Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

ISSN 1725-2431
## C 96 E
# Official Journal
#### of the European Union

**Volume 56**
##### English edition Information and Notices 4 April 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 Article 117 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**

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 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 96 E/01)

**Contents** **Page**

**E-001225/12** by Antonio Cancian and Giovanni La Via to the Commission
_Subject:_ Monitoring of the use of ECB funds by private credit institutions

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 15
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 16

**E-001226/12** by Elisabetta Gardini to the Commission
_Subject:_ Super-bonuses for bank managers

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 17
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 18

**E-001227/12** by Agnès Le Brun to the Commission
_Subject:_ Minimum standards for the protection of pigs

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 19
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 20

**E-001228/12** by Kathleen Van Brempt to the Commission
_Subject:_ Bee mortality linked to pesticides

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 21
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 23

**E-001229/12** by Romana Jordan to the Commission
_Subject:_ Third report on the use of financial resources intended for the decommissioning of nuclear power plants
and the management of nuclear spent fuel and nuclear waste

Slovenska različica ............................................................................................................................................................ 24
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 25

**P-001231/12** by Kay Swinburne to the Commission
_Subject:_ Volcker rule on trading and market-making activities

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 26

C 96 E / 2 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

**E-001232/12** by Konstantinos Poupakis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Structural Fund support for employment and growth

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

**E-001233/12** by Nikolaos Salavrakos to the Commission
_Subject:_ Products more expensive in Greece than in other EU Member States

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

**E-001234/12** by Nikolaos Salavrakos to the Commission
_Subject:_ Manufacturing sector

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 31
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 33

**E-001235/12** by Fiorello Provera to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Christian in Pakistan charged with ‘blasphemy’ is denied bail

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 34
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 36

**E-001238/12** by Kay Swinburne to the Commission
_Subject:_ Third-country regulatory impact upon capital markets

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 37

**E-001240/12** by Kay Swinburne to the Commission
_Subject:_ Promoting growth by cutting red tape

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 38

**E-001241/12** by Fiorello Provera to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Chinese ‘house churches’ face increased persecution

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

**P-001242/12** by Robert Goebbels to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Arbitrary arrests of Palestinian ministers by Israel

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

**E-001244/12** by Rareş-Lucian Niculescu to the Commission
_Subject:_ Restrictions on imports to the Russian Federation as a result of the emergence of the Schmallenberg virus

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 43
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 44

**E-001245/12** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ Data on the sale of Group C medicines in Europe

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

**E-001246/12** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ 2011 CAP payment delays

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

**E-001247/12** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Dengue fever warning

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

**E-001248/12** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Danger for coeliacs: gluten also found in cosmetics

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

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 3

**E-001249/12** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Type 1 diabetes

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

**E-001251/12** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ International Monetary Fund: an obstacle to the regulation of EU financial markets

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

**E-001252/12** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ UK mobile phone provider fails to exercise control

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

**P-001255/12** by Daciana Octavia Sârbu to the Commission
_Subject:_ Setting-up payment for young farmers

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

**E-001256/12** by Gesine Meissner to the Commission
_Subject:_ Immunity for civilian merchant ships chartered by US armed forces

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 61
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 62

**E-001257/12** by Jutta Steinruck to the Commission
_Subject:_ Commission decision on the sale of apartments by BayernLB

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 63
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 64

**E-001258/12** by Jörg Leichtfried to the Commission
_Subject:_ Taxes on luxury goods in Italy

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 65
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 66

**E-001259/12** by Georgios Koumoutsakos to the Commission
_Subject:_ Fresh action by the Albanian authorities targeting minorities in breach of national law

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 67
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 68

**E-001260/12** by Konstantinos Poupakis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Danger of property depreciation resulting from inability to pay taxes and mortgages

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 69
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 70

**E-001261/12** by Konstantinos Poupakis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Danger of confiscation of assets of taxpayers who fail to pay the property charge

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 71
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 73

**E-001262/12** by Konstantinos Poupakis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Need for immediate and effective measures and EU assistance in response to malnutrition among Greek
school pupils

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 74
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 76

**E-001263/12** by Brian Simpson to the Commission
_Subject:_ Metal and cable theft from railways

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 77

**E-001264/12** by Andrey Kovatchev to the Commission
_Subject:_ 2014, ‘European Year of the Brain’

българска версия ............................................................................................................................................................... 78
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 79

C 96 E / 4 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

**E-001265/12** by Anna Hedh to the Commission
_Subject:_ Investment in alcohol policy

Svensk version ................................................................................................................................................................... 80
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 81

**E-001266/12** by David Martin to the Commission
_Subject:_ Mandatory installation of CCTV in EU abattoirs

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 82

**E-001268/12** by Mario Mauro to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Afghanistan: woman killed by her husband for only giving birth to daughters

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 83
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 84

**E-001270/12** by Mario Mauro to the Commission
_Subject:_ Manta rays at risk of extinction

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 85
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 86

**E-001271/12** by Barry Madlener and Auke Zijlstra to the Commission
_Subject:_ Citizens of CEE countries working in the Netherlands without a work permit

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 87
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 89

**E-001273/12** by Rareş-Lucian Niculescu to the Commission
_Subject:_ Violation of competition regulations

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 91
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 92

**E-001276/12** by Fiorello Provera to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Ethiopians in Saudi Arabia arrested for holding prayer service

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 93
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 95

**E-001818/12** by Barbara Matera, Magdi Cristiano Allam, Roberta Angelilli, Alfredo Antoniozzi, Mara Bizzotto,
Vito Bonsignore, Mario Borghezio, Antonio Cancian, Lara Comi, Luigi Ciriaco De Mita, Mario Mauro, Claudio
Morganti, Crescenzio Rivellini, Oreste Rossi, Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris, Giommaria Uggias and Andrea
Zanoni to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Unlawful arrest of 35 Ethiopian Christians in Saudi Arabia

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 94
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 95

**E-001277/12** by Joanna Senyszyn to the Council
_Subject:_ Human rights violations

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 97
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 98

**E-001278/12** by Joanna Senyszyn to the Commission
_Subject:_ The current scale of settlement goods imported into the European Union

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 99
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 100

**E-001279/12** by Joanna Senyszyn to the Commission
_Subject:_ Demolition of EU‐funded infrastructure

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 101
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 102

**E-001281/12** by Damien Abad to the Commission
_Subject:_ Rules governing the circulation of vehicles under a ‘garage’ registration certificate

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 103
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 104

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 5

**E-001282/12** by Matteo Salvini to the Commission
_Subject:_ Issues related to the Services Directive

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 105
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 106

**E-001283/12** by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Poverty and tax-free thresholds in Greece and the European Union

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 107
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 108

**E-001284/12** by Tomasz Piotr Poręba to the Commission
_Subject:_ Discrimination in granting digital broadcasting licences in Poland

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 109
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 110

**E-001285/12** by Pavel Poc to the Commission
_Subject:_ Ensuring compliance with the requirements of the Habitats Directive

České znění ........................................................................................................................................................................ 111
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 112

**E-001288/12** by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission
_Subject:_ Supplementary question on the re-introduction of the monk seal Monachus monachus
(Directive 92/43/EEC) at the Cap de Creus maritime-terrestrial natural park

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 113
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 114

**E-001289/12** by Charalampos Angourakis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Immigrants and refugees drowned in the Mediterranean in 2011

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 115
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 116

**E-001290/12** by Matteo Salvini to the Commission
_Subject:_ Cascina Linterno as a potential recipient of the European heritage label

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 117
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 118

**E-001291/12** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Booming illegal market in pesticides

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 119
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 120

**E-001292/12** by Zigmantas Balčytis to the Commission
_Subject:_ The unbundling of rail infrastructure owners and operators and the specific characteristics of the rail
sector in the Baltic States

Tekstas lietuvių kalba ....................................................................................................................................................... 121
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 122

**E-001294/12** by Claudio Morganti to the Commission
_Subject:_ Civil liability of magistrates

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 123
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 124

**E-001295/12** by Nicole Sinclaire to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Iranian Ministry for the Interior

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 125

**E-001296/12** by Sergio Gaetano Cofferati and Francesca Balzani to the Commission
_Subject:_ Solidarity Fund and floods in Liguria and Tuscany (Italy)

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 126
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 127

**P-001298/12** by Ioannis Kasoulides to the Commission
_Subject:_ Landfills in Cyprus.

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 128
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 129

C 96 E / 6 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

**E-001300/12** by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Overcrowding in Greek jails

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

**E-001301/12** by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Household bank debt

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 132
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 133

**E-001302/12** by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Immigration Policy in Greece

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 134
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 135

**E-001303/12** by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Commission initiatives on the status of ‘invisible’ children

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 136
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 137

**E-001304/12** by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Measures to prevent ‘match fixing’

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 138
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 139

**E-001305/12** by Mojca Kleva to the Commission
_Subject:_ Independence of the Daphne programme

Slovenska različica ............................................................................................................................................................ 140
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 141

**E-001306/12** by Sophia in 't Veld and Sarah Ludford to the Commission
_Subject:_ Quality and verifiability of fingerprints

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 142
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 143

**E-001307/12** by Sophia in 't Veld to the Commission
_Subject:_ Third-country access to biometric data of EU citizens

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 144
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 145

**E-001308/12** by Sergio Gaetano Cofferati to the Commission
_Subject:_ Failure to respect the rights of people with disabilities in Italy

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 146
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 148

**E-001309/12** by Mario Borghezio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Call for theCall for the EU to introduce prior checks in connection with the citizenship of people
belonging to extreme fundamentalist groups, movements or parties.

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

**P-001310/12** by Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu to the Commission
_Subject:_ Welfare of pigs

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 152
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 153

**P-001311/12** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ The Commission's publication of a study of consumer markets in the European Union

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 154
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 155

**E-001312/12** by Cătălin Sorin Ivan to the Commission
_Subject:_ Administrative charges for online payments by credit card

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 156
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 158

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 7

**E-001313/12** by Izaskun Bilbao Barandica to the Commission
_Subject:_ Radio broadcasts of professional football matches in Spain

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 159
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 160

**E-001314/12** by Maria Eleni Koppa to the Commission
_Subject:_ Privatisation of TRAINOSE

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 161
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 163

**E-001324/12** by Georgios Koumoutsakos and Konstantinos Poupakis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Serious questions arising in connection with the Commission's change of position on the future of
Trainose

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 161
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 163

**E-001315/12** by Francisco Sosa Wagner to the Commission
_Subject:_ Derivative securities markets

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 165
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 166

**E-001316/12** by Francisco Sosa Wagner to the Commission
_Subject:_ Veto of the merger between Deutsche Boerse and the New York Stock Exchange

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 167
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 169

**E-001317/12** by Francisco Sosa Wagner to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU Structural Funds and employment

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 171
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 172

**E-001318/12** by Konstantinos Poupakis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Protection of the social insurance rights of employees of DEI, the Greek public power corporation

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 173
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 175

**E-001319/12** by Konstantinos Poupakis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Safeguarding the sustainability and adequacy of Greek Public Power Corporation (DEI) social security
provisions

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 173
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 175

**E-001320/12** by Konstantinos Poupakis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Increasing evasion of social security contributions in Greece

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 177
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 178

**E-001321/12** by Konstantinos Poupakis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Co-financed projects in Greece

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 179
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 180

**E-001322/12** by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Intercultural schools for children of legal migrants in Greece

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 181
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 182

**E-001323/12** by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Task force in Greece for combating youth unemployment

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 183
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 184

**E-001326/12** by David Campbell Bannerman to the Council
_Subject:_ Public meetings

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 185

C 96 E / 8 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

**E-001327/12** by David Campbell Bannerman to the Council
_Subject:_ Common market standards for the EU and the USA — meetings between Council and US Government
officials

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 186

**E-001328/12** by David Campbell Bannerman to the Commission
_Subject:_ Common market standards between the EU and USA — meetings between Commission and US
Government officials

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 187

**E-001329/12** by David Campbell Bannerman to the Commission
_Subject:_ European Arrest Warrant and ACTA

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 188

**E-001330/12** by David Campbell Bannerman to the Commission
_Subject:_ Conflict in the Strait of Hormuz

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 189

**E-001331/12** by David Campbell Bannerman to the Commission
_Subject:_ Non-Governmental Organisation — definition

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

**E-001335/12** by David Campbell Bannerman to the Commission
_Subject:_ Free trade agreements — social and economic impact studies

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

**E-001337/12** by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission
_Subject:_ Ryanair and the protection of the right of European citizens to move freely

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 192
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 193

**P-001338/12** by Francisco Sosa Wagner to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Resettlement of Camp Ashraf refugees in the EU

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 194
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 195

**E-001341/12** by Morten Messerschmidt to the Commission
_Subject:_ CE marking of construction products

Dansk udgave .................................................................................................................................................................... 196
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 198

**E-001342/12** by Morten Messerschmidt to the Commission
_Subject:_ Methanol and the Fuel Directive

Dansk udgave .................................................................................................................................................................... 199
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 200

**E-001343/12** by Andreas Mölzer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Uncontrolled growth of genetically modified plants

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 201
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 202

**E-001344/12** by Andreas Mölzer to the Commission
_Subject:_ ‘Anchor children’

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 203
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 204

**E-001345/12** by Andreas Mölzer to the Council
_Subject:_ EU‐wide penalties for stock market fraud

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 205
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 206

**E-001346/12** by Andreas Mölzer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Miscalculation of revenue from privatisation in Greece

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

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 9

**E-001347/12** by Charalampos Angourakis to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Immediate release of Cuban prisoners in the USA

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

**E-001348/12** by Niki Tzavela to the Commission
_Subject:_ The new homeless

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

**E-001350/12** by Niki Tzavela to the Commission
_Subject:_ Statements by Alexander Downer on the Cyprus Presidency

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

**E-001351/12** by Niki Tzavela to the Commission
_Subject:_ Kurdish mass graves in Turkey

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

**E-001352/12** by Fiona Hall to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU office in Myanmar

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 217

**E-001353/12** by Julie Girling to the Commission
_Subject:_ Biofuel-to-electricity project funding

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 218

**E-001354/12** by Daciana Octavia Sârbu to the Commission
_Subject:_ Environmental damage from plastic fibres

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 219
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 220

**E-001355/12** by Catherine Bearder to the Commission
_Subject:_ Tuberculosis in the EU

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 221

**E-001356/12** by Catherine Bearder to the Commission
_Subject:_ European Social Fund (ESF) and Romania

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 222

**E-001357/12** by Catherine Bearder to the Commission
_Subject:_ Regulation of hydraulic fracturing in the EU

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 223

**E-001358/12** by Catherine Bearder to the Commission
_Subject:_ Pre-menstrual dysphoric disorder

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 224

**E-001359/12** by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Torture in Misrata and abuse of aid

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 225
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 226

**E-001360/12** by Nathalie Griesbeck to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Human rights violations and self-immolations in Tibet

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 227
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 229

**E-001361/12** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Urgent measures to be taken to limit sugar consumption

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 231
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 232

C 96 E / 10 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

**E-001362/12** by Alain Cadec to the Commission
_Subject:_ Fishing and aquaculture — Introduction of cormorant management plans

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 233
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 235

**E-001363/12** by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission
_Subject:_ Car taxation in the EU and Italian car tax

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 236
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 237

**E-001364/12** by Barbara Matera, Alfredo Antoniozzi, Paolo Bartolozzi, Lara Comi, Lorenzo Fontana,
Crescenzio Rivellini and Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Consequences of the embargo imposed on Iran and new energy sources

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 238
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 240

**E-001366/12** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ Employment crisis

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 241
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 242

**E-001367/12** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ Withdrawal by a Swiss multinational of an application for European funding

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 243
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 244

**E-001368/12** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ Polluting emissions in Taranto

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 245
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 247

**E-001369/12** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ Potential funding for Gravina in Apulia

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 249
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 250

**E-001371/12** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ Record unemployment in Italy

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 251
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 252

**E-001372/12** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ Industrial associations

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 253
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 254

**E-001373/12** by Zigmantas Balčytis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Contact persons within the Commission responsible for monitoring the implementation of the Baltic Sea
Strategy

Tekstas lietuvių kalba ....................................................................................................................................................... 255
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 256

**E-001374/12** by Zigmantas Balčytis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco

Tekstas lietuvių kalba ....................................................................................................................................................... 257
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 258

**E-001375/12** by Elena Băsescu to the Commission
_Subject:_ The use of European funds as a bank guarantee

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 259
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 260

**P-001376/12** by Marta Andreasen to the Commission
_Subject:_ Follow-up question on Structural Fund assistance to Liverpool City Council

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

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 11

**E-001377/12** by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Construction of lignite mines in the Falanthi and Chomatero areas in the prefecture of Messinia

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 262
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 263

**E-001378/12** by Jim Higgins to the Commission
_Subject:_ Youth policy

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 264

**E-001379/12** by Jim Higgins to the Commission
_Subject:_ Sustainable water use

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 265

**E-001381/12** by Jim Higgins to the Commission
_Subject:_ Health policy

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

**E-001383/12** by Fiona Hall to the Commission
_Subject:_ State aid to the Irish greyhound industry

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 267

**P-001384/12** by Holger Krahmer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Air travel and the European Union Emissions Trading System (ETS)

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 268
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 270

**E-001385/12** by Louis Grech to the Commission
_Subject:_ European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register

Verżjoni Maltija ................................................................................................................................................................. 272
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 273

**E-001386/12** by David Campbell Bannerman to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Falkland Islands — Meeting with the President of Argentina

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

**E-001387/12** by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Arrest of KESK expert

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 275
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 276

**E-001388/12** by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission
_Subject:_ Criteria militating in favour of the waste hierarchy and prioritising recycling over energy recovery

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 277
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 278

**E-001389/12** by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission
_Subject:_ Existing technology for complete recycling of disused tyres

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

**E-001390/12** by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission
_Subject:_ Criteria for the quantification and assignment of waste management costs

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 281
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 282

**E-001391/12** by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission
_Subject:_ Criteria for the compilation of statistics on the management of end-of-life tyres

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 283
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 284

**E-001392/12** by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission
_Subject:_ Regulation of cosmetics

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 285
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 286

C 96 E / 12 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

**E-001393/12** by João Ferreira and Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission
_Subject:_ Privatisation of the National Electricity Grid

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

**E-001394/12** by João Ferreira and Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Repression of the ‘Occupy’ movement in the United States

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 289
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 290

**E-001396/12** by Mario Mauro to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Bombings in Syria

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 291
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 292

**E-001397/12** by Mario Mauro to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Attack on an oil pipeline in Nigeria

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 293
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 294

**E-001398/12** by Mario Mauro to the Commission
_Subject:_ Senegal: death of a man during protests against the President

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

**E-001400/12** by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission
_Subject:_ Policies and funding benefiting the elderly and care facilities in the European Year for Active Ageing and
Solidarity between Generations

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 297
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 299

**E-001402/12** by Hans-Peter Martin to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Overview of the EU‐China environmental policy programme

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 301
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 302

**E-001403/12** by Hans-Peter Martin to the Commission
_Subject:_ Support for China in the areas of energy and climate change

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 303
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 304

**E-001404/12** by Hans-Peter Martin to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — The activities of the EU‐China Institute for Clean and Renewable Energy

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

**E-001405/12** by Hans-Peter Martin to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Discussion of possible coercive measures against airlines

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 307
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 308

**E-001406/12** by Hans-Peter Martin to the Commission
_Subject:_ Promoting research through publications

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 309
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 310

**E-001407/12** by Hans-Peter Martin to the Commission
_Subject:_ Monitoring of fish stocks

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 311
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 312

**E-001409/12** by Hans-Peter Martin to the Commission
_Subject:_ Funding for research into the final storage of nuclear waste

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 313
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 314

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 13

**E-001412/12** by Nikolaos Salavrakos to the Commission
_Subject:_ Participation of FYROM in the Biennale as ‘Macedonia’

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 315
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 316

**E-001413/12** by Nikolaos Salavrakos to the Commission
_Subject:_ Deaths caused by the cold spell in EU Member States, mainly among the homeless

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 317
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 318

**E-001414/12** by Nikolaos Salavrakos to the Commission
_Subject:_ Need to help southern European States meet their rescue obligations

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 319
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 320

**E-001415/12** by Nikolaos Salavrakos to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Danger of renewed conflict between Sudan and South Sudan

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 321
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 322

**E-001416/12** by Kyriakos Mavronikolas to the Commission
_Subject:_ Construction of a shooting range in Dikomo

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 323
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 324

**E-001418/12** by Fiorello Provera to the Commission
_Subject:_ Domestic air safety in Russia

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 325
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 327

**E-001419/12** by Andrzej Grzyb and Bogdan Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz to the Commission
_Subject:_ Compliance with the early warning mechanism between the EU and Russia in relation to the regulation
on Gas Supply Security

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 329
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 330

**E-001420/12** by Joanna Senyszyn to the Commission
_Subject:_ Opportunities for young people

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 331
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 332

**E-001421/12** by Filip Kaczmarek to the Commission
_Subject:_ Syrian activist Georges Moubayed

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 333
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 334

**E-001422/12** by Ivo Belet to the Commission
_Subject:_ Type approval requirements for traffic monitoring devices

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 335
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 336

**E-001423/12** by Lucas Hartong to the Commission
_Subject:_ Grants to BBC and European media in general

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 337
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 339

**E-001424/12** by Lorenzo Fontana to the Commission
_Subject:_ Murder of a mother in Afghanistan because of the birth of a third daughter

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 341
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 342

**E-001425/12** by Mario Borghezio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Protection of religious freedom in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 343
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 344

C 96 E / 14 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

**E-001426/12** by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission
_Subject:_ Possible funding for the project ‘Which road shall I take?’

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

**E-001427/12** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ Possible funding for the Opera cultural association

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

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 15

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001225/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Antonio Cancian (PPE) e Giovanni La Via (PPE)**

_(9 febbraio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Controllo sull'utilizzo dei finanziamenti della BCE agli istituti di credito privati

La Banca centrale europea finanzia gli istituti di credito privati al tasso favorevole dell'1 %, e questo apre la strada a tre
scenari possibili:

1. gli istituti di credito privati procedono ad una ricapitalizzazione come da obbligo imposto dall'Autorità
bancaria europea (European Banking Authority);

2. gli istituti di credito privati investono il denaro ottenuto al tasso dell'1 % acquistando titoli di stato che
corrispondono interessi a tassi molto più elevati (fino al 7 %);

3. gli istituti di credito privati finanziano le aziende e le famiglie evitando il credit crunch in un momento così
delicato.

Il terzo scenario — in questo drammatico momento — sembra essere quello preferibile: può, quindi, la Commissione
europea indicare come si controllano gli investimenti che gli istituti di credito definiscono utilizzati per finanziare le
aziende e le famiglie?

Se la Banca centrale europea non è certa del modo in cui sono utilizzati questi finanziamenti, non ritiene la
Commissione che sia opportuno individuare canali alternativi per garantire un utilizzo degli investimenti a favore
delle famiglie e delle aziende?

**Risposta data da Olli Rehn a nome della Commissione**

_(12 aprile 2012)_

Le misure di sostegno rafforzato al credito recentemente lanciate dalla Banca centrale europea (BCE) sono finalizzate a
sostenere le attività di prestito delle banche e la liquidità nei mercati monetari dell'area dell'euro. La BCE non pone
condizioni sul modo in cui utilizzare i crediti. Spetta alle banche interessate decidere come utilizzare questi prestiti, in
funzione di valutazioni relative ai rischi ed ai rendimenti.

Le operazioni di rifinanziamento a lungo termine (LTRO) effettuate dalla BCE nel dicembre 2011 e nel febbraio 2012,
insieme alle modifiche dei requisiti di ammissibilità delle garanzie, hanno avuto un impatto iniziale positivo sul
sistema bancario in quanto hanno compensato per le banche l'impossibilità di accedere al finanziamento all'ingrosso
o interbancario e hanno ridotto i rischi di liquidità. La Commissione sta monitorando attentamente gli sviluppi al
riguardo e ritiene che si stiano progressivamente instaurando le condizioni per il miglioramento dei mercati
interbancari e obbligazionari, cosa che agevolerà l'afflusso di credito all'economia reale. Tuttavia, queste misure di per
sé non garantiscono l'afflusso di credito all'economia reale. Occorre che le banche con problemi di bilancio compiano
significativi sforzi di ristrutturazione che dovrebbero avere come conseguenza un settore bancario meglio
capitalizzato e più resiliente e migliorare ulteriormente le condizioni per l'afflusso del credito alle imprese e alle
famiglie.

C 96 E / 16 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001225/12**

**to the Commission**
**Antonio Cancian (PPE) and Giovanni La Via (PPE)**

_(9 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Monitoring of the use of ECB funds by private credit institutions

The European Central Bank finances private credit institutions at a favourable rate of 1 %, and this opens the way for
three possible scenarios:

1. Private credit institutions recapitalise, as they are required to do by the European Banking Authority;

2. Private credit institutions invest the money obtained at a rate of 1 % by purchasing government bonds that pay
out interest at much higher rates (up to 7 %);

3. Private credit institutions finance businesses and households to avoid any worsening of the credit crunch at this
time of economic crisis.

The third scenario seems preferable in the current dramatic economic climate. Can the Commission indicate,
therefore, how investments by credit institutions which have been declared as being used to finance businesses and
households are monitored?

If the European Central Bank is not certain of the manner in which these funds are used, does the Commission not
consider it appropriate to identify alternative means to ensure that the investments are used to support households
and businesses?

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

_(12 April 2012)_

The enhanced credit support measures recently launched by the European Central Bank (ECB) aimed at supporting
bank lending and liquidity in the euro area money markets. The ECB does not set any conditionality on how the
credits should be used. It is the responsibility of the banks concerned to decide how these borrowed funds should be
used, depending on their risk and return assessments.

The longer-term refinancing operations (LTROs) carried out by the ECB in December 2011 and February 2012,
together with the changes in collateral eligibility requirements, had an initial positive impact on the banking system as
they compensated for banks' lack of access to wholesale or interbank funding and reduced liquidity risks. The
Commission is closely monitoring developments in this regard and is of the view that conditions are gradually being
set for the improvement of interbank and bond markets, which will facilitate the flow of credit to the real economy.
However, these measures by themselves do not ensure that credit will flow to the real economy. Significant
restructuring efforts by banks with weak balance sheets need to be made, which should result in a better capitalised
and more resilient banking sector and should further improve the conditions for credit to flow into private companies
and households.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 17

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001226/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Elisabetta Gardini (PPE)**

_(14 febbraio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Super bonus destinati ai dirigenti delle banche

In tempi di crisi, le famiglie alle prese con le nuove ristrettezze economiche sono particolarmente attente e sensibili ai
consumi e agli sprechi. Sfortunatamente la stessa cosa non si può dire di una parte del settore bancario.

Recentemente il Commissario europeo per il mercato interno, Michel Barnier, ha pubblicamente espresso la sua
indignazione per il livello dei bonus che alcune banche ancora concedono ai loro dirigenti, nonostante la situazione
economica tutt'altro che favorevole. Si tratta di un fatto ancora più inaccettabile se si considera che alcune di queste
banche hanno beneficiato di investimenti pubblici.

Tale situazione non è tollerabile in un momento economico simile e richiede una risposta forte. L'Unione europea si è
già mossa in passato su questo tema e sappiamo che sono già state avviate procedure di infrazione verso soggetti che
non hanno rispettato la normativa europea.

In riferimento a quanto detto sopra, si prega la Commissione di rispondere alle seguenti domande:

1. quali sono i provvedimenti che l'Unione europea prevede di adottare verso coloro che non rispettano la
normativa europea?

2. Ha l'Unione europea intenzione di pubblicizzare adeguatamente queste iniziative, onde far capire ai cittadini
europei di non essere disinteressata al tema?

**Risposta data da Michel Barnier a nome della Commissione**

_(19 marzo 2012)_

La direttiva 2010/76/CE ( [1] ) (CRD III) istituisce un quadro normativo che conferisce alle autorità di vigilanza bancaria
il potere di applicare e far rispettare una serie di obblighi in tema di politiche remunerative delle banche, tra l'altro in
ordine a governo societario, struttura e divulgazione delle informazioni sui bonus. Alle banche beneficiarie di
intervento pubblico straordinario sono imposti obblighi particolari, di cui i servizi della Commissione stanno
studiando l'attuazione a livello di Stati membri e di autorità nazionali riservandosi di intervenire opportunamente in
caso di inosservanza. Nel contempo l'Autorità bancaria europea sta esaminando il rispetto delle sue linee guida in
materia e le prassi seguite dalle banche nazionali.

La CRD IV proposta dalla Commissione ( [2] ) — attualmente in discussione al Parlamento e al Consiglio — prevede
ulteriori obblighi di divulgazione delle informazioni sul pagamento di bonus superiori a determinate soglie.

Per ulteriori informazioni la Commissione rimanda l'onorevole parlamentare alle risposte fornite alle interrogazioni
scritte E-010790/2011 e E-009912/2011 degli onn. Chountis e De Rossa ( [3] ).

La Commissione seguirà da vicino sia l'applicazione degli obblighi di legge vigenti sia l'evoluzione delle prassi
remunerative delle banche e non esiterà a proporre gli ulteriori interventi che si rendessero necessari.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Direttiva 2010/76/UE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 24 novembre 2010, che modifica le direttive 2006/48/CE e 2006/49/CE per

quanto riguarda i requisiti patrimoniali per il portafoglio di negoziazione e le ricartolarizzazioni e il riesame delle politiche remunerative da parte
delle autorità di vigilanza — Testo rilevante ai fini del SEE, GU L 329 del 14.12.2010, pagg. 3-35.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2011)453 definitivo.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/QP-WEB/application/home.do?language=IT

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

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

C 96 E / 18 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001226/12**

**to the Commission**
**Elisabetta Gardini (PPE)**

_(14 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Super-bonuses for bank managers

In times of crisis, families struggling with the new economic squeeze are particularly careful about, and aware of,
what they consume and waste. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of part of the banking sector.

The European Commissioner for the internal market, Michel Barnier, has recently publicly expressed his indignation
at the levels of bonuses that some banks continue to award their managers, despite the entirely unfavourable
economic situation. This situation is all the more unacceptable in that some of these banks have benefited from public
investment and it cannot be tolerated in a similar economic context. It therefore requires a strong response. The
European Union has already acted on this matter in the past and we know that infringement proceedings have already
been initiated against parties which have not complied with European legislation.

With reference to the above, would the Commission answer the following questions:

1. What measures does the European Union plan to take with regard to those who fail to comply with European
legislation?

2. Does the European Union intend to publicise these measures in an appropriate manner in order to show
European citizens that it is taking an interest in the matter?

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

_(19 March 2012)_

Directive 2010/76/EC ( [1] ) (‘CRD III’) establishes a regulatory framework which empowers banking supervisors to
apply and enforce a range of requirements on the remuneration policies of banks, including with regard to the
governance, structure and disclosure of bonuses. Particular requirements apply to banks which benefit from
exceptional government intervention. The Commission services are examining the implementation of these
requirements in the Member States and by national authorities and will take appropriate action if non-compliance is
detected. At the same time, the European Banking Authority (EBA) is examining the compliance with its guidelines on
this matter and practices applied by national banks.

The Commission's ‘CRD IV’ proposal ( [2] ) currently under discussion in the Parliament and Council contains additional
disclosure requirements with regard to bonus payments above certain thresholds.

For further details the Commission would also refer the Honourable Member to its answers to written questions E‐
010790/2011 and E‐009912/2011 by Mr Chountis and Mr De Rossa ( [3] ).

The Commission will carefully follow both the application of the existing legal requirements and the development of
banks' remuneration practices and will not hesitate to propose further action as necessary.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2010/76/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 amending Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC

as regards capital requirements for the trading book and for re-securitisations, and the supervisory review of remuneration policies (Text with EEA
relevance), OJ L 329, 14.12.2010, p. 3-35.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 453 final.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/QP-WEB/application/home.do?language=EN.

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

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 19

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-001227/12**

**à la Commission**
**Agnès Le Brun (PPE)**

_(9 février 2012)_

_Objet:_ Normes minimales relatives à la protection des porcs

Le 1 [er] janvier 2013, la directive 2001/88/CE, établissant des normes minimales relatives à la protection des porcs,
entrera en vigueur dans l'ensemble de l'Union européenne. Elle prévoit notamment des règles visant à améliorer le
bien-être des truies gestantes.

Selon un rapport de Rabobank, seules 40 exploitations sur 100 sont pour l'instant aux normes de la directive. Une
majorité d'observateurs estiment que de nombreuses exploitations ne seront toujours pas aux normes à la date butoir
de mise en œuvre de la directive.

Considérant que la plupart des principaux pays producteurs de porcs sont concernés par ces retards, il semble qu'il
soit nécessaire de trouver une solution au niveau européen.

1. La Commission considère-t-elle également qu'il y aura des retards dans la mise en œuvre de la directive
2001/88/CE? Dispose-t-elle d'études lui permettant d'évaluer la situation?

2. Si ces retards sont avérés, notamment dans leur ampleur, la Commission envisage-t-elle d'accorder un délai
supplémentaire pour la pleine mise en œuvre de la directive?

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

_(2 mars 2012)_

C'est avant tout aux États membres qu'il incombe d'appliquer la directive relative à la protection des porcs ( [1] ). La
Commission, elle, s'informe régulièrement de l'avancement de la mise en application des dispositions en matière de
conduite en groupe des truies dans les États membres. D'après les informations fournies jusqu'à présent par vingtcinq États membres, trois de ceux-ci sont déjà aux normes et onze autres, parmi lesquels de grands producteurs de
porcs, le seront d'ici au 1 [er] janvier 2013.

La Commission s'emploie depuis plusieurs années avec les États membres et les parties prenantes à veiller à
l'introduction progressive des mesures nécessaires en matière de conduite en groupe des truies. Pour 2012, il existe
déjà un plan d'action. La Commission use de tous les moyens à sa disposition pour contraindre les États membres à se
mettre en conformité avec la législation pour le 1 [er] janvier 2013.

La Commission n'a pas l'intention de proposer un report de la date butoir précitée. Les États membres ont bénéficié
d'une période transitoire pour appliquer ces dispositions. Un report créerait une situation de concurrence déloyale
pour les producteurs qui ont déjà investi pour se mettre en conformité avec la législation de l'Union sur le bien-être
des animaux dans le délai imparti. La Commission engagera des procédures d'infraction contre les États membres qui
ne seront pas aux normes le 1 [er] janvier 2013.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2008/120/CE du Conseil établissant les normes minimales relatives à la protection des porcs (JO L 47 du 18.2.2009, p. 5), qui codifie la
directive 2001/88/CE.

C 96 E / 20 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001227/12**

**to the Commission**
**Agnès Le Brun (PPE)**

_(9 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Minimum standards for the protection of pigs

On 1 January 2013, Directive 2001/88/EC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs will come into
force across the European Union. In particular, it lays down rules designed to improve the welfare of pregnant sows.

According to a Rabobank report, only 40 in 100 holdings currently comply with the directive’s standards. Most
observers believe that many holdings will still not comply with these standards before the deadline for the
implementation of the directive.

As most of the main pork-producing countries are affected by these delays, it seems a solution at European level is
required.

1. Does the Commission also believe there will be delays in the implementation of Directive 2001/88/EC? Does it
have any studies enabling it to assess the situation?

2. If these delays, and particularly their extent, are confirmed, does the Commission plan to grant an extension for
the full implementation of the directive?

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

_(2 March 2012)_

Member States are primarily responsible for the implementation of the directive on the protection of pigs ( [1] ). The
Commission is monitoring regularly the state of implementation of group housing of sows in the Member States.
From the data received so far from 25 Member States, three Member States already comply and eleven Member States,
among them major pig producers, will comply by 1 January 2013.

The Commission has been working for several years with Member States and stakeholders to ensure a progressive
implementation of group housing of sows. For 2012, an implementation plan is already in place. The Commission is
using all the tools at its disposal to push Member States to reach compliance by 1 January 2013.

The Commission does not intend to propose postponing the legal deadline of 1 January 2013 for the implementation
of group housing of sows. A long transitional period was granted to allow Member States to implement this measure.
Postponing the legal deadline would create a situation of unfair competition for those producers who already invested
to comply with EU animal welfare legislation on time. The Commission will launch infringement procedures against
non‐compliant Member States as of 1 January 2013.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Council Directive 2008/120/EC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs, OJ L 47, 18.2.2009, p. 5 codifies
Directive 2001/88/EC.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 21

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-001228/12**

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

_(9 februari 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Bijensterfte — Betrokken pesticides

De afgelopen jaren is er veel te doen geweest over de achteruitgang van het bijenbestand in Europa en in andere delen
van de wereld. Het is de Europese Commissie zelf die in haar communicatie van 2010 (COM(2010)0714) het
Europees Parlement en de Europese Raad op de mogelijke gevolgen daarvan wees. In dit debat wordt vaak spontaan
de link gelegd met de aanwezigheid van pesticiden in ons leefmilieu.

Recent is er een belangwekkende wetenschappelijke ontwikkeling wat dit betreft. Er wordt naar verluidt in nog niet
gepubliceerd onderzoek van Dr. Jeff Pettis van het USDA Bee Research Laboratory in Beltsville (US), waar de Britse
krant The Independent de hand op kon leggen, aangetoond dat neonicotinoïde pesticides mede de oorzaak zijn van
de onnatuurlijk hoge bijensterfte. Zo is er bijvoorbeeld Imidacloprid, een nicotinederivaat (door Bayer Crop Sciences
op de markt gebracht onder namen zoals Gaucho, Admire, Merit, Advantage, Confidor, Provado en Winner)
waarnaar in de hierboven vermelde publicatie expliciet verwezen wordt.

Gezien het belang van bijen voor het behoud van onze biodiversiteit, maar ook voor de economie — bijen bestuiven
het overgrote deel van alle planten die we voor consumptie telen — is het noodzakelijk dat we de nodige maatregelen
nemen tegen de achteruitgang van de bijen.

1. Is de Commissie op de hoogte van de recente conclusies van Dr. Pettis en zo ja, hoe worden deze beoordeeld?

2. Heeft de Commissie plannen om pesticiden die specifiek genoemd worden als potentieel schadelijk voor bijen,
zoals Imidacloprid, Clothianidin, Thiamethoxam, e.a. van de markt te laten halen of om dit te doen met
neonicotinoïde pesticiden in het algemeen?

3. Voorziet de Commissie zelf nu al in (financiering van) onderzoek naar bijensterfte? Zo ja, kan de Commissie een
overzicht geven van de betrokken studies?

**Antwoord van de heer Dalli namens de Commissie**

_(20 maart 2012)_

De Commissie is op de hoogte van het door het geachte Parlementslid genoemde wetenschappelijke artikel. Het
onderzoek van Jeffrey Pettis en zijn collega’s is inmiddels gepubliceerd ( [1] ).

De Commissie heeft Duitsland, dat was belast met de oorspronkelijke beoordeling van imidacloprid, gevraagd om
commentaar op de resultaten van het gepubliceerde onderzoek en zet dit onderzoek op de agenda van een van de
eerstkomende vergaderingen van het Permanent Comité voor de voedselketen en de diergezondheid.

De goedkeuring van een stof kan worden herzien naar aanleiding van negatieve signalen uit de praktijk of
wetenschappelijk onderzoek. In dit stadium is een verbod op imidacloprid en/of andere neonicotinoïden echter niet
gerechtvaardigd.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Pesticide exposure in honey bees results in increased levels of the gut pathogen Nosema.Pettis JS, Vanengelsdorp D, Johnson J, Dively G.
Naturwissenschaften feb. 2012; 99(2):153-8. Epub 13 jan. 2012.

C 96 E / 22 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

De Commissie geeft financiële steun aan verscheidene onderzoeksprojecten op het gebied van bijen. Het project Bee
Doc ( [2] ) is toegespitst op plagen en ziekten bij honingbijen en op het kwantificeren van de gevolgen van interacties
tussen parasieten, ziekteverwekkers en bestrijdingsmiddelen voor de sterfte van honingbijen. Het project is specifiek
gericht op subletale en chronische blootstelling aan bestrijdingsmiddelen, en onderzoekt welke invloed de
bijenhouderspraktijken op de gezondheid van de bijenkolonies hebben. Ook is er het project STEP ( [3] ), waarin wordt
gekeken naar de aard en de mate van de achteruitgang van zowel wilde als gedomesticeerde bestuivers. Bovendien is
er het op het mkb gerichte project Cleanhive ( [4] ), dat diagnose-instrumenten voor _Nosema_ spp. ontwikkelt die zijn
aangepast aan de behoeften van de bijenhouders. In totaal bedraagt het door de EU uitgetrokken budget voor de
bijengezondheid in het zevende kaderprogramma voor onderzoek ongeveer 10 miljoen euro. Tot slot heeft de COSTactie COLOSS ( [5] ) een netwerk van onderzoekers en belanghebbenden in heel Europa opgebouwd om de
ontwikkelingen in het verlies aan bijenkolonies te volgen en de krachten van de deelnemers aan nationale
onderzoeksprogramma's te bundelen.

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

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

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.bee-doc.eu/
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) www.step-project.net
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://cleanhive.cric-projects.com/
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://www.coloss.org/

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 23

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001228/12**

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

_(9 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Bee mortality linked to pesticides

There has been much ado in recent years about the decline in the bee population in Europe and other parts of the
world. The European Commission has itself highlighted the possible consequences of this decline in its 2010
communication (COM(2010)0714) to the European Parliament and the Council. This debate often generates
spontaneous references to the presence of pesticides in our environment.

Compelling scientific evidence has recently emerged in this connection. According to reports, a study, not yet
published, by Dr Jeff Pettis of the USDA Bee Research Laboratory in Beltsville (US), obtained by the British newspaper,
_The Independent_, shows that neonicotinoid pesticides are contributing to the unnaturally high mortality among bees.
Thus, the aforesaid publication refers explicitly to a nicotine derivative called imidacloprid (sold by Bayer Crop
Sciences under such trade names as Gaucho, Admire, Merit, Advantage, Confidor, Provado and Winner).

Given the importance of bees for the conservation of our biodiversity as well as for the economy — bees pollinate the
majority of all the plants grown for our consumption — it is imperative that we take the necessary measures against
the decline of the bee population.

1. Is the Commission familiar with the recent findings of Dr Pettis and, if so, how does it assess them?

2. Does the Commission intend to have the pesticides which are specifically described as being potentially harmful
to bees, such as imidacloprid, clothianidin, thiamethoxam et al, removed from the market or to do this with regard to
neonicotinoid pesticides in general?

3. Is the Commission itself currently financing research into bee mortality? If so, can the Commission provide an
overview of the research involved?

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

_(20 March 2012)_

The Commission is aware of the scientific article the Honourable Member refers to. The research from Jeffrey Pettis
and colleagues has, in the meantime been published ( [1] ).

The Commission asked Germany, which was in charge of the original assessment of imidacloprid, to provide their
views on the results listed in the published research and will raise it for discussion in a forthcoming meeting of the
Standing Committee of the Food Chain and Animal Health.

The approval of a substance may be reconsidered in the light of adverse evidence revealed by experience or scientific
research. However, at this stage, a ban of imidacloprid and/or other neonicotinoids is not justified.

The Commission is providing financial support to several research projects on bees. The Bee Doc project ( [2] ) is looking
at honeybee pests and diseases and quantifying the impact of interactions between parasites, pathogens and pesticides
on honeybee mortality. The project specifically addresses sub lethal and chronic exposure to pesticides and screens
how apicultural practices affect colony health. There is also the STEP project ( [3] ) looking at the nature and extent of
decline in both wild and domesticated pollinators. In addition an SME-targeted project CLEANHIVE ( [4] ) is developing
diagnostic tools for _Nosema spp._ adapted to the needs of beekeepers. In total the EU budget dedicated to bee health
research amounts to approximately EUR 10 million in the Seventh Research Framework Programme. Finally the
COLOSS ( [5] ) COST action has built up a network of researchers and stakeholders across Europe to follow the
evolution of colony losses and to join forces of participants in national research programmes.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Pesticide exposure in honey bees results in increased levels of the gut pathogen Nosema. Pettis JS, Vanengelsdorp D, Johnson J, Dively G.

Naturwissenschaften. 2012 Feb;99(2):153-8. Epub 2012 Jan 13.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.bee-doc.eu/.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) www.step-project.net.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://cleanhive.cric-projects.com/.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://www.coloss.org/.

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

C 96 E / 24 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(Slovenska različica)_

**Vprašanje za pisni odgovor E-001229/12**

**za Komisijo**
**Romana Jordan Cizelj (PPE)**

_(9. februar 2012)_

_Zadeva:_ Tretje poročilo o o uporabi finančnih sredstev, namenjenih za razgradnjo jedrskih elektrarn ter izrabljenega
jedrskega goriva in jedrskih odpadkov

Cilj EU na področju energetike je njen trajnostni razvoj ter zmanjšanje izvozne odvisnosti. Jedrska energija je
nizkoogljični in cenovno konkurenčen vir energije. Glavno vodilo pri uporabi jedrske energije je načelo **„** varnost na
prvem mestu **“** (safety first principle). Varnost poleg varnega obratovanja jedrskih elektrarn pomeni tudi varno
ravnanje z jedrskimi odpadki ter njihovo varno odlaganje in razgradnjo.

Evropska komisija je leta 2006 v svojem Priporočilu o upravljanju finančnih sredstev za razgradnjo jedrskih objektov,
izrabljenega goriva in radioaktivnih odpadkov (2006/851/Euratom) pozvala, da morajo imeti države članice za
razgradnjo jedrskih elektrarn ter za ravnanje z jedrskimi odpadki in izrabljenim jedrskim gorivom na voljo posebna
finančna sredstva, ki se morajo uporabljati transparentno in namensko. Pri vsem tem naj bi se upoštevalo tudi načelo
onesnaževalec plača. Komisija v tem okviru ter v okviru svojih pristojnosti iz Pogodbe Euratom vsako leto objavi
poročilo o zbiranju finančnih sredstev, namenjenih za razgradnjo jedrskih elektrarn ter izrabljenega jedrskega goriva
in jedrskih odpadkov. Doslej je pripravila že dve takšni poročili, prvega leta 2004 in drugega leta 2007.

Ljudje pri uporabi jedrske energije kot enega ključnih problemov največkrat izpostavljajo problem odlaganja jedrskih
odpadkov in razgradnje. Zaradi zaupanja ljudi je pomembno, da imajo na voljo ustrezne informacije o zbiranju
finančnih sredstev v te namene, zato Komisijo sprašujem:

1. Kdaj bo pripravila tretje poročilo o zbiranju finančnih sredstev, namenjenih za razgradnjo jedrskih elektrarn ter
izrabljenega jedrskega goriva in jedrskih odpadkov?

2. Ali namerava na osnovi doslej zbranih informacij pripraviti kakšne nove aktivnosti na področju zbiranja
finančnih sredstev, namenjenih za razgradnjo jedrskih elektrarn ter izrabljenega jedrskega goriva in jedrskih
odpadkov?

**Odgovor komisarja Oettingerja v imenu Komisije**

_(27. februar 2012)_

1. Tretje poročilo o uporabi finančnih sredstev za razgradnjo jedrskih elektrarn ter gospodarjenje z izrabljenim
gorivom in radioaktivnimi odpadki naj bi bilo sprejeto konec junija 2012.

2. Rezultati za Komisijo (only in the heading)ne ocene bodo podlaga za nadaljnje dejavnosti na tem področju, s
katerimi se bodo zagotovila ustrezna finančna sredstva, ko bo to potrebno.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 25

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001229/12**

**to the Commission**
**Romana Jordan (PPE)**

_(9 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Third report on the use of financial resources intended for the decommissioning of nuclear power plants and
the management of nuclear spent fuel and nuclear waste

The EU’s objective in the energy field is to achieve sustainable development of the energy sector and a reduction in its
dependence on imports. Nuclear power is a low-carbon source of energy and one which is competitively priced. The
guiding principle in the use of nuclear energy is ‘safety first’. In addition to the safe operation of nuclear power plants,
safety also means safe management of nuclear waste and its safe disposal and decommissioning.

In 2006, in its Recommendation on the management of financial resources for the decommissioning of nuclear
installations, spent fuel and radioactive waste (2006/851/Euratom), the Commission called on the Member States to
earmark special financial resources for the purpose of decommissioning nuclear power plants and the management
of nuclear waste and nuclear spent fuel, and to ensure that such activities are managed in a transparent way and used
only for the said purpose. In all this, the ‘polluter pays’ principle needs to be observed. In this context and within its
powers under the Euratom Treaty, the Commission publishes annual reports on the earmarking of funds for the
decommissioning of nuclear power plants and the management of nuclear spent fuel and nuclear waste. So far it has
produced two such reports, the first in 2004 and the second in 2007.

When it comes to the use of nuclear energy, people mostly stress the disposal of nuclear waste and decommissioning
as the key problems. In order to maintain people’s confidence, it is important that they are given appropriate
information on the earmarking of funds for these purposes. I would therefore ask the Commission:

1. When will it draw up a third report on the earmarking of financial resources for the decommissioning of
nuclear power plants and management of nuclear spent fuel and nuclear waste?

2. Does it intend, on the basis of information it has gathered previously, to undertake any new activities with a
view to earmarking financial resources for the decommissioning of nuclear power plants and management of
nuclear spent fuel and nuclear waste?

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

_(27 February 2012)_

1. The third report on the use of financial resources earmarked for decommissioning and the management of
spent fuel and radioactive waste is expected to be adopted by the end of June 2012.

2. The outcome of the Commission's assessment will be the basis for further activities in this domain, with a view
to making sure that adequate financial resources will be available when required.

C 96 E / 26 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-001231/12**

**to the Commission**
**Kay Swinburne (ECR)**

_(8 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Volcker rule on trading and market-making activities

It seems that the current draft of the US Volcker rule preventing US banks from proprietary trading seeks to exclude
US Treasuries and other US government debt from the proprietary capital rules. However, it does not seem to include
equivalent exemptions for non-US sovereign debt.

In order to comply with the Volcker framework, it would seem that many US and international investors with US
branches may be prevented from investing in the EU sovereign debt markets, owing to the regulatory reach beyond
US markets.

These rules, as they are currently being considered, could severely impact on EU sovereign debt markets, which could
lead to a significant loss of liquidity, as both US and other international banks may no longer be able to invest.

Is the Commission intending, on behalf of EU‐regulated banks and financial institutions, to raise an objection before
the consultation deadline of 13 February 2012?

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

_(29 February 2012)_

The Honourable Member refers to the consultation by a number of US regulators on ‘Prohibitions and Restrictions on
Proprietary Trading and Certain Interests In, and Relationships with, Hedge Funds and Private Equity Funds’,
implementing Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (‘Dodd-Frank Act’).
The consultation period has been extended to 13 February 2012.

The Commission has intensively discussed the draft regulation with the US authorities in the context of its Regulatory
dialogue and in specific bilateral discussions. These contacts have confirmed that the current draft regulation could
raise a number of concerns related to its scope, to the narrowness of the exemptions as well as the discriminatory
provisions on sovereign bonds and on foreign asset management funds. The Commission raised these concerns in its
formal response to the US consultation and continues to do so in its ongoing discussions with the US authorities in
order to find an agreeable solution to these issues.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 27

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-001232/12**

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

_(10 Φεβρουαρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Ενίσχυση της απασχόλησης και της ανάπτυξης μέσω των διαρθρωτικών ταμείων

Η οικονομική κρίση έχει μετατραπεί, για την ΕΕ, σε κοινωνική κρίση και κρίση της απασχόλησης. Σε αυτή την κατεύθυνση, και
δεδομένων των υψηλών ποσοστών ανεργίας που σημειώνουν κάποια κράτη μέλη, αλλά και του ευρωπαϊκού μέσου όρου που
δεν παρουσιάζεται ικανοποιητικός, η ΕΕ στο πλαίσιο της Στρατηγικής για την ερχόμενη δεκαετία «Ευρώπη 2020» φαίνεται να
θέτει ιδιαίτερα υψηλούς στόχους για την αύξηση της απασχόλησης και την ενίσχυση της βιώσιμης ανάπτυξης γενικότερα.
Κεντρικό μοχλό σε αυτή την προσπάθεια τόνωσης της απασχόλησης — μέσω ενεργητικών και παθητικών πολιτικών
απασχόλησης (ενίσχυσης της πρόσβασης στην κατάρτιση και την εκπαίδευση, δημιουργίας νέων και ποιοτικών θέσεων
εργασίας, αποτελεσματικής αντιμετώπισης και πρόληψης της ανεργίας κ.λπ.) — διαδραματίζουν τα διαρθρωτικά ταμεία και
πιο συγκεκριμένα τα κονδύλια που διατίθενται για τη συγχρηματοδότηση πολιτικών που εξυπηρετούν αυτό το στόχο.

Με βάση τα παραπάνω ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

1. Πόσα χρήματα από τον ευρωπαϊκό προϋπολογισμό διατέθηκαν για την ενίσχυση της απασχόλησης και της ανάπτυξης
για το 2011; Πόσα από αυτά τα χρήματα τελικώς χρησιμοποιήθηκαν και πόσα έμειναν αδιάθετα; Με ποιό τρόπο θα
αξιοποιηθεί το αδιάθετο ποσό;

2. Ποιά τα ποσοστά απορροφητικότητας των κρατών μελών αναφορικά με κονδύλια που σχετίζονται με την προαγωγή
της απασχόλησης και την καταπολέμηση της ανεργίας; Πού οφείλονται οι διαφορές που παρουσιάζουν;

3. Δεδομένου ότι κάποια κράτη μέλη όπως η Ελλάδα παρουσιάζουν ιδιαίτερα υψηλά ποσοστά ανεργίας, υπήρξε η
πρέπουσα αξιοποίηση των διαθέσιμων πόρων, και αν όχι για ποιό λόγο;

4. Ποιά πιστεύει ότι αποτελούν προσκόμματα για την αποτελεσματική και επαρκή αξιοποίηση των σχετικών κονδυλίων;
Προτίθεται να συνδράμει τα κράτη μέλη, και με ποιό τρόπο ώστε να βελτιώσουν τα ποσοστά απορροφητικότητάς τους;

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

_(20 Μαρτίου 2012)_

1. Τα διαρθρωτικά ταμεία είναι τα κύρια μέσα για την απασχόληση και την ανάπτυξη, το δε Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινωνικό Ταμείο
(ΕΚΤ) είναι το κύριο μέσο για την αύξηση της απασχολησιμότητας των εργαζομένων. Το 2011 ο προβλεπόμενος
προϋπολογισμός για πληρωμές από το ΕΚΤ ήταν 7,69 δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ και στην πραγματικότητα πληρώθηκαν 9,52
δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ. Τα αδιάθετα ποσά του προϋπολογισμού που αναφέρονται σε πρόσφατες ανακοινώσεις αφορούν τον
συνολικό προϋπολογισμό της περιόδου 2007-2013, όπου περίπου 22 δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ από το ΕΚΤ παραμένουν
αδιάθετα. Μετά το άτυπο Ευρωπαϊκό Συμβούλιο της 30/1/2012, πραγματοποιήθηκαν διμερείς συνεδριάσεις μεταξύ οκτώ
κρατών μελών και της Επιτροπής προκειμένου να συζητηθούν τρόποι επιτάχυνσης της χρήσης των ταμείων ( [1] ).

2. Οι λεπτομέρειες των ποσών από το ΕΚΤ που δεν διατέθηκαν στα κράτη μέλη παρατίθενται σε παράρτημα το οποίο
διαβιβάζεται απευθείας στον κ. βουλευτή και στη Γραμματεία του Κοινοβουλίου.

3. Οι δυσκολίες κατάλληλης διάθεσης των κονδυλίων ήταν ιδιαίτερα σημαντικές στην Ελλάδα, όπου η χρηματοπιστωτική
κρίση ήταν πολύ σοβαρότερη από ό,τι στην υπόλοιπη ΕΕ και είχε διαρθρωτικό χαρακτήρα. Τα κονδύλια χρησιμοποιήθηκαν
καταλλήλως προκειμένου να αυξηθεί η απασχολησιμότητα, αλλά τα προγράμματα είχαν καταρτιστεί πριν από την κρίση και
την αύξηση της ανεργίας την οποία προκάλεσε. Τα κράτη μέλη έχουν τροποποιήσει τα προγράμματά τους ώστε να
προσαρμοστούν στις πρόσφατες ανάγκες των πολιτικών για την απασχόληση.

4. Τα βασικά εμπόδια είναι οι διοικητικές και χρηματοπιστωτικές δυσκολίες σε εθνικό επίπεδο. Οι τροποποιήσεις της
σχετικής νομοθεσίας επιτρέπουν στην Επιτροπή να πραγματοποιήσει πληρωμές αυξάνοντας το ποσοστό συγχρηματοδότησης
της ΕΕ κατά δέκα ποσοστιαίες μονάδες. Αυτό σημαίνει ότι η εθνική συνεισφορά μπορεί να μειωθεί σε μια χρονική στιγμή κατά
την οποία οι εθνικοί προϋπολογισμοί υφίστανται πολύ μεγάλες πιέσεις. Μέχρι τούδε, οι χώρες που επωφελούνται από τον
μηχανισμό αυτό είναι η Ελλάδα, η Ιρλανδία, η Πορτογαλία, η Ουγγαρία, η Λετονία και η Ρουμανία.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/12/57&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en.

C 96 E / 28 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001232/12**

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

_(10 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Structural Fund support for employment and growth

Now that the economic crisis has developed into a social and employment crisis for the EU, as reflected in the high
unemployment of certain Member States and the unsatisfactory average figures for Europe as a whole, the EU, as part
of the Europe 2020 strategy for the next decade, is setting itself a number of particularly ambitious objectives for
increasing employment and promoting sustainable growth in general. The key role in this attempt to revive
employment — through active and passive employment policies (increasing access to training and education,
creation of new and good jobs, effectively combating and preventing unemployment etc.) — is played by structural
funds and more specifically by the funds available for co-financing policies which serve this purpose.

On this basis, will the Commission say:

1. What EU budget appropriations were earmarked for measures to increase employment and growth in 2011?
How much was utilised and how much remained unallocated? How will the unallocated amount be utilised?

2. What are the take-up rates of funding for measures to promote employment and combat unemployment in the
various Member States? What are the reasons for the disparities between them?

3. Given that some Member States, such as Greece, have particularly high unemployment rates, were the funds
used appropriately and if not, for what reason?

4. Which does it believe are the obstacles to effective and adequate use of these funds? Does it intend to help the
Member States to improve their take-up rates and, if so, how?

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

_(20 March 2012)_

1. The Structural Funds are the main instruments for employment and growth, the European Social Fund (ESF)
being the main tool to increase employability of workers. In 2011, the foreseen budget for ESF payments was
EUR 7.69 billion and EUR 9.52 billion were actually paid. The unallocated budget refered to in recent
communications concerns the overall 2007‐13 budget where around EUR 22 billion of ESF funds remain
unallocated. Following the Informal European Council of 30.1.2012, bilateral meetings have been held between eight
Member States and the Commission to discuss how to accelerate use of the funds ( [1] ).

2. The detail of ESF uncommitted budget by Member States is in annex, transmitted directly to the Honourable
Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.

3. Difficulties in using the funds appropriately have been particularly significant in Greece, where the financial
crisis has been much more severe than in the rest of the EU and of a structural nature. The Funds have been used
appropriately in increasing employability but the programmes were designed before the crisis and its resulting rise in
unemployment. Member States have modified their programmes to adapt to the recent needs in employment
policies.

4. The main obstacles are administrative and financial difficulties at national level. The modifications to the
regulation enable the Commission to make payments by increasing the EU co-financing rate by 10 percentage points.
This means that the national contribution can be reduced at a time that national budgets are under extreme pressures.
To date, the countries that benefit from this mechanism are Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Hungary, Latvia and Romania.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/12/57&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 29

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-001233/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD)**

_(10 Φεβρουαρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Ακριβότερα προϊόντα στην Ελλάδα απ' ότι σε άλλες χώρες της ΕΕ

Σύμφωνα με πρόσφατη έρευνα του υπουργείου Ανάπτυξης, Ανταγωνιστικότητας και Ναυτιλίας της Ελλάδος διαπιστώθηκε
ότι στην ελληνική αγορά παρατηρούνται σημαντικά υψηλότερες τιμές στα προϊόντα ευρείας κατανάλωσης σε σχέση με τις
αγορές άλλων έξι χωρών της ΕΕ (Γερμανία, Μ. Βρετανία, Γαλλία, Ιταλία, Ισπανία, Βουλγαρία).

Ειδικότερα, από την έρευνα προκύπτει ότι στην Ελλάδα είναι πολύ υψηλότερες οι τιμές σε δημητριακά, απορρυπαντικά, είδη
προσωπικής υγιεινής και αναψυκτικά.

Σημειώνεται ότι μεγάλο μέρος τόσο του χονδρικού όσο και του λιανικού εμπορίου διαθέσεως των προϊόντων αυτών
προέρχονται από αλυσίδες καταστημάτων που δραστηριοποιούνται ή έχουν την έδρα τους σε άλλες χώρες της ΕΕ. Ιδιαίτερα
οι προμηθευτές αυτοί διαθέτουν τα προϊόντα στις υπό σύγκριση χώρες σε χαμηλές τιμές. Θα μπορούσαν λοιπόν να διατεθούν
και στην Ελλάδα στις αντίστοιχες τιμές διαθέσεως στις αναφερόμενες χώρες πέραν ενός λογικού κόστους μεταφοράς.

Δεδομένων των ανωτέρω καθώς και της δυσχερούς οικονομικής κατάστασης στην οποία βρίσκεται η Ελλάδα, και της
επακόλουθης μείωσης της αγοραστικής δύναμης των πολιτών.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

1. Είναι ενήμερη για αυτήν την έρευνα και με ποιους τρόπους προτίθεται ενδεχομένως να δράσει για να εξασφαλιστεί η
τήρηση των κανόνων του ανταγωνισμού με βάση τους κανόνες της ΕΕ;

2. Δεδομένου ότι τα είδη στα οποία καταγράφονται οι υψηλότερες τιμές αφορούν προϊόντα ευρείας κατανάλωσης, ποιά
μέτρα προτίθεται να λάβει για μεγαλύτερη διαφάνεια στη διαμόρφωση των τιμών ώστε να προστατευτούν οι πολίτες
και να μην μειωθεί η αγοραστική τους δύναμη;

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

_(28 Μαρτίου 2012)_

1. Όσον αφορά τα βασικά προϊόντα διατροφής και τα προϊόντα καθημερινής κατανάλωσης, η Επιτροπή επιθυμεί να
επισημάνει στο Αξιότιμο Μέλος τη δημόσια διαβούλευση που πραγματοποίησε η ελληνική εθνική αρχή ανταγωνισμού (ΕΑΑ)
μεταξύ Δεκεμβρίου 2010 και Μαΐου 2011. Η ελληνική ΕΑΑ είναι σε θέση να προβαίνει σε περαιτέρω δράσεις. Πράγματι, το
2011 διεξήγαγε τομεακή έρευνα στον τομέα των οπωροκηπευτικών με βάση τα αποτελέσματα αυτής της διαβούλευσης.

2. Η Επιτροπή και οι ΕΑΑ θα διερευνήσουν κάθε σοβαρή ένδειξη μη ανταγωνιστικής συμπεριφοράς εντός της ΕΕ, όπως η
εφαρμογή διακρίσεων ως προς τις τιμές και ο κατακερματισμός της αγοράς στις ανωτέρω αγορές. Η Επιτροπή και οι ΕΑΑ
έχουν παρέμβει στις περιπτώσεις κατά τις οποίες διακυβεύτηκε η πρόσβαση σε ανταγωνιστικές προμήθειες στην αλυσίδα
εφοδιασμού τροφίμων εις βάρος οικονομικών φορέων και καταναλωτών κατά παράβαση των άρθρων 101 και 102 της ΣΛΕΕ.
Η Επιτροπή καταρτίζει λεπτομερή έκθεση σχετικά με τα πιο σημαντικά μέτρα επιβολής της εφαρμογής, υποστήριξης και
παρακολούθησης που έχουν λάβει οι ΕΑΑ και η Επιτροπή τα τελευταία έτη στον τομέα των τροφίμων. Η Επιτροπή θα
ενημερώσει το Κοινοβούλιο κατά τη δημοσίευση της έκθεσης εντός του τρέχοντος έτους.

3. Η διαμόρφωση των τιμών εξαρτάται από εξωτερικούς και εσωτερικούς παράγοντες, όπως το κόστος των εισροών, τις
δομές της αγοράς και τα κανονιστικά πλαίσια. Οι αγορές τροφίμων εξετάζονται από τις υπηρεσίες της Επιτροπής και από
ενδιαφερόμενους παράγοντες στο φόρουμ υψηλού επιπέδου για τη βελτίωση της λειτουργίας της αλυσίδας εφοδιασμού
τροφίμων, που δημιουργήθηκε το 2010. Επιπλέον, για να αυξηθεί η διαφάνεια και η προβλεψιμότητα των τιμών, η Eurostat
εξακολουθεί να αναπτύσσει το μέσο παρακολούθησης των τιμών τροφίμων που τέθηκε σε εφαρμογή το 2009 με σκοπό να
καλύψει με τις στατιστικές του, μεταξύ άλλων, πιο λεπτομερή στοιχεία για τις τιμές και μεγαλύτερο αριθμό αλυσίδων
εφοδιασμού τροφίμων ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/hicp/methodology/prices_data_for_market_monitoring.

C 96 E / 30 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001233/12**

**to the Commission**
**Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD)**

_(10 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Products more expensive in Greece than in other EU Member States

According to a recent study by the Greek Ministry of Development, Competitiveness and Shipping, mass-market
products cost considerably more in Greece than in six other EU countries (Germany, United Kingdom, France, Italy,
Spain, Bulgaria).

According to the study, this applies in particular to cereals, detergents, personal hygiene products and soft drinks.

It should be noted that many of these products are traded by wholesale and retail chains with branches or registered
offices in other EU Member States, which sell their products relatively cheaply in the other countries mentioned
above. They could therefore supply these products to Greece at similar prices with the addition of reasonable
transport costs.

In view of this and taking into account Greece’s unfavourable economic situation and the resulting loss of the
purchasing power of its citizens;

1. Is the Commission aware of this study and what action does it intend to take to ensure compliance with EU
competition rules?

2. Given that the most expensive items are mass-market products, what measures does it intend to take to ensure
greater pricing transparency to protect consumers and prevent their purchasing power from being eroded?

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

_(28 March 2012)_

1. With regard to basic nutritional products and products for daily consumption the Commission would like to
point out to the Honourable Member the public consultation that the Greek national competition authority (NCA)
carried out between December 2010 and May 2011. The Greek NCA is well-placed to carry out any follow-up
actions. Indeed it launched in 2011 a sector inquiry in the fruit and vegetables sector on the basis of the results of that
consultation.

2. The Commission and NCAs will investigate any serious indications of anticompetitive behaviour such as intraEU price discrimination and market segmentation in the above markets. The Commission and NCAs have intervened
where access to competitive supplies in the food supply chain has been jeopardised to the detriment of operators and
consumers in violation of Articles 101 or 102 TFEU. The Commission is preparing a detailed report of the most
significant enforcement, advocacy and monitoring actions taken by NCAs and the Commission in recent years in the
food sector. The Commission will inform the Parliament of this report when published this year.

3. Price formation depends on external and internal factors, such as the cost of inputs, market structures and
regulatory frameworks. Food markets are being examined by Commission services and stakeholders in the High Level
Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain set up in 2010. Furthermore, in order to increase price
transparency and predictability Eurostat is continuing to develop the Food Price Monitoring Tool launched in 2009 in
order to cover with its statistics, _inter alia_, more detailed price information and a greater number of food chains ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/hicp/methodology/prices_data_for_market_monitoring.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 31

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-001234/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD)**

_(10 Φεβρουαρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Κλάδος της μεταποίησης

Πρόσφατη έρευνα καταγράφει πτώση ρεκόρ της παραγωγής και μεγάλη μείωση της απασχόλησης στον τομέα της ελληνικής
μεταποίησης.

Οι επιχειρήσεις δυσκολεύονται να αποκτήσουν πρόσβαση σε κεφάλαια κίνησης και οι εταιρείες δεν καταφέρνουν να
χρησιμοποιήσουν τα πιστωτικά τους όρια και τους συνήθεις τρόπους πληρωμής προκειμένου να διεξάγουν τις
επιχειρηματικές τους δραστηριότητες με ομαλό τρόπο.

Η εξασθένηση των νέων παραγγελιών είχε ως συνέπεια την δραματική μείωση της παραγωγής. Λόγω της μειωμένης
παραγωγής, οι ελληνικές επιχειρήσεις συνεχίζουν να απολύουν προσωπικό.

Δεδομένων αφενός, της δυσχερούς οικονομικής συγκυρίας στην οποία έχει περιέλθει η Ελλάδα και αφετέρου του γεγονότος
ότι αντίστοιχα προβλήματα παρατηρούνται και σε άλλους τομείς στην πλειοψηφία των κρατών μελών, το πρόβλημα είναι
ευρωπαϊκό και χρήζει ευρωπαϊκής αντιμετώπισης.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

1. Με ποιούς συγκεκριμένους τρόπους προτίθεται να ενισχύσει τις επενδύσεις στα κράτη μέλη, ιδιαίτερα για τις
μικρομεσαίες επιχειρήσεις που αποτελούν την ραχοκοκαλιά της οικονομικής ανάπτυξης της ΕΕ, στοιχείο απαραίτητο
για την ανάπτυξη και την ανταγωνιστικότητα της Ένωσης;

2. Μπορεί να μας δώσει περαιτέρω στοιχεία για το ποιούς μηχανισμούς έχει στην διάθεση της και αν προτίθεται να τους
κινητοποιήσει για την χρηματοδότηση του κλάδου της μεταποίησης και την αποφυγή μαζικών απολύσεων;

3. Ποια μέτρα θα λάβει προκειμένου να αναλυθούν και να εναρμονιστούν οι διατάξεις των κρατών μελών της ΕΕ με την
κοινοτική οδηγία 75/129 ΕΚ για τις ομαδικές απολύσεις;

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

_(20 Μαρτίου 2012)_

1. Η βοήθεια προς τις ΜΜΕ της ΕΕ για να ξεπεράσουν την κρίση και να βελτιώσουν την ανταγωνιστικότητά τους είναι
σημαντικό στοιχείο της στρατηγικής της Επιτροπής για τη δημιουργία περισσότερων και καλύτερων θέσεων εργασίας. Η
υλοποίηση της πρωτοβουλίας «Small Business Act» (SBA) για την Ευρώπη ( [1] ) και η ανασκόπησή της έχουν επιταχυνθεί με
σκοπό να επικεντρωθούν οι προσπάθειες στην πρόσβαση στη χρηματοδότηση και τις αγορές και στη μείωση του διοικητικού
φόρτου. Έχει διαμορφωθεί ενισχυμένη διακυβέρνηση, ώστε να εξασφαλιστεί η υλοποίηση των αρχών και των δράσεων της
SBA. Η Επιτροπή ενθαρρύνει επίσης τα κράτη μέλη να χρησιμοποιήσουν τα διαρθρωτικά ταμεία για να προάγουν την
ανάπτυξη των ΜΜΕ και τη δημιουργία θέσεων εργασίας.

2. Σε ό,τι αφορά την καλή διαχείριση των διεργασιών αλλαγής, είναι αναγκαία η αποτελεσματικότερη εφαρμογή των
πρακτικών σε θέματα πρόβλεψης, προετοιμασίας και διαχείρισης της αναδιάρθρωσης των επιχειρήσεων σε όλη την ΕΕ. Η
Επιτροπή εξέδωσε πρόσφατα πράσινη βίβλο ( [2] ) για το θέμα αυτό, με την οποία καλεί τους οικονομικούς και κοινωνικούς
φορείς, τα κράτη μέλη κα τα ευρωπαϊκά θεσμικά όργανα να υποβάλουν τις προτάσεις τους, προτού δρομολογηθούν νέες
πρωτοβουλίες στον τομέα αυτό.

Το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινωνικό Ταμείο (ΕΚΤ) και το Ευρωπαϊκό Ταμείο Προσαρμογής στην Παγκοσμιοποίηση μπορούν, επίσης, να
διαδραματίσουν έναν υποστηρικτικό ρόλο για τους εργαζομένους που θίγονται από τις αναδιαρθρώσεις, ώστε να
διευκολυνθεί η επανένταξή τους στην αγορά εργασίας.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2008)394 τελικό και COM(2011)78 τελικό αντιστοίχως.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2012)7 τελικό.

C 96 E / 32 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

3. Η Επιτροπή έχει αναλύσει την εφαρμογή της οδηγίας 98/59/ΕΚ, με την οποία κωδικοποιείται η εφαρμογή των οδηγιών
75/129/ΕΚ και 92/56/ΕΚ στα κράτη μέλη ( [3] ). Αξιολογείται η λειτουργία και ο αντίκτυπος της νομοθεσίας της ΕΕ για την
ενημέρωση των εργαζομένων και τη διαβούλευση με αυτούς σε εθνικό επίπεδο ( [4] ). Ωστόσο, εναπόκειται στις αρμόδιες εθνικές
αρχές να εξασφαλίζουν ότι οι κανόνες με τους οποίους μεταφέρονται οι οδηγίες στο εθνικό δίκαιο εφαρμόζονται υπό το φως
των ειδικών περιστάσεων κάθε περίπτωσης ξεχωριστά.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Βλέπε: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=707&langId=en&intPageId=215.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Ειδικότερα, οι οδηγίες 98/59/EΚ, 2001/23/EΚ και 2002/14/EΚ.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 33

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001234/12**

**to the Commission**
**Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD)**

_(10 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Manufacturing sector

A recent study shows a record fall in production and significant job losses in the Greek manufacturing sector.

Businesses are finding it difficult to gain access to working capital and companies are not managing to use their credit
lines and usual methods of payment to conduct their operations normally.

The decline in new orders has caused a dramatic decrease in production, as a result of which Greek businesses are
continuing to shed their workforce.

Given on the one hand, the unfortunate economic situation of Greece and on the other hand, the fact that similar
problems can be seen in other sectors in the majority of Member States, this is a European problem which requires a
European response.

In view of this:

1. In what specific ways does the Commission intend to increase investments in Member States, particularly for
small and medium-sized undertakings, which are the backbone of EU economic growth and necessary for the
development and competitiveness of the EU?

2. Can it provide further information on what instruments it has at its disposal and if it intends to use them for
financing the manufacturing sector and avoiding collective redundancies?

3. What measures will it take to ensure that the provisions applicable in the EU Member States are examined
carefully and brought into line with Council Directive 75/129 EEC relating to collective redundancies?

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

_(20 March 2012)_

1. Helping EU SMEs to overcome the crisis and improve their competitiveness is an important element of the
Commission’s strategy to create more and better jobs. The implementation of the ‘Small Business Act’ (SBA) and the
Review thereof ( [1] ) have been accelerated, with the focus on the access to finance and markets and the reduction of
burdens. Reinforced governance has been set up to ensure the implementation of the SBA principles and actions. The
Commission also encourages Member States to use the Structural Funds to promote SMEs growth and to create
employment.

2. With regard to sound management of the processes of change, more effective application of best practices in
anticipating, preparing for and managing corporate restructuring through the EU is necessary. The Commission
recently published a Green Paper ( [2] ) on this subject, inviting economic and social stakeholders, Member States and the
European institutions to submit their contributions before launching new initiatives in this area.

The European Social Fund (ESF) and the Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) can also play a role in supporting
workers affected by restructuring, to help them get back into work.

3. The Commission has analysed the implementation of Directive 98/59/EC, which consolidates Directives
75/129/EC and 92/56/EC, in the Member States ( [3] ). It evaluates the operation and impacts of EU legislation on
information and consultation of workers at national level ( [4] ). It is, however, for the competent national authorities to
ensure that the rules transposing the directives are applied in the light of the specific circumstances of individual

cases.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Respectively COM(2008) 394 final and COM(2011) 78 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 7 final.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) See: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=707&langId=en&intPageId=215.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) In particular, Directives 98/59/EC, 2001/23/EC and 2002/14/EC.

C 96 E / 34 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001235/12**

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

**Fiorello Provera (EFD)**

_(9 febbraio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Negata la libertà su cauzione a un cristiano accusato di «blasfemia» in Pakistan

Il 30 gennaio 2012 l'organizzazione Human Rights Without Frontiers ha riferito che un giovane pakistano di
religione cristiana è stato accusato di aver profanato il Corano in base a quanto previsto dalla legge sulla blasfemia
vigente in Pakistan, nonostante le scarse prove a carico del giovane.

Il 5 dicembre 2011, Khuram Masih, 23 anni, è stato arrestato nei pressi di Lahore in seguito alle accuse mossegli dal
suo padrone di casa, secondo il quale Masih avrebbe utilizzato pagine del Corano per preparare il tè. Masih sostiene
invece che le accuse contro di lui sono false e che a spingere il padrone di casa ad accusarlo è in realtà un litigio
sull'affitto avvenuto tra i due. La sezione 295-B della legge in materia di blasfemia prevede che la profanazione
volontaria del Corano o l'utilizzo di un suo estratto in maniera offensiva siano punibili con l'ergastolo. Il giudice
incaricato del caso ha rifiutato di concedere la libertà provvisoria su cauzione, adducendo a motivo la «delicatezza» del
caso e il fatto che tale concessione avrebbe alimentato accesi sentimenti religiosi e causato «gravi inconvenienti».
Attualmente, si stanno compiendo notevoli sforzi perché del caso di Masih si occupi la Corte Suprema di Lahore,
dopo che i precedenti avvocati del giovane hanno delegato il compito a un nuovo avvocato.

Asif Aqeel, direttore esecutivo dell'Iniziativa per lo sviluppo delle comunità (Community Development Initiative,
CDI), ha sottolineato che chi viene accusato di blasfemia «è costretto a passare diversi mesi o addirittura anni in
carcere senza vedersi concessa la libertà provvisoria su cauzione, soltanto perché i giudici non vogliono mettere a
rischio la propria vita sfidando i fondamentalisti religiosi».

Riguardo al problema delle leggi in materia di blasfemia vigenti in Pakistan, l'Alto Rappresentante ha rilasciato una
dichiarazione dopo l'assassinio del ministro pakistano delle minoranze, Shahbaz Bhatti, in cui «richiede alle autorità
pakistane di fare tutto il possibile per garantire la protezione di coloro che nel governo e nella società civile si sono
pronunciati su questi temi, e di assicurare alla giustizia i responsabili di questo crimine».

1. È l'Alto Rappresentante/Vicepresidente a conoscenza del caso di Khuram Masih?

2. Quali iniziative è disposto l'Alto Rappresentante/Vicepresidente a intraprendere per persuadere le autorità
pakistane a incoraggiare le autorità giudiziarie di Lahore, viste le scarse prove a carico dell'indiziato, a concedere la
libertà provvisoria su cauzione al signor Masih?

3. Secondo il rappresentante dell'UE in Pakistan, quali progressi, se ve ne sono stati, sono stati compiuti dal
governo pakistano dall'assassinio di Shahbaz Bhatti e del governatore della provincia del Punjab, Salmaan Taseer,
nella revisione delle leggi in materia di blasfemia vigenti in Pakistan, dal momento che molti segnalano che tali leggi
vengono invocate per regolare questioni personali?

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

_(12 aprile 2012)_

L’Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente ringrazia l’onorevole parlamentare per aver richiamato la sua attenzione su
questo caso.

L’Unione europea ha ripetutamente sollevato con il governo del Pakistan il problema della costante applicazione della
legge sulla blasfemia nell’ambito del dialogo sui diritti umani e continuerà a farlo. L’UE è dell’avviso che, nella sua
forma attuale, la legge sulla blasfemia possa dar luogo ad abusi e ha invitato il governo pakistano a modificarne gli
aspetti più controversi; ritiene inoltre che il Pakistan dovrebbe prendere seriamente in considerazione la completa
abrogazione della legge sulla blasfemia e della pena di morte.

L’Unione ha ribadito la propria posizione più di recente il 7 febbraio 2012, in sede di commissione mista con il
Pakistan. In futuro, nell’ambito del piano d’impegno quinquennale UE-Pakistan recentemente adottato, si dovrebbe
intensificare il dialogo sui diritti umani e sullo Stato di diritto per garantire un maggiore impegno in settori prioritari.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 35

Per quanto riguarda le autorità giudiziarie, l’UE sostiene progetti gestiti dalla sua delegazione in Pakistan volti a
migliorare la qualità dell’applicazione della legge e il funzionamento del sistema giudiziario in Pakistan, iniziando
dalle province del Punjab e del Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

C 96 E / 36 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001235/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD)**

_(9 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Christian in Pakistan charged with ‘blasphemy’ is denied bail

On 30 January 2012, the organisation Human Rights Without Frontiers reported that a young Pakistani Christian
man had been charged with desecrating the Quran under the country’s blasphemy law, even though there was scant
evidence against him.

On 5 December 2011, 23-year-old Khuram Masih was arrested near Lahore after his landlord accused him of using
pages of the Quran to prepare tea. Masih contends that he had been falsely accused in the case because he had had an
argument with his landlord over the rent for his house. Section 295-B of the blasphemy law makes wilful desecration
of the Quran, or use of an extract in a derogatory manner, punishable with life imprisonment. The judge overseeing
the case refused to grant bail on the grounds that the case was ‘sensitive’, and bail for the accused would fan religious
sentiments and cause ‘a great mishap’. Efforts are now being made for his case to be heard in the Lahore High Court
after his previous lawyers gave power of attorney to a new lawyer.

Asif Aqeel, the executive director of the Community Development Initiative (CDI), noted that those who are accused
of blasphemy ‘have to spend several months, even years, in jail without bail, just because the judges are unwilling to
put their own lives at risk from religious extremists’.

With regard to the problem of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, the High Representative issued a statement after the
assassination of the country’s Minister of Minorities, Shahbaz Bhatti, in which she ‘urged the Pakistani authorities to
do their utmost to ensure the protection of those in the Government and civil society who have spoken out on these
matters, and to bring to justice those responsible for this crime’.

1. Is the High Representative/Vice‐President aware of the case of Khuram Masih?

2. What steps is the High Representative/Vice‐President prepared to take to persuade the Pakistani authorities to
encourage the judicial authorities in Lahore, given the scant evidence against the accused, to grant Mr Masih bail?

3. According to EU representatives within Pakistan, what, if any, progress has been made within the Pakistani
Government, since the assassination of Shahbaz Bhatti and the Governor of Punjab province, Salmaan Taseer,
to review the country’s blasphemy laws, as many report that they are being invoked to settle personal feuds?

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

_(12 April 2012)_

The HR/VP thanks the Honourable Member for drawing this case to her attention.

The EU has repeatedly raised the continued application of the blasphemy laws with the Government of Pakistan as
part of the human rights dialogue and will continue to do so. It is the EU’s view that the blasphemy laws in their
present form are open to abuse. The EU has encouraged the Government of Pakistan to amend the more controversial
aspects of the blasphemy legislation. Furthermore the EU maintains that total repeal of the blasphemy laws and the
death penalty, should be considered by Pakistan.

The EU reiterated its position most recently at the Joint Commission with Pakistan on 7 February 2012. For the
future, under the recently agreed EU‐Pakistan five-year Engagement Plan, dialogue on human rights and on rule of law
are expected to intensify in order to ensure a deeper level of engagement on priority areas.

Concerning the judicial authorities, the EU is supporting projects, managed by the EU’s Delegation in Pakistan,
intended to improve the quality of law enforcement and the functioning of the judiciary, beginning in Punjab and
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provinces.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 37

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001238/12**

**to the Commission**
**Kay Swinburne (ECR)**

_(9 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Third-country regulatory impact upon capital markets

How is the Commission monitoring or intending to monitor third-country regulatory impacts on the EU capital
markets?

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

_(26 March 2012)_

The Commission closely monitors the progress as regards the implementation of the G20 commitments in terms of
financial services legislation in other jurisdictions. To this end, and the Commission is engaged in financial regulatory
dialogues with a number of third countries in order to exchange information about respective legislative plans. So far,
legislative dialogues are regularly held with the USA, Japan, China, Russia, Brazil, India and Switzerland.

Given that financial markets and transactions are truly global, it is important that all G20 members implement the
G20 commitments in a consistent way, avoiding regulatory arbitrage, overlaps and conflicting requirements.

Where possible adverse effects are identified, the Commission works closely with its partners to eliminate them or
mitigate them as far as possible. One recent example of this is the so-called ‘Volcker rule’ proposed in the USA
prohibiting proprietary trading by banks. Whilst fully sharing the objective of this rule, a number of potential adverse
and unintended consequences were identified for EU institutions and EU markets. This issue has been raised in
bilateral letters and contacts with American counterparts.

C 96 E / 38 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001240/12**

**to the Commission**
**Kay Swinburne (ECR)**

_(9 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Promoting growth by cutting red tape

In 2007, the European Commission established the High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders on Administrative
Burdens. At the time, the benefits of cutting red tape were estimated at 1.5 % of GDP. Five years later, EU Member
States are struggling to kick-start growth in times of austerity. Reducing the burden on businesses remains a costless
and straightforward way to encourage investment and growth; however the aims of the High Level Group appear not
to have been achieved.

1. Does the Commission feel that the HLG's advice has been adequately acted upon, especially in the area of
financial services ( [1] )?

2. What concrete steps has the Commission taken to reduce the amount of unnecessary legislation in the EU, such
as withdrawing outdated directives?

3. Will a second extension of its mandate be necessary when the HLG's current mandate expires at the end of
2012?

4. Can the Commission provide an updated assessment of the economic benefit that could be achieved by
reducing bureaucracy further?

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

_(20 March 2012)_

In its 2006 Strategic Review of Better Regulation ( [2] ), the Commission proposed to reduce administrative burden in
the EU by 25 % by 2012. It set up the ‘High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders on Administrative Burdens’
(HLG) in 2007.

The recommendations of the group helped the Commission proposing measures that could reduce red tape, provided
they are all adopted by Council and Parliament, by 33 % (i.e. up to EUR 40 billion savings). It can therefore be
considered that the Commission has exceeded its objective.

Amongst the 11 proposals for a reduction of administrative burden from the HLG in the area of financial services, 7
have already been adopted, equivalent to savings amounting to EUR 145 million. In 2009 the Commission tabled a
proposal to revise the ‘Prospectus Directive’. The new directive ( [3] ) (adopted in 2010) sets less comprehensive
disclosure requirements for small companies.

The reduction of regulatory burden has become an integral part of the impact assessments that Commission
initiatives undergo before being proposed to the Council and the Parliament. Moreover, according to the
Commission's recent report on minimising regulatory burden on SMEs ( [4] ), the impact on SMEs of new or revised
legislation are assessed and the regulatory requirements are only applied to small businesses when it is an absolute
must to reach the objective of the regulation. Besides, by simplifying and codifying legislation, the Commission has
reduced the _acquis_ by almost 10 % since 2005.

President Barroso recently asked the chair Dr Stoiber to continue his work under a prolonged mandate. The group
could go further and focus more on small businesses and administrative reforms in the Member States.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) See its opinion from July 2009: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/smart-regulation/files/hlg_opinion_070709_finser_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2006) 689 final.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Directive 2010/73/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 amending Directives 2003/71/EC on the prospectus

to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading and 2004/109/EC on the harmonisation of transparency
requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market, OJ L 327, 11.12.2010.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 803 final.

( **|**

⋅4∙ **|** )

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 39

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001241/12**

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

**Fiorello Provera (EFD)**

_(9 febbraio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Aumento delle persecuzioni contro le case-chiesa in Cina

Nel 2011 alcuni gruppi di difesa dei diritti umani attivi in Cina hanno segnalato l’aumento delle persecuzioni nei
confronti delle chiese clandestine. All’inizio dell’anno un rappresentante del gruppo ChinAid ha affermato che negli
ultimi cinque anni le persecuzioni sono diventate sempre più feroci, facendo riferimento al numero di cristiani
arrestati, condannati e sottoposti ad abusi e torture. Secondo il servizio radio-televisivo Voice of America, vi sono
circa 15 milioni di protestanti e 5 milioni di cattolici che frequentano le chiese registrate ufficialmente. Tuttavia,
secondo gli esperti, a tale cifra occorre sommare altri 50 milioni di persone che si riuniscono nelle cosiddette chiese
clandestine o nelle case-chiesa, le quali rifiutano di sottomettersi al controllo dello Stato.

La costituzione cinese garantisce la libertà di religione, ma soltanto nelle chiese sottoposte al controllo dello Stato.
Esponenti della Fondazione Cardinal Kung, che vigila sul trattamento dei cristiani cattolici in Cina, affermano inoltre
che i cattolici si trovano a vivere in una situazione di continua tensione, costretti a pregare nelle case o nei campi per
paura di essere scoperti dalle autorità cinesi. Nell’aprile 2011, il quotidiano britannico Daily Telegraph ha riportato la
notizia dell’arresto di almeno 50 membri di una chiesa clandestina di Pechino nell'ambito della repressione attuata nei
confronti delle chiese non registrate. Sembra inoltre che alcuni membri abbiano perso la casa e il posto di lavoro a
causa della campagna ufficiale diretta alla chiusura delle chiese.

1. Alla luce dell’aumento delle persecuzioni nei confronti delle comunità cristiane e delle case-chiesa in tutta la
Cina, può il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante chiedere alle autorità cinesi di rivedere il processo di registrazione
delle chiese, affinché un numero maggiore di cristiani possa praticare il proprio credo in maniera libera e sicura?

2. Può il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante riferire se il tema delle case-chiesa sia stato discusso durante le
recenti riunioni del dialogo UE-Cina sui diritti dell’uomo? In tal caso, quali sono state le risposte delle autorità cinesi?

3. Può il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante fornire informazioni circa il futuro delle persone che sono detenute a
causa della repressione contro le case-chiesa?

4. Con riferimento alla relazione sulla libertà religiosa internazionale redatta dal Dipartimento di Stato americano,
intende il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante prendere in considerazione la possibilità di un esame periodico della
libertà di religione nel mondo?

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

_(4 maggio 2012)_

L'UE attribuisce grande importanza alla situazione dei diritti umani in Cina ed è particolarmente preoccupata delle
restrizioni imposte alla libertà di religione. L'UE ha espresso la propria preoccupazione, ancora una volta, durante
l'ultimo incontro nell'ambito del dialogo sui diritti umani UE-Cina nel giugno 2011. In questa occasione ha
nuovamente sollecitato la Cina ad agevolare l'esercizio del culto semplificando il sistema di registrazione delle casechiesa e accelerando il processo decisionale in materia. Le autorità cinesi hanno risposto che la legislazione nazionale
consente alle case-chiesa di ottenere la registrazione ufficiale, ma che è necessario svolgere un esame approfondito di
ciascun caso per evitare abusi. Più di recente, in occasione del 14° vertice UE-Cina del 14 febbraio 2012, l'UE ha
espresso preoccupazione per il segnalato arresto di fedeli cristiani in relazione alle loro convinzioni e attività religiose.
L'UE continuerà a seguire da vicino la situazione dei singoli casi che destano preoccupazione e ad esortare le autorità
cinesi a tutelare la libertà di religione o di credo quale garantita dalla costituzione cinese e conformemente agli
impegni internazionali del paese. L'UE pubblica una relazione annuale sui diritti umani e sulla democrazia nel mondo,
che comprende una sezione sulla libertà di pensiero, di coscienza, di religione o di credo. Di conseguenza non reputa
necessaria una relazione riguardante unicamente la libertà di religione.

C 96 E / 40 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001241/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD)**

_(9 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Chinese ‘house churches’ face increased persecution

In 2011 a number of human rights groups based in China reported that the persecution of so-called ‘underground’
churches is on the rise. Earlier in the year, a representative of the group ChinaAid said that ‘in the past five years, every
year, the degree of persecution increased’. This relates to the number of Christians arrested, sentenced, abused and
tortured. The news service Voice of America reports that there are about 15 million Protestants and five million
Catholics who worship at registered churches. Experts say an estimated 50 million others are believed to pray at socalled ‘underground’ or ‘house’ churches, which refuse to submit to government regulation.

China's constitution allows for freedom of religion, but only in state sanctioned churches. Staff at the Cardinal Kung
Foundation, which monitors the treatment of Roman Catholics in China, also report that Catholics constantly
struggle to worship discretely in homes or in fields to avoid being discovered by the authorities. In April 2011, the
UK's _Daily Telegraph_ reported that at least fifty members of an underground church in Beijing were detained as part of
a crackdown on unregistered churches. It is alleged that some members lost their homes and jobs as part of an official
campaign to shut down the church.

1. In light of the rise in persecution of Christian communities and ‘house churches’ across China, is the High
Representative/Vice‐President prepared to ask the Chinese authorities to review the registration processes for
churches in order to allow more Christians to practice their religion freely and safely.

2. Can the HR/VP state whether or not the subject of ‘house churches’ has been discussed at recent rounds of the
EU‐China human rights dialogue? If so, what have been some of the responses from the Chinese authorities?

3. Can the HR/VP offer any information about the fate of individuals who have been detained as part of
crackdowns on ‘house churches’?

4. In reference to the US Department of State International Religious Freedom Report, would the HR/VP consider
establishing a periodic review for freedom of religion around the world?

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

_(4 May 2012)_

The EU attaches great importance to the human rights situation in China. It is particularly concerned by restrictions to
the freedom of religion. The EU raised its concern once again at the last round of the EU‐China human rights dialogue
which took place in June 2011. On this occasion, it reiterated its call to China to facilitate the exercise of religion by
simplifying the registration system of house churches and speeding up decision making in this respect. The Chinese
authorities replied that the national legislation allows house churches to obtain official registration, but that in each
case a thorough examination is warranted to prevent abuses. Most recently, the EU's concern about reported
imprisonment of Christian practitioners in relation with their religious beliefs and activities was raised at the 14th EU‐
China Summit which took place on 14 February 2012. The EU will continue to follow closely the situation of
individual cases of concern and to urge the Chinese authorities to protect the freedom of religion or belief as
guaranteed by the Chinese Constitution and in compliance with China's international commitments. The EU
publishes an annual report on human rights and democracy in the world, which includes a section on freedom of
thought, conscience and religion or belief. In this light, the EU does not believe that a further report solely on freedom
of religion is necessary.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 41

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite P-001242/12**
**à la Commission (Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante)**

**Robert Goebbels (S&D)**

_(9 février 2012)_

_Objet:_ VP/HR — Arrestations arbitraires, par Israël, de députés palestiniens

Les élections au Conseil législatif palestinien de janvier 2006 ont été saluées à l'époque par l'ensemble de la
communauté internationale, y compris les observateurs de l'UE, comme absolument démocratiques. Toutefois, l'État
d'Israël ne s'est jamais accommodé de cette élection démocratique et a arrêté, enlevé et déporté à maintes reprises des
députés palestiniens régulièrement élus, ce qui va à l'encontre de tout le droit international et est passible de sanctions
devant la Cour de justice pénale internationale.

Or, l'État d'Israël ne se sent pas concerné par le droit international. Non seulement il fait condamner par des tribunaux
spéciaux des députés palestiniens à des peines de prison, mais il continue à harceler des hommes politiques vivant à
Jérusalem-Est, territoire illégalement occupé par Israël.

Israël a ainsi procédé, le 30 juin 2010, à l'arrestation de M. Abu Teir. Suite à cette arrestation, les députés Atoun et
Omran Totah, ainsi que l'ancien ministre Abu Arafah, ont trouvé asile au siège de la Croix rouge internationale
à Jérusalem.

M. Atoun a été enlevé à la fin du mois d'octobre de l'année dernière. Le 23 janvier de cette année, MM. Totah et Arafah
ont été enlevés à leur tour du bâtiment de la Croix rouge.

Comment réagit l'Union européenne face à ces enlèvements arbitraires?

L'Union envisage-t-elle d'adopter des sanctions politiques et économiques contre l'État d'Israël pour amener celui-ci à
libérer tous les députés palestiniens encore détenus dans ses prisons?

Par quels autres moyens la Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante entend-t-elle amener l'État d'Israël à respecter le droit
international?

**Réponse donnée par Mme Ashton, Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante au nom de la Commission**

_(25 avril 2012)_

Depuis quelques années, l'Union européenne suit les cas de députés palestiniens placés en rétention administrative en
Israël. Le 23 juillet 2007, le Conseil Affaires étrangères a appelé Israël à relâcher immédiatement les députés
palestiniens détenus dans le pays. L'UE a également suivi de près, au travers de sa représentation à Jérusalem-Est, le cas
de députés palestiniens qui, depuis juillet 2010, se sont réfugiés, pour échapper à des ordres d'expulsion, dans les
locaux du Comité international de la Croix-Rouge (CICR) à Jérusalem-Est. En mars 2011, elle a également soulevé
publiquement cette question au sein du Conseil des Droits de l'homme.

Suite aux récentes arrestations de M. Mohammed Totah, membre du Conseil législatif palestinien, ainsi que de M.
Khaled Abu Arafeh, ancien ministre aux affaires de Jérusalem, les missions de l'UE à Jérusalem et Ramallah ont publié
une déclaration locale, le 28 janvier 2012, exprimant leur préoccupation. Elles ont également fait référence aux
arrestations de M. Aziz Dweik, président du Conseil législatif palestinien, ainsi que de MM. Khaled Tafesh et
Abduljabbar Foqaha, membres du Conseil législatif palestinien. L'UE considère que de tels agissements ne servent pas
les efforts visant à renforcer la confiance, dans lesquels l'Union est pleinement impliquée et qui ont pour objectif la
reprise de négociations de paix directes. Elle fait régulièrement part de ses préoccupations, au gouvernement israélien,
concernant les pratiques de rétention administrative en l'absence de charges.

L'UE a également appelé à maintes reprises Israël à respecter les obligations lui incombant au titre du droit
international, notamment de la quatrième Convention de Genève.

C 96 E / 42 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-001242/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Robert Goebbels (S&D)**

_(9 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Arbitrary arrests of Palestinian ministers by Israel

The Palestinian Legislative Council elections in January 2006 were hailed at the time by the wider international
community, including EU observers, as fully democratic. However, the State of Israel has never accepted this
democratic election and has repeatedly arrested, seized and deported regularly elected Palestinian MPs, which goes
against all international law and is punishable by the International Criminal Court.

However the State of Israel is not concerned with international law. Not only is it using special courts to pass prison
sentences on Palestinian MPs, but it continues to harass politicians living in East Jerusalem, a territory illegally
occupied by Israel.

In regard to the latter, Israel arrested Mr Abu Teir on 30 June 2010. Following this arrest, the MPs Mr Attoun and
Mr Omran Totah as well as the former minster Abu Arafah, took refuge at the International Red Cross headquarters in
Jerusalem.

Mr Attoun was seized from there at the end of October last year. On 23 January this year, Mr Totah and Mr Arafah
were in their turn seized from the Red Cross compound.

What is the EU’s reaction to these arbitrary arrests?

Does the EU plan to adopt political and economic sanctions against Israel to prevail upon the State to release all the
Palestinian MPs still held in its prisons?

By what other means does the High Representative intend to prevail upon the State of Israel to respect international
law?

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

_(25 April 2012)_

The EU has been following the cases of Palestinian legislators held in administrative detention in Israel for a number
of years. On 23 July 2007, the Foreign Affairs Council called for the immediate release of Palestinian legislators
detained by Israel. Through its representation in East Jerusalem, the EU has also followed closely the case of
Palestinian legislators who, since July 2010, had found shelter against deportation orders in the office of the
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in East Jerusalem. The EU also raised this matter publicly at the
Human Rights Council in March 2011.

Following the recent arrests of Palestinian Legislative Council member Mohammed Totah and former Minister for
Jerusalem Affairs Khaled Abu Arafeh, the EU Missions in Jerusalem and Ramallah issued a local statement on
28 January 2012 expressing their concern. They also made reference to the arrests of PLC Speaker Aziz Dweik and
PLC members Khaled Tafesh and Abduljabbar Foqaha. The EU considers that such actions are not conducive to the
confidence building efforts, in which the EU is fully engaged, aiming at the resumption of direct peace negotiations.
The EU regularly raises its concerns about the practice of administrative detention without charge with the
government of Israel.

The EU has also continuously called on Israel to adhere to its obligations deriving from international law, such as the
Fourth Geneva Convention.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 43

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-001244/12**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)**

_(9 februarie 2012)_

_Subiect:_ Restricții la exporturile către Federația Rusă, ca urmare a apariției virusului Schmallenberg

Serviciul Federal pentru Control Veterinar și Fitosanitar al Federației Ruse a anunțat instituirea unor restricții
provizorii la importul de animale vii și de material reproductiv din Germania, Belgia, Franța și Olanda, în contextul
apariției în UE a virusului Schmallenberg.

Poate Comisia estima impactul acestor restricții asupra producătorilor europeni? Are Comisia în vedere limitarea
circulației animalelor pe teritoriul UE?

**Răspuns dat de dl Dalli în numele Comisiei**

_(20 martie 2012)_

În ianuarie 2012, în urma depistării virusului Schmallenberg (SBV) în UE, au fost temporar suspendate importurile de
bovine, ovine și caprine vii, precum și de material genetic de la acestea provenind din Belgia, Germania, Țările de Jos,
Regatul Unit și Franța, precum și importurile de carne și subproduse din carne de oaie și de capră provenind din
Belgia, Germania și Țările de Jos. La 27 februarie 2012, Federația Rusă nu a informat Comisia cu privire la măsuri
adoptate în ceea ce privește alte state membre ale UE.

Conform statisticilor disponibile, exporturile de produse menționate anterior aveau o valoare de 57,1 milioane EUR
pentru primele 11 luni din 2011. Principalele exporturi în cauză erau de bovine vii din Germania și Țările de Jos, în
timp ce Belgia și Regatul Unit nu au exportat niciunul din aceste produse.

Impactul acestor măsuri va depinde, bineînțeles, de durata acestora. Comisia lucrează în strânsă legătură cu Federația
Rusă pentru garanta că măsurile restrictive adoptate sunt ridicate de îndată ce este posibil.

UE nu aplică nicio restricție comercială în legătură cu virusul SBV și nici cu orice alt virus similar (Orthobunyavirus)
privind animalele vii, carnea și laptele acestora sau subprodusele de origine animală.

Comisia a solicitat Agenției Europene pentru Siguranța Alimentară (EFSA) să acorde de urgență asistență tehnică și
științifică cu privire la riscurile posibile legate de acest virus. EFSA va colecta datele epidemiologice din statele
membre și va evalua impactul infecției virale.

Mai multe informații cu privire la acest aspect sunt disponibile la următoarea adresă de internet:
http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/diseases/schmallenberg_virus/index_en.htm.

C 96 E / 44 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001244/12**

**to the Commission**
**Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)**

_(9 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Restrictions on imports to the Russian Federation as a result of the emergence of the Schmallenberg virus

The Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Supervision of the Russian Federation has announced the
introduction of provisional restrictions on the importation of live animals and reproductive materials from Germany,
Belgium, France and the Netherlands in the context of the emergence of the Schmallenberg virus in the EU.

Can the Commission estimate the impact of these restrictions on European producers? Does the Commission
envisage restricting movements of animals in the EU?

