads of political groups as well as to the Government.

The Commission would like to recall that Visa Liberalisation Action Plan was presented by the EU to Ukraine in
November 2010 and two reports were issued on its implementation. The Commission is continuing the assessment
of outstanding legislation and policy under the action plan. Such legislative initiative — i.e. draft law 8711 — stands
in contradiction to the requirements of the relevant benchmarks of the action plan.

The Commission has noted the positions expressed by Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ombudsperson,
which have highlighted similar concerns and have signalled their expectation that the Parliament in its further
consideration of this legislative initiative would take into full consideration Ukraine’s international commitments.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0222.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/council_europe/press_corner/all_news/news/2012/20121010_en.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/vienna/documents/eu_osce/permanent_council/2012/pc_925_eu_on_lgbt.pdf

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 281

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009099/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Cristiana Muscardini (PPE)**

_(10 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Erasmus e Fondo sociale europeo: un nuovo bilancio correttivo 2012

La commissione per i bilanci del Parlamento europeo ha lanciato l'allarme per il prosciugamento dei finanziamenti
europei destinati al programma Erasmus, al Fondo sociale europeo e ai progetti in materia di ricerca e innovazione.
Questi finanziamenti sono essenziali per la crescita, l'occupazione e l'istruzione dei più giovani. In passato, essi hanno
contribuito al processo d'integrazione europea, non solo favorendo un confronto costruttivo tra le diverse realtà
sociali e scolastiche nei 27 Stati membri, ma anche garantendo il sostegno a progetti di ricerca scientifica, a volte
insufficientemente finanziati dai bilanci nazionali, e promuovendo la creatività e l'imprenditorialità dei giovani.

In un momento in cui gli Stati membri non sono stati in grado di allocare i Fondi strutturali, lasciandoli all'Unione,
non sono chiare le motivazioni che hanno portato ad una scelta del genere.

La Commissione:

1. può indicare la posizione attuale dei diversi Stati membri sul problema?

2. Ritiene doveroso rivedere il bilancio correttivo del 2012 al fine di mantenere le risorse destinate a tali progetti?

3. Non ritiene prioritario, in un momento di crisi economico-sociale, mantenere in essere i programmi destinati
all'integrazione europea e a favore dell'occupazione giovanile, che è in forte calo nei diversi Stati membri?

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

_(7 dicembre 2012)_

Il 23 ottobre 2012 la Commissione ha adottato il progetto di bilancio rettificativo (PBR) n. 6/2012 con il quale
vengono richieste risorse supplementari per circa 9 miliardi di EUR ( [1] ).

Il PBR n. 6/2012 elenca i programmi che richiedono stanziamenti di pagamento supplementari, come ad esempio i
programmi nell'ambito della politica di coesione ( [2] ) e dello sviluppo rurale (circa 8,3 miliardi di EUR), i programmi di
ricerca (423 milioni di EUR) o il programma Erasmus (90 milioni di EUR).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/budget/biblio/documents/2012/2012_en.cfm.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) FESR, FC e FSE.

C 294 E / 282 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009051/12**

**à Comissão**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(9 de outubro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Falta de verbas para o Programa Erasmus e outros programas do FSE

Notícias na imprensa dão conta de que vários programas financiados pela União Europeia se encontram sem verbas, o
que põe em causa a sua continuação, em especial nos países mais afetados pela crise. Entre os programas referidos
estão o programa «Erasmus», programas de formação ao longo da vida e programas de investigação e inovação, entre

outros.

De acordo com as notícias referidas, a falta de financiamento deve-se à ausência de transferências para o orçamento
comunitário, por parte dos governos nacionais, de montantes que ascenderão aos dez mil milhões de euros.

Em face desta situação, solicito à Comissão que me informe sobre o seguinte:

1. Que programas exatamente estão em risco por insuficiência de verbas?

2. Que programas poderão vir a estar em risco a breve trecho se a situação não for resolvida?

3. Qual o montante exato em falta no orçamento comunitário neste momento e que Estados-Membros estão em
causa?

4. Está a Comissão em condições de avaliar o impacto desta suspensão de pagamentos nos diversos EstadosMembros?

5. Que medidas tomou ou vai tomar a Comissão para resolver este problema?

**Resposta conjunta dada por Janusz Lewandowski em nome da Comissão**

_(7 de dezembro de 2012)_

A Comissão adotou, em 23 de outubro de 2012, o projeto de orçamento retificativo (POR) n.° 6/2012 que solicita
recursos adicionais no montante de cerca de 9 mil milhões de euros ( [1] ).

O POR n.° 6/2012 enumera programas que necessitam de dotações de pagamento adicionais, tais como programas
no domínio da política de coesão ( [2] ) e do desenvolvimento rural (cerca de 8,3 mil milhões de euros) e da investigação
(423 milhões de euros) ou o programa Erasmus (90 milhões de euros).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/budget/biblio/documents/2012/2012_en.cfm.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) FEDER, FC e FSE.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 283

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009051/12**

**to the Commission**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(9 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Budget shortfall for the Erasmus programme and other ESF programmes

It is being reported in the press that a number of EU-funded programmes are facing a budget shortfall which is
jeopardising their continued existence, particularly in the countries that have been worst affected by the crisis. The
programmes affected include the Erasmus programme, lifelong learning programmes and research and innovation

programmes.

According to the news reports, the reason for this shortfall is the fact that national governments have failed to transfer
sums amounting to EUR 10 billion to the Community budget.

1. Which specific programmes are at risk as a result of the budget shortfall?

2. Which programmes could be at risk in the short term if the situation is not resolved?

3. What is the exact amount that is currently missing from the Community budget, and which Member States are
involved?

4. Can the Commission assess the impact of this suspension of payments in the various Member States?

5. What steps has the Commission taken or will it take to resolve this problem?

**Question for written answer E-009099/12**

**to the Commission**
**Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)**

_(10 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Erasmus and the European Social Fund: a new corrective budget for 2012

The European Parliament’s Committee on Budgets has warned that EU funding for the Erasmus programme, the
European Social Fund and research and innovation projects is at risk of running out. This funding is vital for the
development, employment and training of our youngest fellow citizens. In the past, this funding helped the European
integration process by promoting a constructive comparison between the different social and educational systems in
the 27 Member States, by guaranteeing support for scientific research projects, which were sometimes underfunded
by national budgets, and by promoting creativity and entrepreneurship among young people.

At a time when the Member States have been unable to allocate structural funds, leaving them to the EU, the reasons
that led to this choice are not clear.

1. Can the Commission say where the Member States currently stand on this issue?

2. Does it believe it should review the 2012 corrective budget to maintain the resources for these projects?

3. Does it believe that it is a priority, during economic and social crisis, to continue to support programmes aimed
at European integration and which promote youth employment, which falling in several Member States?

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

_(7 December 2012)_

The Commission adopted on 23 October 2012 the Draft Amending Budget (DAB) 6/2012 which requests additional
resources of about EUR 9 billion. ( [1] )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/budget/biblio/documents/2012/2012_en.cfm.

C 294 E / 284 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

The DAB 6/2012 lists programmes in need of additional payment appropriations, such as cohesion policy ( [2] ) and
rural development (around EUR 8.3 billion), research programmes (EUR 423 million) or the Erasmus programme
(EUR 90 million).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) ERDF, CF and ESF.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 285

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-009052/12**

**à la Commission**
**Françoise Grossetête (PPE)**

_(9 octobre 2012)_

_Objet:_ Reconnaissance des prescriptions de médicaments

La directive 2011/24/UE relative à l'application des droits des patients en matière de soins de santé transfrontaliers
vise dans son article 11 à la reconnaissance des prescriptions établies dans un autre État membre.

L'article dispose que la Commission adopte des mesures permettant à un professionnel de la santé de vérifier si la
prescription est authentique et si elle a été établie dans un autre État membre par un membre d'une profession de la
santé réglementée qui est légalement autorisé à le faire. Cela doit être fait à travers l'élaboration d'une liste non
exhaustive d'éléments à inclure dans les prescriptions et qui doivent être clairement identifiables dans toutes les
formes de prescriptions.

Dans le cas de médicaments issus de biotechnologies, la seule Dénomination Commune Internationale (DCI) risque de
ne pas être suffisante pour identifier les médicaments. Comme le font valoir l'Organisation mondiale de la Santé
(OMS) ainsi que les parties prenantes qui se sont exprimées durant la consultation publique en janvier 2012, la DCI ne
permet pas d'assurer une identification claire et précise de tous les types de médicaments.

La Commission peut-elle indiquer si elle proposera d'inclure d'autres éléments que la DCI afin de garantir la meilleure
reconnaissance possible des prescriptions et de préserver la sécurité des patients?

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

_(26 novembre 2012)_

La Commission est en train d'élaborer un projet de directive d'exécution énonçant des mesures visant à faciliter la
reconnaissance des prescriptions médicales établies dans un autre État membre. Un premier échange de vues avec les
experts des États membres a eu lieu en octobre 2012.

