Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

ISSN 1725-2431
## C 310 E
# Official Journal
#### of the European Union

**Volume 56**
##### English edition Information and Notices 25 October 2013

_Notice to reader_

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

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

### **EN**

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 1

IV

_(Notices)_

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES

AND AGENCIES

###### EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

**WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER**

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

**by a European Union institution**

(2013/C 310 E/01)

**Contents** **Page**

**E-009682/12** by Rachida Dati to the Commission
_Subject:_ Europe must lead the way in the market for clean vehicles

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

**E-009684/12** by Marek Henryk Migalski to the Commission
_Subject:_ Polish education ministry officials refused entry to Belarus

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 25
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 26

**E-009685/12** by Adrian Severin to the Commission
_Subject:_ OLAF's working methods in the context of the Dalli case

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 27
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 28

**E-009686/12** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Simplification of the CAP and the sharing of best practice between farmers

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 29
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 31

**P-009687/12** by María Auxiliadora Correa Zamora to the Commission
_Subject:_ Non-tariff barriers for the olive oil sector in the USA

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

**E-009688/12** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ Corruption in Italy

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 35
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 36

C 310 E / 2 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

**E-009689/12** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Evacuations and right to education in Zimbabwe

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

**E-009690/12** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ Association dedicated to women

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

**E-009691/12** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ Flu vaccine safety

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 41
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 42

**E-009692/12** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ Record unemployment in Europe

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 43
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 44

**E-009693/12** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ Limited resources for the disabled

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

**P-009694/12** by Riikka Manner to the Commission
_Subject:_ Revision of state aid rules in the context of European territorial cooperation

Suomenkielinen versio ..................................................................................................................................................... 47
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 48

**E-009695/12** by Franz Obermayr to the Commission
_Subject:_ Judgment given in Italy: hazards of electromagnetic radiation

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 49
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 50

**E-009696/12** by Christian Engström to the Commission
_Subject:_ The Tobacco Directive and Swedish oral tobacco (snus)

Svensk version ................................................................................................................................................................... 51
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 52

**P-009697/12** by Carl Schlyter to the Commission
_Subject:_ Wolf population in Sweden

Svensk version ................................................................................................................................................................... 53
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 54

**E-009698/12** by Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă to the Commission
_Subject:_ Kindergartens in rural communities

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 55
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 56

**E-009699/12** by Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă to the Commission
_Subject:_ Women's involvement in European Cooperatives

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 57
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 58

**E-009700/12** by Mario Mauro to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Bomb attacks in Iraq

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

**E-009701/12** by Mario Mauro to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Armed attack in Nigeria

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 61
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 63

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 3

**E-009947/12** by Mario Mauro to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Car bomb in Nigeria

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 61
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 63

**E-009702/12** by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Defending the Community budget 2014-2020

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 65
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 67

**E-009703/12** by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission
_Subject:_ European programmes to combat poverty

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 68
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 70

**E-009704/12** by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission
_Subject:_ European emigration

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 72
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 74

**E-009705/12** by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Analysis of the deficit and public debt

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 76
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 78

**E-009706/12** by Auke Zijlstra to the Commission
_Subject:_ ECB on excessive deficits in eurozone countries

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 80
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 81

**E-009707/12** by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission
_Subject:_ Grain prices

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

**E-009708/12** by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission
_Subject:_ Raw foodstuffs

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 84
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 85

**E-009709/12** by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission
_Subject:_ Food crises

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 86
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 87

**E-009711/12** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Cuts in R R&D D spending in Spain

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 88
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 90

**E-009712/12** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Violation of immigrants' human rights in Israel

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 92
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 93

**E-009713/12** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Nuclear stress test results

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 94
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 95

**E-009714/12** by Nikolaos Salavrakos to the Commission
_Subject:_ Innovative Automobile

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 96
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 97

C 310 E / 4 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

**E-009715/12** by Nikolaos Salavrakos to the Commission
_Subject:_ Growing numbers of the elderly

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 98
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 99

**E-009716/12** by Nikolaos Salavrakos to the Commission
_Subject:_ European programmes

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

**E-009717/12** by Nikolaos Salavrakos to the Commission
_Subject:_ National rail services

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 102
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 103

**E-009718/12** by Nikolaos Salavrakos to the Commission
_Subject:_ Solidarity between EU countries

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 104
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 105

**E-009719/12** by Theodoros Skylakakis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Licensing of pharmacies in Greece

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 106
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 107

**E-009720/12** by Marta Andreasen to the Commission
_Subject:_ A suspicious case of tendering at the European Environment Agency

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 108

**E-009721/12** by Phil Bennion to the Commission
_Subject:_ European Aviation Safety Agency's management of conflicts of interest

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 109

**E-009722/12** by Patrick Le Hyaric to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Expansion of the settlement in Gilo in East Jerusalem

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 110
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 111

**E-009723/12** by Patrick Le Hyaric to the Commission
_Subject:_ Obstacles faced by Palestinian pharmaceutical companies

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 112
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 114

**E-009724/12** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Agricultural wetlands

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 116
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 117

**E-009725/12** by Claudio Morganti to the Commission
_Subject:_ Journalists imprisoned in Turkey

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 118
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 121

**E-009738/12** by Mario Borghezio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Journalists imprisoned in Turkey: EU intervention

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 118
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 121

**E-009905/12** by Fiorello Provera to the Commission
_Subject:_ Crackdown on press freedom in Turkey

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 119
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 122

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 5

**E-009971/12** by Laurence J.A.J. Stassen to the Commission
_Subject:_ Report on ‘Turkey's Press Freedom Crisis’

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 120
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 122

**E-010359/12** by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission
_Subject:_ Media freedoms in Turkey

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 123

**P-009726/12** by Marita Ulvskog to the Commission
_Subject:_ Departure of John Dalli and the Commission's further approach to the Tobacco Directive

Svensk version ................................................................................................................................................................... 124
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 125

**E-009727/12** by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission
_Subject:_ Farm incomes

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 126
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 127

**E-009728/12** by Francisco Sosa Wagner to the Commission
_Subject:_ Return to the issue of credit rating agencies

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 128
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 129

**E-009729/12** by Francisco Sosa Wagner to the Commission
_Subject:_ Risks to olive oil exports

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

**E-009730/12** by Francisco Sosa Wagner to the Commission
_Subject:_ Operations generated by using algorithms

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 132
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 133

**E-009731/12** by Nadja Hirsch and Andrea Zanoni to the Commission
_Subject:_ Production of foie gras (fat liver) and application of the derogation provided for in Article 13 TFEU

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 134
Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 136
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 138

**E-009732/12** by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission
_Subject:_ Opting out of the European Arrest Warrant

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 140

**E-009734/12** by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission
_Subject:_ Regulating the free movement of people

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 141

**E-009735/12** by Marita Ulvskog to the Commission
_Subject:_ EC law on conflict minerals

Svensk version ................................................................................................................................................................... 142
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 143

**E-009736/12** by Jan Mulder to the Commission
_Subject:_ Export of embryos outside the EU

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

**E-009739/12** by Vicente Miguel Garcés Ramón to the Commission
_Subject:_ Implementation of EAFRD programmes in the Valencia Region

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 146
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 147

C 310 E / 6 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

**E-009740/12** by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Withholding of funding for the transport of pupils with special needs to specialised education centres

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 148
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 150

**E-009741/12** by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission
_Subject:_ Creative Europe programme

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 152
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 153

**E-010543/12** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Intervention at Madrid's Barajas airport by staff from the US Embassy

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 154
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 157

**E-010546/12** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ USA Embassy staff prevent a Columbian citizen from flying out of Barajas

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 154
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 158

**E-009742/12** by Martin Ehrenhauser to the Commission
_Subject:_ Use of PNR data by the USA

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 156
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 157

**E-009743/12** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Custodial sentence handed down to Colombian journalist Fredy Muñoz

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

**E-009744/12** by James Nicholson to the Commission
_Subject:_ Internal trafficking of human beings within Member States

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

**E-009745/12** by James Nicholson to the Commission
_Subject:_ Support for micro-businesses

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

**E-009746/12** by Mario Mauro to the Commission
_Subject:_ Rules on huntable bird species

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

**E-009748/12** by Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl to the Commission
_Subject:_ Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) is not ACTA

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 165
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 167

**E-009749/12** by Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl to the Commission
_Subject:_ Anti-dumping investigation into solar panel imports from China

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 168
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 170

**E-009750/12** by Charles Tannock to the Commission
_Subject:_ The role of EU legislation in the rights of members of the public to erect satellite TV dishes

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 171

**E-009751/12** by Kartika Tamara Liotard to the Commission
_Subject:_ Widespread failure to comply with animal welfare law in the Netherlands

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 172
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 173

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 7

**E-009752/12** by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Employment policies in response to the crisis and joblessness — Greece and Spain

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 174
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 176

**P-009753/12** by Ivo Belet to the Commission
_Subject:_ Restructuring in the automotive industry/closure of Ford Genk

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

**P-009755/12** by Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy to the Commission
_Subject:_ Antidumping procedure concerning imports of white phosphorus from Kazakhstan

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

**P-009756/12** by David Martin to the Commission
_Subject:_ Independent states and EU membership

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

**P-009862/12** by Gerard Batten to the Commission
_Subject:_ Status of the United Kingdom if Scotland leaves

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

**E-009757/12** by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission
_Subject:_ The private passenger transport sector in Italy and the proper functioning of the European internal
market

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 182
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 183

**E-009759/12** by Struan Stevenson and Isabella Lövin to the Commission
_Subject:_ Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing

Svensk version ................................................................................................................................................................... 184
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 185

**E-009760/12** by Nicole Sinclaire to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU social security coordination

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

**E-009761/12** by Nicole Sinclaire to the Commission
_Subject:_ European Globalisation Adjustment Fund

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

**E-009762/12** by Mario Mauro to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Death penalty day

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 188
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 189

**E-009763/12** by Mike Nattrass to the Commission
_Subject:_ Islamic Relief Worldwide

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

**E-009764/12** by Mike Nattrass to the Commission
_Subject:_ Muslim Aid

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

**E-009765/12** by Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu to the Commission
_Subject:_ Marketing food and beverages to children

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

**E-009766/12** by Izaskun Bilbao Barandica to the Commission
_Subject:_ European agricultural funds

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

C 310 E / 8 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

**E-009767/12** by Amelia Andersdotter to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU coordination and common position in the World Intellectual Property Organisation on the issue of
granting observer status to international and EU-wide NGOs

Svensk version ................................................................................................................................................................... 196
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 198

**E-009978/12** by Amelia Andersdotter to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU coordination and common EU position in the World Intellectual Property Organisation on the issue
of granting observer status to international and EU-wide NGOs

Svensk version ................................................................................................................................................................... 196
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 198

**E-009768/12** by Mario Mauro to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Attacks by religious extremists in Tunisia

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 200
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 201

**P-009769/12** by Sari Essayah to the Commission
_Subject:_ Destruction of used energy-saving lamps

Suomenkielinen versio ..................................................................................................................................................... 202
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 203

**E-009770/12** by Cristiana Muscardini, Gabriele Albertini, Salvatore Tatarella, Niccolò Rinaldi, Roberta Angelilli,
Patrizia Toia, Lara Comi, Tiziano Motti, Amalia Sartori, Gianluca Susta, Carlo Fidanza, Sonia Alfano, Paolo
Bartolozzi and Malcolm Harbour to the Commission
_Subject:_ The fight against counterfeiting

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 204
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 205

**E-009771/12** by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission
_Subject:_ Counterfeiting over the Internet

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 206
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 207

**E-009772/12** by Marta Andreasen to the Commission
_Subject:_ Budget line 25 01 02 13: Other management expenditure of Members of the Institution

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 208

**E-009773/12** by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission
_Subject:_ Introduction of the Tobin Tax and possible impact on savers and businesses

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 209
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 210

**E-009774/12** by Mario Borghezio to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Intervention for the right to freedom of a European citizen, ‘prisoner’ in Saudi Arabia

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

**E-009775/12** by Hannu Takkula to the Commission
_Subject:_ Active engagement of the European citizen

Suomenkielinen versio ..................................................................................................................................................... 213
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 214

**E-009776/12** by Adrian Severin to the Commission
_Subject:_ Authors of CVM reports on Romania

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

**E-009777/12** by Franz Obermayr to the Commission
_Subject:_ Failed merger between EADS and BAE

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 217
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 218

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 9

**E-009778/12** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Data protection directive

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 219
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 220

**E-009779/12** by Andreas Mölzer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Incidents at present at the Temelin nuclear power plant

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 221
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 222

**E-009780/12** by Andreas Mölzer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Charges for credit card payments abroad

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 223
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 224

**E-009781/12** by Zbigniew Ziobro, Tadeusz Cymański, Jacek Włosowicz and Jacek Olgierd Kurski to the
Commission
_Subject:_ Reducing the sulphur content of marine fuels

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 225
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 226

**E-009782/12** by Matteo Salvini to the Commission
_Subject:_ European Directive 2001/37/EC, DG SANCO

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 227
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 228

**E-009783/12** by Ramona Nicole Mănescu to the Commission
_Subject:_ Auditors report for the Regional Operational Programme (CCI: 2007RO161PO001)

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 229
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 230

**E-009784/12** by Tanja Fajon and Claude Moraes to the Council
_Subject:_ Future role of the United Kingdom in EU police cooperation

Slovenska različica ............................................................................................................................................................ 231
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 232

**E-009785/12** by Tanja Fajon and Claude Moraes to the Commission
_Subject:_ United Kingdom's future role in EU police cooperation

Slovenska različica ............................................................................................................................................................ 233
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 234

**E-009786/12** by Franz Obermayr to the Commission
_Subject:_ Discontinuing the visa-free regime for Serbia and Macedonia

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

**E-009787/12** by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Solidarity Fund and natural disasters in island areas

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 237
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 238

**E-009789/12** by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Relations between the European Union and the Republic of South Africa

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 239
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 240

**E-009791/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ IMF calls on Portugal to make ‘additional efforts’

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 241
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 242

**E-009792/12** by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Tourism cooperation programmes in the ORs

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 243
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 245

C 310 E / 10 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

**E-009793/12** by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Research, innovation, and technology programmes in the ORs

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 247
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 248

**E-009794/12** by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Energy programmes in the ORs

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 249
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 251

**E-009795/12** by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Programmes to support industry in the ORs

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 253
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 254

**P-009796/12** by Martin Callanan to the Commission
_Subject:_ Free movement of individuals and goods in the European Union

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 255

**P-009797/12** by Christel Schaldemose to the Commission
_Subject:_ Certification of medical devices

Dansk udgave .................................................................................................................................................................... 256
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 257

**E-009798/12** by Niki Tzavela to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Situation in Lebanon

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

**E-009799/12** by Nicole Sinclaire to the Commission
_Subject:_ Commissioners' terms of employment

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

**E-009800/12** by Nicole Sinclaire to the Commission
_Subject:_ Common Provisions Regulation

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

**E-009801/12** by Daciana Octavia Sârbu to the Commission
_Subject:_ Physical activity indicators

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 262
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 263

**E-009802/12** by Judith Sargentini to the Commission
_Subject:_ Implementation of European telecommunications directives and network neutrality in the Netherlands

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 264
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 265

**E-009803/12** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Protection of biodiversity and local knowledge: what is the EU's position regarding sustainable
application of intellectual property rules?

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 266
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 268

**E-009804/12** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Psychiatric disorders related to substance abuse: information measures and incentives for specialists

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 270
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 272

**E-009805/12** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Construction: safer tunnels

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 273
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 274

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 11

**E-009806/12** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Combating childhood diabetes: investing in new studies

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

**E-009807/12** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Transparent solar panels

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

**E-009808/12** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Peer education: its short and long-term effectiveness needs to be assessed

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 279
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 280

**E-009809/12** by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Tobin Tax — Enhanced cooperation on the European financial transaction tax

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 281
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 283

**E-009810/12** by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Tobin tax — Transactions subject to the new EU tax

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 285
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 287

**E-009812/12** by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Tobin tax — Introducing tax on a global scale

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

**E-009813/12** by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Accounting for public-private partnerships in the public deficit

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

**E-009814/12** by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Job opportunities for recent graduates

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 293
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 295

**E-009815/12** by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Use of remaining bank recapitalisation funds

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 296
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 298

**P-009816/12** by Isabella Lövin to the Commission
_Subject:_ Communication of shortfin mako catches to the International Commission for the Conservation of
Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) pursuant to ICCAT Rec [10-06]

Svensk version ................................................................................................................................................................... 300
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 301

**P-009817/12** by Bernd Lange to the Commission
_Subject:_ Production of refrigerants for motor vehicle air-conditioning systems

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 302
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 303

**E-009818/12** by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Situation of NEETs

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 304
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 305

**E-009819/12** by Bernd Lange to the Commission
_Subject:_ Eco-innovations for passenger vehicles

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 306
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 307

C 310 E / 12 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

**E-009820/12** by Bernd Lange to the Commission
_Subject:_ Euro 6 emission standard

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 308
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 310

**E-009821/12** by Auke Zijlstra to the Commission
_Subject:_ Tax on financial transactions

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 312
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 313

**E-009822/12** by Kriton Arsenis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Protecting cetaceans from sonar activities

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 314
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 315

**E-009823/12** by Ana Miranda, François Alfonsi and Jill Evans to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Situation of the 12 Palestinians evacuated from the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem and
transferred to the European Union in 2002

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 316
Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 317
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 318

**E-009825/12** by Alajos Mészáros and Zoltán Bagó to the Commission
_Subject: Ratione temporis_ impact of EC law

Magyar változat ................................................................................................................................................................. 319
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 320

**P-009826/12** by Jürgen Creutzmann to the Commission
_Subject:_ Application of EU state aid rules and notifications in Rheinland-Pfalz

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 321
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 323

**E-009827/12** by Nicole Sinclaire to the Commission
_Subject:_ Oil exploration off the Canary Islands

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 325

**E-009829/12** by Brice Hortefeux to the Commission
_Subject:_ Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived

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

**E-009830/12** by Vilija Blinkevičiūtė to the Council
_Subject:_ Continued provision for EU food aid under the 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework

Tekstas lietuvių kalba ....................................................................................................................................................... 328
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 329

**E-009831/12** by Daciana Octavia Sârbu to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU drugs strategy

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

**E-009832/12** by Andrea Zanoni to the Commission
_Subject:_ Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and protecting the health of European citizens

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 332
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 333

**E-009833/12** by Mario Borghezio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Reinforcement of controls on the use of IPA funds

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 334
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 335

**E-009834/12** by Carl Schlyter to the Commission
_Subject:_ Getterön bird protection area

Svensk version ................................................................................................................................................................... 336
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 337

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 13

**E-009835/12** by Christel Schaldemose to the Commission
_Subject:_ Questions on airline tickets

Dansk udgave .................................................................................................................................................................... 338
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 339

**E-009836/12** by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission
_Subject:_ Budget for Horizon 2020

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 340
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 342

**E-009839/12** by Diane Dodds to the Commission
_Subject:_ Transport — Directive 2010/48/EU

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

**E-009841/12** by Diane Dodds to the Commission
_Subject:_ Enhancing farm safety

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

**E-009842/12** by Diane Dodds to the Commission
_Subject:_ Farm accidents and fatalities across the EU

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 345

**E-009844/12** by Ingeborg Gräßle to the Commission
_Subject:_ Revolving doors: Commission officials hired by the tobacco industry

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 346
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 348

**E-009931/12** by Monica Luisa Macovei to the Commission
_Subject:_ Revolving doors: Commission officials hired by the tobacco industry

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 347
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 348

**P-009845/12** by Elisa Ferreira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Macroeconomic conditionality in the 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 349
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 350

**P-009846/12** by Niki Tzavela to the Commission
_Subject:_ Hiring of foreign technocrats

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 352
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 353

**E-009847/12** by Izaskun Bilbao Barandica to the Commission
_Subject:_ Apologists for Franco acting with impunity in Navarre

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 354
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 355

**E-009848/12** by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Madeira Free Zone (MFZ)/Madeira International Business Centre (CINM) — I

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 356
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 358

**E-009849/12** by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Madeira Free Zone (MFZ)/Madeira International Business Centre (CINM) — II

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 356
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 358

**E-009850/12** by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Madeira Free Zone (MFZ)/Madeira International Business Centre (CINM) — III

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 360
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 362

C 310 E / 14 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

**E-009851/12** by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Madeira Free Zone (MFZ)/ Madeira International Business Centre (CINM) — IV

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 360
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 362

**E-009852/12** by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Response of national confederations to the action ‘European Partnership on Sports’

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 364
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 365

**E-009853/12** by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Take-up of EU funds by Greece in 2010-2012

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 366
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 367

**E-009854/12** by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Credit for businesses and investments in Greece

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 368
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 369

**E-009855/12** by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Statement by Commissioner Hahn on the liquidity problem facing SMEs in Greece

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 370
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 371

**P-009856/12** by Michèle Striffler to the Commission
_Subject:_ The soaring price of wheat

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 372
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 373

**P-009857/12** by Emer Costello to the Commission
_Subject:_ Preparatory action ‘Youth Guarantee’

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 374

**P-009858/12** by Françoise Grossetête to the Commission
_Subject:_ Implementation of Directive 2011/62/EU combating falsified medicines — implementing act pursuant
to Article 111(b)

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 375
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 377

**E-009859/12** by Judith A. Merkies to the Commission
_Subject:_ Microplastics

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 378
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 379

**P-009860/12** by Elena Băsescu to the Commission
_Subject:_ Pre-suspension of payments under three sectoral operational programmes in Romania

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 380
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 381

**P-009861/12** by David-Maria Sassoli to the Commission
_Subject:_ Arrest of Costas Vaxevanis and defence of freedom of information

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 382
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 383

**P-009863/12** by Kartika Tamara Liotard to the Commission
_Subject:_ Request for drafts of the new Tobacco Directive

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 384
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 385

**E-009864/12** by Michael Cramer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Cost-efficiency of the Baltic-Adriatic corridor (‘Connecting Europe Facility’)

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 386
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 388

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 15

**E-009865/12** by Michael Cramer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Bringing bicycles onto long distance trains

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 389
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 390

**E-009866/12** by Franz Obermayr to the Commission
_Subject:_ No need for flight cancellation insurance

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 391
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 392

**E-009867/12** by Franz Obermayr to the Commission
_Subject:_ Relaxing of the strict limits on genetically contaminated food

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 393
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 394

**E-009868/12** by Franz Obermayr to the Commission
_Subject:_ Threat from Monsanto product Roundup

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 395
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 396

**E-009869/12** by Franz Obermayr to the Commission
_Subject:_ Food information regulation opaque and over-complicated

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 397
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 399

**E-009870/12** by Franz Obermayr to the Commission
_Subject:_ The European Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) — Support measures in Paraguay

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

**E-009871/12** by Andrew Henry William Brons to the Commission
_Subject:_ Public image of the President of the Commission

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 402

**E-009872/12** by Adina-Ioana Vălean to the Commission
_Subject:_ Draft revised EU Guidelines for the application of state aid rules in relation to the rapid deployment of
broadband networks

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 403
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 404

**E-009873/12** by Mariya Gabriel to the Commission
_Subject:_ Confiscation and reuse of assets of organised crime

българска версия ............................................................................................................................................................... 405
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 406

**E-009875/12** by Jean-Luc Mélenchon to the Commission
_Subject:_ Authorisation of Syngenta's genetically modified maize MIR162

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 407
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 409

**E-009876/12** by David Casa to the Commission
_Subject:_ Violence in Spain and Greece

Verżjoni Maltija ................................................................................................................................................................. 410
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 411

**E-009877/12** by David Casa to the Commission
_Subject:_ Aviation carbon emissions

Verżjoni Maltija ................................................................................................................................................................. 412
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 413

**E-009878/12** by David Casa to the Commission
_Subject:_ Decline in quality tourism

Verżjoni Maltija ................................................................................................................................................................. 414
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 415

C 310 E / 16 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

**E-009879/12** by David Casa to the Commission
_Subject:_ WTO Boeing

Verżjoni Maltija ................................................................................................................................................................. 416
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 417

**E-009881/12** by David Casa to the Commission
_Subject:_ Wind energy

Verżjoni Maltija ................................................................................................................................................................. 418
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 419

**E-009882/12** by David Casa to the Commission
_Subject:_ Supervision of medical devices

Verżjoni Maltija ................................................................................................................................................................. 420
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 421

**E-009883/12** by David Casa to the Commission
_Subject:_ Railway package

Verżjoni Maltija ................................................................................................................................................................. 422
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 423

**E-009884/12** by Francesco De Angelis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Waste disposal in southern Lazio

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 424
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 425

**P-009885/12** by Franz Obermayr to the Commission
_Subject:_ United Arab Emirates, Dubai: sentencing of Dr Eugen Adelsmayr on 21.10.2012

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 426
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 428

**E-009886/12** by Franz Obermayr to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — United Arab Emirates, Dubai: sentencing of Dr Eugen Adelsmayr on 21.10.2012

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 426
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 428

**E-009887/12** by Ingeborg Gräßle to the Commission
_Subject:_ Absences in EU delegations in third countries

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 430
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 431

**E-009888/12** by Ingeborg Gräßle to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Absences in EU delegations in third countries

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 430
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 431

**E-009889/12** by Ingeborg Gräßle to the Commission
_Subject:_ Golden handshake — early retirement without reduction of pension rights

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 432
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 433

**E-009890/12** by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Council
_Subject:_ Cosmetic products

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 434
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 435

**E-009891/12** by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission
_Subject:_ Cosmetic products

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 436
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 438

**E-009892/12** by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Guaranteed application of collective agreements under the Greek Memorandum

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 440
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 442

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 17

**P-010013/12** by Konstantinos Poupakis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Collective Bargaining in Greece and the EU _acquis_

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 440
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 442

**E-009893/12** by Konstantinos Poupakis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Ratio between indirect and direct taxes in Greece

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 444
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 445

**E-009894/12** by Nessa Childers to the Commission
_Subject:_ Funding for disabled farmers

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 446

**E-009895/12** by Nessa Childers to the Commission
_Subject:_ Establishment of a Youth Entrepreneurship Fund in Ireland

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 447

**E-009896/12** by Nessa Childers to the Commission
_Subject:_ Funding for academic studies

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 449

**E-009897/12** by Daciana Octavia Sârbu to the Commission
_Subject:_ European Health Examination Survey

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 450
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 451

**E-009898/12** by Seán Kelly to the Commission
_Subject:_ Review of the Commission's position on the composition of elements used to measure EU carbon output

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 452

**E-009899/12** by Seán Kelly to the Commission
_Subject:_ Measurement of net carbon output

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 453

**E-009900/12** by Barbara Lochbihler and Matthias Groote to the Commission
_Subject:_ Human rights and climate change

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 454
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 455

**E-009901/12** by Gaston Franco and Struan Stevenson to the Commission
_Subject:_ Revision of EU legislation on packaging and packaging waste

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 456
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 458

**E-009902/12** by Iva Zanicchi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Haiti and the scourge of cholera

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 459
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 460

**E-009903/12** by Elisa Ferreira, Luís Paulo Alves, António Fernando Correia de Campos, Ana Gomes, Vital
Moreira, Edite Estrela and Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos to the Commission
_Subject:_ Possible preferential treatment of Ireland

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

**P-009904/12** by Christine De Veyrac to the Council
_Subject:_ Multiannual financial framework 2014-2020

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 463
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 464

**E-009906/12** by Fiorello Provera to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Foiled al-Qaeda attack in Jordan

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

C 310 E / 18 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

**E-009907/12** by Fiorello Provera to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Support for a women's rights strategy in Afghanistan

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 467
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 469

**P-009909/12** by Ricardo Cortés Lastra to the Commission
_Subject:_ A European policy to ensure decent housing

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 470
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 472

**E-009910/12** by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission
_Subject:_ Proposed quarry in the Serra de la Tossa d'Algerri

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 473
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 475

**E-009911/12** by Nicole Sinclaire to the Commission
_Subject:_ Retirement age of Commission officials

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

**E-009912/12** by Nicole Sinclaire to the Commission
_Subject:_ Single European Sky initiative — infringement proceedings against Member States

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 478

**E-009913/12** by Nicole Sinclaire to the Commission
_Subject:_ Construction of European External Action Service headquarters

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 479

**E-009914/12** by Rachida Dati to the Commission
_Subject:_ Commission must take the principle of subsidiarity seriously

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 480
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 481

**E-009915/12** by Elisabetta Gardini to the Commission
_Subject:_ Abruzzo earthquake ruling

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

**E-009916/12** by Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu to the Commission
_Subject:_ Illegal organ harvesting in China

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 484
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 485

**E-009917/12** by Bogdan Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz, Andrzej Grzyb, Jolanta Emilia Hibner, Tadeusz Zwiefka and
Jacek Protasiewicz to the Commission
_Subject:_ Public consultations on the review of the auction time profile for the EU Emissions Trading System

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 486
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 487

**E-009918/12** by Bill Newton Dunn to the Commission
_Subject:_ Glyphosate

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

**E-009919/12** by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission
_Subject:_ Immigrant detention centre (CIE) in Aluche, Madrid

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

**E-009920/12** by Auke Zijlstra to the Commission
_Subject:_ Deferral for Greece could cost between EUR 30 and 38 billion

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 491
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 492

**P-009921/12** by Vicky Ford to the Commission
_Subject:_ French Government support for PSA Peugeot Citroën

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 493

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 19

**P-009922/12** by Cornelis de Jong to the Commission
_Subject:_ Amendment of the Staff Regulations

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 494
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 495

**E-009923/12** by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Co-financed project to link the Cyclades and mainland Greece via submarine cables.

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 496
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 498

**E-009924/12** by Bill Newton Dunn to the Commission
_Subject:_ Hairdressers

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 499

**E-009925/12** by Agnès Le Brun to the Commission
_Subject:_ VAT increase for personal services

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 500
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 501

**E-009926/12** by Lucas Hartong and Laurence J.A.J. Stassen to the Commission
_Subject:_ Aid to Kosovo is a waste of money

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 502
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 503

**E-009927/12** by Peter van Dalen to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Participation in prayers by Egypt's President Morsi

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 504
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 505

**E-009928/12** by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Portuguese budget deficit — friendly cuts programme

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

**E-009929/12** by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Return to the rule of law in Guinea-Bissau

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

**E-009930/12** by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Beyond the European Year for Active Ageing and Solidarity between Generations

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

**E-009932/12** by Daniel Hannan to the Commission
_Subject:_ Justice for property buyers in Cyprus

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 512

**E-009933/12** by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission
_Subject:_ Bahraini Government denies right to protest

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 513
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 514

**E-009934/12** by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission
_Subject:_ Worsening security situation in Nigeria after Catholic church was targeted in suicide attack

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 515
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 517

**E-010082/12** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Nigeria — another attack on a church

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

C 310 E / 20 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

**E-009936/12** by Laurence J.A.J. Stassen to the Commission
_Subject:_ Investment in wind power and solar energy

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 519
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 520

**E-009937/12** by Hannu Takkula to the Commission
_Subject:_ Environmentally and ethically sustainable fishing

Suomenkielinen versio ..................................................................................................................................................... 521
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 522

**E-009938/12** by Hannu Takkula to the Commission
_Subject:_ Opportunities for people with intellectual disabilities to participate in international programmes

Suomenkielinen versio ..................................................................................................................................................... 523
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 524

**P-009939/12** by Michael Cashman to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Implementation of the EU guidelines on children and armed conflict

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 525

**P-009940/12** by Keith Taylor to the Commission
_Subject:_ Commission's analysis of proposal concerning good practice in the food supply chain

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

**E-009941/12** by Carlos Coelho and Ioan Enciu to the Commission
_Subject:_ Schengen _acquis_

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 527
Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 528
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 529

**E-009942/12** by Patricia van der Kammen to the Commission
_Subject:_ Transport en Logistiek Nederland (TLN) wants action to address transport abuses

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 530
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 531

**E-009943/12** by Laurence J.A.J. Stassen to the Commission
_Subject:_ European Emissions Trading System

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 532
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 533

**P-009944/12** by Josef Weidenholzer to the Commission
_Subject:_ German aircraft on a Frontex mission over Gibraltar

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 534
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 535

**E-009945/12** by Christine De Veyrac to the Commission
_Subject:_ Reduced rate of VAT

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 536
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 537

**E-009946/12** by Christine De Veyrac to the Commission
_Subject:_ Pharmaceuticals market in Europe

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 538
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 539

**E-009948/12** by Ingeborg Gräßle to the Commission
_Subject:_ OLAF investigation of Japanese Tobacco Inc — smuggling accusations

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 540
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 542

**E-009950/12** by Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg to the Commission
_Subject:_ Banning the sale of marijuana to foreigners in the Netherlands

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 544
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 545

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 21

**E-009951/12** by Olle Schmidt to the Commission
_Subject:_ Human trafficking in Sinai

Svensk version ................................................................................................................................................................... 546
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 547

**E-009952/12** by Renate Weber, Sophia in 't Veld, Sonia Alfano, Cecilia Wikström and Ramon Tremosa i Balcells
to the Commission
_Subject:_ Use of EU funds for Roma inclusion in Romania

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 548
Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 549

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 550

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 551

Svensk version ................................................................................................................................................................... 552
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 553

**E-009953/12** by Renate Weber, Sophia in 't Veld, Sonia Alfano, Cecilia Wikström and Ramon Tremosa i Balcells
to the Commission
_Subject:_ Anti-Gypsyism in Italy

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 554
Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 556

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 557

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 558

Svensk version ................................................................................................................................................................... 559
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 560

**E-009954/12** by Renate Weber, Sophia in 't Veld, Sonia Alfano, Cecilia Wikström and Ramon Tremosa i Balcells
to the Commission
_Subject:_ Decision by France's Constitutional Court regarding travelling Roma

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 561
Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 562

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 563

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 564

Svensk version ................................................................................................................................................................... 565
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 566

**E-009955/12** by Renate Weber, Sophia in 't Veld, Sonia Alfano, Cecilia Wikström and Ramon Tremosa i Balcells
to the Commission
_Subject:_ Education in the Czech Republic

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 567
Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 568

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 569

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 570

Svensk version ................................................................................................................................................................... 571
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 572

**E-009956/12** by Renate Weber, Sophia in 't Veld, Sonia Alfano, Cecilia Wikström and Ramon Tremosa i Balcells
to the Commission
_Subject:_ Education in Romania

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 573
Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 574

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 575

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 576

Svensk version ................................................................................................................................................................... 577
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 578

**E-009957/12** by Renate Weber, Sophia in 't Veld, Sonia Alfano, Cecilia Wikström and Ramon Tremosa i Balcells
to the Commission
_Subject:_ Education in Slovakia

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 579
Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 580

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 581

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 582

Svensk version ................................................................................................................................................................... 583
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 584

C 310 E / 22 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

**E-009958/12** by Renate Weber, Sophia in 't Veld, Sonia Alfano, Cecilia Wikström and Ramon Tremosa i Balcells
to the Commission
_Subject:_ Healthcare in Bulgaria

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 585
Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 587

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 589

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 591

Svensk version ................................................................................................................................................................... 593
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 594

**E-009959/12** by Renate Weber, Sophia in 't Veld, Sonia Alfano, Cecilia Wikström and Ramon Tremosa i Balcells
to the Commission
_Subject:_ Lack of registration of Roma in Romania

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 595
Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 596

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 597

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 598

Svensk version ................................................................................................................................................................... 599
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 600

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 23

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-009682/12**

**à la Commission**
**Rachida Dati (PPE)**

_(23 octobre 2012)_

_Objet:_ L'Europe doit prendre le leadership sur le marché des véhicules propres

La Commission a donné, le 18 juillet 2012, le feu vert à l'ouverture des négociations formelles en vue de la conclusion
d'un accord de libre-échange avec le Japon. Elle a affirmé sa volonté de voir le Japon lever notamment ses barrières
non tarifaires dans le secteur automobile.

La suppression de ces barrières est une nécessité pour ne pas accabler encore plus un secteur en souffrance. Si ces
négociations devaient aboutir, l'Europe devra être prête. Elle doit renforcer son secteur automobile, et pour cela elle
doit s'assurer d'avoir un avantage compétitif réel sur ses concurrents.

En cette période de crise, nous devons miser sur des investissements renforcés dans la recherche et le développement
de véhicules électriques et hybrides. Ils seront le gage du renouveau du secteur automobile pour affronter le double
défi climatique et de la concurrence mondiale.

L'Europe a promis 5 milliards d'euros à l'initiative européenne pour les véhicules verts. Or, d'autres pays, comme le
Japon ou la Chine, ont investi massivement dans les véhicules et batteries électriques. Nous sommes en train
d'accumuler un retard qui nous sera très préjudiciable lors de l'ouverture de notre marché à nos concurrents et, en ce
cas précis, au Japon en particulier.

Quelles mesures nouvelles la Commission compte-t-elle présenter pour encourager l'industrie automobile
européenne dans son ensemble à devenir le leader mondial du marché des véhicules propres?

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

_(18 décembre 2012)_

Les technologies nécessaires pour la production de véhicules propres et économes en énergie sont à l'origine de la
compétitivité de l'industrie européenne depuis de nombreuses années. La Commission, cependant, estime que
l'Europe doit prendre des mesures pour renforcer cette avance technologique en tant que source de l'avantage
concurrentiel de l'industrie automobile de l'UE — surtout dans le contexte d'une concurrence internationale
croissante. Les dispositions nécessaires incluent des investissements dans la recherche, le développement et
l'innovation, la normalisation des paramètres de sécurité des véhicules, le déploiement d'infrastructures de
ravitaillement/rechargement adéquates et des mesures pour aider les travailleurs à acquérir les nouvelles qualifications
requises. La communication «CARS 2020: plan d'action pour une industrie automobile compétitive et durable en
Europe» ( [1] ), adoptée le 8 novembre 2012, énonce les mesures concrètes que la Commission mettra en œuvre au cours
des prochaines années pour atteindre cet objectif.

Nos partenaires mondiaux, qui ont d'importantes capacités de production automobile, ont en effet adopté, eux aussi,
des stratégies spécifiques en vue de mettre au point des technologies de production de véhicules propres et économes
en énergie. À cet égard, le rôle de la Commission consiste, d'une part, à s'assurer que les normes en matière de climat
et d'environnement sont dûment appliquées pour les véhicules vendus sur le marché de l'UE et, d'autre part, à
encourager ou maintenir l'engagement des pays partenaires d'élaborer des exigences techniques internationales dans
le domaine de la sécurité des véhicules et de la performance environnementale — dans le cadre de la CEE-ONU. C'est
pourquoi, par exemple, a été récemment lancée une coopération concernant les exigences techniques internationales
relatives aux véhicules électriques. L'adoption de règles internationales permettra des économies d'échelle et de coûts
pour les constructeurs automobiles.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 636 final du 8.11.2012.

C 310 E / 24 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009682/12**

**to the Commission**

**Rachida Dati (PPE)**

_(23 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Europe must lead the way in the market for clean vehicles

On 18 July 2012 the Commission gave the green light to open formal negotiations for the conclusion of a free trade
agreement with Japan. It stated its desire to see Japan raise its non-tariff barriers in the automobile sector in particular.

The removal of these barriers is essential in order to avoid further aggravating the situation of an ailing sector of the
economy. If and when these negotiations are concluded, Europe must be ready. It must strengthen its automobile
sector, and in order to do so, must ensure that it enjoys a real competitive advantage over its competitors.

In this time of crisis, we must focus on increasing investment in R R&D D for electric and hybrid vehicles. They will
ensure the revival of the automobile sector, enabling it to tackle the twin challenges of climate change and global
competition.

Europe has pledged 5 billion euros to the European initiative for green vehicles. However, other countries, such as
Japan and China, have invested very heavily in electric vehicles and batteries. We are falling behind, and this will prove
very detrimental when we open our market to our competitors, notably Japan.

What new measures does the Commission intend to unveil to encourage the European automobile industry as a
whole to become the world leader in the clean vehicle market?

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

_(18 December 2012)_

The technologies necessary for the production of clean and energy-efficient vehicles have been the source of
European industry's competitiveness for many years. The Commission however, shares the view that Europe needs to
take action in order to reinforce this technological leadership as the source of the competitive advantage of the EU's
automotive industry — especially in the context of growing international competition. The necessary measures
include investments in research, development and innovation, the standardisation of safety parameters of vehicles,
the deployment of adequate refuelling/recharging infrastructure and measures helping workers acquire the necessary
new skills. The communication ‘CARS 2020 — Action Plan for a competitive and sustainable automotive industry in
Europe’ ( [1] ), adopted on 8 November 2012, spells-out the concrete measures that the Commission will implement
over the next years bearing this objective in mind.

Our global partners, who have important automotive production capabilities, have indeed also adopted specific
strategies in order to develop technologies for clean and energy efficient vehicles. On this aspect, the role of the
Commission is to make sure that climate and environmental standards are duly implemented for vehicles sold on
the EU market but also to promote or maintain an engagement of partner countries in the development of
international technical requirements in the area of vehicle safety and environmental performance — in the
framework of the UNECE. This is why for example cooperation recently started on international technical
requirements for electric vehicles. Adoption of international rules will lead to economies of scale and cost savings for
automotive manufacturers.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 636 final, 8.11.2012.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 25

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-009684/12**

**do Komisji**
**Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR)**

_(23 października 2012 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Przedstawiciele polskiego Ministerstwa Edukacji Narodowej nie zostali wpuszczeni na Białoruś

Białoruskie władze nie wpuściły na Białoruś przedstawicieli Ministerstwa Edukacji Narodowej, którzy mieli wziąć
udział w Forum Oświaty Polskojęzycznej w Baranowiczach. Nie zostały podane powody odmowy przyznania im
wiz.

Organizatorem Forum Oświaty Polskojęzycznej jest nieuznawany przez władze w Mińsku Związek Polaków na
Białorusi. Podczas forum omawiana miała być sprawa podpisania przez Polskę i Białoruś umowy dotyczącej
współpracy w dziedzinie edukacji. Dyskusja miała też dotyczyć odmawiania wiz nauczycielom z Polski oraz kwestii
wydania podręczników w języku polskim.

Oczywiste jest, że odmowa wpuszczenia na Białoruś przedstawicieli polskiego ministerstwa nie jest przypadkową
decyzją konsula, lecz celową decyzją władz w Mińsku. Jest to kolejne działanie wymierzone przeciwko mniejszości
polskiej na Białorusi. Aktywiści ZPB są tłamszeni przez władze w Mińsku, wszczynane są przeciwko nim sprawy
karne, często dochodzi do aresztowań członków tej polonijnej organizacji, nakłada się na nich kary finansowe. Jak
pokazują wydarzenia tego tygodnia, władze w Mińsku starają się również utrudnić im kontakt z przedstawicielami
polskich władz i sfinalizować projekty wspierające polską oświatę na Białorusi. W związku z tym pragnę zapytać, czy
Komisja ma zamiar wyrazić sprzeciw wobec oczywistych represji i prześladowań mniejszości polskiej przez
białoruskie władze?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Štefana Fülego w imieniu Komisji**

_(4 lutego 2013 r.)_

Unia Europejska oczywiście ubolewa, że władze białoruskie podejmują działania mające na celu zerwanie kontaktów
międzyludzkich, utrudnianie mniejszościom narodowym pielęgnowania swojej kultury czy, bardziej ogólnie,
uniemożliwianie przedstawicielom europejskiego społeczeństwa obywatelskiego wizyt na Białorusi. UE jest głęboko
przekonana, że wspieranie tego typu kontaktów międzyludzkich jest niezwykle istotne.

Jakkolwiek Białoruś może jednostronnie podjąć decyzję o wpuszczeniu bądź niewpuszczeniu obywateli innych
państw na swoje terytorium, Unia Europejska będzie stale zwracała uwagę władz białoruskich na to, jak istotne jest,
by nie tworzyć jakichkolwiek nieuzasadnionych przeszkód w kontaktach międzyludzkich.

UE znacznie rozszerzyła powyższe działania podejmując szereg inicjatyw. Od czasu, gdy po wyborach
prezydenckich w 2010 r. na Białorusi stłumiono protesty, UE pięciokrotnie zwiększyła swoją pomoc dla
społeczeństwa obywatelskiego i wezwała białoruskie władze, by przerwały działania represyjne wymierzone
w organizacje społeczeństwa obywatelskiego i ich liderów.

C 310 E / 26 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009684/12**

**to the Commission**
**Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR)**

_(23 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Polish education ministry officials refused entry to Belarus

Officials from Poland’s education ministry who were to have taken part in a conference on Polish-language education
in Baranovichy have been denied entry to the country by the Belarusian authorities. No reasons were given for the
refusal to grant visas.

The conference is organised by Union of Poles in Belarus (ZPB), which is not recognised by the authorities in Minsk. It
was to have addressed the signing by Poland and Belarus of an agreement on cooperation in the area of education.
The refusal to issue visas to teachers from Poland and the question of Polish-language textbooks were also to have
been discussed.

Clearly the refusal to allow education ministry officials into Belarus was not an arbitrary decision by the consul, but a
deliberate decision taken by the authorities in Minsk. It is yet another measure taken against the Polish minority in
Belarus. ZPB activists are repressed by the Minsk authorities and subject to criminal prosecutions. They are often
arrested and fined As the events of this week show, the authorities in Minsk are also trying to hinder their contacts
with representatives of the Polish authorities and put a stop to projects supporting Polish-language education in
Belarus. Does the Commission intend to intervene in the case of the refusal to allow Polish education ministry
officials into Belarus, and to voice its opposition to the clear repression and persecution of the Polish minority by the
Belarusian authorities?

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

_(4 February 2013)_

The EU naturally regrets any actions by the Belarusian authorities which disrupt people-to-people contacts, prevent
minorities from exercising their specific culture or, more generally, prevent representatives from European civil
society visiting Belarus. The EU firmly believes in the importance of promoting such people-to-people contacts.

While Belarus can unilaterally decide upon the admission or not of non-Belarusian citizens to its territory, the EU will
continue to ceaselessly underline to the Belarusian authorities the importance of not putting up any unjustified
obstacles to such people-to-people contacts.

The EU has substantially fostered these activites through its different initiatives. Since the crackdown following the
2010 presidential elections, the EU has quintupled the amount of its assistance dedicated to civil society and called on
the Belarusian authorities to refrain from repressive activities against civil society organisations and their leaders.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 27

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-009685/12**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Adrian Severin (NI)**

_(23 octombrie 2012)_

_Subiect:_ Modul de lucru al OLAF în contextul cazului Dalli

Cazul Comisarului John Dalli a scos la lumină modul dubios în care operează OLAF.

În cazul menționat, OLAF a tras concluzii pe baza unor probe circumstanțiale. Or, asemenea probe au valoare numai
coroborate cu probele directe. Probele circumstanțiale (indirecte) nu pot înfrânge prezumția de nevinovăție. Ele lasă
neatins beneficiul dubiului iar în caz de dubiu concluzia se trage în favoarea învinuitului ( _in dubio pro reo_ ). Acesta este
un principiu fundamental al statului de drept.

Există cel puțin alte trei cazuri în care OLAF a tras concluzii la capătul unor anchete pe care el însuși le-a calificat ca
incomplete, necomprehensive și lipsite de probe suficiente. Mai mult, nu numai că acele concluzii nu au fost probate
dar au fost și divergente, deși situațiile de fapt erau similare atât pe fond cât și pe procedură.

Există cel puțin un caz în care OLAF a tras concluzii chiar fără a ancheta. Astfel, concluzia a fost comunicată public cu
mult înainte de încheierea oficială a anchetei.

OLAF este o structură autonomă care funcționează în cadrul CE. A fi autonom nu înseamnă a fi iresponsabil și a nu da
socoteală nimănui. Autonomia se referă la instrumentarea cazurilor concrete iar nu la maniera de lucru și abordarea
generală care se reflectă în soluții de caz defectuoase. Nefiind o instituție europeană de sine stătătoare, OLAF lucrează
sub autoritatea CE care trebuie să îl supravegheze.

Față de cele de mai sus rugăm Comisia să precizeze:

1. Dacă acceptă actualul mod de operare al OLAF și își asumă răspunderea pentru el?

2. Dacă intenționează să interzică practica OLAF de a trage concluzii bazate exclusiv pe probe circumstanțiale, pe
dovezi incomplete sau pe investigații nefinalizate?

3. Dacă intenționează să ia măsuri pentru a asigura respectul prezumției de nevinovăție și al beneficiului dubiului
de către OLAF?

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

_(18 decembrie 2012)_

1. Legislatorul a prevăzut că OLAF acționează, în exercitarea funcțiilor sale de investigare, în totală independență
față de Comisie, rămânând în același timp un serviciu al Comisiei. Prin urmare, aceasta din urmă nu are influență nici
asupra desfășurării investigațiilor, nici asupra metodelor de lucru ale OLAF. Cu toate acestea, Comisia rămâne
responsabilă din punct de vedere civil pentru acțiunile OLAF, acesta din urmă neavând personalitate civilă distinctă.

2 și 3. Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1073/1999 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului ( [1] ) reglementează prerogativele
privind atribuțiile de investigare ale OLAF. OLAF transmite recomandări autorităților judiciare sau disciplinare de
resort; rapoartele OLAF reprezintă acte pregătitoare, care nu pot face ca atare obiectul unor acțiuni în anulare și nu
aduc atingere prezumției de nevinovăție. OLAF are obligația de a respecta regulile procedurale care se aplică
investigațiilor.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1073/1999 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului din 25 mai 1999 privind investigațiile efectuate de Oficiul European
de Lupta Antifraudă (OLAF), JO L 136, 31.5.1999.

C 310 E / 28 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009685/12**

**to the Commission**
**Adrian Severin (NI)**

_(23 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ OLAF's working methods in the context of the Dalli case

The case of Commissioner John Dalli has shed light on the dubious way in which OLAF operates.

In this case, OLAF drew conclusions based on circumstantial evidence. However, such evidence has value only if
corroborated by direct evidence. Circumstantial (indirect) evidence cannot supersede the presumption of innocence.
It does not counteract the benefit of the doubt and where doubt exists, the conclusion is drawn in favour of the
defendant ( _in dubio pro reo_ ). This is a fundamental principle of the rule of law.

There are at least three other cases in which OLAF drew conclusions following investigations which OLAF itself
described as incomplete, non-exhaustive and lacking sufficient evidence. Furthermore, not only were these
conclusions not proven, they were not the same in all cases despite the fact that the situations were similar in terms of
content and procedure.

In at least one case, OLAF drew conclusions without conducting any investigation. The conclusion was thus made
public long before the investigation was officially finalised.

OLAF is an autonomous body which operates within the framework of the EC. Being autonomous does not mean
being irresponsible and unaccountable. Autonomy refers to investigation into specific cases, and not to working
methods and a general approach which lead to incorrect solutions to cases. OLAF is not a European institution in its
own right and works under the authority of the EC which has the duty to oversee it.

In light of the above, will the Commission say:

1. Whether it endorses OLAF's current working methods and assumes responsibility for it?

2. Whether it intends to forbid OLAF's practice of drawing conclusions based solely on circumstantial or
incomplete evidence or ongoing investigations?

3. Whether it intends to take steps to ensure that OLAF complies with the presumption of innocence and benefit
of the doubt?

_(Version française)_

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

_(18 décembre 2012)_

1. Le législateur a prévu que, tout en restant un service de la Commission, l'OLAF, dans l'exercice de ses fonctions
d'enquête, agit en totale indépendance par rapport à la Commission. Cette dernière n'a donc pas d'influence ni sur la
conduite des enquête, ni sur les méthodes de travail de l'OLAF. Ceci étant, la Commission reste civilement responsable
pour les agissements de l'OLAF. En effet, l'OLAF ne jouit pas d'une personnalité civile distincte.

2 et 3. Le règlement (CE) 1073/1999 du Parlement et du Conseil ( [1] ) encadre les compétences d'enquête de l'OLAF.
L'OLAF adresse ses recommandations aux autorités judiciaires ou disciplinaires compétentes; les rapports de l'OLAF
sont des actes préparatoires qui ne peuvent être attaqués en annulation en tant que tels, et ils sont sans préjudice de la
présomption d'innocence. L'OLAF est tenu de respecter les règles procédurales qui s'appliquent aux enquêtes.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Règlement (CE) n° 1073/1999 du Parlement et du Conseil du 25 mai 1999 relatif aux enquêtes effectuées par l'Office européen de lutte antifraude
(OLAF), JO L 136, 31.5.1999.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 29

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009686/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(23 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Simplificación y comunicación de buenas prácticas entre agricultores

En el contexto de extensión de buenas prácticas ambientales dentro del marco de la reforma de la PAC, los
agricultores de las diferentes regiones se ven perdidos en un mar de legislaciones regionales, nacionales y
comunitarias. Esta complejidad normativa, reconocida a todos los niveles, debe ser afrontada por los agricultores de
manera desigual, premiando a las grandes compañías agrarias, con importantes servicios legales que las asesoran para
maximizar su percepción de fondos europeos, frente a pequeños agricultores que no pueden solicitar ni las más
básicas subvenciones.

Frente a esta progresiva complicación de las normativas, la Comisión alcanzó el compromiso de simplificación de la
PAC, que se viene desarrollando desde 2005 y que, desde el punto de vista de los agricultores, no ha producido un
cambio sustancial. Existen numerosas vías para reducir los requisitos administrativos pero, ante el incremento de
aspectos recogidos por la normativa, como aspectos ambientales, provisión de bienes públicos, etc., esta
simplificación no se están adoptando medidas efectivas para la mayor parte de los agricultores.

Puesto que actualmente la PAC presenta numerosas barreras de entrada de carácter administrativo que deberán ser
superadas para garantizar la igualdad de acceso, se debería profundizar en la simplificación. Entre otras medidas, los
agricultores deberían poder conocer experiencias de buenas prácticas, especialmente en la toma de medidas
ambientales, de otros agricultores europeos.

La Comisión dispone de datos secretos sobre las auditorías del gasto de la PAC que recogen parte de estas prácticas
con los que, al menos con los datos que hayan superado los límites temporales de su secreto o que cuenten con el
consentimiento de los agricultores auditados, la Comisión podría desarrollar una base de datos de buenas prácticas.

Teniendo en cuenta que una base de datos de estas características puede ayudar a los pequeños y medianos
agricultores a cumplir los exigentes criterios permitiendo acceder al conocimiento de los casos que la Comisión
considerase ejemplares, y dentro del proceso de simplificación de la PAC,

— ¿Puede la Comisión presentar resultados contrastables del proceso de facilitación de los requisitos administrativos?

— ¿Cuáles son los avances en el tema?

— ¿Se ha planteado la Comisión el uso de la información recogida en las auditorías para la constitución de una base
de datos de buenas prácticas que facilite el acceso a la PAC, sobre todo por parte de los pequeños y medianos
agricultores con mayores dificultades?

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

_(10 de diciembre de 2012)_

Durante los últimos años se han llevado a cabo un gran número de proyectos y actividades con vistas a simplificar la
PAC. Con el fin de llevar a cabo un registro de los progresos logrados en términos de simplificación técnica, la DG
Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural estableció en 2006 un Plan de Acción de Simplificación Permanente. Este Plan se ha
desarrollado a través de 72 proyectos, de los cuales 70 ya se han completado. Para más información, la Comisión
remite a Su Señoría a dicho Plan:

(http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/simplification/documents/actionplan-update_en.pdf).

La simplificación también es un aspecto importante de las propuestas de reforma de la PAC. La Comisión se ha
esforzado en proponer las medidas o instrumentos más sencillos posibles, los cuales sean a la vez herramientas
efectivas para alcanzar los objetivos de la política. Los elementos de simplificación se han introducido directamente
siempre que ha sido viable. En ocasiones anteriores, la simplificación de la PAC ha sido examinada por el Grupo de
Alto Nivel de Partes Implicadas Independientes sobre Cargas Administrativas, el cual ha expresado una opinión
favorable con respecto a los esfuerzos de la Comisión ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Dictamen de 2009 del Grupo de Alto Nivel de Partes Implicadas Independientes sobre Cargas Administrativas «Administrative burden reduction;
priority area Agriculture/agricultural Subsidies» («La reducción de la carga administrativa, áreas prioritarias agricultura/subvenciones agrícolas»).

C 310 E / 30 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

La Comisión no considera la creación de una base de datos cuyo propósito sea divulgar los datos de las auditorías de
los gastos de la PAC. Los sistemas de auditoría de la Comisión se realizan en el marco de los organismos pagadores y
no en el de los agricultores individuales. Los agricultores tendrían escaso acceso a este tipo de datos, en caso de que lo
tuvieran, ya que las conclusiones de las auditorías de la Comisión se centran principalmente en la gestión y los
controles de los gastos de la PAC según los ejecutan las administraciones de los Estados miembros.

De todas formas, la legislación sobre la PAC requiere que los Estados miembros establezcan un Sistema de
Asesoramiento a las Explotaciones con el fin de ayudar a los agricultores a cumplir sus obligaciones, entre otras cosas,
con relación al medio ambiente y al cambio climático.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 31

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009686/12**

**to the Commission**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(23 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Simplification of the CAP and the sharing of best practice between farmers

In the context of efforts under the reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP) to share environmental best
practice, farmers in various regions find themselves baffled by an array of regional, national and Community
legislation. This complex legal situation, recognised as such at all levels, affects some farmers worse than others. The
current arrangements put large agricultural companies at an advantage, given that their sizeable legal departments
can advise them on how to get the most European funding possible. Meanwhile, small farmers find themselves unable
to apply for even the most basic subsidies.

In response to the increasing complexity of agricultural legislation, the Commission agreed to simplify the CAP.
However, despite the Commission's efforts in this regard since 2005, farmers feel that there has not been any
substantial change. There are various ways to reduce CAP administrative requirements. However, given that the
number of aspects covered by agricultural legislation has increased and now include environmental issues and the
provision of public goods, the simplification measures being adopted do not benefit most farmers.

In view of the need to tackle the many administrative barriers preventing farmers from having equal access to CAP
funding, the Commission should expand its simplification programme. Amongst other measures, European farmers
should be able to share best practice with one another, particularly when it comes to environmental decisions.

The Commission has confidential data on audits of CAP expenditure. The data include some examples of best
practice; data that have passed into the public domain or that have been authorised for use by audited farmers could
be incorporated into a database of best practice.

A database of this kind would enable small and medium-sized farmers to find examples of what the Commission
considers best practice and thereby meet demanding CAP criteria. In the context of the simplification of the CAP:

—
Can the Commission provide verifiable examples of the ways in which CAP administrative requirements have
been simplified?

—
What progress has been made?

—
Has it considered using the information contained in the audits to establish a database ofbest practice that
would facilitate access to CAP funding, particularly by small andmedium-sized farmers, who face the most
difficulties in this area?

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

_(10 December 2012)_

During the past years, a large number of projects and activities have been carried out with a view to simplifying the
CAP. To keep record of the progress made in terms of technical simplification, DG Agriculture and Rural
Development did in 2006 set up a ‘rolling’ Simplification Action Plan. The plan has evolved to 72 projects of which
70 have been completed. For further information the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the
Rolling Simplification Action Plan (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/simplification/documents/actionplanupdate_en.pdf)

Simplification is also an important aspect of the CAP reform proposals. The Commission has endeavoured to propose
measures or instruments that are as simple as possible, while still being effective tools to achieve the policy objectives.
Straightforward simplification elements have been introduced where feasible. Simplification of the CAP has, in an
earlier occasion, also been looked at by the High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders on Administrative
Burdens. They gave a positive opinion on the efforts of the Commission ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) 2009, Opinion of the High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders on Administrative Burdens on ‘Administrative burden reduction; priority
area Agriculture/agricultural Subsidies’.

C 310 E / 32 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

The Commission does not consider setting up a database for the purpose of disseminating data on audits of CAP
expenditure. Commission audits are system audits at the level of paying agency and not at the level of individual
farmer. Farmers would have little, if any, use of having access to this kind of data, as the Commission audit findings
mainly concern the management and controls of CAP expenditure as carried out by Member States' administrations.

However, CAP legislation requires Member States to set up a Farm Advisory System for the purpose of helping
farmers to fulfil their obligations relating to, _inter alia_, environment and climate change.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 33

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita P-009687/12**

**a la Comisión**
**María Auxiliadora Correa Zamora (PPE)**

_(23 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Barreras no arancelarias para el sector del aceite de oliva en Estados Unidos

En Estados Unidos se ha iniciado el debate sobre la introducción de una «Marketing Order» para el aceite de oliva. Su
aprobación supondría la introducción de una serie de barreras de entrada no arancelarias que acarrearían un grave
perjuicio a los exportadores de aceite de oliva de la Unión Europea.

¿La Comisión ha mantenido contactos con la Administración norteamericana sobre este asunto? ¿Qué posición tiene
la Comisión al respecto? ¿Qué medidas va a adoptar para defender los intereses del sector olivarero europeo e impedir
que se adopte esta Ley?

**Respuesta del Sr. De Gucht en nombre de la Comisión**

_(20 de noviembre de 2012)_

La Comisión ha seguido el debate sobre el posible establecimiento de una orden de comercialización agrícola
(«marketing order») sobre el aceite de oliva en los Estados Unidos, que sometería este producto a una nueva definición
normalizada y nuevas normas en materia de ensayo y etiquetado.

Los Estados Unidos son con diferencia el mayor mercado de exportación del aceite de oliva de la UE. La aplicación de
una orden de comercialización del Departamento de Agricultura de los Estados Unidos al aceite de oliva importado
acarrearía retrasos injustos y un coste adicional para los importadores.

La Comisión trabaja en estrecha colaboración con los Estados miembros interesados y con el Consejo Oleícola
Internacional (COI) para defender los intereses de los exportadores de la UE. El asunto se ha abordado en varias
ocasiones con las autoridades competentes de los Estados Unidos, en particular con representantes del Senado, de la
Cámara de Representantes y del Departamento de Agricultura, así como con el Representante de Comercio de los
Estados Unidos. Se planteó también a nivel político, en el marco del diálogo transatlántico. La Comisión seguirá
atenta al debate para evitar todo impacto negativo sobre las exportaciones de la UE a los Estados Unidos.

C 310 E / 34 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-009687/12**

**to the Commission**
**María Auxiliadora Correa Zamora (PPE)**

_(23 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Non-tariff barriers for the olive oil sector in the USA

A debate is taking place in the USA over the introduction of a Marketing Order for olive oil. If the Marketing Order is
approved, a number of non-tariff entry barriers could be introduced, which would prove very damaging for EU olive
oil exporters.

Has the Commission been in contact with the US authorities over this matter? What is the Commission’s position?
What measures will the Commission take to defend the interests of the European olive oil sector and prevent this law
from being passed?

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

_(20 November 2012)_

The Commission has been monitoring the debate on the possible establishment of an agricultural marketing order on
olive oil that would impose a new standard definition, testing methods and labelling for olive oil in the United States
(US).

The US represents, by far, the EU's most important export market for EU olive oil exporters. Should a US Department
for Agriculture marketing order apply to imported olive oil, this would create unfair delays and additional costs for
importers.

The Commission is working together in close cooperation with relevant Member States and the International Olive
Council (OIC) to support the interests of the EU exporters. The issue has been raised several times with the relevant US
authorities, including representatives of the House, the Senate, US Department for Agriculture and the US Trade
Representative. This has also been raised at political level, in the framework of the transatlantic dialogue. The
Commission will continue to monitor the debate with the aim of preventing any negative impact on the EU exports to
the US.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 35

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009688/12**

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

_(23 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Corruzione in Italia

Come confermato da recenti statistiche internazionali, la diffusione della corruzione in Italia ha condotto il nostro
paese a classificarsi tra gli ultimi posti in Europa. Le pratiche corruttive scoraggiano la competitività dal momento che
incidono sulla fiducia dei mercati e delle imprese straniere.

Alla luce di quanto precede, si interroga la Commissione per sapere:

1. Quali sono i sistemi di prevenzione della corruzione esistenti in Europa e quali sono i risultati raggiunti?

2. Intende istituire codici di condotta recanti misure più rigorose?

3. Intende investire in politiche integrate che rafforzino gli esistenti rimedi repressivi?

**Risposta di Cecilia Malmström a nome della Commissione**

_(4 dicembre 2012)_

La Commissione segue attentamente l’attuazione delle politiche anticorruzione da parte degli Stati membri, Italia
inclusa, e si avvarrà per questo del meccanismo di relazione dell’UE sulla lotta alla corruzione («relazione
anticorruzione dell’UE») istituito nel giugno del 2011 ( [1] ). La relazione anticorruzione dell’UE permetterà di valutare
l'impegno degli Stati membri, di segnalare problemi sistemici e, al contempo, di identificare le buone pratiche e
incoraggiare l’apprendimento tra pari. Il meccanismo di relazione intende stimolare la volontà politica laddove la
lotta anticorruzione langue, promuovere i successi conseguiti e incoraggiare gli Stati membri a rispettare gli standard
concordati a livello internazionale. La relazione sarà gestita dalla Commissione e pubblicata ogni due anni a partire
dalla seconda metà del 2013. La relazione anticorruzione dell’UE includerà raccomandazioni specifiche per paese e
raccomandazioni generali, anche sul seguito da dare a livello dell'UE.

La Commissione conosce bene le particolari difficoltà della lotta anticorruzione in Italia e proprio per questo la
incoraggia ad attuare la nuova normativa anticorruzione adottata di recente, a continuare e ad accelerare il processo
di riforma della lotta anticorruzione, a eliminare eventuali ostacoli che favoriscono un clima di impunità e a dare
seguito alle recenti raccomandazioni del Gruppo di Stati del Consiglio d’Europa contro la corruzione in tema di
finanziamento dei partiti e incriminazioni per corruzione in Italia.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Commission decision of 6.6.2011 establishing an EU Anti-corruption reporting mechanism for periodic assessment («EU Anti-corruption
Report»), C(2011)3673 final. http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/pdf/com_decision_2011_3673_final_it.pdf

C 310 E / 36 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009688/12**

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

_(23 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Corruption in Italy

As confirmed by recent international statistics, the spread of corruption in Italy is such that our country ranks among
the worst offenders in Europe. Corrupt practices harm competitiveness since they undermine the confidence of the
markets and foreign companies.

In the light of the above, will the Commission say:

1. What schemes exist in Europe to prevent corruption and what results have been achieved?

2. Does it intend to establish codes of conduct with tougher measures?

3. Does it intend to launch integrated policies which will strengthen the existing system of penalties?

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

_(4 December 2012)_

The Commission is closely following the implementation of anti-corruption policies in all Member States, including
Italy, in the framework of the EU anti-corruption reporting mechanism (‘EU Anti-Corruption Report’) set up in
June 2011 ( [1] ). The EU Anti-Corruption Report will assess the Member States' efforts against corruption, exposing
systemic problems, while also identifying good practices and encouraging peer-learning. This reporting mechanism is
an instrument which aims at boosting political will where the fight against corruption is lagging behind, promoting
success stories and encouraging Member States to maintain the internationally-agreed standards. The report is
managed by the Commission and will be published every two years, starting in mid-2013. Tailor-made
recommendations for each Member State, as well as overall recommendations, including recommendations that aim
at a follow-up at EU level, will also be comprised in each Report.

The Commission is fully aware of the particular challenges that the fight against corruption raises in Italy. In this
context, the Commission encourages the implementation of the newly adopted anti-corruption legislation, the
continuation and speeding up of the anti-corruption reform process, the removal of any obstacles that favour a
climate of impunity for corruption and the follow-up of the most recent recommendations issued by the Council of
Europe Group of States against Corruption on party funding and incrimination of corruption in Italy.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Commission decision of 6 June 2011 establishing an EU Anti-corruption reporting mechanism for periodic assessment (‘EU Anti-corruption
Report’) — C(2011) 3673 final: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/pdf/com_decision_2011_3673_final_en.pdf

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 37

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009689/12**

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

**Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE)**

_(23 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Sgomberi e diritto all'istruzione nello Zimbabwe

Nel 2005 il governo dello Zimbabwe lanciò una campagna di sgomberi forzati.

L'obiettivo dichiarato della cosiddetta Operazione Murambatsvina era quello di dare respiro ai centri urbani,
rimandando nelle campagne gli ultimi arrivati.

L'Operazione Murambatsvina ha avuto come conseguenza l'interruzione della scolarizzazione di circa 220 mila
minori tra i 5 e i 18 anni.

Gli sgomberi forzati, spesso seguiti dalla demolizione delle abitazioni e dalla distruzione di altri beni, hanno mandato
in crisi le famiglie che non hanno più potuto sostenere le spese per le rette scolastiche. In alcune aree le scuole sono
state demolite, mettendo brutalmente fine all'istruzione di intere comunità. Alcuni residenti sono stati condotti con la
forza dal governo in aree rurali, senza avere il tempo di ottenere il trasferimento dei propri figli in altre scuole.

Alla luce dei fatti più sopra esposti, può l'Alto Rappresentante far sapere se è a conoscenza della vicenda e se intende
intervenire sulla questione attraverso misure atte a sostenere un'istruzione primaria aperta, obbligatoria e senza
discriminazione per tutte le bambine e tutti i bambini?

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

_(31 gennaio 2013)_

L’Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente è a conoscenza del problema segnalato dall’onorevole parlamentare relativo
agli sgomberi e al diritto all'istruzione nello Zimbabwe.

Dal 2002 l'Unione europea sostiene l’istruzione primaria obbligatoria e aperta a tutti nello Zimbabwe attraverso vari
programmi; per esempio ha finanziato il programma di transizione e riforma del settore dell'istruzione fino al 2006,
il programma di sostegno per gli orfani e i bambini vulnerabili dal 2007 al 2010, e, più di recente, è stata in prima
linea nel processo di creazione dell’ETF ( _Education Transition Fund_ ). Il programma di sostegno ha aiutato 397 000
orfani e bambini vulnerabili e ha migliorato il loro accesso ai servizi sociali di base, compresa l'istruzione, e il livello di
protezione dagli abusi. Attualmente l’Unione europea è uno dei principali finanziatori dell’ETF, un meccanismo di
finanziamento gestito dall’UNICEF che mira ad aiutare lo Zimbabwe a conseguire l’obiettivo dell’istruzione universale.
Le azioni finanziate dall'ETF sono rivolte a tutte le scuole primarie dello Zimbabwe con un’attenzione particolare alle
cosiddette scuole satellite, che accolgono, tra l’altro, gli sfollati interni e la popolazione trasferita nelle aree di
reinsediamento. I bambini che frequentano le scuole satellite hanno beneficiato di iniziative di notevole impatto
attuate dall’ETF. Una verifica condotta dall’UNICEF ha dimostrato che la distribuzione dei testi scolastici avviene senza
discriminazioni in tutte le scuole esistenti nel paese, comprese le scuole satellite. Lo Zimbabwe è oggi uno dei pochi
paesi africani in cui il rapporto alunni/testi scolastici è di 1 a 1.

C 310 E / 38 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009689/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE)**

_(23 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Evacuations and right to education in Zimbabwe

In 2005 the government of Zimbabwe launched a campaign of forced evacuations.

The stated aim of Operation Murambatsvina was to bring some relief to urban centres by sending new arrivals back to
the countryside.

As a result of Operation Murambatsvina, the education of some 220 000 children aged between 5 and 18 was
interrupted.

The forced evacuations, often followed by the demolition of homes and the destruction of other property, meant that
families were thrown into crisis, no longer being able to afford school fees. In some areas, schools were demolished
and the education of whole communities was brought to a violent halt. Some residents were taken forcibly by the
government to rural areas and had no time to have their children transferred to other schools.

Could the High Representative say whether she is aware of the situation and whether she intends to act in this matter
by taking measures to support open, compulsory and non-discriminatory primary education for all children?

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

_(31 January 2013)_

With regard to the written question on evictions and the right to education in Zimbabwe, the HR/VP is aware of the
issue referred to by the Honourable Member.

The European Union has been supporting primary, compulsory and non-discriminatory primary education in
Zimbabwe since 2002 through various programmes, including the Education Transition and Reform Programme
until 2006, the Programme of Support to Orphans and Vulnerable Children (OVC) since 2007 to 2010 and, more
recently, the EU was at the forefront of the Education Transition Fund (ETF) creation. The Programme of Support has
benefitted 397 000 orphans and other vulnerable children and increased access of OVC in Zimbabwe to basic social
services including education and improved their protection from abuse. Currently the EU is one of the major
contributors to the ETF, a funding mechanism managed by Unicef that aims at helping Zimbabwe achieve universal
education. Actions funded by the ETF target all primary schools in Zimbabwe. It has a particular focus on the socalled satellite schools, which cater, among other groups, for internally displaced population as well as for population
that has been moved to resettlement areas. Children attending satellite schools have benefitted from high impact
actions implemented by ETF. A verification exercise conducted by Unicef has showed that textbook distribution
reached all existing schools in Zimbabwe without discrimination, including satellite schools. Zimbabwe is now one of
the few countries in Africa having reached a 1:1 pupil/textbook ratio.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 39

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009690/12**

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

_(23 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Associazione dedicata alle donne

A Milano nasce uno spazio pubblico per le donne. L'Associazione porta avanti un progetto che mira a creare uno
spazio inclusivo tutto dedicato alle donne, dove la condivisione è funzionale all'integrazione. Si tratta di un luogo di
promozione sociale in cui si intende dar voce, innanzitutto, alle giovani e alle migranti.

Alla luce di quanto precede, si interroga la Commissione per sapere:

1. Intende sponsorizzare la diffusione di iniziative simili tra gli Stati membri dell'Unione europea?

2. Quali sono i risultati, finora raggiunti, della Strategia europea per la parità 2010/2015?

**Risposta di Viviane Reding a nome della Commissione**

_(7 dicembre 2012)_

Nell’ambito della parità di diritti e di trattamento tra i sessi la Commissione prevede finanziamenti sotto forma di
sovvenzioni per progetti o organizzazioni mediante i programmi PROGRESS e DAPHNE III. PROGRESS è il
programma dell’UE a favore dell'occupazione e della solidarietà sociale. Il programma DAPHNE III mira invece a
contribuire a proteggere i bambini, i giovani e le donne da tutte le forme di violenza e a conseguire un livello elevato
di tutela della salute, benessere e coesione sociale. Le parti interessate possono presentare la propria candidatura
presentando domanda per le proposte pubblicate nell’ambito dei programmi. La Commissione non sostiene
finanziariamente ulteriori iniziative ad hoc.

La strategia per la parità tra donne e uomini per il periodo 2010-2015 è stata adottata nel settembre 2010 e riflette
l'impegno della Commissione a procedere in questo senso e rafforzare le sue attività nell’ambito dell'uguaglianza tra i
sessi. La strategia ribadisce una doppia impostazione che combina integrazione della dimensione di genere e
provvedimenti specifici in sei aree prioritarie ben definite. In seguito all’adozione della strategia è stata conseguita una
serie di risultati importanti. Tra gli esempi rientrano l'adozione di raccomandazioni specifiche per i singoli paesi
nell’ambito degli ultimi due semestri europei UE2020, il lancio della Giornata europea della parità di retribuzione nel
marzo 2011, la relazione del 2012 sui progressi delle donne nel processo decisionale economico nell’UE, l’adozione
del pacchetto di misure per i diritti delle vittime come uno strumento per contrastare la violenza contro le donne e
l’applicazione della pertinente normativa consolidata dell’UE nei paesi candidati. Un riesame intermedio della
strategia è previsto per il 2013 al fine di valutare i progressi compiuti e le future tappe principali.

C 310 E / 40 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009690/12**

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

_(23 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Association dedicated to women

A public space for women is emerging in Milan. The Association is launching a project to create an inclusive space
entirely dedicated to women, where sharing underpins integration. It is a place of social advancement where the
primary aim is to give a voice to young people and migrants.

I therefore wish to ask the Commission the following:

1. Does it intend to sponsor the spread of similar initiatives among the Member States of the European Union?

2. What results has the 2010-2015 Gender Equality Strategy achieved so far?

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

_(7 December 2012)_

In the field of gender equality, the Commission provides funding in the form of grants to projects or organisations
through the PROGRESS and the DAPHNE III programmes. PROGRESS is the EU's employment and social solidarity
programme. The DAPHNE III programme aims to contribute to the protection of children, young people and women
against all forms of violence and attain a high level of health protection, well-being and social cohesion. Interested
parties can apply by submitting an application for the calls for proposals published under the programmes. The
Commission does not sponsor additional ad-hoc initiatives.

The strategy for equality between women and men for the period 2010-2015 was adopted in September 2010 and
reflects the Commission’s commitment to continue and step up its activities in the field of gender equality. The
strategy reaffirms the dual approach of gender mainstreaming and the adoption of specific measures in the six
priority areas identified. Since adoption of the strategy, a number of important results have been achieved. Examples
include the adoption of country-specific recommendations in the framework of the last two EU2020 European
Semesters, the launch of the European Equal Pay Day in March 2011, the 2012 Progress report on women in
economic decision-making in the EU, the adoption of the Victims' rights package as an instrument to tackle violence
against women and the continuous monitoring of transposition and implementation of the relevant EU _acquis_ in
candidate countries. A mid-term review of the strategy is foreseen for 2013. It will take stock of progress achieved
and the main milestones ahead.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 41

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009691/12**

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

_(23 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Sicurezza dei vaccini antinfluenzali

In Italia sono state ritirate oltre due milioni di dosi di vaccino antinfluenzale in seguito alla segnalazione dell'azienda
produttrice che ha riscontrato potenziali pericoli per la salute.

La campagna vaccinale non era stata avviata ed è stato scongiurato qualsiasi danno alla salute dei cittadini. Si tratta, in
ogni caso, di un episodio che avrebbe potuto compromettere la salute dei pazienti.

Alla luce di quanto precede, può la Commissione far sapere quali misure sono previste al fine di garantire la sicurezza
delle campagne vaccinali?

**Risposta di Tonio Borg a nome della Commissione**

_(17 dicembre 2012)_

La Commissione desidera rassicurare l'onorevole deputato quanto alla sicurezza dei prodotti medicinali usati nel
contesto delle campagne di vaccinazione stagionali. L'incidente menzionato dall'onorevole deputato dimostra che la
procedura in atto fornisce le necessarie assicurazioni.

Quando è stato rilevato il supposto problema di qualità, le autorità italiane hanno adottato tempestivamente un
intervento cautelativo e allertato tutti gli altri Stati membri, la Commissione e l'Agenzia europea per i medicinali.
L'autorità competente italiana ha svolto un ruolo guida, per conto dell'UE, nell'investigazione del presunto difetto di
qualità. Di recente l'Agenzia italiana del farmaco ha sollevato il divieto d'uso di detti vaccini contro l'influenza
stagionale. Tale decisione è stata presa sulla base dei documenti forniti dall'impresa, dei risultati dei test analitici e dei
test eseguiti dal laboratorio ufficiale di controllo italiano. Si è inoltre deciso di inviare una lettera agli operatori sanitari
per fornire loro istruzioni su come somministrare il vaccino e per chiarire le condizioni per l'immissione di partite del
vaccino sul mercato.

Sinora non vi è nessuna indicazione quanto al fatto che il supposto difetto qualitativo abbia un impatto sulla qualità,
la sicurezza o l'efficacia dei vaccini in questione. La Commissione tuttavia, in collaborazione con l'Agenzia europea
per i medicinali, continuerà a seguire da vicino la questione e in particolare le eventuali reazioni avverse registrate
nell'Unione europea.

C 310 E / 42 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009691/12**

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

_(23 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Flu vaccine safety

In Italy over 2 million doses of flu vaccine have been withdrawn following an announcement by the manufacturer
that it had encountered potential health hazards.

The vaccination campaign had not begun and public health was not put at risk. However, this episode could have
compromised patient health.

In the light of the above, can the Commission tell us what measures are planned to make sure that vaccination
campaigns are safe?

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

_(17 December 2012)_

The Commission would like to reassure the Honourable Member about the safety of medicinal products used in the
context of seasonal vaccination campaigns. The incident referred to by the Honourable Member demonstrates that
the procedures in place provide the necessary reassurance.

When the suspected quality problem was detected, the Italian authorities took prompt precautionary action and
alerted all other Member States, the Commission and the European Medicines Agency. The Italian competent
authority took the lead on behalf of the EU in investigating the suspected quality defect. Recently, the Italian
Medicines Agency lifted the ban on the use of the seasonal influenza vaccines in question. This decision was taken on
the basis of the documents provided by the company, the reported outcomes of the analytical tests and the tests
performed by the Italian Official Control Laboratory. It was also decided to send a letter to healthcare professionals to
provide instructions on how to administer the vaccine and to clarify the conditions to release batches on the market.

So far, there is no indication that the suspected quality defect has any impact on the quality, safety or efficacy of the
vaccines in question. However, the Commission, in cooperation with the European Medicines Agency, will continue
to monitor closely the issue and in particular any possible adverse reactions in the European Union.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 43

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009692/12**

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

_(23 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Record della disoccupazione in Europa

Un nuovo studio di Eurostat fotografa la situazione del mercato del lavoro nei vari paesi europei. In particolar modo
la situazione appare drammatica per quanto riguarda la disoccupazione giovanile.

Secondo i dati in Grecia ben il 55 % dei giovani al di sotto dei 25 anni di età non ha un lavoro, il 53 % in Spagna.
Questi dati, però, non tengono conto delle persone che hanno smesso di cercare lavoro. Con il risultato che le
percentuali «reali» rischiano di essere molto più alte.

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

1. Quali sono i risultati finora registrati dalle iniziative della strategia Europa 2020?

2. Quali sono le priorità che intende perseguire in futuro in relazione alle politiche occupazionali?

**Risposta di László Andor a nome della Commissione**

_(20 dicembre 2012)_

L'occupazione giovanile è una delle priorità fondamentali della strategia Europa 2020. L'iniziativa faro «Youth on the
Move» si concentra sulla mobilità in campo professionale ed educativo.

Nell'analisi annuale della crescita 2012 l'occupazione giovanile è stato uno dei settori principali di analisi; la
Commissione ha invitato ad adottare azioni volte a garantire la qualità dei contratti di apprendistato e di tirocinio in
una serie di riforme del sistema di istruzione e formazione.

Circa 10 miliardi di euro sono stati destinati ai programmi nel settore della gioventù e non meno di 658.000 giovani
avranno la possibilità di partecipare in otto Stati membri nel quadro dell'iniziativa «Opportunità per i giovani» ( [1] ). La
Spagna ha riassegnato 1,1 miliardi di euro e anche la Grecia ha adottato misure per attuare azioni specifiche destinate
ai giovani.

Il 5 dicembre 2012 la Commissione ha adottato un pacchetto per l'occupazione giovanile ( [2] ) (YEP) che comprende
una proposta di raccomandazione del Consiglio volta a istituire una garanzia per i giovani ( [3] ), con la quale si invitano
gli Stati membri a garantire che tutti i giovani di età inferiore a 25 anni ricevano un'offerta di lavoro di buona qualità,
il proseguimento degli studi, un apprendistato o tirocinio entro quattro mesi dall'uscita dal sistema d'insegnamento
formale o dall'inizio della disoccupazione.

YEP comprende inoltre un'iniziativa volta a migliorare la qualità dei tirocini, nonché iniziative mirate sugli
apprendistati (Alleanza Europea per l'Apprendistato) e la mobilità professionale, che dovrebbero contribuire ad
aumentare l'occupabilità dei giovani, riducendo in tal modo il numero dei cosiddetti NEETS (young people neither in
employment, education or training — giovani disoccupati al di fuori di ogni ciclo di istruzione e formazione).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) «Iniziativa opportunità per i giovani» COM(2011)933, 20.12.2011.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) «Aiutare i giovani a entrare nel mondo del lavoro» COM(2012)727, 5.12.2012.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2012)729, 5.12.2012.

C 310 E / 44 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009692/12**

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

_(23 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Record unemployment in Europe

A new Eurostat study provides a snapshot of the situation on the labour market in the various European countries.
The situation as regards youth unemployment seems especially alarming.

The data shows that some 55% of young people under 25 in Greece are without a job, while in Spain the figure is
53%. However, these data do not take into account people who have stopped looking for work, so that the ‘real’
percentages may be much higher.

In the light of these facts, will the Commission say:

1. What results have been achieved by the Europe 2020 strategy initiatives so far?

2. What are its future priorities in relation to employment policies?

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

_(20 December 2012)_

Youth employment is one of the key priorities of the Europe 2020 strategy. The flagship ‘Youth on the Move’
initiative focuses on labour and educational mobility.

In the Annual Growth Survey 2012 youth employment was a key area with the Commission calling for actions to
ensure quality apprenticeships and traineeship contracts and reforms of the education and training system.

About EUR10 billion have been reallocated to youth-related programmes and at least 658,000 young people are
likely to benefit in eight Member States as a result of the Youth Opportunities Initiative ( [1] ). Spain has redirected
EUR1.1billion and Greece has also taken steps to implement special actions for young people.

On 5 December 2012 the Commission adopted a Youth Employment Package ( [2] ) (YEP) that includes a proposal for a
Council recommendation on Establishing a Youth Guarantee ( [3] ), calling on Member States to ensure that all young
people under 25 receive a good quality offer of employment, continued education, an apprenticeship or a traineeship
within a four months of leaving formal education or becoming unemployed.

Additionally, the YEP includes an initiative to enhance the quality of traineeships, as well as targeted initiatives on
apprenticeships (European Alliance for Apprenticeships) and job mobility that all should contribute to increase the
employability of young people and thus reduce the number of NEETS (young people neither in employment,
education or training).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) ‘Youth Opportunities Initiative’ COM(2011) 933, 20.12.2011.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) ‘Moving Youth into Employment’ COM(2012)727, 5.12.2012.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2012)729, 5.12.2012.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 45

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009693/12**

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

_(23 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Scarse risorse destinate ai disabili

L'analisi approfondita sui servizi offerti in Italia alle persone con disabilità, condotta da un noto istituto di ricerca
socio-economica, ha concluso che i problemi sociali ed economici dei malati colpiti da Parkinson, sindrome di Down,
autismo e sclerosi multipla in Italia non sono presi in considerazione con la dovuta attenzione.

Il comparto della disabilità non è una priorità non soltanto per la destinazione delle risorse economiche ma anche
nell'ambito delle politiche di inserimento lavorativo.

Alla luce di quanto precede, si interroga la Commissione per sapere:

1. Quali sono i dati relativi alla destinazione delle risorse economiche al settore della disabilità negli altri paesi
europei?

2. Quali sono le misure attualmente destinate al sostegno dei disabili e all'inserimento lavorativo?

**Risposta di Viviane Reding a nome della Commissione**

_(21 dicembre 2012)_

La Commissione non dispone di dati sulle risorse economiche destinate dagli Stati membri alle persone con disabilità.

Le misure adottate a livello di UE e di Stati membri per sostenere l’integrazione delle persone con disabilità nel
mercato del lavoro variano notevolmente.

Il Fondo sociale europeo interviene a sostegno dell’integrazione di tali persone nel mercato del lavoro, in particolare
attraverso le proprie iniziative in materia di inclusione sociale. In Italia, tutti i programmi operativi cofinanziati
dall’FSE presentano un asse prioritario a favore dell’inclusione sociale.

Nella strategia europea sulla disabilità ( [1] ) la Commissione si impegna ad affrontare la situazione dei disabili sotto il
profilo dell’occupazione anche attraverso l’attuazione della strategia Europa 2020 e il semestre europeo per il
coordinamento delle politiche economiche. Nell’ambito di tale operazione, il Consiglio adotta raccomandazioni
specifiche per paese destinate agli Stati membri, comprese misure volte a promuovere l’occupabilità dei gruppi
vulnerabili. Un quadro più dettagliato delle misure previste a livello di UE figura nell’elenco delle azioni (20102015) ( [2] ) che accompagna la strategia europea in materia di disabilità.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52010DC0636:IT:NOT.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SEC:2010:1324:FIN:EN:PDF.

C 310 E / 46 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009693/12**

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

_(23 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Limited resources for the disabled

A well-known socioeconomic research institute has made an in-depth study of services for the disabled in Italy and
has concluded that insufficient attention is paid to the social and economic problems of those suffering from
Parkinson's disease, Down's syndrome, autism and multiple sclerosis in Italy.

The area of disability fails to receive priority either in terms of the allocation of financial resources or as regards
policies on labour market integration.

I therefore wish to ask the Commission:

1. What information is there on the allocation of financial resources to the disability sector in the other EU
countries?

2. What measures are currently being taken to support the disabled and to integrate them into the labour market?

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

_(21 December 2012)_

The Commission does not dispose of data on the amounts of Member State spending relevant to persons with
disabilities.

There is a substantial variety of measures taken at EU as well as Member State level to support the integration of
persons with disabilities on the labour market.

The European Social Fund intervenes to support integration of the labour market of people of disabilities, in
particular via its initiatives in the social inclusion area. In Italy, all ESF co-funded operational programmes have a
priority axes devoted to social inclusion.

In the European Disability Strategy ( [1] ) the Commission undertakes to tackle the employment situation of people with
disabilities also through the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy and the European Semester of economic
policy coordination. Within this exercise, the Council adopts Country Specific Recommendations that are addressed
to Member States also including measures to foster employability of vulnerable groups. A more detailed overview of
envisaged measures at the EU level can be found in the list of actions (2010-2015), ( [2] ) accompanying the European
Disability Strategy.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52010DC0636:EN:NOT.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SEC:2010:1324:FIN:EN:PDF.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 47

_(Suomenkielinen versio)_

**Kirjallisesti vastattava kysymys P-009694/12**

**komissiolle**
**Riikka Manner (ALDE)**

_(23. lokakuuta 2012)_

_Aihe:_ Valtiontukisääntöjen tarkistus Euroopan alueellisen yhteistyön yhteydessä

Valtiontuen sääntelykehystä on tarkistettava uuden monivuotisen rahoituskehyksen käynnistämistä varten.

Nykyisiä valtiontukisääntöjä ei ole suunniteltu Euroopan alueelliseen yhteistyöhön sopivaksi. Useita maita koskevassa
järjestelmässä turvallisin ratkaisu vaikuttaisi olevan valtiontuen myöntäminen _de minimis_ ‐säännön nojalla, mikä
kuitenkin sisältää suhteettoman suuria hallinnollisia toimia verrattuna suhteellisen pieniin tukimääriin, joita
Euroopan rajaseutuyhteistyötä, valtioiden välistä yhteistyötä ja alueiden välistä yhteistyötä koskevien ohjelmien
yhteydessä saadaan. Useimpien Euroopan alueellisen yhteistyön ohjelmien osalta valtiontukisääntöjen tarkistus voisi
siten osoittautua tarpeelliseksi, sillä tätä kautta ohjelmiin voitaisiin ottaa mukaan yksityisiä hankekumppaneita – sekä
innovatiivisempia hankkeita – ja sitä myöten edistää vielä enemmän Eurooppa 2020 ‐strategian tavoitteita.

Euroopan alueellisen yhteistyön ohjelmat ja hankkeet kattavat useita eri aloja, joten useita yleisiä ryhmäpoikkeuksia
olisi sovellettava samanaikaisesti. Useimmille ohjelmien hallinnasta vastaaville tahoille tämä ei ole mahdollista, sillä se
saattaisi sisältää monimutkaisia yhteisrahoituksen muotoja, jotka vaihtelevat yhteistyökumppaneista ja ‐toimista
riippuen.

Nykyiset valtiontukisäännöt pakottavat monia ohjelmia järjestelmällisesti poistamaan tai vähentämään
yhteistyöhankkeissaan mukana olevia tuottavia vaiheita tai yksityisiä hankekumppaneita, vaikka molemmat tahot
hyötyisivätkin ohjelmista. Tämä koskee erityisesti innovointia, vaihtoehtoisia energiamuotoja, pk-yritysten
kehittämistä sekä koulutusta ja liikennettä – kaikki aloja, joita on korostettu Eurooppa 2020 ‐strategiassa. Jotta
Euroopan alueellisesta yhteistyöstä voitaisiin saada tehokkaampi Eurooppa 2020 ‐strategian tavoitteiden
täyttämiseen tarkoitettu väline, yhteistyötoiminnan haittatekijöitä olisi arvioitava huolella ennen kuin uusia sääntöjä
aletaan soveltaa. Euroopan alueellisen yhteistyön hankkeita toteutetaan – ja ne voivat tuottaa hyötyä –
samanaikaisesti köyhemmillä ja rikkaammilla alueilla. Tehokkaampien hankkeiden luomista varten rikkaampien
alueiden hankekumppaneita olisi kannustettava yhteistyöhön ja siten välittämään tietoa köyhemmille alueille.

Yksi mahdollinen ratkaisu ongelmaan olisi Euroopan alueellista yhteistyötä koskeva ryhmäpoikkeus, joka sallisi
yhden yhteisrahoitusosuuden Euroopan alueellista yhteistyötä varten edunsaajien talouden alasta tai alueellisesta
sijainnista riippumatta. Onko komissio aloittanut valtiontukeen liittyvien ongelmien ja niiden ratkaisujen
määrittämisen Euroopan alueellista yhteistyötä koskevan erityistapauksen osalta, ja aiotaanko tässä yhteydessä
hyväksyä valtiontukeen liittyvä yhteinen lähestymistapa vuosille 2014‐2020?

**Joaquín Almunian komission puolesta antama vastaus**

_(27. marraskuuta 2012)_

Euroopan alueellisen yhteistyön hankkeilla tuetaan niihin osallistuvilla alueilla kehitystä monella alalla, ja hankkeiden
toiminnasta olisi tehtävä niin vaivatonta kuin mahdollista. Valtiontukisääntöjä taas on sovellettava johdonmukaisesti,
jotta kilpailu ei vääristy kohtuuttomasti. Valtiontukisääntöjen noudattaminen ei kuitenkaan käytännössä aina ole
helppoa varsinkaan niissä Euroopan alueellisen yhteistyön hankkeissa, joihin ei sovelleta de minimis ‐asetusta. Tämä
johtuu siitä, että Euroopan alueellinen yhteistyö perustuu toimintaan tietyllä alueella eikä tietyllä toimialalla, jolloin
hankkeissa on usein monenlaista toimintaa sekä useita yhteistyökumppaneita ja jäsenvaltioita. Ongelma on kuitenkin
yleinen ja tyypillinen kaikille hankkeille, jotka saavat monenlaista tukea tai joihin osallistuu useita
yhteistyökumppaneita.

Yleinen ryhmäpoikkeusasetus sallii jo nyt ryhmäpoikkeuksen myöntämisen yhdelle tai useammalle 26:n eri luokan
mukaiselle tuelle. Asetus tarjoaa siis mahdollisuuden ryhmäpoikkeukseen sellaisille Euroopan alueellisen yhteistyön
hankkeille, joiden tavoitteet sisältyvät yhteen tai useampaan kyseisistä 26 luokasta. Yleistä ryhmäpoikkeusasetusta
tarkistaessaan komissio tarkastelee sitä myös Euroopan alueellisen yhteistyön kannalta. Pelkästään
yhteistyötoimintaan (joka ei liity tiettyyn alueeseen tai toimialaan) perustuvien ryhmäpoikkeusten käyttöönotto ei
sopisi valtiontukiuudistuksen tavoitteisiin, sillä uudistuksella pyritään varmistamaan, että myönnetty tuki täyttää
tietyt sisällölliset vaatimukset (esim. täydentävyys, kannustava vaikutus, markkinoiden toimintapuutteiden
korjaaminen). Sikäli kun valtiontukiuudistuksessa laajennetaan ryhmäpoikkeusten käyttöä, uudet mahdollisuudet
voivat kuitenkin hyödyttää myös Euroopan alueellista yhteistyötä.

C 310 E / 48 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-009694/12**

**to the Commission**
**Riikka Manner (ALDE)**

_(23 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Revision of state aid rules in the context of European territorial cooperation

The regulatory framework for state aid is to be revised in support of an effective launch of the new multiannual
financial framework.

The current state aid rules were not designed to accommodate European territorial cooperation (ETC). In a multicountry environment, the safest solution seems to be to grant state aid under the _de minimis_ rule, which, however,
entails disproportionately burdensome administrative efforts relative to the comparatively small subsidies provided in
the context of the ETC cross-border, transnational and interregional programmes. For most ETC programmes,
therefore, revising state aid rules could prove to be a necessary step, as it would allow those programmes to take on
board private partners — and more innovative projects — and thereby to contribute even more to the Europe 2020
goals.

Since ETC programmes and projects are cross-sectoral, many general block exemptions would have to be applied at
the same time. This is not manageable for most programme administrations, as it could imply complicated patterns
of co-financing rates that vary among cooperation partners and cooperation activities.

Current state aid rules force many programmes systematically to eliminate or reduce the productive stages and
private partners involved in their cooperation projects, even though both would benefit the programmes. This is
particularly relevant in the fields of innovation, alternative energy, SME development, and training and transport —
the fields highlighted in the Europe 2020 strategy. In order to make ETC a more effective tool for fulfilling the Europe
2020 goals, obstacles to the functioning of ETC should be carefully evaluated before the new regulations are applied.
ETC projects are carried out in — and can benefit — poorer and richer regions at the same time. In order to create
more effective projects, more partners in richer regions should be encouraged to cooperate, thus transferring their
knowledge to poorer regions.

An ETC block exemption that allows for a single co-financing rate for cooperation with ETC, regardless of the
economic sector or the region where beneficiaries are located, is one possible answer. Has the Commission begun to
define the problems, and their solutions, associated with state aid in the special case of the ETC, and will a common
approach to state aid for 2014-2020 be adopted in this context?

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

_(27 November 2012)_

European Territorial Cooperation (ETC) projects contribute to multi-sectoral development strategies of participating
regions and obstacles to their functioning should be minimised. At the same time, consistent application of state aid
rules is needed to avoid undue distortions of competition. Ensuring compliance with state aid rules may in practice
sometimes be more difficult, especially for ETC projects which fall outside the scope of the _de minimis_ Regulation. This
is because ETC is organised geographically and not by economic sectors, and because projects often involve various
activities, partners and Member States. However, this is a general difficulty, inherent to any project encompassing
several types of aid measures or involving different partners.

Already today the General block exemption Regulation (GBER) allows for block exemption of aid in one or several of
26 different categories, thus providing a framework for block exempting ETC projects pursuing objectives covered by
any (or several) of these 26 categories. The Commission does examine ETC in the context of the GBER review.
Additional block exemptions based on the sole cooperation activity (irrespective of economic sector or region) would
not fit well with the objectives of state aid modernisation, which seeks to ensure that aid fulfils key substantive criteria
(e.g. additionality, real incentive effect, addressing real market failures). However, to the extent that state aid
modernisation aims to extend the possibilities for block exemptions, this may also be relevant for ETC.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 49

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009695/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Franz Obermayr (NI)**

_(23. Oktober 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Italienisches Urteil: Gefährlichkeit von elektromagnetischen Strahlen

Ein Urteil des Italienischen Kassationsgerichtshofes vom 12.10.2012 mit der Nummer 17438 (Cassazione civile, sez.
lavoro, sentenza 12.10.2012 n° 17438) sorgt für Aufregung. Das Urteil befand, dass das tägliche Telefonieren mit
dem Handy schuld an einem Tumor sei, an dem ein 50-jähriger Manager erkrankt ist. Der Italiener hatte angegeben,
zwölf Jahre lang durchschnittlich sechs Stunden pro Tag am Handy verbracht zu haben. Aufgrunddessen hätten die
Ärzte bei ihm einen Trigeminus-Tumor diagnostiziert. Gestützt durch dieses Aufsehen erregende Gerichtsurteil
drohen jetzt Sammelklagen in ganz Italien. Selbst in Langzeitstudien, die beweisen hätten sollen, dass jahrelanges
Telefonieren mit dem Mobiltelefon sich nicht negativ auswirkt, wurde herausgefunden, dass ein „leichtes bis mittleres
Risiko“ dauerhafter intensiver Mobiltelephonie nicht ausgeschlossen werden könne. Im Juni 2012 hat auch die
Weltgesundheitsorganisation die von den Mobiltelefonen ausgesendeten Strahlen als „möglicherweise krebserregend“
eingestuft.

Kann die Kommission dazu folgende Fragen beantworten:

1. Kennt die Kommission dieses Urteil, und wie schätzt sie das Urteil ein?

2. Hat die wissenschaftliche Gemeinschaft die Gefährlichkeit der elektromagnetischen Strahlen durch Handys
bisher unterschätzt, und wie schätzt die Kommission die Gefährlichkeit ein?

3. Welche Studien zu diesem Thema zieht man seitens der Kommission heran bzw. gibt die Kommission in
Auftrag, um die Gefährlichkeit der elektromagnetischen Strahlen durch Mobiltelephone zu überprüfen?

4. Was gedenkt die Kommission im Sinne der Gesundheit der Bürger zu unternehmen?

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

_(27. November 2012)_

1. Die Entscheidung des italienischen Gerichts ist der Kommission bekannt. Die Kommission ist der Auffassung,
dass Gerichtsurteile keine wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnisse darstellen.

2. Die Gesundheitsrisiken im Zusammenhang mit elektromagnetischer Strahlung von Mobiltelefonen waren
Gegenstand zahlreicher Gutachten des wissenschaftlichen Ausschusses „Neu auftretende und neu identifizierte
Gesundheitsrisiken“ (SCENIHR). Gemäß den jüngsten Schlussfolgerungen (2009) ( [1] ) belegen drei unterschiedliche
Forschungsansätze (epidemiologische Untersuchungen sowie _in vivo_ and _in vitro_ durchgeführte Studien), dass es
unwahrscheinlich ist, dass die Exposition gegenüber elektromagnetischer Strahlung von Mobiltelefonen zu einem
erhöhten Auftreten von Krebserkrankungen bei Menschen führt.

3. Die Kommission fordert in regelmäßigen Abständen eine unabhängige Neubewertung der verfügbaren
wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnisse an und prüft dann, ob die in der Empfehlung des Rates (1999/519/EG)
vorgeschlagenen Grenzwerte der Exposition gegenüber elektromagnetischen Feldern (EMF) noch gerechtfertigt
erscheinen. Die jüngste Neubewertung wird derzeit vom wissenschaftlichen Ausschuss „Neu auftretende und neu
identifizierte Gesundheitsrisiken“ vorgenommen und voraussichtlich Ende März 2013 zur öffentlichen
Einsichtnahme vorliegen. Bei seiner Arbeit berücksichtigt der wissenschaftliche Ausschuss sämtliche verfügbaren
wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnisse.

4. Gemäß den Artikeln 168 und 169 des Vertrags über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union ist die EU nicht
zum Erlass von Rechtsvorschriften zum Schutz der Bevölkerung vor möglichen Auswirkungen elektromagnetischer
Felder zuständig, sondern die Verantwortung liegt weiterhin in erster Linie bei den Mitgliedstaaten. Daher hat die
Kommission die vorgenannte Empfehlung des Rates über Grenzwerte für die Exposition gegenüber EMF
vorgeschlagen, die nicht bindend ist.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/archive/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/docs/scenihr_o_022.pdf

C 310 E / 50 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009695/12**

**to the Commission**
**Franz Obermayr (NI)**

_(23 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Judgment given in Italy: hazards of electromagnetic radiation

A judgment given by the Italian Court of Cassation on 12 October 2012 (No 17438 (Cassazione civile, sez. lavoro,
sentenza 12.10.2012 n° 17438)) is causing a stir. The court held that a 50-year-old manager had developed a tumour
on account of his daily use of a mobile phone. The Italian had stated that over a period of 12 years he had, on average,
used his mobile phone for six hours per day. Doctors had consequently, he claimed, diagnosed him as suffering from
a tumour of the trigeminus. Supported by this high-profile judgment, class actions are now impending throughout
Italy. Even long-term studies intended to prove that using a mobile phone for years did not affect health revealed that
the possibility of a ‘slight to moderate risk’ could not be excluded if a mobile phone was used intensively over a long
period. In June 2012, the World Health Organisation also classified radiation from mobile phones as ‘possibly
carcinogenic’.

1. Is the Commission aware of this judgment, and what view does it take of it?

2. Has the scientific community hitherto underestimated the hazards associated with electromagnetic radiation
from mobile phones, and what is the Commission’s estimate of the hazards?

3. What studies on this subject does the Commission rely on or is it commissioning in order to assess the hazards
associated with electromagnetic radiation from mobile phones?

4. What will the Commission do to protect public health?

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

_(27 November 2012)_

1. The Commission is aware of the recent Italian court ruling. The Commission considers that court rulings do not
represent scientific evidence.

2. The health risks associated with electromagnetic radiation from mobile phones have been the subject of
numerous opinions issued by the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR).
According to the latest conclusion (2009) ( [1] ), three independent lines of evidence (epidemiological, _in vivo_ and _in vitro_
studies) show that exposure to mobile phones radiation is unlikely to lead to an increase of cancer incidence in
humans.

3. The Commission requests periodically an update of the scientific evidence available and checks whether it still
supports the proposed exposure limits as contained in the Council Recommendation on EMF exposure limits
(1999/519/EC). The most recent update by SCENIHR is ongoing and is scheduled to be ready for public consultation
by the end of March 2013. In its work, SCENIHR relies on all available scientific evidence.

4. The provisions of Articles 168 and 169 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union do not confer
the EU competence to legislate in the area of protection of the general public from the potential effects of EMF and
leaves the primary responsibility with the Member States. Therefore, the Commission proposed the Council
Recommendation on EMF exposure limits mentioned earlier which is not binding.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/archive/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/docs/scenihr_o_022.pdf

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 51

_(Svensk version)_

**Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-009696/12**

**till kommissionen**
**Christian Engström (Verts/ALE)**

_(23 oktober 2012)_

_Angående:_ Tobaksdirektivet och det svenska snuset

Den senaste tidens turbulens kring översynen av tobaksdirektivet har satt strålkastarljuset på hanteringen av frågan
om det svenska snuset.

1. Håller kommissionen med om att utgångspunkten för tobaksdirektivet bör vara en hög skyddsnivå när det
gäller hälsa, säkerhet och miljö- och konsumentskydd med hänsyn särskilt till ny utveckling som grundar sig på
vetenskapliga fakta, och att hälsoskyddet bör prioriteras i detta sammanhang?

2. Håller kommissionen med om att principen om faktabaserat beslutsfattande ska gälla rent allmänt, och speciellt
för tobaksdirektivet?

3. Om ja, vilka studier rörande det svenska snusets hälsorisker jämfört med andra lagliga tobaksprodukter har
utgjort underlag för bedömningen om det svenska snuset ska fortsätta vara förbjudet att sälja i medlemsländer
förutom Sverige, eller om försäljning ska tillåtas på samma sätt som gäller för andra rökfria tobaksprodukter och
regleras enligt exempelvis den lagstiftning som gäller för livsmedel?

**Svar från Maroš Šefčovič på kommissionens vägnar**

_(28 november 2012)_

1. Det övergripande målet med översynen av direktivet om tobaksvaror är att förbättra den inre marknadens
funktion och samtidigt säkerställa en hög hälsoskyddsnivå.

2. Kommissionen håller med om att ett faktabaserat beslutsfattande är av avgörande betydelse.
Konsekvensbedömningen är en grundläggande del i utvecklingen av kommissionens förslag – även i översynen av
direktivet om tobaksvaror – för att se till att EU:s lagstiftning utarbetas på grundval av tydliga och fullständiga fakta.

3. Konsekvensbedömningen kommer att offentliggöras tillsammans med lagstiftningsförslaget. När det gäller
vetenskapliga rön och tobak för användning i munnen ber kommissionen att få hänvisa till sitt svar på den skriftliga
frågan E-004917/2012 ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2012-004917&language=SV.

C 310 E / 52 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009696/12**

**to the Commission**
**Christian Engström (Verts/ALE)**

_(23 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ The Tobacco Directive and Swedish oral tobacco (snus)

The recent turmoil surrounding the revision of the Tobacco Directive has highlighted the handling of the issue of
Swedish oral tobacco (snus).

1. Does the Commission agree that the starting point for the Tobacco Directive should be a high level of
protection for health, safety, the environment and the consumer, particularly with regard to new developments based
on scientific facts, and that health protection should be made a priority in this connection?

2. Does the Commission agree that the principle of facts-based decision-making should apply across the board,
and specifically to the Tobacco Directive?