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

_(20 March 2012)_

In January 2012, following the detection of the Schmallenberg virus (SBV) in the EU, the temporarily suspended
imports of live cattle, live sheep and goats as well as their genetic materials from Belgium, Germany, The Netherlands,
the United Kingdom and France, and sheep and goat meat and by-products from Belgium, Germany and The
Netherlands. As of 27 February 2012, the Russian Federation has not informed the Commission of measures taken
for other EU Member States.

According to the available statistics, exports of the abovementioned products represented EUR 57.1 millions for the
first 11 months in 2011. The main exports concerned live cattle from Germany and The Netherlands, while Belgium
and the United Kingdom did not export any of those products.

The impact of these measures will of course depend on their duration. The Commission is working in close contact
with the Russian Federation to ensure that the restrictive measures adopted are lifted as soon as possible.

The EU does not apply any trade restrictions in relation to the SBV virus as well as any other similar virus
(Orthobunyavirus) on live animals, their meat, milk or animal by-products.

The Commission has asked the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) to provide urgent scientific and technical
assistance on the possible risks related to this virus. EFSA will collect the epidemiological data from Member States
and will assess the impact of the virus infection.

Further information on this issue is available at the following webpage:
http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/diseases/schmallenberg_virus/index_en.htm

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 45

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001245/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Sergio Paolo Frances Silvestris (PPE)**

_(9 febbraio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Dati sulla vendita dei farmaci di fascia C in Europa

Le farmacie italiane sono uno dei settori cui si riferisce il decreto «salva Italia» sulle liberalizzazioni adottato in Italia
dal Consiglio dei Ministri. Secondo la riforma, per favorire la concorrenza e per abbassare i prezzi, il numero delle
farmacie in Italia aumenterà di circa 6mila unità, che si aggiungeranno alle attuali 17mila.

Inoltre un precedente decreto del Governo, poi modificato in sede parlamentare, aveva previsto che potessero essere
venduti fuori dalle farmacie i farmaci di fascia C, ovvero i farmaci destinati alla cura di patologie anche molto serie
come antidolorifici, antinfiammatori, ansiolitici, antipsicotici, antidepressivi e anoressizzanti, per la cui vendita ora è
necessaria l'esibizione della ricetta medica. Attualmente, invece, questa tipologia di farmaco si può acquistare soltanto
in farmacia.

Alla luce dei fatti sopraesposti, s'interroga dunque la Commissione per sapere:

1. se può tracciare un quadro generale sulla vendita dei farmaci di fascia C in Europa, specificando in quali Stati
membri sono eventualmente in commercio fuori dalle farmacie;

2. se può fornire i dati relativi a come sia organizzato il sistema delle farmacie in ciascun Paese europeo e quale sia
il rapporto tra abitanti e farmacie in ciascuno Stato membro.

**Risposta data da John Dalli a nome della Commissione**

_(2 marzo 2012)_

La direttiva 2001/83/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 6 novembre 2001, recante un codice
comunitario relativo ai medicinali per uso umano ( [1] ) stabilisce le regole e le responsabilità per la distribuzione
all'ingrosso dei medicinali nell'ottica della loro sicurezza e qualità. Tuttavia, la distribuzione dei medicinali al
pubblico, comprese le vendite al dettaglio e le vendite in farmacia, non è disciplinata dalla legislazione farmaceutica
dell'UE ed è di competenza degli Stati membri.

Pertanto, la Commissione non dispone del quadro di insieme e dei dati richiesti dall'onorevole deputato.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) GU L 311 del 28.11.2001.

C 96 E / 46 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001245/12**

**to the Commission**
**Sergio Paolo Frances Silvestris (PPE)**

_(9 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Data on the sale of Group C medicines in Europe

Italian pharmacies are one of the areas covered by the ‘Save Italy’ decree on liberalisations adopted in Italy by the
Council of Ministers. Under the reform, the number of pharmacies in Italy will increase by around 6 000, to be added
to the current 17 000, in order to promote competition and lower prices.

In addition, a previous government decree, which was subsequently amended in parliament, had provided for Group
C medicines to be sold in points of sale other than pharmacies. Group C medicines are used in the treatment of
serious pathologies and include painkillers, anti-inflammatories, anxiolytics, antipsychotics, antidepressants and
anorectics, which are only sold at present on prescription. Currently, however, this type of drug can only be bought in
a pharmacy.

In light of these facts:

1. Could the Commission provide a general overview of the sale of Group C medicines in Europe, specifying in
which Member States it is possible for them to be sold in points of sale other than pharmacies?

2. Could it provide data on how the pharmacy system is organised in each European country and on the ratio
between population and pharmacies in each Member State.

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

_(2 March 2012)_

Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Community code relating to medicinal
products for human use ( [1] ) establishes rules and responsibilities for the wholesale distribution of medicinal products
with regard to their safety and quality. However, the dispensation of medicinal products to the public, including retail
and pharmacy sales, is not regulated by the EU pharmaceutical legislation and is under the competence of the Member
States.

Therefore, the Commission is not in the possession of the overview and data requested by the Honourable Member.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 311, 28.11.2001.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 47

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001246/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Sergio Paolo Frances Silvestris (PPE)**

_(9 febbraio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Ritardi nei pagamenti PAC 2011

In Italia l'Agenzia per le erogazioni in agricoltura (Agea), ente statale che riveste funzioni di organismo di
coordinamento e di organismo pagatore nell'ambito dell'erogazione dei fondi dell'Unione Europea ai produttori
agricoli, sta ritardando senza motivo i pagamenti per le domande PAC 2011. Sembra che questi ritardi siano dovuti a
vicende interne all'ente.

Assieme agli incrementi fiscali introdotti dall'ultima manovra del Consiglio dei ministri, questi ritardi stanno
mettendo in ginocchio tutto il comparto, tanto che le associazioni di categoria si stanno organizzando per azioni di
protesta. In un momento storico molto delicato di crisi economica globale e col prezzo dei prodotti agricoli e dell'olio
in caduta libera, gli agricoltori sono in grave difficoltà. L'agenzia statale avrebbe dovuto liquidare entro il novembre
2011 tutte le pratiche che, invece, restano bloccate. L'aspetto ancor più grave è che non vengono fornite motivazioni
o spiegazioni e non viene comunicata alcuna data o previsione, nonostante l’Unione Europea abbia espresso il suo

consenso.

Alla luce dei fatti sopraesposti, può la Commissione far sapere:

1. se è a conoscenza del ritardo nelle erogazioni PAC 2011 per gli agricoltori,

2. se intende verificare le ragioni per cui Agea sta procedendo in enorme ritardo ai pagamenti per le domande
PAC,

3. quali provvedimenti intende prendere per far sì che gli agricoltori ricevano le erogazioni il prima possibile?

**Risposta data da Dacian Cioloș a nome della Commissione**

_(12 marzo 2012)_

L’interrogazione dell’onorevole parlamentare sembra riferirsi ai pagamenti relativi alle domande presentate nel 2011
per gli aiuti diretti. In base all’articolo 29, paragrafo 2 del regolamento (CE) n. 73/2009 del Consiglio ( [1] ), tali
pagamenti dovranno essere effettuati tra il 1 [o] dicembre 2011 e il 30 giugno 2012.

Se la Commissione dovesse aver notizia in futuro di eventuali ritardi in proposito, esaminerà la questione
attentamente e prenderà le misure del caso secondo le possibilità previste dalla normativa europea.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) GU L 30 del 31.1.2009, pag. 16.

C 96 E / 48 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001246/12**

**to the Commission**
**Sergio Paolo Frances Silvestris (PPE)**

_(9 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ 2011 CAP payment delays

In Italy, the Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA — agricultural payments agency), a government
coordination and payment body that handles disbursement of EU funds to farmers, is delaying payments for 2011
CAP claims for no reason. These delays appear to be due to internal problems at the agency.

Together with the tax increases introduced in the Council of Ministers’ latest measures, these delays are bringing the
whole sector to its knees, so much so that trade unions are organising protest action. At this extremely difficult point
in time, due to the global economic crisis, and with the price of agricultural products and oil in free fall, farmers are
experiencing serious difficulties. The state agency should have settled all the claims by November 2011, but they are
still held up. The worst part is that no reasons or explanations have been given, nor any date or estimated date, even
though the EU has approved payment.

In light of the above:

1. Is the Commission aware of the delay in 2011 CAP payments for farmers?

2. Does it intend to ascertain the reasons why AGEA is so behind with payments of CAP claims?

3. What measures does it intend to take to ensure farmers receive payment as soon as possible?

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

_(12 March 2012)_

The question of the Honourable Member would appear to refer to payments in relation to claims made in 2011 for
direct aids. According to Article 29 (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 ( [1] ), such payments would have to be
made within the period from 1 December 2011 to 30 June 2012.

Should the Commission in the future be informed of any possible delays in this regard, it will investigate the issue
closely and if necessary take appropriate measures according to the possibilities available in EU legislation.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 30, 31.1.2009, p. 16.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 49

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001247/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(9 febbraio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Allarme febbre dengue

Secondo l'ultimo rapporto dell'Organizzazione mondiale della sanità (OMS), oltre 2,5 miliardi di persone rischiano
attualmente di contrarre la febbre dengue; ciò significa che oltre il 40 % della popolazione del pianeta potrebbe
esserne infettato. L'OMS ha stimato che ogni anno l'epidemia rischia di colpire circa 50-100 milioni di persone in
tutto il mondo. Inizialmente il virus è stato isolato nel Sud-Est asiatico, ma l'aumento dei casi è principalmente dovuto
alla rapida urbanizzazione di alcune zone e alla carenza di adeguate condizioni igieniche nella periferia delle grandi
città e nelle zone vicine a bacini d'acqua stagnante, che possono causare la pericolosa proliferazione della zanzara
Aedes Aegypti.

Considerato che prima del 1970 solo nove paesi avevano registrato forti epidemie di dengue, mentre oggi tale febbre
è endemica in oltre 100 Stati, si chiede alla Commissione se intenda, vista la gravità della diffusione di questa malattia,
intervenire con un programma finalizzato a garantire idonee misure di profilassi e mettere in atto controlli sanitari
sulle persone che accedono al territorio europeo.

**Risposta data da John Dalli a nome della Commissione**

_(20 aprile 2012)_

La Commissione è consapevole dei rischi determinati dalla febbre Dengue. Il Centro europeo per la prevenzione e il
controllo delle malattie (ECDC) assicura il monitoraggio della Dengue per identificare i cambiamenti significativi
nell'epidemiologia di questa malattia e pubblica mappe delle aree dell'UE esposte al rischio di specie di zanzare
invasive che possono veicolare la Dengue. La trasmissione locale della Dengue in Europa è stata segnalata per la prima
volta in Francia e in Croazia nel 2010. Nel 2011 e nel 2012 non sono stati segnalati casi autoctoni in Europa. Inoltre,
nel contesto del Settimo programma quadro di ricerca e sviluppo tecnologico, 2007-2013, la Commissione patrocina
dieci progetti di ricerca sulla Dengue per un corrispettivo di più di 20 milioni di EUR.

La legislazione vigente sulle malattie trasmissibili copre la sorveglianza e il controllo delle febbri emorragiche virali,
compresa la Dengue, e gli eventi legati alla Dengue vanno segnalati alla rete comunitaria per il tramite del Sistema di
allarme rapido e di reazione (SARR). Per quanto concerne i controlli sanitari ai punti d'ingresso nell'UE, la
Commissione rinvia l'onorevole deputato alla propria risposta alle interrogazioni scritte E-1361/07 ed E-1935/07 ( [1] )
in cui fornisce una descrizione dettagliata delle possibilità già in atto in virtù dell'acquis UE in tema di migrazioni e
frontiere per rifiutare l'ammissione o l'entrata di cittadini di paesi terzi per motivi di sanità pubblica.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/QP-WEB/home.jsp .

C 96 E / 50 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001247/12**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(9 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Dengue fever warning

According to the latest report by the World Health Organisation (WHO), more than 2.5 billion people are currently at
risk of contracting dengue fever. This means that over 40 % of the world’s population could be infected. The WHO
has estimated that around 50‐100 million people throughout the world are likely to be affected by the epidemic each
year. Initially, the virus was confined to south-east Asia, but the rise in the number of cases is mainly due to the rapid
urbanisation of certain areas and to the lack of adequate hygiene conditions in the outskirts of large cities and in areas
close to sources of stagnant water, which may result in a dangerous proliferation of the Aedes Aegypti mosquito.

Today the fever is endemic in over 100 countries, whereas before 1970 only nine countries had recorded a serious
dengue fever epidemic. In view of this fact and of the seriousness of the spread of this disease, will the Commission
introduce a programme designed to ensure appropriate preventive measures and to carry out health checks on people
entering the European Union.

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

_(20 April 2012)_

The Commission is aware of the risks posed by contracting Dengue Fever. The European Centre for Disease
Prevention and Control (ECDC) monitors Dengue to identify significant changes in disease epidemiology, and
publishes maps of EU areas at risk of invasive mosquito species which are potential vectors of Dengue. Local
transmission of Dengue in Europe was for the first time reported in France and Croatia in 2010. There have been no
autochthonous cases in Europe in 2011 or in 2012. In addition, in the context of the 7th Framework Programme for
Research and Technological Development, 2007-2013, the Commission is also supporting 10 research projects on
Dengue totalling more than EURO 20 million.

The current legislation on communicable diseases covers surveillance and control of viral haemorrhagic fevers,
including Dengue, and events due to Dengue should be reported through the Early Warning and Response System
(EWRS) to the Community Network. As far as health checks upon entry are concerned, the Commission would refer
the Honourable Member to its answer given to written questions E‐1361/07 and E‐1935/07 ( [1] ) in which a detailed
description of the already existing possibilities under EU migration and border _acquis_ to refuse admission or entry of
third-country nationals for public health reasons was given.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/QP-WEB/home.jsp

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 51

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001248/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(9 febbraio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Celiaci pericolo glutine anche nei cosmetici

La questione sollevata al congresso dell'American College of Gastroenterology di Washington è che anche i cosmetici
potrebbero costruire un rischio per i celiaci. L'attenzione è rivolta principalmente a rossetti, balsami e matite per
labbra, dentifrici e collutori che entrano a contatto con le mucose della bocca e possono essere ingeriti. Il rischio è
dovuto principalmente alla scarsa informazione che fanno le case produttrici. Da un'indagine svolta sul mercato
risulta che solo il 20 % dei prodotti fornisce informazioni dettagliate sui componenti presenti. Mentre le indicazioni
sugli alimenti sono complete, non si può dire lo stesso per i cosmetici, anche quando si tratta di prodotti che vanno in
contatto con le mucose, le labbra ed il viso.

L'industria cosmetica usa i derivati di grano, frumento, farro, segale, kamut e orzo, che possono contenere tracce della
frazione lipoproteica del glutine. Si ipotizza che l'ingestione accidentale di tracce di rossetti e matite, contenenti
glutine, possa esacerbare i sintomi della celiachia e sono poche le aziende cosmetiche che dichiarano «gluten free» i
propri prodotti.

Considerando che la celiachia è la più frequente intolleranza alimentare a livello mondiale e che in Europa un
cittadino su cento è celiaco e per ogni celiaco diagnosticato ce ne sono 4 che non sanno di esserlo, chiedo alla
Commissione se intenda implementare i controlli anche sui prodotti cosmetici al fine di tutelare e proteggere il

consumatore.

**Risposta data da John Dalli a nome della Commissione**

_(20 marzo 2012)_

Uno dei principali obiettivi della direttiva Cosmetici 76/768/CEE ( [1] ) è assicurare che sul mercato UE vengano immessi
soltanto cosmetici sicuri. In tale contesto la Commissione ha inoltrato una richiesta di parere al comitato scientifico
della sicurezza dei consumatori (CSSC) sull'uso sicuro delle proteine idrolizzate del frumento nei prodotti
cosmetici ( [2] ). Sulla base di tale valutazione la Commissione contemplerà le opportune misure regolamentari che
potrebbero consistere in prescrizioni in tema di etichettatura, limiti d'uso delle concentrazioni, ecc.

I requisiti generali di etichettatura contenuti nella direttiva Cosmetici sono volti ad assicurare che i consumatori
vengano adeguatamente informati in relazione ai cosmetici che usano. La direttiva fa obbligo ai fabbricanti di indicare
sui cosmetici l'elenco degli ingredienti. L'indicazione dell'elenco degli ingredienti sull'etichetta del cosmetico, parti dei
quali potrebbero essere ingerite, consente ai celiaci di venire a conoscenza della presenza di ingredienti che
potrebbero nuocere loro e di evitare, all'occorrenza, il prodotto in questione.

La direttiva Cosmetici non fa obbligo ai fabbricanti di indicare «gluten-free» sui loro prodotti cosmetici. Tuttavia,
quando dichiarano espressamente l'assenza di glutine, i fabbricanti devono assicurare che, sull'etichetta all'atto della
commercializzazione e nella pubblicità del prodotto cosmetico, non vengano usati testi, denominazioni, ecc. tali da
implicare che il prodotto possegga caratteristiche o funzioni che non ha.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Direttiva 76/768/CEE 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.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/docs/sccs_q_031.pdf

( **|**

C 96 E / 52 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001248/12**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(9 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Danger for coeliacs: gluten also found in cosmetics

The American College of Gastroenterology meeting in Washington has raised the question that even cosmetics could
pose a risk for coeliacs. The main cause for concern would be lipsticks, lip balms, lip pencils, toothpastes and
mouthwashes that come into contact with the mucous membranes of the mouth and can be ingested. The risk is
mainly due to the lack of information provided by manufacturers. A market survey showed that only 20 % of
products come with detailed information about their ingredients. Although food labelling is comprehensive, the same
cannot be said for cosmetics, even with regard to products that come into contact with the mucous membranes, lips
and face.

The cosmetics industry uses corn, wheat, spelt, rye, kamut (khorasan wheat) and barley derivatives that may contain
traces of gluten lipoprotein fraction . The assumption is that accidental ingestion of traces of lipsticks and lip pencils
that contain gluten could exacerbate symptoms of coeliac disease, and very few cosmetic companies actually declare
their products to be ‘gluten-free’.

Given that coeliac disease is one of the more common food intolerances globally and that, in Europe, one in every
hundred people is a coeliac and, for every coeliac diagnosed, there are four others who are not aware that they have
the condition, does the Commission intend to introduce controls on cosmetic products in order to safeguard and
protect consumers?

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

_(20 March 2012)_

One of the main objectives of the Cosmetics Directive 76/768/EEC ( [1] ) is to ensure that only safe cosmetic products are
placed on the EU market. In this context, the Commission has issued a request for an opinion by the Scientific
Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) on the safe use of hydrolysed wheat proteins in cosmetic products ( [2] ). On the
basis of this evaluation, the Commission will consider the appropriate regulatory measures, which could consist in
labelling requirements, limits for use concentrations, etc.

The general labelling requirements contained in the Cosmetics Directive shall ensure that the consumers are
appropriately informed in relation to the cosmetic products they use. The directive requires the manufacturers to
indicate on the cosmetic product the list of ingredients. The indication of the list of ingredients on the labelling of the
cosmetic product, parts of which could be ingested, permit to the persons suffering of coeliac disease to be informed
of the presence of ingredients that could harm them and to avoid, if need be, that product.

The Cosmetics Directive does not oblige manufacturers to indicate ‘gluten-free’ on their cosmetic products. However,
when expressly claiming the absence of gluten, the manufacturers must ensure that, in the labelling, making available
on the market and advertising of the cosmetic product, text, names, etc. shall not be used to imply that the product
has characteristics or functions which it does not have.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products, OJ L 262,

27.9.1976.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/docs/sccs_q_031.pdf

( **|**

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 53

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001249/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(9 febbraio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Diabete giovanile

Il diabete di tipo I colpisce circa 500 000 giovani di età inferiore ai 14 anni nel mondo e, in fase ritardata più rara,
talvolta anche gli adulti. Questa forma di diabete porta a una rapida distruzione delle cellule pancreatiche che
producono insulina a causa di un'anomala reazione del sistema immunitario, rendendo così necessaria la
somministrazione esterna dell'insulina ai pazienti per il controllo della glicemia.

Negli ultimi anni si è affermato un più efficace metodo «alternativo»: il trapianto da donatore di isole pancreatiche (le
cellule del pancreas che producono insulina), che vengono impiantate nel fegato del ricevente attraverso una semplice
infusione in vena. Il fegato, così «ingegnerizzato», assolve dunque anche alla funzione del pancreas, iniziando a
produrre insulina. È stata scoperta una nuova molecola (Reparixin) in grado di migliorare l'efficacia di questo
trapianto. Oggi, grazie alla nuova molecola, è possibile ridurre significativamente le frequenti reazioni infiammatorie
e il potenziale rigetto delle isole trapiantate. Attualmente, a livello internazionale, dieci pazienti sono in trattamento
con la nuova molecola e due sono diventati totalmente indipendenti dalle iniezioni di insulina.

Considerando l'importanza della ricerca, soprattutto in campo medico, si chiede alla Commissione se intenda attuare
i programmi a sostegno della ricerca medico-scientifica, sensibilizzando i cittadini e garantendo nuove frontiere per la
cura di questa patologia.

**Risposta data da Máire Geoghegan-Quinn a nome della Commissione**

_(19 marzo 2012)_

La Commissione è consapevole del grave problema rappresentato dal diabete di tipo 1, nonché delle prospettive
offerte dal trapianto di isole pancreatiche per curare la malattia. Nel settembre 2011, l'Agenzia europea per i
medicinali ha assegnato la qualifica di medicinale orfano al medicinale «Reparixin» (iscritto nel registro comunitario
dei medicinali orfani sotto il numero EU/3/11/912) ( [1] ), per la proprietà del farmaco di prevenire le crisi di rigetto
dopo il trapianto di isole pancreatiche.

Come sottolineato dall'onorevole parlamentare, i risultati preliminari presentati in occasione del congresso CTS (Cell
Transplant Society)/IXA (International Xenotransplant Association) dell'ottobre 2011 mostrano che la reparixina
riduce il potenziale rigetto delle isole pancratiche trapiantate.

La ricerca sul diabete di tipo 1 è da sempre una priorità del Settimo programma quadro di ricerca e sviluppo
tecnologico (7° PQ 2007-2013), che vi destina uno stanziamento di circa 35 milioni di euro. Tra gli ambiti presi in
considerazione figurano lo studio dell'eziologia della malattia (DIABIMMUNE ( [2] )BETABAT ( [3] )), lo sviluppo di
immunoterapie per il ripristino delle cellule beta (NAIMIT ( [4] )) e la valutazione della funzione del trapianto
(XENOME ( [5] )).

La ricerca sul ruolo e la sopravvivenza delle cellule pancreatiche è condotta specificatamente nel quadro del progetto
IMIDIA ( [6] ), sostenuto nell'ambito dell'IMI, l'iniziativa in materia di medicinali innovativi ( [7] ). I ricercatori del progetto
IMIDIA hanno messo a punto la prima linea di cellule beta umane adeguata per valutare i farmaci che agiscono sul
funzionamento delle cellule beta ( [8] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )
⋅7∙ **|** )

⋅8∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/medicines/human/orphans/2011/10/human_orphan_000978.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac

058001d12b&murl=menus/medicines/medicines.jsp&jsenabled=true

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.diabimmune.org
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://betabat.ulb.ac.be/
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://naimit.eu
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://www.xenome.eu/introduction.aspx
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) http://www.imi.europa.eu/sites/default/files/uploads/projects/documents/factsheets/imi-1st-call-factsheets-imidia_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) L'IMI è un partenariato pubblico-privato fra l'UE e la Federazione europea delle industrie e delle associazioni farmaceutiche (EFPIA) volto a

promuovere lo sviluppo di farmaci migliori e più sicuri per il paziente.

( **|** ⋅8∙ **|** ) The Journal of Clinical Investigation, volume 121, numero 9, settembre 2011; http//www.jci.org

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

( **|**

C 96 E / 54 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001249/12**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(9 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Type 1 diabetes

Type 1 diabetes affects around 500 000 young people under the age of 14 across the world and, in some rare delayed
cases, sometimes even adults. This form of diabetes leads to rapid destruction of the insulin-producing pancreatic
cells due to an abnormal reaction of the immune system, thus making external administration of insulin necessary in
order for patients to be able to control blood glucose levels.

In recent years, a more effective ‘alternative’ method has become known: donor transplantation of pancreatic islets
(insulin-producing pancreas cells), which are transplanted to the recipient’s liver by simple venous infusion. The
‘engineered’ liver therefore also performs the function of the pancreas, generating the production of insulin. A new
molecule (Reparixin) with the ability to improve the effectiveness of this transplant has been discovered. Today,
thanks to this new molecule, it is possible to reduce significantly the frequent inflammatory reactions and the
potential rejection of transplanted islets. On an international level, ten patients are currently being treated with this
new molecule and two have become totally independent of insulin injections.

Considering the importance of research, especially in the field of medicine, does the Commission intend to
implement programmes in support of medical-scientific research, raising the awareness of citizens and ensuring new
frontiers for the treatment of this disease?

**Answer given by Ms Geoghegan-Quinn on behalf of the Commission**

_(19 March 2012)_

The Commission is aware of the burden posed by diabetes 1 and the prospects offered by islet transplantation to
revert the disease. The European Medicines Agency granted in September 2011 the orphan designation
(EU/3/11/912) ( [1] ) to reparixin, for the prevention of graft rejection in islet transplantation.

As pointed out by the Honourable Member, preliminary results presented at the Cell Transplant Society/International
Xenotransplant Congress (October 2011) showed that reparixin reduces the potential rejection of transplanted islets.

Research on type 1 diabetes has been a priority throughout the 7th Framework Programme for Research and
Technological Development (FP7, 2007‐2013), with some EUR 35 million devoted to this subject. Areas tackled
include the understanding of its etiology (DIABIMMUNE ( [2] ), BETABAT ( [3] )), the development of immunotherapies
aimed at beta-cell restoration (NAIMIT ( [4] )) and the role of transplantation (XENOME) ( [5] ).

Research focused on pancreatic islet cell function and survival is being specifically addressed by the IMIDIA ( [6] ) project,
supported within the frame of the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) ( [7] ). The IMIDIA consortium has generated the
first β-human cell line suitable for the evaluation of drugs targeting β-cell function ( [8] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )
⋅7∙ **|** )

⋅8∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/medicines/human/orphans/2011/10/human_orphan_000978.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac

058001d12b&murl=menus/medicines/medicines.jsp&jsenabled=true

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.diabimmune.org
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://betabat.ulb.ac.be/
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://naimit.eu
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://www.xenome.eu/introduction.aspx
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) http://www.imi.europa.eu/sites/default/files/uploads/projects/documents/factsheets/imi-1st-call-factsheets-imidia_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) IMI is a public-private partnership between the EU and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), aiming to

speed up the development of better and safer medicines for patients.

( **|** ⋅8∙ **|** ) _The Journal of Clinical Investigation_, Volume 121, Number 9, September 2011; http//www.jci.org

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

( **|**

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 55

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001251/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(9 febbraio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Il Fondo monetario internazionale: un ostacolo alla regolamentazione dei mercati finanziari dell'UE

Un noto quotidiano finanziario ha pubblicato la proposta tedesca, contenuta in una nota informale, di creare un
commissario europeo designato dai ministri delle Finanze dell'eurozona, con il potere di opporre il veto alle decisioni
di bilancio assunte dal governo greco; in realtà la Grecia esclude di cedere all'UE la sua sovranità in tema di politiche di
bilancio.

La proposta sembra richiamare l'idea della costituzione di un Fondo monetario europeo da affiancare al Fondo
monetario internazionale, nonostante gli evidenti fallimenti dell'austerità economica imposta dal FMI: dal sistema di
voto «un dollaro, un voto», alle misure economiche fondate sulla riduzione delle spese dello Stato, alla politica
monetaria deflazionista e all'apertura dei mercati locali agli investimenti esteri.

Il tutto nel quadro di una liberalizzazione eccessivamente rapida dei mercati finanziari e dei capitali, che ha portato
quasi sempre a far crollare i prezzi delle materie prime e alle continue speculazioni finanziarie nei paesi in via di
sviluppo. Al riguardo basterebbe analizzare — come illustri economisti internazionali hanno suggerito — i dati
relativi ai flussi di capitali, per rendersi conto che hanno un andamento pro-ciclico, ossia defluiscono da un
determinato paese in tempi di recessione, proprio quando il paese ne ha più bisogno e affluiscono verso il paese nel
periodo di rapida espansione, esasperando le pressioni inflazionistiche.

In considerazione di ciò, chiedo alla Commissione di riferire se l'esperienza greca non abbia mostrato che il FMI
presenta un sistema fallimentare e all'interno dell'UE costituisce un enorme «moral hazard», che potrebbe contribuire
a determinare più difficoltà politiche tra i paesi dell'UE nella regolamentazione degli strumenti tecnici e finanziari
necessaria per affrontare la crisi economica attuale.

**Risposta data da Olli Rehn a nome della Commissione**

_(20 marzo 2012)_

L'UE sta rispondendo alla crisi del debito sovrano con una strategia su due fronti, intesa cioè a creare stabilità
finanziaria durevole nonché crescita economica ed occupazione sostenibili. Secondo la Commissione, per ripristinare
la fiducia nelle finanze pubbliche e sostenere la crescita è necessario un ulteriore risanamento, che deve essere
integrato da politiche e riforme intelligenti, in grado di rilanciare la crescita. I paesi UE vulnerabili stanno adottando
iniziative importanti in questa direzione, risanando le finanze pubbliche e attuando riforme strutturali cruciali,
necessarie per una ripresa durevole.

L'approccio dell'assistenza finanziaria esterna sulla base di condizioni in grado di garantire dette politiche può
funzionare e in effetti sta dando prova di efficacia, come dimostrano i numerosi esempi di assistenza del Fondo
monetario internazionale o di assistenza congiunta UE/FMI.

L'esperienza degli Stati membri conferma inoltre che politiche responsabili e orientate alla stabilità sono un
presupposto necessario per beneficiare di mercati finanziari liberalizzati, e che l'assenza di un quadro politico
improntato alla stabilità può trasformare il potenziale vantaggio rappresentato dall'apertura dei mercati di capitali in
un possibile meccanismo di amplificazione degli squilibri soggiacenti.

Inoltre, fin dall'inizio della crisi nel 2008, sono stati tratti importanti insegnamenti sulle cause della crisi stessa,
nonché su come prevenire e contenere eventuali crisi future. L'FMI ha potenziato di conseguenza le proprie attività di
sorveglianza e di assistenza politica e ha adattato i propri meccanismi e strumenti in modo da rispondere al meglio
alle necessità di tutti i suoi membri. Alla luce di tutto ciò, riteniamo che l'FMI continuerà ad essere un partner
importante per l'UE in materia di sorveglianza, assistenza politica e assistenza finanziaria.

C 96 E / 56 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001251/12**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(9 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ International Monetary Fund: an obstacle to the regulation of EU financial markets

A leading financial newspaper has published Germany’s proposal — set out in an informal memorandum — for a
new European Commissioner appointed by the eurozone finance ministers, with the power to veto budget decisions
taken by the Greek Government. Greece is ruling out the possibility of ceding control of its budget policies to the EU.

The proposal appears to revive the idea of establishing a European monetary fund in addition to the International
Monetary Fund, despite the obvious failings of the austerity measures imposed by the IMF, including the ‘one dollar,
one vote’ voting system, economic measures aimed at reducing state spending, deflationary monetary policy and the
opening-up of local markets to foreign investment.

All of these measures have been imposed in the context of excessively rapid liberalisation of the financial and capital
markets, which in almost every instance has caused the price of raw materials to collapse and given rise to continual
financial speculation in developing countries. As has been suggested by leading international economists, an analysis
of capital flow data shows a pro-cyclical trend whereby capital flows out of a country in recession — just when that
country needs it most — and into a country undergoing rapid expansion, thereby exacerbating inflationary pressures.

In the light of the above, does the Commission not agree that the Greek experience has shown that the IMF system is
disastrous, and that within the EU it represents a serious ‘moral hazard’ which may contribute to further political
difficulties among the Member States as regards the technical and financial regulatory instruments needed in order to
address the current economic crisis.

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

_(20 March 2012)_

The EU is responding to the sovereign debt crisis with a twin strategy to create lasting financial stability and
sustainable economic growth and employment. In the view of the Commission, further consolidation is necessary to
restore confidence in public finances and sustained growth. It must be complemented by smart and growthenhancing policies and reforms that underpin new growth. Vulnerable EU countries are taking important steps in this
direction, consolidating public finance and implementing crucial structural reforms needed for a lasting recovery.

The approach of external financial assistance built on conditions to ensure such policies can and does work. Many
examples of International Monetary Fund (IMF) assistance or joint EU/IMF assistance have shown so.

Experience of our Member States has also confirmed that responsible and stability-oriented policies are a prerequisite
for benefitting from liberalised financial markets, and that the absence of such a stable and stability-oriented policy
framework can indeed transform that potential advantage of open capital markets into a possible mechanism of
amplifying underlying imbalances.

Furthermore, since the onset of the crisis in 2008, important lessons have been drawn regarding its causes, and the
prevention and mitigation of future crises. The IMF has accordingly improved its surveillance activities and policy
advice and adapted its tools and instruments in order to better meet the needs of its whole membership. Against this
background, we consider that the IMF will continue to be an important partner of the EU in the areas of surveillance,
policy advice and assistance.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 57

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001252/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(9 febbraio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Provider mobile britannico senza controllo

Migliaia di utenti di un provider mobile britannico sono stati vittime di una truffa. Una vulnerabilità avrebbe
permesso l'invio di numeri di telefono a siti web «non verificati» in automatico tramite un messaggio testuale di facile
lettura.

Considerato che i tentativi di truffa attraverso falsi login sono sempre più diffusi e che il numero di utenti, anche
minorenni, che accedono ai siti web per mezzo di smartphone o apparecchi simili è in aumento, potrebbe far sapere
la Commissione se intende implementare i sistemi di controllo attraverso una rete a livello europeo che permetta di
selezionare e filtrare le informazioni, contrastando la proliferazione di fenomeni come lo scam e il phishing e
garantendo un margine di sicurezza soprattutto per i più giovani?

**Risposta data da Neelie Kroes a nome della Commissione**

_(13 marzo 2012)_

L'interrogazione fa riferimento a un caso che ha interessato una rete di telefonia mobile britannica nel gennaio 2012.
L'operatore mobile in questione ha riconosciuto la divulgazione accidentale di numeri telefonici di propri clienti a siti
web cui gli stessi avevano avuto accesso utilizzando la connessione dati mobile.

La sicurezza dei dati personali sulle reti di telecomunicazione è stata oggetto di un riesame del quadro normativo per
le comunicazioni elettroniche, divenuto applicabile negli Stati membri nel maggio 2011. Nello specifico, la direttiva
2002/58/EC relativa al trattamento dei dati personali e alla tutela della vita privata nel settore delle comunicazioni
elettroniche riveduta (ePrivacy) richiede ai fornitori di servizi di prendere misure tecniche e organizzative che
permettano di garantire la protezione dei dati personali da divulgazioni non autorizzate o illecite. Il fornitore di
servizi ha l'obbligo di notificare ogni eventuale violazione di dati personali all'autorità nazionale competente e, nel
caso in cui la violazione comporti gravi ripercussioni per i dati personali e la privacy dell'utente, anche al diretto
interessato. Le suddette disposizioni sono state recepite nella normativa del Regno Unito, che conferisce i poteri di
sorveglianza all’ICO (Information Commissioner’s Office), l'autorità britannica per la protezione dei dati. Alla
Commissione risulta che, date le denunce ricevute, l'ICO stia esaminando la questione con l'operatore mobile
coinvolto nel caso citato.

Inoltre, è opportuno ricordare che l'ENISA, l'Agenzia europea per la sicurezza delle reti e dell'informazione, ha
pubblicato nel dicembre 2010 una relazione sui rischi relativi alla sicurezza informatica per gli utenti di smartphone,
con indicazione di opportunità e raccomandazioni. A tale relazione ha fatto seguito, nel novembre 2011, la
pubblicazione di orientamenti per la creazione di applicazioni sicure per gli smartphone destinati agli sviluppatori.

C 96 E / 58 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001252/12**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(9 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ UK mobile phone provider fails to exercise control

Thousands of users of a UK mobile phone provider have been victims of fraud. A vulnerability allowed telephone
numbers to be automatically sent to unverified websites by means of an easy-to-read text message.

Given that fraud attempts via false login are becoming ever more widespread, and that the number of users, including
minors, accessing websites using smartphones or similar devices is on the increase, can the Commission say whether
it intends to implement a Europe-wide control system network making it possible to select and filter information, in
order to tackle the proliferation of phenomena such as scams and phishing and guarantee safety margins, particularly
for the younger generation?

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

_(13 March 2012)_

This question appears to be related to an incident which occurred in January 2012 on one of UK’s mobile networks.
The mobile operator acknowledged accidental disclosure of customers’ mobile phone numbers to websites accessed
using their mobile data connection.

Personal data security on electronic communications networks was addressed by the reform of the EU regulatory
framework for electronic communications, which became applicable in the Member States in May 2011. In
particular, the reinforced ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC requires service providers to take appropriate technical and
organisation measures to protect personal data against unauthorised or unlawful disclosure. In case of a personal data
breach, the providers must notify the competent national authority and also the individuals affected, when the breach
is likely to adversely affect their personal data or privacy. These provisions have been transposed in UK law, which
confer supervision powers to the Information Commissioner (the ICO). The Commission understands that, in view of
the complaints received, the ICO is examining the matter with the operator concerned.

Furthermore, it should also be noted that the European Network and Information Security Agency — ENISA —
published in December 2010 a report on information security risks, opportunities and recommendations for users of
Smartphones. It was followed-up by the publication in November 2011 of Guidelines for developers to design
secured applications for Smartphones.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 59

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris P-001255/12**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D)**

_(9 februarie 2012)_

_Subiect:_ Prima de instalare pentru tinerii fermieri

În România, prima de instalare pentru tinerii fermieri se ridică la 40 000 de euro și poate fi obținută prin accesarea
măsurii 112.

În acest an, Guvernul a decis că, pentru accesarea măsurii 112, o condiție obligatorie pentru aplicanți este ca aceștia să
fie absolvenți de liceu sau de școală profesională cu profil agricol.

Având în vedere faptul că o bună parte din agricultorii activi tineri au absolvit doar școli profesionale cu profil neagricol sau că unii dintre ei au început o activitate agricolă foarte tineri și nu au avut timp să își termine studiile,

1. consideră Comisia că introducerea acestui criteriu obligatoriu pentru accesarea măsurii 112 este justificată?

2. acceptarea proiectelor depuse de absolvenții de școli profesionale, altele decât cele cu profil agricol, trebuie
aprobate special de către CE; în acest sens, care ar fi motivele acestor aprobări speciale?

**Răspuns dat de dl Cioloș în numele Comisiei**

_(28 februarie 2012)_

În conformitate cu articolul 22 din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1698/2005 al Consiliului ( [1] ), ajutorul pentru tinerii fermieri
în cadrul măsurii 112 „Instalarea tinerilor agricultori” se acordă persoanelor care dețin competențe și calificări
profesionale suficiente.

De la aprobarea acestuia în 2008, programul de dezvoltare rurală al României (PNDR) a stabilit că nivelul de studii
minim necesar pentru a avea acces la măsura 112 este acela de absolvent de liceu agricol/școală profesională sau liceu
în alte domenii decât agricultura, dar cu realizarea a 150 de ore de formare în domeniul agricol.

Autoritățile române au prezentat recent Comisiei o propunere de modificare a PNDR care are ca scop flexibilizarea
nivelului de studii minim necesar în cadrul măsurii 112. Conform propunerii, absolvenții de școli profesionale cu
profil ne-agricol vor fi, de asemenea, eligibili în cadrul acestei măsuri. Fiindcă această modificare este în prezent în
curs de evaluare de către Comisie, autoritățile române au anunțat că aprobarea proiectelor prezentate de absolvenții
școlilor respective va fi condiționată de acceptarea de către Comisie a modificării PNDR.

În ceea ce privește ultimul punct al întrebării dumneavoastră scrise, vă rugăm să aveți în vedere faptul că programele
de dezvoltare rurală sunt puse în aplicare în gestiune partajată cu statele membre, care dețin responsabilitatea deplină
pentru aprobarea proiectelor individuale.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1698/2005 al Consiliului din 20 septembrie 2005 privind sprijinul pentru dezvoltare rurală acordat din Fondul European
Agricol pentru Dezvoltare Rurală (FEADR) JO L 277, 21.10.2005, p. 1.

C 96 E / 60 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-001255/12**

**to the Commission**
**Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D)**

_(9 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Setting-up payment for young farmers

The setting-up payment for young farmers in Romania stands at EUR 40 000 and can be obtained through measure
112.

This year, the Government has decided that, in order to access measure 112, an obligatory condition for applicants is
that they must have graduated from secondary school or an agricultural school.

Taking into consideration that a good number of young farmers have only graduated from a non-agricultural
vocational school and that some of them started farming at a young age and have not had time to finish their studies,

1. Does the Commission consider that the introduction of this obligatory criterion for accessing measure 112 is
justified?

2. The acceptance of projects submitted by graduates from non-agricultural vocational schools must be specially
approved by the Commission. In this regard, what would be the basis for these special approvals?

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

_(28 February 2012)_

In accordance with Article 22 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 ( [1] )support for young farmers under
measure 112 ‘Setting up of young farmers’ shall be granted to persons who possess adequate occupational skills and
competence.

From its approval in 2008, the Romanian Rural Development Programme (RDP) established the minimum required
educational level in order to access measure 112 as having graduated from agricultural high school/vocational school
graduate or high school in areas other than agriculture, but having undertaken 150 hours of training in the
agricultural field.

The Romanian authorities have recently submitted to the Commission a proposed modification of the RDP aiming to
make more flexible the minimum required educational level under measure 112. According to the proposal,
graduates from non-agricultural vocational schools will also be eligible under this measure. As this modification is
currently under assessment by the Commission, the Romanian authorities have announced that the approval of
projects submitted by those graduates will be subject to the acceptance of the RDP modification by the Commission.

As regards the last point of your written question, please note that rural development programmes are implemented
under shared management with the Member States, who have the fully responsibility for approving individual
projects.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural
Development (EAFRD). OJ L 277, 21.10.2005, p. 1.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 61

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-001256/12**

**an die Kommission**

**Gesine Meissner (ALDE)**

_(9. Februar 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Immunität für von US-Streitkräften gecharterte zivile Handelsschiffe

Ist der Kommission bekannt, in welchen Häfen der EU-Mitgliedstaaten, so wie beispielsweise in den Niederlanden,
zivile Handelsschiffe, die von den Streitkräften der USA gechartert werden, diplomatische Immunität genießen und
sich auf diese Weise unter anderem der Hafenstaatkontrolle entziehen können? Hält die Kommission dies für
vereinbar mit europäischem Recht?

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

_(24. Februar 2012)_

Der Kommission sind keine Fälle bekannt, in denen für solche Schiffe ein diplomatischer Status geltend gemacht oder
diplomatische Immunität beantragt oder gewährt wurde. In jedem Fall ist die diplomatische Immunität eine
Angelegenheit, die in die Zuständigkeit der Mitgliedstaaten fällt, und zu der sich die Kommission nicht äußern kann.

Das System der Hafenstaatkontrolle in der Europäischen Union wird durch die Richtlinie 2009/16/EG ( [1] ) geregelt, wo
es (in Artikel 3 Absatz 1) wie folgt heißt: „Diese Richtlinie gilt für Schiffe, die einen Hafen oder Ankerplatz eines
Mitgliedstaats anlaufen, in dem eine Schnittstelle Schiff/Hafen erfolgen soll, und ihre Besatzung.“ Allerdings ist in
Artikel 3 Absatz 4 folgendes festgelegt: „Fischereifahrzeuge, Kriegsschiffe, Flottenhilfsschiffe, Holzschiffe einfacher
Bauart, staatliche Schiffe, die für nichtgewerbliche Zwecke verwendet werden, und Vergnügungsjachten, die nicht
dem Handelsverkehr dienen, sind vom Anwendungsbereich dieser Richtlinie ausgeschlossen“.

Ausgehend von den von der Frau Abgeordneten übermittelten Informationen könnten die Schiffe, um die es hier
geht, d. h. von den Streitkräften der USA gecharterte zivile Schiffe, entweder in die Kategorie „Flottenhilfsschiffe“ oder
in die Kategorie „staatliche Schiffe, die für nichtgewerbliche Zwecke verwendet werden“ fallen, und folglich nicht der
Hafenstaatkontrolle unterliegen.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) ABl. L 131 vom 28.5.2009.

C 96 E / 62 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001256/12**

**to the Commission**

**Gesine Meissner (ALDE)**

_(9 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Immunity for civilian merchant ships chartered by US armed forces

Does the Commission know in which EU Member State ports, in the Netherlands for example, civilian merchant ships
chartered by the US armed forces enjoy diplomatic immunity, thus enabling them to avoid port State controls, among
other things? Does the Commission consider this compatible with European law?

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

_(24 February 2012)_

The Commission is not aware of any issue relating to the diplomatic status of these vessels or whether diplomatic
immunity has been claimed or granted in respect of these vessels, in any event the issue of diplomatic immunity is a
question of national competence upon which the Commission is unable to comment.

The system of Port State Control within the European Union is regulated by Directive 2009/16/EC ( [1] ) which provides
(Article 3(1)) that the directive ‘shall apply to any ship and its crew calling at a port or anchorage of a Member State’.
However Article 3(4) sets out that ‘Fishing vessels, warships, naval auxiliaries, wooden ships of a primitive build,
government ships used for non-commercial purposes and pleasure yachts not engaged in trade shall be excluded
from the scope of this directive’.

On the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member it would appear that the vessels she refers to,
civilian vessels chartered by the United States Military, could fall within the category of either naval auxiliary or
government ships used for non-commercial purposes and for this reason may not be subject to Port State Control.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 131, 28.5.2009.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 63

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-001257/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Jutta Steinruck (S&D)**

_(9. Februar 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Entscheidung der Kommission zu dem Verkauf von Wohnungen durch die BayernLB

Die BayernLB ist aufgrund von Vorgaben der Kommission im Rahmen eines Beihilfeverfahrens gezwungen, ihre 92prozentige Beteiligung an dem Wohnungsunternehmen GBW-AG zu verkaufen.

Nach Aussagen des bayerischen Finanzministers Söder kann der Kauf der Beteiligung nicht durch den Freistaat Bayern
erfolgen, da dies angeblich die Kommission verbiete.

1. Inwieweit kann die Kommission den Verkauf zwingend oder maßgeblich bestimmen?

2. Muss der Verkauf der Beteiligungen im Rahmen eines Bieterverfahrens ablaufen oder besteht die EU nicht
zwingend auf einem Bieterverfahren, sondern würde auch eine direkte Veräußerung an ein kommunales Konsortium
akzeptieren?

3. Zum Bieterverfahren:

a) Welche Regeln gelten für ein Bieterverfahren?

b) Wann wären sie verletzt?

c) Bei Einzelverträgen mit den Mietern?

d) Bei Sozialcharta mit strengem Inhalt?

e) Mit welcher Begründung? Schließlich steht es auch bei Aufnahme weiterer „Vertragsbedingungen im weiteren
Sinne“ jedem Bieter frei, ein Gebot zum Erwerb der Anteile abzugeben.

4. Wäre es möglich, dass der Freistaat die Anteile erwirbt oder gar sich kostenlos überschreiben lässt, oder
verstieße dies gegen Beihilferichtlinien? Für den Fall, dass der Freistaat Bayern nicht erwerben darf: Wieso wird
der Freistaat schlechter gestellt als jeder andere Interessent?

5. Dient der Verkauf der Beteiligung

a) der Einhaltung wettbewerbsrechtlicher Vorgaben des EU-Rechts,

b) der Rückzahlung der Staatshilfen oder

c) allen oben genannten Punkten?

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

_(14. März 2012)_

1. Beim Beihilfeverfahren BayernLB handelt es sich um ein laufendes Verfahren, in dem noch keine abschließende
Entscheidung getroffen wurde. Die Kommission kann sich zu laufenden Verfahren grundsätzlich nicht äußern. Es ist
allerdings festzuhalten, dass die Kommission dem Mitgliedstaat ohne abschließende Entscheidung grundsätzlich
weder Verkaufs‐ noch sonstige Verpflichtungen auferlegen kann.

2-4. Aus beihilferechtlicher Sicht ist sicherzustellen, dass der Erwerb nicht mit Beihilfen an den Erwerber verbunden
ist. Wie ein Bieterverfahren konkret auszugestalten ist, hängt vom Einzelfall ab.

5. Sollte ein Verkauf der GBW-Beteiligung stattfinden, so würde dies als Eigenbeitrag zu den
Umstrukturierungskosten/Beitrag zur Lastentragung gewertet.

C 96 E / 64 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001257/12**

**to the Commission**
**Jutta Steinruck (S&D)**

_(9 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Commission decision on the sale of apartments by BayernLB

Stipulations made by the Commission as part of a state aid monitoring procedure have forced BayernLB (the Bavarian
State bank) to sell its 92 % share in housing enterprise GBW AG.

According to Bavarian Finance Minister Markus Söder, the shareholding cannot be bought up by the Bavarian State
because this is apparently prohibited by the Commission.

1. To what extent can the Commission enforce or significantly determine conditions for the sale?

2. Must the shareholding be sold via a bidding procedure or would the EU accept a direct sale to a municipal
consortium?

3. In relation to the bidding procedure

a) What are the rules for such a bidding procedure?

b) What would constitute an infringement of those rules?

c) Individual contracts with tenants?

d) A social charter with strict content?

e) On what grounds? After all, even subject to additional ‘contractual conditions in the broad sense’, any bidder is
at liberty to make an offer for the shareholding.

4. Would it be possible for the Bavarian State to purchase the shareholding or acquire it by means of a transfer at
no cost, or would this infringe the aid guidelines? If the Bavarian State is not permitted to acquire the shareholding,
why is it thus placed in a worse position than any other interested party?

5. Is the purpose of the sale of the shareholding

a) to comply with the requirements of EU competition law,

b) to enable state aid to be paid back, or

c) both of the above?

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

_(14 March 2012)_

1. The procedure in the BayernLB state aid case is still ongoing and no final decision has yet been made. The
Commission cannot pronounce on these matters while proceedings are under way. In any case, it should be noted
that the Commission cannot impose disposal or other obligations on a Member State before a final decision is taken.

2-4. Under the state aid rules, it must be ensured that the purchase does not involve state aid to the buyer. The
specific arrangements for the bidding procedure depend on the individual case.

5. Should the holding in GBW be sold, the sale would be considered to be an own contribution to the restructuring
costs/a contribution to a share of the burden.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 65

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-001258/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Jörg Leichtfried (S&D)**

_(9. Februar 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Luxussteuer in Italien

Seit dem 27. Dezember 2012 ist in Italien die sogenannte Luxussteuer in Kraft. Damit werden Luxusautos, Boote und
Luftfahrzeuge besteuert. Gemäß Artikel 16 Ziffer 11 des Decreto Salva Italia gilt diese Bestimmung für
Luftfahrtzeuge, welche im nationalen Luftfahrtregister aufgeführt sind. Laut Ziffer 14 sollen den in Ziffer 11
genannten Beträgen auch ausländische, nicht in der italienischen Luftfahrzeugrolle eingetragene Luftfahrzeuge
unterliegen, sofern sich der Aufenthalt auf mehr als 48 Stunden erstreckt. Ausgenommen von der Abgabe sind
Staatsluftfahrzeuge oder gleichgestellte Luftfahrzeuge in deren Auftrag, die Flugrettung und Flugschulen. Außerdem
ausgenommen sind Luftfahrzeuge, die im Eigentum oder im Betrieb des Aero Club d'Italia stehen. Fraglich ist, ob
diese Abgabenbefreiung der italienischen Sportluftfahrt — bzw. die Nichtbefreiung der ausländischen Sportluftfahrt
— gegen das Gleichheitsgebot verstößt, da ausländische Vereine ohne Zweifel schlechter gestellt sind als inländische.
Diese Abgabe belastet somit ausschließlich private und ausländische Luftfahrzeughalter. Gerade kleine gemeinnützige
Sportvereine werden von dieser Abgabe schwer getroffen und belastet. Dies hätte negative Auswirkungen auf den
italienischen Tourismus, und somit wäre die Einführung dieser Abgabe kontraproduktiv.

1. Ist der Kommission dieser Zustand bekannt?

2. Ist eine solche Bestimmung mit dem Unionsrecht vereinbar?

3. Erkennt auch die Kommission in dieser Bestimmung einen Verstoß gegen das Diskriminierungsverbot?

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

_(21. März 2012)_

Bei der Europäischen Kommission ist eine Beschwerde eingegangen, in der es um die Frage der Gleichbehandlung
europäischer Flugsportvereine im Rahmen des Decreto Salva Italia geht. Der Herr Abgeordnete wird daher darüber
unterrichtet, dass die Kommission von der in seiner Anfrage geschilderten Situation Kenntnis hat und die
Angelegenheit derzeit untersucht.

C 96 E / 66 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001258/12**

**to the Commission**
**Jörg Leichtfried (S&D)**

_(9 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Taxes on luxury goods in Italy

A so-called luxury goods tax applies in Italy as of 27 December 2012. This tax applies to luxury cars, boats and
aircraft. According to Article 16(11) of the ‘Salva Italia’ Decree Law, this provision applies to aircraft listed in the
national aircraft register. According to paragraph 14, the charges set out in paragraph 11 are also to apply to foreign
aircraft not listed in the Italian aircraft register if they spend more than 48 hours in the country. State aircraft or
comparable aircraft operating on the State’s behalf, rescue aircraft and flying schools are to be exempt from the levy.
The exemption also applies to aircraft owned or operated by the Aero Club d’Italia. It is open to question whether the
exemption for Italian flying clubs, or rather the non-exemption for foreign flying clubs, contravenes the principle of
equality, because foreign clubs are clearly placed at a disadvantage in comparison with domestic clubs. This levy thus
only affects private and foreign aircraft operators and will hit small, non-profit-making clubs particularly hard. This
would have a negative impact on Italian tourism, thus making the introduction of this levy counterproductive.

1. Is the Commission aware of this situation?

2. Is a provision of this kind compatible with Union law?

3. Does the Commission also consider that this provision infringes the ban on discrimination?

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

_(21 March 2012)_

The European Commission received a complaint which raises the issue of the equal treatment of European flying
clubs under the ‘Salva Italia’ Decree Law. The Honourable Member of the European Parliament is therefore informed
that the Commission is aware of the situation outlined in his enquiry and is currently investigating the matter.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 67

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-001259/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Georgios Koumoutsakos (PPE)**

_(10 Φεβρουαρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Νέες αντι-μειονοτικές ενέργειες των αλβανικών αρχών, κατά παράβαση του κράτους δικαίου

Την Παρασκευή 27 Ιανουαρίου 2012, ομάδα ανδρών της αλβανικής αστυνομίας, καταπατώντας κάθε έννοια του κράτους
δικαίου, χωρίς να επιδείξουν ένταλμα εισαγγελικής αρχής, εισέβαλαν βίαια και με καλυμμένα τα πρόσωπα στην οικία του
προέδρου της μειονοτικής οργάνωσης «Ομόνοια», της Περιφέρειας Κορυτσάς και αντιπροέδρου του κόμματος «Εθνική
Ελληνική Μειονότητα για το Μέλλον» (MEGA), κ. Ναούμ Ντίσο. Προκάλεσαν μάλιστα σοβαρές φθορές εντός της κατοικίας
του. Τα γεγονότα αυτά έγιναν σε συνέχεια καταφανώς αβάσιμων κατηγοριών για δήθεν «βεβήλωση τάφων» στην
Μπομποστίτσα Κορυτσάς -κάτι που αποτελεί σκόπιμη διαστρέβλωση των πραγματικών γεγονότων, τα οποία ουδεμία σχέση
έχουν με τις κατασκευασμένες κατηγορίες κατά του ελληνικής καταγωγής αλβανού πολίτη, Ναούμ Ντίσο.

Η περίπτωση Ντίσο αποτελεί το πιο πρόσφατο επεισόδιο, σε μια σειρά αντιμειονοτικών ενεργειών των αλβανικών αρχών, όπως
εκείνα που συνέβησαν κατά τη διάρκεια της πρόσφατης διαδικασίας απογραφής μετά την εμφανώς υπαγορευμένη από
πολιτικές σκοπιμότητες απόφαση του Συνταγματικού Δικαστηρίου της Αλβανίας να μην αναγράφεται η εθνικότητα των
ερωτωμένων σε συνδυασμό με πρακτικές συστηματικού εκφοβισμού τους, με αποτέλεσμα να μην μπορούν να ασκήσουν
ελεύθερα το ατομικό δικαίωμα του αυτοπροσδιορισμού. Ιδιαίτερη σημασία έχει ότι οι πρακτικές αυτές των αλβανικών αρχών
εφαρμόζονται κατά κύριο λόγο σε περιοχές όπου το αλβανικό κράτος αρνείται να αναγνωρίσει την ύπαρξη Εθνικής Ελληνικής
Μειονότητας (για παράδειγμα περιοχές Κορυτσάς, Πρεμετής, Λεσκοβικίου, Χιμάρας κ.ά.).

Κατόπιν αυτών, ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

1. Είναι ενήμερη για τα πρόσφατα αυτά γεγονότα;

2. Θεωρεί ότι η Αλβανία, που επιδιώκει να είναι υποψήφια προς ένταξη στην ΕΕ χώρα, ικανοποιεί τα κριτήρια για πλήρη
σεβασμό των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων και για την προστασία των δικαιωμάτων των μειονοτήτων;

3. Προτίθεται να επισημάνει ακόμα μια φορά στις αλβανικές αρχές τις υποχρεώσεις της έναντι της Εθνικής Ελληνικής
Μειονότητας, όπως αυτές απορρέουν από τις Διεθνείς Συμβάσεις και Πρωτόκολλα τα οποία έχει υπογράψει η
Αλβανία;

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

_(19 Μαρτίου 2012)_

Η Επιτροπή παραπέμπει το Αξιότιμο Μέλος στην απάντησή της στη γραπτή ερώτηση E-000864/2012 του κ.
Σαλαβράκου ( [1] ).

Η Επιτροπή είναι ενήμερη σχετικά με την περίπτωση του κ. Naum Disho (γνωστού και ως κ. Nahum Ntiso) και της
καταδίκης του σε φυλάκιση ενός χρόνου για τη βεβήλωση τάφων στο νεκροταφείο της Μπομποστίτσα κατά τη διάρκεια
έργων για την ανέγερση μνημείου προς τιμήν δύο Ελλήνων στρατιωτών που απεβίωσαν το 1940. H Επιτροπή δεν δύναται να
σχολιάζει μεμονωμένες υποθέσεις και δικαστικές αποφάσεις. Σε περίπτωση που ο ενδιαφερόμενος επιθυμεί να διαμαρτυρηθεί
σχετικά με τη μεταχείρισή του από τις αρχές επιβολής του νόμου, του συνιστάται να απευθυνθεί στα αρμόδια αλβανικά
όργανα, όπως το Γραφείο του Συνηγόρου του Πολίτη.

Το αλβανικό Σύνταγμα παρέχει προστασία των αστικών, οικονομικών, κοινωνικών και πολιτικών δικαιωμάτων των
μειονοτήτων. Το νομικό και πολιτικό πλαίσιο της Αλβανίας που διέπει τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα, καθώς και τον σεβασμό και
την προστασία των μειονοτήτων, έχει ήδη σε μεγάλο βαθμό θεσπιστεί και ανταποκρίνεται, σε γενικές γραμμές, στα ευρωπαϊκά
και διεθνή πρότυπα. Η Επιτροπή παρακολουθεί στενά τις εξελίξεις της κατάστασης στον τομέα της προστασίας των
μειονοτήτων και παρουσιάζει τα αποτελέσματα της αξιολόγησής της στην ετήσια έκθεση προόδου της. Η χώρα ενθαρρύνεται
να εντείνει τις προσπάθειες της για την εφαρμογή των δεσμεύσεων που έχει αναλάβει σε αυτόν τον τομέα σύμφωνα με τις
συστάσεις της συμβουλευτικής επιτροπής στους κόλπους της Σύμβασης-Πλαισίου για την Προστασία των Εθνικών
Μειονοτήτων.

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

C 96 E / 68 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001259/12**

**to the Commission**
**Georgios Koumoutsakos (PPE)**

_(10 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Fresh action by the Albanian authorities targeting minorities in breach of national law

On Friday, 27 January 2012, a number of Albanian police officers with their faces concealed forced their way into
Mr Nahum Ntiso’s home in a manner totally inadmissible under national law and without showing any official
warrant issued by the public prosecutor. Mr Ntiso is the leader of the Korytsa regional branch of ‘Omonia’ a minority
organisation, and deputy leader of the political party ‘Ethnic Greek Minority for the Future’ (MEGA). The intruders
caused serious damage to the premises. These events occurred following clearly unfounded allegations of the
apparent ‘desecration of graves’ in Bobostitsa, Korytsa — a deliberate distortion of the facts, to which the fabricated
allegations against Mr Nohum Ntiso, an Albanian citizen of Greek origin, bear no relation whatsoever.

The Ntiso affair is the latest episode in a series of anti-minority actions by the Albanian authorities, in line with similar
incidents that occurred during the recent census, following the clearly politically-motivated decision by the Albanian
Constitutional Court not to record the ethnicity of citizens. This, together with the systematic intimidation of
minorities, has prevented them from freely exercising their individual right of self-determination. Of special
significance is the fact that these tactics by the Albanian authorities are being used mainly in areas where the Albanian
State refuses to recognise the existence of an ethnic Greek minority (e.g. in the Korytsa, Premeti, Leskovikio, Himara
areas, etc.).

In view of this:

1. Is the Commission aware of these recent events?

2. Does it think that Albania, which hopes to be considered for accession to the EU, can fully meet the criteria of
respect for human rights and for the protection of minority rights?

3. Does the Commission intend once more to point out to the Albanian authorities their obligations with regard
to the ethnic Greek minority under the international conventions and agreements to which Albania is a
signatory?

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

_(19 March 2012)_

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply given to previous Written Question E‐
000864/2012 by Mr Salavrakos ( [1] ).

The Commission is aware of the case of Mr Naum Disho (also referred to sometimes as Mr Nahum Ntiso) and his
sentencing to a one-year prison sentence for the desecration of graves in Boboshtice cemetery during building works
on a monument for two Greek soldiers who died in 1940. The Commission cannot comment on individual cases and
court decisions. Should the person concerned have any grievances regarding his treatment by the law enforcement
authorities, he is encouraged to address the relevant Albanian institutions such as the People's Advocate Office.

The Albanian Constitution provides for the protection of the civil, economic, social and political rights of minorities.
The Albanian legal and policy framework regulating human rights and the respect for and protection of minorities is
largely in place and broadly corresponds to European and international standards. The Commission follows closely
developments in the situation of minority protection and presents its assessment in its annual Progress Report. The
country is encouraged to upgrade its efforts to implement commitments in this field in line with the
recommendations of the Advisory Committee of Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.

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

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 69

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-001260/12**

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

_(10 Φεβρουαρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Κίνδυνος απαξίωσης της ακίνητης περιουσίας λόγω αδυναμίας πληρωμής φόρων και στεγαστικών δανείων

Ανησυχία προκαλούν τα αποτελέσματα πρόσφατης έρευνας που εκπόνησε στην Ελλάδα εταιρεία ερευνών για τον κλάδο των
ιδιόκτητων ακινήτων σύμφωνα με τα οποία:

—
Ένας στους δύο ιδιοκτήτες (50,8 %) δηλώνει ότι δεν θα μπορεί να πληρώσει τον επόμενο χρόνο τους φόρους στα
ακίνητα (ΕΤΑΚ, ειδικό τέλος μέσω ΔΕΗ κ.λπ.)

—
το 48,2 % δηλώνει ότι το 2012 δεν θα μπορεί να εξοφλεί έγκαιρα τις δόσεις του δανείου που πήρε για αγορά
ακινήτου όταν σήμερα ένας στους έξι ιδιοκτήτες (16,5 %) δηλώνει ότι εξοφλεί κανονικά και έγκαιρα τις δόσεις.

—
Το ποσό που εκταμιεύουν οι ιδιοκτήτες για να πληρώσουν το φοροεισπτρακτικό μέτρο του τέλους ακίνητης
περιουσίας αντιστοιχεί σε 1 ως 4 ενοίκια ετησίως, χωρίς να υπολογίζονται οι λοιπές επιβαρύνσεις (φόρος εισοδήματος,
ΦΑΠ, δημοτικά τέλη, κ.λπ., αλλά και οι νέες επιβαρύνσεις, όπως ενεργειακά πιστοποιητικά, πιστοποιητικά
ηλεκτρολόγων, ζημιές, απλήρωτα μισθώματα κ.λπ.

Δεδομένου ότι:

—
οκτώ στους δέκα Έλληνες έχουν κάποιας μορφής ιδιοκτησία (διαμέρισμα, μονοκατοικία ή επαγγελματικό χώρο) και
σχεδόν οι μισοί (43,6 %) έχουν πάρει στεγαστικό δάνειο για αγορά ακινήτου, βάσει των παραπάνω, ερωτάται η
Επιτροπή:

1. Υπάρχουν διαθέσιμα στοιχεία σχετικά με τη μέση επιβάρυνση της ακίνητης περιουσίας από την κρατική φορολογία
ανά κράτος μέλος και σε ποιο ύψος κυμαίνεται αυτή;

2. Με δεδομένο ότι η στέγη και, κατά συνέπεια, η ατομική ιδιοκτησία αποτελεί δικαίωμα, με ποιους τρόπους προτίθεται η
Επιτροπή να διασφαλίσει την προστασία της από αλλεπάλληλες φοροεισπρακτικές επιδρομές, με τις οποίες το κράτος
καθίσταται ουσιαστικά συνιδιοκτήτης στην ακίνητη περιουσία του μέσου έλληνα πολίτη και καθιστά ασύμφορη ακόμα
και τη διατήρησή της;

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

_(14 Μαρτίου 2012)_

1. Η δομή της φορολογίας ακίνητης περιουσίας διαφέρει σημαντικά μεταξύ των κρατών μελών της ΕΕ, όπως και τα έσοδα
από τον τομέα αυτόν, όπως φαίνεται στον πίνακα που αποστέλλεται απευθείας στο Αξιότιμο Μέλος και στη Γραμματεία του
Κοινοβουλίου. Ενώ ορισμένες χώρες βασίζονται περισσότερο στους φόρους επί των συναλλαγών, στην πλειονότητα των
κρατών μελών το μεγαλύτερο μέρος του ποσού των φόρων ακίνητης περιουσίας προέρχεται από περιοδικούς φόρους.
Δεδομένου ότι τους εν λόγω φόρους τους διαχειρίζονται συχνά οι αρχές τοπικής αυτοδιοίκησης (π.χ. στη DE, PL, FR, IT,
κ.λπ.), τα σχετικά ποσοστά διαφέρουν μεταξύ των δικαιοδοσιών, παρότι τα ανώτατα όρια μπορούν να καθορίζονται σε
κεντρικό επίπεδο (π.χ. στην Πολωνία) ή με αποκεντρωμένο τρόπο (π.χ. για τον «taxe d'habitation» και τον «taxe foncière» στη
Γαλλία). Το Αξιότιμο Μέλος του Κοινοβουλίου μπορεί να συμβουλευθεί τη βάση δεδομένων «Taxes in Europe» ( [1] ), για
λεπτομερείς πληροφορίες σχετικά με το σχεδιασμό των φόρων ακίνητης περιουσίας στα κράτη μέλη της ΕΕ.

2. Εφόσον τηρούν τις υποχρεώσεις τους βάσει της Συνθήκης, τα κράτη μέλη μπορούν να σχεδιάζουν τα φορολογικά τους
συστήματα (συμπεριλαμβανομένης της φορολόγησης της ακίνητης περιουσίας) για να επιτύχουν τους πολιτικούς στόχους
τους κατά το δοκούν. Θα πρέπει να σημειωθεί ότι αρκετά κράτη μέλη (π.χ. LV, FR, DE, HU) έχουν αυξήσει τους περιοδικούς
φόρους ακίνητης περιουσίας τα τελευταία χρόνια για την παγίωση των εσόδων ( [2] ). Σε περιόδους επιτακτικών δημοσιονομικών
αναγκών, οι μεταρρυθμίσεις αυτές — στο πλαίσιο μιας γενικής μεταστροφής από τους άμεσους φόρους που προκαλούν
στρεβλώσεις — είναι επιθυμητές και από την προοπτική της τόνωσης της ανάπτυξης. Πράγματι, η οικονομική βιβλιογραφία
εκτιμά ότι οι φόροι ακίνητης περιουσίας (παράλληλα με τους φόρους κατανάλωσης και τους περιβαλλοντικούς φόρους)
είναι λιγότερο επιζήμιοι για την ανάπτυξη από ό,τι οι φόροι εισοδήματος και οι φόροι επί της εργασίας.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/gen_info/info_docs/tax_inventory/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Η έκθεση για τις φορολογικές μεταρρυθμίσεις στα κράτη μέλη της ΕΕ διατίθεται στον ακόλουθο ιστότοπο:

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/european_economy/2011/pdf/ee-2011-5_en.pdf

C 96 E / 70 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001260/12**

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

_(10 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Danger of property depreciation resulting from inability to pay taxes and mortgages

Concern has been caused by the recent findings of a research company regarding the private property sector in
Greece, according to which:

—
Half the property owners (50.8 %) state that they will be unable to pay property taxes (ETAK flat-rate property
tax, the special charge collected by the Public Power Corporation — DEI, etc.) next year.

—
42.8 % say that in 2012 they will not be able to make their mortgage repayments on time, just one-sixth of
owners (16.5 %) now indicating that they are making their repayments regularly and on time.

—
The amount that owners are paying in taxes and property charges equates to one to four rents annually,
without taking into consideration other taxes (income tax, VAT, municipal taxes, etc.), as well as new charges,
such as energy certificates or electrician’s certificates, not to mention damage, unpaid wages, etc.

Given that eight out of ten Greeks have some form of property (flat, one-family house or office) and almost half
(43.6 %) have a mortgage, can the Commission provide the following information:

1. Is information available regarding average national property tax by Member State? How much is it?

2. Given that entitlement to a home and hence property ownership are individual rights, how does the
Commission intend to protect property ownership from repeated tax raids through which the State effectively
assumes joint ownership of the average Greek citizen’s property, thus making it uneconomical to maintain?

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

_(14 March 2012)_

1. The structure of property taxation varies widely across EU Member States, as does the revenue from this area, as
shown in the table sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. While some countries rely
more on transaction taxes, in the majority of Member States the bulk of the tax taken from property comes from
recurrent taxes. As the latter are often administered by the local authorities (e.g. in DE, PL, FR, IT, etc) the relevant
rates differ across jurisdictions, although the ceilings might be determined in a centralised (e.g. in PL) or decentralised
way (e.g. for the _taxe d'habitation_ and _taxe foncière_ in FR). The Honourable Member may consult the ‘Taxes in Europe’
database ( [1] ) for detailed information on the design of property taxes in the EU Member States.

2. Provided they observe their Treaty obligations, Member States may design their tax systems (including property
taxation) to meet their policy objectives as they see fit. It should be noted that several Member States (e.g. LV, FR, DE,
HU) have increased recurrent taxes on immovable property in the past years to consolidate revenues ( [2] ). In times of
pressing budgetary needs, such reforms — in the framework of a general shift away from distortionary direct taxes —
are desirable also from a growth-enhancing perspective. Indeed, the economic literature finds that property taxes
(alongside consumption and environmental taxes) are less detrimental to growth than income and labour taxes.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/gen_info/info_docs/tax_inventory/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Report on Tax Reforms in the EU Member States, available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/european_economy/2011/pdf/ee-2011-5_en.pdf

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 71

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-001261/12**

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

_(10 Φεβρουαρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Κίνδυνος κατασχέσεων περιουσιακών στοιχείων σε φορολογούμενους που δεν πληρώνουν το τέλος ακινήτων

Στο πλαίσιο της γενικότερης δυσκολίας των Ελλήνων πολιτών να αντεπεξέλθουν στην αποπληρωμή του δυσβάσταχτου
φόρου για τα ακίνητα, κατατέθηκε επιπλέον τροπολογία στην ελληνική Βουλή που υπογραμμίζει ότι: μετά παρέλευση
τεσσάρων μηνών από τη λήξη της προθεσμίας πληρωμής της πρώτης δόσης του έκτακτου ειδικού τέλους ακίνητης
περιουσίας που επέβαλλε η κυβέρνηση, την είσπραξη του χρέους θα αναλαμβάνει η αρμόδια εφορία, εφαρμόζοντας ακόμα
και μέτρα αναγκαστικής είσπραξης, όπως για παράδειγμα κατασχέσεις περιουσιακών στοιχείων, σε όσους φορολογούμενους
δεν πληρώνουν το εν λόγω τέλος.

Η συγκεκριμένη τροπολογία έρχεται σε συνέχεια της πρόσφατης έκδοσης εντολών διακοπής ρεύματος για χιλιάδες
καταναλωτές, από τη Δημόσια Επιχείρηση Ηλεκτρισμού (ΔΕΗ) της χώρας, η οποία έχει αναλάβει να εισπράξει μέσω των
τιμολογίων της το τέλος ακινήτων, καθώς είχε εκπνεύσει η προθεσμία των 80 ημερών που παρέχει η ελληνική νομοθεσία για
την αποπληρωμή του. Ενέργεια κατάφορα άδικη, που έρχεται σε αντίθεση με τις ασφαλιστικές δικλείδες που παρέχει η
ευρωπαϊκή νομοθεσία και τις διατάξεις του νόμου για την προστασία των ευάλωτων καταναλωτών, καθώς και την εξαίρεση
καταναλωτών από διακοπή ρεύματος, βάσει σχετικής υπουργικής απόφασης.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

1. Δεδομένης της δυσκολίας των ελληνικών νοικοκυριών να ανταποκριθούν, για αντικειμενικούς λόγους, σε πλήθος
έκτακτων φόρων, πώς κρίνει το ενδεχόμενο εφαρμογής της εν λόγω τροπολογίας όταν αυτή μάλιστα έρχεται και σε
άμεση αντίθεση με την ανάγκη προστασίας της περιουσίας εκατοντάδων χιλιάδων πολιτών που αντιμετωπίζουν
συνθήκες ένδειας;

2. Με δεδομένο ότι δεν υπάρχει ακόμα ξεκάθαρη εικόνα του ποιοι φορολογούμενοι συγκαταλέγονται στις ευάλωτες
ομάδες και στις κατηγορίες που για αντικειμενικούς λόγους αδυνατούν να πληρώσουν το τέλος, πώς μπορεί να
προστατευτεί η περιουσία αυτών των ομάδων;

3. Υπάρχουν περιπτώσεις κρατών μελών που έχουν εφαρμόσει παρόμοια μέτρα αναγκαστικής είσπραξης φορολογικών
υποχρεώσεων με κατάσχεση περιουσιακών στοιχείων; Και αν ναι, υπό ποιες προϋποθέσεις (ύψος οφειλών, χρονικά
περιθώρια αποπληρωμής);

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

_(27 Μαρτίου 2012)_

1. Τα μέτρα δημοσιονομικής εξυγίανσης μπορούν να οδηγήσουν βραχυπρόθεσμα σε συρρίκνωση της οικονομικής
δραστηριότητας. Από την πείρα προκύπτουν, ωστόσο, αποτελεσματικοί τρόποι για τη μείωση του δημοσίου ελλείμματος.
Πρώτον, η δημοσιονομική εξυγίανση που βασίζεται στις δαπάνες έχει πιο μακροπρόθεσμα αποτελέσματα σε σχέση με αυτή
που βασίζεται στα έσοδα. Δεύτερον, η φορολόγηση των περιουσιακών στοιχείων είναι λιγότερο στρεβλωτική από τους
φόρους εισοδήματος. Ο μη περιορισμός του υψηλού δημόσιου ελλείμματος θα επιδείνωνε τις μεσοπρόθεσμες προοπτικές
του ελληνικού λαού, συμπεριλαμβανομένων των πλέον ευάλωτων πληθυσμιακών ομάδων.

2. Η νομοθεσία της ΕΕ για την ενεργειακή αγορά περιλαμβάνει διατάξεις για την προστασία των καταναλωτών και
εγγυήσεις για τους ευάλωτους πελάτες. Τα κράτη μέλη (ΚΜ) ( [1] ) είναι υποχρεωμένα να προβούν στη λήψη κατάλληλων
μέτρων και σε ικανοποιητικές διασφαλίσεις για την προστασία των ευάλωτων καταναλωτών. Η Επιτροπή αναλύει την
εφαρμογή των κανόνων αυτών στα κράτη μέλη.

Πάντως, η ελληνική νομοθεσία για τον φόρο ακίνητης περιουσίας προβλέπει ότι η έκτακτη εισφορά ανέρχεται σε 0,5 ευρώ
ανά τετραγωνικό μέτρο για συγκεκριμένες κοινωνικές κατηγορίες, όπως είναι οι πολυμελείς οικογένειες ή τα άτομα με
αναπηρίες. Επιπλέον, η έκτακτη εισφορά δεν εφαρμόζεται σε ακίνητα που είναι ιδιοχρησιμοποιούμενα και ανήκουν, μεταξύ
άλλων, σε μακροχρόνια ανέργους, ενώ αφήνει τις λεπτομερείς ρυθμίσεις των κανονισμών της σε υπουργική απόφαση.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Κράτη μέλη.

C 96 E / 72 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

3. Λογαριασμοί για προϊόντα και υπηρεσίες κοινής ωφέλειας έχουν ήδη χρησιμοποιηθεί σε ορισμένες ευρωπαϊκές χώρες
για την είσπραξη δημοτικών φόρων ή τελών τηλεοπτικών υπηρεσιών. Οι ρυθμίσεις για την είσπραξη των φόρων,
συμπεριλαμβανομένης της προσφυγής σε κατάσχεση περιουσιακών στοιχείων, είναι θέμα αρμοδιότητας των ΚΜ. Η Επιτροπή
δεν έχει αντίρρηση για την τέτοιου τύπου είσπραξη φόρων και για τους μηχανισμούς επιβολής του νόμου, εφόσον
συμμορφώνονται με τις ισχύουσες κανονιστικές διατάξεις.

Τέλος, το πρόγραμμα οικονομικής προσαρμογής στοχεύει στην ενίσχυση των δημοσιονομικών της Ελλάδας μέσα από την
αναδιάρθρωση του εισπρακτικού μηχανισμού και του συστήματος δημοσιονομικής διαχείρισης.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 73

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001261/12**

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

_(10 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Danger of confiscation of assets of taxpayers who fail to pay the property charge

At a time when Greek citizens are in general struggling to pay heavy property taxes, an amendment has been tabled
by the Greek Parliament to the effect that, on the expiry of four months from the deadline for payment of the first
instalment of the temporary special property charge imposed by the Government, the amount outstanding will be
collected by the competent tax office, thus being enforceable by measures such as the confiscation of assets of those
taxpayers who have failed to make payment.

The specific amendment follows the recent instructions by DEI, the Greek Public Power Corporation, which has
undertaken to collect the property charge by including it on its bills, to cut off the electricity supply to thousands of
consumers on expiry of the statutory 80-day deadline for payment of the charge. This is grossly unfair, removing as it
does the safety net provided under European and Greek law to safeguard vulnerable consumers, while infringing the
specific ministerial decision regarding exemptions from power cutoffs.

In view of this:

1. Given the genuine difficulties encountered by Greek households in paying a multitude of special taxes, what
view does the Commission take of the implementation of this amendment which is the direct opposite of what
is needed to protect the assets of hundreds of thousands of citizens threatened with poverty?

2. In the absence of any clear definition of which taxpayers fall into categories acknowledged as vulnerable or
genuinely unable to afford the charge, how can the assets of these groups be protected?

3. Have any other Member States imposed similar compulsory tax collection measures enforceable by
confiscation of assets? If so, subject to what conditions (amounts owed, payment deadlines)?

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

_(27 March 2012)_

1. Fiscal consolidation measures may lead in the short term to a contraction in economic activity. Experience
points nonetheless to effective ways of reducing the public deficit. Firstly, expenditure based consolidation has longer
lasting effects, relative to revenue based consolidation. Secondly, property taxes are less distortionary than income
taxes. Failing to curb the high public deficit will only aggravate the medium-term prospects of the Greek people,
including the most vulnerable.

2. The EU energy market legislation contains provisions on consumer protection and guarantees for vulnerable
customers. Member States (MS) ( [1] ) are obliged to take appropriate measures and ensure satisfactory safeguards to
protect vulnerable customers. The Commission is analysing the application of these rules in MS.

In any case, the Greek law providing for the property tax specifies that the special levy shall be EUR 0.5 per square
meter for specific social categories, such as large families or the disabled. In addition, the special levy is not applied to
a property that is owner-occupied and belongs, _inter alia_, to a long-term unemployed, while leaving the details of its
regulations to a ministerial decision.

3. Utility bills have been used in some European countries for the collection of municipal taxes or broadcast
reception fees. The arrangements for collection of taxes, including the recourse to confiscation, are a matter of MS'
competence. The Commission does not object to this tax collection and enforcement mechanisms as long as they
comply with applicable regulations.

Lastly, the economic adjustment programme aims at strengthening Greece's fiscal institutions through a restructuring
of its revenue administration and public financial management system.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Member States.

C 96 E / 74 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-001262/12**

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

_(10 Φεβρουαρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Αναγκαία η άμεση και αποτελεσματική αντιμετώπιση του φαινομένου υποσιτισμού μαθητών σε ελληνικά σχολεία, με
την ευρωπαϊκή συνδρομή

Όπως προκύπτει από δημοσιεύματα στον Τύπο, αλλά και μαρτυρίες, ανακοινώσεις και στοιχεία δασκάλων, καθηγητών και
συλλόγων γονέων και κηδεμόνων, αυξάνονται με δραματικούς ρυθμούς τα περιστατικά μαθητών με ενδείξεις υποσιτισμού και
λιποθυμικά επεισόδια λόγω ασιτίας σε σχολεία της χώρας. Από την πλευρά του το αρμόδιο υπουργείο Παιδείας, Δια Βίου
Μάθησης και Θρησκευμάτων ανακοίνωσε πρόσφατα ότι πρόκειται να θέσει σε εφαρμογή πιλοτικό πρόγραμμα σε 18 σχολεία
περιοχών της πρωτεύουσας που εμφανίζουν έντονα κοινωνικοοικονομικά προβλήματα, ώστε να προσφέρονται δωρεάν με
κουπόνια μικρογεύματα σε όλους τους μαθητές των σχολείων αυτών.

Παρά τις καλές προθέσεις, οι πρωτόγνωρα δύσκολες, για την ελληνική κοινωνία, οικονομικές συνθήκες επιτάσσουν συνολική
και όχι αποσπασματική παρέμβαση των αρμόδιων αρχών για την άμεση και ουσιαστική αντιμετώπιση του φαινομένου σε όλη
του την έκταση.

Βάσει των παραπάνω, ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

1. Είναι ενήμερη σχετικά με τα προαναφερθέντα περιστατικά; Ποια άλλη κράτη μέλη αντιμετωπίζουν ίδια ή παρόμοια
ζητήματα;

2. Λαμβάνοντας υπόψη το μέγεθος της οικονομικής κρίσης και τις δυσκολίες χρηματοδότησης που αντιμετωπίζει η
χώρα, με ποιό τρόπο μπορεί να συνδράμει η ΕΕ την προσπάθεια για την ουσιαστική αντιμετώπιση του εν λόγω
φαινομένου; Ποια είναι τα διαθέσιμα χρηματοδοτικά εργαλεία που θα μπορούσαν να αξιοποιηθούν προς αυτή την
κατεύθυνση;

3. Υπάρχουν διαθέσιμες καλές πρακτικές κρατών μελών αναφορικά με παρεμβάσεις κοινωνικής υποστήριξης,
εκπαιδευτικής ενίσχυσης και προνοιακής παροχής σε περιοχές με αυξημένο αριθμό οικογενειών που αντιμετωπίζουν
συνθήκες ένδειας;

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

_(20 Μαρτίου 2012)_

1. Όπως τονίζεται στην ετήσια έρευνα για την ανάπτυξη το 2012, υπάρχουν ενδείξεις ότι το ποσοστό των παιδιών που
ζουν υπό συνθήκες φτώχειας ή κοινωνικού αποκλεισμού παρουσιάζει αύξηση σε μερικές χώρες της ΕΕ. Αυτό φαίνεται από
τους δείκτες που μετρούν π.χ. το ποσοστό των παιδιών που απειλούνται από τη φτώχεια, των παιδιών που ζουν σε νοικοκυριά
που αντιμετωπίζουν σοβαρή υλική στέρηση ή σε νοικοκυριά με χαμηλή ένταση εργασίας. Τα στοιχεία είναι διαθέσιμα από την
Εurostat.

2. Η οικονομική υποστήριξη από την ΕΕ είναι επιλέξιμη για δράσεις που στοχεύουν στη βελτίωση της κατάστασης των
παιδιών, μεταξύ άλλων μέσω του Ευρωπαϊκού Ταμείου Περιφερειακής Ανάπτυξης και του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινωνικού Ταμείου.
Όσον αφορά, ειδικότερα, τη στέρηση τροφίμων, το πρόγραμμα «Τρόφιμα υπέρ των πλέον απόρων» (που αποσκοπεί στη
διανομή τροφίμων στους πλέον απόρους πολίτες της ΕΕ) διέθεσε στην Ελλάδα πάνω από 20 εκατομμύρια ευρώ στο πλαίσιο
του ετήσιου προγράμματος για το 2011. Ένα ακόμη μεγαλύτερο κονδύλιο, ύψους σχεδόν 21,7 εκατομμυρίων ευρώ, θα
διατεθεί στην Ελλάδα στο πλαίσιο του ετήσιου προγράμματος για το 2012 μόλις ολοκληρωθεί η τρέχουσα τροποποίηση του
κανονισμού (ΕΕ) αριθ. 562/11 της Επιτροπής ( [1] ). Υπάρχουν δύο πρόσθετα προγράμματα που μπορούν επίσης να
συμβάλλουν: πρόκειται για το πρόγραμμα «Φρούτα στα σχολεία» ( [2] ), με στόχο τους μαθητές από το νηπιαγωγείο έως τη
δευτεροβάθμια εκπαίδευση, και το ευρωπαϊκό καθεστώς διάθεσης γαλακτοκομικών προϊόντων στα σχολεία ( [3] ), μέσω του
οποίου τα παιδιά μπορούν να λαμβάνουν επιδοτούμενα υγιεινά γαλακτοκομικά προϊόντα.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) ΕΕ L 152 της 11.6.2011.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Κανονισμός (ΕΚ) αριθ. 288/2009 της Επιτροπής, ΕΕ L 94 της 8.4.2009.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Κανονισμός (ΕΚ) αριθ. 657/2008 της Επιτροπής, ΕΕ L 183 της 11.7.2008.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 75

3. Η Επιτροπή προωθεί τη βελτίωση των ορθά τεκμηριωμένων πολιτικών όσον αφορά την κατάσταση των ευάλωτων
παιδιών, μεταξύ άλλων με την κοινωνική ανοικτή μέθοδο συντονισμού (και το προγράμμά της ανασκόπησης από ομοτίμους)
και με την ευρωπαϊκή συμμαχία για τις οικογένειες. Εξάλλου, η Επιτροπή σκοπεύει να παρουσιάσει σύσταση για την παιδική
φτώχεια εντός του έτους, με σκοπό την καθοδήγηση σε τομείς όπως η υποστήριξη των οικογενειών, η πρόσβαση στις
υπηρεσίες (συμπεριλαμβανομένων της φροντίδας των παιδιών, της στέγασης, της υγείας και της εκπαίδευσης) και η
συμμετοχή των παιδιών.

C 96 E / 76 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001262/12**

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

_(10 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Need for immediate and effective measures and EU assistance in response to malnutrition among Greek
school pupils

According to press articles corroborated by testimonies, statements and observations from teachers and associations
of parents and guardians, the number of Greek school pupils showing signs of malnutrition and fainting from hunger
is increasing dramatically. The Ministry for Education, Lifelong Learning and Religious Affairs has recently announced
that it intends to launch a pilot project for the provision of free meal coupons for all pupils at 18 schools located in
districts of Athens facing severe social and economic problems.

Despite such good intentions, the unprecedented economic problems afflicting Greek society call for a
comprehensive rather than a piecemeal approach by the competent authorities so as to deal with the problem as a
whole in a direct and effective manner.

In view of this:

1. Is the Commission aware of the problem? Which other Member States are facing similar difficulties?

2. Considering the extent of the economic crisis and the financing difficulties faced by Greece, how will the EU
support this attempt to combat the problem effectively? What financing instruments are available for this
purpose?

3. Are there any examples of good practices followed in Member States in terms of social support, educational
assistance and welfare benefits in areas where an increased number of families are facing poverty?

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

_(20 March 2012)_

1. As underlined in the Annual Growth Survey 2012, there are indications that the percentage of children living in
poverty or social exclusion is on the rise in a number of EU countries. This is illustrated by indicators such as those
measuring the rate of children at risk of poverty, living in severely materially deprived households or in households
with low work intensity, available from Eurostat.

2. EU financial support is eligible for actions aimed at improving children's situation, among others through the
European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund. Regarding food deprivation more specifically,
the ‘Food for the needy’ Programme (which aims to distribute food products to the most needy citizens of the EU),
allocated Greece more than EUR 20 million under the 2011 annual plan. An even higher allocation, almost
EUR 21.7 million, will be available for Greece under the 2012 annual plan, following the ongoing amendment of
Commission Regulation (EU) 562/11 ( [1] ). Two additional schemes can also contribute, namely the School Fruit
Scheme ( [2] ), which targets children in educational establishments, from nurseries to secondary schools, and the
European School Milk Scheme ( [3] ), through which children can receive subsidised healthy dairy products.

3. The Commission promotes the improvement of evidence-based policies on the situation of vulnerable children,
among others through the Social Open Method of Coordination (and its peer review programme) and the European
Alliance for Families. Besides, the Commission intends to present a recommendation on child poverty this year,
which will aim at providing guidance in areas such as support to families, access to services (including childcare,
housing, health and education) and children's participation.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 152, 11.6.2011.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Commission Regulation (EC) No 288/2009, OJ L 94, 8.4.2009.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Commission Regulation (EC) No 657/2008, OJ L 183, 11.7.2008.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 77

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001263/12**

**to the Commission**
**Brian Simpson (S&D)**

_(10 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Metal and cable theft from railways

Is the Commission aware of the serious problem of metal and cable theft taking place on UK and European railways,
which is not only endangering life but costing the industry millions of euros?

Can the Commission indicate what steps it intends to take with Member States to stop not only the thefts but also the
fact of the stolen goods being transferred across national borders and sold to scrap metal dealers over whom there is
no control or regulation?

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

_(17 February 2012)_

The Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to the reply it provided to Question E‐008787/2011 ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/QP-WEB.

C 96 E / 78 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(българска версия)_

**Въпрос с искане за писмен отговор E-001264/12**

**до Комисията**
**Андрей Ковачев (PPE)**

_(10 февруари 2012 г.)_

_Относно:_ 2014 г. — Европейска година на борбата с мозъчните заболявания

Обединение от около 200 организации, водени от Европейския мозъчен съвет, отправи искане към европейските
институции да обявят 2014 г. за Европейска година на борбата с мозъчните заболявания. Искането беше подкрепено
от полското председателство на Съвета на ЕС. През ноември 2011 г. се проведе конференция на експерти под надслов
„Първи европейски ден на борбата с мозъчните заболявания — застаряване, инсулт, болест на Алцхаймер: търсене на
иновативни решения“. Направените след конференцията заключения съдържат препоръка от страна на полското
председателство за определяне на 2014 г. за Европейска година на борбата с мозъчните заболявания. Заключенията
бяха представени на заседание на Съвета (EPSCO) на 2 декември 2011 г.

Предвид гореизложеното, би ли могла Комисията да се произнесе дали подкрепя тази инициатива за Европейска
година на борбата с мозъчните заболявания? Какви конкретни стъпки предприема тя във връзка с въпросите, които би
поставила една такава година?

**Отговор, даден от г-жа Гейгън-Куин от името на Комисията**

_(20 март 2012 г.)_

Комисията приканва уважаемия член на Парламента да се позове на отговорите, предоставени от Комисията на
писмени въпроси E-011832/2011 и E-012578/2011 ( [1] ).

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

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 79

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001264/12**

**to the Commission**
**Andrey Kovatchev (PPE)**

_(10 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ 2014, ‘European Year of the Brain’

A coalition of some 200 organisations, led by the European Brain Council, has called on the European institutions to
make 2014 the European Year of the Brain. This call has been backed up by the Polish Council presidency. In
November 2011 a conference of experts was held under the title ‘First European Day of the Brain — Ageing, Stroke
and Alzheimer’s Disease: Finding Innovative Solutions’. The post-conference conclusions contained a
recommendation on the part of the Polish presidency that 2014 be designated the European Year of the Brain. These
conclusions were presented at a Council meeting (EPSCO) on 2 December 2011.

In view of the above, can the Commission state whether it supports this initiative for a European Year of the Brain?
What concrete steps is it taking to deal with the issues that such a year would address?

**Answer given by Ms Geoghegan-Quinn on behalf of the Commission**

_(20 March 2012)_

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Questions E‐011832/2011 and E‐
012578/2011 ( [1] ).

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

C 96 E / 80 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(Svensk version)_

**Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-001265/12**

**till kommissionen**
**Anna Hedh (S&D)**

_(10 februari 2012)_

_Angående:_ Investering i alkoholpolitik

Kan kommissionen, efter rådets slutsatser från december 2009 om alkohol och hälsa, upplysa parlamentet om den
förväntade tidsplanen för att definiera prioriteringarna för nästa fas i kommissionens arbete om alkoholrelaterade
skador?

Det är mycket troligt – om inte säkert – att de investeringar som görs nu i en effektiv alkoholpolitik kommer att rädda
liv i framtiden. Kan kommissionen därför berätta för parlamentet hur mycket pengar den har investerat i
alkoholpolitiken tidigare, och hur mycket den planerar att investera i framtiden?

**Svar från John Dalli på kommissionens vägnar**

_(19 mars 2012)_

Kommissionen verkar för att minska den skadliga alkoholkonsumtionen inom ramen för förebyggandet av ickeöverförbara sjukdomar och särskilt genom EU-strategin ( [1] ) för att stödja medlemsstaterna i arbetet med att minska de
alkoholrelaterade skadorna, som antogs 2006. Kommissionen arbetar också tillsammans med berörda parter för att
inom EU samordna åtgärder för att nå specifika mål, såsom att öka medvetenheten om skadlig alkoholkonsumtion,
minska ungdomarnas exponering för marknadsföring av och reklam för alkohol samt genomföra åldersgränser.

Eftersom alkoholpolitiken faller under medlemsstaternas befogenheter, är kommissionens uppgift att stödja
utvecklingen och utbytet av kunskap och god praxis. För att fullgöra denna uppgift använder sig EU av olika
finansieringsinstrument.

Sedan 2007 har man inom EU:s ramprogram för forskning beviljat ungefär 49 miljoner euro för forskning om
alkohol och hälsa. Ett av de viktiga projekt som finansierats tidigare är Druid ( [2] ), som fått 19 miljoner euro. Sedan
2007 har man också genom EU:s hälsoprogram gett stöd på ytterligare 9 miljoner euro till alkoholrelaterade projekt.
Inom ramen för EU:s jordbrukspolitik har dessutom ca 1,5 miljon euro avsatts varje år för att informera om
ansvarsfulla konsumtionsmönster och verkningarna av farlig alkoholkonsumtion. Genom EU:s ungdomsstrategi
främjas slutligen en sund livsstil för unga människor och förebyggande åtgärder, bl.a. när det gäller alkoholmissbruk.
En av prioriteringarna inom programmet Aktiv ungdom (2007‐2013) för 2012 är stöd till projekt som främjar sunda

vanor.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0200:FIN:SV:PDF.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Driving Under the Influence of Drugs, Alcohol and Medicines.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 81

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001265/12**

**to the Commission**

**Anna Hedh (S&D)**

_(10 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Investment in alcohol policy

Following on from the December 2009 Council conclusions on alcohol and health, could the Commission share with
Parliament the expected timeline for the definition of priorities for the next phase of the Commission’s work on
alcohol-related harm?

It is highly probable — if not certain — that current investments in effective alcohol policy will save lives in the
future. Could the Commission therefore tell Parliament how much money it has invested in alcohol policy in the past,
and how much it plans to invest in the future?

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

_(19 March 2012)_

The Commission is working to reduce harmful alcohol use in the context of the prevention of non-communicable
diseases and in particular through the EU strategy ( [1] ) to support Member States in reducing alcohol related harm
adopted in 2006. Moreover, the Commission works with stakeholders to coordinate action across the EU on specific
objectives such as raising awareness on harmful alcohol use, reducing exposure of youth to alcohol marketing and
advertising, and implementing age limits.

As alcohol policy remains a prerogative of the Member States, the Commission's role is to support the development
and exchange of knowledge and good practice. To fulfil this role, EU is using various funding instruments.

Since 2007, approximately EUR 49 million has been granted under the EU Research Framework Programme for
research on alcohol and health; major projects funded earlier include DRUID ( [2] ) with EUR 19 million. Also since
2007, the EU Health Programme has supported alcohol related projects with worth an additional EUR 9 million. In
addition, in the framework of EU agricultural policy, approximately EUR 1.5 million have been allocated yearly for
information measures on responsible drinking and the effects of hazardous alcohol consumption. Finally, the EU
Youth Strategy fosters healthy lifestyles for young people and preventive measures including in relation to alcohol
abuse. One of the priorities of the Youth in Action Programme (2007-2013) for 2012 is to support projects
promoting healthy behaviours.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0200:FIN:EN:PDF.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Driving Under the Influence of Drugs, Alcohol and Medicines.

C 96 E / 82 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001266/12**

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

_(10 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Mandatory installation of CCTV in EU abattoirs

Recent secret video footage released by the animal rights charity Animal Aid graphically shows the extreme
mistreatment of animals in six out of seven UK abattoirs. The footage shows cows, pigs and sheep being kicked and
beaten before they are slaughtered. It also raises concerns that animals are not being correctly stunned before
slaughter.

Following this footage, momentum is growing to have all abattoirs fitted with CCTV cameras, in order to improve
standards of animal welfare and to hold those guilty of malpractice to account.

Given that Article 13 TEU recognises that ‘animals are sentient beings’ and states that we should ‘pay full regard to the
welfare requirements of animals’, does the Commission intend to come forward with any proposals for legislation for
the mandatory installation of CCTV cameras in abattoirs throughout the EU?

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

_(8 March 2012)_

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E‐005026/2011 ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/QP-WEB.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 83

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001268/12**

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

**Mario Mauro (PPE)**

_(10 febbraio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Afghanistan: uccisa dal marito per aver partorito solo figlie femmine

Estorai, una ragazza afghana di 22 anni, è stata trovata morta in casa da un vicino la scorsa settimana in un villaggio
sperduto nella provincia settentrionale di Kunduz.

La donna è stata uccisa dal marito Sher Mohammad, di 30 anni, perché colpevole di aver partorito tre figlie femmine.
Alla nascita della terza bambina, tre mesi fa, Sher ha cominciato seriamente a pensare a come liberarsi della moglie
per la mancata venuta al mondo di un erede maschio. In questo terribile progetto è stato aiutato dalla madre.

In carcere, per ora, c’è solo la suocera della vittima, mentre il marito omicida è riuscito a fuggire ed è tuttora latitante.

Si chiede pertanto:

1. può il Vice-Presidente/Alto Rappresentante far sapere quali politiche intende avviare per assicurare la libertà e il
rispetto della dignità umana in Afghanistan?

2. quali azioni hanno intrapreso il Vice-Presidente/Alto Rappresentante e la Commissione per evitare casi come
quelli di Estorai in Afghanistan?

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

_(26 marzo 2012)_

Il monitoraggio dei diritti umani assicurato sul posto in Afghanistan dalla delegazione dell’Unione europea, in
consultazione con gli ambasciatori dell'UE, si estende anche agli esecrabili e ripetuti atti di violenza contro le donne.
L'episodio cui l'onorevole parlamentare fa riferimento è uno dei tanti atti efferati che spesso non vengono neanche
denunciati.

La tutela dei diritti umani e dei diritti delle donne va migliorando in Afghanistan, soprattutto dal 2001, e questi
progressi vanno riconosciuti e consolidati. L'Unione tratta direttamente la questione con il governo afghano; la
posizione dell'UE è stata chiaramente definita tramite dichiarazioni pubbliche (ad es. sui centri di accoglienza per le
donne a febbraio del 2011) e ribadita dalle conclusioni del Consiglio (18/7, 14/11/11). L'Alta
Rappresentante/Vicepresidente ha sollevato il problema con le autorità afghane alle conferenze di Kabul e Bonn e, più
di recente, con il ministro degli Esteri afghano in una riunione tenutasi a dicembre 2011.

Il governo afghano si è impegnato fermamente a migliorare la situazione femminile alle conferenze internazionali di
Londra e Kabul del 2010, alla conferenza di Bonn di dicembre 2011 e in una dichiarazione resa il 18 gennaio 2012.

La Commissione continua a incentrare i programmi di assistenza sulla governance e sulla riforma del sistema e delle
istituzioni giudiziarie, fattore essenziale per una reale tutela dei diritti delle donne vittime di atti di violenza. I progetti
dell’Unione mobilitano oltre 31 milioni di euro in aiuti diretti alle donne o, più in generale, ad azioni contro
l'emarginazione femminile in campo sociale, culturale e economico, e dispensano assistenza psicologica, legale e di
mediazione a quante osano sfidare le tradizioni; i progetti mirano inoltre a potenziare gli organismi attualmente
preposti a dare protezione sociale e a tutelare i diritti di donne e ragazze afghane vittime di violenze domestiche o
esposte a questo rischio.

C 96 E / 84 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001268/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Mario Mauro (PPE)**

_(10 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Afghanistan: woman killed by her husband for only giving birth to daughters

Estorai, a 22-year-old Afghan woman, was found dead at her home by a neighbour last week in a remote village in the
northern province of Kunduz.

The woman was killed by her husband, Sher Mohammad, 30, because she was guilty of having given birth to three
daughters. Following the birth of the third daughter three months ago, Sher began seriously thinking about how to
get rid of his wife due to her not having given birth to a male heir. He was helped in his terrible plan by his mother.

At the moment, only the victim’s mother-in-law is in prison, while the murderous husband managed to escape and is
still in hiding.

The Vice-President /High Representative is therefore asked to answer the following:

1. What policies does she intend to implement to ensure freedom and respect for human dignity in Afghanistan?

2. What measures have the Vice-President/High Representative and the Commission taken to avoid cases such as
that of Estorai in Afghanistan?

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

_(26 March 2012)_

The EU Delegation in Afghanistan monitors the human rights situation on the ground in consultation with EU
Ambassadors, also with respect to the deplorable and continued violence against women. The incident referred to in
question is terrible, only one of many and not all of these are reported.