Ainsi que le prescrit l'article 11, paragraphe 2, point a de la directive 2011/24/UE ( [1] ), les modalités d'exécution
doivent prévoir, notamment, l'établissement d'une liste non exhaustive d'éléments devant figurer dans les
prescriptions médicales établies dans un État membre et délivrées dans un autre. Cette liste non exhaustive doit
également contenir des éléments permettant l'identification des médicaments ou dispositifs médicaux prescrits. La
Commission prévoit d'adopter cette directive d'exécution d'ici la fin de cette année.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2011/24/UE relative à l'application des droits des patients en matière de soins de santé transfrontaliers (JO L 88 du 4.4.2011, p. 45).

C 294 E / 286 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009052/12**

**to the Commission**
**Françoise Grossetête (PPE)**

_(9 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Recognition of medicine prescriptions

Directive 2011/24/EU relates to the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare; the recognition of
prescriptions issued in another Member State is covered by Article 11.

Under that article the Commission is required to adopt measures enabling a health professional to verify whether a
prescription is authentic and has been issued in another Member State by a member of a regulated health profession
legally entitled to do so. To that end, a non-exhaustive list is to be compiled, specifying information which
prescriptions have to bear and which must be clearly identifiable in all prescription formats.

If medicines have been produced by biotechnologies, the International Non-Proprietary Name (INN) may not be
sufficient in itself to identify them. As has been pointed out by the World Health Organisation (WHO), as well as by
the stakeholders who contributed to the public consultation in January 2012, the INN does not serve to identify every
type of medicine clearly and accurately.

Will the Commission propose that other information be included alongside the INN so as to make for the widest
possible recognition of prescriptions while preserving patients’ safety?

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

_(26 November 2012)_

The Commission is preparing a draft ‘Implementing Directive laying down measures to facilitate the recognition of
medical prescriptions issued in another Member State’. A first exchange of views with the experts of the Member
States took place in October 2012.

As prescribed by Article 11.2 (a) of Directive 2011/24/EU ( [1] ), the implementing measures should include a nonexhaustive list of elements to appear on medical prescriptions prescribed in one Member State and intended to be
dispensed in another. This non-exhaustive list should also include elements pertaining to the identification of
prescribed medical products, covering both medicinal products and medical devices. The Commission foresees to
adopt this implementing Directive by the end of this year.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2011/24/EU on the application of patients' rights in cross-border healthcare. OJ L88/45 of 4. 4.2011.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 287

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009053/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Salvador Sedó i Alabart (PPE) y Werner Langen (PPE)**

_(9 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ El sector farmacéutico de la UE

Como parte de la Estrategia 2020, la Comisión ha presentado diversas iniciativas para promover el crecimiento
sostenible en la Unión Europea. Uno de los puntos fuertes de la propuesta de la Comisión es que se centra en la
política industrial, como reafirmó el Presidente Barroso en su discurso sobre el Estado de la Unión ante el Parlamento
el 12 de septiembre de 2012. En su discurso, el señor Barroso señaló cuatro sectores estratégicos: el aeronáutico, el de
la automoción, el de la ingeniería y el farmacéutico.

En relación con el último, las medidas presupuestarias actuales de los Estados miembros están obstaculizando
considerablemente el desarrollo del sector farmacéutico y socavando el acceso de los pacientes a productos
innovadores, a pesar de que el sector farmacéutico continúa siendo una baza para la Unión Europea y representa el
19,1 % del total de la inversión en I+D en Europa. Es el quinto sector de la UE en términos de producción y ha
generado superávits comerciales de 70 000 millones de euros en 2010.

1. A la luz de esto, y a la vista del discurso del Presidente Barroso y de la contribución del sector farmacéutico al
crecimiento, ¿piensa incluir la Comisión este sector entre las áreas prioritarias en su próxima comunicación sobre
política industrial?

2. ¿Qué otras acciones específicas e integradas pretende proponer la Comisión en apoyo del sector sanitario con el
fin de hacer frente a retos sociales como el envejecimiento de la población, el aumento de las necesidades médicas y la
necesidad de salvaguardar la independencia de la Unión en el terreno de la salud?

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

_(30 de noviembre de 2012)_

En su discurso sobre el estado de la Unión de 12 de septiembre de 2012, el Presidente Barroso destacó la importancia
de la industria farmacéutica para la economía europea. Esta idea se recoge en la Comunicación «Una industria europea
más fuerte para el crecimiento y la recuperación económica. Actualización de la Comunicación sobre política
industrial» de 10 de octubre de 2012 ( [1] ).

En la citada Comunicación, la Comisión señala que se necesitan medidas adicionales. Se propone que las actividades
posibles deben ir más allá de la actual revisión de la Directiva 89/105/CEE relativa a la fijación de precios y reembolso
de medicamentos y el trabajo en curso sobre la evaluación de las tecnologías sanitarias. Este enfoque global debe
abarcar todas las políticas e implicar a todas las partes pertinentes para la competitividad de la industria farmacéutica
europea. El objetivo de este proceso previsto es velar por la competitividad y la viabilidad a largo plazo de la industria
farmacéutica de la UE, al tiempo que se garantiza a los ciudadanos europeos el acceso a los medicamentos. El proceso
sobre la responsabilidad de las empresas en la industria farmacéutica, que se encuentra en su fase final, ayudará a
identificar futuros ámbitos que sea preciso tratar con más detalle en la iniciativa prevista.

Por otra parte, la Comisión ha adoptado recientemente una propuesta de Reglamento para sustituir la actual
normativa sobre ensayos clínicos. Uno de los principales objetivos de la propuesta es hacer más atractiva la
investigación clínica en la EU, contribuyendo al crecimiento y a la creación de empleo en este sector, al tiempo que se
garantiza el acceso de los pacientes a los tratamientos más avanzados en las más rigurosas condiciones de seguridad.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 582 final.

C 294 E / 288 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009053/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Salvador Sedó i Alabart (PPE) und Werner Langen (PPE)**

_(9. Oktober 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Die Pharmaindustrie in der EU

Die Kommission hat im Rahmen der Agenda 2020 eine Reihe von Initiativen vorgestellt, um nachhaltiges Wachstum
in der Europäischen Union zu fördern. Eine der großen Stärken des Vorschlags der Kommission ist die Fokussierung
der Industriepolitik, was von Präsident Barroso in seiner Ansprache zur Lage der Union vor dem Parlament am
12. September 2012 erneut bestätigt wurde. In seiner Rede bestimmte der Präsident vier Sektoren von strategischer
Bedeutung: Luftfahrtindustrie, Automobilindustrie, Maschinenbau und Pharmaindustrie.

Was die Pharmaindustrie betrifft, erschweren die haushaltspolitischen Maßnahmen, die derzeit in den Mitgliedstaaten
ergriffen werden, erheblich deren Entwicklung und beeinträchtigen den Zugang der Patienten zu innovativen
Produkten, obwohl die Pharmaindustrie mit 19,1 % der gesamten FuE-Investitionen in Europa nach wie vor ein
wichtiges Plus/großen Gewinn für die Europäische Union darstellt. Am Produktionsvolumen gemessen ist sie mit
Handelsüberschüssen von 70 Mrd. EUR im Jahr 2010 der fünftgrößte Sektor in der EU.

1. Beabsichtigt die Kommission im Lichte dessen und angesichts der Rede des Präsidenten Barroso sowie des
Beitrags der Pharmaindustrie zum Wachstum diesen Wirtschaftszweig in der nächsten Mitteilung zur Industriepolitik
in die vorrangigen Bereiche aufzunehmen?

2. Welche anderen spezifischen integrierten Maßnahmen beabsichtigt die Kommission zur Unterstützung der
Gesundheitsindustrie vorzuschlagen, damit gesellschaftliche Herausforderungen, wie die Bevölkerungsalterung und
der steigende Behandlungsbedarf bewältigt werden und dem Erfordernis der Unabhängigkeit der Union im
Gesundheitswesen Rechnung getragen wird?

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

_(30. November 2012)_

Präsident Barroso hob in seiner Rede zur Lage der Union am 12. September 2012 die Bedeutung der
pharmazeutischen Industrie für die europäische Wirtschaft hervor. Diese Feststellung wurde in der Mitteilung „Eine
stärkere europäische Industrie bringt Wachstum und wirtschaftliche Erholung — Aktualisierung der Mitteilung zur
Industriepolitik“ ( [1] ) vom 10. Oktober 2012 aufgegriffen.

