Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

ISSN 1725-2431
## C 80 E
# Official Journal
#### of the European Union

**Volume 57**
##### English edition Information and Notices 19 March 2014

_Notice to reader_

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

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

### **EN**

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 1

IV

_(Notices)_

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES

AND AGENCIES

###### EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

**WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER**

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

**by a European Union institution**

(2014/C 80 E/01)

**Contents** **Page**

**E-004630/13** by Hubert Pirker, Othmar Karas, Josef Weidenholzer, Birgit Sippel and Eva Lichtenberger to the
Commission
_Subject:_ Enforcement of European data protection standards in the Member States

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 25
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 27

**E-004631/13** by Konstantinos Poupakis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Food insecurity in Europe

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 28
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 29

**E-004632/13** by Konstantinos Poupakis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Absorption of Community funds in the Member States

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 30
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 31

**E-004633/13** by David Martin to the Commission
_Subject:_ Effect of welfare cuts on individuals' ability to gain access to social housing

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 32

**E-004634/13** by Gaston Franco to the Commission
_Subject:_ Marine and maritime cooperation in the Mediterranean

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

**E-004635/13** by Charles Tannock to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Abduction of Syrian bishops and the wider issue of Christians and kidnapping

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

**E-004636/13** by Derek Vaughan to the Commission
_Subject:_ Fracking

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 36

C 80 E / 2 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

**E-004637/13** by Derek Vaughan to the Commission
_Subject:_ Human rights in Burma

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

**E-004638/13** by Mario Borghezio to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU monitoring of corruption in Croatia

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 38
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 39

**E-004639/13** by Matteo Salvini to the Commission
_Subject:_ Protection of products with an application for protected geographical indication (PGI) or denomination
of controlled and guaranteed origin (DOCG) status pending approval

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 40
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 41

**E-004858/13** by Franz Obermayr to the Commission
_Subject:_ Partial ban on certain pesticides (neonicotinoids) — risks to bees and birds

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 42
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 43

**E-004859/13** by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission
_Subject:_ Storage of passenger name records (PNR)

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 44
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 45

**E-004860/13** by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission
_Subject:_ The fight against cyberbullying

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 46
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 47

**E-004861/13** by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission
_Subject:_ Waste/loss of food

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 48
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 50

**E-004862/13** by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission
_Subject:_ Central firearms register and illegal privately owned firearms

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 51
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 52

**E-004866/13** by Patrick Le Hyaric to the Commission
_Subject:_ Pesticides harmful to health in France

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 53
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 54

**E-004867/13** by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission
_Subject:_ Incompatibility of the fiscal compact with the Treaty of Lisbon

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

**E-004868/13** by Zbigniew Ziobro to the Commission
_Subject:_ Labelling of food products in the EU

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 57
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 58

**P-004869/13** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Antequera railway test circuit

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 59
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 60

**P-004870/13** by Magdi Cristiano Allam to the Commission
_Subject:_ Production of PDO buffalo-milk mozzarella in Campania

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

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 3

**E-004872/13** by Nadja Hirsch to the Commission
_Subject:_ Data retention

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 63
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 65

**E-004873/13** by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Investigations regarding new uncontrolled waste disposal sites in Greece

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

**E-004874/13** by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Compulsory retirement of Greek civil servants

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

**E-004875/13** by Georgios Stavrakakis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Cohesion policy funding reprogrammed for the 2007-2013 period in Greece

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 71
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 72

**E-004876/13** by Georgios Stavrakakis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Financial instruments in support of SMEs

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 73
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 74

**E-004877/13** by Georgios Stavrakakis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Educational infrastructure projects receiving support from cohesion policy funds in Greece

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

**E-004878/13** by Georgios Stavrakakis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Institutional capacity-building programme in Greece supported by the ESF

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

**E-004879/13** by Georgios Stavrakakis to the Commission
_Subject:_ ERDF/Cohesion Fund gross jobs created in the period 2007-2013

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 79
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 80

**E-004880/13** by Georgios Stavrakakis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Water supply and waste water projects funded by Cohesion Policy

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 81
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 82

**E-004881/13** by Georgios Stavrakakis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Project selection trends in the 2007-2013 cohesion policy programming period

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 83
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 84

**E-004882/13** by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Mother forces daughter to become surrogate

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 85
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 86

**E-004884/13** by Andrea Zanoni to the Commission
_Subject:_ Infringement of Directive 2001/42/EC on the grounds of failure to carry out a strategic environmental
assessment (SEA) on the quarry plan for the Province of Bergamo

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 87
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 88

**E-004887/13** by Konrad Szymański to the Commission
_Subject:_ Anti-dumping duties on the import of flat glass in Ukraine

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 89
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 90

C 80 E / 4 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

**E-004888/13** by Silvia-Adriana Ţicău to the Commission
_Subject:_ National programmes for increasing the number of nearly zero-energy buildings

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

**E-004889/13** by Søren Bo Søndergaard to the Commission
_Subject:_ Inadequate internal height of means of transport for animals

Dansk udgave .................................................................................................................................................................... 93
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 94

**E-004890/13** by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission
_Subject:_ Possible funding to enhance the archaeological heritage of the town of Anagni

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 95
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 96

**P-004891/13** by Derek Roland Clark to the Commission
_Subject:_ Premature disclosure of inside information on the Cyprus bailout

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

**P-004892/13** by Lorenzo Fontana to the Commission
_Subject:_ Restrictions to the free movement of EU citizens in Switzerland

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 98
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 99

**P-004893/13** by Eva Ortiz Vilella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Intervention by the EU Solidarity Fund in the Autonomous Community of Valencia

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 100
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 101

**E-004894/13** by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission
_Subject:_ Right-wing violence and lack of police control in Greece

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 102
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 103

**E-004895/13** by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission
_Subject:_ Negotiations for a treaty on books for blind and visually impaired persons

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

**E-004896/13** by Christel Schaldemose to the Commission
_Subject:_ Plastic microparticles in cosmetics

Dansk udgave .................................................................................................................................................................... 106
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 107

**E-004897/13** by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission
_Subject:_ Crisis at ACC Compressors Spa in Mel (province of Belluno): 600 jobs at risk

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

**P-004898/13** by Andreas Schwab to the Commission
_Subject:_ Simplifications for authorised economic operators (AEO) under the EU Customs Code

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 110
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 111

**P-004899/13** by Younous Omarjee to the Commission
_Subject:_ Regional cooperation involving the outermost regions and the need to develop synergies between
European funds

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 112
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 113

**P-004900/13** by Francesco Enrico Speroni to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Desirability of a statement by the VP/HR on the application by Switzerland of the safeguard
clause on freedom of movement

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

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 5

**P-004901/13** by Silvia-Adriana Ţicău to the Commission
_Subject:_ Impact of the issuing of driver attestations for persons who are neither nationals nor long-term residents
of the Member States

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 116
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 117

**E-004902/13** by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission
_Subject:_ Offsetting of gambling losses against income tax

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 118
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 119

**E-004903/13** by Georgios Stavrakakis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Level of payments as of 30 April 2013

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 120
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 121

**E-004904/13** by Paul Murphy to the Commission
_Subject:_ GSP+ regulation and Pakistan

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

**E-004905/13** by Ismail Ertug to the Commission
_Subject:_ Surveys of vegetarians and vegetarian products

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 123
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 124

**E-004906/13** by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Increase in uninsured work in Greece

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 125
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 126

**E-004908/13** by Gay Mitchell to the Commission
_Subject:_ Nutrition and immunisations

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 127

**E-004910/13** by Andrea Zanoni to the Commission
_Subject:_ Right to information of Italian, Slovenian and Croatian citizens with regard to the content of a classified
study on seismic activity at the Krško nuclear site in the Republic of Slovenia

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 128
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 129

**E-004911/13** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Safety at the time of the 2006 metro crash in Valencia

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 130
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 131

**E-004912/13** by Franz Obermayr to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — EEAS — Organograms for public information purposes

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 132
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 133

**E-004913/13** by Franz Obermayr to the Commission
_Subject:_ Telematics in motor vehicles — ‘pay-as-you-drive’ (PAYD)/usage-based insurance (UBI)

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 134
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 135

**E-004914/13** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Public executions in Iran: how to get to grips with this heinous and inhumane reality

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 136
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 137

**E-004915/13** by Nessa Childers to the Commission
_Subject:_ Commission expert groups

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 138

C 80 E / 6 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

**E-004917/13** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Draft interministerial decree (Act No 452) in breach of Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging

waste

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 139
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 140

**E-004918/13** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Italian tanneries and protectionist policies regarding raw material: EU measures

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 141
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 143

**E-004920/13** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Providing better services for premature babies

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 145
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 147

**E-004921/13** by Claudio Morganti to the Commission
_Subject:_ Situation of minors at ‘Il Forteto’

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 149
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 150

**E-004923/13** by Michael Cramer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Protection of animals during transport — Number of inspectors at FVO

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 151
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 152

**E-004924/13** by Nessa Childers to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Persecution of Iranian Christians

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 153

**E-004925/13** by Esther de Lange to the Commission
_Subject:_ Shortages of European baby milk powder due to huge rise in demand in China

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 154
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 155

**E-004926/13** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Renovation of Barcelona's Port Vell

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 156
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 157

**E-004927/13** by Jim Higgins to the Commission
_Subject:_ Bus competition and access to publicly funded bus stations and transport infrastructure in the Republic
of Ireland

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 158

**E-004928/13** by Jim Higgins to the Commission
_Subject:_ Tobacco Products Directive

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 159

**E-004929/13** by Linda McAvan, David Martin and Michael Cashman to the Commission
_Subject:_ Everything But Arms agreement with Cambodia and human rights

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 160

**E-004930/13** by Ian Hudghton to the Commission
_Subject:_ UK ‘bedroom tax’

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 161

**E-004931/13** by Chris Davies to the Commission
_Subject:_ ‘Capture-ready’ status of new power plants

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 162

**E-004932/13** by Roberta Angelilli to the Council
_Subject:_ Arms Trade Treaty

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

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 7

**E-004933/13** by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Arms Trade Treaty

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

**E-004934/13** by Aldo Patriciello to the Commission
_Subject:_ State aid for rolling stock and freight train operators

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

**E-004935/13** by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission
_Subject:_ Budget for research and innovation

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

**E-004936/13** by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission
_Subject:_ Berco Spa crisis — employees likely to be made redundant

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

**E-004937/13** by Rachida Dati to the Commission
_Subject:_ New impetus for ‘blue growth’ in the Mediterranean

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

**E-004938/13** by Mark Demesmaeker to the Commission
_Subject:_ Registration, identification and uncontrolled sales of pets

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 175
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 176

**E-004939/13** by Mark Demesmaeker to the Commission
_Subject:_ State aid to Belfius

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 177
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 178

**E-004940/13** by Mark Demesmaeker to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Curbing the use of explosive weapons in densely populated areas

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 179
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 180

**E-004941/13** by Mark Demesmaeker to the Commission
_Subject:_ Compatibility of the Belgian decree of 24 November 1830 with European law

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 181
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 182

**P-004942/13** by Francesca Barracciu to the Commission
_Subject:_ Territorial continuity and application of the maximum concessionary fare to EU citizens born in Sardinia
who have emigrated from that region

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

**E-004943/13** by Jörg Leichtfried to the Commission
_Subject:_ Animal transport — necessary funds to increase the number of inspections

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 185
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 186

**E-004944/13** by Patrick Le Hyaric to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Construction of a separation wall in the Cremisan Valley near Bethlehem (Palestine)

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 187
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 188

**E-004945/13** by Patrick Le Hyaric to the Commission
_Subject:_ Seasonal closures of French power stations

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 189
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 190

C 80 E / 8 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

**E-004946/13** by Patrick Le Hyaric to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Israeli air strikes in the Gaza Strip

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 191
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 192

**E-004947/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ IMF forecast errors

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 193
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 194

**E-004949/13** by Zbigniew Ziobro to the Commission
_Subject:_ Danish boycott of Polish food

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 195
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 196

**E-004950/13** by Zbigniew Ziobro to the Commission
_Subject:_ Increase in VAT on medical products and devices

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 197
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 198

**E-004951/13** by Zbigniew Ziobro to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Harassment of the Russian opposition activist Alexei Navalny

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

**E-004952/13** by Zbigniew Ziobro to the Commission
_Subject:_ Problems faced by the Polish minority in Lithuania

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 201
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 202

**E-004955/13** by Zbigniew Ziobro to the Commission
_Subject:_ Limiting imports of drug precursors into the EU

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 203
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 204

**E-004957/13** by Zbigniew Ziobro to the Commission
_Subject:_ Cancer treatment in the different EU Member States

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 205
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 206

**E-004958/13** by Zbigniew Ziobro to the Commission
_Subject:_ Mobile phone charges

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 207
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 208

**E-004959/13** by Zbigniew Ziobro to the Commission
_Subject:_ Maximum noise limits in the EU

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 209
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 210

**E-004964/13** by Fiorello Provera to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Turkish and Qatari support for Islamist groups

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 211
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 212

**E-004965/13** by Fiorello Provera to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Hamas provides students with military training

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 213
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 214

**E-004966/13** by Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Situation in Bangladesh

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 215
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 216

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 9

**E-004968/13** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — New Israeli attack on Syria

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 217
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 218

**E-004969/13** by Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg to the Commission
_Subject:_ Legal basis for the legislative procedure to be followed when amending Directive 87/2003/EC

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 219
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 220

**E-004972/13** by Mitro Repo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Taking account of special circumstances in northern regions in the rail sector

Suomenkielinen versio ..................................................................................................................................................... 221
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 222

**E-004973/13** by James Nicholson to the Commission
_Subject:_ European Disability Strategy 2010-2020: assessing national efforts

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

**E-004974/13** by Amelia Andersdotter to the Commission
_Subject:_ IPRED's contribution to the harmonisation of the internal market

Svensk version ................................................................................................................................................................... 224
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 225

**E-004975/13** by Giovanni La Via to the Commission
_Subject:_ Permissible limits for citrus pulp in animal feed

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 226
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 227

**E-004977/13** by Franz Obermayr to the Commission
_Subject:_ Financial assistance facility for ‘non-euro area’ Member States

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 228
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 229

**E-004978/13** by Franz Obermayr to the Commission
_Subject:_ Sharp rise in applications for asylum from Serbia and Macedonia

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 230
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 232

**P-004979/13** by Marietje Schaake to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Fulfilling full Unifil mandate in Lebanon and EU assistance to Lebanese Armed Forces

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 233
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 235

**E-004980/13** by Mariya Gabriel to the Commission
_Subject:_ Funding for the implementation of the European Union Strategy for the Danube Region

българска версия ............................................................................................................................................................... 236
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 237

**E-004981/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Working conditions in Bangladesh

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 238
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 240

**E-004982/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Tetrazepam

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 241
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 242

**E-004983/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Illegal wood imports

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 243
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 245

C 80 E / 10 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

**E-004984/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Exploitation of hydrocarbons in Alaska

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

**E-004986/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Road safety strategy

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 248
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 249

**E-004987/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Strategic guidelines for EU aquaculture

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 250
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 251

**E-004988/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU aid for cinema

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 252
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 253

**E-004990/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Prices of e-books

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 254
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 255

**E-004991/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU accused of aggression

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 256
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 257

**E-004992/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Letter bomb found in Germany

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 258
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 259

**E-004993/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Civilian casualties in Afghanistan

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 260
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 261

**E-004994/13** by Zbigniew Ziobro to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Imprisonment of Russian opposition activist Konstantin Lebedev

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 262
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 263

**E-004996/13** by Adam Bielan to the Commission
_Subject:_ Proposed changes to school nutrition schemes

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 264
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 265

**E-004997/13** by Adam Bielan to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Situation in Syria in connection with the suspected use of chemical weapons

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 266
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 267

**E-004998/13** by Adam Bielan to the Council
_Subject:_ Likelihood that an association agreement will be signed with Ukraine

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 268
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 269

**E-004999/13** by Adam Bielan to the Commission
_Subject:_ Negotiations on the EU-US trade agreement

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 270
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 271

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 11

**E-005001/13** by Fiorello Provera and Charles Tannock to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Iranian harassment of European satellite providers

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 272
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 274

**E-005002/13** by Fiorello Provera and Charles Tannock to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Gaddafi-era officials barred from holding public office in Libya

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

**E-005003/13** by Fiorello Provera and Charles Tannock to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Tragic case of an Afghan woman killed by her own father

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 277
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 279

**P-005004/13** by Janusz Władysław Zemke to the Commission
_Subject:_ Financial clearance of project No 2003/PL/16/P/PE/037 entitled ‘Grudziądz wastewater treatment’

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 280
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 281

**E-005005/13** by Sir Graham Watson to the Commission
_Subject:_ Polyisobutene (PIB) and a MARPOL (International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships) ban

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 282

**E-005006/13** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Small-scale fishing in the reform of the common fisheries policy (CFP)

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

**E-005007/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Facebook: Ban on videos showing decapitations

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

**E-005008/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Famine in Somalia

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

**E-005009/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Disappearance of an Italian journalist in Syria

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

**E-005010/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Uncertified artificial joints in France

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 291
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 292

**E-005011/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Israel's willingness to negotiate

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 293
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 294

**E-005012/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Death of Indian citizen convicted for spying in Pakistan

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 295
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 296

**E-005013/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ New virus in Saudi Arabia

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 297
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 298

C 80 E / 12 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

**E-005014/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Syria: chemical weapons

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 299
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 300

**E-005015/13** by Raül Romeva i Rueda, Ana Miranda, Willy Meyer, Dolores García-Hierro Caraballo, Andrés
Perelló Rodríguez, Raimon Obiols, Maria Badia i Cutchet, Vicente Miguel Garcés Ramón, Ricardo Cortés Lastra
and Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission
_Subject:_ Fracking in Spain and the Water Framework Directive

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 301
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 303

**E-005016/13** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Reform of European legislation on seeds

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 305
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 307

**E-005017/13** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Use of the AROPE rate

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 308
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 309

**E-005018/13** by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Council
_Subject:_ Data protection

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 310
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 311

**E-005019/13** by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU-US Free Trade Agreement

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 312
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 313

**E-005020/13** by Andreas Mölzer to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — South Korean ultimatum

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 314
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 315

**E-005021/13** by Nicole Sinclaire to the Commission
_Subject:_ Impact assessment on the beneficial use of e-cigarettes

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 316

**E-005022/13** by Andreas Mölzer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Redundancies among civil servants — a Greek sham

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 317
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 318

**E-005023/13** by Andreas Mölzer to the Commission
_Subject:_ European Court of Human Rights

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 319
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 320

**E-005024/13** by Fiona Hall to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Corruption in Indonesia's judicial system

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 321

**E-005025/13** by Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska to the Commission
_Subject:_ Long-distance transport of unbroken horses

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 322
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 323

**E-005026/13** by Fiorello Provera to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — UNDP sponsors tournament in honour of terrorist Abu Jihad

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

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 13

**E-005028/13** by Agnès Le Brun to the Commission
_Subject:_ Seed shallots and traditional shallots

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 326
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 327

**E-005029/13** by Barbara Matera to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Yulia Tymoshenko case

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 328
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 329

**E-005030/13** by Sebastian Valentin Bodu to the Commission
_Subject:_ Excessive transposition by Romania of Directive 2000/43/EC on discrimination

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 330
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 331

**E-005031/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Capture of a French Islamist in Mali

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 332
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 333

**E-005033/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Doping networks in cycling

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 334
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 335

**E-005034/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Smoking — increased risk of bowel cancer in women

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 336
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 337

**E-005035/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ New malaria-causing parasite in Cambodia

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 338
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 339

**E-005036/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Expulsion of USAID from Bolivia

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 340
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 341

**E-005037/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Fresh outbreak of anti-Muslim violence in Myanmar/Burma

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 342
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 343

**E-005038/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Australia — vaccine against malaria

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 344
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 345

**E-005039/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ High-intensity physical training — possible health risks

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 346
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 347

**E-005040/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Weather radar in the Azores

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 348
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 349

**E-005041/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Serious dengue epidemic in Paraguay

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 350
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 351

C 80 E / 14 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

**E-005042/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Obesity in young people: new studies

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 352
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 353

**E-005043/13** by Diogo Feio to the Council
_Subject:_ New rise in unemployment

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 354
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 355

**E-005044/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ New rise in unemployment

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 356
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 357

**E-005045/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Conflict minerals

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 358
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 359

**E-005046/13** by Diogo Feio to the Council
_Subject:_ EU tribute to Margaret Thatcher

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 360
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 361

**E-005047/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU tribute to Margaret Thatcher

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 362
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 363

**E-005048/13** by Diogo Feio to the Council
_Subject:_ The needs of the Malian army

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 364
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 365

**E-005049/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — The needs of the Malian army

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 366
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 367

**E-005050/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Illegal organ trafficking in Kosovo

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 368
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 369

**E-005051/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Ketamine — drug

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 370
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 371

**E-005052/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Guinea-Bissau: elections and the end of the transition period

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 372
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 373

**E-005053/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Legal action against the pharmaceutical company Novartis in the United States

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 374
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 375

**E-005054/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Mediterranean diet — reducing the risk of developing memory problems

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 376
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 377

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 15

**E-005055/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ John Dalli case — Giovanni Kessler's statement

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 378
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 379

**E-005056/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Germany — Commission's call for higher wages

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 380
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 381

**E-005057/13** by Diogo Feio to the Council
_Subject:_ Germany — security risk

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 382
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 383

**E-005058/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Germany — security risk

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 384
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 385

**E-005059/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Euro: effects of a German exit on the EU

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 386
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 387

**E-005060/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Mongolia: official visit

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

**E-005061/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — China: official visit

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

**E-005062/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Bosnia-Herzegovina: lack of progress

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

**E-005063/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Myanmar: lifting of sanctions

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 394
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 395

**E-005064/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Protocol between European and African Courts of Auditors

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 396
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 397

**E-005065/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ H7N9 bird flu

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 398
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 399

**E-005066/13** by Sven Giegold to the Commission
_Subject:_ Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure (MIP) (I)

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 400
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 401

**E-005067/13** by Sven Giegold to the Commission
_Subject:_ Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure (MIP) (II)

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 402
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 404

C 80 E / 16 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

**E-005068/13** by Sven Giegold to the Commission
_Subject:_ Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure (MIP) (III)

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 405
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 406

**E-005069/13** by Barbara Matera to the Commission
_Subject:_ Situation of women in Turkey

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 407
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 408

**E-005070/13** by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission
_Subject:_ Possible EU funding for the construction of the Maria Regina della Pace parish church (Rome)

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

**P-005071/13** by Claudio Morganti to the Commission
_Subject:_ Serious shortage of raw materials for the European tanning industry

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 411
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 412

**E-005072/13** by Diogo Feio to the Council
_Subject:_ Germany — Commission's call for higher wages

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

**E-005074/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Colombia: resumption of peace talks

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

**E-005075/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — West Africa: fight against drugs

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

**E-005076/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Cuba: Ángel Santiesteban-Prats imprisoned two months ago

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

**E-005078/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Brazilian beef — _E. coli_ bacteria

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

**E-005079/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Caffeine: helping to prevent breast cancer recurrence

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

**E-005080/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Cape Verde: illegal shark fishing by European vessels

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

**E-005084/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Aftermath of the Boston bombings — issue of video surveillance

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

**E-005086/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Boston bombings — European solidarity with the victims and the United States

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

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 17

**E-005087/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Angola — combating malaria

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

**E-005091/13** by Diogo Feio to the Council
_Subject:_ Switzerland — restrictions to the free movement of EU citizens

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

**E-005092/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Switzerland: restrictions to the free movement of EU citizens

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

**E-005094/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Drought in southern Europe — impact assessment

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

**E-005095/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Outermost regions — reinforcing territorial cooperation

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

**E-005096/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — State of play of the Cocaine Route Programme

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

**E-005098/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Public-private partnerships — passivity of the European authorities

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

**E-005099/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Situation of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in Russia

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

**E-005100/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ New EUR 5 notes — risk of scams and fraud

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 447
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 448

**E-005101/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Organ trafficking in Mozambique

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 449
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 450

**E-005102/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Libyan ministries siege

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 451
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 452

**E-005103/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — North Korea — Kenneth Bae

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 453
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 454

**E-005106/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Tension between political and judicial authorities in Egypt

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 455
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 456

C 80 E / 18 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

**E-005108/13** by Diogo Feio to the Council
_Subject:_ Low turnout at the polls in Croatia

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 457
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 458

**E-005114/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Restrictions on entry to Canada for temporary foreign workers

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 459
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 460

**E-005115/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Increasing food prices — social consequences

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 461
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 462

**E-005116/13** by Edite Estrela to the Commission
_Subject:_ Effectiveness of measures to reduce health inequalities in the EU

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 463
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 464

**E-005117/13** by Giommaria Uggias to the Commission
_Subject:_ Free movement of European citizens within the Union

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 465
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 466

**E-005118/13** by Charles Tannock to the Commission
_Subject:_ Legal status of the Fiscal Compact Treaty

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 467

**E-005119/13** by Charles Tannock to the Commission
_Subject:_ Level of support for canal-building and maintenance within the Trans-European Networks (TENs)

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 468

**E-005121/13** by Charles Tannock to the Commission
_Subject:_ Decision to allow fish farmers to feed their stocks with products from slaughtered chickens and pigs

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 469

**E-005122/13** by Charles Tannock to the Commission
_Subject:_ Protection of Islamic manuscripts in Mali

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 470

**E-005123/13** by Josef Weidenholzer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Online gambling

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 471
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 472

**E-005124/13** by Mario Borghezio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Antibiotic use in birds

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 473
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 474

**E-005125/13** by Mario Borghezio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Request for EU action to safeguard public

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 475
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 476

**E-005126/13** by Charles Tannock to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Further attacks on Christians in Pakistan, and alleged government inaction

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 477

**E-005127/13** by Amelia Andersdotter to the Commission
_Subject:_ Review of the Payment Services Directive

Svensk version ................................................................................................................................................................... 478
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 479

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 19

**E-005128/13** by Amelia Andersdotter to the Commission
_Subject:_ Standardisation of particular use cases in HTML5

Svensk version ................................................................................................................................................................... 480
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 481

**P-005129/13** by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission
_Subject:_ Dumping duty evasion

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 482
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 483

**P-005130/13** by Maria do Céu Patrão Neves to the Commission
_Subject:_ 50% increase in the scheme to compensate for the additional costs incurred in the marketing of certain
fishery products from the outermost regions

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 484
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 485

**P-005131/13** by Werner Langen to the Commission
_Subject:_ Areas under vine and wine production in the EU Member States and changes since 2000

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 486
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 487

**P-005132/13** by Charles Tannock to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — EU election observers and voter registration in Pakistan

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 488

**E-005134/13** by Raimon Obiols to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Judicial proceedings against Victoire Ingabire

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 489
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 490

**E-005135/13** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ European funding for the opening and running of museums

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 491
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 492

**E-005136/13** by Franz Obermayr to the Commission
_Subject:_ Living conditions of Roma and Sinti — the problem of ‘poverty migration’

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 493
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 495

**E-005137/13** by Daciana Octavia Sârbu and Cătălin Sorin Ivan to the Commission
_Subject:_ Data gaps for diabetes

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 496
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 497

**E-005138/13** by Claudio Morganti to the Commission
_Subject:_ Chinese shadow banking

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 498
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 499

**E-005139/13** by Kriton Arsenis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Citizens' access to environmental information regarding the ‘ITANOS GAIA’ investment

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 500
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 501

**E-005140/13** by João Ferreira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Assistance for building a farmers' market in Poceirão (in the municipality of Palmela)

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 502
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 503

**E-005141/13** by João Ferreira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Support for burning grapes in the Setúbal region (2010 and 2011)

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 504
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 505

C 80 E / 20 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

**E-005142/13** by João Ferreira to the Commission
_Subject:_ New tax rules for small-scale farmers in Portugal

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 506
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 507

**E-005143/13** by João Ferreira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Rice prices charged by supermarkets in Portugal

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 508
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 509

**E-005144/13** by João Ferreira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Proposal for a regulation on the marketing of plant propagating material

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 510
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 511

**E-005145/13** by João Ferreira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Virus affecting oyster production

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

**E-005146/13** by João Ferreira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Deterioration in healthcare services in Portugal — situation of haemophiliacs

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

**E-005147/13** by João Ferreira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Project bonds pilot phase

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

**E-005148/13** by João Ferreira to the Commission
_Subject:_ European Investment Bank (EIB) funding for cooperatives

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

**E-005149/13** by João Ferreira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Producers organisations in the rice and maize sectors

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

**E-005150/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Openness and democracy in the EU

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

**E-005151/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Acidification of the waters of the Arctic Ocean

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 524
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 526

**E-005152/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ New Spanish rent law: ban on renting to tourists

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 527
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 528

**E-005153/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ European Heart Failure Awareness Day

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 529
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 530

**E-005154/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Seas of Guinea-Bissau put under the protection of the Economic Community of West African
States (Ecowas)

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 531
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 532

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 21

**E-005155/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Timor Sea: espionage by Australia

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

**E-005156/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Euro crisis: statements by Oskar Lafontaine

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 535
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 536

**E-005157/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Online sale of medicines

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 537
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 538

**E-005158/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ São Tomé and Príncipe: possible postponement of elections

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 539
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 540

**E-005159/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Syria: Carla del Ponte on the use of chemical weapons

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 541
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 542

**E-005160/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Wolfgang Schäuble: youth unemployment

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 543
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 544

**E-005163/13** by Santiago Fisas Ayxela to the Commission
_Subject:_ Follow-up on the Vitorino mediation report

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 545
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 546

**E-005164/13** by Edite Estrela, Vital Moreira, Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, Elisa Ferreira, António Fernando
Correia de Campos, Luís Paulo Alves and Ana Gomes to the Commission
_Subject:_ The Estaleiros Navais de Viana do Castelo, S.A. shipyard

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 547
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 548

**E-005165/13** by Francesca Barracciu to the Commission
_Subject:_ Management and programming of EU funds in Sardinia for the periods 2000-2006 and 2007-2013 and
for the new programming period 2014-2020

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 549
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 550

**E-005166/13** by Amelia Andersdotter to the Commission
_Subject:_ Evidence-based policy-making

Svensk version ................................................................................................................................................................... 551
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 552

**E-005168/13** by Michał Tomasz Kamiński to the Commission
_Subject:_ Bosnia and Herzegovina discriminates against Jewish minority

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 553
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 554

**E-005169/13** by Michał Tomasz Kamiński to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Conflict in Mali could spread into Western Sahara

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 555
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 556

C 80 E / 22 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

**E-005170/13** by Michał Tomasz Kamiński to the Commission
_Subject:_ Counterfeit products from China

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 557
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 558

**E-005171/13** by Michał Tomasz Kamiński to the Commission
_Subject:_ ‘Designer drugs’ prevention in Poland

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 559
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 560

**E-005172/13** by Michał Tomasz Kamiński to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Ethnic cleansing of the Muslim population in Burma/Myanmar

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 561
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 562

**E-005173/13** by Michał Tomasz Kamiński to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — UN running out of funds to help people of Syria

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 563
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 564

**E-005174/13** by Michał Tomasz Kamiński to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Swiss Government extends labour market restrictions

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 565
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 566

**E-005175/13** by Michał Tomasz Kamiński to the Commission
_Subject:_ Investigation into Russian gas producer and supplier Gazprom

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 567
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 568

**E-005178/13** by Bart Staes to the Commission
_Subject:_ Horse meat: DNA and phenylbutazone test results

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 569
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 571

**E-005179/13** by James Nicholson to the Commission
_Subject:_ Sharing CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) best practice

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 572

**E-005180/13** by James Nicholson to the Commission
_Subject:_ Further research into declining bee numbers

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 573

**E-005181/13** by James Nicholson to the Commission
_Subject:_ Analysis of research relating to extreme weather patterns

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 574

**E-005182/13** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Plant-based biodegradable chewing gum: a sustainable and environmentally-friendly solution

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

**E-005183/13** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Glucose meters and insulin pumps — obtaining better guarantees before and after placing on the market
in European countries

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 577
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 579

**E-005184/13** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Assimilated Italian higher education institutions — guaranteeing a more decent future

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 580
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 581

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 23

**E-005185/13** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Possible new measures for social housing programmes: providing accommodation to more vulnerable
families and equal treatment

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 582
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 584

**E-005186/13** by Oreste Rossi and Giancarlo Scottà to the Commission
_Subject:_ Vaccine against measles and autism — existence of an actual causal link and legal protection in Europe

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 585
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 587

**P-005187/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Statements by Jörg Asmussen: end of the troika model

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 588
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 589

**E-005188/13** by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Request from the Municipal Council of the occupied town of Kythrea

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

**E-005190/13** by Gay Mitchell, Filip Kaczmarek, Liam Aylward, Barbara Matera, Sari Essayah, Diane Dodds,
Charles Tannock, Anna Záborská, Vytautas Landsbergis, Nirj Deva, Miroslav Mikolášik and Konrad Szymański to
the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Alleged forced sterilisations in India

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 592
Tekstas lietuvių kalba ....................................................................................................................................................... 593
Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 594
Slovenské znenie ............................................................................................................................................................... 595

Suomenkielinen versio ..................................................................................................................................................... 596
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 597

**E-005191/13** by Dimitar Stoyanov to the Commission
_Subject:_ Energy subsidies for agricultural producers in the EU's developing countries

българска версия ............................................................................................................................................................... 598
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 599

**E-005192/13** by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission
_Subject:_ Children involved in criminal, administrative and civil legal proceedings

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 600
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 601

**E-005194/13** by Marina Yannakoudakis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Regional funds to help Cyprus deal with the current socioeconomic crisis

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 602

**E-005195/13** by Amelia Andersdotter to the Commission
_Subject:_ TPMs for broadcasters' rights in HTML5 compared with Premier League case

Svensk version ................................................................................................................................................................... 603
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 604

**E-005197/13** by Cornelis de Jong to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU legislation on the marketing of seed and plant propagating material (SPPM)

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 605
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 606

**E-005198/13** by Cornelis de Jong to the Commission
_Subject:_ Tobacco lobbying and implementation of WHO rules

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 607
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 608

**E-005199/13** by João Ferreira and Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission
_Subject:_ Closure of GE Power Controls Portugal in Vila Nova de Gaia

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 609
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 611

C 80 E / 24 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

**E-005200/13** by João Ferreira and Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission
_Subject:_ Relocation threats by the multinational Dacia (Renault Group)

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

**E-005201/13** by João Ferreira and Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission
_Subject:_ Evolution of labour costs in Portugal (Eurostat data)

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

**E-005202/13** by João Ferreira and Inês Cristina Zuber to the Council
_Subject:_ PCE/PEC — President of the European Council's remarks regarding the situation in Portugal

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 616
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 618

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 25

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-004630/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Hubert Pirker (PPE), Othmar Karas (PPE), Josef Weidenholzer (S&D), Birgit Sippel (S&D) und Eva**

**Lichtenberger (Verts/ALE)**

_(25. April 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Durchsetzung der europäischen Datenschutznormen in den Mitgliedstaaten

Um die Einhaltung der europarechtlichen Bestimmungen zum Nutzen für die EU-Bürger im Bereich Datenschutz zu
gewährleisten, ist eine gleichmäßige Gesetzgebung, Umsetzung auf nationaler Ebene und Durchsetzung unerlässlich.

Aufgrund der starken Konzentration von IT-Unternehmen in der Republik Irland kommt vor allem der dortigen
Aufsichtsbehörde für Datenschutz eine Schlüsselrolle zu. Es ist bedauerlich, wenn gerade dort Kritik über das
Vorgehen der Behörde laut wird.

So sollen laut der Initiative „Europe-versus-Facebook“ mehr als tausend formelle Beschwerden gegen Facebook von
der irischen Behörde lediglich mit standardisierten E-Mails beantwortet worden sein. Eine große Zahl von
Beschwerden sind diesbezüglich bei der Kommission unter dem einheitlichen Aktenzeichen CHAP (2012)01144
eingegangen. Die Gruppe „europe-v-facebook.org“ beklagt in einem Verfahren gegen Facebook außerdem, keine
Einsicht in Akten und Beweismittel zu erhalten.

Die Kommission wird daher um die Beantwortung folgender Fragen ersucht:

1. Wie viele Beschwerden unter dem Aktenzeichen CHAP (2012) 01144 sind bei der Kommission eingegangen?
Wie wurden diese Beschwerden in der Kommission weiter verfolgt und bearbeitet?

2. Wie überwacht die Kommission die gleichmäßige Durchsetzung der datenschutzrechtlichen Bestimmungen
der RL 95/46/EG in der Republik Irland und in den anderen Mitgliedstaaten?

3. Ist die Kommission der Ansicht, dass die oben genannten datenschutzrechtlichen Bestimmungen in den
Mitgliedstaaten gleichmäßig durchgesetzt werden?

4. Welche Auswirkungen hat das vorgeschlagene Datenschutzpaket auf die Arbeit und die Ausstattung der
Datenschutzbehörden?

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

_(2. Juli 2013)_

Zwischen April 2012 und Februar 2013 sind bei der Kommission 180 Beschwerden unter dem Aktenzeichen
CHAP (2012)1144 eingegangen. Sie werden derzeit geprüft.

Im Mittelpunkt der Beschwerden steht die Behauptung, dass der irische Datenschutzbeauftragte (DPC) keine
angemessenen Maßnahmen ergriffen habe, um das Auskunftsrecht betroffener Personen hinsichtlich ihrer
personenbezogenen Daten ( [1] ) gegenüber Facebook Ireland (FB) durchzusetzen, und somit den Anforderungen an
nationale Datenschutzbehörden gemäß den Artikeln 24 und 28 der Richtlinie 95/46/EG ( [2] ) nicht entsprochen habe.
Den der Kommission vorliegenden Informationen zufolge hat der DPC zur Bewertung der Vereinbarkeit von FB mit
den geltenden Datenschutzbestimmungen zwei Prüfungen durchgeführt, deren Ergebnis in zwei Berichten
(Dezember 2011 und September 2012) veröffentlicht wurde. In dem zweiten Prüfbericht kommt der DPC zu dem
Schluss, dass FB die Empfehlungen aus dem ersten Bericht umgesetzt hat. Die Kommission berücksichtigt bei ihrer
Analyse alle verfügbaren Informationen.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Artikel 12 der Richtlinie.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Richtlinie 95/46/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 24. Oktober 1995 zum Schutz natürlicher Personen bei der Verarbeitung

personenbezogener Daten und zum freien Datenverkehr, ABl. L 281 vom 23.11.1995, S. 31-50 und irische Durchführungsbestimmungen.

C 80 E / 26 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

Die vorgeschlagene Datenschutz-Grundverordnung ( [3] ) spezifiziert die Bedingungen für die Unabhängigkeit der
Datenschutzbehörde unter Berücksichtigung der Rechtsprechung des Gerichtshofs der Europäischen Union ( [4] ). Nach
Artikel 47 hat jeder Mitgliedstaat sicherzustellen, dass die Aufsichtsbehörde mit angemessenen personellen,
technischen und finanziellen Ressourcen, Räumlichkeiten und mit der erforderlichen Infrastruktur ausgestattet wird,
um ihre Aufgaben und Befugnisse effektiv wahrnehmen zu können. Gemäß Artikel 79 können Verstöße gegen das
Recht auf Datenauskunft eine Geldbuße bis in Höhe von 1 % des weltweiten Jahresumsatzes eines Unternehmens
nach sich ziehen.

Das in Artikel 58 vorgeschlagene Kohärenzverfahren wird eine stärkere Koordinierung und engere Zusammenarbeit
der Datenschutzbehörden gewährleisten, wenn sich die Verarbeitung auf in mehreren Mitgliedstaaten erbrachte
Leistungen bezieht.

( **|**

⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Vorschlag für eine Verordnung des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates zum Schutz natürlicher Personen bei der Verarbeitung

personenbezogener Daten und zum freien Datenverkehr (Datenschutz-Grundverordnung) vom 25.1.2012, KOM(2012)11 endg.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Gerichtshof der EU, Urteil vom 9.3.2010, Rs. C-518/07, Kommission/Deutschland, Slg. 2010, I-1885.

( **|**

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 27

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004630/13**

**to the Commission**
**Hubert Pirker (PPE), Othmar Karas (PPE), Josef Weidenholzer (S&D), Birgit Sippel (S&D)**

**and Eva Lichtenberger (Verts/ALE)**

_(25 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Enforcement of European data protection standards in the Member States

In order to ensure compliance with the data protection provisions under European law to the benefit of EU citizens,
uniform legislation, transposition at national level and enforcement are vital.

Because of the heavy concentration of IT businesses in the Republic of Ireland, the local data protection supervisory
authority plays a key role here. It is regrettable when criticisms are raised in relation to the procedures followed by
this very authority.

For example, according to the ‘Europe-versus-Facebook’ initiative, more than a thousand formal complaints against
Facebook were simply answered by the Irish authorities with standardised e-mails. The Commission has received a
large number of complaints in this regard under the single file number CHAP (2012) 01144. In a case taken against
Facebook, the ‘europe-v-facebook.org’ group also complains that it has been refused access to files and evidence.

Can the Commission therefore answer the following questions:

1. How many complaints has the Commission received under file number CHAP (2012) 01144? How have these
complaints been followed up and dealt with in the Commission?

2. How does the Commission monitor the uniform transposition of the data protection provisions under
Directive 95/46/EC in the Republic of Ireland and in the other Member States?

3. Does the Commission take the view that the aforementioned data protection provisions are transposed to the
same extent in the various Member States?

4. What are the consequences of the proposed data protection package for the work and budget of the data
protection authorities?

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

_(2 July 2013)_

The Commission received 180 complaints registered under CHAP No (2012)1144 between April 2012 and
February 2013. They are currently under examination.

The complaints focus on the allegation that the Irish Data Protection Commissioner (DPC) failed to take appropriate
action to enforce the data subjects' right of access to personal data ( [1] ) against Facebook Ireland (FB) and thereby did
not meet the requirements for national DPAs under Articles 24 and 28 of Directive 95/46/EC ( [2] ). The information
available to the Commission shows that the DPC has carried out two audits assessing the compliance of FB with the
applicable data protection rules. The outcome of the audits was published in two reports, of December 2011 and of
September 2012. In the second audit report, the DPC concludes that FB has implemented the recommendations
addressed to it in the first report. The Commission will take into account all the available information for its analysis.

The proposed General Data Protection Regulation ( [3] ) clarifies the conditions for the independence of data protection
supervisory authorities, taking into account the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union ( [4] ). Art. 47
requires each Member State to ensure that the supervisory authority is provided with the adequate human, technical
and financial resources, premises and infrastructure necessary for the effective performance of its duties and powers.
Art. 79 also ensures that violations of the right to provide access to data can result in a fine of up to 1% of a
company's worldwide turnover.

The consistency mechanism proposed in Art. 58 will ensure greater coordination and cooperation between
supervisory authorities where the processing operation relates to services provided in several Member States.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Article 12 of the directive.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the

processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31‐50 and the Irish implementing provisions.

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

data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation) of 25.1.2012 (COM(2012) 011 final).

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Court of Justice of the EU, judgment of 9.3.2010, Commission/Germany, Case C-518/07, ECR 2010 p. I-1885.

( **|**

( **|**

C 80 E / 28 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-004631/13**

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

_(25 Απριλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Η επισιτιστική ανασφάλεια στην Ευρώπη

Η μετεξέλιξη της χρηματοπιστωτικής κρίσης σε κοινωνική και ανθρωπιστική κρίση συνοδεύεται από την εμφάνιση ή τη
ραγδαία αύξηση φαινομένων ένδειας, ακραίας φτώχειας, ακόμα και σοβαρής υλικής υστέρησης. Κατ' αυτόν τον τρόπο, η
αδυναμία ενός μεγάλου μέρους του ευρωπαϊκού πληθυσμού να εξασφαλίσει τα «απαραίτητα» διαμορφώνει, μεταξύ άλλων,
συνθήκες επιδείνωσης κρίσιμων κοινωνικών δεικτών, όπως είναι ο δείκτης της «επισιτιστικής ανασφάλειας».

Σε αυτό το πλαίσιο ερωτάται η Επιτροπή;

Διαθέτει στατιστικά στοιχεία για τα ποσοστά επισιτιστικής ανασφάλειας στα κράτη μέλη τόσο στο γενικό πληθυσμό, όσο και
στα παιδιά;

Δεδομένου ότι ήδη είναι υπό εξέταση η πρόταση για τη σύσταση ταμείου για τους απόρους, στη θέση του προγράμματος
επισιτιστικής βοήθειας, πώς σκοπεύει να διασφαλίσει ότι οι εν λόγω πόροι θα φτάσουν σε αυτούς που πραγματικά έχουν
ανάγκη και πώς πρόκειται να αξιολογηθεί η αποτελεσματικότητά του;

Υπάρχουν περαιτέρω διαθέσιμα κονδύλια από τα ευρωπαϊκά διαρθρωτικά ταμεία που μπορούν να χρησιμοποιηθούν από τα
κράτη μέλη επικουρικά, με σκοπό τον δραστικό περιορισμό της επισιτιστικής ανασφάλειας;

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

_(19 Ιουνίου 2013)_

Ναι, η Επιτροπή διαθέτει στατιστικά στοιχεία ( [1] ) που δηλώνουν το μερίδιο του πληθυσμού της Ένωσης το οποίο δεν είναι σε
θέση να πληρώσει για ένα γεύμα με κρέας, κοτόπουλο ή ψάρι (ή αντίστοιχο γεύμα χορτοφάγου) κάθε δεύτερη ημέρα, κάτι
που ορίζεται ως βασική ανάγκη από την Παγκόσμια Οργάνωση Υγείας.

Επιπλέον, το 2009 υπολογίστηκε ενότητα ad hoc για την υλική στέρηση στο πλαίσιο των στατιστικών για το εισόδημα και
τις συνθήκες διαβίωσης (EU-SILC), η οποία παρείχε αριθμητικά σχετικά με την παιδική φτώχεια συμπεριλαμβανομένης της
στέρηση τροφής. Η εν λόγω ενότητα θα υπολογιστεί πάλι το 2014.

Το προτεινόμενο Ταμείο Ευρωπαϊκής Βοήθειας στους Απόρους (ΤΕΒΑ) θα λειτουργήσει στο πλαίσιο επιμερισμένης
διαχείρισης. Αυτό σημαίνει ότι τα κράτη μέλη θα επιλέγουν τους οργανισμούς εταίρους που είναι δημόσιοι φορείς ή μη
κυβερνητικές οργανώσεις υπεύθυνες για διανομή τροφίμων και/ή υλική υποστήριξη. Επιπλέον, η αναγνώριση των απόρων
επαφίεται στα κράτη μέλη, δεδομένου ότι είναι τα πλέον κατάλληλα να εκτιμήσουν τις πραγματικές ανάγκες. Για την
αξιολόγηση της αποτελεσματικότητας του Ταμείου, έχουν καθιερωθεί ετήσιες εκθέσεις υλοποίησης και σύστημα κοινών
δεικτών.

Το είδος της βοήθειας που θα υποστηρίξει το ΤΕΒΑ δεν θα καλύπτεται από τα διαρθρωτικά ταμεία.

Επιπλέον, πιλοτικά έργα επί του παρόντος εξετάζουν προσεγγίσεις για την προώθηση υγιεινού διαιτολογίου και την αύξηση
της κατανάλωσης νωπών φρούτων και λαχανικών σε ευπαθείς ομάδες του πληθυσμού, όπως π.χ. τα παιδιά, οι ηλικιωμένοι και
οι έγκυες με χαμηλό εισόδημα ( [2] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/income_social_inclusion_living_conditions/data/database

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/income_social_inclusion_living_conditions/data/ad_hoc_modules

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/nutrition_physical_activity/key_documents/tender_pilot_project_fresh_fruits_vegetables_en.htm#reports

( **|**

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 29

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004631/13**

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

_(25 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Food insecurity in Europe

The transformation of the financial crisis into a social and humanitarian crisis has been accompanied by the
emergence and sharp increase in poverty, extreme poverty and even serious material shortages. Thus, the inability of a
large part of the EU population to ensure their basic needs is, _inter alia_, creating conditions of worsening critical social
indicators such as food insecurity indicators.

In this context, will the Commission answer the following:

Does it have statistics on food insecurity in the Member States for the general population and for children?

Given that the proposal for setting up a fund for the most deprived persons to replace the food aid programme is
already under examination, how does it intend to ensure that the resources in question will reach those who really
need them and how does it intend to assess the fund’s effectiveness?

Are there any additional funds available from the European Structural Funds that could be used by Member States to
supplement existing funds, with a view to significantly limiting food insecurity?

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

_(19 June 2013)_

Yes, the Commission has statistics ( [1] ) indicating the share of the Union population unable to afford a meal with meat,
chicken or fish (or vegetarian equivalent) every second day — something which is defined as a basic need by the
World Health Organisation.

In addition, an ad hoc module on material deprivation was run in 2009 in the framework of the statistics on Income
and Living Conditions (EU-SILC). It provided figures relating to children poverty, including food deprivation. This
module will be repeated in 2014.

The proposed Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived (FEAD) will be implemented under shared management.
That means that Member States will select the partner organisations which are public bodies or non-governmental
organisations responsible for the distribution of food and/or material assistance. In addition, the identification of the
most deprived persons is left to the Member States as they are the best placed to assess the actual needs. In order to
assess the Fund's effectiveness annual implementation reports and a system of common indicators are put in place.

The type of assistance that would be supported by the FEAD would not be eligible under any of the Structural Funds.

In addition, pilot projects are currently testing approaches to promote healthy diets and to increase fresh fruits and
vegetable consumption in vulnerable population groups including children, the elderly and pregnant women with
low income ( [2] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/income_social_inclusion_living_conditions/data/database

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/income_social_inclusion_living_conditions/data/ad_hoc_modules.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/nutrition_physical_activity/key_documents/tender_pilot_project_fresh_fruits_vegetables_en.htm#reports.

( **|**

C 80 E / 30 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-004632/13**

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

_(25 Απριλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Απορροφητικότητα κοινοτικών κονδυλίων στα κράτη μέλη

Τα κοινοτικά κονδύλια αποτελούν σπουδαίο εργαλείο για την ενίσχυση των εθνικών οικονομιών και την ενδυνάμωση της
κοινωνικής συνοχής των κρατών μελών, την υλοποίηση κρίσιμων αναπτυξιακών έργων και τη σταδιακή άμβλυνση των
περιφερειακών ανισοτήτων. Η δυνατότητα, λοιπόν, απορρόφησης και ορθής χρήσης των ευρωπαϊκών πόρων αναδεικνύεται σε
πρωταρχική και μείζονα πρόκληση, τόσο για τα κράτη μέλη, όσο και για την ΕΕ συνολικά. Ωστόσο, σύμφωνα με πρόσφατα
δημοσιοποιημένη μελέτη του Ινστιτούτου Bruegel (Euobserver), οι φτωχότερες περιοχές της ΕΕ δέχονται τα λιγότερα
κονδύλια λόγω ανεπαρκειών της διοίκησης, με συνέπεια να μην επιτυγχάνονται σε μεγάλο βαθμό οι στόχοι τους οποίους
καλούνται να υπηρετήσουν.

Σε αυτό το πλαίσιο ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Έχει λάβει γνώση της παραπάνω μελέτης; Αν ναι, πώς σχολιάζει τους ισχυρισμούς και τις διαπιστώσεις της;

Διαθέτει στοιχεία για τα κονδύλια από ευρωπαϊκά διαρθρωτικά ταμεία που παραμένουν σε εκκρεμότητα για τα κράτη μέλη;
Πώς μεταφράζεται το σύνολο των αδιάθετων κονδυλίων ως ποσοστό του ΑΕΠ των χωρών αυτών;

Προτίθεται να αναλάβει συγκεκριμένες πρωτοβουλίες, ώστε, αφενός, να επιταχυνθεί η διαδικασία απορρόφησης ευρωπαϊκών
πόρων και, αφετέρου, να ενισχυθεί η αποτελεσματικότητα αξιοποίησής τους από τα κράτη μέλη;

Ποιοι είναι οι σημαντικότεροι λόγοι για τη χαμηλή απορροφητικότητα κοινοτικών κονδυλίων από τα κράτη μέλη;

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

_(20 Ιουνίου 2013)_

1. Η Επιτροπή γνωρίζει τη μελέτη που εκπονήθηκε από το ίδρυμα Bruegel και συμμερίζεται πολλές από τις παρατηρήσεις
του. Εντούτοις, θα πρέπει να σημειωθεί ότι οι φτωχότερες περιφέρειες επωφελούνται γενικά από το υψηλότερο επίπεδο
υποστήριξης της ΕΕ σε κατά κεφαλήν βάση. Επιπλέον, δεν υπάρχει άμεση σχέση μεταξύ του επιπέδου ευημερίας και της
ικανότητας απορρόφησης των κονδυλίων της ΕΕ. Ορισμένα από τα φτωχότερα κράτη μέλη έχουν ποσοστό απορρόφησης
πολύ υψηλότερο από τον μέσο όρο της ΕΕ.

2. Σε αυτό το στάδιο της περιόδου πολιτικής συνοχής 2007-2013 (δηλαδή περίπου στα 2/3 της περιόδου), η Επιτροπή
έχει καταβάλει 180 δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ δεσμευμένων ποσών στα 27 κράτη μέλη, αφήνοντας 167 δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ
που δεν έχουν ακόμη καταβληθεί. Με βάση την επιλεξιμότητα της προθεσμίας δαπανών της 31ης Δεκεμβρίου 2015, ο
ετήσιος μέσος όρος που δεν έχει ακόμη καταβληθεί αντιπροσωπεύει περίπου το 0,47% του ΑΕΠ του 2013 στην ΕΕ των 27.

3. Έχουν ληφθεί μέτρα για τη διευκόλυνση της απορρόφησης των κονδυλίων της ΕΕ. Σε ορισμένα κράτη μέλη,
πραγματοποιήθηκε αναπρογραμματισμός των κονδυλίων για να τους δώσει τη δυνατότητα να διοχετεύσουν τη
χρηματοδότηση της ΕΕ σε τομείς όπου μπορεί να συντελεστεί ταχεία απορρόφηση των επενδύσεων, όπως βασικοί τομείς
ανάπτυξης και υποστήριξης εργασίας. Σε άλλες χώρες, το ποσοστό συγχρηματοδότησης αναπροσαρμόζεται προκειμένου να
επιταχυνθεί η αφομοίωση.

4. Οι κύριοι λόγοι για τη χαμηλή απορρόφηση είναι η έλλειψη διοικητικής ικανότητας διαχείρισης των κονδυλίων της ΕΕ,
τα προβλήματα κατά τη μετατροπή της νομοθεσίας της ΕΕ σε εθνική νομοθεσία και η έλλειψη επαρκώς ώριμων έργα που
πρέπει να υποβληθούν για συγχρηματοδότηση από την ΕΕ.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 31

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004632/13**

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

_(25 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Absorption of Community funds in the Member States

Community funds are a useful tool for boosting national economies and strengthening social cohesion in the Member
States, implementing essential development projects and addressing regional imbalances. Therefore, the ability to
absorb and make correct use of EU resources is becoming of primary importance, both for the Member States and
the EU as a whole. However, according to a recent study published by the Bruegel Institute (EUobserver), due to
administrative failures the poorest regions in the EU are receiving the least funds, with the result that they are unable
to achieve many of the targets they have been set.

With regard to this, will the Commission answer the following:

Has it been made aware of the aforementioned study? If so, what is its opinion on the study’s claims and observations?

Does it have information on funds from the European Structural Funds which are still pending for the Member States?
What percentage of these countries’ GDP do these uncommitted funds represent?

Does it intend to implement specific initiatives in order to a) accelerate the absorption of EU funds and b) enhance
their effective use by the Member States?

What are the most common reasons for the low absorption of Community funds by Member States?

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

_(20 June 2013)_

1. The Commission is aware of the study by the Bruegel Institute and shares many of its observations. However, it
must be noted that the poorest regions benefit in general from the highest level of EU support on a per capita basis. In
addition, there is no direct link between the level of prosperity and the capacity to absorb EU funding. Some of the
poorest Member States have an absorption rate well above the EU average.

2. At this stage of the 2007-2013 cohesion policy period (i.e. about 2/3 of the way through the period), the
Commission has paid EUR 180 billion of the committed amounts to the 27 Member States, leaving EUR 167 billion
still to be paid. Based on the eligibility of expenditure deadline of 31 December 2015, the yearly average not yet paid
represents around 0.47% of the EU-27 GDP of 2013.

3. A number of measures have been launched to facilitate the absorption of EU funding. In some Member States, a
re-programming of funds has taken place to enable them to inject EU funding into sectors where a rapid absorption
of investments in key growth and jobs supporting areas can take place. In other countries, the rate of co-financing is
being adjusted to accelerate uptake.

4. The main reasons for low absorption are a lack of administrative capacity to manage EU funds, problems in
converting EU legislation into national legislation and the lack of sufficiently mature projects to be submitted for EU
co-financing.

C 80 E / 32 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004633/13**

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

_(25 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Effect of welfare cuts on individuals' ability to gain access to social housing

Is the Commission aware of the drastic nature of some government restrictions on welfare systems across the EU? In
particular, is the Commission aware of the UK Government’s recent ‘Bedroom Tax’, which is adding further pressure
on the ability of social housing tenants to pay their rent?

Does the Commission consider that any of the current cuts to welfare systems contravene any EU fundamental rights
or treaties, specifically Article 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which stipulates that ‘in order to combat
social exclusion and poverty, the Union recognises and respects the right to social and housing assistance so as to
ensure a decent existence for all those who lack sufficient resources’?

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

_(17 June 2013)_

The Commission addresses housing problems linked to poverty and social exclusion and monitors the
implementation of relevant actions in response to country-specific challenges within its social inclusion strategy
embedded in the Europe 2020 strategy. The recently adopted Social Investment Package also contains policy
guidance for Member States to better ensure the access to housing for homeless and at-risk-of-homeless people. The
Package provides a comprehensive guidance on how best to target social investment and mobilise EU funds to this
end.

As far as the UK is concerned, the Commission has published on 29 May 2013 its assessment of the state of
implementation of the six country-specific recommendations (CSRs) for economic and structural reform policies,
which had been issued to the United Kingdom in July 2012 in the framework of Europe 2020. These include a CSR
on welfare reform, poverty and childcare. On the basis of this assessment, updated joint Commission and Council
CSRs will be issued in July 2013.

Regarding more particularly the fundamental rights issues raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission recalls
that, 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. In the matter referred to by the Honourable
Member it is thus for the Member State to ensure that its obligations regarding fundamental rights — as resulting
from international agreements and from their internal legislation — are respected.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 33

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004634/13**

**à la Commission**

**Gaston Franco (PPE)**

_(25 avril 2013)_

_Objet:_ Coopération marine et maritime en Méditerranée

L'approfondissement de la coopération marine et maritime entre les pays du pourtour méditerranéen participe du
développement d'une économie bleue durable en Méditerranée.

À l'occasion de la 12 [e ] conférence de la FEMIP (Facilité euro-méditerranéenne d'investissement et de partenariat) qui a
eu lieu les 18 et 19 avril à Athènes, M [me ] Maria Damanaki, membre de la Commission européenne chargée des affaires
maritimes et de la pêche, a appelé de ses vœux la constitution d'un réseau d'établissements de formation maritime
visant à faire émerger des pôles européens d'excellence pour l'éducation maritime, dans un contexte transfrontalier et
transsectoriel.

1. La Commission pourrait-elle détailler les étapes de création de ce réseau et proposer un calendrier indicatif?

2. Comment ce réseau sera-t-il financé et comment seront sélectionnés les établissements de formation maritime
qui le composeront?

3. Ce réseau aura-t-il une véritable dimension euro-méditerranéenne et sera-t-il labellisé comme un projet de
l'Union pour la Méditerranée?

4. Quels seront les sujets prioritaires traités par ce réseau? La problématique des autoroutes de la mer en fera-t-elle
partie?

**Réponse donnée par M** **[me]** **Damanaki au nom de la Commission**

_(27 juin 2013)_

Comme le rappelle l'Honorable Parlementaire, la Commission encourage la création d'un réseau d'établissements de
formation maritime dans la région méditerranéenne et la question a été débattue à l'occasion de la 12 [e] conférence de
la FEMIP en avril 2013.

La réussite d'un tel réseau repose sur un processus d'engagement ascendant, dans le cadre duquel un ou plusieurs
établissements de formation dans la région se charge(nt) de sa mise sur pied. La Commission proposera
une plateforme pour la mise en réseaux et les échanges entre les établissements et instituts de formation sous la
forme d'un futur centre virtuel de connaissances pour la Méditerranée. Le projet IMP-MED (programme régional «Sud»
de l'IEVP) ( [1] ) examine actuellement le contenu éventuel et la configuration future en consultation avec les pays
concernés.

Aucun financement spécifique pour le réseau n'a été affecté à ce titre. Le réseau doit présenter un caractère inclusif et
ouvert et doit être géré par les établissements de formation eux-mêmes. Les parties intéressées sont encouragées à
évaluer les possibilités de financement dans le cadre des futurs programmes européens de coopération territoriale ou
des programmes de coopération transfrontalière pour la période 2014-2020.

On ne saurait préjuger d'aucune future «labellisation» du projet à ce stade. Parmi les sujets prioritaires qui pourraient
être traités par le réseau, on peut citer des activités d'échanges de meilleures pratiques en matière de formation dans le
domaine de la croissance «bleue» et la mobilité entre les secteurs liés au domaine maritime. Les autoroutes de la mer
bénéficient déjà d'un soutien dans le cadre du programme de formation et de la plate-forme Logismed (Logismed-AF),
qui traitent des besoins de formation dans le secteur de la logistique.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.imp-med.eu/Fr/home_4_index

C 80 E / 34 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004634/13**

**to the Commission**

**Gaston Franco (PPE)**

_(25 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Marine and maritime cooperation in the Mediterranean

Enhancing marine and maritime cooperation between the countries around the Mediterranean plays a part in the
development of a sustainable Mediterranean blue economy.

At the 12th Facility for Euro-Mediterranean Investment and Partnership (FEMIP) conference, which was held on 18
and 19 April 2013 in Athens, Maria Damanaki, European Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, called for
a network of maritime training institutes to be set up with the aim of developing European centres of excellence for
maritime education, across borders and across sectors.

1. Could the Commission give details of the stages in which this network will be set up and propose a provisional
timetable?

2. How will this network be funded and how will the participating maritime training institutes be selected?

3. Will this network be truly Euro-Mediterranean and will it be branded as an EU project for the Mediterranean?

4. What issues will the network deal with as a priority? Will motorways of the sea be one such issue?

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

_(27 June 2013)_

As recalled by the Honourable Member, the Commission is encouraging the formation of a network of maritime
training institutes in the Mediterranean region and the topic was discussed at the 12th FEMIP Conference in
April 2013.

The success of such a network relies on a bottom-up engagement process, whereby one or more training institutes in
the region takes the lead in setting it up. The Commission will provide a platform for networking and exchanges
across training institutes and academies through a future Virtual Knowledge Centre for the Mediterranean. The IMPMED project (ENPI Regional South Programme) ( [1] ) is currently looking at the possible content and future set-up in
consultation with the countries concerned.

No dedicated funding for the network has been earmarked as such. The network shall be of an inclusive and open
nature and led by the interested training institutes themselves. Interested stakeholders are encouraged to evaluate
possible funding opportunities under the future European Territorial Cooperation programmes or Cross-border
Cooperation programmes for 2014-2020.

Any future branding of the project cannot be prejudged at this stage. Possible priorities that the network could deal
with include exchanges of best practice on training in blue growth areas and mobility across maritime-related sectors.
Motorways of the Sea are already supported by the LOGISMED Training Programme and platform (LOGISMED-TA),
addressing training needs in the logistic sector.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.imp-med.eu/En/home_4_index.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 35

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004635/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(25 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Abduction of Syrian bishops and the wider issue of Christians and kidnapping

According to news reports, the Syriac Orthodox and Greek Orthodox Archbishops of Aleppo, Yohanna Ibrahim and
Paul Yazigi, were kidnapped on Monday, 22 April 2013 on the road to Aleppo.

The Christian minority in Syria has already faced grave hardships in the country’s civil war, and it risks becoming
caught in the middle of a deepening sectarian conflict. Many thousands have already fled. Nevertheless, while
Christians, along with their churches, have been attacked in the past, the abduction of such senior churchmen sets a
new and highly alarming precedent. The fear now must be that the Christian communities will be directly targeted by
fundamentalist militants.

The abduction also illuminates the problem of kidnapping in Syria, which according to the BBC is rapidly becoming a
major element in this conflict, and provoking further fear amongst an already beleaguered Syrian population.

1. Is the VP/HR aware of Monday’s events?

2. What steps is the VP/HR taking to ensure the safety of the Christian community in Syria? Is the community
specifically considered within the EU’s humanitarian strategy for Syria, and has any aid been allotted to assist them
directly?

3. Does the addressing of abductions form part of the EU’s overall strategy for assisting the Syrian people and
ending the conflict? If not, will the VP/HR consider elevating this issue?

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

_(20 June 2013)_

The HR/VP's spokesperson has issued a statement condemning the kidnapping:

[http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/136947.pdf.](http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/136947.pdf)

The HR/VP continues to closely follow the situation of the bishops whose fate remains uncertain. EU humanitarian
support has not targeted any particular community and is destined to all Syrians in need as well as their host
communities in neighbouring countries.

C 80 E / 36 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004636/13**

**to the Commission**
**Derek Vaughan (S&D)**

_(25 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Fracking

An increasing number of shale gas explorations have recently been approved in my constituency and in other parts of
the EU. Whilst work continues to establish reliable estimates of recoverable reserves, debate continues into the
environmental and safety implications of the practice of fracking.

What work has the Commission carried out to help identify and manage the risks of fracking in relation to:

1. its effects on water resources and possible contamination;

2. the disposal of operational waste from the process;

3. biodiversity in the vicinity;

4. the possibility of induced seismicity?

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

_(21 June 2013)_

The Commission included in its 2013 Work Programme an ‘Environmental, Climate and Energy Assessment
Framework to Enable Safe and Secure Unconventional Hydrocarbon Extraction’. This initiative aims to cover _inter alia_
issues related to managing risks, addressing regulatory shortcomings and legal clarity and predictability for market
operators and citizens across the EU.

As part of an information gathering process, the Commission launched several studies to assess risks and
opportunities of shale gas development in Europe. The risks pointed out by the Honourable Member as well as
potential risk management measures are addressed in the study ‘Support to the identification of potential risks for the
environment and human health arising from hydrocarbons operations involving hydraulic fracturing in Europe’ ( [1] )
published in September 2012.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/energy/pdf/fracking%20study.pdf

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 37

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004637/13**

**to the Commission**
**Derek Vaughan (S&D)**

_(25 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Human rights in Burma

Human rights abuses continue to be highlighted in Burma despite recent progress, and despite the introduction of
reforms designed to improve democracy in the country.

According to widespread reports, the use of child soldiers and sex slaves by the Burmese army ranks high on the list of
violations that, allegedly, are still being carried out in the name of the Burmese Government.

Meanwhile, the Swedish Agency for Non-Proliferation and Export Controls has revealed the extensive use of Swedish
anti-tank missiles in bloody clashes in Burma’s Kachin State, despite the fact that the ban on the sale of weapons to
Burma remains in place.

1. What representations has the Commission made to the Burmese Government to encourage it to address these
serious breaches of human rights, in particular the army’s use of child soldiers and sex slaves?

2. What action has the Commission taken to provide, and ensure the safe passage of, emergency aid to the people
of Kachin State?

3. What investigations has the Commission made into the sale of the Swedish anti-tank missiles now being used
by the Burmese Army in the conflict in Kachin State, the export of which appears to have contravened the ongoing
embargo?

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

_(24 June 2013)_

The Government of Myanmar/Burma signed a memorandum of understanding with the ILO in March 2012, which
comprises the elimination of all forms of forced labour (also covering recruitment of children by the army) by 2015.
This is hence official policy that has to be implemented by the Government and any breaches would need to be
addressed. Most recently, the UN commended Myanmar's progress in reducing the recruitment of children into the
armed forces, while pointing out it still needs to stamp out the practice. At the same time, we are fully aware that child
soldiers are also used by some ethnic armed groups. The EU has no information to date on the use of sex slaves by the
Myanmar/Burma Armed Forces but will remain alert to relevant reports. The EU is in close contact with authorities
and continues to raise human rights issues at every opportunity.

The EU has repeatedly urged the Government to ensure full and unhindered humanitarian access to all communities
affected by conflict including Kachin State. The 22 April Council Conclusions explicitly mention the EU's concerns.
The EU's Special Representative on Human Rights reiterated these during his visit to the country from 9-11 May. EU
humanitarian assistance focuses particularly on areas occupied by ethnic minorities such as Rakhine State, the eastern
border area with Thailand and Kachin State.

Primary responsibility for the enforcement of sanctions rests with EU Member States. In the case of an arms embargo,
which does not involve community competence, the role of the High Representative and the Commission in this
regard is limited to overseeing such enforcement. In this case, the Swedish authorities have made it clear they are
aware of the issue and that they are conducting an investigation into the matter.

C 80 E / 38 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004638/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Mario Borghezio (EFD)**

_(25 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ L'UE vigili sulla corruzione in Croazia

Durante una recente audizione al Parlamento europeo di un giornalista d'inchiesta croato si è potuto apprendere che
la situazione in Croazia per quanto concerne la corruzione è tutt'altro che rosea. Vi sono infatti situazioni di
corruzione che coinvolgono politici, imprenditori, istituti bancari. Sono altresì emerse preoccupazioni per il
monitoraggio dei futuri fondi europei destinati alla Croazia (che entrerà nell'UE a partire dal 1° luglio p.v.), poiché non
ci sono chiari meccanismi per controllare l'uso di questi fondi.

Nel documento «Comunicazione della Commissione al Parlamento europeo e al Consiglio, Relazione di controllo sui
preparativi per l'adesione della Croazia» (COM(2013)0171), del 26 marzo 2013, la Commissione sostiene che
«occorre rafforzare ulteriormente la lotta contro la corruzione a livello locale, in particolare nel settore vulnerabile
degli appalti pubblici» e che «la Croazia ha continuato a rafforzare il suo quadro legislativo in materia di prevenzione
della corruzione e dei conflitti di interessi, che dev'essere attuato in maniera efficace. Il paese deve intensificare gli
sforzi volti a conseguire risultati concreti in termini di potenziamento delle misure di prevenzione». Tuttavia, la
Commissione sostiene anche che «il quadro giuridico e istituzionale per eliminare la corruzione e la criminalità
organizzata risulta adeguato. Con l'entrata in vigore del nuovo codice penale il 1° gennaio 2013, si sono inasprite le
sanzioni in numerosi settori, compresi i reati di corruzione. Si continuano a registrare risultati in termini di
attuazione. Gli organi di contrasto rimangono proattivi, anche nei casi di corruzione ad alto livello (ad esempio, ex
sindaci, ex viceministri) e nelle istituzioni di contrasto (diversi agenti di polizia). Tra gli sviluppi registrati figura altresì
la sentenza di primo grado pronunciata nel novembre 2012 in una causa riguardante un ex primo ministro».

Alla luce delle dichiarazioni rilasciate durante l'audizione e a quanto scritto nella sua comunicazione, la
Commissione:

1. come può indicare, da un lato, la necessità di rafforzare la lotta alla corruzione e di attuarla in modo efficace e,
dall'altro, l'adeguatezza del quadro giuridico per eliminare la corruzione?

2. come intende proseguire con il monitoraggio al fine di eliminare la corruzione o comunque arginarla e di
impedire che con l'entrata nell'UE della Croazia tale corruzione si estenda anche ai paesi confinanti?

3. che misure intende attuare onde garantire che i futuri fondi europei destinati alla Croazia siano adeguatamente
monitorati?

**Risposta di Štefan Füle a nome della Commissione**

_(21 giugno 2013)_

Nella relazione di monitoraggio del 26 marzo 2013 la Commissione ha dichiarato che il quadro giuridico per la
_soppressione_ della corruzione risulta adeguato, anche in considerazione dell'entrata in vigore del nuovo codice penale il
1 [o] gennaio 2013. Ha inoltre sottolineato i recenti sviluppi positivi nel settore della _prevenzione_ della corruzione
(istituzione della commissione competente in materia di conflitto di interessi, adozione di una nuova legge
sull'accesso all'informazione). La Croazia dispone di un quadro giuridico e istituzionale di lotta alla corruzione
adeguato, che ha dimostrato di produrre risultati. Al tempo stesso, la relazione sottolinea la necessità che la Croazia
continui a migliorare i propri risultati in questo settore.

Una volta che la Croazia avrà aderito all'Unione europea, la situazione relativa alla lotta contro la corruzione in tale
paese sarà monitorata come negli altri Stati membri. Ad esempio, la relazione della Commissione sulla lotta alla
corruzione negli Stati membri riguarderà anche la Croazia.

Per quanto concerne i futuri fondi europei, la Croazia, come tutti gli altri Stati membri, dovrà conformarsi alle
disposizioni dei Fondi strutturali e del Fondo di coesione, incluse quelle sugli obblighi di monitoraggio dell'uso dei
fondi dell'UE. Inoltre, dopo l'adesione, la Croazia dovrà ricevere una valutazione positiva di conformità del suo
sistema da parte della Commissione prima di poter accedere ai Fondi strutturali e al Fondo di coesione.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 39

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004638/13**

**to the Commission**
**Mario Borghezio (EFD)**

_(25 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU monitoring of corruption in Croatia

At a recent parliamentary hearing with a Croatian investigative journalist, it came to light that the corruption
situation in Croatia was far from good. Corruption was rife and involved politicians, businessmen and banks.
Concerns were also raised about the monitoring of future EU funds earmarked for Croatia (which will join the EU on
1 July 2013), since no clear mechanisms were in place to monitor how such funds were used.

In the document ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, Monitoring
Report on Croatia’s accession preparations’ (COM(2013)0171) of 26 March 2013, the Commission states that ‘[t]he
fight against local-level corruption needs to be further enhanced, particularly in the vulnerable sector of public
procurement.’ It goes on to say that ‘Croatia continued strengthening its legislative framework of prevention of
corruption and conflict of interest, which now needs to be effectively implemented. Croatia needs to increase its
efforts to establish a track record of substantial results in strengthening prevention measures.’ Nevertheless, the
Commission maintains that ‘[t]he legal and institutional framework for the suppression of corruption and organised
crime is adequate. With the entry into force of the new Criminal Code on 1 January 2013, penalties in a number of
areas have been increased, including for corruption offenses. A track record of implementation continues to be
developed. Law enforcement bodies remain proactive, including in higher-level corruption cases (e.g. former mayors,
former deputy ministers) and corruption in law-enforcement institutions (several police officers). Developments also
include the first-instance judgment in a case against a former prime minister in November 2012.’

In view of the statements made during the hearing and the content of the communication:

1. How can the Commission say, on the one hand, that the fight against corruption needs to be stepped up and
effectively implemented and, on the other, that the legal framework for the suppression of corruption is
adequate?

2. How will it proceed with monitoring in order to eliminate corruption or in any case to stem it and prevent such
corruption from spreading to neighbouring countries upon Croatia’s accession to the EU?

3. What action will it take to ensure that future EU funds earmarked for Croatia are properly monitored?

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

_(21 June 2013)_

In its Monitoring Report of 26 March 2013, the Commission assessed that, also with the entry into force of the new
Criminal Code on 1 January 2013, the legal framework for the _suppression_ of corruption is adequate. The Commission
also pointed out the recent positive developments in the area of _prevention_ of corruption (establishment of Conflict of
Interest Commission, adoption of new law on access to information). Croatia has an adequate legal and institutional
framework in place to fight corruption, which has shown to deliver results. At the same time, the report stresses the
need for Croatia to continue building its track record in this area.

Following accession, the situation concerning the fight against corruption in Croatia will be monitored in the same
way as in the other EU Member States. For example, the future anti-corruption report on the EU Member States, to be
prepared by the Commission, will also include Croatia.

Concerning future EU funds, Croatia, as any other EU Member States, will have to comply with the Structual Funds
and Cohesion Funds Regulation. This includes substantial provisions on obligations to monitor the use of EU funds.
Furthermore, after accession, Croatia will need to receive a positive compliance assessment of its system by the
Commission, before it would be able to access any of its EU Structual or Cohesion Funds.

C 80 E / 40 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004639/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Matteo Salvini (EFD)**

_(25 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Tutela dei prodotti con richiesta di certificazione IGP o DOCG in fase di approvazione

Le certificazioni IGP e DOCG sono state introdotte con un duplice obiettivo: da una parte, tutelare i produttori di
merci aventi caratteristiche peculiari fortemente connesse ad uno specifico luogo di produzione e a tecniche di
produzione e lavorazione particolari, legate ad una consolidata tradizione locale; dall'altra, garantire al consumatore
che il prodotto che si accinge ad acquistare sia stato effettivamente realizzato nel rispetto di tali metodologie.

Va tuttavia rilevato che la procedura di riconoscimento delle suddette denominazioni prevede un iter piuttosto lungo,
durante il quale, per un periodo di molti mesi, e talvolta di anni, il consumatore resta fortemente esposto al rischio di
acquistare prodotti la cui denominazione commerciale richiama un prodotto tipico in attesa di certificazione DOCG
o IGP, e che tuttavia è stato realizzato con metodi e in contesti che nulla hanno a che vedere col prodotto tipico cui il
nome fa riferimento; la protezione transitoria, valida solo a livello nazionale, rappresenta da questo punto di vista uno
strumento essenziale ma insufficiente.

Esemplare, in questo senso, è il caso della focaccia col formaggio di Recco, attualmente in attesa di qualifica IGP
(dossier IT/PGI/0005/00944, domanda presentata il 31.1.2012). Sul mercato sono presenti diversi prodotti che
emulano la focaccia di Recco usurpandone il nome, benché la procedura per il riconoscimento del marchio IGP sia
ben avviata e la protezione transitoria sia già in vigore, sicché il consumatore può facilmente esser tratto in inganno
confondendo un'imitazione col prodotto originale.

Può pertanto dire la Commissione se l'iter di rilascio della certificazione IGP per la focaccia di Recco stia rispettando i
tempi previsti e quando, almeno indicativamente, potrà concludersi?

Quali iniziative intende essa eventualmente assumere al fine di velocizzare la procedura di accesso alle certificazioni
IGP e DOCG e incrementare la portata effettiva della protezione per produttori e consumatori garantita da tali
certificazioni?

**Risposta di Dacian Cioloş a nome della Commissione**

_(17 giugno 2013)_

La versione definitiva della domanda di registrazione della denominazione «Focaccia di Recco col formaggio» è
pervenuta alla Commissione il 23.01.2013 in risposta ad una nota della Commissione del 03.08.2012. Tale versione
è stata esaminata nel giro di breve tempo dai servizi della Commissione e, dopo essere stata tradotta nelle diverse
lingue dell'Unione, è stata pubblicata per la prima volta lo scorso 1° giugno ( [1] ).

La Commissione ha adottato alcune misure al fine di accelerare le procedure di registrazione. Da quando il
regolamento (UE) n. 1151/2012 ( [2] ) è entrato in vigore lo scorso gennaio, i tempi necessari all'esame delle pratiche
sono passati da 12 a 6 mesi. Anche il periodo di opposizione è stato ridotto da 6 mesi a 3 mesi (eventualmente
prolungato di 2 mesi se una dichiarazione di opposizione è stata presentata entro i 3 mesi) così come la durata delle
consultazioni del caso che non dovrebbero superare i 3 mesi salvo esplicita richiesta di proroga presentata oltre tale
termine.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) GU C 155 dell'1.6.2013.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) GU L 343 del 14.12.2012.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 41

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004639/13**

**to the Commission**
**Matteo Salvini (EFD)**

_(25 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Protection of products with an application for protected geographical indication (PGI) or denomination of
controlled and guaranteed origin (DOCG) status pending approval

PGI and DOCG certifications were introduced with a dual aim: on the one hand, to protect producers of goods with
specific characteristics and with a strong connection to a specific place of production and to specific production and
processing techniques, associated with established local tradition; on the other hand, to guarantee consumers that the
product they are about to buy has actually been produced according to these methods.

It should, however, be pointed out that the procedure for recognising these designations is rather long and while it is
going on, which takes many months and sometimes years, the consumer is at high risk of buying products with a
trade name that is reminiscent of a typical product whose DOCG or PGI status is pending, and which, in any case, has
been produced according to methods and in conditions that have nothing to do with the typical product to which the
name refers. Transitional protection, which applies only nationally, is a vital but inadequate tool in this regard.

An example of this is Recco cheese focaccia, whose PGI status is currently pending (file IT/PGI/0005/00944,
application submitted on 31 January 2012). There are several products on the market that imitate Recco cheese
focaccia, appropriating the name, despite the procedure for recognition of the PGI mark being well under way and the
transitional protection already being in force, so the consumer may be easily misled and mistake an imitation for the
original product.

Can the Commission therefore say whether the procedure for granting PGI status to Recco focaccia is adhering to the
times laid down and when, at least roughly, it might be completed?

What action will the Commission take to speed up the procedure for obtaining PGI and DOCG status and to broaden
the scope of protection for producers and consumers that is guaranteed by such status?

_(Version française)_

**Réponse donnée par M Cioloş au nom de la Commission**

_(17 juin 2013)_

La version définitive de la demande d'enregistrement de la dénomination « Foccacia di Recco col formaggio » est
parvenue à la Commission le 23.01.2013 en réponse à un courrier de la Commission du 03.08.2012. Cette version a
très rapidement fait l'objet d'un examen par les services de la Commission et, après traduction dans les différentes
langues de l'Union, la première publication est intervenue le 1 [er] juin dernier ( [1] ).

La Commission a pris des mesures pour accélérer les procédures d'enregistrement. Depuis l'entrée en vigueur du
règlement (UE) n° 1151/2012 ( [2] ) en janvier dernier, le délai d'examen est passé de 12 à 6 mois. La période
d'opposition a également été réduite de 6 mois à 3 mois (éventuellement prolongée de 2 mois si une déclaration
d'opposition a été déposée dans les 3 mois) de même que la durée des consultations appropriées qui ne devraient pas
raisonnablement dépasser les 3 mois sauf demande expresse de prolongation introduite dans ce délai.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) JO C 155 du 1.6.2013.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) JO L 343 du 14.12.2012.

C 80 E / 42 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-004858/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Franz Obermayr (NI)**

_(30. April 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Teilverbot bestimmter Pestizide (Neonicotinoide) — Gefahren für Bienen und Vögel

Laut EU-Kommissar Tonio Borg wird nach wie vor ein Verbot dreier ökologisch besonders gefährlicher Pestizide
(Imidacloprid, Clothianidin und Thiamethoxam) zum 1. Juli 2013 angestrebt. Bisher sieht es aber durch das Fehlen
einer qualifizierten Mehrheit im ständigen Ausschuss für die Lebensmittelkette und Tiergesundheit nach einer
Sackgasse aus. Allerdings hat die EFSA eindeutig die Gefahr dieser drei Pestizide für die Bienenpopulationen
unmissverständlich bestätigt — sogar Vögel seien nach neuesten Erkenntnissen bedroht. Die Gefahren dieser
Pestizide überwiegen also auch nach Meinung der EFSA deutlich deren Nutzen. Aus diesem Sachverhalt ergeben sich
folgende Fragen:

1. Wie ist der Stand der Dinge im angestrebten Teilverbotsverfahren?

2. Kann nach wie vor mit einem Verbot der genannten Neonicotinoide noch vor der Sommerpause gerechnet
werden? Wenn ja, wann wird dies voraussichtlich geschehen?

3. Auf welche Art gedenkt die Kommission das Patt zu brechen, um hier endgültig dem Schutz der Bienen
Priorität einzuräumen?

4. Wie steht die Kommission zu Behauptungen, dass ein Verbot dieser Pestizide dem gentechnisch veränderten
Saatgut Tür und Tor öffnen würde, da ansonsten das Schädlingsproblem nicht beherrschbar bleiben würde?

5. Welche Möglichkeiten sieht die Kommission, eine weiterhin wirksame Schädlingsbekämpfung zu
gewährleisten, ohne auf diese drei gefährlichen Pestizide zurückgreifen zu müssen?

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

_(20. Juni 2013)_

Die Kommission nahm die vorgeschlagene Maßnahme am 24. Mai 2013 an. Die Durchführungsverordnung (EU)
Nr. 485/2013 der Kommission wurde am 25. Mai 2013 veröffentlicht ( [1] ).

In den letzten Jahren hat die Kommission eine Reihe von Maßnahmen ergriffen, um den Wissensstand zum
Phänomen des dramatischen Rückgangs der Bienenpopulationen zu verbessern, wobei die Wissenschaftler sich einig
darüber sind, dass dieser einen multifaktoriellen Hintergrund hat, und diesbezügliche Maßnahmen weiter
unterstützen werden.

Das EU-Recht zu genetisch modifizierten Organismen sieht vor, dass GMO in der EU nur dann für die Verwendung
als Lebens‐ und Futtermittel und für den landwirtschaftlichen Anbau genehmigt werden können, wenn sie von der
Europäischen Behörde für Lebensmittelsicherheit als sicher für die Gesundheit von Mensch und Tier und für die
Umwelt bewertet werden.

Andere Insektizide sind auf EU-Ebene genehmigt und verfügbar. Zusätzlich werden zwei Neonicotinoide
(Acetamiprid und Thiacloprid) mit einem geringeren Grad an Toxizität vorerst auf dem Markt verfügbar bleiben.
Zudem kann der Schädlingsbefall durch Maßnahmen des integrierten Pflanzenschutzes wie Fruchtwechsel oder die
Verwendung von schädlingstoleranteren/-resistenten Sorten, einhergehend mit dem nachhaltigen Einsatz von
Pestiziden, reduziert werden.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Durchführungsverordnung (EU) Nr. 485/2013 vom 24. Mai 2013 zur Änderung der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) Nr. 540/2011 hinsichtlich

der Bedingungen für die Genehmigung der Wirkstoffe Clothianidin, Thiamethoxam und Imidacloprid sowie des Verbots der Anwendung und des
Verkaufs von Saatgut, das mit diese Wirkstoffe enthaltenden Pflanzenschutzmitteln behandelt wurde, ABl. L 139 vom 25.5.2013.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 43

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004858/13**

**to the Commission**
**Franz Obermayr (NI)**

_(30 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Partial ban on certain pesticides (neonicotinoids) — risks to bees and birds

According to EU Commissioner Tonio Borg, plans are still in place to impose a ban by 1 July 2013 on three pesticides
which are particularly hazardous to the environment (imidacloprid, clothianidin und thiamethoxam). At present,
however, the absence of a qualified majority in the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health means
that a deadlock appears to have been reached. Yet the risk posed by these three pesticides to bee populations has been
clearly and unequivocally confirmed by EFSA, and according to the latest information even birds are threatened. EFSA
therefore also believes that the risks posed by these pesticides clearly outweigh their benefits. In connection with the
above, I would like to ask the following:

1. What progress has been made with the plans to impose a partial ban?

2. Is it still to be expected that a ban will be imposed on the abovementioned neonicotinoids before the summer
recess? If so, when is this likely to happen?

3. How is the Commission intending to break the stalemate in order to ensure that bee protection is finally
accorded priority status?

4. What is the Commission’s position on the claims that a ban on these pesticides would leave the door wide open
to genetically modified seeds, as it would otherwise be impossible to keep the pest problem under control?

5. What opportunities does the Commission believe are available to ensure the continuing effectiveness of pest
control without having to use these three hazardous pesticides?

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

_(20 June 2013)_

The Commission adopted the proposed measure on 24 May 2013. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU)
No 485/2013 was published on 25 May 2013 ( [1] ).

The Commission in recent years has taken a number of actions in order to improve the knowledge about the
phenomenon of the drastic decline in bee populations, which the scientific community agrees has a multifactorial
background and will further continue to support actions in this field.

The EU legislation on Genetically Modified Organisms provides that GMOs can only be authorised in the EU for food
and feed use and for cultivation when assessed as safe for human and animal health and for the environment by the
European Food Safety Agency.

Other insecticides are available and approved at EU level. In addition, two neonicotinoids (namely acetamiprid and
thiacloprid) that present a lower toxicity will remain available on the market for the time being. Moreover, pests can
be reduced by use of integrated pest management like crop rotation, use of more pest tolerant/resistant varieties, in
line with the sustainable use of pesticides.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 485/2013 of 24 May 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, as regards

the conditions of approval of the active substances clothianidin, thiamethoxam and imidacloprid, and prohibiting the use and sale of seeds treated
with plant protection products containing those active substances, OJ L 139, 25.5.2013.

C 80 E / 44 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-004859/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Angelika Werthmann (ALDE)**

_(30. April 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Speicherung von Fluggastdaten (PNR)

Der geplante Aufbau von Fluggastdatensätzen (sogenannte Passenger Name Records) zur Terrorismusfahndung und
-bekämpfung führt zu unbilligen Konsequenzen, wie die sachlich nicht gerechtfertigte Dauer der Aufbewahrung, die
schiere Menge der Daten, die niedrige Zugriffsschwelle und nicht zuletzt die Tatsache, dass unbescholtene
Bürgerinnen und Bürger unter Beobachtung stehen und somit anlasslos in großem Ausmaß in ihr Privatleben
eingegriffen wird. Bedenkt man, dass die Europäische Union sich dem Schutz der persönlichen Daten (Artikel 16
AEUV und Artikel 8 der Charta der Grundrechte) ihrer Bürgerinnen und Bürger verschrieben hat, ist eine derartige
Entwicklung durchwegs kritisch zu sehen.

1. Ist der Kommission bekannt, dass in den Medien vertrauliche Gutachten von EU-Rechtsexperten kursieren, in
denen bereits 2011 vor den PNR gewarnt wird, insbesondere, was deren Verhältnismäßigkeit angeht?

2. Teilt die Kommission diese Einschätzung?

3. Laut Medienberichten gibt es bereits Pläne, PNR auch auf innereuropäischen Flügen einzuführen; befürwortet
die Kommission diese Vorschläge?

4. 50 Millionen Euro an Fördermitteln sollen (laut Medienberichten) von der Kommission für den Aufbau von
Fluggastdatensätzen schon zu Beginn des Jahres ausgeschrieben worden sein, obwohl die Zustimmung des
Parlaments noch ausstand. Unter welchen Voraussetzungen ist eine solche Ausschreibung zulässig?

5. Aus welchem Grund wurde eine derart verfrühte Ausschreibung getätigt?

6. Was wird unternommen werden, um die Grundrechte der EU-Bürgerinnen und ‐Bürger auf den Schutz ihrer
persönlichen Daten tatsächlich in vollem Umfang zu wahren und dies auch in Zukunft garantieren zu können?

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

_(10. Juli 2013)_

1./2. Wie in dem Vorschlag der Kommission für eine PNR-Richtlinie der EU (KOM(2011)32 endg.) erläutert, ist die
Verarbeitung von PNR-Daten notwendig, um terroristische Straftaten und schwere Kriminalität wirksam zu verhüten,
aufzudecken, aufzuklären und strafrechtlich zu verfolgen. Der Vorschlag wurde sehr gründlich vorbereitet, damit
sichergestellt ist, dass die Bestimmungen in Einklang mit den Grundrechten stehen. Vorgesehen sind wirksame
Garantien für den Datenschutz und strenge Beschränkungen für die Verarbeitung von PNR-Daten, so dass der
Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit in vollem Umfang gewahrt bleibt.

Aus der Anfrage geht nicht klar hervor, auf welche Gutachten Bezug genommen wird.

3. Gemäß dem Vorschlag der Kommission soll zwei Jahre nach der Umsetzung der PNR-Richtlinie die
Praktikabilität und Notwendigkeit einer Einbeziehung von Flügen innerhalb der EU in den Anwendungsbereich der
Richtlinie überprüft werden.

4./5. Hinsichtlich der gezielten Aufforderung zur Einreichung von Vorschlägen für die Einrichtung von Stellen zur
Verarbeitung von PNR-Daten verweist die Kommission auf ihre Antwort auf die schriftlichen Anfragen P-343/2013,
E-385/2013 und E-2559/2013.

6. Die Kommission setzt sich weiterhin dafür ein, dass die Bestimmungen über die Verarbeitung von PNR-Daten
auf EU-Ebene vereinheitlicht sowie wirksame Datenschutzgarantien und strenge Beschränkungen vorgesehen
werden, um ein hohes Schutzniveau für die Grundrechte zu gewährleisten. Nur ein kohärenter Ansatz, wie im
Vorschlag der Kommission dargelegt, kann ein angemessenes und konsistentes Datenschutzniveau bei der
Verarbeitung von PNR-Daten in der EU sicherstellen.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 45

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004859/13**

**to the Commission**
**Angelika Werthmann (ALDE)**

_(30 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Storage of passenger name records (PNR)

The planned storage of passenger name records for the purpose of investigating and combating terrorism will have
iniquitous consequences, such as the factually unjustified length of time for which the records will be stored, the sheer
quantity of data, the lax access requirements and, last but not least, the fact that respectable citizens will be placed
under surveillance and thus subject to extensive but unfounded interference into their private lives. Given that the
European Union has committed itself to protecting its citizens’ personal data (Article 16 TFEU and Article 8 of the
Charter of Fundamental Rights), a thoroughly critical approach should be taken to such a development.

1. Is the Commission aware that confidential reports by EU legal experts dating back to 2011 and containing
warnings about PNR, in particular as regards proportionality, are circulating in the media?

2. Does the Commission agree with these reports?

3. Media reports have stated that plans are already in place to introduce PNR on intra-EU flights; is the
Commission in favour of these proposals?

4. According to media reports, the Commission put out a call for proposals worth EUR 50 million at the
beginning of the year for the storage of passenger name records, even though Parliament had not yet given its
agreement. Under what circumstances is such a procedure permissible?

5. Why was this procedure carried out at such an early stage?

6. What is being done to guarantee real and full protection, both now and in the future, for the fundamental right
of EU citizens to the protection of their personal data?

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

_(10 July 2013)_

1./2. As set out in the Commission proposal for an EU PNR Directive (COM(2011) 32 final), the processing of PNR
data is necessary to effectively prevent, detect, investigate and prosecute terrorist offences and serious crime. The
proposal was subject to very thorough preparation to ensure that its provisions are compatible with fundamental
rights. The proposal provides for effective data protection safeguards and strict limitations to the processing of PNR
data that ensure full compliance with the proportionality principle.

The information in the question is not sufficient to be clear as to which reports the Honourable Member refers.

3. The Commission proposal includes a clause providing for an assessment, two years after the transposition of an
EU PNR Directive, of the feasibility and necessity of including internal flights in the scope of the directive.

4./5. Regarding the targeted call for proposals to set up Passenger Information Units, the Commission refers to its
answers to Written Questions P-343/2013, E-385/2013 and E-2559/2013.

6. The Commission continues to advocate the adoption of measures at EU level to harmonise Member States’
provisions on the processing of PNR data, with effective data protection safeguards and strict limitations that
guarantee a high level of protection of fundamental rights. Only a coherent approach to the processing of PNR data,
as set out by the Commission proposal, will ensure an adequate and consistent level of data protection for the
processing of PNR data in the EU.

C 80 E / 46 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-004860/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Angelika Werthmann (ALDE)**

_(30. April 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Bekämpfung von Mobbing und Einschüchterung im Internet

Nichtstaatliche Organisationen weisen wiederholt darauf hin, dass Mobbing und Einschüchterung im Internet
(Cybermobbing/Cyberbullying) immer öfter und in immer größerem Ausmaß stattfindet. Aufgrund der Komplexität
der Problematik (Anonymität des Internets und der Nutzer, fehlende Möglichkeit der Löschung von Bildern/Daten
und Verbreitung von Inhalten in Echtzeit) ist es schwierig, Opfern zu helfen und ein bereits im Gange befindliches
Mobbing festzustellen und zu beenden. Prävention und Aufklärung sind daher in diesem Kontext besonders wichtig.
Bereits ein Fünftel aller Jugendlichen war schon einmal von Online-Attacken betroffen, die Dunkelziffer dürfte weit
höher liegen.

1. Zeigt die 2009 gestartete Kampagne der Kommission gegen Einschüchterung im Internet bereits positive
Effekte? Wie wird der Erfolg der Initiative generell bewertet?

2. Existieren bereits Kooperationen zwischen den EU-Mitgliedstaaten, die eine Verstärkung der Medienkompetenz
(insbesondere im Bereich Online-Netzwerke) bei Jugendlichen fokussieren und fördern (u. a. durch eine Einbeziehung
in schulische Lehrpläne)?

3. Existieren ebensolche Kooperationen zur Bewusstseinsbildung auch für Eltern und Lehrer?

4. Existieren bereits Ergänzungs‐ bzw. Nachfolgeprogramme für das EU-Programm „Safer Internet“?

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

_(14. Juni 2013)_

Die Kommission teilt die Bedenken der Frau Abgeordneten. Mobbing und Einschüchterung im Internet sind heute das
größte Online-Risiko für junge Menschen. Kinder müssen die erforderlichen Fähigkeiten erwerben, um auf sichere
Weise an der digitalen Gesellschaft teilnehmen zu können.

Die Kampagne „Stopp das Online-Mobbing“, die sich an 12‐ bis 17-jährige Jugendliche richtete, förderte die
Einstellung, nicht selbst zum Täter zu werden und Vorfälle zu melden. Da der Kampagne keine Finanzmittel für die
Verbreitung zur Verfügung standen, wurde diese von den nationalen Safer-Internet-Zentren ( [1] ) übernommen. Das
zugehörige Video wurde 16 540 Mal im Fernsehen ausgestrahlt und 1 398 626 Mal im Internet angesehen.

Im Rahmen der Europäischen Strategie für ein besseres Internet für Kinder ( [2] ) wurden die Mitgliedstaaten aufgerufen,
bis 2013 digitale Kompetenzen und Fähigkeiten in ihre schulischen Lehrpläne aufzunehmen. Der Kommission sind in
diesem Zusammenhang keine Kooperationen zwischen Mitgliedstaaten bekannt.

Das europäische Netz der Informationszentren und die im Rahmen des Safer-Internet-Programms ( [3] ) finanzierten
nationalen Safer-Internet-Zentren arbeiten zusammen, um sich über bewährte Praktiken zur Schärfung des
Problembewusstseins und zur Aufklärung von Kindern, Jugendlichen, Eltern, Lehrerinnen und Lehrern sowie
Sozialarbeiterinnen und Sozialarbeitern in Fragen der Online-Sicherheit und der digitalen Kompetenzen
auszutauschen.

Im Rahmen der Fazilität „Connecting Europe“ (CEF) ( [4] ) waren Folgemaßnahmen zum Programm „Sicheres Internet“
vorgesehen. Die Finanzmittel für den IT-Bereich der CEF wurden jedoch im Zuge der Einigung des Europäischen Rates
über den mehrjährigen Finanzrahmen am 8. Februar 2013 drastisch reduziert. Es sind daher schwierige
Entscheidungen über die Auswahl und Finanzierung künftiger Infrastrukturen für digitale Dienste zu treffen. Die
Kommission hat dementsprechend einen geänderten Vorschlag für den IT-Bereich der CEF erstellt.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.saferInternet.org/home
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0196:FIN:de:PDF
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Beschluss Nr. 1351/2008/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 16. Dezember 2008 über ein mehrjähriges

Gemeinschaftsprogramm zum Schutz der Kinder bei der Nutzung des Internets und anderer Kommunikationstechnologien (ABl. L 348
vom 24.12.2008).

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Vorschlag für eine Verordnung des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates zur Schaffung der Fazilität „Connecting Europe“, KOM(2011)665.

( **|**

⋅4∙ **|** )

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 47

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004860/13**

**to the Commission**
**Angelika Werthmann (ALDE)**

_(30 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ The fight against cyberbullying

Non-governmental organisations have reported on numerous occasions that cyberbullying is becoming an ever more
frequent and widespread phenomenon. The anonymity of the Internet and its users, the impossibility of deleting
images and data and the real-time transmission of content mean that the problem is a complex one, and that it is
difficult to help victims or to identify and put a stop to ongoing bullying. Prevention and education are therefore
particularly important in this context. The proportion of young people who have been attacked online is already as
high as one fifth, and it is likely that the number of unreported cases is much higher.

1. Have there already been any positive outcomes from the Commission’s campaign against cyberbullying, which
was launched in 2009? In general terms, how successful is the initiative believed to be?

2. Is cooperation already in place between the EU Member States with a view to focusing on and promoting
increased media competence among young people, particularly with respect to online networks, for example by
including the subject in school curricula?

3. Is similar cooperation also in place with a view to raising awareness among parents and teachers?

4. Have supplementary or successor programmes already been introduced for the EU’s Safer Internet Programme?

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

_(14 June 2013)_

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern. Cyber-bullying has become the biggest online risk
among young people. Children need to develop the right skills to take part safely in the digital society.

The block bullying online campaign targeted at 12-17 year olds, showed a positive attitude towards not becoming a
bully and also on reporting an incident. As the campaign had no dissemination budget it relied on the national Safer
Internet Centres ( [1] ) to disseminate it. This resulted in a total of 16 540 TV broadcasts and 1 398 626 Internet viewings
of the video clip.

The European Strategy for a better Internet for Children ( [2] ) calls upon Member States to include digital literacy and
skills in school curricula by 2013. The Commission is not aware of any cooperation between Member States.

The European network of awareness centres and the national Safer Internet Centres, funded under the Safer Internet
Programme ( [3] ), cooperate to exchange good practices on raising awareness and teaching children, young people,
parents, teachers as well as social workers in matters of online safety and digital literacy.

A follow-up to the Safer Internet Programme was foreseen under the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) ( [4] ). The budget
for the IT part of the CEF was drastically reduced in the agreement on the Multiannual Financial Framework reached
by the European Council in 8 February 2013. This means taking difficult decisions about the selection and funding of
future digital services infrastructures. The Commission has accordingly prepared an amended proposal for the IT part
of the CEF.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.saferInternet.org/home
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0196:FIN:de:PDF
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Decision N° 1351/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 establishing a multiannual Community programme

on protecting children using the Internet and other communication technologies, OJ L 348, 24.12.2008.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Connecting Europe Facility, COM(2011)0665.

( **|**

C 80 E / 48 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-004861/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Angelika Werthmann (ALDE)**

_(30. April 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Verschwendung/Verlust von Lebensmitteln

2012 forderte das EU-Parlament in einer Entschließung eine drastische Verringerung der weggeworfenen (noch
verwendbaren) Lebensmittel. Diese begrüßenswerte Initiative war und ist dringend notwendig: Weltweit gehen rund
1,3 Milliarden Tonnen Lebensmittel verloren, ein Drittel der weltweiten Lebensmittelproduktion. Laut FAO verdirbt
der Großteil dieser Lebensmittel in den Industrieländern beim Verbraucher: Amerikaner und Europäer werfen pro
Person und Jahr im Schnitt 100 kg Lebensmittel in den Müll. In den Entwicklungsländern verderben bis zu 40 % der
Ernte durch falsche Lagerung oder Transportbeschädigungen. Experten sehen ein weiteres Problem in den optischen
Anforderungen an Lebensmittel (vor allem Obst und Gemüse), die zu einer Aussortierung von verwendbaren, aber
optisch nicht den Normen entsprechenden Lebensmitteln führt.

1. Wie sieht das weitere Vorgehen der Kommission im Kontext der genannten Entschließung aus?

2. Gibt es Pläne, die Vorschläge des EU-Parlaments zu konkretisieren und in bindender Form umzusetzen
(insbesondere mit Blick auf die Finanz‐ und Wirtschaftskrise)?

3. Können die Ziele der Entschließung (weggeworfene Lebensmittel in der EU bis 2025 halbieren und Bedürftigen
den Zugang zu Lebensmitteln erleichtern) verwirklicht werden?

4. Welche Maßnahmen sind geplant, um eine solche Verwirklichung zu ermöglichen?

5. Gibt es im Bereich Lagerung/Lieferung/Verarbeitung im Agrarsektor gesamteuropäische Initiativen, um
Nachernteverluste zu vermeiden? Findet eine Zusammenarbeit mit Entwicklungsländern (die besonders von diesen
Problemen betroffen sind) statt?

6. Wie ist die Problematik der Aussortierung von Lebensmitteln aufgrund optischer Normen im Kontext der
entsprechenden EU-Rechtsvorschriften zu sehen?

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

_(20. Juni 2013)_

Die Kommission beabsichtigt, die Menge der als Abfall entsorgten essbaren Lebensmittel in der EU bis 2020 zu
halbieren, wie im Fahrplan für ein ressourcenschonendes Europa ( [1] ) angekündigt, und analysiert daher gegenwärtig
zusammen mit Interessenvertretern (Arbeitsgruppe Lebensmittelverlust des Beratenden Ausschusses zur
Lebensmittelkette, Tier‐ und Pflanzengesundheit), wie die Menge der Lebensmittelabfälle über die gesamte
Lebensmittelkette hinweg ohne eine Einschränkung der Lebensmittelsicherheit verringert werden kann und erörtert
mögliche EU-Maßnahmen. Themen wie beispielweise die Spende von überschüssigen Lebensmitteln an
Lebensmitteltafeln, Haltbarkeitsdatum, Abfallhierarchie oder Obst‐ und Gemüseabfälle wurden erörtert.

Die Kommission informiert zu diesem Thema auch auf der dafür eingerichteten Website ( [2] ).

Eine öffentliche Konsultation zur nachhaltigen Lebensmittelproduktion, einschließlich zum Thema
Lebensmittelabfälle, wird in Kürze durchgeführt.

Die Kommission finanziert Maßnahmen in Entwicklungsländern zur Optimierung der Lebensmittellagerung, zur
Verringerung der Verluste nach der Ernte, hinsichtlich eines besseren Marktzugangs für Agrarerzeugnisse, zur
Stärkung der Leistungsfähigkeit in den verschiedenen Abschnitten der Wertschöpfungskette, zur Sensibilisierung und
zur Erforschung effizienterer Produktionsverfahren. Die Erleichterung des Zugangs von Landwirten zu innovativer
Technologie und zu modernen Informations‐ und Kommunikationstechnologien (IKT), einschließlich mobiler
Bankgeschäftsabwicklung, hilft diesen auch bei zeitlich besser abgestimmten Entscheidungen über die Belieferung
von Märkten, die Preisgestaltung und Beförderungslösungen.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) KOM(2011)571.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/sustainability/index_en.htm

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 49

Im Hinblick auf die besondere Frage zu Obst und Gemüse, welches aus optischen Gründen aussortiert wird, hat die
EU die Anzahl der Produkte, die detaillierten Vermarktungsnormen unterliegen, von 36 auf 10 im Jahr 2008
reduziert. Für nur 10 Hauptprodukte ( [3] ) werden spezielle EU-Vermarktungsnormen beibehalten. Außerdem können
Mitgliedstaaten Erzeugnisse unter bestimmten Bedingungen von der Erfüllung dieser Normen befreien, zum Beispiel
durch besondere Etikettierungsbestimmungen oder bei einer verlässlichen Abnahme vor Ort.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Äpfel, Zitrusfrüchte, Kiwi, Blattsalate, Pfirsiche und Nektarinen, Birnen, Erdbeeren, Paprika, Tafeltrauben und Tomaten.

C 80 E / 50 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004861/13**

**to the Commission**
**Angelika Werthmann (ALDE)**

_(30 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Waste/loss of food

Parliament adopted a resolution in 2012 which called for a drastic reduction in the amount of (still usable) food that is
thrown away. This very welcome initiative was and is still urgently needed; around 1.3 billion tonnes of food are
wasted at global level, amounting to one third of food production worldwide. According to the FAO, most of the
food in industrial countries goes to waste after having been purchased, with Americans and Europeans binning an
average of 100 kg of food per person per year. In developing countries, up to 40% of the harvest is spoiled because of
poor storage techniques or damage during transport. Experts believe that an additional problem is posed by
requirements relating to the appearance of food, in particular fruit and vegetables, since they result in food being
rejected which is usable but which does not comply with the relevant standards in terms of appearance.

1. What further action is planned by the Commission in connection with the above resolution?

2. Are there any plans to put Parliament’s proposals into concrete form and to implement them on a binding basis,
in particular in the context of the financial and economic crisis?

3. Will it be possible to achieve the goals set out in the resolution, namely halving the quantity of food thrown
away in the EU by 2025 and making it easier for those in need to obtain food?

4. What measures are planned to ensure that it is possible to achieve these goals?

5. Are there any pan-European initiatives relating to storage/supply/processing in the agricultural sector with a
view to avoiding post-harvest losses? Is any cooperation in place with developing countries, which are most affected
by these problems?

6. What view should be taken of the problem of food being rejected due to sub-standard appearance in the context
of the relevant EU regulations?

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

_(20 June 2013)_

The Commission aims to halve the disposal of edible food waste in the EU by 2020 as announced in the Roadmap to
a Resource-Efficient Europe ( [1] ) and is therefore analysing with stakeholders (Food Waste Working Group of the
Advisory Group on the Food Chain, Animal and Plant Health) how to reduce food waste throughout the entire food
chain without compromising food safety and is discussing possible EU actions. Issues such as the donation of surplus
food to food banks, date labelling, the waste hierarchy, fruit and vegetable wastage, were discussed.

The Commission is also disseminating information via its dedicated website ( [2] ).

A public consultation on sustainable food production, including the food waste issue will be launched soon.

The Commission finances interventions in developing countries to improve food storage, reduce post-harvest losses,
improve market access of agricultural produce, to strengthen capacity at the various stages of the value chain, raise
awareness and research into more efficient production methods. Facilitating access for farmers to innovative
technology and to modern Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), including mobile banking also
helps in making better timed decisions about supplying markets, price movements and transport arrangements.

As to the particular question of fruit and vegetables being rejected due to appearance, the EU reduced the number of
products subject to detailed marketing standards from 36 to 10 in 2008. For only 10 main products ( [3] ) specific EU
marketing standards remain in place. In addition, Member States may exempt produce from these standards subject
to certain conditions, for example by particular labelling provisions or in the case of well-established local
consumption.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 571.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/sustainability/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Apples, citrus fruit, kiwi, lettuces, peaches and nectarines, pears, strawberries, sweet pepper, table grapes and tomatoes.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 51

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-004862/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Angelika Werthmann (ALDE)**

_(30. April 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Zentrales Waffenregister und illegale Waffen in privater Hand

Momentan wird ein zentrales Waffenregister auf der Grundlage von Artikel 4 Absatz 4 der Richtlinie 2008/51/EG des
Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 21. Mai 2008 zur Änderung der Richtlinie 91/477/EWG des Rates über
die Kontrolle des Erwerbs und des Besitzes von Waffen eingeführt. Bis spätestens 31. Dezember 2014 soll ein
computergestütztes Waffenregister eingeführt werden, welches stets auf aktuellstem Stand gehalten werden muss.

Es ist unklar, wie viele Waffen sich in privater Hand befinden. Geschätzt wird jedoch, dass mehrere Millionen
Schusswaffen illegal in Umlauf sind, für die der jeweilige Inhaber keine Berechtigung zum Besitz vorweisen kann.

Davon ausgehend, dass der Kommission die oben genannten Daten und Fakten bekannt sind, bitte ich um die
Beantwortung folgender Fragen.

1. Wie soll eine bestmögliche Verbrechensaufklärung garantiert werden?

1a.   Wie soll in diesem Kontext mit illegalen Waffen in privater Hand umgegangen werden?

2. Wie sollen die in der Richtlinie 91/477/EWG genannten Kriterien zum Erwerb einer Waffe in der Praxis
kontrolliert werden? Ist es in diesem Kontext geplant, sich auf die Angaben privater Händler zu verlassen, oder gibt es
bereits Alternativen?

3. Welche Pläne hat die Kommission, um hier allfälligem oder möglichem Missbrauch vorzubeugen?

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

_(21. Juni 2013)_

Nach den der Kommission vorliegenden Angaben ist der Verbleib von mehr als 400 000 Feuerwaffen in der EU, die
seit Beginn der Registrierung im Jahr 1995 als gestohlen oder abhanden gekommen gelten, weiterhin ungeklärt; nur
in wenigen Fällen sind die Ermittlungen erfolgreich verlaufen.

Der weltweite Markt für die Herstellung und den Verkauf illegaler Feuerwaffen wird auf 1 Mrd. Dollar pro Jahr
geschätzt ( [1] ).

Die illegale Herstellung, Weitergabe und Verbreitung von Feuerwaffen sowie deren übermäßige Anhäufung und
Ausbreitung fördern nicht nur Kriminalität und Terrorismus, sondern tragen auch zur Verschärfung regionaler
Konflikte und zum Scheitern von Staaten bei. Ein wirksames Vorgehen setzt voraus, dass alle Beteiligten gemeinsam
handeln, die EU-Instrumente optimal ausgeschöpft werden und das Problem in seiner Gesamtheit angegangen wird.

Die Kommission plant noch im Laufe dieses Jahres eine umfassende Mitteilung dazu, wie die Gefahren, die sich aus
dem illegalen Umgang mit Feuerwaffen für die innere Sicherheit der EU ergeben, durch einen kohärenten,
gemeinsamen Ansatz vermindert werden können.

Wie vom Europäischen Parlament und vom Rat gefordert, wird die Kommission auch eine eingehende Bewertung der
Richtlinie 91/477/EWG über die Kontrolle des Erwerbs und des Besitzes von Waffen vornehmen. Über die Ergebnisse
wird sie 2015 Bericht erstatten und erforderlichenfalls geeignete Vorschläge unterbreiten, um etwaige Lücken in den
bestehenden Rechtsvorschriften zu schließen. Die Umsetzung der Registrierungsvorschriften auf nationaler Ebene
wird Teil dieser Bewertung sein.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) „The Global Regime for Transnational Crime Council of Foreign Relations,“ Juli 2012.

C 80 E / 52 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004862/13**

**to the Commission**
**Angelika Werthmann (ALDE)**

_(30 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Central firearms register and illegal privately owned firearms

A central firearms register is currently being set up on the basis of Article 4(4) of Directive 2008/51/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 amending Council Directive 91/477/EEC on control of the
acquisition and possession of weapons. A computerised firearms register, which will need to be updated on an
ongoing basis, should be in place by 31 December 2014 at the latest.

The number of privately owned firearms is unknown, but it is estimated that there are several million illegally in
circulation for which no ownership licences are held.

Assuming that the Commission is familiar with the above facts and figures, I would like to ask the following:

1. How can it be guaranteed that crimes are investigated as effectively as possible?

1(a). In this context, what action should be taken with respect to illegal privately owned firearms?

2. What checks should be carried out to ensure that the criteria referred to in Directive 91/477/EEC governing the
acquisition of a firearm are being complied with in practice? In this context, are there plans to rely on information
from private dealers, or have alternatives already been found?

3. What plans has the Commission made to prevent any possible or potential abuse in this area?

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

_(21 June 2013)_

Information received by the Commission indicates that over 400 000 firearms lost or stolen in the EU, since records
began in 1995, remain unaccounted for, with only a handful of those reported being successfully traced.

The global market in the manufacture and sale of illicit firearms has been valued at Dollar 1 billion per year ( [1] ).

Illicit manufacture, transfer and circulation of firearms and their excessive accumulation and dissemination
contribute not only to crime and terrorism but also to regional conflicts and to state failure. An effective response
must therefore involve coherent action by all players, making best use of EU tools and covering all dimensions of the
issue.

The Commission is planning to adopt this year a comprehensive communication on how a more coherent common
policy approach can minimise the risk posed by the illegal use of firearms to the EU's internal security.

As required by the European Parliament and the Council, the Commission will also carry out an in-depth evaluation
of Directive 91/477/EEC on the control and possession of firearms. In 2015 it will report on the results, and if
necessary make appropriate proposals to fill possible gaps in the current legislation. The implementation of the
provisions on registration at national level will be part of this evaluation.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) The Global Regime for Transnational Crime Council of Foreign Relations July 2012.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 53

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004866/13**

**à la Commission**
**Patrick Le Hyaric (GUE/NGL)**

_(30 avril 2013)_

_Objet:_ Pesticides dangereux pour la santé en France

En France, l'association «Générations futures» a porté plainte contre la direction générale de l'alimentation (DGAL), le
24 avril dernier, pour mise en danger de la vie d'autrui. Cette association dénonce de graves irrégularités ayant permis
le maintien sur le marché de plus de quarante pesticides, dont sept dangereux pour la santé (cinq désherbants, dont
certains vendus aux particuliers, et deux insecticides).

La DGAL n'aurait pas pris position sur la commercialisation de sept pesticides pour lesquels l'Agence nationale de
sécurité sanitaire (ANSES) avait émis un avis défavorable. Des dizaines de produits phytosanitaires agricoles ou
domestiques (insecticides, herbicides ou fongicides) restent en vente alors qu'ils devraient, selon l'avis de l'ANSES, être
retirés du marché car non conformes aux exigences de la réglementation en vigueur. Il semblerait également que les
règles concernant le renouvellement des autorisations de mise sur le marché (AMM) n'aient pas été scrupuleusement
respectées.

Au vu de ces informations, la Commission est invitée à répondre aux questions suivantes:

1. La Commission a-t-elle connaissance de cette affaire de pesticides en France?

2. Entend-elle procéder à une évaluation des irrégularités dénoncées ci-dessus?

3. Quelles sont les étapes à suivre afin d'élucider le maintien sur le marché de plus de quarante pesticides?

4. La Commission a-t-elle prévu une analyse des dangers de l'utilisation des pesticides qui sont actuellement mis
en cause en France?

5. Quelles mesures préventives compte-t-elle prendre concernant les sept pesticides dangereux pour la santé?

6. Il semblerait que des dérogations aient été accordées à certains États membres pour l'utilisation de pesticides. La
Commission a-t-elle vérifié si les États membres bénéficiaires de ces dérogations avaient élaboré des normes
alimentaires et si des mesures d'atténuation des risques avaient été prises afin d'éviter de compromettre la santé
humaine et l'environnement? La France bénéficie-t-elle de dérogations et, si oui, depuis quand?

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

_(20 juin 2013)_

1. La Commission a connaissance de la plainte introduite par «Générations futures» contre la Direction générale de
l'alimentation en France.

2./3. La Commission prend acte de la promptitude de réaction du ministère français de l'Agriculture et attend les
résultats de l'audit du système d'autorisation entrepris par ce dernier.

4. Il n'appartient pas à la Commission d'analyser ou d'autoriser des produits phytosanitaires. Elle n'est responsable
que de l'approbation des substances actives utilisées dans ces produits.

5. Les pesticides peuvent avoir des propriétés dangereuses; c'est la raison pour laquelle les produits phytosanitaires
sont soumis à une évaluation approfondie qui peut aboutir, au niveau des États membres, à une limitation des
conditions de leur utilisation ou à l'imposition de mesures spécifiques d'atténuation des risques. Quant aux substances
actives, elles sont réévaluées tous les dix ans et peuvent faire l'objet d'un examen particulier de la Commission si de
nouvelles informations scientifiques susceptibles de remettre en question l'approbation initiale font leur apparition.

6. Dans le passé, la Commission a autorisé plusieurs États membres à prolonger le délai de retrait de certains
pesticides destinés à des «usages essentiels» pour lesquels ces États déclaraient qu'il n'existait pas de solution de
substitution efficace. Cependant, cette pratique n'a plus cours depuis 2008. Les limites maximales applicables aux
résidus concernées ont été abaissées par le règlement (UE) n° 310/2011 de la Commission ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) JO L 86 du 1.4.2011, pp. 1-50.

C 80 E / 54 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004866/13**

**to the Commission**
**Patrick Le Hyaric (GUE/NGL)**

_(30 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Pesticides harmful to health in France

On 24 April 2013 in France, the association Générations Futures lodged a complaint against the French DirectorateGeneral for Food (DGAL) for endangering the lives of others. The association objects to serious irregularities that have
allowed more than 40 pesticides, including seven which are hazardous to health (five herbicides, some of which are
sold to the public, and two insecticides), to remain on the market.

DGAL apparently failed to take a stand on the marketing of seven pesticides on which the French Health and Safety
Agency (ANSES) had issued an unfavourable opinion. Dozens of agricultural and domestic plant protection products
(insecticides, herbicides and fungicides) are still on sale even though, in ANSES’s opinion, they should be withdrawn
from the market because they do not comply with current legislation. It would also appear that the rules on the
renewal of marketing authorisations (MA) have not been strictly observed.

1. Is the Commission aware of this problem relating to pesticides in France?

2. Will it look into the irregularities mentioned above?

3. What steps will be taken to determine why more than 40 pesticides have been kept on the market?

4. Does the Commission intend to analyse the dangers of using the pesticides that are currently under scrutiny in
France?

5. What preventive measures will it take concerning the seven pesticides that are hazardous to health?

6. It would appear that derogations have been granted to certain Member States for the use of pesticides. Did the
Commission establish whether the Member States benefiting from those derogations had drafted food standards and
whether risk mitigation measures had been taken to protect human health and the environment? Does France benefit
from any derogations, and if so, since when?

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

_(20 June 2013)_

1. The Commission is aware of the complaint lodged by Générations Futures against the French DirectorateGeneral for Food.

2./3. The Commission notes the prompt actions taken by the French Ministry of Agriculture and looks forward to
the outcomes of the audit on the authorisation system undertaken by the Ministry.

4. It is not up to the Commission to evaluate or authorise plant protection products. The Commission is only
responsible for the approval of active substances used in plant protection products.

5. Pesticides may have hazardous properties and for this reason plant protection products need to undergo a
thorough evaluation process which may result at Member State level in a limitation of the conditions of use and/or in
the imposition of specific risk mitigation measures. As regards active substances, they are re-evaluated every 10 years
and may also be subject to a specific review by the Commission, if new scientific information becomes available that
would put in question the original approval.

6. In the past the Commission allowed some Member States to extend the period of withdrawal of certain
pesticides for so called ‘essential uses’, for which the Member States concerned claimed there were no efficient
alternatives. However, this practice has been discontinued by the Commission since 2008. Relevant maximum
residue levels have been lowered by Commission Regulation (EU) No 310/2011 ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 86, 1.4.2011, p. 1-50.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 55

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004867/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(30 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Incompatibilità del fiscal compact con il trattato di Lisbona

Il 2 marzo 2012, in occasione del Consiglio europeo di primavera, è stato sottoscritto il «Trattato sulla stabilità, sul
coordinamento e sulla governance nell'Unione economica e monetaria», il cosiddetto _fiscal compact_ o patto di bilancio.

Lo scorso settembre 2012 Andreas Fischer-Lescano, professore ordinario di diritto costituzionale dell'università di
Brema, ha presentato a Bruxelles uno studio che mette in discussione la legittimità del _fiscal compact_, sottolineando che
il meccanismo previsto dal testo per affrontare la crisi marginalizzerebbe troppo il ruolo del Parlamento e dei legittimi
rappresentanti dei cittadini europei. Poche settimane fa il _Bundesrat_ tedesco ha bocciato la ratifica del _fiscal compact_ .
L'ex ministro italiano Giuseppe Guarino ha sostenuto in diverse circostanze che il «Trattato sulla stabilità, sul
coordinamento e sulla governance nell'Unione economica e monetaria», sarebbe illegittimo in quanto impone il
pareggio di bilancio e si scontra quindi con i disposti del trattato di Maastricht cui invece ai sensi dell'articolo2 parte II
dello stesso _fiscal compact_ dovrebbe invece conformarsi.

Nella risposta all'interrogazione E-010892/2012 la Commissione afferma che «In linea con il testo del trattato, il
valore di riferimento del disavanzo va inteso non come obiettivo, ma come limite da non superare nelle normali
fluttuazioni del ciclo economico». L'articolo3, comma 1, lettera a), del _fiscal compact_ con riferimento ai bilanci degli
Stati membri fa però riferimento esplicito a un obbligo di risultato coincidente con il pareggio o l'avanzo.

Può pertanto la Commissione precisare quanto segue:

1. Come intende difendere l'applicazione del trattato di Lisbona, firmato nel 2007 e in vigore dal 2009 che, con
l'articolo 126, riconosce in modo oggettivo e inequivocabile agli Stati membri la possibilità di incorrere in un
disavanzo di bilancio?

2. In quale misura e a quale titolo possono essere conferiti alle istituzioni comunitarie poteri di applicazione delle
norme contenute nel _fiscal compact_, la cui natura di semplice accordo internazionale non gli consente di incidere
direttamente sui poteri attribuiti dai trattati istitutivi agli organi esecutivi e legislativi europei?

**Risposta di José Manuel Barroso a nome della Commissione**

_(28 giugno 2013)_

1. A norma dell'articolo 126, paragrafo 1, del TFUE e dell'articolo 1 del protocollo n. 12 sulla procedura per i
disavanzi eccessivi, in linea di principio gli Stati membri non possono avere un disavanzo superiore al 3 % del PIL, né
un debito superiore al 60 % del PIL.

Gli Stati membri devono inoltre conseguire gli obiettivi di bilancio a medio termine. Tale obbligo deriva dal
regolamento (CE) n. 1466/97, che costituisce la parte preventiva del patto di stabilità e crescita e si basa
sull'articolo 121, paragrafo 6, del TFUE. Come indicato nella risposta della Commissione all'interrogazione scritta E010892/2012, la regola del pareggio di bilancio ha lo scopo di fornire un margine di sicurezza contro il superamento
del valore di riferimento del disavanzo. Ciò è ora sancito anche dal trattato sulla stabilità, sul coordinamento e sulla
governance economica («patto di bilancio»).

2. Sia la Commissione che la Corte di giustizia partecipano al funzionamento del patto di bilancio. Per quanto
riguarda la Commissione, come rilevato dal considerando 10 del patto di bilancio, nel riesaminare e monitorare gli
impegni di bilancio a norma dello stesso patto, la Commissione agisce nell'ambito delle sue competenze, secondo il
disposto del trattato sul funzionamento dell'Unione europea, in particolare degli articoli 121, 126 e 136.

Per quanto concerne la Corte di giustizia, questa, ai sensi dell'articolo 273 del TFUE, è competente a conoscere di
qualsiasi controversia tra Stati membri in connessione con l'oggetto dei trattati, quando tale controversia le venga
sottoposta in virtù di un compromesso. Come confermato dal suo articolo 8, paragrafo 3, il patto di bilancio
costituisce un compromesso di questo tipo. La competenza che il patto di bilancio conferisce alla Corte è pertanto in
linea con il diritto dell'Unione.

C 80 E / 56 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004867/13**

**to the Commission**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(30 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Incompatibility of the fiscal compact with the Treaty of Lisbon

The Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union — the so-called ‘fiscal
compact’ — was signed on 2 March 2012 on the occasion of the Spring European Council.

In September 2012, Andreas Fischer-Lescano, a full professor of constitutional law at the University of Bremen,
presented a study in Brussels which cast doubt on the legitimacy of the fiscal compact, highlighting that the
mechanism set out in the text to tackle the crisis would marginalise to an unacceptable degree the role of Parliament
and the legitimate representatives of European citizens. A few weeks ago, the German Bundesrat refused to ratify the
fiscal compact. The former Italian minister, Giuseppe Guarino, has stated on several occasions that the Treaty on
Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union is illegal since it requires balanced
budgets and therefore runs counter to the provisions of the Treaty of Maastricht, with which, however, the fiscal
compact should comply, according to Article 2 of Title II of the latter.

In its answer to Question E-010892/2012, the Commission states that ‘consistent with the wording of the Treaty, the
deficit reference value should not be intended as an objective but a limit that should not be trespassed under normal
cyclical fluctuations’. However, Article 3(1)(a) of the fiscal compact explicitly refers to the Member States’ obligation
to achieve a budgetary position which is balanced or in surplus.

Therefore, can the Commission specify:

1. how it intends to defend the application of the Treaty of Lisbon, signed in 2007 and in force since 2009, which,
pursuant to Article 126, objectively and unequivocally grants the Member States the possibility of running a
deficit;

2. to what degree and on what basis EU institutions can be granted powers to implement the rules contained in
the fiscal compact, which as a simple international agreement, is not permitted to have a direct effect on the
powers granted by the founding treaties to European executive and legislative bodies?

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

_(28 June 2013)_

1. According to Article 126(1) TFEU and Article 1 of Protocol No 12 on the excessive deficit procedure, Member
States, in principle, cannot have deficits exceeding 3% to GDP, nor debts exceeding 60% to GDP.

Member States also need to achieve medium-term budgetary objectives. This obligation stems from Regulation
1466/97 EC, which forms the preventive part of the Stability and Growth Pact and is based on Article 121(6) TFEU.
As indicated in the Commission's answer to Written Question E-010892/2012, this balanced budget rule aims to
provide a safety margin against breaching the deficit reference value. It is now also laid down in the Treaty on
Stability, Coordination and Governance (TSCG).

2. Both the Commission and the Court of Justice are involved in the functioning of the TSCG. Concerning the
Commission, as Recital 10 to the TSCG confirms, when reviewing and monitoring the budgetary commitments
under the TSCG, the Commission acts within the framework of its powers as provided by the TFEU, in particular
Articles 121, 126 and 136 thereof.

Regarding the Court, Article 273 TFEU provides that it shall have jurisdiction in any dispute between Member States
which relates to the subject matter of the EU Treaties if the dispute is submitted to it under a special agreement
between the parties. As Article 8(3) TSCG confirms, the TSCG constitutes such a special agreement. The jurisdiction
conferred on the Court by the TSCG therefore complies with EC law.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 57

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-004868/13**

**do Komisji**
**Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD)**

_(30 kwietnia 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Oznakowanie produktów żywnościowych w UE

W 2012 r. Inspekcja Handlowa w Polsce sprawdziła oznakowanie 12 008 partii produktów w 1309 placówkach
handlowych. Skontrolowano m.in. mleko, mięso, ryby i ich przetwory, mrożonki, gotowe dania obiadowe, herbaty,
kawy, pieczywo. Zastrzeżenia wzbudziło ogółem blisko 30 % skontrolowanych partii (3474). Zakwestionowano
51,2 % partii towarów sprzedawanych luzem spośród 6062 sprawdzonych oraz 6,2 % partii produktów
oferowanych w opakowaniach spośród skontrolowanych 5964.

Najczęściej kwestionowano brak obowiązkowych informacji o składnikach wędlin, jaj, mięsa, pieczywa i ryb. Bardzo
często na stoiskach informowano klientów jedynie o nazwie zwyczajowej produktu (np. śląska zamiast kiełbasa
śląska, mediolanka zamiast kiełbasa wędzona), nie podając zawartości składników oraz rodzaju produktu.

W związku z powyższym uprzejmie proszę Komisję Europejską o odpowiedź na następujące pytania:

1. Czy Komisja monitoruje oznakowanie produktów żywnościowych w poszczególnych krajach UE?

2. Czy Komisja ma zamiar w przyszłości ujednolicić oznakowanie produktów żywnościowych w krajach UE?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Tonia Borga w imieniu Komisji**

_(20 czerwca 2013 r.)_

1. Fałszywe i wprowadzające w błąd praktyki związane z oznakowaniem można wyeliminować, odpowiednio
egzekwując unijne przepisy prawa żywnościowego; zadanie to należy do właściwych organów krajowych. Muszą one
przeprowadzać odpowiednie kontrole oraz nakładać odstraszające i skuteczne sankcje. Przygotowywany wniosek
dotyczący kontroli urzędowych będzie miał na celu dalsze umocnienie istniejącego systemu, w tym przepisów
dotyczących sankcji.

Oprócz kontroli przeprowadzanych przez państwa członkowskie eksperci Komisji (Biuro ds. Żywności
i Weterynarii) przeprowadzają audyty systemów kontroli, które są stosowane w państwach członkowskich w celu
egzekwowania europejskiego prawodawstwa dotyczącego bezpieczeństwa żywności.

2. Oznakowanie produktów żywnościowych jest znormalizowane w całej Unii poprzez dyrektywę
2000/13/WE ( [1] ). Na mocy obowiązujących ram prawnych nazwa, pod którą produkt jest sprzedawany, oraz wykaz
składników są obowiązkowymi danymi szczegółowymi, które muszą znajdować się na etykiecie produktu
żywnościowego. Wymagania te zostały także utrzymane w niedawno przyjętym rozporządzeniu (UE) nr 1169/2011
w sprawie przekazywania konsumentom informacji na temat żywności ( [2] ), które od dnia 13 grudnia 2014 r. uchyli
i zastąpi dotychczasowe przepisy.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Dyrektywa 2000/13/WE Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady z dnia 20 marca 2000 r. w sprawie zbliżenia ustawodawstw Państw Członkowskich

w zakresie etykietowania, prezentacji i reklamy środków spożywczych, Dz.U. L 109 z 6.5.2000, s. 29.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Rozporządzenie (UE) nr 1169/2011 w sprawie przekazywania konsumentom informacji na temat żywności, zmiany rozporządzeń Parlamentu

Europejskiego i Rady (WE) nr 1924/2006 i (WE) nr 1925/2006 oraz uchylenia dyrektywy Komisji 87/250/EWG, dyrektywy Rady 90/496/EWG,
dyrektywy Komisji 1999/10/WE, dyrektywy 2000/13/WE Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady, dyrektyw Komisji 2002/67/WE i 2008/5/WE oraz
rozporządzenia Komisji (WE) nr 608/2004, Dz.U. L 304 z 22.11.2011, s. 18.

( **|**

C 80 E / 58 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004868/13**

**to the Commission**
**Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD)**

_(30 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Labelling of food products in the EU

In 2012, Poland’s trading standards body checked the labelling of 12 008 batches of products in 1309 commercial
establishments. Checks were carried out on products such as milk, fish and fish products, frozen foods, ready meals,
tea, coffee and bread. Some 30% (3474) of the batches that were checked raised concerns. Problems were identified
with 51.2% of the 6062 batches of goods sold loose and 6.2% of the 5964 batches of packaged goods.

The most frequent problem was the lack of mandatory information on the ingredients of processed meat products,
eggs, meat, bread and fish. Customers were very often provided only with a product’s nickname — e.g. ‘Silesian’
instead of Silesian sausage and ‘Mediolanka’ instead of smoked sausage — and not with a list of ingredients or the type
of the product.

In connection with the above, would the Commission answer the following questions:

1. Is the Commission monitoring the labelling of food products in EU Member States?

2. Does the Commission intend to standardise the labelling of food products in EU MemberStates?

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

_(20 June 2013)_

1. Fraudulent and deceptive labelling practices can be eliminated with appropriate enforcement of Union food law
requirements, which lies with the national competent authorities. They must conduct appropriate controls and
impose dissuasive and effective sanctions. The forthcoming proposal on official controls will aim at further
strengthening the existing system, including the provisions on sanctions.

In addition to the controls carried by the Member States, Commission experts (from the Food and Veterinary Office)
audit the control systems in place in the Member States for the enforcement of European food safety legislation.

2. The labelling of food products is standardised across the Union through Directive 2000/13/EC ( [1] ). Under the
existing legal framework, the name under which the product is sold and the list of ingredients are mandatory
particulars that must appear on the food labelling. These requirements are also maintained in the recently adopted
Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers ( [2] ), which will repeal and replace
the existing rules as of 13 December 2014.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States

relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs, OJ L 109, 6.5.2000, p. 29.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC)

No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC,
Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC
and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004, OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 18.

( **|**

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 59

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita P-004869/13**

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

_(30 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Anillo ferroviario de Antequera

El pasado 17 de abril, el Gobierno español dio luz verde a la construcción del proyecto de circuito del anillo
ferroviario de pruebas y experimentación en la comarca andaluza de Antequera. Este proyecto ha sido denunciado
por los habitantes de los diferentes municipios de la comarca, así como por organizaciones ecologistas de la zona por
suponer un fuerte impacto sobre el medio ambiente andaluz.

El circuito ferroviario implicará experimentos con trenes de alta velocidad que supondrán un fuerte impacto sobre el
medio ambiente y la población local. En mi anterior pregunta sobre este mismo proyecto (E-004875/2011), aporté
información sobre las alegaciones presentadas, así como la exigencia de realizar un estudio de impacto ambiental
independiente, etc. En dicha pregunta expuse las violaciones que este proyecto supondrá para diversas directivas, al
superar los límites para el ruido permitidos, al suponer un impacto sobre un espacio de la Red Natura 2000, al haber
incumplido la Directiva de evaluación del impacto ambiental, así como al no haber prestado atención a las más de
400 alegaciones presentadas. En su respuesta a la pregunta E-004875/2011, la Comisión Europea me contestó que
«las autoridades nacionales competentes aún no han tomado una decisión definitiva al respecto. Por consiguiente, la
Comisión no se propone adoptar ninguna otra medida por ahora».

Pese a todas estas violaciones del Derecho europeo, el Gobierno de España continúa adelante con la intención de
construir dicho circuito ferroviario y ya ha aparecido en el BOE la lista de futuras expropiaciones. Además, en
declaraciones públicas la ministra de Fomento ha sostenido que dicho proyecto cuenta con un préstamo de
100 millones de euros procedente de las instituciones europeas.

¿Considera la Comisión, a la luz de los avances desde 2011, que el presente proyecto incumple las directivas citadas
en mi anterior pregunta?

¿Podría indicar la Comisión si alguno de los fondos de la Unión Europea ha concedido el préstamo para el anillo
ferroviario citado por la Ministra de Fomento?

¿Considera la Comisión que la concesión de dicho préstamo ha cumplido todas las normativas europeas que el
proyecto supuestamente viola?

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

_(6 de junio de 2013)_

A raíz de una petición del Parlamento, la Comisión inició un procedimiento en relación con el proyecto mencionado
por Su Señoría y con el cumplimiento de los requisitos pertinentes del Derecho medioambiental de la UE. La
investigación de este asunto aún no ha concluido.

En diciembre de 2011, las autoridades españolas presentaron una solicitud de cofinanciación del Fondo Europeo de
Desarrollo Regional para un gran proyecto titulado «Circuito del anillo ferroviario de pruebas y experimentación (fase
1) en Málaga», en el marco del programa «Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación por y para el beneficio de las
empresas. Fondo Tecnológico» correspondiente al período 2007-2013. En mayo de 2012, la Comisión envió una
carta a las autoridades españolas, en la que formulaba observaciones sobre la propuesta y solicitaba información
complementaria y los justificantes correspondientes, incluida información sobre los aspectos medioambientales.
Habida cuenta de que solo se ha respondido parcialmente a dicha carta, sigue interrumpido el procedimiento de
evaluación de la solicitud en relación con dicho proyecto.

La Comisión no está en condiciones de determinar si el proyecto es conforme con todas las normas y reglamentos de
la UE que son necesarios, ya que sigue faltando información esencial. Por consiguiente, la Comisión aún no ha
adoptado ninguna decisión en lo que respecta a la financiación de este proyecto.

C 80 E / 60 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-004869/13**

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

_(30 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Antequera railway test circuit

On 17 April 2013, the Spanish Government gave the go-ahead for construction of a railway test circuit project in the
district of Antequera (Andalusia). Complaints about the project have been raised by local residents and environmental
organisations in the area, on the grounds that it will have a negative impact on the Andalusian environment.

The rail circuit will be used to test high-speed trains, an activity which will seriously disrupt the local population and
environment. In my previous written question on the same topic (E-004875/2011), I outlined the objections
presented and the demand that an independent environmental impact assessment be carried out. I also listed the ways
in which this project will infringe a number of directives: by exceeding permitted noise levels, affecting a Natura 2000
area, failing to comply with the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and failing to take into consideration the
more than 400 complaints filed against it. In its answer to Written Question E-004875/2011, the Commission
replied that ‘the competent national authorities have not yet taken a final decision regarding this project.
Consequently, the Commission is not proposing to take any further measures at this stage’.

Despite all the violations of European law involved, the Spanish Government is determined to move ahead with the
construction of this rail project, and a list of properties to be expropriated has already appeared in the Official
Gazette. Furthermore, the Minister of Public Works has stated in public that the project will be funded by a
EUR 100 million loan from the European institutions.

In light of developments since 2011, does the Commission consider that this project infringes the directives referred
to in my previous question?

Could the Commission say whether the loan for construction of the rail test circuit referred to by the Minister of
Public Works has been provided by an EU fund?

Does the Commission consider said loan to have been granted in accordance with all the European standards which
the project itself allegedly violates?

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

_(6 June 2013)_

Following a petition from the Parliament, the Commission opened a case concerning the project mentioned by the
Honourable Member and its compliance with the relevant requirements under EU environmental law. The
investigation into this case is still ongoing.

In December 2011, the Spanish authorities submitted an application for European Regional Development Fund cofinancing of a major project titled ‘Testing and experimentation facilities associated with Malaga rail technology
centre Rail loop line Phase 1’ under the programme ‘Research, Development and Innovation by and for the benefit of
enterprises — Technology Fund’ for the 2007-2013 period. In May 2012, the Commission sent a letter to Spanish
authorities with observations on the proposal and requested additional information and supporting documents,
including information on environmental aspects. As this letter was only partially answered, the assessment procedure
for this project application remains interrupted.

The Commission is not in a position to judge if the project complies with all required EU rules and regulations since
essential information is still missing. The Commission has therefore not yet adopted any decision concerning the
funding of this project.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 61

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta P-004870/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Magdi Cristiano Allam (EFD)**

_(30 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Produzione della mozzarella di bufala campana DOP

Premesso che il Consorzio di tutela della mozzarella di bufala campana DOP in Italia, come emerso
dall'interrogazione dell'on. Alessandri al parlamento italiano n. 2-01742 del 29 novembre 2012, sta attuando un
grave tentativo consistente nell'introdurre nel disciplinare di produzione di tale formaggio DOP il condizionamento
(congelamento) del latte o della cagliata così da poter differire nel tempo l'uso del latte nel processo di elaborazione
della predetta mozzarella DOP;

premesso che il Consorzio di tutela sopra citato chiederebbe di sostituire l'attuale obbligo di concludere il processo
produttivo della mozzarella di bufala campana DOP entro la sessantesima ora dalla prima mungitura, con la
possibilità d'interromperlo consentendo il condizionamento e di fatto il congelamento della cagliata;

può la Commissione disporre un'ispezione presso il Ministero, le Regioni Lazio e Campania e il Consorzio della
mozzarella di bufala campana DOP per richiedere chiarimenti e per stabilire quali sono i controlli e le misure che
intendono adottare a tutela degli allevatori, dei lavoratori e dei consumatori?

Può la Commissione chiarire che, tra i metodi di ottenimento della mozzarella di bufala campana DOP, l'uso del latte
di bufala fresco e la lavorazione dello stesso entro la sessantesima ora dalla mungitura rappresentano metodi locali,
leali e costanti e quindi non modificabili?

È la Commissione consapevole che un'eventuale modifica del disciplinare di produzione della mozzarella di bufala
campana DOP come sopra denunciato potrebbe danneggiare irrimediabilmente la reputazione del prodotto oltre che
la sopravvivenza degli allevatori di bufale e dell'indotto fino a causare anche la revoca stessa della DOP in questione?

**Risposta di Dacian Cioloș a nome della Commissione**

_(29 maggio 2013)_

A tutt'oggi la Commissione non ha ricevuto alcuna domanda di modifica del disciplinare della Denominazione di
origine protetta (DOP) «Mozzarella di Bufala Campana» ai sensi dell'articolo 53 del regolamento (UE)
n. 1151/2012 ( [1] ).

L'utilizzo della denominazione è pertanto subordinato al rispetto di tutti gli elementi del disciplinare attuale. Secondo
quanto disposto dall'articolo 37 del regolamento sopra citato, la verifica del rispetto del suddetto disciplinare spetta
alle autorità degli Stati membri o agli organismi di controllo ai sensi del regolamento (CE) n. 882/2004 ( [2] ).

Tutte le modifiche non minori del disciplinare devono formare oggetto di una procedura che prevede un esame
condotto dalle autorità dello Stato membro e una procedura nazionale di opposizione che dà luogo, previo esame
delle eventuali dichiarazioni di opposizione ricevute, a una decisione da parte dello Stato membro, il quale è tenuto
altresì ad assicurare che la decisione sia resa pubblica e che ogni persona fisica o giuridica avente un interesse
legittimo disponga di mezzi di ricorso.

Lo Stato membro deve in seguito presentare alla Commissione una domanda di modifica che viene analizzata
conformemente al disposto del regolamento (UE) n. 1151/2012.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) GU L 343 del 14.12.2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) GU L 165 del 3.4.2004.

C 80 E / 62 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-004870/13**

**to the Commission**
**Magdi Cristiano Allam (EFD)**

_(30 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Production of PDO buffalo-milk mozzarella in Campania

It emerged from Question No 2-01742 of 29 November 2012 tabled by Mr Alessandri in the Italian Parliament that
the cooperative for the protection of designation of origin (‘Consorzio di Tutela’) of PDO buffalo-milk mozzarella
produced in Campania, Italy, is attempting to amend the rules on the production of this cheese in a way which would
have serious implications, namely by allowing treatment (freezing) of the milk or curd so that it can be used to
produce the cheese at a later time.

The aforementioned Consorzio di Tutela is apparently seeking to replace the current requirement to complete the
production of PDO buffalo-milk mozzarella in Campania within 60 hours of the first milking, making it possible to
interrupt the production process by treating — freezing — the curd.

Can the Commission organise an inspection at the Ministry, the Lazio and Campania Regional Authorities and the
Consorzio di Tutela responsible for PDO buffalo-milk mozzarella produced in Campania to demand explanations
and establish what monitoring and other measures it is intended to adopt to protect farmers, workers and consumers?

Can the Commission make it clear that, among the methods used to produce PDO buffalo-milk mozzarella in
Campania, the use of fresh buffalo milk and its processing within 60 hours of milking constitute local, honest and
invariable methods and therefore cannot be changed?

Is the Commission aware that any change to the rules on the production of PDO buffalo-milk mozzarella in
Campania as described above could cause irremediable damage to the reputation of the product, jeopardise the
survival of buffalo farmers and related industries and even result in revocation of the PDO in question?

_(Version française)_

**Réponse donnée par M Cioloş au nom de la Commission**

_(29 mai 2013)_

La Commission n'a, à ce jour, pas reçu de demande de modification du cahier des charges de l'Appelation d'Origine
Protégée « Mozzarella di Bufala Campana » au titre de l'article 53 du règlement (UE) n° 1151/2012 ( [1] ).

Le cahier des charges actuel doit donc être respecté dans tous ses éléments pour pouvoir utiliser la dénomination.
Conformément à l'article 37 du règlement susmentionné, il appartient aux autorités des États membres ou
organismes de contrôle au sens du règlement (CE) n° 882/2004 ( [2] ) agissant en tant qu'organisme de certification de
vérifier le respect dudit cahier des charges.

Toute modification non mineure du cahier des charges doit faire l'objet d'une procédure qui comprend un examen
par les autorités de l'État membre, une procédure nationale d'opposition conduisant, après examen des déclarations
d'opposition éventuellement reçues, à une décision d'État membre. L'État membre doit également veiller à ce que la
décision soit portée à la connaissance du public et à ce que toute personne physique ou morale ayant un intérêt
légitime dispose de voies de recours.

L'État membre doit ensuite introduire une demande de modification auprès de la Commission. La demande est alors
analysée en conformité avec le règlement (UE) n° 1151/2012.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) JO L 343 du 14.12.2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) JO L 165 du 3.4.2004.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 63

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-004872/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Nadja Hirsch (ALDE)**

_(30. April 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Vorratsdatenspeicherung

Gestützt auf die Richtlinie 2006/24/EG über die Vorratsdatenspeicherung hat die Kommission am 18. April 2013 die
Einsetzung einer Expertengruppe „Vorratsdatenspeicherung“ beschlossen (C(2013)2144).

1. Welche konkreten Beispiele einer „technischen Entwicklung in der elektronischen Kommunikation“ sieht die
Kommission, die Änderungen der „legitimen Erfordernisse der zuständigen Behörden“ erforderlich machen können?

2. Kann die Kommission ausschließen, dass diese Expertengruppe die Ausweitung der Richtlinie auf soziale Netze
(z. B. Facebook, das erst seit 2005 existiert) in den Informationsaustausch über technologische Entwicklungen mit
einbezieht?

3. Auf welchen neuen Erkenntnissen basiert die Annahme der Kommission, dass auf Vorrat gespeicherte
Telekommunikationsdaten bei grenzüberschreitenden Ermittlungen, die schwere Straftaten betreffen, immer mehr an
Bedeutung gewinnen (Erwägung 6), wo noch im Bewertungsbericht über die Richtlinie (KOM(2011)0255) vom
18. April 2011 davon die Rede ist, dass weniger als 1 % aller Anfragen Daten, die in einem anderen Mitgliedstaat
gespeichert waren, betrafen?

4. Gedenkt die Kommission, das ausstehende Urteil des EuGH über die Vereinbarkeit der Vorratsdatenspeicherung
mit der EU-Grundrechtecharta in die geltende Richtlinie bzw. eine überarbeitete Richtlinie einfließen zu lassen?

5. Erachtet die Kommission angesichts der von ihr angenommenen zunehmenden Bedeutung der
Vorratsdatenspeicherung bei grenzüberschreitenden Ermittlungen die derzeitige rechtliche Basis der Richtlinie über
die Vorratsdatenspeicherung (Artikel 251) noch für haltbar?

6. Wie rechtfertigt die Kommission ein Eingreifen in die Sicherheitsbelange der Mitgliedstaaten, wenn dort
festgestellt wurde, dass sich die derzeitige Richtlinie nicht im Einklang mit den Grundrechten ihrer Bürger und damit
der EU-Grundrechtecharta befindet?

7. Welchen Zeitraum erachtet die Kommission für realistisch bezüglich einer Revision der Richtlinie
(2006/24/EG) über die Vorratsdatenspeicherung?

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

_(24. Juni 2013)_

1. Die Expertengruppe wird die Kommission zu Entwicklungen und Erfordernissen beraten, die für die Umsetzung
der Richtlinie von Belang sind. Als Beispiel für technische Entwicklungen, mit denen sich die frühere Gruppe befasst
hat, ist die Internettelefonie zu nennen; hierfür wurden Arbeitspapiere mit technischen Leitlinien angenommen und
auf der Webseite der GD Home veröffentlicht ( [1] ).

2. Soziale Medien und andere Dienstleistungen der Informationsgesellschaft fallen nicht in den Geltungsbereich
der Richtlinie über die Vorratsdatenspeicherung; daran wird sich auch in Zukunft nichts ändern, denn die
Kommission hat nicht die Absicht, diesbezügliche Änderungen einzuführen. Die Rolle der Expertengruppe besteht
darin, in Fragen der bestmöglichen Umsetzung der bestehenden Richtlinie eine beratende Funktion zu übernehmen.
Die Expertengruppe wird diese Aufgabe ausschließlich in Bezug auf die Bereiche erfüllen, die vom Wortlaut der
Richtlinie abgedeckt sind.

3. Bei grenzüberschreitenden Ermittlungen in Fällen schwerer und organisierter Kriminalität erfolgt der
Informationsaustausch zwischen den Behörden der Mitgliedstaaten in Einklang mit den Verfahren der Rechtshilfe.
Nach Schätzungen von Europol beinhalten rund die Hälfte aller Informationsersuchen in grenzübergreifende Fällen
Kommunikationsdaten.

4. Eine Stellungnahme zu einem laufenden Gerichtsverfahren wäre unangemessen.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/police-cooperation/data-retention/experts-group/index_en.htm

C 80 E / 64 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

5. Die Richtigkeit der Rechtsgrundlage der Richtlinie wurde vom Europäischen Gerichtshof in seinem Urteil in der
Rechtssache C 301/6 bestätigt.

6. Eine Stellungnahme zu einem laufenden Gerichtsverfahren wäre unangemessen.

7. Wie von dem zuständigen Kommissionsmitglied für Inneres in der Debatte des Europäischen Parlaments vom
23. Oktober 2012 erläutert, erwägt die Kommission, parallel zu einer künftigen Überarbeitung der
Datenschutzrichtlinie für die elektronische Kommunikation eine Überarbeitung der Richtlinie über die
Vorratsspeicherung von Daten vorzuschlagen. Doch gibt es hierfür noch keinen Zeitplan.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 65

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004872/13**

**to the Commission**
**Nadja Hirsch (ALDE)**

_(30 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Data retention

On 18 April 2013 the Commission, taking as its basis Directive 2006/24/EC on data retention, decided to set up a
data retention experts’ group (C(2013)2144).

1. What specific examples can the Commission give of ‘technologies relating to electronic communications…
changing rapidly’ which might result in changes to ‘legitimate requirements of competent authorities’?

2. Can the Commission rule out the possibility of this experts’ group including in the exchange of information on
technological changes a widening of the scope of the directive to cover social networks (e.g. Facebook, which has only
existed since 2005)?

3. What new findings underlie the Commission’s belief in the ‘growing importance of retained
telecommunications in cross-border investigations of serious crime’ (Recital 6), given that its Evaluation Report on
the directive (COM(2011)0225 of 18 April 2011) still found that less than 1% of all requests concerned data held in
another Member State?

4. Does the Commission propose to incorporate the pending judgment of the European Court of Justice on the
compatibility of data retention with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU into the existing directive or a
revised version thereof?

5. In view of its belief in the growing importance of data retention in cross-border investigations, does the
Commission consider that the current legal basis for of the Data Retention Directive (Article 251 of the EC Treaty) is
still tenable?

6. How will the Commission justify intervention in the security interests of the Member States should the Court
find that the current directive is not compatible with the fundamental rights of EU citizens and thus with the Charter
of Fundamental Rights of the EU?

7. What time-frame does the Commission consider realistic for a review of Directive 2006/24/EC on data
retention?

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

_(24 June 2013)_

1. The expert group will advise the Commission on the sorts of developments and requirements which are relevant
for the implementation of the directive. Examples of relevant technological developments were addressed by the
previous group, such as Internet telephony, for which papers providing technical guidance were adopted and
published on the DG Home Affairs website ( [1] ).

2. Providers of social media services and other information society services are outside the scope of the Data
retention directive, and will remain outside its scope since the Commission has no intention to introduce changes in
this respect. The role of the Expert group is to advise on best practice in implementing the directive as it stands. The
expert group will carry out its work exclusively on the areas covered by the directive, as its scope mirrors the wording
of the directive itself.

3. For cross-border investigations of serious and organised crime, information is exchanged between Member
States' authorities in accordance with mutual legal assistance procedures. Europol estimates that around half of all
requests for information in cross-border cases include communications data.

4. It would not be appropriate to comment on ongoing court proceedings.

5. The correctness of the legal basis for the directive was upheld by the European Court of Justice in its judgment
on Case C-301/6.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/police-cooperation/data-retention/experts-group/index_en.htm

C 80 E / 66 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

6. It would not be appropriate to comment on ongoing court proceedings.

7. As stated by the Member of the Commission responsible for Home Affairs during the debate in the European
Parliament on 23 October 2012, the Commission aims to propose a revision of the Data Retention Directive at the
same time as a future proposal on revision of the E-Privacy Directive. There is no timetable at present for this
proposal.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 67

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-004873/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)**

_(30 Απριλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Έρευνες για νέους ΧΑΔΑ στην Ελλάδα

Σύμφωνα με δημοσιεύματα του Τύπου στην Ελλάδα (30.4.2013) στην περιοχή Βαλιμίτικα Αιγίου, στις εκβολές του ποταμού
Σελινούντα, έχουν θαφτεί απορρίμματα, μεταξύ των οποίων και νοσοκομειακά απόβλητα. Η «αποκάλυψη» έγινε καθώς
ισχυροί άνεμοι κατέστρεψαν μεγάλο μέρος της παραλίας και αποκάλυψαν τα θαμμένα απορρίμματα.

Επίσης, στις 28.9.2012, στο τοπικό διαμέρισμα Γέφυρας του δήμου Μεγαλόπολης, η Ελληνική Αστυνομία συνέλαβε
επ' αυτοφώρω φορτηγά να αποθέτουν σε ΧΑΔΑ (Χώρο Ανεξέλεγκτης Διάθεσης Απορριμμάτων) απορρίμματα του δήμου
Τρίπολης. Η ταυτοποίηση της προέλευσης των απορριμμάτων έγινε και από την Ειδική Υπηρεσία Επιθεωρητών
Περιβάλλοντος.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

1. Οι παραπάνω δύο ΧΑΔΑ, περιλαμβάνονται στην λίστα των ΧΑΔΑ η οποία έχει κατατεθεί από τις ελληνικές αρχές την
Επιτροπή και βάσει της οποίας έγινε πρόσφατα η παραπομπή της Ελλάδας στο Ευρωπαϊκό Δικαστήριο;

2. Εάν ναι, πρόκειται για ενεργούς ή ανενεργούς ΧΑΔΑ;

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

_(27 Ιουνίου 2013)_

Οι δύο ΧΑΔΑ στους οποίους αναφέρεται το Αξιότιμο Μέλος δεν αποτελούν παράνομους χώρους που καλύπτονται από εν
εξελίξει διαδικασίες επί παραβάσει (2001/2273). Και στις δύο περιπτώσεις, οι δραστηριότητες αυτές συνιστούν
δραστηριότητες ατόμων που δρουν χωρίς την υποστήριξη εθνικών ή δημοτικών αρχών και εναπόκειται στις αρχές αυτές να
λάβουν τα απαραίτητα μέτρα για τη σύλληψη των υπευθύνων και τον καθαρισμό των ΧΑΔΑ. Όσον αφορά τον ΧΑΔΑ στην
περιοχή Γέφυρα, την 28η Σεπτεμβρίου 2012, η ελληνική αστυνομία, με τη συνδρομή του δήμου, προέβη σε σύλληψη τριών
ατόμων για παράνομη εκφόρτωση απορριμμάτων.

C 80 E / 68 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004873/13**

**to the Commission**
**Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)**

_(30 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Investigations regarding new uncontrolled waste disposal sites in Greece

According to press reports in Greece (30 April 2013), waste, including hospital waste, has been buried in the region
of Valimitika (Aigio) on the estuary of the river Selinountas. This came to light after strong winds destroyed much of
the beach, uncovering the buried waste.

Furthermore, on 28 September 2012, in the district of Gefyra in the municipality of Megalopolis, Greek police caught
truck drivers _in flagrante delicto_ dumping waste from the municipality of Tripoli in an uncontrolled waste disposal site.
The origin of this waste was identified by the special Environmental Inspectorate.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

1. Are the two uncontrolled waste disposal sites referred to above included in the list of uncontrolled waste
disposal sites submitted to the Commission by the Greek authorities, a list on the basis of which Greece was
recently referred to the European Court?

2. If so, are they active or inactive uncontrolled waste disposal sites?

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

_(27 June 2013)_

The two sites to which the Honourable Member refers are not illegal sites covered by the ongoing infringement
proceedings (2001/2273). In both cases the activities are those of individuals acting without the support of national
or municipal authorities and it is for those authorities to take adequate measures to apprehend the persons
responsible and to clean up the sites. Regarding the Gefyra site, on 28 September 2012, the Greek police, with the
help of the municipality, arrested three persons who were illegally disposing of waste.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 69

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-004874/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)**

_(30 Απριλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Υποχρεωτικές αποχωρήσεις από το Ελληνικό Δημόσιο

Κατά τη διάρκεια των διαπραγματεύσεων μεταξύ Τρόικας και Ελληνικής Κυβέρνησης τον Απρίλιο του 2013, αναδείχτηκε σε
κομβικό σημείο των συζητήσεων το ζήτημα των υποχρεωτικών αποχωρήσεων υπαλλήλων από τον δημόσιο τομέα.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή: Πού κατέληξαν οι συζητήσεις; Τι συγκεκριμένες δεσμεύσεις ανέλαβε η Ελληνική Κυβέρνηση;

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

_(14 Ιουνίου 2013)_

Κατά τη διάρκεια της τελευταίας αποστολής ελέγχου, η Επιτροπή, η ΕΚΤ και το ΔΝΤ συζήτησαν με τις ελληνικές αρχές μια
σειρά θεμάτων σχετικά με τη μεταρρύθμιση της δημόσιας διοίκησης η οποία θα καταστήσει τη διοίκηση πιο ευέλικτη και πιο
αποτελεσματική. Οι συζητήσεις επικεντρώθηκαν στον υποχρεωτικό σχεδιασμό των αποχωρήσεων και στην κινητικότητα των
εργαζομένων, στην οριστικοποίηση των σχεδίων στελέχωσης και στον σχεδιασμό της αξιολόγησης των εργαζομένων. Οι
διαβουλεύσεις δεν περιελάμβαναν την υποχρεωτική συνταξιοδότηση των ελλήνων δημοσίων υπαλλήλων. Περαιτέρω
πληροφορίες σχετικά με τα αποτελέσματα των διαβουλεύσεων διατίθενται στην έκθεση συμμόρφωσης που δημοσίευσε η
Επιτροπή, σε συνεννόηση με την ΕΚΤ ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/occasional_paper/2013/op148_en.htm

C 80 E / 70 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004874/13**

**to the Commission**
**Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)**

_(30 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Compulsory retirement of Greek civil servants

During the negotiations between the Troika and the Greek Government in April 2013, the issue of the compulsory
retirement of Greek civil servants became a focal point of the discussions.

Will the Commission say: what was the outcome of these discussions? What specific commitments were made by the
Greek government?

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

_(14 June 2013)_

During the last review mission, the Commission, along with the ECB and the IMF, discussed with the Greek
authorities a number of issues on the public administration reform that will render the administration leaner and
more effective. The discussions focused on the planning mandatory of the exits and mobility of employees, the
finalisation of the staffing plans and the planning of the evaluation of the employees. The discussions did not include
compulsory retirement of the Greek civil servants. Further information on the results of the discussions can be found
on the compliance report published by the Commission in liaison with the ECB ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/occasional_paper/2013/op148_en.htm

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 71

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-004875/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D)**

_(30 Απριλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Αναπρογραμματισμός της χρηματοδότησης δαπανών από πόρους της πολιτικής συνοχής για την περίοδο 2007-2013
στην Ελλάδα

Η έκθεση της Επιτροπής με τίτλο: «Πολιτική για τη συνοχή: Στρατηγική έκθεση του 2013 για την υλοποίηση των
προγραμμάτων της περιόδου 2007-2013» παρέχει τη δεύτερη στρατηγική επισκόπηση της εφαρμογής των προγραμμάτων
στο πλαίσιο της πολιτικής συνοχής της περιόδου 2007-2013 τα οποία προβλέπεται να ολοκληρωθούν το 2015. Παρέχει
επίσης σύνοψη των κοινωνικο-οικονομικών προκλήσεων που αντιμετωπίζουν τα κράτη μέλη κατά την εκτέλεση των
προγραμμάτων που χρηματοδοτούνται από την ΕΕ.

Σύμφωνα με την έκθεση, προκειμένου να εξασφαλιστεί η απαραίτητη ευελιξία ώστε να ληφθούν υπόψη οι μεταβαλλόμενες
ανάγκες της περιόδου εφαρμογής, έως το τέλος του 2012, σχεδόν 36 δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ — ή το 11% των συνολικών
κονδυλίων — αναπρογραμματίστηκαν και μεταφέρθηκαν από έναν θεματικό τομέα σε κάποιον άλλο για την κάλυψη των
πλέον πιεστικών αναγκών και την ενίσχυση συγκεκριμένων παρεμβάσεων. Από το ποσό αυτό, περισσότερα από
30 δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ αφορούσαν το ΕΤΠΑ και το Ταμείο Συνοχής και σχεδόν 5,5 δισεκατομμύρια το ΕΚΤ.

Στο έγγραφο εργασίας το οποίο συνοδεύει την έκθεση, η Επιτροπή καταδεικνύει ότι, στην περίπτωση της Ελλάδας, το 17,3%
του θεματικού σχεδιασμού της για την περίοδο 2007-2013 έχει αναπρογραμματιστεί. Δύναται η Επιτροπή να παράσχει
περαιτέρω στοιχεία όσον αφορά τον αναπρογραμματισμό ανά κονδύλιο, θέμα και ποσοστό απορρόφησης;

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

_(26 Ιουνίου 2013)_

Έγινε εκτεταμένος επαναπρογραμματισμός των ελληνικών προγραμμάτων του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινωνικού Ταμείου, με βασικό
στόχο την αντιμετώπιση της ανεργίας των νέων. Εγκρίθηκε ένα εθνικό Σχέδιο Δράσης για τη Νεολαία με υποστήριξη ύψους
517 εκατ. ευρώ από την ΕΕ (ΕΚΤ: 466 εκατ. ευρώ, ΕΤΠΑ: 51 εκατ. ευρώ). Αφορά 350 000 άτομα κάτω των 35 ετών.

Το 2012 επαναπρογραμματίστηκε η χρηματοδότηση του Ευρωπαϊκού Ταμείου Περιφερειακής Ανάπτυξης προς τα ελληνικά
περιφερειακά προγράμματα προκειμένου να διατεθούν επιπλέον πόροι για τη στήριξη της ανταγωνιστικότητας,
συμπεριλαμβανομένης της επιπλέον υποστήριξης ύψους 1 δισ. ευρώ για τις ΜΜΕ και για τη διασφάλιση της
αποτελεσματικής λειτουργίας του Ταμείου Εγγυήσεων για τις ΜΜΕ. Οι δράσεις που υποστηρίζουν τις ΜΜΕ είχαν φτάσει σε
σημείο μεγάλου κορεσμού και ήταν απαραίτητη μια αναδιάρθρωση. Για τον σκοπό αυτό, οι πόροι που διατέθηκαν στις
προτεραιότητες «Προσβασιμότητα» και «Αειφόρος ανάπτυξη και ποιότητα ζωής» μεταφέρθηκαν στην προτεραιότητα
«Ανταγωνισμός, καινοτομία και ψηφιακή σύγκλιση». Οι εν λόγω τροποποιήσεις δεν επηρέασαν ούτε τα συνολικά κονδύλια
των προγραμμάτων, ούτε το ποσοστό συμμετοχής της ΕΕ ούτε τις ετήσιες δημοσιονομικές δεσμεύσεις των περιφερειακών
προγραμμάτων.

Επιπλέον, το πρόγραμμα «Ψηφιακή σύγκλιση» μείωσε τον προϋπολογισμό του κατά 225 εκατ. ευρώ συμμετοχής της ΕΕ (300
εκατ. ευρώ δημόσιας δαπάνης) ώστε να ενισχυθεί το πρόγραμμα «Ανταγωνισμός και επιχειρηματικότητα» και, ιδίως, οι
δράσεις υπέρ των ΜΜΕ. Δεν πραγματοποιήθηκε επαναπρογραμματισμός του Ταμείου Συνοχής.

Σύμφωνα με τις πληρωμές που έχει καταβάλει έως σήμερα η Επιτροπή, ο ρυθμός απορρόφησης στην Ελλάδα των
χρηματοδοτήσεων του Ευρωπαϊκού Ταμείου Περιφερειακής Ανάπτυξης, του Ταμείου Συνοχής και του Ευρωπαϊκού
Κοινωνικού Ταμείου είναι, έως σήμερα, 56,73%.

C 80 E / 72 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004875/13**

**to the Commission**
**Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D)**

_(30 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Cohesion policy funding reprogrammed for the 2007-2013 period in Greece

The Commission’s report entitled ‘Cohesion policy: Strategic report 2013 on programme implementation 20072013’ provides the second strategic overview of the implementation of the 2007-2013 cohesion policy programmes,
which are due to end in 2015. It also provides a summary of the socioeconomic challenges Member States are facing
in the implementation of the EU-funded programmes.

According to the report, in order to ensure the necessary flexibility to reflect the changing needs during the
implementation period, almost EUR 36 billion — or 11% of the total funds — were reprogrammed from one
thematic area to another by the end of 2012 to support the most pressing needs and strengthen certain interventions.
Of that amount, more than EUR 30 billion concerned the ERDF and Cohesion Fund and nearly EUR 5.5 billion the
ESF.

In the Staff Working Document accompanying the report, the Commission indicates that, in the case of Greece, 17.
3% of its thematic programming for 2007-2013 has been reprogrammed. Could the Commission provide further
information on the reprogramming by fund, theme and absorption rate?

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

_(26 June 2013)_

An extensive reprogramming of the Greek European Social Fund programmes took place with the main objective of
tackling youth unemployment. A national Youth Action Plan was endorsed with EU support of EUR 517 million
(ESF: EUR 466 million, ERDF: EUR 51 million). It targets 350.000 people under 35 years of age.

In 2012, European Regional Development funding in the Greek regional programmes was reprogrammed to allocate
additional resources to support competitiveness, including additional support of EUR 1 billion for SMEs and to
ensure the effective functioning of the Guarantee Fund for SMEs. Actions supporting SMEs had reached a very high
degree of overbooking and an adjustment was necessary. For this purpose, resources allocated to the ‘Accessibility’
and ‘Sustainable development and Quality of Life’ priorities were transferred to the ‘Competitiveness, Innovation and
Digital Convergence’ priority. These modifications did not affect the total programme allocations, the EU
contribution rate nor the annual budgetary commitments of the regional programmes.

In addition, the ‘Digital Convergence’ programme reduced its budget by EUR 255 million of EU contribution
(EUR 300 million of public expenditure) in order to reinforce the ‘Competiveness and Entrepreneurship’ programme
and in particular actions in favour of SMEs. No reprogramming was made for the Cohesion Fund.

According to the payments made so far by the Commission the absorption rate of the European Regional
Development Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Social Fund in Greece is, to date, 56.73%.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 73

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-004876/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D)**

_(30 Απριλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Χρηματοδοτικά μέσα στήριξης των ΜΜΕ

Η έκθεση της Επιτροπής με τίτλο: «Πολιτική για τη συνοχή: Στρατηγική έκθεση του 2013 για την υλοποίηση των
προγραμμάτων της περιόδου 2007-2013» παρέχει τη δεύτερη στρατηγική επισκόπηση της εφαρμογής των προγραμμάτων
στο πλαίσιο της πολιτικής συνοχής της περιόδου 2007-2013 τα οποία προβλέπεται να ολοκληρωθούν το 2015. Παρέχει
επίσης σύνοψη των κοινωνικο-οικονομικών προκλήσεων που αντιμετωπίζουν τα κράτη μέλη κατά την εκτέλεση των
προγραμμάτων που χρηματοδοτούνται από την ΕΕ.

Σύμφωνα με την έκθεση, σε όλα σχεδόν τα κράτη μέλη χρησιμοποιήθηκαν χρηματοοικονομικά μέσα για την υποστήριξη των
επενδύσεων και τη δημιουργία θέσεων εργασίας στις ΜΜΕ και, έως το τέλος του 2011, τα προγράμματα συνοχής είχαν
συνεισφέρει πάνω από 8,9 δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ (4,4% των συνολικών κονδυλίων του ΕΤΠΑ) σε χρηματοδοτικά μέσα για τις
επιχειρήσεις, εκ των οποίων περισσότερα από 3,6 δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ (40%) είχαν καταβληθεί σε επιχειρήσεις.

Δύναται η Επιτροπή να παράσχει λεπτομερή πίνακα των κρατών μελών τα οποία χρησιμοποίησαν χρηματοοικονομικά μέσα
για την υποστήριξη των επενδύσεων και τη δημιουργία θέσεων εργασίας στις ΜΜΕ καθώς και τα ποσά τα οποία έκαστο
κράτος μέλος προόρισε για τη στήριξη αυτή;

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

_(25 Ιουνίου 2013)_

Η Επιτροπή δημοσίευσε την έκθεση και τα παραρτήματα στο διαδίκτυο. Το παράρτημα 2 με τις διατιθέμενες πιστώσεις ανά
χρηματοδοτικό μέσον και ανά κράτος μέλος είναι διαθέσιμο μέσω του ακολούθου συνδέσμου:
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/thefunds/doc/instruments/financial/financial_engineering_summary_report_ann
ex2.pdf

C 80 E / 74 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004876/13**

**to the Commission**
**Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D)**

_(30 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Financial instruments in support of SMEs

The Commission’s report entitled ‘Cohesion policy: Strategic report 2013 on programme implementation 20072013’ provides the second strategic overview of the implementation of the 2007-2013 cohesion policy programmes,
which are due to end in 2015. It also provides a summary of the socioeconomic challenges Member States are facing
in the implementation of the EU-funded programmes.

According to the report, financial instruments have been used in nearly all the Member States to support investment
and job creation in SMEs and at the end of 2011 cohesion programmes had contributed more than EUR 8.9 billion
(4. 4% of the total ERDF) to financial instruments for enterprises, of which more than EUR 3.6 billion (40%) had been
paid to enterprises.

Could the Commission provide a detailed table of the Member States that have used financial instruments to support
SMEs’ investments and job creation and the amounts that have been dedicated to this support by each Member State?

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

_(25 June 2013)_

The Commission has published the report and annexes online. Annex 2 with the allocations per instrument and per
Member State is available via the following link:
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/thefunds/doc/instruments/financial/financial_engineering_summary_report_ann
ex2.pdf

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 75

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-004877/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D)**

_(30 Απριλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Σχέδια εκπαιδευτικών υποδομών στην Ελλάδα, τα οποία χρηματοδοτούνται από κονδύλια στο πλαίσιο της πολιτικής
συνοχής

Η έκθεση της Επιτροπής με τίτλο: «Πολιτική για τη συνοχή: Στρατηγική έκθεση του 2013 για την υλοποίηση των
προγραμμάτων της περιόδου 2007-2013» παρέχει τη δεύτερη στρατηγική επισκόπηση της εφαρμογής των προγραμμάτων
στο πλαίσιο της πολιτικής συνοχής της περιόδου 2007-2013 τα οποία προβλέπεται να ολοκληρωθούν το 2015. Παρέχει
επίσης σύνοψη των κοινωνικο-οικονομικών προκλήσεων που αντιμετωπίζουν τα κράτη μέλη κατά την εκτέλεση των
προγραμμάτων που χρηματοδοτούνται από την ΕΕ.

Στο τμήμα «Ποσοτική εκτίμηση της προόδου σε ό,τι αφορά την επίτευξη στόχων πολιτικής» αναφέρεται ότι υποστηρίχθηκαν
πάνω από 19 000 σχέδια εκπαιδευτικών υποδομών, από τα οποία επωφελούνται 3,4 εκατομμύρια σπουδαστές, κυρίως στην
Ιταλία, αλλά με σημαντικά επιτεύγματα και στη Βουλγαρία, την Ισπανία και την Ελλάδα.

Δύναται η Επιτροπή να παράσχει περισσότερα στοιχεία όσον αφορά τα σχέδια εκπαιδευτικών υποδομών τα οποία
υποστηρίχθηκαν στην Ελλάδα, καθώς και τον αριθμό των σπουδαστών που επωφελήθηκαν από αυτά;

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

_(26 Ιουνίου 2013)_

Η εθνική στρατηγική έκθεση που υπέβαλαν στην Επιτροπή οι ελληνικές αρχές τον Δεκέμβριο του 2012 αναφέρει ότι, μέχρι
στιγμής, 387 έργα εκπαιδευτικής υποδομής χρηματοδοτήθηκαν μεταξύ 2007 και 2011, από τα οποία επωφελήθηκαν
συνολικά 18 720 μαθητές. Δεδομένου ότι ο τελικός στόχος για το 2015 όσον αφορά τους εν λόγω δείκτες κορμού
ανέρχεται στα 591 έργα εκπαιδευτικής υποδομής και στους 164 750 επωφελούμενους μαθητές, μέχρι στιγμής, το ποσοστό
επιτυχίας είναι της τάξης του 65% και του 11% αντίστοιχα.

Η πλήρης έκδοση της ελληνικής στρατηγικής έκθεσης διατίθεται στην ακόλουθη ιστοσελίδα:
http://www.espa.gr/el/Pages/staticMonitoringNSRF.aspx

C 80 E / 76 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004877/13**

**to the Commission**
**Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D)**

_(30 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Educational infrastructure projects receiving support from cohesion policy funds in Greece

The Commission’s report entitled ‘Cohesion policy: Strategic report 2013 on programme implementation 20072013’ provides the second strategic overview of the implementation of the 2007-2013 cohesion policy programmes,
which are due to end in 2015. It also provides a summary of the socioeconomic challenges Member States are facing
in the implementation of the EU-funded programmes.

In the section of the report entitled ‘Quantifying the progress achieved in delivering policy objectives’ it is stated over
19 000 educational infrastructure projects have received support benefiting 3.4 million students, mostly in Italy, but
with significant achievements also in Bulgaria, Spain and Greece.

Could the Commission provide more information on the educational infrastructure projects that received support in
Greece and the number of students who benefited from them?

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

_(26 June 2013)_

The national strategic report submitted to the Commission by the Greek authorities in December 2012 mentions
that, so far, 387 educational infrastructure projects have received support between 2007 and 2011, benefitting in
total 18 720 students. As the target to be achieved by 2015 for these two core indicators is set at 591 for the number
of educational infrastructure projects and 164 750 for the number of benefitting students, the achievement ratio is
respectively 65% and 11%.

The full version of the Greek strategic report is available on the following website:
http://www.espa.gr/el/Pages/staticMonitoringNSRF.aspx

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 77

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-004878/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D)**

_(30 Απριλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Προγράμματα ενίσχυσης των θεσμικών ικανοτήτων στην Ελλάδα χρηματοδοτούμενα από το ΕΚΤ

Η έκθεση της Επιτροπής με τίτλο: «Πολιτική για τη συνοχή: Στρατηγική έκθεση του 2013 για την υλοποίηση των
προγραμμάτων της περιόδου 2007-2013» παρέχει τη δεύτερη στρατηγική επισκόπηση της εφαρμογής των προγραμμάτων
στο πλαίσιο της πολιτικής συνοχής της περιόδου 2007-2013 τα οποία προβλέπεται να ολοκληρωθούν το 2015. Παρέχει
επίσης σύνοψη των κοινωνικο-οικονομικών προκλήσεων που αντιμετωπίζουν τα κράτη μέλη κατά την εκτέλεση των
προγραμμάτων που χρηματοδοτούνται από την ΕΕ.