3. If so, what studies concerning the health risks of Swedish snus, as compared with other legal tobacco products,
underlay the decision on whether Swedish snus should continue to be banned for sale in Member States other than
Sweden, or whether its sale should be permitted in the same way that applies to other smoke-free tobacco products
and should be regulated in accordance with, for example, the legislation on foodstuffs?

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

_(28 November 2012)_

1. The overall objective of the revision of the Tobacco Products Directive is to improve the functioning of the
internal market, while ensuring a high level of health protection.

2. The Commission agrees that evidence based decision making is crucial. The impact assessment is a key element
in the development of Commission proposal — including the revision of the Tobacco Products Directive — designed
to ensure that EU legislation is prepared on the basis of transparent and comprehensive evidence.

3. The Impact Assessment will be published together with the legislative proposal. Concerning scientific evidence
and oral tobacco, the Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to its reply to Written Question
E-004917/2012. ( [1] )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2012-004917&language=EN

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 53

_(Svensk version)_

**Frågor för skriftligt besvarande P-009697/12**

**till kommissionen**
**Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE)**

_(24 oktober 2012)_

_Angående:_ Vargstammen i Sverige

Det svenska Naturvårdsverket, ansvarig myndighet och expert inom dess område har kommit fram till att den
svenska vargstammen behöver minst 380 individer samt att minst sju vargar utifrån vandrar in och fortplantar sig
under varje årtionde, för att anses livskraftig. Den svenska miljöministern Lena Ek påstår att stammen inte behöver
mer än 180 individer.

Med tanke på tidigare konflikter om den svenska vargstammen, dess bevarande och expertmyndighetens slutsats om
380 vargar, vad säger kommissionen om miljöministerns uttalande om att 180 vargar skulle vara tillräckligt? Avser
kommissionen vidta några åtgärder?

**Svar från Janez Potočnik på kommissionens vägnar**

_(3 december 2012)_

Den 18 oktober 2012 ändrade Sverige sin förvaltningsplan för vargar. Kommissionen håller nu på att granska all
relevant dokumentation, inbegripet de olika scenarier som Naturvårdsverket lagt fram för vad som skulle kunna
betraktas som god bevarandestatus för vargar. Kommissionen kommer att bedöma förvaltningsplanen i ljuset av
kraven i EU:s lagstiftning.

C 310 E / 54 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-009697/12**

**to the Commission**
**Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Wolf population in Sweden

The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, which is the authority responsible for this field and possesses
expertise in it, has concluded that Sweden’s wolf population needs to consist of at least 380 individuals and that at
least seven wolves per decade need to enter the country from elsewhere and reproduce there in order for the
population to be regarded as viable. Sweden’s Environment Minister Lena Ek, on the other hand, claims that the
population need not consist of more than 180 individuals.

In view of previous conflicts over Sweden’s wolf population and its conservation and the conclusion of the expert
authority that 380 wolves are needed, what view does the Commission take of the Environment Minister’s statement
that 180 wolves would be sufficient? Will the Commission take any measures?

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

_(3 December 2012)_

On 18 October 2012, Sweden amended its management plan on wolves. The Commission is currently analysing all
the relevant documents, including the various scenarios presented by Swedish Environment Protection Agency for
what would constitute a favourable conservation status of wolves, and will assess this management plan in light of the
requirements of EC law.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 55

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-009698/12**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D)**

_(24 octombrie 2012)_

_Subiect:_ Grădinițe în mediul rural

Educația copiilor de la vârsta mică în structuri educaționale adecvate este importantă pentru viitorul acestora și
pentru formarea lor profesională ulterioară.

În mediul rural se constată adesea un deficit de cadre didactice, mai ales pentru grădinițe.

Este și motivul pentru care există diferențe între nivelul de pregătire la intrarea în ciclul școlar între copiii din mediul
urban și cel rural.

O soluție care poate oferi o alternativă mai ales zonelor rurale izolate și celor care au dificultăți în a asigura educatorii
necesari pentru primii ani ar putea fi dezvoltarea sistemului de supraveghere și educare a unui număr limitat de copii
de către persoane autorizate de autoritățile locale la locuința persoanelor respective.

Cum poate sprijini Comisia proiectele autorităților locale de dezvoltare a acestui sistem educațional?

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

_(13 decembrie 2012)_

Agenda UE pentru drepturile copilului ( [1] ) subliniază faptul că asigurarea accesului tuturor copiilor la educația și
îngrijirea copiilor preșcolari (EICP) este baza succesului învățării pe tot parcursul vieții, al integrării sociale, al
dezvoltării personale și al capacității ulterioare de inserție profesională. Comisia sprijină statele membre în eforturile
lor de îmbunătățire a ofertei și calității serviciilor de EICP prin schimbul de bune practici.

În plus, în perioada 2007-2013, sprijinul pentru serviciile de îngrijire a copilului și pentru infrastructura din educație
este eligibil în cadrul programelor Fondului european de dezvoltare regională cu aproximativ 600 000 EUR
(infrastructura pentru îngrijirea copiilor) și aproximativ 8,5 miliarde EUR pe an (infrastructura de educație). Acest
buget este, de asemenea, disponibil în zonele rurale pentru dezvoltarea de instalații/infrastructuri, și ar trebui să fie
interconectat la Fondul Social European pentru a acoperi și alte costuri conexe, cum ar fi capitalul uman, formarea
etc. Statele membre pot include măsuri de sprijin în programele lor naționale și regionale. În cadrul gestiunii partajate,
este responsabilitatea statelor membre să selecteze proiectele adecvate.

De asemenea, Fondul european agricol pentru dezvoltare rurală (FEADR) sprijină servicii de bază pentru economie și
pentru populația rurală. În consecință, în cazul în care un stat membru sau o regiune le prevăd în programul lor de
dezvoltare rurală, investițiile în constituirea, îmbunătățirea sau extinderea serviciilor locale (inclusiv a centrelor de zi
pentru copii și a creșelor/grădinițelor) pot fi eligibile. Un sprijin similar poate fi disponibil în cadrul axei LEADER, în
cazul în care o strategie de dezvoltare locală pentru o anumită zonă prevede acest tip de activitate. Propunerea
Comisiei cu privire la noul regulament privind dezvoltarea rurală oferă același tip de oportunități.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 60 final.

C 310 E / 56 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009698/12**

**to the Commission**
**Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Kindergartens in rural communities

Suitable educational facilities for children from a very early age are important for their future academic careers and
subsequent vocational training.

Many rural communities lack educational facilities, in particular kindergartens.

As a result, there are differences between children from urban and rural environments regarding the extent to which
they are prepared for school life.

A possible alternative solution, especially for isolated rural areas and those which do not have easy access to
kindergartens, could be the development of day care and nursery arrangements for limited numbers of children at the
homes of individuals accredited by the local authorities.

What support could the Commission give to local authority projects for the introduction of such arrangements?

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

_(13 December 2012)_

The EU Agenda for the Rights of the Child ( [1] ) emphasises that giving all children access to early childhood education
and care (ECEC) is the foundation for successful lifelong learning, social integration, personal development and later
employability. The Commission supports Member States' efforts to improve the supply and quality of ECEC through
the exchange of good practices.

In addition, during the 2007-2013 period, support to childcare and education infrastructure is eligible under the
European Regional Development Fund programmes which consists of about EUR 600 000 (childcare infrastructure)
and about EUR 8.5 billion (education infrastructure). This budget is also available in rural areas in order to develop
facilities, and should be linked to the European Social Fund to cover other related costs, like human capital,
training, etc. Member States can include supportive measures in their national and regional programmes. In the
context of shared management, it is the responsibility of Member States to select suitable projects.

Also, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development supports basic services for the economy and the rural
population. Consequently, if a Member State or region provides for that in its rural development programme,
investment in the setting-up, improvement or expansion of local services (including day-care and nursery facilities)
can be eligible. Similar support can be available under the Leader axis, if a local development strategy for a given area
provides for this type of activity. The Commission proposal for the new rural development regulation offers the same
type of opportunities.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 60 final.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 57

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-009699/12**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D)**

_(24 octombrie 2012)_

_Subiect:_ Implicarea femeilor în cooperative europene

Europa încurajează apariția și dezvoltarea de întreprinderi de tip cooperativ pe teritoriul mai multor state membre,
folosind și oportunitatea pieței unice și dezvoltarea cooperării transnaționale.

Asemenea structuri pot fi utile cu precădere în zona rurală, pentru a evita depopularea satelor. În plus, ele pot fi
dezvoltate prin cooperare transfrontalieră, ceea ce ar permite utilizarea experienței cetățenilor din zonele respective,
dar și valorificarea tradițiilor locale și regionale.

Pe de altă parte, ar fi benefică o implicare mai mare a femeilor din mediul rural în structuri de acest gen, inclusiv în
conducerea noilor entități.

Cum poate sprijini Comisia proiectele lansate de femeile din mediul rural pentru dezvoltarea de cooperative, mai ales
în domenii de activități deficitare în zona rurală?

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

_(27 noiembrie 2012)_

Comisia consideră că abordarea integratoare a egalității de gen și promovarea spiritului antreprenorial în rândul
femeilor din mediul rural reprezintă instrumente vitale pentru dezvoltarea potențialului economic și social al
mediului rural.

Dispozițiile actualului Regulament FEADR permit statelor membre să elaboreze programe de dezvoltare rurală care să
răspundă nevoilor femeilor din mediul rural. Măsuri precum sprijinul acordat tinerilor agricultori, diversificarea
activităților economice, dezvoltarea microîntreprinderilor, abordarea Leader sau formarea profesională pot răspunde
nevoilor specifice ale femeilor din mediul rural.

Politica de dezvoltare rurală propusă pentru perioada de după 2013 impune ca egalitatea de gen să devină una dintre
condițiile _ex ante_ generale. Propunerea legislativă oferă o serie largă și variată de măsuri care pot ajuta femeile să își
sporească aportul la activitatea economică în mediul rural. Acestea pot primi sprijin pentru crearea de ferme noi
și/sau de întreprinderi neagricole, pot participa la cursuri de formare sau pot beneficia de servicii de consiliere
profesională. În ceea ce privește sprijinirea activităților de cooperare, statele membre/regiunile pot utiliza un
instrument specific de cooperare, care promovează diverse forme de abordări ale cooperării dintre diverși actori și
crearea de grupuri și rețele. Femeile pot juca, de asemenea, un rol important în abordarea dezvoltării locale în cadrul
Leader, care include sprijin pentru cooperarea interregională și transnațională.

Concentrarea asupra necesităților specifice ale femeilor poate fi inclusă printre obiectivele programelor de dezvoltare
rurală. Aceasta implică realizarea unei analize de către statele membre și regiuni pentru a asigura o abordare integrată
în cadrul programelor, urmată de elaborarea de măsuri adaptate la condițiile locale și care țin seama de problemele
specifice cu care se confruntă femeile în acest mediu.

C 310 E / 58 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009699/12**

**to the Commission**
**Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Women's involvement in European Cooperatives

The EU is encouraging the creation and development of cooperatives in a number of Member States, taking advantage
of the opportunities offered by the single market and the development of cross-border cooperation.

Such structures could be particularly valuable in rural areas with a view to preventing the depopulation thereof.
Furthermore, they can be developed by means of cross-border cooperation, thereby taking advantage of experience
acquired and of local and regional traditions in the areas concerned.

It would also be beneficial to increase the involvement of women from rural areas in such new initiatives, for example
in the management of these new undertakings.

What support can the Commission provide for projects launched by women from rural areas for the development of
cooperatives, particularly in sectors which are lacking in rural communities?

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

_(27 November 2012)_

The Commission considers that gender mainstreaming and female entrepreneurship in rural areas is a vital tool for
developing the economic and social potential of such areas.

The provisions of the current EAFRD Regulation allow Member States to design Rural Development programmes so
as to meet the needs of women in rural areas. Measures like support to young farmers, diversification of economic
activities, development of micro enterprises, the Leader approach or vocational training can serve the specific needs
of women in rural areas.

The proposed rural development policy after 2013 requires gender equality as one of the general _ex-ante_
conditionalities. The legal proposal offers a large number and types of measures that can help women boost their
economic participation in rural life. They can receive support for starting new farms and/or setting up nonagricultural businesses, take part in trainings or receive professional advisory service. As regards support of
cooperation activities, Member States/regions can make use of a specific cooperation instrument, which promotes
different forms of cooperation approaches among different actors and the creation of clusters and networks. Women
can also play an important role in the local development approach under Leader, which includes support for
interregional‐ and transnational cooperation.

The focus on the specific needs of women can be included into the rural development programmes. This requires an
analysis by the Member States and regions to reach an integrated approach in the programmes. This is followed by
the design of measures linked to the local conditions and taking account of specific problems women face there.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 59

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009700/12**

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

**Mario Mauro (PPE)**

_(24 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Attacchi bomba in Iraq

Il 30 settembre si è verificato l'ennesimo drammatico attacco bomba in Iraq che ha colpito diverse città del paese da
nord a sud, dove sono stati presi di mira i quartieri sciiti e le forze di sicurezza. Il bilancio di questi attacchi, in tutto 4,
è di 32 morti ed oltre 100 feriti. Il peggiore si è verificato nella città di Taji, ex roccaforte di al-Qaeda, che si trova circa
20 chilometri a nord di Bagdad, dove sono esplose tre autobombe che si sono susseguite a partire dalle 7.15 ora
locale.

Poco dopo un attentatore suicida si è fatto saltare in aria a bordo di un'auto imbottita di esplosivo nel quartiere sciita
di Shula, nella zona nordoccidentale di Bagdad. Nuovi attacchi dopo circa un'ora: un altro attentatore suicida ha
guidato un minibus direttamente contro un checkpoint di sicurezza a Kut, città sciita nel sud del paese. Alle 10.30
circa, ora locale, un'altra autobomba parcheggiata è esplosa accanto a un bus che trasportava pellegrini iraniani nella
città di Madain, che si trova 20 kilometri da Baghdad.

Nella città di Balad Ruz poi, a nordest di Baghdad, un'autobomba è esplosa al passaggio di una pattuglia di polizia.
Nella vicina città di Khan Bani Saad un'altra autobomba è esplosa vicino a un mercato. Gli attacchi mediante
autobombe sono solitamente un marchio di al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Tale situazione di grave e perpetrata violenza che ha determinato migliaia di morti negli ultimi anni è inaccettabile per
la società civile; pertanto alla luce di tali avvenimenti si chiede all'Alto Rappresentante:

1. È a conoscenza dei fatti sopra riportati?

2. Ritiene possibile un intervento diretto da parte della comunità internazionale per poter affrontare tale
situazione?

3. Qualora esistano, che tipo di misure possono essere adottate dalla comunità internazionale per poter arginare
tali fenomeni che violano i diritti umani?

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

_(13 dicembre 2012)_

L’AR/VP segue attentamente la situazione in Iraq e nutre apprensione per i ripetuti atti di violenza nel paese.

L’AR/VP ha espresso sistematica e puntuale condanna pubblica per gli attentati terroristici in Iraq, deplorando la
morte e la distruzione che questi occasionano, con il rischio di aggravare la già precaria situazione politica.

L’AR/VP fa sistematicamente appello al governo e ai gruppi politici iracheni perché si impegnino in un dialogo
autentico e inclusivo che permetta di appianare le divergenze politiche. Per sconfiggere questi atti ripetuti di violenza
organizzata il governo dovrebbe consolidare l’unità nazionale, garantendo inclusione e efficacia.

C 310 E / 60 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009700/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Mario Mauro (PPE)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Bomb attacks in Iraq

On 30 September 2012 there were dramatic bomb attacks yet again in Iraq. The attacks, four in all, hit towns in the
north and south of the country and targeted Shiite districts and the security forces. The death toll was 32 with over
100 people injured. The worst attack took place in the town of Taji, a former al-Qaeda stronghold lying some 20 km
north of Baghdad, where at 7.15 am local time, three car bombs exploded one after another.

Shortly afterwards a suicide bomber blew himself up in a car stuffed with explosives in the Shiite district of Shula in
north-west Baghdad. Further attacks followed around one hour later: another suicide bomber drove a minibus into a
security checkpoint in Kut, a Shiite town in the south of the country. At around 10.30 am local time, another parked
car bomb exploded next to a bus carrying Iranian pilgrims in Madain, a town 20 km from Baghdad.

Then in Balad Ruz, a town north east of Baghdad, a car bomb exploded as a police patrol passed by. Another car
bomb exploded near to a market in the nearby town of Khan Bani Saad. Attacks using car bombs are usually a mark
of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

This situation, which has caused the deaths of thousands of people in violent attacks in recent years, is unacceptable
in a civilised society.

1. Is the VP/HR aware of the aforementioned facts?

2. Would direct action by the international community to tackle the situation be possible?

3. What kinds of measures could the international community take in this event, to reduce the incidence of these
attacks which contravene human rights?

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

_(13 December 2012)_

The HR/VP follows the situation in Iraq very closely and is concerned about continuing acts of violence across the
country.

The HR/VP has consistently and repeatedly condemned the ruthless attacks in Iraq publicly, deploring the death and
destruction caused by these acts of terrorism, which can exacerbate an already fragile political situation.

The HR/VP has repeatedly called on the Government and Iraqi political groups to engage in an inclusive and genuine
dialogue to address political differences. A government which can demonstrate national unity, inclusiveness and
effectiveness stands the best chance of defying the continuing organised violence.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 61

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009701/12**

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

**Mario Mauro (PPE)**

_(24 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Strage in Nigeria

Nel nord della Nigeria si è consumata l'ennesima strage provocando una nuova e grave violazione dei diritti umani.
Uomini armati travestiti da poliziotti in uniforme hanno aperto il fuoco contro i fedeli raccolti in preghiera in una
moschea nello Stato di Kaduna. L'attacco è avvenuto prima dell'alba nel villaggio di Dogo Dawa, a circa 120 km da
Kaduna, la capitale omonima dello Stato. I fedeli stavano raggiungendo la moschea per le preghiere mattutine. Diviso
da un punto di vista religioso, lo Stato di Kaduna, a maggioranza musulmana, è stato scosso da un'ondata di violenze
negli ultimi mesi. Una serie di attentati-kamikaze in tre chiese nel mese di giugno, rivendicati dalla setta islamista
Boko Haram, ha scatenato la rabbia e la rappresaglia dei cristiani e di rimando le violenze dei musulmani. Ma stavolta
l'origine dell'attacco sembra essere diversa: sembra sia stato compiuto da una banda di predoni che già la scorsa
settimana erano stati respinti dai vigilantes della comunità appositamente costituiti. Gli abitanti del villaggio infatti
venivano terrorizzati da un gruppo di ladri che, armati, arrivavano dalla foresta per depredarli. Dogo Dawa si trova
infatti non lontano da un'importante strada di comunicazione utilizzata da mercanti che trasportano merci e denaro
tra il nord e il sud dell'Africa. In questo contesto, il fattore religioso che vede la Nigeria divisa tra il nord musulmano e
il sud cristiano si inserisce nella fortissima competizione per il potere.

Quindi, per quanto i Boko Haram siano fondamentalisti islamici, le ragioni dell'accresciuta attività del movimento
vanno rintracciate anche nei rapporti che i suoi componenti avrebbero stretto con politici locali e membri delle forze
di sicurezza appartenenti alle etnie del nord, interessati alla radicalizzazione della violenza al fine di rendere lo Stato
ingovernabile. Il governo sta dimostrando di non avere assolutamente la forza di contrastare l'ascesa dei talebani
africani, per questo, senza un pesante intervento della Comunità internazionale, si creerà un vero e proprio conflitto
interreligioso. Alla luce di questi elementi si chiede all'Alto Rappresentante:

1. È a conoscenza di tali gravissimi episodi di violazione dei diritti umani in questo paese?

2. Qualora esistano, quali misure di prevenzione intende adottare per evitare che queste stragi si ripetano?

3. Qualora esistano, che tipo di misure successive possono essere adottate dalla comunità internazionale?

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009947/12**

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

**Mario Mauro (PPE)**

_(31 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Autobomba in Nigeria

Almeno dieci morti e 145 feriti è il bilancio di un altro bagno di sangue in Nigeria. Domenica 28 ottobre un kamikaze
del gruppo islamico Boko Haram si è fatto esplodere nell'autobomba che ha guidato fin dentro una chiesa cattolica a
Kaduna, nel nord del paese, uccidendo almeno sette persone e provocando la rappresaglia dei cristiani che hanno dato
fuoco ad un musulmano e ucciso a bastonate altri due islamici.

Il kamikaze ha portato l'auto imbottita di esplosivo quasi fino all'interno della chiesa di Santa Rita, dove era in corso la
celebrazione della messa domenicale, provocando un'enorme esplosione. Sebbene non vi sia stata rivendicazione da
parte della setta terrorista islamica dei Boko Haram, l'attentato di oggi è molto simile ad altri che portano la loro firma
e che nell'ultimo anno hanno intensificato la loro campagna di odio contro i cristiani. Gli attacchi alle chiese spesso
colpiscono il centro della Nigeria e Kaduna che, con la sua popolazione mista, rientra nel perimetro a rischio.

Subito dopo l'attentato, la folla di cristiani inferocita si è riversata nelle strade armata di coltelli e bastoni, avviando
una vera «caccia al musulmano», uccidendone due nei pressi della chiesa e dando alle fiamme un terzo. Si tratta
dell'ennesimo, odioso attentato che colpisce i cristiani proprio nel giorno della festa religiosa, e tali atti colpiscono la
coscienza di tutti coloro che si battono contro la violenza e per il rispetto della libertà di religione, tendenza
inaccettabile che minaccia la pace e la stabilità nel mondo intero.

Questi attacchi contro i cristiani in Nigeria si sono intensificati nell'ultimo anno e sembrano non aver fine.

C 310 E / 62 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

Alla luce di questi elementi si chiede alla Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante:

1. È essa a conoscenza di tali avvenimenti?

2. Ritiene possibile un intervento della comunità internazionale per arginare tale situazione?

3. Qualora esistano, intende adottare misure per risolvere tale conflitto etnico-religioso?

**Risposta congiunta data da Catherine Ashton a nome della Commissione**

_(16 gennaio 2013)_

I recenti attacchi dei militanti islamici in Nigeria hanno preso di mira, oltre alle chiese, edifici del governo e dei servizi
di sicurezza, mercati, scuole e civili innocenti, sia musulmani che cristiani. L’Unione europea condanna questi
attentati che rappresentano veri e propri atti criminali. A tal proposito si veda altresì la dichiarazione dell’AR/VP
Catherine Ashton del 19 giugno 2012.

L’UE collabora con la Nigeria, sia direttamente sia con l’ECOWAS su base regionale, per sostenerla nel difficile
tentativo di creare condizioni di sicurezza durature e di agire sui molteplici fattori socioeconomici e politici che
conducono alla radicalizzazione. L’Unione ha già reindirizzato parti del programma di cooperazione con la Nigeria
verso il nord del paese in modo da velocizzare le iniziative per la lotta alla povertà e alla deprivazione nella regione.

Inoltre, nel luglio 2012 l’UE ha sostenuto lo sviluppo delle capacità di mediazione in una delle regioni più fragili della
Nigeria settentrionale, attivando i fondi del progetto per il sostegno alla mediazione, un’iniziativa del Parlamento
europeo (SEAE linea di bilancio 2238). Nell’ambito dello strumento per la stabilità è altresì in preparazione una
decisione relativa a un ulteriore progetto dedicato in particolare alla prevenzione dei conflitti e all’occupazione
giovanile in questa zona.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 63

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009701/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Mario Mauro (PPE)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Armed attack in Nigeria

Yet another serious human rights violation occurred in northern Nigeria recently, when armed men dressed in police
uniforms opened fire on worshipers at a mosque in Kaduna State. The attack took place before dawn in the village of
Dogon Dawa, some 120 kilometres from Kaduna, the state’s capital city, while villagers were on their way to the
mosque for morning prayers. Kaduna State, which has a Muslim majority, has been hit by a wave of religious violence
over recent months. Suicide attacks for which the Islamist sect Boko Haram claimed responsibility were carried out
on three churches in June, sparking reprisals by Christians, which were in turn followed by retaliatory acts of violence
by Muslims. This time, however, the attack appears to have been of a different nature in that it was reportedly carried
out by a band of robbers camped in a nearby forest which had been making armed raids on the village and terrorising
the inhabitants and one of whose incursions had been repelled the previous week by a vigilante group set up
specifically for this purpose. Dogon Dawa lies not far away from a major trade route used to carry goods and money
between northern and southern Africa.

The religious divide between the Muslim north and the Christian south is being exploited in a fierce struggle for
power in the country. Although Boko Haram is an Islamic fundamentalist group, the recent upsurge in its activity is
thought to stem partly from the links members of the movement are said to have established with local politicians
and members of the security forces belonging to northern ethnic groups who are intent on radicalising the violence
so as to make the country ungovernable. Given that the Nigerian Government is showing every sign of not being
strong enough to counter the rise of ‘the African Taliban’, unless the international community takes decisive action,
an open religious conflict is inevitable.

1. Is the VP/HR aware of the extremely serious human rights abuses being committed in Nigeria?

2. What steps does it intend to take — if any are within its power — to make sure that there are no further attacks
of this kind?

3. What type of follow-up action — if any — could then be taken by the international community?

**Question for written answer E-009947/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Mario Mauro (PPE)**

_(31 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Car bomb in Nigeria

At least ten people have been killed and 145 injured in another bloodbath in Nigeria. On Sunday, 28 October, a
suicide bomber from the Islamist group Boko Haram blew himself up in a car bomb which he drove right into a
Catholic church in Kaduna, in the north of the country, killing at least seven people. The Christians then retaliated, by
setting fire to a Muslim and beating another two Muslims to death.

The suicide bomber drove the car packed with explosives almost inside the church of Saint Rita, where Sunday Mass
was being celebrated, causing a huge explosion. Although the Islamic terrorist sect of Boko Haram has not claimed
responsibility, this recent attack is very similar to others that have been carried out by the same group, which, over the
past year, has stepped up its campaign of hatred against Christians. There have often been attacks on churches in the
centre of Nigeria, and Kaduna, with its mixed population, is in the danger zone.

Straight after the attack, the crowd of angry Christians poured into the streets armed with knives and sticks, starting a
‘Muslim hunt’; two Muslims were killed near the church and a third was set on fire. This is the umpteenth hateful
attack on Christians, precisely on their day of worship. Such acts strike at the conscience of all those who fight against
violence and for respect for religious freedom and are an unacceptable trend that is threatening peace and stability
throughout the world.

These attacks on Christians in Nigeria have intensified over the past year and there seems to be no end in sight.

1. Is the Vice-President/High Representative aware of these events?

C 310 E / 64 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

2. Does she think the international community could intervene in order to curb this situation?

3. What measures will she take to resolve this ethnic-religious conflict (should such measures exist)?

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

_(16 January 2013)_

The recent attacks by militant islamists in Nigeria have targeted government and security buildings, markets, schools
and innocent civilians both Muslims and Christians, as well as churches. All such attacks are criminal activities and
have been condemned as such by the EU. Please also refer to HRVP Ashton's statement of 19 June 2012.

The EU is working together with Nigeria, both directly and with Ecowas on a regional basis, to help it tackle the
challenges of creating durable security and dealing with multiple socioeconomic and political factors conducive to
radicalisation. The EU has already reoriented parts of its cooperation programme in Nigeria to the North of the
country to accelerate action against poverty and deprivation there.

In addition, in July 2012 the EU provided capacity building for mediation in one of the most fragile areas of Northern
Nigeria making use of funds from the mediation support project initiative by the European Parliament (EEAS Budget
Line 2238). Furthermore, the Instrument for Stability is in the process of preparing a decision for another project
focusing on conflict prevention and youth employment for this area.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 65

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009702/12**

**à Comissão**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**
_(24 de outubro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Defesa do orçamento comunitário 2014-2020

Considerando que:

—
Em junho de 2011, a Comissão Europeia apresentou uma proposta de 1 083 mil milhões de euros de despesas
para o período 2014-2020, o que corresponde a 1,11 por cento do Produto Interno Bruto (PIB) europeu e um
aumento de cinco por cento em relação ao atual período de programação (2007-2013);

—
O debate em torno do Quadro Financeiro Plurianual 2014-2020 tem vindo a opor duas correntes de
pensamento ideológico a nível europeu. Enquanto que, por um lado, podemos identificar o Grupo dos Amigos
da Coesão (15 Estados‐Membros), por outro lado, existe o Grupo dos Amigos da Eficiência (7 Estados‐
Membros). O Reino Unido defende ainda um corte no orçamento europeu de 200 mil milhões de euros, ou
seja, cerca de 20 % do seu valor global;

—
O Presidente da Comissão Europeia, José Manuel Barroso, declarou no final da cimeira de 18 e 19 de outubro
que «Temos um Pacto para o Crescimento no papel. Agora precisamos de o ter no terreno, temos de o ter na
realidade. A realidade é que este Pacto para o Crescimento, um importante pacote de investimento no valor de
120 mil milhões de euros, ainda não foi plenamente implementado»;

—
No próximo Conselho Europeu de 22 e 23 de novembro, é fundamental que seja aprovado um orçamento para
o crescimento e o emprego, sendo salvaguardados os valores orçamentais apresentados pela Comissão
Europeia em junho de 2011;

—
Segundo o artigo 312.°, n.° 4, do Tratado sobre o Funcionamento da União Europeia «Se o regulamento do
Conselho que estabelece um novo quadro financeiro não tiver sido adotado no final do quadro financeiro
precedente, os limites máximos e outras disposições correspondentes ao último ano deste quadro são
prorrogados ate à adoção desse ato».

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

1. Qual o valor e em que áreas considera aceitável proceder-se a uma redução de verbas no orçamento
comunitário?

2. Está preparada para bloquear o acordo a nível europeu, caso o orçamento comunitário para 2014-2020 fique
aquém das expectativas?

3. Como avalia a possibilidade de a União Europeia funcionar com os duodécimos referentes ao último ano do
atual quadro financeiro plurianual (2013)?

**Resposta dada por Janusz Lewandowski em nome da Comissão**

_(18 de dezembro de 2012)_

Em 22 e 23 de novembro de 2012, o Conselho Europeu não chegou a um acordo sobre o próximo quadro financeiro
plurianual. No entanto, o Conselho Europeu mandatou o seu presidente, juntamente com o presidente da Comissão,
para prosseguir com os trabalhos e as consultas nas próximas semanas, tendo em vista chegar a um consenso entre os
27 Estados‐Membros sobre o quadro financeiro plurianual da União. O mandato refere também explicitamente a
necessidade de um grau suficiente de convergência potencial para possibilitar um acordo no início do próximo ano.

A Comissão verifica com agrado que todas as partes envolvidas continuam a afirmar o seu forte compromisso em
alcançar um acordo. A Comissão está portanto confiante de que um acordo entre os Chefes de Estado e de Governo
poderá ser alcançado em breve durante o mandato do Presidente Van Rompuy. A Presidência rotativa irá
seguidamente, com base neste acordo, assegurar a aprovação do Parlamento. A Comissão está empenhada em fazer
tudo o que estiver ao seu alcance para facilitar este acordo.

C 310 E / 66 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

A questão dos duodécimos provisórios somente será levantada caso a autoridade orçamental não chegue a acordo
sobre o orçamento para o exercício de 2014. Na falta de um acordo sobre o Regulamento relativo ao QFP para 20142020, serão aplicadas as disposições do artigo 312.°, n.° 4, do TFUE, o que resultaria na prorrogação dos limites
máximos do QFP para 2013 e de outras disposições correspondentes a esse ano. Em todo o caso, existirá um QFP que
irá permitir à Comissão apresentar uma proposta de orçamento para o exercício 2014.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 67

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009702/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Defending the Community budget 2014-2020

In June 2011 the Commission presented a proposal for EUR 1 083 billion of expenditure for the period 2014-2020,
corresponding to 1.11% of European gross domestic product (GDP) and a 5% increase over the current programming
period (2007-2013).

The debate on the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020 has brought about a clash between two ideologies at
European level. On the one hand we can identify the Friends of Cohesion Group (15 Member States), whilst on the
other hand we have the Friends of Efficiency Group (seven Member States). The United Kingdom is demanding a cut
to the European budget of EUR 200 billion, i.e. around 20% of its overall value.

The Commission President, José Manuel Barroso, said at the end of the summit of 18 and 19 October that ‘we have a
growth compact on paper. Now we need to have it on the ground, we need to have it in reality. The reality is that this
growth compact, an important investment package worth EUR 120 billion, has not yet been fully implemented’.

It is crucial that a budget for growth and employment is approved at the next European Council on 22 and
23 November, safeguarding the budget figures presented by the Commission in June 2011.

Under Article 312(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, ‘where no Council regulation
determining a new financial framework has been adopted by the end of the previous financial framework, the ceilings
and other provisions corresponding to the last year of that framework shall be extended until such time as that act is
adopted’.

1. By what amount and in what areas would the Commission consider it acceptable to cut appropriations in the
Community budget?

2. Is the Commission prepared to block the agreement at European level if the Community budget for 2014-2020
is lower than expected?

3. How does the Commission view the possibility of the European Union working with twelfths calculated on the
basis of the last year of the current multiannual financial framework (2013)?

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

_(18 December 2012)_

On 22-23 November 2012 the European Council failed to reach an agreement on the next multiannual financial
framework. However, the European Council has mandated its President together with the President of the
Commission to continue the work and pursue consultations in the coming weeks to find a consensus among the
27 Member States over the Union's multiannual financial framework. The mandate also refers explicitly to a sufficient
degree of potential convergence to make an agreement possible in the beginning of next year.

The Commission notes with satisfaction that all parties continue to voice their strong commitment to reaching a deal.
The Commission is therefore confident that an agreement between Heads of States and Government can be brokered
at the earliest opportunity under the chairmanship of President Van Rompuy. The rotating Presidency would then
build on this agreement to secure the consent of the Parliament. The Commission is committed to doing everything in
its power to facilitate this agreement.

The question of provisional twelfths would only arise should the Budgetary Authority fail to agree on a budget for the
year 2014. In the case of non-agreement on an MFF Regulation for 2014-2020, the provisions of Art 312(4) TFEU
will come into play, resulting in a prolongation of both the 2013 MFF ceilings and the other provisions
corresponding to that year. So at any rate an MFF framework will be in place allowing the Commission to present a
draft budget for the year 2014.

C 310 E / 68 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009703/12**

**à Comissão**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**
_(24 de outubro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Programas europeus de combate à pobreza

Considerando que:

—
Segundo o Eurostat, na Europa, 79 milhões de pessoas vivem abaixo do limiar de pobreza, 30 milhões sofrem
de subnutrição e cerca de 43 milhões estão em risco de carência alimentar;

—
O Instituto Superior Técnico realizou um estudo exaustivo sobre as condições de pobreza em Portugal, tendo
identificado que aproximadamente 20 % da população vive abaixo do limiar de pobreza;

—
Este facto é ainda mais preocupante quando 2 milhões de portugueses vivem com um vencimento inferior a
360 Euros, demonstrando-se que é extremamente difícil satisfazerem as necessidades básicas diárias;

—
O estudo confirma ainda que mais de um terço dos portugueses vive ligeiramente acima do limiar da pobreza,
mas «em contexto de precariedade», e que o universo dos mais vulneráveis coincide com o dos idosos, das
famílias monoparentais e dos menos instruídos;

—
O Instituto Nacional de Estatística (INE) de Espanha revela que cerca de 21,1 % da população espanhola vive
abaixo do limiar da pobreza em 2012, valor ligeiramente abaixo do registado em 2011 (21,8 %);

—
O Programa Comunitário de Apoio Alimentar a Carenciados (PCAAC) fornece alimentos produzidos com os
stocks dos excedentes de produtos agrícolas, os chamados stocks de intervenção;

—
O PCAAC tem contribuído para combater a pobreza e promover a inclusão social: 18 milhões de cidadãos
europeus beneficiaram este ano deste programa comunitário em 20 Estados‐Membros da União Europeia;

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

1. Quais as ações que estão previstas a nível europeu para combater a pobreza e melhorar a qualidade de vida das
populações?

2. Quais as principais iniciativas que irão ser realizadas pelo PCAAC no próximo ano de 2013?

3. Quais os objetivos que pretende atingir com as iniciativas empreendidas?

**Resposta dada por László Andor em nome da Comissão**

_(4 de janeiro de 2013)_

A Comissão remete o Senhor Deputado para a resposta dada à pergunta escrita E-004208/12.

A Comissão anunciou um Pacote de Investimento Social para o crescimento e a coesão. Este pacote visa, em especial,
fornecer orientações sobre o aumento da eficiência, eficácia e adequação dos sistemas de proteção social e contribuir
para a aplicação da estratégia Europa 2020 bem como para a concretização da meta de redução da pobreza definida
no âmbito desta estratégia.

O Fundo Social Europeu é o principal instrumento financeiro da União Europeia na luta contra a pobreza e a exclusão
social. Através dos programas operacionais dos Estados-Membros, o Fundo cofinancia as intervenções destinadas a
reforçar a inclusão social das pessoas desfavorecidas, tendo em vista a sua integração sustentável no emprego. A ação
do Fundo Social Europeu é uma ação de longo prazo pelo que é difícil avaliar os seus efeitos num só ano. Desde o
início do período de programação atual (2007-2013), cerca de 50 milhões de pessoas beneficiaram do Fundo.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 69

Por seu turno, o Programa Comunitário de Apoio Alimentar a Carenciados (PCAAC) continuará em 2013 a financiar
a distribuição de alimentos aos mais necessitados. Uma decisão recente ( [1] ) confirmou que 500 milhões de euros de
alimentos serão distribuídos às pessoas mais vulneráveis em 2013.

Nas suas propostas para o Quadro Financeiro Plurianual para o próximo período de programação, a Comissão
propõe que 20 % dos recursos do Fundo Social Europeu sejam dedicados à inclusão social. A Comissão apresentou
igualmente uma proposta ( [2] ) para a criação de um Fundo de Auxílio Europeu às Pessoas mais Carenciadas para as
ajudas europeias aos mais necessitados.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regulamento de Execução (UE) n.° 1020/2012 da Comissão, de 6 novembro 2012, que adota o plano de atribuição de recursos aos Estados
Membros, a imputar ao exercício de 2013, para o fornecimento de géneros alimentícios provenientes das existências de intervenção a favor das
pessoas mais necessitadas da União Europeia e que derroga determinadas disposições do Regulamento (UE) n.° 807/2010 (JO L 307
de 7.11.2012, p. 62).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 617 final de 24 de outubro de 2012.

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

C 310 E / 70 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009703/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ European programmes to combat poverty

According to Eurostat, there are 79 million people in Europe living below the poverty line, 30 million are
undernourished, and about 40 million are in danger of running short of food.

The Portuguese Higher Technical Institute has conducted an exhaustive study on poverty in Portugal and established
that roughly 20% of the population are living below the poverty line.

This is a particularly worrying fact, given that 2 million Portuguese have less than EUR 360 to live on and are finding
it extremely difficult to satisfy their everyday basic needs.

The study also shows that more than a third of the Portuguese population are living just above the poverty line, but in
a precarious situation, and that the most vulnerable groups are older people, one-parent families, and the less well
educated.

The Spanish National Statistical Institute (INE) says that approximately 21.1% of the Spanish population are living
below the poverty line in 2012, a figure slightly lower than in 2011 (21.8%).

The food aid scheme for the most deprived (MDP programme) supplies products obtained from the agricultural
surpluses termed intervention stocks.

The MDP programme has been helping to combat poverty and promote social inclusion. This year 18 million
European citizens in 20 Member States have benefited from it.

1. What measures will be taken at European level to combat poverty and improve the quality of life?

2. What are the main initiatives to be undertaken under the MFP programme in 2013?

3. What aims are those initiatives intended to achieve?

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

_(4 January 2013)_

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-004408/12.

The Commission has announced a Social Investment Package for growth and cohesion. This Package will in particular
provide guidance on increasing the efficiency, effectiveness and adequacy of social protection systems and further
contribute to implementing the Europe 2020 strategy and achieving the poverty target set as part of that strategy.

The European Social Fund is the European Union's main financial instrument for combating poverty and social
exclusion. Through the operational programmes of the Member States, it co-finances measures to improve the social
inclusion of disadvantaged people with a view to their sustainable integration in employment. The European Social
Fund is a long-term initiative and it is difficult to assess its effects over one single year. About 50 million people have
benefited from the Fund since the beginning of the current programming period (2007-2013).

For its part, the EU's Food Distribution programme for the Most Deprived Persons (MDP) will continue to fund the
distribution of food to the most deprived. A recent decision ( [1] ) confirmed that EUR 500 million of food will be
distributed to the most vulnerable people in 2013.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1020/2012 of 6 November 2012 adopting the plan allocating to the Member States resources to

be charged to the 2013 budget year for the supply of food from intervention stocks for the benefit of the most deprived persons in the European
Union and derogating from certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010, OJ L 307, 7.11.2012, p. 62.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 71

In its proposals for the Multiannual Financial Framework for the forthcoming programming period, the Commission
has proposed that 20% of European Social Fund resources be devoted to social inclusion. It has also put forward a
proposal ( [2] ) for a fund for European aid to the most deprived.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 617 final of 24 October 2012.

C 310 E / 72 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009704/12**

**à Comissão**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**
_(24 de outubro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Emigração Europeia

Considerando que:

—
Segundo o Eurostat, em julho de 2012, a União Europeia apresentava uma taxa de desemprego de 10,4 %,
enquanto que na Zona Euro a taxa de desemprego atingia os 11,3 %. A Europa a 27 tinha 25,2 milhões de
desempregados e, destes, cerca de 18,1 milhões pertenciam à Zona Euro;

—
Em junho de 2012, a taxa de desemprego jovem (ou seja, trabalhadores com idade inferior a 25 anos) na União
Europeia era de 22,5 %, correspondendo a 5,5 milhões de jovens sem uma ocupação profissional, e de 22,6 %
na Zona Euro, correspondendo aqui a 3,4 milhões de desempregados;

—
O desemprego jovem tem vindo a aumentar ao longo dos últimos meses, dado que uma comparação
homóloga (com junho de 2011) permite constatar que mais 182 mil jovens estão desempregados na Europa a
27, enquanto que na Zona Euro são mais 204 mil pessoas;

—
Ao longo dos últimos anos, os sucessivos Governos têm vindo a adotar várias medidas com vista a resolver o
problema do desemprego jovem. Porém, este continua a aumentar, sem que se encontrem soluções que
invertam esta tendência;

—
Entretanto, este flagelo social continua a afetar muitos milhares de jovens, incentivando‐os a procurar
oportunidades profissionais no estrangeiro, em busca de empregos bem remunerados e de uma melhoria da
sua condição socioeconómica;

—
Segundo os últimos dados conhecidos, no ano passado mais de 107 mil cidadãos europeus decidiram procurar
oportunidades de trabalho fora do espaço europeu;

—
O número de jovens na população ativa está a diminuir em Portugal. Os especialistas apontam a emigração
como justificação do fenómeno, dado que 100 mil pessoas abandonaram o país em 2011 e o fenómeno deverá
repetir-se em 2012.

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

1. Tem conhecimento do número de cidadãos europeus que estão anualmente a emigrar, procurando
oportunidades profissionais em mercados fora do espaço europeu?

2. Qual a evolução verificada na última década ao nível da emigração?

3. Existe algum plano de ação com medidas concretas no sentido de diminuir a emigração europeia?

**Resposta dada por László Andor em nome da Comissão**

_(14 de dezembro de 2012)_

O Eurostat recolhe estatísticas anuais sobre a migração internacional para e a partir dos Estados-Membros ( [1] ),
incluindo a emigração a partir da UE-27. Os dados alternativos elaborados pelo Banco Mundial baseiam-se em
definições algo distintas, mas indicam tendências semelhantes às dos dados do Eurostat. A fiabilidade e a
disponibilidade das estatísticas sobre emigrantes terão sempre mais tendência a ser mais baixas do que as estatísticas
sobre os imigrantes. Isto deve-se ao facto de ser mais difícil garantir que as pessoas que deixam um país são
devidamente contabilizadas nos registos administrativos e em inquéritos por amostragem usados na criação de
estatísticas de migração.

As estatísticas do Eurostat mostram que, em anos recentes, chegaram mais pessoas à UE do que as que saíram; o saldo
é de cerca de 700 000 pessoas por ano em 2009 e em 2010. No geral, o saldo migratório para a UE-27 diminuiu em
145 000 pessoas entre 2009 e 2010 mas, no seu conjunto, aumentou consideravelmente ao longo da última década.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Nos termos do Artigo 3.° do Regulamento (CE) n.° 862/2007. Estas estatísticas e publicações associadas podem ser obtidas através do portal
Population Statistics no sítio Web do Eurostat: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/population/introduction.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 73

Os cidadãos da UE desfrutam de livre circulação no mercado interno e, obviamente, são também livres de circular fora
da UE. Embora não haja nenhum plano específico para reduzir a emigração, a política da UE tem como objetivo
tornar a União o mais atraente possível para os seus cidadãos de modo a que estes permaneçam e possam contribuir
para a sua riqueza e desenvolvimento.

A União presta particular atenção às suas regiões e promove a coesão social com vários instrumentos financeiros com
o objetivo de fornecer aos seus habitantes, especialmente aos jovens em idade ativa, oportunidades profissionais e
pessoais.

A União promove também a mobilidade laboral dentro da UE, nomeadamente através da facilidade do
reconhecimento de qualificações, da garantia de proteção dos direitos dos trabalhadores e da coordenação da
segurança social, que por sua vez também pode facilitar o regresso dos trabalhadores ao seu país de origem assim que
tiverem adquirido experiência e conhecimento.

C 310 E / 74 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009704/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ European emigration

According to Eurostat, the unemployment rate in July 2012 stood at 10.4% in the EU and at 11.3% in the euro area.
There were 25.2 million unemployed in EU-27, and, out of that total, about 18.1 million were accounted for by the

euro area.

In June 2012 the youth unemployment rate (that is to say, among workers under 25) was 22.5% in the EU, giving a
total of 5.5 million young people out of work, and 22.6% in the euro area, equivalent in this case to 3.4 million
unemployed.

Youth unemployment has been rising in recent months. Compared with June 2011, the number of young people out
of work has increased by 182 000 in EU-27 and by 204 000 in the euro area.

During the last few years governments have, one after the other, been taking various steps to tackle the problem of
youth unemployment. The upward trend, however, is continuing, and no solutions are being found to reverse it.

Meanwhile, this social scourge is still afflicting thousands of young people and making them seek career
opportunities abroad in an attempt to find well-paid jobs and improve their socioeconomic situation.

According to the last known figures, more than 107 000 European citizens decided in 2011 to seek work outside
Europe.

In Portugal the number of young people in the working-age population is falling. Specialists say that the reason lies in
emigration, bearing in mind that 100 000 people left the country in 2011 and the same thing is likely to happen in
2012.

1. Does the Commission know how many European citizens a year are emigrating in order to seek work outside
Europe?

2. What has been the trend over the past decade as far as emigration is concerned?

3. Is there any action plan aimed specifically at reducing European emigration?

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

_(14 December 2012)_

Eurostat collects annual statistics on international migration to and from Member States ( [1] ), including emigration
from the EU-27. Alternative data prepared by the World Bank are based on somewhat different definitions, but
indicate similar trends to the Eurostat data. The reliability and availability of statistics on people who emigrate will
always tend to be lower than for statistics on immigrants. This is because it is harder to ensure that people who leave a
country are correctly accounted for in the administrative records and sample surveys used for migration statistics.

The Eurostat statistics show that, in recent years, more people have moved into the EU than have left; the balance
being around 700 000 people per year in 2009 and 2010. Overall net migration into the EU-27 has decreased by
145 000 from 2009 to 2010, but has increased considerably throughout the past decade as a whole.

EU citizens enjoy freedom of movement in the internal market and are also obviously free to move outside the EU.
While there is no specific plan to reduce emigration, Union's policy aim at making the Union as attractive as possible
for its citizens to stay so they can contribute to its wealth and development.

The Union pays particular attention to its regions and promotes social cohesion with various financial instruments
with a view to provide their inhabitants, especially the young people of working age, with professional and personal
opportunities.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) 862/2007. These statistics and related publications may be obtained via the Population Statistics portal of the
Eurostat website: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/population/introduction.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 75

The Union also promotes labour mobility within the EU by _inter alia_ facilitating the recognition of qualifications, by
ensuring the protection of workers' rights, the coordination of social security which in turn can also facilitate the
return of workers to their home country once they gathered new experience and knowledge.

C 310 E / 76 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009705/12**

**à Comissão**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**
_(24 de outubro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Análise do défice e da dívida pública

Considerando que:

—
O défice conjunto dos países da União Europeia alcançou os 6,5 % do PIB em 2010, diminuindo para 4,4 % no
ano passado, sendo este um reflexo das medidas de austeridade aplicadas por muitos países. Já na Zona Euro, o
desequilíbrio orçamental conjunto recuou de 6,2 % para 4,1 % do PIB;

—
O Estado-Membro com o défice mais elevado foi a Irlanda, com o desequilíbrio a atingir 13,4 % do PIB. De
seguida está a Grécia e a Espanha (ambas com 9,4 %), o Reino Unido (7,4 %), Chipre (6,3 %), a França (5,2 %) e a
Holanda (4,5 %);

—
O Eurostat refere ainda que 25 países melhoraram as suas contas públicas, sendo que apenas dois pioraram
(Chipre e Eslovénia) e que, na globalidade dos Estados‐Membros, apenas 3 registaram excedentes orçamentais,
nomeadamente a Hungria, a Estónia e a Suécia;

—
Já a dívida pública conjunta dos 27 países da UE agravou-se de 85,4 % do PIB para 87,3 %, enquanto que na
Zona Euro o agravamento passou de 80 % para 82,5 % do PIB;

—
Verifica-se assim que o défice da maior parte dos Estados‐Membros está a diminuir consideravelmente, ao
inverso do sucedido com o valor da dívida pública;

—
O Pacto de Estabilidade e Crescimento estabelece o limite máximo de 60 % da dívida pública para cada EstadoMembro, não devendo ser ultrapassado, sob pena de existirem penalizações económicas e financeiras.

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

1. Quais as medidas que têm sido adotadas para cada Estado-Membro devido ao seu incumprimento da meta da
dívida pública?

2. Quais as ações que Portugal deverá realizar para diminuir especificamente a dívida pública?

3. Como poderão ser adotadas medidas de crescimento económico e investimento público nos Estados‐Membros
com défice elevado e dívida pública superior ao limite expectável?

**Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão**

_(11 de dezembro de 2012)_

Os planos orçamentais dos Estados-Membros ( [1] ) são comunicados nos respetivos programas de estabilidade e
convergência. Os Estados-Membros, tal como a Comissão, não diferenciam, normalmente, medidas destinadas a
assegurar o cumprimento do limite da dívida ou dos valores de referência do Tratado. Uma das razões é que o limite
da dívida estabelecido pelo Tratado só passou a ser de aplicação com a entrada em vigor do pacote de seis medidas
sobre a governação económica. A respetiva alteração prevê um período transitório de três anos após a correção dos
procedimentos em curso relativos aos défices excessivos.

A Comissão faz uma avaliação global dos planos orçamentais ( [2] ).

Neste momento, Portugal não tem acesso normal ao mercado e carece de reduzir a sua dívida pública. A estratégia
acordada baseia-se na adoção de um plano de consolidação que melhore o excedente, mediante cortes na despesa não
produtiva ou ineficiente, ao mesmo tempo que se protege a despesa geradora de crescimento económico e se assegura
justiça social. Simultaneamente, Portugal tem de adotar reformas geradoras de crescimento. É esta a linha comum
prosseguida pela UE, pelo FMI e pelo Governo Português.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) E as correspondentes medidas de aplicação.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Os programas e as correspondentes avaliações podem ser consultados em:.

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/economic_governance/sgp/convergence/index_pt.htm

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 77

A despesa de investimento é objeto de tratamento especial no âmbito do novo valor de referência para a despesa,
indicado pela vertente preventiva do Pacto de Estabilidade e Crescimento, visto ser calculada como média de diversos
anos a fim de evitar penalizações em consequência de picos anuais. Acresce que, embora a disciplina orçamental seja
avaliada em função de valores de referência para o défice e para a dívida do setor público administrativo que não
estabelecem distinção entre diferentes tipos de despesa, os investimentos públicos são um dos fatores relevantes que
têm de ser devidamente tidos em conta pela Comissão para uma avaliação global equilibrada da situação orçamental
do Estado-Membro no seu relatório ao Conselho, visando uma eventual proposta de abertura do procedimento
relativo a défice excessivo.

C 310 E / 78 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009705/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Analysis of the deficit and public debt

The combined deficit of the countries of the European Union reached 6.5% of GDP in 2010, but dropped to 4.4% in
2011, reflecting the austerity measures applied by numerous countries. The combined budgetary imbalance in the
euro area has already fallen from 6.2% to 4.1% of GDP.

The Member State with the highest deficit was Ireland, with an imbalance reaching 13.4% of GDP, followed by Greece
and Spain (9.4% each), the United Kingdom (7.4%), Cyprus (6.3%), France (5.2%) and the Netherlands (4.5%).

Eurostat further notes that 25 countries improved their public accounts, with the situation worsening only in two
(Cyprus and Slovenia). Out of all of the Member States, only three (Hungary, Estonia and Sweden) registered
budgetary surpluses.

The combined public debt of the EU’s 27 Member States has already increased from 85.4% of GDP to 87.3%, while in
the euro area this figure has risen from 80% to 82.5% of GDP.

It can thus be seen that while the deficit in most of the Member States has substantially decreased, public debt
continues to rise.

The Stability and Growth Pact establishes a maximum 60% limit for the public debt of each Member State, which
must not be exceeded, on pain of incurring economic and financial penalties.

Can the Commission say:

1. What measures have been adopted by each Member State as a result of their failure to keep within their public
debt limits?

2. What action should be taken by Portugal specifically to reduce its public debt?

3. How can economic growth and public investment measures be applied in Member States with a high deficit
and public debt in excess of the desired limit?

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

_(11 December 2012)_

The budgetary plans by Member States ( [1] ) (MS) are reported in their Stability and Convergence Programmes. MS as
well as the Commission usually do not differentiate measures taken to ensure compliance with the debt benchmark or
the reference values of the Treaty. One reason for this is that the debt benchmark of the Treaty has been made
operational only since the entry into force of the six-pack. The respective amendment foresees a transition period of
three years after the correction of ongoing excessive deficit procedures.

The Commission makes an overall assessment of the budgetary plans ( [2] ).

Portugal currently has no normal market access and needs to reduce its public debt. The agreed strategy is based on
the adoption of a consolidation strategy that improves its surplus by cutting non-productive or inefficient
expenditure while protecting growth-enhancing expenditure and ensuring social fairness. At the same time, it has to
pursue growth enhancing reforms. This is the common line pursued by the EU, the IMF and the Portuguese
Government.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) And the measures to implement them.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) All the programmes and their assessment can be found on:

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/economic_governance/sgp/convergence/index_en.htm

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 79

Investment expenditure receives a special treatment under the new expenditure benchmark of the preventive arm of
the Stability and Growth Pact, as it is averaged over a number of years in order to avoid to be penalized because of
annual peaks. Moreover, even if budgetary discipline is assessed against reference values for the general government
deficit and debt that do not differentiate amid different kind of expenditure, public investments are one of the relevant
factors that have to be duly taken into account by the Commission to make a balanced overall assessment of the
budgetary situation of the MS in its report to the Council to propose the opening of the excessive deficit procedure.

C 310 E / 80 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-009706/12**

**aan de Commissie**

**Auke Zijlstra (NI)**

_(24 oktober 2012)_

_Betreft:_ ECB over excessieve tekorten eurozone landen

De Nederlandse bestuurder van de Europese Centrale Bank (ECB), de heer Klaas Knot, heeft in het televisie programma
Buitenhof van 21 oktober jl. gezegd dat de Zuid-Europese lidstaten nog minstens 3 tot 5 jaar nodig hebben om uit de
financiële problemen te komen. Voor Griekenland maakte hij een uitzondering: daar duurt het nog véél langer
voordat er een begrotingsevenwicht wordt bereikt.

In dit kader wil ik de Commissie de volgende vragen voorleggen:

1. Deelt de Commissie de opvatting van de ECB dat het nog wel 5 jaar duurt vóórdat de excessieve tekorten van de
Zuidelijke eurozone lidstaten ingelopen zijn? Zo nee, waarom niet?

2. Is het naar de mening van de Commissie toegestaan, ook in de Verdragen, dat eurozone landen nog vijf jaar een
excessief tekort hebben? Zo nee, is het standpunt van deze ECB bestuurder nog wel acceptabel?

3. Hoeveel lidstaten zullen naar het oordeel van de Commissie alsnog een beroep moeten doen op het ESM
noodfonds of het OMT (Outright Market Transactions) van de ECB als de tekorten nog vijf jaar voortduren?

4. Acht de Commissie de visie van bestuurder Knot überhaupt nog wel haalbaar gelet op de actuele financiële
positie van de lidstaten en de matige economische groeiverwachtingen?

**Antwoord van de heer Rehn namens de Commissie**

_(18 december 2012)_

Momenteel loopt ten aanzien van 21 lidstaten een buitensporigtekortprocedure, waarbij de termijnen voor de
correctie van het buitensporige tekort thans uiteenlopen van 2011 tot 2015. De termijn en het aanpassingstraject
worden vastgesteld door de Raad op grond van een aanbeveling van de Commissie, die haar evaluatie baseert op de
ten tijde van de aanbeveling bekende macro-economische en budgettaire prognoses. Indien de lidstaten doeltreffende
actie ondernemen om het buitensporige tekort te corrigeren maar er zich ongunstige economische gebeurtenissen
met een ernstige negatieve weerslag op de openbare financiën voordoen, kan de Commissie overeenkomstig het
bepaalde in het stabiliteits‐ en groeipact ( [1] ) de Raad aanbevelen de termijn te verlengen. Dit is al een aantal keren
gebeurd ( [2] ). De mogelijkheid om de termijn voor de correctie van het buitensporige tekort te verlengen, is ingevoerd
toen het stabiliteits‐ en groeipact in 2005 is hervormd. De wijziging was bedoeld om tot een betere economische
onderbouwing van het EU-begrotingstoezicht te komen.

Noch het Verdrag, noch Verordening (EG) nr. 1467/97 voorziet in een maximumduur van de
buitensporigtekortprocedure ( [3] ). De initiële aanpassingsperiode wordt per geval vastgesteld om een voldoende
ambitieuze, maar ook geloofwaardige correctie van het buitensporige tekort te waarborgen. De duur van de
procedure vormt ook niet noodzakelijkerwijs een maatstaf voor de waarschijnlijkheid dat lidstaten financiële bijstand
nodig hebben. Veel hangt af van de budgettaire uitgangspositie en van mogelijke andere macro-economische
onevenwichtigheden die in de betrokken lidstaat kunnen bestaan. De Commissie kan zich hoe dan ook niet
uitspreken over het aantal lidstaten dat een programma voor financiële bijstand zou kunnen aanvragen en, in
samenhang daarmee, dat aan de voorwaarden voor Outright Market Transactions (OMT) voldoet. Bovendien moet
worden benadrukt dat de OMT een prerogatief is van de ECB, die volledig onafhankelijk is bij het voeren van het
monetaire beleid.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Artikel 3, lid 5, van Verordening (EG) nr. 1467/97.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Laatst nog in het geval van Spanje en Portugal.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) De afgesloten en nog lopende buitensporigtekortprocedures ten aanzien van alle lidstaten (met inbegrip van de termijnen) kunnen worden

geraadpleegd op: http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/economic_governance/sgp/deficit/index_en.htm

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 81

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009706/12**

**to the Commission**

**Auke Zijlstra (NI)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ ECB on excessive deficits in eurozone countries

The Dutch member of the European Central Bank (ECB) Governing Council, Klaas Knot, said on the Dutch television
programme _Buitenhof_ of 21 October 2012 that southern European Member States need at least another 3-5 years to
have to get out of financial difficulties. He made an exception for Greece, where it will take much longer to balance
the budget.

1. Does the Commission share the ECB’s view that it will take another five years before the excessive deficits of the
southern eurozone countries have been reduced? If not, why not?

2. Does the Commission consider it permissible, also under the Treaties, that eurozone countries have another five
years of excessive deficit? If not, is the position of this ECB Governing Council member acceptable?

3. In the Commission’s opinion, how many Member States will still have to rely on the ESM rescue fund or the
ECB’s OMT (Outright Market Transactions) if the deficits continue for another five years?

4. Does the Commission consider Mr Knot’s vision actually even feasible given the current financial position of the
Member States and the moderate economic growth prospects?

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

_(18 December 2012)_

Currently 21 Member States are subject to an excessive deficit procedure, with deadlines for correcting the excessive
deficit currently ranging from 2011 to 2015. The deadline and the adjustment path are set by the Council, on a
recommendation by the Commission which bases its assessment on the macroeconomic and budgetary forecasts
known at the time of the recommendation. If Member States take effective action to correct the excessive deficit, but
adverse economic events with major consequences for public finances occur, the Commission can, in line with the
provisions of the Stability and Growth Pact ( [1] ) recommend to the Council to extend the deadline. This has happened
already on a number of occasions ( [2] ). The possibility to extend the deadline for correcting the excessive deficit was
introduced with the 2005 reform of the Stability and Growth Pact. It was meant to improve the economic rational of
EU fiscal surveillance.

There is no maximum duration of the excessive deficit procedure ( [3] ) foreseen in the Treaty or in Regulation 1467/97.
The initial adjustment period is fixed case-by-case to ensure a sufficiently ambitious, but also credible correction of
the excessive deficit. The length of the procedure also does not necessarily reflect the likelihood that Member States
require financial assistance. Much depends on the budgetary starting position and possible other macroeconomic
imbalances that may be present in the Member State concerned. In any case, the Commission cannot speculate on the
number of Member States that may apply for a financial assistance programme and, linked to that, fulfil the
prerequisite for OMT. Moreover, it should be stressed that the OMT is a prerogative of the ECB which is fully
independent in the conduct of monetary policy.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Art. 5.3, Reg. (EC) 1467/97.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Most recently in the case of Spain and Portugal.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Past and present excessive deficit procedures for all Member States (including deadlines) can be consulted on:

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/economic_governance/sgp/deficit/index_en.htm

C 310 E / 82 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009707/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(24 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Precios cereales

Se especula que el sexto mayor productor de maíz del mundo, Ucrania, a partir del 15 de noviembre va a cerrar su
mercado a la exportación de dicha materia prima.

Los efectos en los mercados pueden ser evidentes, con claros aumentos de precio no solo de la citada materia
prima ( [1] ).

Un aumento en los ya de por sí muy elevados precios de dicha materia prima puede allanar el camino a una mayor
vulnerabilidad en los mercados, con unas consecuencias evidentes para los productores europeos. Además, tal y
como se ha visto en el pasado, puede hacer un efecto llamada y que otros Estados u organizaciones intervengan de
alguna forma en el mercado con graves presiones en los mercados.

1. ¿Puede la Comisión informar si dichos aumentos de precios de este verano/otoño en los mercados
internacionales se deben, únicamente, a razones de oferta y demanda?

2. ¿Puede la Comisión informar si las medidas estructurales y coyunturales hasta hoy aplicadas han funcionado
eficientemente?

3. ¿Puede la Comisión informar de qué acciones tiene previsto tomar y ha tomado —aparte de «Agriculture Market
information»— para mitigar los preocupantes incrementos de costes de las materias primas?

4. ¿Prevé la Comisión una agroinflación en la EU para este año 2012/2013?

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

_(26 de noviembre de 2012)_

1. Los picos en los precios de los productos básicos agrícolas y su volatilidad cada vez mayor en los últimos años
pueden explicarse por los fenómenos climáticos extremos que afectan a la producción agrícola y por factores más
estructurales, tales como el aumento de la demanda mundial, los elevados precios del petróleo, el desarrollo de los
biocombustibles, la volatilidad de los tipos de cambio y la especulación financiera excesiva. No existe consenso sobre
la importancia relativa de cada factor y el número creciente de estudios en apoyo de una u otra teoría sugiere que no
existe una solución sencilla al problema.

2. La UE participa activamente en los debates políticos internacionales sobre la agricultura y la seguridad
alimentaria en el G8/G20, a fin de abordar los precios excesivos de los alimentos y la volatilidad de los precios
mediante una información más oportuna, exacta y transparente sobre los mercados mundiales en el marco de AMIS,
un sistema informativo de los mercados agrícolas reclamado por los ministros de Agricultura del G-20 en 2011.

3. La Comisión ha suspendido este año los derechos de aduana aplicables a los contingentes de importación de
aproximadamente 3,5 millones de toneladas de trigo de calidad baja y media y de cebada forrajera y ha propuesto el
mantenimiento del régimen vigente de suspensión arancelaria temporal hasta el 30 de junio de 2013 a fin de facilitar
el flujo de importaciones necesario para equilibrar el mercado de la UE.

4. La volatilidad de los precios es una característica normal de los mercados ( [2] ), incluidos los de los productos
básicos agrícolas. Una de las tareas de la Comisión es controlar mensualmente la evolución de los precios de los
productos básicos agrícolas y los alimentos ( [3] ). La Comisión no realiza proyecciones de precios.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.ft.com/intl/markets/commodities.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/analysis/tradepol/commodityprices/market-briefs/01_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/analysis/markets/foodprices/index_en.htm

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 83

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009707/12**

**to the Commission**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Grain prices

There is speculation that the world’s sixth largest wheat producer, Ukraine, is going to stop exports of the raw
material from 15 November.

The possible effects of this on markets are clear: noticeable increases in the price of this and other raw materials ( [1] ).

An increase in the already very high prices of this raw material could pave the way for greater market vulnerability,
with obvious consequences for European producers. Furthermore, as has happened in the past, this could have a
knock-on effect and cause other countries or organisations to intervene in the grain market in some way, thereby
putting great pressure on the markets.

1. Can the Commission say whether the price increases which occurred this summer/autumnon international
markets were solely due to fluctuations in supply and demand?

2. Can the Commission say whether the structural and contingency measures implementedto date have been
efficient?

3. What action does the Commission intend to take, and what action has it taken, besides theAgriculture Market
Information System project, to mitigate the worrying increases in rawmaterial prices?

4. Is the Commission expecting agricultural commodity inflation to occur in the EU in2012/2013?

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

_(26 November 2012)_

1. The peaks in agricultural commodity prices and their increasing volatility in recent years can be explained by
extreme climatic events affecting agricultural production and more structural factors, such as the rise in global
demand, high oil prices, the development of biofuels, exchange rate volatility and excessive financial speculation.
There is no consensus on the relative importance of each factor and the growing number of studies supporting one or
the other theory shows that there is no simple solution to the problem.

2. The EU is actively involved in policy discussions on agriculture and food security at international level under the
G8/G20, with the aim of addressing excessive food prices and price volatility through more timely, accurate and
transparent information on global markets in the framework of AMIS, an agricultural market information system
called for by G20 agriculture ministers in 2011.

3. The Commission this year suspended customs duties on import quotas for around 3.5 million tonnes of low
and medium quality wheat and feed barley and has now proposed maintaining the current temporary duty
suspension until 30 June 2013, to ease the flow of imports needed to balance the EU market.

4. Price volatility is a normal characteristic of markets ( [2] ), including agricultural commodity markets. One of the
tasks of the Commission is to monitor agricultural commodity and food price developments on a monthly basis ( [3] ).
The Commission does not make price projections.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.ft.com/intl/markets/commodities.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/analysis/tradepol/commodityprices/market-briefs/01_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/analysis/markets/foodprices/index_en.htm

C 310 E / 84 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009708/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(24 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Materias primas alimenticias

Según diferentes estudios ( [1] ) existe una clara relación en los mercados internacionales entre el precio de las materias
primas alimenticias y el precio del petróleo. Distintas son las razones, pero se subraya el uso intensivo de derivados
del petróleo en la producción de alimentos. Se arguye, además, y como elemento destacado, la poca transparencia y
una posible deficiente regulación en los mercados de futuros.

¿Puede la Comisión indicar si, efectivamente, hay una clara correlación entre el precio de las materias primas
alimenticias y los precios del petróleo?

Si efectivamente existe dicha correlación, ¿puede la Comisión enumerar los motivos?

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

_(4 de diciembre de 2012)_

La correlación entre los precios de los productos alimenticios y el precio del petróleo es alta, de hecho, en algunos
productos agrícolas básicos, pero no en todos y no uniformemente. En general, la correlación es también alta respecto
a determinados metales (producción industrial) e incluso al oro (actividad especulativa), aunque continúan las
investigaciones para probar claramente la causalidad.

Los precios del petróleo afectan a los precios de los alimentos de muchas maneras. En las explotaciones, a través de los
costes de producción: el combustible, los lubricantes y los fertilizantes son importantes insumos agrícolas. Los
precios de la energía también se reflejan en la inflación global y afectan a otros costes de producción en todas las fases
de la cadena de abastecimiento de alimentos (servicios, trabajo, etc.). Los precios de la energía afectan a los costes de
transporte, que representan una parte creciente de los costes de los productos finales según aumenta el comercio
mundial. Por último, el desarrollo de los biocarburantes ha creado una nueva relación entre los precios de la energía y
determinadas materias primas agrícolas.

Las fluctuaciones interrelacionadas entre los precios de los productos básicos dentro y fuera de la agricultura se
examinan atentamente y existe cada vez más bibliografía sobre el tema. La Comisión Europea participa activamente
en esta investigación. La iniciativa del G20 sobre el Sistema de Información sobre el Mercado Agrícola (SIMA) se está
convirtiendo en un instrumento clave para aumentar mundialmente la transparencia del mercado de productos
básicos y la Comisión Europea proporciona datos mensuales a la FAO, además de ser el enlace de la UE-27 en el G20.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://necsi.edu/research/social/foodprices.html

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 85

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009708/12**

**to the Commission**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Raw foodstuffs

According to several studies ( [1] ) there is a clear connection on international markets between the price of raw
foodstuffs and the price of oil. There are various reasons for this, but the reports stress the intensive use of oil
derivatives in food production. They also point to insufficient transparency and possible poor regulation of the
futures markets being important factors.

Can the Commission confirm whether there is indeed a clear correlation between the price of raw foodstuffs and the
price of oil?

If this correlation does in fact exist, can the Commission list the reasons why?

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

_(4 December 2012)_

Correlation between raw foodstuff prices and oil prices is indeed high for some agricultural commodities, but not for
all of them and not in a uniform way. In general, correlation is also high with respect to certain metals (industrial
production) and even with gold (speculation activity) even though further research is ongoing to establish clear
causality.

Oil prices affect food prices in many ways. At farm level, through production costs: fuel (and lubricants) and fertilisers
are important farming inputs. Energy prices are also reflected in overall inflation and affect other production costs at
all stages of the food supply chain (services, labour, etc). Energy prices affect transportation costs, which represent a
growing share of final products’ costs as global trade grows. Finally the development of biofuels has created a further
linkage between energy prices and certain agricultural commodities.

Co-movements among commodity prices within and outside agriculture are closely monitored and growing literature
is addressing this topic. The European Commission is actively involved in this research. The Agricultural Market
Information System (AMIS) activity of the G20 is becoming a key instrument to enhance market transparency in key
commodities globally and the European Commission provides monthly data to FAO and is the contact point for the
EU-27 within the G20.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://necsi.edu/research/social/foodprices.html

C 310 E / 86 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009709/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(24 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Crisis alimentarias

Tal y como analizan algunos estudios recientes de la FAO ( [1] ) (FAO food prices index from January 2004-2011), existe
una clara correlación entre el aumento del precio de los alimentos a nivel internacional y las protestas sociales que
pueden provocar alteraciones en los sistemas políticos. Los ejemplos de las crisis alimentarias globales en los años
2008 o 2011 son claros en este sentido. Según la FAO, hay en el mundo desarrollado 16 millones de personas mal
nutridas y un 15 % u 850 millones de personas en los países en vías de desarrollo.

1. Aunque se ha avanzado mucho en prevenir y gestionar dichas crisis, ¿no cree la Comisión que se necesita máas
transparencia en los mercados de futuros?

2. Viendo que la mayoría de estudios explicitan un aumento de los precios de las materias primas alimenticias para
los próximos años, ¿no cree la Comisión que es aun más necesaria la protección, que no subsidio, de las explotaciones
locales europeas para que produzcan de forma sostenible y eficiente?

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

_(26 de noviembre de 2012)_

La Comisión Europea considera que los mercados de futuros, como herramientas para hacer frente a la volatilidad de
los precios, sirven para la determinación de los precios y la cobertura. A este respecto, ya se ha afirmado la
importancia de mejorar la supervisión y la transparencia de los mercados de derivados sobre materias primas
agrícolas ( [2] ). En consecuencia, la Comisión puso en marcha una serie de iniciativas para abordar estos aspectos y
remite a Su Señoría a sus respuestas a las preguntas escritas P-4409/2009 del Sr. Staes, E-6137/2011 de la
Sra. Muscardini y E-9532/2011 del Sr. Meyer ( [3] ).

Las propuestas sobre la PAC para después de 2013 demuestran el compromiso permanente de la Comisión de
adaptar las políticas pertinentes y abordar los retos existentes y nuevos, como pueden ser las posibles crisis
alimentarias. A este respecto, la Comisión remite a Su Señoría a sus respuestas a las preguntas escritas
E-007833/2012 del Sr. Niculescu E-001931/2012 y de la Sra. Dăncilă.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/wfs-home/foodpricesindex/en.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2009) 591 final - Comunicación de la Comisión al Parlamento Europeo, al Consejo, al Comité Económico y Social Europeo y al Comité de

las Regiones – Mejorar el funcionamiento de la cadena alimentaria en Europa: Los mercados de derivados de materias primas agrícolas, el camino
a seguir.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

( **|**

⋅3∙ **|** )

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 87

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009709/12**

**to the Commission**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Food crises

Recent studies by the FAO ( [1] ) (FAO Food Price Index from January 2004-2011) show there is a clear correlation
between rising food prices across the world and social unrest that can cause changes in political regimes. The world
food crises of 2008 and 2011 are good examples of this. According to the FAO, there are 16 million malnourished
people in the developed world and 15% or 850 million in the developing countries.

1. While a great deal of progress has been made in preventing and managing these food crises, would the
Commission not agree that the futures markets need to be more transparent?

2. Since most studies are clear that the price of raw foodstuffs is set to rise in the next few years, would the
Commission not agree that it is even more necessary to protect, but not to subsidise, local farms in Europe so as to
make their output sustainable and efficient?

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

_(26 November 2012)_

The European Commission considers that the futures markets, as tools to cope with price volatility, should keep
serving their purpose of price discovery and hedging. In this respect, it has already affirmed the importance of
improving the oversight and transparency of the agricultural commodity derivatives markets ( [2] ). Consequently, the
Commission launched a series of initiatives meant to tackle these aspects and hereby refers the Honourable Member
to its replies to Written Questions P-4409/2009 by Mr Staes, E-6137/2011 by Ms Muscardini and E-9532/2011 by
Mr Meyer ( [3] ).

The proposals on the CAP post-2013 demonstrate the continuous commitment of the Commission to adapt the
relevant policies to address existing and emerging challenges, such as potential food crises. In this respect, the
Commission refers the Honourable Member to its replies to Written Questions E-007833/2012 by Mr Niculescu and
E-001931/2012 by Ms Dăncilă.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/wfs-home/foodpricesindex/en.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2009)591 final — Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social

Committee and the Committee of the Regions on a better functioning food supply chain in Europe: Agricultural commodity derivative markets,
the way ahead.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

( **|**

⋅3∙ **|** )

C 310 E / 88 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009711/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(24 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Reducción del gasto en I+D en España

Durante los últimos años se ha producido un descenso continuado de las partidas que el Gobierno de España ha
destinado a la Investigación y Desarrollo (I+D). Este marcado descenso se ha agravado desde la llegada del nuevo
Gobierno, que está desmantelando progresivamente el sistema educativo superior y provocando una acusada _«_ fuga de
cerebros _»_ que no parece tener fin.

El Gobierno de España, con este progresivo desmantelamiento en todos los niveles de su sistema educativo, pero
especialmente en la Universidad, pretende reducir el déficit público a costa de la población que puede sacar al país de
la crisis. Frente a un modelo empresarial basado en la especulación bancaria e inmobiliaria, donde los empresarios
españoles han sido incapaces de generar otras actividades económicas, mas allá de la especulación y la construcción,
resulta necesario el cambio para la introducción del abundante capital humano de la juventud española en el sistema
productivo.

El estancamiento económico de España se acentúa con la destrucción de las posibilidades de I+D, estancando a la
economía española en el modelo especulativo sobre el que se ha basado y en las decisiones de los mismos empresarios
que han provocado la crisis. Sin inversión en este sector, los investigadores están abandonando el país en busca de
oportunidades. Si España pretende seguir formando parte de la Unión Europea no puede continuar siendo el país del
_«_ ladrillo y la playa _»_ .

La Comisión ha destinado más de 6 000 millones de euros para el desarrollo de la investigación en España durante el
periodo 2007-2013 a través de la política de cohesión y diferentes mecanismos de financiación.

¿Cómo valora la Comisión el impacto de esta inversión en el sistema educativo español y su coordinación con la
política nacional?

¿Cuál es la opinión de la Comisión al respecto de la _«_ fuga de cerebros _»_ y la reducción de financiación en I+D por parte
del España?, ¿qué consecuencias estima la Comisión que estos fenómenos traerán al país?

¿Ha solicitado la Comisión información a España sobre cómo evalúa el Gobierno los efectos que dichas reducciones
de gasto tendrán en su crecimiento económico?

¿Qué cantidad aproximada pretende destinar la Comisión para la I+D en España para el nuevo periodo 2014-2020?

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

_(21 de enero de 2013)_

1. Existe un presupuesto de más de 6 000 millones de euros destinados a la investigación y la innovación en
España para el periodo 2007-2013 a través de dos programas nacionales del FEDER (Fondo Tecnológico y Economía
basada en el Conocimiento), así como de algunas iniciativas regionales. Estas inversiones, que se coordinan con
políticas e instrumentos nacionales, están siendo objeto actualmente de una evaluación que concluirá a principios de
2013.

2-4. Las inversiones públicas de España en I+D aumentaron notablemente hasta 2009 y sufrieron una contracción
después a consecuencia de la crisis económica y la consolidación presupuestaria. La Comisión reaccionó a este hecho
recomendando que se procediera _a una revisión de las prioridades de gasto y [a] reasignar los fondos a fin de facilitar el acceso_
_a la financiación para PYMES, investigación, innovación y juventud (_ [1] _)_ .

Si bien las inversiones en I+D e innovación (I+D+i) son esenciales para reforzar el crecimiento y la competitividad,
España también debe progresar rápidamente en la aplicación de reformas para mejorar la eficiencia y eficacia de sus
sistemas de I+D+i. En concreto, debe garantizar una mayor coordinación entre las políticas nacionales y regionales en
materia de I+D y un marco institucional coherente, vincular la financiación institucional a los avances en la excelencia
científica, así como aumentar la internacionalización y la cooperación público-privada, todo ello aprovechando
plenamente las sinergias entre los recursos nacionales y los Fondos Estructurales, el Programa marco Horizonte 2020
y otros instrumentos de la UE.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Recomendaciones específicas por país adoptadas por el Consejo en julio de 2012.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 89

5. No se conocerán los fondos asignados a las distintas políticas de la UE y los Estados miembros hasta que se
adopte el Marco Financiero Plurianual. Sin embargo, los mecanismos de concentración temática propuestos para el
FEDER (cuotas mínimas de financiación para tres objetivos temáticos) garantizarán que una parte sustancial de este
Fondo se destine a inversiones en I+D+i.

C 310 E / 90 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009711/12**

**to the Commission**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Cuts in R R&D D spending in Spain

The budget allocated to research and development (R R&D D) by the Spanish Government has been shrinking
continuously over recent years. This marked decline has worsened since the arrival of the new government, which is
progressively dismantling the higher education system, triggering a significant brain drain that shows no signs of
stopping.

By progressively dismantling all levels of the educational system — but especially the university level — the Spanish
Government intends to reduce the public deficit, to the cost of the very group of people who could bring the country
out of the crisis. Given a business model based on bank and property speculation, under which Spanish entrepreneurs
have been unable to generate economic activities other than speculation and building, there is a need for a shift,
bringing the abundant human capital represented by Spain's young people into the economic system.

Spain's economic stagnation is growing worse with the destruction of R R&D D opportunities, miring the Spanish
economy in the speculative model on which it is based, and in the decisions of the same entrepreneurs who caused
the crisis. In the absence of investment in this sector, researchers are leaving the country to seek opportunities
elsewhere. If Spain intends to continue belonging to the EU, it cannot carry on as the country of ‘bricks and beaches’.

The Commission has earmarked more than EUR 6 billion for developing research in Spain during the 2007-2013
period, through cohesion policy and various funding mechanisms.

How does the Commission assess the impact of this investment in the Spanish education system, and its coordination
with national policy?

What is the Commission's opinion regarding the brain drain and the cuts in R R&D D funding by Spain? What does
the Commission think the consequences will be for the country?

Has the Commission asked Spain for information on how the government assesses the effect these spending cuts will
have on the country's economic growth?

Roughly what amount does the Commission intend to allocate to R R&D D in Spain for the upcoming 2014-2020
period?

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

_(21 January 2013)_

1. In 2007-2013, more than EUR 6 billion are allocated to research and innovation in Spain through two national
ERDF programmes (Technology Fund and Knowledge Based Economy) as well as regional initiatives. These
investments are coordinated with national policies and instruments and are currently subject to an evaluation which
will be finalised in early 2013.

2-4. Spain's public investments in R&D grew strongly until 2009 and contracted thereafter due to the economic crisis
and fiscal consolidation. The Commission reacted by recommending to ‘Review spending priorities and reallocate
funds to support access to finance for SMEs, research, innovation and young people’ ( [1] ).

While investment in R&D and innovation is crucial to enhance growth and competitiveness, Spain should equally
make rapid progress in implementing reforms to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of its R&D and innovation
systems. In particular it should ensure a stronger coordination between national and regional R&D policies, ensure a
consistent institutional framework, link institutional funding to progress in scientific excellence and increase
internationalisation and public-private cooperation, fully exploiting synergies among national resources and
Structural Funds as well as with Horizon 2020 and other EU instruments.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Country-specific recommendation adopted by the Council in July 2012.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 91

5. The funds allocated to the various EU policies and Member States will only be known after adoption of the
Multi-annual Financial Framework. However, the proposed thematic concentration mechanisms for the ERDF
(minimum financial shares for three thematic objectives) will ensure that a substantial proportion of this Fund will be
devoted to investments in R&D and innovation.

C 310 E / 92 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009712/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(24 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ VP/HR — Violación de los derechos humanos de los inmigrantes en Israel

_Las continuadas declaraciones del polémico Eli Yishai, Ministro del Interior del Estado de Israel, han puesto su objetivo en la_
_comunidad de inmigrantes y refugiados políticos, especialmente de origen africano, que habitan en el país, aproximadamente unos_
_60 000 según fuentes locales._

El Ministro ha dado la orden de expulsión o encarcelamiento de los inmigrantes ilegales que residen en el país por
estar «corrompiendo el alma judía del país». Semejantes declaraciones, digna de ministros de épocas fascistas, ponen
en peligro a esta comunidad de migrantes que llegan a Israel, en su mayor parte, como refugiados de conflictos
violentos del continente africano.

El Ministerio del Interior ha lanzado la propuesta de expulsar o encarcelar por tres años a todos los inmigrantes
ilegales que residan en el país, por suponer dicha amenaza. Esta justificación de carácter racista de la política de
migración es un directo ataque a los fundamentos del Derecho internacional, la Declaración Universal de los
Derechos Humanos y la Convención de Ginebra sobre el Estatuto de los Refugiados. El Gobierno de Israel,
caracterizado por un escaso cumplimiento de los derechos humanos con el pueblo palestino, pretende suprimir
también los derechos de los migrantes que se encuentran en su territorio, convirtiendo a las personas migrantes en
delincuentes.

De las 13 000 solicitudes de asilo realizadas a Israel solo han sido admitidas a trámite 200, dificultando a estas
personas el acceso a una situación jurídica y convirtiéndolos en inmigrantes ilegales. Esta ilegalización del estatuto de
persona migrada, junto con el agravamiento de los requisitos para acceder a cualquier forma de protección jurídica,
supone un proceso sumario de persecución y encarcelamiento ilegal que no tiene justificación alguna. La comunidad
internacional suele participar como mero espectador silencioso de las continuas barbaridades que las autoridades
israelíes cometen contra los derechos humanos día tras día.

¿Pretende la Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante denunciar semejante atropello a _nte la comunidad internacional? ¿Cuál es_
_la opinión de_ la Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante sobre las declaraciones del Ministro del Interior Israelí _al respecto de_
_los inmigrantes? ¿Piensa condenar tales declaraciones?_

Añadiendo estos nuevos incumplimientos de la legalidad internacional, ¿considera la Vicepresidenta/Alta
Representante la congelación del Acuerdo de Asociación UE-Israel como medida de pr _esión para el cumplimiento del_
_Derecho internacional por parte de Israel?_

**Respuesta de la Alta Representante y Vicepresidenta Sra. Ashton en nombre de la Comisión**

_(15 de enero de 2013)_

La Alta Representante y Vicepresidenta es consciente del grave desafío que para Israel supone la migración irregular,
especialmente en lo que respecta a los inmigrantes que llegan a través del desierto del Sinaí. En mayo de 2012, se
registró una serie de incidentes violentos contra los inmigrantes, en particular en el sur de Tel Aviv. La Alta
Representante y Vicepresidenta manifestó su satisfacción por la condena de estos hechos que el Primer Ministro
Netanyahu realizó el 24 de mayo de 2012, y por el llamamiento del Presidente Shimon Peres a todos los ciudadanos
israelíes para que eviten los actos racistas y la incitación a la violencia.

No obstante, la Alta Representante y Vicepresidenta se muestra preocupada por algunas de las medidas adoptadas por
Israel en este ámbito, como la _Prevention of Infiltration Law_ (Ley de prevención de la infiltración), adoptada el 9 de enero
de 2012, ya que esas medidas pueden restringir el acceso a la protección internacional o ayuda humanitaria en Israel a
los migrantes, en particular a los procedentes de Eritrea o Sudán, de lo que ya se advertía en el Informe
intermedio 2012 relativo a la Política Europea de Vecindad sobre Israel. Es en este contexto, y habida cuenta de la falta
de progreso en la mejora por parte de Israel del actual mecanismo de determinación de la condición de refugiado, que
la UE propuso el 2 de mayo de 2012 en el Comité de Asociación UE-Israel, compartir experiencias y proporcionar
asistencia si así se solicitaba para desarrollar una política global de inmigración.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 93

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009712/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Violation of immigrants' human rights in Israel

Eli Yishai, the controversial Minister of Internal Affairs of the State of Israel, has continually made statements
targeting the immigrants and political refugees, especially of African origin, living in the country — approximately
60 000 people, according to local sources.

The Minister has ordered that immigrants living in the country illegally should be expelled or imprisoned as they are
‘corrupting the country's Jewish soul’. Such declarations, worthy of fascist-era ministers, are a threat to the migrant
community, who mostly arrive in Israel as refugees from violent conflicts in Africa.

The Minister of Internal Affairs has proposed that all illegal immigrants living in the country should be expelled or
imprisoned for three years as they supposedly represent a threat. This racist justification for the migration policy is a
direct attack on the foundations of international law, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva
Convention on the Status of Refugees. The Israeli government, marked by its lack of regard for the human rights of
the Palestinian people, also intends to remove the rights of migrants on its territory, turning migrants into criminals.

Of the 13 000 applications for asylum made in Israel, only 200 have been accepted, preventing people from gaining
legal status and turning them into illegal immigrants. This process of making migrants illegal, together with the
tightening up of requirements for access to any form of legal protection, constitutes a summary process of
persecution and illegal imprisonment which is entirely unjustified. The international community usually watches in
silence as the Israeli authorities daily trample on human rights.

Will the Vice-President/High Representative condemn such violations before the international community? What
does the Vice-President/High Representative think about the statements by the Israeli Minister of Internal Affairs
regarding immigrants? Does she intend to condemn these statements?

In light of these new infringements of international law, will the Vice-President/High Representative consider freezing
the EU-Israel Association Agreement as a way of pressuring Israel to comply with international law?

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

_(15 January 2013)_

The HR/VP understands the serious challenge of irregular migration that Israel faces, especially as regards migrants
coming via the Sinai desert. There were a number of violent incidents targeting immigrants, in particular in South Tel
Aviv, in May 2012. The HR/VP welcomed the condemnation of these by Prime Minister Netanyahu on 24 May 2012
and the call by President Shimon Peres on all Israeli citizens to avoid racist actions and incitement.

Nevertheless, the HR/VP is concerned with some of the measures taken by Israel in this area — such as the Prevention
of Infiltration Law (adopted 9 January 2012) — as these are likely to restrict the possibility of migrants from Eritrea or
Sudan in particular to receive international protection or humanitarian assistance in Israel, as noted in the 2012
European Neighbourhood Policy Progress Report on Israel. It is in this context, and in light of the lack of progress in
improving Israel’s current Refugee Status Determination mechanism, that at the EU-Israel Association Committee on
2 May 2012 the EU offered to share experience and provide assistance if requested in developing a comprehensive
immigration policy.

C 310 E / 94 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009713/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(24 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Conclusiones de las pruebas de resistencia en el sector nuclear

_Se han presentado los resultados de las pruebas de resistencia (_ « _stress test_ » _) en la industria nuclear europea realizado por la_
_Comisión Europea a través de la revisión de los informes presentados por los organismos reguladores nacionales asociados en el_
_organismo europeo de reguladores ENSREG._

De entre los documentos de dicho informe extraemos la _frase:_ « _los ciudadanos del bloque pueden tener confianza en que la_

»
_industria nuclear europea es segura_ _. Dicha frase pretende resumir un informe que recoge numerosas faltas en los procedimientos_
_exigidos. Desde la falta de instrumentos de medición sísmica en diez centrales, a la falta de equipos móviles para la generación de_
_electricidad en caso de apagón total, son muchas las faltas de seguridad que presentan los informes elaborados por los organismos_
_reguladores nacionales, el Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear (CSN), en el caso de España. Dicho organismo ha sido acusado de falta_
_de transparencia en múltiples ocasiones, debido a la escasa información que hace pública en caso de_ « _incidencias_ » _en las centrales_
_que controla._

Pese a que « _la industria nuclear europea es segura_ » _, la necesaria mejora de las condiciones de seguridad de los 132 reactores que_
_existen en la Unión Europea para cumplir los mínimos exigidos podría suponer unos 25 000 millones de euros según las_
_estimaciones presentadas. Esta importante suma elevaría considerablemente el coste del KW/h que procede de la energía nuclear y_
_por tanto haría relativamente más rentables tecnologías que gozan de una mayor aceptación por parte de la población europea._

Considerando la nueva información presentada y atendiendo a mi anterior pregunta « _E-008567/2011_ » _, ¿piensa la_
_Comisión evaluar el cierre de alguna de las centrales más problemáticas en los términos del presente informe?_

¿Piensa la Comisión incluir los nuevos costes de seguridad a la hora _de evaluar el coste de la energía nuclear y considerar sus_
_alternativas para futuros planes energéticos?_

Atendiendo a la terminología empleada en dicho inform _e, ¿cómo se pueden necesitar 25 000 millones de euros para el_
_incremento de la seguridad si_ « _la industria nuclear europea es segura_ » _?_

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

_(17 de diciembre de 2012)_

1. La Comisión remite a Su Señoría a su respuesta a las preguntas escritas E-008953/12 de la Sra. Papadopoulou y
E-009278/12 del Sr. Melo ( [1] ).

2. Sí, la Comisión tendrá en cuenta la seguridad, pero la elección entre diferentes fuentes de energía, incluido el uso
de la energía nuclear, es decisión de los Estados miembros.

3. Las pruebas de resistencia han demostrado que las normas de seguridad de las centrales nucleares europeas son
altas en general ( [2] ). Las deficiencias detectadas no son un motivo de preocupación inmediata, sino que pueden
considerarse más bien parte del proceso en curso de cara a la mejora constante de la seguridad nuclear y a la creación
de una cultura global de seguridad sobre la base de unas normas de seguridad lo más estrictas que sea posible. Tal
como se recoge en la Comunicación de la Comisión, las cifras mencionadas en ella en relación con el coste adicional
de las mejoras de la seguridad se basan en estimaciones publicadas por la autoridad de seguridad nuclear francesa y
están sujetas a su confirmación en los planes de acción nacionales que deben prepararse antes de finales de 2012.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Véase la Comunicación de la Comisión al Consejo y al Parlamento Europeo sobre las evaluaciones completas del riesgo y de la seguridad («pruebas

de resistencia») de las centrales nucleares de la Unión Europea y actividades relacionadas, COM(2012) 571 final, en:
https://webgate.ec.testa.eu/docfinder/extern/aHR0cDovLw==/ZXVyLWxleC5ldXJvcGEuZXU=/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?
uri=COM:2012:0571:FIN:ES:PDF.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 95

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009713/12**

**to the Commission**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Nuclear stress test results

The European Commission has published the results of the stress tests in the European nuclear industry carried out
via a review of the reports presented by the national regulatory bodies belonging to the European regulators'
organisation ENSREG.

The report documents include a sentence claiming that EU citizens can be confident that the European nuclear
industry is safe. This sentence is meant to sum up a report which picks out numerous failings in the required
procedures. Ranging from the lack of seismic measuring instruments in ten reactors to the lack of mobile generators
in the event of total loss of power, the reports drawn up by the national regulatory bodies — the Nuclear Safety
Council (CSN) in the case of Spain — point to many safety shortcomings. The CSN has frequently been accused of a
lack of transparency due to the paucity of information it has published when ‘incidents’ have occurred in the reactors
it monitors.

Although the European nuclear industry is said to be safe, the safety improvements that the 132 reactors across the
European Union need in order to meet minimum requirements could, according to the estimates provided, cost some
EUR 25 billion. This substantial amount would raise the KW/h cost of nuclear energy significantly, making
technologies that are more acceptable to people in Europe relatively more profitable.

In light of the new information presented, and having regard to my previous question (E-008567/2011), does the
Commission intend to evaluate the closure of some of the plants that are most problematic in terms of the present
report?

Does the Commission intend to include the new safety costs when assessing the cost of nuclear energy, and to give
consideration to alternatives to nuclear energy in future energy plans?

How can EUR 25 billion be needed to increase safety if, in the words of the report, the European nuclear industry is
safe?

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

_(17 December 2012)_

1. The Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to its replies to written questions E-008953/12 by
Ms Papadopoulou and E-009278/12 by Mr Melo ( [1] ).

2. Yes, the Commission will take into account the safety cost, but the choice between different energy resources,
including use of nuclear power, is decided by the Member States.

3. The stress tests have demonstrated that the standards of safety of nuclear power plants in Europe are generally
high ( [2] ). The identified shortcomings are not a reason for immediate concern; rather they can be seen as part of the
ongoing process of continuously improving nuclear safety and creating an overall safety culture based on the highest
possible safety standards. As stated in the Commission's Communication, the figures referred to therein with relation
to the cost of additional safety improvements are based on estimates published by the French nuclear safety authority
and are subject to confirmation in the national action plans to be prepared by the end of 2012.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) See the Commission's Communication to the Council and the European Parliament on the comprehensive risk and safety assessments (‘stress

tests’) of nuclear power plants in the European Union and related activities, COM(2012) 571 final; available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/safety/doc/com_2012_0571_en.pdf

C 310 E / 96 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-009714/12**

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

_(24 Οκτωβρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Καινοτόμο Αυτοκίνητο

Μια ομάδα προπτυχιακών και μεταπτυχιακών φοιτητών του Πολυτεχνείου Κρήτης κατασκεύασε ένα αυτοκίνητο, το οποίο
είναι 100% ελληνικής σύλληψης, σχεδίασης και κατασκευής και κινείται με υδρογόνο έχοντας εξαιρετικές επιδόσεις στην
εξοικονόμηση ενέργειας, αφού χρειάζεται ένα λίτρο καυσίμου για να διανύσει 434 χιλιόμετρα. Έχει διακριθεί σε διεθνείς
διαγωνισμούς λαμβάνοντας το πρώτο βραβείο ασφάλειας και το τέταρτο εξοικονόμησης καυσίμου. Πρόκειται για ένα όχημα
που θα μπορούσε κάλλιστα να περάσει στη μαζική παραγωγή με πολύ χαμηλό κόστος, ώστε να κατασκευάζεται εξολοκλήρου
στην Ελλάδα και να εξάγεται, προκειμένου να ενισχυθεί η πολυπόθητη ανάπτυξη, αλλά δυστυχώς η εμπορική αξιοποίηση του
εντός των Ελληνικών συνόρων είναι κάτι που δεν επιτρέπει η ελληνική νομοθεσία.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Κατά πόσον αυτή η αδυναμία αξιοποίησης που υπαγορεύεται από την ελληνική νομοθεσία είναι εναρμονισμένη με τις
ευρωπαϊκές πρακτικές;

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

_(19 Δεκεμβρίου 2012)_

Η Επιτροπή δεν γνωρίζει το ζήτημα στο οποίο αναφέρεται ο κ. βουλευτής. Σύμφωνα με τις πληροφορίες που έχουν δοθεί από
τον ίδιο, η Επιτροπή δεν είναι, δυστυχώς, σε θέση να αξιολογήσει εάν η ελληνική νομοθεσία είναι εναρμονισμένη με την
ευρωπαϊκή. Επομένως, η Επιτροπή παρακαλεί τον κ. βουλευτή να υποβάλει περισσότερες πληροφορίες για το εν λόγω
ζήτημα.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 97

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009714/12**

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

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Innovative Automobile

A team of undergraduate and graduate students of the Technical University of Crete has built a car, the idea for which
and whose design and construction are 100% Greek: it is hydrogen-powered and has extremely low fuel
consumption, since it needs only one litre of fuel to travel 434 kilometres. It has received awards at international
competitions, taking first prize for safety and fourth for fuel economy. This is a vehicle that could very well be mass
produced at minimal cost, so that it could be constructed entirely in Greece and be exported to provide some muchneeded growth, but unfortunately its commercial exploitation within Greece is not permitted under Greek law.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

To what extent is the inability to exploit this vehicle which is dictated by Greek legislation in line with European
practices?

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

_(19 December 2012)_

The Commission is not aware of the issue mentioned by the Honourable Member. Based on the information given by
the Honourable Member, the Commission is unfortunately not in a position to assess the conformity of the Greek
legislation with the European one. It would like to kindly ask the Honourable Member to provide more details on this
issue.

C 310 E / 98 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-009715/12**

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

_(24 Οκτωβρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Αυξάνεται ο αριθμός των υπερηλίκων

Ο αριθμός των υπερηλίκων αυξάνεται ταχύτατα σε όλο τον κόσμο, σύμφωνα με πρόσφατη έρευνα του ΟΗΕ. Όπως τονίζεται
στην έκθεση, οι υπερήλικες του πλανήτη θα φτάσουν το ένα δισεκατομμύριο μέσα στα επόμενα 10 χρόνια. Όπως
προβλέπεται από τους δημογράφους, ο αριθμός των υπερηλίκων μέχρι το 2050 θα είναι μεγαλύτερος από ό,τι ο αριθμός των
παιδιών κάτω των 15 ετών.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Με ποιο τρόπο προτίθεται να στηρίξει τους ευρωπαίους πολίτες και κυρίως αυτούς του νότου, οι οποίοι ταλαιπωρούνται
ιδιαιτέρως από την οικονομική κρίση των τελευταίων ετών, προκειμένου να αυξηθούν οι γεννήσεις;

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

_(9 Ιανουαρίου 2013)_

Η Επιτροπή έθεσε σε εφαρμογή την πρωτοβουλία για την παροχή ευκαιριών στους νέους ( [1] ) και εξέδωσε μια δέσμη μέτρων
για την απασχόληση των νέων ( [2] ) που θα συνδυάζουν συγκεκριμένες δράσεις των κρατών μελών και της ΕΕ, εφαρμόζοντας τις
προτεραιότητες που προσδιορίστηκαν στη στρατηγική «Ευρώπη 2020», τα συμπεράσματα του Συμβουλίου του Ιουνίου
2011 για την απασχόληση των νέων, την ετήσια επισκόπηση για την ανάπτυξη 2012 (ΕΕΑ) ( [3] ), καθώς και την κοινή έκθεση
για την απασχόληση.

Συγκεκριμένα, η ΕΕΑ αποδίδει ιδιαίτερη σημασία στην πρόσβαση των νεαρών ενηλίκων στην αγορά εργασίας, μειώνοντας το
ποσοστό πρόωρης εγκατάλειψης του σχολείου, ενθαρρύνοντας τη διασυνοριακή κινητικότητα των εργαζομένων και
εφαρμόζοντας προγράμματα παροχής εγγυήσεων για τους νέους μέσω των οποίων, κάθε νέος κάτω των 25 ετών θα πρέπει να
λαμβάνει μια καλής ποιότητας προσφορά απασχόλησης, συνεχούς εκπαίδευσης, μαθητείας ή πρακτικής άσκησης, εντός
τεσσάρων μηνών από την ολοκλήρωση της τυπικής εκπαίδευσης ή από την στιγμή που θα μείνει άνεργος.

Οι νέοι λαμβάνουν υποστήριξη και από το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινωνικό Ταμείο, το οποίο προωθεί την απασχόληση, κυρίως μέσω
χρηματοδοτικών πρωτοβουλιών, με σκοπό να τους βοηθήσει να βελτιώσουν τις δεξιότητες και τις επαγγελματικές προοπτικές
τους. Το προτεινόμενο πλαίσιο για την περίοδο 2014-2020 δίνει μεγαλύτερη έμφαση στην καταπολέμηση της ανεργίας των
νέων, στην προώθηση της ενεργού και υγιούς γήρανσης και στην υποστήριξη των πλέον μειονεκτουσών ομάδων και
περιθωριοποιημένων κοινοτήτων, π.χ. οι Ρομά.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Βλέπε SWD(2012)98.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Βλέπε COM(2012)727.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Βλέπε COM(2012)750.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 99

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009715/12**

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

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Growing numbers of the elderly

According to a recent UN survey, the number of elderly persons is increasing very rapidly throughout the world. As
highlighted in the report, in the next 10 years the number of elderly people worldwide will reach the one-billion
mark. Demographers estimate that by 2050 there will be more elderly people in the world than children under
15 years of age.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

How does it intend to support European citizens, especially those in southern EU countries, who have been bearing
the brunt of the economic crisis of recent years, so that the birth rate increases?

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

_(9 January 2013)_

The Commission launched the Youth Opportunity Initiative ( [1] ) and adopted a Youth Employment Package ( [2] ), to
combine concrete action by Member States and the EU implementing the priorities identified in the Europe 2020
strategy, the June 2011 Council conclusions on youth employment, the 2013 Annual Growth Survey (AGS) ( [3] ) and
the Joint Employment Report.

In particular, the AGS attaches great importance to young adults’ access to the labour market by reducing earlyschool leaving, encouraging cross-border labour mobility, and implementing ‘Youth Guarantee’ schemes whereby
every young person under 25 should receive a good quality offer of employment, continued education, an
apprenticeship or a traineeship within four months of leaving formal education or becoming unemployed.

Young people are also supported by the European Social Fund, which promotes employment, mainly by funding
initiatives to help people improve their skills and job prospects. The proposed framework for the 2014-2020 period
places a greater emphasis on combating youth unemployment, promoting active and healthy ageing, and supporting
the most disadvantaged groups and marginalised communities, such as the Roma.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) See SWD(2012) 98.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) See COM(2012) 727.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) See COM(2012) 750.

C 310 E / 100 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-009716/12**

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

_(24 Οκτωβρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Ευρωπαϊκά Προγράμματα

Είναι αναμφίβολο ότι τα Ευρωπαϊκά Προγράμματα, όπως είναι το Erasmus που αφορά στην ανταλλαγή των φοιτητών, αλλά
και το πρόγραμμα Έρευνας και Καινοτομίας, έχουν ιδιαίτερη σημασία για την δοκιμαζόμενη ευρωπαϊκή νεολαία και θα πρέπει
να υποστηριχθούν με ποικίλους τρόπους.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Επαρκούν οι πόροι του Ευρωπαϊκού Ταμείου για τη συνέχιση της στήριξης των Ευρωπαϊκών Προγραμμάτων, και αν ναι, τι
χρονικό ορίζοντα καλύπτουν; Μήπως θα χρειαστεί αναθεώρηση του ευρωπαικού προϋπολογισμού του 2012;

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

_(11 Ιανουαρίου 2013)_

Η αρμόδια για τον προϋπολογισμό αρχή ενέκρινε το σχέδιο διορθωτικού προϋπολογισμού 6/2012 και την πρόταση για τον
προϋπολογισμό του 2013 στις 12 Δεκεμβρίου 2012. Αυτό θα επιτρέψει τη συνέχιση της χρηματοδότησης των
προγραμμάτων που αναφέρονται στην ερώτηση του Αξιότιμου Μέλους του Κοινοβουλίου.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 101

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009716/12**

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

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ European programmes

There can be no doubt that European programmes such as the Erasmus student exchange scheme and the Research
and Innovation Programme are of great importance for Europe’s hard-pressed young people and should be supported
in various ways.

In view of this:

Can the Commission say whether sufficient EU resources are available to continue funding European programmes
and if so for how long? Will it be necessary to review the EU budget for 2012?

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

_(11 January 2013)_

The budgetary authority adopted the draft amending budget 6/2012 and 2013 budget proposal on
12 December 2012. This shall allow continuing funding of the programmes referred to in the Honourable Member's
question.

C 310 E / 102 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-009717/12**

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

_(24 Οκτωβρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Εθνικές σιδηροδρομικές υπηρεσίες

Υπάρχουν πολλοί που ισχυρίζονται ότι απαιτείται περισσότερος ανταγωνισμός στους εθνικούς σιδηροδρόμους γιατί αυτό θα
έχει σαν αποτέλεσμα αφενός την καλύτερη ποιότητα των υπηρεσιών αλλά αφετέρου και χαμηλότερες τιμές. Από την άλλη
υπάρχουν και αρκετοί που αμφισβητούν το τελικό αποτέλεσμα αυτής της απελευθέρωσης.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Υπάρχει πρόθεση για ρύθμιση, η οποία θα απελευθερώνει τις σιδηροδρομικές υπηρεσίες και τα εθνικά δίκτυα ώστε να έχουν
σε αυτά πρόσβαση πάροχοι άλλων χωρών της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και αν ναι, με ποιους όρους και με ποια κριτήρια θα
ισχύσει αυτή η ρύθμιση;

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

_(13 Δεκεμβρίου 2012)_

Όπως ανακοίνωσε στο πρόγραμμα εργασιών της για το 2012, η Επιτροπή προτίθεται να εγκρίνει νομοθετικές προτάσεις υπό
μορφή 4ης δέσμης μέτρων για τις σιδηροδρομικές μεταφορές. Με την εν λόγω δέσμη νομοθετικών μέτρων επιδιώκεται ο
στόχος να αυξηθούν ο ανταγωνισμός των σιδηροδρομικών μεταφορών και η οικονομική απόδοση των σχετικών υπηρεσιών με
τη δημιουργία εσωτερικής αγοράς σιδηροδρομικών μεταφορών σύμφωνα με τα έγγραφα πολιτικής της ΕΕ, όπως η πράξη ΙΙ
για την ενιαία αγορά ( [1] ) και η Λευκή Βίβλος του 2011 για τις μεταφορές ( [2] ).