Die Kommission weist in dieser Mitteilung darauf hin, dass zusätzliche Maßnahmen erforderlich sind. Es wird
vorgeschlagen, mögliche Maßnahmen über die derzeitige Überprüfung der Richtlinie 89/105/EWG betreffend die
Transparenz von Maßnahmen zur Regelung der Preisfestsetzung/Erstattung bei Arzneimitteln und die laufenden
Arbeiten zur Technologiefolgenabschätzung im Gesundheitswesen hinaus zu ergreifen. Dieses umfassende Konzept
sollte alle Politikbereiche abdecken und alle Parteien einbeziehen, die für die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der europäischen
Arzneimittelindustrie wichtig sind. Mit diesem geplanten Prozess sollen die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit und langfristige
Bestandsfähigkeit der pharmazeutischen Industrie der EU sichergestellt und gleichzeitig gewährleistet werden, dass
die europäischen Bürgerinnen und Bürger Zugang zu Medizinprodukten haben. Der zum Thema Verantwortung der
Unternehmen in der pharmazeutischen Industrie eingeleitete Prozess, der sich derzeit in der letzten Phase befindet,
wird dazu beitragen, Bereiche zu ermitteln, die in Zukunft im Rahmen der geplanten politischen Initiative
eingehender behandelt werden sollten.

Darüber hinaus hat die Kommission vor Kurzem einen Vorschlag für eine Verordnung angenommen, die die
geltenden Bestimmungen über klinische Prüfungen ersetzen soll. Eines der wichtigsten Ziele des Vorschlags ist es, die
Durchführung klinischer Forschung in der EU attraktiver zu gestalten und so zum Wachstum und zur Schaffung von
Arbeitsplätzen in dieser Branche beizutragen, wobei gleichzeitig sichergestellt wird, dass europäische Patienten
Zugang zu Behandlungsformen haben, die dem neuesten Stand entsprechen und strengsten Sicherheitsbedingungen
unterliegen.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) KOM(2012)582 endg.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 289

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009053/12**

**to the Commission**
**Salvador Sedó i Alabart (PPE) and Werner Langen (PPE)**

_(9 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ The EU pharmaceutical industry

As part of Agenda 2020, the Commission has presented a number of initiatives to promote sustainable growth in the
European Union. One of the strong points of the Commission’s proposal is its focus on industrial policy, which was
reaffirmed by President Barroso in his State of the Union address before Parliament on 12 September 2012. In his
speech, Mr Barroso identified four strategic sectors: the aeronautic, automotive, engineering and pharmaceutical
industries.

With regard to the latter, the budgetary measures currently being taken in the Member States are considerably
hampering the development of the pharmaceutical sector, and undermining patients’ access to innovative products,
notwithstanding the fact that the pharmaceutical industry remains an asset to the European Union, accounting for
19.1% of the total R R&D D investment in Europe. It is the fifth largest sector in the EU in terms of production, having
generated trade surpluses of EU 70 billion in 2010.

1. In light of this, and in view of the speech by President Barroso and the contribution of the pharmaceutical
industry to growth, does the Commission intend to include this sector among the priority areas in its next
communication on industrial policy?

2. What other specific, integrated actions does the Commission intend to propose in support of the healthcare
industry, in order to meet societal challenges such as an ageing population, growing medical needs and the need to
safeguard the Union’s independence in terms of health?

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

_(30 November 2012)_

In his State of the Union speech of 12 September 2012 President Barroso highlighted the importance of the
pharmaceutical industry for the European economy. This notion has been taken up in the communication ‘A
Stronger European Industry for Growth and Economic Recovery — Industrial Policy Communication Update’ of
10 October 2012 ( [1] ).

In the abovementioned Communication the Commission points out that additional action is needed. It is proposed
that possible activities should go beyond the current review of the Transparency Directive 89/105/EEC on
pricing/reimbursement of medicinal products and the ongoing work on health technology assessment. This
comprehensive approach should cover all policies and get all parties involved which are relevant to the
competitiveness of the European-based pharmaceutical industry. The objective of this envisaged process is to secure
the competitiveness and long-term viability of the EU pharmaceutical industry while ensuring access to medicinal
products for European citizens. The Process of Corporate Responsibility in the Field of Pharmaceuticals which is
currently in its final phase will help to identify future areas worth dealing with in more detail in the planned policy
initiative.

Moreover, the Commission recently adopted a proposal for a regulation replacing current rules on Clinical Trials. One
of the main aims of the proposal is to boost the attractiveness of conducting clinical research in the EU, contributing
to growth and job creation in this sector while ensuring that European patients have access to state-of-the-art
treatments under the strictest safety conditions.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 582 final.

C 294 E / 290 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009054/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(9 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Pregunta complementaria a la respuesta E-004856/2012

En referencia a la respuesta E-004856/2012 de fecha 3 de julio de 2012, de la Sra. Kroes, en nombre de la Comisión:
«La Comisión está examinando si la legislación relativa al sector de las telecomunicaciones recientemente aprobada se
ajusta a la legislación de la UE y analizando las propuestas finales que se van a adoptar para crear una única entidad
reguladora en España.»

A la vista de que ya han pasado tres meses desde la respuesta de la Comisión,

1. ¿Ya ha examinado la Comisión esta documentación?

2. ¿Está satisfecha la Comisión con la información que ha recibido de las autoridades españolas?

3. ¿A qué conclusión ha llegado la Comisión sobre este tema?

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

_(20 de noviembre de 2012)_

La Comisión ha analizado la legislación nacional adoptada por la que se que incorpora el marco reglamentario de la
UE aplicable a las comunicaciones electrónicas y examinado la evolución de la legislación con vistas a la adopción de
la ley por la que se crea la Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (CNMC) en España.

En lo que se refiere a la adopción del Real Decreto-ley 13/2012 que incorpora el marco reglamentario de la UE, tras la
notificación de la plena incorporación de las Directivas pertinentes de la UE, la Comisión ha archivado el
procedimiento de infracción por falta de comunicación de las medidas correspondientes. La Comisión ha examinado
dicha legislación y se ha puesto en contacto con las autoridades españolas en relación con algunos aspectos de la
citada incorporación.

En lo que atañe a la reforma de las autoridades españolas de reglamentación, una vez emitido el dictamen del Consejo
de Estado, el Consejo de Ministros adoptó el 27 de septiembre de 2012 el proyecto de ley por el que se crea la
CNMC ( [1] ), que ha sido presentado al Congreso de los Diputados para su adopción ( [2] ).

Tal como se indica en nuestra respuesta a la pregunta parlamentaria E-5317/2012 ( [3] ), al amparo del Derecho de la UE,
los Estados miembros gozan de un alto grado de autonomía a la hora de establecer sus órganos reguladores de sector
y de la competencia, siempre que se cumplan todos los requisitos impuestos por el Derecho de la UE en materia de
creación de estos órganos y desempeño de sus cometidos. En el sector de las telecomunicaciones electrónicas, las
Directivas pertinentes de la UE establecen disposiciones específicas relativas a la independencia de las autoridades de
reglamentación. La Comisión presta una gran importancia al principio de la independencia de las autoridades
nacionales de reglamentación y analizará si el texto definitivo de la ley que adopte el Congreso de los Diputados
cumple el Derecho de la UE.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Consejo de Ministros, jueves 27 de septiembre de 2012:

http://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/ConsejodeMinistros/Referencias/_2012/refc20120927.htm#ComisionNacional.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Boletín Oficial de las Cortes Generales, Congreso de los Diputados, 19 de octubre de 2012:

http://www.congreso.es/public_oficiales/L10/CONG/BOCG/A/BOCG-10-A-28-1.PDF

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/es/parliamentary-questions.html

( **|**

( **|**

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 291

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009054/12**

**to the Commission**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(9 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Follow-up to answer to Written Question E-004856/2012

In her answer to Written Question E-004856/2012 of 3 July 2012, Ms Kroes stated, on behalf of the Commission,
that: ‘[t]he Commission is in the process of analysing the compliance with EC law of the recently adopted legislation
in the telecommunications sector and the final proposals to be adopted regarding the establishment of a single
regulator in Spain’.

Three months have now gone by since the Commission’s answer. With this in mind:

1. Has the Commission now analysed the documents concerned?

2. Is the Commission satisfied with the information that it has received from the Spanish authorities?

3. What conclusion has the Commission reached on this matter?

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

_(20 November 2012)_

The Commission has analysed the adopted legislation transposing the EU regulatory framework for electronic
communications and has been monitoring the legislative developments for the adoption of the law creating the
National Commission for Markets and Competition (CNMC) in Spain.

With regard to the adoption of Royal Decree-law 13/2012 transposing the EU regulatory framework, following
notification of full transposition of the relevant EU Directives, the Commission has closed the infringement
proceedings for non-communication of transposition measures. The Commission has examined this legislation and
has been in contacts with the Spanish authorities as regards some aspects of this transposition.

With regard to the reform of the regulatory authorities in Spain, following the opinion of the Council of State, the
draft law creating the CNMC was adopted by the Council of Ministers on 27 September 2012 ( [1] ). The draft law has
now been submitted to the Parliament for adoption ( [2] ).