It remains particularly important to safeguard and build upon the progress Afghanistan has made in protecting
human rights and rights of women in particular since 2001. The EU brings up the issue directly with the Afghan
Government regularly and makes its position clear through public statements (for example on women’s shelters in
February 2011) but has also reconfirmed its position in Council conclusions (18/7, 14/11/11). The High
Representative/Vice-President (HR/VP) has discussed the matter with the Afghan authorities at both the Kabul and
Bonn Conferences, and most recently in a meeting with the Afghan Foreign Minister in December 2011.

The Afghan Government has made firm commitments to improve the position of women in the context of the
international conferences held in 2010 in London and Kabul, in December 2011 at the Bonn Conference and in a
statement issued on 18 January 2012.

Assistance programmes of the Commission continue to focus on governance, including reform of the justice sector
and its institutions, which is indispensable to uphold the rights of victims of violence against women. The EU has
spent more than EUR 31 million on projects in direct support of women or addressing more broadly their social,
cultural and economic marginalisation, including counselling, legal aid and mediation for women in conflict with
traditions and strengthening existing bodies to exercise social protection and protect the rights of Afghan women and
girls at risk or victims of domestic violence.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 85

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001270/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Mario Mauro (PPE)**

_(10 febbraio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Manta a rischio estinzione

L'ONG Shark Savers, nel rapporto dal titolo «Manta Ray of Hope: The Global Threat to Manta and Moluba Rays»
denuncia il pericolo di estinzione delle mante, sterminate a causa dell'uso sempre più diffuso delle loro branchie nella
medicina cinese.

Il mercato delle branchie di manta varrebbe già 11 milioni di dollari l'anno, spinto dalla convinzione che queste parti
stimolino il sistema immunitario e possano guarire una serie di malattie, dai problemi di fertilità ad alcuni tipi di
tumore. Nei mercati asiatici, la carne di manta è venduta a 500 dollari al chilo per le sue presunte capacità curative.

I bracconieri sono attratti anche dalla pelle, utilizzata per borsette e scarpe, e dalle cartilagini che vengono spacciate
per quelle di squalo.

Inoltre, gli studiosi spiegano che la manta è uno degli animali più svantaggiati e meno equipaggiati nella lotta contro
la pressione della pesca poiché impiega dieci anni a raggiungere la maturità sessuale e una femmina partorisce un solo
piccolo ogni due o tre anni.

Pertanto, può la Commissione far sapere:

1. se è a conoscenza della situazione,

2. quali politiche intende avviare per salvaguardare la manta ed evitarne l'estinzione?

**Risposta data da Maria Damanaki a nome della Commissione**

_(19 marzo 2012)_

La Commissione è a conoscenza della situazione descritta dall'onorevole parlamentare riguardo alla forte
vulnerabilità della manta gigante, al rischio di estinzione delle popolazioni in varie parti del mondo e alla necessità di
proteggere questa specie su scala internazionale. Per questi motivi l'UE ha sostenuto attivamente una proposta
presentata all'ultima conferenza delle parti della Convenzione sulle specie migratrici (Convention on Migratory
Species — CMS) tenutasi in Norvegia nel novembre 2011, volta ad includere la manta gigante ( _Manta birostris_ ) nelle
appendici I e II della CMS. La proposta è stata approvata.

Ai fini dell'applicazione di questi elenchi a livello dell'UE, la Commissione sta ora lavorando su un progetto di
proposta al Consiglio, nell'ambito della modifica del regolamento sulle possibilità di pesca, per vietare a tutti i
pescherecci dell'UE di pescare, detenere a bordo, trasbordare o sbarcare mante giganti in tutte le acque. Lo stesso
divieto si applicherebbe ai pescherecci di paesi terzi operanti nelle acque dell'UE.

C 96 E / 86 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001270/12**

**to the Commission**

**Mario Mauro (PPE)**

_(10 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Manta rays at risk of extinction

In its report entitled ‘Manta Ray of Hope: The Global Threat to Manta and Mobula Rays’, the NGO Shark Savers
reveals the threat of extinction faced by manta rays, which are being wiped out due to the ever more widespread use
of their gills in Chinese medicine.

The market for manta ray gills is already estimated to be worth around USD 11 million a year, driven by the belief that
they stimulate the immune system and can heal a variety of diseases, from fertility problems to certain types of cancer.
In Asian markets, manta ray meat is sold for USD 500 per kilo, due to its supposed healing capacity.

Poachers are also attracted by the skin, used for handbags and shoes, and the cartilage, which is passed off as shark
cartilage.

In addition, experts explain that the manta ray is one of the most disadvantaged and least well-equipped animals in
the fight against fishing pressure since it takes 10 years to reach sexual maturity and females give birth to just one pup
every two to three years.

1. Is the Commission aware of this situation?

2. What policies does it intend to implement to safeguard manta rays and prevent their extinction?

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

_(19 March 2012)_

The Commission is aware of the situation described by the Honourable Member regarding the high vulnerability of
giant manta ray, the risk of collapsing populations in several parts of the world and the need for international
protection of this species. For these reasons the EU has actively supported a proposal presented at the last Conference
of the Parties of the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) held in Norway in November last year to list the giant
manta ray ( _Manta birostris_ ) in Appendixes I and II of the CMS. This proposal was adopted.

In order to implement at EU level such listings, the Commission is working on a draft proposal to the Council in the
framework of the modification of the Fishing opportunities Regulations to establish a prohibition for EU vessels to
fish for, or retain on board, to tranship or to land the giant manta ray in all waters. The same prohibition would apply
to third-country vessels fishing in EU waters.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 87

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-001271/12**

**aan de Commissie**
**Barry Madlener (NI) en Auke Zijlstra (NI)**

_(10 februari 2012)_

_Betreft:_ MOE-landers zonder werkvergunning tóch in Nederland aan het werk

MOE-landers mogen zonder werkvergunning wél legaal in Nederland aan de slag als zij gedetacheerd worden vanuit
hun thuisland. Zij werken dan in Nederland maar zijn formeel in dienst van een bedrijf gevestigd in het land van
herkomst, waar belastingen en premies vaak veel lager zijn. Zo maken zij gebruik van het Europese vrije verkeer van
personen en diensten. Deze detacheringsconstructie is populair aan het worden, zo blijkt uit cijfers van
uitkeringsinstantie UWV. In 2011 werden bijna 13 364 „vreemdelingen” bij het UWV aangemeld, tegen 9 756 in
2010. Ruim 60 % van de toename kwam voor rekening van Roemenen en Bulgaren.

In de champignonteelt in Nederland is de zogenaamde Polenconstructie populair. Die houdt het volgende in: een
Nederlandse champignonteler verkoopt zijn nog niet geplukte champignons aan een onderneming in een MOE-land.
Deze onderneming stuurt haar arbeiders vervolgens naar Nederland om de champignons te plukken. Omdat de
champignons al verkocht zijn, voeren de betreffende arbeiders hun werkzaamheden in Nederland uit in dienst van de
onderneming in het land van herkomst.

1. Is de Commissie bekend met het bericht „De dienstverlenende Roemeen is in trek” ( [1] ) en „We eten
gangsterchampignons” ( [2] )?

2. Is de Commissie met de PVV van mening dat, als MOE-landers géén werkvergunning voor Nederland krijgen
maar via de detacheringsconstructie of de Polenconstructie wél legaal in Nederland mogen werken, er iets mis is met
de betreffende Europese regelgeving én het vrije verkeer van personen en diensten die dit mogelijk maken? Zo neen,
waarom niet?

3. Is de Commissie met de PVV van mening dat met de komst van MOE-landers de Nederlanders van de
arbeidsmarkt verstoten worden, en vindt zij dat ongewenst? Zo neen, waarom niet?

4. Is de Commissie met de PVV van mening dat de MOE-landers in Nederland een aanzuigende werking zullen
hebben, en vindt zij dat ongewenst? Zo neen, waarom niet?

**Antwoord van de heer Barnier namens de Commissie**

_(4 april 2012)_

1. De Commissie heeft geen weet van de berichten die de geachte Parlementsleden noemen.

2. Hoewel Bulgaarse en Roemeense burgers wegens de uitgestelde toepassing van het in de toetredingsverdragen
vastgelegde vrije verkeer van werknemers nog niet het recht hebben om vrij in Nederland te werken, kunnen
Bulgaarse en Roemeense ondernemingen reeds ten volle van de vrijheid van dienstverrichting en de vrijheid van
vestiging profiteren. Het verrichten van diensten kan de terbeschikkingstelling of detachering van werknemers
vereisen. Terbeschikkingstelling is van nature echter slechts tijdelijk van aard, wat inhoudt dat ter beschikking
gestelde werknemers geen deel gaan uitmaken van de Nederlandse arbeidsmarkt.

Wat de arbeidsomstandigheden betreft van werknemers die in de context van het verrichten van diensten ter
beschikking worden gesteld, zij erop gewezen dat Richtlijn 96/71/EG ( [3] ) in een passend niveau van bescherming van
dergelijke werknemers voorziet. Meer in het bijzonder dient de buitenlandse dienstverrichter zich te houden aan de
Nederlandse voorschriften betreffende minimumlonen, arbeidstijd en gezondheid en veiligheid op het werk. Zoals in
de „Single Market Act” was aangegeven, heeft de Commissie op 21 maart haar goedkeuring gehecht aan een voorstel
voor een betere handhaving van de richtlijn betreffende de terbeschikkingstelling van werknemers met de bedoeling
misbruiken tegen te gaan.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Financieel Dagblad, 30 januari 2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.depers.nl/binnenland/626905/We-eten-gangsterchampignons.html
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Richtlijn 96/71/EG van 16 december 1996 betreffende de terbeschikkingstelling van werknemers met het oog op het verrichten van diensten.

C 96 E / 88 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

3-4. In een Commissieverslag ( [4] ) is tot de bevinding gekomen dat de arbeidsmobiliteit van burgers van Bulgarije en
Roemenië in de ontvangende landen over het algemeen niet tot ernstige verstoringen van de arbeidsmarkt heeft geleid
en evenmin een significant effect op de werkloosheid of de lonen van lokale werknemers heeft gehad. Zelfs in tijden
van economische achteruitgang moeten lidstaten immers nog altijd mobiele werknemers aantrekken om te voldoen
aan de vraag naar arbeidskrachten in bepaalde sectoren waar een tekort aan lokale werknemers bestaat.

De eengemaakte markt is een van de grootste successen van de Europese integratie. Uitbreidingen van de EU met
nieuwe landen hebben alle EU-lidstaten voordelen opgeleverd, zowel vóór de volledige toepassing van het vrije
verkeer van werknemers als daarna.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 729 definitief.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 89

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001271/12**

**to the Commission**
**Barry Madlener (NI) and Auke Zijlstra (NI)**

_(10 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Citizens of CEE countries working in the Netherlands without a work permit

Citizens of CEE countries can work legally in the Netherlands without a work permit if they are seconded from their
home country. They are then working in the Netherlands but are officially employed by a company based in their
country of origin, where taxes and social security contributions are often much lower. In this way they benefit from
the free movement of persons and services between EU Member States. This form of secondment is becoming
popular, according to figures from the UWV social benefits agency. In 2011 almost 13 364 ‘aliens’ were registered
with the UWV, compared with 9 756 in 2010. Over 60 % of the increase was accounted for by Romanians and
Bulgarians.

The so-called Polish method is popular in the Dutch mushroom-growing sector. This is how it works: a Dutch
mushroom grower sells its not yet harvested mushrooms to a company in a CEE country. That company then sends
its labourers to the Netherlands to harvest the mushrooms. Since the mushrooms have already been sold, the
labourers in question work in the Netherlands in the service of their company in the country of origin.

1. Is the Commission familiar with the report ‘Romanians are popular in the service sector’ ( [1] )?

2. Does the Commission agree with the PVV that if citizens of CEE countries do not obtain a work permit for the
Netherlands but are still allowed to work legally in the Netherlands under the secondment or Polish scheme, there is
something wrong with the relevant European legislation and the free movement of persons and services which make
this possible? If not, why not?

3. Does the Commission agree with the PVV that with the arrival of citizens of CEE countries the Dutch are being
squeezed out of the labour market and does it consider this an unwelcome development? If not, why not?

4. Does the Commission agree with the PVV that citizens of CEE countries will tend to attract others to the
Netherlands, and does it consider this an unwelcome development? If not, why not?

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

_(4 April 2012)_

1. The Commission is not aware of the report mentioned by the Honourable Members of Parliament.

2. While Bulgarian and Romanian citizens do not yet have the right to work freely in the Netherlands because of
the deferred application of the right of free movement of workers in the Accession Treaties, Bulgarian and Romanian
companies already fully enjoy the freedom to provide services and the freedom of establishment. Provision of services
may require the posting of workers. However, posting is by nature only temporary, and in that sense posted workers
do not become a part of the Dutch labour market.

With regard to the working conditions of posted workers in the context of the provision of services,
Directive 96/71/EC ( [2] ) provides for an appropriate level of protection of these workers. In particular Dutch provisions
with regard to minimum wages, working time as well as health and safety at work have to be complied with by the
foreign service provider. As foreseen by the single market Act, the Commission adopted on 21 March a proposal to
improve enforcement of the Posting of Worker's Directive to fight against abuses.

3 and 4. A Commission report ( [3] ) found that labour mobility from Bulgaria and Romania has generally not led to
serious labour market disturbances and did not have a significant impact on unemployment and wages of local
workers in receiving countries. Even in an economic downturn, Member States still need to attract mobile workers to
meet labour demand that cannot be met by local workers in certain sectors.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) _Financieel Dagblad_, 30 January 2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directive 96/71/EC of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 729 final.

C 96 E / 90 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

The single market is one of the greatest achievements of European Integration. Enlargements of the EU to further
countries brought benefits to all EU Member States, before full application of the right of free movement of workers
as well as thereafter.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 91

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-001273/12**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)**

_(10 februarie 2012)_

_Subiect:_ Incălcare a reglementărilor privind concurența

Administraţia judeţului Mureş (România) a alocat recent suma de 250 000 EUR, fonduri publice, unei asociaţii de
turism, finanțând astfel, indirect, compania aeriană Wizz Air. Scopul acestui sprijin financiar este determinarea
companiei în cauză să utilizeze pentru zborurile sale aeroportul din Târgu Mureș.

Ca urmare a sprijinului, acest aeroport își permite să asigure un cost mediu pe pasager de 0,95 euro, în timp ce media
europeană a costului pentru fiecare pasager este de 11 euro.

Comisia este rugată să precizeze dacă această practică 1) reprezintă ajutor de stat și 2) corespunde reglementărilor
legale privind concurența.

**Răspuns dat de dl Almunia în numele Comisiei**

_(23 martie 2012)_

În octombrie 2011, Comisia a primit o reclamație cu privire la finanțarea aeroportului din Târgu Mureș și a anumitor
companii aeriene care utilizau aeroportul. Comisia a transmis această reclamație României și a primit observații cu
privire la aspectele evidențiate. Investigațiile preliminare legate de aceste finanțări sunt în desfășurare. Comisia va
evalua, de asemenea, măsurile menționate în întrebarea distinsului membru al Parlamentului.

C 96 E / 92 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001273/12**

**to the Commission**
**Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)**

_(10 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Violation of competition regulations

Mures County Administration (Romania) recently allocated the sum of EUR 250 000 of public funds to a tourist
association, thus indirectly financing the airline Wizz Air. The aim of this financial assistance is to convince the
relevant company to use the airport in Targu Mures for its flights.

As a result of the assistance, this airport can afford to ensure an average cost per passenger of EUR 0.95, while the
European average cost per passenger is EUR 11.

Can the Commission clarify whether this practice: 1. represents state aid and 2. corresponds to the legal regulations
on competition?

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

_(23 March 2012)_

The Commission has received a complaint concerning the financing of Targu Mures airport and certain airlines using
the airport in October 2011. The Commission has forwarded the complaint to Romania and has received comments
on it. The preliminary investigations in relations to these financings are ongoing. The Commission will also assess the
measures mentioned in the Honourable Member's question.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 93

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001276/12**

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

**Fiorello Provera (EFD)**

_(10 febbraio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Etiopi arrestati in Arabia Saudita per avere organizzato incontro di preghiera

Il 30 gennaio 2012, Human Rights Watch ha denunciato il caso di 35 etiopi cristiani attualmente in attesa di essere
espulsi dall'Arabia Saudita dopo essere stati arrestati dalla polizia durante un incontro di preghiera a Gedda. Gli etiopi
sono stati accusati di «commistione illecita». Tra gli arrestati erano presenti 29 donne e alcune di loro sono state
sottoposte a perquisizioni corporali arbitrarie. Il 15 dicembre 2011 la polizia ha fatto irruzione durante un incontro
di preghiera e ha arrestato tre membri del gruppo. Gli arrestati sono stati portati alla prigione di Buramain, dove sono
stati sottoposti a perquisizione interna per accertarsi che non fossero in possesso di sostanze illegali. I detenuti, sia
maschi che femmine, hanno lamentato di avere ricevuto assistenza medica inadeguata e di essere stati tenuti in
pessime condizioni igieniche: centinaia di detenuti non sauditi erano infatti costretti a condividere pochissimi servizi
igienici. Una volta in tribunale, gli etiopi sono stati costretti ad apporre le loro impronte digitali su documenti, senza
che fosse loro prima permesso di leggerli. Il gruppo è stato accusato di «commistione illecita» fra i sessi; alcuni degli
arrestati non avevano un regolare permesso di soggiorno, altri invece sì, ma tutti rischiano l'espulsione.

Human Rights Watch afferma che il governo saudita aveva assicurato che non avrebbe più interferito con il culto
esercitato in privato dai non musulmani. In un documento scritto inviato al governo degli Stati Uniti e intitolato
«Conferma delle politiche», il Regno affermava che avrebbe «garantito e protetto il diritto a professare privatamente la
propria fede religiosa per tutti, inclusi i non musulmani che si riuniscono nelle case per praticare la loro religione». La
Carta araba dei diritti umani, a cui l'Arabia Saudita ha aderito, garantisce «la libertà di manifestare la propria religione
o il proprio credo o di praticare la religione, da solo o insieme ad altri», e proibisce gli «arresti arbitrari». Il Regno non
dispone di una legge penale codificata o di altro tipo che definisca la «commistione illecita».

1. È il VP/HR a conoscenza delle difficoltà che i non musulmani, e in particolare i cristiani, affrontano nel praticare
la propria religione in Arabia Saudita?

2. È il VP/HR disposto a chiedere alle autorità saudite informazioni circa il caso dei 35 etiopi e i tempi del loro
rilascio?

3. È il VP/HR disposto a chiedere alle autorità saudite, e in particolare al principe ereditario Nayef bin Abdul Aziz,
che è anche ministro degli interni del Regno, se saranno intraprese iniziative atte a garantire che le autorità si
attengano ai principi della carta sui diritti umani del paese?

4. Ha il VP/HR effettuato in precedenza tentativi di sollevare la questione della libertà religiosa in Arabia Saudita?
In caso affermativo, qual è stata la reazione del governo?

C 96 E / 94 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001818/12**

**alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)**
**Barbara Matera (PPE), Magdi Cristiano Allam (EFD), Roberta Angelilli (PPE), Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE),**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD), Vito Bonsignore (PPE), Mario Borghezio (EFD), Antonio Cancian (PPE),**

**Lara Comi (PPE), Luigi Ciriaco De Mita (PPE), Mario Mauro (PPE), Claudio Morganti (EFD),**
**Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), Oreste Rossi (EFD), Sergio Paolo Frances Silvestris (PPE), Giommaria Uggias**

**(ALDE) e Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)**

_(15 febbraio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Arresto arbitrario di 35 etiopi cristiani in Arabia Saudita

Dal 15 dicembre 2011, giorno del loro arresto, trentacinque cristiani etiopi sono in attesa di giudizio per l'accusa di
«riunione illecita di persone non sposate di sesso opposto». In quello stesso giorno, infatti, la polizia aveva fatto
irruzione in un'abitazione privata a Jeddah arrestando gli etiopi che erano lì radunati per pregare. Secondo quanto
riportato da «Human Rights Watch» di questi 35 arrestati 29 erano donne, le quali sono state sottoposte a molestie e
perquisizioni corporali arbitrarie. I detenuti sono stati poi sottoposti nella prigione di Buraiman a sevizie sessuali a
carico delle donne e percosse per gli uomini.

Nonostante il re Abdullah abbia istituito un centro internazionale di dialogo interreligioso a Vienna, la sua polizia
non cessa di calpestare i diritti dei credenti di altre fedi,

nonostante l'Arabia Saudita sia firmataria della Carta araba dei diritti umani, che garantisce la libertà di manifestare la
propria religione o di compiere riti religiosi, sia da soli che in comunità con altri vietando «arresti arbitrari»,

nonostante i documenti di molti degli arrestati fossero in regola secondo Human Rights Watch,

nonostante l'impegno del governo saudita di rispettare il culto di altre fedi,

nonostante il codice penale saudita non preveda nessuna legge che definisce illecito il diritto di riunione, i
maltrattamenti continuano e quello degli etiopi è solo l'ultimo caso di torture e di abusi.

Alla luce di quanto precede, può l'Alto Rappresentante/Vicepresidente precisare:

1. quali azioni ha portato avanti rispetto a quanto accaduto e se ci sono gli estremi per presentare una protesta
formale contro le autorità saudite onde ottenere il rilascio immediato dei trentacinque uomini e donne etiopi;

2. quali mezzi sono a sua disposizione per spingere le autorità saudite ad investigare sui presunti abusi fisici e
sessuali perpetrati e, se necessario, risarcire le vittime e punire i funzionari ritenuti responsabili di tali atti;

3. quali azioni ha intrapreso per evitare che si ripetano casi come quello dei 35 etiopi arrestati?

**Risposta congiunta data dall'alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente Catherine Ashton a nome della**

**Commissione**

_(30 marzo 2012)_

L'alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente Catherine Ashton è ben consapevole del caso, che la delegazione UE a Riyadh
segue in stretta collaborazione con le ambasciate degli Stati membri sul territorio. La delegazione UE è stata diverse
volte in contatto con le autorità saudite al fine di indagare sul caso riferito dall'onorevole parlamentare e continuerà a
farlo anche prossimamente.

La libertà di religione e, più in generale, le libertà fondamentali vengono discusse con il governo saudita
periodicamente e in occasione della riunioni ufficiali UE-Consiglio di cooperazione del golfo. Il comunicato
congiunto rilasciato al termine dell'ultima riunione ministeriale UE-CCG, tenutasi ad Abu Dhabi il 20 aprile 2011,
contiene una sezione sui diritti umani e sulle libertà fondamentali. Il capo della delegazione UE a Riyadh solleva
regolarmente la questione dei diritti umani e delle libertà fondamentali nel corso dei contatti con i rappresentanti del
governo saudita.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 95

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001276/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD)**

_(10 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Ethiopians in Saudi Arabia arrested for holding prayer service

On 30 January 2012, Human Rights Watch (HRW) reported the case of 35 Christian Ethiopians who are now
awaiting deportation from Saudi Arabia after police arrested them at a private prayer service in Jeddah. They were
charged with ‘illicit mingling’; 29 of them were women, and some were subjected to arbitrary body searches. On
15 December 2011, in the middle of a prayer service, police burst in and arrested three members of the group. They
were sent to Buraiman prison, where they were searched internally for illegal substances. Both male and female
detainees complained of inadequate medical conditions and poor sanitary conditions, with hundreds of non-Saudi
inmates obliged to share only a handful of toilets. Once in court, the Ethiopians were forced to affix their fingerprints
on documents that they were not allowed to read. The group was charged with ‘illicit mingling’ of the sexes; while
some did not have valid residence papers, others did, yet all face deportation.

HRW states that the Saudi government had promised it would stop interfering with the private worship of nonMuslims. In a written document sent to the US government, entitled ‘Confirmation of Policies’, the Kingdom said it
would ‘guarantee and protect the right to private worship for all, including non-Muslims who gather in homes for
religious practice’. The Arab Charter of Human Rights, to which Saudi Arabia is a state party, guarantees ‘the freedom
to manifest one’s religion or beliefs to perform religious observances, either alone or in community with others’, and
prohibits ‘arbitrary arrest’. The Kingdom does not have a codified criminal law or other law that defines ‘illicit
mingling’.

1. Is the Vice-President/High Representative aware of the difficulties that non-Muslims, and in particular
Christians, face in practising their religion in Saudi Arabia?

2. Is the Vice-President/High Representative prepared to ask the Saudi authorities for information on the case of
the 35 Ethiopians and whether they will be released soon?

3. Is the Vice-President/High Representative prepared to ask the Saudi authorities, and in particular Crown Prince
Nayef bin Abdul Aziz, who is also the Kingdom’s interior minister, whether steps will be taken to ensure that the
authorities abide by the tenets of the country’s human rights charter?

4. Has the Vice-President/High Representative made any previous attempts to raise the issue of religious freedom
in Saudi Arabia? If so, how did the government respond?

**Question for written answer E-001818/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**
**Barbara Matera (PPE), Magdi Cristiano Allam (EFD), Roberta Angelilli (PPE), Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE),**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD), Vito Bonsignore (PPE), Mario Borghezio (EFD), Antonio Cancian (PPE),**

**Lara Comi (PPE), Luigi Ciriaco De Mita (PPE), Mario Mauro (PPE), Claudio Morganti (EFD),**

**Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), Oreste Rossi (EFD), Sergio Paolo Frances Silvestris (PPE),**

**Giommaria Uggias (ALDE) and Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)**

_(15 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Unlawful arrest of 35 Ethiopian Christians in Saudi Arabia

Since 15 December 2011, the day of their arrest, 35 Ethiopian Christians have been awaiting trial on a charge of
‘unlawful meeting of unmarried persons of the opposite sex’. On that day, police raided a private dwelling in Jeddah
and arrested the Ethiopians, who had gathered there to pray. According to the report by Human Rights Watch, 29 of
the 35 persons arrested were women, who were subjected to harassment and illegal body searches. The prisoners
were then transferred to Buraiman prison, where the female prisoners were sexually assaulted and the male prisoners
were beaten.

King Abdullah has established an international centre for inter-religious dialogue in Vienna, but his police continue to
ride roughshod over the rights of believers of other faiths.

Saudi Arabia is a signatory to the Arab Charter on Human Rights, which guarantees the freedom to practise one’s
religion or to observe religious rites, either alone or communally with others, and prohibits ‘unlawful arrests’.

C 96 E / 96 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

According to Human Rights Watch, the papers of many of the persons arrested were in order.

The Saudi Government is committed to respecting worship by those of other faiths.

Although the Saudi Penal Code does not make provision for any laws outlawing freedom of assembly, cases of illtreatment are continuing to occur, the case of these Ethiopians being just the latest example of torture and abuse.

In view of the above:

1. What actions have been taken in response to these events? Are there sufficient grounds to lodge a formal
protest against the Saudi authorities in order to secure the immediate release of the 35 Ethiopian men and
women?

2. What means can the High Representative employ to make the Saudi authorities investigate the alleged cases of
physical and sexual abuse and, if necessary, compensate the victims and punish the officials responsible for
these acts?

3. What actions has she taken to prevent any repetition of cases such as the one involving the 35 arrested
Ethiopians?

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

_(30 March 2012)_

High Representative/Vice-President Ashton is well aware of this case, which the EU Delegation in Riyadh has been
following in close cooperation with EU Member States embassies on the ground. The EU Delegation has been in
contact with the Saudi authorities several times in order to inquire about the case mentioned by the Honourable
Member and will continue to do so in the near future.

Religious freedom and, more generally, fundamental liberties, are regularly discussed with the Saudi government,
including on the occasion of official EU-Gulf Cooperation Council meetings. The Joint Communiqué issued at the end
of the latest EU-GCC ministerial meeting, held in Abu Dhabi on 20 April 2011, contains a section on human rights
and fundamental freedoms. The EU Head of Delegation in Riyadh raises human rights and fundamental freedoms
regularly in his contacts with Saudi officials.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 97

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-001277/12**

**do Rady**
**Joanna Senyszyn (S&D)**

_(9 lutego 2012 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Naruszanie praw człowieka

Jakie kroki zamierza poczynić Rada w związku z przypadkami naruszania praw człowieka zgłoszonymi przez
UNOCHA, MKCK i izraelskie organizacje praw człowieka, aby zapewnić pełną ochronę tych praw na okupowanych
terytoriach palestyńskich?

**Odpowiedź**
_(8 maja 2012 r.)_

Kwestię przestrzegania praw człowieka na okupowanych terytoriach palestyńskich Unia Europejska regularnie
porusza w kontaktach dwustronnych i w gremiach wielostronnych. W dniu 19 marca 2012 r. UE wydała
oświadczenie podczas debaty ogólnej na forum Rady Praw Człowieka w Genewie, wyrażając zaniepokojenie m.in.
rosnącą liczbą zajść z udziałem osób cywilnych.

UE wyraża ubolewanie z powodu rozbiórek i eksmisji prowadzonych przez siły izraelskie oraz z powodu
nasilających się ataków osadników izraelskich na Palestyńczyków, ich mienie i miejsca kultu religijnego. UE apeluje
również o zaprzestanie wszelkich ataków rakietowych na Izrael i wszelkich innych form przemocy. Jest zdania, że
brak postępów politycznych w rozwiązywaniu konfliktu zagraża ogólnemu bezpieczeństwu.

UE potępia zarówno przymusowe przesiedlenia ludności palestyńskiej i stosowanie aresztu administracyjnego przez
Izrael, jak i samowolne zatrzymania stosowane przez stronę palestyńską. Wzywa też wszystkie strony do zadbania
o to, by izraelscy i palestyńscy obrońcy praw człowieka nie napotykali niepotrzebnych ograniczeń w swojej pracy.

Co dodatkowo niepokoi UE, to pogarszanie się wewnętrznej sytuacji pod względem przestrzegania praw człowieka
na całych okupowanych terytoriach palestyńskich (zwłaszcza w Strefie Gazy), a przede wszystkim orzekanie
wyroków śmierci.

UE nakłania wszystkie strony, by w pełni współpracowały z wszelkimi strukturami ONZ – zwłaszcza ze specjalnym
sprawozdawcą i z Biurem Wysokiego Komisarza ds. Praw Człowieka – w dziedzinie przestrzegania praw człowieka
na okupowanych terytoriach palestyńskich.

C 96 E / 98 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001277/12**

**to the Council**
**Joanna Senyszyn (S&D)**

_(9 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Human rights violations

In view of human rights violations reported by UNOCHA, ICRC and Israeli human rights organisations, what steps
does the Council plan to take to ensure there is full human rights protection in the occupied Palestinian territory?

**Reply**
_(8 May 2012)_

The European Union regularly raises the issue of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory on a bilateral basis
and in multinational fora. On 19th March 2012, the EU delivered a statement in the general debate at the Human
Rights Council in Geneva, and voiced its concern, _inter alia_, at the increasing number of incidents involving civilians.

The EU deplores house demolitions and evictions by Israeli forces, as well as the increasing attacks by Israeli settlers
on Palestinians and on their property and places of worship. The EU also calls for an end to all rocket attacks on Israel
and to all other forms of violence. The EU takes the view that the lack of political progress in the resolution of the
conflict undermines the security of all.

Forced transfers of the Palestinian population and the use of administrative detention by Israel, as well as arbitrary
detentions by the Palestinian side, are denounced by the EU. The EU also calls on all parties to ensure that Israeli and
Palestinian human rights defenders do not face undue restrictions in their work.

The deterioration of the domestic human rights situation across the occupied Palestinian territory, particularly in the
Gaza Strip, and above all the imposition of death sentences, are additional matters of concern for the EU.

The EU invites the parties to cooperate fully with all UN mechanisms, in particular with the Special Rapporteur and
the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, on the human rights situation in the occupied Palestinian
territories.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 99

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-001278/12**

**do Komisji**
**Joanna Senyszyn (S&D)**

_(10 lutego 2012 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Obecna skala przywozu towarów pochodzących z osiedli żydowskich do Unii Europejskiej

Czy Komisja mogłaby podać dokładną ilość towarów wytwarzanych w całości lub częściowo w osiedlach
żydowskich i przywożonych do UE oraz określić, jaki procent stanowią one w stosunku do łącznej ilości towarów
wywożonych z Izraela do UE?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Karela De Guchta w imieniu Komisji**

_(22 lutego 2012 r.)_

Władze Izraela nie podają zdezagregowanych danych dotyczących ilości towarów produkowanych w osiedlach
izraelskich i wywożonych do UE. Na podstawie informacji otrzymanych ustnie od izraelskich władz służby Komisji
szacują, że wywóz z osiedli może wynosić około 0,87 % całkowitego izraelskiego wywozu do UE. Jako że całkowity
wywóz z Izraela do UE w 2010 r. wyniósł 11,1 mld EUR, wywóz z osiedli mógł wynieść 96,57 mln EUR. Do
informacji tych należy jednak podchodzić z ostrożnością.

C 96 E / 100 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001278/12**

**to the Commission**
**Joanna Senyszyn (S&D)**

_(10 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ The current scale of settlement goods imported into the European Union

Can the Commission indicate the exact current quantity of goods produced totally or partially in the settlements that
are imported into the EU, and what percentage of total Israeli exports to the EU does this constitute?

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

_(22 February 2012)_

The Israel authorities do not provide disaggregated data on the amount of goods produced and exported to the EU
from the Israeli settlements. Based on the information obtained orally from the Israeli authorities, the Commission
services estimate that exports from settlements could amount to roughly 0.87 % of total Israeli exports to the EU.
Based on 2010 total exports from Israel to the EU of EUR 11.1 billion, settlement exports could reach
EUR 96.57 million. However, this information should be treated with caution.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 101

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-001279/12**

**do Komisji**
**Joanna Senyszyn (S&D)**

_(10 lutego 2012 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Zniszczenie infrastruktury finansowanej przez UE

Zgodnie z informacjami przedstawiciela UE na Zachodnim Brzegu i w Gazie Izrael od 2001 r. niszczył infrastrukturę
budowaną w ramach przedsięwzięć finansowanych ze środków UE na okupowanych terytoriach palestyńskich, co
wywołało łączne straty w wysokości 29 mln euro.

W świetle art. 2 układu o stowarzyszeniu UE-Izrael:

1. Jakie środki Komisja planuje przedsięwziąć w odniesieniu do zniszczenia infrastruktury finansowanej ze
środków UE?

2. Jakie środki zapobiegawcze Komisja zastosuje w celu dopilnowania, by infrastruktura finansowana ze środków
UE nie była niszczona w przyszłości?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez Wysoką Przedstawiciel i Wiceprzewodniczącą Komisji Catherine Ashton**

**w imieniu Komisji**
_(14 czerwca 2012 r.)_

UE jest największym darczyńcą pomocy dla Narodowej Władzy Palestyńskiej i oczekuje, że unijne inwestycje
wspierające ludność palestyńską będą chronione przed szkodami i zniszczeniem.

Biuro UE we Wschodniej Jerozolimie kilkakrotnie zgłaszało izraelskiemu ministerstwu obrony swój protest
w związku z przypadkami uszkodzenia lub zniszczenia obiektów finansowanych ze środków UE, w szczególności
w odniesieniu do współfinansowanych przez UE projektów, które nie zostały jeszcze przekazane beneficjentom
końcowym. Kwestia niszczenia infrastruktury finansowanej ze środków UE jest również podnoszona w ramach
dialogu politycznego UE-Izrael.

Aby uniknąć ewentualnego zniszczenia lub uszkodzenia obiektów finansowanych ze środków UE realizowanych na
okupowanych terytoriach palestyńskich, UE dopilnowuje, aby fakt jej zaangażowania w te projekty był powszechnie

znany.

W celu zapewnienia ochrony unijnych inwestycji regularnie wykorzystuje się również kanały dyplomatyczne. Od
2009 r. nie było doniesień o zniszczeniu lub uszkodzeniu przez Izrael infrastruktury finansowanej ze środków UE.

C 96 E / 102 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001279/12**

**to the Commission**
**Joanna Senyszyn (S&D)**

_(10 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Demolition of EU‐funded infrastructure

According to information from the EU Representative in the West Bank and Gaza, since 2001 Israel has destroyed
EU‐funded infrastructure projects in the occupied Palestinian territories, causing damage amounting to
EUR 29 million.

In the light of the EU‐Israel Association Agreement, Article 2:

1. What measures does the Commission plan to take in relation to the destruction of EU‐funded infrastructure?

2. What preventive measures will the Commission take to ensure that EU‐funded infrastructure is are not
demolished in the future?

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

_(14 June 2012)_

The EU is the largest donor to the Palestinian Authority. The EU expects its investments in support of the Palestinian
people to be protected from damage and destruction.

The EU Office in East Jerusalem has in the past lodged protests with the Israeli Ministry of Defence following incidents
which have damaged or destroyed EU funded projects, in particular regarding EU funded projects which have not yet
been handed over to the end beneficiary. The question of damage and destruction of EU funded projects is also raised
with Israel in the framework of the EU‐Israel political dialogue.

To discourage the damage and destruction of EU funded projects in the occupied Palestinian territory, the EU ensures
the high visibility of its involvement in these projects.

Diplomatic channels are also regularly used to ensure the protection of EU investments. No EU‐funded projects have
been reported as destroyed or damaged by Israel since 2009.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 103

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-001281/12**

**à la Commission**
**Damien Abad (PPE)**

_(10 février 2012)_

_Objet:_ Conditions de circulation des véhicules sous couvert d'un certificat «garage»

Les véhicules ou ensembles de véhicules d'occasion, circulant entre le moment et le lieu de la vente vers le lieu de prise
en main et d'enregistrement (convoyage) sont généralement couverts dans les États membres par un certificat
spécifique, dit «garage», (immatriculé W en France), leur permettant de ne pas être conformes aux dispositions
techniques du code de la route tant qu'ils n'ont pas encore été réceptionnés par le service en charge des réceptions
d'un point de vente et/ou de réparation, ou par l'acquéreur du véhicule.

Au niveau national, ces activités sont soumises aux dispositions prévues par le législateur ou le régulateur. En France,
en l'occurrence, il s'agit de l'arrêté du 9 février 2009 relatif aux modalités d'immatriculation des véhicules, entré en
vigueur le 15 avril 2009.

Lorsqu'il s'agit de convoyage au sein de l'Union européenne, d'un État membre vers un autre État membre, il ne
semble en revanche pas exister de réglementation commune encadrant ces activités au sein de l'Union.

Les véhicules d'occasion vendus dans un pays membre de l'Union et rapatriés vers le pays d'achat et de mise en
circulation sont-ils soumis à des règles communes de sécurité, de prévention et de contrôle? Si oui, la Commission
pourrait-elle les communiquer?

Dans le cas contraire, la Commission envisage-t-elle de proposer un cadre réglementaire harmonisé pour le
convoyage de véhicules d'occasion en Europe?

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

_(13 mars 2012)_

La Commission tient à informer l'Honorable Parlementaire que la législation européenne ne réglemente pas encore le
convoyage des véhicules d'occasion entre États membres. En outre, les plaques minéralogiques dites «plaques garage»
ne sont pas encore soumises au droit dérivé de l'UE et relèvent donc de la législation nationale, qui doit cependant
respecter les dispositions générales du traité, notamment celles qui ont trait à la libre circulation des marchandises.

La Commission est en train de voir si les questions relatives au convoyage des véhicules d'occasion pourraient être
incluses dans sa prochaine initiative législative sur une procédure d'immatriculation simplifiée pour les véhicules
précédemment immatriculés dans un autre État membre. La Commission a l'intention de présenter cette proposition
au Parlement européen et au Conseil au cours du premier semestre de cette année.

C 96 E / 104 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001281/12**

**to the Commission**
**Damien Abad (PPE)**

_(10 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Rules governing the circulation of vehicles under a ‘garage’ registration certificate

Used vehicles or groups of used vehicles being moved from the place of sale to the place of delivery and registration in
the Member States are generally covered by a specific ‘garage’ registration certificate (‘W’ registration in France),
meaning they are not required to comply with the technical provisions of the highway code until the department
responsible for taking deliveries in a sales and/or repair outlet, or the purchaser of the vehicle, has taken delivery of
them.

At national level, these activities are subject to the provisions laid down by the legislator or the regulator. In France,
the relevant legislation is the Order of 9 February 2009 on the Registration of Vehicles, which entered into force on
15 April 2009.

However, there seems to be no common EU regulatory framework governing the moving of used cars from one
Member State to another.

Are used vehicles which are sold in an EU Member State and moved to the country in which the purchaser lives and in
which they will be driven covered by common rules on safety, prevention and technical scrutiny? If they are, could
the Commission tell us what these rules are?

If they are not, does the Commission plan to propose a harmonised regulatory framework to govern the moving of
used vehicles from one country to another in Europe?

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

_(13 March 2012)_

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that European legislation does not yet regulate the
conveyance of second hand vehicles between Member States. Furthermore so-called ‘garage-plates’ are not yet subject
to EU secondary law and therefore administered under national legislation, which however must respect the general
Treaty provisions including those on the free movement of goods.

The Commission is examining if the issues of conveyance of second hand vehicles can be included in its forthcoming
legislative initiative on a simplified registration procedure for motor vehicles previously registered in another Member
State. The Commission intends to submit this proposal to the European Parliament and the Council during the first
semester of this year.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 105

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001282/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Matteo Salvini (EFD)**

_(10 febbraio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Problematiche attinenti alla direttiva «servizi»

L'applicazione della direttiva 2006/123/CE sta creando non pochi problemi al turismo balneare italiano.

Tuttavia, le imprese operanti in questo settore presentano forti specificità in quanto svolgono compiti normalmente
affidati alle autorità pubbliche, quali l'ordine, la tutela della privacy, la sicurezza in mare di tutti i clienti e bagnanti, e
pertanto assimilabili ai «servizi privati di sicurezza», i quali sono stati esclusi dal campo di applicazione della direttiva
«servizi» in forza all'articolo 2, comma 2, lettera k).

Inoltre, a differenza di una qualunque impresa, per le attività turistico-balneari perdere la concessione demaniale
significa privarsi della propria azienda.

Infine, per il nostro paese la conservazione delle coste è importantissima per il turismo, pertanto assume particolare
rilievo nel contesto economico attuale.

Vista la risoluzione del Parlamento europeo del 27 settembre 2011, con cui si chiede alla Commissione di valutare tali
specificità, e sulla base dell'art. 134 del TFUE, che «lascia del tutto impregiudicato il regime di proprietà esistente negli
Stati membri», considera la Commissione la possibilità di escludere le attività svolte dai balneari italiani
dall'applicazione della direttiva «servizi»?

In caso contrario, quali provvedimenti intende attuare per attenuare le ripercussioni negative sulle imprese e garantire
che le caratteristiche specifiche di questa categoria siano prese in considerazione?

**Risposta data da Michel Barnier a nome della Commissione**

_(19 marzo 2012)_

Come già indicato nelle risposte alle interrogazioni scritte E-5588/09, E-3090/10, E-3629/10 e E-4502/11 ( [1] ),
l’articolo 12 della direttiva 2006/123/CE (la direttiva «servizi») ( [2] ) si applica ad autorizzazioni disponibili in numero
limitato a causa della scarsità delle risorse naturali o delle capacità tecniche utilizzabili, come sembra essere il caso
delle concessioni demaniali marittime in Italia. Gli Stati membri sono tenuti ad adottare una procedura di selezione
che garantisca la trasparenza e la parità di trattamento per i candidati potenziali. Le autorizzazioni possono essere
rilasciate per una durata limitata adeguata e non possono prevedere il rinnovo automatico. Nelle procedure di
selezione gli Stati membri possono tenere conto, tra l'altro, di criteri giustificati da considerazioni relative, ad
esempio, alla protezione dell’ambiente o alla salvaguardia del patrimonio culturale, a condizione che detti criteri siano
applicati conformemente ai principi generali di non discriminazione, necessità e proporzionalità.

Fatti salvi i principi generali summenzionati, la direttiva «servizi» lascia agli Stati membri la libertà di regolamentare le
concessioni nel modo che ritengono più opportuno, anche per quanto riguarda il regime di proprietà. In tale
esercizio, gli Stati membri possono tenere conto delle specificità del settore menzionate dall’onorevole parlamentare.

Pertanto, la Commissione non ritiene necessario escludere le concessioni demaniali marittime dall’applicazione della
direttiva «servizi». Una maggiore trasparenza dovrebbe produrre effetti positivi sull’occupazione, la crescita e la
qualità dei servizi.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/QP-WEB/application/home.do?language=IT.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Direttiva 2006/123/CE relativa ai servizi nel mercato interno.

C 96 E / 106 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001282/12**

**to the Commission**
**Matteo Salvini (EFD)**

_(10 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Issues related to the Services Directive

The implementation of Directive 2006/123/EC is creating numerous problems for Italian seaside tourism.

Businesses operating in this sector have unique characteristics in that they carry out tasks normally performed by
public authorities, such as those relating to orders, privacy protection, and water safety for all clients and bathers, and
are consequently similar to ‘private security services’, which are excluded from the scope of the Services Directive
pursuant to its Article 2(2)(k).

Furthermore, unlike what happens with any other form of enterprise, if seaside tourism activities lose state
concessions, this means depriving a firm of its own business.

Finally, conserving the coast is of the utmost importance for tourism in Italy, and even more so in the current
economic context.

In the light of Parliament’s resolution of 27 September 2011, which calls on the Commission to take those factors
into consideration, as well as Article 134 TFEU and the provision that there shall be no prejudice to the existing
system of property ownership in the Member States, will the Commission consider excluding the activities carried out
at Italian seaside resorts from the application of the Services Directive?

If this is not possible, what measures can the Commission take in order to soften the negative repercussions for
businesses and guarantee that this sector’s unique features are taken into consideration?

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

_(19 March 2012)_

As it has been already pointed out in the answers to Written Questions E‐5588/09, E‐3090/10, E‐3629/10 and E‐
4502/11 ( [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 resources or technical capacity, as in the case of ‘beach concessions’ in
Italy. Member States are required to apply a selection procedure that guarantees the transparency and the equal
treatment of potential candidates. Authorisations may be granted for an appropriate limited period and may not be
open to automatic renewal. In those procedures, Member States can take account, _inter alia_, of 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.

Subject to those principles, the Services Directive leaves Member States free to regulate beach concessions as they
wish, including on the issue of property ownership. In doing so, they can take into consideration the factors
mentioned by the Honourable Member.

There is therefore no need to exclude beach concessions from the application of the Services Directive. The
introduction of more transparency is expected to be beneficial for jobs, growth and higher quality of services.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/QP-WEB.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 107

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-001283/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)**

_(10 Φεβρουαρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Όριο φτώχειας και αφορολόγητο στην Ελλάδα και την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση

Σύμφωνα με τα τελευταία οικονομικά στοιχεία της Ελλάδας, το όριο φτώχειας για το 2010, για μια τετραμελή οικογένεια
(δύο ενήλικες και δύο εξαρτώμενα παιδιά ηλικίας κάτω των 14ετών), είναι 15 073 ευρώ το χρόνο. Παρ’ όλα αυτά, η ελληνική
κυβέρνηση, εφαρμόζοντας το Μνημόνιο Ελλάδας-ΔΝΤ-ΕΕ, μείωσε μέσω του πρόσφατου φορολογικού νόμου, το
αφορολόγητο όριο από τα 15 000 ευρώ το χρόνο, σε 9 000 ευρώ το χρόνο, για μια τετραμελή οικογένεια με δύο παιδιά.

Με δεδομένη αυτή την οικονομική κατάσταση στην Ελλάδα, αλλά και την εντεινόμενη κρίση στη χώρα μου και σε όλη την
ευρωζώνη, ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

1. Συνάδει η παραπάνω φορολογική πολιτική με την καταστατική δέσμευση της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης για την
«καταπολέμηση του κοινωνικού αποκλεισμού», την «προώθηση της κοινωνικής δικαιοσύνης» και της «οικονομικής,
κοινωνικής και εδαφικής συνοχής και αλληλεγγύης μεταξύ των κρατών μελών» (Συνθήκη της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης
άρθρο 3.3);

2. Μπορεί να μου παράσχει δεδομένα για τα αντίστοιχα επίπεδα του ορίου φτώχειας και του αφορολόγητου ορίου για
4μελείς οικογένειες στα υπόλοιπα κράτη μέλη της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης;

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

_(18 Απριλίου 2012)_

Η Επιτροπή είναι συνεπής με τους στόχους της Ένωσης για την καταπολέμηση του κοινωνικού αποκλεισμού, την προώθηση
της κοινωνικής δικαιοσύνης καθώς και της οικονομικής, κοινωνικής και εδαφικής συνοχής και της αλληλεγγύης μεταξύ των
κρατών μελών. Οι στόχοι του προγράμματος οικονομικής προσαρμογής είναι να διασφαλισθεί η δημοσιονομική
βιωσιμότητα, να αποκατασταθεί η ανταγωνιστικότητα και να διασφαλισθεί η χρηματοπιστωτική σταθερότητα, όροι
απαραίτητοι για την ανάπτυξη και την απασχόληση.

Το πρόγραμμα προσαρμογής δίνει έμφαση στη βελτίωση της φορολογικής διαχείρισης στην Ελλάδα, γεγονός που θα
οδηγήσει στην αύξηση των εισπραττόμενων φόρων και στην καταπολέμηση της φοροδιαφυγής, προκειμένου το φορολογικό
σύστημα να καταστεί περισσότερο αποτελεσματικό και δίκαιο.

Όσον αφορά τα αφορολόγητα όρια, έως τη στιγμή της θέσπισης των μέτρων από την Ελλάδα το καλοκαίρι και το φθινόπωρο
του 2011, τα αφορολόγητα όρια στην Ελλάδα ήταν συνήθως πάνω από το αφορολόγητο όριο αρκετών άλλων χωρών της ΕΕ
και ήταν ιδίως σημαντικά υψηλότερα από τα αφορολόγητα όρια του Βελγίου, της Γερμανίας, της Γαλλίας και της
Πορτογαλίας.

Στον παρακάτω πίνακα παρέχονται στοιχεία για τα εθνικά όρια της φτώχειας για μια οικογένεια με 2 ενήλικες και 2 παιδιά και
για το πόσο μειώνεται η φτώχια από τα κοινωνικά επιδόματα.

C 96 E / 108 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001283/12**

**to the Commission**
**Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)**

_(10 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Poverty and tax-free thresholds in Greece and the European Union

According to Greece’s latest economic data, in 2010 the poverty level for a family of four (two adults and two
dependent children under 14 years) was EUR 15 073 per year. Nevertheless, in implementing the Greece-IMF-EU
Memorandum under its recent tax law, the Greek Government reduced the tax-free threshold from EUR 15 000 to
EUR 9 000 per year for a family of four with two children.

Given the current economic situation in Greece and the growing crisis in my country and throughout the euro area,
I would like to ask the Commission:

1. Does the above fiscal policy comply with the European Union’s statutory commitment to ‘combat social
exclusion’, and ‘promote social justice’ and ‘economic, social and territorial cohesion and solidarity among
Member States’ (Treaty on European Union, Article 3.3)?

2. Can it provide data on the corresponding poverty and tax-free thresholds for four-member families in other
Member States of the European Union?

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

_(18 April 2012)_

The Commission is consistent with the Union's objectives of combating social exclusion, to promote social justice
and to promote economic, social and territorial cohesion and solidarity among Member States. The objectives of the
economic adjustment programme are to ensure fiscal sustainability, restore competitiveness and guarantee financial
stability which are indispensable for growth and jobs.

The adjustment programme has put emphasis on the improvement of the tax administration in Greece which should
lead to the increase in the tax collection and the fight against tax evasion, in order to make the tax system more
efficient and equitable.

Concerning the tax-free thresholds, until the measures adopted by Greece in the summer and autumn 2011, the taxfree thresholds in Greece used to be above the tax-free threshold in several other EU countries, and in particular
substantially above the tax-free thresholds in Belgium, Germany, France and Portugal.

The table below provides data on national poverty lines for a family of two adults and two children, poverty reduction
impact of social transfers.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 109

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-001284/12**

**do Komisji**
**Tomasz Piotr Poręba (ECR)**

_(10 lutego 2012 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Dyskryminacja przy rozdzielaniu koncesji na platformie cyfrowej w Polsce

W procesie przydzielania lokalizacji na multipleksie cyfrowej telewizji naziemnej MUX-1 polska Krajowa Rada
Radiofonii i Telewizji przyznała wszystkie dostępne koncesje, nie czekając na dokończenie procedury odwoławczej
ze strony fundacji Lux Veritatis, właściciela TV Trwam. Wniosek fundacji odrzucono już na pierwszym etapie
weryfikacji finansowej, pomimo że część podmiotów, które otrzymały koncesję, była w o wiele gorszej sytuacji.
Dodatkowo, rozdzielenie wszystkich dostępnych miejsc na platformie oraz jej uruchomienie przed rozpatrzeniem
odwołania fundacji oznacza, że nawet gdyby zostało ono uznane, TV Trwam i tak nie będzie mogła nadawać cyfrowo
w Polsce.

Przedstawione powyżej fakty skłaniają do konkluzji, że decyzje podjęte przez KRRiT mają charakter polityczny
i mogą być postrzegane jako próba dyskryminacji ze względu na poglądy religijne.

W związku z tym chciałbym zwrócić się do Komisji z następującymi pytaniami:

1. Czy Komisja otrzymała informacje na ten temat?

2. Czy kwestia ta zostanie dokładniej zbadana przez Komisję? Jakie kroki Komisja zamierza podjąć w tej sprawie?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarz Neelie Kroes w imieniu Komisji**

_(13 marca 2012 r.)_

Komisja Europejska dowiedziała się o decyzji KRRiT dotyczącej TV Trwam z szeregu pism przesłanych przez
obywateli polskich, jak również dzięki wcześniejszemu zapytaniu poselskiemu skierowanemu do komisarz Neelie
Kroes (E-191/2). Stanowisko Komisji przedstawione w odpowiedzi na wspomniane zapytanie jest nadal aktualne.

Zgodnie z ramami regulacyjnymi w zakresie łączności elektronicznej ( [1] ) państwa członkowskie, uwzględniając
odpowiednie wartości częstotliwości radiowych, muszą zapewnić skuteczne zarządzanie częstotliwościami
radiowymi i przyznać prawa do korzystania z nich w oparciu o obiektywne, przejrzyste, niedyskryminujące
i proporcjonalne kryteria oraz obiektywne, przejrzyste, niedyskryminujące, proporcjonalne i otwarte procedury.

Procedury krajowe mogą przewidywać szczególne kryteria oceny, w tym takie, które dotyczą sytuacji finansowej
uczestników, pod warunkiem że przestrzegane są wyżej wymienione zasady. Z tego względu, biorąc pod uwagę
koszty związane z obsługą multipleksu, stabilność finansowa każdego nadawcy dzielącego multipleks może mieć
decydujące znaczenie dla funkcjonowania całego przedsięwzięcia i w związku z tym można ją uznać za uzasadnione
kryterium oceny.

Ocena dotycząca prawidłowego stosowania tego kryterium przez władze polskie w tym konkretnym przypadku
należy do sądów krajowych, do których strony mają prawo odwołać się w tej kwestii, zgodnie z unijnymi ramami
regulacyjnymi w zakresie łączności elektronicznej.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Odesłania do odpowiednich dyrektyw.

C 96 E / 110 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001284/12**

**to the Commission**
**Tomasz Piotr Poręba (ECR)**

_(10 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Discrimination in granting digital broadcasting licences in Poland

In allocating broadcasting space on the MUX-1 digital terrestrial television multiplex, Poland’s National Broadcasting
Council (KRRiT) granted all the available licences without waiting for the outcome of the Lux Veritatis foundation’s
appeal. The Lux Veritatis foundation, which owns TV Trwam, had its application rejected at the initial financial
verification stage, even though some of the operators that were granted licences were financially far worse off than TV
Trwam. With all the available spots on the platform having been allocated and the platform itself having started
broadcasting before the foundation’s appeal was considered, even if the appeal is successful TV Trwam will not be
able to broadcast digitally in Poland.

In the light of the above, one might conclude that KRRiT’s decisions are political and could therefore be considered to
constitute discrimination on religious grounds.

With this in mind:

1. Has the Commission received any information on this issue?

2. Will it be conducting a thorough investigation into the matter, and what action does it intend to take?

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

_(13 March 2012)_

The European Commission has learnt about the decision of KRRiT regarding TV TRWAM from several letters of
Polish citizens as well as from a previous parliamentary question addressed to Commissioner Kroes (E‐191/2). The
position of the Commission presented in the answer to that question remains valid.

According to the electronic communications regulatory framework ( [1] ), the Member States, in view of the relevant
value of radio frequencies, have to ensure the effective management of radio frequencies and grant rights to use
frequencies on the basis of objective, transparent, non-discriminatory and proportionate criteria and objective,
transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and open procedures.

The national procedures can foresee specific assessment criteria, including the financial standing of the contestants,
provided that the abovementioned principles are respected. In this regard, given the costs related to the operation of a
multiplex, the financial reliability of each and every broadcaster sharing the multiplex may be crucial for the
functioning of the whole enterprise and therefore it can be considered a legitimate assessment criterion.

The assessment concerning the correct application of this criterion by the Polish authorities in the specific case at
stake belongs to the national courts to which the parties have a right to refer the question, in line with the EU
electronic communications regulatory framework.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) References of the relevant directives.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 111

_(České znění)_

**Otázka k písemnému zodpovězení E-001285/12**

**Komisi**
**Pavel Poc (S&D)**

_(10. února 2012)_

_Předmět:_ Zajištění splnění požadavků směrnice o přírodních stanovištích

Vláda Slovenské republiky v současnosti plánuje výstavbu úseku dálnice D1 Turany-Hubová (dálnice D1 je součástí
transevropské dopravní sítě (TEN-T)). Výstavba tohoto úseku dálnice by mohla mít značné negativní dopady na
několik oblastí sítě Natura 2000.

Slovenské orgány však neprovedly náležité posouzení, které by odpovídalo požadavkům ustanovení čl. 6 odst. 3
a čl. 6 odst. 4 směrnice Rady č. 92/43/EHS (směrnice o přírodních stanovištích).

Jaká opatření Komise učiní, aby zajistila, že slovenské orgány plní povinnosti, které pro ně vyplývají z článku 6
směrnice o přírodních stanovištích?

**Odpověď pana Potočnika jménem Komise**

_(22. března 2012)_

Komise zjistila nedostatky ve schvalovacím procesu úseku dálnice D1 Turany – Hubová již v roce 2009. Návrh
předpokládá, že dálnice povede třemi oblastmi sítě Natura 2000 nebo po jejich hranici. Jmenovitě se jedná o Malou
Fatru, Velkou Fatru a Řeku Váh. Právní předpisy EU mají zajistit, že při rozvoji infrastruktury budou plně
zohledňovány otázky ochrany životního prostředí. V tomto případě je pozornost soustředěna především na nutnost
řádného posouzení podle čl. 6 odst. 3 a čl. 6 odst. 4 směrnice o stanovištích 92/43/EHC ( [1] ). Tuto věc již rovněž
zdůraznilo několik stěžovatelů a Komise zahájila v červenci roku 2011 šetření, aby toto posouzení objasnila.

Slovenské orgány se zavázaly provést nové řádné posouzení v rámci Natury 2000, zcela v souladu s právními
předpisy EU. Najaly nezávislého odborníka a přijaly příslušný harmonogram. Závěry by měly být podrobeny veřejné
konzultaci. Výsledky nového posouzení by měly být předány Komisi v červnu roku 2012.

Hlavní projekt ovšem Komisi k financování předložen ještě nebyl. Jakmile se tak stane, bude důkladně přezkoumán
jeho soulad s dalšími politikami Společenství i jeho možný dopad na životní prostředí, jak stanoví článek 41 nařízení
Rady 1083/2006 ( [2] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Úř. věst. L 206, 22.7.1992.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Úř. věst. L 210, 31.7.2006.

C 96 E / 112 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001285/12**

**to the Commission**

**Pavel Poc (S&D)**
_(10 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Ensuring compliance with the requirements of the Habitats Directive

The Government of the Slovak Republic is in the process of planning the construction of the Turany-Hubová section
of the D1 motorway (part of the TEN‐T network). Construction of this section of the D1 motorway could have
significant negative impacts on several Natura 2000 sites.

However, the Slovak authorities have failed to carry out an appropriate assessment that fulfils the requirements of
Articles 6(3) and 6(4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (Habitats Directive).

What steps is the Commission taking to ensure that the Slovak authorities comply with their obligations under
Article 6 of the Habitats Directive?

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

_(22 March 2012)_

The Commission identified deficiencies in the approval process of the D1 Turany — Hubová motorway section as
early as 2009. The motorway design crosses or touches 3 Natura 2000 sites: Malá Fatra mountains, Veľká Fatra
mountains and the Váh river. EU legislation is designed to ensure that infrastructure developments are carried out in a
way that pays full attention to environmental concerns. Attention in this case has focused mainly on the need for an
Appropriate Assessment under Article 6.3 and 6.4 of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC ( [1] ). This has also been
highlighted by several complainants and the Commission has sought clarification about this assessment through an
investigation opened in July 2011.

The Slovak authorities have committed themselves to proceed with a new Natura 2000 Appropriate Assessment fully
in compliance with the EU legislation. They have contracted an independent expert and adopted a timeline for the
assessment. The conclusions should be subject to public consultation. The results of the new assessment should be
made available to the Commission in June 2012.

In any case the major project in question has not yet been submitted to the Commission for financing. Once
submitted, the project will be scrutinised as regards its consistency with other Community policies, including its
potential impact on the environment, as stipulated by Article 41 of Council Regulation 1083/2006 ( [2] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 210, 31.7.2006.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 113

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-001288/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(13 de febrero de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Pregunta complementaria sobre la reintroducción de la foca monje Monachus monachus (Directiva
92/43/CEE) en el Parque Natural marítimo-terrestre del Cap de Creus

En su respuesta, la CE dice que «la Comisión anima al Estado español y el Estado francés a colaborar para el éxito de la
reintroducción de la foca monje, puesto que el Parque Natural del Cabo de Creus se encuentra muy cercano a Francia».

Este punto puede resolverse en breve, gracias a que el Estado francés ha iniciado, por medio del _Observatoire_
_Océanologique_ de Banyuls, _Laboratoire Arago_ (CNRS), el proyecto de unir y ampliar la _Réserve Naturelle Marine_ de
Cerbère‐Banyuls con el Parque Natural Marítimo-Terrestre del Cap de Creus.

Para ello, dentro de los términos municipales siguientes: norte del término de la población de Port de la Selva, término
de Llançà, término de Colera y término de Portbou debería iniciarse el establecimiento de una reserva marina, ya que
este tramo de costa, una vez protegido, uniría la Reserva marina de Cerbère-Banyuls ampliada con el Parque Natural
Marítimo del Cap de Creus, bajo una única figura de protección de reserva marina, en coordinación entre el Estado
francés, por medio de las instituciones mencionadas, y el español, por medio del _Departament d’Agricultura, Ramaderia,_
_Pesca, Alimentació i Medi Natural_, dependiente de la Generalitat de Catalunya. De este modo, las focas monje siempre se
moverían en aguas de esta gran reserva marina transfronteriza, que velaría por el buen desarrollo de esta especie,
controlando los factores que podrían dificultar su asentamiento, como el control de la posible mortalidad de adultos y
juveniles por muerte intencionada o por interacción humana; el control y la eliminación de la mortalidad causada por
aparejos de pesca sobre focas juveniles; y la falta de presas como resultado de la sobrepesca o de la reducción de la
fecundación por depresión genética.

A la luz de lo anterior,

¿Piensa la Comisión que debería impulsar y facilitar las reuniones pertinentes necesarias entre el Estado francés, por
medio del _Observatoire Océanologique_ de Banyuls, _Laboratoire Arago_ (CNRS), dependiente de la _Université Pierre et Marie_
_Curie_ (París) y el Estado español, por medio del _Departament d’Agricultura, Ramaderia, Pesca, Alimentació i Medi Natural_,
para establecer una única gran reserva marina transfronteriza con la consiguiente creación de nuevas reservas marinas
en el punto de costa intermedio entre los dos espacios protegidos mencionados, con la finalidad de unir las dos
reservas marinas?

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

_(28 de marzo de 2012)_

Como se indica en su respuesta a la pregunta escrita E-10827/2011 ( [1] ), la Comisión desea fomentar la cooperación
entre España y Francia para aumentar las posibilidades de éxito de cualquier medida de conservación relacionada con
la reintroducción de la foca monje. La mejor manera de hacerlo incumbe principalmente a los países interesados.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2011-010827&language=ES.

C 96 E / 114 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001288/12**

**to the Commission**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(13 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Supplementary question on the re-introduction of the monk seal Monachus monachus (Directive 92/43/EEC)
at the Cap de Creus maritime-terrestrial natural park

In its answer, the Commission states that ‘given the fact that the re-introduction area is very close to France, the
Commission would encourage cooperation between Spain and France to increase the success of any conservation
action’.

This issue can be resolved shortly, because France, through the Observatoire Océanologique in Banyuls and the
Laboratoire Arago (CNRS), has gone ahead with plans to expand the Cerbère‐Banyuls marine nature reserve and to
join it with the Cap de Creus natural park.

To this end, the establishment of a marine reserve should begin in the following municipal districts: north of the
district of the Port de la Selva community, the district of Llançà, the district of Colera and the district of Portbrou,
since this section of coast, once protected, would join the expanded Cerbère-Banyuls marine reserve with the Cap de
Creus natural park. It would fall under a single marine reserve protection status, coordinated by France, through the
institutions mentioned above, and Spain, through the Department of Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries, Food, and the
Natural Environment of the Autonomous Government of Catalonia. Thus, the monk seals would at all times be in the
waters of this large cross-border marine reserve, which would safeguard the proper develo pment of the species,
monitoring any factors that could make its establishment difficult — for example, monitoring the possible mortality
of adults and juveniles as a result of intentional killing or human interaction; monitoring and eliminating mortality
among juvenile seals caused by fishing tackle, and the lack of prey caused by overfishing or reduced fertility because
of declining genetic diversity.

Does the Commission think that it should foster and facilitate the relevant meetings between France, through the
Observatoire Océanologique in Banyuls and the Laboratoire Arago (CNRS), which is part of the Université Pierre et
Marie Curie in Paris, and Spain, through the Department of Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries, Food and the Natural
Environment, in order to establish a single large cross-border marine reserve, resulting in the creation of new marine
reserves along the coastline between the two protected areas mentioned above, for the purpose of joining the two
marine reserves?

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

_(28 March 2012)_

As stated in its answer to Written Question E‐10827/2011 ( [1] ), the Commission would encourage cooperation between
Spain and France to increase the success of any conservation action regarding the re-introduction of the monk seal. The
best method of doing so is the primary responsibility of the countries concerned.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E‐2011-010827&language=EN.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 115

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-001289/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL)**

_(10 Φεβρουαρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Μετανάστες και πρόσφυγες πνιγμένοι στη Μεσόγειο το 2011

Περισσότεροι από 1 500 μετανάστες και πρόσφυγες πνίγηκαν ή εξαφανίστηκαν το 2011 προσπαθώντας να διασχίσουν τη
Μεσόγειο. Η UNHCR που συγκεντρώνει στοιχεία από το 2006, κάνει λόγο για αριθμό ρεκόρ. Είναι φανερό ότι το αυξημένο
ρεύμα μεταναστών το 2011 συνδέεται άμεσα με τον πόλεμο του ΝΑΤΟ στη Λιβύη, με σειρά επεμβάσεων στη Βόρεια Αφρική
αλλά και με τους πολέμους σε Ιράκ και Αφγανιστάν. Είναι συνέπεια των πολιτικών των καπιταλιστών στις χώρες αυτές και των
επιλογών της Ένωσης για τη Μεσόγειο και της Πολιτικής Γειτνίασης της ΕΕ γιατί όλες υπηρετούν το κέρδος ενώ οξύνουν τη
φτώχεια και την εξαθλίωση των λαών.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή εάν επιβεβαιώνει τα στοιχεία της UNCHR για τη μετανάστευση στη Μεσόγειο και εάν αναγνωρίζει το
δικαίωμα των λαών της Βόρειας Αφρικής να χαράξουν μια ανάπτυξη προς όφελός τους, αντίθετη με τις επιλογές του μεγάλου
κεφαλαίου, ώστε να μη χρειάζεται να μεταναστεύουν με κίνδυνο ακόμα και τη ζωή τους.

**Απάντηση της κας Malmström εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(20 Μαρτίου 2012)_

Η Επιτροπή γνωρίζει τα άκρως ανησυχητικά στοιχεία που έχει εκδώσει η UNHCR.

Ως απάντηση στα ιστορικά γεγονότα που διαδραματίστηκαν στις γειτονικές χώρες της Βόρειας Αφρικής, η Επιτροπή και η
Υπηρεσία Εξωτερικής Δράσης πρότειναν τη δημιουργία εταιρικής σχέσης για τη δημοκρατία και την κοινή ευημερία με όλους
τους γείτονες στα νότια της ΕΕ που επιθυμούν να προχωρήσουν σε πιο γρήγορες και πιο φιλόδοξες πολιτικές και οικονομικές
μεταρρυθμίσεις. Εκτός από την άμεση ανταπόκριση της ΕΕ όσον αφορά την ανθρωπιστική βοήθεια (30 εκατομμύρια ευρώ),
αυτή η εταιρική σχέση αποσκοπεί, μεταξύ άλλων, στην προώθηση της δημοκρατίας και στη δημιουργία θεσμών, καθώς και
στην οικονομική ανάπτυξη, τις επαφές μεταξύ των λαών και την κινητικότητα.

Συνεπώς, η προσέγγιση που ακολούθησε η ΕΕ έχει σκοπό να τοποθετήσει τους λαούς στο επίκεντρο των πολιτικών αυτών και
να διασφαλίσει ότι οι δημοκρατικές επιδιώξεις της Βόρειας Αφρικής θα παγιωθούν μέσα από τη στενότερη συνεργασία της ΕΕ
με τους γείτονές της στη Νότια Μεσόγειο.

C 96 E / 116 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001289/12**

**to the Commission**
**Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL)**

_(10 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Immigrants and refugees drowned in the Mediterranean in 2011

More than 1 500 immigrants and refugees drowned or disappeared in 2011 trying to cross the Mediterranean.
According to the UNHCR, which has been gathering data since 2006, this is a record. It is obvious that the increased
flow of immigrants in 2011 is directly linked to NATO’s war in Libya, a series of operations in North Africa and the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a consequence of the capitalist policies of these countries, the choices made by the
Union for the Mediterranean and the EU Neighbourhood Policy, all of them seeking profit while exacerbating
everyday poverty and misery.

Can the Commission confirm the UNCHR’s data regarding immigration in the Mediterranean and does it recognise
the right of the people of North Africa to steer a development course serving their own interests rather than those of
big business, so that they no longer need to risk their lives attempting to migrate?

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

_(20 March 2012)_

The Commission is aware of the alarming and worrying figures published by the UNHCR.

In response to the historic events in North Africa neighbouring countries, the Commission and the External Action
Service proposed a Partnership for Democracy and Shared Prosperity with all the EU Southern Neighbours willing to
embark on faster and more ambitious political and economic reforms. Apart from the EU's immediate response in
terms of humanitarian aid (EUR 30 million), this Partnership aims, among other objectives, at promoting democracy
and institution building, inclusive economic development, people-to-people contacts and mobility.

The approach followed by the EU therefore aims at placing the people at the centre of these policies and at ensuring
that the democratic aspirations of North African societies are further consolidated through a closer cooperation
between the EU and its Southern Mediterranean neighbours.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 117

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001290/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Matteo Salvini (EFD)**

_(3 febbraio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Cascina Linterno come candidato all'etichetta del patrimonio europeo

Il Parlamento europeo ha recentemente creato l'etichetta del patrimonio europeo, una sorta di marchio del
patrimonio culturale europeo che spetterà ai siti più meritevoli dell'Unione, al fine di rafforzare lo spirito comunitario
tra i giovani e al contempo promuovere un turismo di qualità.

Sono in pochi a sapere che la città di Milano, nello specifico Cascina Linterno, ospita un complesso architettonico
risalente alla prima metà dell'800 dove il sommo poeta Francesco Petrarca soggiornò tra il 1353 e il 1361, periodo in
cui scrisse, proprio in quel luogo, alcuni dei suoi capolavori più conosciuti.

È necessario rammentare che tutta la vita del Petrarca si è svolta in ambito europeo e che egli rappresenta il padre
dell'Umanesimo, ovvero le radici della cultura europea.

Inoltre l'edificio si conferma come una delle testimonianze dell'architettura rurale e, dunque, dell'avvento della civiltà
industriale che ha costituito una delle principali risorse dello sviluppo economico europeo.

In vista del termine di presentazione delle candidature, potrebbe la Commissione far sapere quali saranno le
tempistiche e i criteri su cui si baserà il processo di selezione dei siti?

**Risposta data da Androulla Vassiliou a nome della Commissione**

_(20 marzo 2012)_

La Commissione desidera ringraziare l'onorevole deputato per l'interesse che manifesta per l'etichetta del patrimonio
europeo. La procedura per la selezione dei siti che si fregeranno della nuova etichetta avverrà in due fasi. I siti saranno
inizialmente preselezionati a livello nazionale sulla base dei criteri comuni stabiliti nella decisione 1194/2011/CE.
Ciascuno Stato membro stabilirà le proprie procedure e le proprie scadenze conformemente al principio di
sussidiarietà. La selezione finale avverrà a livello di Unione europea e sarà fatta con l'aiuto di un panel di esperti
europei indipendenti.

Informazioni dettagliate sui criteri e sulle procedure che si applicano all'etichetta del patrimonio europeo sono
disponibili sul pertinente sito web della Commissione ( [1] ). L'elenco dei referenti presso i Ministeri nazionali sarà
pubblicato anch'esso sullo stesso sito prevedibilmente entro il giugno 2012.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/culture/our-programmes-and-actions/label/european-heritage-label_en.htm

C 96 E / 118 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001290/12**

**to the Commission**
**Matteo Salvini (EFD)**

_(3 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Cascina Linterno as a potential recipient of the European heritage label

The European Parliament recently created the European heritage label, which is a type of European cultural heritage
label that will be awarded to the most deserving sites within the European Union, as a means of strengthening
Community spirit among young people and, at the same time, promoting quality tourism.

Few people know that the city of Milan, and more specifically Cascina Linterno, is home to an architectural complex,
dating back to the first half of the nineteenth century, where the outstanding poet Francesco Petrarch lived between
1353 and 1361 — a period in which he wrote, in that very place, some of his best-known masterpieces.

It should be recalled that Petrarch spent his entire life in Europe and that he is considered the ‘Father of Humanism’ or,
in other words, the roots of European culture.

The building has also been classified a prime example of rural architecture, and hence as an example of the rise of the
industrial civilisation that constituted one of the main sources of European economic development.

In view of the deadline for submitting applications, could the Commission say what the time frame will be and on
what criteria the site selection process will be based?

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

_(20 March 2012)_

The Commission would like to thank the Honourable Member for his interest in the European Heritage Label. The
procedure for the selection of sites for the new Label will be carried out in two stages. Sites will initially be pre-selected
at national level on the basis of the common criteria laid down in Decision 1194/2011/EC. Each Member State will
establish its own procedures and timetable in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. The final selection will
then take place at European Union level and will be carried out with the help of a panel of independent European
experts.

Detailed information about the criteria and procedures for the European Heritage Label is available on the relevant
Commission website ( [1] ). The list of contact persons in the national Ministries will also be published on the same
website, with an expected timing of June 2012.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/culture/our-programmes-and-actions/label/european-heritage-label_en.htm

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 119

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-001291/12**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(10 février 2012)_

_Objet:_ Les pesticides au cœur d'un marché illégal florissant

Europol constate une progression du commerce de pesticides illégaux et contrefaits. Fabriqués en Europe de l'Est et en
Asie, ces produits frauduleux rapporteraient des milliards d'euros par an au crime organisé. Le ratio exceptionnel
«risque faible/profit élevé», combiné au manque d'harmonisation de la législation et de la mise en œuvre des contrôles,
fait du commerce des engrais illégaux un secteur d'activité de plus en plus lucratif pour le crime organisé. Si l'Europe
semble être touchée dans son ensemble, l'Europe du Nord-Est est particulièrement ciblée par les réseaux criminels.

Plus de 25 % des pesticides en circulation dans certains États membres de l'UE proviendraient ainsi de ce marché
illégal! La responsabilité des agriculteurs est également engagée dans la mesure où certains préfèrent une substance à
moindre coût mais à l'origine douteuse, renvoyant aux firmes phytosanitaires l'argument du prix trop élevé de leurs
produits.

Europol souligne que ces substances représentent un risque potentiel majeur pour la santé des agriculteurs et des
consommateurs ainsi qu'un risque avéré pour l'environnement, ajoutant qu'elles peuvent aussi, du fait d'un manque
de traçabilité, être détournées à des fins terroristes. On en veut pour preuve qu'en mai 2011, deux cargaisons de
plusieurs tonnes de pesticides illégaux, interceptées en Europe de l'Est, contenaient des substances interdites dans l'UE,
identifiées comme étant des perturbateurs endocriniens.

L'Office européen de police précise que ces criminels ont développé un réseau mondial complexe de fourniture
d'engrais illégaux et contrefaits et exploitent des compagnies légales pour camoufler leurs activités.

Europol et les experts nationaux ont donc élaboré une série de recommandations, concernant notamment les
enquêtes transfrontalières et la réalisation d'une étude sur la traçabilité des matières dangereuses utilisées pour la
fabrication illégale de pesticides.

Dans ces conditions, la Commission est invitée à répondre aux questions suivantes:

—
Est-elle informée de l'ampleur de ce trafic et des conséquences qui en découlent?

—
Ne faudrait‐il pas, au plus vite, harmoniser la législation ainsi que sa mise en œuvre, organiser une coopération
plus étroite entre les forces de l'ordre et les associations de défense de l'environnement, les autorités de
régulation des pesticides, les agences gouvernementales et les entreprises privées afin de mieux répondre aux
menaces de santé publique?

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

_(22 mars 2012)_

La Commission invite l'auteur de la question à se référer à ses réponses aux questions écrites E-00554/2012,
E-00655/2012 et E-01175/2012 ( [1] ).

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

C 96 E / 120 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001291/12**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(10 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Booming illegal market in pesticides

Europol has identified a growing trade in illegal and counterfeit pesticides. Fake products manufactured in eastern
Europe and Asia are believed to bring in billions of euros every year for criminal networks. Thanks to an exceptional
‘low risk-high profit’ ratio, combined with a lack of harmonisation in terms of legislation and monitoring, trade in
illegal fertilisers is becoming an increasingly lucrative sector for criminal networks. While the whole of Europe
appears to be affected, criminal networks are targeting north-eastern Europe in particular.

More than 25 % of the pesticides in circulation in some Member States are thought to originate from this illegal
market. Farmers also bear some responsibility, insofar as some of them prefer to purchase cheaper substances of
dubious origin on the grounds that plant health companies charge too much for their products.

Europol stresses that, as well as posing an obvious risk to the environment, such substances may seriously endanger
the health of farmers and consumers; they may also be misused for terrorist purposes on account of their lack of
traceability. For example, in May 2011 two multi-tonne shipments of illegal pesticides intercepted in eastern Europe
contained substances banned in the EU for their endocrine-disruptive properties.

According to Europol, criminals have developed a complex global supply chain for illegal and counterfeit pesticides,
exploiting legal companies in order to camouflage their activities.

Europol and national experts have therefore drawn up a series of recommendations, including cross-border
investigations and a study on the traceability of hazardous materials used in the illegal production of pesticides.

In the light of the above, can the Commission answer the following questions:

—
Is it aware of the scale and impact of such trafficking?

—
Does it not agree that the relevant legislation — and its implementation — should be harmonised as soon as
possible, and that there should be closer cooperation among law enforcement authorities, environmental
protection associations, pesticide regulatory authorities, government agencies and private companies, in order
to address the ensuing threats to public health as effectively as possible?

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

_(22 March 2012)_

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Questions E‐00554/2012,
E-00655/2012 and E‐01175/2012 ( [1] ).

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

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 121

_(Tekstas lietuvių kalba)_

**Klausimas, į kurį atsakoma raštu, Nr. E-001292/12**

**Komisijai**
**Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D)**

_(2012 m. vasario 10 d.)_

_Tema:_ Geležinkelių infrastruktūros valdytojų ir operatorių atskyrimas ir Baltijos valstybių geležinkelių sektoriaus
specifika

Europos Komisija turėtų ne vėliau kaip 2012 m. pabaigoje pateikti teisėkūros pasiūlymą dėl geležinkelių
infrastruktūros valdytojų ir operatorių atskyrimo, taip pat dėl rinkos atvėrimo.

Lietuvos ir visų Baltijos valstybių geležinkeliai iš esmės skiriasi nuo kitų Europos Sąjungos šalių geležinkelių. Baltijos
valstybėse veikiantis 1520 mm vėžės geležinkelių tinklas technologiškai integruotas į NVS ir Baltijos šalių bendrą
geležinkelių sistemą.

Europos Komisijos pasiūlymai dėl geležinkelių infrastruktūros valdytojų ir operatorių atskyrimo turi būti pagrįsti
išsamia studija. Manau, jog turi būti atlikta ir išsami Baltijos valstybių geležinkelių transporto sektoriaus analizė.

Ar Komisija, rengdama siūlymus dėl geležinkelių infrastruktūros valdytojų ir vežėjų atskyrimo, yra numačiusi
analizuoti Baltijos valstybių 1520 mm vėžės geležinkelių tinklo specifiką (kur dominuoja trečiųjų šalių krovinių
vežimo veikla, krovinių ir keleivių tranzitas iš trečiųjų šalių ir į jas, glaudi technologinė sąsaja su NVS šalių
geležinkeliais, aukštas krovinių vežimo efektyvumas, minimalios valstybės dotacijos geležinkeliams, didelė
geležinkelių dalis krovinių vežimo rinkoje ir kt.) ir įvertinti siūlomų priemonių poveikį Baltijos valstybių geležinkelių
transporto sektoriui ir jo keleivių ir krovinių vežimo veiklos efektyvumui?

**S. Kallaso atsakymas Komisijos vardu**

_(2012 m. kovo 13 d.)_

Komisija pranešė, kad iki 2012 m. pabaigos ji pateiks pasiūlymus dėl teisės aktų, kuriais bus siekiama labiau atskirti
infrastruktūrą ir geležinkelio įmones ir atverti keleivių vežimo vidaus rinką. Siekiant įvertinti tokių priemonių poveikį
valstybių narių geležinkelių transporto sistemoms pradėtas poveikio vertinimas. Šis vertinimas, žinoma, bus susijęs ir
su Baltijos valstybėmis.

Tačiau Komisija nemano, kad, palyginti su kitomis ES valstybėmis narėmis, Baltijos valstybėse yra esminių
geležinkelių transporto sektoriaus organizacinės struktūros skirtumų. Visų pirma, tai, kad skiriasi Baltijos valstybių
geležinkelių transporto sistemoje naudojamos vėžės plotis, nėra susiję su geležinkelio įmonių ir infrastruktūros
valdytojų organizacine struktūra. Vėžės plotis yra techninis klausimas, o atskyrimo reikalavimų tikslas – užtikrinti
nediskriminavimo principu grindžiamas prieigos sąlygas.

Kiti pateikiant klausimą nurodyti veiksniai bus vertinami tik jei bus susiję su atskyrimo klausimu. Tačiau pasakytina,
kad geležinkelių transporto ekonominės sąlygos Baltijos šalyse labai skiriasi. Kitaip nei kitose Baltijos valstybėse,
Lietuvos rinkoje praktiškai nėra jokios konkurencijos keleivių ir krovinių vežimo paslaugų srityje. Remiantis
Eurostato duomenimis, pastaraisiais metais Lietuvoje geležinkeliais pervežama vis mažesnė keleivių ir krovinių
dalis ( [1] ). 2011 m. kovo mėn. Baltojoje knygoje išdėstytoje Komisijos politikoje numatyta priemonių, skirtų skatinti
geležinkelių transporto patrauklumą ir didinti vežimo geležinkeliais dalį. Pasiūlymuose, kurie bus pateikti 2012 m.
pabaigoje, konkrečiomis priemonėmis bus siekiama spręsti šį geležinkelių transporto dalies sumažėjimo klausimą ir
paskatinti klientus – keleivius ir krovinių vežėjus – naudotis geležinkelių transporto paslaugomis.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) pagal transporto rūšių pasiskirstymą vežimas geležinkeliu sumažėjo nuo 2,5 proc. 2002 m. iki 1 proc. 2008 m.

C 96 E / 122 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001292/12**

**to the Commission**
**Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D)**

_(10 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ The unbundling of rail infrastructure owners and operators and the specific characteristics of the rail sector in
the Baltic States

The European Commission should, by the end of 2012 at the latest, submit a legislative proposal on the unbundling
of rail infrastructure owners and operators, as well as on the opening up of the market.

The railways of Lithuania and of all the Baltic States are fundamentally different from those of other European Union
Member States. The 1 520 mm gauge network that exists in the Baltic States is technologically integrated into the
common rail system of the countries of the CIS and the Baltic.

The European Commission’s proposals on the unbundling of rail infrastructure owners and operators should be
based on a detailed study. I believe that a detailed analysis of the rail transport sector in the Baltic States should also be
carried out.

In drafting proposals on the unbundling of rail infrastructure managers and carriers, has the Commission provided
for an analysis of the specific characteristics of the Baltic States’ 1 520 mm gauge rail network (dominated by the
freight operations of third countries, freight and passenger transit to and from third countries, close technological
links with the railways of the CIS countries, highly efficient freight operations, minimum government grants to the
railways, the large share of the railways in the freight market, etc) and an assessment of the impact of the proposed
measures on the rail transport sector in the Baltic States and the efficiency of its passenger and freight operations?

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

_(13 March 2012)_

The Commission has announced it will submit legislative proposals by the end of 2012 with a view to a further
separation of infrastructure and railway undertakings and domestic passenger market opening. An impact assessment
study has been launched in order to assess the impact of such measures on the railway systems in the Member States.
This assessment will of course also concern the Baltic States.

However the Commission does not think that there are fundamental differences in the Baltic States in comparison to
the rest of the EU as far as the issue of the organisational structure of the rail sector is concerned. In particular the fact
that the Baltic states have a different gauge width in their network does not seem to have any relation with the
organisational structure of railway undertaking and infrastructure managers. The gauge width is a technical issue,
while the separation requirements have the objective to guarantee non-discriminatory access conditions.

The other factors mentioned in the question will be assessed, as far as they have any bearing on the issue of
separation. However it is also true that the economic conditions of rail transport are very different between the Baltic
countries. Unlike in other Baltic states, there is practically no competition in the Lithuanian market, neither in freight
nor in passenger traffic. According to Eurostat, the share of rail in Lithuania has declined in both freight and
passenger transport in recent years ( [1] ). The Commission's policy, as set out in its White Paper of March 2011, includes
policies to increase the attractiveness of rail transport and increase its modal share. The specific measures to be
presented in the proposals at the end of 2012 seek to redress this fall off in rail share and to attract customers, both
passenger and freight, to rail.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) The modal split fell from 2.5 % in 2002 to just 1 % in 2008.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 123

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001294/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Claudio Morganti (EFD)**

_(9 febbraio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Responsabilità civile dei magistrati

In Italia si sta discutendo dell'introduzione di modifiche alla legge n. 117 del 1988 riguardante il risarcimento dei
danni cagionati nell'esercizio delle funzioni giudiziarie e la responsabilità civile dei magistrati. Proprio quest'ultimo
punto è quello maggiormente dibattuto, in quanto ad oggi la responsabilità civile dei magistrati è sostanzialmente
negata dall'ordinamento italiano: un cittadino ingiustamente danneggiato può infatti rivalersi esclusivamente nei
confronti dello Stato, il quale a sua volta ha minimi poteri d'azione (che comunque non utilizza) nei confronti del
magistrato che ha sbagliato.

La legge n. 117/1988 è stata inoltre già oggetto di una recente sentenza della Corte di giustizia dell'Unione europea
(24 novembre 2011, causa C-379/10), che ha condannato la Repubblica Italiana per essere venuta meno agli obblighi
ad essa incombenti in forza del principio generale della responsabilità degli Stati membri per violazione del diritto
dell'Unione da parte di uno dei loro organi giurisdizionali di ultimo grado.

Alla luce delle differenti problematiche connesse alla legislazione italiana in materia, può la Commissione indicare
quale sia la sua posizione nei confronti della responsabilità civile dei magistrati e quale sia la situazione al riguardo
negli altri Stati membri?

**Risposta data da José Manuel Barroso a nome della Commissione**

_(23 marzo 2012)_

Nelle sentenze Köbler ( [1] ) e Traghetti del Mediterraneo ( [2] ) la Corte di giustizia ha definito le condizioni a cui uno Stato
membro può essere ritenuto responsabile per danni arrecati ai singoli a seguito di violazioni del diritto dell'Unione da
parte di un organo giurisdizionale. La Commissione non ha finora avviato procedure d'infrazione nei confronti di altri
Stati membri a tale riguardo.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Causa C-224/01, Racc. 2003, pag. I‐10239.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Causa C-173/03, Racc. 2006, pag. I-5177.

C 96 E / 124 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001294/12**

**to the Commission**
**Claudio Morganti (EFD)**

_(9 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Civil liability of magistrates

The introduction of amendments to Law No 117 of 1988 regarding compensation for damage caused in the
discharge of judicial duties and the civil liability of magistrates is currently under discussion in Italy. The latter point is
the most debated, due to the fact that to the civil liability of magistrates has hitherto been substantially negated by
Italian law: a person who has suffered unfair damage may in fact seek compensation only from the State, which in
turn has minimum powers of action (which in any case it does not use) in relation to the magistrate who has made an

error.

Law No 117/1988 was also the subject of a recent judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union
(24 November 2011, Case C‐379/10), which condemned the Italian Republic for its failure to fulfil its obligations, as
provided by the general principle of EU Member State liability for violation of EC law by one of its courts of last
instance.

In light of the various problems raised by Italian legislation on the subject, can the Commission indicate its position
with regard to the civil liability of magistrates and state what the situation is in this respect in the other Member
States?

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

_(23 March 2012)_

The Court of Justice has defined in its _Köbler (_ [1] _)_ and _Traghetti del Mediterraneo (_ [2] _)_ judgments the conditions under which
a Member State may be held liable for the damages caused to individuals as a result of breaches of Union law by the
judiciary. So far, the Commission has not opened infringement proceedings concerning this matter against other
Member States.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) C‐224/01 [2003] ECR I‐10239.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) C-173/03 [2006] Rec. p. I‐5177.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 125

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001295/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Nicole Sinclaire (NI)**

_(10 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Iranian Ministry for the Interior

Following the contested Iranian elections in 2009, for which there is clear evidence of fraud, demonstrations took
place in which armed police killed at least 36 people.

Journalists were arrested and subjected to violence by police officers.

Elections and policing are the responsibility of the Iranian Ministry for the Interior.

Could the Vice-President/High Representative tell me how much funding the EU provided to the Iranian Ministry for
the Interior over the 10-year period from 2001 to 2011?

Could she advise me of any other funding that has been given to Iranian Government agencies?

Could she also advise me of any such funding planned for 2012 and beyond?

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

_(17 April 2012)_

EU cooperation activities in Iran are extremely limited, for obvious reasons. The current portfolio of EU cooperation
with Iran amounts to EUR 2.5 million in funding for 10 projects. The sources of funding are thematic programmes in
the fields of democracy and human rights (EIDHR) and non‐state actors (DCI-NSA). Supported actions aim at
promoting empowerment of vulnerable people and supporting community based development. Beneficiaries of
grants are international and local NGOs.

The EU has provided no funding to the Ministry for the Interior in the period to which the Honourable
Parliamentarian refers, nor is any such funding planned for 2012. The EU’s serious concerns over Iran’s nuclear
programme and the extremely poor human rights situation have severely impaired prospects for EU cooperation with
the Iranian government.

C 96 E / 126 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001296/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D) e Francesca Balzani (S&D)**

_(10 febbraio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Fondo di solidarietà per l'alluvione in Liguria e Toscana

A seguito della violentissima alluvione che ha colpito le provincie di La Spezia e Massa e Carrara nel mese di ottobre
2011 e considerando il drammatico impatto dell'alluvione sul territorio, gli ingentissimi danni alle infrastrutture, alle
comunicazioni e ai centri abitati, nonché le profonde e durevoli ripercussioni sulle condizioni di vita e sulla stabilità
economica della regione, le autorità italiane hanno presentato alla Commissione europea, entro il termine prestabilito
di dieci settimane, la richiesta di attivazione del Fondo di solidarietà dell'Unione europea.

I danni stimati degli eventi alluvionali ammontano a oltre 700 milioni di euro, di cui 560 nella sola Liguria.

Considerando che l'alluvione ha colpito in Liguria anche siti di grandissimo interesse culturale, e in particolare i
territori delle Cinque Terre;

considerando che la zona delle Cinque Terre è tra i siti dichiarati Patrimonio mondiale dell'umanità dall'Unesco e
rappresenta uno straordinario esempio d'interazione tra società umana e natura, in grado di produrre un ambiente
unico, costruito in centinaia e migliaia di anni di lavoro umano e che conserva un importante ruolo socio-economico
nella vita delle comunità;

considerando che si tratta di uno dei pochi siti europei iscritti nell'elenco del Patrimonio mondiale dell'umanità
dell'Unesco come «paesaggio culturale»;

considerando che i siti colpiti nelle Cinque Terre necessitano di ingentissime opere di recupero e di interventi
significativi e particolarmente costosi per la piena restituzione al loro splendore originario;

considerando che i danni dell'alluvione causeranno una lunga e pesante sospensione del turismo nell'area in
questione, con conseguenti gravi ripercussioni sull'economia locale, e in particolare sull'agricoltura basata su mezzi e
procedimenti tradizionali;

ritiene la Commissione che il Fondo di solidarietà dell'Unione europea possa essere attivato a seguito della domanda
presentata dalle autorità italiane?

Ritiene inoltre la Commissione che, per le ragioni succitate e dato il particolare valore e interesse culturale delle zone
colpite, ci sia la possibilità di un aiuto superiore alla quota del 2,5 % per l'area della Liguria colpita dall'alluvione?

**Risposta data da Johannes Hahn a nome della Commissione**

_(21 marzo 2012)_

La domanda italiana a seguito delle alluvioni in Liguria e Toscana è stata presentata alla Commissione il 22 dicembre
2011, ben prima della scadenza per la presentazione. La Commissione ha completato la propria valutazione della
richiesta e ha deciso, il 15 marzo 2012, di proporre l'erogazione di un aiuto, a titolo del Fondo di solidarietà, pari a un
importo di 16,9 milioni di euro.

La catastrofe ha in effetti provocato seri danni con conseguenze gravi per le aree colpite, come descritto dagli
onorevoli deputati. Tuttavia, il danno diretto complessivo provocato dalla catastrofe, pari a 722 milioni di euro, è
notevolmente inferiore rispetto alla soglia normale che si applica all'Italia, vale a dire 3,536 miliardi di euro, a partire
dalla quale è possibile attivare il Fondo di solidarietà dell'UE. La Commissione propone pertanto di attivare il fondo
sulla base dei criteri eccezionali che entrano in gioco in caso di «catastrofi regionali straordinarie». L'aiuto può essere
versato una volta che il Parlamento europeo e il Consiglio abbiano approvato il corrispondente bilancio rettificativo e
che sia stato concluso con l'Italia un accordo di attuazione.

Per quanto concerne il tasso dell'aiuto, la Commissione desidera informare gli onorevoli deputati che, per motivi di
parità di trattamento e in considerazione della disponibilità di fondi, non è possibile scostarsi dal normale tasso di
aiuto.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 127

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001296/12**

**to the Commission**
**Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D) and Francesca Balzani (S&D)**

_(10 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Solidarity Fund and floods in Liguria and Tuscany (Italy)

Following the extremely heavy flooding that hit the Italian provinces of La Spezia and Massa-Carrara in
October 2011, and given the dramatic impact of the floods throughout the region, the huge damage to infrastructure,
communications and built-up areas, and the deep and lasting repercussions for living conditions and economic
stability in the region, the Italian authorities have submitted to the Commission, within the regulation ten-week timelimit, a request to activate the EU Solidarity Fund.

The damage caused by these floods is estimated to be in excess of EUR 700 million (EUR 560 million in Liguria
alone).

In Liguria, the floods also hit locations of great cultural interest, particularly the Cinque Terre area.

The Cinque Terre area has been declared a World Heritage Site by Unesco, and constitutes an extraordinary example
of interaction between human society and nature, capable of producing a unique environment, built over hundreds
and thousands of years of human work, which plays an important socioeconomic role in community life.

It is also one of the few European sites registered on the Unesco World Heritage Site list as a ‘cultural landscape’.

The affected sites in Cinque Terre will require large-scale restoration and significant and costly intervention if they are
to fully recover their original splendour.

The flood damage will lead to a long and difficult suspension of tourism in the area, with severe effects on the local
economy, and, in particular, on an agriculture based on traditional methods and processes.

Given the above, does the Commission believe that the EU Solidarity Fund could be activated following the request
put forward by the Italian authorities?

In addition, does the Commission consider, for the reasons mentioned above and given the particular value and
cultural interest of the affected areas, that there is a possibility of providing more aid than the 2.5 % allocated to the
part of Liguria affected by the flooding?

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

_(21 March 2012)_

The Italian application regarding the flooding disaster in Liguria and Tuscany was submitted to the Commission on
22 December 2011, well ahead of the application deadline. The Commission has completed its assessment of the
application and decided on 15 March 2012 to propose granting Solidarity Fund aid amounting to EUR 16.9 million.

The disaster has indeed caused severe damage with serious consequences on the affected area, as described by the
Honourable Members. However, the overall direct damage caused by the disaster of EUR 722 million is considerably
lower than the normal threshold for activating the EU Solidarity Fund applicable to Italy, i.e. EUR 3.536 billion. The
Commission is therefore proposing to activate the Fund on the basis of the exceptional criteria for so-called
‘extraordinary regional disasters’. The aid can be paid out once the European Parliament and the Council have
approved the corresponding amending budget and an Implementation Agreement has been concluded with Italy.

Concerning the aid rate, the Commission would like to inform the Honourable Members that, for reasons of equal
treatment and availability of funds, it is not possible to deviate from the normal aid rate.

C 96 E / 128 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης P-001298/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Ioannis Kasoulides (PPE)**

_(9 Φεβρουαρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Χώροι υγειονομικής ταφής αποβλήτων στην Κύπρο

Η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή απέστειλε στις 26 Ιανουαρίου 2012 αιτιολογημένη γνώμη στην Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία ζητώντας της
να συμμορφωθεί με την κοινοτική νομοθεσία όσον αφορά στους χώρους υγειονομικής ταφής αποβλήτων. Όπως προκύπτει
από τη σχετική ανακοίνωση της Επιτροπής, υπάρχουν έξι χωματερές στην Κύπρο που λειτουργούν κατά παράβαση της
Οδηγίας 1999/31/ΕΚ και εξακολουθούν να απορροφούν το σύνολο των απορριμμάτων των Δήμων Λευκωσίας και Λεμεσού,
δεδομένου ότι δεν έχουν ακόμα κατασκευαστεί επαρκείς υποδομές υποδοχής αποβλήτων σε αυτούς τους δύο Δήμους.

Δεδομένου ότι ο αρμόδιος Επίτροπος Janez Potočnik προειδοποίησε την Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία για ενδεχόμενη παραπομπή
της εν λόγω υπόθεσης στο Δικαστήριο της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης αν η πρώτη δεν συμμορφωθεί με την κοινοτική νομοθεσία
εντός δύο μηνών, ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Ποια η πρόοδος της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας τα τελευταία χρόνια όσον αφορά στη πλήρη συμμόρφωσή της με την κοινοτική
νομοθεσία για την υγειονομική ταφή αποβλήτων; Ποιες εγκαταστάσεις βρίσκονται σε διαδικασία ανοικοδόμησης, και σε
ποιες περιπτώσεις αυτό έχει ήδη επιτευχθεί; Ποιες οι δυνατότητες της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας να συμμορφωθεί εντός του
χρονοδιαγράμματος των δύο μηνών που έθεσε η Επιτροπή σχετικά με τις έξι προαναφερθείσες χωματερές; Ποιες οι προθέσεις
της Επιτροπής σχετικά με την περίπτωση δύο εκ των έξι χωματερών, σε Βατί και Κοτσιάτη, όπου σύμφωνα με πληροφορίες
είναι πρακτικώς αδύνατον να βρεθεί υπαλλακτική λύση εντός της ορισθείσας δίμηνης προθεσμίας;

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

_(27 Φεβρουαρίου 2012)_

Η Επιτροπή επιβεβαιώνει ότι κοινοποιήθηκε στην Κύπρο αιτιολογημένη γνώμη στις 27 Ιανουαρίου 2012 και ότι η Κύπρος
εκλήθη να απαντήσει εντός δύο μηνών. Η διαδικασία επί παραβάσει δρομολογήθηκε το 2011 ( [1] ) με τα σκεπτικό ότι
λειτουργούσαν εξήντα δύο χώροι υγειονομικής ταφής αντίθετα προς τις απαιτήσεις της οδηγίας 99/31/ΕΚ περί υγειονομικής
ταφής των αποβλήτων ( [2] ). Σύμφωνα με τις τελευταίες πληροφορίες που έλαβε η Επιτροπή, από τους εξήντα δύο χώρους
υγειονομικής ταφής δύο εξακολουθούν να λειτουργούν. Η Επιτροπή θα εξετάσει τα επόμενα κατάλληλα ληπτέα μέτρα για
τους δύο αυτούς χώρους υγειονομικής ταφής μετά την λήψη και εξέταση της επίσημης απάντησης της Κύπρου.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Παράβαση 2011/2005.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) ΕΕ L 182 της 16.7.1999.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 129

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-001298/12**

**to the Commission**
**Ioannis Kasoulides (PPE)**

_(9 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Landfills in Cyprus.

On 26 January 2012, the European Commission sent a reasoned opinion to Cyprus, calling on it to comply with EU
legislation on landfills. As stated in the Commission’s announcement, there are six landfills in Cyprus that operate in
violation of Directive 1999/31/EC, continuing to absorb all the waste from the Municipalities of Nicosia and
Limassol, despite the fact that no adequate waste reception facilities have yet been constructed in these two
municipalities.

Given that the competent Commissioner Janez Potočnik has warned Cyprus regarding the possible referral of this
case to the European Court of Justice if it fails to comply with EC law within two months, I would like to ask the
Commission:

What progress has the Republic of Cyprus made in recent years towards full compliance with EU legislation on
landfills? What facilities are in the process of reconstruction, and in what cases has this been achieved? To what extent
is it possible for the Republic of Cyprus to comply with the two-month deadline set by the Commission for these six
landfills? What are the Commission’s intentions regarding the case of two of the six landfills, in Vati and Kotsiati,
where reportedly it is practically impossible to find an alternative solution within the prescribed two-month deadline?

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

_(27 February 2012)_

The Commission confirms that a Reasoned Opinion was notified to Cyprus on 27 January 2012 and Cyprus was
asked to respond within two months. The infringement procedure was launched in 2011 ( [1] ) on the basis that sixtytwo landfills were operating contrary to the requirements of Council Directive 99/31/EC on the landfill of waste ( [2] ).
Of the sixty-two landfills, two are still functioning, according to the latest information received by the Commission.
The Commission will consider the next appropriate steps to take for these two landfills once it has received and had
an opportunity to examine the formal response of Cyprus.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Infringement 2011/2005.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 182, 16.7.1999.