Το προσχέδιο της δέσμης νομοθετικών μέτρων βασίζεται στους εξής τρεις άξονες: καθιέρωση ενιαίας ευρωπαϊκής
πιστοποίησης ασφαλείας για τις σιδηροδρομικές επιχειρήσεις και το τροχαίο υλικό, βελτιωμένη διοικητική δομή των
διαχειριστών σιδηροδρομικών υποδομών και άνοιγμα της αγοράς εσωτερικών σιδηροδρομικών επιβατικών δρομολογίων. Tο
εν λόγω άνοιγμα συνεπάγεται α) τροποποίηση της οδηγίας για τον ενιαίο ευρωπαϊκό σιδηροδρομικό χώρο (η αποκαλούμενη
«αναδιατύπωση») ( [3] ) με την οποία χορηγούνται δικαιώματα ανοικτής πρόσβασης σε όλες τις αδειοδοτημένες στην ΕΕ
σιδηροδρομικές επιχειρήσεις, για την εκτέλεση εσωτερικών σιδηροδρομικών επιβατικών δρομολογίων (με την επιβολή της
απαίτησης τα δρομολόγια αυτά να μην υπονομεύουν την οικονομική ισορροπία των συμβάσεων παροχής δημόσιας
υπηρεσίας) και β) στοχευμένη τροποποίηση του κανονισμού 1370/2007 ( [4] ), η οποία θα καταστεί υποχρεωτική η
ανταγωνιστική ανάθεση συμβάσεων παροχής δημόσιας υπηρεσίας για σιδηροδρομικές μεταφορές. Όλες οι αδειοδοτημένες
στην ΕΕ σιδηροδρομικές επιχειρήσεις που συμμορφώνονται με τη νομοθεσία της Ένωσης, όπως επί παραδείγματι στο πεδίο
της ασφάλειας, θα μπορούν έτσι να μετέχουν σε διαδικασίες ανάθεσης τέτοιων συμβάσεων σιδηροδρομικών μεταφορών.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Ανακοίνωση της Επιτροπής προς το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο, το Συμβούλιο, την Ευρωπαϊκή Οικονομική και Κοινωνική Επιτροπή και την Επιτροπή των

Περιφερειών «Ενιαία αγορά — Πράξη II Μαζί για μια νέα ανάπτυξη», COM/2012/0573.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Λευκή Βίβλος «Χάρτης πορείας για έναν Ενιαίο Ευρωπαϊκό Χώρο Μεταφορών — Για ένα ανταγωνιστικό και ενεργειακά αποδοτικό σύστημα μεταφορών»,

COM(2011) 144.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Οδηγία 2012/34/EΚ του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου και του Συμβουλίου, της xx, για τη δημιουργία ενιαίου ευρωπαϊκού σιδηροδρομικού χώρου, δεν έχει

ακόμη δημοσιευθεί.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Κανονισμός (ΕΚ) αριθ. 1370/2007 του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου και του Συμβουλίου, της 23ης Οκτωβρίου 2007, για τις δημόσιες επιβατικές

σιδηροδρομικές και οδικές μεταφορές και την κατάργηση των κανονισμών του Συμβουλίου (ΕΟΚ) αριθ. 1191/69 και (ΕΟΚ) αριθ. 1107/70, ΕΕ L 315 της
3.12.2007, σ. 1.

( **|**

( **|**

( **|**

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 103

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009717/12**

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

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ National rail services

There are many who argue that more competition is needed in the national rail services, because it will both improve
the quality of the services and lower prices. On the other hand, there are many who doubt the final outcome of this
liberalisation.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

Is there any intention to regulate the liberalisation of rail services and national networks so as to give providers from
other EU Member States access to these and, if so, under what conditions and subject to which criteria will this
regulation apply?

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

_(13 December 2012)_

As announced in its work programme for 2012 the Commission intends to adopt legislative proposals for a
4th railway package. This legislative package pursues the objective of enhancing the competitiveness of rail transport
and the cost-effectiveness of its provision by establishing an Internal Market for rail in line with EU policy documents
such as the Single Market Act II ( [1] ) and the 2011 White Paper on Transport ( [2] ).

The draft legislative package is based on three following pillars: introduction of unified European safety certification
for rail undertakings and for rolling stock; improved governance structure for rail infrastructure managers and the
opening of the market for domestic rail passenger services. The latter would imply a) an amendment of the Single
European Railway Area directive (the so called Recast)  ( [3] ) granting open access rights for all licensed railway
undertakings in the EU to operate domestic rail passenger services (subject to a requirement that such services do not
undermine the economic equilibrium of public service contracts) and b) a targeted amendment of Regulation
1370/2007 ( [4] ) which would make the competitive award of public service contracts mandatory for rail transport
services. All railway undertakings licensed in the Union and complying with the Union legislation such as, for
instance, in the field of rail safety, would then be able to participate in the award procedures for such rail contracts.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the

Committee of the Regions ‘Single Market Act II Together for new growth’, COM(2012) 0573.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) White Paper ‘Roadmap to a Single European transport Area — Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system’, COM(2011) 144.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Directive 2012/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of xx establishing a single European railway area, still to be published.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European parliament and the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail

and road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70, OJ L 315, 3.12.2007, p. 1.

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

C 310 E / 104 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-009718/12**

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

_(24 Οκτωβρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Αλληλεγγύη μεταξύ των χωρών της ΕΕ

Η Ελλάδα ανήκει στις χώρες συνοχής και είναι δικαιούχος κοινοτικών πόρων για περιοχές της που έχουν ανάγκη ειδικής
στηρίξεως. Υπενθυμίζεται ότι καμία άλλη χώρα της ΕΕ δεν έχει 3 500, νησιά εκ των οποίων εκατοντάδες είναι κατοικημένα,
κάτι που σημαίνει ότι υπάρχει ανάγκη χωριστών υποδομών για κάθε ένα από αυτά, όπως δρόμων, σχολείων, δημοσίων
υπηρεσιών, λιμανιών, αεροδρομίων, εγκαταστάσεων παραγωγής ηλεκτρικού ρεύματος, νερού κοκ. Ανάμεσα στις 12 νέες
χώρες της ΕΕ που εντάχθηκαν το 2004, η Κύπρος και η Μάλτα είχαν πολύ υψηλά κατά κεφαλήν εισοδήματα και ήταν
εξαιρετικά ανεπτυγμένες, ενώ κάποιες άλλες εντάχθηκαν με τη συναίνεση και της Ελλάδας — ενώ δεν ήταν έτοιμες για αυτό
— και παρόλα αυτά σήμερα δυστροπούν δημοσίως (και ενίοτε προκλητικώς) ως προς την αυτονόητη αλληλεγγύη που πρέπει
να επιδεικνύουν με αφορμή την σημερινή οικονομική κρίση στην ΕΕ.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Έχει εκτιμηθεί ποια ήταν ως σήμερα η οικονομική επίπτωση στις χώρες συνοχής από την ένταξη των νέων χωρών το 2004,
εκτός φυσικά της Κύπρου και της Μάλτας που ήταν ήδη πολύ ανεπτυγμένες και δεν επιβάρυναν με τη συμμετοχή τους την
Ένωση;

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

_(21 Δεκεμβρίου 2012)_

Μία από τις βασικές επιπτώσεις της διεύρυνσης της Ένωσης ύστερα από την ένταξη των νέων κρατών μελών είναι η
εμβάθυνση της ενοποίησης των αγορών της ΕΕ, οι οποίες έχουν ωφελήσει σημαντικά τα κράτη μέλη τόσο της ΕΕ των 15 όσο
και της ΕΕ των 12. Για παράδειγμα, το γεγονός αυτό καταδεικνύεται εμφανώς από την εξέλιξη της ροής των εμπορικών
συναλλαγών. Όπως αναφέρεται στην 5η έκθεση συνοχής, οι εξαγωγές αγαθών μεταξύ των χωρών της ΕΕ των 12 και στην ΕΕ
των 15 αυξήθηκαν από 27% του ΑΕγχΠ τους το 2000, σε 35% το 2008. Ταυτόχρονα, οι εισαγωγές τους σε αγαθά
αυξήθηκαν από 30% του ΑΕγχΠ σε 38%.

Για την περίοδο 2007-13, ένα υψηλό ποσό των χρηματοδοτήσεων για την πολιτική συνοχή κατανεμήθηκε σε κράτη μέλη της
ΕΕ των 15, δηλαδή 172 δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ (τιμές 2011) από το σύνολο των κονδυλίων ύψους 354 δισεκατομμυρίων
ευρώ. Ενώ τα κράτη μέλη της ΕΕ των 15 συμβάλλουν στη βελτίωση της ευημερίας των χωρών της ΕΕ των 12 μέσω του
προϋπολογισμού της ΕΕ, αυτές οι συνεισφορές παραμένουν περιορισμένες σε σχέση με το ΑΕγχΠ τους.

Η πολιτική για τη συνοχή συνιστά μια σημαντική πηγή υποστήριξης των δημοσίων επενδύσεων, ιδιαίτερα σε μια εποχή που
χαρακτηρίζεται από λιτότητα. Την περίοδο 2014-20, η πολιτική για τη συνοχή θα εξακολουθήσει να παρέχει τις απαραίτητες
χρηματοδοτήσεις για επενδύσεις που ενισχύουν την ανάπτυξη, προωθώντας τους στόχους της στρατηγικής «Ευρώπη 2020»
σε όλα τα κράτη μέλη.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 105

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009718/12**

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

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Solidarity between EU countries

Greece is one of the cohesion countries and, as such, is the recipient of Community funds for regions in need of
special support. It is worth recalling that no other country in the European Union has 3 500 islands; hundreds of
these are inhabited and each of these needs separate infrastructures, such as roads, schools, public services, ports,
airports, electricity power plants, water, etc. Among the 12 countries that joined the EU in 2004, Cyprus and Malta
had a very high per capita income and were very highly developed. Others joined with the consent also of Greece —
even though they were not ready for it; despite that, they are publicly reluctant (and sometimes provocatively so) to
demonstrate the solidarity which should come as a matter of course, given the current economic crisis facing the EU.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

Has it assessed the economic impact so far on the cohesion countries of the accession of the new Member States in
2004, except of course for Cyprus and Malta, which were already very developed and did not represent a financial
burden for the EU?

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

_(21 December 2012)_

One of the main impacts of the Union's enlargement to new Member States is the deepening of the integration of EU
markets which significantly benefited both the EU-15 and EU-12 Member States. This is, for instance, clearly
illustrated by the evolution of trade flows. As reported in the 5th Cohesion Report, exports of goods of the EU-12
countries to each other and to the EU-15 grew from 27% of their GDP in 2000 to 35% in 2008. At the same time,
their imports of goods rose from 30% of GDP to 38%.

For the 2007-13 period, a high amount of cohesion policy funding was allocated to EU-15 Member States,
i.e. EUR 172 billion (2011 prices) out of a total envelope of EUR 354 billion. While the EU-15 Member States
contribute to improving the well-being of the EU-12 countries through the EU budget, these contributions remain
limited in relation to their GDP.

Cohesion policy is an important source of support for public investment, in particular in these times of austerity. In
the 2014-20 period, cohesion policy shall continue to provide the necessary funding for growth-enhancing
investments promoting the Europe 2020 objectives in all Member States.

C 310 E / 106 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-009719/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Theodoros Skylakakis (ALDE)**

_(24 Οκτωβρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Αδειοδοτήσεις φαρμακείων στην Ελλάδα

Σύμφωνα με το Μνημόνιο η Ελλάδα οφείλει να αναλάβει προαπαιτούμενη δράση (prior action) για την απελευθέρωση των
«κλειστών επαγγελμάτων» και την απόσυρση των σχετικών με αυτά περιορισμών.

Σύμφωνα με την παράγραφο 1 του ν. 3918/2011 (νόμου που ψηφίστηκε κατ’ εφαρμογήν της απορρέουσας από το
Μνημόνιο υποχρέωσης της Ελλάδος περί απελευθέρωσης του επαγγέλματος του αδειούχου φαρμακοποιού), η λήψη άδειας
ίδρυσης και λειτουργίας φαρμακείου από αδειούχο φαρμακοποιό ΔΕΝ υπόκειται σε κανέναν περιορισμό, πλην των σχετικών
με τα πληθυσμιακά όρια και την προϋπόθεση τήρησης ελαχίστων αποστάσεων, που εξασφαλίζουν τη χωροταξικά ισόρροπη
διασπορά των φαρμακείων στην Επικράτεια. Μετά την εφαρμογή του ν. 3852/2010, σύμφωνα με τον οποίο συνενώθηκαν
αρκετοί Δήμοι της χώρας, ειδικότερα για τον καθορισμό του πληθυσμιακού κριτηρίου λαμβάνονται υπόψη: α) για τους
Δήμους που δεν υπέστησαν καμία μεταβολή, οι Δήμοι β) για τους Δήμους που προέκυψαν από συνένωση προϋπαρχόντων
Δήμων, οι Δημοτικές Ενότητες, όπως αυτές ορίζονται στο άρθρο 2 του ν. 3852 γ) για τους Δήμους που προέκυψαν από
συνένωση άλλων Δήμων και Κοινοτήτων, οι Δημοτικές Ενότητες και οι Δημοτικές Κοινότητες, όπως αυτές ορίζονται στο
ανωτέρω άρθρο. Σημειώνεται επίσης ότι, σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 36, παράγραφος 3 του ν. 3918/2011, καθορίζεται αναλογία
ενός φαρμακείου ανά χίλιους κατοίκους, κατ’ αρχήν σε επίπεδο τοπικών κοινοτήτων ή δημοτικών ενοτήτων.

Με δεδομένα τα ανωτέρω και λαμβάνοντας υπόψη ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή έχει συνυπογράψει το Μνημόνιο και αποτελεί
μέρος της τριμερούς επιτροπής (Τρόικα) ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Εάν γνωρίζει πόσες καινούργιες άδειες ίδρυσης και λειτουργίας φαρμακείων έχουν δοθεί, από την έναρξη ισχύος του
ανωτέρω νόμου στους Δήμους που προέκυψαν από συνένωση προϋπαρχόντων Δήμων, καθώς και τους Δήμους που
προέκυψαν από συνένωση άλλων Δήμων και Κοινοτήτων, όπως αυτοί ορίζονται στο άρθρο 2 του ν. 3852.

Εάν θεωρεί ότι το θεσμικό πλαίσιο που έχει διαμορφωθεί συνάδει με τις αρχές και τους σκοπούς του Μνημονίου για την
απελευθέρωση του επαγγέλματος του αδειούχου φαρμακοποιού και την ίδρυση και άδεια λειτουργίας φαρμακείου.

Εάν θεωρεί η Επιτροπή — με δεδομένο των αριθμό των νέων αδειών που εκδόθηκαν στους ανωτέρω Δήμους — ότι το
θεσμικό πλαίσιο που έχει διαμορφωθεί για την απελευθέρωση του επαγγέλματος του αδειούχου φαρμακοποιού και την
ίδρυση και άδεια λειτουργίας φαρμακείου, συνιστά πραγματική απελευθέρωση ή όχι.

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

_(21 Ιανουαρίου 2013)_

Η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή υποστηρίζει την εφαρμογή κατάλληλων μέτρων με σκοπό να καταστεί ο φαρμακευτικός κλάδος πιο
αποδοτικός και ανταγωνιστικός, σεβόμενη πλήρως τη νομοθεσία της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και λαμβάνοντας υπόψη την
ιδιαιτερότητα του κλάδου στην Ελλάδα. Υπό την έννοια αυτή, η Επιτροπή υποστήριξε τα μέτρα που έλαβαν οι ελληνικές
αρχές για μείωση/χαλάρωση μιας σειράς περιορισμών που αφορούν την άσκηση του επαγγέλματος του φαρμακοποιού,
καθώς και για χαλάρωση α) των πληθυσμιακών κριτηρίων, β) των γεωγραφικών κριτηρίων και γ) των ωραρίων λειτουργίας. Οι
εν λόγω αλλαγές στη νομοθεσία υπήρξαν σημαντικές και οδηγούν πράγματι προς την κατεύθυνση της βελτίωσης της
λειτουργίας του κλάδου. Όπως και σε κάθε άλλη χώρα, ο κλάδος εξακολουθεί να υπόκειται σε νομοθετική ρύθμιση, το οποίο
σημαίνει ότι για τη χορήγηση άδειας άσκησης του επαγγέλματος πρέπει να πληρούνται ειδικές απαιτήσεις.

Η Επιτροπή παρακολουθεί την πρόοδο στην εφαρμογή των εν λόγω πολιτικών κατά την τακτική εξέταση που διενεργείται στο
πλαίσιο του Προγράμματος Οικονομικής Προσαρμογής της Ελλάδας.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 107

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009719/12**

**to the Commission**
**Theodoros Skylakakis (ALDE)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Licensing of pharmacies in Greece

Under the memorandum of understanding, Greece is required to take prior action to deregulate ‘closed shop’
professions and end restrictions applicable to them.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of Law 3918/2011 (a law adopted in application of the Memorandum making it incumbent
upon Greece to deregulate the profession of licensed pharmacist), the issuing of a licence to establish and operate a
pharmacy by a licensed pharmacist is NOT subject to any restrictions, except as regards the customer population and
the requirement to comply with the minimum distance criterion, which are designed to ensure the balanced
distribution of pharmacies in Greece. Following the implementation of Law No 3852/2010, under which many
Greek municipalities have merged, the following bodies should be taken into account, particularly in setting the
population criterion: a) for municipalities which have not undergone any change — the municipalities; b) for
municipalities created through the merger of pre-existing municipalities — the municipal entities, as defined in
Article 2 of Law 3852; c) for municipalities created through the merger of other municipalities and communities —
the municipal entities and communities as defined in the above Article. It should also be noted that Article 36,
paragraph 3, of Law 3918/2011, sets a ratio of one pharmacy for every thousand inhabitants in principle at local
community or municipal entity levels.

In view of this and the fact that the Commission is a co-signatory to the Memorandum and a member of the Troika:

Does the Commission know how many new licences have been issued to establish and operate pharmacies from the
entry into force of the above Law in municipalities created through the merger of pre-existing municipalities and
municipalities created through the merger of other municipalities and communities, as defined in Article 2 of
Law 3852?

Does it consider that the institutional framework that has been developed is in line with the objectives of the
Memorandum regarding deregulation of the profession of licensed pharmacist and the establishment and licensing of
pharmacies?

Does it consider that — in view of the number of new licences issued in these municipalities — the institutional
framework that has been developed for the deregulation of the profession of licensed pharmacist and the
establishment and authorisation to operate a pharmacy constitutes genuine deregulation?

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

_(21 January 2013)_

The Commission supports the implementation of appropriate measures aiming at making the pharmaceutical sector
more efficient and competitive, in full respect of European Union law and taking into account the specificity of the
sector in Greece. As such, the Commission supported the steps taken by the Greek authorities to reduce/relax the
number of restrictions regarding the pharmacy profession including relaxing the (a) population criteria,
(b) geographic restrictions and (c) opening hours. These legal changes were important and indeed go in the direction
of a better functioning of the sector. As in any other country, the sector remains regulated, meaning that practitioners
need to meet specific licensing requirements.

The Commission will be monitoring progress regarding these policies within the regular review missions under the
Economic Adjustment Programme to Greece.

C 310 E / 108 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009720/12**

**to the Commission**
**Marta Andreasen (EFD)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ A suspicious case of tendering at the European Environment Agency

This question concerns the European Environment Agency and its relationship with, and contracts it has awarded to,
Ace&Ace, a Danish video production company based in Copenhagen. On at least seven occasions on which no public
procurement procedures were carried out, contracts worth around EUR 370 000 were awarded, five of which were
subcontracted through another firm, N1Creative, based in London. Can the Commission provide clarifications in
respect of public procurement procedure EEA/COM/10/001 — lot 5, with a budget ceiling of EUR 1 000 000, which
contained conditions that could only be met by Ace&Ace?

Has the Commission called on its anti-fraud office to carry out an administrative investigation into this issue? If not,
why not?

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

_(9 January 2013)_

The oversight of the EEA — by dint of its founding Regulation ( [1] ) — is the responsibility of its Management Board,
including oversight over financial administration. The Chairman of the Management Board sent a letter on
18 October 2012 to the Parliament's rapporteur on the EEA 2010 Discharge procedure on the matter raised in the
question. It noted that an audit by the Court of Auditors into the Agency's procurement and contracting processes for
the period referred to in the question had found no evidence of any problems.

OLAF has also informed the Commission that an investigation was opened in relation to allegations concerning _inter_
_alia_ the public procurement procedure referred to by the Honourable Member and that in order not to jeopardise the
confidentiality of the ongoing investigation, no further information can be provided.

The Commission would recall that it does not call on OLAF to carry out investigations. OLAF is independent in the
conduct of its investigations. The Commission's services have a duty to forward to OLAF information of possible
cases of fraud or corruption, in line with Article 7 of Regulation 1073/1999. OLAF then assesses all in-coming
information in order to decide whether to open an investigation. The results of the Audit referred to above do not
influence the outcome of any investigations as auditing ( [2] ) and investigative activities are different.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) See in particular Articles 12.1 and 12.5 of Regulation 401/2009 on the EEA and the European Environment Information and Observation

Network, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:126:0013:01:EN:HTML.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Through its audits, the Court of Auditors examines whether financial operations have been properly recorded and disclosed, legally and regularly

executed and managed so as to ensure economy, efficiency and effectiveness, www.eca.europa.eu.

( **|**

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 109

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009721/12**

**to the Commission**
**Phil Bennion (ALDE)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ European Aviation Safety Agency's management of conflicts of interest

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) published on 1 October 2012 its proposal to amend the current EU
rules on flight and duty time limitations and rest requirements (FTL) for commercial air transport. A few days later the
European Court of Auditors announced that four European agencies, the EASA included, are not managing conflicts
of interest adequately. The audit showed that the EASA might be putting people’s safety at risk because of conflicts of
interest in the setting-up of aviation security standards.

The credibility of the EASA being crucial, could the Commission answer the following in light of this:

1. What actions will the Commission take in order to ensure that the EASA implements an appropriate policy for
dealing with conflicts of interest?

2. How does the Commission plan to include better provisions within EU agencies’ policies on limiting the
influence of the private sector on regulatory standards and authorisations?

3. What actions will the Commission take to clarify the rules with respect to EU staff relations with lobbyists and
industry representatives as well as the involvement of staff in consultancy work for companies which could
profit from their work?

4. Conflicts of interests are being reported mainly by European Parliament inquiries or media reports. Does the
Commission plan to be more involved in the monitoring of EU agencies in this respect, so as to avoid decisions
being taken, reputations being tarnished and the safety of European consumers being put at risk, in the event of
conflicts of interest?

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

_(22 January 2013)_

The Commission's role is well established in relation to staff covered by Staff Regulations and the Conditions of
Employment (temporary staff including the Executive Director, contract staff). The Commission regularly informs the
agencies on any decisions or guidelines in this area and invites them to adopt similar arrangements. EASA has
adopted a policy on Prevention and Mitigation of Conflicts of Interest in relation to its staff ( [1] ).

The Common Approach on EU decentralised agencies, endorsed by the European Parliament, Council and
Commission in July 2012, mandates the Commission to ‘examine, together with the agencies, if there is scope for a
harmonised approach’ on preventing and managing conflicts of interest for management board members and
directors. It also suggests looking at the issue with regard to members of scientific committees and boards of appeal.
The Commission is currently screening existing rules and practices in the agencies, in consultation with them, and in
light of Commission rules and practices. Based on the outcome of this exercise, the Commission intends to develop
guidelines or define best practices that could serve as a reference for agencies.

While the Commission will be the driving force in the implementation of the Common Approach, agencies, in
particular their management boards, mainly composed of Member States' representatives, will have to play their part.
The Commission will continue to work closely with them to enhance their efficiency and transparency, while
respecting their autonomy.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.easa.europa.eu/docs/quality/PO.HR.00180_Code%20of%20Conduct%20for%20the%20staff%20of%20EASA.pdf

C 310 E / 110 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-009722/12**

**à la Commission**
**Patrick Le Hyaric (GUE/NGL)**

_(24 octobre 2012)_

_Objet:_ VP/HR — Expansion de la colonie de Gilo à Jérusalem-Est

Le ministère israélien de l'Intérieur a donné son feu vert final pour la construction de 800 nouveaux logements dans le
quartier de colonisation de Gilo, à Jérusalem-Est annexée.

Le quartier de colonisation de Gilo se trouve à proximité de la ville palestinienne de Bethléem, en Cisjordanie. Il est
situé à Jérusalem-Est, le secteur à majorité arabe de la Ville sainte, occupé et annexé par Israël depuis juin 1967.

Au regard du droit international, cette annexion est illégale, de même que toutes les colonies israéliennes dans les
Territoires palestiniens occupés, qu'elles aient ou non été autorisées par le gouvernement israélien.

Le Premier ministre Benjamin Netanyahu veut adopter un rapport juridique légalisant les colonies sauvages et levant
les obstacles juridiques à l'extension des autres implantations en Cisjordanie.

Plus de 340 000 Israéliens habitent dans des colonies en Cisjordanie occupée, et plus de 200 000 autres dans une
douzaine de quartiers érigés à Jérusalem-Est.

Quelque 270 000 Palestiniens vivent à Jérusalem-Est, dont ils veulent faire la capitale de leur futur État.

1. La Vice-Présidente/Haute Représentante est-elle au courant des intentions de Netanyahu de légaliser ces colonies
israéliennes? Est-ce que ceci est en accord avec les valeurs de l'Union européenne?

2. Comment la Vice-Présidente/Haute Représentante compte-t-elle justifier le rehaussement des relations qu'elle
envisage dans ses accords avec Israël eu égard aux violations flagrantes des droits des Palestiniens?

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

_(15 janvier 2013)_

La Vice‐présidente/Haute Représentante a connaissance du rapport Levy auquel l'Honorable Parlementaire fait
référence dans sa question. Il convient toutefois de préciser que les recommandations formulées dans ce document
n'ont pas encore été adoptées par le gouvernement israélien.

Dans sa déclaration du 19 octobre 2012 sur l'expansion de la colonie de Gilo, le porte‐parole de la Vice‐
présidente/Haute Représentante a clairement indiqué que les colonies de peuplement étaient illégales au regard du
droit international et menaçaient de rendre impossible une solution fondée sur la coexistence de deux États. L'Union
européenne a souvent insisté auprès du gouvernement israélien pour qu'il mette immédiatement fin à toutes les
activités de peuplement en Cisjordanie, y compris à Jérusalem‐Est, conformément aux obligations qui lui incombe en
vertu de la feuille de route. La déclaration indique clairement que l'expansion des colonies de peuplement, tant à Gilo
qu'à Har Homa en 2011 et 2012, poursuit le processus visant à séparer Jérusalem‐Est du reste du territoire palestinien
occupé.

L'UE ne renforce pas ses relations avec Israël. Lors de la réunion du Conseil d'association UE‐Israël qui a eu lieu le
24 juillet 2012, l'UE a rappelé la position adoptée pour la première fois en 2009, à savoir qu'un renforcement des
relations, initialement prévu en 2008, doit être considéré dans le contexte du large éventail de nos intérêts et objectifs
communs, notamment la résolution du conflit israélo‐palestinien par la mise en œuvre de la solution fondée sur la
coexistence de deux États.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 111

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009722/12**

**to the Commission**
**Patrick Le Hyaric (GUE/NGL)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Expansion of the settlement in Gilo in East Jerusalem

The Israeli Minister for the Interior has given the final go-ahead for construction of 800 new dwellings in the
settlement area of Gilo in annexed East Jerusalem.

Gilo is a settlement area near to the Palestinian town of Bethlehem on the West Bank. It is located in East Jerusalem,
the holy city’s mainly Arab sector occupied by Israel since its annexation in June 1967.

Under international law this annexation is illegal, as are all the Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian
territories regardless of whether or not they were authorised by the Israeli Government.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants to adopt a legal report legalising the illegal settlements and removing legal
obstacles to expanding other settlements on the West Bank.

More than 340 000 Israelis live in settlements in the occupied West Bank, with another 200 000 living in a dozen
areas built in East Jerusalem.

Some 270 000 Palestinians live in East Jerusalem, which they want to make the capital of their future State.

1. Is the Vice-President/High Representative aware of Mr Netanyahu’s intention to legalise these Jewish
settlements? Is this in keeping with the values of the European Union?

2. How will the Vice-President/High Representative justify upgrading relations, as envisaged in its agreements with
Israel, in view of the flagrant violations of the Palestinians’ rights?

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

_(15 January 2013)_

The HR/VP is aware of the so-called Levy Report referred to in the Honourable Member’s question. It should be noted,
however, that its recommendations have not, at this point, been adopted by the Israeli government.

The spokesperson of the HR/VP issued a statement on 19 October 2012 on the expansion of Gilo where it is clearly
said that settlements are illegal under international law and threaten to make a two-state solution impossible. The EU
has repeatedly urged the Government of Israel to immediately end all settlement activities in the West Bank, including
in East Jerusalem, in line with its obligations under the Roadmap. The expansion of Gilo, together with the expansion
of Har Homa in 2011 and 2012 continue the process of separating East Jerusalem from the rest of the occupied
Palestinian territory, as the statement made clear.

The EU is not upgrading relations with Israel. At the EU-Israel Association Council on 24 July 2012, the EU reiterated
its position first set out in 2009, that upgrading relations, originally envisaged in 2008, must be seen in the context of
the broad range of our common interests and objectives, including the resolution of the Israel-Palestinian conflict
through the implementation of the two-state solution.

C 310 E / 112 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-009723/12**

**à la Commission**
**Patrick Le Hyaric (GUE/NGL)**

_(24 octobre 2012)_

_Objet:_ Obstacles aux entreprises pharmaceutiques palestiniennes

D'après un rapport de l'ONG israélienne Who profits intitulé «Captive Economy: the Pharmaceutical Industry and the
Israeli Occupation» (Une économie captive: l'industrie pharmaceutique et l'occupation israélienne), les entreprises
palestiniennes sont confrontées à de multiples obstacles et exigences qui freinent leur développement, tandis que les
entreprises israéliennes, notamment TEVA, jouissent de nombreux avantages.

Les obstacles auxquels sont confrontées les entreprises palestiniennes sont, entre autres:

—
interdiction d'exporter des médicaments de Gaza (et même d'en sortir);

—
dans le cas des entreprises installées en Cisjordanie occupée: impossibilité d'exporter vers les pays arabes voisins
du fait des exigences du ministère israélien de la Santé, qui autorise les Palestiniens à importer uniquement les
médicaments enregistrés en Israël;

—
fermeture du marché israélien aux entreprises palestiniennes;

—
interdiction de vendre les médicaments aux institutions de santé et aux pharmacies installées à Jérusalem-Est;

—
impossibilité de vacciner les enfants qui fréquentent les écoles sous direction palestinienne avec des vaccins
palestiniens;

—
nécessité de décharger les camions au poste-frontière et de transborder les médicaments expédiés vers Gaza.

À cela s'ajoutent divers autres obstacles administratifs, dont la nécessité pour les Palestiniens représentant des
multinationales du secteur d'obtenir une «lettre de non-opposition» du ministre israélien de la Santé, alors que leurs
collègues israéliens sont exemptés de cette formalité. En conclusion, le marché palestinien est aujourd'hui un marché
captif, bridé par des ententes économiques contraignantes et les divers obstacles et restrictions qu'impose Israël,
souvent au nom de la sécurité et du contrôle de qualité.

Au vu de ces informations, la Commission est priée de répondre aux questions suivantes:

1. La Commission est-elle au courant du rapport «Captive Economy: the Pharmaceutical Industry and the Israeli
Occupation» et quel est son avis?

2. La Commission a-t-elle effectué des enquêtes visant à délimiter les obstacles auxquels font face les entreprises
palestiniennes avant d'engager la négociation du protocole, dit ACAA, facilitant l'accès des produits industriels
européens au marché israélien et vice-versa?

3. La Commission est-elle au courant des activités des industries pharmaceutiques dans les territoires occupés
illégalement par Israël?

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

_(17 décembre 2012)_

La Commission prend acte du rapport intitulé «Captive Economy — The Pharmaceutical Industry and the Israeli
Occupation» (Une économie captive: l'industrie pharmaceutique et l'occupation israélienne), publié en juillet 2012.
Elle est consciente de la situation très difficile dans laquelle se trouve la population palestinienne en ce qui concerne
les produits pharmaceutiques, ainsi que la vie quotidienne d'une manière plus générale.

D'après le rapport, il existe six principaux fabricants palestiniens de produits pharmaceutiques, quatre munis d'un
certificat de BPF (bonnes pratiques de fabrication) de l'Organisation mondiale de la santé et deux d'un certificat de BPF
délivré par l'UE. L'accord sur l'évaluation de la conformité et l'acceptation des produits industriels (ACAA) permettrait
à ces fabricants de demander le certificat de BPF de l'UE auprès du ministère israélien de la santé, plutôt qu'auprès d'un
État membre.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 113

Il convient de préciser que l'objectif de l'ACAA n'est pas d'aider les entreprises pharmaceutiques palestiniennes à
surmonter les obstacles qu'elles rencontrent pour exporter vers Israël et vers l'UE leurs produits fabriqués selon des
normes palestiniennes. La situation décrite dans le rapport «Captive Economy» n'est pas liée à la mise en œuvre de
l'ACAA et c'est aux autorités israéliennes qu'il appartient de la régler. L'ACAA permettra aux entreprises
pharmaceutiques palestiniennes qui fabriquent des produits conformément aux normes israéliennes et de l'UE de les
exporter vers Israël et l'UE. Il n'est pas utile de mener une enquête préliminaire à cet égard.

La Commission a reçu des informations de la part des autorités israéliennes indiquant qu'il n'y avait pas de fabrication
de produits pharmaceutiques dans les colonies israéliennes. Ces informations ont été confirmées par des
organisations non gouvernementales qui surveillent de près la situation en ce qui concerne la production industrielle
ou le développement dans les colonies israéliennes.

C 310 E / 114 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009723/12**

**to the Commission**
**Patrick Le Hyaric (GUE/NGL)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Obstacles faced by Palestinian pharmaceutical companies

According to a report by the Israeli _Who profits_ NGO entitled ‘Captive Economy: the Pharmaceutical Industry and the
Israeli Occupation’, Palestinian companies are faced with a range of obstacles and requirements which hinder their
development, whilst Israeli companies, in particular Teva, enjoy many benefits.

The obstacles faced by Palestinian companies include the following situations:

—
there is a ban on the export of medicines from Gaza (and even on taking them out of the territory);

—
it is impossible for companies located in the occupied West Bank to export to neighbouring Arab states
because of requirements imposed by the Israeli health ministry, which authorises Palestinians to import only
medicines which are registered in Israel;

—
the Israeli market is closed to Palestinian companies;

—
it is forbidden to sell medicines to healthcare institutions and pharmacies located in East Jerusalem;

—
it is not possible to vaccinate children attending schools under Palestinian administrative control with
Palestinian vaccines;

— lorries must be unloaded at the border and medicines bound for Gaza must be transferred to other vehicles.

In addition there are further administrative obstacles, including the need for Palestinians representing multinationals
in the sector to obtain a ‘letter of non-opposition’ from the Israeli health minister; their Israeli counterparts are
exempt from this requirement. Today’s Palestinian market is a captive one, curbed by restrictive economic
agreements and various obstacles and restrictions imposed by Israel, often in the name of security and quality control.

1. Is the Commission aware of the report entitled ‘Captive Economy: the Pharmaceutical Industry and the Israeli
Occupation’? What is the Commission’s view of this?

2. Has the Commission conducted any surveys with the aim of determining the obstacles faced by Palestinian
companies prior to starting negotiations on the ACAA protocol which will enable European industrial products to
have access to the Israeli market and vice versa?

3. Is the Commission aware of the activities of the pharmaceutical companies in the territories which are illegally
occupied by Israel?

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

_(17 December 2012)_

The Commission takes note of the report Captive Economy — The Pharmaceutical Industry and the Israeli
Occupation that was published in July 2012. The Commission is aware of the very difficult situation of the Palestinian
population as regards pharmaceutical products as well as daily life more generally.

According to the report, there are six main Palestinian manufacturers, four having a World Health Organisation Good
Manufacturing Practices (GMP) certificate and two an EU GMP certificate. The Agreement on Conformity Assessment
and Acceptance of Industrial Products (ACAA) would allow these manufacturers to ask for the EU GMP certificate
from the Israeli Ministry of Health rather than from a Member State.

It should be clarified that ACAA is not designed to help surmount the obstacles faced by Palestinian pharmaceutical
companies when exporting their products, manufactured according to Palestinian standards, to Israel and the EU. The
situation described in the _Captive Economy_ report should be addressed by the Israeli Authorities and is not connected
to the ACAA implementation. The important element here is that the ACAA will apply to Palestinian pharmaceutical
companies for products manufactured to Israeli/EU standards, thus allowing them to export to Israel and the EU. In
this regard, a preliminary survey is not of relevance.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 115

The Commission has received information from Israeli authorities that there is no production of pharmaceutical
products in Israeli settlements. This has been corroborated by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) which are
closely monitoring the situation in terms of industrial production or development in the Israeli settlements.

C 310 E / 116 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-009724/12**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(24 octobre 2012)_

_Objet:_ Zones humides à vocation agricole

Les enjeux sociaux, économiques et environnementaux en zones humides sont plus forts qu'ailleurs. Dans ces zones,
l'agriculture a un rôle multifonctionnel: elle permet de structurer le territoire, joue un rôle de régulateur des eaux,
assure l'entretien des berges ainsi que la préservation du paysage et de la biodiversité. Elle remplit à ce titre une
mission de service public, alors même que les systèmes agricoles sont soumis à d'importantes contraintes liées à la
nature de ces zones (inondations, accès difficile aux parcelles, espèces invasives, mécanisation limitée, etc.),
génératrices de surcoûts. La proposition de règlement de la Commission européenne relatif au soutien au
développement rural ne prévoit aucun soutien spécifiquement dédié à ces zones. Ces dernières ne sont pas reconnues
en tant que zones à contraintes (naturelles ou spécifiques).

1. Comment la Commission se positionne-t-elle quant au fait qu'aucune compensationfinancière n'est envisagée
pour les agriculteurs exploitant en zones humides dans le projetde règlement pour le développement rural
(COM(2011)0627)?

2. Comment la Commission juge-t-elle le fait que le maintien de ces milieux et de la relationhomme/nature dans
ces zones serait alors entièrement soumis à la libre appréciation des États membres?

3. Quels sont les arguments qui poussent la Commission à ne pas envisager lareconnaissance du caractère sensible
(d'un point de vue économique, écologique ousocial) de ces zones au niveau européen, au même titre que les zones de
montagne?

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

_(11 décembre 2012)_

La proposition de la Commission concernant un règlement du Parlement européen et du Conseil relatif au soutien au
développement rural par le Fonds européen agricole pour le développement rural (Feader) COM(2011)627/3 recèle
un certain nombre de possibilités de soutenir l'agriculture dans les zones humides. Le soutien aux zones soumises à
des contraintes naturelles ou spécifiques est l'un des outils possibles. En fonction de la contrainte à laquelle elles sont
effectivement soumises, les zones humides peuvent être délimitées comme appartenant à deux catégories.
Premièrement, la catégorie des zones soumises à des contraintes naturelles où les critères de «drainage des sols limité»
et d'«excès d'humidité des sols» pourraient être particulièrement pertinents. Deuxièmement, s'agissant de la catégorie
des zones soumises à des contraintes spécifiques, il est possible de délimiter des zones où la poursuite de la gestion des
terres devrait être nécessaire pour assurer la conservation ou l'amélioration de l'environnement, l'entretien du paysage
rural et la préservation du potentiel touristique de la zone ou dans le but de protéger le littoral. Dans ces deux
catégories de zones soumises à des contraintes, les agriculteurs peuvent être indemnisés de la perte de revenu et des
coûts supplémentaires.

Rappelons que l'article 31 de la proposition susmentionnée prévoit une indemnisation en raison des désavantages
résultant de la mise en œuvre de la directive-cadre sur l'eau dans ces zones.

De plus, des paiements au titre de mesures agroenvironnementales et climatiques pourraient être accordés pour
indemniser un agriculteur en zone humide qui a recours à des pratiques agricoles respectueuses de l'environnement et
dont les engagements vont au-delà du niveau de référence défini à l'article 29 de la proposition.

Pour terminer, les zones soumises à des contraintes naturelles pourraient également bénéficier d'une aide au titre du
régime de paiements directs.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 117

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009724/12**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Agricultural wetlands

Social, economic, and environmental challenges in wetlands are greater than in other places. Wetland farming plays a
multifunctional role, since it helps to structure territory, regulate waters, maintain river-banks, and preserve the
landscape and biodiversity. To that extent it performs a public service, even though farming systems are severely
constrained by the nature of wetlands themselves (floods, difficulty of getting to plots, invasive species, limited
mechanisation, etc.), resulting in extra costs. The Commission proposal for a regulation on support for rural
development does not include any form of support intended specifically for wetlands, which are not recognised as
areas with (natural or specific) constraints.

1. How does the Commission view the fact that the draft rural development regulation (COM(2011)0627) does
not provide for financial compensation for farmers working in wetlands?

2. What does it think about the fact that, as far as wetlands are concerned, conservation and the relationship
between humans and the natural environment will consequently be left entirely to the judgment of Member States?

3. Why is it ruling out the option of Europe-wide recognition of the (economically, ecologically, or socially)
sensitive nature of wetlands, according them the same status as mountain areas?

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

_(11 December 2012)_

The Commission proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on support for rural
development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) COM(2011) 627/3 contains a
number of possibilities to support farming in wetlands. The support for areas with natural or specific constraints is
one of the tools. Wetlands may be, depending on the actual constraint present, delimited in two categories — the
areas with natural constraints where the criteria of ‘limited soil drainage’ and ‘excess soil moisture’ could be
particularly pertinent. Secondly, in the category of areas with specific constraints, it is possible to delimit such areas
where land management should be continued in order to conserve or improve the environment, maintain the
countryside and preserve the tourist potential of the area or in order to protect the coastline. In both categories of
areas with constraints, farmers can receive payments covering their income loss and additional costs.

It should be recalled that Article 31 of the abovementioned proposal provides for compensation for area-specific
disadvantages caused by implementation of the Water Framework Directive.

Furthermore, agri-environment-climate payments could be made available to compensate a farmer in a wetland area
for applying particular environmentally friendly farming practices going beyond the ‘baseline’ of practices set out in
Article 29 of the proposal.

Finally, areas with natural constraints could also receive support under the Direct payments scheme.

C 310 E / 118 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009725/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Claudio Morganti (EFD)**

_(24 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Giornalisti in carcere in Turchia

Un recente rapporto pubblicato dall'organizzazione internazionale «Committee to Protect Journalists» (CPJ) sottolinea
come la Turchia detenga oggi il triste primato mondiale di giornalisti detenuti in carcere, con ben 76 casi.

Oltre il 75 % di questi si trova imprigionato in attesa di giudizio, colpiti da leggi restrittive che condannano ogni
opinione ostile a mezzo stampa nei confronti dei vertici del Paese.

Un terzo dei reporter in manette è inoltre accusato di coinvolgimento in complotti antigovernativi o adesione a
gruppi politici fuorilegge. Molti di loro sono legati al caso «Ergenekon», che riguarda una presunta rete
ultranazionalista e ultralaica sospettata di preparare un golpe contro il governo islamico di Erdogan.

Infine, circa il 70 % degli arrestati è di etnia curda e è accusato di sostenere il terrorismo con articoli a favore dei
separatisti del PKK.

Può la Commissione riferire se vi sono altri Paesi nei quali i giornalisti finiscono spesso in carcere a causa del loro
lavoro, come ad esempio in Iran, Cina o Eritrea, stante che in nessuno di questi sussiste una situazione così
drammatica come in Turchia e soprattutto nessuno di questi ha in corso negoziati di adesione con l'Unione europea?

Alla luce di tutto questo, ritiene necessario e doveroso interrompere immediatamente ogni ulteriore velleità di accordi
di adesione della Turchia con l'Unione europea?

La libertà di espressione e di informazione è chiaramente sancita dall'articolo 11 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali
dell'Unione europea e rappresenta un valore sul quale non si può transigere. In Italia abbiamo, ad esempio, proprio in
questi giorni il rischio concreto che un giornalista condannato per diffamazione venga messo agli arresti in carcere: si
tratta di una misura che non si vedeva applicata da decenni nel nostro ordinamento, che fa segnare un pericoloso
balzo all'indietro alla libertà di stampa e di espressione e per la quale anche l'Unione europea dovrebbe far sentire la

sua voce.

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009738/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Mario Borghezio (EFD)**

_(24 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Giornalisti detenuti in Turchia: intervento dell'UE

Nella comunicazione «Strategia di allargamento e sfide principali per il periodo 2012-2013» (COM(2012)0600), la
Commissione afferma che «per quanto riguarda la libertà di espressione, dopo l'adozione del terzo pacchetto di
riforme giudiziarie un certo numero di giornalisti è stato rilasciato in attesa di processo, le restrizioni imposte ai
media per quanto riguarda i servizi sulle indagini criminali sono state rese meno rigorose e il sequestro delle opere
scritte prima della pubblicazione è stato vietato».

Uno studio americano condotto dal Cpj (Comitato per la protezione dei giornalisti) sostiene, invece, che la Turchia
detiene il record mondiale per il numero di giornalisti in carcere, più che in Cina o in Iran. Inoltre, nei 76 casi di
giornalisti detenuti in Turchia al 1° agosto 2012, almeno 61 erano detenuti per ragioni collegate con quanto da loro
scritto o per le loro attività di raccolta di informazioni. Infine, più dei tre quarti dei cronisti in carcere sono in
detenzione preventiva, a volte da anni. In Turchia, a fine 2011 erano pendenti 5mila cause penali contro giornalisti.

1. Al netto delle sue preoccupazioni più volte ribadite, come intende la Commissione in pratica porre fine a questa
situazione?

2. È essa in grado di fornire il numero esatto e reale dei giornalisti detenuti e di quelli rilasciati in attesa di processo?

3. Ritiene che questa situazione sia suscettibile, necessariamente e nel rispetto dei diritti fondamentali, di congelare
le procedure di adesione all'UE della Turchia?

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 119

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009905/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Fiorello Provera (EFD)**

_(30 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Giro di vite sulla libertà di stampa in Turchia

Il 22 ottobre 2012, il Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) (Comitato di protezione dei giornalisti) riferiva che la
Turchia è responsabile di una delle più grandi operazioni di repressione della libertà di stampa del mondo. Il rapporto
asserisce che la Turchia incarcera più giornalisti che Iran, Cina o Eritrea. Per la maggior parte sono detenuti, mentre i
loro casi sono oggetto di riesame. Quasi due terzi di loro hanno scritto sulla situazione nella regione curda del paese.

L'organizzazione dichiara che il governo di Recep Tayyip Erdogan sta usando tattiche di pressione che favoriscono
l'autocensura, e che i giornalisti accusati devono affrontare un codice penale che favorisce lo Stato. La notizia fa
notare che 76 giornalisti sono stati arrestati nel mese di agosto 2012, e almeno un terzo di loro è accusato di essere
coinvolto in trame antigovernative, tra cui la cosiddetta cospirazione «Ergenekon», che è stata accusata di essere una
rete clandestina di persone che vorrebbero rovesciare il governo.

Si riferisce anche che il Primo Ministro Erdogan ha esortato i gruppi dirigenti dei media a disciplinare o licenziare il
personale giudicato critico e sono state depositate un certo numero di denunce per diffamazione personale. In
particolare nel corso del 2009, una multa multimiliardaria in lire turche è stata inflitta al maggiore gruppo di media
del paese, Dogan Yayin.

1. La Commissione è a conoscenza della portata del giro di vite contro i giornalisti in atto in Turchia?

2. Qual è la posizione della Commissione su questo tema?

3. La Commissione è disposta a sollevare con le autorità turche la propria preoccupazione per il numero di
giornalisti detenuti?

4. Qual è la valutazione che i funzionari UE ad Ankara danno sulle conclusioni dell’ultimo rapporto CPJ che
criticano la Turchia?

**Risposta congiunta di Štefan Füle a nome della Commissione**

_(18 dicembre 2012)_

La Commissione è a conoscenza del rapporto menzionato dall’onorevole parlamentare.

La Commissione segue da vicino gli sviluppi in Turchia nel quadro dei criteri politici, di cui la libertà di espressione e,
di conseguenza, la libertà di stampa costituiscono elementi essenziali. In diverse occasioni la Commissione ha
espresso forte preoccupazione per l’aumento delle violazioni della libertà di espressione e ha ripetutamente
sottolineato che, nonostante i recenti miglioramenti legislativi, l’attuale quadro giuridico non garantisce
sufficientemente la libertà di espressione, conformemente alla Convenzione europea dei diritti dell'uomo e alla
giurisprudenza della Corte europea dei diritti dell'uomo, poiché consente un’interpretazione restrittiva da parte del
sistema giudiziario. Tale situazione va modificata con urgenza e la Commissione attende con interesse l’adozione di
un quarto pacchetto di riforme giudiziarie che affronti il nocciolo del problema. La Commissione solleva questa
questione regolarmente nei suoi contatti con le autorità turche.

Un’analisi dettagliata sulla libertà di espressione in Turchia è contenuta nella relazione 2012, adottata il
10 ottobre 2012 ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/countries/strategy-and-progress-report/index_en.htm

C 310 E / 120 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-009971/12**

**aan de Commissie**
**Laurence J. A. J. Stassen (NI)**

_(31 oktober 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Rapport „Turkey's Press Freedom Crisis”

In het rapport „Turkey's Press Freedom Crisis — The Dark Days of Jailing Journalists and Criminalizing Dissent
(A special report by the Committee to Protect Journalists)” wordt de schrijnende repressie van journalisten en de
zorgwekkende inperking van de vrijheid van meningsuiting in Turkije scherp veroordeeld. Onder andere de
volgende zaken worden in het rapport aangehaald:

—
In artikel 301 van de zogeheten Turkse „Penal Code” wordt gesteld dat het verboden is in Turkije de Turkse
etniciteit of de Turkse overheidsinstituties te beledigen.

—
Onder de regering van zittend premier Erdoğan vinden in Turkije de ergste repressie van journalisten en de
ergste inperking van de vrijheid van meningsuiting sinds tijden plaats. Op 1 augustus 2012 zaten in Turkije
76 journalisten in de gevangenis. Onderzoek heeft uitgewezen dat zeker 61 van hen daar zitten vanwege hun
werk — vanwege het zogenaamd „beledigen van de islam of de Turkse natie”. 70 % van de gevangen
journalisten is van Koerdische komaf.

1. Is de Commissie bekend met het rapport „Turkey's Press Freedom Crisis — The Dark Days of Jailing Journalists
and Criminalizing Dissent (A special report by the Committee to Protect Journalists)” ( [1] )?

2. Hoe beoordeelt de Commissie het betreffende rapport? Is zij verrast/teleurgesteld/ontdaan?

3. Ziet de Commissie het rapport als een bevestiging van de daadwerkelijke tekortkomingen in Turkije op het
gebied van vrijheid van pers en vrijheid van meningsuiting? Zo ja, welk vervolg gaat de Commissie hieraan
geven? Zo neen, waarom niet?

4. In het rapport wordt de EU ertoe opgeroepen met Turkije in gesprek te blijven en op verbetering aan te dringen.
Vindt de Commissie dit een goed idee of deelt de Commissie de mening dat dit reeds een hopeloos verloren
zaak is?

5. Ziet de Commissie in dat Turkije „EU-onwaardig” is en derhalve nooit tot de EU moet toetreden? Is de
Commissie derhalve ertoe bereid alle toetredingsonderhandelingen met én alle EU-geldstromen naar Turkije
direct te beëindigen?

**Antwoord van de heer Füle namens de Commissie**

_(18 december 2012)_

De Commissie is bekend met het door de geachte Parlementsleden vermelde rapport.

De Commissie toetst de ontwikkelingen in Turkije nauwgezet aan de politieke criteria, waarvan de vrijheid van
meningsuiting en derhalve de persvrijheid, essentiële onderdelen zijn. De Commissie heeft reeds meermaals haar
ernstige bezorgdheid geuit over het stijgende aantal schendingen van de vrijheid van meningsuiting en heeft
consequent benadrukt dat de huidige wetgeving, ondanks de recente inhoudelijke verbeteringen, de vrijheid van
meningsuiting niet voldoende waarborgt, en in dat opzicht in strijd is met het Europees Verdrag voor de Rechten van
de Mens en de jurisprudentie van het Europees Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens, en een restrictieve interpretatie
door de rechterlijke macht mogelijk maakt. Dit moet hoognodig veranderen, en de Commissie verheugt zich op de
aanneming van het vierde pakket justitiële hervormingen om dit probleem ten gronde aan te pakken. De Commissie
vraagt regelmatig aandacht voor deze aangelegenheid in het kader van haar lopende contacten met de Turkse
autoriteiten.

Een gedetailleerde analyse inzake de vrijheid van meningsuiting in Turkije is te vinden in het op 10 oktober 2012
vastgestelde voortgangsverslag 2012.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://cpj.org/reports/2012/10/turkeys-press-freedom-crisis.php.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 121

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009725/12**

**to the Commission**
**Claudio Morganti (EFD)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Journalists imprisoned in Turkey

A report recently published by the international organisation Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) emphasises that
Turkey currently has the unfortunate distinction of being the country with the largest number of journalists in prison,
76.

More than 75% of those 76 are in prison awaiting trial under restrictive laws designed to clamp down on the
expression through the press of any opinions hostile to the country’s leaders.

One-third of the reporters in custody are also accused of involvement in anti-government conspiracies or of
membership of an illegal political organisation. Most of these accusations are linked to the ‘Ergenekon’ case involving
an alleged ultra-nationalist and ultra-secular network suspected of preparing a coup against Erdogan’s Islamic
government.

Finally, some 70% of the journalists already in detention are Kurds accused of supporting terrorism through articles
favourable to the separatist party PKK.

Can the Commission name any other countries in which journalists frequently end up in prison simply for carrying
out their work, as they do for example in Iran, China or Eritrea, bearing in mind that in none of the countries just
referred to is the situation as serious as it is in Turkey and, above all, that none of them is in the process of negotiating
to join the European Union?

In the light of the above, does it not regard it as a political and moral imperative that the accession negotiations with
Turkey should be halted immediately?

Freedom of expression and freedom of information are enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights
of the European Union, and when dealing with these freedoms no compromise is possible. Right now in Italy, for
example, there is a real danger that a journalist found guilty of defamation will be imprisoned. No measure of this
kind has been taken for decades and it represents a dangerous backward step as regards freedom of the press and of
expression, and one which the European Union should also condemn.

**Question for written answer E-009738/12**

**to the Commission**
**Mario Borghezio (EFD)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Journalists imprisoned in Turkey: EU intervention

In its communication entitled ‘Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2012-2013’ (COM(2012)0600) the
Commission states, with reference to Turkey, that ‘with regard to freedom of expression, following the adoption of
the third judicial reform package a number of journalists were released pending trial, restrictions on the media to
report on criminal investigations were eased and the seizure of written work before publication was prohibited’.

An American study conducted by the CPJ (Committee to Protect Journalists) paints a very different picture, however,
claiming that Turkey holds the world record for the number of journalists imprisoned, ahead of China and Iran. What
is more, of the 76 journalists in prison in Turkey on 1 August 2012 at least 61 were being held for reasons linked to
articles they had written or to their information-gathering activities. Finally, more than three-quarters of the
journalists in prison are being held in preventive detention, and some of them have already been in this situation for
several years. At the end of 2011 in Turkey 5 000 criminal cases were pending against journalists.

1. In the light of the concerns it has repeatedly expressed, what steps does the Commission plan to take to remedy
this situation?

2. Can it give precise and accurate figures for the number of journalists in prison and the number who have been
released pending trial?

C 310 E / 122 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

3. Does it take the view, in keeping with the principle of respect for fundamental rights, that this state of affairs
should lead to the suspension of the negotiations on Turkey’s accession to the EU?

**Question for written answer E-009905/12**

**to the Commission**
**Fiorello Provera (EFD)**

_(30 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Crackdown on press freedom in Turkey

On 22 October 2012, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) reported that Turkey is responsible for one of the
world’s biggest crackdowns on press freedom. Its report states that Turkey jails more journalists than Iran, China or
Eritrea. Most are detained while their cases are under review. Almost two thirds of them have written about the
situation in the country’s Kurdish region.

The organisation says that Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government is using pressure tactics which encourage selfcensorship, and that those journalists who are charged are confronted with a criminal code which favours the state.
The report notes that 76 journalists were detained in August 2012, with at least a third of them being accused of
involvement in anti‐government plots, including the so-called Ergenekon conspiracy. This was alleged to be an
underground network of individuals wanting to overthrow the government.

There are even reports that Prime Minister Erdogan has urged media groups to discipline or dismiss staff who are
deemed to be critical, and a number of personal defamation suits have been filed. Most notably, in 2009 a multibillion-lira tax fine was imposed on the country’s largest media group, Dogan Yayin.

1. Is the Commission aware of the extent of the current crackdown on journalists in Turkey?

2. What is its position on this issue?

3. Is it prepared to bring its concerns regarding the number of detained journalists to the attention of the Turkish
authorities?

4. What is the assessment of EU officials in Ankara regarding the critical findings of the latest CPJ report on
Turkey?

**Question for written answer E-009971/12**

**to the Commission**
**Laurence J.A.J. Stassen (NI)**

_(31 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Report on ‘Turkey's Press Freedom Crisis’

The report ‘Turkey's Press Freedom Crisis — The Dark Days of Jailing Journalists and Criminalizing Dissent (A special
report by the Committee to Protect Journalists)’ strongly condemns the appalling repression of journalists and the
worrying restriction of freedom of expression in Turkey. The points made in the report include the following:

—
Article 301 of the so-called Turkish ‘Penal Code’ stipulates that, in Turkey, it is prohibited to insult Turkish
ethnicity or Turkish government institutions.

—
Under the government of the current Prime Minister, Erdoğan, the worst repression of journalists and the worst
restriction of freedom of expression in a long time are occurring in Turkey. As at 1 August 2012, 76 journalists
were serving prison sentences in Turkey. Research has shown that at least 61 of them were imprisoned on
account of their work — for allegedly ‘insulting Islam or the Turkish nation’. 70% of the imprisoned journalists
are of Kurdish origin.

1. Is the Commission familiar with the report ‘Turkey's Press Freedom Crisis — The Dark Days of Jailing
Journalists and Criminalizing Dissent (A special report by the Committee to Protect Journalists)’ ( [1] )?

2. What view does the Commission take of this report? Is it surprised/disappointed/ shocked?

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://cpj.org/reports/2012/10/turkeys-press-freedom-crisis.php.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 123

3. Does the Commission see the report as confirmation of the actual shortcomings in Turkey with regard to
freedom of the press and freedom of expression? If so, what action will the Commission take in response to
this? If not, why not?

4. The report calls on the EU to continue its dialogue with Turkey and to urge that improvements be made. Does
the Commission consider this a good idea, or does the Commission agree that this is already a hopelessly lost
cause?

5. Does the Commission acknowledge that Turkey is not worthy to be a member of the EU and should therefore
never be allowed to join it? Will the Commission therefore immediately halt all accession negotiations with
Turkey and all EU funding of that country?

**Question for written answer E-010359/12**

**to the Commission**
**William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)**

_(13 November 2012)_

_Subject:_ Media freedoms in Turkey

The Committee to Protect Journalists has accused Turkey of carrying out the ‘world’s biggest crackdown’ on media
freedoms, stating that as of last week, at least 61 journalists were in prison in the country. If Turkey joins the EU, how
will its crackdown on media freedoms affect the validity of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights?

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

_(18 December 2012)_

The Commission is aware of the report mentioned by the Honourable Members.

The Commission closely monitors developments in Turkey under the political criteria, of which freedom of
expression and hence freedom of the press, are essential components. The Commission has expressed on several
occasions serious concerns regarding the increase in violations of freedom of expression, and it has consistently
underlined that, despite recent legislative improvements, the present legal framework does not sufficiently guarantee
freedom of expression in line with the European Convention on Human Rights and case-law of the European Court of
Human Rights and permits restrictive interpretation by the judiciary. This needs to be changed urgently, and the
Commission is looking forward to the adoption of a fourth judicial reform package to address the core of the
problem. The Commission regularly raises this matter in its ongoing contacts with the Turkish authorities.

A detailed analysis of the freedom of expression in Turkey can be found in the 2012 Progress Report adopted on
10 October 2012.

C 310 E / 124 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Svensk version)_

**Frågor för skriftligt besvarande P-009726/12**

**till kommissionen**
**Marita Ulvskog (S&D)**

_(24 oktober 2012)_

_Angående:_ John Dallis avgång och kommissionens fortsatta hantering av tobaksdirektivet

Tisdagen den 16 oktober 2012 avgick EU-kommissionär John Dalli från sitt uppdrag. Kommissionen har endast i ett
pressmeddelande redogjort för bakgrunden till avgången. De folkvalda i Europaparlamentet och medierna har inte
fått någon närmare redogörelse för händelseförloppet.

EU-kommissionen är sedan tidigare väl medveten om snusfrågans betydelse i Sverige. Under våren och sommaren
2012 pågick en debatt om det svenska undantaget från EU:s generella förbud mot marknadsföring och försäljning av
snus. Kommissionens hantering av det nya tobaksdirektivet är följaktligen av stort svenskt intresse.

EU-kommissonär John Dallis plötsliga avgång och dess koppling till just det svenska snuset leder till många frågor.

Med denna bakgrund vill jag be kommissionen om klargörande på följande punkter:

1. Kommissionen har hittills endast kommenterat John Dallis avgång i ett pressmeddelande. När avser
kommissionen närmare redogöra för de orsaker som låg bakom kommissionärens avgång?

2. Vilka åtgärder avser kommissionen vidta för att säkerställa att den fortsatta handläggningen av tobaksdirektivet
genomförs korrekt, i enlighet med tillämplig lagstiftning, utan olämplig påverkan från utomstående parter?

**Svar från Maroš Šefčovič på kommissionens vägnar**

_(22 november 2012)_

1. Kommissionen har redan förklarat omständigheterna kring John Dallis avgång.

2. Som kommissionen redan sagt har kommissionens beslutsprocess inte påverkats alls av de frågor som utreds av
Olaf. Kommissionen kommer att gå vidare med förslaget till översyn av tobaksdirektivet. Förhållandet mellan
tillsynsmyndigheter på tobaksområdet och tobaksindustri regleras i artikel 5.3 i Världshälsoorganisationens
ramkonvention om tobakskontroll, som EU anslutit sig till.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 125

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-009726/12**

**to the Commission**
**Marita Ulvskog (S&D)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Departure of John Dalli and the Commission's further approach to the Tobacco Directive

On Tuesday, 16 October 2012, Commissioner John Dalli resigned. The Commission has explained the background to
his resignation only in a press release. Neither elected Members of the European Parliament nor the media have
received any more detailed account of what happened.

The Commission has for some time been aware of the importance of the issue of ‘snus’ (chewing tobacco) in Sweden.
During the spring and summer of 2012, Sweden’s derogation from the general ban on the marketing and sale of snus
was debated. The Commission’s approach to the new Tobacco Directive is therefore of great interest to Sweden.

Commissioner John Dalli’s sudden departure and its link to this very issue of snus in Sweden gives rise to many
questions.

1. So far, the Commission has only commented on John Dalli’s departure in a press release. When will the
Commission explain in greater detail the causes of the Commissioner’s departure?

2. What measures will the Commission take to ensure that its further procedure with regard to the Tobacco
Directive is conducted correctly, in accordance with the legislation applicable and without any inappropriate
influence from outside parties?

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

_(22 November 2012)_

1. The Commission has already explained the circumstances of Mr Dalli's resignation.

2. As the Commission already confirmed, the decision making process of the Commission has not been affected at
all by the matters under OLAF investigation. The Commission will take forward the legislative proposal for a revised
Tobacco Products Directive. The relationship between tobacco regulators and tobacco industry is regulated in
Article 5(3) of the WHO Framework Convention Tobacco Control (FCTC) to which the EU is a Party.

C 310 E / 126 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009727/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(24 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Renta Agraria

Según el Gobierno Catalán, la renta agraria en Cataluña, en el año 2011, disminuyó, a precios constantes, un 6,17 %
respecto al año 2010. Si se tiene en cuenta el año 2002 como base, hasta al año 2011 la renta agraria ha disminuido
un 35 %. Además, los créditos a los productores son cada día más limitados y caros, con lo que se añade otro coste a la
producción y a la vez se limita los incrementos productivos; ( [1] )

A la vista de lo anterior,

1. ¿Puede la Comisión informar si la cadena de valor en el Reino de España funciona correctamente?

2. ¿No cree la Comisión que se han de tomar medidas más agresivas, tanto coyunturales como estructurales, para
que los pequeños productores locales continúen produciendo y a la vez perciban un valor económico adecuado de lo
que producen?

3. ¿Cree la Comisión si dichas disminuciones de renta agraria hacen viables dichas explotaciones catalanas en el
futuro?

4. ¿Puede la Comisión enumerar los motivos por los cuales la renta agraria en el Reino de España está siendo
mermada año tras año?

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

_(9 de enero de 2013)_

La Comisión está examinando las posibles deficiencias de la cadena de suministro alimentario, particularmente en el
marco del Foro de Alto Nivel sobre la Mejora del Funcionamiento de la Cadena Alimentaria (en lo sucesivo
denominado «el Foro»). En ese marco, los interesados han propuesto principios de buenas prácticas para la cadena
alimentaria y han trabajado en la elaboración de un marco de aplicación para esos principios. En la reunión que
celebró el Foro el 5 de diciembre de 2012, se dio apoyo a la rápida aplicación de ese régimen voluntario por parte de
los interesados signatarios. Hay, además, en fase de preparación un Libro Verde de la Comisión sobre las prácticas
comerciales desleales en las relaciones entre empresas. A él le seguirá una evaluación de impacto.

Como parte de las propuestas destinadas a la PAC de después de 2013, la Comisión ha presentado una serie de
medidas que podrían utilizarse para apoyar a los pequeños agricultores. La Comisión considera que las medidas
previstas por la PAC dentro de ambos pilares aportarán el marco necesario para que los Estados miembros puedan
apoyar la viabilidad futura de los pequeños agricultores.

En el caso de España, la renta agraria en términos nominales aumentó a lo largo de la última década, pero se estancó a
precios constantes, con descensos más pronunciados en 2009 y 2011. Dicha renta sigue sufriendo, de hecho, el
impacto de la crisis económica. Entre los factores que la afectan figuran la creciente distancia entre los precios de los
insumos y los de producción, y entre la oferta y la demanda, o la creciente volatilidad y las deficiencias de la cadena
alimentaria. Por encima de todo ello, ejercen también su influencia el entorno económico y las políticas aplicadas.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www20.gencat.cat/portal/site/DAR/menuitem.7d5a409fbe273a69cc497c10d8c0e1a0/?

vgnextoid=b014361d78b24110VgnVCM1000000b0c1e0aRCRD&vgnextchannel=b014361d78b24110VgnVCM1000000b0c1e0aRCRD&vg
nextfmt=detall&contentid=a54f4afef4e7f110VgnVCM1000008d0c1e0aRCRD.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 127

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009727/12**

**to the Commission**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Farm incomes

According to the Catalan government, in 2011 farm incomes in Catalonia fell by 6.17% at constant prices with
respect to 2010. Using 2002 as the base year, farm incomes had fallen by 35% by 2011. Furthermore, loans for
farmers are growing scarcer and more expensive every day; this raises production costs and at the same time limits
productivity growth ( [1] ).

In view of the foregoing,

1. Can the Commission tell us if the value chain is working properly in the Kingdom of Spain?

2. Does the Commission not think that more aggressive short-term as well as structural measures are required to
enable local small-scale producers to go on producing and to be appropriately remunerated for what they produce?

3. Does the Commission believe that these reductions in farm incomes will allow these Catalan farms to be viable

in the future?

4. Can the Commission list the reasons why farm incomes in the Kingdom of Spain are dwindling from year to
year?

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

_(9 January 2013)_

The Commission is looking into possible inefficiencies in the food supply chain in particular in the framework of the
High Level Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain (Forum). Stakeholders under the Forum proposed
principles of good practice in the food chain and worked on an implementation framework for these principles. At
the Forum meeting of December 5th the quick implementation of this voluntary scheme by signatory stakeholders
was supported. A Commission Green Paper on unfair trading practices in business to business relations is also under
preparation and will be followed by an impact assessment.

The Commission has set forth a number of measures under the CAP post-2013 proposals that could be used to
support small scale farmers. The Commission believes that the measures provided by the CAP under both pillars will
provide the necessary framework for Member States to support the future viability of small scale farmers.

In Spain, while farm incomes in nominal terms increased over the last decade, they stagnated in constant prices, with
more pronounced decreases in 2009 and 2011. Agricultural farm incomes in Spain are still showing the impact of
the economic crisis. Factors affecting income may vary from the widening gap between input and output prices as
well as supply and demand to increased volatility and food chain inefficiencies, on top of which the economic
environment and policies play a role.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www20.gencat.cat/portal/site/DAR/menuitem.7d5a409fbe273a69cc497c10d8c0e1a0/?

vgnextoid=b014361d78b24110VgnVCM1000000b0c1e0aRCRD&vgnextchannel=b014361d78b24110VgnVCM1000000b0c1e0aRCRD&vg
nextfmt=detall&contentid=a54f4afef4e7f110VgnVCM1000008d0c1e0aRCRD.

C 310 E / 128 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009728/12**

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

_(24 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ De nuevo sobre las agencias de calificación

En varias ocasiones he manifestado mi preocupación sobre el funcionamiento de las más conocidas agencias de
calificación, así como los efectos perversos de sus anuncios (P-2093/2010 y E-7227/2011). En los últimos días se ha
difundido un informe de técnicos del Banco Central Europeo en el que se resaltan los desaciertos en la evolución de las
valoraciones dadas por esas agencias, así como la correspondencia entre las buenas valoraciones y los contratos con
dichas agencias para la configuración de otros productos.

Por ello me interesa conocer la opinión de la Comisión sobre los siguientes aspectos:

1. ¿Sigue considerando la Comisión que la actual regulación contenida en el Reglamento de 16 de septiembre
de 2009 sobre las agencias de calificación crediticia es suficiente?

2. ¿No considera la Comisión que deberían establecerse con claridad medidas para evitar conflictos de intereses en
la misma empresa y una nítida separación de actividades para que los productos negociables configurados no
sean también valorados por la misma agencia?

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

_(7 de enero de 2013)_

1. Por considerar que era preciso revisar el Reglamento de 2009 sobre las agencias de calificación crediticia ( [1] ), la
Comisión adoptó el 15 de noviembre de 2011 una propuesta que modificaba la normativa existente con varios fines:
reducir la excesiva dependencia de las entidades de crédito respecto de las calificaciones externas, establecer un marco
de responsabilidad civil para las agencias de calificación y mitigar en mayor medida sus conflictos de intereses.

2. En esa propuesta de 2011, la Comisión defendía la necesidad de prohibir i) que se posean acciones o se tengan
otros tipos de intereses en más de una agencia de calificación por un valor superior a un 5 %; ii) que se califique una
entidad o un instrumento en caso de que alguno de los accionistas (por encima de un 10 %) de la agencia de
calificación tenga intereses en la entidad o instrumento calificado; y iii) que se califiquen una entidad o sus
instrumentos cuando la entidad calificada tenga intereses (por encima de un 10 %) en la agencia de calificación.

El 27 de noviembre de 2012, el Consejo y el Parlamento alcanzaron un acuerdo político sobre la propuesta de la
Comisión, un acuerdo que refleja en gran medida las ambiciones de la Comisión en este tema. Las prohibiciones
arriba comentadas se combinarán también con la obligación de que las agencias de calificación informen de los
conflictos de intereses que sobrepasen un umbral de un 5 %.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Reglamento (CE) n° 1060/2009 del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 16 de septiembre de 2009, sobre las agencias de calificación crediticia

(DO L 302 de 17.11.2009), modificado por el Reglamento (UE) n° 513/2011 del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 11 de mayo de 2011
(DO L 145 de 31.5.2011, p. 30).

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 129

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009728/12**

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

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Return to the issue of credit rating agencies

I have on a number of occasions expressed my concerns regarding the workings of the best known credit rating
agencies and the pernicious effects of their forecasts (P-2093/2010 and E‐7227/2011). During the last few days, a
technical paper by experts from the European Central Bank has been in circulation. The paper highlights errors in the
evolution of ratings assigned by these agencies, as well as parallels between positive ratings and contracts with these
agencies for the configuration of other instruments.

I would therefore welcome the Commission's opinion on the following points:

1. Does the Commission still consider the current provisions set out in the regulation of 16 September 2009 on
credit rating agencies to be sufficient?

2. Does the Commission not think that measures need to be clearly established to avoid conflicts of interest
within the same business and that there should be a clear-cut separation between activities so that trading
instruments that are put in place are not also rated by the same agency?

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

_(7 January 2013)_

1. The Commission considered that the 2009 Regulation on credit rating agencies ( [1] ) (CRAs) needed to be
reviewed. For this reason, the Commission adopted, on 15 November 2011, a proposal amending the existing
legislation, in order to reduce overreliance by credit institutions on external ratings, set up a civil liability framework
for CRAs and further mitigate their conflicts of interests.

2. In its 2011 proposal, the Commission proposed to prohibit (i) holding shares or otherwise having interests in
more than one CRA above a 5% threshold, (ii) rating an entity or instrument where a shareholder (above 10%) of the
CRA has stakes in that rated entity, and (iii) rating an entity or its instruments when the rated entity has stakes (above
a 10% threshold) in that CRA.

On 27 November 2012, the Council and the Parliament reached a political agreement on the Commission proposal
which largely reflects the ambitions of the Commission in this respect. The prohibition explained above will also be
combined with the obligation of CRAs to disclose conflicts of interest above 5% thresholds.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on credit rating agencies of 16 September 2009, OJ L 302, 17.11.2009, as amended by
Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2011, OJ L 145/30, 31.5.2011.

C 310 E / 130 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009729/12**

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

_(24 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Riesgos para las exportaciones de aceite de oliva

La autoridades de los Estados Unidos están debatiendo una norma federal (denominada «Marketing Order») con el fin
de establecer nuevos controles a la importación del aceite de oliva al margen de los ya fijados por el Consejo
Internacional Oleícola. Entre las propuestas destaca la retención durante días del aceite para el análisis de todo el
producto. Esta medida supondría un riesgo a la calidad, además de un incremento de los costes y otros problemas en
la exportación.

Ante los graves riesgos para los productores europeos, pregunto a la Comisión:

1. ¿Ha analizado las consecuencias para la producción europea de esa propuesta americana?

2. ¿Es consciente que supondría un incumplimiento de la normas sobre comercio internacional?

3. ¿Tiene prevista la Comisión reunirse con responsables del Gobierno americano para tratar de las consecuencias
que originaría dicha reforma?

4. ¿Cómo va a defender la Comisión a los productores europeos de aceite de oliva?

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

_(3 de enero de 2013)_

La Comisión está siguiendo de cerca los debates en los Estados Unidos acerca de la posibilidad de establecer una
disposición federal en materia de comercialización del aceite de oliva que imponga nuevas normas y método de
análisis del aceite de oliva en los Estados Unidos, sobre todo en relación con las posibles consecuencias para las
exportaciones de la UE y las normas del comercio internacional.

Los Estados Unidos representan con mucho el mayor mercado de exportación de aceite de oliva de los exportadores
de la UE, por lo que resulta especialmente importante evitar la adopción de una disposición de comercialización que
podría provocar retrasos injustificados y entrañar costes adicionales para los importadores.

La Comisión está colaborando estrechamente con los Estados miembros interesados y el Consejo Oleícola
Internacional (COI) a fin de proteger los intereses legítimos de los exportadores de la UE. El tema se ha tratado varias
veces con el Ministerio de Agricultura estadounidense y la Representación Comercial de EE.UU., así como en el marco
del diálogo transatlántico. También se ha expresado la preocupación a diputados del Congreso de los Estados Unidos.

La Comisión seguirá vigilando atentamente la situación al efecto de prevenir efectos negativos en las exportaciones de
aceite de oliva de la UE a los Estados Unidos.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 131

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009729/12**

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

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Risks to olive oil exports

The US authorities are discussing a federal marketing order to set new controls for the importation of olive oil, in
addition to those set by the International Olive Council. The proposals include holding back the oil for days in order
to test the entire product. This measure would pose a risk to the quality, as well as add to costs and to other export
problems.

Given the serious risks for European producers,

1. Has the Commission studied the consequences of this US proposal for European producers?

2. Is it aware that it would amount to a breach of international trade rules?

3. Does the Commission intend to meet with US government representatives to address the consequences of this
reform?

4. How does the Commission intend to defend the interests of European olive oil producers?

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

_(3 January 2013)_

The Commission is closely following discussions in the US regarding the possibility of establishing a marketing order
on olive oil imposing new standards and testing methodology for olive oil in the US, in particular with respect to its
potential consequences for EU exports and for international trade rules.

The USA represents by far the most important export market for EU olive oil exporters. It is therefore particularly
important to avoid the adoption of a marketing order which could create unfair delays and additional costs for
importers.

The Commission is working closely with the Member States concerned and the International Olive Council (IOC), in
order to preserve the legitimate interests of EU exporters. The issue has been raised several times with the US
Department of Agriculture, the Office of the US Trade Representative, as well as in the context of the transatlantic
dialogue. Concern has also been expressed to Members of Congress.

The Commission will continue to monitor the situation closely so as to avoid negative impacts on EU olive oil exports
to the US.

C 310 E / 132 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009730/12**

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

_(24 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ De las operaciones generadas por la aplicación de algoritmos

En las últimas semanas se han levantado las voces de alarma ante el incremento de los riesgos que generan las
operaciones en los mercados de valores fruto de la aplicación automática de algoritmos. El volumen de estas
operaciones inconscientes se incrementa a pasos agigantados y ha originado cuantiosas pérdidas y ha desestabilizado
la situación económica de muchas empresas. De ahí que, por ejemplo, el Gobierno alemán haya anunciado que
modificará su legislación para hacer más restrictivas estas operaciones.

La intervención en los mercados de valores ha de velar por la protección de los inversores, así como por la
transparencia en la formación de los precios. Por ello me interesa conocer la opinión de la Comisión sobre los
siguientes aspectos:

1. ¿Qué criterio tiene la Comisión sobre las órdenes automáticas?

2. ¿No cree la Comisión que debe analizar los límites de estas órdenes de tal modo que se controle una excesiva
volatilidad de los precios en un breve espacio de tiempo?

3. ¿No cree la Comisión que la legislación sobre mercados financieros debe ser única en todos los países europeos
para evitar la fragmentación tan contraria a la protección de los inversores y a la correcta formación de los
precios?

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

_(6 de diciembre de 2012)_

1. Uno de los objetivos de las propuestas de la Comisión de modificación de la Directiva relativa a los mercados de
instrumentos financieros (revisión de la DMIF) ( [1] ) es abordar los cambios tecnológicos e incorporar las lecciones de la
crisis financiera. Una de las tendencias más importantes del mercado en las últimas décadas ha sido el uso cada vez
mayor de sistemas automatizados de negociación electrónica llamados de negociación algorítmica, lo que incluye la
negociación de transacciones de alta frecuencia.

2. y 3. La Comisión cree firmemente en la armonización de la legislación relativa a los servicios financieros. Por lo
tanto, la revisión de la DMIF incluye una serie de disposiciones para tratar los riesgos asociados a la negociación
algorítmica. Estas disposiciones introducen una serie de salvaguardias tanto en relación con los participantes en el
mercado que usan algoritmos dentro de sus estrategias de negociación como con los centros de negociación en que se
llevan a cabo negociaciones algorítmicas y de alta frecuencia.

Al mismo tiempo, la Comisión adoptó sus propuestas de revisión de la Directiva sobre el abuso de mercado ( [2] ). Estas
propuestas explican cómo se aplicarán las disposiciones sobre el abuso de mercado a determinadas formas de
negociación algorítmica. Todas estas propuestas se están negociando ahora en el Parlamento Europeo y el Consejo
con arreglo al procedimiento legislativo ordinario.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Propuesta de Reglamento del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo relativo a los mercados de instrumentos financieros y por el que se modifica el

Reglamento [EMIR] relativo a los derivados OTC, las entidades de contrapartida central y los registros de operaciones [COM(2011) 652] y
propuesta de Directiva del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo relativa a los mercados de instrumentos financieros, por la que se deroga la Directiva
2004/39/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo [COM(2011) 656]. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?
uri=COM:201:0656:FIN:ES:PDF.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Propuesta de Reglamento del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo sobre las operaciones con información privilegiada y la manipulación del

mercado (abuso de mercado) [COM(2011) 0651] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0651:FIN:ES:HTML.

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 133

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009730/12**

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

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Operations generated by using algorithms

In recent weeks, alarms have been raised regarding the higher risks involved in securities market operations carried
out through the automated application of algorithms. The volume of these irresponsible operations is increasing at a
considerable pace and has caused substantial losses and undermined the financial situation of many businesses. This,
for instance, is the reason why the German Government has announced its intention to amend its law in order to
restrict these operations.

Intervention in securities markets must ensure the protection of investors and transparent price formation.

1. What is the Commission's opinion on automated systems?

2. Does the Commission not think there is a need to study the limits of these systems in order to contain excessive
price volatility in the short term?

3. Does the Commission not believe that financial markets legislation should be the same in all EU countries in
order to avoid the fragmentation that makes it so difficult to protect investors and ensure proper price formation?

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

_(6 December 2012)_

1. One of the objectives of the Commission proposals amending the directive on Markets in Financial Instruments
(the MiFID review) ( [1] ) is to address technological changes and to incorporate lessons learned from the financial crisis.
One of the most significant market developments over the past few decades has been the increasing trend towards the
use of automated electronic trading known as algorithmic trading which includes high frequency trading (HFT).

2-3. The Commission strongly believes in harmonisation of financial services legislation. The MiFID review therefore
contains a number of provisions to address the risks associated with algorithmic trading. These provisions introduce a
series of safeguards both on market participants who use algorithms as part of their trading strategies, as well as on
trading venues where algorithmic and high-frequency trading takes place.

At the same time, the Commission adopted its proposals to review the Market Abuse Directive ( [2] ). These proposals
clarify how the market abuse provisions apply to certain forms of algorithmic trading. All these proposals are
currently under negotiation in the European Parliament and the Council under the ordinary legislative procedure.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Markets in financial instruments and amending Regulation [EMIR] on

OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories (COM(2011)652) and Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the
Council on markets in financial instruments repealing Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
(COM(2011)656).http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0656:FIN:EN:PDF.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse)

(COM/2011/0651) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0651:FIN:EN:HTML.

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

C 310 E / 134 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009731/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Nadja Hirsch (ALDE) und Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)**

_(24. Oktober 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Herstellung von Stopfleber und Anwendung des Ausnahmetatbestandes des Art. 13 AEUV

Die Herstellung von Stopfleber ist in 13 Mitgliedstaaten als tierschutzwidrig gesetzlich verboten, in 22
Mitgliedstaaten als tierschutzwidrige Methode erkannt. Frankreich hat im Jahr 2005 das Stopfleber-Produkt als
Bestandteil der französischen traditionellen Küche als Kulturgut definiert und gesetzlich festgeschrieben ( [1] ). Ungarn
als Hersteller des Produkts exportiert zu nahezu 100 % dieses Produkt und beansprucht die Produktion als kulturelle
Tradition.

Am 1. Dezember 2009 trat der Lissabon-Vertrag in Kraft, damit auch das Grundprinzip des Tierschutzes gemäß
Art. 13 des Vertrags über die Arbeitsweise der EU (AEUV). Darin werden Tiere als fühlende Wesen definiert,
wohingegen in der Ausnahmeregelung drei unbestimmte Rechtsbegriffe verwendet werden: kulturelle Tradition,
regionales Erbe und religiöse Riten.

Selbst in Anbetracht der Tatsache, dass im Streitfall der Europäische Gerichtshof über den Interessenausgleich zu
entscheiden hat, und in Wahrung der Grundsätze der Subsidiarität und der Verhältnismäßigkeit stellen sich bei
Anwendung eines Ausnahmetatbestandes des Art. 13 AEUV folgende Fragen:

1. Wie definiert die Kommission diese drei unbestimmten Rechtsbegriffe der Ausnahmeregelung in Art. 13
(kulturelle Tradition, regionales Erbe und religiöse Riten)?

2. Nach welchem Verfahren nimmt die Kommission Ausnahmeregelungen im Rahmen des Art. 13 AEUV an,
wenn ein Mitgliedstaat dies beansprucht? Nach welchen Kriterien (z. B. unnötiges Leiden und Schmerzen)
werden diese drei Begriffe von der Kommission ausgelegt und auf welche Weise wird die Bestätigung der
Akzeptanz der Ausnahmeregelung kommuniziert?

3. Gibt es für die künftige Beachtung des in Art. 13 AEUV festgelegten Prinzips ein Konzept der Kommission zur
Anwendung, etwa analog dem im Tierversuch angewandten 3R-Prinzip?

4. Kann gegebenenfalls eine erfolgte Akzeptanz einer Ausnahmeregelung im Sinne des Art. 13 AEUV bzw. des
Amsterdamer Vertrags (Protokoll Nr. 33) für einen Mitgliedstaat vor Inkrafttreten des Vertrags von Lissabon
am 1. Dezember 2009 Wirkung entfalten gemäß Art. 13 AEUV?

5. Kann sich ein Mitgliedstaat der EU, in welchem Stopfleber nicht Bestandteil der regionalen Küche ist, daher
nicht nennenswert konsumiert, jedoch produziert und exportiert wird, hinsichtlich seines kommerziellen
Interesses auf den Tatbestand als „kulturelle Tradition“ im Sinne des Art. 13 AEUV berufen?

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

_(17. Dezember 2012)_

Der Vertrag über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union ( [2] ) (AEUV) enthält keine Definitionen von kulturellen
Traditionen, regionalem Erbe und religiösen Riten. Diese Begriffe werden von der Kommission und letztlich
gegebenenfalls vom Gerichtshof der Europäischen Union auf Einzelfallbasis und unter Berücksichtigung der
unterschiedlichen Fragestellungen und Gepflogenheiten in den Mitgliedstaaten geprüft.

Da weder das Protokoll Nr. 33 zum Vertrag von Amsterdam noch Artikel 13 AEUV Ausnahmeregelungen vorsehen,
haben die Mitgliedstaaten keine solchen Regelungen beantragt und die Kommission hat kein Verwaltungsverfahren
eingerichtet, mit dem Mitgliedstaaten „Ausnahmeregelungen“ beantragen können.

Nach Artikel 13 AEUV muss dem Wohlergehen der Tiere bei der Festlegung und Durchführung der Politik der EU in
vollem Umfang Rechnung getragen werden. Die Auswirkungen auf das Wohlergehen der Tiere werden
gegebenenfalls im Rahmen von Folgenabschätzungen geprüft, die bei der Entwicklung neuer politischer Initiativen
durchgeführt werden.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Code Rural Art. L. 654-27-1: „ — Le foie gras fait partie du patrimoine culturel et gastronomique protégé en France. On entend par foie gras, le

foie d’un canard ou d’une oie spécialement engraissé par gavage.“ DE: „Foie gras ist als Teil des kulturellen und gastronomischen Erbes in
Frankreich geschützt. Man versteht unter Foie gras die Leber einer Ente oder Gans, die mittels Zwangsstopfen verfettet wird.“

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) ABl. C 83 vom 30.3.2010, S. 47.

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 135

Die Herstellung von Stopfleber fällt unter besondere EU-Tierschutzvorschriften. Nach diesen Vorschriften darf
Stopfleber nur dort hergestellt werden, wo dies traditionell üblich ist, und auch nur gemäß den in den nationalen
Vorschriften festgelegten Standards. Es gibt keine besonderen Anforderungen hinsichtlich des lokalen Verbrauchs
oder der Zugehörigkeit von Stopfleber zur regionalen Küche. Für weitere Einzelheiten zum rechtlichen Rahmen für
die Herstellung von Stopfleber in der EU verweist die Kommission auf ihre Antwort auf die schriftliche
Anfrage E-3959/2009 ( [3] ).

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

C 310 E / 136 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009731/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Nadja Hirsch (ALDE) e Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)**

_(24 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Produzione di fegato d'oca e applicazione della deroga di cui all'articolo 13 del TFUE

La produzione di fegato d'oca è vietata in 13 Stati membri in quanto contraria alle norme sulla protezione degli
animali, mentre in 22 Stati membri è considerata un metodo contrario alle norme sulla protezione degli animali. Nel
2005 la Francia ha definito e stabilito per legge che il fegato d'oca è parte integrante della cucina tradizionale francese
quale patrimonio culturale ( [1] ). L'Ungheria, paese produttore di fegato d'oca, esporta quasi il 100 % della produzione
ed esige che questa sia riconosciuta come tradizione culturale.

Con l'entrata in vigore del trattato di Lisbona il 1° dicembre 2009, è stato sancito anche il principio fondamentale
della tutela degli animali, ai sensi dell'articolo 13 del trattato sul funzionamento dell'Unione europea (TFUE). Sebbene
l'articolo definisca gli animali esseri senzienti, nella deroga si fa riferimento a tre concetti giuridici vaghi: tradizione
culturale, patrimonio regionale e riti religiosi.

Anche in considerazione del fatto che, in caso di controversia, la Corte di giustizia europea è chiamata a decidere in
merito all'equilibro degli interessi e nel rispetto dei principi di sussidiarietà e proporzionalità, può la Commissione
rispondere alle domande in appresso riguardo all'applicazione della deroga prevista dall'articolo 13 del TFUE?

1. Come definisce i tre concetti giuridici vaghi della deroga all'articolo 13 (tradizione culturale, patrimonio
regionale e riti religiosi)?

2. Secondo quale procedura accetta la deroga di cui all'articolo 13 del TFUE, qualora uno Stato membro ne invochi
l'applicazione? In base a quali criteri (ad esempio, dolore e sofferenze inutili) interpreta i tre concetti e con quale
modalità è notificata l'avvenuta accettazione della deroga?

3. Ai fini della conformità con il principio sancito all'articolo 13 del TFUE, dispone la Commissione di una
strategia per la sua applicazione, analogamente, ad esempio, al principio delle tre R applicato alla sperimentazione
sugli animali?

4. L'avvenuta accettazione di una deroga ai sensi dell'articolo 13 del TFUE, nonché del trattato di Amsterdam
(protocollo n. 33), può eventualmente per uno Stato membro avere un effetto retroattivo rispetto all'entrata in vigore
del trattato di Lisbona del 1° dicembre 2009, in conformità dell'articolo 13 del TFUE?

5. Può essere invocato l'articolo 13 del TFUE da uno Stato membro dell'UE in cui il fegato d'oca è prodotto ed
esportato pur non costituendo parte integrante della cucina regionale e non essendo dunque consumato in quantità
rilevante, per sostenere che la sua produzione rappresenta una «tradizione culturale», in ragione dei propri interessi
economici?

**Risposta di Joe Borg a nome della Commissione**

_(17 dicembre 2012)_

Il trattato sul funzionamento dell'Unione europea ( [2] ) (TFUE) non dà una definizione di tradizioni culturali, patrimonio
regionale e riti religiosi. La Commissione e in ultima analisi all'occorrenza anche la Corte di giustizia dell'Unione
europea stimano il valore di tali nozioni caso per caso, in funzione dei problemi in questione e delle situazioni a
livello di Stati membri.

Poiché né il protocollo 33 allegato al trattato di Amsterdam, né l' articolo 13 del TFUE prevedono deroghe, gli Stati
membri non ne hanno fatto richiesta e la Commissione non ha stabilito apposite procedure amministrative.

Secondo l'articolo 13 del TFUE, nella formulazione e nell’attuazione delle politiche dell'Unione, l'Unione e gli Stati
membri tengono pienamente conto del benessere degli animali. Al caso si procede pertanto a valutare l'impatto sul
benessere degli animali nelle valutazioni di impatto effettuate nell'ambito dell'elaborazione di nuove iniziative
politiche.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Code Rural Art. L. 654-27-1. "— Le foie gras fait partie du patrimoine culturel et gastronomique protégé en France. On entend par foie gras, le foie

d’un canard ou d’une oie spécialement engraissé par gavage." IT: «Il fegato d'oca è tutelato in Francia poiché parte del patrimonio culturale e
gastronomico. Con fegato d'oca si intende il fegato di un'anatra o di un'oca appositamente ingrassata attraverso l'ingozzamento forzato».

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) GU C 83 del 30.3.2010, pag. 47.

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 137

La produzione di fegato d'oca è disciplinata da specifiche norme dell'Unione sul benessere degli animali in base alle
quali essa può essere effettuata soltanto quando sia prassi corrente e unicamente nel rispetto delle norme di diritto
nazionale. Nulla è stabilito per quanto riguarda il livello di consumo locale o la presenza di fegato d'oca nelle abitudini
culinarie regionali. Per ulteriori informazioni sul quadro giuridico che disciplina la produzione di fegato d'oca
nell'Unione europea la Commissione rimanda alla sua risposta all'interrogazione E‐3959/2009 ( [3] ) .

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/it/parliamentary-questions.html

C 310 E / 138 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009731/12**

**to the Commission**
**Nadja Hirsch (ALDE) and Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Production of foie gras (fat liver) and application of the derogation provided for in Article 13 TFEU

The production of foie gras is banned in 13 Member States on the grounds that it is contrary to animal protection
laws, and is recognised as a method that conflicts with animal welfare provisions in 22 Member States. In 2005,
France defined foie gras as a part of traditional French cuisine and laid down in law that it belonged to its cultural
heritage ( [1] ). Hungary produces foie gras and exports almost 100% of this product, claiming that production is a
cultural tradition.

The Lisbon Treaty which entered into force on 1 December 2009 introduced the basic principle of animal protection
under Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). While this defines animals as
sentient beings, the derogation rule uses three vague legal terms: cultural traditions, regional heritage and religious
rites.

Even considering the fact that the European Court of Justice has to decide on the balance of interests in case of
disputes, and that the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality must be respected, the following questions arise
as regards application of the derogation provided for in Article 13 TFEU:

1. How does the Commission define the three vague legal terms in Article 13 (cultural traditions, regional heritage
and religious rites)?

2. What is the procedure for the Commission applying Article 13 TFEU derogations when a Member State evokes
them? What are the criteria (e.g. unnecessary suffering and pain) for the Commission’s interpretation of these
three concepts and how is confirmation that the derogation is accepted communicated?

3. Does the Commission have an approach to apply to future compliance with the principle set out in Article 13
TFEU, along the lines of the 3R principle used in animal testing?

4. Can acceptance of a derogation that may have been made in accordance with Article 13 TFEU or Protocol 33 of
the Amsterdam Treaty have effect for a Member State prior to the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on
1 December 2009 under Article 13 TFEU?

5. Can Article 13 TFEU be invoked on grounds of a ‘cultural tradition’ by an EU Member State in which foie gras is
produced and exported for commercial interest, but is not part of the regional cuisine and thus not consumed
to any great extent?

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

_(17 December 2012)_

The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ( [2] ) (TFEU) does not provide for definitions of cultural traditions,
regional heritage and religious rites. These notions are appreciated by the Commission and ultimately, if needed, by
the Court of Justice of the European Union, on a case by case basis according to the different issues and situations in
the Member States.

As neither the Protocol 33 of the Amsterdam Treaty nor the article 13 of the TFEU provided for derogations as such,
Member States did not apply for derogations and the Commission did not set up an administrative procedure for
Member States to apply for ‘derogations’.

According to the article 13 of the TFEU, full regard must be paid to animal welfare when developing and
implementing EU policies. Therefore, the impact on animal welfare is assessed, when relevant, in impact assessments
carried out to develop new policy initiatives.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Code Rural Art. L. 654-27-1. ‘ — Le foie gras fait partie du patrimoine culturel et gastronomique protégé en France. On entend par foie gras, le foie

d’un canard ou d’une oie spécialement engraissé par gavage.’ EN: foie gras belongs to the protected cultural and gastronomic heritage of France.
‘Foie gras’ is understood to mean the liver of a duck or a goose that has been specially fattened by gavage (force-feeding of corn).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ C 83, 30.3.2010, p. 47.

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 139

The production of foie gras is covered by specific EU animal welfare rules. These rules require that the production of
foie gras shall be carried out only where it is current practice and then only in accordance with standards laid down in
domestic law. There are no specific requirements regarding the local level of consumption or the belonging of foie
gras to the regional cuisine. For further details on the legal framework which covers the production of foie gras in
the EU, the Commission would refer to its answer to Written Question E‐3959/2009 ( [3] ).

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

C 310 E / 140 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009732/12**

**to the Commission**
**William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Opting out of the European Arrest Warrant

UK Home Secretary Theresa May has said that pending a parliamentary vote, the UK may opt out of some 130 EU
criminal justice powers ( [1] ). If the UK chooses to opt out of the European Arrest Warrant, what would happen to
existing extradition cases involving UK citizens?

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

_(7 December 2012)_

Article 10(4) of Protocol 36 to the Treaty of Lisbon enables the United Kingdom to notify that it opts out of all acts of
the Union in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters which have been adopted
before the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and have not been amended before 1 December 2014.

The United Kingdom has until now not made such notification.

According to Article 10(5) of Protocol 36, which grants the United Kingdom the right to notify its wish to participate
in acts which would have ceased to apply to it, the Union institutions and the United Kingdom shall seek to reestablish ‘the widest possible measure of participation in the acquis of the Union in the area of freedom, security and
justice without seriously affecting [their] practical operability …, while respecting their coherence’.

According to Article 10(4) of Protocol 36, should there be an opt out notification, the Council, acting by a qualified
majority on a proposal from the Commission, shall determine the necessary consequential and transitional
arrangements. The United Kingdom shall not participate in the adoption of that decision.

For these various reasons, it is not yet possible to assess at this stage any potential operational, legal or financial
consequences of a UK decision taken regarding the European Arrest Warrant or any other acts concerned by a
potential notification under Protocol 36.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) _Daily Telegraph_, 15 October 2012, ‘MPs will get to vote on EU powers opt-out’.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 141

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009734/12**

**to the Commission**
**William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Regulating the free movement of people

The UK Border Agency recently found that over a quarter of migrant students at London Metropolitan University did
not have permission to enter Britain ( _Sunday Times,_ 7 October 2012: ‘May fires warning over migration abuses’). Does
the Commission have plans to regulate the free movement of people in order to prevent such abuses from occurring?

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

_(14 December 2012)_

The report mentioned by the Honourable Member concerns non-EU nationals seeking to study in the UK. It is true
that EU legislation is in place on the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies,
pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service ( [1] ). However, the UK has opted out of this legislation
and therefore this is not a matter for the Commission.

The EU legislation makes clear that renewal of a residence permit may be refused or the permit may be withdrawn if
the holder does not respect the limits imposed on access to economic activities, or does not make acceptable progress
in his/her studies in accordance with national legislation or administrative practice. The Commission is currently
preparing amendments to the existing legislation. Any future instrument will continue to prevent and sanction
abuses.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Council Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004.

C 310 E / 142 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Svensk version)_

**Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-009735/12**

**till kommissionen**
**Marita Ulvskog (S&D)**

_(24 oktober 2012)_

_Angående:_ EU-lagstiftning om konfliktmineraler

Den 13 september 2011 antog parlamentet en resolution om en effektiv råvarustrategi för Europa
(P7_TA(2011)0364 ( [1] )). I punkt 65 i denna resolution uppmanas kommissionen att ”lägga fram ett eget
lagstiftningsförslag om landsvis rapportering om konfliktmineraler”.

I kommissionens meddelande KOM(2012)0022 ( [2] ) av den 27 januari 2012 uppgav kommissionen att den skulle
”utforska olika sätt att öka insynen i hela leveranskedjan, inklusive aspekter som gäller tillbörlig aktsamhet” och att
den skulle ”förespråka ett större stöd till och användning av OECD:s riktlinjer för multinationella företag, vilka
nyligen uppdaterats, liksom OECD:s rekommendationer om tillbörlig aktsamhet och ansvarsfull ledning när det gäller
leveranskedjan”.

Kommissionen har under året vidtagit vissa förberedande åtgärder, särskilt genom att hålla ett möte i arbetsgruppen
mot olaglig exploatering av och handel med naturresurser i området kring de stora sjöarna.

1. Hur långt har kommissionen kommit när det gäller utarbetandet av ett lagstiftningsförslag om
konfliktmineraler?

2. När kommer kommissionen att lägga fram ett förslag?

3. Vad gör kommissionen för att se till att OECD:s riktlinjer beträffande leveranskedjor för mineraler från alla
konfliktdrabbade områden och högriskområden införlivas i lagstiftningen?

**Svar från Karel De Gucht på kommissionens vägnar**

_(17 december 2012)_

I enlighet med 2012 års meddelande om handel, tillväxt och utveckling fortsätter kommissionen att arbeta på
redovisningsdirektivet och öppenhetsdirektivet för att främja ett offentliggörande av betalningar till regeringar för
utvinnings‐ och skogsindustrin, både för företag som är noterade på EU:s aktiebörser och för andra stora EU-företag.
Interinsitutionella förhandlingar pågår och kommissionen förväntar sig att en överenskommelse nås snarast möjligt.
Kommissionen och den europeiska avdelningen för yttre åtgärder har dessutom ett nära samarbete rörande ett
eventuellt, omfattande EU-initiativ som skulle bidra till att stävja finansiering av beväpnade grupper och exploatering
och handel av naturresurser, som mineraler med ursprung i konfliktområden. Ett offentligt samråd väntas under
2013.

Kommissionen är djupt involverad i OECD:s ansträngningar att komma till rätta med problemet med
konfliktmineraler och ger sitt fulla stöd till OECD:s riktlinjer för att säkra ansvarsfulla leveranskedjor av mineraler
från konfliktdrabbade områden och högriskområden. Kommissionen uppmuntrar industrin att genomföra dessa
riktlinjer. Med anledning av detta kommer OECD snart att publicera resultat från ett pilotprojekt. Kommissionen
överväger att, inom ramen för stabilitetsinstrumentets krisberedskap, ge ekonomiskt stöd för ytterligare
genomförande av OECD:s riktlinjer. OECD:s riktlinjer tas i vederbörlig beaktning vid förberedelser inför eventuella
EU-intiativ som nämns ovan.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2011-0364&language=SV.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0022:FIN:SV:PDF.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 143

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009735/12**

**to the Commission**
**Marita Ulvskog (S&D)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ EC law on conflict minerals

On 13 September 2011 Parliament adopted a resolution on an effective raw materials strategy for Europe
(P7_TA(2011)0364 ( [1] )). In paragraph 65 thereof, it calls on the Commission ‘to come forward with a proposal of its
own on country-by-country reporting concerning conflict minerals’.

In its communication COM(2012)0022 ( [2] ) of 27 January 2012 the Commission stated that it would ‘explore ways of
improving transparency throughout the supply chain, including aspects of due diligence’ and that it would advocate
‘greater support for and use of the recently updated OECD Guidelines for multinational enterprises, and OECD’s
recommendations on due diligence and responsible supply chain management’.

Further preparatory steps have been taken this year by the Commission, especially by holding a meeting of the Task
Force on illegal exploitation and trade of natural resources in the Great Lakes region.

1. What is the state of play with regard to the submission of a Commission legislative proposal on conflict
minerals?

2. When will the Commission present a proposal?

3. What is the Commission doing to incorporate OECD guidelines which apply to mineral supply chains from all
conflict-affected and high-risk areas into future EU legislation?

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

_(17 December 2012)_

Further to its 2012 Communication on ‘Trade, Growth and Development’, the Commission is continuing to work on
the Accounting and Transparency Directives to promote disclosure, by companies listed on EU stock exchanges and
for other large EU companies, of payments to governments for the extractive and forestry industries. The
interinstitutional negotiations are ongoing and the Commission expects to reach an agreement as soon as possible. In
addition, the Commission and the European External Action Service (EEAS) are working closely together on a
possible comprehensive EU response that would contribute to curbing the link between the financing of armed
groups and the exploitation and trade of natural resources in minerals originating from conflict areas. A public
consultation should be forthcoming in 2013.

The Commission is closely involved in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) efforts
to address the issue of conflict minerals and strongly supports the OECD's Due Diligence Guidance (DDG) on
Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High Risk Areas. The Commission encourages
industry to implement this guidance. The OECD will soon publish the results of a pilot project to this end. The
Commission is considering providing funding, under the Crisis-Preparedness Component of the Instrument for
Stability, in support of the further implementation of the OECD DDG. The OECD DDG is duly taken into account in
the preparation of any possible EU initiative as referred to above.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2011-0364&language=EN.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0022:FIN:EN:PDF.

C 310 E / 144 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-009736/12**

**aan de Commissie**
**Jan Mulder (ALDE)**

_(24 oktober 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Export van embryos buiten de EU

1. Is het de Commissie bekend dat de export van sperma en embryo's naar landen buiten de EU (derde landen)
sinds februari 2012 ernstig wordt belemmerd door de aanwezigheid van het Schmallenberg virus in Europa en dat
daardoor een groot aantal derde landen extra eisen heeft gesteld met betrekking tot deze import?

2. Beschouwd de Commissie deze eisen als legitiem en is de Commissie bereid daarover met deze landen te
onderhandelen?

3. Is het de Commissie bekend dat de Europese K. I. Industrie bereid is met derde landen, met name de
Verenigde Staten, te onderhandelen over deze eisen opdat grote financiële schade wordt voorkomen?

4. Is het juist dat de Commissie niet bereid is aan de wensen van de industrie tegemoet te komen en wat is de reden
daarvan?

**Antwoord van de heer Borg namens de Commissie**

_(18 december 2012)_

De Commissie is op de hoogte van de bijkomende eisen die een aantal derde landen hebben opgelegd aan de uitvoer
uit de EU van sperma en embryo's van herkauwers.

De Commissie heeft een website ontwikkeld over het Schmallenbergvirus (SBV) ( [1] ) met uitgebreide informatie over
uiteenlopende aspecten van de virusinfectie: epidemiologische, wetenschappelijke en onderzoeksgerelateerde
aspecten, de betrekkingen met internationale organisaties, seminars, de betrekkingen met derde landen enz., om de
informatie vlot naar de belanghebbenden te laten doorstromen.

De Commissie vindt dat de beperkingen opgelegd door derde landen niet wetenschappelijk verantwoord en niet
evenredig zijn met een infectie die niet is opgenomen in de lijst van aangifteplichtige ziekten van de Wereldorganisatie
voor diergezondheid (OIE) en waarvan het risico voor de handel verwaarloosbaar wordt geacht. De Commissie heeft
de derde landen die beperkingen opleggen, gevraagd deze zonder uitstel op te heffen. Dit is aan alle betrokken derde
landen en aan alle WTO-leden op de SPS-Commissie in juli 2012 meegedeeld. Omdat dit standpunt wetenschappelijk
sterk is onderbouwd en officieel is erkend door de internationale normbepalende organisatie op het gebied van
diergezondheid, de OIE, is de Commissie niet van plan van dit standpunt af te wijken en daarom zal zij niet met
derde landen onderhandelen over bijkomende eisen met betrekking tot het SBV.

De Commissie raadpleegt alle belanghebbenden regelmatig en heeft samen met de lidstaten een strategie ontwikkeld
die er bij derde landen op aandringt zowel de internationale norm in dit verband als de WTO-verplichtingen, die
vereisen dat zij alle ongerechtvaardigde handelsbelemmeringen opheffen, op te volgen.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/diseases/schmallenberg_virus/index_en.htm

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 145

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009736/12**

**to the Commission**
**Jan Mulder (ALDE)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Export of embryos outside the EU

1. Is the Commission aware that, since February 2012, exports of sperm and embryos to countries outside the EU
(third countries) have been seriously hampered by the presence of Schmallenberg virus in Europe and that as a result
many third countries have imposed extra requirements applicable to imports of such products?

2. Does the Commission regard these requirements as legitimate, and will the Commission negotiate with those
countries on the subject?

3. Is the Commission aware that the European firm K.I. Industrie is willing to negotiate with third countries,
particularly the USA, concerning these requirements, with the aim of avoiding serious financial damage?