Στο τμήμα «Ποσοτική εκτίμηση της προόδου σε ό,τι αφορά την επίτευξη στόχων πολιτικής» αναφέρεται, σε σχέση με τις
παρεμβάσεις του ΕΚΤ για την περίοδο 2007-2011, ότι περίπου 700 000 συμμετέχοντες, ιδίως δημόσιοι υπάλληλοι,
αναβάθμισαν τις δεξιότητές τους με την υποστήριξη του ΕΚΤ και ότι τέσσερα κράτη μέλη (Βουλγαρία, Ελλάδα, Ουγγαρία και
Ρουμανία) εφάρμοσαν ειδικό πρόγραμμα για την ενίσχυση της θεσμικής τους ικανότητας.

Δύναται η Επιτροπή να παράσχει πρόσθετα στοιχεία όσον αφορά το πρόγραμμα ενίσχυσης των θεσμικών ικανοτήτων στην
Ελλάδα; Πόσα άτομα αφορούσε, ποιος ήταν ο προϋπολογισμός του, ποιοι ήταν οι στόχοι που έπρεπε να επιτευχθούν και
κατά πόσο επιτεύχθηκαν;

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

_(25 Ιουνίου 2013)_

Το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινωνικό Ταμείο συνεισφέρει περίπου 512 εκατ. ευρώ συνολικά στη συγχρηματοδότηση του επιχειρησιακού
προγράμματος (ΕΠ) «Διοικητική μεταρρύθμιση» (2007-13) στην Ελλάδα. Η ανάπτυξη του ανθρώπινου δυναμικού στη
δημόσια διοίκηση είναι ένας από τους στόχους του ΕΠ, ο οποίος αναλύεται στους ακόλουθους δύο ειδικούς στόχους:

α) ενίσχυση της πολιτικής για την ανάπτυξη του ανθρώπινου δυναμικού μέσω διαρθρωτικών και θεσμικών αλλαγών·

β) υποστήριξη των θεσμικών και διαρθρωτικών αλλαγών στη δημόσια διοίκηση και την ηλεκτρονική διακυβέρνηση μέσω
βελτιώσεων της ποιότητας και της αποτελεσματικότητας της πολιτικής για την εκπαίδευση και την κατάρτιση.

Σύμφωνα με τις πληροφορίες που παρασχέθηκαν από τη διαχειριστική αρχή του ΕΠ, ο αριθμός των δημοσίων υπαλλήλων
που έλαβαν μέρος στην κατάρτιση και ο σχετικός προϋπολογισμός ήταν ως εξής:

|Έτος|Δικαιούχοι|Δαπάνη (ευρώ)|
|---|---|---|
|2009|11 498|2 721 931,74|
|2010|42 501|29 754 624,17|
|2011|21 417|33 018 051,53|
|Σύνολο|75 416|65 494 607|

Το ΕΠ «Διοικητική μεταρρύθμιση» σημειώνει πρόοδο προς την επίτευξη των στόχων του. Ο κ. βουλευτής καλείται να
επικοινωνήσει με τη διαχειριστική αρχή του ΕΠ ( [1] ) για περισσότερες πληροφορίες.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Θεοφιλοπούλου 18 & Μεναίχμου, τηλ. 213-2018000, φαξ: 213-2018011, e-mail: epdm@mou.gr

C 80 E / 78 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004878/13**

**to the Commission**
**Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D)**

_(30 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Institutional capacity-building programme in Greece supported by the ESF

The Commission’s report entitled ‘Cohesion policy: Strategic report 2013 on programme implementation 20072013’ provides the second strategic overview of the implementation of the 2007-2013 cohesion policy programmes,
which are due to end in 2015. It also provides a summary of the socioeconomic challenges Member States are facing
in the implementation of the EU-funded programmes.

In the section of the report entitled ‘Quantifying the progress achieved in delivering policy objectives’ it is stated, with
regard to ESF interventions for the period 2007-2011, that about 700 000 participants, notably civil servants, have
upgraded their skills with ESF support and that four Member States (Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary and Romania) have
implemented a programme explicitly dedicated to institutional capacity building.

Could the Commission provide further information on the institutional capacity-building programme in Greece?
How many people did it involve, what was its budget, what were the objectives to be achieved, and were they
achieved?

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

_(25 June 2013)_

The European Social Fund contributes about EUR 512 million overall to co-financing the Administrative Reform
(2007-13) operational programme (OP) in Greece. Developing human resources in public administration is one of
the OP’s objectives, which breaks down into the following two specific objectives:

(a) strengthening human resource development policy through structural and institutional change;

(b) supporting institutional and structural change in public administration and e-governance through
improvements in the quality and efficiency of education and training policy.

According to information provided by the managing authority for the OP, the number of civil servants who took part
in training and the budget allocated to it were as follows.

|Year|Beneficiaries|Expenditure (EUR)|
|---|---|---|
|2009|11 498|2 721 931.74|
|2010|42 501|29 754 624.17|
|2011|21 417|33 018 051.53|
|Total|75 416|65 494 607|

The Administrative Reform OP is making progress towards achieving its objectives. The Honourable Member is
invited to contact the managing authority for the OP ( [1] ) for further information.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) 18 Theophilopoulou & Menaixmou st., tel. 213-2018000, fax 213-2018011, e-mail: epdm@mou.gr

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 79

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-004879/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D)**

_(30 Απριλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Ακαθάριστες θέσεις εργασίας που δημιουργήθηκαν την περίοδο 2007-2013 με χρηματοδότηση από το ΕΤΠΑ και το
Ταμείο Συνοχής

Η έκθεση της Επιτροπής με τίτλο: «Πολιτική για τη συνοχή: Στρατηγική έκθεση του 2013 για την υλοποίηση των
προγραμμάτων της περιόδου 2007-2013» παρέχει τη δεύτερη στρατηγική επισκόπηση της εφαρμογής των προγραμμάτων
στο πλαίσιο της πολιτικής συνοχής της περιόδου 2007-2013 τα οποία προβλέπεται να ολοκληρωθούν το 2015. Παρέχει
επίσης σύνοψη των κοινωνικο-οικονομικών προκλήσεων που αντιμετωπίζουν τα κράτη μέλη κατά την εκτέλεση των
προγραμμάτων που χρηματοδοτούνται από την ΕΕ.

Στη σελίδα 38 του εγγράφου εργασίας το οποίο συνοδεύει την έκθεση υπάρχει πίνακας που εμφαίνει τις ακαθάριστες θέσεις
εργασίας οι οποίες δημιουργήθηκαν την περίοδο 2007-2013 με χρηματοδότηση από το ΕΤΠΑ και το Ταμείο Συνοχής.
Ωστόσο, στην περίπτωση τριών κρατών μελών, ο δείκτης δεν αφορά τις δημιουργηθείσες ακαθάριστες θέσεις εργασίας: σε
δύο από αυτά αφορά τις θέσεις εργασίας που δημιουργήθηκαν σε ΜΜΕ και στο τρίτο αφορά συνδυασμό θέσεων εργασίας
που δημιουργήθηκαν στον τομέα της έρευνας και θέσεων εργασίας που δημιουργήθηκαν σε ΜΜΕ.

Για ποιον λόγο αυτά τα τρία κράτη μέλη δεν χρησιμοποίησαν τον δείκτη για τις ακαθάριστες θέσεις εργασίας και
υποχρεώνονται κατά συνέπεια να χρησιμοποιήσουν εναλλακτικούς δείκτες;

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

_(26 Ιουνίου 2013)_

Η ερώτηση αναφέρεται σε τρεις χώρες που υπέβαλαν στοιχεία σχετικά με «Θέσεις εργασίας που δημιουργήθηκαν σε ΜΜΕ» ή
«Θέσεις εργασίας που δημιουργήθηκαν στον τομέα της έρευνας» αλλά όχι τον «Δείκτη για τις θέσεις εργασίας που
δημιουργήθηκαν» στο πρόγραμμά τους του 2011 και στις εκθέσεις τους για τις εθνικές στρατηγικές του 2012. Οι τρεις
χώρες είναι η Κύπρος, η Ελλάδα και η Ισπανία.

Τα κράτη μέλη δεν είχαν καμία νομική υποχρέωση να χρησιμοποιήσουν τους βασικούς δείκτες στην περίοδο 2007-2013. Τα
κράτη μέλη μπορούσαν να επιλέξουν τον παγκόσμιο δείκτη «θέσεων εργασίας που δημιουργήθηκαν» για να καταγράψουν τη
δημιουργία θέσεων εργασίας σε επίπεδο προγραμμάτων ή τους πιο συγκεκριμένους δείκτες δημιουργίας θέσεων εργασίας
(όπως «Θέσεις εργασίας που δημιουργήθηκαν σε ΜΜΕ» ή «Θέσεις εργασίας που δημιουργήθηκαν στον τομέα της έρευνας»)
στο επίπεδο των προτεραιοτήτων στο πλαίσιο των προγραμμάτων, σύμφωνα με τους πολιτικούς τους στόχους και τα
χαρακτηριστικά των προγραμμάτων. Ορισμένα κράτη μέλη επέλεξαν να συνδυάσουν τους δύο δείκτες με τη χρήση του
παγκόσμιου δείκτη «Δημιουργία θέσεων απασχόλησης» σε επίπεδο προτεραιότητας.

Η Επιτροπή, επιδιώκοντας να συγκεντρώσει τα στοιχεία για τη δημιουργία θέσεων απασχόλησης σε ολόκληρη την ΕΕ, εξέτασε
κατ' αρχάς τις υποβληθείσες «Θέσεις εργασίας που δημιουργήθηκαν»· όταν δεν υποβάλλονταν καθόλου, μόνο τότε
περιλάμβανε τον αριθμό των θέσεων εργασίας σε ΜΜΕ ή στον τομέα της έρευνας, όταν υποβάλλονταν.

Για να βελτιωθεί η υποβολή των συγκεντρωτικών στοιχείων σε όλη την ΕΕ, η χρήση κοινών δεικτών θα είναι υποχρεωτική κατά
τη νέα περίοδο. Έτσι, η αύξηση της απασχόλησης θα μετράται σε κάθε κράτος μέλος.

C 80 E / 80 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004879/13**

**to the Commission**
**Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D)**

_(30 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ ERDF/Cohesion Fund gross jobs created in the period 2007-2013

The Commission’s report entitled ‘Cohesion policy: Strategic report 2013 on programme implementation
2007-2013’ provides the second strategic overview of the implementation of the 2007-2013 cohesion policy
programmes, which are due to end in 2015. It also provides a summary of the socioeconomic challenges Member
States are facing in the implementation of the EU-funded programmes.

On page 38 of the staff working document accompanying the report there is a table on ERDF/Cohesion fund gross
jobs created in the period 2007-2013. However, in the case of three Member States, the indicator was not the ‘gross
jobs created’: in two of them, it was the ‘SME jobs created’ while in the third a combination of ‘research jobs created’
and ‘SME jobs created’ was used.

Why did these three Member States not report on the gross jobs indicator and thus have to use alternative indicators?

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

_(26 June 2013)_

The question refers to three countries that reported ‘SME jobs created’ or ‘research jobs created’ but not the ‘jobs
created indicator’ in their 2011 programme and 2012 National Strategic reports. The three countries are Cyprus,
Greece, and Spain.

There was no legal obligation for Member States to use the core indicators in the period 2007-13. The Member States
could choose the global ‘jobs created’ indicator to capture job creation at the level of programmes, or the more
specific job creation indicators (like ‘SME jobs created’ or ‘research jobs created’) at the level of priorities within the
programmes, according to their policy objectives and the characteristics of the programmes. Some Member States
chose to combine the two by using the global ‘job creation’ at priority level.

The Commission, in seeking to aggregate the job creation figures across the EU, looked first for reported ‘jobs created’;
where there were none reported, only then did it include the SME or research jobs numbers where reported.

In order to improve reporting of aggregated data across the EU, the use of common indicators will be obligatory in
the new period. Thus, the increase of employment will be measured in each Member State.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 81

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-004880/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D)**

_(30 Απριλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Έργα υδροδότησης και σχέδια διαχείρισης των λυμάτων που χρηματοδοτούνται από το Ταμείο Συνοχής

Η έκθεση της Επιτροπής με τίτλο: «Πολιτική για τη συνοχή: Στρατηγική έκθεση του 2013 για την υλοποίηση των
προγραμμάτων της περιόδου 2007-2013» παρέχει τη δεύτερη στρατηγική επισκόπηση της εφαρμογής των προγραμμάτων
στο πλαίσιο της πολιτικής συνοχής της περιόδου 2007-2013 τα οποία προβλέπεται να ολοκληρωθούν το 2015. Παρέχει
επίσης σύνοψη των κοινωνικο-οικονομικών προκλήσεων που αντιμετωπίζουν τα κράτη μέλη κατά την εκτέλεση των
προγραμμάτων που χρηματοδοτούνται από την ΕΕ.

Στο τμήμα «Ποσοτική εκτίμηση της προόδου σε ό,τι αφορά την επίτευξη στόχων πολιτικής» αναφέρεται ότι, σε ευρωπαϊκό
επίπεδο, 2,6 εκατομμύρια περισσότερα άτομα επωφελούνται τώρα από έργα ύδρευσης και 5,7 εκατομμύρια περισσότερα
άτομα από έργα επεξεργασίας λυμάτων.

Δύναται η Επιτροπή να αναφέρει σε ποια κράτη μέλη τα εν λόγω έργα είχαν τον μεγαλύτερο βαθμό αποδοτικότητας για τους
κατοίκους τους;

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

_(27 Ιουνίου 2013)_

Σε σχέση με τους δείκτες «Πρόσθετος πληθυσμός που εξυπηρετείται από έργα ύδρευσης» και «Πρόσθετος πληθυσμός που
εξυπηρετείται από έργα επεξεργασίας λυμάτων», τα στοιχεία που αναφέρθηκαν από τα κράτη μέλη και συγκεντρώνονται στη
στρατηγική έκθεση 2013 δημοσιεύθηκαν ηλεκτρονικά από την Επιτροπή στο σχετικό ενημερωτικό δελτίο.

Η Επιτροπή αποστέλλει απευθείας στο αξιότιμο μέλος του Κοινοβουλίου και στη Γραμματεία του Κοινοβουλίου πίνακα με τα
στοιχεία που προέρχονται από τον πίνακα 2 του ενημερωτικού δελτίου με τίτλο «Περιβάλλον».

Το εν λόγω έγγραφο, το οποίο περιλαμβάνει επίσης ένα σύντομο σχόλιο, διατίθεται στον ακόλουθο διαδικτυακό τόπο:
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/how/policy/strategic_report_en.cfm

Η Επιτροπή επισημαίνει ότι μπορεί να διαχωρίσει αυτά τα στοιχεία μόνο στο επίπεδο των μεμονωμένων προγραμμάτων. Οι
αρχές του προγράμματος διαθέτουν τα στοιχεία σε επίπεδο έργου.

C 80 E / 82 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004880/13**

**to the Commission**
**Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D)**

_(30 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Water supply and waste water projects funded by Cohesion Policy

The Commission’s report entitled ‘Cohesion policy: Strategic report 2013 on programme implementation
2007-2013’ provides the second strategic overview of the implementation of the 2007-2013 cohesion policy
programmes, which are due to end in 2015. It also provides a summary of the socioeconomic challenges Member
States are facing in the implementation of the EU‐ funded programmes.

In the section entitled ‘Quantifying progress in delivering policy objectives’ the report indicates that, at European
level, 2.6 million more people are now served by water supply projects and 5.7 million more people by waste water
projects.

Could the Commission provide further information on the Members States on which these projects had the biggest
effect, in terms of population coverage?

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

_(27 June 2013)_

In relation to the indicators ‘Additional population served by water projects’ and ‘Additional population served by
waste water projects’ the data reported by the Member States and aggregated in the Strategic Report 2013 was
published online by the Commission in the relevant factsheet. The Commission is sending directly to the Honourable
Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table with data taken from Table 2 of the ‘Environment’ factsheet. That
document, which also contains a short commentary, is available on this webpage:
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/how/policy/strategic_report_en.cfm

The Commission points out that it can only disaggregate this data to the level of the individual programmes. The
programme authorities have the project level detail.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 83

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-004881/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D)**

_(30 Απριλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Τάσεις όσον αφορά την επιλογή των έργων στην περίοδο προγραμματισμού 2007-2013 της πολιτικής για τη συνοχή

Η έκθεση της Επιτροπής με τίτλο: «Πολιτική για τη συνοχή: Στρατηγική έκθεση του 2013 για την υλοποίηση των
προγραμμάτων της περιόδου 2007-2013» παρέχει τη δεύτερη στρατηγική επισκόπηση της εφαρμογής των προγραμμάτων
στο πλαίσιο της πολιτικής συνοχής της περιόδου 2007-2013 τα οποία προβλέπεται να ολοκληρωθούν το 2015. Παρέχει
επίσης σύνοψη των κοινωνικο-οικονομικών προκλήσεων που αντιμετωπίζουν τα κράτη μέλη κατά την εκτέλεση των
προγραμμάτων που χρηματοδοτούνται από την ΕΕ.

Πέντε έτη από την έναρξη της περιόδου προγραμματισμού και τέσσερα έτη πριν από τη λήξη της, η αναφερόμενη οικονομική
αξία των επιλεγέντων έργων ήταν 246 δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ, ποσό που αντιπροσωπεύει το 71% των διαθέσιμων πόρων της
ΕΕ. Υπάρχουν διαφορές στα κράτη μέλη όσον αφορά την επιλογή των έργων ανά θέμα, με ορισμένα θέματα (π.χ., οδικά
δίκτυα, άλλες δραστηριότητες παροχής υποστήριξης προς τις επιχειρήσεις, κοινωνικές υποδομές, πολιτιστική κληρονομιά
και τουρισμός) να υπερβαίνουν τον μέσο όρο και άλλα να υπολείπονται απ' αυτόν (π.χ., καινοτομία και έρευνα και ανάπτυξη,
σιδηροδρομικές μεταφορές, υπηρεσίες ΤΠ και ευρυζωνικά δίκτυα, ενέργεια και ανάπτυξη ικανοτήτων).

Δύναται η Επιτροπή να παράσχει πληροφορίες ανά κράτος μέλος για τις τάσεις όσον αφορά την επιλογή των έργων
καταδεικνύοντας τα τρία θέματα με τη μεγαλύτερη ζήτηση που επέλεξε το κάθε κράτος μέλος;

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

_(28 Ιουνίου 2013)_

Με τη δημοσίευση της στρατηγικής έκθεσης του 2013 για την πολιτική συνοχής, η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή δημοσίευσε
ηλεκτρονικά αναλυτική κατανομή των τάσεων όσον αφορά την επιλογή των έργων ανά κράτος μέλος. Τα στοιχεία είναι
διαθέσιμα στην παρούσα ιστοσελίδα: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/how/policy/strategic_report_en.cfm

Η Επιτροπή εφιστά την προσοχή στον πίνακα με τίτλο «επιλογή των έργων ανά στόχο και κράτος μέλος». Η εν λόγω έκθεση
περιλαμβάνει φύλλα που παρουσιάζουν τις τάσεις επιλογής των έργων από τα κράτη μέλη ανά θεματική ενότητα — «Θέματα
ανά κράτος μέλος» — και ξεχωριστό φύλλο με την πλήρη ανάλυση κατά 86 κωδικούς «Θέμα προτεραιότητας» —
«Κατηγορίες ανά κράτος μέλος».

Στο φύλλο «Θέματα ανά κράτος μέλος» η στήλη % δείχνει σαφώς τα τρία σημαντικότερα θέματα για κάθε κράτος μέλος.

C 80 E / 84 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004881/13**

**to the Commission**
**Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D)**

_(30 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Project selection trends in the 2007-2013 cohesion policy programming period

The Commission’s report entitled ‘Cohesion policy: Strategic report 2013 on programme implementation
2007-2013’ provides the second strategic overview of the implementation of the 2007-2013 cohesion policy
programmes, which are due to end in 2015. It also provides a summary of the socioeconomic challenges Member
States are facing in the implementation of the EU-funded programmes.

Five years into the programming period and four years before its end, the reported financial volume of projects
selected was EUR 246 billion, representing 71% of available EU resources. There is a variation in the selection of
projects by themes within the Member States, with some themes (e.g. roads, other business support, social
infrastructure and culture heritage and tourism) ahead of the average while others are behind (e.g. innovation and
R&D, rail, IT services and broadband, energy and capacity building).

Could the Commission provide information on the project selection trends, broken down by Member State and
indicating the three most popular themes chosen by each Member State?

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

_(28 June 2013)_
With the publication of the cohesion policy Strategic Report 2013, the Commission published online a detailed
breakdown of project selection trends by Member State. The data is available on this webpage:
[http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/how/policy/strategic_report_en.cfm](http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/how/policy/strategic_report_en.cfm)

The Commission draws attention to the table with the title ‘project selection by Objectives and Member State’. That
report includes sheets showing Member States' project selection trends by thematic blocks — ‘Themes by MS’ — and
a separate sheet showing the full breakdown by 86 ‘priority theme’ codes — ‘Categories by MS’.

In the sheet ‘Themes by MS’ the % column shows clearly the three most important themes for each Member State.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 85

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-004882/13**

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

_(30 Απριλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Μητέρα εξαναγκάζει την κόρη της να γίνει παρένθετη μητέρα

Σύμφωνα με άρθρο που δημοσιεύτηκε στη βρετανική εφημερίδα _The Guardian,_ μια μητέρα στο Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο
εξανάγκασε τη δεκατετράχρονη υιοθετημένη κόρη της να γονιμοποιήσει τον εαυτό της με σπέρμα δότη, το οποίο η μητέρα
είχε αγοράσει μέσω διαδικτύου.

Η εν λόγω μητέρα έχει άλλα τρία υιοθετημένα παιδιά και της απαγορεύτηκε να προβεί σε επιπλέον υιοθεσίες. Η απαγόρευση
αυτή την ώθησε να εξαναγκάσει τη δεκατετράχρονη κόρη της να γίνει παρένθετη μητέρα. Μετά από επτά απόπειρες
γονιμοποίησης σε διάστημα δύο ετών, κατά τις οποίες η μητέρα προέβαινε στις απαραίτητες προετοιμασίες για τη χρήση
συρίγγων σπέρματος και συσκευών έγχυσης σπέρματος, η εν λόγω κοπέλα γέννησε τελικά σε ηλικία 16 ετών.

Οι λεπτομέρειες αυτής της ανατριχιαστικής υπόθεσης, οι οποίες αποκαλύφθηκαν μετά από την απόφαση του δικαστηρίου,
εγείρουν σοβαρά ερωτήματα για τα κενά που ενδεχομένως υπάρχουν στο σύστημα των διεθνών υιοθεσιών καθώς και στη
ρύθμιση της διακίνησης των γαμετών διεθνώς.

Ερωτάται επομένως η Επιτροπή:

Ποιοί είναι οι υφιστάμενοι κανονισμοί της ΕΕ που διασφαλίζουν ότι δεν πρόκειται να σημειωθούν παρόμοια περιστατικά στην
ΕΕ κι ότι δεν υπάρχουν κενά στο σύστημα των διεθνών υιοθεσιών και στη ρύθμιση της διακίνησης των γαμετών διεθνώς;

**Απάντηση της κ. Reding εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(22 Ιουλίου 2013)_

Τα γεγονότα που περιγράφονται από το Αξιότιμο Μέλος φαίνεται ότι δεν εμπίπτουν στις αρμοδιότητες της ΕΕ.

Δεδομένου ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση είναι πλήρες μέλος της Διάσκεψης της Χάγης για το διεθνές ιδιωτικό δίκαιο, η Επιτροπή
παρακολουθεί τις εξελίξεις σχετικά με την παρένθετη μητρότητα σε διεθνές επίπεδο.

Οι διεθνείς υιοθεσίες ρυθμίζονται από τη Σύμβαση της Χάγης, του 1993, για την προστασία των παιδιών και τη συνεργασία
όσον αφορά την υιοθεσία διεθνώς, της οποίας όλα τα κράτη μέλη της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης είναι συμβαλλόμενα μέρη.
Η Σύμβαση έχει ως στόχο την υλοποίηση του άρθρου 21 της Σύμβασης των Ηνωμένων Εθνών για τα δικαιώματα του
παιδιού, με την καθιέρωση εγγυήσεων ώστε να εξασφαλιστεί ότι οι διεθνείς υιοθεσίες πραγματοποιούνται με γνώμονα το
συμφέρον του παιδιού και με σεβασμό των θεμελιωδών δικαιωμάτων του. Ενδεχόμενα κενά στη Σύμβαση θα μπορούσαν να
αντιμετωπιστούν με διμερείς συμφωνίες μεταξύ των ενδιαφερομένων κρατών.

Η οδηγία 2004/23/ΕΚ ( [1] ) και η εκτελεστική της νομοθεσία ( [2] ) θεσπίζουν πρότυπα ποιότητας και ασφάλειας για τη δωρεά, την
προμήθεια, τον έλεγχο, την επεξεργασία, τη συντήρηση, την αποθήκευση και τη διανομή ανθρώπινων ιστών και κυττάρων,
συμπεριλαμβανομένων γαμετών, που προορίζονται για εφαρμογές στον άνθρωπο. Δεν καλύπτουν τους όρους βάσει των
οποίων μπορεί να γίνει χρήση/αγορά γαμετών διότι το θέμα των ιστών και κυττάρων για εφαρμογές στον άνθρωπο ( [3] )
ρυθμίζεται στο επίπεδο των κρατών μελών.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) ΕΕ L 102 της 7.4.2004 σ. 48.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Οδηγίες 2006/17/ΕΚ (ΕΕ L 38 της 9.2.2006, σ. 40) και 2006/86/ΕΚ (ΕΕ L 294 της 25.10.2006, σ. 32) της Επιτροπής.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Συμπεριλαμβανομένων των όρων βάσει των οποίων ένας συγκεκριμένος ιστός ή κύτταρο μπορεί να χρησιμοποιηθεί και από ποιόν.

C 80 E / 86 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004882/13**

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

_(30 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Mother forces daughter to become surrogate

According to an article published in the British newspaper _The Guardian_, a mother in the UK has forced her 14-yearold adopted child to inseminate herself with donor sperm bought by the mother over the Internet.

The mother has three other adopted children and had been prevented from adopting more. This led her to press her
14-year-old daughter to become a surrogate mother. After seven inseminations over two years, using syringes and
douches of semen prepared by the mother, the girl finally gave birth to a child at the age of 16.

The details of this shocking case, which emerged after a court judgment, raise serious questions about what loopholes
may exist in the system for international adoptions and the regulation of the global traffic in gametes.

We therefore ask the Commission:

What EU regulations exist to ensure that such events do not recur in the EU and that there are no loopholes in the
system for international adoptions and the regulation of the global traffic in gametes?

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

_(22 July 2013)_

The facts described by the Honourable Member seem to go beyond EU powers.

As the European Union is a full member of The Hague Conference on Private International Law, the Commission
follows developments on surrogate motherhood at international level.

International adoption is regulated by the 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in
Respect of Inter-country Adoption, to which all the Member States of the European Union are party. The Convention
aims to implement Art.21 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, by establishing safeguards to ensure that
inter-country adoptions take place in the best interests of the child and respect his/her fundamental rights. Possible
loopholes in the Convention could be tackled by bilateral agreements between the concerned States.

Directive 2004/23/EC ( [1] ) and its implementing legislation ( [2] ) lay out the quality and safety standards for the donation,
procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells, including
gametes, intended for human application. It does not cover the conditions under which gametes can be
used/purchased as the human application of tissue and cells ( [3] ) is regulated at Member State level.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 102 7.4.2004 p. 48.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Commission Directives 2006/17/EC (OJ L 38 9.2.2006, p. 40) and 2006/86/EC (OJ L 294 25.10.2006, p. 32).
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) including the conditions under which any particular tissue or cell can be used and by whom.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 87

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004884/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)**

_(30 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Violazione della direttiva 2001/42/CE per mancata sottoposizione a VAS del piano cave per la provincia di
Bergamo

Con deliberazione del Consiglio Provinciale n. 16 del 16 marzo 2004 la Provincia di Bergamo ha il adottato il piano
cave per la provincia di Bergamo, poi approvato con deliberazione del Consiglio Regionale n. VIII/619 del 14 maggio
2008, senza sottoposizione alla procedura della VAS ( [1] ).

La direttiva 2001/42/CE sottopone a VAS: «i piani e i programmi…che sono elaborati e/o adottati da un'autorità a
livello nazionale, regionale o locale oppure… previsti da disposizioni legislative, regolamentari o amministrative»;
all'art. 4, chiarisce come la valutazione ambientale strategica debba essere effettuata durante la fase preparatoria del
piano o del programma ed anteriormente alla sua adozione o all'avvio della relativa procedura legislativa. L'art. 13
della direttiva dispone che vanno sottoposti a VAS anche i piani approvati dopo il 21 luglio 2006, ancorché avviati
prima del 21 luglio 2004.

WWF, Italia Nostra e Legambiente hanno fatto ricorso contro il piano (R.G. 1040/08) ottenendo dal TAR Lombardia
la sentenza 1927/2012 che censura l'assenza di VAS, applicando l'art. 13 della direttiva.

Sentenza esattamente contraria, sullo stesso piano cave, è stata resa dal Consiglio di Stato, con sentenza n. 446/2013,
che ha escluso la necessità di VAS, la natura self executing dell'art. 13 della direttiva 2001/42/CE, e che, pur giudice di
ultima istanza, non ha fatto ricorso al rinvio ex art. 267 TFUE.

Il piano cave della Provincia di Varese, analogo (approvato dal Consiglio Regionale Lombardo il 30 settembre 2008 n.
698 senza VAS), è oggetto della procedura Pilot/2706/11/ENVI, che ha portato la Regione Lombardia, con
deliberazione della Giunta regionale n. IX/4851 del 13 febbraio 2013, ad avviare la VAS postuma.

Alla luce di quanto esposto, può la Commissione far sapere se a conoscenza della situazione sopra descritta, che
arreca grave vulnus alla tutela ambientale di un'intera provincia interessata da vastissime attività estrattive?

Non ritiene utile, necessario ed urgente avviare verifiche sulla sussistenza di una violazione del diritto dell'UE
derivante dalla mancata sottoposizione a VAS del piano cave per la provincia di Bergamo, approvato dalla Regione
Lombardia nel maggio 2008, e dalla mancata sottoposizione alla Corte di Giustizia, da parte del Consiglio di Stato,
della questione di interpretazione pregiudiziale dell'art. 13 della direttiva stessa?

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

_(14 giugno 2013)_

La Commissione non dispone di informazioni in merito alla riferita presunta violazione della direttiva 2001/42/CE ( [2] )
(di seguito «la direttiva») o alla decisione del Consiglio di Stato di non rinviare la causa alla Corte di giustizia per la
pronuncia in via pregiudiziale sull'interpretazione dell'articolo 13 della direttiva.

La Commissione contatterà le autorità italiane per ottenere chiarimenti sull'applicazione della direttiva al piano cui si
fa riferimento nell'interrogazione.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Valutazione ambientale strategica ai sensi della direttiva 2001/42/CE.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Direttiva 2001/42/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 27 giugno 2001, concernente la valutazione degli effetti di determinati piani e

programmi sull'ambiente, GU L 197 del 21.7.2001.

C 80 E / 88 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004884/13**

**to the Commission**
**Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)**

_(30 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Infringement of Directive 2001/42/EC on the grounds of failure to carry out a strategic environmental
assessment (SEA) on the quarry plan for the Province of Bergamo

The quarry plan for the Province of Bergamo was adopted by the Province of Bergamo by Provincial Council Decision
No 16 of 16 March 2004 and subsequently approved by Regional Council Decision No VIII/619 of 14 May 2008,
without the SEA ( [1] ) procedure being carried out.

Under Directive 2001/42/EC, the following are subject to SEA: ‘plans and programmes […] which are subject to
preparation and/or adoption by an authority at national, regional or local level or […] which are required by
legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions’; it is specified in Article 4 that the SEA should be carried out
during the preparation of a plan or programme and before its adoption or submission to the legislative procedure.
Article 13 of the directive stipulates that plans approved after 21 July 2006 shall also be subject to SEA, even if they
were drafted before 21 July 2004.

The WWF, Italia Nostra and Legambiente appealed against the plan (General Urban Development Plan No 1040/08).
Their appeal resulted in Judgment No 1927/2012 of the Regional Administrative Court of Lombardy, which
denounces the failure to carry out an SEA under Article 13 of the directive.

In complete contrast to that judgment, Judgment No 446/2013, relating to the same quarry plan, was issued by the
Council of State, which ruled out the need for SEA — the self-executing nature of Article 13 of Directive 2001/42/EC
— and which, despite being the court of last resort, failed to refer the matter under Article 267 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

The equivalent quarry plan for the Province of Varese (approved by Lombardy Regional Council Decision No 698 of
30 September 2008 without SEA) is the subject of the Pilot/2706/11/ENVI procedure, which has led the Region of
Lombardy, by Regional Council Decision No IX/4851 of 13 February 2013, belatedly to carry out an SEA.

Can the Commission say whether it is aware of the above situation, which seriously harms the environmental
protection of an entire province in which extensive mining and quarrying activities are carried out?

Does it not think it useful, necessary and urgent to carry out checks to determine whether there has been an
infringement of EC law on the grounds of failure to carry out an SEA on the quarry plan for the Province of Bergamo,
approved by the Region of Lombardy in May 2008, and on the grounds of the Council of State’s failure to seek a
preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice on the interpretation of Article 13 of the directive?

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

_(14 June 2013)_

The Commission has no information regarding the abovementioned alleged breach of Directive 2001/42/EC ( [2] )
(hereafter ‘the directive’) or the decision of the Council of State not to refer the case to the Court of Justice for a
preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 13 of the directive.

The Commission will contact the Italian authorities to obtain clarifications on the application of the directive to the
plan referred to in the question.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Strategic environmental assessment pursuant to Directive 2001/42/EC.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and

programmes on the environment, OJ L 197, 21.7.2001.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 89

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-004887/13**

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

_(30 kwietnia 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Cła antydumpingowe na import szkła płaskiego na Ukrainie

W nawiązaniu do odpowiedzi Komisji z dnia 8 czerwca 2012 r. (E-004630/2012) na temat zastosowania przez
Ukrainę ceł antydumpingowych na import szkła płaskiego typu „float” pragnę zapytać:

czy Komisja zamierza wznowić interwencję w związku z zatrzymaniem produkcji szkła typu „float” w Lisyczansku?

Celem wprowadzenia wspomnianych ceł antydumpingowych była ochrona własnego producenta, czyli jedynej
fabryki produkującej szkło tego typu na Ukrainie – fabryki w Lisyczansku. Od kwietnia tego roku fabryka ta
wstrzymała produkcję.

Podjęte środki zastosowane przez Ukrainę w ostatnim roku zawiodły, ponieważ niższą sprzedaż szkła z Polski
zrekompensował dodatkowy import szkła z Rumunii i Węgier, które nie zostały objęte cłami antydumpingowymi.

Skoro podjęte środki nie spełniły swojego zadania, ich dalsze stosowanie wydaje się być bezpodstawne.

W związku z tym, że zainteresowane strony mogą formalnie domagać się rewizji podjętych decyzji po 12 miesiącach
od ich wprowadzenia w życie, czyli właśnie w maju 2013 r., chciałbym zapytać, czy Komisja podejmie interwencję
w tej sprawie?

Jakimi środkami dysponuje Komisja, aby wspomóc zniesienie ograniczeń w dostępie do rynku ukraińskiego
i doprowadzić do wycofania cła antydumpingowego na import szkła płaskiego nałożonego przez Ukrainę na
wybrane państwa członkowskie, w tym Polskę?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Karela De Guchta w imieniu Komisji**

_(19 czerwca 2013 r.)_

Komisja otrzymała niedawno informację o tym, że jedyny ukraiński producent szkła typu „float” faktycznie zamknął
trzecią i ostatnią linię produkcyjną.

Celem ceł antydumpingowych jest wyeliminowanie szkody dla krajowego producenta, w związku z czym nie byłoby
żadnego powodu, aby utrzymać obowiązujące cła, jeżeli zostanie potwierdzony fakt zaprzestania działalności przez
jedynego krajowego producenta. Fakt, że producent zaprzestał działalności jest w istocie zasadniczą zmianą
okoliczności, w związku z czym cła antydumpingowe nie spełniałyby już swojego celu i nie byłyby uzasadnione.

Komisja nawiązała już w tym względzie kontakt z unijnymi producentami w celu skoordynowania stanowisk
i zamierza szybko skontaktować się z ukraińskimi władzami w celu zbadania, jakie kroki należy podjąć, by uzyskać
natychmiastowe uchylenie środków antydumpingowych.

C 80 E / 90 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004887/13**

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

_(30 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Anti-dumping duties on the import of flat glass in Ukraine

Further to the Commission’s answer of 8 June 2012 (E-004630/2012) regarding Ukraine’s imposition of anti‐
dumping duties on imported flat glass (‘float’), I should like to put the following questions:

Does the Commission intend to make renewed representations following the suspension of float glass production in
Lysychansk?

Anti‐dumping duties were introduced in order to protect Ukrainian production, specifically the factory in
Lysychansk, which was the only factory producing float glass in Ukraine. In April 2013, this factory shut down
production.

The measures taken by Ukraine in the past year failed because the shortfalls in the sales of Polish glass were
compensated for by glass imports from Romania and Hungary, which are not subject to anti‐dumping duties.

Since these measures were unsuccessful, their continued application appears to be unwarranted.

Given that interested parties may formally demand that decisions be revised 12 months after they have entered into
force, which in this case is May 2013, does the Commission intend to intervene in this matter?

What resources can the Commission use to help remove restrictions on accessing the Ukrainian market and to
remove the anti‐dumping duties on the import of flat glass that Ukraine imposes on selected EU Member States,
including Poland?

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

_(19 June 2013)_

The Commission has indeed been recently informed of the fact that the sole Ukrainian producer of float glass closed
its third and last line of production.

Anti-dumping duties aim at removing injury to a domestic producer and, if it is confirmed that the sole domestic
producer ceased operations in this case, there would be no reason to maintain the duties in place. The fact that the
producer ceased operation is indeed a crucial change of circumstances as anti-dumping duties would no longer serve
their very purpose and would thus not be legitimate anymore.

In this regard, the Commission has already been in contact with the EU producers in order to coordinate the positions
and intends to swiftly take contact with the Ukrainian authorities in order to explore the necessary procedure to
obtain the immediate repeal of the anti-dumping measures.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 91

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-004888/13**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D)**

_(30 aprilie 2013)_

_Subiect:_ Elaborarea planurilor naționale pentru creșterea numărului de clădiri al căror consum de energie este aproape
egal cu zero

Directiva 2010/31/CE prevede la articolul 9 că: „Statele membre se asigură că: (a) până la 31 decembrie 2020, toate
clădirile noi vor fi clădiri al căror consum de energie este aproape egal cu zero; și (b) după 31 decembrie 2018 clădirile
noi ocupate și deținute de autoritățile publice sunt clădiri al căror consum de energie este aproape egal cu zero.” În
acest scop, „statele membre elaborează planuri naționale pentru creșterea numărului de clădiri al căror consum de
energie este aproape egal cu zero”, care trebuie să conțină și „aplicarea practică detaliată de către statul membru a
definiției clădirilor al căror consum de energie este aproape egal cu zero, care să reflecte condițiile naționale, regionale
sau locale ale acestuia și care să cuprindă un indicator numeric al consumului de energie primară, exprimat în
kWh/m [2] pe an”.

„Până la 31 decembrie 2012 și ulterior o dată la trei ani, Comisia publică un raport privind progresele înregistrate de
statele membre în ceea ce privește creșterea numărului de clădiri al căror consum de energie este aproape egal cu zero.
Pe baza acestui raport Comisia elaborează un plan de acțiune și, dacă este cazul, propune măsuri de creștere a
numărului de clădiri de acest tip și încurajează utilizarea celor mai bune practici referitoare la transformarea eficientă
— din punctul de vedere al costurilor — a clădirilor existente în clădiri al căror consum de energie este aproape egal
cu zero.”

Aș dori să întreb Comisia dacă și când a publicat raportul mai sus menționat și unde este acesta disponibil publicului
interesat? Care sunt măsurile pe care Comisia le are în vedere pentru includerea în planul de acțiune destinat creșterii
numărului de clădiri al căror consum de energie este aproape egal cu zero? Când va fi publicat acest plan de acțiune?

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

_(20 iunie 2013)_

Până la sfârșitul anului 2012, Comisia a primit o serie de planuri naționale din partea statelor membre, în baza
articolului 9 din Directiva 2010/31/CE ( [1] ) (EPBD). Comisia a analizat planurile primite și va publica un raport în timp
util. Acesta va putea fi consultat pe site-ul internet al Comisiei.

Comisia urmează să solicite statelor membre informații mai detaliate, bazate pe un model specific. După primirea
acestor informații, Comisia va efectua o evaluare detaliată și va elabora un plan de acțiune. Dacă este necesar, planul
de acțiune va include propuneri privind creșterea numărului de clădiri cu un consum de energie aproape egal cu zero
și încurajarea celor mai bune practici în ceea ce privește clădirile existente.

Mai mult, Comisia va elabora orientări pentru statele membre cu privire la punerea în aplicare a cerințelor privind
consumul de energie aproape egal cu zero prevăzute în directiva EPBD, bazate pe un studiu realizat pentru Comisie,
precum și pe o serie de standarde specifice elaborate de Comitetul European de Standardizare (CEN).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directiva 2010/31/UE a Parlamentului European și a Consiliului din 19 mai 2010 privind performanța energetică a clădirilor (JO L 153,
18.6.2010, p. 13-35).

C 80 E / 92 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004888/13**

**to the Commission**
**Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D)**

_(30 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ National programmes for increasing the number of nearly zero-energy buildings

Article 9 of Directive 2010/31/EC states that: ‘Member States shall ensure that (a) by 31 December 2020, all new
buildings are nearly zero-energy buildings; and (b) after 31 December 2018, new buildings occupied and owned by
public authorities are nearly zero-energy buildings’. To this end, ‘Member States shall draw up national plans for
increasing the number of nearly zero-energy buildings’, which shall include, _inter alia_, ‘the Member States’ detailed
application in practice of the definition of nearly zero-energy buildings, reflected in their national, regional or local
conditions, and including a numerical indicator of primary energy use expressed in kWh/m [2] per year’.

‘The Commission shall, by 31 December 2012 and every three years thereafter, publish a report on the progress of
Member States in increasing the number of nearly zero-energy buildings. On the basis of that report the Commission
shall develop an action plan and, if necessary, propose measures to increase the number of those buildings and
encourage best practices as regards the cost-effective transformation of existing buildings into nearly zero-energy
buildings’.

In view of this:

Can the Commission indicate if and when it has published the above report and where it can be accessed by interested
members of the public? What measures are being envisaged by the Commission for inclusion in the action plan to
increase the number of nearly zero-energy buildings? When will this action plan be published?

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

_(20 June 2013)_

By the end of 2012 the Commission received a number of national plans from Member States under Article 9 of
Directive 2010/31/EC ( [1] ) (EPBD). The Commission has analysed the plans received and will publish its report in due
course. It will be accessible on the website of the Commission.

The Commission will now request further, more detailed information from the Member States based on a specifically
developed template. After receiving this information the Commission will undertake a detailed evaluation and
develop an action plan. If necessary, the action plan will include proposals to increase the number of nearly zeroenergy buildings and encourage best practices as regards existing buildings.

Moreover, the Commission will develop guidance for the Member States on the implementation of the nearly zeroenergy building requirements in the EPBD, based on a study undertaken for the Commission and on specific
standards developed by the Comité européen de normalisation (CEN).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings, OJ L 153,
18.6.2010, p. 13‐35.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 93

_(Dansk udgave)_

**Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-004889/13**

**til Kommissionen**
**Søren Bo Søndergaard (GUE/NGL)**

_(30. april 2013)_

_Om:_ Utilstrækkelig intern højde for transportmidler, der anvendes ved transport af dyr

Den 10.8.2011 henvendte Kommissionen sig til medlemsstaternes veterinærdirektører (CVO), hvor den bl.a.
anbefalede medlemsstaterne at indføre nogle specifikke mål for den interne højde for transportmidler, der anvendes
ved transport af dyr (SANCO G3 AN/ap D(2011) 862232) med henblik på at sikre dyrenes velfærd under
transporten.

Er det korrekt forstået ud fra Kommissionens svar på mit spørgsmål E-001476/2013, at ingen af de 27 medlemslande
i deres besvarelser på Kommissionens henvendelse (SANCO G3 AN/ap D(2011) 862232) har bekræftet, at de har
indført specifikke regler for den interne højde?

**Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Tonio Borg**

_(7. juni 2013)_

I brevet til medlemsstaterne vedrørende den interne højde ( [1] ), som spørgsmålet henviser til, anmodede
Kommissionen ikke medlemsstaterne om at bekræfte, at de havde indført specifikke regler til gennemførelse af
forordning (EF) nr. 1/2005 om beskyttelse af dyr under transport ( [2] ) for så vidt angår den interne højde. Ingen af
medlemsstaterne oplyste om dette i deres svar.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Intern reference: SANCO G3 AN/ap D(2011) 862232.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1/2005 om beskyttelse af dyr under transport og dermed forbundne aktiviteter (EUT L 3 af 5.1.2005, s. 1).

C 80 E / 94 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004889/13**

**to the Commission**
**Søren Bo Søndergaard (GUE/NGL)**

_(30 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Inadequate internal height of means of transport for animals

On 10 August 2011 the Commission wrote to the chief veterinary officers (CVOs) of the Member States
recommending that the Member States introduce specific measurements for the internal height of means of transport
for animals (SANCO G3 AN/ap D(2011) 862232) with a view to ensuring animals’ welfare during transport.

Have I correctly understood from the Commission’s answer to my Question E-001476/2013 that none of the
27 Member States, in their answers to the Commission’s communication (SANCO G3 AN/ap D(2011) 862232),
confirmed that they had introduced specific rules for internal heights?

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

_(7 June 2013)_

The letter from the Commission to Member States' on internal height ( [1] ), referred to in the question, did not request
Member States to confirm that they had introduced specific rules for implementing Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on
the protection of animals during transport ( [2] ) in relation to internal height. No Member State included such
information in their reply.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Internal reference SANCO G3 AN/ap D(2011) 862232.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations; OJ L 3, 5.1.2005, p. 1.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 95

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004890/13**

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

_(30 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Possibili finanziamenti per la valorizzazione del patrimonio archeologico della città di Anagni
Nel territorio della città di Anagni (Frosinone) sono presenti numerosi siti archeologici di particolare pregio, ma
attualmente in stato di totale abbandono; in particolare, il monastero di S. Giorgio ad Montes, di epoca medievale, ha
rappresentato uno dei punti nodali della fitta rete di siti dell'eremitaggio e del monachesimo che ancora oggi
costellano il territorio laziale.

«La Fabbrica che rivive» (The forge rekindled — Guidelines for restauration and development of the S. Giorgio ad
Montes abbey complex) è un progetto di ricostruzione e di recupero dell'intero complesso che mira ad interventi di
restauro vero e proprio, attraverso la riproposizione di tecnologie e tecniche di esecuzione tipiche di quel periodo.

Lo scopo principale è quello di ricostruire l'intera catena operativa di un cantiere medievale e di applicare una
metodologia-guida ad alto livello scientifico e specialistico.

Durante il periodo di esecuzione dei lavori, i siti interessati potranno essere terreno di sperimentazione sui quali i
ricercatori di diversi ambiti specialistici potranno convalidare un certo numero di ipotesi sulle tecniche costruttive e
sui diversi aspetti della vita dell'epoca.

Ciò creerebbe, sia in fase di restauro che a interventi ultimati, l'opportunità di organizzare brevi corsi di storia
medievale locale e sulle specifiche discipline connesse al restauro, con nuove opportunità di impiego anche legate
all'ambito turistico.

Il progetto si prefigge inoltre di creare delle botteghe artigianali interne al complesso monastico, realizzando così un
vero e proprio borgo medievale che possa riproporre le caratteristiche della vita quotidiana di un monastero
dell'epoca.

Alla luce di quanto detto, può la Commissione fornire un quadro dei finanziamenti cui la città di Anagni potrebbe
accedere per:

1. promuovere iniziative imprenditoriali legate alle attività progettuali descritte, con particolare riguardo alla fase
di start-up;

2. promuovere attività e progetti che rientrano nel settore della cultura e del turismo, per sviluppare un'offerta
turistica diversificata e di qualità, in grado di valorizzare il suo patrimonio naturale, culturale e archeologico?

**Risposta di Johannes Hahn a nome della Commissione**

_(11 luglio 2013)_

Il progetto cui fa riferimento l'onorevole parlamentare potrebbe beneficiare del sostegno finanziario dei Fondi
strutturali, nel rispetto delle disposizioni specifiche del Programma Operativo Regione Lazio 2007-2013. Tale
programma definisce le varie tipologie di finanziamento che il Fondo europeo di sviluppo regionale ha destinato alla
regione in questione nel periodo di programmazione sopra menzionato. La priorità II «Ambiente e prevenzione dei
rischi» permette di finanziare interventi a sostegno del patrimonio artistico e culturale del Lazio. Il programma
prevede anche un cofinanziamento a favore di iniziative imprenditoriali legate a cultura e turismo.
In base al principio di gestione concorrente applicato alla gestione della politica di coesione, spetta alle autorità
nazionali selezionare ed attuare i progetti. Di conseguenza, qualora l'onorevole parlamentare desideri ottenere
maggiori informazioni, la Commissione gli suggerisce di contattare direttamente l’autorità di gestione del

programma:

Autorità di gestione
POR FESR Lazio 2007/2013
Via R. R. Garibaldi, 7

00145 Roma
[adgcomplazio@regione.lazio.it](mailto:adgcomplazio@regione.lazio.it)

C 80 E / 96 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004890/13**

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

_(30 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Possible funding to enhance the archaeological heritage of the town of Anagni

The town of Anagni (Frosinone) has many particularly valuable archaeological sites, but they are currently in a state of
total disrepair; in particular, the medieval abbey of San Giorgio ad Montes was one of the focal points of the dense
network of hermetic and monastic sites that are still scattered throughout the Lazio region today.

‘The forge rekindled — Guidelines for restoration and development of the San Giorgio ad Montes abbey complex’ is a
reconstruction and regeneration project aimed at the actual restoration of the entire complex, through the
reintroduction of building technologies and techniques typical of the period.

The primary objective is to recreate the entire operational sequence of a medieval building site and to apply high-level
scientific and specialist guidelines.

During the period in which the works are carried out, the sites concerned will be able to serve as a ‘test bed’ for
researchers from various specialist fields to confirm a number of theories about the building techniques and the
various aspects of life in those days.

This would provide, both during the restoration phase and once the works are complete, an opportunity to arrange
short courses in local medieval history and in specific restoration-related disciplines, with the creation of new job
opportunities, including in the tourism sector.

Another aim of the project is to create craft shops within the abbey complex and hence an actual medieval village that
recreates everyday life in an abbey of the period.

In view of the above, can the Commission provide details of the funding that the town of Anagni could access in order

to:

1. promote business initiatives linked to the aforementioned project activities, with particular reference to the
start-up phase;

2. promote activities and projects in the cultural and tourism sectors, in order to develop diversified, quality
tourism services that can enhance its natural, cultural and archaeological heritage?

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

_(11 July 2013)_

The project referred to by the Honourable Member could be eligible for financial support from the Structural Funds,
subject to compliance with the specific provisions of the 2007-2013 programme for Lazio. This programme defines
the types of support provided by the European Regional Development Fund to the region under the current period.
Priority II ‘Environment and Risk prevention’ allows the possibility of supporting interventions in favour of the
artistic and cultural heritage of Lazio. The programme also foresees co-financing in favour of business initiatives
linked to culture and tourism.

In line with the shared management principle used for the administration of cohesion policy, project selection and
implementation is the responsibility of national authorities. For more information, the Commission therefore
suggests that the Honourable Member contact directly the managing authority of the programme:

Managing authority
Regional operational programme for Lazio for 2007-2013
Via R. R. Garibaldi, 7

00145 Roma
[adgcomplazio@regione.lazio.it](mailto:adgcomplazio@regione.lazio.it)

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 97

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-004891/13**

**to the Commission**
**Derek Roland Clark (EFD)**

_(30 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Premature disclosure of inside information on the Cyprus bailout

Is the Commission aware of allegations that by disclosing confidential information, President Anastasiades of Cyprus
helped his relatives to avoid losses (thereby increasing the losses of other account holders, and increasing risks borne
by EU taxpayers in financing the bailout) by withdrawing millions of euro from bank accounts in Cyprus days before
capital controls were introduced? Is the Commission also aware that there are widely held suspicions of inappropriate
disclosure of confidential information relating to discussions of and decisions reached by the eurozone? In light of
such concerns, does the Commission intend:

1. to examine and investigate whether transfers of monies from bank accounts in Cyprus, in the twelve months
before the introduction of capital controls in the country, were prompted, influenced or otherwise made more
likely by any premature, erroneous or otherwise improper or unauthorised disclosure of information?;

2. to examine and investigate whether loan write-offs by the Bank of Cyprus or the Laiki Bank, in the twelve
months before the introduction of capital controls in the country, were premature, erroneous or otherwise
improper?;

3. to examine and investigate whether withdrawals of deposits at Cypriot banks by or on behalf of German banks
were suspiciously large, in comparison to withdrawals by other depositors?;

4. to make a statement to Parliament on the above matters prior to and at the conclusion of such examinations
and investigations?;

5. to make a statement on when and by whom it was first made aware of the need for a Cypriot bailout and
consequently, what contingency plans were prepared, by whom and when?;

6. to make a statement to Parliament on the Commission’s role in discussions both within the troika, and with the
Cypriot government (whether directly, via the troika, or otherwise), concerning the Cypriot bailout?;

7. to make a statement to Parliament on any other related issues that led to, or arise from, the situation in Cyprus?

If not, why not?

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

_(12 June 2013)_

Examining and investigating the use of insider information to gain a financial advantage remains a national
competence. Questions related to the use of insider information within Cyprus to gain a financial advantage should,
therefore, be directed to the relevant Cypriot authorities.

C 80 E / 98 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta P-004892/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Lorenzo Fontana (EFD)**

_(30 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Restrizioni alla libera circolazione dei cittadini dell'UE in Svizzera

L'accordo sulla libera circolazione delle persone, entrato in vigore il 1° giugno 2002, è uno degli accordi conclusi tra
l'UE e la Svizzera. Dopo il 1° maggio 2004, data dell'allargamento verso est dell'UE, l'accordo è stato integrato da un
protocollo aggiuntivo, che è entrato in vigore il 1° aprile 2006. Tale accordo e il suo protocollo hanno introdotto
alcune restrizioni per i cittadini dell'UE che desiderano vivere o lavorare in Svizzera. Negli ultimi due anni, la
Confederazione ha deciso di approfittare di queste restrizioni per difendere il suo elevato livello di occupazione e
sicurezza interne, nonostante le rilevanti differenze tra gli Stati membri dell'UE, estendendo tali vincoli ai cosiddetti
paesi dell'«UE-17» appena un anno dopo averli applicati all'«UE-8».

Alla luce della decisione del governo svizzero di limitare la libera circolazione dei cittadini dell'UE sul suo territorio, il
Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante ha recentemente affermato: «Le misure adottate non considerano i notevoli
benefici che la libera circolazione delle persone reca ai cittadini sia della Svizzera sia dell'UE. Deploro la decisione del
governo svizzero di discostarsi dall'impostazione seguita nel 2008 e nel 2009, quando la clausola di salvaguardia non
era stata invocata nonostante l'accordo ne offrisse la possibilità».

Può la Commissione rispondere ai seguenti quesiti:

1. Ritiene la Commissione che la Svizzera abbia ancora autorità sui propri limiti territoriali?

2. Cosa consiglierebbe la Commissione a un paese non membro al fine di garantire la sicurezza e l'occupazione
interne nell'attuale periodo di crisi?

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

_(3 luglio 2013)_

1. Le obiezioni mosse dall'Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente nella sua dichiarazione del 17 aprile erano di natura
giuridica e politica. Sotto il profilo giuridico la Commissione si aspetta che i paesi terzi rispettino le disposizioni degli
accordi sottoscritti con l'UE. Sul piano politico la Commissione vorrebbe poter contare, nell'attuale periodo di crisi, su
un livello di solidarietà equivalente a quello che solitamente dimostra nei confronti dei paesi terzi.

2. Per quanto attiene alla sicurezza interna, la Commissione non è a conoscenza di alcun motivo di ordine
pubblico, di pubblica sicurezza o di sanità pubblica che imporrebbe al governo svizzero di introdurre misure
restrittive. Per quanto riguarda l'occupazione, tenendo conto del fatto che il tasso di disoccupazione in Svizzera è
rimasto stabile, con una media del 4,2 % del PIL nel 2012 (rispetto al 4,1 % nel 2011), la Commissione esprime dubbi
sulla necessità di misure protezionistiche nell'ambito del mercato del lavoro.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 99

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-004892/13**

**to the Commission**

**Lorenzo Fontana (EFD)**

_(30 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Restrictions to the free movement of EU citizens in Switzerland

One of the agreements signed by the EU and Switzerland was the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons, which
came into force on 1 June 2002. After the eastern enlargement of the EU on 1 May 2004, the Agreement was
supplemented by an additional protocol which came into force on 1 April 2006. The recalled Agreement and its
protocol have brought about some restrictions on EU citizens wishing to live or work in Switzerland. In the last two
years, the Swiss Confederation has decided to take advantage of these restrictions in order to defend its high level of
internal employment and security, despite a substantial difference between EU Member States, with the so-called ‘EU17’ being subject to these restrictions only one year after the ‘EU-8’.

In light of the Swiss government’s decision to limit the free movement of EU citizens on its territory, the VicePresident/High Representative recently affirmed that: ‘These measures disregard the great benefits that the free
movement of persons brings to the citizens of both Switzerland and the EU. I regret the decision of the Swiss
Government to depart from the approach followed in 2008 and 2009 when the safeguard clause was not invoked
despite the possibility offered by the Agreement’.

Could the Commission answer the following:

1. Does the Commission think that Switzerland still holds authority over its territorial limits?

2. What advice would the Commission give to a non-member country in order to ensure internal security and
employment in the current period of crisis?

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

_(3 July 2013)_

1. The objections moved by the HRVP statement of 17 April were of legal and political nature. Legally, the
Commission expects third countries to comply with the provisions of agreements signed with the EU. Politically, the
Commission would like to count in the current period of crisis with an equivalent level of solidarity which it usually
shows to third countries.

2. Regarding internal security, the Commission is not aware of any ground of public order, public security or
public health in Switzerland which would require its Government to introduce restrictive measures. Regarding
employment, taking into account the fact that the unemployment rate in Switzerland remained stable at an average of
4.2% in 2012 (compared to 4.1% in 2011), the Commission questions the need for protectionist labour market

measures.

C 80 E / 100 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita P-004893/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Eva Ortiz Vilella (PPE)**

_(2 de mayo de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Intervención Fondo de Solidaridad de la UE en la Comunidad Valenciana

El pasado 29 de agosto del 2012, el Gobierno español solicitó formalmente a la Comisión Europea la activación del
Fondo de Solidaridad de la UE para paliar los daños causados por el incendio forestal que a finales del mes de junio de
2012 asoló la Comunidad Valenciana.

En su respuesta P-000398/2013 del 19 de febrero la Comisión Europea señalaba que la evaluación para una
intervención de este fondo se encontraba en su fase final.

1. ¿Podría informar la Comisión si ya ha concluido la evaluación y, por lo tanto, si ha tomado una decisión al
respecto?

2. En caso afirmativo, ¿podría indicar cuándo recibirá España estas ayudas?

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

_(6 de junio de 2013)_

La Comisión ha concluido su evaluación de la solicitud española de ayuda del Fondo de Solidaridad de la UE en
relación con los incendios forestales de Valencia. Los daños totales causados por la catástrofe representaban tan solo
el 4,3 % del umbral normal para la activación del Fondo aplicable a España (3 600 millones de euros). No había
indicios de que vaya a haber repercusiones graves y duraderas en las condiciones de vida y en la estabilidad económica
de la región que pudieran permitir activar el Fondo con carácter excepcional. Por consiguiente, el 30 de abril la
Comisión decidió que no se cumplían las condiciones necesarias para activar el Fondo. Las autoridades españolas
fueron debidamente informadas de ello.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 101

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-004893/13**

**to the Commission**
**Eva Ortiz Vilella (PPE)**

_(2 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Intervention by the EU Solidarity Fund in the Autonomous Community of Valencia

The Spanish Government sent an official request to the Commission on 29 August 2012 for the EU Solidarity Fund
to be activated to alleviate damage caused by the forest fire which ravaged the Autonomous Community of Valencia
at the end of June 2012.

In its answer P-000398/2013 of 19 February 2013, the Commission indicated that the assessment needed before
action can be taken under this fund had reached its final stage.

1. Has this assessment now been completed and has the Commission subsequently taken the necessary decision?

2. If so, when can Spain expect to receive this aid?

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

_(6 June 2013)_

The Commission has completed its assessment of the Spanish application for EU Solidarity Fund assistance relating to
the forest fires in Valencia. Total damage caused by the disaster represented only 4.3% of the normal threshold for
activating the Fund applicable to Spain (EUR 3.6 billion). There was no evidence of serious and lasting repercussions
on living conditions or on the economic stability of the region that could have allowed activating the Fund
exceptionally. The Commission therefore decided on 30 April that the conditions for activating the Fund were not
met. The Spanish authorities were informed accordingly.

C 80 E / 102 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-004894/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Angelika Werthmann (ALDE)**

_(2. Mai 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Rechte Gewalt und fehlende polizeiliche Kontrolle in Griechenland

Die politisch extrem rechts und ausländerfeindlich motivierte Gewalt scheint in Griechenland in eklatantem Ausmaß
zuzunehmen. Die Hinweise häufen sich, dass bei den Polizeikräften ein Verhalten vorherrscht, das von Duldung der
Straftaten bis zu offener Sympathie reicht.

1. Sind der Kommission die oben genannten Tatsachen bekannt?

2. Gibt es bereits EU-Programme, die diesen Entwicklungen Einhalt gebieten, beispielsweise durch Aufklärung der
Polizeikräfte und/oder polizeiliche und justizielle Zusammenarbeit (insbesondere im Bereich Menschenrechte)?

3. Wenn nicht: Sind derartige Programme geplant?

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

_(3. Juli 2013)_

Die Kommission ist besorgt über die Zunahme des Extremismus in ganz Europa. Sie arbeitet beständig an
Möglichkeiten, die Mitgliedstaaten bei der Verhütung dieses Phänomens zu unterstützen, unabhängig von Motivation
und Methoden.

Speziell das EU-Aufklärungsnetzwerk gegen Radikalisierung (RAN), das im September 2011 eingerichtet wurde,
verbindet Praktiker, die im Bereich der Verhütung von zu Terrorismus und gewaltbereitem Extremismus führender
Radikalisierung tätig sind. Eine seiner Arbeitsgruppen, RAN POL, tauscht Erfahrungen über Praktiken im
Zusammenhang mit der Verhütung und Aufdeckung von gewaltbereitem Extremismus mittels Strafverfolgung durch
bürgernahe und lokale Polizeiarbeit aus.

In einer Sitzung dieser Gruppe wies Griechenland auf die Schaffung eines neuen Dienstes hin. Es handelt sich um das
„Allgemeine Amt für die Auseinandersetzung mit rassistisch begründeten Gewalttaten“, das einen speziellen Leitfaden
für die Polizei herausgibt und über eine Abteilung „Gewaltverbrechen“ verfügt.

Darüber hinaus finanziert die Kommission derzeit ein zweijähriges Projekt zum Thema „Verhütung und Bekämpfung
von Rechtsextremismus“, das darauf abzielt, das Verständnis der Praktiken zu fördern, die im Bereich Prävention zu
positiven Ergebnissen führen. Als Ergebnisse sind ein Bericht mit politischen Empfehlungen, bewährte Methoden und
ein Lehrgang für Personen, die im Bereich der Bekämpfung von Rechtsextremismus tätig sind, vorgesehen.

Die EPA schlägt darüber hinaus einen von der EU-Agentur für Grundrechte unterstützten Lehrgang mit dem Titel
„Human Issue: Management of Diversity“ vor. Die Menschenrechte sind Teil des Lehrplans des Europäischen
Fortbildungsprogramms für den Bereich Strafverfolgung, das in der Mitteilung der Kommission vom 27. März 2013
vorgestellt wurde. Das Thema der Akzeptanz kultureller Vielfalt ist Bestandteil der Arbeit der EU-Agentur für
Grundrechte. Schließlich hat der Europarat im Jahr 2001 den Europäischen Kodex der Polizeiethik erstellt und führt
Menschenrechtsschulungen für unter anderem Staatsanwälte, Polizeikräfte und Gerichtsvollzieher durch.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 103

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004894/13**

**to the Commission**
**Angelika Werthmann (ALDE)**

_(2 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Right-wing violence and lack of police control in Greece

Violence prompted by extreme right-wing views and xenophobia seems to be increasing to an alarming extent in
Greece. There is growing evidence of a prevailing attitude among the police which ranges from tolerance of these
crimes to open sympathy for them.

1. Is the Commission aware of the above facts?

2. Are there EU programmes in existence to curb these trends, e.g. by providing information to police officers
and/or by cooperation between the police and the judicial authorities (particularly in the field of human rights)?

3. If not, are there any plans to introduce such programmes?

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

_(3 July 2013)_

The Commission is concerned by the growing of extremism movements across Europe. The Commission continues
to work on ways to assist Member States in addressing prevention of such a phenomenon, regardless of motivation
and methods.

Specifically the EU Radicalisation Awareness Network (RAN), launched in September 2011, connects practitioners
involved in preventing radicalisation leading to terrorism and violent extremism. One of its working groups, RAN
POL, exchanges on practices related to prevention and detection of violent extremism by law enforcement, through
community and local policing.

In a meeting of this group, Greece highlighted the creation of a new service, the General Office for the Confrontation
of Racist Violence, which edits a special guide for police and includes a violent crimes division.

Moreover, the Commission currently finances a two-year project on ‘Preventing and Countering Far-Right Extremism’
aiming at enhancing understanding of what works in prevention. The project will include a policy recommendations
report, best practices and a training for practitioners in countering far-right extremism.

In addition, CEPOL proposes a course supported by the EU Fundamental Rights agency entitled ‘Human Issue:
Management of Diversity’. Human rights will be part of the curricula within the European Law Enforcement Training
Scheme (LETS) which was presented in the Commission communication of 27 March 2013. The EU Fundamental
Rights agency work includes the issue of acceptance of cultural diversity. Finally, the Council of Europe has
established the European Code of Police Ethics in 2001 and runs human rights training programmes for _inter alia_
prosecutors, police and bailiffs.

C 80 E / 104 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-004895/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Angelika Werthmann (ALDE)**

_(2. Mai 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Vertragsverhandlungen im Zusammenhang mit Büchern für blinde und sehbehinderte Menschen

In der Anfrage „Bücher für blinde Menschen — Urheberrecht“ (E-000512/2013) wurde nach einer fairen Behandlung
von blinden und sehbehinderten Menschen gefragt, was deren gleichberechtigten Zugang zu Büchern angeht. Die
Antwort der Kommission verwies unter anderem auf die laufenden Verhandlungen über einen internationalen
Vertrag, der eine Urheberrechtsbeschränkung zugunsten blinder und sehbehinderter Personen vorsehen soll. Nun
scheint es aber zentrale Probleme zu geben, die einen ebensolchen Vertrag blockieren (das Konzept der
kommerziellen Verfügbarkeit (commercial availability) und den grenzüberschreitenden Bücherversand).

1. Aus welchen Gründen wurde an dem Konzept der kommerziellen Verfügbarkeit festgehalten, obwohl dadurch
der Zugang von blinden Menschen zu Büchern substantiell erschwert wird?

2. Aus welchen Gründen wird grenzüberschreitender Bücherversand abgelehnt (insbesondere mit Blick auf die
Tatsache, dass die Urheberrechte der Verlage durch anderweitige Verträge ausreichend abgesichert sind)?

3. Welche Möglichkeiten sieht die Kommission, die Gleichberechtigung und ‐behandlung von blinden und
sehbehinderten Menschen sicherzustellen?

4. Welche Möglichkeiten sieht die Kommission, einen Zugang zu Bildung und Wissen für alle Menschen
gleichermaßen sicherzustellen?

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

_(18. Juli 2013)_

1. Artikel 5 Absatz 3 Buchstabe b der Richtlinie 2001/29/EG sieht vor, dass EU-Mitgliedstaaten unter bestimmten
Bedingungen Ausnahmen für die Nutzung zugunsten behinderter Personen vorsehen können. Manche
EU-Mitgliedstaaten haben das Fehlen einer kommerziellen Verfügbarkeit von zugänglichen Formaten als
Voraussetzung für diese Ausnahme ausgelegt. In den Verhandlungen setzen sie sich für diese Bedingung ein. Viele
Mitgliedstaaten sind der Ansicht, dass die Forderung nach einem grenzüberschreitenden Austausch von zugänglichen
Formaten die Verleger dahin gehend unter Druck setzen könnte, dass sie solche Formate zeitgleich mit den gängigen
Formaten auf den Markt bringen.

2. Einige Mitgliedstaaten sind der Auffassung, dass Blindenverbände die Förderfähigkeit von Empfängern
innerhalb ihres Landes besser überprüfen können als im Ausland. Deswegen bevorzugen sie es in den Verhandlungen,
dass der grenzüberschreitende Austausch von zugänglichen Formaten über Blindenverbände der jeweiligen Länder
erfolgt. Sehbehinderte Menschen würden demnach die importierten Sonderformate nicht direkt von ausländischen
Blindenverbänden, sondern von ihrem lokalen Verband erhalten. Innerhalb der EU würde der Grundsatz des freien
Verkehrs zwischen Mitgliedstaaten jedoch auf den grenzüberschreitenden Verkauf Anwendung finden.

3. Die Kommission kann nicht alleine den Ausgang der internationalen Verhandlungen bestimmen und wird bei
der Diplomatischen Konferenz im Juni weitere Anstrengungen unternehmen, um die Annahme eines einfachen und
ausführbaren Vertrags zu erreichen, wodurch sehbehinderten Menschen ein besserer Zugang zu Büchern ermöglicht
werden soll.

4. Derzeit wird in der WIPO ( [1] ) über einen speziellen Vertrag verhandelt, um seh‐ und lesebehinderten Menschen
den Zugang zu Büchern zu erleichtern. Allgemeinere Fragen wie zum Beispiel der Zugang zu Bildung und Wissen
werden darin jedoch nicht behandelt.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Weltorganisation für geistiges Eigentum.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 105

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004895/13**

**to the Commission**
**Angelika Werthmann (ALDE)**

_(2 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Negotiations for a treaty on books for blind and visually impaired persons

In my question entitled ‘Books for the blind and copyright’ (E-000512/2013) I asked about fair treatment for blind
and visually impaired people concerning equal access to books. The Commission’s answer referred to negotiations
under way for an international treaty aimed at a copyright limitation for the benefit of visually impaired persons.
However, there now seem to be fundamental problems (the concept of commercial availability and the cross-border
mail order of books) holding up such a treaty.

1. Why is the concept of commercial availability being insisted on, even though this makes access for blind people
to books substantially more difficult?

2. Why is the cross-border mail order of books being rejected (particularly given that publishers’ copyright is
sufficiently protected by other treaties)?

3. What opportunities does the Commission see for guaranteeing equal rights and treatment for blind and visually
impaired persons?

4. What opportunities does the Commission see for ensuring equal access to education and knowledge for all?

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

_(18 July 2013)_

1. Article 5(3)(b) of Directive 2001/29 allows EU Member States (MSs) to introduce, under certain conditions, an
exception for uses for the benefit of the disabled. Certain EU MSs have interpreted the lack of commercial availability
of accessible format copies as a condition for this exception and they have a preference for such a condition in the
negotiations. Many EU MSs consider that the requirement on the cross-border exchange of accessible format copies
could put pressure on publishers to make such copies available in the relevant markets at the same time as the
mainstream copy.

2. Several EU MSs consider that blind organisations have better means to check the eligibility of beneficiaries in
their own country than in foreign countries. Thus, MSs have a preference in the negotiations for channeling the crossborder exchange of accessible format copies through blind organisations established in the respective countries. In
this scenario, visually impaired persons would not receive the imported special formats directly from foreign blind
organisations but via their local organisation. However, within the EU, the principle of free circulation would apply as
between MSs in relation to cross border sales.

3. The Commission cannot determine alone the outcome of the international negotiations but will continue to
deploy great effort at the June Diplomatic Conference to reach agreement on a simple and workable treaty that
improves access to books to visually impaired persons.

4. The treaty that is currently being negotiated in WIPO ( [1] ) is a specific one that aims at facilitating access to books
for visually impaired and print disabled persons. It does not address more general questions such as access to
education or knowledge.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) World Intelectual Property Organisation.

C 80 E / 106 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Dansk udgave)_

**Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-004896/13**

**til Kommissionen**
**Christel Schaldemose (S&D)**

_(2. maj 2013)_

_Om:_ Mikro-plast i produkter

Et dansk tv-program berettede den 30. april 2013, at mængden af plastik stiger i vores miljø. Samme program
påviser, at der findes store mængder mikro-plaststykker i sæbe, shampoo og anden kosmetik. Dette havner netop i
verdenshavene og forpester miljøet. Der er heller ikke klarhed over, hvordan plastikstykkerne påvirker menneskers
hormonsystem.

Det hører ingen steder henne. EU må agere hurtigst muligt. Mit spørgsmål til Kommissionen er derfor:

Kender Kommissionen til problemstillingen? Og vil Kommissionen hurtigst muligt tage initiativ til at kræve udfasning
af mikroplast i kosmetik?

**Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Janez Potočnik**

_(27. juni 2013)_

Kommissionen er opmærksom på, at mikroplast, herunder mikroplast i kosmetik, udgør en potentiel miljøtrussel.

I marts 2013 igangsatte Kommissionen gennem grønbogen om en europæisk strategi for plasticaffald i miljøet en
bred offentlig høring. I grønbogen blev der taget fat på problemet om mikropartikler af plast og spørgsmålet om,
hvordan der bedst kan tages hånd om de udfordringer, der følger af brugen af mikroplast i produkter og i industrielle
processer samt af nanopartikler i plast. Høringen blev afsluttet den 7. juni 2013, og resultaterne vil indgå i en
omfattende gennemgang af politikken på genbrugsområdet, der er planlagt til at finde sted i 2014.

Kommissionen er opmærksom på, at nogle EU-medlemsstater har opfordret til et forbud mod anvendelse af
mikroplast i kosmetik i hele EU, og at flere virksomheder i EU på frivillig basis har taget initiativ til at udfase
anvendelsen af mikroplast i deres kosmetikprodukter.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 107

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004896/13**

**to the Commission**
**Christel Schaldemose (S&D)**

_(2 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Plastic microparticles in cosmetics

A Danish TV programme on 30 April 2013 reported that the quantity of plastic in our environment is on the rise.
The same programme showed that there are large quantities of plastic microparticles in soap, shampoo and other
cosmetics. These end up in the oceans and pollute the environment. It is also unclear what effect these plastic particles
have on the human hormonal system.

These particles have no business being there. The EU must take action as quickly as possible. My question to the
Commission is therefore:

Is the Commission aware of this problem? And will the Commission take the initiative as soon as possible to call for
the phasing out of plastic microparticles in cosmetics?

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

_(27 June 2013)_

The Commission is aware that microplastics, including those from cosmetics, are a potential threat to the
environment.

In March 2013 the Commission launched a wide public consultation via its Green Paper ‘On a European Strategy on
Plastic Waste in the Environment’. The Green Paper addressed the issue of plastic micro-particles, and posed the
specific question ‘How can challenges arising from the use of microplastics in products or industrial processes and of
nano-particles in plastics be best addressed?’ The public consultation launched by the Green Paper was open until
7 June 2013 and the results will feed into a broader waste policy review scheduled for 2014.

The Commission is aware of the calls in some EU Member States for an EU-wide ban on use of microplastics in
cosmetics, as well as the ongoing voluntary actions of several EU companies to eliminate or phase-out the use of
microplastics in their cosmetic products.

C 80 E / 108 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004897/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(2 maggio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Crisi della ACC Compressors Spa di Mel (Belluno): 600 lavoratori a rischio

L'economia bellunese, già colpita dalla crisi del settore dell'occhiale e dalla forte instabilità economica europea, è
ulteriormente minacciata dall'annuncio del possibile licenziamento di oltre 600 dipendenti della ACC Compressors
Spa di Mel (un Comune in provincia di Belluno), azienda operante nel settore degli elettrodomestici, vittima della
ristrutturazione industriale dell'intero gruppo aziendale.

Considerando che proprio nella Valbelluna si sono concentrate imprese leader nella climatizzazione e nella
refrigerazione, che custodiscono un importante patrimonio industriale di know-how; considerato che sono in fase di
elaborazione i «Futuri orientamenti dell'UE sugli aiuti di Stato al salvataggio e alla ristrutturazione di imprese in
difficoltà»; la Commissione:

1. ritiene possibile rafforzare la futura disciplina comunitaria degli aiuti di Stato, con particolare riferimento agli
aiuti per il salvataggio delle aziende, introducendo strumenti che agevolino la formazione di cordate
d'imprenditori che, rilevando aziende del territorio, possano salvare le imprese in crisi e sostenere così
l'occupazione e la politica industriale del mercato interno?

2. stante la crisi del settore degli elettrodomestici, segnalata nella mia interrogazione E-001315/2013, ravvisa la
possibile attivazione del Fondo europeo di adeguamento alla globalizzazione, FEG?

3. come intende rafforzare il Fondo europeo di adeguamento alla globalizzazione, FEG, per renderlo uno
strumento ancora più incisivo nel sostenere la capacità degli Stati membri e delle Regioni di contenere gli effetti
della crisi ed essere di aiuto per l'adozione di misure attive destinate ai lavoratori vittime delle ristrutturazioni e
della delocalizzazione?

**Risposta di László Andor a nome della Commissione**

_(20 giugno 2013)_

1) La Commissione fa presente che gli orientamenti comunitari sugli aiuti di Stato per il salvataggio e la
ristrutturazione di imprese in difficoltà ( [1] ) (gli «orientamenti») non ostano al salvataggio di un'azienda in difficoltà
tramite la sua acquisizione ad opera di un consorzio di imprese locali, a patto che venga rispettata la normativa
dell'UE in tema di concorrenza.

2) La Commissione rinvia l'onorevole deputata alla propria risposta alle interrogazioni E-001178/2013 e
E-001315/2013, che è ancora valida poiché nel frattempo non sono intervenuti nuovi sviluppi.

3) Per il periodo 2014-2020 la Commissione ha proposto di introdurre un criterio di crisi tra quelli applicati per
ricevere un sostegno dal Fondo europeo di adeguamento alla globalizzazione. Il sostegno del Parlamento durante il
processo legislativo sarà essenziale per assicurare che tale punto sia infine adottato.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) GU C 244 dell'1.10.2004.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 109

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004897/13**

**to the Commission**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(2 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Crisis at ACC Compressors Spa in Mel (province of Belluno): 600 jobs at risk

The economy in Belluno, which has already been affected by the crisis in the eyewear industry and the significant
instability of the EU’s economy, is now facing a further threat after the announcement that over 600 workers might
be made redundant at ACC Compressors Spa in Mel (a municipality in the province of Belluno), a company which
manufactures household electrical appliances and which has fallen victim to industrial restructuring of the group of
companies as a whole.

Valbelluna is home to a cluster of leading air conditioning and refrigeration companies, which possess a significant
industrial heritage in terms of know-how. The future ‘Community guidelines on state aid for rescuing and
restructuring firms in difficulty’ are currently being drawn up.

1. Does the Commission think it can strengthen future EU legislation on state aid, with specific reference to aid for
rescuing companies, by introducing tools to make it easier for entrepreneurs to form consortia which, by taking over
local companies, can rescue companies in crisis and thus support jobs and the industrial policy of the internal market?

2. In view of the crisis in the household electrical appliances industry, flagged up in my Question E-001315-2013,
does the Commission think the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) could be activated?

3. How will the Commission strengthen the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund to make it a more effective
tool for supporting Member States and regions in their ability to limit the effects of the crisis and to help them take
proactive measures for workers affected by restructuring and relocation?

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

_(20 June 2013)_

1. The Commission notes that the Community guidelines on state aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in
difficulty ( [1] ) (‘Guidelines’) do not prevent the rescue of a firm in difficulties by way of its acquisition by a consortium
of local firms, subject to compliance with EU competition law.

2. The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to questions E-001178/2013 and
E-001315/2013, which is still valid since no new developments have occurred in the meantime.

3. For the 2014-20 period, the Commission has proposed introducing a crisis criterion as one of the criteria for
receiving support from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. Parliament’s support during the legislative
process will be critical to ensuring that this point is finally adopted.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ C 244, 1.10.2004.

C 80 E / 110 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung P-004898/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Andreas Schwab (PPE)**

_(2. Mai 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Erleichterungen für AEO im Zollkodex der Europäischen Union

Nach dem Modernisierten Zollkodex müssen Zollverfahren u. a. auch Sicherheitsaspekte berücksichtigen. Die im
Zollkodex vorgesehene Sicherheitszertifizierung als „Authorized Economic Operator“ (AEO) soll den individuellen
Wirtschaftsbeteiligten für die Zollbehörde transparenter machen. Sie ist eine freiwillige Vorleistung der
Wirtschaftsbeteiligten. Unternehmen, die sich zertifizieren lassen, unterwerfen sich aufwändigen Prüfungen in
vielfältigen Fragen ihrer Organsiations‐ und Verfahrensstrukturen. Diese Durchleuchtung bewirkt, dass die
zertifizierten Unternehmen und deren Verfahrensweisen dem Zoll bestens bekannt sind. Dies sollte seinen
Niederschlag in den Zollverfahren finden.

Als Äquivalent für den Aufwand sollten den Wirtschaftsbeteiligten Erleichterungen in den aufwändigeren
Zollverfahren nach dem Zollkodex der Europäischen Union (UZK) in Aussicht gestellt worden. Den Anstrengungen,
die mit der Erlangung des AEO-Status verknüpft sind, stehen jedoch bis heute keine ausreichenden Vereinfachungen
gegenüber, obwohl Wirtschaftsbeteiligte mit AEO-Status für die Zollbehörde „gläsern“ sind. Bisher haben sich daher
im Wesentlichen (Zoll-)Dienstleister wie Spediteure sowie eine Anzahl von Großunternehmen zertifizieren lassen;
zahlreiche mittelständische Unternehmen insbesondere des produzierenden Gewerbes aber haben bisher wegen
fehlender Attraktivität des AEO davon Abstand genommen. Nicht nur im Zollverkehr mit der Schweiz sind diese
besonderen Verfahrensvereinfachungen von großer praktischer und wirtschaftlicher Bedeutung.

1. Warum hat die Kommission bisher keinen Vorschlag unterbreitet, demzufolge Unternehmen mit AEO-Status
substanzielle Verfahrensvereinfachungen wie den Verzicht auf die Abgabe einer Vorabanzeige bei der Ausfuhr oder
einer summarischen Eingangsanmeldung bei der Einfuhr genießen?

2. Welche Gründe sprechen dagegen, bei Wirtschaftsbeteiligten, die dem Zoll als AEO bekannt sind, im Rahmen
des Anschreibeverfahrens auf Einzelmitteilungen zu verzichten und die Anschreibung in den betrieblichen
Unterlagen der Anmeldung und gleichzeitig auch der automatischen Überlassung gleichzusetzen (auch in Fällen der
sog. Verbote und Beschränkungen, wenn der Gebrauch einer Allgemeingenehmigung möglich ist oder die Produkte
der Zollverwaltung bekannt sind)?

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

_(7. Juni 2013)_

Die Kommission teilt uneingeschränkt die Auffassung, dass der Status des Zugelassenen Wirtschaftsbeteiligten
(AEO-Status) im Jahr 2005 zu dem auch im künftigen Zollkodex der Europäischen Union geltenden Zweck
eingerichtet wurde, Inhabern dieses Status, darunter auch KMU, sicherheitsrelevante Erleichterungen sowie
größtmögliche Vorteile aus der umfassenden Nutzung zollrechtlicher Vereinfachungen zu gewähren und ihnen in
Bezug auf Zollkontrollen eine günstigere Behandlung als anderen Wirtschaftsbeteiligten zukommen zu lassen.

1. Die summarische Eingangsanmeldung und die Vorabanmeldungen bei der Ausfuhr dienen der Umsetzung von
Sicherheitsmaßnahmen in Bezug auf Waren, die in das Zollgebiet der Europäischen Union eingeführt oder aus diesem
ausgeführt werden. Bei diesen Maßnahmen geht es nicht um Handelerleichterungen, und daher kann, selbst innerhalb
des bestehenden internationalen Rahmens, nicht lediglich aufgrund des Status der für die Ware verantwortlichen
Person auf die sicherheitsbezogene Unterrichtung der Zollbehörden verzichtet werden. In der Mehrzahl der Fälle wird
die summarische Eingangsanmeldung von den Spediteuren und nicht von den Einführern eingereicht. Des Weiteren
ist die Vorabanmeldung bei der Ausfuhr in den meisten Fällen die Ausfuhranmeldung und kann daher nicht als
zusätzliche Belastung angesehen werden.

2. Gemäß Artikel 264 Absatz 2 der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 2454/93 der Kommission gelten für die Inhaber des
AEO-Zertifikats „Zollrechtliche Vereinfachungen“ die Voraussetzungen für die Bewilligung des Anschreibeverfahrens
als erfüllt, sofern der erforderliche Informationsaustausch mit den Zollbehörden stattgefunden hat. Die
Voraussetzungen für eine Befreiung von der Gestellungsmitteilung in diesem Zusammenhang, die derzeit in
Artikel 266 Absatz 2 Buchstabe b der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 2454/93 der Kommission enthalten sind, sollten
künftig Teil des Zollkodex der Europäischen Union sein und die Maßnahmen der Kommission und der
Mitgliedstaaten in diesem Bereich prägen.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 111

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-004898/13**

**to the Commission**
**Andreas Schwab (PPE)**

_(2 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Simplifications for authorised economic operators (AEO) under the EU Customs Code

Under the Modernised Customs Code, customs procedures must take account of, _inter alia_, safety and security aspects.
The purpose of safety and security certification as authorised economic operators (AEO), provided for in the Customs
Code, is to make economic operators more transparent for customs authorities. This is a voluntary upfront
concession on the part of economic operators. Firms which have themselves certified are subject to onerous checks
on their organisational and operating structures. As a result, customs authorities are very familiar with certified firms
and with how they operate. That should be reflected in customs procedures themselves.

In return for the effort involved, the prospect of simplifying what are, under the EU Customs Code, complicated
customs procedures should be held out for economic operators. To date, however, despite the fact that AEOs are
‘transparent’ for customs authorities, simplifications do not adequately reflect the effort involved for economic
operators to acquire AEO status. So far, accordingly, it is largely (customs) service providers such as hauliers, plus a
number of large firms, which have had themselves certified; but a host of small and medium-sized enterprises, in
particular in manufacturing, have so far not acquired AEO status because it is insufficiently attractive. Such special
procedural simplifications are of considerable practical and economic significance — not only where customs
arrangements involving Switzerland are concerned.

1. Why, to date, has the Commission not submitted a proposal for substantial procedural simplifications for firms
with AEO status, such as waiving pre-departure declarations (for exports) or entry summary declarations (for
imports)?

2. What arguments are there against waiving individual notifications for local clearance procedures, for economic
operators recognised as AEOs by customs authorities, and deeming an entry in company records to be equivalent to a
declaration and, at the same time, automatic release too (including in connection with prohibitions and restrictions
when use of a general licence is possible or the products concerned are known to the customs authorities)?

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

_(7 June 2013)_

The Commission fully shares the view that the very purpose of setting up the AEO status in 2005 was, and will
remain in the future Union Customs Code, to grant holders of that status, including SMEs, facilitations relating to
security and safety, maximum advantage of widespread use of customs simplifications and more favourable
treatment than other operators in respect of customs controls.

1. The entry summary declaration (ENS) and the pre-departure declarations are platforms for the implementation
of the security policy and measures with regard to goods to be brought into or taken out of the customs territory of
the Union. These are not measures related to trade facilitation and as such, even in the existing international
framework, the provision of information to customs for the purpose of security and safety cannot be waived simply
with regard to the status of the person being responsible for the goods. In the majority of cases the ENS is submitted
by the carriers and not by the importers. Furthermore, in the majority of cases, the pre-departure declaration is the
export declaration and cannot be considered as an extra burden.

2. In accordance with Article 264(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93, the holders of AEO certificates
— customs simplifications (AEOC) are considered fulfilling the conditions for the authorisation to use the local
clearance procedure, subject to the necessary exchange of information with the customs authority. The conditions for
a notification waiver in that context, which are currently laid down in Article 266(2)(b) of Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 2454/93, should in the future be part of the Union Customs Code and frame the action by the Commission
and Member States in that respect.

C 80 E / 112 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite P-004899/13**

**à la Commission**
**Younous Omarjee (GUE/NGL)**

_(2 mai 2013)_

_Objet:_ Coopération régionale incluant les RUP et la nécessité de développer les synergies entre les fonds européens

La coopération régionale est un instrument essentiel afin de favoriser l'intégration des régions ultrapériphériques
(RUP) dans leurs environnements régionaux.

La Commission européenne a souligné à plusieurs reprises la nécessité de renforcer cette coopération entre les RUP et
leur pays et territoires voisins ( [1] ).

Renforcer cette coopération requiert non seulement la poursuite des programmes de coopération territoriale dans le
cadre du Fonds européen de développement régional (FEDER) mais également, comme le souligne le Comité des
régions ( [2] ), une meilleure synergie entre les fonds relevant de la politique de cohésion et le Fonds européen de
développement (FED), chaque fonds étant soumis à son propre règlement et calendrier.

1. Afin de faciliter réellement la coopération régionale des RUP, la Commission a-t-elle mené une étude
approfondie des possibilités de synergies existantes entre les fonds structurels et le Fonds européen de
développement?

2. Comment envisage-t-elle, dans le cas des programmes de coopération territoriale Interreg, de mettre en pratique
une meilleure coordination entre le FEDER et le FED?

3. Quand compte-t-elle publier une stratégie visant à exploiter pleinement les potentiels de synergie entre les fonds
de la politique de cohésion et de la politique de développement?

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

_(26 juin 2013)_

La Commission a spécifiquement examiné les exigences de coordination entre le Fonds européen de développement
régional (FEDER) et le Fonds européen de développement (FED) dans le projet de règlement sur la coopération
territoriale européenne pour la période 2014-2020. ( [3] ) Lorsque des États membres et des pays ou territoires tiers
participent à des programmes de coopération qui reposent notamment sur l'utilisation de crédits du FEDER pour les
régions ultrapériphériques (RUP) et sur des ressources du FED, il convient que les programmes de coopération
définissent des mécanismes de coordination au niveau territorial approprié, afin de coordonner efficacement
l'utilisation de ces ressources.

Compte tenu des spécificités du FED, des dispositions similaires figurent dans le projet de proposition de la
Commission concernant un règlement du Conseil sur la mise en œuvre du 11 [e] FED, et, s'il y a lieu, figureront
également dans les instructions de programmation, les documents de stratégie et les programmes indicatifs
pluriannuels y relatifs, soulignant ainsi la nécessité de coordination et de simplification des mécanismes financiers. En
ce qui concerne les programmes impliquant des RUP et des pays tiers, les États membres sont tenus de consulter le
pays tiers concerné pour que celui-ci confirme qu'il approuve le programme, avant de soumettre ce programme à la
Commission.

La Commission ne prévoit pas de publier la stratégie mentionnée par l'Honorable Parlementaire. Cependant, en
complément des stratégies développées dans les programmes de coopération territoriale pour la période 2014-2020
et celles incluses dans les programmes indicatifs régionaux du FED, la Commission a demandé aux RUP de mettre en
place des plans d'actions afin de définir leurs priorités dans la ligne des objectifs 2020 de l'Union qui comporteront,
entre autres, un volet d'insertion régionale (plans de voisinage).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Voir, par exemple, COM(2011)0611 et COM(2012)0287.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Comité des régions 1685/2012.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Règlement «CTE».

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 113

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-004899/13**

**to the Commission**
**Younous Omarjee (GUE/NGL)**

_(2 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Regional cooperation involving the outermost regions and the need to develop synergies between European
funds

Regional cooperation can play a key role in fostering the integration of the outermost regions into their regional
environments.

The Commission has repeatedly stressed the need to strengthen cooperation of this kind between the outermost
regions and their neighbouring countries and territories ( [1] ).

This calls not only for the continuation of territorial cooperation programmes under the European Regional
Development Fund (ERDF), but also, as stressed by the Committee of the Regions ( [2] ), for greater synergy between
cohesion policy funding and the European Development Fund (EDF), with a separate regulation and timetable for
each fund.

1. Has the Commission carried out an in-depth analysis of the existing scope for synergies between the structural
funds and the EDF with a view to facilitating regional cooperation involving the outermost regions?

2. In the case of Interreg territorial cooperation programmes, how does it intend to improve coordination between
the ERDF and the EDF?

3. When will it publish a strategy designed to exploit the full scope for synergies between cohesion policy funding
and development policy funding?

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

_(26 June 2013)_

The Commission specifically addressed the coordination requirements between the European Regional Development
Fund (ERDF) and the European Development Fund (EDF) in the draft regulation on European Territorial Cooperation
for the 2014-2020 period ( [3] ). Cooperation programmes should set out coordination mechanisms at the appropriate
territorial level, where Member States and third countries or territories participate in cooperation programmes that
include the use of ERDF appropriations for outermost regions (ORs) and resources from the EDF, to effectively
coordinate the use of these resources.

Taking into account the specific characteristics of the EDF, similar provisions are included in the draft Commission
proposal for a Council Regulation on the implementation of the 11th EDF and where appropriate will be included in
related programming instructions, strategy papers and multiannual indicative programmes, emphasising the need for
coordination and simplified financing mechanisms. For cooperation programmes involving ORs and third countries,
Member States are required to consult the respective third country before submitting the programme to the
Commission and the third country has to confirm its agreement to it.

The Commission is not planning to publish the strategy referred to by the Honourable Member. However, the
Commission has asked the ORs to establish action plans to identify their priorities in line with the EU's 2020
objectives, which will include, among other things, a section on regional integration (neighbourhood plan), in order
to supplement the strategies developed in the territorial cooperation programmes for 2014-2020 and those in the
EDF regional indicative programmes.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) See, for example, COM(2011)0611 and COM(2012)0287.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Committee of the Regions 1685/2012.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) ETC Regulation.

C 80 E / 114 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta P-004900/13**

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

**Francesco Enrico Speroni (EFD)**

_(2 maggio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Opportunità di una dichiarazione del VP/HR sull'applicazione da parte della Svizzera della clausola
«valvola» sulla libera circolazione

La Vicepresidente della Commissione/Alto Rappresentante dell'Unione per gli affari esteri e la politica di sicurezza in
una dichiarazione ha manifestato il proprio disappunto per la decisione del governo svizzero di applicare la clausola
di salvaguardia prevista nell'accordo sulla libera circolazione delle persone, accusando la Confederazione di aver
adottato misure contrarie all'accordo.

Quali sono le specifiche norme che si ritengono violate?

Perché non si è stato avviato un procedimento diplomatico di contestazione e non si è rimasti in attesa di conoscere le
controdeduzioni, prima di muovere pubbliche critiche di dubbia opportunità?

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

_(25 giugno 2013)_

Il 24 aprile 2013 il governo svizzero ha deciso di prorogare di un altro anno, a decorrere dal 1° maggio 2013, le
restrizioni quantitative applicate dal 1° maggio 2012 ai lavoratori dipendenti e autonomi dell'UE che hanno la
cittadinanza di 8 Stati membri. Il 15 maggio il governo svizzero ha confermato la decisione, anch'essa adottata il
24 aprile, di applicare nuove restrizioni quantitative ai lavoratori dipendenti e autonomi dell'UE che hanno la
cittadinanza degli altri 17 Stati membri (ad eccezione di Bulgaria e Romania, a cui si applica ancora un regime
transitorio di contingenti) a decorrere dal 1° giugno. Queste misure scadono rispettivamente alla fine di aprile e alla
fine di maggio 2014.

La Commissione ha ritenuto che l'applicazione separata di restrizioni a 8 Stati membri e, successivamente, agli altri
17 non fosse conforme all'accordo. Nel 2008 e nel 2009 il Consiglio federale non aveva invocato la clausola di
salvaguardia sebbene fossero state raggiunte le soglie. Secondo la Commissione, le condizioni economiche generali
della Svizzera e la situazione del mercato del lavoro non sono mutate in misura tale da giustificare un allontanamento
da questa prassi.

Il tasso di disoccupazione in Svizzera si è attestato su una media del 2,8 % nel 2011 e del 2,9 % nel 2012 e non si
dispone di elementi da cui risulti che la sicurezza interna della Svizzera è maggiormente minacciata a causa
dell'accordo. La Commissione sostiene l'attenzione specifica prestata dal governo svizzero agli aspetti che
preoccupano maggiormente i cittadini.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 115

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-004900/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Francesco Enrico Speroni (EFD)**

_(2 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Desirability of a statement by the VP/HR on the application by Switzerland of the safeguard clause
on freedom of movement

The Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has
made a statement in which she expressed her dissatisfaction at the decision by the Swiss Government to apply the
safeguard clause provided for in the agreement on the free movement of persons, accusing Switzerland of having
adopted measures contrary to the agreement.

What specific provisions are considered to have been breached?

Why was no diplomatic objection procedure followed, and why did she not wait until the counter-arguments had
been put forward before she expressed public criticisms whose expediency is doubtful?

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

_(25 June 2013)_

On 24 April 2013 the Swiss Government decided to extend, for one more year starting on 1 May 2013, the
quantitative restrictions which it applies since 1 May 2012 to the employed and self-employed EU citizens who are
nationals of eight Member States. On 15 May the Swiss Government confirmed the decision taken also on 24 April to
introduce new quantitative restrictions to the employed and self-employed EU citizens who are nationals of the other
17 Member States (except Bulgaria and Romania, still under a transition quota regime), as from 1 June. These
measures will expire respectively at the end of April and May 2014.

The Commission considered that the separate application of restrictions to 8 and then 17 Member States was not in
conformity with the agreement. In 2008 and 2009 the Federal Council did not invoke the safeguard clause despite the
fact that the thresholds were reached. In the view of the Commission the overall Swiss economic conditions and the
labour market situation have not changed to justify departing from that practice.

The unemployment rate in Switzerland remains stable at average of 2.8% (2011) and 2.9% (2012) and there are no
evidence of increased threat to Swiss internal security because of the agreement. The Commission supports the Swiss
Government efforts to focus specifically to the causes of popular concern.

C 80 E / 116 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris P-004901/13**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D)**

_(2 mai 2013)_

_Subiect:_ Impactul eliberării atestatului de conducător auto pentru șoferii auto care nu sunt nici resortisanți și nici
rezidenți pe termen lung ai unui stat membru

Conform art. 5 paragraf 2 al Regulamentului (CE) nr. 1072/2009 privind normele comune pentru accesul la piața
transportului rutier internațional de mărfuri, atestatul de conducător auto se eliberează de către autoritățile
competente ale statului membru de stabilire al operatorului de transport rutier de mărfuri, la cererea titularului
licenței comunitare, pentru fiecare conducător auto care nu este nici resortisant al unui stat membru, nici rezident pe
termen lung în înțelesul Directivei 2003/109/CE, pe care acesta îl angajează în mod legal (conform paragrafului 1 al
aceluiași articol) sau care este pus la dispoziția respectivului operator de transport rutier de mărfuri.

De asemenea, conform articolului 17 din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1072/2009, statele membre informează Comisia cu
privire la numărul de atestate de conducător auto eliberate în anul calendaristic anterior, precum și asupra numărului
de atestate de conducător auto în circulație la data de 31 decembrie a anului respectiv. Având în vedere că
Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1072/2009 a intrat în vigoare la data de 4 decembrie 2011, aș dori să întreb Comisia care este
numărul de atestate de conducător auto eliberate în 2012 de fiecare stat membru și care este numărul de atestate de
conducător auto în circulație la data de 31 decembrie 2012, în fiecare stat membru și la nivelul UE. Având în vedere
rata ridicată a șomajului la nivelul UE, aș dori să întreb Comisia care este impactul asupra pieței forței de muncă, la
nivel european, al eliberării de atestate de conducător auto pentru conducătorii auto angajați sau puși la dispoziția
companiilor europene și care nu sunt nici resortisanți ai unui stat membru, nici rezidenți pe termen lung în înțelesul
Directivei 2003/109/CE. În situația în care impactul eliberării acestor atestate asupra pieței forței de muncă de la
nivelul UE este unul semnificativ, ce măsuri are în vedere Comisia pentru a contribui la reducerea șomajului în
domeniul transportului rutier european?

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

_(6 iunie 2013)_

Statele membre au informat Comisia că, în cursul anului 2012, au eliberat 27 979 de atestate de conducător auto. La
sfârșitul anului 2012, erau în circulație 44 332 de atestate de conducător auto. Numărul de atestate eliberate de
fiecare stat membru este prezentat într-o anexă la răspuns. Având în vedere că în UE există aproximativ 4,5 de
milioane de șoferi de camion, proporția de conducători auto din țări terțe, stabilită pe baza numărului de atestate de
conducător auto raportate de statele membre, este de aproximativ 1 %.

În contextul unei penurii generale de conducători auto, nu există nicio dovadă că angajarea de conducători auto din
țările terțe a avut un impact semnificativ asupra pieței locurilor de muncă din UE. În 2008 s-a raportat că în sectorul
transportului rutier de marfă există o penurie de conducători auto estimată la 75 000 ( [1] ) de posturi, care ar putea fi
compensată prin angajarea de conducători auto din țările terțe. Această cifră ar putea crește, având în vedere vârsta
medie ridicată a șoferilor din acest sector (potrivit aceluiași studiu, peste 25% din lucrătorii din sectorul
transporturilor au peste 50 de ani; în Regatul Unit, 16% din conducătorii auto au peste 60 de ani ( [2] )).

Problema penuriei de conducători auto a fost identificată ca fiind un motiv de îngrijorare de către Grupul la nivel înalt
privind piața internă pentru transportul rutier de marfă ( [3] ), care recomandă drept soluție ameliorarea statutului
conducătorilor auto și a perspectivelor de carieră în această profesie. Comisia a ridicat această problemă în fața
partenerilor sociali și a statelor membre.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Penurie de personal calificat în transportul rutier de marfă, Parlamentul European, 2009.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Se întrevede o penurie de conducători auto? Dovezile care stârnesc preocupări — Skills for Logistics, 2012.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Raportul grupului la nivel înalt pentru dezvoltarea pieței UE a transportului rutier de marfă — B. T. Bayliss (Președinte), iunie 2012.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 117

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-004901/13**

**to the Commission**
**Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D)**

_(2 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Impact of the issuing of driver attestations for persons who are neither nationals nor long-term residents of
the Member States

Under Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 on common rules for access to the international road haulage
market, driver attestation is issued by the competent authorities of the Member State of establishment of the haulier,
at the request of the holder of the Community licence, for each driver who is neither a national of a Member State nor
a long‐term resident within the meaning of Directive 2003/109/EC whom that haulier lawfully employs (in
accordance with paragraph 1 of that Article) or who is put at the disposal of the haulier.

Likewise, under Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009, the Member States must inform the Commission of the
number of driver attestations issued in the previous calendar year as well as the number of driver attestations in
circulation on 31 December of that year. Since Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 entered into force on
4 December 2011, can the Commission state how many driver attestations were issued in 2012, by each Member
State, and how many driver attestations were in circulation on 31 December 2012, in each Member State and at EU
level? In view of the high rate of unemployment across the EU, can the Commission also state what the impact has
been on the EU job market of the issuing of driver attestations for drivers employed by, or put at the disposal of,
European companies, when these drivers are not nationals of a Member State or long‐term residents within the
meaning of Directive 2003/109/EC? Should the issuing of such attestations have had a significant impact on the EU
job market, what steps does the Commission plan to take to help reduce unemployment in the European haulage
sector?

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

_(6 June 2013)_

Member States informed the Commission that they issued 27,979 driver attestations during 2012. The total number
of driver attestations in circulation at the end of 2012 was 44,332. The breakdown by Member State is provided in an
Annex to the reply. As there are some 4.5 million lorry drivers in the EU, the share of drivers from third countries
based on the number of driver attestations reported by the Member States is around 1%.

In the context of a general shortage of drivers, there is no evidence that the employment of third country drivers has
led to a significant impact on the EU job market. It was reported in 2008 that the road haulage sector suffered a
shortage of the order of 75 000 ( [1] ) drivers, which employment of third country drivers may help to fill. This shortage
is likely to increase due to the high average age of drivers in the sector (according to the same study over 25% of the
workforce in the transport services sector are over 50; in the UK 16% of drivers are over 60 ( [2] )).

The issue of driver shortages was identified as a cause for concern by the High Level Group on the internal market for
road haulage ( [3] ) which recommends as a solution improving the standing of, and career prospects in, the profession.
The Commission has raised this topic with social partners and Member States.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Shortage of Qualified Personnel in Road Freight Transport, European Parliament, 2009.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) A Looming Driver Shortage? — the evidence behind the concerns, Skills for Logistics, 2012.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Report of the High Level Group on the Development of the EU Road Haulage Market, Chair B T Bayliss, June 2012.

C 80 E / 118 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004902/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(2 de mayo de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Deducción del juego sobre el impuesto a la renta

Por primera vez en el Estado español, este año se podrán deducir del IRPF las pérdidas originadas por el juego en
bingos y casinos a la espera de que el año que viene se empiece a tributar por los premios de loterías y sorteos de más
de 2 500 euros ( [1] ).

Por otro lado, la Comisión Europea presentó su Comunicación sobre los juegos de azar en línea en la que mostraba su
preocupación por las conductas adictivas que puede incentivar dicha actividad ( [2] ).

También ha mostrado la Comisión su inquietud con este asunto al crear el pasado 5 de diciembre un grupo de
expertos para que analice cuáles serían las iniciativas legislativas más adecuadas para regular el juego ( [3] ).

¿Tenía conocimiento la Comisión de esta medida del Gobierno español?

¿No cree la Comisión que dar incentivos fiscales al juego contradice los principios que ella misma enuncia en sus
comunicaciones al respecto?

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

_(27 de junio de 2013)_

1. La Comisión está al corriente de la medida a la que se refiere Su Señoría. A partir del 1 de enero de 2013, los
premios de loterías, apuestas y juegos de más de 2 500 euros están sujetos a un tipo impositivo del 20 % en España. El
Ministerio de Hacienda ha explicado recientemente que, si bien las pérdida de juego pueden usarse para reducir
ganancias patrimoniales derivadas de las actividades de juego, las pérdidas no dan lugar a créditos fiscales que puedan
deducirse del impuesto sobre la renta.

2. La Comisión recuerda que los Estados miembros de la UE son libres de conformar sus sistemas fiscales en la
medida en que no existan disposiciones de armonización a escala de la UE y en que las disposiciones nacionales no
sean discriminatorias o contrarias a los Tratados. Además, corresponde a los Estados miembros, dentro de los límites
establecidos por el Tribunal de Justicia de la UE, determinar la organización de la oferta de juegos de apuestas,
incluidos los objetivos de sus políticas de juego y el nivel de protección perseguido en aras del interés público. Por lo
tanto, la evaluación del potencial de adicción de los diferentes juegos de azar o de los incentivos ofrecidos incumbe en
primer lugar a las autoridades nacionales. La Comisión, en su Comunicación «Hacia un marco europeo global para los
juegos de azar en línea» ( [4] ), propone una serie de iniciativas que abarcan diversos temas, con el objeto de mejorar la
claridad jurídica y formular estrategias basadas en los datos disponibles.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://economia.elpais.com/economia/2013/04/01/agencias/1364797814_363149.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/services/docs/gambling/comm_121023_onlinegambling_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/services/docs/gambling/draft_commission-decision-on-gambling_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 596 final.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 119

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004902/13**

**to the Commission**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(2 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Offsetting of gambling losses against income tax

This year, for the first time since the inception of the Spanish state, it will be possible for losses incurred in bingo halls
and casinos to be offset against personal income tax, pending the introduction next year of a tax on lottery and prize
draw winnings of over EUR 2 500 ( [1] ).

Furthermore, the Commission has presented a communication on online gambling in which it expresses concern at
the addictive behaviour that can nurture such activities ( [2] ).

The Commission also showed its concern at this issue when, on 5 December 2012, it created a think tank to assess
what legislative initiatives could be launched to most appropriately regulate gambling ( [3] ).

Is the Commission aware of the measure the Spanish Government has adopted?

Does it not feel that offering financial incentives for gambling contradicts the principles it has itself set out in its
communications in this field?

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

_(27 June 2013)_

1. The Commission is aware of the measure referred to by the Honourable Member. From 1 January 2013, lottery
and betting winnings in excess of EUR 2 500 are subject to a 20% rate of taxation in Spain. The Finance Ministry has
recently clarified that, while gambling losses may be used to lower capital gains derived from gambling activities, the
losses do not give rise to tax credits that can be deducted from income tax.

2. The Commission recalls that EU Member States are free to design their tax systems as long as there are no
harmonising measures at EU level and as long as the national measures are not discriminatory or otherwise contrary
to the Treaties. Furthermore, it is for the Member States — within the limits established by the Court of Justice of
the EU — to determine the organisation of the gambling offer, including the objectives of their gambling policy and
the level of protection sought in the public interest. The assessment of the potential for addiction of different games of
chance or of incentives offered is therefore primarily the responsibility of national authorities. The Commission, in its
communication ‘Towards a Comprehensive European Framework for Online Gambling’ ( [4] ), proposes a series of
initiatives covering a range of issues, seeking to enhance legal clarity and establish policies based on available
evidence.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://economia.elpais.com/economia/2013/04/01/agencias/1364797814_363149.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/services/docs/gambling/comm_121023_onlinegambling_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/services/docs/gambling/comm_121023_onlinegambling_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 596 final.

C 80 E / 120 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-004903/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D)**

_(2 Μαΐου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Επίπεδο πληρωμών στις 30 Απριλίου 2013

Μετά από έγκριση του Σχεδίου Διορθωτικού Προϋπολογισμού αριθ. 6/2012, η Επιτροπή, κατόπιν αιτήσεως της αρμόδιας
για τον προϋπολογισμό αρχής, υπέβαλε σχέδιο διορθωτικού προϋπολογισμού αριθ. 2/2013, το οποίο ανέρχεται σε 11,2
δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ, ποσό που επιτρέπει σε όλες τις νόμιμες υποχρεώσεις πληρωμών που παραμένουν σε εκκρεμότητα το
τέλος του 2012, καθώς και σε αυτές που θα προκύψουν πριν από το τέλος του 2013, να καλυφθούν από τον
προϋπολογισμό του τρέχοντος έτους.

Λαμβάνοντας υπόψη τα ανωτέρω και δεδομένου ότι το επίπεδο πληρωμών για τον προϋπολογισμό της ΕΕ όσον αφορά το
2013 είναι κατά 5 δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ χαμηλότερο από τις εκτιμήσεις της Επιτροπής για τις ανάγκες πληρωμών στο σχέδιο
προϋπολογισμού της, θα μπορούσε η Επιτροπή να παράσχει λεπτομερείς πληροφορίες σχετικά με το ύψος των
καταβληθεισών πληρωμών μέχρι τις 30 Απριλίου 2013; Ειδικότερα, θα μπορούσε η Επιτροπή να γνωστοποιήσει τις
πληρωμές που έχουν καταβληθεί κατά τους μήνες Ιανουάριο, Φεβρουάριο, Μάρτιο και Απρίλιο 2013, κατανεμημένα ανά
κράτος μέλος και ανά τομέα/πρόγραμμα πολιτικής;

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

_(21 Ιουνίου 2013)_

Μια λεπτομερής ανάλυση της έγκυρων αιτημάτων πληρωμών ( [1] ) που υποβλήθηκαν τον Απρίλιο για τα έτη 2007-2013 για τα
χρηματοδοτούμενα από το ΕΚΤ, το ΕΤΠΑ και το ΤΣ-επιχειρησιακά προγράμματα, παρατίθενται στο παράρτημα Ι της
παρούσας απάντησης, ενώ για την ΕΤΑ και το ΕΓΤΑΑ τα δεδομένα παρατίθενται στο παράρτημα II. Τα στοιχεία του πίνακα
προκύπτουν από τη σύγκριση των έγκυρων αιτημάτων πληρωμών που υποβλήθηκαν μέχρι το τέλος του Απριλίου του 2013,
με εκείνα που υποβλήθηκαν μέχρι το τέλος του Μαρτίου 2013. Η Επιτροπή δύναται να αποφασίσει να αλλάξει το καθεστώς
κάποιου αιτήματος πληρωμής από «Αποδεκτό» σε «Πλήρως απορριφθέν» ή «Επέστρεψε για διορθώσεις» και ως εκ τούτου τα
στοιχεία που παρατίθενται στα παραρτήματα της παρούσας απάντησης θα μπορούσαν να υποστούν περαιτέρω προσαρμογές.
Για παράδειγμα, ένα αρνητικό ισοζύγιο του ΕΚΤ για την Πολωνία, είναι το αποτέλεσμα τέτοιων αλλαγών στο καθεστώς.

Παρόμοια στοιχεία για τους μήνες Ιανουάριο, Φεβρουάριο και Μάρτιο δόθηκαν από την Επιτροπή στις ερωτήσεις
E-1090/2013, E-3237/2013 και E-3928/2013 ( [2] ), αντίστοιχα.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Εξαιρουμένων των πλήρως απορριφθέντων ποσών.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 121

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004903/13**

**to the Commission**
**Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D)**

_(2 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Level of payments as of 30 April 2013

After the approval of Draft Amending Budget No 6/2012, the Commission, at the request of the Budgetary Authority,
brought forward Draft Amending Budget No 2/2013, amounting to EUR 11. 2 billion, which allows all the legal
payment obligations left pending at the end of 2012, as well as those arising before the end of 2013, to be covered in
this year’s budget.

In light of the above and given the fact that the level of payments for the 2013 EU Budget is EUR 5 billion lower than
the Commission’s estimates for payment needs in its draft budget, could the Commission provide detailed
information on the level of payments received by 30 April 2013? Specifically, could the Commission indicate the
payments that were received in the months of January, February, March and April 2013, broken down by Member
State and policy area/programme?

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

_(21 June 2013)_

A detailed breakdown of the valid payment claims ( [1] ) received in April for the 2007-2013 ESF, ERDF and CF-funded
operational programmes is provided in Annex I to this reply while for EFF and EAFRD the data is included in
Annex II. The figures in the table result from comparing valid payment claims submitted until the end of April 2013
with those submitted until the end of March 2013. The Commission may decide to change the status of a payment
claim from ‘Accepted’ to ‘Fully rejected’ or ‘Returned for corrections’ and therefore the figures presented in the
annexes to this reply could still undergo further adjustments. A negative ESF balance for Poland, for instance, is the
result of such changes in status.

Similar data for the months of January, February and March were provided by the Commission to Questions
E-1090/2013, E-3237/2013 and E-3928/2013 ( [2] ), respectively.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Excluding fully rejected amounts.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

C 80 E / 122 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004904/13**

**to the Commission**
**Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL)**

_(2 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ GSP+ regulation and Pakistan

1. What does the Commission consider to be the legal definition of ‘no serious problems of implementation’, as
per its memorandum of February 2013, ‘The EU’s new GSP and Pakistan’? ( [1] ).

2. What is the legal definition of ‘effective implementation’?

3. Which institution is institutionally responsible for the monitoring of ratification and implementation of the
conventions mentioned in Annex VIII to Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 ( [2] )?

4. How does the Commission see the role of NGOs, both locally and internationally, in the monitoring of the
implementation of those conventions? At what stage of the process will NGOs be consulted?

5. How does the Commission ensure a ‘binding commitment to ratify conventions, to accept monitoring, and to
cooperate’ ( [3] )?

6. What does the Commission mean by ‘third parties’ in the case of monitoring? How will it engage with third
parties?

7. How does the Commission evaluate the outcomes of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) for Pakistan in light of
Pakistan’s eligibility for GSP+?

8. How does the Commission assess Pakistan’s capacity to implement the conventions mentioned in Annex VIII to
Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 after the devolution of power to the provinces under the 18th Amendment to its
Constitution?

9. How does the Commission view the lack of reporting concerning Pakistan in CEDAW when it comes to
Pakistan’s eligibility for GSP+?

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

_(12 June 2013)_

The reformed Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP) ensures transparency and legal certainty, _inter alia_, by defining
legal terms such as ‘effective implementation’, in Article 2(l) of the GSP Regulation (978/2012). In line with this
concept, the regulation builds on concepts used by international monitoring bodies, such as ‘serious failure to
implement’, which emanates from International Labour Organisation (ILO) practice.

In EC law, the Commission has to analyse the compliance of the GSP+ applicant countries with the legal
requirements. Those countries must strictly follow the conditions set out in GSP law and sign a binding undertaking,
using the form provided in Annex I of Regulation 155/2013 ( [4] ). On reporting, the relevant requirements are set in
Article 9.1(e) of Regulation 978/2012 and they are included in the abovementioned binding undertaking which, for
information, all applicant countries have signed.

The Commission's assessment of the implementation of the conventions is based on the reports of the monitoring
bodies which are relevant to those conventions, according to Article 9.1(b).

If conditions are met, the Commission is then responsible for making a proposal to grant GSP+ by delegated act.
Should the GSP+ beneficiary not be in a position to effectively implement the conventions, Article 15 of Regulation
978/2012 sets out the procedure for the temporary withdrawal of GSP+ benefits.

Any third party, including civil society, may provide information in the monitoring of the implementation of the
relevant conventions by GSP+ beneficiaries (Article 14.3). The information must be adequate and accurate.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/pakistan/documents/eu_pakistan/20130221_01_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2012/october/tradoc_150025.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2012/december/tradoc_150163.ppt (slide 23).
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/february/tradoc_150584.pdf

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 123

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-004905/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Ismail Ertug (S&D)**

_(2. Mai 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Erhebungen über VegetarierInnen/VeganerInnen und vegetarische Produkte

Millionen EuropäerInnen bevorzugen eine vegetarische bzw. vegane Ernährungsweise. Eine sehr viel höhere Zahl von
EuropäerInnen ernährt sich fleischarm oder greift aus den verschiedensten Gründen auf vegetarische Produkte
zurück. Die Nachfrage nach vegetarischen/veganen Lebensmitteln und anderen Produkten steigt. Mit zunehmendem
Ernährungs‐ und Umweltbewusstsein ist weiteres Wachstum zu erwarten.

Genaue Zahlen liegen indes nicht vor. Während die Kommission in absehbarer Zeit einen Durchführungsrechtsakt zu
Informationen über die Eignung eines Lebensmittels für VegetarierInnen und VeganerInnen erlassen wird, fehlt es an
statistisch gesicherten Daten zu

— der Zahl von sich vegetarisch/vegan ernährenden Menschen in der EU;

— der Zahl von Menschen, die bewusst an einem oder mehreren Tagen der Woche fleischlos essen;

— den Motiven für vegetarische, vegane und fleischarme Ernährung;

— den Marktanteil von vegetarischen/veganen Produkten.

Wird die Kommission Eurostat und Euro-Barometer in absehbarer Zeit beauftragen, Erhebungen zu den
gesellschaftlichen und ökonomischen Aspekten vegetarischer Ernährungsweisen und dem Markt für vegetarische
Produkte anzustellen?

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

_(20. Juni 2013)_

Die neue Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1169/2011 ( [1] ) betreffend die Information der Verbraucher über Lebensmittel ist für die
Kommission mit Verpflichtungen verbunden, für welche Fristen vorgegeben wurden. Die Kommission wird diese
Maßnahmen vorrangig angehen. Für die Durchführungsrechtsakte, mit denen gewährleistet werden soll, dass die
Verbraucherinformationen über die Eignung von Lebensmitteln für Menschen, die sich vegetarisch oder vegan
ernähren, nicht irreführend, missverständlich oder verwirrend sind, wurde keine Frist gesetzt und somit wurden sie
vom Mitgesetzgeber nicht als vorrangig angesehen. Folglich kann die Kommission zu diesem Zeitpunkt keine
verbindliche Zusage hinsichtlich der vom Herrn Abgeordneten geforderten Maßnahmen erteilen.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1169/2011 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 25. Oktober 2011 betreffend die Information der Verbraucher

über Lebensmittel und zur Änderung der Verordnungen (EG) Nr. 1924/2006 und (EG) Nr. 1925/2006 des Europäischen Parlaments und des
Rates und zur Aufhebung der Richtlinie 87/250/EWG der Kommission, der Richtlinie 90/496/EWG des Rates, der Richtlinie 1999/10/EG der
Kommission, der Richtlinie 2000/13/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates, der Richtlinien 2002/67/EG und 2008/5/EG der
Kommission und der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 608/2004 der Kommission, ABl. L 304 vom 22.11.2011, S. 18.

C 80 E / 124 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004905/13**

**to the Commission**
**Ismail Ertug (S&D)**

_(2 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Surveys of vegetarians and vegetarian products

Millions of people in Europe prefer to adhere to a vegetarian or vegan diet. Far more Europeans choose to eat only a
little meat or, for any number of different reasons, consume vegetarian products. Demand for vegetarian/vegan food
products and other products is rising. As people become more aware of dietary and environmental issues, further
growth is likely.

However, no precise figures are available. While the Commission intends within the foreseeable future to issue an
implementing act concerning information about the suitability of food products for vegetarians, there is a lack of
reliable statistics on:

—
the number of people in the EU who adhere to a vegetarian/vegan diet;

—
the number of people who have taken a deliberate decision not to eat meat on one or more days of the week;

—
the reasons why people opt for a vegetarian, vegan or low-meat diet;

—
the market share of vegetarian/vegan products.

Will the Commission, without undue delay, ask Eurostat and Eurobarometer to survey the social and economic
aspects of vegetarian diets and the market for vegetarian products?

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

_(20 June 2013)_

The new Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 ( [1] ) on the provision of food information to consumers imposes obligations
on the Commission for which deadlines had been specified. The Commission will tackle these actions as a priority.
The implementing acts to ensure that information related to the suitability of foods to vegetarians or vegans is not
misleading, ambiguous or confusing for the consumer, are not subject to a deadline and therefore they were not
considered by the co-legislator as a priority. Consequently, the Commission cannot commit at this stage to undertake
the activities requested by the Honourable Member.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to

consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing
Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004, OJ L 304,
22.11.2011, p. 18.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 125

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-004906/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)**

_(2 Μαΐου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Αύξηση της ανασφάλιστης εργασίας στην Ελλάδα

Σε πρόσφατη έρευνα της Ειδικής Υπηρεσίας Ελέγχου και Ασφάλισης του ΙΚΑ, σε σύνολο 1 891 επιχειρήσεων με 7 959
εργαζόμενους, βρέθηκε ότι οι 979 εξ αυτών (ποσοστό 52%) απασχολούσαν 2 295 ανασφάλιστους εργαζόμενους (ποσοστό
40,5%).

Άλλα στοιχεία, που προέρχονται από τον ίδιο ασφαλιστικό φορέα, δείχνουν ότι ο αριθμός των διενεργηθέντων ελέγχων, από
107 115 το 2009, μειώθηκε σε 46 370 το 2012, ενώ ο αριθμός των επιχειρήσεων που ελέγχθηκαν, από 48 583 το 2009 σε
18 086 το 2012 (μείωση δηλαδή 67%).

Αιτία για τους μειωμένους ελέγχους, σύμφωνα με τις ίδιες πηγές, αποτελούν τόσο οι περικοπές προσωπικού όσο και η
άρνηση του Υπουργείου Εργασίας να χορηγήσει έξοδα κίνησης στους ελεγκτές.

Αποτέλεσμα της κατάστασης αυτής είναι το μέγεθος της ανασφάλιστης εργασίας αλλά και οι απώλειες από εισφορές στα
ασφαλιστικά ταμεία να είναι τεράστιες και βέβαια αδύνατο να προσδιοριστούν. Ταυτόχρονα, γίνονται όλο και συχνότερα τα
φαινόμενα εργοδοτικής ασυδοσίας σε βάρος των ανασφάλιστων εργαζομένων, όσον αφορά τις αποδοχές τους, τις συνθήκες
εργασίας, τα ωράρια εργασίας, τα ασφαλιστικά τους δικαιώματα, κ.λπ.

Με δεδομένο ότι η ελληνική κυβέρνηση και η τρόικα έχουν επιβάλει «δρακόντειους» νόμους σε βάρος της εργασίας (όπως η
υπερφορολόγηση όσων εργάζονται, η δραματική μείωση των μισθών, η κατάργηση κοινωνικών παροχών και επιδομάτων,
κ.λπ.), ενώ δεν λαμβάνουν κανένα ουσιαστικό μέτρο για την πάταξη της αδήλωτης εργασίας, έχει παγιωθεί στην Ελλάδα η
αντίληψη ότι η έλλειψη αποτελεσματικών μέτρων και η διάλυση κάθε ελεγκτικού μηχανισμού αποτελεί μία συνειδητή
πολιτική επιλογή, που στοχεύει στην πλήρη απορρύθμιση των εργασιακών σχέσεων και δικαιωμάτων των εργαζομένων.

Με βάση τα ανωτέρω, ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Προτίθεται να λάβει άμεσα αποτελεσματικά μέτρα προκειμένου να καταπολεμήσει το φαινόμενο της αδήλωτης εργασίας; Αν
ναι, ποια είναι αυτά; Αν όχι, ποιοι είναι οι λόγοι που την εμποδίζουν;

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

_(27 Ιουνίου 2013)_

Η ΕΕ παρέχει βοήθεια στην Ελλάδα για την καταπολέμηση της αδήλωτης εργασίας ( [1] ). Συγκεκριμένα, η βοήθεια διατίθεται
στο πλαίσιο του επιχειρησιακού προγράμματος «Ανάπτυξη ανθρώπινου δυναμικού» (ΕΠ HR) που συγχρηματοδοτείται από
το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινωνικό Ταμείο, και ειδικότερα στο πλαίσιο της συστημικής παρέμβασης του ΕΠ HR «Αναβάθμιση των
μηχανισμών για την παρακολούθηση της αδήλωτης εργασίας». Ο δικαιούχος του εν λόγω προγράμματος είναι το Ελληνικό
Σώμα Επιθεώρησης Εργασίας («Σ.ΕΠ.Ε.»). Σε αυτό το πλαίσιο συμφωνήθηκε μεταξύ των υπηρεσιών της Επιτροπής και των
ελληνικών αρχών ένα σχέδιο δράσης που συνίσταται από 13 δράσεις που ήδη εφαρμόζεται.

Ο κ. βουλευτής καλείται να επικοινωνήσει με τη διαχειριστική αρχή ( [2] ) του επιχειρησιακού προγράμματος για αναλυτικές
πληροφορίες.

Σε ευρωπαϊκό επίπεδο, η Επιτροπή εργάζεται επί του παρόντος για την δημιουργία μιας ευρωπαϊκής πλατφόρμας για την
ενίσχυση της συνεργασίας, ιδιαιτέρως με τη συγκέντρωση πληροφοριών και βέλτιστων πρακτικών σε επίπεδο ΕΕ, των φορέων
επιβολής του νόμου των κρατών μελών, όπως οι επιθεωρήσεις εργασίας, οι φορολογικές αρχές και οι αρχές κοινωνικής
ασφάλισης, και άλλων ενδιαφερόμενων μερών, με σκοπό την πιο αποτελεσματική και αποδοτική προσέγγιση για την πρόληψη
και την αποτροπή της αδήλωτης εργασίας.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Ο συνολικός προϋπολογισμός για τα εν λόγω μέτρα ανέρχεται σε 7 εκατ. ευρώ περίπου.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Κοραή 4, 105 64 Αθήνα Τηλ. +30 210 5201200 Φαξ: +30 210 5241311 ηλ. ταχ/μείο: eydanad@mou.gr

C 80 E / 126 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004906/13**

**to the Commission**
**Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)**

_(2 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Increase in uninsured work in Greece

A recent survey conducted by the Special Control and Insurance Service of the Social Security Institute (IKA) covering
a total of 1 891 enterprises with 7 959 employees found that 979 of these enterprises (52%) were employing 2 295
uninsured workers (40.5%).

Other IKA data show that the number of inspections carried out fell from 107 115 in 2009 to 46 370 in 2012, while
the number of enterprises inspected fell from 48 583 in 2009 to 18 086 in 2012 (a reduction of 67%).

According to the same sources, this reduction in the number of inspections is due both to staff cuts and to the refusal
of the Ministry of Labour to pay inspectors travelling expenses.

As a result, the scale of undeclared work and the loss in contributions to insurance funds are huge and, of course,
impossible to determine. At the same time, employers are increasingly becoming a law unto themselves in their
treatment of uninsured workers, particularly as regards their pay, working conditions, working hours, pension
rights, etc.

Given that the Greek Government and the Troika have imposed ‘draconian’ laws at the expense of labour (such as the
over-taxation of those in work, the dramatic reduction in wages, the abolition of social benefits and allowances, etc.)
and are not taking any effective measures to combat undeclared work, the view has taken root in Greece that the lack
of effective measures and the removal of any inspection mechanism are a deliberate political choice, aimed at the
complete deregulation of labour relations and workers’ rights.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

Does it intend to take effective measures forthwith to combat undeclared work? If so, what measures? If not, why not?

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

_(27 June 2013)_

The EU is providing assistance to Greece to combat undeclared work ( [1] ). Namely, assistance is available under the
Human Resources Development operational programme (HR OP) co-financed by the European Social Fund and
specifically under the systemic intervention of the HR OP ‘Upgrading of mechanisms to monitor undeclared work’’.
The beneficiary of this programme is the Greek Labour Inspectorate (‘SEPE’). In this framework an Action Plan
consisting of 13 actions, was agreed between the Commission services and the Greek authorities and is currently
being implemented.

The Honourable Member is invited to contact the managing authority ( [2] ) for the operational programme for detailed
information.

At European level, the Commission is currently working to establish a European platform to step up cooperation, in
particular by pooling information and best practice at EU level between Member State enforcement bodies, such as
labour inspectorates, tax and social security authorities and other stakeholders, with a view to a more effective and
efficient approach to preventing and deterring undeclared work.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) The total budget for these measures amounts to approximately EUR 7 million.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) 4 Korai St., 10564 Athens; tel. +30 210 5201200; fax +30 210 5241311; e-mail: eydanad@mou.gr

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 127

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004908/13**

**to the Commission**

**Gay Mitchell (PPE)**

_(2 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Nutrition and immunisations

Despite a dramatic decline in child mortality over the past two decades, according to the United Nations Children’s
Fund (Unicef), approximately seven million children die every year from mostly preventable causes. Globally,
infectious diseases account for almost two-thirds of under-five deaths. Many of these deaths occur in children already
weakened by undernutrition. Worldwide, more than one-third of all under-five deaths are attributable to
malnutrition. Children who are malnourished are nine times more likely to die from infectious diseases such as
pneumonia, diarrhoea, malaria or measles.

Immunisation is one of the most cost-effective public health interventions that can dramatically reduce child
mortality rates.

80% of the world’s undernourished children live in just 20 of the poorest countries. Two-thirds of unimmunised
children live in just 10 of the poorest countries.

Life-changing vaccines not only provide protection against the leading causes of death in children under five, but also
contribute to decreasing vulnerability to malnutrition.

1. How will the Commission increase its focus on routine immunisation programmes in coordination with efforts
to combat malnutrition in its development policy as part of its commitment to child survival?

2. How will the Commission ensure that funding to improve child survival, including combating malnutrition and
protecting children from vaccine-preventable deaths, is allocated where it will have the greatest impact and will be
most effective?

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

_(21 June 2013)_

To be more effective, the Commission has decided to support countries by focusing on a limited number of sectors
and in the poorest countries, as outlined in its 2011 policy on development, ‘An Agenda for Change’ ( [1] ). For countries
in which health or nutrition have been identified as priority sectors, the Commission helps countries to develop,
implement and coordinate sound and evidence-based national policies through strengthening health systems and
supporting improvements in immunisation and nutrition. Under-nutrition is associated with disease and the
communication Enhancing Maternal and Child Nutrition in external assistance ( [2] ) recognises the importance, both in
humanitarian and longer-term interventions, of combating disease and infection.

While it is evident that some countries have a number of common concerns, it must be acknowledged that they have
individual characteristics and contexts which necessitate specific analysis and policies that are most successfully
developed and coordinated at country level through policy dialogue. It will be complemented on the one hand by the
mobilisation of EUR 400 million between 2014 and 2020 that will be spent on boosting nutrition through specific
nutrition programmes in the health sector as announced by the Commission during the ‘nutrition for Growth’ event
in London on 8 June 2013, and on the other hand by support to the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011)637 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2013)141.

C 80 E / 128 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004910/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)**

_(2 maggio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Diritto di informazione dei cittadini italiani, sloveni e croati sui contenuti di uno studio secretato relativo alla
sismicità del sito nucleare di Krško nella Repubblica di Slovenia

In una nota del 24 aprile 2013 inviata ai governi di Slovenia e Croazia ( [1] ) le ONG WWF e Legambiente del Friuli
Venezia Giulia hanno chiesto la divulgazione di uno studio dell'Istituto francese sulla sicurezza nucleare, che ha
evidenziato un elevato rischio sismico nella zona di Krško, dove risulta operativa una centrale nucleare di proprietà al
50 % di ciascuno dei due paesi, centrale che dista appena 139 chilometri in linea d'aria dalla città italiana di Trieste e
146 da quella di Gorizia.

Alla fine di marzo la stampa aveva dato notizia delle conclusioni di questo studio, commissionato proprio dalla
società che gestisce la centrale, la _Gen Energija_, in funzione del progetto di raddoppio della medesima inserito anche
nel 2011 nel piano energetico della Repubblica di Slovenia, che prevede di costruire accanto all'esistente centrale da
690 MW, entrata in funzione nel 1983, una nuova centrale da 1.600 MW.

Lo studio francese «secretato» dalla società che lo ha commissionato può rivelarsi decisivo, perché le sue conclusioni
sarebbero del tutto negative rispetto all'ipotizzata costruzione della seconda centrale nucleare.

Le conclusioni sulla sismicità di Krško non possono non riguardare anche l'esistente centrale nucleare, che il piano
energetico sloveno vorrebbe mantenere in funzione fino al 2043, la cui pericolosità è stata più volte denunciata in
passato e la cui chiusura è stata richiesta più volte, da ultimo nelle osservazioni presentate sul piano energetico della
Repubblica di Slovenia.

Ad avviso dello scrivente un elementare principio di trasparenza imporrebbe che lo studio sia divulgato, tradotto
nelle lingue dei paesi potenzialmente coinvolti in un incidente nella centrale, affinché su di esso si esprimano quanti
hanno le competenze e l'interesse a farlo.

Non ritiene la Commissione che un documento di tale importanza dovrebbe essere messo a disposizione di tutti gli
interessati? Intende la Commissione intervenire affinché il diritto sancito dalle norme comunitarie sull'informazione e
sull'informazione ambientale venga rispettato?

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

_(4 luglio 2013)_

Per la costruzione di una nuova centrale nucleare accanto alla centrale esistente di Krško occorre rispettare l'articolo
41 del trattato Euratom. Tale articolo impone alle imprese l'obbligo di informare la Commissione in merito a progetti
d'investimento nell'UE connessi a nuovi impianti nucleari, che rispettino i criteri definiti dal Consiglio e sui quali la
Commissione esprime il proprio punto di vista ( [2] ).

Secondo le informazioni contenute nell'interrogazione dell'onorevole deputato, la Slovenia è stata invitata con lettera
del 24/04/2013 a presentare lo studio dell'Istituto FRNS riguardante la centrale nucleare di Krško. La direttiva
2003/4/CE ( [3] ) impone agli Stati membri di mettere a disposizione del richiedente le informazioni ambientali al più
tardi entro un mese dal ricevimento della richiesta. La stessa scadenza si applica se le autorità decidono di non
concedere l'accesso alle informazioni avvalendosi di una delle eccezioni di cui all'articolo 4.

La direttiva non contempla l'obbligo di fornire l'accesso alle informazioni richieste nelle lingue dei paesi limitrofi.

L'imminente proposta della Commissione riguardante una nuova direttiva sulla sicurezza nucleare ( [4] ) intende anche
migliorare la trasparenza sulle questioni di sicurezza nucleare, tra l'altro fornendo al pubblico l'opportunità di
partecipare al processo di autorizzazione.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://regionali.wwf.it/UserFiles/File/AltriSitiWWF/Friuli%20Venezia%20Giulia/2013.04.24 %20Sismicit%C3 %A0 %20area%20Kr%C5 %A1ko

%20-%20nota%20ai%20ministeri.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) In tale valutazione la Commissione esamina tutti gli aspetti dei progetti d'investimento a fronte degli obiettivi del trattato Euratom.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Direttiva 2003/4/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 28 gennaio 2003, sull'accesso del pubblico all'informazione ambientale e che

abroga la direttiva 90/313/CEE del Consiglio, GU L 41 del 14.2.2003, pag. 26-32.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Per ulteriori informazioni la Commissione rinvia l'onorevole deputato alla risposta fornita all'interrogazione O-00183/12 di Amalia Sartori.

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

( **|**

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 129

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004910/13**

**to the Commission**
**Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)**

_(2 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Right to information of Italian, Slovenian and Croatian citizens with regard to the content of a classified study
on seismic activity at the Krško nuclear site in the Republic of Slovenia

In a letter dated 24 April 2013, sent to the governments of Slovenia and Croatia ( [1] ), the non-governmental
organisations the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and Legambiente del Friuli Venezia Giulia asked for a study by
the French Radioprotection and Nuclear Safety Institute to be made public. According to the study, there is a high
seismic risk in the Krško area, where a nuclear power station, half-owned by each of the two countries, is in service.
The power plant is just 139 kilometres as the crow flies from the Italian city of Trieste and 146 km from the town of
Gorizia.

The conclusions of this study appeared in the press in late March. The study was commissioned by the company that
runs the power plant, Gen Energija, as part of the project to expand the plant, which was also incorporated in the
Republic of Slovenia’s energy plan in 2011, which provides for the construction of a new 1 600 MW power plant
alongside the existing 690 MW plant, which came into service in 1983.

The French study — ‘classified’ by the company that commissioned it — may prove decisive because it is absolutely
damning in its conclusions about the planned construction of the second nuclear power plant.

The conclusions regarding seismic activity at Krško necessarily concern the existing nuclear power plant too, which,
according to the Slovenian energy plan, is intended to remain in service until 2043. The power plant has been
condemned as dangerous many times in the past and there have been many calls to close it down, most recently in the
comments on the Republic of Slovenia’s energy plan.

In my opinion, basic transparency requires the study to be made public and translated into the languages of those
countries that would potentially be affected by an accident at the power plant, so that those responsible and interested
in doing so can have their say on it.

Does the Commission not think that such an important document should be made available to all interested parties?
Does it plan to take action to ensure that the law enshrined in EU rules on information and environmental
information is respected?

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

_(4 July 2013)_

In case of construction of a new nuclear plant alongside the existing Krško plant, Art. 41 of the Euratom Treaty must
be complied with. This requires undertakings to communicate to the Commission investment projects in the EU
relating to new nuclear installations, which fulfil the criteria laid down by the Council; thereupon the Commission
issues its viewpoint ( [2] ).

According to the information contained in the question of the Honourable Member, Slovenia was requested by a
letter of 24/04/2013 to provide a study by the FRNS Institute concerning the Krško nuclear plant. According to
Directive 2003/4/EC ( [3] ), Member States have to make environmental information available to the applicant in general
at the latest within one month after the receipt of the request. The same deadline applies if the authorities decide to
refuse access relying on one of the exceptions in Art.4.

As regards the obligation to give access to information upon request in languages of the neighbouring countries, the
directive does not contain any such obligation.

The forthcoming Commission proposal for a new nuclear safety directive ( [4] ) is also aimed at enhancing transparency
on nuclear safety matters, including the opportunities that the public should be given to participate in the licensing

process.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://regionali.wwf.it/UserFiles/File/AltriSitiWWF/Friuli%20Venezia%20Giulia/2013.04.24%20Sismicit%C3%A0%20area%20Kr%C5%A1ko%2

0-%20nota%20ai%20ministeri.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) In its assessment, the Commission examines all aspects of the investment projects with respect to the objectives of the Euratom Treaty.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and

repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC OJ L 41, 14.2.2003, p. 26‐32.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) For more details, the Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to its reply to question O-00183/12 by Amalia Sartori.

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

( **|**

C 80 E / 130 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004911/13**

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

_(2 de mayo de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Condiciones de seguridad en el metro de Valencia durante el accidente de 2006

El 3 de julio de 2006 se produjo un fatídico accidente en el metro de la ciudad española de Valencia. En dicho
accidente murieron 43 personas y 47 resultaron heridas, suponiendo el accidente de metro más grave de toda Europa.

_La juez archivó el caso, y la investigación oficial concluyó que el motivo del accidente fue el exceso de velocidad, recayendo toda la_
_responsabilidad del siniestro en el maquinista fallecido en dicho accidente. Sin embargo, los partidos políticos de la oposición se_
_hicieron eco de diversas declaraciones de expertos en transporte ferroviario y de sindicatos del sector, que denunciaban serias_
_deficiencias en las infraestructuras y en el mantenimiento de las máquinas. Numerosos medios de comunicación españoles se han_
_hecho eco de estas deficiencias, y también han ido destapando durante los últimos años como las autoridades de la Generalitat_
_Valenciana supuestamente aleccionaron a los técnicos que comparecieron en la comisión de investigación que se abrió en Las_
_Cortes Valencianas sobre el accidente, presuntamente con la intención de tapar los serios fallos de mantenimiento y de seguridad_
_por falta de inversión que pudieron ser causa de la gravedad del accidente._

_La Directiva 2004/49/CE del Parlamento Europeo y el Consejo relativa a la seguridad de los ferrocarriles comunitarios establece_
_qué indicadores, métodos y objetivos comunes de seguridad deben ser introducidos gradualmente en los Estados miembros para_
_poder evaluar las condiciones de seguridad de este sector tanto a nivel nacional como a nivel europeo._

¿Dispone la Comisión de información acerca de las supuestas deficiencias de seguridad en el metro de Valencia
previamente a la fecha del accidente?

¿Dispone de información suficiente como para afirmar que este metro cumplía con las exigencias establecidas en la
Directiva 2004/49/CE en 2006?

¿Considera la Comisión justificado desarrollar una propuesta legislativa para armonizar el control que los Estados
miembros realizan sobre las condiciones de seguridad de los medios públicos de transporte con objeto de evitar
accidentes como estos?

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

_(19 de junio de 2013)_

La Comisión no ha recibido ninguna notificación relativa a deficiencias en materia de seguridad en el metro de
Valencia con anterioridad al accidente de julio de 2006.

Los Estados miembros pueden excluir el metro, los tranvías y otros sistemas ligeros del ámbito de aplicación de la
Directiva 2004/49/CE ( [1] ).

España ha optado por esa posibilidad (Real Decreto 810/2007 de 22 de junio) y, por ello, el metro está exento de lo
dispuesto en dicha Directiva.

La acción de la UE tiene por objeto promover activamente un alto grado de seguridad en el transporte y reducir el
número de fallecidos y heridos graves en los accidentes de circulación. La Comisión no tiene previsto presentar una
propuesta legislativa dirigida a armonizar los controles de conformidad en el sector del transporte público.

El 31 de enero de 2013, la Comisión adoptó el cuarto paquete ferroviario, que incluye la revisión de las Directivas de
interoperabilidad y seguridad ferroviaria. Sin embargo, del ámbito de aplicación de estas propuestas están
explícitamente excluidos, por motivos de subsidiariedad, el metro, el tranvía y los sistemas de trenes ligeros.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directiva 2004/49/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 29 de abril de 2004, sobre la seguridad de los ferrocarriles comunitarios y por la

que se modifican la Directiva 95/18/CE del Consejo sobre concesión de licencias a las empresas ferroviarias y la Directiva 2001/14/CE relativa a la
adjudicación de la capacidad de infraestructura ferroviaria, aplicación de cánones por su utilización y certificación de la seguridad (Directiva de
seguridad ferroviaria), DO L 164 de 30.4.2004.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 131

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004911/13**

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

_(2 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Safety at the time of the 2006 metro crash in Valencia

On 3 July 2006, a fatal accident occurred on the metro in the Spanish city of Valencia. Forty-three people died and 47
were injured in the crash, making it Europe's worst ever metro accident.

The judge closed the case and the official inquiry concluded that the cause of the accident was excessive speed, placing
full responsibility on the driver, who died in the crash. However, opposition parties picked up on various statements
made by rail experts and unions denouncing serious shortcomings in the metro infrastructure and the maintenance of
rolling stock. These shortcomings were widely reported by the Spanish media, which in recent years has also
uncovered evidence suggesting that the Valencia regional government influenced experts appearing before the
committee of inquiry set up by the regional parliament to investigate the accident, supposedly in an effort to conceal
serious maintenance and safety failures which had arisen as a result of a lack of investment and which may have been
a factor in the severity of the accident.

Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on safety on the Community’s railways sets out
the common safety indicators, methods and targets which are to be gradually introduced in Member States so that the
level of safety in this sector can be assessed at both national and European level.

Does the Commission have information about the alleged safety shortcomings in the Valencia metro prior to the
accident?

Does it have sufficient information to confirm that, in 2006, the metro complied with the requirements set out in
Directive 2004/49/EC?

Does the Commission see a need to draw up a legislative proposal to harmonise public transport safety compliance
checks in the Member States in order to prevent such accidents from happening again?

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

_(19 June 2013)_

The Commission did not receive any notification of safety shortcomings in the Valencia metro prior to the accident of
July 2006.

Member States may exclude metro, trams and other light systems from the scope of application of
Directive 2004/49/EC ( [1] ).

Spain has taken this option (Real decreto 810/2007 de 22 de junio) and therefore the metro is exempted from the
provision of this directive.

EU action seeks to promote actively a high degree of safety in transport and to reduce the number of fatalities and
serious injuries in traffic accidents. The Commission does not envisage submitting a legislative proposal aimed at
harmonising safety compliance checks in the public transport sector.

On 31 January 2013 the Commission adopted the 4th Railway package with includes a revision of the Railway safety
and Interoperability Directives. However, these proposals explicitly exclude metros, trams and light rail systems from
their scope of application for reasons of subsidiarity.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community's railways and amending

Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure
capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (Railway Safety Directive), OJ L 164, 30.4.2004.

C 80 E / 132 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-004912/13**
**an die Kommission (Vizepräsidentin/Hohe Vertreterin)**

**Franz Obermayr (NI)**

_(2. Mai 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ VP/HR — EAD — Organigramme zum Bürgerverständnis

Der EAD stellt seine Struktur durch folgendes Organigramm dar:
[http://eeas.europa.eu/background/docs/organisation_en.pdf](http://eeas.europa.eu/background/docs/organisation_en.pdf)

1. Was bedeuten die Farbkodierungen der Kästchen im Speziellen? Könnte eine Legende beigefügt werden?

2. Ist die VP/HR der Ansicht, damit für Verständnis und Aufklärung beim Bürger zu sorgen?

3. Falls nicht, könnte sich die VP/HR bereiterklären, eine verständlichere, aber ebenso umfassende Übersicht zur
Organisation des EAD in Auftrag geben?

**Antwort von Frau Ashton — Hohe Vertreterin/Vizepräsidentin im Namen der Kommission**

_(3. Juli 2013)_

Die Organisation des EAD entspricht der im Beschluss 2010/427/EU des Rates vom 26. Juli 2010 festgelegten
Struktur. Die Farbkodierung dient der Unterscheidung zwischen verschiedenen Dienstebenen und ‐funktionen. Der
EAD strebt es an, die Darstellung seines Organigramms durch die Veröffentlichung im Internet für die Bürger
verständlich und zugänglich zu machen. Das Organigramm gibt die derzeitige Struktur des EAD wieder und wird im
Laufe der Zeit selbstverständlich aktualisiert, wenn sich diesbezüglich neue Entwicklungen ergeben.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 133

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004912/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Franz Obermayr (NI)**

_(2 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — EEAS — Organograms for public information purposes

The EEAS presents its organisational structure by means of the following organogram:
[http://eeas.europa.eu/background/docs/organisation_en.pdf](http://eeas.europa.eu/background/docs/organisation_en.pdf)

1. What do the colour codings of the boxes specifically mean? Could a legend be provided?

2. Does the VP/HR consider that the organogram provides effective information for the general public and fosters
comprehension by citizens?

3. If not, could the VP/HR undertake to commission a more comprehensible but equally comprehensive overview
of the organisation of the EEAS?

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

_(3 July 2013)_

The organisation of the EEAS follows the structure established in Council Decision 2010/427/UE of
26 July 2010.The colour coding provides an indicative distinction between posts of different levels and functions. The
EEAS aims to make the presentation of the organisational chart comprehensible and accessible to the general public
through its publication on the Internet. It correctly represents the structure of the organisation as it is today, but will
naturally be updated in line with the evolution of the service over time.

C 80 E / 134 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-004913/13**

**an die Kommission**

**Franz Obermayr (NI)**

_(2. Mai 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Telematik im Kraftfahrzeug — „Pay-as-you-drive“ (PAYD)/Nutzungsabhängige (UBI) Versicherung

Durch die avisierte Einführung der eCall-Systeme wird das Automobil voraussichtlich ab 2015 auch zum Handy.
Bereits jetzt besteht ein intensives und selbstverständliches Interesse daran, auch andere telemetrische Daten
bezüglich des Fahrverhaltens des Fahrers zu erheben: auf der einen Seite durch die Versicherer, um ihre
„Hold-up“-Problematik zu umgehen und so die Tarife präziser an das Fahrverhalten anzupassen, auf der anderen Seite
durch die Fahrzeughersteller, da sie die Geräte einbauen und somit (implizit) die Macht über die Daten haben.
Entsprechende Interessenskonflikte treten auf, da die Versicherungswirtschaft befürchtet, durch eine
Dienstleistungserweiterung auf Versicherungen der Automobilhersteller Marktanteile zu verlieren. Wer die Macht
über diese Daten hat, dem gehört die Zukunft in der Automobilversicherung. Das erklärt auch das unlängst in
Spanien gestartete Pilotprojekt der Versicherer, welches Ermäßigungen im Tarif verspricht, wenn Kfz-Besitzer eine
telemetrische Blackbox der Versicherer(!) in ihr Auto einbauen lassen.

Kann die Kommission dazu folgend Fragen beantworten:

1. Ist die Kommission auf die Lawine an positiven und negativen Entwicklungen im Versicherungswesen und im
Datenschutz in der Folge der Einführung des eCall-Systems und der damit einhergehenden Neudefinition des
Automobils als Datenübermittler vorbereitet?

2. Wie gedenkt die Kommission verlässlich zu verhindern, dass durch die Automobilhersteller keine versteckten,
unerlaubten oder fehlgerichteten Datenübertragungsmöglichkeiten eingebaut werden?

3. Wie wird die Kommission sicherstellen, dass der Besitzer des Automobils das alleinige und unbedingte Recht
hat, den Adressaten der Datenübertragungen zu bestimmen?

4. Gedenkt sich die Kommission in den Wettstreit zwischen Automobilherstellern und Versicherungen
einzumischen, um klar zu definieren, wer einen Alleinanspruch auf die zukünftige Erhebung von Fahrdaten
hat? Das heißt auch: Wird den Automobilherstellern verboten, sich in der Versicherungsbranche zu
engagieren/beteiligen?

5. Gibt es vonseiten der Kommission bereits Planungen oder vonseiten der Versicherungen verstärkten Druck,
einen verbindlichen europaweiten Einbau von Telemetrieboxen zur Datenerhebung für nutzungsabhängige
Versicherungen (UBI/PAYD) zu forcieren?

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

_(26. Juni 2013)_

Da die Straßenverkehrssicherheit eine Priorität ist, ist die Kommission fest entschlossen, die Zahl der
Straßenverkehrsunfälle zu verringern sowie die Folgen von Unfällen — wenn sie doch passieren — zu mindern. In
diesem Zusammenhang untersuchte die Kommission die Möglichkeit der verbindlichen Einführung des
eCall-Systems im Rahmen der Rechtsvorschriften der EU für die Typgenehmigung von Fahrzeugen sowie die Folgen
dieser Einführung im Hinblick auf Aspekte des Wettbewerbs und des Datenschutzes.

Aus diesem Grund sind Bestimmungen über die Privatsphäre und den Datenschutz Teil des Vorschlags für eine
Verordnung des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates über Anforderungen für die Typgenehmigung zur
Einführung des bordeigenen eCall-Systems ( [1] ), der von der Kommission am 13. Juni 2013 angenommen wurde. Ziel
ist die Verhinderung des Einbaus von versteckten, unerlaubten oder fehlgerichteten Datenübertagungsvorrichtungen
sowie die Gewährleistung, dass der Besitzer des Kraftfahrzeugs das alleinige und unbedingte Recht hat, den
Adressaten der Datenübertragungen zu bestimmen.

Die verbindliche Ausrüstung von Fahrzeugen mit dem bordeigenen eCall-System sollte das Recht aller
Interessenträger unberührt lassen, zusätzliche Notfalldienste und/oder Dienste mit Zusatznutzen anzubieten. Um die
Wahlfreiheit der Kunden und faire Wettbewerbsbedingungen zu gewährleisten, sollte das bordeigene eCall-System
jedoch frei zugänglich, d. h. kostenlos sein, unabhängige Anbieter nicht diskriminieren und sich auf eine
interoperable und offene Plattform für mögliche künftige bordeigene Anwendungen oder Dienste stützen.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) KOM(2013)316.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 135

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004913/13**

**to the Commission**
**Franz Obermayr (NI)**

_(2 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Telematics in motor vehicles — ‘pay-as-you-drive’ (PAYD)/usage-based insurance (UBI)

As a result of the planned introduction of eCall systems, it is expected that, from 2015, cars will effectively become
mobile phones. Even now, there is, understandably, intensive interest in the possibility of gathering other telemetric
data about driving behaviour as well: on the one hand, on the part of insurers, in order to avoid their holdup problem
and thus adjust premiums more precisely to driving behaviour, and on the other hand by vehicle manufacturers, as
they install the devices and therefore (implicitly) have control over the data. Corresponding conflicts of interest arise,
as the insurance industry fears that it may lose market share because vehicle manufacturers may extend their services
to include insurance. Whichever party has control over these data also has in his hands the future of vehicle insurance.
This also explains the pilot project recently launched by insurers in Spain, promising reduced premiums if vehicle
owners allow a telemetric black box provided by the insurer (!) to be installed in their vehicle.

1. Is the Commission prepared for the avalanche of positive and negative developments in the insurance industry
and data protection due to the introduction of the eCall system and the associated redefinition of cars as data sources?

2. How will the Commission reliably prevent vehicle manufacturers from installing concealed, unlawful or
wrongly directed data transmission devices?

3. How will the Commission ensure that the owner of the vehicle has the sole and unconditional right to
determine who receives the data transmitted?

4. Does the Commission intend to intervene in the race between vehicle manufacturers and insurers in order to
define clearly who has the sole right to the future gathering of data on vehicle use? In other words, will vehicle
manufacturers be banned from entering the insurance industry?

5. Does the Commission already have any plans — or are insurers bringing increased pressure to bear — to move
more rapidly towards making it compulsory throughout Europe to install telemetric black boxes to gather data for
usage-based insurance (UBI/PAYD)?

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

_(26 June 2013)_

Given that road safety is a priority, the Commission is fully committed to reducing the number of road accidents, as
well as to mitigating the consequences of accidents when they occur. In this context, the Commission analysed the
possibility of introducing the eCall system on a mandatory basis in the framework of the vehicle type-approval
legislation as well as the consequences of this introduction, namely as regards competition and data protection issues.

This is the reason why rules on privacy and data protection form part of the proposal on the in vehicle eCall system
for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning type-approval requirements for the
deployment of the in vehicle eCall system ( [1] ), which was adopted by the Commission on 13 June 2013. The aim is to
prevent the installation of concealed, unlawful or wrongly directed data transmission devices as well as ensuring that
the owner of the vehicle has the sole and unconditional right to determine who receives the data transmitted.

The mandatory equipping of vehicles with the eCall in-vehicle system should be without prejudice to the right of all
stakeholders to offer additional emergency and/or added value services; however, in order to ensure an open choice
for customers and fair competition, the eCall in-vehicle system should be accessible free of charge and without
discrimination to all independent operators — based on an interoperable and open-access platform for possible
future in-vehicle applications or services.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 316.

C 80 E / 136 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004914/13**

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

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(2 maggio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Esecuzioni pubbliche in Iran: un'odiosa e inumana realtà

Tra i reati puniti con la pena di morte in Iran vi sono il traffico di stupefacenti, gli abusi sui minori, gli stupri, i
sequestri, il tradimento e le rapine a mano armata. Secondo dati recenti, nel 2011 sono state eseguite 600 condanne
alla pena capitale e l'anno scorso, durante la prima settimana di gennaio, ne sono state eseguite almeno altre 41. Più
recentemente, sono state condannate a morte 40 persone (38 uomini e 2 donne) solo nei 18 giorni tra il 10 e il
28 aprile 2013. Nonostante gli annunci ufficiali, il governo iraniano non rende pubbliche le informazioni sulle
esecuzioni ed è pertanto difficile conoscerne il numero esatto. Ad ogni modo, il continuo aumento delle condanne a
morte ha l'obiettivo di intensificare l'atmosfera di intimidazione sociale. Le organizzazioni di tutto il mondo, che
considerano la pena capitale una violazione dei diritti umani, chiedono ora all'Iran di commutare le pene di tutti i
detenuti condannati a morte.

Tenendo conto del fatto che:

—
la pena capitale dovrebbe essere comminata solo nei casi più gravi, ovvero per reati intenzionali che
comportano conseguenze letali o estremamente gravi;

—
il sostegno a un'organizzazione politica o i reati connessi a stupefacenti non soddisfano tale criterio;

può l'Alto Rappresentante Ashton far sapere se l'UE intende contribuire in modo significativo all'abolizione della
pena di morte o almeno alla sua limitazione ai reati più gravi?

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

_(3 luglio 2013)_

L'Unione europea ha una posizione di principio forte contro la pena di morte. L'UE considera la sua abolizione
essenziale per la protezione della dignità umana nonché per lo sviluppo progressivo dei diritti umani.

Migliaia di persone in Iran sono a rischio di esecuzione anche per fatti che non sono considerati tra i crimini più gravi
secondo gli standard intenazionali.

L'Alto Rappresentante/Vicepresidente ha fatto diverse dichiarazioni con cui esortava il governo iraniano a sospendere
tutte le esecuzioni pendenti e a introdurre una moratoria sulla pena di morte.

L'UE continuerà ad esortare l'Iran, come lo fa con tutti i paesi che insistono a mantenere la pena capitale, a rispettare
gli obblighi internazionali che gli incombono in forza del Patto internazionale relativo ai diritti civili e politici.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 137

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004914/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(2 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Public executions in Iran: how to get to grips with this heinous and inhumane reality

Crimes punished by death in Iran include drug trafficking, child abuse, rape, kidnapping, treason and armed robbery.
According to recent data, 600 executions occurred in 2011, and last year, there were at least 41 executions during the
first week of January. Most recently, 40 people (38 men and 2 women) were sentenced to death in the 18 days from
10 to 28 April 2013. Despite the official announcements, as the Iranian government does not make information on
executions publicly available it is difficult to know the exact numbers. At all events, the continuous increase in death
penalty cases is aimed at heightening the atmosphere of social intimidation. Organisations worldwide are now calling
on Iran to commute the death sentences of all prisoners on death row, considering them to be a violation of human
rights.

Taking into account that:

—
capital punishment should only apply in the most serious cases, i.e. intentional crimes with lethal or other
extremely grave consequences;

—
neither support for a political organisation nor drug offences meet this criterion.

can High Representative Ashton state whether the EU intends to make a significant contribution towards achieving
the abolition of the death penalty or, at least, its restriction to the most serious crimes?

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

_(3 July 2013)_

The European Union has a strong and principled position against the death penalty. The EU regards abolition as
essential for the protection of human dignity, as well as for the progressive development of human rights.

Thousands of individuals in Iran remain at risk of execution, even for acts which are not considered as among the
most serious crimes according to international standards.

The HR/VP has made several statements in which she called the Iranian government to halt all pending executions
and introduce a moratorium on the death penalty.

The EU will continue to call on Iran, as it does on all states which insist on maintaining capital punishment, to respect
its international obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

C 80 E / 138 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004915/13**

**to the Commission**
**Nessa Childers (S&D)**

_(2 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Commission expert groups

Following on from the answer to Question E-003418/2013 given on 25 April 2013, why does the Commission think
that adding one or two CSO members constitutes ‘rebalancing’, when it does not change the condition outlined by
MEPs that no single non-governmental stakeholder should have a majority over other non-governmental
stakeholders in expert groups?

Can the Commission provide evidence of why many of the organisations applying so far were not accepted (‘some
applications were not deemed suitable in relation to the work to be performed’)?

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

_(11 June 2013)_

The Commission reaffirms that significant progress was made in improving the implementation of Commission's
rules on expert groups, including on composition of these groups, as recognised by the Parliament.

The Commission confirms that, despite genuine efforts, for certain groups it was not possible to appoint enough new
members due to the reasons mentioned in the answer to Question E-003418/2013.

In compliance with the framework for Commission expert groups ( [1] ), individual Commission Services concerned
have defined the composition of groups with the aim to ensuring a balanced representation of relevant areas of
interest, while fully taking into account the specific tasks of every particular group and the type of expertise required.
In certain cases, applications were not deemed suitable in relation to the work to be performed. However, the
Commission confirms that relevant services are prepared to examine possible additional applications from interested
NGOs or civil society groups.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) C(2010) 7649, pp.3-4 and Rule 9.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 139

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004917/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(2 maggio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Schema di decreto interministeriale (Atto No. 452) in violazione della direttiva 94/62/CE «Imballaggi e rifiuti
d'imballaggio»

Nel febbraio 2012, la Commissione europea ha avviato una procedura di infrazione nei confronti dell'Italia per
presunta violazione della direttiva 98/34/CE, rilevando altresì una potenziale violazione della direttiva 94/62/CE. Da
allora, l'Italia ha notificato il decreto-legge n. 2/2012 mirato a regolare la commercializzazione dei sacchi per
l’asporto merci, convertito in legge n. 28/2012 il 24 marzo 2012. Nel febbraio 2013, il governo italiano ha trasmesso
al Senato e alla Camera dei Deputati uno schema di decreto interministeriale (Atto n. 452) volto all’individuazione
delle caratteristiche tecniche dei sacchi per l'asporto merci. Tale decreto indica le condizioni e impone limitazioni per
la commercializzazione di sacchi di plastica non biodegradabili, le quali potenzialmente potrebbero creare distorsioni
nel mercato interno; mentre i sacchi riutilizzabili fatti di polimeri non biodegradabili dovrebbero rispettare alcuni
requisiti concernenti lo spessore e certe percentuali di plastica riciclata al fine di esseri immessi sul mercato, i sacchi
usa e getta «biodegradabili» e compostabili non sarebbero soggetti ad alcuna restrizione. Le restrizioni previste nel
decreto non sembrano raggiungere gli scopi e obiettivi dell'iniziativa italiana. Non esiste una sufficiente informazione
sullo smaltimento dei sacchi in bioplastica per i consumatori, né dati certi idonei a dimostrare che l'impatto
ambientale dei sacchi biodegradabili sia maggiore (e perciò renda preferibili quest'ultimi) rispetto ai sacchi in normali
polimeri. Peraltro, le recenti ricerche chimiche e ambientali dimostrano come — sul lungo termine — l'effetto della
plastica «biodegradabile» sull’ambiente sia addirittura peggiore in termini di ecocompatibilità e sostenibilità rispetto
alla plastica «non biodegradabile».

Occorre tenere presente che le disposizioni proposte sembrano essere sproporzionate ed eccedono gli scopi preposti,
in quanto pongono limiti alla libera circolazione dei beni.

Alla luce di quanto precede, può la Commissione rispondere ai seguenti quesiti:

1. Ha raggiunto una decisione finale sulla procedura d'infrazione suindicata? Nell'ambito della medesima
procedura, è inclusa la verifica sul nuovo decreto interministeriale (Atto n. 452) volto all'individuazione delle
caratteristiche tecniche per i sacchi per l'asporto merci?

2. É al corrente dei dibattiti in materia di plastica «biodegradabile»? In particolare, può riferire la sua specifica
posizione sulla plastica «biodegradabile»?

3. Accerterà che il decreto non impedisca la libera circolazione dei beni nel mercato? Affronterà i sopra citati
dibattuti motivi con il governo italiano?

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

_(12 agosto 2013)_

1. La Commissione non ha ancora preso una decisione definitiva in merito alla procedura d’infrazione n.
2011/4030, che è tuttora in corso. In particolare, la Commissione sta valutando l’impatto del nuovo decreto
interministeriale 542 del 27/03/2013, volto all'individuazione delle ulteriori caratteristiche tecniche alle quali i sacchi
per l'asporto merci dovrebbero conformarsi per essere commercializzati in Italia.

2. La Commissione rinvia l’onorevole parlamentare alla risposta data alla domanda 2 dell’interrogazione scritta
E-004134/2013 dell'onorevelo Salvini ( [1] ).

3. Il 13 marzo 2013 il suddetto decreto interministeriale, che individua le caratteristiche tecniche dei sacchi per
l'asporto merci, è stato notificato dalle autorità italiane alla Commissione conformemente alla direttiva 98/34/CE ( [2] ),
che prevede una procedura d’informazione nel settore delle norme e delle regolamentazioni tecniche. Si tratta di un
decreto già previsto dall’articolo 2 del decreto legge n. 2/2012 convertito in legge n. 28/2012. Sembra tuttavia che il
presente decreto interministeriale sia stato adottato e pubblicato nella Gazzetta ufficiale della Repubblica italiana nel
periodo sospensivo di cui all’articolo 9 della direttiva 98/34/CE.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+WQ+E-2013-004134+0+DOC+XML+V0//IT.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) GU L 204 del 21.7.1998.

C 80 E / 140 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004917/13**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(2 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Draft interministerial decree (Act No 452) in breach of Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste

In February 2012, the Commission opened infringement proceedings against Italy for allegedly breaching
Directive 98/34/EC, as well as potentially breaching Directive 94/62/EC. Since then, Italy has notified Decree-Law
No 2/2012 to regulate the marketing of carrier bags, converted into Law No 28/2012 on 24 March 2012. In
February 2013, the Italian Government forwarded to the Italian Senate and the Chamber of Deputies a draft
interministerial decree (Act No 452) to establish the technical specifications of carrier bags. The decree sets out the
conditions for and imposes limitations on the marketing of non-biodegradable plastic bags, which could potentially
distort the internal market. While reusable bags made of non-biodegradable polymers would have to meet certain
requirements concerning thickness and contain certain percentages of recycled plastic in order to be placed on the
market, ‘biodegradable’ and compostable disposable bags would not be subject to any restrictions. The restrictions
laid down in the decree do not appear to achieve the aims and objectives of the Italian initiative. There is not enough
information for consumers on the disposal of bioplastic bags, or reliable data to show that biodegradable bags are
better for the environment (thus making them preferable) than normal polymer bags. However, recent chemical and
environmental research shows that — in the long term — ‘biodegradable’ plastic is even worse for the environment in
terms of environmental friendliness and durability than ‘non-biodegradable’ plastic.

It should be remembered that the proposed provisions appear to be disproportionate and go beyond the stated aims,
since they restrict the free movement of goods.

1. Has the Commission reached a final decision on the abovementioned infringement proceedings? Is an
examination of the new interministerial decree (Act No 452) intended to establish the technical specifications of
carrier bags included as part of the same proceedings?

2. Is the Commission aware of the debate surrounding ‘biodegradable’ plastic? In particular, can it say specifically
what its position is regarding ‘biodegradable’ plastic?

3. Will it ensure that the decree does not hinder the free movement of goods on the market? Will it address the
above points of contention with the Italian Government?

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

_(12 August 2013)_

1. The Commission has not yet taken a final decision on the infringement procedure 2011/4030, which is still
ongoing. In particular, the Commission is assessing the impact of the new inter-ministerial Decree 542 of 27.3.2013,
setting further technical characteristics that plastic bags should comply with in order to be marketed in Italy.

2. The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply given to question 2 of the Written Question
E-004134/2013 by Mr Salvini. ( [1] )

3. On 13 March 2013 the abovementioned inter-ministerial Decree, identifying the technical characteristics of
shopping bags, a decree already foreseen by Article 2 of Decree-Law No 2/2012, converted into Law No 28/2012,
was notified by the Italian authorities to the Commission under Directive 98/34/EC ( [2] ) laying down a procedure for
the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations. However it appears that this interministerial decree was adopted and published in the Italian Official Journal during the standstill period provided by
Article 9 of Directive 98/34/EC.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=WQ&reference=E-2013-004134&language=EN
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 141

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004918/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(2 maggio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Concerie italiane e protezionismo sulla materia prima grezza: quali misure

Il settore conciario italiano rappresenta il 65 % dell'intera produzione europea e il 17 % di quella mondiale, di fatto, é
il più importante d'Europa per dimensioni. Tali risultati sono il frutto dell'opera di 1300 concerie che danno lavoro a
circa 18.000 persone. Le concerie italiane si distinguono da sempre per la qualità dei loro prodotti, ottenuti grazie
all'utilizzo di materia prima grezza continentale; ciò ha contribuito a consolidare il «made in Italy» sui mercati
internazionali. Le calzature, gli indumenti, i mobili, le industrie dei prodotti per autoveicoli e del pellame sono gli
sbocchi più importanti per la produzione conciaria dell'UE. La lavorazione del cuoio e delle pelli genera altri
sottoprodotti che trovano sbocco in diversi settori industriali come la produzione di alimenti per animali domestici,
prodotti della chimica fine tra cui la fotografia e i cosmetici, e l'ammendamento del terreno e i fertilizzanti. Tuttavia, il
settore italiano si trova oggi in estrema difficoltà per due ordini di motivi: — il protezionismo crescente, che blocca
l'accesso al 50 % della materia prima necessaria; — la fuoriuscita, pari al 47 %, del grezzo totale, acquistato da aziende
concorrenti, in particolare da quelle cinesi. La mancanza di rifornimento primario costringe le concerie italiane a
rifiutare delle ordinazioni da parte di brand e multinazionali.

Considerato che:

—
un ruolo essenziale per il settore conciario è svolto dall'import di materia prima;

—
l'approvvigionamento estero, con origine da 128 paesi copre oltre il 90 % del fabbisogno dell'industria;

—
le esportazioni di pelli conciate destinate a 116 paesi, rappresentano i ¾ del fatturato complessivo;

—
ad oggi, circa la metà delle pelli grezze disponibili a livello mondiale è sottratta al libero mercato europeo
attraverso l'imposizione di dazi e altre barriere non tariffarie;

—
il protezionismo sulla materia prima, praticato da concorrenti extra UE come Cina, Etiopia, Nigeria, Pakistan,
India, è favorito dagli insufficienti requisiti ambientali e sociali di tali Paesi;

—
tale situazione sta portando al tracollo l'industria della conceria italiana.

Chiedo alla Commissione:

1. quali azioni intenda intraprendere a tutela delle aziende italiane ed entro quali termini temporali;

2. se e quali verifiche abbia espletato sul mercato dell'industria conciaria, soprattutto con i Paesi terzi,
evidenziando pratiche commerciali scorrette e sleali;

3. se intende avviare campagne di sensibilizzazione per il rilancio commerciale delle concerie italiane e per la
tutela generale di tutto il settore in Europa.

**Risposta di Karel De Gucht a nome della Commissione**

_(19 giugno 2013)_

La problematica della disponibilità di materie prime si trova in posizione di punta sull'agenda della Commissione da
quando, nel 2008, è stata adottata la «Iniziativa materie prime» ( [1] ) e si sono prese diverse iniziative per assicurare una
fornitura equa e sostenibile di materie prime dai mercati globali. La comunicazione intitolata «Affrontare le sfide
relative ai mercati dei prodotti di base» ( [2] ), che è stata sottoscritta dalla Commissione nel 2011, ha rinnovato questa
iniziativa confermandone l'elevata priorità politica e introducendo un ulteriore rafforzamento della sua componente
commerciale.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Comunicazione della Commissione al Parlamento europeo a al Consiglio — Iniziativa «Materie prime»: risponde ai nostri bisogni fondamentali

per garantire la crescita e creare posti di lavoro in Europa, COM(2008)0699 definitivo.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Comunicazione della Commissione al Parlamento europeo, al Consiglio, al Comitato economico e sociale europeo e al Comitato delle regioni —

Affrontare le sfide relative ai mercati dei prodotti di base e alle materie prime, COM(2011)25definitivo.

( **|**

C 80 E / 142 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

Per quanto riguarda l'industria unionale della concia, la Strategia commerciale dell'UE per le materie prime avviata
dalla Commissione ha già prodotto risultati positivi in termini di miglioramento dell'accesso alle materie prime: la
Commissione ha concluso di recente i negoziati di un accordo di libero scambio globale e approfondito con l'Ucraina
che prevede l'eliminazione dei dazi all'esportazione di pelli e cuoio greggi; al momento dell'adesione della Russia
all'OMC la Commissione ha negoziato l'impegno della Russia a ridurre significativamente e a vincolare le aliquote dei
dazi all'esportazione di tali pelli.

La Commissione continuerà a seguire i nuovi sviluppi in tema di restrizioni alle esportazioni e interverrà, se del caso,
nei confronti dei paesi terzi.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 143

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004918/13**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(2 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Italian tanneries and protectionist policies regarding raw material: EU measures

The Italian leather tanning industry accounts for 65% of all European production and 17% of global production, and
is the most important in Europe in terms of size. These figures are the result of the work of 1 300 tanneries which
provide employment for around 18 000 people. Italian tanneries have always stood out for the quality of their
products, achieved thanks to the continental raw material used; this has helped consolidate the ‘Made in Italy’ mark
on international markets. The footwear, clothing, furniture, automotive and leather goods industries are the most
important outlets for EU tanners’ production. The processing of hides and skins also generates other by-products
which find outlets in several industry sectors such as pet food production, fine chemicals for photography and
cosmetics, and soil conditioning and fertilisers. However, the Italian sector today finds itself in extreme difficulty for
two reasons: growing protectionism, which is blocking access to 50% of the raw material required; and the fact that
47% of the total raw material is acquired by competitors, particularly the Chinese. The lack of fresh supplies of raw
material is forcing Italian tanneries to turn down orders from various brands and multinationals.

Given that:

—
the import of raw material plays an essential role in the tanning industry;

—
supplies from abroad, originating in 128 countries, cover over 90% of industry needs;

—
the export of tanned hides to 116 countries accounts for three quarters of total sales;

—
to date, approximately half of the raw hides available at global level have been removed from the free European
market through the application of duties and other non-tariff barriers;

—
protectionist policies with regard to the raw material, put in place by extra-EU competitors such as China,
Ethiopia, Nigeria, Pakistan and India, are facilitated by the insufficient environmental and social requirements
of these countries;

—
this situation is leading to the collapse of the Italian tanning industry,

can the Commission state:

1. what action it will take to protect Italian firms and within what time frame;

2. whether and how it has examined the tanning market, especially with regard to third countries, and whether it
has uncovered unfair commercial practices;

3. whether it intends to launch awareness campaigns to promote the commercial recovery of Italian tanneries and
in general to protect the entire sector within the EU?

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

_(19 June 2013)_

The issue of availability of raw materials is high on the Commission's agenda since the adoption in 2008 of the ‘Raw
Material Initiative’ ( [1] ) and a number of steps have been successfully taken to ensure a fair and sustainable supply of
raw materials from global markets. The communication entitled ‘Tackling the challenges in commodity markets and
raw materials’ ( [2] ), which was endorsed by the Commission in 2011 renewed this initiative, confirming its high
political priority and further reinforcing its trade component.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, The raw materials initiative — meeting our critical needs for

growth and jobs in Europe: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0699:FIN:EN:PDF

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the

Committee of the Regions tackling the challenges in commodity markets and on raw materials.

( **|**

C 80 E / 144 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

As regards the EU tanning industry, the Commission’s Trade strategy for raw materials has already delivered positive
results to improve access to raw materials: the Commission recently concluded the negotiations on a Deep and
Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement with Ukraine providing for the elimination of export duties on raw hides and
skins; at the time of Russia’s accession to the WTO, the Commission negotiated Russia’s commitment to significantly
reduce and bind its export duty rates on raw hides and skins.

The Commission will continue monitoring new developments on export restrictions and taking action, when
necessary, vis-à-vis third countries.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 145

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004920/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(2 maggio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Nati prematuri: come garantire servizi migliori

Ogni anno in Europa nascono 500mila bambini prematuri, di cui 40mila solo in Italia. Questi neonati non sono
completamente sviluppati al momento della nascita e per questo devono completare la crescita in incubatrice e
adattarsi alla vita extrauterina e possono incorrere più facilmente in apnee improvvise. La ridotta ossigenazione può
causare problemi in età scolare, quali difficoltà nel mantenere costanti i livelli di attenzione e ritardi nel processo di
apprendimento. Questi motivi rendono necessari servizi ospedalieri specifici per i loro bisogni, così come per quelli
dei loro genitori. In particolare, per questi ultimi é frustrante dover accettare che il figlio sopravviva grazie a
un'incubatrice: l'aspetto psicologico non va, infatti, sottovalutato. Alcune esperienze in ambito europeo hanno
dimostrato quanto il latte materno e il contatto costante con i genitori, che comunicano al bambino una sensazione di
protezione e tranquillità, siano essenziali per il benessere psicofisico dei nati con parto pretermine. Il latte materno é
stato oggetto di studi che hanno contribuito a confermarne gli effetti nutritivi e terapeutici per garantire lo sviluppo
fisico e immunologico dei nati prematuri. Restano tuttavia da delineare criteri più precisi riguardo alla
somministrazione di latte, che tengano conto delle esigenze di ciascun bambino, poiché il latte materno non sembra
essere sufficiente. In Europa é stato recentemente realizzato un protocollo di assistenza che prevede cure di elevata
qualità da parte di personale qualificato in ambienti confortevoli che favoriscono la presenza e il coinvolgimento dei
genitori.