C 96 E / 130 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-001300/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(10 Φεβρουαρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Υπερπληθυσμός στις ελληνικές φυλακές

Πρόσφατα, οι διευθύνσεις των φυλακών Κορυδαλλού και Χαλκίδας στην Ελλάδα γνωστοποίησαν στο υπουργείο
Δικαιοσύνης και στις εισαγγελικές αρχές της χώρας ότι δεν έχουν χώρο και αναγκάζονται να μην δέχονται άλλους
κρατούμενους. Ο αριθμός των κρατουμένων σε όλες τις φυλακές της χώρας ανέρχεται σήμερα στους 12 703, που είναι ο
μεγαλύτερος που έχει σημειωθεί στην ιστορία του ελληνικού κράτους, ενώ η χωρητικότητα όλων των καταστημάτων
κράτησης είναι 9 300 άτομα. Ειδικά, στις φυλακές Κορυδαλλού ο αριθμός των κρατουμένων ανέρχεται στις 2 320, ενώ η
χωρητικότητά τους είναι για 800 άτομα.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

—
Έχει αξιοποιήσει η Ελλάδα χρηματοδότηση από τα ευρωπαϊκά διαρθρωτικά ταμεία για την ανέγερση νέων
σωφρονιστικών ιδρυμάτων ή επέκταση των υπαρχόντων μονάδων; Μπορεί να με ενημερώσει σε ποια έργα κατασκευής
ή επέκτασης σωφρονιστικών μονάδων στην Ελλάδα συμμετέχει σήμερα μέσω συγχρηματοδότησης η ΕΕ;

—
Καθώς οι ασφυκτικές καταστάσεις που επικρατούν στις ελληνικές φυλακές θέτουν σε κίνδυνο την αξιοπρεπή διαβίωση
των κρατουμένων αλλά και απειλούν την ασφάλεια εντός των σωφρονιστικών ιδρυμάτων, μπορεί η Ελλάδα να
αναζητήσει έκτακτη επιχορήγηση από την ΕΕ για το σκοπό αυτό, πέραν του πλαισίου των υπαρχόντων διαρθρωτικών
ταμείων;

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

_(21 Μαρτίου 2012)_

Τα διαρθρωτικά ταμεία δεν έχουν χρησιμοποιηθεί για την οικοδόμηση σωφρονιστικών εγκαστάσεων στην Ελλάδα.

Δεν υπάρχουν διαθέσιμες πηγές χρηματοδότησης που να μπορούσαν να χορηγήσουν επείγουσα χρηματοδότηση εκ μέρους
της ΕΕ, έτσι ώστε να αντιμετωπιστεί το θέμα που εκθέτει στην ερώτησή του ο κ. βουλευτής.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 131

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001300/12**

**to the Commission**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(10 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Overcrowding in Greek jails

Recently, the administrations of the jails in Koridallos and Halkida in Greece informed the Ministry of Justice and the
public prosecution service that they have no room for any more prisoners. The total number of prison inmates in
Greece now stands at 12 703, a historic national record, compared with a total capacity of 9 300. In particular, the
jails in Koridallos currently hold 2 320 prisoners, although their capacity is 800.

I would like to ask the Commission:

—
Has Greece made use of EU structural funding to construct new penal institutions or extend existing units? Can
the Commission inform me of any works cofunded by the EU for the construction or extension of penal units
in Greece?

—
Given that serious overcrowding in Greek jails is highly detrimental to the living conditions and safety of their
inmates, can Greece request an emergency EU subsidy over and above the existing structural funds in order to
address the problems?

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

_(21 March 2012)_

Structural Funds have not been used to support the construction of penal institutions in Greece.

There is no funding source available that could provide an emergency EU subsidy to address this issue raised in the
question.

C 96 E / 132 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-001301/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(10 Φεβρουαρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Χρέος νοικοκυριών προς τις τράπεζες

Μία σημαντική επίπτωση της οικονομικής κρίσης είναι η αδυναμία των νοικοκυριών στην Ευρώπη να ανταποκριθούν στα
ιδιωτικά τους χρέη προς τις τράπεζες. Σημειώνεται ότι αυτό το φαινόμενο είναι πολύ πιο έντονο στις χώρες που πλήττονται
ιδιαίτερα από τη δημοσιονομική κρίση.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

—
Διαθέτει πρόσφατα στοιχεία σχετικά με τον αριθμό έκθεσης των ευρωπαϊκών νοικοκυριών σε χρέη προς τις τράπεζες;
Ποια είναι η περίπτωση της Ελλάδας σε σχέση με τους εταίρους της;

—
Ποιες πρωτοβουλίες έχει αναλάβει η Επιτροπή σχετικά με την προστασία των υπερχρεωμένων νοικοκυριών στην ΕΕ;
Προτίθεται η ίδια, στο πλαίσιο των αρμοδιοτήτων της, να συνδράμει στην προστασία της κύριας κατοικίας από
νοικοκυριά που είναι εκτεθειμένα στον υπερδανεισμό;

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

_(22 Μαρτίου 2012)_

Η Επιτροπή έχει επίγνωση των προβλημάτων που αντιμετωπίζουν τα υπερχρεωμένα νοικοκυριά στην ΕΕ.

Το 2008 η Επιτροπή δημοσίευσε τη μελέτη «Προς έναν κοινό λειτουργικό ευρωπαϊκό ορισμό της υπερχρέωσης» ( [1] ). Η μελέτη
αυτή έδειξε μεταξύ άλλων ότι ένα από τα αποτελεσματικότερα εργαλεία για τη μέτρηση της υπερχρέωσης των νοικοκυριών
είναι οι «EU-SILC», δηλαδή οι στατιστικές που προκύπτουν από την ετήσια έρευνα της Eurostat για το εισόδημα και τις
συνθήκες διαβίωσης στην Ευρώπη. Μια ενότητα των EU-SILC ( [2] ) έδειξε ότι, το 2008, το μεγαλύτερο ποσοστό των ατόμων
που αντιμετωπίζουν οικονομικές δυσκολίες, τα οποία οφείλουν δηλαδή ποσό μεγαλύτερο από το διαθέσιμο μηνιαίο
εισόδημά τους, ήταν στο Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο, τη Γερμανία, την Κύπρο, την Αυστρία και την Ελλάδα.

Προκειμένου να επικαιροποιήσει τις γνώσεις που διαθέτει σχετικά με το θέμα αυτό και να εξετάσει κατά πόσο είναι αναγκαίο
να προχωρήσει σε πιθανές μελλοντικές ενέργειες, η Επιτροπή πρόκειται να δρομολογήσει μια εκτενή μελέτη σχετικά με την
υπερχρέωση των νοικοκυριών. Η μελέτη αυτή θα φωτογραφίσει τη σημερινή κατάσταση, θα αναλύσει τα αίτια πίσω από
αυτήν, θα αξιολογήσει τις δημοσιονομικές επιπτώσεις που ανακύπτουν και θα καταγράψει τόσο τις ενέργειες που
εκτελούνται επί του παρόντος για την άμβλυνση του αντικτύπου της υπέρμετρης χρέωσης στα νοικοκυριά όσο και τους
οργανισμούς που δραστηριοποιούνται στον εν λόγω τομέα. Τα προκαταρκτικά αποτελέσματα της μελέτης αυτής αναμένεται
να είναι διαθέσιμα έως το τέλος του 2012 και θα χρησιμοποιηθούν για τη δρομολόγηση μιας ευρείας διαβούλευσης με τους
ενδιαφερόμενους παράγοντες.

Επιπλέον, η ομάδα χρηστών των χρηματοοικονομικών υπηρεσιών (FSUG) ( [3] ) ξεκίνησε πρόσφατα μελέτη με σκοπό να
αναλυθούν το νομικό πλαίσιο και οι υφιστάμενες πρακτικές βοήθειας προς τα υπερχρεωμένα νοικοκυριά, που αποσκοπούν
στον περιορισμό της οικονομικής ζημίας τους. Η μελέτη θα εξετάσει ιδίως την αποτελεσματικότητα των διαδικασιών με τις
οποίες οι δανειολήπτες που αδυνατούν να εξοφλήσουν το ενυπόθηκο δάνειό τους μπορούν να απαλλαγούν από το χρέος
τους παραχωρώντας το υποθηκευμένο ακίνητό τους στον δανειστή. Τα αποτελέσματα της εν λόγω μελέτης αναμένονται τον
Οκτώβριο του 2012.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Η μελέτη είναι διαθέσιμη στο διαδίκτυο, στις εξής διεθύνσεις: http://ec.europa.eu/social/search.jsp?langId=en&menuType=basic;

http://www.bris.ac.uk/geography/research/pfrc/themes/credit-debt/pfrc0804.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Τα σχετικά στοιχεία είναι διαθέσιμα στο διαδίκτυο, στην εξής διεύθυνση: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php

/Household_over-indebtedness_statistics

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/finservices-retail/fsug/index_en.htm

( **|**

( **|**

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 133

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001301/12**

**to the Commission**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(10 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Household bank debt

One significant impact of the economic crisis is the inability of households in Europe to pay off their bank debts, the
problem being much more acute in the countries worst affected.

In view of this:

—
Does the Commission have recent data regarding the number of European households in debt to banks? What
is the situation in Greece compared with its partner countries?

—
What action has the Commission taken with regard to the protection of heavily indebted households in the EU?
Does it intend, as part of its responsibilities, to assist households which have borrowed excessively to protect
their primary residences?

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

_(22 March 2012)_

The Commission is aware of the problems affecting over-indebted households in the EU.

In 2008 the Commission published the study ‘Towards a common operational European definition of overindebtedness’ ( [1] ). This study showed, _inter alia_, that one of the best tools for measuring households' over-indebtedness
is ‘EU‐SILC’, the yearly survey on income and living conditions in Europe, carried out by Eurostat. A module of the
EU‐SILC ( [2] ) showed that, in 2008, the highest proportion of individuals in financial difficulty, in the sense of owing an
amount larger than their monthly disposable income, was in the United Kingdom, Germany, Cyprus, Austria and
Greece.

In order to update its knowledge-base on this issue and test the need for possible future actions, the Commission is
about to launch an extensive study on households' over-indebtedness. This study will take a snapshot of the current
situation, analyse its causes, assess the financial consequences and list both the actions that are currently being carried
out to alleviate the impact of over-indebtedness on households and the organisations which are active in this field.
The preliminary results of the study should be available by the end of 2012 and will be used for launching a broad
stakeholders' consultation.

In addition, the Financial Services User Group (FSUG) ( [3] ) has recently launched a study aimed at analysing the legal
framework and the existing practices for helping over-indebted households to limit their financial detriment. The
study will look, in particular, into the efficiency of the procedures allowing borrowers, who cannot repay their
mortgage loan, to be released from the underlying debt by handing their mortgaged property over to the lender. The
results of the study are expected in October 2012.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Available at the websites: http://ec.europa.eu/social/search.jsp?langId=en&menuType=basic and

http://www.bris.ac.uk/geography/research/pfrc/themes/credit-debt/pfrc0804.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Available at the website http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Household_over-indebtedness_statistics
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/finservices-retail/fsug/index_en.htm

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

C 96 E / 134 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-001302/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(10 Φεβρουαρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Μεταναστευτική πολιτική στην Ελλάδα

Σύμφωνα με δημοσιεύματα στον ελληνικό Τύπο, η τρόικα στη πρόσφατη τακτική επίσκεψή της στην Αθήνα έθεσε ζήτημα για
την ακολουθούμενη μεταναστευτική πολιτική της Ελλάδας.

Είναι σε θέση να με ενημερώσει η Επιτροπή για το ακριβές περιεχόμενο των θεμάτων περί μεταναστευτικής πολιτικής που
έθεσε η τρόικα;

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

_(20 Μαρτίου 2012)_

Η Επιτροπή πληροφορεί το Αξιότιμο Μέλος του Κοινοβουλίου ότι δεν έχουν συζητηθεί ζητήματα μεταναστευτικής πολιτικής
στις συναντήσεις μεταξύ της Ελλάδας και της Τρόικας, στο πλαίσιο του ελληνικού προγράμματος οικονομικής
προσαρμογής.

Εν τούτοις, η ομάδα δράσης για την Ελλάδα (TFGR) στηρίζει δραστηριότητες τεχνικής βοήθειας (ΤΒ) στον τομέα της
μετανάστευσης, του ασύλου και συνόρων. Οι εν λόγω δράσεις ΤΒ δεν εντάσσονται στο πρόγραμμα οικονομικής
προσαρμογής.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 135

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001302/12**

**to the Commission**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(10 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Immigration Policy in Greece

According to articles in the Greek press, in its recent regular visit to Athens, the Troika raised the issue of Greece’s
immigration policy.

Could the Commission inform me of the exact content of the issues relating to immigration policy raised by the
Troika?

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

_(20 March 2012)_

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that immigration policy issues have not been discussed in
meetings between Greece and the Troika in the context of the Greek economic adjustment programme.

However, Taskforce Greece (TFGR) is supporting technical assistance (TA) in the area of migration, asylum and
borders. These TA actions are not part of the economic adjustment programme.

C 96 E / 136 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-001303/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(10 Φεβρουαρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Πρωτοβουλίες της Επιτροπής για την κατάσταση των «αόρατων» παιδιών

Η Επιτροπή ήδη από το 2010 είχε δηλώσει την πρόθεση της να δρομολογήσει σειρά πρωτοβουλιών στο πλαίσιο της
στρατηγικής της για τα δικαιώματα των παιδιών ώστε να έρθει στο φως η κατάσταση των «αόρατων παιδιών» και των
κρατουμένων παιδιών ενόψει της καθιέρωσης βέλτιστων πρακτικών και της διατύπωσης συστάσεων στα κράτη μέλη για τα
θέματα αυτά. Ως προς αυτό, δεσμεύτηκε να οργανώσει μια συνεδρίαση της ομάδας εμπειρογνωμόνων, οι οποίοι θα εξετάσουν
τα πλέον κοινά προβλήματα σχετικά με την κράτηση των παραβατών-παιδιών και την κοινωνική αποκατάστασή τους.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

—
Ποιες είναι οι πρωτοβουλίες της ώστε να διευκρινιστεί η κατάσταση των «αόρατων παιδιών» και των κρατουμένων
παιδιών; Διατύπωσε συγκεκριμένες συστάσεις προς τα κράτη μέλη;

—
Είναι σε θέση να με ενημερώσει για τα αποτελέσματα και τα βασικότερα συμπεράσματα της ομάδας εμπειρογνωμόνων
ώμων που εξέτασαν τα κυριότερα προβλήματα σχετικά με την κράτηση των παραβατών-παιδιών και την κοινωνική
αποκατάστασή τους;

**Απάντηση της κας Reding εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(9 Μαρτίου 2012)_

Στην ανακοίνωση της Επιτροπής «Το θεματολόγιο της ΕΕ για τα δικαιώματα του παιδιού» προβλέπεται σειρά δράσεων που
αποβλέπουν στη ρύθμιση της κατάστασης των παιδιών ενώπιον των συστημάτων απονομής δικαιοσύνης. Οι δράσεις αυτές
αποσκοπούν στην ενίσχυση των δικαιωμάτων παιδιών που είναι θύματα, ύποπτοι και κατηγορούμενοι με την ανάπτυξη
τεκμηριωμένων πολιτικών καθώς και νομοθετικών και μη νομοθετικών μέτρων. Το θεματολόγιο της ΕΕ περιλαμβάνει επίσης
πρωτοβουλίες για την ενίσχυση των δικαιωμάτων παιδιών που βρίσκονται σε ευάλωτη κατάσταση, για παράδειγμα παιδιά
μετανάστες, παιδιά Ρομά, παιδιά με αναπηρία, κ.λπ. Η ανακοίνωση δεν προβλέπει καμία ιδιαίτερη δράση που να στοχεύει
παιδιά φυλακισμένων ενηλίκων.

Ως τμήμα της διαδικασίας διαβούλευσης για την προετοιμασία του θεματολογίου της ΕΕ, η Επιτροπή διοργάνωσε συσκέψεις
της ομάδας εμπειρογνωμόνων με θέμα την φιλική προς τα παιδιά δικαιοσύνη, τα αόρατα παιδιά και την βία σε βάρος παιδιών.
Τα αποτελέσματα και τα συμπεράσματα αυτών των ομάδων εμπειρογνωμόνων ελήφθησαν υπόψη κατά τη σύνταξη του
θεματολογίου της ΕΕ.

Σύμφωνα με το Πρόγραμμα της Στοκχόλμης, η Επιτροπή εξετάζει επίσης τρόπους για την ενίσχυση της αμοιβαίας
εμπιστοσύνης και αμοιβαίας αναγνώρισης στον τομέα των κρατήσεων, στο πλαίσιο και εντός των ορίων της αρμοδιότητας της
ΕΕ. Προς τον σκοπό αυτό, η Επιτροπή δημοσίευσε Πράσινη Βίβλο για την εφαρμογή της ενωσιακής ποινικής νομοθεσίας στον
τομέα της κράτησης ( [1] ). Η Επιτροπή θα προβεί σε προσεκτική ανάλυση όλων των απαντήσεων που δόθηκαν στην Πράσινη
Βίβλο πριν αποφασίσει κατά πόσον απαιτείται οποιαδήποτε δράση σε ευρωπαϊκό επίπεδο.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011)327.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 137

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001303/12**

**to the Commission**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(10 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Commission initiatives on the status of ‘invisible’ children

Back in 2010, the Commission stated its intention to launch a series of initiatives in the framework of its strategy for
children’s rights in order to bring to light the situation of the ‘invisible children’ and child prisoners, with a view to
establishing best practices and setting forth recommendations to Member States on these issues. In this regard, it has
committed to organising a meeting of a group of experts, who will examine the most common problems regarding
the detention of child offenders and their social rehabilitation.

I would like to ask the Commission:

—
What are its initiatives to clarify the status of ‘invisible children’ and child prisoners? Has it made specific
recommendations to Member States?

—
Could it tell me the results and main conclusions of the expert group that examined the main problems
regarding the detention of child offenders and their social rehabilitation?

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

_(9 March 2012)_

The Commission's Communication on ‘An EU Agenda for the Rights of the Child’ envisages a series of actions that
address the situation of children in contact with justice systems. These actions are aimed at strengthening the rights of
children as victims, suspects and detainees through development of evidence-based policies, legislative and nonlegislative measures. The EU Agenda also encompasses initiatives to strengthen the rights of children when they are
vulnerable, for example migrant children, Roma children, children with disabilities, etc. The communication does not
foresee any particular action targeted at children of adults in prisons.

As part of the consultation process in preparing the EU Agenda, the Commission organised expert group meetings on
child-friendly justice, invisible children and violence against children. The results and conclusions of these expert
groups have been considered in the drafting of the EU Agenda.

In line with the Stockholm Programme, the Commission is also reflecting on ways to strengthen mutual trust and
mutual recognition in the area of detention, in accordance with and within the limits of EU competence. To that
effect, the Commission has published a Green Paper on the application of EU criminal justice legislation in the field of
detention ( [1] ). The Commission will carefully analyse all responses received to the Green Paper before deciding
whether any action at European level is required.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 327.

C 96 E / 138 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-001304/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(10 Φεβρουαρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Τρόποι καταπολέμησης των «στημένων» αγώνων

Στο πλαίσιο των αυξημένων κοινοτικών αρμοδιοτήτων στον τομέα του αθλητισμού, που απορρέουν από το άρθρο 165 της
Συνθήκης, η Επιτροπή είχε σε παλαιότερες παρεμβάσεις της, τόσο από το βήμα της ολομέλειας του Ευρωπαϊκού
Κοινοβουλίου όσο και σε γραπτές απαντήσεις της, διαβεβαιώσει ότι σκοπεύει να στηρίξει τη συνεργασία μεταξύ ιδιωτικού και
δημόσιου τομέα με σκοπό την εξεύρεση τρόπων καταπολέμησης των «στημένων» αγώνων.

Ως εκ τούτου ερωτάται:

—
Τι αποτελέσματα έχουν φέρει αυτές οι προσπάθειες; Έχουν κάνει βήματα προόδου τα κράτη μέλη και ποια είναι η
κατάσταση σήμερα;

**Απάντηση της κας Βασιλείου εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(29 Μαρτίου 2012)_

Η Επιτροπή επιθυμεί να πληροφορήσει το Αξιότιμο Μέλος του Κοινοβουλίου ότι οι εργασίες για την καταπολέμηση των
στημένων αγώνων διεξάγονται σε επίπεδο ΕΕ στο πλαίσιο της ομάδας εμπειρογνωμόνων για τη χρηστή διακυβέρνηση, που
έχει συσταθεί βάσει της απόφασης του Συμβουλίου για πανενωσιακό σχέδιο εργασίας στον αθλητισμό για την περίοδο 20112014 (2011/C 162/01).

Η ομάδα αυτή απαρτίζεται από εμπειρογνώμονες που διορίζουν τα κράτη μέλη, ενώ προβλέπεται και η συμμετοχή τρίτων υπό
την ιδιότητα του εξωτερικού παρατηρητή. Στις εργασίες της ομάδας έχουν κληθεί να συμμετάσχουν εκπρόσωποι αθλητικών
οργανώσεων, ενώσεις στοιχημάτων και αρχές επιβολής του νόμου, οι οποίοι ενημερώνουν τα μέλη τους σχετικά με θέματα
που αφορούν την καταπολέμηση των στημένων αγώνων.

Η ομάδα αναμένεται να εκδώσει, περί τα μέσα του 2012, συστάσεις προς μελλοντική εξέταση σχετικά με την πάταξη των
στημένων αγώνων. Εκθέσεις από τις συνεδριάσεις της ομάδας εμπειρογνωμόνων δημοσιεύονται τακτικά στον ιστότοπο της
Επιτροπής ( [1] ).

Επιπλέον, η Επιτροπή εξέτασε το θέμα της ακεραιότητας στον αθλητισμό, καθώς επίσης και της καταπολέμησης της απάτης,
μεταξύ άλλων και την περίπτωση των στημένων αγώνων στη διαβούλευση για την Πράσινη Βίβλο για τα τυχερά παιγνίδια σε
απευθείας σύνδεση ( [2] ). Στη διαδικασία που ακολούθησε την Πράσινη Βίβλο, συγκεκριμένα την ανακοίνωση για τα τυχερά
παιγνίδια σε απευθείας σύνδεση στην εσωτερική αγορά που προβλέπεται να εκδοθεί το 2012, η Επιτροπή προτίθεται να
εξαγγείλει ορισμένες δυνατότητες για τη χάραξη πολιτικής στον τομέα αυτό.

Εξάλλου, μετά την εγγραφή μιας νέας προπαρασκευαστικής δράσης για ευρωπαϊκές συμπράξεις στον αθλητισμό στον
προϋπολογισμό της ΕΕ για το 2012, η Επιτροπή προετοιμάζει την εξέταση, εντός του 2012, των σχεδίων που αποβλέπουν
στην ενίσχυση της συνεργασίας μεταξύ του ιδιωτικού και του δημόσιου τομέα, μεταξύ άλλων πιθανότατα και την
καταπολέμηση των στημένων αγώνων.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/sport/news/20120113-eu-xg-gg-rpt_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/services/gambling_en.htm

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 139

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001304/12**

**to the Commission**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(10 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Measures to prevent ‘match fixing’

In the context of increased powers in the field of sports under Article 165 of the Treaty, the Commission has, in
previous interventions, both in the plenary of the European Parliament and in its written answers, given assurances
that it intends to support cooperation between the private and public sectors with a view to finding ways of
preventing ‘match fixing’.

Therefore, I would like to ask the Commission:

—
What results have been achieved through these efforts? Have the Member States made progress and what is the
situation today?

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

_(29 March 2012)_

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that work on the prevention of match fixing is being
carried out at EU level in the framework of the Expert Group ‘Good Governance’, established on the basis of the
Resolution of the Council on an EU Work Plan for Sport for 2011-2014 (2011/C 162/01).

This Group gathers experts appointed by the EU Member States and allows for the attendance of external observers.
Representatives of sporting organisations, betting companies and law enforcement authorities have been admitted to
follow the work of the Group and inform its members on issues relating to the fight against match fixing.

The Group is expected to produce recommendations for future consideration concerning the fight against match
fixing by mid‐2012. Reports on the Expert Group's meeting are regularly published on the Commission's website ( [1] ).

In addition, the Commission addressed the issue of sports integrity as well as that of combating fraud, including
match-fixing, in the Green Paper consultation on Online Gambling in the internal market ( [2] ). In the follow up process
to the Green paper, namely the communication on Online Gambling in the internal market foreseen for adoption in
2012, the Commission intends to announce a number of policy options in this field.

Furthermore, following the inclusion in the 2012 EU budget of a new Preparatory Action on European Partnerships
in Sport, the Commission is preparing the testing in 2012 of projects aimed at strengthening cooperation between
the private and public sectors, including possibly the prevention of ‘match fixing’.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/sport/news/20120113-eu-xg-gg-rpt_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/services/gambling_en.htm

C 96 E / 140 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(Slovenska različica)_

**Vprašanje za pisni odgovor E-001305/12**

**za Komisijo**
**Mojca Kleva (S&D)**

_(10. februar 2012)_

_Zadeva:_ Samostojnost programa Daphne

Program Daphne je največji enotni program za preprečevanja nasilja nad ženskami, otroki in mladimi na ravni
Evropske unije. Predstavlja temelj za nevladne in prostovoljne organizacije ter financira več kot 500 nevladnih
organizacij v Evropi.

Program Daphne združuje strokovno znanje nevladnih organizacij. Poleg tega po vsej Evropski uniji razširja ideje in
programe nevladnih organizacij, tako da se lahko njihove ugotovitve izmenjujejo z enako mislečimi organizacijami v
drugih državah članicah.

Zato je izjemno pomembno, da ostane program Daphne še naprej samostojen, in se ne prenese pod okrilje novega
programa „Pravice in državljanstvo“, kjer vidik spola skorajda ni omenjen.

Kako bo Komisija zagotovila, glede na vlogo in vpliv programa Daphne, da program ne bo izgubil svojih prednostnih
nalog in finančnih sredstev zaradi prekrivanja z ostalimi programi Skupnosti?

**Odgovor Viviane Reding v imenu Komisije**

_(23. marec 2012)_

Komisija je v skladu s svojim sporočilom „Proračun za strategijo Evropa 2020“ ( [1] ) predlagala program Pravice in
državljanstvo, v katerem so združeni sedanji trije programi: program Temeljne pravice in državljanstvo, program
Daphne III ter komponenti boja proti diskriminaciji in spodbujanja enakosti spolov iz programa Progress. Z
združitvijo navedenih treh programov v enega se bo odpravilo prekrivanje med temi programi. Prav tako je v skladu s
splošnimi namerami Komisije za večletni finančni okvir ta struktura namenjena poenostavitvi, uskladitvi in
poenotenju pravil, s čimer se bo omogočilo boljše upravljanje financiranja, kar bo koristilo tudi upravičencem teh

programov.

Glede na navedeno namerava Komisija nadaljnje financiranje dejavnosti, ki se trenutno podpirajo v okviru programa
Daphne III, zagotavljati v širšem okviru prihodnjega programa Pravice in državljanstvo. Ta novi program bo
omogočal nadaljevanje financiranja sedanjih upravičencev programa Daphne ter uporabo istih instrumentov
financiranja (dotacije za ukrepe, dotacije za poslovanje).

Poslanko tudi obveščamo, da bodo dodatna sredstva za financiranje dejavnosti v zvezi z žrtvami nasilja na voljo v
okviru programa Pravosodje.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SPLIT_COM:2011:0500(02):FIN:SL:PDF, str.80.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 141

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001305/12**

**to the Commission**
**Mojca Kleva (S&D)**

_(10 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Independence of the Daphne programme

The Daphne programme is the largest single programme for the prevention of violence against women, children and
young people at European Union level. It forms the basis for non‐governmental and voluntary organisations, and
funds over 500 NGOs across Europe.

The Daphne programme encompasses the expertise of NGOs. Furthermore, their ideas and programmes are spread
throughout the European Union so that their findings can be shared with like-minded organisations in other Member
States.

It is therefore of the utmost importance that the Daphne programme should remain an independent programme and
not be incorporated into the new Rights and Citizenship Programme, in which the gender aspect is hardly mentioned.

Given the role and impact of the Daphne programme, how will the Commission ensure that the programme does not
lose its priorities and financial resources as a result of overlapping with other Community programmes?

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

_(23 March 2012)_

In accordance with the Commission Communication ‘A Budget for Europe 2020’ ( [1] ), the Commission has proposed
the Rights and Citizenship Programme, which merges three current Programmes: the Fundamental Rights and
Citizenship Programme, the Daphne III Programme and the Anti-discrimination and Gender Equality strands of the
Progress Programme. The integration of the three programmes into one aims to solve the problems of overlapping
between these programmes. Also, in conformity with the overall Commission intentions for the Multiannual
Financial Framework, this structure aims to achieve simplification, harmonisation and uniformity of rules, which will
allow better management of funding and will also benefit the beneficiaries of the programmes.

In this context, the Commission aims to maintain funding for the activities currently supported by the Daphne III
programme within the wider framework of the future Rights and Citizenship Programme. The new programme
allows to continue funding the current beneficiaries of the Daphne Programme and to use the same financing tools
(action grants, operating grants).

The Honourable Member should be also aware that additional funding for activities related to victims of violence will
also be available through the Justice Programme.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/budget/library/biblio/documents/fin_fwk1420/MFF_COM-2011-500_Part_II_en.pdf, p. 78.

C 96 E / 142 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-001306/12**

**aan de Commissie**
**Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE) en Baroness Sarah Ludford (ALDE)**

_(10 februari 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Kwaliteit en controleerbaarheid van vingerafdrukken

Volgens Verordening (EG) nr. 444/2009 van 28 mei 2009 betreffende biometrische gegevens in paspoorten moeten
paspoorten en reisdocumenten een gezichtsopname en twee vingerafdrukken bevatten. Kinderen jonger dan 12 jaar
en personen bij wie het nemen van vingerafdrukken fysiek onmogelijk is, worden van deze verplichting vrijgesteld.

Tijdens een hoorzitting over de Nederlandse paspoortwet in het Nederlandse parlement in april 2011 werd melding
gemaakt van een test die door de gemeente Roermond was uitgevoerd. Uit deze test bleek dat de genomen
vingerafdrukken bij 21 % van de 448 gevallen niet-controleerbaar en derhalve onbruikbaar waren (zie bijlage (in het
Nederlands)).

1. Is de Commissie van mening dat Nederland voldoet aan de in Verordening (EG) nr. 2252/2004 van de Raad
neergelegde kwaliteitseisen en gemeenschappelijke normen voor vingerafdrukken?

2. Zal de Commissie Nederland om nadere uitleg vragen over dit hoge percentage van niet-controleerbare
vingerafdrukken en zijn onvermogen om aan de kwaliteitseisen en gemeenschappelijke normen voor
vingerafdrukken te voldoen?

3. Is de Commissie bereid de kwaliteit en controleerbaarheid van vingerafdrukken in andere EU-lidstaten te
onderzoeken? Zal de Commissie het Europees Parlement inlichten over de resultaten van dit onderzoek?

4. Waarin ziet de Commissie de meerwaarde van de opname van vingerafdrukken in paspoorten wanneer 21 %
van de afdrukken niet-controleerbaar is? Overweegt de Commissie een herbeoordeling van de voorschriften
aangezien deze kwaliteitsproblemen ook in andere EU-lidstaten lijken te bestaan?

**Antwoord van mevrouw Malmström namens de Commissie**

_(29 maart 2012)_

Sinds het opnemen van vingerafdrukken in paspoorten in juni 2009 werden aan de Europese Commissie geen
belangrijke problemen gemeld in verband met de kwaliteit van de vingerafdrukken. De Europese Commissie is zich
bewust van enkele kwaliteitsproblemen en blijft daarom samenwerken met de lidstaten om de situatie te
optimaliseren. In de eerste plaats heeft de Commissie een besluit ( [1] ) aangenomen op 4 augustus 2011 tot wijziging
van de technische specificaties, waarin de kwaliteitsaspecten nader worden verduidelijkt en een kwaliteitsscore wordt
ingevoerd voor vingerafdrukken die op de chip zijn opgeslagen. De aanwijzingen voor het afnemen van
vingerafdrukken werden als bijlage bij dit besluit gevoegd.

De Commissie neemt geen standpunt in wat betreft het door het geachte Parlementslid genoemde gemeentelijk
onderzoek, aangezien zij niet over gedetailleerde informatie beschikt over de juridische en technische
omstandigheden waaronder het onderzoek is uitgevoerd. Problemen met het uitlezen van vingerafdrukken die in de
chip zijn opgeslagen, kunnen allerlei oorzaken hebben, zoals slechte registratie, softwareproblemen tijdens het lezen
van de kaart of andere technische problemen.

De Commissie controleert als hoedster van het Verdrag door middel van testen of de paspoorten van de lidstaten in
overeenstemming zijn met Verordening (EG) nr. 2252/2004 en de desbetreffende technische specificaties. Hoewel de
conformiteitstesten een standaardprocedure zijn en door nationale geaccrediteerde laboratoria worden uitgevoerd,
heeft het Gemeenschappelijk Centrum voor onderzoek (JRC) van de Commissie aanvullende testen op de chips van
elektronische paspoorten uitgevoerd en bekendgemaakt. Deze paspoorten worden aan de Commissie op vrijwillige
basis verstrekt door enkele lidstaten. Verdere verslagen worden uitgebracht in mei 2012, alsook een verslag inzake de
conformiteit van de ontvangen Nederlandse paspoortvoorbeelden. Mochten deze niet conform blijken te zijn, dan zal
de Commissie passende maatregelen treffen.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) C (2011) 5499.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 143

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001306/12**

**to the Commission**
**Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE) and Baroness Sarah Ludford (ALDE)**

_(10 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Quality and verifiability of fingerprints

Regulation (EC) No 444/2009 of 28 May 2009 on biometrics in passports prescribes that passports and travel
documents shall include a facial image and two fingerprints. Children under the age of 12 and people in whose case
fingerprinting is physically impossible are exempted from this obligation.

During a hearing in the Dutch Parliament in April 2011 on the Dutch law on passports, reference was made to a test
by the local government of Roermond. This test revealed that in 21 % of 448 cases, the fingerprints taken were nonverifiable and therefore useless (see attachment (in Dutch)).

1. Does the Commission consider that the Netherlands is in compliance with the requirements for quality and
common standards for fingerprints set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004?

2. Will the Commission ask the Netherlands for an explanation of this high percentage of non-verifiable
fingerprints, and of its inability to meet the requirements for quality and common standards for fingerprints?

3. Will the Commission consider investigating the quality and verifiability of fingerprints in other EU Member
States? Will the Commission inform the European Parliament of the outcome of this investigation?

4. What added value does the Commission see for the inclusion of fingerprints in passports when 21 % of the
prints are non-verifiable? Is the Commission considering re‐evaluating the rules, given that these quality problems
also appear to exist in other EU Member States?

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

_(29 March 2012)_

Since the implementation of fingerprints in passports in June 2009 no major problems have been reported to the
European Commission related to recording good quality fingerprints in most cases. However, being aware of some
quality issues, the European Commission continues to work together with the Member States to improve the
situation. As a first step, the Commission adopted on 4 August 2011 a decision ( [1] ) amending the technical
specifications, further clarifying quality aspects and introducing a quality score for fingerprints stored in the chip. A
fingerprint enrolment guide was annexed to the decision.

The Commission makes no comment on the local survey referred to by the Honourable Member, as it has no detailed
information about the legal and technical conditions under which it was conducted. Failures in reading fingerprints
stored in the passport chip can have various reasons, such as bad enrolment, software problems during reading or
other technical issues.

The Commission, in its role as guardian of the Treaty, undertakes tests of Member States' passports on their
conformity with Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 and the relevant technical specifications. While compliance testing is
a standard procedure and is currently carried out by national accredited laboratories, the Commission's Joint Research
Centre (JRC) has performed and already reported on additional testing on the chips of electronic passports provided
on a voluntary basis by some Member States to the Commission. Further reports will be issued in May 2012,
including a report on the conformity of Dutch sample passports received. If non-conformity is found, the
Commission will take the appropriate measures.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) C (2011) 5499.

C 96 E / 144 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-001307/12**

**aan de Commissie**
**Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE)**

_(10 februari 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Toegang van derde landen tot biometrische gegevens van EU-burgers

Op 30 juni 2010 maakte Sagem Identification bekend een Europese aanbesteding van het Nederlandse Ministerie van
Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties voor de productie en distributie van Nederlandse reisdocumenten
(elektronische paspoorten en nationale identiteitskaarten) te hebben gewonnen. De biometrische gegevens van
Nederlandse burgers voor deze reisdocumenten worden bij Morpho BV in Haarlem in een databank bewaard.

Sagem Identification is de dochteronderneming van Morpho en een onderdeel van de Safran-groep, wereldleider op
het gebied van biometrische systemen. De Safran-groep heeft verscheidene kantoren en vestigingen in de Verenigde
Staten van Amerika.

1. Is de Commissie van oordeel dat Morpho BV in Haarlem vanwege de aanwezigheid van de Safran-groep in
de VS onder de Amerikaanse jurisdictie valt? Is de Commissie van oordeel dat de Amerikaanse jurisdictie zich uitstrekt
tot het EU-grondgebied?

2. Zijn de door Morpho BV in Haarlem opgeslagen biometrische gegevens op grond van de Patriot Act
toegankelijk voor wetshandhavings‐ en inlichtingendiensten van de VS? Zijn de door Morpho BV in Haarlem
opgeslagen biometrische gegevens toegankelijk voor wetshandhavings‐ en inlichtingendiensten van andere derde
landen?

3. Is het de Commissie bekend of andere EU-lidstaten een contract met Sagem Identification hebben gesloten voor
de productie en distributie van hun reisdocumenten? Zo ja, welke lidstaten zijn dat dan?

4. Is de Commissie voornemens na te vragen of deze kantoren van Sagem Identification verzoeken van
wetshandhavings‐ en inlichtingendiensten van de VS hebben ontvangen met betrekking tot in hun databanken
opgeslagen biometrische gegevens? Is de Commissie voornemens na te vragen of deze kantoren van Sagem
Identification verzoeken van wetshandhavings‐ en inlichtingendiensten van andere derde landen hebben ontvangen
met betrekking tot in hun databanken opgeslagen biometrische gegevens?

**Antwoord van mevrouw Reding namens de Commissie**

_(3 april 2012)_

Wanneer de verwerking wordt uitgevoerd in het kader van de activiteiten van een vestiging van de voor de verwerking
verantwoordelijke op het grondgebied van een lidstaat, dan is de nationale wetgeving tot tenuitvoerlegging van
Richtlijn 95/46/EG van toepassing.

Onverminderd de bevoegdheden van de Commissie als hoedster van de Verdragen, vallen het toezicht op en de
handhaving van de wetgeving inzake gegevensbescherming onder de bevoegdheid van de nationale autoriteiten, met
name de toezichthoudende autoriteiten voor gegevensbescherming. De Europese Commissie kan deze onafhankelijke
nationale autoriteiten niet instrueren. Wat de toegang voor autoriteiten van derde landen betreft, wordt het geachte
Parlementslid verwezen naar het antwoord op de mondelinge vragen met debat in het Europees Parlement O000315/2011, O-000318/2011 en O-000326/2011 ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Beschikbaar op: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=CRE&reference=20120215&secondRef=ITEM-019&language=EN.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 145

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001307/12**

**to the Commission**
**Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE)**

_(10 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Third-country access to biometric data of EU citizens

On 30 June 2010 Sagem Identification announced that it had won a European call for tenders from the Dutch
Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations for the production and distribution of Dutch travel documents
(electronic passports and national identity cards). The biometric data of Dutch citizens for these travel documents are
stored in a database at Morpho BV in Haarlem.

Sagem Identification is Morpho’s subsidiary and part of the Safran Group, the world leader in biometric systems. The
Safran Group has several offices and headquarters in the United States of America.

1. Does the Commission consider that Morpho BV in Haarlem falls within US jurisdiction because of the presence
of the Safran Group in the US? Does the Commission consider that US jurisdiction extends into the EU?

2. Are the biometric data stored by Morpho BV in Haarlem accessible by US law enforcement and intelligence
agencies under the Patriot Act? Are the biometric data stored by Morpho BV in Haarlem accessible by law
enforcement and intelligence agencies of other third countries?

3. Is the Commission aware of other EU Member States that contracted Sagem Identification for the production
and distribution of their travel documents? If so, which Member States?

4. Will the Commission ask whether these offices of Sagem Identification have received requests by US law
enforcement and intelligence agencies for biometric data stored in their databases? Will the Commission ask whether
these offices of Sagem Identification have received requests by law enforcement and intelligence agencies of other
third countries for biometric data stored in their databases?

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

_(3 April 2012)_

When the processing is carried out in the context of the activities of an establishment of the controller on the territory
of the Member State, national legislation implementing Directive 95/46/EC is applicable.

Without prejudice to the powers of the Commission as guardian of the Treaties, the supervision and enforcement of
data protection legislation falls under the competence of national authorities, in particular data protection
supervisory authorities. The European Commission is not in a position to instruct these independent national
authorities. As regards the access by authorities of third countries, the Honourable Member should refer to the answer
given to the oral questions with debate at the European Parliament O-000315/2011, O-000318/2011 and O000326/2011 ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=CRE&reference=20120215&secondRef=ITEM-019&language=EN.

C 96 E / 146 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001308/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D)**

_(10 febbraio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Mancato rispetto dei diritti delle persone con disabilità in Italia

Considerando che l'Unione europea e l'Italia hanno ratificato la Convenzione sui diritti delle persone disabili, che
riconosce la necessità per le persone con disabilità di vedere garantiti pienamente i propri diritti senza
discriminazione alcuna e che la responsabilità del rispetto dei diritti esposti in tale convenzione spetta
congiuntamente, nelle rispettive sfere di competenza, all'UE e agli Stati membri;

considerando i diritti riconosciuti nella Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell'Unione europea e considerando che il
trattato sull'Unione europea e il trattato sul funzionamento dell'Unione europea affermano che l'Unione europea mira
a combattere le discriminazioni fondate sulla disabilità e può prendere provvedimenti in tal senso;

considerando che la direttiva 2000/78/CE che stabilisce un quadro generale per la parità di trattamento in materia di
occupazione e di condizioni di lavoro e contiene alcune disposizioni in materia di discriminazione di persone con
disabilità;

considerando che, nonostante la ratifica della convenzione ONU, le disposizioni europee e la legislazione nazionale,
in Italia continuano a persistere situazioni di discriminazione verso le persone disabili per quanto concerne la
continuità e la qualità di servizi e prestazioni, spesso associate a complessità burocratiche, la presenza consistente di
barriere architettoniche e di barriere per l'accesso al trasporto pubblico, notevoli carenze in materia di orientamento,
di formazione professionale e di inserimento nel mercato del lavoro e l'assenza dei necessari meccanismi d'ascolto
delle problematiche;

considerando che inoltre i diritti degli studenti con disabilità vengono costantemente ignorati, dal momento che in
Italia il numero degli insegnanti di sostegno sta decrescendo anno dopo anno e che non si sta investendo nella loro
formazione e nella loro stabilizzazione, impedendo che si venga a creare un progetto educativo di continuità e di
qualità, e dal momento che le strutture scolastiche non sono efficacemente attrezzate per assicurare il diritto
all'istruzione delle persone con disabilità, in piena violazione dell'articolo 24 della sopracitata convenzione;

considerando inoltre che i tagli di bilancio agli enti locali hanno determinato una crescente difficoltà (e in alcuni casi
un sostanziale abbandono) nelle politiche sociali verso le persone con disabilità, per esempio per quanto riguarda
l'assistenza domiciliare, i centri diurni e residenziali, nonché nell'assistenza sanitaria;

può la Commissione far sapere se ritiene che l'Italia stia rispettando, in materia di diritti delle persone con disabilità,
gli obblighi e le disposizioni stabilite dalle normative comunitarie e dalla convenzione ONU?

Può inoltre la Commissione riferire quali azioni ritiene di dover promuovere e nei confronti dell'Italia per garantire
l'effettivo rispetto dei diritti dei disabili sanciti dalle succitate convenzioni internazionali e normative comunitarie?

**Risposta data da Viviane Reding a nome della Commissione**

_(23 marzo 2012)_

Il fatto che l'UE abbia ratificato la Convenzione ONU sui diritti delle persone con disabilità non implica l'estensione
delle competenze dell'Unione in tale ambito ( [1] ). La Commissione può solamente valutare se la convenzione e i diritti
fondamentali in essa sanciti siano rispettati nella legge con cui uno Stato membro applica il diritto dell'Unione.

La Commissione sostiene le politiche volte a migliorare la condizione delle persone con disabilità all'interno
dell'UE ( [2] ), ma la competenza in tale ambito resta principalmente delle autorità nazionali e locali.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) La Dichiarazione relativa alla competenza della Comunità europea contenuta nell'Allegato II della decisione del Consiglio 2010/48/CE del

26 novembre 2009 relativa alla conclusione della convenzione elenca gli strumenti di conferma o adesione formale che attestano le competenze
dell'UE nell'ambito disciplinato dalla convenzione.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Nell'ambito della Strategia europea sulla disabilità 2010-2020, COM(2010) 636 def., la Commissione sostiene gli Stati membri fornendo

statistiche, analisi, scambio di informazioni e orientamenti politici. La Commissione si impegna inoltre ad affrontare i problemi legati alla
disabilità mediante la strategia «Europa 2020», le diverse iniziative faro e il rilancio del mercato unico. Si veda anche l'elenco delle iniziative per il
2010-2015 nell'allegato alla Strategia, SEC(2010)1324.

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 147

Ciò vale per la fornitura di servizi nei settori dell'occupazione, dell'istruzione, della sanità e dei servizi sociali,
comprese le indennità di disabilità. In questi settori, la Commissione non è competente per valutare la compatibilità di
una legge o di misure nazionali con la convenzione. Tale valutazione potrebbe eventualmente essere effettuata dal
Comitato delle Nazioni Unite sui diritti delle persone con disabilità, a seguito della presentazione da parte dell'Italia di
una relazione.

La direttiva 2000/78/CE che stabilisce un quadro generale per la parità di trattamento in materia di occupazione e di
condizioni di lavoro svolge un ruolo importante ai fini dell'integrazione dei lavoratori con disabilità sul luogo di
lavoro. In particolare, l'articolo 5 della direttiva impone ai datori di lavoro di adottare soluzioni ragionevoli che
consentano ai disabili di «accedere ad un lavoro, di svolgerlo o di avere una promozione o perché possano ricevere
una formazione».

La proposta della Commissione relativa a una direttiva orizzontale antidiscriminazione ( [3] ) prevede misure volte a
consentire alle persone con disabilità di accedere effettivamente e senza discriminazioni alla protezione sociale, alle
prestazioni sociali, all'assistenza sanitaria, all'istruzione e ai beni e servizi disponibili per i cittadini, inclusi gli alloggi e
i trasporti. La proposta è ancora all'esame del Consiglio.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Proposta di direttiva del Consiglio COM(2008)426 def. recante applicazione del principio di parità di trattamento fra le persone

indipendentemente dalla religione o le convinzioni personali, la disabilità, l'età o l'orientamento sessuale, per le questioni al di fuori dell'area
dell’occupazione.

C 96 E / 148 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001308/12**

**to the Commission**
**Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D)**

_(10 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Failure to respect the rights of people with disabilities in Italy

The European Union and Italy have ratified the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities, which
recognises the need for the rights of people with disabilities to be fully safeguarded with no discrimination. The
responsibility for respecting the rights set out in that Convention is shared between the EU and the Member States,
each acting within their jurisdiction.

Specific rights are recognised in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; and the Treaty on
European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union state that the European Union aims to
fight against discrimination based on disability and can take measures to that end.

Directive 2000/78/EC establishes a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation and
contains certain provisions concerning discrimination against people with disabilities.

Despite the ratification of the UN Convention, European provisions and national legislation, discrimination against
people with disabilities still persists in Italy in the matter of continuity and quality of services and benefits, frequently
combined with complex red tape, continual architectural barriers and obstacles in accessing public transport, a
serious lack of guidance, vocational training, and integration into the labour market, and a failure to provide means
enabling problems to be voiced.

The rights of students with disabilities are also constantly ignored, as the number of learning support teachers in Italy
is decreasing year by year and there is no investment in their training or permanent employment, hampering any
long-term high-quality education project; given, moreover, that schools are not properly equipped to enable people
with disabilities to enjoy their right to education, this situation violates Article 24 of the abovementioned
Convention.

Local authority cuts have led to growing difficulties in, and in some cases large-scale abandonment of, social policies
for people with disabilities, for example with regard to home support, day-care and residential centres and healthcare.

In the light of the foregoing, does the Commission consider that Italy is complying with the obligations and
provisions laid down in Community legislation and the UN Convention, with regard to the rights of people with
disabilities?

What actions does it think should be encouraged and taken against Italy to make it respect the rights of people with
disabilities laid down in the abovementioned international conventions and Community legislation?

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

_(23 March 2012)_

The fact that the EU ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities does not extend its
competences ( [1] ). The Commission can only assess whether a national law respects the Convention and the
fundamental rights enshrined therein when a member state is implementing Union law.

The Commission supports policies to improve the situation of people with disabilities in the EU ( [2] ), but the
competence in this domain remain mostly with national or local authorities.

This applies to the provision of services related to employment, education, healthcare and social protection, including
disability-related allowances. In these areas the Commission has no competence to assess the compatibility of a
national law or measures with the Convention. This would be done by the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities when Italy submits its report.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) The Declaration of Competence in Annex II of Council Decision 2010/48/EC of 26 November 2009 concluding the Convention lists EU

instruments which attest the competence of the EU in matters governed by the Convention.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Through the EU Disability Strategy 2010-2020, COM(2010) 636 final; the Commission supports Member States by providing statistics, analysis,

information exchange and political guidance. It is also committed to address disability issues through the Europe 2020 strategy, its flagship
initiatives and the relaunch of the single market: See also the list of actions for 2010-2015 detailed in the annex to the strategy; SEC(2010) 1324.

( **|**

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 149

Directive 2000/78/EC laying down a general framework for combating discrimination in employment and
occupation plays an important role in the integration of disabled workers at the workplace. Article 5 of the directive
notably requires employers to provide disabled persons with reasonable accommodation in order to enable them ‘to
have access to, participate in, or advance in employment, or to undergo training’.

The Commission's proposal for a horizontal anti-discrimination directive ( [3] ) includes measures to enable persons
with disabilities to have non-discriminatory access to social protection, social advantages, healthcare, education and
access to, and supply of, goods and services which are available to the public, including housing and transport. The
proposal is still under discussion in the Council.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Commission's proposal COM(2008) 426 final for a directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of
religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation in matters outside the area of employment.

C 96 E / 150 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001309/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Mario Borghezio (EFD)**

_(10 febbraio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ L'UE intervenga con controlli preventivi sul tema della cittadinanza di persone appartenenti a gruppi e/o
movimenti e partiti dell'estremismo fondamentalista

Da fonti giornalistiche si apprende che quattro cittadini britannici di religione musulmana si sono dichiarati colpevoli
di aver pianificato nel 2010 un attentato contro la Borsa di Londra. I quattro volevano far esplodere una bomba alla
Borsa di Londra, ma si erano interessati anche ad altri obiettivi come il Big Ben, il London Eye, l'abbazia e il palazzo di
Westminster. Il gruppo, che aveva discusso anche un'operazione terroristica multipla come a Mumbai, si ispirava al
predicatore estremista Anwar al Awlaki, ucciso da un drone americano in Yemen lo scorso settembre.

A casa di uno dei mancati attentatori è stata inoltre trovata una lista scritta a mano con gli indirizzi del sindaco di
Londra Boris Johnson, di due rabbini, della Borsa e dell'ambasciata americana.

1. Quali misure intende attuare la Commissione al fine di prevenire questi tipi di attentati?

2. La Commissione non ritiene opportuno emanare una direttiva in tema di cittadinanza che comporti, nel caso di
immigrati provenienti dai paesi islamici, la necessità di controlli preventivi circa l'eventuale appartenenza degli stessi a
gruppi e/o movimenti e partiti dell'estremismo fondamentalista?

**Risposta data da Cecilia Malmström a nome della Commissione**

_(5 marzo 2012)_

1. L'Unione europea ha sviluppato un approccio organico e globale, costruito attorno ai quattro settori della
strategia antiterrorismo dell'UE (prevenzione, protezione, perseguimento e risposta) ( [1] ). Sono state adottate una serie
di politiche come disposto nella comunicazione della Commissione del 20 luglio 2010 ( [2] ). Tuttavia, la Commissione
non è un'autorità di contrasto. Il suo principale ruolo consiste nell'assistere e sostenere le autorità degli Stati membri
nei loro sforzi per contrastare il terrorismo, principalmente nell'ambito dei settori «prevenzione» e «protezione».

La prevenzione del terrorismo e il contrasto alla radicalizzazione e al reclutamento rappresentano uno degli obiettivi
chiave della strategia di sicurezza interna. La Commissione aiuta gli Stati membri facilitando lo scambio di esperienze
e conoscenze delle misure preventive e migliorando il coordinamento con altri settori politici di rilevanza, come
illustrato nella risposta all'interrogazione scritta E-8264/11 ( [3] ). La Commissione avvia misure, piani d'azione e
valutazioni del rischio e, ove necessario, presenta proposte legislative in vari settori, fra cui la lotta al finanziamento
del terrorismo, il potenziamento della sicurezza nei trasporti, le norme sugli esplosivi e la protezione delle
infrastrutture critiche.

2. Le leggi e le regolamentazioni per acquisire la cittadinanza di uno Stato sono di competenza nazionale. La
Commissione incoraggia gli Stati membri a condividere le esperienze e le conoscenze sulle condizioni e sulle
procedure per l'acquisizione o la perdita della cittadinanza, in un'ottica di convergenza e diffusione di buone prassi,
senza ledere la competenza nazionale.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Strategia antiterrorismo dell'UE adottata dal Consiglio europeo nel dicembre 2005 (http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/it/05/st14/st14469
re04.it05.pdf).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2010)386 del 20.7.2010: La politica antiterrorismo dell’UE: principali risultati e sfide future.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2011-008264&language=EN.

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

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 151

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001309/12**

**to the Commission**
**Mario Borghezio (EFD)**

_(10 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Call for theCall for the EU to introduce prior checks in connection with the citizenship of people belonging to
extreme fundamentalist groups, movements or parties.

It has been reported in the press that four British Muslims have pleaded guilty to planning an attack on the London
Stock Exchange in 2010. The four accused intended to detonate a bomb at the London Stock Exchange, but also had
other targets in mind such as Big Ben, the London Eye, Westminster Abbey and the Houses of Parliament. The group,
who had also discussed coordinated terrorist attacks like those in Mumbai, were inspired by the extremist preacher
Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed by a US drone strike in Yemen last September.

A hand-written list containing the addresses of the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, two rabbis, the London Stock
Exchange and the American Embassy was also found at the home of one of the would-be attackers.

1. What measures does the Commission intend to take to prevent these types of attacks?

2. Does the Commission agree that it should draw up a directive on citizenship which includes a requirement, in
the case of immigrants from Islamic countries, for prior checks to be carried out to determine whether they are
affiliated to extreme fundamentalist groups, movements or parties?

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

_(5 March 2012)_

1. The EU has developed a comprehensive global approach, built around the four strands of the EU CounterTerrorism Strategy (‘prevent, protect, pursue and respond’) ( [1] ). A number of policies have been put in place, as set out
in the Commission's Communication of 20 July 2010 ( [2] ). However, the Commission is not a law enforcement
authority. Its main role is to assist and support Member States' authorities in their efforts in countering terrorism,
primarily within the ‘prevent’ and ‘protect’ strands.

Prevention of terrorism and addressing radicalisation and recruitment is one of the key objectives identified in the
Internal Security Strategy. The Commission assists Member States by facilitating the exchange of knowledge and
experience of preventive measures and by improving the coordination with other relevant policy areas, as set out in
the reply to Written Question E‐8264/11 ( [3] ). The Commission initiates measures, action plans and risk assessments
and, where necessary, proposes legislation, including in the fields of countering terrorist financing, enhancing
transport security and rules on explosives, as well as protection of critical infrastructure.

2. Laws and regulations to acquire a state's nationality are of national competence. The Commission encourages
Member States to exchange experience and share knowledge on conditions and procedures for acquisition and loss of
nationality, with a view to facilitating convergence and dissemination of good practice, without encroaching on
national competence.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) EU Counter Terrorism Strategy adopted by the European Council in December 2005 (http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/05/st14/st14469
re04.en05.pdf).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2010)386 of 20.7.2010: The EU Counter-Terrorism Policy: main achievements and future challenges.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E‐2011-008264&language=EN.

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

C 96 E / 152 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris P-001310/12**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu (S&D)**

_(9 februarie 2012)_

_Subiect:_ Bunăstarea porcinelor

Interzicerea boxelor de gestație este aplicabilă începând cu 1 ianuarie 2003 crescătoriilor construite recent sau
reconstruite. Dispozițiile Directivei 2008/120/CE de stabilire a normelor minime de protecție a porcilor ( [1] ) se vor
aplica pentru toate crescătoriile din UE începând cu 1 ianuarie 2013.

Până la ora actuală, boxele de gestație sunt interzise doar în Suedia și în Regatul Unit.

Îmbunătățirile anterioare aduse standardelor privind bunăstarea nu au fost implementate în mod adecvat, în ciuda
perioadelor lungi de tranziție. Este cazul Directivei 1999/74/CE de stabilire a standardelor minime pentru protecția
găinilor ouătoare ( [2] ), în legătură cu care au fost deja inițiate proceduri în constatarea neîndeplinirii obligațiilor
împotriva câtorva state membre.

A adoptat UE măsuri pentru a evita un eșec în ceea ce privește punerea în aplicare a Directivei 2008/120/CE,
asemenea celui constatat în cazul Directivei 1999/74/CE?

Având în vedere că crescătorii de porcine au avut la dispoziție un deceniu pentru a se adapta la cerințele
Directivei 2008/120/CE, câte state membre (în afară de Suedia și de Regatul Unit) au adoptat până la ora actuală
măsurile necesare pentru eliminarea boxelor de gestație și pentru prevenirea suferinței inutile a animalelor?

**Răspuns dat de dl Dalli în numele Comisiei**

_(12 martie 2012)_

Statele membre sunt principalele responsabile pentru punerea în aplicare a Directivei privind protecția porcilor ( [3] ).

Comisia monitorizează periodic stadiul punerii în aplicare a adăpostirii în grup a scroafelor în statele membre. Din
datele primite până în prezent din partea a 25 de state membre, trei state membre (Luxemburg, Suedia și Regatul Unit)
respectă deja cerințele, iar opt state membre (Bulgaria, Republica Cehă, Danemarca, Estonia, Germania, Irlanda,
Lituania și Slovacia) au informat Comisia că vor respecta cerințele până la 1 ianuarie 2013.

Comisia utilizează toate instrumentele aflate la dispoziția sa pentru a impulsiona statele membre să respecte cerințele
până la 1 ianuarie 2013.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) JO L 47, 18.2.2008, p. 5.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) JO L 203, 3.8.1999, p. 53.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Directiva 2008/120/CE a Consiliului de stabilire a normelor minime de protecție a porcilor, JO L 47, 18.2.2009, p.5 codifică Directiva

2001/88/CE.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 153

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-001310/12**

**to the Commission**
**Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu (S&D)**

_(9 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Welfare of pigs

The ban on gestation crates has been applicable to newly built or rebuilt holdings since 1 January 2003. The
provisions of Directive 2008/120/EC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs ( [1] ) will apply to all
holdings in the EU from 1 January 2013.

So far, gestation crates are banned only in Sweden and the United Kingdom.

Previous improvements to welfare standards have not been implemented properly despite lengthy transitional
periods; this is the case for Directive 1999/74/EC laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying
hens ( [2] ), in connection with which infringement procedures have already been opened against several Member States.

Has the EU taken any steps to prevent failures in the implementation of Directive 2008/120/EC similar to those
observed in the implementation of Directive 1999/74/EC?

Given that pig producers have had a decade to adapt to the requirements of Directive 2008/120/EC, how many
Member States so far (apart from the UK and Sweden) have taken the necessary measures to phase out gestation crates
and prevent unnecessary animal suffering?

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

_(12 March 2012)_

Member States are primarily responsible for the implementation of the directive on the protection of pigs ( [3] ).

The Commission is monitoring regularly the state of implementation of group housing of sows in the Member States.
From the data received so far from 25 Member States, three Member States (Luxembourg, Sweden and the UK)
already comply and eight Member States (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Ireland, Lithuania,
and Slovakia) have informed the Commission that they will comply by 1 January 2013.

The Commission is using all the tools at its disposal to push Member States to reach compliance by 1 January 2013.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 47, 18.2.2008, p. 5.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 203, 3.8.1999, p. 53.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Council Directive 2008/120/EC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs, OJ L 47, 18.2.2009, p. 5 codifies

Directive 2001/88/EC.

C 96 E / 154 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite P-001311/12**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(10 février 2012)_

_Objet:_ Publication par la Commission d'une étude sur les marchés de consommation dans l'Union européenne

La Commission vient de publier, sous le titre «Monitoring Consumer Market markets in the EU», une étude de 478
pages sur les «marchés de consommation» dans l'UE. Cette analyse très fouillée est une véritable étude de marché pour
les produits et les services, financée par la DG SANCO. Elle permet aux lecteurs, en particulier les commerçants et les
distributeurs, d'apprendre par exemple que «les performances des produits carnés sont médiocres par rapport aux
marchés des véhicules d'occasion» ou que «7,5 % des consommateurs de produits carnés ont été confrontés à des
problèmes en 2011 contre 7,4 % en 2010». Cette étude comporte des milliers d'autres données de la même veine ainsi
que leur évolution d'une année sur l'autre en dixième de %, sans aucun intérêt pour le consommateur, ni pour son
information, ni pour résoudre ses problèmes.

La Commission peut-elle indiquer:

1. Quel est le budget total dépensé par la DG SANCO pour cette étude, y compris les études de marché
précédentes?

2. Cette étude est-elle différente des sept tableaux de bord des marchés de consommation («Consumer market
scoreboard») déjà financés par la DG SANCO et quel est le budget de ces derniers?

3. Combien de temps la DG SANCO va-t-elle encore continuer cette gabegie, gaspiller en puisant dans un budget
si réduit et procéder à des études sans aucun intérêt pour les consommateurs dans leur vie et leurs
préoccupations quotidiennes, au détriment des organisations et des centres européens des consommateurs qui
manquent cruellement de moyens pour résoudre les problèmes et les litiges des citoyens?

4. Pourquoi ces études de marché ne sont-elles pas, le cas échéant, financées sur les budgets du marché intérieur?

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

_(23 février 2012)_

1. Le budget consacré à l'enquête de suivi des marchés de consommation s'est élevé à 1 900 000 euros. Une
enquête similaire d'un coût comparable a été effectuée en 2010.

2. Le tableau de bord des marchés de consommation est fondé sur les principaux résultats de cette enquête et ne
donne lieu à aucunes dépenses supplémentaires pour la collecte des données. Les deux documents ont été publiés
conjointement, en octobre dernier.

3. La Commission s'est déjà expliquée sur l'utilité de l'élaboration d'une base de connaissances sur les
consommateurs et les marchés de consommation pour les décideurs politiques dans les réponses données à des
questions antérieures posées par l'Honorable Parlementaire, notamment dans les réponses aux questions E008517/2011 et E-004423/2011 ( [1] ).

4. La mise en place d'une base de connaissances sur les consommateurs et les marchés de consommation s'inscrit
dans le cadre de la politique des consommateurs et est par conséquent financée par le programme «Consommateurs».

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/QP-WEB.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 155

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-001311/12**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(10 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ The Commission's publication of a study of consumer markets in the European Union

The Commission has just published a 478-page study entitled ‘Monitoring Consumer Markets in the EU’. This
extremely detailed analysis is a real market study of products and services, financed by DG SANCO. Its readers,
particularly retailers and distributors, may learn that, for instance, ‘meat products performed poorly compared to the
used car market’ or that ‘7.5 % of meat product consumers experienced problems in 2011, up from 7.4 % in 2010’.
This study includes thousands of other pieces of information in the same vein, including changes from one year to the
next in tenths of a percentage which are of no interest to consumers, either in terms of providing information or in
terms of helping them resolve problems.

Can the Commission indicate:

1. What is the total amount spent by DG SANCO on this study, including the previous market studies?

2. Is this study different from the seven ‘Consumer Market Scoreboards’ already financed by DG SANCO and what
was the budget for these?

3. How long does DG SANCO intend to carry on with such frivolous expenditure, wasting money taken from an
already depleted budget and carrying out studies of such little interest to consumers in their daily lives and
concerns, at the expense of European consumer centres and organisations which are so desperately short of
means for resolving citizens’ problems and lawsuits?

4. Why are these market studies not financed, if necessary, under the single market budgets?

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

_(23 February 2012)_

1. The budget for the Consumer Market Monitoring Survey was EUR 1.9 million. A similar survey with a
comparable budget was carried out in 2010.

2. The Consumer Markets Scoreboard is based on the main findings of this Survey and has no separate budget for
data collection. Both documents were published together last October.

3. The Commission provided answers on the utility of constructing a knowledge base on consumers and
consumer markets for policy‐makers in reply to previous questions from the Honourable Member, for example E‐
008517/2011 ( [1] ) and E‐004423/2011 [1] .

4. Building a knowledge base on consumers and consumer markets is part of the consumer policy and, therefore,
financed from the consumer programme.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/QP-WEB.

C 96 E / 156 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-001312/12**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D)**

_(13 februarie 2012)_

_Subiect:_ Taxa de administrare a plății on-line cu cardul de credit

În pofida eforturilor pe care le-au depus Comisia și organizațiile de protecție a consumatorilor de a crește transparența
privind biletele de avion, companiile aeriene (în special cele low-cost) continuă să inventeze noi forme de taxe

ascunse.

Ultima practică o reprezintă taxa de administrare a plății on-line cu cardul de credit. Această taxă nu este amintită pe
prima pagină și nici inclusă în prețul inițial. În plus, această taxă nu pare să respecte principiul proporționalității față
de costurile pe care se presupune că ar trebui să le acopere (ele oscilând între 12 euro la RyanAir sau WizzAir și 30 de
euro la unele companii). Totodată, pentru multe companii plata prin card de credit este singura opțiune, deci ar fi
normal ca această taxă să fie inclusă în calculul biletului inițial.

— În opinia Comisiei, este această taxă proporțională cu costurile invocate de tratarea administrativă a plăților
online?

— În opinia Comisiei, având în vedere că această taxă nu poate fi evitată în multe din cazuri, nu ar trebui să fie inclusă
în calculul inițial al ofertei?

**Răspuns dat de dl Dalli în numele Comisiei**

_(2 aprilie 2012)_

Comisia este informată cu privire la faptul că anumite companii aeriene percep taxe semnificative pentru utilizarea
cărților de credit și monitorizează această problemă îndeaproape. În cazul în care aceste practici ar fi considerate ca
fiind incompatibile cu legislația UE, Comisia ar lua măsurile necesare.

Articolul 52 alineatul (3) din directiva privind serviciile de plată (DSP) ( [1] ) prevede că comercianții pot să solicite din
partea plătitorilor un comision pentru acceptarea unui instrument de plată, pentru a-și recupera propriile costuri.
Statele membre pot interzice sau limita acest drept, „luând în considerare nevoia de a încuraja concurența și de a
promova utilizarea de instrumente de plată eficiente”.

Deși DSP nu plafonează suma aferentă acestor comisioane, noua directivă privind drepturile consumatorilor ( [2] ) a
stabilit că comercianții nu trebuie să recupereze de la clienții lor o sumă aferentă taxelor care depășește costurile lor
reale. Această normă trebuie transpusă până în iunie 2014, însă statele membre pot face acest lucru mai devreme,
astfel cum se prevede deja, de exemplu, în cazul Regatului Unit.

Regulamentul privind normele comune pentru operarea serviciilor aeriene ( [3] ) specifică faptul că prețul final trebuie să
includă toate taxele și comisioanele și interzice companiilor aeriene să facă publicitate cu privire la prețuri care nu
includ taxe, în timp ce comisioanele sunt adăugate doar în momentul plății.

Directiva privind practicile comerciale neloiale ( [4] ) interzice furnizarea de către comercianți a unor informații neclare,
false și incomplete consumatorilor cu privire la prețurile lor, care ar putea determina consumatorii să ia decizii de
cumpărare pe care nu le-ar fi luat altfel.

Comisia a deschis o consultare (ale cărei rezultate vor fi disponibile până în luna aprilie) cu privire la transparența
taxelor prin intermediul Cărții verzi privind SEPA (zona unică de plăţi în euro) pentru plățile efectuate cu cardul, pe
internet și de pe telefonul mobil ( [5] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directiva 2007/64/CE a Parlamentului European și a Consiliului din 13 noiembrie 2007 privind serviciile de plată în cadrul pieței interne, JO L

319/1, 5/12/2007.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directiva 2011/83/UE a Parlamentului European și a Consiliului din 25 octombrie 2011 privind drepturile consumatorilor, JO L304/64, 22-11
2011.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1008/2008 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului din 24 septembrie 2008 privind normele comune pentru operarea

serviciilor aeriene în Comunitate, JO L293/3, 31-10-2008.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Directiva 2005/29/CE a Parlamentului European și a Consiliului din 11 mai 2005 privind practicile comerciale neloiale ale întreprinderilor de pe

piața internă față de consumatori, JO L 149/22, 11.6.2005.

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Carte verde „Către o piață europeană integrată a plăților efectuate cu cardul, pe internet și de pe telefonul mobil”, Bruxelles, 11.1.2012 —

COM(2011) 941 final. Sfârșitul consultării: 11.4.2012.

( **|**

( **|**

( **|**

( **|**

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 157

Este util de subliniat faptul că Comisia a răspuns la diverse întrebări legate de această problemă. Pentru mai multe
detalii, vă rugăm să consultați, de exemplu, E 008649/2010 sau E-000779/2011 ( [6] ).

( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/QP-WEB.

C 96 E / 158 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001312/12**

**to the Commission**
**Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D)**

_(13 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Administrative charges for online payments by credit card

Despite the efforts that the Commission and consumer protection organisations have put into seeking increasing
transparency over air fares, airlines (especially low-cost airlines) continue to invent new forms of hidden charges.

The latest practice is an administrative charge for online payments by credit card. This charge is not mentioned on the
relevant home page, nor is it included in the initial price. In addition, it does not appear to respect the principle of
proportionality with regard to the costs it is supposed to cover (these vary from EUR 12 with Ryanair or WizzAir to
EUR 30 with some companies). At the same time, with many companies payment by credit card is the only option, so
it would be logical for this charge to be included in the initial ticket price.

— Does the Commission consider this charge to be proportional to the administrative costs of online payments?

— Does the Commission not consider, taking into consideration that this charge is unavoidable in many cases, that it
not be included in the initial price of the offer?

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

_(2 April 2012)_

The Commission is aware that some airline companies charge significant fees for the use of cards and is monitoring
this closely. If these practices were deemed incompatible with EC law, the Commission would take the necessary
actions.

Article 52(3) of the Payment Services Directive (PSD) ( [1] ) states that merchants may request from the payers a charge
for the acceptance of a payment instrument, in order to recuperate their own costs. Member States may forbid or limit
this right, ‘taking into account the need to encourage competition and to promote the use of efficient payment
instruments’.

While the PSD does not cap the amount of these charges, the new Consumer Rights Directive ( [2] ) has set that traders
must not recuperate from their clients an amount of fees exceeding their real costs. This rule has to be transposed by
June 2014 but Member States can anticipate, as already scheduled for example by the UK.

The regulation on common rules for air services ( [3] ) specifies that the final price must include all taxes, fees and charges
and prevents airlines from advertising tax-free-prices where charges are added only at the time of payment.

The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCP) ( [4] ) prohibits traders from providing unclear, untruthful and
incomplete information on their prices, which could induce consumers to take purchase decisions they would not
have taken otherwise.

The Commission has just opened a consultation (results by April) on fees transparency through the Green Paper on
SEPA (Single Euro Payment Area) for cards, Internet and mobile payment ( [5] ) .

It is useful to stress that the Commission has replied to various questions on this matter. For more details, please refer,
for example, to E‐008649/2010 or E‐000779/2011 ( [6] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

⋅5∙ **|** )

⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007, on payment services in the internal market,

OJ L 319/1, 5.12.2007.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011, on consumer rights, OJ L 304/64, 22.11.2011.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Regulation (EC) 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008, on common rules for the operation of air

services in the Community, OJ L 293/3, 31.10.2008.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005, concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial

practices in the internal market, OJ L 149/22, 11.6.2005.

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Green Paper ‘Towards an integrated European market for card, Internet and mobile payments’, Brussels, 11.1.2012 — COM(2011) 941 final. End

of consultation:11.4.2012.

( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/QP-WEB.

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

( **|**

( **|**

( **|**

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 159

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-001313/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE)**

_(13 de febrero de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Retransmisiones radiofónicas del fútbol profesional en España

El Parlamento Europeo aprobó ayer el denominado informe Fisas sobre la dimensión europea en el deporte. Esta
resolución responde a las nuevas competencias que las instituciones europeas han adquirido en la materia tras la
aprobación del Tratado de Lisboa. El documento aborda por ello el fenómeno deportivo desde sus dimensiones social,
económica y organizativa. Igualmente contiene orientaciones sobre la cooperación con terceros países y aborda la
cuestión de la promoción de la identidad europea a través del deporte.

En el ámbito de la dimensión económica uno de los aspectos que se aborda es el de la comercialización de los
derechos de las retransmisiones deportivas. El informe, muy acertadamente, distingue entre éstas y el derecho a la
información de la ciudadanía sobre los eventos deportivos. Así, en sus párrafos 53 y 54, reconoce el derecho de los
periodistas a acceder a los acontecimientos deportivos organizados de interés público y a informar sobre ellos con el
fin de salvaguardar el derecho del público a obtener y recibir noticias e información independientes sobre los
acontecimientos deportivos. Asimismo, pide a la Comisión y a los Estados miembros que protejan los derechos de
propiedad intelectual sobre los contenidos deportivos dentro del respeto del derecho del público a ser informado.

En España se vive desde el comienzo de la temporada de futbol profesional un contencioso que enfrenta a los rectores
de esta competición con las emisoras de radio, a las que han vetado el acceso a los estadios hasta que no se avengan a
pagar un canon por efectuar sus retransmisiones. Estas, entendemos que están cubiertas por el derecho de la
ciudadanía a la información. Por ello quisiéramos saber:

1. ¿Conoce la Comisión el conflicto existente en España esta temporada con las emisoras de radio?

2. ¿Coincide en que la actividad de estas emisoras está cubierta por el derecho a la información?

3. ¿Considera que el tratado de Lisboa ofrece a la Comisión alguna opción para intervenir en este problema?

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

_(19 de marzo de 2012)_

La Comisión está al corriente de la controversia relativa a las retransmisiones radiofónicas de partidos de fútbol
profesional en España. Con vistas a garantizar el acceso público a la información sobre acontecimientos de gran
interés, la Directiva de servicios de medios audiovisuales establece normas dirigidas a que los Estados miembros velen
por que cualquier operador de televisión establecido en la Unión tenga acceso a extractos breves de los
acontecimientos de gran interés para el público transmitidos en exclusiva. Sin embargo, no existen normas a escala
europea sobre las emisiones de radio.

La libertad de expresión e información constituye uno de los pilares fundamentales de nuestras sociedades
democráticas, consagrada en el artículo 11, apartado 1, de la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión
Europea y en el artículo 10 del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos. Con arreglo al artículo 51, apartado 1, de la
Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales, las disposiciones de la misma están dirigidas a los Estados miembros
únicamente cuando apliquen el Derecho de la Unión. Cuando los Estados miembros no actúan en el marco de la
ejecución del Derecho de la Unión, les compete únicamente a ellos garantizar el cumplimiento de sus obligaciones en
materia de derechos fundamentales derivadas de acuerdos internacionales y de su propio Derecho interno.

C 96 E / 160 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001313/12**

**to the Commission**
**Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE)**

_(13 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Radio broadcasts of professional football matches in Spain

Parliament recently adopted the Fisas report on the European dimension in sport. The resolution accompanying the
report was adopted as a result of the new competences that European institutions have acquired in relation to sport
following the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty. On this basis, the document looks at the social, economic and
organisational dimensions of sport and also contains guidance on cooperation with third countries and addresses the
issue of the promotion of European identity through sport.

With regard to the economic dimension, one of the aspects it addresses is the commercial exploitation of sport
broadcasting rights. The report very correctly distinguishes between such rights and the right of the public to
information about sporting events. In paragraphs 53 and 54, it acknowledges the right for journalists to access and
report on organised sporting events of public interest in order to safeguard the right of the public to obtain and
receive independent news and information on sporting events. In addition, it calls on the Commission and the
Member States to protect intellectual property rights in respect of sports content, with due regard for the public’s
right to information.

In Spain, a dispute between football’s governing bodies and radio broacasters has been going on since the beginning
of the professional football season. The governing bodies have prohibited radio broadcasters from accessing stadiums
until they agree to pay a fee for broadcasting matches. We understand such broadcasts to be covered by the public’s
right to information. Therefore, we would like to know:

1. Whether the Commission is aware of the dispute with the radio broadcasters that has been going on in Spain
this season?

2. Does it agree that the activities of these broadcasters are covered by the right to information?

3. Does the Lisbon Treaty offer it any way of intervening in this matter?

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

_(19 March 2012)_

The Commission is aware of the dispute concerning radio broadcasts of professional football matches in Spain. The
Audiovisual Media Services Directive, in view of granting the public access to information on events of high interest,
lays down rules for Member States to ensure that any television broadcaster established in the Union has access to
short extracts of events of high interest to the public which are transmitted on an exclusive basis. However, there are
no such rules at European level concerning radio broadcasting.

Freedom of expression and information constitutes one of the essential foundations of our democratic societies,
enshrined in Article 11(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 10 of the
European Convention on Human Rights. According to Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the
provisions of the Charter are addressed to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law. When
Member States do not act in the course of implementation of Union law, it is for them alone to ensure that their
obligations regarding fundamental rights — as resulting from international agreements and from their internal
legislation — are respected.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 161

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-001314/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Maria Eleni Koppa (S&D)**

_(6 Φεβρουαρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Ιδιωτικοποίηση της ΤΡΑΙΝΟΣΕ

Η ΤΡΑΙΝΟΣΕ σύμφωνα με το Νόμο 3891/2010, όπως συμφωνήθηκε και με την ΤΡΟΙΚΑ, κοινοποίησε στην Ευρωπαϊκή
Επιτροπή Ανταγωνισμού (ΕΕΑ) το φάκελο για κρατικές ενισχύσεις στις 13.2.2011. Η ΕΕΑ άνοιξε το φάκελο στις 13.7.2011
ενώ παρασχέθηκαν επιπρόσθετα στοιχεία και διευκρινίσεις μέσω της Μόνιμης Αντιπροσωπείας της Ελλάδας (ΜΑΕ) στην ΕΕ.
Τα τελευταία στοιχεία παραδοθήκαν στην ΕΕΑ στις 29.10.2011 και η ελληνική πλευρά ανέμενε να γίνει η τελική συζήτηση
και να χορηγηθεί η θετική γνωμοδότηση της Επιτροπής σε συνάντηση, στις 26.1.2012, στο Υπουργείο Υποδομών,
Μεταφορών και Δικτύων (ΥΠΟΜΕΔΙ) με την ΕΕΑ. Αντίθετα, σύμφωνα με δημοσιεύματα που δε διαψεύστηκαν, στη συνάντηση
παρέστη εκπρόσωπος της ECFIN (Λέιλα Φερνάντεζ), που έθεσε ως προϋπόθεση για τη θετική γνωμοδότηση της Επιτροπής
την άμεση ιδιωτικοποίηση της εταιρίας. Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

1. Σύμφωνα με το Μεσοπρόθεσμο Πρόγραμμα, η ιδιωτικοποίηση της ΤΡΑΙΝΟΣΕ είναι θεμιτό να ξεκινήσει το 2011 ενώ ο
προβλεπόμενος χρόνος ολοκλήρωσης της είναι το 4ο τρίμηνο του 2013. Εφόσον σε όλη τη διαδικασία της εξέτασης
του φακέλου δεν τέθηκε ποτέ ως προϋπόθεση η ιδιωτικοποίηση της ΤΡΑΙΝΟΣΕ και η ένταξή της στο Ταμείο
Αποκρατικοποιήσεων, τι άλλαξε από τις 21.12.2011 έως τις 26.1.2012 και τέθηκε η πρόσθετη αυτή απαίτηση; Με
βάση ποια νομοθετική δικαιοδοσία απαιτείται από την Επιτροπή η άμεση ιδιωτικοποίηση της εταιρίας; Ποιος
εξουσιοδότησε την κ. Φερνάντεζ να λάβει μέρος σε αυτή τη διαπραγμάτευση; Γιατί απαιτείται ιδιωτικοποίηση πριν την
αδειοδότηση αφού δεν υπάρχει αντίστοιχο προηγούμενο στην ΕΕ;

2. Η ιδιωτικοποίηση της ΤΡΑΙΝΟΣΕ πριν της χορηγηθεί η άδεια μειώνει την αξία της και πρακτικά θα οδηγήσει σε
εκχώρηση της εταιρείας έναντι ευτελούς τιμήματος. Κρίνει η Επιτροπή ότι αυτή η εξέλιξη θα ήταν συμβατή με ένα
βιώσιμο μέλλον για τη ΤΡΑΙΝΟΣΕ και πώς θα αντιμετωπίσουμε κατηγορίες διαφθοράς και ενδεχόμενες ποινικές
ευθύνες;

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-001324/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Georgios Koumoutsakos (PPE) και Konstantinos Poupakis (PPE)**

_(6 Φεβρουαρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Σοβαρός προβληματισμός για την αλλαγή της στάσης της Επιτροπής σχετικά με το μέλλον της ΤΡΑΙΝΟΣΕ

Εδώ και περίπου ένα χρόνο, δηλαδή το Φεβρουάριο του 2011, η ΤΡΑΙΝΟΣΕ, σε συνέχεια σχετικού ελληνικού νόμου του
2010, και κατόπιν συμφωνίας της ελληνικής κυβέρνησης με την τρόικα, υπέβαλε στην Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή Ανταγωνισμού
(ΕΕΑ) φάκελο για κρατική ενίσχυση.

Έκτοτε η διαδικασία συνεχίστηκε και αναμενόταν ότι θα κλείσει με θετική γνωμοδότηση της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής
Ανταγωνισμού.

Ενώ η Ελλάδα ανέμενε την εν λόγω θετική έκβαση της σοβαρής αυτής υπόθεσης, επαναλαμβανόμενα δημοσιεύματα στον
ελληνικό τύπο επιμένουν στο ότι: Εκπρόσωπος της Γενικής Διεύθυνσης Οικονομικών και Νομισματικών Υποθέσεων (DG
ECFIN) της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής, σε κλειστή σύσκεψη που έγινε πριν μερικές μέρες στην Αθήνα, έθεσε ως προαπαιτούμενο
για την ολοκλήρωση της διαδικασίας την άμεση ιδιωτικοποίηση της ΤΡΑΙΝΟΣΕ και τη συμπερίληψή της στο Ταμείο
Αξιοποίησης Ιδιωτικής Περιουσίας του Δημοσίου (ΤΑΙΠΕΔ).

Θα πρέπει επίσης να σημειωθεί ότι η ΤΡΑΙΝΟΣΕ για το μήνα Δεκέμβριο του 2011, μετά από αναδιάρθρωση, παρουσίασε
κέρδη.

Κατόπιν αυτών ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

1. Γνωρίζει τα συγκεκριμένα γεγονότα;

2. Η Εκπρόσωπος της Γενικής Διεύθυνσης Οικονομικών και Νομισματικών Υποθέσεων (DG ECFIN) εξέφραζε επίσημη
θέση της Επιτροπής;

3. Εάν ναι, τι συνέβη και άλλαξε στάση η Επιτροπή θέτοντας νέους όρους όπως αυτόν της άμεσης αποκρατικοποίησης;

C 96 E / 162 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

4. Έχει υπάρξει προηγούμενο να απαιτείται-επιβάλλεται σε κράτος μέλος ιδιωτικοποίηση κρατικών σιδηρόδρομων πριν
την αδειοδότησή τους; Εάν όχι, γιατί αυτό γίνεται στη συγκεκριμένη περίπτωση και με ποια νομική βάση;

5. Γιατί, αφού ως χρονικό όριο για την ιδιωτικοποίηση έχει ορισθεί το τέλος του 2013, κάτι που θα βοηθούσε να
αποκτήσει η ΤΡΑΙΝΟΣΕ μεγαλύτερη αξία, ξαφνικά απαιτείται άμεση ιδιωτικοποίησή της;

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

_(3 Απριλίου 2012)_

Η Επιτροπή γνωρίζει ότι στον ελληνικό Τύπο (εφημερίδα «Το Βήμα», 27 Ιανουαρίου 2012) διατυπώθηκαν ισχυρισμοί
σύμφωνα με τους οποίους οι υπάλληλοι της Επιτροπής απαίτησαν την άμεση ιδιωτικοποίηση της ΤΡΑΙΝΟΣΕ. Οι ισχυρισμοί
αυτοί είναι αναληθείς: όπως θα γνωρίζουν οι αξιότιμοι βουλευτές, η εν λόγω εφημερίδα («Το Βήμα», 6 Φεβρουαρίου 2012)
προέβη εν συνεχεία στις αναγκαίες διευκρινίσεις.

Η Επιτροπή δήλωσε στην απόφαση κίνησης της διαδικασίας που ελήφθη για την ΤΡΑΙΝΟΣΕ στις 13 Ιουλίου 2011 (υπόθεση
κρατικής ενίσχυσης SA.32544 ( [1] )), ότι «σύμφωνα με τις διαθέσιμες πληροφορίες σχετικά με την αναδιάρθρωση, η
προσέλκυση ιδιωτικών κεφαλαίων στην εταιρεία μέσω ιδιωτικοποιήσεων φαίνεται να είναι ο μόνος ρεαλιστικός τρόπος ώστε η
ΤΡΑΙΝΟΣΕ να καταστεί ικανή να συνεισφέρει την ίδια συμμετοχή που απαιτείται βάσει του σημείου 44 των κατευθυντήριων
γραμμών για τη διάσωση και την αναδιάρθρωση, εάν ληφθεί υπόψη η επικρατούσα δυσχερής οικονομική κατάσταση στην
εταιρεία.»

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/241369/241369_1260391_65_2.pdf

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 163

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001314/12**

**to the Commission**
**Maria Eleni Koppa (S&D)**

_(6 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Privatisation of TRAINOSE

TRAINOSE, in accordance with Decree 3891/2010, as agreed with the Troika, submitted an application to the
European Competition Commission (ECC) for state aid on 13.2.2011. The ECC opened the file on 13.7.2011 but
further information and clarifications were provided through the Greek Permanent Representation to the EU. The last
details were provided to the ECC on 29.10.2011 and the Greek side expected the final discussion to take place and the
Commission’s positive opinion to be delivered in a meeting with the ECC on 26.1.2012 at the Ministry of
Infrastructure, Transport and Networks (YPODEMI). However, according to articles which are yet to be denied, during
the meeting the representative of ECFIN (Leila Fernandez) called for the immediate privatisation of the company as a
condition of the Commission’s positive opinion. Will the Commission answer the following:

1. According to the Medium-Term Programme, the privatisation of TRAINOSE was set to begin in 2011, but the
planned completion would take place in the 4th quarter of 2013. In so far as the privatisation of TRAINOSE
and its accession to the Privatisation Fund was never set as a condition during the examination of the file, what
changed between 21.12.2011 and 26.1.2012 for this request to be added? On what legal basis is the
Commission demanding the immediate privatisation of the company? Who authorised Mrs Fernandez to take
part in this negotiation? Why is privatisation being requested prior to authorisation if nothing similar has
occurred before in the EU?

2. The privatisation of TRAINOSE before authorisation is granted reduces its value and in practical terms will lead
to the purchase of the company at a low price. Does the Commission deem this development compatible with a
sustainable future for TRAINOSE and how will it deal with accusations of corruption and the potential legal
consequences?

**Question for written answer E-001324/12**

**to the Commission**
**Georgios Koumoutsakos (PPE) and Konstantinos Poupakis (PPE)**

_(6 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Serious questions arising in connection with the Commission's change of position on the future of Trainose

Approximately one year ago, in other words in February 2011, Trainose, in accordance with the Greek law of 2010
and the agreement concluded by the Greek Government with the Troika, submitted an application for state aid to the
European Competition Commission (ECC).

The proceeding went ahead and a favourable decision by the European Competition Commission was expected.

While Greece was anticipating a positive outcome to this serious case, the Greek press is now repeatedly reporting
that: a representative of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN),
during a private meeting held a few days ago in Athens, demanded the immediate privatisation of Trainose and its
inclusion in the Hellenic Republic Assets Development Fund (HRADF) as a precondition for completion of
proceedings.

It should also be noted that in December 2011, Trainose, after restructuring, recorded a profit.

In view of this:

1. Is the Commission aware of these events?

2. Was the representative of the Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN) expressing
the Commission’s official position?

3. If so, what has happened for the Commission to change its position, setting out new terms, such as the
condition of immediate privatisation?

C 96 E / 164 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

4. Has it previously called for/imposed the privatisation of state railways in Member States prior to their
authorisation? If not, why is it being done in this specific case and what is the legal basis for it?

5. Why, if the deadline for privatisation is set for the end of 2013, which would help Trainose acquire greater
value, has immediate privatisation suddenly been called for?

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

_(3 April 2012)_

The Commission is aware that the Greek press ( _To Vima_, 27 January 2012) claimed that Commission officials
required the immediate privatisation of TRAINOSE. These allegations are not correct: as the Honourable Members
might be aware, the same newspaper ( _To Vima_, 6 February 2012) promptly clarified the issue.

The Commission stated in the Opening Decision on TRAINOSE of 13 July 2011 (state aid case SA.32544 ( [1] )),
‘according to the information available about the restructuring operation, bringing private funds into the company
via privatisation appears to be the only realistic way for TRAINOSE to be able to bring in the own contribution
required by Point 44 of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines, in light of the company’s current difficult financial
situation’.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/241369/241369_1260391_65_2.pdf

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 165

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-001315/12**

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

_(13 de febrero de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Mercados de valores derivados

La Comisión Europea anunció el día 1 de febrero su veto a la fusión de «Deutsche Börse» y «New York Stock
Exchange» con el argumento de que podría originar un monopolio en el mercado de valores derivados.

Tal argumentación me suscita las siguientes preguntas:

1. ¿Por qué la preocupación por los mercados de valores derivados no se orienta a tratar de conseguir una mínima
transparencia en estos mercados y una mínima protección de los inversores, que ahora está puesta en duda por
su opacidad?

2. ¿Es consciente la Comisión de que la oscuridad en la negociación de los valores derivados es una de las causas
de la crisis de los mercados de deuda europea?

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

_(26 de marzo de 2012)_

La crisis económica ha suscitado una acción intensa y sostenida de los gobiernos nacionales de la UE, del Banco
Central Europeo y de la Comisión. Todos han colaborado estrechamente para apoyar el crecimiento y el empleo,
garantizar la estabilidad financiera y establecer un mejor sistema de gobernanza para el futuro.

En respuesta a la crisis financiera, la Comisión Europea ha presentado un paquete completo de nuevas normas para el
sector financiero. En primer lugar, la Comisión tiene por objetivo reducir el riesgo sistémico y mejorar la
transparencia de todas las operaciones con productos derivados ( [1] ). A tal fin, ha propuesto la compensación central
obligatoria para todos los derivados OTC, así como la notificación obligatoria a los registros de operaciones. El
Parlamento Europeo y el Consejo van a adoptar pronto estas normas oficialmente. En segundo lugar, la Comisión ha
propuesto normas sobre la negociación de derivados en centros organizados en sus propuestas de revisión de la
Directiva sobre los mercados de instrumentos financieros ( [2] ). Según estas propuestas, todas las operaciones con
productos derivados que reúnan las condiciones para su compensación y que tengan la liquidez suficiente se
trasladarán a centros organizados. Además, la Comisión propone aplicar requisitos armonizados de transparencia
«pre-negociación» y «post-negociación» para esos instrumentos.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2010) 484 de 15.9.2010.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 656 final y COM(2011) 652 final.

C 96 E / 166 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001315/12**

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

_(13 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Derivative securities markets

On 1 February 2012, the Commission announced its veto of the merger between Deutsche Börse and the New York
Stock Exchange, arguing that it could create a monopoly in the derivative securities market.

In my mind, this argument raises the following questions:

1. Why is the concern about derivative securities markets not directed at attempting to achieve a minimum degree
of transparency in these markets and a minimum level of protection for investors, something that the markets’
lack of transparency makes uncertain at present?

2. Is the Commission aware that one of the causes of the European debt market crisis is the obscurity surrounding
trading in derivative securities?

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

_(26 March 2012)_

The economic crisis has prompted intense and sustained action by the EU's national governments, the European
Central Bank and the Commission. All have been working closely together to support growth and employment,
ensure financial stability, and put in place a better governance system for the future.

In response to the financial crisis, the European Commission has presented a comprehensive package of new rules for
the financial sector. First, the Commission aims at reducing systemic risk and improving transparency on all
derivatives transactions ( [1] ). To this end, mandatory central clearing for all OTC derivatives and mandatory reporting
to trade repositories have been proposed. These rules should be very soon formally adopted by the European
Parliament and Council. Second, the Commission has proposed rules for the trading of derivatives on organised
platforms in the proposals reviewing the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive ( [2] ). According to these proposals,
all trading of derivatives which are eligible for clearing and which are sufficiently liquid will move to organised
venues. In addition, the Commission is proposing to apply harmonised pre-and post-trade transparency requirements
for these instruments.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2010) 484, 15.9.2010.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 656 final, and COM(2011) 652 final, 20.10.2011.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 167

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-001316/12**

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

_(13 de febrero de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Veto a la fusión de «Deutsche Börse» y «New York Stock Exchange»

La Comisión europea anunció el día uno de febrero su veto a la fusión de «Deutsche Börse» y «New York Stock
Exchange».

Tal decisión me suscita muchas preguntas:

1. ¿Por qué la Comisión impide la creación de un mayor mercado de valores que contribuiría a una formación de
precios más transparente? ¿Por qué perjudica los intereses de los inversores, ya sean grandes o pequeños, al
mantener mercados fragmentados, en los que se generan distintos precios de los valores negociados, que
originan más costes a los inversores, que suponen obstáculos a la liquidez y financiación, ahora tan necesaria en
esta época de crisis?

2. ¿Por qué la Comisión imposibilita la generación de una gran plataforma bursátil entre varias bolsas europeas y
americanas, en la que tendrían un peso muy relevante las empresas europeas?

3. ¿Por qué dificulta que se avance en la armonización de la supervisión financiera y de las reglas del mercado de
valores europeas y americanas, que está generando tantos problemas prácticos? ¿No contradice este veto las
propuestas de regulación financiera que está estudiando la misma Comisión?

4. ¿Por qué impide la fusión de dos mercados cuando la fragmentación de los mismos es una de las causas de la
alta volatilidad financiera que estamos padeciendo?

5. ¿Por qué argumenta con criterios de competencia, cuando la competencia debe existir dentro del mercado, con
distintas sociedades y servicios de inversión, distintos operadores, pero no entre mercados porque ello sólo
genera mayores desigualdades entre los inversores, mayores costes, precios de los valores negociables distintos
en cada mercado, etc.?

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

_(2 de abril de 2012)_

1. La Comisión analizó la concentración sobre la base de los datos recogidos en una investigación exhaustiva en la
que se incluían a todos los participantes en el mercado (usuarios, mercados bursátiles, reguladores, etc.) ( [1] ). En los
mercados de derivados en cuestión, la operación de concentración habría dado lugar a un cuasi monopolio que habría
perjudicado a los clientes. En ausencia de las medidas correctoras adecuadas, la Comisión tenía la obligación de
prohibir la fusión en cumplimiento del Reglamento de Concentraciones ( [2] ). No se hallaron pruebas de que la creación
de una gran plataforma bursátil contribuiría a una formación de precios más transparente o a mejorar la liquidez y la
financiación.

2. La Comisión no está en contra de la creación de grandes plataformas de negociación a través de concentraciones
si ello no da lugar a efectos anticompetitivos. Sin embargo, los monopolios indiscutibles son perjudiciales para la
economía de la UE. Estos mercados están en el núcleo del sistema financiero de la UE, por lo que es fundamental que
sigan siendo competitivos.

3. La Comisión analizó la concentración teniendo en cuenta el actual marco regulador incluidos los probables
cambios resultantes de compromisos del G-20. Las propuestas de la Comisión encaminadas a reforzar la
armonización de las normas de supervisión financiera son independientes de cualquier análisis sobre las
concentraciones. La integración, la competitividad y la eficiencia de los mercados financieros, constituyen objetivos
del presente programa regulador. La decisión de prohibir la contratación no supone un obstáculo para dicho
programa y es plenamente coherente con el mismo.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Comunicado de prensa IP/12/94.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Reglamento (CE) n° 139/2004 del Consejo, de 20 de enero de 2004, sobre el control de las concentraciones entre empresas («Reglamento

comunitario de concentraciones») (DO L 24 de 29.1.2004, p. 1.)

C 96 E / 168 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

4. La Comisión no tiene conocimiento de que haya pruebas sobre este efecto, y ninguna prueba fue presentada.

5. La Comisión aplicó el Reglamento de Concentraciones para proteger la competencia en los mercados y
garantizar que los usuarios sigan beneficiándose de precios competitivos y de niveles de servicio e innovación
elevados. Llegó a la conclusión de que tales ventajas son fruto de la competencia entre las Partes y de que quedarían
eliminados por la concentración.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 169

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001316/12**

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

_(13 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Veto of the merger between Deutsche Boerse and the New York Stock Exchange

On 1 February, the Commission announced its veto of the merger between Deutsche Boerse and the New York Stock
Exchange.

This decision raises many questions:

1. Why is the Commission preventing the creation of a larger securities exchange, which would contribute to
more transparent price formation? Why is it harming the interests of investors, both large and small, by
maintaining fragmented markets, where different prices are generated for the securities traded, and which
create more costs for investors and hinder liquidity and financing, which is so necessary at the current time of
crisis?

2. Why is the Commission preventing the creation of a large trading platform that would include several
European and American exchanges, in which European companies would have a very significant weight?

3. Why is the Commission hindering progress in the area of harmonising financial supervision and European and
American rules regarding the securities market, which is giving rise to so many practical problems? Does this
veto not contradict the proposals on financial regulation that the Commission itself is studying?

4. Why is the Commission preventing the merger of two markets when the fragmentation of markets is one of the
causes of the severe financial volatility that we are experiencing?

5. Why does the Commission cite competition criteria, when competition should exist within the market, with
various investment services and companies and various operators, but not among markets, because this only
gives rise to greater inequality among investors, higher costs, different prices for the securities on each
market, etc.?

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

_(2 April 2012)_

1. The Commission analysed the merger on the basis of evidence collected in an extensive investigation including
all market participants (users, exchanges, regulators, etc.) ( [1] ). In the derivatives markets concerned, the merger would
have led to a quasi-monopoly which would have harmed customers. Absent appropriate remedies, the Commission
had an obligation to prohibit the merger pursuant to the Merger Regulation ( [2] ). No evidence was found that the
creation of a larger exchange would contribute to more transparent price formation or better liquidity and financing.

2. The Commission is not against the creation of large trading platforms through mergers if this does not lead to
anti-competitive effects. However, unchallenged monopolies are detrimental to the EU economy. These markets are
at the heart of the EU financial system: it is crucial that they remain competitive.

3. The Commission analysed the merger in the current regulatory framework including likely changes resulting
from G20 commitments. The Commission's proposals aiming to enhance the harmonisation of financial supervision
rules are independent of any merger analysis. The integration, competitiveness, and efficiency of financial markets are
objectives of this regulatory agenda. The decision to prohibit the merger does not hamper this agenda and is fully
consistent with it.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Press Release IP/12/94.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation),

OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

C 96 E / 170 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

4. The Commission is not aware of evidence to this effect, nor was any such evidence submitted.

5. The Commission applied the Merger Regulation to protect competition within markets and to ensure that users
continue to benefit from competitive prices, high levels of service and innovation. It concluded that such benefits
were provided as a result of competition between the parties would be eliminated by the merger.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 171

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-001317/12**

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

_(13 de febrero de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Fondos Europeos estructurales y empleo

El Presidente del Consejo Europeo, Herman Van Rompuy, a vuelto a informar a través de la red social Twitter sobre la
posible utilización de fondos europeos estructurales para el fomento del empleo juvenil y ayuda a las pequeñas y
medianas empresas.

Informes económicos de distintas instituciones han resaltado en las últimas semanas la elevada cuantía de esos fondos
estructurales de la que todavía no se ha dispuesto. Según algunas publicaciones supera los 83 000 millones de euros.

Ante estas noticias me gustaría saber la opinión de la Comisión sobre los siguientes aspectos:

1. ¿Por qué seguir manteniendo el criterio de asignación de estos fondos fragmentando los mismos por país
miembro, cuando hay algunos Estados que no han utilizado estos recursos económicos y en otros se padecen
ahora situaciones de cierta urgencia económica? La Comisión debe de tener datos exactos sobre la elevada
cuantía de los fondos no utilizados por Luxemburgo y las necesidades existentes ahora, por ejemplo, en
Portugal y en España. ¿No sería más coherente con el espíritu que debería inspirar la construcción de la Unión
Europea que las asignaciones no tuvieran como criterio preferente la distribución por país, sino la
preocupación por atender el interés social del conjunto de la Unión Europea?

2. ¿Por qué, incluso, no utilizar algunas de las conocidas técnicas financieras para adelantar cantidades a los países
más necesitados con cargo a las contribuciones del próximo ejercicio?

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

_(26 de marzo de 2012)_

1. Los recursos de los Fondos Estructurales y de Cohesión se asignan a los Estados miembros atendiendo a criterios
consensuados y a la legislación de la UE. Todos los Estados miembros disponen de una planificación financiera para
utilizar los recursos asignados durante el marco financiero plurianual y, por tanto, tienen ocasión de incurrir en
gastos subvencionables hasta que finalice 2015.

Según las estimaciones de la Comisión, el 70 % de las asignaciones del FSE y cerca del 80 % de las del FEDER y el
Fondo de Cohesión están actualmente comprometidas para proyectos concretos. Estos índices de asignación, en la
fase actual del período de programación, demuestran que la política de cohesión está efectivamente teniendo
resultados sobre el terreno.

2. En el contexto del marco financiero plurianual, el presupuesto de la UE se moviliza sobre la base de
compromisos anuales. No obstante, cabe señalar que en el marco de los programas de la política de cohesión se han
pagado anticipos significativos a todos los Estados miembros en los primeros años del período de programación para
permitirles planificar las intervenciones conforme a sus marcos estratégicos nacionales de referencia acordados con la
Comisión.