4. Is it true that the Commission is not prepared to comply with industry’s wishes, and why is that?

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

_(18 December 2012)_

The Commission is aware of the additional requirements that some third countries have applied to exports from
the EU of the sperm and embryos of ruminants.

The Commission has developed a web page dedicated to Schmallenberg virus infection (SBV) ( [1] ) that contains
comprehensive information related to the different fields of the SBV infection: epidemiological, scientific, research,
relations with International organisations, seminars, relations with third countries, etc. with a view to facilitating the
flow of information with interested parties.

The Commission considers that restrictions applied by third countries are not scientifically justified nor
proportionate for an infection which is not included in the list of notifiable diseases of the World Organisation for
Animal Health (OIE) and for which the risk to trade is considered negligible. The Commission has requested third
countries imposing restrictions to remove them without delay. This has been made known to all concerned third
countries and all WTO members during the SPS Committee held in July 2012. Given the strong scientific basis for
this position, duly recognised by the international standard-setting body dealing with animal health, the OIE, the
Commission does not intend to deviate from this position and therefore will not negotiate with third countries on any
additional requirements in relation to SBV.

The Commission regularly consults all stakeholders and has developed a strategy, in coordination with Member
States, which urges third countries to follow both the international standard on this matter and the WTO obligations
that require them to remove any unjustified trade barriers.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/diseases/schmallenberg_virus/index_en.htm

C 310 E / 146 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009739/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Vicente Miguel Garcés Ramón (S&D)**

_(24 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Ejecución de los programas Feader en la Comunidad Valenciana

Con fecha 31 de diciembre, la Comisión Europea deberá hacer la verificación sobre la ejecución de los Programas de
Desarrollo Rural, Feader 2010 y en el caso que las autoridades competentes no puedan demostrar la utilización de los
mismos, deberán devolverlos a la Comisión.

1. ¿Conoce la Comisión cuál es el estado de ejecución de los programas Feader 2010 en la Comunidad Valenciana?

2. ¿Ha advertido a las autoridades nacionales y regionales de la necesidad de devolver los fondos si tras dos años de
su adjudicación los proyectos no han sido ejecutados?

3. En el caso de haber efectuado esta advertencia, ¿cuál ha sido la respuesta obtenida?

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

_(4 de diciembre de 2012)_

La Comisión realiza un seguimiento periódico del potencial de riesgo de liberación de compromisos resultante de la
aplicación del artículo 29, apartado 1, del Reglamento 1290/2005 del Consejo ( [1] ), más conocido como «norma N+2»,
para todos los programas españoles de Desarrollo Rural, inclusive el Programa de Desarrollo Rural de la Comunidad
Valenciana 2007-2013, sobre la base de las declaraciones de gastos y previsiones que presentan las comunidades
autónomas. Además, las dificultades de ejecución son examinadas regularmente por el Comité de Seguimiento, así
como en el marco de reuniones específicas.

La Comisión confirma que las autoridades nacionales y regionales han sido informadas sobre los riesgos existentes de
liberación de compromisos de fondos Feader a finales de 2012. Existe un contacto frecuente, tanto por
correspondencia como en reuniones, con el Ministerio de Agricultura de España y con las autoridades regionales que
gestionan los PDR.

La autoridad de gestión presentó durante la reunión de revisión anual, celebrada en Madrid en noviembre de 2012, la
información más reciente sobre la situación del riesgo de liberación de compromisos respecto al PDR de la
Comunidad Valenciana. Sobre la base de ese debate y de la declaración de gastos recibida durante los tres primeros
trimestres de 2012, la Comisión analizó el volumen de fondos Feader que deberían declararse en el siguiente trimestre
(octubre-diciembre 2012) para el programa de Valencia, con el fin de evitar la liberación automática de compromisos
de fondos. En el caso de Valencia, los pagos Feader que deben realizarse antes de final del año en curso superan la
cantidad declarada para el mismo período de 2011. No obstante, solo será posible determinar una liberación de
compromisos de fondos Feader para el programa en cuestión una vez se haya recibido la declaración de gastos del
último trimestre de 2012.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Reglamento (CE) n° 1290/2005 del Consejo, de 21 de junio de 2005, sobre la financiación de la política agrícola común (DO L 209 de 11.8.2005,
p. 1).

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 147

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009739/12**

**to the Commission**
**Vicente Miguel Garcés Ramón (S&D)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Implementation of EAFRD programmes in the Valencia Region

On 31 December, the European Commission will have to verify the implementation of the 2010 EAFRD rural
development programmes, and if the relevant authorities are unable to show that these funds have been used, they
will have to return them to the Commission.

1. Is the Commission aware of the current state of implementation of the 2010 EAFRD programmes in the
Valencia Region?

2. Has it notified the national and regional authorities that the funds must be returned if projects have not been
implemented within two years of the funding being awarded?

3. If such notification has been issued, what was the response?

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

_(4 December 2012)_

The Commission follows up periodically the potential risk of de-commitment due to the application of Article 29.1
of Council Regulation 1290/2005 ( [1] ), better known as N+2 rule, for all the Rural Development Spanish programmes,
including the RDP of Comunidad Valenciana 2007-2013, on the basis of declarations of expenditure and forecasts
submitted by the regions. Moreover, the implementation difficulties are examined regularly by the Monitoring
Committee and in the framework of specific meetings.

The Commission confirms that the National and Regional Authorities have been notified about the existing risk of decommitment of EAFRD funds at the end of 2012. Contacts with the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture and the regional
Managing Authorities of the RDP are frequent through letters and meetings.

The most updated information about the situation of the potential risk of de-commitment for the RDP of Comunidad
Valenciana, was communicated by the Managing Authority at the annual review meeting held in Madrid in
November 2012. Based on that discussion and on the declaration of expenditure received during the first three
quarters of 2012 the Commission has analysed the EAFRD amount that should be declared in the following quarter
(October-December 2012) for the program of Valencia in order to avoid the automatic de-commitment of funds. In
the case of Valencia, the amount of EAFRD payments to be undertaken by the end of this year exceeds the amount
declared for the same period in 2011. However, only after having received the last quarter of 2012 declaration of
expenditure, it will be possible to determine if there was a de-commitment of EAFRD funds for the concerned

programme.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, of 21 June 2005, on the financing of the common agricultural policy, OJ L 209, 11.08.2005, p.1.

C 310 E / 148 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-009740/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)**

_(24 Οκτωβρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Διακοπή της χρηματοδότησης για τη μεταφορά παιδιών με ειδικές ανάγκες στις Σχολικές Μονάδες Ειδικής Αγωγής

Τα Διοικητικά Συμβούλια 33 Συλλόγων Γονέων και Κηδεμόνων Σχολικών Μονάδων Ειδικής Εκπαίδευσης για παιδιά με
κινητικά και αισθητηριακά προβλήματα, εγκεφαλικές παραλύσεις, νοητική υστέρηση, αυτισμό κ.λπ., διαμαρτύρονται διότι
εδώ και 2 μήνες που έχει ξεκινήσει η σχολική χρονιά, η πολιτεία δεν έχει καταβάλει τη δαπάνη μεταφοράς των παιδιών, με
αποτέλεσμα τα παιδιά αυτά να μην απολαμβάνουν ανεπηρέαστα και ισότιμα το βασικό ανθρώπινο δικαίωμα που αφορά την
εκπαίδευση, την προοπτική τους για μελλοντική εργασιακή αποκατάσταση και την ομαλή κοινωνική ένταξη. Είναι γεγονός
ότι, στη σημερινή οικονομική συγκυρία που περνάει ο ελληνικός λαός με τις δραματικές μειώσεις του εισοδήματος και τις
περικοπές στις κοινωνικές παροχές εξαιτίας των πολιτικών του μνημονίου, η επιβάρυνση των οικογενειών με μια επιπλέον
δαπάνη αποτελεί δυσβάστακτο φορτίο.

Σε προηγούμενη ερώτηση μου σχετικά με τη μείωση των εξεταστικών κέντρων για μαθητές με ειδικές ανάγκες, η Επιτροπή
είχε με σαφήνεια απαντήσει (P-004651/2011) ότι «Η οδηγία 2000/78/EC απαγορεύει την άμεση ή έμμεση επιβολή
διακρίσεων, ιδίως με βάση την αναπηρία, όσον αφορά την πρόσβαση στην απασχόληση και εργασία, καθώς και όσον αφορά
την πρόσβαση σε όλα τα είδη και επίπεδα επαγγελματικής εκπαίδευσης». Με βάση τα παραπάνω και με δεδομένο ότι, τα
άρθρα 24 και 26 του Ευρωπαϊκού Χάρτη Θεμελιωδών Ανθρωπίνων Δικαιωμάτων 2000/C‐364/01, προστατεύουν τα ΑΜΕΑ
παιδιά από κάθε δυσμενή διάκριση, αντιπροσωπεία των 33 Συλλόγων έχει καταθέσει ψήφισμα στη μόνιμη αντιπροσωπεία της
Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης στην Αθήνα ζητώντας την συνδρομή της ΕΕ στην επίλυση του προβλήματος.

Κατόπιν των ανωτέρω, ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

1. Γνωρίζει το μείζον πρόβλημα που έχει δημιουργηθεί με τη μεταφορά των παιδιών;

2. Εκτιμά ότι η κατάσταση που έχει δημιουργηθεί συνιστά δυσμενή μεταχείριση σε βάρος ατόμων με ειδικές ανάγκες και
παραβίαση της Οδηγίας 2000/78; Συνιστά αυτό παραβίαση των άρθρων 24 και 26 του Ευρωπαϊκού Χάρτη
Θεμελιωδών Ανθρωπίνων Δικαιωμάτων;

3. Υπάρχουν πόροι από το Κοινωνικό Ταμείο ή λιμνάζοντα κονδύλια ή από άλλες πηγές οι οποίοι θα μπορούσαν να
χρησιμοποιηθούν για την κάλυψη αυτής της ανάγκης; Τι μέτρα προτίθεται να πάρει ώστε τα παιδιά αυτά να μπορέσουν
άμεσα να απολαμβάνουν της καθημερινής εκπαίδευσης και των προγραμμάτων κοινωνικής ένταξης;

**Απάντηση της κ. Reding εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(10 Ιανουαρίου 2013)_

Σας ευχαριστώ που ενημερώνετε την Επιτροπή για την ιδιαίτερη αυτή κατάσταση.

Όπως έχει αναφερθεί σε προηγούμενες απαντήσεις προς το Αξιότιμο Μέλος του Κοινοβουλίου, η οδηγία 2000/78/ΕΚ
προστατεύει από διακρίσεις λόγω αναπηρίας όσον αφορά την πρόσβαση στην εργασία, την απασχόληση και την
επαγγελματική κατάρτιση. Στην τελευταία περιλαμβάνεται η ανώτατη και η επαγγελματική εκπαίδευση, αλλά όχι η ειδική
εκπαίδευση αυτή καθαυτή. Επιπλέον, δεν υφίσταται νομολογία του Δικαστηρίου της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης βάσει της οποίας
να μπορεί να συμπεριληφθεί η μετακίνηση στην έννοια της πρόσβασης στην εκπαίδευση, όπως αυτή προκύπτει από την εν
λόγω οδηγία.

Ειδικότερα, σχετικά με τα ζητήματα που εγείρονται περί θεμελιωδών δικαιωμάτων, η Επιτροπή υπενθυμίζει ότι, δυνάμει του
άρθρου 51 παράγραφος 1 του Χάρτη των θεμελιωδών δικαιωμάτων, οι διατάξεις του Χάρτη αφορούν τα κράτη μέλη μόνο
όταν αυτά εφαρμόζουν το ενωσιακό δίκαιο. Συνεπώς, επί του ζητήματος στο οποίο αναφέρεται το Αξιότιμο Μέλος, στα
κράτη μέλη εναπόκειται να μεριμνούν για την τήρηση των υποχρεώσεών τους ως προς τα θεμελιώδη δικαιώματα — όπως
υπαγορεύουν οι διεθνείς συμφωνίες ή η εθνική νομοθεσία.

Περιστασιακά, η Επιτροπή στηρίζει συγκεκριμένες δράσεις, αλλά αποκλειστικά με τη μορφή προσκλήσεων υποβολής
προτάσεων για δράσεις τις οποίες μπορούν να αναλάβουν ΜΚΟ προκειμένου να προωθήσουν την κοινωνική ένταξη και την
ισότιμη συμμετοχή των ατόμων με ειδικές ανάγκες. Επί του παρόντος δεν υπάρχει ανοικτή προκήρυξη της ΓΔ «Δικαιοσύνη».

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 149

Στην τρέχουσα περίοδο προγραμματισμού είναι διαθέσιμα κονδύλια από τα διαρθρωτικά ταμεία (Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινωνικό
Ταμείο και Ευρωπαϊκό Ταμείο Περιφερειακής Ανάπτυξης) για τη στήριξη όλων των σχετικών δραστηριοτήτων, όπως η
βελτίωση της πρόσβασης στην εργασία, την εκπαίδευση, την απασχόληση, την επαγγελματική κατάρτιση και τις μεταφορές,
καθώς και τη μετάβαση από υπηρεσίες ιδρυμάτων σε υπηρεσίες παρεχόμενες σε επίπεδο τοπικής κοινωνίας ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Για περαιτέρω πληροφορίες σχετικά με τη χρηματοδότηση του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινωνικού Ταμείου στην Ελλάδα: http://www.esfhellas.gr/.

C 310 E / 150 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009740/12**

**to the Commission**
**Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Withholding of funding for the transport of pupils with special needs to specialised education centres

The management boards of 33 associations of parents and guardians of special educational centres for children with
various forms of disability affecting their mobility or sensory perceptions or suffering from cerebral palsy, mental
retardation, autism, etc. are protesting at the fact that, two months from the start of the academic year, the
Government has not paid transport costs for the children, thereby depriving them of the unimpeded and equal
enjoyment of their basic human right to education, prospects for future employment and full social integration. In the
current economic climate in Greece, with sharp cuts in income and benefits as a result of austerity measures under the
memorandum of understanding, this additional burden being placed on families is particularly inadmissible.

In the reply to my previous written question (P-004651/2011) concerning the reduction in the number of
examination centres for pupils with special needs, the Commission clearly indicated that ‘Directive 2000/78/EC
prohibits direct and indirect discrimination based notably on disability in conditions for access to employment and to
occupation as well as in access to all types and all levels of vocational training’. In view of this and given that
Articles 24 and 26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2000/C-364/01) provide for the
protection of children with disabilities from any form of discrimination, the representatives of the 33 associations
have forwarded a resolution to the EU representation in Athens seeking EU assistance in resolving the problem.

In view of this:

1. Is the Commission aware of the major transport problems affecting the children concerned?

2. Does it consider that the situation which has been created is resulting in discrimination against people with
special needs, thereby infringing Directive 2000/78/EC? Does it constitute an infringement of Articles 24 and
26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

3. Is it possible to provide Social Fund or other resources to meet the needs arising in this case? What measures
will it take to ensure that the children in question are able to participate immediately in everyday education and
social integration programmes?

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

_(10 January 2013)_

Thank you for informing the Commission about this particular situation.

As mentioned in previous replies to the Honourable Member, Directive 2000/78/EC offers protection against
discrimination on grounds of disability in access to employment, occupation and vocational training. The latter
includes higher education, as well as professional or vocational education, but not special education as such.
Moreover, there is no case-law of the European Court of Justice that would justify the inclusion of transport in the
concept of access to education covered by this directive.

Regarding more particularly the fundamental rights issues raised, 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 Member States to ensure that their obligations regarding fundamental rights — as resulting from international
agreements or from their internal legislation — are respected.

Occasionally the Commission supports concrete actions, but only on the basis of calls for proposals for actions that
can be undertaken by NGOs to promote social inclusion and equal participation of people with disabilities. At the
moment, DG Justice does not have any open call.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 151

Structural funds (European Social Fund and European Regional Development Fund) are available in the current
programming period for supporting all related activities, such as improving access to employment, education,
occupation, vocational training and transport accessibility and the shift from institutional to community based
services ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) For further information on ESF funding in Greece, please consult: http://www.esfhellas.gr/.

C 310 E / 152 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009741/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(24 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Programa Europa Creativa

2013 será el Año Europeo de los Ciudadanos. La construcción de la ciudadanía europea debería basarse en una
sociedad civil europea activa a todas las escalas, tanto europea como local. Cataluña tiene una rica tradición de
asociaciones culturales que contribuyó de manera decisiva a la creación de un imaginario colectivo y de una cultura
propia. El canto coral es la práctica cultural amateur más extendida en nuestro país. Más de 30 000 personas de un
país de 7 millones de habitantes pertenecen a un coro y hacen más de 3 000 actuaciones al año. Este fenómeno no
solo ocurre en Cataluña ( [1] ), sino que otros Estados europeos también tienen una ratio elevada de cantantes ( [2] ).
Además, el mundo amateur y la formación cultural no formal son las bases de una pirámide que culmina con
nuestros artistas de élite.

Cataluña ha tenido históricamente un papel muy activo en la creación y gobernanza de la Asociación Coral Europea
— Europa Cantat (así como de otros organismos de red, como el Consejo Europeo de la Música —European Music
Council, EMC—, que recibió financiación de la UE para su funcionamiento interno). Por otra parte, la Organización
Coral Catalana (Moviment Coral Català) ha contribuido al desarrollo y a la puesta en práctica de proyectos financiados
por el programa Cultura. Todas las subvenciones europeas han sido realmente útiles para la creación y ejecución de
diferentes proyectos ( [3] ). Estos proyectos han contribuido de manera decisiva a crear una conciencia de la ciudadanía
europea a miles de cantantes de coro en Europa. Nos preocupa que las asociaciones culturales y los organismos de red
de Europa pierdan las oportunidades de financiación con el nuevo programa Europa Creativa. Esta financiación es de
suma importancia. En el caso de la Asociación Coral Europea, se potencia gracias a que la gestión y la ejecución de la
asociación la llevan a cabo voluntarios.

En lo que se refiere a las solicitudes de subvenciones y los criterios de evaluación, ¿qué mecanismos se crearán para
garantizar que el mundo musical y cultural amateur continúe sentando las bases de una cultura de élite y
contribuyendo de forma decisiva a la construcción de una identidad cultural colectiva en Europa?

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

_(4 de diciembre de 2012)_

Al igual que ocurre con el actual programa Cultura, el programa «Europa Creativa» estará abierto a todos los sectores
creativos y culturales, música incluida, y a todo tipo de organizaciones culturales, incluidos coros, asociaciones y
redes, tanto de aficionados, como profesionales.

La propuesta de la Comisión establece los objetivos y las prioridades del futuro programa y hace especial hincapié en
el apoyo a la capacidad de los operadores culturales y creativos para actuar transnacionalmente y para cultivar sus
audiencias y la participación popular en la cultura (especialmente la de los jóvenes y la de las personas con un acceso
limitado a la cultura). Por lo tanto, es evidente que el mundo cultural y musical aficionado y, entre ellos, las
actividades corales, tienen el potencial de contribuir a lograr estos objetivos y, por consiguiente, pueden acogerse al

programa.

En cuanto se adopte el programa, se redactarán con mayor detalle los criterios de evaluación y de elegibilidad, que
reflejarán los objetivos y las prioridades de la base jurídica.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.mcc.cat/ca/.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.europeanchoralassociation.org/.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.europeanchoralassociation.org/fileadmin/redaktion/VOICE/Strand1.1_DE_ECA-EC_VOICE_ProjDesc.pdf

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 153

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009741/12**

**to the Commission**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Creative Europe programme

2013 will be the European Year of Citizens. The construction of a European citizenship should be based on an active
European civil society at all levels, European and local. Catalonia has a rich tradition of cultural associations, which
have made a decisive contribution to the creation of a collective imagination and an own culture. Choral singing is the
most widespread amateur cultural practice in our country. More than 30 000 people, in a country of seven million,
belong to a choir, with choirs putting on more than 3 000 performances per year. This phenomenon is not confined
to Catalonia ( [1] ); other European countries have also a high ratio of singers ( [2] ). Moreover, the amateur world and nonformal cultural training are the bases of a pyramid that culminates in our elite artists.

Catalonia has historically had a very active role in the creation and governance of the ‘European Choral Association
— Europa Cantat’ (as well as in other networking bodies such as the European Music Council, which receives EU
funding for its internal operation). Furthermore, the Catalan Choral Umbrella Organisation (Moviment Coral Català)
has contributed to the development and implementation of projects funded by the Culture programme. All the
European grants provided have been extremely useful for the creation and execution of different projects ( [3] ). Those
projects have made a decisive contribution to creating an awareness of European citizenship among thousands of
choral singers in Europe. We are concerned that cultural associations and networking bodies in Europe will lose
funding opportunities under the new Creative Europe programme. Such funding is very important; in the case of the
European Choral Association, it is maximised by the fact that the association is managed and run primarily by
volunteers.

As regards calls for grant applications and evaluation criteria, what mechanisms will be put in place to ensure that the
amateur musical and cultural world continues to build the bases for an elite culture and to make a decisive
contribution to the construction of a collective cultural identity in Europe?

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

_(4 December 2012)_

Just as with the current Culture programme, ‘Creative Europe’ will be open to all cultural and creative sectors,
including music, and all types of cultural organisations, including choirs, associations and networks, both amateur
and professional.

The Commission's proposal defines the objectives and priorities for the future programme, placing an emphasis on
supporting the capacity of cultural and creative players to operate transnationally and to develop their audiences and
people's involvement in culture (especially young people and those who currently have limited access to culture). It is
thus clear that the amateur musical and cultural world, among them choral activities, has the potential to contribute
to these objectives and, accordingly, can be covered by the programme.

More detailed evaluation and eligibility criteria, which will reflect the objectives and priorities laid down in the legal
base, will be drafted once the programme is adopted.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.mcc.cat/ca/.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.europeanchoralassociation.org.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.europeanchoralassociation.org/fileadmin/redaktion/VOICE/Strand1.1_DE_ECA-EC_VOICE_ProjDesc.pdf

C 310 E / 154 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-010543/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(19 de noviembre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Intervención del personal de la Embajada de EE.UU. en Barajas

El 6 de mayo del 2012, a su llegada al aeropuerto de Madrid, un periodista colombiano procedente de París y con
destino Madrid — La Habana fue informado por la compañía operadora Air Europa de que para la entrega de la tarjeta
de embarque debería esperar a una persona de una embajada no identificada

Personado el agente de la embajada, se identificó como miembro de la Embajada de Estados Unidos de América,
solicitó el pasaporte al viajero y procedió a interrogarle sobre sus datos personales y los de sus familiares, todo ello en
las propias instalaciones del aeropuerto. Una vez acabado el interrogatorio, le permitió partir, no sin advertirle de que
no podría coger el vuelo de Air Europa por pasar este durante unos pocos minutos por espacio aéreo estadounidense.

El viajero presentó una reclamación e insistió para que se le comunicara el motivo de tal actuación; un miembro de
Air Europa le informó de que el paso durante unos minutos por el espacio aéreo estadounidense se había hecho por
presión de Washington, que por este medio quería obtener de antemano la lista de pasajeros con destino a la isla.

¿Tiene conocimiento la Comisión de este tipo de actuaciones de agentes de la Embajada de los Estados Unidos en el
aeropuerto de Madrid — Barajas?

¿Hay algún tipo de acuerdo que permita este tipo de actuaciones en territorio nacional de los Estados miembros?

En el caso de que no exista tal acuerdo, ¿qué medidas piensa adoptar la Comisión para que no se repita la ingerencia
de un Estado extranjero en las competencias atribuidas a las fuerzas y cuerpos de seguridad de los Estados miembros
con respecto a la seguridad aeroportuaria?

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-010546/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(19 de noviembre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Personal de la Embajada de EE.UU. impide el vuelo de un ciudadano colombiano en Barajas

El 6 de mayo del 2012, a su llegada al aeropuerto de Madrid, un periodista colombiano procedente de París y con
destino Madrid — La Habana fue informado por la compañía operadora Air Europa de que para la entrega de la tarjeta
de embarque debería esperar a una persona de una embajada no identificada.

Personado el agente de la embajada, se identificó como miembro de la Embajada de Estados Unidos de América,
solicitó el pasaporte al viajero y procedió a interrogarle sobre sus datos personales y los de sus familiares, todo ello en
las propias instalaciones del aeropuerto. Una vez acabado el interrogatorio, le permitió partir, no sin advertirle de que
no podría coger el vuelo de Air Europa por pasar este durante unos pocos minutos por espacio aéreo estadounidense.

El viajero presentó una reclamación e insistió para que se le comunicara el motivo de tal actuación; un miembro de
Air Europa le informó de que el paso durante unos minutos por el espacio aéreo estadounidense se había hecho por
presión de Washington, que por este medio quería obtener de antemano la lista de pasajeros con destino a la isla.

¿Tiene conocimiento la Comisión de este tipo de actuaciones de agentes de la Embajada de los Estados Unidos en el
aeropuerto de Madrid-Barajas?

¿Hay algún tipo de acuerdo que permita este tipo de actuaciones en territorio nacional de los Estados miembros?

¿Piensa la Comisión tomar alguna medida para que las compañías operadoras como Air Europa y otras no impidan la
libre circulación de los pasajeros a petición de una embajada extranjera en territorio de un Estado miembro y sin
conocimiento de las fuerzas y cuerpos de seguridad de los Estados miembros?

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 155

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

_(24 de enero de 2013)_

Las preguntas parecen estar relacionadas con el Programa Vuelo Seguro ( _Secure Flight Program_ ) de los Estados Unidos,
que gestiona la Agencia de Seguridad del Transporte de los EE.UU. ( _Transport Security Agency_, TSA) para salvaguardar
la seguridad de la aviación mediante una preselección de la información relativa a los vuelos, cotejándola con listas de
control de las personas que se consideran una amenaza para la seguridad de un vuelo.

Con arreglo a ese Programa, las compañías aéreas están obligadas a recoger, en nombre de la TSA, unos pocos datos y
entregárselos a dicha agencia. La TSA utiliza esos datos para evitar que quienes figuran en la lista de personas que
tienen prohibido volar en los EE.UU. ( _US No Fly List_ ) puedan subir a un avión y para identificar a los individuos que
figuran en la Lista Restringida ( _Selectee List_ ) de los EE.UU. con vistas a una detección reforzada. En la práctica, la TSA
hace esto solicitando a las compañías aéreas que denieguen el embarque a la persona específica o informando a las
autoridades competentes (o a los funcionarios de enlace del tercer país) para que lleven a cabo un examen más
detenido de esas personas.

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

La Comisión está examinando la cuestión de las transferencias de datos API a terceros países, inclusive en virtud del
_Secure Flight Program_ de los EE.UU. El Grupo de Trabajo del Artículo 29 sobre Protección de Datos también está
estudiando estos temas y se espera que emita un dictamen a principios de 2013. La Comisión mantendrá informado
al Parlamento de su trabajo y propondrá un camino a seguir.

C 310 E / 156 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009742/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Martin Ehrenhauser (NI)**

_(24. Oktober 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Nutzung von PNR-Daten durch die USA

Die EU hat kürzlich ein Abkommen mit den USA zur Übermittlung von Fluggastdaten (PNR) abgeschlossen.

Medienberichten zufolge haben die USA Zugriff auf PNR-Daten von Passagieren, die weder in die USA gereist noch
dort gelandet sind, gehabt und diese genutzt.

1. Ist der Kommission dieser Zustand bekannt?

2. Ist der Kommission bekannt, dass die USA auf bestimmte PNR-Daten, die nicht durch das Abkommen
abgedeckt sind, zugreifen können und diese nutzen? Falls ja, wie reagiert die Kommission auf diesen Zustand?

3. Wie wird die Kommission reagieren, sollte sich herausstellen, dass sich die USA nicht an die Bestimmungen in
dem Abkommen zur Übermittlung von PNR-Daten halten?

4. Ist es grundsätzlich möglich, dass die USA das Abkommen umgehen und auf PNR-Daten zugreifen, die nicht
durch das Abkommen abgedeckt sind? Falls ja, wie geschieht dies und wie wird die Kommission sicherstellen, dass
dies künftig nicht mehr möglich sein wird?

**Gemeinsame Antwort von Frau Malmström im Namen der Kommission**

_(24. Januar 2013)_

Die Fragen beziehen sich anscheinend auf das Flugsicherungsprogramm der Vereinigten Staaten, das von der
Transportation Security Agency (TSA) mit dem Ziel durchgeführt wird, die Flugsicherheit durch den vorherigen
Abgleich von Flugdaten mit einer Liste von Personen, die die Flugsicherheit bedrohen, zu gewährleisten.

In diesem Rahmen haben die Fluggesellschaften im Namen der TSA bestimmte Daten über Passagiere zu erfassen und
an die TSA weiterzugeben. Die Daten dienen dazu, Personen, die auf der „No Fly List“ der Vereinigten Staaten stehen,
daran zu hindern, an Bord der Flugzeuge zu gehen, und Personen, die in der „Selectee List“ genannt sind, einer
besonderen Kontrolle zu unterziehen. Praktisch heißt das, dass die TSA die Fluggesellschaften auffordert, das
Einsteigen zu verweigern oder die Behörden (oder Verbindungsbeamte des Drittlandes) zu informieren, dass sie die
betreffenden Personen genauer kontrollieren sollen.

Die Datenübermittlung im Rahmen des US-Flugsicherungsprogramms fällt nicht unter das Abkommen über
Fluggastdaten (PNR) zwischen der EU und den Vereinigten Staaten, sondern erfolgt im weiteren Umfeld der
Übermittlung erweiterter Fluggastdaten (API) an Drittländer. Angesichts der damit verbundenen rechtlichen Fragen
und des Ausmaßes der weltweiten Verwendung von API (32 Nicht-EU-Mitgliedstaaten erfassen bereits API-Daten,
weitere 25 Nicht-EU-Mitgliedstaaten wollen API-Systeme einführen, und die EU-Mitgliedstaaten erfassen ebenfalls
API-Daten) handelt es sich um ein komplexes Thema.

Die Kommission prüft derzeit die Frage der Übermittlung von API-Daten an Drittländer, auch im Rahmen des
Flugsicherungsprogramms der Vereinigten Staaten. Die Datenschutzgruppe nach Artikel 29 ist ebenfalls damit
befasst und wird voraussichtlich Anfang 2013 ihre Stellungnahme abgeben. Die Kommission wird das Parlament
über ihre Arbeit informieren und Vorschläge für das weitere Vorgehen unterbreiten.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 157

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009742/12**

**to the Commission**
**Martin Ehrenhauser (NI)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Use of PNR data by the USA

The EU recently concluded an agreement with the USA on the use and transfer of airline passenger name record (PNR)
data.

According to media reports, the USA has accessed and used the PNR data of passengers who have neither travelled to
nor stopped over in the USA.

1. Does the Commission have any knowledge of this?

2. Does the Commission know whether the USA can access and use specific PNR data that is not covered by the
agreement? If it can do so, what is the Commission’s reaction to this state of affairs?

3. How will the Commission respond if it should emerge that the USA is not abiding by the stipulations of the
agreement on the use and transfer of PNR data?

4. Is it, in principle, possible for the USA to circumvent the agreement and access PNR data not covered by it? If so,
how is this possible and how will the Commission ensure that it will no longer be possible in future?

**Question for written answer E-010543/12**

**to the Commission**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(19 November 2012)_

_Subject:_ Intervention at Madrid's Barajas airport by staff from the US Embassy

On 6 May 2012, a Colombian journalist who had flown into Madrid airport from Paris on his way to Havana was
informed by his airline — Air Europa — that his boarding card for the Havana flight could not be issued until a
person from an unidentified embassy had arrived.

The person in question appeared and identified himself as a member of the US Embassy. He asked for the passenger's
passport and proceeded to interrogate him regarding his personal data and those of his family members. All of this
took place within the airport premises. Once the interrogation was over he allowed him to leave — though not
without informing him that he would not be able to board the Air Europa flight on account of the fact that the latter
would be transiting for a few minutes through US airspace.

The passenger lodged a complaint and insisted on being told the reason for such action. An Air Europa representative
informed him that the few minutes' flying time through US airspace had been forced upon the airline by Washington
as a way of obtaining in advance a list of passengers travelling to the island.

Is the Commission aware of this type of activity by US Embassy staff at Madrid's Barajas airport?

Is there any kind of agreement under which this type of activity is permitted on the EU Member States' territory?

If no such agreement exists, what action is the Commission intending to take in order to ensure that there is no
further interference by a non-EU state in the tasks assigned to the Member States' security forces in the field of airport
security?

C 310 E / 158 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

**Question for written answer E-010546/12**

**to the Commission**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(19 November 2012)_

_Subject:_ USA Embassy staff prevent a Columbian citizen from flying out of Barajas

On 6 May 2012, on his arrival at Madrid airport, a Columbian journalist who had come in from Paris and was due to
fly from Madrid to Havana was informed by the airline, Air Europa, that he would have to wait for someone from an
unidentified embassy before he could be issued with a boarding card.

When the embassy staff member arrived he identified himself as an employee of the Embassy of the United States of
America, asked to see the traveller’s passport and proceeded to interrogate him on his personal details and those of his
family; all of this happened on the airport premises. Once the interrogation was complete the journalist was allowed
to leave, but was warned that he would not be unable to take the Air Europa flight as it would pass through United
States airspace for a few minutes.

The traveller filed a complaint and demanded to be informed of the grounds for this measure; a member of Air
Europa staff informed him that the flight route through US airspace had been plotted under pressure from
Washington, which thus hoped to obtain prior information on the list of passengers heading for the island.

Is the Commission aware that staff of the United States Embassy are acting in this way at Madrid Barajas airport?

Is there any type of agreement permitting such actions on the national territory of the Member States?

Does the Commission plan to take any steps to ensure that airlines such as Air Europa and others do not impede the
free movement of passengers at the request of a foreign embassy on the territory of a Member State and without the
knowledge of the security forces and corps of the Member States?

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

_(24 January 2013)_

The questions appear to relate to the Secure Flight Program of the United States which is managed by the
Transportation Security Agency (TSA) to safeguard aviation security by pre-screening information for flights against
watch lists of persons who pose a threat to the security of a flight.

Under the program, air carriers are required to collect on behalf of, and provide to, TSA certain data elements on
passengers. TSA uses the data to prevent individuals on the United States No Fly List from boarding an aircraft and to
identify individuals on the United States Selectee List for enhanced screening. In practice, this is done by the TSA
requesting air carriers to deny boarding or informing the authorities (or liaison officers of the third country) to closer
examine the individuals in question.

The transfer of data under the United States Secure Flight Program does not fall within the scope of the EU-US PNR
Agreement. It is part of a wider set of issues regarding transfers of Advance Passenger Information (API) to third
countries. That issue is complex due to the legal questions involved and the extent of the use of API in the world (32
non-EU Member States already collect API data, API systems are anticipated in another 25 non-EU Member States,
and EU Member States also collect API data).

The Commission is currently examining the issue of transfers of API to third countries, including under the United
States Secure Flight Program. The article 29 Working Party on Data Protection is also considering it and is expected to
deliver an opinion in early 2013. The Commission will keep the Parliament informed of its work and propose a way
forward.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 159

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009743/12**

**a la Comisión (Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante)**

**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(24 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ VP/HR — Condena a prisión al periodista colombiano Fredy Muñoz

_El Gobierno colombiano está llevando a cabo un proceso de persecución de periodistas que pone en duda la veracidad de la_
_información que nos llega del país. El difícil trabajo de los medios de comunicación que difieren de las posiciones mantenidas por el_
_Gobierno se encuentra perseguido directamente por el Estado._

El periodista Fredy Muñoz fue detenido en 2006 acusado de terrorismo y rebelión, el mismo delito por el que ahora
ha sido condenado. Dicha detención desencadenó una oleada de protestas por parte de las diferentes organizaciones
profesionales de carácter nacional e internacional. El resultado de aquel proceso judicial _fue la absolución del periodista_
_por absoluta falta de pruebas en su contra._

En la presente resolución del proceso, Fredy Muñoz ha sido condenado _al ser considerado un supuesto_ « _experto en_
_explosivos_ » _acusado de_ « _bombardear una central eléctrica_ » _. El juicio no ha considerado más que testimonios de reclusos que_
_actuaban bajo la presión y el chantaje, así como pruebas de dudosa calidad jurídica. Se ha imputado de actividad terrorista a un_
_reputado periodista con una larga carrera a sus espaldas que ha realizado un profundo trabajo de periodismo crítico en la cobertura_
_de los diferentes conflictos y las luchas por el cumplimiento de los derechos humanos en el país._

Esta condena confirma la estrateg _ia del Gobierno colombiano de perseguir a los periodistas que son capaces de levantar una voz_
_crítica en contra de un Estado que ha sido denunciado por numerosos organismos por continuas violaciones de los derechos_
_humanos. La Fiscalía y buena parte del sistema judicial colombiano está desarrollando una persecución que pone en tela de juicio_
_la seguridad de los periodistas en el país._

1. ¿Considera la Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante garantizados en Colombia los derechos fundamentales de
libertad de expresión, opinión y de prensa?

2. _¿Exigirá la Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante el respeto de la Libertad de Prensa al Gobierno colombiano ante el proceso de_
_ratificación del Acuerdo Comercial Multipartes UE-Colombia y Perú?_

3. Ante la _ya deplorable situación de los derechos humanos no solo de periodistas, sino también de sindicalistas, campesinos_
_defensores de los Derechos Humanos y líderes de la sociedad civil, ¿cómo piensa exigir la UE el cumplimiento del artículo 2 de_
_dicho acuerdo en Colombia?_

_**Respuesta de la Alta Representante/Vicepresidenta Ashton en nombre de la Comisión**_

_(17 de diciembre de 2012)_

La AR/VP considera el Estado colombiano respeta en general las garantías de la libertad de prensa, de expresión y
opinión que prevé la legislación colombiana y que el panorama de los medios de comunicación de masas en
Colombia es plural e independiente.

Por lo que se refiere al caso del Sr. Fredy Muñoz Altamiranda, según entiende la AR/VP, su condena se debe a su
calidad de miembro activo de las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC), un grupo guerrillero que la
UE ha incluido en su lista de organizaciones terroristas. Su sentencia se dictó _in absentiam_, ya que el Sr. Muñoz reside
en Venezuela. La AR/VP no dispone de información que corrobore la denuncia de la vulneración de los derechos de
defensa del Sr. Muñoz.

La UE es consciente de que continúan las amenazas y ataques a periodistas, sindicalistas, defensores de los derechos
humanos y dirigentes de la sociedad civil en el contexto del conflicto interno colombiano. Ha instado
sistemáticamente al Gobierno colombiano a que refuerce y consolide sus esfuerzos por proteger estos grupos de
población vulnerables, a los que la propia UE ya proporciona apoyo y reconocimiento.

Una vez que el Acuerdo Comercial Multilateral entre la UE y Colombia y Perú entre en vigor, la UE velará por su
correcta aplicación, en particular en relación con los Derechos Humanos. En este contexto, los marcos de diálogo con
la sociedad civil que se utilizarán con arreglo a las disposiciones del Acuerdo desempeñarán un papel clave.

C 310 E / 160 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009743/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Custodial sentence handed down to Colombian journalist Fredy Muñoz

The Colombian government is currently conducting a campaign of persecution against journalists which casts doubt
on information reaching us from this country. The difficult work of media that disagree with the government's
position is met with direct persecution by the State.

Journalist Fredy Muñoz was detained in 2006 and charged with terrorism and rebellion, the same crime for which he
has now been convicted. His detention triggered an outcry from national and international professional
organisations. That trial resulted in his acquittal because there was absolutely no evidence against him.

In this case, the trial has resulted in Fredy Muñoz's conviction, based on allegations that he is an ‘explosives expert’
who ‘blew up an electricity plant’. The court relied entirely on the testimony of prisoners subject to pressure and
blackmail and evidence of dubious legal quality. A respected journalist with a long career behind him, who has carried
out in-depth, critical coverage of the conflicts and battles to establish human rights in his country, has been accused of
terrorism.

His conviction confirms the Colombian government's strategy to persecute journalists who are in a position to voice
their criticism of the State, which has been denounced by numerous organisations for repeated human rights
violations. The prosecution services and a good part of the Colombian court system are conducting a campaign of
persecution that raises questions about the security of the country's journalists.

1. Does the Vice-President/High Representative believe that the fundamental rights of freedom of expression,
opinion, and the press are guaranteed in Colombia?

2. Does the Vice-President/High Representative intend to insist on respect for the freedom of the press before the
ratification of the multiparty Trade Agreement between the European Union and Colombia and Peru?

3. How does the EU intend to enforce Article 2 of the abovementioned agreement with Colombia, given the
already disastrous human rights situation facing not only journalists, but also trade union leaders, rural human rights
activists and civil society leaders?

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

_(17 December 2012)_

The HR/VP considers that the guarantees that Colombian law provides for freedom of expression, opinion, and the
press are generally respected by the Colombian state and that Colombia has an independent and vibrant media
landscape.

As regards the case of Mr Fredy Muñoz Altamiranda, it is the HR/VP's understanding that he has been sentenced for
active membership in the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC), a guerrilla group that the EU has
placed on its list of terrorist organisations. This sentence was passed in absentiam, since Mr Muñoz lives in Venezuela.
The HR/VP does not dispose of any information that would support the claim that the defence rights of Mr Muñoz
have been violated.

The EU is aware that threats and attacks upon journalists, trade union member, human rights defenders and civil
society leaders continue in the context of Colombia’s internal conflict. It has consistently urged the Colombian
Government to step up and consolidate its efforts to protect these vulnerable population groups, and is itself
providing support and recognition to them.

Once the multiparty Trade Agreement between the EU and Colombia and Peru enters into force the EU will pursue its
proper implementation including with regards to Human Rights. In this context, the frameworks for dialogue with
civil society that will be used as a consequence of the provisions set in the Agreement will play a key role.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 161

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009744/12**

**to the Commission**
**James Nicholson (ECR)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Internal trafficking of human beings within Member States

Human trafficking is a major concern right across the EU, with victims trafficked across borders for a variety of
reasons, including sexual exploitation, forced labour and begging.

However, less well known is the increasing epidemic of ‘internal trafficking’, in which victims are taken from an area
within a Member State and trafficked to another area, which may be only a matter of miles from where they were
originally taken.

1. Does the Commission have a strategy to help combat internal trafficking?

2. Does the Commission intend to put procedures in place to help raise awareness of this serious issue?

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

_(10 December 2012)_

The European Commission is aware of the fact that internal trafficking is on the rise and has identified already this
trend in the new and integrated EU Strategy for Eradication of Trafficking in Human Beings. According to preliminary
data collected in cooperation with Eurostat and presented in the EU Strategy, the majority of Member States reported
that most victims come from within the EU, mainly from Romania and Bulgaria. The Commission will publish more
detailed results by end 2012.

The EU Strategy provides a comprehensive framework of action for addressing trafficking in human beings including
its internal dimension. It identified 5 key priorities, which will be operationalized by a set of 40 concrete and timebound actions targeting the Commission, Member States, EU agencies and services. These actions vary from
development of guidelines and best practice models to research, funding and establishment of mechanisms and
procedures.

In 2014 the Commission will launch EU-wide Awareness Raising Activities targeting specific vulnerable groups. The
Internet and social networks will be used as a means of effectively raising awareness in a target manner.

Directive 2011/36/EU is expected to have a considerable impact on preventing and combating trafficking in human
beings and protecting its victims once fully transposed by the Member States by 6 April 2013.

The Commission further refers to its answers to written questions E-006480/12, E-006490/12, E-006553/12,
E-06561/12, E-006593/12, E-006675/12, E-006590/12 and E-007118/12.

C 310 E / 162 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009745/12**

**to the Commission**
**James Nicholson (ECR)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Support for micro-businesses

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) form the backbone of the Northern Ireland economy, accounting for
98% of the total number of businesses and employing 67% of the workforce.

The Rübig Report on SMEs competitiveness and business opportunities calls for the European Union to help small
and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to develop efficient internationalisation strategies to allow them to seize
opportunities in the global market.

1. Does the Commission intend to act on the recommendations of this report?

2. Will the Commission bear in mind the role of micro-businesses when formulating policy and proposals to help
SMEs in these difficult economic times?

3. Will the Commission give special consideration to the number of micro-businesses across Europe when
finalising the Horizon 2020 programme?

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

_(21 December 2012)_

The Commission notes the importance of the recommendations of the Rübig Report on SMEs competitiveness and
business opportunities.

The next multi-annual financial framework is designed to facilitate the participation of small businesses in funding
programmes, for example by simplifying rules, reducing the costs of participation, accelerating award procedures and
providing a ‘one-stop shop’ to make life easier for the beneficiaries of EU funding. The future EU budget will also
provide targeted financial support for SMEs via the COSME programme and other Union programmes.

The support to micro-enterprises is at the heart of our policy as outlined in the Commission Report ‘Minimising
regulatory burden for SMEs’ ( [1] ). Preparation by the Commission of future legislative proposals is ‘based on the
premise that micro-entities in particular should be excluded from the scope of proposed legislation unless the
proportionality of their being covered can be demonstrated’. The aim is not to exclude a priori micro-enterprises from
regulations but rather to build regulations so that they are also fit for micro-enterprises.

In addition, it is the Commission's objective to encourage SMEs to participate in the Horizon 2020 programme as
broadly as possible. The participation target has been set by the Commission at 15% of the budget for societal
challenges and leadership in enabling and industrial technologies. One of the components of the programme will be a
dedicated SME instrument, open to all highly innovative SMEs, including micro-enterprises, which have a capability
for growth and have ambition to internationalise.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament ‘Minimising regulatory burden for SMEs — Adapting EU regulation to
the needs of micro-enterprises’ COM(2011) 803 final, 23.11.2011.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 163

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009746/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Mario Mauro (PPE)**

_(24 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Normativa sulla specie di uccelli cacciabili

Lo Sturnius Vulgaris è un uccello dei passeriformi, frugivoro e insettivoro che vive in grandi stormi e che continua a
far parlare gli agricoltori pugliesi, della provincia di Brindisi in particolare. I volatili in questione si spostano in tutto il
territorio determinando una sensibile perdita del raccolto nelle varie campagne del brindisino. Questa specie si
intensifica molto in inverno con l'arrivo degli svernanti è ormai considerata dai contadini pugliesi un flagello per le
colture, in particolare durante la raccolta delle olive.

Al riguardo va segnalato che nella direttiva 79/409/CEE del 2 aprile 1979 (allegato II/2) la specie Sturnius Vulgaris
non viene inserita come specie cacciabile in Italia, determinando pertanto gravi disagi per le zone colpite da tale
fenomeno. Per evitare ulteriori danni lo storno potrebbe essere aggiunto alle specie cacciabili, eliminando così enormi
disagi nel settore agricolo che già soffre di una profonda crisi strutturale.

Alla luce di tali elementi può la Commissione dire se:

È a conoscenza dei fatti sopra menzionati;

ritiene possibile un suo intervento in materia;

sarebbe possibile inserire la specie dello Sturnius Vulgaris all'interno dell'elenco delle specie cacciabili previste dalla
direttiva 79/409/CEE, per risolvere tale grave problema?

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

_(12 dicembre 2012)_

La Commissione rinvia l'onorevole parlamentare alla risposta all'interrogazione scritta E-9815/10 ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2010-9815&language=IT.

C 310 E / 164 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009746/12**

**to the Commission**

**Mario Mauro (PPE)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Rules on huntable bird species

The common starling ( _Sturnus vulgaris_ ), a fruit‐ and insect-eating passerine bird that lives in large flocks, continues to
be a talking-point for farmers in Apulia and in Brindisi province in particular. Flying from place to place, starlings
cause substantial harvest losses all over the Brindisi countryside. Their numbers increase greatly in winter with the
arrival of winterers, and Apulian farmers now regard the species as a pest to crops, especially at olive harvest time.

Under Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 (Annex II/2) _Sturnus vulgaris_ is not classed as a species that may be
hunted in Italy, an omission which results in severe hardship for the areas affected. To avoid further damage, the
starling could be made a huntable species, as this would eliminate major nuisances in the agricultural sector, which is
already undergoing a deep-rooted structural crisis.

Is the Commission aware of the above facts?

Does it think that it could take action?

Could _Sturnus vulgaris_ be added to the list of huntable species in Directive 79/409/EEC in order to resolve this serious
problem?

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

_(12 December 2012)_

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-9815/10 ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2010-9815&language=EN.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 165

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009748/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl (PPE)**

_(24. Oktober 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) zu unterscheiden von ACTA

Zurzeit machen die Europäische Union und Kanada beeindruckende Fortschritte in Bezug auf das
Freihandelsabkommen Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), das gewagteste Handelsabkommen,
das Kanada seit dem NAFTA anstrebt, und das erste Freihandelsabkommen, das die Europäische Union mit einem
westlichen Industrieland verfolgt, und die transatlantischen Beratungen erreichen ihre Endphase. Beide Seiten zeigen
sich zuversichtlich und voller Optimismus, dass die weitere Integrierung der Wirtschaft Kanadas und der EU und die
weitere Liberalisierung unserer Märkte mehr Wettbewerb ermöglichen und damit neue Geschäftsmöglichkeiten
schaffen werden, was wiederum neue Arbeitsplätze schafft und die Arbeitslosigkeit verringert.

Kürzlich wurde das CETA jedoch von einigen als Übereinkommen zur Bekämpfung von Produkt‐ und
Markenpiraterie (ACTA) mit neuem Etikett verspottet. Diese Anschuldigungen sind nicht nur grob vereinfachend,
sondern basieren auch auf Fehlinformationen. Der Hauptkritikpunkt liegt darin, dass das CETA Formulierungen über
Rechte des geistigen Eigentums enthält. Diese Rechte sind allerdings ein notwendiger und vollkommen
gebräuchlicher Teil eines jeden Freihandelsabkommens, und überhaupt gäbe es einen deutlichen Mangel, wenn das
Abkommen keine Klausel über Rechte des geistigen Eigentums enthielte. Das CETA wird ein äußerst umfassendes
Abkommen sein, welches das Potenzial zur Verbesserung des Wettbewerbs, der Anerkennung und des Zugangs zu
vielen Bereichen und Themen hat, einschließlich, aber nicht ausschließlich: öffentliche Aufträge, Ursprungsregeln,
nichttarifäre Hemmnisse, Reform von Regelungen, geografische Angaben, bilaterale Investitionen und Rechte des
geistigen Eigentums.

1. Hat die Kommission in Anbetracht dessen, dass die Fähigkeit der EU-Bürger zu kreativer Innovation und
Produktion bedroht ist, wenn die Ideen unserer Bürger nachgemacht und Produkte raubkopiert werden, wiederholt
betont, dass es für die EU Vorrang hat, die wirtschaftliche Leistung zu steigern und die Arbeitslosigkeit zu senken, und
dass das CETA eine Klausel über Rechte des geistigen Eigentums zur Unterstützung dieses Wachstums enthalten
wird?

2. Wie wird die Kommission Sorge dafür tragen, dass die Rechte des geistigen Eigentums ein üblicher und
notwendiger Teil eines jeden Freihandelsabkommens ist?

3. Wird die Kommission in Würdigung der grundlegenden Bedeutung der Rechte des geistigen Eigentums für die
Fähigkeit unserer Bürger, ihre einzigartigen Ideen zu schützen und zu fördern, weiterhin die Aufnahme solcher
Klauseln in zukünftige Freihandelsabkommen unterstützen?

4. Welche Schritte unternimmt die Kommission, damit die Europäische Union auf dem TRIPSÜbereinkommen ( [1] ) der WTO aufbaut und sich nicht einfach mit den Mindestforderungen begnügt, welche das
Abkommen mit sich bringt?

**Antwort von Herrn De Gucht im Namen der Kommission**

_(11. Dezember 2012)_

Die Kommission ist sich der Bedeutung des von der Frau Abgeordneten vorgebrachten Sachverhalts vollauf bewusst.
Exporteure aus der EU genießen auf dem Weltmarkt für viele Produkte komparative Vorteile, da sie auf ein starkes
Fundament aus Innovation, Kreativität, Qualität und Markenexklusivität bauen können. Unternehmen und Urhebern
aus der EU anderswo einen ähnlichen Schutz zu sichern wie in der EU selbst, ist ein wesentliches Ziel unserer
Freihandelsabkommen; so werden Wachstum und Arbeitsplätze geschaffen. Die Kommission drängt daher darauf,
dass das Umfassende Wirtschafts‐ und Handelsabkommen (CETA) ein substanzielles Kapitel über Rechte des geistigen
Eigentums (IPR) enthält, damit das geistige Eigentum in Kanada geschützt wird.

Die Bestimmungen des CETA werden allerdings in keiner Weise im Widerspruch zu den derzeit in der EU geltenden
IPR-Regeln stehen oder über sie hinausgehen. Insbesondere was das Internet und strafrechtliche Sanktionen betrifft,
wird sich im IPR-Kapitel widerspiegeln, dass das Übereinkommen zur Bekämpfung von Produkt‐ und
Markenpiraterie (ACTA) vom Parlament nicht angenommen wurde.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Übereinkommen über handelsbezogene Aspekte der Rechte des geistigen Eigentums.

C 310 E / 166 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

In den laufenden und in künftigen Verhandlungen über Freihandelsabkommen wird die Kommission weiter
ambitionierte IPR-Standards anstreben, die nach Möglichkeit denen der EU-Rechtsvorschriften gleichwertig sind (und
somit über das Übereinkommen über handelsbezogene Aspekte der Rechte des geistigen Eigentums (TRIPS)
hinausgehen, wenn dies erforderlich und gerechtfertigt ist), wobei der Entwicklungsstand der betreffenden Länder
berücksichtigt wird.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 167

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009748/12**

**to the Commission**
**Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl (PPE)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) is not ACTA

As the European Union and Canada make impressive progress on the Comprehensive Economic and Trade
Agreement (CETA), the boldest trade agreement Canada has pursued since NAFTA, and the first Free Trade
Agreement (FTA) the European Union has pursued with a Western, developed country, transatlantic discussions are
reaching their end game. Both sides are confident and optimistic that the further integration of the Canadian and EU
economies, and the further liberalisation of our markets, will allow increased competition to create new opportunity,
in turn creating jobs and decreasing unemployment.

Recently, however, CETA has been derided by some as the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) by another
name. Said accusations are not only overly simplistic but also misinformed. The main complaint is that CETA
contains Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) wording. However, IPR is a necessary and completely normal part of any
FTA, and, in fact, it would be conspicuously lacking to exclude an IPR clause. CETA will be an extremely
comprehensive agreement that has the potential to improve the competitiveness, recognition and accessibility of
many sectors and themes, including but not limited to: public procurement, rules of origin, non-tariff barriers,
regulatory reform, geographic indications, bilateral investment and IPR.

1. Noting that EU citizens’ ability to innovate and produce creatively is threatened when our citizens’ ideas are
counterfeited and products are pirated, has the Commission reiterated that it is a EU priority to increase economic
performance and decrease unemployment, and that CETA will contain an IPR clause to support said growth?

2. What will the Commission do to assure that IPR is a typical and necessary part of any FTA?

3. Recognising the vital importance of IPR for the ability of our citizens to protect and promote their unique ideas,
will the Commission continue to support the inclusion of IPR clauses in future FTAs?

4. What steps is the Commission taking in order for the European Union to build on the WTO TRIPS ( [1] )
Agreement and not simply settle for the minimum standards the agreement entails?

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

_(11 December 2012)_

The Commission is fully aware of the importance of the issues raised by the Honourable Member. The comparative
advantages that many EU export products have on the world market are the result of a strong reliance on innovation,
creativity, quality and brand exclusivity. Ensuring that EU companies and creators enjoy similar protection as in
the EU is a key objective of our Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), as it creates growth and jobs. The Commission is
therefore pushing for a meaningful chapter on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in the Comprehensive Economic and
Trade Agreement (CETA) to improve the protection of intellectual property in Canada.

No provisions of CETA will however contradict or go beyond the IPR rules that are currently being applied in the EU.
In particular with regard to Internet and criminal sanctions, the IPR chapter will reflect the fact that the AntiCounterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) has not obtained the Parliament's consent,

In ongoing and future FTA negotiations, the Commission will continue to aim at ambitious IPR standards —
equivalent, if possible, to those implemented by EU legislation (i.e. going beyond the Agreement on Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) where necessary and justified), and taking into account the level of
development of the countries concerned.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.

C 310 E / 168 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009749/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl (PPE)**

_(24. Oktober 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Untersuchung der Einfuhren von Solarmodulen aus China mit Blick auf Antidumpingmaßnahmen

Am 5. November 2012 hat die chinesische Regierung bei der WTO Beschwerde gegen die EU wegen unlauterer
Handelspraktiken im Bereich Solarenergie eingelegt. Die Tatsache, dass im Juli mehr als 20 europäische
Solarhersteller gemeinschaftlich Beschwerde gegen China eingelegt haben und die chinesische Regierung nun bei der
WTO gegen die EU vorgeht, verdeutlicht, dass diese Angelegenheit bezüglich der Solarmodule eindeutig eskaliert.
Allein im letzten Jahr belief sich der Wert der chinesischen Ausfuhren von Solarmodulen in die EU auf
21 Milliarden EUR. In der Beschwerde der EU hieß es, dass China mittels Dumping — d. h. die Ausfuhr eines
Erzeugnisses durch ein Land in ein anderes Land zu einem künstlich niedrigen Preis, der weit unter dem realen
Marktpreis liegt — seinen Anteil am EU-Markt für Solarprodukte zum Schaden von EU-Wettbewerbern erhöhen
konnte. Dies hat bei den Herstellern in Europa Bestürzung ausgelöst.

Daher verfolgt China gegenüber jeglichen Antidumpingzöllen in der EU eine harte Linie, um weitere Schäden für
seine Solarhersteller zu vermeiden. Sollten die Verhandlungen zwischen der EU und China innerhalb von 60 Tagen zu
keinem Ergebnis führen, könnte China die WTO ersuchen, über die Angelegenheit zu entscheiden. Da etwa 80 % aller
chinesischen Ausfuhren von Solarmodulen in die EU-Märkte gehen, dürfte diese Untersuchung sowohl in China als
auch in Europa zweifellos auf großes Interesse stoßen. Die EU muss jedoch darauf achten, dass
Antidumpingmaßnahmen nur eingeleitet werden, wenn tatsächlich eine Marktverzerrung besteht. Sie dürfen
jedenfalls nicht einfach vom Staat zu protektionistischen Zwecken — als Schutz für ausgewählte Industriezweige —
instrumentalisiert werden. Letztlich müssen wir einen Handelskrieg zwischen der EU und China mit allen Mitteln
verhindern.

1. Wie will die Kommission vor dem Hintergrund der Tatsache, dass die chinesische Regierung diese
Angelegenheit bereits zu einem potenziellen Handelskrieg eskalieren lässt, sicherstellen, dass China diesen Kurs nicht
weiter verfolgt, falls man zu dem Schluss kommt, dass die Einführung von Antidumpingzöllen tatsächlich die richtige
Vorgehensweise ist?

2. Wie will die Kommission auf Dauer sicherstellen, dass China in Zukunft konkurrenzfähige Preise für
Solarmodule festsetzt, falls China sich entscheidet, sein Verhalten zu ändern?

3. Wie will die Kommission die Gespräche mit der chinesischen Regierung angehen, um die WTO-Beschwerde
beizulegen? Hat sie überhaupt versucht, sich direkt an die chinesische Regierung zu wenden, um die Anliegen der
europäischen Solarbranche auf der höchsten Regierungsebene vorzubringen?

4. Wie reagiert die Kommission auf den Vorwurf der chinesischen Regierung gegen die EU, sie bediene sich
unlauterer Handelspraktiken, und was gedenkt sie zu tun, um für die Zukunft sicherzustellen, dass Antidumpingzölle
ausschließlich als aller letztes Mittel Anwendung finden und nicht einfach als protektionistische Maßnahme
instrumentalisiert werden?

**Antwort von Herrn De Gucht im Namen der Kommission**

_(17. Dezember 2012)_

Die Europäische Kommission leitete am 6. September 2012 eine Antidumpinguntersuchung und am 8. November
2012 eine Antisubventionsuntersuchung betreffend die Einfuhren von Solarmodulen und deren
Schlüsselkomponenten mit Ursprung in China ein, nachdem diesbezüglich hinreichend begründete Anträge im
Namen der Unionshersteller von Solarmodulen eingereicht worden waren. Beide Untersuchungen dauern noch an,
und zum gegenwärtigen Zeitpunkt wäre es verfrüht, Mutmaßungen über die Schlussfolgerungen anzustellen. Diese
Schlussfolgerungen können erst gezogen werden, wenn alle einschlägigen Informationen bei allen betroffenen
Wirtschaftsbeteiligten eingeholt und von der Kommission ordnungsgemäß geprüft worden sind.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 169

In der Regel werden handelspolitische Schutzinstrumente nur dann eingesetzt, wenn eindeutige Beweise dafür
vorliegen, dass gedumpte oder subventionierte Einfuhren aus einem Drittland den Wirtschaftszweig der EU in
bedeutendem Umfang schädigen. Bevor über die Einführung von Maßnahmen entschieden wird, führt die EU zudem
eine sogenannte „Prüfung des Unionsinteresses“ durch, wobei sie das einzige Mitglied der Welthandelsorganisation
(WTO) ist, das diese Prüfung systematisch vornimmt. Dabei untersucht die Kommission, ob der eindeutige Schluss
gezogen werden könnte, dass die Einführung von Maßnahmen nicht im Unionsinteresse läge. Erst dann wird die
Kommission in vollem Einklang mit dem EU‐Recht und den internationalen Verpflichtungen der EU über die
angemessene Vorgehensweise entscheiden. Die Kommission muss ihre vorläufigen Feststellungen innerhalb von
neun Monaten nach Einleitung des Verfahrens treffen.

Die Kommission ist sich der großen Bedeutung dieser Fälle voll und ganz bewusst, und sie hat größtes Interesse daran,
eine Eskalation zu vermeiden. Es ist daher wichtig, dass alle Seiten sich uneingeschränkt an die Regeln halten. In
diesem Zusammenhang weist die Kommission bei ihren Kontakten mit der chinesischen Seite immer wieder auf das
Problem der Subventionen und anderer die chinesische Wirtschaft begünstigender Handelsverzerrungen hin, so zum
Beispiel auf der Sitzung des Gemeinsamen Ausschusses am 31. Mai 2012.

C 310 E / 170 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009749/12**

**to the Commission**
**Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl (PPE)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Anti-dumping investigation into solar panel imports from China

On 5 November 2012, the Chinese Government filed a complaint with the WTO, accusing the EU of unfair trade
practices with regard to solar power. With more than 20 European solar panel producers having collectively lodged a
complaint against China in July 2012 and the Chinese Government now challenging the EU in the WTO, the solar
panel issue is clearly escalating. Last year alone, Chinese solar panel exports to the EU were worth EUR 21 billion. The
EU producers’ complaint alleged that dumping practices — where a country exports a product to another country at
an artificially low price well below market realities — have enabled China to increase its share of the EU solar panel
market, to the dismay and detriment of EU competitors.

In light of that complaint, the Chinese are taking a hard line against any potential anti-dumping duties in the EU, with
a view to avoiding further damage to their own solar panel producers. If negotiations between the EU and China fail
to resolve the issue within 60 days, China could ask the WTO to give a ruling on the issue. Since around 80% of all
Chinese solar panel exports head to EU markets, this investigation will undoubtedly attract a lot of interest, both in
China and in Europe. However, the EU must be careful to use anti-dumping measures only where there are genuine
market distortions, and not simply as a protectionist tool to allow the state to hand-pick the industries it wants to
defend. In the end, we need to prevent a trade war between the EU and China by every possible means.

1. Given that the Chinese Government is already escalating this issue to the point of a potential trade war, how will
the Commission ensure that China does not continue along that path if the Commission decides that the correct
course of action is indeed to impose anti-dumping duties?

2. If, instead, China decides to reform its behaviour, how will the Commission ensure that Chinese solar panels
continue to be priced competitively in the future?

3. How will the Commission begin talks with the Chinese Government with a view to resolving the WTO
complaint? More generally, has the Commission tried appealing directly to the Chinese Government in order to
elevate the EU solar panel industry’s concerns to the highest-level governmental channels?

4. With the Chinese Government accusing the EU of unfair trade practices, what is the Commission doing to
ensure that anti-dumping duties are used solely as a last resort, and not simply as a protectionist tool, both now and in
the future?

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

_(17 December 2012)_

Following duly substantiated complaints lodged on behalf of the Union industry of solar panels, the Commission
initiated an anti-dumping and an anti-subsidy investigation on imports of solar panels and of its main components
from China on 6 September 2012 and 8 November 2012 respectively. The two investigations are currently ongoing
and it is at this point in time premature to speculate on the conclusions that will be drawn once all the relevant facts
are gathered from all relevant economic operators concerned and duly analysed by the Commission.

As a rule, trade defence instruments are used only when there is clear evidence that dumped or subsidised imports
from a third country are causing material injury to EU industry. In addition, before deciding on the imposition of any
measures, the EU — as the only World Trade Organisation (WTO) Member to systematically do so — will conduct
the so-called ‘Union interest test’. Thus, the Commission will examine whether it could be clearly concluded that the
imposition of measures would not be in the interest of the Union. It is only on that basis that the proper course of
action will be determined in full compliance with the EU regulations and the EU's international obligations. The
Commission must reach its provisional findings within nine months of the date of initiation.

The Commission is fully aware of the magnitude of these cases, and has all interest in avoiding any escalation. It is
thus important that all rules are respected by each side. In this context, the Commission repeatedly raises in its
contacts with the Chinese the issue of subsidies and other trade distortions benefiting the Chinese industry, for
instance at the Joint Committee of 31 May 2012.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 171

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009750/12**

**to the Commission**
**Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ The role of EU legislation in the rights of members of the public to erect satellite TV dishes

A London constituent was recently refused planning permission by the competent UK authority, i.e. the relevant
London borough local authority, to erect a satellite dish. He believes that Chapter II, Article 2 of Council
Directive 89/552/EEC ( [1] ) applies and that he has been unreasonably refused the right to watch foreign-language TV
channels — including channels from EU Member States — which he needs for his work.

1. Is the Commission of the view that somehow local authority planning committees need to consider the
contents of EU legislation as cited above or any other EU legislation in determining whether or not to grant members
of the public in the UK permission to erect an external satellite dish to allow them to receive global foreign TV
channels?

2. Has the UK Government correctly transposed the abovementioned directive and given appropriate guidance to
planning authorities in the matter of the right to erect a satellite TV dish?

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

_(4 December 2012)_

1. Directive 2010/13/EU ( [2] ) does not regulate the implementation of satellite dishes in Member States.

2. The abovementioned Directive does not contain any provision that would have to be transposed by Member
States regarding the erection of satellite dishes.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 298, 17.10.1989, p. 23.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) DIRECTIVE 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by

law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services
Directive) OJ L 95, 15.4.2010, p. 1‐24.

C 310 E / 172 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-009751/12**

**aan de Commissie**
**Kartika Tamara Liotard (GUE/NGL)**

_(24 oktober 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Ernstig gebrek naleving dierenwelzijnswetgeving in Nederland

Uit een Nederlands onderzoeksrapport genaamd „Naleving dierenwelzijnswetgeving in de veehouderij” blijkt dat
jaarlijks 1 tot 2,5 miljard wetsovertredingen plaatsvinden ten aanzien van dierenwelzijn van vee in Nederland. Hierbij
is tevens sprake van ernstige overtredingen van Europese richtlijnen. Een voorbeeld:

Minimaal 38.5 % van de vleeskuikens heeft ernstige verwondingen aan de poten, tenen en borst. Deze vleeskuikens
worden niet, zoals vereist op grond van artikel 3j. bijlage I punt 9 van Richtlijn 2007/43/EG op passende wijze
verzorgd door ze af te zonderen en/of op droog strooisel te plaatsen.

In het rapport is onderscheid gemaakt tussen zekere, waarschijnlijke en mogelijke overtredingen. Het
bovengenoemde voorbeeld is een zekere overtreding. In totaal concludeert het rapport dat er 960 685 523 zekere
overtredingen per jaar plaatsvinden ten aanzien van dierenwelzijn van vee.

1. Hoe beoordeelt de Commissie de conclusies van het rapport?

2. Is de Commissie, feiten uit het rapport beschouwend, van mening dat Europese dierenwelzijnswetgeving in
Nederland voldoende wordt nageleefd?

3. Wat gaat de Commissie doen om betere naleving van dierenwelzijnswetten te bewerkstelligen en zo dieren in
Nederland en in andere lidstaten beter te beschermen in de praktijk en niet alleen op papier?

4. Zal de Commissie, gezien deze ernstige nieuwe feiten, extra spoedmaatregelen nemen?

**Antwoord van de heer Borg namens de Commissie**

_(21 december 2012)_

De conclusies in het onderzoeksrapport „Naleving dierenwelzijnswetgeving in de veehouderij” van Dier en Recht en
Varkens in Nood zijn gebaseerd op individuele overtredingen van de dierenwelzijnswetgeving.

Het veronderstelde aantal overtredingen wordt berekend door in verschillende wetenschappelijke verslagen
genoemde percentages van abnormale condities toe te passen op het totale aantal dieren in de veehouderij in
Nederland. De Commissie acht dit geen betrouwbare methodologie, aangezien de percentages van abnormale
welzijnsomstandigheden/overtredingen in die rapporten betrekking hebben op specifieke vormen en
omstandigheden van veehouderij, en het extrapoleren van die percentages naar het totale aantal dieren levert dan ook
geen werkelijk betrouwbare en bruikbare cijfers op.

De lidstaten zijn verantwoordelijk voor de tenuitvoerlegging van de dierenwelzijnswetgeving. Zij zijn verplicht
inspecties te verrichten op veehouderijen en de resultaten daarvan jaarlijks aan de Commissie te melden ( [1] ). Uit de
door de Nederlandse autoriteiten ingediende rapporten en de resultaten van de laatste audit ter plaatse die de
inspectiediensten van Commissie in mei 2012 ( [2] ) hebben verricht, blijkt dat de Nederlandse autoriteiten een over het
algemeen efficiënt systeem van controles hebben opgezet om de naleving van de EU-minimumvoorschriften inzake
dierenwelzijn te controleren en te waarborgen dat veehouders corrigerende maatregelen nemen wanneer deze regels
overtreden worden.

Betere naleving van de bestaande wetgeving inzake dierenwelzijn is een van de prioriteiten van de Commissie, en in
de EU-strategie voor de bescherming en het welzijn van dieren 2012-2015 ( [3] ) worden verschillende gerichte acties ter
verbetering van de situatie genoemd.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Beschikking 2006/778/EG van de Commissie van 14 november 2006 betreffende de minimumeisen voor het verzamelen van informatie bij de

inspecties van productieplaatsen waar bepaalde dieren voor landbouwdoeleinden worden gehouden, PB L 314 van 15.11.2006, blz.39.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Het inspectiebezoek DG(SANCO)/2012-6376 vond plaats van 21 tot 25 mei. Het eindverslag zal gepubliceerd worden op

http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/index_en.cfm.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/actionplan/docs/aw_strategy_19012012_nl.pdf

( **|**

( **|**

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 173

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009751/12**

**to the Commission**
**Kartika Tamara Liotard (GUE/NGL)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Widespread failure to comply with animal welfare law in the Netherlands

A study published in the Netherlands entitled ‘Compliance with animal welfare law in stockfarming’ reveals that
between 1 and 2.5 billion breaches of animal welfare law occur each year in the stockfarming sector in the
Netherlands. These breaches include serious violations of European directives. Here is just one example: at least 38.5%
of chickens kept for meat production have serious injuries to their legs, feet and breasts. These chickens are clearly not
being kept in the proper manner, i.e. in separate cages and/or with permanent access to dry litter, as required by
Article 3(j) of and Annex I(9) to Directive 2007/43/EC.

The study classifies breaches of the law as established, probable and possible. The example quoted above is an
established breach. The study concludes that a total of 960 685 523 established breaches of animal welfare law occur
in the stockfarming sector in the Netherlands every year.

1. What is the Commission’s response to the study’s findings?

2. In the light of the study’s findings, does the Commission take the view that European animal welfare law is being
complied with properly in the Netherlands?

3. What action will the Commission take to improve compliance with animal welfare law, so that animals in the
Netherlands and other Member States are protected more effectively in practice, and not only on paper?

4. Now that these worrying new facts have come to light, will the Commission take extra emergency measures?

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

_(21 December 2012)_

The study ‘compliance with animal welfare law in stock farming’ produced by Dier and Recht and Varkens in Nood
bases its conclusions on individual animal welfare breaches.

The number of individual animal welfare breaches is calculated by multiplying percentages of abnormal welfare
conditions reported in various scientific reports by the total number of farmed animals in the Netherlands. The
Commission questions the validity of this methodology as percentages of abnormal welfare conditions in scientific
reports are linked with specific farming conditions and therefore extrapolating such percentages to the total number
of animals provide very imprecise and approximate figures.

Member States are responsible for the implementation of animal welfare legislation. They have to carry out welfare
inspections in farms and to report ( [1] ) each year to the Commission on the results of these inspections. From the
reports sent by the Dutch authorities and the outcomes of the latest on-the-spot audit carried out in May 2012 ( [2] ) by
the Commission inspection services, it appears that the Dutch authorities have overall an efficient system of controls
to check EU minimum welfare requirements and to ensure that animal keepers take corrective measures in case of
infringement to these rules.

Better enforcement of the existing welfare legislation is a priority for the Commission and the EU strategy for
protection and welfare of animals 2012-2015 ( [3] ) lists several targeted actions to improve the situation.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Commission Decision 2006/778/EC concerning minimum requirements for the collection of information during the inspections of production

sites on which certain animals are kept for farming purposes, OJ L 314, 15.11.2006, p.39.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) The audit DG(SANCO)/2012-6376 was carried out from 21 to 25 May. The final report will be published at

http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/index_en.cfm.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/actionplan/docs/aw_strategy_19012012_en.pdf

( **|**

( **|**

C 310 E / 174 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-009752/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE)**

_(24 Οκτωβρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Πολιτικές για την απασχόληση εν μέσω κρίσης και ανεργίας. Η περίπτωση της Ελλάδας και της Ισπανίας

Η μελέτη ( [1] ) του Centre d’analyse stratégique για την προσαρμογή της απασχόλησης κατά τη διάρκεια της κρίσης
διερεύνησε την αποτελεσματικότητα των πολιτικών απασχόλησης και παραγωγικότητας των κρατών-μελών. Αναδεικνύεται
ότι η φιλοσοφία των πολιτικών που εφαρμόστηκαν και η σύνθεση των διαφόρων παραμέτρων διαφέρει από κράτος σε κράτος,
όπως βέβαια και τα αποτελέσματά τους. Τονίζεται όμως πως η μέθοδος διατήρησης του ανθρώπινου δυναμικού που
υιοθέτησαν οι γερμανικές επιχειρήσεις και οι μηχανισμοί προσαρμογής της απασχόλησης στον περιορισμό των ωρών
εργασίας όπως και η μερική ανεργία απέδειξαν σε παγκόσμιο επίπεδο την αποτελεσματικότητά τους κατά τη διάρκεια της
κρίσης, όσον αφορά στη διατήρηση των θέσεων εργασίας, σε διαφορετικό βαθμό κάθε φορά και ανάλογα με τις χώρες και
τους τομείς. Η Γαλλία π.χ. μείωσε τις ώρες εργασίας, ωστόσο δεν μείωσε τους πραγματικούς μισθούς, κάτι που συνέβη σε
άλλες χώρες.

Για το λόγο αυτό ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

1. Πως αντιμετωπίζει τα ευρήματα και τα συμπεράσματα της συγκεκριμένης μελέτης;

2. Έχει προχωρήσει σε ανάλογες μελέτες και, αν ναι, ποιες είναι οι βέλτιστες πρακτικές στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση; Ποια τα
συμπεράσματα;

3. Ποιες μέθοδοι και μηχανισμοί θεωρεί ότι θα μπορούσαν να είναι αποτελεσματικοί στην αντιμετώπιση της τραγικής
κατάστασης σε χώρες όπως η Ελλάδα και η Ισπανία, όπου καταγράφονται ( [2] ) τα υψηλότερα ποσοστά ανεργίας με
ανοδική τάση; Διαθέτει εκτιμήσεις για άλλα εργαλεία προσαρμοσμένα στην οικονομία, την αγορά εργασίας και τους
βασικούς τομείς οικονομικής δραστηριότητας των χωρών αυτών, τα οποία θα μπορούσαν να προσφέρουν
αποτελεσματικές λύσεις;

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

_(10 Ιανουαρίου 2013)_

1. Από τότε που εκδηλώθηκε η κρίση, η Επιτροπή παρακολουθεί στενά τις εξελίξεις στον τομέα της απασχόλησης στα κράτη
μέλη ( [3] ). Η μελέτη του _Centre d’analyse stratégique_, στην οποία αναφέρεται ο κ. βουλευτής, παρέχει ενδιαφέρουσα στοιχεία και
στηρίζεται στις έρευνες της Επιτροπής για τις απαντήσεις των κρατών στην κρίση όσον αφορά την πολιτική απασχόλησης ( [4] ).
Η Επιτροπή έχει δώσει ιδιαίτερη προσοχή στην εργασία με μειωμένο ωράριο και στις επιδράσεις της στην απασχόληση, καθώς
και στην παραγωγικότητα της εργασίας ( [5] ).

2. Η ανακοίνωση της Επιτροπής με τίτλο «Στοχεύοντας σε μια ανάκαμψη με άφθονες θέσεις εργασίας» ( [6] ) παραθέτει
μεταρρυθμίσεις τις οποίες τα κράτη μέλη θα μπορούσαν να λάβουν υπόψη, ώστε να βοηθήσουν τις αγορές εργασίας να
προσαρμοστούν στην κρίση, καθώς και να αντιμετωπίσουν ευρύτερες διαρθρωτικές προκλήσεις. Οι εν λόγω μεταρρυθμίσεις
περιλαμβάνουν τη χρήση ρυθμίσεων μειωμένου ωραρίου, έτσι ώστε να επιτραπεί στις εταιρείες να αυξήσουν την εσωτερική
ευελιξία, αντί να στραφούν στην ενίσχυση της εξωτερικής ευελιξίας. Ωστόσο, η Επιτροπή θα ήθελε να τονίσει ότι οι
κυβερνήσεις των κρατών μελών, σε συνεργασία με τους κοινωνικούς εταίρους, θα πρέπει να εξετάσουν προσεκτικά την
καταλληλότητα και τη βιωσιμότητα των ρυθμίσεων της εσωτερικής ευελιξίας στο πλαίσιο της χρηματοπιστωτικής και
οικονομικής κατάστασής τους, καθώς και στο πλαίσιο του τομέα της απασχόλησης.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.strategie.gouv.fr/content/lajustement-de-lemploi-pendant-la-crise-une-comparaison-internationale-et-sectorielle-note-d.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/3-01102012-AP/EN/3-01102012-AP-EN.PDF
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Βλέπε «Μεταβολές στη δομή της απασχόλησης στην Ευρώπη κατά τη διάρκεια της Μεγάλης Ύφεσης» (Eurofound, 2011), στο σύνδεσμο:.

http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef1141.htm, και την ετήσια ανασκόπηση για την απασχόληση και τις κοινωνικές εξελίξεις
στην Ευρώπη, στο σύνδεσμο: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=6176&type=2&furtherPubs=yes

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Όπως «Αντιμετωπίζοντας την ύφεση: Δημόσιες πρωτοβουλίες για την απασχόληση στα κράτη μέλη της ΕΕ και την Νορβηγία», στο σύνδεσμο:.

http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/emcc/erm/studies/tn0907020s/tn0907020s.htm

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Βλέπε την από κοινού έκτακτη μελέτη των μονάδων ECFIN-EMPL «Ρυθμίσεις εργασιακών καθεστώτων μειωμένου χρόνου για την αντιμετώπιση των

κυκλικών διακυμάνσεων», στο σύνδεσμο:
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/occasional_paper/2010/pdf/ocp64_en.pdf, και τη μελέτη του Eurofound «Επεκτείνοντας την
ευελιξία: Δυναμικό των εργασιακών καθεστώτων μειωμένου χρόνου», στο σύνδεσμο: http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef1071.htm

( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) COM(2012)173 τελικό, της 18ης Απριλίου 2012, στο σύνδεσμο: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0173:FIN:EN:PDF

( **|**

( **|**

⋅4∙ **|** )

⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|**

⋅6∙ **|** )

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 175

3. Η κατάσταση της αγοράς εργασίας στα κράτη μέλη με υψηλό ποσοστό ανεργίας, γενικά, στους νέους και στους
μακροχρόνια ανέργους, αποτελεί ζήτημα μεγάλης ανησυχίας για την Επιτροπή. Η Ελλάδα και η Ισπανία αντιμετωπίζουν τις
προκλήσεις της πολιτικής για την απασχόληση, οι οποίες υπόκεινται σε ειδικές ανά χώρα συστάσεις στο πλαίσιο του
ευρωπαϊκού εξαμήνου 2012 ( [7] ), καθώς και στο πλαίσιο του προγράμματος οικονομικής προσαρμογής, στην περίπτωση της
Ελλάδας.

Οι προτάσεις που θα υποβάλει η Επιτροπή την άνοιξη του 2013 δυνάμει του ευρωπαϊκού εξαμήνου, θα αντικατοπτρίζουν
την αξιολόγηση της προόδου των κρατών μελών σχετικά με την εφαρμογή των ειδικών ανά χώρα συστάσεων για το 2012,
καθώς και την ανάγκη για νέες συστάσεις.

( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/12/st11/st11256.en12.pdf; http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/12/st11/st11273.en12.pdf

C 310 E / 176 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009752/12**

**to the Commission**
**Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE)**

_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Employment policies in response to the crisis and joblessness — Greece and Spain

The survey ( [1] ) by the Strategic Analysis Centre concerning employment policy adjustments during the crisis examined
the effectiveness of current Member State policies with regard to employment and productivity. The philosophy
behind the policies and the various parameters differ from one Member State to another, together with the results
obtained. However, the strategy adopted by German companies with a view to maintaining employment levels,
making the necessary adjustments in terms of short-time work and partial unemployment, have proved their
effectiveness at global level throughout the crisis, preventing job losses with varying degrees of success each time,
depending on the countries and sectors concerned. In France, for example, working hours have been reduced without
any corresponding real pay cuts, unlike other countries. In view of this:

1. What view does the Commission take of the findings and conclusions of the study?

2. Has it carried out similar studies and, if so, what are the best practices being followed in the European Union?
What are its conclusions?

3. What methods and mechanisms does it think could be effective in response to the desperate situation of
countries such as Greece and Spain, where unemployment is at its highest and still rising ( [2] )? Have assessments
been carried out regarding other instruments adapted to the financial situation, employment market and basic
areas of economic activity in these countries, which might offer effective solutions?

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

_(10 January 2013)_

1. Since the crisis, the Commission has closely monitored employment developments in the Member States ( [3] ).
While the _Centre d’analyse stratégique_ study quoted by the Honourable Member offers interesting insights, it builds on
Commission surveys of Member State employment policy responses to the crisis ( [4] ). The Commission has devoted
special attention to short-time working and its effects on employment and work productivity ( [5] ).

2. The Commission communication ‘Towards a Job-Rich Recovery’ ( [6] ) lists reforms which the Member States
could consider with a view to helping the labour markets adjust to the crisis and to broader structural challenges.
These include using short-time working schemes to allow firms to increase internal flexibility rather than calling on
external flexibility. The Commission would point out, however, that Member State governments, together with the
social partners, should carefully consider the suitability and sustainability of internal flexibility arrangements in the
light of their financial, economic and employment situations.

3. The labour market situation in the Member States with high general, youth and long-term unemployment is a
matter of great concern to the Commission. Greece and Spain are addressing the employment policy challenges,
which are subject of country-specific recommendations within the 2012 European Semester ( [7] ) and, for Greece,
within the economic adjustment programme.

The Commission’s proposals in spring 2013 under the European Semester will reflect its assessment of Member
States’ progress in implementing the 2012 country-specific recommendations and of any need for new
recommendations.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.strategie.gouv.fr/content/lajustement-de-lemploi-pendant-la-crise-une-comparaison-internationale-et-sectorielle-note-d
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/3-01102012-AP/EN/3-01102012-AP-EN.PDF
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) See ‘Shifts in the job structure in Europe during the Great Recession’ (Eurofound, 2011), at:

http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef1141.htm, and the annual review of employment and social developments in Europe,
at: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=6176&type=2&furtherPubs=yes

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Such as ‘Tackling the recession: Employment-related public initiatives in the EU Member States and Norway, at:

http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/emcc/erm/studies/tn0907020s/tn0907020s.htm

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) See the joint ECFIN-EMPL occasion paper ‘Short time working arrangements as response to cyclical fluctuations’, at:

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/occasional_paper/2010/pdf/ocp64_en.pdf, and Eurofound’s paper ‘Extending flexibility: The
potential of short-time working schemes’, at: http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef1071.htm

( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 173 final of 18 April 2012, at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0173:FIN:EN:PDF
( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/12/st11/st11256.en12.pdf and http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/12/st11/st11273.en12.pdf

( **|**

( **|**

⋅4∙ **|** )

⋅5∙ **|** )

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

⋅6∙ **|** )
⋅7∙ **|** )

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 177

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord P-009753/12**

**aan de Commissie**

**Ivo Belet (PPE)**
_(24 oktober 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Herstructurering in de automobielsector/sluiting Ford Genk

De verwezenlijking van de interne markt is één van de belangrijkste fundamenten van het Europese integratieproject.

De recente ontwikkelingen in de Europese automobielindustrie — een sector die al geruime tijd wordt geconfronteerd
met overproductie — roepen in dit verband ernstige vragen op. Bij herstructureringen binnen Europa moeten de
kleine lidstaten lijdzaam toezien hoe de fabrieken in hun land worden gesloten vanwege hun kleine afzetmarkten.
Criteria als loonkosten en productiviteit zijn ondergeschikt aan de grootte van de nationale afzetmarkt. Deze
ongelijke behandeling is onrechtvaardig en onaanvaardbaar, want ze staat haaks op de principes van de interne
markt.

Hoe kan voorkomen worden dat lidstaten met een kleinere nationale afzetmarkt de dupe worden bij
herstructureringen binnen multinationals?

Gaat de Commissie ermee akkoord dat dergelijke herstructureringen met een grensoverschrijdende impact veel
correcter kunnen verlopen als de EU ze actief zou begeleiden en coördineren, om zo een evenwichtige vooruitgang
van de betrokken sectoren te garanderen, zoals bepaald in Artikel 26.3 (VWEU)?

Welke beleidsinstrumenten van de EU-aanpak van de herstructureringen in de staalsector in de jaren '90 zijn mutatis
mutandis inzetbaar bij de hervormingen in de automobielsector?

Welke concrete instrumenten kan en zal de EU inzetten om met name de reconversie in de getroffen regio Limburg te
ondersteunen?

**Antwoord van de heer Andor namens de Commissie**

_(28 november 2012)_

De Commissie kan zich niet mengen in beslissingen van individuele ondernemingen om fabrieken in Europa te
sluiten. In aansluiting op het Groenboek van januari 2012 ( [1] ) beraadt de Commissie zich nu op opties voor eventuele
vervolgmaatregelen.

In de Mededeling „CARS 2020” ( [2] ) stelt de Commissie maatregelen voor die nodig zijn om te anticiperen op
structurele veranderingen in deze industrietak. Zij verbindt zich ertoe om erop toe te zien dat bij herstructureringen
het EU-recht (bijvoorbeeld inzake staatssteun en de interne markt) strikt wordt nageleefd. De Commissie overweegt
ook om de lidstaten en de belangrijkste belanghebbenden bijeen te brengen om een EU-aanpak te ontwikkelen voor
de problemen waarmee deze sector in Europa momenteel te kampen heeft.

De Commissie is bereid alle beschikbare middelen in te zetten ter ondersteuning van de omschakeling van de regio
die door de herstructurering in de automobielsector wordt getroffen:

—
het Europees Sociaal Fonds kan een actief arbeidsmarktbeleid helpen financieren ter ondersteuning van
ontslagen werknemers, door middel van hulp bij het zoeken van een baan, loopbaanbegeleiding, opleiding,
certificering van opgedane ervaring …;

—
het Europees Fonds voor aanpassing aan de globalisering helpt op verzoek van een lidstaat ontslagen
werknemers zo snel mogelijk een nieuwe baan te vinden. De Commissie zal met de Belgische autoriteiten
samenwerken indien zij een EFG-aanvraag wensen in te dienen;

—
het Europees Fonds voor regionale ontwikkeling stimuleert ondernemerschap en innovatie, bevordert de
overdracht van kennis en steunt ontwikkelingsprojecten om steden aantrekkelijker te maken.

⋅1∙

( **|** **|** ) COM(2012) 7 definitief van 17.1.2012, „
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Actieplan voor een concurrerende en duurzame Europese automobielindustrie.

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅1∙

( **|** **|** ) COM(2012) 7 definitief van 17.1.2012, „ Herstructurering en anticipatie op veranderingen: uit de recente ervaring te trekken lessen".

C 310 E / 178 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-009753/12**

**to the Commission**

**Ivo Belet (PPE)**
_(24 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Restructuring in the automotive industry/closure of Ford Genk

The completion of the internal market is one of the main foundations of the European integration project.

Recent developments in the European automotive industry — an industry which for some time has been suffering
from overproduction — raise serious questions in this respect. When businesses are restructured within Europe, small
Member States are compelled to look on helplessly as the plants in their countries are closed because the markets
served by their sales are small. Such criteria as wage costs and productivity are regarded as less important than the size
of the national market. This unequal treatment is unjust and unacceptable, as it is contrary to the principles of the
internal market.

What can be done to prevent Member States with smaller national markets from falling victim to restructuring
operations within multinationals?

Does the Commission agree that, where such operations have a cross-border impact, they could be performed far
more correctly if the EU actively monitored and coordinated them, in order to guarantee balanced progress in the
sectors concerned, as provided for in Article 26(3) TFEU?

What EU policy instruments which were used to deal with the restructuring of the steel industry in the 1990s can be
deployed _mutatis mutandis_ in relation to the reforms in the automotive industry?

What specific instruments can and will the EU use, particularly to support conversion in the region of Limburg
affected?

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

_(28 November 2012)_

The Commission does not interfere in specific companies’ decisions to close plants in Europe. Following the
January 2012 Green Paper ( [1] ),the Commission is now considering Options of the possible follow-up.

In the communication ‘CARS 2020 ( [2] )’, the Commission proposes actions necessary for the anticipation of structural
changes in this industry. It commits itself to monitor/review restructuring activities as regards to their strict
compliance with EC law (e.g. state aid, internal market rules). The Commission is also considering gathering the
Member States and key stakeholders to find an EU approach for the current problems faced by this sector in Europe.

The Commission is willing to consider using all tools at its disposal to support the reconversion of the region affected
by the restructuring of the automotive industry:

—
The European Social Fund can step in to fund active market policies helping workers made redundant, through
job-search assistance, occupational guidance, training, certification of acquired experience…;

—
The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, upon request of a Member State, helps redundant workers find a
new job as quickly as possible. The Commission is willing to cooperate with the Belgian authorities, should
they wish to submit an EGF application;

—
The European Regional Development Fund encourages entrepreneurship and innovation, promotes knowledge
transfer and supports development projects to make cities more attractive.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 7 final of 17.12012, ‘Restructuring and anticipation of change: what lessons from recent experience?’.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Action Plan for a competitive and sustainable automotive industry in Europe.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 179

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord P-009755/12**

**aan de Commissie**
**Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE)**

_(25 oktober 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Antidumpingprocedure betreffende de invoer van witte fosfor uit Kazachstan

In het antwoord van de Commissie op mijn vraag (P-008516/2012) staat dat „definitieve maatregelen moeten (indien
nodig) uiterlijk op 16 maart 2013 zijn ingesteld.” Ik wil de Commissie er met klem op wijzen dat zij in de procedure
tot 16 maart 2013 de tijd heeft om uitsluitsel te geven, maar dat dit niet automatisch betekent dat er vóór die datum
geen uitsluitsel kan worden gegeven. Zeker gezien de penibele situatie die nu ontstaan is voor Thermphos. Hoe eerder
er uitsluitsel wordt gegeven, hoe beter. Urgentie is geboden in deze zaak. Als de Commissie te lang wacht met haar
oordeel heeft de uitspraak misschien geen zin meer omdat het bedrijf al failliet kan zijn. Is de Commissie, in het licht
van deze ontwikkelingen, dus bereid om op korte termijn uitsluitsel te geven in zaak 2011/C 369/07? Daarnaast heb
ik in mijn vorige vraag om een nauwkeurig relaas van de gebeurtenissen in de procedure tot op heden gevraagd.
Daarop heb ik van de Commissie geen antwoord gekregen en ik zou dit alsnog graag ontvangen.

— Is de Commissie op de hoogte van het artikel „Germany dismisses EU partners in favour of Kazachstan”? ( [1] ) In
hoeverre is de aantijging aan het adres van Duitsland correct? En in hoeverre speelt de vermeende Duitse
belangenverstrengeling een rol in het al dan niet toekennen van een antidumpingmaatregel?

Daarnaast wijs ik de Commissie ook graag op de volgende Verdragsbepaling: _„De Unie brengt een interne markt tot_
_stand. Zij zet zich in voor de duurzame ontwikkeling van Europa, op basis van een evenwichtige economische groei en van_
_prijsstabiliteit, een sociale markteconomie met een groot concurrentievermogen die gericht is op volledige werkgelegenheid en_
_sociale vooruitgang, en van een hoog niveau van bescherming en verbetering van de kwaliteit van het milieu. De Unie bevordert de_
_wetenschappelijke en technische vooruitgang.”_ (artikel 3.3 van het verdrag betreffende de Europese Unie).

— Is de Commissie het met mij eens dat het niet instellen van antidumpingmaatregelen er toe kan leiden dat zij niet
handelt in de geest van het Verdrag?

**Antwoord van de heer De Gucht namens de Commissie**

_(21 november 2012)_

Op het gebied van handelsbescherming is de Commissie uiteraard gebonden aan de antidumpingbasisverordening
van de EU ( [2] ), die de naleving door de EU van de internationale verplichtingen, in het bijzonder van de WTOantidumpingovereenkomst, garandeert.

Aangaande de antidumpingprocedure betreffende de invoer van witte fosfor uit Kazachstan is de Commissie goed op
de hoogte van de uitdagingen voor de onderneming Thermphos en verbindt zij zich ertoe het onderzoek snel uit te
voeren. Tot op heden werd in het onderzoek de juiste gevestigde procedure precies gevolgd, in het bijzonder voor de
vaststelling van feiten en de informatie aan partijen. De Commissie heeft een gedetailleerd informatiedocument
overgelegd, dat de bevindingen tot op heden beschrijft en helder uitlegt waarom er geen voorlopige maatregelen zijn
ingesteld. De Commissie bestudeert momenteel de opmerkingen van de partijen over dit document.

De Raad zal op voorstel van de Commissie een definitieve beslissing over de zaak nemen. Het Commissievoorstel
moet beschikbaar zijn ongeveer een maand vóór 16 maart, de uiterste datum voor het instellen van definitieve
maatregelen. Voor de Commissie een definitief voorstel aan de Raad voorlegt, zal zij haar vaststellingen
bekendmaken, gelijktijdig aan alle belanghebbenden, met inbegrip van Thermphos, dat dan de nodige tijd krijgt om
opmerkingen te formuleren.

De Commissie kan geen commentaar geven over het persartikel waar het geachte Parlementslid op doelt, aangezien
het overleg met lidstaten in het kader van antidumpingonderzoek vertrouwelijk is.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/article/2547/germany-dismisses-eu-partners-in-favour-of-kazakhstan, F. Guarascio 04-10-2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Verordening (EG) nr. 1225/2009 van de Raad van 30 november 2009 betreffende beschermende maatregelen tegen invoer met dumping uit

landen die geen lid zijn van de Europese Gemeenschap (PB L 343 van 22.12.2009).

C 310 E / 180 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-009755/12**

**to the Commission**
**Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE)**

_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Antidumping procedure concerning imports of white phosphorus from Kazakhstan

In its answer to my Question P-008516/2012, the Commission states that: ‘Definitive measures (if any) need to be
imposed by 16 March 2013’. I would emphasise very strongly to the Commission that it has time in the proceedings
up to 16 March 2013 to give a definitive answer, but that this does not automatically mean that no definitive answer
can be given before that date, particularly given the difficult situation which has now arisen for Thermophos. The
sooner a definitive answer is given the better. This matter should be treated with urgency. If the Commission delays
too long with its ruling, the ruling may be irrelevant because the firm could already be bankrupt by then. In the light
of these developments, is the Commission prepared to give a definitive answer at an early date in Case 2011/C
369/07? In my earlier question I also asked for an accurate account of how the proceedings have unfolded to date.
I have not received any answer to this question from the Commission and would like to have one.

— Is the Commission aware of the article entitled ‘Germany dismisses EU partners in favour of Kazakhstan’ ( [1] )? To
what extent is the allegation against Germany justified? And to what extent does the alleged German conflict of
interests play a role in whether or not an antidumping measure is imposed?

I should also like to draw the Commission’s attention to the following Treaty provision: ‘The Union shall establish an
internal market. It shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and
price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a
high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. It shall promote scientific and
technological advance.’ (Article 3(3) of the Treaty on European Union).

— Does the Commission agree that failure to impose antidumping measures could result in its not acting in the spirit
of the Treaty?

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

_(21 November 2012)_

In the area of trade defence the Commission is of course bound to the EU's basic Anti-Dumping Regulation ( [2] ), which
ensures compliance with the EU's international obligations, particularly the World Trade Organisation Anti-Dumping
Agreement.

Regarding the anti-dumping procedure concerning imports of white phosphorus from Kazakhstan, the Commission
is well aware of the challenges faced by the company Thermphos, and is committed to carrying out this investigation
in a prompt manner. To date the investigation has strictly followed the correct established procedure, in particular
relating to fact finding and information to parties. The Commission has submitted a detailed information document
describing the findings to date and clearly explaining the reasons for the non-imposition of provisional measures. The
Commission is currently analysing the comments received from the parties on this document.

The final decision on this matter will lie with the Council acting on the basis of a Commission proposal. A
Commission proposal should be available around one month before the deadline for definitive determinations of
16 March. Before any definitive proposal is submitted to the Council, the Commission's findings will be disclosed
simultaneously to all interested parties, including Thermphos, who will be given appropriate time to comment.

The Commission is not in a position to comment on the press article referred to by the Honourable Member since the
consultations of Member States in the context of anti-dumping investigations are not public.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/article/2547/germany-dismisses-eu-partners-in-favour-of-kazakhstan, F. Guarascio, 4 October 2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the

European Community, OJ L 343, 22.12.2009.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 181

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-009756/12**

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

_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Independent states and EU membership

Can the Commission confirm whether it continues to hold the view, as expressed by Romano Prodi in 2004, that
‘when a part of the territory of a Member State ceases to be a part of that state, e.g. because that territory becomes an
independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory. In other words, a newly independent region
would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the Union and the treaties would, from
the day of its independence, not apply any more on its territory’ ( [1] )?

**Question for written answer P-009862/12**

**to the Commission**
**Gerard Batten (EFD)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Status of the United Kingdom if Scotland leaves

Commission President José Manuel Barroso recently commented on BBC Radio 4’s World at One programme
regarding the referendum on Scottish independence planned for 2014. President Barroso said that if Scotland were to
leave the United Kingdom, then it would have to reapply for membership of the European Union.

If the Scottish electorate does indeed vote in 2014 to leave the United Kingdom and Scotland subsequently becomes
an independent country, then that will change the nature of the United Kingdom itself.

When Britain joined the European Economic Community on 1 January 1973 it did so as the United Kingdom,
comprising England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. If Scotland leaves the United Kingdom, then there is a
question as to the legal status of the membership of both Scotland and the remainder of the UK.

The Commission is asked to answer the questions set out below.

Following the possible exit of Scotland from the United Kingdom as from 2014:

1. what would be the status of Scotland and of the remainder of the UK following their separation, and before any
renegotiation with the EU had taken place? Would both countries cease to be members of the European Union
until new terms had been agreed and new accession treaties signed?

2. would Scotland have to reapply for membership of the European Union?

3. would the remainder of the United Kingdom have to reapply for membership of the European Union?

4. would Scotland and the UK be obliged to join the European single currency (the euro), as new accession
countries and under the terms laid down in the Treaty of Lisbon?

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

_(3 December 2012)_

Yes. The legal context has not changed since 2004 as the Lisbon Treaty has not introduced any change in this respect.
Therefore the Commission can confirm its position as expressed in 2004 in the reply to the Written Question
P-0524/04 ( [2] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Romano Prodi on behalf of the Commission, 1 March 2004 (OJ C 84, 3.4.2004), in response to Written Question P-0524/2004.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

C 310 E / 182 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009757/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(25 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Il settore privato del trasporto passeggeri in Italia e il corretto funzionamento del mercato interno europeo

In Italia il trasporto passeggeri, quando coincide con un'attività imprenditoriale privata, è regolato dalla legge quadro
n. 218/2003 che, in materia, ha definito i principi e le norme generali a tutela della concorrenza. Il recepimento della
legge quadro a livello regionale ha creato profonde distorsioni delle dinamiche concorrenziali nel mercato nazionale
del trasporto e, conseguentemente, in quello europeo: ben sei regioni non hanno ancora recepito il provvedimento,
mentre le restanti hanno legiferato adottando criteri profondamente diversi in tema di requisiti per l'autorizzazione
dell'attività. A destare maggiore preoccupazione la decisione di introdurre il criterio dell'anzianità degli autobus da
adibire ai servizi di noleggio con conducente, preferito in alcune aree al regime di autorizzazione basato sulla verifica
di caratteristiche tecniche gestito dalla Motorizzazione Civile. La situazione che si viene a creare prevede che PMI
autorizzate a livello nazionale non possano più operare nel loro territorio in cui prevale il criterio di vetustà del
mezzo e vengano così completamente estromesse dal mercato.

1. Considerati gli effetti di questa disomogeneità sugli obiettivi del regolamento (CE) n. 1073/2009 del 21 ottobre
2009 che fissa norme comuni per l'accesso al mercato internazionale dei servizi di trasporto effettuati con autobus e,
in generale, sul buon funzionamento della concorrenza nel mercato interno, è la Commissione a conoscenza di
quanto sta accadendo nel settore in Italia?

2. Ritiene che l'applicazione difforme e incompleta in vigore nel settore del trasporto privato italiano sia
compatibile con il corretto funzionamento del mercato interno dei trasporti?

3. Posto che il regime autorizzatorio nel trasporto privato non solo differisce da regione a regione, ma anche da
quello pubblico, non pensa che anche questa circostanza avvantaggi talune aziende e ne discrimini altre, a svantaggio
della trasparenza del mercato interno europeo dei trasporti?

**Risposta di Siim Kallas a nome della Commissione**

_(13 dicembre 2012)_

Il regolamento (CE) n.1073/2009 si applica ai trasporti internazionali di viaggiatori effettuati con autobus. Dal
momento della sua applicazione la Commissione non è a conoscenza di alcun problema tra l’Italia e un altro Stato
membro relativamente alle disposizioni del suddetto regolamento.

Gli Stati membri sono liberi di stabilire le norme che disciplinano il trasporto nazionale dei viaggiatori. Nel
disciplinare tali servizi e nell’applicazione della normativa nazionale gli Stati membri sono tenuti a rispettare i principi
generali del trattato, quali il principio di proporzionalità e di non discriminazione. Le norme nazionali che fissano
requisiti ambientali o tecnici per i veicoli sono normalmente intese ad assicurare un certo livello di qualità dei servizi e
in quanto tali non sono incompatibili con il trattato, a condizione che esse rispettino i principi di cui sopra. La
disposizione concernente l’età massima di veicoli non è una disposizione insolita e, nella misura in cui essa è
applicabile a tutti gli operatori, non si può concludere che venga applicata in modo discriminatorio o che pregiudichi
il corretto funzionamento del mercato interno dei trasporti.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 183

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009757/12**

**to the Commission**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ The private passenger transport sector in Italy and the proper functioning of the European internal market

Private sector passenger transport in Italy is governed by Framework Law No 218/2003 which lays down principles
and general rules to protect competition in this area. The transposition of the framework law at regional level has
created serious distortions in the way competition works in the national transport market and, in consequence, on the
European market: no fewer than six regions have not yet transposed this provision, while the others have, in
introducing legislation, applied radically different criteria regarding the requirements for authorising the activity. The
greatest concern is aroused by the decision to introduce the criterion of the age of the coaches and buses for services
involving vehicle hire with drivers, which has been chosen in some areas in preference to the system of authorisation
based on a technical check by the road transport authority. The situation thus created means an SME which has
authorisation at national level may not be able to operate in its own region, if the vehicle age criterion is used there,
thus excluding it completely from the market.

1. Given the effects of this lack of uniformity regarding the objectives of Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 of
21 October 2009 on common rules for access to the international market for coach and bus services and, more
broadly, the proper functioning of the internal market, is the Commission aware of what is happening in the sector in
Italy?

2. Does it consider that the uneven and incomplete application occurring in the Italian private transport sector is
compatible with the proper functioning of the internal market in transport?

3. Since the private transport authorisation system differs not only from region to region, but also from the public
sector system, does it not think that this state of affairs also grants an advantage to some companies and penalises
others, undermining the transparency of the European internal market in transport?

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

_(13 December 2012)_

Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 covers the international carriage of passengers by coach and bus. Since its
application, the Commission is not aware of any problems between Italy and other Member States with regard to the
provisions of the regulation.

Member States have the freedom to set the rules governing national transportation of passengers. When regulating
these services and when applying the respective national rules Member States have to respect the general principles of
the Treaty such as the principle of proportionality and non-discrimination. National rules which set compulsory
environmental or technical standards for the vehicles are normally meant to ensure a certain level of service quality
and are not as such incompatible with the Treaty, provided that they comply with the abovementioned principles.
The provision concerning the maximum age of vehicles is not an unusual one and as long as it is applicable to all
operators, it cannot be concluded that it is applied in a discriminatory manner or that it undermines the proper
functioning of the internal market in transport.

C 310 E / 184 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Svensk version)_

**Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-009759/12**

**till kommissionen**
**Struan Stevenson (ECR) och Isabella Lövin (Verts/ALE)**

_(25 oktober 2012)_

_Angående:_ Olagligt, orapporterat och oreglerat fiske (IUU)

Fiskprodukter kommer till EU via många olika vägar, bland annat som direkta landningar från fiskefartyg eller
kylfartyg eller med flygfrakt eller fryscontainrar. Environmental Justice Foundation har konstaterat en ökning i
användningen av fryscontainrar för att transportera fiskeprodukter från Västafrika till EU, bland annat från fartyg som
har ägnat sig åt olagligt, orapporterat och oreglerat fiske. Man tror att detta delvis är en följd av förbättrade kontroller
av importen av IUU-fiskeprodukter ombord på kylfartyg.

För att bekämpa olagligt, orapporterat och oreglerat fiske har det i rådets förordning (EG) nr 1005/2008 (EU:s
förordning om IUU-fiske) införts ett system för inspektioner och kontroller för att garantera att man kan identifiera
IUU-fiskeprodukter i de europeiska hamnarna och stoppa importen till EU. Man måste dock skapa klarhet i de
bestämmelser som gäller för kontroll av fisk i containrar.

Vi undrar därför om kommissionen skulle kunna

1. informera om förändringar i volymen fisk som transporterats till EU i fryscontainrar efter det att EU:s IUUförordning trädde i kraft den 1 januari 2010,

2. informera om kraven på medlemsstaterna att inspektera minst 5 procent av landningarna i europeiska hamnar
(artikel 9 i EU:s IUU-förordning) också ska tillämpas på fisk i containrar,

3. informera om kommissionen och medlemsstaterna vidtagit några särskilda åtgärder till följd av att handeln med
fiskprodukter ändrats för att garantera att fisk i containrar kontrolleras mycket noggrant i europeiska hamnar,

4. lämna kommentarer om det finns ett behov av att ändra förordning (EG) nr 1005/2008 i ljuset av ändringarna i
handeln med fiskprodukter?