Considerato che:

—
nonostante i progressi in ambito medico e la presenza di strutture ospedaliere all'avanguardia, in alcune zone
europee non si é ancora in grado di garantire ai neonati prematuri assistenza e cure all'altezza dei loro bisogni.

Sono a chiedere alla Commissione se ritenga di dover appoggiare nuovi studi sui bambini nati prematuramente, onde
prevenire problemi fisici e cognitivi nel loro futuro che non solo li riguardano direttamente ma coinvolgono anche i
genitori.

**Risposta di Máire Geoghegan-Quinn a nome della Commissione**

_(14 giugno 2013)_

La Commissione riconosce che, nonostante i significativi miglioramenti degli ultimi decenni, le mamme e i loro
bambini sono tuttora a rischio nel periodo perinatale, che comprende la gravidanza, il parto e il periodo post-parto.

Diversi progetti di ricerca in questo settore sono finanziati dal 7 [o] PQ ( [1] ) Un esempio è il progetto BraDiMo ( [2] ), che si
occupa di ricercare nuove possibilità per migliorare il monitoraggio nei reparti di cura intensiva neonatale per
proteggere il cervello del neonato in caso di nascita prematura o asfissia.

Il progetto THE HIP TRIAL ( [3] ), finanziato in virtù delle disposizioni del regolamento pediatrico europeo ( [4] ), è una
sperimentazione randomizzata controllata che intende gestire l'ipotensione nei neonati altamente prematuri.

PREVENTROP ( [5] ) è uno dei progetti sulle malattie rare volti allo sviluppo di un nuovo intervento preventivo per la
retinopatia della prematurità e altre complicazioni della nascita prematura.

La Commissione ha inoltre sostenuto alcuni progetti nel settore della salute perinatale attraverso il programma
dell'UE per la salute, ad esempio le reti di esperti Europeristat ( [6] ), al fine di individuare le prassi migliori, nonché di
sviluppare ed elaborare indicatori validi e affidabili per la sorveglianza della salute perinatale nell'UE.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

⋅5∙ **|** )

⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Settimo programma quadro di ricerca, sviluppo tecnologico e dimostrazione ( 7 [o] PQ, 2007-2013).
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) BraDiMo — 254235 — _Brain Diagnostics and Monitoring in early neonatal period:_ [http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/rcn/96510_it.html](http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/rcn/96510_it.html)
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) [THE HIP TRIAL — 260777 — Gestione dell'ipotensione nei neonati altamente prematuri http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/rcn/96983_en.html .](http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/rcn/96983_it.html)
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) GU L 378 del 27/12/2006 (regolamento n. 1901/2006 relativo ai medicinali per uso pediatrico e che modifica il regolamento (CEE) n. 1768/92,

la direttiva 2001/20/CE, la direttiva 2001/83/CE e il regolamento (CE) n. 726/2004.

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) PREVENTROP — 305485 — Un nuovo approccio alla cura della Retinopatia della prematurità

[http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/rcn/105874_it.html](http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/rcn/105874_it.html)

( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) http://www.europeristat.com/our-project/about-euro-peristat.html

( **|**

( **|**

C 80 E / 146 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

Inoltre, vengono erogati finanziamenti anche per le tabelle di marcia di azioni quali CHICOS ( [7] ), RICHE ( [8] ), ed
EPICE ( [9] ) per definire le priorità di ricerca basata su un approccio globale delle esigenze in Europa. I risultati della
ricerca dei progetti summenzionati dovranno probabilmente essere presi in considerazione durante l'attuazione del
programma Orizzonte 2020, il prossimo Programma quadro dell'Unione europea per la ricerca e l'innovazione.

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

⋅7∙ **|** )
⋅8∙ **|** )
⋅9∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) CHICOS - 241604 - Sviluppo di una strategia di ricerca per coorte infantile www.chicosproject.eu
( **|** ⋅8∙ **|** ) RICHE - 242181 - Una piattaforma e un repertorio della ricerca pediatrica in Europa www.childhealthresearch.eu
( **|** ⋅9∙ **|** ) EPICE — 259882 — Effective Perinatal Intensive Care in Europe: Trasformare la conoscenza in prassi basate sull'esperienza

[http://www.epiceproject.eu/](http://www.epiceproject.eu/)

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 147

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004920/13**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(2 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Providing better services for premature babies

Each year, 500 000 premature babies are born in Europe, including 40 000 in Italy alone. These newborns are not
fully developed when they are born, and must therefore complete their development in an incubator and adapt to life
outside the womb. They are also more likely to suffer from sudden episodes of apnoea. This reduced oxygenation
may cause problems when they reach school age, such as difficulties with concentration and learning difficulties. For
the above reasons it is necessary to provide specific hospital services to meet their needs, and those of their parents. In
particular, it is frustrating for parents to have to accept that an incubator is keeping their child alive: indeed, the
psychological aspect must not be underestimated. Certain experiments in Europe have shown just how vital it is for a
premature baby to be given breast milk and to have constant contact with his parents, who transmit a sense of
protection and calm to him, in order to ensure his physical and mental wellbeing. Studies on breast milk have helped
confirm its nutritional and therapeutic effects for the physical and immunological development of premature babies.
However, more precise criteria for the administration of milk still need to be defined. These should take into account
the needs of individual babies, since breast milk alone does not appear to suffice. In Europe, an assistance protocol has
recently been established which provides for high-quality treatment by qualified staff in comfortable environments,
promoting the presence and involvement of parents.

Despite progress in medicine and the existence of state-of-the-art hospitals, some areas of Europe are not yet able to
provide premature babies with the care and treatment which they require.

Does the Commission believe it necessary to support new studies on premature babies in order to prevent physical
and cognitive problems as they grow up, which affect not only the children directly, but also their parents?

**Answer given by Ms Geoghegan-Quinn on behalf of the Commission**

_(14 June 2013)_

The Commission acknowledges that, despite significant improvements in recent decades, mothers and their babies
are still at risk during the perinatal period, which covers pregnancy, delivery, and the post-partum period.

A number of research projects in this area are being funded through FP7 ( [1] ). For example, the project BraDiMo ( [2] ) is
researching ways of improving the monitoring in neonatal intensive care units to protect the neonatal brain in cases
of preterm birth or asphyxia.

The HIP TRIAL ( [3] ), funded through the provisions of the EU Paediatric Regulation ( [4] ), is a randomised controlled trial
seeking to manage hypotension in the Preterm Extremely Low Gestational Age Newborn.

PREVENTROP ( [5] ) is one of the projects on rare diseases aiming to develop a novel preventive intervention for the
blinding disease retinopathy of prematurity and other complications of pre-term birth.

The Commission has also supported projects in the area of perinatal health through the EU Health Programme, for
instance the Europeristat ( [6] ), in order to identify best practices and to develop and compile valid and reliable
indicators for the surveillance of perinatal health in the EU.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

⋅5∙ **|** )

⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) The Seventh Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (FP7, 2007-2013).
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) BraDiMo — 254235 — Brain Diagnostics and Monitoring in early neonatal period http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/rcn/96510_en.html
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) THE HIP TRIAL — 260777 — Management of Hypotension In the Preterm Extremely Low Gestational Age Newborn

http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/rcn/96983_en.html

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) OJ L 378, 27/12/2006 (Regulation N)1901/2006 on medicinal products for paediatric use and amending Regulation (EEC) N) 1768/92,

Directive 2001/20/EC, Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004.

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) PREVENTROP — 305485 — New approach to treatment of the blinding disease Retinopathy of Prematurity

http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/rcn/105874_en.html

( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) http://www.europeristat.com/our-project/about-euro-peristat.html

( **|**

( **|**

( **|**

C 80 E / 148 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

In addition, funding is also given for roadmap actions such as CHICOS ( [7] ), RICHE ( [8] ), and EPICE ( [9] ) for defining
research priorities based on a comprehensive needs approach in Europe. Research outcomes of the abovementioned
projects will likely be taken into consideration when putting into practice the programme of Horizon 2020, the next
EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation.

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

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

( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) CHICOS — 241604 — Developing a Child Cohort Research Strategy for Europe www.chicosproject.eu
( **|** ⋅8∙ **|** ) RICHE — 242181 — A platform and inventory for child health research in Europe www.childhealthresearch.eu
( **|** ⋅9∙ **|** ) EPICE — 259882 — Effective Perinatal Intensive Care in Europe: Translating knowledge into evidence-based practice http://www.epiceproject.eu/

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 149

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004921/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Claudio Morganti (EFD)**

_(3 maggio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Condizione dei minori presso «Il Forteto»

Negli scorsi giorni in Italia si è tornati a parlare della situazione riguardante «Il Forteto», comunità e cooperativa
agricola nel Mugello toscano, alla quale a partire dagli anni Settanta sono stati dati in affidamento molti minori
provenienti da contesti difficili.

Di recente sono emerse nuove denunce di maltrattamenti e vessazioni a carattere fisico, morale e sessuale, cui sono
stati sottoposti i minori ospiti di questa struttura, che aveva già visto i suoi vertici condannati nel 1985 dalla Corte di
Appello di Firenze per maltrattamenti e abusi sessuali.

In seguito si è avuta anche una sentenza della Corte europea dei diritti dell'uomo che ha, nel 2000, condannato l'Italia
per l'affidamento al Forteto di due bambini figli di italiani emigrati in Belgio, a motivo di trattamenti giudicati non
conformi alla Convenzione per la salvaguardia dei diritti dell'uomo.

Nonostante tutto questo fino al 2009 si è continuato a dare in affidamento minori e ancora oggi vi sono numerosi
giovani ospitati presso il Forteto, che negli anni ha inoltre goduto di numerosi finanziamenti pubblici, in parte anche
provenienti da fondi europei, come stabilito nella relazione finale della Commissione d'inchiesta istituita dal Consiglio
Regionale della Toscana, relazione approvata all'unanimità nel gennaio 2013.

Può la Commissione indicare se effettivamente sono stati concessi finanziamenti comunitari a questa struttura e, in
caso affermativo, di quale entità, a quale scopo e con quali garanzie?

**Risposta di Dacian Cioloș a nome della Commissione**

_(25 giugno 2013)_

La selezione dei beneficiari nell’ambito dei programmi di sviluppo rurale dell’UE è di competenza delle autorità
nazionali e, nel caso dell’Italia, di quelle regionali.

Tuttavia, nell’attuazione del regolamento finanziario ( [1] ) e del regolamento del Fondo europeo agricolo per lo sviluppo
rurale (FEASR) ( [2] ), gli Stati membri devono rispettare le disposizioni definite nella Carta dei diritti fondamentali
dell’Unione europea ( [3] ).

Pertanto, al fine di verificare eventuali finanziamenti del FEASR alla cooperativa «Il Forteto» e ottenere chiarimenti
sulle condizioni che è necessario soddisfare per ricevere il sostegno, la Commissione chiederà informazioni dettagliate
alla Regione Toscana tenendo conto delle responsabilità nella gestione concorrente.

Si conferma, inoltre, che la cooperativa «Il Forteto» non ha ricevuto alcun finanziamento del Fondo europeo di
sviluppo regionale.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regolamento (UE, EURATOM) n. 966/2012 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio che stabilisce le regole finanziarie applicabili al bilancio

generale dell’Unione e che abroga il regolamento (CE, EURATOM) n. 1605/2002, del 25 ottobre 2012.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Regolamento (CE) n. 1698/2005 del Consiglio, del 20 settembre 2005, sul sostegno allo sviluppo rurale da parte del Fondo europeo agricolo per

lo sviluppo rurale (FEASR).

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Cfr. l’articolo 51, paragrafo 1, della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’Unione europea.

( **|**

( **|**

C 80 E / 150 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004921/13**

**to the Commission**
**Claudio Morganti (EFD)**

_(3 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Situation of minors at ‘Il Forteto’

Recently, discussion in Italy has once again turned to ‘Il Forteto’, which is an agricultural cooperative and community
in the Mugello region of Tuscany, where many minors from difficult backgrounds have been sent for fostering since
the 1970s.

Fresh cases have recently come to light of ill-treatment and physical, moral and sexual abuse of minors at Il Forteto,
the senior members of which had already been convicted of such offences by the Florence Court of Appeal in 1985.

This had been followed by a European Court of Human Rights ruling against Italy in 2000 for breach of the European
Convention on Human Rights following the ill treatment at Il Forteto of two children of Italian nationals who had
emigrated to Belgium.

Despite all this, minors continued to be sent for fostering at Il Forteto until 2009, and still today there are many
young people at the cooperative, which has received a lot of public funding over the years, including from European
Funds, as was established in the final report by the Commission of Inquiry set up by Tuscany Regional Council that
was unanimously adopted in January 2013.

Can the Commission state whether EU funding was indeed granted to this cooperative? If so, how much, for what
purpose and with what guarantees?

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

_(25 June 2013)_

The selection of beneficiaries under EU Rural Development Programmes is the responsibility of national authorities
and in the case of Italy of regional authorities.

Nevertheless, when implementing the Financial Regulation ( [1] ) and the European Agriculture Fund for Rural
Development (EAFRD) Regulation ( [2] ), the Member States must respect the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental
Rights of the European Union ( [3] ).

Therefore, in order to verify possible EAFRD funding to the cooperative ‘Il Forteto’, and obtain clarifications on the
conditions which need to be met to receive support, the Commission will ask detailed information to the Region
Toscana in the light of shared management responsibilities.

In relation to the European Regional Development Fund we can confirm that the cooperative ‘Il Forteto’ has not
received any funding.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of

the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, 25 October 2012.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural

Development (EAFRD).

( ⋅3∙ ) See Article 51.1 of the EU Charter.

( **|**

( **|**

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 151

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-004923/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Michael Cramer (Verts/ALE)**

_(3. Mai 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Schutz von Tieren beim Transport — Zahl der Inspektoren im Lebensmittel‐ und Veterinäramt (LVA)

Im Lebensmittel‐ und Veterinäramt der Kommission (LVA) sind fünf Inspektoren dafür zuständig, die Einhaltung der
Anforderungen der EU-Rechtsvorschriften über das Wohlbefinden von Tieren innerhalb der EU und in Drittländern,
die in die EU exportieren, zu überprüfen ( [1] ). Ihre Inspektionen betreffen nicht nur den Schutz von Tieren beim
Transport, sondern alle durch die EU-Rechtsvorschriften über das Wohlbefinden von Tieren geregelten
Angelegenheiten.

Es ist offensichtlich, dass fünf LVA-Inspektoren keine angemessene Beurteilung der Einhaltung und der Umsetzung
der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1/2005 des Rates über den Schutz von Tieren beim Transport in allen 27 Mitgliedstaaten
gewährleisten können. Daher wird die Kommission gebeten, folgende Fragen zu beantworten:

1. Hat die Kommission die Absicht, die Zahl der Inspektoren des LVA deutlich zu erhöhen? Falls ja, wann, und wie
viele zusätzliche Inspektoren werden eingestellt? Falls nicht, warum nicht?

2. Die Kommission hat in ihrer Antwort auf die schriftliche Anfrage P-002218/2013 des Fragestellers darauf
hingewiesen, dass sie die Höhe der Sanktionen „weiter im Rahmen von Prüfungen durch das Lebensmittel‐ und
Veterinäramt der Generaldirektion Gesundheit und Verbraucher untersuchen und gegebenenfalls Maßnahmen
zur Behebung festgestellter Mängel empfehlen“ werde. Wie will die Kommission ihrer Rolle als Hüterin der
Verträge gerecht werden und in allen 27 Mitgliedstaaten für die Umsetzung der Anforderung nach Artikel 25
der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1/2005, wirksame, verhältnismäßige und abschreckende Sanktionen festzulegen,
sorgen, insbesondere vor dem Hintergrund, dass die Verordnung seit mehr als acht Jahren in Kraft ist und
Artikel 25 noch immer nicht angemessen umgesetzt wurde.

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

_(24. Juni 2013)_

1. Die vom Herrn Abgeordneten vorgeschlagene personelle Aufstockung ist wegen der begrenzten Zahl der
Stellen, die der Kommission zur Verfügung stehen, nicht möglich. Die Kommission unternimmt jedoch weitere
Schritte, um den Ressourceneinsatz zu optimieren, indem sie beispielsweise Experten aus den Mitgliedstaaten
miteinander in Kontakt bringt, damit diese untereinander Vorgehensweisen austauschen können, die sich bei der
Durchsetzung von EU-Rechtsvorschriften bewährt haben.

2. Inwieweit ein Mitgliedstaat sich an die EU-Vorschriften hält, bewertet die Kommission gesamthaft und nicht auf
der Grundlage einzelner Artikel. Die Kommission ist daher der Ansicht, dass sie ihren Pflichten trotz der beschränkten
Sanktionsmöglichkeiten (siehe die Antworten auf die schriftlichen Anfragen E-6833/2012 und P-2218/2013 ( [2] ))
nachkommen kann.

Eines der Hauptziele des kürzlich angenommenen Kommissionsbeschlusses betreffend die Jahresberichte über
Kontrollen von Tiertransporten ( [3] ) besteht darin, dass die Mitgliedstaaten bessere und besser vergleichbare Daten über
die Zahl und das Ergebnis der durchgeführten amtlichen Kontrollen vorlegen müssen. Dies dürfte die Mitgliedstaaten
und die Kommission in die Lage versetzen, genauer zu beurteilen, wo die Durchsetzungs‐ und Auditressourcen am
effektivsten eingesetzt werden sollten.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) [http://ec.europa.eu/staffdir/plsql/gsys_www.branch?pLang=DE&pId=2291&pDisplayAll=0](http://ec.europa.eu/staffdir/plsql/gsys_www.branch?pLang=DE&pId=2291&pDisplayAll=0)

Siehe auch parlamentarische Anfrage E-011393/2011.

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

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

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

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Durchführungsbeschluss der Kommission vom 18. April 2013 betreffend die Jahresberichte über nichtdiskriminierende

Kontrollen gemäß der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1/2005 über den Schutz von Tieren beim Transport und damit
zusammenhängenden Vorgängen (2013/188/EU). ABl. L 111 vom 23.4.2013, S. 107.

C 80 E / 152 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004923/13**

**to the Commission**
**Michael Cramer (Verts/ALE)**

_(3 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Protection of animals during transport — Number of inspectors at FVO

The Commission’s Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) has five inspectors dedicated to checking compliance with the
requirements of EU animal welfare legislation within the EU and in third countries exporting to the EU ( [1] ). Their
inspections relate not only to the protection of animals during transport, but also to all issues of EU animal welfare
legislation.

It is evident that five FVO inspectors cannot guarantee an adequate level of assessment of compliance with and
enforcement of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport in 27 Member
States. The Commission is therefore asked to answer the following:

1. Is it planning to increase the number of FVO inspectors considerably? If so, when, and how many additional
inspectors will be employed? If not, why not?

2. In its reply to my Written Question P-002218/2013 the Commission stated that it would ‘continue to evaluate
the level of penalties during audits carried out by the Food and Veterinary Office of the Commission’s Health
and Consumers Directorate-General (FVO) and to recommend corrective action in case of identified
shortcomings’. How will the Commission fulfil its role as guardian of the Treaties by enforcing in all
27 Member States the requirement under Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 to provide for a level of
penalties which is effective, proportionate and dissuasive, particularly in the light of the fact that the regulation
has been in force for more than eight years now and that Article 25 is still not being adequately enforced?

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

_(24 June 2013)_

1. The human resources constraints of the Commission do not allow for an increase of number of staff as
suggested by the Honourable Member. However, the Commission is taking further steps to deploy its resources more
effectively, for example by bringing together experts from the Member States to share best practices in the
enforcement of the EU legislation.

2. The Commission evaluates a Member State's level of implementation of EU legislation from an overall point of
view, and not based on single articles. The Commission therefore believes that despite limited possibilities in relation
to penalties, as explained in the replies to written questions E-6833/2012 and P-2218/2013 ( [2] ), the Commission is
able to carry out its duties.

Furthermore one of the main objectives of the recently adopted Commission Decision on Member States' annual
reports on controls of animal transports ( [3] ), requires better and more comparable data from the Member States
regarding the number and outcome of performed official controls. This can be expected to allow Member States and
the Commission to assess more precisely where enforcement and audit resources can best be deployed to greater
effect,

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/staffdir/plsql/gsys_www.branch?pLang=EN&pId=2291&pDisplayAll=0; see also Parliamentary Question E-011393/2011.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Commission implementing Decision of 18 April 2013 on annual reports on non-discriminatory inspections carried out pursuant to Council

Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport, 2013/188/EU. OJ L 111, 23.4.2013, p. 107.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 153

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004924/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Nessa Childers (S&D)**

_(3 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Persecution of Iranian Christians

Iranian Christians — and particularly those from a Muslim background who have converted to Christianity — are
reported to often suffer persecution, violence, false accusations and imprisonment. Currently there are at least 20
Christians in prison in inhumane conditions in Iran, several of whom are under death sentences.

One of these is Pastor Farshid Fathi, who was arrested in 2010 and is serving a six-year sentence in the notorious Evin
prison, where Christians and political activists are held in cells along with murderers, rapists and terrorists. Farshid
had Bibles printed in the Farsi language for distribution to Iranians and was in possession of Christian literature. He
spent almost a year in solitary confinement and is now held in a general cell with other prisoners, many of whom are
incarcerated for violent crimes.

Pastor Farshid’s wife Leila and their two children, Rosanna and Bardia, have recently been offered asylum in Canada,
where they are now living.

Can the High Representative advise as to what action is being taken to progress the case of Mr Farshid and secure his
release?

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

_(10 July 2013)_

The case of pastor Fathi is one of too many cases of discrimination and persecution based on religion or belief.
Respect of freedom of religion and belief constitutes an essential pillar of EU’s present and future relations with Iran.

Over the course of last year, the HR/VP issued several statements advocating the rights of religious minorities in Iran,
including Christians, and also raising individual cases. Furthermore, the EU raises human rights issues in meetings
with Iranian representatives, at all levels. In this context, the EU does its utmost to acquire accurate information on
the human rights situation on the ground through the local EU representations. Additionally, the EU imposed
sanctions on 87 Iranian individuals who are responsible, directly or by order, for severe human rights abuses in Iran.
These sanctions include a travel ban inside the EU and an asset-freeze.

The Foreign Affairs Council adopted EU guidelines on the promotion and protection of freedom of religion or belief
at its 3250th Council meeting on 24 June 2013. These guidelines give EU officials worldwide specific tools and
guidance to help addressing this universal human right in the most practical way.

The EU will continue to call on the Iranian authorities to ensure that Iranian citizens enjoy full respect and protection
of the rights granted to them by the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, to which Iran has subscribed.

C 80 E / 154 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-004925/13**

**aan de Commissie**
**Esther de Lange (PPE)**

_(3 mei 2013)_

_Betreft:_ Tekorten Europees babymelkpoeder door explosief toegenomen vraag in China

Vanwege de explosief toegenomen vraag naar Europees babymelkpoeder in China ontstaan er tekorten op de
Europese markt. De producenten hebben de productie opgeschroefd, maar vanwege de vele Chinezen die
babymelkpoeder opkopen in Nederlandse winkels en naar hun thuisland sturen slinkt de voorraad voor de
Nederlandse consumenten.

1. Welke maatregelen neemt de Commissie om voldoende babymelkpoederproducten binnen Europa te
behouden ter bediening van de Europese consument?

2. In welke mate neemt de Commissie de vraag naar zuivelproducten buiten de EU mee in haar analyses over de
marktverwachtingen van de Europese zuivelmarkt?

3. In hoeverre vindt de Commissie, mede gezien deze ontwikkelingen, het wenselijk dat ook na het aflopen van het
quotasysteem op de zuivelmarkt de Europese zuivelproductie nog verregaand gereguleerd zal worden, zoals enkele
lidstaten bepleiten?

**Antwoord van de heer Cioloș namens de Commissie**

_(26 juni 2013)_

1. Het behouden of opleggen van beperkingen voor producten die particuliere bedrijven vrij in de handel brengen,
behoort niet tot het takenpakket van de Commissie. In elk geval voorziet de melksector in de Europese Unie niet
alleen in de interne, maar ook in de externe vraag naar zuivelproducten.

2. Bij het opstellen van de marktverwachtingen houdt de Commissie, net als bij de korte‐ en
middellangetermijnvooruitzichten ( [1] ) voor de zuivelmarkten, de macro‐economische situatie en de wereldwijde vraag
naar zuivelproducten systematisch in het oog.

3. Het standpunt van de Commissie over de regulering van de zuivelmarkt blijkt uit de wetgevingvoorstellen voor
de GLB‐hervorming, meer bepaald het voorstel voor een integrale gemeenschappelijke marktordening ( [2] ). Hierbij
dient te worden opgemerkt dat de GLB‐onderhandelingen tussen de Commissie, de Raad en het Europees Parlement
nog steeds lopen en er dus nog geen definitief akkoord is bereikt.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/markets-and-prices/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-2013/legal-proposals/com626/626_nl.pdf

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 155

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004925/13**

**to the Commission**
**Esther de Lange (PPE)**

_(3 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Shortages of European baby milk powder due to huge rise in demand in China

Because of the enormous rise in demand for European baby milk powder in China, shortages are occurring on the
European market. Producers have stepped up production, but because many Chinese people are buying up baby milk
powder in Dutch shops and sending it back to their home country, the supply available to Dutch consumers is
dwindling.

1. What measures will the Commission take to retain enough baby milk powder products in Europe to meet the
needs of European consumers?

2. To what extent does the Commission take account of demand for dairy products outside the EU when analysing
likely trends on the European market for dairy products?

3. To what extent does the Commission consider it desirable, _inter alia_ in the light of these developments, that,
even after the dairy products quota system is abolished, European dairy production should still be extensively
regulated, which some Member States are calling for?

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

_(26 June 2013)_

1. It is not in the Commission's remit to retain or impose limitations in the products freely marketed by private
companies. In any case, the European Union is more than self-sufficient in the milk sector; it does not only satisfy the
needs of domestic consumers but is also meeting external demand for dairy products.

2. The Commission systematically looks at the macroeconomic environment and the global demand of dairy
products when making its market prospects, as it is the case for the short and medium term outlooks ( [1] ) for dairy
markets.

3. The position of the Commission on the regulation of the dairy market is reflected in the legal proposals for the
CAP reform, more particularly in the proposal for a single Common Market Organisation ( [2] ). However, the
negotiations on the CAP reform between the Commission, the Council and the European parliament are still on
going, so a final agreement has not been reached yet.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/markets-and-prices/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-2013/legal-proposals/com626/626_en.pdf

C 80 E / 156 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004926/13**

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

_(6 de mayo de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Reforma del Port Vell de Barcelona

El Ayuntamiento de Barcelona ha realizado una propuesta sobre la reforma y la modificación del uso del Port Vell de
la ciudad. Esta propuesta pretende la privatización del espacio urbano de la ciudad para la construcción de un puerto
deportivo de lujo y servicios asociados. Esta reforma del puerto supone la pérdida de espacio público y de los lazos
tradicionales que la ciudad ha tenido con el mar. La construcción de la marina de lujo incrementaría las desigualdades
en la zona y podría provocar un proceso que podría expulsar del barrio a sus actuales habitantes.

Barcelona es una ciudad con una especial e histórica relación con el mar; su población, su cultura y sus tradiciones se
encuentran fuertemente vinculadas a los espacios públicos volcados al mar. Estas modificaciones han tenido severos
impactos sobre dichos espacios y sobre la vida de los habitantes que las han sufrido, pero la modificación ante la que
nos encontramos ahora es mucho más grave. Se trata de una modificación del espacio público para privatizarlo y
ponerlo al servicio del sector de las embarcaciones de lujo; se trata de arrancar un espacio que pertenece a la ciudad
para convertirlo en un centro de recreo de millonarios.

La legislación europea en materia de declaración de impacto ambiental en proyectos como este se encuentra en la
Directiva 2011/92/UE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo. En dicha directiva se específica su competencia en el
caso de la construcción de puertos deportivos y además se recogen y por tanto garantizan los derechos de los
ciudadanos a ser debidamente informados durante el proceso (art. 9), y que los ciudadanos que aleguen el menoscabo
de un derecho puedan hacer alegaciones a los proyectos de la administración competente. En el caso del Port Vell son
numerosos los ciudadanos de la ciudad de Barcelona que se ven afectados; la pérdida del uso y disfrute de espacios
cercanos al mar afecta a la calidad de vida de los ciudadanos y por tanto deben tener derecho a alegar y presentar
recursos ante dicho proyecto. En el presente proyecto los vecinos del barrio de la Barceloneta han denunciado que no
se les ha facilitado información ninguna y que el proyecto carece de declaración de impacto ambiental.

¿Piensa solicitar la Comisión al Ayuntamiento de Barcelona la declaración de impacto ambiental pertinente que según
las denuncias de los vecinos no existe? ¿Considera que dicho Ayuntamiento está cumpliendo los artículos citados de
la Directiva 2011/92/UE? ¿Piensa abrir un procedimiento de infracción de confirmarse el incumplimiento de dicha
Directiva?

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

_(21 de junio de 2013)_

En su respuesta a la pregunta escrita E-005242/2012, la Comisión indicaba que podría ser de aplicación la Directiva
2011/92/UE ( [1] ) (denominada «Directiva de evaluación del impacto ambiental»), en función de las características del
proyecto.

De la actual pregunta escrita se desprende que el proyecto ya ha sido aprobado, por lo que la Comisión ha pedido a las
autoridades españolas competentes información que le permita evaluar si se cumplen los requisitos correspondientes
de la normativa de la UE en materia de medio ambiente.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) DO L 26 de 28.1.2012, pp.1-16 (versión codificada de la Directiva 85/337/CEE del Consejo, relativa a la evaluación de las repercusiones de
determinados proyectos públicos y privados sobre el medioambiente, modificada).

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 157

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004926/13**

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

_(6 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Renovation of Barcelona's Port Vell

Barcelona City Council has produced a proposal to renovate the city's Port Vell harbour and change the way in which
it is used. Under the proposal, the city's urban area would be privatised in order to build a luxury marina offering
associated services. This refurbishment of the port entails the loss of public space and of the city's traditional links to
the sea. Construction of the luxury marina would add to inequality in the area and could trigger a process of forcing
current residents to leave the neighbourhood.

Barcelona is a city with a special, longstanding relationship with the sea. Its inhabitants, culture and traditions are
closely linked to public spaces situated along the coast. Past changes have had a harsh impact on the areas mentioned
above and on the lives of inhabitants who have been affected by them. The renovation with which we are now faced,
however, is much more serious. A public space will be renovated in order to privatise it and make it available to
luxury vessels. The aim is to snatch an area from the city to which it belongs and convert it into a millionaires'
playground.

European legislation on environmental impact assessments for projects such as this one is contained in
Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council. This directive applies specifically to the
construction of marinas and, moreover, it recognises and therefore guarantees the right of citizens to be duly
informed throughout the process (Article 9). It also states that citizens claiming their rights have not been respected
may lodge complaints about the competent authority’s projects. In the Port Vell case, many inhabitants of Barcelona
are affected. The loss of the ability to use and enjoy areas close to the sea affects the quality of life of its inhabitants
who should therefore have the right to lodge complaints and appeal against the project. Regarding this project,
residents of the Barceloneta neighbourhood have complained that no information has been provided to them and
that no environmental impact assessment has been carried out for the project.

Does the Commission intend to ask Barcelona City Council for the environmental impact assessment required which,
according to the complaints of locals, does not exist? Does the Commission believe that the City Council is complying
with the articles of Directive 2011/92/EU mentioned above? Does the Commission intend to open infringement
proceedings if non‐compliance with this directive is confirmed?

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

_(21 June 2013)_

In its answer to Written Question E-005242/2012, the Commission stated that Directive 2011/92/EU ( [1] ) (known as
the Environmental Impact Assessment or EIA Directive) could be relevant, depending on the characteristics of the
project.

It appears from the current Written Question that the project has already been approved. Therefore, the Commission
has requested information from the competent Spanish authorities in order to assess compliance with the relevant
requirements under EU environmental law.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 26, 28.1.2012, p.1-16 (codified version of Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
environment, as amended).

C 80 E / 158 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004927/13**

**to the Commission**

**Jim Higgins (PPE)**

_(6 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Bus competition and access to publicly funded bus stations and transport infrastructure in the Republic of
Ireland

With respect to its answer to Question E-000319/2013, as we approach the end of the first half of 2013, could the
Commission provide an update as to when exactly the report will be completed?

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

_(27 June 2013)_

The Commission will endeavour to adopt a final decision in case SA.20580 (C31/2007) as early as possible in the
second half of 2013. The original adoption planning had to be revised in the light of a recent judgment of the General
Court of the European Union ( [1] ). The consequences of this judgment had to be considered carefully for a number of
ongoing state aid investigations, including this case.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2013 in Case T-92/10, _Andersen_ v _Commission_ .

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 159

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004928/13**

**to the Commission**

**Jim Higgins (PPE)**

_(6 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Tobacco Products Directive

As revised, the EU’s Tobacco Products Directive proposes to raise the minimum roll-your-own (RYO) pack size to
40g.

Does the Commission have any concerns that raising the minimum RYO pack size to 40g will prompt even more
consumers to purchase packs via illicit channels? Does it have any plans in place to regulate against this?

The new proposal may lead to changes in business practices and to job losses. Does the Commission have any plans
in place to limit the impact on businesses?

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

_(24 June 2013)_

The Commission has no information suggesting that increasing the lower limit of roll-your-own pack sizes to 40g
would lead to an increase in illicit trade. The proposed Directive introduces strong measures to prevent and reduce illicit
trade: a tracking and tracing system at packet level including security features. These measures will protect the legal trade
in tobacco products, increase consumer awareness, and facilitate market surveillance and law enforcement to detect
illicit products. Therefore, the Commission estimates that the proposal for a revised Tobacco Products Directive will lead
to less, rather than more, illicit trade.

Regarding the second point of the Honourable Member, the Commission has estimated the possible effects if the
proposed measures on employment in the impact assessment accompanying the legal proposal. Based on a possible
drop in tobacco consumption of 2% in five years after the entry into force of the directive, it is estimated that 5 700
jobs would be lost in the tobacco sector in the European Union as a whole over five years. However, this would be
compensated by the creation of approximately 8 000 new jobs in other sectors as a result of ex-smokers' increased
expenditure in other goods or services that require more workers than the automated production of cigarettes.

C 80 E / 160 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004929/13**

**to the Commission**
**Linda McAvan (S&D), David Martin (S&D) and Michael Cashman (S&D)**

_(6 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Everything But Arms agreement with Cambodia and human rights

We have recently become aware of concerns over the potential negative implications of the EU’s Everything But Arms
agreement with Cambodia. They relate to the actions of some sugar companies and their associates towards local
communities in the context of economic land concessions. These actions include: the clearing of land and the
planting of non-native crops and trees; forced evictions and the displacement and relocation of people from their
homes and farm lands; intimidation and violence by armed security guards, some of whom are members of the Royal
Cambodian Armed Forces while others are privately employed; and the lack of effective remedy or recourse for
affected communities. These concerns were highlighted in the latest report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the
situation of human rights in Cambodia, issued in September 2012.

What contact does the Commission have with the Cambodian Government with regard to human rights and the
human rights implications of economic land concessions in the country? Further to its response of 12 April 2013 to
Written Question P-002679/2013 ( [1] ), does the Commission believe Cambodia is making progress and, if not, is it
now considering investigating the human rights situation in the sugar industry with a view to suspending trade
preferences?

As the Commission is aware, the Everything But Arms scheme within the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) can
be temporarily suspended in the event of serious and systematic human rights abuses. Will the Commission consider
formally investigating these allegations concerning Cambodia within the framework of the GSP?

Does the Commission agree that all its agreements with third countries must include non‐negotiable and binding
human rights clauses that are more enforceable?

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

_(2 July 2013)_

Further to the Commission's response to previous Written Question P-002679/2013, the EU is closely following the
situation in Cambodia, in particular the implementation of the initiatives undertaken since June 2012 by the
Cambodian Government to address land management issues, such as the moratorium on Economic Land
Concessions and the land titling campaign. On the latter, the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Cambodia,
Professor Surya P Subedi, recently acknowledged at the end of his mission to Cambodia at the end of May 2013 the
positive developments resulting from the private land titling programme, while encouraging further steps.

The Commission continues to monitor the situation within the context of the Generalized System of Preferences. In
particular, the Commission will carefully examine the upcoming conclusions of the Human Rights Council and the
monitoring bodies of the individual core human rights conventions, with a view to ascertain whether serious and
systematic violations are denounced. If the conditions for the activation of formal withdrawal procedures are met, the
Commission is ready to take action.

The EU promotes human rights in all areas of its relations with Cambodia and is always seeking constructive and
positive engagement with the country, while constantly reaffirming the core values of its human rights policy.

Since 1995, the Commission has sought to insert a binding human rights clause into political framework agreements,
and this policy now applies to new political framework agreements with all third countries. Action 33(b) of the
Human Rights Action plan provides that the HR/VP will develop criteria for the application of the human rights
clause and work is underway on the development of these criteria.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=P-2013-002679&language=EN.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 161

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004930/13**

**to the Commission**
**Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE)**

_(6 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ UK ‘bedroom tax’

On 1 April 2013 the UK Government cut its financial assistance to those living in social housing. The cut is
dependent on the number of additional bedrooms unused by the claimant and has been described as a ‘bedroom tax’.
A room is considered ‘spare’ if it is that of a foster child, or, in certain cases, is being used to store life-saving or lifeprolonging equipment.

Does the Commission believe the bedroom tax goes against the recommendations made regarding social exclusion
and poverty, as announced in the Social Investment Package?

Secondly, could the Commission advise whether there are other countries within the EU that have a similar system
penalising claimants for having ‘spare rooms’?

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

_(4 July 2013)_

For designing and implementing housing and taxation policies, Member States have the primary competence, the
Commission's role is to complement and support their activities. The Commission is aware that social housing
providers in Member States make decisions on the allocation of housing units based on a number of criteria and that
household composition is often one of the criteria applied. Rents in the social housing sector in Europe are also set by
employing a wide range of methods and these may sometimes relate to the size of the dwelling.

Through the Social Investment Package (SIP) ( [1] ), the Commission provides Member States guidance how best to drive
social investment to reach the Europe 2020 strategy targets ( [2] ), in the face of the crisis and demographic challenges.

Among the number of housing-related provisions, the SIP highlights that access to quality social services including
social housing is a key measure for promoting active inclusion. It explores good practices to improve access to
affordable housing and thus prevent homelessness in Member States, making full use of the EU Funds. In this context,
the Commission encourages Member States to take account of tenants' needs at social housing allocation in terms of
size and location of the tenure and calls them to implement integrated, housing-led homelessness strategies. The
Commission works together with Member States in the Social Protection Committee to facilitate exchange on social
policy matters encompassing housing inclusion. Further, the Commission monitors housing market imbalances and
housing deprivation and informs the European semester as appropriate.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) For more information on the Social Investment Package, please visit http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1044&langId=en.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Commission Communication COM(2010)2020 final Europe 2020-A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.

C 80 E / 162 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004931/13**

**to the Commission**
**Chris Davies (ALDE)**

_(6 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ ‘Capture-ready’ status of new power plants

Will the Commission state what legal requirements are placed upon Member States not to authorise the operation of
new fossil fuel power plants unless they are judged to be CO 2 capture-ready?

Can the Commission confirm that every new fossil fuel power plant meets the requirements, or will the Commission
state what efforts it is making to ensure that it has all the information it requires to make such an assessment and
whether it has launched infringement proceedings against any Member State that has failed to comply with the
requirements?

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

_(28 June 2013)_

Under Article 33 of Directive 2009/31/EC ( [1] ) (CCS Directive), Member States need to ensure that operators of
combustion plants with a rated electrical output of 300 MW or more have assessed technical and economic
conditions necessary to retrofit for CO 2 capture. Where the assessment is positive, suitable space on the installation
site for the equipment necessary to capture and compress CO 2 has to be set aside.

In March 2010 the Commission communicated with all Member States, reminding them that the requirements under
Article 33 of the CCS Directive apply in all cases where the original construction licence or, in the absence of such a
procedure, the original operating licence is granted after the entry into force of the CCS Directive, i.e. from
26 June 2009. In February 2011 the Commission adopted a questionnaire ( [2] ), asking the Member States — in
Section 22.3 — questions on implementation of Article 33 of the CCS Directive. While encouraging Member States
who have not responded yet to submit their pending replies, the Commission is currently assessing replies from
Member States who submitted their responses until April 2013.

The Commission has sent letters of formal notice to all Member States that have not notified complete transposing
measures by the set deadline. Furthermore, any incorrect application of Article 33 of the CCS Directive would be
carefully assessed and, if applicable, infringement proceedings might be launched on that basis.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the geological storage of carbon dioxide and amending

Council Directive 85/337/EC, European Parliament and Council Directives 2000/60/EC, 2001/80/EC, 2004/35/EC, 2006/12/EC; 2008/1/EC and
Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, OJ L 140, 5.6.2009, p. 114.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 37, 11.2.2011, p. 19.

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 163

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004932/13**

**al Consiglio**
**Roberta Angelilli (PPE)**

_(6 maggio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Trattato sul commercio delle armi

Il 2 aprile scorso, dopo sette anni di negoziati, l'Assemblea generale delle Nazioni Unite ha adottato il primo trattato
internazionale sulla compravendita internazionale delle armi convenzionali ( _Global arms trade treaty_ ). Tale trattato sarà
aperto alla firma degli Stati a partire dal prossimo 3 giugno.

Il trattato, pur non vietando in assoluto l'esportazione di armi e facendo salvo il diritto degli Stati all'autodifesa,
prevede che ogni paese debba valutare, prima di ogni transazione, se le armi vendute rischiano di essere utilizzate da
chi le acquista per aggirare un embargo internazionale, per commettere violazioni gravi dei diritti umani o per essere
poi rivendute a gruppi terroristici o criminali.

Considerando che il trattato rappresenta un passo importante verso un commercio più trasparente e responsabile
delle armi e un notevole contributo a favore della pace internazionale e della tutela di molte popolazioni vittime di
conflitti armati, può il Consiglio dire:

1. come intende sollecitare gli Stati membri a una rapida firma e ratifica del trattato? Quando intende inoltre il
Consiglio adottare, a tal fine, la decisione che autorizzerà gli Stati membri a firmare il trattato a partire dal
prossimo 3 giugno?

2. Come valuta l'esclusione dal trattato della clausola che permette l'adesione ai trattati anche delle organizzazioni
internazionali, che avrebbe dato anche all'UE la possibilità di aderire al trattato?

**Risposta**
_(22 luglio 2013)_

Il Consiglio ha espresso periodicamente il suo fermo impegno per il successo del trattato sul commercio delle armi (ATT).
Il 27 maggio 2013 il Consiglio ha adottato la decisione ( [1] ) che autorizza gli Stati membri a firmare il trattato sul
commercio di armi nell'interesse dell'UE e li ha esortati a firmarlo in occasione della cerimonia solenne che si terrà a
NewYork il 3 giugno 2013, o comunque appena possibile dopo tale data. Il Consiglio rileva con soddisfazione che
un'ampia maggioranza di Stati membri (23) ha firmato l'ATT il 3 giugno presso la sede dell'ONU a New York. Uno Stato
membro lo ha firmato il 10 giugno 2013 e i rimanenti Stati membri dovrebbero firmarlo fra breve. Il Consiglio attende
ora con interesse la proposta di decisione del Consiglio, elaborata dalla Commissione, che autorizza gli Stati membri a
firmare il trattato sul commercio di armi nell'interesse dell'UE. Prima dell'adozione di tale decisione si richiederà
l'approvazione del Parlamento europeo.

Il Consiglio ritiene che sarebbe stato auspicabile, e effettivamente anche utile ai fine dell'attuazione dell'ATT, che fosse
data la possibilità di aderire al trattato alle pertinenti organizzazioni regionali d'integrazione come l'UE. Sebbene
l'ATT come è stato adottato non lo preveda, l'UE, nell'ambito della sua competenza e con un opportuno
coordinamento tra gli Stati membri, ha l'intenzione di continuare a svolgere un ruolo attivo nel promuovere l'effettiva
attuazione dell'ATT.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Doc. 9554/13, in attesa di pubblicazione nella Gazzetta ufficiale.

C 80 E / 164 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004932/13**

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

_(6 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Arms Trade Treaty

On 2 April 2013, after seven years of negotiations, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the first global
Arms Trade Treaty on conventional arms trade. The treaty will be open for signature by the UN Member States on
3 June 2013.

The treaty does not completely ban arms exports and is without prejudice to the right of states to defend themselves,
but sets out that before every transaction each country must assess whether the arms sold are liable to be used by the
buyer to violate an international embargo, commit serious human rights abuses or to be sold on to terrorist or
criminal groups.

Considering that the Treaty represents an important step towards a more transparent and responsible arms trade and
a significant contribution towards global peace and the protection of many populations that are victims of armed
conflict, can the Council state:

1. how it intends to urge Member States to quickly sign and ratify the Treaty and when it intends to adopt the
decision which will authorise Member States to sign the Treaty from 3 June 2013;

2. how it regards the exclusion from the Treaty of the clause enabling international organisations to accede to
treaties and which would thus have given the EU the possibility to accede to this Treaty?

**Reply**
_(22 July 2013)_

The Council regularly expressed its firm commitment to the success of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). On
27 May 2013, the Council adopted a decision ( [1] ) authorising Member States to sign the ATT in the interests of the EU,
and encouraging them to sign the treaty at the Solemn Ceremony in New York on 3 June 2013 or at the earliest
possible date. The Council is pleased to note that a large majority of Member States (23) signed the ATT on 3 June at
the UN headquarters in New York. One Member State signed it on 10 June 2013. The remaining Member States are
expected to sign it shortly. The Council is now looking forward to a Commission proposal for a Council Decision
authorising the Member States to ratify the ATT in the interests of the EU. The consent of the European Parliament
will be sought before the adoption of that Decision.

The Council considers that it would have been desirable, and indeed also beneficial for the implementation of the
ATT, if relevant Regional Integration Organisations, such as the EU, could have acceded to the treaty. Even if the ATT
as adopted does not allow for this, the EU, within its competence and through coordination among Member States as
appropriate, intends to continue to play an active role in promoting the effective implementation of the ATT.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) 9554/13, pending publication in the Official Journal.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 165

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004933/13**

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

**Roberta Angelilli (PPE)**

_(6 maggio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Trattato sul commercio delle armi

Il 2 aprile scorso, dopo sette anni di negoziati, l'Assemblea generale delle Nazioni Unite ha adottato il primo trattato
internazionale sulla compravendita internazionale delle armi convenzionali ( _Global arms trade treaty_ ). Tale trattato sarà
aperto alla firma degli Stati a partire dal prossimo 3 giugno.

Il trattato, pur non vietando in assoluto l'esportazione di armi e facendo salvo il diritto degli Stati all'autodifesa,
prevede che ogni paese debba valutare, prima di ogni transazione, se le armi vendute rischiano di essere utilizzate da
chi le acquista per aggirare un embargo internazionale, per commettere violazioni gravi dei diritti umani o per essere
poi rivendute a gruppi terroristici o criminali.

Considerando che il trattato rappresenta un passo importante verso un commercio più trasparente e responsabile
delle armi e un notevole contributo a favore della pace internazionale e della tutela di molte popolazioni vittime di
conflitti armati, può l'Alto Rappresentante dell'Unione per gli affari esteri e la politica di sicurezza dire:

1. come intende sollecitare gli Stati membri a una rapida firma e ratifica del trattato?

2. Come valuta l'esclusione dal trattato della clausola che permette l'adesione ai trattati anche delle organizzazioni
internazionali, che avrebbe dato anche all'UE la possibilità di aderire al trattato?

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

_(28 giugno 2013)_

Il 27 maggio 2013 il Consiglio ha adottato una decisione che autorizza gli Stati membri a firmare il trattato sul
commercio delle armi (ATT). In questo modo l’Unione ha consentito agli Stati membri di firmare il trattato, per
quanto riguarda le questioni di competenza dell’UE, sin dal primo giorno di apertura alla firma (3 giugno 2013).
Durante le discussioni nel gruppo pertinente del Consiglio, tutti gli Stati membri hanno annunciato che intendevano
firmare il trattato nel mese di giugno 2013, una volta completate le procedure interne per la firma dei trattati
internazionali.

Nel corso della conferenza diplomatica di negoziazione dell’ATT svoltasi a marzo 2013, l’Unione ha caldeggiato con
il massimo impegno l’inserimento, nel testo del trattato, di disposizioni che consentissero l’adesione di organizzazioni
di integrazione regionale come l’UE, ma la sua posizione è stata respinta dal presidente della conferenza, secondo la
regola del consenso, a causa dell’opposizione di un certo numero di paesi terzi.

C 80 E / 166 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004933/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Roberta Angelilli (PPE)**

_(6 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Arms Trade Treaty

On 2 April 2013, after seven years of negotiations, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the first global
Arms Trade Treaty on conventional arms trade. The Treaty will be open for signature by the UN Member States on
3 June 2013.

The Treaty does not completely ban arms exports and is without prejudice to the right of states to defend themselves,
but sets out that before every transaction each country must assess whether the arms sold are liable to be used by the
buyer to violate an international embargo, commit serious human rights abuses or to be sold on to terrorist or
criminal groups.

Considering that the Treaty represents an important step towards a more transparent and responsible arms trade and
a significant contribution towards global peace and the protection of many populations that are victims of armed
conflict, can the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy state:

1. how she intends to urge Member States to quickly sign and ratify the Treaty;

2. how she regards the exclusion from the Treaty of the clause enabling international organisations to accede to
treaties and which would thus have given the EU the possibility to accede to this Treaty?

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

_(28 June 2013)_

On 27 May 2013 the Council adopted a decision authorising Member States to sign the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). In
this way the EU has enabled Member States to sign the Treaty with regard to matters covered by EU competence as
early as on the first day of opening for signature (3 June 2013). During discussion in the relevant Council group, all
Member States informed about their intention to sign the Treaty in the course of June 2013, after the completion of
their internal procedures relating to international treaties' signature.

In the course of the diplomatic conference negotiating the ATT that took place in March 2013, the EU spared no
efforts to campaign for the insertion into the Treaty text of provisions enabling regional integration organisations
such as the EU to become party to the Treaty. This EU position has however been opposed by a number of third
countries and consequently not retained by the Chairman of the conference because of its rule of consensus.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 167

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004934/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Aldo Patriciello (PPE)**

_(6 maggio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Aiuti di Stato per materiale rotabile ad operatori del trasporto merci

Considerato che nelle Linee guida comunitarie per gli aiuti di Stato alle imprese ferroviarie pubblicate sulla Gazzetta
ufficiale dell'Unione europea del 22.7.2008 (2008/C 184/07) la Commissione tesse le lodi del settore ferroviario
indicandolo come funzionale ad un sistema di trasporto di persone e di merci efficiente, sicuro e non inquinante,
capace di contribuire alla prosperità del mercato unico europeo.

Considerato che la congestione stradale di cui sono vittime le città e alcune regioni della Comunità europea, la
necessità di rispondere alle sfide del cambiamento climatico e l'aumento continuo del prezzo degli idrocarburi
dimostrano che è necessario promuovere lo sviluppo del trasporto su rotaia;

Considerato che nelle linee guida la Commissione reputa compatibili con il mercato comune gli aiuti all'acquisto e al
rinnovo del materiale rotabile che possono contribuire a raggiungere vari obbiettivi di interesse comune;

Considerato che tali aiuti di Stato, concessi in deroga all’articolo 107 del TFUE, sono considerati ammissibili
esclusivamente per l'acquisto di materiale rotabile (locomotive e vagoni) destinato al trasporto dei passeggeri mentre
sono ritenuti inammissibili per il trasporto merci;

Considerato che tale disparità appare in contraddizione rispetto a quanto indicato dalla stessa Commissione nel Libro
Bianco sui Trasporti (Trasporti 2050) dello scorso 28 marzo 2011 dove veniva chiaramente indicato l'obiettivo di
creare uno spazio europeo unico dei trasporti con più concorrenza e una rete di trasporti pienamente integrata che
colleghi i diversi modi e permetta un profondo cambiamento nei modi di trasporto per passeggeri e merci.

Al fine di garantire entro il 2030 l'ambizioso obiettivo di trasferire il 30 % del trasporto di merci su gomma ad altri
modi di trasporto come la ferrovia e le vie navigabili interne:

1. non ritiene la Commissione di dover rivedere le Linee guida UE per gli aiuti di Stato alle imprese ferroviarie
consentendo l'erogazione di aiuti di Stato per l'acquisto di materiale rotabile anche ad operatori del trasporto
merci?

2. non ritiene la Commissione che l'assenza di aiuti di Stato impedisca ai piccoli operatori privati di investire con
la conseguenza di favorire di fatto i regimi oligopolistici esistenti e contrari alle condizioni di liberalizzazione
invece necessarie?

**Risposta di Joaquín Almunia a nome della Commissione**

_(12 luglio 2013)_

In questa fase la Commissione non intende modificare Linee guida dell’UE per gli aiuti di Stato alle imprese ferroviarie.
Finora non è pervenuta alcuna richiesta in questo senso da parte degli Stati membri o delle imprese ferroviarie.

La Commissione non dispone di elementi che dimostrino che l’assenza di aiuti di Stato concessi per il materiale
rotabile adibito al trasporto merci impedisca ai piccoli operatori privati di effettuare investimenti. D’altro canto, la
Commissione ha trattato diversi casi in cui è stato concesso a imprese ferroviarie storiche un aiuto per l’acquisto di
materiale rotabile nel settore del trasporto passeggeri.

C 80 E / 168 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004934/13**

**to the Commission**
**Aldo Patriciello (PPE)**

_(6 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ State aid for rolling stock and freight train operators

In the community guidelines on state aid for railway undertakings published in the _Official Journal of the European_
_Union_ of 22 July 2008 (2008/C 184/07), the Commission praises the railway sector, describing it as functional in the
efficient transportation of people and freight in a safe and eco-friendly manner contributing to the prosperity of the
European single market.

The road traffic congestion plaguing the towns and cities and certain regions of the European Community, the need
to respond to the challenges of climate change and the increase in fuel prices show how necessary it is to foster the
development of rail transport.

In the guidelines, the Commission considers that aid granted for purchasing and renewing rolling stock, which can
help achieve various objectives of common interest, is compatible with the common market.

The state aid granted by way of derogation from Article 107 TFEU is only deemed admissible for the purchase of
rolling stock (locomotives and wagons) for passenger transport and inadmissible for freight transport.

This disparity seems to contradict what the Commission itself stated in the White Paper on Transport (Transport
2050) of 28 March 2011, which clearly set out the objective of creating a more competitive single European
transport area and a fully integrated transport network connecting the various modes of transport and enabling a
radical change in passenger and freight transport.

In order to accomplish the ambitious objective of transferring 30% of road freight to other modes of transport such as
rail and inland waterways by 2030:

1. does the Commission not consider it necessary to review the EU guidelines on state aid to railway undertakings
so as to allow the granting of state aid for the purchase of rolling stock to also include freight transport
operators;

2. does the Commission not think that the absence of any state aid prevents small private operators from
investing with the result that the existing oligopolies automatically have an advantage, which conflicts with the
market liberalisation actually needed?

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

_(12 July 2013)_

At this stage the Commission does not intend to modify the EU guidelines on state aid for railway undertakings. So far
there has been no request from the Member States or from the railway undertakings.

The Commission does not have any evidence that the absence of state aid for freight rolling stock would prevent small
private operators from investing. On the other hand, the Commission has dealt with several cases where aid for the
purchase of rolling stock in passenger transport was granted to incumbent railway undertakings.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 169

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004935/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)**

_(6 maggio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Bilancio ricerca e innovazione

Nella comunicazione della Commissione del 29.6.2011 (COM(2011)0500 def.) nel riquadro in neretto di pag. 12 si
afferma che «in tutte le regioni d'Europa sono stati spesi circa 60 miliardi di euro in ricerca e innovazione per il
periodo 2007-2013».

1. La Commissione può dirci come sono stati impiegati questi 60 miliardi? In quali Stati membri?

Nello stesso riquadro si afferma che la Commissione propone di stanziare 80 miliardi di euro per il periodo 2014 —
2020 a favore del quadro strategico comune per la ricerca e l'innovazione.

2. È già in grado di dirci quanti di questi euro verranno impiegati in uno dei tre settori saldamente ancorati alla
strategia Europa 2020 indicato come «eccellere nella base scientifica»?

3. Può meglio illustrarci gli orientamenti e le nuove tendenze per la «base scientifica», rispetto al settennio
precedente? In quali Stati membri in particolare?

**Risposta di Máire Geoghegan-Quinn a nome della Commissione**

_(24 giugno 2013)_

1. La relazione strategica del 2013 sull’attuazione della politica di coesione e le schede tematiche di
accompagnamento ( [1] ) forniscono un quadro dettagliato sull’attuazione e i risultati comunicati dagli Stati membri e
dalle regioni in relazione al sostegno previsto per l’innovazione, l’RST e i servizi TIC. Entro il 2011, sono stati stanziati
il 63 % dei 53 miliardi di EUR previsti per il sostegno all’innovazione e all’RST e il 60 % dei 12 miliardi di EUR
destinati al finanziamento dei servizi TIC.

2. Secondo la proposta legislativa del programma Orizzonte 2020, il prossimo programma quadro dell’Unione
europea per la ricerca e l’innovazione, il finanziamento proposto per il pilastro «eccellenza scientifica» ammonta a
27 818 milioni di EUR (a prezzi correnti). L’importo finale dipenderà dall’esito delle negoziazioni interistituzionali sul
prossimo quadro finanziario pluriennale e sul programma Orizzonte 2020.

3. Il pilastro «eccellenza scientifica» eleverà il livello di eccellenza della base scientifica europea e garantirà una
produzione costante di ricerca di livello mondiale per assicurare la competitività dell’Europa. Sosterrà le idee migliori,
svilupperà i talenti in Europa, darà ai ricercatori accesso ad infrastrutture di ricerca prioritarie e farà dell’Europa un
luogo attraente per i migliori ricercatori del mondo. Alcune delle principali novità includono una grande
semplificazione delle regole di partecipazione, un approccio inclusivo aperto ai nuovi partecipanti, nonché
l’integrazione della ricerca e l’innovazione fornendo finanziamenti coerenti, senza soluzione di continuità, dall’idea
alla commercializzazione. Come tutte le altre iniziative di Orizzonte 2020, il pilastro «eccellenza scientifica» sarà
aperto ai promotori di R&I provenienti da tutti gli Stati membri dell’UE, dai paesi associati e ai partecipanti di paesi
terzi.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) La relazione e le schede tematiche sono disponibili all’indirizzo: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/how/policy/strategic_report_en.cfm.

C 80 E / 170 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004935/13**

**to the Commission**
**Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)**

_(6 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Budget for research and innovation

On page 11 of the Commission communication of 29 June 2011 (COM(2011) 0500 final), in the box in bold type, it
is affirmed that ‘in the period 2007-2013 around EUR 60 billion was spent on research and innovation across
Europe's regions’.

1. Can the Commission say how these 60 billion have been used, and in which Member States?

In the same box, it is stated that the Commission proposes to allocate EUR 80 billion for the 2014-2020 period for
the Common Strategic Framework for Research and Innovation.

2. Is it already able to say how many of these euro will be used in one of the three areas that are firmly anchored to
the Europe 2020 strategy, referred to in the communication as ‘excellence in the science base’?

3. Can it better illustrate the guidelines and new trends relating to this ‘science base’, in comparison with the
previous seven years? Which Member States does it refer to in particular?

**Answer given by Ms Geoghegan-Quinn on behalf of the Commission**

_(24 June 2013)_

1. The 2013 strategic report on cohesion policy implementation and its accompanying thematic factsheets ( [1] )
provide a detailed insight into the implementation and output reported by Member States and regions in relation to
planned support for innovation and RTD and ICT services. From the EUR 53 billion of planned support for
innovation and RTD, 62% had been allocated by the end of 2011. From the EUR 12 billion of planned support for
ICT services, around 60% had been allocated by the same date.

2. According to the legislative proposal on Horizon 2020 — The next EU Framework Programme for Research
and Innovation, the funding proposed for the ‘Excellent Science’ pillar amounts to EUR 27 818 million (in current
prices). The final amount will depend on the outcome of the interinstitutional negotiations on the next Multi-annual
Financial Framework and Horizon 2020.

3. The ‘Excellent Science’ pillar will raise the level of excellence in Europe's science base and ensure a steady stream
of world-class research to secure Europe's competitiveness. It will support the best ideas, develop talent within
Europe, provide researchers with access to priority research infrastructures, and make Europe an attractive location
for the world's best researchers. Some of the major novelties include a major simplification of the rules for
participation, an inclusive approach open to new participants, and the integration of research and innovation by
providing seamless and coherent funding from idea to market. Like all other parts of Horizon 2020, the ‘Excellent
Science’ pillar will be open to R&I actors from all EU Member States, associated countries and to participation from
third countries.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) The report and factsheets are available at: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/how/policy/strategic_report_en.cfm

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 171

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004936/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(6 maggio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Crisi Berco S.p.A.: 600 dipendenti a rischio licenziamento

Il Gruppo Berco S.p.A., di proprietà della multinazionale Thyssen Krupp, ha 4 stabilimienti in Italia: Copparo
(Ferrara), Busano Canavese (Torino), Sasso Morelli (Imola) e Castelfranco Veneto (Treviso), e impiega circa 3000
dipendenti.

La proprietà ha deciso una ristrutturazione del gruppo che prevede l'attivazione della procedura di mobilità per più di
600 dipendenti e la probabile vendita di alcune delle proprietà.

La Commissione:

1. è a conoscenza dei fatti sopra esposti?

2. ha intenzione di attivare il Fondo europeo di adeguamento alla globalizzazione in favore dei lavoratori della
Berco?

3. come intende supportare il settore metalmeccanico nel nostro Paese, l'Italia, e in particolare nel Veneto, sempre
più in balia di multinazionali che valutano più vantaggioso chiudere le produzioni licenziando dipendenti e
vendendo le proprietà, piuttosto che investire in scelte strategiche di lungo periodo?

**Risposta di Laszlo Andor a nome della Commissione**

_(4 luglio 2013)_

La Commissione è profondamente preoccupata per le conseguenze socioeconomiche che gli esuberi presso la Berco
Spa possono comportare. La decisione di un'impresa di chiudere i propri impianti di produzione è di sua esclusiva
responsabilità. La Commissione si attende però che la Berco Spa rispetti rigorosamente le direttive in tema di
informazione e consultazione, licenziamenti collettivi e comitati aziendali europei.

La Commissione rinvia l'onorevole deputata alla propria risposta all'interrogazioni E 001178/2013 e
E 001315/2013 che è tuttora valida poiché nel frattempo non sono intervenuti nuovi sviluppi.

Per stimolare gli investimenti la Commissione ha adottato, nell'ottobre 2012, un aggiornamento della comunicazione
sulla politica industriale ( [1] ) per contribuire a invertire l'attuale tendenza alla contrazione dell'industria UE e portarla
dal suo livello del 2012 pari al 15,2 % del PIL dell'UE a ben il 20 % entro il 2020. A tal fine sono state avviate sei linee
d'azione per l'innovazione industriale da realizzaare in cooperazione con l'industria e gli Stati membri ( [2] ). I criteri
principali che hanno presieduto alla scelta di questi ambiti prioritari erano legati al loro potenziale di contribuire al
recupero dell'economia nel breve e medio termine nonché al loro impatto sul potenziale di crescita nel lungo termine
e sulla competitività. Se spetta all'intervento pubblico creare l'opportuno contesto di mercato e prospettare soluzioni
per ovviare alla carenze del mercato, il ruolo attivo e l'impegno dell'industria sono essenziali per poter raggiungere gli
obiettivi proposti.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0582:FIN:IT:PDF.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Tecnologie avanzate di fabbricazione per una produzione pulita, tecnologie abilitanti fondamentali, mercati dei prodotti biologici, politica

industriale sostenibile, costruzione e materie prime, veicoli e navi puliti e reti intelligenti.

C 80 E / 172 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004936/13**

**to the Commission**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(6 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Berco Spa crisis — employees likely to be made redundant

The group Berco Spa, owned by the multinational Thyssen Krupp, has 4 factories in Italy — Copparo (Ferrara),
Busano Canavese (Turin), Sasso Morelli (Imola) and Castelfranco Veneto (Treviso) — with around 3 000 employees.

The owners have decided to restructure the group and launch a mobility procedure for more than 600 employees. It
is likely that some of the group's properties will be sold.

1. Is the Commission aware of these facts?

2. Will it activate the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund to assist the Berco workers?

3. How does it intend to support the engineering sector in our country, Italy, and especially in the Veneto region,
which is increasingly at the mercy of multinationals which consider it to be more advantageous to close down
factories, laying off workers and selling properties, rather than investing in long-term strategies?

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

_(4 July 2013)_

The Commission is deeply concerned at the social and economic consequences that the redundancies in Berco Spa
may bring. The decision of a company to close down production plants is for the company itself to make. However,
the Commission expects Berco Spa to strictly respect the directives on information and consultation, collective
redundancies and European Works councils.

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to questions E 001178/2013 and
E 001315/2013, which is still valid since no new developments have occurred in the meantime.

With the goal of stimulating investment the Commission adopted in October 2012 an update to the Industrial Policy
Communication ( [1] ), to help reverse the current downward trend of EU industry from its 2012 level of 15.2% of EU
GDP to as much as 20% by 2020. For this purpose six Industrial innovation Action lines were launched to be taken in
cooperation with industry and Member States ( [2] ). The main criteria behind the selection of these priority areas were
their potential to contribute to economic recovery in the short‐ and medium-term as well as their impact on the
longer-term growth potential and competitiveness. Whereas public intervention should create the right market
environment and come up with remedies to market failures, industry's active role and engagement is crucial in order
to be successful in achieving the proposed objectives.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0582:FIN:EN:PDF.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Advanced manufacturing technologies for clean production, key enabling technologies, bio-based product markets, sustainable industrial policy,

construction and raw materials, clean vehicles and vessels, and smart grids.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 173

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004937/13**

**à la Commission**
**Rachida Dati (PPE)**

_(6 mai 2013)_

_Objet:_ Nouvel élan pour une «croissance bleue» en Méditerranée

Les 18 et 19 avril dernier, à l'occasion de la 12 [e] conférence de la facilité euro-méditerranéenne d'investissement et de
partenariat (FEMIP), des priorités et des objectifs pour une coopération renforcée dans le développement d'une
«économie bleue en Méditerranée» ont été définis.

Dans le droit fil des récents travaux de l'assemblée parlementaire de l'Union pour la Méditerranée, cet événement a
permis de mettre en lumière les nombreuses potentialités liées à la mer dans cette région, dans des domaines aussi
variés que les transports, la pêche ou le tourisme.

Pour réussir cette «croissance bleue», il s'agit notamment, comme il a été indiqué lors de la conférence, de favoriser les
clusters maritimes, de construire des infrastructures (notamment portuaires comme cela a été fait avec le port de
Tanger-Med), de coopérer dans le domaine de la formation et de la création d'emplois.

Ce sont des défis ambitieux et des objectifs tout à fait pertinents pour favoriser sans plus attendre le développement
économique et social de l'ensemble des pays riverains de la Méditerranée.

Le Vice-président de la BEI a, à cette occasion, réclamé une véritable impulsion politique pour donner une dimension
concrète à la coopération maritime en Méditerranée.

Dans ce même esprit, je souhaite demander à la Commission quel rôle elle entend jouer pour poursuivre ces efforts?
Quelles sont les prochaines étapes à la réalisation de cette «croissance bleue»? Comment compte-elle fédérer autour de
ce projet le plus grand nombre d'acteurs institutionnels et de pays du pourtour méditerranéen?

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

_(20 juin 2013)_

Le soutien apporté par l'UE au changement et aux réformes dans le sud de la Méditerranée reste une priorité politique
majeure. Le dernier Conseil européen de février 2013 a clairement confirmé l'engagement fort de l'UE envers
la région.

Une nouvelle impulsion a été donnée à la coopération régionale par le biais de la rencontre ministérielle fructueuse
avec la Ligue des États arabes en novembre 2012 et grâce à la relance de l'Union pour la Méditerranée (UpM), dont les
divers organes se réunissent régulièrement. L'UpM contribue à favoriser la coopération régionale en répondant à des
défis clés avec des solutions tangibles et des projets qui bénéficient directement à la population.

En ce qui concerne la «croissance bleue», en particulier, et la coopération marine et maritime en Méditerranée, la
Commission continuera à travailler avec les États membres et les pays partenaires du sud sur la base des objectifs
convenus dans la déclaration de Limassol en 2012. Avec le soutien du projet d'assistance technique, financé par l'UE,
concernant la politique maritime intégrée en Méditerranée et du groupe de travail sur la politique maritime
regroupant tous les États côtiers, des actions plus concrètes seront élaborées, comme par exemple la mise en place
d'un centre virtuel de connaissances pour la région visant à faciliter le travail en réseau et le transfert des
connaissances entre les autorités publiques et les acteurs impliqués dans l'économie bleue de la région.

C 80 E / 174 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004937/13**

**to the Commission**

**Rachida Dati (PPE)**

_(6 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ New impetus for ‘blue growth’ in the Mediterranean

At the 12th Facility for Euro-Mediterranean Investment and Partnership (FEMIP) conference, on 18 and
19 April 2013, priorities and objectives were set for enhanced cooperation in the development of a ‘blue economy in
the Mediterranean’.

In keeping with recent work by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Union for the Mediterranean, this event
highlighted the great potential of the sea in that region, in areas as varied as transport, fishing and tourism.

As stated at the conference, for this ‘blue growth’ to be a success, it is necessary to promote maritime clusters, to
construct infrastructure (particularly port infrastructure as was the case with the Tanger-Med port), and to work
together in training and job creation.

These are ambitious challenges and absolutely the right objectives for giving an immediate boost to the economic and
social development of all Mediterranean coastal countries.

At the conference, the Vice-President of the European Investment Bank called for a real political impetus to give
substance to maritime cooperation in the Mediterranean.

In that same spirit, can the Commission say what role it intends to play to continue these efforts? What are the next
steps to achieve this ‘blue growth’? How does the Commission plan to rally as many institutional stakeholders and
Mediterranean countries as possible behind this project?

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

_(20 June 2013)_

The EU's support for change and reform to the South Mediterranean continues to be a top political priority. The last
European Council in February 2013 clearly confirmed the EU's commitment for a strong engagement with the
region.

New impetus has been given to regional cooperation, both through the successful Ministerial meeting with the League
of Arab States in November 2012 and the re-launching of the Union for Mediterranean (UfM), whose various bodies
meet regularly. The UfM helps to foster regional cooperation by meeting key challenges through tangible solutions
and projects that are of direct benefit to the population.

As concerns ‘blue growth’ specifically and marine and maritime cooperation in the Mediterranean, the Commission
will continue working with Member States and Southern partner countries on the basis of the objectives agreed in the
Limassol Declaration in 2012. With support from the EU-funded project for technical assistance on Integrated
Maritime Policy in the Mediterranean and the Working Group on maritime policy with all coastal States, more
concrete actions will be devised, such as for instance the setting up of a Virtual Knowledge Centre for the region that
aims at knowledge sharing and networking across public authorities and stakeholders involved in the blue economy
of the region.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 175

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-004938/13**

**aan de Commissie**
**Mark Demesmaeker (Verts/ALE)**

_(6 mei 2013)_

_Betreft:_ Registratie-identificatie en ongecontroleerde verkoop van huisdieren

In bepaalde lidstaten, waaronder België, bestaat de verplichting huisdieren te laten registreren via een chip. Uit
informatie blijkt dat deze verplichting echter niet altijd evengoed wordt opgevolgd en dat vele gevonden huisdieren
een dergelijke chip niet bezitten, wat aanleiding kan geven tot problemen. Tegelijk wordt ook de bekommernis geuit
dat ongecontroleerde dierenverkoop een groeiend probleem wordt, o.a. via verkoop op Facebook.

Is het de Commissie bekend dat er zich verschillen voordoen tussen de nationale bepalingen betreffende het
registreren van huisdieren?

Is het de Commissie bekend dat er zich gevallen voordoen van ongecontroleerde dierenverkoop, o.a. via Facebook?

Kan de Commissie aangeven welke stappen zij, al dan niet, van plan is te nemen om te komen tot een Europese
registratie en identificatie enerzijds en om ongecontroleerde verkoop te voorkomen?

Meer in het bijzonder, kan de Commissie ook aangeven welke stappen zijn ondernomen in uitvoering van de door het
Europees Parlement op 4 juli 2012 aangenomen resoluties over de strategie van de Europese Unie voor de
bescherming en het welzijn van dieren 2012-2015 en over de totstandbrenging van een Europees wettelijk kader
voor de bescherming van huisdieren en zwerfdieren, waarin onder meer wordt aangedrongen op een Europees
wettelijk kader voor de bescherming van huisdieren en zwerfdieren, met voorschriften voor identificatie en registratie
van dieren?

**Antwoord van de heer Borg namens de Commissie**

_(2 juli 2013)_

Wat de registratie van en de illegale handel in gezelschapsdieren betreft, verwijst de Commissie het geachte
[Parlementslid naar haar antwoorden op de eerdere schriftelijke vragen E‐004525/2008, E-003787/2009,](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=WQ&reference=E-2009-3787&language=EN)
[E-006868/2010, E-8449/2010, E‐002270/2011,](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=WQ&reference=E-2011-002270&language=EN) [E‐003343/2011,](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=WQ&reference=E-2011-003343&language=EN) [E‐006602/2011,](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=WQ&reference=E-2011-006602&language=EN) [E-006808/2011,](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=WQ&reference=E-2011-006808&language=EN)
E-002142/2012, E-004247/2012, E-004656/2012 en E-007168/2012 ( [1] ).

Tijdens het debat in de Raad en het Europees Parlement over de herziening van de verordening inzake
gezelschapsdieren heeft de Commissie zich ertoe verbonden in het kader van de EU-strategie voor de bescherming en
het welzijn van dieren 2012-2015 ( [2] ) een studie te verrichten betreffende het welzijn van honden en katten die
betrokken zijn bij handelspraktijken. Als die studie uitwijst dat de handelspraktijken gezondheidsrisico’s opleveren,
zal de Commissie passende mogelijkheden overwegen om de gezondheid van mensen en dieren te beschermen,
waaronder het doen van voorstellen aan het Europees Parlement en de Raad tot aanpassing van de huidige wetgeving
van de Unie betreffende de handel in honden en katten, waarbij onder meer compatibele, in alle lidstaten
toegankelijke systemen voor de registratie van de dieren kunnen worden ingevoerd. Gelet op het bovenstaande zal de
Commissie nagaan of het haalbaar en passend is dergelijke registratiesystemen uit te breiden tot honden en katten die
gemerkt en geïdentificeerd zijn overeenkomstig de wetgeving van de Unie betreffende het niet-commerciële verkeer
van gezelschapsdieren.

Aangezien het verbeteren van het welzijn van dieren op zich geen doelstelling van de EU-verdragen is ( [3] ), dient een
uitbreiding van de EU-regelgeving op dit gebied te vallen onder een van de beleidsterreinen waarop de EU bevoegd is.
Een dergelijke uitbreiding dient bovendien naar behoren te worden gemotiveerd in het licht van de beginselen van
subsidiariteit en evenredigheid.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/nl/parliamentary-questions.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 6 final.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Artikel 13 van het Verdrag betreffende de werking van de EU stelt dat ten volle rekening dient te worden gehouden met hetgeen vereist is voor het

welzijn van dieren in een context van bepaalde EU-beleidsterreinen zoals landbouw en de interne markt.

C 80 E / 176 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004938/13**

**to the Commission**
**Mark Demesmaeker (Verts/ALE)**

_(6 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Registration, identification and uncontrolled sales of pets

In some Member States, including Belgium, pets are required to be registered by means of a microchip. According to
my information, however, it appears that this requirement is not always complied with and that many rescued pets do
not have such a microchip, which can cause problems. At the same time, there is concern that uncontrolled animal
sales, including sales via Facebook, are becoming a growing problem.

Is the Commission aware that there are differences between national provisions relating to the registration of pets?

Is the Commission aware that uncontrolled animal sales are taking place, including via Facebook?

Can the Commission say what steps it plans to take, if indeed it plans to take any, in order to introduce EU-wide
registration and identification and in order to prevent uncontrolled sales?

In particular, can the Commission also say what steps have been taken in implementation of the resolutions adopted
by the European Parliament on 4 July 2012 on the European Union strategy for the protection and welfare of animals
2012-2015 and on the establishment of an EU legal framework for the protection of pets and stray animals, which
call, among other things, for the establishment of an EU legal framework for the protection of pets and stray animals,
including rules for the identification and registration of animals?

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

_(2 July 2013)_

With respect to the registration of and illegal trade in pet animals the Commission would refer the Honourable
Member to its replies to the previous Written Questions E‐004525/2008, E‐003787/2009, E‐006868/2010,
E-8449/2010, E‐002270/2011, E‐003343/2011, E‐006602/2011, E‐006808/2011, E-002142/2012,
E-004247/2012, E-004656/2012 and E-007168/2012 ( [1] ).

During the debate held at Council and European Parliament on the revision of the Pet Regulation the Commission has
committed itself to perform, within the framework of the EU strategy for the protection and welfare of animals 20122015 ( [2] ), a study on the welfare of dogs and cats involved in commercial practices. If the outcome of that study
indicates health risks arising from those commercial practices, the Commission will consider appropriate options for
the protection of human and animal health, including proposing to the European Parliament and to the Council
appropriate adaptations to current Union legislation on trade in dogs and cats, including the introduction of
compatible systems for their registration accessible across Member States. In view of the above, the Commission will
assess the feasibility and appropriateness of an extension of such registration systems to dogs and cats marked and
identified in accordance with Union legislation on non-commercial movements of pet animals.

Since improving the welfare of animals is not in itself an objective of the EU treaties ( [3] ), any extension of EU rules in
this domain should fall within one of the policy areas where the EU has competences. It should furthermore be duly
justified in the light of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 6 final.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU requires paying full regard to the welfare requirements of animals in a context of certain EU

policies such agriculture or internal market.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 177

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-004939/13**

**aan de Commissie**
**Mark Demesmaeker (Verts/ALE)**

_(6 mei 2013)_

_Betreft:_ Staatssteun Belfius

Op 31 januari werd een akkoord bekendgemaakt waarbij de bank Belfius, voor 100 % in handen van de Belgische
Staat, haar eigen winstbewijzen terugkoopt van de CVBA's Sociaal Engagement en Mouvement Social voor
112 miljoen euro. 40 miljoen euro daarvan wordt uitbetaald gespreid over een periode van 10 jaar. 72 miljoen euro
wordt meteen uitbetaald, maar door de CVBA's meteen weer geïnvesteerd in een achtergestelde eeuwigdurende lening
bij Belfius. Deze lening brengt een rente op van 6,25 % terwijl een aanvullend (ondertussen ontbonden maar destijds
wel door beide partijen ondertekend) commercieel contract in een aanvullende rente van 1,50 % op deze lening
voorzag. Deze contracten werden, op het „aanvullend commercieel contract” na, voorgelegd aan de Raad van Bestuur
van Belfius, en door de vertegenwoordigers van de Federale Participatie en Investeringsmaatschappij genotificeerd aan
toenmalig minister Steven Vanackere.

Artikel 108, derde lid, VWEU legt een supranationale verplichting op aan de lidstaten om staatssteun aan te melden
voorafgaand aan de implementatie ervan.

Graag had ik van de Commissie geweten in hoeverre dergelijke contracten onder de verplichte aanmelding voor
staatssteun vallen, in hoeverre hier onderzoek naar gedaan is, en in hoeverre de Belgische staat enige aanmelding in
deze gedaan heeft.

Tevens wens ik de Commissie er op te wijzen dat in een andere maar verwante zaak, namelijk het onderzoek naar het
beschermingsmechanisme voor aandelen van individuele vennoten in financiële coöperatieven (zaak SA.33927)
onlangs aanwijzingen opgedoken zijn die erop wijzen dat de bestuurders van de huidige aangesloten
vennootschappen Arcofin, Arcopar en Arcoplus, zelf de koninklijke besluiten tot instelling van deze waarborg
schreven, en zij hierbij voorzagen in een gunstregeling voor alle institutionele vennoten van Arcofin, in casu de eigen
spaarpot beheerd door de vzw Quadragesimo Anno. Graag had ik van de Commissie geweten in hoeverre de wijze
van totstandkoming van dergelijk beschermingsmechanisme impact heeft op de beoordeling inzake staatssteun.

**Antwoord van de heer Almunia namens de Commissie**

_(27 juni 2013)_

Een contract valt alleen onder de verplichting om staatssteun aan te melden indien daarmee staatssteun wordt
verleend aan één of meer ondernemingen.

Een onderneming in handen van de overheid verleent geen staatssteun aan een andere contractpartij indien zij handelt
zoals een voorzichtige en bezonnen economische speler in een markteconomie. Onder die omstandigheden krijgt de
tegenpartij namelijk geen voordeel dat zij op de markt niet had kunnen krijgen.

De diensten van de Commissie hebben België vragen gesteld over het contract waarmee Belfius winstbewijzen van het
ACW heeft teruggekocht. Zij hebben geen aanwijzingen gevonden dat Belfius anders heeft gehandeld dan een
voorzichtige en bezonnen economische speler in een markteconomie zou hebben gedaan.

Het betrokken contract is niet bij de Commissie aangemeld. De Commissie wil hier herhalen dat lidstaten geenszins
verplicht zijn om maatregelen aan te melden die geen staatssteun inhouden.

Op 3 april 2012 heeft de Commissie een onderzoek ingeleid naar een garantieregeling voor financiële coöperaties
(zaaknummer SA.33927). In het kader van dat onderzoek zal zij alle relevante elementen onderzoeken die haar
kunnen helpen om tot een definitief besluit te komen.

C 80 E / 178 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004939/13**

**to the Commission**
**Mark Demesmaeker (Verts/ALE)**

_(6 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ State aid to Belfius

On 31 January 2013, an agreement was made public under which the bank Belfius, which is 100% owned by the
Belgian State, is buying back its own redeemed shares from the limited liability cooperative societies Sociaal
Engagement and Mouvement Social for EUR 112 million. EUR 40 million of this is being paid over a 10-year period,
while the remaining EUR 72 million is being paid immediately but re-invested by the cooperative societies in a
subordinated perpetual loan with Belfius. This loan provides an interest rate of 6.25%, while a complementary
commercial contract (that has since been disassociated but was signed by both parties at the time) provided a
supplementary interest rate of 1.50% on the loan. These contracts, including the ‘complementary commercial
contract’, were submitted to Belfius’s board of directors and notified to the then minister, Steven Vanackere, by the
representatives of Belgium’s Federal Holding and Investment Company.

Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union imposes a supranational obligation on
Member States to give notice of state aid before it is put into effect.

I would like the Commission to explain the extent to which contracts of this kind fall under the obligation to give
notice of state aid, the extent to which this has been investigated and the extent to which the Belgian State has made
any notification in this regard.

In addition, I would like to make the Commission aware that, in a different but related case — namely the
investigation into the guarantee scheme protecting the shares of individual members of financial cooperatives (case
SA.33927) — indications have recently surfaced that the directors of the now affiliated companies Arcofin, Arcopar
and Arcoplus drafted the royal decrees establishing the guarantee scheme in question themselves and in so doing
created a privileged arrangement for all of Arcofin’s institutional partners, namely in the shape of its own ‘piggy bank’,
managed by the non-profit association Quadragesimo Anno. I would appreciate it if the Commission could let me
know the extent to which the method of establishment of a guarantee scheme of this kind has an impact on the
assessment of whether state aid has occurred.

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

_(27 June 2013)_

A contract only falls under the obligation to notify state aid to the Commission if it grants state aid to one or more
undertakings.

A State-owned company does not grant state aid to another contracting party if it acts in line with the behaviour of a
reasonably prudent economic operator in a market economy, because in those circumstances the other party does
not receive an advantage which it would not have obtained in the market.

The services of the Commission put questions to Belgium about the contract under which Belfius bought back profitsharing securities ( _winstbewijzen_ /‘parts beneficiaries’) from ACW/MOC. They have not found any indication that
Belfius has acted in way that differed from the behaviour of a reasonably prudent economic operator in a market

economy.

The contract has not been notified to the Commission. The Commission would recall that Member States are under
no obligation to notify measures which do not entail state aid.

On 3 April 2012, the Commission opened an investigation into a guarantee scheme for financial cooperatives (case
SA.33927). It will, as part of that investigation, investigate all relevant elements that will help it to take a final
decision.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 179

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-004940/13**
**aan de Commissie (Vicevoorzitter / Hoge Vertegenwoordiger)**

**Mark Demesmaeker (Verts/ALE)**

_(6 mei 2013)_

_Betreft:_ VP/HR — Aan banden leggen van explosieve wapens in dichtbevolkte gebieden

In 2011 was er sprake van ten minste 21 499 burgerslachtoffers als gevolg van explosieve wapens, waarvan 87 % in
dichtbevolkte gebieden. Deze problematiek is onder meer door het conflict in Syrië actueel.

Hoewel er specifieke regelgeving bestaat voor sommige soorten explosieve wapens (zoals clustermunitie en antipersoonsmijnen), ontbreekt regelgeving voor explosieve wapens als bredere categorie. Daardoor gelden in de meeste
gevallen enkel de algemene grondregels (zoals het verbod op het rechtstreeks aanvallen van burgers en
burgerobjecten en het verbod op niet-onderscheidende aanvallen), die in de praktijk evenwel ruimte geven voor
verschillende interpretaties.

Het Norms on Explosive Weapons (NEW) project van het VN-Instituut voor ontwapeningsonderzoek (UNIDIR), stelt
voor de explosieve wapens als één categorie te reguleren gebaseerd op hun fragmentatie‐ en schokgolfeigenschappen.

Ik vernam dan ook graag van de hoge vertegenwoordiger of de EU actief internationale regelgeving gericht op zowel
de aard als het gebruik van explosieve wapens in dichtbevolkte gebieden zal voorstellen en bevorderen?

**Antwoord van hoge vertegenwoordiger/vicevoorzitter Ashton namens de Commissie**

_(3 juli 2013)_

De EU blijft verontrust over de humanitaire gevolgen van het gebruik van wapens, inclusief conventionele explosieve
wapens, in dichtbevolkte gebieden en heeft nota genomen van de opvatting van het Internationale Comité van het
Rode Kruis dat het gebruik van explosieve wapens waarvan de effecten zich in een ruime straal manifesteren, moet
worden vermeden in dichtbevolkte gebieden. De EU heeft het Syrische bewind gevraagd om op te houden met het
gericht bestoken van burgers, om een eind te maken aan aanvallen vanuit de lucht en aan artillerieaanvallen en om
alle geweld onmiddellijk te staken. De EU is ook geschokt door de aanhoudende, wijdverbreide en systematische
grove schendingen van de mensenrechten in Syrië.

De EU dringt er bij alle partijen op aan het internationaal humanitair recht en de mensenrechten volledig te
eerbiedigen en zij zal de volledige naleving van het internationaal humanitair recht en de mensenrechten op zichtbare
en samenhangende wijze blijven bevorderen, ook met betrekking tot het gebruik van explosieve wapens in
dichtbevolkte gebieden en om de bescherming van burgers te verbeteren en hen te behoeden voor schadelijke
gevolgen van het gebruik van explosieve wapens. De EU is ook van mening dat de kwestie van het gebruik van
explosieve wapens in dichtbevolkte gebieden systematischer en actiever moet worden aangepakt.

C 80 E / 180 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004940/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Mark Demesmaeker (Verts/ALE)**

_(6 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Curbing the use of explosive weapons in densely populated areas

In 2011, explosive weapons claimed the lives of at least 21 499 civilian victims, 87% of them in densely populated
areas. This problem is a current one partly because of the conflict in Syria.

Although specific rules and regulations exist concerning some types of explosive weapons (such as cluster munitions
and anti-personnel mines), there are none governing explosive weapons as a wider category. In most cases, therefore,
only general principles apply (such as the prohibition on directly attacking civilians and civilian targets and the
prohibition on indiscriminate attacks), which in practice, however, allow much scope for differences of
interpretation.

The Norms on Explosive Weapons (NEW) project of the UN Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) proposes
that explosive weapons should be regulated as a single category on the basis of their fragmentation and shock wave
properties.

I should therefore be interested to hear from the High Representative whether the EU intends to actively propose and
promote international rules concerning both the nature and the use of explosive weapons in densely populated areas.

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

_(3 July 2013)_

The EU continues to be very preoccupied by the humanitarian impact of the use of weapons, including conventional
explosive weapons, in densely populated areas and took note of the view expressed by the International Committee of
the Red Cross that the use of explosive weapons with a wide impact area must be avoided in densely populated areas.
The EU has called on the Syrian regime to stop targeting civilians, halt airstrikes and artillery attacks and for an
immediate end to all violence. The EU is also appalled by the continued widespread and systematic gross violations of
human rights in Syria.

The EU urges all parties to armed conflicts to fully respect international humanitarian and human rights law and it
will continue to promote full compliance with international humanitarian and human rights law in a visible and
consistent manner, including with respect to the use of explosive weapons in densely populated areas and in order to
enhance the protection of civilians and prevent harmful consequences for them from the use of explosive weapons.
The EU also believes that the issue of the use of explosive weapons in populated areas should be addressed in a more
systematic and active way.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 181

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-004941/13**

**aan de Commissie**
**Mark Demesmaeker (Verts/ALE)**

_(6 mei 2013)_

_Betreft:_ Verenigbaarheid van het Belgisch decreet van 24 november 1830 met het Unierecht

Het Belgisch decreet nr. 5 van 24 november 1830 sluit de leden van het Huis Oranje-Nassau voor altijd uit van alle
macht of gezag in België.

Dit verbod is ruimer dan het enkel weren van de troon van het Huis Oranje-Nassau, want het belet hun de toegang tot
de publieke sector of de uitoefening van het passief kiesrecht zoals bedoeld in artikel 20, lid 2, onder b) van
het VWEU. Voorts betreft het een discriminatie op grond van nationaliteit, die verboden wordt door artikel 18 van
het VWEU.

Dit ruime verbod lijkt dan ook onverenigbaar met de beginselen van vrij verkeer, non-discriminatie en burgerschap
van de Unie.

Is de Commissie van oordeel dat dit decreet in overeenstemming gebracht moet worden met het Unierecht?

**Antwoord van mevrouw Reding namens de Commissie**

_(18 juli 2013)_

Deze materie valt onder het Belgische decreet van 24 november 1830, dat buiten de bevoegdheden van de EU valt.

Het decreet heeft betrekking op bilaterale diplomatieke relaties tussen lidstaten. Overeenkomstig het uit artikel 4,
lid 1, en artikel 5, lid 2, van het VEU voortvloeiende beginsel van toewijzing van bevoegdheden vallen deze relaties
buiten de werkingssfeer van het EU-recht.

C 80 E / 182 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004941/13**

**to the Commission**
**Mark Demesmaeker (Verts/ALE)**

_(6 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Compatibility of the Belgian decree of 24 November 1830 with European law

Belgian Decree No 5 of 24 November 1830 debars members of the House of Orange-Nassau from any position of
power or authority in Belgium in perpetuity.

This prohibition goes beyond merely debarring members of the House of Orange-Nassau from the throne, because it
also excludes them from access to the public sector or from standing for election as referred to in Article 20(2)
(b) TFEU. It also constitutes discrimination on grounds of nationality, which is prohibited by Article 18 TFEU.

This extensive prohibition therefore seems incompatible with the principles of freedom of movement, nondiscrimination and citizenship of the Union.

Does the Commission consider that this decree should be brought into line with European law?

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

_(18 July 2013)_

The matter is covered by the Belgian decree of 24 November 1830, which falls outside the EU remit.

This decree concerns bilateral diplomatic relations between Member States which, in accordance with the principle of
the conferral of competences under Articles 4(1) and 5(2) TEU, are excluded from the ambit of EC law.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 183

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta P-004942/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Francesca Barracciu (S&D)**

_(6 maggio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Continuità territoriale e applicazione della tariffa agevolata massima ai cittadini europei nati in Sardegna e
emigrati fuori Regione

Nella decisione della Commissione del 23.4.2007 C(2007)1712 sull'imposizione di oneri di servizio pubblico su
talune rotte in provenienza e a destinazione della Sardegna, ai sensi dell'articolo 4 del regolamento (CEE) n. 2408/92
sull'accesso dei vettori aerei della Comunità alle rotte intracomunitarie è affermato, al punto 29, che «la Sardegna può
essere considerata zona periferica per la sua insularità e l'assenza di effettivi mezzi di trasporto alternativi».

Al paragrafo 3.6 di tale decisione «Tariffe preferenziali per i nati in Sardegna, anche se residenti fuori Sardegna»,
nell'escludere che il riconoscimento di tariffe agevolate in regime di continuità territoriale anche a quei cittadini
italiani nati in Sardegna ma residenti fuori Regione possa essere considerato compatibile con il regolamento (CEE) n.
2408/92, la Commissione dichiara tuttavia che l'obiettivo di «permettere agli emigrati sardi di restare legati alla loro
comunità culturale di origine» può essere considerato «un obiettivo legittimo di pubblico interesse, ai sensi
dell'articolo 4, paragrafo 1, lettera b), punto i) del regolamento» pur introducendo dei riferimenti alla necessità di
dimostrare «il legame eventualmente ancora esistente, per esempio, in termini familiari, tra la persona interessata e la
sua regione di origine» e ai mezzi finanziari di ciascun emigrato affermando che «poiché taluni emigrati non
dispongono dei mezzi necessari per pagare il prezzo di un volo annuale in Sardegna, sarebbe più adeguato e meno
restrittivo offrire aiuti agli emigrati interessati».

Il decreto del Ministero delle infrastrutture e dei trasporti del 21 febbraio 2013 (13A02186) pubblicato nella Gazzetta
Ufficiale n. 61 del 13 marzo 2013 ha invece stabilito che la tariffa agevolata massima (TAM), nel periodo dal
15 giugno al 15 settembre di ciascun anno, sia applicabile ai soli residenti in Sardegna.

Ritiene la Commissione che l'applicazione della TAM ai cittadini europei nati in Sardegna, seppur non residenti, ma
con un legame familiare ancora esistente nell'isola e/o che non dispongono di mezzi finanziari soddisfacenti, possa
essere considerata compatibile con il regolamento (CEE) n. 2408/92 e applicabile anche nei periodi di alta stagione?

**Risposta di Siim Kallas a nome della Commissione**

_(6 giugno 2013)_

Come l'onorevole deputata ha rilevato correttamente, nella decisione del 23 aprile 2007 (C (2007) 1712)
sull'imposizione di oneri di servizio pubblico la Commissione ha ritenuto che le tariffe aeree preferenziali per le
persone nate in Sardegna ma non residenti sull'isola fossero sproporzionate e incompatibili con il regolamento (CEE)
n. 2408/92 ( [1] ). Pur riconoscendo la legittimità dell'obiettivo di permettere agli emigrati sardi di restare legati alla loro
comunità culturale di origine, la Commissione ha concluso che le misure trasmesse fossero sproporzionate per
quattro ragioni, due delle quali sono connesse alla mancanza di prove riguardanti i legami familiari e i mezzi
finanziari ( [2] ).

Ai sensi del regolamento (CE) n. 1008/2008 ( [3] ), che ha abrogato il regolamento (CEE) n. 2408/92, occorre valutare
anche la necessità, l'adeguatezza, la proporzionalità fra l'onere di servizio pubblico e le esigenze di sviluppo
economico della regione in questione.

È improbabile che un sistema di tariffe preferenziali possa soddisfare i criteri di proporzionalità, ma la Commissione
non è in grado di procedere a una valutazione definitiva, in assenza delle caratteristiche specifiche di un eventuale
piano tariffario.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regolamento (CEE) n. 2408/92 del Consiglio, del 23 luglio 1992, sull'accesso dei vettori aerei della Comunità alle rotte intracomunitarie,

GU L 240 del 24.8.1992.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) La decisione della Commissione le illustra ai considerando 61 e 62:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:125:0016:0026:EN:PDF.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Regolamento (CE) n. 1008/2008 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 24 settembre 2008, recante norma comune per la prestazione di

servizi aerei nella Comunità, GU L 293 del 31.10.2008.

( **|**

( **|**

C 80 E / 184 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-004942/13**

**to the Commission**

**Francesca Barracciu (S&D)**

_(6 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Territorial continuity and application of the maximum concessionary fare to EU citizens born in Sardinia who
have emigrated from that region

— Whereas Recital 29 to the Commission decision of 23 April 2007 (C (2007) 1712) on public service obligations
on certain routes to and from Sardinia under Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 on access for
Community air carriers to intra‐Community air routes states that ‘Sardinia may be considered a peripheral region due
to its island location and lack of real alternative means of transport’;

— Whereas, while Commission states in Section 3.6 of that Decision — ‘Preferential fares for persons born in
Sardinia but not resident there’ — that the granting of concessionary fares for the purposes of territorial continuity to
Italian citizens born in Sardinia but residing outside that region cannot be considered compatible with Regulation
(EEC) No 2408/92, but that the goal of ‘enabling Sardinian emigrants to retain ties with their original cultural
community’ may be considered ‘a legitimate objective of public interest under Article 4(1)(b)(i) of the regulation’
while also referring to the need to show ‘any remaining link, such as family ties, between the person concerned and
their region of origin’ and to the financial means of each emigrant, stating that since ‘certain emigrants lack the
necessary means to pay the price of an annual trip to Sardinia, a more adequate and less restrictive measure would be
to offer aid to the emigrants concerned’;

— Whereas, under the Decree issued by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport on 21 February 2013 —
(13A02186) — published in Official Journal of the Italian Republic No 61 of 13 March 2013, the maximum
concessionary fare in the period 15 June to 15 September each year is applicable only to persons resident in Sardinia;

Does the Commission feel that the application of the maximum concessionary fare to EU citizens born in Sardinia
who, despite not being resident there, still have a family tie with the island and/or do not have adequate financial
means, could be considered compatible with Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 and applicable during high travel
seasons?

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

_(6 June 2013)_

As correctly mentionned by the Honourable member, the Commission considered in its Decision of 23 April 2007
(C (2007) 1712) on public service obligations that preferential air fares for persons born in Sardinia but not resident
there, were disproportionate and incompatible with Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 ( [1] ). While recognising the
legitimate objective for Sardinian emigrants to retain ties with their original cultural community, the measures
submitted at the time were, according to the Commission decision disproportionate for four reasons, two of them
being related to the lack of evidence related to family ties and financial means ( [2] ).

Under Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 ( [3] ), which repealed Regulation 2408/92, the necessity, the adequacy, the
proportionality between the public service obligation and the economic development needs of the region concerned
would also need to be assessed.

It is unlikely that a system of preferential fares would fulfill the proportionnality criteria, but the Commission cannot
make a definitive assessment, absent the specific features of a scheme.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes, OJ L 240, 24.8.1992.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) The Commission decision explains it in Recitals 61 and 62:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:125:0016:0026:EN:PDF

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Regulation (EC) No 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, 31.10.2008.

( **|**

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 185

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-004943/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Jörg Leichtfried (S&D)**

_(6. Mai 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Tiertransporte — für mehr Kontrollen benötigte Mittel

Um die Durchsetzung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1/2005 über den Schutz von Tieren beim Transport zu verbessern, ist
es ein erklärtes Ziel der Kommission, „mehr Kontrollen“ ( [1] ) zu erreichen. Mehr Kontrollen können allerdings nur dann
durchgeführt werden, wenn die Mitgliedstaaten dafür erheblich mehr Mittel bereitstellen als bisher.

Diese Zielsetzung ist begrüßenswert, doch aufgrund welcher Daten ist die Kommission der Auffassung, dass die
Mitgliedstaaten mehr Mittel als bisher zur Verfügung stellen werden, um die Zahl der Kontrollen von
Lebendtiertransporten zu erhöhen?

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

_(20. Juni 2013)_

Artikel 27 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1/2005 über den Schutz von Tieren beim Transport ( [2] ) lautet folgendermaßen:
„Die zuständige Behörde überprüft durch nicht diskriminierende Kontrollen von Tieren […], ob die Vorschriften
dieser Verordnung eingehalten wurden. Die Zahl der Kontrollen wird erhöht, wenn festgestellt wird, dass die
Vorschriften dieser Verordnung nicht eingehalten wurden“.

Zudem lautet Artikel 26 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 882/2004 über amtliche Kontrollen ( [3] ) wie folgt: „Die
Mitgliedstaaten sorgen dafür, dass angemessene finanzielle Mittel für die amtlichen Kontrollen verfügbar sind, und
zwar aus beliebigen Mitteln, die sie für angemessen halten, einschließlich einer allgemeinen Besteuerung oder der
Einführung von Gebühren oder Kostenbeiträgen, damit die erforderlichen personellen und sonstigen Mittel
bereitgestellt werden können“.

Somit sind die Mitgliedstaaten gesetzlich verpflichtet, bei Bedarf die Zahl der Kontrollen zu erhöhen und dafür Sorge
zu tragen, dass angemessene finanzielle Mittel für amtliche Kontrollen aus beliebigen Mitteln, die sie für erforderlich
halten, verfügbar sind.

In einem am 16. April 2013 angenommenen Durchführungsbeschluss der Kommission werden die Informationen,
welche die Mitgliedstaaten in den Jahresberichten über nichtdiskriminierende Kontrollen von Tiertransporten
aufnehmen müssen, sowie das entsprechende Muster, anhand dessen die Ergebnisse der Kontrollen innerhalb der
gesamten Union einheitlich und ordnungsgemäß verglichen werden können, festgelegt. Dieser Beschluss gilt ab dem
1. Januar 2015.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Bericht der Kommission an das Europäische Parlament und den Rat über die Auswirkungen der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1/2005 über den Schutz von

Tieren beim Transport (KOM(2011)0700), S. 14.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1/2005 des Rates über den Schutz von Tieren beim Transport und damit zusammenhängenden Vorgängen; ABl. L 3

vom 5.1.2005, S. 1.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Verordnung (EG) Nr. 882/2004 des Parlaments und des Rates vom 29. April 2004 über amtliche Kontrollen zur Überprüfung der Einhaltung des

Lebensmittel- und Futtermittelrechts sowie der Bestimmungen über Tiergesundheit und Tierschutz; ABl. L 165 vom 30.4.2004.

( **|**

( **|**

C 80 E / 186 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004943/13**

**to the Commission**
**Jörg Leichtfried (S&D)**

_(6 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Animal transport — necessary funds to increase the number of inspections

In order to improve the enforcement of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport, it
is the Commission’s declared objective to achieve ‘an increase in the number of inspections’ ( [1] ). Increasing the number
of inspections is only possible if Member States allocate considerably more funds to this aim than they have done so
far.

This objective is very welcome, but on the basis of what data does the Commission believe that Member States will
attribute more funds than they have done so far, in order to increase the number of inspections of live animal
transports?

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

_(20 June 2013)_

According to Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport ( [2] ) ‘The
competent authorities shall check that the requirements of this regulation have been complied with, by carrying out
non-discriminatory inspections […]. The proportion of inspections shall be increased where it is established that the
provisions of this regulation have been disregarded’.

In addition, according to Article 26 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 on official controls ( [3] ) ‘Member States shall
ensure that adequate financial resources are available to provide the necessary staff and other resources for official
controls by whatever means considered appropriate, including through general taxation or by establishing fees or
charges’.

Hence, Member States are legally obliged to increase the number of inspections if necessary and to ensure adequate
financial resources for official controls by whatever means considered necessary.

A Commission Implementing Decision adopted on 16 April 2013 establishes the information to be included in
Member State annual reports on non-discriminatory inspections of animal transport and the relative model form
which will permit a proper comparison of the outcome of such inspections in a harmonised manner across the
Union. This decision shall apply from 1 January 2015.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the impact of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection

of animals during transport (COM(2011)0700), p. 14.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations; OJ L 3, 5.1.2005, p. 1.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of

compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rule OJ L 165, 30.4.2004.

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

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 187

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004944/13**
**à la Commission (Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante)**

**Patrick Le Hyaric (GUE/NGL)**

_(6 mai 2013)_

_Objet:_ VP/HR — Construction d'un mur de séparation dans la vallée de Crémisan, à Bethléem (Palestine)

Les représentants de la ville chrétienne palestinienne de Beit Jala, près de Bethléem, sont menacés de voir la plupart de
leurs terrains confisqués par l'armée israélienne qui a déjà commencé à construire le mur annexant des terres
palestiniennes à Israël en violation des conventions des Nations unies.

La justice israélienne s'est prononcée fin avril en faveur de la construction du mur de séparation dans la vallée
palestinienne de Crémisan, site agricole de 170 hectares.

L'isolement progressif des habitants de Bethléem et la confiscation de leurs terres par le mur de séparation israélien est
une nouvelle étape dans le processus de colonisation d'Israël.

1. La Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante est‐elle au courant de cette nouvelle confiscation de terres et de la
construction du mur par Israël en territoire palestinien?

2. Quelles sont les mesures que l'Union européenne peut mettre en œuvre afin de protéger la population de
Palestine contre les colonisations, la construction du mur, les confiscations de terres et les démolitions d'habitations?

3. Ne serait‐il pas envisageable d'exhorter Israël à respecter les conventions des Nations unies et de lui rappeler le
respect de l'article 2 des accords souscrits avec l'Union européenne?

4. De quelle manière l'Union européenne peut‐elle jouer un rôle actif pour que le processus de paix israélopalestinien puisse aboutir?

**Réponse donnée par M** **[me]** **Ashton, Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante au nom de la Commission**

_(8 août 2013)_

La Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante est au courant de la construction d'un mur de séparation dans la vallée de
Cremisan. La position de l'UE est claire sur le fait que la construction de ce mur de séparation sur des terres occupées
est illégale au regard du droit international. L'UE demeure fermement opposée aux activités de colonisation
israélienne en Palestine et fait passer ce message à Israël ainsi qu'à diverses enceintes internationales. L'UE met
également tout en œuvre pour faire en sorte que la concrétisation de ses politiques soit conforme à sa position sur les
colonies.

Au-delà de ses déclarations publiques concernant les activités de colonisation, les démolitions et l'évolution de la
situation dans la zone C qui risquent de rendre impossible une solution fondée sur la coexistence de deux États, l'UE
encourage également un développement de la population palestinienne locale dans la zone C par l'intermédiaire de
plans directeurs mis en place avec des communautés palestiniennes. En ce qui concerne les relations entre l'UE, Israël
et l'accord d'association, l'UE a déclaré que «si un accord pour mettre fin à ce conflit qui dure depuis des décennies
était atteint, la porte serait ouverte à un approfondissement et à un renforcement de la coopération entre l'Union
européenne et tous les pays de la région».

L'Union européenne joue un rôle actif dans les efforts actuellement déployés par la communauté internationale pour
tenter de relancer les négociations de fond directes entre les parties. En particulier, l'UE attache une grande importance
à son dialogue politique stratégique avec les Israéliens et les Palestiniens, qui lui permet d'user de son influence et de
plaider en faveur d'un retour à la table des négociations. L'UE exerce une pression constante sur les deux parties ainsi
que sur d'autres acteurs clés afin qu'ils jouent leurs rôles respectifs dans l'effort de recherche d'une solution pacifique
au conflit israélo-palestinien.

C 80 E / 188 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004944/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Patrick Le Hyaric (GUE/NGL)**

_(6 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Construction of a separation wall in the Cremisan Valley near Bethlehem (Palestine)

Representatives of the Christian Palestinian city of Beit Jala, near Bethlehem, risk seeing most of their land confiscated
by the Israeli army, which, in breach of United Nations conventions, has already begun building a wall annexing
Palestinian land to Israel.

In late April, the Israeli courts gave the go ahead for the construction of the separation wall in the Palestinian
Cremisan Valley, home to 170 hectares of farmland.

The increasing isolation of the people of Bethlehem and the confiscation of their land through the building of the
Israeli separation wall represents a new stage in Israel's settlement programme.

1. Is the VP/HR aware of this latest instance of the confiscation of land and the construction of a wall by Israel in
Palestinian territory?

2. What measures can the European Union take to protect the inhabitants of Palestine against encroachment in the
form of new Israeli settlements, the construction of the wall, the confiscation of land and the demolition of their
homes?

3. Would it not be possible to urge Israel to comply with the relevant United Nations conventions and Article 2 of
the Association Agreement it has signed with the European Union?

4. How might the European Union play an active role in ensuring that the Israeli-Palestinian peace process
succeeds?

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

_(8 August 2013)_

The HR/VP is aware of the construction of the separation barrier in Cremisan. The EU position is clear that the
construction of this barrier on occupied land is illegal under international law. The EU remains firmly opposed to
Israeli settlement activities in Palestine and conveys this message to Israel as well as in various International fora. The
EU is also making every effort to ensure its policies are implemented in a manner consistent with its position on
settlements.

Beyond its public statements concerning settlement activity, demolitions and developments in Area C which threaten
to make a two-state solution impossible, the EU is also promoting local Palestinian development in Area C through
master-plans developed with Palestinian communities. As regards the relations between the EU and Israel and the
Association Agreement, the EU has stated that, ‘If an agreement to finally end this conflict that has lasted for decades
was reached, the door would open to a deepened and enhanced cooperation between the European Union and all the
countries of the region’.

The European Union plays an active role in the current efforts of the international community to try to re-start direct
substantial negotiations between the parties. In particular, the EU attaches great importance to its strategic political
dialogue with both Israelis and Palestinians, which allows the Union to exert influence and push for a return to the
negotiating table. The EU is applying relentless pressure on both parties as well as on other key actors to play their
respective parts in its endeavour to find a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 189

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004945/13**

**à la Commission**
**Patrick Le Hyaric (GUE/NGL)**

_(6 mai 2013)_

_Objet:_ Arrêts saisonniers de centrales électriques en France

Selon des informations récentes, GDF Suez envisage d'arrêter temporairement trois centrales en France selon «un
projet de réorganisation et d'optimisation de nos activités de production d'électricité d'origine thermique en France»:

—
la centrale de Cycofos à Fos-sur-Mer (Bouches-du-Rhône), d'une capacité de 490 mégawatts, sera arrêtée pour
une période indéterminée;

—
les deux centrales à cycle combiné Combigolfe, également à Fos-sur-Mer, et Spem, à Montoir-de-Bretagne
(Loire-Atlantique), de 435 mégawatts chacune, seront aussi arrêtées et continueront à fonctionner l'hiver.
La centrale de Montoir, qui combine turbines à gaz et vapeur, a été inaugurée il y a deux ans seulement. Elle
assure la consommation annuelle de 450 000 foyers, essentiellement en Presqu'île de Guérande et Bretagnesud. GDF Suez y a investi 300 000 000 euros.

Subissant la concurrence du charbon américain et la baisse de la demande d'électricité en Europe, GDF Suez avait
annoncé fin février 7,3 gigawatts (GW) de fermetures ou mise sous cocon de centrales thermiques sur la
période 2009-2013 en Belgique, au Royaume-Uni, aux Pays-Bas et en Hongrie.

1. La Commission est-elle au courant de ce projet de réorganisation et d'optimisation des activités de production
d'électricité?

2. Quels sont les soutiens qui ont été concédés à GDF Suez à l'échelle européenne, ainsi qu'en France, en Belgique,
au Royaume Uni, aux Pays-Bas et en Hongrie?

3. Le groupe va-t-il bénéficier ou bénéficie-t-il d'autres mesures de soutien de l'Union et des pays cités?

4. Quelles sont les garanties qui existent quant au respect des droits liés au travail, et notamment du droit à un
emploi?

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

_(4 juillet 2013)_

1. La Commission est informée des projets de GDF Suez concernant la réorganisation de son parc de production
électrique.

2./3. Dans le cadre du PEER ( [1] ) lancé en 2009, la Commission a décidé d'allouer un montant de 190 millions d'euros
à GDF Suez (sa filiale GRTgaz), en vue de: soutenir la construction d'une nouvelle station de compression pour
permettre les flux bidirectionnels (48 millions d'euros); contribuer à l'acquisition de deux gazoducs; renforcer le
réseau gazier le long du couloir rhodanien, en France; développer le projet Midcat de Barcelone à la vallée du Rhône
(75 millions d'euros); construire 358 km de gazoduc pour renforcer le réseau gazier dans le corridor nord français; et
développer/renforcer les interconnexions avec la Belgique et l'Allemagne (67 millions d'euros). Le projet renforcera la
sécurité de l'approvisionnement sur l'axe Afrique-Espagne-France, avivera la concurrence sur le marché et permettra
une meilleure intégration du marché ibérique du gaz dans le marché européen du gaz. Il existe également des régimes
de subventions au niveau national pour favoriser la production à partir de sources renouvelables.

4. La Commission n'a pas le pouvoir d'intervenir dans les discussions entre les représentants du patronat et du
personnel ou dans des décisions internes de l'entreprise, mais elle les incite vivement à adopter les meilleures pratiques
ainsi qu'une gestion socialement responsable dans toute restructuration. Pour faire suite à son livre vert de
janvier 2012 ( [2] ) et à l'adoption par le Parlement européen le 15 janvier 2013 du rapport Cercas, la Commission
proposera une communication établissant un cadre de qualité, qui définira la législation et les initiatives actuelles de
l'UE en matière de restructuration des entreprises et qui présentera les meilleures pratiques à appliquer par toutes les
parties prenantes.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Programme énergétique européen pour la relance.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Voir les réponses à la consultation ainsi qu'une synthèse à l'adresse suivante: http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=8908&langId=en

(en anglais).

C 80 E / 190 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004945/13**

**to the Commission**
**Patrick Le Hyaric (GUE/NGL)**

_(6 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Seasonal closures of French power stations

It has recently emerged that GDF Suez is intending to close three power stations in France as part of plans to
‘reorganise and optimise our thermal power generation operations in France’:

—
the Cycofos plant at Fos-sur-Mer (Bouches-du-Rhône department), with a capacity of 490 megawatts, will be
shut down indefinitely;

—
Combigolfe, also at Fos-sur-Mer, and Spem, at Montoir-de-Bretagne (in the Loire-Atlantique department), two
combined-cycle plants with a capacity of 435 megawatts each, will be shut down temporarily and brought
back on stream in winter. The Montoir plant, which has both gas and steam turbines, was opened only two
years ago. It covers the annual electricity needs of 450 000 households, mainly in the Guérande peninsula and
southern Brittany. GDF Suez has invested EUR 300 million in this plant.

In the face of competition from American coal and declining demand for electricity in Europe, in late February GDF
Suez announced the closure or mothballing over the period from 2009 to 2013 of power plants with a total capacity
of 7.3 gigawatts in Belgium, the UK, the Netherlands and Hungary.

1. Is the Commission aware of these plans to reorganise and optimise power generation?

2. What financial support has GDF Suez received at European level and in France, Belgium, the UK and Hungary?

3. Will the group receive or does it currently receive any other forms of support from the EU or any of the
countries listed?

4. What assurances can be given that workers' rights, particularly the right to work, will be upheld?

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

_(4 July 2013)_

1. The Commission is aware of the plans of GDF Suez to reorganise its power generation park.

2-3. In the framework of the EEPR ( [1] ) launched in 2009, the Commission decided to grant EUR 190 million to GDF
Suez (its GRTgaz subsidiary) to: support the construction of a new compression station to allow bi-directional flows
(EUR 48 M); support the procurement of two gas pipes; reinforce the gas network on the French Rhône Corridor;
develop the Midcat branch from Barcelona to the Rhone Valley (EUR 75 M); build 358km of gas pipes to reinforce the
gas network on the French North Corridor; and to develop/reinforce the interconnections with Belgium and Germany
(EUR 67 M). The project will reinforce security of supply on the Africa‐Spain–France axis, increase market
competition and better integrate the Iberian gas market into the European gas market. Some subsidy schemes also
exist at national level to favour renewable generation.

4. The Commission has no powers to interfere in discussions between management and workers' representatives
or in specific company internal decisions but urges them to follow best practices and socially responsible
management in any restructuring. Following its January 2012 Green Paper ( [2] ) and the adoption by the European
Parliament on 15 January 2013 of the Cercas report, the Commission will propose a communication establishing a
Quality Framework that will frame the current EU legislation and initiatives relevant to restructuring of companies
and will present the best practices to be implemented by all stakeholders.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) European Energy Program for Recovery.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) See the replies and a summary under http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=8908&langId=en

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 191

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004946/13**
**à la Commission (Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante)**

**Patrick Le Hyaric (GUE/NGL)**

_(6 mai 2013)_

_Objet:_ VP/HR — Raids israéliens dans la bande de Gaza

L'aviation israélienne a mené, le 30 avril dernier, un raid sur la bande de Gaza, tuant un Palestinien et en blessant un
autre. Selon des habitants de Gaza, Haitham al-Meshal, 29 ans, a été abattu alors qu'il circulait à moto dans le nord du
territoire.

L'armée israélienne a confirmé l'opération aérienne, la première à viser explicitement un militant islamiste depuis le
cessez-le-feu instauré après huit jours de conflit dans le territoire palestinien, en novembre 2012.

D'autres raids aériens ont été menés par l'armée israélienne sur le territoire palestinien, notamment les 3 et 28 avril
derniers.

Compte tenu de la spirale d'attaques et de tensions qui est en train de s'aggraver dans la région depuis quelques jours:

1. Quelles sont les mesures que l'Union européenne peut mettre en œuvre afin de protéger la population de Gaza,
déjà meurtrie et constamment menacée par l'armée israélienne?

2. De quelle manière l'Union peut-elle jouer un rôle actif pour que le processus de paix israélo-palestinien puisse
aboutir?

**Réponse donnée par M** **[me]** **Ashton, Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante au nom de la Commission**

_(1_ _[er]_ _juillet 2013)_

La Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante a soutenu activement la consolidation de l'accord de cessez-le-feu du
21 novembre 2012 entre Gaza et Israël, conformément aux conclusions du Conseil des Affaires étrangères (CAE) du
10 décembre 2011 sur le processus de paix au Moyen-Orient. Les efforts déployés ont englobé des discussions avec
les principales parties prenantes. L'examen approfondi des options et des instruments envisageables se poursuit.
L'objectif politique poursuivi de longue date par l'UE en ce qui concerne la bande de Gaza est de parvenir à un
changement fondamental de la situation en tenant compte des aspects politiques, sécuritaires et économiques qu'elle
comporte, conformément à la résolution 1860/2009 du Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies.

En décembre 2012, le CAE a déclaré que l'intensification tragique des hostilités observée récemment mettait en
évidence de façon très claire que le statu quo dans la bande de Gaza n'était pas tenable et a réitéré l'appel lancé par l'UE
en faveur de l'ouverture immédiate, durable et sans condition de points de passage afin de permettre à l'aide
humanitaire de parvenir dans la bande de Gaza et aux marchandises et aux personnes d'y entrer et d'en sortir, la
situation dans la bande de Gaza étant intenable tant que celle-ci demeurera politiquement et économiquement
séparée de la Cisjordanie.

En ce qui concerne les frappes aériennes israéliennes effectuées récemment dans la bande de Gaza, et plus
spécifiquement les «assassinats ciblés», la Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante a répété à plusieurs reprises dans ses
déclarations publiques (par exemple le 16 novembre 2012), ainsi que dans le cadre des efforts diplomatiques qu'elle
n'a pas cessé de déployer, qu'Israël a le droit de protéger sa population des tirs de roquettes perpétrés par des franges
extrémistes, tout en invitant instamment ce dernier à veiller à ce que sa réaction soit proportionnée et ne viole pas le
droit international.

C 80 E / 192 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004946/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Patrick Le Hyaric (GUE/NGL)**

_(6 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Israeli air strikes in the Gaza Strip

On 30 April 2013, Israeli aircraft conducted an air strike in the Gaza Strip, killing one Palestinian and wounding
another. According to residents of Gaza, Haitham al-Meshal, 29, was cut down while riding his motorcycle in the
northern part of the territory.

The Israeli army confirmed the air strike, the first to explicitly target an Islamist militant since the ceasefire was
declared in November 2012 following eight days of fighting on Palestinian territory.

This is the latest in a series of air strikes to have been carried out by the Israeli army on Palestinian territory, which
included attacks launched on 3 and 28 April 2013.

Against the background of attacks and escalating tension in the region over the last few days:

1. What measures can the European Union take to protect the inhabitants of Gaza, who have already suffered so
much and are under constant threat from the Israeli army?

2. How might the European Union play an active role in ensuring that the peace processbetween Israel and
Palestine succeeds?

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

_(1 July 2013)_

The HR/VP has actively supported consolidation of the ceasefire of 21 November 2012 in Gaza and in Israel, in line
with the Foregin Affairs Council (FAC) conclusions on the Middle East Peace Process of 10 December 2011. This has
included discussions with the key stakeholders. The work on exploring possible options and instruments in a
comprehensive manner continues. The EU's long-standing political objective as regards Gaza is a fundamental change
to the situation with related political, security and economic aspects — in line with the UN Security Council
Resolution 1860/2009.

In December 2012, the FAC stated that the latest tragic escalation of hostilities underlined very clearly the
unsustainable nature of the status quo with regard to the situation in the Gaza Strip and reiterated the EU's call for the
immediate, sustained and unconditional opening of crossings for the flow of humanitarian aid, commercial goods
and persons to and from the Gaza Strip, the situation of which is unsustainable as long as it remains politically and
economically separated from the West Bank.

As regards Israeli airstrikes conducted recently in the Gaza Strip, and more specifically the so called targeted killing,
the HR/VP has repeatedly expressed in her public statements (e.g. 16 November 2012) and in the course of her
constant diplomatic efforts that Israel has the right to protect its population from rocket attacks by extremist factions
but at the same time urged Israel to ensure that its response is proportionate and does not violate international law.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 193

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-004947/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(6 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Erros nas previsões do FMI

Considerando que:

—
O economista-chefe do FMI reconheceu a existência de erros nas previsões, especialmente no cálculo do
impacto da austeridade na economia;

— Para os países onde a _troika_ está presente, a capacidade do FMI para antever a evolução da economia tem sido,
no último ano, nula; há um ano, apontou 2013 como o início da recuperação; a Grécia conseguiria uma
variação nula do PIB, Portugal cresceria 0,3 % e a Irlanda 2 %;

—
Os resultados são, decorridos três meses e meio do ano de 2013, bastante dececionantes, com o PIB da Grécia a
recuar mais 4,2 %, a economia portuguesa a cair 2,3 % e o crescimento da Irlanda apenas em 1,1 %;

Pergunto à Comissão:

Os constantes erros nas previsões não podem levar à adoção de políticas erradas, que só _a posteriori_ se detetam?

**Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão**

_(21 de agosto de 2013)_

A Comissão não se pronuncia sobre eventuais erros de previsão de outras instituições.

Desde 2011 até meados de 2012, a área do euro encontrava-se numa situação excecional de elevado grau de
incerteza, incluindo de especulação sobre os riscos monetários, criando um efeito negativo que minava a confiança.
As previsões económicas baseiam-se num certo número de pressupostos relativos às políticas internas e ao respetivo
impacto, incluindo a concretização dos compromissos políticos, bem como ao ambiente externo (situação
económica dos principais parceiros comerciais, preços dos produtos de base, etc.).

As previsões económicas são um instrumento importante para a discussão dos programas e a avaliação do impacto
das medidas políticas em causa, com vista a enfrentar os desafios de política económica que se colocam a um dado
país. No entanto, da exatidão das previsões económicas é inferior em tempos de crise e de elevada incerteza ( [1] ).

Tendo este facto em conta, os programas de ajustamento económico foram concebidos para abordar os graves
desafios económicos estruturais que estão na origem da crise nos países em questão e representam um compromisso
assumido pelos respetivos governos. Quando tal se justifique, as alterações são decididas pelos Estados-Membros da
área do euro, incluindo o país em causa.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/economic_paper/2012/pdf/ecp476_en.pdf

C 80 E / 194 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004947/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(6 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ IMF forecast errors

— The chief economist at the IMF has acknowledged that it was wrong in its forecasts and especially in calculating the
impact of austerity on the economy.

— Over the last year, the IMF has failed to predict how the economy would develop in countries with a Troika
programme in place. A year ago, it identified 2013 as the year recovery would start; Greece’s GDP would remain
unchanged, Portugal would grow by 0.3% and Ireland by 2%.

— Three and a half months into 2013, the results are rather disappointing: Greece’s GDP has fallen by a further 4.2%,
the Portuguese economy has shrunk by 2.3% and Ireland’s growth is barely 1.1%.

Could constant errors in the forecasts, which are only detected retrospectively, result in the wrong policies being
adopted?

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

_(21 August 2013)_

The Commission does not comment on possible forecast errors of other institutions.

From 2011 to mid-2012, the euro area was in a state of exceptionally high degree of uncertainty, including
speculation about denomination risks, creating negative feed-back loops and undermining confidence. Economic
forecasts rely on a number of assumptions regarding domestic policies and their impact, including the
implementation of policy commitments, as well as the external environment (economic situation of main trading
partners, commodity prices etc.).

Economic forecasts are an important tool to frame programme discussions and to gauge the impact of policy
measures under consideration in order to address the economic challenges for a country. However, the accuracy of
economic forecasts is lower in times of crisis and high uncertainty ( [1] ).

This being said, economic adjustment programmes are designed to address the severe structural economic challenges
at the root of the crisis in the respective countries and are a commitment by the respective governments. As
warranted, changes are decided by the euro area Member States, including the country concerned.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** )    http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/economic_paper/2012/pdf/ecp476_en.pdf

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 195

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-004949/13**

**do Komisji**
**Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD)**

_(6 maja 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Bojkot polskiej żywności przez Danię

W ostatnim czasie w duńskiej prasie pojawia się wiele negatywnych sygnałów dotyczących polskiej żywności.
Duńczycy otwarcie nawołują do bojkotu towarów pochodzących z Polski. W całą akcję zaangażowała się duńska
minister rolnictwa Mette Gjerskov. Skrytykowała ona w portalach społecznościowych polską żywność, zarzucając jej
między innymi brak odpowiednich testów jakości.

1. Czy Komisja posiada informacje o bojkocie polskiej żywności oraz bojkocie sklepów, które ją sprzedają?

2. Czy Komisja podejmie działania przeciwko Danii?

3. Czy Komisja zamierza podjąć działania w celu promocji polskiej żywności na rynku europejskim po skandalu,
w którym oskarżyła polskiej firmy o mieszaniu mięsa końskiego z wołowiną?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Tonia Borga w imieniu Komisji**

_(21 czerwca 2013 r.)_

1. Komisja nie posiada wiedzy na temat bojkotów polskiej żywności ani sklepów ją sprzedających.

2. i 3. Komisja nie przewiduje obecnie żadnych działań, ale będzie obserwować rozwój sytuacji i w razie potrzeby
rozważy podjęcie odpowiednich środków.

C 80 E / 196 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004949/13**

**to the Commission**
**Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD)**

_(6 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Danish boycott of Polish food

There has recently been much negative coverage of Polish food in the Danish press, and the Danes are openly calling
for a boycott of products from Poland. The Danish Minister for Agriculture, Mette Gjerskov, has become involved by
criticising Polish food on social networking sites, claiming for example that the necessary quality tests are not carried

out.

1. Has the Commission been informed of any boycott of Polish food or of shops selling Polish food?

2. Will the Commission take any action against Denmark?

3. Does the Commission intend to take any steps to promote Polish food in the European market following the
scandal during which a Polish company was accused of mixing horse meat with beef?

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

_(21 June 2013)_

1. The Commission is not aware of any boycotts on Polish food or on shops selling Polish foods.

2-3. No action is currently envisaged by the Commission, but the Commission will follow up this issue and will
consider appropriate measures if necessary.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 197

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-004950/13**

**do Komisji**
**Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD)**

_(6 maja 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Wzrost stawki VAT na produkty i urządzenia medyczne

Komisja Europejska domaga się od Polski podwyżki z 8 do 23 proc. stawki VAT na sprzęt medyczny i produkty
farmaceutyczne. Nowa stawka będzie obejmować ponad 90 proc. rodzajów wyrobów medycznych. Zmiany te będą
miały największy wpływ na budżet i działalność szpitali, przychodni, sanatoriów czy domów pomocy społecznej.
Czyli na podmioty, które w Polsce nie mają możliwości odliczania VAT. Decyzja Komisji powoduje, że znacząco
wzrosną koszty ich funkcjonowania. Podwyższenie stawki VAT odczują też pacjenci. Przy praktycznie stałej wycenie
procedur medycznych wzrosną koszty wykonania zabiegu w związku ze wzrostem finalnej ceny zużytych
materiałów.

1. Na jakiej podstawie Komisja zażądała od Polski zwiększenia stawki podatku VAT na produkty i urządzenia
medyczne?

2. Czy Komisja jest świadoma kosztów, jakie poniosą szpitale oraz pacjenci?

3. Od jakich innych krajów Komisja zażądała zwiększenia stawki VAT na wyżej wymienione produkty?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Algirdasa Šemetę w imieniu Komisji**

_(12 czerwca 2013 r.)_

1. Komisja informuje Pana Posła, iż zwróciła się do Polski, by dostosowała się do zobowiązań wynikających
z art. 96‐98 dyrektywy 2006/112/WE Rady z dnia 28 listopada 2008 r. w sprawie wspólnego systemu podatku od
wartości dodanej, w związku z załącznikiem III do tej dyrektywy.

2. Odnośnie do ograniczonej kategorii przedmiotowych produktów, a więc skutków finansowych dla
konsumentów końcowych, Komisja zachęca Pana Posła do zapoznania się z komunikatem prasowym Komisji z dnia
24 stycznia 2013 r. ( [1] ) Ponadto nie jest to powód, który pozwoliłby Komisji na zaprzestanie zapewniania
przestrzegania i skutecznego stosowania prawa europejskiego.

3. Stojąc na straży traktatów, Komisja czuwa nad zgodnością prawa krajowego z prawem Unii oraz, jeśli zachodzi
taka konieczność, wszczyna procedurę przewidzianą w art. 258 Traktatu o funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej.
Ostatnio Trybunał skazał Hiszpanię, w następstwie skargi Komisji z powodu niewykonania zobowiązania, za
stosowanie obniżonych stawek VAT na produkty podobne do tych, które są przedmiotem procedury wszczętej
przeciwko Polsce ( [2] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-22_pl.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Wyrok Trybunału Sprawiedliwości z dnia 17 stycznia 2013 r. w sprawie C-360/11, Komisja Europejska przeciwko Królestwu Hiszpanii.

C 80 E / 198 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004950/13**

**to the Commission**
**Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD)**

_(6 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Increase in VAT on medical products and devices

The Commission has asked Poland to increase the VAT rate it applies to medical equipment and pharmaceutical
products from 8% to 23%. The new rate will apply to over 90% of medical product types. These changes will have the
greatest effect on the budgets and working practices of hospitals, clinics, sanatoriums and residential care homes, or
in other words entities which are unable to deduct VAT under the rules in force in Poland. Their operating costs will
rise significantly as a result of the Commission’s decision, and patients will also be affected by the increase in the VAT
rate, since even though the costs of medical procedures will stay almost the same, the overall prices for performing
the procedures will rise due to the increase in the final costs of materials used.

1. On what grounds has the Commission asked Poland to increase the VAT rate it applies to medical products and
devices?

2. Is the Commission aware of the costs that will be incurred by hospitals and patients?

3. Which other countries have been asked by the Commission to increase the VAT rate applied to the above
products?

_(Version française)_

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

_(12 juin 2013)_

1. La Commission informe l'Honorable Parlementaire qu'elle a demandé à la Pologne de se mettre en conformité
avec ses obligations en vertu des articles 96 à 98 de la directive 2006/112/CE du Conseil, du 28 novembre 2006,
relative au système commun de taxe sur la valeur ajoutée, lus en combinaison avec l'annexe III de celle-ci.

2. S'agissant de la catégorie limitée des produits concernés, et donc de la répercussion financière pour les
consommateurs finaux, la Commission invite l'Honorable Parlementaire à se reporter à son communiqué de presse
du 24 janvier 2013 ( [1] ). Au demeurant, il ne s'agit pas d'un paramètre qui permettrait à la Commission de ne plus
assurer le respect et l'application effective du droit européen.

3. En tant que gardienne des traités, la Commission veille à la conformité des droits nationaux avec le droit de
l'Union et engage au besoin la procédure prévue à l'article 258 du traité sur le fonctionnement de l'Union européenne.
L'Espagne a été récemment condamnée par la Cour suite au recours en manquement introduit par la Commission
contre l'application de taux réduits de TVA à des produits similaires à ceux faisant l'objet de la procédure contre
la Pologne ( [2] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-22_fr.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Arrêt de le Cour de justice du 17 janvier 2013, rendu dans l'affaire C‐360/11, Commission européenne contre Royaume d'Espagne.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 199

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-004951/13**
**do Komisji (Wiceprzewodniczącej/Wysokiej Przedstawiciel)**

**Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD)**

_(6 maja 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel – Szykany wobec rosyjskiego opozycjonisty Aleksieja
Nawalnego

Rosyjskie władze od dłuższego czasu próbują rozprawić się z jednym z najbardziej znanych opozycjonistów
Aleksiejem Nawalnym. Aresztowany po wydarzeniach na placu Bołotnym w maju 2012 r., w ostatnim czasie
ponownie stał się niewygodny dla rosyjskiej władzy. W kwietniu 2013 r. zadeklarował on, iż ma zamiar kandydować
na prezydenta. Dwa tygodnie później rozpoczął się jego kolejny proces. W opinii blogera organy ścigania i sąd
działają na zlecenie prezydenta Władimira Putina. Twierdzi, że niezależnie od zeznań świadków i zebranych
w sprawie dowodów sąd i tak uzna jego winę i wyda wyrok skazujący.

1. Czy Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel wie o sprawie opozycjonisty Aleksieja Nawalnego?

2. Jak Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel ocenia zarzuty kierowane wobec blogera oraz działania
podejmowane przez rosyjskie władze przeciwko niemu?

3. Czy Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel ma zamiar interweniować w opisanej sprawie?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez Wysoką Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodniczącą Catherine Ashton w imieniu**

**Komisji**
_(3 lipca 2013 r.)_

Wysoka Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodnicząca wie o sprawach prowadzonych przeciwko działaczowi
antykorupcyjnemu Aleksandrowi Nawalnemu oraz o trwającym przeciwko niemu w Kirowie procesie. Delegatura
UE w Moskwie z uwagą śledzi ten proces, jej obserwatorzy byli obecni na wszystkich posiedzeniach otwierających
proces w kwietniu.

W oświadczeniu wydanym 12 czerwca 2012 r. Wysoka Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodnicząca podkreśliła, że jest
zaniepokojona próbami zastraszania liderów opozycji. W kolejnych oświadczeniach Wysoka
Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodnicząca stwierdziła, że ostatnie nasilenie się politycznie umotywowanego zastraszania
oraz prześladowania działaczy opozycyjnych w Federacji Rosyjskiej jest źródłem poważnego i rosnącego niepokoju
UE.

Podczas konsultacji UE‐Rosja w sprawie praw człowieka, które odbyły się 17 maja 2013 r. w Brukseli, wiele uwagi
poświęcono ostatnim wydarzeniom w Federacji Rosyjskiej, w szczególności sytuacji społeczeństwa obywatelskiego
i przywódców opozycji. Podczas konsultacji omówiono sprawę A. Nawalnego – UE wezwała Rosję do
zagwarantowania mu prawa do sprawiedliwego procesu. Europejska Służba Działań Zewnętrznych będzie
w dalszym ciągu uważnie śledzić tę oraz pozostałe kwestie, zarówno w Brukseli, jak i za pośrednictwem delegatury
UE w Moskwie.

C 80 E / 200 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004951/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD)**

_(6 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Harassment of the Russian opposition activist Alexei Navalny

For some time now Alexei Navalny, one of Russia’s best-known opposition activists, has been subject to attempts by
the authorities in the country to bring him into line. He was arrested following the events in Bolotny Square in
May 2012, and has recently become a source of inconvenience again for the Russian authorities, as he announced in
April 2013 that he intended to stand for president. Two weeks later another set of court proceedings were opened
against him. According to Navalny, the law enforcement authorities and the court are acting on the instructions of the
president, Vladimir Putin, and he will be found guilty and sentenced regardless of any witness statements made or
evidence collected in the case.

1. Is the Vice-President/High Representative aware of the case involving the opposition activist Alexei Navalny?

2. What is the Vice-President/High Representative’s opinion of the accusations levelled at Alexei Navalny and the
action taken by the Russian authorities against him?

3. Is the Vice-President/High Representative planning to intervene in this case?

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

_(3 July 2013)_

The HR/VP is well aware of the cases opened against the anti-corruption activist Alexey Navalny and of the ongoing
trial of Mr Navalny taking place in Kirov. The EU Delegation in Moscow has followed the proceedings closely and
observed the opening sessions of the trial in April.

As HR/VP Ashton noted in a statement issued on 12 June, 2012, she is concerned about the attempts to intimidate
protest leaders. In later statements the HR stressed that the recent upsurge in politically motivated intimidation and
prosecution of opposition activists in the Russian Federation was of serious and growing concern to the EU.

The recent developments in the Russian Federation and in particular the situation of civil society and of opposition
leaders were high on the agenda of the EU-Russia human rights consultations which took place on 17 May 2013 in
Brussels. The case of Mr Navalny was raised during those consultations and the EU called on Russia to ensure his right
to a fair trial. The European External Action Service will keep on following this and other cases closely, both from the
headquarters as well as via the EU Delegation in Moscow.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 201

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-004952/13**

**do Komisji**
**Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD)**

_(6 maja 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Problemy mniejszości polskiej na Litwie

Od dłuższego czasu mniejszość polska na Litwie jest poddana szykanom ze strony władzy w Wilnie. Zakazano
między innymi pisania nazwisk po polsku oraz zniesiono podwójne polsko-litewskie nazwy ulic w miastach
zamieszkanych głównie przez ludność pochodzenia polskiego. Litewskie ministerstwo oświaty uniemożliwia
również nauczanie polskiego języka na Litwie dla dzieci pochodzących z polskich rodzin.

1. Jakie jest stanowisko Komisji w sprawie wymienionych przypadków łamania praw obywateli polskich na Litwie
i jawnej dyskryminacji?

2. Czy Komisja ma zamiar interweniować wobec władz Litwy?

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

_(10 lipca 2013 r.)_

Poszanowanie praw osób należących do mniejszości jest jedną z wartości, na których opiera się UE, i zostało
wyraźnie przywołane w art. 2 Traktatu o Unii Europejskiej. Zgodnie z art. 21 Karty praw podstawowych Unii
Europejskiej zakazana jest wszelka dyskryminacja ze względu na język lub przynależność do mniejszości narodowej.
Instytucje UE oraz państwa członkowskie są zobowiązane respektować wspomniane prawa podstawowe przy
wdrażaniu unijnych przepisów.

Trybunał Sprawiedliwości orzekł niedawno ( [1] ), że na obecnym etapie rozwoju prawa Unii zasady regulujące kwestię
zapisywania nazwisk i imion w aktach stanu cywilnego należą do kompetencji państw członkowskich, które,
wykonując te kompetencje, muszą jednakże przestrzegać prawa Unii Europejskiej, w szczególności postanowień
traktatowych dotyczących swobody każdego obywatela Unii do przemieszczania się i pobytu na terytorium państw
członkowskich.

W odniesieniu do kwestii nauczania języka polskiego w szkołach litewskich należy podkreślić, że za treść nauczania
oraz organizację systemów edukacyjnych odpowiadają państwa członkowskie.

W kwestiach nieobjętych zakresem prawa UE to na państwach członkowskich spoczywa obowiązek zapewnienia
przestrzegania zobowiązań dotyczących praw podstawowych wynikających z porozumień międzynarodowych
i ustawodawstwa krajowego. Litwa ratyfikowała Konwencję ramową Rady Europy o ochronie mniejszości
narodowych.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Wyrok z dnia 12 maja 2011 r. w sprawie C-391/09: Runevič-Vardyn i Wardyn.

C 80 E / 202 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004952/13**

**to the Commission**
**Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD)**

_(6 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Problems faced by the Polish minority in Lithuania

The Polish minority in Lithuania has been subject to harassment by the authorities in Vilnius for some time now.
Amongst other things, they have been forbidden to write their names in Polish, and dual-language Polish/Lithuanian
street name signs have been removed from towns where the majority of residents are of Polish origin. The Lithuanian
Ministry of Education has also made it impossible for children from Polish families to receive Polish-medium
education in Lithuania.

1. What is the Commission’s position on the abovementioned violations of the rights of Polish people living in
Lithuania and the blatant discrimination they are experiencing?

2. Does the Commission plan to intervene with the Lithuanian authorities?

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

_(10 July 2013)_

The respect for the rights of persons belonging to minorities is one of the values on which the EU is founded and
explicitly mentioned in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union. Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of
the EU prohibits any discrimination on grounds of language or of membership of a national minority. These
fundamental rights must be respected by EU institutions and by the Member States when they implement EC law.

The Court of Justice has recently ruled ( [1] ) that as European Union law stands at present, the rules governing the way in
which a person’s surname and forename are entered on certificates of civil status are matters coming within the
competence of the Member States, the latter must none the less, when exercising that competence, comply with
European Union law, and in particular with the Treaty provisions on the freedom of every citizen of the Union to
move and reside in the territory of the Member States.

As regards the issue of teaching Polish in Lithuanian schools, it has to be underlined that the content of teaching and
the organisation of education systems are the responsibility of the Member States.

Outside EC law, it is for the Member States to ensure that their obligations regarding fundamental rights — as
resulting from international agreements and from their internal legislation — are respected. Lithuania has ratified the
framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities of the Council of Europe.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Runevič-Vardyn and Wardyn (Case C-391/09, 12 May 2011).

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 203

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-004955/13**

**do Komisji**
**Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD)**

_(6 maja 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Ograniczenie importu prekursorów narkotyków na terytorium UE

Jak podaje Europejskie Centrum ds. Monitorowania Narkotyków oraz Narkomanii Europa jest wciąż największym
producentem narkotyków syntetycznych na świecie.

Większość tej produkcji skupia się na amfetaminie. Ważnym jej składnikiem jest BMK (benzylometyloketon). O ile na
terenie Unii Europejskiej skutecznie udało się zamknąć wszystkie centra produkujące legalnie ten prekursor, o tyle
pozostał znaczny problem z jego importem do krajów Wspólnoty. Największym importerem pozostaje Rosja.
Zgodnie z porozumieniem między Unią Europejską a Rosją, w 2012 r. zamknięto jedną z dwóch działających
legalnie fabryk BMK.

1. Czy Komisja naciska na Rosję w celu zamknięcia drugiej fabryki BMK?

2. Z jakimi państwami Komisja prowadzi aktualnie rozmowy, aby ograniczyć import prekursorów narkotyków
do Europy, w szczególności BMK?

3. Jaki metody proponuje Komisja w celu ograniczenia importu prekursorów narkotyków na terytorium UE?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Algirdasa Šemetę w imieniu Komisji**

_(1 lipca 2013 r.)_

1. Zgodnie ze sprawozdaniem dotyczącym prekursorów narkotyków z 2012 r. opublikowanym przez
Międzynarodowy Organ Kontroli Środków Odurzających „w Federacji Rosyjskiej nie produkuje się już P2P ( [1] );
ostatnią fabrykę tej substancji w tym państwie zamknięto w 2009 r.” ( [2] ).

2. Komisja zakończyła niedawno negocjacje z Federacją Rosyjską w sprawie porozumienia dotyczącego
prekursorów narkotyków, którego celem jest pogłębienie współpracy dwustronnej w zakresie nadzorowania
legalnego handlu prekursorami narkotyków na rzecz zapobiegania wykorzystywaniu tych substancji do nielegalnej
produkcji środków odurzających i psychotropowych. BMK jest jedną z 23 substancji objętych porozumieniem, które
zostało podpisane przez Strony dnia 4 czerwca 2013 r.

3. Zgodnie z art. 12 Konwencji Narodów Zjednoczonych o zwalczaniu nielegalnego obrotu środkami
odurzającymi i substancjami psychotropowymi z 1988 r. w rozporządzeniu UE ( [3] ) ustanowiono ramy regulacyjne
w celu nadzorowania handlu (przywozu, wywozu i pośrednictwa) prekursorami narkotyków między Unią
a państwami trzecimi w celu zapobiegania wykorzystywaniu tych substancji do celów nielegalnych, przy
jednoczesnym uwzględnieniu faktu, że handlu prekursorami narkotyków nie można zakazać, jako że substancje te
mają legalne zastosowania w wielu procesach produkcyjnych. Komisja przedstawiła niedawno wniosek w sprawie
zmiany rozporządzenia (WE) nr 111/2005 ( [4] ) w celu skuteczniejszego zapobiegania wykorzystywaniu leków
zawierających efedrynę lub pseudoefedrynę do nielegalnej produkcji metamfetamin.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) P2P to alternatywna nazwa benzylometyloketonu (BMK).
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.unodc.org/documents/southeastasiaandpacific//2013/03/incb/Precursors_E.pdf, s.16.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Rozporządzenie (WE) nr 111/2005 określające zasady nadzorowania handlu prekursorami narkotyków pomiędzy Wspólnotą a państwami

trzecimi (Dz.U. L 22 z 26.1.2005).

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Międzyinstytucjonalny numer referencyjny 2013/0004.

( **|**

C 80 E / 204 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004955/13**

**to the Commission**
**Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD)**

_(6 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Limiting imports of drug precursors into the EU

According to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Europe is still the world’s leading
producer of synthetic drugs.

The majority of the drugs produced are amphetamines, with BMK (benzyl methyl ketone) acting as a key constituent.
Although the European Union has been effective in successfully closing all of the legal production facilities for this
precursor on its territory, imports into the Member States remain a major problem. The majority of imports still
come from Russia, although one of the two Russian factories legally producing BMK was closed in 2012 in line with
an agreement between the European Union and Russia.

1. Is the Commission bringing pressure to bear on Russia to close the second BMK factory?

2. With which countries is the Commission currently holding talks with a view to limiting imports into Europe of
drug precursors, in particular BMK?

3. How does the Commission propose to limit imports of drug precursors into the EU?

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

_(1 July 2013)_

1. According to the 2012 Precursors Report issued by the International Narcotics Control Board, ‘The Russian
Federation is no longer a manufacturer of P-2-P; the last facility for the manufacture of P-2-P ( [1] ) in the country closed
in 2009’ ( [2] ).

2. The Commission has recently concluded negotiations for an agreement on drug precursors with the Russian
Federation, aiming at strengthening bilateral cooperation to monitor licit trade in drug precursors in order to prevent
their diversion into the illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. BMK is listed among the 23
scheduled substances covered by the agreement, which was signed on 4 June 2013 by the Parties.

3. In line with Article 12 of the 1988 United Nations Convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substances, the EU legislation ( [3] ) establishes a regulatory framework to monitor trade (import, export,
and intermediary activities) in drug precursors between the Union and third countries in order to prevent their
diversion from the licit channels while taking into account that trade in drug precursors cannot be prohibited because
of their legitimate uses in many industrial processes. The Commission has recently proposed to amend Regulation
(EC) No 111/2005 ( [4] ) to better prevent the diversion of medicines containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine towards
the illicit manufacture of methamphetamines.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) P-2-P is another name for Methyl Benzyl Ketone (BMK).
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.unodc.org/documents/southeastasiaandpacific//2013/03/incb/Precursors_E.pdf, p.16.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 laying down rules for the monitoring of trade between the Community and third countries in drug precursors

(OJ L 22, 26.1.2005).

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Interinstitutional File 2013/0004.

( **|**

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 205

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-004957/13**

**do Komisji**
**Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD)**

_(6 maja 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Leczenie onkologiczne w poszczególnych krajach UE

Polska należy do krajów Europy, które wydają najmniej na onkologię i udostępniają pacjentom najmniej nowych
leków przeciwnowotworowych – wynika z najnowszego raportu naukowców szwedzkich z Instytutu Karolinska
w Sztokholmie.

Bezpośrednie koszty leczenia nowotworów złośliwych wynoszą w Polsce 41 euro na osobę, podczas gdy w krajach
wydających najwięcej, takich jak Szwajcaria, Szwecja, Niemcy czy Francja – ponad 200 euro na osobę.

W związku z powyższym proszę Komisję o odpowiedź na następujące pytania:

1. Czy Komisja monitoruje, jak wygląda sytuacja leczenia onkologicznego w poszczególnych krajach UE?

2. Jakie działania zamierza podjąć Komisja, aby wyrównać nakłady na leczenie onkologiczne we wszystkich
krajach UE?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Tonia Borga w imieniu Komisji**

_(17 czerwca 2013 r.)_

Komisja Europejska jest świadoma wniosków płynących z raportu ( [1] ), o którym wspomina Pan Poseł, wskazujących,
że pacjenci w Europie nie mają równego dostępu do nowych, innowacyjnych leków onkologicznych.

Komisja od dłuższego czasu wspiera współpracę w dziedzinie chorób nowotworowych; obecnie odbywa się to
w ramach Europejskiego partnerstwa na rzecz walki z rakiem. Komisja zamierza wzmocnić współpracę w dziedzinie
zwalczania chorób nowotworowych między państwami członkowskimi i Komisją poprzez włączenie Wspólnego
działania na rzecz kompleksowego zwalczania chorób nowotworowych do planu prac na 2013 r. w ramach
programu w dziedzinie zdrowia ( [2] ). Wspomniane Wspólne działanie (2014-2016) ma doprowadzić do opracowania
„Europejskiego poradnika na temat poprawy jakości kompleksowego zwalczania chorób nowotworowych”.
Przewodnik ten będzie stanowić punkt odniesienia i określać plan działania na rzecz poprawy opieki nad chorymi na
raka i leczenia chorób nowotworowych w państwach członkowskich.

Komisja jest w pełni świadoma różnic między państwami członkowskimi w dostępie do leczenia i leków dla
pacjentów cierpiących na nowotwory i inne choroby, które to różnice mogą się pogłębić w czasie obecnego kryzysu
gospodarczego. Jednakże zgodnie z art. 168 Traktatu o funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej działania Unii w dziedzinie
zdrowia publicznego muszą być podejmowane z poszanowaniem odpowiedzialności państw członkowskich za
organizację i świadczenie usług zdrowotnych i opieki medycznej. Do obowiązków każdego państwa członkowskiego
należy zapewnienie odpowiedniego dostępu do wysokiej jakości opieki zdrowotnej dla swoich obywateli.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) A pan-European comparison regarding patient access to cancer drugs („Ogólnoeuropejskie porównanie dostępności leków onkologicznych dla

pacjentów”), Instytut Karolinska we współpracy z Wyższą Szkołą Handlową w Sztokholmie.
http://www.qaly.pl/biblioteka/onkologiczna/Cancer_Report%20Karolinska.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/programme/docs/wp2013_pl.pdf

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

C 80 E / 206 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004957/13**

**to the Commission**
**Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD)**

_(6 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Cancer treatment in the different EU Member States

A recent report by Swedish researchers from Stockholm’s Karolinska Institute reveals that Poland is among the
Member States which spend the least on oncology and are rated lowest in terms of patient access to the latest anticancer drugs.

The amount spent directly on treating cancer in Poland is EUR 41 per person, whereas in the countries which spend
the most, such as Switzerland, Sweden, Germany or France, the figure is over EUR 200 per person.

I should therefore like to ask the Commission the following questions:

1. Does the Commission monitor the situation regarding cancer treatment in the different EU Member States?

2. What action does the Commission plan to take to ensure that all of the Member States spend similar amounts
on cancer treatment?

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

_(17 June 2013)_

The European Commission is aware of the results of the report ( [1] ) mentioned by the Honourable Member
highlighting that patients across Europe do not have equitable access to new innovative cancer drugs.

The Commission has been fostering cooperation on cancer for a long time, and currently through the European
Partnership of Action Against Cancer. The Commission has foreseen to strengthen cooperation in the field of cancer
control between Member States and the Commission by including a Joint Action on Comprehensive Cancer Control
in the Work Plan 2013 of the Health Programme ( [2] ). This Joint Action (2014-2016) is due to produce a ‘European
Guide on Quality Improvement in Comprehensive Cancer Control’. This Guide will act as a benchmark, providing a
roadmap towards improving cancer care and treatment in the Member States.

The Commission is fully aware of the disparities between Member States in the accessibility to treatments and drugs
by patients suffering from cancer and other diseases, which may be exacerbated at the time of the current economic
crisis. However, pursuant to Article 168 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Union action in the
field of public health shall respect the responsibilities of the Member States for the organisation and delivery of health
services and medical care. It is the responsibility of each Member State to ensure appropriate access to high quality
healthcare for its citizens.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) A pan-European comparison regarding patient access to cancer drugs, Karolinska Institutet in collaboration with Stockholm School of

Economics. http://www.qaly.pl/biblioteka/onkologiczna/Cancer_Report%20Karolinska.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/programme/docs/wp2013_en.pdf

( **|**

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 207

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-004958/13**

**do Komisji**
**Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD)**

_(6 maja 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Koszt korzystania z telefonu komórkowego

Według najnowszego raportu Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej Polska na tle innych europejskich krajów znajduje
się poniżej średniej unijnej wynoszącej przeciętnie 17,14 euro za korzystanie z telefonów komórkowych. Najniższe
rachunki za telefon ponoszą abonenci w Austrii, Estonii i Francji między 4,93 a 7,01 euro. Podobnie jest w opłatach
pre-paid.

W związku z powyższym uprzejmie proszę Komisję o odpowiedź na następujące pytanie: jakie działania są
podejmowane lub będą podejmowane przez Komisję, aby wyrównać opłatę za korzystanie z telefonów
komórkowych w całej UE?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez Wiceprzewodniczącą Neelie Kroes w imieniu Komisji**

_(27 czerwca 2013 r.)_

Jednym z kluczowych celów unijnych ram prawnych dotyczących łączności elektronicznej jest wspieranie
konkurencji w dziedzinie udostępniania sieci i usług, m.in. poprzez zapewnienie użytkownikom maksymalnych
korzyści pod względem wyboru, cen i jakości.

Aby osiągnąć te cele, ramy regulacyjne zapewniają różne narzędzia regulacyjne. Ich wdrożenie pozostawia się jednak
w głównej mierze krajowym organom regulacyjnym.

Komisja może mieć wpływ na poziom cen detalicznych w Europie w ograniczonym zakresie, na przykład poprzez
zalecanie metod obliczania stawek hurtowych (MTR), jakie naliczają sobie nawzajem operatorzy. Jednak wysokość
tych stawek jako taka ma tylko częściowo wpływ na ceny detaliczne, ponieważ główne czynniki wpływające na ceny
detaliczne to konkurencja na danym rynku oraz charakter popytu.

Komisja pracuje nad konkretnymi środkami, które umożliwią utworzenie rzeczywistego jednolitego rynku łączności
elektronicznej. Może to przynieść pozytywne skutki dla konsumentów w postaci większego wyboru i lepszej jakości
poprzez ustanowienie równych warunków działania dla operatorów w UE i zwiększenie konkurencji.

C 80 E / 208 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004958/13**

**to the Commission**
**Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD)**

_(6 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Mobile phone charges

According to the latest report by the Polish Office of Electronic Communications, mobile phone charges in Poland are
lower than the EU average of EUR 17.14. Monthly contract holders in Austria, Estonia and France pay the least at
between EUR 4.93 and EUR 7.01, and the situation is similar for pay-as-you-go services.

I should therefore like to ask the Commission what action it is taking or will take to ensure that mobile phone users
are subject to the same charges throughout the EU?

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

_(27 June 2013)_

One of the key objectives of the EU Regulatory Framework for electronic communication is to promote competition
in the provision of networks and services by _inter alia_ ensuring that users derive maximum benefit in terms of choice,
price and quality.

To attain these objectives the Regulatory Framework provides different regulatory tools. However, their
implementation is left mostly to national regulatory authorities.

The Commission can influence the level of retail prices in Europe to a limited extent, for example by recommending
the way wholesale rates (MTRs) that operators charge each other are calculated. Yet, the level of these rates as such
influences the retails prices only partially, the main drivers of retail prices being competition on a given market and
the characteristics of the demand.

The Commission is working on concrete measures to create a genuine Single Market for electronic communications.
This could bring positive effects for consumers through greater choice and better quality by establishing a level
playing field for operators in the EU and giving a boost to competition.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 209

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-004959/13**

**do Komisji**
**Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD)**

_(6 maja 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Dopuszczalny poziom hałasu w UE

Zgodnie z dyrektywą unijną 2002/49/WE żaden mieszkaniec UE nie powinien być narażony na hałas o poziomie
zagrażającym zdrowiu lub jakości życia.

Dopuszczalne poziomy hałasu w środowisku zostały w Polsce ustalone na niskim poziomie. Niesie to za sobą
pozytywny skutek w postaci obniżenia ekspozycji mieszkańców Polski na hałas. Jednak rozwiązanie to posiada
również negatywne skutki. Do kosztów budowy drogi trzeba doliczyć kwotę przeznaczoną na budowę ekranów
akustycznych. Natomiast koszt wykonania 1 m [2] ekranu akustycznego wynosi ok. 200 euro. Reasumując, pieniądze,
które mogłyby zostać przeznaczone na budowę dróg przeznaczane są na budowę ekranów akustycznych.

W związku z powyższym uprzejmie proszę Komisję o odpowiedź na następujące pytania:

1. Czy Komisja dostrzega przedmiotowy problem?

2. Czy Komisja monitoruje, jakie normy poziomu hałasu są stosowane w poszczególnych krajach UE?

3. Czy Komisja przewiduje dofinansowanie ekranów akustycznych w poszczególnych państwach UE?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Janeza Potočnika w imieniu Komisji**

_(12 lipca 2013 r.)_

1. Komisja jest świadoma stosunkowo wysokich kosztów budowy ekranów akustycznych. Powszechnie uważa się
również, że przeciwdziałanie źródłom hałasu jest bardziej opłacalne niż budowanie ekranów akustycznych. Dlatego
też Komisja wystąpiła z wnioskiem dotyczącym rozporządzenia w sprawie poziomu hałasu pojazdów silnikowych

[2011/0409 (COD)]. Wniosek jest obecnie przedmiotem dyskusji między współprawodawcami. Konkretnie,
Parlament Europejski przyjął stanowisko podczas pierwszego czytania w dniu 6 lutego 2013 r. Obecnie tekst jest
poddany przeglądowi przez Radę.

2. Wdrożenie prawodawstwa UE w dziedzinie hałasu leży w gestii poszczególnych państw członkowskich.
Obecnie Komisja nie posiada szczególnych uprawnień do monitorowania przestrzegania dopuszczalnych poziomów
hałasu, ale próbuje ocenić narażenie obywateli UE na hałas, dokonując oceny map hałasu otrzymywanych zgodnie
z dyrektywą dotyczącą hałasu 2002/49/WE. Mimo że Komisja formalnie wymaga od państw członkowskich
dostarczania obowiązkowych danych, w kilku przypadkach wciąż nie przedstawiono wspomnianych map hałasu, co
na tym etapie uniemożliwia dokonanie poprawnej oceny skutków hałasu w całej UE.

3. W odniesieniu do możliwości dofinansowania przez UE ekranów akustycznych szanowny Pan Poseł jest
proszony o zapoznanie się z odpowiedzią na pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi na piśmie nr E-006165/2012.

C 80 E / 210 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004959/13**

**to the Commission**
**Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD)**

_(6 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Maximum noise limits in the EU

According to EU Directive 2002/49/EC, no one living in the EU should be exposed to noise which poses a threat to
their health or quality of life.

The maximum environmental noise levels which have been set in Poland are low. This has a positive impact because
it means that anyone living in Poland is exposed to less noise. However, it also has a negative impact, since the cost of
building a road has to include the cost of building acoustic screens. The cost of installing 1 m [2] of acoustic screen is
approximately EUR 200. Put simply, money which could be spent on building roads is being spent on building
acoustic screens.

1. Is the Commission aware of this problem?

2. Does the Commission monitor the noise limits in force in the Member States?

3. Does the Commission intend to subsidise the use of acoustic screens in the Member States?

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

_(12 July 2013)_

1. The relatively high cost of building noise barriers is known to the Commission and it is usually admitted that
fighting noise at the source is more cost/efficient than noise barriers. This is why the Commission made a proposal for
a regulation on noise limits for motor vehicles (2011/0409 (COD)). The proposal is currently being debated by the
co-legislators. In particular, the European Parliament adopted its position on first reading on 6 February 2013. The
text is now presently reviewed by the Council.

2. Implementation of EU noise legislation is the responsibility of the individual EU Member States. Currently, the
Commission has no specific mandate to monitor the respect of noise limits in force, but is trying to assess the
exposure of EU citizens by evaluating the noise maps received in the framework of the Noise Directive 2002/49/EC.
Although the Commission is formally requiring the Member States to provide the mandatory data, in several cases the
maps are still missing and therefore do not allow at this stage to have a correct estimate of the impact of noise
throughout the EU.

3. With regard to the possibility of EU funding for roadside acoustic barriers, the Honourable Member is referred
to the answer to Written Question E-006165/2012.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 211

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004964/13**

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

**Fiorello Provera (EFD)**

_(6 maggio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Sostegno della Turchia e del Qatar a gruppi islamici

Il 29 aprile 2013 il _Wall Street Journal_ ha riportato la notizia che il Qatar e la Turchia starebbero fornendo sostegno
finanziario, materiale e diplomatico a gruppi politici islamici, principalmente in Egitto, Tunisia, Libia e Siria. Anche se
l'obiettivo è stabilizzare i conflitti in Medio Oriente e in Africa settentrionale, tali iniziative stanno invece minando gli
sforzi internazionali e degli Stati Uniti per risolvere la situazione nella regione.

1. Il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante è a conoscenza del sostegno della Turchia e del Qatar alla politica
islamica in Medio Oriente e in Africa settentrionale?

2. Quali misure sta adottando per impedire ai gruppi islamici di destabilizzare il Medio Oriente e l'Africa
settentrionale?

3. Intende sollevare la questione presso le autorità turche e qatariane competenti?

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

_(1_ _[o]_ _luglio 2013)_

L’UE è fermamente decisa ad aumentare il sostegno alla transizione democratica ed economica secondo un approccio
differenziato e coerente con i suoi valori. Il sostegno si basa su due pilastri: un processo politico atto a favorire la
transizione democratica e le riforme della governance e un aiuto economico volto a promuovere una crescita
sostenibile e inclusiva. I paesi del G8 invitano a dar prova di «pazienza strategica» nel sostenere le transizioni, ma al
tempo stesso mettono in guardia contro i rischi in termini di polarizzazione politica e violenza.

L’AR/VP ha invitato alla moderazione e al dialogo per scongiurare tali rischi.

Queste transizioni sono processi interni e non dovrebbero subire ingerenze esterne, specialmente quelle che
favoriscono la violenza.

L’UE ha avviato un dialogo fondamentale con gli interlocutori politici che sostengono il processo e i valori
democratici e che condannano la violenza settaria e l’estremismo. L’Unione si è inoltre dotata di nuovi strumenti per
sostenere la società civile. È stato creato uno strumento per la società civile, con una dotazione di 36 milioni di EUR
per il periodo 2011-2013, che aiuterà la società civile a promuovere le riforme ed è stato varato un nuovo
programma regionale che sarà attuato dal Consiglio d’Europa ( [1] ).

L’UE sostiene con vigore i tentativi di facilitare una soluzione politica pacifica della crisi siriana, insiste sulla necessità
di concentrare gli sforzi internazionali e regionali per risolvere tale crisi e continua a esortare tutti i membri del
Consiglio di sicurezza dell’ONU ad assumere le proprie responsabilità.

L’UE invita tutti i paesi che si attivano per risolvere la crisi a sostenere questi sforzi. Il processo deve basarsi sui
principi enunciati nel comunicato di Ginevra del 30 giugno 2012 e sulla risoluzione 2042 del Consiglio di sicurezza
dell’ONU.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Volto a promuovere la governance, la tutela dei diritti umani e la riforma del settore giudiziario.

C 80 E / 212 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004964/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD)**

_(6 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Turkish and Qatari support for Islamist groups

On 29 April 2013, the _Wall Street Journal_ reported that both Qatar and Turkey are providing financial, material and
diplomatic support to Islamist political groups, mainly in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Syria. While the intent is to
stabilise conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa, these moves are instead undermining US and international
efforts to resolve the situation in the region.

1. Is the Vice-President/High Representative aware of Turkish and Qatari support for Islamist politics in the Middle
East and North Africa?

2. What action is the Vice-President/High Representative taking to stop Islamist groups from destabilising the
Middle East and North Africa?

3. Does the Vice-President/High Representative intend to raise this issue with the relevant Turkish and Qatari
authorities?

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

_(1 July 2013)_

The EU is determined to enhance its support to the democratic and economic transition based on a differentiated
approach and in coherence with its values. This support is based on two pillars: political process to support
democratic transition and governance reforms and economic aid towards sustainable and inclusive growth. G8
countries mostly call for ‘strategic patience’ in supporting the transitions while warning against the risks of political
polarisation and violence.

The HR/VP has urged for restraint and dialogue against the risk of political polarization and violence.

These transitions are internal processes and should not suffer from external interferences, especially any support for
violence.

The EU has engaged a critical dialogue with political actors supporting the democratic process and values and
rejecting sectarian violence and extremism . Furthermore, the EU has created new instruments to support civil
societies. A Civil Society Facility was created with EUR 36 million over 2011-2013 to support civil society in
promoting reform, a new regional programme implemented by the Council of Europe was launched ( [1] ).

In Syria, the EU strongly supports the efforts to facilitate a peaceful political solution to the crisis. The EU emphasises
the need to focus international and regional efforts to solve the Syrian crisis and continues to urge all members of the
UN Security Council to uphold their responsibilities regarding the Syrian crisis.

The EU urges all countries active in promoting a solution to the crisis to support these efforts. This process should be
based on the principles included in the Geneva communiqué of 30 June 2012 and on the UN Security Council
Resolution 2042.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Aiming at promoting governance, protection of human rights and supporting the reform of the judiciary.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 213

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004965/13**

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

**Fiorello Provera (EFD)**

_(6 maggio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Hamas impartisce una formazione militare agli studenti

Il 28 aprile 2013, il giornale britannico Telegraph, ha riferito che una parte del curriculum di studi nelle scuole di
Gaza gestite da Hamas comprende un programma militare giovanile chiamato Futuwwa che forma gli studenti
palestinesi a sparare con fucili Kalashnikov, a lanciare granate e a costruire ordigni esplosivi improvvisati. Il
programma Futuwwa potrebbe essere esteso alle scuole femminili il prossimo anno.

Samar Sakout di Al Mezan, un'organizzazione per i diritti umani con sede a Gaza, ha descritto la situazione come
«incredibile», sottolineando che «stanno cercando di creare una cultura di resistenza, per rendere i nostri ragazzi più
forti per affrontare Israele, ma non dovrebbero farlo nelle scuole», e che «forse Israele potrebbe utilizzarlo come
motivo per bombardare le scuole di Gaza in futuro».

1. La Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante è a conoscenza del fatto che il programma di addestramento militare
Futuwwa è parte del curriculum di studi nelle scuole di Gaza?

2. Quali passi effettuerà la Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante per fermare detto addestramento militare dei
giovani?

3. Può la Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante garantire che i finanziamenti UE non vadano a sostenere il
programma Futuwwa?

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

_(5 agosto 2013)_

L'AR/VP è a conoscenza di quanto segnalato in relazione al programma di studi nelle scuole di Gaza gestite da Hamas.
L'UE non appoggia né l'indottrinamento militare degli studenti palestinesi né l'inserimento di un addestramento
militare nei programmi scolastici.

L'Unione europea non sostiene nessuno dei programmi a cui fa riferimento l'onorevole deputato. Fintanto che la
Striscia di Gaza rimarrà politicamente separata dalla Cisgiordania, l'UE avrà poche possibilità di sollevare direttamente
la questione, così come qualsiasi altro problema, con le autorità de facto di Gaza. L'UE continua a caldeggiare una
riconciliazione palestinese sotto la guida del presidente Abbas.

C 80 E / 214 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004965/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD)**

_(6 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Hamas provides students with military training

On 28 April 2013, the _Telegraph_, a UK newspaper, reported that part of the curriculum at Gaza schools operated by
Hamas includes a youth military programme called _Futuwwa_ which trains Palestinian students to fire Kalashnikov
rifles, throw grenades and plant improvised explosive devices. The _Futuwwa_ programme may be extended to girls’
schools next year.

Mr Samar Sakout from Al Mezan, a Gaza-based human rights organisation, described the situation as ‘unbelievable’,
noting that ‘they are trying to create a resistance culture, make our boys stronger to face Israel, but they shouldn’t be
doing it in schools’, and that ‘maybe Israel will use this as a reason to bomb Gaza’s schools in future’.

1. Is the Vice-President/High Representative aware that the _Futuwwa_ military training programme forms part of the
curriculum at Gaza schools?

2. What steps is the Vice-President/High Representative going to take in order to stop this youth military training?

3. Can the Vice-President/High Representative ensure that EU funds do not support the _Futuwwa_ programme?

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

_(5 August 2013)_

The HR/VP is aware of reports concerning the curriculum in Hamas-run Gaza schools.The EU does not support the
military indoctrination of Palestinian school children or the inclusion of military training in the school curriculum.

The EU does not support any of the programmes referred to by the Honourable Member. As long as the Gaza Strip
remains politically separated from the West Bank, the EU has limited means to directly address this or any other issue
with the de-facto authorities in Gaza. The EU continues to call for Palestinian reconciliation under the leadership of
President Abbas.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 215

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-004966/13**
**adresată Comisiei (Vicepreședintelui/Înaltului Reprezentant)**

**Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D)**

_(6 mai 2013)_

_Subiect:_ VP/HR — Situația din Bangladesh

Recent, o clădire care adăpostea o fabrică de îmbrăcăminte din orașul Savar din Bangladesh s-a prăbușit, tragedie care,
conform ultimelor știri, a costat viețile a cel puțin 500 de persoane, dar există informații potrivit cărora ar fi peste o
mie de dispăruți.

Asemenea tragedii nu ar avea loc dacă aceste state ar respecta norme mai stricte de securitate pentru clădiri, mai ales
în cazul unor imobile destinate producției și în care numărul de persoane prezente crește foarte mult pe perioada
procesului de producție, fapt care determină sarcini suplimentare asupra structurii respective. Muncitorii care
lucrează în condiții necorespunzătoare în acest domeniu sunt plătiți cu salarii de mizerie, iar principalii beneficiari
sunt importatorii și intermediarii.

Cum Uniunea Europeană este principalul partener comercial al acestei țări, ea a avertizat autoritățile din Bangladesh
că și-ar putea pierde avantajele de care beneficiază în urma statutului său de țară în curs de dezvoltare, precum
scutirea de taxe de import în UE. O măsură de acest gen și, cu siguranță, un boicot ar determina pierderea principalei
surse de venituri pentru miile de salariați și familiile lor, care sunt și așa foarte săraci.

Ce soluții poate adopta Uniunea Europeană ca să ceară acestui stat să respecte normele recunoscute la nivel
internațional de către CSR (Corporate Social Responsability — responsabilitatea socială a întreprinderilor)?

**Răspuns dat de dna Ashton, Înalt Reprezentant/Vicepreședinte în numele Comisiei**

_(9 iulie 2013)_

UE este în contact cu guvernul din Bangladesh pentru a sublinia importanța necesității de a se asigura sănătatea și
securitatea lucrătorilor, în special în fabricile ale căror produse sunt comercializate pe piețele europene. Această
chestiune a fost ridicată în cadrul discuțiilor cu ministrul de externe al Bangladeshului, domnul Dipu Moni, la 1 iunie.
In prezent continuă să se caute soluții cu privire la cele mai bune modalități de a utiliza asistența UE în Bangladesh
pentru a consolida progresele și a aborda problemele subiacente.

Reprezentanții unora dintre principalii producători de confecții și comercianți cu amănuntul (în principal europeni)
au semnat un acord prin care se angajează să organizeze inspecții și activități de formare. Cu toate că principalele
orientări globale privind responsabilitatea socială a întreprinderilor (RSI) nu au forță de lege, aplicarea acestora fiind,
în esență, facultativă, UE continuă să colaboreze cu întreprinderile europene și cu alte părți interesate, pentru a
încuraja acordarea unei atenții sporite RSI, în special prin aderarea la orientările internaționale privind RSI.
UE promovează, de asemenea, dialogul social în cadrul întreprinderilor cu sediul în UE și în cadrul lanțurilor de
aprovizionare ale acestora.

Declarația Comisiei, în cadrul Parlamentului European, la 23 mai, oferă mai multe detalii cu privire la acest subiect.

C 80 E / 216 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004966/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D)**

_(6 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Situation in Bangladesh

Recently, a building housing a clothing factory in the city of Savar in Bangladesh collapsed. According to the latest
reports, this tragedy has cost the lives at least 500 people, with some sources stating that over a thousand people have
been lost.

This disaster would not have occurred if states such as Bangladesh were to adhere to more stringent building safety
standards, especially in the case of manufacturing premises and buildings in which numbers swell considerably
during production periods, thus putting an additional strain on such structures. Workers labouring in unfit
conditions in this field are paid miserly wages, with the main beneficiaries being importers and middle‐men.

Since the European Union is Bangladesh’s main trading partner, it has warned the authorities in that country that it
could lose the privileges it enjoys as rom being a developing country, such as exemption from EU import duties.
Measures of this kind — and certainly a boycott — would deprive thousands of wage‐earners and their families, who
are already incredibly poor, of their main source of income.

How will the European Union go about requesting Bangladesh to comply with internationally‐recognised corporate
social responsibility standards?

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

_(9 July 2013)_

The EU is in contact with the Government of Bangladesh with a view to highlighting the need to ensure workers'
health and safety, especially in factories serving European markets. The matter was raised with Bangladesh Foreign
Minister Dipu Moni on 1 June. Reflecting is ongoing on how best to use EU assistance to Bangladesh to underpin
progress and address the underlying problems.

Representatives of some of the major (mostly European) garment and retail brands have signed an agreement
committing themselves to organising inspections and training activities. While the main global Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR) guidelines do not have the force of law but are essentially voluntary in their application, the EU
continues to work with European companies and other stakeholders to encourage stepped-up attention to CSR, in
particular by open adherence to international CSR guidelines. The EU further promotes social dialogue in EU-based
companies and in their supply chains.

The statement made by the Commission at the European Parliament on 23 May provides further details on the issue.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 217

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004968/13**

**a la Comisión (Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante)**

**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(6 de mayo de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ VP/HR — Nuevo ataque israelí a Siria

El pasado 3 de mayo Israel lanzó un ataque aéreo sobre territorio sirio. Dos días después el ejército de Israel ha vuelto
a bombardear posiciones dentro de Siria, esta vez un arsenal del ejército de Bashar al Assad. Estas intervenciones de
Israel en territorio sirio suponen una abierta violación de las disposiciones de la ONU sobre el conflicto que el país
está viviendo y una clara toma de partido en el mismo.

El Gobierno de Israel ha vuelto a intervenir directamente en territorio sirio de manera unilateral, alegando objetivos de
seguridad interna y volviendo a violar la práctica totalidad del Derecho internacional. Desde el pasado mes de
noviembre de 2012 el ejército israelí bombardea posiciones en Siria por motivos de «seguridad interna». El hecho de
que Israel se tome la completa libertad de intervenir dentro de las fronteras de otro Estado soberano supone un nuevo
golpe a la paz y la seguridad en una de las zonas más militarizadas del mundo. Con esta nueva intervención militar se
vuelve a violar la integridad territorial de Siria.

Pese a que Israel pueda alegar su preocupación por la seguridad en las fronteras, existe el cuerpo del Derecho
internacional desarrollado para evitar la «ley de la selva» a nivel global. Sin embargo, este sistema normativo parece ser
que no es materia que concierna a Israel puesto que lo viola continuamente, y la comunidad internacional no plantea
medidas para evitarlo. La Unión Europea no es menos en la concesión de este cheque en blanco que Israel parece
poseer para violar el Derecho internacional, puesto que premia con el Acuerdo de asociación UE‐Israel y diferentes
acuerdos de colaboración, en lugar de cancelar cualquier tipo de diálogo y condenar al país por su constante violación
de los derechos humanos. La UE presume de perseguir la meta de la paz y el cumplimiento de los derechos humanos
en Oriente Próximo, pero esta paz es inalcanzable colaborando con el Estado de Israel, que es sin duda el país del
mundo que más viola el Derecho internacional.

¿Condena la Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante la intervención ilegal del ejército de Israel en Siria? ¿Puede detallar de
qué forma está la Unión Europea intentando exigir que Israel cumpla la legislación internacional? ¿Qué efectos
considera que la intervención unilateral e impune de Israel en Siria acarreará en el conflicto y en la región?

**Respuesta de la Alta Representante y Vicepresidenta Ashton en nombre de la Comisión**

_(1 de julio de 2013)_

Aunque la Alta Representante y Vicepresidenta está al corriente de las noticias aparecidas en los medios de
comunicación sobre supuestos ataques aéreos de Israel en Siria, dichas noticias no han sido confirmadas oficialmente,
por lo que la UE no debe pronunciarse al respecto. De manera general, la Sra. Ashton considera que las intervenciones
extranjeras en el actual conflicto sirio no contribuyen a su solución, sino que suponen un alto riesgo de que se
produzca una escalada de la violencia en la región, lo que incluye a Israel. Por ello los esfuerzos diplomáticos de la UE
se centran actualmente en la coordinación con todos los principales agentes regionales e internacionales con el
objetivo de encontrar una solución política y evitar que continúe el conflicto y se pierdan más vidas.