As indicated in our reply to PQ E-5317/2012 ( [3] ), under EC law, Member States have a considerable degree of
autonomy in deciding how to set up their competition and sector regulatory bodies provided that all requirements
imposed by EC law regarding the setting up of these bodies and the carrying out of their tasks are duly complied with.
In the electronic communications sector, the relevant EU Directives contain specific provisions about the
independence of regulatory authorities. The Commission attaches great importance to the principle of independence
of the national regulatory authorities, and will analyse the compliance with EC law of the final law to be adopted by
the Spanish Parliament.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Consejo de Ministros. Jueves 27 de Septiembre de 2012,

http://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/ConsejodeMinistros/Referencias/_2012/refc20120927.htm#ComisionNacional

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Boletín Oficial de las Cortes Generales. Congreso de los Diputados. 19 de Octubre de 2012,

http://www.congreso.es/public_oficiales/L10/CONG/BOCG/A/BOCG-10-A-28-1.PDF

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

( **|**

( **|**

C 294 E / 292 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(Svensk version)_

**Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-009055/12**

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

_(9 oktober 2012)_

_Angående:_ Skyddet av EU-medborgarnas personuppgifter inom ramen för EU:s föreslagna djupgående och
omfattande frihandelsavtal med Armenien

Kommissionens information om de pågående förhandlingarna med Armeniens regering om ett djupgående och
omfattande frihandelsavtal ger anledning till följande frågor:

Enligt Europaparlamentets och rådets direktiv 95/46/EG om skydd för enskilda personer med avseende på
behandling av personuppgifter och om det fria flödet av sådana uppgifter har registerförare ett tydligt ansvar i fråga
om behandlingen av uppgifter, och det måste finnas garantier för att skydda enskilda personers grundläggande
rättigheter. Det utkast till kapitel om handel med tjänster, etablering och elektronisk handel (artikel 42) som
kommissionen har sänt till INTA‐utskottet innehåller särskilda garantier för överföring av personuppgifter, men det
specificeras inte vilka garantier som kommer att gälla när uppgifterna väl har lagrats i Armenien. Trots att direktiv
95/46/EG omfattar garantier för behandlingen av uppgifter omnämns inte uttryckligen sådana garantier i texten till
det djupgående och omfattande frihandelsavtalet med Armenien.

Kommissionen ombeds svara på följande frågor:

1. Varför finns inte principen om att den berörda personen vars uppgifter överförs och behandlas måste ge sitt
samtycke på förhand med i det djupgående och omfattande frihandelsavtalet?

2. Kan kommissionen garantera att EU-medborgarnas rättigheter skyddas, trots att avtalet inte verkar garantera
samma nivå av skydd som EU:s regelverk?

3. På vilket sätt uppmuntras den armeniska regeringen att snarast möjligt införa sådana garantier, med tanke på
att avtalsförslaget inte innehåller några specifika tidsfrister eller skyldigheter för att garantera en liknande nivå
av skydd som EU:s regelverk?

**Svar från Karel De Gucht på kommissionens vägnar**

_(30 januari 2013)_

EU fäster vikt vid ett starkt skydd av personuppgifter i alla handelsavtal. Det framgår också av utkastet till ett
djupgående och omfattande frihandelsavtal med Armenien, där EU förbehåller sig rätten att vidta och tillämpa de
åtgärder som är nödvändiga för att säkerställa efterlevnaden av lagar och andra författningar om skydd av enskildas
personliga integritet vid behandling och spridning av personuppgifter (artikel 58 i utkastet).

I praktiken innebär det att vid överföring av personuppgifter från EU till Armenien ska skyddsåtgärderna i direktiv
95/46/EG ( [1] ) tillämpas. Enligt artikel 26 i direktivet är och förblir den registrerades otvetydiga samtycke på förhand en
av de legitima grunderna för överföring av personuppgifter. Avtalet innebär inte heller något konstaterande om att
Armenien har en adekvat skyddsnivå enligt artikel 25.6 i direktivet.

Dessutom ska det framtida associeringsavtalet, om vilket förhandlingar pågår, innehålla ytterligare bestämmelser som
ska garantera ett fullgott skydd för personuppgifter. Parterna ska härvidlag enas om att samarbeta för att ombesörja
en lämplig nivå på skyddet av personuppgifter enligt högsta möjliga europeiska och internationella krav, inklusive
Europarådets tillämpliga instrument.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Europaparlamentets och rådets direktiv 95/46/EG av den 24 oktober 1995 om skydd för enskilda personer med avseende på behandling av
personuppgifter och om det fria flödet av sådana uppgifter (EGT L 281, 23.11.1995).

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 293

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009055/12**

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

_(9 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Protection of personal data belonging to EU citizens in the context of the EU's proposed DCFTA with Armenia

The information provided by the Commission on the ongoing negotiations with the Government of Armenia on a
Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA) raises the following issue:

Under Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard
to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, data processors within the EU have clear
liabilities and safeguards of fundamental rights of individuals must be put in place. The draft Chapter on Trade in
Services, Establishment and Electronic Commerce (Art. 42), sent by the Commission to the INTA Committee,
provides safeguards especially for the transfer of data, but it does not specify which safeguards will apply once the
data is stored in Armenia. While Directive 95/46/EC includes safeguards applicable to the processing of data, such
safeguards are not explicitly mentioned in the text of the DCFTA with Armenia.

Is the Commission able to clarify the following questions:

1. Why is the principle of prior consent of the individual whose data is being transferred and processed not being
included in the DCFTA?

2. Is the Commission able to ensure the protection of the rights of EU citizens even when the same level of
protection as afforded by the _acquis_ appears not to be guaranteed?

3. How is the Armenian Government being encouraged to put such safeguards into place as soon as possible,
given that no specific deadlines or obligation to provide a similar level of protection with the EU _acquis_ are
mentioned in the proposed agreement?

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

_(30 January 2013)_

The EU attaches importance to guarantying a high level of protection of personal data in all trade agreements. This is
also reflected in the proposed text of the agreement on a deep and comprehensive area with Armenia, where the EU
preserves the right to ‘adopt and enforce measures necessary to secure compliance with laws or regulations relating to
the protection of the privacy of individuals in relation to the processing and dissemination of personal data’ (draft
Article 58).

In practical terms it means that as far as data transfers from the EU to Armenia are concerned, the safeguards provided
under Directive 95/46/EC ( [1] ) will be applicable. In particular, under Article 26 of Directive 95/46/EC, prior and
unambiguous consent of the data subject is and will continue to be one of the legitimate requirements for such
transfers. Furthermore, the agreement would not imply adequacy of Armenia within the meaning of Article 25(6) of
Directive 95/46/EC.

In addition, the future Association Agreement, which is currently being negotiated, shall contain further elements
ensuring that a high level of data protection will be guaranteed. In this context, the Parties shall agree to cooperate in
order to ensure an appropriate level of protection of personal data in accordance with the highest European and
international standards, including the relevant Council of Europe instruments.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 95/46/EC of Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of
personal data and on the free movement of such data, OJ L 281, 23.11.1995.

C 294 E / 294 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(Dansk udgave)_

**Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-009058/12**

**til Kommissionen**
**Morten Løkkegaard (ALDE)**

_(9. oktober 2012)_

_Om:_ Offentlige Udbud III

I moderniseringen af direktivet om offentlige udbud lægger Kommissionen op til, at der kan stilles krav til de
tilbudsgivende virksomheder om at udarbejde beregninger over levetidsomkostningerne ved produktet.

Hvis en virksomhed foretager en fejlagtig beregning, der fører til lavere forventede levetidsomkostninger, vil de
komme til at stå bedre i vurderingen af det økonomisk mest fordelagtige tilbud.

Kan Kommissionen afklare, hvem der i givet fald kommer til at stå med ansvaret for en
levetidsomkostningsberegning, hvor forudsætninger ikke holder, fordi de enten har været fejlagtige fra starten, eller
der er opstået uforudsete hændelser undervejs i levetiden?

Der kan for eksempel være tale om udefrakommende eksterne påvirkninger eller uforudset stor slitage. Vil det være
den tilbudsgivende virksomhed eller den ordregivende myndighed, som skal dække en eventuel fejlagtig beregning?

**Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Michel Barnier**

_(3. december 2012)_

Ifølge det direktivforslag om offentlige udbud, som Kommissionen har forelagt ( [1] ), skal de ordregivende myndigheder
i udbudsdokumenterne angive, hvilken metode der er anvendt til at beregne livscyklusomkostningerne ( [2] ). På
baggrund af de bemærkninger, der er indkommet vedrørende gennemførelsen af beregningen, navnlig hvem ansvaret
herfor kan pålægges, er det Kommissionens opfattelse, at beregningen af livscyklusomkostningerne i praksis bør
gennemføres af de ordregivende myndigheder selv på grundlag af de specifikke data, som vil blive præciseret i
udbudsdokumenterne og afkrævet af tilbudsgiverne. Dette punkt vil skulle afklares i forbindelse med den
igangværende vedtagelsesprocedure. Ansvaret for en fejlagtig beregning vil i så fald alene blive den ordregivende
myndigheds, og konsekvenserne af en fejlagtig beregning, som bliver opdaget på et senere tidspunkt, vil falde ind
under national lovgivning.