**Svar från Maria Damanaki på kommissionens vägnar**

_(8 januari 2013)_

Kraven på inspektion av landningar i EU:s hamnar i enlighet med IUU-förordningen ( [1] ) gäller för fiskefartyg såsom de
definieras i förordningen, vilket inkluderar kylfartyg men inte containerfartyg. Kommissionen har inte någon specifik
information vad gäller volymen fisk som transporteras med kylcontainrar.

Fisk i containrar landas normalt först i en hamn, och enligt FAO:s hamnstatsåtgärder krävs effektiva kontroller i den
första landningshamnen. EU håller redan på att genomföra hamnstatsåtgärderna. Genom regionala
fiskeriförvaltningsorganisationer och bilaterala kontakter främjar EU andra länders ratificering av
hamnstatsåtgärderna för att säkerställa ikraftträdandet och tillämpningen i hamnar där fisken lastas i containrar för
vidare transport.

Dessutom måste EU-import av fiskeriprodukter, med undantag av produkterna i bilaga I till IUU-förordningen,
åtföljas av fångstintyg. Medlemsstaterna ansvarar för kontroll av fångstintyg oavsett transportsätt.

Genom IUU-förordningen främjar kommissionen robusta och målinriktade kontroller i EU-hamnar . Detta ska
uppnås genom åtgärder som utbildning av medlemsstaternas myndigheter och användning av ett system för
ömsesidigt bistånd.

I enlighet med artikel 55 i IUU-förordningen kommer kommissionen under 2013 att utvärdera tillämpningen av
förordningen och lägga fram en rapport för Europaparlamentet och rådet och, om det är lämpligt, överväga huruvida
det krävs ändringar av förordningen.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Rådets förordning (EG) nr 1005/2008 om upprättande av ett gemenskapssystem för att förebygga, motverka och undanröja olagligt, orapporterat
och oreglerat fiske (EUT L 286, 29.10.2008, s. 1).

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 185

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009759/12**

**to the Commission**
**Struan Stevenson (ECR) and Isabella Lövin (Verts/ALE)**

_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing

Fisheries products arrive in the EU in a number of different ways, including direct landings from fishing vessels,
landings from refrigerated cargo vessels, air freight and refrigerated shipping containers. The Environmental Justice
Foundation has documented an increase in the usage of refrigerated shipping containers to transport fisheries
products from West Africa to the EU, including from vessels that have engaged in illegal, unreported and unregulated
(IUU) fishing. This is believed to be partly as a result of improved controls on the imports of IUU fisheries products on
board refrigerated cargo vessels.

To combat IUU fishing, Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 (the EU IUU Regulation) provides for a system of
inspections and verifications to ensure that IUU fisheries products can be identified at European ports to prevent
them from being imported into the EU. However, there is a need for clarity on the controls applied to containerised
fish.

In this context, can the Commission:

1. report on any changes in the volume of fish transported to the EU in refrigerated shipping containers since
the EU IUU Regulation came into force on 1 January 2010;

2. report on whether the requirement for Member States to inspect a minimum of 5% of landings in European
ports (Article 9 of EU IUU Regulation) also applies to containerised fish;

3. report on any specific actions being taken by the Commission and Member States in response to the changing
nature of the trade in fisheries products to ensure that containerised fish is subject to robust controls at
European ports;

4. comment on whether there is a need to amend Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 in light of changes in the trade
in fisheries products?

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

_(8 January 2013)_

The requirements to inspect landings in EU ports under the IUU Regulation ( [1] ) apply to fishing vessels as defined in
this regulation which includes reefers but not container vessels. The Commission does not have specific information
as to the volume of fish transported by refrigerated shipping containers.

Containerised fish is normally landed in port first, so effective controls at first port of landing are required, in line with
FAO Port State Measures (PSM). The EU is already implementing the PSM. Through RFMOs and bilateral contacts
the EU promotes ratification of PSM by other countries to ensure entry into force and implementation in ports where
fish is containerised for onward transportation.

Furthermore, EU imports of fishery products, with exception of products in Annex I of the IUU Regulation, must be
accompanied by catch certificates. Member States (MS) are responsible for control and verification of catch certificates
irrespective of the transport mode.

The Commission promotes robust and targeted controls at EU ports via the IUU Regulation. This is achieved by
actions such as training of MS authorities and use of a mutual assistance system.

In line with Article 55 of the IUU Regulation, the Commission will evaluate the implementation of the Regulation in
2013 and present a report to the European Parliament and the Council and if appropriate at that stage, consider
whether or not amendments to the regulation would be required.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, OJ L 286/1, 29.10.2008.

C 310 E / 186 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009760/12**

**to the Commission**
**Nicole Sinclaire (NI)**

_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ EU social security coordination

Considering the Commission’s communication on the External Dimension of EU Social Security Coordination,
I would like to know how many of the UK’s bilateral agreements, and exactly which ones, would be affected by the
proposed harmonised mechanism.

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

_(12 December 2012)_

The Commission’s Communication on the External Dimension of EU Social Security Coordination adopted on
30 March 2012 (COM(2012) 153 final) does not propose any harmonised mechanism referred to by the Honourable
Member. It calls for strengthening of cooperation between Member States in their bilateral negotiations with third
countries on social security coordination and for this purpose it proposes to set up a framework for this cooperation.
Further, the communication sets out the legal relationship between EC law and national bilateral agreements.

In this communication, the Commission also wished to open a debate with the Member States on whether, in certain
circumstances, there may be a need for Member States to act jointly on social security coordination in respect of a
given third country. The communication concludes that if and when such a need is formulated by the Member State it
could be addressed by an EU social security agreement. So far no proposal has been made for such an agreement but
this possibility could be explored in future.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 187

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009761/12**

**to the Commission**
**Nicole Sinclaire (NI)**

_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ European Globalisation Adjustment Fund

Could the Commission state whether an impact assessment was carried out in order to establish the suggested level of
co-funding by the Member States?

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

_(5 December 2012)_

The co-financing rate of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was one of the elements assessed in
2008 ( [1] ), during the preparation of the review of the current EGF Regulation ( [2] ), and again in 2011 ( [3] ), during the
preparation of the Commission's proposal on the EGF for 2014-2020 ( [4] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) SEC(2008) 3055 final of 16.12.2008, Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the proposal for a regulation of the European

Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 on establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on establishing the European Globalisation

Adjustment Fund, OJ L 406, 30.12.2006.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) SEC(2011) 1133 final of 6.10.2011, Commission Staff Working Paper — Ex-ante Evaluation accompanying the document ‘Proposal for a

regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund 2014-2020’.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 608 final of 6.10.2011, Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Globalisation

Adjustment Fund 2014-2020.

( **|**

( **|**

( **|**

C 310 E / 188 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009762/12**

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

**Mario Mauro (PPE)**

_(25 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Giornata contro la pena di morte

Il 10 ottobre 2012 è ricorsa la decima giornata mondiale contro la pena di morte. Durante lo scorso decennio sono
stati compiuti notevoli passi avanti verso l'abolizione della pena capitale a livello mondiale: altri 26 Stati hanno
ratificato il secondo protocollo opzionale al Patto internazionale relativo ai diritti civili e politici. Questi paesi
rappresentano tutte le principali regioni geografiche, religioni e culture del mondo, nonché sistemi giuridici diversi.

Un altro gruppo di nazioni conserva la pena capitale, ma ha introdotto importanti riforme per ridurre il numero di
reati che ne prevedono l'applicazione.

D'altra parte, tuttavia, diversi paesi hanno recentemente ripreso le esecuzioni. Spesso la discriminazione continua ad
avere un ruolo significativo nell'applicazione della pena di morte. In molti casi essa è prevista per i reati connessi a
rapporti sessuali tra persone dello stesso sesso e i reati di natura «religiosa». In alcuni paesi, un numero
sproporzionato dei condannati a morte appartiene a specifici gruppi etnici o religiosi.

Dato che il premio Nobel per la pace è stato di recente assegnato all'Unione europea:

1. Può il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante far sapere in che modo l'Unione europea intende organizzare le
iniziative su scala mondiale a sostegno di normative nazionali che aboliscano la pena di morte?

2. Come intende il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante invitare la comunità internazionale a incoraggiare la
ratifica da parte di un numero maggiore Stati del secondo protocollo opzionale al Patto internazionale relativo
ai diritti civili e politici?

3. Quali iniziative è pronta a intraprendere l'Unione europea per sostenere l'adozione, sul finire del 2012, della
quarta risoluzione dell'Assemblea generale delle Nazioni Unite per una moratoria sulle esecuzioni in vista
dell'abolizione della pena di morte?

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

_(28 gennaio 2013)_

In linea con la sua politica forte e di principio contro la pena di morte, l'Unione europea è senza dubbio uno dei più
importanti attori internazionali e maggiori finanziatori della causa abolizionista a livello mondiale. La lotta contro la
pena di morte è al centro della politica dell'UE in materia di diritti umani e rappresenta una priorità personale per
l'Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente. L'Unione utilizza tutti gli strumenti disponibili per promuovere la propria
politica abolizionista, secondo le linee guida dell'UE in materia. La questione viene sollevata regolarmente nei
dialoghi, nelle dichiarazioni e nelle iniziative di natura politica.

Il 10 ottobre, giornata mondiale/europea contro la pena di morte, l'Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente ed il
Segretario generale del Consiglio d'Europa hanno rilasciato una dichiarazione congiunta che esortava tutti gli Stati ad
aderire alla causa abolizionista e a ratificare gli strumenti regionali ed internazionali pertinenti, compreso il secondo
protocollo facoltativo del Patto internazionale sui diritti civili e politici, attualmente ratificato da 75 Stati membri
delle Nazioni Unite. Parallelamente, il SEAE ha incaricato tutte le delegazioni dell'UE nel mondo di celebrare la
giornata con una serie di attività, in particolare nei paesi dove vige ancora la pena capitale. La maggior parte delle
delegazioni ha risposto a tale richiesta organizzando eventi/seminari/conferenze che hanno riunito funzionari e
rappresentanti della società civile nel dibattito pubblico sulla questione dell'abolizione.

L'UE ha avuto un ruolo altrettanto attivo in tutti i lavori preparatori nell'ambito del terzo comitato dell'Assemblea
generale delle Nazioni Unite, al fine di garantire che la risoluzione n. 67 dell'Assemblea generale sulla moratoria delle
esecuzioni capitali venga adottata con il massimo numero di voti. Per questo motivo, il SEAE ha condotto una vasta
campagna nelle capitali e attività di lobbying a New York, che continueranno fino all'adozione finale della risoluzione
da parte dell'Assemblea generale delle Nazioni Unite a metà dicembre 2012.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 189

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009762/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Mario Mauro (PPE)**

_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Death penalty day

The 10th World Day against the Death Penalty was observed on 10 October 2012. The past decade has seen
significant progress towards abolishing the death penalty worldwide: a further 26 states have ratified the Second
Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These countries represent all of the
world’s major regions, religions and cultures, as well as diverse legal systems.

Another group of countries retain capital punishment but have introduced important reforms to reduce the number
of capital crimes.

On the other hand, however, several countries have recently resumed executions. Discrimination still often plays a
significant role when it comes to meting out the death penalty. Offences related to same-sex sexual relations and
‘religious’ offences are often included among the crimes considered for capital punishment. In some countries, a
disproportionate number of people from specific ethnic or religious backgrounds receive death sentences.

Given that the Nobel Peace Prize was recently awarded to the EU:

1. Could the Vice-President/High Representative state how the EU intends to plan its worldwide advocacy
initiatives for the promotion of national legislation abolishing the death penalty?

2. How does the Vice-President/High Representative intend to call on the international community to encourage
more states to ratify the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?

3. What initiatives is the EU keen to take in order to support the adoption, in late 2012, of the fourth UN General
Assembly resolution calling for a moratorium on executions with a view to the abolition of the death penalty?

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

_(28 January 2013)_

Consistent with its strong and principled policy against the death penalty, the EU is undboubtedly one of the most
prominent international players and lead donors in the abolitionist cause worldwide. The fight against the death
penalty is at the heart of the EU's Human Rights policy and a personal priority for the HR/VP. The EU uses all tools
available in order to promote its abolitionist policy, according to the relevant EU guidelines. The issue is regularly
raised in political dialogues, statements and demarches.

Marking the 10 October, World/European Day against the Death Penalty, the HR/VP, jointly with the SG of the
Council of Europe, issued a joint declaration calling all states to join the abolitionist trend and ratify relevant regional
and international instruments, including the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, currently ratified by 75 UN
member states. In parallel, the EEAS instructed all EU Delegations across the world to mark this Day with a series of
activities, especially in countries that still retain the capital punishment. Most delegations responded to this call and
organised events/seminars/conferences bringing together officials and civil society in the public debate on the
question of abolition.

The EU has been equally active in all preparatory work in the context of the UNGA's 3rd Committee, in order to
ensure that the UNGA 67 Resolution on Moratorium of Executions is adopted with the maximum number of votes.
For this reason, the EEAS has been conducting an extensive campaign in capitals and lobbying in New York which
will continue until the final adoption of the Resolution by the UNGA in mid-December 2012.

C 310 E / 190 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009763/12**

**to the Commission**

**Mike Nattrass (NI)**

_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Islamic Relief Worldwide

According to the Commission’s own records, the European Union granted EUR 22 547 138 to Islamic Relief
Worldwide between 2007 and 2011.

Islamic Relief Worldwide was one of the founding members of the Union of Good, established in 2000. In 2008,
the US Department of the Treasury designated the Union of Good as a terrorist organisation, stating: ‘The leadership
of Hamas created the Union of Good […] in order to facilitate the transfer of funds to Hamas.’ The Israeli Ministry of
Foreign Affairs also noted in 2006 that Islamic Relief Worldwide itself ‘provides support and assistance to Hamas’s
infrastructure’.

In 1999, Islamic Relief Worldwide received a payment of USD 50 000 from a Canadian charity that the US
Department of the Treasury identified as a ‘Bin Laden front’. Around the same time, it was reported that Islamic Relief
Worldwide had funnelled as much as USD 6 000 000 to al‐Qaeda-linked terrorists in Chechnya.

In anticipation of being assured that the EU only funds specific humanitarian projects as opposed to the organisations
that coordinate them, I would draw the Commission’s attention to the findings of an independent evaluation of a
major EU-funded project, which noted evidence of ‘weak monitoring by EC staff and poor knowledge of what
projects are actually about, particularly at the Brussels level’. Furthermore, as NGO Monitor observes, ‘many of the
organisations which receive funding from the EU are unelected, nontransparent, and unaccountable, which makes the
funding process capable of being subject to abuse’. Consequently, there is no way of knowing that taxpayers’ money
has not found its way into the hands of terrorists.

In light of these facts, will the Commission admit that it was unwise and dangerous to provide funding to Islamic
Relief Worldwide, and undertake never to do so again?

**Question for written answer E-009764/12**

**to the Commission**

**Mike Nattrass (NI)**

_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Muslim Aid

According to the Commission’s own records, the European Union granted EUR 9 099 343 to Muslim Aid between
2007 and 2011.

Muslim Aid was one of the founding members of the Union of Good, established in 2000. In 2008, the US
Department of the Treasury designated the Union of Good as a terrorist organisation, stating: ‘The leadership of
Hamas created the Union of Good […] in order to facilitate the transfer of funds to Hamas’. In the same year, Muslim
Aid was one of several associations outlawed by the Israeli Ministry of Defence because ‘they are part of Hamas’s
fundraising network, and both support and assist it’. Indeed, Muslim Aid has openly admitted transferring funds to
the Islamic University of Gaza — a Hamas-controlled institution — and to the al-Ihsan Charitable Society, which is
linked to Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Additionally, Muslim Aid has been identified by no less than three separate Bangladeshi intelligence agencies as one of
ten NGOs that finance and promote Islamic terrorism in Bangladesh. In 2002, similar concerns were expressed by
Spanish authorities, who alleged that Muslim Aid ‘used funds to send mujahideen fighters to Bosnia’. The prestigious
Brussels-based International Crisis Group has also documented Muslim Aid’s extensive links to the charity KOMPAK,
which acts as a fundraising front for the Indonesian jihadist group Jemaah Islamiah.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 191

In anticipation of being assured that the EU only funds specific humanitarian projects as opposed to the organisations
that coordinate them, I would draw the Commission’s attention to the findings of an independent evaluation of a
major EU-funded project, which noted evidence of ‘weak monitoring by EC staff and poor knowledge of what
projects are actually about, particularly at the Brussels level’. Furthermore, as NGO Monitor observes, ‘many of the
organisations which receive funding from the EU are unelected, nontransparent, and unaccountable, which makes the
funding process capable of being subject to abuse’. Consequently, there is no way of knowing that taxpayers’ money
has not found its way into the hands of terrorists.

In light of these facts, will the Commission admit that it was unwise and dangerous to provide funding to Muslim Aid,
and undertake never to do so again?

**Joint answer given by Ms Georgieva on behalf of the Commission**

_(17 December 2012)_

The Commission attaches the highest importance to the issue of potential diversion of public funds for terrorist
activities.

Regarding the specific allegations related to Muslim Aid and Islamic Relief Worldwide, please find below some
important considerations:

—
following the comprehensive control mechanisms put in place, both organisations have been strictly screened
taking into account a set of legal, operational, financial and technical requirements prior to the start of the
contractual relations with the Commission;

—
all funds granted are related to specific and clearly identified activities which have been selected on a need basis
assessed by Commission staff at headquarters and the Directorate-General for Humanitarian Aid and Civil
Protection (DG ECHO) field experts;

—
all funded actions are monitored by DG ECHO field experts and results are reported to Commission
headquarters;

—
financial audits are performed every three to four years of both the headquarters and local offices of the
organisations;

—
there is an obligation for both organisations to produce intermediate and final reports and to justify all their
expenses. In depth assessment of such reports is systematically performed;

—
no indications of misuse of the funds allocated to the organisations for any kind of purpose have been detected
by these controls;

—
additionally, both organisations are currently registered in the United Kingdom (UK) as charitable organisations
and therefore fulfil all UK regulations applicable to charitable organisations, and;

—
the UK Charity for England and Wales has carried out an investigation into possible funding by Muslim Aid of
listed terrorist organisations. The report has cleared Muslim Aid of the allegations.

C 310 E / 192 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-009765/12**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu (S&D)**

_(25 octombrie 2012)_

_Subiect:_ Impactul asupra copiilor al activităților de marketing pentru produse alimentare și băuturi

Potrivit ultimului raport publicat de Asociația Internațională pentru Studiul Obezității, publicitatea la alimentele de
tip „junk food” continuă să aibă un impact negativ asupra sănătății copiilor. Au fost făcute progrese semnificative în
ceea ce privește restricțiile referitoare la activitățile de marketing impuse asupra acestei industrii, dar schimbările în
materie de tehnologie a publicității (de exemplu, pe internet sau prin telefoanele mobile), precum și accesul din ce în
ce mai mare al copiilor atât la telefoanele mobile, cât și la internet fac necesară o acțiune imediată din partea factorilor
de decizie politică.

Trebuie să se țină seama de faptul că, în UE, copiii pot avea ușor acces la site-urile de internet ale întreprinderilor din
alte regiuni sau țări. Nu este suficientă evaluarea restricțiilor pe care întreprinderile le aplică doar pe site-urile lor de
internet europene.

Monitorizează Comisia în vreun fel activitățile de marketing din acest domeniu realizate „offshore”? Este posibilă
înființarea unui organism independent pentru a monitoriza măsurile de autoreglementare ale întreprinderilor? Are
Comisia în vedere înființarea unui mecanism independent prin care consumatorii să poată face reclamații cu privire la
această problemă?

Dat fiind faptul că întreprinderile își stabilesc propriile norme în mod voluntar, intenționează Comisia să ia măsuri
pentru a reduce sau pentru a elimina discrepanțele și inconsecvențele care există între întreprinderi în ceea ce privește
angajamentele, promisiunile și activitățile lor din Uniunea Europeană?

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

_(17 ianuarie 2013)_

Comisia Europeană abordează aspecte cu privire la publicitatea adresată copiilor pentru alimente cu un conținut
ridicat de grăsimi, sare sau zahăr în cadrul Strategiei UE privind problemele de sănătate legate de alimentație, excesul
de greutate și obezitate. Cu toate acestea, Comisia nu are capacitatea de a monitoriza activitățile de marketing care se
realizează pe site-urile internet ale companiilor din regiuni sau țări din afara Europei.

În mai 2010, Comisia a adoptat o recomandare prin care se introduce o metodă armonizată de clasificare și raportare
a plângerilor și cererilor de informații din partea consumatorilor. Colectarea de date comparabile referitoare la
plângerile de pe teritoriul UE va permite un răspuns politic mai rapid, mai bine direcționat și bazat pe elemente
concrete la problemele întâmpinate de consumatori, la nivelul UE sau la nivel național. Regimul nu acoperă
mecanismele de tratare a plângerilor consumatorilor operate de comercianți, iar Comisia nu are în vedere crearea
unui mecanism independent pentru plângeri.

Comisia este conștientă de potențialele probleme de coerență cu privire la angajamente, și depune eforturi în acest
sens în cadrul Strategiei actuale a UE privind problemele de sănătate legate de alimentație, excesul de greutate și
obezitate.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 193

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009765/12**

**to the Commission**
**Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu (S&D)**

_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Marketing food and beverages to children

According to the latest report published by the International Association for the Study of Obesity, junk food
advertising continues to have an adverse impact on children’s health. Significant progress has been made with regard
to industry restrictions on marketing activities, but changes in advertising technology (e.g. the Internet and mobile
phones) and the increasing access that children have to both mobile phones and websites mean that immediate action
from policymakers is required.

Account should be taken of the fact that children in the EU can easily access the websites of companies in other
regions or countries. Evaluating the restrictions that companies put in place on their European websites only is not
enough.

Is the Commission monitoring the industry’s ‘offshore’ marketing activities in any way? Is there a possibility of
creating an independent body to monitor companies’ self-regulation measures? Does the Commission envisage the
creation of an independent complaint mechanism for consumers on this matter?

Given that companies set their own rules on a voluntary basis, does the Commission intend to take measures to
reduce or eliminate the discrepancies and inconsistencies that exist between companies in respect of their pledges,
promises and activities in the European Union?

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

_(17 January 2013)_

The European Commission addresses issues related to advertising of foods high in fat, salt or sugar to children in the
framework of the EU Strategy on Nutrition, Overweight and Obesity-related health issues. However, the Commission
does not have the capacity to monitor marketing activities taking place on websites of companies in regions or
countries outside Europe.

In May 2010, the Commission adopted a recommendation introducing a harmonised methodology for classifying
and reporting consumer complaints and enquiries. The collection of comparable complaints data across the EU will
allow for a faster, better-targeted and evidence-based policy response to the problems experienced by consumers, at
EU or national level. The regime does not cover consumer complaint-handling mechanisms operated by traders, and
the Commission does not envisage the creation of an independent complaint mechanism.

The Commission is conscious of potential coherence issues related to pledges, and is working on this within the
framework of the current EU Strategy on Nutrition, Overweight and Obesity-related health issues.

C 310 E / 194 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009766/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE)**

_(25 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Fondo para la agricultura

El pasado 17 de octubre el Tribunal General de la UE ratificó la decisión de la Comisión Europea de sancionar a
España por irregularidades en el control de los fondos para la agricultura.

España deberá abonar el 2 % del gasto total en primas a los ganaderos de ovino y caprino de los ejercicios 2003-2006,
que ascienden a más de 6 millones de euros. La Comisión Europea impuso esta sanción en 2009 tras detectar
irregularidades en la gestión de las ayudas comunitarias para la agricultura.

Los inspectores de la Comisión Europea constataron irregularidades en la gestión del FEOGA, en concreto del
régimen de primas en el sector de la carne de ovino y de caprino. El Tribunal General determina que España no ha
realizado controles pertinentes para asegurar la concesión correcta de las ayudas.

Hubo tres requisitos que se incumplieron:

—
que los animales permanecieran en la explotación durante un periodo denominado «periodo de retención»;

—
que los ganadores llevaran un registro del número total de animales presentes en la explotación para poder
determinar las primas;

—
que los inspectores formularan observaciones cuando en los registros no se mencionaban movimientos de
animales o solo un número muy escaso.

En este sentido y dado que queda claro que el Estado español va a tener que hacer frente a la sanción:

1. ¿Podría la Comisión indicar con qué expedientes está relacionada esta sanción?

2. ¿Podría aclarar en qué regiones se encuentran las explotaciones ganaderas?

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

_(13 de diciembre de 2012)_

1. De acuerdo con la información facilitada por las autoridades españolas, a partir de 2005 se han adaptado los
procedimientos (directrices y modelo de registro del rebaño) para ajustarse a las disposiciones reglamentarias y, en
consecuencia, subsanar las deficiencias con motivo de las cuales se impuso la corrección financiera. Además, debe
tenerse en cuenta que el régimen de ayuda para el ganado ovino y caprino está disociado desde 2010 en España.

2. La Comunidad Autónoma a la que afecta esta corrección financiera es Castilla y León.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 195

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009766/12**

**to the Commission**
**Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE)**

_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ European agricultural funds

On 17 October 2012, the Court of Justice of the European Union upheld the Commission’s decision to sanction
Spain over irregularities in its monitoring of European agricultural funds.

Spain will have to pay back 2% of the total premiums paid to sheep and goat farmers during the period 2003‐2006,
which amounts to over EUR 6 million. The European Commission imposed the sanction in 2009 after noticing
irregularities in the way European agricultural funds were administered.

Commission inspectors noted irregularities in the way the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund was
administered, specifically regarding subsidies for the sheep meat and goat meat sector. The Court of Justice of the
European Union ruled that Spain had not carried out the appropriate checks for ensuring that subsidies were
distributed correctly.

The Spanish Government failed to comply with three requirements, namely:

—
ensuring that animals remain on the farm for a period of time known as the ‘retention period’;

—
ensuring that farmers keep a register of the total number of animals on the farm in order to calculate the
premiums;

—
ensuring that inspectors take note of registers that make no or scant mention of animal movements.

In the light of the above, and given that it is clear that Spain will have to comply with the sanction:

1. What disciplinary measures does the Commission’s sanction involve?

2. In which regions are the Spanish livestock farms in question located?

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

_(13 December 2012)_

1. According to the information provided by the Spanish authorities the procedures (guidelines and flock register
model) as from 2005 have been adapted in order to comply with the regulatory provisions and thus remedy the
deficiencies for which this financial correction was applied. Further it should be noted that the aid scheme for sheep
and goats is decoupled in Spain as of 2010.

2. The autonomous community concerned by this financial correction is Castilla y León.

C 310 E / 196 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Svensk version)_

**Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-009767/12**

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

_(25 oktober 2012)_

_Angående:_ Samordning och gemensam hållning inom EU i frågan om att ge internationella och europeiska ickestatliga organisationer observatörsstatus i Wipo

Under den 50:e mötesserien för medlemsstaternas församlingar i Världsorganisationen för den intellektuella
äganderätten (Wipo), som hölls i Genève den 1‐9 oktober 2012, beslutades att godkännandet av den begäran om
observatörsstatus som Piratinternationalen (Pirate Parties International), en internationell och europeisk icke-statlig
organisation, lämnade in i maj 2012 skulle skjutas upp till 2013.

Mötena saknade den insyn som vi har vant oss vid i de internationella sammanhang där EU deltar, och därför har
skälen till beslutet blivit kända endast via andra observatörer. Beslutet verkar grunda sig på att den berörda ickestatliga organisationen har medlemmar som är politiska partier. Det främsta motståndet kom från USA, men också
från Frankrike. Samtidigt uttryckte vissa EU-medlemsstater farhågor om att dubbla måttstockar tillämpades i syfte att
förhindra insyn, något som potentiellt kan skada intressena för denna EU-baserade icke‐statliga organisation och för
europeiska medborgare.

EU representeras i Wipo av sin permanenta delegation till FN och till andra internationella organisationer i Genève.
Delegationens uttalade syfte är att underlätta samordning och en gemensam hållning inom EU. Med hänvisning till
detta uppmanas kommissionen att besvara följande frågor:

1. Vilka åtgärder vidtas för att se till att EU har en gemensam hållning i fråga om godkännandet av den EUbaserade icke-statliga organisationen Piratinternationalen som observatör i Wipo?

2. Hur ställer kommissionen sig till förslaget att tillämpa andra kriterier för att godkänna observatörsstatus i Wipo
för icke-statliga organisationer som företräder politiska grupperingar?

3. Var publicerar kommissionen information om förhandlingarna i de Wipo-möten där den deltar som
observatör?

**Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-009978/12**

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

_(5 november 2012)_

_Angående:_ Samordning och gemensam hållning inom EU angående frågan om att ge observatörsstatus i Wipo för
internationella och europeiska icke-statliga organisationer

Vid den 50:e mötesserien för Wipomedlemsstaternas församlingar den 1‐9 oktober 2012 i Genève beslutades att
godkännandet av den begäran om observatörsstatus som Piratpartiernas Internationella samarbetsorganisation – en
internationell och europeisk icke‐statlig organisation – gjorde i maj 2012 skulle skjutas upp till 2013.

Mötena saknade den insyn som vi har vant oss vid i de internationella sammanhang där EU deltar, och därför har
motiveringen till detta beslut endast framkommit via andra observatörer: beslutet grundas på att nämnda icke-statliga
organisation har politiska partier som medlemmar. Det främsta motståndet kom från USA, och också från Frankrike,
medan några EU‐medlemsstater påpekade problemet med att använda dubbla måttstockar i syfte att förhindra insyn,
potentiellt till skada för intressena för en EU‐baserad icke-statlig organisation och för europeiska medborgare.

EU representeras i Wipo av EU:s permanenta delegation till FN och till andra internationella organisationer i Genève.
Delegationens uttalade syfte är att sträva efter samordning mellan EU‐staterna och gemensamma EU‐ståndpunkter.
Med hänvisning till detta uppmanas kommissionen att besvara följande frågor:

1. Vilka åtgärder vidtas för att se till att EU har en gemensam ståndpunkt angående godkännandet av
Piratpartiernas Internationella samarbetsorganisation som observatör i Wipo?

2. Vad är kommissionens hållning angående förslaget att ha andra kriterier för att ge observatörsstatus i Wipo för
icke-statliga organisationer som företräder politiska grupper?

3. Var publicerar kommissionen information om de Wipoförhandlingar där kommissionen deltar som
observatör?

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 197

**Samlat svar från Michel Barnier på kommissionens vägnar**

_(7 januari 2013)_

1. Europeiska kommissionen, EU:s permanenta delegation till FN och till andra internationella organisationer i
Genève samt EU:s ordförandeskap försöker samordna gemensamma EU-ståndpunkter om alla beslutspunkter som
tas upp inom medlemsstaternas församlingar i Världsorganisationen för den intellektuella äganderätten (Wipo).
Ackrediteringen av observatörer, inklusive den icke-statliga organisationen Piratinternationalen, var en sådan
beslutspunkt under den 50:e mötesserien för Wipomedlemsstaternas församlingar som hölls i oktober 2012. Någon
gemensam EU-ståndpunkt kunde dock inte utarbetas under den tid som stod till förfogande och beslutet sköts fram
till 2013.

2. Kommissionen stöder till fullo Wipo-konventionen och tillämpningen av de kriterier och det förfarande som
gäller för ackrediteringen av observatörer från icke-statliga organisationer.

3. Kommissionen offentliggör inte information om förhandlingarna vid Wipos möten, eftersom fullständiga
förhandlingsreferat finns att få från Wipos sekretariat.

C 310 E / 198 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009767/12**

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

_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ EU coordination and common position in the World Intellectual Property Organisation on the issue of
granting observer status to international and EU-wide NGOs

During the 50th series of meetings of the Assemblies of the Member States of the World Intellectual Property
Organisation (WIPO), held in Geneva from 1-9 October 2012, approval of a request submitted in May 2012 by the
international and EU-wide nongovernmental organisation, Pirate Party International, was postponed for 2013.

As these meetings lack the transparency we have come to expect from international fora with EU participation, the
reasons for this decision are known only from information given by other observers and appear to be based on the
fact that this NGO has political parties among its members. The main opposition came from the United States, but
also from France. Some EU Member States raised concerns that double standards are being used or proposed in order
to stop transparency, thereby potentially harming the interests of a EU-based NGO and of European citizens.

As the EU is represented in WIPO through the Permanent Delegation of the European Union to the United Nations
Office and other international organisations in Geneva, with the declared purpose of fostering EU coordination and
common EU positions, is the Commission able to clarify the following:

1. What measures have been taken to ensure a common EU position on the acceptance of the EU based NGO
Pirate Party International as an observer in WIPO?

2. What is the Commission’s position on the proposal that different criteria be used for granting access to WIPO
observer status to NGOs representing political groups?

3. Where does the Commission publish information on the proceedings of WIPO meetings in which it
participates as an observer?

**Question for written answer E-009978/12**

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

_(5 November 2012)_

_Subject:_ EU coordination and common EU position in the World Intellectual Property Organisation on the issue of
granting observer status to international and EU-wide NGOs

At the 50th Series of Meetings of the Assemblies of the Member States of WIPO, held in Geneva on 1 to
9 October 2012, the approval of a request submitted in May 2012 by an international and EU-wide NGO, Pirate Party
International, was postponed until 2013.

As the meetings lacked the transparency we have come to expect from international fora with EU participation, the
reasons for this decision come only from information given by other observers and are based on the fact that the said
NGO has members which are political parties. The main opposition came from the USA, and also from France, while
some EU Member States raised concerns that double standards are being used or foreseen in order to prevent
transparency, with the potential to harm the interests of an EU-based NGO and of European citizens.

As the EU is represented in WIPO through the Permanent Delegation of the European Union to the United Nations
Office and to other international organisations in Geneva, with the declared purpose of fostering EU coordination and
common EU positions, can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. What measures are being taken to ensure a common EU position on the acceptance of the EU-based NGO
Pirate Party International as an observer in WIPO?

2. What is the Commission’s position on the proposed idea of having different criteria for accession to WIPO
observer status for NGOs representing political groups?

3. Where does the Commission publish information on the proceedings of WIPO at which it participates as an
observer?

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 199

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

_(7 January 2013)_

1. The European Commission, the Permanent Delegation of the European Union to the United Nations Office and
other international organisation in Geneva, and the Presidency of the Council of the European Union, seek to
coordinate common EU positions on all decision points raised within the Assemblies of the Member States of the
World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). The accreditation of observers, including the NGO Pirate Party
International, was such a decision point during the 50th series of meetings of the Assemblies, held October 2012;
however, a common EU position could not be finalised in the time available, before the decision was postponed
until 2013.

2. The Commission fully supports the WIPO Convention and the application of the Admission Criteria and
Procedure governing the accreditation of NGO observers.

3. The Commission does not publish information on the proceedings of WIPO meetings, as full verbatim reports
are available from the WIPO Secretariat.

C 310 E / 200 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009768/12**

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

**Mario Mauro (PPE)**

_(25 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Attacchi degli estremisti religiosi in Tunisia

La Tunisia ha compiuto notevoli progressi verso la libertà a seguito dell'elezione democratica di un'assemblea
costituente. Il diritto di libertà religiosa è sancito e tutelato dalla Costituzione, che garantisce la libertà di praticare la
propria religione ma dichiara, al tempo stesso, l'Islam religione ufficiale di Stato e decreta che il presidente deve essere
di fede musulmana.

Purtroppo, a partire dal 2011, nel paese è aumentata la violenza religiosa, manifestandosi soprattutto attraverso
attacchi dei musulmani nei confronti dei cristiani e di membri di altri gruppi non musulmani. Secondo notizie locali e
internazionali, lo scorso anno si è verificata una serie di aggressioni durante le quali in particolare intellettuali, artisti e
attivisti politici, a causa delle proprie idee o dell'abbigliamento, sono stati attaccati da singoli o da gruppi,
apparentemente guidati da un programma di matrice islamica. In altri casi, alcuni cittadini sono stati licenziati dai
propri posti di lavoro o è stato negato loro il diritto di comunicare e muoversi liberamente.

È necessario introdurre nuove riforme giuridiche al fine di garantire i diritti civili, politici, economici, sociali e
culturali, l'applicazione della legge e l'indipendenza del sistema giudiziario, ed evitare future violazioni delle libertà
civili e dei diritti umani fondamentali.

In considerazione di quanto precede, può il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante rispondere ai seguenti quesiti:

1. Intende il VP/AR invitare il governo tunisino ad adempiere ai propri obblighi, ai sensi del diritto internazionale,
di indagare e processare gli autori degli attacchi e di garantire alle vittime di tale violenza una riparazione
efficace?

2. Intende il VP/AR invitare la comunità internazionale a mettere in atto misure efficaci per la costruzione di un
paese pacifico, che si impegni a rispettare i diritti umani universali di tutti i cittadini tunisini?

3. Nel frattempo, quali azioni può intraprendere l'UE per contribuire alla tutela del diritto di libertà religiosa dei
cittadini tunisini?

4. Quali azioni può intraprendere l'UE per assistere le autorità tunisine nell'istituzione di una magistratura
indipendente che possa contribuire a contrastare episodi di questo tipo e rappresentare un deterrente?

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

_(17 dicembre 2012)_

La questione del rispetto dei diritti umani e delle libertà fondamentali costituisce un elemento determinante nel
dialogo dell'UE con le autorità tunisine. Da parte sua, il governo tunisino ha più volte dichiarato che rispetterà le
norme internazionali in materia di diritti umani. L’Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente continuerà a seguire
attentamente la questione e a incoraggiare la Tunisia a intraprendere tutte le iniziative necessarie a garantire la piena
conformità con tali norme.

Al tempo stesso, l'UE sta fornendo un’assistenza considerevole alla Tunisia al fine di garantire il rispetto dei diritti
umani, dei valori democratici e dello Stato di diritto. In particolare, il sostegno fornito fino ad oggi alla società civile
nei settori della libertà di espressione e della promozione dei valori democratici è stato erogato tramite varie linee di
bilancio e numerosi programmi (Strumento per la stabilità, Strumento europeo per la democrazia e i diritti umani,
attori non statali) e attraverso un importante programma di sviluppo delle capacità della società civile di 7 milioni di
euro, che è stato adottato lo scorso luglio e che è già operativo. Inoltre, l’UE sostiene la riforma della giustizia
attraverso un programma con una dotazione di 25 milioni di euro che è stato approvato di recente. Tale programma
mira in particolare a rafforzare l'indipendenza e l'efficienza del sistema giudiziario, a migliorare i diritti e l'accesso alla
giustizia e a modernizzare il sistema carcerario nel rispetto delle norme internazionali.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 201

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009768/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Mario Mauro (PPE)**

_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Attacks by religious extremists in Tunisia

Tunisia has made major progress towards liberty following the democratic election of a constituent assembly. The
right to freedom of religion is enshrined and protected in its constitution, which guarantees the freedom to practise
one’s religion while at the same time declaring Islam to be the official state religion and requiring the president to be
Muslim.

Unfortunately, since 2011 religious violence has increased in the country, mainly in the form of Muslim attacks on
Christians and members of other non-Muslim groups. According to local and international news reports, in the past
year a series of attacks have taken place in which individuals or groups, apparently motivated by an Islamist agenda,
have assaulted people — in most cases intellectuals, artists and political activists — because of their ideas or dress. In
other instances, people have been dismissed from their jobs or denied the right to communicate and move freely.

New legal reforms are needed to guarantee civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, law enforcement and
the independence of the judiciary, and to avoid further violation of civil liberties and fundamental human rights.

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

1. Will the VP/HR call on the Tunisian Government to honour its obligations under international law to
investigate and prosecute people who assault others, and to provide effective remedies to the victims of such
violence?

2. Will the VP/HR invite the international community to put effective measures in place for building a peaceful
Tunisia that is committed to upholding universal human rights standards for all Tunisians?

3. In the meanwhile, what can the EU do to help safeguard the Tunisian people’s right to freedom of religion?

4. What can the EU do to help the Tunisian authorities set up an independent judiciary that can help to tackle
incidents of this kind and act as a deterrent?

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

_(17 December 2012)_

The issue of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms is a regular feature of the EU’s dialogue with the
Tunisian authorities. For its part the Tunisian Government has repeatedly declared that it will respect its international
human rights obligations. The Vice-President/High Representative will continue to follow this matter closely and to
encourage Tunisia to take all steps to ensure full compliance with these standards.

At the same time the EU is providing significant assistance to Tunisia in the area of respect for human rights and
democratic values and the rule of law. In particular, to-date support for civil society in the areas of freedom of
expression and promotion of democratic values has been provided through various budget lines and programmes
(Instrument for Stability, European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights, Non State Actors) and through a
major civil society capacity building programme of EUR7 million which was adopted last July and which has already
started. In addition, the EU is supporting justice sector reform through a EUR25 million programme which was also
recently approved. The programme specifically aims to strengthen the independence and efficiency of the judiciary, to
improve access to justice and rights and to modernise the jail system in compliance with international standards.

C 310 E / 202 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Suomenkielinen versio)_

**Kirjallisesti vastattava kysymys P-009769/12**

**komissiolle**
**Sari Essayah (PPE)**
_(25. lokakuuta 2012)_

_Aihe:_ Käytettyjen energiansäästölamppujen hävittäminen

Perinteiset hehkulamput ovat EU-alueella korvautumassa kokonaan energiansäästölampuilla ja led-lampuilla.

Toisin kuin hehkulamppu, energiansäästölamppu on ongelmajäte, jota ei saa laittaa kotitalousjätteen joukkoon.
Sisältämänsä elohopean takia käytetyt energiansäästölamput on palautettava sähkö- ja elektroniikkaromun SERpisteisiin tai ongelmajätteen keräyspisteisiin. Loppuun palanut energiansäästölamppu aiheuttaa väärin hävitettynä
ympäristöongelman, koska elohopea on myrkyllinen raskasmetalli.

Energiansäästölamppujen hävittämisessä on vielä paljon parannettavaa. Pakkausmerkinnöistä huolimatta osa
kuluttajista ei ymmärrä, ettei energiansäästölamppuja saa laittaa normaalin sekajätteen joukkoon tai he eivät tiedä,
mihin käytetyt lamput tulee viedä. Edelleen keräyspisteitä on liian vähän.

Rikkoontuessaan lamput ovat terveydelle vaarallisia, joten niitä täytyy käsitellä hyvin varoen. Tämän vuoksi
esimerkiksi keräysastia ei voi olla kovin suuri eikä korkealla, jotteivät huonosti pakatut lamput rikkoontuisi toisiinsa

osuessaan.

Mihin toimenpiteisiin komissio aikoo ryhtyä, jotta EU-kansalaisten tietoisuus käytettyjen energiansäästölamppujen
palauttamisesta oikeisiin keräyspisteisiin kohenee ja tarkoitukseen hyvin soveltuvia keräyspisteitä saadaan riittävästi?

**komission jäsen Janez Potočnikin komission puolesta antama vastaus**

_(3. joulukuuta 2012)_

Sähkö- ja elektroniikkalaiteromusta annetussa direktiivissä 2002/96/EY ( [1] ) on säännöksiä tällaisen romun
keräämisestä ja kierrätyksestä. Niitä sovelletaan myös energiansäästölamppuihin (CFL-lamppuihin). Kyseisen
direktiivin uudelleenlaadinnassa (direktiivi 2012/19/EU ( [2] )) tiukennettiin keräämistavoitteita ja vähittäismyyjien
velvoitteita ottaa takaisin sähkö- ja elektroniikkalaiteromua.

Direktiivissä myös velvoitetaan jäsenvaltioita varmistamaan, että tuottajat merkitsevät markkinoille saatetut
energiansäästölamput asianmukaisella tavalla. Tämän tarkoituksena on kuluttajien tietoisuuden kohentamisen lisäksi
estää sitä, että sähkö- ja elektroniikkalaiteromua laitetaan lajittelemattoman yhdyskuntajätteen joukkoon, sekä
helpottaa tällaisen romun erillistä keräämistä. Käytettävä tunnus painetaan pelkästään pakkaukseen ja käyttöohjeisiin
silloin, kun tämä on tarpeen tuotteen koon tai toiminnan vuoksi.

Kunkin jäsenvaltion on pantava täytäntöön nämä EU-lainsäädännössä asetetut velvoitteet omalla alueellaan.
Direktiivin 12 artiklan mukaan jäsenvaltioiden on toimitettava komissiolle kertomus direktiivin täytäntöönpanosta ja
ilmoitettava sille tiedot kaikilla tavoin kerätystä sähkö- ja elektroniikkalaiteromusta. Direktiivin täytäntöönpanoa
koskevat tiedot (kuten se, että jotkut jäsenvaltiot ovat ottaneet energiansäästölampuille käyttöön erilliset
keräilypisteet) annetaan myös muille jäsenvaltioille tekniseen kehitykseen mukauttamista käsittelevässä komiteassa.

Kun direktiivin 2012/19/EU saattamista osaksi kansallista lainsäädäntöä koskeva määräaika päättyy (14. helmikuuta
2014), komissio tarkastaa, ovatko nämä kansalliset täytäntöönpanotoimet direktiivin vaatimusten mukaisia.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) EUVL L 37, 13.2.2003.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) EUVL L 197, 24.7.2012.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 203

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-009769/12**

**to the Commission**

**Sari Essayah (PPE)**

_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Destruction of used energy-saving lamps

Traditional incandescent light bulbs are in the process of being completely replaced within the EU by energy-saving
and LED lamps.

Unlike incandescent bulbs, energy-saving lamps are hazardous waste that must not be disposed of together with
household refuse. Because they contain mercury, they have to be taken to the WEEE collection points for waste
electrical and electronic equipment or to hazardous waste collection points. Unless it is destroyed properly, a burntout energy-saving lamp causes an environmental problem, given that mercury is a toxic heavy metal.

There is still much room for improvement as regards the destruction of energy-saving lamps. Despite the indications
on the packaging, some consumers do not understand that energy-saving lamps must not be mixed in with normal
unsorted waste, or else they do not know where to take used lamps. There are still too few collection points.

When they break, the lamps become a health hazard and consequently need to be handled with great care. For that
reason, containers cannot be very large or high, as badly packed lamps might otherwise break when they struck
against each other.

What will the Commission do to make EU citizens more fully aware that used energy-saving lamps have to be taken
to the appropriate collection points? How will it ensure that properly designed collection points are set up in
sufficient numbers?

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

_(3 December 2012)_

Directive 2002/96/EC on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) ( [1] ) contains provisions on the collection
and recycling of WEEE, including compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs). A recent recast of the directive
(Directive 2012/19/EU ( [2] )) introduces higher collection targets and strengthens the obligations on retailers to take
back WEEE.

To raise consumer awareness, minimise the disposal of WEEE as unsorted municipal waste and facilitate its separate
collection, the directive also requires Member States to ensure that producers appropriately mark CFLs placed on the
market. In exceptional cases, the symbol to be used shall be printed on the packaging and on the instructions for use,
where this is necessary because of the size or the function of the product.

The above obligations of EU legislation are to be implemented by each Member State on its national territory.
According to Article 16 of the directive, Member States are obliged to report to the Commission on its
implementation, including WEEE collected through all routes. Information on the implementation of the directive —
e.g. the fact that some Member States have introduced special containers for the collection of CFLs — is also shared
with other Member States through the relevant Technical Adaptation Committee.

Once the deadline for transposing Directive 2012/19/EU (14 February 2014) will have expired, the Commission will
check that the national transposition measures are in line with the directive's requirements.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 37, 13.2.2003.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 197, 24.7.2012.

C 310 E / 204 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009770/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Cristiana Muscardini (ECR), Gabriele Albertini (PPE), Salvatore Tatarella (PPE), Niccolò Rinaldi (ALDE),**
**Roberta Angelilli (PPE), Patrizia Toia (S&D), Lara Comi (PPE), Tiziano Motti (PPE), Amalia Sartori (PPE),**
**Gianluca Susta (S&D), Carlo Fidanza (PPE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE) e Malcolm Harbour**

**(ECR)**
_(25 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Lotta alla contraffazione

Da recenti notizie apparse su organi d'informazione risulta che il 72,9 % delle merci contraffatte sequestrate nel 2011
dalle dogane europee proviene dalla Cina, mentre il 7,7 % da Honk Hong, soltanto in Italia questo problema
comporta, secondo lo studio del Censis e del Ministero dello Sviluppo economico, una perdita di 110 mila posti di
lavoro sottratti all'economia regolare e la contraffazione ha fatturato 6.900 milioni di euro di cui 2 miliardi e mezzo
sottratti al settore dell'abbigliamento e degli accessori; 1,1 miliardi ai prodotti alimentari ed 1,8 ai cd,dvd e software.

Riportare sul mercato legale la produzione di beni contraffatti significherebbe, oltre cha salvare i consumatori da una
truffa, aumentare in maniera considerevole i posti di lavoro in Europa, le imposte dirette ed indirette, rilanciare e
salvare migliaia di PMI.

Può la Commissione attivarsi per:

1. un intervento urgente e non più prorogabile per contrastare la contraffazione e l'ingresso di merci illegali nel
territorio dell'Unione europea non solo attraverso più armonizzati e severi controlli alle dogane ma anche con
interventi volti specificatamente verso lo stesso governo cinese?

2. aprire un'inchiesta sulle società di esportazioni dei paesi maggiormente coinvolti nella fabbricazione e
nell'esportazione di merci contraffatte e illegali nonché sui sistemi di vendita on-line per arrivare ad un sistema
di garanzia che impedisca il continuo perpetrarsi di una truffa che in un momento di grave disagio economico
dell'Ue procura ingenti e irreparabili danni agli Stati membri?

**Risposta di Algirdas Šemeta a nome della Commissione**

_(8 gennaio 2013)_

Per la prima domanda posta dall’onorevole parlamentare, la Commissione rimanda alla risposta data
all’interrogazione E-007670/2012.

Per quanto riguarda la seconda domanda, la Commissione non è competente per l’apertura di «un’inchiesta sulle
società di esportazioni» in paesi terzi e «sui sistemi di vendita on-line».

Ciò detto, la Commissione conduce negoziati in materia di future norme internazionali con i partner commerciali
dell’UE, in particolare mediante un accordo di libero scambio o a livello multilaterale, e controlla l’applicazione delle
leggi sulla proprietà intellettuale in tali paesi attraverso appositi dialoghi sui diritti di proprietà intellettuale.

La Commissione è anche impegnata in diversi programmi di assistenza tecnica con alcuni paesi terzi, intesi a risolvere
i problemi connessi all’applicazione del quadro normativo esistente e alla politica più recente e meno nota che può
pregiudicare gli interessi dell’UE, come il trasferimento forzato di tecnologia.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 205

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009770/12**

**to the Commission**
**Cristiana Muscardini (ECR), Gabriele Albertini (PPE), Salvatore Tatarella (PPE), Niccolò Rinaldi (ALDE),**
**Roberta Angelilli (PPE), Patrizia Toia (S&D), Lara Comi (PPE), Tiziano Motti (PPE), Amalia Sartori (PPE),**

**Gianluca Susta (S&D), Carlo Fidanza (PPE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE) and Malcolm**

**Harbour (ECR)**
_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ The fight against counterfeiting

Information recently published in the media shows that 72.9% of the counterfeit goods seized by European customs
services in 2011 came from China and 7.7% from Hong Kong. In Italy alone, according to a study by Censis and the
Economic Development Ministry, this problem means 110 000 jobs lost from the lawful economy, with
counterfeiting producing a turnover of EUR 6 900 million, taking EUR 2 500 million from the clothing and
accessories sector, EUR 1 100 million from the food sector, and EUR 1 800 million from the CDs, DVDs and software

sector.

Shifting counterfeit goods production back to the legal market would not only stop consumers being cheated; it
would also considerably increase the number of jobs in Europe, direct and indirect tax revenue, and relaunch and save
thousands of SMEs.

Can the Commission address this, by:

1. taking urgent action which can be put off no longer, to tackle counterfeiting and the entry into the EU of illegal
merchandise, not only by means of stricter and more harmonised customs checks but also by measures
specifically directed at the Chinese government?

2. opening an investigation into export companies in the countries most closely involved in the manufacture and
export of counterfeit and illicit goods, and into online selling systems, with a view to creating a system that will
prevent the continued perpetration of a form of fraud which at a time of serious economic difficulty in the EU is
causing huge and irreparable damage for the Member States?

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

_(8 January 2013)_

For the first question posed by the Honourable Members, the Commission would like to refer to the answer given to
Question E-007670/2012.

For the second question, the Commission has no competence in ‘opening investigations into export companies’ in
non-EU countries and ‘into online selling systems’.

This said, the Commission negotiates future international rules with EU trading partners, namely through Free trade
Agreement or at multilateral level, and monitors the application of the intellectual property laws in those countries
through dedicated IP Dialogues.

The Commission is also engaged in various technical assistance programmes with some third countries to address
enforcement, as well as the more recent and less well understood policy which may prejudice EU interests such as
forced technology transfer.

C 310 E / 206 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009771/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)**

_(25 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ La contraffazione viaggia su Internet

C'era da aspettarselo ed il momento è arrivato. Il commercio dei prodotti contraffatti si svolge anche sulla rete. La
denuncia arriva da una ricerca fatta dal Censis per conto del ministero italiano per lo Sviluppo economico e recante il
titolo «L'impatto della contraffazione sul sistema Paese». In Italia questo sistema di vendita è recente ma l'incontro tra
la merce contraffatta e la rete è stato fatale. Attraverso Internet si riescono a contattare e truffare ignari acquirenti che
vengono attratti da prezzi inferiori a quelli normalmente praticati e dalle garanzie offerte in merito a presunte
certificazioni di originalità oltre che da fotografie che ne mostrano la buona fattura. Le potenzialità del mezzo sono
infinite e i danni sono incalcolabili, salvo quelli causati dalla sottrazione al fisco del commercio illegale, che la ricerca
sopra accennata valuta a 4 miliardi e 620 milioni di euro.

Può la Commissione rispondere ai seguenti quesiti:

1. è al corrente di questo studio?

2. che cosa intende fare per contrastare questa palese illegalità e ridare fiducia ai commercianti regolari che il fisco
lo pagano?

3. quando presenterà proposte credibili per combattere efficacemente la contraffazione su Internet?

4. è in grado di stabilire da quali Paesi provengono principalmente i prodotti contraffatti?

5. prevede eventualmente misure di ritorsione che disincentivino il commercio della contraffazione via Internet?

**Risposta di Michel Barnier a nome della Commissione**

_(17 gennaio 2013)_

La Commissione è al corrente dello studio citato nell'interrogazione. La contraffazione, compresa la variante on-line,
è un problema serio: merci contraffatte provengono da tutti i paesi e hanno effetti in diversa misura nefasti su tutti i
settori.

Occorre che gli stessi titolari della proprietà intellettuale dispongano di mezzi efficaci e proporzionati di ricorso a
difesa dei loro diritti. A fronte della dimensione sempre più transfrontaliera del fenomeno, conseguente all'effetto
combinato di globalizzazione e avvento di internet, la Commissione si è adoperata al fine di assicurare, in tutta l'UE, la
vigenza di idonee procedure civili per violazione dei diritti di proprietà intellettuale, obiettivo conseguito grazie
all'armonizzazione garantita dalla direttiva 2004/48/CE. È stata altresì avviata una consultazione pubblica per
individuare i problemi che ancora si pongono nei procedimenti civili.

Per assistere le autorità nazionali e i portatori d'interesse è stato istituito in seno all'UAMI ( [1] ) l'Osservatorio europeo
sulle violazioni dei diritti di proprietà intellettuale, grazie al quale è possibile quantificare oggettivamente il fenomeno,
potenziare la formazione, attuare campagne di sensibilizzazione e mettere in comune le migliori prassi. La
Commissione promuove l'adozione in tutta Europa di misure facoltative che contrastino il fenomeno lungo tutta la
catena di approvvigionamento, a prescindere dal luogo in cui si verifica. Di particolare rilievo al riguardo è il
memorandum d'intesa sul contrasto della vendita on-line di merci contraffatte, sul quale la Commissione riferirà
all'inizio del prossimo anno.

Le rilevazioni statistiche annuali dell'UE confermano la Cina come principale luogo di origine: da lì proviene il 73 %
del totale delle merci contraffatte intercettate ( [2] ).

Le violazioni della proprietà intellettuale esulano dagli strumenti di difesa commerciale. Per scoraggiare il traffico di
merci contraffatte, la Commissione negozia quindi una regolamentazione specifica con i partner commerciali dell'UE
e controlla l'applicazione delle norme sulla proprietà intellettuale nei paesi coi quali intrattiene un dialogo specifico al
riguardo.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Ufficio per l'armonizzazione nel mercato interno (Alicante).
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/customs_controls/counterfeit_piracy/statistics/index_en.htm

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 207

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009771/12**

**to the Commission**
**Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)**

_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Counterfeiting over the Internet

It was to be expected, and it has now happened. Trading in counterfeit products is now also done over the Internet.
The report comes from research done by Censis for the Italian Economic Development Ministry, entitled The impact
of counterfeiting on the Italian system. In Italy this system of selling is recent, but the meeting between counterfeit
goods and the Internet was fatal. Through the Internet it is possible to contact and trick unknowing purchasers
attracted by lower prices than those normally charged and by guarantees offered about supposed certification of
origin and by photographs showing that the goods are properly made. The potential offered by this means is infinite
and the damage caused is incalculable, except for that caused by the tax revenue lost due to this illicit trading, which
the study estimates at EUR 4 620 million.

Could the Commission answer the following questions:

1. Is it aware of this study?

2. What does it intend to do to counter this clearly illicit state of affairs and restore the confidence of lawful
traders who pay their taxes?

3. When will it present credible proposals to effectively combat counterfeiting over the Internet?

4. Is it able to ascertain from which countries the bulk of the counterfeit products originate?

5. Might it envisage any retaliatory measures to discourage trade in counterfeit products over the Internet?

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

_(17 January 2013)_

The Commission is aware of this study. Counterfeiting including its online variant is a serious problem. Counterfeit
goods originate from all countries and affect adversely all sectors to varying degrees.

Rights owners themselves must be provided with effective and proportionate means of redress to defend their rights.
In order to address the increasing cross-border dimension that reflects both globalisation and the advent of the
Internet, the Commission has sought to ensure that civil procedures against breaches of intellectual property rights
are fit for purpose across the EU. This has been achieved through the harmonisation offered by Directive 2004/48/EC.
A detailed public consultation has been initiated in order to identify outstanding problems encountered in civil
proceedings.

In order to assist national authorities and stakeholders a European Observatory against IP infringements was
established in OHIM ( [1] ). This allows for objective scoping of the problem, enhanced training, awareness campaigns
and the sharing of best practices. The Commission is promoting pan-European voluntary measures tackling the
problem throughout the whole supply chain irrespective of its origin. Of particular relevance is the memorandum of
understanding against the online sale of counterfeits on which the Commission shall report early next year.

According to annual EU statistics, the main source of counterfeits remains China, accounting 73% of the total amount
of detained articles ( [2] ).

Trade defence instruments do not cover intellectual property infringements. To discourage trade in counterfeits, the
Commission negotiates rules with EU trading partners, and monitors the application of the IP laws in those countries
with dedicated IP Dialogues.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Office for the Harmonisation of the internal market in Alicante.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/customs_controls/counterfeit_piracy/statistics/index_en.htm

C 310 E / 208 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009772/12**

**to the Commission**
**Marta Andreasen (EFD)**

_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Budget line 25 01 02 13: Other management expenditure of Members of the Institution

In February 2010, Dutch media organisation RTL published information on how much money 27 Commissioners
had spent in 2009 on missions inside and outside the EU and on representation costs. RTL had obtained its figures
from the Commission’s Paymaster’s Office (PMO).

In October 2012, one of the findings of a report on the role of investigative journalism in the deterrence of fraud with
EU funds, commissioned by the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control, was that the EU institutions
need to give a clear and sound response to questions.

In the light of this, can the Commission publish a similar table with the missions and representation costs for each of
its Commissioners for 2010 and 2011?

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

_(16 January 2013)_

The Commission is sending directly to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat a table containing
information about the mission and representation costs linked to the mandate which each Commissioner has to fulfil.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 209

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009773/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(25 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Introduzione della Tobin Tax e possibili effetti per i risparmiatori e le imprese

Presentando l'ipotesi di introduzione di una tassa europea sulle transazioni finanziarie, nota anche come Tobin Tax, la
stampa internazionale ha diffuso le ottimistiche stime della Commissione, che attesterebbe intorno ai 57 miliardi di
EUR gli introiti del nuovo provvedimento.

In Italia, contro l'introduzione di questo nuovo balzello, l'Associazione degli Intermediari finanziari (Assosim) ha
invece contestualmente lanciato un allarme specificando che, in base alle simulazioni risultanti dai loro studi, il gettito
sarebbe nettamente inferiore a quello ipotizzato dalla Commissione, mentre la tassa avrebbe ripercussioni molto
negative sulle imprese e sulla crescita economica.

In questo momento di forte crisi economica e finanziaria è indispensabile usare tutte le cautele possibili nei confronti
delle imprese sane e attive che garantiscono ancora occupazione e ritorni fiscali per gli Stati membri e va preso atto
che non possono essere solo i cittadini a dover pagare il costo della crisi.

1. Ciò premesso, se l'obiettivo del provvedimento fossero gli speculatori finanziari che mobilitano ogni giorno
tanti capitali sui mercati, può la Commissione fa sapere se ha considerato che, per come è adesso strutturata, la Tobin
Tax colpirebbe solo il saldo di fine giornata e non i movimenti infragiornalieri?

2. La Commissione non ritiene che questo meccanismo permetta ai grandi speculatori, che comprano e vendono
nell'arco di poche ore, di evitare buona parte della tassa?

3. Non ritiene dunque che il provvedimento, se strutturato secondo questo meccanismo, penalizzerebbe solo i
risparmiatori o i fondi pensione?

**Risposta di Algirdas Šemeta a nome della Commissione**

_(12 dicembre 2012)_

1. La proposta della Commissione per un sistema comune d'imposta sulle transazioni finanziarie COM(2011)594
(che viene impropriamente definita «Tobin tax») riguarda le transazioni finanziarie prima della compensazione e del
regolamento e colpisce quindi tutte le transazioni con scadenza nello stesso giorno.

2. No. Gli istituti finanziari che effettuano scambi più frequentemente di altri si troverebbero a versare più
imposte. Ciò vale in particolare per i cosiddetti operatori ad alta frequenza.

3. No. I servizi finanziari quotidiani (assicurazioni, pagamenti, depositi, prestiti, operazioni di cambio, ecc.) non
sono direttamente colpiti da questa imposta. Maggiori informazioni sugli effetti economici previsti sono disponibili
su una pagina web dedicata della Commissione europea che viene aggiornata regolarmente ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/index_en.htm

C 310 E / 210 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009773/12**

**to the Commission**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Introduction of the Tobin Tax and possible impact on savers and businesses

In the context of the possible introduction of a European tax on financial transactions, also known as the Tobin Tax,
the international press has been spreading the Commission’s optimistic estimates that such a measure would generate
revenue of approximately EUR 57 billion.

The Italian Association of Financial Intermediaries (Assosim), opposed to the introduction of this new tax, has raised
the alarm on the subject, stating that their studies suggest that the returns generated would be much lower than those
estimated by the Commission, while the tax would have very negative repercussions for businesses and economic
growth.

At this time of severe economic and financial crisis it is essential to take great care to protect the healthy, active
businesses that still provide the Member States with employment and fiscal returns. Nor should it be left to the
general public alone to pay for the cost of the crisis.

1. Against this backdrop, as the measure is supposed to target the financial speculators that move so much capital
on the markets every day, can the Commission state whether it has considered that the way the Tobin Tax is currently
structured, it would affect the end-of-day balance only and not same-day transactions?

2. Does the Commission not agree that this mechanism would allow major speculators, who buy and sell within a
very short time frame, to avoid much of the tax?

3. Does it not therefore find that the measure, if structured in this way, would penalise only savers and pension
funds?

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

_(12 December 2012)_

1. The Commission proposal for a common system of financial transaction tax COM(2011)594 (which is
incorrectly referred to as a ‘Tobin Tax’) covers financial transactions before netting and settlement and thus captures
all same day transactions.

2. No. Financial institutions that trade more often than others would actually pay more tax. This is in particular
true for so-called high-frequency traders.

3. No. Everyday financial services (insurance, payments, deposits, loans, currency exchange transactions etc.) are
not directly affected by this tax. More information on the expected economic effects can be found on the dedicated
webpage of the European Commission which is updated on regular basis ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/index_en.htm

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 211

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009774/12**

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

**Mario Borghezio (EFD)**

_(25 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Intervento per i diritti di libertà di una cittadina europea «prigioniera» in Arabia Saudita

Questa mattina, attraverso il telegiornale di RAI 1, è stato trasmesso l'accorato appello da Riad della cittadina europea
Chiara Invernizzi, originaria di Valenza Po (Piemonte), di fatto «prigioniera» in Arabia Saudita, in quanto il marito
saudita, dopo aver ottenuto il divorzio, le impedisce di uscire dal paese e di tornare in Italia.

La signora Invernizzi ha altresì denunciato le pesanti imposizioni e vessazioni che, in omaggio alle regole del
fondamentalismo islamico, il marito saudita le aveva imposto e che hanno determinato la rottura del matrimonio, alle
quali la signora aveva tentato di opporsi con tutte le sue forze.

Può il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante Ashton fa sapere se intende intervenire urgentemente presso le autorità
saudite in difesa dei diritti di libertà della cittadina europea Chiara Invernizzi?

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

_(13 dicembre 2012)_

L’Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente è a conoscenza del caso di Chiara Invernizzi. La delegazione UE in Arabia
Saudita e i servizi del SEAE a Bruxelles continueranno a seguire concretamente questo caso in stretta collaborazione
con le autorità italiane, adottando ogni misura opportuna o necessaria.

C 310 E / 212 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009774/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Mario Borghezio (EFD)**

_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Intervention for the right to freedom of a European citizen, ‘prisoner’ in Saudi Arabia

This morning, the Italian television news on RAI 1 broadcast an impassioned appeal from a European citizen in
Riyadh — Chiara Invernizzi — originally from Valenza Po (Piedmont), who is a de facto ‘prisoner’ in Saudi Arabia, in
that her Saudi husband, having obtained a divorce, is preventing her from leaving the country and returning to Italy.

Ms Invernizzi also denounced the harsh orders and abuse that she had been subjected to by her Saudi husband, under
the rules of Islamic fundamentalism — and that led to the breakup of the marriage — which she had tried to oppose
with all her strength.

Will the High Representative/Vice-President, Ms Ashton, say whether she intends to urgently intervene with the Saudi
authorities in defence of the right to freedom of this European citizen, Ms Invernizzi?

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

_(13 December 2012)_

The HR/VP is aware of the case of Ms Chiara Invernizzi. The EU Delegation in Saudi Arabia and the EEAS services in
Brussels will continue to work on this case in close cooperation with the Italian authorities, taking every step that will
prove appropriate or necessary.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 213

_(Suomenkielinen versio)_

**Kirjallisesti vastattava kysymys E-009775/12**

**komissiolle**
**Hannu Takkula (ALDE)**

_(25. lokakuuta 2012)_

_Aihe:_ EU-kansalaisen aktiivinen osallistuminen

”Kansalaisten Eurooppa” on unionin kehitysohjelma, jolla edistetään aktiivista EU‐kansalaisuutta ja Euroopan
muistiperintöä ja joka on tähän mennessä ollut suuri menestys. Ehdotetulla Kansalaisten Eurooppa ‐ohjelmalla 2014‐
2020 on kaksi käytäntöön suuntautuvaa osaa: a) kansalaisvaikuttaminen ja demokraattiseen toimintaan
osallistuminen sekä b) Euroopan muistiperintö. Ohjelman jatkaminen osoittaa, että komissio ymmärtää edelleen,
kuinka tärkeää on edistää Euroopan unionin, sen arvojen, kulttuurin ja identiteetin entistä parempaa tuntemusta.

Vuonna 2010 toteutetun ohjelman väliarvioinnin yhteydessä tuli kuitenkin esille huolenaiheita, jotka liittyivät
”tyydyttymättömän kysynnän” suureen määrään. Ottaen huomioon Eurooppa 2020 ‐strategian kunnianhimoiset
tavoitteet sosiaalisesta osallisuudesta ja kasvusta, ehdotusta Kansalaisten Eurooppa ‐ohjelmaksi 2014‐2020 on
kritisoitu riittämättömäksi. Siihen tarkoitetut rahoituspuitteetkin ovat erittäin niukat: pelkästään 229 miljoonaa
euroa vuosille 2014‐2020. Vaikka jokaisen komission käynnistämän ohjelman tavoitteena on epäilemättä hyödyttää
EU-kansalaisia, on osoittautunut, että aloitteet, joiden avulla yksilöt saadaan selvästi toimimaan EU-kansalaisina,
lisäävät EU:n hallinnon demokraattisuutta.

Tätä taustaa vasten pyydän komissiota vastaamaan seuraavaan kahteen kysymykseen:

1. Miksi ”Kansalaisten Eurooppa 2014‐2020” on ainoa yksinomaan kansalaisvaikuttamiseen ja Euroopan
muistiperintöön keskittyvä aloite, vaikka kansalaisten tiedon lisääminen EU:n sisällä on tärkeää unionin
kehittämiselle ja demokraattisuudelle?

2. Kun otetaan huomioon, että ”Kansalaisten Eurooppa 2014‐2020” on ainoa ohjelma, jonka tavoitteena on
edistää kansalaisvaikuttamista, miksi ohjelmalle ehdotetut rahoituspuitteet ovat niin niukat?

**Viviane Redingin komission puolesta antama vastaus**

_(13. joulukuuta 2012)_

Komissio on sitoutunut vahvistamaan Euroopan unionin yhdentymisen demokraattista ulottuvuutta ja yhtyy
”Kansalaisten Eurooppa” ‐ohjelmasta esitettyyn myönteiseen arvioon. Tästä syystä komissio on ehdottanut hankkeen
jatkamista myös seuraavalla ohjelmakaudella.

Komissio ehdottaa ”Kansalaisten Eurooppa” ‐ohjelman rahoituksen lievää korottamista kaudelle 2014‐2020
nykyisestä 215 miljoonasta eurosta 229 miljoonaan nykyhintoina.

Siitä lähtien, kun se hyväksyttiin vuonna 2007, perusoikeuksien ja oikeusasioiden puiteohjelmaan sisältyvä
perusoikeuksia ja kansalaisuutta koskeva erityisohjelma on rahoittanut tiedotushankkeita EU-kansalaisten oikeuksista
heidän poliittiset oikeutensa mukaan lukien.

Alalla on käynnissä myös useita muita poliittisia aloitteita. Euroopan kansalaisten teemavuosi 2013 tarjoaa
kansalaisille uusia mahdollisuuksia osallistua Euroopan unionin poliittiseen elämään. Komissio on myös ryhtynyt
yhdessä kansalaisten kanssa keskustelemaan heidän oikeuksistaan sekä siitä, minkälaisessa Euroopassa he haluavat
elää ja mitä he odottavat tulevaisuuden Euroopan unionilta.

C 310 E / 214 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009775/12**

**to the Commission**
**Hannu Takkula (ALDE)**

_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Active engagement of the European citizen

‘Europe for Citizens’ is a community development programme that promotes active European citizenship and
European remembrance, and which has so far been very successful. The proposed Europe for Citizens 2014-2020
programme has two main pragmatic strands: (a) civic participation and democratic engagement, and (b) European
remembrance. The continuation of the programme demonstrates the European Commission’s ongoing
understanding of the importance of promoting a better understanding of the European Union, its values, culture and
identity.

However, concern was raised in 2010, during a mid-term review of the programme, that there were still high levels of
‘unmet demand.’ In light of the ambitious targets for social inclusion and growth set by the Europe 2020 strategy, the
citizenship proposal for 2014-2020 has been criticised as being inadequate. The financial envelope alone is very
small: a mere EUR 229 million is proposed for the 2014-2020 period. While it may be true that every programme
launched by the Commission aims to benefit EU citizens, initiatives that explicitly engage the individual as an EU
citizen have been shown to enhance the democratic quality of EU governance.

In light of the above, can the Commission please answer the following two questions:

1. Why is Europe for Citizens 2014-2020 the only initiative devoted exclusively to promoting civic participation
and active remembrance on a European level, when internal orientation is so important for the development
and democratic quality of the EU?

2. Why, given that Europe for Citizens 2014-2020 is the only programme that aims at promoting civic
participation, is the proposed financial envelope for the programme so small?

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

_(13 December 2012)_

The Commission is committed to strengthening the democratic dimension of the European Union integration and
shares the positive assessment of the Europe for Citizens programme. For this reason, it made a proposal for its
continuation into the next programming period.

For the Europe for citizens programme 2014-2020 the Commission proposes a slight increase in current prices from
currently EUR 215 to EUR 229 million.

Since its adoption in 2007 the specific programme Fundamental Rights and Citizenship, forming part of the general
programme ‘Fundamental Rights and Justice’, has been funding projects on awareness-raising activities on EU
citizens' rights, including their political rights.

Several other political initiatives are taking place in this domain. The European Year of Citizens 2013 will provide
new possibilities for citizens' participation in the political life of the European Union. The Commission has also
engaged into a debate with citizens, about their rights and about what kind of Europe they want to live in and what
they expect from the European Union of tomorrow.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 215

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-009776/12**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Adrian Severin (NI)**

_(25 octombrie 2012)_

_Subiect:_ Autorii rapoartelor MCV pentru România

Comisia întocmește periodic rapoarte privind justiția română, în cadrul mecanismului de cooperare și verificare
(MCV).

Respectivele rapoarte conțin numeroase lacune și inexactități din punctul de vedere al informației, evaluării și
recomandărilor. Consecința este involuția continuă a justiției românești care, an de an, este tot mai politizată și devine
tot mai para-legală, para-judiciară și para-instituțională. Aceasta generează confuzii și tensiuni sociale periculoase.

Mai mulți deputați din Parlamentul European au solicitat clarificări în legătură cu sursele de informare și autorii
rapoartelor MCV pentru România. Răspunsurile Comisarului pentru justiție, doamna Viviane Reding, au fost
întotdeauna ambigue, evazive și neconcludente. Ele au menționat printre eminenți experți naționali și internaționali,
ONG-uri specializate și „interlocutori-cheie”, fără a preciza cine sunt în mod concret aceștia.

Categoria „interlocutorilor-cheie” îngrijorează în mod special, întrucât raportarea la celelalte categorii sugerează că
aceștia ar fi cu cât mai importanți, cu atât mai ilegitimi.

Față de cele de mai sus, precum și în virtutea principiului transparenței, solicităm Comisiei să precizeze numele și
prenumele, calificarea profesională și afilierea instituțională a persoanelor implicate în pregătirea și redactarea
rapoartelor Comisiei privind starea justiției din România, întocmite în cadrul MCV.

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

_(23 ianuarie 2013)_

Comisia își exprimă dezacordul ferm față de afirmația distinsului membru potrivit căreia „respectivele rapoarte conțin
numeroase lacune și inexactități din punctul de vedere al informației, evaluării și recomandărilor”. Comisia este
convinsă că, în raportul său întocmit în cadrul MCV, concluziile trase se bazează pe o analiză atentă și pe o înțelegere
corectă și imparțială a situației. De asemenea, Comisia ar dori să aducă în atenția distinsului membru concluziile
Consiliului, adoptate în unanimitate în septembrie 2012, în care Consiliul: „felicită Comisia pentru activitatea depusă
și pentru metodologia aplicată și este pe deplin de acord cu analiza obiectivă și echilibrată, precum și cu
recomandările cuprinse în aceste rapoarte.”

Colegiul comisarilor își asumă responsabilitatea deplină pentru toate textele pe care le adoptă.

C 310 E / 216 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009776/12**

**to the Commission**
**Adrian Severin (NI)**

_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Authors of CVM reports on Romania

The Commission periodically draws up reports on the judicial system in Romania as part of the Cooperation and
Verification Mechanism (CVM).

The information, assessments and recommendations contained in these reports are flawed by numerous omissions
and errors. As a result, the Romanian legal system is increasingly complex, becoming more politicised, para-legal,
para-judicial and para-institutional by the year, generating dangerously high levels of confusion and social tension.

A number of MEPs have sought clarification regarding the sources and authors of CVM reports on Romania. The
answers given by the Commissioner for Justice Mrs Viviane Reding have always been ambiguous, evasive and
inconclusive, referring to eminent national and international experts, specialist NGOs and key interlocutors without
specifying exactly who they are.

The ‘key interlocutors’ are a particular cause for concern, references to other categories suggesting that the most
prominent have also been the least valid.

In view of this and in order to respect the principle of transparency, can the Commission give the full names and
qualifications of individuals responsible for preparing and drawing up its CVM reports on justice in Romania,
indicating the institutions to which they belong?

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

_(23 January 2013)_

The Commission strongly disagrees with the Honourable Member's allegation that ‘the information, assessments and
recommendations contained in these reports are flawed by numerous omissions and errors’. The Commission is
confident that the conclusions reached in its report under the CVM are based on careful analysis and a fair and
impartial reading of the situation. The Commission would also like to draw the honourable member's attention to the
Council conclusions adopted unanimously in September 2012, where the Council: ‘commends the Commission on
its work, on the methodology followed, and fully shares the objective and balanced analysis and recommendations
contained in those reports.’

The College of Commissioners takes full responsibility for all texts it adopts.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 217

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009777/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Franz Obermayr (NI)**

_(25. Oktober 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Scheitern der Fusion von EADS und BAE

Luftfahrt und Verteidigung gehören zu den wichtigsten Industriezweigen der hoch entwickelten Länder. Im Bereich
Forschung und Entwicklung bringen diese Sektoren regelmäßig neue technologische Durchbrüche hervor. Die
geplante Fusion der deutsch-französischen European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS), der
Eigentümerin von Airbus, und der britischen BAE Systems ist Medienberichten zufolge im letzten Moment gescheitert
und die beiden Rüstungskonzerne EADS und BAE haben ihre Fusionsgespräche abgebrochen. EADS verfügt in
Deutschland über 29 Standorte mit fast 50 000 Beschäftigten. Im Falle eines Zusammenschlusses mit BAE Systems
wäre ein „Branchenprimus“ mit einem Umsatz von rund 72 Mrd. EUR und weltweit gut 220 000 Beschäftigten
entstanden.

Daraus resultieren folgende Fragen:

1. Wäre die Verschmelzung der beiden führenden Luftfahrt‐ und Verteidigungs-Riesen für die EU nicht ein großer
Wettbewerbsvorsprung zu — vor allem China — gewesen? Wie steht die Kommission zum Platzen dieser
Fusionspläne?

2. Seit Jahren fordert die politische Führung der EU eine Konsolidierung der europäischen Verteidigungsindustrie.
Warum hat die Kommission die Fusion des Luftfahrtkonzerns EADS mit dem britischen Rüstungshersteller
BAE nicht politisch unterstützt?

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

_(19. Dezember 2012)_

Die Kommission kann nur betonen, dass dieses Fusionsvorhaben zu einem sehr frühen Zeitpunkt aufgegeben wurde.
Es ist weder Aufgabe der Kommission, ihre Ansicht zu den geschäftlichen Gründen für diesen Zusammenschluss zu
äußern, noch hat die Kommission dieses Vorhaben wettbewerbsrechtlich geprüft.

C 310 E / 218 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009777/12**

**to the Commission**
**Franz Obermayr (NI)**

_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Failed merger between EADS and BAE

Highly developed countries’ key industries include aviation and defence. The sectors regularly produce technological
breakthroughs in research and development. According to media reports, the planned merger between the FrancoGerman European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) and the British firm BAE Systems foundered at
the very last minute, and the two arms conglomerates have broken off merger talks. In Germany, EADS has 29 sites
and employs close to fifty thousand. A merger with BAE Systems would have created an industry leader with a
turnover of some EUR 72 billion and a global workforce of over 220 000.

Accordingly:

1. Would not the merger between the two leading aviation and defence giants have given the EU a considerable
competitive edge, in particular over China? What is the Commission’s position on the collapse of the planned
merger?

2. Given that the EU's political leaders have for years been calling for consolidation of the European defence
industry, why was there no political backing from the Commission for the merger between the EADS aviation
group and the British arms manufacturer BAE?

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

_(19 December 2012)_

It can only be emphasised that this merger was abandoned at a very early stage. In any case, it is not for the
Commission to express a view in terms of the merger's business rationale, nor has the Commission carried out any
competition analysis on the merger.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 219

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-009778/12**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(25 octobre 2012)_

_Objet:_ Directive sur la protection des données

J'ai déjà à diverses reprises insisté sur la nature intrusive de la directive pour la vie privée.

Je comprends bien le rôle important que cela peut avoir dans le cadre des enquêtes criminelles.

Je ne veux cependant pas franchir la ligne qui se démarque entre mise en péril de la sécurité et intrusion dans la vie
privée: tous deux sont liberticides.

J'émets de sérieux doutes quant à la nécessité de conserver les données à une telle échelle, au regard des droits à la vie
privée et à la protection des données.

Plus étonnant encore, le secteur privé s'y met. Google, épinglé par la Commission il y a peu pour un possible abus de
position dominante, introduit de nouvelles règles de confidentialité qui suggèrent l'absence totale de toute limite
concernant le périmètre de la collecte et les usages potentiels des données personnelles.

Google refuse également de nous dire combien de temps sont stockées les données du citoyen.

1. Alors qu'Indect sort doucement du brouillard, nous demandons à la Commission d'indiquer où en est la
proposition de révision de la directive sur la protection des données personnelles promise pour 2012?

2. Quand pourrons-nous accéder finalement à ce texte?

3. Comment ce retard s'explique-t-il?

4. Pourquoi le seul créneau officiel qui s'est offert pour en parler fut en session parlementaire, lors d'une séance de
questions orales ce 23 octobre 2012? Un débat ne serait-il pas plus indiqué?

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

_(10 janvier 2013)_

Comme indiqué par Mme Malmström, membre de la Commission, au cours du débat qui s'est tenu au Parlement
européen le 23 octobre 2012, la Commission prépare actuellement une proposition de révision du cadre régissant la
conservation des données.

La Commission estime que la révision de la directive sur la conservation des données doit garantir que les données
conservées seront exclusivement utilisées aux fins prévues par la directive, et non à d'autres fins, comme le permet
actuellement la directive «Vie privée et communications électroniques». La Commission entend dès lors proposer que
la révision de la directive sur la conservation des données et la future proposition de révision de la directive «Vie privée
et communications électroniques» interviennent simultanément. En outre, toute proposition de modification de la
directive «Vie privée et communications électroniques» devra tenir compte de l'issue des négociations sur la réforme
du régime de protection des données de l'UE, actuellement en cours devant le Parlement européen et le Conseil.

La Commission n'est pas responsable du calendrier des débats devant le Parlement européen.

C 310 E / 220 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009778/12**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Data protection directive

I have already stressed on various occasions that the directive is an invasion of privacy.

I am well aware of the important role it may have in connection with criminal investigations.

However, I do not want to go beyond the boundary between putting security at risk and invasion of privacy: both
destroy freedom.

In the light of privacy and data protection rights, I have serious doubts as to the need to retain data on such a scale.

What is even more astonishing is that the private sector is getting in on the act. Google, recently flayed by the
Commission for possible abuse of a dominant position, is introducing new confidentiality rules which suggest a
complete lack of any limits on the scope for gathering personal data or on the potential uses to which they could be
put.

Google is also refusing to say how long individuals’ data will be retained.

1. At a time when INDECT is slowly becoming better known, what is the position with regard to the proposal,
promised for 2012, for revision of the personal data protection directive?

2. When will the text finally become available?

3. What is the reason for the delay?

4. Why has the only official ‘window’ to talk about the proposal been during a Parliament part-session, i.e. during
oral questions on 23 October 2012? Is a debate no longer appropriate?

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

_(10 January 2013)_

As stated by Commissioner Malmström during the debate in the European Parliament on 23 October 2012, the
Commission is preparing a proposal to reform the data retention framework.

The Commission considers that revision of the Data Retention Directive should ensure that retained data will be used
exclusively for the purposes set out in the directive, and not for other purposes as currently allowed by the E-Privacy
Directive. The Commission therefore 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. Also, any proposal reforming the E-Privacy Directive will need
to take into account the result of the negotiations on the reform of the EU data protection regime, which is currently
before the European Parliament and the Council.

The Commission is not responsible for the allocation of parliamentary time.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 221

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009779/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Andreas Mölzer (NI)**

_(25. Oktober 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Aktuelle Störfälle im AKW Temelin

Kürzlich wurde im tschechischen Atomkraftwerk Temelin ein weiterer Störfall gemeldet. Nach Wartungsarbeiten
wurde eine undichte Stelle entdeckt. Dies wirft kein gutes Bild auf dieses Atomkraftwerk und lässt auch nicht darauf
schließen, dass mit der nötigen Sorgfalt vorgegangen wird.

Nach dem Melker Protokoll müssen Zwischenfälle ab einer Einstufung in Stufe 1 nach der internationalen
Bewertungsskala für nukleare Ereignisse innerhalb von 72 Stunden an das österreichische Umweltministerium
gemeldet werden.

1. Binnen welcher Frist müssen derartige Störfälle der EU gemeldet werden?

2. Wie viele Störfälle ab einer Einstufung in INES 1 wurden seit der Vereinbarung von Melk vom 12. Dezember
2000 an die EU gemeldet?

3. Wird kontrolliert, ob vonseiten der tschechischen Regierung dieser Verpflichtung zur Meldung der Störfälle
nachgekommen wird?

4. Hat die EU jemals von einem Fall, in welcher Form auch immer, Kenntnis erlangt, bei dem die tschechische
Regierung dieser Meldepflicht nicht nachgekommen ist?

5. Wenn ja, wird um genaue Angabe darüber gebeten, wann und welcher Art dieser Störfall (diese Störfälle)
war(en).

6. Wenn ja: Welche Konsequenzen haben sich daraus ergeben?

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

_(10. Dezember 2012)_

1. und 3. Die Internationale Atomenergie-Organisation (IAEO) unterhält die Internationale Skala für Nuklearstör‐
und ‐unfälle (INES) zur Erleichterung der weltweiten Kommunikation über Ereignisse im Nuklearbereich.

Der Europäischen Union melden die Mitgliedstaaten INES-Ereignisse nicht.

2., 4. und 6. INES funktioniert auf freiwilliger Basis und ist kein offizielles Meldesystem. Deshalb eignet sich INES
nicht als Bezugsrahmen für den Vergleich der sicherheitstechnischen Bilanz von Anlagen, Unternehmen,
Organisationen oder Ländern.

Die bei der IAEO eingegangenen Berichte werden auf der unten stehenden Website veröffentlicht. Dort sind sämtliche
Zwischenfälle aufgeführt, die innerhalb der vorangehenden zwölf Monate gemeldet wurden. Die Website ist
öffentlich und hat folgende Adresse: http://www-news.iaea.org/

Für INES-Ereignisse sind zunächst die nationalen Behörden zuständig, die sie dann der IAEO melden. In den letzten
Jahren wurden Vereinbarungen getroffen, denen zufolge die Kommission benachrichtigt wird, wenn die IAEO einen
neuen Bericht veröffentlicht. Der letzte von der Tschechischen Republik der IAEO gemeldete Vorfall, der in dem
System „INES NEWS“ ( [1] ) veröffentlicht wurde, ereignete sich am 9. Januar 2012. Ein Bericht über das Kernkraftwerk
Temelin wurde in jüngster Zeit nicht eingestellt.

Einzelheiten zu den tschechischen Verfahren und Störfallmeldungen im Zusammenhang mit INES können bei der
zuständigen nationalen Behörde für nukleare Sicherheit („SUJB“) angefragt werden.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Der NEWS-Kommunikationskanal wurde von der IAEO eingerichtet, um wichtige Informationen zu Ereignissen zu sammeln und diese allgemein
und leicht zugänglich zu machen; siehe: http://www-news.iaea.org/AboutNews.aspx.

C 310 E / 222 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009779/12**

**to the Commission**
**Andreas Mölzer (NI)**

_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Incidents at present at the Temelin nuclear power plant

A further incident at the Temelin nuclear power plant in the Czech Republic was recently reported. After
maintenance work, a leak was discovered. That does not cast the plant in a good light, and nor does it suggest that the
requisite care is being taken.

Under the Melk Protocol, incidents rated at level 1 and upwards on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event
Scale (INES) must be reported to the Austrian Ministry for the Environment within 72 hours.

1. By what time limit must such incidents be reported to the EU?

2. How many incidents with an INES rating of level 1 and upwards have been reported to the EU since the Melk
Agreement was signed on 12 December 2000?

3. Is Czech Government compliance with this incident reporting requirement verified?

4. Has the EU ever learned of any instance, in whatever form, where the Czech Government has failed to comply
with this reporting requirement?

5. If so, precisely when did such an incident or incidents occur, and what was the precise nature thereof?

6. If there have been any such incidents, what were the consequences?

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

_(10 December 2012)_

1 and 3. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) maintains the International Nuclear and Radiological Event
Scale (INES) system to facilitate international communication of events.

INES events are not reported to the European Union by the Member States.

2, 4 and 6. INES operates on a voluntary basis and is not a formal reporting system. Therefore, INES is not the
reference to compare safety performances between facilities, organisations or countries.

Received reports are published by the IAEA on the website below, where it is possible to view all events which have
[been reported in about the last year. The website is public and located at: http://www-news.iaea.org/.](http://www-news.iaea.org/)

INES events are initiated by the national authorities and are communicated to the IAEA. Working arrangements made
in recent years ensure that the Commission is notified by the IAEA when they publish a new report. The last event
reported to the IAEA by the Czech Republic and published on INES NEWS ( [1] ) was on 9 January 2012. No report has
been filed recently concerning the Temelin nuclear power plant.

For details on Czech INES related practices and incidents the national competent authority ‘State Office for Nuclear
Safety’ (‘SUJB’) could be contacted.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) The NEWS Communication channel has been established by the IAEA to collect significant event information and make this information widely
and easily available; see at: http://www-news.iaea.org/Default.aspx

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 223

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009780/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Andreas Mölzer (NI)**

_(25. Oktober 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Spesen für Kreditkartenzahlung im Ausland

Immer mehr Urlauber verzichten bei ihrem Auslandsurlaub darauf, im Vorfeld kostspielig bei der Bank Bargeld zu
wechseln, sondern ziehen es vor, mit Kreditkarte zu bezahlen. Häufig ist für den Konsumenten aber nicht klar
ersichtlich, welche Spesen oder zusätzliche Gebühren dabei auftreten können.

1. Welche Schritte unternimmt die EU, um die Kreditkartenkonditionen für die Bezahlung im Ausland für den
Kunden so transparent wie möglich zu gestalten?

2. Gibt es Richtlinien für die Anbieter von Kreditkarten, die zur transparenten Gestaltung dieser Konditionen
verpflichten?

3. Wenn ja: Von wem werden diese Richtlinien sanktioniert und kontrolliert?

4. Wenn nein: Ist angedacht, in naher Zukunft ein derartiges Regelwerk zu schaffen?

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

_(16. Januar 2013)_

1.-2. Gemäß der Richtlinie 2007/64/EG ( [1] ) sollten Informationen über die Bedingungen für Kartenzahlungen auf der
Grundlage von zwischen Zahlungsdienstnutzern (z. B. Verbrauchern) und Zahlungsdienstleistern (z. B. Banken)
geschlossenen Verträgen, so auch Angaben zu den zu zahlenden Entgelten, auf Papier oder einem anderen
Datenträger (etwa in Form von herunterladbaren Dokumenten oder Online-Informationen auf der Website)
bereitgestellt werden. Die Richtlinie 2007/64/EG verlangt, dass entsprechende Verbraucherinformationen
transparent, klar und in allgemein verständlicher Sprache abgefasst sind.

3. Da es sich bei Kreditkarten um Kreditinstrumente handelt, findet hier auch die Richtlinie 2008/48/EG ( [2] )
Anwendung. Diese Richtlinie verpflichtet Kreditgeber dazu, Verbrauchern vor Unterzeichnung eines Vertrags die
einschlägigen Informationen in Form der „Europäischen Standardinformationen für Verbraucherkredite“ zur
Verfügung zu stellen, wobei sämtliche im Zusammenhang mit dem Kreditvertrag entstehenden Kosten aufzuführen
sind. Somit sollten den Verbrauchern zu diesem Zeitpunkt auch die Gebühren für Abhebungen und Zahlungen im
Ausland klar und deutlich mitgeteilt werden.

4. Die Umsetzung der Zahlungsdiensterichtlinie und der Verbraucherkreditrichtlinie in nationales Recht und die
anschließende Überwachung ihrer ordnungsgemäßen Anwendung liegt in der Verantwortung der Mitgliedstaaten.
Jeder Mitgliedstaat hatte eine zuständige Behörde für die Zwecke der Zahlungsdiensterichtlinie zu benennen und die
Beaufsichtigung der Kreditgeber hinsichtlich der Anwendung der Verbraucherkreditrichtlinie sicherzustellen. Ist ein
Karteninhaber der Auffassung, dass er die relevanten Informationen nicht erhalten hat, kann er sich an die zuständige
Behörde seines Landes wenden. Die Liste der Behörden ist auf der Website der Kommission ( [3] ) zu finden.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Zahlungsdiensterichtlinie, ABl. L 319 vom 5.12.2007, S. 1.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Verbraucherkreditrichtlinie, ABl. L 133 vom 22.5.2008, S. 66.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/payments/docs/framework/transposition/complaints_en.pdf

C 310 E / 224 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009780/12**

**to the Commission**
**Andreas Mölzer (NI)**

_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Charges for credit card payments abroad

Ahead of their holidays abroad, more and more people are no longer exchanging cash at banks; rather, they are
opting instead to make payments by credit card. In many instances, however, it is not clear to consumers what
additional charges may be made for doing so.

1. What steps is the EU taking to make credit card terms and conditions for payments abroad as transparent as
possible for customers?

2. Are there provisions requiring credit card issuers to make those terms and conditions transparent?

3. If so, who adopts and monitors those provisions?

4. If not, is thought being given to establishing such rules in the near future?

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

_(16 January 2013)_

1-2. In accordance with Directive 2007/64/EC ( [1] ) information on terms and conditions for card payments covered
by contracts between payment service users (e.g. consumers) and payment service providers (e.g. banks), including
information on applicable charges, should be provided on paper or on another medium (including through a
downloadable document or through an online information on the web page). Directive 2007/64/EC requires that the
provided information on terms and conditions for consumers should be transparent and given in plain language and
in a clear and comprehensible form.

3. As credit cards are credit instruments, Directive 2008/48/EC ( [2] ) also applies. This directive obliges creditors to
provide consumers, before they sign a contract, with the information in the format of Standard European Consumer
Credit Information, where all the costs deriving from the credit agreement should be listed. Thus, at this stage, the fees
for withdrawals and payments abroad should be clearly communicated to the consumers.

4. The transposition of the Payment Services Directive and of the Consumer Credit Directive into national law and
the subsequent monitoring of their correct application is the responsibility of the Member States. Each Member State
was required to assign a competent authority for the purposes of the Payment Services Directive and to ensure that
the creditors are supervised as to the application of Consumer Credit Directive. If a cardholder believes that he has not
received the relevant information, he can contact the competent authority of his Member State. The list of authorities
can be found on the Commission website ( [3] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Payment Services Directive, OJ L 319, 5.12.2007, p. 1.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Consumer Credit Directive, OJ L 133/66, 22.5.2008.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/payments/docs/framework/transposition/complaints_en.pdf

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 225

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-009781/12**

**do Komisji**
**Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD), Tadeusz Cymański (EFD), Jacek Włosowicz (EFD) oraz Jacek Olgierd Kurski (EFD)**

_(25 października 2012 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Redukcja zawartości siarki w niektórych paliwach żeglugowych

Uwzględniając wniosek Komisji przedstawiony Parlamentowi Europejskiemu i Radzie, którego celem jest dokonanie
zmiany dyrektywy Rady 1999/32/WE z dnia 26 kwietnia 1999 r. odnoszącej się do redukcji zawartości siarki
w niektórych paliwach żeglugowych, należy zwrócić uwagę na zagrożenie zakłócenia konkurencyjności pomiędzy
żeglugą morską bliskiego zasięgu oraz transportem lądowym, a także pomiędzy regionami morskimi Unii
Europejskiej.

Temat ten jest trudny szczególnie dla państw położonych w obszarach SECA, a zobligowanych przez proponowaną
zmianę do wprowadzenia limitu zawartości siarki we wszystkich paliwach żeglugowych używanych w granicach
wspomnianych obszarów, w wysokości 0,1 % od dnia 1 stycznia 2015 r. Zapewnienie zgodności z niskim limitem
zawartości siarki w paliwie będzie skutkować nie tylko znacznym wzrostem ceny paliw żeglugowych, ale implikuje
również dodatkowe koszty dla armatorów, związane z przystosowaniem statków do nowych przepisów.

W związku z powyższym kieruję następujące pytanie:

—
czy Komisja przewiduje wsparcie finansowe dla sektora morskiego obciążonego kosztami przystosowania do
wspomnianych norm technologicznych przewidzianych nowymi przepisami, a mających za zadanie realizację
celów strategii „Europa 2020”?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Janeza Potočnika w imieniu Komisji**

_(18 grudnia 2012 r.)_

Celem przyjętej niedawno zmiany dyrektywy 1999/32/WE ( [1] ) jest ograniczenie pochodzących z transportu
morskiego emisji dwutlenku siarki do powietrza. Zmieniona dyrektywa jest zarówno elastyczna jak i neutralna
w odniesieniu do sposobu, w jaki ma zostać osiągnięta zgodność z nowymi limitami, ponieważ pozostawia wybór
najbardziej odpowiednich i opłacalnych technologii operatorom.

W celu ułatwienia tego procesu w sektorze morskim Komisja przedstawiła szereg działań w dokumencie roboczym
służb Komisji zatytułowanym „Niezbędnik zrównoważonego transportu wodnego” ( [2] ). Zaproponowane środki
obejmują wykorzystanie istniejących instrumentów finansowych UE oraz programów, takich jak transeuropejska
sieć transportowa i Marco Polo II, jak również dostępnych krajowych środków pomocowych w celu rozwoju nowej
infrastruktury i infrastruktury dodatkowej na rzecz wspierania technologii w zakresie ekologicznie czystych statków.
Środki te przyczynią się do modernizacji i ekologizacji floty UE i będą sprzyjały osiągnięciu celów strategii „Europa
2020”, w szczególności w zakresie zatrudnienia, przeciwdziałania zmianie klimatu i energii.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Dz.U. L 121 z 11.5.1999.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) SEC(2011) 1052 final.

C 310 E / 226 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009781/12**

**to the Commission**
**Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD), Tadeusz Cymański (EFD), Jacek Włosowicz (EFD) and Jacek Olgierd Kurski (EFD)**

_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Reducing the sulphur content of marine fuels

With reference to the proposal from the Commission to Parliament and the Council, which seeks to amend Council
Directive 1999/32/EC of 26 April 1999 relating to a reduction in the sulphur content of certain liquid fuels, attention
should be drawn to the risk of the new provisions distorting competition between short sea shipping and land
transport, as well as between EU maritime regions.

This is a particularly thorny issue for countries in Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs), which would be required,
under the proposed changes, to introduce a 0.1% limit on the sulphur content of all marine fuels used within the
boundaries of such areas from 1 January 2015. Compliance with this low limit on the sulphur content of fuels will
give rise not only to a significant increase in the price of marine fuels, but also extra costs for shipowners, who will be
obliged to adapt their vessels to bring them into line with the new provisions.

Does the Commission intend to provide financial assistance to the maritime sector to help it bear the cost of adapting
to the technological standards laid down by the new provisions, the purpose of which is to help meet the
Europe 2020 strategy targets?

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

_(18 December 2012)_

The recently adopted amendment of Directive 1999/32/EC ( [1] ) aims to reduce atmospheric emissions of sulphur
dioxide from maritime transport. The amended Directive is both flexible and neutral as regards the way in which
compliance with the new limits can be achieved, leaving the choice of the most appropriate and cost-effective
technology to the operators.

In order to facilitate this process in the maritime sector, the Commission presented a number of actions in a Staff
Working Paper on the ‘Sustainable Waterborne Transport Toolbox’ ( [2] ). Proposed measures include the use of existing
EU financial instruments and programmes such as the Trans-European Transport Network and Marco Polo II
Programmes, as well as possible national state aid funds to support deployment of new infrastructure and
superstructure in support of clean ship technology. These measures will contribute to the modernisation and
greening of the EU shipping fleet and will support the achievement of the EU 2020 targets, in particular the
employment, climate change and energy targets.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 121, 11.5.1999.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) SEC(2011) 1052 final.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 227

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009782/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Matteo Salvini (EFD)**

_(25 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Direttiva europea 2001/37/CE, DG SANCO

La Direttiva Europea 2001/37/CE riguardante le modifiche da apportare nel settore tabacchicolo e di cui si sta
discutendo in seno alla DG SANCO, è fonte di crescente preoccupazione per tutta la filiera produttiva italiana.

Considerando che:

—
il settore agricolo è già minacciato dal venir meno degli aiuti comunitari previsti dalla PAC in un contesto di
profonda crisi economica generale;

—
le misure che si stanno vagliando non sono accompagnate da dimostrazioni scientifiche che possano
confermare una reale riduzione del fumo e quindi beneficiare alla salute dei cittadini;

—
la riduzione nelle vendite che conseguirebbe all'applicazione della direttiva comporterebbe perdite sostanziali
alle entrate erariali dello Stato, per un valore stimato di 900 milioni di euro;

—
una libera e corretta concorrenza fra le imprese produttrici sarebbe ostacolata da alcune misure incluse nella
direttiva (standardizzazione totale dei pacchetti, introduzione di immagini shock sul 75 % del pacchetto), in
quanto l'unico strumento di marketing e di diversificazione risulterebbe il prezzo;

—
la standardizzazione del pacchetto andrebbe a favorire il contrabbando delle sigarette, nonché la loro
contraffazione: il fenomeno è molto preoccupante considerando che solo in Italia, nel 2011, la Guardia di
Finanza ha sequestrato 240 tonnellate di sigarette di contrabbando, di cui 38 tonnellate contraffatte.

1. Come intende operare la Commissione per salvaguardare la concorrenza fra le imprese produttrici e il lavoro
dei 60.000 cittadini europei addetti al settore?

2. Come intende essa combattere i fenomeni della contraffazione e del contrabbando, i quali, oltre a danneggiare
la fiscalità dello Stato, aumentano esponenzialmente i rischi per la salute dei cittadini?

3. Come intende la Commissione tutelare i diritti di proprietà intellettuale dei marchi, ove questi venissero
soppressi?

**Risposta di Tonio Borg a nome della Commissione**

_(6 dicembre 2012)_

Le questioni sollevate dall’onorevole parlamentare sono state accuratamente esaminate nella valutazione d’impatto in
base alla quale è stata preparata la proposta di revisione della direttiva sui prodotti del tabacco. La proposta della
Commissione ne terrà ampiamente conto.

C 310 E / 228 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009782/12**

**to the Commission**
**Matteo Salvini (EFD)**

_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ European Directive 2001/37/EC, DG SANCO

European Directive 2001/37/EC on the changes to be made to the tobacco sector, currently under discussion by DG
SANCO, is cause for rising concern throughout Italy’s industrial sector.

Considering that:

—
the agricultural sector is already facing a fall-off in Community aid under the CAP in a context of deep and
widespread economic crisis;

—
the measures under consideration are not accompanied by scientific evidence confirming a real reduction in
smoking with consequent benefits for public health;

—
the drop in sales which would follow the application of the directive would result in a substantial reduction in
national tax revenue, estimated at EUR 900 million;

—
free competition between manufacturers would be hampered by some of the measures set out in the directive
(total standardisation of packets, introduction of shock pictures on 75% of the packet), meaning that the only
marketing and differentiation tool remaining would be price;

—
standardisation of packets would in fact work to the benefit of contraband and counterfeit cigarettes: this is a
highly worrying issue given that in Italy alone, in 2011 the financial police seized 240 tons of contraband
cigarettes, 38 tons of which were counterfeit.

1. Will the Commission say how it intends to preserve competition between manufacturers and the jobs of the
60 000 Europeans working in this sector?

2. How does the Commission intend to combat counterfeiting and contraband which, in addition to undermining
national tax revenue, exponentially increase the risk to public health?

3. How does the Commission intend to protect the intellectual property rights of brand names where these are
abolished?

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

_(6 December 2012)_

The issues raised by the Honourable Member have been thoroughly considered in the impact assessment supporting
the preparation of the proposal to revise the Tobacco Products Directive and will be fully taken into account in the
Commission proposal.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 229

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-009783/12**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Ramona Nicole Mănescu (ALDE)**

_(25 octombrie 2012)_

_Subiect:_ Raportul de audit al Programului Operațional Regional (CCI: 2007RO161PO001)

Raportul de audit al Comisiei Europene privind funcționarea sistemului de management și control al fondurilor
europene în România (CCI: 2007RO161PO001), apărut în presa din România în cursul zilei de azi, arată foarte clar
faptul că guvernele PDL, alături de președintele României, Traian Băsescu, au patronat corupția din România în
general, și în special în ceea ce privește accesarea fondurilor europene. În calitatea dvs. de vicepreședinte al Comisiei
Europene și comisar european responsabil pentru justiție, drepturi fundamentale și cetățenie, doresc să vă adresez
următoarea întrebare:

—
Cum explicați faptul că în niciuna din intervențiile dvs. publice și cu atât mai puțin în rapoartele de
monitorizare și verificare ale României nu s-au făcut referiri la sistemul corupt generat și susținut de politicieni
de rang înalt ai PDL-ului, deși documentele apărute în presă demonstrează foarte clar faptul că atât dvs., cât și
Președintele Jose Manuel Barroso ați fost la curent cu această situație care datează de mulți ani și creează enorm
de multe probleme României și cetățenilor ei, în calitate de cetățeni europeni?

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

_(8 februarie 2013)_

Evaluarea Comisiei cu privire la problemele de corupție din România este inclusă în rapoartele privind progresele
înregistrate de România în cadrul mecanismului de cooperare și de verificare (MCV) ( [1] ).

Cel de al treilea obiectiv de referință din cadrul acestui mecanism se referă la anchetele profesionale și imparțiale în
cazul sesizărilor de corupție la nivel înalt. Pentru a evalua progresele realizate în sensul îndeplinirii acestui obiectiv de
referință, Comisia monitorizează cazuri specifice de corupție la nivel înalt și solicită periodic autorităților române să
furnizeze informații actualizate privind evoluția situației.

În conformitate cu criteriul specific referitor la anchetele imparțiale, Comisia analizează în mod special acest aspect și
a salutat imparțialitatea instituțiilor anticorupție din România, dovedită de faptul că politicienii împotriva cărora sunt
deschise dosare provin din toate marile partide politice. Comisia nu acceptă afirmația formulată de distinsa membră a
Parlamentului European cu privire la faptul că evaluarea Comisiei privind corupția din România s-a concentrat pe un
partid, mai degrabă decât pe altul.

Raportul de audit menționat în întrebare se află încă în faza de procedură contradictorie cu autoritățile naționale;
orice document sau informație referitoare la acest raport intră sub incidența excepțiilor prevăzute la articolul 4
alineatul (2) din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1049/2001 referitor la politica privind accesul la documente și nicio
informație nu poate fi divulgată părților terțe în acest stadiu. Cu toate acestea, ca regulă generală, activitatea de audit
nu se referă la persoane fizice, ci la evaluarea eficacității sistemelor și a operațiunilor. Prin urmare, rapoartele de audit
nu fac niciodată referire în mod direct la partide politice, politicieni sau orice altă persoană.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Toate rapoartele sunt disponibile la următoarea adresă de internet: http://ec.europa.eu/cvm/progress_reports_en.htm

C 310 E / 230 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009783/12**

**to the Commission**
**Ramona Nicole Mănescu (ALDE)**

_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Auditors report for the Regional Operational Programme (CCI: 2007RO161PO001)

The auditors report drawn up for the Commission concerning the management and supervision of European funds in
Romania (CCI: 2007RO161PO001) recently appearing in the Romanian press clearly shows that the PDL
government, together with President Traian Băsescu, has been encouraging corruption in Romania in general and
with regard to European funding in particular. I should therefore like to address the following question to the VicePresident of the Commission responsible for justice, fundamental rights and citizenship:

—
How do you explain the fact that in none of your public statements, not to mention the monitoring and
inspection reports concerning Romania, no reference has been made to the corruption being encouraged and
sustained by senior PDL politicians, despite the fact that the documents quoted in the press clearly show that
both you and President Jose Manuel Barroso were aware of the situation, which has been going on for many
years and creating enormous problems for Romania and its citizens, who are also EU citizens?