C 96 E / 172 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001317/12**

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

_(13 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ EU Structural Funds and employment

The President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, has again referred on the social network Twitter to the
possible use of the EU Structural Funds to promote youth employment and help small and medium-sized enterprises.

Economic reports from various institutions in recent weeks have underscored the fact that large sums under the
Structural Funds remain unused. According to some of these publications, this amount exceeds EUR 83 billion.

Given these developments, can the Commission reply to the following questions?

1. Why continue to maintain the allocation criteria for these funds that divide them up among Member States,
when some Member States have not used these financial resources and others are currently experiencing economic
situations of considerable urgency? The Commission should have exact data concerning the large amount under these
funds that has not been used by Luxembourg, and the needs that currently exist, for example, in Portugal and Spain.
Would it not be more consistent with the spirit that the construction of the European Union should inspire, for the
primary allocation criterion to be concern for addressing the interests of society in the EU as a whole, rather than
distributing the funds by country?

2. Why not even use some of the existing known financial techniques to advance sums to the Member States most
in need from the following fiscal year’s contributions?

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

_(26 March 2012)_

1. Structural and Cohesion Funds resources are allocated to the Member States in line with the agreed EU
legislation and criteria. All Member States have a financial planning to use the allocated resources for the duration of
the multi annual financial framework and therefore, they have until end 2015 to incur relevant eligible expenditure.

Based on the Commission's estimates, 70 % of the ESF and close to 80 % of the ERDF and CF allocations are currently
committed to concrete projects. These allocation rates, at this stage of the programming period, demonstrate that
cohesion policy is indeed being delivered on the ground.

2. In the context of the multiannual financial framework, the EU budget is mobilised on the basis of annual
commitments. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that under cohesion policy programmes significant advance payments
have been made to all Member States in the early years of the programming period to allow them planning
interventions based on their national strategic reference frameworks agreed with the Commission.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 173

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-001318/12**

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

_(6 Φεβρουαρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Διασφάλιση των ασφαλιστικών δικαιωμάτων των εργαζομένων στη Δημόσια Επιχείρηση Ηλεκτρισμού (ΔΕΗ) Ελλάδος

Από το 1966 (ν. 4491/1966), η ΔΕΗ ανέλαβε την υποχρεωτική κοινωνική ασφάλιση του προσωπικού της, στο πλαίσιο της
οποίας εισέπραττε τις ασφαλιστικές εισφορές των εργαζομένων της χωρίς να καταβάλει τις -προβλεπόμενες για όλες τις
επιχειρήσεις στην Ελλάδα- ασφαλιστικές εργοδοτικές εισφορές. Έναντι αυτών, ανέλαβε την υποχρέωση της κάλυψης του
συνόλου των δαπανών ασφάλισης του προσωπικού της. Με τη μετατροπή της ΔΕΗ σε Ανώνυμη Εταιρεία, προκειμένου,
αφενός να εισαχθεί στο Χρηματιστήριο Αξιών και, αφετέρου να δημιουργηθούν οι προϋποθέσεις απελευθέρωσης της αγοράς
Ηλεκτρισμού -σύμφωνα και με τις αποφάσεις της ΕΕ- η ασφάλιση του προσωπικού ανατέθηκε σε ιδιαίτερο Νομικό Πρόσωπο
Δημοσίου Δικαίου (Οργανισμός Ασφάλισης Προσωπικού ΔΕΗ) ενώ οι ασφαλιστικές υποχρεώσεις ανελήφθησαν από το
Κράτος -ακόμα και οι έκτακτες ανάγκες (ΣΤΕ 718/2009, 146/2008, 1041 & 531/2007)- ως αντιπαροχή (ν. 2773/99),
καθώς η ασφαλιστική περιουσία παρέμεινε στη ΔΕΗ ΑΕ και με αυτόν τον τρόπο το Ελληνικό Δημόσιο αύξανε την περιουσία
του ως ιδιοκτήτης της. Η κάλυψη προβλεπόταν με την ετήσια καταβολή από το Κράτος ενός ποσού ίσου με τη διαφορά
εσόδων-δαπανών του Ασφαλιστικού Φορέα (εισφορές εργοδότη-εργαζόμενου, μείον δαπάνες σύνταξης και πρόνοιας), το
οποίο αφαιρείται από την ασφαλιστική περιουσία. Το ποσό αυτό είναι πάγιος πόρος του Ασφαλιστικού Φορέα και
εγγράφεται σε ιδιαίτερο κεφάλαιο και κωδικό στον κρατικό προϋπολογισμό. Η εγκυρότητα της ανωτέρω συνθήκης
χρηματοδοτικής κάλυψης έχει ομολογηθεί και με σχετική απόφαση της Ολομέλειας του Αρείου Πάγου (Απ. 13/2010). Η
ελληνική κυβέρνηση, όμως, από το 2010 -επικαλούμενη τις απορρέουσες δεσμεύσεις από τις δανειακές συμβάσειςκαταβάλλει μειωμένο, κατά 30 % και πλέον τον πάγιο πόρο στον Ασφαλιστικό Οργανισμό με αποτέλεσμα την αδυναμία
κάλυψης των υποχρεώσεών του, όταν μάλιστα υπάρχει ρητή δέσμευση για καταβολή του εν λόγω πόρου στο ακέραιο. Με
δεδομένη την ύπαρξη σχετικής νομολογίας του ΕΔΑΔ (απόφαση της 16ης/9/1996, υπόθεση Gaygusuz κατά Αυστρίας) για
τις κοινωνικοασφαλιστικές παροχές όπως αυτές εντάσσονται και στο δεσμευτικό πλαίσιο του άρθρου 1 ΠΠ της ΕΣΔΑ,
ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Σύμφωνα με το ευρωπαϊκό κεκτημένο, συμπεριλαμβανομένων και των προβλέψεων περί προστασίας της περιουσίας, αλλά και
τις δεσμεύσεις της ευρωπαϊκής έννομης τάξης για την προστασία των Θεμελιωδών Ανθρωπίνων Δικαιωμάτων, εντοπίζει
παραβίαση από τη μονομερή μη εφαρμογή της συμφωνίας από το ελληνικό κράτος που υπονομεύει ευθέως τη βιωσιμότητα
και τις παροχές του Ασφαλιστικού Φορέα;

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-001319/12**

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

_(14 Φεβρουαρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Διασφάλιση βιωσιμότητας και κοινωνικής επάρκειας του Οργανισμού Ασφάλισης Προσωπικού Δημόσιας Επιχείρησης
Ηλεκτρισμού (ΔΕΗ) Ελλάδος

Στην από 3.2.2012 ερώτησή μας με θέμα: «Διασφάλιση ασφαλιστικών δικαιωμάτων εργαζομένων στη Δημόσια Επιχείρηση
Ηλεκτρισμού (ΔΕΗ) Ελλάδος») είχαμε αναφερθεί στο ιστορικό της ασφαλιστικής κάλυψης του προσωπικού της ΔΕΗ. Με το
ασφαλιστικό καθεστώς από το 1966 έως και το 1999, η ΔΕΗ εκμεταλλευόταν τα κονδύλια των ασφαλιστικών εισφορών
χρηματοδοτώντας τις αναπτυξιακές της ανάγκες χωρίς να καταφεύγει σε έντοκο δανεισμό ή επιβαρύνσεις στην τιμή της
ηλεκτρικής ενέργειας. Η Γενική Διεύθυνση Ανταγωνισμού της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής, με επιστολή της υπογραφόμενη από
τον κ. Mario Monti, αναφέρει ρητά ότι το όφελος που αποκόμμισε η ΔΕΗ μόνο σε ό,τι αφορά τον κλάδο παραγωγής της
-λόγω του ότι επί μια ορισμένη περίοδο δεν υποχρεωνόταν να συνεισφέρει στο συνταξιοδοτικό ταμείο των υπαλλήλων τηςανέρχεται σε 4 415 εκατ. ευρώ {C(2002) 3729fin}. Έναντι αυτών, η ΔΕΗ είχε αναλάβει την υποχρέωση να καλύπτει το
σύνολο των δαπανών για την ασφάλιση του προσωπικού της. Το ανωτέρω σύστημα ασφάλισης είναι ένα κλασικό
κεφαλοποιητικό σύστημα, ανάλογο με το Ασφαλιστικό Σύστημα που ακολουθήθηκε στην EDF. Ταυτόχρονα, το Δικαστήριο
Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων έχει κρίνει ότι το ασφαλιστικό καθεστώς των συνταξιούχων στη ΔΕΗ ΑΕ συνιστά επαγγελματικό
συνταξιοδοτικό σύστημα με αποφασιστικό κριτήριο καθορισμού του ως «επαγγελματικού» την ύπαρξη εργασιακής σχέσης,
συνθήκη η οποία δεν έχει μεταβληθεί (Απόφαση 17.4.1997 C 147/95 & Πρόταση Γενικού Εισαγγελέα F.G. Jakobs
16.1.1997). Μετά τη μετατροπή της ΔΕΗ σε ΑE, με σχετική νομοθετική ρύθμιση (άρθρο 34 — ν.2773/99), το Ελληνικό
Δημόσιο ανέλαβε τη χρηματοδότηση του Οργανισμού Ασφάλισης Προσωπικού ΔΕΗ ως αντιπαροχή για την παραμονή της
ασφαλιστικής περιουσίας στη ΔΕΗ ΑΕ που βρίσκεται υπό τον έλεγχό του. Από το 2010, όμως, ο προβλεπόμενος πόρος για
τη χρηματοδότηση του Ασφαλιστικού Οργανισμού καταβάλλεται από την ελληνική κυβέρνηση μειωμένος κατά 30 % και
πλέον κατά παράβαση της σχετικής εθνικής νομοθεσίας. Σε αυτό το πλαίσιο ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

C 96 E / 174 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

1. Πώς αξιολογεί τη συγκεκριμένη πρακτική της ελληνικής κυβέρνησης; Είναι συμβατή με την ευρωπαϊκή νομοθεσία, και,
αν όχι, προτίθεται να απευθύνει συστάσεις συμμόρφωσης στην Ελλάδα;

2. Υπάρχουν αντίστοιχες περιπτώσεις σε άλλα κράτη μέλη και πώς επιλύθηκαν;

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

_(2 Απριλίου 2012)_

Κατ’ αρχήν, οι αρμοδιότητες της Επιτροπής όσον αφορά πράξεις και παραλείψεις των κρατών μελών περιορίζονται στην
επίβλεψη της εφαρμογής και της τήρησης του δικαίου της Ένωσης υπό τον έλεγχο του Δικαστηρίου (πβ. άρθρο 17
παράγραφος 1 ΣΕΕ). Στην προκειμένη περίπτωση, δεν φαίνεται ότι το οικείο κράτος μέλος ενήργησε στο πλαίσιο της
εφαρμογής του δικαίου της Ένωσης. Οι χρηματοοικονομικές διευθετήσεις μεταξύ της ελληνικής κυβέρνησης και του
ασφαλιστικού φορέα όσον αφορά τις πληρωμές που πρέπει να καταβληθούν από το κράτος για τις παροχές κοινωνικής
πρόνοιας στους υπαλλήλους της Δημόσιας Επιχείρησης Ηλεκτρισμού (ΔΕΗ) αποτελεί θεμελιωδώς ζήτημα εθνικής
αρμοδιότητας. Η Επιτροπή δεν έχει αρμοδιότητα να παρέμβει στην οργάνωση και στη χρηματοδότηση των συστημάτων
κοινωνικής προστασίας στα κράτη μέλη.

Όσον αφορά πιθανή παραβίαση του άρθρου 1 του Πρόσθετου Πρωτοκόλλου στην Ευρωπαϊκή Σύμβαση για την Προάσπιση
των Δικαιωμάτων του Ανθρώπου και των Θεμελιωδών Ελευθεριών, η Επιτροπή δεν είναι σε θέση να κρίνει κατά πόσον
συμβιβάζονται με την εν λόγω Σύμβαση ενέργειες οι οποίες εμπίπτουν στην εθνική αρμοδιότητα.

Η Επιτροπή δεν έχει υπόψη της παραβιάσεις της νομοθεσίας της ΕΕ, ως απόρροια των νέων χρηματοοικονομικών
διευθετήσεων μεταξύ της ελληνικής κυβέρνησης και του ασφαλιστικού φορέα, ούτε παρόμοιες παραβιάσεις σε άλλα κράτη
μέλη.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 175

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001318/12**

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

_(6 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Protection of the social insurance rights of employees of DEI, the Greek public power corporation

Since 1966 (Law 4491/1966), the DEI has covered the mandatory social insurance of its staff and collected its
employees’ insurance contributions without paying the employer’s contributions that every enterprise in Greece is
obliged to pay. In return for this it undertook to cover its staff’s entire insurance expenditure. With the reorganisation
of DEI as a limited company, (a) to be listed on the stock market and (b) to establish the conditions, in accordance
with EU decisions, for deregulation of the electricity market, its staff’s social insurance was assigned to a private
company governed by public law (the DEI staff insurance organisation) with the insurance obligations — including
the emergency requirements — continuing, in compensation (Law 2773/99), to be met by the State (Council of State
718/2009, 146/2008, 1041 & 531/2007). Meanwhile the insurance assets remained in the hands of DEI A.E., with
the result that the Greek State, as owner of DEI, increased its assets. The coverage was provided for through the annual
payment by the Greek State of an amount equal to the difference between the insurance institution’s income and
expenditure (employers’ and employees’ contributions minus expenditure on pension and welfare), which is deducted
from the insurance assets. This amount is a fixed asset of the insurance institution and is recorded under a special
heading and code in the national budget. The validity of this budget entry has also been ratified by a relevant decision
of the Areios Pagos (Supreme Court) plenary session (Decision 13/2010). But the Greek Government, invoking the
obligations of loan agreements, has since 2010 reduced by 30 % and more the fixed amount being paid into the
insurance fund, so that it has become impossible for it to fulfil its obligations, despite its explicit commitment to
meeting the payment concerned in full. Given the existence of relevant ECHR case law (the _Gaygusuz_ v _Austria_ decision
of 16 September 1996) on social security benefits such as those included in the binding framework of Article 1 of
Protocol 1 to the ECHR, will the Commission answer the following:

In accordance with the European acquis, including the specifications on protection of assets, as well as the
commitments in the European legal system to protect fundamental human rights, does the Commission consider this
unilateral non-application of the agreement by the Greek State, to be an infringement directly undermining the
viability, and the benefits, of the insurance institution?

**Question for written answer E-001319/12**

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

_(14 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Safeguarding the sustainability and adequacy of Greek Public Power Corporation (DEI) social security
provisions

In our written question of 3 February 2012 on ‘Safeguarding the social security entitlements of employees at the
Greek Public Power Corporation (DEI)’ we described the background to DEI social security arrangements. From 1966
to 1999, the DEI was able to meet its needs through social security contributions without the need for interestbearing loans or electricity surcharges. The European Commission's Directorate-General for Competition, in a letter
signed by Mr Mario Monti, explicitly states that the DEI's production profits alone amounted to EUR 4.415 million
since, for a certain period, it was not obliged to pay contributions to the pension fund of its employees {C(2002)
3729fin}. Instead, the DEI undertook to cover all social security expenditure for them. This is a classic capital-funded
system, similar to the EDF's social security arrangements. At the same time, the Court of Justice of the European
Communities ruled that the DEI SA pension scheme is an occupational pension scheme, the decisive criterion for its
classification as ‘occupational’ being the existence of an employment relationship, a condition which has not changed
(Judgment 17.4.1997 C 147/95 and Opinion of Advocate General F.G. Jakobs 16.1.1997). After the DEI was made a
Public Limited Company (SA) under the appropriate legislation (Article 34 — Law 277./99), the Greek Government
agreed to fund its social insurance scheme in return for retaining control of its assets. Since 2010, however, the
amount earmarked for the scheme by the Greek Government has been reduced by over 30 %, thereby infringing the
relevant national legislation. In the light of this:

1. What view does the Commission take of this action by the Greek Government? Is it compatible with European
legislation and, if not, does it intend to call on Greece to comply with it?

2. Have any similar cases arisen in other Member States and how were they resolved?

C 96 E / 176 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

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

_(2 April 2012)_

As a matter of principle, the Commission's powers regarding acts and omissions by Member States are limited to
overseeing the application and respect of Union law, under the control of the Court of Justice (cf. Article 17(1) TEU).
It does not appear that, in this case, the Member State concerned did act in the course of implementation of Union
law. The financial arrangements between the Greek Government and the insurance provider regarding the payments
to be made by the government for the welfare benefits of Public Power Corporation DEI employees are fundamentally
a matter of national competence. The Commission has no powers to intervene in the organisation and financing of
social protection systems in the Member States.

As regards a possible breach of Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Commission is not in a position to assess whether actions falling
within national competence comply with this convention.

The Commission is not aware of any infringements of EU legislation arising from these new financial arrangements
between the Greek Government and the insurance provider, nor of similar cases in other Member States.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 177

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-001320/12**

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

_(14 Φεβρουαρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Διόγκωση της εισφοροδιαφυγής στην Ελλάδα

Η εισφοροδιαφυγή, ολική ή μερική αποφυγή καταβολής ασφαλιστικών εισφορών, αποτελεί μια από τις βασικότερες αιτίες για
την παθογένεια του ελληνικού Ασφαλιστικού Συστήματος, υπονομεύοντας άμεσα τόσο την κοινωνική του επάρκεια όσο και
την προοπτική της βιωσιμότητάς του. Ταυτόχρονα, επεκτείνεται σε κάθε πεδίο των δημοσίων οικονομικών είτε με την
επακόλουθη φοροδιαφυγή είτε μέσω του αποπροσανατολισμού των κοινωνικών δαπανών επιφέροντας σημαντικά πλήγματα
σε κάθε προσπάθεια για την επίτευξη της δημοσιονομικής ισορροπίας.

Σε πρόσφατα στοιχεία που δημοσιοποίησε η Ειδική Υπηρεσία Ελέγχων Ασφάλισης (ΕΥΠΕΑ) του ΙΚΑ-ΕΤΑΜ -μέσω της
διενέργειας ειδικών δειγματοληπτικών ελέγχων σε επιχειρήσεις- το ύψος της εισφοροδιαφυγής στην Ελλάδα για το 2011
εκτιμήθηκε στο 30 % αυξημένο κατά 5 % σε σχέση με το 2010. Σε αυτό το πλαίσιο ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

1. Διαθέτει στατιστικά στοιχεία για το ποσοστό της εισφοροδιαφυγής και τη διακύμανσή του την τελευταία διετία στα
κράτη μέλη;

2. Σύμφωνα με τα στοιχεία της ΕΥΠΕΑ του ΙΚΑ-ΕΤΑΜ, το 40 % των ανασφάλιστων απασχολούμενων είναι αλλοδαποί.
Υπάρχει κάποια μελέτη ή εκτίμηση σχετικά με τη διάρθρωση (ημεδαποί-αλλοδαποί) της εισφοροδιαφυγής, τόσο σε
εθνικό όσο και σε συνολικότερο ενωσιακό επίπεδο;

3. Με δεδομένη τη δυσχερή δημοσιονομική κατάσταση πολλών κρατών μελών προτίθεται να προωθήσει την ανταλλαγή
βέλτιστων πρακτικών, ώστε να αναδειχθούν οι πιο ενδεδειγμένες λύσεις για την καταπολέμηση του εν λόγω
φαινομένου;

4. Σκοπεύει να αναλάβει περαιτέρω δράσεις για την ευαισθητοποίηση και την ενδυνάμωση της ασφαλιστικής κουλτούρας
του κόσμου της εργασίας;

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

_(2 Απριλίου 2012)_

Η Επιτροπή έχει επίγνωση της σημασίας της εισφοροδιαφυγής για το έλλειμμα των ταμείων κοινωνικής ασφάλισης στην
Ελλάδα και σε άλλα κράτη μέλη της ΕΕ. Ωστόσο δεν διαθέτει πλήρη και αναλυτικά στοιχεία σχετικά με το επίπεδο της
εισφοροδιαφυγής και τις τάσεις στα επιμέρους κράτη μέλη ούτε μελέτες με θέμα την κατανομή της εισφοροδιαφυγής μεταξύ
ημεδαπών και αλλοδαπών εργαζομένων.

Το ΙΚΑ-ΕΤΑΜ, το οποίο είναι το μεγαλύτερο ταμείο κοινωνικής ασφάλισης στην Ελλάδα, ζήτησε πρόσφατα από την Ειδική
Ομάδα (Task Force) για την Ελλάδα τεχνική βοήθεια για το θέμα της συλλογής των εισφορών ιδίως όσον αφορά την
καθιέρωση ενιαίου μηχανισμού για την είσπραξη των εισφορών κοινωνικής ασφάλισης και τη συλλογή των φόρων. Μετά την
αναλυτική αξιολόγηση των αναγκών του ΙΚΑ-ΕΤΑΜ θα αναληφθούν περαιτέρω δράσεις στον εν λόγω τομέα. Ως πρώτο βήμα,
οι υπάλληλοι του ΙΚΑ-ΕΤΑΜ που είναι επιφορτισμένοι με τη συλλογή των εισφορών κοινωνικής ασφάλισης έλαβαν μέρος σε
επιμορφωτικό σεμινάριο στην Αθήνα σχετικά με τις πιθανές μεθόδους ταχείας βελτίωσης της είσπραξης φορολογικών
οφειλών, που διοργανώθηκε από την Task Force στην Αθήνα για την ελληνική φορολογική διοίκηση (Γενική Γραμματεία
Φορολογικών και Τελωνειακών Υποθέσεων) με συμμετοχή εμπειρογνώμονα από την ολλανδική φορολογική διοίκηση.

C 96 E / 178 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001320/12**

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

_(14 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Increasing evasion of social security contributions in Greece

Evasion, that is to say the full or partial non-payment of social security contributions, is one of the principal factors
weakening the Greek Social Security System, directly undermining both the adequacy and sustainability of the service
provided. Every area of public finance is being affected by either non-payment of contributions or wrongful payment
of benefits, effectively sabotaging any efforts to balance the books.

According to the recent findings of sample checks by the IKA-ETAM Inspectorate (EYPEA), evasion of social security
contributions in Greece was around 30 % in 2011, 5 % higher than in 2010.

In view of this:

1. Does the Commission have statistical data regarding the level of evasion and trends in the Member States over
the last two years?

2. According to information from the IKA-ETAM Inspectorate (EYPEA), 40 % of uninsured employees are
foreigners. Have any studies or estimates been made regarding the breakdown (between domestic and foreign
workers) of contribution evasion at national and EU level?

3. Given the parlous financial situation of many Member States does it intend to promote the exchange of best
practices in order to find the appropriate ways of combating the problem?

4. Does it intend to take further action to heighten awareness and underpin social insurance at the workplace?

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

_(2 April 2012)_

The Commission is aware of the importance of social security contribution evasion in the deficit of the Social Funds
encountered in Greece and in other European Member States. However it does not have complete and exhaustive data
on the level of evasion and trends in the Member States or studies breaking down the social security contribution
evasion between national and foreign workers.

IKA-ETAM, which is the biggest Social Security Fund in Greece, recently asked the Task Force for Greece for technical
assistance on the issue of contributions collection and in particular regarding the possible unification of the
mechanism for collecting social insurance contributions with the collection of taxes. Further actions will follow on in
this area once the needs of IKA-ETAM have been precisely assessed. As a first step, collection officials from IKAETAM took part in a workshop in Athens on possible quick wins for tax debt collection, organised by the Task Force
in Athens for the Greek tax administration (General Secretariat for Tax and Customs) with an expert from the Dutch
tax administration.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 179

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-001321/12**

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

_(14 Φεβρουαρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Συγχρηματοδοτούμενα έργα στην Ελλάδα

Όπως είναι γνωστό, η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή διαχρονικά έχει συγχρηματοδοτήσει μέσω των Κοινοτικών Πλαισίων Στήριξης
(ΚΠΣ) και έως σήμερα συγχρηματοδοτεί μέσω του Εθνικού Στρατηγικού Πλαισίου Αναφοράς (ΕΣΠΑ 2007-2013),
σημαντικότατες επενδύσεις στην Ελλάδα, στο πλαίσιο της πολιτικής συνοχής και της περιφερειακής πολιτικής της
Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.

Κατά την τελευταία διετία, αποφασίστηκε η εντατικότερη αξιοποίηση της ιδιωτικής περιουσίας του ελληνικού δημοσίου στο
πλαίσιο του Προγράμματος Οικονομικής Στήριξης, το οποίο αξιολογείται επίσης από την Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή, Γενική
Διεύθυνση Οικονομικών και Χρηματοδοτικών Υποθέσεων.

Η αξιοποίηση όμως ενδέχεται να περιλάβει έργα φορέων, οργανισμών και επιχειρήσεων του Ελληνικού δημοσίου, τα οποία
συγχρηματοδοτούνται από την Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή, έπεται όμως η, σε μεγαλύτερο ή μικρότερο βαθμό, αποκρατικοποίηση
ορισμένων τέτοιων φορέων. Ως εκ τούτου, τίθεται ένα ζήτημα μελλοντικής κυριότητας ανάλογων έργων, για παράδειγμα
ιδίως έργα υποδομών φυσικού αερίου και ηλεκτρισμού, έργα υποδομών μεταφορών κ.ο.κ. καθώς επισημαίνεται το γεγονός
ότι η Κοινοτική νομοθεσία και ιδίως το άρθρο 57 του Κανονισμού (ΕΚ)1083/2006, απαιτεί τη διατήρηση, για 5 χρόνια από
την ολοκλήρωσή τους, της κυριότητας των υποδομών δημοσίου χαρακτήρα που συγχρηματοδοτούνται από την Ευρωπαϊκή
Ένωση μέσω του ΕΣΠΑ.

Με βάση τα ανωτέρω, ερωτάται ο αρμόδιος Επίτροπος Περιφερειακής Πολιτικής:

1. Με δεδομένο ότι συγχρηματοδοτούνται σήμερα από το ΕΣΠΑ κρίσιμα έργα για τη χώρα, ποια είναι η θέση της Γενικής
Διεύθυνσης Περιφερειακής Πολιτικής της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής σχετικά με το ζήτημα αυτό;

2. Έχει ζητηθεί η άποψή της από τη Γενική Διεύθυνση Οικονομικών και Χρηματοδοτικών Υποθέσεων;

3. Οι επενδύσεις που συγχρηματοδοτούνται θα πρέπει όντως να εξαιρεθούν, έως την πενταετία των Κανονισμών ως
εύλογο σημείο απόσβεσης, από κάποια άμεση αποκρατικοποίηση;

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

_(20 Μαρτίου 2012)_

1. Σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 57 του κανονισμού (ΕΚ) αριθ. 1083/2006 ( [1] ), ένα έργο διατηρεί τη συνεισφορά των ταμείων
μόνον εάν, εντός πέντε ετών από την ολοκλήρωση του έργου ή εντός τριών ετών από την ολοκλήρωση του έργου στα κράτη
μέλη που έχουν επιλέξει να μειώσουν αυτό το χρονικό όριο, το εν λόγω έργο δεν υποστεί σημαντική τροποποίηση. Σημαντική
τροποποίηση είναι εκείνη η οποία:

—
επηρεάζει τη φύση ή τους όρους υλοποίησης του έργου ή παρέχει αδικαιολόγητο πλεονέκτημα σε επιχείρηση ή
δημόσιο φορέα, και

—
απορρέει είτε από αλλαγή στη φύση της κυριότητας στοιχείου υποδομής είτε από την παύση παραγωγικής
δραστηριότητας.

Εάν συντρέχουν οι ανωτέρω συνθήκες τα αχρεωστήτως καταβληθέντα ποσά ανακτώνται. Η εφαρμογή της διαδικασίας
ιδιωτικοποιήσεων στην Ελλάδα θα πρέπει να είναι σύμφωνη με τη σχετική ισχύουσα ενωσιακή και εθνική νομοθεσία.

2. Όλες οι αρμόδιες υπηρεσίες της Επιτροπής συμμετέχουν στην εφαρμογή της πολιτικής για τη συνοχή και ζητείται η
γνώμη τους για τις αποφάσεις που λαμβάνει η Επιτροπή.

3. Στόχος του άρθρου 57 δεν είναι να εξαιρέσει από την ιδιωτικοποίηση για πέντε χρόνια τα έργα που
συγχρηματοδοτούνται από την ΕΕ. Η εν λόγω διάταξη έχει ως στόχο να διασφαλίσει ότι οι επενδύσεις σε επιχειρήσεις που
υποστηρίζονται από την ΕΕ είναι μεγάλης διάρκειας· διευκρινίζει έτσι τις πιθανές συνέπειες για τη χρηματοδοτική στήριξη της
ΕΕ που έχει ήδη χορηγηθεί, αν μια αλλαγή στη φύση της κυριότητας επέλθει πριν από τη λήξη της πενταετούς περιόδου η
οποία αρχίζει από την ημερομηνία ολοκλήρωσης του έργου.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) ΕΕ L 210 της 31.7.2006.

C 96 E / 180 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001321/12**

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

_(14 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Co-financed projects in Greece

As is well known, the Commission has, over the years, co-financed very significant investments in Greece as part of
the European Union’s Cohesion and Regional policies, through the Community support frameworks (CSF) and it
continues to do so through the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF 2007-2013).

In the last two years, the increased use of Greek Government assets as part of the Financial Support Programme has
been decided, which is also assessed by the Commission Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs.

This may however include the work of entities, organisations and businesses of the Greek Government which are cofunded by the Commission, following however, to a greater or lesser extent, the privatisation of such entities. For this
reason, this raises the issue of the future ownership of such projects, for example infrastructure projects relating to
natural gas and electricity, transport projects etc., as Community legislation, specifically Article 57 of Regulation (EC)
1083/2006, requires the ownership of public infrastructure co-financed by the European Union through NSRF to be
retained for five years following completion.

On this basis, will the Commissioner responsible for Regional Policy clarify:

1. Given that projects crucial for the country are today being co-financed by NSRF, what is the position of the
Commission Directorate-General for Regional Policy on this issue?

2. Has the Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs been asked for its opinion?

3. Should investments which are co-financed definitely be exempt, for the five-year period stipulated by the
regulation, from any immediate privatisation?

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

_(20 March 2012)_

1. Pursuant to Article 57 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 ( [1] ), a project retains the contribution from the
Funds unless a substantial modification is undergone within five years from the completion of the project, or
three years when a Member State has exercised its option to reduce this time limit. A substantial modification is
one which:

—
affects the nature or the implementation conditions of the project or gives an undue advantage to a firm or to a
public body, and

—
results either from a change in the nature of ownership of an item of infrastructure or the cessation of a
productive activity.

If the above conditions are met, then any amounts unduly paid shall be recovered. The implementation of the
privatisation process in Greece will have to be compliant with the relevant applicable EU and national rules.

2. All relevant Commission services are involved in the implementation of cohesion policy and are consulted for
any Commission decisions taken.

3. The aim of Article 57 is not to exempt EU co-financed projects from privatisation for five years. This provision
is aimed to ensure that the investments in businesses supported by the EU are long-lasting; it thus sets out the possible
consequences for EU financial support already granted if a change in the nature of ownership occurs before the expiry
of the five-year period, which commences from the date of the completion of the project.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 210, 31.7.2006.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 181

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-001322/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(13 Φεβρουαρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Διαπολιτισμικά σχολεία για παιδιά νόμιμων μεταναστών στην Ελλάδα

Τα παιδιά των οικονομικών μεταναστών που διανέμουν νόμιμα στη Ελλάδα μεταξύ άλλων αντιμετωπίζουν ιδιαίτερα σοβαρές
δυσκολίες προσαρμογής και εκμάθησης του ελληνικού εκπαιδευτικού συστήματος στα Δημόσια Σχολεία γεγονός που
προκαλεί, παράλληλα, προβλήματα και στους υπόλοιπους μαθητές. Συχνά φαινόμενα είναι η εγγραφή τους σε σχολικές
τάξεις δυσανάλογες με την ηλικία ή το μορφωτικό επίπεδό τους, η πρόωρη εγκατάλειψη του σχολείου, αλλά και το μεγάλο
ποσοστό αποτυχίας σε εξετάσεις πρόσβασης σε ανώτερα εκπαιδευτικά επίπεδα.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

1. Προβλέπεται η δυνατότητα τα κράτη μέλη να αξιοποιήσουν πόρους από τα διαρθρωτικά ταμεία για την ενίσχυση
αυτού του θεσμού; Υπάρχουν εμπειρικά παραδείγματα από κράτη μέλη που έρχονται αντιμέτωπα με μεγάλους
αριθμούς παράνομων μεταναστευτικών ροών;

2. Έχει η Ελλάδα μέχρι σήμερα αξιοποιήσει πόρους από τα διαθρωτικά ταμεία για το σκοπό αυτό και ποιό το ύψος των
χρημάτων αυτών;

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

_(21 Μαρτίου 2012)_

1. Είναι δυνατόν για τα κράτη μέλη να χρησιμοποιούν το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινωνικό Ταμείο για τη λήψη ειδικών μέτρων με
σκοπό τη βελτίωση της συμμετοχής των μεταναστών (21.3.2012) στην εκπαίδευση. Διάφορες χώρες έχουν επικεντρώσει την
προσοχή τους στους νέους μετανάστες, αλλά αυτές δεν απορροφούν απαραίτητα μεγάλα ποσοστά μεταναστών ( [1] ).

2. Ένας βασικός στόχος του επιχειρησιακού προγράμματος «Εκπαίδευση και Διά Βίου Μάθηση» για την Ελλάδα, το οποίο
συγχρηματοδοτείται από το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινωνικό Ταμείο, είναι η ενίσχυση της πρόσβασης όλων και η συμμετοχή τους στο
εκπαιδευτικό σύστημα, και η καταπολέμηση της πρόωρης εγκατάλειψης του σχολείου, με έμφαση στα άτομα με ειδικές
ανάγκες και στις ευάλωτες κοινωνικές ομάδες.

Το εν λόγω πρόγραμμα υποστηρίζει μια ενέργεια με στόχο την παροχή μεγαλύτερης εκπαιδευτικής υποστήριξης σε μαθητές
μειονεκτικής προέλευσης (συμπεριλαμβανομένων των μεταναστών). Ο προϋπολογισμός που διατίθεται για την ενέργεια αυτή
ανέρχεται σε περίπου 42 εκατ. ευρώ, εκ των οποίων περίπου τα 5 εκατομμύρια ευρώ είχαν δαπανηθεί μέχρι το τέλος του
2011.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Βλ. σχέδια στο διαδικτυακό τόπο του ΕΚΤ: http://ec.europa.eu/esf/main.jsp?catId=467&langId=en.

C 96 E / 182 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001322/12**

**to the Commission**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(13 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Intercultural schools for children of legal migrants in Greece

The children of economic migrants residing legally in Greece face a number of problems, including particularly
serious adjustment and learning difficulties in the Greek public education system, a fact which also causes problems
for other students. Frequent problems include pupils being registered in classes which do not correspond to their age
or their level of education, pupils leaving school early and a high failure rate in higher education entrance
examinations.

In view of this:

1. Will it be possible for Member States to use structural fund resources to remedy the problem? Are there any
examples from Member States having to deal with large illegal migrant intakes?

2. Has Greece used any structural fund resources for this purpose to date and how much?

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

_(21 March 2012)_

1. It is possible for Member States to use the European Social Fund for specific measures to improve migrant
participation in education. Several countries have targeted young migrants but these are not necessarily linked to
large migrant intakes ( [1] ).

2. A key objective of the operational programme ‘Education and Lifelong Learning’ for Greece, which is co-funded
by the European Social Fund, is to strengthen access to and participation in the educational system by all, and to
combat early school leaving, with an emphasis on the disabled and vulnerable social groups.

This programme supports an operation aimed at the provision of increased educational support to pupils with a
disadvantaged background (including migrants). The budget allocated to this operation amounts to approximately
EUR 42 million out of which around EUR 5 million had been spent by the end of 2011.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) See projects on ESF website: http://ec.europa.eu/esf/main.jsp?catId=467&langId=en.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 183

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-001323/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(13 Φεβρουαρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Ομάδα δράσης στην Ελλάδα για την καταπολέμηση της νεανικής ανεργίας

Κατά τη διάρκεια της συνάντησης μεταξύ του Προέδρου της Επιτροπής και του Έλληνα Πρωθυπουργού στο πλαίσιο του
πρόσφατου Ευρωπαϊκού Συμβουλίου συμφωνήθηκε σύσταση «ομάδων δράσης», πέραν της υπαρχούσης taskforce, ειδικά, για
την αντιμετώπιση της ανεργίας των νέων και την τόνωση της ανάπτυξης.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

1. Είναι σε θέση να με ενημερώσει για το πρόγραμμα και τις πρωτοβουλίες των συγκεκριμένων ομάδων δράσης;

2. Εκτιμά η Επιτροπή ότι υπάρχει περιορισμένη αξιοποίηση των κοινοτικών κονδυλίων που έχουν δεσμευθεί μέσα από το
ΕΣΠΑ για την ενίσχυση της απασχόλησης, την εκπαίδευση και τη διά βίου μάθηση στο βαθμό που απαιτείται τεχνική
συνδρομή από νέα ομάδα δράσης για αυτό το ζήτημα;

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

_(22 Μαρτίου 2012)_

Ύστερα από πρωτοβουλία του προέδρου της Επιτροπής στο άτυπο Ευρωπαϊκό Συμβούλιο της 30ής Ιανουαρίου 2012, η
Επιτροπή στέλνει ομάδες δράσεις σε οκτώ κράτη μέλη με υψηλό ποσοστό άνεργων νέων. Το καθήκον τους είναι να
προσδιορίσουν τα απαραίτητα στοιχεία ενός προγράμματος για την απασχόληση των νέων, καθώς και η ανάπτυξη
καθεστώτων στήριξης των ΜΜΕ τα οποία χρήζουν επιτάχυνσης ή μεταβίβασης από τα ενωτικά κονδύλια που έχουν ήδη
διατεθεί με στόχο να αυξηθούν ο ευκαιρίες απασχόλησης των νέων.

Τα εν λόγω προγράμματα πρέπει, για παράδειγμα, να καθορίσουν συγκεκριμένα μέτρα πολιτικής και δημοσιονομικά μέτρα
για τη στήριξη της δημιουργίας απασχόλησης και εκπαίδευσης των νέων, που αντιμετωπίζουν τις αναντιστοιχίες δεξιοτήτων
και την πρόωρη εγκατάλειψη της σχολικής εκπαίδευσης. Τα προγράμματα αυτά θα πρέπει να βασίζονται στην πρωτοβουλία
της Επιτροπής «Ευκαιρίες για τους νέους».

Μόνο το ένα πέμπτο περίπου από τον διαθέσιμο προϋπολογισμό του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινωνικού Ταμείου για σχετικά
προγράμματα μένει ακόμα να διατεθεί επιτόπια. Τα σχετικά προγράμματα του ΕΤΠΑ και του Ταμείου Συνοχής έχουν διαθέσει
ελαφρώς περισσότερα κονδύλια από τον διαθέσιμο προϋπολογισμό. Διάφορα προγράμματα στην Ελλάδα έχουν ήδη
συγχρηματοδοτηθεί από τα προγράμματα του διαρθρωτικού ταμείου με στόχο την προώθηση της απασχόλησης των νέων·
μεταξύ αυτών εκπαιδευτικά προγράμματα για την απόκτηση δεξιοτήτων, την υποστήριξη του επιχειρηματικού πνεύματος των
νέων, τη βοήθεια των άνεργων νέων στην εύρεση εργασίας, καθώς και επιδοτήσεις και καθεστώτα απασχόλησης.

Η Επιτροπή έχει συγκροτήσει μια Ομάδα δράσης για την Ελλάδα εντολή της οποίας είναι να συνεργαστεί στενά με τις
ελληνικές αρχές με στόχο να βοηθήσει στην εφαρμογή του προγράμματος οικονομικής προσαρμογής και στην επιτάχυνση
της απορρόφησης κεφαλαίων της ΕΕ για τη στήριξη της ανάπτυξης, της απασχόλησης και της ανταγωνιστικότητας. Η ομάδα
δράσης για την απασχόληση των νέων θα βασιστεί στις εργασίες της ομάδας δράσης για την Ελλάδα καθώς και άλλων
συναφών υπηρεσιών της Επιτροπής, περιλαμβάνει σχετικά μέλη του προσωπικού τους και θα εντατικοποιήσει τις προσπάθειες
για την εξασφάλιση απασχόλησης σε περισσότερους νέους.

C 96 E / 184 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001323/12**

**to the Commission**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(13 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Task force in Greece for combating youth unemployment

During the meeting between the President of the Commission and the Greek Prime Minister at the recent European
Council, it was agreed that, in addition to the existing task force, a task force specifically aimed at combating youth
unemployment and boosting growth would be set up.

In view of this:

1. Is the Commission in a position to provide information on the specific task forces’ programme and initiatives?

2. Does the Commission consider that the take-up of EU funding earmarked under the NSRF for increasing
employment, training and lifelong learning is so limited as to necessitate technical assistance from a new task
force in this area?

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

_(22 March 2012)_

Following the President of the Commission initiative at the Informal European Council on 30 January 2012, the
Commission sends action teams to eight Member States with high rate of unemployed young people. Their task is to
identify the necessary elements of a youth employment plan and support schemes to SMEs which should be
accelerated or have funds transferred into them from existing EU funds in order to boost youth employment
opportunities.

These plans should for example set out specific policy and budgetary measures to support job creation and training
for young people tackling skills mismatches and early school leaving. The plans should build on the recent
Commission Youth Opportunities Initiative.

Only around one fifth of the budget available under the ESF for relevant projects is still to be allocated to projects on
the ground. The relevant ERDF and Cohesion Fund programmes have allocated even slightly more than the available
budget. Various schemes have already been co-financed under the Structural Fund programmes in Greece in order to
promote youth employment, including training programmes for skills acquisition, support for youth
entrepreneurship, job search assistance to unemployed youth, employment subsidies and schemes.

The Commission has set up a Task Force for Greece (TFGR), with a mandate to work in close collaboration with the
Greek authorities to help implementing the Economic Adjustment Programme and to accelerate the take-up of EU
funds in order to support growth, employment and competitiveness. The action team for youth employment will
build on the work of the TFGR and relevant Commission services, includes relevant members of their staff and will
accentuate efforts to bringing more young people in employment.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 185

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001326/12**

**to the Council**
**David Campbell Bannerman (ECR)**

_(13 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Public meetings

Can the European Council say if and when it plans to meet in public, and whether, in relation to Council meetings, it
will waive the secrecy of agendas, minutes and discussions?

**Reply**
_(19 March 2012)_

It is not for the Council to answer questions concerning the European Council, since the European Council is a
separate institution. However, the Council would point out that the provisional agenda, the annotated draft agenda,
and the conclusions of the European Council are not ‘secret’, as they are all published. Furthermore, the President of
the European Council reports to the European Parliament on that Council's deliberations after each of its meetings.

C 96 E / 186 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001327/12**

**to the Council**
**David Campbell Bannerman (ECR)**

_(13 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Common market standards for the EU and the USA — meetings between Council and US Government
officials

How often does the Council meet with US Government officials to discuss common market standards for the EU and

the USA?

**Reply**
_(26 March 2012)_

The Council does not meet with US Government officials to discuss common market standards.

The standards regulations are discussed in the framework of the EC‐US High-Level Regulatory Cooperation Forum,
which reports to the Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC); the latter in turn reports to the Summit.

The High-Level Regulatory Cooperation Forum meets twice a year, and the last meeting took place on
28 November 2011 in Washington.

Since common market standards fall within the sphere of competence of the Commission, the Honourable Member
may wish to refer to the Commission for additional information on his query.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 187

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001328/12**

**to the Commission**
**David Campbell Bannerman (ECR)**

_(14 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Common market standards between the EU and USA — meetings between Commission and US Government
officials

How often does the Commission meet US Government officials to discuss common market standards between the EU
and the US? Can the Commission provide a list of such meetings for the last three years?

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

_(20 March 2012)_

The Commission and the US government regularly meet to discuss standards in the context of the High Level
Regulatory Cooperation Forum, established in 2005. The last meeting took place on 28 November 2011 in
Washington. The work of the Forum contributes to achieving the objectives of high-level political bodies, in
particular the Transatlantic Economic Council and the Energy Council.

The Forum provides a regular platform for Commission and US senior government officials to address cross-cutting
regulatory issues of common interest. Discussions have shown that the ways regulators the European Union and the
United States define and use standards are different. Efforts to reconcile these differences have resulted in the adoption
in November 2011 of the joint document ‘Building bridges between the US and EU standards systems’.

In order to avoid that divergent approaches to standards create barriers to trade, the Transatlantic Economic Council
and the Forum seek to promote the development of coherent standards in emerging sectors such as for example
electric vehicles and smart grids or bio-based products, key enabling technologies such as nanotechnology, and other
cross-cutting areas, such as energy efficiency.

At the last EU‐US Summit in November 2011, leaders decided to establish a High-Level Working Group on Jobs and
Growth, with a view to identifying policies and measures to increase EU‐US trade and investment to support mutually
beneficial job creation, economic growth, and international competitiveness. This Group will meet regularly to
examine options in areas such as conventional barriers to market access and regulatory issues affecting trade in goods;
standards-related issues will also be addressed in this context.

C 96 E / 188 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001329/12**

**to the Commission**
**David Campbell Bannerman (ECR)**

_(13 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ European Arrest Warrant and ACTA

I would like to ask the Commission if the European Arrest Warrant can be invoked if an EU citizen violates the AntiCounterfeit Trade Agreement (ACTA).

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

_(26 March 2012)_

ACTA is an enforcement agreement setting civil, administrative, customs and penal measures to address
infringements of intellectual property rights, therefore it cannot be directly infringed by citizens. However, if a citizen
performs a piracy or counterfeiting act wilfully and on a commercial scale — as defined in Section 4 of ACTA — and
is consequently either accused of a crime or condemned to a prison term according to the national law of a Member
State, then the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) can be invoked pursuant to the conditions set therein. These
conditions, as set out in Article 2 of the Council Framework Decision on the EAW ( [1] ), are that a judicial authority of a
Member State may issue an EAW ‘for acts punishable by the law of the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence
or a detention order for a maximum period of at least 12 months or, where a sentence has been passed or a detention
order has been made, for sentences of at least four months’.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member
States, OJ L 190, 18.7.2002.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 189

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001330/12**

**to the Commission**
**David Campbell Bannerman (ECR)**

_(13 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Conflict in the Strait of Hormuz

Has the Commission made a statement and/or does it have a strategy to handle conflict in the Strait of Hormuz?

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

_(10 May 2012)_

The Commission has not made any statement regarding the Strait of Hormuz.

It is clear that in the regional context, Iran’s acceleration of enrichment activities has contributed to increasing
tensions. The EU is determined to find a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear issue. The imposition of new
sanctions at the end of January 2012 has been followed by a letter from Iran's nuclear negotiator, Mr Jalili, which
offers grounds for cautious optimism that talks may occur soon.

C 96 E / 190 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001331/12**

**to the Commission**
**David Campbell Bannerman (ECR)**

_(13 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Non-Governmental Organisation — definition

What is the Commission’s definition of a ‘Non-Governmental Organisation’ (NGO)?

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

_(2 March 2012)_

A common definition of the term ‘non-governmental organisation’ cannot be based on a legal definition given the
wide variations in laws relating to NGO activities, according to which an NGO may have, for instance, the legal status
of a charity, non-profit association or a foundation. The term ‘NGO’ can nevertheless be used as shorthand to refer to
a range of organisations that normally share the following characteristics:

—
NGOs are not created to generate personal profit. Although they may have paid employees and engage in
revenue-generating activities they do not distribute profits or surpluses to members or management;

—
NGOs are voluntary. This means that they are formed voluntarily and that there is usually an element of
voluntary participation in the organisation;

—
NGOs are distinguished from informal or ad hoc groups by having some degree of formal or institutional
existence. Usually, NGOs have formal statutes or other governing document setting out their mission,
objectives and scope. They are accountable to their members and donors;

—
NGOs are independent, in particular of government and other public authorities and of political parties or
commercial organisations;

—
NGOs are not self-serving in aims and related values. Their aim is to act in the public arena at large, on concerns
and issues related to the well being of people, specific groups of people or society as a whole. They are not
pursuing the commercial or professional interests of their members.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 191

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001335/12**

**to the Commission**
**David Campbell Bannerman (ECR)**

_(13 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Free trade agreements — social and economic impact studies

Does the Commission believe that proposed free trade agreements with developing countries should be delayed by
‘social and economic’ impact studies?

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

_(16 March 2012)_

The Commission is fully committed to a trade policy that pursues economic growth, while promoting social equity
and preserving environmental resources. Impact assessments that assess the potential economic, social and
environmental consequences an initiative may have, are an essential tool to that effect. Since 2002, the Commission
has been conducting trade sustainability impact assessments (trade SIAs) during all major trade negotiations. More
recently, the Commission has also begun to undertake impact assessments in advance of a proposal to launch a trade
negotiation.

Common to both these types of study is a balanced, integrated, transparent and evidence-based assessment of the
expected economic, social, and environmental impacts of a proposed trade agreement. Both studies are scheduled in
such a way as to provide evidence — on the consequential social or environmental impacts of a proposed Free Trade
Agreement — well in advance of the conclusion of a trade agreement.

C 96 E / 192 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001337/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(14 febbraio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Ryanair e tutela del diritto alla libera circolazione dei cittadini europei

La compagnia aerea Ryanair, per salvaguardare la propria politica di contenimento dei costi e quindi mantenere basso
il prezzo del servizio, inserisce nel contratto di trasporto una clausola in base alla quale i propri clienti possono recarsi
all'imbarco muniti esclusivamente di carta d'identità o passaporto.

La compagnia aerea definisce dunque una politica di circolazione diversa rispetto a quella dello Stato in cui opera che
non coincide in tutto, ma solo in parte con essa. Numerosi e frequenti sono i casi di cronaca riguardanti passeggeri
che vengono lasciati a terra dalla compagnia perché essa, arbitrariamente, attraverso i suoi operatori locali, spesso
nemmeno adeguatamente formati per interfacciarsi con le diverse casistiche possibili, decide di opporre la propria
politica restrittiva alle decisioni dello Stato membro.

Posto che il diritto alla libera circolazione rappresenta uno dei pilastri del mercato interno europeo, è la Commissione
al corrente di questo fenomeno?

Perché davanti a una pronuncia dello Sato membro che identifica i documenti che permettono l'espatrio deve
prevalere la logica commerciale della compagnia aerea?

Ritiene opportuno e urgente intervenire per evitare abusi occulti e conseguenze?

Ritiene necessaria una valutazione comparata della normativa dei diversi Stati membri dell'Unione europea in materia
di documenti d'identificazione dei passeggeri di voli nazionali, al fine di promuovere la maggiore omogeneità
possibile?

**Risposta data da Viviane Reding a nome della Commissione**

_(12 aprile 2012)_

La direttiva 2004/38/CE specifica alcune condizioni del diritto di libera circolazione sancito dall’articolo 21 del TFUE.

Ai sensi dell’articolo 4 della direttiva 2004/38/CE, ogni cittadino dell’Unione munito di una carta d’identità o di un
passaporto in corso di validità ha il diritto di lasciare il territorio di uno Stato membro per recarsi in un altro Stato
membro. L’articolo 5 della direttiva impone agli Stati membri di ammettere nel loro territorio il cittadino dell’Unione
munito di una carta d’identità o di un passaporto. Conformemente alla giurisprudenza della Corte di giustizia
dell’Unione europea nella causa C-459/99, MRAX, l’articolo 5, paragrafo 4, della direttiva obbliga gli Stati membri a
concedere al cittadino dell’UE e ai suoi familiari la possibilità di dimostrare anche con altri mezzi la qualifica di titolare
del diritto di libera circolazione.

Il diritto dell’UE non impone alla Ryanair di imbarcare solo i passeggeri in possesso di una carta d’identità o di un
passaporto.

Una compagnia aerea può tuttavia specificare nei termini di trasporto l’obbligo per i passeggeri di essere muniti di
un’identificazione specifica (come un passaporto o una carta d’identità in corso di validità), come condizione
all’imbarco. Un passeggero a cui venisse negato l’imbarco seppure in possesso di un biglietto valido e
dell’identificazione richiesta avrebbe diritto a una compensazione pecuniaria ai sensi dell’articolo 4 del regolamento
261/2004/CE.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 193

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001337/12**

**to the Commission**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(14 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Ryanair and the protection of the right of European citizens to move freely

In order to maintain its cost-containment policy and thus keep the price of its service low, the airline Ryanair has
included a clause in its transport contract, according to which its customers may only board with an identity card or
passport.

The airline is therefore applying a travel policy that is different from that of the State in which it operates, coinciding
with it only in certain parts. Numerous and frequent cases have been reported where passengers are left on the ground
by the airline because it has decided, arbitrarily, through its local operators, who are often not even adequately trained
to deal with the different types of cases that may arise, to impose its own restrictions rather than the decisions of the
Member State.

Given that the right of free movement represents one of the pillars of the European internal market, is the
Commission aware of this phenomenon?

How can the commercial logic of the airline be allowed to prevail over a decision of the Member State regarding the
documents that allow people to leave the country?

Does it agree that steps should be taken as a matter of urgency to avoid covert abuse and the consequences thereof?

Does it consider that a comparative assessment should be made of the regulations of the different Member States of
the European Union governing the identification documents of passengers on national flights in order to promote the
greatest possible uniformity?

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

_(12 April 2012)_

Directive 2004/38/EC specifies certain conditions of the right of free movement granted by Article 21 TFEU.

According to Article 4 of Directive 2004/38/EC, all Union citizens with a valid identity card or passport shall have the
right to leave the territory of a Member State to travel to another Member State. Article 5 of the directive obliges
Member States to grant Union citizens holding an identity card or a passport leave to enter their territory. In
accordance with the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C‐459/99, MRAX, Article 5
paragraph 4 of the directive obliges Member States to give EU citizens and their family members the opportunity to
also prove their right of free movement by other means.

EC law does not require Ryanair to board only persons in possession of an identity card or a passport.

However, an air carrier may make it a condition of its terms of carriage to require a passenger to provide specific
identification (such as a valid passport or an identity card) as a condition of boarding. A passenger who was denied
boarding whilst holding a valid ticket and the required identification would be entitled to compensation under
Article 4 of Regulation 261/2004/EC.

C 96 E / 194 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita P-001338/12**

**a la Comisión (Vicepresidenta / Alta Representante)**

**Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI)**

_(9 de febrero de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ VP/HR — Reasentamiento en la UE de refugiados del campo de Ashraf

Habida cuenta de que entre 800 y 900 refugiados del campo de Ashraf, en Iraq, que habían residido anteriormente en
Europa, recibieron el estatuto de refugiado de las Naciones Unidas en la década de 1980 y no tienen que someterse a
todo el proceso de reasentamiento del ACNUR, ¿qué medidas prácticas han adoptado el Consejo y la Comisión para
ayudarles a volver, en vista de los planes de Iraq de cerrar su campamento en los próximos meses? Si la UE no tiene un
acceso regular al campo de Ashraf, ¿por qué no realiza entrevistas mediante videoconferencia a estos residentes a fin
de comprobar sus identidades y emitir nuevos documentos de viaje para que vengan a la UE, dado que la validez de
sus documentos originales ha caducado durante su larga estancia en el campo de Ashraf?

¿Por qué se está presionando a la gente para que vaya a otro campamento en el que las condiciones de vida son mucho
peores y los riesgos para la seguridad son más elevados, cuando las entrevistas podrían haber comenzado en el campo
de Ashraf hace cuatro meses? ¿Qué medidas prácticas ha adoptado la Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante para
alcanzar este objetivo?

**Respuesta de la Alta Representante /Vicepresidenta Sra. Asthon en nombre de la Comisión**

_(25 de abril de 2012)_

La UE sigue muy de cerca el asunto de los residentes en el campo de Nuevo Irak (anteriormente conocido como
campo de Ashraf). Su futuro sigue siendo una fuente de preocupación. Al tratarse de una cuestión humanitaria, es
preciso que la UE y la comunidad internacional hagan cuanto puedan para ayudar al Gobierno iraquí a darle una
solución pacífica y ordenada.

Por esta razón, la Alta Representante y Vicepresidenta de la Comisión, la señora Ashton, ha expresado repetidamente
su total apoyo al proceso en curso, que cuenta con la ayuda de las Naciones Unidas, y al Representante especial del
Secretario General, el señor Martin Kobler. La Oficina del Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los
Refugiados se está ocupando, tal y como estaba previsto, de comprobar y «determinar el estatuto de refugiado» de los
primeros residentes que han llegado al campo temporal de tránsito de Hurriya a la espera de que se les reasiente.

Los problemas surgidos durante y después de los primeros traslados de residentes desde el campo de Nuevo Irak al de
Hurriya solo sirven para recalcar la importancia de apoyar esta labor. Los residentes y el Gobierno iraquí deben
procurar solucionar sus diferencias por la vía del diálogo. El señor Kobler y su equipo han hecho todo lo que han
podido para ayudarles a resolver los problemas de manera constructiva. Todos debemos hacer cuanto esté en nuestra
mano para promover e impulsar un actitud cooperativa de todas las partes.

Todas las personas y grupos que puedan influir de una u otra manera en este asunto tienen la obligación de dar la
máxima prioridad a la seguridad y protección de los residentes.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 195

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-001338/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI)**

_(9 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Resettlement of Camp Ashraf refugees in the EU

Given that some 800 to 900 refugees at Camp Ashraf in Iraq, who had previously lived in Europe, were granted UN
refugee status back in the 1980s and do not need to go through the full UNHCR resettlement process, what practical
steps have the Council and the Commission taken to help them return, in view of Iraq’s plans to shut down their
camp in the coming months? If the EU does not have regular access to Camp Ashraf, why can’t it conduct video-link
interviews with these residents in order to verify their identities and issue them with new travel documents to come
out to the EU, given that their original papers have expired during their long stay at Camp Ashraf?

Why are people being pressured to go to a new camp with much worse living conditions and heightened security
risks, when interviews could have started at Camp Ashraf four months ago? What practical steps has the VicePresident/High Representative taken to achieve this objective?

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

_(25 April 2012)_

The EU follows the issue of the residents of Camp New Iraq (formerly known as Camp Ashraf) very closely. Their
future continues to be a cause for concern. As a humanitarian issue, it requires the EU and the international
community to do all they can to help the government of Iraq to pursue a peaceful and orderly solution.

This is why the High Representative/Vice-President Ashton has repeatedly stressed her full support to the ongoing
process facilitated by the UN and to the Special Representative of the Secretary General Martin Kobler. The Office of
the UN High Commissioner for Refugees is proceeding as foreseen with the verification and ‘refugee status
determination’ of the first residents who have arrived at the temporary transit location Camp Hurriya pending
resettlement.

The challenges arising during and after the first moves of residents from Camp New Iraq to Camp Hurriya serve only
to underline the importance of supporting these efforts. The residents and the government of Iraq must seek to bridge
any differences through dialogue. Mr Kobler and his staff have been doing all they can to facilitate this, and to help the
parties resolve problems in a constructive manner. We must all do our utmost to promote and encourage a
cooperative approach from all sides.

Every individual and group who can bring any influence to bear on this matter has a responsibility to place the
security and safety of the residents as their utmost priority.

C 96 E / 196 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(Dansk udgave)_

**Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-001341/12**

**til Kommissionen**
**Morten Messerschmidt (EFD)**

_(13. februar 2012)_

_Om:_ CE‐mærkning af byggevarer

Det er kommet til spørgerens kendskab, at en række produkter, mere specifikt byggevarer, er omfattet af en
harmoniseret standard, hvorefter de skal CE‐mærkes, før de må markedsføres, anvendes og sælges i EU.

Spørgeren er blevet forelagt følgende bekymringer i forbindelse med CE‐mærkningen af byggevarer:

1. CE‐mærkningen opfattes som en tillidsaftale melle _m myndigheder og erhvervsliv i EU_ . I praksis har det dog vist sig,
at CE‐mærkning ikke er tilstrækkelig dokumentation for, at et specifikt produkt/bygningsmateriale kan
anvendes, hvilket ikke er i overensstemmelse med CE‐mærkningens formål og derfor ikke effektivt.

2. CE‐mærknings formål er, at produkterne/byggevarerne frit kan omsættes i medlemslandene. Bekymringen
opstår ikke i omsætningen af produktet, men i anvendelsen af produkterne i medlemslandene. CE‐
mærkningens-kravet er ikke klart nok, da der er usikkerhed omkring reglerne for omsætning kontra anvendelse
i medlemslandene.

3. Selvom CE‐mærkningen burde være tilstrækkelig godkendelse for markedsføring, anvendelse og salg i EU, har
det vist sig at dette ikke et tilfælde. I praksis er CE‐mærkningen kun blevet en ekstra omkostning for
virksomheder, der ønsker handel over grænserne.

Dette er et problem, som ikke letter samhandlen mellem de europæiske lande, specielt for de små og mellemstore
virksomheder, der ikke har resourcer til at ansætte informationspersonale, der kan forklare virksomhederne de
gældende regler inden for erhvervet.

Desuden er det problematisk, at CE‐mærkningen ikke er tilstrækkelig som kontrol/godkendelse, men at andre
foranstaltninger er nødvendige. Dette er derfor en ulempe for virksomhederne og ikke en fordel.

Da der utvivlsomt er tale om et generelt problem i EU, hvad agter Kommissionen da at foretage sig for at forenkle
reglerne og effektivisere CE‐mærkningen?

**Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Antonio Tajani**

_(19. marts 2012)_

Kommissionen ønsker at præcisere, at betydningen af CE-mærkning for byggevaresektoren er anderledes end i
henhold til direktiverne under den nye metode (f.eks. direktiverne om legetøj eller maskiner).

CE-mærkning for byggevaresektoren betyder, at produktets ydeevne er blevet vurderet og anmeldt som fastsat i de
harmoniserede tekniske specifikationer. Desuden giver CE-mærkningen på en byggevare ikke uden videre adgang til
fri anvendelse af produktet i hele EU.

Dette skyldes, at medlemsstaterne fortsat har kompetence til at bestemme niveauet af sikkerhed for anlægsarbejder på
deres område, og dette kan resultere i, at et produkt, der er godkendt til brug i en medlemsstat, ikke er det i en anden,
fordi det krævede ydeevneniveau ikke er nået.

Kommissionen er bekendt med eksistensen af alvorlige misforståelser på dette område. Dette er en af de vigtigste
grunde til, at den i maj 2008 fremsatte et forslag til en forordning, der afløser det eksisterende
byggevaredirektiv 89/106/EØF, især med henblik på at tydeliggøre betydningen af CE-mærkning og styrke dens
troværdighed i denne produktsektor. Dette forslag blev vedtaget af Europa-Parlamentet og Rådet den 9. marts
2011 og blev offentliggjort som forordning (EU) 305/2011 den 4. april 2011. Den skal anvendes fuldt ud fra den
1. juli 2013.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 197

Det skal understreges, at forordningen indeholder særlige bestemmelser for at lette gennemførelsen for mikrovirksomheder.

Kommissionen har allerede indledt en omfattende informationskampagne, og en stor konference vil blive afholdt den
25. juni 2012 i Bruxelles for at underrette de berørte parter om det nye regelsæt.

C 96 E / 198 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001341/12**

**to the Commission**
**Morten Messerschmidt (EFD)**

_(13 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ CE marking of construction products

It has come to the author’s attention that a number of products, specifically construction products, are regulated by a
harmonised standard which stipulates they must be given a CE mark before they can be marketed, used, and sold in
the EU.

The author has been made aware of the following concerns in connection with the CE marking of construction
products:

1. CE marking is considered to be a contract of confidence between authorities and businesses in the EU. In
practice, however, CE marking has proved to be an inadequate documentation for the use of a specific
product/building material. This defeats the purpose of the CE marking and is therefore ineffective.

2. The purpose of CE marking is to indicate that products/building materials can be traded freely in the Member
States, but it is the use of the products rather than the trading of the products in the Member States which is
causing concern. The CE marking requirement is not clear enough as there is uncertainty concerning the
regulations for trading as opposed to usage in the Member States.

3. Although CE marking should constitute adequate authorisation for marketing, use, and sale in the EU, this has
been shown not to be the case. In practice, CE marking is merely an extra cost for enterprises wishing to trade
internationally.

This is a problem which does not facilitate trade between European countries, in particular for small and mediumsized enterprises that do not have the resources to employ staff able to clarify the regulations applicable to a particular
industry.

Furthermore, the fact that CE marking is not an adequate control/authorisation mechanism and that other actions are
required also causes problems. Therefore it becomes an inconvenience for enterprises rather than a benefit.

Since this is without a doubt a general problem across the EU, what does the Commission intend to do to simplify the
regulations and make CE marking more effective?

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

_(19 March 2012)_

The Commission would like to clarify that the meaning of CE marking in the construction products sector is different
to that under the New Approach Directives (e.g. the directives on Toys or on Machinery).

CE marking in the construction products sector means that the performance of the product has been assessed and
declared as foreseen in the harmonised technical specifications. Furthermore, the CE marking on a construction
product is not a passport for the free use of the product throughout the EU.

This is due to the fact that the Member States remain competent to determine the level of safety of construction works
in their territory and this may result in a product being accepted for use in one Member State but not in another
because the required level of performance is not achieved.

The Commission is aware of the existence of serious misunderstandings in this area. This is one of the main reasons
why it submitted in May 2008 a proposal for a regulation to replace the existing Construction Products
Directive 89/106/EEC, aiming notably at clarifying the meaning of CE marking and strengthening its credibility in this
product sector. This proposal was adopted by the Parliament and the Council on 9 March 2011 and was published as
Regulation (EU) 305/2011 on 4 April 2011. It will be fully applied from 1 July 2013.

It should be stressed that the regulation includes specific provisions to facilitate implementation by micro-enterprises.

The Commission has already started an extensive information campaign and a major conference will be held on
25 June 2012 in Brussels to inform stakeholders on the new regulatory framework.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 199

_(Dansk udgave)_

**Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-001342/12**

**til Kommissionen**
**Morten Messerschmidt (EFD)**

_(14. februar 2012)_

_Om:_ Methanol og Brændstofdirektivet

Fremstillingen af methanol er miljøvenligt, og methanol-raffinaderierne behøver ingen skorstene, da forarbejdningen
sker gennem vindmølleenergi. Endvidere kan fremstillingen af methanol være næsten fuldstændig CO2‐neutral ved at
bruge den skandinaviske teknologi, der indebærer, at der ved fremstillingen benyttes naturlige resurser som findes i
vand, vind samt genanvendelse af spildvarer f.eks. i form af produktionsrester fra fabrikker.

Dette kan føre til en produktion på 150 000 tons genanvendeligt metanol om året.

Vil Kommissionen redegøre for, hvorfor der i Brændstofdirektivet findes en grænse på 3 % methanol i brændstof.

Kommissionen bedes endvidere oplyse, om den overvejer en sidestilling med ethanol, samt en forhøjelse af grænsen
på 3 % metanol i brændstoffer.

**Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Connie Hedegaard**

_(28. marts 2012)_

Indholdet af methanol i brændstof er sat til 3 % i direktivet om kvaliteten af benzin og dieselolie (98/70/EF). Dets
anvendelse blev diskuteret i den konsekvensanalyse, der blev udarbejdet i forbindelse med revisionen af direktivet i
2009 ( [1] ).

Såfremt der tilsættes en større procentdel, kan methanol skade køretøjers motor. Det ville således også have en
negativ indvirkning på køretøjsgarantier, køreegenskaber og holdbarhed, og desuden have betydning for sådanne
køretøjers emission. Derudover øges benzinens damptryk, når der tilsættes methanol, hvilket kan medføre
luftkvalitetsproblemer. Endelig udgør energiindholdet i methanol omkring halvdelen af energiindholdet i benzin,
hvilket gør det mindre effektivt som tilsætningsmiddel end ethanol, der har omkring to tredjedele af energiindholdet i
benzin.

Kommissionen påtænker derfor ikke at forhøje denne grænse.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Tilgængelig på http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/fuel/documentation_en.htm

C 96 E / 200 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001342/12**

**to the Commission**
**Morten Messerschmidt (EFD)**

_(14 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Methanol and the Fuel Directive

The production of methanol is environmentally-friendly and methanol refineries do not need chimneys because
processing is done using wind energy. Furthermore, Scandinavian technology is used in which production is based on
natural resources such as water and wind. With the recycling of waste products, e.g. from factories, the production of
methanol can be almost 100 % carbon-neutral.

This can lead to production of 150 000 tonnes of reusable methanol per year.

Will the Commission explain why there is a limit of 3 % for methanol in fuels in the Fuel Directive?

Can the Commission also say if it is considering giving it the same treatment as ethanol and raising the 3 % limit for
methanol in fuels?

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

_(28 March 2012)_

The methanol content of fuel is set at 3 % by the Fuel Quality Directive 98/70/EC. Its use was addressed in the impact
assessment associated with the 2009 revision of the directive ( [1] ).

If added in a higher percentage, methanol could have damaging effects on vehicles engines. It would also therefore
have a negative effect on vehicle warranties, drivability and durability, and have implications for the emissions of such
vehicles. Furthermore, adding methanol to petrol raises its vapour pressure which could give rise to air quality
problems. Finally, the energy content of methanol is about half that of petrol making it a less efficient fuel additive
than ethanol which has about two-thirds the energy content of petrol.

The Commission is therefore not considering revising this limit.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Available at http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/fuel/documentation_en.htm

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 201

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-001343/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Andreas Mölzer (NI)**

_(13. Februar 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Wildwuchs gentechnisch veränderter Pflanzen

In der Schweiz wurde bisher schon an mehreren Stellen ein Wildwuchs von gentechnisch veränderten Pflanzen
nachgewiesen. Vor allem in der Umgebung von Universitäten und Bahnhöfen wurde eine Vielzahl solcher Pflanzen
gefunden.

Die Schweizer Freisetzungsverordnung sieht unter anderem den Aufbau eines Monitoringsystems für
Gentechnikpflanzen vor, dieses wird zurzeit aufgebaut. Im Rahmen dieses Monitoringsystems wurden die wild
wachsenden Genpflanzen jetzt entdeckt, berichtete das Bundesamt für Umwelt in einer Mitteilung. Die Schweizer
Freisetzungsverordnung sieht laut dem Bundesamt für Umwelt unter anderem vor, dass sich „gentechnisch veränderte
Organismen in der Umwelt nicht unkontrolliert verbreiten und vermehren“ dürfen.

1. Gibt es innerhalb der Europäischen Union ein Monitoringsystem für gentechnisch veränderte Pflanzen?

2. Wenn nein, warum nicht?

3. Gibt es in der Europäischen Union bereits Feststellungen über wildwachsende gentechnisch veränderte
Pflanzen?

4. Wenn ja, um wie viele Funde handelt es sich?

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

_(22. März 2012)_

Mit der Richtlinie 2001/18/EG ( [1] ) wird die Verpflichtung zur Überwachung von in die Umwelt freigesetzten
fortpflanzungsfähigen GVO festgelegt, d. h. von angebauten genetisch veränderten Pflanzen oder genetisch
veränderten Samenkörnern, die zur Verwendung als Lebensmittel oder Futtermittel eingeführt wurden. Die
Unterlagen zur Beantragung der Zulassung von GVO müssen eine Beschreibung des Überwachungsplans umfassen,
der von der EFSA bewertet und von den Mitgliedstaaten im Zulassungsverfahren geprüft wird.

Nach Zulassung des GVO muss der Antragsteller die gesammelten Informationen zusammenstellen sowie jährliche
Überwachungsberichte an die Kommission und die Mitgliedstaaten übermitteln, die diese Berichte dann auf den
regelmäßigen Sitzungen im Zusammenhang mit der Durchführung der Richtlinie erörtern und erforderlichenfalls
Verwaltungsmaßnahmen treffen. Die Überwachungsberichte für die zum Anbau in der EU zugelassenen genetisch
veränderten Pflanzen werden auch der EFSA zur Bewertung übermittelt; diese kann Änderungen oder Anpassungen
empfehlen.

Die Mitgliedstaaten können außerdem eine zusätzliche und unabhängige Überwachung vornehmen, wie in den
Leitlinien zu Anhang VII der Richtlinie vorgeschlagen. Die Kommission ist der Auffassung, dass diese Art
unabhängiger Überwachung verstärkt werden sollte, und arbeitet derzeit Leitprinzipien zur Unterstützung der
Mitgliedstaaten aus, die auf einer öffentlichen Konferenz am 29. März 2012 erörtert werden sollen.

In keinem der Überwachungsberichte, die die Antragsteller bislang übermittelt haben, werden ein unkontrolliertes
Wachstum genetisch veränderter Pflanzen oder sonstige schädliche Auswirkungen erwähnt. Die EFSA hat in den
Überwachungsplänen für die beiden GVO, die bislang angebaut werden (MON-810-Mais und Amflora-Kartoffel),
nichts gefunden, was diese Ergebnisse widerlegen würde.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) ABl. L 106 vom 17.4.2001.

C 96 E / 202 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001343/12**

**to the Commission**
**Andreas Mölzer (NI)**

_(13 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Uncontrolled growth of genetically modified plants

Evidence of the uncontrolled growth of genetically modified plants has been found at a number of locations in
Switzerland. A great many such plants have been found, mainly in the environs of universities and railway stations.

Among other things, the Swiss Release Ordinance provides for the establishment of a monitoring system for
genetically modified plants and this is currently being set up. According to a report from the Swiss Environmental
Protection Agency, the uncontrolled growth of genetically modified plants was discovered as part of the activities
under this monitoring system. According to the Swiss Environmental Protection Agency, the Swiss Release
Ordinance includes a provision stating that ‘genetically modified organisms should not be allowed to spread and
increase in the environment in an uncontrolled way’.

1. Is there a monitoring system for genetically modified plants within the European Union?

2. If not, why not?

3. Are findings already available in the European Union in relation to the uncontrolled growth of genetically
modified plants?

4. If so, how many cases have been found?

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

_(22 March 2012)_

Directive 2001/18/EC ( [1] ) sets an obligation of monitoring of GMOs released into the environment that are able to
reproduce, i.e. cultivated GM plants or GM grains imported for food or feed use. Application files for GMO
authorisation must include a description of the monitoring plan, which is evaluated by EFSA and considered by the
Member States in the authorisation process.

After authorisation of the GMO, the notifier must compile the collected information and send annual monitoring
reports to the Commission and the Member States, who discuss them in the regular meetings related to the
implementation of the directive, and agree on management measures if needed. Monitoring reports of GM plants
authorised for cultivation in the EU are also sent to EFSA for evaluation, who can recommend modifications or
adjustments.

Member States may also carry out additional and independent monitoring, as suggested by the guidance note
supplementing Annex VII of the directive. The Commission considers that this type of independent monitoring
should be reinforced, and is working on guiding principles to assist Member States in this respect, to be discussed at a
public conference on 29 March 2012.

None of the monitoring reports sent to date by applicants mentioned an uncontrolled growth of GM plants or other
adverse effects. EFSA did not note, in the monitoring plans of the two GMOs cultivated to date (maize MON 810 and
Amflora potato), elements which would invalidate these results.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 106, 17.4.2001.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 203

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-001344/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Andreas Mölzer (NI)**

_(13. Februar 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Ankerkinder

Immer öfter werden in Österreich ausländische Kinder aufgenommen. So genannte „Ankerkinder“ werden alleine
vorgeschickt, damit die Familie nachkommen kann. Die Kinder kommen nach Österreich und werden ins System
hineingenommen. Damit haben sie ein Anrecht darauf, dass ihre Eltern, also die Kernfamilie nachkommen. Das
bedeutet, Eltern und Geschwister dürfen nachkommen, allerdings nur, wenn das Asylverfahren des Kindes positiv
abgeschlossen ist.

Die sogenannten „Ankerkinder“ sind ein Phänomen, das vor allem in den letzten Monaten vermehrt aufgetreten ist.
Während im Jahr 2010 insgesamt 687 unbegleitete Jugendliche einen Asylantrag stellten waren es 2011 bereits
1 136. In diesem Zusammenhang wurden 573 Anträge unter dem Titel der „Familienzusammenführung“ gestellt.

1. Ist das Phänomen „Ankerkinder“ auch in anderen EU-Staaten zu erkennen?

2. Wenn ja, wo vermehrt?

3. Welche Staatsbürgerschaft hatten diese Kinder?

4. Sind vonseiten der EU Maßnahmen betreffend dieses Phänomen bekannt?

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

_(19. März 2012)_

Konsolidierte Daten zu unbegleiteten Minderjährigen, die 2011 Asyl beantragt haben oder als Flüchtlinge anerkannt
wurden, liegen Eurostat noch nicht vor.

Die Richtlinie 2004/83/EG ( [1] ) harmonisiert die Vorschriften der Mitgliedstaaten zur Gewährung internationalen
Schutzes an Drittstaatsangehörige einschließlich Minderjährigen, die aus Gründen der Rasse, Religion,
Staatsangehörigkeit, politischen Einstellung oder Zugehörigkeit zu einer bestimmten sozialen Gruppe in ihrem
Herkunftsland Verfolgung oder schwerwiegende Konsequenzen befürchten müssen. In erster Linie obliegt es den
zuständigen nationalen Behörden, diesen Personen nach einer detaillierten Prüfung aller sachdienlichen Fakten und
Umstände des Antrags internationalen Schutz zu gewähren.

Gemäß der Richtlinie 2003/86/EG ( [2] ), die nicht auf Asylbewerber und Personen mit Anspruch auf subsidiären Schutz
ausgelegt ist, können einzig anerkannte Flüchtlinge die Familienzusammenführung beantragen. Dieses Recht gilt
vorbehaltlich der Bedingungen dieser Richtlinie. Vor allem, wenn der Antrag nicht binnen drei Monaten nach der
Anerkennung der Flüchtlingseigenschaft gestellt wird, können die Mitgliedstaaten den Nachweis verlangen, dass der
Zusammenführende die Kriterien in Bezug auf angemessenen Wohnraum, Krankenversicherung und feste,
regelmäßige Einkünfte erfüllt.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Richtlinie 2004/83/EG des Rates vom 29. April 2004 über Mindestnormen für die Anerkennung und den Status von Drittstaatsangehörigen oder

Staatenlosen als Flüchtlinge oder als Personen, die anderweitig internationalen Schutz benötigen, und über den Inhalt des zu gewährenden
Schutzes.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Richtlinie 2003/86/EG des Rates vom 22. September 2003 betreffend das Recht auf Familienzusammenführung.

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

C 96 E / 204 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001344/12**

**to the Commission**
**Andreas Mölzer (NI)**

_(13 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ ‘Anchor children’

Foreign children are being admitted into Austria with increasing frequency. So-called ‘anchor children’ are sent ahead
alone so that the family may follow. The children enter Austria and are absorbed into the system. This gives them the
right to be followed by their parents, in other words: the core family. This means that parents and siblings can follow,
but only once the child’s asylum application has reached a positive conclusion.

These so-called ‘anchor children’ have been a growing phenomenon, particularly in recent months. A total of 687
unaccompanied minors applied for asylum in 2010, compared with 1 136 in 2011. In this context, 573 applications
were made under the heading ‘family reunification’.

1. Is the phenomenon of ‘anchor children’ also evident in other EU States?

2. If so, where are they concentrated?

3. What was the nationality of these children?

4. Is the EU aware of any measures in relation to this phenomenon?

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

_(19 March 2012)_

Consolidated data concerning unaccompanied minors who applied for asylum or were granted refugee status in 2011
is not yet available on Eurostat.

Directive 2004/83/EC ( [1] ) harmonises Member States' legislation on granting international protection to third‐country
nationals, including minors, facing persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or
membership of a particular social group, or forms of serious harm in their countries of origin. It is the primary
responsibility of competent national authorities to grant international protection to such persons following an
individual assessment of all the relevant facts and circumstances of the application.

Only recognised refugees can apply for family reunification under Directive 2003/86/EC ( [2] ) which does not concern
asylum‐seekers and persons under subsidiary protection. This right is subject to the conditions set out in the directive.
In particular, unless the application is submitted within three months after the granting of refugee status, Member
States may require evidence that the sponsor fulfils the criteria with respect to an adequate accommodation, sickness
insurance, stable and regular resources.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third‐country nationals or stateless

persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification.

( **|**

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 205

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-001345/12**

**an den Rat**
**Andreas Mölzer (NI)**

_(13. Februar 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ EU-weite Strafe für Börsenbetrug

Während in einigen EU-Staaten das Nutzen von Insiderinformationen für den Wertpapierhandel rigoros bestraft
wird, steht dies in anderen EU-Mitgliedsländern nur teilweise oder gar nicht unter Strafe. Kriminelle sind über die
Grenzen hinweg aktiv und nutzen diese Schlupflöcher. Die EU-Justizminister sollen sich Ende Januar 2012 auf ein
gemeinsames Strafmaß für Insiderhandel und Manipulation von Börsenkursen geeinigt haben.

1. Welches EU-weite Strafmaß wurde für Insiderhandel und Manipulation von Börsenkursen ausgehandelt?

2. Sind nach Ansicht des Rates damit alle Schlupflöcher geschlossen oder sind noch weitere, begleitende
Maßnahmen vorgesehen?

**Antwort**

_(26. März 2012)_

Am 21. Oktober 2011 hat die Kommission einen Vorschlag für eine Richtlinie des Europäischen Parlaments und des
Rates über strafrechtliche Sanktionen für Insider-Geschäfte und Marktmanipulation (Marktmissbrauchsrichtlinie) ( [1] )
als Teil eines umfassenderen Maßnahmenpakets unterbreitet, zu dem auch die Vorschläge für eine Richtlinie über
Märkte für Finanzinstrumente ( [2] ), für eine Verordnung über Märkte für Finanzinstrumente und OTC ( [3] ) und für eine
Verordnung über Insider-Geschäfte und Marktmanipulation ( [4] ) gehören.

Der neue Vorschlag für eine Marktmissbrauchsrichtlinie sieht vor, dass die Mitgliedstaaten die erforderlichen
Maßnahmen treffen, um sicherzustellen, dass Insider-Geschäfte und Marktmanipulation strafrechtlich geahndet
werden und dass die strafrechtlichen Sanktionen wirksam, angemessen und abschreckend sind. Aus der dem
Vorschlag beigefügten Folgenabschätzung ( [5] ) geht hervor, dass erhebliche Unterschiede in der nationalen
Gesetzgebung der Mitgliedstaaten hinsichtlich strafrechtlicher Sanktionen für Marktmissbrauch bestehen.

Der Vorschlag ist Teil des im Oktober 2011 von der Kommission vorgelegten umfassenderen Maßnahmenpakets und
sollte insbesondere im Lichte des Inhalts dieses Pakets gesehen werden, wobei sämtliche Maßnahmen zur Zeit von
den Vorbereitungsgremien des Rates im Einzelnen geprüft werden.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) 16000/11.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) 15939/11.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) 15938/11.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) 16010/11.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) 16000/11 ADD1.

C 96 E / 206 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001345/12**

**to the Council**
**Andreas Mölzer (NI)**

_(13 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ EU‐wide penalties for stock market fraud

While the use of insider information is rigorously penalised in some EU countries, such activity is only partially
punished in other EU Member States, if at all. Criminals are actively exploiting these loopholes on a cross-border
basis. The EU Justice Ministers are to agree a common penalty for insider trading and the manipulation of stock
market prices by the end of January 2012.

1. What EU‐wide penalty has been negotiated for insider trading and the manipulation of stock market prices?

2. In the view of the Council, will this close all the loopholes or are there plans for further accompanying action?

**Reply**
_(26 March 2012)_

On 21 October 2011 the Commission presented a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the
Council on criminal sanctions for insider dealing and market manipulation (‘MAD’) ( [1] ) as part of a broader package of
measures, including proposals for a directive on markets in financial instruments —"MiFID" ( [2] ); for a regulation on
markets in financial instruments and OTC —"MiFIR" ( [3] ); and for a regulation on insider dealing and market
manipulation —"MAR" ( [4] )).

The new proposal for MAD requires Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure that the criminal
offences of insider dealing and market manipulation are subject to criminal sanctions and that these sanctions are
effective, proportionate and dissuasive. The Impact Assessment accompanying the proposal ( [5] ) shows that there are
significant differences in the national laws of Member States in regard to criminal sanctions for market abuse crimes.

The proposal should be seen in the light of a wider set of measures and in particular the content of the entire package
of measures presented in October 2011 by the Commission, all of which are currently being examined within the
Council's preparatory bodies.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) 16000/11.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) 15939/11.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) 15938/11.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) 16010/11.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) 16000/11 ADD1.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 207

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-001346/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Andreas Mölzer (NI)**

_(13. Februar 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Fehlkalkulation der Privatisierungserlöse in Griechenland

Die griechische Regierung sicherte den europäischen Geldgebern zu, mit dem Verkauf von Staatsbesitz elf Milliarden
Euro bis 2012 bzw. bis 2015 insgesamt 50 Milliarden Euro einzunehmen. Die griechische Finanzplanung bis 2015
stützt sich maßgeblich auf die aus der Privatisierung erwarteten Erlöse.

Anstatt der versprochenen elf sind nun offenbar im laufenden Jahr nur ca. 4,7 Milliarden Euro an
Privatisierungserlösen zu erwarten, weil die den Geldgebern vorgelegten Zahlen auf gut Glück festgelegt wurden.

1. Wie steht die Kommission zu dieser Fehlkalkulation?

2. In welchem Ausmaß lagen die der Planung zugrundeliegenden Zahlen für die Privatisierung der EU bzw. der
Troika vor?

3. Wurden diese Zahlen auf EU-Ebene kontrolliert?

4. Falls ja, zu welchem Schluss kam man auf EU-Ebene?

5. Falls nein, warum nicht?

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

_(2. April 2012)_

2011 nahm Griechenland 1,6 Mrd. EUR aus Privatisierungsmaßnahmen ein, womit das ursprüngliche Ziel von
5 Mrd. EUR deutlich unterschritten wurde. Bereits im Oktober 2011 (siehe das aktualisierte Memorandum vom
31. Oktober 2011 ( [1] )) waren die für Ende 2011 geplanten Erlöse auf 1,7 Mrd. EUR herunterkorrigiert worden. Grund
dafür waren die Marktentwicklung und das damit verbundene Absinken der Aktien‐ und Immobilienpreise in
Griechenland sowie langwierige administrative und behördliche Vorbereitungen.

Obschon das Ziel von 50 Mrd. EUR Einnahmen aus Privatisierung mittelfristig weiterhin bestehen bleibt, wird es
nicht bis 2015 erreicht werden können.

Die Kommission und die Euro-Gruppe haben im Verwaltungsrat des griechischen Privatisierungsfonds zwei
Beobachter benannt und sind auf diese Weise genauestens über die Entwicklungen in diesem Bereich unterrichtet.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/occasional_paper/2011/op87_en.htm

C 96 E / 208 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001346/12**

**to the Commission**
**Andreas Mölzer (NI)**

_(13 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Miscalculation of revenue from privatisation in Greece

The Greek Government offered European donors an assurance that the sale of state assets would raise EUR 11 billion
by 2012 and a total of EUR 50 billion by 2015. The Greek finance plan up to 2015 is largely based on the revenue
expected from privatisation.

Instead of the promised EUR 11 billion, it is now obvious that only about EUR 4.7 billion can be expected from
privatisation revenue in the current year because the figures supplied to the donors were extremely optimistic.

1. What is the position of the Commission with regard to this miscalculation?

2. To what extent did the EU and the Troika have access to the figures relating to the privatisation upon which the
plan was based?

3. Were these figures examined at EU level?

4. If so, what conclusions were reached at EU level?

5. If not, why not?

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

_(2 April 2012)_

In 2011, Greece collected EUR 1.6 billion from privatisation, well below the initial plan of collecting EUR 5 billion.
Already in October 2011 (as reflected in the updated Memorandum of Understanding of 31 October 2011 ( [1] )),
planned proceeds until end-2011 had been revised downwards to EUR 1.7 billion, given market developments, with a
reduction in asset prices in Greece, as well as lengthy administrative and regulatory preparations.

Although the objective of privatising assets worth EUR 50 billion remains viable from the medium-term perspective,
such an objective will not be reached by 2015.

The Commission and the Eurogroup have appointed two observers in the Board of Directors of the Greek
Privatisation Fund and therefore closely follow developments in this area.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/occasional_paper/2011/op87_en.htm

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 209

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-001347/12**
**προς την Επιτροπή (Αντιπρόεδρος/Ύπατη Εκπρόσωπος)**

**Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL)**

_(6 Φεβρουαρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ VP/HR — Άμεση απελευθέρωση των φυλακισμένων Κόυβανών στις ΗΠΑ

Όπως είναι γνωστό οι 5 Κουβανοί πολίτες Gerardo Hernandez, Rene Gonzales, Antonio Guerrero, Ramon Labanino και
Fernando Gonzales, βρίσκονται εδώ και 13 χρόνια έγκλειστοι σε διαφορετικές φυλακές των ΗΠΑ επειδή είχαν ξεσκεπάσει τα
επιθετικά σχέδια εγκληματικών ομάδων του Μαϊάμι κατά της Κούβας και του λαού της.

Ο ένας εξ αυτών, ο Rene Gonzales, έχει πρόσφατα αποφυλακιστεί αλλά είναι αναγκασμένος να παραμείνει στις ΗΠΑ για τρία
ακόμα χρόνια υπό το καθεστώς της «εποπτευόμενης απελευθέρωσης».

Οι άλλοι 4 εξακολουθούν να εκτίουν άδικες και εξοντωτικές ποινές φυλάκισης.

Η παράνομη δικαστική διαδικασία, οι άθλιες συνθήκες κράτησης και η απαγόρευση στους συγγενείς να επισκεφτούν τους
κρατούμενους προκάλεσε επανειλημμένα μαζικές διαμαρτυρίες μεγάλων εθνικών και διεθνών εργατικών συνδικαλιστικών
οργανώσεων, ανθρώπων των Γραμμάτων και των Τεχνών, κάτοχων του βραβείου Νόμπελ, νομικών, βουλευτών και
ευρωβουλευτών και χιλιάδων πολιτών απ' όλο τον κόσμο. Είναι γενική η απαίτηση να μπει τέρμα σε αυτή την απαράδεκτη
κατάσταση, να αφεθούν ελεύθεροι και να επιστρέψουν άμεσα στη Κούβα.

Ερωτάται η VP/HR: Ποιά είναι η θέση της όσον αφορά την άμεση αποφυλάκιση και την επιστροφή των παραπάνω Κουβανών
αγωνιστών στη χώρα τους;

**Απάντηση της Ύπατης Εκπροσώπου/Αντιπροέδρου Ashton εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(23 Μαΐου 2012)_

Η ΕΥΕΔ έθεσε, για ανθρωπιστικούς λόγους, το ζήτημα της υπόθεσης των «πέντε Κουβανών» στις πολιτικές τις επαφές με τις
αρχές των ΗΠΑ. Η ΥΕ/ΑΠ βλέπει με ικανοποίηση το γεγονός ότι, πρόσφατα, επιτράπηκε στον R.Gonzalez να επισκεφθεί
άρρωστο συγγενικό του πρόσωπο στην Κούβα. Εν τω μεταξύ επέστρεψε στις ΗΠΑ.

C 96 E / 210 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001347/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL)**

_(6 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Immediate release of Cuban prisoners in the USA

As is well known, the 5 Cuban nationals Gerardo Hernandez, Rene Gonzales, Antonio Guerrero, Ramon Labanino
and Fernando Gonzales have been imprisoned, for 13 years, in various US prisons for exposing the aggressive plans
of criminal organisations in Miami against Cuba and its people.

One of these prisoners, Rene Gonzales, has recently been released but is required to remain in the US for three more
years under the condition of ‘supervised release’.

The other four continue to serve unfair and crushing prison sentences.

The illegal judicial proceedings, the wretched prison conditions and the prohibition of visits from relatives has
sparked frequent mass protests by large national and international workers unions, cultural figures, Nobel prize
winners, Members of Parliament and the European Parliament and thousands of people all over the world. The appeal
for an end to this unfair situation, for them to be released and to return immediately to Cuba, is universal.

What is the position of the VP/HR regarding the immediate release and return of the above Cuban fighters to their
country?

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

_(23 May 2012)_

The case of the ‘Cuban five’ has been raised by the EEAS in political contacts with the US authorities, on humanitarian
grounds. The HR/VP welcomes the fact that recently R. Gonzalez has been allowed to visit a sick relative in Cuba. In
the meantime he has returned to the US.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 211

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-001348/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Niki Tzavela (EFD)**
_(14 Φεβρουαρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Νεοάστεγοι

Σοκαριστικά στοιχεία για τις εκρηκτικές διαστάσεις που προσλαμβάνει το φαινόμενο των «νεοαστέγων» στην Αθήνα
κατέθεσαν στην Επιτροπή Κοινωνικών Υποθέσεων ο υφυπουργός Υγείας Μάρκος Μπόλαρης, ο δήμος Αθηναίων, καθώς και
εκπρόσωποι της Ιεράς Αρχιεπισκοπής Αθηνών και της Εθνικής Επιτροπής για τα Δικαιώματα του Ανθρώπου (ΕΕΔΑ).

Από τις εκθέσεις αποκαλύπτεται πλέον ότι εξαιτίας της οικονομικής κρίσης βγήκαν στο δρόμο άνθρωποι που ζούσαν εύπορα
πριν το ξέσπασμά της. Στους «νεοάστεγους» πια περιλαμβάνονται και ολόκληρες οικογένειες, ενώ ο αριθμός των ανθρώπων
που καταλύουν με χαρτόνια και κουβέρτες στο Ζάππειο, την Κουμουνδούρου, τη Σανταρόζα, το Γκάζι, στα παγκάκια, κάτω
από γέφυρες, έξω από κλειστά καταστήματα, είναι αδιευκρίνιστος.

Οι περισσότεροι από εκείνους που ξεσπιτώθηκαν και πλέον βρίσκουν προσωρινή «στέγη» σε 52 σημεία της Αθήνας είναι
οφειλέτες της εφορίας.

Άλλοι χρωστούν στα ασφαλιστικά ταμεία με αποτέλεσμα να μην μπορούν να βγάλουν βιβλιάριο απορίας, να αποκλείονται
έτσι από την ιατροφαρμακευτική περίθαλψη και ως εκ τούτου να ζουν σε καθεστώς εξαθλίωσης.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Μπορεί να εκπονηθεί με συνδρομή του Κοινωνικού Ταμείου ειδικό πρόγραμμα για την επανένταξη των νεόπτωχων Ευρωπαίων
στην οικονομική ζωή;

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

_(2 Απριλίου 2012)_

Οι δράσεις για την οικονομική επανένταξη των νεόπτωχων Ευρωπαίων μπορούν να χρηματοδοτηθούν, κατά την περίοδο
προγραμματισμού 2007-2013, από τα διαρθρωτικά ταμεία της ΕΕ, συμπεριλαμβανομένης της συνδρομής του Ευρωπαϊκού
Κοινωνικού Ταμείου στα κράτη μέλη. Επομένως, οι ελληνικές αρχές έχουν τη δυνατότητα να καταρτίσουν ένα νέο σχέδιο στο
κατάλληλο επιχειρησιακό πρόγραμμα στο πλαίσιο του ελληνικού εθνικού στρατηγικού πλαισίου αναφοράς. Αυτό μπορεί να
βοηθήσει τις ελληνικές αρχές να επιλύσουν τα προβλήματα των φτωχών στην Ελλάδα καθώς και εκείνο της επανένταξής τους
στην κοινωνία και την αγορά εργασίας.

C 96 E / 212 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001348/12**

**to the Commission**

**Niki Tzavela (EFD)**

_(14 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ The new homeless

The Deputy Minister for Health, Marcos Bolaris, the municipality of Athens and representatives of the Athens
Archdiocese and the National Commission for Human Rights (NCHR) have presented shocking data to the Social
Affairs Committee regarding the rapidly growing phenomenon of the new homeless in Athens.

These reports make it clear that the economic crisis is driving onto the streets people who were living comfortably
before the crash. There are even whole families now belonging to this new category of homeless people, with
unknown numbers sleeping rough in cardboard boxes and under blankets in the Zappeio gardens, Koumoundourou
Square, Santa Rosa Square, in the Gazi district, on benches, under bridges and outside closed shops.

Most of those who have been evicted and who are now finding temporary shelter in 52 locations in Athens are in debt
to the tax authorities.

Others are in debt to social security funds, which means that they cannot obtain a benefits book, are thus excluded
from receiving medical care condemning them to a life of sordid poverty.

In view of this:

Can the Commission draw up a new programme, subsidised by the Social Fund, for the economic reintegration of
newly poor Europeans?

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

_(2 April 2012)_

Actions for the economic reintegration of newly poor Europeans can be financed under the 2007-2013 EU Structural
Funds including European Social Fund assistance to Member States, therefore the Greek authorities have the
possibility to draw up a new project within the appropriate operational programme under the Greek National
Strategic Reference Framework. This can help the Greek authorities to address the problems of the poor in Greece and
of their reintegration in society and the labour market.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 213

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-001350/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Niki Tzavela (EFD)**
_(6 Φεβρουαρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Δηλώσεις Ντάουνερ για Κυπριακή Προεδρία

Τον ειδικό σύμβουλο του γγ του ΟΗΕ Αλεξάντερ Ντάουνερ καταγγέλλει ο πρόεδρος της Κυπριακής Βουλής Γιαννάκης
Ομήρου για τον χαρακτηρισμό της Κυπριακής Προεδρίας του Συμβουλίου της ΕΕ ως «Προεδρία των Ελληνοκυπρίων».

Ο κ. Ομήρου τονίζει ότι το θέμα που προκύπτει από τον χαρακτηρισμό αυτό είναι μείζον και επισημαίνει πως «πρόκειται για
απαράδεκτη συμπεριφορά που συνιστά βάναυση παραβίαση όλων των ψηφισμάτων του Συμβουλίου Ασφαλείας περί
Κύπρου, του Καταστατικού Χάρτη του ΟΗΕ, των κανόνων διεθνούς νομιμότητας και των αρχών και θεσμών της ΕΕ».

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή ποιά είναι η επίσημη θέση της για τις δηλώσεις του κ. Ντάουνερ;

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

_(19 Μαρτίου 2012)_

Η Επιτροπή δεν σχολιάζει δηλώσεις εκπροσώπων διεθνών οργανισμών.

C 96 E / 214 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001350/12**

**to the Commission**

**Niki Tzavela (EFD)**

_(6 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Statements by Alexander Downer on the Cyprus Presidency

Alexander Downer, Special Advisor to the UN Secretary General, has been accused by the president of the Cypriot
Parliament, Giannakis Omirou, of calling the Cyprus Presidency of the Council of the EU the ‘Greek-Cypriot
Presidency.’

Mr Omirou stressed that the issue arising from this characterisation is a major one and pointed out that ‘this is
unacceptable behaviour which constitutes a crude violation of all Security Council Resolutions concerning Cyprus,
the UN Charter, the rules of international law and the principles and laws of the EU’.

What is the Commission’s official position on Mr Downer’s statements?

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

_(19 March 2012)_

The Commission does not comment on statements by representatives of international organisations.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 215

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-001351/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Niki Tzavela (EFD)**
_(6 Φεβρουαρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Ομαδικοί τάφοι Κούρδων στη Τουρκία

Τα οστά 23 ατόμων σε ομαδικό τάφο που βρισκόταν κοντά σε ένα πρώην κτίριο της στρατιωτικής αστυνομίας στο
Ντιγιάρμπακιρ της νοτιοανατολικής Τουρκίας, ανακάλυψαν οι τουρκικές αρχές, όπως μετέδωσε σήμερα το πρακτορείο
ειδήσεων Ανατολή. Τα πρώτα οστά είχαν βρεθεί νωρίτερα τον Ιανουάριο κατά τη διάρκεια αρχαιολογικών ερευνών που
γίνονται στο Ιτς Καλέ, στο κέντρο του Ντιγιάρμπακιρ, κοντά στα ερείπια παλατιού του 13ου αιώνα.

Σύμφωνα με ενώσεις υπεράσπισης των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων, τα οστά αυτά ανήκουν σε Κούρδους πολίτες, οι οποίοι
σκοτώθηκαν από τις τουρκικές δυνάμεις ασφαλείας κατά τη διάρκεια της δεκαετίας του 1990.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή: ποια είναι η επίσημη θέση της για αυτούς τους ομαδικούς τάφους;

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

_(10 Απριλίου 2012)_

Η πρόσφατη ανεύρεση ομαδικών τάφων στην Τουρκία είναι γνωστή στην Επιτροπή. Για να δικαιωθούν τα θύματα και οι
οικογένειές τους, ενθαρρύνει την Τουρκία να συνεχίσει τις προσπάθειές της να ρίξει φως στα τραγικά αυτά γεγονότα.

Η Επιτροπή πιστεύει ότι το δημοκρατικό άνοιγμα που ξεκίνησε η τουρκική κυβέρνηση το 2009, και το οποίο αποβλέπει ιδίως
στην αντιμετώπιση του κουρδικού ζητήματος, είναι αναγκαίο να αποκτήσει νέα δυναμική και να οδηγήσει σε συγκεκριμένα
μέτρα, δεδομένου ότι τούτο αποτελεί τη μοναδική πρόσφορη βάση για τη συμφιλίωση. Το νοτιοανατολικό τμήμα της
Τουρκίας έχει ανάγκη από ειρήνη, δημοκρατία και σταθερότητα, καθώς και από κοινωνική, οικονομική και πολιτιστική
ανάπτυξη. Τούτο μπορεί να επιτευχθεί μόνο με συναίνεση για τη λήψη συγκεκριμένων μέτρων τα οποία ενισχύουν τα
κοινωνικά, οικονομικά και πολιτιστικά δικαιώματα των λαών που ζουν στην περιοχή.

Η Επιτροπή θα συνεχίσει να παρακολουθεί στενά τις εξελίξεις στη νοτιοανατολική Τουρκία.

C 96 E / 216 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001351/12**

**to the Commission**

**Niki Tzavela (EFD)**

_(6 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Kurdish mass graves in Turkey

The Anatolia news agency has today reported that the bones of 23 people have been discovered by the Turkish
authorities in a mass grave close to a former building of the military police in Diyarbakir in south-east Turkey. The
first bones were found earlier in January during archaeological excavations in Iç-Kale in central Diyarbakir near the
remains of a 13th century palace.

According to human rights organisations, these bones belong to Kurdish citizens who were killed by Turkish security
forces during the 1990s.

What is the Commission’s official position on these mass graves?

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

_(10 April 2012)_

The Commission is aware of the recent discoveries of mass graves in Turkey. To do justice to the victims and their
families, it encourages Turkey to continue its efforts to shed light upon these tragic events.

The Commission is of the opinion that the democratic opening, launched by the Turkish Government in 2009 and
aimed in particular at addressing the Kurdish issue, needs to gain new momentum and result in concrete measures —
as it provides the only sound basis for reconciliation. The south-east of Turkey needs peace, democracy and stability
as well as social, economic and cultural development. This can only be reached via consensus over concrete measures
expanding the social, economic and cultural rights of the people living in the region.