Hvis en tilbudsgiver indgiver fejlagtige data, vil sagen ikke stille sig anderledes end for fejl i forbindelse med andre
kriterier (f.eks. leveringsdato eller færdiggørelsestid, kundeservice osv.), som benyttes til at afgøre, hvilket tilbud der er
det økonomisk mest fordelagtige. Konsekvenserne af en sådan situation falder ligeledes ind under national lovgivning.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) KOM(2011) 896 endelig.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Jf. artikel 67, stk. 2, i forslaget.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 295

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009058/12**

**to the Commission**
**Morten Løkkegaard (ALDE)**

_(9 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Public Procurement III

In its review of the Public Procurement Directive, the Commission is proposing rules that would make it possible to
require tendering companies to provide a calculation of the life-cycle costs of products.

This means that if a company made an incorrect calculation which resulted in lower anticipated life-cycle costs, it
would improve its position with respect to the evaluation of the most economically advantageous tender.

Could the Commission clarify who, in such a case, would bear the responsibility for a calculation of life-cycle costs in
which the underlying assumptions turn out to be wrong either because they were incorrect from the outset, or
because of unforeseen events occurring during their life cycle?

This could, for example, be due to external influencing factors or greater wear and tear than anticipated. Would the
tendering company or the contracting authority be held liable for any such incorrect calculation?

_(Version française)_

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

_(3 décembre 2012)_

La proposition de directive relative aux marchés publics présentée par la Commission ( [1] ) prévoit que les pouvoirs
adjudicateurs indiquent dans les documents de marché quelle est la méthode utilisée pour le calcul du coût du cycle de
vie ( [2] ). Suite à des observations reçues quant aux modalités de mise en œuvre du calcul, notamment la responsabilité
des différents intervenants à cet égard, la Commission est d'avis que le calcul du coût du cycle de vie devrait en
pratique être effectué par le pouvoir adjudicateur lui-même à partir des données spécifiques qui seraient précisées
dans les documents de marché et requises des soumissionnaires. Ce point devrait être clarifié dans le cadre de la
procédure d'adoption en cours. Une erreur de calcul serait donc alors imputable au seul pouvoir adjudicateur et les
conséquences d'une erreur de calcul détectée ultérieurement relèveraient du droit national.

Le cas de données erronées fournies par un soumissionnaire ne serait quant à lui pas différent d'un cas d'erreur relatif à
d'autres critères (tels que la date de livraison ou d'exécution, le service après-vente, etc.) requis en vue de la
détermination de l'offre économiquement la plus avantageuse. Les conséquences d'une telle situation relèveraient
également du droit national.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011)896 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Cf. article 67, paragraphe 2 de la proposition.

C 294 E / 296 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009059/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Michael Theurer (ALDE)**

_(9. Oktober 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Umsetzung des Vergaberechts in Baden-Württemberg (Deutschland): Beispiel bürokratischer Aufwände eines
EFRE-geförderten Projekts

Der Grund für diese Anfrage ist die Beschwerde eines Bürgers, der ein EFRE-gefördertes Cluster im Land BadenWürttemberg (Deutschland) leitet und über einen hohen bürokratischen Aufwand bei der Auftragsvergabe klagt.

Der Bürger beschreibt den Fall wie folgt: Bis Ende 2011 galt in Baden-Württemberg das Beschleunigungsgesetz, was
dem Cluster die freihändige Vergabe bis zu einem Wert von rund 200 000 EUR ermöglicht hat. Diese Rechtslage habe
sich am 1. Januar 2012 geändert. Der zuständige Sachbearbeiter der Landesbank Baden-Württemberg hatte allerdings
mitgeteilt, dass bei Aufträgen, die nach Vergabe‐ und Vertragsordnung für Leistungen erteilt werden müssten, vom
Grundsatz der öffentlichen Ausschreibung abgewichen werden könne, wenn die Wertgrenze von 10 000 EUR nicht
überschritten werde.

Diese Erleichterung beruhe auf dem Erlass des Innenministeriums Baden-Württemberg vom 25. Januar 2008. Wenige
Wochen später wurde dem Leiter des Clusters allerdings mitgeteilt, dass diese Erleichterungen nur für kommunale
Auftraggeber gelten würden. Er sieht sich daher seitdem gezwungen, alle Vergaben ab 500 EUR öffentlich
auszuschreiben, was einen erheblichen Aufwand verursacht und darüber hinaus, für einen Auftrag in dieser
Größenordnung, nicht hinnehmbare Verwaltungskosten.

1. Kann die Kommission Auskunft darüber geben, auf welcher europäischen Rechtsquelle die oben beschriebene
Regelung beruht?

2. Kann die Kommission Auskunft darüber geben, ob es im Einklang mit europäischem Recht ist, die oben
beschriebene Rechtsetzung in Baden-Württemberg zu ändern?

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

_(30. November 2012)_

Die EU-Richtlinien über die öffentliche Auftragsvergabe 2004/17/EG ( [1] ) und 2004/18/EG ( [2] ) stellen die
Rechtsgrundlage für die einzelstaatlichen Regeln auf dem Gebiet der öffentlichen Auftragsvergabe dar, sofern die in
diesen Richtlinien festgelegten Schwellenwerte überschritten werden. Derzeit liegen die Schwellenwerte für
Bauaufträge bei 5 000 000 EUR und für Liefer‐ und Dienstleistungsaufträge bei 200 000 EUR.

Die vom Herrn Abgeordneten genannten Aufträge liegen unter diesen Schwellenwerten. Folglich finden die EURichtlinien über die öffentliche Auftragsvergabe keine Anwendung. In diesen Fällen finden die allgemeinen
Grundsätze der Gleichbehandlung, Nichtdiskriminierung und Transparenz, die im Vertrag über die Arbeitsweise der
Europäischen Union festgeschrieben sind, auf Fälle der Auftragsvergabe mit grenzübergreifendem Interesse
Anwendung ( [3] ). Abgesehen von den zuvor genannten allgemeinen Grundsätzen, die die Mitgliedstaaten einhalten
müssen, obliegt es jedem Mitgliedstaat, weitere einschlägige Vorschriften festzulegen.

Bei Aufträgen unter einem Wert von 10 000 EUR, auf die der Herr Abgeordnete Bezug nimmt, ist ein
grenzübergreifendes Interesse in der Regel nicht gegeben. Den Mitgliedstaaten steht es frei, über die in diesen Fällen
einzuhaltenden Verfahren zu bestimmen. So können sie zwar obligatorische öffentliche Ausschreibungen vorsehen,
sind aber nach europäischem Recht nicht dazu verpflichtet.

Im Rahmen der oben genannten Schwellenwerte können die Mitgliedstaaten ihre Rechtsvorschriften ändern.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Richtlinie 2004/17/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 31. März 2004 zur Koordinierung der Zuschlagserteilung durch

Auftraggeber im Bereich der Wasser-, Energie- und Verkehrsversorgung sowie der Postdienste (ABl. L 134 vom 30. April 2004, S. 1).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Richtlinie 2004/18/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 31. März 2004 über die Koordinierung der Verfahren zur Vergabe

öffentlicher Bauaufträge, Lieferaufträge und Dienstleistungsaufträge (ABl. L 134 vom 30. April 2004, S. 114.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Mitteilung der Kommission zu Auslegungsfragen in Bezug auf das Gemeinschaftsrecht, das für die Vergabe öffentlicher Aufträge gilt, die nicht

oder nur teilweise unter die Vergaberichtlinien fallen; ABl. C 179 vom 1.8.2006, C-179/2.

( **|**

( **|**

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 297

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009059/12**

**to the Commission**
**Michael Theurer (ALDE)**

_(9 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Implementation of public procurement legislation in Baden-Württemberg (Germany): an example of
bureaucratic costs in connection with an ERDF-funded project

My question arises from a complaint by a member of the public who leads a ERDF-funded ‘cluster’ in the German
Land of Baden-Württemberg and draws attention to high administrative costs in connection with procurement
procedures.

The complainant describes the situation as follows. Up to the end of 2011, Baden-Württemberg applied the
Accelerated Development Act, which enabled the cluster to award private treaty contracts up to a value of
EUR 200 000. The legal situation changed on 1 January 2012. The official responsible for such matters at the
Landesbank Baden-Württemberg indicated, however, that in the case of contracts for the supply of services subject to
contract award procedures, exemptions from the requirement for competitive bidding could be made if the value of
the contract did not exceed EUR 10 000.

This concession was apparently based on a directive issued by the Baden-Württemberg Ministry of the Interior on
25 January 2008. A few weeks later, however, the leader of the cluster was informed that this form of relief only
applied only to (municipal) contracting authorities. He is therefore obliged to put all contracts worth EUR 500 or
more out to public tender, which involves administrative costs which are unacceptably high in relation to the value of
the contacts.

1. Can the Commission explain what is the basis in European law for the rules referred to above?

2. Can the Commission state whether it is consistent with European law to change the abovementioned legislation
in Baden-Württemberg?

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

_(30 November 2012)_

The European Public Procurement Directives 2004/17/EC ( [1] ) and 2004/18/EC ( [2] ) constitute the legal basis for
national rules on public procurements above the thresholds fixed in those directives. Currently the thresholds are
EUR 5 000 000 for works contracts and EUR 200 000 for service and supply contracts.