El compromiso de la UE a favor de una solución pacífica del conflicto sirio que respete plenamente el Derecho
internacional, así como su apoyo a los esfuerzos de las Naciones Unidas y los Estados de la Liga Árabe, se plasma en la
ayuda humanitaria y de otro tipo que ya está facilitando; el conflicto se analizó desde una perspectiva política y de
seguridad en la última reunión del Consejo de Asuntos Exteriores de la UE, que tuvo lugar el 27 de mayo de 2013.

La Alta Representante y Vicepresidenta ha expresado reiteradamente en sus declaraciones públicas, por ejemplo, el
16 de noviembre de 2012 en relación con la operación militar israelí «Pilar de Defensa», así como en el curso de su
constante labor diplomática en relación con los países de Oriente Medio, que Israel tiene derecho a proteger a su
población de los ataques con cohetes por parte de facciones extremistas, pero ha instado a la vez a Israel a garantizar
que su respuesta sea proporcionada y no suponga una violación del Derecho internacional. La continuidad del
despliegue de las misiones de la Fuerza de las Naciones Unidas de Observación de la Separación (UNDOF) y de la
Fuerza Internacional de las Naciones Unidas para el Líbano (Unifil) ha sido especialmente bien recibida.

C 80 E / 218 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004968/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(6 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — New Israeli attack on Syria

On 3 May, Israel launched an air strike on Syrian territory. Two days later, the Israeli army once again bombed
positions in Syria, this time an arsenal from Bashar al-Assad’s army. These Israeli interventions on Syrian territory
represent an open violation of the UN’s provisions on the conflict that the country is experiencing and show a clear
taking of sides.

Once again, the Israeli Government has directly intervened on Syrian territory unilaterally, citing internal security
objectives and again violating almost all prevailing international law. The Israeli army has been bombing positions in
Syria for ‘internal security’ reasons since November 2012. The fact that Israel is taking the liberty of intervening
within the borders of another sovereign state is a new blow to peace and security in one of the most militarised areas
of the globe. As a result of this new military intervention, Syria’s territorial integrity is once again being violated.

Although Israel may claim to be concerned about border security, there is a body of international law devoted to
avoiding the ‘law of the jungle’ at global level. However, this regulatory system does not seem to concern Israel as it
violates it continually and the international community is not putting measures in place to stop this. The European
Union is no less responsible for granting this free pass which Israel seems to benefit from when it comes to violating
international law as it rewards it with the EU-Israel association agreement and various partnership agreements rather
than cancelling any kind of dialogue and condemning the country for its constant violation of human rights. The EU
claims to pursue the objective of peace and respect for human rights in the Middle East, but this peace cannot be
reached by collaborating with Israel, which undoubtedly violates international law more than any other country in
the world.

Does the Vice-President/High Representative condemn the unlawful intervention of the Israeli army in Syria? Can she
provide details of how the European Union is trying to ensure that Israel complies with international law? What
impact does she believe Israel’s unilateral and unpunished intervention in Syria will have on the conflict and on the
region?

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

_(1 July 2013)_

Although aware of media reports about alleged Israeli air strikes in Syria, these have not been confirmed officially and
thus shall not be commented on by the EU. Generally, the HR/VP is of the view that foreign interventions into the
ongoing Syrian conflict do not contribute to its solution but instead put the wider region, including Israel, at high risk
of the violence escalation. Thus, the EU's diplomatic efforts now focus on coordination with all key regional and
international players with an aim to find a political solution and avoid further warfare and loss of life.

The EU's commitment to a peaceful settlement of the Syrian conflict in full respect of the international law and in
support of the efforts of the UN and the League of Arab States is reflected in the EU's humanitarian aid and other
support already in place; its current political and security outlook has been interpreted during the latest EU FAC on
27 May 2013.

The HR/VP has repeatedly expressed in her public statements, e.g. 16 November 2012 in relation to Israeli military
operation ‘Pillar of Defence’, as well as in the course of her constant diplomatic efforts vis-à-vis countries of the
Middle East region that Israel has the right to protect its population from rocket attacks by extremist factions but at
the same time urged Israel to ensure that its response is proportionate and does not violate international law.
Continued deployment of the UNDOF and Unifil misions has been particularly appreciated.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 219

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-004969/13**

**do Komisji**
**Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D)**

_(6 maja 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Podstawa prawna dla procedury ustawodawczej w zakresie zmiany dyrektywy 87/2003/WE

Zważając, iż forsowany przez Komisję harmonogram aukcji emisji gazów w propozycji zmiany dyrektywy
87/2003/WE ustanawiającej system handlu przydziałami emisji gazów cieplarnianych we Wspólnocie nie dotyczy
wyłącznie środowiska, ale wiąże się z wpływem na dywersyfikację struktury energetycznej państw członkowskich,
zwracam się z pytaniem do Komisji, dlaczego została wybrana podstawa prawna z art. 192 ust.1 TFUE ustanawiająca
zwykłą procedurę ustawodawczą w tym przypadku?

Taki wybór pomija rolę państw członkowskich w procesie decyzyjnym, który w tym przypadku wyraźnie podlega
procedurze zawartej w art. 192 ust. 2 lit. c) TFUE. Jest to szczególnie ważne dla takich krajów jak Polska, których
gospodarka jest wyjątkowo uzależniona od wysokoemisyjnego węgla i która pozbawiona możliwości sprzeciwu
zagwarantowanego przez art. 192 ust. 2 lit. c) poniesie wyższe koszty dostosowań do proponowanych w dyrektywie
regulacji niż średni koszt dla UE.

Artykuł 192 (dawny artykuł 175 TWE):

„2. Na zasadzie odstępstwa od procedury decyzyjnej przewidzianej w ustępie 1 i bez uszczerbku dla artykułu 114,
Rada, stanowiąc jednomyślnie zgodnie ze specjalną procedurą prawodawczą i po konsultacji z Parlamentem
Europejskim, Komitetem Ekonomiczno-Społecznym i Komitetem Regionów, uchwala:

c) środki wpływające znacząco na wybór Państwa Członkowskiego między różnymi źródłami energii i ogólną
strukturę jego zaopatrzenia w energię.”

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarz Connie Hedegaard w imieniu Komisji**

_(14 czerwca 2013 r.)_

Podstawą prawną dyrektywy 2003/87/WE ( [1] ) jest art. 175 ust. 1 Traktatu WE zastąpiony art. 192 ust. 1 TFUE ( [2] ). Ten
sam artykuł stanowi również właściwą podstawę prawną wniosku w sprawie zmiany dyrektywy 2003/87/WE w celu
doprecyzowania uprawnień Komisji w odniesieniu do harmonogramu aukcji.

Ogólnie rzecz biorąc, wybór podstawy prawnej musi opierać się na czynnikach obiektywnych, obejmujących
w szczególności cel i treść wniosku. Oczywiście podstawowym celem dyrektywy 2003/87/WE jest zmniejszenie
emisji gazów cieplarnianych w celu zwalczania zmian klimatu spowodowanych działalnością człowieka, o których
mowa w art. 191 TFUE, a nie polityka energetyczna. Artykuł 192 ust. 1 TFUE stanowi podstawę prawną aktów
przyjętych przez Radę i Parlament Europejski w celu osiągnięcia celów określonych w art. 191 TFUE. Celem wniosku
w sprawie zmiany dyrektywy 2003/87/WE jest doprecyzowanie zakresu uprawnień Komisji na podstawie dyrektywy
2003/87/WE i dlatego ma on tę samą podstawę prawną.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32003L0087:pl:NOT
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:083:0047:0200:pl:PDF

C 80 E / 220 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004969/13**

**to the Commission**
**Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D)**

_(6 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Legal basis for the legislative procedure to be followed when amending Directive 87/2003/EC

In view of the fact that the timetable for the auctioning of emission allowances pushed through by the Commission in
the proposed amendments to Directive 87/2003/EC establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance
trading within the Community not only has environmental implications, but will also affect the diversification of the
Member States’ energy structures, I should like to ask the Commission why Article 192(1) TFEU, which provides for
use of the ordinary legislative procedure, has been chosen as a legal basis in this instance.

This choice disregards the role that should be played by the Member States in the decision-making process, which in
this instance should clearly follow the procedure set out in Article 192(2)(c) TFEU. This is of particular significance for
countries such as Poland whose economies are extremely dependent on CO 2 -intensive coal, and which will therefore
incur costs for adapting to the rules proposed under the directive that are higher than the EU average because they are
unable to make use of the veto provided for in Article 192(2)(c).

Article 192 (ex Article 175 TEC):

‘2. By way of derogation from the decision-making procedure provided for in paragraph 1 and without prejudice to
Article 114, the Council acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting
the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, shall adopt:

(c) measures significantly affecting a Member State’s choice between different energy sources and the general
structure of its energy supply.’

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

_(14 June 2013)_

The legal basis of Directive 2003/87/EC ( [1] ) is Article 175(1) of the EC Treaty replaced by Article 192(1) TFEU ( [2] ). The
same Article also constitutes the appropriate legal basis for the proposal to amend Directive 2003/87/EC so as to
clarify the powers of the Commission with regard to the auction time profile.

In general, the choice of the legal basis must rest on objective factors, which include in particular the aim and the
content of proposal. Obviously, the primary purpose of Directive 2003/87/EC is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
to prevent dangerous anthropogenic climate change as referred to in Article 191 TFEU, not energy policy, and
Article 192(1) TFEU constitutes the legal basis of acts adopted by the Council and the European Parliament in order to
attain the objectives referred to in Article 191 TFEU. The aim of the proposal amending Directive 2003/87/EC is to
clarify the scope of the Commission’s powers under Directive 2003/87/EC and it therefore shares the same legal basis.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32003L0087:en:NOT
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:083:0047:0200:en:PDF

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 221

_(Suomenkielinen versio)_

**Kirjallisesti vastattava kysymys E-004972/13**

**komissiolle**
**Mitro Repo (S&D)**
_(7. toukokuuta 2013)_

_Aihe:_ Pohjoisten alueiden erityisolosuhteiden huomioiminen rautatiesektorilla

Komission ehdotus neljännestä rautatiepaketista uudistaa rautatiesektoria lainsäädännön kautta. Erityisolosuhteita ei
kuitenkaan ole otettu huomioon Suomen kaltaisissa harvaanasutuissa ja talviolosuhteiltaan hankalasti
liikennöitävissä maissa.

Komissio keskittyy neljättä rautatiepakettia koskevassa ehdotuksessaan kilpailun avaamiseen Keski‐ ja LänsiEuroopan tiheän rataverkon näkökulmasta. Rajat ylittävä junaliikenne tuo merkittäviä etuja Keski-Euroopan maille.
Samaan aikaan komissio näyttää sulkevan pois kokonaan perifeeriset alueet, kuten Suomen. Näissä harvaan asutuissa
maissa liiketoimintaympäristö, rataverkon luonne (mm. muista EU-maista poikkeava raideleveys) ja tekniset
vaatimukset eroavat merkittävästi tiheään asuttujen ja ilmastollisesti suotuisimpien Keski‐ ja Länsi-Euroopan maista.

Suomen kannalta uudistuksessa vaarana on, että vähän liikennöidyt alueet jäisivät kokonaan ilman kilpailua, kun
aiemmin näiden syrjäseutujen liikenne on varmistettu valtio-omisteisen yhtiön kannattavilla yhteyksillä tekemällä
voitolla. Maantieteellisistä syistä ja rataverkon erilaisuudesta johtuen uusien toimijoiden tulo markkinoille on
todennäköisesti rajallinen eikä Suomi hyödy kansainvälisen liikenteen synergiaeduista. Suomessa on ylläpidettävä
myös jatkossa laajaa rataverkkoa palveluiden varmistamiseksi koko maassa.

1. Millaisia vaikutuksia ehdotetuilla uudistuksilla on Suomen kaltaisille perifeerisille jäsenvaltioille? Miten
komissio aikoo varmistaa, että vaikutukset eivät ole haitallisia hallinnollisen taakan, liiketoimintamahdollisuuksien
tai teknisten vaatimusten suhteen?

2. Miten komissio aikoo varmistaa kolmansiin maihin suuntautuvien junayhteyksien (kuten Suomen ja Venäjän
välisen liikenteen) ylläpidon ja näistä maista tulevan epäterveen kilpailun estämisen?

**Siim Kallasin komission puolesta antama vastaus**

_(25. kesäkuuta 2013)_

1. Komission vaikutustenarvioinnissa otetaan huomioon kokemus, joka on saatu markkinoiden avaamisesta
jäsenvaltioissa ja rautatieverkoista, syrjäisten jäsenvaltioiden harvemmat rataverkot mukaan luettuina. Sitä seurannut
ehdotus rautateiden kotimaan henkilöliikenteen markkinoiden avaamisesta ( [1] ) mahdollistaa periaatteessa neljännen
rautatiepaketin tavoitteiden saavuttamisen kaikissa jäsenvaltioissa. Jotta korjattaisiin liikkuvan kaluston
vuokramarkkinoiden kehittymisen mahdollinen hitaus jäsenvaltioissa, joiden rautatieverkko on maantieteellisesti
syrjäinen ja/tai joissa on käytössä erilaiset tekniset parametrit (esim. raideleveys), ehdotuksessa annetaan
toimivaltaisille viranomaisille mahdollisuus muun muassa vaatia julkisen palvelun operaattoria siirtämään liikkuva
kalusto julkisia palveluhankintoja koskevan sopimuksen päättyessä uudelle operaattorille.

Ehdotuksessa turvataan jäsenvaltioiden oikeus tehdä julkisia palveluhankintoja koskevia sopimuksia aina kun ne ovat
julkisen palvelun suunnitelmien mukaisesti perusteltuja. Tämä kattaa erityisesti reitit ilmasto-olosuhteiltaan
äärimmäisille harvaan asutuille alueille. Vaikka komissio katsoo, että uudet tulokkaat ja käyttöoikeuksien vapaaseen
saatavuuteen (open access) perustuva suora kilpailu (ainakin tiheästi liikennöidyillä suurten nopeuksien reiteillä) lisää
tehokkuutta ja innovointia, jäsenvaltiot voivat rajoittaa tätä kilpailua turvatakseen julkisia palveluhankintoja
koskevien sopimusten taloudellisen tasapainon. Kilpailuun perustuvien tarjouspyyntöjen ansiosta Suomen
viranomaiset voivat säästää jopa 20 prosenttia julkisia palveluhankintoja koskeviin sopimuksiin kuluvista menoista,
mikä tarjoaa mahdollisuuden investoida matkustusolosuhteiden parantamiseen joko paremman liikennetarjonnan tai
alempien hintojen kautta.

2. Komission esityksessä ei ole mitään, mikä estäisi rautatieliikenteen jatkumisen Suomen ja kolmansien maiden
välillä.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) KOM(2013)0028 lopullinen.

C 80 E / 222 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004972/13**

**to the Commission**

**Mitro Repo (S&D)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Taking account of special circumstances in northern regions in the rail sector

The Commission proposal on the Fourth Railway Package reforms the rail sector by means of legislation. However, it
fails to take into account special circumstances in countries such as Finland which are sparsely populated and difficult
to travel in when the weather is wintry.

In its proposal on the Fourth Railway Package, the Commission concentrates on opening up railways to competition,
taking as its model the dense rail networks in Central and Western Europe. Cross-border rail transport brings
substantial benefits to Central European countries. At the same time, the Commission seems to completely disregard
peripheral areas such as Finland. In these sparsely populated countries, the business environment, the nature of the
rail network ( _inter alia_ the fact that the track gauge differs from that in other EU Member States) and technical
requirements differ considerably from those in densely populated countries in Central and Western Europe where the
climate is more favourable.

From Finland’s point of view there is a danger associated with the reform that regions where the volume of transport
is low will see no competition whatsoever, whereas previously transport in these peripheral areas was provided by
drawing on the profit made by a state-owned company on financially viable lines. For geographical reasons and
because of the difference of the rail network, the emergence of any new market operators is likely to be marginal, and
Finland cannot derive any benefit from international transport synergies. In Finland, an extensive rail network needs
to be maintained in future as well, in order to provide services throughout the country.

1. What impact will the proposed reforms have on peripheral Member States such as Finland? How will the
Commission ensure that the impact is not damaging in terms of administrative burden, opportunities for business
activity or technical requirements?

2. How will the Commission ensure the continuation of rail services providing links to third countries (such as
between Finland and Russia) and prevent unhealthy competition from such countries?

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

_(25 June 2013)_

1. The Commission's impact assessment takes account of experiences made with market opening in Member
States (MS) and rail networks, including less dense networks in peripheral MS. The ensuing proposal concerning the
opening of the market for domestic passenger transport services by rail ( [1] ) is in principle suitable to achieve the
objectives of the 4th railway package in all MS. To specifically remedy the potentially slower development of leasing
of rolling stock in MS whose rail network is isolated geographically and/or having a different technical parameters
(e.g. gauge), the proposal gives the competent authorities the right among other options to require the public service
operator after the expiry of the public service contract to transfer the rolling stock to the new operator.

The proposal safeguards the right of MS to provide for public service contracts wherever these are justified by their
public service plans. This would in particular include routes into sparsely populated areas suffering extreme climatic
conditions. Although the Commission considers that new entrants and direct ‘open access’ competition (at least on
densely trafficked high speed routes) will bring efficiency and innovation, MS are able to limit such competition in
order to safeguard the economic equilibrium of public service contracts. Thanks to competitive tenders, Finnish
competent authorities may expect to save up to 20% of their current public spending on public service contracts,
providing the possibility for investing in improving conditions for its passengersin terms of a better transport offer or
lower prices.

2. There is nothing in the Commission’s proposal which would prevent the continuation of rail services between
Finland and third countries.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 28 final.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 223

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004973/13**

**to the Commission**
**James Nicholson (ECR)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ European Disability Strategy 2010-2020: assessing national efforts

The European Disability Strategy 2010-2020 was adopted on 15 November 2010. Will the Commission provide an
update regarding the progress made by Member States and regions to align their strategies to the European Disability
Strategy 2010-2020?

Will the Commission also outline what safeguards are in place to ensure that Member States and regions work
towards achieving the various objectives as contained within the eight priority areas?

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

_(26 June 2013)_

As announced in the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020, by the end of 2013 the Commission will report on
progress achieved so far through this Strategy and the implementation of its actions. This will provide a basis for
updating the list of actions linked to the strategy. A further report is scheduled for 2016.

A study is currently being carried out to support the Commission in gathering data and information to prepare this
report ( [1] ). The study will also look at the impact and broader effects of the European Disability Strategy on the
Member States disability policies and their practical implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities (UNCRPD).

Since 2008 the Commission and the Disability High-Level Group have published an annual joint report on the
implementation of the UNCRPD ( [2] ). The HLG reports include information on progress made by the EU and the
Member States in developing and implementing national strategies and actions to effectively put in practice the
Convention as well as in establishing the necessary institutional arrangements provided for by the UNCRPD.

The relationship between the EU Strategy and the actions of the Member States is of a mutually supportive nature.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) JUST/2012/DISC/PR/0072/A4 — ‘Study on progress achieved in the implementation by the EU of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons

with Disabilities and the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020’.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/document/index_en.htm#h2-5.

( **|**

C 80 E / 224 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Svensk version)_

**Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-004974/13**

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

_(7 maj 2013)_

_Angående:_ Ipred-direktivets bidrag till harmoniseringen av den inre marknaden

I sitt svar på skriftlig fråga E-000564/2013 ( [1] ) besvarar inte kommissionen den fråga som ställts. Det har redan
fastställts att direktiv 2004/48/EG om säkerställande av skyddet för immateriella rättigheter (Ipred) upprättades inom
ramen för artikel 114 i EUF-fördraget, vilken handlar om harmonisering av den inre marknaden. Den specifika fråga
som ställdes handlade om huruvida Ipred-direktivet hade uppnått detta mål med tanke på att många medlemsstater
väljer att frångå målsättningarna i direktivet efter påtryckningar från tredje parter eller interna grupper.

Därför frågar jag återigen: Anser kommissionen att Ipred-direktivet uppfyller sitt syfte, dvs. att främja en
harmonisering av den inre marknaden?

**Svar från Michel Barnier på kommissionens vägnar**

_(3 juli 2013)_

Som tidigare förklarats för parlamentsledamoten har Ipred lett till en viss harmonisering av den civilrättsliga
verkställigheten av skyddet för immateriella rättigheter på den inre marknaden. I enlighet med fördragen är den
nuvarande harmoniseringsnivån, som kan ändras med tiden, resultatet av EU:s beslutsprocess och har sin grund i
medlagstiftarnas beslut som fattades utifrån kommissionens förslag. I detta avseende kan man inte säga att Ipred har
misslyckats med att uppfylla sitt inremarknadsmål. Medlemsländerna är skyldiga att utforma system för den
civilrättsliga verkställigheten av skyddet för immateriella rättigheter i enlighet med detta regelverk. Om de inte
uppfyller sin skyldighet kan de anses bryta mot EU-lagstiftningen.

Kommissionen har för närvarande ingen kännedom om något sådant fall. Om vi får det skulle kommissionen i
egenskap av fördragens väktare överväga att inleda ett överträdelseförfarande mot medlemslandet i fråga.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+WQ+E-2013-000564+0+DOC+XML+V0//SV

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 225

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004974/13**

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

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ IPRED's contribution to the harmonisation of the internal market

In its reply to Written Question E-000564/2013 ( [1] ), the Commission does not answer the question posed. It has
already been established that directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPRED) was
created under Article 114 TFEU, which calls for harmonisation of the internal market. The specific question asked
was whether or not IPRED fulfils this goal, given that many Member States choose to deviate from the objectives in
the directive after pressure from third parties or internal groups.

Therefore, I ask the Commission again: does it find that IPRED fulfils the purpose of furthering the harmonisation of
the internal market?

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

_(3 July 2013)_

As explained to the Honourable Member, IPRED has established a certain level of harmonisation in terms of the civil
enforcement of IPR within the internal market. In line with the treaties, this current degree of harmonisation, which is
not meant to be intangible over time, is the result of the European Union’s decisional process and stems form the
decision of the co-legislators, which was taken on the basis of a Commission’s proposal. In that respect IPRED cannot
be considered as failing to fulfil its Internal Market objective. Member States are under an obligation to design their
civil enforcement IP systems in line with this _acquis._ Should that not be the case they could be considered to be in
breach of EC law.

The Commission is not currently aware of any such cases, but if such cases did arise it would, as the guardian of the
Treaties, consider launching infringement procedures against the Member State in question.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=WQ&reference=E-2013-000564&language=EN.

C 80 E / 226 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004975/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Giovanni La Via (PPE)**

_(7 maggio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Limiti di ammissibilità del «pastazzo di agrumi» quale componente dei mangimi per uso animale

Il «pastazzo di agrumi» è un sottoprodotto ottenuto per pressione degli agrumi _Citrus ssp._ durante la produzione del
succo di agrumi. Esso viene utilizzato nelle miscele di concentrati utilizzate nell'alimentazione dei bovini. Il
regolamento (CE) n. 767/2009 istituisce un catalogo comunitario delle materie prime per mangimi, anche al fine di
migliorare l'etichettatura delle materie prime per mangimi e dei mangimi composti. Tale catalogo, non esaustivo e
dall'uso volontario, facilita lo scambio di informazioni sulle caratteristiche delle materie prime per mangimi ed è in
costante aggiornamento su iniziativa dei rappresentanti del settore europeo dei mangimi (associazioni di categoria).
La versione più recente è quella contenuta nel regolamento (UE) n. 575/2011 della Commissione, del 16 giugno
2011.

Considerato, infine, che il prodotto «pastazzo di agrumi» non rientra nella lista negativa di materie prime non
ammesse in assoluto nell'alimentazione animale contenute nell'allegato III del regolamento (CE) n. 767/09, può la
Commissione rispondere ai seguenti quesiti:

—
quali sono le percentuali massime ammesse del prodotto «pastazzo di agrumi» in un mangime, oltre le quali è
lecito parlare di frode industriale?

—
Quali sono le prescrizioni da riportare in etichetta al fine di fornire una corretta informazione al consumatore
ed evitare che il produttore incorra in sanzioni penali?

**Risposta di Tonio Borg a nome della Commissione**

_(20 giugno 2013)_

Il catalogo aggiornato dell'UE delle materie prime per mangimi (regolamento 68/2013 ( [1] )) cita il pastazzo di agrumi al
punto 5.13.1 con la seguente descrizione: Prodotto ottenuto per pressione da agrumi Citrus (L.) ssp. durante la
produzione di succo di agrumi. Può essere depectinizzato.

Nell'UE tutti i mangimi devono essere conformi ai limiti delle sostanze indesiderabili stabiliti nella direttiva
2002/32/CE ( [2] ), indipendentemente dal fatto che essi siano incorporati in mangimi composti o somministrati
direttamente agli animali.

La legislazione dell'UE non disciplina i tassi massimi delle diverse materie prime per mangimi contenute nei mangimi
composti poiché ciò non sarebbe giustificabile sul piano tecnico e rappresenterebbe quindi un onere amministrativo
sproporzionato sia per l'industria, che sarebbe tenuta a rispettarli, che per le amministrazioni pubbliche incaricate di
controllarli.

Al di là dei requisiti generali in tema di etichettatura stabiliti nel regolamento 767/2009 ( [3] ), l'unico requisito specifico
obbligatorio in tema di etichettatura applicabile al pastazzo di agrumi è il tenore di fibra greggia.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) GU L 29 del 30.1.2013, pag. 1.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) GU L 140 del 30.5.2002, pag. 10.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) GU L 229 dell'1.9.2013, pag. 1.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 227

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004975/13**

**to the Commission**

**Giovanni La Via (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Permissible limits for citrus pulp in animal feed

Citrus pulp is a by-product obtained by pressing _Citrus spp._ citrus fruits during the production of citrus juice. It is used
in concentrate mixtures used in cattle feed. Regulation (EC) No 767/2009 established a Community Catalogue of feed
materials, partly in order to improve the labelling of feed materials and compound feed. The Catalogue, which is nonexhaustive and intended for use on a voluntary basis, facilitates the exchange of information on the characteristics of
feed materials and is regularly updated on the initiative of the representatives of the European feed sector (trade
associations). The most up-to-date version is that contained in Commission Regulation (EU) No 575/2011 of
16 June 2011.

Bearing in mind, finally, that citrus pulp does not appear on the negative list of prohibited animal feed materials
contained in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 767/2009, can the Commission answer the following:

—
What are the maximum percentages of citrus pulp that are permitted in a feedingstuff, beyond which it may be
argued that industrial fraud has been committed?

—
What specifications should appear on labels in order to provide consumers with correct information and to
stop producers facing criminal penalties?

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

_(20 June 2013)_

The updated EU-Catalogue of feed materials (Regulation 68/2013 ( [1] )) contains citrus pulp as entry 5.13.1 with the
following description: Product obtained by pressing citrus fruits ‘Citrus (L.) spp.’ or during the production of citrus
juice. It may have been depectinised.

All feed materials in the EU must be in compliance with the limits for undesirable substances as laid down in
Directive 2002/32/EC ( [2] ) irrespective whether they are incorporated into compound feed or directly fed to animals.

EU legislation does not regulate maximum rates of the different feed materials in compound feed as it would not be
technically justifiable and would therefore be a disproportionate administrative burden for the industry to respect and
for the public administration to control.

Apart from the general labelling requirements laid down in Regulation 767/2009 ( [3] ), the only specific mandatory
labelling requirement for citrus pulp is its crude fibre content.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 29, 30.1.2013, p. 1.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 140, 30.5.2002, p. 10.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) OJ L 229, 1.9.2013, p. 1.

C 80 E / 228 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-004977/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Franz Obermayr (NI)**

_(7. Mai 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Fazilität des finanziellen Beistandes für „Nicht-Euro“-Länder

Der Vorschlag der Kommission zur Einführung der Fazilität des finanziellen Beistandes für EU-Mitgliedsländer, die
nicht den Euro als Währung haben, wurde vom BUDG-Ausschuss des EP im Wesentlichen als nicht weitgehend
genug angesehen. Insbesondere wurde von der Berichterstatterin die Möglichkeit der finanziellen Aufstockung des
Deckungsbetrages und die Inklusion der Banken dieser Länder in die Zugriffsmöglichkeiten der Bankenunion — und
gegebenenfalls auch auf den ESM — gefordert. Die Schaufensterwirkung des ESM-Geldtopfes scheint eine magische
Anziehung auf Staaten und Banken zu haben.

Kann die Kommission dazu folgende Fragen beantworten:

1. Warum wurde der Vorschlag der Kommission derart gestaltet, dass die maximale Kreditmenge, welche ein
einzelnes Land in Anspruch nehmen kann, stets 50 Mrd. Euro beträgt — unabhängig von seinem BIP und dem
damit gegebenenfalls verbundenen Geldbedarf bei einem Zahlungsbilanzproblem?

2. Hat die Kommission die Möglichkeit der Rekapitalisierung der Banken von Nicht-Euro-Ländern absichtlich
nicht in den Vorschlag aufgenommen? Wenn ja, was war der konkrete Zweck?

3. Teilt die Kommission die leider nicht weiter begründete „These“ der Berichterstatterin: „Eine zentralisierte
Überwachung wird nur von geringem Mehrwert sein, wenn die Kosten für die Abwicklung von Banken letztlich
auf nationaler Ebene beglichen werden müssen“?

4. Teilt die Kommission die Befürchtung, dass eine Inklusion der Banken in die geplanten Refinanzierungs‐ und
Abwicklungsmöglichkeiten der Bankenunion nur ein mittelbarer Versuch ist, die Banken dieser Länder in eine
vorteilhafte Situation zu lancieren, welche ihnen sodann argumentativ den Zugriff auf den ESM mit der
politischen Begründung des faktisch Notwendigen („sonst pleite“) ermöglicht?

5. Gedenkt die Kommission in diesem Punkt standhaft zu bleiben, da eine Schieflage von Banken des
Nicht-Euro-Raumes im Normalfall keinen wesentlichen Einfluss auf die Stabilität des Wirtschaftsraumes der
Euroländer haben sollte und laut kommunizierter politischer Aussage genau zu diesem Zweck die Möglichkeit
der Rekapitalisierung von Euro-Raum-Banken über den ESM in der Bankenunion geschaffen wurde?

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

_(7. Juni 2013)_

1. Bei der letzten Überarbeitung der Verordnung hat die Kommission vorgeschlagen, die Mittelausstattung dieser
Fazilität auf dem Niveau des Jahres 2009 zu belassen. Die Entscheidung über die Mittelausstattung muss unter
Berücksichtigung der Spielräume erfolgen, die bis zu der im Eigenmittelbeschluss festgelegten Obergrenze verbleiben,
sowie des Mittelbedarfs für den anderen großen Finanzstabilisierungsmechanismus der EU (EFSM).

2. Würden im Rahmen dieser Fazilität direkte Rekapitalisierungsmaßnahmen durchgeführt, so würde die
Europäische Union Anteilseignerin der betreffenden Banken. Dies würde komplexe juristische und wirtschaftliche
Fragen aufwerfen.

3. Die Kommission vertritt die Auffassung, dass die Schaffung eines einheitlichen Aufsichtsmechanismus mit der
Einrichtung eines für dieselben Länder zuständigen einheitlichen Abwicklungsmechanismus einhergehen sollte. Sie
wird entsprechende Vorschläge vorlegen.

4./5. Die Möglichkeit, Banken künftig im Rahmen des ESM zu rekapitalisieren, ist kein horizontaler Rettungsschirm.
Sie wird den Banken des Euro-Währungsgebiets unter strengen Auflagen offenstehen.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 229

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004977/13**

**to the Commission**
**Franz Obermayr (NI)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Financial assistance facility for ‘non-euro area’ Member States

The Commission proposal to introduce the facility for providing financial assistance for Member States whose
currency is not the euro was viewed by Parliament’s Committee on Budgets as essentially not going far enough. In
particular, the rapporteur called for the possibility of increasing the financial cover and for access for the banks of
these Member States to the banking union — and where appropriate also to the European Stability Mechanism (ESM).
The shop window effect of the ESM money pot seems to have a magical attraction for states and banks.

1. Why was the Commission’s proposal formulated in such a way that the maximum amount of credit that an
individual country can access is always EUR 50 billion, irrespective of its GDP and the potential need for money
associated with this in the event of a balance of payments problem?

2. Did the Commission intentionally not include the possibility of recapitalising the banks of non-euro area
countries in the proposal? If so, what was the exact purpose of this?

3. Does it agree with the following ‘argument’ put forward by the rapporteur, which, unfortunately, is not
substantiated further: ‘Centralised supervision will have little value added if bank resolution costs are ultimately borne
at the national level’?

4. Does it share the concern that inclusion of the banks in the planned refinancing and resolution options
provided by the banking union is merely an indirect attempt to launch the banks of these countries into an
advantageous position, which, it could be argued, will then give them access to the ESM with the political justification
of actual necessity (‘otherwise bankrupt’)?

5. Does the Commission intend to stand firm on this point, since a deterioration in the situation of non-euro area
banks should not normally have any significant impact on the stability of the economic region of the euro area
countries and, according to political statements that I have been made aware of, the possibility of recapitalisation of
euro area banks via the ESM in the banking union was established for precisely this purpose?

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

_(7 June 2013)_

1. The Commission has proposed to maintain the envelope available under this facility to the level set in 2009 at
the occasion of the last revision of the regulation. The decision on the size of the envelope has to take into account the
margins available under the ceiling set by the own resources decision and the needs under the other large EU financial
assistance mechanism (the EFSM).

2. Direct recapitalisations under this facility would imply that the European Union would become shareholder of
banks. This would raise complicated legal and economic questions.

3. The Commission is of the view that the establishment of a single supervisory mechanism should be
accompanied by the creation of a single resolution mechanism, covering the same countries and will table proposals
to this effect.

4/5. The future ESM instrument for recapitalizing banks is not a horizontal backstop. It will be accessible to banks in
euro area countries, under strict eligibility criteria.

C 80 E / 230 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-004978/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Franz Obermayr (NI)**

_(7. Mai 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Starker Anstieg der Asylanträge aus Serbien und Mazedonien

Die Zahl der Asylanträge serbischer und mazedonischer Staatsbürger ist in Österreich und Deutschland in diesem
Jahr massiv angestiegen. Mit verantwortlich ist dafür neben der nicht vorhandenen Visapflicht für Bürger dieser
Nationen auch das Urteil des deutschen Bundesverfassungsgericht, dass die Leistungen für Asylbewerber zu niedrig
seien und diese in Deutschland angehoben werden müssen. Nun strömen Asylbewerber en masse gen Mitteleuropa.
In Deutschland liegen Statistiken vor, dass die Zahl der Anträge um mehr als 50 % gestiegen sei.

Kann die Kommission dazu folgende Fragen beantworten:

1. Sieht die Kommission Argumente, welche binnen der letzten zwei Jahre für eine rapide politische
Verschlechterung in diesen Ländern (Serbien/Mazedonien) sprechen würden, in deren Folge sich sodann die
Anzahl der politischen Flüchtlinge zwangsmäßig so stark erhöhen musste?

2. Falls nicht, sieht die Kommission diese Personen als Wirtschaftsflüchtlinge an?

3. Ist die Kommission der Auffassung, dass das Recht auf politisches Asyl implizit auch die Flucht vor
wirtschaftlich ungünstigeren Situationen beinhaltet?

4. Welchen Zweck haben aus Sicht der Kommission die Visabefreiungen für Staaten mit einem so deutlich
niedrigeren Wirtschaftsaufkommen, zum Beispiel gemessen am BIP/Kopf, mitten in einer Wirtschaftskrise? Die
einzige denkbare Erklärung wäre der mittelbare Versuch, die wirtschaftliche Konvergenz unter den
Mitgliedstaaten der EU zu forcieren. Kann die Kommission in diesem Punkt Aufklärung verschaffen?

5. Welche Erkenntnisse zieht die Kommission aus dieser Entwicklung auch im Hinblick auf die Einführung
weiterer Visabefreiungen für Nationen deren wirtschaftlicher Standard deutlich unter dem Durchschnitt der EU
liegt, beispielsweise Moldawien?

6. Welche Erkenntnisse zieht die Kommission aus diesen Entwicklungen im Hinblick auf Dublin II und die
deutlich unterschiedliche Ausgestaltung der Leistungen für Asylbewerber sowie der Sozialleistungen unter den
EU-Mitgliedstaaten?

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

_(4. Juli 2013)_

Seit 2010 verfolgt die Kommission aufmerksam, wie das System des visumfreien Reisens funktioniert. Im vierten
Bericht über die Überwachung für die Zeit nach der Visaliberalisierung wird für jeden der westlichen Balkanstaaten
ausführlich dargelegt, welche Maßnahmen getroffen wurden, um das Problem unbegründeter Asylanträge
anzugehen.

Die politische Lage in jedem von der Visumpflicht befreiten Staat wird in den Fortschrittsberichten der Kommission
zur Erweiterung bewertet. Die sehr niedrige Anerkennungsquote lässt darauf schließen, dass die meisten
Asylbewerber aus dieser Region keinen Anspruch auf internationalen Schutz in der EU haben.

Die Voraussetzungen für die Zuerkennung des internationalen Schutzstatus sind in den Asylvorschriften der EU ( [1] )
festgelegt. Wirtschaftliche Gründe oder der Begriff „Wirtschaftsflüchtling“ werden darin nicht aufgeführt.

Die Visaliberalisierung soll dazu beitragen, persönliche Kontakte zwischen den Bürgern zu fördern und den
kulturellen Austausch zu stärken sowie Drittstaatsangehörigen die Möglichkeit bieten, die EU besser kennenzulernen.
Da es sich bei der überwiegenden Mehrheit der Reisenden aus den westlichen Balkanstaaten um Bona-fide-Reisende
handelt, vertritt die Kommission die Auffassung, dass die Visumfreiheit ihren Zweck erfüllt.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Richtlinie 2011/95/EU.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 231

Bevor die Kommission die Aufhebung der Visumpflicht für die Bürger eines Drittstaates vorschlägt, wird jeweils eine
gründliche Bewertung des betreffenden Landes vorgenommen. Wenn die Republik Moldau alle Zielvorgaben des
Fahrplans für die Visaliberalisierung erfüllt, wird die Kommission prüfen, ob die Aufhebung der Visumpflicht für
moldauische Bürger vorgeschlagen werden soll.

Die Kommission verweist darauf, dass die vor kurzen erlassene neue Richtlinie über Aufnahmebedingungen zu einer
weiteren Angleichung der Aufnahmebedingungen für Asylbewerber in der EU führen wird.

C 80 E / 232 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004978/13**

**to the Commission**
**Franz Obermayr (NI)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Sharp rise in applications for asylum from Serbia and Macedonia

The number of applications for asylum from Serbian and Macedonian citizens has risen dramatically in Austria and
Germany this year. Along with the non-existent visa obligation for citizens of these countries, another of the reasons
for this is the judgment of the German Federal Constitutional Court that the benefits received by asylum-seekers are
too low and should be increased in Germany. Hoards of asylum-seekers are now streaming into Central Europe. In
Germany, statistics show that the number of applications has risen by more than 50%.

1. Does the Commission consider there to be arguments which would point towards a rapid political deterioration
in these countries (Serbia/Macedonia) within the last two years, which subsequently forced the number of political
refugees to increase to such an extent?

2. If not, does it view these people as economic refugees?

3. Does it believe that the right to political asylum also implicitly encompasses fleeing from less favourable
economic situations?

4. What purpose is served, in the Commission’s opinion, by lifting the visa requirements for states with such a
blatantly low economic performance, measured by GDP per capita for example, in the middle of an economic crisis?
The only conceivable explanation would be an indirect attempt to accelerate economic convergence among the
Member States of the EU. Can the Commission provide an explanation in this regard?

5. What conclusions does it draw from this development with regard to the introduction of further visa
exemptions for countries whose economic standard is well below the average for the EU, like Moldova, for example?

6. What conclusions does it draw from these developments with regard to Dublin II and the clear differences in the
provision of benefits for asylum-seekers and social security benefits among EU Member States?

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

_(4 July 2013)_

The Commission has monitored the operation of the EU visa-free regime since 2010. The 4th post-visa liberalisation
monitoring report will set out in detail the measures that each Western Balkan state has taken to address the issue of
unfounded asylum applications.

The political situation in each visa-free state is evaluated in the Commission’s enlargement progress reports. The very
low asylum recognition rate suggests that most asylum-seekers from this region do not qualify for international
protection in the EU.

EU asylum law ( [1] ) sets out the grounds for granting international protection. These do not include economic reasons
or a concept of ‘economic refugee’.

Visa liberalisation serves the purpose of increasing people-to-people contacts, cultural exchanges and enabling thirdcountry nationals to get to know the EU better. As the overwhelming majority of travellers from the western Balkans
remain bona fide travellers, the Commission believes that the visa-free regime has fulfilled its purpose.

Each third country is assessed on its merits before the Commission proposes lifting the visa obligation for that
country’s citizens. If Moldova will meet all the benchmarks set out in its visa liberalisation action plan, the
Commission will consider whether to propose lifting the visa obligation for Moldovan citizens.

The Commission notes that the recently adopted new Reception Conditions Directive will lead to further
harmonisation of reception conditions for asylum-seekers in the EU.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2011/95/EU.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 233

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord P-004979/13**
**aan de Commissie (Vicevoorzitter / Hoge Vertegenwoordiger)**

**Marietje Schaake (ALDE)**

_(7 mei 2013)_

_Betreft:_ VP/HR — Volledige uitvoering van het mandaat van UNIFIL en EU-steun aan de Libanese strijdkrachten

De aanhoudende burgeroorlog in Syrië heeft in toenemende mate gevolgen voor de buurlanden. De toestroom van
Syrische burgers die de oorlog en het geweld ontvluchten, brengt deze landen aan de rand van hun mogelijkheden. In
Libanon is momenteel een op de vijf inwoners van Syrische afkomst. Tot nu toe heeft de Libanese bevolking
voldoende vindingrijkheid aan de dag gelegd om de vluchtelingen van onderdak te voorzien. De situatie is echter
onhoudbaar geworden. Tal van collega's en ikzelf hebben u in een brief ( [1] ) ertoe opgeroepen dat de EU meer steun zou
verlenen. De oorlog in Syrië heeft ook een politieke impact op Libanon. De Hezbollah heeft publiekelijk
toegegeven ( [2] ) te strijden aan de zijde van de regering-Assad tegen het verzet en het vrije Syrische leger. Op zondag
5 mei heeft Israël een aanval uitgevoerd op een wapenarsenaal in Syrië ( [3] ) dat vermoedelijk door Iran was geleverd en
bestemd was voor de Hezbollah in Libanon.

Inmiddels worden de Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) ingezet ( [4] ) in het noordelijke deel van de Libanees-Syrische grens
om te zorgen voor vrede en stabiliteit in dat deel van het land.

De overplaatsing van de LAF-strijdkrachten heeft de spanning ( [4] ) tussen UNIFIL en de Hezbollah opgevoerd. Het
huidige mandaat van UNIFIL is vastgelegd in VN-resolutie 1701 van 11 augustus 2006 ( [5] ), waarin is bepaald dat de
vredesmacht moet samen en aan de zijde van de LAF moet opereren. Door de LAF in het noorden in te zetten dreigt in
het zuiden van Libanon een veiligheidsvacuüm te ontstaan, dat ernstige gevolgen kan hebben voor de situatie zowel
in het land zelf als in de buurlanden, ondanks het feit dat UNIFIL als hoofddoel heeft te zorgen voor veiligheid.

In het licht van wat voorafgaat, wilde ik de VV/HV het volgende vragen:

1. Is de VV/HV het erover eens dat het mandaat van de 15 000 UNIFIL-troepen — momenteel zijn 10 807 ervan
effectief gedeployeerd ( [6] ) — zo spoedig mogelijk door de internationale gemeenschap volledig moet worden
uitgevoerd, zodat de effectiviteit geoptimaliseerd kan worden en de doelstellingen kunnen worden bereikt?
Zo niet, waarom niet?

2. Is de VV/HV bereid de voltooiing van het UNIFIL-mandaat ter sprake te brengen op de volgende bijeenkomst
van de EU-Raad Buitenlandse Zaken van 27 mei 2013 in Brussel? Zo niet, waarom niet?

3. Kan de VV/HV de verzekering geven dat zij er, samen met de lidstaten die in de VN‐Veiligheidsraad
vertegenwoordigd zijn, voor zal zorgen dat er een nieuw mandaat voor UNIFIL komt wanneer het huidige op
30 augustus 2013 afloopt? Zo niet, waarom niet?

4. Is de VV/HV het erover eens dat de EU de mogelijkheid moet onderzoeken om de LAF zodanig te ondersteunen
dat deze strijdmacht kan blijven opereren als de belangrijkste partner in Libanon? Zo niet, waarom niet?

5. Kan de VV/HV toelichten hoe de EU, zowel in het kader van het GBVB als van het GVDB, de LAF kan
ondersteunen?

**Antwoord van hoge vertegenwoordiger/vicevoorzitter Ashton namens de Commissie**

_(10 juli 2013)_

De hoge vertegenwoordiger/vicevoorzitter onderschrijft de beoordeling van de situatie in Libanon. Libanon wordt
inderdaad het zwaarst getroffen door het conflict in Syrië. De EU heeft herhaaldelijk benadrukt hoe belangrijk het is
om de veiligheid, stabiliteit en onafhankelijkheid van Libanon te bewaren.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://marietjeschaake.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Letter-To-Ashton-Lebanon-DEF.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/30/hezbollah-syria-uprising-nasrallah#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%

2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart%2Concircled%2Conload&id=10_1367919320627&parent=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk&rpctoken=
42737418

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/world/middleeast/israel-syria.html?pagewanted=all & _r=1&
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/167640
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1701 %282006 %29
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/unifil/facts.shtml

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

⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

C 80 E / 234 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

De hoge vertegenwoordiger/vicevoorzitter is het ermee eens dat het volledige mandaat van de 15 000 UNIFILtroepen door de internationale gemeenschap moet worden uitgevoerd om ervoor te zorgen dat de doelstellingen
worden bereikt. Derhalve is de hoge vertegenwoordiger/vicevoorzitter samen met de EU-lidstaten in de VNVeiligheidsraad voornemens het UNIFIL-mandaat te verlengen wanneer het huidige mandaat op 30 augustus 2013
afloopt.

De hoge vertegenwoordiger/vicevoorzitter is het er eveneens mee eens dat ondersteuning van de Libanese
strijdkrachten (LAF) cruciaal is om stabiliteit te brengen in Libanon en in de regio. De Libanese strijdkrachten zijn
inderdaad een cruciale pijler van het Libanese veiligheidsapparaat en de belangrijkste partner van UNIFIL in Libanon.
Hoewel de strijdkrachten momenteel zijn opgezet als een conventioneel leger, zijn ze in de eerste plaats vooral
verantwoordelijk voor de binnenlandse veiligheid. Bovendien genieten de strijdkrachten respect en zijn ze
multiconfessioneel van structuur. Om deze redenen worden zij reeds door individuele EU-lidstaten gesteund en
onderzoekt de EU hoe zij de capaciteit van de strijdkrachten (infrastructuur, logistiek en opleiding) kan uitbouwen.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 235

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-004979/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Marietje Schaake (ALDE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Fulfilling full Unifil mandate in Lebanon and EU assistance to Lebanese Armed Forces

The ongoing civil war in Syria is having an increasing effect on its neighbouring countries. The influx of Syrian
citizens seeking refuge from the war and the violence is placing a particular strain on its neighbours’ resources.
Currently, one in five people in Lebanon is Syrian. So far, the Lebanese population has showed resourcefulness in
giving families somewhere to stay. However, this situation is unsustainable. Many colleagues and I wrote to you ( [1] )
calling for the EU to provide more assistance. The war in Syria is also having a political impact on Lebanon. Hezbollah
has publicly acknowledged ( [2] ) that it is fighting alongside the Assad government against the opposition and Free
Syrian Army. On Sunday, 5 May, Israel attacked weapons in Syria ( [3] ) that were allegedly provided by Iran and en route
to Hezbollah in Lebanon. In the meantime, Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) are being deployed ( [4] ) to the northern
Lebanese-Syrian border to ensure security and stability in that part of the country. The relocation of LAF forces has
led to increased tensions ( [4] ) between the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (Unifil) and Hezbollah. The current
Unifil mandate was authorised by UN Security Council Resolution 1701 of 11 August 2006 ( [5] ), which stipulates that
peacekeeping forces must cooperate with and work alongside the LAF. The deployment of the LAF to the north
threatens to create a security vacuum in the south of Lebanon which could have serious consequences for both the
domestic situation as well as Lebanon’s neighbours, despite UNIFL’s primary objective to ensure security.

With this in mind:

1. Does the VP/HR agree that the full mandate of 15 000 Unifil troops — 10 807 troops are currently deployed ( [6] )
— should be fulfilled by the international community as soon as possible, so as to optimise its effectiveness and
ensure that its objectives are met? If not, why not?

2. Is the VP/HR willing to discuss the fulfilment of the Unifil mandate during the upcoming EU Foreign Affairs
Council in Brussels on 27 May 2013? If not, why not?

3. Is the VP/HR committed to ensuring, along with EU Member States in the UNSC, a new authorisation of Unifil
when the current mandate expires on 30 August 2012? If not, why not?

4. Does the VP/HR agree that the EU should seek ways to support the LAF to ensure that it can remain Unifil’s key
partner in Lebanon? If not, why not?

5. Can the VP/HR explain how the EU, under both the CFSP and the CSDP, is able to directly support the LAF?

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

_(10 July 2013)_

The HR/VP agrees with the assessment of the situation in Lebanon. Indeed Lebanon is the country most affected by
the conflict in Syria. The EU has reiterated on several occasions the importance of preserving Lebanon's security,
stability and independence.

The HR/VP agrees that full mandate of 15.000 Unifil troops should be fulfilled by the international community so as
to ensure that its objectives are met. In this spirit, the HR/VP together with EU Member States in the UN Security
Council is committed to renew the mandate for Unifil when the current mandate expires on 30 August 2013.

The HR/VP also agrees that support for the capabilities of the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) is crucial to stabilise
Lebanon and the region. Indeed the LAF are a key pillar of the security apparatus of Lebanon and is Unifil's key
partner in Lebanon. However, while it is currently designed as a conventional military force its main role is in internal
security. Moreover, the LAF is well respected and cross confessional in structure. For these reasons, individual EU
Member States are already supporting the LAF and the EU is currently exploring ways to build up the capacities LAF
(infrastructure, logistics and training).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://marietjeschaake.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Letter-To-Ashton-Lebanon-DEF.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/30/hezbollah-syria-uprising-nasrallah#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%

2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart%2Concircled%2Conload&id=10_1367919320627&parent=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk&rpctoken=42
737418

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/world/middleeast/israel-syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/167640
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1701%282006%29
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/unifil/facts.shtml

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

⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

C 80 E / 236 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(българска версия)_

**Въпрос с искане за писмен отговор E-004980/13**

**до Комисията**
**Mariya Gabriel (PPE)**

_(7 май 2013 г.)_

_Относно:_ Финансиране за изпълнението на стратегията на Европейския съюз за региона на река Дунав

През 2009 г. Европейският съвет призова Комисията да изготви стратегия на ЕС за региона на река Дунав (EUSDR).
През 2010 г. Комисията отговори на искането на Съвета, като представи съобщението „Стратегия на Европейския съюз
за региона на река Дунав“ (COM(2010)0715). През 2011 г. Съветът одобри съобщението и приложения към него план
за действие, в който са посочени конкретни действия и примери за проекти в 11 приоритетни области. На 8 април
2013 г., след 18 месеца изпълнение, Комисията докладва пред Парламента, Съвета, Европейския икономически и
социален комитет и Комитета на регионите относно изпълнението на стратегията на ЕС за региона на река Дунав.

В този доклад Комисията подчерта, че бюджетът на ЕС може да обезпечи ограничено пряко финансиране на
изпълнителната структура до 2014 г. В същото време тя отбеляза, че предвид факта, че няма гарантирано финансиране
за периода след 2014 г., трябва да бъдат намерени други начини за подкрепа. По отношение на важния, предстоящ
програмен период 2014—2020 г. е от изключително значение програмите и политиките да продължат да бъдат
използвани при изпълнението на стратегията на ЕС за региона на река Дунав. Освен това в доклада си Комисията
предлага да се създаде предварително формулирана и обособена програма за транснационално сътрудничество за
региона на река Дунав с цел да се финансират мрежови проекти и да се предостави институционална подкрепа за

изпълнение и управление.

С оглед на това бих искала да разбера дали ще бъде представено предложение за създаване на бъдеща програма
за.транснационално сътрудничество за региона на река Дунав. Ако отговорът на този въпрос е положителен, то кога
ще се случи това?

В случай че такова предложение бъде представено, може ли Комисията да уточни какъв бюджет ще бъде предоставен за
изпълнението на стратегията на ЕС за региона на река Дунав?

И, накрая, има ли планирани мерки във връзка с програмата за транснационално сътрудничество за региона на река
Дунав?

**Отговор, даден от г-н Хан от името на Комисията**

_(27 юни 2013 г.)_

През декември 2012 г. на държавите членки беше представено предложение за създаване на програма за
транснационално сътрудничество за региона на река Дунав. След като бъде прието съответното законодателство,
Комисията ще пристъпи към правен акт относно тази програма. Участващите държави ще трябва да подготвят
програмата и да я представят за одобрение от Комисията.

Бюджетът на програмата може да бъде определен, едва след като бъде приета многогодишната индикативна финансова
рамка. Макар че обсъжданията са все още в начален етап, се предвижда ресурсите, планирани за програмата, да служат
за укрепване и улесняване на постигането на целите на стратегията на Европейския съюз за региона на река Дунав и

включват институционална подкрепа и изграждане на капацитет.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 237

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004980/13**

**to the Commission**
**Mariya Gabriel (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Funding for the implementation of the European Union Strategy for the Danube Region

In 2009 the European Council called on the Commission to prepare an EU Strategy for the Danube Region (EUSDR).
In 2010 the Commission responded to the Council request with its communication ‘EU Strategy for the Danube
Region’ (COM(2010)0715). In 2011 the Council endorsed the communication and its annexed Action Plan, which
identifies concrete actions and examples of projects in 11 Priority Areas. On 8 April 2013, after 18 months of
implementation, the Commission reported to Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee
and the Committee of the Regions concerning the implementation of the EUSDR.

In its report, the Commission made clear that the EU budget can provide limited direct funding for the
implementation structure until 2014. At the same time it noted, however, that as funding is not guaranteed beyond
2014, other means of support need to be found. With regard to the important, upcoming programming period
2014-2020, it is crucial that programmes and policies can continue to be utilised in the implementation of the
EUSDR. Furthermore, in the report the Commission outlines a re-defined and specific transnational cooperation
programme to be created for the Danube Region in order to finance networking projects and provide institutional
support for implementation and governance.

In view of this, I would like to know whether a proposal for a future Danube transnational cooperation programme
will be presented, and, if so, when?

If so, can the Commission say which budget will be provided for the implementation of the EUSDR?

Finally, are any measures planned for the Danube transnational cooperation programme?

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

_(27 June 2013)_

A proposal for the creation of a Danube transnational cooperation programme was presented to Member States in
December 2012. Once the relevant legislation is adopted, the Commission will proceed with a legal decision for this
programme. Participating countries will then have to prepare the programme and submit it for the Commission's
approval.

The budget of the programme can only be determined once the Multi-Annual Indicative Financial Framework is
adopted. While discussions are still at an early stage, it is intended that the resources foreseen for the programme
actively facilitate and reinforce the objectives of the European Union Strategy for the Danube Region including
institutional support and capacity building.

C 80 E / 238 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004981/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(7 mai 2013)_

_Objet:_ Conditions de travail au Bangladesh

Quatre jours après l'effondrement d'un immeuble de huit étages contenant des ateliers dans la banlieue de la capitale
Dacca, au Bangladesh, le pays est toujours en état de choc. Un dernier bilan de cet accident industriel, le pire qu'ait
connu le pays, fait état de centaines de morts. Selon les premiers éléments de l'enquête, l'immeuble avait été bâti sur
un sol instable et sans les autorisations nécessaires, et plus de 3 000 ouvriers, majoritairement des jeunes femmes, y
ont été envoyés quelques heures avant l'effondrement, malgré les avertissements concernant la fragilité du bâtiment.

Depuis l'effondrement de l'immeuble, la présence de plusieurs marques de vêtements a été constatée. Certaines ont
admis avoir passé des commandes dans ces ateliers; d'autres démentent fermement toute présence. Tout le monde
possède un vêtement fabriqué au Bangladesh. Ce n'est pas seulement la faute des compagnies qui vendent ces
vêtements, mais aussi celle des autorités européennes qui s'entêtent à ne pas vouloir mentionner le pays d'origine de
certains produits et à empêcher, par là même, le consommateur de consommer de manière responsable.

1. L'Union européenne envisage-t-elle de prendre des mesures commerciales contre leBangladesh, qui bénéficie
d'un accès préférentiel aux marchés de l'Union pour ses vêtements?

2. Quelles sont les autres incitations proposées par la Commission pour que le pays amélioreses normes de
sécurité?

3. Pourquoi la Commission ne veut-elle pas obliger les marques à mentionner le pays deconfection de chaque
produit provenant d'un pays non européen?

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

_(3 juillet 2013)_

—
La Commission partage les préoccupations des auteurs de la question face aux tragiques événements du
Bangladesh.

—
L'accès préférentiel aux marchés de l'Union européenne a joué un rôle clé dans la croissance économique du
Bangladesh. La Commission cherche donc à le maintenir par une action vigoureuse visant à améliorer les normes de
travail.

—
Le commissaire au commerce et le ministre des Affaires étrangères du Bangladesh sont en train de prendre
contact avec tous les acteurs de la chaîne de valeur mondiale. Dans leur déclaration commune du 28 mai 2013, ils ont
rappelé la résolution du Parlement européen du 23 mai 2013.

—
La Commission se félicite des efforts accomplis par l'Organisation internationale du travail (OIT) pour réunir les
parties prenantes. L'adoption, le 4 mai 2013, d'une déclaration commune des partenaires tripartites et de l'OIT
constitue un point de départ utile.

—
L'Union encourage le Bangladesh à ratifier et à appliquer les normes fondamentales du travail et a offert de
l'épauler, y compris par la coopération au développement, dans ses efforts pour se conformer pleinement à ces
normes du travail, introduire toutes les modifications nécessaires dans la législation et concevoir des plans d'action
réalistes visant à améliorer les conditions de travail.

—
En outre, toutes les entreprises devraient gérer leur chaîne d'approvisionnement conformément aux principes
internationalement reconnus de responsabilité sociétale des entreprises. Il est encourageant de voir que les grandes
marques de vêtements et de vente au détail (pour la plupart européennes) ont signé un accord les engageant à
organiser des inspections et des activités de formation.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 239

Le 13 février 2013, la Commission a adopté, suivant la procédure législative ordinaire, une proposition législative de
règlement sur la sécurité des produits de consommation. Ce texte prévoit notamment l'obligation d'indiquer l'origine
des produits manufacturés non alimentaires destinés à la consommation ( [1] ), disposition qui s'appliquerait tant aux
produits fabriqués dans l'Union européenne qu'aux produits importés.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Proposition de règlement du Parlement européen et du Conseil concernant la sécurité des produits de consommation et abrogeant la
directive 87/357/CEE du Conseil et la directive 2001/95/CE, COM(2013) 78/2.

C 80 E / 240 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004981/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Working conditions in Bangladesh

Four days after the collapse of an eight-storey building filled with workshops on the outskirts of the Bangladeshi
capital, Dhaka, the country remains in a state of shock. According to the latest death toll for this industrial accident,
the worst Bangladesh has ever seen, the number of victims is in the hundreds. According to preliminary
investigations, the building had been built on unstable ground without the necessary permits, and over 3 000
workers, most of them young women, had been sent there several hours before it collapsed, despite warnings about
how unsafe the building was.

Since the building’s collapse, several brands of clothing have been found at the site. Some clothing brands have
admitted placing orders with these workshops; others strongly deny any involvement. Everyone owns an item of
clothing made in Bangladesh. It is not just the companies that sell these clothes that are at fault, but also the European
authorities, which continue to be reluctant to state the country of origin of certain products, thereby preventing
consumers from buying responsibly.

1. Does the European Union plan to take trade measures against Bangladesh, which enjoys preferential access to
EU markets for its clothing?

2. What other incentives does the Commission propose so that the country improves its safety standards?

3. Why is the Commission unwilling to force brands to state the country of manufacture for every product that
comes from a non-EU country?

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

_(3 July 2013)_

The Commission shares the Honourable Members' concerns after the tragic events in Bangladesh.

EU preferences have had a key role in Bangladesh's economic growth. The Commission is therefore looking to
safeguard preferences through determined action to improve labour standards.

The Trade Commissioner and Bangladesh’s Minister of Foreign Affairs are engaged in approaching all actors involved
in the global value chain. In their joint statement of 28 May 2013, they recall the resolution that Parliament adopted
on 23 May 2013.

The Commission welcomes the efforts of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) to bring together stakeholders.
The adoption of a Joint Statement by Tripartite Partners with the ILO on 4 May 2013 provides a useful starting point.

The EU encourages Bangladesh to ratify and implement core labour standards and has offered assistance, including
through EU development cooperation, to accompany national efforts to fully comply with labour standards,
introduce all the necessary changes in legislation and design realistic action plans to reinforce labour conditions.

Moreover, all companies should manage their supply chain in line with internationally recognised Corporate Social
Responsibility principles. It is encouraging to see that the major (mostly European) garment and retail brands signed
an agreement committing themselves to organising inspections and training activities.

On 13 February 2013 the Commission adopted a legislative proposal (ordinary legislative procedure) for a regulation
on Consumer Product Safety. It includes a mandatory indication of origin of manufactured non-food products
intended for consumers ( [1] ). This would apply to both products manufactured in the EU and imported products.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Proposal for a regulation of Parliament and of the Council on consumer products safety and repealing Council Directive 87/357/EEC and
Directive 2001/95/EC, COM(2013) 78/2.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 241

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004982/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(7 mai 2013)_

_Objet:_ Tétrazépam

L'Agence européenne du médicament (EMA) a recommandé, lundi, à l'Union européenne de retirer du marché le
tétrazépam, médicament de la famille des benzodiazépines, utilisé dans le traitement des contractures musculaires.
Une enquête de pharmacovigilance française avait mis en évidence «une fréquence élevée d'effets indésirables cutanés

[…] tels que des syndromes de Lyell et de Stevens-Johnson (qui se traduisent par des destructions brutales de la
couche superficielle de la peau et des muqueuses) et des syndromes d'hypersensibilité médicamenteuse (DRESS)».

La Commission va-t-elle, comme le préconise l'Agence, prendre une décision légalement contraignante dans toute
l'Union européenne?

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

_(24 juin 2013)_

Se fondant sur les données mentionnées par l'auteur de la question, les autorités françaises ont ouvert une procédure
de saisine visant à réexaminer le rapport risque-avantage des médicaments contenant du tétrazépam. À la suite de
celle-ci, l'Agence européenne des médicaments a publié, en avril 2013, la recommandation à laquelle il est fait
référence dans la question.

Étant donné que la procédure concerne des médicaments autorisés au niveau national, la recommandation a été
transmise au «groupe de coordination», composé de représentants des États membres, comme le requiert la législation
pharmaceutique de l'Union européenne ( [1] ). Ce groupe n'étant pas parvenu à un consensus, son opinion majoritaire,
adoptée le 24 avril 2013, a été communiquée à la Commission.

La Commission est à présent en voie d'adopter une décision contraignante qui devra être appliquée dans tous les États
membres. Au vu de la décision envisagée, la procédure pour la suspension de l'autorisation de mise sur le marché des
médicaments contenant du tétrazépam a été accélérée.

Cette procédure est la première saisine en matière de pharmacovigilance concernant des médicaments autorisés
uniquement au niveau national depuis l'entrée en application de la nouvelle législation en matière de
pharmacovigilance ( [2] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2001/83/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 6 novembre 2001 instituant un code communautaire relatif aux médicaments à

usage humain, JO L 311 du 28.11.2001, p. 67.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directive 2010/84/UE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 15 décembre 2010 modifiant, en ce qui concerne la pharmacovigilance, la

directive 2001/83/CE, JO L 348 du 31.12.2010, p. 74.

( **|**

C 80 E / 242 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004982/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Tetrazepam

On Monday 29 April 2013, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) recommended that the EU take tetrazepam, a
medicine of the benzodiazepine class used as a muscle relaxant, off the market. According to a French
pharmacovigilance investigation, there had been a high number of reported adverse skin reactions, such as Lyell’s
syndrome and Stevens-Johnson syndrome (which result in very severe damage to the top layer of the skin and
mucosa), and drug hypersensitivity (DRESS) syndromes.

Will the Commission take a decision that is legally binding across the EU, as recommended by the EMA?

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

_(24 June 2013)_

On the basis of the data mentioned by the Honourable Member, the French authorities initiated a referral procedure
aiming at reevaluating the risk benefice of tetrazepam containing medicinal products. This led to the scientific
recommendation of the European Medicines Agency in April 2013, as referred to by the Honourable Member.

As the procedure relates to medicinal products authorised at national level, the recommendation was forwarded to
the so-called coordination group composed of Member States representatives as foreseen by the EU pharmaceutical
legislation ( [1] ). As this group did not reach a consensus, its majority position adopted on 24 April 2013 was forwarded
to the Commission.

The Commission is now in the process of adopting a binding decision, which will have to be implemented by all
Member States. Considering that the decision envisaged concerns, the procedure for the suspension of the marketing
authorisation of tetrazepam containing medicinal products has been accelerated.

This procedure is the first pharmacovigilance referral, involving exclusively nationally authorised medicinal products,
initiated since the entry into application of the new pharmacovigilance legislation ( [2] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6November 201 on the Community code relating to medicinal products

for human use, OJ L 311, 28.11.2001, p. 67.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directive 2010/84/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 amending Directive 2001/83/EC as regards

pharmacovigilance, OJ L 348, 31.12.2010, p. 74.

( **|**

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 243

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004983/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(7 mai 2013)_

_Objet:_ Importations illégales de bois

Les autorités belges retiennent actuellement, dans le port d'Anvers, une cargaison de bois suspecte en provenance de
la République démocratique du Congo (RDC). Pour rappel, depuis le 3 mars, il est interdit de commercialiser du bois
illégal dans l'Union européenne. La cargaison en question se compose d'environ 40 m [3] de bois Afrormosia scié, de la
société d'exploitation forestière Tala Tina, et est destinée à deux importateurs belges. Sa valeur est estimée entre
60 000 et 70 000 euros. Greenpeace doute fortement de la légalité de ce bois. Le contrat de concession de Tala Tina
n'a, en effet, jamais été publié, ce qui constitue une violation de la législation congolaise. Greenpeace ne retrouve
aucune trace non plus de l'autorisation annuelle de coupe industrielle de bois d'œuvre (ACIBO) de Tala Tina, qui est
requise par la loi. Étant donné que les autorités congolaises ne publient aucune liste officielle des ACIBO, il est
pratiquement impossible de vérifier la conformité de Tala Tina en la matière. En outre, la région où se déroulent les
activités d'exploitation forestière de Tala Tina n'abrite presque pas d'Afrormosia. Il est donc possible que l'entreprise
ait acheté ce bois à un tiers, ce qui comporte aussi un risque considérable d'illégalité, vu que la plupart des exploitants
artisanaux qui vendent leur bois à des exportateurs agissent dans la clandestinité.

L'Afrormosia est une essence forestière très prisée. Son commerce est soumis à des conditions strictes balisées dans la
Convention sur le commerce international des espèces menacées d'extinction (CITES). Le pays d'exportation et le pays
d'importation doivent, tous deux, s'assurer du respect de ces conditions.

1. Que compte mettre en place la Commission comme outil de contrôle afin que les lois européennes soient
respectées?

2. À combien estime-t-on le commerce illicite de bois dans l'Union?

3. Les pays d'importation se limitent trop souvent à un contrôle purement administratif et vérifient uniquement si
un certificat CITES et un permis d'exportation ont été délivrés dans le pays d'origine. Pour les pays à risques tels que la
RDC, où l'industrie forestière est minée par la corruption et où les contrôles sur le terrain brillent par leur rareté, une
vérification administrative s'avère totalement insuffisante. Que propose la Commission?

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

_(3 juillet 2013)_

Les États membres ont la responsabilité de s'assurer que les dispositions du règlement de l'Union sur le commerce des
espèces sauvages ( [1] ) sont correctement mises en œuvre. Ces dispositions prévoient notamment la délivrance de
permis d'importation en vue d'autoriser l'importation sur le territoire de l'Union européenne des espèces couvertes
par la CITES. Lors de la réunion du comité de gestion du commerce des espèces sauvages du 29 mai 2013, les
autorités de gestion CITES belges ont informé la Commission et les autres États membres de l'Union des mesures
prises concernant la cargaison d'Afrormosia mentionnée par l'Honorable Parlementaire. Les autorités belges ont
indiqué qu'elles avaient contacté à plusieurs reprises les autorités de la République démocratique du Congo, qui ont
confirmé l'origine légale du bois. Elles ont ensuite décidé de délivrer un permis d'importation.

Le comité a décidé que des orientations seraient élaborées, le cas échéant, afin d'aider les États membres de l'Union à
gérer des situations similaires à l'avenir.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Règlement (CE) n° 338/97 du Conseil du 9 décembre 1996 relatif à la protection des espèces de faune et de flore sauvages par le contrôle de leur
commerce (JO L 61 du 3.3.1997).

C 80 E / 244 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

Il est très difficile de déterminer la valeur des échanges illégaux de bois dans l'Union, compte tenu de la nature
clandestine de ce type d'activités, ce qui signifie qu'une telle analyse ne peut reposer que sur des hypothèses. Selon un
récent article ( [2] ), 6 à 13 % des importations totales de bois et de produits du bois dans l'ensemble de l'Union
européenne pourraient être d'origine illégale. En mars 2013, le règlement (UE) n° 995/2010 ( [3] ) est entré en vigueur.
Ce règlement interdit la première mise sur le marché de bois issu d'une récolte illégale et de produits dérivés de ce bois,
et doit permettre d'aboutir à une réduction de la valeur des échanges de bois illégal. En outre, l'Union européenne
négocie actuellement un accord de partenariat volontaire FLEGT avec la République démocratique du Congo, qui
précisera le cadre juridique applicable au bois en RDC et permettra de mettre en place un système de garantie de la
légalité pour faire en sorte que seuls du bois ou des produits dérivés légaux vérifiés soient exportés vers l'Union
européenne.

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) M. Dieter, H. Englert, H. Weimar (2012) Wood from Illegal Harvesting in EU Markets: Estimations and Open Issues; Appl Agric Forestry Res

(62)247-254.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Règlement (UE) n° 995/2010 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 20 octobre 2010 établissant les obligations des opérateurs qui mettent du

bois et des produits dérivés sur le marché.

( **|**

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 245

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004983/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Illegal wood imports

At the port of Antwerp the Belgian authorities are currently holding a cargo of suspicious wood from the Democratic
Republic of the Congo (DRC). On 3 March 2013, the sale of illegal wood was banned in the European Union. The
cargo in question consists of around 40 m [3] of sawn Afrormosia (African teak), from the logging company Tala Tina,
and destined for two Belgian importers. It is estimated to be worth around EUR 60 000 to 70 000. Greenpeace has
raised serious doubts as to whether the wood is legal. Tala Tina’s concession contract has never been made public, in
breach of Congolese law. Greenpeace has found no evidence of Tala Tina’s annual industrial timber cutting permit
(ACIBO), which is required by law. Given that the Congolese authorities do not publish any official list of ACIBOs, it
is virtually impossible to check whether Tala Tina is duly compliant. Furthermore, almost no Afrormosia is found in
the region where Tala Tina conducts its logging activities. It is therefore possible that the company bought this wood
from a third party, which is also highly likely to be illegal, given that most small-scale loggers who sell their timber to
exporters operate illegally.

Afrormosia is a highly prized tree species. Trade in the wood is subject to the strict conditions set out in the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Both exporting countries
and importing countries must ensure they comply with these conditions.

1. What controls does the Commission plan to introduce so that EC laws are respected?

2. How much does it estimate the illegal trade in wood in the EU to be worth?

3. All too often importing countries do nothing more than a purely administrative check and only check whether
a CITES certificate and an export licence have been issued in the country of origin. For at-risk countries such as the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, where the logging industry is riddled with corruption and where checks on the
ground are conspicuous by their absence, an administrative check is completely inadequate. What does the
Commission propose to do?

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

_(3 July 2013)_

Member States are responsible for ensuring that the provisions of the EU wildlife trade regulation ( [1] ) are properly
implemented. This includes the issuing of import permits in order to authorise the import of CITES-listed products
into the EU territory. At the wildlife trade management Committee meeting on 29th May 2013, the Belgian CITES
management authorities informed the Commission and the other EU Member States on how they had been dealing
with the shipment of Afrormosia referred to by the Honourable Member. The Belgian authorities indicated that they
had several contacts with the authorities from the Democratic Republic of Congo who confirmed that the wood was
of legal origin. The Belgian authorities subsequently decided to issue an import permit.

The Committee decided that guidance would be developed, as appropriate, to assist the EU Member States to handle
similar cases in the future.

Determining the value of illegal trade in wood in the EU is very difficult since by their very nature such activities are
hidden and depends on assumptions made. One recent paper ( [2] ) estimated that for the EU as a whole 6-13% of total
wood and wood product imports could be of illegal origin. In March 2013, Regulation (EU) 995/2010 ( [3] ) entered into
application. This regulation prohibits the first placing on the market of illegally harvested wood and derived products
and should lead to a reduction in the value of the trade in illegal wood. In addition, the Eurpean Union is negotiating a
FLEGT Voluntary Partnership Agreement with the Democratic Republic of Congo, which will clarify the legal
framework for timber in the DRC and through which a legality assurance system will be set up to ensure that only
verified legal timber or timber products are exported to the European Union.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (OJ L 61,

3.3.1997).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) M. Dieter, H. Englert, H. Weimar (2012) Wood from Illegal Harvesting in EU Markets: Estimations and Open Issues; Appl Agric Forestry Res

(62)247-254.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 laying down the obligations of operators who

place timber and timber products on the market.

( **|**

( **|**

C 80 E / 246 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004984/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(7 mai 2013)_

_Objet:_ Exploitation d'hydrocarbures en Alaska

Les forages au large de l'Alaska, aux portes de l'océan Arctique, restent en effet très critiqués par les défenseurs de
l'environnement qui les jugent des plus risqués. La région a déjà été le théâtre d'une des plus grosses marées noires de
l'histoire, lorsque le pétrolier américain _Exxon‐Valdez_ s'est échoué en 1989, en déversant quelque 40 millions de litres
de brut dans la mer et en polluant 1 300 kilomètres de côtes.

1. Quelle est la position de la Commission sur ces forages et sur les dramatiques conséquences qu'elles ont
engendrées sur l'environnement?

2. Compte tenu de la performance économique de Shell sur place l'année dernière, la Commission pourrait-elle
influer sur les États-Unis, ou via tout autre biais, afin que les sociétés qui opèrent sur place prennent la décision, les
prochaines années, de ne pas exploiter les eaux glacées de l'Arctique, et ce dans un souci de préserver la nature de
risques dont l'impact est mondial?

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

_(18 juillet 2013)_

1. Il est dans l'intérêt mutuel des États arctiques et de l'Union européenne de veiller à ce que les ressources
naturelles de l'Arctique, qu'elles se trouvent sur terre, en mer, ou encore dans ou sous le fond de la mer, soient utilisées
d'une manière durable, qui ne porte pas préjudice au milieu arctique et soit profitable aux communautés locales.

En ce qui concerne sa position à propos des forages dans la région arctique, la Commission renvoie l'Honorable
Parlementaire à la directive 2013/30/EU, et notamment à son article 33, paragraphe 3 ( [1] ). La gestion des risques au cas
par cas et le principe du «pollueur-payeur» sont les fondements d'une protection efficace de l'environnement, y
compris dans les régions les plus septentrionales.

2. Outre les mesures prévues dans la directive susmentionnée, et dans le respect du droit des États arctiques de
réglementer l'exploitation des hydrocarbures relevant de leur juridiction, la Commission a l'intention de poursuivre
avec les États-Unis les discussions relatives à la sécurité des activités offshore.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2013/30/UE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 12 juin 2013 relative à la sécurité des opérations pétrolières et gazières en mer et
modifiant la directive 2004/35/CE. JO L 178 du 28.6.2013, p. 66.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 247

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004984/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Exploitation of hydrocarbons in Alaska

Drilling off Alaska, on the edge of the Arctic Ocean, continues to be heavily criticised by environmental activists, who
consider it to be very risky. The region has already seen one of the worst oil spills in history, when the American oil
tanker _Exxon-Valdez_ ran aground in 1989, spilling some 40 million litres of crude oil into the sea and polluting
1 300 km of coastline.

1. What view does the Commission take of these drilling activities and their disastrous environmental
consequences?

2. In view of Shell’s economic performance last year, could the Commission lean on the United States or bring
pressure to bear by any other means to deter companies in the area from exploiting the icy waters of the Arctic in the
coming years, so as to protect nature from risks with global consequences?

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

_(18 July 2013)_

1. The Arctic states and the EU have a shared interest in ensuring that the Arctic's natural resources on land, at sea,
and in or under the sea-bed are utilised in a sustainable manner that does not compromise the Arctic environment
and benefits local communities.

Concerning its view on drillings in the Arctic region the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to
Directive 2013/30/EU and in particular its Article 33§3 ( [1] ). The case-specific risk management and the polluter pays
principle form the foundation for effective protection of the environment also in the northernmost regions.

2. In addition to measures in the directive above and with due regard to the rights of the Arctic states to regulate
hydrocarbon exploitation in their jurisdiction, the Commission intends to continue discussions on offshore safety
with the United States.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2013/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 on safety of offshore oil and gas operations and amending
Directive 2004/35/EC, OJ L 178/66, 28.6.2013.

C 80 E / 248 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004986/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(7 mai 2013)_

_Objet:_ Stratégie de sécurité routière

Une conférence intitulée «Sécurité routière et simulation des conditions sur route» (Road safety and Simulation) se
tiendra du 22 au 25 octobre 2013 à Rome, en Italie.

D'après de nouvelles estimations publiées par la Commission européenne, le nombre de morts sur la route dans
l'Union européenne a baissé de 9 % en 2012.

1. Bien que ces chiffres soient encourageants, environ 250 000 personnes sont gravement blessées dans des
accidents chaque année. Comment la Commission explique-t-elle ce paradoxe?

2. La Commission envisage-t-elle une stratégie efficace pour contrer ces résultats?

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

_(21 juin 2013)_

Étant donné l'ampleur du problème, une des initiatives du livre blanc sur les transports de 2011 ( [1] ) et un des objectifs
des orientations politiques pour la sécurité routière de 2011 à 2020 ( [2] ) consistent à définir une stratégie afin de
réduire le nombre de blessures graves sur les routes. Un document de travail des services de la Commission ( [3] ),
première étape vers l'adoption de cette stratégie, a été présenté le 19 mars 2013.

La définition d'un objectif visant à réduire le nombre de blessures graves résultant d'accidents de la route, comme le
suggère le document de travail, pourrait s'ajouter à l'objectif que l'UE s'est fixé de diviser par deux le nombre de morts
sur les routes entre 2011 et 2020.

Un premier pas a déjà été franchi: les États membres se sont accordés sur une définition commune, à partir de critères
médicaux, de la notion de «blessure grave», à utiliser pour établir les statistiques de sécurité routière. Cette nouvelle
définition commune se fonde sur l'échelle abrégée des traumatismes (MAIS, _maximum abbreviated injury scale_ ),
couramment utilisée par les professionnels de la santé.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0144:FIN:FR:PDF
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/pdf/road_safety_citizen/road_safety_citizen_100924_fr.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kallas/headlines/news/2013/03/doc/swd(2013)94.pdf

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 249

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004986/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Road safety strategy

A conference entitled ‘Road Safety and Simulation’ will be held in Rome, Italy, between 22 and 25 October 2013.

According to new estimates published by the Commission, the number of road deaths in the EU fell by 9% in 2012.

1. Although these figures are encouraging, around 250 000 people are seriously injured in accidents every year.
How can the Commission explain this paradox?

2. Is the Commission planning an effective strategy to reduce these figures?

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

_(21 June 2013)_

Given the magnitude of the problem, a strategy on the serious injuries has been listed as one of the initiatives in the
Transport White Paper 2011 ( [1] ) and as one of the policy objectives of the Commission's Policy orientations on road
safety 2011-2020 ( [2] ). In a first step towards this strategy, a Commission Staff Working Document ( [3] ) was presented
on 19 March 2013.

Setting a target for reducing serious injuries resulting from road accidents, as suggested in the staff working
document, could accompany the EU's goal of halving fatalities between 2011 and 2020.

A first step has already been taken — where Member States agreed on a common medically-based definition of
‘serious injury’, to be used in road sagety statistics. The new EU common definition is based on the ‘maximum
abbreviated injury scale’ (MAIS), commonly used by medical professionals.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0144:FIN:EN:PDF.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/pdf/road_safety_citizen/road_safety_citizen_100924_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kallas/headlines/news/2013/03/doc/swd(2013)94.pdf

C 80 E / 250 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004987/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(7 mai 2013)_

_Objet:_ Orientation stratégique de l'aquaculture européenne

La Commission européenne publie aujourd'hui des orientations stratégiques en faveur de l'aquaculture durable dans
l'Union européenne. Quatre orientations ont été établies: réduire les formalités administratives et les incertitudes pour
les opérateurs, faciliter l'accès à l'espace et à l'eau, améliorer la compétitivité du secteur et garantir des conditions de
concurrence plus équitables en exploitant les avantages concurrentiels de produits de la pêche en provenance de
l'Union.

1. Comment la Commission explique-t-elle que la production aquacole ait autant stagné en Europe au cours des
dix dernières années, tandis que, dans d'autres régions du monde, en particulier en Asie, elle a connu une croissance
très rapide?

2. S'agit-il d'un échec de la politique aquacole mise en place par l'Union que de constater qu'aujourd'hui, 10 % des
produits de la mer consommés dans l'Union proviennent de l'aquaculture, 25 % des pêcheries de l'UE et 65 %
d'importations de pays tiers (pour la pêche et l'aquaculture)?

**Réponse donnée par M** **[me]** **Damanaki au nom de la Commission**

_(1_ _[er]_ _juillet 2013)_

Lors du processus de consultation, les quatre problèmes abordés dans les orientations stratégiques, à savoir les
formalités administratives, l'accès limité à l'espace et à l'eau, la nécessité d'améliorer la compétitivité et l'absence de
conditions de concurrence équitables, ont été considérés comme comptant parmi les principales causes de la
stagnation de l'aquaculture dans l'Union européenne au cours de la dernière décennie. Même s'il est probable que
d'autres facteurs contribuent eux aussi à empêcher l'aquaculture de se développer aussi rapidement dans l'Union que
dans les autres parties du monde, la résolution de ces problèmes permettra à ce secteur de connaître une croissance
plus rapide.

Les pourcentages élevés de poisson importé consommés dans l'Union sont dus à l'augmentation de la demande
combinée au faible niveau de l'offre, l'écart croissant entre notre consommation de produits de la mer et la capacité de
nos pêches de capture étant essentiellement comblé par des importations. Cet écart représente un potentiel pour
l'aquaculture de l'Union, étant donné qu'il ne peut pas être comblé uniquement par les pêches de capture. Toutefois,
notamment pour les raisons exposées ci-dessus, l'aquaculture de l'Union n'est pas, jusqu'ici, parvenue à exploiter
pleinement ce potentiel, alors même qu'elle produit des poissons et fruits de mer frais, durables et de bonne qualité
dont la compétitivité pourrait être améliorée par une meilleure information des consommateurs. Afin de renforcer la
compétitivité de l'aquaculture de l'Union et de stimuler sa croissance, la Commission propose de mettre en place, dans
le cadre de la réforme de la politique commune de la pêche, une méthode ouverte de coordination reposant sur la
définition d'objectifs communs et l'échange d'expériences et de meilleures pratiques. L'aquaculture étant un domaine
de compétences partagées, la Commission entend, grâce à cette nouvelle approche, œuvrer au renforcement de la
coopération entre toutes les parties intéressées au niveau de l'Union, au niveau national et au niveau régional, afin de
trouver des solutions communes aux problèmes communs à l'ensemble du secteur de l'aquaculture de l'Union.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 251

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004987/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Strategic guidelines for EU aquaculture

Today the Commission published strategic guidelines for sustainable EU aquaculture. Four guidelines have been
drawn up: reduce red tape and uncertainties for operators, facilitate access to space and water, increase the sector’s
competitiveness and improve the level playing field by exploiting the competitive edge of EU fisheries products.

1. How can the Commission explain that while aquaculture in Europe has stagnated so much in the last decade, in
other parts of the world, particularly in Asia, it has undergone very rapid growth?

2. Is it a failure of aquaculture policy implemented by the EU that 10% of seafood now consumed in the EU comes
from aquaculture, 25% from EU fisheries and 65% is imported from third countries (from fishing and aquaculture)?

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

_(1 July 2013)_

The four issues addressed in the Strategic Guidelines — administrative burdens, limited access to space and water,
need for higher competitiveness and lack of a level playing field — were identified during the consultation process as
being among the main causes for the stagnation of EU aquaculture over the last decade. While other factors surely
play a role in preventing EU aquaculture from growing as fast as in other parts of the world, addressing these issues
will allow a faster growth of the sector.

The high percentages of imported fish consumed in the EU are the result of a combination of an increasing demand
and low supply, as the growing gap between our seafood consumption and the production capacity of our capture
fisheries is mostly filled by imports. This gap represents a potential for EU aquaculture, given that it cannot be filled
through capture fisheries alone. However, due in particular to the reasons highlighted above, EU aquaculture has not
managed to exploit this potential fully so far. This is despite the fact that it produces fresh, sustainable and high
quality seafood which could better compete if its characteristics were better communicated to the consumer. To
improve the competitiveness of EU aquaculture and stimulate its growth, the Commission is proposing to set up an
Open Method of Coordination, in the reform of the Common Fisheries Policies, based on shared objectives and
exchange of experiences and best practices. As aquaculture is an area of shared competence, the Commission is keen
to strive for closer cooperation between all stakeholders at the EU, national and regional level through this new
approach, in order to help finding common solutions to the shared problems of the EU aquaculture industry.

C 80 E / 252 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004988/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(7 mai 2013)_

_Objet:_ Aides européennes au cinéma

La Commission a lancé mardi une consultation publique en vue de revoir ses critères concernant l'octroi par les États
d'aides à la création cinématographique.

1. Quelles sont les parties intéressées?

2. Quelles sont les lignes directrices des nouvelles règles que la Commission veut mettre en place en vue de
favoriser la réussite du secteur audiovisuel européen?

3. Pourquoi cette concertation? La Commission estime-t-elle que le système en place ne répond pas aux attentes?
Dans l'affirmative, sur quels points plus précisément?

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

_(25 juin 2013)_

Les acteurs dans le domaine des aides à la production cinématographique sont les États membres et les opérateurs
économiques qui bénéficient de ces aides (producteurs de films, distributeurs, scénaristes, cinémas). Tous sont libres
de présenter des observations.

Comme indiqué dans le projet publié, les règles ont pour objet de guider la Commission dans l'application qu'elle fait
de l'article 107, paragraphe 3, point d), du traité sur le fonctionnement de l'Union européenne (TFUE), qui porte sur
les aides destinées à promouvoir la culture. Par conséquent, les nouvelles règles visent aussi à réaliser les objectifs de
promotion de la culture et de la diversité culturelle fixés à l'article 167 du TFUE. Ces objectifs sont interprétés en
tenant dûment compte des principes clés du marché intérieur inscrits dans le traité.

La Commission compte adopter de nouvelles règles sur les aides d'État en faveur des œuvres cinématographiques
pour les raisons détaillées à la section 3 du projet publié. L'une des raisons évidentes est que les règles de 2001,
applicables aux aides d'État pour la production de films, venaient à expiration à la fin de l'année 2012 et doivent être
remplacées. Le réexamen porte également sur les «obligations de territorialisation des dépenses» imposées par certains
régimes nationaux d'aides à la création cinématographique, dont la conformité avec les principes du marché intérieur
doit être évaluée.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 253

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004988/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU aid for cinema

On Tuesday 30 April 2013, the Commission launched a public consultation with a view to revising the criteria for
Member States to grant aid for film production.

1. Which stakeholders are involved?

2. What are the guidelines for the new rules that the Commission wants to implement to foster a successful
audiovisual sector in the EU?

3. What is the reason for this consultation? Does the Commission think that the system currently in place falls
short of expectations? If so, which aspects of it in particular?

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

_(25 June 2013)_

Stakeholders of aid to film production include Member States and the economic operators who benefit from aid (film
producers, distributors, scriptwriters, cinemas). Anyone may submit observations.

As stated in the published draft, the rules have the purpose of guiding the Commission in its application of
Article 107 (3) d) of the TFEU, which concerns aid to promote culture. Accordingly, the new rules are also guided by
the Treaty objective of promoting culture and cultural diversity according to Article 167.These objectives are
interpreted with due consideration for the core internal market principles of the Treaty.

The Commission intends to adopt new rules on state aid for films for the reasons set out in detail in Section 3 of the
published draft. One obvious reason is that the rules on state aid for film production of 2001 expired at the end of
2012 and need to be replaced. Another particular aspect of the review concerns the so-called territorial spending
obligations in film funding schemes of some Member States, which have to be assessed with regard to their
compliance with the internal market principles.

C 80 E / 254 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004990/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(7 mai 2013)_

_Objet:_ Prix du livre électronique

Plusieurs éditeurs avaient pris la décision de ne pas s'entendre avec Apple en vue de fixer le prix de leurs livres
électroniques. De ce fait, ces derniers avaient renoncé aux « contrats d'agence » leur permettant d'influer sur le prix de
détail des e-books.

Cette décision a été grandement à leur avantage, puisque la Commission européenne a mis tout simplement fin à son
enquête à leur encontre.

1. Quelles sont les conséquences tirées de ce cas de figure par la Commission?

2. La Commission s'est-elle penchée plus avant sur l'arrêt volontaire des privilèges tarifaires proposés par Apple?

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

_(27 juin 2013)_

En vertu de l'article 9 du règlement n° 1/2003, la Commission peut clôturer une procédure en matière d'ententes et
d'abus de position dominante sur la base des engagements proposés par les entreprises, dans le cas où elle parvient à
la conclusion que lesdits engagements dissipent les craintes dont elle a fait part aux entreprises à l'issue de son enquête
préliminaire.

Telle est la démarche adoptée par la Commission lorsqu'elle a accepté de mettre fin à la procédure engagée contre
Hachette, Harper Collins, Simon & Schuster, Holtzbrinck/Macmillan et Apple en décembre 2012 à propos de
l'existence d'une éventuelle pratique concertée.

La Commission a estimé que les engagements proposés par chacun des quatre éditeurs et par Apple afin de mettre fin
aux contrats d'agence concernés et d'accepter certaines restrictions lors de la renégociation de leurs accords
commerciaux relatifs aux livres numériques — à savoir, inclure une clause permettant aux détaillants de fixer le prix
de détail pendant deux ans et exclure pendant cinq ans la clause dite «de la nation la plus favorisée (NPF)» pour les prix
de détail — rétabliraient de façon substantielle les conditions de concurrence qui prévalaient dans l'EEE avant la
possible pratique concertée. Par conséquent, la Commission a estimé qu'il s'agissait là d'engagements adéquats pour
répondre aux craintes exprimées dans son enquête préliminaire.

Après l'action entreprise par la Commission en décembre 2012, Penguin, le cinquième éditeur contre lequel la
Commission avait engagé une procédure, a également proposé des engagements. Après avoir consulté les acteurs du
marché sur ces engagements, la Commission examine actuellement si ces derniers sont de nature à lever les
inquiétudes exprimées.

Différentes raisons juridiques et commerciales peuvent pousser les entreprises à proposer des engagements. La
Commission a accepté les engagements proposés par chacun des quatre éditeurs et par Apple, car ils vont mettre un
terme aux agissements anticoncurrentiels présumés et rétablir de façon substantielle les conditions de concurrence
antérieures au profit des consommateurs de l'EEE.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 255

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004990/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Prices of e-books

Some time ago, a number of publishers decided not to collude with Apple to fix prices for their e-books. They thus
withdrew from ‘agency agreements’, which enable publishers to influence the retail price of e-books.

This decision has worked out very well for them, because the Commission has abandoned its inquiry into their
conduct.

1. What conclusions does the Commission draw from this case?

2. Has the Commission looked more closely at why the publishers decided to pull out of the advantageous price
agreements offered by Apple?

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

_(27 June 2013)_

Under Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003 the Commission can close antitrust proceedings on the basis of commitments
offered by undertakings if it concludes that the commitments would remove the Commission's preliminary concerns
as expressed to the undertakings.

The Commission followed this approach when it accepted to end its proceedings against Hachette, Harper Collins,
Simon & Schuster, Holtzbrinck/Macmillan and Apple on 12 December 2012 regarding the existence of a possible
concerted practice.

The Commission considered that the commitments offered by each of the four publishers and Apple to terminate
relevant agency agreements and agreeing to certain restraints (a two year pricing discretion for retailers and a five year
ban on price most-favoured-nation (MFN) clauses) when renegotiating their commercial arrangements for e-books
would substantially re-establish the conditions of competition that existed in the EEA prior to the possible concerted
practice. The Commission therefore considered that these commitments were adequate to meet its preliminary

concerns.

After the Commission's action in December 2012, the fifth publisher against whom the Commission had opened
proceedings, Penguin, also offered commitments. Following the end of the formal market test of these commitments,
the Commission is assessing whether Penguin’s commitments are adequate to meet the Commission’s concerns.

Undertakings may have different legal and commercial reasons for proposing commitments. The Commission
accepted the commitments offered by each of the four publishers and Apple because they would end the alleged anticompetitive behaviour and substantially re-establish the past conditions of competition to the benefit of EEA

consumers.

C 80 E / 256 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-004991/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ UE acusada de agressão

Considerando que:

—
A UE autorizou as importações de petróleo das zonas controladas pelos rebeldes na Síria, levantando assim
parcialmente o embargo petrolífero aplicado desde setembro de 2011 contra a Síria;

—
O Ministério dos Negócios Estrangeiros sírio reagiu e, numa carta enviada à ONU, refere que se trata de «uma
decisão ilegal e de um ato de agressão», de uma «decisão sem precedentes porque contrária à lei internacional» e
ainda que a «UE decidiu permitir aos seus Estados‐Membros importar petróleo com o pretexto de apoiar a
oposição»;

Pergunto à Comissão:

1. Que avaliação faz destas declarações?

2. Quais as implicações políticas que podem advir desta reação, nomeadamente no que diz respeito à intervenção
da comunidade internacional e a uma solução permanente e eficaz do conflito sírio?

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

_(28 de junho de 2013)_

1. A Decisão 2013/186/PESC do Conselho ( [1] ) introduz uma derrogação ao embargo petrolífero contra a Síria,
permitindo aos Estados‐Membros autorizar, nomeadamente, a importação de petróleo sírio em determinadas
condições. De modo a assegurar que as derrogações não são indevidamente utilizadas, foram impostas várias
condições, incluindo a consulta prévia da Coligação Nacional das Forças da Revolução e Oposição Sírias, legítima
representante do povo sírio.

2. O propósito da derrogação foi orientado pelo empenhamento reiterado da UE em ajustar as suas políticas em
relação à Síria, de forma a poder ajudar melhor a população civil síria, em especial dar resposta às preocupações
humanitárias, restabelecer uma vida normal, apoiar os serviços de base, proceder à reconstrução e normalizar uma
atividade económica.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Decisão 2013/186/PESC do Conselho de 22 de abril de 2013 que altera a Decisão 2012/739/PESC que impõe medidas restritivas contra a Síria,
JO L 111 de 23.4.2013.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 257

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004991/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU accused of aggression

— The EU has authorised oil imports from rebel-held territory in Syria, thereby partially lifting the oil embargo
imposed on Syria in September 2011.

— The Syrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has responded and, in a letter to the United Nations, said that the move was
an illegal decision and an act of aggression, an unprecedented decision that contradicted international law and even
that the EU had decided to allow Member States to import oil under the pretext of supporting the opposition.

1. How does the Commission assess these statements?

2. What political implications could this response have, particularly in relation to intervention by the international
community and a lasting and effective resolution to the Syrian conflict?

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

_(28 June 2013)_

1. Council Decision 2013/186/CFSP ( [1] ) introduces a derogation to the oil embargo against Syria, enabling Member
States to authorise _inter alia_ the import of Syrian oil under certain conditions. To ensure that the derogations are not
misused, a number of conditions have been set, including consultation in advance with the Syrian National Coalition
for Oppostion and Revolutionary Forces, as legitimate representatives of the Syrian people.

2. The objective of the derogation was guided by EU's repeated commitment to adjust its policies vis-à-vis Syria to
better help the Syrian civilian population, in particular in view of meeting humanitarian concerns, restoring normal
life, upholding basic services, reconstruction and restoring normal economic activity.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Council Decision 2013/186/CFSP of 22 April 2013 amending Decision 2012/739/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, OJ L 111,
23.4.2013.

C 80 E / 258 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-004992/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Carta armadilhada na Alemanha

Considerando que:

—
Foi encontrada, nas instalações do palácio presidencial de Bellevue, em Berlim, uma carta armadilhada
endereçada ao chefe de Estado alemão, Joachim Gauck;

—
Esta informação foi confirmada por altos responsáveis pela segurança do Estado alemão, que confirmou
também que a carta continha HMTD, uma substância orgânica altamente explosiva;

Pergunto à Comissão:

Tem conhecimento desta situação?

**Resposta dada por Cecilia Malmström em nome da Comissão**

_(24 de junho de 2013)_

Tal como divulgado publicamente, as autoridades alemãs confirmaram que a pretensa carta armadilhada endereçada
ao chefe de Estado alemão, Joachim Gauck, não continha explosivos.

A Comissão não tem qualquer mandato para investigar ataques verdadeiros ou falsos a representantes dos EstadosMembros.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 259

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004992/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Letter bomb found in Germany

A letter bomb addressed to German President Joachim Gauck has been found at his official residence in Berlin,
Bellevue Palace.

This information has been confirmed by senior state security officials in Germany, who also confirmed that the letter
contained HMTD, a highly explosive organic substance.

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

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

_(24 June 2013)_

As publicly reported, the German authorities have confirmed that the suspected letter bomb sent to the office of
German President Joachim Gauck contained no explosives.

The Commission has no mandate to investigate real or false attacks on Member States representatives.

C 80 E / 260 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-004993/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Vítimas civis no Afeganistão

Considerando que:

—
O número de vítimas civis do conflito no Afeganistão aumentou cerca de 30 % nos primeiros três meses do
ano, em comparação com o mesmo período do ano passado;

—
Um balanço feito pelo gabinete do representante da ONU no Afeganistão, entre janeiro e março, dá conta de
475 vítimas mortais e 872 feridos;

—
De acordo com o gabinete da ONU, esta vaga de violência tem vindo a agravar-se, à medida que se aproxima a
retirada das forças da NATO, devendo o ataque dos talibãs contra um tribunal no oeste do país, que fez
46 mortos, ser considerado um «crime de guerra»;

Pergunto à Comissão:

1. Como avalia esta situação?

2. Quais os dados de que dispõe sobre o atual ponto da situação no Afeganistão?

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

_(3 de julho de 2013)_

A situação no Afeganistão continua a ser fonte de preocupação. A transferência do controlo da segurança para as
autoridades afegãs já se concluiu com êxito em muitas zonas. Mais de 80 % dos cidadãos afegãos vivem agora em
zonas totalmente sob controlo afegão. A fase final da transição pode ser a mais difícil, pois inclui as zonas em que a
insurreição tem sido mais persistente.

Infelizmente, os insurrectos continuam a desferir ataques indiscriminados contra civis afegãos. Uma das razões para o
aumento dos ataques aos chamados alvos fáceis pode ser a crescente capacidade e resiliência das forças de segurança
afegãs. Mas estas melhorias a nível da segurança precisam de ser acompanhadas por progressos a nível civil. O
Governo Afegão acordou com a comunidade internacional, na conferência de Tóquio de julho de 2012, metas
específicas. É urgente que se realizem progressos numa série de domínios essenciais, como a consagração legislativa
da reforma eleitoral, a melhoria da transparência e da eficiência da gestão das finanças públicas e a salvaguarda dos
progressos realizados nos últimos dez anos em matéria de direitos humanos, em particular os direitos das mulheres.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 261

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004993/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Civilian casualties in Afghanistan

— The number of civilian casualties in the Afghanistan conflict increased by about 30% in the first three months of
2013, compared with the same period last year.

— According to a report drafted by the United Nations representative’s office in Afghanistan, 475 people were killed
and 872 injured between January and March.

— According to the UN office, this wave of violence has been getting worse as the withdrawal of NATO forces
approaches; the Taliban attack on a court in the west of the country, killing a total of 46 people, is being considered a
‘war crime’.

1. How does the Commission assess this situation?

2. What information does it have on the current state of affairs in Afghanistan?

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

_(3 July 2013)_

The situation in Afghanistan remains a cause for concern. The transition to Afghan security control has been
successfully completed in many areas. Over 80% of Afghan citizens live in the areas now fully under Afghan control.
The final phase of the transition may be the most difficult, as it includes the areas where the insurgency has been most
persistent.

Unfortunately, insurgents continue to mount indiscriminate attacks on Afghan civilians. One reason for increased
attacks on so-called soft targets may be the growing capability and resilience of the Afghan National Security Forces.
But these improvements on the security side need to be matched by progress on the civilian side. Specific benchmarks
were agreed between the Government of Afghanistan and the international community at the Tokyo conference in
July 2012. Further progress is urgently needed in a number of key areas, including enacting electoral reform,
improving the transparency and efficiency of public financial management and safeguarding the progress made over
the last decade in human rights, in particular the rights of women.

C 80 E / 262 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-004994/13**
**do Komisji (Wiceprzewodniczącej/Wysokiej Przedstawiciel)**

**Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD)**

_(7 maja 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel – Skazanie na karę więzienia rosyjskiego opozycjonisty
Konstantina Lebiediewa

Moskiewski sąd skazał na karę 2,5 r. więzienia Konstantina Lebiediewa. Uznał go za winnego zorganizowania
masowych rozruchów na placu Błotnym w Moskwie 6 maja 2012 r., w przededniu inauguracji prezydenta Rosji
Władimira Putina.

1. Czy Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel wie o skazaniu kolejnego opozycjonisty w Rosji?

2. Czy Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel zamierza podjąć działanie w sprawie uwolnienia Konstantina
Lebiediewa?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez Wysoką Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodniczącą Catherine Ashton w imieniu**

**Komisji**
_(25 lipca 2013 r.)_

Wysoka Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodnicząca jest poinformowana o protestach w okresie powyborczym w Rosji,
a w szczególności o towarzyszących im rozruchach, które miały miejsce na placu Błotnym dnia 6 maja 2012 r. Dnia
26 marca 2013 r. Wysoka Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodnicząca wyraziła zaniepokojenie związane z nasileniem się
prześladowań działaczy społeczeństwa obywatelskiego, z procesem w sprawie rozruchów na placu Błotnym oraz
innymi procesami politycznymi, a także z zaniechaniem działania w kilku głośnych przypadkach naruszeń praw
człowieka. W związku z powyższym kontekstem Wysoka Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodnicząca jest poinformowana
o skazaniu Konstantina Lebiediewa, którego sprawę śledziła delegatura UE w Rosji, podobnie jak sprawy pozostałych
podejrzanych w tej sprawie.

UE poruszyła kwestię procesów związanych z wydarzeniami na placu Błotnym podczas ostatniej rundy konsultacji
na temat praw człowieka, która odbyła się dnia 17 maja 2013 r. w Brukseli. UE będzie w dalszym ciągu dokładnie
śledzić te sprawy, w szczególności nadchodzący proces rozpoczynający się dnia 6 czerwca 2013 r.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 263

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004994/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Imprisonment of Russian opposition activist Konstantin Lebedev

A Moscow court has sentenced Konstantin Lebedev to two and a half years in prison. The court found him guilty of
organising mass disturbances on Bolotnaya Square in Moscow on 6 May 2012, on the eve of President Vladimir
Putin’s inauguration.

1. Is the Vice-President/High Representative aware of this latest conviction of an opposition activist in Russia?

2. Does the Vice-President/High Representative intend to take steps to secure the release of Mr Lebedev?

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

_(25 July 2013)_

The High Representative/Vice-President is well aware of the protests which have taken place in the post-election
period in Russia and in particular of the disturbances which took place in the margins of these protests on Bolotnaya
Square on 6 May 2012. On 26 March 2013, she expressed concerns at the upsurge in prosecution of civil society
activists, the Bolotnaya and other political trials, as well as lack of action in some prominent cases of human rights
abuses. In that context the HR is aware of the conviction of Mr Lebedev, whose case the EU Delegation in Russia
followed together with the other suspects in this case.

The EU had the opportunity to enquire about the ‘Bolotnaya’ cases during the last round of Human Rights
Consultations which took place in Brussels on 17 May 2013 and will continue to follow these cases very closely, in
particular the forthcoming trial due to start on 6 June 2013.

C 80 E / 264 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-004996/13**

**do Komisji**
**Adam Bielan (ECR)**

_(7 maja 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Propozycje zmian w programach dożywiania uczniów

W najbliższym czasie Komisja ma zdecydować o zmianach w funkcjonowaniu programów „Szklanka mleka” oraz
„Owoce w szkole”. Polska, dzięki zaangażowaniu dużych środków finansowych z budżetu krajowego oraz różnych
instytucji i branż, osiągnęła bardzo dobre rezultaty w realizacji obydwu programów. Z programu „Szklanka mleka”
korzysta 2,4 mln uczniów, zaś program „Owoce w szkole” obejmuje 86 % dzieci z klas I-III szkół podstawowych.
Z budżetu europejskiego pochodzi obecnie jedynie część środków wydatkowanych na te cele.

W powyższym kontekście zwracam się z prośbą o odpowiedź na następujące pytania:

1. Czy zmiany proponowane przez Komisję pozwolą na utrzymanie dotychczasowej skali obydwu programów
w Polsce, z uwzględnieniem poziomu krajowego wsparcia finansowego oraz szerokiego zakresu i dużej liczby
beneficjentów?

2. Czy proponowane zmiany mają obowiązywać już w następnym roku szkolnym 2013/2014?

3. O jaką kwotę możliwe jest zwiększenie puli środków zagwarantowanych dla Polski na realizację programu
„Szklanka mleka”, a o jaką programu „Owoce w szkole”?

4. Czy w przypadku wprowadzenia obowiązkowych działań edukacyjnych, krajowe agencje nadzorujące
realizację programów otrzymają możliwość autonomicznego określania grup docelowych dla każdego
programu?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Daciana Cioloşa w imieniu Komisji**

_(21 czerwca 2013 r.)_

Komisja rozpoczęła w październiku 2012 r. procedurę oceny skutków, w ramach której zbada funkcjonowanie
obecnie realizowanych programów „Owoce w szkole” i „Mleko w szkole”. Społeczeństwo zostało zaproszone do
udziału w tym procesie i poproszone o przedstawienie opinii w sprawie przeglądu w ramach konsultacji
publicznych, które trwały od 28 stycznia do 22 kwietnia 2013 r. Komisja analizuje obecnie wszystkie zgłoszone
opinie.

Biorąc pod uwagę, że proces oceny skutków jeszcze się nie zakończył, Komisja nie jest w stanie podać innych
informacji niż takie, że obowiązujące przepisy będą w dalszym ciągu mieć zastosowanie w roku szkolnym 20132014.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 265

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004996/13**

**to the Commission**
**Adam Bielan (ECR)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Proposed changes to school nutrition schemes

The Commission will soon decide whether to change the way in which the School Milk and School Fruit schemes
operate. Poland has achieved excellent results in implementing both programmes thanks to the high volume of
funding provided under the national budget and from various institutions and sectors. The School Milk scheme has
an uptake of 2.4 million pupils, and the School Fruit scheme provides fruit for 86% of children in the first three years
of primary school. These schemes are currently only partially EU-funded.

I should therefore like to ask the Commission:

1. Will the changes proposed by the Commission make it possible to maintain the current scope of the two
schemes in Poland, taking into account the level of national financial support and the broad range and large
number of beneficiaries?

2. Will the proposed changes come into force in the 2013/2014 school year?

3. By how much will it be possible to increase the financial resources allocated to Poland to implement the School
Milk scheme and the School Fruit scheme respectively?

4. In the event that mandatory educational measures are introduced, will the national agencies monitoring the
implementation of the schemes be able to act independently to specify target groups for each scheme?

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

_(21 June 2013)_

The Commission has launched in October 2012 an impact assessment process which will look into the functioning
of the current school fruit and school milk schemes. Public was invited to participate and submit their opinions
concerning the review in the public consultation, which was open from 28 January to 22 April 2013. The
Commission is currently analysing all the received contributions.

Given that the impact assessment process is still ongoing, the Commission is not in a position to provide other
information than for the 2013-14 school year the current rules will still apply.

C 80 E / 266 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-004997/13**
**do Komisji (Wiceprzewodniczącej/Wysokiej Przedstawiciel)**

**Adam Bielan (ECR)**

_(7 maja 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel – Sytuacja w Syrii w związku z podejrzeniami użycia broni
chemicznej

W ostatnim czasie przedstawiciele prezydenta Baracka Obamy, a także rządów niektórych krajów UE jak Francja
i Wielka Brytania, informowały o możliwych przypadkach użycia bojowych środków chemicznych na bazie sarinu
przez reżim Baszara al-Assada. Potwierdzenie tych podejrzeń oznaczać będzie nową sytuację w polityce względem
Syrii. Nie pozostanie także bez wpływu na bezpieczeństwo narodowe krajów Wspólnoty. Wielokrotnie już
debatowaliśmy na forum Parlamentu nad koniecznością powstrzymania zbrodni i permanentnego łamania praw
człowieka w tym bliskowschodnim kraju.

W oparciu o powyższe proszę o informacje na następujące kwestie:

1. Jakie działania polityczne względem Syrii są obecnie realizowane przez europejską dyplomację?

2. Czy jest opracowywany plan ochrony europejskich obywateli mogących przebywać na terenie Syrii, na
wypadek potwierdzenia stosowania broni chemicznej w tym państwie?

3. Czy i w jakim stopniu użycie tak niebezpiecznych środków chemicznych przez władze w Damaszku, oraz
ewentualne rozprzestrzenienie się ich, może stanowić bezpośrednie zagrożenie dla krajów UE, przykładowo
dla bliskiego geograficznie Cypru?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez Wysoką Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodniczącą Catherine Ashton w imieniu**

**Komisji**
_(1 lipca 2013 r.)_

1. UE niezmiennie wspiera wizję rozwiązania politycznego nakreślonego w komunikacie z Genewy. Wysoka
Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodnicząca wyraziła pełne poparcie dla wspólnego apelu sekretarza stanu USA Johna
Kerry'ego i ministra spraw zagranicznych Rosji Siergieja Ławrowa o jak najszybsze zwołanie międzynarodowej
konferencji pokojowej w sprawie Syrii w ramach działań następczych po konferencji genewskiej w czerwcu 2012 r.
Utrzymanie tej atmosfery politycznej jest dla UE sprawą najwyższej wagi.

Dochodzenie w ramach misji powołanej przez sekretarza generalnego Ban-ki Moona, w której uczestniczą
członkowie Organizacji ds. Zakazu Broni Chemicznej (OPCW), ma na celu ustalenie jedynie tego, czy broń
chemiczna została użyta, natomiast nie będą wyciągane żadne wnioski co do przypisywania jakiegokolwiek użycia.
UE ma nadzieję, że porozumienie (z reżimem syryjskim) zostanie wkrótce osiągnięte.

2. W przypadku, gdy obywatele UE wymagają ochrony na terenie Syrii, zapewnienie bezpiecznej repatriacji
obywateli należy przede wszystkim i głównie do państw członkowskich. Ponadto mają zastosowanie zasady ochrony
konsularnej UE, co oznacza, że państwa członkowskie muszą współpracować w zakresie pomocy
w ewakuacji/repatriacji obywateli UE.

Czasowa ochrona obowiązująca na całym terytorium UE może być uruchomiona jedynie w przypadku masowego
napływu wysiedleńców.

3. Według oceny UE jedynie masowe wykorzystanie broni chemicznej mogłoby mieć wpływ na inne państwa
w regionie lub państwa UE położone w pobliżu Syrii. UE podejmuje środki w dziedzinie współpracy z państwami
sąsiadującymi, jak na przykład z Jordanią, w celu zminimalizowania potencjalnego wpływu incydentów użycia broni
chemicznej, między innymi poprzez wsparcie dla regionalnego centrum doskonałości w zakresie zmniejszania
zagrożenia bronią chemiczną, biologiczną, radiologiczną i jądrową (CBRN) z siedzibą w Ammanie.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 267

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004997/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Adam Bielan (ECR)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Situation in Syria in connection with the suspected use of chemical weapons

Representatives of President Obama and of the governments of certain EU Member States such as France and the
United Kingdom have recently reported that sarin-based chemical weapons may have been used by Bashar al-Assad’s
regime. If these suspicions are confirmed, our policy on Syria will be framed in a new light and the national security of
the Member States will also be affected. There have already been many debates in Parliament on the need to put a stop
to the crimes and systematic violations of human rights committed in this Middle Eastern country.

1. What political action is currently being taken by EU diplomats in relation to Syria?

2. Is a plan being drawn up for the protection of any European citizens on Syrian territory should it be confirmed
that the country has used chemical weapons?

3. Is it possible that the use of such hazardous chemicals by the authorities in Damascus and their potential spread
may pose a direct threat to the EU Member States, for example to Cyprus, which is close in geographical terms, and if
so to what extent?

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

_(1 July 2013)_

1. The EU has consistently supported the vision of a political settlement outlined in the Geneva Communiqué. The
HR/VP has officially expressed her full support for the joint call made by United States Secretary of State, John Kerry,
and Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov to convene an international peace conference on Syria as soon as possible as a
follow-up to the Geneva Conference of June 2012. Keeping the political track alive is paramount for the EU.

The investigation by the mission appointed by SG Ban-ki Moon that includes members of the Organisation for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), will seek to determine only whether or not chemical weapons were used
and will not draw any conclusions as to the attribution of any use. The EU hopes the agreement (by the Syrian regime)
to send it will be reached soon.

2. In the event that EU nationals on Syrian territory require protection, it is first and foremost the competence of
the Member States to ensure the safe repatriation of their nationals. Furthermore, the rules on EU consular protection
apply, meaning that Member States must cooperate in helping in the evacuation/repatriation of EU nationals _**.**_

EU-wide temporary protection could only be triggered if there were to be a massive influx of displaced persons.

3. The EU's assessment is that only a massive use of chemical weapons could affect other countries in the region or
EU countries that are geographically close to Syria. The EU is taking measures to cooperate with neighbouring
countries such as Jordan to minimise potential impact of a chemical weapons incident, _inter alia_, through support to
the regional Chemical Biological Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) Risk Mitigation Centre of Excellence based in
Amman.

C 80 E / 268 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-004998/13**

**do Rady**
**Adam Bielan (ECR)**

_(7 maja 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Szanse na podpisanie umowy stowarzyszeniowej z Ukrainą

Niedawne ułaskawienie Jurija Łucenki oraz widoczne ocieplenie w relacjach Unii Europejskiej z Kijowem rozbudziło
nadzieje na dalsze postępy, których konkretnym efektem będzie podpisanie umowy stowarzyszeniowej z Ukrainą.
Polskie władze, a także poszczególni politycy polscy, wykazują szeroką aktywność na rzecz zbliżenia Wspólnoty
z tym ważnym strategicznie sąsiadem. Jest to bowiem kraj o dużych możliwościach gospodarczych, ale także
politycznych. Umowa stowarzyszeniowa ułatwi m.in. dostęp do ukraińskich rynków i bezsprzecznie na trwałe
zwiąże Ukrainę z Zachodem, odpychając ją tym samym od Rosji. Zacieśnienie więzów leży zatem w interesie
wszystkich państw członkowskich.

W obliczu ogromnego zainteresowania, jakie sprawa ta wywołuje u polskiej opinii publicznej i społeczeństwie,
proszę o ustosunkowanie się do poniższych, istotnych dla procesu realizacji stosunków z Ukrainą, zagadnień:

1. Czy doprowadzenie do podpisania umowy stowarzyszeniowej podczas tegorocznego szczytu Partnerstwa
Wschodniego w Wilnie pozostaje priorytetem Unii Europejskiej w relacjach z Ukrainą?

2. W uzupełnieniu pytania pierwszego proszę o podjęcie próby określenia jak obecnie oceniane są szanse
podpisania umowy stowarzyszeniowej w bieżącym roku?

3. Czy i jakie działania podejmowane są w Radzie UE, celem przekonania wszystkich jej członków o korzyściach
wynikających z podpisania tejże umowy?

**Odpowiedź**
_(22 lipca 2013 r.)_

W konkluzjach ( [1] ) z dnia 10 grudnia 2012 r. Rada potwierdziła wolę współpracy UE z Ukrainą, w kontekście
Partnerstwa Wschodniego, na rzecz politycznego stowarzyszenia i integracji gospodarczej, które będą się opierać na
poszanowaniu wspólnych wartości. Ponadto Rada ponownie podkreśliła wolę podpisania już parafowanego układu
o stowarzyszeniu UE-Ukraina, obejmującego pogłębioną i kompleksową strefę wolnego handlu, gdy tylko władze
Ukrainy wykażą się zdecydowanymi działaniami i konkretnymi postępami w następujących trzech priorytetowych
dziedzinach: przeprowadzenie wyborów do parlamentu w 2012 r. w sposób zgody z międzynarodowymi
standardami i podjęcia stosownych działań w następstwie tych wyborów; radzenie sobie z problemem wybiórczej
sprawiedliwości i zapobieganie jej nowym przejawom oraz wdrażanie reform określonych we wspólnie
uzgodnionym programie stowarzyszeniowym. Ponadto wezwano Ukrainę do podjęcia zdecydowanych działań,
których celem ma być poprawa pogarszających się warunków prowadzenia działalności gospodarczej
i inwestowania.

W dniu 15 maja 2013 r. Komisja przyjęła wniosek dotyczący decyzji Rady w sprawie podpisania i tymczasowego
stosowania układu o stowarzyszeniu. Wniosek Komisji jest obecnie analizowany przez Radę. Jednocześnie na forum
Rady prowadzone są przygotowania techniczne z myślą o ewentualnym podpisaniu układu podczas listopadowego
szczytu w Wilnie.

Podpisanie układu uzależnione jest jednak od podjęcia przez władze ukraińskie zdecydowanych działań i dokonania
przez nie konkretnych postępów we wszystkich dziedzinach wymienionych w przywołanych powyżej konkluzjach
Rady z 2012 r. Następny krok należy teraz do władz ukraińskich: rozwiązanie wspomnianych nierozstrzygniętych
problemów jest warunkiem podpisania układu. Decyzję w sprawie tego, czy podpisać układ o stowarzyszeniu
obejmujący pogłębioną i kompleksową strefę wolnego handlu, Rada podejmie później, w terminie bliższym dacie
rozpoczęcia szczytu.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Dok. 17438/12.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 269

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004998/13**

**to the Council**
**Adam Bielan (ECR)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Likelihood that an association agreement will be signed with Ukraine

The pardon recently granted to Yuri Lutsenko and the palpable thaw in relations between the European Union and
Kiev have aroused hopes that further progress will be made, and that it will deliver concrete results in the form of a
signed association agreement with Ukraine. The Polish authorities and individual Polish politicians have taken a broad
range of initiatives aimed at bringing the EU and this strategically important neighbouring country closer. Ukraine is a
country with enormous economic and political potential, and one of the benefits of an association agreement would
be easier access to Ukrainian markets. There can also be no doubt that it would help to establish long-lasting links
between the West and Ukraine, turning the country away from Russia, and so closer ties are in the interests of all the
Member States.

Given the huge amount of interest in this issue among the Polish public, I should like to ask the Council to address the
following issues which are key to the establishment of relations with Ukraine:

1. Will one of the European Union’s priorities in its relations with Ukraine be the signature of an association
agreement during this year’s Eastern Partnership summit in Vilnius?

2. Following on from the first question, can the Council provide an up-to-date assessment of the likelihood of an
association agreement being signed this year?

3. Has the Council taken any steps to persuade all of its members of the benefits of signing this agreement, and if
so which?

**Reply**
_(22 July 2013)_

In its conclusions ( [1] ) of 10 December 2012, the Council reaffirmed the EU's engagement with Ukraine, in the context
of the Eastern Partnership, towards political association and economic integration based on the respect of common
values. It also restated its commitment to the signing of the already-initialled EU-Ukraine Association Agreement,
including its Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA), as soon as the Ukrainian authorities demonstrate
determined action and tangible progress in three key areas: compliance of the 2012 parliamentary elections with
international standards and follow-up action; progress in addressing the issue of selective justice and preventing its
recurrence; and progress in implementing the reforms set out in the jointly agreed Association Agenda. Additional
expectations were listed in relation to the need for Ukraine to take determined action to improve its deteriorating
business and investment climate.

On 15 May 2013, the Commission adopted the proposal for a Council Decision on the Signing and Provisional
Application of the Association Agreement. The Commission's proposal is currently under consideration within the
Council. Parallel to this, technical preparations are ongoing in the Council with a view to the possible signing of the
agreement at the November Summit in Vilnius.

At the same time, the signing of the Agreement remains conditional on determined action and tangible progress by
Ukrainian authorities on all of the benchmarks set out in the 2012 Council Conclusions. It is therefore now up to the
Ukrainian authorities to address the relevant outstanding issues in order to enable the signing of the Agreement. The
Council is expected to take a decision on whether to sign the Association Agreement/DCFTA closer to the Summit.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) doc. 17438/12.

C 80 E / 270 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-004999/13**

**do Komisji**
**Adam Bielan (ECR)**

_(7 maja 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Negocjacje w sprawie umowy handlowej z USA

Niebawem planowane jest rozpoczęcie procesu negocjacyjnego w sprawie umowy o wolnym handlu ze Stanami
Zjednoczonymi – tzw. Transatlantyckie Partnerstwo Handlowe i Inwestycyjne. W minionym tygodniu rzeczniczka
Komisji ds. energii, pani Marlene Holzner, poinformowała polskie media, że partnerstwo takie powinno ułatwić
zniesienie istniejących barier we wzajemnym handlu energią (konkretnie gazem skroplonym LNG). Wiadomość tę
odbieram jako dobry prognostyk.

Proszę o ustosunkowanie się do powyższych kwestii, w szczególności poprzez odpowiedź na pytania:

1. Czy Komisja podtrzymuje swoje stanowisko, zgodnie z którym jednym z celów negocjacyjnych jest zniesienie
restrykcji na eksport nośników energetycznych z USA do Unii Europejskiej?

2. Jakie działania w tym zakresie już zostały podjęte?

3. Czy kwestia handlu energią ze Stanami Zjednoczonymi będzie podejmowana podczas czerwcowego
posiedzenia Rady UE, w związku z dyskusją nad projektem mandatu negocjacyjnego umowy handlowej?

4. Czy Komisja uwzględni również konieczność zabezpieczenia interesów europejskich producentów rolnych
przed możliwymi niekorzystnymi zapisami w umowie, prowadzącymi do zmiany prawa i polityki UE
w zakresie żywności GMO?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Karela De Guchta w imieniu Komisji**

_(3 lipca 2013 r.)_

Negocjacje ze Stanami Zjednoczonymi będą miały na celu zapewnienie nieograniczonego i trwałego dostępu do
surowców, w tym w dziedzinie energii. W odniesieniu do organizmów zmodyfikowanych genetycznie (GMO)
Komisja chciałaby zwrócić uwagę Pana Posła na odpowiedź na wcześniejsze zapytanie pisemne E-002504/2013 ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/pl/parliamentary-questions.html?tabType=wq

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 271

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004999/13**

**to the Commission**
**Adam Bielan (ECR)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Negotiations on the EU-US trade agreement

Negotiations on a free trade agreement with the United States, known as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership, are planned to start shortly. Ms Marlene Holzner, the spokesperson of the Commissioner for Energy, told
the Polish media last week that the partnership should make it possible to remove the barriers which currently
prevent bilateral trade in energy, and more specifically in liquefied natural gas. I regard this as a positive sign for the
future.

1. Does the Commission still maintain that one of the objectives of the negotiations is to abolish restrictions on
the export of energy sources from the USA to the European Union?

2. What action has already been taken in this respect?

3. Will the EU-US energy trade be discussed at the June Council summit, during the debate on the draft negotiating
mandate for the trade agreement?

4. Is the Commission also mindful of the need to protect the interests of European agricultural producers against
any of the agreement’s provisions that may work to their disadvantage by bringing about amendments to the EU’s
legislation and policies on GM foods?

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

_(3 July 2013)_

The negotiations with the United States will aim at ensuring an unrestricted and sustainable access to raw materials
including in the energy area. With regard to Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), the Commission would like to
refer the Honourable Member to the answer to previous Written Question E-002504/2013 ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html?tabType=wq#sidesForm

C 80 E / 272 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-005001/13**

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

**Fiorello Provera (EFD) e Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(7 maggio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Azioni di disturbo dell'Iran contro gli operatori satellitari europei

Nella sua risoluzione del 17 novembre 2011 sui recenti casi di violazioni dei diritti umani in Iran, il Parlamento
europeo ha condannato tale paese per aver disturbato illegalmente i segnali satellitari europei, invitando la società
francese Eutelsat a interrompere la fornitura di servizi alle stazioni TV iraniane di Stato finché tale situazione non
fosse cessata. In realtà, dall'approvazione di tale risoluzione, il regime di Teheran ha sistematicamente aumentato le
sue azioni di disturbo.

Il 15 ottobre 2012 Eutelstat ha annunciato la sua decisione di interrompere la fornitura di servizi alle stazioni TV
iraniane di Stato. Nella sua dichiarazione, la società ha precisato che tale decisione si basava, fra l'altro, sulla decisione
di includere Ezzatollah Zarghami, direttore della Radio Televisione della Repubblica islamica dell'Iran (IRIB),
nell'elenco UE delle persone soggette a sanzioni pubblicato il 23 marzo 2012, a seguito di una violazione dei diritti
umani da parte dell'IRIB nel suo palinsesto.

La decisione di Eutelsat è stata imitata anche da altri operatori satellitari, tra cui la società spagnola Hispasat, che ha
fatto anch'essa riferimento alle sanzioni UE in tale contesto.

Nella sua dichiarazione del 14 novembre 2012, l'Alto Rappresentante ha osservato che l'Iran disturbava i segnali
satellitari europei fin dal 2009 e ha invitato il paese a cessare tale attività. Nonostante tali commenti, i suoi portavoce
ufficiali si sono dissociati da Eutelsat e Hispasat nei mezzi di comunicazione.

In un'intervista pubblicata su _Le Monde_ il 5 gennaio 2013, la vincitrice del premio Nobel Shirin Ebadi ha ribadito il suo
invito all'UE a vietare alle autorità iraniane l'accesso ai satelliti europei poiché verrebbero utilizzati per fomentare
l'odio contro gli ebrei, i baha’i e altre minoranze etniche. Nel suo aggiornamento del 28 febbraio 2013, il relatore
speciale dell'ONU sulla situazione dei diritti umani nella Repubblica islamica dell'Iran ha confermato gli sforzi
costanti del regime contro la libertà di espressione nel paese.

Funzionari iraniani hanno minacciato le società europee di agire in giudizio contro la decisione di interrompere le
loro trasmissioni.

1. Perché i portavoce del Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante contraddicono gli obiettivi delle sanzioni dell'UE e
delle risoluzioni del Parlamento europeo, nonché le sue stesse critiche verso Teheran nel contesto delle trasmissioni
satellitari?

2. Come intende il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante difendere gli operatori satellitari europei dalle minacce
dell'Iran di agire in giudizio?

3. Qual è la sua opinione riguardo alla formalizzazione di una politica di regolamentazione dell'UE in materia di
lotta all'istigazione all'odio mediante i satelliti europei?

4. Ha sollevato la questione delle azioni di disturbo durante i colloqui ad Almaty sul programma nucleare
iraniano?

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

_(8 luglio 2013)_

1. L'Alto Rappresentante/Vicepresidente condivide le preoccupazioni degli onorevoli deputati in merito alle
protratte azioni di disturbo illegali dell'Iran contro gli operatori satellitari stranieri di stazioni radiotelevisive, che
privano i cittadini iraniani dell'accesso alla libera informazione, e ribadisce le esortazioni fatte all'Iran nella
dichiarazione del suo portavoce del 14 novembre 2012. Ciò non è in contraddizione con le precisazioni fatte dai suoi
portavoce sulla decisione commerciale autonoma di EUTELSAT, il 15 ottobre 2012, di sospendere l'erogazione di
servizi alle stazioni televisive statali iraniane, vale a dire che le misure restrittive dell'UE contro l'Iran in tema di
energia, scambi e trasporti non contengono elementi che potessero, in quanto tali, costringere EUTELSAT a prendere
questa decisione.

2. Non rientra nel mandato dell'Alto Rappresentante/Vicepresidente fornire assistenza legale alle imprese private.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 273

3. Tale questione non rientra nelle competenze dell'Alto Rappresentante/Vicepresidente.

4. No, poiché i colloqui di Almaty sono esclusivamente finalizzati a identificare una soluzione diplomatica al
programma nucleare iraniano.

C 80 E / 274 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005001/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD) and Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Iranian harassment of European satellite providers

In its resolution of 17 November 2011 on ‘Iran — recent cases of human rights violations,’ the European Parliament
condemned Iran for illegally jamming European satellite signals, and called on the France-based Eutelsat to stop
providing services to Iranian state TV stations as long as this situation continues. In fact, the regime in Tehran has
systematically increased its jamming activities since the adoption of this resolution.

On 15 October 2012 Eutelsat announced its decision to stop providing services to Iranian state TV stations. In its
statement, the company specified that its decision was based, _inter alia_, on the decision to include Ezzatolah
Zarghami, as the head of Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), in the list of EU-sanctioned persons disclosed
on 23 March 2012, following a violation of human rights by IRIB in its programming.

Eutelsat’s decision has been echoed by other satellite providers, including the Spanish company Hispasat, which also
referenced EU sanctions in this context.

In her statement of 14 November 2012, the High Representative noted that Iran had been jamming the signals of
European satellites since 2009 and called on Iran to cease this activity. Despite these comments, her official
spokespeople have dissociated themselves in the media from Eutelsat and Hispasat.

In an interview with _Le Monde_ of 5 January 2013, Nobel Prize laureate Shirin Ebadi reiterated her call on the EU to ban
Iranian authorities’ access to European satellites, which she says they use to incite hatred against Jews, Baha’is and
various ethnic minorities. In his update of 28 February 2013, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human
rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran confirmed the regime’s continuing efforts against freedom of speech in that
country.

Iran’s officials have threatened the European companies with legal action for blocking their broadcasts.

1. Why are spokespeople for the Vice-President/High Representative contradicting the intention of EU sanctions
and European Parliament resolutions, as well as her own criticism of Tehran in the context of satellite broadcasts?

2. How does the VP/HR intend to protect European satellite providers in the face of Iranian threats of legal action?

3. What is the VP/HR’s opinion regarding the formalisation of EU regulatory policy on combating incitement to
hatred spread via European satellites?

4. Did the VP/HR raise the satellite jamming issue during the talks in Almaty on Iran’s nuclear programme?

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

_(8 July 2013)_

1. The HR/VP shares the Honourable Members' concerns on the continued, illegal jamming by Iran of foreign TV
and radio satellite broadcasts, which deprive Iranian citizens of access to free information, and reiterates the calls
made on Iran in her Spokesperson's statement of 14 November 2012. This in not in contradiction with the precisions
made by her spokespersons, regarding EUTELSAT's autonomous commercial decision on 15 October 2012 to stop
providing services to Iranian state TV stations, i.e. that the EU restrictive measures against Iran, focusing on energy,
trade and transport, did not contain elements which could as such have forced EUTELSAT to take that step.

2. It is not within the HR/VP's remit to provide any kind of legal assistance to private companies.

3. This issue is not within the HR/VP's remit.

4. No, as the Almaty talks are exclusively aimed at identifying a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear

programme.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 275

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-005002/13**

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

**Fiorello Provera (EFD) e Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(7 maggio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Esercizio della funzione pubblica in Libia vietato a coloro che erano funzionari al tempo di
Gheddafi

Il 5 maggio 2013, diverse fonti di informazione hanno riferito che in Libia è stata approvata una legge che
proibirebbe a chiunque abbia ricoperto una posizione durante il regime di Gheddafi di esercitare funzioni presso il
nuovo governo per un periodo di dieci anni.

Detta legge interesserebbe centinaia di personalità di primo piano, quali Mohammed Magarief, presidente del
Congresso, e Mahmoud Jabril, leader del partito Alleanza delle forze nazionali. Il progetto di legge definitivo non
contemplava deroghe per alcun funzionario.

Secondo il giornale del Regno Unito « _The_ _Times»,_ la legge è stata approvata sotto coercizione dopo che i militanti
hanno cinto d'assedio il ministero degli Esteri libico. Anche altri ministeri del governo hanno subito attacchi. Prima
che i militanti prendessero il controllo dei due ministeri, la legge era stata oggetto di dibattito per diversi mesi. Il
giornale osserva che coloro che trarrebbero vantaggio dalla nuova legge sarebbero gli islamisti libici, i quali furono
emarginati durante il regime di Gheddafi a favore dei partiti laici e dei leader moderati che hanno cercato un accordo
con Gheddafi. Molti legislatori sono turbati dalla natura rigida e prescrittiva della legge, che non prevede alcuna
deroga. La Libia si trova in una situazione precaria dato che gran parte del paese sfugge al controllo del governo
centrale.

Alla luce di quanto sopra, può la Commissione rispondere ai seguenti quesiti:

1. Qual è la posizione del Vicepresidente/Alto rappresentate relativamente ai militanti libici che hanno cinto
d'assedio vari ministeri del governo al fine di imporre detta nuova legge controversa?

2. Qual è la valutazione dei funzionari dell'UE in Libia circa le ripercussioni politiche derivanti dall'approvazione
di questa nuova legge? Tale situazione comporterà l'attribuzione ai legislatori islamici di un ruolo più incisivo
in seno al governo a scapito delle forze laiche?

3. Quali azioni intende il VP/HR adottare per dar voce alle preoccupazioni dell'Unione circa la legittimità o la
necessità di questa nuova legge, dato che è stata approvata sotto coercizione?

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

_(8 luglio 2013)_

L'UE ha seguito con preoccupazione gli incidenti che hanno accompagnato l'adozione, ai primi di maggio, della legge
sull'interdizione dai pubblici uffici. L'Alto Rappresentante/Vicepresidente ha emanato una dichiarazione l'8 maggio
per esprimere il sostegno dell'UE alle autorità libiche democraticamente elette nella loro azione a sostegno del
processo costituzionale e per ribadire i rischi che certi eventi, come il menzionato assedio di alcuni ministeri,
comportano per la transizione in corso.

La legge sull'interdizione dai pubblici uffici dovrebbe entrare in vigore il 5 giugno. È pertanto troppo presto per
valutarne l'impatto sul governo o sull'amministrazione.

L'UE rimane impegnata a sostenere il popolo libico nella sua transizione verso la democrazia, la stabilità e la
prosperità attraverso un processo di giustizia transizionale e di riconciliazione.

C 80 E / 276 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005002/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD) and Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Gaddafi-era officials barred from holding public office in Libya

On 5 May 2013, various news sources reported that a law had been passed in Libya which would ban anyone who
held a position under the Gaddafi regime from holding an office in the new government for 10 years.

This law would affect hundreds of senior figures including Mohammed Magarief, the head of Congress, and
Mahmoud Jabril, leader of the National Forces Alliance. The final draft of the law did not include any exemptions for
any officials.

According to the UK’s _Times_ newspaper, the law was pushed through under duress after militants laid siege to Libya’s
Foreign Ministry. Other government ministries were also attacked. Previously the law had been debated for a number
of months before militants took control of two ministries. The newspaper notes that those who would benefit from
the new law are Libya’s Islamists, who were marginalised during the Gaddafi regime to the benefit of secular parties
and moderate leaders who sought some accommodation with Gaddafi. Many lawmakers are upset by the inflexible
and prescriptive nature of the law, which does not include any exemptions. Libya is in a precarious position, because
most of the country is outside the control of the central government.

1. What is the position of the Vice-President/High Representative regarding the Libyan militants who laid siege to
various government ministries in order to force through this controversial new law?

2. What is the assessment of EU officials in Libya regarding the political fallout from the passage of this new law?
Would it entail granting Islamist lawmakers a stronger role in government at the expense of secular forces?

3. What steps is the VP/HR prepared to take to voice EU concerns over the legitimacy of or need for this new law,
given that it was passed under duress?

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

_(8 July 2013)_

The EU followed with concern the incidents which surrounded the adoption of the Political Isolation Law in early
May. The HR/VP issued a statement on 8 May to express the support from the EU to the democratically elected Libyan
authorities in their task of bringing the constitutional process forward and to underline the risk that certain actions,
such as the abovementioned siege to some ministries, entail to the ongoing transition.

The Political Isolation Law should enter into force on 5 June. It is therefore too early to assess the impact of this
legislation on the government or on the administration.

The EU remains committed to supporting the Libyan people in achieving a successful transition towards democracy,
stability and prosperity through a process of transitional justice and reconciliation.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 277

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-005003/13**

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

**Fiorello Provera (EFD) e Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(7 maggio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Tragico caso di una donna afghana giustiziata dal padre

Secondo quanto riportato, nella provincia afghana di Badghis, una ragazza di età compresa tra 18 e 20 anni è stata
giustiziata dal proprio padre davanti a una folla di 300 persone per aver disonorato la famiglia fuggendo dal marito.
Secondo Amnesty International, la vittima sarebbe fuggita con il cugino ma, dopo essersi rifugiata presso i Kuchi,
nomadi di etnia Pashtun, sarebbe poi stata riportata a casa da alcuni degli uomini. Gli anziani del villaggio avrebbero
criticato il padre accusandolo di non essere un vero uomo e di aver ripreso in casa la figlia nonostante si fosse
allontanata per 5-10 giorni.

È stata quindi emessa una fatwa che ha decretato l'uccisione della ragazza. La fuga dal proprio marito non è
considerata reato in Afghanistan, sebbene sia utilizzata dai pubblici ministeri per accusare la traditrice dell'intenzione
di commettere adulterio («zina»), che è invece un reato grave. Amnesty International segnala che al momento sono
centinaia le donne in carcere per questo crimine e accade raramente che coloro che sottopongono le donne a
punizioni violente siano poi assicurati alla giustizia. I verdetti sul comportamento delle donne sono spesso emessi da
tribunali informali o tradizionali, i quali, secondo Amnesty International, dovrebbero essere riformati.

1. Quali sono le misure adottate dall'UE per contribuire al rinnovamento e al miglioramento del sistema
giudiziario civile e penale in Afghanistan, con particolare riguardo alla questione dei cosiddetti «crimini contro la
morale»?

2. Quale sostegno sta fornendo l'UE ai difensori dei diritti umani che si adoperano per assicurare che le donne
abbiano accesso all'assistenza legale nei casi di «crimini contro la morale»?

**Risposta di Andris Piebalgs a nome della Commissione**

_(28 giugno 2013)_

In Afghanistan l'Unione europea pone in primo piano i diritti delle donne attraverso il dialogo sulle politiche e la
cooperazione in materia di aiuti, un migliore accesso alla giustizia e il sostegno nell'applicazione delle norme
costituzionali e di altre leggi fondamentali.

L'Afghanistan è firmatario di trattati internazionali in materia di diritti umani, tra cui la convenzione sull'eliminazione
di ogni forma di discriminazione nei confronti della donna. La costituzione reca disposizioni per rafforzare i diritti
delle donne che comprendono il sostegno alle vedove e azioni per ridurre la mortalità materna e per abolire i
matrimoni forzati, il delitto d'onore e la vendita delle figlie e delle mogli. Occorre applicare tali disposizioni e
migliorare il codice penale afghano.

È in corso l'approvazione definitiva della legge EVAW ( [1] ) da parte del governo afghano: essa costituirebbe un passo in
avanti per censire queste violazioni e configurarle come reato. Dopo l'adozione sarà necessario definire le procedure
per perseguire i reati contro le donne e il testo della legge dovrà essere ampiamente divulgato.

Dal 2001 l'Unione europea sostiene le azioni della società civile che danno attuazione agli orientamenti dell'UE in
materia di diritti umani, in particolare attraverso le seguenti iniziative: sostenere i difensori dei diritti umani; fornire
assistenza legale, ricovero e consulenza alle donne e alle ragazze vittime di violenza; promuovere i diritti delle donne e
il loro ruolo di mediazione nella lotta contro le pratiche tradizionali; prestare servizi sociali; sviluppare le capacità
delle istituzioni e delle parti interessate, sensibilizzandole maggiormente su questi problemi; consentire alla società
civile e alle comunità locali a livello provinciale di dare seguito alla legge EWAV e alla risoluzione 1325 del Consiglio
di sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite ( [2] ).

EUPOL AFGHANISTAN ( [3] ), in collaborazione con l'UNDP ( [4] ), offre formazione specializzata agli organi di polizia e ai
pubblici ministeri sulla legge EVAW e promuove una campagna di sensibilizzazione.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Eliminazione della violenza contro le donne.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Risoluzione 1325 delle Nazioni Unite su donne, pace e sicurezza: http://www.un.org/events/res_1325e.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Missione di polizia dell'Unione europea in Afghanistan.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Programma delle Nazioni Unite per lo sviluppo.

C 80 E / 278 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

L'attuale programma dell'Unione europea per la protezione sociale, così come il precedente, è incentrato sul sostegno
alle donne più vulnerabili. L'invito a presentare proposte in corso considera i reati contro la morale un aspetto
essenziale da affrontare ai fini della tutela delle donne.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 279

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005003/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD) and Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Tragic case of an Afghan woman killed by her own father

In the Afghan province of Badghis, it is reported that a girl between the ages of 18 and 20 was publicly executed by
her father in front of 300 people for dishonouring her family, after she ran away from her husband. Amnesty
International reports that she ran off with a male cousin but, after taking shelter with Pashtun nomads or Kuchis, was
later taken back to her father by some of the men. Elders in the town told him: ‘You are not a man. Your daughter ran
away, was missing for 5 to 10 days and you are still keeping her.’

A fatwa was issued, stating that she should be killed. Running away from one’s husband is not a crime in Afghanistan;
however, it can be used by prosecutors, who can charge the deserter with the intention of committing zina, or
adultery, which is a major crime. Amnesty International reports that hundreds of women are currently in jail for this
crime. It is rare that those who subject women to violent punishments are subsequently brought to justice. Verdicts
on a woman’s conduct can often come from informal or traditional courts, which Amnesty International says need to
be reformed.

1. How is the EU working to help modernise and improve the criminal and civil justice system in Afghanistan,
especially as regards the issue of so-called ‘morality crimes’?

2. What support is the EU currently providing to human rights defenders working to provide women with access
to legal help in cases involving ‘morality crimes’?

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

_(28 June 2013)_

In Afghanistan, the EU prioritises women’s rights through its policy dialogue and aid cooperation, improving access
to justice and supporting enforcement of the Constitution and other fundamental laws.

Afghanistan is a party to international human rights treaties, including the Convention on Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women. The Constitution contains provisions for strengthening women’s rights including
support for widows, action to reduce maternal mortality and to abolish forced marriage, ‘honour’ killing and selling
of daughters/wives. These should be enforced and the Afghan Penal Code improved.

The EVAW law ( [1] ) is subject to final approval by the Afghan Government. It would be a step in enumerating and
criminalising such violations. Following adoption, procedures are needed for handling crimes against women. The
text of the law should be disseminated widely.

Since 2001 the EU has been supporting civil society actions implementing EU guidelines on human rights including
through support to human rights defenders; providing legal aid, shelter, counselling for women and girls affected by
violence; promotion of women's rights and mediation against traditional practices; social services; capacity building
and awareness raising for institutions and stakeholders; enabling civil society and local communities at provincial
level to follow up on the EVAW Law and UNSCR 1325 ( [2] ).

EUPOL Afghanistan ( [3] ) with UNDP ( [4] ) is providing specialised training for police and prosecutors on EVAW and
pursues an awareness-raising campaign.

The previous and current EU programme for Social Protection focuses on support for vulnerable women. The current
Call for Proposals makes reference to moral crimes as a key issue for women’s protection.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Elimination of Violence against Women.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) UN resolution on women and peace and security: http://www.un.org/events/res_1325e.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) EU Police mission in Afghanistan.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) United Nations Development Programme.

C 80 E / 280 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej P-005004/13**

**do Komisji**
**Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D)**

_(7 maja 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Rozliczenie finansowe projektu nr 2003/PL/16/P/PE/037 pod nazwą „Oczyszczanie ścieków
w Grudziądzu”

W latach 2003-2009 spółka Miejskie Wodociągi i Oczyszczalnia w Grudziądzu zrealizowała projekt pod nazwą
„Oczyszczanie ścieków w Grudziądzu”, współfinansowany ze środków Funduszu Spójności. Raport końcowy został
przygotowany w kwietniu 2010 r., a następnie przekazany do Komisji Europejskiej. Od tego momentu, a więc od 3
lat trwa nieustająca wymiana korespondencji elektronicznej z Komisją Europejską. Wstrzymywanie dokonania
płatności końcowej w kwocie blisko 850 tysięcy euro uniemożliwia spółce spłatę pożyczki zaciągniętej
w Narodowym Funduszu Ochrony Środowiska i Gospodarki Wodnej, a tym samym rozlicznie projektu.

Czy Komisja mogłaby podać termin ostatecznego rozliczenia tego projektu?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Johannesa Hahna w imieniu Komisji**

_(11 czerwca 2013 r.)_

We wrześniu 2010 r. Komisja otrzymała ostatni dokument zamykający. Po przeanalizowaniu dokumentów, w dniu
27 maja 2011 r. Komisja wystosowała pismo w sprawie zamknięcia postępowania. Ta propozycja zamknięcia
postępowania została odrzucona przez władze polskie. Przesłuchanie, które ma zostać przeprowadzone na
podstawie art. H załącznika II do rozporządzenia Rady (WE) nr 1164/1994 pomiędzy władzami polskimi a Komisją,
jest obecnie zaplanowane na 24 czerwca 2013 r. i ma na celu próbę osiągnięcia porozumienia w sprawie propozycji
zamknięcia postępowania. Jeśli polskie władze i Komisja osiągną porozumienie, projekt będzie mógł zostać
zamknięty, a końcowa płatność dokonana. Jeśli porozumienie nie jest możliwe, Komisja będzie zobowiązana do
przygotowania decyzji w sprawie korekty finansowej w celu usunięcia nieprawidłowych wydatków z płatności
końcowej, co nieuchronnie zajmie więcej czasu niż w przypadku osiągnięcia porozumienia.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 281

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-005004/13**

**to the Commission**
**Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Financial clearance of project No 2003/PL/16/P/PE/037 entitled ‘Grudziądz wastewater treatment’

In 2003, the Grudziądz municipal water supply and purification company started work on a project entitled
‘Grudziądz wastewater treatment’, which was co‐financed with funds from the Cohesion Fund. This project was
completed in 2009. The final report was drafted in April 2010 and subsequently submitted to the Commission. Since
that time, over three years ago, there has been a constant exchange of emails with the Commission. The withholding
of the final payment, which amounts to approximately EUR 850 000, is preventing the company from being able to
pay off a loan that it took from the National Environmental Protection Fund and the Water Management Board of
Poland. This in turn is preventing the financial clearance of the project from being completed.

Can the Commission give a time frame for the final clearance of this project?

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

_(11 June 2013)_

In September 2010, the Commission received the last closing document. Following the analysis of the documents, the
Commission issued a closure letter on 27 May 2011. This closure proposal was rejected by the Polish authorities. A
hearing, under article H of Annex II to Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/1994, between the Polish authorities and the
Commission is now scheduled for 24 June 2013 to try to reach agreement on the closure proposal. If the Polish
authorities and the Commission reach an agreement, then the project can be closed and the final payment made. If no
agreement is possible, the Commission will be obliged to prepare a financial correction decision to remove the
irregular expenditure from the final payment which will inevitably take more time than in the case of an agreement.

C 80 E / 282 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005005/13**

**to the Commission**
**Sir Graham Watson (ALDE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Polyisobutene (PIB) and a MARPOL (International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships) ban

Polyisobutene (PIB), or polyisobutylene or butyl rubber, is a non-toxic sticky synthetic alternative to natural rubber.
Globally 850 000 tonnes of PIB were used in 2011, and the substance is shipped around the globe. Ships which have
carried PIB may ‘flush’, or wash, their tanks at sea; on contact with water, PIB forms a waxy, glue-like substance just
under the surface. This is extremely hazardous to sea birds as it sticks to their wings and to their bodies.

Since the beginning of 2013 thousands of sea birds have been washed ashore along the South West coast of Cornwall,
Devon and Dorset. Many birds have died, although volunteers from UK wildlife organisations including the Wildlife
Trusts, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
have worked to wash these chemicals off the birds, including at the West Hatch wildlife facility in Somerset. Analysis
shows the birds to be covered in PIB.

The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution From Ships (MARPOL) recognises that PIB is a hazard to
the marine environment (under Category Y of the Convention), yet it remains legal for ships to discharge certain
quantities directly into the sea when they are over 12 miles from the coast and at depths of over 25 metres.

1. Is the Commission aware of the large number of sea bird deaths caused by PIB off the coast of South West
England?

2. The European Union has rightly implemented measures to improve our marine environment. Will the
Commission therefore support the prohibition of discharges at sea of this substance?

3. Will the Commission encourage all Member States to support a reclassification of PIB under the MARPOL
Convention which would ban its discharge at sea?

4. What European systems are in place to monitor and record pollution instances of this kind around Europe’s
shores?

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

_(1 August 2013)_

1. The Commission is aware of a specific incident involving seabirds and PIB off the coast of South West England.

2. As the Honourable Member has pointed out, the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) provides that discharge of PIB into the sea in
certain circumstances is legal. However the facts surrounding this case are not clear and it is difficult to know where,
when and under what conditions it was discharged. Without information on the polluter and the conditions, it
cannot be established whether the discharges were legal or illegal.

3. The Commission notes that the issue of discharges of PIB was raised by an NGO at the IMO's Marine
Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 65) in May 2013. The Commission is of the view that such an issue can
only be resolved through the IMO as any EU measure cannot prevent such discharges by ships not calling at EU ports
or not operating under EU flags. If an appropriate, evidence-based proposal for such changes to MARPOL was
brought forward in the IMO this would be discussed with Member States.

4. Directive 2008/56/EC ( [1] ) requires under Art 11 that Members States establish by 15 July 2014 and implement
coordinated monitoring programmes for the ongoing assessment of the environmental status of their marine waters.
These programmes have to be reported to the EC for an assessment under Art 12 of the directive. This assessment will
take into consideration the information provided by the Honourable Member.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive), OJ L 164,
25.6.2008.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 283

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-005006/13**

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

_(7 de mayo de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Pesca artesanal en la reforma de la Política Pesquera Común (PPC)

Las instituciones europeas están afrontando la fase final de la negociación de la Política Pesquera Común (PPC). En
dichas negociaciones a tres bandas, con la Comisión, el Consejo y el Parlamento Europeo, se determinarán la
regulación y los objetivos de la actividad pesquera europea.

Dicho proceso de reforma resulta fundamental para el futuro de las comunidades pesqueras y del medio ambiente
marino europeo y de su diversidad, que se encuentra bajo la importante amenaza de la sobreexplotación pesquera.
Pese a la importancia que la reforma de esta política tiene para la sostenibilidad de la actividad pesquera, se han
propuesto numerosas modificaciones que supondrían una grave amenaza sobre el medio ambiente marino.

La reforma de la Política Pesquera Común, que determinará la regulación de las flotas de todos los Estados miembros,
supone una decisión política fundamental que afecta a miles de personas y a los recursos marinos de numerosas
costas. Sin embargo, muchos de los puntos de la reforma, obedecen a la presión de las grandes compañías de la pesca,
capaces de presionar en las instituciones y culpables directos de la sobreexplotación de los fondos marinos. Esta
presión que las grandes compañías pueden ejercer sobre las instituciones europeas generará una reforma pesquera
que pondrá en peligro el futuro de los recursos marinos.

Las flotas costeras artesanales, con naves de pequeño tamaño, han sido la forma tradicional de pesca que permitía
mantener la actividad sin poner en peligro los recursos pesqueros. Estas flotas son incapaces de competir con las
grandes flotas que esquilman los recursos pesqueros y, aparte de tener barcos con mayor capacidad de carga y
potencia, emplean artes de pesca muy agresivas que les permiten capturar mucho más a costa de incrementar su
efecto sobre las poblaciones marinas. Por todo ello, las flotas tradicionales son una esperanza para mantener una
pesca sostenible y unas comunidades costeras vivas.

¿Considera la Comisión que las flotas pesqueras artesanales son las mejores gestoras de los recursos marinos gracias a
su impacto leve sobre las poblaciones?

¿Considera que estas flotas son una alternativa para las comunidades costeras al requerir mayor mano de obra?

¿Existen medidas específicas de apoyo a las flotas artesanales?

¿Se está apoyando este tipo de medidas para impulsar las flotas artesanales en la nueva Política Pesquera Común?

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

_(5 de julio de 2013)_

El impacto global en las poblaciones de peces no depende directamente del tipo de buques. Las pequeñas
embarcaciones, en su conjunto, pueden tener un impacto considerable en las poblaciones. La gestión de este impacto
se hace mejor con instrumentos de carácter general (como los límites de capturas) aplicables a toda la flota.

Las flotas artesanales son importantes para el empleo y para el tejido social de las comunidades que dependen de la
pesca. La propuesta de un nuevo Fondo Europeo Marítimo y de Pesca (FEMP) respalda y refuerza las medidas de
cohesión social y creación de empleo.

La propuesta de FEMP, que se encuentra en vías de negociación, prevé conceder a las pequeñas embarcaciones un
acceso privilegiado a todas las medidas del capítulo de desarrollo sostenible de la pesca gracias a mayores intensidades
de ayuda. Entre las medidas específicas figura el asesoramiento profesional sobre estrategias empresariales, incluida la
reconversión a actividades no pesqueras. El apoyo a la innovación también ocupa un lugar destacado, ya que el acceso
de la mayoría de las flotas artesanales a este tipo de financiación es limitado.

La propuesta de FEMP es un elemento importante de la nueva política pesquera común (PPC). Las normas de
conservación han de ser iguales para todos los buques pesqueros, pero la nueva PPC toma en consideración la
necesidad de que las cargas y costes sean proporcionales y prevé una serie de disposiciones específicas, tales como la
exención de las limitaciones del esfuerzo pesquero y la reducción de la carga del control.

C 80 E / 284 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005006/13**

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

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Small-scale fishing in the reform of the common fisheries policy (CFP)

The European institutions are facing the final stage in the negotiation of the common fisheries policy (CFP). The
regulation and objectives of European fishing activity will be determined in these trialogue negotiations between the
Commission, the Council and the European Parliament.

This reform process is fundamental for the future of fishing communities and the European marine environment and
its diversity, which is under significant threat from overfishing. Despite the importance that the reform of this policy
has for the sustainability of fishing activity, various amendments have been proposed which would pose a serious
threat to the marine environment.

The reform of the common fisheries policy, which will determine the regulation of fleets from all Member States, is a
key political decision that will affect thousands of people and many coastal marine resources. However, many of the
points in the reform bow to pressure from large fishing companies, which are able to put pressure on the institutions
and which are directly responsible for the overfishing of the seabed. This pressure that large companies can exert over
the European institutions will result in fisheries reform that will endanger the future of marine resources.

Small-scale coastal fleets, with small boats, have long been the traditional form of fishing that allowed the activity to
be maintained without endangering fishery resources. These fleets cannot compete with large fleets which exploit
fishery resources and which, apart from having larger and more powerful boats, use very aggressive fishing gear
which enables them to catch much more at the cost of having a greater impact on marine populations. For all of these
reasons, traditional fleets offer hope when it comes to maintaining sustainable fishing and thriving coastal
communities.

Does the Commission believe that small-scale fishing fleets are the best way to manage marine resources thanks to
their low impact on populations?

Does it believe that these fleets are an alternative to coastal communities needing a larger labour force?

Are there specific measures in support of small-scale fleets?

Are such measures to promote small-scale fleets being supported in the new common fisheries policy?

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

_(5 July 2013)_

The overall impact on fish stocks is not directly related to the type of vessels. Small vessels can collectively have a
significant impact on stocks. Management of impact on stocks is best done through general management instruments
(such as catch limits) for the whole fleet.

Small-scale fleets are important for employment and for the social fabric of fisheries-dependent communities. The
proposal for a new ‐European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) supports and reinforces actions for social cohesion
and job creation.

The EMFF proposal currently under negotiation foresees privileged access for small vessels to all measures in the
sustainable fisheries chapter through higher aid intensity rates. Specific measures include support to professional
business advice, including conversion to a non-fishing business. Support for innovation is also important due to
limited access to such funding for the majority of small-scale fleets.

The EMFF proposal is an important component of the new Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). Conservation rules need
to be equal for all fishing vessels. However, the new CFP takes into account the need for proportionate burdens and
costs, and foresees a number of specific provisions, such as exemption from effort limitations, and limited control
burden.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 285

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005007/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Facebook: Proibição de difusão de vídeos de decapitações

O Facebook anunciou que proibirá a difusão de vídeos de decapitações, aparentemente feitos no México, e que eram
compartilhados naquela rede social, ao mesmo tempo que avaliará as suas políticas a respeito deste tipo de conteúdo
chocante.

A empresa respondeu desta maneira às críticas recebidas pela decisão inicial de não intervir, quando destacou que os
vídeos não violavam as suas normas, porque eram compartilhados como parte de uma campanha de condenação de
decapitações.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

— Como avalia a decisão do Facebook?

—
Considera aceitável a difusão de conteúdos de teor chocante e atentatório da dignidade humana pelas redes
sociais?

—
Não julga que, dada a circunstância de a internet ser um veículo particularmente fácil para mensagens de ódio e
de violações dos direitos humanos, os detentores de redes sociais deveriam ser veementemente instados a
impedirem que as mesmas sejam usadas para semelhantes propósitos?

**Resposta dada por Neelie Kroes em nome da Comissão**

_(20 de junho de 2013)_

A Carta dos Direitos Fundamentais da União Europeia estabelece no seu artigo 1.° que a dignidade do ser humano é
inviolável, devendo ser respeitada e protegida. A Carta consagra também, no seu artigo 11.°, a liberdade de expressão
e a liberdade e o pluralismo dos meios de comunicação social. Nos termos do artigo 51.° da Carta, as suas disposições
têm por destinatários as instituições e órgãos da União, na observância do princípio da subsidiariedade, bem como os
Estados-Membros, apenas quando apliquem o direito da União.

Existem regras específicas da UE sobre o incitamento ao ódio com base na raça, no sexo, na religião ou na
nacionalidade no contexto dos serviços abrangidos pela Diretiva Serviços de Comunicação Social Audiovisual
(Diretiva SCSA) ( [1] ). Esta diretiva determina, no seu artigo 6.°, que os Estados-Membros devem assegurar, através dos
meios adequados, que os serviços de comunicação social audiovisual prestados por fornecedores de serviços de
comunicação social sob a sua jurisdição não contenham qualquer incitamento ao ódio com base na raça, no sexo, na
religião ou na nacionalidade; determina ainda, no seu artigo 12.°, que os Estados-Membros devem tomar as medidas
adequadas para assegurar que os serviços de comunicação social audiovisual a pedido prestados pelos fornecedores de
serviços de comunicação social sob a sua jurisdição, que sejam suscetíveis de afetar seriamente o desenvolvimento
físico, mental ou moral dos menores apenas sejam disponibilizados de forma que garanta que, em regra, estes não
vejam nem ouçam tais serviços de comunicação social audiovisual. A qualificação dos fornecedores de serviços de
redes sociais, designadamente o Facebook, como fornecedores de serviços de comunicação social audiovisual e a
aplicabilidade da Diretiva SCSA a esses fornecedores devem ser objeto de avaliação caso a caso.

Com base nas informações prestadas, tudo indica que o caso em apreço não está abrangido pela Diretiva SCSA.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Diretiva 2010/13/UE de 10 de março de 2010 — http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:095:0001:0024:PT:PDF

C 80 E / 286 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005007/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Facebook: Ban on videos showing decapitations

Facebook has announced that it will ban videos of decapitations that were apparently made in Mexico and shared on
the social network, and will also review its policies on this type of shocking content.

The company has responded to criticisms of its initial decision not to take action, which it justified by stating that the
videos did not breach its rules because they were shared as part of a campaign to condemn decapitations.

— What is the Commission’s view of Facebook’s decision?

— Does it consider it acceptable for social networks to show content that is shocking and an affront to human
dignity?

— Given that it is so easy to show messages of hate and human rights violations on the Internet, does it not believe
that owners of social networks should be strongly urged to prevent them from being used for such purposes?

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

_(20 June 2013)_

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union sets out in its Article 1 that human dignity is inviolable. It
must be respected and protected. The Charter also enshrines freedom of expression as well as freedom and pluralism
of the media in Article 11. According to Article 51 of said Charter, its provisions are addressed only to the institutions
and bodies of the Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member States only when they are
implementing Union law.

There are specific EU rules regarding incitement to hatred based on race, sex, religion or nationality when it comes to
services falling under the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) ( [1] ). It provides in Article 6 that Member
States shall ensure by appropriate means that audiovisual media services provided by media service providers under
their jurisdiction do not contain any incitement to hatred based on race, sex, religion or nationality — and in
Article 12 providing that Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that on-demand audiovisual media
services provided by media service providers under their jurisdiction which might seriously impair the physical,
mental or moral development of minors are only made available in such a way as to ensure that minors will not
normally hear or see such on-demand audiovisual media services. Whether or not social media services, such as
Facebook, can be qualified as audiovisual media service providers and are subject to the AVMSD will need to be
assessed in each specific case.

Based on the information provided, the case described would appear not to fall into the remit of the AVMSD.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2010/13/EU of 10 March 2010 — http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:095:0001:0024:EN:PDF.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 287

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005008/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Fome na Somália

A Organização das Nações Unidas para a Agricultura e a Alimentação (FAO) anunciou que, entre outubro de 2010 e
abril de 2012, morreram quase 260 mil somalis à fome devido à grave crise alimentar que afeta este país africano há
vários anos. A FAO adianta que metade destas vítimas são crianças com menos de cinco anos.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

—
Dispõe de dados sobre esta catástrofe humanitária?

—
Ajuda ou está em condições de ajudar a minorá-la?

—
Pode reforçar o apoio que eventualmente já prestará à Somália?

**Resposta dada por Kristalina Georgieva em nome da Comissão**

_(21 de agosto de 2013)_

Entre outubro de 2010 e abril de 2012, a grave insegurança alimentar e a consequente fome na Somália provocou
258 000 mortes, metade das quais crianças com menos de cinco anos. Esta foi a pior situação de fome a nível
mundial nos últimos 25 anos.

A Comissão esteve ativamente envolvida no socorro à Somália desde o início da crise e, na realidade, já estava
presente na Somália mesmo antes da crise humanitária.

Desde então verificaram-se melhorias, as chuvas foram mais favoráveis e a comunidade humanitária tem tido acesso
às populações. No entanto, hoje em dia 1,05 milhões de somalis continuam a viver uma grave crise de segurança
alimentar (contra 4,1 milhões em 2011).

A Comissão deu uma resposta célere aos sinais de aumento da insegurança alimentar, procedendo imediatamente à
reprogramação seu financiamento em junho/julho de 2011 e aumentando a sua contribuição financeira para
77 milhões de EUR até ao final de 2011. Em 2012 foram afetados à Somália 60,8 milhões de EUR e em 2013
46,6 milhões de EUR.

C 80 E / 288 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005008/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Famine in Somalia

The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) has announced that almost 260 000 Somalis
died of starvation between October 2010 and April 2012 due to the serious food crisis that has affected this African
country for several years. The FAO adds that half of these victims were children under the age of five.

— Does the Commission have any figures on this humanitarian catastrophe?

— Is it helping or in a position to help alleviate it?

— Could it increase the amount of aid that it gives to Somalia?

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

_(21 August 2013)_

Between October 2010 and April 2012, severe food insecurity and the resulting famine in Somalia led to
258,000 deaths, half of which were children under the age of five. This was the worst famine worldwide in the past
25 years.

The Commission was closely involved in Somalia from the beginning of the crisis and, in fact, was already present in
Somalia before the humanitarian crisis.

Since then, access has increased, the rains have been better and humanitarian community has been able to access
populations. However, today, 1.05 million Somalis remain in acute food security crisis (down from 4.1 million in
2011).

The Commission responded early to the signals of increasing food insecurity by immediately reprogramming its
funding in June/July 2011 and increasing its financial contribution to EUR 77 million by the end of 2011. In 2012,
EUR 60.8 million were allocated to Somalia and EUR 46.6 million in 2013.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 289

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005009/13**

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

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Síria: desaparecimento de jornalista italiano

Um jornalista italiano está há 20 dias desaparecido na Síria, informou recentemente o jornal La Stampa. Domenico
Quirico, de 62 anos, experiente em coberturas de guerra, entrou na Síria através do Líbano a 6 de abril, avisando que
ficaria incomunicável durante uma semana. O La Stampa diz que manteve contactos esporádicos com o jornalista até
9 de abril. Desde então, nada mais se soube.

A Itália ativou uma unidade de crise para tentar encontrar Quirico.

Assim, pergunto à Alta Representante:

—
Dispõe de alguma informação quanto ao paradeiro de Domenico Quirico?

—
Está disponível para encetar diligências no sentido de colaborar na sua busca?

—
Contactou as autoridades italianas e os representantes dos rebeldes sírios a este respeito?

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

_(12 de julho de 2013)_

A AR/VP está muito consciente da situação e segue de perto a sua evolução. Infelizmente, com base na avaliação dos
serviços da UE o paradeiro do jornalista em causa é desconhecido, não tendo havido informações recebidas de
qualquer das partes que possam ter tido acesso a informações adicionais.

C 80 E / 290 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005009/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Disappearance of an Italian journalist in Syria

According to the newspaper _La Stampa_, an Italian journalist has been missing in Syria for 20 days. Sixty-two-year-old
Domenico Quirico, an experienced war reporter, entered Syria from Libya on 6 April, stating that he would be out of
touch for a week. _La Stampa_ says that it maintained sporadic contact with the journalist until 9 April. Nothing has
been heard of him since then.

Italy has set up a crisis unit to try to find Quirico.

— Does the High Representantive have any information on the whereabouts of Domenico Quirico?

— Is she willing to help in the search for him?

— Has she contacted the Italian authorities and representatives of the Syrian rebels about this matter?

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

_(12 July 2013)_

The HR/VP is very aware of this case and follows the developments closely. Unfortunately, based on EU services'
assessment his whereabouts are unknown, and there has been no information received from any of the parties that
may have had access to additional information.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 291

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005010/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ França: próteses sem homologação

O Ministério da Saúde francês ordenou a abertura de uma investigação sobre o alegado uso fraudulento de próteses
articulares fabricadas pelo laboratório «Ceraver» e implantadas em 650 doentes sem a homologação sanitária
necessária. As autoridades francesas pediram a retirada do mercado das próteses em causa e que seja prestada aos
doentes a informação necessária.

A decisão do Ministério da Saúde francês surge na sequência da publicação, pelo jornal diário «Le Parisien», de uma
notícia que afirmava que as autoridades suspeitavam do uso indevido de próteses por parte do laboratório «Ceraver».

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

—
Tem conhecimento deste caso? Considera haver risco para a saúde pública?

—
Contactou as autoridades francesas a este propósito?

—
Dispõe de informações acerca de usos semelhantes de próteses articulares noutros Estados‐Membros?

—
Averiguou ou pretende averiguar sobre o sucedido?

**Resposta dada por Tonio Borg em nome da Comissão**

_(20 de junho de 2013)_

Em 2 de maio de 2013, as autoridades francesas transmitiram à Comissão e aos Estados‐Membros da UE informações
sobre os produtos fabricados pela Ceraver, Laboratoires Osteal Medical. Estas informações dizem respeito a alguns
componentes acetabulares e hastes de próteses da anca. Mais especificamente, fornecem a identificação dos modelos
que não possuem certificados de exame válidos.

Com base no que precede, as autoridades francesas decidiram suspender a introdução no mercado, exportação,
distribuição e utilização dos dispositivos médicos em causa. Decidiram igualmente a sua retirada do mercado. As
autoridades francesas comunicaram que não tinham sido identificados riscos de saúde específicos associados a estes
dispositivos. Esta ação foi desencadeada por três elementos, a saber: falta de atualização atempada dos certificados
(para a mobilidade dual do componente acetabular Cerafit), certificados obtidos após a introdução no mercado (para
as hastes) e não atualização do certificado apesar da alteração do _design_ (para a componente acetabular Cerafit).
Segundo as informações das autoridades francesas, existe apenas um outro Estado-Membro em causa, a Itália.

A Comissão mantém um contacto estreito com as autoridades francesas sobre esta matéria. Este tema foi também

debatido com os Estados-Membros em 16 de maio de 2013. Esse debate não revelou a existência de casos

semelhantes noutros Estados-Membros.

A recente proposta da Comissão para a revisão da legislação em matéria de dispositivos médicos ( [1] ) permitirá evitar a
ocorrência de tais casos, em especial através de uma maior transparência na certificação de dispositivos médicos, de
um reforço da fiscalização do mercado e de uma melhor coordenação entre os Estados-Membros.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 542 final.

C 80 E / 292 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005010/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Uncertified artificial joints in France

The French health ministry has ordered an inquiry into the alleged fraudulent use of artificial joints that were
manufactured by the Ceraver laboratory and implanted in 650 patients without the necessary health certification. The
French authorities have asked for the artificial joints in question to be withdrawn from the market and for patients to
be duly informed.

The French health ministry’s decision follows the publication of a report in the newspaper _Le Parisien_, according to
which the authorities had suspicions about Ceraver’s improper use of artificial joints.

— Is the Commission aware of this case? Does it pose a risk to public health?

— Has it contacted the French authorities about this matter?

— Does it have any information about similar uses of artificial joints in other Member States?

— Has it investigated the matter? If not, does it intend to do so?

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

_(20 June 2013)_

On 2 May 2013, the French authorities transmitted to the Commission and the EU Member States information
concerning products manufactured by CERAVER, Laboratoires Osteal Medical. This information refers to some
acetabular components and stems of hip prostheses. More specifically, it provides identification of the models lacking
valid examination certificates.

On this basis, the French authorities decided to suspend the placing on the market, export, distribution and use of the
medical devices concerned. They also decided to withdraw them from the market. The French
authorities communicated that no specific health risks related to these devices were identified. This action was
triggered by three elements i.e. failure to update the certificates on time (for dual-mobility acetabular component
Cerafit), certificates obtained after the placing on the market (for stems), no update of the certificate despite the
modification of the design (for acetabular component Cerafit). Based on the information from the French authorities,
the only other Member State concerned is Italy.

The Commission is in close contact with the French authorities on this matter. The topic was also discussed with the
Member States on 16 May 2013. The discussion did not reveal similar cases in other Member States.

The Commission's recent proposals to revise the medical devices legislation ( [1] ) will contribute to avoid the occurrence
of such cases in particular by an increased transparency on certified medical devices, strengthened market surveillance
and a better coordination between Member States.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(1012) 542 final.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 293

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005011/13**

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

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Conflito Israelo-Palestiniano: disponibilidade negocial de Israel

O primeiro-ministro israelita Netanyahu reafirmou recentemente estar pronto a um reinício «sem condições prévias»
das negociações com os representantes palestinianos que estão suspensas desde setembro de 2010.

A União Europeia tem todo o interesse em contribuir para a pacificação do Médio Oriente.

Assim, pergunto à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante:

—
Que comentário lhe merecem as declarações do primeiro-ministro israelita?

—
Contactou as autoridades israelitas e palestinianas a este respeito? Que respostas obteve?

—
Está disponível para encetar diligências no sentido de promover uma aproximação entre as partes e um efetivo
reinício do processo negocial?

—
Tomou ou prevê tomar medidas neste sentido?

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

_(3 de julho de 2013)_

A AR/VP concorda que encontrar uma solução para o conflito israelo-palestiniano constitui um interesse
fundamental da UE, bem como das próprias partes e da região no seu conjunto. Por esta razão, a União Europeia tem
alertado repetidamente para a urgência de envidar esforços de paz renovados, estruturais e substanciais em 2013.
Também elogiou e apoiou os esforços diplomáticos recentemente desenvolvidos pelos Estados Unidos para facilitar
este processo e instou ambas as partes a participar de boa-fé e com a vontade política necessária.

A União Europeia deixou claro, nomeadamente na sua declaração perante o Conselho de Segurança das Nações
Unidas, em 24 de abril de 2013, que está pronta a apoiar ativa e concretamente estes esforços com todos os
instrumentos ao seu dispor. A União Europeia está preparada e disposta a levar o seu apoio ao nível seguinte, de
modo a contribuir para garantir o sucesso da retoma das negociações diretas e de fundo entre as partes.

A União Europeia também declarou que se se alcançar um acordo que ponha termo a este conflito que dura há
décadas, estaria aberta a porta para uma cooperação aprofundada e reforçada entre a União Europeia e todos os países
da região, beneficiando todas as partes em causa.

C 80 E / 294 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005011/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Israel's willingness to negotiate

The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently stated that he is ready, without prior conditions, to restart the
negotiations with Palestinian representatives that were suspended in September 2010.

The EU has every interest in helping to bring peace to the Middle East.

— What is the Vice-President/High Representative’s view of the Israeli Prime Minister’s statements?

— Has she contacted the Israeli and Palestinian authorities about this matter? What answers has she received?

— Is she willing to take steps to encourage the parties to seek reconciliation and restart the negotiation process?

— Has she taken or does she intend to take such steps?

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

_(3 July 2013)_

The HR/VP agrees that finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a fundamental interest of the EU as well
as of the parties themselves and of the wider region. For this reason, the European Union has repeatedly reiterated the
urgency of renewed, structural and substantial peace efforts in 2013. It has commended and supported the
diplomatic efforts currently deployed by the United States to facilitate this process and has urged both parties to
engage in good faith and with the necessary political will.

The European Union has made it clear, notably in a statement in the UN Security Council on 24 April 2013, that it
stands ready to give active and concrete support to these efforts, with all the instruments at its disposal. The European
Union is ready and willing to take its support to the next level, to help ensure that resumed direct substantial
negotiations between the parties are successful.

The European Union has also stated that if an agreement to finally end this conflict that has lasted for decades was
reached, the door would open to a deepened and enhanced cooperation between the European Union and all the
countries of the region, bringing benefits to all involved.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 295

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005012/13**

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

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Paquistão: Morte de cidadão indiano condenado por espionagem

Um cidadão indiano condenado à morte no Paquistão há 16 anos por espionagem morreu depois de ter sido agredido
violentamente por outros detidos na prisão do Punjab em que se encontrava.

A União Indiana repudiou veementemente o sucedido que ameaça agravar as relações tensas com o seu vizinho.

Assim, pergunto à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante:

—
Que comentário lhe merecem as circunstâncias em torno da morte de Sarabjit Singh?

—
Contactou as autoridades paquistanesas e indianas a este respeito? Que respostas obteve?

—
Está disponível para encetar diligências no sentido de promover uma reaproximação entre ambos os países?

—
Tomou ou prevê tomar medidas neste sentido?

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

_(17 de julho de 2013)_

A morte trágica de Sarabjit Singh, detido numa prisão paquistanesa, bem como a morte igualmente trágica, uma
semana mais tarde, de Sanaullah Ranjay, detido numa prisão indiana, fazem parte de uma série de incidentes em que
os governos indiano e paquistanês não cumpriram aparentemente o dever de garantir a segurança efetiva e os devidos
cuidados aos detidos. As organizações de defesa dos direitos humanos solicitaram às Nações Unidas que procedesse a
um inquérito sobre estes incidentes. Serão realizados inquéritos exaustivos para entregar os responsáveis à justiça.

Dado que 275 cidadãos paquistaneses estão detidos em prisões indianas e 535 cidadãos indianos em prisões
paquistanesas, ambos os países têm interesse em garantir a segurança e o bem‐estar dos seus cidadãos. No passado,
houve planos no sentido de adotar medidas destinadas a criar um clima de confiança. É necessário retomar esta via.
Tanto a Índia como o Paquistão devem abordar estas questões bilaterais que trariam grandes benefícios para a região a
nível social, político e geoestratégico.

Ambos os países deveriam realizar reformas do sistema prisional de acordo com os princípios de defesa dos direitos
humanos e encetar um diálogo sobre a troca de prisioneiros. A UE exprime a sua preocupação quanto à situação dos
prisioneiros no Paquistão no quadro do diálogo anual UE-Paquistão sobre os direitos humanos. Em 2011-2012, a UE
concedeu um apoio de 1 700 000 euros a intervenções em matéria de direitos humanos, com especial destaque para a
reforma da justiça e a formação das forças policiais sobre direitos humanos no caso específico dos prisioneiros. As
questões do reforço do Estado de Direito e da melhoria do acesso à justiça são também objeto de discussão nas
reuniões com as autoridades paquistanesas, os representantes da sociedade civil e outras partes interessadas.