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

_(8 February 2013)_

The Commission's assessment of problems of corruption in Romania is included in the reports on Progress in
Romania under the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM) ( [1] ).

The third benchmark under the Mechanism concerns professional, non-partisan investigations into allegations of
high-level corruption. To assess progress made towards the benchmark, the Commission monitors specific high-level
corruption cases and it regularly asks the Romanian authorities to provide an update on progress.

In line with the specific criterion of non-partisan investigations, the Commission looks specifically at this issue and
has welcomed the impartiality of Romanian anti-corruption institutions, shown by the fact that they have cases
against politicians from all major parties. The Commission does not accept the honourable member's implication that
its assessment of corruption in Romania has focused on one party rather than another.

The audit report mentioned in the question is still under the contradictory procedure with the national authorities,
any document or information linked to this report is covered by the exceptions provided for by Article 4(2) of the
regulation No 1049/2001, on the policy relating to access to documents and no information can be disclosed at this
stage to third parties. However, as a general rule, audit work relates not to individuals, but to the assessment of
effectiveness of systems and operations. Thus, audit reports never make direct references to political parties,
politicians or any other person.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) All reports are available under the following link: http://ec.europa.eu/cvm/progress_reports_en.htm

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 231

_(Slovenska različica)_

**Vprašanje za pisni odgovor E-009784/12**

**za Svet**
**Tanja Fajon (S&D) in Claude Moraes (S&D)**

_(25. oktober 2012)_

_Zadeva:_ Bodoča vloga Združenega kraljestva v policijskem sodelovanju EU

15. oktobra 2012 je angleška notranja ministrica Theresa May sporočila, da namerava konservativna stranka
Združenega kraljestva izkoristiti možnost nesodelovanja pri celotnem svežnju več kot 130 predlizbonskih okvirnih
sporazumov o policijskem in pravosodnem sodelovanju, ki vsebujejo ukrepe o skupnem pristopu k boju proti
organiziranemu kriminalu v EU.

Čedalje večja razpredenost in čezmejna narava sodobnega organiziranega kriminala zahteva skupen odziv. Skupen
pristop in sodelovanje držav članic EU sta prispevala k zmanjšanju negativnih ekonomskih, političnih in zlasti
socialnih posledic organiziranega kriminala. Predvsem instrumenti, kot sta evropski nalog za prijetje in evropski
sistem informiranja o kazenskih evidencah, so se pokazali za neprecenljive na tem področju in njihove pozitivne
učinke so na predstavitvah, ki jih je organiziral posebni parlamentarni odbor za organiziran kriminal, korupcijo in
pranje denarja, pogostokrat potrdili predstavniki različnih agencij EU, kot so Eurojust, Europol in OLAF. Kot so
večkrat poudarili predstavniki Europola, je Europol le toliko močan, kolikor to želijo in mu omogočajo države
članice.

Politika EU in sodelovanje na področju pravosodja in notranjih zadev neposredno vplivata na kakovost življenja,
varnost in svobodo vseh državljanov EU.

V primeru, da Združeno kraljestvo izkoristi možnost nesodelovanja, kako Svet vidi učinkovitost agencij EU na
področju pravosodja in notranjih zadev v prihodnosti, zlasti v boju proti tradicionalnim oblikam organiziranega
kriminala, kot so vse oblike trgovine z ljudmi, ter novim oblikam čezmejnega kriminala, kot je kibernetska
kriminaliteta?

**Odgovor**
_(21. januar 2013)_

Svet želi cenjena poslanca opozoriti na odgovor na pisno vprašanje E-009510/2012, v katerem je navedel, da se
zaveda, da je vlada Združenega kraljestva svojemu parlamentu naznanila, da želi izkoristiti možnost, ki jo ima
Združeno kraljestvo v skladu s členom 10(4) in (5) Protokola št. 36 o prehodni ureditvi, ter da je parlamentu
predložila seznam več kot 130 zadevnih aktov, od katerih se jih 24 nanaša na schengenski pravni red.

Svet ni bil uradno obveščen o nameri Združenega kraljestva niti ni razpravljal o vprašanju, ki sta ga zastavila cenjena
poslanca.

C 310 E / 232 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009784/12**

**to the Council**
**Tanja Fajon (S&D) and Claude Moraes (S&D)**

_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Future role of the United Kingdom in EU police cooperation

On 15 October 2012, British Home Secretary Theresa May announced that the UK Conservative Party plans to trigger
the block opt-out on over 130 pre-Lisbon framework agreements concerning police and justice cooperation, which
contain measures relevant to the common approach to combating organised crime within the EU.

The increasingly networked and cross-border nature of contemporary organised crime calls for a cooperation-based
response. The common EU approach and cooperation among the Member States has proved beneficial in reducing
the negative economic, political and, above all, social impacts of organised crime. In particular, instruments such as
the EU arrest warrant and the European Criminal Records Information System have proved invaluable in the field and
their positive effects have repeatedly been confirmed by representatives of different EU agencies, such as Eurojust,
Europol and OLAF, at the hearings organised by Parliament’s Special Committee on Organised Crime, Cooperation
and Money Laundering (CRIM). As mentioned by representatives of Europol on several occasions, Europol is only as
strong as the Member States want and allow it to be.

EU policy and cooperation in the field of justice and home affairs directly affects the quality, security and freedom of
all EU citizens.

In light of the possibility that the United Kingdom may opt out of the system, how does the Council view the future
effectiveness of EU agencies in the field of justice and home affairs, particularly when it comes to combating
traditional forms of organised crime — such as all forms of human trafficking — and emerging cross-border threats
such as cybercrime?

**Reply**
_(21 January 2013)_

The Council would like to refer the Honourable Members to the reply to Written Question No E-009510/2012, in
which it indicated that it is aware of the announcements made by the UK Government to its Parliament on making
use of the possibility given to the UK in Article 10(4) and (5) of Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions and of the
transmission by the Government to the Parliament of the list of more than 130 acts which would be concerned, of
which 24 belong to the Schengen _acquis._

The Council has not been officially informed of the UK's intentions, nor has it discussed the issue raised by the
Honourable Members.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 233

_(Slovenska različica)_

**Vprašanje za pisni odgovor E-009785/12**

**za Komisijo**
**Tanja Fajon (S&D) in Claude Moraes (S&D)**

_(25. oktober 2012)_

_Zadeva:_ Bodoča vloga Združenega kraljestva v policijskem sodelovanju EU

15. oktobra 2012 je angleška notranja ministrica Theresa May sporočila, da namerava konservativna stranka
Združenega kraljestva izkoristiti možnost nesodelovanja pri celotnem svežnju več kot 130 predlizbonskih okvirnih
sporazumov o policijskem in pravosodnem sodelovanju, ki vsebujejo ukrepe o skupnem pristopu k boju proti
organiziranemu kriminalu v EU.

Čedalje večja razpredenost in čezmejna narava sodobnega organiziranega kriminala zahteva skupen odziv. Skupen
pristop in sodelovanje držav članic EU sta prispevala k zmanjšanju negativnih ekonomskih, političnih in zlasti
socialnih posledic organiziranega kriminala. Predvsem instrumenti, kot sta evropski nalog za prijetje in evropski
sistem informiranja o kazenskih evidencah, so se pokazali za neprecenljive na tem področju in njihove pozitivne
učinke so na predstavitvah, ki jih je organiziral posebni parlamentarni odbor za organiziran kriminal, korupcijo in
pranje denarja, pogostokrat potrdili predstavniki različnih agencij EU, kot so Eurojust, Europol in OLAF. Kot so
večkrat poudarili predstavniki Europola, je Europol le toliko močan, kolikor to želijo in mu omogočajo države
članice.

Politika EU in sodelovanje na področju pravosodja in notranjih zadev neposredno vplivata na kakovost življenja,
varnost in svobodo vseh državljanov EU.

Koliko lahko ta sklep Združenega kraljestva negativno vpliva na celotno pravosodno in policijsko sodelovanje in
kakšne načrte pripravlja Komisija v primeru uresničitve tega sklepa?

**Odgovor komisarke Viviane Reding v imenu Komisije**

_(3. januar 2013)_

Evropska komisija se strinja s stališčem spoštovanih poslancev o pomembnosti vseevropsko usklajenega odziva na
dejavnosti organiziranega kriminala, ki so pogosto čezmejne narave.

Združeno kraljestvo do zdaj ni poslalo uradnega obvestila, do katerega ima pravico v skladu s členom 10(4)
Protokola 36 k Lizbonski pogodbi. Poleg tega se Združeno kraljestvo lahko kadar koli po preteku prehodnega
obdobja odloči za ukrepe, ki so se zanj prenehali uporabljati.

Na tej stopnji ni mogoče oceniti morebitnih posledic za celotno pravosodno in policijsko sodelovanje.

C 310 E / 234 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009785/12**

**to the Commission**
**Tanja Fajon (S&D) and Claude Moraes (S&D)**

_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ United Kingdom's future role in EU police cooperation

On 15 October 2012, British Home Secretary Theresa May announced that the UK Conservative Party plans to trigger
the block opt-out on over 130 pre-Lisbon framework agreements concerning police and justice cooperation, which
contain measures relevant to the common approach to combating organised crime within the EU.

The increasingly networked and cross-border nature of contemporary organised crime calls for a cooperation-based
response. The common EU approach and cooperation among the Member States has proved beneficial in reducing
the negative economic, political and, above all, social impacts of organised crime. In particular, instruments such as
the EU arrest warrant and the European Criminal Records Information System have proved invaluable in the field and
their positive effects have repeatedly been confirmed by representatives of different EU agencies, such as Eurojust,
Europol and OLAF, at the hearings organised by Parliament’s Special Committee on Organised Crime, Cooperation
and Money Laundering (CRIM). As mentioned by representatives of Europol on several occasions, Europol is only as
strong as the Member States want and allow it to be.

EU policy and cooperation in the field of Justice and Home Affairs directly affects the quality, security and freedom of
all EU citizens.

How disruptive is this decision by the UK likely to be for judicial and police cooperation as a whole and what, if any,
contingency plans are being developed by the Commission?

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

_(3 January 2013)_

The Commission shares the views expressed by the Honourable Members about the importance of a European wide
coordinated response to organised crime activities, which have often become transnational in nature.

The United Kingdom has until now not made the notification it is entitled to under Article 10(4) of Protocol 36 of the
Treaty of Lisbon. In addition, the United Kingdom may, at any time after the expiry of the transitional period, choose
to opt back into the measures which have ceased to apply to it.

It is not possible at this stage to assess any potential impacts for judicial and police cooperation as a whole.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 235

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009786/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Franz Obermayr (NI)**

_(25. Oktober 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Abschaffung Visafreiheit für Serbien und Mazedonien

Die Zahl der Asylbewerber steigt rasant. Allein im September kamen über 3 000 Asylbewerber aus den EUBeitrittsbewerberländern Serbien und Mazedonien in den EU-Raum, im Oktober bereits fast 4 000. Wegen des
anstehenden Winters wird diese Zahl noch steigen. Im ganzen letzten Jahr waren es insgesamt nur ein paar hundert
Asylbewerber. Grund für den Zustrom ist die Aufhebung der Visumpflicht für die beiden Beitrittskandidaten.

90 % der Asylanträge werden abgelehnt, da es sich um Wirtschaftsflüchtlinge handelt. Die Kommission hat zwar die
Herkunftsländer aufgefordert, gegen den Missbrauch mit Informationskampagnen vorzugehen, doch offenbar
erfolglos. Serbien hat angeboten, die Kosten für 10 000 serbische Asylbewerber zu übernehmen, da dies ein
geringerer Schaden wäre als die Abschaffung der Visafreiheit, jedoch ist solch ein Freikauf abzulehnen.

1. Welche konkreten Maßnahmen wird die Kommission einleiten, um den Strom der Wirtschaftsflüchtlinge aus
Serbien und Mazedonien einzudämmen?

2. Wird die Kommission die Visafreiheit für die Bewerberländer Serbien und Mazedonien aufheben?

3. Wenn nein: warum nicht?

4. Plant die Kommission einen verstärkten Einsatz von Frontex an der Grenze?

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

_(9. Januar 2013)_

Im Zuge der Visaliberalisierung wurde in den westlichen Balkanländern eine Reihe wichtiger Reformen durchgeführt.
Die Kommission hat eng mit den von der Visumpflicht befreiten Ländern zusammengearbeitet, um die steigende Zahl
der Asylanträge einzudämmen. In ihrem am 28. August 2012 angenommenen dritten Überwachungsbericht nach
der Visaliberalisierung forderte die Kommission diese Länder auf, Maßnahmen in fünf Bereichen durchzuführen, um
die Zahl der unbegründeten Asylanträge zu verringern:

1. Verstärkung der operativen Zusammenarbeit mit den Behörden der Mitgliedstaaten durch vermehrten
Informationsaustausch;

2. härteres Vorgehen gegen Schleuser;

3. Verschärfung der Grenzkontrollen unter Wahrung der Grundrechte der Bürger;

4. Organisation von Informationskampagnen, um Bürger über ihre Rechte und Pflichten im Rahmen der
Visumbefreiung aufzuklären;

5. besserer Minderheitenschutz.

Diese Maßnahmen sind nach wie vor erforderlich, wenn die Zahl der unbegründeten Asylanträge verringert werden
soll.

Die Kommission brachte das Thema unbegründeter Asylanträge auf der Tagung des Forums der Minister der EU und
der westlichen Balkanländer vom 5.-6. November in Tirana zur Sprache, wo die Minister eine gemeinsame Erklärung
über visumfreies Reisen annahmen. Anschließend berief sie eine Sitzung mit führenden Beamten der von der
Visumpflicht befreiten Ländern des westlichen Balkans ein, um die auf der Tagung eingegangenen politischen
Verpflichtungen in konkrete Maßnahmen umzusetzen. Auf der Sitzung wurde die Aktualisierung des
Überwachungsmechanismus für die Zeit nach der Visaliberalisierung vereinbart, unter enger Einbindung von Frontex.

Derzeit laufen die Verhandlungen zwischen den beiden gesetzgebenden Organen über die Notfallklausel. Nach deren
Annahme sollte dieses Instrument nur als „letztes Mittel“ verwendet werden.

C 310 E / 236 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009786/12**

**to the Commission**
**Franz Obermayr (NI)**

_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Discontinuing the visa-free regime for Serbia and Macedonia

The number of asylum-seekers is rising rapidly. In September alone, more than 3 000 asylum-seekers entered the EU
from the candidate countries Serbia and Macedonia, with close to 4 000 in October. With winter approaching,
numbers will rise still further. Over the whole of last year, in total, there were only a few hundred asylum-seekers. The
influx stems from the fact that the visa requirement for the two candidate countries has been lifted.

Ninety percent of asylum applications are rejected, since the applicants are economic refugees. The Commission has
called on countries of origin to combat abuses by means of information campaigns, however, albeit evidently without
success. Serbia has offered to defray the costs for 10 000 Serbian asylum-seekers, since that would be less of a loss
than discontinuing the visa-free regime, but such a buy-off should be rejected.

1. What tangible action will the Commission take to contain the influx of economic refugees from Serbia and
Macedonia?

2. Will the Commission discontinue the visa-free regime for the candidate countries Serbia and Macedonia?

3. If not, why not?

4. Is the Commission planning to step up Frontex operations at the border?

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

_(9 January 2013)_

Visa liberalisation has ensured the implementation of a number of key reforms in the western Balkans countries. The
Commission has been working closely with the visa-exempted countries to address the increasing number of asylum
applications. In its third post-visa liberalisation monitoring report, adopted in August 2012, the Commission called
on these countries to implement measures in five areas with the aim to reduce the number of unfounded asylum
applications:

1. Enhance operational cooperation with Member State authorities, facilitated by closer information sharing;

2. Launch effective investigations of the facilitators of irregular migration;

3. In line with citizens’ fundamental rights, strengthen border controls;

4. Organise information campaigns to inform citizens of their rights and obligations under the visa-free regime;

5. Increase assistance to minority populations.

These measures remain necessary to reduce the number of unfounded asylum applications.

The Commission raised the issue of unfounded asylum applications at the EU-Western Balkans Ministerial Forum in
Tirana on 5-6 November, where Ministers adopted a Joint Declaration on visa-free travel. It convened a meeting with
the senior officials of the visa-free Western Balkans states to translate the summit’s political commitments into
operational action. This meeting agreed to upgrade the visa liberalisation monitoring mechanism, with the close
involvement of Frontex.

Negotiations between the co-legislators are under way on the suspension clause to the visa regulation. Once adopted,
this instrument should only be used as an instrument of last resort.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 237

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-009787/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)**

_(25 Οκτωβρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Ταμείο Αλληλεγγύης και φυσικές καταστροφές σε νησιωτικές περιοχές

Εντύπωση προκαλεί η απάντηση της Επιτροπής σε ερώτημά μου (Ε-007655/2012) σχετικά με την πυρκαγιά στο νησί της
Χίου τον περασμένο Αύγουστο. Συγκεκριμένα, πουθενά στην απάντησή της δεν γίνεται λόγος για τη δυνατότητα των
ελληνικών αρχών να επικαλεστούν το άρθρο 2 του κανονισμού 2012/2002, περί ενεργοποίησης του Ευρωπαϊκού Ταμείου
Αλληλεγγύης, όπου αναφέρεται ότι «Υπό εξαιρετικές περιστάσεις, ακόμα και όταν δεν πληρούνται τα ποσοτικά κριτήρια που
ορίζονται στο πρώτο εδάφιο, μια περιοχή μπορεί επίσης να απολαύει ενίσχυσης από το ταμείο, εφόσον η εν λόγω περιοχή
επλήγη από τεράστια καταστροφή, ιδίως φυσική, που έπληξε το μεγαλύτερο μέρος του πληθυσμού της και είχε σοβαρές και
μακροχρόνιες επιπτώσεις για τις συνθήκες διαβίωσης και για την οικονομική σταθερότητα της περιοχής. Η πλήρης ετήσια
ενίσχυση, δυνάμει του παρόντος εδαφίου, περιορίζεται, κατ' ανώτατο όριο, στο 7,5% του ετήσιου διαθέσιμου ποσού του
ταμείου. Ιδιαίτερη προσοχή δίδεται στις απομακρυσμένες ή απομονωμένες περιοχές, όπως οι νησιωτικές και οι εξόχως
απόμακρες …».

Με βάση το ανωτέρω, ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Δεν εμπίπτει, υπό τις ανωτέρω προϋποθέσεις, η περίπτωση της Χίου στον κανονισμό (ΕΚ) αριθ. 2012/2002 για το Ευρωπαϊκό
Ταμείο Αλληλεγγύης; Εάν ναι, υπάρχει ακόμη προθεσμία υποβολής αιτήματος από την ελληνική κυβέρνηση; Αν όχι, τι άλλο
θα πρέπει να συμβεί σε ένα τέτοιο νησί για να ενταχθεί στον εν λόγω κανονισμό;

Υπάρχουν περιπτώσεις φυσικών καταστροφών σε «απομακρυσμένες ή απομονωμένες περιοχές» που να έχει γίνει χρήση του
ανωτέρω κανονισμού και ιδιαίτερα της τελευταίας παραγράφου του άρθρου 2 του 2012/2002; Ποιες είναι αυτές;

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

_(11 Δεκεμβρίου 2012)_

Οι αιτήσεις για οικονομική ενίσχυση από το Ευρωπαϊκό Ταμείο Αλληλεγγύης πρέπει να υποβάλλονται στην Επιτροπή από τις
εθνικές αρχές της πληγείσας χώρας εντός δέκα εβδομάδων από την ημερομηνία καταγραφής της πρώτης ζημιάς. Η Επιτροπή
δεν μπορεί να ενεργοποιήσει το Ταμείο με δική της πρωτοβουλία. Αν οι πυρκαγιές στη Χίο ξεκίνησαν στις 18 Αυγούστου, η
προθεσμία για την υποβολή της αίτησης πρέπει να είναι η 27η Οκτωβρίου. Η Επιτροπή δεν έχει λάβει αίτηση από την Ελλάδα
σχετικά με τις πυρκαγιές στη Χίο· ωστόσο, η παράταση της προθεσμίας δεν είναι δυνατή. Σύμφωνα με το κριτήριο της
αποκαλούμενης τεράστιας καταστροφής μιας περιοχής, στο οποίο αναφέρεται ο κ. βουλευτής, μόνο εάν πληρούνταν οι
προϋποθέσεις για την έκτακτη κινητοποίηση του Ταμείου Αλληλεγγύης θα μπορούσαν αυτές να αξιολογηθούν βάσει των
λεπτομερών στοιχείων της αίτησης. Οι επιδοτήσεις από το Ταμείο Αλληλεγγύης μπορούν να χρησιμοποιηθούν μόνο για
συγκεκριμένες περιπτώσεις επειγουσών ενεργειών στις οποίες έχουν προβεί οι δημόσιες αρχές. Ιδιωτικές απώλειες,
συμπεριλαμβανομένου του τομέα της γεωργίας, δεν αποζημιώνονται.

Από τη σύσταση του Ταμείου Αλληλεγγύης το 2002, τρεις επιδοτήσεις έχουν καταβληθεί για καταστροφές σε
απομακρυσμένες ή απομονωμένες περιοχές, όπως οι νησιωτικές και οι εξόχως απόκεντρες: Γαλλία/Ρεϋνιόν (κυκλώνας
Gamède 2007, οικονομική ενίσχυση 5 290 εκατομμύρια ευρώ), Γαλλία/Μαρτινίκα (τροπική καταιγίδα Dean 2007, 12 780
εκατομμύρια ευρώ), Πορτογαλία/Μαδέρα (πλημμύρες 2010, 31 256 εκατομμύρια ευρώ). Μία άλλη αίτηση από την Ισπανία
σχετικά με τις καταστροφικές πυρκαγιές στα Κανάρια νησιά βρίσκεται επί του παρόντος υπό αξιολόγηση.

C 310 E / 238 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009787/12**

**to the Commission**
**Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)**

_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Solidarity Fund and natural disasters in island areas

The Commission's answer to my question (E-007655/2012) concerning fires on the Greek island of Chios last August
conspicuously omits any reference to the possibility for the Greek authorities to invoke Article 2 of Council
Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 regarding mobilisation of the European Solidarity Fund, stating that, ‘under
exceptional circumstances, even when the quantitative criteria laid down in the first subparagraph are not met, a
region could also benefit from assistance from the Fund, where that region has been affected by an extraordinary
disaster, mainly a natural one, affecting the major part of its population, with serious and lasting repercussions on
living conditions and the economic stability of the region. Total annual assistance under this subparagraph shall be
limited to no more than 7.5% of the annual amount available to the Fund. Particular focus will be on remote or
isolated regions, such as the insular and outermost regions…’.

In view of this:

Can the Commission say whether the above provisions of Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 on the European Solidarity
Fund apply to Chios? If so, is there still time for the Greek Government to apply for aid? If not, what else would have
to occur for the island to be covered by the relevant provisions of the regulation?

Have any natural disasters occurred in the past in remote or isolated regions where the provisions of Council
Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 and in particular the final paragraph of Article 2, have been applied? What were they?

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

_(11 December 2012)_

Applications for financial assistance from the EU Solidarity Fund have to be presented to the Commission by the
national authorities of the affected country within 10 weeks of the date of the first damage. The Commission may not
activate the Fund upon its own initiative. If the fires on Chios started on 18 August the deadline for applying would
have been on 27 October. The Commission has received no application from Greece relating to the fires on Chios;
however, the extension of the deadline is not possible. Whether the conditions for the exceptional mobilisation of the
Solidarity Fund under the criteria for so-called extraordinary regional disasters referred to by the Honourable Member
would have been met could only have been assessed on the basis of the detailed information in the application. Grants
from the Solidarity Fund may only be used for certain types of emergency operations undertaken by the public
authorities. Private losses, including in agriculture, may not be compensated.

Since the creation of the Solidarity Fund in 2002 three grants were paid for disasters in remote or isolated regions,
such as the insular and outermost regions: France/La Réunion (cyclone Gamède 2007, financial aid EUR 5.290
million), France/Martinique (tropical storm Dean, 2007, EUR 12.780 million), Portugal/Madeira (flooding 2010,
EUR 31.256 million). Another application from Spain relating to wildfires on the Canary Islands is currently being
assessed.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 239

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009789/12**

**à Comissão**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**
_(25 de outubro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Relações entre a União Europeia e a República da África do Sul

Considerando que:

—
A República da África do Sul assistiu a um grande progresso após a instauração de um regime democrático, em
1994, e que foi, durante vários anos, o principal Estado no continente africano em termos económicos;

—
O crescimento económico na África do Sul levou a que este país africano fosse incluído no grupo das principais
potências emergentes, dos BRICS, constituído pelo Brasil, pela Rússia, pela Índia, pela China (e pela República
da África do Sul — South Africa);

—
Se perspetiva que, no curto prazo, a Nigéria ultrapassará, em termos de PIB, a África do Sul e que esta última
está a tornar-se gradualmente num Estado de partido único;

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

1. Qual o estado atual das relações da União Europeia com a República da África do Sul?

2. Em termos económicos, como vê o futuro das relações entre a União Europeia e a República da África do Sul?

3. Em termos políticos, como vê o futuro das relações entre a União Europeia e a República da África do Sul?

4. Como pode a União Europeia contribuir para melhorar a situação política e económica da República da África
do Sul?

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

_(4 de janeiro de 2012)_

1. O Acordo de Comércio, Desenvolvimento e Cooperação (ACDC) de 1999 e a Parceria Estratégica UE-África do
Sul de 2007 visam reforçar o diálogo político e a cooperação no âmbito socioeconómico. Desde 2007, as relações
aprofundaram-se e alargaram-se de forma muito significativa. Uma vez por ano, têm lugar uma Cimeira, um diálogo
político ministerial, um diálogo sobre a paz e a segurança e um Conselho de Cooperação Misto.

2. Em termos económicos, a UE é o mais importante parceiro comercial da África do Sul. Em 2010, a UE representou 31
% do comércio da África do Sul. As negociações comerciais em curso com os países da SADC ( [1] ) oferecem perspetivas
interessantes para reforçar os laços comerciais e aprofundar as relações económicas bilaterais.

3. Politicamente, a UE continua a depositar esperanças e expectativas no papel da África do Sul na região e no
continente. A UE espera que a África do Sul lidere o caminho da estabilidade, da prosperidade e da democracia. A UE
continuará a envidar esforços no sentido de um maior envolvimento com Pretória, baseado na partilha de valores, a
fim de melhorar as perspetivas do país e da região.

4. Até 2013, a África do Sul beneficia de uma dotação para a cooperação no valor de 980 milhões de euros. A UE e
os Estados-Membros são os principais doadores de ajuda a este país, representando cerca de 70 % da totalidade dos
fundos de cooperação. Trata-se de uma ajuda substancial para ajudar a África do Sul a criar postos de trabalho e a
melhorar os seus sistemas de educação e saúde, contribuindo assim para a estabilidade social.

As propostas contidas na Comunicação da Comissão «Agenda para a Mudança» sobre o futuro da política de
desenvolvimento da UE apontam para uma orientação dos recursos para os mais pobres e para uma diferenciação dos
beneficiários do apoio da UE. Embora a Comissão tenha proposto manter a África do Sul no grupo de países elegíveis
para o período 2014-2020, o atual processo institucional da UE determinará em que medida essa diferenciação será
aplicada à África do Sul.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) SADC = Comunidade para o Desenvolvimento da África Austral.

C 310 E / 240 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009789/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**

_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Relations between the European Union and the Republic of South Africa

Bearing in mind that:

—
the Republic of South Africa made great progress after the establishment of a democratic regime in 1994 and
was, for several years, the main economic force on the African continent;

—
economic growth in South Africa has led to this African country being included in the BRICS group of major
emerging powers, made up of Brazil, Russia, India, China and — South Africa;

—
it seems likely that Nigeria will soon surpass South Africa in terms of GDP, and that country is gradually
becoming a one-party state;

The Commission is asked:

1. What is the current state of the European Union’s relations with the Republic of South Africa?

2. In economic terms, how do you see the future of relations between the European Union and the Republic of
South Africa?

3. In political terms, how do you see the future of relations between the European Union and the Republic of
South Africa?

4. How can the European Union contribute towards improving the political and economic situation in the
Republic of South Africa?

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

_(4 January 2013)_

1. The 1999 Trade, Development and Cooperation agreement (TDCA) and the 2007 EU-South Africa Strategic
Partnership aim at enhanced political dialogue and stronger cooperation in socioeconomic matters. Since 2007,
relations have deepened and widened dramatically. A Summit, a Ministerial Policy Dialogue, a dialogue on Peace and
Security and a Joint Cooperation Council take place once a year.

2. In economic terms the EU is the most important trading partner of South Africa. In 2010, the EU accounted for 31%
of South Africa's trade. The ongoing trade negotiations with the SADC ( [1] ) countries offer substantial prospects to further
enhance trade ties and deepen the bilateral economic relation.

3. Politically the EU continues to invest hope and expectations in South Africa’s role for the region and the
continent. The EU looks at South Africa to lead on the path of stability, prosperity and democracy. The EU will
continue to strive for closer engagement with Pretoria based on shared values so to enhance prospects in the country
and the region.

4. South Africa receives until 2013 a cooperation envelope of EUR 980 million. The EU and Member States are the
most important donors by far providing approximately 70% of the total cooperation funds. This is helping significantly
South Africa in creating jobs and improving education/health systems thus contributing to social stability.

The Commission's ‘Agenda for change’ proposals on the future of EU development policy intend to direct resources
to the poorest, differentiating among beneficiaries of EU support. While the Commission has proposed to maintain
South Africa eligible in the 2014-2020 period, the ongoing EU institutional process will determine to which extent
differentiation will be applied to South Africa.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) SADC = Southern African Development Community.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 241

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009791/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(25 de outubro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ FMI pede «esforços adicionais» a Portugal

Considerando que:

—
O Conselho Executivo do Fundo Monetário Internacional (FMI) deu nota positiva à quinta avaliação a Portugal
e autorizou o pagamento da quinta tranche do empréstimo.

—
Em comunicado, Nemat Shafik, diretora do FMI, refere que «Depois de analisarmos os esforços das autoridades
políticas, os desequilíbrios externos diminuíram de forma significativa bem como os juros da dívida. No
entanto, o enfraquecimento do ambiente externo e o aumento do desemprego aumentaram os riscos de
obtenção dos objetivos do programa».

—
O comunicado refere ainda que «são necessários esforços adicionais, com o apoio dos parceiros da Zona Euro,
para se avançar com uma ainda maior consolidação orçamental e impulsionar o crescimento a longo prazo».

Pergunto à Comissão:

Concorda com a avaliação do FMI?

Que «esforços adicionais» considera serem ainda necessários, mas mais do que isso possíveis, em razão do enorme
esforço já exigido aos portugueses no âmbito do exigente processo de ajustamento a que Portugal está obrigado?

**Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão**

_(7 de dezembro de 2012)_

A Comissão não comenta os comunicados de imprensa do Fundo Monetário Internacional (FMI), que são da
responsabilidade exclusiva deste último.

A avaliação feita pela Comissão dos esforços necessários no domínio da política orçamental e no que respeita às
reformas estruturais destinadas a incentivar o crescimento a longo prazo em Portugal consta do relatório sobre a
quinta análise do Programa de Ajustamento Económico ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/occasional_paper/2012/pdf/ocp117_en.pdf

C 310 E / 242 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009791/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ IMF calls on Portugal to make ‘additional efforts’

Given that:

—
In its Fifth Review, the Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) made a positive assessment of
Portugal and approved the disbursement of the fifth tranche of the loan.

—
In a press release, Nemat Shafik, a director of the IMF, stated that ‘Having analysed the efforts of the political
authorities, external imbalances and debt interest have fallen significantly. Nonetheless, a weaker external
environment and rising unemployment have increased risks to the attainment of the programme’s objectives.’

—
The press release also mentions that ‘additional efforts are necessary, with the support of euro-area partners, to
move ahead with even greater fiscal consolidation and boost long-term growth’.

I would like to ask the Commission:

Does it agree with the IMF's assessment?

What ‘additional efforts’ does it consider are still necessary and, more importantly, possible in view of the huge effort
already required from the Portuguese people under the demanding adjustment process with which Portugal is obliged
to comply?

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

_(7 December 2012)_

The Commission does not comment on press releases of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which are their sole
responsibility.

The Commission's assessment of the efforts that are necessary in the area of fiscal policy and with regard to structural
reforms to boost long-term growth in Portugal are set out in the report on the fifth review of the Economic
Adjustment Programme ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/occasional_paper/2012/pdf/ocp117_en.pdf

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 243

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009792/12**

**à Comissão**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**
_(25 de outubro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Programas para cooperação na área do turismo nas RUP

Considerando que:

—
As regiões ultraperiféricas beneficiam de um estatuto particular consagrado no artigo 349.° do Tratado sobre o
Funcionamento da União Europeia, o qual permite que sejam adotadas medidas específicas nestas regiões,
tendo em conta a sua situação estrutural particular em razão dos seus constrangimentos geográficos e das suas
dificuldades permanentes;

—
Ao longo dos anos, vários programas foram desenvolvidos nas regiões ultraperiféricas com o objetivo, não só
de compensar as dificuldades decorrentes da sua situação geográfica, estrutural e económica, mas também de,
ao tirar partido das suas potencialidades, incentivar atividades específicas e importantes para o
desenvolvimento destas regiões;

—
O programa Interprise permitiu reunir, em regiões ultraperiféricas, PME de diferentes países interessadas em
cooperar, realizar ações-piloto no domínio do turismo e do artesanato e organizar seminários e conferências; e
que o turismo ocupa um lugar essencial e importante em todas as regiões ultraperiféricas;

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

1. Para além do cofinanciamento pela UE de projetos favoráveis ao desenvolvimento do turismo, designadamente
ao abrigo do Fundo de Coesão, do Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional (FEDER), do Fundo Europeu
Agrícola de Desenvolvimento Rural (Feader) e do Fundo Social Europeu (FSE), estaria disposta a propor um
programa à semelhança do programa Interprise para uma maior cooperação das PME nesse domínio?

2. O que pode mudar favoravelmente para as regiões ultraperiféricas com a inscrição desta nova competência no
artigo 195.° do TFUE e com a adoção a nível europeu de uma estratégia para o turismo, em 30 de junho de
2010?

3. Quais as medidas que pretende apresentar e as orientações que pode dar, no âmbito da Comunicação de 20 de
junho de 2012 sobre uma estratégia renovada para as RUP, para uma maior cooperação entre as PME no
domínio do turismo e do artesanato?

**Resposta dada por Antonio Tajani em nome da Comissão**

_(10 de dezembro de 2012)_

1. O Programa para o Espírito Empresarial e a Inovação (EIP) tem por objetivo apoiar a inovação e as pequenas e
médias empresas (PME) na UE, inclusive no setor no turismo. Este programa é um dos sucessores do anterior
Programa Interprise ( [1] ). Para o período de 2014-2020, a Comissão propôs que um novo Programa para a
Competitividade das Empresas e PME (COSME) ( [2] ) viesse suceder às atividades do EIP relacionadas com a
competitividade, incluindo no setor do turismo. A Comissão apela assim às regiões ultraperiféricas (RUP) para que
tirem o máximo partido das oportunidades disponibilizadas pelo Programa COSME.

2. O quadro de ação para o turismo instituído pela Comunicação de 2010 relativa a um novo quadro político para
o turismo europeu ( [3] ) trará benefícios ao conjunto do setor do turismo em toda a Europa, incluindo nas RUP. Em
consonância com o artigo 195.° do TFUE, este quadro e as ações que o sustentam devem ter por objetivo a promoção
da competitividade das empresas de turismo e a criação de um ambiente conducente ao seu desenvolvimento.
Incentiva-se fortemente a participação dos intervenientes do setor do turismo das RUP nas ações da Comissão em
matéria de turismo que asseguram a aplicação ( [4] ) da referida comunicação de 2010.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) O Programa de Promoção da Cooperação entre as Indústrias e/ou Serviços na Europa 1990-2000 teve por objetivo apoiar iniciativas locais,

regionais e nacionais destinadas a fomentar os contactos entre os gestores de empresas e incentivar a cooperação entre pequenas e médias
empresas na Europa concedendo apoio à organização de eventos de contacto entre empresas.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 834 final de 30.11.2011. O Programa para a Competitividade das Empresas e Pequenas e Médias Empresas (COSME) visa melhorar o

acesso das PME ao financiamento e aos mercados, incentivar uma cultura empresarial na Europa e melhorar as condições-quadro para a
competitividade e sustentabilidade das empresas, incluindo no setor do turismo.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2010) 352 final de 30.6.2012.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) A Comissão publica periodicamente no seu sítio Web uma panorâmica da aplicação da comunicação de 2010 relativa a um novo quadro político

para o turismo europeu. A versão mais recente do plano de execução evolutivo pode ser consultada no seguinte endereço:
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/tourism/files/communications/com_implementation_rolling_plan_revised_en.pdf

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

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

⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

C 310 E / 244 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

3. A Comunicação de 2012 sobre as regiões ultraperiféricas ( [5] ) destaca a necessidade de reforçar a produção e o
emprego em setores tradicionais como o turismo, através da diferenciação e especialização dos produtos, de uma
maior ênfase na sustentabilidade, do uso acrescido das TIC e do reforço da qualidade, das aptidões e competências.
Estas orientações revestem-se de grande importância para a cooperação das PME nos setores do turismo ( [6] ) e do
artesanato. Os fundos da Política de Coesão, designadamente o FEDER, facultam boas oportunidades para promover
uma maior cooperação entre as PME nestes dois setores.

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

⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 287 final de 20.6.2012.
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Neste contexto, no setor do turismo, a Comissão publica anualmente convites à apresentação de propostas para projetos de cooperação

transfronteiras, nos quais a participação das PME é particularmente apreciada.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 245

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009792/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**

_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Tourism cooperation programmes in the ORs

By virtue of the special status conferred on the outermost regions by Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of
the European Union, specific measures can be taken to allow for their particular structural situation caused by the
geographical constraints and the difficulties permanently affecting them.

Over the years various programmes have been implemented in the outermost regions in order not just to offset the
difficulties stemming from their geographical, structural, and economic situation, but also, by exploiting their
potential, to encourage specific activities important for their development.

The INTERPRISE programme enabled SMEs from different countries seeking to establish partnerships in outermost
regions to work together, carry out pilot schemes in the tourism and craft sectors, and organise seminars and
conferences. Tourism occupies a key place in all the outermost regions.

1. In addition to EU co-financing for tourism development projects, provided under, for example, the Cohesion
Fund, the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development
(EAFRD), and the European Social Fund (ESF), would the Commission be willing to propose a programme along the
lines of the INTERPRISE programme in order to foster cooperation among SMEs on a larger scale?

2. How might the outermost regions stand to benefit from the new sphere of responsibility established under
Article 195 of the TFEU and from the fact that there is a Europe-wide strategy on tourism, adopted on 30 June 2010?

3. To follow up its communication of 20 June 2012 setting out a renewed strategy for the ORs, what measures
will the Commission put forward, and what guidelines can it give, with a view to promoting wider-ranging
cooperation among SMEs in the tourism and craft sectors?

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

_(10 December 2012)_

1. The objective of the Programme for Entrepreneurship and Innovation (EIP) is to support innovation and small
and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the EU, including in the tourism sector. This programme is one of the
successors of the past INTERPRISE Programme ( [1] ). For 2014-2020, the Commission proposed a new Programme for
the Competitiveness of Enterprises and SMEs (COSME) ( [2] ) as a successor to the competitiveness-related activities of
the EIP, including in the tourism sector. The Commission would thus invite the outermost regions (ORs) to make the
most of the opportunities that COSME will offer.

2. The European action framework for tourism established through the 2010 Communication on tourism ( [3] ) shall
benefit the whole tourism industry sector throughout the EU, including the ORs. In line with Article 195 TFEU, this
framework and the actions underpinning it have as an objective to promote the competitiveness of tourism
undertakings and create an environment conducive to their development. The participation of tourism stakeholders
from the ORs in the Commission tourism actions which ensure the implementation ( [4] ) of the 2010 Tourism
Communication is highly encouraged.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) The Programme ‘Initiatives to encourage partnership between industries and services in Europe’ 1990-2000 had as an objective to support local,

regional and national initiatives designed to stimulate contacts between business managers and encourage cooperation between small and
medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Europe through support for business meeting events.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 834 final of 30.11.2011. The Programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (COSME)

has as objectives to improve access to finance and to markets for SMEs, to encourage an entrepreneurial culture in Europe, and to improve
framework conditions for the competitiveness and sustainability of enterprises including in the tourism sector.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2010) 352 final of 30.6.2012.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) The Commission regularly presents an overview of the implementation of the 2010 Tourism Communication on its website. The latest version of

the rolling implementation plan can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/tourism/files/communications/com_implementation_rolling_plan_revised_en.pdf

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

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

⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

C 310 E / 246 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

3. The 2012 Communication on ORs ( [5] ) emphasises the necessity to strengthen production and employment in
traditional sectors, such as tourism, through product differentiation and specialisation, more emphasis on
sustainability, increased use of ICT, as well as through enhancing quality, skills and competences. These are already
important guidelines for the cooperation of SMEs in the tourism ( [6] ) and craft sectors. Cohesion policy funds, mainly
the ERDF, will offer good opportunities to promote wider-ranging cooperation among SMEs in these two sectors.

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

⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 287 final of 20.6.2012.
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) In this regard, in the tourism sector, the Commission launches annual calls for proposals for cross-border cooperation projects to which SMEs

participation is highly appreciated.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 247

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009793/12**

**à Comissão**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**
_(25 de outubro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Programas na área da investigação, investigação e tecnologia nas RUP

Considerando que:

—
As regiões ultraperiféricas beneficiam de um estatuto particular consagrado no artigo 349.° do Tratado sobre o
Funcionamento da União Europeia, o qual permite que sejam adotadas medidas específicas nestas regiões,
tendo em conta a sua situação estrutural particular em razão dos seus constrangimentos geográficos e das suas
dificuldades permanentes;

—
Ao longo dos anos, vários programas foram desenvolvidos nas regiões ultraperiféricas com o objetivo, não só
de compensar as dificuldades decorrentes da sua situação geográfica, estrutural e económica, mas também de,
ao tirar partido das suas potencialidades, incentivar atividades específicas e importantes para o
desenvolvimento destas regiões;

—
O programa Thermie permitiu apoiar, ao abrigo da política de investigação, inovação e tecnologia, projetos
concretos de demonstração técnica e económica, em matéria de tecnologias energéticas inovadoras, para além
do apoio do FEDER a estudos e projetos específicos para reforçar o abastecimento energético, a produção de
eletricidade e a exploração do potencial energético endógeno em matéria de eficiência energética e de energias
renováveis;

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

1. Estaria disposta a propor um programa semelhante ao Thermie apenas para as regiões ultraperiféricas?

2. Quais as medidas que pretende apresentar e as orientações que pode dar, no âmbito da Comunicação de 20 de
junho de 2012 sobre uma estratégia renovada para as RUP, em matéria de investigação, inovação e tecnologia?

**Resposta dada por Günther Oettinger em nome da Comissão**

_(21 de dezembro de 2012)_

1. O Programa Thermie foi o principal programa energético de apoio à demonstração e divulgação de energias
renováveis inovadoras e tecnologias de eficiência energética. A partir de 1 de janeiro de 1999, estas atividades
passaram a fazer parte do Programa‐Quadro de Investigação e Desenvolvimento Tecnológico. Em 2011, a Comissão
propôs um novo programa de investigação, desenvolvimento e inovação para 2014-2020, designado «Horizon
2020», estando em discussão no Parlamento e no Conselho, para aprovação. A Comissão apela assim às regiões
ultraperiféricas (RUP) para que tirem o máximo partido das oportunidades disponibilizadas pelo Programa «Horizon
2020».

2. Tal como referido na recente comunicação da Comissão sobre as RUP ( [1] ), o «Horizon 2020» contribuirá com
apoio à inovação e à prática tecnológica, estimulando o investimento do setor privado na experimentação, mormente
na agricultura e biodiversidade endémica. Além disso, os fundos da política de coesão, sobretudo o FEDER, oferecerão
boas oportunidades de desenvolvimento da investigação e inovação nas RUP, enfrentando, _inter alia_, o desafio da
lacuna de massa crítica na investigação.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012)0287 final, As regiões ultraperiféricas da União Europeia: Parceria para um crescimento inteligente, sustentável e inclusivo.

C 310 E / 248 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009793/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**

_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Research, innovation, and technology programmes in the ORs

By virtue of the special status conferred on the outermost regions by Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of
the European Union, specific measures can be taken to allow for their particular structural situation caused by the
geographical constraints and the difficulties permanently affecting them.

Over the years various programmes have been implemented in the outermost regions in order not just to offset the
difficulties stemming from their geographical, structural, and economic situation, but also, by exploiting their
potential, to encourage specific activities important for their development.

The THERMIE programme used to provide support, under the heading of research, innovation, and technology
policy, for specific technical and economic demonstration projects centring on innovative energy technologies; this
was in addition to the ERDF funding for specific studies and projects aimed at consolidating energy supply, improving
electricity generation, and exploiting local energy efficiency and renewable energy potential to more useful effect.

1. Would the Commission be willing to propose a programme similar to THERMIE for the outermost regions
only?

2. To follow up its communication of 20 June 2012 setting out a renewed strategy for the ORs, what measures
will the Commission put forward, and what guidelines can it give, as far as research, innovation, and technology are
concerned?

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

_(21 December 2012)_

1. The THERMIE programme used to be the main energy support programme focusing on the demonstration and
the dissemination of innovative renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies. As of 1 January 1999, these
activities became part of the framework Programme for Research and Technological Development. For the period
2014-2020, a new programme for research, development and innovation ‘Horizon 2020’, was proposed by the
Commission in 2011 and is currently undergoing discussions for approval within the Parliament and the Council.
Therefore, the Commission invites the outermost regions (ORs) to make the most of the opportunities that Horizon
2020 will offer.

2. As indicated in its recent 2012 Communication on the ORs ( [1] ), the Commission considers that ‘Horizon 2020’
will nurture scientific excellence in these regions, support technological as well as practice-based innovation and
stimulate private sector investment in experimentation, including in agriculture and endemic biodiversity. In
addition, cohesion policy funds, mainly the ERDF, will offer good opportunities to develop research and innovation
in the ORs and tackle, inter alia, the challenge of lack of critical mass in research.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 287 final, ‘The outermost regions of the European Union: towards a partnership for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 249

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009794/12**

**à Comissão**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**
_(25 de outubro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Programas na área da energia nas RUP

Considerando que:

—
As regiões ultraperiféricas beneficiam de um estatuto particular consagrado no artigo 349.° do Tratado sobre o
Funcionamento da União Europeia, o qual permite que sejam adotadas medidas específicas nestas regiões,
tendo em conta a sua situação estrutural particular em razão dos seus constrangimentos geográficos e das suas
dificuldades permanentes;

—
Ao longo dos anos, vários programas foram desenvolvidos nas regiões ultraperiféricas com o objetivo, não só
de compensar as dificuldades decorrentes da sua situação geográfica, estrutural e económica, mas também de,
ao tirar partido das suas potencialidades, incentivar atividades específicas e importantes para o
desenvolvimento destas regiões;

—
Através do programa SAVE, no âmbito da política da energia, a União Europeia apoiou nestas regiões a
instituição de uma programação energética regional e/ou a constituição de agências regionais da energia (nos
Açores e na Madeira, nas Canárias, em Guadalupe e na Guiana);

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

1. Para além do cofinanciamento pela UE de projetos favoráveis ao desenvolvimento de energias renováveis e à
promoção de eficiência energética, designadamente ao abrigo dos fundos estruturais, estaria disposta a propor
um programa à semelhança do programa SAVE para uma melhor programação energética nas regiões
ultraperiféricas e, eventualmente, a constituição de agências regionais de energia?

2. O que pode mudar favoravelmente para as regiões ultraperiféricas com a inscrição da energia como uma nova
competência no artigo 194.° do TFUE e da adoção a nível europeu de uma estratégia para a energia no
Horizonte de 2050, de 15 de dezembro de 2011?

3. Quais as medidas que pretende apresentar e as orientações que pode dar, no âmbito da Comunicação de 20 de
junho de 2012 sobre uma estratégia renovada para as RUP, para uma melhor programação energética ao nível
regional nestas regiões?

**Resposta dada por Günther Oettinger em nome da Comissão**

_(21 de dezembro de 2012)_

As políticas da União Europeia no domínio energético reconhecem o importante papel das autoridades locais e
regionais. O Programa Energia Inteligente — Europa (EIE) ( [1] ) concedeu apoio direto a estas autoridades, tendo sido
criadas mais de 300 agências locais e regionais (no quadro dos Programas SAVE ( [2] ) e EIE) ( [3] ). No que respeita à
programação energética regional, três das regiões ultraperiféricas ( [4] ) participaram no projeto «Pacto das Ilhas» ( [5] ) e
assinaram o Pacto para a sustentabilidade energética. Além disso, as autoridades locais e regionais podem ser
signatárias da iniciativa Pacto dos Autarcas ( [6] ).

A Comissão propõe que o sucessor do EIE II seja executado ao abrigo do Programa Horizonte 2020, no âmbito do
desafio «Energia segura, não poluente e eficiente» ( [7] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Decisão n.° 1639/2006/CE do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 24 de outubro de 2006, que institui um Programa-Quadro para a

Competitividade e a Inovação (2007-2013) (http://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Decisão n.° 647/2000/CE do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 28 de fevereiro de 2000, que aprova um programa plurianual de promoção

do rendimento energético (SAVE) (1998-2002).

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Matrix, 2010, Avaliação da relevância do financiamento da UE para as agências locais e regionais no setor da energia

(http://www.managenergy.net/lib/documents/29/original_final_report_2010.pdf).

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Açores, Madeira e Canárias.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) O projeto promove a adesão dos territórios insulares da UE ao «Pacto das Ilhas», financia a preparação dos programas de ação das ilhas no

domínio da energia sustentável e projetos concretos suscetíveis de obterem financiamento bancário, apoia a difusão de programas no domínio da
energia e dos transportes sustentáveis e as comunidades da energia sustentável nos territórios insulares da UE (http://www.islepact.eu).

( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) A iniciativa Pacto dos Autarcas é o movimento à escala europeia que visa o compromisso voluntário das autoridades locais e regionais no reforço

da eficiência energética e da utilização das fontes de energia renováveis nos seus territórios. Os signatários preparam planos de ação no domínio
da energia sustentável a fim de cumprir ou ir para além do objetivo da União Europeia de reduzir as emissões de CO 2 em 20 % até 2020.

( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) Proposta de Regulamento do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho que estabelece o Horizonte 2020 — Programa-Quadro de Investigação e

Inovação (2014-2020), COM(2011)0809 final.

( **|**

( **|**

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

( **|**

⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|**

⋅7∙ **|** )

C 310 E / 250 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

As regiões ultraperiféricas podem, juntamente com as outras regiões da União Europeia, beneficiar da maior
segurança energética resultante do aumento da eficiência energética e da utilização das fontes locais de energias
renováveis. Para tal, as autoridades públicas devem adotar uma abordagem coordenada, com a devida participação
das empresas de produção de eletricidade, dos operadores de redes de distribuição, das entidades reguladoras e dos
utilizadores, por via de enquadramentos regulamentares nacionais.

Além disso, a proposta vai no sentido de o apoio financeiro mais importante ser concedido através dos futuros
fundos da política de coesão, principalmente o FEDER, que poderão oferecer boas oportunidades para reforçar a
capacidade institucional necessária, de modo a melhorar a programação regional no domínio energético nesses
territórios.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 251

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009794/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**

_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Energy programmes in the ORs

By virtue of the special status conferred on the outermost regions by Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of
the European Union, specific measures can be taken to allow for their particular structural situation caused by the
geographical constraints and the difficulties permanently affecting them.

Over the years various programmes have been implemented in the outermost regions in order not just to offset the
difficulties stemming from their geographical, structural, and economic situation, but also, by exploiting their
potential, to encourage specific activities important for their development.

Under the SAVE energy policy programme, the EU helped the outermost regions to establish energy programming
and/or set up regional energy agencies (in the Azores and Madeira, the Canary Islands, Guadeloupe, and French
Guiana).

1. In addition to the EU co-financing, not least under the Structural Funds, for projects to promote the
development of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency, would the Commission be willing to propose a
programme similar to SAVE in order to improve energy programming in the outermost regions and, where
necessary, enable them to set up regional energy agencies?

2. How might the outermost regions stand to gain from the fact that energy has been made a new area of
responsibility under Article 194 of the TFEU and from the Europe-wide energy strategy (‘Energy Roadmap 2050’)
published on 15 December 2011?

3. To follow up its communication of 20 June 2012 setting out a renewed strategy for the ORs, what measures
will the Commission put forward, and what guidelines can it give, with a view to improving regional-level energy
programming in these regions?

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

_(21 December 2012)_

The energy policies of the European Union recognise the important role of local and regional authorities. The
Intelligent Energy — Europe Programme (IEE) ( [1] ) has provided direct support to local and regional authorities. More
than 300 local and regional agencies have been established (under the IEE and SAVE ( [2] ) Programmes) ( [3] ). As regards
regional energy planning, three of the outermost regions ( [4] ) have participated in the ‘Isle-Pact’ project ( [5] ) and are
signatories to the Pact of Islands initiative. In addition, their local and regional authorities may be signatories to the
Covenant of Mayors' initiative ( [6] ).

The Commission is proposing that the successor to the IEE II be placed under the H2020's Challenge on Secure, Clean
and Efficient Energy ( [7] ).

Alongside other areas of the European Union, the Outermost Regions can benefit from improved energy security
resulting from improved energy efficiency and use of local renewable energy sources. This requires a coordinated
approach by public authorities in which power generating companies, Distribution System Operators, Regulators as
well as users are appropriately engaged through national regulatory frameworks.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Decision 1639/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 establishing a Competitiveness and Innovation

Framework Programme (2007-2013) (http://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Decision 647/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 February 2000 adopting a multiannual programme for the

promotion of energy efficiency (1998-2002) — SAVE programme.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) MATRIX, 2010, Evaluation of the relevance of EU funding for local and regional energy agencies

http://www.managenergy.net/lib/documents/29/original_final_report_2010.pdf

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) The Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) The project promotes the adhesion of European islands to the Pact of Islands, funds the preparation of Island Sustainable Energy Action Plans and

concrete bankable projects, and supports dissemination of programmes in the area of sustainable energy and transport, and sustainable energy
communities in European islands. (http://www.islepact.eu)

( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) The Covenant of Mayors' initiative is the mainstream European movement for local and regional authorities to voluntarily commit to increasing

energy efficiency and use of renewable energy sources in their territories. Signatories prepare Sustainable Energy Action Plans in order to meet or
exceed the European Union 20% CO 2 reduction objective by 2020. (http://www.eumayors.eu/)

( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 809 final Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing Horizon 2020 — The framework

Programme.

( **|**

( **|**

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

( **|**

⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|**

⋅7∙ **|** )

C 310 E / 252 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

Furthermore, it is proposed that major financial support be provided through future Cohesion policy funds, mainly
the ERDF, which could offer good opportunities to enhance the necessary institutional capacity so as to improve
regional-level energy programming in these regions.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 253

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009795/12**

**à Comissão**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**
_(25 de outubro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Programas de apoio à indústria das RUP

Considerando que:

—
As regiões ultraperiféricas beneficiam de um estatuto particular consagrado no artigo 349.° do Tratado sobre o
Funcionamento da União Europeia, o qual permite que sejam adotadas medidas específicas nestas regiões,
tendo em conta a sua situação estrutural particular em razão dos seus constrangimentos geográficos e das suas
dificuldades permanentes;

—
Ao longo dos anos, vários programas foram desenvolvidos nas regiões ultraperiféricas com o objetivo, não só
de compensar as dificuldades decorrentes da sua situação geográfica, estrutural e económica, mas também de,
ao tirar partido das suas potencialidades, incentivar atividades específicas e importantes para o
desenvolvimento destas regiões;

—
O programa Eureka é uma iniciativa europeia lançada em 1985 de apoio ao projetos de investigação e de
investimento tecnológico, que visa reforçar a produtividade e a competitividade da indústria europeia,
nomeadamente a projetos conjuntos e a cooperações transnacionais;

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

1. Estaria disposta a apresentar uma proposta de programa de teor semelhante ao do programa Eureka, ao nível
regional, que fosse adaptada às necessidades e às especificidades das regiões ultraperiféricas?

2. Quais as medidas concretas que pretende apresentar e as orientações que pode dar, no âmbito da Comunicação
de 20 de junho de 2012 sobre uma estratégia renovada para as RUP, para um reforço da produtividade e da
competitividade da indústria das regiões ultraperiféricas?

**Resposta dada por Johannes Hahn em nome da Comissão**

_(13 de dezembro de 2012)_

Atualmente, a Comissão não pretende propor uma iniciativa semelhante ao Eureka especificamente para as regiões
ultraperiféricas (RUP).

Para apoiar e promover a produtividade e a competitividade industrial nas RUP, a Comissão convida estas regiões e os
seus Estados-Membros a elaborar, para o período de 2014-2020, programas que se adaptem melhor às necessidades
reais dos diferentes setores industriais, sobretudo no âmbito dos cinco fundos europeus do quadro estratégico
comum e do POSEI «Agricultura».

No que diz respeito ao Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional (FEDER) em especial, as duas propostas da
Comissão, tanto a relativa ao objetivo «Investimento no Crescimento e no Emprego» como a relativa ao objetivo
«Cooperação Territorial Europeia», contêm disposições que permitiriam utilizar estes fundos para apoiar e
desenvolver as indústrias das RUP. Trata-se nomeadamente das prioridades de investimento do FEDER, e,
nomeadamente, dos pontos 3 (PME) e 1 (I&D) do artigo 5.° da proposta de regulamento FEDER, bem como da
possibilidade de cofinanciar projetos de cooperação com outras regiões no apoio/desenvolvimento industrial que vão
neste sentido.

Além disso, a dotação específica à dimensão ultraperiférica contribui para melhorar a competitividade destas regiões.

C 310 E / 254 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009795/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**

_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Programmes to support industry in the ORs

By virtue of the special status conferred on the outermost regions by Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of
the European Union, specific measures can be taken to allow for their particular structural situation caused by the
geographical constraints and the difficulties permanently affecting them.

Over the years various programmes have been implemented in the outermost regions in order not just to offset the
difficulties stemming from their geographical, structural, and economic situation, but also, by exploiting their
potential, to encourage specific activities important for their development.

EUREKA, a pan-European initiative launched in 1985 to support research and technology investment projects, aims
to enhance the productivity and competitiveness of European industry, laying emphasis on joint projects and
transnational cooperation arrangements.

1. Would the Commission be willing to submit a proposal for a regional-level equivalent of EUREKA geared to the
needs and specific features of the outermost regions?

2. To follow up its communication of 20 June 2012 setting out a renewed strategy for the ORs, what practical
measures will the Commission put forward, and what guidelines can it give, with a view to boosting industrial
productivity and competitiveness in the outermost regions?

_(Version française)_

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

_(13 décembre 2012)_

Actuellement la Commission n'a pas l'intention de proposer une initiative semblable à Eureka spécifiquement pour les
régions ultrapériphériques (RUP).

Pour soutenir et encourager la productivité et la compétitivité industrielle dans les RUP, la Commission invite ces
régions et leurs États membres à élaborer pour la période 2014-2020 des programmes qui s'adaptent le mieux aux
besoins réels de leurs différents secteurs industriels, surtout dans le cadre des cinq fonds européen du cadre stratégique
commun et du POSEI agricole.

Concernant le Fonds européen de développement régional (FEDER) en particulier, les deux propositions de la
Commission, tant celle sur l'objectif «Investissement pour la croissance et l'emploi» que celle sur l'objectif
«coopération territoriale européenne», contiennent des dispositions qui permettraient d'utiliser ces fonds pour
soutenir et développer les industries des RUP. Il s'agit notamment des priorités d'investissement du FEDER, et en
particulier les points 3 (PME) et 1 (R&I) de l'article 5 de la proposition du Règlement FEDER, ainsi que la possibilité de
cofinancer des projets de coopération avec d'autres régions sur le soutien/développement industriel vont dans ce sens.

En outre, l'allocation spécifique à la dimension ultrapériphérique contribue à améliorer la compétitivité de ces
régions.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 255

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-009796/12**

**to the Commission**
**Martin Callanan (ECR)**

_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Free movement of individuals and goods in the European Union

On 8 November 2012 Newcastle United Football Club will play a UEFA Europa League match against Club Brugge.
The match will be held at the Jan Breydel Stadium in Bruges. The Bruges local police and the Belgian federal police
have each released statements addressed to the Newcastle United fans.

The Belgian local police statement warns:

‘Supporters without a valid ticket for the football match will be prevented from travelling to the stadium and anyone
found in the vicinity of the stadium during the whole of match day without a ticket will be arrested’.

The Belgian federal police statement says:

‘If anyone arrives at any border control point in Belgium and they have alcohol in their possession it will be
confiscated’.

I understand the difficulties of policing a football match and maintaining order and control over a crowd with scarce
resources. I am nevertheless very concerned by these statements.

1. The free movement of individuals is one of the fundamental principles of the European Union. I recognise that
the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union allows limitations to the free movement of persons when
justified on the grounds of public security. I cannot, however, accept the threat of arbitrary arrest and detention of
Newcastle United supporters or indeed of anyone from the UK simply exercising their right of free movement within
the EU. Can the Commission confirm that being in the vicinity of the stadium and behaving peaceably offers no legal
basis for arrest?

2. The free movement of goods is also one of the fundamental principles of the European Union. Any EU resident
has the right to transport across the border between two EU Member States any goods legally available for sale on
the EU market. This protection gives the right to transport alcoholic drinks with the same freedom as any other
goods. Can the Commission confirm that the confiscation at an internal EU border of goods — in this case, alcoholic
drinks — produced or imported legally in the European Union is illegal?

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

_(4 December 2012)_

The right to move and reside freely is a fundamental right of all EU citizens. This right, however, may be restricted on
grounds of public policy.

Restrictive measures must comply with the principle of proportionality and be based exclusively on the personal
conduct of the individual concerned which must represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat.
Territorial restrictions must not discriminate on the grounds of nationality.

Exchange of information on risks and threats at sport events is in the mandate of National Football Information
Points, established by Council Decision 2002/348/JHA. To consider improvements regarding the mechanisms of
exchange of information, the Commission is finalising a study on travelling violent offenders.

The ability to review the compatibility with EC law of the measures taken by the Belgian police in the case referred to
by the Honourable Member is limited by Article 276 TFEU under which there is no jurisdiction to review the validity
or proportionality of operations carried out by the police with regard to the maintenance of law and public order.

As regards the concerns related to the free movement of goods, Article 36 TFEU allows for restrictions on imports of
goods on grounds of public morality, policy or security. As an exception, Article 36 TFEU is to be interpreted
narrowly and the restrictions should be both necessary and in proportion.

C 310 E / 256 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Dansk udgave)_

**Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse P-009797/12**

**til Kommissionen**
**Christel Schaldemose (S&D)**

_(25. oktober 2012)_

_Om:_ Certificering af medicinsk udstyr

Den britiske avis Daily Telegraph har per 25. oktober 2012 afsløret store huller i systemet for certificering af
medicinsk udstyr. Bemyndigede organer fra blandt andet Tjekkiet og Slovakiet har givet tilsagn om at lade farligt
medicinsk højrisiko-udstyr blive solgt i EU.

Jeg har nu hørt flere patienter med indopereret udstyr — der er certificeret i de omtalte lande — udtrykke bekymring
for deres sikkerhed. De spørger, om de kan regne med, at udstyret er sikkert og ikke vil skade dem.

Den bekymring finder jeg yderst berettiget. Mit spørgsmål til Kommissionen er derfor:

1. Vil Kommissionen på baggrund af den omfattende skandale tage initiativ til at tjekke alt det medicinske udstyr,
som er blevet certificeret af bemyndigede organer i de Daily Telegraph-omtalte lande for at give de europæiske
patienter sikkerhed?

Det er efter min opfattelse det mindste, Kommissionen kan gøre. Det her handler om patienters liv og sikkerhed.

**Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Maroš Šefčovič**

_(28. november 2012)_

Selv om der i dag ikke forelægger noget bevis for, at udstyr, der er godkendt af de bemyndigede organer, som er
etableret i Tjekkiet og Slovakiet, er usikkert, følger Kommissionen denne sag yderst opmærksomt og har udsendt
advarsler til alle medlemsstater.

Som følge af skandalen med de ulovlige brystimplantater, som er fremstillet af virksomheden Poly Implant Prothèse,
har Kommissionen iværksat en række initiativer, der umiddelbart skal styrke kontrollen med medicinsk udstyr inden
for rammerne af den gældende lovgivning. Initiativerne omfatter både fasen før og efter markedsføringen. De tager
især sigte på en væsentlig styrkelse af de nationale kompetente myndigheders kontrol med de bemyndigede organer
og med den måde, hvorpå disse udfører deres vurderinger af producenter og produkter. I den forbindelse vil der om
kort tid blive vedtaget yderligere specifikationer af de kriterier, der skal opfyldes af de bemyndigede organer, og af
disse organers revisioner af producenterne. Desuden vil revisionerne af de bemyndigede organer blive udført af
grupper, der består af repræsentanter for andre medlemsstater og for Kommissionen. Medlemsstaterne anmodes også
om at styrke deres aktiviteter inden for overvågning og markedstilsyn for at sikre, at eventuelle problemer med
medicinsk udstyr hurtigt opdages, og at eventuelle usikre produkter trækkes tilbage fra det europæiske marked.

Sideløbende med disse foranstaltninger vedtog Kommissionen den 26. september 2012 to forslag til retsakter,
henholdsvis om medicinsk udstyr og om medicinsk udstyr til in vitro-diagnostik ( [1] ). Ved disse to forslag strammes
bestemmelserne om medicinsk udstyr og om medicinsk udstyr til in vitro-diagnostik betydeligt. De er nu videresendt
til Europa-Parlamentet og til Rådet til overvejelse.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Forslag til Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning om medicinsk udstyr og om ændring af direktiv 2001/83/EF, forordning (EF)

nr. 178/2002 og forordning (EF) nr. 1223/2009 (KOM(2012)0542 endelig) og forslag til Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning om
medicinsk udstyr til in vitro-diagnostik . (KOM(2012)0541 endelig).

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 257

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-009797/12**

**to the Commission**
**Christel Schaldemose (S&D)**

_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Certification of medical devices

On 25 October 2012, the British _Daily Telegraph_ newspaper revealed large loopholes in the system for certifying
medical devices. Notified bodies from countries including the Czech Republic and Slovakia have licensed dangerous
high-risk medical devices for sale in the EU.

I have now heard several patients with implanted devices that were certified in these countries express concern for
their safety. They ask if they can be sure that the device is safe and will not harm them.

I find this concern fully justified, and therefore ask the Commission if, in view of this major scandal, it will take the
initiative to check all medical devices certified by notified bodies in the countries mentioned by the _Daily Telegraph_ in
order to reassure European patients about their safety?

I think this is the least the Commission can do since this is a matter of patients’ lives and safety.

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

_(28 November 2012)_

Even if there is today no evidence that devices certified by the Notified Bodies established in Czech Republic and
Slovakia are unsafe, the Commission is following this case with the utmost attention and has alerted all Member
States.

As a result of the scandal involving fraudulent breast implants made by the company Poly Implant Prothèse, the
Commission launched several initiatives to immediately strengthen the control of medical devices in the framework
of the current legislation. They concern both pre‐ and post-market phases. In particular, they aim at a substantial
reinforcement of the control of Notified Bodies by national competent authorities and of the way in which Notified
Bodies carry out their assessment of manufacturers and products. To this end, further specification of the criteria to be
met by Notified bodies and of the audits of manufacturers by Notified Bodies will be adopted shortly. In addition,
audits of Notified Bodies will be carried out by teams consisting of representatives of other Member States and of the
Commission. Member States are also requested to strengthen their activities in the field of vigilance and market
surveillance, in order to ensure that any problems with medical devices are rapidly detected and any unsafe products
are withdrawn from the European market.

In parallel to these measures, the Commission adopted, on 26 September 2012, two legal proposals, respectively on
medical devices and _in vitro_ diagnostic medical devices ( [1] ). These proposals significantly tighten the rules governing
medical devices and _in vitro_ diagnostic medical devices. They have now been transmitted to the European Parliament
and to the Council for consideration.

( **|** ⋅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) and Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the
Council on _in vitro_ diagnostic medical devices (COM(2012) 541 final).

C 310 E / 258 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-009798/12**
**προς την Επιτροπή (Αντιπρόεδρος / Ύπατη Εκπρόσωπος)**

**Niki Tzavela (EFD)**
_(25 Οκτωβρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ VP/HR — Κατάσταση στον Λίβανο

Σύμφωνα με άρθρο της εφημερίδας «Τα Νέα», υπήρχαν φόβοι ότι η συριακή κρίση θα επεκταθεί (και) στον Λίβανο, όμως η
Βηρυτός εξακολουθούσε να ζει μέσα στο κουκούλι της σχετικής ηρεμίας που απολαμβάνει τα τελευταία τέσσερα χρόνια.
Αυτό άλλαξε την Παρασκευή, όταν η Ανατολική Βηρυτός συγκλονίστηκε από μία βομβιστική επίθεση με παγιδευμένο
αυτοκίνητο. Δύο εικοσιτετράωρα αργότερα, εκτυλίχθηκαν στη λιβανική πρωτεύουσα σκηνές που θύμισαν σε πολλούς τον
15ετή εμφύλιο. Η χώρα τώρα βυθίζεται σε μια πολιτική κρίση που έχει άμεση σχέση με τα τεκταινόμενα στη Συρία.

Ο στόχος ήταν, όπως όλα δείχνουν, ένας: ο επικεφαλής της λιβανικής Υπηρεσίας Εσωτερικών Πληροφοριών, ο ταξίαρχος
Ουισάμ αλ Χασάν. Χιλιάδες άνθρωποι συνέρρευσαν χθες στην Πλατεία των Μαρτύρων στη Βηρυτό για την κηδεία του Αλ
Χασάν, όμως η κηδεία μετατράπηκε σύντομα σε πολιτική διαδήλωση, με τους συγκεντρωμένους να φωνάζουν συνθήματα
κατά του σύριου Προέδρου αλλά και του λιβανέζου Πρωθυπουργού Νατζίμπ Μικάτι. Η λιβανική αντιπολίτευση (όπως
άλλωστε και ο γάλλος υπουργός Εξωτερικών …) βλέπει δάκτυλο της Δαμασκού πίσω από τη δολοφονία του Αλ Χασάν και
κατηγορεί τον Μικάτι, ο οποίος κυβερνά από τον Ιούνιο του 2011 σε συνεργασία με τη φιλοσυριακή Χεζμπολάχ, για
υπερβολικά στενές σχέσεις με τη Δαμασκό.

Σύμφωνα με τα ανωτέρω, ερωτάται η Ύπατη Εκπρόσωπος:

1. Έχει δρομολογηθεί έκτακτο σχέδιο δράσης, σε συνεργασία με τους εταίρους μας, ούτως ώστε να αποκλειστεί το
ενδεχόμενο εξάπλωσης της συριακής πολιτικής κρίσης στον Λίβανο;

2. Τι πρωτοβουλίες επιδιώκεται να ληφθούν, ούτως ώστε μετά την Αραβική Άνοιξη να μην επέλθει ένα Αραβικό
Φθινόπωρο, κάτι το οποίο θα άλλαζε δραματικά τα γεωστρατηγικά δρώμενα της γειτονιάς μας;

**Απάντηση της Ύπατης Εκπροσώπου/Αντιπροέδρου κ. Ashton εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(6 Φεβρουαρίου 2013)_

Η δολοφονία του στρατηγού Ουίσαμ αλ-Χάσαν καταδικάστηκε έντονα από την διεθνή κοινότητα και από την Ύπατη
Εκπρόσωπο/Αντιπρόεδρο της Επιτροπής. Η Ύπατη Εκπρόσωπος/Αντιπρόεδρος της Επιτροπής επισκέφτηκε τον Λίβανο μετά
τέσσερεις μέρες, στις 23 Οκτωβρίου. Κατά τις συναντήσεις της με τους Λιβανέζους συνομιλητές της τόνισε τη σημασία της
διατήρησης της σταθερότητας και της εθνικής ενότητας στον Λίβανο. Προειδοποίησε για τους κινδύνους από κάθε
πρωτοβουλία που θα μπορούσε να οδηγήσει σε αποσταθεροποίηση της χώρας και εξέφρασε τη στήριξή της για τη συνέχιση
του Εθνικού Διαλόγου υπό την αιγίδα του προέδρου Σλεϊμάν. Τόνισε επίσης την ανάγκη τα θεσμικά όργανα να συνεχίσουν να
εργάζονται αποτελεσματικά και υπενθύμισε τη σημασία των ενόπλων δυνάμεων του Λιβάνου για την αποκατάσταση και
διατήρηση της ηρεμίας.

Αντιδρώντας στα γεγονότα του Λιβάνου, το Συμβούλιο ενέκρινε συμπεράσματα σχετικά με τον Λίβανο στις 19 Νοεμβρίου,
στα οποία ζητούσε ταχεία διερεύνηση και δίωξη των δολοφόνων, προέτρεπε όλες τις πολιτικές δυνάμεις του Λιβάνου να
συμμετάσχουν εποικοδομητικά στις προσπάθειες διαλόγου και να εφαρμόσουν πλήρως της διακήρυξη της Baabda σχετικά
με την αποδέσμευση του Λιβάνου από τις περιφερειακές συγκρούσεις.

Ανταποκρινόμενη στον αυξανόμενο αριθμό σύρων προσφύγων που διαφεύγουν στον Λίβανο, η ΕΕ ενισχύει την βοήθεια που
παρέχει στην εν λόγω χώρα. Το 2012, η ΕΕ δέσμευσε 40 εκατομμύρια ευρώ για να ανταποκριθεί στις πιεστικότερες ανάγκες
των σύρων προσφύγων και των λιβανέζικων κοινοτήτων υποδοχής (αρωγή έκτακτης ανάγκης, εκπαίδευση, κ.λπ.).

Πρόσφατα η κυβέρνηση του Λιβάνου παρουσίασε σχέδιο αντιμετώπισης της κρίσης των σύρων προσφύγων που συνεπάγεται
δαπάνες τις οποίες η κυβέρνηση του Λιβάνου δεν μπορεί να επωμιστεί μόνη της. Επί του παρόντος, η ΕΕ διερευνά τρόπους
παροχής επιπλέον βοήθειας στον εν λόγω σχέδιο προκειμένου να αποφευχθεί η μεταφορά της συριακής κρίσης στο έδαφος
του Λιβάνου.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 259

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009798/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Niki Tzavela (EFD)**

_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Situation in Lebanon

An article published by the ‘Ta Nea’ newspaper points to fears that the Syrian crisis will spread to Lebanon. While
Beirut, has for the last four years been a relatively peaceful enclave, that all changed last Friday when the eastern part
of the capital was rocked by a car bomb, followed 48 hours later by scenes reminiscent to many of the 15-year civil
war. The country is now sinking into a political crisis immediately related to events in Syria.

Everything indicates that the target of the attack was Brigadier Wissam al Hasan, head of the Lebanese National
Intelligence Service. The thousands gathered yesterday on Martyrs Square in Beirut to attend his funeral soon found
themselves in the centre of a political protest with demonstrators chanting slogans directed at the Syrian President
and Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati. The Lebanese opposition (as well as the French Foreign Minister) see the
hand of Damascus behind the killing of Brigadier al Hasan and accuse Mikat, who has been governing the country
since June 2011 with the backing of the pro-Syrian Hezbollah, of maintaining excessively close relations with
Damascus.

In view of this:

1. Can the High Representative indicate whether an intensive plan of action has been launched in cooperation
with partner countries with a view to preventing the Syrian political crisis spreading to Lebanon?

2. What measures are being planned in order to avoid the Arab Spring being followed by an Arab Autumn,
dramatically altering the geostrategic situation of a neighbouring country?

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

_(6 February 2013)_

The assassination of General Wissam Al-Hassan was strongly condemned by the international community, including
the HR/VP. The HR/VP visited Lebanon four days later, on 23 October. In her meetings with the Lebanese
interlocutors she stressed the importance of preserving stability and national unity in Lebanon. She warned against
any initiatives which could lead to destabilising the country and expressed support for continuation of the National
Dialogue under the aegis of President Sleiman. She stressed as well the need for institutions to continue working
effectively and recalled the importance of the Lebanese Armed Forces in restoring and maintaining calm.

Responding to the events in Lebanon, the Council adopted conclusions on Lebanon on 19 November, in which it
called for swift investigation and prosecutions of the perpetrators, encouraged all Lebanese political forces to
participate constructively in the dialogue efforts and fully implement the Baabda Declaration on the need of
disassociating Lebanon from regional conflicts.

In response to the increasing number of Syrian refugees fleeing to Lebanon, the EU is stepping up its assistance to
Lebanon. In 2012, the EU committed EUR 40 million to respond to the most pressing needs of Syrian refugees and
host Lebanese communities (emergency assistance, education etc.).

Recently, the Lebanese Government presented a response plan to the Syrian refugee crisis, which implies costs that
the Lebanese Government cannot bear by itself. The EU is currently seeking ways to bring additional support to this
plan in order to avoid the spill-over effect of the Syrian crisis on the Lebanese territory.

C 310 E / 260 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009799/12**

**to the Commission**
**Nicole Sinclaire (NI)**

_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Commissioners' terms of employment

In the light of controversy surrounding the alleged resignation of Commissioner Dalli, could the Commission please
inform me:

1. What period of notice is required in the event of dismissal or resignation of a Commissioner?

2. Is a Commissioner required to give written notice of resignation, or is a verbal resignation sufficient?

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

_(10 December 2012)_

1 and 2. Neither Article 17 of the Treaty on the European Union nor Article 246 of the Treaty on the Functioning of
the European Union nor any other provision in Community law stipulate the period of notice and/or the formalities
required in the event of the termination of office of a member of the Commission.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 261

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009800/12**

**to the Commission**
**Nicole Sinclaire (NI)**

_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Common Provisions Regulation

Reference: Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down common provisions
on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European
Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund covered by the Common
Strategic Framework and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the
European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006.

Could the Commission please clarify how the proposed changes will affect the amount of funding that UK citizens
receive through the aforementioned funds?

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

_(11 December 2012)_

The amount of funding that the UK will receive through the Funds subject to the Common Provisions Regulation will
be decided in the negotiations on the next multiannual financial framework 2014-2020. These negotiations are
ongoing and the Commission is, therefore, not yet able to answer this question.

C 310 E / 262 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-009801/12**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D)**

_(25 octombrie 2012)_

_Subiect:_ Indicatorii privind activitatea fizică

Desfășurarea unei activități fizice reprezintă unul din elementele-cheie ale unui stil de viață sănătos, iar încurajarea
acesteia ar trebui să constituie o parte centrală a oricărei strategii sănătoase de reducere a numărului bolilor
netransmisibile.

Comisia a recunoscut importanța încurajării activității fizice ca parte din strategia sa privind problemele de sănătate
legate de alimentație, excesul de greutate și obezitate ( [1] ), iar în 2008 a propus Orientările UE privind activitatea fizică,
în care s-a subliniat importanța monitorizării procentului din populație care a ajuns la niveluri adecvate ale activității
fizice ( [2] ). Cu toate acestea, metodele de monitorizare sunt adeseori limitate și se bazează pe fie pe date declarate de
oameni, fie pe „metode de monitorizare neindividuale”, precum datele colectate în funcție de numărul de autovehicule
dintr-o familie sau de numărul membrilor unei săli de gimnastică dintr-o anumită zonă. Organizația Mondială a
Sănătății a recunoscut că nu există metode de monitorizare fiabile și a solicitat dezvoltarea unor „indicatori standard
recunoscuți de comunitatea științifică generală ca indicatori valizi privind activitatea fizică” ( [3] ).

A făcut Comisia demersuri în vederea stabilirii unor indicatori standard privind activitatea fizică? Dacă da, se
utilizează acești indicatori pentru îmbunătățirea monitorizării măsurilor actuale ale UE privind activitatea fizică și/sau
pentru informarea cu privire la viitoarele strategii în materie de sănătate?

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

_(17 decembrie 2012)_

Cartea albă — Strategie pentru Europa privind problemele de sănătate legate de alimentație, excesul de greutate și
obezitate pune un accent deosebit pe importanța activității fizice, precum și pe dezvoltarea sistemelor de
monitorizare.

În ceea ce privește monitorizarea sănătății în general, a fost stabilită o listă restrânsă a indicatorilor de sănătate la
nivelul Comunității Europene care conține 88 indicatori și care acoperă o gamă largă de probleme de sănătate. Fiecare
indicator este însoțit de o fișă conținând documentație, care include o definiție, recomandări privind calculul și cele
mai bune surse de date disponibile.

Această listă restrânsă include un indicator privind „activitatea fizică”. Sursa preferată pentru acest indicator este
ancheta europeană de sănătate realizată prin interviu, care furnizează date raportate de respondenți privind activitatea
fizică. Datele de la ultima colectare de date (2008) sunt disponibile la Eurostat.

În plus, Comisia monitorizează politicile și acțiunile din statele membre prin intermediul proiectului NOPA II:
„Monitorizarea punerii în aplicare a Strategiei europene pentru nutriție și activitate fizică”, împreună cu OMS. În acest
context, au fost elaborați indicatori principali pentru măsurarea progreselor realizate de statele membre cu privire la
punerea în aplicare a acțiunilor în toate domeniile prioritare ale strategiei.

În Cartea sa albă privind sportul, Comisia s-a angajat să elaboreze în cooperare cu statele membre noi orientări UE
referitoare la activitățile fizice. Miniștrii sportului din UE au aprobat aceste orientări în 2008. Comisia este în curs de
finalizare a unei evaluări a impactului în vederea unei propuneri de recomandare a Consiliului cu privire la activitățile
fizice care întăresc sănătatea, astfel cum s-a sugerat în comunicarea sa privind sportul.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Strategia UE privind problemele de sănătate legate de alimentație, excesul de greutate și obezitate:

http://ec.europa.eu/health/archive/ph_determinants/life_style/nutrition/documents/nutrition_wp_ro.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/sport/library/documents/c1/eu-physical-activity-guidelines-2008_ro.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Strategia globală a OMS privind regimul alimentar, activitatea fizică și sănătatea

http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/strategy/eb11344/strategy_english_web.pdf

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

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 263

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009801/12**

**to the Commission**
**Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D)**

_(25 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Physical activity indicators

Engaging in physical activity is one of the key elements of a healthy lifestyle, and encouraging it should form a central
part of any health strategy to reduce non-communicable diseases.

The Commission recognised the importance of encouraging physical activity as part of its 2007 strategy on nutrition,
overweight and obesity related health issues ( [1] ), and in 2008 proposed the EU Physical Activity Guidelines which
stressed the importance of monitoring the ‘rate of population reaching adequate physical activity levels’ ( [2] ). However,
monitoring methods are often limited, relying either on self-reported data by individuals or on ‘non-individual
monitoring methods’, such as data collected on the number of cars in a household or the number of gym
memberships in a given area.

Recognising this lack of reliable monitoring methods, the World Health Organisation has called for the development
of ‘standard indicators recognised by the general scientific community as valid measures of physical activity’ ( [3] ).

Has the Commission made any efforts to establish standard indicators for physical activity? If so, are these indicators
being used to improve monitoring of current EU actions on physical activity and/or to inform future health strategies?

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

_(17 December 2012)_

The White Paper on a Strategy for Europe on Nutrition, Overweight and Obesity-related health issues puts strong
emphasis on the importance of physical activity, as well as on the development of monitoring systems.

Regarding general health monitoring, a European Community Health indicators (ECHI) shortlist of 88 indicators has
been established covering a wide range of health issues. Each indicator comes with a documentation sheet, which
includes a definition, recommendation on calculation and best available data source.

This shortlist includes an indicator on ‘Physical activity’. The preferred source for this indicator is the European Health
Interview Survey (EHIS), which provides self-reported data on physical activity. Data from the last data collection
(2008) are available at Eurostat.

In addition, the Commission monitors policies and actions within Member States through the NOPA II project:
‘Monitoring the implementation of the European Strategy for Nutrition and Physical Activity’ jointly with WHO.
Within this context, core indicators for measuring Member State progress on implementing actions in all priority
areas of the strategy have been developed.

In its White Paper on Sport, the Commission committed to developing new EU Physical Activity Guidelines together
with the Member States. EU Sport Ministers endorsed these Guidelines in 2008. The Commission is currently
finalising an impact assessment in view of a proposal for a Council Recommendation on Health Enhancing Physical
Activity as suggested in its communication on sport.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) EU strategy on nutrition, overweight and obesity related health issues:

http://ec.europa.eu/health/archive/ph_determinants/life_style/nutrition/documents/nutrition_wp_en.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/sport/library/documents/c1/eu-physical-activity-guidelines-2008_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) WHO Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health: http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/strategy/eb11344/strategy_english_web.pdf

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

C 310 E / 264 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-009802/12**

**aan de Commissie**
**Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE)**

_(26 oktober 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Implementatie Europese telecommunicatierichtlijnen en netneutraliteit in Nederland

In de Nederlandse pers zijn berichten verschenen dat eurocommissaris Kroes (Digitale Agenda) opheldering heeft
gevraagd aan de Nederlandse regering over de implementatie van Europese telecommunicatierichtlijnen ( [1] ).

1. Klopt het bericht dat de Commissie bezorgd is over de onafhankelijkheid van de Nederlandse toezichthouder
telecom OPTA?

2. Welke vragen heeft de Commissie precies gesteld aan de Nederlandse regering?

3. Keert de Commissie zich met deze vragen tegen het besluit van het Nederlandse parlement om de netneutraliteit
te garanderen in de Telecommunicatiewet?

4. Zo ja, kan de Commissie toelichten welk gevaar zij voor de onafhankelijkheid van de OPTA ziet in de
Nederlandse netneutraliteitsregels?

5. Is de Commissie bekend met de wijze waarop Nederlandse aanbieders van mobiele telefonie en internet het
internetverkeer van hun klanten in detail analyseerden door middel van Deep Packet Inspection, om
concurrerende verdienmodellen als VOIP‐ en chatdiensten te kunnen blokkeren of hinderen? Vindt de Commissie dat
een acceptabele handelwijze voor een telecomaanbieder?

6. Is de Commissie, afhankelijk van de antwoorden van de Nederlandse regering, voornemens om een
inbreukprocedure te starten tegen de Nederlandse overheid om de netneutraliteitsbepalingen in de
Telecommunicatiewet terug te draaien?

7. Is de Commissie bereid haar brief aan de Nederlandse regering openbaar te maken, dan wel de Nederlandse
regering toe te staan deze openbaar te maken?

**Antwoord van mevrouw Kroes namens de Commissie**

_(18 december 2012)_

De Commissie hecht veel waarde aan de onafhankelijkheid van de nationale regelgevende instanties op het gebied van
telecommunicatie. Onafhankelijke regelgevende instanties die over voldoende middelen beschikken, zijn
onontbeerlijk voor het waarborgen van onpartijdige regelgeving en de efficiënte werking van de eengemaakte markt.

In oktober 2012 heeft de Commissie Nederland een aanmaningsbrief gestuurd betreffende aanpassingen van de
Nederlandse telecom‐ en mediawetgeving op basis waarvan derden toegang krijgen tot omroepnetwerken. Hierbij
werd opgemerkt dat nationale regelgevende instanties in staat moeten zijn om onafhankelijk beslissingen te nemen.
Dergelijke brieven worden normaliter niet openbaar gemaakt voordat de inbreukprocedure is afgesloten.

Wat betreft de onlangs ingevoerde bepalingen inzake netneutraliteit is ook de Commissie van mening dat het internet
een open karakter moet houden; naar aanleiding van deze bepalingen is er geen inbreukprocedure ingeleid. Wel heeft
de Commissie aangegeven bezorgd te zijn over de mogelijk negatieve gevolgen voor de innovatie en de consumenten
alsmede het risico op marktfragmentatie in Europa. De Commissie is op de hoogte van berichten dat
bepaalde aanbieders technieken gebruiken die bekendstaan als „Deep Packet Inspection” om dataverkeer te beheren
en connectiviteitsdiensten aan te bieden waarvan bepaalde netwerkprotocollen of diensten geen deel uitmaken. Het
gebruik hiervan dient in overeenstemming te zijn met de e-privacyrichtlijn, met name wat het vertrouwelijke karakter
van communicatie betreft.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.marketingtribune.nl/nieuws/commissaris-kroes-bezorgd-over-inperken-macht-opta/.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 265

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009802/12**

**to the Commission**
**Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE)**

_(26 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Implementation of European telecommunications directives and network neutrality in the Netherlands

Reports have appeared in the Dutch press suggesting that Commissioner Kroes (Digital Agenda) has asked the
Netherlands Government for clarification of the implementation of European telecommunications directives ( [1] ).

1. Is it true, as reported, that the Commission is concerned about the independence of the Dutch telecoms
supervisor, OPTA?

2. Exactly what questions has the Commission put to the Netherlands Government?

3. In putting these questions, is the Commission objecting to the decision of the Netherlands Parliament to
guarantee network neutrality in the Telecommunications Act?

4. If so, can the Commission indicate what danger it anticipates that the Netherlands’ network neutrality rules will
pose to the independence of the OPTA?

5. Is the Commission aware of the way in which Dutch mobile telephone and Internet service providers have
analysed their customers’ Internet traffic in detail by means of Deep Packet Inspection, with the aim of being able to
block or obstruct competing revenue models such as VOIP and chat services? Does the Commission consider this an
acceptable way for a telecoms provider to behave?

6. Depending on the answers given by the Netherlands Government, does the Commission intend to start
infringement proceedings against the Netherlands authorities with the aim of securing the revocation of the
provisions concerning network neutrality in the Telecommunications Act?

7. Will the Commission publish its letter to the Netherlands Government, or will it permit the Netherlands
Government to publish it?

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

_(18 December 2012)_

The Commission attaches great importance to the independence of national telecom regulatory authorities.
Independent and adequately resourced regulators are critical to ensuring impartial regulation and the effective
functioning of the single market.

In October 2012 the Commission sent a letter of formal notice to the Netherlands concerning amendments to the
Dutch Telecommunications and Media Acts which allow for access to broadcasting transmission networks for third
parties. In this context the need to ensure the NRAs ability to take independent decisions was raised. Such letters are
normally not made public before the closure of the infringement proceedings.

Finally, with respect to the newly introduced net neutrality provisions, the Commission shares the objective of
preserving the open character of the Internet and has not started infringement proceedings against these provisions.
The Commission has however expressed concerns regarding the possible negative effects on innovation and
consumers and the risk of market fragmentation in Europe. The Commission is aware of reports that certain
operators use techniques referred to as ‘Deep Packet Inspection’ in order to implement traffic management and to
provide connectivity offerings that exclude certain network protocols or services. The use of these needs to comply
with the e-Privacy Directive, notably with regard to the confidentiality of communications.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.marketingtribune.nl/nieuws/commissaris-kroes-bezorgd-over-inperken-macht-opta/.

C 310 E / 266 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009803/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(26 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Tutela della biodiversità e dei saperi locali: qual è il ruolo dell'UE verso un'applicazione sostenibile delle
norme sulla proprietà intellettuale

Il patrimonio di conoscenze degli ecosistemi e delle modalità di utilizzo delle risorse naturali (incluse le proprietà
curative delle varietà vegetali) sviluppato e diffuso nel corso dei secoli dai popoli indigeni del Sud del mondo, trova
espresso riconoscimento a livello internazionale con la Convenzione sulla Diversità Biologica (CBD) del 1992.

I diritti cosiddetti «immateriali» di tali popoli sono stati riconosciuti e tutelati con efficacia dalla società internazionale
e dai singoli Stati, ma la formula dei Diritti di Proprietà Intellettuale (DPI) usata si è dimostrata inefficace sotto diversi
aspetti. Tali popoli sono titolari esclusivi delle conoscenze che hanno costruito nel tempo ed il diritto ad utilizzare e
gestire, anche a fini economici, detta titolarità riguarda sia il gruppo o la comunità di riferimento che i singoli
individui. Tale condizione provoca disparità nelle modalità di protezione delle conoscenze, spesso oggetto di
mercificazione e, comunque, non sufficientemente valorizzate e salvaguardate, sia nelle aree meno sviluppate che nei
paesi economicamente più stabili. Nonostante i riconoscimenti formali e le dichiarazioni di principio, ad oggi tali
conoscenze sono minacciate da fenomeni quali la biopirateria e la bioprospezione che impediscono il libero scambio
di semi, attraverso cui le popolazioni indigene hanno contribuito alla creazione e al mantenimento della diversità
biologica attuale.

È allora necessaria la formulazione di un modello alternativo, nella visione dei diritti collettivi e immateriali dei popoli
su diversi aspetti dell'utilizzazione delle risorse naturali e umane. Al riguardo, potrebbe ritenersi illuminante
l’esperienza legislativa di alcune regioni italiane, giunte ad operare una sorta di «sdoppiamento» del diritto di
utilizzazione delle risorse naturali, sancendo l’appartenenza del patrimonio genetico (bene immateriale) alla comunità
locale e lasciando la titolarità della parte fisica (singola pianta o animale) in capo al legittimo proprietario (mero
agricoltore o agricoltore/costitutore).

Questa impostazione potrebbe applicarsi anche al sistema della tutela delle conoscenze tradizionali e della
biodiversità perché stabilisce una scissione e, nel contempo, una conciliazione tra il momento dello sfruttamento
economico individuale (del proprietario del bene) e il momento della valorizzazione economica delle risorse
cosiddette intangibili (condivisibili da tutta la comunità).

Chiedo pertanto alla Commissione se intende:

—
predisporre misure volte al rafforzamento dei sistemi locali di diritto consuetudinario in materia di tutela della
biodiversità;

—
considerare gli effetti benefici apportati dal modello di gestione proposto da alcune regioni italiane e
promuovere processi partecipativi di coinvolgimento delle comunità locali detentrici di saperi tradizionali e
delle istituzioni che li rappresentano e amministrano.

**Risposta di Michel Barnier a nome della Commissione**

_(15 gennaio 2013)_

Il «Protocollo di Nagoya alla convenzione sulla diversità biologica relativo all’accesso alle risorse genetiche e alla giusta
ed equa ripartizione dei benefici derivanti dalla loro utilizzazione» è stato adottato all’unanimità dalle 193 parti della
stessa convenzione il 29 ottobre 2010. Il protocollo è un trattato internazionale giuridicamente vincolante che
estende l’ambito generale di applicazione della convenzione in materia di accesso e di ripartizione dei benefici. Si
prevede che il protocollo di Nagoya entrerà in vigore nel 2014 e che una volta operativo comporterà benefici
significativi alla conservazione della biodiversità nei paesi che metteranno a disposizione le risorse genetiche rispetto
alle quali detengono diritti di sovranità.

L’UE e i suoi Stati membri si sono impegnati sul piano politico a diventare parti del protocollo di Nagoya. Pertanto, il
4 ottobre 2012 la Commissione europea ha adottato una proposta di regolamento del Parlamento europeo e del
Consiglio sull’accesso alle risorse genetiche e alla giusta ed equa ripartizione dei benefici derivanti dalla loro
utilizzazione nell’Unione. Tale proposta è finalizzata all’attuazione del protocollo di Nagoya all’interno dell’UE.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 267

Gli Stati membri dell’UE mantengono le proprie competenze in merito alle misure da adottare per proteggere le
conoscenze tradizionali. A livello globale o di UE, tuttavia, il concetto di conoscenze tradizionali non è ancora stato
definito giuridicamente. Prima di trattare altri aspetti connessi alla protezione internazionale di tali conoscenze sarà
pertanto necessario concordarne la relativa definizione. A questo proposito la Commissione europea partecipa alle
attività in corso in seno all’Organizzazione mondiale della proprietà intellettuale. In questa sede si potrebbe, tra l’altro,
trovare un accordo sull’interazione tra i diritti di proprietà intellettuale e le conoscenze tradizionali, sui mezzi per
proteggere le conoscenze tradizionali e su una definizione internazionalmente valida per tale concetto.

C 310 E / 268 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009803/12**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(26 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Protection of biodiversity and local knowledge: what is the EU's position regarding sustainable application of
intellectual property rules?

The wealth of knowledge relating to ecosystems and how to use natural resources (including the curative properties
of plant varieties) developed and disseminated over the course of the centuries by indigenous peoples in southern
countries are expressly recognised internationally by the 1992 Convention on Biodiversity (CBD).

Although the ‘intangible’ rights of these peoples have been recognised and protected effectively by the international
community and by individual states, the formula of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) used has proved to be
ineffective in various ways. These peoples are the exclusive owners of the knowledge which they have built up over
time and the right to use and manage those rights, including for financial gain, is vested both in the relevant group or
community as well as individuals. This situation leads to disparities in how knowledge is protected, which is often
turned into a commodity, and in any case is not sufficiently exploited and safeguarded, both in less developed areas as
well as in countries with more stable economies. Despite formal recognition and declarations of principle, today this
knowledge is threatened by phenomena such as biopiracy and bioprospecting, which prevent the free trade of seeds,
through which indigenous peoples have contributed to the creation and maintenance of existing biological diversity.

It is therefore necessary to devise an alternative model, from the perspective of the collective and intangible rights of
peoples over different aspects of the use of natural and human resources. In that regard, the legislative experience of
several Italian regions could be regarded as enlightening, given that they have been able to achieve a kind of ‘splitting’
of the right to use natural resources, endorsing ownership of the genetic heritage (intangible resource) by the local
community whilst leaving rights over physical manifestations (the individual plant or animal) with the lawful owner
(an individual farmer or farmer/breeder).

This arrangement could also apply to the system for protecting traditional knowledge and biodiversity in that it
provides for a division, also accompanied by a reconciliation, between individual economic exploitation (by the
owner of the asset) and the financial value of ‘intangible’ resources (which can be shared by the whole community).

I therefore ask the Commission whether it intends:

—
to adopt measures to reinforce local customary law systems on the protection of biodiversity;

—
to consider the beneficial effects provided by the management model proposed by several Italian regions and to
promote participatory processes involving local communities which own traditional knowledge and the
institutions which represent and administer these processes.

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

_(15 January 2013)_

The ‘Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits (ABS) Arising
from Their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)’ was adopted on 29 October 2010 by the
consensus of the 193 Parties to the CBD. It is an international treaty with legally binding effects that expands the
general ABS framework of the CBD. The Nagoya Protocol is expected to enter into force in 2014 and, once
operational, it will generate significant benefits for biodiversity conservation in countries that make available the
genetic resources (GR) over which they hold sovereign rights.

The EU and its Member States are politically committed to become Parties to the Nagoya Protocol. Thus, on
4 October 2012, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of
the Council on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their
Utilization in the Unión. This proposal aims at implementing, in the EU, the Nagoya Protocol.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 269

EU member states remain competent for adopting measures aiming at protecting traditional knowledge (TK). At
global or EU level, however, there is not a legal definition of TK. Before addressing other aspects connected to the
international protection of TK, a legal definition would first have to be agreed. In this regard, the European
Commission is involved in the ongoing process in the World Intellectual Property Organisation, which could, _inter_
_alia_, agree on the interaction between intellectual property rights and TK, instruments for protection of TK, and an
international definition of TK.

C 310 E / 270 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009804/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(26 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Disturbi psichici legati all'abuso di sostanze: quali misure d'informazione e incentivi per gli specialisti

L’età adolescenziale è il periodo di vita che si interpone tra l’infanzia e la vita adulta, un momento di crescita e
scoperta della propria persona e dei rapporti interpersonali, e decisivo per lo sviluppo psicofisico di un individuo. Si
stima che tra i ragazzi dai 14 ai18 anni, oltre un milione faccia uso di sostanze che generano dipendenza.

Secondo la Società Italiana di Psichiatria, 8 ragazzi su 10, in età compresa tra i 14 e i 6 anni, bevono alcolici; tali
bevande sono il principale fattore di rischio di invalidità e mortalità prematura tra i giovani (un decesso su quattro tra
soggetti di età inferiore ai 29 anni). L'abuso di alcolici si associa a un maggior rischio di abuso di sostanze
stupefacenti: le stime rivelano che i giovani di età compresa tra i 15 e i 34 anni hanno assunto o assumono nel 23 %
dei casi cannabis, nel 20 % ecstasy e nel 2 % cocaina. L’assunzione di alcol e sostanze psicotrope spesso slatentizza i
fisiologici disagi dell’adolescenza: disturbi d’ansia e dell’umore, comportamenti anticonservativi e antisociali che
possono sfociare nel «disagio di vivere» che induce circa 30 mila giovani a tentare di togliersi la vita. Tali difficoltà
durante l’adolescenza possono potenzialmente determinare anche gravi disturbi psichici in età adulta.

Posto che:

—
in Italia l’adolescenza viene considerata dai servizi sanitari una «terra di mezzo», compresa tra infanzia ed età
adulta e non vi sono centri dedicati per il trattamento delle problematiche psichiche che connotano questo
periodo fondamentale della vita;

—
il consumo di sostanze alcoliche e stupefacenti è in larga diffusione tra gli adolescenti e i giovani italiani
registrano consumi sopra la media europea;

—
gli effetti sul fisico e sulla psiche sono deleteri per uno sviluppo integrato;

—
per l’OMS nel 2030 la depressione sarà la patologia cronica più frequente e diffusa e nonostante ciò vi è una
generale diffidenza nel chiedere aiuto a specialisti del settore (medici di base, psicologi-psicoterapeuti e
psichiatri);

Chiedo alla Commissione:

—
con quali interventi e misure intenda continuare a informare gli adolescenti sui rischi fisici e psichici nel
periodo di massimo sviluppo psicofisico;

—
quali incentivi intenda fornire agli specialisti dei disturbi adolescenziali affinché possano seguire i casi
all’interno di strutture pensate e dedicate a questa fascia d’età.

**Risposta di J. Borg a nome della Commissione**

_(18 dicembre 2012)_

L'azione congiunta degli Stati membri e della Commissione sulla salute e sul benessere mentale, prevista nella
decisione di esecuzione della Commissione relativa all'adozione del programma di lavoro per il 2012 nel settore della
salute ( [1] ), affronterà, in uno dei suoi pacchetti di lavoro, la promozione della salute mentale dei bambini e dei giovani.
Particolare attenzione sarà dedicata ad identificare le modalità, per il settore sanitario, di sostenere le scuole nella
gestione delle problematiche connesse alla salute mentale. Nell'ambito dell'azione comune, che sarà avviata nel 2013,
saranno valutati i dati scientifici e la situazione negli Stati membri partecipanti, saranno elaborate raccomandazioni
specifiche per paese e concordato un quadro comune di azioni.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Decisione di esecuzione della Commissione, del 1 [o] dicembre 2011 (2011/C 358/06).

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 271

La Commissione sta anche finanziando una serie di progetti che si avvalgono di Internet per informare i giovani sulle
tematiche relative alla salute mentale affrontate dal programma dell'UE in materia di salute e dal 7° programmaquadro per le attività di ricerca. Ad esempio, attraverso il progetto PRO YOUTH è stato creato un sito web ( [2] ) che
fornisce informazioni su un sano regime alimentare, sulla soddisfazione corporea e sui disturbi alimentari e può
agevolare, in caso di necessità, l'accesso dei giovani all'assistenza sanitaria.

Infine, il 7 novembre 2012, la Commissione ha pubblicato un bando di gara ( [3] ) riguardante un'azione preparatoria
relativa alla creazione di una rete di esperti UE nel settore dell'assistenza adattata per gli adolescenti con problemi di
salute mentale.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.pro-youth.eu
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Ted Tenders electronic daily, Bando di gara-servizi — 352875-2012.

C 310 E / 272 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009804/12**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(26 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Psychiatric disorders related to substance abuse: information measures and incentives for specialists

Adolescence is the time of life between childhood and adulthood. It is a time of growth and of self-discovery and is
key to the individual's physical and psychological development. It is estimated that more than a million 14‐ to18year-olds are using addictive substances.

According to the Italian Psychiatric Society, eight out of ten children aged between 14 and 16 drink alcoholic
beverages; such drinks are the key risk factor for disability and premature death amongst young people (one in four
deaths among people aged under 29). Alcohol abuse is associated with an increased risk of narcotic abuse: estimates
show that 23% of young people aged between 15 and 34 have used, or are using, cannabis; 20%, ecstasy; and 2%,
cocaine. The consumption of alcohol and mind-altering drugs often shows up the physiological disorders related to
adolescence: anxiety attacks and mood swings, self-harm and antisocial behaviour that can feed into the _mal de vivre_
that leads around 30 000 young people to attempt to end their lives. Such difficulties in adolescence can potentially
lead to serious psychological disorders in adulthood.

Given that:

—
in Italy, adolescence is viewed by health services as a ‘halfway house’ between childhood and adulthood and
there are no specialised centres for treating the psychological problems related to this important time of life;

—
the consumption of alcohol and drugs is widespread amongst adolescents, and consumption amongst young
Italians is above the European average;

—
the effects on the body and the mind are detrimental to proper development;

—
according to the WHO, by 2030 depression will be the most common and widespread chronic illness and that,
in spite of this, there is widespread reluctance to ask for help from specialists (GPs, psychotherapists and
psychiatrists);

I would like to ask the Commission:

—
what steps it intends to take to keep adolescents informed about the physical and psychological dangers at an
age where their minds and bodies are developing most rapidly;

—
what incentives it intends to give specialists in adolescent disorders so that they can follow such cases in
establishments designed for and dedicated to this age group.

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

_(18 December 2012)_

The Joint Action on Mental Health and Well-being between Member States and the Commission, foreseen in the
European Commission Implementing Decision on the adoption of the Health Programme work plan 2012 ( [1] ), will
address, in one of its work packages, the promotion of the mental health of children and young people. The focus will
be on identifying ways for the health sector to support schools in managing mental health issues. Expected to start in
early 2013, the Joint Action will assess the scientific evidence and situation in the participating Member States,
develop country-specific recommendations and agree on a common framework of actions.

In addition, the Commission is funding a number of projects which use the Internet to inform young people on
mental health‐related themes from the EU Health Programme and the 7th Framework Programme for Research. For
example, the PRO YOUTH-project created a website ( [2] ), which provides information on healthy eating, body
satisfaction and eating disorders and can facilitate, where needed, young people's access to the healthcare.

Finally, the Commission published on 7 November 2012 a call for tenders ( [3] ) concerning a preparatory action related
to the creation of an EU network of experts in the field of adapted care for adolescents with mental health problems.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) European Commission Implementing Decision of 1 December 2011 (2011/C 358/06).
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.pro-youth.eu/.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Ted Tenders electronic daily Service contract — 352875-2012.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 273

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009805/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(26 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Edilizia: gallerie più sicure

Nell'ambito della sicurezza stradale, il tema della sicurezza delle gallerie stradali assume sicuramente un rilievo
importante, anche per le conseguenze disastrose che gli incidenti in galleria procurano. Le gallerie sono infrastrutture
importanti che facilitano la comunicazione fra le grandi regioni dell'Unione europea e svolgono un ruolo
determinante per il funzionamento e lo sviluppo delle economie regionali. Gran parte delle opere sotterranee oggi
presenti sulla rete europea risulta obsoleta e troppo spesso non adeguata agli odierni carichi di traffico.