The contracts the Honourable Member refers to are below those thresholds. The Public Procurement Directives are
therefore not applicable. In these cases the general principles derived from the Treaty on the functioning of the
European Union, equal treatment, non-discrimination, and transparency must be respected in case of procurements
presenting a cross-border interest ( [3] ). Apart from the abovementioned general principles that Member States must
respect in their legislation, it falls within the competence of each Member State to set more specific rules.

Below EUR 10 000, the value of the contracts the Honourable Member refers to, a cross-border interest does typically
not exist. Member States are free to define the procedures to be followed in these cases. They can foresee compulsory
public tendering but are not obliged to do so under European law.

Within the limits set out above the Member States are free to change their legislation.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 ;arch 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities

operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors, OJ L 134 of 30 April 2004, p. 1.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of 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 of 30 April 2004, p. 114.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Commission Interpretative Communication on the Community law applicable to contract awards not or not fully subject to the provisions of the

Public Procurement Directives, Official Journal of 1.08.2006, C-179/2.

( **|**

( **|**

C 294 E / 298 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009060/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(9 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Sistema Automático de Información de Calidad de las Aguas (SAICA) y Sistema Automático de Información
Hidrológica (SAIH): redes para controlar datos de calidad y datos sobre nivel del agua y el caudal

La Dirección General del Agua del Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente de España ha
prescindido casi por completo de los servicios de mantenimiento, conservación y funcionamiento de los sistemas
automáticos de información del agua (control en tiempo real de los datos hidrométricos y de calidad) puestos en
marcha en cuencas hidrográficas de toda España. El Ministerio de Medio Ambiente reconoce que las redes de control
de la superficie del agua en tiempo real instaladas en las cuencas hidrográficas españolas, SAIH (redes para controlar el
nivel del agua y los datos de caudal) y SAICA (Sistema Automático de Información de Calidad de las Aguas, redes para
controlar los datos referentes a la calidad), son «un sistema consolidado que proporciona apoyo operativo diario a las
Confederaciones Hidrográficas, conocidas por la precisión de su evaluación y gestión en condiciones normales pero
también en situaciones extremas».

En el periodo 1994-2001, la UE ha invertido más de 800 millones de euros en la implantación y puesta en marcha de
redes de control de la superficie del agua en tiempo real. No obstante, los recortes presupuestarios en el
mantenimiento y funcionamiento de estas infraestructuras suponen que en la actualidad estas redes estén siendo
abandonadas y no funcionen debidamente. Desde su instalación, las redes de control SAIH han demostrado ser unas
herramientas esenciales para la gestión eficiente de los recursos hídricos, tanto minimizando el impacto de las
inundaciones sobre la población y la actividad económica en periodos de inundaciones como actuando como
elementos reguladores en la gestión de los pantanos en episodios de sequía con el fin de suplir la demanda de la
población y de la industria.

Además, gracias a su avanzado diseño tecnológico, las redes de control SAICA han demostrado ser unos dispositivos
excelentes de alerta temprana ante episodios de contaminación, lo que contribuye a evitar vertidos no autorizados en
el medio acuático.

1. ¿Es consciente la Comisión de que la red SAIH es el principal sistema de alerta temprana en España en relación
con el cumplimiento de la Directiva 2007/60/CE, relativa a la evaluación y a la gestión de los riesgos de inundación
(capítulo IV, artículo 7.3)?

2. ¿Considera la Comisión que los argumentos aducidos en su momento por el Gobierno de España ya no son
válidos para obtener fondos estructurales con vistas a la construcción de las redes de control SAIH y SAICA?

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009061/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(9 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Sistema Automático de Información Hidrológica (SAIH): Redes para controlar el nivel del agua y los datos de
caudal

La Dirección General del Agua del Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente de España ha
prescindido casi por completo de los servicios de mantenimiento, preservación y funcionamiento de los sistemas
automáticos de información del agua (control en tiempo real de los datos hidrométricos y de calidad) puestos en
marcha en cuencas hidrográficas de todo el país. El Ministerio de Medio Ambiente español reconoce ( [1] ) que las redes
de control de la superficie del agua en tiempo real instaladas en las cuencas hidrográficas españolas, SAIH (redes para
controlar el nivel del agua y los datos de caudal) y SAICA (Sistema Automático de Información de Calidad de las
Aguas, redes para controlar los datos referentes a la calidad), son «un sistema consolidado que proporciona apoyo
operativo diario a las Confederaciones Hidrográficas, conocidas por la precisión de su evaluación y gestión en
condiciones normales pero también en situaciones extremas».

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.magrama.gob.es/es/agua/temas/evaluacion-de-los-recursos-hidricos/SAIH_WEB_MMA_V301109_tcm7-28827.pdf

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 299

En el periodo 1994-2012, la UE ( [2] ) ha invertido más de 800 millones de euros en la implantación y puesta en marcha
de redes de control de la superficie del agua en tiempo real. No obstante, los recortes presupuestarios en el
mantenimiento y funcionamiento de estas infraestructuras conducen al abandono y al empeoramiento de estas redes.
Desde su instalación, las redes de control SAIH han demostrado ser unas herramientas esenciales para la gestión
eficiente de los recursos hídricos tanto en episodios de desbordamiento, minimizando el impacto de las inundaciones
sobre la población y la actividad económica, como en episodios de sequía, en tanto que actúan como elementos
reguladores en la gestión de los pantanos para garantizar la máxima disponibilidad de los recursos con el fin de suplir
la demanda de la población y de la industria.

Además, gracias a su avanzado diseño tecnológico, las redes de control SAICA han demostrado ser unos dispositivos
excelentes de alerta temprana ante episodios de contaminación, lo que les convierte en una infraestructura disuasoria
contra vertidos no autorizados en el medio acuático.

¿Tiene en cuenta la Comisión que las redes de control SAIH son herramientas para observar el cumplimiento del
caudal mínimo ecológico necesario para conseguir el objetivo de la Directiva marco del agua, según la respuesta
parlamentaria del Comisario Dimas en nombre de la Comisión? ( [3] )

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

_(14 de diciembre de 2012)_

La Comisión también cree que las redes SAIH son útiles para supervisar el cumplimiento de los flujos
medioambientales mínimos y para evaluar los riesgos de inundación, tal como dispone el Derecho de la UE.

La Comisión confirma que los fondos de cohesión de la UE han financiado las redes SAIH y SAICA. No obstante, estos
fondos no pueden financiar los costes de mantenimiento y de funcionamiento de estas infraestructuras; además, los
fondos de la UE no pueden financiar dos veces la misma inversión.

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2000)0822. Financiación FEDER, financiación FEDER para Galicia 2000-2006, financiación complementaria de cohesión FEDER para

Extremadura 2001-2006, implantación del Sistema Automático de Información Hidrológica (SAIH) en la cuenca hidrográfica del Guadiana,
2007-2013.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Respuesta a la pregunta parlamentaria E-5592/09.

( **|**

⋅3∙ **|** )

C 294 E / 300 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009060/12**

**to the Commission**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(9 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ SAICA (networks to monitor quality data) and SAIH (networks to monitor water level and flow data)

The Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Food and the Environment’s National Water Authority has almost entirely
dispensed with maintenance services and the preservation and operation of automatic water information systems
(real-time monitoring of hydrometric and quality data) implemented in river basins across Spain. The Environment
Ministry recognises that the real-time surface water monitoring networks installed in Spain’s river basins — SAIH
(networks to monitor water level and flow data) and SAICA (networks to monitor quality data) — are a consolidated
system which provides daily operational support to the river basin authorities, known for their accurate management
assessments in normal conditions but also in extreme situations.

In the period between 1994 and 2001, the EU invested over EUR 800 million in the establishment and
implementation of real-time surface water monitoring networks. Budget cuts in the maintenance and operation of
such infrastructures now mean that such networks are being neglected and are not performing well. Since their
launch, SAIH monitoring networks have proven to be essential tools for the efficient management of water resources,
both in minimising the impact of floods on the population and on economic activity in periods of flooding, and in the
management of reservoirs as regulatory elements in periods of drought to ensure the maximum availability of
resources to meet the demands of the population and industry.

Moreover, SAICA monitoring networks, through their technologically advanced design, have proven to be excellent
early-warning devices for pollution, helping to prevent unauthorised discharges into the water environment.

1. Is the Commission aware that the SAIH network is the Spain’s primary early-warning system as regards
compliance with Directive 2007/60/EC on the assessment and management of flood risks (Chapter IV, Article 7(3))?

2. Does the Commission take the view that the arguments the Spanish Government put forward at the time are no
longer valid as regards obtaining structural funds with a view to building SAIH and SAICA control networks?