Os incidentes constituem uma questão bilateral para o Paquistão e a Índia. Porém, a UE incentiva todos os esforços
envidados no sentido de um diálogo permanente entre ambos os países. São sinais positivos os progressos registados
a nível da cooperação em matéria de comércio e de vistos e a mensagem de parabéns do governo indiano dirigida
prontamente a Nawaz Sharif, presidente do PML-N, pela sua vitória nas eleições realizadas no Paquistão e a prioridade
dada por Sharif ao melhoramento das relações com a Índia.

C 80 E / 296 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005012/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Death of Indian citizen convicted for spying in Pakistan

An Indian citizen who, 16 years ago, was sentenced to death in Pakistan for spying has died after being violently
assaulted by other inmates in the Punjabi prison in which he was held.

India has strongly condemned the attack, which threatens to aggravate the tense relations between the neighbouring
countries.

— What is the Vice-President/High Representative’s view of the circumstances surrounding the death of Sarabjit
Singh?

— Has she contacted the Pakistani and Indian authorities about the matter? What answers has she received?

— Is she willing to take steps to encourage reconciliation between the two countries?

— Has she taken or does she intend to take such steps?

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

_(17 July 2013)_

The tragic death of prisoner Sarabjit Singh in a Pakistani prison, as well as the equally tragic death of prisoner
Sanaullah Ranjay in an Indian prison a week later, are among a series of prison incidents where the governments of
both India and Pakistan seemingly failed in their duty to provide effective security and care to prisoners. Human rights
organisations have requested the UN to hold an inquiry into the incidents. Full enquires should be conducted to bring
the perpetrators to justice.

With 275 Pakistanis in Indian jails and 535 Indians in Pakistani jails, both countries have an interest in addressing the
security and well-being of their nationals. Confidence-building measures have been sought in the past and will need to
be revived. Both India and Pakistan need to address bilateral issues which would have far-reaching benefits for the
social, political and geo-strategic dynamic of the region.

Both countries should implement prison reforms according to human rights standards, and have a dialogue on an
exchange of prisoners. The EU raises its concerns on the situation of prisoners in Pakistan in the annual EU-Pakistan
dialogue on human rights. In 2011-2012 EU support of EUR 1.7 million was provided for human rights
interventions focused on justice reform and police training on human rights regarding the situation of prisoners. Rule
of law and access to justice concerns are also discussed in meetings with Pakistani authorities, civil society and other
players.

The incidents are a bilateral matter for Pakistan and India, but the EU encourages all efforts towards continued
dialogue and relations between Pakistan and India. Progress in cooperation on trade and visas, and India’s prompt
message of congratulations to PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif on his victory in Pakistan’s elections, and Sharif's
prioritization of improved relations with India are positive signs.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 297

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005013/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Arábia Saudita — novo vírus

Cinco pessoas morreram na Arábia Saudita devido a um vírus semelhante ao da SARS (síndrome respiratória aguda
grave) e outras duas estão em estado grave. Todos estes casos terão ocorrido na região de al-Ahsa, no leste do país.

Segundo a comunicação social, este novo vírus é do mesmo tipo do que causou uma epidemia global que começou na
Ásia e matou centenas de pessoas em 2003.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

—
Dispõe de informações acerca do novo vírus?

—
Contactou as autoridades sauditas a este propósito?

—
Considera haver risco para a saúde pública?

**Resposta dada por Tonio Borg em nome da Comissão**

_(24 de junho de 2013)_

A Comissão tem conhecimento da situação atual do novo coronavírus no Médio Oriente e está a acompanhar
ativamente os acontecimentos, em estreita colaboração com o Centro Europeu de Prevenção e Controlo das Doenças
e com a Organização Mundial de Saúde. Este novo coronavírus não é o mesmo que causou a SARS em 2003 e, até à
data, não há provas de estar a ocorrer uma transmissão constante entre seres humanos. Os casos notificados na
Europa confirmam que o vírus pode ser transmitido de uma pessoa infetada para uma pessoa saudável. Não obstante,
esta situação parece ocorrer apenas através de pessoas em contacto muito estreito.

Embora a Comissão não tenha contactado diretamente as autoridades de saúde da Arábia Saudita, esteve em contacto
com a OMS, que encetou uma missão no terreno à Arábia Saudita. As atividades de recolha de informações e de
intervenção em caso de surtos de doença são realizadas principalmente no quadro das normas sanitárias
internacionais, que vinculam a Arábia Saudita.

De acordo com a avaliação dos riscos elaborada pelo CEPCD ( [1] ), até ao momento, o risco para a Europa é considerado
baixo, embora sejam de prever casos de viajantes regressados ou evacuados por motivos médicos.

A Comissão solicitou ao CEPCD que elabore orientações específicas para os viajantes e profissionais de saúde. Este
tipo de aconselhamento é elaborado em coordenação com a Organização Mundial de Saúde e será debatido com os
Estados‐Membros no âmbito do Comité de Segurança da Saúde da UE. A Comissão está igualmente a avaliar a
necessidade de uma rede de clínicos.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/risk‐assessment‐middle‐east‐respiratory‐syndrome‐coronavirus‐MERS‐CoV‐17‐may‐
2013.pdf

C 80 E / 298 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005013/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ New virus in Saudi Arabia

Five people have died in Saudi Arabia due to a virus similar to that which causes SARS (severe acute respiratory
syndrome) and a further two people are seriously ill. All of these cases have occurred in the region of al-Ahsa, in the
east of the country.

According to media reports, this new virus is of the same type as that which caused the global epidemic that began in
Asia and killed hundreds of people in 2003.

— Does the Commission have any information on this new virus?

— Has it contacted the Saudi Arabian authorities about this matter?

— Does it believe that public health is at risk?

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

_(24 June 2013)_

The Commission is aware of the ongoing situation of the novel coronavirus in the Middle East. It is actively
monitoring the developments in close cooperation with the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and
the World Health Organisation. This novel coronavirus is not the same that caused SARS in 2003 and so far there is
no evidence that sustained human-to-human transmission is taking place. The cases notified in Europe support the
evidence that the virus can be transmitted from an infected person to a healthy person. However, this appears to
occur only through close contact.

While the Commission has not directly contacted health authorities in Saudi Arabia it was in contact with the WHO
which has undertaken a field mission to Saudi Arabia. The information gathering and outbreak response activities are
mainly undertaken in the framework of the International Health Regulations, to which Saudi Arabia is a Party.

According to the risk assessment prepared by ECDC ( [1] ), so far, the risk for Europe is considered low although cases
from returning travellers or medically evacuated are expected.

The Commission has asked the ECDC to prepare specific guidance for travellers and health professionals. This advice
is developed in coordination with the World Health Organisation, and will be discussed with Member States in the EU
Health Security Committee. The need for a network of clinicians is also being evaluated by the Commission.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/risk-assessment-middle-east-respiratory-syndrome-coronavirus-MERS-CoV-17-may2013.pdf

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 299

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005014/13**

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

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Síria — armas químicas

O presidente Barack Obama afirmou que os Estados Unidos da América têm provas seguras do uso de armas químicas
na Síria, mas ainda não dispõem de informações exatas sobre quando e como foram usadas.

Assim, pergunto à Alta Representante:

—
Dispõe de informações acerca do uso de armas químicas no conflito sírio?

—
Contactou as autoridades americanas a este propósito? Que respostas obteve?

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

_(3 de julho de 2013)_

Com base nas informações de fonte aberta atualmente disponíveis, é possível que tenham sido usadas substâncias
químicas de que resultou um número limitado de vítimas mortais.

As investigações efetuadas pela missão designada pelo Secretário-Geral Ban-ki Moon, a qual inclui membros da
Organização para a Proibição de Armas Químicas (OPCW), procurarão determinar apenas se foram ou não usadas
armas químicas, não tirando conclusões sobre a atribuição do uso das mesmas. Espera-se que o regime sírio dê
brevemente o seu acordo à realização da missão.

A UE exprimiu claramente a sua preocupação com a eventual utilização e transferência de armas químicas na Síria,
tendo recordado ao regime sírio e restantes partes que, em caso de utilização dessas armas, os responsáveis terão de
prestar contas pelos seus atos.

A Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente está em contacto com as autoridades dos EUA a respeito da determinação fiável
da utilização de armas químicas na Síria, o que requer a rápida realização da missão referida.

C 80 E / 300 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005014/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Syria: chemical weapons

President Barack Obama has said that the United States has hard evidence that chemical weapons have been used in
Syria, but does not yet have exact information on when and how they were used.

Does the Vice-President/High Representative have any information regarding the use of chemical weapons in the
Syrian conflict?

Has she contacted the US authorities in this regard? What responses has she received?

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

_(3 July 2013)_

On the basis of currently available open source information, it is possible that chemical substances might in fact have
been used resulting in a limited number of casualties.

The investigation by the mission appointed by SG Ban-ki Moon that includes members of the Organisation for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), will seek to determine only whether or not chemical weapons were used
and will not draw any conclusions as to the attribution of any use. It is hoped that the Syrian regime will soon agree to
the deployment of the mission.

The EU has clearly stated its concerns about the potential use and transfer of chemical weapons in Syria and reminded
the Syrian regime and other parties that, in case of their use, those responsible will be held accountable.

The HR/VP is in contact with the US authorities on the issue of authoritatively determining the use of CW in Syria for
which the quick deployment of the aforementioned mission is needed.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 301

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-005015/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE), Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), Dolores García-**
**Hierro Caraballo (S&D), Andrés Perelló Rodríguez (S&D), Raimon Obiols (S&D), Maria Badia i Cutchet**

**(S&D), Vicente Miguel Garcés Ramón (S&D), Ricardo Cortés Lastra (S&D) y Ramon Tremosa i Balcells**

**(ALDE)**
_(7 de mayo de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Fracking en España y Directiva marco del agua

El informe de 2011/2308(INI) sobre las repercusiones medioambientales de la extracción de gas y petróleo de
esquisto reconoce que no existe una normativa detallada, exhaustiva y accesible relativa a la extracción del gas de
esquisto y la necesidad de que esta se desarrolle. El informe recomienda revisar la Directiva marco del agua y los
posibles impactos que podría tener el _fracking_, considerando la prohibición del uso de químicos tóxicos o, al menos,
que la composición exacta de los mismos sea revelada.

España ha concedido permisos de _fracking_ sin realizar ningún estudio de impacto medioambiental y bajo la falsa
afirmación de que permitirá un cambio radical en el sector energético. El _fracking_ utiliza grandes cantidades de agua
(10 000-20 000 m [3] ), pero en España la escasez de agua es un problema estructural. Así se vulneraría
automáticamente la Directiva marco del agua. A su vez, algunas prospecciones se realizarán en lugares protegidos por
la Red Natura 2000, violando los objetivos de protección de la biodiversidad.

¿Considera la Comisión prohibir el uso durante el proceso de _fracking_ de las sustancias químicas que tienen efectos
nocivos directos para la salud humana? ¿Cuál es el calendario previsto de modificación de la Directiva marco del agua
para determinar el uso de químicos tóxicos y proteger de forma eficaz el agua contra accidentes y las operaciones de
_fracking_, como indica el informe 2011/2308(INI)?

¿Considera, al igual que el Parlamento Europeo, que las empresas que realizan operaciones de _fracking_ deben revelar
los productos químicos que van a utilizar? ¿Cómo garantizar el acceso público a dicha información?

En regiones con problemáticas de escasez de agua (arco mediterráneo), ¿recomendará la Comisión prohibir la técnica
del _fracking_ al no garantizar un uso sostenible del agua?

¿Recomendará al Estado español examinar y modificar la Ley 34/1998, de 7 de octubre, del sector de hidrocarburos,
para evitar accidentes debido a las operaciones de _fracking_, actualmente no contempladas en la legislación?

[¿Considera que el Estado español viola la Directiva Hábitats 92/43/CEE al permitir prospecciones de](http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31992L0043:ES:NOT) _fracking_ en
espacios de la Red Natura 2000?

¿Recomendará prohibir la explotación de _fracking_ en zonas rurales, sin servicios ni infraestructuras para una industria
de esas características, al suponer un riesgo para la salud humana?

¿Qué acciones tomará la Comisión para frenar, al menos temporalmente, los proyectos ya concedidos hasta que no se
discutan las premisas anteriores?

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

_(24 de junio de 2013)_

La Comisión incluyó en su programa de trabajo para 2013 un «Marco de evaluación medioambiental, climática y
energética para permitir una extracción segura y protegida de hidrocarburos no convencionales». Esta iniciativa
abarca, entre otros aspectos, cuestiones relacionadas con la gestión de riesgos y pretende garantizar la claridad y
previsibilidad jurídicas a los operadores del mercado y a los ciudadanos de toda la UE. Cuestiones tales como las
planteadas por Sus Señorías, así como todas las opciones estratégicas pertinentes se tendrán debidamente en cuenta
en el marco de esta labor.

C 80 E / 302 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

La Comisión no sigue en detalle las operaciones específicas de explotación de gas de esquisto ni otras actividades de
fracturación hidráulica en determinados lugares o regiones. Es responsabilidad de los Estados miembros garantizar a
través de las evaluaciones, los regímenes de autorización y las actividades de seguimiento adecuados, que cualquier
exploración o explotación de fuentes de energía, incluidas las que utilicen la fracturación hidráulica, cumple los
requisitos del marco jurídico vigente en la EU. Este incluye, en particular, disposiciones, sobre las evaluaciones de
impacto ambiental y la participación pública ( [1] ), la protección de las aguas superficiales y subterráneas ( [2] ), la gestión
de los residuos ( [3] ) y la conservación de los hábitats naturales ( [4] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directiva 2011/92/UE relativa a la evaluación de las repercusiones de determinados proyectos públicos y privados sobre el medio ambiente

(DO L 26 de 28.1.2012, p. 1).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directiva 2000/60/CE por la que se establece un marco comunitario de actuación en el ámbito de la política de aguas (DO L 327 de 22.12.2000,

p. 1) y Directiva 2006/118/CE relativa a la protección de las aguas subterráneas contra la contaminación y el deterioro (DO L 372 de 27.12.2006,
p. 19).

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Directiva 2006/21/CE sobre la gestión de los residuos de industrias extractivas y por la que se modifica la Directiva 2004/35/CE (DO L 102

de 11.4.2006, p. 15).

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Directiva 92/43/CEE del Consejo relativa a la conservación de los hábitats naturales y de la fauna y flora silvestres (DO L 206 de 22.7.1992, p. 7).

( **|**

( **|**

( **|**

⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 303

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005015/13**

**to the Commission**
**Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE), Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), Dolores García-**
**Hierro Caraballo (S&D), Andrés Perelló Rodríguez (S&D), Raimon Obiols (S&D), Maria Badia i Cutchet**

**(S&D), Vicente Miguel Garcés Ramón (S&D), Ricardo Cortés Lastra (S&D)**

**and Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Fracking in Spain and the Water Framework Directive

Report 2011/2308(INI) on the environmental impacts of shale gas and shale oil activities recognises that there is no
detailed, exhaustive and accessible legislation on the extraction of shale gas and that such legislation needs to be
drawn up. The report recommends a review of the Water Framework Directive and the possible impacts that fracking
could have, considering a ban on the use of toxic chemicals or, at least, that the exact composition of those chemicals
should be disclosed.

Spain has granted fracking permits without carrying out any environmental impact assessments and under the false
claim that it will allow for radical change in the energy sector. Fracking uses large quantities of water
(10 000-20 000 m [3] ), but in Spain, water scarcity is a structural problem. Therefore, the Water Framework Directive
would automatically be under threat. In turn, some explorations will take place in areas protected by the
Natura 2000 network, in breach of the objectives of protecting biodiversity.

Does the Commission plan to prohibit the use of chemical substances that directly harm human health during the
fracking process? What is the proposed time frame for amending the Water Framework Directive with a view to
determining the use of toxic chemicals and effectively protecting water from fracking accidents and operations, as
stated in report 2011/2308(INI)?

Does it consider, as Parliament does, that companies carrying out fracking operations should disclose which chemical
products they are going to use? How will it ensure public access to this information?

In regions with water scarcity problems (Mediterranean arc), will the Commission recommend prohibiting fracking if
the sustainable use of water is not guaranteed?

Will it recommend that Spain examine and amend Law 34/1998 of 7 October on the hydrocarbons sector to prevent
accidents due to fracking operations, an area not currently covered by the legislation?

[Does it believe that Spain is violating the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC by allowing fracking explorations in](http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31992L0043:EN:NOT)
Natura 2000 network sites?

Will it recommend prohibiting the use of fracking in rural areas which do not have the relevant industry-related
services or infrastructure if it represents a risk to human health?

What actions will the Commission take to halt, at least temporarily, the projects which have already been approved,
until the above conditions have been discussed?

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

_(24 June 2013)_

The Commission included in its 2013 Work Programme an ‘Environmental, Climate and Energy Assessment
Framework to Enable Safe and Secure Unconventional Hydrocarbon Extraction’. This initiative aims to cover, inter
alia, issues related to managing risks, addressing legal clarity and predictability for market operators and citizens
across the EU. Issues such as those raised by the Honourable Members as well as all relevant policy options will be
duly considered in the context of this work.

C 80 E / 304 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

The Commission does not follow in detail specific shale gas exploitation operations or other activities involving
hydraulic fracturing in individual locations or regions. It is the responsibility of the Member States to ensure — via
appropriate assessments, permitting regimes and monitoring activities — that any exploration or exploitation of
energy sources, including those using hydraulic fracturing, complies with the requirements of the existing legal
framework in the EU. This includes, _inter alia_, provisions on environmental impact assessments and public
participation ( [1] ), the protection of surface and groundwater ( [2] ), on waste management ( [3] ) and on the conservation of
natural habitats ( [4] ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on environment (OJ L 26/1, 28.1.2012).
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1) and

Directive 2006/118/EC on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration (OJ L 372/19, 27.12.2006).

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Directive 2006/21/EC on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC (OJ L 102, 11.4.2006, p. 15).
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Directive 92/43/EC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7).

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

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 305

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-005016/13**

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

_(7 de mayo de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Reforma de la normativa europea de semillas

El pasado lunes 6 de mayo se producirá el voto en la Comisión Europea sobre la reforma de la normativa europea de
semillas.

En la actualidad la normativa europea permite solo comercializar variedades seleccionadas para cultivos
convencionales que superen exigentes criterios de homogeneidad y estabilidad prohibiendo la reproducción de
variedades locales y tradicionales por parte de los agricultores. De esta forma se ha legislado en favor de las grandes
multinacionales de semillas que patentan el patrimonio biológico de la humanidad a costa de los agricultores. Una
reforma de esta normativa es absolutamente necesaria ante la escandalosa pérdida de biodiversidad agrícola en
Europa, pero debe ser una reforma que reconozca la diversidad agrícola y el papel de los agricultores europeos en su
conservación.

_Según los primeros informes filtrados, esta reforma no supondrá ningún cambio de importancia con respecto a la posición actual,_
_lo que supone un paso adelante en la privatización y en la pérdida de biodiversidad de la agricultura europea. Ante esta reforma, la_
_Coordinadora Europea Vía Campesina ha expuesto varios puntos para dar un giro a dicha normativa y poner a los agricultores en_
_el centro de la producción y circulación de semillas europeas. De cara a esta reforma, diferentes organizaciones de productores,_
_organizaciones ecologistas y partidos políticos están demostrando su oposición al mantenimiento de una normativa que no_
_contemple a los agricultores como garantes del patrimonio genético europeo, como vía principal para alcanzar la soberanía_
_alimentaria del continente que descansa en sus agricultores y no en las multinacionales, que en la actualidad controlan tanto los_
_insumos como los canales de comercialización de la producción agrícola._

¿Considera la Comisión necesario el reconocimiento del papel de los agricultores en la conservación de la
biodiversidad? ¿Considera justificado reconocer el derecho de los agricultores a la producción y al intercambio de
semillas de cara a garantizar la biodiversidad de la agricultura? ¿Piensa la Comisión establecer condiciones más
flexibles de homogeneidad y estabilidad para facilitar la conservación y reproducción de variedades locales y
tradicionales? Ante la fuerte pérdida de biodiversidad en la agricultura europea en los últimos años, ¿considera que la
actual normativa de semillas, especialmente con la prohibición de la venta y _del intercambio por parte de pequeños_
_agricultores, ha sido culpable de dicha pérdida?_

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

_(21 de junio de 2013)_

1. Uno de los objetivos de la propuesta de la Comisión relativa a la producción y comercialización de materiales de
reproducción vegetal ( [1] ) es propiciar la conservación de la biodiversidad. Dicha propuesta incluye requisitos relativos
al registro de variedades de Además, la propuesta establece normas reguladoras de los ensayos de variedades con valor
de cultivo o de uso sostenible, de interés para la producción ecológica. La propuesta también incluye normas
reguladoras de las mezclas de especies con fines de conservación de los recursos genéticos y de preservación del
medio ambiente natural.

2. Queda excluido de la propuesta de la Comisión el intercambio de semillas entre agricultores u otras personas
que no tengan ninguna relación profesional con la producción y la comercialización de materiales de reproducción
vegetal. Las semillas destinadas exclusivamente a bancos de genes y redes de conservación de los recursos genéticos
también quedan fuera del ámbito de aplicación de la propuesta.

3. Las variedades antiguas, incluidas las de conservación, no se someterán a ningún ensayo relacionado con su
uniformidad o estabilidad. Los materiales de reproducción vegetal que no pertenezcan a ninguna variedad (materiales
heterogéneos) también podrán ser producidos o comercializados con arreglo a las normas específicas que adopte la
Comisión antes de que entre en vigor el Reglamento.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 262 final.

C 80 E / 306 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

4. La Comisión no tiene conocimiento de ninguna prueba que demuestre que la legislación vigente en materia de
semillas y otros materiales de reproducción vegetal es la responsable de la pérdida de la biodiversidad en Europa. El
registro y la comercialización de variedades de conservación con arreglo a requisitos menos estrictos ya están
garantizados a través de las Directivas 2008/62/CE ( [2] ) y 2009/145/CE ( [3] ).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) DO L 162 de 21.6.2008, pp. 13-19.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) DO L 312 de 27.11.2009, pp. 44-54.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 307

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005016/13**

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

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Reform of European legislation on seeds

On Monday, 6 May, the Commission voted on the reform of the European legislation on seeds.

Currently, European legislation only allows for the marketing of varieties selected for conventional crops which meet
strict uniformity and stability criteria, prohibiting farmers from reproducing local and traditional varieties. As such,
legislation has been passed in favour of large seed multinationals, which patent mankind’s biological heritage at the
expense of farmers. A reform of this legislation is absolutely necessary in view of the scandalous loss of agricultural
biodiversity in Europe, but it must be a reform that recognises agricultural diversity and the role of European farmers
in its conservation.

According to initial leaked reports, this reform will not bring about any significant changes with regard to the current
position, which is a step forward for privatisation and the loss of biodiversity in European agriculture. In view of this
reform, European Coordination Via Campesina has put forward various proposals with a view to amending this
legislation and placing farmers at the heart of the production and circulation of European seeds. In this reform,
various producer organisations, environmental organisations and political parties are demonstrating their opposition
to maintaining legislation which does not consider farmers as guarantors of European genetic heritage, as the main
way to achieve food sovereignty in a continent that relies on its farmers and not on multinationals, which currently
control both inputs and marketing channels in agricultural production.

Does the Commission consider it necessary to recognise the role of farmers in the conservation of biodiversity? Does
it consider it justified to recognise farmers’ right to produce and exchange seeds so as to ensure agricultural
biodiversity? Does the Commission plan to establish more flexible uniformity and stability conditions to facilitate the
conservation and reproduction of local and traditional varieties? Given the significant loss of biodiversity in European
agriculture in recent years, does it believe that the current legislation on seeds, particularly with regard to prohibiting
sales and exchanges for small farmers, has been responsible for this loss?

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

_(21 June 2013)_

1. One of the aims of the Commission proposal on the production and marketing of plant reproductive
material ( [1] ) is to serve the purpose of conservation of biodiversity. That proposal includes requirements for
registration of conservation varieties, which are less stringent than the requirements of the existing legislation.
Moreover, the proposal sets out rules concerning testing of varieties with sustainable value for cultivation and/or use,
and which are of interest for organic production. Moreover, that proposal contains rules concerning mixtures of
species for the purpose of conservation of genetic resources and preservation of the natural environment.

2. Exchange of seeds between farmers, or other persons, not professionally involved in the production and
marketing of plant reproductive material is excluded from the rules of that proposal. Seeds intended exclusively to
gene banks and networks of conservation of genetic resources are also excluded from the scope of the proposal.

3. Old varieties, including conservation varieties, will not be subject to any tests concerning their uniformity or
stability. Plant reproductive material not belonging to any variety (heterogeneous material) may also be produced or
marketed, subject to specific rules to be adopted by the Commission before the draft Regulation applies.

4. The Commission is not aware of any evidence indicating that the existing legislation on seeds and other plant
propagating material is responsible for the loss of biodiversity in Europe. The registration and marketing of
conservation varieties under less stringent requirements is already ensured through Directives 2008/62/EC ( [2] ) and
2009/145/EC ( [3] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 262 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 162, 21.6.2008, p. 13‐19.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) OJ L 312, 27.11.2009, p. 44‐54.

C 80 E / 308 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-005017/13**

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

_(7 de mayo de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Empleo de la tasa AROPE

El Gobierno de España ha señalado, en su recientemente publicado Programa Nacional de Reformas del Reino de
España 2013, que el porcentaje de hogares pobres en España se ha reducido en un 0,2 % en 2012. Dicha afirmación
se ha basado en los datos del Instituto Nacional de Estadística, en concreto en la tasa AROPE, creada en 2010.

_El indicador AROPE ha sido creado con el contexto armonizado de la Estrategia 2020 de la UE, permitiendo comparar los datos_
_de los países europeos. En la práctica, reduce el impacto de los ingresos al incluir nuevas variables de carácter más subjetivo para_
_calcular la tasa, permitiendo que la tasa de pobreza aparezca más baja, a pesar de que todos los estudios sobre pobreza en 2012 en_
_España sostengan lo contrario._

_Este indicador arroja unos resultados considerablemente alejados de cuantos estudios sobre la pobreza se han realizado en el país,_
_lo cual debería sugerir su invalidez o, al menos, su revisión crítica; sin embargo, el Gobierno español, en lugar de cuestionarlo, lo_
_emplea como único indicador de pobreza en el país. La elaboración de este indicador incluye la renta, la privación material severa y_
_la baja intensidad del trabajo, frente al empleo de la renta que se utilizaba anteriormente como única variable. Sin embargo, la_
_inclusión de los indicadores y su análisis a nivel de hogar en lugar de a nivel personal puede producir distorsiones estadísticas que_
_no se corresponden con los cambios reales que puedan existir en la sociedad._

El Gobierno español ha presentado el citado documento a la Comisión Europea de cara a evaluar sus « _avances_ » _en_
_materia de reformas, con la única referencia a este indicador estadístico para señalar sus niveles de pobreza._

_¿Considera la Comisión que la pobreza se ha reducido en España durante 2012?_ ¿Considera suficiente este dato de la tasa
AROPE para evaluar las dinámicas de la pobreza en España, incluso cuando un gran número de publicaciones
sostienen lo contrario? ¿Exigirá a España un estudio más pormenorizado de la realidad de la pobreza en España
durante 2012 y su relación con las reformas económicas desarrolladas? ¿Considera que emplear este indicador
estadístico relativo a la pobreza puede acarrear impactos estadísticos en la evaluación de la pobreza que podrían ser
evitados con los tradicionales indicadores relativos exclusivamente a los niveles de ingresos?

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

_(4 de julio de 2013)_

Los progresos para reducir en al menos veinte millones el número de personas en riesgo de pobreza o exclusión social
de aquí a 2020, que es uno de los cinco objetivos principales de la Estrategia Europa 2020, se miden mediante el
indicador AROPE (tasa de personas que viven en riesgo de pobreza o exclusión social). Este importante indicador se
compone de tres indicadores separados: el porcentaje de personas en riesgo de pobreza, las que sufren privación
material grave y las que viven en hogares con muy baja intensidad en el empleo.

Las cifras provisionales de la pobreza de ingresos relativa (medida con la tasa de riesgo de pobreza) en España ( [1] )
indican un descenso del -0,7 % con respecto a 2011, que puede explicarse en parte por la disminución simultánea de
la media y la mediana de los ingresos disponibles.

Si bien se ha acordado la aplicación del indicador AROPE en el conjunto de la UE, los Estados miembros pueden
utilizar también otros indicadores para medir distintos aspectos de la inclusión social. Para supervisar la situación
social nacional, pueden utilizarse también estadísticas nacionales pertinentes, así como indicadores comúnmente
acordados, como el riesgo de pobreza anclado en el tiempo ( [2] ). Los Estados miembros informan acerca de la situación
social en sus programas nacionales de reformas, que se publican en abril y cuya evaluación conforma las
recomendaciones específicas por país adoptadas por la Comisión el 29 de mayo. Además, tal como se acordó en el
Comité de Protección Social, los Estados miembros deben presentar informes sociales nacionales en los que aborden
específicamente su situación con respecto a la inclusión social y las políticas de protección social centradas en las
reformas recientes. España no ha presentado aún su informe a dicho Comité.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.ine.es/jaxi/menu.do?type=pcaxis&path=/t25/p453/provi&file=pcaxis
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Véase, por ejemplo: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=ilc_li22b&lang=en

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 309

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005017/13**

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

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Use of the AROPE rate

In its recently published National Reform Programme for the Kingdom of Spain 2013, the Spanish Government has
indicated that the percentage of poor households in Spain fell by 0.2% in 2012. This is based on data from the
National Statistics Institute, specifically the AROPE (at risk of poverty or social exclusion) rate, created in 2010.

The AROPE indicator was established within the harmonised context of the EU 2020 strategy, allowing data from
different European countries to be compared. In practice, it reduces the impact of income by including new, more
subjective variables to calculate the rate, meaning that the poverty rate appears lower, despite the fact that all the
studies on poverty in 2012 in Spain show the opposite.

This indicator produces results which are far removed from how many studies on poverty have been carried out in
the country, which should suggest that it is invalid or at least that it is in serious need of review; however, rather than
questioning it, the Spanish Government uses it as the only indicator of poverty in the country. This indicator is based
on income, severe material deprivation and low work intensity, rather than using income alone, which was previously
the only variable used. However, the inclusion of the indicators and their analysis at household level, instead of on an
individual basis, could lead to statistical distortions which do not correspond to the real changes that might exist in
society.

The Spanish Government has presented the abovementioned document to the Commission so as to evaluate its
‘progress’ in terms of reforms, referring only to this statistical indicator to represent poverty levels.

Does the Commission consider that poverty levels decreased in Spain in 2012? Does it consider this AROPE rate data
sufficient in order to evaluate poverty dynamics in Spain, even when many publications indicate the opposite? Will it
call on Spain to provide a more detailed study of the reality of poverty in Spain in 2012 and its relationship with the
economic reforms that have taken place? Does it believe that using this statistical indicator of poverty could have a
statistical impact on the evaluation of poverty, which could be avoided with traditional indicators based exclusively
on income levels?

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

_(4 July 2013)_

The progress towards reducing the number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion by at least 20 million by
2020, which is one of the five Europe 2020 headline targets, is measured by means of the AROPE indicator (rate of
people at risk of poverty or social exclusion). This headline indicator can be decomposed in three separate indicators:
the percentage of people at risk of poverty (AROP), those suffering from severe material deprivation, and those living
in very low work-intensity households.

The 2012 provisional figures of relative income poverty (as measured by the at risk of poverty rate) in Spain ( [1] ) show a
decrease of ‐0.7% compared to 2011, which can be partly explained by the concurrent decrease in the mean and
median disposable income.

While it was agreed that AROPE would apply to the EU as a whole, Member States can also use other indicators to
measure various aspects of social inclusion. Relevant national statistics as well as commonly agreed indicators can
also be used to monitor the national social situation, such as the risk-of-poverty anchored in time ( [2] ). Member States
report on the social situation in their national reform programmes, issued in April, and whose assessment informed
the country-specific recommendations adopted by the Commission on 29 May. In addition, as agreed within the
Social Protection Committee (SPC), the Member States are to submit national social reports that specifically cover
their social inclusion situations and social protection policies focusing on recent reforms. Spain has not yet submitted
its report to the SPC.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.ine.es/jaxi/menu.do?type=pcaxis&path=/t25/p453/provi&file=pcaxis
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) See for instance: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=ilc_li22b&lang=en

C 80 E / 310 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-005018/13**

**al Consejo**
**Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)**

_(7 de mayo de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Protección de datos

Los datos personales no solo son parte del derecho fundamental a la privacidad, sino también el petróleo de la era
digital, como la propia Comisión Europea se ha preocupado de destacar. Con la actualización anunciada hace ya un
año de las reglas de la Unión Europea de protección de datos personales, que se remontan a más de veinte años, se
busca balancear la protección de los derechos y garantizar el mercado digital único.

Como han denunciado varios movimientos sociales especializados en derechos digitales, tales como _EDRi_, _Acces Now_
o _La Quadrature du Net_, diferentes empresas y grupos de interés de los Estados Unidos y Europa buscan influenciar las
nuevas reglas europeas para rebajar el nivel de protección de la ciudadanía y tratar impunemente los datos que
manejan sobre ella. Esto pone en peligro los derechos de la ciudadanía sin garantizar ningún beneficio económico
agregado.

Diversos estudios académicos de comportamiento económico demuestran que la economía digital se mueve por la
confianza que las personas tienen de estar protegidas: un usuario de una red social compartirá más información si
sabe que puede retirarla en un futuro si así lo desea, y puede controlar quién trata sus datos y cómo. Un mayor nivel
de protección y mejores herramientas de aplicación del sistema europeo de protección de datos personales benefician
al mercado digital único. Por el contrario, garantizar impunidad a las empresas si no cuidan los datos personales de
sus usuarios no solo ataca de lleno a un derecho fundamental como la privacidad, sino que además hundirá la
economía digital, tan necesaria en tiempos de crisis.

¿Qué opina el Consejo sobre la necesidad de reforzar la protección de datos respecto a la propuesta de la Comisión?
¿Se plantea el Consejo mantener negociaciones con representantes de intereses que incumplan el código de conducta
establecido por la Unión Europea? ¿Podría el Consejo informar de las reuniones mantenidas con los diferentes actores
y explicar en qué términos y de qué manera están llevando a cabo las negociaciones? ¿Entiende el Consejo que una
regulación fuerte de la protección de datos incrementa la viabilidad del mercado digital único?

**Respuesta**
_(9 de julio de 2013)_

En la actualidad se están celebrando debates en el Consejo sobre las propuestas de la Comisión relativas a una nueva
legislación sobre protección de datos. El Tratado no permite la intervención de organismos externos en la negociación
de actos legislativos.

Puesto que la propuesta de la Comisión sobre un Reglamento del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo relativo a la
protección de las personas físicas en lo que respecta al tratamiento de datos personales y a la libre circulación de estos
datos (Reglamento General de Protección de Datos) es un instrumento legislativo muy detallado, que afectará
prácticamente a todos los sectores de la sociedad, tendrá repercusiones en muchas áreas de la legislación de los
Estados miembros. El examen del proyecto de Reglamento por parte de los expertos de los Estados miembros, por
tanto, es un proceso largo y minucioso. Bajo la Presidencia irlandesa del Consejo han continuado los intensos debates
sobre este asunto.

Puesto que el Consejo está aún debatiendo la propuesta, no sería oportuno tratar de prejuzgar el resultado de dichos
debates.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 311

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005018/13**

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

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Data protection

Personal data are not only part of the fundamental right to privacy; they are also the fuel of the digital era, as the
Commission itself has been careful to highlight. The update announced last year of the EU rules on personal data
protection, which date back more than 20 years, seeks to balance the protection of rights and ensure the digital single
market.

As condemned by various social movements specialising in digital rights, such as EDRi, Access Now and _La_
_Quadrature du Net_, different companies and interest groups in the United States and Europe are seeking to influence
the new European rules so as to reduce the level of protection for citizens and process the data held about them with
impunity. This puts citizens’ rights at risk without guaranteeing any added economic benefit.

Various academic studies on economic behaviour show that the digital economy is powered by people’s belief that
they are being protected: social network users will share more information if they know that they can remove it in
future if they wish to do so, and can control who handles their data and how. A greater level of protection and better
tools for applying the European personal data protection system benefit the digital single market. On the contrary,
ensuring impunity for companies if they do not look after their users’ personal data is not only a full-on attack on a
fundamental right such as privacy, but will also destroy the digital economy, which is so crucial in times of crisis.

What is the Council’s opinion on the need to enhance data protection with regard to the Commission’s proposal? Will
the Council hold negotiations with representatives from interested parties who fail to comply with the code of
conduct established by the European Union? Could the Council provide information about the meetings held with the
various actors and explain under what terms and in what way negotiations are proceeding? Does the Council
understand that strong data protection regulation increases the viability of the digital single market?

**Reply**
_(9 July 2013)_

Discussions are currently under way within the Council on the Commission proposals for new EU data protection
legislation. The Treaty does not allow for the involvement of outside bodies in the negotiation of legislative acts.

As the Commission proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of
individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data
Protection Regulation) is a very detailed legislative instrument, which will affect almost every sector of society, it will
have an impact on many areas of Member State legislation. The scrutiny of the draft Regulation by Member State
experts is therefore a lengthy and detailed process. Intensive discussions on this file have continued under the Irish
Presidency of the Council.

Since the Council is still in the process of discussing the proposal, it would not be appropriate to try to prejudge the
outcome of these discussions.

C 80 E / 312 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-005019/13**

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

_(7 de mayo de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ UE-EE.UU. FTA

En el marco del Acuerdo de libre comercio entre los Estados Unidos y la Unión Europea se presentan muchas
incógnitas sobre la influencia que las empresas norteamericanas, sometidas a una legislación muy dispar a la presente
en el Derecho comunitario y con una estructura empresarial y social también diferenciada, pueden llegar a tener en
nuestra economía y regulación, concretamente en el sector de la alimentación y la bebida, sector en el que se han
fijado las tarifas más altas en las relaciones entre la Unión Europea y los Estados Unidos.

Por ello preocupa la influencia de multinacionales como Monsanto, una empresa dedicada a la fabricación de
herbicidas y semillas transgénicas que fuerza a los agricultores a la compra de sus productos restringiendo el uso de
los mismos bajo sanciones por infracción de la propiedad intelectual. Esta situación ha obligado a los agricultores a
contraer cuantiosas deudas que más tarde no han podido afrontar, lo que ha provocado múltiples suicidios en países
como la India.

Esta política llevada a cabo por Monsanto ha propiciado una actitud monopolística que le ha permitido controlar
gran parte del mercado de alimentos, forzando al monocultivo y a la eliminación progresiva de pequeños
agricultores. Todo ello se ha llevado a cabo en contubernio con las administraciones públicas, gastando la empresa
millones de dólares en actividades de relación e influencia con las instituciones.

Por todo ello, ¿cómo afectará dicho Acuerdo a este sector? ¿Puede garantizar la Comisión que el Acuerdo no
perjudicará a los agricultores y granjeros europeos? En este sentido, ¿está la Comisión al corriente de los abusos de
posición de dominio de grandes multinacionales norteamericanas como Monsanto en relación con los pesticidas y
alimentos transgénicos? ¿Es consciente de los peligros del Acuerdo en este sentido? ¿Se incluirá la propiedad
intelectual como elemento de libre comercio? ¿Qué mecanismos de transparencia estarán a disposición de la sociedad
civil para conocer qué corporaciones participan de manera directa o indirecta en la consecución del Acuerdo?

**Respuesta del Sr. De Gucht en nombre de la Comisión**

_(3 de julio de 2013)_

La Comisión negociará el Acuerdo sobre comercio e inversiones entre la UE y los EE.UU. en interés de las empresas y
los ciudadanos europeos con arreglo a las directrices de negociación del Consejo _**.**_ Se informará al Parlamento y al
Consejo plenamente del proceso en todas las fases de las negociaciones.

Estas negociaciones no comprometerán la salud de los consumidores europeos con la finalidad de obtener beneficios
comerciales. La normativa básica de protección de los consumidores no será objeto de negociación. A este respecto se
remite a Su Señoría a la respuesta dada a la pregunta escrita anterior E-002504/2013 ( [1] ).

La Comisión espera reducir al mínimo los obstáculos comerciales que surgen como consecuencia del funcionamiento
de nuestros sistemas.

La Comisión hará lo que esté en su mano para garantizar la protección de las normas europeas y el valor en la
producción de alimentos mediante las herramientas previstas por la legislación pertinente de la UE.

La Comisión tendrá asimismo muy en cuenta la sensibilidad de los mercados agrícolas de la UE con el fin de
minimizar los posibles efectos negativos de la liberalización del comercio en caso de que se dieran tales efectos
negativos.

En cuanto a un posible abuso de posición dominante por parte de los operadores del mercado en este sector, la
Comisión no dudará en iniciar una investigación sobre posibles infracciones de las leyes de competencia si se le
proporcionan pruebas a este respecto.

Por lo que se refiere a la propiedad intelectual, el objetivo no será armonizar los regímenes de propiedad intelectual,
sino identificar una serie de cuestiones específicas para abordar las divergencias.

En relación con la información de la sociedad civil, la Comisión es plenamente consciente de la importancia que tiene
establecer un proceso eficaz en el que participen todas las partes afectadas.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/es/parliamentary-questions.html?tabType=wq#sidesForm

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 313

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005019/13**

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

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU-US Free Trade Agreement

Within the framework of the free trade agreement concluded between the United States and the European Union,
there are many unknowns regarding the influence that US companies, which are subject to legislation that differs
greatly from EC law, and which also have a different business and social structure, might have on our economy and
regulation, specifically in the food and drink sector, a sector in which the highest tariffs have been set in relations
between the European Union and the United States.

As a result, there is concern about the influence of multinationals such as Monsanto, a company involved in the
manufacturing of herbicides and transgenic seeds, which forces farmers to buy its products by restricting the use of
those products under sanctions for infringement of intellectual property. This situation has forced farmers to assume
considerable debts which they have later been unable to pay off, leading to multiple cases of suicide in countries such
as India.

This policy pursued by Monsanto has led to a monopolistic attitude which has allowed it to control a large part of the
food market, forcing single-crop farming and the progressive elimination of small farmers. All of this has been carried
out in collusion with government authorities, with the company spending millions of dollars on activities relating to
and influencing the authorities.

Given the above, how will this agreement affect this sector? Can the Commission guarantee that the agreement will
not harm European farmers? In this regard, is the Commission aware of the abuse of dominant positions by large US
multinationals such as Monsanto with regard to pesticides and transgenic foods? Is it aware of the dangers within the
agreement in this regard? Will it include intellectual property as an element of free trade? What transparency
mechanisms will be made available to civil society in order to establish which corporations are directly or indirectly
involved in fulfilling the agreement?

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

_(3 July 2013)_

The Commission will negotiate the EU-US trade and investment agreement in the interest of European citizens and
companies according to the Council’s negotiating guidelines _._ Parliament and the Council will be fully informed about
the process, at all stages of the negotiations.

These negotiations will not be about compromising the health of European consumers for commercial gain. Basic
legislation protecting consumers will not be up for negotiation. In this respect the Honourable Member is referred to
the answer given to previous Written Question E-002504/2013 ( [1] ).

What the Commission hopes to achieve is to minimise trade barriers resulting from the operation of our systems.

The Commission will do the outmost to guarantee the protection of European standards and value in food
production by means of the tools provided for by the relevant EU legislation.

The Commission will also carefully take into account the sensitivities in the EU agricultural markets in order to
minimise any negative impacts of trade liberalisation in case they occur.

As regards potential abuse of a dominant position by market operators in this sector, the Commission will not
hesitate to start an investigation on potential competition laws' infringements if it is provided with evidence in this
respect.

As regards intellectual property, the objective will not be to align intellectual property regimes, but to identify a
number of specific issues where divergences will be addressed.

Regarding the information of civil society, the Commission is fully aware of the importance of establishing an
effective process involving all constituencies concerned.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html?tabType=wq#sidesForm.

C 80 E / 314 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-005020/13**
**an die Kommission (Vizepräsidentin / Hohe Vertreterin)**

**Andreas Mölzer (NI)**

_(7. Mai 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ VP/HR — Südkoreanisches Ultimatum

Seit einigen Wochen verbietet der nordkoreanische Diktator Kim Jong-Un den rund 54 000 nordkoreanischen
Arbeitern, weiterhin in den Fabriken für die 123 südkoreanischen Unternehmen in der gemeinsamen
Sonderwirtschaftszone Kaesong zu arbeiten. Zudem wurde den Managern aus dem Süden die Einreise in die Zone
verweigert. Daraufhin hat Seoul den Norden zu Gesprächen aufgefordert und ein Ultimatum gesetzt.

1. Gibt es auf EU-Ebene Vermittlungsversuche zwischen Nord‐ und Südkorea bzw. sind solche (weiter) geplant?

2. Wird auf EU-Ebene versucht, hinsichtlich der Sonderwirtschaftszone Kaesong als Symbol innerkoreanischer
Zusammenarbeit zu vermitteln?

3. In welchem Ausmaß wappnet sich die EU für den Fall, dass sich die Spannungen zwischen Nord‐ und Südkorea
weiter verstärken?

**Antwort von Frau Ashton — Hohe Vertreterin/Vizepräsidentin im Namen der Kommission**

_(12. Juli 2013)_

Die EU unterstützt konsequent den Dialog, ob im Rahmen der Sechs-Parteien-Gespräche oder der innerkoreanischen
Annäherung. Ziel ist es, Frieden und Stabilität auf der koreanischen Halbinsel zu gewährleisten und eine
Denuklearisierung zu erreichen.

Die Vertrauensbildung in Korea durch Zusammenarbeit und Dialog ist daher nach wie vor von zentraler Bedeutung.
Diese Botschaft vermittelt die EU auch Nordkorea, wann immer sie die Gelegenheit dazu hat.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 315

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005020/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Andreas Mölzer (NI)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — South Korean ultimatum

A few weeks ago, the North Korean dictator, Kim Jong-Un, forbade the around 54 000 North Korean workers to
continue to work in the factories of the 123 South Korean companies in the joint industrial zone of Kaesong. The
managers from South Korea were also refused entry into the zone. Seoul then invited North Korea to enter into talks
and gave it an ultimatum.

1. Are any attempts at conciliation between North and South Korea being carried out at EU level or are any
(further) attempts planned?

2. Are there any attempts to mediate at EU level in relation to the Kaesong special industrial zone being a symbol
of inter-Korean cooperation?

3. To what extent is the EU preparing itself in case tensions between North and South Korea escalate further?

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

_(12 July 2013)_

The EU consistently supports dialogue, whether within the framework of the Six Party Talks or Inter-Korean
reconciliation, as a means of safeguarding peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and achieving denuclearisation.

Inter-Korean trust building via cooperation and dialogue thus remains extremely important. This message is delivered
to the North Korean side whenever the EU has an opportunity.

C 80 E / 316 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005021/13**

**to the Commission**
**Nicole Sinclaire (NI)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Impact assessment on the beneficial use of e-cigarettes

Can the Commission advise me as to whether any impact assessments have been made on the promotion/labelling of
e-cigarettes with a view to helping people to stop smoking?

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

_(24 June 2013)_

The Commission's assessment of the market trends with regard to electronic cigarettes is set out in the Commission's
Impact Assessment accompanying its proposal to revise the Tobacco Products Directive ( [1] ). As illustrated by the impact
assessment, electronic cigarettes which are currently on the market are associated with a number of health and safety
concerns. At the same time, some studies highlight electronic cigarettes' potential as smoking cessation aid.

The Commission, in its proposal to revise the Tobacco Products Directive, foresees that electronic cigarettes
exceeding a certain threshold of nicotine will be subject to the medicinal products legislation. One effect of the
Commission's proposal will be to encourage the potential of electronic cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid. This
would ensure that a proper assessment of the risks and benefits of electronic cigarettes above this threshold would
have to be made before placing them on the market.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) SWD(2012) 452 final, pp. 15-17.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 317

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-005022/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Andreas Mölzer (NI)**

_(7. Mai 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Entlassungen im Staatsdienst — Griechische Mogelpackung

Um seinen Sparwillen zu beweisen, wird Hellas 15 000 Staatsbeamte bis Ende 2014 entlassen. Dafür hat
Griechenland anscheinend Lob und Geld von der EU erhalten. Immerhin haben die Euro-Finanzminister — wohl
unter dem Eindruck des angeblichen Sparwillens — die Freigabe einer weiteren Kredittranche in Höhe von
2,8 Mrd. EUR beschlossen. Wie nun bekannt wurde, sollen indes an anderer Stelle 15 000 Neueinstellungen geplant
sein, was Innenminister Manitakis Ende April bekannt gab. Zudem soll es sich bei den angekündigten Entlassungen
nur um eine vage Ankündigung handeln. Damit entpuppen sich die Entlassungen als Mogelpackung.

1. Wie steht die Kommission zu der Spar-Mogelpackung?

2. Inwieweit waren Sparmaßnahmen beim Staatsdienst Vorbedingung für die Freigabe der weiteren
2,8 Milliarden-Euro-Kredittranche?

3. Gibt es Pläne für den Fall, dass die angekündigten 15 000 vagen Entlassungsabsichten nicht, die angekündigten
15 000 Neueinstellungen indes schon durchgeführt werden?

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

_(14. Juni 2013)_

Griechenland hat bereits erhebliche Fortschritte bei der Rationalisierung der öffentlichen Verwaltung gemacht.
Mithilfe der Regel, wonach nur jeder fünfte aus dem öffentlichen Dienst scheidende Mitarbeiter ersetzt wird, sowie der
gleichzeitigen Anhebung der Zahl der in den Vorruhestand tretenden Personen dürfte die geplante Verschlankung des
öffentlichen Dienstes um mindestens 150 000 Stellen bis Ende 2015 erreicht werden. Diese Regel wird weiter
angewandt ( [1] ).

Die Tranche in Höhe von 2,8 Mrd. EUR wurde erst ausgezahlt, nachdem Griechenland die Personalpläne mit den
Stellenstreichungen fertiggestellt und Quartalsziele für die verbindlichen Abgänge festgelegt hatte. Bei der letzten
Überprüfung wurde das Augenmerk insbesondere auf die Frage gelegt, wie die verbindlich vereinbarten
15 000 Abgänge erreicht werden sollen. Griechenland will diese mittels folgender Maßnahmen erzielen:
i) Disziplinarverfahren, ii) Zusammenlegung bzw. Auflösung von Organisationseinheiten, iii) Bewertung des
Personals im Rahmen des Mobilitätsprogramms, auch vor der Zuweisung neuer Stellen, iv) freiwilliger Ausstieg aus
dem Mobilitätsprogramm und v) Ablauf der Zwölfmonatsfrist des Mobilitätsprogramms.

Die Ausnahme dieser Abgänge von der 1:5-Regel wurde von der Kommission, der EZB und dem IWF mit den
griechischen Behörden vereinbart und gilt nur, solange Griechenland bei seinem Ziel, die Zahl der Beschäftigten im
öffentlichen Dienst bis Ende 2015 um 150 000 zu senken, auf Kurs bleibt. In einer Reihe von vorrangigen Bereichen,
z. B. Steuerprüfung, muss Griechenland qualifiziertes Personal anwerben. Dieser Personalbedarf kann aufgrund der
erforderlichen Qualifikationsprofile nicht in allen Fällen durch interne Umschichtungen gedeckt werden. Der
finanzpolitische Spielraum für diese prioritären Einstellungen wird durch die vereinbarten Abgänge geschaffen. Die
für diese Abgänge geltende Personalersatzregel von 1:1 stärkt die Reform der öffentlichen Verwaltung und wirkt sich
keinesfalls nachteilig auf die Haushaltskonsolidierung in Griechenland aus.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.minfin.gr/content-api/f/binaryChannel/minfin/datastore/8a/17/1f/8a171f0031bf56d68b3f355ebc56822502456f8f/application/pd
f/cr10372.pdf

C 80 E / 318 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005022/13**

**to the Commission**
**Andreas Mölzer (NI)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Redundancies among civil servants — a Greek sham

As proof of its determination to make cuts, Greece has promised to shed 15 000 civil servants by the end of 2014.
Apparently this is something that has gained Greece praise and funding from the EU. Acting on the evidence of an
apparent willingness to cut costs, Europe’s finance ministers approved the release of a further tranche of credit
amounting to EUR 2.8 billion. It has since come to light that 15 000 new positions are planned elsewhere, as
announced by Minister for Home Affairs Mr Manitakis at the end of April. In addition, the announced redundancies
now seem to have been only a vague promise. The job cuts are thus revealed as a sham.

1. What is the position of the Commission with regard to this sham?

2. To what extent was the release of the additional EUR 2.8 billion credit tranche contingent on austerity measures
among the civil service?

3. Are there plans in place in the event that the vaguely announced 15 000 planned redundancies fail to
materialise, while the promised 15 000 new jobs are indeed created?

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

_(14 June 2013)_

Greece has already made substantial progress in downsizing its public administration. The application of rule which
allows replacing only one in five employees exiting the public sector continued with an increase in early retirements is
expected to bring about the targeted reduction of public employment by at least 150 000 by the end of 2015. The
rule continues to be applied ( [1] ).

The disbursement of the EUR 2.8 billion tranche was made only after Greece completed staffing plans, identifying
redundant positions and after setting quarterly targets for mandatory exits. Particular focus was placed during the last
review mission on the identification of how the 15 000 mandatory exists agreed would be achieved. Greece went
specified that the exits will come from _(_ i) disciplinary cases, (ii) mergers and abolishment of entities (iii) evaluation of
the personnel using the mobility scheme, including before any reallocation to a new position, (iv) voluntary exits
from the mobility scheme and (v) the elapse of a 12-month period in the mobility scheme.

The derogation of the 1:5 attrition rule for these exits was agreed by the EC/ECB/IMF with the Greek authorities, and
will only be applied as long as Greece remains on track for respecting its overall target of a reduction of public sector
employees of 150 000 by end-2015. Greece needs to recruit qualified staff in a number of priority areas such as tax
auditing. The staffing needs cannot always be met through internal transfers due to special qualification requirements.
The fiscal space for this priority hiring will come from the exits agreed. The 1:1 attrition rule for these exits reinforces
public administration reform efforts and in no way is detrimental to the fiscal adjustment process in Greece.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) [http://www.minfin.gr/content-api/f/binaryChannel/minfin/datastore/8a/17/1f/8a171f0031bf56d68b3f355ebc568225024](http://www.minfin.gr/content-api/f/binaryChannel/minfin/datastore/8a/17/1f/8a171f0031bf56d68b3f355ebc568225024)
56f8f/application/pdf/cr10372.pdf

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 319

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-005023/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Andreas Mölzer (NI)**

_(7. Mai 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

In Bezug auf den Europarat bzw. den Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte besteht in Großbritannien
offensichtlich Diskussionsbedarf. Laut der österreichischen Tageszeitung „Die Presse“ hat die britische
Innenministerin Theresa May bei einer Veranstaltung der Ideenschmiede „Conservative Home“ einen Rückzug
Großbritanniens aus dem Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte in Aussicht gestellt.

Laut der britischen Innenministerin ist die Institution mit Sitz in Straßburg überlastet und greift zu stark in nationale
Entscheidungen ein. Zum letzten offenen Konflikt kam es im Jänner 2012, als die Straßburger Richter die
Abschiebung des in London lebenden Islamisten Abu Qatada nach Jordanien untersagten mit der Begründung, der
Al-Qaida nahestehende Prediger könnte in Jordanien gefoltert werden. Diese Vorgehensweise wird von der britischen
Regierung stark kritisiert, da die Gerichte in Großbritannien den Mann zur Abschiebung freigegeben haben und der
Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte sich mit seiner Vorgehensweise über die nationalen Entscheidungen
hinweggesetzt hat.

1. Zeigen weitere EU-Mitgliedstaaten ähnliche Bedenken und kündigten eventuell bereits ebenfalls einen Rückzug
vom Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte an?

2. Welchen Standpunkt nimmt die EU bezüglich der Ankündigung der britischen Innenministerin ein?

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

_(8. Juli 2013)_

Die Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention ist wesentlicher Bestandteil des Schutzes der Grundrechte auf
europäischer Ebene. Alle Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union sind der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention
beigetreten. Die Kommission hält es nicht für angebracht, zu den hypothetischen Vorgehensweisen eines
Mitgliedstaats, der der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention beigetreten ist, Stellung zu nehmen.

C 80 E / 320 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005023/13**

**to the Commission**
**Andreas Mölzer (NI)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ European Court of Human Rights

There is clearly a need for discussion in the United Kingdom with regard to the Council of Europe and the European
Court of Human Rights. According to the Austrian daily newspaper _Die Presse_, at an event organised by the think tank
Conservative Home, the UK Home Secretary, Theresa May, indicated that the United Kingdom might withdraw from
the European Court of Human Rights.

According to the UK Home Secretary, the institution, based in Strasbourg, overburdens and interferes too much in
national decisions. The most recent open conflict was in January 2012, when the judges in Strasbourg refused to
allow the deportation to Jordan of the Islamist Abu Qatada, who was living in London, with the justification that the
Al-Qaida-affiliated preacher could be tortured in Jordan. This approach is strongly criticised by the UK Government,
as the courts in the United Kingdom have released this man for deportation and the line taken by the European Court
of Human Rights disregarded the national decisions.

1. Are other EU Member States indicating similar concerns and have any also already announced their withdrawal
from the European Court of Human Rights?

2. What is the EU’s position with regard to the announcement made by the UK Home Secretary?

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

_(8 July 2013)_

The European Convention on Human Rights is an essential component of the protection of fundamental rights at
European level. All Member States of the European Union are parties to the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Commission does not consider it appropriate to comment on hypothetical situations regarding the position of a
Member State as a party to the European Convention of Human Rights.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 321

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005024/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Fiona Hall (ALDE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Corruption in Indonesia's judicial system

Despite attempts to make government institutions more transparent, there is continuing corruption in Indonesia’s
judicial system and radical influences remain present.

This has serious implications for individuals who receive criminal sentences. Indonesia recently carried out its first
execution in four years and a British citizen, Lyndsey Sandiford, has been handed a death sentence for drugs charges,
despite recommendations that she be given a custodial sentence.

The use of the death penalty as punishment is unacceptable, and directly contradicts the policy and human rights
agenda of the European External Action Service (EEAS).

1. What is the EEAS doing to assist individuals affected by continuing corruption in Indonesia’s judicial system?

2. How will the EEAS encourage the Indonesian Government to issue a moratorium on the death penalty?

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

_(5 July 2013)_

1. The EU is opposed to the death penalty everywhere and on any grounds, and has consistently called for its
universal abolition. As regards individual EU nationals facing the death penalty, the course of action, first and
foremost, lies with the specific Member State concerned, in the context of consular protection.

2. The EEAS hopes that Indonesia will join the community of states that have abolished the death penalty. In this
regard, the Indonesian authorities were recently demarched on two occasions. The EEAS notes that Indonesia had
previously indicated that it was moving away from the death penalty, taking a positive step forward by abstaining in
the 67th UNGA resolution on the death penalty moratorium. The EEAS underlines the respect that the Indonesian
moratorium won around the world and will continue to encourage the country to come back to its previous
moratorium position, including by raising the issue at the forthcoming EU-Indonesia Human Rights Dialogue.

C 80 E / 322 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-005025/13**

**do Komisji**
**Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska (PPE)**

_(7 maja 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Przewóz nieposkromionych koni na duże odległości

Rozporządzenie Rady (WE) nr 1/2005 zabrania przewozu nieposkromionych koni w czasie dłuższym niż osiem
godzin. Młode konie radzą sobie dużo gorzej ze stresem spowodowanym długą podróżą niż starsze konie.

Badania i kontrole prowadzone na przestrzeni lat pokazują jednak, że znaczna większość koni przewożonych
z Hiszpanii do Włoch celem dokonania uboju to konie nieposkromione. Zezwolenia na te przewozy wydają władze
w miejscach wysyłki w Hiszpanii, co odbywa się z naruszeniem rozporządzenia Rady (WE) nr 1/2005. Kontrole
przeprowadzane przez władze we Włoszech (kraj przeznaczenia) i Francji (kraj tranzytu) nie są w żadnej mierze
wystarczające. Na przykład w 2009 r. we Włoszech ani razu nie zastosowano sankcji w związku z przewozem
nieposkromionych koni na duże odległości z Hiszpanii, zaś w 2010 r. sankcje nałożono tylko w trzech przypadkach.

Jak Komisja zamierza rozwiązać kwestię systematycznego i notorycznego niewywiązywania się przez hiszpańskie,
włoskie i francuskie władze z obowiązku wdrożenia rozporządzenia Rady (WE) nr 1/2005?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Tonia Borga w imieniu Komisji**

_(25 czerwca 2013 r.)_

Zgodnie z załącznikiem I rozdział VI pkt 1.9 rozporządzenia (WE) nr 1/2005 w sprawie ochrony zwierząt podczas
transportu ( [1] ), długotrwały przewóz w przypadku nieujeżdżanych koni nie jest dozwolony. Z art. 2 lit. y) wynika, że
nieujarzmione konie, to konie które „nie mogą zostać związane lub prowadzone na uwięzi bez spowodowania
niepotrzebnego pobudzenia, bólu lub cierpienia.”

To państwa członkowskie są przede wszystkim odpowiedzialne za bieżące wdrażanie i egzekwowanie
rozporządzenia 1/2005, w tym zakazu transportu nieujarzmionych koni na duże odległości. Komisja jest
odpowiedzialna za zagwarantowanie prawidłowego stosowania prawa UE i przeprowadzanie audytów zgodności
prawodawstwa państw członkowskich z wymogami prawodawstwa UE w zakresie dobrostanu zwierząt poprzez
Biuro ds. Żywności i Weterynarii przy Dyrekcji Generalnej Komisji Europejskiej ds. Zdrowia i Konsumentów.

Biuro ds. Żywności i Weterynarii nie wykryło systematycznego niewywiązywania się przez właściwe organy Włoch
lub Hiszpanii z obowiązku wdrożenia prawodawstwa UE w zakresie transportu nieujarzmionych koni i w związku
z tym Komisja nie wszczęła żadnych środków naprawczych w odniesieniu do tej kwestii. Jeżeli jednak Komisja
otrzyma konkretne informacje wskazujące na to, że niektóre państwa członkowskie nie wdrożyły w wystarczającym
stopniu tej zasady, zajmie się dalszym zbadaniem tej sprawy.

Ponadto jednym z głównych celów przyjętej niedawno decyzji Komisji w sprawie rocznych sprawozdań państw
członkowskich dotyczących kontroli transportu zwierząt ( [2] ), jest uzyskiwanie lepszych i bardziej porównywalnych
danych z państw członkowskich, dotyczących liczby i wyników przeprowadzonych kontroli urzędowych. Można
oczekiwać, że umożliwi to państwom członkowskim i Komisji bardziej precyzyjne określenie obszarów, w których
wykorzystanie zasobów służących do egzekwowania prawa i przeprowadzania audytów może przynieść najlepsze
skutki.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Rozporządzenie Rady (WE) nr 1/2005 z dnia 22 grudnia 2004 r. w sprawie ochrony zwierząt podczas transportu i związanych z tym działań

oraz zmieniające dyrektywy 64/432/EWG i 93/119/WE oraz rozporządzenie (WE) nr 1255/97. Dz.U. L 3 z 5.1.2005, s. 1.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Decyzja wykonawcza Komisji z dnia 18 kwietnia 2013 r. w sprawie rocznych sprawozdań dotyczących niedyskryminacyjnych kontroli

przeprowadzanych na podstawie rozporządzenia Rady (WE) nr 1/2005 w sprawie ochrony zwierząt podczas transportu, 2013/188/UE. Dz.U.
L 111 z 23.4.2013, s. 107.

( **|**

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 323

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005025/13**

**to the Commission**
**Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Long-distance transport of unbroken horses

Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 forbids the transport of unbroken horses on journeys exceeding eight hours.
These young horses cope even less well than older horses with the stress of long journeys.

However, investigations and checks carried out over the years have shown that the vast majority of horses
transported from Spain to Italy for the purpose of being slaughtered are unbroken. This transport is authorised by the
authorities at the places of departure in Spain, in violation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005. Checks carried out
by the authorities in Italy (country of destination) and France (transit country) are wholly insufficient. For example, in
2009 no sanctions were applied in Italy in respect of unbroken horses transported on long journeys from Spain, and
in 2010 only three sanctions were imposed.

How does the Commission intend to rectify this systematic and ongoing failure by the Spanish, Italian and French
authorities to enforce Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005?

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

_(25 June 2013)_

According to Annex I, Chapter VI, paragraph 1.9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection of animals during
transport ( [1] ), unbroken horses shall not be transported on long journeys. An unbroken horse is defined in
Article 2(y) as a horse that ‘cannot be tied or led by a halter without causing avoidable excitement, pain or suffering.’

It is the Member States that are primarily responsible for the daily implementation and enforcement of Regulation
1/2005, including the ban on transporting unbroken horses on long journeys. The Commission is responsible for
ensuring that the EC law is correctly applied, and audits Member States' compliance with the requirements of EU
animal welfare legislation via its Food and Veterinary Office of the Commission's Health and Consumers Directorate
General (FVO).

FVO has not detected a systematic failure of the competent authorities of Italy or Spain to implement the EUlegislation in relation to the transport of unbroken horses and the Commission has therefore not initiated any
corrective measures in relation to this issue. However, should the Commission receive specific information indicating
that some Member States do not implement sufficiently this rule, it would investigate the matter further.

Furthermore one of the main objectives of the recently adopted Commission Decision on Member States' annual
reports on controls of animal transports ( [2] ), requires better and more comparable data from the Member States
regarding the number and outcome of performed official controls. This can be expected to allow Member States and
the Commission to assess more precisely where enforcement and audit resources can best be deployed to greater
effect.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending

Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97, OJ L 3, 5.1.2005, p. 1.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Commission implementing Decision of 18 April 2013 on annual reports on non-discriminatory inspections carried out pursuant to Council

Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport, 2013/188/EU, OJ L 111, 23.4.2013, p. 107.

( **|**

C 80 E / 324 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-005026/13**

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

**Fiorello Provera (EFD)**

_(7 maggio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Sponsorizzazione da parte dell'UNDP di un torneo in onore del terrorista Abu Jihad

Il 2 maggio 2013 Palestinian Media Watch ha riportato la notizia che il Programma delle Nazioni Unite per lo
sviluppo (UNDP) ha sponsorizzato la società calcistica Ansar Al-Quds in quanto organizzatrice del torneo di calcio
«Prince of Martyrs Khalil Al-Wazir Abu Jihad» in Cisgiordania.

L'UNDP ha stanziato 25 000 USD per il torneo in onore di Al-Wazir Abu Jihad, fondatore di Fatah, che ha orchestrato
attacchi terroristici che hanno provocato la morte di almeno 125 israeliani.

Intervenendo a nome di Mahmoud Abbas, presidente dell'Autorità nazionale palestinese, Talal Dweikat, governatore
del distretto di Jenin, ha descritto l'evento come il 25° anniversario del «martirio» di Abu Jihad, affermando che «oggi
ricorre l'anniversario di Abu Jihad, uno dei giganti ed eroi che hanno scritto pagine di eroismo, e nell'anniversario del
suo martirio celebriamo le migliaia di combattenti e prigionieri che si sono sacrificati per la loro patria».

Questa non è la prima volta che un'organizzazione delle Nazioni Unite viene associata all'esaltazione del terrorismo e
alla promozione dell'odio da parte dei palestinesi.

1. È il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante a conoscenza del sostegno diretto e indiretto dell'UNDP alla
propaganda terroristica?

2. Quali misure intende adottare per garantire che i soldi dei contribuenti dell'UE non vadano a finanziare attività
che promuovono il terrorismo?

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

_(3 luglio 2013)_

Secondo le informazioni fornite dai rappresentanti del Programma delle Nazioni Unite per lo sviluppo (PNUS)
all'AR/VP, il PNUS non svolge alcun ruolo nel torneo e non è stato informato di questa attività. Il logo del PNUS è
stato utilizzato senza previa autorizzazione e, in ogni caso, non è il logo ufficiale dell'organizzazione. Il contributo del
PNUS alla società Ansar Al-Quds è consistito in una sovvenzione di 25 000 USD per finanziare l'allenamento e
l'equipaggiamento di una squadra di calcio (affitto del campo, allenatore, telecamere, attrezzature sportive, ecc.). In
seguito all'incidente, il PNUS ha chiesto al club di ritirare immediatamente il «logo del PNUS» da tutto il materiale
pubblico e di non utilizzarlo per nessun evento o attività senza la sua autorizzazione esplicita. Il PNUS continuerà ad
adoperarsi con il massimo impegno per garantire la debita sorveglianza di tutti i beneficiari di sovvenzioni. Un'analisi
approfondita dei beneficiari dei finanziamenti UE fa parte integrante delle procedure di valutazione dell'ammissibilità,
di selezione e di assegnazione seguite dalla Commissione.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 325

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005026/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — UNDP sponsors tournament in honour of terrorist Abu Jihad

On 2 May 2013 Palestinian Media Watch reported that the UN’s Development Programme (UNDP) has sponsored the
Ansar Al-Quds football club in its capacity as organiser of the ‘Prince of Martyrs Khalil Al-Wazir Abu Jihad Football
Tournament’ held in the West Bank.

The UNDP has provided USD 25 000 for the tournament, held in honour of Fatah’s founder Al-Wazir Abu Jihad, who
orchestrated terror attacks which killed at least 125 Israelis.

Speaking on behalf of Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Talal Dweikat, Governor of Jenin
District, described the event as the 25th anniversary of Abu Jihad’s ‘Martyrdom death’, declaring that ‘today, we mark
Abu Jihad’s anniversary, one of the giants and heroes who wrote epics of bravery, and on the anniversary of his
Martyrdom death we see the thousands of fighters and prisoners who sacrificed for their homeland’.

This is not the first time a UN organisation has been associated with the Palestinians’ glorification of terrorism and
promotion of hatred.

1. Is the Vice-President/High Representative aware of the UNDP’s direct and indirect sponsorship of terrorist
propaganda?

2. What actions is the Vice-President/High Representative ready to take to ensure that no EU taxpayer money is
involved in activities promoting terrorism?

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

_(3 July 2013)_

Acording to the information provided by UNDP representatives to the HR/VP, UNDP had no role in the tournament,
its naming or any other activity related to it. UNDP was not informed about the activity in question. The UNDP logo
in this event was used without any prior authorisation from UNDP and is not, in any case, the official logo of the
organisation. UNDP’s contribution to Ansar Al-Quds club was through a grant of USD 25,000, to finance the training
and equipment of a soccer team for the club(rent of ground, coach, cameras, sports equipment, etc.). Following this
incident, UNDP has asked the club, with immediate effect, to withdraw the ‘UNDP logo’ from all public material, and
not to use its logo for any events or activities, without its prior, explicit authorisation. UNDP will continue to make
every effort to ensure due diligence on all beneficiaries of grants. A detailed assessment of beneficiaries of the EU
funding is an integral part of the eligibility, selection and award process followed by the Commission.

C 80 E / 326 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-005028/13**

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

_(7 mai 2013)_

_Objet:_ Échalote de semis et échalote traditionnelle

Avec l'évolution de la création variétale à l'origine du développement de l' _échalote issue de semis_, de nombreux débats
ont pris place ces dernières années, au niveau européen, autour de la défense de l'appellation «échalote».

L'inscription de variétés nouvelles d'échalotes aux catalogues nationaux puis européen est, depuis 2005, soumise à
l'obligation de respecter un protocole technique, celui de l'OCVV (Office communautaire des variétés végétales,
chargé de la protection communautaire des obtentions végétales). Ce cadre strict d'examen permet de différencier
avec précision, en deux années de cultures, l'échalote de l'oignon, en s'assurant en particulier que le caractère
aggrégatum propre à l'échalote (forte tendance à la division) est bien respecté.

Aujourd'hui, il semble que certaines variétés de semis n'ont pas respecté le protocole technique en question.

Des essais conduits en 2011 par le GEVES (groupe d'étude et de contrôle des variétés et des semences) prouvent que le
caractère aggrégatum de certaines de ces variétés est inférieur au seuil fixé pour que celles-ci soient qualifiées
d'«échalotes».

Plusieurs de ces variétés d'allium sont donc inscrites au catalogue officiel «échalote», alors qu'elles n'en sont pas, et
commercialisées sous le nom d'échalote. Il s'agit des variétés Conservor, Picador, Armador, Camelot, Ambition
et Obelisk.

1. Quel contrôle l'OCVV exerce-t-il sur l'inscription des variétés végétales? Cet éventuel contrôle fonctionne-t-il
correctement?

2. La Commission a-t-elle été alertée de cette mauvaise application du protocole de l'OCVV? Mène-t-elle déjà des
enquêtes?

3. Dans le cas où ces faits seraient avérés, quelles mesures rapides la Commission compte-t-elle mettre en œuvre
pour faire cesser cette concurrence illégale, qui met en péril la filière de l'échalote traditionnelle?

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

_(20 juin 2013)_

1. Les variétés en question ont été acceptées dans le catalogue national des Pays-Bas et ont, de plus, été inscrites au
catalogue commun des variétés des espèces agricoles, conformément aux dispositions de la directive 2002/55/CE ( [1] ).
Ces dernières n'attribuent pas de rôle à l'OCVV pour ce qui est de l'analyse des variétés ou de leur inscription aux
catalogues nationaux et européen.

2./3. La Commission n'a pas été alertée de la défaillance mentionnée dans la question. Elle prendra contact avec
l'autorité compétente en France, où GEVES est active, ainsi qu'avec l'autorité compétente aux Pays-Bas et l'OCVV pour
juger de la nécessité de se pencher sur le protocole technique s'appliquant aux variétés d'échalote. Sur la base de ces
échanges, elle décidera des suites à donner.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) JO L 193 du 20.7.2002, pp. 33-59.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 327

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005028/13**

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

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Seed shallots and traditional shallots

As a result of the breeding behind the development of ‘shallots grown from seed’, there have been countless debates at
EU level on the protection of the designation ‘shallot’ over recent years.

Since 2005, the inclusion of new shallot varieties in national catalogues and subsequently the European catalogue has
been subject to compliance with a technical protocol established by the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO),
which is responsible for the protection of plant variety rights in the EU. This strict examination framework enables
shallots to be accurately differentiated from onions by growing them over a period of two years and verifying in
particular that the strong tendency to split into bulblets peculiar to shallots is respected.

Today it appears that certain varieties of seed have not complied with the technical protocol in question.

Tests conducted in 2011 by GEVES (French Group for the Study and Inspection of Varieties and Seeds) demonstrate
that the tendency to split into bulblets of some of these varieties is lower than the threshold established in order for
them to be considered as ‘shallots’.

Several of these allium varieties are therefore included in the official ‘shallot’ catalogue and marketed as such, whereas
they are not shallots. The varieties concerned are: Conservor, Picador, Armador, Camelot, Ambition and Obelisk.

1. What control does CPVO have over the inclusion of plant varieties? Should this control exist, is it functioning
correctly?

2. Has the Commission been notified of the failure to implement the CPVO protocol correctly? Is it already
investigating this?

3. In the event that these facts are verified, what rapid measures will the Commission put in place to end this illegal
competition, which is jeopardising the ‘traditional shallot’ sector?

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

_(20 June 2013)_

1. The varieties in question have been accepted in the national catalogue of the Netherlands, and further have been
included in the Common Catalogue of Agricultural Plant Species pursuant to the provisions of
Directive 2002/55/EC ( [1] ). Those provisions do not set out any role for CPVO in the testing and acceptance of varieties
in national or Common Catalogues.

2-3. The Commission has not been notified of the failure indicated by the question. It will contact the competent
authority of France, where GEVES operates, the competent authority of the Netherlands, and CPVO to assess the
necessity to work on the technical protocol for shallot types. On the basis of those contacts, the Commission will
decide on the subsequent action.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 193, 20.7.2002, p. 33‐59.

C 80 E / 328 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-005029/13**

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

**Barbara Matera (PPE)**

_(7 maggio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Caso Yuliya Tymoshenko

Secondo il Presidente ucraino Viktor Yanukovich, è troppo presto per accordare la grazia a Yuliya Tymoshenko, l'ex
premier ucraina condannata a sette anni di prigione nell'ottobre 2011 per abuso di potere nell'ambito di una vicenda
legata alla crisi del gas del 2009 con la Russia, conclusa dalla Tymoshenko con concessioni sui prezzi da pagare a
Mosca, considerati eccessivi e troppo vantaggiosi per la Russia. A questo si aggiungono l'ombra di un nuovo processo
per evasione fiscale e per frode e un'inchiesta sul caso di omicidio nel 1996 di un rivale in affari, Yevhen Shcherban,
che la vede coinvolta insieme a un altro ex premier, Pavlo Lazarenko, come mandante.

Ma da Kharkiv, dove è rinchiusa, la Tymoshenko è divenuta il principale freno all'avvicinamento dell'Ucraina
all'Unione europea e alla conclusione di accordi di associazione politica e di libero scambio. Da oggi, l'isolamento
dell'Ucraina sarà accentuato ancor di più da una sentenza della Corte europea dei diritti dell'uomo di Strasburgo:
secondo i giudici, la detenzione in attesa di giudizio subita da Yuliya Tymoshenko nel 2011 è stata «illegittima e
arbitraria», e ha violato il diritto dell'ex premier — che accusa l'attuale Presidente Viktor Yanukovich di aver
orchestrato contro di lei una vendetta politica — a una revisione. La Corte delibererà separatamente sulla condanna
inflitta, mentre non ha sostenuto la denuncia di maltrattamenti fisici che la Tymoshenko avrebbe subito in carcere.

La Tymoshenko, cinquantadue anni, è stata per due volte Primo ministro in Ucraina prima di essere sconfitta da
Yanukovich alle elezioni del 2010; per lui fu una rivincita, dopo il tentativo di arrivare alla presidenza bloccato nel
2004 dalla rivoluzione arancione.

A tal proposito, si chiede al Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante quanto segue:

1. l'UE può premere affinché l'Ucraina riformi il proprio sistema giudiziario per limitare casi politicamente
motivati e processi che non rispettano le norme internazionali in materia di procedimenti equi, trasparenti e
indipendenti?

2. L'UE può far pressione sul governo ucraino affinché a Yuliya Tymoshenko sia garantito un equo processo?

3. In quale modo l'UE entra in contatto con le ONG locali che lottano in difesa dei diritti umani e di una giustizia
amministrativa equa?

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

_(24 giugno 2013)_

L’UE ha adottato una politica di impegno con l’Ucraina. Gli elementi alla base di questa cooperazione bilaterale sono
gli impegni congiunti, riguardanti anche la democrazia, lo Stato di diritto e i diritti umani. Sia l’AR/VP che la
Commissione condividono le preoccupazioni del Parlamento relative all’uso selettivo della giustizia, ovvero alle
condanne per motivi politici di leader dell’opposizione dopo processi che non hanno rispettato le norme
internazionali su un procedimento giudiziario equo, trasparente e indipendente.

La sentenza della CEDU del 30 aprile scorso ha rafforzato l’invito dell’UE all’Ucraina a riconsiderare attentamente la
situazione dell’ex premier Yuliya Tymoshenko e a intensificare l’impegno ad attuare riforme per porre rimedio alle
lacune processuali sistemiche individuate in tale sentenza. Nel quadro di una riforma giudiziaria globale che prevenga
il ripetersi di decisioni arbitrarie e di preoccupazioni per l’uso selettivo della giustizia. Affrontare la questione della
giustizia selettiva e evitarne la reiterazione attraverso la riforma giudiziaria continuano ad essere due parametri di
riferimento definiti il 10 dicembre 2012 dal Consiglio «Affari esteri». L’eventuale firma dell’accordo di
associazione/DCFTA con l’Ucraina dipenderà dall’impegno dell’Ucraina ad agire con determinazione e dai risultati
concreti ottenuti riguardo gli aspetti indicati nelle Conclusioni del Consiglio.

Al fine di garantire una società democratica e un sistema giudiziario in linea con le norme dell’UE, la società civile
locale viene consultata regolarmente anche tramite la delegazione dell’UE a Kiev e a Bruxelles. Ad esempio, il SEAE ha
consultato la società civile locale il 21 maggio 2013 a Bruxelles prima della riunione del sottocomitato «Giustizia,
libertà e sicurezza» in cui sono stati ampiamente discussi i diritti umani e lo Stato di diritto.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 329

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005029/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Barbara Matera (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Yulia Tymoshenko case

According to Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, it is too soon to pardon Yulia Tymoshenko, the former Prime
Minister of Ukraine who was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment in October 2011 for abuse of office in a matter
relating to the 2009 gas crisis with Russia, which Ms Tymoshenko ended by obtaining concessions on the prices paid
to Moscow, which were considered excessive and too favourable to Russia. On top of this, Ms Tymoshenko is facing a
new trial for tax evasion and fraud and is being investigated in connection with the 1996 murder of a business rival,
Yevhen Shcherban, which she and another former prime minister, Pavlo Lazarenko, are accused of ordering.

However, from Kharkiv, where she is imprisoned, Ms Tymoshenko has become the main obstacle preventing Ukraine
from moving closer to the European Union and concluding political association and free trade agreements with it.
From today, Ukraine will become even more isolated as a result of a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in
Strasbourg: according to the judges, the pre-trial detention of Yulia Tymoshenko in 2011 was ‘arbitrary and
unlawful’, and violated the right of the former prime minister — who accuses the current President, Viktor
Yanukovych, of pursuing a political vendetta against her — to a legal review. The Court will give a separate ruling on
the sentence imposed, whereas it failed to uphold the accusation of physical mistreatment that Ms Tymoshenko is
alleged to have suffered in prison.

Ms Tymoshenko, 52, served as Prime Minister of Ukraine twice before her defeat to Viktor Yanukovych in the 2010
elections; for him it was about payback, after his attempt to become president was blocked in 2004 by the Orange
Revolution.

1. Can the Vice-President/High Representative say whether the EU can urge Ukraine to reform its judicial system
so as to limit politically motivated cases and trials that do not respect international standards as regards fair,
transparent and independent legal process?

2. Can the EU put pressure on the Ukrainian Government so that Yulia Tymoshenko is guaranteed a fair trial?

3. How does the EU engage with local non-governmental organisations campaigning for human rights and fair
administrative justice?

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

_(24 June 2013)_

The EU is committed to a policy of engagement with Ukraine. Joint commitments, including as regards democracy,
rule of law and human rights are cornerstone to our bilateral cooperation. Both the HR/VP and the Commission share
the Parliament's concerns regarding the selective use of justice, i.e. politically motivated convictions of opposition
leaders with Court verdicts that came after trials which did not respect international standards as regards fair,
transparent and independent legal process.

The ECHR judgment on April 30th reinforced EU's call on Ukraine to reconsider thoroughly the situation of the
former prime minister Ms Y. Tymoshenko and to step up its engagement for reforms to remedy the systemic
procedural shortcomings identified in this ruling as part of a comprehensive judiciary reform to prevent any
recurrence of arbitrary decisions and concerns of selective use of justice. Addressing the cases of selective justice and
preventing recurrence through judicial reform remains part of the benchmarks set out in the 10 December 2012
Foreign Affairs Council. The possible signing of the Association Agreement/DCFTA with Ukraine will depend on
whether Ukraine undertakes determined action and produces tangible progress on the issues set out in Conclusions

With a view to ensuring a democratic society and a judicial system in line with EU standards, local civil society are
consulted regularly including by the EU Delegation in Kyiv and in Brussels. For example, the EEAS consulted local
civil society on 21 May 2013 in Brussels prior to the JLS Subcommittee where human rights issues and the rule of law
were extensively discussed.

C 80 E / 330 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-005030/13**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE)**

_(7 mai 2013)_

_Subiect:_ Transpunerea excesivă de către România a Directivei 2000/43/CE în domeniul discriminării

În baza Directivei 2000/43/CE, România a adoptat Ordonanța Guvernului nr. 137/2000, cu modificările și
completările ulterioare. Conform articolului 10 litera (c), respectiv (d) din respectiva ordonanță, în forma ei actuală,
constituie fapte de discriminare „refuzul de a vinde sau de a închiria un teren sau imobil cu destinație de locuință” și
„refuzul de a acorda un credit bancar sau de a încheia orice alt tip de contract”.

Directiva a cărei transpunere se realizează prin ordonanța în cauză prevede cu totul altceva, în materie locativă și
contractuală. În speță, la articolul 3 alineatul (1) literele (a) și (h) din directivă sunt reglementate contractele de muncă,
respectiv „accesul la bunuri și servicii și furnizarea acestora, la dispoziția publicului, inclusiv în ceea ce privește
locuința”.

După cum se vede, dispozițiile ordonanței depășesc cu mult dispozițiile directivei, deoarece aceasta din urmă
reglementează, așa cum este și normal, situațiile în care o persoană este discriminată prin refuz, deși bunurile,
serviciile sau contractele sunt adresate publicului (adică oricui, în general prin reclamă). În aceste condiții, se ajunge la
situația absurdă ca anumite contracte, prin natura lor _intuitu personae_, să nu poată fi încheiate prin libera alegere a cocontractantului, după criteriile intime ale contractantului, ceea ce constituie o încălcare a dreptului de proprietate și a
libertății contractuale. Altfel spus, proprietarul unui apartament nu îl poate vinde sau închiria cui consideră el de
cuviință. Sau o persoană nu poate refuza încheierea unui contract de societate, de exemplu, cu o altă persoană.
Contractele de vânzare-cumpărare, de închiriere sau de societate încheiate _ut singuli_ sunt _intuitu personae_, iar criteriile
de alegere a co-contractantului nu pot fi cenzurate în niciun fel. Aceste contracte nu presupun o „ofertă adresată
publicului”, ci o selectare a co-contractantului. Situații de „ofertă către public” în materie de terenuri și locuințe ar fi
atunci când Primăria, de exemplu, vinde loturi pentru construirea de locuințe sau când un dezvoltator imobiliar vinde
apartamente ori case într-un complex imobiliar.

În concluzie, consideră Comisia că includerea contractelor de vânzare a unui teren sau de vânzare ori închiriere a unei
locuințe, precum și a oricăror alte contracte, precum cele _intuitu personae_, în categoria faptelor discriminatorii
reprezintă o transpunere excesivă și defectuoasă a Directivei 2000/43/CE?

**Răspuns dat de dna Reding în numele Comisiei**

_(8 iulie 2013)_

Directiva 2000/43/CE interzice discriminarea pe criterii de rasă sau de origine etnică în diferite domenii, printre care
și „accesul la bunuri și servicii și furnizarea acestora, la dispoziția publicului, inclusiv în ceea ce privește locuința”.
Interzicerea discriminării se aplică atât sectorului public, cât și celui privat, inclusiv organismelor publice.

Directiva stabilește standarde minime. Aceasta înseamnă că statele membre au dreptul să depășească nivelul de
protecție împotriva discriminării prevăzut în directivă. În cazul în care un stat membru decide să depășească
standardele minime, este important ca acesta să garanteze un echilibru între protecția împotriva discriminării și
protecția altor drepturi, cum ar fi drepturile de proprietate și libertatea contractuală.

Având în vedere cele menționate mai sus, Comisia nu are niciun motiv să considere că Ordonanța Guvernului
nr. 137/2000 ar transpune incorect Directiva 2000/43/CE.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 331

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005030/13**

**to the Commission**
**Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Excessive transposition by Romania of Directive 2000/43/EC on discrimination

Based on Directive 2000/43/EC, Romania has adopted Government Ordinance No 137/2000, with subsequent
amendments and additions. According to Article 10(c) and (d) of this Ordinance, in its present form, ‘refusal to sell or
to rent a piece of land or building for housing purposes’ and ‘refusal to grant a bank loan or to conclude any other
type of contract’ constitute discriminatory acts.

The directive, the transposition of which is achieved through the relevant Ordinance, provides for something entirely
different in the residential and contractual fields. In particular, employment contracts are regulated in Article 3(1)
(a) and (h) of the directive, which states, ‘access to and supply of goods and services which are available to the public,
including housing’.

As is apparent, the Ordinance’s provisions greatly exceed the directive’s provisions, as the latter regulates, as one
would expect, situations where a person is discriminated against as a result of denial, despite the goods, services or
contracts being publicly available (i.e. to anyone, generally, through advertising). Under these circumstances, an
absurd situation has been reached where certain contracts, through their _intuitu personae_ nature, cannot be concluded
through the free choice of the co-contractor, according to the private criteria of the contracting party. This constitutes
a violation of the right of ownership and contractual freedom. In other words, an apartment owner cannot sell or rent
it to whomever he considers suitable. Also, a person cannot refuse to conclude a partnership contract with, for
example, another person. Sale-purchase, rental or partnership contracts concluded _ut singuli_ are _intuitu personae_, and
the criteria for co-contractor selection cannot be censored in any way. These contracts do not presuppose a ‘public
offer’, but instead a selection of the co-contractor. ‘Public offer’ situations regarding land and housing are when the
local council, for example, sells land for house building or when a property developer sells apartments or houses in a
housing complex.

In conclusion, does the Commission believe that the inclusion of land sale contracts or housing sale or rental
contracts, as well as any other contracts, such as _intuitu personae_ contracts, represents an excessive and defective
transposition of Directive 2000/43/EC in the category of discriminatory acts?

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

_(8 July 2013)_

Directive 2000/43/EC prohibits discrimination on the grounds of racial or ethnical origin in the different areas,
including in the area of ‘access to and supply of goods and services which are available to the public, including
housing’. The prohibition of discrimination applies to both the public and the private sectors, including public bodies.

The directive establishes minimum standards. This means that Member States are free to go beyond the level of
protection against discrimination as provided for in the directive. If a Member State decides to go beyond the
minimum standards, it is primarily for the Member State to balance the protection against discrimination with the
protection of other rights such as ownership rights and contractual freedom.

In light of the above, the Commission has no reason to believe that the Romanian Governmental Ordinance
137/2000 incorrectly transposes Directive 2000/43/EC.

C 80 E / 332 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005031/13**

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

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Mali — captura de um islamita francês

Foi recentemente capturado no Mali um cidadão francês que combateu ao lado das forças rebeldes islamitas contra os
exércitos maliano e francês. Esta circunstância inquietante levanta novamente a questão de saber de que modo a
União Europeia e os Estados-Membros lidarão com a possibilidade de nacionais seus abraçarem lealdades «jihadistas»
e se envolverem em atividades terroristas dentro e fora do território europeu.

Assim, pergunto à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante:

—
Dispõe de informações a propósito do cidadão francês capturado?

—
Como deve a União Europeia lidar com situações como a presente, quer quanto a preveni‐las, quer quanto à
perseguição de eventuais atividades terroristas de nacionais seus integrados em redes islamitas internacionais?

—
Contactou as autoridades francesas a este respeito? Que respostas obteve?

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

_(9 de julho de 2013)_

A prevenção da radicalização e a luta contra o terrorismo estão no cerne da estratégia antiterrorista da UE e, mais
especificamente, da estratégia da UE para a segurança e o desenvolvimento na região do Sahel. Dada a natureza
específica do terrorismo global, estão a ser envidados esforços para melhorar o nível de empenhamento e a ligação
das dimensões externa e interna da reação da UE a esta ameaça.

A nível nacional dentro da UE, cada Estado-Membro continua a ser totalmente responsável pela resposta aos
problemas da radicalização e do recrutamento. Os desenvolvimentos políticos e a nível da segurança que podem
traduzir-se numa ameaça terrorista são regularmente examinados pelo Conselho com o objetivo de melhor
coordenar as respostas de cada um dos Estados-Membros. Em 2011, a Comissão Europeia lançou uma rede de
sensibilização para a radicalização (RAN), para promover as melhores práticas e métodos para atenuar os riscos.

A nível internacional, mais especificamente na região do Sara-Sahel, a UE está a reforçar o seu apoio à luta contra o
terrorismo no quadro da sua política de cooperação para o desenvolvimento, bem como da política externa e de
segurança comum. Em 2012 e 2013, a UE lançou três missões PCSD (Política Comum de Segurança e Defesa) –—
duas delas parcial ou totalmente dedicadas à luta contra o terrorismo e a criminalidade transnacional na Líbia e no
Níger. Estes esforços para aumentar a capacidade local baseiam-se nos projetos de desenvolvimento executados pela
UE na região, quer a título individual quer coletivamente.

À luz dos recentes desenvolvimentos no Mali e dos ataques terroristas em toda a região, a UE está determinada a
reforçar o seu empenhamento em conformidade com as orientações das recentes conclusões do Conselho sobre o
Mali e o Sahel.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 333

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005031/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Capture of a French Islamist in Mali

A French citizen who was fighting alongside Islamist insurgents against the Malian and French armies was recently
captured in Mali. This disturbing situation once again raises the question of how the EU and Member States should
deal with the possibility that their citizens might embrace ‘jihadism’ and take part in terrorist activities on EU territory
and abroad.

—
Does the Vice-President/High Representative have any information on the captured French citizen?

—
How should the EU deal with situations such as this one, whether in regard to preventing their occurrence or to
prosecuting any terrorist activities that its citizens might commit as members of international Islamist groups?

—
Has the Vice-President/High Representative contacted the French authorities about this matter? What answers
has she received?

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

_(9 July 2013)_

Preventing radicalization and fighting against terrorism are at the heart of the EU Counter-Terrorism Strategy and
more specifically the EU Strategy for Security and Development in the Sahel. Given the specific nature of global
terrorism, efforts are being made in order to enhance the level of engagement and better link up the external and
internal dimensions of the EU reaction to this threat.

At national level within the EU, individual Member States remain fully responsible to tackle challenges related to the
radicalisation and recruitment. Political and security developments which may translate into terrorist threat are
reviewed regularly by the Council with the objective to better coordinate Member States' respective responses. In
2011, the European Commission launched a Radicalisation Awareness Network (RAN) in order to promote best
practices and methods to mitigate the risk.

At international level, more specifically in the Sahel-Saharan region, the EU is increasingly supporting counterterrorism in the framework of its development cooperation as well as the common foreign and security policy. In
2012 and 2013, the EU launched three CSDP missions — two of them being partly or totally dedicated to the fight
against terrorism and transnational crime in Libya and Niger. These efforts to increase local capacity build on
development projects carried out by the EU both individually or collectively in the region.

In the light of recent developments in Mali and terrorist attacks in the region across the board, the EU is determined to
enhance further its level engagement along the lines of recent Council conclusions on Mali and the Sahel.

C 80 E / 334 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005033/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Ciclismo — Redes de dopagem

Segundo informações recentes, foi detido em Espanha um clínico acusado de encabeçar uma das maiores redes de
dopagem relacionadas com o ciclismo e de pôr em risco a vida dos atletas. Esta notícia foi precedida de vários outros
escândalos envolvendo figuras cimeiras da modalidade que põem em causa a verdade desportiva e a credibilidade
deste desporto.

1. Dispõe a Comissão de informações acerca dos casos de dopagem no ciclismo?

2. Que comentários lhe merecem?

3. Está a Comissão disponível para, em conjunto com os Estados-Membros, avaliar a adoção de medidas que
dificultem o uso e a circulação de substâncias dopantes e promover o agravamento das sanções relacionadas com o
«doping» no desporto?

**Resposta dada por AndroullaVassiliou em nome da Comissão**

_(5 de julho de 2013)_

As investigações no domínio da luta contra a dopagem são da competência dos Estados-Membros e as legislações
nacionais variam consideravelmente no que diz respeito às sanções penais. A Comissão tomou medidas na luta
contra a dopagem, em consonância com as ações previstas na sua Comunicação «Desenvolver a Dimensão Europeia
do Desporto» (2011). Neste contexto, a Comissão financiou, em 2011-2012, a criação de redes centradas em medidas
de prevenção no domínio do desporto amador, do desporto para todos e do exercício físico Pode estar disponível
mais apoio para projetos semelhantes no capítulo «Desporto» incluído na proposta do programa «Erasmus para
Todos».

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 335

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005033/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Doping networks in cycling

According to recent reports, a doctor has been arrested in Spain charged with leading one of the world’s largest
cycling-related doping networks and putting athletes’ lives at risk. This news comes after several other scandals
involving leading figures in the sport, undermining true sportsmanship and the credibility of cycling.

1. Does the Commission have any information about cases of doping in cycling?

2. What is its view of them?

3. Is the Commission prepared, in conjunction with Member States, to consider taking steps to make it harder for
banned substances to be used and circulated and to push for tougher sanctions against doping in sport?

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

_(5 July 2013)_

Investigations in the field of anti-doping fall within the competence of Member States and national laws are known to
vary considerably with regard to criminal sanctions. The Commission has taken steps in the fight against doping in
line with the actions envisaged in its communication ‘Developing the European Dimension in Sport’ (2011). In this
context, the Commission has provided funding in 2011-12 for the creation of networks focusing on preventive
measures in the field of amateur sport, sport for all and fitness. Further support for similar projects may be available
from the Sport Chapter included in the ‘Erasmus for All’ programme proposal.

C 80 E / 336 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005034/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Tabaco — risco acrescido de cancro intestinal nas mulheres

Segundo informações recentes, a universidade norueguesa de Tromso realizou um estudo que, após análise dos dados
clínicos de 600 000 pacientes, concluiu que o risco de desenvolvimento de cancro intestinal é o dobro nas mulheres
fumadoras que nos homens.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

—
Dispõe de informações acerca deste estudo?

—
Que comentários lhe merece?

—
Está disponível para divulgar mais esta informação preocupante ao público feminino de modo a promover o
abandono do tabagismo?

**Resposta dada por Tonio Borg em nome da Comissão**

_(25 de junho de 2013)_

A maior parte dos estudos de casos clínicos relativos à exposição ao cigarro e aos tumores benignos revelaram um
elevado risco para os fumadores. Além disso, um risco sensivelmente acrescido de reincidência de tumores benignos
após a remoção de pólipos numa colonoscopia tem sido associado com o fumo, tanto em homens como em
mulheres. No estudo de prevenção do cancro II, um amplo estudo de coorte dos EUA mostrou que as taxas de
mortalidade de cancro colorretal (ou intestinal) eram mais elevadas entre atuais fumadores, intermédias entre antigos
fumadores e mais reduzidas entre não fumadores, com um risco acrescido observado após vinte anos ou mais a
fumar, tanto em homens como em mulheres ( [1] ).

Os resultados do estudo mencionado pelo Senhor Deputado mostram que pode haver diferenças entre os sexos nos
cancros relacionados com o tabagismo. No entanto, os autores sublinham que o seu estudo não teve em conta
importantes fatores de risco conhecidos como associados ao cancro do intestino, tais como os antecedentes
familiares, a alimentação e o consumo de álcool. A investigação futura terá de resolver estas limitações para ver se as
diferenças de género, em termos de risco, continuam a ser aplicáveis e, em caso afirmativo, por que motivos.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/prevention/colorectal/HealthProfessional/page3

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 337

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005034/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Smoking — increased risk of bowel cancer in women

According to recent reports, the University of Tromsø in Norway has carried out a study which, after analysing the
clinical data of 600 000 patients, concluded that female smokers were twice as likely as male smokers to develop
bowel cancer.

—
Does the Commission have any information on this study?

— What is its view of it?

—
Is it willing to publicise these worrying findings more widely among women in order to encourage them to give
up smoking?

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

_(25 June 2013)_

Most case-control studies of cigarette exposure and benign tumours have found an elevated risk for smokers. In
addition, a significantly increased risk of benign tumours recurrence following removal of polyps in a colonoscopy
has been associated with smoking in both men and women. In the Cancer Prevention Study II, a large USA cohort
study mortality rates for colorectal (or bowel) cancer were highest among current smokers, intermediate among
former smokers, and lowest in non-smokers, with an increased risk observed after 20 or more years of smoking in
men and women combined ( [1] ).

The results of the study mentioned by the Honourable Member show that there could be gender differences in
smoking-related cancers. However the authors point out that their study did not take into account important risk
factors known to be linked to bowel cancer, such as family history, diet and alcohol consumption. Future research
will need to address these limitations to see if the gender differences in risk still apply and, if so, why.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/prevention/colorectal/HealthProfessional/page3.

C 80 E / 338 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005035/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Cambodja — novo parasita causador de malária

No Cambodja foi detetada a presença de um parasita resistente ao fármaco Artemisinin amplamente usado no
combate à malária. Esta descoberta preocupa a comunidade científica e médica porquanto a disseminação deste
parasita portador da doença pode significar um recrudescimento da mesma e a difusão de uma sua estirpe de cura
significativamente mais difícil.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

—
Dispõe de informações acerca do novo parasita multirresistente?

—
Está disponível para apoiar estudos destinados a combater a disseminação do novo parasita?

**Resposta dada por Tonio Borg em nome da Comissão**

_(24 de junho de 2013)_

1. A Comissão está ciente de uma série de estudos — realizados entre 2001 e 2012 — sobre a malária na fronteira
da Tailândia com o Camboja que confirmaram a resistência da malária à artemisinina, o componente essencial da
terapia combinada ( [1] ). O roteiro para a descoberta de medicamentos de combate à malária financiado pelo Sétimo
Programa-Quadro da UE em matéria de investigação e desenvolvimento tecnológico (PQ7), publicado em 2011 ( [2] ),
também evidencia a necessidade de compreender os mecanismos da resistência à artemisina.

Surgiu também pela primeira vez uma resistência aos principais fármacos antimaláricos como a cloroquina, a
sulfadoxina-pirimetamina e a mefloquina na área da fronteira da Tailândia com o Camboja, que depois se propagou a
África e a outras regiões. O Plano Global para o Confinamento da Resistência à Artemisinina da Organização Mundial
da Saúde tem como objetivo impedir a propagação destes parasitas resistentes ( [3] ).

2. No que diz respeito ao apoio à investigação, a proposta da Comissão relativa ao «Horizonte 2020» prevê
oportunidades para a investigação na prevenção, tratamento e controlo eficaz das doenças através do primeiro
desafio societal «Saúde, Alterações Demográfica e Bem-Estar». Além do mais, haverá igualmente oportunidades para a
investigação fundamental por iniciativa dos investigadores no domínio das doenças infecciosas, através do Conselho
Europeu de Investigação. Por último, a investigação clínica para o desenvolvimento de produtos continuará a ser
financiada no âmbito da segunda fase da Parceria Europa — Países em Desenvolvimento para a Realização de Ensaios
Clínicos.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Amaratunga C, Sreng S, Suon S, Phelps ES, Stepniewska K, Lim P, et al. Artemisinin-resistant Plasmodium falciparum in Pursat province, western

Cambodia: a parasite clearance rate study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2012 nov; 12 (11): 851-8.
OMS. l relatório global sobre a eficácia dos medicamentos e a resistência aos medicamentos no combate da malária: 2000-2010. 2010.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.crimalddi.eu/docs/index.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) OMS. Plano Global para o confinamento da resistência à artimisinina (PGCRA). 2011.

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

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 339

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005035/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ New malaria-causing parasite in Cambodia

A parasite has been detected in Cambodia that is resistant to artemisinin, a drug widely used in the fight against
malaria. This discovery is worrying for the scientific and medical community since the spread of this malaria-carrying
parasite could lead to a fresh outbreak and the dissemination of a strain that is much more difficult to treat.

—
Does the Commission have any information on this new multidrug-resistant parasite?

—
Is it willing to support research to curb the spread of the new parasite?

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

_(24 June 2013)_

1. The Commission is aware that a number of studies — conducted between 2001 and 2012 — concerning
malaria on the Thai-Cambodian border confirmed resistance of malaria to artemisinin, the key component of
combination therapy ( [1] ). The Roadmap for malaria drug discovery funded by the EU Seventh Framework Programme
for Research and Technological Development (FP7) published in 2011 ( [2] ) also points out the need to understand the
mechanisms of artemisinin resistance.

Resistance to the major antimalarial drugs such as chloroquine, sulfadoxine‐pyrimethamine and mefloquine first
emerged also in the area of the Thai-Cambodian border and then spread to Africa and other regions. The Global Plan
for Artimisinin Resistance containment of the World Health Organisation aims to stop the spread of these resistant
parasites ( [3] ).

2. Concerning support to research, the Commission proposal for Horizon 2020 foresees opportunities for
research on effective prevention, treatment and management of diseases through the first Societal Challenge ‘Health,
Demographic change & Wellbeing’. In addition, there will be also opportunities for investigator-driven basic research
on infectious diseases through the European Research Council. Finally, clinical research for product development will
continue to be funded under the second phase of the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Amaratunga C, Sreng S, Suon S, Phelps ES, Stepniewska K, Lim P, et al. Artemisinin-resistant Plasmodium falciparum in Pursat province, western

Cambodia: a parasite clearance rate study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2012 Nov;12(11):851-8. WHO. Global report on antimalarial drug efficacy and drug
resistance: 2000-2010, 2010.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.crimalddi.eu/docs/index.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) WHO. Global plan for artemisinin resistance containment (GPARC), 2011.

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

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

C 80 E / 340 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005036/13**

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

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Bolívia — expulsão da USAID

O presidente da Bolívia anunciou a expulsão da agência americana para o desenvolvimento (USAID) com o
argumento de que esta conspirava contra o seu governo. A USAID tem desenvolvido diversas ações na Bolívia
visando o combate ao tráfico de droga por via do apoio às populações mais carenciadas do país. Esta ação do
presidente boliviano segue-se a uma série de outras contra os Estados Unidos da América e países da União Europeia.

Assim, pergunto à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante:

— Está solidária com a USAID?

—
Em que medida esta decisão das autoridades bolivianas prejudica o relacionamento internacional deste país?

—
Vislumbra alguma possibilidade de inversão desta forma de atuar por parte das autoridades bolivianas?

—
Contactou as autoridades bolivianas a este respeito? Que respostas obteve?

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

_(3 de julho de 2013)_

A expulsão da USAID da Bolívia é uma decisão soberana do Governo deste país.

Muito embora respeite a decisão soberana, a UE lamenta a deterioração das relações entre a Bolívia e os EUA.

A decisão de expulsar a USAID está em contradição com os compromissos assumidos no âmbito da Declaração de
Paris sobre a eficácia da ajuda ao desenvolvimento, em termos de continuidade e de previsibilidade, e não envia o sinal
mais adequado.

A Delegação da UE em La Paz e os serviços competentes em Bruxelas, nomeadamente o SEAE, debateram as
preocupações da UE com as autoridades da Bolívia.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 341

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005036/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Expulsion of USAID from Bolivia

The Bolivian President has announced that he is to expel the US Agency for International Development (USAID) from
the country on the grounds that it is conspiring against his government. USAID has undertaken several actions in
Bolivia to fight drug trafficking by supporting the poorest sectors of society. This action by the Bolivian President is
the latest in a series of actions taken against the United States and the EU Member States.

—
Does the Vice-President/High Representative support USAID in this dispute?

—
To what extent are Bolivia’s international relations harmed by this decision?

—
Is there any possibility that the decision might be reversed?

—
Has the Vice-President/High Representative contacted the Bolivian authorities about this matter? What answers
has she received?

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

_(3 July 2013)_

The expulsion of USAID from Bolivia is a sovereign decision by the Bolivian government.

While respecting the sovereign decision, the EU regrets the deterioration of the relationship between Bolivia and the
USA.

The decision to expel USAID contradicts commitments under the Paris Declaration on aid effectiveness in terms of
continuity and predictability, and does not send the right signal.

The EU Delegation in La Paz and the competent services in Brussels, including the EEAS, have discussed the EU's
concerns with the Bolivian authorities.

C 80 E / 342 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005037/13**

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

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Birmânia — recrudescimento da violência anti-muçulmana

Na Birmânia, pelo menos um morto e vários feridos resultaram de uma recente ofensiva protagonizada por budistas
contras as populações muçulmanas. Esta escalada preocupante do conflito entre comunidades religiosas levou já
algumas organizações internacionais a classificarem a situação como um caso de limpeza étnica. O processo de
democratização em curso naquele país asiático ameaça sofrer um revés se esta situação se mantiver. É, pois, do
interesse da comunidade internacional contribuir para a pacificação das regiões que conhecem o conflito.

Assim, pergunto à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante:

—
Dispõe de informações acerca destes conflitos?

—
Que comentários lhe merecem?

—
Colabora com os esforços de pacificação e estabilização desenvolvidos na Birmânia? Em que medida?

—
Contactou as autoridades birmanesas a este propósito?

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

_(15 de julho de 2013)_

A Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente acompanha com especial atenção a evolução da situação na Birmânia. Os
violentos confrontos suscitados por motivos religiosos que ocorreram na região de Mandalay e visaram a minoria
muçulmana são extremamente preocupantes. Estes conflitos, que refletem divisões profundas na sociedade, não são
novos na história do país e representam um risco para o processo de democratização e reconciliação nacional. A Alta
Representante/Vice-Presidente tem repetidas vezes instado as autoridades do país a proteger a população civil contra
os atos de violência e a investigar as causas desta situação preocupante. O assunto foi igualmente debatido no
Conselho Negócios Estrangeiros de 22 de abril, que salientou a necessidade de o governo fazer face à violência entre
as comunidades.

Ao longo das últimas semanas, o SEAE levantou várias vezes a questão junto das autoridades competentes. Durante a
sua visita à Birmânia de 9 a 11 de maio, o Representante Especial da União Europeia para os Direitos Humanos,
Stavros Lambrinidis, reafirmou firmemente perante os seus interlocutores a necessidade urgente de tratar as questões
relacionadas com a violência e a discriminação entre comunidades.

A UE presta uma assistência substancial aos esforços de paz na Birmânia. Em 2013, mais de 30 milhões de euros dos
fundos afetados a este país serão consagrados ao apoio ao processo de paz em curso.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 343

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005037/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Fresh outbreak of anti-Muslim violence in Myanmar/Burma

In Myanmar/Burma, at least one person has been killed and several people injured in a recent attack carried out by
Buddhists against Muslims. This worrying escalation of violence between religious communities has already led some
international organisations to describe the situation as ethnic cleansing. The process of democratisation under way in
that Asian country is at risk of being undone if this situation continues. It is therefore in the interest of the
international community to help to bring peace to regions in which there is conflict.

—
Does the Vice-President/High Representative have any information about these conflicts?

— What is her view of them?

—
Is she assisting with efforts to bring peace and stability to Myanmar/Burma? To what extent?

—
Has she contacted the authorities in Myanmar/Burma about this matter?

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

_(15 July 2013)_

The HR/VP is following with close attention the developments in Myanmar/Burma. The violent clashes along
sectarian lines in the Mandalay region, with the Muslim minority as a target, is of grave concern. Such clashes are not
new in the country’s history. They point to deep-rooted divisions in society and present a risk to the whole process of
democratisation and national reconciliation. The HR/VP has repeatedly urged the authorities to protect the civilian
population from violence, and to investigate the causes of this disturbing state of affairs. The matter was also
discussed at the Foreign Affairs Council of 22 April. The Council stressed the need for the Government to deal with
inter-communal violence. The EEAS has raised the issue with the authorities on a number of occasions in the past
weeks. The EU's Special Representative for Human Rights Stavros Lambrinidis during his visit to Myanmar/Burma
from 9-11 May forcefully raised with his interlocutors the need to urgently deal with intercommunal violence and
discrimination.

The EU is providing substantial assistance to the peace efforts in Myanmar/Burma/ More than EUR30 million of the
funds committed this year to Myanmar/Burma will be devoted to support the ongoing peace process.

C 80 E / 344 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005038/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Austrália — vacina contra a malária

Segundo notícias recentes, cientistas australianos desenvolveram uma vacina destinada a combater todas as variantes
da malária. Os respetivos testes clínicos vão ter início no final do próximo ano. Os investigadores desenvolveram esta
vacina, que atua na etapa de infeção sanguínea, depois de terem alterado geneticamente uma estirpe do parasita da
malária.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

— Tem conhecimento da nova vacina?

—
Face à sua potencial importância na erradicação da doença, admite acompanhar os resultados dos testes
clínicos que forem sendo conhecidos e, caso se prove a bondade e eficácia da vacina, contribuir para a sua
difusão pelas regiões do globo mais expostas à doença?

**Resposta dada por Máire Geoghegan-Quinn em nome da Comissão**

_(20 de junho de 2013)_

A Comissão tem conhecimento da nova vacina contra a malária, na etapa da infeção sanguínea, desenvolvida por
cientistas australianos com base numa estirpe geneticamente modificada do parasita. Contudo, tal como referido na
pergunta, a vacina encontra-se numa fase inicial e ainda não foi testada em seres humanos.

A UE apoia a investigação para melhorar o tratamento, diagnóstico e prevenção da malária, desenvolvendo
especificamente esforços para encorajar a participação nos projetos dos países onde a doença é endémica. Mais de
200 milhões de euros foram afetados a 86 projetos de investigação sobre a malária no âmbito dos 6.° e 7.° ProgramasQuadro de Investigação, de Desenvolvimento Tecnológico e de Demonstração, tendo a Parceria entre a Europa e os
Países em Desenvolvimento para a Realização de Ensaios Clínicos (EDCTP) dedicado 49,4 milhões de euros à
investigação sobre a doença. A Comissão estará atenta aos resultados dos ensaios clínicos australianos, à medida que
forem sendo publicados.

Se a vacina se revelar eficaz e se a OMS apresentar uma recomendação no sentido da sua inclusão nas medidas em
vigor, que incluem por exemplo as técnicas de gestão e controlo dos vetores de infeção, a Comissão tomará em conta
essa informação no seu diálogo político, não só com os países em desenvolvimento como também com os seus
outros parceiros internacionais, como a GAVI e o Fundo Mundial.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 345

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005038/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Australia — vaccine against malaria

According to recent news reports, Australian scientists have developed a vaccine that is effective against all variants of
malaria. The corresponding clinical trials will begin at the end of next year. The researchers developed this vaccine,
which acts during the blood stage of the infection, after genetically modifying a strain of the malaria parasite.

— Is the Commission aware of this new vaccine?

—
In view of the vaccine’s potential importance in eradicating the disease, should the Commission monitor the
results of the clinical trials as they emerge and, if the vaccine proves to be beneficial and effective, should it help
to distribute it to those parts of the world that are most vulnerable to the disease?

**Answer given by Ms Geoghegan-Quinn on behalf of the Commission**

_(20 June 2013)_

The Commission is aware of the new blood-stage malaria vaccine developed by Australian scientists based on a
genetically-modified strain of the parasite. However, as mentioned in the question, this development is currently at an
early stage and has not been tested in humans yet.

The EU supports research to improve the treatment, diagnostic and prevention of malaria, with specific efforts to
include endemic countries as participants in the projects. Through the 6th and 7th Framework Programmes for
Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities, more than EUR 200 million has been granted
to 86 malaria research projects, and the European Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP) has
dedicated EUR 49.4 million to malaria research. The Commission will follow up the results of the Australian clinical
trials as they will emerge.

If the vaccine proves effective and WHO makes a recommendation to include this vaccine in the existing measures,
such as vector management and control techniques, the Commission would consider this information in its policy
dialogue with developing countries but also with its partners such as GAVI and the Global Fund.

C 80 E / 346 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005039/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Treinos físicos de alta intensidade — Eventuais riscos para a saúde

Notícias recentes dão nota de que uma nova modalidade de treino físico intensivo, de apenas quatro minutos, permite
perder até 300 calorias — o equivalente a um treino moderado de longa duração. Esta modalidade, conhecida por
«high-intensity interval training» (HIIT), alegadamente estimula a força dos músculos e melhora o sistema
cardiovascular dos atletas, como num treino normal de corrida ou bicicleta.

O criador deste tipo de treino recomenda que se procure aconselhamento médico antes de iniciar o treino e,
posteriormente, que este decorra com acompanhamento de um treinador que regule a intensidade da atividade física.

1. Tem a Comissão conhecimento desta nova modalidade de treino e dos seus resultados?

2. Não considera a Comissão que o seu uso imoderado poderá pôr em risco a saúde dos consumidores?

3. De que formas poderá a Comissão contribuir para evitar semelhante risco?

**Resposta dada por Androulla Vassiliou em nome da Comissão**

_(25 de junho de 2013)_

A Comissão tem conhecimento do facto de que as lesões e a prática de treinos excessivos podem constituir efeitos
secundários resultantes da prática desportiva, em particular entre os menores.

A Comissão não tem atualmente uma posição relativamente aos riscos para a saúde que o HIIT podem representar
para os consumidores.

A Comissão lançou um convite à apresentação de candidaturas ( [1] ) no âmbito da Ação Preparatória da UE de 2013:
Parceria Europeia para o Desporto. Esta ação destina-se a apoiar projetos transnacionais com vista à promoção da
prevenção de lesões e de medidas de proteção e segurança, incluindo a troca de informações e de boas práticas e
iniciativas de ensino/formação e elaboração de normas. Espera-se que, com base nas experiências obtidas com esta
ação, se desenvolva a cooperação entre as autoridades públicas e as partes interessadas, em conformidade com o
artigo 165.° do TFUE.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) EAC/S03/2013.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 347

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005039/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ High-intensity physical training — possible health risks

According to recent news reports, a new type of intensive physical training lasting only four minutes allows people to
burn off up to 300 calories, the equivalent to what is burnt off in more moderate but longer sessions. This type of
exercise, known as ‘high-intensity interval training’ (HIIT), allegedly boosts athletes’ muscle strength and improves
their cardiovascular systems in a manner similar to running or cycling.

The creator of this type of training recommends that medical advice should be sought before starting it and that it
should be supervised by a trainer who regulates the intensity of the exercise.

1. Is the Commission aware of this new type of exercise and its effects?

2. Does the Commission not think that excessive exercise of this kind may pose a risk to consumers’ health?

3. What steps could the Commission take to avoid this type of risk?

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

_(25 June 2013)_

The Commission is aware of the fact that injuries and overtraining can be side-effects of sporting practice, in
particular for minors.

The Commission does not currently have a position with regard to the health risks that HIIT can pose to consumers.

The Commission has launched a Call for Proposals ( [1] ) in the framework of the 2013 EU Preparatory Action: European
Partnership on Sports. This action is intended to support transnational projects aiming at the promotion of injury
prevention and safety and security measures, including the exchange of information and good practice and common
education/training initiatives and the development of standards. On the basis of the experiences obtained through this
action it is expected to develop cooperation amongst public authorities and stakeholders in line with Article 165 of
the TFEU.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) EAC/S03/2013.

C 80 E / 348 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005040/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Açores — radar meteorológico

A Região Autónoma dos Açores está particularmente sujeita a elevada atividade sísmica e à inclemência de diversos
fatores naturais. Ocorreram na região várias tragédias em consequência de fenómenos meteorológicos de elevada
intensidade, das quais as mais recentes são as verificadas no Porto Judeu e no Faial da Terra. No caso dos Açores, a
previsão e o acompanhamento da evolução dos fenómenos meteorológicos são feitos com recurso a dados obtidos de
estações meteorológicas de superfície e de um radar meteorológico que, com um alcance de centenas de quilómetros,
possibilita às autoridades de proteção civil a antecipação de algumas horas.

O único radar meteorológico existente nos Açores está instalado na Ilha Terceira, pertence às forças armadas norteamericanas e cobre apenas o grupo central e a ilha de São Miguel.

Assim, pergunta-se à Comissão:

Face à especificidade da localização da Região Autónoma dos Açores, da sua particular exposição e vulnerabilidade a
fatores meteorológicos, e sabendo-se os múltiplos constrangimentos de índole orçamental que presentemente
impendem sobre o Estado português e que limitam a sua ação, estaria disponível para apoiar financeiramente a
instalação de um radar meteorológico naquela Região Autónoma?

**Resposta dada por Johannes Hahn em nome da Comissão**

_(12 de julho de 2013)_

O financiamento do Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional para a Região Autónoma dos Açores é afetado
através do programa Proconvergência 2007‐2013. O eixo prioritário «Promover a Coesão Territorial e a
Sustentabilidade» procura valorizar recursos e promover o equilíbrio ambiental (os projetos centram‐se na
construção e reabilitação de equipamentos e estruturas e mecanismos de controlo), na condição de reforçar a
segurança das populações e dos equipamentos. Vários elementos de infraestruturas e equipamentos de proteção civil
já foram apoiados neste contexto; o Governo Regional e o serviço de proteção civil são os principais beneficiários.

Podem ser elegíveis para financiamento tipos específicos de equipamento de vigilância (como os radares
meteorológicos), desde que estejam em conformidade com os objetivos do programa e correspondem à estratégia
regional, tal como prevista no programa. Neste contexto e tendo em conta o princípio da gestão partilhada aplicado à
execução da política de coesão, a Comissão sugere que o Senhor Deputado contacte a autoridade de gestão do
programa ( [1] ).

Além disso, a Comissão observa que, na sequência da sua recente comunicação intitulada «As regiões ultraperiféricas
da União Europeia: Parceria para um crescimento inteligente, sustentável e inclusivo» ( [2] ), os Açores apresentaram o
seu plano de ação para o período de 2014‐2020. O plano de ação realça a estratégia a médio prazo da região e deve
também ser tido em conta na avaliação das futuras prioridades de financiamento.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Programa Operacional dos Açores para a Convergência.

Proconvergência 2007-2013.
Direcção Regional do Planeamento e Fundos Estruturais.
Caminho do Meio, 58 — S. Carlos.
9701-853 Angra do Heroísmo.
Região Autónoma dos Açores.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 287 de 20.6.2012.

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 349

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005040/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Weather radar in the Azores

The Autonomous Region of the Azores is particularly prone to high levels of seismic activity and to a range of harsh
environmental conditions. Several tragedies caused by extreme weather have occurred in the region, most recently
those which took place in Porto Judeu and in Faial da Terra. In the Azores, meteorological phenomena are forecasted
and monitored by using data obtained from surface weather stations and from a weather radar with a range of several
hundred kilometres, which gives the civil protection authorities a few hours’ advance warning.

The only weather radar in the Azores is situated on Terceira Island. This radar belongs to the United States Armed
Forces and covers only the central group of islands and the island of São Miguel.

In view of the specific location of the Autonomous Region of the Azores and its exposure and vulnerability to
meteorological conditions, and in view of the many budgetary constraints on the Portuguese state that limit its ability
to act, would the Commission be willing to provide financial support for the installation of a weather radar in the
Azores?

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

_(12 July 2013)_

European Regional Development funding for the Azores is allocated via the programme ‘PROCONVERGENCIA
2007-2013’. The ‘Promotion of territorial cohesion and sustainability’ priority aims to enhance resources and
promote a balanced environment (projects focus on the construction and rehabilitation of equipment and
monitoring structures and mechanisms) on condition that it enhances the security of the population and equipment.
Several items of infrastructure and equipment for civil protection have already been supported within this framework;
the regional government and civil protection department being the main beneficiaries.

Specific types of monitoring equipment (such as weather radar) could be eligible for funding, provided that they are in
accordance with the programme objectives and correspond to the regional strategy as laid down in the programme.
In this context, and in the framework of the shared management principle used for the implementation of cohesion
policy, the Commission suggests that the Honourable Member contact the managing authority of the programme ( [1] ).

In addition, the Commission notes that, in response to its recent communication ‘The outermost regions of the
European Union: towards a partnership for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’ ( [2] ), the Azores has presented its
Action Plan for 2014-2020. This highlights the medium-term strategy of the region and should also be taken into
account when assessing future funding priorities.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Programa Operacional dos Açores para a Convergência

PROCONVERGÊNCIA 2007-2013
Direcção Regional do Planeamento e Fundos Estruturais
Caminho do Meio, 58 — S. Carlos
9701-853 Angra do Heroísmo
Região Autónoma dos Açores

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 287, 20.6.2012.

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

C 80 E / 350 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005041/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Paraguai — grave epidemia de dengue

A comunicação social deu nota recentemente de que uma epidemia de dengue no Paraguai já afetou 70 000 pessoas,
de que existem 110 000 casos a aguardar confirmação e de que já matou 48 pessoas durante o presente ano. Nas
palavras do Ministro da Saúde do país, esta epidemia tem uma «proporção histórica».

Assim, pergunta-se à Comissão:

—
Dispõe de informações acerca dos casos de dengue no Paraguai?

—
Acompanha a evolução dos mesmos naquele país e na América Latina?

—
Aconselha os cidadãos europeus a deslocarem-se àquela parte do mundo neste momento?

—
Tem conhecimento de algum caso na União Europeia?

—
Tem previstas medidas, em conjunção com os Estados‐Membros, que permitam acorrer a um eventual surto na
União?

**Resposta dada por Andris Piebalg sem nome da Comissão**

_(28 de junho de 2013)_

Desde o final de 2012, de acordo com o Ministério da Saúde, foram confirmados 82 921 casos de dengue. O número
de mortes eleva-se a 57.

A Comissão tem vindo a acompanhar o surto de dengue, em coordenação com a Delegação da União Europeia no
Paraguai, as delegações regionais da Direção-Geral da Cooperação Internacional, Ajuda Humanitária e Resposta às
Crises em Quito e Manágua e o Centro Europeu de Prevenção e Controlo de Doenças. As principais fontes de dados
foram os relatórios da Organização Mundial de Saúde e o Boletim Epidemiológico semanal do Ministério da Saúde do
Paraguai. As intervenções podem, em função das necessidades, ser financiadas para conter surtos e evitar ulteriores
consequências humanitárias.

Não foram emitidos conselhos nem restrições de viagem relativamente ao dengue no Paraguai ou em qualquer outro
país da América Latina.

Verificaram-se 1 622 casos importados de dengue na União em 2010, 610 em 2011 e 1 133 em 2012.

Em 2012, ocorreu um grande surto de dengue autóctone na ilha da Madeira (Portugal), de outubro de 2012 a janeiro
de 2013. Durante o surto, foram participados 2 160 casos a nível local. Os Estados‐Membros participaram mais 78
casos relativos a turistas que regressaram da Madeira. A França e a Croácia também participaram casos isolados de
dengue em 2010.

A Comissão coordena a resposta a ameaças transfronteiriças para a saúde causadas por doenças transmissíveis,
nomeadamente o dengue, segundo o disposto na Decisão n.° 2119/98/CE ( [1] ), com o apoio do Centro Europeu de
Prevenção e Controlo de Doenças e da Organização Mundial de Saúde, como se verificou durante a epidemia de
dengue na Madeira.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Decisão n.° 2119/98/CE do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 24 de setembro de 1998, que institui uma rede de vigilância epidemiológica e
de controlo das doenças transmissíveis na Comunidade, JO L 268 de 3.10.1998.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 351

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005041/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Serious dengue epidemic in Paraguay

According to recent media reports, 70 000 people have been affected by a dengue epidemic in Paraguay that has
already killed 48 people this year, with a further 110 000 cases awaiting confirmation. In the words of Paraguay’s
Health Minister, this epidemic is of ‘historic proportions’.

—
Does the Commission have any information on cases of dengue in Paraguay?

—
Is it following the development of cases in that country and in the rest of Latin America?

—
Would it advise European citizens to leave that part of the world at this time?

—
Is it aware of any cases of dengue within the EU?

—
Has it taken steps, in conjunction with Member States, to respond to any outbreak in the EU?

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

_(28 June 2013)_

Since the end of 2012, according to the Ministry of Health 82 921 cases of dengue have been confirmed. The death
toll is 57.

The Commission has been following the dengue outbreak closely, in coordination with the Delegation of the
European Union to Paraguay, the regional Directorate-General for International Cooperation, Humanitarian Aid and
Crisis Response offices in Quito and Managua and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. The main
data sources have been the World Health Organisation reports and the Weekly Epidemiological Bulletin of the
Paraguayan Ministry of Health. Interventions may, depending on need, be financed to contain outbreaks and prevent
further humanitarian consequences.

No travel advice or restrictions have been issued in relation to dengue in Paraguay or any other country in Latin
America.

1 622 imported dengue cases were reported in the Union in 2010, 610 in 2011, and 1 133 in 2012.

In 2012 a large outbreak of autochthonous dengue occurred on the island of Madeira (Portugal) from October 2012
to January 2013. During the outbreak, 2160 cases were reported locally. An additional 78 cases were notified by
Member States in travellers returning from Madeira. France and Croatia also reported isolated cases of dengue in
2010.

The Commission coordinates the response to cross border threats to health caused by communicable diseases,
including dengue, under Decision 2119/98/EC ( [1] ) with the support of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and
Control and the World Health Organisation, as was the case for the dengue epidemic in Madeira.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Decision No 2119/98/EC of Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 1998 setting up a network for the epidemiological surveillance and
control of communicable diseases in the Community, OJ L 268, 3.10.1998.

C 80 E / 352 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005042/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Obesidade juvenil: novos estudos

Segundo a comunicação social portuguesa, um estudo publicado pelo British Medical Journal Open revela que os
jovens obesos têm duas vezes mais hipóteses de morrer antes de completarem 55 anos, em comparação com aqueles
que têm um peso normal.

Este estudo, iniciado há 33 anos, foi realizado com base em 6.500 dinamarqueses que tinham 22 anos em 1955.

Assim, pergunta-se à Comissão:

—
Dispõe de informações acerca deste estudo?

—
Tem conhecimento de outros estudos semelhantes quanto, nomeadamente, à duração do período de
observação?

—
Adotou ou tem prevista a adoção de medidas, em conjunção com os Estados‐Membros, que permitam divulgar
estes dados, de modo a alertar os profissionais de saúde, a população juvenil e os pais, a fim de melhorar a
consciencialização coletiva quanto à necessidade de combater a obesidade e adotar hábitos de vida saudáveis?

**Resposta dada por Tonio Borg em nome da Comissão**

_(21 de junho de 2013)_

A Comissão tem conhecimento do estudo dinamarquês relativo à obesidade entre os jovens do sexo masculino. No
entanto, a Comissão não tem conhecimento de outros estudos com um período de observação semelhante.

Para promover regimes alimentares mais saudáveis e atividade física ao nível nacional, local e da UE, a Comissão
adotou em 2007 a Estratégia para a Europa em matéria de problemas de saúde ligados à nutrição, ao excesso de peso
e à obesidade ( [1] ). A Estratégia apela a uma atuação em seis áreas prioritárias, com especial incidência nas crianças.

A Estratégia é implementada pelo Grupo de Alto Nível sobre Nutrição e Atividade Física ( [2] ), que coordena as
iniciativas dos Estados-Membros, e pela Plataforma de Ação Europeia «Dieta e Exercício Físico» ( [3] ), um fórum em que
um vasto grupo de partes interessadas da UE se compromete a levar a cabo ações concretas. Os resultados da
investigação estão a ser partilhados entre os seus membros regularmente.

No seu relatório conjunto com a OCDE «Panorama da Saúde: Europa 2012», a Comissão apresenta dados relativos ao
excesso de peso e à obesidade entre os jovens de 15 anos e a prevalência da obesidade nos adultos. O inquérito
europeu de saúde ( [4] ) é a fonte para os Indicadores de saúde da Comunidade Europeia sobre o índice de massa
corporal ( [5] ) calculado a partir da altura e peso comunicados.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Uma estratégia para a Europa em matéria de problemas de saúde ligados à nutrição, ao excesso de peso e à obesidade, COM(2007) 279.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/nutrition_physical_activity/high_level_group/index_pt.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/nutrition_physical_activity/platform/index_pt.htm
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:047:0020:0048:PT:PDF
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/indicators/echi/list/index_en.htm

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 353

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005042/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Obesity in young people: new studies

According to the Portuguese media, a study published by _British Medical Journal Open_ reveals that obese young people
are twice as likely to die before the age of 55 as those of normal weight.

This study, which began 33 years ago, was based on 6 500 Danish citizens who were 22 years of age in 1955.

—
Does the Commission have any information on this study?

—
Is it aware of any other studies with a similar observation period?

—
Has is taken or does it intend to take steps in conjunction with Member States to bring these figures to the
attention of health professionals, young people and parents in order to create greater awareness of the need to
fight obesity and to adopt healthy lifestyles?

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

_(21 June 2013)_

The Commission is aware of the Danish study on obesity in young men. However, the Commission is not aware of
other studies with a similar observation period.

To promote healthier diets and physical activity at EU, national, and local levels, the Commission adopted in 2007 the
strategy for Europe on Nutrition, Overweight and Obesity-related Health Issues ( [1] ). The strategy calls for action in six
priority areas including a focus on children.

The strategy is implemented through the High Level Group for Nutrition and Physical Activity ( [2] ) which coordinates
Member States' initiatives, and through the EU Platform for Action on Diet, Physical Activity and Health ( [3] ), a forum
where a wide range of EU stakeholders commit to undertaking concrete actions. Research results are being shared
among the members on a regular basis.

In its joint report with the OECD ‘Health at a Glance Europe 2012’, the Commission provides data on overweight and
obesity among 15-year-olds and prevalence of obesity for adults. The European Health Interview Survey ( [4] ) is the
source for the European Community Health Indicator on Body Mass Index ( [5] ) calculated from reported height and
weight.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) A Strategy for Europe on Nutrition, Overweight and Obesity related health issues, COM(2007) 279.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/nutrition_physical_activity/high_level_group/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/nutrition_physical_activity/platform/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:047:0020:0048:EN:PDF.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/indicators/echi/list/index_en.htm

C 80 E / 354 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005043/13**

**ao Conselho**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Novo aumento do desemprego

Notícias recentes dão conta de um agravamento do desemprego na zona euro.

Assim, pergunto ao Conselho:

—
Que comentário lhe merece este dado?

—
Considera que as medidas que a União Europeia vem tomando com vista a inverter esta situação são suficientes
e adequadas à resolução do problema, ou crê haver necessidade de novas medidas que reforcem as anteriores?

**Resposta**
_(9 de julho de 2013)_

Como o Senhor Deputado sabe, nas suas conclusões de 28 de fevereiro de 2013 intituladas: «A Análise Anual do
Crescimento e o Relatório Conjunto sobre o Emprego no contexto do Semestre Europeu: orientações políticas para as
políticas sociais e de emprego», o Conselho adotou prioridades de ação nos domínios do emprego e da política
social ( [1] ). Nessas conclusões, o Conselho salientou que _«encontrar uma solução para o desemprego e as consequências sociais_
_da crise é um dos desafios europeus e uma das prioridades‐chave comuns a todos os Estados‐Membros»_ . Ainda que
reconhecendo que as ambiciosas reformas empreendidas em muitos Estados‐Membros tardarão em dar os seus
frutos, o Conselho considerou que deveria ser dada atenção a um maior empenhamento no processo de reformas e a
uma melhor implementação.

Também em março de 2013, o Conselho Europeu deu ênfase especial ao problema do desemprego, e declarou que
_«dar resposta ao desemprego é o desafio social mais importante com que nos confrontamos. Por conseguinte, no contexto atual é_
_necessário dar uma prioridade e uma atenção especiais à definição de políticas ativas em matéria de emprego, questões sociais e_
_mercado de trabalho»_ ( [2] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) 6936/13.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Conclusões do Conselho Europeu de 14 e 15 de março de 2013, EUCO 23/13, ponto 9, alínea a).

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 355

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005043/13**

**to the Council**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ New rise in unemployment

According to recent news reports, unemployment in the euro area has got worse.

— What is the Council’s view of this situation?

—
Does it believe that the EU is taking sufficient and suitable steps to reverse this trend or are new steps needed to
reinforce those taken previously?

**Reply**
_(9 July 2013)_

As the Honourable Member is aware, in its Conclusions of 28 February 2013 entitled ‘The Annual Growth Survey
and the Joint Employment Report in the context of the European Semester: political guidance on employment and
social policies’, the Council adopted priorities for action in the areas of employment and social policy ( [1] ). In those
Conclusions, the Council stressed that ‘tackling unemployment and the social consequences of the crisis is one of
Europe's challenges and key common priorities’. Whilst recognising that the ambitious reforms undertaken in many
Member States will take time to bear fruit, the Council considered that attention had to be placed on increased
commitment to reform and improved implementation.

Also, in March 2013, the European Council gave specific emphasis to the issue of unemployment and stated that
‘addressing unemployment is the most important social challenge facing us. Active employment, social and labour
market policies therefore require special priority and attention in the present context’ ( [2] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) 6936/13.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Conclusions of the European Council, 14/15 March 2013, EUCO 23/13, paragraph 9(a).

C 80 E / 356 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005044/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Novo aumento do desemprego

Notícias recentes dão conta de um agravamento do desemprego na zona euro.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

—
Que comentário lhe merece este dado?

—
Considera que as medidas que a União Europeia vem tomando com vista a inverter esta situação são suficientes
e adequadas à resolução do problema, ou crê haver necessidade de novas medidas que reforcem as anteriores?

**Resposta dada por László Andor em nome da Comissão**

_(1 de julho de 2013)_

Os atuais níveis de desemprego são inaceitáveis, especialmente no que diz respeito aos jovens europeus. Com o
Pacote do Emprego ( [1] ), a Comissão promoveu medidas destinadas a estimular a procura de emprego -‐
nomeadamente em setores onde a oferta de emprego é elevada, como os setores da saúde, as TIC e a economia verde
— a investir no desenvolvimento das competências dos trabalhadores e a explorar todo o potencial do mercado de
trabalho europeu. A Garantia para a Juventude, a Aliança Europeia para a Aprendizagem e a Iniciativa para o
Emprego dos Jovens visam prestar apoio, colocando 6 mil milhões de euros de fundos da UE a combater o
desemprego.

O Quadro Financeiro Plurianual representará uma nova oportunidade para aumentar o esforço europeu de
crescimento e emprego. A Comissão propôs que uma percentagem mínima de 25 % do orçamento afetado à política
de coesão seja reservada ao FSE.

É igualmente necessário tomar medidas imediatas a nível nacional. A Comissão recomenda que as reformas
estruturais no mercado de trabalho, bem como nos mercados de produtos, não deixem de consideradas, em especial
na área do euro, para melhorar o seu funcionamento e promover uma absorção rápida e eficaz do desemprego
elevado ( [2] ). Apelou igualmente aos Estados-Membros para criarem sistemas de educação e formação mais reativos às
necessidades do mercado de trabalho, a fim de dotar os jovens das competências certas, impedindo, deste modo, o
desemprego jovem ( [3] ). Em 29 de maio, a Comissão avaliou os esforços dos Estados-Membros nestes domínios, tendo
proposto recomendações específicas por país conforme o adequado ( [4] ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 173, de 18.4.2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 379 final, de 29 de maio de 2013

http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/nd/csr2013_euroarea_en.pdf

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 669 final, de 21.11.2012.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 350 final, de 29 de maio de 2013

http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/nd/2013eccomm_en.pdf

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

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 357

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005044/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ New rise in unemployment

According to recent news reports, unemployment in the euro area has got worse.

— What is the Commission’s view of this situation?

—
Does it believe that the EU is taking sufficient and suitable steps to reverse this trend or are new steps needed to
reinforce those taken previously?

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

_(1 July 2013)_

Current unemployment levels are unacceptable, especially for what concerns the European youth. With the
Employment Package ( [1] ) the Commission has promoted measures to stimulate job demand, notably in job-rich
sectors such as healthcare, ICT and the green economy, invest in workers' skills development and exploit the full
potential of the European labour market. The Youth Guarantee and the European Alliance for Apprenticeship, the
Youth Employment Initiative aims to provide support for EUR 6 billion from EU funds to fight youth joblessness.

The Multiannual Financial Framework will represent a further opportunity to increase European effort for growth and
jobs. The Commission proposed that a minimum share of 25% of the budget allocated to the Cohesion policy be
dedicated to the ESF.

Action is now also needed at the national level. The Commission recommends that structural reforms in the labour
market, as well as in product markets, be still considered especially in the Euro Area to improve their functioning and
foster an effective and quick reabsorption of high unemployment ( [2] ). It also called on Member States to make
education and training systems more responsive to labour market needs in order to equip young people with the
rights skills, thus preventing youth unemployment ( [3] ). On 29 May, the Commission assessed Member States' efforts in
these fields and proposed, where appropriate, country-specific recommendations ( [4] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 173, 18 April 2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 379, 29 May 2013 (http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/nd/csr2013_euroarea_en.pdf)
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 669 final, 21.11.2012.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 350 final, 29 May 2013 (http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/nd/2013eccomm_en.pdf)

C 80 E / 358 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005045/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Minerais de conflito

A Comissão Europeia iniciou uma consulta pública sobre os «minerais de conflito», isto é, os minerais extraídos em
zonas de guerra ou de pós-guerra e em regiões frágeis onde existe instabilidade política ou agitação social.

Assim, não obstante os contributos que ainda irá recolher e trabalhar, pergunto à Comissão que perspetiva pretende
dar e que propostas pretende ver integradas numa iniciativa da União Europeia em matéria de abastecimento
responsável de minerais originários de zonas como as acima referidas?

**Resposta dada por Karel De Gucht em nome da Comissão**

_(28 de junho de 2013)_

A Comissão elaborou um roteiro intitulado «Uma iniciativa global da UE relativa a cadeias de fornecimento
responsável de minerais provenientes de áreas de conflito e de alto risco  ( [1] )». Este documento regista a opções
políticas preliminares a ser consideradas para o próximo relatório de avaliação de impacto, que abrange várias
opções, incluindo a ausência de ação, uma abordagem voluntária, sob a forma de uma comunicação da Comissão ou
uma recomendação do Conselho, dos deveres de vigilância vinculativos para os operadores, quando colocam
minerais selecionados no mercado da UE. A Comissão irá utilizar os resultados da consulta pública em curso para
orientar o seu processo decisório sobre esta importante questão.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/planned_ia/docs/2013_trade_019_conflict_minerals_en.pdf

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 359

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005045/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Conflict minerals

The Commission has launched a public consultation on ‘conflict minerals’, which is to say minerals extracted in war
or post-war zones and in vulnerable regions suffering from political instability or social unrest.

Regardless of the submissions that it is still to receive and consider, what is the Commission’s intended approach to an
EU initiative on the responsible sourcing of minerals originating from the kinds of zones referred to above and what
proposals does it expect this to include?

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

_(28 June 2013)_

The Commission has prepared a roadmap entitled ‘A comprehensive EU supply chain initiative for responsible
sourcing of minerals originating in conflict-affected and high-risk areas’ ( [1] ). This document registers the preliminary
policy options being considered in the forthcoming impact assessment report covering several options including
non-action, voluntary approach in the form of a Commission Communication or Council Recommendation, to
binding due diligence requirements on operators when placing selected minerals on the EU market. The Commission
will use the results of the ongoing public consultation to guide its decision making on this important issue.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/planned_ia/docs/2013_trade_019_conflict_minerals_en.pdf

C 80 E / 360 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005046/13**

**ao Conselho**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Margaret Thatcher — homenagem europeia

A ex-primeira-ministra britânica recentemente falecida é uma das personalidades mais marcantes e uma das figuras
icónicas do esforço europeu e ocidental no combate ao totalitarismo comunista e da afirmação dos valores da
democracia e da liberdade em todo o continente.

Assim, pergunto ao Conselho:

—
Pretende homenagear a Baronesa Thatcher e o seu exemplo de liderança na construção de uma Europa
composta por Estados livres e democráticos? Já o fez? De que forma o fará?

—
Não considera ser de elementar justiça fazê-lo com caráter permanente?

**Resposta**
_(22 de julho de 2013)_

Como é hábito nestas ocasiões, o Presidente do Conselho Europeu, Herman Van Rompuy, emitiu uma declaração
sobre o falecimento da Baronesa Margaret Thatcher, ocorrido a 8 de abril de 2013. O texto completo da declaração
está publicado em:
[http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/136677.pdf](http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/136677.pdf)

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 361

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005046/13**

**to the Council**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU tribute to Margaret Thatcher

The recently deceased former British prime minister was one of the most significant individuals and iconic figures in
the European and Western fight against communist totalitarianism in championing democracy and liberty across
Europe.

— Does the Council intend to pay tribute to Baroness Thatcher and the leading role she played in constructing a
European Union of free, democratic states? Has it already done so? How will it pay tribute?

— Does the Council not agree that it is only right to create a lasting tribute to her?

**Reply**
_(22 July 2013)_

As customary on such occasions, the President of the European Council Herman Van Romuy issued a statement on
the passing away of Baroness Thatcher on 8 April 2013. The full text of the statement is published at:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/136677.pdf

C 80 E / 362 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005047/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Margaret Thatcher — homenagem europeia

A ex-primeira-ministra britânica recentemente falecida é uma das personalidades mais marcantes e uma das figuras
icónicas do esforço europeu e ocidental no combate ao totalitarismo comunista e da afirmação dos valores da
democracia e da liberdade em todo o continente.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

—
Pretende homenagear a Baronesa Thatcher e o seu exemplo de liderança na construção de uma Europa
composta por Estados livres e democráticos? Já o fez? De que forma o fará?

—
Não considera ser de elementar justiça fazê-lo com caráter permanente?

**Resposta dada por José Manuel Durão Barroso em nome da Comissão**

_(11 de junho de 2013)_

Assim que recebeu a notícia da morte da Baronesa Margaret Thatcher, em 8 de abril, o Presidente da Comissão
Europeia, em nome da instituição, emitiu uma comunicação em sua homenagem ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-312_en.htm

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 363

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005047/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU tribute to Margaret Thatcher

The recently deceased former British Prime Minister was one of the most significant individuals and iconic figures in
the European and Western fight against communist totalitarianism and in championing democracy and liberty across
Europe.

— Does the Commission intend to pay tribute to Baroness Thatcher and the leading role she played in constructing a
European Union of free, democratic states? Has it already done so? How will it pay tribute?

— Does the Commission not agree that it is only right to create a lasting tribute to her?

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

_(11 June 2013)_

On receiving the sad news of the death of Baroness Thatcher on 8 April, the President of the European Commission
issued a statement of tribute on behalf of the institution ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-312_en.htm

C 80 E / 364 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005048/13**

**ao Conselho**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Mali — necessidades do exército

O Chefe da Missão de Formação da UE para o Mali (EUTM) afirmou a necessidade de a União executar um programa
paralelo para equipar e armar as tropas do Mali.

Segundo o general François Lecointre, «A União Europeia precisa de investir no apetrechamento do exército maliano
e não apenas na sua formação», porquanto o «estado do Mali é pobre, mas o exército do Mali é mais do que pobre».

Assim, pergunto ao Conselho:

—
Acompanha a recomendação do Chefe da Missão de Formação da UE para o Mali?

—
Que medidas tomou ou prevê tomar neste tocante?

**Resposta**
_(16 de setembro de 2013)_

A UE estabeleceu um mecanismo de «câmara de compensação» no Estado-Maior da União Europeia, que emparelhou
as ofertas bilaterais de assistência com as necessidades do Mali.

Este mecanismo facilitou 18 ofertas separadas de assistência ou fornecimento de equipamentos.

O mecanismo foi entretanto transferido para a ONU e complementará o Fundo Fiduciário da ONU criado para apoiar
o reforço do exército do Mali.

O Conselho tem em exame as recomendações do comandante da Missão EUTM Mali, incluindo a questão do
equipamento para as Forças Armadas do Mali.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 365

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005048/13**

**to the Council**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ The needs of the Malian army

The Mission Commander of the EU training mission (EUTM) in Mali has stated that the EU needs to equip and arm
Malian troops in a parallel programme.

According to General François Lecointre, the European Union needs to invest in equipping the Malian army and not
just in training it. He also explained that while the Malian state was poor, the Malian army was more than poor.

— Does the Council agree with the EUTM Mali Mission Commander’s recommendation?

— What measures has it taken or does it intend to take in this regard?

**Reply**
_(16 September 2013)_

The EU established a ‘clearing house’ mechanism, within the EU Military Staff, which matched bilateral offers of
assistance with Malian needs. This mechanism facilitated 18 separate offers of assistance or provision of equipment.
The mechanism has now been transferred to the UN and will complement the UN Trust Fund set up to support the
reinforcement of the Malian army.

The Council is examining the EUTM Mali Mission Commander's recommendations, including on the question of
equipment for the Malian Armed Forces.

C 80 E / 366 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005049/13**

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

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Mali — necessidades do exército

O Chefe da Missão de Formação da UE para o Mali (EUTM) afirmou a necessidade de a União executar um programa
paralelo para equipar e armar as tropas do Mali.

Segundo o general François Lecointre, «A União Europeia precisa de investir no apetrechamento do exército maliano
e não apenas na sua formação», porquanto o «estado do Mali é pobre, mas o exército do Mali é mais do que pobre».

Assim, pergunto à Alta Representante:

—
Acompanha a recomendação do Chefe da Missão de Formação da UE para o Mali?

—
Que medidas tomou ou prevê tomar neste tocante

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

_(9 de julho de 2013)_

O Comandante da Missão «EUTM Mali» encontra‐se sob a autoridade direta da AR/VP.

A União Europeia criou, no quadro de pessoal militar da UE integrado no SEAE, um mecanismo de recolha e
transmissão, que satisfaz as necessidades do Mali com dádivas bilaterais. Este mecanismo permitiu 18 doações ou
transportes de equipamento, como o transporte de um hospital ou o fornecimento de armas às Forças Armadas do
Mali e à Missão de Apoio Internacional ao Mali sob Liderança Africana (MAIMA). A partir de 1 de julho, o referido
mecanismo será assumido pela Organização das Nações Unidas e complementará o fundo fiduciário da ONU criado
para apoiar a formação do exército do Mali.

A formação da EUTM compreende um curso rigoroso sobre os direitos humanos e o direito humanitário.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 367

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005049/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — The needs of the Malian army

The Mission Commander of the EU training mission (EUTM) in Mali has stated that the EU needs to equip and arm
Malian troops in a parallel programme.

According to General François Lecointre, the European Union needs to invest in equipping the Malian army and not
just in training it. He also explained that while the Malian state was poor, the Malian army was more than poor.

— Does the High Representative agree with the EUTM Mali Mission Commander’s recommendation?

— What measures has she taken or does she intend to take in this regard?

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

_(9 July 2013)_

The EUTM Mali Mission Commander is under the direct authority of the HR/VP.

The EU has established a ‘clearing house’ mechanism, within the EU Military Staff as part of the EEAS that matches
bilateral donations with Malian needs. This mechanism enabled 18 donations or transportation of equipment: for
example, transport of a hospital or provision of arms for the Malian Armed Forces and African-led International
Support Mission to Mali (AFISMA). This mechanism will be handed over to the UN as of 1 July. It will complement
the UN Trust Fund set up in support of the build up of the Malian army.

As part of the EUTM training, a rigorous course on Human Rights and Humanitarian Law is included.

C 80 E / 368 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005050/13**

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

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Kosovo — tráfico ilegal de órgãos

Segundo informações recentes, um tribunal do Kosovo condenou o proprietário de uma clínica de Pristina e quatro
outros médicos, todos implicados numa rede ilegal de recolha e transplante de rins, a penas de prisão e ao pagamento
de indemnizações a sete das vítimas de um esquema de tráfico de órgãos humanos que poderá ter envolvido cerca de
70 indivíduos.

O tribunal deu como provada a existência de uma operação clandestina que consistia na angariação de rins para
doentes renais dispostos a pagar por um transplante feito à margem das listas de espera oficiais e das normas
internacionais.

Assim, pergunto à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante:

—
Dispõe de informações acerca deste caso?

—
Tem conhecimento de outros casos semelhantes em Estados vizinhos da União Europeia e se este tráfico tem
ramificações dentro da própria União ou beneficiou cidadãos seus?

—
Adotou ou prevê a adoção de medidas, em conjunção com os Estados‐Membros, que permitam combater o
tráfico de órgãos no Kosovo?

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

_(25 de julho de 2013)_

A Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente congratula-se com o êxito do final do processo Medicus a que se refere a
pergunta, em que o sistema judicial do Kosovo, com a assistência da EULEX, foi capaz de levar a tribunal as pessoas
em causa. Não seria adequado apresentar observações pormenorizadas para além das informações divulgadas pelos
magistrados do ministério público.

Embora pareça que o tráfico de órgãos humanos seja um elemento relativamente raro da criminalidade organizada é
óbvio que ocorre e é muito grave quando tal ocorre. De um modo mais geral, a UE contribui para melhorar o Estado
de direito e a justiça no Kosovo, através dos processos e dos programas da Comissão e da Missão PCSD EULEX.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 369

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005050/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Illegal organ trafficking in Kosovo

According to recent reports, a Kosovan court has sentenced the owner of a clinic in Priština and four other doctors
involved in harvesting and transplanting kidneys as part of an illegal network, to prison terms and ordered them to
pay compensation to seven victims of a human organ trafficking conspiracy that may have involved as many as 70
individuals.

The court found that a clandestine operation supplied kidneys to kidney patients willing to pay for transplants outside
of official waiting lists and international standards.

— Does the Vice-President/High Representative have any information about this case?

— Is she aware of any similar cases in neighbouring countries of the EU and of whether this trafficking has
ramifications within the EU itself or whether EU citizens have benefited from it?

— Has she introduced any measures in conjunction with Member States to combat organ trafficking in Kosovo, or
does she intend to do so?

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

_(25 July 2013)_

The HR/VP welcomes the successful conclusion of the MEDICUS case referred to in the question in which the
Kosovan judicial system, operating with EULEX support, was able to bring to justice those involved. It would not be
appropriate to comment in detail beyond the information released by the prosecutors.

Whilst it appears that human organ trafficking is a relatively rare component of organised crime it clearly does occur
and is very serious when it does. More broadly, the EU contributes to improving general Rule of Law and Justice in
Kosovo through both Commission processes and programmes and the EULEX CSDP mission.

C 80 E / 370 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005051/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Ketamina — Droga

Segundo a comunicação social portuguesa, as autoridades policiais investigam presentemente a venda ilegal de
anestésicos que, misturados com bebidas, são usados por predadores sexuais. A nova droga usada para o efeito é a
Ketamina, e é alegadamente obtida a partir de um produto veterinário.

1. Dispõe a Comissão de informações acerca desta droga?

2. Tem a Comissão conhecimento de casos de crimes sexuais cometidos mediante o seu uso?

3. Tem a Comissão previstas medidas, em conjunção com os Estados-Membros, que permitam combater a sua
difusão e utilização?

**Resposta dada por Viviane Reding em nome da Comissão**

_(27 de junho de 2013)_

A Cetamina foi sintetizada pela primeira vez em 1962 e patenteada na Bélgica em 1963. Atualmente, as preparações
de cetamina têm autorizações de introdução no mercado na maior parte dos Estados‐Membros. É utilizada como
anestésico veterinário, sendo igualmente útil na medicina humana, especialmente para crianças ou na realização de
pequenas cirurgias.

Os primeiros relatos do uso recreativo da cetamina surgiram na UE em meados da década de 90. Mais de 20 Estados‐
Membros relataram casos de apreensão de cetamina através do Sistema de Alerta Rápido gerido pelo Observatório
Europeu da Droga e da Toxicodependência (OEDT). A cetamina vendida ilegalmente para uso recreativo, sob a forma
de pó, líquido e comprimidos, parece ser obtida através do desvio de fornecimentos legais. Entre 1987 e 2000, foram
relatadas 12 mortes em que foi identificada cetamina.

Estudos efetuados sobre consumidores de droga indicam que, em doses fracas, a cetamina pode ter efeitos
estimulantes e alucinogéneos, causando inconsciência temporária e rigidez muscular. A Comissão não tem
conhecimento de crimes sexuais cometidos sob o uso da cetamina.

Em 2000, o Comité Científico do OEDT realizou uma avaliação dos riscos da cetamina, recomendando a sua sujeição
ao controlo da legislação em matéria de medicamentos nos Estados‐Membros e sublinhando que era necessário tomar
medidas mais fortes de controlo para abordar as questões da diversão, tráfico e exposição inadvertida à droga.
Recomendou igualmente que o OEDT e a Europol devem continuar a acompanhar o fabrico, tráfico, distribuição,
padrões de uso e consequências para a saúde relacionados com esta substância. A cetamina é controlada, através da
legislação em matéria de medicamentos ou de droga, em 20 Estados‐Membros.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 371

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005051/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Ketamine — drug

According to the Portuguese media, police are currently investigating the illegal sale of anaesthetics which are mixed
with drinks and used by sexual predators. The new drug used to this effect is ketamine, which is allegedly obtained
from a veterinary product.

1. Does the Commission have any information regarding this drug?

2. Is it aware of any sexual offences committed using ketamine?

3. Has it established measures, together with the Member States, to combat its distribution and use?

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

_(27 June 2013)_

Ketamine was first synthesised in 1962 and patented in Belgium in 1963. Currently, ketamine preparations have
marketing authorisations in most EU Member States. It is used as a veterinary anaesthetic or in human medicine,
especially for children or those undergoing minor surgery.

First accounts of recreational use of ketamine appeared in the EU in mid-1990s. More than 20 Member States have
reported seizures or ketamine through the Early Warning System managed by the European Monitoring Centre for
Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). Ketamine sold illicitly for recreational use, in the form of powder, liquid and
tablets, appears to be obtained by diversion of legitimate supplies. Between 1987 and 2000, 12 deaths, in which
ketamine was identified, were reported.

Surveys of drug users indicate that, in low doses, ketamine may have stimulant and hallucinogenic effects, causing
temporary unconsciousness and muscle rigidity. The Commission is not aware of sexual offences committed using
ketamine.

In 2000, the Scientific Committee of EMCDDA conducted a risk assessment of ketamine, recommending its
submission to control under medicines legislation in the Member States and stressing that stronger control measures
were necessary to deal with diversion, trafficking and inadvertent exposure to the drug. It also recommended that
EMCDDA and Europol should further monitor the manufacture, trafficking, distribution, patterns of use and health
consequences related to this substance. Ketamine is controlled, through either medicines or drugs legislation, in
20 Member States.

C 80 E / 372 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005052/13**

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

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Guiné-Bissau: Eleições e fim do período de transição

Segundo informações recentes, o parlamento da Guiné-Bissau terá dado o seu acordo à realização de eleições naquele
país durante o mês de novembro e ao término do período de transição em 31 de dezembro de 2013.

Assim, pergunto à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante:

—
Dispõe de informações acerca desta decisão?

—
Admite fazer deslocar uma Missão de Observação Eleitoral às eleições a realizar na Guiné-Bissau?

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

_(9 de julho de 2013)_

A Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente tem conhecimento de um recente acordo entre os dois principais partidos da
Guiné-Bissau (PAIGC e PRS), que deverá conduzir a um governo mais inclusivo e à realização de eleições presidenciais
e legislativas antes do final do corrente ano. No entanto, ainda se aguarda a apresentação de um roteiro
pormenorizado.

A Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente está, com efeito, a estudar a possibilidade de uma missão de observação
eleitoral na Guiné-Bissau.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 373

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005052/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Guinea-Bissau: elections and the end of the transition period

According to recent reports, the Guinea-Bissau Parliament has agreed that elections should be held in the country in
November and that the transition period should end on 31 December 2013.

— Does the Vice-President/High Representative have any information about this decision?

— Will she send an election observation mission to the elections to be held in Guinea-Bissau?

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

_(9 July 2013)_

The HR/VP is aware of a recent agreement between the two leading parties of Guinea-Bissau (PAIGC and PRS) which
should lead to a more inclusive government and presidential and parliament elections before the end of this year.
Nevertheless, a detailed roadmap is still awaited.

The HR/VP is indeed considering the possibility of an electoral observation mission to Guinea-Bissau.

C 80 E / 374 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005053/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ EUA — Processo contra a farmacêutica Novartis

Segundo a comunicação social portuguesa, o Departamento de Justiça dos Estados Unidos da América anunciou a
instauração de um processo contra a farmacêutica Novartis por alegadamente pagar subornos multimilionários a
médicos para que recomendassem os seus produtos a farmácias e a doentes.

1. Dispõe a Comissão de informações acerca deste caso?

2. Tem a Comissão conhecimento de casos semelhantes na União Europeia?

3. Adotou a Comissão ou tem prevista a adoção de medidas, em conjunção com os Estados‐Membros, que
permitam combater práticas semelhantes?

**Resposta dada por Tonio Borg em nome da Comissão**

_(24 de junho de 2013)_

A Comissão tem conhecimento das informações publicadas nos meios de comunicação social respeitantes ao
anúncio do Governo dos EUA de intentar ações judiciais contra uma empresa farmacêutica por alegados pagamentos
ilegais a médicos.

Ao abrigo da legislação da UE, a tentativa de uma empresa farmacêutica exercer influência no sentido de promover a
prescrição, o fornecimento, a venda ou o consumo de medicamentos é considerada publicidade, estando sujeita a
regras estritas previstas nos artigos 86.° a 100.° da Diretiva 2001/83/CE ( [1] ).

O artigo 94.°, n.° 1, da Diretiva 2001/83 proíbe conceder, oferecer ou prometer às pessoas habilitadas a prescrever
medicamentos prémios ou vantagens pecuniárias ou em espécie, a menos que sejam de valor insignificante e não
estejam relacionados com a prática médica ou farmacêutica.

As autoridades nacionais têm a obrigação de controlar a conformidade e determinar as sanções que devem ser
aplicadas, caso estas disposições sejam violadas. Do mesmo modo, a atividade dos médicos é fiscalizada e controlada
pelas entidades públicas nacionais ou por organizações profissionais delegadas.

Devido ao facto de as atividades de vigilância serem realizadas a nível nacional, a Comissão não tem uma visão global
das medidas de controlo da aplicação adotadas pelas entidades nacionais.

Além disso, a tentativa de uma empresa exercer influência no sentido de promover a prescrição dos seus produtos
pode, em determinadas circunstâncias, equivaler a um abuso de posição dominante e, consequentemente, a uma
violação do direito da concorrência da UE. Todavia, para se poder considerar que houve este tipo de violação, teria de
considerar‐se que a empresa em causa tem uma posição dominante num mercado definido. Atualmente, a Comissão
não dispõe de indicações de que tenha sido cometida uma infração desta natureza na UE.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) JO L 311 de 28.11.2001, p. 67.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 375

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005053/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Legal action against the pharmaceutical company Novartis in the United States

According to Portuguese media reports, the United States Department of Justice has announced it is taking legal
action against the pharmaceutical company Novartis for allegedly paying doctors multimillion-dollar bribes to
recommend its products to pharmacies and patients.

1. Does the Commission have any information about this case?

2. Is the Commission aware of similar cases in the EU?

3. Has the Commission introduced any measures in conjunction with Member States to combat similar practices
in the EU, or does it intend to do so?

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

_(24 June 2013)_

The Commission is aware of media reports that concern the announcement of the US government to take legal
actions against a pharmaceutical company for alleged illegal payments to doctors.

Under EC law any inducement by a pharmaceutical company designed to promote the prescription, supply, sale or
consumption of medicinal product is considered as advertising and subject to strict rules set out in Articles 86 to 100
of Directive 2001/83/EC ( [1] ).

In relation to persons qualified to prescribe or supply medicinal products, Article 94(1) of Directive 2001/83
provides that no gifts, pecuniary advantages or benefits in kind may be supplied, offered or promised to such persons
unless they are inexpensive and relevant to the practice of medicine or pharmacy.

It is the obligation of national authorities to monitor compliance and to determine the penalties that should be
imposed should those provisions be infringed. In the same way, the activity of doctors is supervised and monitored by
national public authorities or delegated professional organisations.

Due to the fact that monitoring activities are conducted at national level the Commission has no comprehensive
overview of enforcement actions taken by national authorities.

Additionally, the aforementioned inducement by a company designed to promote the prescription of its products
could under specific circumstances amount to a misuse of a dominant position and thus an infringement of EU
competition law. However, in order to find for such an infringement the company in question would have to be
qualified as having a dominant position in a defined market. Currently the Commission has no indications for such an
infringement in the EU.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) L311/67 28.11.2001.

C 80 E / 376 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005054/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Dieta mediterrânica — redução do risco de desenvolvimento de problemas de memória

Segundo notícias recentes, a revista Neurology anunciou que, para além das qualidades já conhecidas, a dieta
mediterrânica pode também contribuir para a redução do risco de desenvolvimento de problemas de memória.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

—
Tem conhecimento desta informação?

—
Face à sua potencial importância na prevenção das doenças daquele foro, admite promover este tipo de dieta,
em conjunto com os Estados-Membros, chamando a atenção dos consumidores também para esta
circunstância positiva adicional?

**Resposta dada por Tonio Borg em nome da Comissão**

_(20 de junho de 2013)_

A Comissão está ciente sobre a informação de que a dieta mediterrânica pode contribuir para reduzir o risco de
problemas de memória.

Embora a Comissão acolha favoravelmente e apoie ativamente as iniciativas dos Estados-Membros que visam a
promoção de uma alimentação equilibrada e um estilo de vida ativo, não está a planear levar a cabo uma campanha
especificamente destinada à promoção da dieta mediterrânica. No entanto, a Comissão apoia abordagens comuns a
favor de uma alimentação saudável e aumento do consumo de frutas e produtos hortícolas.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 377

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005054/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Mediterranean diet — reducing the risk of developing memory problems

According to recent news reports, _Neurology_ magazine has announced that, in addition to its already known qualities,
the Mediterranean diet may also help to reduce the risk of developing memory problems.

— Is the Commission aware of this information?

— Given its potential importance in terms of preventing memory disorders, will the Commission promote this kind
of diet, together with the Member States, and draw consumers’ attention to this additional benefit?

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

_(20 June 2013)_

The Commission is aware of the information that the Mediterranean diet may help to reduce the risk of developing
memory problems.

While the Commission welcomes and supports actively Member States' initiatives aimed at promoting a balanced diet
and active lifestyles, it is not planning to organise a specific campaign to promote the Mediterranean diet. The
Commission does however support common approaches to promote healthy eating and to increase fruit and
vegetables consumption.

C 80 E / 378 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005055/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Caso John Dalli — declarações de Giovanni Kessler

Segundo notícias recentes, o diretor do OLAF Giovanni Kessler afirmou que «Não existem provas conclusivas quanto
à participação direta do comissário John Dalli quer como instigador, quer como mandante da operação de solicitar
dinheiro em troca da promessa de serviços políticos.»

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

—
Confirma a existência destas declarações?

— Confirma a exatidão do seu conteúdo?

**Resposta dada por Algirdas Šemeta em nome da Comissão**

_(11 de julho de 2013)_

1. A Comissão confirma que Giovanni Kessler, Diretor-Geral do Organismo Europeu de Luta Antifraude, fez as
declarações citadas pelo Senhor Deputado. O Senhor Deputado faz menção a «notícias recentes», mas já em 19 de
outubro de 2012, no comunicado de imprensa publicado após a conclusão das investigações, o OLAF afirmou que
«não existem provas conclusivas quanto à participação direta do comissário Dalli na operação de solicitação de
dinheiro (…)». O OLAF concluiu também que existem vários elementos de prova inequívocos e circunstanciais que
foram reunidos durante o decurso da investigação, indicando que o Comissário Dali tinha conhecimento das
atividades do empresário maltês e do facto de que esta pessoa usava o seu nome e posição para obter vantagens
financeiras. O OLAF considerou que o Comissário Dalli não tomou quaisquer medidas para evitar ou se dissociar dos
factos ou para comunicar o sucedido ( [1] ).

2. Sim.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/media-corner/press-releases/press-releases/2012/20121019_01_en.htm

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 379

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005055/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ John Dalli case — Giovanni Kessler's statement

According to recent news reports, the Director-General of the European Anti-Fraud Office Giovanni Kessler has said
that: ‘There is no conclusive evidence of the direct participation of Commissioner John Dalli either as instigator or as
mastermind of the operation of requesting money in exchange for the promised political services.’

— Can the Commission confirm that Mr Kessler made this statement?

— Can it confirm the accuracy thereof?

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

_(11 July 2013)_

1. The Commission confirms that Giovanni Kessler, Director-General of the European Anti-Fraud Office, made the
statement quoted by the Honourable Member. The Honourable Member refers to ‘recent news reports’, but already on
19 October 2012, in the Press Release issued after having concluded its investigation, OLAF affirmed that ‘[t]he OLAF
investigation found no conclusive evidence of the direct participation of Commissioner Dalli in the operation for
requesting money […]. OLAF has also concluded that there are number of unambiguous circumstantial pieces of
evidence gathered in the course of the investigation, indicating that Commissioner Dalli was aware of the activities of
the Maltese entrepreneur and the fact that this person was using the Commissioner's name and position to gain
financial advantages. OLAF found that Commissioner Dalli had taken no action to prevent or dissociate himself from
the facts or to report the circumstances’ ( [1] ).

2. Yes.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/media-corner/press-releases/press-releases/2012/20121019_01_en.htm

C 80 E / 380 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005056/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Alemanha — apelo da Comissão para aumento de salários

O senhor Comissário Laszló Andor apelou recentemente à Alemanha para aumentar os salários, de modo a potenciar
um aumento no consumo e ajudar as exportações dos demais países da zona euro.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

—
Confirma que fez semelhante apelo?

—
São aqueles os principais objetivos que lhe subjazem?

—
Que resposta obteve por parte da Alemanha?

—
Em caso de irredutibilidade alemã, por que outras formas poderá a zona euro atingir os mesmos objetivos?

**Resposta dada por László Andor em nome da Comissão**

_(1 de julho de 2013)_

Depois de uma década de declínio dos custos laborais unitários reais, os salários reais na Alemanha aumentaram mais
do que a produtividade desde o início da crise ( [1] ). A prolongada moderação salarial tem sido um dos fatores que
explicam o aumento na Alemanha do excedente da balança de transações correntes. Ao mesmo tempo, diversos
Estados-Membros que conhecem dificuldades no sul da Europa constituem défices da balança de transações correntes,
impulsionados também pelas grandes entradas de capital em setores não transacionáveis. A manutenção de
condições para um crescimento salarial adequado na Alemanha pode contribuir para o reequilíbrio necessário na área
do euro, apoiando a procura interna e, por conseguinte, a oferta de novas possibilidades de exportação para outros
países.

A questão a que o Senhor Deputado se refere foi suscitada numa entrevista publicada no _Süddeutsche Zeitung_ em 29 de
abril em que, efetivamente, se apelava ao crescimento dos salários na Alemanha. Neste ano em que são feitas
recomendações específicas por país no âmbito do processo do Semestre Europeu, a Comissão convida a Alemanha a
«criar condições que permitam o crescimento dos salários para apoiar a procura interna» ( [2] ). A situação dos
trabalhadores que auferem baixos salários é objeto de especial preocupação.

O Governo alemão ainda não respondeu oficialmente à recomendação proposta. Poderá fazê-lo aquando dos debates
do Conselho antes da adoção final das recomendações específicas por país pelo Conselho.

A evolução salarial diferenciada, que reflete as diferenças no desenvolvimento da produtividade entre países, constitui
um elemento de correção dos atuais desequilíbrios na área do euro. Outra possibilidade de ajustamento é a
mobilidade transfronteiriça de mão-de-obra, o que poderá igualmente contribuir para restabelecer o equilíbrio no
mercado laboral. No entanto, a Comissão considera a mobilidade laboral em primeiro lugar e sobretudo como um
direito e não como algo que pode ser forçado por determinantes económicas.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Dados e análise circunstanciados, em «Emprego e desenvolvimentos sociais na Europa. 2012», capítulo 5.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 355 final.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 381

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005056/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Germany — Commission's call for higher wages

Commissioner László Andor recently called on Germany to raise wages, in order to boost consumption and to help
exports from other euro area countries.

— Can the Commission confirm that Mr Andor made such a plea?

— Are these the main objectives behind it?

— What response has he received from Germany?

— Should Germany fail to cooperate, how else can the euro area achieve the same objectives?

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

_(1 July 2013)_

Following a decade of declining real unit labour costs, real wages in Germany have increased more than productivity
since the beginning of the crisis ( [1] ). Prolonged wage moderation has been one of the factors behind the increase in
Germany's current account surplus. At the same time several troubled Member States in the South of Europe built up
current account deficits, driven also by large capital inflows into non-tradable sectors. Sustaining conditions for an
appropriate wage growth in Germany can contribute to the necessary rebalancing within the euro area by
underpinning domestic demand and thereby offering additional export potential to other countries.

The issue you refer to was raised in an interview with the Süddeutsche Zeitung on April 29th where indeed Germany
was called upon to raise wages. In this year's country specific recommendations under the European Semester process
the Commission recommends to Germany to ‘sustain conditions that enable wage growth to support domestic
demand’. ( [2] )The situation of low-wage earners is of particular concern.

The German Government has not officially responded to the proposed recommendation yet. It has an opportunity to
do so in the Council discussions before final adoption of the country specific recommendations by the Council.

Differentiated wage developments reflecting differences in productivity developments between countries are one
element to address the existing imbalances within the euro area. Another possible channel for adjustment is crossborder labour mobility which could also help restore the equilibrium on the labour market. However, the
Commission views labour mobility first and foremost as a right, not something that should be economically forced.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) See Employment and Social Developments in Europe 2012, Ch. 5 for detailed data and analysis.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 355 final.

C 80 E / 382 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005057/13**

**ao Conselho**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Alemanha — risco para a segurança

Segundo informações recentes, responsáveis de segurança alemães acreditam que um número de cidadãos do seu país
ter-se-á juntado a grupos islâmicos radicais e tomou parte na guerra civil síria. Estes responsáveis temem que o treino
recebido e os laços estabelecidos por estes cidadãos europeus resultem num agravamento das condições de segurança
na União Europeia e no aumento das possibilidades de ações terroristas no seu território.

Assim, pergunto ao Conselho:

—
Dispõe de informações acerca desta situação?

—
Tem conhecimento de outras semelhantes em outros Estados-Membros da União Europeia?

—
Como pretende fazer-lhes face?

**Resposta**
_(11 de setembro de 2013)_

O Conselho não tem conhecimento da situação concreta a que o Senhor Deputado se refere.

A situação de segurança em qualquer Estado-Membro é, em qualquer caso, uma competência do Estado-Membro em

causa.

O Conselho está ciente da ameaça geral representada por combatentes estrangeiros. Em 7 e 8 de março, o Conselho
debateu a situação da segurança no Sael/Magrebe e as suas implicações para a segurança interna da UE. A questão dos
combatentes estrangeiros foi um dos principais assuntos abordados no debate. Esta questão está também a ser tratada
no âmbito da implementação da Estratégia Antiterrorista da UE e conta-se entre os temas abordados pela Rede de
Sensibilização para a Radicalização (RAN), uma iniciativa lançada pela Comissão em 2011.

O Conselho debateu a questão geral dos combatentes estrangeiros e dos combatentes de regresso na perspetiva do
combate ao terrorismo, em relação à Síria em particular, na sua reunião de 6 e 7 de junho. No Conselho ( Justiça e
Assuntos Internos) que terá lugar em Dezembro de 2013, o Coordenador da Luta Antiterrorista da UE foi convidado
a apresentar um relatório sobre a aplicação de medidas relacionadas com o problema dos combatentes estrangeiros.

Entre os temas debatidos em relação aos quais importa tomar medidas, contam-se os seguintes:

—
a necessidade de uma avaliação comum do fenómeno desses jovens europeus que vão para a Síria para a jihad e
a necessidade de um melhor conhecimento dos diferentes grupos que lutam na Síria;

—
medidas para evitar que os jovens vão para a Síria e para lhes disponibilizar assistência quando regressam;

—
deteção de movimentos de viagens e resposta em termos de justiça penal;

—
cooperação com países terceiros.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 383

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005057/13**

**to the Council**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Germany — security risk

According to recent reports, German security officials believe that a number of German citizens have joined radical
Islamic groups and have taken part in the Syrian civil war. These officials fear that the training received and the ties
established by these European citizens will pose a threat to EU security and increase the chances of terrorist activities
in their territory.

— Does the Council have any information regarding this situation?

— Is it aware of similar situations in other EU Member States?

— How does it intend to deal with them?

**Reply**
_(11 September 2013)_

The Council has no knowledge of the specific situation to which the Honourable Member refers.

The security situation in any individual Member State is in any case a matter for the Member State concerned.

The Council is aware of the general threat posed by foreign fighters. On 7 and 8 March, the Council discussed the
security situation in the Sahel/Maghreb and its implications for EU internal security. The issue of foreign fighters was
among the main subjects covered by the debate. This issue is also being addressed in the framework of the
implementation of the EU Counter-Terrorism Strategy and is among the problems addressed by the Radicalisation
Awareness Network (RAN), an initiative launched by the Commission in 2011.

The Council discussed the general issue of foreign fighters and returnees from a counter-terrorism perspective, with
regard to Syria in particular, at its meeting on 6 and 7 June. The EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator (CTC) was invited
to present a report on the implementation of measures addressing the problem of foreign fighters at the Justice and
Home Affairs Council that will take place in December 2013.

Among the subjects for action discussed were:

—
the need for a common assessment of the phenomenon of these young Europeans going to Syria for jihad and
the need to get a better picture of the different groups fighting in Syria;

—
measures to prevent youngsters from leaving to Syria and to offer assistance when they return;

—
detection of travel movements and the criminal justice response;

—
cooperation with third countries.

C 80 E / 384 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005058/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Alemanha — risco para a segurança

Segundo informações recentes, responsáveis de segurança alemães acreditam que um número de cidadãos do seu país
ter-se-á juntado a grupos islâmicos radicais e tomou parte na guerra civil síria. Estes responsáveis temem que o treino
recebido e os laços estabelecidos por estes cidadãos europeus resultem num agravamento das condições de segurança
na União Europeia e no aumento das possibilidades de ações terroristas no seu território.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

—
Dispõe de informações acerca desta situação?

—
Tem conhecimento de outras semelhantes em outros Estados-Membros da União Europeia?

—
Que medidas tomou ou prevê tomar neste tocante?

**Resposta dada por Cecilia Malmström em nome da Comissão**

_(12 de julho de 2013)_

A Comissão está bastante preocupada com a possível ameaça que representa para a segurança da UE a ida de cidadãos
da União Europeia para a Síria como combatentes estrangeiros. Embora seja difícil avaliar o número exato de
combatentes estrangeiros, este facto afeta vários países da UE. Grande parte da avaliação neste âmbito está a ser
efetuada pelos serviços nacionais de informações e pelos serviços de segurança.