Andrebbero riviste sia da un punto di vista della sicurezza, ma anche della struttura vera e propria. Spesso l'opinione
pubblica si rende conto di questo fatto dalle notizie di cronaca, magari per un incidente in galleria dagli esiti
catastrofici. I risultati dei test EuroTAP 2012 condotti in cinque paesi europei, tra cui l'Italia, evidenziano gli effetti
positivi sui livelli di sicurezza derivanti dall'adeguamento dei tunnel esistenti ai requisiti indicati dalla direttiva
2004/54/CE: laddove siano stati effettuati ammodernamenti secondo standard di moderna generazione, i livelli di
sicurezza diventano almeno soddisfacenti. La tendenza positiva nel test di quest'anno dimostra gli sforzi intrapresi
dagli operatori per migliorare il livello di sicurezza dei loro tunnel. La strada è impervia e l'obiettivo impegnativo non
è stato ancora raggiunto da tutti. Di conseguenza, occorre intensificare l’impegno per raggiungere l'obiettivo 2019
con gallerie sicure in tutta Europa.

Sicuramente è questo il principale obiettivo dei test sulle gallerie effettuati nell’ambito di Euro-TAP. Gli enti
proprietari di strade, i gestori e i soggetti interessati devono sentirsi stimolati a favorire l'introduzione di standard
sufficienti a garantire i livelli di sicurezza che gli automobilisti d'Europa si aspettano. Considerata l'importanza a
livello europeo di realizzare una rete stradale transeuropea (direttiva 2008/96/CE) si chiede alla Commissione
europea quali strategie intende adottare al fine di salvaguardare i cittadini europei e quali politiche di ricerca e
innovazione intende adottare al fine di rendere le gallerie più accessibili e sicure?

**Risposta di Siim Kallas a nome della Commissione**

_(12 dicembre 2012)_

La Commissione richiama l’attenzione dell’onorevole parlamentare sul fatto che la direttiva 2004/54/CE sulla
sicurezza delle gallerie stradali ( [1] ) stabilisce obblighi chiari nei confronti degli Stati membri per definire piani nazionali
per l’ammodernamento di tunnel già operativi, con un termine per la conclusione fissato al 2014 o al 2019 per gli
Stati membri con una rete estesa di tunnel.

La Commissione ha monitorato attentamente l’elaborazione di piani di ammodernamento e continua a monitorarne
l’attuazione da parte degli Stati membri.

Per quanto riguarda la ricerca e l’innovazione, la Commissione richiama l’attenzione sulla sua proposta per il
«programma quadro di ricerca e innovazione ( [2] ) (2014-2020) — Orizzonte 2020» che prevede azioni che mirano a
ridurre gli incidenti e la mortalità, anche attraverso la progettazione e la gestione intelligenti di infrastrutture e di
sistemi di trasporto intelligenti. La proposta «Orizzonte 2020» è attualmente all’esame del Consiglio e del Parlamento

europeo.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Direttiva 2004/54/CE del Parlamento Europeo e del Consiglio, del 29 aprile 2004, relativa ai requisiti minimi di sicurezza per le gallerie della Rete

stradale transeuropea GU L 167 del 30.4.2004, pagg. 39‐91.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/index_en.cfm?pg=h2020.

( **|**

C 310 E / 274 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009805/12**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(26 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Construction: safer tunnels

In the context of road safety, the issue of road tunnel safety is particularly important given the disastrous effects that
accidents in tunnels can have. Tunnels are important infrastructures that facilitate communication between the major
regions of the EU and play a key role in the development and operation of regional economies. Many of the
underground structures within the European network are obsolete and all too often cannot cope with today's
volumes of traffic.

They should be reviewed both in terms of their safety and their actual structure. Public awareness of this issue is often
raised by news reports, or even by accidents in tunnels with catastrophic results. The results of the EuroTAP 2012 test
carried out in five European countries, including Italy, demonstrate the positive effects on safety levels that can be
achieved by bringing tunnels into compliance with Directive 2004/54/EC: where modernisations are carried out to
current standards, safety levels become satisfactory, at least. The positive trend in this year's test shows the efforts
undertaken by operators to improve the safety levels of their tunnels. It is a difficult path and the objective has not
been met by all. Therefore, efforts should be stepped up to meet the target of safe tunnels across Europe by 2019.

Clearly this is the main aim of the tunnel testing carried out in the context of Euro-TAP. Road owners, managers and
stakeholders should be encouraged to promote the introduction of standards that are high enough to guarantee the
safety levels that European motorists expect. Given the importance for Europe of creating a trans-European road
network (Directive 2008/96/EC), can the Commission say what strategies it intends to adopt in order to protect
European citizens and what research and innovation policies it intends to adopt in order to make tunnels safer and
more accessible?

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

_(12 December 2012)_

The Commission wishes to draw the attention of the honourable Member of the European Parliament to the fact that
directive 2004/54/EC on road tunnel safety ( [1] ) establishes clear obligations on Member States to define national plans
for the refurbishment of tunnels already in operation with a target date for completion of 2014, or 2019 for Member
States with an extensive network of tunnels.

The Commission has closely monitored the establishment of refurbishment plans and continues to monitor the
implementation of these plans by Member States.

[Concerning research and innovation, the Commission would like to draw attention to its proposal for ‘Horizon 2020](http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/pdf/proposals/communication_from_the_commission_-_horizon_2020_-_the_framework_programme_for_research_and_innovation.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none)
[— The framework Programme for Research and Innovation’ (](http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/pdf/proposals/communication_from_the_commission_-_horizon_2020_-_the_framework_programme_for_research_and_innovation.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none) [2] ) for the period 2014-2020. This envisages actions that
aim at ‘reducing accidents rates and fatal causalities’, including through the design and smart operation of
infrastructures and intelligent transport systems. The Horizon 2020 proposal is under discussion in the Council and
European Parliament.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2004/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on minimum safety requirements for tunnels in the Trans
European Road Network OJ L 167, 30.4.2004, p. 39‐91.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/index_en.cfm?pg=h2020.

( **|**

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 275

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009806/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(26 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Lotta contro il diabete infantile: investire sui nuovi studi

Il diabete è una malattia cronica, non trasmissibile e per la quale non esiste ancora una cura. Secondo l'European
Diabetes Leadership, in Europa il diabete uccide 18 persone ogni ora e ci sono 35 milioni di adulti malati di diabete, la
metà dei quali non si è ancora sottoposta ad una diagnosi precisa, mentre l'altra metà di quelli diagnosticati non si
sottopone a controlli; in Italia nel 2011 sono state quasi 3 milioni le persone affette da diabete, il 4,9 % della
popolazione.

Nell'UE si riscontra un netto aumento di soggetti obesi e in sovrappeso, che spesso conducono uno stile di vita
sedentario, seguono un'alimentazione ad alto contenuto di grassi, zuccheri e sali; è scientificamente condiviso che,
all'aumento del peso corporeo di un soggetto, corrisponde proporzionalmente la possibilità che sviluppi un diabete di
tipo 2. Il dato più preoccupante è che i soggetti più a rischio sono i bambini: infatti, circa 18 milioni sono obesi e il
diabete di tipo 1, che colpisce prevalentemente bambini e adolescenti, ha un’insorgenza sempre più precoce e
coinvolge il 5-10 % dei soggetti diabetici. Questo tipo di diabete si sviluppa quando lo stesso sistema immunitario
attacca e distrugge le cellule pancreatiche responsabili della secrezione d'insulina; la ricerca internazionale già citata
nell'interrogazione E-001249/2012 sta per iniziare la fase III dello studio sulla molecola Reparixin che, inibendo la
chemochina interleuchina 8, permette di inibire in modo specifico la risposta infiammatoria, preservando la
funzionalità delle isole pancreatiche e contribuendo così all'efficacia del trapianto. Sarà cura dei ricercatori indagare
l’efficacia del farmaco nel migliorare l'efficienza del trapianto e la percentuale di pazienti in grado di raggiungere
l'insulino-indipendenza e di garantire il controllo di glicemia.

Il diabete di tipo 1 è una patologia in crescita nel mondo e ha un impatto di rilievo su fasce di popolazione anche
molto giovani; la prevenzione e l'informazione sono i principali strumenti per affrontare il dilagante sviluppo di
questa malattia; è indispensabile educare tutti i cittadini, soprattutto per quanto riguarda i bambini, a condurre uno
stile di vita sano all'insegna di un corretto consumo dei cibi e di costante attività fisica.

Alla luce delle considerazioni che precedono, può la Commissione precisare se intende affrontare con campagne
mirate i principali fattori di rischio del diabete (alimentazione scorretta, scarsa attività fisica, assunzione di bevande
alcoliche e tabagismo) e se intende continuare a finanziare anche nel prossimo programma salute ricerche specifiche
sull'incidenza e l'eziologia della patologia, includendovi anche i risultati ottenuti con lo studio effettuato sul
Reparixin?

**Risposta di J. Borg a nome della Commissione**

_(18 dicembre 2012)_

La Commissione tratta i principali fattori di rischio di diabete nel Libro bianco «Una strategia europea sugli aspetti
sanitari connessi all'alimentazione, al sovrappeso e all'obesità» ( [1] ) e nella comunicazione «Strategia comunitaria volta
ad affiancare gli Stati membri nei loro sforzi per ridurre i danni derivanti dal consumo di alcol» ( [2] ).

Il programma dell'UE in materia di salute ( [3] ) non si pone come obiettivo il finanziamento della ricerca. Il Programma
quadro di ricerca e innovazione — Orizzonte 2020 (2014-2020) ( [4] ) fornirà opportunità di ricerca sulle malattie non
trasmissibili, incluso il diabete. E` ancora troppo presto per sapere quali tematiche specifiche saranno affrontate.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2007)279 def.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2006)625 def.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2011)709 final.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/index_en.cfm?pg=h2020-documents.

C 310 E / 276 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009806/12**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(26 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Combating childhood diabetes: investing in new studies

Diabetes is a chronic, non-communicable disease, for which a cure had yet to be found. According to the European
Diabetes Leadership, in Europe diabetes kills 18 people every hour and 35 million adults suffer from the disease, half
of whom have not been properly diagnosed, while the other half who have been diagnosed are not being monitored.
In Italy in 2011, there were almost 3 million people with diabetes, which equates to 4.9% of the population.

The EU has seen a marked increase in the number of obese and overweight people, who often lead a sedentary lifestyle
and have a diet high in fats, sugars and salts. Scientists agree that an increase in a person's body weight proportionally
increases the risk of developing type 2 diabetes. What is most worrying is that those at greatest risk are children:
around 18 million children are obese and type 1 diabetes, which primarily affects children and adolescents, has an
increasingly early onset and affects 5-10% of diabetes sufferers. This type of diabetes develops when the immune
system itself attacks and destroys the pancreatic cells responsible for secreting insulin. The international research
referred to in Question E-001249/2012 is about to begin phase III of the study on the Reparixin molecule, which, by
inhibiting the chemokine interleukin-8, makes it possible to inhibit just the inflammatory response while preserving
the functionality of pancreatic islets and thus improving the transplant's success. One of the researchers' tasks will be
to investigate the drug's effectiveness in making the transplant more successful and in raising the percentage of
patients able to achieve insulin independence and to keep their blood sugar level under control.

Type 1 diabetes is increasingly prevalent and also has a significant impact on the very young. Prevention and
education are the main tools for addressing the sharp increase in the disease. Everyone, especially children, needs to
be educated about leading a healthy lifestyle, which involves eating properly and regular physical activity.

In light of the above, can the Commission specify whether it intends to make use of targeted campaigns to tackle the
main diabetes risk factors (such as unhealthy diet, lack of physical activity, alcohol intake and smoking) and whether
under the forthcoming health programme it will continue to fund specific research on the incidence and aetiology of
the disease, including the results obtained by the Reparixin study?

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

_(18 December 2012)_

The Commission is addressing the main risk factors of diabetes through the ‘Strategy for Europe on Nutrition,
Overweight and Obesity-related health issues’ ( [1] ) and the ‘EU strategy to support Member States in reducing alcoholrelated harm’ ( [2] ).

The EU Health programme ( [3] ) is not meant to finance research. The Horizon 2020 programme, the framework
Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-1220) ( [4] ), will provide opportunities for research on noncommunicable diseases including diabetes. It is premature to ascertain which specific areas will be addressed.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2007) 279 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2006) 625 final.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 709 final.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/index_en.cfm?pg=h2020-documents.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 277

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009807/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(26 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Pannelli solari trasparenti

Le ricerche sul solare fotovoltaico per convertire al meglio energia solare in energia elettrica, sono tra le più
affascinanti perché si addentrano nelle proprietà intime della materia e dei suoi componenti, mirano a realizzare celle
sempre meno costose, più efficienti, più flessibili, perché solo così questa tipologia potrà diventare, se non
competitiva, almeno fortemente attraente.

Per il fotovoltaico, rimane confermata a livello internazionale la convinzione comune che gli attuali dispositivi a base
di silicio cristallino continueranno a dominare il mercato per alcuni anni, nonostante in quest’ultimo periodo si siano
riscontrati da un lato una carenza del materiale e, dall'altro, un interessante sviluppo di altre tecnologie. Nella tabella
di marcia per il raggiungimento della reale competitività economica dell'energia fotovoltaica, risulta quindi
appropriato che il progetto persegua una strategia finalizzata ad un'efficienza di conversione energetica piuttosto
bassa, il 6,8 % per un massimo di 95 Watt. Visto il minimo spessore di 9mm, tali pannelli possono essere utilizzati per
la costruzione di solai, finestre o altro, con esposizione diretta al sole, fungendo inoltre da isolante termico.

Lasciando alla Cina la produzione di componenti fotovoltaici standardizzati, si chiede alla Commissione con quali
mezzi intende sostenere le politiche rinnovabili, dato che l'Europa dovrebbe continuare a concentrare l'attività nella
ricerca di frontiera non limitandosi però ai soli processi innovativi, ma estendendo lo sviluppo fino alla realizzazione
di elementi strutturali finalizzati al conseguimento degli obiettivi di Europa 2020?

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

_(21 dicembre 2012)_

Nell’ambito del Settimo programma quadro di ricerca (7 [o] PQ) e del programma «Energia intelligente — Europa» (EIE
II), l’UE ha investito circa 40 milioni di EUR l’anno nel settennio di vita dei programmi per attuare azioni di
dimostrazione scientifica e di trasformazione del mercato nel settore fotovoltaico in Europa.

La ricerca e l’innovazione nel settore fotovoltaico possono seguire varie strade riconducibili a due filoni:
l’impostazione «a basso costo», che punta a limitare il consumo di materiale, e l’impostazione che porta i dispositivi a
celle solari a superare i limiti tradizionali di efficienza di tale tecnologia. È previsto che il programma Orizzonte 2020
continui a sostenere la ricerca e l’innovazione in materia di energia solare. Dovrebbe proseguire anche la ricerca di
base su temi di frontiera.

C 310 E / 278 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009807/12**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(26 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Transparent solar panels

Photovoltaic solar systems for converting solar energy into electricity as effectively as possible is one of the most
fascinating areas of research, as it plumbs the depths of the properties of matter and its component parts, seeking to
achieve increasingly affordable, efficient and flexible cells, as this is the only way that the sector can become, if not
competitive, at least very attractive.

Regarding photovoltaic systems, there is a commonly-held belief, endorsed internationally, that the current
crystalline silicon devices will continue to dominate the market for some years, despite the fact that recently both a
lack of equipment and interesting development of other technologies have been revealed. It is therefore appropriate
that, in the roadmap for achieving real economic competitiveness in photovoltaic energy, the project follows a
strategy aimed at relatively low energy conversion efficiency — 6.8% for a maximum of 95 watts. Given the
minimum thickness of 9 mm, the panels can be used to build floors, windows or other structures directly exposed to
sunlight, also serving as heat insulation.

Leaving production of standardised photovoltaic components to China, by what means does the Commission intend
to support renewable policies, given that Europe should continue to focus on cutting-edge research, although without
confining itself to innovative processes but extending development to building structural components with the aim of
achieving the Europe 2020 goals?

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

_(21 December 2012)_

In the context of the 7th Framework Programme for Research (FP7) and the Intelligent Energy Europe (IEE-2)
Programme, the EU has invested about EUR 40 million/year during the seven-year duration of the programmes to
implement research demonstration and market transformation actions in the photovoltaic (PV) sector in Europe.

The variety of PV research and innovation routes are based either on low-cost approaches related to limited material
consumption, or on approaches which allow solar cell devices to exhibit efficiencies above their traditional limits. It is
anticipated that Horizon 2020 will continue existing support to solar energy research and innovation. Basic research
on frontier topics should also continue.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 279

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009808/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(26 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Peer education: l'efficacia va valutata nel breve e nel lungo termine

L'incidenza delle malattie sessualmente trasmissibili (MST) veicolate durante l'atto e il contatto sessuale è in continuo
aumento, grazie anche alla maggiore mobilità e all'aumento della tendenza ad avere rapporti sessuali con più partner.
Una delle categorie più a rischio è certamente quella dei giovani adolescenti: le relazioni sessuali iniziano molto presto
nella fase adolescenziale e ogni anno si ammalano almeno 111 milioni di giovani sotto i 25 anni di età. La carenza di
conoscenze, la disinformazione e la difficoltà di accesso ai contraccettivi meccanici (preservativi maschili e femminili)
rendono i ragazzi molto più esposti al rischio di infezioni sessualmente trasmissibili. Sui comportamenti a rischio dei
giovani influiscono notevolmente pregiudizi che nascono da convinzioni non basate su dati di fatto, ad esempio la
convinzione che il proprio partner sia sano, basandosi su indicatori superficiali, o la convinzione di essere
invulnerabili e onnipotenti e la tendenza a non pensare agli aspetti negativi della vita.

Il controllo delle MST si basa soprattutto sulla prevenzione integrata con campagne volte alla diffusione di
comportamenti sessuali responsabili (informazione, attenzione nelle pratiche sessuali saltuarie e con partner
occasionali, accesso all’uso di preservativi). Attualmente una delle metodologie più efficaci di intervento rivolte alla
fascia adolescenziale è la Peer Education, il cui riferimento a livello europeo è Europeer, il Progetto europeo
sull'educazione tra pari, utilizzato anche in Italia in numerose esperienze, che ha evidenziato risultati di efficacia
significativamente superiori rispetto ai modelli tradizionali. La peer education («educazione tra pari») si sta
dimostrando vincente nella promozione della salute e nella prevenzione dei comportamenti a rischio ed è in grado di
innescare dinamiche di partecipazione attiva e di sostenere i ragazzi nell’assunzione della responsabilità.

Considerata l'importanza di un coinvolgimento integrato fra scuola, famiglia, istituzioni socio-sanitarie e degli stessi
giovani nelle iniziative di educazione sessuale e prevenzione delle MST; ricordando che diagnosi, screening e terapia
per le malattie a trasmissione sessuale rappresentano la principale sfida per conservare il potenziale riproduttivo degli
adolescenti, si chiede alla Commissione se intende predisporre uno studio ad hoc che evidenzi gli effetti ed i benefici
nel breve, medio e lungo termine dei progetti peer education?

**Risposta di Tonio Borg a nome della Commissione**

_(4 gennaio 2013)_

La Commissione non intende predisporre ulteriori studi sui vantaggi della peer education per quanto riguarda la
salute sessuale.

Il programma Comenius, che rientra nel programma UE sull'apprendimento permanente ( [1] ), costituisce tuttavia uno
strumento flessibile che risponde ai bisogni di quanti sono attivi nell'istruzione scolastica in tutta l'UE, in particolare le
scuole, i docenti e i discenti. Il programma è aperto e consente ai partecipanti di proporre attività rispondenti ai loro
bisogni particolari. Diverse attività internazionali di Comenius riguardano tematiche che rivestono interesse per i
giovani, tra cui gli aspetti della protezione sanitaria. Queste tematiche sono molto popolari nell'ambito delle attività
sviluppate direttamente dai progetti cui partecipano essenzialmente gli studenti, come ad esempio eTwinning,
Comenius, i partenariati tra scuole e i progetti Comenius Regio coordinati dalle autorità scolastiche locali.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) (http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-programme/comenius_en.htm).

C 310 E / 280 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009808/12**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(26 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Peer education: its short and long-term effectiveness needs to be assessed

The incidence of sexually transmitted diseases (STD) contracted during sexual intercourse and contacts is steadily
rising, partly as a result of greater mobility and the tendency to have sexual relations with more partners. One of the
categories most at risk is certainly that of adolescents: sexual relations begin very early in adolescence and every year
at least 111 million young people below the age of 25 become ill. Lack of knowledge, inaccurate information and
problems in obtaining access to mechanical (male and female) contraceptives place young people at much greater risk
of sexually transmitted infections. The high-risk behaviour of young people is particularly influenced by prejudices
based on unfounded beliefs, for example the belief that one's partner is healthy, based on superficial indicators, or the
belief in one's own personal invulnerability, as well as the tendency to ignore the negative aspects of life.

Control of STDs is above all based on integrated prevention, with campaigns aimed at promoting responsible sexual
behaviour (information, focus on healthy sexual practices and relationships with occasional partners, access to
contraceptives). Currently one of the most effective methods for reaching adolescents is peer education, in particular
the Europeer project, which has been tried out in many cases in Italy and has proved significantly more effective than
traditional models. Peer education is proving successful in promoting health and preventing high-risk behaviour, and
it is able to initiate a trend towards active participation and to support young people in the assumption of
responsibility.

In view of the importance of integrated involvement of schools, families, socio-health institutions and young people
themselves in sexual education and STD-prevention initiatives; and bearing in mind that diagnosis, screening and
treatment for sexually transmitted diseases are the main challenge in ensuring that adolescents' reproductive potential
is protected, does the Commission intend to make provision for an ad hoc study to assess the short, medium and
long-term effects and benefits of peer education projects?

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

_(4 January 2013)_

The Commission does not intend to make provision for more studies on the benefits of peer education with regard to
sexual health.

However, the Comenius programme which is part of the EU’s Lifelong Learning Programme ( [1] ), is a flexible
instrument meeting the needs of those involved in school education across the EU, in particular schools, teachers and
students. It is open to participants to propose activities addressing their particular needs. A number of Comenius
international activities are targeted at topics relevant for young people, including issues concerning health protection.
These issues have been popular in activities developed directly by projects mainly involving students, such as
eTwinning, Comenius School Partnerships, and Comenius Regio projects coordinated by local school authorities.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) (http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-programme/comenius_en.htm).

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 281

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009809/12**

**à Comissão**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**
_(26 de outubro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Taxa Tobin — Cooperação reforçada no imposto europeu sobre transações financeiras

Tendo em conta que:

—
durante os últimos anos, os Estados‐Membros despenderam 4,6 biliões de euros para apoiar o setor financeiro,
setor este que beneficia de vantagens fiscais de 18 biliões de euros/ano decorrentes das isenções de IVA;

—
durante o discurso realizado no ano passado no Parlamento Europeu intitulado «Estado da União», o Presidente
da Comissão Europeia referiu que «é altura de o setor financeiro dar a sua contribuição à sociedade»;

—
a Comissão Europeia anunciou a criação do imposto europeu sobre transações financeiras, que se inspira na
iniciativa do prémio Nobel da Economia, James Tobin;

—
o referido imposto europeu deverá render 55 mil milhões de euros/ano e será de 0,1 % sobre as transações com
obrigações (título de dívida) e de 0,01 % sobre outros produtos financeiros;

—
após uma ampla discussão sobre a pertinência da adoção do imposto em causa, Portugal, França, Alemanha,
Espanha, Grécia, Itália, Bélgica, Áustria, Eslováquia e Eslovénia enviaram um pedido formal à Comissão
Europeia para fazerem parte do projeto de cooperação reforçada;

—
em comunicado, o Comissário Europeu Algirdas Šemeta escreveu: «outras cartas [pedidos de cooperação
reforçada] serão muito bem-vindas, e estou otimista de que elas virão»;

—
no entanto, a chanceler alemã Angela Merkel tem vindo a defender a adoção de um imposto semelhante apenas
nos países da zona euro e não na generalidade da União Europeia.

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

1. Cada Estado-Membro poderá fixar individualmente um valor apropriado para a taxa sobre as transações
financeiras ou o valor de imposto será fixado conjuntamente em todos os países europeus que optaram pela
sua implementação?

2. Qual o valor do imposto sobre as transações financeiras que será aplicado pelos Estados‐Membros?

3. Qual o montante que a Comissão Europeia e os Estados‐Membros esperam arrecadar com a introdução da taxa
sobre as transações financeiras?

**Resposta dada por Algirdas Šemeta em nome da Comissão**

_(21 de dezembro de 2012)_

1. Os pedidos enviados por 11 Estados-Membros com o objetivo de obter uma autorização para uma cooperação
reforçada entre eles no domínio do imposto sobre transações financeiras especificam que o âmbito de atuação e os
objetivos da cooperação reforçada devem basear-se na proposta de imposto sobre as transações financeiras da
Comissão para a UE27 ( [1] ). Por conseguinte, pode prever-se que se o Conselho, após o consentimento do Parlamento
Europeu, autorizar essa cooperação, qualquer proposta subsequente da Comissão que vise implementar as
cooperações reforçadas terá como base essa proposta inicial. Assim, os Estados-Membros terão liberdade para fixar
taxas nacionais, desde que essas taxas respeitem os níveis mínimos especificados na diretiva proposta.

2. De acordo com a proposta inicial, a taxa mínima de tributação seria de 0,01 % do montante nacional dos
acordos em questão, quando as transações financeiras estejam associadas aos contratos de derivados, ao passo que em
relação a outras transações financeiras, esta taxa seria fixada em 0,1 %, neste caso o montante tributável seria, em
princípio, o montante estabelecido segundo o acordo.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011)0594.

C 310 E / 282 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

3. A Comissão encontra-se atualmente a trabalhar em mais análises económicas que servirão para indicar a
«proposta de aplicação» substantiva que deverá ser apresentada no seguimento de uma proposta do Conselho para
autorizar a cooperação reforçada. É de esperar que esta análise incluía indicações sobre as previsões do orçamento.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 283

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009809/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**

_(26 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Tobin Tax — Enhanced cooperation on the European financial transaction tax

In view of the fact that:

—
over recent years, the Member States have spent EUR 4.6 billion supporting the financial sector, a sector which
benefits from fiscal advantages in the sum of EUR 18 billion per year as a result of VAT exemptions;

—
in his ‘State of the Union’ address in the European Parliament last year, the President of the European
Commission said that ‘it is time for the financial sector to make a contribution back to society’;

—
the European Commission announced the creation of the European financial transaction tax, which is based on
the initiative of James Tobin, winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics;

—
this European tax is expected to raise EUR 55 billion per year, applying a tax rate of 0.1% on bond and equity
transactions and 0.01% on other financial products;

—
following a broad discussion on the suitability of adopting this tax, Portugal, France, Germany, Spain, Greece,
Italy, Belgium, Austria, Slovakia and Slovenia sent a formal request to the European Commission to be involved
in the enhanced cooperation project;

—
European Commissioner Algirdas Šemeta wrote that further letters [requests for enhanced cooperation] would
be very welcome and that he was optimistic that they would be sent;

—
however, the German Chancellor Angela Merkel has been arguing that this tax should only be adopted in the
eurozone countries and not throughout the European Union as a whole.

The Commission is asked the following:

1. Will each Member State be able individually to set an appropriate rate for the financial transaction tax or will
the rate be set jointly in all European countries opting to implement it?

2. What is the rate of the financial transaction tax to be applied by the Member States?

3. How much revenue do the European Commission and the Member States expect to gain from the introduction
of the financial transaction tax?

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

_(21 December 2012)_

1. The requests submitted by 11 Member States with a view to obtain authorisation of enhanced cooperation
among themselves in the area of financial transaction tax specify that the scope and objectives of enhanced
cooperation should be based on the Commission's initial FTT proposal for the EU-27 ( [1] ). Therefore, it can be expected
that if the Council, after consent of the European Parliament, authorises such cooperation any subsequent
Commission proposal implementing enhanced cooperation would be based on that initial proposal. According to the
latter, Member States would be free to set national rates, provided these rates respect the minimum levels specified in
the directive proposed.

2. According to the initial proposal, a minimum rate of taxation would be set at 0.01% of the national amount of
the agreement in question, in case of financial transactions related to derivatives agreements, whereas in the case of
other financial transactions, this rate would be set at 0.1%, the taxable amount in this case being in principle the
consideration agreed upon.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 594.

C 310 E / 284 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

3. The Commission is currently working on further economic analysis which will serve to underpin the
substantive ‘implementing proposal’ to be tabled following a Council decision to authorise the enhanced cooperation.
This analysis can be expected to include indications on revenue estimates.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 285

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009810/12**

**à Comissão**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**
_(26 de outubro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Taxa «Tobin» — Transações sujeitas ao novo imposto europeu

Tendo em conta que:

—
durante os últimos anos, os Estados-Membros despenderam 4,6 biliões de euros para apoiar o setor financeiro,
setor este que beneficia de vantagens fiscais de 18 biliões de euros/ano decorrentes das isenções de IVA;

—
durante o discurso realizado no Parlamento Europeu intitulado «Estado da União», o Presidente da Comissão
Europeia referiu que «é altura de o setor financeiro dar a sua contribuição à sociedade»;

—
a Comissão Europeia anunciou a criação do imposto europeu sobre transações financeiras, que se inspira na
iniciativa do prémio Nobel da Economia, James Tobin;

—
o referido imposto europeu deverá render 55 mil milhões de euros/ano e será de 0,1 % sobre as transações com
obrigações (título de dívida) e de 0,01 % sobre outros produtos financeiros;

—
o imposto em causa não será aplicado sobre as transações europeias em que estejam envolvidas famílias ou
PME, tal como hipotecas, empréstimos a PME ou contribuições para contratos de seguros;

—
França, Finlândia, Chipre, Grécia, Irlanda, Itália, Roménia, Polónia e Reino Unido já têm em vigor uma taxa
sobre transações financeiras;

—
outros países europeus não adotaram a taxa sobre as transações financeiras, alcançando, assim, uma maior
competitividade à escala global para captar investimentos nas suas praças financeiras;

—
a chanceler alemã, Angela Merkel, tem vindo a defender a adoção de um imposto semelhante apenas nos países
da zona euro e não na generalidade da União Europeia.

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

1. Quais as transações que serão alvo da nova taxa sobre as transações financeiras?

2. Estarão os agregados familiares e as pequenas e médias empresas (PME) sujeitas à futura taxação europeia?

3. Qual o montante estimado de negócios financeiros que poderão ser realizados em outras praças que não
adotaram a taxa sobre as transações financeiras?

**Resposta dada por Algirdas Šemeta em nome da Comissão**

_(18 de dezembro de 2012)_

A proposta original da Comissão de uma diretiva do Conselho sobre um sistema comum de imposto sobre as
transações financeiras (ITF) e que altera a Diretiva 2008/7/CE ( [1] ) tem em vista um imposto de ampla base de
incidência, em que se inclui essencialmente a tributação da celebração de contratos de derivados, bem como a compra
e a venda de ações, obrigações, instrumentos equivalentes e os derivados em que esteja envolvida uma instituição
financeira estabelecida na UE. Não incluía a tributação das operações financeiras habitualmente realizadas pelas
famílias e pelas PME, tais como pagamentos e pedidos de empréstimos. O pedido de lançamento do processo de
cooperação reforçada relativamente a esta proposta por parte de 11 Estados-Membros especifica que o âmbito e os
objetivos da cooperação reforçada deveriam basear-se na proposta inicial da Comissão. Por conseguinte, é de esperar
que, se tal for autorizado pelo Conselho, após aprovação do Parlamento Europeu, qualquer proposta subsequente da
Comissão que aplique o processo de cooperação reforçada se baseie nessa proposta inicial.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 594.

C 310 E / 286 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

Os impostos sobre as transações financeiras atualmente em vigor e a que o Senhor Deputado fez referência têm
geralmente um âmbito mais limitado. A Comissão considera que não seria possível avaliar de maneira razoável ou
fiável o valor das transações financeiras que seriam realizadas nos mercados onde não seja aplicado um imposto sobre
as transações financeiras.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 287

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009810/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**

_(26 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Tobin tax — Transactions subject to the new EU tax

Given that:

—
in recent years, the Member States have spent EUR 4.6 trillion in supporting the financial sector, a sector which
enjoys tax breaks of EUR 18 billion/year arising from VAT exemptions;

—
in his 2011 State of the Union address, the President of the European Commission said that ‘it is time for the
financial sector to make a contribution back to society’;

—
the Commission has announced the creation of an EU financial transaction tax, which draws on the initiative of
the Nobel Laureate in Economics, James Tobin;

—
this EU tax is expected to yield EUR 55 billion/year and amount to 0.1% on bond transactions (debt security)
and 0.01% on other financial products;

—
the tax in question will not be applied to EU transactions involving households and SMEs, such as mortgages,
loans to SMEs and insurance contributions;

—
France, Finland, Cyprus, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Romania, Poland and the United Kingdom already have a
financial transaction tax in place;

—
other EU countries have not adopted a financial transaction tax, therefore achieving greater global
competitiveness in terms of attracting investment in their financial markets;

—
the German Chancellor Angela Merkel has been advocating the adoption of a similar tax in euro area countries,
but not throughout the entire European Union.

I would ask the Commission:

1. what transactions will be targeted by the new financial transaction tax?

2. will households and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) be subject to future EU taxation?

3. what is the estimated worth of financial deals that could be concluded in other markets that have not adopted a
financial transaction tax?

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

_(18 December 2012)_

The original Commission proposal for a Council Directive on a common system of financial transaction tax (FTT) and
amending Directive 2008/7/EC ( [1] ) aimed for a broad based tax, essentially including taxation on the conclusion of
derivatives agreements, as well as purchases and sales of shares, bonds, equivalent instruments and those derivatives,
where a financial institution established in the EU is involved. It did not include taxation of usual financial operations
carried out by households and SMEs, such as payments and borrowing. The request for launching the enhanced
cooperation procedure on this proposal by 11 Member States specifies that the scope and objectives of enhanced
cooperation should be based on the Commission's initial proposal. Therefore it can be expected that, if this is
authorised by the Council, after consent of the European Parliament, any subsequent Commission proposal
implementing enhanced cooperation would be based on that initial proposal.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 594.

C 310 E / 288 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

The existing FTTs referred to by the Honourable Member usually have a more limited scope. The Commission
believes that it would not be possible to assess in a reasonable or reliable manner the value of financial deals that
would be concluded on markets where no FTT is implemented.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 289

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009812/12**

**à Comissão**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**
_(26 de outubro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Taxa «Tobin» — Introdução da taxa à escala global

Tendo em conta que:

—
durante os últimos anos, os Estados-Membros despenderam 4,6 biliões de euros para apoiar o setor financeiro,
setor este que beneficia de vantagens fiscais de 18 biliões de euros/ano decorrentes das isenções de IVA;

—
durante o discurso realizado no ano passado no Parlamento Europeu intitulado «Estado da União», o Presidente
da Comissão Europeia referiu que «é altura de o setor financeiro dar a sua contribuição à sociedade»;

—
a Comissão Europeia anunciou a criação do imposto europeu sobre transações financeiras, que se inspira na
iniciativa do prémio Nobel da Economia, James Tobin;

—
o referido imposto europeu deverá render 55 mil milhões de euros/ano e será de 0,1 % sobre as transações com
obrigações (título de dívida) e de 0,01 % sobre outros produtos financeiros;

—
após uma ampla discussão sobre a pertinência da adoção do imposto em causa, Portugal, França, Alemanha,
Espanha, Grécia, Itália, Bélgica, Áustria, Eslováquia e Eslovénia enviaram um pedido formal à Comissão
Europeia para fazerem parte do projeto de cooperação reforçada;

—
em comunicado, o Comissário Europeu Algirdas Šemeta escreveu: «outras cartas [pedidos de cooperação
reforçada] serão muito bem-vindas, e estou otimista de que elas virão»;

—
em resposta à pergunta por mim efetuada «E-002395/2012», Algirdas Šemeta referiu que «a Comissão vai
continuar a lutar pela solução mundial mais ampla possível no que respeita a um imposto sobre as transações
financeiras, no âmbito do G20 e de outros fóruns. A adoção da diretiva proposta, na UE, constituiria um passo
decisivo nesse sentido».

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

1. Como se pretende conciliar o novo imposto com aquele já existente em alguns Estados‐Membros?

2. Está disponível para liderar à escala global a introdução de uma taxa sobre as transações financeiras que taxe
todos de forma igual e não prejudique os europeus nos seus negócios financeiros?

**Resposta dada por Algirdas Šemeta em nome da Comissão**

_(21 de dezembro de 2012)_

1. A cooperação reforçada no domínio do imposto sobre as transações financeiras (ITF) entre um grupo de
Estados-Membros constituiria um esquema de harmonização relativo a este tipo de imposto nos Estados-Membros
que participam na cooperação reforçada. Esta harmonização permitiria que se evitasse a dupla tributação entre os
Estados-Membros participantes. Os Estados-Membros não participantes poderiam manter ou introduzir o seu
próprio ITF, desde que respeitassem a legislação pertinente da UE.

2. A Comissão continuará a trabalhar com parceiros internacionais para promover a ideia de um ITF a nível global.

C 310 E / 290 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009812/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**

_(26 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Tobin tax — Introducing tax on a global scale

Given that:

—
in recent years, the Member States have spent EUR 4.6 trillion to support the financial sector, a sector which
enjoys tax breaks of EUR 18 billion/year arising from VAT exemptions;

—
in his 2011 State of the Union address, the President of the European Commission said that ‘it is time for the
financial sector to make a contribution back to society’;

—
the Commission has announced the creation of an EU financial transaction tax, which draws on the initiative of
the Nobel Laureate in Economics, James Tobin;

—
this EU tax is expected to yield EUR 55 billion/year and amount to 0.1% on bond transactions (debt security)
and 0.01% on other financial products;

—
after an extensive discussion on the relevance of adopting the tax in question, Portugal, France, Germany,
Spain, Greece, Italy, Belgium, Austria, Slovakia and Slovenia sent a formal request to the Commission to be part
of the enhanced cooperation project;

—
in a statement, European Commissioner Algirdas Šemeta wrote that: ‘other letters [requesting enhanced
cooperation] will be very welcome, and I am optimistic that they will come’;

—
in answer to my Question No E-002395/2012, Algirdas Šemeta said that ‘The Commission will continue to
strive for the widest possible global solution with respect to a tax on financial transactions in the framework of
the G-20 but also other fora. The adoption of the proposed Directive in the EU would constitute a major step
forward in this respect’.

I would ask the Commission:

1. How will it reconcile the new tax with the existing financial transaction tax in some Member States?

2. Is it prepared to lead the global introduction of a financial transaction tax that taxes everyone equally and does
not harm Europeans in their financial affairs?

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

_(21 December 2012)_

1. Enhanced cooperation in the area of financial transaction tax (FTT) between a group of Member States would
concern a harmonisation scheme regarding this type of tax in the Member States participating in the enhanced
cooperation. Such harmonisation would allow avoiding double taxation between the participating Member States.
Non-participating Member States could maintain or introduce their own FTT provided they respected all relevant EU
legislation.

2. The Commission will continue to work with international partners to promote the idea of an FTT at global level.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 291

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009813/12**

**à Comissão**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**
_(26 de outubro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ As parcerias público-privadas e sua contabilização no défice público

Considerando que:

—
as parcerias público-privadas (PPP) têm surgido em Portugal, particularmente no domínio das infraestruturas
rodoviárias e de transportes e no setor das infraestruturas hospitalares;

—
em maio deste ano, os meios de comunicação em Portugal ( [1] ) assinalaram que os gastos do Estado português
com as PPP no domínio dos transportes ascendia, em 2011, a 1 822 milhões de euros, mais 280 milhões do
que o previsto inicialmente, e que, no domínio da saúde, representava 15 milhões de euros, ou seja, uma
derrapagem de 7 %;

—
os custos das PPP atravessam gerações e, no caso português, ultrapassam o ano de 2050, e que, entre 2014 a
2018, o Estado português tem que pagar aos privados cerca de 1 400 milhões de euros por ano;

—
Portugal tem aplicado medidas severas de austeridade para alcançar os objetivos acordados no Memorando de
17 de maio de 2011, e que estes números relativos às PPP aumentam a pressão sobre o défice público;

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

1. Se confirma que, tal como noticiado em vários meios de comunicação portugueses, as PPP não estavam
contabilizadas na totalidade no défice público português antes da intervenção da troica? Se a resposta for
positiva, qual o valor do montante não contabilizado?

2. Se as PPP estão contabilizadas no défice público dos Estados‐Membros não intervencionados?

**Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão**

_(15 de janeiro de 2013)_

O tratamento estatístico das PPP está definido no manual do Eurostat sobre défice orçamental público e dívida pública
— aplicação do SEC 95, que estabelece as regras a seguir por todos os Estados-Membros no apuramento das contas
nacionais das administrações públicas. O Instituto Nacional de Estatística (INE), juntamente com o Eurostat avalia
regularmente a situação estatística das PPP. Em 2011, no âmbito da notificação relativa ao PDE, o INE anunciou a
reclassificação de três PPP (duas das quais eram ex-scuts recentemente renegociadas) no quadro das administrações
públicas ( [2] ).

Tendo em conta os elevados passivos relacionados com as PPP, as autoridades portuguesas reforçaram o respetivo
quadro regulamentar (Decreto-Lei n. ° 111/2012, Diário da República n.° 100 — 23 de maio de 2011). Na sequência
deste facto, está a ser criada no Ministério das Finanças uma nova unidade técnica, responsável pelo lançamento,
concurso, execução, gestão, acompanhamento e avaliação de todas as PPP. Além disso, tal como previsto no
orçamento de 2013, as autoridades portuguesas já encetaram um processo de renegociação dos contratos relativos às
PPP no setor rodoviário (que representam 69,4 % dos custos líquidos no período 2014-2018), tendo em vista a
obtenção de importantes poupanças permanentes já em 2013.

As informações periódicas sobre a evolução das PPP em Portugal podem ser consultadas nos relatórios trimestrais e
anuais elaborados pelas autoridades nacionais ( [3] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.rtp.pt/noticias/index.php?article=551265&tm=6&layout=122&visual=61
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.ine.pt/ngt_server/attachfileu.jsp?look_parentBoui=117841399&att_display=n&att_download=y
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.dgtf.pt/parcerias-publico-privadas/relatorios-ppp-e-concessoes/anuais

C 310 E / 292 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009813/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**

_(26 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Accounting for public-private partnerships in the public deficit

Whereas:

—
public-private partnerships (PPP) have emerged in Portugal, particularly in the fields of road and transport
infrastructure and hospital infrastructure;

—
in May of this year, the Portuguese media ( [1] ) reported that in 2011 spending by the Portuguese Government on
PPPs in the field of transport rose to EUR 1.822 billion — EUR 280 million more than originally planned —
and in the field of healthcare to EUR 15 million, i.e. an overshoot of 7%;

—
the costs of PPPs extend across generations and, in Portugal’s case, beyond 2050; between 2014 and 2018, the
Portuguese Government will have to pay the private sector around EUR 1.4 billion per year;

—
Portugal has applied severe austerity measures to reach the targets set out in the memorandum of
17 May 2011, and the figures relating to PPPs put greater pressure on the public deficit;

Can the Commission say:

1. Whether, as reported by the Portuguese media, PPPs were not accounted for in the total Portuguese public
deficit before the intervention of the troika? If so, what amount was not accounted for?

2. Whether PPPs are accounted for in the public deficit of the Member States that have not been subject to
intervention?

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

_(15 January 2013)_

The statistical treatment of PPPs is defined in Eurostat ‘Manual on Government Deficit and Debt’ — Implementation
of ESA, which sets the rules for all Member States in the preparation of the government national accounts. The
National Statistical Institute (INE) together with Eurostat regularly assesses the statistical situation of PPPs. In 2011, in
the framework of the EDP notification, INE announced the reclassification of three PPPs (two of which, were exSCUTS that had recently been renegotiated) inside the general government perimeter:
http://www.ine.pt/ngt_server/attachfileu.jsp?look_parentBoui=117841399&att_display=n&att_download=y

Given the important contingent liabilities related to PPPs, the Portuguese authorities have enhanced the regulatory
framework (Decreto-Lei n° 111/2012, Diário da República No 100 — 23 May 2011). As a result, a new technical unit
is being created within the Ministry of Finance responsible for the launch, tender, execution, management,
monitoring and evaluation of all PPPs. In addition, as specified in the 2013 Budget, the Portuguese authorities have
engaged in a process of renegotiation of PPP contracts in the road sector (which constitute 69.4% of the net costs over
the period 2014-2018) in view of obtaining substantial permanent savings already in 2013.

Regular information on PPPs developments in Portugal is available in the annual and quarterly reports prepared by
the national authorities: http://www.dgtf.pt/parcerias-publico-privadas/relatorios-ppp-e-concessoes/anuais

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.rtp.pt/noticias/index.php?article=551265&tm=6&layout=122&visual=61.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 293

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009814/12**

**à Comissão**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**
_(26 de outubro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Oportunidades profissionais dos recém-licenciados

Considerando que:

—
a democratização do Ensino Superior permitiu que cada vez mais jovens tenham a possibilidade de estudar a
um nível mais superior, melhorando as suas qualificações académicas e preparando-se da melhor forma para o
mercado de trabalho;

—
devido à elevada taxa de desemprego jovem, muitos dos estudantes universitários têm vindo a colocar em causa
a pertinência da sua formação académica ao mais alto nível;

— o _burnout_ é entendido como sendo um «estado de exaustão emocional, com descrença na utilidade da função
que se exerce e baixa realização, havendo uma diminuição da eficácia devido à falta de empenho, podendo levar
ao abandono da profissão»;

— segundo o estudo « _Burnout_ em Estudantes Universitários: Determinantes e consequências» realizado pelo
Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada (ISPA), mais de 32 % dos alunos inquiridos recorre às vezes a
medicação devido aos estudos e 3,5 % fá-lo com frequência;

—
os dados foram recolhidos no ano letivo de 2009/2010, através de um inquérito a 486 alunos de ambos os
sexos, de universidades públicas e privadas de Lisboa e de todas as áreas de estudo.

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

1. Tem conhecimento dos problemas sociais que muitos estudantes recém-licenciados estão a ter?

2. Quais as ações ou projetos que estão a ser desenvolvidos com vista a melhorar a entrada no mercado de
trabalho de milhares de jovens recém-licenciados?

3. Considera apropriado a existência de uma reestruturação das redes de ensino superior a nível europeu,
ajustando a formação académica às necessidades do mercado de trabalho?

**Resposta dada por László Andor em nome da Comissão**

_(7 de janeiro de 2013)_

1. A crise económica atingiu os jovens de forma particularmente difícil. Em 2011, 7.5 milhões de jovens entre os
15 e os 24 anos não se encontravam a receber educação, formação ou a trabalhar na UE ( [1] ). Ainda que não
constituam uma panaceia, as estatísticas mostram que aqueles que terminam níveis de educação superiores singram
muito mais do que aqueles que possuem um nível de escolaridade mais baixo; para estes a taxa de desemprego é, em
média, 60 % mais elevada.

2. Em 5 de dezembro de 2012, a Comissão adotou o Pacote para o Emprego dos Jovens ( [2] ). O pacote tem como
objetivo facilitar a transição do ensino para o trabalho através de uma proposta para uma recomendação do Conselho
para estabelecer uma garantia para a juventude, uma segunda fase de consultas dos parceiros sociais europeus sobre
um quadro de qualidade para estágios, uma Aliança Europeia para a Aprendizagem e obstáculos reduzidos para a
mobilidade laboral entre os mais jovens. Estes esforços resultaram na Iniciativa Oportunidades para a Juventude. ( [3] )
Ao abrigo da iniciativa referida, pelo menos 10 mil milhões de euros de verbas do Fundo Social Europeu destinaramse à reafetação com a possibilidade de beneficiar 658 000 jovens.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2012/54/en/1/EF0898EN.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Ver COM(2012) 727-728-729 de 5 de dezembro de 2012.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Ver COM(2011) 933 final de 20 de dezembro de 2011.

C 310 E / 294 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

3. A Estratégia da UE relativa à modernização do ensino superior ( [4] ) sublinha a importância de um ensino superior
de alta qualidade e relevante para que os licenciados tenham mais hipóteses de encontrar trabalho e carreiras
relevantes. O papel da orientação personalizada nos estudos e os resultados esperados são vitais para fornecer
informações relativas aos estudos e para reduzir o abandono escolar. Os programas de ensino superior devem ser
mais adaptados às necessidades do atual e do futuro mercado de trabalho, principalmente através da cooperação com
empresas e da análise e projeção do mercado de trabalho; bem como através do seguimento dos destinos dos
licenciados.

Os Estados-Membros e as próprias instituições de ensino superior são responsáveis pela organização dos seus
sistemas de educação. A UE apoia as reformas nacionais, em particular através do fornecimento de dados factuais.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Ver COM(2011) 567 final de 20 de setembro de 2011.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 295

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009814/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**

_(26 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Job opportunities for recent graduates

Given that,

— democratisation of higher education has given increasing numbers of young people the chance to study at a higher
level, improving their academic qualifications and preparing themselves as effectively as possible for the job market;

— the high youth unemployment rate has made many university students wonder whether their top-level academic
training is relevant;

— ‘burnout’ is understood to be a state of mental exhaustion, with a deterioration in the ability to do one’s work and
poor performance, and lower effectiveness due to lack of drive, which can lead to the person leaving their job;

— according to the study entitled _Burnout in university students: causes and effects_, carried out by the _Instituto Superior de_
_Psicologia Aplicada_ (ISPA — Higher Institute of Applied Psychology), over 32% of students asked take medication
because of their studies, and 3.5% do so often;

— the data was collected during the 2009-2010 academic year in a survey of 486 students of both sexes, from both
public and private universities in Lisbon and from all disciplines;

1. Is the Commission aware of the social problems experienced by many recent graduates?

2. What initiatives or projects are being developed to improve entry into the job market for thousands of young
graduates?

3. Does the Commission consider that it would be appropriate to restructure higher education networks at the
European level, bringing academic training into line with the needs of the job market?

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

_(7 January 2013)_

1. The economic crisis has hit young people exceptionally hard. In 2011, 7.5 million young people aged 15 to 24
were not in education, training or work in the EU ( [1] ). While not a panacea, statistics show that higher education
graduates fare much better than those with only lower levels of schooling, who on average have a 60% higher
unemployment rate.

2. On 5 December 2012, the Commission has adopted the Youth Employment Package ( [2] ). It aims to facilitate the
transition from education to employment through a proposal for a Council recommendation on establishing a Youth
Guarantee, a second-stage consultation of the European social partners on a quality framework for traineeships, a
European Alliance for Apprenticeships and reduced obstacles to labour mobility among young people. These efforts
build on the 2011 Youth Opportunities Initiative (YOI) ( [3] ). Under the YOI, at least EUR 10 billion of European Social
Fund resources was targeted for reallocation, with 658 000 additional young people likely to benefit.

3. The EU Strategy for the Modernisation of Higher Education ( [4] ) stresses the importance of high quality relevant
tertiary education so that graduates have the best chance of finding relevant work and careers. The role of tailored
guidance on studies and expected outcomes is vital to inform study choices and reduce drop-out. Higher education
programmes should be more attuned to the needs of the current and future labour market, especially through
cooperation with enterprises and labour market analysis and projection; and by tracking graduate outcomes.

Member States and higher education institutions themselves are responsible for the organisation of their education
systems. The EU supports national reforms in particular by providing policy evidence.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2012/54/en/1/EF1254EN.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) See COM(2012) 727-728-729 of 5 December 2012.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) See Communication COM(2011) 933 final of 20 December 2011.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) See Communication COM(2011) 567 final of 20 September 2011.

C 310 E / 296 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009815/12**

**à Comissão**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**
_(26 de outubro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Utilização do valor remanescente da recapitalização bancária

Tendo em conta que:

—
no ano transato, Portugal acordou com a Troica (Comissão Europeia, Banco Central Europeu e Fundo
Monetário Internacional) um empréstimo financeiro no valor de 78 mil milhões de euros que tem vindo a ser
alvo de análise regular por parte dos credores internacionais;

—
no empréstimo concedido, cerca de 12 mil milhões de euros estavam reservados para a recapitalização
bancária, mas apenas foram utilizados 4,5 mil milhões de euros;

—
além da recapitalização bancária portuguesa já ter sido realizada e ter ocorrido com amplo sucesso, é do
conhecimento europeu que o problema financeiro de Portugal não se deve aos bancos nacionais mas sim aos
gastos públicos excessivos;

—
o valor disponível de 7,5 mil milhões de euros está depositado por conta da Iniciativa para o Reforço da
Estabilidade Financeira no Banco de Portugal e que o Orçamento de Estado apresentado pelo Governo
português, na Assembleia da República, refere que não serão utilizados durante o ano de 2012;

—
o relatório do referido Orçamento de Estado salienta que «(…) no final de 2012 (…) 3,5 mil milhões ficarão
depositados no Banco de Portugal como constituição do fundo de suporte à recapitalização bancária acordado
no âmbito do PAEF»;

—
este montante não será mais utilizado para apoiar os bancos, devendo ser utilizado para ser injetado na
economia nacional e alavancar o crescimento económico e a criação de emprego;

—
é fundamental que seja injetado dinheiro na economia portuguesa, não só para apoiar as pequenas e médias
empresas (PME) que enfrentam sérias dificuldades, mas também para aliviar as medidas de austeridade adotadas
que irão implicar uma forte queda do consumo privado.

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

1. Qual a possibilidade de Portugal utilizar estes 7,5 mil milhões de euros para apoiar o crescimento económico, a
criação de emprego e a geração de riqueza?

2. A não utilização desta elevada verba, devido ao facto de estar guardada no Banco de Portugal, implica o
pagamento de juros sobre a mesma?

3. Em caso afirmativo, qual o valor dos juros que incidirão sobre os 7,5 mil milhões de euros?

**Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão**

_(17 de janeiro de 2013)_

Para assegurar a estabilidade do setor financeiro, que é um pilar essencial do programa de assistência económica e
financeira a Portugal, é necessário dotar os bancos portugueses de margens de reserva de capital suficientes para fazer
face à eventual degradação da carteira de empréstimos decorrente da atual crise económica. O mecanismo de apoio à
solvência dos bancos foi criado para oferecer aos bancos portugueses a possibilidade de restabelecerem as suas
reservas de capital caso não estejam em condições de recorrer aos mercados de capitais. O montante global de 12 000
milhões de euros foi cuidadosamente determinado, de modo a constituir uma garantia suficiente contra os riscos
financeiros e, ao mesmo tempo, evitar que montantes significativos não sejam utilizados. Na fase atual não é
aconselhável reafetar as verbas daquele mecanismo a outros fins, já que tal poderia implicar riscos graves para a
estabilidade do sistema financeiro.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 297

Os juros sobre os montantes do referido mecanismo são idênticos aos dos empréstimos do FMI e da UE em geral
(dado que o capital é fornecido pelas mesmas fontes). O Senhor Deputado poderá consultar o último relatório de
avaliação dos serviços da Comissão sobre o programa português ( [1] ) e, em especial, a caixa 3, que aborda mais
pormenorizadamente esta questão.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/occasional_paper/2012/pdf/ocp124_en.pdf

C 310 E / 298 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009815/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**

_(26 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Use of remaining bank recapitalisation funds

Given that:

—
in the course of the last year, Portugal agreed a financial loan worth EUR 78 billion with the Troika (the
European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund). This loan has been
subject to regular review by international creditors;

—
from the loan that was granted, some EUR 12 billion were earmarked for bank recapitalisation, but only
EUR 4.5 billion have been used;

—
over and above the broadly successful recapitalisation of Portuguese banks, Europe is well aware that Portugal’s
financial predicament is due not to the national banks but to excessive government spending;

—
the available sum of EUR 7.5 billion is deposited with the Bank of Portugal under the Initiative for
Strengthening Financial Stability, and the State Budget, presented by the Portuguese Government in the
Assembly of the Republic, states that it will not be used in 2012;

—
the report on the State Budget highlights that ‘(…) at the end of 2012 (…) EUR 3.5 billion will be deposited in
the Bank of Portugal as a fund to support the bank recapitalisation agreed under the PAEF (Economic and
Financial Assistance Fund’;

—
this sum will no longer be used to support the banks, and should instead be used to inject funds into the
national economy and boost economic growth and job creation;

—
it is vital that money be injected into the Portuguese economy, not only to support small and medium
enterprises (SMEs), which are facing serious difficulties, but also to offset the austerity measures that have been
put in place and which will lead to a sharp fall in private consumption;

Can the Commission state:

1. Would Portugal be allowed to use this EUR 7.5 billion to support economic growth, job creation and wealth
generation?

2. If this considerable sum is not used, due to its retention by the Bank of Portugal, would interest need to be paid
on it?

3. If interest should be paid, how much would this amount to on a sum of EUR 7.5 billion?

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

_(17 January 2013)_

In order to ensure the stability of the financial sector, which is an essential pillar of the Economic and Financial
Assistance Programme for Portugal, Portuguese banks need to be endowed with sufficient capital buffers so as to
sustain any deterioration in the loan portfolio as a result of the current economic crisis. The BSSF has been created
with a view to providing a backstop for Portuguese banks which can be used to re-build their capital buffers if they are
unable to tap capital markets. The overall amount of EUR 12 billion has been carefully chosen so as to provide
sufficient insurance against financial risks whilst avoiding significant amounts of money being unused. At the current
stage it is not advisable to rededicate the money in the BSSF for other purposes as this could entail serious risks to the
stability of the financial system.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 299

The interest payments on the amounts in the BSSF are the same as those for the IMF/EU loans in general (as the
money is provided by the same sources). The Honourable Member is referred to the latest review report by the
Commission services on the Portuguese Programme ( [1] ), and in particular Box 3 thereof, which deals in more detail
with this issue.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/occasional_paper/2012/pdf/ocp124_en.pdf

C 310 E / 300 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Svensk version)_

**Frågor för skriftligt besvarande P-009816/12**

**till kommissionen**
**Isabella Lövin (Verts/ALE)**

_(26 oktober 2012)_

_Angående:_ Rapportering av fångster av makrillhaj till Internationella kommissionen för bevarande av tonfisk i
Atlanten (Iccat), i enlighet med Iccats rekommendation 10-06

Enligt Iccats rekommendation 10‐06 om nordatlantisk makrillhaj (Isurus oxyrinchus) som fångas i samband med
fiskeri som förvaltas av Iccat ska, från och med 2013, fördragsslutande parter som inte har lämnat in s.k. Task I‐
uppgifter (dvs. fångstuppgifter) för nordatlantisk makrillhaj förbjudas att behålla denna art tills sådana uppgifter har
mottagits av Iccats sekretariat. Vidare föreskriver punkt 2 i rekommendationen att Iccats tillämpningskommitté ska se
över de åtgärder som vidtagits av de fördragsslutande parterna för att förbättra insamlingen av uppgifter om
oavsiktliga fångster.

1. Har Iccats sekretariat mottagit alla s.k. Task I‐uppgifter för nordatlantisk makrillhaj (Isurus oxyrinchus) för
2011 års fiskeri från alla EU‐stater? Har uppgifterna lämnats in i tid? Om så inte är fallet, vilka länder har inte uppfyllt
sina skyldigheter?

2. Vad kommer tillämpningskommitténs diskussioner vid nästa årsmöte att innebära för antingen EU – som
fördragsslutande part – eller de enskilda medlemsstaterna, om de inte har lämnat in uppgifterna?

**Svar från Maria Damanaki på kommissionens vägnar**

_(27 november 2012)_

Alla EU:s medlemsstater har lämnat in uppgifter (Task I) om fångsterna av nordatlantisk makrillhaj ( _Isurus oxyrinchus_ )
för sitt fiske under 2011.

Spaniens fångstuppgifter lämnades in till Iccat efter utgången av den officiella tidsfristen.

Det faktum att en konventionspart lämnar in sina fångstuppgifter sent får inga praktiska konsekvenser för
fastställandet av fångstmöjligheterna för 2013, så länge som de saknade uppgifterna inkommer till Iccats sekretariat
under loppet av 2012.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 301

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-009816/12**

**to the Commission**
**Isabella Lövin (Verts/ALE)**

_(26 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Communication of shortfin mako catches to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic
Tunas (ICCAT) pursuant to ICCAT Rec [10-06]

According to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) Recommendation [1006] on Atlantic shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) caught in association with ICCAT Fisheries, as of 2013, contracting
parties which fail to report Task I data (i.e. catch data) for Atlantic shortfin mako shall be prohibited from retaining
this species until such data has been received by the ICCAT Secretariat. Furthermore, paragraph 2 of the
recommendation requires ICCAT’s Compliance Committee to review action taken by the contracting parties to
improve their data collection for incidental catches.

1. Have all EU members reported to the ICCAT Secretariat all their Task I data for Atlantic shortfin mako (Isurus
oxyrinchus) for their 2011 fisheries, and have they done so on time? If not, which countries have failed to do so?

2. What implications will the deliberations of the Compliance Committee at its next annual meeting have for
either the EU — as a contracting party — or for the individual Member States, if they have not supplied the data?

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

_(27 November 2012)_

All the EU Member States have submitted Task I data for Atlantic shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) for their 2011
fisheries.

Data of Spanish catches have been transmitted to ICCAT after the official deadline.

The late submission of the Task I data from a Contracting Party does not have any practical implication in terms of
fishing opportunities in 2013, as long as the missing data is submitted to the ICCAT Secretariat in 2012.

C 310 E / 302 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung P-009817/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Bernd Lange (S&D)**

_(26. Oktober 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Herstellung von Kältemitteln für Autoklimaanlagen

Mit der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 842/2006 und der Richtlinie 2006/40/EG ist ein Ausstieg aus der Verwendung des
Kältemittels R134a in Automobilklimaanlagen gesetzlich zum 1.1.2011 festgelegt worden.

Als Ersatzstoff wurden von der Automobilindustrie in Zusammenarbeit mit den betroffenen Zulieferern verschiedene
Alternativen getestet und bewertet. Mit R1234yf hat man sich schließlich auf eine Alternative geeinigt und die
unbedenkliche Alternative eines CO 2 -basierten Kältemittels verworfen.

Dieses chemische Kältemittel und insbesondere seine leichte Entflammbarkeit sind nun zu einem kontroversen
Diskussionsgegenstand geworden. Zudem liegt bei der Produktion des Stoffes R1234yf nach wie vor eine
Monopolsituation vor (siehe dazu meine Anfrage vom 11.5.2011) vor.

1. Wie bewertet die Kommission die neuen Erkenntnisse über die Entflammbarkeit von R1234yf?

2. Welche Schritte unternimmt die Kommission angesichts der genannten Risiken und der Monopolsituation im
Bereich der Kältemittelherstellung, um die gesetzlichen Vorgaben zu überprüfen?

3. Wann wird die Kommission einen neuen Vorschlag zur Befüllung von Klimaanlagen mit dem unbedenklichen
Ersatzstoff CO 2 vorbringen und damit der europäischen Automobilindustrie eine vernünftige Perspektive geben?

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

_(27. November 2012)_

1. Die Kommission ist über die Entflammbarkeit des Gases unterrichtet. 1234yf wird nach den EURechtsvorschriften als entzündbares Gas der Gefahrenkategorie 1 eingestuft. Die Wahrscheinlichkeit einer
Entzündung des Gases durch eine Leckage im Motorraum aufgrund einer Undichtigkeit oder eines Aufpralls wurde
untersucht. Die Berichte deuten darauf hin, dass das Risiko geringer ist als das Entflammbarkeitsrisiko bei der
Verwendung von Benzin. Mobile Klimaanlagen unterliegen der Druckgeräte-Richtlinie 97/23/EG. Die Strenge der
Konformitätsbewertungsverfahren für mobile Klimaanlagen ist vom Entflammbarkeitsgrad des Kältemittels
abhängig. Der Hersteller muss anhand der grundlegenden Sicherheitsanforderungen eine Bewertung vornehmen.
Damit soll sichergestellt werden, dass die Anlage das unter Druck stehende Kältemittel ausreichend sicher
zurückhalten kann, so dass seine entflammbaren oder toxischen Bestandteile sich aufgrund einer unbeabsichtigten
Freisetzung des Kältemittels unter vorhersehbaren Umständen, z. B. bei einem Unfall, nicht auf Personen auswirken.
Die Kommission ist der Auffassung, dass die geltenden Rechtsvorschriften ausreichen, um sichere Produkte auf dem
EU-Markt in Verkehr zu bringen.

2. Was die wettbewerblichen Aspekte der Herstellung von Kältemitteln angeht, so leitete die Kommission am
16. Dezember 2011 ein Kartellverfahren ein, das Vereinbarungen zwischen den Lieferanten Honeywell und DuPont
betrifft. Sie untersucht ferner, ob Honeywell möglicherweise eine marktbeherrschende Stellung besitzt und diese
missbraucht. Die Untersuchung läuft noch und wird vorrangig behandelt. Sie wird nicht mit der Absicht
durchgeführt, die gesetzlichen Anforderungen der Richtlinie 2006/40/EG zu überarbeiten.

3. Nach Richtlinie 2006/40/EG ist kein bestimmtes Kältemittel oder System vorgeschrieben. Zum jetzigen
Zeitpunkt beabsichtigt die Kommission nicht, einen neuen Vorschlag über mobile Klimaanlagen vorzulegen.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 303

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-009817/12**

**to the Commission**
**Bernd Lange (S&D)**

_(26 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Production of refrigerants for motor vehicle air-conditioning systems

Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 and Directive 2006/40/EC made it a legal requirement that the use of refrigerant
R134a in motor vehicle air-conditioning systems be discontinued as of 1 January 2011.

The motor vehicle industry, in cooperation with the suppliers concerned, tested and evaluated various products as
potential replacements. They eventually agreed on R1234yf as an alternative and rejected the safe alternative of a
CO 2 -based refrigerant.

This chemical refrigerant, and in particular its flammability, have now become a subject of controversy. In addition,
there is still a monopoly in the production of this substance R1234yf (see my question of 11.5.2011).

1. What is the Commission’s assessment of the new findings regarding the flammability of R1234yf?

2. What steps is the Commission taking in the light of these risks and the monopoly in the field of refrigerant
production in order to revise the legal requirements?

3. When will the Commission put forward a new proposal on filling air conditioning systems with the safe CO 2
substitute and thus offer the European motor vehicle industry a sensible perspective?

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

_(27 November 2012)_

1. The Commission is informed about the level of flammability of the gas. 1234yf is classified as Flammable
Gas Category C under EU legislation. The probabilities of an engine compartment leakage from a leak or crash
resulting in ignition from the gas have been studied. Reports point to a lesser risk than the flammability risk
associated with the use of gasoline. Mobile air-conditioning (MAC) systems are subject to the Pressure Equipment
Directive 97/23/EC. The levels of flammability of the refrigerant determine the stringency of the conformity
assessment procedures applied to MAC. The manufacturer has to conduct an assessment against essential safety
requirements to ensure that it can contain the pressurised refrigerant safely enough so that its inflammable or toxic
potential does not affect persons due to an unintended release of the refrigerant under foreseeable circumstances,
e.g. accidents. The Commission considers that the current body of regulation is adequate to provide for safe products
on the EU market.

2. As regards competition aspects of the production of the refrigerant, on 16 December 2011, the Commission
opened antitrust proceedings concerning agreements between the suppliers Honeywell and DuPont. It is also
investigating whether Honeywell may hold and abuse a dominant position. The investigation is ongoing, as a matter
of priority. It is not carried out with the view to revise the legal requirements of Directive 2006/40/EC.

3. Directive 2006/40/EC does not prescribe any particular refrigerant or system. At this stage, the Commission
does not envisage making a new proposal on MAC.

C 310 E / 304 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009818/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE)**

_(26 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Situación de los «Ninis»

En los últimos años, en especial desde el agravamiento de la profunda crisis económica que asola a Europa, se está
produciendo una intensificación del número de jóvenes entre 15 y 29 años, que se encuentran sin estudios ni trabajo.
Los ya conocidos como generación «Nini».

Este problema conlleva graves consecuencias tanto económicas como sociales, tal y como se desprende de los últimos
datos publicados.

En términos económicos, el coste de los más de 13 900 000 jóvenes europeos que ni estudian ni trabajan representa
una parte importante del PIB de la Unión, el 1,21 %, porcentaje superior al del tamaño del presupuesto europeo para
los veintisiete Estados que la componen. Algo más de 153 mil millones de euros.

En el caso de España, el número de jóvenes en situación «Nini» superaría los 1 300 000, lo que supone para el tesoro
español un 1,5 % de su PIB, o, en términos monetarios, más de 15 735 millones de euros.

Además, las consecuencias sociales tanto para la población afectada como para los Estados son importantísimas, y se
derivan en parte de la falta de participación ciudadana de este sector de población, acrecentando el riesgo de exclusión
social al dificultar cada vez más la incorporación al mercado laboral.

A la luz de los datos constatados en relación con este fenómeno de los «Ninis», ¿piensa la Comisión diseñar y poner en
práctica alguna estrategia de tipo general en la que se abarquen todas las dimensiones del problema, educativas,
económicas y presupuestarias, de forma que puedan sentarse las bases para paliar los desastrosos efectos de esta
situación entre la juventud europea?

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

_(7 de enero de 2013)_

En respuesta a las elevadas tasas de desempleo juvenil, la Comisión adoptó el 5 de diciembre de 2012 el «paquete
sobre empleo juvenil» ( [1] ). Su finalidad es facilitar la transición de la educación al empleo mediante una propuesta de
Recomendación del Consejo sobre el establecimiento de la Garantía Juvenil, la segunda fase de consulta de los
interlocutores sociales europeos sobre un Marco de Calidad para los Períodos de Prácticas, la Alianza Europea para la
Formación de Aprendices y la mejora de la movilidad laboral de los jóvenes.

La situación de los ninis preocupa especialmente a la Comisión. En particular, en su propuesta de Recomendación del
Consejo, la Comisión pide a los Estados miembros que garanticen que todos los jóvenes menores de veinticinco años
reciban una buena oferta de empleo, formación permanente, formación de aprendiz o período de prácticas en un
plazo de cuatro meses tras acabar la educación formal o quedar desempleados.

Los costes estimados de esta iniciativa en la zona del euro, según cálculos de la Organización Internacional del
Trabajo (OIT) ( [2] ), quedan compensados con creces al evitar el coste económico a largo plazo que, según estimaciones
recientes de Eurofound ( [3] ), supone la no inclusión de los ninis.

Para contribuir a la aplicación de los sistemas de Garantía Juvenil, la Comisión invita a los Estados miembros a que
hagan un uso pleno y óptimo de los instrumentos financieros de la política de cohesión. La propuesta de Reglamento
del FSE para el próximo período de programación 2014-2020 incluye una prioridad de inversión del FSE destinada a
la integración sostenible de los ninis en el mercado de trabajo. Con su propuesta de Recomendación del Consejo, la
Comisión desea impulsar la aplicación de la Garantía Juvenil, pedida reiteradamente por el Consejo Europeo y el
Parlamento Europeo.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 727-728-729.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/documents/publication/wcms_184965.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2012/54/en/1/EF1254EN.pdf

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 305

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009818/12**

**to the Commission**
**Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE)**

_(26 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Situation of NEETs

In recent years, and especially since the economic crisis raging across Europe has become even more acute, there has
been an increase in the number of young people between the ages of 15 and 29 who neither study nor work. They are
already widely known as the NEET generation.

This problem has both serious economic and social consequences, as is clear from the most recently published data.

In economic terms, the cost of the more than 13 900 000 young Europeans who are not in education, training or
employment amounts to 1.21% of EU GDP. This significant amount is higher than the total European budget for all
27 Member States, and totals more than EUR 153 billion.

In Spain, the number of young people classed as NEETs is put at over 1 300 000, costing the State 1.5% of its GDP, or,
in monetary terms, more than EUR 15 735 million.

In addition, the social consequences, which are due in part to this group of young people’s lack of active involvement
in society, are extremely serious both for those affected and for the countries themselves. Young people are at a
greater risk of suffering social exclusion as it becomes increasingly difficult for them to enter the labour market.

In the light of this information on the NEETs phenomenon, does the Commission plan to draft and implement a
general strategy which would address the problem in all its complexity, including the educational, economic and
budgetary dimensions, in order to begin to alleviate the disastrous effects of this situation on young people in Europe?

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

_(7 January 2013)_

In response to the high youth unemployment rates, the Commission has adopted the ‘Youth Employment Package’
(YEP) ( [1] ) on 5 December 2012. It aims at facilitating the transition from education to employment through a proposal
for a Council recommendation on establishing a Youth Guarantee, a second stage consultation of the European social
partners on a Quality Framework for Traineeships, a European Alliance for Apprenticeships and enhanced labour
mobility for young people.

The situation of NEETs is a particular concern for the Commission. Notably, in its proposal for a Council
recommendation, the Commission calls on Member States to ensure that all young people under 25 receive a good
quality offer of employment, continued education, an apprenticeship or a traineeship within four months of leaving
formal education or becoming unemployed.

The estimated costs of such a scheme in the Eurozone, as calculated by the International Labour Organisation
(ILO) ( [2] ), can by far be outweighed by avoiding the long term economic costs of not including the NEETs as estimated
in a recent Eurofound study ( [3] ).

To support the implementation of Youth Guarantee schemes, the Commission invites Member States to make full
and optimal use of the Cohesion Policy funding instruments. The proposal for ESF Regulation for the next
programming period 2014-2020 includes a dedicated ESF investment priority targeting the sustainable labour
market integration of young NEETs. With its proposal for a Council recommendation, the Commission wishes to
push for the implementation of a Youth Guarantee that was repeatedly called for by the European Council and the
European Parliament.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 727-728-729.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/documents/publication/wcms_184965.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2012/54/en/1/EF1254EN.pdf

C 310 E / 306 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009819/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Bernd Lange (S&D)**

_(26. Oktober 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Ökoinnovationen bei Personenkraftwagen

Die geltende Verordnung (EG) Nr. 443/2009 zur Festsetzung von Emissionsnormen für neue Personenkraftwagen
soll das reibungslose Funktionieren des Binnenmarktes sicherstellen und das Gesamtziel der Europäischen
Gemeinschaft verwirklichen, demzufolge die durchschnittlichen CO 2 -Emissionen der Neuwagenflotte bei 120 g/km
liegen sollten.

Die Verordnung besagt, dass zum Erreichen des Gemeinschaftsziels CO 2 -Einsparungen, die durch den Einsatz
innovativer Technologien erreicht werden, Berücksichtung finden.

1. Wie viele und welche Anträge auf Registrierung von Ökoinnovationen aufgrund dieser Verordnung hat es
bisher gegeben?

2. Wie viele und welche dieser Anträge wurden bereits anerkannt?

3. Welche besonderen Schwierigkeiten hat es gegeben, und wie hat die Kommission dazu beigetragen, sie zu
überwinden?

4. Wie bewertet die Kommission die bisherige Berücksichtigung von Ökoinnovationen?

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

_(21. Dezember 2012)_

Bisher wurde ein vollständiger Antrag auf die Genehmigung einer innovativen Technologie eingereicht, in dem es um
die Nutzung von LED-Lampen bei bestimmten Beleuchtungsfunktionen des Fahrzeugs geht ( [1] ). Derzeit erfolgt die
Beurteilung, und eine Entscheidung über den Antrag wird Anfang 2013 erwartet.

Die Kommission arbeitet kontinuierlich mit den Interessenvertretern zusammen, um potenziell in Betracht
kommende Technologien zu evaluieren. Seit Kurzem beschäftigt sie sich auch mit der Überarbeitung der technischen
Leitlinien und der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) Nr. 725/2011 zur Einführung eines Verfahrens zur Genehmigung
und Zertifizierung innovativer Technologien zur Verringerung der CO 2 -Emissionen von Personenkraftwagen nach
der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 443/2009 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates ( [2] ). Dadurch soll die Antragstellung
erleichtert werden.

Anhand der Daten, welche die Überwachung der CO 2 -Emissionen von Personenkraftwagen in den Jahren 2010 und
2011 ergab, kann damit gerechnet werden, dass die überwiegende Mehrheit der Hersteller ihre Ziele für 2012-2015
erreichen wird, ohne zusätzliche Einsparungen durch Ökoinnovationen zu benötigen.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Eine Zusammenfassung des Antrags einschließlich einer Beschreibung der Technologie und der vorgeschlagenen Testmethode kann auf der

Webseite der GD CLIMA unter „Eco-innovations“ abgerufen werden:
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehicles/cars/documentation_en.htm

( ⋅2∙ ) ABl. L 194 vom 26.7.2011.

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 307

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009819/12**

**to the Commission**
**Bernd Lange (S&D)**

_(26 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Eco-innovations for passenger vehicles

Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 setting emission performance standards for new passenger cars is intended to ensure
the proper functioning of the internal market and to achieve the European Community’s overall objective of
120 g CO 2 /km as average emissions for the new car fleet.

The regulation states that, to realise the Community objective, CO 2 savings achieved through the use of innovative
technologies will be considered.

1. How many applications have there been to date, and what do they involve, to register eco-innovations on the
basis of this regulation?

2. How many such applications have already been accepted, and what do they involve?

3. What particular difficulties have there been, and how has the Commission helped to overcome them?

4. What is the Commission’s assessment of action, to date, to take eco-innovations intoconsideration?

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

_(21 December 2012)_

One complete application has so far been submitted for the approval of an innovative technology concerning the use
of LED-lights in certain lighting functions of the vehicle ( [1] ). The assessment is currently ongoing and it is expected that
a decision will be adopted with regard to this application early in 2013.

The Commission is working continuously with stakeholders to evaluate potentially eligible technologies and has
recently initiated work on the revision of the technical guidelines as well as implementing Regulation (EU)
No 725/2011 establishing a procedure for the approval and certification of innovative technologies for reducing CO 2
emissions from passenger cars pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the Parliament and of the Council ( [2] )
with a view to facilitating the application procedure.

On the basis of the monitoring of CO 2 emissions from passenger cars in 2010 and 2011 it can be expected that the
vast majority of manufacturers will meet their targets for 2012-2015 without the need for additional savings from
eco-innovations.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) A summary of the application including a description of the technology and the proposed test method is available on DG CLIMA's website, in the

‘eco-innovations’ chapter at http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehicles/cars/documentation_en.htm

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 194, 26.7.2011.

( **|**

C 310 E / 308 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009820/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Bernd Lange (S&D)**

_(26. Oktober 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Abgasnorm Euro 6

Die Verordnung (EG) Nr. 715/2007 über die Typgenehmigung von Kraftfahrzeugen hinsichtlich der Emissionen von
leichten Personenkraftwagen und Nutzfahrzeugen (Euro 5 und Euro 6) und über den Zugang zu Reparatur‐ und
Wartungsinformationen für Fahrzeuge zielt darauf ab, die durch Straßenfahrzeuge verursachte Umweltbelastung zu
begrenzen. Die Verordnung umfasst gemeinsame Anforderungen an die Schadstoffemissionen von Kraftfahrzeugen
und deren spezifische Ersatzteile und legt Maßnahmen fest, mit denen der Zugriff auf Reparaturdaten der Fahrzeuge
verbessert und die rasche Einführung der Produktion von Fahrzeugen, die diese Normen erfüllen, gefördert werden
soll.

Nach Ablauf der aktuell geltenden Norm Euro 5 wird die nächste Stufe Euro 6 ab 1. September 2014 für die
Typzulassung und ab 1. Januar 2015 für die Zulassung und den Verkauf von neuen Fahrzeugtypen verbindlich.
Damit Planungssicherheit für die europäische Automobilindustrie besteht und die Hersteller Innovationen in die
richtige Richtung lenken können, müssen sie schnell wissen, welche Maßnahmen damit verbunden sind.

1. Wie ist der Stand der Durchführungsaktivitäten zur Vervollständigung der Norm Euro 6?

2. Wie wird der Faktor für die Emissionen unter realen Fahrbedingungen (Real Driving Emissions) geregelt?

3. Wie verhält es sich mit einem Temperaturtest für Dieselmotoren?

4. Wie werden Partikelgrenzwerte für Benzinmotoren gehandhabt?

5. Welches sind die On-board-diagnostics-Werte für Diesel‐ und Benzinmotoren?

6. Wird bis zur Wirksamkeit der Norm Euro 6 der neue ETC-Prüfzyklus bereits in Kraft getreten sein?

7. Wie stellt die Kommission sicher, dass beim Übergang von der Norm Euro 5 zur Norm Euro 6 keine Lücke
bezüglich der Erfassung verschiedener Fahrzeugklassen entsteht?

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

_(8. Januar 2013)_

1. Seit Inkrafttreten der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 459/2012 am 29. Mai 2012 können Automobilhersteller ihre
Fahrzeuge nach den technischen Vorschriften der Euro-6-Norm zertifizieren lassen.

2. Die Kommission entwickelt derzeit in enger Zusammenarbeit mit den Interessenträgern ein Prüfverfahren, um
die Emissionen unter tatsächlichen Betriebsbedingungen (real driving emissions, RDE) von Euro-6-Fahrzeugen
zuverlässiger bestimmen zu können. Ziel ist es dabei, ein Verfahren zu erarbeiten, das die tatsächlichen dynamischen
Prozesse besser abbildet und folglich ein zuverlässiges Instrument für die Emissionsprüfung darstellt.

3. Parallel zur Entwicklung des RDE-Prüfverfahrens, erörtert die Kommission zudem die Überarbeitung der
Niedrigtemperatur-Emissionsprüfungen (-7° C) und ‐emissionsgrenzwerte, insbesondere in Bezug auf ein
Prüfverfahren zur besseren Kontrolle der Stickoxid-Emissionen von Dieselfahrzeugen bei niedrigen Temperaturen
oder Kaltstarts.

4. Nach den Euro-6-Vorschriften gilt sowohl für Benzin‐ als auch für Dieselfahrzeuge ein Grenzwert für die
Partikelmasse von 4,5 mg/km. Für Benzinmotoren mit Direkteinspritzung gilt derselbe Partikelgrenzwert wie für
Dieselmotoren (6,0 x 10 [11] #/km). Allerdings können die Hersteller für Euro-6-Fahrzeuge mit Benzinmotoren mit
Direkteinspritzung noch bis zu drei Jahre nach Einführung der Euro-6-Grenzwerte einen Emissionsgrenzwert für die
Partikelzahl von 6,0 × 10 [12] #/km anwenden.

5. Die On-Board-Diagnosewerte für Diesel‐ und Benzinmotoren sind einer Tabelle in Anhang I der Verordnung
(EU) Nr. 459/2012 zu entnehmen.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 309

6. Im Rahmen der Vorschriften für schwere Nutzfahrzeuge (Euro VI) wurde der ETC-Prüfzyklus durch einen
weltweit harmonisierten Prüfzyklus ersetzt. Dies steht jedoch in keinem Zusammenhang zur Euro-6-Norm.

7. In Bezug auf die Fahrzeugklassen ergeben sich aus Euro 6 keinerlei Veränderungen gegenüber Euro 5. Deshalb
ist auch nicht von einer Lücke in diesem Bereich auszugehen.

C 310 E / 310 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009820/12**

**to the Commission**
**Bernd Lange (S&D)**

_(26 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Euro 6 emission standard

The aim of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light
passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information
is to limit pollution caused by road vehicles. The regulation includes common requirements for emissions from
motor vehicles and their specific replacement parts, and lays down measures to improve access to repair information
and promote the rapid production of vehicles meeting those standards.

After the current Euro 5 standard expires, the next standard, Euro 6, will become binding for type approvals as from
1 September 2014 and for the registration and sale of new types of vehicle as from 1 January 2015. So that there is
planning certainty for the European car industry and manufacturers can steer investment in the right direction, they
need to know quickly what the measures involved are.

1. What stage has been reached in implementation activities for completion of the move to the Euro 6 standard?

2. How is the ‘real driving emissions’ factor being addressed?

3. What is the position with regard to a temperature test for diesel engines?

4. How are particulate limit values for petrol engines being addressed?

5. What are the on-board diagnostic values for diesel and petrol engines?

6. Will the new ETC test cycle have come into force by the time the Euro 6 standard becomes effective?

7. How is the Commission making sure that, in the transition from the Euro 5 standard to Euro 6, no gaps emerge
with regard to the inclusion of various categories of vehicle?

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

_(8 January 2013)_

1. Following the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 459/2012 on 29 May 2012, vehicle manufacturers can
certify vehicles according to Euro 6 technical requirements.

2. The Commission is currently developing a test procedure for better assessment of real driving emissions ( [1] ) of
Euro 6 vehicles in close collaboration with stakeholders. The aim of this exercise is to develop a test procedure which
will better reflect real world dynamics and therefore represent a robust tool for emission testing.

3. In parallel to the development of the RDE test procedure, the Commission also investigates the revision of low
temperature ( [2] ) emission tests and emission limits, which include notably a test for better controlling NOx
emissions of diesel vehicles at low temperature and cold starts.

4. In accordance with the Euro 6 legislation, a threshold of 4.5 mg/km for the mass of the particulate matter
applies to vehicles with both petrol and diesel engines. Also, vehicles with petrol engines with a direct injection have
to comply with the same particulate matter limit as diesel vehicles (6.0 x 10 [11] #/km). However, until three years after
the introduction of the Euro 6 limits, a particle number emission limit of 6.0 × 10 [12] #/km shall apply to Euro 6 petrol
direct injection vehicles upon the choice of the manufacturer.

5. The on-board diagnostic values for diesel and petrol engines are set out in a table in Annex I to Regulation (EU)
No 459/2012.

6. The ETC test cycle has been replaced by a World Harmonised Test Cycle in the Heavy Duty Vehicles emission
legislation ( [3] ) and does not have any relation to the Euro 6 standard.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) RDE.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) -7° C.
( ⋅3∙ ) Euro VI.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 311

7. Euro 6 legislation has not introduced any provisions related to the vehicle categories compared to Euro 5.
Therefore, no gap in this regard is expected.

C 310 E / 312 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-009821/12**

**aan de Commissie**

**Auke Zijlstra (NI)**

_(26 oktober 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Belasting op financiële transacties

EU-commissaris Algirdas Šemeta, die bevoegd is voor belastingen en de douane-unie, heeft verklaard dat elf lidstaten
vóór de invoering van een belasting op financiële transacties zijn, dus meer dan de negen die nodig zijn om op wettige
wijze een initiatief tot nauwere samenwerking te ontplooien. Artikel 326 VWEU bepaalt dat nauwere samenwerking
geen belemmering of discriminatie in de handel tussen de lidstaten mag vormen, en de mededinging tussen de
lidstaten niet mag verstoren.

1. Heeft de Commissie een effectbeoordeling uitgevoerd om de gevolgen van genoemde nauwere samenwerking te
onderzoeken? Zo ja, kan de Commissie deze openbaar maken?

2. Kan de Commissie aantonen dat dit initiatief niet zal leiden tot discriminatie van de niet-deelnemende lidstaten
in de handel en tot een betere positie van de deelnemende lidstaten op de interne markt als geheel?

3. Is de Commissie van mening dat invoering van de belasting op financiële transacties in overeenstemming is met
een van de voorwaarden die gelden voor nauwere samenwerking, namelijk dat daardoor het integratieproces van de
Unie wordt versterkt?

**Antwoord van de heer Šemeta namens de Commissie**

_(10 december 2012)_

1. De Commissie heeft de verzoeken die elf lidstaten hebben ingediend om over te gaan tot nauwere
samenwerking op het gebied van de belasting op financiële transacties, op hun verenigbaarheid getoetst en zij is tot de
conclusie gekomen dat aan alle voorwaarden die zijn vastgesteld in artikel 20 VEU en de artikelen 326 tot en
met 329 VWEU, is voldaan. Zij heeft deze conclusies openbaar gemaakt in haar mededeling COM(2012) 631 van
23 oktober 2012. Bij de voorbereiding van een uiteindelijk voorstel om uitvoering te geven aan de nauwere
samenwerking op het gebied van de belasting op financiële transacties, zal de Commissie ook een analyse van
beleidsopties en effecten verrichten. Zij zal hierbij voortbouwen op de effectbeoordeling bij haar oorspronkelijke
voorstel en op verdere analyse die zij ondertussen heeft verricht. Ook deze extra analyse zal te zijner tijd openbaar
worden gemaakt.

2. Er zijn geen aanwijzingen voor dat de nauwere samenwerking, zoals gevraagd door de groep van elf lidstaten,
tot enige discriminatie tussen de deelnemende en de niet-deelnemende lidstaten zal leiden, positief noch negatief.

3. De Commissie is van mening dat de invoering van de belasting op financiële transacties, zoals gevraagd door de
groep van elf lidstaten, in overeenstemming is met alle Verdrags‐voorwaarden en het integratieproces van de Unie zal
versterken.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 313

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009821/12**

**to the Commission**

**Auke Zijlstra (NI)**

_(26 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Tax on financial transactions

The EU Commissioner for Taxation and Customs Union, Mr Algirdas Šemeta, has stated that eleven Member States
support the introduction of a tax on financial transactions, a number that exceeds the nine needed to legally launch an
enhanced cooperation initiative. Under Article 326 TFEU, such cooperation shall not constitute a barrier to, or
discrimination in, trade between Member States, nor shall it distort competition between them.

1. Has the Commission carried out an impact assessment on the effects of the abovementioned enhanced
cooperation? If so, could the Commission share it with the public?

2. Can the Commission prove that this initiative will not discriminate against the non‐participating Member States
in trade and will not give the participating Member States a better position in the internal market as a whole?

3. Does the Commission think that introducing the financial transaction tax complies with one of the
requirements for enhanced cooperation, namely that it should reinforce the integration process of the Union?

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

_(10 December 2012)_

1. The Commission has analysed the compatibility of the requests by 11 Member States for enhanced cooperation
in the area of financial transaction tax and found that these requests fully complied with the requirements as laid
down in Article 20 TEU and Articles 326 to 329 TFEU. It has made the findings of this analysis public in its
communication COM(2012)631 of 23 October 2012. In the run-up to an eventual proposal for implementing
enhanced cooperation in the area of financial transaction tax the Commission will also carry out an analysis of policy
options and impacts. This analysis will build on the impact assessment that accompanied the initial Commission
proposal, and further analysis undertaken by the Commission in the meantime. This additional analysis would then
also be published.

2. There is no indication whatsoever that the enhanced cooperation, as requested by the group of 11 Member
States, will discriminate between non-participating and participating Member States, either positively or negatively.

3. The Commission thinks that introducing the financial transaction tax, as requested by the group of 11 Member
States, complies with all Treaty requirements and that it will reinforce the integration process of the Union.

C 310 E / 314 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-009822/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Kriton Arsenis (S&D)**

_(26 Οκτωβρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Προστασία των κητοειδών από τη δράση ηχοεντοπιστών (σονάρ)

Στις 30 Νοεμβρίου 2011, εννέα φάλαινες με ράμφος εκβράστηκαν στις ακτές της Κέρκυρας στην Ελλάδα. Δύο ακόμα
φάλαινες εκβράστηκαν στις ακτές της Ιταλίας. Η επιστημονική εξέταση των θηλαστικών εντόπισε ανωμαλίες όπως εμβολές
αερίου και ενδείξεις της νόσου των δυτών που προκαλείται από την ταχεία ανάδυση των ζώων. Τα στοιχεία υποδηλώνουν ότι
ο πιθανότερος λόγος που εξοκέλλουν μαζικά οι φάλαινες είναι η χρήση ανθυποβρυχιακών ηχοεντοπιστών από ναυτικά
γυμνάσια στην προαναφερθείσα περιοχή. Παρόμοια μαζικά φαινόμενα που έχουν συμπέσει με ναυτικά γυμνάσια του ΝΑΤΟ,
έχουν επίσης καταγραφεί το 2000 στη Μαδέρα και το 2002 και 2004 στα Κανάρια Νησιά σύμφωνα με τους D’Amico et al.
(2009). Λαμβάνοντας υπόψη ότι ορισμένες από τις φάλαινες που έχασαν τη ζωή τους, βυθίστηκαν στην ανοιχτή θάλασσα και
επομένως δεν έχουν καταγραφεί, υπάρχει αβεβαιότητα σχετικά με τον ακριβή αριθμό των φαλαινών που έχουν πεθάνει στις εν
λόγω περιοχές. Τούτη η αβεβαιότητα συνεπάγεται την ύπαρξη σοβαρού κινδύνου εξαφάνισης ορισμένων πληθυσμών. Το εν
λόγω είδος είναι ιδιαιτέρως ευαίσθητο στην ηχορρύπανση και αποτελεί είδος κοινοτικού ενδιαφέροντος σύμφωνα με την
οδηγία για τους οικοτόπους 92/43/ΕΟΚ ενώ συμπεριλαμβάνεται επίσης στον κατάλογο προτεραιότητας της ACCOBAMS
(Συμφωνία για την Προστασία των Κητοειδών του Εύξεινου Πόντου, της Μεσογείου και του παρακείμενου Ατλαντικού).

1. Έχει ενημερώσει η Επιτροπή τα κράτη μέλη σχετικά με τις επιπτώσεις της χρήσης συστημάτων ηχοεντοπισμού σε ναυτικά
γυμνάσια για τους πληθυσμούς κητοειδών; Έχει παροτρύνει η Επιτροπή τα κράτη μέλη να λάβουν προληπτικά μέτρα; Εάν όχι,
σκοπεύει η Επιτροπή να το πράξει;

2. Υπάρχει σύστημα εποπτείας και καταγραφής σε ισχύ σχετικά με τη χρήση ναυτικών ηχοεντοπιστών από την αλιευτική
βιομηχανία, ώστε να εξασφαλίζεται η προστασία των κητοειδών; Σκοπεύει η Επιτροπή να θεσπίσει ένα τέτοιο σύστημα;

3. Έχει αναλάβει η Επιτροπή διεθνείς πρωτοβουλίες για να τεθεί το ζήτημα σε διεθνή φόρα; Εάν όχι, προτίθεται να το
πράξει;

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

_(18 Δεκεμβρίου 2012)_

Η Επιτροπή έχει συζητήσει με τα κράτη μέλη τις πιθανές επιπτώσεις των στρατιωτικών δραστηριοτήτων στο περιβάλλον και
τους έχει ζητήσει να θεσπίσουν εθνικά μέτρα σύμφωνα με τις απαιτήσεις για την προστασία των κητοειδών βάσει της οδηγίας
για τα ενδιαιτήματα (οικοτόπους) 92/43/ΕΟΚ ( [1] ). Το ζήτημα του υποθαλάσσιου θορύβου εξετάζεται επίσης στις
κατευθυντήριες γραμμές της Επιτροπής σχετικά με την εφαρμογή της οδηγίας για τα ενδιαιτήματα στο θαλάσσιο
περιβάλλον ( [2] ). Έχουν επίσης ληφθεί διάφορα άλλα μέτρα ( [3] ). Ωστόσο, η ανάληψη περαιτέρω δράσης περιορίζεται λόγω της
έλλειψης αρμοδιοτήτων στον τομέα των στρατιωτικών δραστηριοτήτων.

Δεν υπάρχει σύστημα παρακολούθησης ή αναφοράς όσον αφορά τη χρήση συσκευών ηχοεντοπισμού από τον αλιευτικό
κλάδο, αλλά η οδηγία-πλαίσιο για τη θαλάσσια στρατηγική (ΟΠΘΣ) ( [4] ) καλύπτει τον υποθαλάσσιο θόρυβο και την ενέργεια
από συσκευές ηχοεντοπισμού για μη στρατιωτική χρήση στα ευρωπαϊκά θαλάσσια ύδατα. Το 2014 τα κράτη μέλη οφείλουν
να καταρτίσουν προγράμματα παρακολούθησης με βάση την αξιολόγηση του 2012 ( [5] ), το δε πρόγραμμα μέτρων θα
ακολουθήσει ένα έτος αργότερα. Επί του παρόντος, μια τεχνική ομάδα για την εφαρμογή της ΟΠΘΣ εκπονεί συμβουλές
παρακολούθησης για την αντιμετώπιση του έντονου υποθαλάσσιου θορύβου χαμηλής συχνότητας (από σεισμικές έρευνες
και υποστυλώσεις αιολικών πάρκων) και του περιβαλλοντικού θορύβου.

Η Επιτροπή έχει αναλάβει τη δέσμευση να προβάλει το ζήτημα αυτό σε διεθνή φόρουμ, και ιδίως στη Διάσκεψη των μερών
της σύμβασης περί της διατηρήσεως των αποδημητικών ειδών που ανήκουν στην άγρια πανίδα, η οποία ενέκρινε δύο
ψηφίσματα σχετικά με τον θόρυβο στους ωκεανούς ( [6] ). Η Επιτροπή έχει επίσης στηρίξει μια απόφαση την οποία έλαβε η 11η
Διάσκεψη των μερών της σύμβασης για τη βιολογική ποικιλότητα (CBD) με σκοπό, μεταξύ άλλων, την ενθάρρυνση των
μερών της CBD να προωθήσουν την έρευνα και να λάβουν κατάλληλα μέτρα για την ελαχιστοποίηση των αρνητικών
επιπτώσεων που έχει ο ανθρωπογενής υποθαλάσσιος θόρυβος στη θαλάσσια βιοποικιλότητα.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) ΕΕ L 206 της 22.7.1992.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/whales_dolphins/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) ΕΕ L 164 της 25.6.2008.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/Report%20COP9/Res&Recs/E/Res_9_19_ocean_noise_En.pdf

http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop10/resolutions_adopted/10_24_underwater_noise_e.pdf

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 315

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009822/12**

**to the Commission**

**Kriton Arsenis (S&D)**

_(26 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Protecting cetaceans from sonar activities

On 30 November 2011, nine beaked whales washed up on the shores of the Greek island of Corfu. Two more whales
washed up on the shores of southern Italy. Scientific examination of the mammals detected abnormalities such as gas
embolisms and evidence of the diver’s disease which is caused by the rapid ascent of the marine animals. The evidence
suggests that the most likely primary cause of this type of mass stranding is the use of anti-submarine sonar during
naval exercises in the aforementioned region. Similar mass strandings, coinciding with NATO naval exercises, were
also recorded in 2000 in Madeira and in 2002 and 2004 in the Canary Islands, according to D’Amico et al. (2009).
Taking into consideration that a number of dead whales sank in the open sea and have thus not been recorded, there
is uncertainty regarding the exact number of whales that have died in these regions. This uncertainty means that there
is a real risk of extinction for some populations. This species is very sensitive to noise pollution and is listed as a
Species of Community Interest under the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC. It is also included in the priority list for the
Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans in the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and Contiguous Atlantic Area
(ACCOBAMS).

1. Has the Commission informed Member States regarding the consequences for the cetacean population of the
use of sonar systems in naval exercises? Has the Commission urged Member States to take preventative measures? If
not, is the Commission planning to do so?

2. Is there a monitoring and reporting system in place regarding the use of sonar equipment by the fisheries
industry, in order to ensure cetacean protection? Is the Commission planning to establish such a system?

3. Has the Commission undertaken initiatives to raise the issue in international fora? If not, does it intend to do so?

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

_(18 December 2012)_

The Commission has discussed with the Member States the possible effects of military activities on the environment
and requested them to take national measures in accordance with requirements for the protection of cetaceans under
the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC ( [1] ). The issue of underwater noise is also addressed in the Commission guidelines on
applying the Habitats Directive in the marine environment ( [2] ). Several other measures ( [3] ) have also been taken.
However, further action is limited due to the lack of competencies in the field of military activities.

There is no monitoring or reporting system in place regarding the use of sonar equipment by the fishing industry but
the Marine Strategy Framework Directive ( [4] ) does cover underwater noise and energy by sonar for non-military use in
European marine waters. In 2014, Member States must design monitoring programmes on the basis of the 2012
assessment ( [5] ), followed one year later by the programme of measures. At present, a technical group for the
implementation of the MSFD is developing monitoring advice to address loud impulsive low frequency underwater
noise (from seismic surveys and piling wind farms) and ambient noise.

The Commission is committed to raising this issue in international fora, in particular at the Conference of the Parties
to the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals which adopted two Resolutions ( [6] ) on
ocean noise. The Commission has also supported a decision taken by the 11th Conference of the Parties to the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to, _inter alia_, encourage CBD Parties to promote research and take
appropriate measures to minimise the adverse impact of anthropogenic underwater noise on marine biodiversity.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/whales_dolphins/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) OJ 25.6.2008, L 164/25, §8.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/Report%20COP9/Res&Recs/E/Res_9_19_ocean_noise_En.pdf and

http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop10/resolutions_adopted/10_24_underwater_noise_e.pdf

C 310 E / 316 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009823/12**

**a la Comisión (Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante)**
**Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE), François Alfonsi (Verts/ALE) y Jill Evans (Verts/ALE)**

_(26 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ VP/HR — Situación de los 12 palestinos evacuados de la iglesia de la Natividad de Belén y trasladados a la
Unión Europea en 2002

El 21 de mayo de 2002, el Consejo adoptó una Posición Común relativa a la acogida temporal por los Estados
miembros de la Unión Europea de doce palestinos que fueron evacuados de la iglesia de la Natividad de Belén
(2002/400/PESC), con arreglo a los términos de un acuerdo previo entre la Autoridad Nacional Palestina y el
Gobierno de Israel, y con el fin de suavizar la situación de crisis que se vivía en ese momento en la región y restablecer
el diálogo entre las partes. Entre las disposiciones de dicha Posición Común estaban la de asegurar un trato
equiparable a estas personas en los diferentes Estados miembros que los acogieron, así como realizar una evaluación
de la forma en la que se estaba desarrollando esa acogida que, además, tendría una duración máxima de 30 meses.

Sin embargo, han transcurrido diez años y estas personas continúan en el territorio de la Unión, viviendo en
condiciones individuales y familiares muy distintas y, dada la disparidad de normativa aplicada en cada uno de los
Estados de acogida, en condiciones materiales de vida muy desiguales. Asimismo, algunos de ellos desearían regresar a
su país, pero al menos en el caso del Estado español, en donde no tienen permiso de trabajo, tampoco reciben
ninguna clase de información o facilidades para poder dar por finalizada esta situación que, según el artículo 3 de la
Posición Común, tenía una fecha de caducidad que ha sido largamente superada.

1. ¿Se ha realizado la evaluación de la aplicación de la Posición Común prevista en el artículo 8 de la misma?

2. ¿Está prevista alguna decisión para poner fin a la situación en la que viven estas personas y que, dada su
excepcionalidad, perpetúa indebidamente la limitación de los derechos y libertades de los que son titulares al amparo
de la legislación internacional en materia de derechos humanos?

3. ¿Existe la intención, en su caso, de respetar la libre voluntad de estas personas acerca de sus opciones de vida y
residencia, dando con ello por concluido este episodio?

**Respuesta de la Alta Representante y Vicepresidenta Sra. Ashton en nombre de la Comisión**

_(16 de enero de 2013)_

Se ha evaluado periódicamente la aplicación de la Posición Común 2002/400/PESC desde su adopción y, como
resultado de cada evaluación, se ha prorrogado la renovación de los permisos correspondientes, en último lugar
mediante la Decisión 2011/845/PESC del Consejo ( [1] ), de 16 de diciembre de 2010.

La finalidad de la Posición Común original era garantizar un planteamiento común a escala de la UE en lo relativo a la
acogida de las personas trasladadas tras el asedio de la iglesia de la Natividad. Se consideró necesario mitigar las
preocupaciones de seguridad de algunos Estados miembros surgidas a raíz de la acogida de los palestinos por otros
Estados miembros. La acogida de los palestinos también planteó el tema de su entrada y estancia en el territorio de
algunos Estados miembros, las condiciones relativas a dichas entrada y estancia y su incidencia en los demás Estados
Schengen. Como consecuencia de ello, la Posición Común aplica determinadas medidas restrictivas. En la actualidad,
parece poco probable que se les permita retornar, por lo que se ha prorrogado el plazo de su estancia en la EU. Sus
condiciones materiales de vida son un asunto que corresponde a cada uno de los Estados miembros afectados. Debe
recordarse que, al aplicar las decisiones mencionadas, los Estados miembros deben respetar los derechos y libertades
consagrados en la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Decisión 2011/845/PESC del Consejo, de 16 de diciembre de 2011, relativa a la acogida temporal por los Estados miembros de la Unión Europea
de determinados palestinos (DO L 335 de 17.12.2011).

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 317

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-009823/12**
**à la Commission (Vice-Présidente/Haute Représentante)**
**Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE), François Alfonsi (Verts/ALE) et Jill Evans (Verts/ALE)**

_(26 octobre 2012)_

_Objet:_ VP/HR — Situation des douze Palestiniens évacués de la basilique de la Nativité à Bethléem et accueillis par
l'Union européenne en 2002

Le 21 mai 2002, le Conseil a adopté une position commune concernant l'accueil temporaire de certains Palestiniens
par des États membres de l'Union européenne (2002/400/PESC). Il s'agissait des douze Palestiniens évacués de la
basilique de la Nativité à Bethléem, conformément aux dispositions de l'accord auquel sont parvenus l'Autorité
palestinienne et le gouvernement israélien pour contribuer à atténuer la crise que traversait à cette époque la région et
à rétablir un dialogue entre les parties. La position commune prévoyait de veiller à ce que les personnes concernées
bénéficient d'un traitement comparable dans chacun des États membres d'accueil et d'évaluer les modalités pratiques
de cet accueil, censé en outre ne pas dépasser trente mois.

Or, dix ans plus tard, ces personnes se trouvent toujours sur le territoire de l'Union. Leurs situations personnelles et
familiales sont très disparates et, étant donné l'hétérogénéité des réglementations applicables dans les différents États
d'accueil, leurs conditions de vie matérielles sont également très inégales. En outre, même si certaines de ces
personnes souhaiteraient retourner dans leur pays, elles ne bénéficient, du moins dans le cas de l'État espagnol, qui ne
leur a accordé aucun permis de travail, d'aucune information ni d'aucune forme d'assistance pour remédier à cette
situation qui, conformément à l'article 3 de la position commune, aurait dû prendre fin il y a longtemps.

1. L'application de la position commune visée à l'article 8 de celle‐ci a‐t‐elle fait l'objet d'une évaluation?

2. Une décision est‐elle prévue pour mettre un terme à cette situation qui, compte tenu de son caractère
exceptionnel, continue à priver indûment des personnes des droits et des libertés qui leur sont dûs au titre du droit
international en matière de Droits de l'homme?

3. Est‐il envisagé d'une façon ou d'une autre de respecter la libre détermination de ces personnes concernant leurs
choix de vie et de lieu de résidence, ce qui mettrait fin à la situation actuelle?

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

_(16 janvier 2013)_

L'application de la position commune 2002/400/PESC fait l'objet d'évaluations périodiques depuis son adoption. À la
suite de ces évaluations, les permis en question ont été prorogés, en dernier lieu par la décision 2011/845/PESC du
Conseil ( [1] ) du 16 décembre 2011.

La position commune initiale avait pour objectif de garantir l'adoption, au niveau de l'UE, d'une approche commune
concernant l'accueil des personnes transférées après le siège de la basilique de la Nativité. Il a été jugé nécessaire
d'apaiser les préoccupations de certains États membres en matière de sécurité engendrées par l'accueil de ces
Palestiniens par d'autres États membres. La décision d'accueillir ces personnes a également soulevé des questions
quant à leur entrée et leur séjour sur le territoire de certains États membres, les conditions dont serait assorti ce droit
d'entrée et de séjour et les conséquences pour les autres États Schengen. La position commune impose donc certaines
mesures restrictives. À l'heure actuelle, il semble peu probable que les personnes concernées soient autorisées à
rentrer, raison pour laquelle leur permis de séjour au sein de l'Union européenne a été prorogé. La question de leurs
conditions de vie matérielles est du ressort des différents États membres concernés. Il convient de rappeler que les
États membres doivent respecter les droits et libertés inscrits dans la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l'Union
européenne lors de la mise en œuvre des décisions précitées.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Décision 2011/845/PESC du Conseil du 16 décembre 2011 concernant l'accueil temporaire de certains Palestiniens par des États membres de
l'Union européenne, JO L 335 du 17.12.2011.