**Question for written answer E-009061/12**

**to the Commission**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(9 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ SAIH: networks to monitor water level and flow data

The Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Food and the Environment’s National Water Authority has almost entirely
dispensed with maintenance services and the preservation and operation of automatic water information systems
(real-time monitoring of hydrometric and quality data) implemented in river basins across Spain. The Environment
Ministry recognises ( [1] ) that the real-time surface water monitoring networks installed in Spain’s river basins — SAIH
(networks to monitor water level and flow data) and SAICA (networks to monitor quality data) — are a consolidated
system which provides daily operational support to the River Basin Authorities, known for their accurate
management assessments in normal conditions but also in extreme situations.

In the period between 1994 and 2012, the EU invested over EUR 800 million ( [2] ) in the establishment and
implementation of real-time surface water monitoring networks. Budget cuts in the maintenance and operation of
such infrastructures now mean that such networks to are being neglected and are not performing well. Since their
launch, SAIH monitoring networks have proven to be essential tools for the efficient management of water resources,
both in minimising the impact of floods on the population and on economic activity in periods of flooding, and in the
management of reservoirs as regulatory elements in periods of drought to ensure the maximum availability of
resources to meet the demands of the population and industry.

Moreover, SAICA monitoring networks, through their technologically advanced design, have proven to be excellent
early-warning devices for pollution, helping to prevent unauthorised discharges into the water environment.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.magrama.gob.es/es/agua/temas/evaluacion-de-los-recursos-hidricos/SAIH_WEB_MMA_V301109_tcm7-28827.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2000)0822. FEDER funding, for Galicia 2000-2006 FEDER funding, for Extremadura 2001-2006 complement FEDER-COHESION

funding, Implementation of the Automatic Hydrological Information System (SAIH) In Guadiana river basin, 2007-2013.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 301

In the light of Commissioner Dimas’s answer on behalf of the Commission to parliamentary Question E-5592/2009,
does the Commission take the view that SAIH control networks are tools with which to monitor compliance with the
minimum environmental flows needed to achieve the objective of the Water Framework Directive?

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

_(14 December 2012)_

The Commission agrees that SAIH networks are helpful to monitor compliance with minimum environmental flows
and to assess flood risks as required by EU legislation.

The Commission confirms that the EU cohesion funds have financed SAIH and SAICA networks. However, these
funds cannot finance the maintenance and operational costs of these infrastructures; in addition the same investment
cannot be financed twice by EU funds.

C 294 E / 302 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009062/12**

**to the Commission**

**Struan Stevenson (ECR)**

_(9 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Draft broadband state aid guidelines

The UK Government has a plan to deliver superfast broadband (30 Mbps downlink speed) to virtually all UK homes
by 2015. Given the budgets available, the UK requires a combination of the following three technologies to provide
98% of UK homes with superfast broadband: Fibre to the Home (FTTH), Fibre to the street Cabinet (FTTC) and Fixed
Wireless to the Home (FWTH).

Nevertheless, the EU Next Generation Access (NGA) Guidelines do not currently allow public money to be spent on
FWTH. The guidelines were originally drawn up some five years ago when wireless technologies were less advanced
and fell short of the performance of fixed line technologies. However, technology has since progressed and the latest
4G Long Term Evolution (LTE) can now deliver superfast speeds when deployed in fixed wireless (rather than mobile)
mode.

The EU guidelines aim to be technologically neutral, encourage open competition and stimulate innovation and
investment to bridge the digital divide between rural and non-rural areas. Yet the proposed new guidelines do not
fulfil these requirements.

As fixed wireless solutions will benefit all EU countries, including the UK, could the Commission consider expanding
the current definition of NGA in the draft ‘EU Guidelines for the application of state aid rules in relation to the rapid
deployment of broadband networks’ to include fixed wireless?

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

_(11 December 2012)_

Nowadays future-proof NGA networks are able to deliver to their users at levels not always replicable by wireless and
mobile networks. It is correct that at this stage of technological development mobile (LTE) networks can achieve
theoretical high speeds. The latter disadvantage is less important in so called fixed wireless access networks (FWA)
which can reach reliably high speeds. The future broadband state aid guidelines are currently discussed, and the
Commission expects them to be adopted still in 2012. Without anticipating the outcome of the discussions the
Commission can assure that it, in full coherence with the principle of technological neutrality, will consider wireless
solutions under the NGA definition if the performance of wireless networks justifies it.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 303

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009063/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Andrea Cozzolino (S&D)**

_(9 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Collegamenti marittimi

Allo stato attuale, il collegamento tra Napoli e l'isola di Capri è garantito da tre compagnie, di cui due private —
(«Snav» e «Navigazione libera del Golfo»), che sono riunite nel consorzio «Gescab» e che possono farsi risalire a un
unico armatore — e una pubblica («Caremar»); a quest'ultima è concesso di effettuare solo le corse cosiddette di
«obbligo di pubblico servizio» (OPS), che altrimenti rischiano di non essere garantite.

Va segnalato che in più circostanze — e soprattutto nel periodo invernale — le compagnie private, contravvenendo
agli obblighi di servizio, non hanno effettuato corse perché non economicamente convenienti a causa dei pochi
passeggeri, adducendo come pretesto le «avverse condizioni meteo».

Nell'agosto 2011 con delibera della Giunta regionale campana sono state disposte la privatizzazione della compagnia
di navigazione pubblica «Caremar» e la sua messa in vendita con gara a procedura ristretta. Tra le dieci compagnie che
hanno manifestato interesse all'acquisto della «Caremar» compaiono le due private che già offrono il servizio di
collegamento (Snav e Navigazione libera del Golfo);

Alla luce di quanto precede,

1. Intende la Commissione vigilare sulla procedura di privatizzazione e di vendita, onde evitare un'ulteriore
concentrazione monopolistica che andrebbe a scapito, oltre che della politica dei prezzi, anche del servizio offerto?

2. In particolare, quali iniziative intende assumere per garantire che continui a essere rispettato l'obbligo di
«pubblico servizio» e assicurate le corse di servizio (OPS), scongiurando il rischio di gravi disservizi per pendolari e
studenti che quotidianamente devono raggiungere la terraferma?

**Risposta di Joaquín Almunia a nome della Commissione**

_(11 dicembre 2012)_

La Commissione prende atto delle preoccupazioni espresse dall'onorevole parlamentare per quanto concerne i
collegamenti effettuati da traghetti tra Napoli e l'Isola di Capri.

1. A norma del regolamento n. 139/2004 ( [1] ) sulle concentrazioni, nella vendita di un’impresa pubblica, come nel
caso descritto dall’onorevole parlamentare, la Commissione ha competenza per intervenire soltanto qualora la
vendita comporti un’acquisizione che, tra l’altro, abbia una dimensione unionale. Nell’esaminare tali casi a norma del
regolamento sulle concentrazioni, la Commissione valuta l'impatto previsto dell'operazione sui consumatori, al fine
di garantire che non vi siano conseguenze negative sulla competitività dei prezzi, sui livelli di servizi e
sull’innovazione.

Tuttavia, le concentrazioni proposte a carattere locale vengono generalmente valutate dalle autorità nazionali garanti
della concorrenza (ANC), in questo caso l'autorità italiana competente in materia, secondo le norme nazionali
pertinenti.

Al 7 dicembre scorso la Commissione non aveva ricevuto alcuna notifica, a norma del regolamento sulle
concentrazioni, di un’eventuale acquisizione di Caremar.

2. Spetta essenzialmente alle autorità nazionali verificare che le imprese che operano nel settore dei servizi di
interesse economico generale (SIEG) assolvano gli specifici obblighi di servizio pubblico (OSP) imposti dalle autorità
pubbliche, quali l'affidabilità e la continuità dei collegamenti alle isole effettuati da traghetti. Il ruolo della
Commissione è valutare la compatibilità della compensazione pubblica per il funzionamento di tali servizi con le
norme sugli aiuti di Stato. L'imposizione degli obblighi di servizio pubblico ai collegamenti con le isole deve inoltre
rispettare le disposizioni del regolamento n. 3577/92 del Consiglio, del 7 dicembre 1992, concernente l'applicazione
del principio della libera prestazione dei servizi ai trasporti marittimi fra Stati membri (cabotaggio marittimo) ( [2] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) GU L 24 del 29.1.2004, pag. 1.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) GU L 364 del 12.12.1992, pag. 7.

C 294 E / 304 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009063/12**

**to the Commission**
**Andrea Cozzolino (S&D)**

_(9 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Maritime links

At present, ferry links between Naples and the island of Capri are provided by three companies, two of which are
private ( _Snav_ and _Navigazione libera del Golfo_ ) and are members of the Gescab consortium but which have the same
owner, and one state-owned company ( _Caremar_ ). The latter is only allowed to provide ferry crossings that fall under
the definition of ‘public service obligation’ (PSO), i.e. services which might otherwise not be provided.

However, on several occasions, and especially in the winter, the private companies, in breach of their service
obligations, have cancelled ferry crossings because they are not cost-effective due to the small number of passengers,
on the pretext of ‘adverse weather conditions’.

In August 2011, by a resolution of the Regional Council of Campania, it was decided to privatise the state-owned
shipping company _Caremar_ and to put it up for sale by means of a restricted invitation to tender. Among the ten
companies that expressed an interest in purchasing _Caremar_ were the two private companies that already provide
ferry services on the same route ( _Snav_ and _Navigazione libera del Golfo_ ).