A Comissão tomou diversas iniciativas com o apoio da Rede Europeia de Sensibilização para a Radicalização (RSR).
Alguns grupos de trabalho da RSR apoiaram ações destinadas a prevenir e desencorajar cidadãos de irem da Europa
para a Síria como combatentes estrangeiros, tendo igualmente oferecido assistência aos Estados‐Membros em relação
ao possível perigo que constitui o regresso dessas pessoas. As ações específicas incluem o contacto com as
comunidades em risco, incluindo as diásporas, a elaboração de informações no sentido contrário com a participação
de intervenientes, comunidades e famílias locais, formação adequada da polícia de primeira linha e o reforço da
sensibilização do setor da saúde.

Os Estados‐Membros devem recorrer aos instrumentos existentes que possam contribuir para controlar os
movimentos dos combatentes estrangeiros, nomeadamente a segunda geração do Sistema de Informação de
Schengen.

A questão foi discutida no Conselho (JAI) de 7 de junho de 2013, com base num documento preparado pelo
Coordenador da UE da Luta Antiterrorista, no qual se apresentam possíveis ações da UE e dos Estados‐Membros nos
âmbitos de controlo, legislação, diplomacia, colaboração com as comunidades locais e comunicação. A Comissão
concordou em apresentar, até ao final do ano, um exercício de análise de risco para identificar os principais riscos que
os combatentes estrangeiros constituem para a segurança da UE e possíveis medidas de atenuação dos mesmos.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 385

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005058/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Germany — security risk

According to recent reports, German security officials believe that a number of German citizens have joined radical
Islamic groups and have taken part in the Syrian civil war. These officials fear that the training received and the ties
established by these European citizens will pose a threat to EU security and increase the chances of terrorist activities
in their territory.

— Does the Commission have any information regarding this situation?

— Is it aware of similar situations in other EU Member States?

— What measures has it taken or will it take in this regard?

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

_(12 July 2013)_

The Commission is deeply concerned by the possible threat to EU security of EU citizens travelling to Syria as foreign
fighters. Although the exact number of foreign fighters is difficult to evaluate, it affects several EU countries. Much of
the assessement is being done by national intelligence and security services.

Different initiatives have been taken by the Commission with the support of the Radicalisation Awareness Network
(RAN). Working groups of RAN have been involved to support actions aiming at preventing and discouraging people
departing from Europe to Syria as foreign fighters, and offering assistance to Member States on the possible threat
posed by returnees. Specific actions include reaching out to communities at risk including to diasporas, constructing
counter-messages involving local players, communities and families; appropriate training to frontline police, and
increasing awareness of the health sector.

Member States should also make use of existing instruments which may help monitoring movements of foreign
fighters, such as the Second Generation of the Schengen Information System.

The issue was discussed at the Council (JHA) on 7 June 2013, based on a paper prepared by the EU Counter Terrorism
Coordinator, outlining possible actions by the EU and Member States in the fields of monitoring, legislation,
diplomacy, work with local communities and communication. The Commission has agreed to present, by the end of
the year, a risk analysis exercise to identify the major security risks for the EU from foreign fighters and possible
mitigation measures.

C 80 E / 386 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005059/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Euro: consequências para a União de um abandono alemão

O ministro dos negócios estrangeiros alemão, Guido Westerwelle, declarou recentemente ao _Bild am Sonntag_ «que [a
Alemanha] abandonar o euro poderia levar ao colapso da Europa».

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

—
Está em condições de prever as consequências de semelhante abandono para a União Europeia?

—
Considera credível semelhante possibilidade?

—
Como avalia o surgimento de formações políticas que reclamam o regresso às moedas nacionais?

**Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão**

_(15 de julho de 2013)_

É prática da Comissão não comentar declarações noticiadas na imprensa. No que respeita à questão levantada pelo
Senhor Deputado, todos os países da zona euro estão fortemente empenhados no euro como moeda comum. Na
realidade, o número de membros da zona euro está a aumentar e não a diminuir. No início de 2014, a Letónia será o
próximo Estado‐Membro a adotar o euro como moeda nacional.

Em dezembro de 2012, um inquérito Eurobarómetro ( [1] ) revelou que o apoio a uma União Económica e Monetária
Europeia com uma moeda única, o euro, não sofreu alterações significativas: mais de metade dos europeus (53 %, o
que corresponde a um aumento de 1 ponto percentual em relação à primavera de 2012) declaram-se a favor e 40 %
contra (percentagem inalterada). O referido inquérito inclui um anexo ( [2] ) que revela que 69 % dos alemães são a favor
da moeda única, o que corresponde a um aumento de 4 pontos percentuais relativamente ao inquérito anterior,
contra 26 % dos inquiridos que se declaram contra. O apoio dos cidadãos alemães à moeda única é, por conseguinte,
extremamente sólido, tendo mesmo aumentado recentemente. Todas os partidos representados no _Bundestag_ alemão
apoiam a moeda única.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) [http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb78/eb78_first_en.pdf, Ver p. 16.](http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb78/eb78_first_en.pdf)
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) [http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb78/eb78_anx_en.pdf, Ver p. 70.](http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb78/eb78_anx_en.pdf)

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 387

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005059/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Euro: effects of a German exit on the EU

The German Foreign Minister, Guido Westerwelle, recently told _Bild am Sonntag_ newspaper that ‘[Germany] giving up
the euro would mean risking the collapse of Europe’.

— Is the Commission able to predict the effects that such an exit would have on the EU?

— Is there a credible chance this might happen?

— How does it assess the emergence of political parties calling for a return to national currencies?

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

_(15 July 2013)_

It is Commission practice not to comment on statements reported in the press. As regards the question raised by the
Honourable Member, all euro area Member States are strongly committed to the euro as their common currency. In
fact, the euro area will have more members,not less. At the beginning of 2014 Latvia will be the next Member State
introducing the euro as its currency.

The December 2012 Euro barometer opinion survey ( [1] ) found that Support for European economic and monetary
union with a single currency, the euro, has remained almost stable: more than half of Europeans (53%, +1 percentage
point since spring 2012) are for, and 40% against (unchanged). The annex to this ediction of the Euro barometer ( [2] )
shows that among Germans 69% are in favour of the single currency, an increase of 4 percentage points over the
previous survey, while 26% of those polled are against. This means that support of the public for the single currency
in Germany is rock solid and has recently increased. All parties represented in the German Bundestag support the
single currency.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) See http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb78/eb78_first_en.pdf, page 16.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) See http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb78/eb78_anx_en.pdf, page 70.

C 80 E / 388 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005060/13**

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

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Mongólia — visita oficial

A Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante deslocou-se recentemente à Mongólia em visita oficial.

Assim, pergunto à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante:

—
Quais os principais pontos que destaca nesta sua visita?

—
Que balanço faz da mesma?

—
Quais são as suas perspetivas para o relacionamento entre a UE e a Mongólia?

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

_(1 de julho de 2013)_

A visita realizou-se de 28 a 30 de abril. A AR/VP foi o mais alto funcionário da UE a visitar o país até à data, tendo-se
encontrado com o presidente da Mongólia, T. Elbegdorj, com o primeiro‐ministro, N. Altankuyag, e com o ministro
dos Negócios Estrangeiros, L. Bold.

O principal resultado foi a assinatura do Acordo de Parceria e Cooperação (APC), que estabelece um quadro jurídico
para o desenvolvimento das relações entre a UE e aquele país. A visita constituiu uma excelente oportunidade para
debater formas de aumentar as trocas comerciais, a educação, o turismo, a investigação, o desenvolvimento rural e a
cooperação para o desenvolvimento. Houve, igualmente, troca de pontos de vista sobre questões regionais e globais.

A AR/VP reiterou, além disso, a disposição da UE de apoiar a Mongólia na resposta aos desafios relacionados com a
expansão das indústrias extrativas e salientou a importância de que, para os investimentos europeus, se revestem o
Estado de direito e a certeza.

A AR/VP participou ainda na reunião ministerial da Comunidade das Democracias — a que a Mongólia preside no
período 2011‐2013 —, onde proferiu um importante discurso sobre a experiência da UE em termos de democracia.

O APC induzirá uma melhoria qualitativa nas nossas relações, prevendo-se maior cooperação setorial a partir de
2013. Ao mesmo tempo, a visita revelou um potencial inexplorado nas relações entre a UE e a Mongólia. Estão em
curso trabalhos preparatórios relativos à aplicação daquele acordo, assim como às diversas opções quanto ao
aumento a presença da UE no país.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 389

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005060/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Mongolia: official visit

The Vice-President/High Representative recently made an official visit to Mongolia.

— What are the main points arising from the Vice-President/High Representative’s visit?

— What is her assessment of it?

— How does she view EU‐Mongolia relations?

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

_(1 July 2013)_

The visit took place on 28-30 April. The HR/VP is the highest EU official to visit to the country so far. She met with
the President of Mongolia T. Elbegdorj, Prime Minister N. Altankuyag and Minister of Foreign Affairs L. Bold.

The main deliverable was the signature of the partnership and cooperation agreement which provides a legal
framework for expanding the EU-Mongolia relationship. The visit was an excellent opportunity to discuss ways of
increasing trade exchanges, education, tourism, research, rural development and development cooperation. The
HR/VP exchanged views on regional and global issues.

She reiterated the EU's willingness to support Mongolia in addressing challenges related to the boom in extractive
industries and stressed the importance of the rule of law and certainty for European investments.

The HR/VP also participated in the Ministerial meeting of the Community of Democracies — chaired by Mongolia
2011-2013 — where she delivered a key speech on the EU's experience of democracy.

The PCA will bring a qualitative upgrade to our relations and increased sectoral cooperation is expected in 2013 and
following years. At the same time, the visit showed untapped potential in the EU-Mongolia relations. Preparatory
work is underway for the PCA's implementation and also into different options to increase the EU's presence on the
ground.

C 80 E / 390 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005061/13**

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

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — China — visita oficial

A Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante deslocou-se recentemente à China em visita oficial.

Assim, pergunto à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante:

—
Quais os principais pontos que destaca nesta sua visita?

—
Que balanço faz da mesma?

—
Quais são as suas perspetivas para o relacionamento entre a UE e a China?

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

_(20 de junho de 2013)_

A Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente deslocou-se à China de 25 a 28 de abril de 2013, viagem que constitui o
primeiro contacto de alto nível da UE com os novos dirigentes chineses. Esta visita teve em vista fazer avançar a
Parceria Estratégica UE-China. Foram realizadas reuniões com o Presidente da Conferência Política Consultiva do
Povo Chinês (CPPCC),Yu Zhengsheng, o Conselheiro de Estado Yang Jiechi, o Ministro dos Negócios Estrangeiros,
Wang Yi, e o Ministro da Defesa, General Chang Wanquan. Foram discutidos os preparativos para o próximo Diálogo
Estratégico e Cimeira, bem como para outros contactos e eventos previstos para o próximo ano, que irão contribuir
de forma significativa para o compromisso da UE com a China a médio e a longo prazos.

Foram especialmente salientadas questões bilaterais, como a cooperação em matéria de comércio e investimentos,
direitos humanos, segurança e defesa. São igualmente de sublinhar as trocas de pontos de vista sobre questões de
âmbito internacional e regional, com especial destaque para o Irão e a Síria, bem como sobre a situação de segurança
na Ásia, incluindo a República Popular Democrática da Coreia (RPDC) e o mar da China Oriental e o mar da China
Meridional.

A Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente foi muito bem acolhida e foram realizadas reuniões, que decorreram numa
atmosfera positiva e informal. Ambas as Partes manifestaram um forte apoio ao desenvolvimento da Parceria
Estratégica, especialmente no contexto deste ano simbólico, em que se comemora o seu 10.° aniversário. A Alta
Representante/Vice-Presidente considera a China um dos parceiros mais importantes da UE, não só a nível económico
e comercial, mas igualmente, e cada vez mais, no que respeita a questões internacionais e mundiais. Tenciona
aproveitar o Diálogo Estratégico que terá com o Conselheiro de Estado Yang Jiechi no final de 2013 para continuar a
desenvolver a cooperação nestas novas áreas concretas.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 391

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005061/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — China: official visit

The Vice-President/High Representative recently made an official visit to China.

— What are the main points arising from the Vice-President/High Representative’s visit?

— What is her assessment of it?

— How does she view EU‐China relations?

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

_(20 June 2013)_

The High Representative/Vice-President (HR/VP) visited China on 25-28 April 2013, allowing for the first high level
EU contact with the new top Chinese leadership. The visit was aimed at taking forward the EU-China Strategic
Partnership. Meetings were held with Chairman of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) Yu
Zhengsheng, State Councillor Yang Jiechi, Minister of Foreign Affair, Wang Yi and Minister of Defence, Gen. Chang
Wanquan. Preparations for the up-coming Strategic Dialogue and Summit were discussed as well as other relevant
planned contacts and events in the year to come, which will contribute substantially to the EU's mid‐ to long-term
engagement with China.

Bilateral issues, such as trade and investment, human rights and security and defence cooperation were highlighted.
The exchanges on international and regional topics were also substantial, with a focus on Iran and Syria, and the
security situation in Asia, including the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) and the East and South China
Seas.

The HR/VP was very well received and meetings were held in a positive and friendly atmosphere. Both sides showed
strong support to developing the Strategic Partnership, especially in the context of this symbolic year marking its
10th anniversary. The HR/VP considers China to be one of the EU's most important partners, not least in the
economic and trade areas, but also, increasingly, on international and global issues. She intends to dedicate the
Strategic Dialogue she will lead with State Councillor Yang later in 2013 to further expanding cooperation in these
new and concrete areas.

C 80 E / 392 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005062/13**

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

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Bósnia-Herzegovina — falta de progressos

A Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante manifestou recentemente a sua desilusão devido à falta de progressos na
estabilização da Bósnia-Herzegovina.

Assim, pergunto à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante:

—
Que avaliação faz da atual situação política e social naquele país?

—
Que motivos acredita que subjazem à inexistência de progressos palpáveis no processo de estabilização do
país?

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

_(3 de julho de 2013)_

Durante anos, a UE empenhou-se na consolidação da Bósnia-Herzegovina rumo à integração na UE através do
Processo de Estabilização e de Associação. Não há dúvida de que a Bósnia-Herzegovina tem o seu lugar na União
Europeia.

Nestes últimos meses, a UE facilitou a realização de um diálogo entre os líderes políticos da Bósnia-Herzegovina de
modo a chegar a um compromisso para a aplicação do acórdão do TEDH no processo Sejdić-Finci. Tal compromisso
permitiria a entrada em vigor do AEA e constituiria uma oportunidade para a Bósnia-Herzegovina apresentar um
pedido credível de adesão à UE. Contudo, os líderes políticos da Bósnia-Herzegovina ainda não chegaram a acordo.

De modo a progredir no âmbito da integração do país na UE todos os seus líderes têm de respeitar a complexa
situação política da Bósnia-Herzegovina, na qual interagem a funcionalidade, a estabilidade política e a concentração
de esforços nas reformas. Os acordos podem aproximar ainda mais a Bósnia-Herzegovina da UE. No entanto, as
divisões entre os líderes políticos de todos os grupos étnicos são muito profundas e agravam essa incerteza. Até ao
momento, a relutância em chegar a um compromisso tem entravado os processos de tomada de decisões.

Chegou o momento de os líderes da Bósnia-Herzegovina obterem resultados concretos e concretizar o que a maioria
dos seus cidadãos pede. Para tal, a Bósnia-Herzegovina deve ir além das suas cisões a nível nacional e confrontos
políticos.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 393

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005062/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Bosnia-Herzegovina: lack of progress

The Vice-President/High Representative recently expressed her disappointment at the lack of progress regarding the
stabilisation of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

— What is the Vice-President/High Representative’s assessment of the current political and social situation in the
country?

— What does she believe are the underlying reasons for the lack of tangible progress in the country’s stabilisation
process?

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

_(3 July 2013)_

The EU has engaged for years to further anchor BiH on its EU path through the Stabilisation and Association Process.
There is no doubt that Bosnia and Herzegovina has its place in the European Union.

Over the last couple of months, the EU has facilitated a dialogue among BiH political leaders in order to look for a
compromise on the implementation of the ECtHR ruling in the Sejdic/Finci case. That would enable the entry into
force of the SAA and would give BiH an opportunity to submit a credible EU membership application. However, BiH
political leaders have not delivered yet.

In order to achieve progress on the country’s EU path all its leaders need to be respectful of the complex political
situation in BiH, where the functionality, political stability and focus on reforms all interact. Common agreements can
move Bosnia and Herzegovina closer to the EU. But divisions among the political leaders from all ethnic groups can
run deep and blur the picture. Unwillingness so far to seek compromise has hindered decision making processes.

It is high time for BIH leadership to achieve concrete results and deliver on what the majority of its citizens ask for.
Bosnia and Herzegovina must look beyond its domestic divisions and political confrontations in order to do so.

C 80 E / 394 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005063/13**

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

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Birmânia — levantamento de sanções

A Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante anunciou recentemente o levantamento das sanções impostas à Birmânia,
mantendo-se apenas vigente o embargo à venda de armas. Esta decisão da UE assinala uma nova fase nas relações da
União com aquele país, que parece empreender reformas sólidas rumo à democracia e ao Estado de direito.

Assim, pergunto à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante:

—
Que avaliação faz da atual situação política e social na Birmânia?

—
Como perspetiva o relacionamento entre a UE e a Birmânia?

—
Em que medida o levantamento das sanções poderá contribuir para o estreitamento das relações?

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

_(24 de junho de 2013)_

Mianmar/Birmânia embarcou, desde março de 2011, num notável processo de reforma política, económica e social
sob o Governo do Presidente Thein Sein. Trata-se de um processo, que esperemos que prossiga, embora ainda seja
precário, uma vez que o país está confrontado com inúmeros desafios em termos de democratização, de
desenvolvimento económico, da situação dos direitos humanos, da paz e da reconciliação nacional. Os próximos dois
anos, até à realização de eleições em 2015 serão cruciais para o êxito da transição global do país e a UE utilizará todos
os meios e mecanismos de que dispõe para apoiar Mianmar/Birmânia nessa via.

As relações da UE com Mianmar/Birmânia ganharam em dinâmica e amplitude desde 2011. O êxito da visita do
Presidente Thein Sein a Bruxelas, em março, deu um impulso adicional a essas relações na medida em que ambas as
Partes confirmaram o seu empenho em intensificar a sua cooperação na declaração conjunta «Desenvolver uma
parceria duradoura UE-Mianmar» assinada pelos três Presidentes Thein Sein, Van Rompuy e Durão Barroso.

O levantamento de todas as sanções, à exceção do embargo de armas, servirá para reforçar as relações UEMianmar/Birmânia. Tal como estipulado nas conclusões do Conselho de 22 de abril, a UE está disposta a iniciar um
novo capítulo nas suas relações com Mianmar/Birmânia, construindo uma parceria duradoura e promovendo um
maior envolvimento com todo o país. O governo acolheu com agrado a atitude da UE, interpretando‐a como o
reconhecimento do êxito do seu processo de reforma e como um incentivo para prosseguir nessa via. A UE está
igualmente a trabalhar para reforçar as relações comerciais e de investimento através do restabelecimento das
preferências comerciais e da exploração de um acordo de investimento, contribuindo assim para o desenvolvimento
sustentável de Mianmar/Birmânia e proporcionando simultaneamente oportunidades para as empresas da UE.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 395

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005063/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Myanmar: lifting of sanctions

The Vice-President/High Representative recently announced the lifting of sanctions imposed on Myanmar, with only
the arms embargo remaining in force. This EU decision marks a new phase in its relations with the country, which
seems to be undertaking solid reforms towards democracy and the rule of law.

— What is the Vice-President/High Representative’s assessment of the current political and social situation in
Myanmar?

— How does she view EU‐Myanmar relations?

— To what extent might the lifting of sanctions help to strengthen these relations?

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

_(24 June 2013)_

Myanmar/Burma has embarked upon a remarkable political, economic and social reform process under President
Thein Sein's Government since March 2011. While we expect the process to continue, it is still fragile and the country
faces numerous challenges in terms of democratisation, economic development, the situation of human rights, peace
and national reconciliation. The next two years leading to elections in 2015 will be crucial for the success of the
country's overall transition and the EU will use all means and mechanism at its disposal to support Myanmar/Burma
on its path.

The EU's relations with Myanmar/Burma have been gaining in dynamics and breadth since 2011. The successful visit
of President Thein Sein to Brussels in March gave further impetus to the relationship as both sides confirmed their
commitment to strengthen their cooperation in the Joint Statement ‘Building a Lasting EU-Myanmar Partnership’
signed by the three Presidents Thein Sein, van Rompuy and Barroso.

The lifting of all sanctions with exception of the arms embargo will serve to further strengthen EU-Myanmar/Burma
relations. As stipulated in the 22 April Council conclusions, the EU is willing to open a new chapter in its relationship
with Myanmar/Burma building a lasting partnership and to promote closer engagement with the country as a whole.
The government welcomed the EU's move, rightly taking it as recognition of its successful reform process so far and
as encouragement to proceed on this path. The EU is also working to enhance trade and investment relations, through
the restoration of trade preferences and the exploration of an investment agreement, thus contributing to
Myanmar/Burma's sustainable development while providing opportunities to EU enterprises.

C 80 E / 396 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005064/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Protocolo entre Tribunais de Contas Europeus e Africanos

O presidente do Tribunal de Contas de Portugal afirmou, à agência noticiosa portuguesa, que a Eurosai, organismo
que congrega os tribunais de contas da Europa, vai assinar um protocolo com a Afrosai, a sua congénere de África.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

—
Dispõe de informações acerca do referido protocolo, bem como do seu conteúdo e objetivos?

—
Existem outros protocolos semelhantes em vigor? Que resultados apresentam?

**Resposta dada por Algirdas Šemeta em nome da Comissão**

_(20 de junho de 2013)_

1. Embora a Comissão mantenha múltiplos contactos com as instituições superiores de auditoria dos EstadosMembros e participe, por convite, nas reuniões do comité SAI, não foi informada pela Eurosai sobre o Protocolo.

2. A Comissão congratula-se com as atividades das instituições superiores de auditoria dos Estados-Membros que
visam reforçar a cooperação, no espírito do artigo 1.° dos estatutos da Eurosai, nomeadamente para promover a
cooperação entre os membros SAI, para incentivar o intercâmbio de informações e de documentação, para fazer
avançar o estudo da auditoria do setor público e para agir no sentido da harmonização da terminologia no domínio
da auditoria do setor público. No entanto, a Comissão não tem mandato de supervisão ou de acompanhamento, no
que diz respeito às atividades da Eurosai, os seus objetivos ou seus impactos.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 397

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005064/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Protocol between European and African Courts of Auditors

According to the Portuguese news agency, the President of the Portuguese Court of Auditors has said that the
European Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions (EUROSAI), the body that groups together the supreme audit
institutions of European states, is to sign a protocol with the African Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions
(AFROSAI), its African counterpart.

— Does the Commission have any information about the protocol, its content and its objectives?

— Are there any similar protocols in operation? If so, what impact have they had?

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

_(20 June 2013)_

1. Although the Commission has manifold contacts with national Supreme Audit Institutions of EU Member
States and participates on invitation in SAI Contact Committee meetings, it has not been informed by EUROSAI
about the envisaged protocol.

2. The Commission welcomes the activities of national Supreme Audit Institutions to enhance cooperation in the
spirit of Art. 1 of EUROSAI Statutes, namely to promote professional cooperation among SAI members, to
encourage the exchange of information and documentation, to advance the study of public sector audit and to work
towards the harmonisation of terminology in the field of public audit. However, the Commission has no supervisory
or monitoring mandate as regards EUROSAI activities, their objectives or impacts.

C 80 E / 398 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005065/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Gripe das aves H7N9

A comunicação social deu nota recentemente de que as autoridades de Taiwan confirmaram o primeiro caso de gripe
das aves provocado pelo vírus H7N9.

O último balanço das autoridades da República Popular da China revela que já foram identificados 108 casos de gripe
dos quais resultaram, pelo menos, 22 mortes.

Especialistas da Organização Mundial de Saúde afirmaram, esta quarta-feira, que a nova variante da gripe das aves é
das mais letais, sendo transmitida mais facilmente que o H5N1, que provocou mais de 300 mortos em 2003.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

—
Dispõe de informações acerca dos casos de gripe provocados pelo vírus H7N9 e da letalidade do próprio vírus?

—
Acompanha a evolução dos mesmos na Ásia?

—
Aconselha os cidadãos europeus a deslocarem-se àquela parte do mundo neste momento?

—
Tem conhecimento de algum caso na União Europeia?

—
Tem previstas medidas, em conjunção com os Estados-Membros, que permitam acorrer a um eventual surto na
União?

**Resposta dada por Tonio Borg em nome da Comissão**

_(24 de junho de 2013)_

1. A Comissão está a par da situação epidemiológica relacionada com a gripe aviária A (H7/N9) comunicada em
relação a oito províncias no Leste da China e em Taiwan. A doença tem uma taxa de mortalidade de cerca de 20 %.

2. A Comissão está a acompanhar a situação em estreita colaboração com o Centro Europeu de Prevenção e
Controlo das Doenças e com a Organização Mundial de Saúde.

3. De momento, não foram emitidas advertências aos viajantes nem restrições de viagem relativamente aos
territórios afetados.

4. Até à data, não foi comunicado na União Europeia qualquer caso de gripe aviária A (H7N9). Não existe
atualmente qualquer prova de transmissão entre seres humanos. O risco a curto prazo de propagação da doença pela
Europa, através de seres humanos, é considerado baixo.

5. A Comissão organizou três reuniões do Comité de Segurança da Saúde e da rede do Sistema de Alerta Rápido e
de Resposta a fim de reforçar a preparação para situações de emergência e facilitar a coordenação das medidas
sanitárias adotadas pelas entidades nacionais nos Estados‐Membros. A capacidade de diagnóstico laboratorial, com
vista a identificar rapidamente eventuais casos importados, está atualmente a ser desenvolvida a nível da UE. Estão a
ser preparadas informações sobre saúde para os viajantes e os profissionais da saúde que serão partilhadas com os
Estados‐Membros. Além disso, a definição provisória da doença está a ser objeto de revisão, a fim de reforçar a
vigilância ativa.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 399

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005065/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ H7N9 bird flu

According to recent media reports, the Taiwanese authorities have confirmed the first case of bird flu caused by the
H7N9 virus.

According to the latest count by the authorities in the People’s Republic of China, 108 cases of flu have been
identified, leading to at least 22 deaths.

World Health Organisation specialists confirmed on Wednesday that the new bird flu variant was more lethal and
more easily transmitted than H5N1, which caused more than 300 deaths in 2003.

— Does the Commission have any information about bird flu cases caused by the H7N9 virus and how lethal this
virus is?

— Is it monitoring developments in Asia?

— Is it advising European citizens to leave that part of the world at the present time?

— Is it aware of any cases in the EU?

— Has the Commission planned any measures in conjunction with Member States to respond to a possible outbreak
in the EU?

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

_(24 June 2013)_

1. The Commission is aware of the epidemiological situation related to avian influenza A (H7/N9) as reported
from 8 provinces in Eastern China and from Taiwan. The disease has a lethality rate of around 20%.

2. The Commission is monitoring the situation in close collaboration with the European Centre for Disease
Prevention and Control and the World Health Organisation.

3. At present, neither travel advice nor travel restrictions have been issued for the territories affected.

4. So far, no cases of avian influenza A (H7N9) have been reported in the European Union. At present there is no
evidence of any human-to-human transmission. The risk of the disease spreading to Europe via humans in the near
future is considered low.

5. The Commission has convened three meetings of the Health Security Committee and the Early Warning and
Response System network to strengthen preparedness and to facilitate coordination of health measures by the
national authorities in Member States. Capability for laboratory diagnosis in order to swiftly identify eventual
imported cases is currently being developed at EU level. Health information for travellers and healthcare professionals
is currently being developed to be shared with Member States. In addition, the interim case definition of the disease is
currently under revision in order to strengthen active surveillance.

C 80 E / 400 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-005066/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Sven Giegold (Verts/ALE)**

_(7. Mai 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Verfahren bei einem makroökonomischen Ungleichgewicht (MIP) (I)

Das Verfahren bei einem makroökonomischen Ungleichgewicht („Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure“, MIP)
wurde 2011 im Zuge der Reform der wirtschaftspolitischen Steuerung („Sixpack“) als Maßnahme für ein wirksames
Vorgehen gegen Ungleichgewichte (siehe Erwägungen 7 und 22 der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1176/2011 zur Einführung
des MIP) eingeführt.

Bezug nehmend auf die jüngste eingehende Überprüfung, deren Ergebnisse am 10. April 2013 veröffentlicht wurden,
wird die Kommission gebeten, folgende Fragen zu beantworten:

Aufgrund welcher Kriterien ist die Kommission zu dem Schluss gelangt, dass Spanien und Slowenien übermäßige
makroökonomische Ungleichgewichte aufweisen, wie es in der Mitteilung der Kommission KOM(2013)0199 heißt,
und hat entschieden, für diese beiden Mitgliedstaaten Verfahren bei einem übermäßigen makroökonomischen
Ungleichgewicht gemäß Artikel 7 Absatz 1 der Verordnung Nr. 1176/2011 einzuleiten?

Wie unterscheiden sich diese Kriterien von denjenigen, die für die Feststellung von Ungleichgewichten in anderen
EU-Mitgliedstaaten (Belgien, Bulgarien, Dänemark, Italien, Ungarn, Malta, die Niederlande, Finnland, Schweden und
Vereinigtes Königreich) zugrunde gelegt wurden, die in der Mitteilung der Kommission KOM(2013)0199 genannt
werden?

Weshalb hat die Kommission nicht den nächsten Schritt getan und dem Rat gemäß Artikel 7 Absatz 2 der
Verordnung Nr. 1176/2011 Empfehlungen dahin gehend vorgelegt, wie Spanien und Slowenien ihre übermäßigen
Ungleichgewichte korrigieren sollten?

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

_(9. Juli 2013)_

Das Verfahren bei einem makroökonomischen Ungleichgewicht („Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure“, MIP) hat
zum Ziel, interne und externe Ungleichgewichte zu vermeiden und zu korrigieren. Bei den internen
Ungleichgewichten geht es um Verschuldung, Finanz‐ und Anlagemärkte, Kredite und Arbeitslosigkeit, bei den
externen Ungleichgewichten um die Leistungsbilanz, den Nettoauslandsvermögensstatus (NAVS), Marktanteile, die
Wettbewerbsfähigkeit und die Produktivität.

Die Fragen, die bei den eingehenden Überprüfungen erörterten wurden, stellen auf die spezifischen Gegebenheiten
der jeweiligen Mitgliedstaaten ab. In einigen Mitgliedstaaten liegen nur interne Ungleichgewichte vor, so etwa in Malta
in Bezug auf die Größe des Finanzsektors oder in Schweden, Dänemark bzw. den Niederlanden in Bezug auf die
Verschuldung der Privathaushalte. Hauptsächlich externe Ungleichgewichte finden sich in anderen Mitgliedstaaten
wie etwa Finnland, wo die Leistungsbilanz von einem Überschuss in ein Defizit umgeschlagen ist. In mehreren
Mitgliedstaaten sind sowohl externe wie auch interne Ungleichgewichte zu verzeichnen, so etwa in Frankreich, Italien,
Spanien und Slowenien. Ungleichgewichte werden im Rahmen einer Gesamtbewertung durch die Kommission
ermittelt. Dabei achtet die Kommission insbesondere auf die Risiken, die von den so festgestellten Ungleichgewichten
ausgehen, einschließlich der Auswirkungen auf andere Bereiche, sowie die Nachhaltigkeit der Entwicklungen. In den
eingehenden Überprüfungen ( [1] ) und den diesbezüglichen Mitteilungen werden die Auffassungen der Kommission zu
der Lage in Spanien, Slowenien und den anderen betroffenen Mitgliedstaaten dargelegt.

Die Kommission hat festgestellt, dass in Spanien und in Slowenien gemäß der MIP-Verordnung übermäßige
Ungleichgewichte bestehen. In der Verordnung wird kein automatischer Zusammenhang zwischen übermäßigen
Ungleichgewichten und den darauffolgenden Verfahrensschritten wie z. B. der Empfehlung, einen
Korrekturmaßnahmenplan vorzulegen, hergestellt. Die Kommission ist der Auffassung, dass die Maßnahmen, die
diese beiden Mitgliedstaaten in ihren Reformprogrammen festgelegt haben, eine vehemente Reaktion auf die
übermäßigen Ungleichgewichte darstellen, und hat beschlossen, zum gegenwärtigen Zeitpunkt keine weiteren
Verfahrensschritte einzuleiten. Sie wird jedoch die Umsetzung der Maßnahmen und die wirtschaftlichen
Entwicklungen genau beobachten.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Vgl. European Economy-Occasional Papers, 132-144, abrufbar unter:
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/occasional_paper/index_en.htm

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 401

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005066/13**

**to the Commission**
**Sven Giegold (Verts/ALE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure (MIP) (I)

The Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure (MIP) was introduced as part of the economic governance reform (‘sixpack’) in 2011 to take effective steps to tackle the problem of imbalances (see recitals 7 and 22 of Regulation (EU)
No 1176/2011 establishing the MIP).

With reference to the latest in-depth review, which it published on 10 April 2013, the Commission is asked to answer
the following:

What criteria did it apply to conclude that Spain and Slovenia are experiencing excessive macroeconomic imbalances,
as stated in Commission Communication COM(2013)0199, and to open excessive imbalance procedures in
accordance with Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 for these two Member States?

How do these criteria differ from the ones applied to identify imbalances in other EU Member States (i.e. Belgium,
Bulgaria, Denmark, Italy, Hungary, Malta, the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom), as referred to
in Commission Communication COM(2013)0199?

Why did the Commission not to move on to the next step, i.e. the provision of recommendations to the Council on
how Spain and Slovenia should correct their excessive imbalances, in accordance with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU)
No 1176/2011?

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

_(9 July 2013)_

The MIP aims at preventing and correcting internal and external imbalances. The former relate to indebtedness,
financial and asset markets, credit and unemployment; the external imbalances relate to current accounts, NIIP,
market shares, competitiveness and productivity.

The issues discussed in the in-depth reviews are tailored to the specific circumstances of MS. Some countries are
experiencing mainly internal imbalances, like MT in relation to the size of the financial sector or SE, DK and NL for
the households' indebtedness. Mainly external imbalances are in other countries like FI which has moved from a
surplus to a deficit current account. Several countries have external and internal imbalances, like FR, IT, ES and SI. The
identification of imbalances results from an overall appreciation by the Commission. The Commission pays specific
attention to the risks entailed by the identified imbalances, including spillovers, and the sustainability of
developments. The IDRs ( [1] ) and the associated Communication provide the Commission's views on the situation of
ES and SI, and the other MS concerned.

According to the MIP Regulation, the Commission has identified that ES and SI were experiencing excessive
imbalances. The regulation establishes no automatic link between the identification of excessive imbalances, and the
subsequent steps of the procedure, including a recommendation requiring the submission of a corrective action plan.
The Commission considers that the policies set out by these two MS in their national reform programmes provide a
strong response to the excessive imbalances and decided not to move further in the procedure at this stage. The
Commission will closely monitor policy implementation and economic developments.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) See European Economy-Occasional Papers, 132-144, available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/occasional_paper/index_en.htm

C 80 E / 402 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-005067/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Sven Giegold (Verts/ALE)**

_(7. Mai 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Verfahren bei makroökonomischen Ungleichgewichten (MIP) (II)

Das Verfahren bei einem makroökonomischen Ungleichgewicht („Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure“, MIP)
wurde 2011 im Zuge der Reform der wirtschaftspolitischen Steuerung („Sixpack“) als Maßnahme für ein wirksames
Vorgehen gegen Ungleichgewichte (siehe Erwägungen 7 und 22 der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1176/2011 zur Einführung
des MIP) eingeführt. Bezug nehmend auf den jüngsten Bericht über die eingehende Überprüfung, der am 10. April
2013 veröffentlicht wurde, wird die Kommission gebeten, folgende Fragen zu beantworten:

In Bezug auf Frankreich gelangte die Kommission zu folgenden Schlussfolgerungen: „In Frankreich bestehen
makroökonomische Ungleichgewichte, die einer Überwachung und entscheidender politischer Maßnahmen
bedürfen. Insbesondere die sowohl durch Kosten‐ als auch durch Nicht-Kosten-Faktoren bedingte Verschlechterung
der Handelsbilanz und der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit, die vor dem Hintergrund einer sich verschlechternden
Zahlungsbilanzposition und einer hohen öffentlichen Verschuldung zu verzeichnen ist, verdient weiterhin
Aufmerksamkeit. Vor allem angesichts der Größe der französischen Wirtschaft sind Maßnahmen, die das Risiko
nachteiliger Auswirkungen auf die Funktionsweise der französischen Wirtschaft und der Wirtschafts‐ und
Währungsunion verringern, besonders erforderlich“ (KOM(2013)0199).

Auch in ihren kürzlich veröffentlichten Wirtschaftsprognosen (Ausgabe vom Frühjahr 2013) gelangt die
Kommission zu dem Schluss, dass die in Frankreich zu beobachtende Verschlechterung der externen
Wettbewerbsfähigkeit kurzfristig wohl anhalten wird (S. 60).

In ihren Schlussfolgerungen stellt die Kommission fest, dass in Frankreich Ungleichgewichte, die ein entschiedenes
politisches Eingreifen erfordern, sowie ein fortschreitender Verlust der externen Wettbewerbsfähigkeit zu
verzeichnen sind. Sie verweist auch auf die Gefahr, die von diesen in Frankreich bestehenden Ungleichgewichten für
das Funktionieren der Wirtschafts‐ und Währungsunion ausgehen kann. Weshalb hat die Kommission in Anbetracht
dessen und im Sinne der oben genannten Erwägung 22, wonach Ungleichgewichte, die die Gefahr einer
Beeinträchtigung des Funktionierens der WWU bergen, die Einleitung eines Verfahrens bei außerordentlichen
Ungleichgewichte erfordern, nicht für Frankreich ein solches Verfahren gemäß Artikel 7 der Verordnung (EU)
Nr. 1176/2011 eingeleitet?

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

_(11. Juli 2013)_

Laut Artikel 2 Absätze 1 und 2 der MIP-Verordnung handelt es sich bei Ungleichgewichten um Entwicklungen,
welche sich nachteilig auf das ordnungsgemäße Funktionieren der Wirtschaft eines Mitgliedstaates der
Währungsunion oder der Union insgesamt auswirken. Übermäßige Ungleichgewichte sind schwere
Ungleichgewichte einschließlich solcher, die das ordnungsgemäße Funktionieren der Wirtschafts‐ und
Währungsunion gefährden können. Wie bereits in der Antwort auf die Anfrage E-5066/2013 ( [1] ) erläutert, ist die
Feststellung von übermäßigen Ungleichgewichten das Ergebnis einer Gesamtbewertung durch die Kommission und
nicht der Anwendung eines mechanischen Instruments. Bei dieser Bewertung achtet die Kommission insbesondere
auf die makroökonomischen Risiken, die die festgestellten Ungleichgewichte mit sich bringen, einschließlich der
Auswirkungen auf andere Bereiche, und die Nachhaltigkeit der Entwicklungen.

Bei der eingehenden Überprüfung für Frankreich ( [2] ) und in der Mitteilung vom 10. April 2013 ( [3] ) wurden
Ungleichgewichte in Frankreich festgestellt. Dabei wurde auf die Risiken im Zusammenhang mit der Handelsbilanz
und der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit aufgrund von kostenabhängigen und ‐unabhängigen Faktoren sowie auf die sich
verschlechternde außenwirtschaftliche Position und die hohen Staatsschulden hingewiesen, und es wurden
entscheidende politische Maßnahmen gefordert. Zwar hat die Kommission auch unterstrichen, dass angesichts der
Größe und der Bedeutung der französischen Wirtschaft innerhalb des Euro-Raums besondere Vorsicht geboten ist.
Sie war jedoch der Auffassung, dass die Risiken und Herausforderungen für Frankreich nicht von derselben Tragweite
und Dringlichkeit sind wie für Spanien und Slowenien, bei denen übermäßige Ungleichgewichte festgestellt wurden.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) „Macroeconomic Imbalances — France 2013“, in European Economy — Occasional Papers, 136, abrufbar unter:

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/occasional_paper/2013/pdf/ocp136_en.pdf

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Ergebnisse der eingehenden Überprüfungen gemäß der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1176/2011 über die Vermeidung und Korrektur

makroökonomischer Ungleichgewichte, KOM(2013)199 endg.

( **|**

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 403

Auf der Grundlage des französischen nationalen Reform‐ und Stabilitätsprogramms hat die Kommission am 29. Mai
2013 im Rahmen des „Europäischen Semesters“ Empfehlungen für Maßnahmen abgegeben, von denen mehrere auch
als Reaktion auf die festgestellten Ungleichgewichte von Bedeutung sind.

C 80 E / 404 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005067/13**

**to the Commission**
**Sven Giegold (Verts/ALE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure (MIP) (II)

The Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure (MIP) was introduced as part of the economic governance reform (‘sixpack’) in 2011 to take effective steps to tackle the problem of imbalances (see recitals 7 and 22 of Regulation (EU)
No 1176/2011 establishing the MIP). With reference to the latest in-depth review, which it published on
10 April 2013, the Commission is asked to answer the following:

As regards France, the Commission drew the following conclusion: ‘France is experiencing macroeconomic
imbalances, which require monitoring and decisive policy action. In particular, the deterioration in the trade balance
and competitiveness levels, driven both by cost and non-cost factors, against a background of a deteriorating external
position and high public debt deserves continued attention. The need for action so as to reduce the risk of adverse
effects on the functioning of the French economy and of the Economic and Monetary Union, is particularly important
notably given the size of the French economy.’ (COM(2013)0199)

Likewise, in its recently published Economic Forecasts (Spring 2013 edition), the Commission draws the conclusion
that, in the case of France, the ‘persistent deterioration in external competitiveness is likely to go on in the short term’
(p. 60).

In its conclusions, the Commission pointed out that France is experiencing imbalances — which require decisive
policy action — and a persistent loss of external competitiveness. It also draws attention to the risk that these French
imbalances may pose for the functioning of the EMU. With these points in mind, and in the light of the
abovementioned Recital 22, which calls for the initiation of an excessive imbalance procedure for imbalances that
jeopardise the proper functioning of the EMU, why did the Commission not open any excessive imbalance procedure
for France in accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011?

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

_(11 July 2013)_

According to the MIP Regulation (Article 2(1 and 2)), imbalances are developments which adversely affect the proper
functioning of the economy of a Member State or of the monetary union or of the Union as a whole; excessive
imbalances are severe imbalances including those that may jeopardise the proper function of the monetary union. As
explained in the response to Question E-5066/2013 ( [1] ), the identification of excessive imbalances results from an
overall appreciation by the Commission, and not the application of a mechanic tool. In this assessment, the
Commission pays specific attention to the macroeconomic risks entailed by the identified imbalances, including
spillovers, and the sustainability of developments.

The in-depth review for France ( [2] ) and the communication of 10 April 2013 ( [3] ) identified imbalances in France and
stressed the risks related to the deterioration in the trade balance and competitiveness levels, driven both by cost and
non-cost factors and deteriorating external position and high public debt, and called for decisive policy action. While
the Commission also pointed that special vigilance is necessary given the size and importance of the French economy
inside the euro area, the Commission did not find that the risks and challenges involved for France to be at the same
level and urgency as for Spain and Slovenia for which excessive imbalances were found.

On the basis of the French National Reform Programme and Stability Programme, on 29 May 2013, the Commission
put forward policy recommendations under the European Semester, several of which are also relevant as a reponse to
the identified imbalances.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) ‘Macroeconomic Imbalances — France 2013,’ European Economy — Occasional Papers, 136, available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/occasional_paper/2013/pdf/ocp136_en.pdf

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Results of in-depth reviews under Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 on the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances, COM(2013)

199 final.

( **|**

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 405

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-005068/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Sven Giegold (Verts/ALE)**

_(7. Mai 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Verfahren bei einem makroökonomischen Ungleichgewicht (MIP) (III)

Das Verfahren bei einem makroökonomischen Ungleichgewicht („Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure“, MIP)
wurde 2011 im Zuge der Reform der wirtschaftspolitischen Steuerung („Sixpack“) als Maßnahme für ein wirksames
Vorgehen gegen Ungleichgewichte (siehe Erwägungen 7 und 22 der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1176/2011 zur Einführung
des MIP) eingeführt. Bezug nehmend auf die jüngste eingehende Überprüfung, deren Ergebnisse am 10. April 2013
veröffentlicht wurden, wird die Kommission gebeten, folgende Fragen zu beantworten:

Die Vorausschätzungen auf der Grundlage des derzeitigen Leistungsbilanzüberschusses in Deutschland lassen
erwarten, dass Deutschland den im „Scoreboard“ festgelegten Schwellenwert für Leistungsbilanzüberschüsse von 6 %
des BIP (im Dreijahresdurchschnitt) überschreiten wird. Deutschland ist die größte Wirtschaftsmacht innerhalb des
Euro-Währungsgebiets und hat dementsprechend starken Einfluss auf dessen Funktionieren. Die Bedingungen für
Maßnahmen zur Korrektur der genannten Ungleichgewichte gemäß Erwägung 22 der Verordnung (EU)
Nr. 1176/2011 sind also gegeben. Weshalb hat die Kommission angesichts dieser Umstände noch keine Warnung in
Bezug auf die derzeitigen Leistungsbilanzüberschüsse Deutschlands entsprechend den Vorgaben im Bericht über den
Warnmechanismus herausgegeben?

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

_(26. Juni 2013)_

Im Verfahren bei einem makroökonomischen Ungleichgewicht gibt es keine „Warnstufe“ wie beispielsweise im
Zusammenhang mit dem Stabilitäts‐ und Wachstumspakt ( [1] ).

Gemäß der Verordnung über das Verfahren bei einem makroökonomischen Ungleichgewicht sollen im
Warnmechanismus-Bericht jene Mitgliedstaaten ermittelt werden, die von makroökonomischen Ungleichgewichten
betroffen oder bedroht sein könnten und für die die Kommission eine eingehende Überprüfung vornehmen sollte,
bevor sie feststellt, ob es dort Ungleichgewichte bzw. übermäßige Ungleichgewichte gibt, und politische
Empfehlungen ausarbeitet. Diese Beurteilung beruht auf einem Scoreboard von Indikatoren, einschlägigen
indikativen Schwellenwerten und einer ökonomischen Auslegung des Scoreboards. Das Scoreboard wird nicht
mechanistisch ausgelegt, und die Auswahl der Länder, die einer eingehenden Prüfung unterzogen werden sollen,
erfolgt unter Berücksichtigung aller verfügbaren Informationen.

Bei der Veröffentlichung des jüngsten Warnmechanismus-Berichts ( [2] ) lag der Indikator für den
Leistungsbilanzüberschuss Deutschlands mit 5,9 % des BIP ganz leicht unter dem indikativen Schwellenwert von 6 %,
und die damaligen Projektionen ließen einen Rückgang dieses Überschusses erwarten.

Der Kommission ist bewusst, dass dieser Leistungsbilanzüberschuss nach den neuesten verfügbaren Zahlen 2012
zugenommen hat ( [3] ) und 2013/14 voraussichtlich über dem Schwellenwert von 6 % des BIP verharren wird. Dieser
Überschuss stammt allerdings inzwischen weitgehend aus dem Handel mit Ländern außerhalb des
Euro-Währungsgebiets. Momentan ist noch nicht abzusehen, zu welchem Urteil die Kommission in ihrem nächsten
Warnmechanismus-Bericht gelangen wird.

Die Kommission hat zwar keine eingehende Überprüfung Deutschlands in die Wege geleitet, aber (entsprechend ihrer
Ankündigung im Warnmechanismus-Bericht 2012 ( [4] )) in einem ausführlichen Bericht die stetigen hohen
Leistungsbilanzüberschüsse in einigen Mitgliedstaaten analysiert und erörtert, wie sie im Rahmen der Überwachung
der Wirtschaftspolitik und im weltwirtschaftlichen Kontext zu bewerten sind ( [5] ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Artikel 6 Absatz 2 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1466/97 des Rates in der geänderten Fassung.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) KOM(2012)751 endg.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Siehe die neuesten verfügbaren Daten und Prognosen in der Frühjahrsprognose der Kommissionsdienststellen (European Economy, 2/2013)

unter:
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/european_economy/2013/pdf/ee2_en.pdf

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) KOM(2012)68 endg.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) „Current Account Surpluses in the EU“, European Economy, 9, abrufbar unter:

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/european_economy/2012/pdf/ee-2012-9_en.pdf

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

⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

C 80 E / 406 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005068/13**

**to the Commission**
**Sven Giegold (Verts/ALE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure (MIP) (III)

The Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure (MIP) was introduced as part of the economic governance reform
(‘six-pack’) in 2011 to take effective steps to tackle the problem of imbalances (see recitals 7 and 22 of Regulation (EU)
No 1176/2011 establishing the MIP). With reference to the latest in-depth review, which it published on
10 April 2013, the Commission is asked to answer the following:

According to available projections relating to the German current account surplus ( [1] ), Germany is expected to
overshoot the scoreboard threshold for current account surpluses of 6% of GDP (three-year average). Given that
Germany has the largest economy in the Eurozone and thus has a strong impact on its functioning, and that the
conditions of Recital 22 of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 for the correction of these imbalances would therefore
apply, why has the Commission not yet issued a warning in line with the standards set in the Alert Mechanism Report
regarding Germany’s current account surpluses?

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

_(26 June 2013)_

Under the MIP, there is no step leading to a ‘warning’ as it exists for example in the context of the Stability and Growth
Pact ( [2] ).

According to the MIP Regulation, the role of the annual Alert Mechanism Report (AMR) is to identify the Member
States (MS) that may be affected by, or be at risk of being affected by, imbalances, and for which the Commission
should prepare in-depth reviews before concluding whether a MS is experiencing imbalances or excessive imbalances
and preparing the appropriate policy recommendations. This identification is based on a scoreboard of indicators, the
respective indicative thresholds and the economic reading of the scoreboard.There is no automatic or mechanical
interpretation of the scoreboard indicators, and the selection of countries for an in-depth review takes into account all
available information.

On 28 November2012, when the latest annual AMR ( [3] ) was published, the indicator for the current account surplus
(5.9% of GDP) was marginally below the indicative threshold (6%): and projections at the time were pointing to a
reduction in the surplus.

The Commission is aware that, according to the latest available data ( [4] ), the German current account surplus increased
in 2012 and is expected to remain above 6% of GDP in 2013-14. However, Germany's surplus is nowadays to a large
extent determined by trade with non-euro countries. It is premature to indicate now what will be the conclusion of
the next AMR.

Although the Commission has not prepared an IDR for Germany, it has published (as it had committed to do in the
AMR-2012 ( [5] )) a detailed report which analyses the persistently large surpluses in a number of Member States and
discuss how surpluses should be treated in macroeconomic surveillance and in a global economic context ( [6] ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) See: http://bit.ly/10Brz1H, http://bit.ly/ZDQMbm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) See Article 6(2) or Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97, as amended.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 751 final.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) See the latest available statistics and forecasts in the Commission services' forecasts ( _European Economy_, 2(2013), available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/european_economy/2013/pdf/ee2_en.pdf

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 68 final.
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) ‘Current Account Surpluses in the EU,’ European Economy, 9, available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/european_economy/2012/pdf/ee-2012-9_en.pdf

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

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 407

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-005069/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Barbara Matera (PPE)**

_(7 maggio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Condizione della donna in Turchia

Il governo Erdogan ha approvato l'8 marzo 2012 una legge per proteggere le donne contro la violenza.

Si tratta di un provvedimento controverso sul quale sono piovute pesanti critiche dalle organizzazioni turche per i
diritti delle donne che lamentano, ad esempio, il fatto che dalla legge siano state rimosse espressioni che sono sintomo
di un problema reale come «uguaglianza di genere» o «violenza domestica».

Sebbene la legge preveda il carcere per chi abusi di una donna, i gruppi per i diritti femminili continuano a lamentarsi
del provvedimento approvato e l'opposizione non è riuscita a ottenere la modifica di alcuni termini nel testo finale,
come la sostituzione di «uguaglianza sociale» con «uguaglianza di genere».

La nuova legge dell'aprile 2013 vieta alle hostess della compagnia di bandiera Turkish Airlines di usare un rossetto a
colori vivaci, come il rosso o i rosa, e conferma inoltre il divieto imposto dalle compagnie di autobus turche alle
donne di sedersi accanto agli uomini.

Inoltre il 12 aprile 2013, nel giorno in cui le parlamentari turche brindavano per la fine del divieto di indossare i
pantaloni nei luoghi istituzionali, una ragazzina di tredici anni è stata stuprata più volte da un gruppo di ventinove
uomini, incluso un sottufficiale di marina, nella cittadina di Golcuk, nella parte nord-occidentale del paese. Negli
ultimi dieci anni i crimini contro le donne sono aumentati del 400 % ed è cresciuto in modo esponenziale il numero
di donne velate.

Il governo Erdogan, al potere dal 2002, ha incoraggiato l'uso del velo facendo cadere uno dopo l'altro i divieti di
indossare il velo: prima per le studentesse universitarie, poi per le professoresse, per le hostess della compagnia aerea
Turkish Airlines, per le ragazze nelle scuole elementari e medie durante le ore di Corano e, qualche settimana fa, anche
per le donne avvocato.

A tal proposito si chiede alla Commissione quanto segue:

1. Qual è la posizione della Commissione, nel quadro dei negoziati d'adesione con la Turchia, rispetto al
deterioramento della condizione della donna in Turchia?

2. Quali misure ha intrapreso la Commissione per far pressione sul governo turco affinché garantisca
l'eguaglianza di genere in vista della prospettiva di adesione all'Unione europea e dell'allineamento ai criteri di
Copenaghen?

3. La delegazione dell'Unione europea in Turchia sta monitorando gli sviluppi della condizione della donna nel
paese entrando anche in contatto con associazioni e ONG in materia di difesa dei diritti delle donne?

**Risposta di Štefan Füle a nome della Commissione**

_(28 giugno 2013)_

La Commissione segue con la massima attenzione gli sviluppi relativi ai diritti delle donne e all’uguaglianza di genere
in Turchia. La relazione 2012 sui progressi compiuti dalla Turchia concludeva che, nel complesso, il paese aveva
preso misure per migliorare la legislazione sul rispetto dei diritti delle donne e sull’uguaglianza di genere. La legge
sulla tutela della famiglia e sulla prevenzione delle violenze contro le donne è un miglioramento rispetto alla
normativa precedente, perché protegge dalle violenze i membri della famiglia e quelli nati da relazioni extraconiugali.
Le procedure per i casi urgenti sono particolarmente positive, così come la consultazione inclusiva svolta delle
autorità con la società civile, sebbene le ONG abbiano criticato certe modifiche apportate in extremis al testo. Occorre
tuttavia un notevole impegno per trasformare questa nuova legge, così come la legislazione precedente, in una realtà
politica, sociale ed economica. La legislazione deve essere applicata in modo coerente in tutto il paese. Occorre
aumentare il coinvolgimento e la partecipazione delle donne in termini di occupazione, definizione delle strategie e
politica. I matrimoni precoci e forzati costituiscono tuttora un problema. Gli sviluppi successivi alla relazione 2012
sui progressi compiuti dalla Turchia saranno analizzati nella relazione 2013.

La Commissione affronta la questione dei diritti delle donne e dell’uguaglianza di genere con le autorità turche in tutte
le sedi opportune e collabora con tutte le parti interessate per migliorare la situazione, anche utilizzando i fondi
preadesione dell’UE.

C 80 E / 408 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005069/13**

**to the Commission**
**Barbara Matera (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Situation of women in Turkey

On 8 March 2012 the Erdoğan government passed a law to protect women against violence.

This controversial measure has been heavily criticised by Turkish women’s rights organisations, who regret, for
example, that expressions indicating a genuine problem, such as ‘gender equality’ or ‘domestic violence’, have been
removed from the law.

Even though anyone who abuses a woman will be imprisoned under the law, women’s rights groups continue to
complain about the adopted measure, and the opposition has failed in its bid to amend some terms — such as
replacing ‘social equality’ with ‘gender equality’ — in the final text.

The new law of April 2013 forbids air hostesses employed by the national carrier, Turkish Airlines, from wearing
lipstick in bright colours, such as red or pink, and also upholds the ban imposed by Turkish bus companies, which
prevents women from sitting next to men.

Furthermore, on 12 April 2013, the day on which Turkey’s female members of parliament were celebrating the lifting
of the ban on women wearing trousers in institutional buildings, a 13-year-old girl was repeatedly raped by a group of
29 men, including a petty officer, in the small town of Gölcük, in the north-west of the country. Crimes against
women have risen by 400% over the last decade, and the number of women wearing a veil has increased
exponentially.

The Erdoğan government, in power since 2002, has encouraged the wearing of veils by systematically lifting the bans
on their use: initially for female university students, then for female teachers, for air hostesses employed by Turkish
Airlines, for girls in primary and secondary school during the hours in which they study the Koran and, a few weeks
ago, for female lawyers, too.

1. What is the Commission’s position, in the context of the accession negotiations with Turkey, on the worsening
situation of women in Turkey?

2. What steps has the Commission taken in order to put pressure on the Turkish Government to guarantee gender
equality in view of Turkey’s possible accession to the European Union and of its alignment with the Copenhagen
criteria?

3. Is the EU delegation in Turkey monitoring developments in the situation of women in the country by also
engaging with associations and non-governmental organisations in matters concerning the protection of women’s
rights?

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

_(28 June 2013)_

The Commission follows closely developments on women's rights and gender equality in Turkey. The Turkey 2012
Progress Report concluded that ‘overall, steps have been taken to improve legislation regarding respect for women’s
rights and gender equality. The Law on the Protection of Family and Prevention of Violence against Women is an
improvement on previous legislation, protecting family members and those in relationships outside marriage from
violence. The procedures for urgent cases are particularly positive, as was the inclusive consultation exercise
undertaken by the authorities with civil society, even if NGOs are critical of certain last-minute amendments to the
text. However, substantial efforts are needed to turn this new law, and earlier legislation, into political, social and
economic reality. Legislation needs to be implemented consistently across the country. There is a need for greater
involvement of and participation by women in employment, policy-making and politics. The issue of early and forced
marriages remains a concern.’ Developments since the 2012 Turkey Progress Report will be covered in the 2013
Report.

The Commission raises women's rights and gender equality issues with the Turkish authorities on all appropriate
occasions, and works with all stakeholders to improve the situation, including by using EU pre-accession funds.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 409

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-005070/13**

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

_(7 maggio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Possibili finanziamenti comunitari per la realizzazione della Parrocchia Maria Regina della Pace (Roma)

Sul territorio del Comune di Roma, nella zona di Tor Vergata (estrema periferia a sud-est di Roma), una comunità di
circa 9 000 residenti attende da 12 anni la realizzazione del proprio centro parrocchiale. Nel 2001 il Comune ha
assegnato un terreno su cui costruire la struttura, ma purtroppo, per mancanza di fondi, la realizzazione del progetto
della Parrocchia di Maria Regina della Pace non è stata mai avviata; pertanto, l'unica soluzione provvisoria per
celebrare la Messa e altre funzioni liturgiche è stata quella di adattarsi a dei _container_ della Protezione Civile e a moduli
prefabbricati. Tale sistemazione ha costretto per anni i parrocchiani a svolgere le varie attività in condizioni non solo
di precarietà e di continui disagi, ma anche di rischio, a causa del mancato rispetto di tutte le norme di sicurezza.
Infatti, in seguito a un incendio verificatosi lo scorso 21 novembre 2012, la struttura principale costruita in legno,
luogo principale di incontro di tutta la comunità, è andata totalmente distrutta. Questo quartiere è ad alta densità di
popolazione, pertanto la presenza di un punto di ritrovo rappresenta non solo uno dei pochi luoghi di aggregazione
della comunità, ma anche un luogo dove i cittadini, soprattutto i giovani e le categorie più disagiate, possono
usufruire di alcuni tipi di servizi e dedicarsi ad attività socio-culturali.

Ciò premesso, può la Commissione illustrare:

1. se vi sono finanziamenti comunitari, diretti o indiretti, che possono contribuire alla costruzione di tale
parrocchia;

2. se esistono finanziamenti comunitari che possono sostenere servizi ai cittadini e attività socio-culturali;

3. un quadro generale della situazione.

**Risposta di Johannes Hahn a nome della Commissione**

_(27 giugno 2013)_

Il Fondo europeo di sviluppo regionale (FESR) mira a rafforzare la coesione economica e sociale nell'Unione europea
correggendo gli squilibri tra le sue regioni mediante investimenti volti a promuovere lo sviluppo economico e
l'occupazione. La costruzione di una chiesa parrocchiale non può essere considerata un intervento a sostegno di tali
obiettivi.

Le misure di integrazione sociale e i servizi ai cittadini possono essere cofinanziati dal FESR, nel quadro di piani
integrati per lo sviluppo urbano in settori caratterizzati da un'elevata concentrazione di problematiche economiche,
ambientali e sociali. Il programma per la regione Lazio 2007-2013 prevede interventi a favore delle aree urbane.

Per maggiori informazioni, la Commissione suggerisce all'onorevole parlamentare di contattare direttamente
l'autorità di gestione del programma operativo regionale della regione Lazio:

Autorità di gestione del programma operativo regionale della regione Lazio 2007-2013
Via R. R. Garibaldi, 7 00145 — Roma
[adgcomplazio@regione.lazio.it](mailto:adgcomplazio@regione.lazio.it)

C 80 E / 410 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005070/13**

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

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Possible EU funding for the construction of the Maria Regina della Pace parish church (Rome)

In the Tor Vergata area of the Municipality of Rome (located in the south-east outskirts of Rome), a community of
some 9 000 residents has been waiting 12 years for its parish centre to be built. In 2001 the Municipality set aside a
piece of land for the construction of the building but, unfortunately, a lack of funds meant that work on the Maria
Regina della Pace parish church project was never begun; therefore, it has only been possible for residents to celebrate
Mass and other religious ceremonies in the interim by resigning themselves to using containers provided by the Civil
Protection Department and prefabricated units. This arrangement has meant that, for years, the parishioners have had
to carry out their various activities in conditions that are not only uncertain and subject to constant disruption, but
also dangerous, due to the failure to meet all the safety standards in force. Indeed, following a fire on
21 November 2012, the main wooden structure, the principal meeting place for the whole community, was
completely destroyed. This district has a large population, so a meeting place is not only one of the few places in
which the community can come together, it is also a place where citizens, especially young people and the poorest
members of society, can take advantage of certain types of services and can engage in sociocultural activities.

In view of the above, can the Commission:

1. say whether any direct or indirect EU funding is available to help build the parish church;

2. say whether any EU funding is available to support services for the community and sociocultural activities;

3. provide an overview of the situation?

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

_(27 June 2013)_

The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) aims at strengthening economic and social cohesion in the
European Union by correcting imbalances between its regions through investments designed to foster economic
development and employment. The building of a parish church cannot be considered to support these goals.

Social inclusion measures and services to citizens can be co-financed by the ERDF as part of integrated urban
development plans in areas characterised by a high concentration of economic, environmental and social problems.
The 2007-2013 programme in the region of Lazio provides for interventions in favour of urban areas.

For more information, the Commission suggests that the Honourable Member contact directly the managing
authority of regional operational programme Lazio:

Managing Authority Regional Operational Programme Lazio for 2007-2013
Via R. R. Garibaldi, 7 00145 Roma
[adgcomplazio@regione.lazio.it](mailto:adgcomplazio@regione.lazio.it)

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 411

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta P-005071/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Claudio Morganti (EFD)**

_(7 maggio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Grave carenza di materie prime per il settore europeo della concia

La disponibilità di materie prime (pelli grezze) per il settore europeo della concia si è ulteriormente deteriorata
rispetto a quanto denunciato all'epoca nella mia interrogazione E-007410/2011 del luglio 2011.

L'industria del settore continua a lamentare un progressivo e inesorabile calo della produzione europea di pelli grezze,
mentre nel contempo la loro esportazione extra-UE risulta essere in continuo aumento. I prezzi hanno raggiunto
livelli insostenibili per le imprese europee e l'accesso alle risorse internazionali rimane difficilissimo, a causa delle
restrizioni all'export (dazi, quote, mancata concessione di licenze) imposte dai nostri competitori, che di fatto
bloccano all'incirca il 50 % della disponibilità internazionale di questa merce.

Può la Commissione fornire i dati (in volume e in valore) di produzione europea, importazioni ed esportazioni di pelli
grezze per le principali categorie animali (bovini grandi e piccoli, ovini e caprini) a partire dal 2009 al fine di definire
meglio i termini di questa grave carenza per il settore conciario europeo?

Fino a quale punto ritiene essa tollerabile questa situazione prima di intervenire con misure di salvaguardia, come
previsto dal regolamento 1061 del 2009 relativo all'instaurazione di un regime comune applicabile alle esportazioni?

**Risposta di Karel De Gucht a nome della Commissione**

_(13 giugno 2013)_

In linea generale, le esportazioni dall'UE verso paesi terzi sono libere e non vanno sottoposte ad alcuna restrizione
quantitativa. Sebbene il regolamento (CE) n. 1061/2009 ( [1] ) preveda un'eccezione a questa regola, il ricorso a misure di
protezione è previsto solo nella misura in cui una penuria di prodotti di prima necessità dovesse causare una
situazione critica all'interno dell'UE.

In questo contesto, la Commissione ha esaminato le statistiche richieste dall'onorevole parlamentare, ma esse non
sembrano fornire alcun indizio di una grave penuria di materie prime per l'industria della pelle. Di fatto il livello di
produzione complessivo si è mantenuto relativamente stabile nel periodo 2009-2011 e il volume delle esportazioni
sta registrando un calo.

La Commissione desidera sottolineare che l'obiettivo principale della strategia commerciale della Commissione
nell'ambito delle materie prime ( [2] ) è l'eliminazione di qualsiasi ostacolo al commercio internazionale. Per questo
motivo la Commissione vigila costantemente sui nuovi sviluppi in materia di restrizioni all'esportazione e adotta
provvedimenti nei confronti dei paesi terzi. Occorre che la Commissione dimostri coerenza nelle proprie iniziative
politiche: non farlo potrebbe ulteriormente incoraggiare le restrizioni all'esportazione da parte dei nostri partner
commerciali, contribuendo così alla loro diffusione.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regolamento (CE) n. 1061/2009 del Consiglio, del 19 ottobre 2009, relativo all'instaurazione di un regime comune applicabile alle esportazioni

(GU L 291 del 7.11.2009).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2008)699 definitivo e COM(2011)25 definitivo.

( **|**

C 80 E / 412 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-005071/13**

**to the Commission**
**Claudio Morganti (EFD)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Serious shortage of raw materials for the European tanning industry

The availability of raw materials (raw hides) for the European tanning industry has dwindled still further than the
levels reported in my Written Question E-007410/2011 of July 2011.

The industry continues to complain of a steady and relentless fall in European production levels of raw hides, while
their exportation outside the EU is continually increasing. Prices have reached unsustainable levels for European
businesses, and accessing international resources is very difficult owing to export restrictions (duties, quotas and non‐
granting of licences) imposed by their competitors, which have locked down approximately 50% of the international
supply of these goods.

Can the Commission provide statistics (in terms of volume and value) on the European production, import and
export of raw hides for the main animal categories (large and small bovine animals and ovine and caprine animals)
from 2009 onwards, in order to clarify the situation concerning this serious shortage for the European tanning
industry.

At what point will the Commission consider this situation to be intolerable and take action in the form of the
protective measures provided for in Regulation (EC) 1061/2009 establishing common rules for exports?

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

_(13 June 2013)_

As a general rule, exports from the EU to third countries are free and should not be subject to any quantitative
restrictions. Even if Council Regulation (EC) No 1061/2009 ( [1] ) provides for an exception to this rule, protective
measures may only be envisaged to the extent a shortage of essential products would cause a critical situation in
the EU.

In this context, the Commission has looked at the statistics the Honourable Member requested, but they do not
appear to give any indication of a serious shortage of raw material for the leather industry. Indeed the production
level remained overall relatively stable in the period 2009-2011 and exports in volume are decreasing.

The Commission would like to underline that the primary aim of the Commission’s Trade strategy for raw
materials ( [2] ) is the removal of any obstacle to international trade. That is why the Commission is constantly
monitoring new developments on export restrictions and taking action vis-à-vis third countries. The Commission
should be consistent with its policy initiatives otherwise this may further encourage export restrictions by our trading
partners and consequently lead to the spread of such measures.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Council Regulation (EC) No 1061/2009 of 19 October 2009 establishing common rules for exports, OJ L 291, 7.11.2009.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2008) 699 final, COM(2011) 25 final.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 413

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005072/13**

**ao Conselho**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Alemanha — apelo da Comissão para aumento de salários

O senhor Comissário Laszló Andor apelou recentemente à Alemanha para aumentar os salários, de modo a potenciar
um aumento no consumo e ajudar as exportações dos demais países da zona euro.

Assim, pergunto ao Conselho:

—
Que comentário lhe merece o apelo do comissário dos Assuntos Sociais?

—
Em caso de irredutibilidade alemã, por que outras formas poderá a zona euro atingir os mesmos objetivos?

**Resposta**
_(22 de julho de 2013)_

Não compete ao Conselho comentar as declarações públicas feitas por um membro da Comissão nem responder a
perguntas hipotéticas.

C 80 E / 414 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005072/13**

**to the Council**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Germany — Commission's call for higher wages

Commissioner László Andor recently called on Germany to raise wages, in order to boost consumption and to help
exports from other euro area countries.

— What is the Council’s view of this plea from the Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion?

— Should Germany fail to cooperate, how else can the euro area achieve the same objectives?

**Reply**
_(22 July 2013)_

It is not for the Council to comment on public statements made by a member of the Commission or to answer
hypothetical question.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 415

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005074/13**

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

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Colômbia: reinício das negociações de paz

As autoridades colombianas e os guerrilheiros das FARC retomaram recentemente as negociações tendo em vista um
acordo de paz que ponha definitivamente fim ao conflito que os opõe.

Assim, pergunto à Alta Representante:

1. Tem conhecimento desta situação?

2. Que informações dispõe acerca da mesma?

3. Que expectativas acalenta quanto ao tão desejado fim das hostilidades?

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

_(15 de julho de 2013)_

A Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente está ao corrente das negociações de paz que decorrem atualmente entre o
Governo da Colômbia e as FARC. O Governo colombiano tem mantido os serviços da UE informados sobre a
evolução das negociações desde o anúncio do seu lançamento no passado mês de agosto. Foram emitidas uma série
de declarações manifestando o apoio da UE a este processo e salientando quer a sua importância quer os desafios em
jogo (ver declarações da Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente e do seu porta-voz, de 28 de agosto, 4 de setembro e 20
de novembro de 2012). Recentemente, a Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente congratulou-se com a conclusão pelas
Partes de um acordo parcial sobre a questão dos solos e do desenvolvimento agrícola (ver a declaração do porta-voz
da Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente de 27 de maio de 2013).

A Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente considera que as negociações em curso constituem a iniciativa mais promissora
para pôr fim ao conflito interno que tem vigorado na Colômbia nas últimas décadas. Posto isto, tendo em conta a
complexidade e a natureza delicada e confidencial do processo, não seria conveniente para a UE fazer quaisquer
previsões sobre os eventuais resultados, tal como já referido na resposta da Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente à
pergunta E-009486/2012 do Senhor Deputado.

C 80 E / 416 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005074/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Colombia: resumption of peace talks

The Colombian authorities and FARC guerrillas have recently resumed talks on a peace agreement to put a final end
to the conflict between them.

1. Is the Vice-President/High Representative aware of this situation?

2. What information does she have in this regard?

3. What are her expectations regarding the long-awaited end to hostilities?

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

_(15 July 2013)_

The HR/VP is well aware of the ongoing peace negotiations between the Colombian government and the FARC. The
Colombian government has kept the EU's services informed on the progress of these negotiations ever since their
launch was announced last August. A series of statements have been issued expressing EU support to the process and
highlighting its importance and the stakes involved (see statement by the HR/VP or her spokesman of 28 August,
4 September and 20 November 2012). Recently, the HR/VP has welcomed the conclusion by the parties of a partial
deal on the issue of land and agricultural development (see statement by the HR/VP's spokesman of 27 May 2013).

It is the view of the HR/VP that the ongoing talks constitute the most promising initiative aimed at ending Colombia's
internal conflict in the past decades. That said, in view of the nature, the complex agenda and the delicate and
confidential nature of the process, it would not be appropriate for the EU to make any predictions about eventual
outcomes, as already indicated in the reply given by the HR/VP to Question E-009486/2012 by the Honourable
Member.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 417

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005075/13**

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

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — África Ocidental — luta contra a droga

Em resposta à minha pergunta E-002603/2013, a senhora Alta Representante declarou, em nome da Comissão, que
«no âmbito do 9.° e 10.° FED, a UE está a financiar diversos projetos de luta contra a droga em vários países da África
Ocidental.»

Assim, pergunto à Alta Representante:

1. Qual o montante do referido financiamento?

2. Quantos projetos financia? Em quantos países? Quais são eles?

3. Quais as principais dificuldades encontradas e que sucessos destaca nos referidos projetos?

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

_(9 de julho de 2013)_

A União Europeia financia vários projetos de luta contra a droga na África Ocidental, aos níveis regional e nacional,
dos quais os mais importantes são:

—
Plano da Praia (plano de ação regional da Cedeao para resolução dos problemas crescentes do tráfico de
estupefacientes, do crime organizado e da toxicodependência na África Ocidental) — 16,5 milhões de EUR, ao
abrigo do 10.° Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento;

—
Reforço das capacidades da Cedeao para lutar contra o branqueamento de capitais, através do seu Grupo de
Ação Intergovernamental contra o Branqueamento de Capitais na África Ocidental (GIABA), responsável pelo
reforço das capacidades dos Estados‐Membros para prevenir e controlar o branqueamento de capitais e o
financiamento do terrorismo na região — 3 milhões de EUR, ao abrigo do 10.° Fundo Europeu de
Desenvolvimento;

—
«Programa da Rota da Cocaína», para combater o crime organizado e o tráfico de estupefacientes em mais de 36
países, muitos da África Ocidental, financiado pela Comissão Europeia ao abrigo do Instrumento de
Estabilidade (componente a longo prazo) — mais de 30 milhões de EUR.

Ao nível nacional, a UE financia diversos projetos contra a droga em países da África Ocidental, designadamente um
projeto de «Luta contra a Droga e o Crime Organizado na Nigéria» (36 milhões de EUR), destinado a apoiar os
esforços de combate à produção, ao tráfico e do consumo de estupefacientes.

Os principais desafios ao nível regional têm sido a adaptabilidade das redes criminosas, os enormes lucros ilícitos, que
têm um impacte muito negativo na estabilidade, e a corrupção. É também necessário desenvolver a capacidade das
organizações regionais para resolverem este problema crescente. Importa igualmente não descurar os aspetos
criminais do tráfico de estupefacientes nem o reforço das capacidades de aplicação coerciva da lei e de repressão em
toda a região.

C 80 E / 418 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005075/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — West Africa: fight against drugs

In answer to my Written Question E-002603/2013, the Vice-President/High Representative, on behalf of the
Commission, said that ‘the EU is funding, under the 9th and 10th EDF, several anti-drugs projects in various West
African countries’.

1. How much funding is being provided?

2. How many projects are being funded? In how many countries? Which countries are they?

3. What are the main difficulties encountered during and successes arising from these projects?

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

_(9 July 2013)_

The EU is financing several projects to fight drugs in West Africa both at regional and national level, the most
important of these projects include:

—
EUR 16.5 million under the 10th European Development Fund to support the Ecowas regional action plan to
address the growing problem of illicit drug trafficking, organised crime and drug abuse in West Africa (Praia
Plan)

—
EUR 3 million under the 10th EDF to support the strengthening of anti-money laundering capacities of Ecowas
via its Inter-Governmental Action Group against Money Laundering in West Africa (GIABA), which is
responsible for strengthening the capacity of member states towards the prevention and control of money
laundering and terrorist financing in the region.

—
More than EUR 30 million under the so-called Cocaine Route Programme, funded by the European
Commission under the Instrument for Stability (long term component) to fight against organised crime and
drug trafficking in over 36 countries, many in West Africa.

At national level, the EU finances several projects against drugs in West African countries. Including a EUR 36 million
project to ‘fight drugs and organised crime in Nigeria’ aimed at supporting efforts to fight production, trafficking and
use of drugs.

One of the main challenges at regional level has been adaptability of criminal networks and the huge illicit profits,
which have a very damaging impact on stability and corruption. The capacity of Regional Organisations to tackle this
growing problem also needs to be developed. It is also important to address both the criminal aspects of drug
trafficking and the reinforcement of law enforcement capacities across the Region.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 419

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005076/13**

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

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Cuba: Ángel Santiesteban-Prats preso há dois meses

A associação Repórteres sem Fronteiras pediu às autoridades cubanas que libertem o escritor Ángel SantiestebanPrats, que se encontra preso desde o dia 28 de fevereiro de 2013. Este preso político encontra-se em greve de fome e
foi colocado em isolamento desde o princípio do mês de abril.

Assim, pergunto à Alta Representante:

1. Tem informações quanto ao estado de saúde de Ángel Santiesteban-Prats?

2. Contactou as autoridades cubanas a seu respeito?

3. Que respostas obteve?

4. Quantos presos políticos permanecem detidos em Cuba?

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

_(15 de julho de 2013)_

A Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente tem conhecimento do caso de Santiesteban-Prats, condenado a uma pena de
cinco anos pelo Supremo Tribunal em janeiro de 2013 e detido em 28 de fevereiro de 2013. De acordo com as
informações fornecidas por alguns blogues, parece que Santiesteban-Prats terminou a sua greve de fome e tem escrito
a partir da prisão.

A UE reiterou de forma contínua a importância de as autoridades cubanas respeitarem plenamente todos os direitos
políticos e civis do povo cubano, incluindo a liberdade de expressão e de circulação. Estas questões são abordadas no
contexto do diálogo político UE-Cuba. Embora as autoridades cubanas não considerem existir atualmente presos
políticos em Cuba, outras fontes contam até 90 prisioneiros (Comité Cubano para os Direitos do Homem) e a
Amnistia Internacional contabiliza um prisioneiro por motivos de opinião (Marcos Lima, detido em dezembro de
2010).

C 80 E / 420 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005076/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Cuba: Ángel Santiesteban-Prats imprisoned two months ago

The association Reporters Without Borders has called on the Cuban authorities to release the writer Ángel
Santiesteban-Prats, who has been detained since 28 February 2013. The political prisoner is on a hunger strike and
has been in solitary confinement since the beginning of April.

1. Does the Vice-President/High Representative have any information regarding Ángel Santiesteban-Prats’ health?

2. Has she contacted the Cuban authorities in this regard?

3. What responses has she received?

4. How many political prisoners are still detained in Cuba?

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

_(15 July 2013)_

The HR/VP is aware of the case of Mr Santiesteban, sentenced to five years by the Supreme Court in January 2013 and
imprisoned on 28 February 2013. According to the information provided in some blogs, it seems Mr Santiesteban
ended his hunger strike and is writing from jail.

The EU has constantly reiterated the importance for the Cuban authorities to fully respect all political and civil rights
of the Cuban people, including freedom of speech and movement. These questions are addressed in the context of the
EU-Cuba political dialogue. While the Cuban authorities do not consider that there are at this stage political prisoners
in Cuba, and other sources count up to 90 (Cuban Human Rights Commission), Amnesty International lists one
prisoner of conscience (Mr Marcos Lima, detained in December 2010).

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 421

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005078/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Carne brasileira — bactéria E.coli

Segundo a comunicação social, dois carregamentos de 35 toneladas de carne brasileira foram recentemente
bloqueados à chegada ao porto de Roterdão, Holanda, depois de ser detetada a presença da bactéria E.coli.

A associação brasileira dos exportadores de carne (Abiec) contestou, num comunicado, a validade dos testes
realizados pelas autoridades sanitárias holandesas.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

1. Tem conhecimento desta situação?

2. De que informações dispõe acerca da mesma?

3. Que apreciação faz da opinião da Abiec?

4. Contactou as autoridades brasileiras a este respeito?

5. Que garantias obteve?

**Resposta dada por Tonio Borg em nome da Comissão**

_(24 de junho de 2013)_

1. A Comissão tem conhecimento da deteção de um total de cinco remessas de carne de bovino provenientes do
Brasil, devido à presença de _Escherichia coli_ produtora de toxina Shiga (STEC), mas não foi informada de que a
Associação Brasileira das Indústrias Exportadoras de Carnes tenha contestado os controlos levados a cabo pelas
autoridades neerlandesas.

2. A Comissão dispõe de informações relacionadas com as remessas de carne de bovino importadas do Brasil. Tem
também conhecimento de quais as remessas que estão autorizadas a entrar no território da UE após controlos
sanitários em postos de inspeção fronteiriços (PIF) e de quais as remessas cuja entrada na UE é recusada, por não
passarem nos controlos sanitários num PIF.

3. A Comissão não tem conhecimento do comunicado da Abiec referido pelo Senhor Deputado.

4. A Comissão e os Estados‐Membros em questão informaram as autoridades brasileiras dos resultados
desfavoráveis dos controlos nas fronteiras das remessas de carne de bovino. Esta informação foi enviada pela
Comissão às autoridades brasileiras através do Sistema de Alerta Rápido para os Géneros Alimentícios e Alimentos
para Animais (RASFF) e pelos Estados‐Membros à pessoa responsável pela remessa.

5. De momento, a Comissão não recebeu qualquer tipo de garantias das autoridades brasileiras.

C 80 E / 422 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005078/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Brazilian beef — _E. coli_ bacteria

According to media reports, two shipments of 35 tonnes of Brazilian beef were recently blocked on arrival at the Port
of Rotterdam, the Netherlands, after testing positive for _E. coli_ bacteria.

The Brazilian Association of Beef Exporters (Abiec) issued a statement challenging the validity of the tests conducted
by the Dutch health authorities.

1. Is the Commission aware of this situation?

2. What information does it have on the matter?

3. What is its assessment of Abiec’s statement?

4. Has it contacted the Brazilian authorities in this regard?

5. What guarantees has it received?

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

_(24 June 2013)_

1. The Commission is aware of the detection of a total of five consignments of beef from Brazil due to the presence
of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) but has not been informed that the Brazilian Association of Beef
Exporters has challenged the controls carried out by Dutch authorities.

2. The Commission has information related to the consignments of beef imported from Brazil. The Commission is
also aware of which consignments are authorised to enter EU territory following sanitary controls at Border
Inspection Posts (BIPs) and which consignments are refused entry into the EU because they failed the sanitary controls
at a BIP.

3. The Commission is not aware of the Abiec statement referred to by the Honourable Member.

4. The Commission and the concerned Member States have informed the Brazilian authorities of the unfavourable
results of the controls at the borders for the consignments of beef. This information has been sent by the Commission
to the Brazilian authorities via the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) and by the Member States to the
person responsible for the consignment.

5. For the time being, the Commission has not received any guarantees from the Brazilian authorities.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 423

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005079/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Cafeína: benefícios no combate à reincidência do cancro da mama

De acordo com um estudo realizado na Universidade de Lund, Suécia, a cafeína poderá acarretar benefícios no
combate à reincidência do cancro da mama. Investigadores concluíram que mulheres que bebiam mais café
apresentaram uma taxa de reincidência 50 por cento inferior.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

1. Dispõe de informações quanto ao referido estudo?

2. Que apreciação faz do mesmo?

**Resposta dada por Tonio Borg em nome da Comissão**

_(25 de junho de 2013)_

1. O estudo realizado na Universidade de Lund, na Suécia, mencionado pelo Senhor Deputado, refere-se aos
doentes que já estavam a tomar o muito utilizado fármaco tamoxifeno ( [1] ). A relação entre o consumo de café, chá e o
risco de contrair cancro da mama continua a ser pouco clara. Nos últimos anos, vários estudos produziram resultados
contraditórios. O mais importante, um estudo de coorte prospetivo com 85 987 mulheres levado a cabo pelo «Nurses
Health Study» (Estudo sobre a saúde de enfermeiros) nos EUA ( [2] ) em 1980, 1984, 1986, 1990, 1994, 1998 e um
acompanhamento continuado durante 2002, documentou 5 272 casos de cancro da mama invasivo durante
1 715 230 pessoas/ano e concluiu que não há associação substancial no coorte em geral, entre o consumo de café
descafeinado, café e chá e o risco de contrair cancro da mama.

Mais de 50 estudos epidemiológicos têm sido publicados desde 2006 sobre a associação entre o consumo da cafeína e
o risco de cancro. Os resultados destes estudos foram muitas vezes incoerentes, mas alguns relacionaram o consumo
de café ou de chá com a redução do risco de contrair cancro do cólon, da mama, do ovário, da próstata e do pulmão.

2. Há que realizar mais investigação para avaliar o efeito preventivo do consumo de café sobre a reincidência do
cancro da mama. A Comissão não emite recomendações sobre intervenções médicas ou dietéticas específicas.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Simonsson et al. (2013) Cancer Causes Control 24(5):929-40.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18183588

C 80 E / 424 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005079/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Caffeine: helping to prevent breast cancer recurrence

According to a study conducted at Lund University, Sweden, caffeine may help to prevent breast cancer recurrence.
Researchers found that women who drank more coffee were 50% less likely to have a recurrence.

1. Does the Commission have any information regarding this study?

2. What is its assessment of it?

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

_(25 June 2013)_

1. The study conducted at Lund University in Sweden, mentioned by the Honourable Member, refers to patients
already taking the widely used drug tamoxifen ( [1] ). The relation between consumption of coffee, tea and risk of breast
cancer remains unclear. Several studies in recent years have produced contradictory results. The most important one,
a prospective cohort study with 85 987 women in the Nurses' Health Study in the USA ( [2] ) during 1980, 1984, 1986,
1990, 1994, 1998 and a follow-up continued through 2002, documented 5 272 cases of invasive breast cancer
during 1 715 230 person-years and concluded no substantial association between caffeinated and decaffeinated
coffee and tea consumption and risk of breast cancer in the overall cohort.

More than 50 epidemiologic studies on the association between caffeine consumption and cancer risk have been
published since 2006. The results of these studies have often been inconsistent, but some have linked tea or coffee
consumption to reduced risks of cancers of the colon, breast, ovary, prostate and lung.

2. Further research is required to assess the preventive effect of coffee consumption on breast cancer recurrence.
The Commission does not issue recommendations about specific medical or dietary interventions.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Simonsson et al. (2013) Cancer Causes Control 24(5):929-40.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18183588

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 425

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005080/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Cabo Verde: pesca ilegal de tubarões por embarcações europeias

Segundo a comunicação social, a organização ambientalista cabo-verdiana Biosfera I denunciou a pesca «desenfreada»
de tubarões na Zona Económica Exclusiva (ZEE) de Cabo Verde por parte de embarcações europeias, sobretudo
espanholas. Para esta organização, os pesqueiros europeus, ao abrigo do acordo de pesca entre a União Europeia (UE)
e Cabo Verde, em vez de capturarem atum, aumentaram a captura de tubarões. Entretanto, a Direção Geral do
Ambiente de Cabo Verde indicou estar em preparação um plano nacional de conservação de tubarões, espécie que
pode estar ameaçada devido à sua pesca desenfreada nos mares do arquipélago.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

1. Tem conhecimento desta situação?

2. De que informações dispõe acerca da mesma?

3. Colabora ou está disponível para colaborar em programas destinados a preservar os tubarões nas costas caboverdianas?

4. Que medidas tomou ou prevê tomar neste tocante?

**Resposta dada por Maria Damanaki em nome da Comissão**

_(11 de julho de 2013)_

O Acordo de Parceria no domínio da pesca (APP) entre a UE e Cabo Verde abrange espécies altamente migradoras e o
seu protocolo faz referência ao anexo 1 da Convenção das Nações Unidas sobre o Direito do Mar, que inclui os
principais tubarões pelágicos. Por conseguinte, a captura de tubarões por palangreiros da UE é autorizada ao abrigo
desse acordo e é objeto de acompanhamento pela Comissão através da recolha de dados de captura e da análise de
pareceres científicos.

As espécies de tubarões associadas à pesca com palangre são a tintureira ( _Prionace glauca_ ) e o tubarão-anequim ( _Isurus_
_oxyrinchus_ ), que representam, respetivamente, 93 % e 6 % de todas as capturas de tubarões no âmbito do acordo.
Embora tenham considerado estas duas espécies como unidades populacionais saudáveis no Atlântico Norte
(biomassa acima do rendimento máximo sustentável e captura inferior a esse nível), a ICCAT ( [1] ) e o CCTEP ( [2] ) ( [3] )
preconizaram que a mortalidade por pesca de tubarão-anequim fosse mantida aos níveis atuais, dadas algumas
incertezas da avaliação.

Em 2012, a UE propôs, no âmbito da ICCAT, medidas destinadas a limitar as capturas de tubarão-anequim aos níveis
atuais, mas a sua proposta não foi adotada. No entanto, a UE tem tido um papel ativo na ICCAT no que toca aos
tubarões e muitas das espécies vulneráveis de tubarões estão já proibidas ao abrigo de recomendações da ICCAT.

Um plano de conservação destinado a proteger os tubarões em Cabo Verde deveria cobrir uma vasta gama de
espécies. No âmbito do APP UE/Cabo Verde, a captura de tubarões costeiros é pouco significativa e maioritariamente
acidental (a zona de pesca definida pelo protocolo situa-se além das 12 milhas marítimas calculadas a partir das linhas
de base). A Comissão assumiu o compromisso para com Cabo Verde de assegurar uma gestão sustentável da atual
atividade de pesca. Em 2012 foi realizada, entre as duas Partes, uma reunião científica, cujas conclusões corroboram o
parecer da ICCAT e do CCTEP.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Comissão Internacional para a Conservação dos Tunídeos do Atlântico.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Comité Científico, Técnico e Económico das Pescas.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/43805/465032/12-11_PLEN+12-03_JRC76701.pdf

C 80 E / 426 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005080/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Cape Verde: illegal shark fishing by European vessels

According to media reports, the Cape Verdean environmental organisation Biosfera I has denounced ‘rampant’ shark
fishing by European vessels, in particular by Spanish vessels, in Cape Verde’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The
organisation believes that European fishing vessels are catching an increasing number of sharks, instead of tuna,
under the EU‐Cape Verde Fisheries Partnership Agreement. Meanwhile, Cape Verde’s Director-General of the
Environment is said to be preparing a national shark conservation plan, to protect a species that may become
endangered due to overfishing in the archipelago’s seas.

1. Is the Commission aware of this situation?

2. What information does it have on this matter?

3. Does it participate or is it willing to participate in programmes designed to protect sharks in Cape Verdean
waters?

4. What measures has it taken or will it take in this regard?

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

_(11 July 2013)_

The Fisheries Partnership Agreement (FPA) between the EU and Cape Verde covers highly migratory species and its
protocol makes reference to Annex 1 of Unclos, where the main pelagic sharks are included. The catch of sharks by
EU longliners is therefore allowed under the Agreement and monitored by the Commission through the collection of
catch data and analysis of scientific advice.

Shark species associated to the longline fisheries are blue shark (Prionace glauca) and shortfin mako (Isurus
oxyrinchus) representing respectively 93% and 6% of all shark catch under the agreement. The ICCAT ( [1] ) and the
STECF ( [2] ) ( [3] ) defined both as healthy stocks over the North Atlantic (biomass above and harvesting below the level
supporting Maximum Sustainable Yield), but advising that fishing mortality of shortfin mako should be kept at
current levels due to some assessment uncertainties.

In 2012, the EU proposed in ICCAT measures to constrain catches of shortfin mako to current levels. This EU
proposal was not adopted. However, the EU has been active in ICCAT regarding sharks: many of the vulnerable shark
species are already prohibited under ICCAT recommendations.

A shark conservation plan to protect shark species in Cape Verde should cover a wide range of species. Under the EUCape Verde FPA, the catch of coastal sharks is minor and mainly accidental (the protocol defines a fishing zone 12
nautical miles from the base line). The Commission has been engaged with Cape Verde to ensure sustainable
management of the current fishing activity. A scientific meeting between the two parties was held in 2012 and its
conclusions corroborate the advice from ICCAT and STECF.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/43805/465032/12-11_PLEN+12-03_JRC76701.pdf

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 427

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005084/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Rescaldo dos atentados de Boston — questão da videovigilância

Os recentes atentados de Boston, bem como os anteriores de maior escala cometidos um pouco por todo o mundo
têm colocado na ordem do dia a questão da videovigilância nos espaços públicos. Recentemente, o Ministro do
Interior alemão manifestou-se favorável à sua maior utilização, dando como exemplo, precisamente, o modo como
os autores dos atentados de Boston foram rapidamente identificados devido às câmaras presentes no local das
explosões.

Esta posição coloca obviamente em questão os valores fundamentais da segurança e da reserva da vida privada,
exigindo-se uma avaliação cuidada e um justo equilíbrio na sua concretização.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

Que apreciação faz da proposta de aumentar a colocação de câmaras nos espaços públicos da União, em particular
naqueles em que se concentra maior número de pessoas?

**Resposta dada por Viviane Reding em nome da Comissão**

_(1 de agosto de 2013)_

A utilização de sistemas de videovigilância tem de estar em conformidade com os requisitos do direito fundamental à
proteção dos dados pessoais, tal como reconhecido no artigo 8.° da Carta dos Direitos Fundamentais da UE e no
artigo 8.° da Convenção Europeia dos Direitos do Homem. O processamento de dados pessoais, como por exemplo
dados de som e de imagem, tem de cumprir as leis nacionais que implementam os requisitos estabelecidos na Diretiva
95/46/CE relativa à proteção dos dados pessoais. O tratamento dos dados pessoais deve ser justificado por motivos
legítimos, ter uma finalidade específica e ser proporcional ao objetivo pretendido. Estes requisitos devem ser
respeitados para cada sistema de vigilância que é instalado, independentemente da sua utilização como elemento de
uma rede ou como câmara autónoma. Uma avaliação pormenorizada dos requisitos em matéria de proteção de dados
pode ser consultada no Parecer 4/2004 sobre o Tratamento de Dados Pessoais por meio de Videovigilância do Grupo
de proteção de dados do artigo 29.° ( [1] ).

Embora a Diretiva 95/46/EC não se aplique ao tratamento de dados que tenham como objeto a segurança pública, a
defesa, a segurança do Estado e as atividades do Estado no domínio do direito penal (artigo 3.°, n.° 2, da Diretiva
95/46), a Comissão apresentou em 25 de janeiro de 2012 uma proposta de Diretiva que se aplica igualmente ao
tratamento de dados pessoais pelas autoridades policiais e judiciárias penais também a nível nacional ( [2] ). Esta
proposta está atualmente a ser discutida pelos co‐legisladores.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2004/wp89_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Proposta de Diretiva do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho relativa à proteção das pessoas singulares no que diz respeito ao tratamento de dados

pessoais pelas autoridades competentes para efeitos de prevenção, investigação, deteção e repressão de infrações penais ou de execução de sanções
penais, e à livre circulação desses dados COM/2012/010 final — 2012/0010 (COD).

C 80 E / 428 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005084/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Aftermath of the Boston bombings — issue of video surveillance

The recent bombings in Boston, as well as previous larger-scale attacks carried out throughout the world, have put the
issue of video surveillance in public spaces firmly on the agenda. The German Interior Minister recently expressed his
support for greater use of the technology, citing the way in which the perpetrators of the Boston bombings were
quickly identified due to cameras present at the site of the explosions.

This idea obviously calls into question the core values of safety and of the protection of private life, requiring a careful
assessment and a fair balance in its implementation.

What is the Commission’s assessment of the proposal to put more cameras in EU public spaces, particularly those in
which large numbers of people gather?

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

_(1 August 2013)_

Any use of camera surveillance systems needs to be in line with the requirements of the fundamental right to personal
data protection, as recognised in Article 8 of the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights and Article 8 of the European
Convention of Human Rights. The processing of personal data, such as sound and image data has to comply in
particular with the national laws implementing the requirements laid down in Directive 95/46/EC on the protection
of personal data. In this respect it must be processed on legitimate grounds, for a specific purpose and must be
proportionate to the aim pursued. These requirements have to be fulfilled for each individual surveillance system that
is put up, independently of its use as one element of a network or as a stand-alone camera. A detailed assessment of
data protection requirements can be found in Article 29 Working Party opinion 4/2004 on the Processing of Personal
Data by means of Video Surveillance ( [1] ).

While Directive 95/46/EC does not apply to processing operations concerning public security, defence, and state
security and the activities of the State in areas of criminal law (Article 3.2 of Directive 95/46), the Commission
presented on 25 January 2012 a draft Directive which applies also to the processing of personal data by police and
criminal judicial authorities also at the domestic level ( [2] ). This proposal is currently being discussed by co-legislators.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2004/wp89_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal

data by competent authorities for the purposes of prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of
criminal penalties, and the free movement of such data /COM/2012/010 final — 2012/0010 (COD).

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 429

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005086/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Atentado de Boston — solidariedade europeia para com as vítimas e os EUA

O duplo atentado durante a maratona de Boston, no Estado norte-americano do Massachusetts, ocorrido a 15 de
abril, provocou 264 feridos e três mortos. A brutalidade do ocorrido e a forma decidida e louvável como as
autoridades e a população lhe responderam não devem deixar de merecer a nossa sentida homenagem.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

1. Dispõe de informações acerca do sucedido?

2. Considera que os eventos desportivos apoiados pela Comissão, a existirem, poderiam fazer menção do que
aconteceu em Boston e manifestar a solidariedade europeia para com as vítimas dos ataques e os Estados
Unidos da América?

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

_(10 de julho de 2013)_

Imediatamente após os ataques, a União Europeia transmitiu publicamente, ao mais alto nível, as suas condolências e
apoio ao povo e às autoridades dos EUA. Vários acontecimentos desportivos em toda a UE entenderam assinalar o
sucedido e mostrar‐se solidários. Foi o caso do minuto de silêncio guardado na maratona de Londres.

A União Europeia escolheu o dia 11 de março de cada ano para recordar as vítimas dos ataques terroristas ocorridos
no seu território e no resto do mundo. Esta data constitui o aniversário do ataque bombista de Madrid em 2004, no
qual morreram 191 pessoas e 1800 ficaram feridas.

Antes dos atentados bombistas de Boston, a União Europeia já tomara medidas tendentes a reforçar a proteção dos
acontecimentos desportivos de massas contra ataques terroristas.

Em dezembro de 2011, o Conselho adotou um anexo ao Manual destinado às autoridades policiais e de segurança
para a cooperação em eventos importantes de dimensão internacional (16933/1/11).

Na mesma reunião, o Conselho aprovou conclusões relativas «ao reforço da cooperação policial com os países não‐
membros da UE no domínio da proteção e da segurança durante a realização de eventos desportivos».

A Comissão e a Alta Representante estão em contacto próximo e regular com os EUA para garantir o adequado apoio
da União Europeia aos esforços dos EUA e se procurarem extrair ensinamentos dos ataques.

C 80 E / 430 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005086/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Boston bombings — European solidarity with the victims and the United States

The double bombing during the Boston Marathon, in the US State of Massachusetts, on 15 April left 264 people
injured and 3 dead. The brutality of what happened and the resolute and commendable way in which the authorities
and the public responded to it deserve our heartfelt tribute.

1. Does the Commission have any information about what happened?

2. Is there any way that sporting events supported by the Commission, should there be any, could acknowledge
what happened in Boston and express European solidarity with the victims of the attacks and the United States?

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

_(10 July 2013)_

Immediately following the attack, the EU issued statements at the highest level expressing sympathy with and support
to the American people and authorities. A number of sporting events across the EU chose to mark the event and show
their solidarity, such as the minute's silence at the London Marathon.

The EU has devoted 11th March each year to remembering all victims of terrorist attacks in the EU and elsewhere in
the world. The date was chosen as it is the anniversary of the terrorist bomb attack in Madrid in 2004 that killed
191 people and left 1,800 wounded.

Prior to the Boston bombings, the EU had already taken steps to strengthen the protection of mass sporting events
from terrorist attacks.

In December 2011, the Council adopted an annex to the handbook for police and security authorities concerning
cooperation at major events with an international dimension (16933/1/11).

During the same meeting, the Council agreed conclusions ‘on strengthening police cooperation with non-EU
countries in the area of sports events safety and security’.

The Commission and the HR are in close and regular contact with the US, to ensure that we can appropriately support
US efforts and draw any lessons from the attack.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 431

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005087/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Angola — combate à malária

No Dia Mundial da Malária, um comunicado conjunto do governo angolano, da OMS e da Unicef distribuído em
Luanda revelou que a malária provocou a morte de sete mil pessoas em 2011, continuando a ser principal problema
de saúde em Angola.

O comunicado assinala que, para combater a doença, o governo de Angola, a Organização Mundial de Saúde e a
Unicef têm previsto este ano acelerar a prevenção, o controlo e o tratamento da malária, através da cobertura
universal de redes mosquiteiras impregnadas.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

1. Está disponível para se juntar ao governo angolano, à OMS e à Unicef no esforço que desenvolvem visando a
erradicação da malária naquele país?

2. Já participa nesse esforço? De que modo?

**Resposta dada por Andris Piebalgs em nome da Comissão**

_(28 de junho de 2013)_

Em Angola, a malária é endémica em todo o país, com variações regionais e sazonais. Está em curso um programa
nacional para combater a malária.

Vários fatores favoreceram a situação atual: condições de higiene precárias que favorecem a disseminação da malária;
a baixa cobertura e a qualidade dos serviços de saúde, assim como o baixo nível de educação da população. A UE,
através do programa de apoio ao setor da saúde do 10.° Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento (FED) (30 milhões de
euros), tem reforçado a capacidade do Ministério da Saúde para planificar e executar, entre outros planos, o plano
nacional contra a malária.

A Comissão preocupa-se igualmente com este problema a nível global e reconheceu que a saúde é uma condição
essencial para o desenvolvimento sustentável. Consequentemente, a Comissão passou a ser um membro fundador do
Fundo Mundial de Luta contra a Sida, a Tuberculose e o Paludismo em 2002, que apoia projetos dos países na luta
contra as três pandemias. Com uma contribuição de 1,63 mil milhões de USD para o fundo entre 2001 e 2013, a
Comissão está a apoiar a luta contra doenças que afetam de forma desproporcionada os países em desenvolvimento e
alinha-se com a estratégia global de luta contra a malária das Nações Unidas.

Neste quadro, Angola beneficiou, desde 2005, de três subvenções, melhorando o acesso a mosquiteiros impregnados
de inseticida:

—
Apoio ao Programa Nacional de Controlo da Malária (33,6 milhões de USD). O projeto foi executado entre
2005 e 2008;

—
Intensificar a Luta contra a Malária (27,1 milhões de USD). O projeto foi executado de novembro de 2008 a
outubro de 2013;

—
Acesso Universal à Prevenção e Tratamento da Malária (55,4 milhões de USD). O projeto foi executado de abril
de 2012 a dezembro de 2013.

C 80 E / 432 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005087/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Angola — combating malaria

On World Malaria Day, a joint statement issued in Luanda by the Angolan Government, the World Health
Organisation and Unicef revealed that malaria killed 7 000 people in 2011, and continues to be a major health
problem in Angola.

The statement says that, to combat the disease, the Angolan Government, the World Health Organisation and Unicef
plan to accelerate the prevention, control and treatment of malaria this year through the universal coverage of
impregnated mosquito nets.

1. Is the Commission willing to work alongside the Angolan Government, the World Health Organisation and
Unicef in their efforts to eradicate malaria in Angola?

2. Is it already involved in this effort? If so, how?

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

_(28 June 2013)_

In Angola, malaria is endemic throughout the country with regional and seasonal variations. A national programme
to combat malaria is underway.

Several factors have favoured the present situation: precarious hygiene conditions that encourage malaria's growth;
low coverage and quality of health services, and the low education level of the population. The EU, through the
10th European Development Fund (EDF) Support Programme to the Health Sector (EUR 30 million), is strengthening
the capacity of the Ministry of Health for planning and executing, amongst other plans, the national plan against
malaria.

The Commission has also been concerned by this issue globally and has recognised that basic health is a prerequisite
for sustainable development. Consequently, the Commission became a founder member of the Global Fund to Fight
AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria in 2002 that supports country projects fighting against the three pandemics. By
contributing USD 1.63 billion to the Fund between 2001 and 2013, the Commission is providing support to tackle
diseases that disproportionally affect developing countries and is aligning with the United Nations global strategy to
fight malaria.

In this framework, Angola has benefited from three grants since 2005 improving access to treated mosquito nets:

—
support to National Malaria Control Programme (USD 33.6 million). The project was implemented from 2005
to 2008;

—
Scaling Up Malaria Interventions (USD 27.1 million). Project implemented from November 2008 to
October 2013;

—
Universal Access to Malaria Prevention and Treatment (USD 55.4 million). Project implemented from
April 2012 to December 2013.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 433

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005091/13**

**ao Conselho**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Suíça — restrições à liberdade de circulação de cidadãos da UE

A Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante manifestou publicamente o seu lamento pelas limitações quantitativas
impostas pela Suíça à circulação de nacionais dos Estados-Membros da União naquele país.

Assim, pergunto ao Conselho:

—
Em que medida esta decisão das autoridades suíças prejudica os cidadãos da UE que ali vivem e trabalham?

—
Vislumbra alguma possibilidade de inversão desta situação?

—
Contactou as autoridades suíças a este respeito? Que resposta obteve?

**Resposta**
_(22 de julho de 2013)_

O Conselho não debateu a questão levantada pelo Senhor Deputado.

As restrições quantitativas às autorizações de residência de longa duração de cidadãos da UE, impostas pela Suíça em
abril (EU‐8) e maio (EU‐17) últimos, não afetam a renovação das autorizações de residência de longa duração de
nacionais dos Estados‐Membros da UE, nem a possível reunificação destas pessoas com os seus familiares. Note‐se
que os acordos relevantes entre a UE e a Suíça não autorizam a Suíça a tomar decisões deste tipo no tocante aos
cidadão da UE‐25 (à exceção da Bulgária e da Roménia) após 31 de maio de 2014.

Além disso, nas suas conclusões de 20 de dezembro de 2012 sobre as relações da UE com os países da EFTA, o
Conselho manifestou uma série de preocupações acerca do funcionamento do Acordo sobre a Livre Circulação de
Pessoas entre a UE e a Confederação Suíça. O Conselho registou com pesar que a Suíça tinha tomado várias medidas
que não são compatíveis com a letra nem com o espírito do Acordo sobre a Livre Circulação de Pessoas e que põem
em causa a sua aplicação.

O Conselho sublinha ainda que há um Comité Misto, instituído pelo artigo 14.° do referido acordo, que trata
regularmente das questões específicas que preocupam a UE e os seus Estados‐Membros, nomeadamente as restrições
quantitativas à livre circulação de pessoas. A Comissão é a representante da UE no referido Comité Misto, cujos
trabalhos são acompanhados de perto pelo Conselho e pelos Estados‐Membros. A próxima reunião deste comité está
prevista para 19 de junho de 2013. O Conselho irá debater os resultados dessa reunião e o eventual seguimento a dar‐
lhe.

C 80 E / 434 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005091/13**

**to the Council**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Switzerland — restrictions to the free movement of EU citizens

The Vice-President/High Representative has publicly expressed her regret regarding the Swiss Government’s decision
to impose quantitative restrictions to the movement of nationals of EU Member States in Switzerland.

— To what extent does this decision by the Swiss Government prejudice EU citizens who live and work in
Switzerland?

— Does the Council see any chance of this situation changing?

— Has it contacted the Swiss authorities in this regard? What response has it received?

**Reply**
_(22 July 2013)_

The Council has not discussed the issue raised by the Honourable Member.

Quantitative restrictions for long-term residence permits for EU citizens, decided by Switzerland in April (EU-8) and
May (EU-17) do not affect the renewal of long-term residence permits held by nationals of EU Member States nor the
possible reunification of these persons with family members. It should be noted that the relevant Agreements
between the EU and Switzerland do not allow Switzerland to take decisions of this kind for EU-25 citizens (with the
exception of Bulgaria and Romania) after 31 May 2014.

Furthermore, in its conclusions of 20 December 2012 on EU relations with EFTA States, the Council expressed a
number of concerns regarding the functioning of the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons between the EU
and the Swiss Confederation. The Council noted with regret that Switzerland had taken a number of measures which
are not compatible with the provisions and the spirit of the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons, and which
undermine its implementation.

In addition, the Council underlines that a Joint Committee, created under Article 14 of the Agreement, regularly deals
with specific issues of concern to the EU and its Member States, including quantitative restrictions to the free
movement of persons. The EU is represented on the Joint Committee by the Commission, while the Council and EU
Member States closely follow the Committee's proceedings. The next meeting of the Committee should take place on
19 June 2013. The results of this meeting and possible follow-up will be discussed in the Council.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 435

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005092/13**

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

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Suíça — restrições à liberdade de circulação de cidadãos da UE

A Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante manifestou publicamente o seu lamento pelas limitações quantitativas
impostas pela Suíça à circulação de nacionais dos Estados-Membros da União naquele país.

Assim, pergunto à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante:

—
Em que medida esta decisão das autoridades suíças prejudica os cidadãos da UE que ali vivem e trabalham?

—
Vislumbra alguma possibilidade de inversão desta situação?

—
Contactou as autoridades suíças a este respeito? Que resposta obteve?

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

_(28 de junho de 2013)_

A decisão do governo suíço apenas afeta os cidadãos da UE que exercem atividades por conta de outrem ou por conta
própria e que necessitam de uma nova autorização de residência de duração igual ou superior a um ano (as chamadas
«autorizações B»).

Tal como no ano passado, a Comissão levantará esta questão na próxima reunião do Comité Misto instituído pelo
Acordo sobre o Espaço Económico Europeu. Contudo, qualquer decisão do Comité Misto tem de ser tomada por
comum acordo entre as partes.

C 80 E / 436 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005092/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Switzerland: restrictions to the free movement of EU citizens

The Vice-President/High Representative has publicly expressed her regret regarding the Swiss Government’s decision
to impose quantitative restrictions to the movement of nationals of EU Member States in Switzerland.

— To what extent does this decision by the Swiss Government prejudice EU citizens who live and work in
Switzerland?

— Does the Vice-President/High Representative see any chance of this situation changing?

— Has she contacted the Swiss authorities in this regard? What response has she received?

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

_(28 June 2013)_

The decision of the Swiss Government only affects those employed and self-employed EU citizens who need to be
issued a new residence permit for a period equal to, or exceeding, one year (so called ‘B permits’).

As last year, the Commission will raise this question at the next meeting of the Joint Committee established by the
Agreement. However, any decision by the Joint Committee would need to be taken by common agreement of the
parties.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 437

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005094/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Seca no Sul da Europa — estudo de impacto

Em resposta à minha pergunta E-002067/2013, o senhor Comissário Dac ian Cioloş declarou, em nome da
Comissão, que «O número de dias consecutivos sem precipitação (indicador dos riscos de seca) deverá aumentar
significativamente na Europa do sul e central e diminuir na Europa do norte, sobretudo devido às alterações
climáticas.»

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

—
Dispõe de dados quanto ao impacto que esta alteração do número de dias sem precipitação poderá causar nas
populações do Sul da Europa e nos respetivos setores da agricultura e pecuária?

—
Atendendo a que as economias de alguns destes países enfrentam já sérias dificuldades, em que medida pode a
União contribuir para minorar o impacto da seca nas mesmas?

**Resposta dada por Dacian Cioloş em nome da Comissão**

_(25 de junho de 2013)_

O aumento previsto do número de dias sem precipitação pode ter um impacto positivo e negativo nos setores da
agricultura e da pecuária nas diferentes regiões da UE, dependendo igualmente da combinação de outros fatores
climáticos, ambientais, tecnológicos e de gestão agrícola. Uma análise global dos cenários decorrentes das alterações
climáticas indica que um maior stress hídrico e uma redução do período vegetativo podem levar à deterioração da
produtividade em grandes regiões do sul da Europa ( [1] ).

Tal como já referido numa resposta anterior (E-002067/2013 ( [2] )), a Comissão está a tomar medidas em várias frentes
a fim de promover a utilização sustentável da água e contribuir para atenuar os impactos previstos decorrentes de
secas. A necessidade de um melhor planeamento da gestão da seca integra‐se no planeamento da gestão das bacias
hidrográficas no âmbito da Diretiva-Quadro Água.

Foi recentemente adotada uma estratégia da UE em matéria de adaptação, incentivando os Estados‐Membros e as
regiões a prepararem‐se para a adaptação em todos os setores vulneráveis ( [3] ). Um melhor acesso ao financiamento
será importante na criação de uma Europa resistente às alterações climáticas. A Comissão incluiu o objetivo de
adaptação nas suas propostas relativamente a todos os programas de financiamento da UE pertinentes para 2014‐
2020. Serão exploradas outras formas de acomodar certas despesas de investimento na adaptação, como despesas
cofinanciadas pela UE na avaliação dos Programas de estabilidade e de convergência ( [4] ).

As propostas da Comissão para uma política de desenvolvimento rural pós‐2013 definiram a gestão da água como
uma subprioridade expressa. O apoio a projetos de irrigação que impliquem um aumento do consumo do volume
global de água em zonas propensas à seca ficará condicionado a um determinado nível de poupança e eficiência da
utilização da água.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) «Climate change, impacts and vulnerability 2012: an indicator-based report», Agência Europeia do Ambiente.

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/climate-impacts-and-vulnerability-2012

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/pt/parliamentary-questions.html
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 216, de 16.4.2013 — Estratégia da UE em matéria de adaptação às alterações climáticas.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Tal como estabelecido no Plano pormenorizado para uma União Económica e Monetária efetiva e aprofundada [COM(2012) 777 final].

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

C 80 E / 438 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005094/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Drought in southern Europe — impact assessment

In answer to my Question E-002067/2013, Commissioner Cioloş stated on behalf of the Commission that ‘The
number of consecutive dry days (indicating drought risks) is projected to increase significantly in southern and central
Europe and to decrease in northern Europe, mainly as a consequence of climatic changes.’

— Does the Commission have any information about the impact that the change in the number of dry days could
have on the people of southern Europe and on their agricultural and livestock sectors?

— Given that the economies of some of these countries are already facing serious difficulties, what can the European
Union do to help mitigate the impact of drought in these countries?

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

_(25 June 2013)_

The projected rise in the number of dry days may have positive and negative implications for agriculture and livestock
in different EU regions, also depending on the combination of other climatic, environmental, technological and farm
management factors. Broad analysis of climate change scenarios indicates that increased drought stress and a
shortening of the growing season may lead to deterioration of productivity across large parts of southern Europe ( [1] ).

As already indicated in a previous reply (E-002067/2013 ( [2] )), the Commission is taking action on several fronts to
promote sustainable water use and help mitigate the foreseeable impacts of droughts. The need for improved drought
management planning is integrated with the River Basin Management Planning under the Water Framework
Directive.

An EU strategy on adaptation has recently being adopted, encouraging Member States and regions to prepare for
adaptation in all vulnerable sectors ( [3] ). Improved access to funding will be important in building a climate-resilient
Europe. The Commission has included the adaptation objective in its proposals for all relevant EU finance
programmes for 2014-2020. Further ways of accommodating some adaptation investment expenditure will be
explored, such as expenditure co-financed by the EU in the assessment of Stability and Convergence Programmes ( [4] ).

The Commission’s proposals for a post-2013 rural development policy set out water management as an explicit subpriority. Support for irrigation projects leading to an increase of the overall volume of water use in drought-prone
areas is to be conditional on achieving a certain level of water savings and use efficiency.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) ‘Climate change, impacts and vulnerability 2012: an indicator-based report’, European Environmental Agency

(http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/climate-impacts-and-vulnerability-2012).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 216 of 16.4.2013 — An EU Strategy on adaptation to climate change.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) As set out in the Blueprint for a deeper and genuine economic and monetary union (COM(2012) 777 final).

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

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 439

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005095/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Regiões ultraperiféricas — Reforço da cooperação territorial

Em resposta à minha pergunta E-002060/2013, o senhor Comissário Johannes Hahn declarou, em nome da
Comissão, que «A fim de realizar os programas de cooperação com sucesso, as RUP, os PTU e os países terceiros
envolvidos terão, em primeiro lugar, que estabelecer um diálogo, identificar interesses comuns e formular
adequadamente os programas conjuntos. A Comissão irá facilitar este processo.»

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

—
Como procederá à aludida facilitação?

—
Que resultados antecipa?

**Resposta dada por Johannes Hahn em nome da Comissão**

_(11 de julho de 2013)_

Com efeito, a Comissão indicou a sua disponibilidade para intervir como facilitadora do processo de diálogo entre as
regiões ultraperiféricas (RUP), os Países e Territórios Ultramarinos (PTOM) e os Estados terceiros, a fim de reforçar o
impacto da cooperação territorial. A Comissão já iniciou esta tarefa, nomeadamente em matéria de articulação dos
fundos FED ( [1] ) e FEDER. A Comissão velará por que as suas propostas de regulamento de aplicação do 11.° FED e do
Regulamento financeiro do 11.° FED, bem como dos textos relativos aos PTOM, prevejam disposições semelhantes às
incluídas na proposta de regulamento sobre a cooperação territorial no âmbito do FEDER. Tais disposições deveriam
facilitar a instituição de mecanismos de concertação entre os intervenientes regionais e a utilização de mecanismos
simplificados de financiamento que permitam uma utilização mais eficaz dos recursos. Está igulamente previsto um
protocolo de entendimento entre os serviços da Comissão envolvidos, para que colaborem de forma mais estreita e
para promover o financiamento conjunto e a coordenação de programas/projetos que englobem países de África, das
Caraíbas e do Pacífico (ACP), dos PTOM e das RUP.

A Comissão continuará a acompanhar os Estados‐Membros, as RUP, os PTOM e os ACP neste exercício de diálogo
com os Estados vizinhos. A Comissão espera que este diálogo reforçado possa contribuir para diversificar as
economias das RUP e dos PTOM e que favoreça a coesão social entre os atores de uma mesma região geográfica. Em
última instância, este diálogo permitirá ainda realizar economias de escala, ao permitir partilhar os meios humanos e
financeiros existentes em benefício dos projetos de interesse comum para a Europa e as suas regiões.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento.

C 80 E / 440 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005095/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Outermost regions — reinforcing territorial cooperation

In answer to my Question E-002060/2013, Commissioner Hahn stated on behalf of the Commission that ‘In order to
carry out cooperation programmes successfully, the ORs, the OCTs and the non-Member States concerned first have
to establish a dialogue, identify common interests and formulate accordingly the joint programmes. The Commission
will facilitate this process.’

—
How will the Commission facilitate this process?

—
What results does it expect?

_(Version française)_

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

_(11 juillet 2013)_

La Commission a en effet indiqué sa disposition à faciliter le processus de dialogue entre les régions ultrapériphériques
(RUP), les Pays et Territoires d'Outre-mer (PTOM) et les États tiers afin de renforcer l'impact de la coopération
territoriale. La Commission a déjà commencé ce travail, notamment en matière d'articulation des fonds FED ( [1] ) et
FEDER. En effet, la Commission veillera à ce que ses propositions de règlement de mise en œuvre du 11 [e] FED et du
Règlement financier du 11 [e] FED ainsi que les textes relatifs aux PTOM prévoient des dispositions semblables à celles
contenues dans la proposition de règlement sur la coopération territoriale dans le cadre du FEDER. Ces dispositions
devraient faciliter l'établissement de mécanismes de concertation entre les acteurs concernés au niveau des régions et
l'utilisation de mécanismes simplifiés de financement permettant une utilisation plus efficace des ressources. Un
protocole d'entente entre ses services les plus concernés est également envisagé afin de renforcer leur collaboration et
de promouvoir le financement conjoint et la coordination de programmes/projets impliquant des pays d'Afrique,
Caraïbes et Pacifique (ACP), des PTOM et des RUP.

La Commission continuera, d'accompagner les États membres, les RUP, les PTOM et les ACP dans cet exercice de
dialogue avec les États voisins. La Commission attend de ce dialogue renforcé qu'il contribue à la diversification des
économies des RUP et des PTOM et qu'il favorise la cohésion sociale entre les acteurs d'une même région
géographique. Ce dialogue permettra à terme de réaliser des économies d'échelle, en mutualisant les moyens humains
et financiers au profit de projets d'intérêt commun pour l'Europe et ses régions.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Fonds européen de développement.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 441

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005096/13**

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

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Programa Rota da Cocaína — ponto da situação

Em resposta à minha pergunta E-002603/2013, a senhora Vice-Presidente / Alta Representante declarou, em nome
da Comissão, que «a UE está a financiar o programa “Rota da Cocaína” ao abrigo do Instrumento de Estabilidade, que
se destina, nomeadamente, a reforçar as capacidades de luta contra a droga em determinados aeroportos e portos
marítimos da África Ocidental.»

Assim, pergunto à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante:

—
Qual o montante do referido financiamento?

—
Que principais ações em curso destaca no referido programa?

—
Em quantos países opera?

—
Quais as principais dificuldades encontradas e que sucessos destaca no programa em apreço?

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

_(17 de julho de 2013)_

Lançado em 2009, o programa «rota da cocaína» é financiada no âmbito da componente a longo prazo do
Instrumento de Estabilidade, artigo 4.°, n.° 1, do Regulamento IE n.° 1717/2006, e é administrado pela DG
Desenvolvimento e Cooperação da Comissão Europeia.

Com uma dotação superior a 30 milhões de euros, contribui para lutar contra a criminalidade organizada e o tráfico
de droga em 36 países ao longo da rota da cocaína, desde os países produtores na América Latina até à Europa,
passando pela América Central, as Caraíbas e a África Ocidental.

Este programa é o primeiro do seu género a abordar de forma global o desafio da criminalidade organizada e o tráfico
de droga. Proporcionando conselhos técnicos, reforço das capacidades e a promoção da cooperação transregional
através de uma série de projetos complementares, tem realizado atividades em três áreas principais, ou seja, a
interceção dos fluxos ilícitos de drogas, a luta contra o branqueamento de capitais e a partilha de informações.

Os principais desafios enfrentados resultam das condições difíceis, quando não instáveis, em que funciona a maioria
dos projetos, com capacidades limitadas e pouca sensibilização para os problemas em causa nos países nossos
parceiros. Em termos de resposta, o programa «rota da cocaína» forneceu até agora formação e equipamento
específicos e especializados a mais de 500 agentes da autoridade e funcionários judiciários, principalmente em
cooperação com peritos dos Estados-Membros da UE. Este contributo tem sido fundamental para dinamizar um
grande número de beneficiários e parceiros e uma condição prévia para o êxito da cooperação transregional.

C 80 E / 442 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005096/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — State of play of the Cocaine Route Programme

In answer to my Question E-002603/2013, the Vice-President/High Representative stated on behalf of the
Commission that ‘the EU is funding the “Cocaine Route Programme” under the Instrument for Stability which aims
_inter alia_ to strengthen the anti-drugs capacities at selected airports and seaports in West Africa.’

— How much is this funding worth?

— What are the main activities in progress that the Vice-President/High Representative would highlight as part of this
programme?

— In how many countries does it operate?

— What are the main difficulties encountered in this programme and what achievements would the VicePresident/High Representative highlight?

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

_(17 July 2013)_

Launched in 2009, the Cocaine Route Programme (CRP) is funded under the Instrument for Stability, Long-term
component, art. 4.1 of the IfS Regulation N.1717/2006, and is managed by the European Commission, DG
Development Cooperation.

With a commitment of more than EUR 30 million, it contributes to fighting organised crime and drug trafficking in
36 countries along the Cocaine Route, from the production countries in Latin America to Europe, via Central
America, the Caribbean and West Africa.

The CRP is the first of its kind to deal in a comprehensive way with the challenge posed by organised crime and drug
trafficking. By providing technical advice, building capacities, and promoting trans-regional cooperation through a
number of complementing projects, it has been carrying out activities in three main domains, i.e., the interception of
illicit flows of drugs, the fight against money laundering, and information sharing.

Main challenges encountered stem from the difficult, when not instable, conditions in which most projects operate,
with limited capacities and low awareness of the issue at stake in our partner countries. As a response, the CRP has so
far provided targeted and specialised training and equipment to more than 500 law enforcement and judiciary
officials, primarily in cooperation with experts from EU Member States. This has been instrumental in gathering
momentum among many beneficiaries and partners and a precondition for successful trans-regional cooperation.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 443

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005098/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Parcerias público-privadas — Passividade das instâncias europeias

O Ministro de Estado e das Finanças de Portugal declarou recentemente, a propósito das parcerias público-privadas,
que «A transparência deste tipo de contratos era reduzida. Estes são exemplos de práticas de desorçamentação que
persistiram tempo de mais em Portugal perante a passividade prolongada das instâncias europeias».

1. Que apreciação faz a Comissão das declarações do ministro português?

2. A que motivos atribui a Comissão a referida passividade?

3. Que garantias está a Comissão em condições de dar de que a passividade prolongada denunciada pelo ministro
não se repetirá? Que medidas tomou e prevê tomar a este respeito?

**Resposta dada por Michel Barnier em nome da Comissão**

_(3 de julho de 2013)_

A Comissão não tem conhecimento das declarações do Ministro de Estado e das Finanças de Portugal a que o Senhor
Deputado se refere e não recebeu qualquer queixa no que respeita às parcerias público-privadas (PPP) em Portugal. No
entanto, o Programa de Ajustamento Económico para Portugal tem vindo, desde que foi lançado, a contemplar esta
questão. Uma nova lei-quadro estabelece requisitos mínimos para o lançamento, acompanhamento e revisão das PPP,
aumentando a transparência e reforçando o controlo das mesmas. Por outro lado, os conhecimentos especializados
sobre as questões relacionadas com as PPP foram significativamente reforçados através da criação de uma unidade
responsável pelas PPP, independentemente do setor em que se inserem, no seio do Ministério das Finanças. De acordo
com o programa, as PPP rodoviárias estão atualmente a ser renegociadas, num processo que está a ser seguido de
perto pelos serviços da Comissão.

As PPP podem ser classificadas, do ponto de vista do direito da UE, como contratos públicos ou como concessões. Se
estiverem em causa contratos públicos ou concessões de obras, a respetiva adjudicação fica sujeita às disposições das
Diretivas Contratos Públicos ( [1] ). Atualmente, a adjudicação de concessões de serviços está sujeita apenas aos
princípios de transparência e igualdade de tratamento consignados pelo Tratado. A fim de aumentar a transparência,
melhorar a segurança jurídica, ter em conta os valores da sociedade e garantir uma aplicação eficaz dos dinheiros
públicos na adjudicação de contratos públicos e de concessões, a Comissão adotou em 20 de dezembro de 2012 duas
propostas de revisão das Diretivas Contratos Públicos e uma proposta de diretiva relativa às concessões ( [2] ). As
propostas estão atualmente a ser negociadas entre o Parlamento e o Conselho. A Comissão considera que a adoção
das referidas propostas contribuirá para reforçar a transparência na adjudicação das PPP, em especial no caso das
concessões de serviços.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Diretiva 2004/17/CE do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 31 de março de 2004, relativa à coordenação dos processos de adjudicação de

contratos nos setores da água, da energia, dos transportes e dos serviços postais (JO L 134 de 30.4.2004, p. 1) e Diretiva 2004/18/CE do
Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 31 de março de 2004, relativa à coordenação dos processos de adjudicação dos contratos de empreitada de
obras públicas, dos contratos públicos de fornecimento e dos contratos públicos de serviços (JO L 134 de 30.4.2004, p. 114).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Proposta de Diretiva relativa aos contratos públicos celebrados pelas entidades que operam nos setores da água, da energia, dos transportes e dos

serviços postais (COM(2011) 895 final). Além disso, a Comissão apresentou ainda uma proposta de diretiva relativa aos contratos públicos
(COM(2011) 896 final), bem como uma proposta de diretiva relativa à adjudicação de contratos de concessão (COM(2011) 897 final).

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

C 80 E / 444 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005098/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Public-private partnerships — passivity of the European authorities

On the subject of public-private partnerships, the Portuguese Minister for State and Finance recently said that this
type of contract was not very transparent. They were an example of budgetary mismanagement that had gone on too
long in Portugal in the face of long-standing passivity on the part of European authorities.

1. What does the Commission think about the Portuguese Minister’s statements?

2. What reasons does the Commission think account for this passivity?

3. What guarantees can the Commission give to prevent the long-standing passivity alleged by the Minister from
happening again? What measures has it taken and does it intend to take in this respect?

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

_(3 July 2013)_

The Commission is not aware of the statements of the Portuguese Minister for State and Finance the Honourable
Member refers to and has not received any complaint regarding Public-private partnerships (PPPs) in Portugal.
However, the Economic Adjustment Programme for Portugal has been tackling this issue since its inception. A new
framework law sets minimum requirements for launching, monitoring and revising PPPs, thereby increasing
transparency and enhancing control. Moreover, expertise on PPP issues has been greatly improved by creating a crosssector PPP unit at the Ministry of Finance. Accordingly to the Programme, PPPs in the highway sector are presently
subject to re-negotiations which are being closely followed by the Commission services.

PPPs qualify, from the point of view of EC law, either as public contracts or as concessions. When public contracts or
works concessions are involved, their award is subject to the provisions of the public procurement directives ( [1] ).
Presently, the award of service concessions is subject only to the Treaty principles of transparency and equal
treatment. In order to improve transparency, boost legal certainty, take into account societal values and ensure the
efficient spending of public money on the award of public contracts and concessions the Commission adopted in
20 December 2012 two proposals revising the Public Procurement Directives and a proposal on a Concessions
Directive ( [2] ). The proposals are presently subject to negotiation between the Parliament and the Council. The
Commission considers that the adoption of the said proposals will contribute to enhance transparency on the award
of PPPs in particular those qualifying as service concessions.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities

operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ L 134, 30.4.2004, p. 1) and Directive 2004/17/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply
contracts and public service contracts.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Proposal for a directive on the procurement of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sector (COM(2011) 895 final).

In addition, the Commission proposed a directive on public procurement (COM(2011) 896 final) as well as a directive on the award of concession
contracts (COM(2011) 897 final).

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 445

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005099/13**

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

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Rússia: situação das ONG

A Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante manifestou publicamente a sua preocupação pela condenação de que foi objeto
a ONG russa GOLOS e a sua diretora. Esta decisão judicial vem na linha de outras destinadas a pressionar estas
organizações e de as rotular como agentes estrangeiros a operar ilegitimamente na Rússia.

1. Quantos casos semelhantes conhece a Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante?

2. Vislumbra a Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante alguma possibilidade de melhoria desta situação?

3. Contactou a Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante as autoridades russas a este respeito? Que respostas obteve?

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

_(8 de julho de 2013)_

Como é do conhecimento do Senhor Deputado, em 28 de abril de 2013 o porta-voz da AR/VP Catherine Ashton
proferiu uma declaração manifestando a preocupação da UE pelo facto de a ONG Golos e a sua diretora terem sido
objeto de uma multa com base na lei dos «agentes estrangeiros». A UE foi informada, em 29 de maio, de uma segunda
decisão do tribunal que considera que a ONG «Centro de Apoio Kostroma para Iniciativas Sociais» deve registar-se
como agente estrangeiro e que condena esta ONG e o seu diretor a uma multa. A UE está igualmente ciente de várias
advertências enviadas a ONG, bem como de processos judiciais pendentes no Tribunal Administrativo.

Em 17 de maio, a UE e a Rússia promoveram a 17. [a] ronda das suas consultas em matéria de direitos humanos. A UE
manifestou a sua preocupação pela falta de clareza do conceito de «atividade política», bem como pelos critérios
utilizados para forçar as ONG a registarem-se como «agentes estrangeiros». A UE também manifestou, tanto no
âmbito da OSCE como no Conselho da Europa, a sua preocupação relativamente à lei dos «agentes estrangeiros» e aos
recentes processos judiciais instaurados pelas autoridades russas. A resposta enviada pelas autoridades russas não
esclareceu as dúvidas da UE.

A UE acompanhará de perto a evolução no domínio da aplicação desta lei, através da sua Delegação em Moscovo,
nomeadamente as próximas audiências no tribunal e eventuais recursos. A UE continuará a exortar as autoridades
russas a alinhar a legislação russa com os compromissos internacionais do país. O Chefe da Delegação da UE na
Federação Russa comunicou também às autoridades russas, em contactos bilaterais, a grande preocupação da UE e
acompanhará a proposta russa de apresentar perguntas ao Ministro da Justiça sobre a aplicação dessa lei.

C 80 E / 446 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005099/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Situation of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in Russia

The Vice-President/High Representative has publicly expressed her concern over the conviction of the Russian NGO
GOLOS and its director. This court ruling follows others intended to put pressure on such organisations and to label
them as foreign agents operating illegally in Russia.

1. How many similar cases is the Vice-President/High Representative aware of?

2. Does the Vice-President/High Representative detect any possibility of this situation improving?

Has the Vice-President/High Representative contacted the Russian authorities about this matter? What answers has
she received?

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

_(8 July 2013)_

As the Honourable Member is aware, on 28 April 2013, the spokesperson of HR/VP Ashton issued a statement
expressing the EU's concerns on the fact that the NGO Golos and her director were fined on the basis of the ‘foreign
agents’ law. The EU was informed on 29 May of a second court ruling which considers that the NGO ‘Kostroma
Support Center for Social Initiatives’ has to register as a foreign agent, and by which the NGO and its director were
fined. The EU is also aware of a number of warnings issued to NGOs as well as of pending administrative court cases.

On 17 May, the EU and Russia conducted the 17th round of their biannual human rights consultations. The EU
expressed its concerns on the lack of clarity of the concept of ‘political activity’ as well as the criteria applied to force
an NGO to register as ‘foreign agent’. The EU has similarly expressed its concerns vis-à-vis the law on ‘foreign agents’
and the recent judicial procedures by Russian authorities, both in the framework of OSCE and the Council of Europe.
The response received from the Russian authorities did not clarify the EU's concerns.

The EU will follow closely the developments in the implementation of this law through its Delegation in Moscow, and
in particular the forthcoming court hearings and possible appeal trials. The EU will continue to call on the Russian
authorities to align the Russian legislation with Russia's international commitments. The Head of the EU Delegation
to the Russian Federation has also conveyed the EU’s strong concerns to the Russian authorities in bilateral contacts
and will follow up to the Russian proposal to put forward questions to the Ministry of Justice on the implementation
of that law.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 447

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005100/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Novas notas de cinco euros — Risco de burlas e fraudes

A introdução em circulação de uma nova nota de cinco euros implica que, durante algum tempo, aquela não será
imediatamente reconhecível, circunstância que aumenta as possibilidades de burla e fraude em torno da mesma.
Haverá, por isso, que divulgar adequadamente o seu aspeto e alertar as populações para que esta nova nota não
implica uma troca das anteriores.

Que medidas cautelares tomou ou prevê tomar a Comissão de modo a minorar os riscos associados à introdução de
uma nova nota de cinco euros?

**Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão**

_(19 de junho de 2013)_

A emissão de notas, incluindo as novas notas de 5 euros não é da competência da Comissão, mas do BCE.

O BCE é, por conseguinte, responsável por quaisquer medidas de acompanhamento no que diz respeito à introdução
da nova nota de 5 euros.

C 80 E / 448 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005100/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ New EUR 5 notes — risk of scams and fraud

The introduction of the new EUR 5 note means that for a certain period of time, the note will not be immediately
recognisable and this situation could lead to a rise in incidences of scams and fraud involving the note. For this reason,
it is important to widely publicise its new look and make people aware that the introduction of the new note does not
mean they have to exchange their old banknotes.

What precautionary measures has the Commission taken or does it intend to take to reduce risks surrounding the
introduction of the new EUR 5 note?

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

_(19 June 2013)_

The issuance of banknotes including the new 5 Euro banknote is not a competence of the Commission, but of the
ECB.

The ECB is therefore in charge of any accompanying measures regarding the introduction of the new 5 Euro
banknote.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 449

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005101/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Moçambique — tráfico de órgãos

Quatro suspeitos de tráfico de órgãos humanos foram detidos pela polícia de Macanga, na província de Tete, no
centro de Moçambique, após terem sido surpreendidos na segunda-feira na posse de partes de um corpo.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

Está disponível para colaborar com as autoridades moçambicanas no combate a este tráfico hediondo?

**Resposta dada por Andris Piebalgs em nome da Comissão**

_(28 de junho de 2013)_

O tráfico de órgãos humanos é um fenómeno bem conhecido em Moçambique, que constitui uma fonte e, em menor
medida, um país de destino do tráfico de seres humanos. Embora não em grande escala, verificaram-se casos de
tráfico de órgãos e de partes do corpo humano. A Liga dos Direitos Humanos de Moçambique publicou, em 2008,
um estudo sobre o tráfico de partes do corpo humano em Moçambique e na África do Sul. A Comissão participou
ativamente nos seminários organizados após a publicação do estudo.

O Governo de Moçambique manifestou reiteradamente a sua preocupação e o seu empenho em combater o tráfico,
mas a lei de 2008 de luta contra o tráfico de seres humanos ainda não foi regulamentada, o que torna difícil a sua
aplicação, além de que esta lei não abrange o tráfico de partes do corpo humano. O estudo chama a atenção para a
ausência de uma definição internacionalmente aceite de tráfico de partes do corpo e salienta que, sem esta definição,
qualquer tentativa para combater esta atividade terá poucas hipóteses de sucesso e estas violações dos direitos
humanos continuarão a verificar-se.

A Comissão, ciente da situação e preocupada com ela, está a trabalhar com as autoridades competentes de
Moçambique e com organizações da sociedade civil implicadas neste domínio. Por parte do Governo, uma das
principais instituições que trabalham contra o tráfico de seres humanos é o Ministério Público. No âmbito do projeto
europeu «Estado de direito», recentemente lançado, esta instituição receberá 4 milhões de EUR a título de apoio
institucional. A USAID e a Unicef também cooperam com o Ministério Público na luta contra o tráfico de seres
humanos.

C 80 E / 450 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005101/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Organ trafficking in Mozambique

Four individuals suspected of trafficking human organs have been detained by police in Macanga, a district in the
province of Tete in central Mozambique, after they were caught in possession of body parts on Monday.

Is the Commission prepared to work with the authorities in Mozambique to fight against atrocious trafficking of this
kind?

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

_(28 June 2013)_

Trafficking in body parts is a well-known phenomenon in Mozambique, which is a source and, to a lesser extent, a
destination country for human trafficking. Although not on a large scale, cases of trafficking in human organs and
body parts have occurred. The Mozambican League for Human Rights published a study in 2008 on trafficking in
body parts in Mozambique and South Africa. The Commission was involved and active in the seminars that took
place after the publication of the study.

The Government of Mozambique has repeatedly expressed its concerns about and commitment to combating
trafficking but the 2008 Anti-trafficking in Persons law has still not been regulated, which makes enforcement of the
law difficult, and that law does not encompass trafficking in body parts. The study draws attention to the lack of an
internationally recognised definition of trafficking in body parts and highlights that without such a definition, any
attempt to counter this activity will be impaired and these Human Rights violations will continue.

The Commission, being aware of and concerned by this situation, is working with the relevant authorities in
Mozambique and with Civil Society Organisations engaged in this area. On the Government side, one of the leading
institutions working against trafficking is the Attorney-General’s Office. Under the recently started EU Rule of Law
project, this institution will receive EUR 4 million in institutional support. USAID and Unicef are also involved with
the Attorney-General’s Office in the specific area of trafficking.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 451

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005102/13**

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

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Líbia: cerco a ministérios

Notícias recentes dão conta de que ministérios e institutos públicos líbios foram cercados por grupos armados que,
alegadamente, exigiram que os mesmos fossem expurgados de apoiantes do antigo regime. Esta ação ocorreu cinco
dias depois do atentado junto da embaixada francesa em Trípoli.

1. Dispõe a Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante de informações acerca do sucedido?

2. Considera a Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante que a situação acarreta perigo para os cidadãos europeus
presentes no país?

3. Como avalia a Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante o processo de estabilização da Líbia?

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

_(1 de julho de 2013)_

Os incidentes a que se refere o Senhor Deputado prenderam-se com a adoção da Lei do Isolamento Político pelo
Congresso Nacional Geral. Os eventos que conduziram à adoção da lei (ou seja, o cerco de ministérios por forças
armadas) foram seguidos pela UE com grande preocupação. A AR/VP emitiu uma declaração em 8 de maio de 2013
em que convidava todos os Líbios a respeitarem os representantes eleitos democraticamente.

Entre os acontecimentos que rodearam a adoção da Lei do Isolamento Político não se contam ataques contra cidadãos
estrangeiros.

A UE continua empenhada em apoiar o povo líbio, para que alcance a democracia, a estabilidade e a prosperidade
através de um processo de transição pautado pela justiça e pela reconciliação.

C 80 E / 452 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005102/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Libyan ministries siege

According to recent reports, armed groups have laid siege to Libyan ministries and public institutions, allegedly
demanding that supporters of the former regime be expelled from them. This siege comes five days after the attack on
the French embassy in Tripoli.

1. Does the Vice-President/High Representative have any information about what has happened?

2. Does the Vice-President/High Representative believe the situation could be dangerous for European citizens
living in the country?

3. How does the Vice-President/High Representative think the stabilisation process in Libya is progressing?

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

_(1 July 2013)_

The abovementioned incidents were related to the adoption of the Political Isolation Law by the General National
Congress. The process which brought to the adoption of the law (i.e. the surrounding of ministries by armed forces)
was followed by the EU with great concern. A statement was issued by the HR/VP on 8 May 2013, calling on all
Libyans to respect the democratically elected representatives.

The events which surrounded the adoption of the Political Isolation Law did not involve attacks against foreign
nationals.

The EU remains committed to supporting the Libyan people in achieving a successful transition towards democracy,
stability and prosperity through a process of transitional justice and reconciliation.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 453

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005103/13**

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

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Coreia do Norte — Kenneth Bae

O cidadão norte-americano de ascendência coreana Kenneth Bae encontra-se detido numa prisão norte-coreana e
enfrenta a possibilidade de ser condenado à morte pelo regime de Pyongyang por tentativa de derrube do regime. As
acusações aparentam ser descabidas.

Assim, pergunto à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante:

—
Dispõe de informações acerca do referido cidadão norte-americano e do processo que lhe é movido?

—
Está disposta a interceder junto das autoridades norte-coreanas para que as piores expectativas não se
concretizem?

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

_(3 de julho de 2013)_

Embora consciente do facto de que Kenneth Bae ainda se encontra detido na RPDC, a Alta Representante e os seus
serviços não têm um conhecimento aprofundado do caso.

As autoridades competentes dos EUA irão, sem dúvida, tratar o processo de Kenneth Bae diretamente com a RPDC e a
embaixada sueca em Pyongyang representa os interesses locais dos EUA.

C 80 E / 454 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005103/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — North Korea — Kenneth Bae

Kenneth Bae, a US citizen of Korean descent, is being held in a North Korean prison by the regime in Pyongyang and
faces a possible death sentence for attempting to overthrow the regime. The accusations seem to be unfounded.

— Does the Vice-President/High Representative have any information about the US citizen in question and the
proceedings brought against him?

— Is she prepared to make representations to the North Korean authorities so that our worst fears do not come true?

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

_(3 July 2013)_

While being aware of the fact that Mr Kenneth Bae is being held by the DPRK, the HR and her services have no
detailed knowledge of the case.

The concerned US authorities will undoubtedly have taken up Mr Bae's case directly with the DPRK and the Swedish
Embassy in Pyongyang represents the US interests on the spot.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 455

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005106/13**

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

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Egito — tensão entre poder político e judicial

Notícias recentes dão conta de que, no Egito, a magistratura judicial vem procurando assegurar a sua independência
face ao poder político e que esta tentativa encontrou resistência, tendo levado mesmo à demissão de Mohammed
Fouad Gadella, assessor jurídico do presidente da república, que abandonou o cargo alegando «assassinato da justiça»
e denunciando o «monopólio de uma só corrente na gestão da transição».

Assim, pergunto à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante:

—
Dispõe de informações acerca do sucedido?

—
Considera que a situação acarreta perigo para a estabilidade da transição no Egito?

—
Estaria disponível para auxiliar o poder judicial egípcio de modo a dotá-lo de meios materiais e humanos
adequados à boa administração da justiça?

—
Contactou as autoridades egípcias a este propósito?

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

_(3 de julho de 2013)_

A UE acompanha de perto a situação interna no Egito e está plenamente ciente da disputa entre o Presidente/governo
e a magistratura, agravada pela proposta de lei de reforma da justiça, que propõe, designadamente, baixar a idade de
reforma dos juízes. O Egito está a atravessar uma complexa transição para a democracia, confrontando-se com várias
controvérsias internas que, de facto, criaram atrasos e obstáculos, se não mesmo a polarização entre os diferentes
partidos. Posto isto, a UE mantém-se em estreito contacto com as autoridades pertinentes quanto a esta e outras
questões preocupantes. A UE apoiou, desde sempre, a transição do Egito para a democracia, oferecendo e prestando
assistência em vários setores, nomeadamente através de um programa de 10 milhões de EUR que contribui para a
modernização da administração da justiça e apoia medidas de luta contra a corrupção através de um projeto no valor
de 3 milhões de EUR implementado pelo UNODC.

C 80 E / 456 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005106/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Tension between political and judicial authorities in Egypt

According to recent reports, the judiciary in Egypt is trying to assert its independence from the government, but the
attempt has met with resistance. This has led to the resignation of Mohammed Fouad Gadella, legal advisor to the
President of the Republic, who gave up his role alleging that justice had been ‘murdered’ and criticising the ‘monopoly
of a single approach in the management of change’.

— Does the Vice-President/High Representative have any information about what has happened?

— Does she believe the situation will jeopardise transitional stability in Egypt?

— Would she be prepared to assist the judiciary in Egypt by giving it the material and human resources it needs for
the sound administration of justice?

— Has she been in contact with the Egyptian authorities about this matter?

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

_(3 July 2013)_

The EU is following very closely the domestic developments in Egypt and is fully aware of the dispute between the
President/government and the Judiciary that has deepened with the suggested justice reform bill, proposing among
other things to lower the retirement age for judges. Egypt is going through a complex transition towards democracy,
experiencing a number of domestic controversies than indeed have created delays and obstacles, if not a polarisation
between the different parties. That being said, the EU remained in close contact with the relevant authorities on this
and other matters of concern. The EU has, all along, supported Egypt's transition towards democracy offering and
providing assistance in various sectors including a EUR 10 million programme contributing to the modernisation of
the justice administration and support to anti-corruption measures through a EUR 3 million EU funded project that is
implemented by UNODC.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 457

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005108/13**

**ao Conselho**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Croácia — baixa taxa de afluência às urnas

As primeiras eleições para o Parlamento Europeu na Croácia saldaram-se por uma taxa de participação eleitoral de
apenas 21 %.

Assim, pergunto ao Conselho:

—
Que comentário lhe merece esta baixíssima taxa de afluência às urnas?

—
Que motivos aponta para a mesma?

**Resposta**
_(24 de junho de 2013)_

Não compete ao Conselho comentar os resultados das eleições para o Parlamento Europeu na Croácia, nem a
afluência às urnas.

C 80 E / 458 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005108/13**

**to the Council**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Low turnout at the polls in Croatia

The first European Parliament elections in Croatia saw a voter turnout of just 21%.

— What does the Council have to say about this very low turnout?

— What does it think are the reasons behind it?

**Reply**
_(24 June 2013)_

It is not for the Council to comment on the results or the turnout of elections to the European Parliament in Croatia.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 459

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005114/13**

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

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Canadá — restrições à entrada no país de trabalhadores estrangeiros temporários

O governo canadiano anunciou medidas que poderão dificultar a entrada no país de trabalhadores estrangeiros
temporários, a fim de evitar que as empresas substituam os trabalhadores locais por mão-de-obra mais barata. O
ministro da Imigração do Canadá, Jason Kenney, reconheceu que o programa atual — que permite a chegada ao país
de mais de 300 mil trabalhadores estrangeiros temporários por ano — tem contribuído para a substituição de
canadianos por imigrantes.

Assim, pergunto à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante:

—
Em que medida esta decisão das autoridades canadianas prejudica os cidadãos da UE?

—
Vislumbra alguma possibilidade de inversão desta situação quanto aos cidadãos europeus?

—
Contactou as autoridades canadianas a este respeito? Que respostas obteve?

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

_(1 de julho de 2013)_

O programa dos trabalhadores estrangeiros temporários ( _Temporary Foreign Workers Progarmme_ — TFWP) é um
programa autónomo do Canadá que visa colmatar a escassez de competências numa base temporária.

As reformas que foram apresentadas pelo Governo canadiano em abril de 2013 vão afetar sobretudo o processo de
avaliação, o chamado processo do parecer do mercado de trabalho ( _Labour Market Opinion_ — LMO), que implica a
emissão de um parecer para um empregador contratar um trabalhador estrangeiro a título temporário e condiciona a
emissão da autorização de trabalho.

Todas as disposições das reformas são universais, não discriminatórias e aplicáveis a todas as nacionalidades,
independentemente das obrigações dos respetivos visitantes em matéria de vistos.

Na sequência da questão apresentada pelo Senhor Deputado, as autoridades canadianas foram contactadas
(funcionários do Ministério da Cidadania e da Imigração canadiano), tendo confirmado as informações acima
referidas.

Uma vez adotado, o acordo económico e comercial global EU-Canadá vai conceder um estatuto preferencial a certas
categorias de profissionais da UE, nomeadamente as pessoas singulares que prestem um serviço.

C 80 E / 460 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005114/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Restrictions on entry to Canada for temporary foreign workers

The Canadian Government has announced measures that could make it more difficult for temporary foreign workers
to enter the country, in an attempt to prevent companies replacing Canadian workers with cheaper labour. Jason
Kenney, the Canadian Minister for Immigration, acknowledged that the current programme, which allows more than
300 000 temporary foreign workers into the country per year, has led to Canadians being replaced by immigrants.

— To what extent does the Vice-President/High Representative think this decision by the Canadian authorities will
affect EU citizens?

— Does she see any possibility of this situation being reversed for EU citizens?

— Has she contacted the Canadian authorities about this matter? What answers has she received?

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

_(1 July 2013)_

The Temporary Foreign Workers Progarmme (TFWP) is an autonomous programme of Canada aiming at filling acute
skills shortages on a temporary basis.

The reforms which were put forward by the Canadian government in April 2013 will mainly affect the assessment
process, the so called Labour Market Opinion (LMO) process which leads to an opinion for an employer to hire a
foreign worker on a temporary basis, and allows the work permit to be issued.

All provisions of the reforms are universal, non-discriminatory and are applicable to all nationalities regardless of
respective visitors' visa requirement.

Following your question, Canadian authorities were contacted (officials of the Department of Citizenship and
Immigration Canada) and confirmed the above information.

Once adopted, the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement will provide a preferential status to
certain categories of EU professionals, notably natural persons providing a service.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 461

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005115/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Aumento do preço dos alimentos — consequências sociais

A Comissão Europeia revelou recentemente que o preço dos alimentos tem aumentado na União Europeia. Esta
circunstância revela-se particularmente preocupante naqueles países que enfrentam dificuldades económicas e
financeiras mais agudas e que acarretam sérias consequências a nível social.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

—
A que se deve o aumento referido?

—
De que modo poderão a União Europeia e os Estados‐Membros contribuir para impedir que este agravamento
se repercuta negativamente junto daqueles que mais sentem necessidades, nomeadamente nos países objeto de
programas de ajustamento?

**Resposta dada por Dacian Cioloș em nome da Comissão**

_(26 de junho de 2013)_

O aumento do preço dos alimentos nos últimos anos pode ser explicado pelo aumento súbito dos preços dos
produtos agrícolas de base e por outros fatores estruturais e conjunturais, tais como o aumento da procura global de
alimentos, os elevados preços do petróleo, as políticas em matéria de biocombustíveis, as alterações climáticas, o
baixo nível de existências, a repercussão imperfeita dos preços na cadeia de abastecimento alimentar, etc.

A Comissão Europeia tem estado a acompanhar de perto a evolução dos preços dos produtos alimentares e a
trabalhar no sentido de aumentar a transparência dos preços ao longo da cadeia de abastecimento alimentar. Por este
motivo, a Comissão instituiu o Fórum de Alto Nível sobre a Melhoria do Funcionamento da Cadeia de Abastecimento
Alimentar ( [1] ), a fim de promover relações sustentáveis e baseadas no mercado entre as partes interessadas da cadeia de
abastecimento alimentar, aumentar a transparência ao longo da cadeia para incentivar a concorrência e aumentar a
sua resistência à volatilidade dos preços. Consequentemente, foi criada uma «ferramenta europeia de monitorização
dos preços dos alimentos ( [2] )» com o intuito de reunir informações sobre os preços a níveis diferentes da cadeia de
abastecimento alimentar, do produtor ao consumidor.

Um dos objetivos da política agrícola comum (PAC) consiste em facultar aos cidadãos géneros alimentícios a preços
acessíveis, e, ao fazê-lo, a Comissão Europeia apoia o setor agrícola, quer mediante um sistema de pagamentos diretos
que apoia o rendimento dos agricultores, quer através de medidas de desenvolvimento rural que financiam os meios
de apoio aos ganhos de produtividade, as cadeias de abastecimento curtas e a cooperação. Por outro lado, a PAC
financia até 2013, um programa de distribuição de géneros alimentícios às pessoas mais carenciadas da União ( [3] ), que
prestou apoio a cerca de 19 milhões de pessoas em toda a Europa (2011). Para o futuro, a Comissão Europeia propôs
a criação de um Fundo de Auxílio Europeu às Pessoas Mais Carenciadas no âmbito da política de coesão da UE, com
uma dotação financeira de 2,5 mil milhões de EUR para o período de 2014-2020.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/food/competitiveness/forum_food/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/hicp/methodology/prices_data_for_market_monitoring
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/most-deprived-persons/index_en.htm

C 80 E / 462 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005115/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Increasing food prices — social consequences

The Commission recently revealed that food prices have gone up in the European Union. This situation is particularly
worrying in those countries facing the most severe economic and financial difficulties, which are having serious social

consequences.

— What does the Commission believe is behind this increase?

— What can the EU and Member States do to prevent this worsening situation from having negative repercussions on
those already hardest hit, namely those countries with an adjustment programme in place?

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

_(26 June 2013)_

The food price increase in the recent years can be explained by the surge in agricultural commodity prices and by
more structural and short term factors, such as the rise in global food demand, high oil prices, biofuel policies, climate
change, low stock levels, imperfect price transmission in the food supply chain, etc.

The European Commission has been closely following the development of food prices and working to increase price
transparency along the food supply chain. For that reason, it set up the High Level Forum for a Better Functioning
Food Supply Chain ( [1] ) aiming at promoting sustainable, market based-relationships between the actors in the food
supply chain, increased transparency to encourage competition and improving its resilience to price volatility.
Consequently, a ‘Food price monitoring tool ( [2] )’ was set up to bring together price information at different levels in
the food supply chain, from producer to consumer.

An objective of the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) is to provide citizens with food at affordable prices and, in
doing so, the European Commission supports the agricultural sector, either through a system of direct payments
providing farmers with income support or through the Rural Development measures funding means of support for
productivity gains, short supply chains and cooperation. Moreover, the CAP finances until 2013, a food distribution
programme to the most deprived persons in the Union ( [3] ) which provided support to almost 19 million people across
Europe (2011). For the future, the European Commission proposed to establish a Fund for European Aid to the Most
Deprived under the EU cohesion policy with a financial allocation of EUR 2.5 billion for the period 2014-2020.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/food/competitiveness/forum_food/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/hicp/methodology/prices_data_for_market_monitoring
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/most-deprived-persons/index_en.htm

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 463

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005116/13**

**à Comissão**
**Edite Estrela (S&D)**

_(7 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Eficácia das medidas de redução das desigualdades no domínio da saúde na UE

Tendo em conta que, na sua Comunicação de 2009 sobre «Solidariedade na saúde: reduzir as desigualdades na saúde
na UE» (COM(2009)0567 ( [1] )), a Comissão Europeia se comprometia a apresentar em 2012 um primeiro relatório
intercalar sobre os progressos realizados nesta matéria;

Tendo em conta que, na sua Resolução de 8 de Março de 2011 sobre «Reduzir as desigualdades no domínio da saúde
na UE» (P7_TA(2011)0081), o Parlamento Europeu exortava a «Comissão a avaliar, nos seus relatórios intercalares, a
eficácia das medidas de redução das desigualdades no domínio da saúde e as melhorias resultantes da aplicação das
políticas relativas às determinantes sociais, económicas e ambientais da saúde»;

Considerando que nesta mesma resolução o Parlamento Europeu manifestava a sua apreensão face à possibilidade de
a crise económica e financeira e as medidas de austeridade adotadas pelos Estados-Membros poderem levar à redução
do financiamento da saúde pública e dos serviços de saúde e da promoção da saúde, da prevenção da doença e dos
cuidados de saúde prolongados, com repercussões negativas ao nível da saúde pública e no acesso dos cidadãos aos
cuidados de saúde;

Pergunto à Comissão:

Que apreciação faz da eficácia das medidas de redução das desigualdades no domínio da saúde na UE, e, em particular,
que avaliação faz do impacte na saúde pública e no acesso aos cuidados de saúde das medidas de austeridade aplicadas
em alguns Estados-Membros, sobretudo nos que estão sob resgate?

**Resposta dada por Tonio Borg em nome da Comissão**

_(2 de julho de 2013)_

A Comunicação da Comissão sobre «Solidariedade na Saúde: Reduzir as Desigualdades no domínio da Saúde na
UE ( [2] )» tem por objetivo contribuir para a redução das desigualdades em matéria de saúde através do apoio às ações
desenvolvidas pelos Estados-Membros e pelas partes interessadas, bem como através do contributo prestado pelas
políticas da UE. Está prevista a adoção de um relatório sobre o estado da sua execução em julho de 2013. O relatório
baseia-se nos trabalhos realizados no âmbito de um contrato para a Comissão, que serão publicados
separadamente ( [3] ).

A Comissão apoia os Estados-Membros no sentido de melhorarem o acesso aos cuidados de saúde através da
utilização dos fundos estruturais e através do intercâmbio de informações e de boas práticas, no âmbito do programa
de saúde da UE e do programa Progress. Por exemplo, no quadro da Ação conjunta para as desigualdades na saúde ( [4] ),
estão a ser realizadas em dez Estados-Membros avaliações de impacto e auditorias das desigualdades na saúde

Além disso, a comunicação da Comissão sobre «Investimento social a favor do crescimento e da coesão ( [5] )» e o
documento de acompanhamento «Investir na saúde ( [6] )» sublinham a necessidade de investir na sustentabilidade dos
sistemas de saúde, reduzir as desigualdades na saúde e permitir aos cidadãos permanecer ativos e mais saudáveis por
mais tempo, de modo a melhorar a coesão e a estimular o crescimento económico.

O Eurostat recolhe regularmente dados sobre o acesso aos serviços de cuidados de saúde através de uma recolha de
dados específicos no domínio dos cuidados de saúde e através do inquérito sobre o rendimento e as condições de
vida, bem como em matéria de indicadores relacionados com a saúde, tais como a mortalidade em função da causa.
Contudo, presentemente, os dados disponíveis compilados ao nível da UE não permitem retirar conclusões claras
acerca dos efeitos das políticas de austeridade sobre a saúde.

A Comissão continuará a acompanhar a situação e a apoiar os Estados-Membros nos seus esforços para salvaguardar
a sustentabilidade a longo prazo dos seus sistemas de saúde.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2009/0567/COM_COM(2009)0567_EN.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2009) 567.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) «Relatório sobre as desigualdades existentes no domínio da saúde na UE». Comissão Europeia, Direção-Geral da Saúde e dos Consumidores,

Luxemburgo [em curso de publicação].

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Projeto 20102203 Ação conjunta para as desigualdades na saúde (Ação para a Equidade)

http://ec.europa.eu/eahc/projects/database.html?prjno=20102203

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 83.
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) SWD(2013) 43.

( **|**

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

C 80 E / 464 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005116/13**

**to the Commission**
**Edite Estrela (S&D)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Effectiveness of measures to reduce health inequalities in the EU

In its 2009 communication on ‘Solidarity in health: reducing health inequalities in the EU’ (COM(2009)0567 ( [1] )), the
Commission promised to produce a first progress report in 2012 on the situation.

In its resolution of 8 March 2011 on reducing health inequalities in the EU (P7_TA(2011)0081), Parliament called on
the ‘Commission to assess, in its progress reports, the effectiveness of measures to reduce health inequalities and
improvements in health resulting from policies relating to the social, economic and environmental determinants of
health.’

In that same resolution, Parliament expressed its concern about the possibility that the economic and financial crisis
and austerity measures taken by Member States might lead to a reduction in the level of funding for public health and
health promotion, disease prevention and long-term care services, with negative repercussions for public health and
public access to healthcare services.

How does the Commission rate the effectiveness of measures to reduce health inequalities in the EU and, in particular,
how does it assess the impact of the austerity measures enforced in some Member States, especially those with bailout
measures in place, on public health and on public access to healthcare?

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

_(2 July 2013)_

The Commission's communication on ‘Solidarity in Health: Reducing Health Inequalities in the EU’ ( [2] ) aims to
contribute to a reduction in health inequalities through support for action by Member States and stakeholders, and
through the contribution of EU policies. A progress report on its implementation is foreseen to be adopted in
July 2013. The report draws on work carried out under contract for the Commission which will be published
separately ( [3] ).

The Commission supports Member States to improve access to healthcare through the use of the Structural Funds,
and through exchange of information and good practice under the EU Health and Progress programmes. For
example, health inequality impact assessments and audits are being carried out in ten Member States under the Joint
Action on health inequalities ( [4] ).

Furthermore, the Commission's Communication on ‘Social investment for growth and cohesion’ ( [5] ) and the
accompanying document on ‘Investing in Health’ ( [6] ) highlight the need to invest in sustainable health systems,
reducing health inequalities and enabling people to remain active and in better health longer in order to improve
cohesion and boost economic growth.

Eurostat routinely collects data on access to healthcare services via a specific data collection on healthcare and via the
Survey on Income and Living Conditions as well as on related health outcomes such as mortality by cause. However,
at present, available data compiled at EU level do not allow for clear conclusions to be drawn on the effects of
austerity policies on health.

The Commission will continue to monitor the situation and support Member States in their efforts to safeguard the
long-term sustainability of their health systems.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2009/0567/COM_COM(2009)0567_EN.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2009) 567.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Marmot M et al. Report on health inequalities in the EU. European Commission Directorate General for Health and Consumers, Luxembourg [in

press].

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Project 20102203 Joint action on health inequalities (Equity Action) http://ec.europa.eu/eahc/projects/database.html?prjno=20102203
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 83.
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) SWD (2013) 43.

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

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 465

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-005117/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Giommaria Uggias (ALDE)**

_(7 maggio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Libertà di circolazione dei cittadini europei all'interno dell'Unione

In data 15.4.2013 due studenti italiani in viaggio in Olanda, muniti di regolare carta d'identità, una delle quali di tipo
«elettronico», a seguito di un controllo di routine della polizia olandese, sono stati posti in stato di arresto con l'accusa
di possesso di documenti d'identità falsi, l'uno, e di tratta internazionale di clandestini, l'altro.

I due ragazzi, ai quali è stata preclusa la possibilità di contattare immediatamente le autorità italiane, sono stati privati
degli effetti personali, sottoposti alla procedura delle impronte digitali e delle foto segnaletiche e rinchiusi per circa sei
ore in celle di sicurezza separate.

I cittadini europei in questione, privati della libertà personale, sono stati rilasciati dopo ben otto ore dall'arresto grazie
all'intervento della questura di Sassari, che ha consentito l'identificazione del titolare della carta d'identità elettronica.

La situazione appare gravissima considerando che l'art. 5.4 della direttiva 2004/38/CE afferma il diritto dei cittadini
dell'UE e dei loro familiari di circolare e di soggiornare liberamente nel territorio degli Stati membri muniti di regolare
carta di identità o passaporto. Ancor più grave è la violazione posta in essere in quanto, se il cittadino non dispone di
tali documenti di viaggio, lo Stato membro ospitante deve concedergli ogni possibile agevolazione affinché egli possa
ottenere, o far pervenire entro un periodo di tempo ragionevole, i documenti richiesti, garantendogli, oltretutto, la
facoltà di dimostrare o attestare anche con altri mezzi la titolarità del diritto di libera circolazione.

Premesso ciò, si chiede:

1. di verificare se i Paesi Bassi hanno regolarmente recepito la direttiva 2004/38/CE con particolare riferimento
alla disposizione di cui all'art. 5.4 secondo cui se il cittadino non dispone di documenti di viaggio, lo Stato
membro ospitante deve concedergli ogni possibile agevolazione affinché egli possa ottenere, o far pervenire
entro un periodo di tempo ragionevole, i documenti richiesti, garantendogli, oltretutto, la facoltà di dimostrare
o attestare anche con altri mezzi la titolarità del diritto di libera circolazione;

2. di valutare se il disposto dell'art. 5.4 della citata direttiva non comporti il diritto dei cittadini UE privi di
documenti di identità di contattare le autorità del proprio stato membro al fine di dimostrare la titolarità del
diritto di circolazione.

3. di informare l'interrogante se esiste un protocollo relativo al reciproco riconoscimento dei documenti d'identità
fra gli Stati membri.

**Risposta di Viviane Reding a nome della Commissione**

_(30 luglio 2013)_

1. I Paesi Bassi hanno regolarmente recepito l'articolo 5, paragrafo 4, della direttiva 2004/38 tramite l'articolo 8.8,
paragrafo 4, del decreto sugli stranieri.

2. L'articolo 5, paragrafo 4, si applica soltanto alla situazione dei cittadini dell'UE privi di carta d'identità o
passaporto al momento dell'ingresso in un altro Stato membro, ma non è applicabile alla situazione dei cittadini
dell'UE in possesso di carta d'identità o passaporto la cui validità è messa in dubbio dalla polizia in seguito a un
controllo di routine.

Inoltre, l'articolo 35 della direttiva prevede esplicitamente che in caso di abuso (ad esempio il matrimonio fittizio) o
frode (ad esempio la falsificazione di documenti), gli Stati membri possano rifiutare, estinguere o revocare il diritto
alla libera circolazione.

3. Allo stato attuale del diritto dell'UE non esiste un riconoscimento reciproco di documenti d'identità. Tuttavia,
nella sua relazione sulla cittadinanza, pubblicata nel 2013, la Commissione propone (azione 3) di esaminare nel 2013
e 2014 soluzioni per rimuovere gli ostacoli in materia di documenti d'identità e di soggiorno affrontati dai cittadini
dell'Unione e dai loro familiari che vivono in un paese dell'UE diverso da quello di origine. Tra queste soluzioni
potrebbe rientrare, laddove applicabile, l'adozione di documenti europei uniformi e facoltativi per i cittadini.

C 80 E / 466 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005117/13**

**to the Commission**
**Giommaria Uggias (ALDE)**

_(7 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Free movement of European citizens within the Union

On 15.04.13 two Italian students travelling in the Netherlands with valid identity cards, one of them electronic, were
arrested following a routine check by the Netherlands police, one on the charge of possessing false identity
documents, and the other for international human trafficking.

The two young people, who were denied the opportunity to immediately contact the Italian authorities, were stripped
of their belongings, fingerprinted and photographed for identification purposes, and then locked up for around six
hours in separate cells.

The European citizens in question, deprived of their liberty, were released no fewer than eight hours after their arrest
thanks to the intervention of the Sassari police headquarters, which was able to identify the holder of the electronic
identity card.

The situation appears very serious given that Article 5(4) of Directive 2004/38/EC affirms the right of all EU citizens
and their family members with a valid identity card or passport to move and reside freely within the territory of the
Member States. More serious still is the violation of the rule stipulating that, where a citizen does not have such travel
documents, the host Member State shall give him every reasonable opportunity to obtain the necessary documents or
have them brought to him within a reasonable period of time, whilst also giving him the opportunity to corroborate
or prove by other means that he is covered by the right of free movement and residence.

In view of the above, can the Commission:

1. verify that the Netherlands has correctly transposed Directive 2004/38/EC, particularly as regards Article 5.4,
which states that where a citizen does not have travel documents, the host Member State shall give him every
reasonable opportunity to obtain the necessary documents or have them brought to him within a reasonable
period of time, whilst also giving him the opportunity to corroborate or prove by other means that he is
covered by the right of free movement;

2. state whether, under Article 5.4 of that directive, EU citizens not in possession of identity documents are
entitled to contact the authorities of their home Member State in order to prove they are covered by the right to
free movement;

3. indicate whether a protocol exists on the mutual recognition of identity documents by the Member States?

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

_(30 July 2013)_

1. The Netherlands have correctly transposed Article 5(4) of Directive 2004/38 by means of Article 8.8(4) of the
Alien's Decree.

2. Article 5(4) only applies to the situation of EU citizens without ID card or passport when entering a Member
State. It does not apply to the situation of EU citizens who are in possession of ID cards or passports but whose
validity the police questions following a routine check.

Further, Article 35 of the directive provides explicitly that in case of abuse (such as marriage of convenience) or fraud
(such as document forgery) Member States may refuse, terminate or withdraw the right to free movement.

3. At the current state of EC law there is no mutual recognition of identity documents. However, in its 2013
citizenship report the Commission proposes (Action 3) that in 2013 and 2014 it will examine solutions to remove
obstacles that EU citizens and their family members who live in an EU country other than their own face with identity
and residence documents. This could include, where applicable, optional uniform European documents for citizens.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 467

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005118/13**

**to the Commission**
**Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Legal status of the Fiscal Compact Treaty

The Fiscal Compact Treaty (FCT) is ostensibly an intergovernmental treaty, like the original Schengen Agreement
which — following its eventual ratification in 1995 — remained outside the scope of the EU Treaties until
incorporated into both the Treaties and the _acquis_ through a protocol adopted in Amsterdam in 1997.

However, unlike the Schengen Agreement prior to 1997, the FCT makes use of the institutions of the Union,
including the Commission and Court of Justice. Can the Commission indicate the legal basis for the use of the
institutions and provide information on whether individual citizens of the Union, as well as Member States, are
entitled, under any of the existing mechanisms of the TFEU, to challenge the legality of the FCT? If they are so entitled,
this would be on the grounds that the use of the institutions is beyond the scope of the TFEU and that it violates any
challenge to the legality of the FCT that is pending before the German Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe.

Can the Commission confirm that when British Prime Minister David Cameron, in the absence of certain guarantees
relating to the financial services industry, refused to accept proposals put before him in December 2011, he was being
asked to agree to changes that would have involved a transfer of competences affecting Member States outside the
eurozone and which would have required a referendum under current UK law?

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

_(21 June 2013)_

Both the Commission and the Court of Justice are involved in the functioning of the TSCG. Concerning the
Commission, as Recital 10 to the TSCG confirms, when reviewing and monitoring the budgetary commitments
under the TSCG, the Commission acts within the framework of its powers as provided by the TFEU, in particular
Articles 121, 126 and 136 thereof.

Regarding the Court, Article 273 TFEU provides that it shall have jurisdiction in any dispute between Member States
which relates to the subject matter of the EU Treaties if the dispute is submitted to it under a special agreement
between the parties. As Article 8(3) TSCG confirms, the TSCG constitutes such a special agreement. The jurisdiction
conferred on the Court by the TSCG therefore complies with EC law.

Given that the TSCG constitutes an intergovernmental treaty that is not rooted in Union law, the Member States
cannot have resort to the procedure in Article 263 TFEU, which can be used to challenge the legality of measures of
secondary Union law. The same is true for private individuals.

The TSCG only binds the Contracting Parties and does not apply to the UK. Whether a referendum would be required
in the UK in case the substance of the TSCG would have been incorporated into Union law, concerns a matter of UK
law. Consequently, the Commission is not in the position to answer this question.

C 80 E / 468 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005119/13**

**to the Commission**
**Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Level of support for canal-building and maintenance within the Trans-European Networks (TENs)

The Maastricht Treaty initially envisaged the ‘establishment and development of Trans-European Networks in the
areas of transport, telecommunications and energy infrastructures’ and the original designation of 14 transport TENs
at the European Council meeting in December 1994 has since grown to 30.

In recent years the principal focus of TENs has been on the liberalisation of cabotage and the scrutiny of regulations
governing high-speed rail networks and air travel along with the development of international ‘freightways’,
motorway links and ferry connections.

‘Inland waterways’ are designated as part of the ‘Common Transport Policy’. The canal systems pioneered in the UK at
the outset of the industrial revolution were the first European inland ‘superhighways’, and canals remain a potentially
important, environmentally friendly way of transporting non-urgent freight. The construction and maintenance of
such waterways provide employment opportunities for a wide range of age groups, including young people.

Can the Commission indicate what role, if any, is played by inland waterways within the TEN transport programme,
and the level of EU expenditure that is devoted to them?

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

_(14 June 2013)_

The role of inland waterway transport (IWT) within the trans-European transport network (TEN-T) is well recognised
as it offers an environmentally friendly mode of transport particularly for heavy and dangerous goods.

In the present TEN-T Guidelines ( [1] ), comprising thirty Priority Projects, two Priority Projects are particularly
important for the development of inland waterway transport: the first one between the basin of the Seine River in
France and the basin of the Scheldt River in the Benelux. The second encompasses the long diagonal corridor from the
North Sea through the Meuse-Rhine-Main and the Danube until the Black Sea.

Many more activities are being supported by the TEN-T Programme in order to upgrade rivers and canals to standards
in line with the categories defined for international waterways.

The level of EU contributions to the development of IWT has been more than EUR 600 million during the period
2007-2013.

At present, the proposal for new TEN-T Guidelines is in the final stages of the legislative procedure with the Council
and the European Parliament.

Within these new Guidelines, the importance of inland waterways will be further enhanced by its intrinsic
multimodal approach as well as by the 9 multimodal Core Network Corridors, out of which six present an important
inland waterway component.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 650 final.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 469

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005121/13**

**to the Commission**
**Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Decision to allow fish farmers to feed their stocks with products from slaughtered chickens and pigs

Recently the Commission put forward proposals allowing fish farmers to feed chicken and pig remains to their stock
from 1 June 2013. The Commission is reported in the media as having defended the decision on the grounds that this
is not cannibalism of the kind that was implicated in the BSE outbreak of the 1990s.

Although transmission of disease from pigs or chicken to fish may appear unlikely, the view of the UK Food
Standards Authority is that although in principle the risk would be negligible, it would be difficult to ensure that it
was solely chicken and pig products which went into fish feed, as in practice controls are lacking.

Given that food safety is undoubtedly an area of growing concern to both legislators and the public, does the
Commission believe that its recent proposal is more likely to inspire consumer confidence or to ensure that further
embarrassment will be heaped on the institutions of the Union at a time when these same institutions are
experiencing unprecedented levels of public criticism?

Could the Commission also indicate which subcommittee of the European Food Safety Authority took the decision to
recommend the change?

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

_(20 June 2013)_

Commission Regulation (EU) No 56/2013 ( [1] ) aims to reauthorise the use of processed animal proteins (PAPs) derived
from non-ruminant farmed animals (i.e. mainly from pigs and poultry) in feed for farmed fish and other aquaculture
animals. It is applicable from 1 June 2013 and is in line with latest EFSA opinions ( [2] ) ( [3] ) which indicate that the risk of
transmission of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) between non-ruminant animals is negligible provided that
intra-species recycling (cannibalism) is prevented. These opinions were adopted by the Scientific Panel on Biological
Hazards (BIOHAZ) of EFSA which deals with biological hazards in relations to food safety and food-borne diseases
and which is one of EFSA’s key drivers on work on BSE.

Commission Regulation (EU) No 56/2013 provides for very strict traceability requirements and analytical controls to
be applied by the Member States all along the feed chain in order to prevent cross-contamination of fish feed with
ruminant proteins susceptible to transmit BSE. The Commission believes that the correct implementation and
enforcement of these requirements should maintain the current high level of consumer protection by ensuring that
fish are not exposed to the BSE agent.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L21, 24.1.2013, p. 3.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Biological Hazards on a request from the European Parliament on Certain Aspects related to the Feeding of

Animal Proteins to Farm Animals, The EFSA Journal (2007) Journal number 576, 1-41.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Biological Hazards on a revision of the quantitative risk assessment (QRA) of the BSE risk posed by processed

animal protein (PAPs), EFSA Journal 2011;9(1):1947.

( **|**

C 80 E / 470 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005122/13**

**to the Commission**
**Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Protection of Islamic manuscripts in Mali

During the recent Islamist insurgency in Mali, the Islamic scholar Abdel Kader Haidara, with the help of German
diplomats and local volunteers, managed to save over 200 000 manuscripts, 4 000 of them from Islam’s ‘Golden Age’
of scholarship, dating back to the 9th century. The Islamist rebels had previously burned down the Ahmed Baba
Institute Library before withdrawing in the face of a French-supported advance by Malian government soldiers.

Will the Commission work with the Malian and German authorities to ensure that these important Islamic
documents are replicated, safeguarded and made available to scholars around the world for study?

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

_(10 July 2013)_

The EU is concerned about the preservation of Mali's cultural heritage during the crisis in that county.

According to the information provided by partners in Mali and Unesco, of the 300 000 manuscripts from Timbuktu
preserved in Bamako and in the Ahmed Baba Institute in Timbuktu, as well as those in private libraries and family
collections, 4 200 are thought to have been lost, with 3 000 of those having been burnt or destroyed by the Islamist
rebels. The rebels did not destroy the Ahmed Baba Institute's library, but burnt manuscripts in the courtyard.