The Commission will continue to monitor developments in the south-east of Turkey closely.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 217

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001352/12**

**to the Commission**

**Fiona Hall (ALDE)**

_(13 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ EU office in Myanmar

I understand that the Commission has opened a new EU office in the Republic of the Union of Myanmar.

Can the Commission confirm whether this is indeed the case and clarify the remit of the new office, in particular with
reference to wider EU‐Myanmar relations?

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

_(2 July 2012)_

The High Representative/Vice-President will shortly adopt the decision to open an EU Office in Yangon, Republic of
the Union of Myanmar (Burma) in agreement with the Council and the Commission. The official opening of the EU
took place on 29 April 2012.

The aim is to further develop relations between the EU and Myanmar through the establishment of a permanent EU
presence in the country. _Inter alia_, the office will liaise with the Myanmar authorities and oversee the implementation
of EU programmes in that country The Office will be dependant of the EU Delegation to Thailand and its Head of
Delegation, who is already accredited to Myanmar. The High Representative/Vice-President, in agreement with
Council and Commission, may decide in the future to open a fully fledged EU Delegation in Myanmar, subject to
developments in the country and in the bi-lateral relationship.

C 96 E / 218 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001353/12**

**to the Commission**

**Julie Girling (ECR)**

_(13 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Biofuel-to-electricity project funding

Can the Commission indicate whether the company Spider SA, of Ioannina. Greece, received EU funding for a
biofuel-to-electricity generation project during 2010?

**Answer given by Ms Geoghegan-Quinn on behalf of the Commission**

_(14 March 2012)_

The Commission cannot identify the company Spider S.A. as beneficiary of any biofuel-related project supported in
the context of its 7th Framework Programme for research and technological development (FP7, 2007-2013).

However, the funding referred to might be from other EU programmes/instruments.

Should this be the case, the Commission would ask the Honourable Member to provide further details in order to
further investigate the matter.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 219

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-001354/12**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D)**

_(14 februarie 2012)_

_Subiect:_ Daunele provocate mediului de fibrele din material plastic

Există o documentație solidă cu privire la chestiunea așa-numitei „supe de plastic” — acumularea de deșeuri din
plastic în oceane. Cu toate acestea, cercetările recente indică apariția problemelor de mediu din cauza deșeurilor din
plastic de dimensiuni mult mai mici. La fiecare spălare automată a confecțiilor din fibre sintetice (de exemplu,
îmbrăcămintea din poliester) sunt eliberate mii de fibre minuscule de plastic în râuri și canale. Aceste fibre de
dimensiuni microscopice sunt transportate în râuri și în mări acumulându-se în prezent în cantități tot mai mari pe
plaje. Fibrele sunt, de asemenea, ingerate de către pești ajungând, astfel, în lanțul trofic.

1. Consideră Comisia ingerarea acestor fibre microscopice de plastic de către pești ca fiind potențial dăunătoare
sănătății umane?

2. Ar trebui introduse măsuri suplimentare pentru asigurarea protecției împotriva prezenței acestor fibre de plastic
în mediu și în lanțul trofic?

**Răspuns dat de dl Potočnik în numele Comisiei**

_(23 martie 2012)_

Comisia cunoaște rezultatele studiului recent privind microfibrele și este preocupată de acest aspect, conform poziției
exprimate în răspunsul la întrebările scrise E-10065/2011, E-12385/2011 și E-576/2012 ( [1] ). Într-adevăr, nu se poate
exclude posibilitatea ca aceste microfibre din material plastic să ajungă în lanțul alimentar, dar sunt necesare cercetări
suplimentare în acest sens. Înainte de elaborarea unor posibile noi măsuri, Comisia va urmări îndeaproape cererea
pentru propuneri „Oceanele de mâine” din cadrul celui de-al șaptelea Program-cadru de cercetare (PC7) 2012, în
special în ceea ce privește tematica legată de fibrele din material plastic –„Gestionarea și impactul potențial al
deșeurilor din mediul marin și litoral” — care abordează eventualele efecte fizice și chimice ale fibrelor microplastice
asupra organismelor marine.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/QP-WEB/.

C 96 E / 220 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001354/12**

**to the Commission**
**Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D)**

_(14 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Environmental damage from plastic fibres

The problem of so-called ‘plastic soup’ — the build up of plastic waste in the oceans — is well documented. However,
recent research indicates environmental problems arising from much smaller plastic waste. Thousands of tiny plastic
fibres are being released into rivers and waterways each time synthetic garments (such as polyester clothing) are
machine-washed. These microscopic fibres are transported into rivers and the sea and can now be found building up
in large quantities on beaches. The fibres are also being ingested by fish and thus end up in the food chain.

1. Does the Commission regard the presence of such microscopic plastic fibres in fish as being potentially harmful
to human health?

2. Should additional measures be put in place to protect against the presence of these plastic fibres in the
environment and the food chain?

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

_(23 March 2012)_

The Commission is aware of the recent study on microfibers and is concerned, as expressed in the answer to Written
Questions E‐10065/2011, E‐12385/2011 and E‐576/2012 ( [1] ). Indeed, it can not be excluded that those plastic
micro-fibres end up in the food chain. Further research is needed; the Commission will follow carefully the
Seventh Research Framework Programme (FP7) 2012 call ‘The Ocean for Tomorrow’, notably the topic related to
plastic fibres ‘Management and Potential Impacts of Litter in the Marine and Coastal Environment’ which addresses
the possible physical and chemical impacts of micro-plastics on marine organism prior to developing possible new

measures.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/QP-WEB/.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 221

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001355/12**

**to the Commission**
**Catherine Bearder (ALDE)**

_(14 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Tuberculosis in the EU

The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) should be congratulated on the initiatives that have
been introduced in recent years in order to monitor TB and educate those whose role it is to diagnose and cure it.
Importantly, the constant surveillance and consequent targeting of areas that have an increased diagnosis rate, in
order to prevent and cure the disease, is encouraging. It is reassuring that the success rate of curing newly diagnosed
patients across the EU has risen to 79.5 % in the last five years.

However, the success rate target that was set by the WHO is 85 % and within the EU efforts to reach this goal are
apparently a constant struggle. In light of this, can the Commission indicate if there are any plans to improve this
figure, for example by providing funding for the Tuberculosis Vaccine Initiative (TBVI) or similar organisations,
whose aim it is to find a cure for the disease so that it can be prevented for future generations, not just in the EU but
across the globe?

**Answer given by Ms Geoghegan-Quinn on behalf of the Commission**

_(16 March 2012)_

Ensuring prompt diagnosis, treatment and quality care for all tuberculosis (TB) patients in Europe is one of the key
objectives of the Commission's efforts for the prevention and control of TB. This is also one of the strategic principles
of the framework Action Plan to fight TB in the EU ( [1] ). This action plan developed by the European Centre for Disease
Prevention and Control (ECDC), following the request from the Commission, identifies the essential elements to be
addressed by the Member States to control TB efficiently.

To further tackle the threats related to infectious diseases like TB, the Commission has launched over the last years
several initiatives. Under the Sixth and Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development
((FP6 (2002-2006) and FP7 (2007-2013)), more than EUR 130 million have been allocated to collaborative research
to develop new vaccines, therapies and diagnostics for TB.

The European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP) ( [2] ) is also contributing to the fight
against TB by supporting clinical trials on new TB drugs, vaccines and diagnostics.

The Tuberculosis Vaccine Initiative (TBVI) was established in 2008 as a public-private-partnership with the support of
the FP7 project ‘Establishment, strategy and initial activities of the tuberculosis vaccine initiative: coordination of
European efforts with global research initiatives’. One aim was to develop a model to mobilise additional resources
for the development of new TB vaccines, particularly from the Member States and private sector. TBVI also
coordinates the EUR 12 million project NEWTBVAC ( [3] ) for ‘Identification and preclinical testing of new vaccine
candidates for tuberculosis’ with funding from FP7.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/0803 SPR TB Action plan.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.edctp.org/.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/research/health/infectious-diseases/poverty-diseases/projects/205_en.htm

C 96 E / 222 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001356/12**

**to the Commission**
**Catherine Bearder (ALDE)**

_(14 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ European Social Fund (ESF) and Romania

Romania is one of the Member States that benefit substantially from the ESF. The Romanian Foundation for Children,
Community and Family (FRCCF), a charity based in Cluj-Napoca, has in recent years been granted some of this
funding by the Romanian Government in order to help improve the lives of vulnerable children and families in
Romania.

Unfortunately, it has recently come to my attention that the Romanian Government has altered the terms of contract
for this important charity and delayed the payment of funds that were due to be paid out under the contract. As a
result of this the FRCCF has had to spend its reserves and reduce its staff salaries to minimum wage levels, and now
faces closure.

—
The ESF clearly states that its funding is made available via the Member States and that it does not fund
projects directly from Brussels. Can the Commission state whether, and how, it monitors the spending of ESF funding
by Member States once it has been granted?

—
Furthermore, can the Commission say whether it is aware of the situation and whether it will be able to use its
powers to resolve this issue?

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

_(20 March 2012)_

Member States are responsible for the management and control of operational programmes of the European Regional
Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund ( [1] ). The Commission monitors their
implementation by way of the instruments foreseen in the regulations: Monitoring Committees, periodical reports,
frequent meetings with the national authorities, system and operations audit missions, de-commitment of the funds,
financial corrections.

The Commission is aware of the difficulties and of the delays in processing the reimbursement requests from the
beneficiaries. The Romanian Government adopted a Priority Action Plan including measures to address the delays
and the obstacles in the implementation. The Commission is advising the Romanian authorities on ways to improve
the situation.

With reference to the particular case of the Romanian Foundation for Children, Community and Family and in line
with the regulatory framework, the beneficiary should submit its complaint to the relevant Managing Authority:

Managing Authority of the Human Resources Development Sectoral Operational Programme:
17-19, Scărlătescu St. district 1, zip code 011158, Bucharest
Tel.: (+40 21) 315 02 14; (+40 21) 315 02 30,
Fax: (+40 21) 315 02 06; (+40 21) 315 02 05
E-mail: posdru@fseromania.ro
Website: www.fseromania.ro

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) As laid down in Article 70 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 laying down general provisions on these funds.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 223

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001357/12**

**to the Commission**
**Catherine Bearder (ALDE)**

_(13 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Regulation of hydraulic fracturing in the EU

Hydraulic fracturing is the process in which hydrocarbons are extracted from shale rock. It is currently utilised heavily
in the US, and is becoming increasingly popular in the UK and across the EU. In the UK and the US there is conflicting
information relating to the dangers of this method of extraction. For many scientists and academics, there is no
significant danger of water contamination, whereas for others the risks are considerable.

A recent study by Parliament’s Directorate-General for Internal Policies, entitled ‘Impacts of shale gas and shale oil
extraction on the environment and on human health’, has highlighted the lack of regulation of such mining activity
and the need for an analysis of its effects on the environment and human health.

— In the light of the increasing use of this method in the UK and across Europe, as well as the above recent study, can
the Commission confirm if it plans to initiate a regulation process for hydraulic fracturing? If so, when does it expect
to act?

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

_(28 March 2012)_

The Commission has conducted a legal assessment of the EU environmental _acquis_ applicable to exploration and
extraction projects involving the combined use of high volume hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. Based on
the available technical information, the Commission considers that such practices are covered by the existing EU
legislation from planning until cessation.

However, more information is needed to assess whether the level of environment and human protection provided by
the existing EU environmental legislation is appropriate. As part of this process, Directorate-General Environment
has launched a study to support the identification of potential risks to environment and human health of such
practices in Europe as well as to highlight possible knowledge gaps. Results should be available by summer 2012.

Given the limited experience in the EU and the evolving knowledge base, it is not possible to conclude, for the time
being, whether specific measures at EU level, beyond the existing legislative framework and standards, may become
necessary in the future.

C 96 E / 224 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001358/12**

**to the Commission**
**Catherine Bearder (ALDE)**

_(13 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Pre-menstrual dysphoric disorder

It is estimated that in the UK, 800 000 women suffer from pre-menstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD). This is a
condition that causes chronic mood swings and affects women’s mental health on a monthly or bi-monthly basis.
Women who suffer from this condition often struggle to retain stable relationships and employment, and as the
condition is not recognised in the WHO’s International Classification of Diseases, it is often wrongfully diagnosed as
bipolar disorder or the like. Women in the UK are often left without treatment, as the treatments prescribed by mental
health professionals and gynaecologists for illnesses such as bipolar disorder do not work.

— If 800 000 women suffer from this condition in the UK, one can only imagine the millions of women suffering
from it EU‐wide. In the light of this, can the Commission highlight any work it is carrying out with regard to this
condition at EU level?

— Can the Commission also clarify whether it supports or would support a call for the recognition of PMDD in the
WHO’s International Classification of Diseases?

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

_(2 April 2012)_

The question whether the pre-menstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) constitutes a clinical illness is currently a subject
of scientific controversy between experts. In the context of the 7th Framework Programme for Research and
Technological Development (FP 7), no research project was specifically dedicated to PMDD.

The decision whether PMDD should be included into the WHO's International Classification of Diseases falls under
the competence of the WHO itself.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 225

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-001359/12**

**a la Comisión (Vicepresidenta / Alta Representante)**

**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(14 de febrero de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ VP/HR — Torturas en Misrata y abuso de ayuda

El pasado 26 de enero, Médicos Sin Fronteras (MSF) anunció en su página web ( [1] ) su retirada de las cárceles de Misrata
debido a las torturas a las que son sometidos los detenidos en ellas.

Como explican en la citada noticia: «Los equipos de MSF empezaron a trabajar en los centros de detención de Misrata
en agosto de 2011 para atender a detenidos heridos de guerra». Desde entonces, MSF cuenta que sus equipos médicos
han realizado 2 600 consultas, 311 de las cuales, por casos de traumatismos violentos. Y en total, MSF ha tratado a
115 personas con heridas asociadas a torturas, reportando todos los casos a las autoridades pertinentes en Misrata.

El Director General de MSF en Bruselas, Christopher Stokes, se ha mostrado molesto con algunos funcionarios de
prisiones a quienes acusa de haber intentado abusar del trabajo médico de MSF, y denuncia: «Nos traían a los pacientes
a mitad de los interrogatorios para que les diéramos atención médica y se recuperaran para poder seguir
interrogándoles».

MSF envió una carta oficial el 9 de enero al Consejo Militar de Misrata, al Comité de Seguridad de Misrata, al Servicio
de Seguridad del Ejército Nacional y al Consejo Civil local de Misrata, exigiendo el cese inmediato de cualquier forma
de maltrato a los detenidos. Después de comprobar que no ha habido cambios en las prácticas carcelarias en Misrata,
MSF decidió retirarse de ellas.

A la luz de lo anterior,

1. ¿Tiene la Vicepresidenta de la Comisión constancia de estos hechos?

2. ¿Qué acciones piensa tomar la Vicepresidenta de la Comisión de confirmarse estos hechos?

3. ¿Piensa la Vicepresidenta de la Comisión pedir a las autoridades libias que actúen para evitar que la tortura se
siga aplicando sobre los detenidos en las cárceles de Misrata u otras ciudades del país?

**Respuesta de la Alta Representante y Vicepresidenta Sra. Ashton en nombre de la Comisión**

_(23 de abril de 2012)_

La Alta Representante y Vicepresidenta Ashton viene siguiendo de cerca la evolución de esta cuestión y, como
consecuencia de las inquietudes expresadas por los defensores de los derechos humanos, el 31 de enero hizo la
siguiente declaración:

«La Unión Europea está profundamente preocupada por las denuncias de tortura y maltrato de los detenidos en
Misrata. Es esencial que se respeten plenamente los derechos de todos los detenidos en Libia, de conformidad con las
normas internacionales, que las autoridades aceleren la puesta bajo su control de todos los centros de detención y que
haya una investigación exhaustiva, imparcial y efectiva de las denuncias de violación de los derechos de los detenidos.
Cuando se hayan producido abusos, los responsables de los mismos deberán ser enjuiciados.

Por lo tanto, acojo con gran satisfacción el anuncio hecho hoy por las autoridades libias sobre las medidas adoptadas
para abordar muchas de estas cuestiones. Confío en que el Gobierno aplicará rápidamente medidas para garantizar la
protección de estos grupos enormemente vulnerables. La UE está dispuesta a prestar todo tipo de ayuda a las
autoridades en sus esfuerzos por garantizar el respeto de los derechos humanos, los principios democráticos y el
Estado de Derecho.».

El Gobierno libio ha reaccionado positivamente a este llamamiento y ha declarado que está aplicando medidas
destinadas a trasladar el control de los centros de detención a las autoridades. El SEAE continuará siguiendo de cerca

este tema.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.msf.es/noticia/2012/libia-presos-torturados-privados-atencion-medica-en-centros-detencion-misrata.

C 96 E / 226 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001359/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(14 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Torture in Misrata and abuse of aid

This past 26 January, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) announced on its website ( [1] ) its withdrawal from the jails in
Misrata because the detainees held there are being tortured.

As explained in the aforementioned news item: ‘MSF teams began working in Misrata’s detention centres in
August 2011, to treat war-wounded detainees’. Since that time, MSF reports its medical teams have carried out 2 600
consultations, including 311 for cases of violent trauma. In total, MSF has treated 115 people who had torture-related
wounds and has reported all the cases to the relevant authorities in Misrata.

MSF’s General Director in Brussels, Christopher Stokes, has indicated that he is upset with some jail officials, whom he
accuses of attempting to exploit MSF’s medical work. He reported, ‘Patients were brought to us in the middle of
interrogation for medical care, in order to make them fit for further interrogation’.

MSF sent an official letter on 9 January to the Misrata Military Council, the Misrata Security Committee, the National
Army Security Service and the Misrata Local Civil Council, demanding an immediate stop to any form of ill treatment
of detainees. After confirming that there have been no changes in the jailhouse practices in Misrata, MSF decided to
withdraw from the jails.

In light of the foregoing,

1. is the Vice-President of the Commission aware of these facts?

2. what actions does the Vice-President of the Commission plan to take if these facts are confirmed?

3. does the Vice-President of the Commission plan to ask the Libyan authorities to act to prevent the continued use
of torture against detainees at the jails in Misrata or other cities around the country?

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

_(23 April 2012)_

The High Representative/Vice-President Ashton has been following these developments closely and, as result of
concerns expressed by human rights defenders, on 31 January she issued the following statement:

‘The EU is deeply concerned at the reports of torture and ill treatment of detainees in Misurata. It is essential that the
rights of all detainees throughout Libya are fully respected in accordance with international standards, that the
authorities accelerate the process of bringing all places of detention under their control and that there is a thorough,
impartial and effective investigation of allegations of violations of detainees’ rights. Where abuses have occurred,
those responsible for them should be brought to justice.

I therefore welcome the announcement made today by the Libyan authorities of steps to address many of these issues.
I trust that the government will promptly implement the measures so as to guarantee the protection of these most
vulnerable groups. The EU is ready to provide every assistance to the authorities in their efforts to ensure respect for
human rights, democratic values and the rule of law.'

The Libyan government has reacted positively to these calls and has stated that it is in the process of implementing
measures aiming at transferring the control of detention facilities to the authorities. The EEAS will continue to follow
this issue closely.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.msf.es/noticia/2012/libia-presos-torturados-privados-atencion-medica-en-centros-detencion-misrata.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 227

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-001360/12**
**à la Commission (Vice-Présidente / Haute Représentante)**

**Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE)**

_(14 février 2012)_

_Objet:_ VP/HR — Violations des Droits de l'homme et immolations au Tibet

Depuis mars 2011, douze jeunes Tibétains se sont immolés par le feu pour contester la répression des autorités
chinoises au Tibet. Le Tibet est le théâtre d'un contrôle accru des autorités chinoises sur la vie et les pratiques
religieuses, à l'aide notamment de campagnes «d'éducation patriotique» dans les monastères, d'une présence
permanente des autorités chinoises dans ces lieux, d'une surveillance intensive et accrue, de détentions arbitraires, de
disparitions de Tibétains, d'emprisonnements des familles et amis de Tibétains s'étant auto-immolés et de heurts
meurtriers avec les forces policières chinoises au cours de manifestations.

La Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante pourrait-elle répondre, de manière complète, aux questions suivantes:

1. L'Union européenne a imposé des sanctions pour violation des Droits de l'homme en Birmanie, au
Zimbabwe, etc., mais elle n'en a pris aucune pour condamner la répression chinoise au Tibet. Pourquoi une telle
asymétrie dans les sanctions?

2. La Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante envisage-t-elle, par une déclaration publique ou une démarche,
d'inviter les autorités chinoises à cesser la répression dans les zones de Ngaba, Kardze et Chamdo, à retirer les
troupes militaires des zones en question et des monastères, à autoriser tous les moines à retourner dans leurs
monastères respectifs sans conditions, à relâcher ceux qui ont été détenus en relation avec ces immolations et à
autoriser les diplomates étrangers et les médias étrangers indépendants à accéder sans entraves à toutes les
régions du Tibet?

3. Le dialogue étant le moyen jusqu'à présent privilégié par l'Union dans ses relations avec la Chine, dans quelle
mesure la question des Droits de l'homme est-elle évoquée lors des dialogues politiques réguliers sur les
questions de politique étrangère entre la Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante et le conseiller d'État chinois
chargé des affaires étrangères? La deuxième session du dialogue UE-Chine n'ayant pas eu lieu en 2011, est-ce
qu'un calendrier a été fixé pour l'année 2012? Par ailleurs, y a-t-il eu des tentatives pour l'élaboration de projets
au titre de l'Initiative européenne pour la démocratie et les Droits de l'homme (IEDDH) au Tibet?

4. L'Union a la possibilité d'offrir des tarifs à l'importation avantageux afin d'encourager les pays qui respectent les
normes de base minimales et les normes relatives aux conditions de travail qui ont été fixées par l'Organisation
internationale du travail. Pourquoi des tarifs à l'importation désavantageux ne sont-ils pas envisagés pour des
pays qui, comme la Chine, violent les droits fondamentaux de ses citoyens et de la minorité tibétaine?

**Réponse donnée par la Vice présidente/Haute Représentante Mme Ashton au nom de la Commission**

_(31 mai 2012)_

La Haute Représentante/Vice présidente est très préoccupée par les événements épouvantables qui se sont déroulés
dans les régions tibétaines. La délégation de l'Union européenne en Chine a entrepris deux démarches auprès du
ministère des affaires étrangères afin d'exprimer ses vives inquiétudes face à cette série d'immolations par le feu. L'UE a
incité les autorités chinoises à s'abstenir de tout recours à la force, à permettre aux populations tibétaines d'exercer
leurs droits religieux, linguistiques et culturels et à s'attaquer aux causes premières de ces immolations, en particulier,
au manque de participation véritable de la population tibétaine à la politique de développement de la région.

L'UE a soulevé ces questions lors du sommet Union européenne-Chine, le 14 février 2012, ainsi que lors d'une
réunion du Conseil des Droits de l'homme des Nations unies, le 6 mars 2012. Elle a demandé à se rendre, sans
restrictions, dans les régions tibétaines, mais cette demande a été rejetée. L'UE continuera à inciter les autorités
chinoises à faire progresser la situation en matière de Droits de l'homme au Tibet et à reprendre leur dialogue avec les
envoyés du dalaï-lama.

Les ONG travaillant au Tibet peuvent introduire des demandes de soutien financier au titre de l'instrument européen
pour la démocratie et les Droits de l'homme (IEDDH). Le service européen d'action extérieure (SEAE) ayant assuré à
tous les candidats que leurs demandes seraient traitées dans la confidentialité la plus stricte, il ne peut, en
conséquence, fournir aucune information concernant les projets IEDDH. La Commission propose d'allouer un
nouveau budget pour soutenir des projets relatifs aux Droits de l'homme au titre des programmes de soutien
nationaux de l'IEDDH pour 2013.

C 96 E / 228 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

Une augmentation des droits de douane constitue une restriction commerciale et doit être appliquée conformément
aux règles de l'OMC, notamment en matière de non-discrimination et de proportionnalité. Lorsque l'on envisage des
mesures commerciales pour répondre à des violations des Droits de l'homme, il convient de se poser la question de
savoir si, dans la pratique, ces mesures sont susceptibles de faire progresser la situation en matière de Droits de
l'homme. La Commission privilégie une politique d'engagement avec la Chine sur la question des Droits de l'homme
plutôt que l'imposition de mesures restrictives.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 229

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001360/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE)**

_(14 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Human rights violations and self-immolations in Tibet

Since March 2011, 12 young Tibetans have set fire to themselves in protest against repression by the Chinese
authorities in Tibet. The Chinese authorities have tightened their control over religious life and practices in Tibet,
particularly through ‘patriotic education’ campaigns and the permanent presence of Chinese authorities in
monasteries, intensive and heightened surveillance, arbitrary arrests, the disappearance of Tibetans, the imprisonment
of families and friends of Tibetans who have set fire to themselves, and deadly clashes with Chinese police forces
during demonstrations.

Can the Vice-President/High Representative respond fully to the following questions:

1. The European Union has imposed sanctions for human rights violations in countries like Myanmar and
Zimbabwe, but has not taken any steps to condemn the Chinese repression in Tibet. Why such an imbalance in
sanctions?

2. Does the Vice-President/High Representative intend to issue a public statement or take steps to call on the
Chinese authorities to put an end to repression in the areas of Ngaba, Kardze and Chamdo; withdraw military
troops from these areas and the monasteries; authorise all monks to return to their respective monasteries
without any conditions attached; release those who have been arrested in relation to these self-immolations;
and authorise foreign diplomats and independent foreign media to gain unhindered access to all regions of
Tibet?

3. As dialogue has until now been the European Union’s favoured approach in its relationship with China, to what
extent is the human rights issue raised during the regular political dialogues on foreign policy matters between
the Vice-President/High Representative and the Chinese State Councillor responsible for foreign affairs? As the
second session of the EU‐China dialogue did not take place in 2011, has a schedule been set for 2012? Also,
have attempts been made to develop projects under the European Instrument for Democracy and Human
Rights (EIDHR) in Tibet?

4. The European Union can offer reduced import tariffs in order to encourage countries that respect minimal
basic standards and norms regarding working conditions set by the International Labour Organisation. Why
have unfavourable import tariffs not been considered for countries, like China, which violate the basic rights of
its citizens and the Tibetan minority?

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

_(31 May 2012)_

The High Representative/Vice-President is deeply concerned at the distressing events in the Tibetan areas. The EU
Delegation to China has made two demarches to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressing its profound concern at
the series of self-immolations. The EU has urged the Chinese authorities to refrain from the use of force, to allow the
Tibetan people to exercise their religious, linguistic and cultural rights and to address the root causes of the selfimmolations, in particular the lack of genuine participation by the Tibetan population in the development policy of
the region.

The EU raised these concerns at the EU‐China Summit on 14 February 2012 and at the UN Human Rights Council on
6 March 2012. It has asked to visit the Tibetan regions in an unrestricted way but this request has been refused. The
EU will continue to urge the Chinese authorities to improve the human rights situation in Tibet and to resume their
dialogue with the Envoys of the Dalai Lama.

NGOs working in Tibet may submit applications for support from the European Instrument for Democracy and
Human Rights. The European External Action Service (EEAS) has assured all applicants that their applications will be
handled in confidence, so cannot provide any information on EIDHR projects. The Commission proposes to
allocate a new budget to support human rights projects under the EIDHR Country Based Support Schemes from
2013.

C 96 E / 230 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

Raising import tariffs is a trade restriction and must be done in compliance with WTO rules, including nondiscrimination and proportionality. When considering trade measures to address human rights violations, the
question of whether the measures are likely to improve the human rights situation in practice is relevant. The
Commission favours a policy of engagement with China on human rights issues over the imposition of restrictive

measures.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 231

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-001361/12**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(14 février 2012)_

_Objet:_ Mesures urgentes à prendre pour limiter la consommation de sucre

Une étude récente de scientifiques américains publiée par la revue «Nature» a mis en évidence la menace que la
consommation excessive de sucre, en particulier de fructose, constitue pour la santé publique. Les mêmes
scientifiques établissent un lien entre consommation de sucre et augmentation des maladies non transmissibles.

La Commission peut-elle faire savoir:

—
si elle estime que la réglementation européenne rendant obligatoire un étiquetage mentionnant la valeur
énergétique ainsi que la quantité de sucre est suffisante pour détourner les consommateurs de leur
consommation excessive et

—
si elle entend encourager les États membres à prendre des mesures dissuasives de nature fiscale, à savoir un
impôt sur les aliments sucrés, comme celles que le Danemark a adoptées en janvier 2012?

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

_(22 mars 2012)_

Les États membres ont un rôle essentiel à jouer dans d'information sur l'alimentation et la santé. La Commission
estime que l'introduction, par le règlement (UE) n [o] 1169/2011 concernant l'information des consommateurs sur les
denrées alimentaires ( [1] ), de l'affichage obligatoire d'informations nutritionnelles sur la majorité des denrées
transformées, y compris de la valeur énergétique et de la quantité de sucres, permettra aux consommateurs de choisir
leur alimentation de manière avertie, en tenant compte des conseils diététiques qu'ils reçoivent.

Pour ce qui est de la taxation de certaines denrées, les États membres peuvent introduire des taxes nationales non
harmonisées, mais ils doivent alors veiller à respecter les dispositions applicables du droit de l'Union européenne.
Toute taxe existante ou prévue en la matière qui est notifiée à la Commission fait l'objet d'un examen séparé. Pour le
moment, il ne semble pas nécessaire que l'Union légifère dans ce domaine.

Le groupe de haut niveau sur la nutrition et l'activité physique a procédé à un échange d'informations sur les mesures
fiscales qui ont été récemment instaurées par certains États membres dans le domaine des denrées alimentaires. Le
débat a prouvé à quel point il était difficile de démontrer l'incidence de telles mesures sur l'obésité et un mode
d'alimentation sain. Les futurs échanges porteront avant tout sur l'introduction d'éventuels outils de suivi et sur les
résultats de ces mesures dans les États membres dans lesquels elles ont été instaurées.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) JO L 304 du 22.11.2011, p. 18.

C 96 E / 232 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001361/12**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(14 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Urgent measures to be taken to limit sugar consumption

A recent study conducted by American scientists which was published in _Nature_ magazine highlighted the threat
which the excessive consumption of sugar, and fructose in particular, poses for public health. The same scientists
establish a link between sugar consumption and the increase in non-communicable diseases.

Can the Commission indicate:

—
if it considers that the European regulation making it obligatory for labels to indicate the energy value as well as
the sugar content is sufficient to deter consumers from excessive sugar consumption; and

—
if it intends to encourage Member States to adopt dissuasive measures of a fiscal nature, namely a tax on sugary
foods, similar to those adopted by Denmark in January 2012?

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

_(22 March 2012)_

Member States have a key role in providing education on diet and health. The Commission believes that the
introduction through Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers ( [1] ) of the
requirement to provide mandatory nutrition information on the majority of processed foods, including energy value
and the amount of sugars, will enable consumers to make informed dietary choices whilst taking into account the
dietary advice they receive.

With respect to taxes on certain foods, Member States may introduce non-harmonised national taxes but in doing so
they must ensure they respect the relevant provisions of EC law. Any existing or planned tax on certain foods that is
notified to the Commission is investigated individually. So far, there does not appear to be any need for EU legislation
in the area.

The High Level Group on Nutrition and Physical Activity has had an exchange of information on fiscal measures on
foods that have recently been introduced by certain Member States. The debate revealed the complexity of
demonstrating the impact of such measures on obesity and healthy eating trends. The main focus for future
exchanges will be on possible monitoring tools and the outcomes of these measures in the Member States in which
they have been introduced.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 18.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 233

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-001362/12**

**à la Commission**
**Alain Cadec (PPE)**

_(13 février 2012)_

_Objet:_ Pêche et élevages marins — Mise en place de plans de gestion des cormorans

Les problèmes causés par le développement des populations européennes de grands cormorans sur de nombreuses
activités — pisciculture, pêche professionnelle et de loisir — sont connus et croissants (par exemple, menace à
l'encontre des élevages marins, menace à l'encontre des espèces de poisson en voie de disparition, manque à gagner
des pisciculteurs).

Depuis la résolution du Parlement européen du 4 décembre 2008 sur l'établissement d'un plan européen de gestion
des cormorans (rapport Kindermann; P6_TA(2008)0583), la Commission a été questionnée à plusieurs reprises sur la
non‐mise en place de cette gestion européenne du grand cormoran. Pourquoi la Commission juge-t-elle qu'un plan de
gestion à l'échelle de l'Union serait «inapproprié» pour répondre en partie à cette problématique — et ce, au-delà des
possibilités de régulation de l'espèce offertes à chaque État membre en vertu de l'article 9 de la Directive «Oiseaux»?

De plus, la Commission annonce depuis 2010 qu'elle prépare des orientations concernant ces dispositions
dérogatoires. Qu'en est-il à ce jour? En France, toutes les possibilités d'utilisation des dérogations et des protections
vis-à-vis des prédations ont été testées en pisciculture. Rien n'y fait, les impacts sur l'activité, sur sa rentabilité, mais
aussi sur la gestion de milieux remarquables comme les étangs piscicoles sont considérables.

La directive 2006/88/CE du Conseil du 24 octobre 2006, impose la mise en place complexe de mesures de prévention
et de lutte contre certaines maladies chez les animaux aquatiques. L'accroissement et le développement des
populations de cormorans entraînent des risques supplémentaires de propagation de ces maladies, voire la diffusion
de maladies vers des zones indemnes. Comment la Commission envisage-t-elle une mise en place cohérente de cette
directive sanitaire face à l'absence d'un plan européen de gestion du grand cormoran?

Enfin, la Commission souhaite solliciter les États membres pour élaborer des plans pluriannuels stratégiques pour
favoriser le de développement de l'aquaculture pour 2014. Comment conçoit-elle des possibilités de développement,
notamment pour la pisciculture d'étangs, quand celle-ci est mise à mal par les populations de cormorans?

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

_(28 mars 2012)_

La Commission invite l'Honorable Parlementaire à se référer aux réponses qu'elle a apportées aux questions écrites
E-3661/2010, E-4146/2010, E-4285/2010, E-9165/2010, E-9271/2010 et E-010579/2010 ( [1] ) portant sur le
même sujet.

En ce qui concerne le statut du document d'orientation concernant le recours, pour le cormoran, aux dérogations
prévues à l'article 9 de la directive «Oiseaux» ( [2] ), la Commission travaille à sa préparation en consultation avec les États
membres, les acteurs directement concernés et le grand public, et espère être en mesure de le finaliser en 2012.

La directive 2006/88/CE ( [3] ) impose aux États membres de veiller à ce que les bonnes pratiques en matière d'hygiène
soient mises en œuvre dans les exploitations aquacoles de manière à prévenir l'introduction d'agents pathogènes.
Lorsque cela est nécessaire et réalisable, les aquaculteurs devraient mettre en place des mesures de protection physique
permettant de protéger les poissons des prédateurs tels que les cormorans, qui peuvent faciliter la propagation
d'agents pathogènes.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/QP-WEB.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directive 2009/147/CE (version codifiée remplaçant la directive 79/409/CEE), JO L 20 du 26.1.2010.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Directive 2006/88/CE du 24 octobre 2006, JO L 315 du 19.11.2002.

C 96 E / 234 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

La Commission est consciente du rôle essentiel que joue l'aquaculture en étangs, non seulement pour la production
aquacole, mais aussi pour les paysages, la gestion de l'eau, la biodiversité, ou encore la préservation des traditions et de
la culture. Il convient dès lors que, dans les régions concernées, les États membres recourent dans toute la mesure du
possible au système de dérogations susmentionné.

L'actuel Fonds européen pour la pêche autorise l'octroi d'une assistance financière pour protéger les exploitations
aquacoles des dommages causés par les prédateurs sauvages. La proposition de la Commission relative au Fonds
européen pour les affaires maritimes et la pêche prévoit le maintien du soutien en faveur des mesures de ce type.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 235

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001362/12**

**to the Commission**

**Alain Cadec (PPE)**
_(13 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Fishing and aquaculture — Introduction of cormorant management plans

The problems caused by the growth of European cormorant populations affecting numerous business activities —
fish farming, as well as professional and leisure fishing — have already been recognised and are on the increase (for
example, the threat posed to marine farms, the threat posed to fish species facing extinction, and loss of earnings for
fish farmers).

Since the resolution of the European Parliament of 4 December 2008 on establishing a European Cormorant
Management Plan (Kindermann report; P6_TA(2008)0583), the Commission has been questioned on several
occasions about the non-introduction of the European Cormorant Management Plan. Why does the Commission
consider that an EU‐wide management plan would be inappropriate as a partial response to this issue, since it extends
beyond the possibilities for species regulation offered to each Member State based on Article 9 of the ‘Birds’ Directive?

Moreover, in 2010 the Commission announced that it was preparing guidelines concerning these derogations. Where
does this currently stand? In France, all possibilities for using these derogations and protections against predation
have undergone testing in fish farming. But to no avail, despite the fact that the effects on business and profitability,
but also on the management of remarkable environments such as fish ponds, are considerable.

Council Directive 2006/88/EC of 24 October 2006, requires the complex implementation of measures for
preventing and combating certain illnesses among aquatic animals. The growth and expansion of cormorant
populations cause additional risks in terms of the propagation of illnesses, including the spread of illness towards free
zones. How does the Commission envisage the coherent introduction of this health directive faced with the absence
of a European Cormorant Management Plan?

Lastly, the Commission wishes to ask Member States to prepare multiannual strategic plans to encourage the
development of aquaculture for 2014. What view does it take of the possibilities for development, particularly for
pond fish farming, when this is being disrupted by cormorant populations?

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

_(28 March 2012)_

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answers to Written Questions E‐3661/2010,
E-4146/2010, E‐4285/2010, E‐9165/2010, E‐9271/2010 and E‐010579/2010 ( [1] ) on the same issue.

In relation to the status of the Guidance Document on the use of derogations for Cormorants under Article 9 of the
Birds Directive ( [2] ), the Commission is working on its preparation in consultation with the Member States,
stakeholders, and the general public, and expects to be in a position to finalise it during 2012.

Directive 2006/88/EC ( [3] ) requires Member States to ensure that good hygiene practices are implemented in fish farms
to prevent the introduction of disease agents. When necessary and feasible, the fish farmers should introduce physical
protection of the fish from predators such as the cormorants that might facilitate the spread of disease agents.

The Commission is aware of the important role of the pond aquaculture not only for the fish production but also for
its functions in the landscape, the water management, biodiversity or its traditional and cultural significance. In view
of this, Member States should maximise the use of the abovementioned system of derogations in those areas.

The current European Fisheries Fund allows financial support to prevent aquaculture facilities from damage caused by
wild predators. Under the Commission's proposal for European Maritime and Fisheries Fund assistance for the same
type of measures is continued

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/QP-WEB/
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directive 2009/147/EC (codified version replacing Directive 79/409/EEC), OJ L 20, 26.1.2010.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Directive 2006/88/EC of 24 October 2006, OJ L 315, 19.11.2002.

C 96 E / 236 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001363/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(13 febbraio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ La tassazione delle autovetture nell'UE e il bollo auto italiano

I proprietari di automezzi, privati o commerciali, costituiscono da sempre un'importante risorsa per il bilancio
pubblico degli Stati membri che si avvalgono di diversi e molteplici strumenti fiscali per raccogliere risorse. La
creazione di un mercato unico automobilistico sostenibile, privo di distorsioni, inefficienze ed ostacoli fiscali,
rappresenta uno degli obiettivi dell'Unione europea, laddove le disparità tra i regimi fiscali nei diversi Stati membri
generano un impatto fortemente negativo sulla capacità dell'industria automobilistica e dei consumatori europei di
beneficiare di economie di scala o di produrre lo stesso veicolo, con uguali specifiche applicando lo stesso prezzo.

Considerato che l'Europa pone al centro della sua attività la tutela del consumatore non solo dalle possibili
implicazioni negative del nuovo mercato a 27, ma anche da un comportamento degli Stati membri lesivo delle
quattro libertà fondamentali;

preso atto che nella comunicazione SEC(2002)858 la Commissione europea, un decennio fa, ha illustrato l'incidenza
di tre tasse applicate alle autovetture: la tassa di immatricolazione (TI), la tassa annuale di circolazione (TAC) e le tasse
sui carburanti (TC);

poiché in Italia i cittadini sono soggetti destinatari di un ulteriore aggravio fiscale, il bollo auto, una tassa che non
rientra in nessuna di queste categorie, ma in quella delle tasse di possesso da pagarsi annualmente e
indipendentemente dall'utilizzo del mezzo, intende la Commissione avviare uno studio per fotografare l'attuale
situazione della tassazione delle autovetture e del mercato automobilistico europeo negli Stati membri?

Non intende la Commissione verificare la compatibilità di questo onere, tutto italiano, con il mercato automobilistico
europeo?

Non intende la Commissione intervenire per rimuovere questo ulteriore aggravio che pesa sui cittadini del mio paese?

**Risposta data da Algirdas Šemeta a nome della Commissione**

_(20 marzo 2012)_

Attualmente la legislazione e l’armonizzazione a livello UE in materia di tassazione delle autovetture sono piuttosto
limitate. Di conseguenza, fatto salvo il rispetto dei principi generali del diritto dell’Unione, i regimi fiscali nazionali in
questo settore sono a discrezione degli Stati membri. In particolare, gli Stati membri possono decidere se integrare
considerazioni di tipo ambientale nella struttura delle aliquote applicate.

L’imposta nazionale cui fa riferimento l’onorevole parlamentare non è oggetto di armonizzazione nell’ambito del
diritto dell’UE ed è quindi di competenza delle autorità nazionali. Alla Commissione non risulta che in Italia tale
imposta venga applicata in maniera contraria al diritto UE.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 237

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001363/12**

**to the Commission**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(13 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Car taxation in the EU and Italian car tax

Owners of both private and commercial motor vehicles have always been an important resource for the government
budget of Member States which use varied and multiple taxation instruments to raise revenue. Creating a single,
sustainable automotive market, free from tax distortions, inefficiencies and obstacles, is one of the EU's objectives
where disparities between tax systems in different Member States are having a hugely negative impact on the ability of
the automotive industry and European consumers to benefit from economies of scale and to produce the same
vehicles with the same specifications at the same price.

Amongst other things, Europe focuses on protecting consumers not only from the potential negative implications of
the new 27-member EU market, but also from any Member State behaviour which might infringe the four
fundamental rights.

In its communication SEC(2002)858, the Commission, 10 years ago, described the impact of three taxes applied to
motor vehicles: registration tax, annual road tax and fuel taxes.

Since Italian citizens are subject to an additional car tax, the ‘ _bollo_ _auto_ ’, a tax which does not fall into any of these
categories, but is an ownership tax to be paid annually regardless of whether or not the vehicle is actually used, will
the Commission carry out a study to review the current motor vehicle taxation situation and the European car market
in the Member States?

Could the Commission check whether this purely Italian tax is compatible with the European car market?

Will the Commission not take action to remove this additional tax burden weighing down on Italian citizens?

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

_(20 March 2012)_

At present there is little EU legislation or harmonisation at EU level in the field of passenger car taxation. As a
consequence, Member States are free to design their national tax systems in this area, subject to respecting the general
principles of EC law. Member States may in particular decide whether to integrate environmental considerations into
the structure of the rates applied.

The national tax referred to by the Honourable Member is not subject to harmonisation under EC law. The tax thus
falls within the competence of the national authorities. The Commission has no information that the national tax
referred to is applied in a manner contrary to EC law.

C 96 E / 238 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001364/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Barbara Matera (PPE), Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE), Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE), Lara Comi (PPE), Lorenzo Fontana**

**(EFD), Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE) e Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(13 febbraio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Conseguenze dell'embargo imposto all'Iran e nuove fonti di approvvigionamento energetico

I presunti programmi nucleari della Repubblica islamica dell'Iran rappresentano un rischio elevato sia per il già fragile
equilibrio politico del Medio Oriente sia per il continente europeo. La percezione del pericolo sta tutta nell'unanimità
con cui i ministri degli Esteri dell'Unione europea hanno scelto nei giorni scorsi di adottare un blocco delle
importazioni del petrolio iraniano, nell'ambito di un embargo sulle transazioni economiche tra Europa e Iran che
entrerà in atto il primo luglio 2012.

Di fronte a una diminuzione dell'offerta si è avuta immediatamente una perturbazione al rialzo del prezzo del petrolio
che si somma al rischio di rappresaglia annunciato dai pasdaran. L'Iran ha, infatti, minacciato a gran voce di chiudere
lo stretto di Hormuz, da cui ogni anno transita il 20 % circa del petrolio trasportato via mare, ossia 15,5 milioni di
barili. Una tale azione avrebbe degli sviluppi negativi dirompenti sull'economia mondiale, che fatica a uscire da una
delle più acute crisi della storia.

Gli effetti negativi di un tale sviluppo interessano l'Europa, e in particolare l'Italia che figura quale quarto importatore
del greggio iraniano, ma rendono evidente ancora una volta la necessità europea di dare nuovo impulso alle fonti di
energia alternative.

Alla luce di tali considerazioni, può la Commissione rispondere ai seguenti quesiti:

1. L'embargo a carico della Repubblica iraniana non avrebbe più efficacia qualora l'Europa desse nuovo impulso
alle fonti di energia rinnovabile che permettono in primo luogo di ridurre la dipendenza dal petrolio e allo
stesso tempo di minimizzare gli effetti che la minaccia iraniana di chiudere lo stretto di Hormuz
comporterebbe?

2. Quali progetti per l'approvvigionamento da fonti energetiche alternative risultano prioritari per la
Commissione, vista la necessaria disciplina di bilancio imposta dal contenimento della spesa previsto per il
bilancio 2013? Quali sono le priorità a tal proposito nel quadro finanziario 2014-2020?

3. Dato l'elevato potenziale delle tecnologie delle celle a combustibile e idrogeno ed il rilevante impegno
dell'Unione europea in questo settore — ne è un esempio l'impresa comune «Celle a combustibile e idrogeno»
(FCH-JU) —, non ritiene la Commissione che tale strumento debba essere potenziato e maggiormente
supportato? Non ritiene che, incrementando gli investimenti su queste tecnologie, l'Unione europea possa
fornire un forte segnale politico, da un lato, ed imprenditoriale, dall'altro, contribuendo così alla ripresa
economica con importanti ricadute occupazionali sul territorio europeo?

**Risposta data da Günther Oettinger a nome della Commissione**

_(28 marzo 2012)_

1. Le fonti energetiche locali, comprese quelle rinnovabili, garantiscono agli Stati membri dell'UE una maggiore
sicurezza energetica. Nel 2008, il pacchetto in materia di energia e clima ha dato un impulso alle energie rinnovabili
fissando obiettivi nazionali vincolanti. La Commissione segue attivamente i progressi degli Stati membri nel
conseguimento di tali obiettivi.

2. L'efficienza energetica e le fonti energetiche sostenibili innovative sono tra le priorità del bilancio 2013 nonché
del nuovo quadro finanziario 2014-2020. Il contenimento della spesa non dovrebbe riguardare settori chiave per il
raggiungimento degli obiettivi dell'Unione per il 2020 e, più in generale, della strategia Europa 2020 per la crescita e
l'occupazione. Il miglioramento dell'efficienza energetica dovrebbe rappresentare una delle soluzioni più efficaci per
realizzare risparmi significativi in campo energetico, ancor di più in un contesto caratterizzato dall'aumento dei
prezzi dell'energia a livello mondiale.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 239

3. La Commissione concorda con l'onorevole parlamentare nel ritenere che le fonti energetiche e i sistemi di
trasmissione alternativi debbano essere supportati, data la loro importanza nella definizione di metodi per ovviare alla
forte dipendenza dal petrolio e il loro potenziale per la creazione di nuove imprese e posti di lavoro. Tuttavia,
l'attenzione non dovrebbe essere posta soltanto sulle celle a combustibile e idrogeno. I veicoli elettrici e ricaricabili,
nonché i motori a combustione convenzionali migliorati, svolgono in tal senso un ruolo fondamentale. Allo stadio
attuale, l'importante non è identificare tecnologie energetiche specifiche, ma piuttosto fornire orientamenti sulle
tecnologie future, lasciando così che le migliori si affermino a livello di mercato.

C 96 E / 240 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001364/12**

**to the Commission**
**Barbara Matera (PPE), Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE), Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE), Lara Comi (PPE), Lorenzo Fontana**

**(EFD), Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE) and Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(13 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Consequences of the embargo imposed on Iran and new energy sources

The nuclear programmes allegedly being pursued by the Islamic Republic of Iran pose a serious risk both to the
already fragile political equilibrium in the Middle East and to the whole of Europe. The perception of the danger is
such that the EU Foreign Ministers unanimously decided a few days ago to ban imports of Iranian oil, as part of an
embargo on financial transactions between Europe and Iran which will enter into force on 1 July 2012.

Given the possible reduction in supply, the immediate response has been upward pressure on the oil price, creating a
further risk factor, over and above the retaliation announced by the Pasdaran. Iran has threatened in no uncertain
terms to close the Strait of Hormuz, the route for about 20 % of the oil transported by sea, in other words
15.5 million barrels. Such action would have a devastating effect on the world economy, which is struggling to
emerge from one of the most severe crises in history.

The resulting adverse impact would make itself felt in Europe and in Italy in particular, the fourth largest importer of
Iranian crude oil, and also highlights once again the need for Europe to give fresh impetus to alternative energy

sources.

In light of these points:

1. Would the embargo on Iran not be more effective if Europe were to give fresh impetus to renewable energy
sources, enabling it firstly to reduce its dependence on oil while also minimising the effects entailed in the
Iranian threat to close the Strait of Hormuz?

2. Which alternative energy projects does the Commission consider to have priority, given the need for budget
discipline in view of the spending restrictions likely to be imposed by the 2013 budget? What priorities have
been laid down in the 2014-2020 financial framework?

3. Given the great potential of fuel cells and hydrogen and the major EU commitment in this sector — one
example being the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (FCH-JU) — does the Commission not consider
that they should be developed and receive more support? Does it not consider that by increasing investment in
these technologies, the European Union could send out a strong political signal on the one hand, and an
entrepreneurial one on the other, thus contributing to the economic recovery and producing a substantial
impact on employment in all parts of Europe?

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

_(28 March 2012)_

1. Indigenous energy sources including renewable ones reinforce the energy security of EU Member States. The
energy and climate package in 2008 gave a boost to renewable energy through fixing binding national targets. The
Commission is monitoring very actively Member States' progress in achieving those targets.

2. Energy efficiency and sustainable innovative energy sources have been mentioned as priorities both for the
2013 budget and the new financial framework 2014-2020. Spending restrictions should not affect key areas for
achieving our targets for 2020 and, more generally, our Europe 2020 strategy on growth and jobs. Especially in a
situation of rising global energy prices efficiency gains should be one of the best ways to achieve self-financing
reductions in energy use.

3. The Commission agrees that alternative fuels and powertrains need support given their importance for finding
ways to replace the singular reliance on oil and their potential in terms of new businesses and job creation. However,
the focus should not be on Fuel Cells and Hydrogen only. Electric vehicles and Plug-in electric vehicles as well as
improved conventional combustion car engines all will have an important role to play. It is important at this stage not
to pick certain energy technologies but to provide pathways for future technologies which then allow for the best
technologies to prove themselves in the marketplace.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 241

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001366/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Sergio Paolo Frances Silvestris (PPE)**

_(14 febbraio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Crisi occupazionale

La ripresa senza occupazione ha tenuto compagnia all'Europa per un biennio (2 [o] semestre 2009-1 [o] trimestre 2011). Il
consuntivo 2011 calcolato dalla CGIL parla di 500 mila lavoratori in cassa a zero ore, costretti a rinunciare a ottomila
euro in busta paga, pari a un taglio complessivo di 3,6 miliardi, ma soprattutto di una disoccupazione ufficiale risalita
a dicembre all'8,9 %, al livello di 11 anni fa, prima della riforma Biagi. Quella reale, sommando gli inattivi che non
cercano più, avrebbe addirittura sfondato la barriera dell'11 %. È un dato verosimile. Dopo l'estate, infatti, molte casse
stanno diventando mobilità e licenziamenti, colpendo impieghi stabili in imprese tradizionali, età elevata e scolarità
bassa, i profili più a rischio concorrenza asiatica su prezzo e prodotti.

Il risultato è che la spesa reale rischia di restare in rosso fino a metà 2013, per una riduzione complessiva del 4,5 %.
Siamo davanti ad una disoccupazione di lungo periodo, sconosciuta, che colpisce territori ricchi che hanno avuto
piena occupazione per trent'anni. Tra il 2008 e il 2013 avranno perso l'occupazione circa 650 mila persone, mentre il
numero dei posti di lavoro si sarà ridotto di quasi 800 mila unità, di cui 700 mila nel settore industriale.

A farne le spese un'altra volta sono i giovani. Già oggi la disoccupazione ufficiale «under 24» è arrivata al 31 %, in
aumento di 3 punti sul 2010, ma quella reale vale molto di più. In Campania tocca il 51,1 %, in Basilicata il 48,3 %,
nel Lazio il 42,5 %, in Sicilia 41,2 % seguite a ruota, un po' a sorpresa, dalle ricche Lombardia (40,3 %), Piemonte
(37,3 %) e Veneto (37,2).

Ciò premesso, si chiede alla Commissione se:

—
Ritiene utile individuare un piano specifico sull'occupazione giovanile, da includere successivamente in ciascun
programma nazionale di riforma, definendo misure mirate a livello di politiche e di bilancio, come per esempio
trasferendo fondi dall'attuale assegnazione di risorse UE (finanziamenti che potrebbero arrivare da fondi non
assegnati della dotazione nazionale a titolo del Fondo sociale europeo), proprio per favorire il lavoro dei
giovani?

**Risposta data da László Andor a nome della Commissione**

_(20 marzo 2012)_

La Commissione è consapevole della difficile situazione occupazionale, in particolare per quanto concerne i giovani.
La sua comunicazione sull'iniziativa «Opportunità per i giovani» ( [1] ) del 20 dicembre 2011 ha affrontato
esplicitamente la questione proponendo diverse misure da adottarsi.

Il Presidente della Commissione, in seguito a una dichiarazione dei membri del Consiglio europeo ( [2] ) del 30 gennaio
2012, ha inviato di recente una lettera ai capi di Governo degli Stati membri maggiormente colpiti dal fenomeno della
disoccupazione giovanile, compresa l'Italia, per rafforzare la cooperazione finalizzata a migliorare le prospettive
occupazionali dei giovani.

In ciascuno di questi paesi ( [3] ) un «gruppo d'azione» svilupperà, nell'ambito di ciascun programma di riforma
nazionale, un piano per l'occupazione giovanile e valuterà come usare al meglio le risorse non ancora stanziate dei
Fondi strutturali, comprese quelle del Fondo sociale europeo (FSE).

Il Consiglio europeo di primavera del 2012 ha sollecitato la preparazione di «Piani nazionali per l'occupazione» da
parte degli Stati membri. In quanto parte integrante del Programma nazionale di riforma dei singoli Stati membri, il
«Piano nazionale per l'occupazione» dovrebbe contenere le misure concrete previste per affrontare il problema della
disoccupazione, compresa quella giovanile, e altri punti deboli del mercato del lavoro. L'attuazione di questi piani sarà
oggetto di un monitoraggio molto attento nel contesto del semestre europeo.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=950&newsId=1143&furtherNews=yes.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/127599.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) ES, PT, GR, IT, IE, SK, LT, LV.

C 96 E / 242 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001366/12**

**to the Commission**
**Sergio Paolo Frances Silvestris (PPE)**

_(14 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Employment crisis

Rising unemployment has afflicted Europe for two years (from the second half of 2009 to the first quarter of 2011).
The final figures for 2011 calculated by the Italian General Confederation of Labour indicate that there were 500 000
workers receiving 100 % redundancy pay (no hours worked), who had been forced to take a pay cut of EUR 8 000,
equivalent to EUR 3.6 billion in all, but more importantly they show that official unemployment rose to 8.9 % in
December, reaching the level of 11 years ago, before the Biagi reform. Real unemployment, including those who were
no longer looking for work, was possibly, not to say probably, higher than 11 %. Since summer, short-time work
schemes have in many cases been converted into mobility and redundancy benefits, affecting stable jobs in traditional
businesses and those who are older or less educated, that is to say, the groups most at risk from Asian competition in
terms of price and products.

The result is that real expenditure risks remaining in the red until mid‐2013, giving an overall reduction of 4.5 %.
Long-term unemployment is in danger of continuing indefinitely, affecting wealthy areas where there has been full
employment for thirty years. Between 2008 and 2013 approximately 650 000 people will have lost their jobs, and
the number of positions stands to fall by almost 800 000, 700 000 of that number being accounted for by industry.

And again it is the young who are bearing the brunt. Today official unemployment amongst the under-24s has
reached 31 %, up 3 points from 2010, but the real figure is much higher. In Campania it stands at 51.1 %, in Basilicata
48.3 %, in Lazio 42.5 %, and in Sicily 41.2 %, closely followed — a little surprisingly — by wealthy Lombardy
(40.3 %), Piedmont (37.3 %) and Veneto (37.2 %).

Does the Commission believe that it should draw up a specific youth employment plan, to be included in each
national reform programme, setting out targeted policy and budget measures such as transfers from existing EU
funding allocations (possibly using those portions of national allocations under the European Social Fund that have
not been earmarked), in order to support youth employment?

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

_(20 March 2012)_

The Commission is aware of the difficult employment situation, in particular for young people. Its communication
‘Youth Opportunities Initiative’ ( [1] ) of 20 December 2011 explicitly addressed that issue and included a number of
steps to be taken.

The President of the Commission, following the statement of the members of the European Council ( [2] ) of
30 January 2012, has recently sent a letter to the Heads of Governments of the Member States most affected by youth
unemployment, including Italy, to strengthen cooperation to improve employment prospects for young people.

In each of these countries ( [3] ), an ‘action team’ will help develop in each national reform program a plan for youth
employment and assess how best to use the resources not yet allocated of the structural funds, including the European
Social Fund (ESF).

The 2012 Spring European Council called for the preparation of ‘National Job Plans’ by Member States. As an integral
part of Member State’s National Reform Programme, the ‘National Job Plan’ should provide the concrete measures
addressing unemployment, including youth unemployment, and other labour market weaknesses. The
implementation of these plans will be subject to enhanced monitoring in the framework of the European semester.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=950&newsId=1143&furtherNews=yes.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/127599.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) ES, PT, GR, IT, IE, SK, LT, LV.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 243

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001367/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Sergio Paolo Frances Silvestris (PPE)**

_(13 febbraio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Rinuncia a fondi europei per una multinazionale elvetica

Una nota multinazionale farmaceutica con sede in Svizzera è una delle grandi aziende che nei mesi scorsi avevano
attivato i 29 contratti di programma approvati dalla regione Puglia tramite il titolo VI del Programma operativo del
Fondo europeo di sviluppo regionale FESR 2007/2013. Le aziende avevano pianificato investimenti totali per 444
milioni di euro, di cui 138 milioni di fondi europei.

L'investimento della multinazionale elvetica in questione corrispondeva a un totale di 16 milioni di euro, per
l'ampliamento della base produttiva attuale dello stabilimento di Modugno, nell'area di Bari. In particolare, la
multinazionale avrebbe costruito nuovi capannoni e acquistato nuovi macchinari per l'introduzione di una nuova
tecnologia per la produzione di Clodribina (una pillola indicata per il trattamento della sclerosi multipla).

Ora però l'azienda ha comunicato agli uffici della regione incaricati di gestire i contratti di programma l'intenzione di
non avviare l'investimento. Il risultato è la perdita di fondi europei e della possibilità di nuovi investimenti nella
regione.

Tutto ciò premesso, si chiede alla Commissione:

—
se è a conoscenza del caso di rinuncia illustrato, e se per le altre aziende coinvolte nel progetto e firmatarie dei
29 contratti sono già stati stipulati i relativi accordi per portare a termine i programmi, come descritto nel
prospetto per il ricevimento della quota FESR.

**Risposta data da Johannes Hahn** **a nome della Commissione**

_(21 marzo 2012)_

La politica di coesione è gestita nel quadro del principio della gestione condivisa e della responsabilità della sua
attuazione spettante agli Stati membri. Le autorità nazionali sono responsabili della fissazione degli obiettivi del
programma, dei criteri di selezione e delle procedure necessarie per la selezione dei progetti. Tutti questi aspetti sono
stati definiti e descritti nei programmi adottati a seguito di una decisione della Commissione.

Qualora un progetto fosse ritirato da un promotore, i fondi inizialmente assegnati al progetto in questione non sono
perduti per la Regione, ma possono essere utilizzati per finanziare altri progetti.

Ove l'onorevole parlamentare desideri essere informato più approfonditamente circa questo caso particolare, la
Commissione lo invita a contattare direttamente l'autorità di gestione del programma Puglia:

Autorità di Gestione POR Puglia: Viale Japigia, n. 145 70126 BARI, adgfesr@regione.puglia.it.

C 96 E / 244 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001367/12**

**to the Commission**
**Sergio Paolo Frances Silvestris (PPE)**

_(13 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Withdrawal by a Swiss multinational of an application for European funding

A well-known pharmaceutical multinational headquartered in Switzerland is one of the big companies that in recent
months negotiated the 29 programme contracts approved by the Apulia region under Priority 6 of the European
Regional Development Fund (ERDF) Operational Programme 2007‐13. The companies had planned a total
investment of EUR 444 million, of which EUR 138 million was European funds.

The investment by the Swiss multinational in question corresponded to a total of EUR 16 million for the expansion of
the current manufacturing base at the facility in Modugno in the Bari area. In particular, the multinational planned to
construct new buildings and buy new machinery for the introduction of new technology for the production of
Cladribine (a pill indicated in the treatment of multiple sclerosis).

Now however, the company has informed the regional department charged with managing the contracts of the
programme of its intention to not make the investment. The result is the loss of European funding and the possibility
of new investment in the region.

The Commission is therefore asked the following:

—
if it is aware of the case of the withdrawal described and if, for the other companies involved in the project and
signatories of the 29 contracts, the respective agreements have already been concluded to carry out the
programmes, as described in the prospectus for the receipt of the ERDF quota.

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

_(21 March 2012)_

Cohesion policy is administered under the shared management principle and the responsibility for implementation
lies with the Member States. The national authorities are responsible for setting programme objectives, selection
criteria and the necessary procedures for the selection of projects. All these have been defined and are described in the
programmes which have been adopted by a Commission decision.

If a project is withdrawn by the promoter, the funds originally allocated to it are not lost for the region, but can be
used to fund other projects.

If the Honourable Member wishes to be informed in more detail about this particular case, the Commission would
suggest that he contact directly the managing authority of the Puglia programme:

Autorità di Gestione POR Puglia Viale Japigia, n. 145, 70126 Bari, adgfesr@regione.puglia.it

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 245

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001368/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Sergio Paolo Frances Silvestris (PPE)**

_(13 febbraio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Emissioni di carico inquinante a Taranto

Un noto stabilimento siderurgico di Taranto è da anni al centro delle manifestazioni di protesta dei cittadini e di molte
aziende limitrofe a causa delle sue emissioni nocive nell'ambiente. Lo stabilimento da solo immette infatti
nell'atmosfera un quantitativo di diossina pari all'8,8 % del totale europeo, ma non esiste in città alcun sistema di
monitoraggio dell'inquinamento da diossina.

Rispetto al totale delle emissioni nocive europee, lo stabilimento di Taranto incide per il 6,2 % per quanto riguarda gli
IPA (idrocarburi policiclici aromatici), notoriamente cancerogeni. I morti per neoplasie a Taranto sono più che
raddoppiati dal 1971 al 1996, e secondo i dati del Dipartimento di prevenzione della ASL di Taranto relativi al
quadriennio 1998-2001, nella provincia ionica si registrano circa 1 200 decessi annui, dati che collocano Taranto fra
le aree del Sud Italia a maggiore incidenza per le neoplasie tutte e ben oltre la media nazionale per le neoplasie
polmonari.

Oltre alle proteste dei cittadini, anche le associazioni ambientaliste locali hanno voluto far sentire la propria voce e si
sono dunque confrontate con esperti in campo ambientale, portando più volte l'azienda di Taranto in tribunale. I
risultati di diverse indagini e il parere dei periti confermano quanto sostenuto dalle associazioni ambientaliste in tutte
le sedi, e cioè che sono necessarie misure decisamente più rigorose per contenere il massiccio carico inquinante
provocato dallo stabilimento in questione.

Alla luce di quanto sopra, può la Commissione rispondere ai seguenti quesiti:

1. Come valuta la Commissione il caso in questione alla luce della normativa europea sui parametri di emissione
di diossine (comunicazione della Commissione al Consiglio, al Parlamento europeo e al Comitato economico e
sociale — Strategia comunitaria sulle diossine, i furani e i bifenili policlorurati (COM(2001)0593))?

2. La Commissione è già intervenuta in passato per valutare se i valori di emissioni nocive dell'azienda
summenzionata rispettano i criteri di emissione massima di diossina nell'atmosfera?

**Risposta data da Janez Potočnik a nome della Commissione**

_(2 aprile 2012)_

La Commissione segue da alcuni anni la situazione del polo siderurgico ILVA di Taranto. Visto che questo e altri
stabilimenti erano in funzione nonostante l'assenza di un'autorizzazione di cui all'articolo 5, paragrafo 1, della
direttiva 2008/1/CE sulla prevenzione e la riduzione integrate dell'inquinamento (la direttiva IPPC) ( [1] ), nel 2008 la
Commissione ha avviato una procedura di infrazione nei confronti dell'Italia. Nel marzo 2011 la Corte di giustizia
dell'Unione europea ( [2] ) ha decretato che l'Italia è venuta meno agli obblighi previsti dall'articolo 5, paragrafo 1, della
direttiva IPPC.

La Commissione adotterà tutte le misure necessarie per garantire che l'Italia rispetti la sentenza della Corte di giustizia.

In merito allo stabilimento ILVA di Taranto la Commissione inviterà le autorità competenti a fornire informazioni
sulle licenze ottenute e sul livello attuale di emissioni di agenti inquinanti. Conformemente al documento di
riferimento per la produzione di ferro e acciaio adottato dalla Commissione ( [3] ), i valori limite di emissione per
stabilimenti di produzione di ferro e acciaio devono basarsi sulle migliori tecniche disponibili (le cosiddette BAT —
« _best available techniques_ »).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) GU L 24 del 29.1.2008.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Causa C-50/10.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://eippcb.jrc.es/reference/BREF/isp_bref_1201.pdf

C 96 E / 246 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

Il 28 febbraio 2012 la Commissione ha adottato una decisione di esecuzione relativa alle conclusioni sulle migliori
tecniche disponibili per la produzione di ferro e acciaio ai sensi della direttiva 2010/75/UE relativa alle emissioni
industriali ( [4] ), in cui si definiscono i livelli di emissione associati alle BAT per diversi agenti inquinanti, incluse le
diossine. Entro quattro anni dalla data di pubblicazione della decisione in oggetto, gli Stati membri saranno tenuti a
riesaminare le autorizzazioni concesse agli stabilimenti di produzione di ferro e acciaio che rientrano nella direttiva
2010/75/UE al fine di allinearli alle succitate nuove conclusioni in materia di BAT.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) GU L 334 del 17.12.2010.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 247

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001368/12**

**to the Commission**
**Sergio Paolo Frances Silvestris (PPE)**

_(13 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Polluting emissions in Taranto

A well-known iron and steel works in Taranto has for years been at the centre of protests from citizens and numerous
neighbouring businesses because of the noxious emissions it pumps into the environment. This establishment alone
emits into the atmosphere 8.8 % of the total amount of dioxins produced in Europe, but there is no system in the city
for monitoring dioxin pollution.

Of all the noxious emissions in Europe, the Taranto plant accounts for 6.2 % of PAHs (polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons), which are known to be carcinogenic. Deaths from cancer in Taranto more than doubled from 1971
to 1996 and, according to data from the Taranto local health authority's Department of Prevention regarding the four
years from 1998-2001, there were around 1 200 deaths per year in the province of Taranto. This means that Taranto
is one of the areas of Southern Italy with the highest incidence of all types of cancer and is well above the national
average for lung cancer.

As well as the protests of citizens, local environmental associations also wanted to make their voices heard and
therefore discussed the matter with environmental experts, taking the Taranto company to court on more than one
occasion. The results of various investigations and the opinion of the experts confirm the view the environmental
associations have always upheld, namely that far more stringent measures are required in order to contain the
massive pollution load caused by the plant in question.

In light of the above, can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. What is the Commission's view of the case in question in light of the European regulations on dioxin emission
parameters (Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the Economic
and Social Committee — Community strategy for dioxins, furans and polychlorinated biphenyls
(COM(2001)0593))?

2. Has the Commission already acted in the past to assess whether the levels of noxious emissions from the
aforementioned company comply with the criteria on maximum dioxin emissions into the air?

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

_(2 April 2012)_

The Commission has been following the situation concerning the ILVA integrated steelworks in Taranto, Italy, for
several years. Given that this and other installations were operated without a permit issued in accordance with
Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (the IPPC Directive) ( [1] ),
the Commission launched an infringement procedure against Italy in 2008. In March 2011, the European Court of
Justice ( [2] ) declared that Italy had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of the IPPC Directive.

The Commission will take the necessary steps to secure Italy's compliance with the ruling of the European Court of
Justice.

Concerning the ILVA Taranto plant, the Commission will ask the competent authorities for information on the
permit conditions set for this installation and the current levels of emission of pollutants. Emission limit values for
iron and steel producing installations need to be based on the best available techniques (BAT) as described in the BAT
reference document for Iron and Steel production adopted by the Commission ( [3] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 24, 29.1.2008.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) C-50/10.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://eippcb.jrc.es/reference/BREF/isp_bref_1201.pdf

C 96 E / 248 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

On 28 February 2012, the Commission adopted an Implementing Decision establishing BAT conclusions for the
production of iron and steel under Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions (IED) ( [4] ). This decision defines
emission levels associated with BAT for many pollutants, including dioxins. Within four years of the publication of
this decision, Member States will have to reconsider all permits of iron and steel producing installations covered by
the IED to bring them in line with these new BAT conclusions.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) OJ L 334, 17.12.2010.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 249

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001369/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Sergio Paolo Frances Silvestris (PPE)**

_(13 febbraio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Possibili fondi per Gravina in Puglia

Nell'ultimo anno nel centro storico di Gravina in Puglia si sono registrati numerosi crolli ai danni di edifici antichi.
Distese di macerie, nessuna messa in sicurezza e, soprattutto, il rischio di ulteriori e imminenti crolli. È questa la
situazione nel centro cittadino, ormai allo sbando anche dal punto di vista amministrativo. Caduto il sindaco, la città è
retta dal Commissario prefettizio.

Molti cittadini si sono indignati per la situazione e hanno creato un laboratorio partecipato per arrivare a una gestione
condivisa della città. L'obiettivo è la pianificazione e la riattivazione di un ciclo coerente tra ascolto e progetto per
migliorare la città. Tra le prime azioni intraprese c'è la pressione sulle istituzioni proprio per mettere in sicurezza il
centro storico di Gravina in Puglia.

Alla luce di quanto precede, può la Commissione far sapere:

1. se è a conoscenza dei ripetuti crolli che si sono verificati nell'arco dell'ultimo anno nel centro storico di Gravina
in Puglia;

2. se ci sono fondi europei per i quali la città di Gravina in Puglia ha fatto richiesta;

3. in caso affermativo, quali sono i progetti che hanno avuto accesso a fondi europei e con quali risultati sono stati
portati a termine?

**Risposta data da Johannes Hahn a nome della Commissione**

_(29 marzo 2012)_

1. La Commissione non era stata messa in precedenza al corrente dei fatti segnalati dall'onorevole deputato.

2. In linea col principio di gestione comune utilizzato per l'amministrazione della politica di coesione, gli Stati
membri sono responsabili dell'attuazione dei programmi sul terreno. In ciò rientrano la selezione e l'attuazione dei
progetti. Stando alle informazioni fornite dall'autorità di gestione del programma Puglia, il comune di Gravina non ha
ricevuto nessun finanziamento del Fondo europeo di sviluppo regionale (FESR) per il risanamento delle aree urbane.

3. Il programma Puglia, che è cofinanziato dal FESR, prevede uno stanziamento di 260 milioni di euro per progetti
integrati per la rigenerazione urbana e rurale. Progetti come quelli menzionati dall'onorevole deputato potrebbero
essere in effetti ammissibili a un cofinanziamento nell'ambito di tale misura.

Per ulteriori informazioni la Commissione suggerisce all'onorevole deputato di mettersi direttamente in contatto con
l'autorità di gestione del programma Puglia:

Autorità di Gestione POR Puglia: Viale Japigia 145, 70126 BARI, adgfesr@regione.puglia.it

C 96 E / 250 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001369/12**

**to the Commission**
**Sergio Paolo Frances Silvestris (PPE)**

_(13 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Potential funding for Gravina in Apulia

In the last year, several of the old buildings in the historic centre of Gravina in Apulia have suffered damage after
sections of those buildings collapsed. There are heaps of rubble, no safety measures have been taken and, above all,
more buildings are on the point of collapse. The town centre is now also disintegrating administratively. With the
mayor having stepped down, the town is currently being run by a commissioner appointed by the prefect.

Many townspeople are angry about this state of affairs and have set up an open workshop to devise a plan for shared
management of the town. The aim is to reinstill cohesion through a process of listening and planning in order to
improve the town. One of the first steps taken was to put pressure on the institutions themselves to make the historic
centre of Gravina, Apulia, safe.

In light of the above, can the Commission state:

1.whether it is aware of the repeated building collapses that have occurred during the last year in the historic centre of
Gravina in Apulia;

2. whether the town of Gravina in Apulia has applied for any funding from the EU;

3.if so, which projects were granted EU funding, and what were the end results of these projects?

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

_(29 March 2012)_

1. The Commission has not been previously informed of the facts reported by the Honourable Member.

2. In line with the shared management principle used for the administration of cohesion policy, the Member States
are responsible for implementing the programmes on the ground. This includes project selection and
implementation. According to information provided by the managing authority of the Puglia programme, the
Municipality of Gravina has not received any European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) funding related to urban
regeneration.

3. The programme for Puglia, which is co-financed by the ERDF, provides for an allocation of EUR 260 million for
‘integrated projects for urban and rural regeneration’. Projects such as the ones mentioned by the Honourable
Member might indeed be eligible for co-financing under this measure.

For more information, the Commission suggests that the Honourable Member contacts directly the managing
authority of the Puglia programme:

Autorità di Gestione POR Puglia: Viale Japigia, n. 145, 70126 Bari, adgfesr@regione.puglia.it

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 251

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001371/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Sergio Paolo Frances Silvestris (PPE)**

_(14 febbraio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Disoccupazione record in Italia

Secondo gli ultimi dati Istat risalenti al dicembre 2011, in Italia il numero dei disoccupati è pari a 2 243 000 persone,
in aumento dello 0,9 % rispetto al mese di novembre. In soli 30 giorni circa 20 000 persone hanno perso il posto di
lavoro. Su base annua, invece, si sono bruciati ben 221 000 posti di lavoro, ovvero in 365 giorni la disoccupazione è
salita del 10,9 %.

In termini assoluti la disoccupazione maschile è pari all'8,4 %, quella femminile al 9,6 %. Ma è il dato della
disoccupazione giovanile quello più allarmante: il tasso infatti è pari al 31 %, più 3 % rispetto al 2010. La maglia nera
spetta alla Campania, dove il 44,2 % dei giovani cerca lavoro.

Alla luce dei fatti sopraesposti, si chiede alla Commissione:

1. Può tracciare un quadro europeo sulla disoccupazione, elencando i dati riferiti agli Stati membri su tasso di
disoccupazione, tasso di disoccupazione femminile e tasso di disoccupazione giovanile?

2. Quali provvedimenti intende assumere a livello europeo per contrastare la disoccupazione giovanile e per
favorire l'inserimento nel mondo del lavoro degli stessi giovani?

**Risposta data da László Andor a nome della Commissione**

_(22 marzo 2012)_

1. La Commissione gradirebbe invitare l'onorevole parlamentare a consultare l'ultima scheda informativa ( [1] )
pubblicata dalla Direzione generale Occupazione, affari sociali e inclusione e l'ultima relazione sui tassi mensili di
disoccupazione di Eurostat ( [2] ): entrambe le relazioni forniscono una rassegna esaustiva della situazione del mercato
del lavoro nell'UE.

2. L'UE mira ad accelerare il suo sostegno strategico e finanziario agli Stati membri mediante l'iniziativa
«Opportunità per i giovani» ( [3] ) di recente adozione e in linea con la recente dichiarazione del Consiglio europeo
informale del 30 gennaio 2012. La Commissione opera direttamente con gli Stati membri che fanno registrare i
massimi tassi di disoccupazione giovanile tramite visite di gruppi di intervento ( [4] ) e riunioni bilaterali ( [5] ), in particolare
per utilizzare maggiormente i finanziamenti UE disponibili, anche grazie alla riprogrammazione e all'accelerazione
dell'attuazione. Prima della fine del 2012 la Commissione presenterà inoltre un quadro di qualità per i tirocini e
rafforzerà le sue misure per migliorare la mobilità dei giovani, ad esempio il programma «Il tuo primo posto di lavoro
EURES». Nello stesso periodo, essa avvierà anche un'azione preparatoria «Garanzie per i giovani» con uno
stanziamento di 4 milioni di euro. La Commissione presenterà una prima valutazione dell'attuazione dell'iniziativa
«Opportunità per i giovani» al Consiglio informale dei ministri dell'occupazione e degli affari sociali nell'aprile 2012.
La Commissione farà inoltre particolare attenzione all'occupazione dei giovani e alle riforme strutturali del mercato
del lavoro a favore dei giovani in occasione della presentazione del progetto di raccomandazioni specifiche per paese
2012 come parte del Semestre europeo.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=113&newsId=1182&furtherNews=yes .
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/3-31012012-AP/EN/3-31012012-AP-EN.PDF .
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2011)933 del 20.12.2011.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) ES, PT, GR, IT, IE, SK, LT, LV.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) BG, FR, HU, PL, RO, SE e CY.

C 96 E / 252 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001371/12**

**to the Commission**
**Sergio Paolo Frances Silvestris (PPE)**

_(14 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Record unemployment in Italy

According to the latest (December 2011) figures from the Italian National Institute of Statistics, total unemployment
in Italy stood at 2 243 000, an increase of 0.9 % compared with November. In just 30 days, some 20 000 people lost
their jobs. In annual terms as many as 221 000 jobs were lost, that is to say, unemployment rose by 10.9 % in
365 days.

In absolute terms, male unemployment is equal to 8.4 % and female unemployment is at 9.6 %. However, it is the
statistics for youth unemployment that are the most alarming: the total is equal to 31 %, a rise of 3 % compared with
2010. The figures are highest in Campania, where 44.2 % of young people are looking for work.

In light of these facts:

1. Can the Commission provide a Europe-wide picture of unemployment, with statistics for each Member State
specifying the unemployment rate, the female unemployment rate and the youth unemployment rate?

2. What European-level measures will it take to overcome youth unemployment and help young people into
work?

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

_(22 March 2012)_

1. The Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to the latest EU Labour Market Fact Sheet ( [1] )
issued by Directorate-General Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion and to the latest report on monthly
unemployment rates by Eurostat ( [2] ): both reports provide a comprehensive overview of the labour market situation
across the EU.

2. The EU aims at fast-tracking its strategic and financial support to Member States through the recently adopted
Youth Opportunities Initiative ( [3] ) and in line with the recent statement of the informal European Council of
30 January 2012. The Commission directly works with the Member States with the highest youth unemployment
rates through visits of action teams ( [4] ) and bilateral meetings ( [5] ), in particular with a view to making greater use of
available EU funding including through re-programming and accelerating implementation. Before the end of 2012
the Commission will moreover present a quality framework for traineeships, and will strengthen its measures to
improve youth mobility, such as the ‘Your first EURES job’. Over the same period, it will also launch a preparatory
action on ‘Youth Guarantees’ with a budget of EUR 4 million. The Commission will present a first assessment of the
implementation of the Youth Opportunities Initiative to the informal Employment and Social Affairs Ministers'
Council in April 2012. The Commission will moreover pay a particular attention to youth employment and
structural labour market reforms benefiting young people when presenting the draft 2012 Country Specific
Recommendations as part of the European Semester.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=113&newsId=1182&furtherNews=yes .
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/3-31012012-AP/EN/3-31012012-AP-EN.PDF .
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 933 of 20.12.2011.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) ES, PT, GR, IT, IE, SK, LT, LV.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) BG, FR, HU, PL, RO, SE, CY.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 253

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001372/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Sergio Paolo Frances Silvestris (PPE)**

_(13 febbraio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Aggregazioni produttive

Si tratta di una rete capillare di aziende, enti, sindacati, associazioni di categoria, distribuite sull'intero territorio
regionale e legate tra loro per comparti produttivi o per filiere. A quattro anni dalla loro istituzione in Puglia, sono
3 347 le aziende pugliesi che si sono riconosciute in uno dei 18 distretti produttivi. Di queste, 15 sono già operative e
3 di recente costituzione.

L'aggregazione di imprese rappresenta una necessità forte per il sistema produttivo pugliese per rimediare agli effetti
negativi della crisi. I benefici consistono in una più efficiente condivisione di conoscenze, rischio d'impresa, modelli di
business, anche andando al di là del proprio tessuto territoriale, che non sempre può possedere tutte le risorse e le
capacità necessarie a un'impresa che voglia competere sul mercato internazionale.

Fra questi distretti, quello lapideo lamenta l'eccessiva burocrazia che rischia di bloccare tutti gli sforzi e gli
investimenti sostenuti dalle aziende per portare avanti i progetti e raggiungere gli obiettivi prefissati.

Tutto ciò premesso, si chiede alla Commissione:

1. È a conoscenza dell'istituzione dei distretti produttivi della Regione Puglia?

2. Negli altri Stati membri esistono e in quali quantità organizzazioni simili a queste aggregazioni produttive?

**Risposta data da Antonio Tajani a nome della Commissione**

_(26 marzo 2012)_

La Commissione è a conoscenza dell'esistenza di associazioni produttive in tutte le regioni europee, associazioni che
assumono forme diverse e sono in relazione con la struttura industriale ed economica locale.

La Commissione ha avviato l'Osservatorio europeo dei cluster (European Cluster Observatory — ECO) ( [1] ) che fa una
mappatura statistica della concentrazione geografica di diverse industrie e degli indicatori di rendimento economico.
Alcuni cluster sono sostenuti da associazioni di cluster, diverse delle quali figurano sul Repertorio europeo dei cluster
(European Cluster Organisation Directory): sono circa 1 300, di cui 2 riguardano la Puglia. Negli ultimi anni però
sono state costituite molte nuove «associazioni di cluster».

Per tale motivo la Commissione ha avviato uno studio che analizzerà tutti i tipi di reti di aziende e valuterà la loro
relazione con i cluster e le organizzazioni di cluster. Essa esaminerà come esse aiutino le imprese, in particolare le
PMI, a migliorare i contatti con le istituzioni di ricerca, gli investitori e i mercati internazionali e a diventare più
innovative e competitive. La Commissione analizzerà, su tale base, in che modo le reti di aziende possano essere
rafforzate in modo da incrementare la capacità innovativa delle PMI e agevolarne l'internazionalizzazione. Attività di
tal genere sono state avviate di recente in relazione ai cluster nel contesto del CIP per sostenere lo sviluppo di strategie
internazionali congiunte in tema di cluster a tutto vantaggio delle PMI ( [2] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) www.clusterobservatory.eu.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) www.clustercollaboration.eu/international-projects.

C 96 E / 254 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001372/12**

**to the Commission**
**Sergio Paolo Frances Silvestris (PPE)**

_(13 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Industrial associations

These refer to networks of businesses, organisations, trade unions and trade associations located within a regional
territory and linked together by production sector or branch of activity. Four years after their establishment in Apulia,
3 347 Apulian companies say they belong to one of the region’s 18 business clusters. Of these, 15 are already
operational and three were formed recently.

This form of business association is highly important to industry in Apulia if it is to remedy the negative effects of the
crisis. Benefits include a more efficient sharing of knowledge, business risk and business models, going beyond the
territorial fabric, which may not always have the resources and capabilities required by companies who want to
compete in the international market.

One of these business clusters, the stone sector cluster, has complained about the excessive bureaucracy that threatens
to put a stop to all the efforts and investments made by companies in order to push projects forward and achieve the
objectives set.

1. Is the Commission aware of the establishment of industry associations in the region of Apulia?

2. Do similar industry associations exist in other Member States and, if so, how many?

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

_(26 March 2012)_

The Commission is aware of the existence of business associations in all European regions, under different forms, and
in relation with the local industrial and economic structure.

The Commission launched the European Cluster Observatory (ECO) ( [1] ), which maps statistically the geographic
concentration of various industries and indicators of economic performance. Some clusters are supported by cluster
associations, of which a certain number are listed in the European Cluster Organisation Directory — around 1 300,
among which 2 for Apulia. Yet, many new ‘cluster associations’ have been established in recent years.

The Commission has therefore launched a study which will analyse all types of business networks and assess their
relation with clusters and cluster organisations. It will examine how they help companies, especially SMEs, to be
better connected to research institutions, investors and international markets and to become more innovative and
competitive. The Commission will on this basis analyse how those business networks could be potentially
strengthened so as to strengthen SMEs innovation capacity and facilitate SME internationalisation. Such activities
have been recently launched in the area of clusters under CIP to support the development of joint cluster international
strategies for the benefit of SMEs ( [2] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) www.clusterobservatory.eu.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) www.clustercollaboration.eu/international-projects.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 255

_(Tekstas lietuvių kalba)_

**Klausimas, į kurį atsakoma raštu, Nr. E-001373/12**

**Komisijai**
**Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D)**

_(2012 m. vasario 13 d.)_

_Tema:_ Kontaktiniai asmenys, Komisijoje atsakingi už Baltijos jūros strategijos įgyvendinimo priežiūrą

Gerbiamasis Komisijos nary, dėkoju Jums už atsakymą į mano klausimą dėl geresnio Baltijos jūros strategijos
įgyvendinimo koordinavimo paskiriant atsakingą koordinatorių. Jūs pripažįstate, kad „ilgalaikiam tvarumui užtikrinti
būtinas institucinis stabilumas ir pakankami žmogiškieji ištekliai (regionų, nacionaliniu ir Europos lygmeniu)“, ir
paminėjote, kad Komisijoje sudaryta darbo grupė Baltijos jūros strategijos klausimams spręsti.

Noriu Jūsų paklausti, kokie atsakingi asmenys yra paskirti ir kokie jų įgaliojimai kuruojant konkrečias BJS numatytas
sritis?

**J. Hahno atsakymas Komisijos vardu**

_(2012 m. kovo 28 d.)_

Tarpžinybinė darbo grupė (angl. _Interservice Working Group_ ), vadovaujama už regioninę politiką atsakingo generalinio
direktoriaus, buvo įsteigta 2009 m., kad palengvintų ES Baltijos jūros regiono strategijos (ES BJRS) koordinavimo ir
įgyvendinimo darbą Komisijoje. Grupę sudaro visų su projektu susijusių Komisijos tarnybų atstovai. Daugiau
informacijos apie grupę galima rasti ES BJRS interneto svetainėje
[http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperate/baltic/contact_en.cfm (anglų kalba) skiltyje „Various contact groups.](http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperate/baltic/contact_en.cfm)
ISWG“. Ši grupė yra konsultacinė ir susitinka reguliariai.

C 96 E / 256 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001373/12**

**to the Commission**
**Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D)**

_(13 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Contact persons within the Commission responsible for monitoring the implementation of the Baltic Sea
Strategy

Dear Member of the Commission, thank you for your reply to my question about improving the coordination of the
implementation of the Baltic Sea Strategy through the appointment of a coordinator. You acknowledge that ‘longterm sustainability requires institutional stability and sufficient human resources (at regional, national and European
level)’, and you mentioned that a working group has been set up in the Commission to address Baltic Sea Strategy
issues.

I wish to ask you who has been made responsible and what powers they have to deal with the specific areas set out in
the Baltic Sea Strategy?

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

_(28 March 2012)_

An Interservice Working Group, chaired by the Director-General for Regional Policy, was set up in 2009 to better
coordinate preparation and implementation of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR) at Commission
level. The group involves representatives of all relevant services of the Commission. The details of the group are
published on the EUSBSR website http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperate/baltic/contact_en.cfm under
‘various contact groups — ISWG’. The group has consultative status and meets regularly.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 257

_(Tekstas lietuvių kalba)_

**Klausimas, į kurį atsakoma raštu, Nr. E-001374/12**

**Komisijai**
**Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D)**

_(2012 m. vasario 13 d.)_

_Tema:_ ES ir Maroko Karalystės žvejybos partnerystės susitarimas

2011 m. gruodžio 14 d. Europos Parlamentas nepritarė, kad būtų pratęstas ES ir Maroko protokolo, kuriuo
nustatomos Europos Bendrijos ir Maroko žuvininkystės sektoriaus partnerystės susitarime numatytos žvejybos
galimybės ir finansinis įnašas, galiojimo terminas. Europos Parlamentas taip pat ragino Komisiją persvarstyti minimą
protokolą ir užtikrinti jo nuostatų tvarumą ekonominiu, ekologiniu ir socialiniu požiūriu.

Nepatvirtinus protokolo galiojimo termino pratęsimo, ES laivai turėjo palikti Maroko zoną ir negali vykdyti žvejybos
pagal komercines licencijas, ir tai gali sužlugdyti žvejybinę veiklą tam tikrose valstybėse narėse ir užkirsti kelią tų šalių
ekonominiam atsigavimui.

— Norėčiau paklausti, kokia Komisijos padaryta pažanga derybose dėl naujo protokolo sudarymo su Maroko
Karalyste?

— Ar Komisija yra numačiusi kompensacinį mechanizmą žvejams už jų patirtus nuostolius?

— Ar Komisija planuoja pateikti sprendimą dėl leidimo ES šalims vykdyti žvejybą Maroko zonoje pagal komercines
licencijas, kol bus susitarta dėl naujojo protokolo?

**M. Damanaki atsakymas Komisijos vardu**

_(2012 m. kovo 15 d.)_

Vasario 14 d., remdamasi Komisijos rekomendacija, Taryba suteikė jai įgaliojimus pradėti derybas dėl naujojo ES ir
Maroko protokolo sudarymo. Komisija Maroko kolegas pakvietė kuo greičiau pradėti šias derybas.

Tai, kad naujausias protokolas nebuvo sudarytas, turėjo tiesioginį poveikį žvejybos įmonėms, kurios prarado
žvejybos galimybių. Kad būtų suteikta pagalba toms įmonėms, Komisija yra pasirengusi padėti valstybėms narėms
pasinaudoti galimybėmis, kurias joms suteikia Europos žuvininkystės fondas (EŽF). Visų pirma, naudojant šias
paramos lėšas pagalba galėtų būti suteikta žvejybos laivų savininkams ir įgulos nariams, nukentėjusiems dėl laikino
žvejybos veiklos nutraukimo.

Pagal Sąjungos ir Maroko žuvininkystės sektoriaus partnerystės susitarimą, kuris lieka galioti, su vienos iš ES valstybių
narių vėliava Maroko vandenyse plaukiojantiems laivams draudžiama naudoti privačias licencijas (netaikant
protokolo reikalavimų). Komisija neturi įgaliojimų priimti sprendimus dėl šio draudimo išimčių.

C 96 E / 258 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001374/12**

**to the Commission**
**Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D)**

_(13 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco

On 14 December 2011, the European Parliament rejected the extension of the period of force of the Protocol between
the European Union and Morocco setting out the fishing opportunities and financial compensation provided for in
the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and Morocco. The European Parliament also
called on the Commission to review the abovementioned Protocol and ensure the sustainability of its provisions from
an economic, environmental and social point of view.

Since the rejection of the extension of the term of validity of the Protocol, EU boats have had to leave the Moroccan
zone and are unable to fish under commercial licences and this may disrupt fishing activities in certain Member States
and prevent the economic recovery of those countries.

— I would like to ask what progress the Commission has made in negotiations concerning the concluding of the new
Protocol with the Kingdom of Morocco?

— Has the Commission provided for a compensatory mechanism to make good to fishermen the losses they have
incurred?

— Does the Commission plan to propose a decision regarding permission for EU Member States to fish in the
Moroccan zone under commercial licences until the new Protocol has been agreed?

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

_(15 March 2012)_

On the basis of a recommendation from the Commission, on 14 February the Council adopted an authorisation to
open negotiations on a new Protocol between the EU and Morocco. The Commission has invited its Moroccan
counterparts to enter into such negotiations as soon as possible.

In order to help those fishing enterprises which are directly affected by the loss of fishing opportunities resulting from
the latest Protocol’s non-conclusion, the Commission is prepared to support Member States in using the
opportunities they have under the European Fisheries Fund (EFF). In particular, assistance could be granted from these
funds to the owners and crew members of affected fishing vessels for temporary cessation of fishing activities.

Under the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the Union and Morocco itself, which remains in force, the
utilisation of private licences (outside the framework of a protocol) by vessels flagged to one of the EU Member States
in Moroccan waters is prohibited. It is not within the Commission’s powers to decide derogations to this prohibition.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 259

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-001375/12**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Elena Băsescu (PPE)**

_(13 februarie 2012)_

_Subiect:_ Utilizarea fondurilor europene ca garanții bancare

Având în vedere concluziile Consiliului European de săptămâna aceasta, care este metodologia propusă pentru
accesarea fondurilor europene destinate constituirii de garanții bancare pentru tinerii care doresc să își întemeieze un
IMM?

**Răspuns dat de dl Hahn în numele Comisiei**

_(15 martie 2012)_

Comisia abordează lipsa finanţării pentru IMM-uri, în cadrul programului-cadru pentru competitivitate şi inovare ( [1] ).
Instrumente de datorie şi de capitaluri proprii sunt în curs de punere în aplicare în numele Comisiei de către Fondul
european de investiţii. Până la sfârşitul lunii septembrie 2011, mai mult de 5 miliarde de euro în garanţii au fost
mobilizate. Instrumentul european de microfinanţare Progress urmăreşte, de asemenea, facilitarea accesului la servicii
de microfinanţare pentru oamenii care întâmpină dificultăţi în ceea ce priveşte pătrunderea pe piaţa forţei de muncă şi
care doresc să înfiinţeze o întreprindere prin oferirea de garanţii disponibile şi de instrumente finanţate furnizorilor de
microcredite.

În plus, politica de coeziune a UE facilitează accesul IMM-urilor la finanţare, inclusiv pentru IMM-urile înfiinţate de
tineri la nivel naţional şi regional, de exemplu, prin iniţiativa JEREMIE ( [2] ). În perioada 2007-2013, aproximativ 3,2
miliarde de euro au fost deja investite în întreprinderi doar prin instrumente financiare.

Sprijinul politicii de coeziune pentru întreprinderi vizează înfiinţarea de noi întreprinderi, dezvoltarea şi extinderea
afacerilor. În cazul unor perturbări grave în economia unui stat membru, în care există o lipsă de lichidităţi furnizate
de sectorul financiar, politica de coeziune poate, de asemenea, să susţină activităţile generale de afaceri care sunt
potenţial viabile din punct de vedere economic, incluzând consolidarea, dezvoltarea şi extinderea activităţilor de
afaceri existente. Persoanele, inclusiv tinerii, care urmează să pună bazele unei întreprinderi mici sunt eligibile să
obţină finanţare prin instrumente financiare, incluzând fonduri de garantare întocmite la nivel naţional sau regional.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Programul-cadru pentru competitivitate și inovare 2007-2013: http://ec.europa.eu/cip/index_ro.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Resurse europene comune pentru microîntreprinderi și întreprinderi mici și mijlocii: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/thefunds/instruments

/jeremie_ro.cfm

C 96 E / 260 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001375/12**

**to the Commission**
**Elena Băsescu (PPE)**

_(13 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ The use of European funds as a bank guarantee

Taking into consideration the conclusions of the European Council this week, what is the proposed methodology for
accessing European funds intended for the constitution of bank guarantees for young people who wish to set up an
SME?

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

_(15 March 2012)_

Under the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme ( [1] ), the Commission is addressing the lack of SME
finance. Debt and equity instruments are being implemented on behalf of the Commission by the European
Investment Fund. By the end of September 2011, more than EUR 5 billion of guarantees had been mobilised. The
European Progress Microfinance Facility also aims at facilitating access to microfinance for people who have
difficulties entering the labour market and who want to start a business by making available guarantees and funded
instruments to microcredit providers.

Moreover, EU cohesion policy facilitates access to finance for SMEs including SMEs set up by young people at
national and regional level, for example through the JEREMIE Initiative ( [2] ). In the 2007-2013 period, some
EUR 3.2 billion have already been invested in enterprises through financial instruments alone.

Cohesion policy support to enterprises targets new business creation, business development and expansion. In case of
serious disturbances in the economy of a Member State, where there is a lack of liquidity provided by the financial
sector, cohesion policy can also support general business activities which are potentially economically viable,
including strengthening, development and expansion of existing business activity. Individuals, including young
people, who are going to establish a small enterprise are eligible to obtain financing through financial instruments
including guarantee funds set up at national or regional level.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme, 2007-2013: http://ec.europa.eu/cip.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Joint European Resources for Micro to Medium Enterprises: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/thefunds/instruments/jeremie_en.cfm.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 261

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-001376/12**

**to the Commission**
**Marta Andreasen (EFD)**

_(9 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Follow-up question on Structural Fund assistance to Liverpool City Council

I refer to the answer to my Question P‐008791/2011 of 23 September 2011, on Structural Fund assistance for the
City of Liverpool Cruise Terminal.

The reply, dated 7 November 2011, states the following:

‘Following the complaints received, the Commission approached the United Kingdom authorities which committed
themselves to consult the Commission before proceeding with any possible relaxation of the conditions of the use of
the terminal. This will be done when the United Kingdom authorities have completed their analysis of the answers to
the recent United Kingdom public consultation in respect of the future of the terminal and considered what decision
might be made. In this context, the Commission will ensure that the state aid rules are fully respected. The latter are
equally applicable to the national and EU funding.

The project was co-funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under condition that the terminal be
used only as a port-of-call. If the change of use to the Liverpool cruise terminal were to represent a substantial
modification in accordance with Article 30 paragraph 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999(1), a financial correction
could not be ruled out’.

Liverpool City Council has announced that it is in negotiations with the UK Department of Transport to relax the
grant conditions, in return for a staged repayment of some or all of the UK Government contribution. The relaxation
is expected to take place in three months’ time, according to a statement by the Leader of the Council. No mention has
been made of repayment of EU funding.

1. Is the Commission aware of these negotiations, and is it a party to them?

2. Can the Commission confirm that it will examine carefully the question of repayment of ERDF funds which
were granted as part of an overall package, with UK Government money as match funding?

3. Will the Commission look into the question of whether a staged repayment of grant (rather than a full and
immediate repayment) would of itself constitute unfair state aid?

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

_(9 March 2012)_

The Commission closely follows the ongoing debate in the United Kingdom concerning the possible change of the
conditions of use of the publicly financed City of Liverpool Cruise terminal (the change which would enable the
terminal to develop the turnaround facilities and enter into competition with commercially funded terminals not only
— as already the case — for port of call visits, but also for turnaround services).

According to the public announcement made on 26 January 2012 by the UK Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State
for Transport (Mike Penning) ( [1] ) independent advice will be sought as to the amount of the previously granted
subsidies to be reimbursed, should the City of Liverpool Cruise Terminal get the permission to be used for turnaround
services. Based on the same statement, the Commission notes that the UK authorities have re-iterated their
commitment to seek state aid clearance before taking a final decision.

The Commission is in contact with the UK authorities and has reminded them of their obligation to comply with
the EU state aid rules, including with respect to EU funding received for regional development.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.dft.gov.uk/news/statements/penning-20120126a/.

C 96 E / 262 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-001377/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)**

_(6 Φεβρουαρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Δημιουργία ορυχείων εξόρυξης λιγνίτη στις περιοχές Φαλάνθη και Χωματερό του Νομού Μεσσηνίας

Έντονη ανησυχία και αντιδράσεις από κατοίκους και φορείς στις περιοχές Φαλάνθη και Χωματερό της Δημοτικής Ενότητας
Κορώνης του δήμου Πύλου-Νέστορος, του Νομού Μεσσηνίας έχει προκαλέσει η σχεδιαζόμενη δημιουργία δυο ανοιχτών
ορυχείων εξόρυξης λιγνίτη στις περιοχές Φαλάνθη και Χωματερό. Έχοντας υπόψη ότι η Ρυθμιστική Αρχή Ενέργειας (ΡΑΕ), η
οποία σύμφωνα με την Οδηγία 2003/54/ΕΚ, άρθρο 23 παρ. 2, είναι υπεύθυνη για τον καθορισμό ή την έγκριση μονάδων
ηλεκτρικής ενέργειας, έχει γνωμοδοτήσει από τις 11.10.2005 αρνητικά για χορήγηση άδειας για την παραγωγή ηλεκτρικής
ενέργειας στην περιοχή τονίζοντας μεταξύ άλλων ότι:

«η εγκατάσταση σταθμών ηλεκτροπαραγωγής με στερεά καύσιμα, αποτελεί βιομηχανική δραστηριότητα υψηλής όχλησης», «η
περιοχή στην οποία προτείνεται να κατασκευασθεί η μονάδα ηλεκτροπαραγωγής έχει ενταχθεί υπό στοιχείο GR 255003 …
έτσι αποτελεί υπό ένταξη στο Ευρωπαϊκό Οικολογικό Δίκτυο Ειδικών Ζωνών NATURA 2000», «διαπιστώνονται ασάφειες ως
προς την μεθοδολογία και τον τρόπο υπολογισμού των αποθεμάτων λιγνίτη», «δεν τεκμηριώνεται ο τρόπος μεταφοράς των
λιγνιτικών αποθεμάτων», «διαπιστώνεται η απόλυτη αντίθεση στην υλοποίηση του εν λόγω έργου σημαντικών τοπικών
φορέων», «προκύπτει ουσιώδης κίνδυνος για το φυσικό περιβάλλον», «δεν τεκμηριώνεται το ύψος των απολήψιμων
αποθεμάτων» κ.λπ.