1. Will the Commission therefore monitor the privatisation and sale process in order to prevent further monopoly
concentration which would jeopardise not only pricing policy but also the service offered?

2. In particular, what measures will the Commission take to ensure that the ‘public service’ obligation continues to
be met and the PSO ferry crossings provided, to avert the risk of serious disruption for commuters and students who
need to reach the mainland every day?

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

_(11 December 2012)_

The Commission takes note of the concerns expressed by the Honourable Member regarding ferry links between
Naples and the island of Capri.

1. In the case raised by the Honourable Member of the sale of a state-owned company the Commission has
competence to intervene under the Merger regulation 139/2004 ( [1] ) only if the sale involves an acquisition which,
among other conditions, has a Union dimension. When carrying out this review under the Merger Regulation the
Commission assesses the expected impact of the transaction on consumers, with a view to ensuring that it will not
lead to detrimental effects in terms of competitive prices, levels of service and innovation.

However where the proposed concentration is local in character normally it will be examined by the National
Competition Authorities (NCAs), in this case the Italian competition authority, under national competition rules.

As of 7 December the Commission had not received any notification under the Merger Regulation regarding the
possible acquisition of Caremar by any company.

2. The discharge by companies operating services of general economic interest (SGEIs) of the specific public
service obligations (PSOs) imposed by the public authorities, such as reliability and continuity of ferry connections to
the islands, is primarily the competence of the national authorities. The Commission's role is to assess the
compatibility of the public compensation for the operation of these services with the state aid rules. The imposition of
PSOs as concerns links to the islands also has to observe the provisions of Council Regulation 3577/92 of
7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States
(maritime cabotage) ( [2] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 24, 29.01.2004, p. 1.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 364, 12.12.1992, p. 7.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 305

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009064/12**

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

**Fiorello Provera (EFD)**

_(9 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — La Costituzione egiziana

L'8 ottobre 2012, Human Rights Watch ha riferito che il progetto di Costituzione dell'Egitto contiene elementi che
disciplinano una serie di diritti politici ed economici di base ma, secondo l'organizzazione, il testo non comprende
disposizioni sufficienti in materie quali i diritti delle donne, i diritti dei bambini, la libertà di religione e la libertà di
espressione, né affronta adeguatamente temi come la tortura o la tratta di esseri umani. Secondo un portavoce di
Human Rights Watch, «l'assemblea costituente ha la straordinaria opportunità di porre le basi per promuovere il
rispetto dei diritti umani nell'Egitto di domani, ma il progetto attuale non raggiunge tale standard a causa di un
linguaggio vago o di limitazioni che distruggono l'essenza di molti diritti». Il presidente dell'assemblea costituente, il
giudice Hossam el-Gheriani, ha affermato che il testo costituzionale dovrebbe essere pronto per la prima metà di
novembre. Il documento sarà poi sottoposto a votazione nel corso di una sessione plenaria dell'assemblea, a seguito
della quale avrà luogo un referendum sul progetto di Costituzione. Le elezioni parlamentari si terranno due mesi
dopo.

Gli articoli del progetto di Costituzione che stanno creando allarme includono l'articolo 5, che omette di vietare in
modo chiaro la tortura, e l'articolo 36, che dichiara che lo Stato garantisce l'uguaglianza tra uomini e donne, purché
non via sia un conflitto con «le leggi della sharia islamica».

Infine, numerosi deputati salafiti sperano di veder assegnare all'Università Al-Azhar lo status di unico organismo a cui
spetta il diritto di interpretare la sharia, indicata nell'articolo 2 come la principale fonte del diritto: la Al-Azhar
avrebbe dunque il compito di verificare che la legislazione sia conforme alla sharia.

Può la Commissione dire:

1. qual è la posizione del Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante in merito al progetto della nuova Costituzione
egiziana;

2. quali azioni ha intrapreso il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante per discutere il progetto di costituzione con il
presidente dell'Egitto, Mohamed Morsi;

3. alla luce delle preoccupazioni relative alle mancanze del progetto di Costituzione egiziano, quali conseguenze
potrebbe avere la questione sulla politica del «di più a chi si impegna di più»?

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

_(27 novembre 2012)_

Per quanto riguarda la futura Costituzione e la stesura del relativo progetto, l'UE è impegnata a garantire il rispetto dei
principi evidenziati nelle ultime conclusioni del Consiglio sull'Egitto, adottate il 25 giugno 2012: «L'UE sottolinea
l'importanza di un processo inclusivo e trasparente di elaborazione di una nuova costituzione dell'Egitto che rispecchi
le aspirazioni del popolo egiziano alla dignità e alla giustizia, garantendo diritti umani e libertà fondamentali a tutti, e
salvaguardi la separazione democratica dei poteri legislativo, esecutivo e giudiziario.» Questa posizione è stata più
volte ribadita ai nostri partner egiziani, e riconfermata anche in occasione della recente visita del presidente Morsi a
Bruxelles il 13 settembre 2012.

L'AR/VP continuerà a seguire con la massima attenzione il processo di elaborazione e di adozione della nuova
Costituzione. Il primo progetto pubblicato è stato sottoposto a un dibattito pubblico, da cui potrebbero scaturire
modifiche sostanziali prima della votazione del testo finale da parte dell'assemblea costituente. L'adozione di una
Costituzione che tuteli i diritti umani e le libertà fondamentali di tutti gli egiziani è uno dei parametri rispetto ai quali
verranno valutati i progressi compiuti dall'Egitto nel quadro della nuova politica di vicinato.

C 294 E / 306 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009064/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD)**

_(9 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — The Egyptian constitution

On 8 October 2012, Human Rights Watch reported that Egypt’s draft constitution contains certain elements that lay
down a number of basic political and economic rights, but that, in the organisation’s view, the text does not include
sufficient provision in areas such as women’s rights, children’s rights, freedom of religion and freedom of expression,
nor does it deal properly with torture or human trafficking. According to an HRW spokesperson,‘the Constituent
Assembly has a landmark opportunity to lay the groundwork for respecting human rights in tomorrow’s Egypt, but
its current draft fails to meet that standard because of vague language or limitations that destroy the essence of many
rights’. The President of the Constituent Assembly, Judge Hossam el-Gheriani, has said that he expects the
constitutional text to be ready in the first half of November. The document will then be voted on in a plenary session
of the Assembly, following which there will be a referendum on the draft constitution. Parliamentary elections will
take place two months later.

The articles of the draft constitution which are causing alarm include Article 5, which fails to clearly prohibit torture,
and Article 36, which declares that the state shall ensure equality between men and women provided there is no
conflict with ‘the rulings of the Islamic Sharia’.

Finally, a number of Salafi members of parliament wish to see Al-Azhar University given the status of being the sole
body having the right to interpret Sharia, defined in Article 2 as the main source of law: Al-Azhar would thus have the
role of checking whether legislation is Sharia-compliant.

1. What is the position of the Vice-President/High Representative regarding the drafting of Egypt’s new
constitution?

2. What steps has the Vice-President/High Representative taken to discuss the draft constitution with Egypt’s
President, Mohamed Morsi?

3. In the light of the concerns over shortfalls in Egypt’s draft constitution, what impact could the matter have on
the policy of ‘more for more’?

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

_(27 November 2012)_

As regards the future Constitution and its drafting process, the EU is committed to the principles underlined in the last
Council Conclusions on Egypt which were adopted on 25 June 2012: ‘The EU emphasises the importance of an
inclusive and transparent drafting process of Egypt’s new Constitution, which should reflect the aspirations of the
Egyptian people for dignity and justice by ensuring human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, and safeguard the
democratic separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers’. This position has been reiterated repeatedly to our
Egyptian partners including during the recent visit of President Morsi to Brussels on 13 September 2012.

The HR/VP will continue to follow the drafting process and the adoption of the new Constitution with the closest
attention. A first draft has been issued and has been put to a public debate. This could lead to substantial amendments
before the final text is voted by the Constituent Assembly. The adoption of a Constitution upholding the Human
rights and fundamental freedoms of all Egyptians is one of the key benchmarks that will be used to assess the progress
made by Egypt in the framework of the new neighbourhood policy.

10.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294 E / 307

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009065/12**

**to the Commission**
**Nicole Sinclaire (NI)**

_(9 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Erasmus funding

The Commission proposes to expand the scope of the Erasmus project.

The integrity of the funding of Erasmus has been the subject of critical speculation in the media recently.

Could the Commission please explain how any expansion of Erasmus will be funded?

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

_(3 December 2012)_

On 23 November 2011, the Commission proposed a successor programme entitled ‘Erasmus for All’ with the aim of
fostering mobility, cooperation and policy support in the area of education, training, youth and sport. Given the
importance of these policy areas, as is shown in the Europe 2020 strategy, the Commission proposed to increase the
budget for this programme by 70%. The proposal is currently under discussion in the Parliament and the Council
who will decide on the final budget allocation for this new programme.

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