The international partners are in the process of organising support, coordinated in principle by Unesco and involving
emergency measures on the one hand and longer-term action on the other. A fact-finding mission has just taken place
in Timbuktu in which the EU participated.

Within this framework, the EU wishes to contribute to the restoration and protection of the world heritage of
Timbuktu: manuscripts, mausoleums, mosques, the El Farouk monument and the intangible cultural heritage, for
example. Consequently, it is of course interested in supporting the conservation and digitalisation of the manuscripts
and ensuring their accessibility. At this stage, the work is partially financed by Luxembourg and Germany. However,
the EU's level of involvement will depend on the availability of additional funds.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 471

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-005123/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Josef Weidenholzer (S&D)**

_(8. Mai 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Online-Glücksspiel

Am 23. Oktober 2012 hat die Europäische Kommission die Mitteilung „Ein umfassender europäischer Rahmen für
das Online-Glücksspiel“ angenommen mit dem Ziel, einen europäischen Aktionsplan zu erstellen. Dazu wurde mit
Beschluss der Kommission vom 5. Dezember 2012 auch eine Expertengruppe eingesetzt. In Artikel 5.9 des
Beschlusses wird festgehalten, dass die Kommission einschlägige Unterlagen über die Tätigkeit der Gruppe, wie
Tagesordnungen, Protokolle und Berichte der Teilnehmer veröffentlicht.

1. Welche Ergebnisse gibt es bereits seitens der Expertengruppe zum Online-Glücksspiel?

2. Welche Bestrebungen der Kommission gibt es, einen europäischen Rechtsakt für einheitliche Regelungen des
Online-Glücksspiels vorzubereiten?

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

_(27. Juni 2013)_

1. Die Expertengruppe der Kommission zu Glücksspieldienstleistungen trat seit ihrer Gründung vom
5. Dezember 2012 dreimal zusammen. Zu den wichtigsten Themen, die bisher erörtert wurden, zählen die
Verbesserung der Verwaltungszusammenarbeit zwischen Glücksspielregulierungsbehörden, der gemeinsame Schutz
der Nutzer von Glücksspieldienstleistungen und die Förderung einer verantwortungsvollen Glücksspielwerbung. Die
Kommission veröffentlicht die von der Expertengruppe angenommenen einschlägigen Dokumente
(z. B. Tagesordnungen und Protokolle) zu den Tätigkeiten der Gruppe auf folgender Website:
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/services/gambling_de.htm

2. Die Kommission schlägt keine EU-weit geltenden Rechtsvorschriften zum Online-Glücksspiel vor. Obwohl im
Zuge der Konsultation zum Grünbuch ( [1] ) von 2011 fast einstimmig politische Maßnahmen auf EU-Ebene gefordert
wurden, unterschieden sich die Vorschläge sowohl hinsichtlich des Inhalts als auch der Instrumente, die für
EU-Initiativen eingesetzt werden sollten. Insgesamt erschien es zu diesem Zeitpunkt nicht angemessen,
sektorspezifische EU-Rechtsvorschriften vorzuschlagen. Die Mitteilung ( [2] ) von 2012 sieht daher eine Kombination
aus Initiativen ohne Gesetzescharakter im Bereich des Glücksspiels und gezielten Maßnahmen, die ein breites
Spektrum an einschlägigen Themen abdecken vor, um Rechtsklarheit zu fördern und effiziente und faktengestützte
Politikansätze zu schaffen. Nach Umsetzung dieser Maßnahmen wird die Kommission innerhalb eines angemessenen
Zeitraums beurteilen, ob sie einen adäquaten EU-Rahmen für Online-Glücksspiele bieten oder ob zusätzliche
Maßnahmen, möglicherweise mit Gesetzgebungscharakter, auf EU-Ebene getroffen werden sollten.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Grünbuch Online-Gewinnspiele im Binnenmarkt (KOM(2011)128 endg.).
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Mitteilung „Ein umfassender europäischer Rahmen für das Online-Glücksspiel“ (KOM(2012)596 endg.).

C 80 E / 472 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005123/13**

**to the Commission**
**Josef Weidenholzer (S&D)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Online gambling

On 23 October 2012, the Commission adopted the communication ‘Towards a comprehensive European framework
on online gambling’ with the aim of drawing up a European action plan. A Group of Experts was also set up by a
Commission decision of 5 December 2012. Article 5.9 of the decision states that the Commission will publish
relevant documents on the activities carried out by the Group, such as agendas, minutes and participants'
submissions.

1. What are the findings of the group of experts so far on online gambling?

2. What efforts is the Commission making to prepare a European legal instrument for uniform rules on online
gambling?

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

_(27 June 2013)_

1. The Commission’s group of experts on gambling services met three times since it was established on
5 December 2012. The main issues discussed so far by the group concern the enhancement of administrative
cooperation between gambling regulatory authorities, the common protection of consumers of gambling services
and the promotion of responsible gambling advertising. Following adoption by the group, the Commission publishes
the relevant documents on the activities carried out by the Group, such as agendas and minutes, on the following
dedicated website: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/services/gambling_en.htm

2. The Commission is not proposing EU-wide legislation on online gambling. Whilst the reaction to the 2011
Green Paper consultation ( [1] ) was an almost unanimous call for policy action at EU level, courses of action suggested
differed significantly, both in terms of their content and of the instruments that should be used for EU initiatives.
Overall, it did not appear appropriate at this stage to propose sector-specific EU legislation. The 2012
Communication ( [2] ) therefore proposes a combination of non-legislative gambling-specific initiatives and of targeted
measures covering a broad range of gambling-relevant issues, seeking to enhance legal clarity and to establish
effective and evidence-based policies. Once put in place, the Commission will assess within a reasonable timeframe
whether these actions provide an adequate EU framework for online gambling or if additional measures, possibly of a
legislative nature, should be taken at EU level.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Green Paper on online gambling in the internal market (COM(2011) 128 final).
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Communication ‘Towards a comprehensive European framework for online gambling’ (COM(2012) 596 final).

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 473

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-005124/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Mario Borghezio (EFD)**

_(8 maggio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Uso di antibiotici nei volatili

Un nuovo scandalo alimentare rischia di colpire la Francia e riguarda questa volta una specialità dell'alta gastronomia
transalpina: il fegato d'oca.

Fonti di stampa locale riportano che alcuni ex dipendenti del primo produttore al mondo di fegato d'oca hanno
denunciato i metodi irregolari usati dal produttore per «ingozzare» i volatili. Sostengono, infatti, che si sia fatto uso di
farmaci antibiotici per ingrassare le oche e denunciano la presenza di animali malati negli allevamenti di Lescar.
Alcune oche, sostengono, presentano i sintomi dell'influenza, diarrea e raffreddamento degli occhi, altre sono affette
da «atrofia e anomalie anatomiche». Il produttore assicura che l'uso degli antibiotici «è occasionale» e avviene solo con
regolare ricetta medica.

In quale modo intende la Commissione intervenire a difesa della salute dei consumatori di fegato d'oca e a tutela delle
esportazioni in tutto il mondo di questo prodotto?

Può indicare quali sono, se consentite, le percentuali di antibiotico autorizzate da somministrare ai volatili e se
effettivamente è sufficiente una ricetta medica?

**Risposta di Tonio Borg a nome della Commissione**

_(1_ _[o]_ _luglio 2013)_

La produzione del foie gras rientra nel capitolo «pollame» dei programmi nazionali del controllo dei residui (PNCR)
stabiliti nella direttiva 96/23/CE ( [1] ). L'esame dei residui di antibiotici è un elemento obbligatorio nei PNCR per tutte le
specie destinate alla produzione alimentare (eccettuata la selvaggina). I PNCR sono destinati ad individuare i
trattamenti farmacologici illegali, controllare l'ottemperanza ai limiti massimi di residui (LMR) per i residui di
medicinali veterinari e indagare e spiegare i motivi della presenza di residui negli alimenti di origine animale.

Gli Stati membri effettuano un campionamento mirato che comprende anche il campionamento in azienda. Le
«conoscenze locali» e «qualsiasi altra informazione pertinente» sono criteri specifici per indirizzare i campionamenti
ed assicurano che gli Stati membri tengano conto anche di articoli apparsi sulla stampa all'atto di determinare il loro
piano di campionamento. Poiché la direttiva 96/23/CE prescrive anche interventi di follow-up, sono in atto tutte le
misure necessarie per consentire agli Stati membri di salvaguardare la sicurezza alimentare e di reagire adeguatamente
in caso di incidenti.

Agli animali destinati alla produzione alimentare possono essere somministrati soltanto antibiotici per cui siano stati
fissati LMR. Le autorizzazioni alla commercializzazione di antibiotici veterinari contengono le condizioni per l'uso
del medicinale. Tutti gli antimicrobici veterinari per gli animali destinati alla produzione alimentare sono soggetti a
prescrizione rilasciata da un operatore qualificato conformemente alla legislazione nazionale applicabile. Inoltre,
dopo la somministrazione di sostanze antimicrobiche a fini terapeutici, si deve rispettare un periodo obbligatorio di
sospensione del trattamento prima che un animale possa essere macellato a fini alimentari. L'uso di antibiotici, diversi
dai coccidiostatici o dagli istomonostatici, in qualità di additivi alimentari per la stimolazione della crescita è vietato a
decorrere dal 1° gennaio 2006 ( [2] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Direttiva 96/23/CE del Consiglio, del 29 aprile 1996, concernente le misure di controllo su talune sostanze e sui loro residui negli animali vivi e

nei loro prodotti e che abroga la direttiva 85/358/CEE e 86/469/CEE e le decisioni 89/187/CEE e 91/664/CEE, GU L 125 del 23.5.1996, pag. 10.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Regolamento (CE) n. 1831/2003 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 22 settembre 2003, sugli additivi destinati all'alimentazione

animale, GU L 268 del 18.10.2003, pag. 29.

( **|**

C 80 E / 474 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005124/13**

**to the Commission**
**Mario Borghezio (EFD)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Antibiotic use in birds

There is a risk that a new food scandal may hit France, this time about one of the country's most famous food
products, foie gras.

Local press sources report that some former employees of the world’s leading producer of foie gras have alleged that
illegal methods have been used to force-feed the birds. They claim that antibiotics have been used to fatten the geese
and allege that sick animals were found at the Lescar farms with some geese showing signs of influenza, diarrhoea and
infected eyes and others were said to be affected by ‘atrophy and anatomical anomalies’. The producer maintains that
antibiotics are used only occasionally and only on the basis of a prescription.

What steps does the Commission intend to take to safeguard foie gras consumers’ health and to protect exports of
this product, which is in worldwide demand?

Can the Commission say whether antibiotics may be administered to birds? If so, what are the permitted quantities
and may they be administered solely on the basis of a prescription?

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

_(1 July 2013)_

Foie gras production is part of the poultry chapter of the national residue control programs (NRCPs) laid down in
Directive 96/23/EC ( [1] ). Residues of antibiotics are an obligatory part of the NRCPs for all food producing species
(except for wild game). The NRCPs are aimed at detecting illegal treatment, controlling compliance with maximum
residue limits (MRLs) for residues of veterinary medicinal products and at surveying and revealing the reasons for
residues in food of animal origin.

Member States perform targeted sampling including on-farm sampling. ‘Local knowledge’ and ‘any other relevant
information’ are specifically mentioned targeting criteria, assuring that Member States take on board also articles in
the press when determining their sampling plan. Since follow-up actions are required under Directive 96/23/EC, all
necessary measures are in place to allow Member States to safeguard food safety and to react adequately in case of
incidents.

Only antibiotics for which an MRL has been established can be administered to food-producing animals. The granted
marketing authorisations of veterinary antibiotics contain the conditions for use of the medicine. All veterinary
antimicrobials for food-producing animals are subject to a prescription to be issued by a qualified professional person
in accordance with applicable national law. Moreover, after any administration of therapeutic antimicrobial
substances, there is an obligatory period of suspension of the treatment to be respected before an animal can be
slaughtered for food purposes. The use of antibiotics, other than coccidiostats or histomonostats, as feed additives for
growth promotion purposes has been banned since 1 January 2006 ( [2] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Council Directive 96/23/EC on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products and repealing

Directives 85/358/EEC and 86/469/EEC and Decisions 89/187/EEC and 91/664/EEC (OJ L 125, 23.5.1996, p. 10).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on additives for use in animal nutrition.

( **|**

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 475

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-005125/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Mario Borghezio (EFD)**

_(8 maggio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Richiesta d'intervento dell'UE a tutela della salute dei cittadini

La febbre di Dengue sta divampando in tutto il mondo ed è arrivata anche in Europa, in particolare è da rilevare il
focolaio sull'isola di Madera, in Portogallo.

Da fonti di stampa si apprende che l'ECDC (Centro europeo per la prevenzione e il controllo delle malattie) sta
monitorando i casi nell'UE e ha rivelato che in Europa, dal 2010 al 2011, si sono registrati 1 700 casi di febbre di
Dengue, mentre non si conoscono ancora i dati relativi al 2012.

La Commissione è in possesso di dati più recenti circa i casi di febbre di Dengue in Europa?

In quale modo intende intervenire a tutela della salute dei cittadini europei?

**Risposta di Tonio Borg a nome della Commissione**

_(24 giugno 2013)_

La dengue è una malattia che l’Unione europea tiene sotto sorveglianza nell'ambito della decisione n. 2119/98/CE del
Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio ( [1] ). I casi importati di dengue registrati nell'Unione europea sono stati 1 622 nel
2010, 610 nel 2011 e 1 133 nel 2012.

Un numero elevato di casi di dengue si è avuto sull'isola di Madera (Portogallo) ( [2] ) nell'ottobre 2012; la situazione è
stata riportata sotto controllo nel gennaio 2013. Durante tale periodo a livello locale sono stati segnalati 2 160 casi.
Gli Stati membri hanno notificato 78 casi ulteriori tra i viaggiatori di ritorno da Madera. Nel 2010 anche Francia e
Croazia hanno notificato casi isolati di dengue endemica.

In forza della suddetta decisione ( [3] ) la Commissione, coadiuvata dal Centro europeo per la prevenzione e il controllo
delle malattie e dall’Organizzazione mondiale della sanità, coordina la risposta alle minacce transfrontaliere per la
salute rappresentate dalle malattie trasmissibili, ivi compresa l’epidemia di dengue a Madera.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=31998D2119&model=guicheti.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/dengue-outbreak-madeira-mission-report-nov-2012.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=31998D2119&model=guicheti.

C 80 E / 476 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005125/13**

**to the Commission**
**Mario Borghezio (EFD)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Request for EU action to safeguard public

Dengue is spreading around the world, including in Europe, as evidenced by the recent outbreak on the Portuguese
island of Madeira.

According to press reports, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDPC) is monitoring the
incidence of the disease in the EU and has stated that 1700 cases of dengue in Europe were recorded between 2010
and 2011.The figures for 2012 are still not known.

Does the Commission have any more recent figures regarding the incidence of dengue in Europe?

What steps does it intend to take to safeguard public health in Europe?

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

_(24 June 2013)_

Dengue is a disease which is monitored in the European Union under Decision 2119/98 of the European Parliament
and the Council ( [1] ). 1622 of imported dengue cases were reported in the European Union in 2010, 610 in 2011 and
1133 in 2012.

A large outbreak of dengue occurred in Madeira Island (Portugal) ( [2] ) from October 2012 to January 2013. During the
outbreak, 2160 cases were reported locally. An additional 78 cases were notified by Member States in travellers
returning from Madeira. France and Croatia have also reported isolated cases of endemic dengue in 2010.

The Commission coordinates the response to cross border threats to health caused by communicable diseases,
including the dengue epidemic in Madeira, under the abovementioned Decision ( [3] ) with the support of the European
Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and the World Health Organisation.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=31998D2119&model=guicheti.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/dengue-outbreak-madeira-mission-report-nov-2012.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=31998D2119&model=guicheti.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 477

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005126/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Further attacks on Christians in Pakistan, and alleged government inaction

On 8 March 2013, there was yet another tragic attack on a Christian community (Joseph Colony) in Lahore, Pakistan,
after a local man accused Sana Masih of blasphemy.

It has been reported that the whole settlement of 178 houses was burnt to the ground, with the residents’ belongings
looted by a crowd reportedly numbering some 3000 people. The local police are accused of standing by and not
stopping the attackers.

This is the latest in a series of tragic and unprovoked attacks on Christian communities in Pakistan, where on previous
occasions, like in Gojra, women and children were allegedly burnt alive.

The misuse of controversial blasphemy laws, vigilante killings and mob justice in Pakistan are, sadly, reported to be
on the rise, and there is seemingly no prosecution of the culprits of these atrocious crimes. Moreover, the apparent
inaction on the part of law enforcement agencies appears to fuel further violence, and allows the abuse of blasphemy
laws to settle personal disputes. It is alleged that, in many of the cases, non-Muslims are jailed without being provided
with access to adequate defence lawyers in order to prove their innocence.

— Has the EU delegation in Islamabad made the Vice-President/High Representative aware of this most recent case?

— Will she raise it with the Pakistani Government on the next appropriate occasion?

— Will she consider working with Pakistani civil society to develop a taskforce which might deal with this issue more
effectively, and in a broader regional, social and cultural context?

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

_(20 June 2013)_

The HR/VP is aware of the appalling attack on Christians in Lahore. The EU has repeatedly expressed its concern at the
climate of intolerance and violence in Pakistan and the attacks on Christians as well as other minority groups. We are
well aware of the vulnerable situation of all religious minorities in Pakistan, and the potential for abuse of the
blasphemy laws.

The March 2013 Foreign Affairs Council conclusions strongly condemned all acts of violence against vulnerable
religious minorities in Pakistan and urged the authorities to bring the perpetrators to justice. They also underline EU
plans to engage promptly with the newly elected Pakistani government on priority issues including human rights and
the protection of minorities.

It remains the case that the fundamental causes that make violent abuse and intolerance possible are yet to be
addressed. The EU is supporting projects which are intended to improve access to justice and the quality of law
enforcement in Pakistan. Support for education is a major component of EU assistance in Pakistan, including an
understanding of other religions. The EU will be funding capacity-building projects in federal and provincial
institutions to improve awareness and protection of human rights, and strengthen civil society organisations. We
encourage all initiatives by civil society to contribute towards tackling these issues more effectively and in a broader

context.

The EU will raise these issues with the new government of Pakistan on all available occasions. The EU’s Delegation in
Islamabad is in very frequent contact with civil society as well as a broad range of decision-makers

C 80 E / 478 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Svensk version)_

**Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-005127/13**

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

_(8 maj 2013)_

_Angående:_ Översyn av direktivet om betaltjänster

Kommissionen håller på att se över direktivet om betaltjänster. Avser man att då ta itu med problemet med
medlemsstaternas oenhetliga tillämpning av återbetalningsrätten och den varierande kvaliteten på deras
tvistlösningsmekanismer?

**Svar från Michel Barnier på kommissionens vägnar**

_(19 juni 2013)_

Kommissionen håller för närvarande på att se över direktivet om betalningstjänster, som är en av de prioriterade
åtgärderna i inremarknadsakten II som antogs i oktober 2012. I enlighet med den förklaring om återbetalningsrätt för
autogireringar – som kommissionen gjorde vid antagandet av förordning (EU) nr 260/2012 i februari 2012 – gör
kommissionen också en översyn av befintliga rättigheter till återbetalning i EU för att kontrollera om bestämmelserna
i direktivet om betaltjänster fungerar bra. Frågan har uttryckligen tagits upp i den undersökning som kommissionen
beställt av externa konsulter för att undersöka vilken effekt direktivet om betaltjänster har haft. Undersökningen ska
offentliggöras senare i år. Frågan har också tagits upp med kommissionens rådgivande kommittéer. Resultaten hittills
har inte visat på några större problem med den villkorliga rätten till återbetalning. Kommissionen kan dock i sitt
förslag till nytt direktiv om betalningstjänster komma att beakta denna aspekt för att få till stånd mer harmoniserade
regler för återbetalningsrätt inom EU och för att stärka betalarens ställning.

Kommissionen kommer också att överväga om man bör införa bestämmelser om en förbättrad
tvistlösningsmekanism i det nya direktivet för att säkerställa ett effektivt och välfungerande tvistlösningsförfarande i
alla medlemsstater. Målet är lättillgängliga och billiga lösningar utanför domstol vid tvister mellan
betaltjänstleverantörer och konsumenter som gäller de rättigheter och skyldigheter som föreskrivs i direktivet om
betaltjänster i hela EU.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 479

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005127/13**

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

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Review of the Payment Services Directive

In the course of its current review of the Payment Services Directive, does the Commission plan to tackle the problem
of the Member States’ uneven application of refund rights and the varying quality of their dispute resolution
mechanisms?

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

_(19 June 2013)_

The Commission is currently reviewing the Payment Services Directive (PSD 2) which is one of the priority measures
of the Single Market Act II, adopted in October 2012. In line with the declaration on refund rights for direct debits —
which the Commission made at the adoption of Regulation (EU) No 260/2012 in February 2012 — the Commission
also reviews the existing refund rights in the EU with the objective to check whether the relevant provisions of the
PSD have proven adequate. The issue has been explicitly raised in the study that the Commission commissioned to
external consultants on the impact of the PSD, to be published later this year. It is also being addressed with the
Commission's advisory committees. The results received so far have not highlighted any significant problems with the
conditional refund right. Nevertheless, the Commission may consider in the PSD2 proposal to address this aspect to
an adequate extent aiming for more harmonised refund right rules within the EU and for a strengthened position for
the payer.

The Commission will also consider whether provisions on an enhanced dispute resolution mechanism should be
introduced in the PSD2 in order to ensure an efficient, effective and well-functioning dispute resolution procedure in
all Member States. The aim would be an easily accessible and cost-sensitive out-of-court resolution of conflicts
between payment service providers and users arising from the rights and obligations set out in the PSD in the whole
EU.

C 80 E / 480 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Svensk version)_

**Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-005128/13**

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

_(8 maj 2013)_

_Angående:_ Standardisering av särskilda användningsfall i HTML5

I patentpoolen och organisationen för webbstandardisering, W3C, pågår en diskussion om huruvida teknik för
förvaltning av digitala rättigheter (DRM) och tekniska skyddsåtgärder för sändningsrättigheter bör ingå i HTML5‐
standarden, för att man på webbläsarnivå med hjälp av kod ska kunna styra webbutsändningsleverantörers möjlighet
att kontrollera eller stoppa återutsändning av webbutsändningar.

Hur ser kommissionen på diskussionen om standardisering av ett visst användningsfall i grundstandarden for
webbsidor, mot bakgrund av antitrustreglerna?

**Svar från Joaquín Almunia på kommissionens vägnar**

_(4 juli 2013)_

Standardisering har i regel en betydande positiv ekonomisk effekt. Fastställandet av standarder kan dock under vissa
förhållanden också ge upphov till konkurrensbegränsande effekter t.ex. genom att innovativ teknik utestängs eller
genom att företag hindras från att få tillgång till standarden i praktiken ( [1] ).

För att minska risken för konkurrensbegränsande effekter har kommissionen i sina horisontella riktlinjer fastställt på
vilka villkor standardiseringsavtal normalt sett faller utanför tillämpningsområdet för artikel 101.1 i EUF-fördraget.
Villkoren är att deltagandet i fastställandet av standarden är utan begränsningar, att det förfarande som leder fram till
antagandet av en standard är öppet för insyn, att det finns objektiva och icke-diskriminerande rutiner för tilldelning
av rösträtt, att det finns objektiva kriterier för valet av den teknik som ska tas med i standarden, att man tillämpar en
tydlig och välavvägd politik för området immateriella rättigheter och att tillgång till standarden garanteras på rättvisa,
rimliga och icke-diskriminerande villkor ( [2] ).

Detta är det konkurrensperspektiv ur vilket kommissionen betraktar alla standardiseringsprocesser, inklusive
diskussioner som gäller HTML5-standarden. Det åligger dem som deltar i en standardiseringsprocess att se till att en
processen är förenlig med EU:s konkurrenslagstiftning.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Meddelande från kommissionen – Riktlinjer för tillämpningen av artikel 101 i fördraget om Europeiska unionens funktionssätt på horisontella

samarbetsavtal (horisontella riktlinjer) (EUT C 11, 2011, s. 1, punkterna 263 och 264).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Se punkterna 280–286 i de horisontella riktlinjerna.

( **|**

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 481

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005128/13**

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

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Standardisation of particular use cases in HTML5

In the patent pool and web standard organisation W3 a discussion is currently under way as to whether to include
digital rights management technologies, and technological protection measures for broadcasting rights, in the
HTML5 standard, in order to codify, at the infrastructural level of the browser, the ability of video streaming providers
to control or stop the retransmission of streamed broadcasts.

From an anti-trust perspective, how does the Commission view the discussion on standardising a particular use case
in the basic standard for webpages?

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

_(4 July 2013)_

Standardisation usually produces significant positive economic effects. Standard-setting can, however, in specific
circumstances, also give rise to restrictive effects on competition such as the foreclosure of innovative technologies or
the limitation of effective access to the standard ( [1] ).

To reduce the possibility of anticompetitive effects, the Commission has laid out in its Horizontal Guidelines
conditions under which standardisation agreements would normally fall outside the scope of Article 101(1) TFEU,
namely unrestricted participation in standard-setting, transparency in the procedure leading up to the adoption of a
standard, objective and non-discriminatory procedures for allocating voting rights, objective criteria for selecting the
technology to be included in the standard, a clear and balanced IPR policy and access to the standard under fair,
reasonable and non-discriminatory terms ( [2] ).

This is the competition context in which the Commission views any standardisation process, including discussions
relating to the HTML5 standard. It is the responsibility of participants in a standardisation process to ensure that a
given process complies with EU competition law.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Communication from the Commission — Guidelines on the applicability of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

to horizontal cooperation agreements (‘Horizontal Guidelines’) (OJ 2011 C 11, p. 1), paragraphs 263-264.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) See id, paragraphs 280-286.

( **|**

C 80 E / 482 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta P-005129/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)**

_(8 maggio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Elusione di eventuali dazi di dumping

A quanto risulta, operatori commerciali europei si starebbero organizzando per eludere dazi di dumping nel settore
del fotovoltaico. La procedura prevista sarebbe la seguente:

—
Si inviano quantità significative di moduli cinesi (ca 0,5 GWp) in Croazia. Questo Paese farà parte dell'UE solo a
partire da luglio 2013. A questa data i moduli si troverebbero già in uno Stato membro e potrebbero quindi
essere rivenduti in altri Stati membri dell'Unione senza applicazione di dazio.

Oppure:

—
Si importano moduli cinesi attraverso società di comodo, che poi rivenderebbero a terzi prima
dell'applicazione dei dazi. In caso di applicazione di dazi retroattivi, il debito relativo al dazio verrebbe
imputato all'importatore, cioè alla società di comodo, che sarebbe fatta fallire, con l'impossibilità quindi per
l'UE di incassare il dovuto.

Si chiede alla Commissione:

1. Come intende reagire a questo preavviso?

2. È informata di queste eventualità che, se effettivamente realizzate, provocherebbero danni ai produttori europei
e all'erario comunitario?

3. Può considerare misure preventive per evitare i danni e la truffa?

**Risposta di Karel De Gucht a nome della Commissione**

_(13 giugno 2013)_

La Commissione ha avviato un procedimento antidumping il 6 settembre 2012 e un procedimento antisovvenzioni
l'8 novembre 2012 per quanto riguarda le importazioni di pannelli solari originari della Repubblica popolare cinese.

La Commissione può, di fatto, decidere di istituire misure provvisorie entro nove mesi dall'avvio dei procedimenti,
vale a dire entro giugno 2013 per il procedimento antidumping ed entro agosto 2013 per il procedimento
antisovvenzioni. Le eventuali misure definitive resterebbero in vigore fino all'inizio di dicembre 2013.

Non esistendo, tuttavia, misure attualmente in vigore, non è possibile al momento adottare alcun provvedimento. La
Commissione è ad ogni modo a conoscenza di tali informazioni e, nel caso siano istituite misure, verificherà che esse
siano efficaci e che vengano rispettate, come fa per ogni altro caso. L'onorevole parlamentare può essere certo che la
Commissione analizza tutte le accuse di elusione o frode debitamente giustificate e adotta provvedimenti appropriati.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 483

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-005129/13**

**to the Commission**
**Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Dumping duty evasion

It seems that business operators are preparing themselves to evade photovoltaic sector dumping duties, by taking the
following courses of action:

—
Large quantities of Chinese solar panels (of approximately 0.5 GWp) are sent to Croatia, which will only join
the EU in July 2013. As from that date, the solar panels will be in a Member State and could thus be sold on in
other European Union countries without any duties being applied.

or:

—
Chinese solar panels are imported through dummy companies, which sell them on to third parties before any
duties can be applied. Where backdated duties are applied, the amount of duty owed would be payable by the
importer, which is to say by the dummy company, which would have gone bankrupt leaving the EU unable to
collect the duty owed.

Can the Commission state:

1. how it intends to react to this information;

2. whether it is aware of these possible forms of evasion, which would occasion prejudice to European producers
and EU public finances;

3. whether it might consider taking preventative measures to prevent such prejudice and fraud?

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

_(13 June 2013)_

The Commission has initiated an anti-dumping proceeding on 6 September 2012 and an anti-subsidy proceeding on
8 November 2012 concerning imports of solar panels originating in the People's Republic of China.

The Commission may indeed consider imposing provisional measures within nine months of initiation, i.e. by
June 2013 on the anti-dumping proceeding and by August 2013 on the anti-subsidy proceeding. The definitive
measures, if any, are due in early December 2013.

However there are currently no measures in force, hence no action can be taken at this moment. Nevertheless, the
Commission is aware of this information and in case measures are imposed, it will monitor them to ensure they are
effective and respected, as it does for every other case. The Honourable Member can be reassured that the
Commission analyses all duly substantiated allegations of circumvention or fraud and takes appropriate action.

C 80 E / 484 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita P-005130/13**

**à Comissão**
**Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE)**

_(8 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Aumento de 50 % no regime de compensação dos custos suplementares para o escoamento dos produtos da
pesca das regiões ultraperiféricas

A Comissária Europeia dos Assuntos Marítimos e das Pescas endereçou recentemente uma carta ao Presidente da
Comissão das Pescas do Parlamento Europeu na qual informou ir propor ao Colégio um aumento de 50 % dos
montantes para o regime de compensação dos custos suplementares para o escoamento dos produtos da pesca das
regiões ultraperiféricas.

Pode a Comissão responder às seguintes perguntas:

1. Confirma que tal implicará que o montante total disponibilizado à globalidade das regiões periféricas passe dos
atuais 15,0 milhões euros anuais (4,3 para Portugal, 5,8 para Espanha e 4,9 para França) para 22,5 milhões
euros anuais (6,45 para Portugal, 8,70 para Espanha e 7,35 para França)?

2. Atendendo a que, no quadro comunitário de apoio 2007-2013, o regime de compensação se aplicava apenas
aos «custos suplementares relativos ao escoamento de determinados produtos da pesca» e que, segundo a
proposta apresentada para o Fundo Europeu dos Assuntos Marítimos e da Pesca — FEAMP, se passará a aplicar
aos «custos suplementares suportados pelos operadores no exercício de atividades de pesca, cultura e
comercialização», qual é o cálculo da Comissão Europeia acerca do valor de um eventual aumento real deste
regime de compensação?

**Resposta dada por Maria Damanaki em nome da Comissão**

_(27 de junho de 2013)_

1. A Comissão reviu a proposta de dotação para o regime de compensação no Fundo Europeu dos Assuntos
Marítimos e da Pesca (FEAMP). No contexto das negociações sobre o FEAMP, é nossa intenção propor o aumento de
50 %, o que implicaria uma dotação financeira para o regime de compensação no montante de 22,5 milhões de EUR
anuais. Quanto à distribuição desta verba, entre os três Estados-Membros em causa não é possível facultar mais
pormenores nesta fase.

2. O âmbito do regime proposto no FEAMP em termos de operadores elegíveis é o mesmo que o apoio atualmente
prestado ao abrigo do regime de compensação, em conformidade com o Regulamento (CE) n.° 791/2007 do
Conselho. O FEAMP clarifica eventuais incertezas na natureza dos operadores que possam beneficiar do regime. Por
exemplo, a lista dos operadores elegíveis previstas no artigo 3.° do Regulamento (CE) n.° 791/2007 do Conselho foi
objeto de interpretação, considerando que o FEAMP deve explicitar as categorias de operadores elegíveis: «…
operadores no exercício de atividades de pesca, cultura, transformação e comercialização de determinados produtos
da pesca e da aquicultura…»

Em conformidade, a proposta de aumento da dotação financeira tem em conta a inflação, o que não acontecia no
passado, e que tem igualmente em conta os custos adicionais suportados pelos operadores, com vista a abranger uma
maior proporção desses custos.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 485

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-005130/13**

**to the Commission**
**Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ 50% increase in the scheme to compensate for the additional costs incurred in the marketing of certain fishery
products from the outermost regions

In a recent letter to the Chair of Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries, the Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and
Fisheries announced that she would be presenting a proposal to the College for a 50% increase in the amount
allocated to the scheme to compensate for the additional costs incurred in the marketing of certain fishery products
from the outermost regions.

Can the Commission provide the following information?

1. Can it confirm that the total amount available to all the outermost regions is to be increased from the present
EUR 15 million a year (4.3 for Portugal, 5.8 for Spain and 4.9 for France) to EUR 22.5 million (6.45 for Portugal,
8.7 for Spain and 7.35 for France)?

2. In view of the fact that under the Community support framework for 2007-2013, the compensation scheme
applied only to ‘additional costs incurred in the marketing of certain fishery products’ and that under the terns of the
proposal put to the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) it is to be extended to ‘additional costs incurred by
the operators in the fishing, farming and marketing’ of such products, what does the Commission calculate as being
the value of any real increase in this compensation scheme?

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

_(27 June 2013)_

1. The Commission has reviewed the proposed envelope for the compensation scheme within the European
Maritime Fisheries Fund (EMFF). In the context of the negotiations on the EMFF we intend to put on the table the
increase of 50%, which would mean a financial envelope for the compensation scheme of EUR 22.5 million per year.
As for the distribution of this envelope amongst the three Member States concerned, it is not possible to provide
further details at this juncture.

2. The scope of the regime proposed in the EMFF in terms of eligible operators is the same as the support currently
provided under the compensation regime pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 791/2007. The EMFF clarifies possible
uncertainties in the nature of operators who might benefit from the scheme. For example, the list of eligible operators
provided in Art. 3 of Regulation (EC) No 791/2007 was subject to interpretation, whereas the EMFF explicitly lists the
categories of eligible operators: ‘… operators in the fishing, farming, processing and marketing of certain fishery and
aquaculture products…’

Accordingly, the proposed increase in the financial envelope takes into account inflation, which in the past has not
been factored in and also takes into consideration the additional costs incurred by operators, with a view to covering a
larger proportion of these costs.

C 80 E / 486 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung P-005131/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Werner Langen (PPE)**

_(8. Mai 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Weinbauflächen und Weinproduktion in den einzelnen Mitgliedstaaten der EU und ihre Entwicklung
seit 2000

Zurzeit wird über die Reformen der Agrarpolitik verhandelt. Einer der strittigen Punkte sind die Pflanzrechte im
Weinbau. Um sachgerecht entscheiden zu können, ist es notwendig, die Fakten zu kennen und prüfen zu können.

Kann die Kommission deshalb folgende Fragen beantworten:

1. Wie groß ist die bebaute Weinbaufläche in den einzelnen Mitgliedstaaten der EU und wie groß sind die
jeweiligen Reserveflächen bzw. welchen Umfang haben die nicht gewährten Pflanzrechte, insbesondere in
Frankreich, Deutschland, Italien, Spanien, Portugal, Griechenland, Österreich, Bulgarien, Rumänien und der
restlichen EU (entsprechend den aktuellen Daten)?

2. Wie haben sich diese Flächen vom Jahr 2000 bis zum Jahr 2012 (2011) jeweils entwickelt?

3. Wie haben sich im gleichen Zeitraum die Weinproduktion, der Export und der Import jeweils nach
Mitgliedstaaten entwickelt?

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

_(6. Juni 2013)_

Angesichts des Umfangs der erbetenen Daten wird die Kommission sie direkt an den Herrn Abgeordneten und das
Sekretariat des Parlaments senden.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 487

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-005131/13**

**to the Commission**
**Werner Langen (PPE)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Areas under vine and wine production in the EU Member States and changes since 2000

Negotiations are proceeding on agricultural policy reforms. Planting rights in the wine sector constitute one of the
points of disagreement. In order to be able to take fact-based decisions, the facts need to be known and checkable.

Can the Commission therefore say:

1. how large the area under vine is in each EU Member State, how large the reserve area is in each case, and what
area unused planting rights represent, in particular in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Austria,
Bulgaria and Romania, a well as in the rest of the EU (on the basis of current figures)?

2. what changes there were in the size of those areas, in each case, between 2000 and 2012 (2011)?

3. what changes there were during the same period, broken down by Member State, in wine production, export
and import figures?

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

_(6 June 2013)_

In view of the volume of data requested, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to
Parliament's Secretariat.

C 80 E / 488 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-005132/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — EU election observers and voter registration in Pakistan

An EU election observation delegation was deployed to Pakistan to observe the country’s parliamentary elections on
11 May 2013. The EEAS has stated that, for security reasons, EU observers will not be deployed to places affected by
sectarian violence, most of which are in Baluchistan.

1. How will the EEAS overcome the methodological gap created by the absence of observers in these areas?

2. How far is the methodological gap expected to affect the results of the final report?

3. Can the EEAS provide impartial figures on the registration of voters for these elections in Pakistan?

4. How many of the registered voters were female?

5. How many of the voters were classified as members of religious and other minority groups?

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

_(13 June 2013)_

1. The EEAS agreed with the EU Election Observation Mission (EOM) that one team of observers would follow the
situation in Balochistan. The Chief Observer met some Balochistan representatives during his visits to Pakistan. The
mission publicly acknowledged that, for security reasons, no standard observation was possible in Balochistan and
the EOM was instead ‘actively following what is happening in these areas’ ( [1] ).

2. The EU observation methodology is based on long term presence in the entire territory. The lack of presence in
Balochistan (3.336.000 voters) constitute indeed an important limitation. However, this gap does not substantially
affect the reliability of an overall assessment of the electoral process.

3. The registration of voters was completed before the arrival of the EOM and the Election Commission of Pakistan
(ECP) published the results on its website. The EEAS does not have other figures. However, the EOM received and
analysed several reports and will evaluate the process of registration in its Final Report. In the Preliminary Statement,
the EOM mentions: ‘a markedly improved Electoral Roll since 2008, which provides a safeguard in the electoral
process and allows for increased opportunity for enfranchisement’ even if pointing out ‘a significant underregistration of women compared to men’.

4. According to the data published by the ECP, out of a total of 86 189 802 registered voters, the women are
37 597 415. The number of women registered has significantly increased from 2008 but is still lagging behind

5. The number of registered non-Muslim voters is 2.7 million, composed of approximately 1.4 million registered
Hindu and 1.2 million Christian voters. 115 095 citizens are registerd in the ‘minority’ lists as Ahmadis.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.eueom.eu/files/pressreleases/english/eueom-co-lahore-karachi-visit_en.pdf

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 489

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-005134/13**

**a la Comisión (Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante)**

**Raimon Obiols (S&D)**

_(8 de mayo de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ VP/HR — Proceso judicial contra Victoire Ingabire

El pasado octubre de 2012, Victoire Ingabire fue sentenciada en Ruanda a ocho años de prisión después de un juicio
poco transparente y en el que se produjeron varias irregularidades.

Al considerar la pena insuficiente, el Ministerio Fiscal interpuso recurso de apelación y desde el pasado abril se ha
reiniciado el juicio ante la Corte Suprema. El Ministerio Fiscal pide una pena de cárcel de 25 años al acusar a Ingabire
de intentar formar una revuelta armada y fomentar una revuelta popular contra el actual gobierno del país.

Victoire Ingabire, nominada el pasado año al Premio Sajarov que otorga el Parlamento Europeo, es una activista
política que residía en Holanda y que en 2006 fue elegida Presidenta de las Fuerzas Democráticas Unificadas
(FDU-Inkingi). En 2010, Ingabire decidió volver a Ruanda para participar en las elecciones pero desde su regreso tuvo
que sufrir acusaciones arbitrarias y atropellos que acabaron con un arresto domiciliario entre mayo y octubre de
2010, hasta que finalmente fue detenida. Desde su regreso al país, Ingabire no pudo registrar su partido político y,
ante el boicot del gobierno, se le ha impedido participar en la vida política del país.

Ante esta situación y ante el nuevo juicio que actualmente se está llevando contra Ingabire:

1. ¿Valoraría la Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante realizar un comunicado denunciando la falta de transparencia
de la justicia en Ruanda?

2. ¿Qué otras acciones podría emprender la Comisión ante la actual situación política en Ruanda?

**Respuesta de la Alta Representante y Vicepresidenta Ashton en nombre de la Comisión**

_(12 de julio de 2013)_

1. La UE ha estado muy atenta al juicio de Victoire Ingabire. Su condena a ocho años de prisión por conspiración el
pasado mes de octubre, así como por haber negado el genocidio de 1994 contra los tutsis, ha sido recurrida
inmediatamente por sus abogados y por el fiscal. El Tribunal Supremo de Ruanda aún no se ha pronunciado sobre
este recurso, pero debe dictar sentencia en un plazo razonable.

Se trata de un proceso complejo habida cuenta de la categoría y la personalidad de la demandada. Sin embargo, debe
prevalecer la necesidad de garantizar un planteamiento coherente en relación con el Estado de derecho. A este
respecto, la UE y la comunidad internacional confían en que las autoridades ruandesas no escatimarán esfuerzos para
que se imparta una justicia independiente sobre la base de un proceso transparente y pruebas no controvertidas.

2. Si bien es importante reconocer que ninguna parte interesada de Ruanda puede desdeñar el alcance y las
consecuencias del genocidio tutsi de 1994, también es crucial garantizar que se fomente una auténtica reconciliación
en el país sobre la base de un sistema político abierto y consensuado.

En términos generales, la UE continuará centrando su acción en el apoyo y la supervisión de los compromisos que ha
asumido Ruanda de aplicar las recomendaciones del examen periódico universal. Se hará especial hincapié en los
compromisos que tengan como objetivo el fomento de un sistema político más abierto, inclusive en lo que se refiere
al fomento de un verdadero debate político, la libertad de expresión y la aparición de organizaciones políticas activas
y responsables. La independencia del sistema judicial es un aspecto importante a este respecto.

C 80 E / 490 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005134/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Raimon Obiols (S&D)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Judicial proceedings against Victoire Ingabire

In October 2012, Victoire Ingabire was sentenced to eight years’ prison in Rwanda at the end of judicial proceedings
which were not transparent and in which there were several irregularities.

The public prosecutor’s office, considering the sentence to be too lenient, initiated appeal proceedings, and the case
was reopened before the Supreme Court in April 2013. The public prosecutor has called for a prison sentence of
25 years on the basis that Ingabire had fomented popular armed revolt against the current government.

Victoire Ingabire, who was last year nominated for the European Parliament’s Sakharov Prize, is a political activist
who used to live in the Netherlands and who in 2006 was elected Chairperson of the Unified Democratic Forces
(UDF‐Inkingi). In 2010, Ingabire decided to return to Rwanda to stand in the elections, but since her return she has
been subjected to arbitrary accusations and abuse which culminated in her being placed under house arrest between
May and October 2010 and then being imprisoned. Since returning to her country, Ingabire has been unable to
register her political party and, owing to a government boycott, has been unable to participate in the political life of
the country.

In view of this situation and the new proceedings which are being initiated against Ingabire, can the Vice‐
President/High Representative state:

1. Whether she will consider issuing a communication denouncing the lack of transparency in the justice system
in Rwanda?

2. What other measures the Commission could take in response to the current political situation in Rwanda?

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

_(12 July 2013)_

1. The EU has been closely following Victoire Ingabire's trial. Her sentence to eight years in jail last October for
conspiracy as well as for denying the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi has been immediately subject to an appeal
made by her lawyers and by the Prosecutor. The Rwanda Supreme Court has not yet ruled on this appeal, but a
decision should be taken within a reasonable period of time.

This is a complex process given the status and the personality of the defendant. However, the need to ensure a
coherent approach vis-à-vis of the Rule of Law shall prevail. In this regard, the EU and the international community
expect that all efforts will be deployed by the Rwandan authorities with a view to allow the independent provision of
Justice on the basis of a transparent trial and uncontested facts.

2. While it is important to recognise any political stakeholder in Rwanda cannot ignore the extent and the
consequences of the 1994 Tutsi genocide, it is also crucial to ensure that genuine reconciliation in the country is
promoted on the basis of an open and consensual political system.

In general terms, the EU will continue to focus its action on the support and monitoring of the commitments that
Rwanda has made to implement the Universal Periodic Review recommendations. Particular emphasis will be placed
on those commitments that aim at promoting a more open political system, including as regards encouraging
genuine political debate, freedom of expression and the emergence of active and responsible political organisations.
The independence of the judiciary system is an important aspect in this context.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 491

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-005135/13**

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

_(8 de mayo de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Fondos europeos para la creación o el mantenimiento de museos

Los museos son de una importancia fundamental para la conservación y comunicación del patrimonio artístico,
histórico y cultural de las diferentes comunidades y pueblos europeos. Estas instituciones han servido para
profundizar y extender entre la población el conocimiento del vasto patrimonio cultural europeo.

Son muchos los museos en España que tienen un importantísimo valor cultural e histórico. Sin embargo, debido al
impacto de la política de recortes del gasto público, algunos se encuentran en peligro por problemas de financiación.
Muchas administraciones públicas en España atraviesan grandes problemas de financiación y las cantidades dedicadas
al mantenimiento de estas instituciones y su patrimonio corren riesgo. Con vistas a mantener el valor y dar a conocer
el patrimonio de todos los europeos es fundamental conocer todas las vías posibles para garantizar dicha
conservación.

— ¿Puede aportar la Comisión información sobre la forma en que los ciudadanos europeos pueden acceder a fondos
para financiar museos, tanto para su creación como para su mantenimiento?

— ¿Qué fondos europeos pueden financiar el mantenimiento o la creación de nuevos museos?

— ¿Puede solicitar una persona física fondos para la cofinanciación de un museo?

— ¿De qué vías administrativas dispone un ciudadano europeo para acceder a los citados fondos para poder
mantener un museo o construir uno nuevo?

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

_(4 de julio de 2013)_

La política de cohesión puede apoyar inversiones relacionadas con la cultura y el desarrollo de infraestructuras
culturales, como museos, con el fin de hacer de las regiones lugares más atractivos en los que invertir y trabajar y con
el fin, asimismo, de promover el desarrollo socioeconómico (todo ello con el objetivo de fomentar un turismo
cultural sostenible).

No obstante, las inversiones de la política de cohesión en patrimonio y en infraestructuras y servicios culturales no se
basarán únicamente en su valor cultural intrínseco. Las inversiones en los sectores cultural y creativo pueden abarcar
y conectar una amplia gama de agentes y actividades en los sectores público, no lucrativo y privado, generando
beneficios económicos o sociales directos o indirectos. En tales casos, la inversión en objetivos culturales puede
justificarse por su contribución a los objetivos socioeconómicos y formar parte de una estrategia de desarrollo más
amplia para el territorio en que se invierte.

En consonancia con el principio de gestión compartida, las autoridades nacionales y regionales son responsables de la
selección y la aplicación de los proyectos que requieren cofinanciación de la política de cohesión. Entre las entidades
que pueden beneficiarse de la financiación se encuentran organismos públicos, algunos organismos del sector privado
(especialmente pequeñas empresas), universidades, asociaciones, ONG y organizaciones de voluntariado.

Además, el futuro programa Europa Creativa ( [1] ) ofrecerá oportunidades de financiación en el ámbito cultural para
proyectos de cooperación en los que participe un mínimo de tres países diferentes de la UE. Después de la adopción
del programa, prevista para finales de 2013, se publicarán las convocatorias de propuestas y las condiciones de
participación. El Punto de Contacto Cultural en España ( [2] ) ya puede proporcionar información sobre cómo establecer
asociaciones.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/culture/index_es.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/culture/annexes-culture/your-contact-in-your-country_en.htm

C 80 E / 492 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005135/13**

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

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ European funding for the opening and running of museums

Museums are of fundamental importance in preserving and passing on the artistic, historical and cultural heritage of
Europe’s peoples and communities. These establishments have served to disseminate Europe’s enormous cultural
heritage to its citizens and broaden their cultural understanding.

Many Spanish museums are of great cultural and historical worth. However, owing to the impact of public spending
cuts, some find themselves at risk of closure owing to funding problems. Many public administrations in Spain are
experiencing major financing difficulties, and the amounts allocated to managing museums and the heritage they
contain are at risk. With a view to maintaining the value and accessibility of Europe’s heritage for all Europeans, it is
essential to sound out all possible means of ensuring it is preserved.

— Can the Commission provide information on how EU citizens can access funding for the opening and running of
museums?

— Which EU funds can be used to finance the running and opening of new museums?

— Can a natural person make an application for co-financing for museums?

— What administrative channels are open to an EU citizen wishing to access such funding to run a museum or build a
new one?

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

_(4 July 2013)_

Cohesion policy is able to support culture-related investments and the development of cultural infrastructure like
museums both for making regions more attractive places to invest and work and as a driver for socioeconomic
development, in particular for fostering sustainable cultural tourism.

Cohesion policy investments in heritage, cultural infrastructure and services shall not, however, be based only on
their intrinsic cultural value. Investments in the cultural and creative sectors can cover and bridge a wide spectrum of
actors and activities in the public, non-for-profit and the private sectors with direct or indirect economic or social
benefits. In such cases, investment in cultural objectives can be justified by its contribution to with socioeconomic
objectives and be part of a wider developmental strategy for the territory in which they are located.

In line with the shared management principle, national and regional authorities are responsible for the selection and
the implementation of projects which require cohesion policy co-financing. Organisations that can benefit from
funding include public bodies, some private sector bodies (especially small businesses), universities, associations,
NGOs and voluntary organisations.

Furthermore, the future Creative Europe programme ( [1] ) shall offer funding opportunities in the cultural field for
cooperation projects involving at least three different EU countries. Calls for proposals and conditions for
participation will be made available once the programme is adopted, expectedly towards the end of 2013. The
Cultural contact point in Spain ( [2] ) can already provide guidance on establishing partnerships.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/culture/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/culture/annexes-culture/your-contact-in-your-country_en.htm

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 493

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-005136/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Franz Obermayr (NI)**

_(8. Mai 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Lebenssituation der Roma und Sinti — Probleme der Armutsmigration

Immer stärker werdende Armutsmigration nach Zentraleuropa bereitet in den europäischen Großstädten große
Probleme. Es handelt sich bei den Migranten vor allem um Randgruppen, wie Roma und Sinti aus Rumänien,
Bulgarien und auch aus Moldawien, die „auswandern“, um zu betteln oder der Prostitution nachzugehen. Diese
Menschen leben zum Teil in erschreckenden Armutsverhältnissen und haben kaum Aussicht, dass sich ihre Situation
verbessert.

Kann die Kommission dazu folgende Fragen beantworten:

1. Schwarzarbeiterstrich, Straßenprostitution und Bettlerflut lassen sich, wie viele Bürgermeister von betroffenen
Städten anprangern, nur auf EU-Ebene längerfristig lösen. Wie kann man nach Auffassung der Kommission
dieses Problem langfristig lösen?

2. Die von Armutsmigration betroffenen Kommunen und ihre Bürgermeister wünschen sich mehr Unterstützung
aus Brüssel. Was plant die Kommission zum Thema ausufernde Arbeitsmigration, und wie will die Kommission
sich für die Betroffenen in Zentraleuropa einsetzen?

3. In den betroffenen Städten wächst der Unmut darüber, dass weder die Regierung in Rumänien noch jene in
Bulgarien anscheinend genügend Schritte unternehmen, um zumindest soziale Mindeststandards für diese
Randgruppen zu schaffen. Welche Möglichkeiten sieht die Kommission, um diese Regierungen in die
Verantwortung zu nehmen?

4. Wie viel Geld fließt jährlich seitens der EU nach Bulgarien und auch nach Rumänien, um im Rahmen von
EU-Projekten dort die Lebenssituation der Roma und Sinti zu verbessern?

5. Wie viele Roma und Sinti leben in Bulgarien, und wie groß ist die Roma‐ und Sinti-Bevölkerung in Rumänien?

6. Wie stellt sich das Migrationsverhalten der Roma und Sinti aus diesen beiden Ländern auf Basis
ernstzunehmender Studien zahlenmäßig dar? Wie teilen sich diese Migrantenströme auf die anderen
Mitgliedstaaten auf?

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

_(28. Juni 2013)_

1. Prostitution und Zwangsbettelei gehören häufig zur Kette des Menschenhandels, zu dessen Bekämpfung die EU
über die Richtlinie 2011/36/EU ( [1] ) und die EU-Strategie zu Beseitigung des Menschenhandels 2012-2016 ( [2] ) beiträgt.

2. Was das angebliche Phänomen der „Armutsmigration“ anbetrifft, so ist nicht nachgewiesen, dass die
Sozialfürsorgesysteme der Mitgliedstaaten in einer Art und Weise missbraucht werden, die die Mitgliedstaaten nicht
direkt mithilfe ihrer entsprechenden nationalen Rechtsvorschriften oder gegebenenfalls mit den durch die
einschlägigen Rechtsinstrumente der EU definierten Mitteln angehen können. Die Richtlinie 2004/38/EG ( [3] ) sorgt für
das richtige Gleichgewicht zwischen der Ausübung des Freizügigkeitsrechts einerseits und der Tragfähigkeit der
sozialen Sicherungssysteme der Mitgliedstaaten andererseits.

3. Im Mai 2013 hat die Kommission im Rahmen des Europäischen Semesters eine Reihe länderspezifischer
Empfehlungen ausgesprochen. Sie hat unter anderem Bulgarien und Rumänien aufgefordert, ihre nationale Strategie
zur Integration der Roma wirksamer umzusetzen und ihr Sozialschutzsystem insgesamt zu verbessern.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Richtlinie 2011/36/EU des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 5. April 2011 zur Verhütung und Bekämpfung des Menschenhandels

und zum Schutz seiner Opfer.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Mitteilung der Kommission an den Rat, das Europäische Parlament, den Europäischen Wirtschafts- und Sozialausschuss und den Ausschuss der

Regionen, KOM(2012)286 endg.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Richtlinie 2004/38/EG über das Recht der Unionsbürger und ihrer Familienangehörigen, sich im Hoheitsgebiet der Mitgliedstaaten frei zu

bewegen und aufzuhalten.

( **|**

( **|**

C 80 E / 494 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

4. Nach der Volkszählung von 2011 gab es 325 343 Roma in Bulgarien und zwischen 730 000 und
970 000 Roma in Rumänien. Für die Staatsangehörigen der Republik Moldau gelten die Bestimmungen für
Drittstaatsangehörige.

5. Der Kommission verfügt über keine Statistik, die nach ethnischen Kriterien zwischen EU-Bürgern, die ihr
Freizügigkeitsrecht wahrnehmen, unterscheidet.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 495

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005136/13**

**to the Commission**
**Franz Obermayr (NI)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Living conditions of Roma and Sinti — the problem of ‘poverty migration’

The ever increasing number of people migrating to central Europe as a result of poverty is causing huge problems in
large towns and cities in Europe. These people are mainly migrants from fringe groups, such as the Roma and Sinti
from Romania, Bulgaria and also Moldova, who ‘emigrate’ to engage in begging or prostitution. Some of these people
live in dreadful poverty, with virtually no chance of seeing their situation improve.

1. As many mayors of towns affected have complained, in the longer term the problem of illegal sex workers,
street prostitution and a flood of beggars can only be resolved at EU level. What, in the Commission’s opinion, is the
long-term solution to this problem?

2. The municipalities suffering from this ‘poverty migration’, and their mayors, would like to see more support
from Brussels. What plans does the Commission have concerning excessive economic migration, and how does it
propose to support those affected in central Europe?

3. There is growing discontent in the towns and cities affected over the fact that apparently neither the Romanian
nor the Bulgarian governments are taking sufficient steps to create — at the very least — minimum social welfare
standards for these fringe groups. How does the Commission feel these governments can be made to accept their
responsibilities?

4. How much money flows every year from the EU into Bulgaria and Romania to improve the living conditions
there of the Roma and Sinti through EU-backed projects?

5. How many Roma and Sinti live in Bulgaria, and what is the size of the Roma and Sinti population in Romania?

6. What figures are given in serious studies on the migration behaviour of Roma and Sinti from both countries?
How are these migration flows split between other Member States?

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

_(28 June 2013)_

1. Prostitution and forced begging can generally be a component in the trafficking in human beings chain, which
the EU contributes to fighting through Directive 2011/36/EU ( [1] ) and the EU Strategy towards the Eradication of
Trafficking in Human Beings 2012-2016 [2] .

2. As regards the alleged phenomenon of ‘poverty migration’, there is no evidence that the welfare systems of the
Member States are abused in a way that cannot be tackled by the Member States directly, either according to their
respective national laws or, where applicable, with the means defined by the relevant EC law instruments.
Directive 2004/38/EC ( [3] ) strikes the right balance between the exercise of the right of free movement and the
sustainability of Member States' welfare systems.

3. In May 2013 the Commission has proposed in the framework of the European Semester a range of countryspecific recommendations, among which it has urged Bulgaria and Romania to implement more effectively their
National Roma Integration Strategies and improve their overall social protection systems.

4. There were 325,343 Roma in Bulgaria and between 730.000 and 970.000 Roma in Romania according to the
2011 census. The nationals of the Republic of Moldova are subject to the rules applicable to third-country nationals.

5. The Commission does not have statistics allowing to differentiate on ethnic grounds among the EU citizens who
exercise their EU right to free movement.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings

and protecting its victims.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the

Committee of the Regions, COM(2012) 286 final.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Directive 2004/38/EC on the right on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of

the Member States.

( **|**

( **|**

C 80 E / 496 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-005137/13**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D) şi Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D)**

_(8 mai 2013)_

_Subiect:_ Lacune în datele privind diabetul

În răspunsul său la întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-009630/2011, Comisia a subliniat unele dintre
activitățile sale legate de colectarea datelor privind prevalența diabetului în Uniunea Europeană.

Judecând după răspuns, e clar că persistă anumite lacune în date, în special cu privire la grupurile de vârstă mai tânără.
De exemplu, schema Indicatorilor de Sănătate la nivelul Comunității Europene, așa cum menționează Comisia în
răspunsul său, nu include copiii cu vârsta sub 15 ani.

Federația internațională pentru diabet a confirmat faptul că există lacune în datele privind grupele de vârstă mai
tânără, în ciuda faptului că în principal la aceste grupuri se observă o prevalență în creștere a bolii. Există, de
asemenea, dovezi care arată că țările din centrul și estul Europei înregistrează creșteri mai mari decât alte țări din
Europa ( [1] ).

Este de acord Comisia cu faptul că datele disponibile în prezent sunt limitate, în special cu privire la copii, și că sunt
necesare măsuri suplimentare pentru a acoperi aceste lacune din date și pentru a îmbunătăți cunoștințele noastre cu
privire la prevalența diabetului în rândul copiilor?

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

_(2 iulie 2013)_

În raportul elaborat în comun cu OCDE „Sănătatea pe scurt — Europa 2012” ( [2] ), Comisia furnizează date recente
referitoare la estimări asupra prevalenței diabetului la adulți (6,4 %) și asupra incidenței diabetului de tip I la copii
(18,2 cazuri la 100 000 de locuitori) la nivel european.

La 19 februarie 2013, Comisia a adoptat Regulamentul privind viitoarea anchetă europeană de sănătate realizată prin
interviu care include o întrebare privind diabetul ( [3] ) pentru persoanele cu vârsta de cel puțin 15 ani. Această anchetă
furnizează un set minim de date statistice care ar trebui să permită o mai bună monitorizare la nivelul UE, într‐un
moment în care statele membre sunt afectate de constrângeri în ceea ce privește resursele pentru colectarea datelor.

Comisia s-a angajat să abordeze provocarea epidemiei de diabet prin luarea de măsuri împotriva unor factori de risc
cunoscuți, precum alimentația și lipsa de activitate fizică, în cazul cărora a elaborat o strategie globală ( [4] ).

Pentru a susține suplimentar dezvoltarea prevenirii și diagnosticării timpurii a diabetului de tip II, între statele
membre și Comisie se derulează o acțiune comună privind bolile cronice, cofinanțată prin programul din domeniul
sănătății. O parte din acțiunea comună este dedicată diabetului de tip II, cu scopul de a studia barierele în calea
prevenirii, depistării și tratării diabetului și de a îmbunătăți cooperarea între statele membre.

Propunerea Comisiei privind programul din domeniul sănătății pentru perioada 2014-2020 include dispoziții
privind sprijinirea acțiunilor de informare și cunoaștere în materie de sănătate pentru a contribui la luarea deciziilor
pe bază de dovezi, inclusiv prin colectarea și analiza datelor de natură orizontală privind sănătatea, în temeiul celor
patru obiective ale programului ( [5] ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.idf.org/diabetesatlas/5e/diabetes-in-the-young
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/reports/european/health_glance_2012_en.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:047:0020:0048:RO:PDF
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Cartea albă — Strategie pentru Europa privind problemele de sănătate legate de alimentație, excesul de greutate și obezitate COM(2007) 279;

http://ec.europa.eu/health/archive/ph_determinants/life_style/nutrition/documents/nutrition_wp_ro.pdf

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/programme/docs/prop_prog2014_ro.pdf

( **|**

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 497

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005137/13**

**to the Commission**
**Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D) and Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Data gaps for diabetes

In its answer to Written Question E-009630/2011, the Commission outlined some of its activities relating to the
collection of data on the prevalence of diabetes in the European Union.

Judging by the reply, it is clear that some data gaps persist, especially as regards younger age groups. For example, the
European Community Health Indicators scheme — as referred to by the Commission in its answer — does not
include children aged under 15.

The International Diabetes Federation has confirmed that there is a lack of data for younger age groups, despite the
fact that the increasing prevalence of the disease can chiefly be noted within those groups. There is also evidence that
central and eastern European countries are experiencing greater increases than countries elsewhere in Europe ( [1] ).

Does the Commission concur that the data currently available is limited, particularly with regard to children, and that
further action is needed to close these data gaps and improve our understanding of the prevalence of diabetes among
children?

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

_(2 July 2013)_

In its joint report with the OECD ‘Health at a Glance Europe 2012’ ( [2] ), the Commission provides recent data on
prevalence estimates of diabetes for adults (6.4%) and incidence estimates of Type I diabetes in children (18.2 cases
per 100 000 population) at European level.

On 19 February 2013, the Commission adopted the regulation on the next European Health Interview Survey which
includes a question on diabetes ( [3] ) for people aged 15 years and over. This survey represents a minimum statistical
data set that should allow better monitoring at EU level at a time when Member States suffer from resource
constraints to collect data.

The Commission is committed to addressing the challenge of the diabetes epidemic by taking action on known risk
factors such as nutrition and lack of physical activity, where the Commission has put in place a comprehensive
strategy ( [4] ).

To further support the development of prevention and early diagnosis of diabetes type II, a joint action on chronic
diseases is developed between Member States and the Commission, co-financed by the Health Programme. One part
of the joint action is devoted to diabetes type II, to study barriers to prevention, screening and treatment of diabetes
and to improve cooperation among Member States.

The Commission proposal for Health Programme 2014-2020 includes provisions to support actions on Health
information and knowledge to contribute to evidence-based decision making, including collecting and analysing
health data of horizontal nature under the four objectives of the programme ( [5] ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.idf.org/diabetesatlas/5e/diabetes-in-the-young.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/reports/european/health_glance_2012_en.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:047:0020:0048:EN:PDF
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) White paper on a strategy for Europe on nutrition, overweight and obesity related health issues COM(2007)279

http://ec.europa.eu/health/archive/ph_determinants/life_style/nutrition/documents/nutrition_wp_en.pdf

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/programme/docs/prop_prog2014_en.pdf

( **|**

C 80 E / 498 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-005138/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Claudio Morganti (EFD)**

_(8 maggio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ «Shadow banking» cinese

Nelle ultime settimane diversi analisti hanno sottolineato come, a livello globale, vi sia un pericolo causato da due
fenomeni, che negli ultimi tempi in Cina hanno raggiunto dimensioni difficilmente controllabili, ovvero una bolla del
mercato immobiliare ma soprattutto una crescita esponenziale del cosiddetto sistema di «shadow banking».

Molte imprese e autorità locali cinesi, fortemente indebitate, ricorrono infatti a questo sistema di finanziamento
«alternativo», che secondo una recente stima rappresenta ormai una cifra pari al 45 % del PIL cinese, ovvero 3 350
miliardi di dollari.

Ben si capisce come lo «shadow banking» cinese, avendo raggiunto una dimensione enorme ed essendo per sua stessa
natura più rischioso e meno regolamentato rispetto al sistema bancario tradizionale, possa rappresentare un
problema globale nel caso sopraggiunga qualche tipo di difficoltà.

— È a conoscenza la Commissione della situazione relativa allo «shadow banking» in Cina?

— Quali misure intende intraprendere, a livello di relazioni bilaterali e in seno a organismi internazionali, per cercare
di prevenire possibili rischi che avrebbero ripercussioni negative anche sull'economia europea?

**Risposta di Michel Barnier a nome della Commissione**

_(27 giugno 2013)_

La Commissione europea si adopera per accelerare l’attuazione degli impegni del G20 riguardanti la definizione di un
quadro di regolamentazione e di vigilanza del settore bancario.

La questione del settore bancario parallelo figurava all’ordine del giorno del dialogo annuale UE-Cina sulle questioni
economiche e finanziarie svoltosi ad aprile 2011 e a giugno 2012.

I servizi della Commissione e le autorità cinesi partecipano ai lavori del Consiglio per la stabilità finanziaria (FSB) per
definire norme internazionali applicabili ai rischi legati al settore bancario parallelo. Il vertice del G20 che si terrà a
settembre a San Pietroburgo dovrebbe avallare una serie di raccomandazioni contenenti principi destinati ad essere
applicati a tutti i paesi del G20 tra cui, ovviamente, la Cina.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 499

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005138/13**

**to the Commission**
**Claudio Morganti (EFD)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Chinese shadow banking

Analysts have recently drawn attention to a dangerous situation in China, which could potentially have global
ramifications. This situation has arisen as a result of two developments, first, a real estate bubble and second and more
worrying, an exponential growth in reliance on ‘shadow banking’, which have taken on uncontrollable proportions.

Many Chinese businesses and local authorities are heavily indebted and are making use of this ‘alternative’ financing
system, which, according to a recent estimate, accounts for 45% of Chinese GDP or USD 3 350 billion.

The Chinese shadow banking system could undoubtedly pose a global threat should it run into difficulties, given that
it is now so big and is, by definition, riskier and less regulated than the traditional banking system.

— Is the Commission aware of the shadow banking situation in China?

— What bilateral action does it intend to take and how does it plan to work with international organisations in order
to head off a potentially dangerous situation, which could have a knock-on effect on the EU economy?

_(Version française)_

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

_(27 juin 2013)_

La Commission européenne s'attache à ce que les engagements du G20 sur la définition d'un cadre de régulation et de
supervision du secteur bancaire parallèle soient finalisés au plus vite.

La question du secteur bancaire parallèle a été mise à l'agenda du dialogue annuel UE-Chine sur les questions
économiques et financières en avril 2011 et en juin 2012.

Les services de la Commission et les autorités chinoises participent aux travaux du Conseil de stabilité financière (FSB)
pour définir des standards internationaux encadrant les risques inhérents au secteur bancaire parallèle. Un ensemble
de recommandations devrait être avalisé lors du sommet du G20 en septembre à Saint Petersburg. Ces principes ont
vocation à être appliqués à l'ensemble des pays du G20 dont la Chine fait naturellement partie.

C 80 E / 500 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-005139/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Kriton Arsenis (S&D)**

_(8 Μαΐου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Πρόσβαση πολιτών σε περιβαλλοντικές πληροφορίες αναφορικά με την επένδυση «ΙΤΑΝΟΣ ΓΑΙΑ»

Σε απάντηση στην ερώτησή μου με αριθμό E-003098/2013 σχετικά με την άρνηση του Ελληνικού Υπουργείου Ανάπτυξης
να παράσχει σε πολίτες πρόσβαση σε περιβαλλοντικές πληροφορίες που αφορούν την απόφαση της Διυπουργικής Επιτροπής
Στρατηγικών Επενδύσεων (ΔΥΣΕ) για το επενδυτικό σχέδιο «ΙΤΑΝΟΣ ΓΑΙΑ», η Επιτροπή υπογράμμισε ότι «οι πληροφορίες
που αναφέρονται στην ερώτηση πρέπει (…) να είναι προσβάσιμες εφόσον εμπίπτουν στον ορισμό της “περιβαλλοντικής
πληροφορίας” (άρθρο 2) και εφόσον δεν καλύπτονται από τυχόν εξαιρέσεις του άρθρου 4 της οδηγίας».

Θέτω υπόψη της Επιτροπής την 17/20.9.2012 (ΦΕΚ 3294-10.12.2012) απόφαση της ΔΥΣΕ σύμφωνα με την οποία οι
περιβαλλοντικές πληροφορίες που εξέτασε σχετικά με την επένδυση και στις οποίες βασίστηκε για να εγκρίνει την ένταξή της
στο «fast track», είναι «οι δεσμεύσεις της εταιρείας “LOYALWARD LTD” ως προς το φυσικό καθώς και το πολιτιστικό και το
κοινωνικοοικονομικό περιβάλλον», «το γεγονός ότι το επενδυτικό σχέδιο “ΙΤΑΝΟΣ ΓΑΙΑ” έχει σχεδιαστεί με αειφορική
θεώρηση ενώ η χρήση καινοτόμων τεχνολογιών εξασφαλίζει τη μηδενική επιβάρυνση των διαθέσιμων υδατικών πόρων» και
«το γεγονός ότι η εταιρεία “LOYALWARD LTD” έχει δεσμευτεί εγγράφως για τη δημιουργία, πιστοποίηση, υλοποίηση,
διαχείριση και συνεχή βελτίωση ενός Συστήματος Περιβαλλοντικής Διαχείρισης προκειμένου να εξασφαλίζεται η προστασία
όλων των περιβαλλοντικών παραμέτρων του Έργου».

Με βάση την παραπάνω δημοσιευμένη απόφαση της ΔΥΣΕ που εξηγεί διεξοδικά το είδος και τη φύση των περιβαλλοντικών
πληροφοριών, τις οποίες έχουν ζητήσει να τους παρασχεθούν πολίτες στο πλαίσιο της άσκησης των δικαιωμάτων τους που
απορρέουν από την οδηγία 2003/4/EK, ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Οι συγκεκριμένες περιβαλλοντικές πληροφορίες εμπίπτουν στον ορισμό της «περιβαλλοντικής πληροφορίας» (άρθρο 2);

Δεδομένης της φύσης των συγκεκριμένων πληροφοριών (π.χ. δεσμεύσεις της εταιρείας ως προς το φυσικό καθώς και το
πολιτιστικό και το κοινωνικοοικονομικό περιβάλλον και ως προς τη δημιουργία, πιστοποίηση, υλοποίηση, διαχείριση και
συνεχή βελτίωση ενός Συστήματος Περιβαλλοντικής Διαχείρισης), εμπίπτουν οι πληροφορίες αυτές στις εξαιρέσεις του
άρθρου 4 της οδηγίας, το οποίο εξαιρεί συγκεκριμένες πληροφορίες εμπιστευτικού χαρακτήρα;

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

_(27 Ιουνίου 2013)_

Η Επιτροπή είναι της γνώμης ότι τα στοιχεία που αναφέρονται δύνανται να εμπίπτουν στο πεδίο εφαρμογής του ορισμού στο
άρθρο 2 της οδηγίας 2003/4/EΚ για την πρόσβαση του κοινού σε περιβαλλοντικές πληροφορίες ( [1] ).

Όσον αφορά τις εξαιρέσεις που προβλέπονται στο άρθρο 4 της ίδιας οδηγίας, εναπόκειται στα κράτη μέλη να αποφασίζουν
εάν απαγορεύουν την πρόσβαση σε περιβαλλοντικές πληροφορίες, εφόσον κρίνουν ότι η δημοσιοποίηση των πληροφοριών
αυτών θα μπορούσε να θίξει ένα από τα στοιχεία που αναφέρονται στο εν λόγω άρθρο.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) EE L 41 της 14.2.2003, σ. 26-32.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 501

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005139/13**

**to the Commission**

**Kriton Arsenis (S&D)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Citizens' access to environmental information regarding the ‘ITANOS GAIA’ investment

In its answer to my Question E-003098/2013 on the refusal of Greek Ministry of Development to allow citizens
access to environmental information concerning the decision of the Interministerial Committee for Strategic
Investments (ICSI) regarding the investment project ‘ITANOS GAIA’, the Commission emphasises that: ‘The
information referred to in the question should (…) be accessible if it falls within the definition of “environmental
information” (Article 2) and if it is not covered by any of the exceptions listed in Article 4 of the directive.’

I would draw the Commission's attention to the decision of the Interministerial Committee for Strategic Investments
17/20.9.2012 (Greek Official Gazette 3294-10.12.2012), which states that the environmental information it
assessed in relation to the investment and on which the decision to include the investment project in the ‘fast track’
procedure was based, consists of the ‘commitments by the company “LOYALWARD LTD” concerning the natural,
cultural and socioeconomic environment’, ‘the fact that the “ITANOS GAIA” investment project has been sustainably
designed while the use of innovative technologies ensures that there will be zero burden on the available water
resources’ and ‘the fact that the company “LOYALWARD LTD” has committed itself, in writing, to create, certify,
implement, manage and continuously improve an Environmental Management System that will guarantee the
protection of all environmental aspects of the Project’.

In the light of the above decision by the Interministerial Committee for Strategic Investments explaining in detail the
type and nature of the environmental information which citizens have requested, exercising their rights under
Directive 2003/4/EC, will the Commission say:

Does this specific environmental information fall within the definition of ‘environmental information’ (Article 2)?

Given the nature of the specific information (i.e. commitments given by a company in respect of the natural and the
cultural and socioeconomic environment and the creation, certification, implementation, management and
continuous improvement of an Environmental Management System), is this information covered by the exceptions
provided for in Article 4 of the directive, which exempts certain information of a confidential nature?

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

_(27 June 2013)_

The Commission is of the opinion that the elements referred to can fall within the scope of the definition given in
Article 2 of Directive 2003/4/EC on public access to environmental information ( [1] ).

As regards the exceptions provided in Article 4 of the same Directive, it is up to Member States to decide whether they
refuse the access to environmental information if they consider that disclosure of such information would adversely
affect one of the elements mentioned in this article.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 41, 14.2.2003, p. 26-32.

C 80 E / 502 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005140/13**

**à Comissão**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Apoio à construção de um mercado local no Poceirão (Palmela)

O encerramento da Cooperativa Agrícola de Palmela acentua as dificuldades sentidas por muitos pequenos e médios
produtores da região de Setúbal e por inúmeras produções locais. Numa reunião recente com produtores locais foi
abordada a possibilidade de criação de um mercado local/revendedor no concelho. Este mercado poderia estimular a
produção local e contribuir para diminuir a dependência dos agricultores face às grandes superfícies.

Canha, Pegões, Santo Isidro de Pegões, Atalaia, Quinta do Anjo, Poceirão e Palmela: são algumas das freguesias dos
concelhos de Palmela e Montijo que poderiam beneficiar com a construção deste novo mercado.

Em face do exposto, solicito à Comissão que me informe sobre o seguinte:

Que programas de medidas da UE poderão apoiar a criação deste novo mercado, seja do atual Quadro Financeiro
Plurianual (2007-2013) seja do futuro (2014-2020)? Quais as taxas de financiamento previstas?

**Resposta dada por Dacian Cioloş em nome da Comissão**

_(27 de junho de 2013)_

No âmbito do atual período de programação, os investimentos necessários para apoiar atividades relacionadas com o
comércio de produtos agrícolas podem ser concedidos no âmbito do Feader, por exemplo, através das medidas 123
(Aumento do valor dos produtos agrícolas e florestais) ou 321 (Serviços básicos para a economia e a população
rurais) e 322 (Renovação e desenvolvimento das aldeias). No caso do Programa de Desenvolvimento
Rural — Continente (PDR) as duas últimas medidas são executadas de acordo com o Leader.

Para informações sobre a elegibilidade deste tipo de atividades no âmbito do PDR pertinente contactar a autoridade de
gestão do programa através da seguinte morada:

Dra. Maria Gabriela Ventura, Gestora do Proder
Rua Padre António Vieira, 1 — 8.° andar
1099-073 Lisboa

Linha Verde: 800 500 064
Telefone: 00 351 21 381 9318/19/20
Correio eletrónico: st.proder@gpp.pt
[http://www.proder.pt](http://www.proder.pt/)

No que respeita ao próximo período de programação de 2014-2020, será possível apoiar o mesmo tipo de atividades
no âmbito do Feader, se tal estiver previsto nos programas de desenvolvimento rural dos Estados‐Membros.

Quanto ao FEDER, no período de programação de 2007-2013 a criação de um mercado de agricultores/revenda
poderia ser potencialmente financiado no âmbito do eixo prioritário 3 «Coesão Social» do Programa Operacional
Regional de Lisboa. A taxa de cofinanciamento do eixo prioritário 3 é de 65,86 %. Relativamente ao período de
programação de 2014-2020, ainda estão em curso negociações informais com as autoridades portuguesas, até agora
sem quaisquer resultados concretos sobre o tipo de intervenções a financiar.

Para mais informações, a Comissão sugere que o Senhor Deputado contacte as autoridades de gestão do PO Regional
de Lisboa/FEDER:

Rua de Artilharia Um, n.° 33
1269-145 Lisboa

Telefone: + 351 213 837 100

Fax: + 351 213 847 985
Correio eletrónico: presid@ccdr-lvt.pt
[http://www.ccdr-lvt.pt](http://www.ccdr-lvt.pt/)

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 503

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005140/13**

**to the Commission**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Assistance for building a farmers' market in Poceirão (in the municipality of Palmela)

The closure of the Palmela Agricultural Cooperative has exacerbated the difficulties faced by many small and
medium-sized farmers in the Setúbal region and countless local producers. The possibility of creating a
farmers’/reseller market in the municipality was raised at a recent meeting with local producers. The market could
stimulate local production and help to reduce the farmers’ dependency on supermarkets.

Canha, Pegões, Santo Isidro de Pegões, Atalaia, Quinta do Anjo, Poceirão and Palmela are just some of the parishes in
the municipalities of Palmela and Montijo that could benefit from the construction of this new market.

Which EU programmes could support the creation of the new market, whether under the current Multiannual
Financial Framework (2007-2013) or the next one (2014-2020)? What financing rates are available?

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

_(27 June 2013)_

Under the current programming period, the investments required to support trade related activities from farm
products may be supported under EAFRD, e.g. through Measures 123 (Adding value to agricultural and forestry
products, or 321 (Basic services for the economy and rural population) and 322 (Village renewal and development).
In the case of the Portuguese Mainland Rural Development Program, (RDP) the two latter measures are implemented
under the Leader approach.

Information on whether this type of activities is eligible in the relevant RDP, should be requested to the Program
Managing Authority, at the following address:

Maria Gabriela Ventura, Gestora do Proder
Rua Padre António Vieira, 1 — 8° andar
1099-073 Lisboa

Green line: 800 500 064
Tel.: 00 351 21 381 9318/19/20
[Email: st.proder@gpp.pt](mailto:st.proder@gpp.pt)
http://www.proder.pt

As regards the forthcoming programming period 2014-2020 it will be possible to support the same type of activities
under the EAFRD, if this is foreseen in Member States' rural development programmes.

As regards ERDF in the programming period 2007-2013 the creation of a farmers’/reseller market could potentially
be financed under priority axis 3 ‘Social Cohesion’ of the Lisbon Regional Operational Programme. The rate of cofinancing of the priority axis 3 is 65.86%. Concerning the programming period 2014-2020, informal negotiations
with the Portuguese Authorities are still ongoing without any concrete results yet on type of interventions to be
financed.

For further information the Commission suggests the Honourable Member contacts the managing authorities of the
ERDF regional OP Lisbon:

Rua Artilharia Um, 33
1269-145 Lisboa

Tel.: + 351 213 837 100

Fax: + 351 213 847 985
[E-mail: presid@ccdr-lvt.pt](mailto:presid@ccdr-lvt.pt)
[http://www.ccdr-lvt.pt](http://www.ccdr-lvt.pt/)

C 80 E / 504 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005141/13**

**à Comissão**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Apoio à queima das uvas na Região de Setúbal (2010 e 2011)

O tempo seco que marcou o ano de 2010 foi responsável por uma muito acentuada quebra da produção de vinho na
Região de Setúbal. Em 2011, a produção foi também fortemente afetada por ação do míldio, não hesitando os
produtores locais em referir-se a uma situação de calamidade. Entretanto, as medidas de apoio à queima das uvas
estiveram muito longe de chegar a todos os produtores afetados, tendo os prejuízos e os seus efeitos sido muito
significativos.

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

Dispõe de informação sobre o número de produtores apoiados ao abrigo da medida de «restauração do potencial
produtivo» do Proder e sobre os montantes em causa?

**Resposta dada por Dacian Cioloş em nome da Comissão**

_(14 de junho de 2013)_

Os fundos provenientes do Fundo Europeu Agrícola de Desenvolvimento Rural (Feader) para o período de
programação entre 2007 e 2013 utilizados por Portugal até dezembro de 2012, ascendem a um montante total de
11 009 184 milhões de EUR, ao abrigo da medida 126 — restabelecimento do potencial de produção agrícola. Para
mais detalhes sobre o número de beneficiários e montantes específicos, convido o Senhor Deputado a contactar a
autoridade de gestão portuguesa:

Dr. [a] Maria Gabriela Ventura, Gestora do Proder
Rua Padre António Vieira, 1 — 8.° andar
1099-073 Lisboa

Linha Verde: 800 500 064
Telefone: 00 351 21 381 9318/19/20
Correio eletrónico: st.proder@gpp.pt
Sítio Internet: http://www.proder.pt

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 505

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005141/13**

**to the Commission**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Support for burning grapes in the Setúbal region (2010 and 2011)

The dry weather in 2010 led to a very abrupt fall in wine production in the Setúbal region. In 2011, production was
also very badly affected by mildew, and local producers were quick to call it a crisis. Meanwhile, support measures for
burning grapes have fallen far short of helping all those producers who were affected, causing major losses and having
very significant consequences.

Does the Commission have any information on the number of producers who received support under the Rural
Development Programme measure for restoring production potential, and on the sums in question?

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

_(14 June 2013)_

The funds from the European Agricultural Rural Development Fund (EARDF) for the programming period 20072013 used by Portugal up to December 2012 amount to a total of EUR 11 009 184 under the measure 126 —
restoring agricultural production potential. For details on the number of beneficiaries and specific sums, the
Honourable Member is invited to contact the Portuguese managing authority:

Maria Gabriela Ventura, Gestora do Proder
Rua Padre António Vieira, 1 — 8 [o] andar, 1099-073 Lisboa
Green line: 800 500 064; Tel.: 00 351 21 381 9318/19/20
[Email: st.proder@gpp.pt; website: http://www.proder.pt](http://www.proder.pt/)

C 80 E / 506 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005142/13**

**à Comissão**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Novas regras de fiscalidade para os pequenos agricultores em Portugal

Os agricultores portugueses foram confrontados com alterações no domínio da fiscalidade, suscetíveis, segundo
afirmam, de provocar graves prejuízos nas economias locais, na pequena agricultura e na agricultura familiar
nacional.

A obrigatoriedade de se inscreverem nas finanças e de passarem a emitir faturas, mesmo referentes a vendas cujo
proveito possa ser inferior ao custo de emissão da respetiva fatura, a aplicação de IVA (6 %) a transações de produtos e
a pequenos serviços práticos, como lavras, transporte de cargas, cortes na floresta, etc., que até agora não estavam
sujeitos a IVA, a obrigatoriedade de passar fatura, mesmo para entrega de produtos em cooperativas de que os
pequenos agricultores são sócios, são, entre outros, alguns dos problemas que as novas regras acarretam para os
pequenos agricultores e para a agricultura familiar e de subsistência.

Estas novas regras provêm, alegadamente, de uma imposição da UE.

Em face do exposto, pergunto à Comissão:

1. Confirma que estas novas regras decorrem de imposições da UE?

2. Como justifica estas alterações, tendo em conta que, para poderem cumprir as novas obrigações, milhares de
pequenos agricultores que enfrentam já hoje enormes dificuldades de subsistência verão os seus custos de
produção aumentar, tendo de recorrer a serviços de contabilidade, por exemplo, tendo ainda mais dificuldades
em poderem continuar a trabalhar, a produzir e a comercializar as suas pequenas produções, abastecendo os
mercados locais e tradicionais?

3. Que avaliação foi feita do impacto destas medidas nos pequenos agricultores, na agricultura familiar e de
subsistência e nos mercados locais e tradicionais?

**Resposta dada por Algirdas Šemeta em nome da Comissão**

_(3 de julho de 2013)_

As regras constantes da Diretiva IVA que regem o regime comum forfetário dos produtores agrícolas permanecem
inalteradas há muitos anos. Estas medidas são facultativas e permitem aos Estados-Membros alguma margem de
manobra na sua aplicação, incluindo a de excluir certas categorias de agricultores do regime.

Portugal alterou recentemente a sua lei em resposta a uma decisão do TJUE no processo C-524/10. O regime
forfetário para os produtores agrícolas portugueses deixou de estar em vigor, passando os agricultores em Portugal a
estar sujeitos às regras normais do IVA a partir de 1 de abril de 2013.

Com base nas informações e explicações que a Comissão dispõe, não existe qualquer aspeto das obrigações relativas
ao IVA aplicáveis a estes agricultores que não esteja em conformidade com as disposições da Diretiva IVA.

Cabe ao Governo Português avaliar o impacto sobre os respetivos destinatários das alterações introduzidas na
legislação nacional em matéria de IVA.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 507

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005142/13**

**to the Commission**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ New tax rules for small-scale farmers in Portugal

Portuguese farmers are facing changes in the tax system, which, in their opinion, are liable to seriously damage local
economies and small-scale and family farming nationally.

Some of the problems which the new rules will create for small-scale farmers, family and subsistence farming include
the requirement to register with the tax authorities and to issue invoices, even for sales where the profit may be less
than the cost of issuing the invoice, the requirement to apply VAT (6%) to product transactions and small-scale
labouring services, such as tilling the soil, transporting loads or wood cutting, etc., which until now have not been
subject to VAT, and the requirement to issue invoices even for the delivery of products to cooperatives of which the
small-scale farmers are themselves members.

These new rules are claimed to be the result of an obligation imposed by the EU.

1. Can the Commission confirm that these new rules stem from obligations imposed by the EU?

2. How does it justify these changes, considering that, to comply with the new rules, thousands of small-scale
farmers, who are already finding it very difficult to survive at the moment, will see their production costs increase,
having to employ accountants, for example, and find it even more difficult to be able to continue working, producing
and marketing their small-scale produce, to supply local and traditional markets?

3. What assessment has there been of the impact of these measures on small-scale farmers, family and subsistence
farming, and on local and traditional markets?

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

_(3 July 2013)_

The rules in the VAT Directive governing the common flat rate scheme for farmers have remained unchanged for
many years. These measures are facultative and allow Member States some scope in their application including that of
excluding certain categories of farmers from the scheme.

Portugal has recently changed its law in response to a decision of the CJEU in Case C-524/10. The existing Portuguese
flat rate scheme for farmers has been brought to an end and from 1 April 2013 farmers in Portugal are subject to the
normal VAT rules.

On the basis of the information and explanations available to the Commission, there is no aspect of the VAT
obligations applicable to these farmers that is not in conformity with the provisions of the VAT Directive.

It is for the Portuguese Government to assess the impact of changes in its national VAT legislation on those
concerned by such changes.

C 80 E / 508 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005143/13**

**à Comissão**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Preços do arroz praticados pelas grandes superfícies em Portugal

Numa reunião recente com agricultores do distrito de Setúbal, fui alertado para a diminuição da produção de arroz na
região, de que é indicativa a forte redução do número de agricultores que, a cada novo ano, se candidatam às
respetivas ajudas. Este facto, segundo afirmam, é indissociável da continuação de práticas de dumping, com
importação de arroz agulha e sua venda nas grandes superfícies comerciais a preços a que os produtores locais não
podem fazer face (26 cênt./Kg foi o exemplo referido).

Em face do exposto, solicito à Comissão que me informe sobre o seguinte:

1. Que informações tem sobre esta situação?

2. Que medidas tomou ou pensa tomar para impedir a persistência desta situação?

3. Tendo em conta a persistência e o agravamento dos desequilíbrios ao nível da balança agroalimentar de países
como Portugal, que medidas vai adotar para defender a produção nacional nestes países e, por essa via, ajudar a
combater a crescente dívida externa?

**Resposta dada por Dacian Cioloș em nome da Comissão**

_(20 de junho de 2013)_

Os mais importantes valores de referência do mercado mundial para o arroz branqueado de grãos longos situam-se
entre 380 e 660 USD/t (FOB), sem alterações significativas nos últimos 12 meses. Portanto, tendo também em conta
os custos adicionais antes de chegar ao consumidor (por exemplo, transporte marítimo, direitos de importação,
acondicionamento, logística, margens comerciais, impostos), seria impossível praticar o preço de venda a retalho de
0,26 EUR/kg em Portugal sem que tal cause perdas substanciais.

Quando o comércio internacional é distorcido de modo a que as práticas de compensação e/ou de dumping
prejudiquem o setor orizícola da União, podem ser impostos direitos antissubvenções e/ou antidumping caso um
inquérito da Comissão confirme tais práticas prejudiciais. Qualquer produtor da UE pode apresentar uma queixa à
Comissão. No caso de haver elementos de prova _prima facie_ suficientes de práticas de dumping ou subvenções e a
indústria da União sofrer um prejuízo importante causado pelas importações objeto de dumping ou de subvenções, a
Comissão tem a obrigação legal de dar início a um inquérito em conformidade com as regras pertinentes da OMC e da
UE.

A Comissão está ciente da importância da produção de arroz em Portugal. O número de hectares elegíveis, em
Portugal, para o pagamento específico para o arroz aumentou de 27 084 ha em 2009 para 31 048 ha em 2011. A
partir de 2012, quando esses pagamentos foram integradas no regime de pagamento único em Portugal, os EstadosMembros dispuseram da possibilidade de conceder apoio específico com base no artigo 68.° do Regulamento (CE)
n.° 73/2009 do Conselho ( [1] ) em zonas economicamente vulneráveis ou ambientalmente sensíveis, enquanto
incentivo para manter o nível de produção.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) JO L 30 de 31.1.2009.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 509

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005143/13**

**to the Commission**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Rice prices charged by supermarkets in Portugal

At a recent meeting with farmers from the district of Setúbal, my attention was drawn to the fall in rice production in
the region, as hinted at by the significant decrease in the number of farmers who, each year, apply for the relevant aid.
This fact, the farmers claim, is inextricably linked to the ongoing practice of dumping, where long-grain rice is
imported and sold in supermarkets at prices that local producers cannot match (26 cents/kg was the example given).

1. What information does the Commission have about this situation?

2. What steps has it taken or does it plan to take to stop this situation from continuing?

3. In view of the persisting and worsening agri-food imbalances in countries such as Portugal, what steps will the
Commission take to safeguard domestic production in these countries and thereby help to combat increasing foreign
debt?

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

_(20 June 2013)_

The most important world market benchmarks of milled long-grain rice are quoted between 380 and 660 USD/t
(FOB), without significant changes in the last 12 months. Therefore, also considering the additional costs before
reaching consumers (e.g. overseas transport, import duty, packaging, logistics, trade margins, taxes), it would be
impossible to strike 0.26 EUR/kg retail price in Portugal without generating substantial losses.

In cases where international trade is distorted in so far as countervailing and/or dumping practices cause injury to the
Union rice sector, anti-subsidy and/or anti-dumping duties may be imposed after an investigation by the Commission
confirms such injurious practices. Any EU producer may bring a complaint to the Commission. In case there is
sufficient prima facie evidence that dumping or subsidisation takes place and the Union industry is suffering material
injury caused by the dumped or subsidised imports, the Commission is under a legal obligation to initiate an
investigation in accordance with the relevant WTO and EU rules.

The Commission is aware of the importance of rice production in Portugal. The number of Portuguese hectares
eligible for crop specific payment for rice increased from 27 084 ha in 2009 to 31 048 ha in 2011. From 2012, when
these payments were integrated into the single payment scheme in Portugal, Member States had some possibility to
provide specific support based on Article 68 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 ( [1] ) in economically vulnerable or
environmentally sensitive areas, as an incentive to maintain the level of production.

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

C 80 E / 510 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005144/13**

**à Comissão**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Proposta de regulamento sobre a comercialização de material de propagação de plantas

Organizações de agricultores e organizações não-governamentais do ambiente portuguesas enviaram recentemente
uma carta ao Presidente da Comissão Europeia na qual defendem que a proposta de regulamento sobre a
comercialização de material de propagação de plantas e, mais concretamente, o sistema de registo e certificação
obrigatórios proposto agravam a perda de agrobiodiversidade e que «a obrigação de registar toda e qualquer variedade
de planta de cultivo, mesmo as utilizadas em hortas familiares, por agricultores tradicionais ou em mercados locais,
acarreta custos e processos administrativos proibitivos para a produção em pequena escala, discriminando
severamente as sementes e material de propagação de plantas de polinização aberta, regionais e tradicionais, a favor
das sementes industriais e dos operadores corporativos».

Estas organizações consideram a referida proposta um ataque aos agricultores e à «herança biocultural comum», que
põe em causa «a maioria das dezenas de milhares de variedades locais de plantas de cultivo, selecionadas e adaptadas
por agricultores durante milénios». Além disso, referem o risco de inviabilizar «os sistemas informais de troca e venda
de sementes que são a base da segurança alimentar, nomeadamente em países em desenvolvimento».

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

1. Confirma a aprovação, pelo Colégio de Comissários, da referida proposta?

2. Confirma o seu conteúdo, supramencionado, certamente do interesse das multinacionais do agronegócio, mas
com gravosas consequências para a agrobiodiversidade, para os pequenos agricultores e para a agricultura
familiar?

3. Como pretende garantir que variedades antigas, raras, de polinização aberta, detidas e trocadas desde sempre
pelos agricultores não sejam banidas do mercado e da alimentação das populações?

4. Considera a possibilidade de exclusão, de qualquer regulamento futuro neste domínio, das sementes de
propagação livre e daquelas sobre as quais não recaem direitos de propriedade intelectual e que a troca e cessão
de sementes entre agricultores, pessoas individuais e organizações sem fins lucrativos não seja, em nenhuma
circunstância, posta em causa?

**Resposta dada por Tonio Borg em nome da Comissão**

_(1 de julho de 2013)_

A proposta ( [1] ) foi adotada pelo Colégio de Comissários em 6 de maio de 2013.

A Comissão não pode confirmar o teor da proposta tal como mencionado na pergunta. A legislação proposta não
abrange a utilização de sementes em explorações agrícolas nem em jardins para fins próprios; diz respeito apenas à
produção destinada à comercialização. A troca em espécie entre operadores não profissionais está fora do âmbito de
aplicação da proposta de regulamento. As sementes destinadas exclusivamente aos bancos de genes e às redes de
conservação dos recursos genéticos estão igualmente excluídas do âmbito de aplicação da proposta. As variedades
tradicionais das espécies enumeradas estão registadas ao abrigo de um regime muito flexível e pouco oneroso. As
microempresas estão isentas das taxas de registo de variedades e podem mesmo comercializar material não registado.
Os ensaios com vista à uniformidade das novas variedades terão de ter em consideração o tipo de variedade e de
propagação (polinização livre, híbrida). Estas disposições contribuirão para a continuação da existência de uma ampla
diversidade de variedades antigas e novas, mantendo ao mesmo tempo a transparência do mercado. A proposta
contribuirá, além disso, para a manutenção do importante papel das PME e das microempresas no setor.

A proposta não aborda a questão dos direitos de propriedade intelectual. O regulamento proposto irá desenvolver
regras mais transparentes e flexíveis para os nichos de mercado e para as microempresas e promover, assim, a
conservação e a utilização sustentável dos recursos fitogenéticos.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 262 final: http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/plant_propagation_material/review_eu_rules/index_en.htm

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 511

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005144/13**

**to the Commission**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Proposal for a regulation on the marketing of plant propagating material

Farmers’ organisations and environmental non-governmental organisations in Portugal recently sent a letter to the
President of the Commission in which they claimed that the proposal for a regulation on the marketing of plant
propagating material and, more specifically, the proposed system of compulsory registration and certification will
exacerbate the loss of agricultural biodiversity and that the obligation to register any and all crop varieties, even those
used in kitchen gardens, by traditional farmers or in local markets, will involve prohibitive costs and red tape for
small-scale producers and severely discriminate against open-pollinated, regional and traditional varieties of seeds
and plant propagating material, in favour of industrially produced seeds and those produced by big business.

These organisations consider the aforementioned proposal to be an attack on farmers and the ‘common biocultural
heritage’, which threatens the majority of the tens of thousands of local crop varieties, selected and adapted by
farmers for thousands of years. Moreover, they say there is a risk that informal systems for trading and selling seeds,
which underpin food security, particularly in developing countries, will become unviable.

1. Can the Commission confirm that the College of Commissioners has approved the aforementioned proposal?

2. Can it confirm the content of the proposal, as mentioned above, which is certainly favourable to agri-business
multinationals but which has serious consequences for agricultural biodiversity, small-scale farmers and family
farming?

3. How does it plan to guarantee that old, rare, open-pollinated varieties, which have always been held and traded
by farmers, are not banished from the market and the food chain?

4. Is it considering the possibility of excluding, from any future regulation on this issue, freely propagated seeds
and those which are not covered by intellectual property rights, and ensuring that the trade and sale of seeds between
farmers, individuals and non-profit organisations are not, under any circumstances, put at risk?

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

_(1 July 2013)_

The proposal ( [1] ) was adopted by the College of Commissioners on 6 May 2013.

The Commission cannot confirm the content of the proposal as mentioned in the question. The proposed legislation
does not cover the use of seed on farm or in gardens, for own purposes; it only covers the production intended for
marketing. The exchange in kind between non-professional operators is outside the scope of the proposed
Regulation. Seeds intended exclusively for gene banks and networks of conservation of genetic resources are also
excluded from the scope of the proposal. Traditional varieties of listed species are registered under a very light, lowburden regime. Micro-enterprises are exempted from variety registration fees and even can market non-registered
material. Testing for the uniformity of new varieties will have to take the type of variety and propagation into account
(open pollination, hybrid). These provisions will contribute to the continued existence of broad diversity of old and
new varieties while maintaining the transparency of the market. The proposal will furthermore help to maintain the
important role of SMEs and micro-enterprises in the sector.

The proposal does not address intellectual property rights. The proposed Regulation will develop more transparent
and flexible rules for niche markets and micro-enterprises and thus promote the conservation and sustainable use of
plant genetic resources.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 262 final; http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/plant_propagation_material/review_eu_rules/index_en.htm

C 80 E / 512 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005145/13**

**à Comissão**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Vírus afetando produção de ostras

Solicito à Comissão que me disponibilize a informação de que dispõe relativamente aos impactos do vírus que tem
afetado a produção de ostras em França. Tem conhecimento da presença deste vírus noutros países da UE? Que
medidas tomou ou pensa tomar relativamente a este problema?

**Resposta dada por Tonio Borg em nome da Comissão**

_(24 de junho de 2013)_

A Comissão remete o Senhor Deputado para a resposta dada à pergunta escrita P‐005516/2011 ( [1] ).

A Comissão tem acompanhado a situação resultante do vírus Ostreid herpesvirus-1 μνar (OsHV-1 μνar), desde a sua
identificação em 2008, quando se verificou um aumento da mortalidade das ostras do Pacífico ( _Crassostrea gigas_ ) em
várias zonas de França e, posteriormente, noutros Estados-Membros (Irlanda, Reino Unido, Países Baixos, Espanha e
Itália).

A Comissão não dispõe de dados oficiais sobre o impacto da doença em França. De acordo com os dados
disponíveis ( [2] ), foram tomadas diversas medidas, nomeadamente restrições de circulação e de mistura de lotes de
ostras, o desenvolvimento de técnicas de cultura em águas profundas e o controlo da temperatura da água, que
reduziram o impacto negativo da infeção pelo vírus OsHV-1 μνar.

No intuito de proteger as regiões afetadas, a Comissão adotou o Regulamento (UE) n.° 175/2010 da Comissão ( [3] ), que
prevê a aplicação de medidas harmonizadas para limitar a propagação do vírus. A Comissão reviu essas medidas em
2011 ( [4] ), tendo em conta a evolução da situação e com base em novos dados, nomeadamente um parecer da
Autoridade Europeia para a Segurança dos Alimentos (EFSA) ( [5] ) e a assistência prestada pelo Laboratório de
Referência da União Europeia para as Doenças dos Moluscos (EURL for Molluscs Diseases). Na sequência dessa
revisão legislativa, a Irlanda e o Reino Unido apresentaram programas de vigilância que foram aprovados pela
Comissão e que estão atualmente em aplicação. Os referidos programas incluem medidas de biossegurança contra o
vírus OsHV-1 μνar, restrições à circulação de ostras do Pacífico e mecanismos de controlo específicos.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/pt/parliamentary-questions.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.aquacultureinitiative.eu/FINALprinted.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) JO L 81 de 26.3.2010, p. 19-53.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) JO L 80 de 26.3.2011, p. 15-18.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) EFSA Journal 2010; 8(11): 1894.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 513

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005145/13**

**to the Commission**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Virus affecting oyster production

Can the Commission provide whatever information it has on the impact of the virus that has affected oyster
production in France? Does it know whether this virus has been found in other EU Member States? What action has is
taken or is it planning to take in relation to this problem?

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

_(24 June 2013)_

The Commission would firstly refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question P-005516/2011 ( [1] ).

The Commission has continued to follow the situation caused by the Oyster Herpes Virus-1 microvar (OsHV-1 μνar)
since its identification in 2008, when an increased mortality in Pacific oysters has occurred in several areas in France
and then in other Member States (Ireland, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Spain and Italy).

The Commission does not have official data on the impact of the disease in France. In accordance with available
data ( [2] ), measures such as restrictions of movement and mixing of oyster batches, deep water cultivation technics,
monitoring the water temperature, have been undertaken and have led to a reduction of the negative impact of
OsHV-1 μνar infection.

In order to protect the not affected regions, the Commission adopted Commission Regulation (EU) 175/2010 ( [3] )
which provides harmonised measures limiting the dispersal of the virus. The Commission revised these measures in
2011 ( [4] ) in view of the evolution of the situation and on the basis of new data, notably an opinion provided by the
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) ( [5] ) and the assistance provided by the European Union Reference Laboratory
for Mollusc Diseases. Following this revision of legislation, Ireland and the United Kingdom submitted surveillance
programmes which were approved by the Commission and are currently in place. Those programmes provide for
biosecurity measures against OsHV-1 μνar, restrictions on the movement of Pacific oysters and targeted surveillance.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.aquacultureinitiative.eu/FINALprinted.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) OJ L 81, 26.3.2010, p. 19‐53.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) OJ L 80, 26.3.2011, p. 15‐18.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) EFSA Journal J 2010;8(11):1894.

C 80 E / 514 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005146/13**

**à Comissão**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Degradação da prestação de cuidados de saúde em Portugal — Situação dos hemofílicos

A Associação Portuguesa de Hemofilia (APH) acusou os hospitais de reduzirem a dosagem dos medicamentos e
obrigarem os doentes a deslocarem-se mais vezes para recolher a medicação. Segundo esta associação, as
administrações hospitalares estão a limitar a distribuição da medicação, obrigando os utentes a deslocações mais
frequentes às unidades de saúde, o que afeta particularmente as pessoas que moram longe dos hospitais centrais de
Lisboa, Porto e Coimbra, os únicos que fornecem os medicamente necessários.

A APH denuncia ainda a redução das dosagens por razões orçamentais, o que comporta riscos para o doente, já que
aumenta o perigo de hemorragias, como já se verificou com crianças.

Sendo esta situação mais um exemplo da degradação do Serviço Nacional de Saúde e dos cuidados de saúde prestados
aos portugueses, resultante da aplicação do programa UE-FMI, solicito à Comissão que me informe sobre o seguinte:

1. Está disponível para propor uma rápida alteração das políticas da UE, de modo a evitar uma ainda maior
deterioração da saúde dos portugueses e dos serviços de saúde?

2. Tem conhecimento de situações como a descrita e tem-nas em conta quando realiza as chamadas avaliações ao
cumprimento do programa UE-FMI?

**Resposta dada por Tonio Borg em nome da Comissão**

_(24 de junho de 2013)_

O objetivo geral da reforma dos sistemas de saúde que figuram no Memorando de Entendimento português consiste
em manter o acesso a cuidados de saúde de qualidade, com medidas específicas que incidam sobre a garantia de
ganhos de eficiência através da melhoria da relação qualidade/preço.

As despesas de saúde pública em Portugal, em percentagem do Produto Interno Bruto (PIB), permaneceram estáveis
durante o Programa de Ajustamento Económico, apesar de a crise ter tido impacto no PIB do país. Além disso, nos
últimos anos, as estatísticas disponíveis sobre o sistema de saúde português mostram uma diminuição significativa na
parte da população que indicou cuidados médicos por satisfazer devido a razões económicas (que incluem o preço, a
distância e as listas de espera). A Comissão não está em condições de avaliar se se registou uma deterioração dos
serviços de saúde prestados em Portugal.

A Comissão debate regularmente o impacto sobre o acesso aos cuidados de saúde das medidas aplicadas ao abrigo do
Memorando de Entendimento, como parte do diálogo em curso que mantém com os Estados-Membros em causa.
Nesse contexto, a Comissão não foi informada de situações similares à apresentada pelo Senhor Deputado.

A Comissão continua a acompanhar de perto a situação em Portugal e, em especial, as questões relacionadas com a
qualidade das despesas públicas no domínio da saúde e do acesso aos cuidados de saúde.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 515

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005146/13**

**to the Commission**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Deterioration in healthcare services in Portugal — situation of haemophiliacs

The Portuguese Haemophilia Association (APH) has accused hospitals of reducing drug doses and forcing patients to
travel more often to collect their medication. According to the association, hospital administrations are limiting the
supply of drugs, forcing patients to make more frequent trips to health centres, which particularly affects those who
live far away from the central hospitals in Lisbon, Porto and Coimbra, the only hospitals that supply the necessary
drugs.

The APH also claims that dosages have been reduced for budgetary reasons, which is risky for patients, given that it
increases the risk of haemorrhage, as has already happened in children.

This situation is yet another example of how the Portuguese National Health Service and the healthcare provided to
Portuguese citizens has deteriorated as a result of the EU-IMF programme.

1. Is the Commission prepared to propose a rapid amendment of EU policy, in order to prevent a further
deterioration in Portuguese public health and health services?

2. Is the Commission aware of other situations similar to that set out above and does it take account of them when
it carries out EU-IMF programme ‘compliance assessments’?

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

_(24 June 2013)_

The overall aim of health system reforms featured in the Portuguese Memorandum of Understanding is to maintain
access to quality healthcare, with specific measures focusing on securing efficiency gains by increasing value for

money.

The Portuguese public health expenditure in percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP) has remained stable
during the Economic Adjustment Programme, even though the crisis had an impact on the country's GDP.
Furthermore, in recent years the available statistics on the Portuguese healthcare system show a significant decrease in
the share of the population which reported unmet medical needs because of economic reasons (which include price,
distance and waiting lists). The Commission is not in a position to judge that there has been deterioration in health
services provided in Portugal.

The Commission regularly discusses the impact on access to healthcare of the measures implemented under
Memoranda of Understanding, as part of the ongoing dialogue it holds with the concerned Member States. The
Commission has not been informed in that context of situations similar to the one presented by the Honourable
Member.

The Commission continues to closely monitor the situation in Portugal and in particular issues related to quality of
public spending in health and access to healthcare.

C 80 E / 516 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005147/13**

**à Comissão**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Fase-piloto das obrigações de projeto

Pode a Comissão prestar informações sobre quais os projetos concretos que neste momento existem no âmbito da
fase‐piloto das obrigações de projeto («project-bonds»), quais os países e quais os montantes envolvidos (indicando a
sua proveniência e detalhando, designadamente, que parte corresponde a fundos públicos e que parte corresponde a
investimento privado)?

**Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão**

_(20 de agosto de 2013)_

Foi realizada com êxito, em julho de 2013, a primeira operação no âmbito da iniciativa relativa à melhoria do risco de
crédito das obrigações para o financiamento de projetos, apoiando o projeto Castor de armazenamento subterrâneo
de gás, que permitirá armazenar 30 % do consumo diário de gás em Espanha. A emissão de obrigações Castor, no
valor de 1,4 mil milhões de EUR, foi apoiada pelo Banco Europeu de Investimento, num total de 500 milhões de
euros, sob a forma de um aumento de crédito de 200 milhões de EUR e da aquisição de obrigações de 300 milhões de

euros.

O êxito da emissão Castor das primeiras obrigações para financiamento de projetos é um bom sinal do aumento do
apoio ao investimento a longo prazo, fundamental para o crescimento sustentável na Europa. O lançamento de
obrigações para financiamento de projetos é uma iniciativa inovadora no sentido de canalizar o investimento privado
para as infraestruturas e um elemento fundamental para ajudar a estimular o crescimento e o emprego. A fase piloto
constitui um primeiro passo importante na perspetiva do próximo quadro financeiro da UE, salientando o papel do
orçamento da UE como motor de crescimento.

No final de julho, outros oito projetos foram, em princípio, aprovados pelo Conselho de Administração do Banco
Europeu de Investimento (BEI) para financiamento graças à melhoria do risco de crédito das obrigações para
financiamento de projetos. Estes projetos localizam-se na Bélgica, Alemanha, Itália, Eslováquia e Reino Unido.

Os mecanismos globais de financiamento da melhoria do risco de crédito das obrigações para financiamento de
projetos aprovados para estes projetos excedem 1 mil milhões de EUR, sendo uma parte coberta pelo orçamento da
UE. No entanto, as modalidades comerciais desses projetos ainda têm de ser finalizadas e nem todos poderão decidir
utilizar o mecanismo de melhoria do risco de crédito das obrigações para o financiamento de projetos. Somente no
encerramento do exercício, será conhecido o valor do capital próprio, dívida subordinada (via financiamento da
melhoria do risco de crédito das obrigações para financiamento de projetos) e dívida privilegiada (através da emissão
de obrigações prioritárias) e, por conseguinte, a utilização do orçamento da UE.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 517

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005147/13**

**to the Commission**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Project bonds pilot phase

Can the Commission say what specific projects are currently in place as part of the projects bonds pilot phase, which
countries are involved and what are the sums involved (indicating where they come from and specifying, in particular,
the proportion that comes from public funds and the proportion from private investment)?

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

_(20 August 2013)_

The first transaction under the Project Bond Credit Enhancement initiative has successfully taken place in July 2013,
supporting the Castor underground gas storage project that will provide storage for 30% Spain’s daily gas
consumption. The EUR 1.4 billion bond issue by Castor was supported by the European Investment Bank with a total
of EUR 500 million in the form of a EUR 200 million credit enhancement facility and a EUR 300 million purchase of
bonds.

Successful issue by Castor of the first project bond is a welcome sign of increasing support for long-term investment
essential for sustainable growth in Europe. The project bond initiative is an innovative way to unlock private
investment in infrastructure and a key element in helping to boost growth and jobs. The pilot phase is an important
first step in view of the next EU financial framework, underlining the role of the EU budget as an engine for growth.

Further eight projects have, as of end-July, been approved in principle by the Board of Directors of the European
Investment Bank (EIB) for financing through Project Bond Credit Enhancement. These projects are located in Belgium,
Germany, Italy, Slovakia and United Kingdom.

The aggregate Project Bond Credit Enhancement facilities approved for these projects exceed EUR 1 billion of which
the EU budget covers a share. However, the commercial terms of these projects are still to be finalised and not all may,
in the event, decide to utilise the Project Bond Credit Enhancement. Only at financial close will the value of equity,
subordinated debt (via Project Bond Credit Enhancement), and senior debt (through the issue of senior bonds) and
therefore the use of EU budget be known.

C 80 E / 518 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005148/13**

**à Comissão**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Financiamento do BEI às cooperativas

O aumento de capital do Banco Europeu de Investimento aumentou a capacidade de concessão de crédito desta
instituição.

No passado, levantaram-se algumas questões relativamente à possibilidade de o setor cooperativo aceder às linhas de
crédito do BEI.

Considerando o seguinte:

—
O setor cooperativo constitui em diversos Estados-Membros uma realidade económica com um peso que não
pode ser desprezado, existindo cooperativas com intervenção em áreas muito diversificadas, que vão da esfera
produtiva aos serviços;

—
Muitas cooperativas encontram-se hoje numa situação extremamente difícil, em especial (mas não só) nos
países alvo de programas UE-FMI, e o acesso a financiamento pode ser crucial para a sobrevivência de muitas
delas, incluindo para a viabilização de planos de reestruturação;

—
A economia social inspira-se na utilização de princípios económicos como um meio para alcançar objetivos de
coesão económica e social, tendo este setor um papel fundamental na sociedade e devendo ser devidamente
reconhecido, estimulado e apoiado;

Assim, pergunta-se à Comissão:

1. Pode o setor cooperativo, no presente e no futuro, aceder às linhas de financiamento do BEI?

2. Em que condições se poderá verificar esse acesso?

3. Estão definitivamente resolvidos os problemas que no passado dificultaram o acesso do setor cooperativo a
financiamento do BEI?

**Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão**

_(15 de julho de 2013)_

De um modo geral, o «setor cooperativo» pode beneficiar de empréstimos do BEI às PME, desde que as organizações
ou associações cooperativas se enquadrem na definição de PME. Isso significa, nomeadamente, que essas entidades
devem ter uma atividade económica e satisfazer os critérios que definem uma PME na UE, tais como os limiares em
matéria de número de trabalhadores e de independência.

As vantagens decorrentes dos empréstimos do BEI às PME são as seguintes:

—
aumento do montante dos fundos disponíveis, incluindo a obrigação de financiamento complementar por
parte dos bancos parceiros locais;

—
redução do custo da contração de empréstimos pelas PME graças a taxas de juro favoráveis;

—
concessão de empréstimos a longo prazo.

Os empréstimos do BEI às PME são geridos a nível local por bancos comerciais parceiros. No final de 2012, o BEI
contava com a colaboração de mais de 230 instituições financeiras no quadro dos programas de financiamento
especialmente destinados às PME em 24 Estados‐Membros.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 519

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005148/13**

**to the Commission**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ European Investment Bank (EIB) funding for cooperatives

The European Investment Bank’s capital increase has increased the institution’s lending capacity.

Questions have been raised in the past about the cooperative sector’s prospects of accessing EIB credit lines.

— In several Member States, the cooperative sector is a considerably important part of the economy, with
cooperatives operating in a very broad range of areas, from production to services.

— Many cooperatives are now in an extremely difficult situation, particularly (but not only) in countries with an
EU-IMF programme in place, and access to funding may be crucial for the survival of many of them, including for the
viability of restructuring plans.

— The social economy is based on using economic principles as a way of achieving economic and social cohesion
objectives, and this sector plays a fundamental role in society and should be duly recognised, encouraged and
supported.

1. Can the cooperative sector access EIB borrowing facilities now and in the future?

2. Under what conditions will they be able to access these borrowing facilities?

3. Have the problems that made it difficult for the cooperative sector to access EIB funding in the past been
resolved once and for all?

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

_(15 July 2013)_

Overall, the ‘cooperative sector’ is eligible for EIB SME loans, provided that those cooperative organisations or
associations comply with the SME definition. This means in particular that these entities must have an economic
activity and are within the thresholds of the EU definition of an SME, for example in terms of headcounts and
independence.

The benefits of the EIB SME loans are as follows:

—
increasing the amount of funding available, including requiring that additional funding is provided by local
partner banks;

—
reducing the cost of borrowing by small companies through favourable interest rates;

—
providing longer-term loans.

EIB loans for SMEs are managed locally by commercial partner banks. At the end of 2012, the EIB had dedicated SME
funding programmes with more than 230 financial institutions across 24 Member States.

C 80 E / 520 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005149/13**

**à Comissão**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Organizações de Produtores nos setores do arroz e do milho

Numa reunião recente com uma associação de agricultores portuguesa, fui alertado para as restrições associadas à
constituição de Organizações de Produtores (OP). Nos setores do arroz e do milho, por exemplo, os volumes
mínimos de produção anual exigidos impedem muitos pequenos e médios produtores de constituírem OP, mormente
nas zonas do país em que prevalece a pequena propriedade. Muitos pequenos agricultores que, no seu conjunto,
podem apresentar volumes de produção ainda consideráveis, ficam ainda assim aquém do mínimo exigido
(5 000 t/ano).

Pergunto à Comissão se está disponível para rever os volumes mínimos de produção anual exigidos para a
constituição de OP nos setores do arroz e do milho, de forma a ter em devida conta a diversidade de situações
existentes nos diferentes Estados-Membros. Considera a possibilidade de reduzir esse valor para, pelo menos,
3 000 t/ano?

**Resposta dada por Dacian Cioloş em nome da Comissão**

_(20 de junho de 2013)_

No atual regime de apoio à agricultura na UE não estão previstas organizações de produtores nos setores do arroz e
dos cereais, embora nada impeça a constituição de tais organizações segundo a regulamentação nacional e regidas
pelas suas próprias condições.

Em 12 de outubro de 2011, a Comissão apresentou um conjunto de propostas legislativas no sentido de tornar a PAC
uma política mais eficaz, na perspetiva de uma agricultura mais competitiva e sustentável e de dinamização das zonas
rurais.

Entre as propostas legislativas acima mencionadas conta-se o alargamento da cobertura dos produtos para efeitos de
reconhecimento das organizações de produtores e suas associações, bem como das organizações interprofissionais,
pelos Estados-Membros, passando a incluir todos os setores da atual OCM única, que estabelece regras para a
organização comum dos mercados agrícolas. A intenção da Comissão é que aspetos como a dimensão e o volume da
produção comercializada necessários para alcançar o reconhecimento de uma organização de produtores sejam
regidos por atos delegados, incumbindo a sua determinação aos Estados-Membros.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 521

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005149/13**

**to the Commission**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Producers organisations in the rice and maize sectors

At a recent meeting with a Portuguese farmers’ association, my attention was drawn to restrictions on the
establishment of producer organisations (POs). In the rice and maize sectors, for example, the minimum annual
production volumes required preclude many small and medium-sized producers from forming POs, especially in
parts of the country where small holdings predominate. Many small-scale farmers who, together, can make up
production volumes that are nonetheless considerable, still fall short of the required minimum (5 000 tonnes/year).

Is the Commission prepared to revise the minimum annual production volumes required to establish POs in the rice
and maize sectors, so that due account is taken of the different situations in the various Member States. Will it
consider the possibility of reducing this figure to at least 3 000 tonnes/year?

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

_(20 June 2013)_

In the current scheme of EU agricultural support, there are no producer organisations provided for in the rice and
cereal sectors, although there is nothing to prevent the establishment of such organisations under national rules with
their own conditions.

On 12 October 2011, the Commission presented a set of legal proposals designed to make the CAP a more effective
policy for a more competitive and sustainable agriculture and vibrant rural areas.

Among the abovementioned legal proposals, the product coverage for recognition of producer organisations and
their associations as well as interbranch organisations by Member States is expanded to all sectors in the current
Single CMO which lays down rules for the common organisation of agricultural markets. The Commission's
intention is that issues such as size and volume of marketed production that might be necessary for the attainment of
recognition of a PO will be regulated by means of delegated acts and may be left to Member States to determine.

C 80 E / 522 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005150/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(8 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Abertura e democratização da União

«A Europa será aberta e democrática, ou então falhará», disse o senhor Presidente da Comissão Europeia na abertura
de uma conferência sobre o aprofundamento da União Económica e Monetária em Bruxelas.

José Manuel Durão Barroso afirmou que a União Europeia «não pode existir sem um debate político democrático
verdadeiramente desenvolvido».

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

—
Por que formas poderá a União Europeia reforçar as componentes da abertura e da democracia?

—
Que medidas advoga para concretizar esse reforço?

—
Qual o papel reservado aos Estados no esforço de abertura e de democratização preconizado?

—
Como poderá ser concretizar-se o propósito de conseguir um debate político democrático verdadeiramente
desenvolvido?

**Resposta dada pelo Presidente José Manuel Barroso em nome da Comissão**

_(19 de junho de 2013)_

O funcionamento da União baseia-se na democracia representativa e todos os cidadãos têm o direito de participar na
vida democrática da União (artigo 10.° do TUE). A partir desta base sólida, devemos sempre esforçar-nos por alargar e
aprofundar os nossos direitos democráticos inalienáveis e reforçar a transparência no processo de tomada de
decisões.

No seu discurso, em 7 de maio de 2013, durante a conferência sobre o Plano pormenorizado da Comissão relativo à
UEM, o Presidente da Comissão tornou claro que tem de existir um verdadeiro debate público europeu para
promover o elemento da união política, que é um complemento essencial à integração orçamental e económica.

O apoio público para a Europa exige uma mudança de atitude dos dirigentes políticos no sentido da criação de uma
esfera política genuinamente europeia. Os partidos políticos e os grupos parlamentares e os seus líderes têm a
responsabilidade de comunicar com os cidadãos, liderar o debate e responder às preocupações dos eleitores. O debate
na Europa deve envolver os deputados do Parlamento Europeu, os deputados dos parlamentos nacionais, os
governos, os académicos, as pessoas da cultura e da ciência, os criadores, e, sobretudo, os próprios cidadãos.

As eleições europeias de 2014 serão cruciais para a tarefa de tornar a Europa mais democrática e aberta. Todas as
principais forças políticas devem aproveitar esta oportunidade para estabelecer um verdadeiro debate europeu e para
chamar a atenção dos cidadãos para as políticas que são necessárias para um futuro próspero e para fazer avançar a
Europa.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 523

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005150/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Openness and democracy in the EU

‘Europe will be open and democratic, or it will fail’, claimed the President of the Commission in his opening speech at
a conference in Brussels on deepening economic and monetary union.

José Manuel Durão Barroso stated that the European Union ‘cannot do without a mature democratic debate.’

— How could the European Union become more open and democratic?

— What steps does the Commission suggest to achieve this?

— What role can Member States play in ensuring openness and democracy, as advocated?

— How can the aim of bringing about a mature democratic debate be achieved?

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

_(19 June 2013)_

The functioning of the European Union is founded on representative democracy, and every citizen has the right to
participate in the democratic life of the Union (Article 10 TEU). From this strong base, we must always strive to
extend and deepen our democratic birthright and strengthen openness in decision-making.

In his speech on 7 May 2013 at the European Commission conference on the ‘Blueprint for EMU’, the President of the
Commission made clear that there needs to be a truly European public debate to underpin the greater element of
political union that is a key complement to fiscal and economic integration.

Public support for Europe requires a change in the attitude of political leaders towards the creation of a genuinely
European political sphere. Political parties and parliamentary groups and their leaders have a responsibility to engage
with citizens, lead the debate and respond to the concerns of voters. The debate in Europe must involve Members of
the European Parliament, members of national parliaments, governments, academics, people of culture and science,
thinkers, and, above all, the citizens themselves.

The European elections in 2014 will be crucial to the task of making Europe more democratic and open. All
mainstream political forces should seize this opportunity to have a truly European debate and to focus citizens on the
policies that are required to build a prosperous future and advance Europe.

C 80 E / 524 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005151/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(8 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Acidificação das águas do Oceano Árctico

Cientistas do Center for International Climate and Environmental Research em Oslo, na Noruega, têm estado a
acompanhar as mudanças na composição química das águas em vastas porções dos mares da região ártica. Segundo
os especialistas, mesmo que as emissões cessassem agora, levaria milhares de anos para que a composição química do
Oceano Ártico fosse invertida para o seu estado original, anterior ao início da atividade industrial no planeta. Muitas
criaturas, incluindo espécies de peixes com alto valor comercial, podem ser afetadas. A vulnerabilidade do Ártico é
agravada por quantidades cada vez maiores de água fresca provenientes de rios e gelo terrestre derretido — já que a
água fresca é menos efetiva em neutralizar quimicamente os efeitos acidificantes do CO 2 . Os pesquisadores afirmam
que os mares nórdicos estão a acidificar-se em diferentes profundidades, embora mais rapidamente nas camadas mais
superficiais.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

—
Dispõe de informações acerca desta situação?

—
Conhece situações similares em águas da União Europeia?

—
Estará disponível para promover estudos visando a reversão do processo de degradação da composição
química das águas do Ártico?

**Resposta dada por Janez Potočnik em nome da Comissão**

_(21 de junho de 2013)_

A Comissão está consciente do problema da acidificação, tanto no Oceano Ártico como nas águas da UE, facto que
acentua de forma dramática a urgência da necessidade de reduzir as emissões de CO 2 a nível mundial.

Esta questão foi salientada no documento de trabalho dos serviços da Comissão [SWD (2013) 133 final] que
acompanha a estratégia da UE para a adaptação às alterações climáticas, adotada em 16 de abril. A plataforma
_Climat ADAPT_ (plataforma europeia para a adaptação climática) ( [1] ) contém mais informações sobre a questão. Além
disso, a Comissão está a analisar os relatórios elaborados pelos Estados-Membros no âmbito da Diretiva‐
Quadro «Estratégia Marinha» (2008/56/CE) e tenciona apresentar as suas conclusões no final de 2013. As conclusões
deverão conter informações sobre a acidificação e seus impactes.

O Sétimo Programa-Quadro apoia a investigação extensiva no sentido de melhorar a compreensão do problema da
acidificação dos oceanos. Entre os projetos em curso neste domínio incluem-se:

1. _Epoca_ ( [2] ) — corresponde ao primeiro grande esforço de investigação internacional da acidificação do Oceano
Árctico;

2. _CoralFISH_ ( [3] ) — debruça‐se sobre a ameaça de acidificação global dos corais‐rocha nas águas frias;

3. _Eurobasin_ ( [4] ) — investiga a resposta do ecossistema pelágico ao aumento da acidificação no Atlântico Norte;

4. _Hermione_ ( [5] ) — confirmou o declínio drástico da calcificação das águas frias no mar Mediterrâneo, devido à
acidificação dos oceanos induzida por factores antropogénicos;

5. _MEECE_ ( [6] ) — explorará os impactes dos fatores induzidos pelo homem e pelo clima nos ecossistemas
marinhos, incluindo a acidificação dos oceanos.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Epoca — European Project on Ocean Acidification (2008-2012) — http://www.epoca-project.eu/
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) CoralFISH, aprecia a interação entre corais, peixes e pescarias, no intuito de criar ferramentas de modelização para controlo e previsão a utilizar

numa gestão baseada no ecossistema, nas águas profundas europeias e não europeias (2008-2013) — http://www.eu-fp7-coralfish.net/

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Eurobasin — European Union Basin-scale Analysis, Synthesis and Integration (2010-2014) — http://www.euro-basin.eu/
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Hermione — Hotspot ecosystem research and Man's impact on European seas (2009-2012) — http://www.eu-hermione.net/
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) MEECE — Marine ecosystem evolution in a changing environment (2008-2013) — http://www.meece.eu/

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

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 525

6. _MedSeA_ ( [7] ) — investiga a acidificação dos oceanos e seus impactes ecológicos e socioeconómicos no mar
Mediterrâneo.

A Comissão continuará a apoiar a investigação neste domínio.

( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) MedSeA — Mediterranean Sea Acidification in a changing climate (2011-2014) — http://medsea-project.eu/

C 80 E / 526 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005151/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Acidification of the waters of the Arctic Ocean

Scientists from the Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo, Norway, have been
monitoring changes in the chemical composition of the waters in large stretches of the seas in the Arctic region.
According to the experts, even if emissions stopped now, it would take thousands of years for the chemical
composition of the Arctic Ocean to return to pre-industrial levels. Many creatures, including commercially valuable
species of fish, could be affected. The Arctic’s vulnerability is exacerbated by increasing quantities of fresh water from
rivers and melting land ice, as fresh water is less effective at chemically neutralising the acidifying effects of CO 2 .
According to the researchers, the Nordic Seas are acidifying over a range of depths, though more quickly in the strata
nearer the surface.

— What information does the Commission have about this situation?

— Is it aware of similar situations in EU waters?

— Would it be prepared to promote studies to reverse this deterioration in the chemical composition of Arctic
waters?

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

_(21 June 2013)_

The Commission is aware of the problem of acidification both in the Arctic Ocean and in EU waters, which
dramatically reinforces the urgent need to reduce CO 2 emissions globally.

The Staff Working Document (SWD(2013) 133 final) accompanying the ‘EU Strategy on adaptation to climate
change’ adopted on 16 April highlighted this issue. Further information can be found on Climate ADAPT (European
Climate Adaptation Platform) ( [1] ). In addition, the Commission is analysing the reports prepared by the Member States
under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) and intends to present its findings towards the end of
2013. The findings are expected to present information on acidification and its impacts.

The 7th Framework Programme is supporting extensive research to improve understanding of ocean acidification.
Projects include:

1. EPOCA ( [2] ) the first large international research effort on Arctic Ocean acidification;

2. CoralFISH ( [3] ) on the global acidification threat to cold-water stony corals;

3. EUROBASIN ( [4] ) on the pelagic ecosystem response to increasing ocean acidification in the North Atlantic;

4. HERMIONE ( [5] ) confirmed the drastic decline of cold-water calcification in the Mediterranean Sea due to
anthropogenic-induced ocean acidification;

5. MEECE ( [6] ) will explore the impacts of both climate‐ and human-induced drivers on marine ecosystems,
including ocean acidification;

6. MedSeA ( [7] ) is targeting ocean acidification and its ecological and socioeconomic impacts in the Mediterranean
Sea.

The Commission will continue to support research on acidification.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )
⋅7∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) EPOCA — European Project on Ocean Acidification (2008-2012) http://www.epoca-project.eu/
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) CoralFISH — Assessment of the interaction between corals, fish and fisheries, in order to develop monitoring and predictive modelling tools for

ecosystem based management in the deep waters of Europe and beyond (2008-2013), http://www.eu-fp7-coralfish.net/

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) EUROBASIN — European Union Basin-scale Analysis, Synthesis and Integration (2010-2014), http://www.euro-basin.eu/
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) HERMIONE — Hotspot ecosystem research and Man's impact on European seas (2009-2012), http://www.eu-hermione.net/
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) MEECE — Marine ecosystem evolution in a changing environment (2008-2013), http://www.meece.eu/
( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) MedSeA — Mediterranean Sea Acidification in a changing climate (2011-2014), http://medsea-project.eu/

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

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 527

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005152/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(8 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Nova lei do arrendamento em Espanha: proibição do arrendamento a turistas

Notícias recentes dão conta de que a futura lei do arrendamento a vigorar em Espanha contempla disposições que, na
prática, dificultariam ou mesmo proibiriam o arrendamento de imóveis a turistas por parte dos particulares. Esta
medida visa, alegadamente, proteger o setor da hotelaria.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

—
Dispõe de informações acerca desta situação?

—
Existem disposições semelhantes noutros países da União?

—
Considera-as legítimas?

**Resposta dada por Michel Barnier em nome da Comissão**

_(23 de julho de 2013)_

A Comissão não recebeu qualquer informação oficial sobre o novo projeto de lei relativo ao arrendamento em
Espanha, mas teve conhecimento desse projeto através da imprensa. De acordo com as informações recolhidas, os
proprietários de habitações terão de obter uma autorização especial (ou licença) para o arrendamento de imóveis a
turistas.

Dependendo do seu âmbito preciso, a nova lei poderia constituir uma restrição aos direitos de propriedade ou estar
abrangida pelas disposições em matéria de liberdade de prestação de serviços. Se o arrendamento de imóveis for
considerado uma prestação de serviços, os requisitos de autorização constituiriam uma restrição à liberdade de
estabelecimento, conforme reconhecido na jurisprudência do Tribunal de Justiça da União Europeia e disposto no
artigo 9.°, n.° 1, da Diretiva 2006/123/CE relativa aos serviços no mercado interno («Diretiva Serviços»).

Podem ser mantidos regimes de autorização desde que não sejam discriminatórios e sejam justificados por razões de
interesse geral e proporcionados. Além disso, têm de respeitar o disposto nos artigos 10.° a 13.° da Diretiva Serviços.
Exemplos de razões imperativas de interesse público que podem justificar requisitos de autorização são: a defesa dos
consumidores e a proteção do ambiente urbano e do planeamento urbano. Quando da imposição de medidas por
essas razões, o Estado-Membro deve demonstrar que essas medidas são proporcionadas e que não existem meios
menos restritivos para dar cumprimento a essas razões imperativas de interesse público.

A Comissão não tem conhecimento da existência de disposições similares noutros países da UE.

C 80 E / 528 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005152/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ New Spanish rent law: ban on renting to tourists

According to recent reports, the new rent law to enter into force in Spain contains provisions that will, in practice,
make it difficult for individuals to rent property to tourists or even ban it outright. This measure is allegedly intended
to safeguard the hotel sector.

— Does the Commission have any information about this situation?

— Are there similar provisions in other EU countries?

— Does it believe they are legitimate?

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

_(23 July 2013)_

The Commission had not received any official information about the new draft law on property rental in Spain, but
has learned about it from the press. According to the information gathered, home owners will need a special
authorisation (or license) to rent properties to tourists.

Depending on its precise scope, the new law could constitute a restriction to property rights or fall within the
provisions of freedom to provide services. If property rental was to be considered service provision, authorisation
requirements would constitute a restriction to the freedom of establishment, as acknowledged by the case law of the
Court of Justice of the European Union and according to Article 9(1) of Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the
internal market (‘Services Directive’).

Authorisation schemes may be maintained if they are non-discriminatory, justified by the public interest and
proportionate. Moreover, they need to comply with Articles 10 to 13 of the Services Directive. Examples of
overriding reasons of public interest that can justify authorisation requirements include: the protection of consumers,
the protection of the urban environment and town planning. When imposing measures on such grounds, a Member
State should demonstrate that they are proportionate and that there are no less restrictive means to protect these
overriding grounds of public interest.

The Commission is not aware that similar provisions exist in other EU countries.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 529

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005153/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(8 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Dia Europeu da Insuficiência Cardíaca

O Dia Europeu da Insuficiência Cardíaca é assinalado no dia 11 de maio com iniciativas que têm como objetivo
alertar para esta doença.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

—
Participa ou promove iniciativas visando alertar as populações para esta doença?

—
Quais e que resultados destaca?

—
Em que medida pode contribuir para aumentar a consciencialização dos cidadãos quanto aos riscos a evitar e os
principais cuidados a ter?

**Resposta dada por Tonio Borg em nome da Comissão**

_(24 de junho de 2013)_

O Dia Europeu da Insuficiência Cardíaca de 2013 foi organizado pelas associações nacionais de doentes cardíacos,
com o apoio da Associação de Insuficiência Cardíaca, um ramo registado da Sociedade Europeia de Cardiologia.

Embora a Comissão apoie os objetivos gerais do Dia Europeu da Insuficiência Cardíaca, não se associou a
manifestações específicas para esse evento, que tiveram lugar a nível regional.

No que diz respeito à sensibilização do público para a insuficiência cardíaca, a Comissão está a concentrar a sua
atividade nos principais fatores de risco. Trata‐se essencialmente do tabaco, através da ação legislativa sobre os
produtos do tabaco e de campanhas de sensibilização; da obesidade, através da colaboração com os Estados‐Membros
e as partes interessadas no sentido de aplicar a estratégia da UE em matéria de problemas de saúde ligados à nutrição,
ao excesso de peso e à obesidade; e do consumo nocivo de álcool, através da estratégia da União Europeia para ajudar
os Estados‐Membros a combater os efeitos nocivos do álcool.

C 80 E / 530 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005153/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ European Heart Failure Awareness Day

European Heart Failure Awareness Day is being held on 11 May 2013, with initiatives to raise awareness about the
disease.

— Does the Commission participate in or promote initiatives aimed at raising public awareness about this disease?

— What results can it highlight?

— To what extent can it help raise public awareness about the risks to avoid and the main preventative measures to
take?

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

_(24 June 2013)_

The European Heart Failure Awareness Day 2013 was organised by national heart associations with the support of
the Heart Failure Association, a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology.

While the Commission supports the general aims of the European Heart Failure Awareness Day, it was not involved
in specific events during the Day, which took place at regional level.

With regards to raising public awareness on heart failure, the Commission is concentrating its work on key risk
factors. These are mainly Tobacco, through legislative action on tobacco products and awareness-raising campaigns;
obesity through work with Member States and stakeholders to implement the EU Strategy on nutrition, overweight,
and obesity-related health issues; and on harmful use of alcohol, through the EU Strategy to support Member States in
addressing alcohol-related harm.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 531

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005154/13**

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

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(8 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Mar da Guiné-Bissau confiado à proteção da Cedeao

O Chefe do Estado-Maior General das Forças Armadas da Guiné-Bissau, António Indjai, após um encontro que
manteve com o Presidente de transição, Manuel Serifo Nhamadjo, com a participação da delegação das Forças
Armadas da Nigéria, chefiada pelo Comodoro Uié Delé, anunciou que o território marítimo guineense vai ser
confiado à proteção da Cedeao, em particular da Nigéria.

«Pedimos à Cedeao, à sua força marítima e, especialmente, à Nigéria, que protejam o nosso mar da pirataria e do
narcotráfico, porque não temos meios para patrulharmos o nosso mar», disse António Indjai.

Assim, pergunto à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante:

—
Que comentários lhe merecem estas declarações de António Indjai? Concorda com esta decisão?

—
Considera o pedido das autoridades militares da Guiné-Bissau mais uma confissão de que o processo de
transição não surtiu os efeitos desejados e que agravou ainda mais as condições do exercício das funções de
soberania por parte da Guiné-Bissau?

—
Após a realização de eleições e o retorno à ordem constitucional democrática, a Comissão estaria disposta a
avaliar a possibilidade de colaborar com a Guiné-Bissau, a Cedeao e demais parceiros internacionais no sentido
de procurar dotar a Guiné-Bissau de meios para controlar as respetivas águas territoriais?

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

_(28 de junho de 2013)_

Temos conhecimento de que estas questões estão a ser discutidas a nível local e aguardamos informações adicionais.

Regozijamo-nos com a recente aprovação pela Assembleia Nacional de um novo pacto de transição entre os dois
principais partidos e aguardamos um roteiro para a realização de eleições antes do final do ano.

A UE aguarda com expectativa a possibilidade de cooperar com um governo legítimo resultante de eleições
democráticas na Guiné-Bissau, bem como com os parceiros regionais e internacionais com vista a melhorar a
segurança marítima e combater o tráfico ilícito.

C 80 E / 532 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005154/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Seas of Guinea-Bissau put under the protection of the Economic Community of West African States
(Ecowas)

After a meeting with the interim President, Manuel Serifo Nhamadjo, also attended by a delegation from the Nigerian
armed forces, headed by Commodore Uié Delé, the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of Guinea-Bissau, António
Indjai, announced that the maritime territory of Guinea-Bissau was to be put under the protection of Ecowas and, in
particular, Nigeria.

António Indjai said that they were asking Ecowas, its navy and, in particular, Nigeria, to protect their seas against
piracy and drug trafficking, because they did not have the means to patrol their own seas.

— What does the Vice-President/High Representative have to say about António Indjai’s statements? Does she agree
with this decision?

— Does she believe the request by the military of Guinea-Bissau is more an admission that the transition process has
not lived up to expectations and that it has made it even harder for Guinea-Bissau to exercise its sovereign powers?

— After Guinea-Bissau holds elections and restores constitutional democracy, would the Commission be prepared to
consider collaborating with the country, Ecowas and other international partners in an attempt to give Guinea-Bissau
the means to manage its territorial waters?

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

_(28 June 2013)_

We understand such matters have been discussed locally, and are awaiting further information.

We appreciate the recent approval by the National Assembly of a new transition pact among the main two parties and
await a roadmap to elections, to take place before the end of the year.

The EU looks forward to cooperating with a legitimate government resulting from democratic elections in GuineaBissau, as well as with regional and international partners with the objective of improving maritime security and
fighting illegal trafficking.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 533

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005155/13**

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

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(8 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Mar de Timor: espionagem australiana

O Primeiro-Ministro de Timor-Leste, Xanana Gusmão, confirmou à agência noticiosa portuguesa Lusa as acusações
de espionagem feitas à Austrália relacionadas com acesso a informação confidencial durante as negociações sobre o
gás e o petróleo do Mar de Timor.

Em causa está o Tratado sobre Determinados Ajustes Marítimos no Mar de Timor (CMATS, sigla em inglês) assinado
pelos dois países em 2007 para facilitar a exploração de gás e petróleo no Mar de Timor, na zona fora da Área
Conjunta de Desenvolvimento do Petróleo (JPDA). O Tratado possibilita que Timor-Leste ou a Austrália o denunciem
caso não tenha sido aprovado o Plano de Desenvolvimento do Greater Sunrise seis anos após ter entrado em vigor,
prazo que terminou em fevereiro.

No final de abril, Timor-Leste enviou uma notificação a Camberra, onde afirmava que o Tratado entre os dois países
era inválido porque a Austrália tinha feito espionagem durante as negociações do mesmo. Na sua acusação, TimorLeste refere que os negociadores australianos tinham na sua posse informação confidencial, relevante para os
negociadores timorenses. Aguarda-se a resposta australiana.

Assim, pergunto à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante:

—
Que comentários lhe merecem as declarações do Primeiro-Ministro Xanana Gusmão?

—
Contactou as autoridades australianas e timorenses a este respeito? Que respostas obteve?

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

_(3 de julho de 2013)_

A AR/VP tem conhecimento dos desenvolvimentos que o Senhor Deputado refere na sua questão.

Timor-Leste e a Austrália são responsáveis pelas suas relações bilaterais enquanto Estados soberanos e vizinhos
próximos.

Por conseguinte, as declarações citadas do Primeiro-Ministro de Timor-Leste, Xanana Gusmão, bem como as
negociações do Tratado entre Timor-Leste e a Austrália não carecem da intervenção direta ou do envolvimento da UE.

C 80 E / 534 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005155/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Timor Sea: espionage by Australia

The Prime Minister of Timor-Leste, Xanana Gusmão, has confirmed to the Portuguese news agency Lusa that
accusations of espionage have been levelled at Australia over it accessing confidential information during
negotiations on gas and oil in the Timor Sea.

At stake is the Treaty on Certain Maritime Arrangements in the Timor Sea (CMATS), signed by the two countries in
2007 to facilitate exploitation of gas and oil in the Timor Sea, in the area outside the Joint Petroleum Development
Area (JPDA). The treaty enables Timor-Leste or Australia to terminate it if a development plan for the Greater Sunrise
field has not been approved six years after the treaty’s entry into force. That six-year period ended in February.

In correspondence sent to Canberra in late April, Timor-Leste claimed that the treaty between the two countries was
invalid because Australia had engaged in espionage when the treaty was being negotiated. As part of its accusation,
Timor-Leste claims that the Australian negotiators were in possession of confidential information relevant to the East
Timorese negotiators. Australia is yet to reply.

— What does the Commission have to say about Prime Minister Xanana Gusmão’s statements?

— Has it contacted the Australian and East Timorese authorities about this matter? What answers has it received?

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

_(3 July 2013)_

The HR/VP is aware of the developments referred to in the Honourable Member's question.

Timor-Leste and Australia are responsible for their bilateral relations as sovereign states and close neighbours.

Therefore the quoted statements by the Timor-Leste Prime Minister Gusmao, as well as the Timor-Leste — Australia
Treaty negotiations do not require any direct intervention or involvement of the EU.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 535

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005156/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(8 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Crise do Euro: declarações de Oskar Lafontaine

O ex-Ministro das Finanças alemão Oskar Lafontaine, considerado um dos fundadores do euro, defendeu o fim da
moeda única, com a finalidade de permitir a recuperação dos países do sul da Europa. Num comunicado colocado no
_site_ do Partido de Esquerda do Parlamento alemão, Lafontaine argumenta que as políticas de austeridade estão a ter
impactos negativos, com a situação económica a piorar todos os meses e o desemprego a atingir níveis que colocam
as «estruturas democráticas em questão».

Como solução para os problemas europeus, Lafontaine defende a reestruturação do sistema bancário, o regresso ao
Sistema Monetário Europeu e medidas de controlo mais rigorosas sobre os credores.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

—
Que comentário lhe merece as declarações de Oskar Lafontaine?

—
Considera as soluções por ele apontadas adequadas para a resolução dos problemas hoje sentidos pelos países
da zona euro? Por que motivos?

**Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão**

_(17 de junho de 2013)_

Não é política da Comissão apresentar observações sobre declarações individuais por parte dos responsáveis políticos
nos Estados-Membros.

C 80 E / 536 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005156/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Euro crisis: statements by Oskar Lafontaine

The former German Finance Minister, Oskar Lafontaine, considered to be one of the founders of the euro, has argued
that the single currency should be done away with, in order to allow the southern European countries to recover. In a
statement on the website of the German political party The Left, Mr Lafontaine argues that austerity policies are
having negative effects, with the economic situation getting worse every month and unemployment reaching levels
that threaten democratic structures.

As a solution to the EU’s problems, Mr Lafontaine advocates restructuring the banking system, a return to the
European Monetary System and stricter controls on lenders.

— What does the Commission have to say about Oskar Lafontaine’s statements?

— Does it think the solutions he proposes are right for resolving the problems currently facing the euro area
countries? On what basis?

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

_(17 June 2013)_

It is not the Commission's policy to comment on individual statements by policymakers in Member States.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 537

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005157/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(8 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Venda de medicamentos na internet

A farmacêutica Pfizer abriu uma página na Internet que permite comprar Viagra _online_ nos EUA, depois de ter
considerado o produto de disfunção erétil com maior taxa de falsificação, anunciou a empresa.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

Considera que a solução encontrada pela farmacêutica diminui os riscos para a saúde pública do uso de
medicamentos contrafeitos ou, pelo contrário, que esta decisão poderá incutir nos consumidores maior sensação de
segurança e assim causar um aumento do uso de produtos que deveriam ser prescritos por médicos e,
consequentemente, aumentar os riscos para a saúde pública?

**Resposta dada por Tonio Borg em nome da Comissão**

_(17 de junho de 2013)_

Na venda de medicamentos pela Internet, a Comissão considera que é essencial que seja dada a possibilidade aos
doentes de identificar as farmácias e/ou retalhistas de medicamentos cuja atividade é legal. Quando haja necessidade
de vender de medicamentos pela Internet, não se dispensará a necessidade de apresentar receita para certos
medicamentos, em conformidade com a legislação aplicável.

A Comissão gostaria de informar o Senhor Deputado de que, no quadro da aplicação do artigo 85.°-C da Diretiva
2001/83/CE ( [1] ), com a redação que lhe foi dada pela Diretiva 2011/62/UE ( [2] ), a Comissão estabelecerá um logótipo
comum que permitirá a identificação de farmácias e/ou retalhistas de medicamentos cuja atividade na EU é legal.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) JO L 311 de 28.11. 2001, p. 67.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) JO L 174 de 1.7.2011, p. 74.

C 80 E / 538 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005157/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Online sale of medicines

The pharmaceutical company Pfizer has launched a webpage where users can purchase Viagra online in the United
States, Viagra having been deemed the most commonly falsified erectile dysfunction drug, according to the company.

Does the Commission think that the solution struck upon by Pfizer reduces public health risks linked to the use of
counterfeit drugs or, on the contrary, that this decision could give consumers a greater sense of security and thus lead
to increased use of products that should be prescribed by a doctor, thereby leading to increased public health risks?

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

_(17 June 2013)_

On online sale of medicines, the Commission considers that it is essential that patients be given the possibility to
recognise legally operating pharmacies/retailers of medicinal products. The online sale of medicinal products, when
required, shall not waive the need for a prescription for certain medicinal products in accordance with the applicable
legislation.

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that in the framework of the implementation of
Article 85c of Directive 2001/83/EC ( [1] ),as amended by Directive 2011/62/EU ( [2] ), the Commission will establish a
common logo which will enable the identification of legally operating pharmacies/retailers of medicinal products in
the EU.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 311, 28.11. 2001, p. 67.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 174, 01.07.2011, p. 74.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 539

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005158/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(8 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ São Tomé e Príncipe: eventual adiamento das eleições

Recentemente, o presidente da comissão eleitoral nacional de São Tomé e Príncipe anunciou a eventualidade do
adiamento das eleições autárquicas e regionais. Para este adiamento são apontados fatores como a conjuntura
financeira, questões de ordem técnica operacional e a necessidade de o país realizar um recenseamento.

Um problema com a base de dados da comissão eleitoral adquirida pelo Programa das Nações Unidas para o
Desenvolvimento (PNUD) será o principal motivo para o adiamento das eleições autárquicas e regionais de São Tomé
e Príncipe que deveriam ser realizadas no próximo mês de junho.

Aquela comissão admite que, caso o problema técnico seja ultrapassado, as eleições poderão vir a ter lugar entre
agosto e outubro de 2013.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

—
Dispõe de informações acerca destas declarações e dos factos que lhe subjazem?

—
Que comentários lhe merecem?

—
Estará disponível a auxiliar as autoridades santomenses a ultrapassar as dificuldades técnicas e operacionais que
aparentemente podem pôr em causa a realização das eleições, a diligenciar para que estas tenham lugar assim
que for possível e a apoiar as autoridades e serviços competentes na efetivação do recenseamento eleitoral?

—
Admite fazer deslocar a São Tomé e Príncipe uma missão de observação eleitoral aquando da realização das
eleições?

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

_(25 de julho de 2013)_

Na sequência dos debates no Conselho de Estado, que considerou não estarem preenchidas as condições para fixar
uma data para as eleições autárquicas e regionais, o Chefe de Estado propôs realizar essas eleições em 2014, em
concomitância com as eleições legislativas (previstas para julho).

O principal fator apontado pelo Chefe de Estado é a necessidade de atualizar o caderno eleitoral (que data de 2010), a
fim de assegurar que todos os cidadãos com direito de voto o possam fazer (nomeadamente os que fizeram 18 anos
entre 2010 e 2013), o que permitiria reduzir as despesas com a organização das eleições. O Presidente propôs
também tirar partido da situação existente para realizar uma reforma da Comissão Eleitoral Nacional e rever a lei
eleitoral.

Os motivos alegados pelo Presidente têm sido amplamente discutidos no Conselho de Estado. Além disso, a aplicação
das reformas propostas pelo Chefe de Estado seria importante tendo em vista uma maior eficiência e transparência
dos processos eleitorais.

A UE já contribuiu para solucionar os problemas técnicos na base de dados através do projeto UE-PALOP de apoio
aos ciclos eleitorais. Um perito no recenseamento biométrico eleitoral, em apoio à Comissão Nacional Eleitoral,
verificou a base de dados e fez recomendações importantes para resolver os pontos fracos detetados.

No que diz respeito à missão de observação eleitoral, há outras organizações internacionais, como a Comunidade dos
Países de Língua Portuguesa (CPLP) e a Comunidade Económica dos Estados da África Central (CEEAC), que se
encontram em geral presentes. Dada a experiência anterior de processos eleitorais pacíficos, e tendo em conta as
restrições orçamentais da UE, não se afigura necessário organizar uma missão de observação eleitoral da UE a São
Tomé e Príncipe.

C 80 E / 540 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005158/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ São Tomé and Príncipe: possible postponement of elections

The president of the São Tomé and Príncipe national electoral commission recently announced that local and regional
elections may be postponed. The reasons given for this postponement include the financial situation, problems with
technical operations and the need for the country to update its electoral register.

A problem with the electoral commission database acquired by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
is the main reason for postponing the São Tomé and Príncipe local and regional elections due to be held in June.

The electoral commission has suggested that if the technical problem is overcome, the elections could be held
between August and October 2013.

—
Does the Commission have any information about these statements and the underlying facts?

—
What does it have to say about them?

—
Is it willing to assist the São Tomé and Príncipe authorities in overcoming the technical and operational
difficulties that are apparently putting the elections at risk, so that they can take place as soon as possible, and
to support the competent authorities and services in updating the electoral register?

—
Will it send an election observation mission to the elections to be held in São Tomé and Príncipe?

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

_(25 July 2013)_

Following the discussions in the Conselho de Estado (State Council), which considered that the conditions to fix a date
for the local and regional elections are not met, the Head of State proposed to hold these elections in 2014, in
concomitance with the legislative elections (foreseen for July).

The main factor pointed out by the Head of State is the necessity to update the electoral register (dating from 2010) to
ensure the right of all citizens entitled to vote (mainly those who turned 18 between 2010 and 2013) which would
reduce the recurrent costs of organising elections. The President also proposed to take advantage of the prevailing
situation to carry out a reform of the National Electoral Commission and to review the Electoral Law.

The reasons alleged by the President have been widely discussed in the State Council. Moreover, the implementation
of the reforms proposed by the Head of State would be important in view of an improvement of the efficiency and
transparency of the electoral processes.

The EU has already contributed to overcome the technical problems in the database through the EU-PALOP project in
support to electoral cycles. An expert in electoral biometric census, in support to the National Electoral Commission
verified the database and made key recommendations to solve the identified weaknesses.

Concerning the electoral observation mission, other international organisations, such as the Community of
Portuguese Speaking Countries-CPLP and the Economic Community of Central African States-ECCAS are usually
present. Given the past experience of peaceful electoral processes an EU electoral observation mission to Sao Tomé e
Principe is not considered as appropriate, taking into account the EU budget constraints.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 541

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005159/13**

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

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(8 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Síria: Carla del Ponte — uso de armas químicas

Em declarações a um órgão de comunicação social suíço, Carla del Ponte, Membro da Comissão de Inquérito das
Nações Unidas para as Violações dos Direitos Humanos na Síria, revelou que os opositores de Assad recorreram a gás
sarin. «Dispomos de testemunhos sobre a utilização de armas químicas e, em particular, de gás sarin. Não por parte do
Governo, mas dos opositores», referiu del Ponte, antiga Procuradora do Tribunal Penal Internacional para a exJugoslávia.

Estas declarações foram entretanto desmentidas pelo Exército Livre Sírio — Free Syrian Army (FSA). A Casa Branca e
as Nações Unidas declararam ter dúvidas acerca das afirmações de Carla del Ponte.

Assim, pergunto à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante:

—
Dispõe de informações acerca destas declarações e dos factos que lhe subjazem?

—
Que comentários lhe merecem?

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

_(3 de julho de 2013)_

Com base nas informações do domínio público atualmente disponíveis, os serviços da UE consideram que podem ter
sido efetivamente utilizadas substâncias químicas a um nível limitado, com um número reduzido de vítimas. Com
base nos dados disponíveis, não se afigura ainda possível determinar quem recorreu a tais substâncias.

A missão de inquérito nomeada pelo Secretário-Geral Ban-Ki Moon, que inclui membros da Organização para a
Proibição de Armas Químicas (OPAQ/OPCW), procurará unicamente determinar se foram ou não utilizadas armas
químicas e não tirará conclusões sobre a atribuição de qualquer utilização. Espera-se que o regime sírio exprima
brevemente o seu acordo quanto ao envio da missão.

A UE continuará a acompanhar de perto este assunto em consulta com os seus parceiros.

C 80 E / 542 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005159/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Syria: Carla del Ponte on the use of chemical weapons

In statements made to the Swiss media, Carla del Ponte, a member of the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on
human rights violations in Syria, claimed that the rebels opposed to the al-Assad regime had used sarin gas.
Ms del Ponte, former prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia said that there was
evidence that chemical weapons and, in particular, sarin gas had been used, not by the government, but by the
opposition.

These claims have since been refuted by the Free Syrian Army (FAS). The White House and the United Nations have
also cast doubts on Carla del Ponte’s claims.

— Does the Vice-President/High Representative have any information about these claims and the underlying facts?

— What does she have to say on the matter?

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

_(3 July 2013)_

On the basis of currently available open source information, the EU services assess that chemical substances might in
fact have been used at a limited level with limited number of casualties. Based on current evidence, it does not seem to
be possible yet to determine who used it.

The investigation by the mission appointed by SG Ban-ki Moon that includes members of the Organisation for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) will seek to determine only whether or not chemical weapons were used
and will not draw any conclusions as to the attribution of any use. It is hoped that the Syrian regime will soon agree to
the deployment of the mission.

EU will continue to monitor very closely this matter in consultation with its partners.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 543

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005160/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(8 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Wolfgang Schäuble: desemprego jovem

O ministro das finanças alemão declarou recentemente em Estugarda: «O desemprego jovem nalguns países é tão
elevado que estou firmemente convencido, e digo-o as vezes que forem necessárias, que se for preciso devemos usar
medidas pouco convencionais, que podem não ser 100 % ortodoxas, para dar alguma esperança a estas pessoas».

Na mesma ocasião, Wolfgang Schäuble afirmou: «Não podemos permitir que o primeiro contacto de uma geração
inteira com o mercado de trabalho seja a de que não são necessários. A Europa não conseguiria resistir a isso», realçou.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

—
Que comentários lhe merecem as declarações do ministro alemão?

—
Em que medida pretende seguir as suas recomendações e procurar soluções, ainda que pouco convencionais e
menos ortodoxas, destinadas a gerar emprego e a infundir uma nova esperança nos europeus, em particular
nos mais jovens? Que medidas tomou ou prevê tomar neste tocante?

**Resposta dada por László Andor em nome da Comissão**

_(4 de julho de 2013)_

A Comissão considera que é necessária uma ação urgente e inovadora para lutar contra o desemprego dos jovens,
razão pela qual adotou o Pacote para o Emprego dos Jovens ( [1] ) ( _Youth Employment Package — YEP_ ) em dezembro de
2012. O _YEP_ inclui uma proposta de recomendação do Conselho relativa a uma Garantia para a Juventude, adotada
pelo Conselho em abril de 2013. A recomendação apela aos Estados-Membros para que garantam que todos os
jovens até aos 25 anos beneficiem de uma oferta de emprego de qualidade, formação contínua, formação em
aprendizagem ou estágio, no prazo de quatro meses após ficarem desempregados ou deixarem o ensino formal.

A comunicação principal do _YEP_ anunciou também uma Aliança Europeia para a Aprendizagem, que a Comissão irá
lançar em julho de 2013, para melhorar a qualidade e a oferta de aprendizagens e promover a excelência na
aprendizagem baseada no trabalho no âmbito do ensino e formação profissionais.

Com base no _YEP_, a Comissão apresentará uma proposta em dezembro de 2013 relativamente a um quadro de
qualidade para os estágios, para ajudar a garantir que os Estados-Membros proporcionem aos jovens experiências de
trabalho de qualidade em condições fiáveis.

O Conselho Europeu de fevereiro de 2013 decidiu afetar um montante de 6 mil milhões de euros a uma Iniciativa
para o Emprego dos Jovens (2014-2020) destinada a apoiar os objetivos do Pacote para o Emprego dos Jovens, e em
especial, a implementação da Garantia para a Juventude.

Em maio de 2012, ficou operacional o regime de mobilidade profissional europeu «O teu primeiro emprego EURES»,
cujo objetivo é ajudar os jovens a encontrar o primeiro emprego em qualquer Estado-Membro e apoiar as empresas
na contratação de jovens de outro Estado-Membro.

Em novembro de 2012, a Comissão decidiu uma reforma da rede EURES com vista a melhorar a correspondência
entre os candidatos a emprego e os empregadores, para se concentrar mais nos jovens, e incluir formas de emprego
que combinem trabalho e oportunidades de formação, como os regimes de aprendizagem.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) «Ajudar à transição dos jovens para o emprego» [COM(2012) 727 final, 5 de dezembro de 2012].

C 80 E / 544 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005160/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Wolfgang Schäuble: youth unemployment

The German Finance Minister recently said in Stuttgart that youth unemployment was so high in some countries that
he was firmly of the opinion, and would repeat it as many times as necessary, that, if required, we had to take
unconventional action that was not 100% orthodox, in order to give some hope to young people.

On the same occasion, Wolfgang Schäuble said that we could not allow a whole generation’s first contact with the
labour market to be being told they were surplus to requirements. He stressed that the EU would not survive this.

— What is the Commission’s response to the German Minister’s statements?

— To what extent does it intend to follow his recommendations and seek solutions, even if unconventional or
unorthodox, to create jobs and give new hope to Europeans, and young people in particular? What steps has it taken
or does it intend to take in this regard?

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

_(4 July 2013)_

The Commission believes that urgent, innovative action is required to fight against youth unemployment, which is
why it adopted the Youth Employment Package ( [1] ) (YEP) in December 2012. The YEP includes a proposal for a
Council recommendation on a Youth Guarantee, which the Council adopted in April 2013. It calls on the Member
States to ensure that all young people under the age of 25 receive a good quality offer of employment, continued
education, an apprenticeship or a traineeship within four months of becoming unemployed or leaving formal
education.

The main YEP communication also announced a European Alliance for Apprenticeships, which the Commission will
launch in July 2013, to improve the quality and supply of apprenticeships and to promote excellence in work-based
learning within vocational education and training.

Building on the YEP, the Commission will present a proposal in December 2013 for a Quality Framework for
Traineeships to help ensure that they provide young people with quality work experience on reliable conditions.

The February 2013 European Council decided to earmark EUR 6 billion for a Youth Employment Initiative (2014-20)
to support the objectives of the Youth Employment Package, and in particular the implementation of the Youth
Guarantee.

In May 2012 the European job mobility scheme _Your first EURES job_ became operational. It aims to help young
people find their first job in any Member State and assist companies in recruiting young people from another Member
State.

In November 2012, the Commission decided on a reform of EURES to better match job seekers with employers, to
focus more on young people, and to include forms of employment that combine work and learning opportunities,
such as apprenticeships.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) ‘Moving Youth into Employment’ (COM(2012) 727 final of 5 December 2012).

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 545

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-005163/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Santiago Fisas Ayxela (PPE)**

_(8 de mayo de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Seguimiento del informe de mediación Vitorino

El 15 de marzo de 2013, el Consejo Europeo confirmó la competitividad como una de las tres principales prioridades
económicas para 2013, haciendo suya la propuesta presentada por el Sr. Barroso. Desde hace años se debaten
posibles maneras de superar algunos de los obstáculos a la competitividad de la UE, como en el caso del cobro de los
derechos de autor, un ámbito en el cual sí que existen soluciones que es fundamental aplicar con rapidez. En el
informe de mediación sobre los derechos de autor publicado el 31 de enero de 2013, el Sr. Vitorino reconoce que los
sistemas de cobro de derechos de autor generan problemas importantes para el mercado interior. En efecto, las tarifas
y los productos sujetos a un canon por copia privada difieren notablemente en función del país, lo que distorsiona el
funcionamiento de todo el mercado interior europeo.

Por ejemplo, en el caso del canon por reprografía, las impresoras multifunción que pueden usarse como impresora,
fax y fotocopiadora están sujetas a un canon de hasta 180 euros en Bélgica, mientras que este mismo canon es de
12 euros en Alemania e inexistente en los Países Bajos. Como consecuencia, los consumidores belgas no solo pueden
pagar precios más altos que los consumidores en Alemania o los Países Bajos, sino que el sistema belga de cobro de
derechos de autor distorsiona el funcionamiento del mercado interior europeo, ya que los países limítrofes con
Bélgica aplican cánones mucho más bajos o no los aplican en absoluto. De esta manera, la competencia en el mercado
belga se debilita de forma significativa. La realidad es que no se trata de un ejemplo aislado, ya que los sistemas de
recaudación de derechos de autor vulneran los principios del mercado interior en toda la UE.

El Comisario Barnier afirmó en un principio que el proceso tenía por objeto sentar las bases que permitiesen tomar
medidas legislativas a nivel de la UE en el ámbito de los cánones por copia privada. ¿Tiene previsto la Comisión
presentar, en el próximo Consejo de la UE sobre competitividad, una propuesta clara que incorpore las
recomendaciones del informe de mediación Vitorino?

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

_(17 de julio de 2013)_

La Comisión comparte la opinión de Su Señoría de que la disparidad de los sistemas impositivos nacionales es, en la
actualidad, la fuente de los obstáculos al buen funcionamiento del mercado único. En las recomendaciones
presentadas el 31 de enero de 2013 al comisario de Mercado Interior y Servicios, el Sr. Antonio Vitorino subrayaba la
necesidad de abordar los problemas que genera la existencia de distintas tarifas y productos sujetos a un canon por
copia privada.

Las conclusiones del Sr. Vitorino se debatieron con los Estados miembros en el Consejo de Competitividad de 29 de
mayo de 2013. A pesar de que las recomendaciones del Sr. Vitorino no se han formulado para ser aprobadas como
tales por el Colegio, la Comisión se dispone a evaluar en qué medida algunas de ellas podrían abordarse a nivel
nacional, inclusive de forma coordinada, y si algunas podrían requerir una actuación específica a escala de la UE. En
concreto, la Comisión tiene la intención de proseguir el diálogo con los Estados miembros a fin de encontrar
soluciones eficaces a los problemas detectados por el Sr. Vitorino.

C 80 E / 546 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005163/13**

**to the Commission**
**Santiago Fisas Ayxela (PPE)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Follow-up on the Vitorino mediation report

On 15 March 2013, the European Council endorsed competitiveness as one of the three key economic priorities for
2013, following Mr Barroso’s proposal to the Council. Possible ways of overcoming some of the obstacles to EU
competitiveness have been debated for many years, for example in the case of copyright levies, where solutions do
exist and swift implementation is of the essence. In his mediation report on copyright levies published on
31 January 2013, Antonio Vitorino acknowledges that the levy systems create major problems for the internal
market. Indeed, tariffs and products subject to private copy levies diverge widely across Member States, causing
distortions throughout the European internal market.

For example, in the case of reprography levies, all-in-one printers that can print, fax and copy attract a levy of up to
EUR 180 in Belgium, EUR 12 in Germany and nothing at all in the Netherlands. As a consequence, not only do
consumers in Belgium risk paying higher prices than consumers in Germany or the Netherlands, but the fact is that
the Belgian copyright levy system distorts the European internal market, since countries bordering Belgium either
apply much lower levies on the same products or no levy at all. As a result, competition is significantly weakened in
the Belgian market. The reality is that this is not an isolated example, as levy systems breach the principles of the
internal market all over the EU.

Given Commissioner Barnier’s statement at the outset that the process ‘has as its objective laying the ground for
legislative action on private copying levies at EU level’, is the Commission planning to include the Vitorino mediation
report’s recommendations in a clear proposal for the next EU Competitiveness Council?

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

_(17 July 2013)_

The Commission shares the Honourable Member’s view that the current disparity of the national levy systems is the
source of obstacles to the proper functioning of the Single Market. In his Recommendations presented on
31 January 2013 to the Commissioner responsible for Internal market and services, Mr Antonio Vitorino stresses the
necessity of addressing the problems that diverging tariffs and products subject to private copy levies create.

Mr Vitorino’s findings have been discussed with the Member States at the Competitiveness Council on 29 May 2013.
Notwithstanding that Mr Vitorino's Recommendations are not meant to be endorsed as such by the College, the
Commission will now assess to what extent some of them could be addressed at national level, including in a
coordinated way, and whether some could require specific action at EU level. In particular, the Commission intends to
pursue the dialogue with the Member States, aiming at finding effective solutions to the problems identified by
Mr Vitorino.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 547

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005164/13**

**à Comissão**
**Edite Estrela (S&D), Vital Moreira (S&D), Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos (S&D), Elisa Ferreira (S&D), António**

**Fernando Correia de Campos (S&D), Luís Paulo Alves (S&D) e Ana Gomes (S&D)**

_(8 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Estaleiros Navais de Viana do Castelo, S.A.

Tendo em conta que a Comissão Europeia, na sequência de um processo de avaliação da conformidade das medidas
de apoio público a favor dos Estaleiros Navais de Viana do Castelo, S.A. com as regras em matéria de auxílios estatais
da União Europeia, solicitou ao Estado Português a apresentação de observações e a prestação de todas as
informações relevantes;

Tendo em conta que a Comissão Europeia enviou uma carta ao Estado Português convidando-o a apresentar, no
prazo de um mês, todas os esclarecimentos que contribuam para uma apreciação final da compatibilidade destes
auxílios estatais com as regras comuns da União Europeia, que permitam auxílios de emergência ou à reestruturação;

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

1. Apresentou o Estado Português a justificação da natureza da intervenção pública no âmbito dos auxílios de
emergência e de reestruturação concedidos a empresas em dificuldade?

2. Quais serão agora os desenvolvimentos do processo registado pela Comissão com o número SA.35546
(2012/CP)?

**Resposta dada por Joaquín Almunia em nome da Comissão**

_(19 de junho de 2013)_

Em 23 de janeiro de 2013, a Comissão decidiu dar início ao procedimento formal de investigação em relação a um
certo número de medidas alegadamente concedidas no passado por Portugal aos Estaleiros Navais de Viana do
Castelo. Portugal apresentou as suas observações sobre a referida decisão por carta, em 12 de março de 2013. O
conteúdo das observações de Portugal constitui informação confidencial.

O convite à apresentação de observações sobre a decisão de início do procedimento formal de investigação
relativamente ao processo de auxílio estatal SA.35546 foi publicado no Jornal Oficial da União Europeia, em 3 de
abril de 2013. Não foram recebidas quaisquer observações dentro do prazo indicado. A Comissão está presentemente
a avaliar as observações e as informações adicionais apresentadas por Portugal. Assim que a Comissão tiver concluído
a sua avaliação das medidas, tomará uma decisão final.

C 80 E / 548 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005164/13**

**to the Commission**
**Edite Estrela (S&D), Vital Moreira (S&D), Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos (S&D), Elisa Ferreira (S&D), António**

**Fernando Correia de Campos (S&D), Luís Paulo Alves (S&D) and Ana Gomes (S&D)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ The Estaleiros Navais de Viana do Castelo, S.A. shipyard

After assessing the conformity of state aid measures for the Estaleiros Navais de Viana do Castelo, S.A. shipyard, with
EU State aid rules, the Commission asked the Portuguese authorities to comment and to provide all relevant
information.

The Commission sent a letter to the Portuguese authorities, inviting them to submit, within one month, all the
explanations that could help in the final assessment of the compatibility of this state aid with the EU’s common rules,
which allow for rescue or restructuring aid.

1. Have the Portuguese authorities presented a justification for this kind of public funding in the framework of
rescue or restructuring aid granted to firms in difficulty?

2. How will the procedure registered by the Commission under number SA.35546 (2012/CP) now proceed?

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

_(19 June 2013)_

On 23 January 2013, the Commission decided to initiate the formal investigation procedure in relation to a number
of measures allegedly granted by Portugal to Estaleiros Navais de Viana do Castelo in the past. Portugal commented
on that decision by letter of 12 March 2013. The content of Portugal's comments constitutes confidential
information.

The invitation to submit comments on the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure in state aid case
SA.35546 was published in the _Official Journal of the European Union_ on 3 April 2013. No comments were received
within the deadline indicated. The Commission is currently assessing the comments and the additional information
submitted by Portugal. Once the Commission has completed its assessment of the measures, it will take a final
decision.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 549

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-005165/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Francesca Barracciu (S&D)**

_(8 maggio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Gestione e programmazione dei fondi comunitari in Sardegna per i periodi 2000-2006 e 2007-2013 e per il
nuovo periodo di programmazione 2014-2020

Premesso che, stando agli ultimi dati disponibili, la programmazione e la gestione dei fondi comunitari in Sardegna
non sembrano dimostrarsi all'altezza degli standard di spesa qualitativi e quantitativi necessari a favorire il
raggiungimento degli obiettivi della politica di coesione, né sembrano essere in linea con gli standard delle altre
regioni europee;

premesso che, in base a tali dati, e come riportato anche da fonti di stampa, si evince una gestione approssimativa dei
finanziamenti europei tale da determinare una cospicua perdita di risorse, o perché non spese o perché impegnate in
progetti rivelatisi non ammissibili o non cantierabili;

considerato che la Commissione europea è preposta al monitoraggio del sistema di programmazione e di gestione dei
fondi comunitari anche al fine di chiarire se esso risulti o meno adeguato;

si interroga la Commissione al fine di:

1. conoscere l'esito delle procedure di chiusura sul POR FESR Sardegna 2000-2006 e, in particolare, se
corrisponde al vero che la Commissione ha proposto il taglio di circa 50 milioni di EUR rispetto alla
rendicontazione presentata dalla Regione Sardegna;

2. sapere se nel corso della programmazione 2007-2013 del POR FESR Sardegna risultano decurtate somme
rispetto agli stanziamenti previsti, in applicazione del disimpegno automatico per l'anno 2012;

3. sapere se, allo stato attuale, sono già disponibili le assegnazioni a ciascuna Regione per il nuovo periodo di
programmazione 2014-2020 e se, di conseguenza, corrisponde al vero quanto affermato dal Presidente della
Giunta regionale, e cioè che la Sardegna avrebbe 300 milioni di EUR di stanziamenti aggiuntivi rispetto
all'attuale programmazione.

**Risposta di Johannes Hahn a nome della Commissione**

_(26 giugno 2013)_

Il 12 marzo 2013 la Commissione ha trasmesso alle autorità nazionali la sua proposta di chiusura del programma per
la regione Sardegna 2000-2006. Poiché le procedure di chiusura sono ancora in corso, la Commissione non è in
grado di esprimersi in merito all'esito della valutazione.

Il programma per la Sardegna FESR 2007-2013 non subirà alcuna perdita di risorse per l'esercizio 2012 poiché la
soglia necessaria per evitare il disimpegno automatico alla fine del 2012 è stata raggiunta.

I fondi da assegnare a ciascuna regione italiana nel prossimo periodo di programmazione non sono ancora stati
stabiliti. Essi saranno definiti dallo Stato membro nell'ambito dell'accordo di partenariato per il periodo 2014-2020.

C 80 E / 550 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005165/13**

**to the Commission**

**Francesca Barracciu (S&D)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Management and programming of EU funds in Sardinia for the periods 2000-2006 and 2007-2013 and for
the new programming period 2014-2020

The latest figures appear to indicate that the programming and management of EU funds in Sardinia are not up to the
standards required (both in terms of how much is spent and how it is spent) in order for cohesion policy objectives to
be achieved and, furthermore, that they fall short of the standards applied in other European regions.

These figures and a number of press reports point to lax management of EU funds having resulted in a substantial loss
of resources, either because funds were not spent or because they were used for projects which proved ineligible or
never got off the ground.

Given that the Commission is in charge of monitoring the programming and management of EU funds in order to
ascertain whether the system is working properly, can it say:

1. what was the outcome of the closure procedures for the 2000-2006 ERDF Regional Operational Programme
(ROP) for Sardinia and, in particular, whether it proposed that the figure reported by Sardinia Regional Council
should be cut by some EUR 50 million?

2. whether, during the 2007-2013 programming period for the ERDF ROP for Sardinia, funding has been lost as a
result of automatic decommitment procedures carried out in 2012?

3. whether details of the funds to be allocated to each Italian region for the new 2014-2020 programming period
are already available and whether the leader of the regional executive was right in stating that Sardinia will
receive EUR 300 million more than during the current programming period?

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

_(26 June 2013)_

The Commission sent its closure proposal for the 2000-2006 Sardinia programme to the national authorities on
12 March 2013. Since the closure procedures are still ongoing, the Commission is not in the position to comment on
the outcome.

The 2007-2013 ERDF programme for Sardinia will not incur any loss of resources for the year 2012 as the threshold
necessary to avoid the automatic decommitment at the end of 2012 was reached.

The funds to be allocated to each Italian region over the next programming period have not been established yet.
They will be defined by the Member State in the 2014-2020 partnership agreement.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 551

_(Svensk version)_

**Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-005166/13**

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

_(8 maj 2013)_

_Angående:_ Beslutsfattande grundat på bevis

I sitt svar på den skriftliga frågan E-001637/2013 anger kommissionen följande: ”De uppskattade kostnaderna har
inte […] redovisats på ett sätt som gör att de kan fördelas mellan de tre kategorierna”.

I svaret talar kommissionen om tre kategorier av it-brottslighet och hänvisar till en uppskattning av de totala
kostnaderna för it-brottslighet. Hur avser kommissionen att grunda sin politik på bevis, med tanke på att den inte kan
fastställa omfattningen av de olika problem som kan uppstå i nätverksmiljön och som kan kräva mycket olikartade
åtgärder av den offentliga sektorn respektive av lagstiftarna?

**Svar från Cecilia Malmström på kommissionens vägnar**

_(23 juli 2013)_

Såsom det anges i svaret E-1637/2013 saknas anknytning mellan de siffror som nämns som uppskattningar av
effekterna av it-brottslighet och de tre underkategorier av it-brottslighet som nämns av parlamentsledamoten,
eftersom meddelandet om inrättandet av ett europeiskt centrum mot it-brottslighet ( [1] ) planerar ett kraftfullt svar på itbrottslighet som helhet.

Samtidigt har kommissionen arbetat för att erhålla ytterligare information om problemets omfattning. Europols
bedömning av hotet från allvarlig och organiserad brottslighet 2013 ( [2] ) och rapporten om hotbedömning om
organiserad brottslighet som underlättas av internet, som publiceras snart, tillhandahåller en kvalitativ analys av
situationen i EU, t.ex. genom att understryka den växande trenden att välja ”it-brottslighet som en tjänst”.