Με δεδομένο ότι εντός του Δήμου υφίσταται περιοχή που έχει ενταχθεί στο δίκτυο NATURA 2000 (GR 2550003) η οποία
και γειτνιάζει με τις εκτάσεις δημιουργίας των εν λόγω λιγνιτωρυχείων, οι κάτοικοι καταγγέλλουν ότι θα πληγεί
ανεπανόρθωτα η τουριστική φυσιογνωμία της περιοχής, θα έχει καταστροφικά αποτελέσματα στις αγροτικές καλλιέργειες, θα
πληγεί η σημαντικότητα και επισκεψιμότητα των μνημείων της περιοχής, θα υποβαθμίσει ποιοτικά και ποσοτικά την
υδροφορία της περιοχής, ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

1. Τι πρωτοβουλίες προτίθεται να αναλάβει η Επιτροπή ώστε να γίνουν σεβαστές τόσο η αρνητική γνωμοδότηση της ΡΑΕ
όσο και οι ανησυχίες των κατοίκων και φορέων της περιοχής;

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

_(23 Μαρτίου 2012)_

Τα κράτη μέλη δεν υποχρεούνται να διαβιβάζουν πληροφορίες σχετικά με ζητήματα σχεδιασμού και ανάπτυξης των
δημοσίων και ιδιωτικών έργων στην Επιτροπή, εκτός αν πρόκειται για συγχρηματοδοτούμενα μεγάλα έργα, όπως προβλέπεται
από τον κανονισμό 1083/2006 ( [1] ) (άρθρα 39-41). Το έργο υπόκειται σε διαδικασία εκτίμησης των περιβαλλοντικών
επιπτώσεων, σύμφωνα με τις απαιτήσεις της οδηγίας 2011/92/EΕ ( [2] ). Στο πλαίσιο αυτό, η συμμόρφωση του σχεδιαζόμενου
έργου με τις απαιτήσεις του άρθρου 6 παράγραφος 3 της οδηγίας 92/43/ΕΟΚ ( [3] ) (ανάγκη για κατάλληλη αξιολόγηση των
επιπτώσεων του έργου σε κάθε τόπο Natura 2000 που επηρεάζεται από αυτό) πρέπει να επαληθεύεται. Σύμφωνα με τις
διαθέσιμες πληροφορίες, η φάση της διαβούλευσης πρόκειται να αρχίσει. Κατά τη διάρκεια της φάσης αυτής, οι αρμόδιες
αρχές (σε εθνικό, περιφερειακό και τοπικό επίπεδο, συμπεριλαμβανομένων των περιβαλλοντικών ζητημάτων) και το κοινό θα
έχουν την ευκαιρία να εκφράσουν τις παρατηρήσεις και τις απόψεις τους.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) ΕΕ L 49 της 31.7.2007.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) ΕΕ L 26 της 28.1.2012.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) ΕΕ L 206 της 22.7.1992.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 263

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001377/12**

**to the Commission**
**Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)**

_(6 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Construction of lignite mines in the Falanthi and Chomatero areas in the prefecture of Messinia

The planned construction of two open lignite mines in Falanthi and Chomatero has provoked great concern and
protests from residents and organisations in the Falanthi and Chomatero areas of the Koroni municipal unit in the
municipality of Pylou-Nestoros, prefecture of Messinia. Considering that the Regulatory Authority for Energy (RAE),
which, according to Directive 2003/54/EC, Article 23 paragraph 2, is responsible for establishing and approving
electricity supply units, delivered a negative opinion on 11.10.2005 on the granting of a licence for generating
electrical power in the area, stressing in particular that:

‘the installation of solid fuel power stations is a highly-polluting industrial activity’; ‘the area proposed for the
construction of the electrical supply unit has been designated as GR 25500, it is therefore included in the
Natura 2000 European Ecological Network of Special Areas of Conservation’; ‘the methodology and calculation of
the lignite reserves are unclear’; ‘the means of transporting the lignite reserves are not substantiated’; ‘important local
organisations are completely opposed to this project,’ ‘it poses a significant danger to the natural environment’; ‘the
extent of the exploitable resources is not substantiated’ etc.

Given that the municipality contains an area included in the Natura 2000 network (GR 2550003) which is adjacent
to the area of construction of these lignite mines, residents claim that the area’s tourism will be irreparably damaged,
it will have devastating effects on agriculture, the importance of and access to the area’s monuments will suffer and
the area’s qualitative and quantitative water-bearing capacity will be reduced, will the Commission say:

1. What initiatives does it intend to take so that the negative opinion of the RAE as well as the concerns of local
residents and organisations are respected?

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

_(23 March 2012)_

Member States are not obliged to send information concerning planning and development issues of public and
private projects to the Commission, unless these are co-funded Major Projects as foreseen under Council Regulation
1083/2006 ( [1] ) (Articles 39-41). The project is subject to an environmental impact assessment, in accordance with the
requirements of Directive 2011/92/EU ( [2] ). In this context, the compliance of the planned project with the
requirements of Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC ( [3] ) (need for an appropriate assessment of the implications of the
project on any Natura 2000 site affected by it) will be verified. According to the information available, the
consultation phase is about to be launched. During this phase, the competent authorities (at national, regional and
local levels, including the environmental ones) and the public will have the opportunity to express their comments
and opinions.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 49, 31.7.2007.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 26, 28.1.2012.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

C 96 E / 264 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001378/12**

**to the Commission**

**Jim Higgins (PPE)**
_(13 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Youth policy

Can the Commission indicate in its proposals how it plans to promote active citizenship within its youth policies,
with regard to the poor turnout at the European Parliament election?

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

_(2 April 2012)_

Participation of all young people is an overall objective of the EU Youth Strategy (2010-18). The Commission is now
preparing the EU Youth Report, which will reflect the implementation of the strategy in Member States and set the
priorities for 2013-15.

The EU's structured dialogue with youth organisations focuses on the thematic priority, ‘youth participation in
democratic society’. The Commission is currently revamping the European Youth Portal with a view to promoting
youth participation and further developing the European Knowledge Centre on Youth Policy. The Commission has
also launched a study on ‘Youth Participation in Democratic Life’. Last year, the European Youth Week saw the
organisation of some 750 events and activities for young people across Europe, demonstrating the potential of the
Youth Week to mobilise young people.

Furthermore, promoting the active citizenship of young people is one of the objectives of the Youth in Action
Programme, which runs from 2007 to 2013. A survey of programme participants revealed that 60 % of them voted
in the 2009 European Parliament elections (compared with 29 % of young Europeans in general). The Commission's
proposal for the new ‘Erasmus for All’ Programme also includes provisions for similar actions promoting active
citizenship and participation of youth in democratic life.

In addition, the Europe for Citizens programme currently provides opportunities for young people to participate in
European projects: many town-twinning events involve young people through sport, cultural activities or school
exchanges; civil society projects contribute to increasing young people's knowledge of how the EU works and to
encouraging their participation in public life at different levels.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 265

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001379/12**

**to the Commission**

**Jim Higgins (PPE)**
_(14 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Sustainable water use

Can the Commission indicate in its proposals how it plans to promote sustainable water use across the European
Union, and can the Commission outline whether it has any plans to introduce mandatory minimum water charges to
promote sustainable water use in the European Union?

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

_(28 March 2012)_

The aim of Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy ( [1] ) is to
contribute to sustainable, balanced and equitable water use, and Article 9 requires that water-pricing policies provide
adequate incentives for the sustainable use of water and that there is an adequate contribution from the different
water uses to the recovery of the costs of water services‐ including environmental and resource costs.

The Commission is currently analysing the river basin management plans to see to which extent Member States have
included these and other requirements in their plans.

The result of the assessment will be published at the end of 2012 in the third implementation report, as part of the
Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's Water Resources package, which will come forward at the end of 2012. The
Blueprint will also cover possibilities for water efficiency in the Member States and will provide first indications for
water efficiency targets for the entire EU as well as recommendations on how member states can improve the
implementation of Article 9 of the water Framework Directive.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.

C 96 E / 266 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001381/12**

**to the Commission**

**Jim Higgins (PPE)**
_(13 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Health policy

Can the Commission indicate in its policies how it will deal with health issues in terms of addiction when referring to
drug, alcohol and tobacco use across the European Union, especially in inner-city areas suffering from urban decay?

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

_(4 April 2012)_

The Commission's main role in addressing addiction-related health issues consists in fostering coordination,
exchange and the development of good practices in the framework of EU legislation on drugs ( [1] ), tobacco ( [2] ) and
the EU strategy to support Member States in reducing alcohol-related harm ( [3] ).

The report on the independent external evaluation of the EU Drugs Strategy 2005-2012 and its implementing action
plans was presented by the Commission to the Member States represented at the Horizontal Drug Group on
5 March 2012. This evaluation also identified what has been done on drug demand reduction at national and EU
level. The Commission is preparing two initiatives related to drugs, one on criminal penalties in the field of drug
trafficking and another on information exchange on new psychoactive substances. Both initiatives are scheduled for
adoption in September.

A range of urban development projects have been co-financed by the European Regional Development Funds, many
of which contribute to enhancing social cohesion and social inclusion and thereby also to addiction prevention.

In addition, the European Commission is currently promoting the EU‐wide smoking cessation campaign ‘Ex-smokers
are unstoppable’, aimed at smokers between 25 and 34 years old, which represent nearly 28 million people in the EU.
The campaign runs through, among others, advertising ( [4] ) and social media ( [5] ). It is tailored to national audiences and
pays particular attention to specific groups such as women and lower socioeconomic groups, including those living
in inner-city areas suffering from urban decay.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/drugs/policy/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/tobacco/policy/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/alcohol/policy/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Print, online and TV.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Website (www.exsmokers.eu) in all EU languages and 27 national Facebook pages.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 267

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001383/12**

**to the Commission**

**Fiona Hall (ALDE)**

_(13 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ State aid to the Irish greyhound industry

I refer the Commission to answer E‐006482/2011, which states that tax exemptions on income arising to stallion and
stud greyhound owners in Ireland was terminated in July 2008. The Commission referred Ireland to the European
Court of Justice in November 2010 over Ireland’s application of a 4.8 % reduced VAT rate for supplies of horses and
greyhounds that is not in line with the provisions of the VAT Directive (2006/112/EC) and distorts the market. Can
the Commission give me an update on the progress of any infringement proceedings in this case?

The Commissioner also refers to Ireland’s ‘approved or block exempted state aid schemes for animal breeding, in
particular for equines’ and writes that ‘there is also the possibility of granting support in line with _de minimis_ rules for
breeders or for operators in the horse and greyhound racing industries’. What is the nature of Ireland’s state aid
schemes, and what other support could a Member State grant to breeders or operators in the horse and greyhound
industry?

Furthermore, with regard to the investigation into the funding of prize money to greyhound owners and trainers,
grants to greyhound racetrack owners and funding of greyhound stadia, when will this investigation be complete and
will the Commission publish details of the outcome?

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

_(15 March 2012)_

The Commission has initiated an infringement procedure against Ireland concerning the application of a reduced rate
of VAT on supplies of race horses and greyhounds. The case has been referred to the Court of Justice on
2 March 2011 (C-108/11).

As regards the nature of Ireland's approved or block exempted state aid schemes for animal breeding, public
information on all schemes — including the legal basis, budget, aid intensity and duration — is available on the
official Internet site for state aid in DG Agriculture and Rural Development of the European Commission ( [1] ). Any
other support granted to horse and greyhound breeders by a Member State should comply with the applicable
agricultural state aid rules ( [2] ).

With regard to the investigation into the funding of prize money, grants to greyhound racetrack owners and funding
of greyhound stadiums, the Commission is analysing the information recently submitted by the Irish authorities. The
decisions taken by the Commission at the end of the preliminary examination are published in the Official Journal
and on its website.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Approved schemes: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/stateaid/decisions/index_en.htm

Block exempted schemes: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/stateaid/exemption/info_en.htm

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 of 15 December 2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to state aid to small and

medium-sized enterprises active in the production of agricultural products and amending Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 in OJ L 358, 16.12.2006,
p. 3 and Community Guidelines for State Aid in the agriculture and forestry sector 2007 to 2013 (2006/C 319/01), in OJ C 319, 27.12.2006.

( **|**

C 96 E / 268 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung P-001384/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Holger Krahmer (ALDE)**

_(10. Februar 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Luftverkehr im Emissionshandelssystem der Europäischen Union (ETS)

In Anbetracht meiner Anfrage P-005387/2011 vom 5. Mai 2011 an Kommissarin Hedegaard zur
Wettbewerbsneutralität bei den Verhandlungen über äquivalente Maßnahmen, der Standardantwort von Frau
Hedegaard mit Berufung auf den Gleichbehandlungsgrundsatz sowie der ICAO-Resolution vom 2. November 2011,
vor dem Hintergrund des Briefes von US-Außenministerin Hillary Clinton an die Kommissarin vom
16. Dezember 2011 sowie Medienberichten über die Entscheidung Chinas, den Fluggesellschaften des Landes die
Teilnahme am EU‐Handelssystem für Emissionszertifikate zu verbieten, werden folgende Fragen an Kommissarin
Hedegaard gerichtet:

1. Mit welchen Drittstaaten, namentlich, verhandelt die Kommission über die Einführung von „äquivalenten
Maßnahmen“, die in der Richtlinie über die Einbeziehung des Flugverkehrs in den Emissionshandel genannt
werden?

2. Wie definiert die Kommission die „äquivalenten Maßnahmen“?

3. Hält die Kommission am Ziel fest, diese „äquivalenten Maßnahmen“ wettbewerbsneutral zu gestalten und falls
ja, welche Kriterien werden angelegt: äquivalent im Sinne einer Einsparung von CO 2 oder im Sinne finanzieller
Auswirkungen?

4. Hat die Kommission mit China über eine Einbeziehung chinesischer Fluggesellschaften in das ETS, bzw. über
die Einführung „äquivalenter Maßnahmen“ verhandelt, und, falls ja, wie ist der Verhandlungsstand?

5. Rechnet die Kommission mit einer Einigung mit China bei der Einbeziehung chinesischer Fluggesellschaften in
das ETS bzw. über die Einführung von „äquivalenten Maßnahmen“ in China und, falls ja, bis wann?

6. Wie kommentiert die Kommission in diesem Kontext die Entscheidung Chinas, chinesischen
Fluggesellschaften die Teilnahme am EU-Handelssystem für Emissionszertifikate zu verbieten?

7. Welche Strategie verfolgt die EU-Kommission gegenüber China, falls eine Einigung weder bei der Einbeziehung
chinesischer Fluggesellschaften in das ETS noch bei der Einführung von „äquivalenten Maßnahmen“ erreicht
wird? Welche Szenarien legt die Kommission ihrer Strategie zugrunde ?

8. Ist die Kommission der Auffassung, dass die Berufung auf das einschlägige Urteil des EuGH zur Legitimation
der Einbeziehung von Fluggesellschaften aus Drittstaaten ausreicht, und gab es bislang eine Änderung einer
Position eines Drittstaats oder Teilnehmers in den Verhandlungen mit Bezug auf das Urteil?

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

_(12. März 2012)_

Die Richtlinie über das Emissionshandelssystem (EHS) der EU ist eine nichtdiskriminierende Rechtsvorschrift, die
allen Fluggesellschaften Gleichbehandlung gewährleistet. Die Einbeziehung des Luftverkehrs in das EHS ist in allen
Punkten mit dem internationalen Recht und insbesondere mit dem Abkommen von Chicago aus dem Jahr 1944
vereinbar. Maßnahmen, auf deren Grundlage ankommende Flüge von den Auflagen der Richtlinie freigestellt werden
können, sind gemäß den Erwägungsgründen der betreffenden Änderungsvorschrift (Richtlinie 2008/101/EU ( [1] ))
„Maßnahmen, die mindestens die gleichen Umweltvorteile wie diese Richtlinie erreichen“.

Die Kommission hat mit vielen Ländern einen aktiven Dialog geführt und Aufklärungs‐ und Informationsarbeit
geleistet. Wir werden diesen Dialog mit Staaten wie China fortsetzen und weiterhin bereit sein, die Möglichkeit der
Freistellung von Flügen zu erörtern.

Die Kommission strebt auch eine Einigung über globale Maßnahmen zur Reduzierung der Treibhausgasemissionen
aus dem Luftverkehr an. Sie ist bereit, die EU-Vorschriften zu überprüfen und gegebenenfalls eine Änderung dieser
Vorschriften vorzuschlagen, falls und wenn im Rahmen der Internationalen Zivilluftfahrt-Organisation eine Einigung
über marktbasierte Maßnahmen zustande kommt.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) ABl. L 8 vom 13.1.2009.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 269

Der Europäische Gerichtshof (EuGH) ist der oberste Gerichtshof in der europäischen Rechtsordnung, und die
Kommission respektiert seine Urteile. Wir appellieren an Drittländer, die rechtsstaatlichen Grundsätze zu achten.

C 96 E / 270 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-001384/12**

**to the Commission**
**Holger Krahmer (ALDE)**

_(10 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Air travel and the European Union Emissions Trading System (ETS)

With reference to my Question P‐005387/2011 of 5 May 2011 to Commissioner Hedegaard on competitive
neutrality in the negotiations on equivalent measures, to the standard reply from Ms Hedegaard invoking the
principle of equal treatment and to the ICAO resolution of 2 November 2011, and in the light of the letter from US
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to the Commissioner dated 16 December 2011 and of press reports about China’s
decision to prohibit its airlines from participating in the EU’s emission certificate trading system, I have the following
questions for Commissioner Hedegaard:

1. With which specific third countries is the Commission negotiating the introduction of ‘equivalent measures’
mentioned in the directive on the inclusion of air travel in emissions trading?

2. How does the Commission define ‘equivalent measures’?

3. Is the Commission sticking to its target of making these ‘equivalent measures’ neutral as regards competition
and, if so, what criteria has it applied: equivalence in the sense of CO 2 savings or in the sense of financial
impact?

4. Has the Commission negotiated with China on the inclusion of Chinese airlines in the ETS or the introduction
of ‘equivalent measures’ in China and, if so, what progress have these negotiations made?

5. Does the Commission expect to reach agreement with China on the inclusion of Chinese airlines in the ETS or
the introduction of ‘equivalent measures’ with China and, if so, what is the expected timeframe?

6. In this context, how would the Commission comment on China’s decision to prohibit Chinese airlines from
participating in the EU’s emission certificate trading system?

7. What strategy will the EU Commission pursue with China if it is not possible to reach agreement on the
inclusion of Chinese airlines in the ETS or the introduction of ‘equivalent measures’? On what scenarios is the
Commission basing its strategy?

8. Does the Commission consider that invoking the relevant judgment of the European Court of Justice is
sufficient to legitimise the inclusion of airlines from third countries and has any third country or participant in
the negotiations changed its position in the light of the judgment?

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

_(12 March 2012)_

The EU Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) Directive is a non-discriminatory law and all airlines are treated equally under
it. The inclusion of aviation in the ETS is fully consistent with international law and in particular with the 1944
Chicago Convention. The measures which can form a basis for exempting incoming flights are referred to the recitals
of the relevant amending legislation, Directive 2008/101/EU ( [1] ) as ‘measures, which have an environmental effect at
least equivalent to that of this directive’.

The Commission has been engaged in active discussions and outreach with a large number of countries. We are
continuing dialogue with States including China and remain open to discuss the potential exemption of incoming
flights.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 8, 13.1.2009.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 271

The Commission is also seeking an agreement on global measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from aviation.
It is ready to review and possibly propose an amendment to the EU legislation as appropriate if and when an
agreement on market-based measures is found in International Civil Aviation Organisation.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is the highest court in the EU legal order and the Commission respects the ECJ's
judgments. We encourage third countries to respect the rule of law.

C 96 E / 272 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(Verżjoni Maltija)_

**Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub E-001385/12**

**lill-Kummissjoni**
**Louis Grech (S&D)**

_(14 ta' Frar 2012)_

_Suġġett:_ Reġistru Ewropew dwar ir-Rilaxx u t-Trasferiment ta' Inkwinanti

Ir-Reġistru Ewropew dwar ir-Rilaxx u t-Trasferiment ta’ Inkwinanti (E-PRTR) (li qabel kien magħruf bħala r-Reġistru
Ewropew ta' Emissjoni ta' Tniġġis), stabbilit b’deċiżjoni tal-Kummissjoni tal-2000 u ġestit mill-Aġenzija Ewropea
għall-Ambjent, huwa reġistru mifrux mal-Ewropa kollha li jipprovdi aċċess faċli għal dejta ambjentali ewlenija minn
faċilitajiet industrijali fl-Istati Membri tal-UE, il-pajjiżi tal-EFTA u l-pajjiżi kandidati. Għal kull faċilità, ir-reġistru
jipprovdi informazzjoni dwar l-ammonti ta’ rilaxx ta’ inkwinanti fl-arja, l-ilma u l-art kif ukoll ta’ trasferimenti barra
mis-sit ta’ skart u inkwinanti fid-drenaġġ. L-għan ta’ dan ir-reġistru hu li jinkoraġġixxi aktar trasparenza u lparteċipazzjoni tal-pubbliku fit-teħid ta’ deċiżjonijiet ambjentali.

Onlajn, ir-reġistru juri d-dejta kompluta għall-2007, 2008 u 2009 biss.

— Tista’ l-Kummissjoni tikkjarifika jekk ir-reġistru għadux qed jiġi aġġornat u, jekk dan huwa l-każ, għaliex mhijiex
qed tintwera d-dejta kompluta għall-2010 u 2011?

**Tweġiba mogħtija mis-Sur Potočnik f'isem il-Kummissjoni**

_(22 ta' Marzu 2012)_

Ir-Regolament Nru 166/2006 ( [1] ) jistabbilixxi Reġistru Ewropew dwar ir-Rilaxx u t-Trasferiment ta' Inkwinanti (EPRTR) li jipprovdi dejta ambjentali essenzjali faċilment aċċessibbli minn faċilitajiet industrijali fl-Istati Membri talUnjoni Ewropea u l-Islanda, il-Liechtenstein u n-Norveġja. Skont l-Artikolu 7, l-Istati Membri għandhom jipprovdu ddejta kollha fi żmien 15-il xahar mill-aħħar tas-sena tar-rapportar. Il-Kummissjoni, megħjuna mill-Aġenzija Ewropea
għall-Ambjent, għandha tinkorpora l-informazzjoni rrapportata mill-Istati Membri fil-PRTR Ewropew fi żmien 16-il
xahar mill-aħħar tas-sena tar-rapportar.

Skont id-dispożizzjonijiet ta’ hawn fuq, l-Istati Membri se jipprovdu dejta għas-sena 2010 sal-31 ta’ Marzu 2012 u lKummissjoni se tippubblika din id-dejta sat-30 ta’ April 2012. Bl-istess mod, id-dejta għas-sena 2011 se tiġi
pprovduta mill-Istati Membri f’Marzu 2013 u l-Kummissjoni se tippubblika din id-dejta sa April 2013.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) ĠU L 33, 4.2.2006.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 273

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001385/12**

**to the Commission**
**Louis Grech (S&D)**

_(14 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register

The European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR) (previously known as the European Pollutant
Emission Register), established by a Commission decision of 2000 and managed by the European Environment
Agency, is a Europe-wide register providing easily accessible key environmental data from industrial facilities in EU
Member States, EFTA countries and candidate countries. For each facility, the register provides information
concerning the amounts of pollutant releases to air, water and land as well as off-site transfers of waste and of
pollutants in waste water. The purpose of the register is to encourage greater transparency and public participation in
environmental decision-making.

Online, the register is showing complete data only for 2007, 2008 and 2009.

— Can the Commission clarify whether the register is still being updated and, if so, why complete data is not being
displayed for 2010 and 2011?

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

_(22 March 2012)_

Regulation No 166/2006 ( [1] ) establishes the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR) that provides
easily accessible key environmental data from industrial facilities in European Union Member States and in Iceland,
Liechtenstein, and Norway. According to Article 7, Member States shall provide all the data within 15 months of the
end of the reporting year. The Commission, assisted by the European Environment Agency, shall incorporate the
information reported by the Member States into the European PRTR within 16 months of the end of the reporting

year.

According to the above provisions, Member States will provide data for the year 2010 by 31 March 2012 and the
Commission will publish them by 30 April 2012. Likewise, data for the year 2011 will be provided by Member States
in March 2013 and the Commission will publish them by April 2013.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 33, 4.2.2006.

C 96 E / 274 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001386/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**David Campbell Bannerman (ECR)**

_(7 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Falkland Islands — Meeting with the President of Argentina

Has the Vice-President/High Representative met President Kirchner of Argentina and, if so, has she discussed the
Falkland Islands with her?

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

_(13 March 2012)_

The High Representative/Vice-President has not met with President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner of Argentina.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 275

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-001387/12**

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

_(13 Φεβρουαρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Σύλληψη εμπειρογνώμονα της KESK

Εφιστώ την προσοχή σας: (α) στη σύλληψη του Ismet Arslan, νομικού εμπειρογνώμονα ο οποίος απασχολείτο στην τουρκική
Συνομοσπονδία Συνδικαλιστικών Οργανώσεων Δημοσίων Υπαλλήλων (KESK), (β) στην έφοδο της αστυνομίας στο γραφείο
του στην έδρα της KESK στην Άγκυρα και (γ) στην κατάσχεση του υπολογιστή του. Ο Ismet Arslan κρατείται από τις
13 Ιανουαρίου 2012, μαζί με τον Murat Oruc, δάσκαλο και μέλος του διοικητικού συμβουλίου στον συνδικαλιστικό κλάδο
εκπαιδευτικών της περιοχής Sanhurfa, ο οποίος αποτελεί τμήμα της συνδικαλιστικής οργάνωσης εκπαιδευτικών Egitim-sen.
Η αστυνομία προσπάθησε να διεξαγάγει έρευνα και στο υπόλοιπο κτίριο, όμως τα μέλη της KESK κατάφεραν να την
εμποδίσουν. Η έφοδος της αστυνομίας οργανώθηκε από το ειδικά εξουσιοδοτημένο 10ο Ανώτατο Ποινικό Δικαστήριο της
Κωνσταντινούπολης (10th Istanbul Special Authorised High Criminal Court) και αποτελούσε μέρος μιας σειράς εφόδων
με στόχο τα πολικά κόμματα και οργανώσεις. Ουσιαστικά, η KESK προετοίμαζε μια εκστρατεία για την αναθεώρηση του
δικαίου των συνδικαλιστικών οργανώσεων που συζητείται επί του παρόντος στην Τουρκία — θεμιτή δραστηριότητα για μια
συνδικαλιστική οργάνωση.

Στο πλαίσιο αυτό, ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

1. Γιατί δέχεται η ΕΕ την εν λόγω αυθαίρετη συμπεριφορά των τουρκικών αρχών καθώς και την παραβίαση των
ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων των συνδικαλιστών (δεδομένου ότι ο εμπειρογνώμονας της KESK και ο συνδικαλιστής
συνελήφθησαν χωρίς ένταλμα);

2. Στο πλαίσιο της τρέχουσας υποψηφιότητας της Τουρκίας για προσχώρηση στην ΕΕ, γιατί συμπεριφέρεται η ΕΕ με
τέτοιο αξιολύπητο τρόπο και αδυνατεί να επιβάλει κυρώσεις στην Τουρκία δεδομένων των σοβαρών παραβιάσεών της
–και της αδυναμίας εφαρμογής– στον τομέα της Ευρωπαϊκής και διεθνούς νομοθεσίας και των Συνθηκών, τις οποίες η
Τουρκία έχει υπογράψει;

3. Ποια άμεση, πρακτική και αποτελεσματική δράση σκοπεύει να αναλάβει η ΕΕ για να θέσει τέρμα στην παρενόχληση των
συνδικαλιστών και στην κράτηση των ατόμων για παρατεταμένο χρονικό διάστημα χωρίς το δικαίωμα για αξιοπρεπή
δίκη, καθώς και για να πείσει την Τουρκία να σεβαστεί και να εφαρμόσει, μεταξύ άλλων, την Οικουμενική Διακήρυξη
των Ανθρωπίνων Δικαιωμάτων, την Ευρωπαϊκή Σύμβαση για τα Ανθρώπινα Δικαιώματα και τη σύμβαση 87 της
Διεθνούς Οργάνωσης Εργασίας (ΔΟΕ);

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

_(21 Μαρτίου 2012)_

Η Επιτροπή βλέπει με ανησυχία τις πολυάριθμες συλλήψεις δημοσιογράφων, διανοουμένων, τοπικών πολιτικών και μελών
συνδικαλιστικών οργανώσεων, στις οποίες έχουν προχωρήσει οι τουρκικές αρχές τους τελευταίους μήνες. Η Επιτροπή έχει
εκφράσει πολλές φορές στους τούρκους ομολόγους της, τις ανησυχίες της σχετικά με τον τρόπο διαχείρισης των θεμελιωδών
δικαιωμάτων, του δικαιώματος στην ελευθερία και την ασφάλεια και του δικαιώματος αμερόληπτου δικαστηρίου. Η
πρόσφατη δικαστική μεταρρύθμιση θεωρείται ένα βήμα προς τη σωστή κατεύθυνση, αλλά δεν αντιμετωπίζει τα πραγματικά
βασικά προβλήματα που υπονομεύουν τα δικαιώματα αυτά.

Η Επιτροπή παροτρύνει όλους τους ενδιαφερομένους να εργαστούν μαζί για την αναθεώρηση της σχετικής νομοθεσίας, με
σκοπό να συμβάλουν, στην περαιτέρω ενίσχυση των δικαιωμάτων υπεράσπισης σε όλα τα επίπεδα.

C 96 E / 276 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001387/12**

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

_(13 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Arrest of KESK expert

I bring to your attention: (a) the arrest of Ismet Arslan, a legal expert employed by the Turkish Confederation of Public
Workers’ Unions (KESK); (b) the police raid on his office at the KESK headquarters in Ankara; and (c) the confiscation
of his computer. Ismet Arslan has been detained since 13 January 2012, along with Murat Oruc, a teacher who is also
a member of the board of the Sanhurfa Branch of the Egitim-sen teachers’ union. The police sought to search the rest
of the building, but were successfully opposed by KESK members. The police raid was launched by the 10th Istanbul
Special Authorised High Criminal Court as part of a series of raids targeting political parties and organisations. In fact,
the KESK was preparing a campaign on the trade union law reform currently under discussion in Turkey — a
legitimate activity for a trade union organisation.

In this connection, can the Commission say:

1. Why the EU accepts such arbitrary behaviour by the Turkish authorities and the violation of trade unionists’
human rights (given that the KESK expert and the trade unionist were arrested without a warrant)?

2. Why, in the context of Turkey’s current candidacy for EU accession, the EU is acting so pathetically and failing
to impose sanctions against Turkey on account of its serious violations of — and failure to implement —
European and international legislation and the Treaties, to which Turkey is a signatory?

3. What immediate practical and effective action the EU intends to take in order to put an end to the harassment
of trade unionists, to stop people being detained for prolonged periods without being given a decent trial, and
to convince Turkey to respect and implement, _inter alia_, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the
European Convention on Human Rights and International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention 87?

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

_(21 March 2012)_

The Commission is concerned about the numerous arrests of journalists, intellectuals, local politicians and trade
union members carried out by Turkish authorities in recent months. The Commission has regularly voiced its
concerns about the handling of fundamental rights, of the right to liberty and security and of the right to a fair trial to
its Turkish counterparts. The recent judicial reform is considered as a step in the right direction but does not address
the actual core problems that undermine these rights.

The Commission encourages all stakeholders to work jointly on a revision of the relevant legislation — to help
further strengthen the rights of the defendant in general.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 277

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-001388/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(14 de febrero de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Criterios que sustentan la aplicación de la jerarquía de residuos y la priorización del reciclaje frente a la
valorización energética

La Directiva 2008/98/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo sobre los residuos, reitera en multitud de artículos el
fomento de la aplicación de la jerarquía de residuos e insiste en la paulatina transformación de la UE en una «sociedad
del reciclado». Según la citada directiva, esta política debe contar con el apoyo de los Estados miembros para el uso de
reciclados, siempre con el objetivo de minimizar los efectos sobre la salud humana y la protección del
medioambiente. Por otra parte, en diversas comunicaciones de la Comisión (COM(2005)0666, COM(2011)0571) se
insiste en el fomento del reciclado de calidad ( [1] ). Sus ventajas son tanto económicas como laborales, y su objetivo es
aumentar la eficiencia en la utilización de los recursos que consiga que «los flujos de residuos se encaminen
preferentemente hacia el reciclado y la reutilización». Se fijan objetivos para la futura gestión de los residuos que dan a
la reutilización y reciclado prioridad de acción e incluso se propone textualmente que «la recuperación de energía se
limitara a los materiales no reciclables». Sin embargo, en la misma Directiva 2008/98/CE se cita la siguiente
consideración textual: «La jerarquía de los residuos establece en general un orden de prioridad de lo que constituye la
mejor opción global para el medioambiente en la legislación y la política en materia de residuos, aunque puede
resultar necesario apartarse de dicha jerarquía para determinados flujos de residuos cuando esté justificado por
motivos de factibilidad técnica, viabilidad económica y protección del medioambiente, entre otros».

¿Cree la Comisión que es admisible que pueda darse el caso de priorizar la valorización energética, por ser la opción
económica menos gravosa, frente a otras alternativas de reciclado cuyos costes operativos son mayores aunque
económica, técnica y medioambientalmente sean viables?

¿Podría contestar la Comisión por qué se están priorizando políticas favorecedoras de la valorización energética tales
como la declaración de los neumáticos fuera de uso como parcialmente biomasa?

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

_(30 de marzo de 2012)_

Con arreglo a la jerarquía de residuos, los Estados miembros tienen que estimular las opciones que arrojen mejores
resultados medioambientales. Sin embargo, al aplicar la jerarquía, el artículo 4, apartado 2, de la Directiva marco
sobre residuos ( [2] ) (DMR) deja a los Estados miembros cierto margen de flexibilidad. Esto puede suponer que
abandonen el orden de prioridad de la jerarquía de residuos para flujos de residuos concretos, siempre que ello esté
justificado desde el punto de vista de la evaluación del ciclo de vida.

La incineración con valorización energética puede ser una opción de gestión respetuosa con el medio ambiente para
el tratamiento de desechos residuales procedentes de otros procesos de gestión de residuos y de residuos no
reciclables. Esta opción de gestión se sitúa en la jerarquía de los residuos por encima de otras opciones de eliminación
como el depósito en vertederos y la incineración sin valorización energética. De hecho, la denominada «fórmula R1»
( [3] ) de la DMR representa un incentivo para la incineración de los residuos municipales como contribución al
abastecimiento energético.

El caucho de los neumáticos usados no tiene normalmente propiedades peligrosas. En principio, en los casos en que la
recuperación de materiales de neumáticos y caucho es técnicamente viable, por ejemplo, para la producción de
materiales de construcción como revestimientos especiales, asfaltos, etc., esa recuperación debería ser la opción de
gestión de residuos preferida. No obstante, en los casos en que no resulte técnicamente factible recuperar los
materiales, la utilización de neumáticos como sustitutos de los combustibles fósiles (por ejemplo, el carbón) puede ser
una opción aceptable, ya que tienen un poder calorífico comparable y con menor incidencia en el medio ambiente ( [4] ).
Las utilizaciones finales deben evaluarse caso por caso.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) (http://www.blackandgreen.es/).
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directiva 2008/98/CE (DO L 312 de 22.11.2008).
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Anexo II, nota a pie de página (*), de la Directiva 2008/98/CE.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Véase el reciente estudio de Aliapur R&D, junio de 2010.

C 96 E / 278 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001388/12**

**to the Commission**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(14 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Criteria militating in favour of the waste hierarchy and prioritising recycling over energy recovery

Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste, in many of its articles, calls for
application of the waste hierarchy and for the gradual transformation of the EU into a ‘recycling society’. According to
the directive, that policy requires Member States to support the use of recyclates, always with the aim of minimising
effects on human health and environmental protection. In addition, several Commission communications
(COM(2005)0666, COM(2011)0571) insist on support for high-quality recycling ( [1] ), which offers environmental as
well as labour benefits, its objective being to increase resource efficiency, which will ‘pull waste flows towards
recycling and re-use’. Targets are set for future waste management to make re-use and recycling priorities for action,
and it is even suggested, verbatim, that ‘Energy recovery is limited to non-recyclable materials’. However, the text of
Directive 2008/98/EC states that: ‘The waste hierarchy generally lays down a priority order of what constitutes the
best overall environmental option in waste legislation and policy, while departing from such hierarchy may be
necessary for specific waste streams when justified for reasons of, _inter alia_, technical feasibility, economic viability
and environmental protection’.

Does the Commission think it acceptable that in some cases it is possible to prioritise energy recovery, because it is
the least burdensome option in economic terms, as opposed to other recycling options that have higher operating
costs but are economically, technically and environmentally feasible?

Could it explain why priority is being given to policies that favour energy recovery, such as the declaration that
disused tyres are partially biomass?

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

_(30 March 2012)_

Member States under the waste hierarchy are required to encourage those options that deliver the best environmental
outcome. However, when applying the hierarchy, Article 4(2) of the Waste Framework Directive ( [2] ) (WFD) gives
Member States a degree of flexibility. This may entail departing from the priority order of the waste hierarchy for
specific waste streams, provided this is justified in terms of ‘life-cycle-assessment’.

Incinerators with energy recovery can be an environmentally sound management option to treat residual waste
coming from other waste management processes and non-recyclable waste. This management option is ranked in the
waste hierarchy above disposal options such as landfilling and incineration of waste without energy recovery. In fact,
the so-called ‘R1 — Formula’ ( [3] ) in the WFD represents an incentive for municipal waste incinerators to contribute to
the energy supply.

Rubber in waste tyres usually does not have hazardous properties. In principle, in cases where material recovery of
tyres and rubber are technically feasible, e.g. production of building materials as special floorings, asphalts, etc., such
recovery should be a preferred waste management option. Notwithstanding, in cases where material recovery is not
technically feasible, using tyres as a substitute to fossil fuels (e.g. coal) can be an acceptable option as they have
comparable calorific values with less environmental impacts ( [4] ). End use applications must be assessed on a case-bycase basis.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) (http://www.blackandgreen.es/).
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directive 2008/98/EC, OJ L 312, 22.11.2008.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Annex II, footnote (*) of Directive 2008/98/EC.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) See recent study from Aliapur R & D, June 2010.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 279

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-001389/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(7 de febrero de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Tecnología existente para el reciclaje integral de los neumáticos fuera de uso

La tecnología de termólisis es una tecnología patentada para conseguir el reciclaje de los neumáticos fuera de uso y
opera desde el año 2009 con rendimientos en el reciclado próximos al 100 %. Obtiene como productos finales de su
proceso operativo: 1) Gas proceso, de características y composición similares al gas natural (7 % sobre neumático
tratado); 2) hidrocarburos líquidos, catalogados por la Dirección General de Aduanas e Impuestos Especiales como
gasóleo (40 % sobre neumático tratado); 3) negro de carbono de características comerciales (53 % sobre neumático
tratado).

Las características principales del proceso son: 1) eliminación ecológica y sostenible de neumáticos fuera de uso; 2) no
genera nuevos problemas medioambientales y no se generan nuevos residuos pues existe un aprovechamiento
integral del neumático; 3) se obtienen tres productos demandados en el mercado, lo que favorece las políticas de
aprovechamiento eficiente de los recursos; 4) el proceso tiene una total autonomía energética pues emplea como
combustible el gas obtenido en el proceso de reciclaje, fomenta pues la eficiencia energética; 5) al utilizar dicho gas
como combustible de la planta se favorecen las políticas de reducción de emisiones de gases con efecto invernadero;
6) se contribuye al ahorro de combustibles fósiles pues tanto el gas, gasóleo como el Negro de Carbono se obtienen
tradicionalmente del petróleo; 7) fomenta el desarrollo continuo de la I+D, basado en una tecnología limpia y
sostenible.

¿Conocía la Comisión la existencia de tecnologías actualmente operativas, como la detallada anteriormente, para el
reciclaje de neumáticos fuera de uso?

En el contexto económico actual, ¿existen instrumentos concretos de apoyo (financieros, fiscales, etc.) a tecnologías
como esta, cuya aplicación pone en práctica de forma segura y sostenible las políticas marcadas por la Comisión en
cuanto a gestión de los residuos, reciclaje, eficiencia energética, reducción de emisiones de gases con efecto
invernadero, ahorro de combustibles fósiles y empleo eficaz de los recursos?

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

_(23 de marzo de 2012)_

La Comisión está al corriente de los nuevos tratamientos de los neumáticos usados, tales como la pirólisis y la
termólisis. Sin embargo, según el informe más reciente de la Asociación Europea de Fabricantes de Neumáticos y
Caucho ( _European Tyre and Rubber Manufacture Association_, ETRMA), no se ha demostrado aún la viabilidad económica
de estos métodos en las actuales condiciones de mercado.

Se podría apoyar una mayor actividad de investigación e innovación en este ámbito en el marco de los temas de
medio ambiente o transporte del Séptimo Programa Marco de investigación y desarrollo tecnológico ( [1] ) (7° PM, 20072013), que abarca estos aspectos. Para soluciones más cercanas al mercado se podrían considerar también otros
programas financiados por la UE, tales como el programa LIFE ( [2] ) o el Programa Marco para la Innovación y la
Competitividad (PIC), así como los proyectos de aplicación comercial de la innovación ecológica ( [3] ), siguiendo los
procedimientos habituales de solicitud de cada convocatoria y programa.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/page/home.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/ecoinnovation.

C 96 E / 280 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001389/12**

**to the Commission**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(7 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Existing technology for complete recycling of disused tyres

Thermolysis technology is a patented method for the recycling of disused tyres. It has operated since 2009 with a
recycling output close to 100 %. The end products of its operating process are: (1) process gas, with properties and a
composition similar to natural gas (7 % of the treated tyre); (2) liquid hydrocarbons, classified by the Customs and
Excise Directorate as diesel (40 % of the treated tyre); and (3) carbon black with commercial features (53 % of the
treated tyre).

The primary characteristics of the process are as follows: (1) the process makes for eco-friendly, sustainable
elimination of disused tyres; (2) it does not create new environmental problems or generate new waste, since the
whole tyre is used; (3) it produces three products for which there is market demand, and is thus consistent with
resource-efficient policies; (4) it is completely self-contained in energy terms, since the fuel used is the gas obtained in
the recycling process, and thus promotes energy efficiency; (5) the use of that gas as plant fuel is in keeping with
greenhouse gas emission reduction policies; (6) the process contributes to fossil fuel savings, since gas, diesel and
carbon black are all traditionally obtained from petroleum; and (7) it encourages ongoing R+D, based on a clean,
sustainable technology.

Was the Commission aware that technologies currently in operation, like the one described above, are being to
recycle disused tyres?

In the current economic context, are there specific support instruments (financial, fiscal, etc.) for technologies like this
one, the use of which gives effect, in a safe and sustainable manner, to the policies outlined by the Commission in
regard to waste management, recycling, energy efficiency, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, fossil fuel savings
and resource efficiency?

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

_(23 March 2012)_

The Commission is aware of emerging treatment for waste tyres such as pyrolisis and thermolisis. However,
according to the European Tyre and Rubber Manufacture Association's (ETRMA) latest report, under current market
conditions the economic viability of these options has yet to be proved.

Further research and innovation in this area could be supported in the context of the Environment or Transport
Themes of Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development ( [1] ) (FP7, 2007-2013),
which covers these issues. For closer-to-the-market solutions, other EU funded programmes like the LIFE
programme ( [2] ) or Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) eco-innovation market replication
projects ( [3] ) could also be considered, following the usual application procedures, specific to a given programme and
call.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/page/home.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/ecoinnovation.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 281

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-001390/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(14 de febrero de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Criterios para la cuantificación y destino de los costes de gestión de residuos

La Directiva 2008/98/CE reitera en multitud de artículos el fomento de la aplicación de la jerarquía de residuos, insiste
en la paulatina transformación de la UE en una «sociedad del reciclado». También requiere el debido apoyo de los
Estados miembros para el uso de reciclados con arreglo a dicha jerarquía, con el objetivo de minimizar los efectos
sobre la salud humana y la protección del medioambiente. Dicha Directiva insiste en el principio de que «quien
contamina paga», indicando que «es conveniente que los costes se asignen de tal manera que reflejen el coste real que
suponen para el medioambiente la generación y la gestión de los residuos». En España, el Real Decreto 1619/2005
que desarrolla las obligaciones marcadas por las distintas Directivas Europeas en cuanto a los neumáticos fuera de
uso, dice en su artículo 4.3: «Los productores de neumáticos deberán cumplir las obligaciones establecidas en este
artículo, bien realizando directamente la gestión de los neumáticos fuera de uso derivados de los neumáticos que
hayan puesto en el mercado nacional de reposición, o entregándolos a gestores autorizados de neumáticos fuera de
uso, bien participando en un sistema integrado de gestión, según el artículo 8, bien contribuyendo económicamente a
los sistemas públicos de gestión de neumáticos fuera de uso, en medida tal que cubran los costos atribuibles a la
gestión de los mismos»; asimismo en su artículo 8.1 dice: «Los sistemas integrados de gestión garantizarán la recogida
de los neumáticos fuera de uso y su correcta gestión…»; por último, en el artículo 9.2 dice: «La entidad gestora del
sistema integrado de gestión se financiará en cuantía suficiente para garantizar la correcta gestión de los neumáticos
fuera de uso, con las contribuciones de los productores de neumáticos que participen en ella».

¿Qué entiende la Comisión por «correcta gestión de los neumáticos fuera de uso»?

¿Deben prevalecer los criterios de minimización de los costes de gestión antes que los resultados de dicha gestión?

¿Se deben favorecer gestiones de valorización energética frente a gestiones de reciclado eficaz por el mero hecho de
tener un coste de gestión inferior?

¿Debe incluirse en esos costes de gestión el coste del reciclado o tiene que soportar el reciclador sus costes operativos
y de gestión?

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

_(28 de marzo de 2012)_

Según las últimas estadísticas, el 96 % de todos los neumáticos usados de la UE se recuperó en 2010, sea mediante
valorización energética (aproximadamente el 38 %), sea mediante recuperación de materiales (más del 55 %, incluida
la reutilización). Ambos tratamientos pueden considerarse ajustados a una gestión de residuos respetuosa con el
medio ambiente siempre que, de acuerdo con la jerarquía de residuos, arrojen los mejores resultados
medioambientales globales. Como se indica en la respuesta a la pregunta escrita E-1388/2012 ( [1] ), según un estudio
hecho público por Aliapur R&D (junio de 2010) ( [2] ), la evaluación ambiental de los métodos de reciclado de materiales
no es sistemáticamente mejor que la de la valorización energética. Las utilizaciones finales deben evaluarse caso por
caso. Al hacerlo, minimizar los costes de gestión no debe ser el único aspecto que hay que tener en cuenta, sino
también los aspectos medioambientales, sociales y técnicos.

En lo que respecta al coste del reciclado, se aplican actualmente en la EU tres sistemas de gestión de los neumáticos
usados: un sistema basado en la responsabilidad de los productores; un sistema basado en la responsabilidad de la
administración, financiada mediante impuestos, y un sistema de mercado libre, cuando la legislación establece el
objetivo que hay que cumplir, pero no designa a los responsables de hacerlo. España aplica el sistema de
responsabilidad de los productores, por el que una empresa sin ánimo de lucro (Signus) financiada por los
productores de neumáticos recoge y recupera los neumáticos usados recurriendo a las soluciones más económicas. El
proceso se financia mediante una tasa medioambiental aplicada generalmente al precio del producto y pagada por el
consumidor final.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/QP-WEB/.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.aliapur.fr/media/files/RetD_new/LCA-reference-document-June-2010.pdf

C 96 E / 282 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001390/12**

**to the Commission**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(14 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Criteria for the quantification and assignment of waste management costs

Directive 2008/98/EC provides support, in numerous articles, for implementation of the waste hierarchy, and stresses
there should be a gradual transformation of the EU into a ‘recycling society’. It also requires that Member States
properly support the use of recyclates, in line with that hierarchy, with the aim of minimising effects on human health
and of environmental protection. The directive stresses the ‘polluter pays’ principle, stating ‘It is appropriate that costs
be allocated in such a way as to reflect the real costs to the environment of the generation and management of waste’.
Spanish Royal Decree 1619/2005, which implements the obligations outlined by various European Directives with
regard to used tyres, states in Article 4(3): Tyre manufacturers shall fulfil the obligations established in this article,
whether by directly managing the used tyres deriving from tyres they have placed on the national spare‐parts market,
by turning those used tyres over to authorised used tyre managers, or by contributing financially to public systems for
managing used tyres, to an extent that covers the costs attributable to the management of those used tyres. In
addition, Article 8(1) states: The entity that manages the integrated management system shall be given sufficient
financial resources to ensure the proper management of disused tyres, with contributions being made by the tyre
manufacturers participating in that system].

What does the Commission understand by the ‘proper management of used tyres’?

Should the criteria of minimising management costs take precedence over the results of that management?

Should energy recovery management be favoured over effective recycling management, for the sole reason that it has
a lower management cost?

Should the cost of recycling be included in those management costs, or should the recycler have to bear the operating
and management costs?

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

_(28 March 2012)_

According to the latest statistics, in 2010 96 % of all waste tyres arising in the EU have been recovered either through
energy recovery (approximately 38 %) or material recovery (over 55 %, including re-use). Either treatment can be
regarded as environmentally sound management of waste provided that, in compliance with the waste hierarchy, it
yields the best overall environmental outcome. As set out in the answer to Written Question E‐1388/2012 ( [1] ),
according to a study released by Aliapur R & D (June 2010) ( [2] ) the environmental assessment of material recycling
methods is not systematically better than that of energy recovery. End use applications must be assessed on a case-bycase basis. In so doing, minimising management cost should not be the only aspect to be considered, but also
environmental, social and technical aspects should be taken into account.

Regarding the cost of recycling, currently three waste tyre management systems are being applied in the EU: producer
responsibility; government responsibility financed through a tax; and a free market system where the legislation sets
the objective to be met but does not designate those responsible. Spain operates under the producer responsibility
system whereby a non-profit company (Signus) financed by tyre producers collects and recovers the waste tyres
through the most economical solutions. The process is financed through an environmental fee generally applied to
the product price and borne by the product's end user.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/QP-WEB/.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.aliapur.fr/media/files/RetD_new/LCA-reference-document-June-2010.pdf

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 283

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-001391/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(7 de febrero de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Criterios para la elaboración de las estadísticas de gestión de los neumáticos fuera de uso

La Directiva 2008/98/CE indica textualmente en su considerando (47): «Conviene, en particular, conferir
competencia a la comisión para que establezca criterios relativos a una serie de cuestiones… así como el
establecimiento de normas detalladas sobre la aplicación y los métodos de cálculo para verificar el cumplimiento de
los objetivos de reciclaje establecidos en la presente Directiva». Por otra parte, en la Comunicación de la Comisión
COM(2011)0571, apartado 3.2, se insiste que «la Comisión, revisará los objetivos vigentes en materia de prevención,
reutilización y reciclado… a fin de iniciar la senda hacia una economía basada en la reutilización y el reciclado, con
unos desechos residuales próximos a 0». Hoy en día, la gestión mayoritaria con respecto a los neumáticos fuera de uso
consiste en su trituración; sin embargo, la mayor parte de estos neumáticos triturados tienen como destino la
valorización energética.

¿Cree la Comisión que el tratamiento estadístico de estos neumáticos triturados cuyo destino final es la valorización
energética, entra dentro de los objetivos de valorización material por el hecho de estar previamente triturados o por el
contrario formarían parte de los objetivos de valorización energética?

¿En caso de considerarse como parte de los objetivos marcados para valorización energética, qué mecanismos de
control establece la Comisión para verificar el destino efectivo de dichos neumáticos triturados?

¿Considera la Comisión que podría darse el caso de que todos los neumáticos fuera de uso de un Estado miembro
fueran destinados a su empleo como combustible en plantas de valorización energética pero que, a causa de su
empleo en forma de triturado, ese Estado miembro fijara en sus estadísticas que el 100 % de sus neumáticos fuera de
uso han sufrido una valorización material? ¿Sería correcta esa declaración estadística?

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

_(23 de marzo de 2012)_

La Directiva marco sobre residuos ( [1] ) (DMR) no establece objetivos de valorización energética. La Decisión
2001/753/UE de la Comisión, recientemente adoptada, establece los métodos de cálculo para la verificación del
cumplimiento de los objetivos de reciclado fijados en el artículo 11, apartado 2, de la DMR. En cualquier caso, los
neumáticos triturados, si se incineran, no pueden considerarse reciclados a efectos estadísticos, porque el artículo 3,
apartado 17, de la DMR excluye expresamente la valorización energética de la definición de reciclado.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directiva 2008/98/CE (DO L 312 de 22.11.2008).

C 96 E / 284 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001391/12**

**to the Commission**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(7 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Criteria for the compilation of statistics on the management of end-of-life tyres

Recital 47 of Directive 2008/98/EC states that: ‘In particular, the Commission should be empowered to establish
criteria regarding a number of issues […] as well as to establish detailed rules on the application and calculation
methods for verifying compliance with the recycling targets set out in this directive’. Furthermore, Section 3.2 of
Commission communication COM(2011) 0571 stresses that ‘the Commission will […] review existing prevention,
re-use, recycling […] targets to move towards an economy based on re-use and recycling, with residual waste close to
zero’. At present, most end-of-life tyres are shredded; however, most of these shredded tyres are used for energy

recovery purposes.

Does the Commission consider that, for statistical purposes, shredded tyres used for energy recovery come under the
material recovery targets because of the fact that the tyres have been previously shredded, or do they instead come
under the energy recovery targets?

If they are considered to come under the energy recovery targets, what control mechanisms is the Commission
establishing to verify the actual use to which the shredded tyres are put?

Does the Commission think that it would be possible for all of a Member State’s end-of-life tyres to be used as fuel in
energy recovery plants and for that Member State then to indicate in its statistics that 100 % of its end-of-life tyres had
undergone material recovery, owing to the fact that they had been used in shredded form? Would such a statistical
report be correct?

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

_(23 March 2012)_

The Waste Framework Directive ( [1] ) (WFD) does not set out energy recovery targets. The recently adopted
Commission Decision 2011/753/EU establishes the calculation methods for verifying compliance with the recycling
targets set in Article 11 (2) of WFD. In any case, shredded tyres, if incinerated, cannot qualify for statistical purposes
as recycled as Article 3(17) of WFD expressly excludes energy recovery from the recycling definition.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2008/98/EC, OJ L 312, 22.11.2008.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 285

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-001392/12**

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

_(14 de febrero de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Regulación de los cosméticos

En la actualidad no existe en la Unión Europea una legislación que garantice el carácter natural o ecológico de los
cosméticos. Ante el auge en la demanda de este tipo de productos, gracias a una sociedad cada vez más concienciada
con el medio ambiente y el desarrollo sostenible y teniendo en cuenta las dificultades de los consumidores para
distinguir los productos auténticos de los que no lo son, conocer las diferencias entre denominaciones (natural,
ecológico, orgánico…) y obtener mayor información en lo referente a la formulación, etiquetado;

¿Tiene previsto la Comisión emprender una regulación en torno a la cosmética natural y ecológica que detalle los
requisitos a cumplir referentes a las sustancias permitidas y prohibidas, la proporción de ingredientes de origen
natural y orgánico, las normas de etiquetado, etc.?

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

_(20 de marzo de 2012)_

La definición de «producto cosmético» de la Directiva del Consejo 76/768/CEE ( [1] ) no distingue entre productos
cosméticos ecológicos o de otro tipo. En su artículo 6, apartado 3, obliga a los Estados miembros a tomar todas las
disposiciones pertinentes para que, en las etiquetas, en la presentación a la venta y en la publicidad referente a los
productos cosméticos no se utilicen textos, denominaciones, marcas, imágenes o cualquier otro símbolo figurativo o
no con el fin de atribuir a estos productos características de las que carecen.

Actualmente no existe legislación europea ni norma armonizada en la que se establezcan criterios para los
ingredientes utilizados en cosméticos ecológicos. En el Reglamento n° 1223/2009 ( [2] ) sobre los productos cosméticos
(Reglamento sobre cosméticos) se exige que la Comisión establezca, en cooperación con los Estados miembros, un
plan de acción para las declaraciones de propiedades utilizadas en relación con los cosméticos y fije prioridades para
determinar criterios comunes que justifiquen la utilización de dichas declaraciones.

En 2010 se creó un grupo de trabajo para determinar algunas categorías de declaraciones de propiedades en las que se
deberían utilizar determinados criterios comunes. El primer objetivo del grupo era desarrollar unos criterios generales
comunes aplicables a todos los tipos de declaraciones de propiedades en los cosméticos, incluidas las relativas a las
características ecológicas de los productos. Una vez que se hayan establecido los criterios generales, el grupo estudiará
si son necesarios criterios más específicos para las declaraciones de propiedades naturales y ecológicas.

En este contexto, se observó que, en la actualidad, está en curso la elaboración de una norma para cosméticos
naturales y ecológicos en la Organización Internacional de Normalización (ISO). Con el fin de evitar que la UE y la ISO
lleven a cabo el mismo trabajo, el grupo tendrá en cuenta el avance de los trabajos de la futura norma ISO y examinará
si conviene o no elaborar criterios específicos de la UE para las declaraciones de propiedades naturales y ecológicas.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) DO L 262 de 27.9.1976.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) DO L 342 de 22.12.2009.

C 96 E / 286 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001392/12**

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

_(14 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Regulation of cosmetics

At the present time, no legislation exists in the European Union that guarantees the natural or eco-friendly properties
of cosmetics. The demand for products of this kind is rising, thanks to society becoming increasingly aware of the
environment and sustainable development, but consumers have difficulty in distinguishing between products that are
authentic and those that are not, knowing the differences between designations (natural, eco-friendly, organic, etc.),
and obtaining more information about product formulation and labelling.

Does the Commission plan to enact a regulation on natural and eco-friendly cosmetics, detailing the requirements to
be met in terms of permitted and prohibited substances, the proportion of ingredients of natural and organic origin,
labelling rules, etc.?

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

_(20 March 2012)_

The definition of a cosmetic product in the Council Directive 76/768/EEC ( [1] ) does not distinguish between organic or
other types of cosmetic products. Its Article 6(3) requires Member States to take all measures necessary to ensure that,
in the labelling, putting up for sale and advertising of cosmetic products, text, names, trade marks, pictures and
figurative or other signs are not used to imply that these products have characteristics which they do not have.

There is currently no European legislation or harmonised standard which sets criteria for ingredients used in organic
cosmetics. Regulation 1223/2009 on cosmetic products ( [2] ) (Cosmetics Regulation) requires the Commission to
establish, in cooperation with Member States, an action plan regarding claims used in relation to cosmetics and to fix
priorities for determining common criteria justifying the use of such claims.

In 2010 a working group was established to identify some claim categories for which the use of specific common
criteria should apply. The first objective of the group was to develop common general criteria for all types of cosmetic
claims, including organic claims. Once general criteria are established, the group will consider whether more specific
criteria are necessary for natural and organic claims.

In this context, it was noted that an International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) standard for natural and
organic cosmetics is currently being developed. In order to avoid duplication of the work at the EU and ISO level, the
group will take into account the progress on the future ISO standard and will consider whether or not to develop EU
specific criteria for natural and organic claims.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 342, 22.12.2009.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 287

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-001393/12**

**à Comissão**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) e Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(14 de fevereiro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Privatização da Rede Elétrica Nacional

Pouco mais de um mês após o anúncio da venda da participação do Estado português na EDP, foi anunciada a venda
da quase totalidade da participação na Rede Elétrica Nacional (REN). Desta vez, entregou-se 25 % do capital da REN à
empresa chinesa State Grid e 15 % à empresa omanense Oman Oil, ficando assim, a partir deste momento, reduzida a
participação estatal nesta empresa estratégica nacional para 11,1 %. Estamos, assim, perante um inaceitável processo
de alienação, por parte do Estado, da quase totalidade das suas participações no setor elétrico nacional, a coberto do
programa FMI-UE. Isto, depois de terem sido efetuados investimentos avultados na rede elétrica nacional (só em 2010
esse investimento atingiu quase os 500 milhões de euros) e depois de, no período entre 2004 e 2010, a REN ter tido
lucros líquidos de 1 156 milhões de euros e, nos primeiros nove meses de 2011, de cerca de 96 milhões de euros.
Trata-se, com efeito, de uma empresa estratégica nacional altamente rentável, que atua clara e inequivocamente no
quadro de um monopólio natural.

Constituindo um profundo golpe na soberania nacional e nas possibilidades de desenvolvimento do país, esta
privatização significará a perda de dividendos e impostos por parte do Estado português, o aumento da saída de
dividendos para o estrangeiro, o aumento das tarifas da eletricidade e a insegurança e perda de direitos para os mais de
700 trabalhadores da empresa.

Em face do exposto, perguntamos à Comissão:

1. Como pode justificar que se imponha a privatização da REN, nos moldes acima mencionados e com todos os
prejuízos que daí decorrem para o país, para a sua população e para os trabalhadores?

2. Qual é a situação, em termos de propriedade social das empresas com as características da REN, operando no
quadro de um monopólio natural, em cada um dos restantes 26 Estados-Membros?

**Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão**

_(4 de abril de 2012)_

Portugal recebe neste momento uma substancial assistência financeira da UE, que se tornou necessária por os
mercados terem perdido confiança na sustentabilidade das finanças públicas portuguesas. Para recuperar essa
confiança, Portugal tem de reduzir consideravelmente o défice e a dívida públicos e de tomar medidas de grande
alcance que melhorem a competitividade da sua economia.

Muitas das empresas estatais portuguesas têm sido persistentemente deficitárias ao longo dos anos, constituindo
desse modo um peso significativo para as finanças públicas. Importa, pois, que essas empresas sejam reestruturadas e,
se possível, preparadas para a privatização. Se forem rentáveis, a sua privatização contribuirá para a melhoria das
finanças públicas que se impõe a curto prazo.

No caso específico da REN, a venda em curso de participações do Estado Português à State Grid e à Oman Oil pode ser
considerada um êxito em termos financeiros, porquanto as ofertas excederam as expectativas e culminaram em
acordos sobre financiamento adicional para futuros investimentos. No conjunto da UE, há exemplos de propriedade
privada e pública de redes elétricas. Conforme é do conhecimento dos Senhores Deputados, o terceiro «pacote da
energia» contém diversas opções para a dissociação entre a rede de transporte e a produção, sendo a dissociação da
propriedade uma das opções.

C 96 E / 288 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001393/12**

**to the Commission**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) and Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(14 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Privatisation of the National Electricity Grid

Barely a month after the announcement that the Portuguese Government is selling its stake in EDP comes the news
that it is to sell almost all of its shares in the National Electricity Grid (REN). This time, it is selling 25 % of REN’s
capital to the Chinese company State Grid and 15 % to the Omani company Oman Oil, thus reducing Portugal’s stake
in this strategic national industry to 11.1 %. The State is thus, quite unacceptably, unloading almost all of its shares in
the national electricity sector, under the umbrella of the IMF-EU programme. This is happening even after substantial
investment in the national electricity grid (nearly EUR 500 million in 2010 alone) and in spite of the fact that between
2004 and 2010, REN had liquid assets of EUR 1 156 million and in the first nine months of 2011, of approximately
EUR 96 million. REN is in effect a highly profitable strategic national enterprise which clearly and unequivocally
operates as a natural monopoly.

This privatisation is a serious blow to national sovereignty and to prospects for national development; it means the
Portuguese State will lose dividends and tax revenue, more dividends will flow abroad, electricity prices will rise and
the company workforce of more than 700 will face job insecurity and loss of rights.

1. How can the Commission justify the enforced privatisation of REN, in the way described above and with all the
damage that it will inflict on Portugal, its citizens and its workers?

2. What is the situation as regards public ownership of enterprises like REN, which operate as natural monopolies,
in the other 26 Member States?

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

_(4 April 2012)_

Portugal is currently receiving substantial financial assistance from the EU. Such assistance has become necessary
because markets have lost confidence in the sustainability of Portuguese public finances. To regain this confidence,
Portugal needs to reduce substantially its government deficit and debt and implement wide-ranging measures that
improve the competitiveness of its economy.

Many of the state-owned enterprises in Portugal have been persistent loss-makers in the past and thus exerted a
significant drag on public finances. It is therefore important that efforts are made to re-structure such companies and,
if feasible, make them ready for privatisation. To the extent that these enterprises are profitable, their privatisation will
contribute to the needed short-term improvement in the public finances.

In the specific case of REN, the ongoing sale of public stakes to State Grid and Oman Oil can be considered a success
in financial terms as the bids have exceeded expectations and were topped up by agreements on additional financing
for future investment. Across the EU, there are examples of both private and public ownership of electricity networks.
As the Honourable Members are aware of, the Third Energy Package provides for several options of unbundling the
transmission network from generation, with ownership unbundling being one of the options.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 289

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-001394/12**

**à Comissão (Vice-Presidente / Alta Representante)**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) e Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(14 de fevereiro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Repressão exercida sobre o movimento «Occupy» nos EUA

Nos EUA, a polícia californiana respondeu com violência a uma iniciativa pacífica, realizada sábado, dia 28 de janeiro,
pelo grupo «Occupy Oakland». Os participantes, cerca de duas mil pessoas, pretendiam ocupar um centro de
convenções abandonado para nele instalar a sede do movimento, alojar famílias desalojadas das suas casas pelos
bancos e trabalhadores que o desemprego e os salários de miséria empurraram para a rua. Estima-se que a execução
de hipotecas pelas entidades de crédito tenha deixado 2,2 milhões de pessoas sem teto desde 2007.

As duas tentativas de ocupação do edifício público, bem como de outros igualmente votados ao abandono no centro
da cidade, foram rechaçadas pela polícia com recurso a granadas de gás lacrimogéneo e balas de borracha. Cerca de
400 pessoas acabaram detidas.

Desde que foi desencadeado o chamado movimento «Occupy Wall Street», mais de seis mil norte‐americanos já foram
detidos nas ações de protesto (pacíficas) em mais de uma centena de cidades em todo o território.

Assim, perguntamos à Alta Representante:

1. Tem conhecimento destes acontecimentos?

2. Que avaliação faz da repressão que as autoridades dos EUA vêm exercendo contra organizações e cidadãos que,
em muitos estados deste país, contestam de forma pacífica políticas que têm conduzido a uma ainda maior
concentração da riqueza e ao retrocesso social?

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

_(27 de março de 2012)_

De acordo com a informação disponível, os acontecimentos a que os Senhores Deputados se referem não foram
apenas uma manifestação pacífica, mas também a destruição da vedação e de equipamento de construção no Centro
de Convenções Henry Kaiser, atualmente desafetado. O relatório indica também que foi forçada a entrada na Câmara
Municipal (City Hall) e as instalações vandalizadas.

A polícia local afirma que teve de intervir para proteger essas instalações e que alguns manifestantes foram presos por
não terem dispersado e por vandalismo. A legalidade das referidas detenções só pode ser determinada através de
processo judicial.

C 96 E / 290 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001394/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) and Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(14 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Repression of the ‘Occupy’ movement in the United States

On Saturday 28 January, the Californian police responded violently to a peaceful event organised by ‘Occupy
Oakland’ in the United States. About 2 000 people were attempting to occupy an abandoned convention centre in
order to establish a base for the movement. They also intended to house families evicted from their homes by the
banks and workers who have been forced onto the streets by unemployment and meagre salaries. It is estimated that
2.2 million people have made homeless since 2007 due to credit institutions foreclosing on mortgages.

The police countered the two attempts to occupy the public building, and others similarly abandoned in the city
centre, with tear gas grenades and rubber bullets. About 400 people were arrested.

Since the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ movement began, more than 6 000 Americans have been arrested at (peaceful)
protests in more than 100 cities across the country.

1. Is the High Representative aware of these events?

2. How does she view the repression that the US authorities are bringing to bear on the organisations and citizens
in many states who are peacefully challenging the policies which have driven wealth concentration to new extremes
and caused social regression?

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

_(27 March 2012)_

According to available reporting, the events to which the Honourable Members refer involved not just a peaceful
demonstration, but also the tearing down of perimeter fencing and the destruction of construction equipment at the
City's unused H. Kaiser Convention Center. They are also reported to have involved forced entry into the City Hall and
vandalizing of the premises.

The local police has stated that it intervened in order to protect these premises, and that some protesters were arrested
on charges of failure to disperse and vandalism. The legality of those arrests can only be determined by due judicial

process.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 291

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001396/12**

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

**Mario Mauro (PPE)**

_(7 febbraio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Bombardamenti in Siria

Questa mattina, 6 febbraio 2012, le forze siriane hanno nuovamente bombardato i quartieri di Homs, bastione della
rivolta contro il regime di Bashar al-Assad nel centro della Siria, provocando diverse vittime. In particolare, sono stati
colpiti i quartieri di Baba Amro e Inshaat. Gli attivisti dei Comitati hanno detto che vi è un grande numero di vittime
tra morti e feriti.

Nella notte tra venerdì e sabato, oltre 230 civili sono stati uccisi a Homs dall'esercito di Assad, secondo l'opposizione
siriana che ha parlato di massacro.

Considerata la risoluzione sulla situazione in Egitto e Siria, in particolare per quanto riguarda le comunità cristiane
(P7_TA(2011)0471) ( [1] ), votata il 27 ottobre 2011 dal Parlamento europeo, può il Vicepresidente/Alto
Rappresentante far sapere se sono state avviate delle politiche per porre fine alla continua repressione in Siria?

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

_(22 maggio 2012)_

L'UE ha condannato a più riprese i ripetuti e violenti attacchi e le sistematiche violazioni dei diritti umani commessi
dal regime siriano, che potrebbero costituire crimini contro l'umanità. L'Unione ha chiesto al regime di porre fine
immediatamente alle violenze e di astenersi da qualsiasi atto volto ad istigare conflitti tra etnie e religioni diverse.

Per aumentare la pressione sul regime siriano affinché si conformi a tali richieste, l'UE ha introdotto, nel maggio
2011, delle misure restrittive mirate, che sono state prorogate per 14 volte, e continuerà a imporre misure aggiuntive
fino a quando non terminerà la repressione. L'UE incoraggia la comunità internazionale ad unirsi ai suoi sforzi
nell'applicare e far osservare sanzioni nei confronti del regime siriano e dei suoi sostenitori.

L'UE sostiene a pieno Kofi Annan, inviato speciale dell'ONU e della Lega araba, al fine di trovare una soluzione alla
crisi siriana e accoglie favorevolmente la dichiarazione del presidente del Consiglio di sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite,
del 20 marzo 2012, a sostegno del piano in sei punti e della missione di Kofi Annan. L'accettazione del piano da parte
del regime siriano è un primo e promettente passo verso la fine dello spargimento di sangue nel paese. L'UE chiede al
regime di mantenere le promesse fatte mettendo in atto il piano in maniera completa.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2011-0471&language=IT.

C 96 E / 292 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001396/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Mario Mauro (PPE)**

_(7 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Bombings in Syria

This morning, 6 February 2012, Syrian forces again bombed the districts of Homs, a bastion of the revolt against the
Bashar al-Assad regime in the centre of Syria, leaving several casualties. Specifically, the districts of Baba Amro and
Inshaat were hit. Activists from local committees have said that there is a large number of victims, both killed and
wounded.

During Friday night, over 230 civilians were killed in Homs by Assad’s army, according to the Syrian opposition,
which dubbed it a massacre.

In the light of Parliament’s resolution of 27 October 2011 on the situation in Egypt and Syria, in particular of
Christian communities (P7_TA(2011)0471) ( [1] ), can the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative state
whether policy decisions have been adopted with a view to putting an end to the continued repression in Syria?

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

_(22 May 2012)_

The EU has consistently condemned the continued brutal attacks and systematic human rights violations by the
Syrian regime, which may amount to crimes against humanity. It has called on the Syrian regime to immediately
cease the violence and refrain from all acts aimed at inciting interethnic and inter-confessional conflict.

To increase pressure on the regime to comply with these requests, the EU introduced targeted restrictive measures
against the Syrian regime in May 2011, which have been extended 14 times. It will continue to impose additional
measures as long as repression continues. The EU encourages the international community to join its efforts to apply
and enforce sanctions on the Syrian regime and its supporters.

The EU fully supports the Joint UN-Arab League Envoy Kofi Annan to seek a settlement to the Syrian crisis. It
welcomes the UN Security Council's Presidential Statement of 20 March 2012, backing his mission and six point
plan. The acceptance of the plan by the Syrian regime is a first and promising step towards ending the bloodshed in
Syria. The EU calls on the regime to follow up on its promises by thoroughly implementing the plan.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2011-0471&language=EN.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 293

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001397/12**

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

**Mario Mauro (PPE)**

_(14 febbraio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Nigeria, attacco a un oleodotto

Dopo una tregua durata poco più di quattro mesi, sabato sera (4.2.2012) i militanti del MEND (Movement for the
Emancipation of the Niger Delta, il gruppo più importante che opera nelle zone petrolifere del sud della Nigeria),
hanno attaccato e distrutto un oleodotto dell'Agip a Brass, nello stato di Bayelsa in Nigeria. L'attentato è stato
rivendicato con un comunicato inviato ai giornali da un dirigente dell'organizzazione che usa il nome di battaglia di
Jomo Gbomo.

Secondo i militanti del MEND il presidente della Nigeria, Goodluck Jonathan, piuttosto che affrontare i gravi problemi
che affliggono il paese, sperpera fondi pubblici per delatori, spie e teppisti.

Il comunicato stampa del MEND si conclude con il seguente annuncio di nuovi attentati: «Consigliamo di prendere
molto sul serio i nostri prossimi avvisi di nuovi attacchi. Noi avvisiamo sempre per minimizzare le vittime civili e
forniamo tempo sufficiente per l'evacuazione». Il primo ottobre scorso (anniversario dell'indipendenza) il MEND
annunciò un attentato ad Abuja, capitale della Nigeria. Nessuno diede retta all'avviso e le bombe provocarono 12
morti.

Ciò premesso, può il Vice-Presidente/Alto Rappresentante rispondere ai seguenti quesiti:

1. è al corrente di questa vicenda?

2. Quali azioni intende intraprendere per risolvere le violenze che si stanno verificando nel paese?

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

_(2 luglio 2012)_

L’onorevole parlamentare fa giustamente notare che sussistono seri problemi di sicurezza nel delta del Niger.

L’UE è perfettamente a conoscenza della situazione nella regione ed è impegnata in un dialogo regolare con le autorità
nigeriane, come avvenuto in occasione dell’ultima riunione ministeriale Nigeria-UE tenutasi l’8 febbraio ad Abuja, in
cui il ministro degli Affari esteri danese, Villy Soevndal, ha fatto le veci dell’Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente
Catherine Ashton, mentre la Nigeria è stata rappresentata dal ministro degli Affari esteri, l’Ambasciatore Olugbenga
Ashiru. In seguito alla riunione è stato rilasciato un comunicato congiunto in cui si afferma quanto segue: «Le parti
sono concordi nel proseguire il dialogo e la cooperazione al fine di consolidare la pace e la stabilità nella regione del
delta del Niger e hanno sottolineato la necessità di continuare ad impegnarsi per realizzare a pieno il programma di
amnistia avviato dalle autorità nigeriane. Le parti sono inoltre concordi sulla necessità di intensificare gli sforzi per
affrontare la povertà e il degrado ambientale che affliggono la regione tenendo in debita considerazione la
responsabilità sociale delle imprese operanti sul territorio».

L’UE ha recentemente approvato un importante programma di sviluppo per il delta del Niger, nell’ambito del quale
sono stati impegnati 200 milioni di EUR per risolvere i problemi fondamentali dell’area, concentrandosi
particolarmente sulla creazione di occupazione, sui servizi sociali di base e sulla riconciliazione.

I ministri hanno inoltre concordato, in una prospettiva più generale, di adottare e applicare una politica comune di
lotta alla violenza, specialmente nei confronti dell’organizzazione Boko Haram.

C 96 E / 294 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001397/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Mario Mauro (PPE)**

_(14 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Attack on an oil pipeline in Nigeria

After a truce which had lasted just over four months, on the evening of Saturday, 4 February 2012 militants from the
MEND (Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta, the most important group operating in the oil-producing
areas in southern Nigeria) attacked and destroyed an Agip pipeline in Brass, in the state of Bayelsa, Nigeria.
Responsibility was claimed for the attack in a press release sent to newspapers by a leader of the organisation going by
the _nom de guerre_ of Jomo Gbomo.

According to the MEND militants, rather than dealing with the country’s serious problems, Nigeria’s President,
Jonathan Goodluck, is squandering public funds on informers, spies and thugs.

The MEND press release concludes with the following announcement of forthcoming attacks: ‘we recommend that
you take our next warnings of further attacks very seriously. We always give notice, in order to minimise civilian
casualties and provide sufficient time for evacuation’. On 1 October 2011 (the anniversary of independence), MEND
announced an attack in Abuja, Nigeria’s capital. No one heeded the warning and the bombs caused 12 deaths.

1. Is the Vice-President/High Representative aware of these events?

2. What action does she intend to take to put a stop to the violence in Nigeria?

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

_(2 July 2012)_

The Honourable Member is correct to point out that there are serious security problems in the Niger Delta.

The EU is very aware of the situation in the Niger Delta. It is regularly discussed with the Nigerian authorities, and
most recently in the context of the Nigeria-EU Ministerial meeting, which took place in Abuja on 8 February. High
Representative Ashton was represented by the Foreign Minister of Denmark, Mr Villy Soevndal, while Nigeria was
represented by Foreign Minister Ambassador Olugbenga Ashiru. The Joint Communique issued following the
Ministerial meeting Nigeria and the EU stated: ‘The Parties agreed to maintain their dialogue and cooperation with a
view to consolidating peace and stability in the Niger Delta region. They underlined the need to continue efforts to
fully implement the amnesty programme initiated by the Nigerian authorities. They agreed on the need to increase
efforts to tackle poverty and environmental degradation the region currently faces, with due regard to the corporate
social responsibility of the operating companies’.

The EU has recently approved a major development programme for the Niger Delta. More than EUR 200 M are being
mobilised to address the root problems Niger Delta with a focus on job creation, basic social services and
reconciliation.

More generally, the Ministers also agreed to devise and pursue a common approach to violence and notably to Boko
Haram.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 295

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001398/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Mario Mauro (PPE)**

_(7 febbraio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Senegal: muore un uomo durante le proteste contro il presidente

Un uomo è morto negli scontri a Dakar, in Senegal, dove i manifestanti dell'opposizione stanno protestando contro la
decisione della Corte costituzionale di permettere all'attuale presidente Abdoulaye Wade di candidarsi per un terzo
mandato. Secondo il sito _al-Arab online_ i manifestanti uccisi dalla polizia sarebbero tre.

L'uomo, riferisce la stazione radio Rfm, è stato investito da un blindato della polizia che cercava di farsi strada tra i
dimostranti. Gli agenti hanno inoltre sparato gas lacrimogeni contro i manifestanti che gridavano «Palazzo! Palazzo!»,
indicando l'intenzione di marciare verso il palazzo presidenziale. Il capo della polizia ha confermato la morte del
manifestante ma ha negato che sia stato ucciso dagli agenti.

Fino a oggi (1.2.2012) quattro persone sono morte nelle proteste, tra cui un poliziotto, lapidato dai dimostranti.

Pertanto si chiede alla Commissione:

1. è al corrente della situazione e delle violenze che si stanno verificando in Senegal?

2. quali politiche intende avviare per garantire la democrazia nel paese?

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

_(31 maggio 2012)_

L'Unione europea è partner di lunga data del Senegal e nutre sentimenti di amicizia per lo Stato e il popolo senegalese;
inoltre, le sta a cuore la pace, la stabilità e la democrazia in questo paese.

L'UE segue attentamente il processo elettorale in Senegal. A sostegno della trasparenza di tale processo, l'UE ha deciso
di inviare una missione di osservazione elettorale (MOE), guidata dall'osservatore capo on. Thijs Berman. La MOE
dell'UE invierà oltre 90 osservatori provenienti dalla maggioranza degli Stati membri e beneficerà del sostegno di una
delegazione di sette parlamentari. Il suo compito principale consiste nel monitorare l'intero processo, analizzarlo e
riferire in merito. L'UE esaminerà con attenzione le raccomandazioni della relazione, che costituirà una base per il
dialogo politico con il Senegal.

La delegazione dell'UE in Senegal sta sostenendo due progetti di osservazione elettorale interna, finanziati nell'ambito
del programma tematico per gli interlocutori non statali.

L'UE ha rilasciato due dichiarazioni sul processo elettorale: una dichiarazione dell'Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente
il 1 [o] gennaio 2012, all'inizio della MOE dell'UE, e una dichiarazione locale della delegazione dell'UE il 2 gennaio
2012, dopo la convalida della lista dei candidati da parte del Consiglio costituzionale. L'UE ha esortato tutte le parti ad
astenersi da qualsiasi atto di violenza, a fare ricorso al dialogo e a contribuire allo svolgimento di elezioni pacifiche.
L'UE ha sottolineato che l'esito delle elezioni deve rispecchiare pienamente la volontà del popolo senegalese. Nei
contatti periodici con le autorità senegalesi, il capo delegazione ha posto l'accento sull'esigenza di rispettare le libertà
fondamentali, tra cui il diritto di manifestare pacificamente, e ha espresso preoccupazione per le morti verificatesi
durante le dimostrazioni. Le autorità si sono impegnate pubblicamente a svolgere un'indagine completa.

L'UE continuerà a seguire attentamente le vicende.

C 96 E / 296 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001398/12**

**to the Commission**

**Mario Mauro (PPE)**

_(7 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Senegal: death of a man during protests against the President

A man died during clashes in Dakar, Senegal, where opposition demonstrators were protesting against the decision
by the constitutional court to allow the current president, Abdoulaye Wade, to stand for a third term. According to
the site _al-Arab online_, three protestors were killed by police.

The radio station Rfm reported that the man was hit by an armoured police vehicle that was trying to make its way
through the crowd of demonstrators. Officers also fired tear gas at the protestors, who were shouting ‘Palace! Palace!’,
indicating their intent to march towards the presidential palace. The chief of police, confirmed that a protestor had
died but denied that he had been killed by police officers.

To date (1 February 2012), four people have been killed during the protests, including a policeman who was stoned to
death by demonstrators.

Can the Commission therefore state:

1. Whether it is aware of this situation and of the violence occurring in Senegal?

2. What policies it intends to implement in order to safeguard democracy in that country?

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

_(31 May 2012)_

The EU is a long-standing partner and friend of Senegal and its people, and it is deeply attached to a peaceful, stable
and democratic Senegal.

The EU follows carefully the electoral process in Senegal. To support the transparency of this process, the EU has
deployed an Electoral Observation Mission (EOM), Chief Observer Member of Parliament Thijs Berman. The EU EOM
will send more than 90 observers coming from most of the EU Member States, and will benefit from the support of a
delegation of seven Members of Parliament. The main task of the EU EOM is to monitor the entire process, analyse it
and report. The EU will consider the recommendations of the report with attention, and will use it as a basis for
political dialogue with Senegal.

The EU Delegation in Senegal is providing support for two projects on domestic electoral observation, funded under
the thematic programme for Non State Actors.

The EU has issued two statements on the electoral process: High Representative/Vice-President Statement on
1st January 2012, at the start of the EU EOM, and local Statement by the EU Delegation on 2 January 2012, after the
validation of the list of candidates by the Constitutional Council. The EU has called on all parties to abstain from any
act of violence, resort to dialogue, and contribute to peaceful elections. The EU has underlined that the result of the
elections should reflect fully the will of the Senegalese people. In regular contacts with the Senegalese Authorities, the
Head of Delegation has emphasised the need to respect fundamental freedoms including the right to peaceful
demonstration and expressed concern regarding the deaths occurred during demonstrations. The authorities have
publicly committed to make a full enquiry.

The EU will continue to follow closely the events.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 297

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001400/12**

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

_(14 febbraio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Politiche e finanziamenti a favore degli anziani e delle strutture di assistenza nell'Anno europeo
dell'invecchiamento attivo e della solidarietà tra le generazioni

La popolazione mondiale di età maggiore a 60 anni è attualmente di 650 milioni, ma, secondo i dati disponibili, entro
il 2050 gli anziani nel mondo saranno 2 milioni.

Nello specifico, in Europa, dove dal 1960 l'aspettativa di vita è aumentata di ben 8 anni e si prevede aumenterà di altri
cinque, il numero delle persone oltre i 65 anni d'età crescerà del 70 % e quello degli ultraottantenni del 170 %.

Secondo l'Ufficio statistico europeo, nel 2060 ci saranno solo due lavoratori (persone tra 15 e 64 anni) per ogni
persona di età maggiore ai 65 anni, rispetto all'attuale rapporto di 4:1.

L'apice della situazione si avrà tra il 2015 e il 2035 quando i _baby boomer_ andranno in pensione.

Con una popolazione che invecchia, bassi tassi di natalità e una forza lavoro proporzionalmente in diminuzione,
l'Unione dovrà confrontarsi con una maggiore domanda di assistenza, adattando i sistemi sanitari alle esigenze della
popolazione anziana e attuando politiche di integrazione, accompagnamento e supporto durante questo periodo
della vita, fatte salve le responsabilità di mantenere sostenibili i costi del welfare sociale per le giovani generazioni.

Considerando che il 2012 è l'Anno europeo dell'invecchiamento attivo e della solidarietà tra le generazioni e che la
salute rientra tra le priorità della nuova Presidenza del Consiglio dell'Unione europea, può la Commissione far sapere:

1. quali sono le iniziative europee a sostegno delle popolazioni anziane;

2. quali sono gli strumenti e le politiche a sostegno delle associazioni e delle strutture che forniscono assistenza e
cura per gli anziani;

3. quali azioni intende intraprendere per far fronte e sostenere l'invecchiamento della popolazione europea;

4. qual è il quadro generale.

**Risposta data da Laszlo Andor a nome della Commissione**

_(2 aprile 2012)_

L'invecchiamento della popolazione presenta grandi sfide per le società in Europa e per i sistemi previdenziali ed è una
problematica critica per l'Unione nel suo insieme.

L'elaborazione di misure specifiche rientra nelle competenze degli Stati membri, ma il livello europeo è chiamato a
svolgere un ruolo che va dalla sensibilizzazione alla concezione di un quadro generale — per il tramite del metodo di
coordinamento aperto — fino all'erogazione di un sostegno finanziario attraverso il Fondo sociale europeo e alla
formulazione di raccomandazioni specifiche all'indirizzo degli Stati membri durante il semestre europeo nel contesto
della strategia Europa 2020.

La Commissione ha adottato un Libro bianco relativo a pensioni adeguate, sicure e sostenibili ( [1] ). Esso evoca la
necessità di esaminare l'adeguatezza e la sostenibilità dei nostri sistemi pensionistici in un'ottica d'interesse comune,
ribadendo nel contempo che tale sfera rientra comunque nella responsabilità precipua degli Stati membri.

L'Anno europeo dell'invecchiamento attivo e della solidarietà tra le generazioni si prefigge di dare rilievo alle sfide
poste dall'invecchiamento demografico e di incoraggiare nuove iniziative atte a promuovere l'invecchiamento attivo a
tutti i livelli di governance come anche nelle imprese ( [2] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=752&newsId=1194&furtherNews=yes.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://europa.eu/ey2012/ey2012main.jsp?catId=972&langId=en.

C 96 E / 298 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

La Commissione ha avviato un'iniziativa pilota denominata Partenariato europeo per l'innovazione a favore
dell'invecchiamento attivo e sano. Il partenariato identifica un numero limitato di azioni da avviarsi già nel 2012 al
fine di migliorare lo stato di salute e la qualità della vita dei cittadini europei, con un'attenzione particolare per gli
anziani ( [3] ).

La Commissione appoggia gli sforzi degli Stati membri con numerose iniziative (ad esempio il programma
Grundtvig ( [4] ), un progetto di scambio di volontari anziani).

Due imminenti relazioni, una del comitato di Politica economica e una del comitato per la Protezione sociale
esamineranno l'impatto dell'invecchiamento sulla sostenibilità delle finanze pubbliche.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/index_en.cfm?section=active-healthy-ageing.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/education/grundtvig/doc986_en.htm

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 299

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001400/12**

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

_(14 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Policies and funding benefiting the elderly and care facilities in the European Year for Active Ageing and
Solidarity between Generations

The global population of people over 60 years of age is currently 650 million, but according to available data, by
2050 the elderly will number 2 billion.

Specifically in Europe, where life expectancy has risen by some 8 years since 1960 and is predicted to rise by another
5, the number of people over 65 years of age will increase by 70 % and of those over 80 by 170 %.

According to the European Statistical Office, in 2060 there will only be two workers (people aged between 15 and
64) for each person over 65, compared with the current ratio of 4:1.

The situation will peak between 2015 and 2035 as the ‘baby boomers’ retire.

With an ageing population, low birth rates and a work force that is getting smaller proportionally, the Union will
have to deal with an increasing demand for care, adapting healthcare systems to the challenges of the elderly
population and carrying out policies of integration, care and support during this stage of life, without prejudice to the
responsibility of keeping social welfare costs sustainable for the younger generation.

Considering that 2012 is the European Year for Active Ageing and Solidarity between Generations and that health
falls within the priorities of the new Presidency of the Council of the European Union,

1. What European initiatives exist to support the elderly population?

2. What instruments and policies exist to support the associations and facilities that provide care and assistance for
the elderly?

3. What action does the Commission intend to take to deal with and support the ageing population in Europe?

4 Would the Commission provide a general overview of the situation?

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

_(2 April 2012)_

Population ageing poses great challenges to European societies and social welfare systems and it is a critical issue for
the Union as a whole.

The design of specific measures falls in the competence of Member States but the European level has its role to play,
starting from awareness raising and designing a general framework — through the open method of coordination —
up to providing financial support through the European Social Fund and making specific recommendations to
Member States during the European Semester in the context of the Europe 2020 strategy.

The Commission adopted a White Paper on adequate, safe and sustainable pensions ( [1] ). It reflects the need to consider
the adequacy and sustainability of our pension systems as a matter of common concern, while underlining that this
remains primarily a responsibility of the Member States.

The European Year for Active Ageing and Solidarity between Generations seeks to highlight the challenges posed by
population ageing and to foster new initiatives to promote active ageing at all levels of governance as well as in
companies ( [2] ).

The Commission has launched the pilot European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing. The
Partnership identifies a limited number of actions that will start as early as 2012, which aim to improve the health
status and quality of life of European citizens, with a particular focus on older people ( [3] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=752&newsId=1194&furtherNews=yes.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://europa.eu/ey2012/ey2012main.jsp?catId=972&langId=en.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/index_en.cfm?section=active-healthy-ageing.

C 96 E / 300 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

The Commission supports efforts in Member States with various initiatives (e.g. the Grundtvig programme ( [4] ), a
senior volunteering exchange project).

Two forthcoming reports, one by the Economic Policy Committee and one by the Social Protection Committee, will
look at the impact of ageing on the sustainability of public finances.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/education/grundtvig/doc986_en.htm

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 301

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-001402/12**
**an die Kommission (Vizepräsidentin / Hohe Vertreterin)**

**Hans-Peter Martin (NI)**

_(14. Februar 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ VP/HR — Übersicht über das Umweltpolitikprogramm EU-China

Das am 30. November 2009 vereinbarte Umweltpolitikprogramm EU-China („EU-China Environmental Governance
Programme“, EGP) ( [1] ) wird vom Europäischen Auswärtigen Dienst mit 15 Mio. EUR zu 80 Prozent finanziert ( [2] ). Es
wird von der Forschungsstelle für Umwelt‐ und Wirtschaftspolitik des chinesischen Ministeriums für Umweltschutz
implementiert.

1. Kann die Vizepräsidentin/Hohe Vertreterin einen Überblick über die aktuellen und derzeit geplanten
Aktivitäten sowie eventuell veröffentlichte Publikationen des EGP geben?

2. Wie viele Mitarbeiter hat das EGP derzeit und wie viele Mitarbeiter sind vorgesehen?

3. Aus welchen Gründen wird das größtenteils von der EU finanzierte Programm von der Forschungsstelle eines
chinesischen Ministeriums implementiert?

4. Werden alle für das EGP in Auftrag gegebenen oder vom EGP finanzierten Studien und Analysen veröffentlicht?

**Antwort von Frau Catherine Ashton — Hohe Vertreterin/Vizepräsidentin im Namen der Kommission**

_(10. Mai 2012)_

Für das EU-China-Programm für verantwortungsvolles Umweltmanagement (EGP) werden EU-Mittel aus dem
Finanzierungsinstrument für die Entwicklungszusammenarbeit bereitgestellt. In der Anfangsphase wurden
Beratungen über Programmthemen, Befragungen von NRO, Konsultationen mit dem Ministerium für Umweltschutz
über verantwortungsvolles Umweltmanagement und eine Studie über die Umweltvorschriften in China organisiert.

Für 2012 sind Politikdialog-Seminare, vergleichende Studien über Umweltüberwachung und öffentliche
Berichterstattung, Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfungen unter Beteiligung der Öffentlichkeit, strategische
Umweltbewertungen und Planung, die Einführung neuer Methoden zur Bewertung von Umweltschäden, freiwillige
Umweltschutzmaßnahmen der Unternehmen und anschließende Schulungen zu den Ergebnissen, eine nationale
Konferenz zur Darlegung der Ergebnisse, eine regionale Konferenz zur Koordinierung der Projekte sowie ein Seminar
für Journalisten über Umweltberichterstattung geplant.

Das Personal des EGP umfasst einen Projektdirektor, einen stellvertretenden Projektdirektor, einen Teamleiter für
Technische Hilfe (Vollzeit), eine Fachkraft für verantwortungsvolles Umweltmanagement (Teilzeit), eine Fachkraft für
Kommunikation und Sichtbarkeit (Teilzeit) sowie fünf bis sechs Hilfskräfte. Kurzzeitexperten sind ebenfalls
vorgesehen.

Das Forschungszentrum als solches erhält keine Mittel der EU. Das Vorhaben wird von einer Projekt-Taskforce
durchgeführt, die dem chinesischen Ministerium für Umweltschutz untersteht und von einem von der EU
finanzierten Team für Technische Hilfe unterstützt wird. Die EU-Mittel für dieses Programm werden den
Partnerschaftsprojekten EU-China zur Demonstration vorbildlicher Verfahren im Bereich des Umweltmanagements
zugewiesen.

Um die Beteiligung der Öffentlichkeit am Entscheidungsprozess in China zu fördern, werden alle EGP-Studien und
sonstige Materialien auf der EGP-Website veröffentlicht, die zurzeit eingerichtet wird.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Gemeinsame Erklärung des 12. Gipfeltreffens EU-China: http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjdt/2649/t630507.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Europäischer Auswärtiger Dienst: http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/china/projects/list_of_projects/19804_en.htm

C 96 E / 302 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001402/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Hans-Peter Martin (NI)**

_(14 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Overview of the EU‐China environmental policy programme

The EU‐China environmental policy programme agreed on 30 November 2009 (‘EU‐China Environmental
Governance Programme’, EGP) ( [1] ) is 80 % funded by the European External Action Service with EUR 15 million ( [2] ). It
is being implemented by the Research Centre for Environmental and Economic Policy of the Chinese Ministry for
Environmental Protection.

1. Can the Vice-President/High Representative offer an overview of current and planned activities and any
publications issued by the EGP?

2. How many people are currently employed by the EGP and what staffing levels are planned?

3. Why is this mainly EU‐funded plan being implemented by a research centre operated by a Chinese Ministry?

4. Will all the studies and analyses commissioned from the EGP or financed by the EGP be published?

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

_(10 May 2012)_

The EU‐China Environmental Governance Programme (EGP) receives EU funding under the Development and
Cooperation Instrument. During the inception phase: consultations on programme themes, consultation of NGOs,
consultations with the Ministry of Environmental Protection on Environmental Governance, a China Environmental
Legislation Study were organised.

For 2012: policy dialogue seminars, comparative studies on environmental monitoring and public reporting, public
participation in environmental impact assessments, strategic environmental assessments and planning,
environmental damage assessment methodologies, voluntary corporate environmental behaviour, followed by
trainings on findings; a national conference presenting outputs, a regional conference for coordination of projects
and a seminar for journalists on environmental reporting are planned.

Employed by the EGP are a Project Director, Project Deputy Director, a Technical Assistance Team Leader (full time),
an Environmental Governance expert (part-time), a communication and Visibility expert (part-time) and 5-6 support
staff. Short term experts are also foreseen.

The research centre as such does not receive EU funding. The project is implemented by a Project Task Force under
the Chinese Ministry of Environmental Protection supported by a Technical Assistance Team, funded by the EU. EU
funds for this programme are allocated to EU‐China partnership projects for the demonstration of good practice in
environmental governance.

In order to promote public participation in decision-making in China, all EGP studies and material will be made
available on the EGP website, currently under construction.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Joint Declaration from the 12th EU‐China Summit: http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjdt/2649/t630507.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) European Action Service: http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/china/projects/list_of_projects/19804_en.htm

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 303

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-001403/12**

**an die Kommission**

**Hans-Peter Martin (NI)**

_(14. Februar 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Unterstützung für China in den Bereichen Energie und Klimawandel

1. Kann die Kommission einen Überblick darüber geben, welche finanzielle Unterstützung die Volksrepublik
China in den letzten fünf Jahren in den Bereichen Energie und Klimawandel durch die EU oder eine ihrer
Unterorganisationen erhalten hat?

2. Kann die Kommission einen Überblick darüber geben, welche technologische Unterstützung die Volksrepublik
China in den letzten fünf Jahren in den Bereichen Energie und Klimawandel durch die EU oder eine ihrer
Unterorganisationen erhalten hat?

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

_(10. April 2012)_

Die Kommission unterstützt die Politik der Volksrepublik China in den Bereichen Energie (Energieeffizienz, saubere
Energie, erneuerbare Energie) und Klimawandel seit 2007 mit Geldern aus dem EU-Haushalt. Hierfür wurden bisher
schätzungsweise 30 Mio. EUR bereitgestellt.

Zu den wichtigsten geförderten Initiativen gehören: 1) die Einrichtung des europäisch-chinesischen Zentrums für
saubere Energie im Jahr 2009, 2) das europäisch-chinesische Institut für saubere und erneuerbare Energie,
3) Maßnahmen zum Kapazitätsaufbau für den chinesischen Emissionshandel sowie das europäisch-chinesische
Projekt zur Förderung der Umsetzung des „Mechanismus für umweltverträgliche Entwicklung“ in China.

Darüber hinaus wird auch die Organisation von Workshops und bilateralen Treffen unterstützt, um zu einem
besseren gegenseitigen Verständnis der Politik und der Strategien für eine umweltverträgliche und nachhaltige
Entwicklung beizutragen.

Außerdem wurden im Hinblick auf die etwaige Errichtung einer weitgehend emissionsfreien kohlebefeuerten
Demonstrationsanlage in China EU-Forschungsmittel für gemeinsame Forschungs‐ und Entwicklungsmaßnahmen
gewährt.

C 96 E / 304 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001403/12**

**to the Commission**

**Hans-Peter Martin (NI)**

_(14 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Support for China in the areas of energy and climate change

1. Can the Commission offer an overview of the financial support the People’s Republic of China has received
from the EU or one of its organisations in the areas of energy and climate change in the last five years?

2. Can the Commission offer an overview of the technological support the People’s Republic of China has received
from the EU or one of its organisations in the areas of energy and climate change in the last five years?

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

_(10 April 2012)_

The Commission has provided support from the EU budget for the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) policies in the
domains of energy (energy efficiency, clean energy, renewable energies) and climate change since 2007. This support
is estimated at around EUR 30 million.

Some of the main initiatives being supported are: (1) the setting up in 2009 of the China-EU Clean Energy Centre; (2)
the EU‐China Institute for Clean and Renewable Energy; (3) Capacity building for the development of China’s
emission trading; and the EU‐China Clean Development Mechanism Facilitation Project.

Moreover, support is also provided to organise workshops and bilateral meetings to improve mutual understanding
of respective clean development policies and sustainable development strategies.

Finally, funds from the EU budget for research have also been invested in joint research and development activities for
a possible future Near Zero Emissions Coal-fired demonstration plant in the PRC.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 305

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-001404/12**
**an die Kommission (Vizepräsidentin / Hohe Vertreterin)**

**Hans-Peter Martin (NI)**

_(14. Februar 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ VP/HR — Aktivitäten des EU-China-Instituts für saubere und erneuerbare Energieträger

Das vom Europäischen Auswärtigen Dienst mit 10 Mio. EUR zu 70,52 Prozent finanzierte EU-China-Institut für
saubere und erneuerbare Energieträger („EU-China Institute for Clean and Renewable Energy“, ICARE) soll jährlich
ca. 150 Studenten im Bereich erneuerbare Energieträger ausbilden.

1. Kann die Vizepräsidentin/Hohe Vertreterin einen Überblick über die a) abgeschlossenen, b) aktuellen und
c) derzeit geplanten Aktivitäten geben?

2. Wie viele Mitarbeiter hat das ICARE derzeit?

3. Wie weit ist die Einrichtung des Unterrichtsortes fortgeschritten?

4. Wie viele Studenten werden derzeit am ICARE unterrichtet bzw. wann werden die ersten Studenten ihr
Studium beginnen?

**Antwort von Frau Catherine Ashton — Hohe Vertreterin/Vizepräsidentin im Namen der Kommission**

_(10. Mai 2012)_

1. Die Aktivitäten des EU-China-Instituts für saubere und erneuerbare Energien (Institute for Clean And
Renewable Energy, ICARE) umfassen drei Komponenten: 1) den Masterstudiengang, 2) die Berufsausbildung und
3) die Forschungsplattform. Die Umsetzung dieser drei Komponenten ist ein fortlaufender Prozess, der sich über die
ganze Projektdauer erstreckt und sich über die Laufzeit des Projekts hinaus institutionalisieren soll. Deshalb können
die Aktivitäten nicht als abgeschlossen, aktuell oder geplant eingestuft werden. Jede Komponente gliedert sich in
zahlreiche Unteraktivitäten. Die Umsetzung der Komponenten 2) und 3) verzögert sich aufgrund des laufenden
Verfahrens zur Genehmigung von ICARE durch das chinesische Bildungsministerium.

2. ICARE hat zwölf Mitarbeiter, die voll‐ oder teilzeitbeschäftigt sind. Für den Masterstudiengang haben bereits
mehr als 30 europäische Gastprofessoren von verschiedenen Mitgliedern des Konsortiums der europäischen
Partneruniversitäten Vorlesungen gehalten.

3. Die Analyse des Bedarfs der lokalen und internationalen Unternehmen wird derzeit durchgeführt. Die
Marktanalyse wurde bereits durchgeführt und das erste Programm soll noch im Jahr 2012 vorliegen.

4. Derzeit nehmen 139 Studierende (42 M2 und 97 M1) am Masterstudiengang teil. Die Berufsausbildung, die
sich an Fachleute richtet, beginnt erst nach der offiziellen Genehmigung von ICARE durch das chinesische
Bildungsministerium.

C 96 E / 306 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001404/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Hans-Peter Martin (NI)**

_(14 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — The activities of the EU‐China Institute for Clean and Renewable Energy

The EU‐China Institute for Clean and Renewable Energy (ICARE), which receives EUR 10 million, or 70.52 %, of its
funding from the European External Action Service, is to train around 150 students in the area of renewable energy

per year.

1. Can the Vice‐ President/High Representative offer an overview of (a) the activities completed so far, (b) ongoing
activities, and (c) planned future activities?

2. How many people are currently employed by ICARE?

3. How much progress has been made in setting up the training centre?

4. How many students are currently receiving training from ICARE, or rather, when are the first students due to
start their studies?

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

_(10 May 2012)_

1. ICARE (Institute for Clean And Renewable Energy) has three components of activities: 1) master programme, 2)
vocational training and 3) research platform. The implementation of the three components is an ongoing process
throughout the project duration and is expected to institutionalize beyond the project's lifetime. Therefore the
activities cannot be defined as completed, ongoing or future. Under each component, there are many sub activities.
The implementation of components 2) and 3) has faced some delays, due to the ongoing approval process of ICARE
by the Chinese Ministry of Education (MoE).

2. Twelve people are employed, full and/or part time. For the Master programme more than 30 European visiting
professors already came for lectures from different consortium members of European partner universities.