Den årliga särskilda Eurobarometern om säkerhet på internet, som för första gången beställdes 2012, för statistik
över EU-medborgarnas syn på it-brottslighet inklusive antalet offer. T.ex. uppgav 74 % av de tillfrågade i 2012 års
undersökning att risken för att råka ut för internetrelaterade brott har ökat under det senaste året, där en av fem
användare tycker att rädslan för it-brottslighet gör att det är mindre sannolikt att de handlar online och en av sex
undviker bankärenden över internet av samma skäl. ( [3] ) 2013 års undersökning som kommer att offentliggöras senare
i år kommer att ge ytterligare uppgifter om nya trender.

Kommissionen arbetar även med Eurostat för att ta fram statistiska uppgifter om kampen mot it-brottslighet. Det
föreslagna direktivet om angrepp mot informationssystem ( [4] ) innehåller även en bestämmelse om övervakning och
statistik som ska ge kommissionen möjlighet att få en mer fullständig bild av situationen i medlemsstaterna, vilket
kommer att bidra till att utforma effektiva politiska åtgärder.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) KOM(2012) 140.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) https://www.europol.europa.eu/content/eu-serious-and-organised-crime-threat-assessment-socta
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) 2012 särskild Eurobarometer 390 om cybersäkerhet.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) KOM(2010) 517.

C 80 E / 552 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005166/13**

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

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Evidence-based policy-making

In its reply to Written Question E-001637/2013 the Commission says that ‘no breakdown of the cost estimates is
provided that would allow for an allocation of the estimate to the three categories’.

With reference to the three categories of cybercrime and the total estimated cost of cybercrime quoted by the
Commission, in what way does the Commission plan to base its policy on evidence, given that it is unable to identify
the magnitude of the different problems that may arise in the network environment and that may require very
different responses from the public sector or legislators?

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

_(23 July 2013)_

As outlined in response E-1637/2013, there is no connection between the figures cited as estimates of the impact of
cybercrime and the three sub-categories of cybercrime referenced by the Honourable Member, as the communication
on establishing a European Cybercrime Centre ( [1] ) envisages a robust response to cybercrime as a whole.

At the same time, the Commission has been working on obtaining further information on the scale of the problem.
The Europol 2013 Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessment ( [2] ) and the soon-to-be-published 2013 Threat
Assessment on Internet Facilitated Organised Crime provide a qualitative analysis of the situation in the EU, for
example underlining the increasing trend towards ‘cybercrime as a service’.

Commissioned for the first time in 2012, the annual Special Eurobarometer on Cybersecurity measures the
perceptions of EU citizens on cybercrime, including victimisation rates. For example, 74% of respondents in the 2012
survey stated that the risk of becoming a victim of cybercrime has increased in the past year, with one in five users say
that the fear of cybercrime makes them less likely to shop online, and one in six avoids banking online for the same
reason ( [3] ). The 2013 survey, due to be published later this year, will provide further details of emerging trends.

Furthermore, the Commission is working with Eurostat to develop statistics on cybercrime. The proposed Directive
on Attacks against Information Systems ( [4] ) also contains a provision on monitoring and statistics that should allow
the Commission to obtain a more comprehensive picture of the situation in the Member States, which will contribute
to formulating effective policy responses.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 140.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) https://www.europol.europa.eu/content/eu-serious-and-organised-crime-threat-assessment-socta.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) 2012 Special Eurobarometer 390 on Cybersecurity
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) COM(2010) 517.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 553

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-005168/13**

**do Komisji**
**Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR)**

_(8 maja 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Dyskryminowanie mniejszości żydowskiej w Bośni i Hercegowinie

W 2009 r. Jakubowi Finci nie zezwolono na kandydowanie w wyborach do Izby Narodów Zgromadzenia
Parlamentarnego Bośni i Hercegowiny ze względu na jego żydowskie pochodzenie. To wykluczenie opiera się na
zapisie konstytucji, na mocy którego takie polityczne prawo przysługuje Bośniakom, Chorwatom i Serbom. Według
Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka (ECHR) Bośnia i Hercegowina nie spełniła wymogu przystąpienia do UE,
jakim jest obowiązek zmiany jej konstytucji.

Taki stan rzeczy dyskryminuje mniejszość żydowską. Komisarz Štefan Füle zapewnił, że Bośnia i Hercegowina musi
wdrożyć zapisy orzeczenia ECHR w sprawie Sejdić i Finci przeciwko Bośni i Hercegowinie, jeśli chce, by jej
kandydatura do członkostwa w UE była wiarygodna. Do momentu spełnienia tych warunków nie będzie możliwe
rozpatrywanie jakichkolwiek dalszych działań Bośni i Hercegowiny podejmowanych w kierunku członkostwa w UE.
Zgodnie ze słowami J. Finci: „Nasza obecna konstytucja nie jest dość dobra – musimy wprowadzić równe prawa dla
wszystkich. Romowie i Żydzi nie są obywatelami drugiej kategorii”.

Jakie działania podejmuje Komisja w celu udzielenia pomocy mniejszości żydowskiej w Bośni i Hercegowinie?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Štefana Fülego w imieniu Komisji**

_(24 czerwca 2013 r.)_

Komisja uznała kwestię wdrożenia zapisów orzeczenia w sprawie Sejdić i Finci za jeden z głównych elementów
rozmów z Bośnią i Hercegowiną, i współpracuje ściśle z władzami kraju i politycznymi przywódcami w ramach
dialogu na wysokim szczeblu w sprawie przystąpienia. Komisarz Štefan Füle wprowadził tę inicjatywę w czerwcu
2012 r., aby wesprzeć Bośnię i Hercegowinę w jej postępach w procesie przystąpienia do UE. Równocześnie
wykonanie tego orzeczenia umożliwiłoby tym mieszkańcom państwa, którzy nie uważają się za Serbów, Chorwatów
lub Bośniaków, w tym osobom należącym do mniejszości żydowskiej, kandydowanie w wyborach do Prezydium
Republiki i Izby Narodów.

Komisja wielokrotnie wzywała przywódców politycznych oraz władze Bośni i Hercegowiny, by dostosowały
konstytucję i prawo wyborcze do zapisów tego orzeczenia. W przeciwnym razie kolejne wybory parlamentarne nie
będą przebiegały w zgodzie z europejską konwencją praw człowieka, co poważnie zagroziłoby legitymacji prawnej
i wiarygodności przyszłych organów, na co również zwrócił niedawno uwagę Komitet Ministrów Rady Europy.

C 80 E / 554 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005168/13**

**to the Commission**
**Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Bosnia and Herzegovina discriminates against Jewish minority

In 2009, Jakob Finci was not allowed to stand in the elections to the House of Peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s
Parliamentary Assembly because of his Jewish origin. The ban has its basis in the constitution, under which only
Bosnians, Croats and Serbs may enjoy this political right. According to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR),
Bosnia and Herzegovina has failed to fulfil the EU accession requirement obliging the country to amend its
constitution.

This action is discriminatory to Jewish minorities. Commissioner Štefan Füle asserted that Bosnia and Herzegovina
has to implement the ECHR’s judgment in the case of Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina if it wants to submit
a credible EU membership application. Until these conditions are fulfilled, it will not be possible to consider any
further steps made by Bosnia and Herzegovina towards EU membership. As Finci once stated, ‘The constitution we
have now is not good enough — we need to have equal rights for all. Roma and Jews are not second-class citizens.’

What steps is the Commission taking to help the Jewish minority in Bosnia and Herzegovina?

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

_(24 June 2013)_

The Commission has placed the implementation of the Sejdić-Finci ruling at the heart of its dialogue with Bosnia and
Herzegovina. It has closely engaged with the country's authorities and political leaders in a High Level Dialogue on the
Accession Process. Commissioner Füle launched this initiative in June 2012 with the aim of helping Bosnia and
Herzegovina move forward in the EU accession process. At the same time the implementation of this ruling would
enable citizens of the country who do not define themselves as Serb, Croat or Bosniak to be elected to the State-level
Presidency and the House of Peoples, including persons belonging to the Jewish minority.

The Commission has repeatedly urged the political leaders and authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina to bring the
constitution and the election law into line with the ruling. Otherwise the next general election would not be held in
line with the European Convention on Human Rights which would seriously undermine the legitimacy and credibility
of future elected bodies, as also recently pointed out by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 555

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-005169/13**
**do Komisji (Wiceprzewodniczącej/Wysokiej Przedstawiciel)**

**Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR)**

_(8 maja 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel – Konflikt w Mali może rozprzestrzenić się na Saharę
Zachodnią

Sekretarz Generalny Organizacji Narodów Zjednoczonych Ban Ki-moon odniósł się następująco do konfliktu w Mali,
który trwa już od ponad roku i może rozprzestrzenić się na Saharę Zachodnią: „Wszystkie rządy, z którymi
przeprowadzono konsultacje, wyraziły głębokie zaniepokojenie tym, że walki w Mali mogą przenieść się na sąsiednie
kraje i przyczynić się do radykalizacji nastrojów w obozach dla uchodźców na obszarze Sahary Zachodniej”. Problem
pogłębia dodatkowo fakt, że Francja zamierza wycofać pod koniec roku większość swoich wojsk. W konsekwencji
Sekretarz Generalny ONZ planuje przedłużenie misji pokojowej w Mali i apeluje o utworzenie drugiej struktury sił do
walki z ekstremistami powiązanymi z Al-Kaidą. Według ESDZ Unia Europejska wspiera działania organizacji
regionalnych na rzecz rozwiązania problemu rebelii.

Czy ESDZ jest świadoma tego, że sytuacja w Mali pogarsza się i może być niebezpieczna?

W jaki sposób ESDZ wspiera organizacje regionalne ECOWAS i Unię Afrykańską?

Jakie działania może podjąć ESDZ, by przyczynić się do zakończenia konfliktu tak, aby nie rozprzestrzenił się on na
inne regiony Afryki i nie sprzyjał rozwojowi terroryzmu?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez Wysoką Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodniczącą Komisji Catherine Ashton**

**w imieniu Komisji**
_(17 września 2013 r.)_

Zapobieganie radykalizacji postaw i zwalczanie terroryzmu stanowią centralny element strategii UE na rzecz
bezpieczeństwa i rozwoju w regionie Sahelu.

W Mali, jak również w regionie Sahelu i Sahary, UE znacznie zwiększyła poziom wsparcia na rzecz walki
z terroryzmem, wykorzystując współpracę na rzecz rozwoju oraz związane z nią instrumenty, jak również WPBiO.
W 2012 r. oraz w 2013 r. UE uruchomiła trzy misje w regionie (EUCAP SAHEL Niger, EUBAM Libya i EUMT Mali),
które przyczynią się do walki z terroryzmem i przestępczością transgraniczną.

W ramach wspierania procesu stabilizacji w Mali Unia Europejska przeznaczyła 50 mln EUR na rzecz AFISMA
(międzynarodowej misji wsparcia w Mali pod dowództwem sił afrykańskich). UE odgrywa bardzo istotną
dyplomatyczną i polityczną rolę w ramach międzynarodowej grupy ds. wsparcia i monitorowania oraz uważnie
śledzi wysiłki podejmowane przez Unię Afrykańską w celu usprawnienia koordynacji pomiędzy szefami służb
wywiadowczych i służb bezpieczeństwa w regionie. Za dobry znak można uznać niedawną poprawę sytuacji w Mali
oraz prawidłowy przebieg wyborów prezydenckich.

Złagodzenie regionalnych skutków konfliktów zarówno w Mali, jak i w Libii będzie jednak wymagało spójnego
i długofalowego wsparcia oraz nacisków ze strony UE. Strategia na rzecz Sahelu stanowi właściwe ramy, które
ułatwią rozwiązanie tych problemów. Wysoka Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodnicząca podejmie zdecydowane kroki
w celu stworzenia w tym duchu regionalnej polityki bezpieczeństwa w Afryce Północnej.

Możliwość rozprzestrzenienia się zagrożenia terrorystycznego na region Sahary Zachodniej oraz na obozy dla
uchodźców w regionie Tindouf należy rozpatrywać w kontekście regionalnym, zapobiegając jej dzięki lepszej
koordynacji między zainteresowanymi krajami.

C 80 E / 556 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005169/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Conflict in Mali could spread into Western Sahara

The Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, has said the following about the conflict in Mali, which
has been going on for over a year and could now spread into Western Sahara: ‘All governments consulted raised
serious concern over the risk that the fighting in Mali could spill over into the neighbouring countries and contribute
to radicalising the Western Saharan refugee camps.’ The fact that France is planning to withdraw most of its troops at
the end of the year adds to the problem. As a result, the UN Secretary-General plans to extend the peacekeeping
mission in Mali and is calling for the creation of a second force to fight extremists linked to al-Qaeda. According to
the EEAS, the EU has been supporting regional organisations in their efforts to find a solution as regards the rebellion.

Is the EEAS aware of the worsening and potentially dangerous situation in Mali?

How has the EEAS supported Ecowas regional organisations and the African Union?

What action can the EEAS take to help stop the conflict so that it does not spread to other African regions and fuel
terrorism?

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

_(17 September 2013)_

Preventing radicalisation and fighting against terrorism are at the heart of the EU Strategy for Security and
Development in the Sahel.

In Mali, as well as in the Sahel-Saharan region, the EU has enhanced considerably the level of its support to the fight
against terrorism, using development cooperation and related instruments as well as the CSDP. In 2012 and 2013
the EU launched three missions in the region (EUCAP SAHEL Niger, EUBAM Libya and EUMT Mali) which will
contribute to the fight against terrorism and transnational crime.

As part of its support to the stabilisation process in Mali, the EU contributed EUR 50 million to AFISMA (African-led
International Support Mission to Mali). The EU plays an important diplomatic and political role in the framework of
the International Support and Follow-Up Group and it follows carefully efforts made by the African Union to
enhance the coordination among heads of intelligence and security services in the region. The recent improvement of
the situation in Mali and the successful conduct of the presidential elections could be viewed as a positive
development.

It will, however, require consistent and long-term EU support and pressure to help mitigate the regional
consequences of the conflicts in both Mali and Libya. The Sahel Strategy constitutes an appropriate framework to
help address these challenges. The HR/VP is determined to develop a regional security policy for Northern Africa
along those lines.

The possibility of the extension of the terrorist threat to the Western Sahara region, and to the refugee camps in the
region of Tindouf, has to be addressed in this regional context by means of strengthened coordination among the
countries concerned.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 557

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-005170/13**

**do Komisji**
**Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR)**

_(8 maja 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Podrabiane towary z Chin

Według Organizacji Współpracy Gospodarczej i Rozwoju wśród podrobionych towarów przechwyconych na całym
świecie 75 % zostało wytworzonych w Azji Wschodniej. Produkty te reprezentują około 2 % światowego handlu.
OECD zakłada również, że 87 % tych produktów pochodzi bezpośrednio z Chin i że docierają one do USA i Europy.
Wysiłki rządu Chin mające na celu zwalczanie tego zjawiska doprowadziły do znacznych sukcesów: zamknięto
około 13 000 nielegalnych fabryk i przejęto podrobione towary o wartości 530 mln USD.

Czy Komisja mogłaby przekazać najnowsze statystyki dotyczące handlu podrobionymi towarami w Europie?

Jakie działania podjęła Komisja w celu rozwiązania problemu podrobionych towarów, zwłaszcza w popularnym
i rozwijającym się sektorze online?

Czy Komisja bierze pod uwagę podjęcie tej kwestii w kontaktach z Chinami w celu bardziej skutecznego rozwiązania
tego problemu?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Karela De Guchta w imieniu Komisji**

_(25 czerwca 2013 r.)_

Co roku Komisja publikuje sprawozdanie zawierające kompletny przegląd zatrzymanych przez organy celne państw
członkowskich produktów, co do których istnieje podejrzenie naruszenia praw własności intelektualnej ( [1] ).

Celem dyrektywy 2004/48/WE w sprawie egzekwowania praw własności intelektualnej jest zapewnienie możliwości
skutecznego dochodzenia roszczeń w przypadku naruszenia praw własności intelektualnej. Służby Komisji
przeprowadziły właśnie ankietę na temat skuteczności dochodzenia roszczeń w sprawach cywilnych w przypadku
naruszenia praw własności intelektualnej na terytorium Unii. Wyniki ankiety powinny zostać udostępnione tego lata;
na ich podstawie Komisja powinna móc stwierdzić, czy obowiązujące przepisy w tej dziedzinie należy zmienić lub
uzupełnić innymi działaniami politycznymi na szczeblu UE ze względu na nowe wyzwania gospodarki cyfrowej oraz
coraz dłuższe i bardziej złożone łańcuchy dostaw.

Jeśli chodzi o Chiny, Komisja prowadzi również działania na rzecz rozwiązania dwustronnych kwestii związanych
z prawami własności intelektualnej, zarówno na poziomie technicznym, jak i na szczeblu politycznym. Od 2004 r.
Komisja nawiązała w szczególności współpracę w formie tzw. dialogu w dziedzinie praw własności intelektualnej
i grupy roboczej w tej dziedzinie. W tych ramach Komisja aktywnie współpracuje z chińskim prawodawcą
i organami sądowymi w celu poprawy egzekwowania praw własności intelektualnej. Ponadto europejskie i chińskie
organy celne również ściśle współpracują na rzecz egzekwowania praw własności intelektualnej w punktach kontroli
granicznej. W tym celu od 2009 r. realizowany jest specjalny plan działań, a obecnie prowadzi się negocjacje
w sprawie usprawnienia tego planu.

Co więcej, do lipca 2013 r. wejdzie w życie nowy program współpracy technicznej między UE a Chinami o nazwie
„Kluczowa rola praw własności intelektualnej w trwałej konkurencyjności” („IP Key to Sustainable Competitiveness”).
Za pomocą tego programu UE dąży do ustanowienia warunków współpracy z Chinami opartych na przejrzystości,
przewidywalności i równości.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) „Sprawozdanie na temat egzekwowania przez organy celne UE praw własności intelektualnej – wyniki w punktach kontroli granicznej w 2011 r.”

dostępne jest na stronie internetowej Komisji:
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/customs/customs_controls/counterfeit_piracy/statistics/2012_ipr_statistics_en.pdf

C 80 E / 558 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005170/13**

**to the Commission**
**Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Counterfeit products from China

According to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 75% of counterfeit products seized
worldwide are manufactured in East Asia. This accounts for around 2% of world trade. It also suggests that 87% of
those products come directly from China and that they end up in both the USA and Europe. The Chinese
Government’s efforts to combat this problem have met with noticeable success: it has closed around 13 000 illegal
factories and seized counterfeit products worth USD 530 million.

Could the Commission provide the latest statistics regarding the trade in counterfeit products in Europe?

What has the Commission done to address the problem of counterfeit products, especially in the popular and
growing online sector?

Has the Commission considered taking up the issue with China with a view to dealing with the problem more
effectively?

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

_(25 June 2013)_

Every year the Commission publishes a report providing a complete overview of detentions of products suspected of
infringing an intellectual property right (IPR) carried out by Member States’ customs authorities ( [1] ).

Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights seeks to ensure effective redress against IP
infringements. The Commission’s services have just completed a survey on the efficiency of civil redress against IP
infringements within the Union. The results of this survey should be made available this summer and should then
allow the Commission to determine whether the existing _acquis_ in this field needs to be modified or complemented by
other policy actions at EU level given the new challenges of the digital economy and increasingly long and complex
supply chains.

With regard to China, the Commission is also pursuing the resolution of bilateral IPR issues, both at technical and
political level. In particular it has established since 2004 cooperation through an ‘IP Dialogue’ and an ‘IP Working
Group’. In this framework, the Commission actively cooperates with Chinese lawmakers and judicial authorities to
improve IPR laws. Additionally, European and Chinese customs authorities are also working very closely together on
IPR border enforcement. To this end a dedicated Action Plan is in place since 2009 and negotiations are currently
ongoing to strengthen this Action Plan.

Furthermore, by July 2013 a new technical cooperation programme between the EU and China called ‘IP Key to
Sustainable Competitiveness’ will enter into force. Through this programme the EU seeks to implement a working
environment with China that is founded on the values of transparency, predictability and equality.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) ‘Report on EU customs enforcement of intellectual property rights — results at the border 2011’ is available at the Commission’s website:
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/customs/customs_controls/counterfeit_piracy/statistics/2012_ipr_statistics_en.pdf

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 559

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-005171/13**

**do Komisji**
**Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR)**

_(8 maja 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Zapobieganie środkom zastępczym w Polsce

Polska od dawna boryka się z problemem środków zastępczych („dopalaczy”). Są to narkotyki, które
wyprodukowano w celu obejścia obowiązujących przepisów dotyczących narkotyków. Chociaż środki zastępcze
często prawie niczym się nie różnią od nielegalnych narkotyków, niewiele przepisów bądź żadne przepisy ich nie
dotyczą, gdy pojawiają się one na rynku. Polskie władze próbowały rozwiązać ten problem wydając listę substancji
zakazanych, ale przepisy nie nadążają za szybko zmieniającym się rynkiem narkotyków. Według Europejskiego
Centrum Monitorowania Narkotyków i Narkomanii, Polacy używają więcej środków zastępczych niż inni
Europejczycy. Obecnie rynek środków zastępczych w Polsce jest zdominowany głównie przez produkty z Chin, choć
niektóre substancje pochodzą z Czech, Holandii czy Wielkiej Brytanii.

Jakie kroki podejmuje Europejskie Centrum Monitorowania Narkotyków i Narkomanii w celu zapobiegania
rozwojowi rynku środków zastępczych?

Czy agencja dysponuje jakimiś wspólnymi europejskimi strategiami opanowania rynku środków zastępczych?

Czy Komisja zastanawiała się nad przedłożeniem wniosku ustawodawczego w celu prewencyjnego zakazu produkcji,
sprzedaży lub posiadania podobnych substancji?

Podobieństwa z narkotykami już uznanymi za nielegalne mogą dotyczyć chemii, farmakologii lub skutków
psychologicznych, tak jak ma to miejsce w Stanach Zjednoczonych. Czy Komisja zastanawiała się nad zwiększeniem
policyjnego nadzoru nad potencjalnymi i nowymi obszarami związanymi z narkomanią, takimi jak sprzedaż przez
Internet?

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

_(3 lipca 2013 r.)_

Walka z problemem często pojawiających się i szybko rozpowszechnianych w całej UE nowych substancji
psychoaktywnych lub „dopalaczy” jest jednym z priorytetów Komisji. Od 1997 r. państwa członkowskie zgłosiły za
pośrednictwem mechanizmu szybkiej wymiany informacji zarządzanego przez Europejskie Centrum Monitorowania
Narkotyków i Narkomanii (EMCDDA) i Europol prawie 300 takich substancji. Na podstawie oceny ryzyka
przeprowadzonego na wniosek Komisji przez komitet naukowy Europejskiego Centrum Monitorowania
Narkotyków i Narkomanii zastosowano w UE środki kontrolne i sankcje karne w stosunku do dziewięciu substancji.

W opublikowanym przez Komisję w lipcu 2011 r. sprawozdaniu oceniającym stwierdzono ( [1] ), że decyzja Komisji
2005/387/WSiSW ( [2] ) w sprawie wymiany informacji, oceny ryzyka i kontroli nowych substancji psychoaktywnych
nie jest właściwym instrumentem unijnym, aby odpowiedzieć na to wyzwanie, ze względu na jego skalę i złożoność.
W związku z tym instrument ten wymaga zmiany. W przyjętym w październiku 2011 r. komunikacie Komisji „Na
rzecz bardziej zdecydowanej reakcji Europy na problem narkotyków” ( [3] ) rozprzestrzenianie nowych substancji
psychoaktywnych uznano za jedno z najpoważniejszych wyzwań dla polityki antynarkotykowej, wymagające
bardziej zdecydowanych działań ze strony Unii.

W ramach strategii antynarkotykowej UE na lata 2013-2020 wzywa się instytucje i organy UE oraz państwa
członkowskie do poprawy swojej zdolności wykrywania i oceny przypadków pojawiania się nowych substancji
psychoaktywnych oraz szybkiego i skutecznego reagowania na nie.

Komisja pracuje obecnie nad nowymi wnioskami legislacyjnymi dotyczącymi nowych substancji psychoaktywnych.
Wnioski te służyć mają umocnieniu unijnych działań chroniących przed tymi substancjami poprzez ich lepsze
monitorowanie i lepszą ocenę związanego z nimi ryzyka, a także poprzez szybsze, skuteczniejsze i bardziej
proporcjonalne działania, mające na celu zmniejszenie dostępu do substancji stanowiących zagrożenie dla zdrowia
i bezpieczeństwa.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 430 final oraz SEC(2011) 912 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Dz.U. 127 z 20.5.2005, s. 32-37.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 689 final.

C 80 E / 560 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005171/13**

**to the Commission**
**Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ ‘Designer drugs’ prevention in Poland

Poland has long been struggling with the problem of ‘designer drugs’. These are drugs that have been created to
circumvent existing drug laws. Although designer drugs are often hardly any different from illegal drugs, there is little
or no regulation when they appear on the market. The Polish authorities tried to solve this problem by issuing a list of
outlawed substances, but legislation is too slow in the face of a rapidly evolving drugs market. According to the
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), the use of designer drugs is higher among
Poles than any other European nationality. Today, the Polish designer drugs market is principally dominated by
products from China, although some substances are Czech, Dutch or British.

What steps is the EMCDDA taking to prevent the development of the designer drugs market?

Does the agency have any common European policies to tackle the designer drugs market?

Has the Commission considered bringing forward legislation to pre-emptively ban the making, selling, and/or
possession of similar substances?

Similarities with drugs that are already illegal can relate to chemistry, pharmacology and/or psychological effects, as is
the case in the United States. Has the Commission considered increasing police monitoring of potential and new areas
connected to drug abuse, such as Internet sales?

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

_(3 July 2013)_

Addressing the frequent emergence and rapid spread across the EU of new psychoactive substances or ‘designer drugs’
is a priority for the Commission. Since 1997, Member States have notified almost 300 such substances through the
mechanism for rapid exchange of information managed by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug
Addiction (EMCDDA) and Europol. Nine substances have been subjected to control measures and criminal penalties
across the EU, on the basis of a risk assessment conducted by the Scientific Committee of the EMCDDA and following
a proposal from the Commission.

The Commission’s assessment report ( [1] ), published in July 2011, concluded that the EU instrument, Council
Decision 2005/387/JHA ( [2] ) on the information exchange, risk-assessment and control of new psychoactive
substances, is inadequate for addressing this challenge, considering its scale and complexity, and that it requires
revision. The Commission Communication ‘Towards a stronger European response to drugs’ ( [3] ), adopted in
October 2011, identified the spread of new psychoactive substances as one of the most challenging developments in
drugs policy, requiring a firmer EU response.

The EU Drugs Strategy (2013-2020) calls on the EU institutions, bodies and on the Member States to improve the
capacity to detect, assess and respond rapidly and effectively to the emergence of new psychoactive substances.

The Commission is currently working on new legislative proposals on new psychoactive substances, aimed at
strengthening the EU response, through enhanced monitoring and risk assessment of new psychoactive substances,
and swifter, more effective and more proportionate answers to reduce the availability of substances posing health and
security risks.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 430 final and SEC(2011) 912 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 127, 20.5.2005, pp. 32-37.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 689 final.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 561

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-005172/13**
**do Komisji (Wiceprzewodniczącej/Wysokiej Przedstawiciel)**

**Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR)**

_(8 maja 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel – czyszczenie etniczne wobec ludności muzułmańskiej
w Mjanmie/Birmie

Human Rights Watch opublikowała niedawno sprawozdanie na temat kryzysu humanitarnego w Mjanmie/Birmie,
gdzie mnisi buddyjscy i przywódcy birmańscy przeprowadzają czyszczenie etniczne na obszarach zamieszkałych
przez społeczność muzułmańską. Ciemiężcy używają siły w celu przesiedlenia muzułmanów, którzy są pozbawieni
pomocy humanitarnej i jakiejkolwiek możliwości powrotu.

Jakie jest stanowisko ESDZ w tej sprawie?

Czy UE podjęła jakiekolwiek działania, aby wesprzeć mniejszość muzułmańską w Mjanmie/Birmie?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez Wysoką Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodniczącą Catherine Ashton w imieniu**

**Komisji**
_(3 lipca 2013 r.)_

Wysoka Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodnicząca z uwagą śledzi wydarzenia w Mjanmie/Birmie. Powodowane różnicą
wyznań starcia w stanie Rakhine i w reszcie kraju, których celem jest mniejszość muzułmańska, są bardzo
niepokojące. Taka sytuacja ma w tym kraju miejsce nie po raz pierwszy. Wskazuje ona na głębokie podziały
w społeczeństwie i stanowi zagrożenie dla całego procesu demokratyzacji i zgody narodowej. Wysoka
Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodnicząca wezwała władze do ochrony ludności cywilnej przed przemocą oraz do
zbadania przyczyn tych niepokojących incydentów. W dniu 22 kwietnia Rada do Spraw Zagranicznych omówiła ten
problem i podkreśliła, że rząd Mjanmy/Birmy powinien zająć się sprawą przemocy wewnątrz społeczności,
w szczególności wobec mniejszości Rohingya. W ciągu ostatnich tygodni o sytuacji w Mjanmie/Birmie kilka razy
rozmawiano z jej władzami. UE podkreślała, że sprawcy z obydwu stron muszą zostać osądzeni. Specjalny
Przedstawiciel UE ds. Praw Człowieka podczas ostatniej wizyty w Mjanmie/Birmie w rozmowach z przedstawicielami
tego kraju z całą mocą podkreślił pilną potrzebę położenia kresu przemocy i dyskryminacji wśród społeczności.

UE zapewnia istotne wsparcie dla wysiłków pokojowych w Mjanmie/Birmie. Przyznane w tym roku Mjanmie/Birmie
fundusze w wysokości 30 mln euro przeznaczone zostaną na wsparcie procesu pokojowego. Ponadto UE wiele razy
wzywała rząd do zapewnienia pełnego i nieskrępowanego dostępu pomocy humanitarnej do wszystkich
społeczności objętych konfliktem i cierpiących z powodu przemocy na tle wyznaniowym. Unijna pomoc
humanitarna skupia się przede wszystkim na obszarach zamieszkanych przez mniejszości etniczne, takich jak stan
Rakhine, tereny wzdłuż granicy wschodniej z Tajlandią oraz stan Kachin. W 2013 r. wysokość środków finansowych
przekazanych przez UE Mjanmie wyniosła 14,5 mln euro. Oprócz tego UE przekazała 4,5 mln euro na birmańskie
obozy dla uchodźców w Tajlandii.

C 80 E / 562 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005172/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Ethnic cleansing of the Muslim population in Burma/Myanmar

Human Rights Watch has recently published a report on the humanitarian crisis in Burma/Myanmar, where ethnic
cleansing is being carried out by Buddhist monks and Burmese leaders on areas inhabited by the Muslim community.
The oppressors are using force to relocate the Muslims, who are being deprived of humanitarian aid and denied any
possibility of returning.

What is the stance of the EEAS on the matter?

Has the EU taken any steps to help the Muslim minority in Burma/Myanmar?

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

_(3 July 2013)_

The HR/VP follows with close attention the developments in Myanmar/Burma. The violent clashes along sectarian
lines in the Rakhine state and elsewhere in the country, with the Muslim minority as the target, are of grave concern.
Such clashes are not new in the country’s history. They point to deep-rooted divisions in the society and present a risk
to the whole process of democratisation and national reconciliation. The HR/VP has urged authorities to protect
civilians from violence, and to investigate the causes of these disturbing incidents. The 22 April Foreign Affairs
Council discussed the matter and stressed the need for the Government to deal with inter-communal violence and
notably to address the status of the Rohingya. This issue has been raised with the authorities on several occasions in
past weeks with the EU stressing that perpetrators from both sides must be brought to justice. The EU's Special
Representative for Human Rights during his recent visit to Myanmar/Burma forcefully raised with his interlocutors
the need to urgently deal with inter-communal violence and discrimination.

The EU provides substantial assistance to the peace efforts in Myanmar/Burma. More than EUR 30 million of the
funds committed this year to Myanmar/Burma will be devoted to support the peace process. Furthermore, the EU has
repeatedly urged the Government to ensure full and unhindered humanitarian access to all communities affected by
conflict and sectarian violence. EU humanitarian assistance focuses particularly on areas with ethnic minorities such
as Rakhine State, the eastern border area with Thailand and Kachin State. In 2013, EU funding to Myanmar amounts
to EUR 14,5 million, in addition to EUR 4,5 million for the Burmese refugee camps in Thailand.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 563

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-005173/13**
**do Komisji (Wiceprzewodniczącej/Wysokiej Przedstawiciel)**

**Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR)**

_(8 maja 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel – fundusze ONZ na pomoc dla ludności Syrii kończą się

Obywatele Syrii odczuwają skutki konfliktu od przeszło dwóch lat. W jego wyniku ponad milion ludzi straciło dach
nad głową. Szefowie agencji ONZ wydali ostatnio wspólne oświadczenie, apelując do społeczności międzynarodowej
o pomoc i ostrzegając, że fundusze ONZ na działalność humanitarną kończą się. Ertharin Cousin, szefowa
Światowego Programu Żywnościowego ONZ, powiedziała: „Jesteśmy niebezpiecznie blisko wstrzymania części
wsparcia humanitarnego. Dzielą nas od tego być może nawet tygodnie.”

Jakie konkretne działania są podejmowane w celu zagwarantowania, że ludność Syrii będzie otrzymywać pomoc
w przypadku wprowadzenia środków ograniczających?

Jakie jest stanowisko ESDZ w sprawie powyższego oświadczenia ONZ?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarz Kristalinę Georgijewą w imieniu Komisji**

_(8 lipca 2013 r.)_

UE jest liderem w pomocy humanitarnej w odpowiedzi na kryzys w Syrii i przeznaczyła niedawno ponad
672 mln EUR na pomoc humanitarną dla potrzebujących, zarówno w Syrii, jak i w państwach sąsiednich: Jordanii,
Libanie, Turcji i Iraku. Środki te, rozprowadzane za pośrednictwem partnerów UE, tj. Czerwonego
Krzyża/Czerwonego Półksiężyca, agencji ONZ oraz międzynarodowych organizacji pozarządowych, pozwoliły na
sfinansowanie pomocy dla wszystkich, którzy znaleźli się w nagłej sytuacji zagrożenia życia, w tym uchodźców
syryjskich w obozach i na obszarach miejskich.

Zgodnie z zapowiedzą przewodniczącego Komisji w dniu 6 czerwca 2013 r. Komisja uruchomi kompleksowy pakiet
pomocy obejmującej wsparcie działań humanitarnych i pozahumanitarnych, przeznaczając dodatkową kwotę
400 mln EUR na pomoc dla Syrii i krajów sąsiadujących, w szczególności Libanu i Jordanii, w tym dla społeczności
przyjmujących uchodźców, które są najbardziej dotknięte kryzysem.

W odpowiedzi na wspólną deklarację ONZ przewodniczący Komisji podkreślił również, że należy pilnie znaleźć
rozwiązanie polityczne, a jednocześnie wezwać pozostałych darczyńców do zwiększenia środków na pomoc
humanitarną.

C 80 E / 564 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005173/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — UN running out of funds to help people of Syria

The conflict in Syria has been affecting its citizens for over two years now, leaving more than a million people
homeless. A joint statement has recently been issued by heads of UN agencies appealing to the international
community for help and warning that the UN is running out of funds for the humanitarian operations. Ertharin
Cousin, head of the UN World Food Programme, has said: ‘We are precariously close, perhaps within weeks, to
suspending some humanitarian support’.

What concrete steps are being taken to ensure help for the people of Syria once restrictive measures have been
imposed?

What is the position of the EEAS on the above UN statement?

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

_(8 July 2013)_

The EU has been at the forefront of humanitarian response in the Syrian crisis and has just dedicated over
EUR 672 million in humanitarian assistance to the people in need, both in Syria and the neighbouring countries:
Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq. These funds, channelled through EU partners, i.e. the Red Cross/Red Crescent
movement, the United Nations (UN) family and International non-governmental organisations (INGOs), have
financed life-saving emergency assistance to all affected populations, including Syrian refugees in camps and urban

areas.

As announced by the President of the Commission, on 6 June 2013, the Commission will deploy a comprehensive
package of assistance with humanitarian and non-humanitarian support mobilising an additional EUR 400 million
for Syria and neighbouring countries in particular Lebanon and Jordan, including the host communities there, which
are most severely affected.

In response to the UN joint statement, the President of the Commission also underlined the urgency of finding a
political solution while also calling on other donors to increase humanitarian assistance funding.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 565

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-005174/13**
**do Komisji (Wiceprzewodniczącej/Wysokiej Przedstawiciel)**

**Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR)**

_(8 maja 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Wiceprzewodnicząca Komisji/Wysoka Przedstawiciel – rząd Szwajcarii rozszerza ograniczenia dotyczące
rynku pracy

W środę 24 kwietnia 2013 r. rząd Szwajcarii postanowił rozszerzyć ograniczenia dotyczące rynku pracy
w odniesieniu do państw członkowskich, które przystąpiły do Unii Europejskiej w 2004 r. W odpowiedzi na ten krok
Wysoka Przedstawiciel wyraziła ubolewanie w związku z decyzją rządu Szwajcarii i oświadczyła, że „środki podjęte
w dniu dzisiejszym przez rząd Szwajcarii są sprzeczne z umową w sprawie swobodnego przepływu osób, ponieważ
dzielą one państwa członkowskie na różne grupy”.

Jakie kroki może podjąć Europejska Służba Działań Zewnętrznych (ESDZ) w celu zagwarantowania, by inne kraje
spoza UE, które również wiąże ta umowa, nie naśladowały polityki Szwajcarii?

Czy UE, mając na uwadze oświadczenie Catherine Ashton, omówiła tę kwestię z rządem Szwajcarii?

Czy ESDZ mogłaby przedstawić dane statystyczne pokazujące, które kraje spoza UE otrzymują najwięcej wniosków
o pozwolenie na pracę od obywateli UE?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez Wysoką Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodniczącą Catherine Ashton w imieniu**

**Komisji**
_(28 czerwca 2013 r.)_

Komisja pragnie poinformować Szanownego Pana Posła, że żadnych innych państw spoza UE nie wiąże takie samo
porozumienie jak Szwajcarię.

Komisja przedstawiła Szwajcarii swoje obawy już przed przyjęciem pierwszych ograniczeń w kwietniu 2012 r.
Komisja podniesie tę kwestię ponownie na forum Wspólnego Komitetu ustanowionego na mocy Porozumienia.

Urząd Statystyczny Komisji Eurostat nie gromadzi żadnych danych dotyczących wniosków o zezwolenie na pracę
w krajach UE lub spoza UE składanych przez obywateli UE.

Zgodnie z art. 6 rozporządzenia (WE) 862/2007 Eurostat gromadzi dane dotyczące zezwoleń na pobyt wydawanych
przez kraje UE i kraje EFTA obywatelom państw trzecich (obywatelom spoza UE) z przyczyn związanych
z zatrudnieniem.

C 80 E / 566 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005174/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Swiss Government extends labour market restrictions

On Wednesday, 24 April 2013, the Swiss Government decided to extend the labour market restrictions applying to
those Member States that joined the European Union in 2004. In response to this, the High Representative stated, ‘I
regret the decision of the Swiss Government’ and ‘the measures adopted today by the Swiss Government are contrary
to the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons since they differentiate between groups of Member States’.

What steps can the European External Action Service (EEAS) take to make sure that other non-EU countries bound by
the same agreement do not replicate the Swiss policy?

Bearing in mind Catherine Ashton’s statement, has the EU brought up this issue with the Swiss Government?

Could the EEAS provide statistics that show which non-EU countries receive the most work permit applications from
EU citizens?

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

_(28 June 2013)_

The Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member that no other non-EU countries are bound by the same
agreement as Switzerland.

The Commission raised its concerns with Switzerland already before the adoption of the first restrictions in
April 2012. It will raise the issue again in the Joint Committee established by the Agreement.

The Commission's Statistical Office Eurostat does not collect any data on the applications for work permits in EU or
non-EU countries from EU-citizens.

In accordance with the article 6 of the regulation (EC) 862/2007 Eurostat collects data on residence permits issued by
EU and EFTA countries to third-country nationals (non-EU citizens) for employment reasons.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 567

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-005175/13**

**do Komisji**
**Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR)**

_(8 maja 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Dochodzenie w sprawie Gazpromu – rosyjskiego producenta i dostawcy gazu

W ubiegłym roku Komisja wszczęła dochodzenie w sprawie Gazpromu – rosyjskiego producenta i dostawcy gazu –
w odpowiedzi na domniemane antykonkurencyjne praktyki podejmowane w Europie Środkowo-Wschodniej, które
mogą mieć niekorzystny wpływ na konsumentów w UE. Rosja wykorzystała Gazprom jako narzędzie polityki
zagranicznej, m.in. poprzez odcięcie dostaw gazu do krajów takich jak Gruzja, Mołdawia i Ukraina.

Jakie działania są obecnie podejmowane w UE w tej sprawie? Jeżeli te zarzuty okażą się prawdziwe, w jaki sposób
Komisja zamierza wywrzeć presję na Rosję, by zagwarantować, że Gazprom będzie przestrzegał przepisów prawa UE
w zakresie wolnej konkurencji?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Joaquina Almunię w imieniu Komisji**

_(28 czerwca 2013 r.)_

Komisja wszczęła dochodzenie w sprawie potencjalnego naruszenia art. 102 Traktatu o funkcjonowaniu Unii
Europejskiej przez rosyjską grupę Gazprom dnia 31 sierpnia 2012 r. Dochodzenie wciąż trwa. Komisja oczekuje od
Gazpromu przestrzegania reguł konkurencji, tak samo jak od każdego innego przedsiębiorstwa prowadzącego
działalność na terenie UE. W przypadku gdy Komisja stwierdzi naruszenia reguł konkurencji, może wydać decyzję
zobowiązującą przedsiębiorstwo do zaprzestania naruszeń oraz, w odpowiednich przypadkach, nałożyć grzywnę ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Art. 7 rozporządzenia Rady (WE) nr 1/2003 z dnia 16 grudnia 2002 r. w sprawie wprowadzenia w życie reguł konkurencji ustanowionych
w art. 81 i 82 Traktatu.

C 80 E / 568 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005175/13**

**to the Commission**
**Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Investigation into Russian gas producer and supplier Gazprom

Last year the Commission launched an investigation into the Russian gas producer and supplier Gazprom in response
to alleged anti-competitive practices in central and eastern Europe that may adversely affect EU consumers. Russia has
used Gazprom as a foreign policy tool, for example by cutting gas supplies to countries like Georgia, Moldova and
Ukraine.

What action is currently being taken in the EU on this issue? If these allegations prove to be true, how will the
Commission exert pressure on Russia to make sure that Gazprom follows EU free competition laws?

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

_(28 June 2013)_

The Commission opened an investigation on possible infringements of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning
of the European Union by the Russian group Gazprom on 31 August 2012. The investigation is ongoing. The
Commission expects Gazprom, in the same manner as any other company conducting business within the EU, to
abide by the competition rules. In cases where the Commisson finds infringements of the competition rules, it can
issue a decision requiring the undertaking to bring the infringements to an end and, as appropriate, impose fines ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in
Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 569

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-005178/13**

**aan de Commissie**
**Bart Staes (Verts/ALE)**

_(8 mei 2013)_

_Betreft:_ Paardenvlees: testresultaten DNA en fenylbutazon

1. De antwoorden van commissaris Borg op de parlementaire vraag P‐002460/2013 waren niet coherent.
Enerzijds heeft de Commissie bevestigd dat in uit Canada geïmporteerd paardenvlees fenylbutazon is aangetroffen,
anderzijds wordt echter met zoveel woorden gesteld dat de af te geven documenten volgens de Canadese autoriteiten
correct waren. Deze twee aspecten bij elkaar genomen tonen aan dat de Commissie indirect toegeeft dat er sprake is
van fraude met documenten en dat het huidige systeem niet aan zijn doelstellingen voldoet. Welke specifieke
maatregelen wil de Commissie treffen om deze welbekende problemen van ons voedselveiligheidssysteem aan te
pakken?

2. Fenylbutazon is een bekend toxisch product dat met hoge waarschijnlijkheid in paardenvlees voorkomt, maar
er zijn ook andere producten voor diergeneeskundig gebruik die veelvuldig kunnen voorkomen en eveneens op
grond van Richtlijn 96/22/EG verboden zijn. Waarom heeft de Commissie deze stoffen niet in beschouwing
genomen? Waarom was de beoordeling onvolledig gezien het feit dat hierdoor de toepasselijkheid en effectiviteit van
het onderzoek beperkt wordt?

3. De testresultaten voor DNA en fenylbutazon waren zeer verrassend. In Groot-Brittannië is geen enkel monster
paardenvlees positief getest terwijl juist deze lidstaat in het middelpunt van de aandacht heeft gestaan. Wat waren de
statistische en methodologische bijzonderheden van beide testen, en waarom is men ervan uitgegaan dat deze
methode toereikend was?

4. Om welke redenen was slechts een derde van de geteste monsters afkomstig uit derde landen terwijl uit
verscheidene verslagen van het Voedsel‐ en Veterinair Bureau duidelijk blijkt dat er allerlei problemen zijn met
ingevoerd vlees, met name uit Canada en Mexico?

5. Van welke waarde is het gezamenlijk advies geweest van de Europese Autoriteit voor voedselveiligheid en het
Europees Geneesmiddelenbureau over de risico's van fenylbutazon? Wat is de reden geweest om het één dag voor de
bekendmaking van de onderzoeksresultaten te versturen en waarom wordt er in de toelichting op de resultaten naar
verwezen? Wilde men hiermee paniek voorkomen en zo nee, wat was dan het doel van dit gezamenlijke advies?

**Antwoord van de heer Borg namens de Commissie**

_(20 juni 2013)_

1. De Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) ontdekte clenbuterol en fenylbutazon in paardenvlees dat reeds
naar de EU was uitgevoerd in het kader van het huidige residubewakingsprogramma en bracht de EU onmiddellijk op
de hoogde van deze ontdekking. De CFIA kwam haar informatieplichten ( [1] ) dus na. De Commissie zal door blijven
gaan met het bewaken van de invoer en het intensiveren van de samenwerking met derde landen om naleving van
de EU-voorschriften te garanderen.

2. Het primaire doel van het gecoördineerde controleplan was om de aanwezigheid van paardenvlees in rundvlees
te bewaken. De residutests beperkten zich tot fenylbutazon aangezien dit de enige stof was dat door enkele lidstaten
bij aanvang van het incident werd ontdekt.

3. De steekproefstrategie voor de implementatie van het gecoördineerde plan werd met inachtneming van de
nationale situatie en de representativiteit van de steekproef door de lidstaten vastgesteld. De testresultaten moeten in
samenhang met de resultaten van de interne controles van de exploitanten van levensmiddelenbedrijven worden
beschouwd. Uit alle resultaten samen blijkt dat 44 van de 111 geregistreerde niet-conforme gevallen in het Verenigd
Koninkrijk plaatsvonden.

4. In de steekproefstrategie van de lidstaten werd rekening gehouden met de verhouding tussen de nationale
productie (slacht) en de invoer en met de beschikbare informatie, waaronder inspectieverslagen van deskundigen van
de Commissie.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) zie antwoord op P-002460/2013 op http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/nl/parliamentary-questions.html

C 80 E / 570 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

5. Het doel van het gezamenlijk advies was het uitvoeren van een nauwkeurige risicobeoordeling voor de
mogelijke aanwezigheid van residuen van fenylbutazon. De Commissie drong erop aan dat het gezamenlijk advies
van de Europese Autoriteit voor voedselveiligheid en het Europees Geneesmiddelenbureau binnen dezelfde termijn
als de testresultaten werd gepresenteerd, zodat risicobeheersmaatregelen konden worden genomen met volledig
inzicht in zowel de prevalentie en de ernst van het risico.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 571

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005178/13**

**to the Commission**
**Bart Staes (Verts/ALE)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Horse meat: DNA and phenylbutazone test results

1. The explanations given by Commissioner Borg concerning Parliamentary Question P‐002460/2013 were
inconsistent. On the one hand, the Commission confirmed that phenylbutazone had been found in horse meat
imported from Canada, but on the other hand, the answer clearly stated that according to the Canadian authorities,
the documents which had to be provided were correct. Taken together, these two things show that the Commission
indirectly admits that there is document fraud and that the system that is currently in place does not comply with its
objectives. What specific action does the Commission propose in order to tackle these well-known problems of our
food safety system?

2. Whilst phenylbutazone may be a well-known toxic product with a high probability of occurring in horse meat,
other veterinary products also carry a high probability of occurrence and are also prohibited by Directive 96/22/EC.
Why did the Commission not take these substances into account? Why was the assessment incomplete, given that
this lowers the applicability and effectiveness of the study?

3. The DNA and phenylbutazone test results were very surprising. In the UK, for example, no single sample tested
positive for horse meat, yet it was precisely this Member State that was in the eye of the storm. What were the
statistical and methodological specifics of both these tests, and why was it assumed that the specifics were adequate?

4. What arguments are used to justify the fact that only one third of the samples used were imported from third
countries, while different Food and Veterinary Office reports clearly state that there are several problems with
imported meat, especially meat from Canada and Mexico?

5. What was the usefulness of the joint opinion from the European Food Safety Authority and the European
Medicines Agency on the risks of phenylbutazone? Why was it sent out a day before the test results were published,
and was it referred to in the explanatory note accompanying those results? Was the objective to avoid public panic,
and if not, what was the objective of this joint opinion?

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

_(20 June 2013)_

1. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), detected clenbuterol and phenylbutazone in horse meat that had
already been exported to the EU, under the current residue monitoring programme and immediately informed the EU
of this detection. CFIA thus met its information obligations ( [1] ). The Commission will continue to monitor imports
and to strengthen cooperation with third countries to ensure compliance with EU requirements.

2. The first goal of the coordinated control plan was to monitor the presence of undeclared horsemeat in beef
product. Residues testing was restricted to phenylbutazone, as this was the only substance detected by some Member
States in the onset of the incident.

3. The sampling strategy for the implementation of the coordinated plan was decided by the Member States having
regard to the national situation and in view of ensuring the representativeness of the sample. The results of the tests
should be read in conjunction with the results of own-checks performed by food business operators. All results taken
together show that 44 of the 111 non-compliant cases reported occurred in the United Kingdom.

4. Member States sampling strategy took into account the ratio between national production (slaughtering) and
imports, and available information, including Commission experts' audit reports.

5. The objective of the joint opinion was to have an accurate risk assessment on the possible presence of residues
of phenylbutazone. The Commission insisted that the joint opinion of the European Food Safety Authority and the
European Medicines Agency be delivered within the same time frame as the test results, in order to allow risk
management measures to be taken in full understanding of both the prevalence and the seriousness of the risk.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) see reply to PQ-002460/2013 at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

C 80 E / 572 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005179/13**

**to the Commission**
**James Nicholson (ECR)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Sharing CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) best practice

An increasing number of organisations recognise the benefits of adopting Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
strategies. Learning from and sharing knowledge with other organisations is a useful part of helping to ensure
maximum positive benefit of such strategies.

With this in mind, what support mechanisms are currently available for the sharing of best practice between
organisations and Member States in the field of CSR?

In addition, what is the Commission’s assessment of how successful these are at advancing the adoption of best
practice and improving the positive benefits of CSR strategies?

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

_(10 July 2013)_

The Commission’s new strategy on CSR 2011 to 2014 has been elaborated in consultation with all relevant
stakeholders. There are two main fora, namely the High Level Group of Member States and the Multistakeholder
Forum on CSR.

The Commission in 2011-2014 focuses on ‘Enhancing the visibility of CSR and disseminating good practices’, as the
benefits of such an approach are often underestimated.

For example, to enhance the visibility of CSR and disseminate good practices, a European award for partnerships
between enterprises and their stakeholders was created. This award is based on similar award schemes in the EU
Member States. The European award ceremony took place on 25 June 2013 in Brussels. Another successful example
was the conference on youth, entrepreneurship, volunteering and CSR in September 2012.

A peer review exercise among EU Member States on their national CSR strategies is starting this month.

As foreseen in the communication _A Renewed EU Strategy 2011-2014 for Corporate Social Responsibility,_ the
Commission is planning a review meeting of the Multistakeholder Forum and Member States in 2014 to discuss the
achievements of the communication of 2011 and reflect on possible follow-up initiatives.

As to the external dimension of CSR, countries adhering to OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, including
non-OECD members, must set up a National Contact Point (NCP) to raise awareness of the Guidelines with
businesses, trade unions and NGOs, assist in their implementation, and set up and implement a complaint and
mediation mechanism.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 573

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005180/13**

**to the Commission**
**James Nicholson (ECR)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Further research into declining bee numbers

The decline in numbers of the bee population is a complex issue. The importance of the situation makes it pivotal that
robust and relevant scientific evidence be used to address the matter.

Can the Commission summarise the research evidence obtained by it prior to its decision to ban neonicotinoids for a
two-year period?

Can the Commission also divulge in what way the analysis has taken account of the consequences of such a ban for
food production and the environment?

Furthermore, given the lack of conclusive scientific evidence and in light of the conclusions of recent reports by two
US authorities — the Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency — what research will the
Commission undertake during this two-year period in order to achieve a better understanding of the issue?

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

_(1 July 2013)_

The measures adopted by the Commission on neonicotinoids ( [1] ) are based on the results of the review performed by
the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on the risk assessment for bees in accordance with provisions laid down
in Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 ( [2] ). The EFSA conclusions were published on 16 January 2013 ( [3] ). In
addition, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E 001351/2013 ( [4] ).

As regards the analysis on the consequences of such restrictions, the Commission would refer the Honourable
Member to its answer to written questions E 001323/2013 and E 002012/2013 ( [5] ).

The Commission is aware of the report on the National Stakeholders Conference on Honey Bee Health published
recently by United States Department of Agriculture ( [6] ). The conclusions of the report are not conflicting with the
conclusions reached following the EU review. In general, due to the different data requirements provided for in the EU
legislation, the data of the EU dossier, evaluated and peer reviewed in the framework of the EU pesticide legislation,
and the data evaluated by US Environmental Protection Agency are not comparable.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 485/2013 of 24 May 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, as regards

the conditions of approval of the active substances clothianidin, thiamethoxam and imidacloprid, and prohibiting the use and sale of seeds treated
with plant protection products containing those active substances, OJ L 139, 25.5.2013.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 309, 24.11.2009.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment for bees for the active substance clothianidin. EFSA Journal 2013;11(1):3066. [58

pp.] doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3066; Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment for bees for the active substance
thiamethoxam. EFSA Journal 2013;11(1):3067. [68 pp.] doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3067; Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk
assessment for bees for the active substance imidacloprid. EFSA Journal 2013; 11(1):3068. [55 pp.] doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3068 Available
online: www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) http://www.usda.gov/documents/ReportHoneyBeeHealth.pdf

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

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

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

⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

C 80 E / 574 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005181/13**

**to the Commission**
**James Nicholson (ECR)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Analysis of research relating to extreme weather patterns

In recent weeks parts of Northern Ireland and Great Britain have experienced heavy snowfall which has had a
devastating impact on many farms. This is especially damaging given that the industry continues to live with the
consequences of 2012 being one of the wettest years on record. Scientists have identified a change in the behaviour of
the jet stream and have noted it as being a factor in increasingly unpredictable weather patterns.

Given the impact of what appear to be increasingly extreme, volatile and unpredictable weather patterns, will the
Commission outline the work it has undertaken to collate, analyse and interpret data from Member States and what
conclusions it has drawn?

Furthermore, what plans does the Commission have for further research into extreme weather patterns, including
their frequency and potential impact on forecasting?

**Answer given by Ms Geoghegan-Quinn on behalf of the Commission**

_(17 July 2013)_

Extreme hydrological events imply high risks for society as they often cause severe damages, losses of goods and
human lives. Forecasts and early warning of such events became one of the priorities of the Seventh Framework
Programme for Research and Technological Development ( [1] ), under the Theme Environment (including Climate
Change). This issue has been addressed more specifically in the Work Programme 2012 which included a topic on
seasonal to decadal predictions, designed to improve operational forecast systems at time scales from months to years
ahead. Three projects are financed with a total EC contribution of EUR 26 M, to tackle outstanding research questions
in this field in an integrated way. In addition, the Work Programme 2013 included a specific topic on extreme hydrometeorological events, for which further proposals are expected to be funded.

Moreover the Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) develops EU-wide operational forecasting and awareness
systems for weather driven natural disasters together with the Member States' Meteorological services and
international partners. The present focus is on forest fires, floods, and droughts. JRC is reviewing also existing disaster
loss data gathering activities (including those related to weather driven events) at International, EU and at Member
State levels.

Finally, in April 2013, the EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change was adopted to promote and support
adaptation action by Member States. The strategy will also link to Copernicus, the European Programme for the
establishment of a European capacity for Earth Observation, to develop further our observation and reaction capacity
facing the vulnerability to weather and climate events.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) FP7, 2007-2013.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 575

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-005182/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(8 maggio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Gomme da masticare vegetali e biodegradabili: una soluzione sostenibile ed ecologica

Le attuali gomme da masticare, ormai disponibili in svariati gusti, sono realizzate con polimeri a base di benzina che
si fondono con la gomma e le rendono difficilmente eliminabili da ogni tipo di superficie. Per quanto concerne
l'impatto ambientale, in realtà, quando fu brevettata e lanciata sui mercati nel 1866, questa novità sfruttava come
ingrediente-base il _chicle_ messicano, la gomma naturale ricavata dall'omonima pianta. La gomma naturale è stata ben
presto sostituita dalle multinazionali produttrici con miscele artificiali derivate dal petrolio, come tutt'oggi avviene.
Tali ingredienti rendono il _chewing gum_ parzialmente biodegradabile e in tempi lunghissimi: non meno di cinque anni.
Oltre al danno per l'ambiente, non vanno sottovalutate le conseguenze sul piano economico: basti pensare che per la
rimozione di una gomma gettata a terra si spende un euro; ad esempio, in Italia vengono spesi circa 23 miliardi di
euro all'anno e le autorità britanniche spendono ogni anno l'equivalente di 240 milioni di euro per rimuovere dalla
pavimentazione stradale le gomme, ricorrendo a getti di disinfettanti, sostanze chimiche e persino laser. Esiste però
un'alternativa: è in commercio un _chewing gum_ completamente biodegradabile, vegetale e privo di aspartame, che
prevede l'utilizzo di glucosio, gomma di base e aromi completamente biologici. Il prodotto è realizzato, inoltre, con
sciroppo biologico di agave azzurra. Le analisi cui sono state sottoposte le tavolette hanno evidenziato che,
conformemente al regolamento (CE) n. 41/2009, sono prive di glutine (pari a ‹1,5); anche la presenza di lattosio è
inconsistente (‹0,010).

Si consideri che uno dei vantaggi della composizione di tale prodotto è la facilità con cui si biodegrada, poiché
durante lo smaltimento i componenti, tutti naturali, diventeranno polvere in poche settimane; che la gomma
organica, oltre a essere biodegradabile, è solubile in acqua e non adesiva; che a tali benefici ambientali si unisce quello
economico del risparmio in termini di smaltimento dei rifiuti e che tali ragioni indurrebbero a ritenere possibile un
differente trattamento fiscale.

Alla luce di quanto precede, può la Commissione far sapere:

—
se intende adottare misure per favorire una maggiore diffusione di tale prodotto in tutti gli Stati membri;

—
se intende sensibilizzare il pubblico sull'importanza che prodotti con simili caratteristiche hanno per la tutela
della salute e dell'ambiente e se si possa intervenire sul mercato per variare l'aliquota IVA di questo prodotto?

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

_(10 luglio 2013)_

Sebbene le gomme da masticare biodegradabili siano, in un'ottica ambientale, preferibili a quelle contenenti polimeri
del petrolio, la Commissione ritiene che non sia opportuno intervenire a livello dell’UE per promuovere una più
ampia distribuzione di tale prodotto.

La direttiva IVA ( [1] ) impone agli Stati membri di applicare un’aliquota normale non inferiore al 15 % e dà loro la
possibilità di applicare una o due aliquote ridotte non inferiori al 5 % sulle categorie di forniture di cui all’allegato III
della direttiva IVA. Poiché le aliquote ridotte sono facoltative, spetta ad ogni singolo Stato membro decidere se
applicarle o meno. Inoltre, le categorie nell'allegato III sono definite in maniera piuttosto ampia e gli Stati membri
sono liberi di applicare un’aliquota ridotta a un’intera categoria o di limitarne l’applicazione a una sua parte (anche
molto ristretta), a condizione che prodotti simili, che sono in concorrenza fra di loro, non siano trattati diversamente
ai fini fiscali (principio di neutralità fiscale).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Direttiva 2006/112/CE del Consiglio del 28 novembre 2006.

C 80 E / 576 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005182/13**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Plant-based biodegradable chewing gum: a sustainable and environmentally-friendly solution

Current chewing gums, now available in various flavours, are made from petrol-based polymers that merge with the
gum and make it difficult to remove from any kind of surface. With regard to the environmental impact, when
chewing gum was patented and placed on the market in 1866, the principal ingredient of the new product was
Mexican chicle, the natural gum extracted from the plant of the same name. Multinational manufacturers very soon
replaced the natural gum with artificial mixtures derived from petrol, as is still the case today. These ingredients mean
that chewing gum is only partially biodegradable, and takes a very long time to break down: at least five years. In
addition to the damage to the environment, we should not underestimate the financial impact: we need only
remember that it costs EUR 1 to remove every piece of chewing gum dropped on the ground. For example,
approximately EUR 23 billion is spent in Italy every year, and the United Kingdom authorities spend the equivalent of
EUR 240 million per year on removing gum from the pavement, resorting to the use of disinfectant sprays, chemical
substances and even laser removal. However, there is an alternative: there is a chewing gum on sale that is completely
biodegradable, plant-based and which does not contain aspartame. It is based on glucose, gum and completely
organic flavours. The product is made, moreover, with organic blue agave syrup. The analyses carried out on the
sticks of gum have shown that, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 41/2009, they do not contain gluten (equal to ‹1.5);
the quantity of lactose present is also negligible (‹ 0.010).

One of the benefits of this product’s composition is the ease with which it biodegrades, since during disposal the
ingredients, which are all natural, will break down within a few weeks. The organic gum, as well as being
biodegradable, is water-soluble and non-adhesive. In addition to these environmental benefits, there are the financial
benefits in terms of savings on waste disposal. A different form of tax treatment could be envisaged for these reasons.

—
Will the Commission take steps to promote the wider distribution of this product throughout the Member
States?

—
Does it intend to raise public awareness regarding the impact that products with characteristics like these have
on the protection of health and the environment? Is it possible to intervene on the market to change the VAT
rate for this product?

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

_(10 July 2013)_

While biodegradable chewing gum may be, from an environmental perspective, preferable to chewing gums
containing petrol-based polymers, the Commission believes that it would not be appropriate to take action at EU level
to promote a wider distribution of this product.

The VAT Directive ( [1] ) obliges Member States to apply a standard rate of at least 15% and gives them the option of
applying one or two reduced rates set not lower than 5% to the categories of supplies listed in Annex III to the VAT
Directive. Since reduced VAT rates are optional, it is for each Member State to decide whether to apply them or not.
Moreover, the categories of this Annex III are formulated rather broadly and Member States are free to apply a
reduced rate to a whole category or to restrict its application to (even a very small) part of it provided that similar
goods, which are in competition with each other, are not treated differently for tax purposes (fiscal neutrality
principle).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 577

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-005183/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(8 maggio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Glucometri e microinfusori di insulina — come ottenere maggiori garanzie prima e dopo l'immissione in
commercio nei paesi europei

La tecnologia è entrata a pieno titolo nella diabetologia; i dispositivi medici e tecnologici rappresentano infatti un
elemento fondamentale per la gestione di una patologia in costante aumento a livello europeo e mondiale. I
glucometri, che, così come i microinfusori, sono indispensabili per tenere sotto controllo la glicemia e somministrare
l'insulina, sono entrati a far parte delle strategie di trattamento del diabete. Tali strumenti consentono un controllo più
efficace della malattia, contribuendo alla riduzione della variabilità glicemica e rallentando l'eventuale progressione di
complicanze. Si tratta di vantaggi metabolici che consentono una migliore qualità della vita. Tuttavia i diabetologi
evidenziano la necessità di rivedere al più presto le procedure di attribuzione del marchio CE ( _Conformité européenne)_ a
tali dispositivi. Infatti, ogni azienda produttrice sottopone il proprio prodotto a uno degli enti di certificazione
competenti, il quale decide se è idoneo all'immissione in commercio. Una volta ottenuto il marchio, il prodotto può
essere messo in vendita in tutti gli Stati membri senza dover sottostare a successivi controlli.

Considerando che nei paesi scandinavi è stato introdotto un sistema di verifica continua dei misuratori di glicemia,
basato su agenzie esterne e pareri di esperti, che certifica tutti i passaggi e rende pubblici tutti i dati acquisiti favorendo
così controlli mirati e servizi migliori per gli utenti; che, secondo tale sistema, i dispositivi dotati di marchio CE che
non soddisfano determinati requisiti non possono essere immessi sul mercato scandinavo; che sono essenziali una
valutazione post-marketing comprensiva di assidui controlli, banche dati dei dispositivi in uso e criteri di verifica
periodicamente aggiornati,

sono a chiedere alla Commissione:

—
se intende intervenire al fine di adottare misure di verifica dell'attendibilità e della sicurezza più severe per
quanto riguarda i dispositivi in oggetto, sia in fase di autorizzazione che in seguito alla loro immissione in
commercio; e

—
se ritiene necessario istituire registri nazionali per gli eventuali malfunzionamenti di glucometri e microinfusori
nonché garantire un più attento monitoraggio post-marketing dei dispositivi.

**Risposta di Tonio Borg a nome della Commissione**

_(20 giugno 2013)_

Le proposte della Commissione in merito a un regolamento relativo ai dispositivi medici ( [1] ) e ad un regolamento
relativo ai dispositivi medico-diagnostici in vitro ( [2] ) del settembre 2012 prevedono regole più rigorose per
l'immissione sul mercato di tali dispositivi.

Le proposte rafforzano i requisiti in tema di designazione e monitoraggio degli organismi notificati responsabili di
effettuare la valutazione di conformità dei dispositivi, rafforzano i requisiti in materia di dati clinici e introducono un
meccanismo che consente il coinvolgimento di un'autorità di regolamentazione nel processo di approvazione dei
dispositivi ad alto rischio.

Le proposte rafforzano anche la sorveglianza sia ad opera degli organismi notificati che delle autorità competenti. In
particolare, le proposte fanno obbligo agli organismi notificati di effettuare audit annuali e ispezioni senza preavviso
negli stabilimenti, che comprendono controlli a campione dei dispositivi, nonché di controllare sul mercato campioni
di produzione. Le proposte rafforzano inoltre le disposizioni in tema di vigilanza per consentire una migliore
rilevazione degli incidenti gravi e migliorare i meccanismi di coordinamento tra le autorità nazionali competenti
nell'ambito della vigilanza post-marketing.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Proposta di regolamento del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio relativo ai dispositivi medici recante modifica della direttiva 2001/83/CE, del

regolamento (CE) n. 178/2002 e del regolamento (CE) n. 1223/2009, COM(2012)542 def., Bruxelles, 26.9.2012.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Proposta di regolamento del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio relativo ai dispositivi medico-diagnostici in vitro, COM(2012)541 def., Bruxelles,

26.9.2012.

( **|**

C 80 E / 578 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

Nel contesto delle misure adottate a seguito dello scandalo delle protesi mammarie della società PIP, la Commissione
incoraggia la costituzione di registri nazionali dei dispositivi medici e promuove la cooperazione transfrontaliera in
questo ambito. Un primo esempio in tale direzione è dato dal progetto PARENT ( [3] ). Le proposte fanno inoltre obbligo
alla Commissione e agli Stati membri di prendere tutte le misure appropriate per incoraggiare la tenuta di registri per
tipi specifici di dispositivi al fine di raccogliere le esperienze post-marketing legate al loro uso.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Visualizzabile all'indirizzo http://www.patientregistries.eu/.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 579

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005183/13**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Glucose meters and insulin pumps — obtaining better guarantees before and after placing on the market in
European countries

Technology has made a wholesale entry into diabetes treatment; medical and technological devices play a
fundamental role in managing a disease that is becoming increasingly prevalent across Europe and the world. Glucose
meters, which, like pumps, are vital for keeping glycaemia under control and administering insulin, have come to
form a part of diabetes treatment strategies. These instruments make it possible to control the illness more effectively,
helping to reduce glycaemic variability and slowing down any progression of complications. These are metabolic
benefits that can lead to a better quality of life. However, diabetes specialists highlight the need to review, as soon as
possible, the procedures for allocating the CE ( _Conformité européenne)_ mark to these devices. All producers submit their
products to one of the relevant certification bodies, which decides whether the product is suitable to be placed on the
market. Once the mark has been obtained, a product may be put on sale in all Member States without having to
undergo further checks.

The Scandinavian countries have introduced a system of continuous checking of glycaemia meters, based on external
agencies and expert opinions, which certifies all transits and publishes all the data acquired, thus promoting targeted
checks and better services for users. Under this system, devices with the CE mark that do not comply with certain
requirements may not be placed on the Scandinavian market. A post-sales assessment consisting of rigorous checks,
databases of devices in use and regularly updated verification criteria are all essential.

—
Will the Commission take steps to adopt stricter measures to verify reliability and safety in relation to these
devices, both at the authorisation stage and once they have been placed on the market?

—
Does it believe it is necessary to set up national registers for possible malfunctions of glucose meters and pumps
as well as to provide closer post-sales monitoring of devices?

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

_(20 June 2013)_

The Commission Proposals for a regulation on medical devices ( [1] ) and for a regulation on _in vitro_ diagnostic medical
devices ( [2] ) from September 2012 foresee stricter rules for the placing on the market of these devices.

The proposals strengthen the requirements for designation and monitoring of notified bodies responsible for carrying
out conformity assessment of devices, reinforce the requirements for clinical data and introduce a mechanism which
allows for the involvement of a regulatory authority in the approval process of high-risk devices.

The proposals also strengthen surveillance both by notified bodies and by competent authorities. In particular, the
proposals require notified bodies to carry out annual audits and periodic unannounced inspections on the
manufacturing site, which include checks of device samples, as well as to check production samples from the market.
In addition, the proposals strengthen the provisions on vigilance to allow a better detection of serious incidents and
improve the mechanisms for coordination between national competent authorities in post-market surveillance.

In the context of the measures adopted following the PIP breast implants scandal, the Commission encourages the
setting up of national registers for medical devices and promotes cross-border cooperation in this field. A first
example in this direction is the PARENT project ( [3] ). In addition, the proposals require the Commission and the
Member States to take all appropriate measures to encourage the establishment of registers for specific types of
devices to gather post-market experience related to their use.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on medical devices, and amending Directive 2001/83/EC, Regulation (EC)

No 178/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009, COM(2012) 542 final, Brussels, 26.9.2012.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on _in vitro_ diagnostic medical devices, COM(2012) 541 final, Brussels,

26.9.2012.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Available at http://www.patientregistries.eu/.

( **|**

( **|**

C 80 E / 580 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-005184/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(8 maggio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Istituti di istruzione superiore italiani equiparati — come garantire un futuro più dignitoso

Di recente alcuni studi hanno dimostrato che alcuni Stati membri non hanno investito abbastanza nell'ambito
dell'istruzione e della formazione dei docenti. In particolare, l'Italia, che si colloca al ventiquattresimo posto tra gli
Stati membri per la qualità delle sue scuole, presenta numerosi istituti di istruzione superiore equiparati in grave
difficoltà economica. Si tratta in effetti di scuole legalmente equivalenti a quelle statali, che garantiscono un'istruzione
in ambito artistico e musicale di livello pari a quello delle scuole pubbliche. Tuttavia, diversamente da queste ultime,
sono finanziate dagli enti locali e non dal governo italiano, una differenza sostanziale che ha contribuito
notevolmente a incrementare le loro difficoltà finanziarie. Da anni sono inutilmente in attesa di diventare a loro volta
scuole pubbliche non più dipendenti dalle autorità locali, le quali hanno dichiarato di non volersi più fare carico delle
spese concernenti le discipline musicali. Un esempio calzante è offerto da un istituto agonizzante dell'Italia centrale
che non è stato in grado di stipendiare il proprio personale docente per nove mesi e il cui futuro è dubbio. Ne
consegue una situazione di incertezza crescente per i professori che, oltretutto, non possono essere assunti da scuole
pubbliche a causa del sovraffollamento di personale, e quindi dell'abbassamento del livello di qualità
dell'insegnamento, che un simile provvedimento comporterebbe.

Considerando che la situazione descritta aumenta la disoccupazione e influisce negativamente sulle famiglie italiane e
sul livello culturale della nazione, sono a chiedere alla Commissione se, nel rispetto del principio di sussidiarietà:

—
sono stati compiuti studi o indagini statistiche comparate sul livello di educazione, ricerca e multidisciplinarietà
tra i diversi sistemi di istruzione;

**Risposta di Androulla Vassiliou a nome della Commissione**

_(25 giugno 2013)_

Conformemente all'articolo 165 del trattato sul funzionamento dell'Unione europea, la responsabilità per quanto
riguarda il contenuto dell'insegnamento e l'organizzazione dei sistemi di istruzione e formazione spetta interamente
agli Stati membri.

A livello dell'UE non esiste alcun quadro né sono stati effettuati studi che consentano di valutare l'efficacia
comparativa dei diversi sistemi di istruzione. All'interno del quadro «Istruzione e formazione 2020» la Commissione
utilizza criteri di riferimento e indicatori che aiutano a misurare il rendimento dei sistemi nazionali di istruzione e
formazione, in particolare i progressi compiuti nel conseguimento dell'obiettivo principale fissato nella strategia
Europa 2020. Nella sua recente comunicazione «Ripensare l'istruzione» ( [1] ) la Commissione ha inoltre invitato gli Stati
membri ad avviare dibattiti nazionali su come investire in modo efficace nei rispettivi sistemi di istruzione e
formazione. Nel quadro del metodo aperto di coordinamento sono attualmente in corso lavori — che proseguiranno
il prossimo anno — sull'efficacia degli investimenti nei sistemi di istruzione e formazione, con un'attenzione
particolare agli effetti della crisi economica.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012)669 final.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 581

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005184/13**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Assimilated Italian higher education institutions — guaranteeing a more decent future

Recent studies have shown that certain Member States have not invested enough in the education and training of
teachers. In particular, Italy, which ranks 24th among Member States in terms of the quality of its schools, has many
assimilated higher education institutions that are in serious financial difficulty. These are schools that are legally
equivalent to state schools and which teach music and the arts to the same level as those schools. However, in
contrast to them, they are funded by the local authorities, not by the Italian Government. This significant difference is
one of the main reasons for their worsening financial situation. For years they have been waiting in vain to become
state schools independent from the local authorities, which have declared that they no longer wish to fund musical
disciplines. One relevant example is an ailing institution in central Italy which has been unable to pay its teachers’
salaries for nine months, and whose future is in doubt. The result is a situation of increasing uncertainty for teachers
who, moreover, cannot be employed by state schools because of overstaffing and hence because of the fall in teaching
standards that such a step would entail.

Since the situation described is increasing unemployment and adversely affecting Italian families and the nation’s
cultural level, can the Commission state whether, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity:

—
comparative statistical studies or investigations have been carried out on the level of education, research and
multi-disciplinary integration in different education systems?

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

_(25 June 2013)_

In accordance with Article 165 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the responsibility for the
content and organisation of education and training systems rests entirely with Member States.

At the EU level, no framework exists and no set of studies have been undertaken which would allow an assessment of
the comparative effectiveness of different educational systems. Within the ‘Education and Training 2020’ framework,
the Commission uses benchmarks and indicators which help to measure the performance of national education and
training systems, in particular the progress being made towards the headline target set in the Europe 2020 strategy. In
addition, in its recent Communication ‘Rethinking Education’ ( [1] ), the Commission called on Member States to initiate
national debates on effective investment in their education and training systems. Within the open method of
coordination, work is underway during this year and next on the effectiveness of investment in education and training
systems, with an emphasis on the impact of the economic crisis.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 669 final.

C 80 E / 582 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-005185/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(8 maggio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Nuove possibili misure per i programmi di edilizia popolare: garantire gli alloggi ai nuclei familiari più deboli
e parità di trattamento

Nel settembre 2012 il Commissario del Consiglio d'Europa per i diritti umani ha messo in luce alcune mancanze
dell'Italia, in particolare la protezione delle minoranze etniche. Nel quadro delle strategie nazionali per l'integrazione
delle minoranze etniche, la Commissione ha fissato come obiettivi fondamentali l'accesso all'istruzione, all'assistenza
sanitaria, all'occupazione e all'alloggio. Proprio con riferimento al diritto all'alloggio, di recente a Roma sono sorte
polemiche a seguito di una modifica tecnica apportata al bando pubblico per l'assegnazione di alloggi popolari, che
indirettamente avrebbe alterato la posizione in graduatoria degli assegnatari.

Posto che:

—
l'azione diretta dello Stato rappresenta solo una parte del pubblico intervento nel campo degli alloggi;

—
gli enti regionali e locali o gli organismi da essi dipendenti assumono, talvolta in misura essenziale, la
responsabilità dell'esecuzione della politica degli alloggi, in particolare nel settore sociale;

—
esistono diversi programmi di finanziamento dell'UE destinati all'edilizia abitativa, come i fondi FSE, FEASR e
FESR; in particolare quest'ultimo destina il 3 % della dotazione ai programmi operativi interessati ovvero il 2 %
della dotazione totale;

—
l'attuale crisi economica fa aumentare il numero di nuclei familiari in condizioni di povertà e incide
pesantemente sia sui bilanci della Pubblica Amministrazione che sul tessuto sociale;

—
la carenza di alloggi, e in particolare di alloggi sociali, può creare una discriminazione non solo fra i lavoratori
nazionali e i cittadini degli altri Paesi, ma anche tra gli stessi cittadini italiani che si trovano in maggiori
difficoltà economiche, come, ad esempio, i titolari di piccole imprese con minore disponibilità finanziaria;

—
le banche hanno parametri per la concessione di prestiti, del credito, che molto spesso (quasi sempre) non
possono aiutare questi lavoratori, perché il rischio di insolvenza, in tempo di crisi, è più elevato del normale.

Può la Commissione far sapere se:

—
per far fronte all'attuale emergenza economica, intende valutare un riesame e un aumento della dotazione di
fondi destinati all'edilizia abitativa, in particolare degli stanziamenti pubblici per gli alloggi o la costruzione di
alloggi sociali, tenendo conto dei nuovi bisogni che sorgono particolarmente sul piano regionale;

—
intende sollecitare inchieste per confrontare la situazione di tutti lavoratori con quella dei nazionali che si
trovano in condizioni e in regioni analoghe, al fine di garantire parità di trattamento nella fruibilità di alloggi
popolari e nell'assegnazione degli stessi?

**Risposta di László Andor a nome della Commissione**

_(17 luglio 2013)_

La responsabilità precipua di attuare la politica abitativa compete agli Stati membri; la Commissione fornisce loro
sostegno. I fondi dell'UE continuano ad essere a disposizione per progetti nel campo dell'edilizia abitativa. La
proposta nuova regolamentazione del FESR ( **[1]** ) consentirebbe una maggiore flessibilità per quanto concerne i tetti
degli investimenti nell'edilizia e il campo d'azione. La spesa per l'efficienza energetica, compreso il rinnovo degli
immobili, può aumentare grazie alla priorità conferita a tale soggetto e alle nuove direttive UE in materia energetica.
L'edilizia abitativa può rientrare nel capitolo dello sviluppo urbano integrato al quale sarà destinato almeno il 5 % del
FESR in ciascuno Stato membro. Il sostegno all'edilizia abitativa rientra inoltre nella riqualificazione fisica, economica
e sociale delle collettività e delle aree svantaggiate. L'FSE ( **[2]** ) può cofinanziare gli investimenti integrati e finanziare un
migliore accesso ai servizi sociali. Il FEASR ( **[3]** ) eroga finanziamenti per lo sviluppo dei servizi di base nelle zone rurali,
compresi i servizi sociali, il che può integrare le politiche in tema di edilizia popolare.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Fondo europeo di sviluppo regionale.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Fondo sociale europeo.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Fondo europeo agricolo per lo sviluppo rurale.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 583

Per quanto concerne il sostegno politico dell'UE, il pacchetto di investimenti sociali ( **[4]** ) fornisce indirizzi agli Stati
membri sul miglior modo per convogliare l'investimento sociale cofinanziato dai fondi dell'UE al fine di raggiungere
gli obiettivi della strategia Europa 2020. Il pacchetto riconosce nell'accesso a servizi sociali qualitativamente validi,
compresi gli alloggi popolari, una misura essenziale per l'inclusione attiva ed esplora le pratiche atte a far sì che gli
Stati membri migliorino l'accesso ad alloggi abbordabili prevenendo il fenomeno dei senzatetto.

Nell'ambito della normativa unionale la direttiva 2000/43/CE sulla parità razziale ( **[5]** ) vieta la discriminazione sulla
base dell'origine etnica o razziale in diversi ambiti, compresi quelli della protezione sociale e degli alloggi.

La legislazione dell'UE prevede la parità di trattamento dei lavoratori migranti unionali per quanto concerne l'accesso
ai servizi sociali di base. La Commissione conduce uno studio sull'indigenza dei migranti con un'attenzione
particolare sul legame tra migrazione e deprivazione abitativa. ( **[6]** )

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

⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Per ulteriori informazioni sul pacchetto di investimenti sociali si rinvia a http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1044&langId=it .
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Direttiva 2000/43/CE del Consiglio, del 29 giugno 2000, che attua il principio della parità di trattamento fra le persone indipendentemente dalla

razza e dall'origine etnica, GU L 180 del 19.7.2000, pag. 22.

( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Study on Migration, Mobility and Destitution in the European Union (Studio su migrazione, mobilità e indigenza nell'Unione europea)

(VT/2011/064).

( **|**

C 80 E / 584 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005185/13**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Possible new measures for social housing programmes: providing accommodation to more vulnerable
families and equal treatment

In September 2012 the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights highlighted certain failings by Italy, in
particular regarding the protection of ethnic minorities. Within the framework of national strategies for the
integration of ethnic minorities, the Commission has laid down access to education, healthcare, employment and
housing as fundamental objectives. With reference to the right to housing, there have recently been heated debates in
Rome following a technical amendment to the public tender for the allocation of social housing, which is alleged to
have indirectly altered recipients’ positions in the reserve list.

Direct action by the State accounts for only a part of public intervention in the housing sphere. Regional and local
authorities or bodies reporting to them take on responsibility — sometimes primary responsibility — for
implementing housing policy, particularly in the social housing sector. There are various EU financing programmes
for residential construction, such as the ESF, EAFRD and ERDF funds; the latter, in particular, earmarks 3% of its
allocation for the operational programmes concerned, or 2% of the total ERDF allocation. The current economic
crisis is increasing the number of families in poverty and is having a marked effect both on the budgets of the public
administration and on the social fabric. The lack of housing, particularly social housing, may give rise to
discrimination not only between national workers and citizens from other countries, but also between Italian citizens
that are in greater financial difficulties, such as owners of small businesses with more modest financial means. The
banks have parameters for granting loans and credit, which in many cases (almost always, in fact) cannot help these
workers, because the risk of insolvency, at a time of crisis, is higher than normal.

—
In order to address the current economic crisis, will the Commission consider a review of and increase to the
allocation of funds to residential construction, and in particular public subsidies for housing or the
construction of social housing, taking into account the new needs that are arising, particularly at regional level?

—
Will it request surveys to compare the situation of all workers with that of nationals in similar conditions and
regions, in order to ensure equal treatment in the provision and allocation of social housing?

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

_(17 July 2013)_

Member States are primarily responsible to implement housing policies, the Commission provides them support. EU
Funds continue to be available for housing purposes. The proposed future legislation on the ERDF ( **[1]** )would allow for
more flexibility as for housing investment ceilings and scope of actions. Energy efficiency expenditures including
housing renovation may increase thanks to the priority given to this topic and the new EU energy directives. Housing
can be part of integrated urban development for which min. 5% of ERDF will be allocated in each Member State.
Support to housing is also foreseen under physical, economic and social regeneration of deprived communities and
areas. The ESF ( **[2]** ) can complement integrated investments and fund enhanced access to social services. The EAFRD ( **[3]** )
provides funding for basic services development in rural areas, including social services, which may complement
social housing policies.

As for EU policy support, the Social Investment Package ( **[4]** ) (SIP) guides Member States on how best to target social
investment with EU Funds to meet the Europe 2020 strategy targets. The SIP recognises access to quality social
services including social housing as a key measure for active inclusion and explores practices how Member States may
improve access to affordable housing and thus prevent homelessness.

In EC law, Directive 2000/43/EC on Racial Equality ( **[5]** ) prohibits discrimination on the basis of racial or ethnic origin
in a number of areas, including social protection and housing.

EC law provides for equal treatment for EU migrant workers as regards access to basic social services. The
Commission has been conducting a study on the destitution of migrants, with a particular focus on the effects of
migration on homelessness ( **[6]** ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) European Regional Development Fund.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) European Social Fund.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) For more information on the Social Investment Package, please visit http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1044&langId=en
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racil or ethnic

origin, OJ L 180, 19.7.2000, p. 22.

( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Study on Migration, Mobility and Destitution in the European Union (VT/2011/064).

( **|**

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 585

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-005186/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Oreste Rossi (EFD) e Giancarlo Scottà (EFD)**

_(8 maggio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Vaccino contro il morbillo e autismo — esistenza di un nesso causale effettivo e tutela giuridica in Europa

Secondo una sentenza recentemente emessa da un tribunale italiano, il vaccino per il morbillo sarebbe la causa della
sindrome di Kanner, meglio nota come autismo. Il tribunale in questione ha condannato il ministero della Salute a
risarcire la famiglia di un bambino riconoscendo il nesso di causalità tra il classico vaccino trivalente (contro morbillo,
parotite e rosolia), cui il piccolo era stato sottoposto anni prima, e l'autismo insorto in seguito. La reazione da parte
della comunità medica e scientifica è stata particolarmente allarmata; quest'ultima ha infatti denunciato la gravità
della sentenza, basata su una teoria la cui infondatezza sarebbe già stata accertata da tempo. Tuttavia, alla base della
sentenza ci sono i risultati riportati da un articolo scientifico, comparso già nel 1998 sulla rivista medica specialistica
_Lancet,_ in cui un medico britannico sosteneva che il vaccino contro la malattia infantile fosse causa di infezioni
intestinali, a loro volta legate alla sindrome di Kanner.

Considerando che, ad oggi, il dibattito nella comunità medica sugli studi in grado di provare un eventuale legame tra
vaccinazione e autismo sono controversi; che attualmente il morbillo è al centro di una delle principali campagne
europee di immunizzazione volta a eradicare completamente la malattia entro il 2015; che la decisione del tribunale
italiano, sebbene appellabile e controversa, solleva comunque una questione di interpretazione in punto di diritto non
trascurabile per la tutela della salute; che, sulla base degli elementi presi in considerazione dalla sentenza, si rendono
necessari nuovi studi scientifici per dimostrare un ipotetico legame tra vaccino e autismo, pongo alla Commissione i
quesiti di seguito elencati:

—
È al corrente della pronuncia giudiziale emessa dal tribunale italiano?

—
Quale posizione intende adottare in un'ottica di maggiore chiarezza riguardo alla possibile sussistenza di un
nesso causale effettivo tra autismo e vaccinazioni?

—
Intende promuovere nuove campagne europee di ricerca medica nell'ambito in esame?

—
Ritiene di dover stabilire linee guida e raccomandazioni che indichino criteri validi e applicabili per tutti gli Stati
membri riguardo al risarcimento danni cui si ha diritto in casi analoghi a quello sopra esposto?

**Risposta di Tonio Borg a nome della Commissione**

_(25 giugno 2013)_

La Commissione è informata della decisione giudiziaria pronunciata dal tribunale italiano.

È opportuno sottolineare che l'articolo citato del _The Lancet_ è stato ritirato a febbraio del 2010 in quanto il suo autore
è stato ritenuto colpevole di errori etici, medici e scientifici ( [1] ), ( [2] ), ( [3] ).

La comunità scientifica è attualmente unanime nel sostenere che non si è individuata nessuna relazione tra l'autismo e
i vaccini contro il morbillo, la parotite e la rosolia (MPR). Diversi studi epidemiologici si sono occupati della
questione ( [4] ) concludendo che difficilmente l'esecuzione del vaccino MPR potrebbe avere una relazione con l'autismo.

Al termine del suo esame ( [5] ) il comitato consultivo mondiale sulla sicurezza dei vaccini dell'OMS è giunto alla
conclusione che non vi è alcuna prova di nesso causale tra il vaccino MPR e l'autismo e che ulteriori studi
epidemiologici non dovrebbero aggiungere altro ai dati esistenti. La relazione finale dell'organizzazione statunitense
_Institute of Medicine_ analogamente conclude che tutti gli elementi a disposizione escludono la possibilità di una
relazione causale tra il vaccino MPR e l' autismo ( [6] ). Nessuno dei suddetti organismi ha raccomandato l'adozione di
cambiamenti nelle attuali pratiche di vaccinazione.

L'Agenzia europea per i medicinali condivide pienamente le conclusioni raggiunte dagli enti citati in precedenza.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Dyer C, BMJ 2010, http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c593?view=long&pmid=20118180.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Flaherty DK, Ann pharmacother 2011.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Cervidi B, BMJ 2011.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Demicheli et al, Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22336803.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/committee/topics/mmr/mmr_autism/en/index.html
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Institute of Medicine, National Academies Press, USA; 2004, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10997&page=1.

C 80 E / 586 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

I danni causati dai medicinali rientrano nel campo di applicazione della direttiva 85/374/CEE ( [7] ) in materia di
responsabilità per danno da prodotti difettosi. Si possono applicare inoltre le disposizioni nazionali relative alla
responsabilità contrattuale o extracontrattule.

( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) GU L 210 del 7.8.1985.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 587

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005186/13**

**to the Commission**
**Oreste Rossi (EFD) and Giancarlo Scottà (EFD)**

_(8 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Vaccine against measles and autism — existence of an actual causal link and legal protection in Europe

According to a judgment recently issued by an Italian court, the vaccine for measles causes Kanner’s syndrome, better
known as autism. The court in question ordered the Italian Ministry of Health to compensate the family of a child,
recognising the causal link between the traditional three-in-one vaccine (against measles, mumps and rubella), which
the child had been given years earlier, and the autism that had subsequently developed. The medical and scientific
community has reacted with particular alarm; it has objected to the seriousness of the judgment, which is based on a
theory that was supposedly proven to be unfounded a long time ago. However, the judgment is based on the results
reported by a scientific paper, which appeared in the specialist medical journal the _Lancet_ as long ago as 1998. In that
paper, a British doctor argued that the vaccine against the childhood illness was the cause of intestinal infections,
which in turn were linked to Kanner’s syndrome.

To date, the debate in the medical community on the studies that may prove a possible link between vaccination and
autism has not reached a consensus. Currently measles is the focus of one of the main European immunisation
campaigns aimed at eradicating the disease completely by 2015. The decision by the Italian court, although it may be
appealed against and is controversial, nonetheless raises a question about the interpretation of a point of law that
cannot be ignored if people’s health is to be protected. On the basis of the elements taken into account by the
judgment, new scientific studies are necessary to demonstrate a hypothetical link between the vaccine and autism.

—
Is the Commission aware of the legal decision by the Italian court?

—
What position will it adopt to ensure greater clarity regarding the possible existence of an actual causal link
between autism and vaccinations?

—
Will it promote new European medical research campaigns in this field?

—
Does it consider it ought to issue guidelines and recommendations setting out valid, applicable criteria for all
Member States in relation to compensation for damages that is owed in cases similar to the one described
above?

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

_(25 June 2013)_

The Commission is aware of the legal decision by the Italian court.

It should be highlighted that the Lancet paper cited was retracted in February 2010 as its author was found guilty of
ethical, medical, and scientific misconduct ( [1] ) ( [2] ) ( [3] ).

Currently, there is scientific consensus that no significant association between autism and the vaccine for measles,
mumps and rubella (MMR) has been found. Multiple epidemiological studies investigated an association of the MMR
vaccine and autism ( [4] ) and it was concluded that exposure to the MMR vaccine was unlikely to be associated with
autism.

The WHO Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety concluded in its review ( [5] ) that there is no evidence for a
causal association between MMR vaccine and autism and that additional epidemiological studies are unlikely to add
to the existing data. Also the final report of the US Institute of Medicine concluded that the evidence favours rejection
of a causal relationship between MMR vaccine and autism ( [6] ). Neither of the bodies has recommended a change in
current vaccination practices.

The European Medicines Agency fully supports the conclusions reached by the abovementioned institutions.

Damage caused by medicinal products is covered by the scope of Directive 85/374/EEC ( [7] ) concerning liability for
defective products. In addition, national provisions governing contractual or non-contractual liability may apply.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Dyer C, BMJ 2010, http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c593?view=long&pmid=20118180
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Flaherty DK, Ann Pharmacother 2011.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Deer B, BMJ 2011.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Demicheli et al, Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22336803
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/committee/topics/mmr/mmr_autism/en/index.html
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Institute of Medicine, National Academies Press, US; 2004, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10997&page=1
( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) OJ L 210, 7.8.1985.

C 80 E / 588 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita P-005187/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(13 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Declarações de Jörg Asmussen: Fim do modelo de troika

Jörg Asmussen, membro do comité executivo do Banco Central Europeu, declarou hoje (dia 8 de maio de 2013) que o
modelo vigente de troika de credores internacionais que acompanha a execução dos programas de ajustamento
económico dos países em dificuldade não é o ideal e que, «a longo prazo», deveria ser mudado.

Segundo Asmussen, que defendeu o reforço dos poderes e da responsabilidade da Comissão Europeia neste tipo de
processos, este modelo poderá acabar quando o Mecanismo Europeu de Estabilidade (MEE) se tornar numa instituição
plena.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

—
Que comentários lhe merecem as declarações de Jörg Asmussen? Concorda com elas?

—
Quais as principais características que advoga para o novo MEE?

—
De que forma o novo mecanismo pode ser mais flexível e adequado às condições efetivas das economias sobre
as quais incidirá?

—
Dito de outra forma, como pretende assegurar-se de que a institucionalização do MEE não será apenas formal e
de que este terá capacidade de adaptação às circunstâncias concretas das economias em dificuldade e não
procurará aplicar-lhes modelos rígidos de reestruturação?

—
Esta posição implica uma possível saída do FMI deste tipo de processos? Caso esta se produza, de que modo
poderá assegurar a manutenção do seu contributo financeiro?

**Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão**

_(17 de junho de 2013)_

As responsabilidades respetivas da Comissão, BCE e instituições internacionais no que se refere à conceção e
acompanhamento dos programas de ajustamento macroeconómico são definidas no «Regulamento relativo ao
reforço da supervisão económica e orçamental dos Estados-Membros afetados ou ameaçados por graves dificuldades
no que diz respeito à sua estabilidade financeira, na área do euro» recentemente adotado.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 589

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-005187/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(13 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Statements by Jörg Asmussen: end of the troika model

Speaking on 8 May 2013, Jörg Asmussen, a member of the European Central Bank Executive Board, admitted that
there are shortcomings in the present troika model (whereby international creditors oversee the implementation of
economic adjustment programmes in countries in difficulty) and that it would, ‘in the long term’, need to be changed.

According to Mr Asmussen, who maintained that the Commission should assume a greater share of powers and
responsibilities in such processes, the troika model could be abandoned once the European Stability Mechanism
(ESM) has become an institution in the full sense.

How does the Commission respond to the views expressed by Jörg Asmussen? Does it agree with them?

What, in the Commission’s opinion, should be the main features of the new ESM?

How can the new mechanism be made more flexible and geared to the reality of the economies on which it will be
brought to bear?

To put it another way, how will the Commission ensure that institutional status will not, in this instance, exist in
name only and the ESM will be capable of adapting to the specific circumstances obtaining in economies in difficulty,
without seeking to impose rigid restructuring models?

Can Mr Asmussen’s words be taken to mean that the IMF might withdraw from processes of this kind? If that were to
happen, how could it be ensured that the IMF financial contribution would not be lost?

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

_(17 June 2013)_

The respective responsibilities of the Commission, ECB and international institutions with regards to the design and
monitoring of macroeconomic adjustment programmes are set in the recently adopted ‘Regulation on the
strenghtening of economic and budgetary surveillance of Member States in the euro area experiencing or threatened
with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability’.

C 80 E / 590 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-005188/13**

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

_(13 Μαΐου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Αίτημα του Δημοτικού Συμβουλίου της Κατεχόμενης Κυθρέας

Το τουρκικό κατοχικό καθεστώς απέρριψε αίτημα του Δημοτικού Συμβουλίου της κατεχόμενης Κυθρέας για την τέλεση
λειτουργίας στην κατεχόμενη Αγία Μαρίνα Κυθρέας στις 14 Ιουλίου 2013. Το καθεστώς του ψευδοκράτους, μέσω της
UNFICYP, πληροφόρησε συγκεκριμένα ότι η τουρκοκυπριακή πλευρά απέρριψε το αίτημά του Δήμου Κυθρέας, γιατί η
Εκκλησία χρησιμοποιείται ως πολιτιστικό κέντρο και ως βιβλιοθήκη. Σημειωτέον ωστόσο ότι η συγκεκριμένη εκκλησία
εχρησιμοποιείτο και στο παρελθόν ως κέντρο διδασκαλίας χορών και δεν παρουσιάστηκε κανένα πρόβλημα όταν στις 16
Ιουλίου 2009, παρόμοιο αίτημα του Δήμου Κυθρέας είχε τύχει θετικής αποδοχής. Τότε, επετράπη η τέλεση της λειτουργίας,
προϊσταμένου μάλιστα του Επισκόπου Χύτρων Λεοντίου.

Καταγγέλλω στην Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή και στον αρμόδιο Επίτροπο τη σημερινή αρνητική στάση του κατοχικού καθεστώτος
που αποκαλύπτει ξανά το στυγνό πρόσωπο της κατοχής. Αποτελεί, δυστυχώς, προπέτασμα καπνού η δήθεν καλή διάθεση της
Τουρκίας να συναινέσει επιτέλους σε μια βιώσιμη και λειτουργική λύση στο Κυπριακό. Αντίθετα, παρατηρείται κορύφωση
της τουρκικής αδιαλλαξίας, τώρα που η Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία ταλανίζεται με την οικονομική κρίση και τις άδικες αποφάσεις
της Τρόικας.

Ερωτάται λοιπόν η Επιτροπή:

—
Τι προτίθεται να πράξει για να ικανοποιήσει το αίτημα των ελληνοκυπρίων προσφύγων της περιοχής, να μεταβούν στην
κατεχόμενη εκκλησιά τους για να ασκήσουν απρόσκοπτα, το αναφαίρετο δικαίωμα κάθε ευρωπαίου πολίτη να κινείται
ελεύθερα και να ασκεί τα θρησκευτικά του καθήκοντα σε ευρωπαϊκά εδάφη που παράνομα τελούν υπό τουρκική
κατοχή τα τελευταία 39 έτη;

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

_(10 Ιουλίου 2013)_

Η Επιτροπή έχει επίγνωση του θέματος στο οποίο αναφέρεται το Αξιότιμο Μέλος του Κοινοβουλίου.

Η Επιτροπή θέτει τακτικά το θέμα της θρησκευτικής ελευθερίας στην τουρκοκυπριακή κοινότητα και θα συνεχίζει να το
προβάλλει κάθε φορά που θα χρειάζεται τονίζοντας την εξέχουσα σημασία του σεβασμού της ελευθερίας θρησκεύματος και
πεποιθήσεων.

Ενώ το σύνολο της Κύπρου προσχώρησε στην ΕΕ, η εφαρμογή του δικαίου της ΕΕ έχει ανασταλεί στις περιοχές που δεν
βρίσκονται υπό τον αποτελεσματικό έλεγχο της κυβέρνησης της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας. Η ερώτηση του Αξιότιμου Μέλους
του Κοινοβουλίου, ως εκ τούτου, καταδεικνύει εκ νέου την ανάγκη ταχείας και συνολικής διευθέτησης του κυπριακού
ζητήματος, η οποία θα έλυνε αποτελεσματικά το θέμα της θρησκευτικής ελευθερίας μεταξύ των δύο κοινοτήτων.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 591

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005188/13**

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

_(13 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Request from the Municipal Council of the occupied town of Kythrea

The Turkish occupation regime has refused a request from the Municipal Council of the occupied town of Kythrea to
for services to be conducted in the occupied church of Agia Marina Kythreas, submitted on 14 July 2013. The
pseudo-state regime, through UNFICYP, stated specifically that the Turkish Cypriots rejected the request from the
Kythrea Municipal Council as the Church is being used as a cultural centre and library. However, it should be noted
that this Church, which was also used in the past as a teaching centre, did not have any problems when a similar
request submitted on 16 July 2009 by the Kythrea Municipal Council was granted. At that time, authorisation was
given for services to be conducted under the responsibility of Bishop Hitron Leontiou.

I would like to complain to the European Commission and the competent Commissioner about the current negative
stance taken by the occupation regime which is, yet again, showing its ruthless character. Unfortunately, Turkey’s
apparent positive attitude towards finally agreeing on a sustainable and effective solution to the Cyprus problem is a
smoke screen. Rather, Turkish intransigence has peaked, now that Cyprus is burdened by the economic crisis and the
Troika’s unfair decisions.

Will the Commission say:

—
What does it intend to do to meet the request of the Greek Cypriot refugees in the area to go to their occupied
church in order to exercise freely the inalienable right of every EU citizen to free movement and religious
freedom on European territories which have been under Turkish occupation illegally for the past 39 years?

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

_(10 July 2013)_

The Commission is aware of the issue the Honourable Members refers to.

The Commission regularly raises the issue of religious freedom with the Turkish Cypriot community and continues to
take up this issue as appropriate stressing the paramount importance of respecting freedom of religion or belief.

Whereas the whole of Cyprus acceded to the EU, the implementation of EC law is suspended in the areas which are
not under effective control of the Republic of Cyprus. The question of the Honourable Member, therefore, once again
illustrates the need for a rapid comprehensive settlement in Cyprus, which would be an effective remedy to address
the issue of religious freedom between the two communities.

C 80 E / 592 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-005190/13**

**alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)**
**Gay Mitchell (PPE), Filip Kaczmarek (PPE), Liam Aylward (ALDE), Barbara Matera (PPE), Sari Essayah (PPE),**

**Diane Dodds (NI), Charles Tannock (ECR), Anna Záborská (PPE), Vytautas Landsbergis (PPE), Nirj Deva**

**(ECR), Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE) e Konrad Szymański (ECR)**

_(13 maggio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Presunta sterilizzazione in India

Secondo quanto riportato dalle organizzazioni per la tutela dei diritti umani e dai mezzi di informazione, il governo
indiano si appresterebbe ad autorizzare un programma che prevede la sterilizzazione di donne. Risale a febbraio
2013, la notizia secondo cui nella clinica rurale Manikchak, nel distretto di Malda (Bengala occidentale), due medici
avrebbero sterilizzato in un solo giorno 103 donne, in condizioni brutali e senza alcuna assistenza post-operatoria ( [1] ).
Gli attivisti dei diritti umani indiani dichiarano che i campi di sterilizzazione sono diffusi in maniera capillare in tutto
il Paese. L'India nega di aver fissato obiettivi di sterilizzazione, tuttavia, si presume che tali obiettivi siano stabiliti dagli
amministratori sanitari locali ( [2] ). La testata giornalistica _The_ _Guardian_ ha pubblicato nell'aprile 2012 un articolo nel
quale si dichiara che gli aiuti esteri avrebbero contribuito al finanziamento del programma di sterilizzazione
femminile forzata ( [3] ).

1. Può il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante garantire che la Commissione solleciterà il governo indiano a
intervenire in maniera proattiva in modo da vietare la sterilizzazione forzata e, quindi, l'assegnazione di quote di
sterilizzazione?

2. Può il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante garantire che gli aiuti dell'UE e dei suoi Stati membri non saranno
destinati al finanziamento di tali programmi?

**Risposta di Andris Piebalgs a nome della Commissione**

_(20 giugno 2013)_

Secondo la politica odierna del governo dell'India, confermata dal Ministero per la salute e il benessere familiare, non
esistono né regimi di pianificazione familiare coercitivi né obiettivi di sterilizzazione in India.

Alcuni programmi raccomandano ed eseguono la sterilizzazione dopo la nascita del terzo figlio, ma sempre su base
volontaria e in linea con la politica per la stabilizzazione della popolazione.

I metodi di pianificazione familiare, come il ritardo della prima nascita, il distanziamento delle nascite o la
sterilizzazione, sono applicati sulla base di consulenze e processi decisionali informati e volontari.

Secondo quanto rilevato dalla delegazione dell'UE in India, i metodi di pianificazione familiare, tra cui il ritardo della
prima nascita o la sterilizzazione, si applicano sulla base di consulenze e processi decisionali informati e volontari.
Tali metodi sono considerati migliori pratiche a livello internazionale e sono il risultato di decenni di sforzi
nell'attuazione di metodi volontari adeguati ed efficaci.

Il governo dell'India, di fatto, si oppone alla sterilizzazione forzata, ha eliminato gli obiettivi della pianificazione
familiare e ha delineato orientamenti per migliorare la qualità dell'assistenza. Tuttavia esistono prove del fatto che, in
alcuni luoghi, la sterilizzazione viene effettuata senza un'adeguata consulenza o un consenso informato. Il governo
indiano sta cercando di affrontare questo problema e si sta adoperando per fare in modo che gli operatori sanitari
riportino tali pratiche scorrette di sterilizzazione.

Inoltre, le organizzazioni non governative (ONG) finanziate dall'UE che si occupano di questioni relative alla salute in
India sono a conoscenza di alcuni casi di abusi relativi alla sterilizzazione, ma non hanno segnalato casi ripetuti o
diffusi di sterilizzazione forzata negli ultimi anni.

La Commissione rimanda inoltre gli onorevoli parlamentari alla risposta data all'interrogazione scritta
E-04800/13 ( [4] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/103-women-sterilised-in-a-day-at-west-bengal-hospital-probe-ordered-327538.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/07/12/india-target-driven-sterilization-harming-women.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/15/uk-aid-forced-sterilisation-india.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/it/parliamentary-questions.html;jsessionid=987EC3257DF4C7A682B41123ABBD3EED.node1.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 593

_(Tekstas lietuvių kalba)_

**Klausimas, į kurį atsakoma raštu, Nr. E-005190/13**
**Komisijai (Komisijos pirmininko pavaduotojai ir vyriausiajai įgaliotinei)**
**Gay Mitchell (PPE), Filip Kaczmarek (PPE), Liam Aylward (ALDE), Barbara Matera (PPE), Sari Essayah (PPE),**

**Diane Dodds (NI), Charles Tannock (ECR), Anna Záborská (PPE), Vytautas Landsbergis (PPE), Nirj Deva**

**(ECR), Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE) ir Konrad Szymański (ECR)**

_(2013 m. gegužės 13 d.)_

_Tema:_ VP/HR – Įtariamas prievartinis sterilizavimas Indijoje

Remiantis žmogaus teisių organizacijų pateikiamais duomenimis ir naujais pranešimais, Indijos vyriausybė leidžia
vykdyti programą, pagal kurią prievarta sterilizuojamos moterys. Pranešta, kad 2013 m. vasario mėn. Vakarų
Bengalijos valstijos Maldaho apskrities Manikčako kaimo sveikatos centre du gydytojai per vieną dieną sterilizavo
103 moteris. Tai buvo daroma pasibaisėtinomis sąlygomis ir be jokios tolesnės medicininės priežiūros. ( [1] ) Indijos
kovotojai už žmogaus teises teigia, kad visoje šalyje veikia masinio sterilizavimo stovyklos. Indija neigia turinti
planinių sterilizavimo užduočių. Tačiau įtariama, kad tokias planines užduotis nustato vietos sveikatos priežiūros
administratoriai. ( [2] ) Laikraščio _The Guardian_ 2012 m. balandžio mėn. numeryje pranešama, kad iš užsienio gauta
parama buvo panaudota programos, pagal kurią prievarta sterilizuojamos moterys, išlaidoms apmokėti. ( [3] )

1. Ar Komisijos pirmininko pavaduotoja-vyriausioji įgaliotinė užtikrins, kad Komisija paragintų Indijos vyriausybę
griežtai uždrausti prievartinę sterilizaciją ir neleisti, kad būtų siekiama vykdyti sterilizavimą pagal nustatytas kvotas?

2. Ar Komisijos pirmininko pavaduotoja-vyriausioji įgaliotinė užtikrins, kad tokios programos nebūtų
finansuojamos naudojant ES ir jos valstybių narių skiriamą paramą?

**A. Piebalgo atsakymas Komisijos vardu**

_(2013 m. birželio 20 d.)_

Šiandieninėje Indijos vyriausybės politikoje, kaip patvirtino Indijos sveikatos ir šeimos gerovės ministerija, nėra nei
priverstinių šeimos planavimo sistemų, nei sterilizavimo tikslų.

Pagal kai kurias programas sterilizacija rekomenduojama ir įgyvendinama po trečiojo vaiko gimimo, tačiau ji visada
vykdoma savanorišku pagrindu ir laikantis gyventojų skaičiaus stabilizavimo politikos nuostatų.

Apie šeimos planavimo metodus, kaip antai pirmojo vaiko gimimo atidėjimą, laikotarpių tarp vaikų gimimo
reguliavimą ar sterilizaciją, yra konsultuojama ir informuojama. Sprendimai dėl šių metodų taikymo priimami
savanorišku pagrindu.

Remiantis ES delegacijos Indijoje pastabomis, šeimos planavimo metodai, įskaitant pirmojo vaiko gimimo atidėjimą
ar sterilizaciją, iš tiesų taikomi savanoriškai prieš tai gavus sprendimui priimti reikalingą informaciją ir konsultacijas.
Šie metodai – tai geriausia tarptautinė patirtis. Jie yra dešimtmečius trukusių pastangų įgyvendinti tinkamus ir
veiksmingus savanoriškus metodus rezultatas.

Indijos vyriausybė iš esmės prieštarauja priverstinei sterilizacijai, pašalino šeimos planavimo tikslus ir parengė gaires,
kaip pagerinti priežiūros kokybę. Vis dėlto yra įrodymų, kad kai kuriose vietovėse sterilizacija vykdoma be tinkamo
konsultavimo arba informuoto asmens sutikimo. Indijos sistema bando išspręsti šią problemą. Vyriausybė siekia
patraukti baudžiamojon atsakomybėn įstatymus pažeidusius sveikatos priežiūros paslaugų teikėjus.

Indijoje veikiančios ES finansuojamos nevyriausybinės organizacijos (NVO) žino apie pasitaikančius priverstinės
sterilizacijos atvejus, tačiau per pastaruosius kelerius metus jos nepranešė, kad tokie atvejai yra sistemingi ar plačiai
paplitę.

Komisija norėtų atkreipti gerbiamo Europos Parlamento nario dėmesį į savo atsakymą į rašytinį klausimą
E-04800/13 ( [4] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/103-women-sterilised-in-a-day-at-west-bengal-hospital-probe-ordered-327538.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/07/12/india-target-driven-sterilization-harming-women.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/15/uk-aid-forced-sterilisation-india.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/fr/parliamentary-questions.html;jsessionid=987EC3257DF4C7A682B41123ABBD3EED.node1.

C 80 E / 594 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-005190/13**
**do Komisji (Wiceprzewodniczącej/Wysokiej Przedstawiciel)**
**Gay Mitchell (PPE), Filip Kaczmarek (PPE), Liam Aylward (ALDE), Barbara Matera (PPE), Sari Essayah (PPE),**

**Diane Dodds (NI), Charles Tannock (ECR), Anna Záborská (PPE), Vytautas Landsbergis (PPE), Nirj Deva**

**(ECR), Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE) oraz Konrad Szymański (ECR)**

_(13 maja 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel – Domniemana przymusowa sterylizacja w Indiach

Według organizacji praw człowieka i doniesień informacyjnych rząd Indii zezwala na program przymusowej
sterylizacji kobiet. Donosi się, że w lutym 2013 r. sterylizacji poddano 103 kobiety, przy czym zabiegi te wykonali
w jednym dniu dwaj lekarze w wiejskim ośrodku zdrowia Manikchak w dystrykcie Malda w Bengalu Zachodnim,
w zatrważających warunkach i bez jakiejkolwiek kontroli lekarskiej po zabiegu ( [1] ). Indyjscy działacze na rzecz praw
człowieka utrzymują, że w kraju istnieją obozy, w których dokonuje się sterylizacji na skalę masową. Indie
zaprzeczają obraniu celów w zakresie sterylizacji. Niemniej jednak istnieje domniemanie, że takie cele zostały
ustalone na poziomie lokalnym przez administrację służby zdrowia ( [2] ). Gazeta _The_ _Guardian_ poinformowała
w kwietniu 2012 r., że do sfinansowania programu przymusowej sterylizacji kobiet posłużono się pomocą
zagraniczną ( [3] ).

1. Czy Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel dopilnuje, by Komisja wezwała rząd Indii do aktywnego
zakazu zabiegów przymusowej sterylizacji i zabronienia dążenia do realizacji jakichkolwiek wskaźników
w dziedzinie sterylizacji?

2. Czy Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel dopilnuje, by pomoc z UE i jej państw członkowskich nie
była wykorzystywana do finansowania takich programów?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Andrisa Piebalgsa w imieniu Komisji**

_(20 czerwca 2013 r.)_

Jeśli chodzi o obecną politykę rządu Indii, ministerstwo zdrowia i dobrobytu rodziny potwierdziło, że nie istnieją
w Indiach represyjne programy planowania rodziny ani cele w zakresie sterylizacji.

Niektóre z tych programów koncentrują się na zalecaniu sterylizacji i jej realizacji po urodzeniu trojga potomstwa,
sterylizacja jest jednak zawsze przeprowadzana w sposób dobrowolny i zgodnie z polityką stabilizacji ludności.

Metody planowania rodziny, takie jak opóźnianie narodzin pierwszego potomka czy sterylizacja, realizowane są
w oparciu o doradztwo oraz świadomie i dobrowolnie podejmowane decyzje.

Z obserwacji delegacji UE w Indiach wynika, że metody planowania rodziny, w tym opóźnianie narodzin pierwszego
potomka czy sterylizacja przeprowadzane są na zasadzie doradztwa w oparciu o dobrowolną, świadomą decyzję.
Metody te są najlepszymi międzynarodowymi praktykami. Są one wynikiem dziesiątek lat wysiłków mających na
celu wdrażanie odpowiednich i skutecznych metod opartych na dobrowolności.

Rząd Indii faktycznie sprzeciwia się przymusowej sterylizacji, usunął cele w zakresie planowania rodziny i opracował
wytyczne na rzecz poprawy jakości opieki zdrowotnej. Niemniej jednak istnieją dowody na to, że w niektórych
miejscach, sterylizacji dokonuje się bez odpowiedniego doradztwa i świadomej zgody. Indyjski system próbuje
zaradzić temu procederowi. Rząd dąży do tego, by pracownicy służby zdrowia zostali pociągnięci do
odpowiedzialności za nadużycia.

Ponadto wspierane z unijnych środków organizacje pozarządowe zajmujące się problematyką zdrowotną w Indiach
wiedzą o przypadkach nadużyć dotyczących sterylizacji, ale w ciągu ostatnich kilku lat nie odnotowały
systematycznych ani powszechnych przypadków przymusowej sterylizacji.

Komisja uprzejmie prosi szanownych Państwa Posłów o zapoznanie się także z odpowiedzią udzieloną na pytanie
pisemne nr E-04800/13 ( [4] ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/103-women-sterilised-in-a-day-at-west-bengal-hospital-probe-ordered-327538
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/07/12/india-target-driven-sterilization-harming-women
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/15/uk-aid-forced-sterilisation-india
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/pl/parliamentary-questions.html?polGroup=&dateAnswerEnd=&author=&refQpNum=04800&date](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/pl/parliamentary-questions.html?polGroup=&dateAnswerEnd=&author=&refQpNum=04800&date)

DepositStart=&typeQuestion=all&dateAnswerStart=&miType=text&dateDepositEnd=&clean=false&refQpYear=2013&miText=&leg=7

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 595

_(Slovenské znenie)_

**Otázka na písomné zodpovedanie E-005190/13**
**Komisii (podpredsedníčke Komisie/vysokej predstaviteľke)**
**Gay Mitchell (PPE), Filip Kaczmarek (PPE), Liam Aylward (ALDE), Barbara Matera (PPE), Sari Essayah (PPE),**

**Diane Dodds (NI), Charles Tannock (ECR), Anna Záborská (PPE), Vytautas Landsbergis (PPE), Nirj Deva**

**(ECR), Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE) a Konrad Szymański (ECR)**

_(13. mája 2013)_

_Vec:_ VP/HR – údajné nútené sterilizácie v Indii

Podľa informácií od organizácií pre ľudské práva a správ z médií indická vláda povoľuje program nútenej sterilizácie
žien. Správy z februára 2013 informovali o prípade Vidieckej kliniky Manikchak v okrese Malda (štát Západné
Bengálsko), kde dvaja doktori v priebehu jedného dňa sterilizovali 103 žien, a to v otrasných podmienkach a bez
akéhokoľvek následného lekárskeho dohľadu. ( [1] ) Podľa indických aktivistov za ľudské práva sa tábory pre masovú
sterilizáciu nachádzajú po celej krajine. India akékoľvek sterilizačné kvóty popiera. Predpokladá sa však, že tieto
kvóty stanovujú miestni riadiaci pracovníci zdravotníckych zariadení. ( [2] ) Noviny _The Guardian_ uverejnili v apríli 2012
správu, podľa ktorej je program násilnej sterilizácie žien čiastočne financovaný zo zahraničnej pomoci. ( [3] )

1. Zabezpečí podpredsedníčka Komisie/vysoká predstaviteľka, aby Komisia vyzvala indickú vládu k tomu, aby
nútené sterilizácie aktívne zakázala a zabránila stanovovaniu sterilizačných kvót?

2. Zabezpečí podpredsedníčka Komisie/vysoká predstaviteľka, aby sa pomoc z EÚ a jej členských štátov
nepoužívala na financovanie takýchto programov?

**Odpoveď pána Piebalgsa v mene Komisie**

_(20. júna 2013)_

V Indii na základe súčasnej politiky indickej vlády a podľa potvrdenia ministerstva zdravotníctva a rodiny neexistujú
žiadne nútené programy plánovaného rodičovstva ani kvóty na sterilizáciu.

Niektoré programy sa zameriavajú na odporúčanie a vykonávanie sterilizácie po narodení tretieho dieťaťa, avšak
sterilizácia je vždy dobrovoľná a v súlade s politikou na stabilizáciu obyvateľstva.

Metódy plánovaného rodičovstva, ako napríklad odloženie rozhodnutia pre prvé dieťa, intervaly medzi pôrodmi
alebo sterilizácia sa vykonávajú na základe poradenstva a dobrovoľných a informovaných rozhodnutí.

Podľa pozorovaní delegácie Európskej únie v Indii sa metódy plánovaného rodičovstva vrátane odloženia
rozhodnutia pre prvé dieťa alebo sterilizácie dejú na základe poradenstva a dobrovoľných a informovaných
rozhodnutí. Tieto metódy zodpovedajú najlepším medzinárodným postupom. Sú výsledkom úsilia, ktoré bolo
vyvíjané počas desaťročí s cieľom zaviesť primerané a účinné dobrovoľné metódy.

Indická vláda je v skutočnosti proti núteným sterilizáciám a zrušila kvóty pre plánované rodičovstvo, a zároveň
vypracovala usmernenia na zlepšenie kvality zdravotnej starostlivosti. Evidentne však na určitých miestach dochádza
k sterilizáciám bez náležitého poradenstva alebo informovaného súhlasu. Indický systém sa snaží vysporiadať s týmto
problémom. Vláda sa usiluje o to, aby poskytovatelia zdravotnej starostlivosti boli braní na zodpovednosť za
zanedbanie povinností pri výkone ich činnosti.

Okrem toho mimovládne organizácie financované z prostriedkov EÚ, ktoré pôsobia v zdravotnej oblasti v Indii,
vedia o ojedinelých prípadoch neprofesionálneho konania v súvislosti s vykonávaním sterilizácií, ale za posledných
niekoľko rokov nenahlásili systematické ani rozšírené prípady nútenej sterilizácie.

Komisia by zároveň chcela vážené poslankyne a poslancov odkázať na svoju odpoveď na písomnú otázku
E-04800/13 ( [4] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/103-women-sterilised-in-a-day-at-west-bengal-hospital-probe-ordered-327538
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/07/12/india-target-driven-sterilization-harming-women
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/15/uk-aid-forced-sterilisation-india
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/fr/parliamentary-questions.html;jsessionid=987EC3257DF4C7A682B41123ABBD3EED.node1

C 80 E / 596 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Suomenkielinen versio)_

**Kirjallisesti vastattava kysymys E-005190/13**
**komissiolle (Varapuheenjohtajalle / Korkealle edustajalle)**
**Gay Mitchell (PPE), Filip Kaczmarek (PPE), Liam Aylward (ALDE), Barbara Matera (PPE), Sari Essayah (PPE),**

**Diane Dodds (NI), Charles Tannock (ECR), Anna Záborská (PPE), Vytautas Landsbergis (PPE),**

**Nirj Deva (ECR), Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE) ja Konrad Szymański (ECR)**

_(13. toukokuuta 2013)_

_Aihe:_ VP/HR – Väitetyt pakkosterilisaatiot Intiassa

Ihmisoikeusjärjestöjen ja uutisraporttien mukaan Intian hallitus sallii ohjelman, jonka yhteydessä suoritetaan
pakkosterilisaatioita naisille. Helmikuussa 2013 raportoitiin, että kaksi lääkäriä sterilisoi 103 naista yhden päivän
aikana hirvittävissä olosuhteissa ja ilman lääketieteellistä seurantaa Manikchak Rural Health Center ‐keskuksessa, joka
sijaitsee Maldan piirikunnassa Länsi-Bengalissa ( [1] ). Intian ihmisoikeusaktivistit väittävät, että
joukkosterilisaatiokeskuksia on eri puolilla maata. Intia kieltää, että sillä on sterilisaatiotavoitteita. On kuitenkin
väitetty, että paikalliset terveysviranomaiset ovat asettaneet kyseisiä tavoitteita ( [2] ). The Guardian ‐sanomalehti
raportoi huhtikuussa 2012, että ulkomaalaisella tuella on rahoitettu ohjelmia, joiden yhteydessä naisia
sterilisoidaan ( [3] ). Pyydämme komissiota vastaamaan seuraaviin kysymyksiin:

1. Voiko varapuheenjohtaja / korkea edustaja varmistaa, että komissio kehottaa Intian hallitusta aktiivisesti
kieltämään pakkosterilisaatiot ja estämään kaikki mahdolliset sterilisaatiokiintiöt?

2. Voiko varapuheenjohtaja / korkea edustaja varmistaa, että EU:n ja sen jäsenvaltioiden antamilla tuilla ei
rahoiteta kyseisiä ohjelmia?

**Andris Piebalgsin komission puolesta antama vastaus**

_(20. kesäkuuta 2013)_

Intian hallituksen nykyisen politiikan ja terveys‐ ja perheasioiden ministeriön antaman vahvistuksen mukaan Intiassa
ei ole pakkoon perustuvia perhesuunnittelujärjestelmiä eikä sterilisaatiotavoitteita.

Joissakin järjestelmissä suositellaan ja toteutetaan sterilisaatioita kolmannen lapsen syntymän jälkeen, mutta
sterilointi on aina vapaaehtoista ja väkimäärän vakiinnuttamiseen tähtäävän politiikan mukaista.

Perhesuunnittelun menetelmät, kuten ensimmäisen raskauden viivyttäminen, synnytysten välin pidentäminen tai
sterilisaatio, perustuvat neuvontaan, ja niitä koskevat päätökset tehdään vapaaehtoisesti ja harkitusti.

EU:n Intian-edustuston havaintojen mukaan perhesuunnittelun menetelmät, kuten ensimmäisen raskauden
viivyttäminen tai sterilisaatio, perustuvat neuvontaan ja vapaaehtoisiin ja harkittuihin päätöksiin. Nämä menetelmät
ovat kansainvälisiä parhaita käytäntöjä, tulosta vuosikymmenien pyrkimyksistä toteuttaa asianmukaisia, tehokkaita
ja vapaaehtoisia menetelmiä.

Intian hallitus itse asiassa vastustaa pakkosterilisaatiota, ja se on hylännyt perhesuunnittelua koskevat tavoitteensa ja
laatinut suuntaviivoja hoidon laadun parantamiseksi. On kuitenkin olemassa todisteita siitä, että joissain paikoissa
sterilointeja toteutetaan ilman asianmukaista neuvontaa ja harkittua suostumusta. Intia pyrkii järjestelmänsä kautta
ratkaisemaan tämän ongelman, ja hallitus yrittää saada tällaiseen toimintaan syyllistyneet terveyspalvelujen tarjoajat

vastuuseen.

Intiassa toimivat ja EU:n rahoitusta saavat terveysalan kansalaisjärjestöt ovat tietoisia pakkosterilointiin liittyvistä
tapauksista, mutta ne eivät ole viime vuosina raportoineet järjestelmällisistä tai laajamittaisista pakkosterilisaatioista.

Komissio kehottaa arvoisaa parlamentin jäsentä tutustumaan myös vastaukseen, jonka se on antanut kirjalliseen
kysymykseen E-04800/13 ( [4] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/103-women-sterilised-in-a-day-at-west-bengal-hospital-probe-ordered-327538
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/07/12/india-target-driven-sterilization-harming-women
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/15/uk-aid-forced-sterilisation-india
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/fi/parliamentary-questions.html

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 597

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005190/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**
**Gay Mitchell (PPE), Filip Kaczmarek (PPE), Liam Aylward (ALDE), Barbara Matera (PPE), Sari Essayah (PPE),**

**Diane Dodds (NI), Charles Tannock (ECR), Anna Záborská (PPE), Vytautas Landsbergis (PPE), Nirj Deva**

**(ECR), Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE) and Konrad Szymański (ECR)**

_(13 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Alleged forced sterilisations in India

According to human rights organisations and news reports, the Indian government is permitting a programme that
forcibly sterilises women. It was reported in February 2013 that 103 women were sterilised by two doctors in one day
at the Manikchak Rural Health Centre in the Malda district of West Bengal, in appalling conditions and without any
medical follow‐up ( [1] ). Indian human rights activists claim that mass sterilisation camps exist across the country. India
denies having targets for sterilisations. However, it has been alleged that such targets are set by local health
administrators ( [2] ). _The Guardian_ newspaper reported in April 2012 that foreign aid has helped pay for the programme
which forcibly sterilises women ( [3] ).

1. Will the Vice-President/High Representative ensure that the Commission calls on the Indian government to
actively prohibit forced sterilisations and prevent any sterilisation quotas being pursued?

2. Will the Vice-President/High Representative ensure that aid from the EU and its Member States does not fund
such programmes?

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

_(20 June 2013)_

As per the Government of India's policy today and confirmation from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
there are neither coercive family planning schemes nor targets for sterilisation in India.

Some schemes focus on recommending and implementing sterilisation after the birth of a third child, yet the basis for
sterilisation is always voluntary and in line with the policy for population stabilisation.

Family planning methods, such as delay of first birth, spacing, or sterilisation are taking place on the basis of
counselling and voluntary and informed decision processes.

According to the EU Delegation in India's observations, family planning methods, including delay of first birth, or
sterilisation are happening on the basis of counselling and voluntary, informed decision making processes. These
methods are international best practices. They are the result of decades of efforts in the implementation of
appropriate and effective voluntary methods.

The Government of India in fact opposes forced sterilisation, and has removed targets for family planning and
developed guidelines for improving quality of care. Nonetheless, there is evidence that in some places, sterilisation
does occur without proper counselling or informed consent. The Indian system is trying to tackle this problem. The
Government is seeking to bring health providers to account for malpractice.

Additionally, EU-funded non-governmental organisations (NGOs) working on health issues in India are aware of
instances of sterilisation-related malpractice but have not reported systematic or widespread cases of forced
sterilisation in the last few years.

The Commission would also refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-04800/13 ( [4] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/103-women-sterilised-in-a-day-at-west-bengal-hospital-probe-ordered-327538.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/07/12/india-target-driven-sterilization-harming-women.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/15/uk-aid-forced-sterilisation-india.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/fr/parliamentary-questions.html;jsessionid=987EC3257DF4C7A682B41123ABBD3EED.node1.

C 80 E / 598 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(българска версия)_

**Въпрос с искане за писмен отговор E-005191/13**

**до Комисията**
**Dimitar Stoyanov (NI)**

_(13 май 2013 г.)_

_Относно:_ Енергийни субсидии за селскостопанските производители от развиващите се държави в ЕС

България е една от развиващите се държави в ЕС. Като такава тя има нужда от финансова подкрепа в повечето
икономически сектори, за да може да се стимулира развитието им и така те да се доближат максимално до нивото на
развитите икономики в Общността. Това развитие може да бъде постигнато само и единствено с помощта на
европейските субсидии. България покрива всички критерии, за да се превърне в отлична аграрна държава. За това
свидетелства фактът, че въпреки кризата в сектора (по данни за 2009 г.) селското стопанство е отговорно за 5,6 % от
постъпленията в БВП и за осигуряването на препитанието на 7,1 % от трудоспособното население на страната.
Оцеляването и бъдещото развитие на този сектор зависи пряко от размера на селскостопанските субсидии, които ЕС
предоставя, и може да бъде постигнато само и единствено чрез тях, тъй като в момента заинтересоваността за частни

инвестиции в него е минимална.

Един от главните фактори при определянето на крайната цена на продуктите от сектора е този за транспортните
разходи. Те могат да бъдат намалени, като се покрият от специални, временни, енергийни субсидии, които да бъдат
отпускани на производителите от новоприсъединилите се към ЕС страни, докато се стабилизира секторът. Целта е по
този начин да се намали цената за крайния потребител и да се стимулира търсенето, а освободеният финансов ресурс
ще може да бъде използван от производителите за стимулиране на инвестициите в развитието на сектора и

внедряването на нови иновационни и екологични технологии в производството.

1. Европейската комисия счита ли, че е възможно да бъдат отпуснати такива временни субсидии на
новоприсъединилите се, и развиващи се, страни към ЕС?

2. Европейската комисия счита ли за правилен подхода, съгласно който размерът на инвестицията е свързан с
годишното ниво на инфлацията в дадена държава?

3. Според Комисията по-добрият вариант за постигането на горепосочените цели би бил такъв тип субсидиране или
намаляване на минималната акцизна ставка на ЕС за горивата със селскостопанско предназначение?

**Отговор, даден от г-н Йотингер от името на Комисията**

_(11 юли 2013 г.)_

1. Понастоящем Директивата за данъчно облагане на енергийните продукти и електроенергията ( [1] ) позволява да
бъде фиксирана определена по-ниска минимална акцизна ставка за енергийните продукти, включително за газьола,
използвани по-специално в селскостопанския сектор: 21 EUR/1000 литра (вж. член 8 и приложение I, таблица Б).
Освен това по силата на член 15, параграф 3 от Директивата за данъчно облагане на енергийните продукти и
електроенергията държавите членки могат да прилагат данъчни ставки, близки или равни на нулевите, за енергийни
продукти и електроенергия, използвани при селскостопански, овощарски и рибовъдни дейности и горско стопанство.
Този режим на облагане трябва да бъде и в съответствие с правилата за държавната помощ. При положение, че
националните режими спазват минималното равнище на облагане, потенциалната държавна помощ е освободена от
разпоредбите на ОРГО ( [2] ); в противен случай ще бъде необходимо _ad hoc_ решение на Комисията за освобождаване.

2. Инвестициите, които правят селскостопанските производители, зависят от много фактори, а не само от
субсидиите, получавани от държавите членки или от ЕС. За периода 2007—2013 г. на България са отпуснати 2,6
милиарда евро от Европейския земеделски фонд за развитие на селските райони, които да бъдат използвани за
устойчивото развитие на селските райони и селскостопанския сектор в България.

3. През април 2011 г. Комисията предложи да преразгледа настоящата Директива за данъчно облагане на
енергийните продукти и електроенергията, за да я приведе в по-голяма степен в съответствие с целите на ЕС в областта
на енергетиката и изменението на климата ( [3] ). Комисията предлага данъчното освобождаване въз основа на член 15,
параграф 3 да бъде премахнато, но държавите членки ще продължат да се ползват от възможността за освобождаване
на селското стопанство от данъчно облагане, що се отнася до енергийния компонент, при условие че предприемат
мерки за повишаване на енергийната ефективност.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Директива 2003/96/EО на Съвета (за повече подробности вж. уебсайта на ГД „Данъчно облагане и митнически съюз“:

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/excise_duties/energy_products/legislation/index_en.htm).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Общ регламент за групово освобождаване.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM/2011/168 (http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/taxation/com_2011_168_en.pdf).

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

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 599

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005191/13**

**to the Commission**
**Dimitar Stoyanov (NI)**

_(13 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Energy subsidies for agricultural producers in the EU's developing countries

Bulgaria is one of the EU’s developing countries. As such, it needs financial support in most sectors of its economy so
that their development can be stimulated and they can thus achieve the closest possible level of convergence with the
Union’s developed economies. EU subsidies offer the only means of realising such development. Bulgaria fulfils all the
criteria for becoming an excellent agricultural country. This is clear from the fact that, despite the recession in the
sector, agriculture is responsible for 5.6% of earnings in Bulgaria and is the means of livelihood for 7.1% of the
national workforce (2009 figures). The sector’s survival and future development depend directly and entirely on the
extent of the agricultural subsidies that the EU can commit to it, because the level of interest of private investors is
currently minimal.

One of the main factors in determining the end price of agricultural products is the level of transport costs. It is
possible to reduce such costs by meeting them from special, temporary energy subsidies payable to producers in the
countries that have most recently joined the EU until such time as the sector stabilises — the aim being to reduce the
end price to the consumer and to stimulate demand, while producers can use the financial resources thus released to
promote investment in the sector and the introduction of innovative and environment friendly production
technologies.

1. Does the Commission consider it will be possible to make such temporary subsidies available to the countries
that have most recently joined the EU and which are still developing?

2. Does the Commission approve of the approach whereby levels of investment are linked to the annual rate of
inflation in a given country?

3. Does the Commission not consider that the aims outlined above could be achieved more effectively through the
type of subsidy suggested or by reducing the basic EU rate of duty on fuels for use in agriculture?

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

_(11 July 2013)_

1. Currently, the Energy Taxation Directive ( [1] ) (‘ETD’) allows to set a specific lower minimum level for excise duties
in the case of energy products including gasoil used notably in the agricultural sector, EUR 21/1 000 litres (see
Article 8 and Annex I, Table B). Furthermore, by virtue of Article 15 (3) of the Energy Taxation Directive, Member
States may apply a level of taxation down to zero to energy products and electricity used for agricultural,
horticultural, piscicultural works and in forestry.

The regime also needs to comply with the state aid rules. As long as the national regimes respect the minimum level
of taxation, the potential state aid would be exempted by the GBER ( [2] ); otherwise an ad hoc exemption Decision of the
Commission would be necessary.

2. Investments made by agricultural producers are depending upon a lot of factors and not only subsidies received
from the Member State or from the EU. For the period 2007-2013, EUR 2.6 billion have been made available to
Bulgaria from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, in order to be used for the sustainable
development of Bulgaria's rural areas and agricultural sector.

3. In April 2011, the Commission proposed to revise the current ETD to bring it more in line with EU's Energy and
Climate Change objectives ( [3] ). The Commission proposes to remove the tax exemption based on Article 15(3) of the
ETD, however, Member States will retain the possibility to exempt agriculture from energy component of taxation
provided they enter into arrangements leading to increased energy efficiency.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Council Directive 2003/96/EC (see, for more details, DG Taxation and Customs Union website:

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/excise_duties/energy_products/legislation/index_en.htm)

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) General Block Exemption Regulation.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 168 (http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/taxation/com_2011_168_en.pdf).

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

C 80 E / 600 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-005192/13**

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

_(13 maggio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Minori coinvolti nei procedimenti penali, amministrativi e giudiziari civili

La tutela dei bambini è un'esigenza particolarmente sentita nell'Unione europea, anche con particolare riguardo ai
conflitti familiari, in cui i minori risultano essere i soggetti più esposti.

Considerata la risposta della Commissione all'interrogazione E-000713/2013, può la Commissione stessa far sapere
se lo studio in preparazione sulla partecipazione dei minori in procedimenti penali, amministrativi e giudiziari civili
affronterà anche il loro coinvolgimento nelle dispute familiari, tenendo in considerazione le disparità dei sistemi
nazionali?

Poiché nelle cause di separazione o divorzio i minori risultano talvolta vittima del conflitto tra i due genitori e
considerando, inoltre, che secondo l'articolo 24 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell'Unione europea «il minore ha
diritto di intrattenere regolarmente relazioni personali e contatti diretti con i due genitori, salvo qualora ciò sia
contrario al suo interesse», può la Commissione chiarire se lo studio esaminerà casi di minori coinvolti in
procedimenti di separazione o divorzio per valutare:

1. i provvedimenti che riguardano il tempo di frequentazione genitori/figli (ad esempio se è previsto che i figli
trascorrano lo stesso tempo presso entrambi i genitori compresa la frequenza dei pernottamenti);

2. i provvedimenti che riguardano la domiciliazione dei figli presso un solo o entrambi i genitori;

3. i provvedimenti che riguardano il mantenimento economico dei figli da parte di entrambi i genitori?

Intende in futuro analizzare le differenti fattispecie di affidamento dei minori negli ordinamenti nazionali e procedere
alla raccolta dei relativi dati e statistiche sull'intero fenomeno?

**Risposta di Viviane Reding a nome della Commissione**

_(24 giugno 2013)_

La portata dello studio per raccogliere dati sul coinvolgimento dei minori nei procedimenti giudiziari nell'UE è
specificata nel capitolato d'oneri ( [1] ). Lo studio fornirà una panoramica delle norme procedurali e delle opportune
garanzie applicabili al coinvolgimento dei minori nei procedimenti penali, amministrativi e giudiziari civili. Lo studio
non mira a fornire una descrizione o una panoramica del diritto sostanziale di famiglia né ad esaminare il contenuto
delle sentenze di diritto di famiglia applicabili ai minori. Per questo motivo le questioni sollevate dall'onorevole
parlamentare non saranno oggetto di un esame specifico.

La Commissione al momento non intende lanciare uno studio per analizzare le diverse forme di affidamento dei
minori negli ordinamenti giuridici nazionali.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/contracts/2012_131975_en.htm

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 601

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005192/13**

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

_(13 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Children involved in criminal, administrative and civil legal proceedings

The protection of children is a topic that is felt to be especially important in the European Union, with particular
reference to family disputes, in which children are the most vulnerable individuals.

In view of the Commission’s answer to Question E-000713/2013, can the Commission say whether the study
currently being carried out on children’s involvement in criminal, administrative and civil judicial proceedings will
also deal with their involvement in family cases, taking into account the disparities between national systems?

Since in separation or divorce cases children are sometimes victims of the conflict between the two parents and since,
in addition, Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union states that ‘[e]very child shall have
the right to maintain on a regular basis a personal relationship and direct contact with both his or her parents, unless
that is contrary to his or her interests’, can the Commission clarify whether the study will look at cases of children
involved in separation or divorce proceedings, in order to assess:

1. the provisions relating to time spent by children with their parents (such as whether it is provided that children
should spend the same amount of time with both parents, including the frequency of overnight stays);

2. the provisions on whether the children reside with one or both parents;

3. the provisions on the financial support of the children by both parents?

Does it intend, in the future, to analyse the different forms of child custody in the national legal systems and to collect
data and statistics on the issue as a whole?

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

_(24 June 2013)_

The scope of the Study to collect data on children's involvement in judicial proceedings in the EU is set out in the
terms of reference ( [1] ). The study will therefore provide an overview of procedural rules and relevant safeguards
applicable to children's involvement in civil, criminal and administrative judicial proceedings. The scope of the study
does not cover a description or overview of substantive family law rules or the content of family law judgments
applicable to children. For this reason the questions highlighted by the Honourable Member will not be specifically
addressed.

The Commission is currently not planning to launch a study to analyse different forms of child custody in the
national legal systems.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/contracts/2012_131975_en.htm

C 80 E / 602 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005194/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR)**

_(13 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Regional funds to help Cyprus deal with the current socioeconomic crisis

I welcome the Commission’s recent decision to redirect EUR 21 million worth of regional funds in order to help
Cyprus deal with the current socioeconomic crisis by contributing to the country’s efforts to boost growth and
competitiveness, particularly at the level of SMEs.

Can the Commission confirm, however, that none of these funds will be allocated to projects conducted wholly or
partly in the occupied part of Cyprus, given the illegal status of the occupation as well as the fact that the economy of
the occupied zone has grown by 2.8% and that the Turkish occupiers are threatening to prevent the Republic of
Cyprus from exploiting natural resources or using them as collateral in the face of the island’s current economic
troubles?

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

_(12 July 2013)_

Regional funds cannot be used in those areas of the island where the _acquis_ remains suspended in line with Protocol 10 of the
2003 accession treaty, and which are not under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus.

The issue raised by the Honourable Member once again underlines the need for a rapid comprehensive settlement of
the Cyprus problem. In its October 2012 Communication ( [1] ) on the Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges
2012-2013, the Commission underlined the necessity to re-launch the negotiations with the aim of reaching a swift
conclusion of the talks.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/countries/strategy-and-progress-report/index_en.htm

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 603

_(Svensk version)_

**Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-005195/13**

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

_(13 maj 2013)_

_Angående:_ Tekniska skyddsåtgärder för programföretags rättigheter i HTML5 jämfört med Premier League-fallet

I patentpoolen och organisationen för webbstandardisering, W3C, pågår en diskussion om att införliva teknik för
förvaltning av digitala rättigheter (DRM) och tekniska skyddsåtgärder för sändningsrättigheter i HTML5-standarden.
Detta för att man på webbläsarnivå ska kunna styra webbsändningsleverantörers möjlighet att kontrollera eller
stoppa återutsändning av webbsändningar.

Följer kommissionen dessa överläggningar i syfte att skydda användarnas rättigheter på den inre marknaden med
hänsyn till resultatet i målet Murphy mot Premier League (C‐403/08)? Om så inte är fallet, varför inte?

**Svar från Michel Barnier på kommissionens vägnar**

_(23 juli 2013)_

På grundval av det som framgår av uppgifterna antas att parlamentsledamoten hänvisar till _World Wide Web_
_Consortium_ (W3C) som Europeiska kommissionen inte är inblandad i.

Enligt förordning (EU) nr 1025/2012 ( [1] ) är huvudsyftet med standardisering att fastställa frivilliga tekniska
specifikationer eller kvalitetsspecifikationer med vilka befintliga eller framtida produkter, produktionsprocesser eller
tjänster kan överensstämma.

Utvecklingen av enskilda tekniker, inklusive möjligheten att ta i bruk teknik för förvaltning av digitala rättigheter och
tekniska skyddsåtgärder, bör inte i sig ge någon anledning till oro. Om Europeiska kommissionen får information om
att sådana tekniker används för att förstärka begränsningar i avtal i likhet med dem som parlamentsledamoten
hänvisar till, kommer kommissionen att vidta lämpliga åtgärder.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:316:0012:0033:SV:PDF

C 80 E / 604 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005195/13**

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

_(13 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ TPMs for broadcasters' rights in HTML5 compared with Premier League case

In the patent pool and web standard organisation W3 there is currently a discussion about incorporating digital rights
management technologies and technological protection measures (TPMs) for broadcasting rights into the HTML5
standard. This is in order to codify, at the infrastructural level of the browser, video streaming providers’ ability to
control or stop retransmission of their streamed broadcasts.

Is the Commission following these deliberations from the perspective of protecting users’ rights in the internal market
with respect to the outcome of the case ‘Murphy v Premier League’ C‐403/08? If not, why not?

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

_(23 July 2013)_

From the information provided, it is assumed that the Honourable Member is referring to the activity of the World
Wide Web Consortium (W3C) in which the European Commission is not involved.

According to Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 ( [1] ), the primary objective of standardisation is the definition of
voluntary technical or quality specifications with which current or future products, production processes or services
may comply.

The development of specific technology including the possibility to deploy digital rights management technologies
and technological protection measures, should not as such, raise concerns. Should the European Commission
become aware that such technologies are used to enforce contractual restrictions similar to those at stake in the case
the Honourable Member refers to, it will not hesitate to take an appropriate action.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:316:0012:0033:EN:PDF.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 605

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-005197/13**

**aan de Commissie**
**Cornelis de Jong (GUE/NGL)**

_(13 mei 2013)_

_Betreft:_ EU-wetgeving inzake het in de handel brengen van zaad en teeltmateriaal

De Commissie is momenteel bezig met een herziening van de EU-wetgeving inzake het in de handel brengen van zaad
en teeltmateriaal.

1. Is de Commissie het ermee eens dat het gebruik van zaad in privétuinen in geen geval onder EU-wetgeving mag
vallen? Is het waar dat multinationals druk op de Commissie uitoefenen om wetgeving in te voeren die het
hobbytuiniers in de praktijk onmogelijk zal maken om duizenden oude zaadvariëteiten en zaadvariëteiten die als
erfgoed worden beschouwd, te verkopen, er een vergunning voor te krijgen, te telen of uit te wisselen?

2. Bij DG SANCO gedetacheerde nationale experts zijn bij de herziening betrokken. Kan de Commissie meedelen
welke regels inzake belangenconflicten zij op gedetacheerde nationale experts toepast? Worden deze nationale
experts gescreend door de Commissie of door de lidstaten?

**Antwoord van de heer Borg namens de Commissie**

_(4 juli 2013)_

1. Op 6 mei 2013 heeft de Commissie haar voorstel inzake de productie en het op de markt aanbieden van
teeltmateriaal aangenomen ( [1] ). Artikel 1 bepaalt dat het toepassingsgebied van het voorstel zich beperkt tot de
productie van teeltmateriaal met het oog op het op de markt aanbieden. Productie voor eigen gebruik valt dus buiten
het toepassingsgebied van dit voorstel. Dit geldt voor de productie door welke persoon dan ook, met inbegrip van
particuliere tuiniers. Bovendien bepaalt artikel 2, punt d), dat de uitwisseling in natura tussen personen die geen
professionele exploitanten zijn, buiten het toepassingsgebied van het voorstel valt.

2. Er zijn geen gedetacheerde nationale deskundigen verantwoordelijk geweest voor het opstellen van
bovengenoemd voorstel van de Commissie. De detachering van nationale deskundigen gebeurt op basis van en in
overeenstemming met de procedures die overeenkomstig het besluit van de Commissie van 12 november 2008
betreffende de detachering van nationale deskundigen (het GND-besluit) zijn vastgesteld. De Commissie beoordeelt
de voorwaarden voor de detachering in overeenstemming met de bepalingen van dat besluit.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2013)262 final.

C 80 E / 606 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005197/13**

**to the Commission**
**Cornelis de Jong (GUE/NGL)**

_(13 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU legislation on the marketing of seed and plant propagating material (SPPM)

The Commission is currently reviewing EU legislation on the marketing of seed and plant propagating material
(SPPM).

1. Does the Commission agree that the use of seeds in private gardens should on no account be covered by EU
legislation? Is it true that multinational corporations are pressuring the Commission to introduce legislation that in
practice will make it impossible for hobby gardeners to sell, licence, grow or exchange thousands of ancient and
heritage seed varieties?

2. Seconded national experts currently working as staff members at DG SANCO are involved in the review. Is the
Commission able to explain what conflict of interest rules it applies to seconded national experts? Is the screening of
these national experts done by the Commission or by the Member States?

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

_(4 July 2013)_

1. The Commission adopted on 6 May 2013 its proposal concerning the production and marketing of plant
reproductive material ( [1] ). According to Article 1, the scope of the proposal only covers production of seed for making
available on the market. Therefore production for own use falls out of the scope of the proposal. This applies to
production by any person, including private gardeners. Moreover, and in accordance with point (d) of Article 2,
exchange in kind of seed by non-professionals is excluded from the scope of the proposal.

2. No seconded national expert has been responsible for the drafting of the above Commission proposal. The
secondment of national experts takes place on the basis of and in accordance with the applicable procedures
established pursuant to the Commission decision of 12.11.2008 on the secondment of national experts to the
Commission (SNE Decision). The Commission examines the conditions for the secondment in accordance with the
provisions of that Decision.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2013)262 final.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 607

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-005198/13**

**aan de Commissie**
**Cornelis de Jong (GUE/NGL)**

_(13 mei 2013)_

_Betreft:_ Tabakslobby en de toepassing van de WGO-regels

Uit het gelekte OLAF-onderzoeksverslag over de zaak-Dalli is gebleken dat ambtenaren van de Commissie lobbyisten
van de tabaksindustrie hebben ontmoet. Over deze vergaderingen was niets publiek bekend.

In artikel 5, lid 3, van het Kaderverdrag inzake tabaksontmoediging (Framework Convention on Tobacco Control,
FCTC) van de Wereldgezondheidsorganisatie (WGO), dat door de EU en de lidstaten werd ondertekend, wordt gesteld
dat: „de partijen bij de bepaling en uitvoering van hun volksgezondheidsbeleid met betrekking tot
tabaksontmoediging handelen teneinde dit beleid te beschermen tegen commerciële en andere verworven belangen
van de tabaksindustrie in overeenstemming met nationale wetgeving”, en: „wanneer interacties noodzakelijk zijn,
moeten de partijen ervoor zorgen dat deze interacties op transparante wijze plaatsvinden”.

1. Welke maatregelen werden of zullen worden genomen door de Commissie om ervoor te zorgen dat al haar
diensten de FCTC-regels van de WGO en hun uitvoeringsrichtsnoeren volledig uitvoeren en naleven?

2. Meer specifiek, welke concrete uitvoeringsmaatregelen werden of zullen worden genomen door de Commissie
om ervoor te zorgen dat zij „maatregelen” vaststelt „teneinde de interacties met de tabaksindustrie te beperken en de
transparantie van de interacties die plaatsvinden, te garanderen” (Uitvoeringsrichtsnoeren voor artikel 5, lid 3, van het
FCTC, paragraaf 17, lid 2)?

3. Is de Commissie van mening dat elke vergadering tussen ambtenaren van de Commissie en de tabaksindustrie
overeenkomstig de FCTC-regels openbaar moeten worden aangekondigd? Is de Commissie van plan een openbaar
register te creëren van haar vergaderingen met lobbyisten zodat verzoeken om toegang van het publiek tot
documenten met betrekking tot dit soort informatie niet langer noodzakelijk zijn?

4. Is de Commissie van plan het Statuut van de ambtenaren te wijzigen om de FCTC-regels volledig ten uitvoer te
leggen?

**Antwoord van de heer Barroso namens de Commissie**

_(26 juni 2013)_

In de antwoorden van 30 november 2012 op de vragen 12 tot en met 15 en 19 van de eerste vragenlijst van de
commissie Begrotingscontrole (die 154 vragen telt) en in het aanvullende antwoord van 13 maart 2013 heeft de
Commissie gedetailleerde informatie gegeven over de ontmoetingen tussen diensten van de Commissie en
vertegenwoordigers van de belangen van de tabaksindustrie. Deze ontmoetingen werden niet pas eind april 2013
openbaar met het gelekte onderzoeksverslag van OLAF.

Voor wat de conformiteit van deze ontmoetingen met het kaderverdrag ter bestrijding van tabaksgebruik (FCTC)
betreft, verwijst de Commissie het geachte Parlementslid naar haar antwoorden op de schriftelijke vragen
E-11643/2012, E-1718/2013 en E-3702/2013 ( [1] ).

De Commissie is van mening dat de ethische beginselen die van toepassing zijn op haar personeel volledig in
overeenstemming zijn met de richtsnoeren van het FCTC en dat er geen aanvullende bepalingen nodig zijn. Zij meent
dat voortdurende bewustmaking van de bestaande verplichtingen van ambtenaren de beste manier is om met
dergelijke kwesties om te gaan.

Met betrekking tot het voorstel om een openbaar register voor ontmoetingen met lobbyisten te creëren, herinnert de
Commissie het geachte Parlementslid eraan dat het gezamenlijke transparantieregister in 2013 zal worden herzien.
Verder verwijst zij het geachte Parlementslid naar haar antwoord op de schriftelijke vraag E-2903/2013.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/nl/parliamentary-questions.html

C 80 E / 608 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005198/13**

**to the Commission**
**Cornelis de Jong (GUE/NGL)**

_(13 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Tobacco lobbying and implementation of WHO rules

From the leaked OLAF investigative report on the Dalli case, it became publicly known that Commission officials had
met with lobbyists from the tobacco industry. These meetings had not been known to the public.

The World Health Organisation (WHO)’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), to which the EU and
its Member States are signatories, states in its Article 5.3: ‘In setting and implementing their public health policies
with respect to tobacco control, Parties shall act to protect these policies from commercial and other vested interests
of the tobacco industry in accordance with national law’, and: ‘Where interactions are necessary, Parties should ensure
that such interactions are conducted transparently’.

1. What measures have been or will be taken by the Commission taken to ensure full implementation of and
compliance with the WHO FCTC rules and their implementation guidelines by all its services?

2. More specifically, what concrete implementing measures have been or will be taken by the Commission to
ensure that it establishes ‘measures to limit interactions with the tobacco industry and ensure the transparency of
those interactions that occur’ (Implementing guidelines for Article 5.3 FCTC, paragraph 17(2))?

3. Is the Commission of the opinion that, in line with the FCTC rules, any meetings between Commission officials
and the tobacco industry should be publicly announced? Does the Commission intend to establish a public register of
its meetings with lobbyists so that requests for public access to documents concerning this kind of information are no
longer necessary?

4. Does the Commission intend to alter the Staff Regulations in order to fully implement the FCTC rules?

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

_(26 June 2013)_

In the replies of 30 November 2012 to questions 12 to 15 and 19 of the first Budgetary Control Committee
questionnaire (154 questions), and in the complementary answer of 13 March 2013, the Commission has given
detailed information concerning the meetings held between Commission staff and representatives of tobacco
interests. Those meetings were not revealed by OLAF's leaked investigation report, at the end of April 2013.

On the conformity of those contacts with the framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), the Commission
would refer the Honourable Member to its answers to written questions E-11643/2012, E-1718/2013 and
E-3702/2013 ( [1] ).

The Commission considers that the ethical framework which applies to its staff is fully compatible with the guidelines
of the FCTC, that no additional provisions are required, and that continued awareness-raising about the existing
obligations of staff members is the best way to deal with those questions.

Regarding the suggestion that there should be a public register of meetings with lobbyists, the Commission would
remind the Honourable Member that the joint transparency register is due for review in 2013, and refer him to its
answer to Written Question E-2903/2013.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 609

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005199/13**

**à Comissão**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) e Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(13 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Encerramento da GE Power Controls Portugal em Vila Nova de Gaia

A empresa GE Power Controls Portugal, com sede em Vila Nova de Gaia, pertencente ao grupo internacional General
Electrics, com representação em Portugal, Espanha, Alemanha, Holanda, Suíça, Reino Unido, Irlanda, França, Itália e
Bélgica, manifestou recentemente a intenção de encerrar a sua produção em Portugal.

Esta decisão — que não se deve à falta de lucros deste Grupo — provocará o encerramento de uma unidade produtiva
em Portugal e a sua deslocalização para outros países, arrastando mais cerca de 170 trabalhadores para o
desemprego.

Grandes grupos económicos como este continuam a desprezar todos os aspetos relacionados com a sua
responsabilidade social perante os seus trabalhadores mas não descuram a possibilidade de absorver fundos
comunitários e nacionais para depois encerrarem empresas e deslocalizarem. Só neste quadro comunitário de apoio,
QREN, absorveram 389 000 euros (de um investimento de cerca de 760 000 euros — ou seja, 50 %).

Solicitamos à Comissão que nos informe sobre o seguinte:

1. Tem conhecimento desta situação? Que avaliação faz da mesma?

2. Que medidas tomou a UE até à data para impedir que empresas que receberam centenas de milhares de euros
de apoios públicos, incluindo do orçamento da UE, mesmo tendo lucros, encerrem unidades de produção,
lançando trabalhadores no desemprego, e deslocalizem a produção para outras paragens em busca de mais
lucros?

3. Que medidas pensa tomar no futuro com este mesmo objetivo?

4. Considera a possibilidade de exigir a devolução dos apoios comunitários às empresas que assim procedam?

**Resposta dada por Johannes Hahn em nome da Comissão**

_(12 de julho de 2013)_

No âmbito dos programas «Norte» e «Fatores de Competitividade» para 2007-2013 no quadro da política de coesão, a
empresa GE Power Controls Portugal não recebeu qualquer apoio do FEDER ( [1] ).

As regras atuais da política de coesão já exigem a recuperação de montantes pagos indevidamente, incluindo no que
diz respeito à durabilidade das operações.

O projeto legislativo relativo à política de coesão para o período 2014-2020 propõe que, nos casos em que o
investimento produtivo apoiado pelos fundos EEI ( [2] ) seja transferido para fora da zona do programa, o apoio deve ser
recuperado no prazo de 5 anos a contar do momento do investimento. Além disso, os Estados-Membros não serão
autorizados a conceder apoio a investimento produtivo que já tenha recebido apoio noutro Estado-Membro e tenha
sido submetido a tal recuperação. Se se tratar de uma grande empresa e de deslocalização para fora da UE, o prazo
pode ser alargado para 10 anos.

As novas orientações relativas aos auxílios com finalidade regional consagram para o próximo período a regra
segundo a qual os investimentos devem ser mantidos nas regiões onde receberam os auxílios durante, pelo menos,
5 anos (ou 3 anos para as PME). O mesmo também se aplica aos postos de trabalho criados através de tais
investimentos, que devem ser mantidos por um período de 5 anos a contar da data do preenchimento de cada posto.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Fundos Europeus Estruturais e de Investimento.

C 80 E / 610 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

As novas orientações relativas aos auxílios com finalidade regional incluem igualmente duas novas disposições:

1. Se uma empresa tiver encerrado uma atividade produtiva similar na Europa nos dois anos antes da concessão
do auxílio ou tencionar encerrar uma atividade 2 anos após a conclusão do projeto, o auxílio regional a essa
empresa terá de ser notificado com vista a ser avaliado pela Comissão, independentemente do montante do
auxílio.

2. Se um beneficiário deslocalizar uma atividade para a zona alvo e houver um nexo de causalidade entre o auxílio
com finalidade regional e esta deslocalização, com toda a probabilidade o auxílio não será aprovado.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 611

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005199/13**

**to the Commission**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) and Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(13 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Closure of GE Power Controls Portugal in Vila Nova de Gaia

The company GE Power Controls Portugal, based in Vila Nova de Gaia, part of the international General Electric
group, with offices in Portugal, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Ireland, France,
Italy and Belgium, recently expressed its intention to stop production in Portugal.

This decision — which is not down to the company’s lack of profit — will lead to the closure of a production unit in
Portugal and its relocation to other countries, plunging around 170 workers into unemployment.

Large economic groups such as this continue to disregard all aspects of their social responsibility to their employees
but do not pass up the opportunity to absorb EU and national funds before closing companies and relocating them. In
this EU support framework alone, namely the National Strategic Reference Framework, they absorbed EUR 389 000
(of an investment of around EUR 760 000, equating to 50%).

1. Is the Commission aware of this situation? What is its assessment of it?

2. What measures has the EU taken to date to prevent profitable companies that receive hundreds of thousands of
euros in public aid, including from the EU budget, from closing production units, plunging workers into
unemployment, and relocating production to other places in search of more profits?

3. What future steps will it take to prevent this?

4. Is it considering demanding that companies acting in this way return EU support?

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

_(12 July 2013)_

Under the Norte and Factors of Competitiveness cohesion policy programmes for 2007-2013, the company
GE Power Controls Portugal has not received any ERDF ( [1] ) support.

Current cohesion policy rules already require unduly paid sums to be recovered, including as regards durability of
operations.

The draft cohesion policy legislation for the 2014-2020 period proposes that where productive investment
supported by the ESI ( [2] ) Funds is relocated outside the programme area within 5 years of the investment, the support
must be recovered. Furthermore, Member States will not be allowed to provide support for productive investment
which has already received support in another Member State and has been subject to such a recovery. Where this
concerns a large company and relocation outside the EU, the time period can be extended to 10 years.

The new Regional Aid Guidelines (RAGs) keep for the next period the rule that investments must be maintained in the
regions where they receive aid for at least 5 years (or 3 years for SMEs). This also applies to jobs created through such
investments, which must be maintained for 5 years from the date each post was first filled.

Also the new RAG include two new provisions:

1. if a company has closed down a similar productive activity in Europe in the 2 years before the aid is granted or
intends to close down an activity 2 years after the project is completed, the regional aid to that company will
have to be notified in order to be assessed by the Commission, regardless of the aid amount.

2. if a beneficiary relocates an activity to the target area and there is a causal link between regional aid and this
relocation, the aid will most likely not be approved.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) European Regional Development Fund.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) European Structural and Investment.

C 80 E / 612 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005200/13**

**à Comissão**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) e Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(13 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Ameaças de deslocalização da multinacional Dacia (Grupo Renault)

Recentemente, a administração da Dacia, do Grupo Renault, ameaçou os operários da sua unidade fabril em Mioveni,
no Sul da Roménia, de transferir para Marrocos parte da produção caso estes prossigam a sua luta por aumentos
salariais.

No dia 21 de março, os operários cumpriram uma greve de 36 horas por reivindicações salariais e discutem agora a
possibilidade de novas paralisações. A administração contrapõe às reivindicações dos operários uma proposta que
representa um quarto do montante reivindicado, mostrando-se disposta a levar a produção para outro país caso os
trabalhadores não aceitem as suas condições.

Refira-se que desde que a Renault comprou a Dacia, em 1998, a produção de veículos tem vindo sempre a aumentar,
tal como os ritmos de trabalho e os índices de produtividade. Com cerca de oito mil trabalhadores, a fábrica de
Mioveni produz diariamente 1400 veículos, sendo que cada operário dispõe de apenas 40 segundos por unidade. Em
2012, a Dacia aumentou as vendas em 4,8 por cento.

Solicitamos à Comissão que nos informe sobre o seguinte:

1. Que avaliação faz da chantagem e da ameaça de deslocalização feitas pela Dacia aos seus trabalhadores? Que
medidas tomou ou vai tomar perante este caso?

2. Recebeu a Dacia alguns apoios da UE para se instalar na Roménia ou nalgum outro país da UE?

**Resposta dada por László Andor em nome da Comissão**

_(8 de julho de 2013)_

1. A Comissão não tem competência para intervir em debates entre a administração e os representantes dos
trabalhadores ou em decisões específicas da empresa, mas insta as empresas a adotarem boas práticas relacionadas
com a antecipação e a gestão socialmente responsável da reestruturação. Na sequência do seu Livro Verde ( [1] ) de
janeiro de 2012 e da aprovação pelo Parlamento Europeu do Relatório Cercas, em 15 de janeiro de 2013, a Comissão
proporá uma comunicação relativa a um quadro de qualidade que vai enquadrar a atual legislação da UE e iniciativas
relevantes para reestruturação e apresentará as melhores práticas a serem implementadas por todas as partes
interessadas.

2. De acordo com as informações recebidas das autoridades romenas, a _SC Automobile Dacia_ _SA_ não recebeu
qualquer apoio financeiro do Fundo Social Europeu (FSE). A empresa recebeu 4 milhões de euros (17,2 milhões de
RON) do Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional (FEDER) para um projeto cujo objetivo é o desenvolvimento
de um novo tipo de motor. Ao mesmo tempo, a _SC Renault Technologie Roumanie SRL_ recebeu 550 000 euros
(2 423 185 RON) do FEDER para desenvolver as suas infraestruturas de investigação na Roménia. Os projetos foram
selecionados no âmbito do programa operacional de 2007-2013 «Aumento da competitividade económica na
Roménia», que é cofinanciado pelo referido fundo europeu.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Ver as respostas e um resumo em: http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=8908&langId=en

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 613

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005200/13**

**to the Commission**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) and Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(13 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Relocation threats by the multinational Dacia (Renault Group)

Dacia, part of the Renault Group, recently threatened workers at its factory in Mioveni, southern Romania that it
would transfer some production to Morocco if they continued to fight for pay rises.

On 21 March, workers staged a 36-hour strike over wage demands and are now discussing the possibility of further
walkouts. The company is countering the workers’ demands by offering a quarter of the amount requested, and has
shown itself willing to move production to another country if the workers do not accept its conditions.

Since Renault bought Dacia in 1998, vehicle production has continued to increase, along with working hours and
productivity rates. With around 8 000 employees, the Mioveni factory produces 1 400 vehicles a day, with each
worker spending only 40 seconds on each unit. In 2012, Dacia sales increased by 4.8%.

1. What is the Commission’s assessment of the blackmail and relocation threat made by Dacia to its employees?
What action has it taken or will it take regarding this case?

2. Has Dacia received any EU support to establish itself in Romania or in any other EU country?

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

_(8 July 2013)_

1. The Commission has no powers to interfere in discussions between management and workers' representatives
or in specific company's decisions but urges them to follow good practices related to anticipation and socially
responsible management of restructuring. Following its January 2012 Green Paper ( [1] ) and the adoption by the
European Parliament on 15 January 2013 of the Cercas report, the Commission will propose a communication
establishing a Quality Framework that will frame the current EU legislation and initiatives relevant to restructuring
and will present the best practices to be implemented by all stakeholders.

2. According to information received from the Romanian authorities, SC Automobile Dacia SA has not received
any financial support from the European Social Fund (ESF). The company has received EUR 4 million (RON 17.2
million) from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for a project of which objective is the development
of a new type of engine. At the same time SC Renault Technologie Roumanie SRL received EUR 550 000 (RON 2 423
185) from ERDF for developing its research facilities in Romania. The projects have been selected under the 20072013 operational programme ‘Increasing the Economic Competitiveness in Romania’ which is co-financed by the
abovementioned European fund.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) See the replies and a summary under http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=8908&langId=en.

C 80 E / 614 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005201/13**

**à Comissão**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) e Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(13 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Evolução dos custos do trabalho em Portugal (dados do Eurostat)

Segundo dados do Eurostat, divulgados no passado mês de abril, o custo do trabalho por hora em Portugal baixou
20 cêntimos em 2012, face a 2011, fixando-se nos 12,2 euros. Esta evolução, indissociável da aplicação do programa
UE-FMI, representa a segunda maior queda na UE, a par de Espanha e atrás da Grécia.

O peso percentual dos salários no conjunto do rendimento nacional atinge em Portugal um dos valores mais baixos
de sempre, em democracia.

Tendo em conta que, em média, no conjunto da UE, os custos laborais por hora aumentaram de 23 euros em 2011
para 23,4 euros em 2012, enquanto na zona euro subiram de 27,5 euros para 28 euros (mais do dobro do valor
registado em Portugal), pode a Comissão indicar como se compadece o discurso sobre a «coesão económica e social»
com a evolução verificada?

**Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão**

_(9 de agosto de 2013)_

A origem da crise, em Portugal, foi um importante problema de competitividade que conduziu a um nível
insustentável da dívida. A perda de competitividade foi devida, em grande medida, à evolução dos custos unitários do
trabalho, ou seja, os salários em relação à produtividade, quando comparada com a média da zona euro (ver gráfico
no anexo). O desfasamento atingiu o seu máximo no primeiro trimestre de 2009 e tem vindo a diminuir desde então.
Contudo, em 2013, é provável que se verifique uma ligeira inversão desta tendência uma vez que a reintegração do
13.° e 14.° salários no setor público em geral (administração pública e empresas públicas) conduzirá a um aumento
do custo da mão-de-obra para a economia no seu conjunto.

A evolução dos custos unitários do trabalho constitui uma prova da redução do desfasamento da competitividade em
curso em Portugal, o que representa uma evolução positiva. O que importa no futuro é que a melhoria da
competitividade resulte de uma maior produtividade e não dos salários mais baixos. As reformas realizadas no quadro
do programa de ajustamento económico, são, em grande medida, orientadas para este objetivo.

Entre outros fatores relevantes, a competitividade também pode aumentar através do reforço da eficiência dos
recursos, tal como previsto no Roteiro para uma Europa Eficiente na Utilização de Recursos.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 615

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005201/13**

**to the Commission**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) and Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(13 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Evolution of labour costs in Portugal (Eurostat data)

According to Eurostat data, released in April 2013, hourly labour costs in Portugal fell by EUR 0.20 in 2012,
compared to 2011, and currently stand at EUR 12.2. This evolution is inseparable from the implementation of the
EU‐IMF programme, and is the second largest fall in the EU, alongside Spain and behind Greece.

The percentage of Portugal’s national income devoted to wages has hit one of its lowest ever levels in times of
democracy.

Given that average hourly labour costs in the EU have risen from EUR 23 in 2011 to EUR 23.4 in 2012, while those
in the euro area have risen from EUR 27.5 to EUR 28 (more than double the value recorded in Portugal), can the
Commission indicate how the discourse on ‘economic and social cohesion’ is compatible with this evolution?

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

_(9 August 2013)_

At the root of the crisis in Portugal has been a significant competitiveness problem which led to an unsustainable level
of debt. The loss in competitiveness was driven, to a large extent, by the evolution of unit labour costs, i.e. wages
relative to productivity, when compared with the eurozone average (see graph in annex). The gap reached its
maximum in the first quarter of 2009 and has been closing since then. However, in 2013 there is likely to be a small
reversal of this trend since the reinstatement of the 13th and 14th salary in the wider public sector (public
administration and state-owned enterprises) will lead to an upward shift in labour cost for the economy as a whole.

The evolution of unit labour cost is evidence of the ongoing reduction in the competiveness gap of Portugal which is a
welcome development. What will be important in future is that the improvement in competitiveness is brought about
by higher productivity growth rather than lower wages. The reforms undertaken in the framework of the Economic
Adjustment Programme are to a large extent geared towards this aim.

Among other relevant factors, gains in competitiveness can also be achieved by enhancing resource efficiency, as
foreseen in the Commission's Roadmap on Resource Efficiency.

C 80 E / 616 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-005202/13**

**ao Conselho (Presidente do Conselho Europeu)**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) e Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(13 de maio de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ PCE/PEC — Declarações do Presidente do Conselho Europeu sobre a situação em Portugal

Em declarações proferidas após uma reunião com o Primeiro-Ministro de Portugal, o Presidente do Conselho Europeu
referiu, numa nota divulgada à imprensa, a propósito da situação em Portugal, que «progressos significativos foram
alcançados nos últimos dois anos em Portugal».

O Presidente do Conselho Europeu refere-se aos dois anos em que todos os principais indicadores económicos e
sociais se agravaram: uma recessão acumulada de -5 % do PIB; um aumento em mais de 430 mil do número de
desempregados que ultrapassa já 1 milhão e 400 mil; uma redução média dos salários reais de 9,2 %; uma quebra de
10 % no consumo das famílias; emigração de mais de 250 mil portugueses, na sua maioria jovens; uma dívida pública
que, tendo aumentado neste período 48 mil milhões de euros, ascende ao valor recorde de 123,6 % do PIB.

O Presidente do Conselho Europeu refere-se aos dois anos em que milhares de crianças portuguesas começaram a
chegar às escolas com fome.

Assim, perguntamos ao Presidente do Conselho Europeu:

1. Que informações obteve sobre Portugal antes de proferir as referidas declarações? Concretamente, quais foram
as suas fontes?

2. Tinha conhecimento dos indicadores económicos e sociais e dos factos supramencionados quando proferiu
estas declarações?

3. Relativamente à alegada «correção dos défices externos», tem conhecimento da evolução negativa das
importações, em virtude do esmagamento do consumo interno, que afetou também bens essenciais à produção
nacional, como maquinaria e matérias-primas?

4. Relativamente às exportações que afirma refletirem «o dinamismo das empresas nacionais», tem conhecimento
que o que mais aumentou (+403,5 %) foi a exportação de ouro e pedras preciosas, que o país não produz, mas
que pertenciam a muitas famílias que, devido à crise, foram obrigadas a vender para poderem sobreviver, e que
estão agora a ser exportadas para o estrangeiro?

5. Que indicadores e informações concretas lhe permitem sustentar a afirmação de um «reforço do setor bancário»
e de «importantes ganhos de competitividade»?

**Resposta**
_(15 de julho de 2013)_

Não há dúvida que Portugal registou progressos significativos desde o lançamento do programa de ajustamento
UE-FMI. Estes progressos são claramente identificados no comunicado à imprensa e foram confirmados na última (a
sétima) revisão do programa efetuada pela Comissão, pelo BCE e pelo FMI que foi concluída no princípio do mês.
Refiram-se, a título de exemplo, apenas alguns: progressos significativos a nível do ajustamento orçamental
necessário para estabilizar a dívida pública (foram concretizados cerca de dois terços dos 10 pontos percentuais do
ajustamento estrutural primário em relação ao PIB); uma significativa redução do défice da balança de transações
correntes, o que significa que Portugal depende em menor medida do endividamento externo; ganhos significativos
nas exportações; um sistema bancário estável e bem capitalizado. Realizaram-se igualmente progressos na
implementação das reformas estruturais que são necessárias para estimular o emprego, a competitividade e o
crescimento: importantes medidas para tornar o mercado do trabalho mais dinâmico e mais eficiente; reformas nos
setores dos portos, da energia e dos serviços; supressão de barreiras administrativas e regulamentares desnecessárias à
atividade das empresas, bem como reformas no setor da justiça. Estas reformas são necessárias para transformar
Portugal numa economia dinâmica, competitiva e inovadora. Contribuíram igualmente para aumentar a credibilidade
de Portugal junto dos seus parceiros europeus e aos olhos dos investidores.

19.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80 E / 617

Ao mesmo tempo, não deixa de ser verdade que estes ganhos ainda não se traduziram num aumento do crescimento
e do emprego. Este desafio foi claramente reconhecido no comunicado à imprensa. Um dos principais problemas
neste momento é a falta de crédito para as PME. Esta problemática não é exclusiva de Portugal, já que afeta também
outros Estados-Membros, e trata-se de uma área que merece a maior atenção por parte da UE. A questão foi debatida
no Conselho Europeu de junho, juntamente com outras medidas concretas destinadas a lutar contra o desemprego,
em especial o desemprego dos jovens.

C 80 E / 618 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-005202/13**
**to the Council (President of the European Council)**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) and Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(13 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ PCE/PEC — President of the European Council's remarks regarding the situation in Portugal

In a press release issued following a meeting with the Portuguese Prime Minister, the President of the European
Council said, regarding the situation in Portugal, that ‘significant progress has been achieved over the last two years by
Portugal.’

The President of the European Council is referring to two years in which all major economic and social indicators
have worsened: a cumulative recession of ‐5.5 of GDP; an increase of more than 430 000 in the number of people
unemployed, which now exceeds 1.4 million; an average real wage decrease of 9.2%; a 10% decline in household
consumption; the emigration of more than 250 000 Portuguese, most of them young people; and a public debt
which, having risen EUR 48 billion in this period, amounts to a record 123.6% of GDP.

The President of the European Council is referring to two years in which thousands of Portuguese children have
started coming to school hungry.

1. What information did the President of the European Council obtain about Portugal before making these
remarks? Specifically, what sources did he use?

2. Was he aware of these economic and social indicators and of the abovementioned facts when he made these

remarks?

3. With regard to the alleged ‘correction of external deficits’, is he aware of the downturn in imports, due to the
reduction in domestic consumption, which also affects essential goods produced nationally, such as machinery and
raw materials?

4. With regard to the exports that he says reflect ‘the dynamism of national firms’, is he aware that the largest
increase (+403.5%) has been the export of gold and precious stones, which the country does not produce, but which
instead belong to numerous families who, in order to survive the crisis, have been forced to sell these products, which
are now being exported abroad?

5. What indicators and specific information enable him to claim that there has been a ‘reinforcement of the
banking sector’ and ‘important gains in competitiveness’?

**Reply**
_(15 July 2013)_

There is no doubt that significant progress has been achieved by Portugal since the launching of the EU-IMF
adjustment programme. The achievements are clearly indicated in the press statement and have been confirmed again
by the latest (7th) review of the programme by the Commission, the ECB and the IMF which was concluded earlier
this month. They include, to mention only a few: significant progress in the fiscal adjustment necessary to stabilise
public debt (about two‐thirds of the 10 percentage points of GDP structural primary adjustment has been realised);
significant reduction in the current account deficit, which means that Portugal is less reliant on external debt;
significant gains in exports; a stable and well capitalised banking system. Progress has also been realised in the
implementation of the structural reforms necessary to boost employment, competitiveness and growth: important
steps to make the labour market more dynamic and efficient; reforms in ports, energy, services, and lifting
unnecessary administrative and regulatory barriers to businesses, as well as reforms in the judicial sector. These
reforms are necessary to transform Portugal into a dynamic, competitive and innovative economy. They have also
greatly contributed to increase the credibility of Portugal among its European partners and in the eyes of investors.

At the same time, it is equally beyond doubt that these gains have not yet translated into higher growth and
employment. This challenge is clearly acknowledged in the press statement. One of the main problems currently is
the lack of credit for SMEs. This is a problem not only in Portugal but in other Member States as well, and is an area to
which the EU attaches considerable importance. It was discussed at the June European Council, together with
concrete measures to fight unemployment, particularly youth unemployment.

EUR-Lex (http://new.eur-lex.europa.eu) offers direct access to European Union legislation free of
charge. The Official Journal of the European Union can be consulted on this website, as can the
Treaties, legislation, case-law and preparatory acts.

For further information on the European Union, see: http://europa.eu

# Publications Office of the European Union EN

2985 Luxembourg
LUXEMBOURG