3. Analysis of the needs of local and international companies is ongoing. Market analysis has been realised and the
first programme is expected to be delivered in 2012.

4. Currently master courses have 139 graduate students (42 M2 and 97 M1).The vocational training component
focusing to practitioners will only to start after the official approval of ICARE by the MoE.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 307

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-001405/12**
**an die Kommission (Vizepräsidentin / Hohe Vertreterin)**

**Hans-Peter Martin (NI)**

_(14. Februar 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ VP/HR — Diskussion über mögliche Zwangsmaßnahmen gegen Fluggesellschaften

Der Direktor der chinesischen Luftfahrtbehörde CAAC, Li Jiaxiang, hat angekündigt, Zwangsabgaben gegen
europäische Fluggesellschaften zu verhängen, falls chinesische Fluggesellschaften dazu gezwungen werden,
Emissionszertifikate zu kaufen, beziehungsweise wenn sie sanktioniert werden, weil sie keine Zertifikate kaufen.

1. Befindet sich die Hohe Vertreterin in Gesprächen mit chinesischen Vertretern der Volksrepublik China, um eine
solche Zwangsabgabe zu verhindern?

2. Werden Zwangsabgaben im Allgemeinen und diese angedrohten Zwangsmaßnahmen gegen Fluggesellschaften
im Speziellen in den derzeitigen Verhandlungen über ein neues Partnerschafts‐ und Kooperationsabkommen
zwischen der EU und China thematisiert? Wenn ja, in welcher Weise?

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

_(25. April 2012)_

1. Die Kommission hat im vergangenen Jahr einen Dialog mit China eingeleitet und misst der Fortsetzung
konstruktiver Diskussionen große Bedeutung bei. Einzelheiten kann der Herr Abgeordnete der Antwort der
Kommission auf die schriftliche Anfrage E-001681/2012 ( [1] ) entnehmen.

2. Das Partnerschafts‐ und Kooperationsabkommen, über das die EU und China derzeit verhandeln, soll einen
allgemeinen Rahmen für die Zusammenarbeit zwischen den Parteien, u. a. im Bereich Umweltschutz und
Klimawandel, schaffen.

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

C 96 E / 308 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001405/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Hans-Peter Martin (NI)**

_(14 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Discussion of possible coercive measures against airlines

The Director of the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC), Li Jiaxiang, has announced plans to impose
mandatory levies on European airlines if Chinese airlines are forced to purchase emissions certificates, or if sanctions
are imposed on them for failing to purchase certificates.

1. Is the High Representative engaged in talks with representatives of the People’s Republic of China aimed at
preventing such mandatory levies?

2. Is the question of mandatory levies in general, and these threatened mandatory levies against airlines in
particular, to be raised in the current negotiations on a new Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the EU
and China? If so, in what way?

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

_(25 April 2012)_

1. The Commission started a dialogue with the Chinese authorities last year and believes it is important to
continue with constructive discussions. For further details, it would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to
Written Question E‐001681/2012 ( [1] ).

2. The Partnership and Cooperation Agreement under negotiation between the EU and China aims at establishing
a general framework for the cooperation between the parties including in the area of environment and climate
change.

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

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 309

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-001406/12**

**an die Kommission**

**Hans-Peter Martin (NI)**

_(14. Februar 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Forschungsförderung durch Publikationen

Eine der Zielsetzungen der EU ist, die Forschung und Forscher innerhalb der EU zu fördern. Es ist für die einzelnen
Institutionen oder Forscher allerdings noch immer teuer und schwierig, ihre Forschungsergebnisse zu veröffentlichen,
da wissenschaftliche Zeitschriften hohe Preise verlangen und komplizierte Bedingungen stellen.

1. Welche Maßnahmen unternimmt die Kommission derzeit, um die Veröffentlichung von
Forschungsergebnissen zu erleichtern?

2. Sieht die Kommission eine Möglichkeit, eigene — digitale oder gedruckte — wissenschaftliche Publikationen
herauszugeben oder existierende Publikationen zu unterstützen, um die Kosten für die Veröffentlichung von
Forschung zu reduzieren und den Aufwand für die Wissenschaftler zu verringern?

3. Wenn ja, plant die Kommission entsprechende Maßnahmen oder überlegt sie, eine entsprechende Initiative auf
den Weg zu bringen? Welche Pläne existieren dafür bisher?

**Antwort von Frau Geoghegan-Quinn im Namen der Kommission**

_(20. März 2012)_

Die Europäische Kommission unterstützt die Verbreitung von Forschungsergebnissen durch eine Finanzierung
innerhalb der Projekte, die dazu dient, die Ergebnisse aktiv zu verbreiten (etwa durch Konferenzen, Workshops,
Webseiten/Applikationen etc.). Daneben organisiert die Kommission selbst Veranstaltungen, um die
Forschungsergebnisse bekannt zu machen, veröffentlicht „Erfolgsgeschichten“, Wirkungsstudien, Strategiepapiere
sowie Berichte zur Überprüfung der Strategien und ermöglicht einen Online-Zugang zu den Projekt‐Ergebnissen über
die Webseite der Kommission ( [1] ).

Die Kommission schätzt das Fachwissen wissenschaftlicher Verlage (insbesondere im Zusammenhang mit den PeerReview-Verfahren), verlegt aber selbst solche Publikationen nicht. Gleichwohl unterstützt die Kommission das OpenAccess-Konzept (OA), das heißt den offenen Zugang zu Forschungsergebnissen im Internet. 2008 hat die
Kommission ein Pilotprojekt zur Einstellung von Artikeln in OA-Verzeichnisse gestartet, um den offenen Zugang zu
Erkenntnissen aus ausgewählten Forschungsbereichen des Siebten Rahmenprogramms für Forschung und
technologische Entwicklung (RP7, 2007-2013) zu ermöglichen. Die von der EU finanzierte OpenAIREInfrastruktur ( [2] ) bietet offenen Zugang zu Artikeln, die von Experten (Peer Review) überprüft wurden und unterhält
außerdem ein Netzwerk von Open‐Access‐Helpdesks in allen Mitgliedstaaten. Außerdem sind die Kosten, die durch
eine Veröffentlichung von entsprechenden Artikeln in Open-Access-Zeitschriften („Gold Open Access“) entstehen,
innerhalb des Siebten Rahmenprogramms für Forschung und technologische Entwicklung (RP7) erstattungsfähig.

Bezüglich weiterer Schritte wird die Kommission:

—
darauf hinarbeiten, den offen Zugang zu Publikationen zu einem allgemeinen Prinzip für alle EU-finanzierten
Projekte von „Horizont 2020“ zu machen;

—
die Bestimmungen und Bedingungen für OA zu Forschungsdaten festlegen;

—
2012 dem Rat eine Mitteilung und Empfehlung zum offenem Zugang (OA) zu wissenschaftlichen
Informationen und deren Erhaltung vorlegen;

—
weiter daran arbeiten, OA in das Rahmenprogramm des Europäischen Forschungsraums (EFR) zu integrieren.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://cordis.europa.eu/results/home_de.html (veröffentlichbare zusammenfassende Berichte, die volle Verfügbarkeit der bestehenden RP6‐ und

RP7-Berichte wird für Ende 2012 erwartet) http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/ (das „Joint Research Centre's Publications Repository“).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.openaire.eu/en

( **|**

C 96 E / 310 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001406/12**

**to the Commission**

**Hans-Peter Martin (NI)**

_(14 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Promoting research through publications

One of the objectives of the EU is to encourage research and researchers within the EU. However, it is still expensive
and difficult for individual institutions or researchers to publish the results of their research because academic
journals demand high prices and impose complicated conditions.

1. What steps are currently being taken by the Commission to make it easier to publish research results?

2. Does the Commission see any way in which it could publish its own academic publications — in either digital
or printed form — or support existing publications in order to cut the costs involved in publishing research and to
reduce the effort required from academics?

3. If so, is the Commission planning to implement such measures, or is it considering establishing such an
initiative? What plans exist to date in this direction?

**Answer given by Ms Geoghegan-Quinn on behalf of the Commission**

_(20 March 2012)_

The Commission supports the dissemination of research results by providing funding within the projects to actively
disseminate the results (e.g. via conferences, workshops, websites/applications, etc.). Moreover the Commission itself
organises events to promote the results, publishes success stories, impact studies, policy briefs and policy reviews and
provides online access to the projects' results via the Commission website ( [1] ).

The Commission recognises the expertise of scientific publishers (in particular in the peer-review process) but is not
active as a publisher of such publications. Nevertheless, the Commission supports open access (OA) i.e. the free
online access to research results. In 2008, the Commission launched a pilot for the deposition of articles in OA
repositories thus providing free online access to knowledge produced by selected research areas in the Seventh
Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7, 2007-2013). The OpenAIRE ( [2] )
infrastructure, funded by the EU, provides free access to peer-reviewed articles and also supports a network of open
access helpdesks in all Member States. Additionally, costs for publishing peer reviewed articles in open access journals
(‘gold open access’), are eligible for reimbursement in the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7).

Regarding further steps, the Commission:

—
aims to make open access to publications the general principle for all EU funded projects in Horizon 2020;

—
will define terms and conditions for OA to research data;

—
will present in 2012 a communication and Recommendation to the Council on OA to and preservation of
scientific information;

—
is working on integrating OA in the European Research Area (ERA) framework.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://cordis.europa.eu/results/home_en.html (publishable summary reports, full availability of existing FP6 and FP7 reports expected by the end

of 2012), http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/ (the Joint Research Centre's Publications Repository).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.openaire.eu/en.

( **|**

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 311

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-001407/12**

**an die Kommission**

**Hans-Peter Martin (NI)**

_(14. Februar 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Überwachungsmaßnahmen für Fischbestände

In ihrer Antwort auf die Anfrage E-011404/2011 von Hans-Peter Martin schreibt Kommissarin Damanaki im Namen
der Kommission: „Die [Fisch]bestände sollten deshalb überwacht werden, um Veränderungen zu erkennen, die sich
auf die Fischsterblichkeit auswirken und darum Anpassungen der Bewirtschaftungspläne erforderlich machen
könnten“.

1. Gibt es derzeit solche Überwachungsmaßnahmen auf EU-Ebene? Wenn nicht, wird die Kommission eine solche
Überwachungsmaßnahme vorschlagen?

2. Welche Überwachungsmaßnahmen auf nationalstaatlicher Ebene oder im privatwirtschaftlichen Bereich
innerhalb der EU sind der Kommission bekannt?

3. Welche internationalen Überwachungsmaßnahmen gibt es für Fischbestände und in welcher Form ist die
Kommission daran beteiligt?

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

_(15. März 2012)_

Die Fischbestände in EU-Gewässern überwachen Wissenschaftler der Mitgliedstaaten, die im Internationalen Rat für
Meeresforschung (ICES) und im Allgemeinen Rat für die Fischerei im Mittelmeer (GFCM) zusammenarbeiten. Die
meisten Fischbestände werden im Jahresturnus überwacht. Erforderlichenfalls tritt der Wissenschafts-, Technik‐ und
Wirtschaftsausschuss für die Fischerei (STECF) beratend hinzu und stellt sicher, dass sich die einschlägigen Tätigkeiten
von ICES, GFCM und STECF nicht überschneiden.

Die Überwachung stützt sich auf die nationalen Fangberichte der Mitgliedstaaten, biologische Stichproben bei
Anlandungen und Rückwürfen und umfassende Erhebungen über die marinen Ressourcen durch Forschungsschiffe,
die die üblichen Fanggeräte oder hydroakustische oder sonstige besondere Verfahren anwenden.

Die Kommission unterstützt die internationale Überwachung, indem sie die Erhebung der biologischen Stichproben
im Rahmen der Datenerhebungsregelung zu 50 % kofinanziert, Mittel für die ICES-Programme für wissenschaftliche
Beratung und die Tätigkeiten des STECF bereitstellt sowie zur Mittelausstattung des GFCM beiträgt.

[Die Ergebnisse der Überwachung sind auf folgenden Internetseiten einzusehen: www.ices.dk, www.gfcm.org,](http://www.gfcm.org/)
[https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu](https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/)

C 96 E / 312 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001407/12**

**to the Commission**

**Hans-Peter Martin (NI)**

_(14 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Monitoring of fish stocks

In her reply to Question E‐011404/2011 from Hans-Peter Martin, Commissioner Damanaki writes on behalf of the
Commission: ‘[Fish] stocks should be monitored to identify changes that have an impact on fish mortality and may
therefore require adaptations to management plan.’

1. Is such monitoring currently taking place at EU level? If not, does the Commission intend to propose such
monitoring?

2. What monitoring at national level or in the private commercial sphere within the EU is the Commission aware
of?

3. What international monitoring takes place for fish stocks and in what way is the Commission involved in this?

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

_(15 March 2012)_

Fish stocks in EU waters are monitored by scientists of Member States collaborating and working through the
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and the General Fisheries Council for the Mediterranean
(GFCM). Most fish stocks are monitored annually. As necessary, additional advice is provided by the Scientific,
Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF), whilst ensuring in this context that no overlap takes place
between the activities of ICES and GFCM and STECF.

This monitoring depends on national catch reports of Member States, biological sampling of landings and discards,
and extensive surveying of marine resources by research vessels using standardised fishing gear, hydroacoustic
surveys or other specialised methods.

The Commission supports international monitoring by co-financing the collection of biological sampling data at a
rate of 50 % under the data collection framework, by funding the scientific advisory programmes of ICES, the
activities of STECF, and contributes to the funding of GFCM.

The results of this monitoring are posted at www.ices.dk, www.gfcm.org and https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 313

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-001409/12**

**an die Kommission**

**Hans-Peter Martin (NI)**

_(14. Februar 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Fördermittel für Erforschung der Endlagerung von Atommüll

In seiner Antwort auf die schriftliche Anfrage E-012367/2011 von Hans-Peter Martin zur Suche nach einem Endlager
für radioaktiven Atommüll schreibt Kommissionsmitglied Oettinger, dass im Euratom-Forschungsrahmenprogramm
Fördermittel „für Vorhaben von gemeinsamem Interesse auf dem Gebiet der Erforschung der Endlagerung“
vorgesehen sind.

1. In welcher Höhe sind Fördermittel im Euratom-Forschungsrahmenprogramm für Vorhaben von gemeinsamem
Interesse auf dem Gebiet der Erforschung der Endlagerung vorgesehen?

2. In welcher Höhe wurden Fördermittel für diese Zwecke von den Mitgliedstaaten abgerufen?

3. Welche konkreten Vorhaben auf dem Gebiet der Erforschung der Endlagerung wurden mit Fördergeldern aus
dem Euratom-Forschungsrahmenprogramm gefördert?

**Antwort von Frau Geoghegan-Quinn im Namen der Kommission**

_(22. März 2012)_

1. Für die Umsetzung der indirekten Maßnahmen innerhalb des Siebten Rahmenprogramms (RP) der
Europäischen Atomgemeinschaft im Bereich der nuklearen Forschung und Ausbildung (2007-2011) und seiner
„Verlängerung“ (2012-2013) im Bereich Fusionsenergie und Kernspaltung, kerntechnische Sicherheit und
Strahlenschutz ist ein Höchstbetrag von 405,245 Mio. EUR einschließlich Verwaltungskosten vorgesehen. Die
Forschungstätigkeiten umfassen die folgenden vier Hauptbereiche: Entsorgung radioaktiver Endabfälle,
Reaktorsysteme, Strahlenschutz, Infrastruktur und Humanressourcen. Das RP enthält keine Aufschlüsselung der
Mittel auf diese Bereiche. Rund 8,5 Prozent der Euratom-Forschungsmittel wurden jedoch für Projekte im Bereich der
Lagerungstechnologien vergeben.

2. Die Euratom-Aktivitäten werden gemeinsam mit den Mitgliedstaaten finanziert. Bisher wurden zu diesem
Zweck zusätzlich zu den 34,65 Mio. EUR an Euratom-Mitteln rund 30 Mio. EUR durch nationale
Forschungseinrichtungen bereitgestellt.

3. Im Forschungsbereich „Entsorgung radioaktiver Abfälle — Endlagerung in geologischen Formationen und
damit verbundene Humanressourcen und Ausbildung“ sind auf die Aufforderung zur Einreichung von Vorschlägen
(2007-2011) hin siebzehn Projekte gefördert worden. Dazu gehören: LUCOEX, PEBS, INSOTEC, MODERN, REDUPP,
CROCK, SKIN, CATCLAY, PETRUS II, FORGE, RECOSY, SITEX, BELBAR, FIRST-NUCLIDES, IPPA, SEC‐ IGD and
EBSSYN ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Die Beschreibung des Projektes ist abrufbar unter: http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/projects_de.html, Thema: FP7-Euratom-FISSION.

C 96 E / 314 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001409/12**

**to the Commission**

**Hans-Peter Martin (NI)**

_(14 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Funding for research into the final storage of nuclear waste

In his reply to Written Question E‐012367/2011 from Hans-Peter Martin on the search for a permanent storage site
for radioactive nuclear waste, Commissioner Oettinger writes that the Euratom Research Framework Programme
provides for funding ‘for projects of common interest on research into final storage’.

1. What is the amount of funding provided for in the Euratom Research Framework Programme for projects of
common interest in the area of research into final storage?

2. How much funding has been released for this purpose by Member States?

3. What specific projects in the area of research into final storage have been supported with funding from the
Euratom Research Framework Programme?

**Answer given by Ms Geoghegan-Quinn on behalf of the Commission**

_(22 March 2012)_

1. The maximum amount for implementation of the indirect actions under the Seventh Framework Programme
(FP) of the European Atomic Energy Community for nuclear research and training activities (2007-2011) with its
‘extension’ (2012-2013) for nuclear fission, safety and radiation protection is EUR 405.245 million, including
administrative costs. The research activities cover four main areas: management of ultimate radioactive waste, reactor
systems, radiation protection, infrastructures and human resources. The FP does not provide for a breakdown
between the respective areas. However, up to now 8.5 % of the Euratom research funds have been allocated to
projects dealing with storage technologies.

2. The Euratom activities are cost-shared with Member States. Up to now, about EUR 30 million have been funded
by national research entities in addition to the EUR 34.65 million of Euratom contribution on this subject.

3. Seventeen projects have been funded following the yearly call for proposals (2007-2011) in the research area of
‘Management of radioactive waste — Geological disposal and related human resources and training’. These are:
LUCOEX, PEBS, INSOTEC, MODERN, REDUPP, CROCK, SKIN, CATCLAY, PETRUS II, FORGE, RECOSY, SITEX,
BELBAR, FIRST-NUCLIDES, IPPA, SEC‐IGD and EBSSYN ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Description of these projects can be found at http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/projects_en.html, theme: FP7-Euratom-FISSION.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 315

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-001412/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD)**

_(7 Φεβρουαρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Συμμετοχή της ΠΓΔΜ στην Biennale ως «Μακεδονία»

Σύμφωνα με δημοσιεύματα εφημερίδων, στη χρονική περίοδο 3 έως 12 Σεπτεμβρίου 2009 πραγματοποιήθηκε στα Σκόπια ο
θεσμός της Biennale Νέων Καλλιτεχνών BJCEM (Association Internationale Biennale Jeunes Créateurs Europe
Méditerranée). Σκοπός του θεσμού αυτού, ο οποίος άρχισε το 1985 και πραγματοποιείται κάθε έτος σε διαφορετική
πρωτεύουσα της Ευρώπης, είναι η σύσφιξη των σχέσεων μεταξύ των νέων καλλιτεχνών καθώς και η προβολή τους σε τομείς
όπως η λογοτεχνία, το θέατρο, η ζωγραφική και οι εφαρμοσμένες τέχνες.

Στον παραπάνω θεσμό η FYROM έλαβε μέρος με το όνομα «Μακεδονία» κατά παράβαση της αποφάσεως 817/1993 του
Συμβουλίου Ασφαλείας του ΟΗΕ. Ο όρος «Δημοκρατία της Μακεδονίας» («Republic of Macedonia») υπάρχει επίσης και
στην επίσημη ιστοσελίδα της Biennale.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Έχει ενημερωθεί για το συγκεκριμένο γεγονός, και τί μέτρα προτίθεται να λάβει έτσι ώστε να αποφευχθούν στο μέλλον
παρόμοιες ενέργειες της εν λόγω χώρας;

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

_(21 Μαρτίου 2012)_

Μολονότι η Επιτροπή υποστηρίζει τις αναφερθείσες δραστηριότητες του δικτύου της BJCEM (Διεθνής Ένωση της Μπιενάλε
Νέων Καλλιτεχνών της Ευρώπης και της Μεσογείου — Association Internationale Biennale Jeunes Créateurs Europe
Méditerranée), δεν συμμετείχε στη διοργάνωση της εκδήλωσης που έλαβε χώρα στην πόλη των Σκοπίων από τις 3 έως τις
12 Δεκεμβρίου 2009 και, συνεπώς, δεν είναι σε θέση να την σχολιάσει.

Γενικότερα, η Επιτροπή υπενθυμίζει συνεχώς σε όλες τις υποψήφιες για προσχώρηση στην ΕΕ χώρες τη σημασία των σχέσεων
καλής γειτονίας και διατήρησης εποικοδομητικού διαλόγου με τα γειτονικά κράτη.

C 96 E / 316 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001412/12**

**to the Commission**
**Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD)**

_(7 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Participation of FYROM in the Biennale as ‘Macedonia’

According to newspaper reports, the Biennale of Young Artists BJCEM (Association Internationale Biennale Jeunes
Créateurs Europe Méditerranée) took place in Skopje from 3 to 12 September 2009. The aim of this event, which was
inaugurated in 1985 and is hosted every year by a different European capital, is to strengthen relations between
young artists and to promote their work in the fields of literature, theatre, fine art and the applied arts.

At the above event, FYROM took part under the name ‘Macedonia’, in breach of UN Security Council Resolution
817/1993. The term ‘Republic of Macedonia’ also appears on the Biennale's official website.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

Is it aware of this fact and what measures does it intend to take in order to prevent similar actions in future by the
country in question?

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

_(21 March 2012)_

While the Commission supports the selected activities of the BJCEM network (International Association of the
Biennial of Young Artists from Europe and the Mediterranean — Association Internationale Biennale Jeunes
Créateurs Europe Méditerranée) it was not a partner for the event taking place in the city of Skopje from 312 December 2009 and is therefore in no position to comment on its organisation.

On a general note, the Commission continuously reminds all EU candidate countries of the importance of good
neighbourly relations and of maintaining a constructive dialogue with neighbouring states.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 317

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-001413/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD)**

_(14 Φεβρουαρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Θάνατοι κυρίως αστέγων ανθρώπων σε χώρες της ΕΕ από το κύμα ψύχους

Μέχρι τις 3 Φεβρουαρίου σημειώθηκαν σε χώρες της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης (Ρουμανία, Βουλγαρία, Τσεχία, Σλοβακία, Ιταλία)
127 θάνατοι από το ψύχος.

Οι άνθρωποι που έχασαν τη ζωή τους είναι ως επί το πλείστον άστεγοι. Το πλέον ανησυχητικό είναι ότι ο αριθμός των
αστέγων αυξάνεται στην Ευρώπη λόγω της οικονομικής κρίσης και προβλέπεται ότι στο μέλλον τα θύματα θα είναι όλο και
περισσότερα λόγω των τραγικών γεγονότων.

Θεωρώ ότι το γεγονός δεν μπορεί παρά να δημιουργεί τουλάχιστον ανησυχία σε όλους τους Ευρωπαίους πολιτικούς για το
μέγεθος της επιτυχίας της κοινωνικής αλληλεγγύης. Νομίζω ότι η στιγμή της αναθεώρησης των ευρωπαϊκών πολιτικών, ώστε
το πρόσωπο της Ευρώπης να γίνει πιο ανθρώπινο, έχει φτάσει.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

1. Έχει υπάρξει κάποια συνεννόηση με τα κράτη μέλη και με τις μεγάλες δημοτικές αρχές (τουλάχιστον) για να
μπορέσουν οι άστεγοι σε μελλοντικές περιπτώσεις χαμηλών θερμοκρασιών να βρίσκουν καταφύγιο;

2. Έχει λάβει σχετικά μέτρα για την προστασία των αστέγων και προσανατολίζεται σε κάποιες ανάλογες κινήσεις στο
μέλλον;

3. Επεξεργάζεται σχέδιο ώστε να δοθεί δεύτερη ευκαιρία στους ανθρώπους που έχουν βρεθεί άστεγοι σε όλη την Ευρώπη
για να μην αναγκάζονται να χρήζουν διαρκούς διακονίας;

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

_(27 Μαρτίου 2012)_

Την πρωταρχική ευθύνη για παρεμβάσεις και πολιτικές, προκειμένου να βοηθηθούν οι άστεγοι και να μειωθεί η έλλειψη
στέγης, φέρουν τα κράτη μέλη, οι περιφερειακές και οι τοπικές αρχές. Δεν υπάρχει καμία πρόβλεψη στον προϋπολογισμό της
ΕΕ που να επιτρέπει στην Επιτροπή να παρεμβαίνει απευθείας για να βοηθήσει ή για να προστατεύσει τους άστεγους σε ένα
κράτος μέλος, όταν κάνει κρύο. Η δράση που αναλαμβάνεται σε ευρωπαϊκό επίπεδο μπορεί να συμπληρώσει και να
κατευθύνει τη δράση των κρατών μελών. Η ευρωπαϊκή χρηματοδότηση μπορεί να υποστηρίξει τη βελτίωση της κατανόησης,
την αξιολόγηση καινοτόμων προσεγγίσεων, αλλά και να συμβάλει στην παροχή στήριξης προς το δίκτυο ΜΚΟ της ΕΕ για
καταλύματα αστέγων. Η Επιτροπή εξετάζει την παρούσα στιγμή τρόπους ώστε οι προσπάθειες που καταβάλλονται σε
ευρωπαϊκό επίπεδο να συμβάλουν στη δημιουργία μεγαλύτερης προστιθέμενης αξίας και να προωθήσουν τις προσπάθειες
των κρατών μελών. Κατά τη δράση της αυτή αποδίδει μεγάλη προσοχή στις απόψεις των ενδιαφερόμενων μερών, ιδίως του
Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου, όπως αναφέρεται στο ψήφισμά του, της 14ης Σεπτεμβρίου, για το φαινόμενο των αστέγων.

Γενικότερα, στήριξη παρέχεται από το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινωνικό Ταμείο (ΕΚΤ) για δραστηριότητες προώθησης της κοινωνικής
και εργασιακής ένταξης των αστέγων και από το Ευρωπαϊκό Ταμείο Περιφερειακής Ανάπτυξης (EΤΠΑ) για την
πραγματοποίηση επενδύσεων σε εργατικές κατοικίες. Τα κράτη μέλη οφείλουν να καθορίζουν προτεραιότητες και να
χορηγούν τη σχετική χρηματοδότηση στο πλαίσιο των επιχειρησιακών προγραμμάτων. Στο μέλλον, στο πλαίσιο του
πολυετούς δημοσιονομικού πλαισίου για τα έτη 2014-20, η Επιτροπή προβλέπει ότι τουλάχιστον το 20 % της συνολικής
χρηματοδότησης του ΕΚΤ σε κάθε κράτος μέλος θα διατίθεται για την κοινωνική ένταξη και την καταπολέμηση της φτώχειας.
Κάθε κράτος μέλος θα διαθέσει επίσης τουλάχιστον το 5 % του συνόλου των πόρων του ΕΤΠΑ σε δράσεις για την αειφόρο
ανάπτυξη των πόλεων.

C 96 E / 318 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001413/12**

**to the Commission**
**Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD)**

_(14 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Deaths caused by the cold spell in EU Member States, mainly among the homeless

As of 3 February, 127 deaths have been recorded from the cold spell in European Union Member States (Romania,
Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Italy).

Most of the deaths were among the homeless. The most worrying aspect is that the number of homeless people is
rising in Europe due to the economic crisis and it is likely that in future the number of deaths under such tragic
circumstances will increase.

This cannot fail to worry all European politicians and call into question the degree of success of social solidarity in
the EU. I believe that the time has come to review European policy and to make the face of Europe more human.

I would like to ask the Commission:

1. Has there been any consultation with the Member States and the major public authorities (at least) to enable the
homeless to find shelter during future cold spells?

2. Has it taken measures to protect the homeless and does it intend to take similar measures in the future?

3. Is a plan being drawn up to give a second chance to those who find themselves homeless throughout Europe so
as to prevent them being reduced to lasting begging?

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

_(27 March 2012)_

The primary responsibility for interventions and policies to help homeless people and to reduce homelessness lies
with Member States, regional and local authorities. There is no provision in the EU budget enabling the Commission
to intervene directly to assist or protect homeless individuals in a Member State during cold weather. Action at
European level can complement and inform that in Member States. European funding is able to support improved
understanding, evaluation of innovatory approaches, and also helps to support the EU NGO network for homeless
shelters. The Commission is presently considering ways in which the effort at European level can help to add more
value and impetus to Member States' efforts. In doing this it is paying close attention to the views of stakeholders, not
least the European Parliament, as expressed in its Resolution of 14 September on homelessness.

More generally support is provided by the European Social Fund (ESF) for activities to promote the social and labour
market integration of homeless people and by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for investments in
social housing. Member States must set priorities and allocate funding under their Operational Programmes. In
future, under the Multiannual Financial Framework for 2014-20, the Commission expects at least 20 % of total ESF
financing in each Member State to be allocated to social inclusion and fight against poverty. Each Member State will
also allocate at least 5 % of total ERDF resources to actions for Sustainable Urban Development.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 319

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-001414/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD)**

_(7 Φεβρουαρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Ανάγκη ενίσχυσης των νοτιοευρωπαϊκών κρατών για να ανταπεξέλθουν στις υποχρεώσεις διάσωσης

Μέσα στο 2011, περισσότεροι από 1 500 άνθρωποι πνίγηκαν ή εξαφανίστηκαν προσπαθώντας να διασχίσουν τη Μεσόγειο,
όπως ανακοίνωσε η Ύπατη Αρμοστεία του ΟΗΕ για τους Πρόσφυγες (UNHCR), μιλώντας για την φονικότερη χρονιά από
τότε που κρατά στοιχεία. Η κατάρρευση των καθεστώτων της Τυνησίας και κυρίως της Λιβύης πύκνωσε τη ροή των
προσφύγων που αναγκάστηκαν να εγκαταλείψουν τις εστίες τους λόγω της εμφύλιας βίας. Επιπλέον η έκρυθμη πολιτικά
κατάσταση στο Κέρας της Αφρικής και ο λιμός που το πλήττει ήταν και αυτοί παράγοντες που μεγάλωσαν το προσφυγικό
κύμα.

Ο αριθμός των θανάτων είναι απαράδεκτα υψηλός και θεωρώ ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση πρέπει να κάνει πολλά ακόμα για να
αντιμετωπίσει το μέγεθος της τραγωδίας που εκτυλίσσεται στη Μεσόγειο.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

1. Θεωρεί ότι υπάρχει συνεργασία σε ικανοποιητικό βαθμό από τα κράτη της Μεσογείου;

2. Εφόσον κρίνει ότι τα κράτη της νότιας Ευρώπης δε δύνανται, λόγω των περικοπών που πρέπει να κάνουν για την
αντιμετώπιση της οικονομικής κρίσης, να ανταποκριθούν δεόντως, στις υποχρεώσεις για διάσωση των μεταναστών,
υπάρχουν σκέψεις για την περαιτέρω ενίσχυσή τους μέχρι να σταθεροποιηθεί η βόρεια Αφρική και να περιοριστεί το
μεταναστευτικό κύμα;

**Απάντηση της κας Malmström εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(19 Μαρτίου 2012)_

Η Επιτροπή γνωρίζει τα ανησυχητικά στοιχεία που έχει εκδώσει η Ύπατη Αρμοστεία των Ηνωμένων Εθνών για τους
Πρόσφυγες (UNHCR).

1. Η Επιτροπή κατανοεί πως το Αξιότιμο Μέλος αναφέρεται στη συνεργασία των κρατών της Βορείου Αφρικής. Στο
πλαίσιο της συνολικής αντιμετώπισης της Αραβικής Άνοιξης από την ΕΕ, η Επιτροπή οργάνωσε, τον Μάιο του 2011,
«Διάλογο» με τις χώρες της νότιας Μεσογείου «σχετικά με τη μετανάστευση, την κινητικότητα και την ασφάλεια», με στόχο να
στηριχθούν και να ενισχυθούν οι μεταρρυθμίσεις για τη βελτίωση της ασφάλειας και να δοθεί στους πολίτες η προοπτική
μεγαλύτερης κινητικότητας προς τα κράτη μέλη της ΕΕ, και παράλληλα να εξεταστούν οι βαθύτερες αιτίες των
μεταναστευτικών ρευμάτων. Αυτός ο «Διάλογος», ο οποίος, μέχρι στιγμής, έχει ξεκινήσει με την Τυνησία και το Μαρόκο, θα
βελτιώσει την συνεργασία της ΕΕ με τα κράτη της Βορείου Αφρικής, με στόχο την καταπολέμηση της παράνομης
μετανάστευσης.

2. Η Ένωση στηρίζει ήδη τα συστήματα ασύλου των νότιων κρατών μελών. Για παράδειγμα, η Ελλάδα λαμβάνει έκτακτες
επιδοτήσεις από το Ευρωπαϊκό Ταμείο για τους Πρόσφυγες και από ομάδες υποστήριξης για το άσυλο, τις οποίες συντονίζει
η Ευρωπαϊκή Υπηρεσία Υποστήριξης για θέματα Ασύλου (EASO). Στη Μάλτα, εκτός από την έκτακτη επιχορήγηση,
εφαρμόζεται επίσης πιλοτικό πρόγραμμα της ΕΕ για τη μετεγκατάσταση των προσφύγων σε άλλα κράτη μέλη. Αν τα κράτη
μέλη χρειάζονται επιπλέον υποστήριξη, μπορούν να υποβάλουν αίτηση για πρόσθετα μέτρα, όπως, για παράδειγμα,
συμπληρωματική χρηματοδότηση και βοήθεια από την EASO.

Σε πρόσφατη ανακοίνωση της Επιτροπής εξετάστηκε η περαιτέρω ανάπτυξη των μέτρων αλληλεγγύης σε κράτη μέλη των
οποίων τα συστήματα χορήγησης ασύλου βρίσκονται κάτω από ιδιαίτερη πίεση ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011)835 τελ. — Ανακοίνωση της Επιτροπής προς το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο, το Συμβούλιο, την Ευρωπαϊκή Οικονομική και Κοινωνική Επιτροπή

και την Επιτροπή των Περιφερειών για την ενίσχυση της αλληλεγγύης εντός της ΕΕ στον τομέα του ασύλου — Ένα θεματολόγιο της ΕΕ για τη βελτίωση της
κατανομής των ευθυνών και την αύξηση της αμοιβαίας εμπιστοσύνης.

C 96 E / 320 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001414/12**

**to the Commission**
**Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD)**

_(7 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Need to help southern European States meet their rescue obligations

According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), in 2011, the most ‘lethal’
year for which it has data, over 1 500 people drowned or went missing while trying to cross the Mediterranean. The
collapse of the regimes in Tunisia and, above all, in Libya, has increased the flow of refugees forced to flee their homes
because of violent civil conflict. The unsettled political situation in the Horn of Africa and the famine sweeping over
that area have also been factors increasing the wave of refugees.

Given the unacceptably high number of deaths, the European Union must do much more to address the major
tragedy unfolding in the Mediterranean.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

1. Does it consider that there is sufficient cooperation by Mediterranean States?

2. In so far as it judges that the States of southern Europe are unable, due to the cuts being forced on them by the
economic crisis, properly to meet their obligation to rescue refugees, are any plans afoot to provide these States
with further support until the situation in north Africa becomes stabilised and the wave of migrants is reduced?

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

_(19 March 2012)_

The Commission is aware of the alarming figures published by the UNHCR.

1. The Commission understands that the Honourable Member is referring to the cooperation of Northern African
states. As part of the EU's global response to the Arab spring, the Commission launched in May 2011 a Dialogue on
migration, mobility and security with Southern Mediterranean countries, with the aim of supporting and encouraging
reforms to improve security and giving their citizens a prospect of enhanced mobility towards the EU Member States,
while also addressing the root causes of migratory flows. This Dialogue, which has so far been launched with Tunisia
and Morocco, will improve cooperation between the EU and Northern African states in combating irregular
migration.

2. The Union already supports southern Member States' asylum systems. For example, Greece benefits from
emergency funding from the European Refugee Fund and from Asylum Support Teams coordinated by the European
Asylum Support Office (EASO); Malta benefits from both emergency funding and from an EU pilot project on the
relocation of refugees to other Member States. If Member States require further support, they may request additional
measures, such as supplementary funding and EASO assistance.

The further development of solidarity measures for Member States whose asylum systems are under particular
pressure is addressed in a recent Commission communication ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 835 final — Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social

Committee and the Committee of the Regions on enhanced intra-EU solidarity in the field of asylum — An EU agenda for better responsibilitysharing and more mutual trust.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 321

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-001415/12**
**προς την Επιτροπή (Αντιπρόεδρος/Ύπατη Εκπρόσωπος)**

**Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD)**

_(14 Φεβρουαρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ VP/HR — Κίνδυνος νέας σύρραξης μεταξύ Σουδάν και Νοτίου Σουδάν

Βάσει της σύμβασης για το Δίκαιο της Θάλασσας, η χώρα διαμετακόμισης υποχρεούται να εξασφαλίζει την ελεύθερη
πρόσβαση στο κράτος της ενδοχώρας στις διεθνείς θαλάσσιες διόδους εμπορίου.

Η συμφωνία που εξασφάλισε την ειρηνική συμβίωση μεταξύ Σουδάν και Νοτίου Σουδάν είναι κατάφωρα πιεστική για το
Νότιο Σουδάν, το οποίο αναγκάζεται να μοιράζεται με το Σουδάν τα κέρδη από την εξόρυξη πετρελαίου. Το δε Σουδάν
διατηρεί μια, κατά κοινή ομολογία, εκβιαστική στάση κατά του Νότιου Σουδάν για τη διατήρηση της ειρήνης, που μειώνει
τον βαθμό της ανεξαρτησίας του και αμφισβητεί το ότι πλέον πρόκειται για ένα κυρίαρχο κράτος.

Η κίνηση του Νότιου Σουδάν να σταματήσει της παραγωγή πετρελαίου, την οποία μοιράζεται με το Σουδάν, επίσης δεν
βοηθάει στην ειρηνική διευθέτηση της αντιπαλότητας.

Ο φόβος να υπάρχει νέα ανάφλεξη ενυπάρχει στη περιοχή.

Ερωτάται η Ύπατη Εκπρόσωπος:

1. Στηρίζει μια πράξη ειρήνευσης μεταξύ των δυο κρατών, η οποία θα βασίζεται στον σεβασμό των δικαιωμάτων του
περίκλειστου κράτους, όπως αυτά περιγράφονται στο Διεθνές Δίκαιο της Θάλασσας;

2. Σε ποιό βαθμό υπάρχει παρέμβαση της ΕΕ για την κατ' αρχάς διασφάλιση της ειρήνης στην περιοχή;

**Απάντηση της Ύπατης Εκπροσώπου/Αντιπροέδρου Ashton εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(15 Μαΐου 2012)_

Η ΕΕ στηρίζει την εκτελεστική ομάδα υψηλού επιπέδου της Αφρικανικής Ένωσης σχετικά με το Σουδάν και χαιρετίζει τις
πρόσφατες συμφωνίες σχετικά με την «εθνικότητα» και την «οριοθέτηση συνόρων» μεταξύ του Σουδάν και του Νότιου
Σουδάν. Ήδη τον Φεβρουάριο του 2012 τα δύο μέρη υπέγραψαν μνημόνιο συνεννόησης για μη επίθεση και συνεργασία.
Αυτό το μνημόνιο ενέχει την δέσμευση για σεβασμό της κυριαρχίας και της εδαφικής ακεραιότητας, τη δέσμευση για μη
επέμβαση στις εσωτερικές υποθέσεις και την απόρριψη της χρήσης βίας, όπως επίσης και τη δέσμευση για ειρηνική
συνύπαρξη.

Η ΕΕ, στην περίπτωση του Σουδάν και του Νότιου Σουδάν, συνεχίζει να ακολουθεί την «ολοκληρωμένη προσέγγιση» της που
υιοθετήθηκε από το Συμβούλιο Εξωτερικών Υποθέσεων (ΣΕΥ) το 2011 και που έχει ως στόχο την εγκαθίδρυση ειρηνικών
σχέσεων καλής γειτονίας μεταξύ των δύο χωρών. Στην παραμεθόρια περιοχή, η ΕΕ εφαρμόζει μια παρέμβαση που
χρηματοδοτείται από το μέσο σταθερότητας, η οποία εστιάζεται στην ανάλυση και πρόληψη συγκρούσεων. Επίσης, το έργο
του ειδικού εκπροσώπου της ΕΕ στο Σουδάν και το Νότιο Σουδάν και στο Κέρας της Αφρικής, αποτελεί σημαντική συμβολή
της ΕΕ για την ειρήνη στην περιοχή. Η ΕΕ εφαρμόζει επίσης την Πρωτοβουλία της για το Κέρας της Αφρικής με έργα
υποδομής που συνδέουν την περιοχή.

Το δικαίωμα των περίκλειστων κρατών στην πρόσβαση προς και από τη θάλασσα, για το σκοπό της άσκησης του δικαιώματος
της μεταφοράς αγαθών μέσω του εδάφους ενός ή περισσότερων κρατών διέλευσης, προστατεύεται από τη Σύμβαση των
Ηνωμένων Εθνών για το Δίκαιο της Θάλασσας (UNCLOS). Παρότι, προς το παρόν, μόνο το Σουδάν είναι συμβαλλόμενο
μέρος της Σύμβασης των Ηνωμένων Εθνών για το δίκαιο της Θάλασσας, τα δικαιώματα των περίκλειστων κρατών
αναγνωρίζονται γενικώς ως εθιμικό δίκαιο. Η ΕΕ στηρίζει την εφαρμογή αυτής της σύμβασης και από το Νότιο Σουδάν.
Οποιαδήποτε μη συμμόρφωση σ’ αυτό το ζήτημα μπορεί να καταγγελθεί μόνον από το κράτος που θίγεται άμεσα, στη
συγκεκριμένη περίπτωση, το Νότιο Σουδάν.

C 96 E / 322 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001415/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD)**

_(14 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Danger of renewed conflict between Sudan and South Sudan

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea a transit country is required to ensure that a hinterland
country has free access to international maritime trade routes.

The agreement to guarantee peaceful co-existence between Sudan and South Sudan is heavily weighted against South
Sudan, which is obliged to share with Sudan the profits from oil extraction. The maintenance of peaceful relations is,
by common admission, being used by Sudan as a means of pressurising South Sudan, thereby undermining its
independence and its recognition as a sovereign state.

The move by South Sudan to halt the production of oil shared with Sudan is also doing little to promote a peaceful
settlement.

There is fear in the region that a new conflict will be sparked off.

In view of this:

1. Does the High Representative support a peace process between the two countries, to be based on respect for the
rights of landlocked countries as set out in the international Law of the Sea?

2. To what extent is the EU intervening pre-emptively to safeguard peace in the region?

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

_(15 May 2012)_

The EU supports the African Union High Level Implementation Panel on Sudan and welcomes the recent agreements
on ‘nationality’ and ‘border demarcation’ agreed upon by Sudan and South Sudan. Already in February 2012, both
parties signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) on non-aggression and cooperation. This MoU includes the
commitment to respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, a commitment to non-interference in
internal affairs and the rejection of the use of force, as well as a commitment to peaceful coexistence.

The EU continues to follow its ‘Comprehensive Approach’ to Sudan and South Sudan adopted by the Foreign Affairs
Council (FAC) in 2011 aiming at the establishment of peaceful and good neighbourly relations between the two
countries. In the border region, the EU is implementing an Instrument for Stability-funded intervention focusing on
conflict analysis and prevention. The work of the EU Special Representative for Sudan and South Sudan and the Horn
of Africa is also an important EU contribution to peace in this region. The EU is also implementing its Horn of Africa
Initiative with infrastructure projects linking the region.

Land-locked states' right of access to and from the sea, for the purpose of exercising the right of transport of goods
across the territory of one or more transit states, is enshrined within the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea (Unclos). Though only Sudan is currently a contracting party in Unclos, the rights of land-locked states are
generally recognised as customary law. The EU would be in favour of the application of this to South Sudan. Any
non-compliance on this matter can only be contested by the state directly affected, in this case South Sudan.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 323

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-001416/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Kyriakos Mavronikolas (S&D)**

_(14 Φεβρουαρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Ανέγερση Σκοπευτικού Κέντρου στο Δίκωμο

Με στόχο την προβολή του ψευδοκράτους στο εξωτερικό μέσω του αθλητισμού, οι κατοχικές αρχές ανεγείρουν στα νότια
του χωριού Κάτω Δίκωμο της Κερύνειας «Διεθνές Σκοπευτικό Κέντρο». Σύμφωνα με το πλάνο των κατοχικών αρχών, το
κέντρο θα καλύπτει μια τεράστια έκταση γης, η οποία ανήκει σε ελληνοκύπριους πρόσφυγες. Να σημειωθεί ότι για την
κατασκευή του έργου έχει ήδη προκληθεί τεράστια και ίσως ανεπανόρθωτη περιβαλλοντική ζημιά.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

—
Γνωρίζει η Επιτροπή για το εν λόγω έργο;

—
Σε τι ενέργειες προτίθεται να προβεί η Επιτροπή για να σταματήσει η κατασκευή του Κέντρου;

—
Προτίθεται να αναλάβει πρωτοβουλία με στόχο την προστασία του περιβάλλοντος στα κατεχόμενα;

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

_(13 Μαρτίου 2012)_

Η Επιτροπή δεν έχει πληροφορίες σχετικά με κανένα έργο ανέγερσης διεθνούς σκοπευτηρίου στην Κερύνεια. Εάν αναληφθεί
τέτοιο έργο, η Επιτροπή θα θέσει το θέμα στην τουρκοκυπριακή κοινότητα για να διασφαλίσει την προστασία του
περιβάλλοντος.

Στο πλαίσιο του χρηματοδοτούμενου από την ΕΕ έργου «Στήριξη της τουρκοκυπριακής κοινότητας όσον αφορά τη
διαχείριση και την προστασία δυνητικών περιοχών Natura 2000 στο βόρειο τμήμα της Κύπρου», παρασχέθηκε στην
τουρκοκυπριακή κοινότητα τεχνική βοήθεια για τον προσδιορισμό επτά περιοχών (και την κατάρτιση σχεδίων διαχείρισης), οι
οποίες είναι πολύ πιθανό να οριστούν ως δυνητικές περιοχές Natura 2000, μετά από διευθέτηση και την άρση της
αναστολής του κεκτημένου. Πράγματι, σύμφωνα με το πρωτόκολλο 10 της πράξης προσχώρησης, το κεκτημένο
αναστέλλεται στο βόρειο μέρος της Κύπρου. Έως ότου εφαρμοστεί πλήρως το κεκτημένο, αποκλειστικά αρμόδιες για τη
λήψη των αναγκαίων μέτρων διατήρησης σε αυτές τις περιοχές είναι οι σχετικοί τουρκοκυπριακοί φορείς.

Η Επιτροπή υπενθυμίζει για άλλη μια φορά την επείγουσα ανάγκη για επίτευξη συνολικής διευθέτησης του κυπριακού
προβλήματος. Η Επιτροπή κάλεσε επανειλημμένα τους ηγέτες των δύο κυπριακών κοινοτήτων να επωφεληθούν από την
ευκαιρία των συνεχιζόμενων συνομιλιών για τον διακανονισμό και να επιτύχουν μία αμοιβαία αποδεκτή και βιώσιμη λύση.

C 96 E / 324 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001416/12**

**to the Commission**
**Kyriakos Mavronikolas (S&D)**

_(14 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Construction of a shooting range in Dikomo

In order to promote the self-styled state of northern Cyprus to the outside world through sporting activities, the
occupying authorities are constructing an ‘international shooting range’ to the south of Kato Dikomo in Kyrenia. The
occupying authorities’ plans are for the range to cover a huge expanse of land belonging to Greek-Cypriot refugees. It
should be noted that work on the project has already caused huge, irreparable damage to the environment.

In view of this:

—
Is the Commission aware of the project in question?

—
What action does it intend to take to halt the construction of the range?

—
Will it take action to protect the environment in the occupied territories?

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

_(13 March 2012)_

The Commission is not aware of any project to construct an international shooting range in Kyrenia. Should such a
project be undertaken, the Commission will raise the issue with the Turkish Cypriot community to ensure that the
environment is protected.

Under the EU funded project ‘Support to the Turkish Cypriot community as regards management and protection of
potential Natura 2000 sites in the northern part of Cyprus’, technical assistance has been provided to the Turkish
Cypriot community in identifying seven areas (and preparing draft management plans) which are likely to be
designated as potential Natura 2000 areas following a settlement and the lifting of the suspension of the _acquis._
Indeed, in accordance with the Protocol 10 of the Act of Accession, the _acquis_ is suspended in the northern part of
Cyprus. Until the _acquis_ is fully applied, it is the exclusive responsibility of the Turkish Cypriot relevant bodies to take
the necessary conservation measures in those areas.

The Commission recalls once again the urgent need to reach a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem. The
Commission has repeatedly called on the leaders of both communities in Cyprus to grasp the opportunity of the
ongoing settlement talks to reach a mutually acceptable and sustainable solution.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 325

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001418/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Fiorello Provera (EFD)**

_(14 febbraio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Sicurezza aerea interna in Russia

Il 7 dicembre 2011, il _Wall Street Journal_ ha riportato che, secondo quanto affermato dagli esperti in materia di
sicurezza, la Russia è attualmente uno dei paesi del mondo in cui salire su un aeromobile risulta maggiormente
pericoloso. Le indagini relative a nove incidenti aerei verificatisi nel 2011 su aerei commerciali hanno rilevato gravi
violazioni quali, ad esempio: stato di ubriachezza dei membri dell'equipaggio o assunzione di sedativi da parte degli
stessi, documenti di sicurezza contraffatti e piloti in preda al panico nella gestione dell'aeromobile. In un caso, il
navigatore aveva utilizzato il sistema di guida sbagliato e ha diretto l'aereo di linea che stava guidando verso un albero
situato lontano dalla pista. Il numero degli incidenti mortali avvenuti in Russia, in base ai volumi di traffico aereo,
risulta maggiore rispetto al numero di incidenti che si verificano in paesi con annosi problemi di sicurezza, come il
Congo e l'Indonesia. I problemi della Russia sono il risultato di una regolamentazione inefficace, della gestione non
adeguata delle piccole compagnie aeree e della scarsa formazione dei piloti.

A livello globale, il numero di incidenti aerei gravi ha subito un calo, grazie alla maggiore intransigenza delle
compagnie aeree in materia di sicurezza nei confronti sia dei propri vettori che di quelli stranieri. Quando si tratta di
aviazione interna, tuttavia, si tende spesso a non considerare i possibili rischi. In Russia, molti piloti e meccanici
tendono a trascurare le regole di base in materia di sicurezza. Le linee guida che regolano il loro operato sono molto
meno severe rispetto a quelle vigenti a livello globale. Inoltre, è diffuso l'utilizzo di parti di aeromobile contraffatte.
Ciò ha causato diversi incidenti aerei gravi: nel giugno 2011 un aereo RusAir si è schiantato durante la fase di
atterraggio nell'aeroporto di Petrozavodsk, causando 47 vittime; nel luglio 2011 si è sviluppato un incendio
all'interno del motore di un An-24 durante un volo della compagnia Angara Air e l'aereo si è schiantato mentre stava
effettuando un atterraggio di emergenza sul fiume Ob, in Siberia, causando 7 vittime; nel settembre 2011 uno Yak-42
che trasportava una squadra professionale di hockey russa si è schiantato a causa della scarsa formazione dei piloti,
che hanno inavvertitamente attivato i freni durante il decollo dall'aeroporto di Yaroslav, causando 44 vittime.

Un esperto di aviazione russo osserva che tali problemi si verificano in regioni isolate, dove il controllo di Mosca e le
influenze straniere sono facilmente elusi: «Non è soltanto riluttanza, è una forma di trascuratezza, di noncuranza.» Di
conseguenza, molte compagnie straniere hanno proibito ai dipendenti di utilizzare aeromobili costruiti in Russia.
Molte società richiedono ora di utilizzare vettori stranieri per le trasferte verso le principali città russe, anche a costo di
tortuose deviazioni per tutta l'Europa. Il _Wall Street Journal_ riferisce, inoltre, che l'UE sta offrendo assistenza alla
Russia, ma gli specialisti riconoscono la propria scarsa influenza sulle compagnie aeree che non volano fuori dalla
Russia.

1. Vista la lunga serie di incidenti mortali verificatisi su aerei civili nel 2011, può dire la Commissione quali
iniziative ha intrapreso per collaborare con le autorità russe in merito all'offerta di assistenza per i servizi interni del
paese?

2. Hanno le autorità russe incoraggiato l'introduzione dell'assistenza da parte dell'UE al fine di migliorare lo stato
dei propri aeromobili e la gestione degli aeroporti?

3. Dispone la Commissione di informazioni destinate ai cittadini dell'UE circa la sicurezza dei viaggi in territorio
russo?

4. Esiste una «lista nera» dei vettori interni che i cittadini UE possono consultare?

5. Come può l'UE esercitare pressioni sulle autorità russe perché queste adottino misure atte a migliorare gli
standard della propria aviazione interna?

C 96 E / 326 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

**Risposta data dal sig. Kallas a nome della Commissione**

_(8 marzo 2012)_

Sul fronte della sicurezza aerea, la Commissione è in costante contatto con le autorità della Federazione russa sia nel
quadro dell'attuazione del regolamento sull'elenco di sicurezza, il regolamento (CE) n. 2111/2005 ( [1] ), sia a livello
bilaterale. Le carenze in termini di sicurezza dei vettori aerei russi finora sono state arginate dall'intervento
dell'agenzia del trasporto aereo della Federazione russa (Russian Federal Air Transport Agency — FATA), che ha
disposto fermi operativi per aeromobili non conformi alle disposizioni vigenti, sospeso voli da e per l'UE, revocato
licenze, ecc. Per ulteriori informazioni sulle indagini condotte in relazione al cosiddetto elenco di sicurezza
rimandiamo ai regolamenti di esecuzione della Commissione (UE) n. 1197/2011 ( [2] ) e n. 390/2011 ( [3] ).

Il campo di applicazione dell'elenco di sicurezza dell'UE non si limita ai soli vettori impiegati nei voli da e per
l'Europa. L'elenco è infatti uno strumento di comprovata efficacia per la tutela dei cittadini dell'UE che consente
inoltre all'Unione di chiedere alle autorità russe di ottimizzare la vigilanza e di imporre provvedimenti esecutivi.

Nel 2011, in occasione del vertice UE-Russia sull'aviazione, è stato manifestato un interesse volto a rafforzare la
collaborazione in materia di sicurezza. Nel quadro di contatti bilaterali intercorsi nel mese di gennaio 2011, la
Commissione ha indicato possibili ambiti di collaborazione, tra cui formazioni finalizzate alla trasmissione di
competenze e alla fornitura di assistenza tecnica nonché la convergenza di norme e procedure inerenti alle ispezioni a
terra. Le autorità russe hanno avviato gradualmente le ispezioni a terra degli aeromobili nazionali e stranieri presso gli
aeroporti russi, improntandole in buona parte sul modello di sicurezza europeo.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) GU L 344 del 27.12.2005, pag. 15.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) GU L 303 del 22.11.2011, pag. 14.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) GU L 104 del 20.4.2011, pag. 10.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 327

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001418/12**

**to the Commission**
**Fiorello Provera (EFD)**

_(14 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Domestic air safety in Russia

On 7 December 2011 the _Wall Street Journal_ reported that Russia is now, according to safety experts, one of the most
dangerous countries in the world in which to board an aircraft. Investigations into nine commercial plane crashes in
2011 found gross violations including: drunk or sedated crews, forged safety documents and pilots panicking to
handle aircrafts. In one case, the navigator used the wrong guidance equipment and aimed his jetliner at a tree far
from the runway. Adjusted for air traffic volumes, Russian fatalities exceeded those in countries with longstanding
safety problems, such as Congo and Indonesia. The problems inside Russia are the result of ineffective regulation,
inefficiently run small airlines and poorly trained pilots.

Globally, the number of serious aviation incidents has dropped as a result of companies cutting their tolerance for
safety lapses on the part of both their own and foreign carriers. When it comes to domestic aviation, however, people
often overlook risks. Inside Russia, many pilots and mechanics show little concern for basic safety rules. The
guidelines under which they operate are much weaker than global rules. In addition, the use of counterfeit aircraft
parts is widespread. A number of serious incidents have occurred as a result: in June 2011 a RusAir flight crashed on
approach to Petrozavodsk airport, killing 47; in July 2011 Angara Air An-24 suffered an engine fire in flight and
crashed during an emergency landing on the Ob River in Siberia, killing seven; in September 2011 a Yak-42 carrying
a Russian professional hockey team crashed as poorly-trained pilots inadvertently applied the brakes during a takeoff
from Yaroslav airport, killing 44.

One Russian aviation expert notes that problems occur in isolated regions, where Moscow’s control and foreign
influences remain muted: ‘It’s not just resistance, it’s a kind of sloppiness, carelessness.’ As a result, many foreign
companies have forbidden employees from using Russian-built aircraft. Many now require them to use foreign
carriers to major Russian cities, taking detours within Europe. The _Wall Street Journal_ reports that the EU is offering
Russia assistance, but specialists acknowledge that they lack influence over airlines that don’t leave Russia.

1. Following the string of fatal civil aviation incidents in 2011, what steps has the Commission taken to engage
with the Russian authorities in offering assistance for domestic services within Russia?

2. Have the Russian authorities encouraged the EU to provide assistance with a view to improving the state of their
domestic aircraft and airport management?

3. Does the Commission have information for EU citizens about travelling safely inside Russia?

4. Is there a blacklist of domestic carriers that EU citizens can consult?

5. How can the EU exert pressure on the Russian authorities to take measures to improve their domestic aviation
standards?

C 96 E / 328 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

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

_(8 March 2012)_

On safety matters the Commission is in a permanent contact with the competent authorities of the Russian
Federation in the context of implementation of the ‘safety list’ Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005 ( [1] ), as well as bilaterally.
Identified safety deficiencies in Russian air carriers have been so far contained by the Russian Federal Air Transport
Agency (FATA) through decisions such as grounding of non-compliant aircraft, suspension of flights to and from
the EU, revocation of certificates, etc. Further information concerning the investigations carried out in the context of
the ‘safety list’ is available under Commission Implementing Regulations (EU) No 1197/2011 ( [2] ) and
No 390/2011 ( [3] ).

The scope of the EU ‘safety list’ is not limited to air carriers flying to and from Europe. The list has proven to be an
effective tool to protect EU citizens. Also, it allows the EU to effectively request the Russian authorities to improve
their oversight and impose enforcement measures.

A mutual interest to intensify the cooperation on safety matters was expressed in 2011 at the EU‐Russia Aviation
Summit. In bilateral contacts in January 2012 the Commission highlighted potential area of cooperation covering a
provision of expertise and technical assistance in training, approximation of standards and procedures for ramp
inspections. The Russian authorities have started gradually to perform ramp checks of their own and foreign carriers
at Russian airports following to a great extent the European safety model.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 344, 27.12.2005, p. 15.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 303, 22.11.2011, p. 14.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) OJ L 104, 20.4.2011, p. 10.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 329

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-001419/12**

**do Komisji**
**Andrzej Grzyb (PPE) oraz Bogdan Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz (PPE)**

_(14 lutego 2012 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Przestrzeganie mechanizmu wczesnego ostrzegania pomiędzy UE a Rosją w odniesieniu do
rozporządzenia dotyczącego bezpieczeństwa dostaw gazu

3 lutego zostały zmniejszone dostawy gazu do różnych krajów UE: Polski, Słowacji, Austrii, na Węgry, do Bułgarii,
Rumunii, Grecji i Włoch. Z danych Komisji Europejskiej wynika, iż do Austrii dociera aż o 30 proc. mniej gazu, o 24
proc. mniej do Włoch i o 8 proc. do Polski.

1. Czy w dniach poprzedzających ograniczenie dostaw gazu Komisja Europejska została powiadomiona
o potencjalnym ryzyku wstrzymania dostaw gazu do UE w ramach mechanizmu wczesnego ostrzegania?

2. Jak, w świetle dotychczasowej współpracy z Rosją, Komisja ocenia wykonanie rozwiązań wprowadzonych
przez rozporządzenie dotyczące środków zapewniających bezpieczeństwo dostaw gazu ziemnego
COM(2009) 0363?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Günthera Oettingera w imieniu Komisji**

_(23 marca 2012 r.)_

Podczas fali mrozów w styczniu i lutym 2012 r. ani strona rosyjska ani UE nie uruchomiły mechanizmu wczesnego
ostrzegania.

Podmioty rynkowe bardzo dobrze poradziły sobie z wyjątkowo wysokim popytem na gaz w styczniu i lutym 2012 r.
Ponadto nie ulega wątpliwości, że nowe rozporządzenie pomogło wszystkim zainteresowanym stronom zareagować
na sytuację w sposób zorganizowany i skoordynowany. Swoją przydatność w omawianym okresie wykazały nowe
infrastruktury funkcjonujące od niedawna dzięki Europejskiemu programowi energetycznemu na rzecz naprawy
gospodarczej.

C 96 E / 330 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001419/12**

**to the Commission**
**Andrzej Grzyb (PPE) and Bogdan Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz (PPE)**

_(14 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Compliance with the early warning mechanism between the EU and Russia in relation to the regulation on
Gas Supply Security

On 3 February 2012, gas supplies to several EU countries were reduced, namely Poland, Slovakia, Austria, Hungary,
Bulgaria, Romania, Greece and Italy. European Commission data show that up to 30% less gas is reaching Austria,
24% less reaching Italy and 8% less reaching Poland.

1. In the days preceding the reduction in gas supplies, did the Commission receive notification through the early
warning mechanism of a potential risk that EU gas supplies would be suspended?

2. In light of existing cooperation with Russia, how does the Commission evaluate the implementation of
strategies introduced by Regulation COM(2009)0363 concerning measures to safeguard security of gas supply ?

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

_(23 March 2012)_

The Early Warning Mechanism was not triggered during the cold spell period in January-February 2012 by either the
Russian or the EU side.

The exceptionally high demand for gas in January-February 2012 has been successfully managed by the market
players and it was also evident that the new Regulation had helped all concerned parties to react in an organised and
coordinated way. New infrastructures recently made operational thanks to the European Energy Programme for
Recovery have proven their usefulness in that period.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 331

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-001420/12**

**do Komisji**
**Joanna Senyszyn (S&D)**

_(14 lutego 2012 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Szanse dla młodzieży

Jedną z konsekwencji kryzysu są małe szanse dla młodzieży szkolnej na zatrudnienie w czasie wakacji. Młodzież,
która jeszcze wcześniej nie miała najmniejszego problemu ze znalezieniem staży lub praktyk w okresie letnim,
obecnie ma coraz mniejsze możliwości zdobycia jakiegokolwiek doświadczenia.

W nawiązaniu do nowej inicjatywy Komisji „Szanse dla młodzieży” z grudnia 2011 r., jakie możliwości Komisja
widzi w zakresie wsparcia młodych ludzi (poprzez ew. programy unijne, zachęty dla pracodawców) w poszukiwaniu
zatrudnienia podczas zbliżającego się okresu wakacyjnego?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza László Andora w imieniu Komisji**

_(21 marca 2012 r.)_

Komisja nie prowadzi polityki ani działań poświęconych konkretnie wspieraniu pracy wakacyjnej jako takiej, jednak
niektóre elementy w ramach inicjatywy „Szanse dla młodzieży” mogą być wykorzystane także w przypadku uczniów
i studentów pragnących zdobyć doświadczenie zawodowe podczas wakacji. Należą do nich np.:

—
zwiększenie oferty staży: wiadomo, że znaczna część staży odbywa się w czasie letnich wakacji (w 2012 r.
w ramach programów Erasmus i Leonardo da Vinci Komisja przeznaczy ze swej strony środki na
130 000 zagranicznych staży);

—
przeznaczenie większej ilości środków z budżetu na wolontariat europejski w celu stworzenia przynajmniej
10 000 miejsc dla wolontariuszy w 2012 r.

Ponadto w dyskusjach między Komisją a państwami członkowskimi na temat bardziej efektywnego wykorzystania
środków europejskich dla młodych ludzi może być podnoszona, w poszczególnych przypadkach, kwestia
dodatkowego wsparcia dla programów pracy wakacyjnej.

C 96 E / 332 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001420/12**

**to the Commission**
**Joanna Senyszyn (S&D)**

_(14 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Opportunities for young people

One of the consequences of the crisis is that there are not many opportunities for youngsters in school to find
employment during the holidays. Young people, who previously had no problem finding internships or
apprenticeships during the summer, now have ever fewer possibilities of gaining any sort of experience.

With reference to the Commission's new ‘Youth Opportunities Initiative’, which was launched in December 2011,
what possibilities does the Commission see for supporting young people (through EU programmes, incentives for
employers) in their search for employment during the upcoming holiday period?

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

_(21 March 2012)_

Although the Commission has no specific policies or actions to support summer work as such, there are several
elements within the Youth Opportunities Initiative that are also relevant for students looking for a work experiences
during the holidays. These include for example:

—
the increase in the offer of traineeships; it is well known that a considerable part of these traineeships take place
during the summer holidays (the Commission itself will provide funding for 130 000 transnational placements
in 2012 under ERASMUS and Leonardo da Vinci);

—
the reinforcement of the budget allocation for the European Voluntary Service in order to provide at least
10 000 volunteering opportunities in 2012.

Furthermore, discussions between the Commission and Member States about a more efficient use of European funds
for young people can include on a case by case basis additional support to programmes promoting summer work.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 333

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-001421/12**

**do Komisji**
**Filip Kaczmarek (PPE)**

_(14 lutego 2012 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Syryjski aktywista Georges Moubayed

Dnia 10 stycznia 2012 r. został uprowadzony proreformatorski aktywista Georges Moubayed, który jest aktualnie
przetrzymywany w nieznanej lokalizacji. Grożą mu tortury. Porywacze zażądali za jego uwolnienie okupu
w wysokości 30 milionów funtów syryjskich (około $ 600.000). Brał on udział w proreformatorskich
demonstracjach, które promował przez portal społecznościowy. Dodatkowo ofiarował pomoc oraz wspomagał
finansowo rodziny aktywistów, którzy zmarli w wyniku protestów i zamieszek.

Od początku protestów w marcu zeszłego roku tysiące proreformatorskich aktywistów zostało zatrzymanych przez
służby bezpieczeństwa oraz członków prorządowych gangów – shabiha. Tortury oraz inne metody okrutnego
traktowania są szeroko rozpowszechnione, a w aresztach zmarło co najmniej 235 osób.

W związku z powyższym zwracam się z zapytaniem:

—
Jakie kroki Komisja zamierza podjąć, aby przeciwdziałać prześladowaniom opozycjonistów w Syrii?

—
Czy Komisja zamierza zareagować w sprawie syryjskiego aktywisty Georgesa Moubayeda?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez Wysoką Przedstawiciel i Wiceprzewodniczącą Komisji Catherine Ashton**

**w imieniu Komisji**

_(24 maja 2012 r.)_

Wysoka Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodnicząca wielokrotnie potępiała, ostatnio w swoim oświadczeniu z 22 lutego
2012 r., arbitralne i niezgodne z prawem zatrzymania i uprowadzenia aktywistów politycznych i obrońców praw
człowieka oraz stosowanie wobec nich tortur. Podkreślała, że reżim syryjski musi przestrzegać wolności słowa
zgodnie ze swoimi międzynarodowymi zobowiązaniami.

Delegatura UE w Damaszku śledzi z uwagą przypadki uprowadzeń i arbitralnych zatrzymań. Kilkakrotnie zwracała
się z prośbą o informacje na temat miejsca pobytu arbitralnie zatrzymanych aktywistów oraz – zgodnie
z oświadczeniami wydawanymi przez Wysoką Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodniczącą – wzywała do ich
natychmiastowego zwolnienia.

Uprowadzenia aktywistów politycznych oraz stosowanie wobec nich tortur stanowią kolejne przykłady
powszechnego łamania praw człowieka przez reżim syryjski, co może oznaczać dopuszczenie się zbrodni przeciwko
ludzkości. UE potwierdziła, że nie ma mowy o bezkarności sprawców oraz tych, którzy są uwikłani w popełnienie
domniemanych przestępstw.

Pozytywnym akcentem było zwolnienie przez porywaczy Georgesa Moubayeda pod koniec stycznia 2012 r.

C 96 E / 334 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001421/12**

**to the Commission**
**Filip Kaczmarek (PPE)**

_(14 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Syrian activist Georges Moubayed

On 10 January 2012, pro‐reform activist Georges Moubayed was abducted. He is currently being detained at an
unknown location, where he is being threatened with torture. His kidnappers have demanded a ransom of
SYP 30 million (about USD 600 000) for his release. He had taken part in pro‐reform demonstrations, which he
promoted on a social networking website, and he had offered assistance and financial support to families of activists
who had died as a result of the protests and riots.

Since protests began in March 2011, thousands of pro‐reform activists have been detained by the security services or
by the _shabiha_, members of pro-government gangs. Torture and other forms of cruel treatment are widespread, and
more than 235 people have died in custody.

—
What steps does the Commission intend to take to prevent the persecution of opposition figures in Syria?

—
Does the Commission intend to respond to the case of the Georges Moubayed?

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

_(24 May 2012)_

The HR/VP has repeatedly, and most recently in her statement of 22 February 2012, condemned the arbitrary and
illegal detention, abduction and torture of political and human rights activists. She has stressed the need for the Syrian
regime to respect the freedom of expression in line with its international obligations.

The EU Delegation in Damascus closely monitors cases of abduction and arbitrary arrests. It has on several occasions
requested information on the whereabouts of arbitrarily detained activists and — in line with statements from the
HR/VP — called for their immediate release.

Abduction and torture of political activists are further examples of the widespread human rights violations by the
Syrian regime, which might amount to crimes against humanity. The EU has reiterated that there can be no impunity
for the perpetrators and those associated with such alleged crimes.

On a positive note, Mr Georges Moubayed was released by his abductors at the end of January 2012.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 335

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-001422/12**

**aan de Commissie**

**Ivo Belet (PPE)**
_(14 februari 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Typegoedkeuringsvereisten voor controleapparatuur in het verkeer

Voor de installatie en controleprocedure van meettoestellen bedoeld voor snelheidscontroles en de verkeersveiligheid
bestaat er momenteel geen Europees rechtskader. Elke lidstaat heeft verschillende typegoedkeuringsvereisten
waardoor fabrikanten verschillende keren dezelfde testen moeten uitvoeren en waardoor de invoering van nieuwe
meettoestellen vaak onnodig vertraagd wordt.

In de Resolutie van het Europees Parlement van 15 december 2011 over het stappenplan voor een interne Europese
Vervoersruimte — werken aan een concurrerend en zuinig vervoerssysteem, onderstreept het Parlement de noodzaak
tot verbetering en standaardisering van controleapparaten zoals flitspalen en boordapparatuur, alsook van
communicatiesystemen en informatiedragers, en dringt erop aan dat tegen 2013 een voorstel wordt ingediend
betreffende de wederzijdse erkenning en interoperabiliteit van dergelijke apparaten.

— Kan de Commissie meedelen of ze de mening van het Europees Parlement deelt en op welke termijn ze een
initiatief terzake overweegt?

— Heeft de Commissie deze kwestie reeds aangekaart bij de lidstaten? Zo ja, hoe staan zij tegenover een dergelijk
voorstel?

**Antwoord van de heer Tajani namens de Commissie**

_(19 april 2012)_

Er bestaat momenteel geen Europees rechtskader voor de harmonisatie van de installatie en controleprocedure voor
meettoestellen bedoeld voor snelheidscontroles en de verkeersveiligheid.

Om te beoordelen of harmonisatie noodzakelijk is, en in welke mate, moet met name worden gekeken naar het
bestaan van handelsbelemmeringen. Bewijs dat de handel wordt belemmerd, kan nu heel objectief worden geleverd
door fabrikanten die hebben ondervonden dat hun producten niet wederzijds erkend worden.

Het beginsel van wederzijdse erkenning geldt voor producten waarop geen communautaire harmonisatiewetgeving
van toepassing is, en voor aspecten van producten die buiten het toepassingsgebied van dergelijke wetgeving vallen.

Volgens dit beginsel kunnen producten die rechtmatig in een lidstaat zijn vervaardigd en in de handel gebracht, ook in
een andere lidstaat in de handel worden gebracht, ondanks een nationale technische regel in de lidstaat van
bestemming, tenzij die lidstaat kan bewijzen dat het opleggen van zijn eigen technische regel op het desbetreffende
product noodzakelijk is om een van de redenen van artikel 36 VWEU (bescherming van de openbare zedelijkheid, de
openbare veiligheid, de gezondheid en het leven van personen, dieren of planten, enz.), of vanwege de in de
rechtspraak van het Hof ontwikkelde dwingende eisen, behoudens het evenredigheidsbeginsel.

Bij gebrek aan meldingen betreffende meettoestellen bedoeld voor snelheidscontroles en de verkeersveiligheid is de
Commissie zich niet bewust van verschillen tussen nationale regels, noch dat nationale regels onredelijke eisen
zouden opleggen aan fabrikanten, of zouden leiden tot vertragingen in het op de markt brengen van dergelijke
producten.

De in het advies van het Europees Parlement bedoelde kwestie zal onder de aandacht van de lidstaten worden
gebracht.

C 96 E / 336 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001422/12**

**to the Commission**

**Ivo Belet (PPE)**
_(14 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Type approval requirements for traffic monitoring devices

There is currently no European legal framework regulating the installation and testing of measuring devices for speed
checks and traffic safety. Each Member State has its own type approval requirements, which means that
manufacturers have to carry out the same tests many times and the introduction of new measuring devices is often
unnecessarily delayed.

The European Parliament resolution of 15 December 2011 on the Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area —
Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system stresses the need to improve and standardise control
devices such as speed cameras, on-board units and communications systems and media, and calls for the submission
of a proposal concerning the mutual recognition and interoperability of such devices by 2013.

— Can the Commission state whether it shares the European Parliament’s opinion and within which period it
proposes to consider an initiative on this matter?

— Has the Commission already raised this matter with the Member States? If so, what is their position with regard to
such a proposal?

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

_(19 April 2012)_

At present, there is no European legal framework harmonising the installation and testing of measuring devices for
speed checks and traffic safety.

In order to assess the need for harmonisation it is particularly important to be aware of the existence of barriers to
trade. Evidence of trade barriers can now be given quite objectively by manufacturers who have experienced their
products not being mutually recognised.

The principle of mutual recognition applies to products which are not subject to EU harmonisation legislation or to
aspects of products falling outside the scope of such legislation.

Under this principle, products lawfully produced and/or marketed in one Member State, can also be marketed in
another Member State, notwithstanding the existence of a national technical rule in that Member State, unless the
Member State of destination can prove that it is essential to impose its own technical rule on the product concerned
based on the reasons outlined in Article 36 TFEU (protection of public morality or public security, protection of the
health and life of humans, animals or plants, etc.) or in the mandatory requirements developed in the Court’s
jurisprudence, subject to the principle of proportionality.

In the absence of notifications concerning measuring devices for speed checks and traffic safety, the Commission has
no evidence that national rules are at variance with each other, or are imposing undue burdens on manufacturers or
are delaying the bringing to market of such products.

The issue covered by the European Parliament’s opinion will be raised with Member States.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 337

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-001423/12**

**aan de Commissie**
**Lucas Hartong (NI)**

_(14 februari 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Subsidie aan BBC en Europese media in het algemeen

Deze week werd bekend ( [1] ) dat de BBC miljoenen euro's aan Europese subsidiegelden en leningen van de EIB heeft
ontvangen. In dat kader de volgende vragen:

1. Vanuit welke begrotingspost(en) is deze subsidie aan de BBC verleend?

2. Onder welke voorwaarden is deze subsidie verleend?

3. Wat was/is het doel van deze subsidies?

4. Welke overige staatsomroepen en media hebben recent subsidie van de EU ontvangen? Vallen hieronder ook
Nederlandse media? Zo ja, welke?

5. Is de Commissie met de PVV van mening dat hiermee de onafhankelijkheid van de nieuwsgaring in het geding
is? Zo nee, waarom niet?

6. Is de Commissie met de PVV van mening dat onafhankelijke media überhaupt niet gesubsidieerd zouden
moeten worden? Zo nee, waarom niet?

7. Kan de Commissie aangeven welke mediaprojecten momenteel lopen en hoeveel deze kosten, gespecificeerd
per lidstaat en media?

8. Kan de Commissie aangeven welke projecten voor 2013 op het programma staan en wat de geschatte kosten
hiervan zijn?

**Antwoord van mevrouw Reding namens de Commissie**

_(28 maart 2012)_

1-3. De Europese Investeringsbank, waarvan de diensten onafhankelijk en anders dan die van de Commissie zijn,
heeft de BBC de volgende leningen verstrekt: 40 miljoen EUR respectievelijk 74,8 miljoen EUR in 2002 respectievelijk
2006 ter ondersteuning van audiovisuele producties, en 96,5 miljoen EUR in 2003 voor de bouw van het centrum
voor digitale omroep in Londen. De prijsstelling daarvan bestrijkt de financieringskosten alsmede de administratieve
kosten en de kredietrisicokosten. De financieringsvoorwaarden zijn aangepast aan het soort investering. Aflossing
geschiedt normaliter halfjaarlijks of jaarlijks. Geen van de leningen heeft subsidie-elementen.

4. De Commissie verwijst het geachte Parlementslid naar haar databank „Financial Transparency System” ( [2] ), die
een overzicht geeft van de ontvangers van door de Commissie sinds 2007 toegekende subsidies.

5. De Commissie respecteert volledig de onafhankelijkheid van de media. Voor elke gegunde opdracht of elke
toegekende subsidie moeten de media voldoen aan de criteria voor aanbestedingen, maar zij genieten volledige
redactionele vrijheid.

6. De lidstaten kunnen steunmaatregelen ten behoeve van de media nemen, die zij dikwijls rechtvaardigen door
pluralisme in de media aan te voeren. Met betrekking tot openbare omroepen erkennen de EU-Verdragen ( [3] ) de
vrijheid van de lidstaten om de publieke opdracht te bepalen en om de openbare omroep en de financiering daarvan
te organiseren. Voor overheidsfinanciering gelden evenwel EU-staatssteunregels ( [4] ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://euobserver.com/1016/115123.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/beneficiaries/fts/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Protocol (Nr. 29) betreffende het openbare-omroepstelsel in de lidstaten:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri= OJ:C:2010:083:0201:0328:NL:PDF

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Mededeling betreffende de toepassing van de regels inzake staatssteun op de publieke omroep:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ /LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2009:257:0001:0014:NL:PDF

( **|**

C 96 E / 338 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

7. In het kader van het werkprogramma 2012 op het gebied van communicatie ( [5] ) steunt de Commissie drie
onafhankelijke EU-wijde medianetwerken ter bevordering van de pan-Europese berichtgeving over beleid en
gebeurtenissen in de EU: de tv-nieuwszender Euronews, het Europees radionetwerk (Euranet) en de nieuwswebsite
PressEurop. In 2012 is aan deze netwerken respectievelijk 18,6 miljoen EUR, 6,5 miljoen EUR en 3,2 miljoen EUR
toegekend.

8. De Commissie is bezig met het opstellen van haar ontwerpbegroting 2013, die tijdig aan de begrotingsautoriteit
zal worden voorgelegd.

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) C(2011) 9461 definitief; http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/communication/pdf/progr2012_en.pdf

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 339

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001423/12**

**to the Commission**
**Lucas Hartong (NI)**

_(14 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Grants to BBC and European media in general

It emerged this week ( [1] ) that the BBC has received millions of euros in European grants and loans from the EIB. Please
answer the following questions in this connection:

1. From which budget item(s) was this subsidy granted to the BBC?

2. Under which conditions was this subsidy granted?

3. What was/is the purpose of this subsidy?

4. Which other state broadcasters and media organisations have recently received EU subsidies? Are any Dutch
media organisations among them? If so, which?

5. Does the Commission agree with the PVV that this affects the independence of news gathering? If not, why not?

6. Does the Commission agree with the PVV that independent media should not be subsidised in any case? If not,
why not?

7. Can the Commission indicate which media projects are currently running and what their cost is, by Member
State and media category?

8. Can the Commission specify which projects are included in the programme for 2013 and what their estimated
cost is?

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

_(28 March 2012)_

1-3. The European Investment Bank, whose services are independent and different from the Commission ones, has
provided the following loans to the BBC: EUR 40 million and 74.8 million in support of audiovisual productions in
2002 and 2006 respectively; in 2003, EUR 96.5 million for the construction of the digital broadcasting centre in
London. Their pricing covers funding costs as well as administrative and credit risk costs. The conditions of financing
are adapted to the investment type. Repayment is normally on a semi-annual or annual basis. None of the loans have
any subsidy element.

4. The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its database ‘Financial Transparency System’ ( [2] )
comprising the beneficiaries of grants awarded by the Commission since 2007.

5. The Commission fully respects the independence of the media. Whenever media organisations are awarded a
contract or grant, they have to comply with the tendering criteria, but they benefit from full editorial freedom.

6. Member States may take support measures in favour of the media, they often justify in terms of media
pluralism. As regards public broadcasters, the EU Treaties recognise ( [3] ) the Member States' freedom to define the
public service remit, to organise public service broadcasting and its funding. Public funding is however submitted to
EU State aid rules ( [4] ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://euobserver.com/1016/115123
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/beneficiaries/fts/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Protocol (29) on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:083:0201:0328:EN:PDF

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Communication on the application of state aid rules to public service broadcasting:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2009:257:0001:0014:EN:PDF

( **|**

C 96 E / 340 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

7. Following the 2012 work programme in the field of communication ( [5] ), the Commission supports three
independent EU‐wide media networks to promote pan-European coverage of policy and events in the EU: the TV
news channel Euronews, the European Radio Network (Euranet), and the news website PressEurop. EUR 18.6 million,
6.5 million, and 3.2 million respectively, have been allocated for these networks in 2012.

8. The Commission is preparing its 2013 draft budget which will be transmitted to the budget authority in due
time.

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) C(2011)9461 final, http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/communication/pdf/progr2012_en.pdf

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 341

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001424/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Lorenzo Fontana (EFD)**

_(7 febbraio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Omicidio in Afghanistan di una madre a causa del parto della terza figlia

Nel villaggio di Mahfalay, nel distretto di Khanabad, una giovane donna è stata uccisa dal marito e dalla suocera in
quanto ritenuta «colpevole» di aver dato alla luce la terza figlia femmina. Mentre in Afghanistan la nascita di un
maschio è occasione di grandi festeggiamenti, la nascita di una bambina è considerata evento non degno di
celebrazioni per la famiglia.

—
Considerando che l'episodio è solo un esempio tra i molti atti di violenza di cui le donne afghane sono
frequentemente vittime;

—
considerando che le leggi afghane non favoriscono la partecipazione attiva della donna alla società civile;

—
viste le ingenti somme investite dall'Unione europea in Afghanistan e i diversi programmi attivi nel Paese, come
delineati dal «Country Strategy Paper for Afghanistan 2007-2013»;

—
viste le dichiarazioni rilasciate dall'Alto Rappresentante/Vicepresidente Catherine Ashton, a seguito della
Conferenza internazionale di Bonn del 2011, sulla volontà di sostenere la stabilità e il rafforzamento delle istituzioni
democratiche nel paese;

si interroga la Commissione per appurare:

—
se sia al corrente dell'episodio predetto;

—
se siano in previsione o in fase di svolgimento programmi mirati al superamento di situazioni di degrado nelle
aree periferiche ed extraurbane;

—
a quanto ammontano gli stanziamenti erogati all'Afghanistan a titolo di aiuti per il biennio 2010-2011;

—
quale sia il grado di collaborazione riscontrato negli attori locali.

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

_(23 maggio 2012)_

In stretta collaborazione con i capi missione dell'UE, il rappresentante speciale dell'Unione europea/capo delegazione
in Afghanistan segue attentamente sul campo la situazione in materia di diritti umani, in particolare le riprovevoli e
ricorrenti violenze perpetrate nei confronti delle donne. L'episodio cui l'onorevole parlamentare fa riferimento è
purtroppo solo uno dei tanti atti efferati che spesso non vengono neanche denunciati.

L'assistenza fornita dall'UE nel quadro del bilancio dell'Unione continua a incentrarsi sulla governance, l'agricoltura e
la sanità, a sostegno dei programmi nazionali afghani e in stretta collaborazione con il governo afghano. I programmi
come quello per la solidarietà nazionale, sostenuti dall'UE attraverso il Fondo fiduciario per la ricostruzione
dell'Afghanistan, si sono dimostrati validi nel rispondere alle necessità delle popolazioni in aree remote e non urbane.

L'UE sostiene inoltre l'erogazione di servizi sociali alle fasce più vulnerabili, compresi i servizi di assistenza
psicologica, legale e di mediazione per le donne che si trovano a dover affrontare situazioni familiari difficili. Altri
programmi si pongono invece obiettivi a lungo termine, come il rafforzamento degli organi esistenti per la
protezione sociale e la tutela dei diritti delle donne e ragazze afghane vittime o a rischio di violenza domestica.

Da parte sua, il governo afghano si è impegnato fermamente a migliorare la situazione femminile alle conferenze
internazionali di Londra e Kabul del 2010, alla conferenza di Bonn di dicembre 2011 e in una dichiarazione resa il
18 gennaio 2012.

L'UE ha stanziato 440,50 milioni di euro per il 2010 e 2011, da destinare allo sviluppo e all'assistenza umanitaria.

C 96 E / 342 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001424/12**

**to the Commission**

**Lorenzo Fontana (EFD)**

_(7 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Murder of a mother in Afghanistan because of the birth of a third daughter

In the village of Mahfalay, in the district of Khanabad, a young woman has been killed by her husband and her
mother-in-law for being ‘guilty’ of having given birth to a third daughter. While in Afghanistan the birth of a boy is an
occasion for great rejoicing, the birth of a girl is considered an event not worthy of celebration by the family.

In view of:

—
the fact that this murder is but one example of the many acts of violence of which Afghan women are
frequently victims;

—
the fact that Afghan laws do not encourage active participation by women in civil society;

—
the huge sums of money invested by the European Union in Afghanistan and the various programmes in
progress in the country, as set out in the Country Strategy Paper for Afghanistan 2007-2013;

—
the statements made by Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative, following
the international conference in Bonn in 2011, regarding the desire to support the stability and strengthening of
the country’s democratic institutions;

the Commission is asked to answer the following questions:

— Is it aware of the above event?

—
Are programmes targeted at reversing decline in remote and non-urban areas being planned or implemented?

—
How much aid was granted to Afghanistan for the two-year period 2010-2011?

—
How much cooperation has been shown by local stakeholders?

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

_(23 May 2012)_

The European Union Special Representative/Head of Delegation Afghanistan monitors the human rights situation on
the ground in Afghanistan, in close consultation with EU Heads of Mission, notably also with respect to the
deplorable and continued violence against women. The incident referred to in question is, regrettably, only one of
many and not all of these are reported.

EU assistance under the EU budget continues to focus on governance, agriculture and health, in support of Afghan
National Programmes, and in close cooperation with the Afghan Government. Programmes like the National
Solidarity Programme, supported by the EU through the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund, have proven
effective in addressing the needs of populations in remote and non-urban areas.

Furthermore, the EU supports social services to the most vulnerable including counselling, legal aid and mediation for
women faced with difficult family circumstances. Additional programmes address long-term objectives, such as
strengthening existing bodies to exercise social protection and protect the rights of Afghan women and girls at risk or
victims of domestic violence.

The Afghan Government, for its part, has made firm commitments to improve the position of women in the context
of the international conferences held in 2010 in London and Kabul, in December 2011 at the Bonn Conference and in
a statement issued on 18 January 2012.

The EU has committed EUR 440.50 million in 2010 and 2011, for both development and humanitarian assistance.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 343

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001425/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Mario Borghezio (EFD)**

_(14 febbraio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Tutela della libertà religiosa in Bosnia-Erzegovina

In Bosnia persiste l'intolleranza verso i cattolici.

Nella «Republika Srpska» (la parte della Bosnia-Erzegovina a maggioranza o totalmente serba) i cattolici sono
impossibilitati a rientrare e chi non è serbo è escluso.

In compenso, nella federazione bosniaco-croata le autorità che hanno il potere reale, e sono mussulmane, consentono
l'insediamento di una forte comunità estremista islamica.

La Commissione, anche sulla base della comunicazione presentata il 12 ottobre 2011 dal titolo «Strategia di
allargamento e sfide principali per il periodo 2011-2012» (COM(2011)0666), in cui si cita chiaramente «Occorre
prendere ulteriori provvedimenti per migliorare l'applicazione della legge sulle minoranze nazionali e garantire i
diritti delle minoranze», quali misure intende intraprendere affinché questa situazione di discriminazione
religiosa/etnica abbia termine?

**Risposta data da Štefan Füle a nome della Commissione**

_(26 marzo 2012)_

La Commissione rinvia l’onorevole parlamentare alla propria risposta alla precedente interrogazione
E-010581/2011 ( [1] ). La Commissione continua inoltre a sollevare presso le sedi competenti le questioni relative ai casi
di discriminazione su base etnica o religiosa denunciati in Bosnia-Erzegovina e sostiene il rientro dei rifugiati, in linea
con tutti gli accordi internazionali riguardanti la regione, contribuendo, tra l'altro, al processo di Sarajevo. Lo
strumento di assistenza preadesione (IPA) sosterrà l'applicazione a livello nazionale della strategia riveduta per
l'attuazione di tale processo e dell'allegato VII dell'accordo di Dayton sui rifugiati e gli sfollati. In tale contesto l'IPA
collaborerà con le autorità per la predisposizione di misure socioeconomiche volte ad assicurare la sostenibilità dei
rientri.

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

C 96 E / 344 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001425/12**

**to the Commission**
**Mario Borghezio (EFD)**

_(14 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Protection of religious freedom in Bosnia and Herzegovina

In Bosnia, intolerance for Catholics is an ongoing issue.

Catholics are prevented from returning to the ‘Republika Srpska’ (the part of Bosnia and Herzegovina which is mostly
or totally Serb) and non-Serbs are kept out.

Meanwhile, in the Bosniak-Croat Federation, the Muslim authorities — which have the real power — are permitting
the establishment of a strong Islamic extremist community.

On the basis also of its communication of 12 October 2011, entitled ‘Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges
2011‐2012’ (COM(2011)0666), which clearly states that ‘further steps are needed in order to improve
implementation of the Law on national minorities and to guarantee minority rights’, what measures does the
Commission intend to take to put an end to this religious/ethnic discrimination?

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

_(26 March 2012)_

The Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to the answer already given to his previous Question
E-010581/2011 ( [1] ). Moreover, the Commission continues to raise issues of reported religious or ethnic
discrimination with Bosnia and Herzegovina in the appropriate fora. It supports refugee return in line with all
international agreements in the region amongst others as contributor to the Sarajevo process. The Instrument for PreAccession (IPA) will support the implementation, at the national level, of the revised strategy implementing this
process and the Annex VII of the Dayton Agreement on Refugees and Displaced Persons. In this context, IPA will
work with the authorities on socioeconomic measures to ensure sustainability of returns.

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

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 345

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001426/12**

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

_(14 febbraio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Possibili finanziamenti per il progetto «Che strada prendo?»

Secondo i dati Eurostat di dicembre 2011, i disoccupati nell'Unione europea sono oltre 23 milioni e il tasso di
disoccupazione giovanile è del 22,1 %, il che significa che 5,4 milioni di giovani sotto i 25 anni non hanno un lavoro,
mentre il fenomeno dei cosiddetti NEET, giovani completamente fuori dal circuito formativo e lavorativo, riguarda il
12,8 % della popolazione tra i 15 e i 24 anni. In questo contesto, le attività di formazione e di orientamento dei
giovani assumono un'importanza cruciale per il loro avviamento professionale e per contrastare la disoccupazione
giovanile.

Il progetto «Che strada prendo?» è proposto dall'Agenzia giornalistica 9Colonne, una cooperativa di giornalisti nata
nel 1996 che attualmente occupa 12 professionisti con Ccnl giornalistico, uno staff grafico e circa 40 collaboratori. Il
progetto proposto consiste nel realizzare una libreria in continuo aggiornamento con video di circa tre minuti che
possano informare e spronare i giovani verso le carriere possibili, raccontando la storia di arti, mestieri e professioni a
loro sconosciuti o parzialmente conosciuti. L'obiettivo è quello di presentare ai giovani con immagini e un linguaggio
usuale informazioni sulle carriere possibili, la formazione necessaria per accedervi e le possibilità di apprendistato e di
avviamento al lavoro.

Tali informazioni saranno poi rese note nei luoghi maggiormente frequentati dai giovani e attraverso i mezzi di
comunicazione più utilizzati — ad esempio internet, televisione, cinema, agenzie per l'impiego — per permettere loro
di avere una conoscenza di base su cui costruire progetti per la loro vita personale e lavorativa.

La creazione della libreria avverrà attraverso passaggi successivi da realizzare nell'arco di tre anni, quali:

—
la redazione di schede di appoggio ai film con indicate: dalle informazioni base sulla professione alle scuole, i
corsi professionali, i percorsi formativi; dalle attuali disponibilità lavorative al range di guadagno possibile, le
malattie professionali, le condizioni di pensionamento, altri possibili mestieri collegati;

—
la produzione video; la stipulazione di accordi con TV per la distribuzione gratuita nel circuito televisivo;

—
la creazione del sito di base e collegamenti con altri siti;

—
l'impostazione del lavoro per l'eventuale distribuzione dei video nelle scuole; l'ufficio stampa per il sostegno e la
diffusione.

Ciò premesso, si chiede alla Commissione:

1. Esistono finanziamenti per la realizzazione di progetti con finalità simili a quello su esposto?

2. Qual è il quadro generale?

**Risposta data da Laszlo Andor a nome della Commissione**

_(20 marzo 2012)_

Le attività di orientamento e di formazione sono interventi tipici del Fondo sociale europeo ( [1] ) (FSE), tra i cui obiettivi
rientra il miglioramento delle prospettive occupazionali, obiettivo che coincide con quello indicato dall'onorevole
deputata nella descrizione del progetto.

L'FSE sostiene tali interventi per il tramite di programmi operativi (PO). In base al principio di gestione condivisa, i PO
dell'FSE sono gestiti a livello nazionale o regionale. Un'autorità di gestione è responsabile dell'attuazione di ciascun
PO e deve garantire che gli interventi previsti contribuiscano al raggiungimento degli obiettivi del programma.

Gli estremi per contattare le singole autorità di gestione sono disponibili sul sito web dell'FSE nella sezione «L'FSE
negli Stati membri»: http://ec.europa.eu/esf/main.jsp?catId=45&langId=it.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Per ulteriori informazioni si rinvia al sito: http://ec.europa.eu/esf/home.jsp?langId=it.

C 96 E / 346 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001426/12**

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

_(14 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Possible funding for the project ‘Which road shall I take?’

According to Eurostat data from December 2011, there are more than 23 million unemployed in the European
Union and the youth unemployment rate is 22.1 %, meaning that 5.4 million young people under the age of 25 do
not have a job, while the so-called NEET, young people not in education, employment or training, represent 12.8 % of
the population between 15 and 24 years of age. In this context, training and orientation activities for young people
assume a crucial importance for their introduction into the world of work and as a means of tackling youth
unemployment.

The ‘Which road shall I take?’ project was proposed by the _9Colonne_ news agency, a cooperative of journalists founded
in 1996 which currently employs 12 professionals covered by the National Collective Labour Agreement for
journalists, a graphics department and a staff of around 40. The proposed project consists of creating a continuously
updated library of videos of around three minutes long designed to inform youngsters and motivate them to consider
possible careers by focusing on arts, trades and professions which they know nothing or little about. The aim is to
provide young people with information, using images and everyday language, about possible careers, the training
required to access them and the opportunities for apprenticeships and introductions to work.

This information will then be publicised in places often frequented by young people and through the most commonly
used means of communication — for example on the Internet, on television, at the cinema, in job centres — to allow
them to acquire a foundation of knowledge on the basis of which they can make plans for their personal and
professional lives.

The creation of the library will be carried out via successive stages over three years, including:

—
drawing up information sheets to accompany the films and provide basic information on the profession,
covering: schools, vocational courses and training programmes; current job availability and the possible
earnings range; occupational illnesses, retirement conditions and other possible linked careers;

—
video production; concluding agreements with TV for free distribution on television networks;

—
creating a basic website and links to other sites;

—
making arrangements for the eventual distribution of the videos in schools; a press office to provide support
and publicity.

Bearing this in mind, we ask the Commission:

1. Does the funding exist to carry out projects with similar aims to that outlined above?

2. What is the general situation?

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

_(20 March 2012)_

Guidance and training activities are typical interventions of the European Social Fund ( [1] ) (ESF), which pursues aims
such as improving employment prospects, the aim indicated by the Honourable Member in the project description.

ESF supports such interventions through operational programmes (OPs). According to the principle of shared
management, ESF OPs are managed at national or regional level. A managing authority is responsible for the
implementation of each OP and for safeguarding that the planned interventions contribute to the objectives of the

programme.

Contact details for each managing authority are available on the ESF website in the dedicated section ‘ESF in Member
States’: http://ec.europa.eu/esf/main.jsp?catId=45&langId=en

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) More information on http://ec.europa.eu/esf/home.jsp?langId=en.

4.4.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96 E / 347

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001427/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Sergio Paolo Frances Silvestris (PPE)**

_(7 febbraio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Possibili fondi in favore dell'Associazione Opera

L'Associazione culturale Opera, con sede a Molfetta, non ha scopo di lucro e persegue l'obiettivo — come si legge
nello statuto — «di far crescere la comunità locale pugliese non in termini economici e individuali, ma in termini
culturali e di qualità della vita». In particolare, la strategia è quella di far crescere la cultura d'impresa e la sua capacità
di interagire con il territorio per una crescita comune.

Gli strumenti cui l'Associazione culturale Opera ricorre per raggiungere tali obiettivi sono i più diversi: convegni,
attività editoriale, partecipazione collettiva a fiere, spettacoli, mostre d'arte, promozione turistica per evidenziare le
peculiarità e i maggiori eventi e far riconoscere il territorio come «terra dell'accoglienza». Tra i progetti più rilevanti
dell'Associazione vi è la promozione della «Settimana Santa in Puglia», ovvero la promozione in tutta Europa dei riti
pasquali che caratterizzano il periodo pasquale nei comuni pugliesi.

Alla luce dei fatti sopraesposti, si chiede alla Commissione:

1. Considerando gli obiettivi di promozione e marketing delle comunità territoriali senza scopo di lucro,
l'Associazione Opera può usufruire di fondi europei per le proprie attività?

2. Ritiene che il modello di questa Associazione possa essere replicato in altri Paesi europei nell'ambito di futuri
progetti pilota?

**Risposta data da Johannes Hahn a nome della Commissione**

_(16 marzo 2012)_

Le attività culturali e turistiche possono in effetti essere ammissibili a un cofinanziamento a patto che siano in linea
con gli obiettivi del programma interessato e soddisfino le regole UE e nazionali di ammissibilità. In base al principio
di gestione condivisa usato per gestire la politica di coesione lo Stato membro è responsabile della selezione dei
progetti, ragion per cui la Commissione suggerisce che l'onorevole deputato si metta direttamente in contatto con
l'autorità di gestione del programma Puglia:

Autorità di Gestione POR Puglia: Viale Japigia, n. 145, 70126 BARI, adgfesr@regione.puglia.it

C 96 E / 348 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.4.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-001427/12**

**to the Commission**
**Sergio Paolo Frances Silvestris (PPE)**

_(7 February 2012)_

_Subject:_ Possible funding for the Opera cultural association

The Opera cultural association, based in Molfetta, is a not‐for‐profit organisation that pursues the objective, as set out
in its articles of association, ‘of growing the local community in Apulia, focusing not on the economy and the
individual, but on culture and quality of life’. Its strategy consists in particular in developing an enterprise culture and
interaction with the local area in order to achieve shared growth.

The association uses a very wide range of means to achieve these objectives, including meetings, publications,
collective participation in fairs, shows, art exhibitions, and tourism campaigns to highlight local features and
important events and promote the area as a ‘land of welcome’. One of the association’s flagship projects is ‘Holy Week
in Apulia’, which seeks to promote throughout Europe the religious traditions that mark the Easter period in Apulia.

In the light of the above, would the Commission answer the following questions:

1. In view of the fact that it seeks to promote and market local communities on a not‐for‐profit basis, can the
Opera Association obtain EU funding for its activities?

2. Does it think that similar associations could be set up in other Member States under future pilot projects?

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

_(16 March 2012)_

Cultural and tourist related activities could indeed be eligible for co-financing, provided that they are in line with the
objectives of the programme concerned and comply with the EU and national eligibility rules. Under the shared
management principle used in administering cohesion policy, the Member State is responsible for the selection of
projects, and therefore the Commission suggests that the Honourable Member contact directly the managing
authority of the Puglia programme:

Autorità di Gestione POR Puglia: Viale Japigia, n. 145, 70126 Bari, adgfesr@regione.puglia.it

2013 SUBSCRIPTION PRICES (excluding VAT, including normal transport charges)

|EU Official Journal, L + C series, paper edition only|22 official EU languages|EUR 1 300 per year|Col4|
|---|---|---|---|
|EU Official Journal, L + C series, paper + annual DVD|22 official EU languages|EUR 1 420 per year||
|EU Official Journal, L series, paper edition only|22 official EU languages|EUR 910 per year||
|EU Official Journal, L + C series, monthly DVD (cumulative)|22 official EU languages|EUR 100 per year||
|Supplement to the Official Journal (S series), tendering procedures<br>for public contracts, DVD, one edition per week|multilingual:<br>23 official EU languages|EUR 200 per year||
|EU Official Journal, C series — recruitment competitions|Language(s) according to<br>competition(s)|EUR 50 per year||

Subscriptions to the Official Journal of the European Union, which is published in the official languages of the
European Union, are available for 22 language versions. The Official Journal comprises two series, L (Legislation)
and C (Information and Notices).

A separate subscription must be taken out for each language version.

In accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 920/2005, published in Official Journal L 156 of 18 June 2005, the
institutions of the European Union are temporarily not bound by the obligation to draft all acts in Irish and publish
them in that language. Irish editions of the Official Journal are therefore sold separately.

Subscriptions to the Supplement to the Official Journal (S Series — tendering procedures for public contracts)
cover all 23 official language versions on a single multilingual DVD.

On request, subscribers to the Official Journal of the European Union can receive the various Annexes
to the Official Journal. Subscribers are informed of the publication of Annexes by notices inserted in the
Official Journal of the European Union.

Sales and subscriptions

Subscriptions to various priced periodicals, such as the subscription to the Official Journal of the European Union,
are available from our sales agents. The list of sales agents is available at:

http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm

EUR-Lex (http://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