C 310 E / 318 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009823/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**
**Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE), François Alfonsi (Verts/ALE) and Jill Evans (Verts/ALE)**

_(26 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Situation of the 12 Palestinians evacuated from the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem and
transferred to the European Union in 2002

On 21 May 2002, the Council adopted a common position concerning the temporary reception by Member States of
the European Union of 12 Palestinians who were evacuated from the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem
(2002/400/CFSP), in accordance with the terms of an understanding between the Palestinian Authority and the
Government of Israel, and to help temper the crisis situation in the region at that time and to restore a dialogue
between the parties. The common position included provisions for ensuring that the persons concerned received a
comparable treatment in each of the receiving Member States and for evaluating the way in which the reception,
which was supposed to have a maximum duration of 30 months, was being carried out in practice.

However, 10 years have now passed and the people concerned are still living in the European Union in very different
individual and family circumstances and, due to the very inconsistent ways in which this common position was
applied in the receiving Member States, in widely varying material living conditions. Furthermore, some of them
would like to return to their own country, yet at least in Spain, where they are not allowed to work, they are not given
any information or assistance which would allow them to rectify the situation and end their time there. According to
Article 3 of the common position, the time limit for their stay has long been exceeded.

1. Has the application of the common position been evaluated as provided for in Article 8thereof?

2. Are there any plans to make a decision to put an end to the situation in which thesepeople are living, which, due
to its exceptional nature, continues to place unduerestrictions on the rights and freedoms of those whose human
rights should beprotected under international law?

3. Is there any intention of respecting these people’s freedom to make their own decisionsregarding their own lives
and place of residence, thereby bringing an end to this situation?

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

_(16 January 2013)_

The application of Common Position 2002/400/CFSP has been evaluated regularly since its adoption and, as a result
of each evaluation, the extension of the permits in question has been extended, most recently by Council
Decision 2011/845/CFSP ( [1] ) of 16 December 2011.

The purpose of the original common position was to ensure that a common approach existed at the level of the EU
regarding the reception of those who were transferred after the siege of the Church of the Nativity. It was deemed
necessary to mitigate the security concerns of some Member States raised by the reception of Palestinians by other
Member States. The reception of the Palestinians also raised the question of their entry into and stays in the territory
of certain Member States, the conditions to be attached thereto and the impact on the other Schengen states. As a
result, the Common Position applies certain restrictive measures. At present it seems unlikely that they would be
allowed to return, hence the time limit for their stay within the EU has been extended. The question of their material
living conditions is a matter for the individual Member States concerned. It should be recalled that when
implementing the above decisions, Member States should respect the rights and freedoms laid down in the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Council Decision 2011/845/CFSP of 16 December 2011 concerning the temporary reception by Member States of the European Union of certain
Palestinians, OJ L 335, 17.12.2011.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 319

_(Magyar változat)_

**Írásbeli választ igénylő kérdés E-009825/12**

**a Bizottság számára**
**Mészáros Alajos (PPE) és Bagó Zoltán (PPE)**

_(2012. október 26.)_

_Tárgy:_ Uniós jog _ratione tamporis_ hatálya

Egyetért-e a Bizottság az uniós jog _ratione temporis_ alkalmazásával kapcsolatban az Európai Unió Bírósága által
kialakított gyakorlattal ( [1] ), amely szerint egy tagállam csatlakozásánál régebben létrejött jogi helyzetek jelenlegi
következményeire is alkalmazni kell az uniós jogot?

Ebben az esetben a Bizottság szerint az uniós jog nemzeti jogszabályok felett élvezett primátusának elve megkövetelie, hogy egy tagállamban az Unióhoz való csatlakozását megelőzően létrejött jogszabályokat, amelyek sérthetik a
jogalanyok uniós jogrendből eredő jogosultságait, a jogalkotó megváltoztassa? ( [2] )

**José-Manuel Barroso válasza a Bizottság nevében**

_(2012. december 12.)_

1. Az uniós jogrendben az uniós jog egyetlen hiteles értelmezését az Európai Unió Bírósága adja. Az uniós
intézményeknek és a tagállamoknak a Bíróság értelmezése szerint kell alkalmazniuk az uniós jogot.

2. A Bíróság azt az ítéletet hozta a Van Gend en Loos ügyben ( [3] ), hogy az Európai Unió működéséről szóló
szerződés nemcsak a tagállamok közötti kölcsönös kötelezettségeket szabályozza, hanem létrehozta „a nemzetközi
jog új jogrendjét, melynek javára az államok korlátozták szuverén jogaikat”. A Costa kontra Enel ügyben( [4] ) a Bíróság a
következőképpen határozott az uniós jog nemzeti jogszabályok felvett élvezett primátusával kapcsolatban: „(…) a
Szerződésből eredő, és ezáltal önálló jogforrásból származó joggal szemben – annak eredeti, sajátos természetéből
adódóan – bírói úton nem érvényesíthető semmiféle nemzeti szabály (…)”.

A Lisszaboni Szerződés elfogadásával összefüggésben a tagállamok hivatalosan megerősítették az uniós jog
primátusát: „A Konferencia emlékeztet arra, hogy az Európai Unió Bírósága állandó ítélkezési gyakorlatának
megfelelően a Szerződések és a Szerződések alapján az Unió által elfogadott jogi aktusok az említett ítélkezési
gyakorlat által megállapított feltételek szerint a tagállamok jogával szemben elsőbbséget élveznek” ( [5] ).

Ami az új tagállamokat illeti, valamennyi új tagállamot köteleznek a szerződések és a Bíróság ítélkezési gyakorlata.

Ebből adódóan, azokat a jogszabályokat, amelyeket egy adott tagállamban annak uniós csatlakozása előtt fogadtak el,
és amelyek nem összeegyeztethetőek az uniós jog rendelkezéseivel, módosítani kell az uniós vívmányok tiszteletben
tartása érdekében, kivéve azokat a rendelkezéseket, amelyek esetében átmeneti időszakot állapítottak meg a
csatlakozási szerződésben. Ezen időszakok elteltével a tagállam nemzeti jogrendjének az uniós joggal teljes
mértékben összeegyeztethetőnek kell lennie.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Bíróság, C-224/98, 25. pont; C-290/00, 43‐44. pontok.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Bíróság, 316/81.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) 26/62. sz., Van Gend en Loos kontra Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen ügy, [EBHT 1963., 1. o.]
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) 6/64. sz, Costa kontra Enel ügy, [EBHT 1964, 586. o.]
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Az uniós jog elsőbbségéről szóló 17. sz. nyilatkozat.

C 310 E / 320 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009825/12**

**to the Commission**
**Alajos Mészáros (PPE) and Zoltán Bagó (PPE)**

_(26 October 2012)_

_Subject: Ratione temporis_ impact of EC law

In connection with _ratione temporis_ application of EC law, does the Commission agree with the practice established by
the Court of Justice of the European Union ( [1] ) according to which EC law must be applied to the present consequences
of legal situations which came about prior to the accession of a Member State?

If so, does the principle of the primacy of EC law over national legislation, in the Commission’s view, require that laws
which were adopted in a Member State prior to its accession and which might violate the legitimacy of its legal
entities deriving from EC law be amended by the legislator? ( [2] )

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

_(12 December 2012)_

1. Within the Union legal order, the only authentic interpretation of EC law is that given by the Court of Justice of
the European Union. The institutions of the Union and the Member States have to apply EC law as interpreted by the
Court.

2. The Court ruled in Van Gend en Loos ( [3] ) that the EC Treaty did not merely regulate mutual obligations between
Member States, but established a ‘new legal order of international law for the benefit of which the States have limited
their sovereign rights’. In Costa v Enel ( [4] ), the Court ruled as follows on the primacy of EC law over national law: ‘(…)
the law stemming from the Treaty, an independent source of law, could not, because of its special and original nature,
be overridden by domestic legal provisions, however framed, (…)’.

In the context of the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, the Member States formally confirmed the primacy of EC law:
‘The Conference recalls that, in accordance with well settled case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union,
the Treaties and the law adopted by the Union on the basis of the Treaties have primacy over the law of the Member
States, under the conditions laid down by the said case law’ ( [5] ).

As far as new Member States are concerned, any new Member is bound by the Treaties and the case-law of the Court.

Therefore, laws which were adopted in a Member State prior to accession and which are not compatible with
provisions of EC law must be amended in order to respect the Union ‘acquis’, except for those provisions for which a
period of transition has been agreed upon in the Accession Treaty. When these periods have passed, the national legal
order of the Member State needs to be fully compatible with EC law.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) ECJ, C-224/98, point 25; C-290/00, C-290/00, points 43-4443-44.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) ECJ, 316/81.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Case 26/62, Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen, [1963] ECR 1.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Case 6/64, Costa v Enel [1964] ECR 586.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Declaration No 17 concerning primacy.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 321

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung P-009826/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Jürgen Creutzmann (ALDE)**

_(26. Oktober 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Anwendung der EU-Beihilferegeln und Notifizierungen in Rheinland-Pfalz

Staatsbeihilfen, ganz gleich in welcher Form diese gewährt werden, müssen gemäß EU-Recht vorab bei der
Kommission angemeldet werden. Dies geschieht jedoch nicht in allen Fällen.

Kann die Kommission in diesem Zusammenhang und in Bezug auf einen spezifischen Fall die folgenden Fragen
beantworten:

1. Was unternimmt die Kommission in den Fällen, in denen Gebietskörperschaften in den Mitgliedstaaten
mehrfach durch Nichtnotifizierung von Staatsbeihilfen aufgefallen sind? Gibt es in diesen Fällen zusätzliche
Kontrollen, und wird von der Möglichkeit Gebrauch gemacht, im konkreten Fall bis zur Klärung der Sachlage
die Auszahlung zu untersagen? Berücksichtigt die Kommission die Häufung dieser Fälle im Bundesland
Rheinland-Pfalz und wenn ja, wie?

2. Können Geldleistungen der öffentlichen Hand für städtebauliche Sanierungsmaßnahmen, die ein privater
Bauinvestor durchführt und von denen dessen künftiger Mieter profitiert, eine Beihilfe nach Art. 107 Abs. 1
AEUV sein, und spielt die Art der späteren Nutzung eine Rolle bei der Beurteilung?

3. In welchem Verhältnis stehen Geldzahlungen einer Kommune im Rahmen einer städtebaulichen
Sanierungsmaßnahme nach den §§ 136 ff. BauGB für den Bau/die Erneuerung baulicher Anlagen und Gebäude
auf der einen Seite zu dem Durchführungsverbot nach Art. 108 Abs. 3 Satz 3 AEUV auf der anderen Seite? Sind
solche Fälle der Kommission bekannt, und wie wurde in diesen bisher entschieden?

4. Der Tageszeitung _Die Rheinpfalz_ (Nr. 275 vom 26.11.2011 „Hinter den Kulissen Projekt vorangetrieben“) ist zu
entnehmen, dass es im Juli 2011 ein Treffen der Landesregierung Rheinland-Pfalz mit „Vertretern der EUKommission in Brüssel“ bezüglich der Subvention des Baus eines Altenheimes in Dahn gegeben hat. Wurde bei
diesem Treffen seitens der Kommission dem Land Rheinland-Pfalz eine positive Beurteilung in Aussicht
gestellt, so dass das zuständige Landesministerium in der Öffentlichkeit den Anschein erwecken konnte, das
Projekt sei mit der Kommission abgestimmt?

5. Wird die Kommission nach den Subventionsbefürwortern auch den Wettbewerbern die Möglichkeit geben,
Argumente bei der Kommission persönlich vorzutragen?

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

_(26. November 2012)_

1. Alle rechtswidrigen Beihilfesachen, von denen die Kommission u. a. aufgrund von Beschwerden erfährt, werden
geprüft. Des Weiteren führt sie regelmäßige Kontrollen durch. Der Kommission ist in Bezug auf Rheinland-Pfalz und
Deutschland im Allgemeinen kein besonderes Problem der Nichteinhaltung der EU-Beihilfevorschriften bekannt.
Ferner können sich Wettbewerber im Falle rechtswidriger (d. h. vorab nicht angemeldeter) Beihilfen an die jeweiligen
einzelstaatlichen Gerichte wenden, die die Auszahlung von Beihilfen untersagen oder die Rückforderung von
Beihilfen, die gegen das Durchführungsverbot nach Artikel 108 Absatz 3 AEUV verstoßen, anordnen können.

2. Um feststellen zu können, ob es sich bei Geldleistungen der öffentlichen Hand für städtebauliche
Sanierungsmaßnahmen um staatliche Beihilfen zugunsten des Bauinvestors oder künftiger Mieter handelt, muss im
Einzelfall geprüft werden, ob die vier kumulativen Voraussetzungen nach Artikel 107 Absatz 1 AEUV erfüllt sind.

3. Das Durchführungsverbot besteht unabhängig von dem nationalen Recht, das die Rechtsgrundlage für die
Finanzierung bildet. Nach Kenntnis der Kommission ging es bislang in keinen der von ihr geprüften Beihilfesachen
um Fragen in Verbindung mit den §§ 136 ff. des deutschen Baugesetzbuches (BauGB).

C 310 E / 322 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

4. Im Juli 2011 haben Vertreter der Europäischen Kommission auf einem Treffen mit Vertretern des Landes
Rheinland-Pfalz die geltenden EU-Beihilfevorschriften erläutert und dabei unterstrichen, dass es Aufgabe des
Mitgliedstaats sei, dafür Sorge zu tragen, dass das Vorhaben im Einklang mit den EU-Beihilfevorschriften
durchgeführt wird. Die Kommissionsvertreter wiesen ferner darauf hin, dass die Kommission etwaigen Beschwerden
nachgehen und im Falle von Zahlungen, die nicht mit diesen Vorschriften im Einklang stehen, deren Rückforderung
anordnen müsste.

5. Die Beschwerde, auf die sich diese Anfrage zu beziehen scheint, hat die Kommission an Deutschland mit der
Bitte um Stellungnahme weitergeleitet. Die Ausführungen Deutschlands wurden bereits zur weiteren Stellungnahme
an den Beschwerdeführer übermittelt.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 323

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-009826/12**

**to the Commission**
**Jürgen Creutzmann (ALDE)**

_(26 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Application of EU state aid rules and notifications in Rheinland-Pfalz

Under EU legislation, the Commission must be notified in advance of state aid, regardless of the form in which it is
granted. However, this rule is not always complied with.

Can the Commission answer the following questions in this context and in relation to a specific case:

1. What action does the Commission take in cases where local authorities in the Member States have come to its
attention for repeatedly failing to notify state aid? Are additional checks made in such cases, and does it make
use of the possibility of prohibiting payments in a specific case until the situation has been clarified? Is the
Commission taking account of the accumulation of such cases in the German Bundesland of Rheinland-Pfalz,
and if so, how?

2. Can payments made by public authorities for urban regeneration activities carried out by a private investor in
the construction sector, from which its future tenants will benefit, be considered state aid pursuant to
Article 107(1) TFEU, and does the type of subsequent use play a part in the assessment?

3. What is the relationship between payments made by a municipal authority for the construction or renovation
of buildings in the context of urban regeneration activities pursuant to Articles 136 et seq. of the German
BauGB (Federal Building Code) and the ban on implementation pursuant to the third sentence of Article 108(3)
TFEU? Is the Commission aware of any such cases, and what decisions were reached?

4. In a report entitled ‘Hinter den Kulissen Projekt vorangetrieben’ (‘Project pushed ahead behind the scenes’), the
daily newspaper ‘Die Rheinpfalz’ No 275 of 26.11.2011 states that a meeting was held in July 2011 between
the regional government of Rheinland-Pfalz and ‘representatives of the EU Commission in Brussels’ on the
granting of subsidies for the construction of an old people's home in Dahn. Did the Commission give
Rheinland-Pfalz an indication at this meeting that the project would receive the green light, so that the
competent regional ministry could suggest to the public that the project had been agreed with the
Commission?

5. After having heard the arguments of those in favour of subsidies, will the Commission now give competitors an
opportunity to put their arguments to the Commission personally?

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

_(26 November 2012)_

1. The Commission examines all cases of unlawful aid coming to its attention, e.g. through complaints, and carries
out regular monitoring exercises. It is not aware of a particular problem of non-compliance with state aid rules in
Rheinland-Pfalz or Germany in general. In addition, in case of illegal (non-notified) aid, competitors can turn to
national courts, which can prevent the payment or require the recovery of subsidies paid in contravention of the
standstill obligation under Article 108(3) TFEU.

2. To determine whether public payments for urban regeneration constitute state aid to the constructor or the
future tenant, it has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis whether the four cumulative conditions of Article 107(1)
TFEU are met.

3. The standstill obligation remains, irrespective of the national law basis upon which the funding decision is
taken. The Commission is not aware of cases in its past practice involving issues under Articles 136 et seq of the
German BauGB.

4. In a meeting with representatives of Rheinland Pfalz in July 2011, representatives of the Commission explained
the applicable EU State aid rules and underlined that, in any event, it is the responsibility of the Member State to
implement the project in line with these rules. The Commission services also emphasised that it would have to
scrutinise possible complaints and that, if payments were eventually found to constitute incompatible aid, they would
have to be recovered.

C 310 E / 324 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

5. In the complaint case to which this question seems to refer, the Commission forwarded the complaint to
Germany for comments and has now forwarded those comments to the complainant for further remarks.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 325

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009827/12**

**to the Commission**
**Nicole Sinclaire (NI)**

_(26 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Oil exploration off the Canary Islands

Could the Commission state its position on the decision made by the Spanish Government to authorise the oil
company Repsol to conduct oil exploration off the Canary Islands, given the Kingdom of Morocco’s opposition?

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

_(5 December 2012)_

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its reply to Written Question E-007174/2012 by
Mr Romeva y Rueda ( [1] ). As an update to that reply, the Commission would like to add that an investigation under
the EU PILOT scheme has been launched.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

C 310 E / 326 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-009829/12**

**à la Commission**
**Brice Hortefeux (PPE)**

_(26 octobre 2012)_

_Objet:_ Fonds européen d'aide aux plus démunis

La Commission européenne a présenté mercredi 24 octobre sa proposition visant à créer un nouveau fonds européen
d'aide au plus démunis en remplacement du Programme européen d'aide alimentaire aux plus démunis (PEAD) qui
s'achèvera fin 2013.Elle propose de doter ce fonds de 2,5 milliards d'euros pour la période 2014‐2020, soit
357 millions d'euros par an, ce qui représente une baisse par rapport aux années précédentes (500 millions d'euros
en 2013).

La Commission estime par ailleurs que 40 millions de personnes en Europe souffrent de privation alimentaire et
matérielle et que 116 millions de personnes sont menacées de pauvreté et d'exclusion sociale. Le taux de pauvreté
atteint 14,1 % en France.

Elle admet pourtant que ce fonds ne suffira pas à subvenir aux besoins de ces millions de personnes et qu'il devra donc
se focaliser sur les populations les plus vulnérables (enfants, sans‐abri), soit environ 4 millions de personnes.

Alors que le PEAD était une aide strictement alimentaire, la Commission propose, compte tenu de l'arrêt de la Cour de
Justice de l'Union européenne, une aide diversifiée qui serait répartie par les États membres et leurs organisations
partenaires.

Les associations en France s'alarment de la chute des dons, qui contraint certaines d'entre elles à cesser la pratique de la
maraude et à fermer leurs magasins d'alimentation. Dans ce contexte fortement préoccupant, on constate que cette
aide est essentielle pour maintenir les activités des associations mais largement insuffisante pour fournir de l'aide
alimentaire mais aussi de l'aide au logement et de l'aide matérielle. En outre, il apparaît que cette aide exclut de son
champ quelque 36 millions de personnes qui se trouvent dans une situation précaire.

Comment la Commission compte‐t‐elle concrètement réduire de 20 millions le nombre de personnes en situation ou
menacées de pauvreté d'ici 2020 tout en proposant un instrument plus faiblement doté et couvrant des besoins
plus larges?

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

_(4 janvier 2013)_

La Commission a pris, dans les limites des compétences de l'Union dans ce domaine, des mesures visant à atténuer les
effets de la crise sur les citoyens les plus vulnérables du point de vue économique. La stratégie Europe 2020 a fait de la
lutte contre la pauvreté l'un des cinq grands objectifs de l'UE, et une plateforme européenne contre la pauvreté et
l'exclusion sociale a été créée.

La Commission invite l'Honorable Parlementaire à se reporter à ses réponses aux questions écrites E-10900/2011,
E-10144/2011, E-10138/2011 et E-9703/2012. Le Fonds européen d'aide aux plus démunis n'a pas pour ambition
de réduire à lui seul de 20 millions, d'ici à 2020, le nombre de citoyens européens confrontés à la pauvreté
et à l'exclusion. Il devrait néanmoins y contribuer, en soutenant les dispositifs nationaux.

Pour ce faire, la Commission propose un instrument qui assure à la fois une grande prévisibilité des ressources et une
grande flexibilité. En effet, le Fonds serait mis en œuvre par les États membres sur la base de programmes
pluriannuels. Chaque pays serait donc en mesure d'adapter l'assistance fournie en privilégiant l'une ou l'autre forme
d'aide ou en les combinant, afin de répondre au mieux aux situations nationales.

Les personnes les plus démunies sont souvent trop éloignées du marché du travail pour pouvoir bénéficier des
mesures d'activation du Fonds social européen. Le nouveau Fonds viendrait donc compléter la panoplie d'instruments
de la politique de cohésion sociale, en s'adressant à des populations qui en étaient jusqu'à présent exclues.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 327

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009829/12**

**to the Commission**
**Brice Hortefeux (PPE)**

_(26 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived

On Wednesday, 24 October 2012, the Commission submitted a proposal to set up a new European fund to help the
most deprived members of society, replacing the EU’s Food Distribution programme for the Most Deprived Persons
of the Community, which will be discontinued at the end of 2013. The Commission has proposed a budget for the
new fund of EUR 2.5 billion for the period 2014‐2020, i.e. EUR 357 million per year; this represents a reduction by
comparison with previous years (the budget for 2013 is EUR 500 million).

Meanwhile, the Commission estimates that 40 million people in Europe are suffering food and material deprivation,
and 116 million are at risk of poverty and social exclusion. In France, 14.1% of the population live below the poverty
line.

Despite this, the Commission has acknowledged that the new Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived will not be
sufficient to meet the needs of all these millions of people, and that the most vulnerable groups in society, such as
children and homeless people, will therefore need to be prioritised (around 4 million people).

In view of the judgment handed down by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Commission is proposing to
diversify the types of aid provided, which would be distributed by the Member States and partner organisations.

The drop-off in donations in France has been greeted with alarm by charities there, some of which have been forced to
close soup kitchens and food banks. Given this extremely worrying situation, EU aid is clearly vital to ensure that
these types of organisations can continue to operate; however, the suggested budget is well below what is required in
order to provide not only food, but also housing and material aid. Furthermore, it appears that some 36 million needy
people will fall outside the scope of the new Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived.

In practical terms, how does the Commission plan to reduce the number of people living in poverty or who are at risk
of poverty by 20 million by 2020, given that it is now proposing a new fund with a smaller budget and yet a much
larger remit?

_(Version française)_

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

_(4 janvier 2013)_

La Commission a pris, dans les limites des compétences de l'Union dans ce domaine, des mesures visant à atténuer les
effets de la crise sur les citoyens les plus vulnérables du point de vue économique. La stratégie Europe 2020 a fait de la
lutte contre la pauvreté l'un des cinq grands objectifs de l'UE, et une plateforme européenne contre la pauvreté et
l'exclusion sociale a été créée.

La Commission invite l'Honorable Parlementaire à se reporter à ses réponses aux questions écrites E-10900/2011,
E-10144/2011, E-10138/2011 et E-9703/2012. Le Fonds européen d'aide aux plus démunis n'a pas pour ambition
de réduire à lui seul de 20 millions, d'ici à 2020, le nombre de citoyens européens confrontés à la pauvreté
et à l'exclusion. Il devrait néanmoins y contribuer, en soutenant les dispositifs nationaux.

Pour ce faire, la Commission propose un instrument qui assure à la fois une grande prévisibilité des ressources et une
grande flexibilité. En effet, le Fonds serait mis en œuvre par les États membres sur la base de programmes
pluriannuels. Chaque pays serait donc en mesure d'adapter l'assistance fournie en privilégiant l'une ou l'autre forme
d'aide ou en les combinant, afin de répondre au mieux aux situations nationales.

Les personnes les plus démunies sont souvent trop éloignées du marché du travail pour pouvoir bénéficier des
mesures d'activation du Fonds social européen. Le nouveau Fonds viendrait donc compléter la panoplie d'instruments
de la politique de cohésion sociale, en s'adressant à des populations qui en étaient jusqu'à présent exclues.

C 310 E / 328 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Tekstas lietuvių kalba)_

**Klausimas, į kurį atsakoma raštu, Nr. E-009830/12**

**Tarybai**
**Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D)**

_(2012 m. spalio 26 d.)_

_Tema:_ ES paramos maistu tęsimas pagal 2014-2020 metų finansinę programą

Pagal strategiją „Europa 2020“ ES įsipareigojo iki 2020 m. skurstančių žmonių skaičių sumažinti bent 20 mln. Iš 116
mln. ES gyventojų, kuriems gresia skurdas ar socialinė atskirtis, maždaug 40 milijonų kenčia itin didžiulį materialinį
nepriteklių. Europos lygmeniu reikia naujų solidarumo priemonių, pakankamų išteklių skurstantiems ir nuo
ekonomikos ir socialinės krizės labiausiai nukentėjusiems žmonėms.

Taigi kokių priemonių Taryba imsis, kad šis klausimas būtų aktyviau svarstomas Europos Tarybos posėdžiuose?

Ar Taryba sugebės užtikrinti ES paramos maisto produktais tęsimą pagal 2014‐2020 metų finansinę programą?

**Atsakymas**
_(2013 m. sausio 30 d.)_

Spalio mėn. pabaigoje Europos Parlamentas ir Taryba gavo Komisijos pasiūlymą dėl naujojo Europos pagalbos
labiausiai skurstantiems asmenims fondo ( [1] ) 2014‐2020 m. laikotarpiu. Pasiūlyme numatomas maisto ir pagrindinių
asmeninio vartojimo prekių skirstymas pažeidžiamiems asmenims, visų pirma benamiams ir vaikams.

2010 m. birželio mėn. Europos Vadovų Taryba išvadose nurodė, kad kova su skurdu ir socialine atskirtimi yra vienas
iš penkių strategijos „Europa 2020“ ( [2] ) prioritetų. Buvo nustatytas ES pagrindinis kiekybinis tikslas skatinti socialinę
aprėptį, visų pirma mažinant skurdą, siekiant iki 2020 m. pašalinti skurdo ir atskirties riziką ne mažiau kaip
20 milijonų žmonių.

Teisės aktų leidėjai, atsižvelgdami į Europos Vadovų Tarybos pateiktas gaires ir neviršydami jos nustatytų biudžeto
ribų, turės nuspręsti dėl pasiūlymo dėl teisėkūros procedūra priimamo akto dėl Europos pagalbos labiausiai
skurstantiems asmenims fondo.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Dok. 15865/12.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Dok. EUCO 13/10.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 329

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009830/12**

**to the Council**
**Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D)**

_(26 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Continued provision for EU food aid under the 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework

Under the Europe 2020 strategy, the European Union has committed to reducing by 20 million the number of people
living in poverty between now and 2020. Of the 116 million people in the EU who are at risk of poverty or social
exclusion, approximately 40 million are unable to satisfy their most basic material needs. New solidarity measures are
needed at European level, as well as sufficient resources to help the poor and those worst affected by the economic
and social crisis.

What measures does the Council intend to take to actively resolve this issue at European Council meetings?

Will the Council ensure that the multiannual financial framework for 2014-2020 continues to include provision for
EU food aid?

**Reply**
_(30 January 2013)_

In late October, the European Parliament and the Council received a Commission proposal for a new Fund for
European Aid to the Most Deprived ( [1] ) for the 2014-2020 period. The proposal envisages distribution of food and
basic consumer goods for personal use to vulnerable people, in particular homeless persons and children.

The European Council concluded in June 2010 that the fight against poverty and social exclusion is one of the five
priorities of the Europe 2020 strategy ( [2] ). A quantified EU headline target has been identified to promote social
inclusion, in particular through the reduction of poverty, with the aim of lifting at least 20 million people out of the
risk of poverty and exclusion by 2020.

Bearing in mind the guidance provided by the European Council, and within the budgetary limits it sets, it will be for
the co-legislators to decide on the legislative proposal for the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) 15865/12.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) EUCO 13/10.

C 310 E / 330 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-009831/12**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D)**

_(26 octombrie 2012)_

_Subiect:_ Strategia Uniunii Europene privind drogurile

Având în vedere faptul că în anul 2012 se încheie strategia europeană privind drogurile,

1. Va da publicității Comisia un studiu de evaluare a strategiei 2005-2012, până la sfârșitul anului?

2. Consideră Comisia că substanțele halucinogene de tipul celor etnobotanice pot fi introduse într-o strategie
viitoare a UE privind drogurile?

**Răspuns dat de dna Reding în numele Comisiei**

_(4 decembrie 2012)_

Raportul privind evaluarea punerii în aplicare a Strategiei UE în materie de droguri (2005‐2012) și a planurilor de
acțiune aferente sunt disponibile pe site-ul nostru internet ( [1] ). Comisia a trimis raportul de evaluare Parlamentului
European la începutul acestui an.

Adoptarea unei noi strategii a UE în materie de droguri pentru perioada 2013-2020 este prevăzută pentru sfârșitul
anului 2012. Noua strategie va viza principalele provocări legate de politica în domeniul drogurilor, inclusiv noile
substanțe psihoactive, printre care se numără și substanțele etnobotanice. Pentru punerea în aplicare a strategiei UE în
materie de droguri, care urmează să fie adoptată în prima jumătate a anului 2013, în cadrul președinției irlandeze, se
va elabora un nou plan de acțiune, care va cuprinde acțiuni concrete de combatere a drogurilor ilegale și a noilor
substanțe psihoactive.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/justice/anti-drugs/files/rand_final_report_eu_drug_strategy_2005-2012_en.pdf

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 331

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009831/12**

**to the Commission**
**Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D)**

_(26 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ EU drugs strategy

The current EU drugs strategy will draw to a close at the end of 2012. Can the Commission therefore state:

1. Whether it will publish a study assessing the EU drugs strategy 2005‐2012 before the end of the year?

2. Whether hallucinogenic ethnobotanical substances might be included in a future EU drugs strategy?

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

_(4 December 2012)_

The report on the evaluation of the implementation of the EU Drugs Strategy 2005-2012 and its action plans is
available on our website ( [1] ). The Commission sent the evaluation report to the European Parliament earlier this year.

A new EU Drugs Strategy, covering the period 2013-2020, is planned to be adopted before the end of 2012. The new
strategy will cover the major challenges in drugs policy, including new psychoactive substances, some of which are
referred to as ‘ethnobotanical’ substances. Concrete actions tackling specific illicit drugs and new psychoactive
substances will be outlined in a new Action Plan, implementing the EU Drugs Strategy, which is planned to be
adopted under the Irish Presidency in the first half of 2013.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/justice/anti-drugs/files/rand_final_report_eu_drug_strategy_2005-2012_en.pdf

C 310 E / 332 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009832/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)**

_(26 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Organismi geneticamente modificati (OGM) e tutela della salute dei cittadini europei

Recentemente sono stati presentati i risultati dello studio «Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Rounduptolerant genetically modified maize» ( [1] ) (Tossicità a lungo termine dell'erbicida Roundup e del granoturco
geneticamente modificato tollerante al Roundup) a cura dell'équipe francese condotta dal prof. Séralini, pubblicato
sulla rivista Food and Chemical Toxicology. La ricerca ha presentato risultati allarmanti relativamente alla
cancerogenicità degli organismi geneticamente modificati e in particolare del mais OGM NK603, varietà contenente
un gene batterico che lo rende immune all'erbicida glifosato (di cui Roundup è il nome commerciale).

Il nuovo studio ha messo in discussione i test condotti dalle aziende venditrici di OGM, secondo i quali le varietà
OGM resistenti al glifosato sarebbero sicure per la salute umana, giudicandoli inadeguati soprattutto per la loro breve
durata (90 giorni contro i due anni della ricerca di Séralini) ( [2] ).

L'Autorità europea per la Sicurezza Alimentare (EFSA), con comunicato stampa del 4.10.2012, ha reso nota la
propria analisi preliminare dello studio citato. Sia la metodologia utilizzata che la descrizione e l'analisi dei risultati
sono stati giudicati dall'EFSA di «insufficiente qualità scientifica» ( [3] ). L'EFSA non ritiene perciò necessario riesaminare
la propria valutazione sulla sicurezza del mais NK603, né intende considerare i risultati del team francese nell'ambito
degli accertamenti in corso sul glifosato. La pubblicazione di una seconda analisi da parte dell'EFSA sulle procedure e
sulla documentazione dello studio francese è stata annunciata per la fine di ottobre 2012.

Alla luce dei risultati pubblicati dalla ricerca francese e in considerazione del parere negativo dell'EFSA espresso nei
confronti della stessa, la Commissione non ritiene di voler approfondire questa controversia con ulteriori indagini
accurate e non frettolose, al fine di scongiurare ogni possibile ripercussione sulla salute dei cittadini europei?

**Risposta di J. Borg a nome della Commissione**

_(18 dicembre 2012)_

L'EFSA ( [4] ) ha il compito di fornire pareri scientifici sulla sicurezza degli OGM, sui quali la Commissione si basa per
adottare decisioni relative alla gestione dei rischi. La Commissione ha chiesto all'EFSA di esaminare il documento di
Séralini et. al. per essere in grado di adottare, in caso di necessita`, provvedimenti opportuni atti a garantire la tutela
della salute umana, degli animali e dell'ambiente.

Il 28 novembre 2012 l'EFSA ha pubblicato la sua valutazione scientifica finale dello studio ( [5] ), nella quale si conferma
la valutazione iniziale, unitamente a pareri gia` presentati dalle agenzie per la sicurezza alimentare di sei Stati membri;
secondo l'EFSA le conclusioni degli autori non possono essere considerate scientificamente valide dato che lo studio
presenta elementi inadeguati di progettazione, rendicontazione e analisi. L'EFSA non ritiene necessario riesaminare le
sue precedenti valutazioni di sicurezza del mais GM NK 603, ne' prendere in considerazione tali risultati nella
valutazione in corso per il glifosato.

La Commissione si impegna a garantire che siano applicate norme rigorose nella valutazione della sicurezza degli
OGM. In tale contesto la Commissione ricorda che sta preparando un regolamento sulle domande di autorizzazione
per gli alimenti e i mangimi GM, che istituira` l'obbligo, per i richiedenti, di effettuare studi di alimentazione di 90
giorni. Questo tipo di studi e' ritenuto di durata sufficiente ad identificare gli effetti tossicologici generali degli alimenti
e dei mangimi geneticamente modificati. A seconda dei risultati di tali studi di 90 giorni e in base ad altri dati
scientifici contenuti nella richiesta possono eventualmente essere richiesti, caso per caso, studi di alimentazione di
durata superiore. Nell'ambito dei suoi programmi quadro di ricerca l'UE ha inoltre finanziato numerosi progetti di
ricerca sulla sicurezza degli OGM. Gli esempi piu` recenti di progetti finanziati sono GMSAFOOD ( [6] ) e GRACE ( [7] ), che
riguardano in modo specifico lo svolgimento di studi di tossicità a lungo termine.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )
⋅7∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.repubblica.it/mobile-rep/venerdi/2012/10/12/news/scienze_
scienziati_in_campo_nuovo_allarme_gli_ogm_sono_veleni_ma_lo_studio_contestato-44331971/.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/121004.htm
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Autorità europea per la sicurezza alimentare.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/121128.htm
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) http://www.gmsafoodproject.eu/.
( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) http://pure.au.dk/portal/en/projects/gmo-risk-assessment-and-communication-of-evidence(4f70b540-e08d-4abe-8d8e-2173e52396d1).html

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

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 333

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009832/12**

**to the Commission**
**Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)**

_(26 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and protecting the health of European citizens

The results have recently been published of a study into the ‘Long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a
Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize’ ( [1] ) carried out by a French team headed by Professor Séralini, published
in the journal _Food and Chemical Toxicology_ . The study reported alarming results regarding the carcinogenic effect of
genetically modified organisms, including in particular GMO corn NK603, a variety containing a bacterial gene that
makes it immune to the herbicide glyphosate (of which Roundup is the commercial name).

The new study called into question the tests carried out by companies selling GMOs, according to which GMO
varieties that are resistant to glyphosate are safe for humans, concluding that the tests were inadequate on the grounds
that they were too short (90 days compared with two years for the Séralini study) ( [2] ).

In a press release dated 4 October 2012, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) announced its preliminary
analysis of the above study. Both the methodology used as well as the description and analysis of the results were
deemed to be of ‘insufficient scientific quality’ by the EFSA ( [3] ). Accordingly, the EFSA does not consider it necessary to
review its assessment on the safety of NK603 corn, and does not intend to consider the results of the French team as
part of the controls on glyphosate in progress. The publication of a second analysis by the EFSA on the procedures
and documentation of the French study has been announced for the end of October 2012.

In the light of the results published by the French study and in view of the EFSA’s negative opinion in relation to the
study, does the Commission believe that it should analyse this dispute thoroughly with additional detailed and
meticulous inquiries, with the purpose of averting any potential repercussions for the health of European citizens?

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

_(18 December 2012)_

EFSA ( [4] ) is responsible for providing scientific opinions on the safety of GMOs, on which the Commission bases its
risk management decisions. The Commission asked EFSA to analyse the paper by Séralini et. al. to be in a position to
take appropriate measures, if necessary, to ensure the protection of human and animal health and the environment.

On 28 November 2012 EFSA published its final scientific review on the study ( [5] ), which reaffirmed its initial
assessment, along with opinions already provided by six food safety agencies of the Member States, that the authors'
conclusions cannot be regarded as scientifically sound because of inadequacies in the design, reporting and analysis of
the study. EFSA finds there is no need to re-examine its previous safety evaluations of the GM maize NK 603 or to
consider these findings in the ongoing assessment of glyphosate.

The Commission is committed to ensure that high standards are applied in the safety assessment of GMOs. In this
context, the Commission reminds that it is currently preparing a regulation on GM food and feed applications for
authorisation which would make it compulsory for applicants to perform 90-day feeding studies. Such study is
considered of sufficient duration for identification of general toxicological effects of GM food and feed. Based on the
results of these 90 days studies and on other scientific data in the application, longer feeding studies might be required
on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, the EU has been funding several research projects on safety of GMOs under its
Research Framework Programmes. Latest examples are the projects GMSAFOOD ( [6] ) and GRACE ( [7] ), which
specifically concern the conduct of long term toxicity studies.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )
⋅7∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.repubblica.it/mobile-rep/venerdi/2012/10/12/news/scienze_
scienziati_in_campo_nuovo_allarme_gli_ogm_sono_veleni_ma_lo_studio_contestato-44331971/.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/121004.htm
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) The European Food Safety Authority.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/121128.htm
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) http://www.gmsafoodproject.eu/.
( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) http://pure.au.dk/portal/en/projects/gmo-risk-assessment-and-communication-of-evidence(4f70b540-e08d-4abe-8d8e-2173e52396d1).html

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

C 310 E / 334 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009833/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Mario Borghezio (EFD)**

_(26 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Rafforzare i controlli sull'utilizzo dei fondi IPA

L'UE fornisce aiuti finanziari di pre-adesione (IPA). Tale assistenza finanziaria è destinata ad aiutare i paesi in via di
adesione a introdurre le necessarie riforme politiche, economiche e istituzionali per renderli conformi alle norme UE.

I fondi IPA per il periodo 2007-2013 ammontano a circa 11.5 miliardi di euro, così suddivisi:

1. Sviluppo istituzionale;

2. Cooperazione frontaliera;

3. Sviluppo regionale;

4. Sviluppo risorse umane;

5. Sviluppo rurale.

—
La Commissione può fornire l'ammontare dell'aiuto finanziario per ciascuno Stato con il quale si sono avviate
le procedure di adesione?

—
Dato che ogni paese ha la libertà di scegliere in che settore investire e con quali priorità, la Commissione vigila
in ogni caso sul corretto utilizzo di questi fondi? Come?

**Risposta di Štefan Füle a nome della Commissione**

_(17 dicembre 2012)_

La Commissione informa ogni anno il Parlamento e il Consiglio, attraverso un quadro finanziario indicativo
pluriennale (QFIP), del modo in cui intende assegnare i fondi dello strumento di assistenza preadesione (IPA) ( [1] ) ai
paesi candidati effettivi e potenziali nel triennio successivo. Gli importi esatti assegnati a ciascun paese beneficiario
per le singole componenti IPA sono indicati nel QFIP riveduto per il 2013 ( [2] ), di cui si acclude un estratto (l'allegato è
inviato direttamente all'onorevole parlamentare e al segretariato del Parlamento).

Le assegnazioni indicative dei fondi IPA contenute nel quadro finanziario indicativo pluriennale (QFIP) si basano su
criteri obiettivi comprendenti una valutazione del fabbisogno e delle capacità di assorbimento e di gestione.

I paesi beneficiari non possono scegliere liberamente i settori in cui utilizzare l'assistenza preadesione. Anche se la
titolarità e la responsabilità dei paesi beneficiari figurano tra i principi di base dell'assistenza preadesione, i programmi
vengono preparati in partenariato e adottati dalla Commissione.

Una parte dell'assistenza è gestita dalle autorità nazionali dei paesi beneficiari («gestione decentrata»). Per ottenere
dalla Commissione il conferimento dei poteri di gestione, i paesi beneficiari devono disporre di adeguati sistemi di
controllo, tra cui un audit esterno indipendente, a garanzia di una sana gestione finanziaria dei fondi UE e a tutela
degli interessi finanziari dell'Unione.

Il quadro giuridico dell'IPA comprende disposizioni particolareggiate sul monitoraggio e sulla valutazione
dell'attuazione dell'assistenza comprendenti, fra l'altro, controlli e valutazioni ex ante e ex post, la creazione di
comitati settoriali e di monitoraggio (per la gestione decentrata) e relazioni annuali sull'attuazione.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regolamento (CE) n. 1085/2006 del Consiglio, del 17 luglio 2006, che istituisce uno strumento di assistenza preadesione (IPA), GU L 210 del

31.7.2006.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2012)581 def. del 10.10.2012.

( **|**

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 335

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009833/12**

**to the Commission**
**Mario Borghezio (EFD)**

_(26 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Reinforcement of controls on the use of IPA funds

The EU provides Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA). This financial assistance is intended to assist acceding countries
introduce the necessary political, economic and institutional reforms in order to bring them into line with EC law.

The IPA funds for the period 2007‐2013 amount to around EUR 11.5 billion, and are subdivided as follows:

1. Institution-building;

2. Cross-border cooperation;

3. Regional development;

4. Human resources development;

5. Rural development.

—
Can the Commission state the amount of financial assistance provided for each State with which accession
procedures have been initiated?

—
Given that every country is free to choose in which sector to invest and according to which priorities, does the
Commission supervise the correct use of these funds in all cases? How?

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

_(17 December 2012)_

The Commission presents annually to Parliament and Council its intentions for the allocation of funds from the
Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) ( [1] ) to candidate countries and potential candidate countries for the
three forthcoming years, in the form of a multi-annual indicative financial framework (MIFF). The exact amounts
allocated to each beneficiary country by IPA Component can be consulted in the revised MIFF for 2013 ( [2] ), an extract
of which is annexed (the annex is sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat).

The indicative allocation of IPA funds presented in the MIFF is based on objective criteria which include an assessment
of needs, absorption and management capacities.

The beneficiary countries are not free to choose the sectors where to spend pre-accession assistance. While ownership
by and responsibility of beneficiary countries is one of the guiding principles for pre-accession assistance, the
programmes are prepared in partnership and adopted by the Commission.

Part of the assistance is implemented by the national authorities of the beneficiary countries (‘decentralised
management’). To obtain conferral of management powers from the Commission, beneficiary countries must have
adequate control systems in place, including independent external audit, providing assurance concerning the sound
financial management of EU funds and protection of EU financial interests.

The IPA legal framework includes detailed provisions on monitoring and evaluation of implementation of the
assistance, covering _inter alia_ _ex-ante_ and _ex-post_ controls and evaluations, the setting up of monitoring and sectoral
committees (for decentralised management) and annual implementation reports.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 of 17 July 2006 establishing an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA), OJ L 210, 31.7.2006.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 581 final of 10.10.2012.

C 310 E / 336 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Svensk version)_

**Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-009834/12**

**till kommissionen**
**Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE)**

_(26 oktober 2012)_

_Angående:_ Fågelskyddsområdet Getterön

Området Getterön i Varbergs kommun i Halland har klassificerats som ett särskilt skyddsområde i enlighet med
artikel 4 i rådets direktiv 2009/147/EC. I en muntlig fråga (H-0415/99 ( [1] )) uppmärksammade Inger Schörling
kommissionen om att en eventuell utbyggnad av ett intilliggande flygfält allvarligt skulle störa fågellivet och därmed
stå i strid med ovanstående direktiv. Med anledning av detta ingav kommissionen ett klagomål och tog upp frågan
med de svenska myndigheterna. Den svenska regeringen försäkrade kommissionen om att om en flygplatsutbyggnad
skulle bli aktuell, så måste ärendet åtföljas av en miljökonsekvensbeskrivning som redovisar alternativa platser.

Ärendet har därefter prövats av Varbergs kommun i ett så kallat anmälningsärende, vilket betyder att
frivilligorganisationer nekades talerätt och några alternativa platser för flygplatsen har inte redovisats.
Beslutsprocessen uppfyller därmed inte EU:s krav. Miljödomstolen förbjöd utbyggnadsprojektet men kommunen har
nu överklagat domen. De planerade åtgärderna skulle permanenta flygplatsen och leda till verksamheter som innebär
ökad miljöbelastning med stigningar och landningar intill och på låg höjd över Natura 2000-området.
Bevarandestatus för ett flertal av områdets arter är negativ och olika metoder används som stör och skrämmer bort
fåglar utan att miljökonsekvenserna först bedömts genom en ändamålsenlig tillståndsprocedur.

1. Har kommissionen försäkrat sig om att utfästelserna om Getteröns fågelreservat efterlevdes i praktiken?

2. Har kommissionen säkerställt att bestämmelserna i fågel‐ och livsmiljödirektiven tillämpas i Halland?

3. Vad kommer kommissionen att göra för att ytterligare försämringar av livsmiljöer och störningar av arter med
negativ bevarandestatus upphör?

4. Accepterar EU undantag från tillståndskravet för åtgärder och verksamheter som kan skada eller störa ett
Natura 2000-område?

5. Vilka åtgärder kommer kommissionen att vidta för att säkerställa att allmänheten ges talerätt i beslut som rör
den biologiska mångfalden i Sverige?

**Svar från Janez Potočnik på kommissionens vägnar**

_(18 december 2012)_

Parlamentsledamoten hänvisar till en undersökning som kommissionen inlett mot Sverige under år 2000.

Som svar på frågorna 1‐5 kan kommissionen meddela att de svenska myndigheternas svar av den 16 juni 2000 och
den senare uppföljningen vid mötet med de svenska myndigheterna i Stockholm den 6 november 2000 ledde till att
ingen överträdelse av EU:s lagstiftning kunde konstateras. Undersökningen avslutades därför den 23 oktober 2001.

Kommissionen noterar också att ärendet kommer att tas upp för behandling i nationell domstol.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=QT&reference=H-1999-0415&language=SV.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 337

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009834/12**

**to the Commission**
**Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE)**

_(26 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Getterön bird protection area

The Getterön area in the municipality of Varberg in Halland (Sweden) has been classified as a Special Protection Area
under Article 4 of Directive 2009/147/EC. In an oral question (H-0415/99 ( [1] )), Inger Schörling drew the
Commission’s attention to the fact that the possible development of an adjacent airstrip would severely disturb the
bird life in the area and would therefore be contrary to the above Directive. As a result the Commission lodged a
complaint and took up the matter with the Swedish authorities. The Swedish Government assured the Commission
that if the construction of an airstrip were to be mooted, the matter would have to be accompanied by an
environmental impact assessment listing alternative sites.

The matter was subsequently considered by the Varberg municipality in a notification procedure ( _anmälningsärende_ ),
which meant that voluntary organisations were refused the right to speak and some alternative sites for the airstrip
were not mentioned. The decision-making process therefore does not comply with the EU’s requirements. The
Environmental Court banned the development project but the municipality has now appealed against this ruling. The
planned measures would make the airstrip permanent and lead to activities involving increased environmental stress,
with take-offs and landings down to a low altitude over the Natura 2000 area. A number of the species in the area
have negative conservation status and various methods are being used which disturb and scare away birds without the
environmental impact first being assessed by an appropriate authorisation procedure.

1. Has the Commission ensured that the pledges concerning the Getterön bird protection area have been adhered
to in practice?

2. Has the Commission ensured that the provisions of the Wild Birds and Habitats Directives are being applied in
Halland?

3. What will the Commission do to ensure that a stop is put to further habitat degradation and disturbances of
species with negative conservation status?

4. Does the Commission admit exceptions to the authorisation requirement for measures and activities which may
harm or disturb a Natura 2000 area?

5. What measures will the Commission take to ensure that the public are given the right to speak in decisionmaking that affects biodiversity in Sweden?

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

_(18 December 2012)_

The Honourable Member refers to an investigation initiated by the Commission against Sweden in 2000.

In reply to questions 1 to 5 the Commission can advise that following the reply from the Swedish authorities dated
16 June 2000 and the subsequent follow up during the meeting held with the Swedish Authorities in Stockholm on
6 November 2000 it was not possible to identify an infringement of EU legislation. The investigation was therefore
closed on 23 October 2001.

The Commission also notes that the case is currently pending review in the national Courts.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+QT+H-1999-0415+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN.

C 310 E / 338 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Dansk udgave)_

**Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-009835/12**

**til Kommissionen**
**Christel Schaldemose (S&D)**

_(26. oktober 2012)_

_Om:_ Spørgsmål om flybilletter

Danmarks Radio har netop lavet en undersøgelse blandt en række flyselskaber, heriblandt en lang række europæisk
baserede flyselskaber.

Undersøgelsen viser, at størstedelen af flyselskaber har den politik, at hvis forbrugeren ikke når flyet på udrejsen, så
mister flypassageren også hjemrejsebilletten.

På baggrund af undersøgelsen, vil jeg gerne stille Kommissionen følgende spørgsmål:

1. Er Kommissionen bekendt med denne praksis?

2. Mener Kommissionen, at denne praksis er rimelig over for forbrugerne, der jo reelt har betalt for to rejser (en ud
og en hjem)?

3. Vil Kommissionen tage initiativ til at sikre flypassagererne bedre rettigheder, således at man som passagerer kan
få hvad man har betalt for? Og hermed få ret til at benytte den hjemrejse, man har betalt for, selv om udrejsen
ikke er blevet benyttet?

**Svar afgivet på vegne af Kommissionen af Siim Kallas**

_(11. december 2012)_

1. Kommissionen er bekendt med, at visse flyselskaber anvender den praksis, at flypassageren mister sin returbillet,
hvis vedkommende ikke har nået flyet på udrejsen. Flyselskaberne anvender denne praksis på forskellig vis, idet visse
selskaber tillader, at passageren benytter sin returbillet, hvis vedkommende i forvejen har meddelt, at udrejsebilleten
ikke vil blive benyttet.

2. Selv om en returbillet omfatter to flyvninger, drejer det sig om én enkelt kontrakt, som fastsætter, at udrejsen
skal benyttes, hvis hjemrejsen skal være gyldig. Ved direktiv 2005/29/EC ( [1] ) bestemmes det, at flyselskaberne skal give
klare, sandfærdige og fyldestgørende oplysninger om hovedtrækkene ved deres ydelser. Flyselskaberne skal derfor
give forbrugerne oplysning om ovennævnte praksis.

3. Kommissionen overvejer i forbindelse med den foreslåede revision af forordning (EF) nr. 261/2004 ( [2] ) at indføre
foranstaltninger for at bistå passagerer, der ikke har nået deres fly. Disse foranstaltninger må dog ikke i urimelig grad
begrænse selskabernes muligheder for at sælge deres kapacitet eller udnytte den effektivt.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 2005/29/EF af 11. maj 2005 om virksomheders urimelige handelspraksis over for forbrugerne på det

indre marked og om ændring af Rådets direktiv 84/450/EØF, Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 97/7/EF, 98/27/EF og 2002/65/EF og
Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 2006/2004 (direktivet om urimelig handelspraksis), EUT L149 af 11.6.2005, s.22.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 261/2004 af 11. februar 2004 om fælles bestemmelser om kompensation og bistand til

luftfartspassagerer ved boardingafvisning og ved aflysning eller lange forsinkelser og om ophævelse af forordning (EØF) nr. 295/91, EUT L 46 af
17.2.2004, s. 1.

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 339

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009835/12**

**to the Commission**
**Christel Schaldemose (S&D)**

_(26 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Questions on airline tickets

The Danish Broadcasting Corporation (Danmarks Radio) has recently carried out a study on a number of airlines,
including a considerable number based in Europe.

The study shows that the majority of airlines have a policy that, if a passenger misses the flight on the outward
journey, he loses his return ticket too.

In the light of this study I should like to ask:

1. Is the Commission aware of this practice?

2. Does the Commission consider that this practice is fair to the consumer, who has actually paid for two
journeys, one outward and one return?

3. Will the Commission take the initiative to secure better rights for airline passengers, so that the passenger
obtains what he has paid for, namely the right to make the return journey even if he has not used the outward
portion of the ticket?

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

_(11 December 2012)_

1. The Commission is aware of this practice adopted by some air carriers of denying holders of return tickets
carriage on the return flight where they have missed the outward service. The basis on which air carriers adopt this
practice varies, with some permitting the use of the return segment where they are notified in advance.

2. Although a return ticket covers two flights it is a single contract which for the return flight to be used, requires
the outward flight to be taken. Directive 2005/29/EC ( [1] ) requires air carriers to provide consumers with clear, truthful
and complete information regarding the main characteristics of their service. Air carriers are required to provide
passengers with information on the abovementioned practice.

3. The Commission is considering within the proposed revision of Regulation (EC) 261/2004 ( [2] ) measures that
may assist passengers who have missed their flight, but that would not unduly restrict air carriers from marketing or
making the efficient use of available capacity.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial

practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Unfair Commercial Practices
Directive), OJ L149, 11.6.2005, p.22.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation

and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC)
No 295/91, OJ L 46, 17.2.2004, p.1.

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

C 310 E / 340 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009836/12**

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

_(26 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Presupuesto Horizonte 2020

Los científicos de la Young Academy of Europe han manifestado su apoyo a la carta firmada por 42 premios Nobel y
cinco medallas Fields, manifestando su preocupación sobre la gran reducción presupuestaria del programa Horizonte
2020, destinado a la investigación y al desarrollo. Al mismo tiempo, la UE se ha comprometido a reducir para 2020 el
consumo de energía en un 20 %, para ello es necesario el desarrollo de tecnologías innovadoras. Si la UE pretende
estar a la cabeza en la lucha contra el cambio climático, el presupuesto destinado a Horizonte 2020 se considera
esencial para el desarrollo de nuevas tecnologías.

Dado el contexto de austeridad en los Estados miembros, es indispensable mantener la inversión Europea en campos
fundamentales para el futuro de la UE como la investigación y el desarrollo. Por otro lado, los y las jóvenes de la UE
necesitan que estos proyectos estén vivos.

En este momento en que se está negociando el presupuesto de la UE para 2013 y el marco financiero plurianual
2014-2020, la inversión en investigación, innovación y desarrollo debería considerarse una de las prioridades de la
Unión tanto a corto como a largo plazo.

1. ¿Ha realizado la UE estudios sobre la repercusión de tales recortes en cuanto al desarrollo del crecimiento
sostenible?

2. ¿Cuántos investigadores europeos se verán afectados por esta medida?

3. ¿Considera la Comisión que con dichos recortes puede perderse una generación de nuevos talentos y futuros
investigadores?

4. ¿Cómo pretende la UE alcanzar un desarrollo tecnológico óptimo si no se invierte en dicho campo?

5. ¿Propondría blindar las partidas de Horizonte 2020 independientemente de las negociaciones presupuestarias
con el Consejo?

6. ¿Podría hacerlo mediante una propuesta de aumentar los recursos propios del presupuesto de la Unión?

**Respuesta de la Sra. Geoghegan-Quinn en nombre de la Comisión**

_(21 de diciembre de 2012)_

La Comisión ha propuesto para la UE un presupuesto moderno y con visión de futuro, un presupuesto que tiene la
Investigación e Innovación como uno de esos elementos centrales.

Parte fundamental de esa propuesta es el Programa Marco de Investigación e Innovación, Horizonte 2020: la
Comisión ha recomendado para él un presupuesto total de 80 000 millones de euros (a precios constantes de 2011),
lo que representa un aumento significativo respecto de la dotación del período actual (2007-2013). Con esta
propuesta, la Comisión demuestra claramente su fuerte compromiso con las ambiciones de Europa 2020 y de la
Unión por la Innovación.

El crecimiento económico y la creación de empleo exigen varios factores. Uno de ellos —la inversión en investigación
e innovación— es esencial para que una economía basada en el conocimiento afiance su competitividad y sea capaz
de crear puestos de trabajo cualificados. La Comisión ha reclamado a tal efecto un saneamiento presupuestario
inteligente por el que se dé prioridad y se ofrezca protección a aquellas medidas que, como el apoyo a la investigación
y la innovación, logran impulsar el crecimiento.

Debe observarse que Horizonte 2020 forma parte integrante del marco financiero plurianual y no puede por tanto
mantenerse al margen de las negociaciones presupuestarias que se desarrollan en el Consejo. En la fase actual, no es
posible valorar todavía el impacto de los posibles recortes presupuestarios, dado que esta cuestión se sigue
discutiendo en el Consejo y con el Parlamento Europeo, sin que se haya alcanzado todavía un acuerdo sobre las cifras
definitivas.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 341

La Comisión mantiene su compromiso con la propuesta que ha presentado, una propuesta que, en tiempos de crisis
como el actual, establece desde una posición responsable el equilibrio correcto tanto en lo que se refiere al importe
total como a su distribución entre las distintas políticas.

Es preciso que el próximo marco financiero plurianual constituya un instrumento de inversión en crecimiento y
empleo, y la Comisión seguirá poniendo todo su empeño para que se alcance un acuerdo con el Consejo y el
Parlamento.

C 310 E / 342 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009836/12**

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

_(26 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Budget for Horizon 2020

Scientists from the Young Academy of Europe have endorsed a letter signed by 42 Nobel Laureates and 5 Fields
Medallists, who expressed their concerns about the swingeing cuts to the budget for the Horizon 2020 Framework
Programme for Research and Innovation. This comes at a time when the EU has committed itself to reducing energy
consumption by 20% by 2020, which would require developing innovative technologies. If the EU wants to remain at
the forefront of the fight against climate change, the budget allocated to Horizon 2020 is essential for developing new
technologies.

Against the backdrop of austerity in Member States, European investment must be made in fields which are crucial to
the EU’s future, such as research and development. In addition, young people in the EU need these investment
projects to be dynamic.

In the ongoing negotiations on the EU budget for 2013 and the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020,
investment in research, innovation and development should be seen as an EU priority, both in the short and long

term.

1. Has the EU assessed the impact of these budget cuts on sustainable growth?

2. How many European researchers will be affected by this budget reduction?

3. Does the Commission think that if the cuts go ahead, Europe could lose a generation oftalented and young
researchers?

4. How does the EU intend to foster technological development if it does not invest in thisfield?

5. Would the Commission be prepared to ring fence the Horizon 2020 budget, thus keepingit out of the budget
negotiations with the Council?

6. Could the Commission do so by proposing an increase in the EU budget itself?

**Answer given by Ms Geoghegan-Quinn on behalf of the Commission**

_(21 December 2012)_

The Commission has proposed a modern and forward looking EU budget — one which has Research and Innovation
(R&I) at its core.

Horizon 2020 — the framework Programme for Research and Innovation is a key part of the proposal and the
Commission has recommended a total budget of EUR 80 billion (in constant 2011 prices) for the programme which
represents a significant increase compared to the current period (2007-2013). With this proposal, the Commission is
clearly showing its strong commitment to delivering on the ambitions of Europe 2020 and the Innovation Union.

Economic growth and job creation require several elements: investment in R&I is a crucial one for a knowledge-based
economy to become competitive and provide qualified jobs. For this reason, the Commission has called for smart
fiscal consolidation, where growth-enhancing areas, such as support for R&I, are prioritised and protected.

It should be noted that Horizon 2020 is an integral part of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) and cannot be
kept outside of the budget negotiations in the Council. At this stage, it is not possible to assess the impact of possible
budget cuts, as this matter is still subject to negotiations in the Council and with the European Parliament and no
agreement has been reached on final figures.

The Commission remains committed to its proposal, which strikes the right responsible balance in times of crisis,
both in the overall amount and in the balance between policies.

The next MFF needs to be a tool for investment in growth and jobs and the Commission will continue to work hard to
reach an agreement with the Council and the Parliament.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 343

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009839/12**

**to the Commission**

**Diane Dodds (NI)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Transport — Directive 2010/48/EU

How many, and which, Member States have fully implemented Commission Directive 2010/48/EU in relation to
transport in the EU?

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

_(19 December 2012)_

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that with the exception of Austria, Lithuania, Finland
and the United Kingdom all Member States have notified to the Commission full transposition of the aforementioned
amending legislation to the directive on periodic roadworthiness tests ( [1] ) .

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2009/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers OJ L 141,
6.6.2009, p.12.

C 310 E / 344 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009841/12**

**to the Commission**

**Diane Dodds (NI)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Enhancing farm safety

Which Member States, if any, provide financial assistance to farmers for on-farm infrastructure improvements to
enhance farm safety? How are these schemes administrated and what level of funding is granted to each Member
State?

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

_(11 December 2012)_

On-farm infrastructure improvements to enhance farm safety can be co-financed by the European Agricultural Fund
for Rural Development (EAFRD), which is provided for under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 ( [1] ).

Support is available for investments in the modernization of agricultural holdings aimed at, _inter alia_, improving the
environmental, occupational safety, hygiene and animal welfare status of the farm. Assistance is also available for
infrastructure related to the development and adaptation of agriculture and forestry to cover, for example, operations
related to access to farm.

While approved by the Commission, according to the principle of shared management, it is under Member States'
responsibility to establish and implement, at national or regional level, specific rural development programmes. This
includes choosing, among the available instruments provided under the EAFRD Regulation, those measures and
operations that suit the needs of their rural areas best, and allocating appropriate budgetary resources. The
Commission is not in a position to provide a more detailed answer to the Honourable Member’s question, since
specific information on take-up and financial support of operations related to farm safety by Member State or region
is not provided by Member States.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 277, 21.10.2005.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 345

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009842/12**

**to the Commission**

**Diane Dodds (NI)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Farm accidents and fatalities across the EU

Can the Commission provide me with a breakdown of all farm-related accidents across the EU, including the cause of
these accidents and the number of fatalities in each Member State over the past five years? In addition, can the
Commission provide me with the number of farmers who have committed suicide over the past five years, broken
down by Member State?

Finally, what action is being taken by the Commission to improve farm safety across all Member States, and how
much money has been spent solely on improving farm safety over the past five years?

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

_(12 December 2012)_

Regarding the breakdowns of farm-related accidents by severity, cause and Member State, the Commission would
refer the Honourable Member to the attached tables containing the data on accidents at work by economic activity of
the employer. The information required by the Honourable Member is also available on Eurostat's website ( [1] ).

Over the five-year period 2005-2009, the decreasing trend in fatal and non-fatal accident rate was observed in the
sector of agriculture. Despite this decline, the sector's rates stayed higher than the average of the main branches of
economic activity. The total of 379 fatal and 140 373 non-fatal accidents at work was estimated in the subsector of
Crop and animal production, hunting and related services in EU-27 in 2009. It should be noted that due to a high
number of self-employed and temporary workers, the coverage of the sector for accidents at work is not optimal. The
Commission cannot provide information about the number of suicides committed by farmers, as Eurostat data on
causes of death are not available by occupation.

Regarding actions taken by the Commission to improve safety, it should be noted that Framework
Directive 89/391/EEC ( [2] ), which lays down the main general principles as regards the prevention of the main
occupational risks, was adopted on the basis of a Commission proposal. It applies to all sectors of activity, including
agriculture. In addition, the Community strategy 2007-2012 on health and safety at work identified agriculture as
one of the sectors remaining particularly dangerous recognising the need for further action also in this field. In this
context, as an example, the Commission published recently a guide on protecting the health and safety of workers in
agriculture ( [3] ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/health/health_safety_work/data/database.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers

at work, OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=6785&type=2&furtherPubs=yes.

( **|**

C 310 E / 346 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009844/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Ingeborg Gräßle (PPE)**

_(29. Oktober 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Drehtüreffekt: Beamte der Kommission heuern bei der Tabakindustrie an

1. Wie viele Beamte haben die Kommission in den vergangenen zehn Jahren verlassen, um anschließend einen
Posten in der Tabakindustrie zu übernehmen? In welchen Positionen und in welchen Generaldirektionen waren diese

zuvor tätig?

2. Wie viele Beamte haben nach ihrer Pensionierung einen Posten in der Tabakindustrie übernommen? In welchen
Positionen und in welchen Generaldirektionen waren diese zuvor tätig?

**Gemeinsame Antwort von Herrn Šefčovič im Namen der Kommission**

_(24. Januar 2013)_

Nach Artikel 16 des Statuts sind ehemalige Beamte, die vor Ablauf von zwei Jahren nach dem Ausscheiden aus dem
Dienst eine berufliche Tätigkeit aufnehmen wollen, verpflichtet, ihr Organ hiervon in Kenntnis zu setzen. Gleiches gilt
gemäß den Artikeln 81 und 11 der Beschäftigungsbedingungen für die sonstigen Bediensteten der Europäischen
Union für ehemalige Vertragsbedienstete.

Die nach Anhörung der betroffenen Kommissionsdienststellen und des Paritätischen Ausschusses getroffenen
Entscheidungen über die Anträge gemäß Artikel 16 des Statuts werden in die Personalakte des Beamten
aufgenommen. Ein zentrales Verzeichnis ( [1] ) für den genannten Wirtschaftszweig gibt es nicht. Der Kommission ist
nicht bekannt, dass solche Verzeichnisse in den nationalen Verwaltungen existieren.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Vgl. Antwort auf die Parlamentarische Anfrage E-008111/2012.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 347

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-009931/12**

**adresată Comisiei**

**Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE)**

_(30 octombrie 2012)_

_Subiect:_ Trecerea din sectorul public în cel privat și viceversa: Funcționari ai Comisiei angajați în sectorul tutunului

1. Câți agenți contractuali au plecat de la Comisie în ultimii 10 ani pentru a ocupa un post în sectorul tutunului?
Ce funcții au ocupat aceștia anterior și în ce DG-uri au lucrat?

2. Câți agenți contractuali pensionați au fost angajați pe posturi în sectorul tutunului? Ce funcții au ocupat aceștia
anterior și în ce DG-uri au lucrat?

**Răspuns comun dat de dl Šefčovič în numele Comisiei**

_(24 ianuarie 2013)_

Articolul 16 din Statutul funcționarilor Uniunii impune foștilor funcționari, precum și foștilor agenți contractuali

[prin articolele (81) și (11) din Regimul aplicabil celorlalți agenți] care intenționează să se angajeze într-o activitate
profesională să își informeze instituția în această privință în termen de doi ani de la părăsirea serviciului.

Deciziile individuale referitoare la solicitările transmise în temeiul articolului 16 din Statutul funcționarilor Uniunii
sunt păstrate în dosarul personal al persoanei respective după consultarea serviciilor Comisiei și a comitetului mixt,
neexistând niciun registru centralizat ( [1] ) cu privire la sectorul economic în cauză. Comisia nu are cunoștință de
existența unor astfel de registre centrale în administrațiile naționale.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) A se vedea de asemenea răspunsul la întrebarea parlamentară E-008111/2012.

C 310 E / 348 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009844/12**

**to the Commission**
**Ingeborg Gräßle (PPE)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Revolving doors: Commission officials hired by the tobacco industry

1. How many officials have left the Commission in the last 10 years to take up a position in the tobacco industry?
What were their former positions, and in which DGs?

2. How many retired officials have taken up positions in the tobacco industry? What were their former positions,
and in which DGs?

**Question for written answer E-009931/12**

**to the Commission**

**Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE)**

_(30 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Revolving doors: Commission officials hired by the tobacco industry

1. How many contract agents have left the Commission in the last 10 years to take up a position in the tobacco
industry? What were their former positions, and in which DGs did they work?

2. How many retired contract agents have taken up positions in the tobacco industry? What were their former
positions, and in which DGs did they work?

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

_(24 January 2013)_

Article 16 of the Staff Regulations (SR) imposes an obligation on former officials, as well as on former contract agents
(via Articles 81, 11 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants), intending to engage in an occupational
activity to inform their institution thereof within two years of leaving the service.

Individual decisions on requests submitted under Article 16 of the SR are filed in the personal file of the individual
after consultation of the relevant Commission services and the Joint Committee, and there is no central record ( [1] ) as
regards the industry concerned. The Commission is not aware that such central records would exist in national
governments.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) See also answer to the Parliamentary Question E-008111/2012.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 349

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita P-009845/12**

**à Comissão**
**Elisa Ferreira (S&D)**
_(29 de outubro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Condicionalidade Macroeconómica no Quadro Financeiro Plurianual 2014-2020

A proposta da Comissão para o próximo Quadro Financeiro Plurianual 2014-2020 (QFP 2014-2020) retoma o
conceito de Condicionalidade Macroeconómica para a atribuição de fundos europeus.

O mais recente «non-paper» da Presidência do Conselho, de 10 outubro 2012, que atualiza o estado das negociações
para o QFP 2014-2020, assume que essa condicionalidade integrará o acordo final, sendo «largamente aceite pelas
delegações nacionais», embora reste decidir o formato de aplicação.

Os compromissos atingidos nos pacotes de governação económica, resultado de uma longa e exigente negociação
entre o Conselho e o Parlamento Europeu com a mediação da Comissão, já contêm várias formas de sanções possíveis
para os Estados Membros que não respeitem os compromissos acordados, quer no âmbito do Pacto de Estabilidade e
Crescimento, quer na correção dos desequilíbrios macroeconómicos, os quais podem atingir 1 % do PIB.

1. Qual a base legal e a legitimidade política desta proposta, que (contrariando totalmente a posição do Parlamento
Europeu) se propõe penalizar duplamente os Estados-Membros economicamente mais frágeis (sanções e perda de
fundos estruturais) por violação da disciplina orçamental?

2. Qual a razão para a insistência da Comissão na Condicionalidade Macroeconómica em relação aos fundos
estruturais e de coesão, quando a mesma Comissão tem reconhecido (quer em afirmações públicas do seu Presidente,
quer em ajustamentos das regras de elegibilidade) que os fundos estruturais são o instrumento fundamental (quase
único), tanto para o relançamento da economia dos países sob programa de ajuda, como no combate às tensões
divergentes entre as economias europeias, as quais figuram entre as causas da presente crise?

**Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão**

_(12 de dezembro de 2012)_

A Comissão propôs que a condicionalidade macroeconómica para os Fundos do QEC para o período de 2014-2020
fosse reforçada, alargada e tornada mais operacional, a fim de impedir que políticas macroeconómicas inadequadas
prejudiquem a eficácia destes fundos e permitir a reorientação dos mesmos para responder aos desafios económicos
com que um país se defronta.

Esta medida não tem por objetivo criar penalidades ou sanções adicionais para os Estados‐Membros que não
respeitam as regras do quadro de governação europeia. Embora os artigos 126.° e 136.° do TFUE confiram poderes ao
Conselho para, em determinadas condições, adotar sanções contra um Estado-Membro no âmbito do procedimento
relativo aos défices excessivos ou para assegurar o bom funcionamento da UEM, a lógica subjacente à
condicionalidade macroeconómica é de natureza diferente.

Além disso, a condicionalidade macroeconómica será aplicada de forma gradual, proporcional e equilibrada, tendo
em conta as circunstâncias económicas e sociais específicas do Estado‐Membro em causa e garantindo a igualdade de
tratamento entre Estados-Membros mais ou menos prósperos e entre pequenos e grandes beneficiários dos Fundos
QEC.

A Comissão partilha da opinião da Senhora Deputada sobre os Fundos QEC. Precisamente por esse motivo, afigura-se
mais importante ainda, no contexto atual, garantir a utilização e aplicação eficaz destes fundos, para além da ativação
de outras medidas de apoio propostas pela Comissão. Os procedimentos de governação económica suscetíveis de
desencadear a condicionalidade macroeconómica já têm em conta as situações económicas graves/desfavoráveis, pelo
que não devem ser reforçados para estes países. Por conseguinte, salvo circunstâncias extremas, a condicionalidade
macroeconómica não será ativada.

C 310 E / 350 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-009845/12**

**to the Commission**
**Elisa Ferreira (S&D)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Macroeconomic conditionality in the 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework

The Commission proposal on the future 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework (MFF 2014-2020) is reviving
the approach whereby European funds are to be granted on the basis of macroeconomic conditionality.

The Council Presidency’s latest ‘non-paper’, dated 10 October 2012, which sets out the state of play in the MFF 20142020 negotiations, assumes that macroeconomic conditionality will be incorporated into the final agreement, as it is,
in the Presidency’s words, largely accepted by the national delegations, although a decision has yet to be taken on the
implementation arrangements.

By virtue of the commitments secured in the economic governance packages, the fruit of long, tough negotiations
between the Council and Parliament, with the Commission as broker, penalties in various forms can already be
imposed on Member States that fail to honour the commitments agreed, whether under the Stability and Growth Pact
or for the purposes of correcting macroeconomic imbalances, which can amount to as much as 1% of GDP.

1. Where do the legal basis and the political legitimacy of this proposal lie, bearing in mind that, as well as being
the direct opposite of Parliament’s position, it will penalise economically more fragile Member States twice over
(through penalties and the loss of structural funding) if they breach budget discipline?

2. Why is the Commission insisting on macroeconomic conditionality where the Structural Funds and the
Cohesion Fund are concerned, even though it has itself recognised (both in public statements by its President and in
adjustments to the eligibility rules) that structural funding is the main means (not to say the only means) to employ in
order both to revitalise the economies of countries subject to assistance programmes and to combat the tensions
which are driving European economies apart and have also been a contributory factor in the present crisis?

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

_(12 December 2012)_

The Commission has proposed a strengthened, broadened and more operational macroeconomic conditionality for
the CSF ( [1] ) funds for the period 2014-2020 in order to ensure that their effectiveness is not undermined by unsound
macroeconomic policies and that they can be redirected to address the economic challenges a country is facing.

This is not meant to create additional penalties or sanctions for Member States that don't abide by the rules of the
European governance framework. While Art.126 and Art.136 TFEU empower the Council, under certain conditions,
to adopt sanctions against a Member State in the framework of the excessive deficit procedure or in order to ensure
the proper functioning of the EMU ( [2] ), the rationale behind macroeconomic conditionality is of a different nature ( [3] ).

Furthermore, macroeconomic conditionality is going to be applied in a gradual, proportional and balanced way,
while taking into account the specific economic/social circumstances of the Member State concerned as well as
ensuring equality of treatment between more and less prosperous MS and between small and big beneficiaries of CSF
funds ( [4] ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Common Strategic Framework.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Economic and Monetary Union.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) More specifically, macroeconomic conditionality aims to incentivise MS to ensure that the appropriate framework conditions for an effective use

of the EU funds are put in place. Ultimately this should result in an enhanced effectiveness of the CSF funds, better performance in the attainment
of the Europe 2020 objectives, an earlier adjustment and corrective action that would help also to avoid the application of sanctions through the
different procedures later on.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) For instance, whenever possible, only parts of the funds would be subject to possible suspensions, the level of suspended funds would increase

gradually according to the severity of the breach of rules and suspensions of commitments would be preferred to that of payments.

( **|**

⋅4∙ **|** )

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 351

The Commission shares the view ( [5] ) of the Honourable Member on the CSF funds, and this is precisely the reason why
it's even more important in the current environment to ensure their most effective use and deployment, in addition to
the activation of further support measures proposed by the Commission ( [6] ). Severe/unfavourable economic
circumstances are already taken into account in the economic governance procedures that could trigger
macroeconomic conditionality, therefore normally they shouldn't be stepped up for those countries and hence
macroeconomic conditionality would not be activated, except under extreme circumstances.

( **|**

⋅5∙ **|** )

⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) CSF Funds are ‘one of the main means to employ in order both to revitalise the economies of countries subject to assistance programmes and to

combat the tensions which are driving European economies’.

( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Such as the increase in the EU co-financing rates for MS with temporary budgetary difficulties, which is also part of the Commission proposal for

macroeconomic conditionality.

( **|**

C 310 E / 352 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης P-009846/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Niki Tzavela (EFD)**
_(29 Οκτωβρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Πρόσληψη ξένων τεχνοκρατών

Σύμφωνα με άρθρο των Financial Times, θα πραγματοποιηθεί «υποχρεωτική πρόσληψη» ξένων τεχνοκρατών που θα
συνδράμουν στη συλλογή φορολογικών εσόδων, την καταπολέμηση της διαφθοράς και τις ιδιωτικοποιήσεις, κάτι για το
οποίο πιέζει η γερμανική πλευρά την Αθήνα σε αντάλλαγμα της διετούς επιμήκυνσης.

Σύμφωνα πάντα με το προσχέδιο της αναθεωρημένης συμφωνίας, οι ετήσιες περικοπές δεν θα κυμαίνονται στο 3%, αλλά στο
1,5% του ΑΕΠ, και αυτό εξαιτίας της μεγαλύτερης από την αναμενόμενη ύφεσης στην οποία έχει βυθιστεί η ελληνική
οικονομία. Σύμφωνα με άλλο προσχέδιο συμφωνίας στην κατοχή των FT ο στόχος της εξασφάλισης εσόδων ύψους 19 δισ.
ευρώ από τις αποκρατικοποιήσεις έως τα τέλη του 2015 ο οποίος είχε τεθεί στη Νέα Δανειακή Σύμβαση του περασμένου
Φεβρουαρίου, μειώνεται τώρα στα 8,5 δισ. ευρώ έως τα τέλη του 2015 και στα 11,1 δισ. ευρώ μέχρι τα τέλη του 2016.

Παρότι έχει εξεταστεί σοβαρά η επαναγορά ελληνικών ομολόγων σε μειωμένες τιμές, κάποιοι στις Βρυξέλλες πιστεύουν ότι η
συγκεκριμένη πρόταση αποτελεί απλώς «παρωνυχίδα» όσον αφορά τα επίπεδα μείωσης του ελληνικού χρέους, ενώ μερίδα
αξιωματούχων τάσσεται υπέρ της μείωσης των επιτοκίων δανεισμού του ελληνικού δημοσίου.

Στο πλαίσιο των προαναφερθέντων, η εφημερίδα επισημαίνει ότι ο διαβόητος λογαριασμός όπου θα κατατίθενται τα
πλεονάσματα του ελληνικού δημοσίου και ο οποίος θα τελεί υπό διεθνή έλεγχο για την αποπληρωμή των χρεών της Αθήνας,
εντάσσεται επίσης στις συζητήσεις.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Ποια είναι η ενημέρωσή της σχετικά με τα ανωτέρω στοιχεία και πόσο αληθινά είναι αυτά;

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

_(10 Δεκεμβρίου 2012)_

Είναι πολιτική της Επιτροπής να μην σχολιάζει άρθρα με φημολογίες που δημοσιεύονται στον Τύπο.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 353

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-009846/12**

**to the Commission**

**Niki Tzavela (EFD)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Hiring of foreign technocrats

According to an article in the _Financial Times_, there will be a ‘compulsory’ hiring of foreign technocrats to help collect
taxes, fight corruption and privatise government assets, something that the German Government has been urging
Athens to accept in exchange for a two-year extension of the bailout.

According to the draft of the revised agreement, annual cuts will amount to 1.5% rather than 3% of GDP, owing to the
fact that the recession is deeper than expected, devastating the Greek economy. In another draft agreement in the
possession of the FT, the goal of securing revenue of 19 billion euros from privatisations by the end of 2015, which
had been put forward in the last February's loan agreement, is now being reduced to 8.5 billion euros by the end of
2015 and 11.1 billion by the end of 2016.

Although serious consideration has been given to a Greek bond buyback plan at depressed prices, some in Brussels
believe that such a plan will only make ‘a dent’ in reducing levels of Greek debt, while others are in favour of lowering
interest rates on Greek bailout loans.

In the same article, the FT points out that the ‘trust account’, to which any Greek budget surpluses will be transferred
and which will be placed under international control to service Greek debts, will also be part of the discussions.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

What does it know about the above information and how credible is it?

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

_(10 December 2012)_

It is Commission policy not to comment on speculative articles appearing in the press.

C 310 E / 354 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009847/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE)**

_(29 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Actos impunes de apología del franquismo en Navarra

La Unión Europea lanzó en septiembre de 2011 la Red Europea de Sensibilización contra la Radicalización para
«hacer más frente a la amenaza creciente del extremismo violento y apoyar a los Estados miembros en sus esfuerzos
por incrementar la sensibilización sobre la radicalización y las formas de luchar contra la ideología y la propaganda de
los extremistas». La Comisaria Malmström destacó en el acto de lanzamiento de la misma que «la lucha contra el
extremismo violento debe tener en cuenta los distintos modelos de radicalización». Uno de ellos es sin duda la
apología del franquismo, dictadura violenta que sembró de víctimas España durante cuarenta años. Pese a ello y con el
conocimiento y pasividad del Gobierno de Navarra, en la ciudad de Iruña-Pamplona se homenajea cada mes a los
generales franquistas Mola y Sanjurjo. Estos actos los organiza la asociación de «voluntarios de la Santa Cruz» en la
parroquia de Cristo Rey ubicada en la plaza Conde de Rodezno dedicada a Tomás Fernández de Arevalo, primer
Ministro de Justicia de Francisco Franco y firmante de cerca de 50 000 penas de muerte. Pese a ello, esta misma
semana el senador del PP navarro José Ignacio Palacios Zuasti ha defendido la permanencia de una condecoración
militar concedida por Franco a aquella provincia por sus méritos en la guerra civil en favor del bando golpista ( [1] ) y
retirada expresamente de su escudo por las instituciones democráticas.

¿Considera la Comisión que la persistencia de este tipo de homenajes es compatible con los valores europeos?

¿Cree la Comisión que este tipo de actividades ofenden a las víctimas de aquella cruel dictadura que aún están
recuperando los cuerpos de sus seres queridos de las cunetas casi 75 años después del fin de la guerra civil española?

¿Considera la Comisión que las organizaciones como los «voluntarios de la Santa Cruz» deberían ser objeto de
atención por parte de la Red Europea de Sensibilización contra la Radicalización? ¿Sería oportuno que la red se
dirigiese al Gobierno de Navarra o al senador Palacios para alertarle sobre la gravedad de estas prácticas?

¿Dispone la Comisión de datos sobre el trabajo que esta red desarrolla contra los grupos que en España se dedican a
hacer abiertamente apología del franquismo?

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

_(1 de febrero de 2013)_

Como se explica en la respuesta a la pregunta escrita E-008264/11 ( [2] ), el objetivo de la Red de la UE para la
Sensibilización frente a la Radicalización (RSR) es apoyar a una amplia gama de profesionales para conseguir una
mejor comprensión de las tácticas y comportamientos relacionados con el fenómeno de la radicalización que
conduce al extremismo violento, así como intercambiar información sobre la mejor manera de atenuar o prevenir
esas actividades. La Comisión ha hecho un fuerte hincapié en la necesidad de prevenir el terrorismo mediante el
tratamiento de todas las formas de extremismo violento, con independencia de su motivación y _modus operandi_, como
una de las prioridades de la seguridad interior. La RSR no tiene por objeto vigilar las actividades de los grupos y las
personas extremistas ni evaluar la amenaza derivada de tales actividades. Los Estados miembros llevan a cabo todo el
trabajo operativo, tal como la recogida de información, la evaluación de amenazas, las actividades policiales y la
persecución de las personas sospechosas.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.navarraconfidencial.com/2012/10/23/navarra-su-escudo-y-la-laureada/.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 355

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009847/12**

**to the Commission**
**Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Apologists for Franco acting with impunity in Navarre

In September 2011, the EU launched the Radicalisation Awareness Network in order to ‘do more to counter the
threat of growing violent extremism (…) [and] support Member States in their efforts to enhance awareness about
radicalisation and ways of countering extremists’ ideology and propaganda’. When launching the Radicalisation
Awareness Network, Commissioner Malmström emphasised that ‘the fight against violent extremism must (…) take
into account the different patterns of radicalisation’. One of these patterns is undoubtedly the act of defending the
Franco regime, a violent dictatorship which claimed innumerable victims across Spain for 40 years. However, each
month, in the city of Iruña-Pamplona, people pay tribute to Franco’s former generals Mola and Sanjurjo with the full
knowledge of the Government of Navarre, which has failed to take any action. These events are organised by the
association of ‘voluntarios de la Santa Cruz’, which is based in the parish of Cristo Rey, specifically in the Plaza Conde
de Rodezno, a square dedicated to Tomás Fernández de Arevalo, the first Minister of Justice of the Franco regime, a
man who signed almost 50 000 death warrants. This week, the senator of the Spanish People’s Party of Navarre, José
Ignacio Palacios Zuasti, spoke in favour of restoring the military decoration awarded by Franco to Navarre for the
commendable work the province did during the Spanish Civil War in helping the leaders of Franco’s coup ( [1] ), which
was later expressly withdrawn from the coat of arms of Navarre after the restoration of democracy.

Does the Commission believe that continuing to pay tribute to the Franco regime is compatible with European
values?

Does the Commission believe these types of events to be an insult to the victims of this brutal dictatorship, some of
whom are still recovering the bodies of their loved ones from ditches almost 75 years after the end of the Spanish
Civil War?

Does the Commission believe that organisations like the ‘voluntarios de la Santa Cruz’ should be monitored by the
Radicalisation Awareness Network? Should the Radicalisation Awareness Network contact the Government of
Navarre or the Spanish senator José Ignacio Palacios Zuasti to alert them to the gravity of these practices?

Does the Commission have any data on the work being carried out by the Radicalisation Awareness Network to
combat organisations in Spain that openly defend the Franco regime?

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

_(1 February 2013)_

As explained in response to Written Question E-008264/11 ( [2] ), the objective of the Radicalisation Awareness
Network is to support a broad range of practitioners to gain a better understanding of the behaviours and tactics on
the phenomenon of radicalisation leading to violent extremism and to exchange information on the best ways to
mitigate or prevent that activity. The Commission has strongly emphasised the need to prevent terrorism by
addressing all forms of violent extremism regardless of their motivation and modus operandi as one of the priorities
for the internal security. The RAN is not intended to monitor activities of extremist groups and individuals and does
not assess the threat emanating from such activities. All operational work, such as intelligence gathering, threat
assessment, policing and prosecution of suspected individuals is carried out by Member States.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.navarraconfidencial.com/2012/10/23/navarra-su-escudo-y-la-laureada/.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

C 310 E / 356 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009848/12**

**à Comissão**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**
_(29 de outubro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM)/Centro Internacional de Negócios da Madeira (CINM) — I

Considerando que:

—
Está prevista uma derrogação no ponto n.° 80 das Orientações Relativas aos Auxílios Estatais com Finalidade
Regional (OAR) para o Período 2007-2013 para as RUP;

—
O ponto n.° 78 das OAR discrimina objetivamente as RUP, como apontado pela Sociedade de
Desenvolvimento da Madeira (SDM) na consulta pública realizada pela DG COMP em 2012;

—
De acordo com o estudo da Universidade de Strathclyde (2009), apresentado à Comissão e recomendado por
esta instituição às entidades portuguesas, a nova fase do regime de benefícios fiscais a aplicar à Zona Franca da
Madeira (ZFM) levou à deslocação de um número significativo de empresas com operações substanciais na
ZFM; que tal facto se deve à perda de competitividade fiscal face aos regimes fiscais dos principais concorrentes
(Ilhas do Canal, Malta, Chipre, Luxemburgo, Holanda, Suíça, Irlanda e Áustria) identificados pela SDM; e que as
constantes revisões ao regime de benefícios da ZFM levanta incertezas por parte dos investidores e potencia a
sua deslocalização;

—
A ZFM contribui para a internacionalização e a integração no mercado único de uma pequena economia
insular e ultraperiférica como a da Madeira e constitui uma fonte de receita fiscal para as autoridades regionais,
que pode ainda ser potenciada; que, assim, não faz sentido calcular a receita fiscal perdida, dado que, se não
existisse um regime favorável as empresas aí licenciadas, elas não estariam presentes e não contribuiriam para a
diversificação do tecido económico; e que a distorção da concorrência nas RUP atua como um nivelador que
permite a sua integração no mercado único, garantindo-lhes uma maior coesão económica, territorial e social;

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

1. Considerando que os auxílios de Estado têm como objetivo implícito (ou secundário) diminuir a dependência
orçamental das RUP face à União e ao Estado-Membro a que pertencem, através da diversificação e
internacionalização do seu tecido económico e consequente desenvolvimento social, existe algum estudo que
explicite qual a dependência orçamental da Madeira face à União e face a Portugal, com e sem os benefícios da
ZFM?

2. Tendo em conta que Malta e Chipre são pequenas economias insulares, como a Madeira, existe algum estudo
por parte da Comissão que indique a sua dependência orçamental ou em termos de auxílios de Estado, caso não
possuíssem regimes fiscais atrativos?

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009849/12**

**à Comissão**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**
_(29 de outubro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM)/Centro Internacional de Negócios da Madeira (CINM) — II

Considerando que:

—
Está prevista uma derrogação no ponto n.° 80 das Orientações Relativas aos Auxílios Estatais com Finalidade
Regional (OAR) para o Período 2007-2013 para as RUP;

—
O ponto n.° 78 das OAR discrimina objetivamente as RUP, como apontado pela Sociedade de
Desenvolvimento da Madeira (SDM) na consulta pública realizada pela DG COMP em 2012;

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 357

—
De acordo com o estudo da Universidade de Strathclyde (2009), apresentado à Comissão e recomendado por
esta instituição às entidades portuguesas, a nova fase do regime de benefícios fiscais a aplicar à Zona Franca da
Madeira (ZFM) levou à deslocação de um número significativo de empresas com operações substanciais na
ZFM, que tal facto se deve à perda de competitividade fiscal face aos regimes fiscais dos principais concorrentes
(Ilhas do Canal, Malta, Chipre, Luxemburgo, Holanda, Suíça, Irlanda e Áustria) identificados pela SDM; e que as
constantes revisões ao regime de benefícios da ZFM levanta incertezas por parte dos investidores e potencia a
sua deslocalização;

—
A ZFM contribui para a internacionalização e integração no mercado único de uma pequena economia insular
e ultraperiférica como a da Madeira e constitui uma fonte de receita fiscal para as autoridades regionais, que
pode ainda ser potenciada; que, assim, não faz sentido calcular a receita fiscal perdida, dado que, se não existisse
um regime favorável as empresas aí licenciadas, elas não estariam presentes e não contribuiriam para a
diversificação do tecido económico; e que a distorção da concorrência nas RUP atua como um nivelador que
permite a sua integração no mercado único, garantindo-lhes uma maior coesão económica, territorial e social;

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

1. Considera que os auxílios de Estado conferidos às RUP têm como objetivo implícito (ou secundário) diminuir a
dependência orçamental das RUP face à União e ao Estado‐Membro a que pertencem, através da diversificação e
internacionalização do seu tecido económico e consequente desenvolvimento social? Em caso afirmativo,
porque tem a Comissão agido de forma contrária à prossecução de tal objetivo, em especial na utilização da
ZFM como mecanismo com potencialidade para a prossecução desse propósito?

2. Existe algum estudo da Comissão relativamente às receitas fiscais perdidas pelo facto da ZFM não ser tão
competitiva como as principais praças suas concorrentes? Em caso negativo, porque não foi feito?

3. De que forma pode a Comissão Europeia garantir a competitividade, a flexibilidade e a estabilidade temporal do
regime da ZFM face aos seus concorrentes que respeitam as regras de concorrência do mercado interno?

**Resposta conjunta dada por Joaquín Almunia em nome da Comissão**

_(10 de janeiro de 2013)_

O propósito do controlo dos auxílios estatais é o de evitar distorções da concorrência no mercado interno. Isto
implica, em particular, que se evitem corridas aos subsídios por parte dos Estados-Membros. As regras dos auxílios
estatais são aplicadas de forma igualitária a situações similares, para garantir condições equitativas no mercado
interno. Estas regras não visam resolver os problemas relacionados com a dependência orçamental das regiões
ultraperiféricas.

O reforço das condições equitativas na UE é também encorajado pela eliminação da concorrência fiscal prejudicial
dentro da UE. Para tal, o Código de Conduta para a Tributação das Empresas contém compromissos políticos de
todos os Estados-Membros no sentido de abolir medidas fiscais prejudiciais e de não introduzir novas medidas
prejudiciais. O parágrafo G do Código tem em consideração o apoio ao desenvolvimento económico das regiões
ultraperiféricas e ilhas pequenas, mas as medidas têm de ser orientadas e proporcionais. O Código de Conduta
também se aplica a Malta e a Chipre.

C 310 E / 358 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009848/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Madeira Free Zone (MFZ)/Madeira International Business Centre (CINM) — I

The Guidelines on national regional aid for 2007-2013 include, under paragraph 80 thereof, a provision for
derogation in the case of the outermost regions.

Paragraph 78 of the Guidelines on national regional aid objectively discriminates against the outermost regions, as
was pointed out by the Madeira Development Company (SDM) in the context of the public consultation carried out in
2012 by DG COMP.

According to a study carried out by the University of Strathclyde in 2009, which was presented to the Commission
and recommended by it to the Portuguese authorities, the restructuring of the tax exemption system in the Madeira
Free Zone led to the relocation of a number of companies with sizeable operations in Madeira. This was due to
Madeira’s loss of tax competitiveness in comparison with its main rivals (the Channel Islands, Malta, Cyprus,
Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Ireland and Austria) identified by the SDM. Constant changes to the
MFZ’s tax relief system create uncertainty among investors and encourage them to relocate elsewhere.

The Madeira Free Zone encourages the internationalisation and integration in the single market of Madeira's small,
outlying island economy and provides the regional authorities with a source of fiscal revenue, which could be further
exploited. It is therefore pointless to calculate lost tax revenue, given that without the existence of a favourable
regime, the firms registered in Madeira would not be there, nor would they be contributing to the diversification of
the economic fabric. The distortion of competition in the outermost regions acts as a leveller, which allows their
integration in the single market and guarantees them greater economic, territorial and social cohesion.

1. In view of the fact that the implicit — or secondary — aim of state aid is to reduce the budgetary reliance of the
outermost regions on the EU and the Member State to which they belong, through diversifying and internationalising
their economic fabric and associated social development, has any study been carried out to assess Madeira's budgetary
reliance on the EU and Portugal, with and without the benefits of the MFZ?

2. Bearing in mind that Malta and Cyprus are, like Madeira, small island economies, has the Commission carried
out any study determining their budgetary reliance or dependency on state aid, in the event that they lack attractive
tax regimes?

**Question for written answer E-009849/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Madeira Free Zone (MFZ)/Madeira International Business Centre (CINM) — II

The Guidelines on national regional aid for 2007-2013 include, under paragraph 80 thereof, a provision for
derogation in the case of the outermost regions.

Paragraph 78 of the Guidelines on national regional aid objectively discriminates against the outermost regions, as
was pointed out by the Madeira Development Company (SDM) in the context of the public consultation carried out in
2012 by DG COMP.

According to a study carried out by the University of Strathclyde in 2009, which was presented to the Commission
and recommended by it to the Portuguese authorities, the restructuring of the tax exemption system in the Madeira
Free Zone led to the relocation of a number of companies with sizeable operations in the MFZ, due to the island’s loss
of tax competitiveness in comparison with the tax systems of its main rivals identified by the SDM (the Channel
Islands, Malta, Cyprus, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Ireland and Austria). The study said that constant
changes to the MFZ’s tax relief system create uncertainty among investors and encourage them to relocate elsewhere.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 359

The Madeira Free Zone encourages the internationalisation and integration in the single market of Madeira's small,
outlying island economy and provides the regional authorities with a source of fiscal revenue, which could be further
exploited. It is therefore pointless to calculate lost tax revenue, given that without the existence of a favourable
regime, the firms registered in Madeira would not be there, nor would they be contributing to the diversification of
the economic fabric. The distortion of competition in the outermost regions acts as a leveller, which allows their
integration in the single market and guarantees them greater economic, territorial and social cohesion.

1. Does the Commission consider that the implicit — or secondary — aim of state aid granted to the outermost
regions is to reduce their budgetary reliance on the EU and the Member State to which they belong, through
diversifying and internationalising their economic fabric and associated social development? If so, why has the
Commission acted in a manner contradictory to achieving this objective, particularly with regards to the use of the
MFZ as a mechanism with the capacity to further this goal?

2. Has the Commission carried out any study looking at lost tax revenue as a result of the MFZ not being able to
match the competitiveness of its main rivals? If not, why not?

3. How can the Commission guarantee the competitiveness, flexibility and temporal stability of the MFZ system in
relation to its competitors which respect the competition rules of the internal market?

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

_(10 January 2013)_

The purpose of state aid control is to avoid distortions of competition in the internal market. This implies in
particular avoiding subsidy races between the Member States. State aid rules are equally applied to similar situations,
in order to ensure a level playing field in the internal market. Their purpose is not to address issues related to the
budgetary dependence of the outermost regions.

The furtherance of the level playing field in the EU is also encouraged by the elimination of harmful tax competition
within the EU. To that extent, the Code of Conduct for business taxation contains political commitments from all
Member States to abolish harmful tax measures and not to introduce new harmful tax measures. The Code in
paragraph G takes account of supporting economic development of outermost regions and small islands, but
measures need to be targeted and proportionate. The Code of Conduct applies to Malta and Cyprus as well.

C 310 E / 360 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009850/12**

**à Comissão**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**
_(29 de outubro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM)/Centro Internacional de Negócios da Madeira (CINM) — III

Considerando que:

—
Está prevista uma derrogação no ponto n.° 80 das Orientações Relativas aos Auxílios Estatais com Finalidade
Regional (OAR) para o Período 2007-2013 para as RUP;

—
A Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) contribui para a internacionalização e a integração no mercado único de uma
pequena economia insular e ultraperiférica como a da Madeira;

—
A ZFM constitui uma fonte de receita fiscal para as autoridades regionais, que pode ainda ser potencializada,
pelo que não faz sentido calcular a receita fiscal perdida, dado que, se não existisse um regime favorável, as
empresas aí licenciadas não estariam presentes e não contribuiriam para a diversificação do tecido económico;
e que os dados fornecidos à Comissão, no âmbito do processo negocial, demonstram que a ZFM conseguiu
atrair quatro das 100 maiores empresas exportadoras e, consequentemente, das 1 000 maiores empresas
portuguesas em termos de volume de negócios;

—
De acordo com o estudo da Universidade de Strathclyde (2009), apresentado à Comissão e recomendado por
esta instituição às entidades portuguesas, a ZFM contribui para a atração de quadros qualificados;

—
Ainda de acordo com o estudo da Universidade de Starthclyde (2009), apresentado à Comissão e recomendado
por esta instituição às entidades portuguesas, a ZFM produz _spillovers_ económicos no setor do turismo, o
principal setor económico da região;

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

1. Por que razão insiste a Comissão em diminuir a atratividade da ZFM, se a mesma tem impedido que a Madeira
dependa exclusivamente do turismo enquanto atividade impulsionadora do desenvolvimento socioeconómico
e geradora de receitas fiscais?

2. A Comissão possui estudos que apontem alternativas à ZFM em termos de geração de receita fiscal, criação de
postos de trabalho (diretos e indiretos), atração de quadros altamente qualificados e de grandes empresas
internacionais, com capacidade de geração de elevadas receitas fiscais e com _spillovers_ no setor do turismo?

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009851/12**

**à Comissão**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**
_(29 de outubro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM)/Centro Internacional de Negócios da Madeira (CINM) — IV

Considerando que:

—
Está prevista uma derrogação no ponto n.° 80 das Orientações Relativas aos Auxílios Estatais com Finalidade
Regional (OAR) para o Período 2007-2013 para as RUP;

—
A Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) contribui para a internacionalização e a integração no mercado único de uma
pequena economia insular e ultraperiférica como a da Madeira;

—
A ZFM constitui uma fonte de receita fiscal para as autoridades regionais, que pode ainda ser potencializada,
pelo que não faz sentido calcular a receita fiscal perdida, dado que, se não existisse um regime favorável, as
empresas aí licenciadas não estariam presentes e não contribuiriam para a diversificação do tecido económico;
e que os dados fornecidos à Comissão, no âmbito do processo negocial, demonstram que a ZFM conseguiu
atrair quatro das 100 maiores empresas exportadoras e, consequentemente, das 1 000 maiores empresas
portuguesas em termos de volume de negócios;

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 361

—
De acordo com o estudo da Universidade de Strathclyde (2009), apresentado à Comissão e recomendado por
esta instituição às entidades portuguesas, a ZFM contribui para a atração de quadros qualificados;

—
Ainda de acordo com o estudo da Universidade de Starthclyde (2009), apresentado à Comissão e recomendado
por esta instituição às entidades portuguesas, a ZFM produz _spillovers_ económicos no setor do turismo, o
principal setor económico da região;

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

1. Considera pertinente criar incentivos próprios, no âmbito do regime da ZFM, destinados a empresas na área da
inovação, da investigação e do ambiente com vista à prossecução dos objetivos delineados pela Estratégia UE
2020?

2. Caso a Comissão agrave a competitividade da ZFM, que alternativa concreta e com efeitos socioeconómicos e
fiscais nos regimes mais competitivos da ZFM propõe para a Madeira?

**Resposta conjunta dada por Joaquín Almunia em nome da Comissão**

_(10 de janeiro de 2013)_

A Comissão apoia o desenvolvimento das regiões ultraperiféricas de forma a que estas se tornem mais
autossuficientes, tenham uma economia mais robusta e sejam mais capazes de criar emprego sustentável. Tal como se
reconhece no artigo 349.° do TFUE, o desenvolvimento das regiões ultraperiféricas está sujeito a condicionantes
importantes. O artigo 107.°, n.°3, alínea a) do TFUE permite de forma explícita a ajuda do Estado para promover o
desenvolvimento económico das regiões ultraperiféricas de acordo com a sua situação estrutural, económica e social.
Neste âmbito, a Comissão não pretende reduzir a atividade da zona franca da Madeira, mas antes garantir que as
vantagens correspondentes de que beneficiam as empresas aí estabelecidas são proporcionais às desvantagens que
esta região enfrenta na sua condição de região ultraperiférica, desde que a ajuda contribua para o desenvolvimento
regional da Madeira.

Cabe aos Estados-Membros determinar as fontes das receitas fiscais, desde que estas estejam em conformidade com as
regras aplicáveis da UE.

Quanto à concretização de um crescimento inteligente, sustentável e inclusivo para a Madeira, no âmbito da
Estratégia Europa 2020, a UE e as autoridades nacionais e regionais devem trabalhar em parceria para conseguir esse
objetivo, tal como sublinhado na Comunicação da Comissão de junho de 2012 sobre as regiões ultraperiférica ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/communic/rup2008/rup_com2008642_pt.pdf

C 310 E / 362 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009850/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Madeira Free Zone (MFZ)/Madeira International Business Centre (CINM) — III

The Guidelines on national regional aid for 2007-2013 include, under paragraph 80 thereof, a provision for
derogation in the case of the outermost regions.

The Madeira Free Zone (MFZ) encourages the internationalisation and integration in the single market of Madeira’s
small, outlying island economy.

The MFZ provides the regional authorities with a source of fiscal revenue, which could be further exploited. This
makes it pointless to calculate lost tax revenue, given that without the existence of a favourable regime, the firms
registered in Madeira would not be there, nor would they be contributing to the diversification of the economic fabric.
Data provided by the Commission, as part of the negotiation process, show that the MFZ has succeeded in attracting
four of Portugal’s main export companies and, therefore, four of the country’s 1 000 biggest companies in terms of

turnover.

According to a study carried out by the University of Strathclyde in 2009, which was presented to the Commission
and recommended by it to the Portuguese authorities, the MFZ helps to attract qualified personnel.

The 2009 Strathclyde University study, which was presented to the Commission and recommended by it to the
Portuguese authorities, the MFZ has an economic spillover effect on the tourism sector, which is the region’s main
economic sector.

1. Why does the Commission insist on reducing the activity of the Madeira Free Zone, when it has also impeded
the island’s exclusive dependency on tourism as the motor for its socioeconomic development and generation of tax
revenue?

2. Can the Commission show any studies indicating alternatives to the MFZ when it comes to generating tax
revenue, creating jobs (directly and indirectly), attracting highly qualified personnel and major international
enterprises, and with the capacity to generate a high level of tax revenue with spill-over to the tourism sector?

**Question for written answer E-009851/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Madeira Free Zone (MFZ)/ Madeira International Business Centre (CINM) — IV

The Guidelines on National Regional Aid for 2007-2013 include, under paragraph 80 thereof, a provision for
derogation in the case of the outermost regions.

The Madeira Free Zone (MFZ) encourages the internationalisation and integration in the single market of Madeira's
small, outlying island economy.

The MFZ provides the regional authorities with a source of fiscal revenue, which could be further exploited. This
makes it pointless to calculate lost tax revenue, given that without the existence of a favourable regime, the firms
registered in Madeira would not be there, nor would they be contributing to the diversification of the economic fabric.
Data provided by the Commission, as part of the negotiation process, show that the MFZ has succeeded in attracting
four of Portugal’s main export companies and, therefore, four of the country’s 1 000 biggest companies in terms of

turnover.

According to a study carried out by the University of Strathclyde in 2009, which was presented to the Commission
and recommended by it to the Portuguese authorities, the MFZ helps to attract qualified personnel.

The 2009 Strathclyde University study, which was presented to the Commission and recommended by it to the
Portuguese authorities, the MFZ has an economic spillover effect on the tourism sector, which is the region’s main
economic sector.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 363

1. Does the Commission see a need to create specific incentives, within the regime of the Madeira Free Zone, for
businesses in the fields of innovation, research and the environment, with a view to attaining the goals outlined in
the EU 2020 strategy?

2. If the Commission decides to reduce the competitiveness of the Madeira Free Zone, what specific alternative,
with socioeconomic and fiscal effects on the MFZ’s most competitive regimes, is it able to offer Madeira?

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

_(10 January 2013)_

The Commission supports the development of the outermost regions in such a way that they become more selfreliant, economically more robust and better able to create sustainable jobs. As recognised in Article 349 TFEU, the
development of outermost regions is subject to important constraints. Article 107(3)(a) TFEU explicitly allows state
aid to promote the economic development of the outermost regions in view of their structural, economic and social
situation. Within this framework, the Commission does not seek to reduce the activity of the Madeira Free Zone, but
to ensure that the corresponding advantages enjoyed by the companies established therein are proportional to the
handicaps that this region faces as an outermost region, and as long as the aid contributes to the regional
development of Madeira.

It is up to the Member States to determine the sources of tax revenues, provided however that they comply with
applicable EU rules.

As regards the achievement of a smart, sustainable and inclusive growth for Madeira within the Europe 2020 strategy,
EU, national and regional authorities must work in partnership to attain such an objective, as underlined in the
Commission's Communication of June 2012 on the outermost regions ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/communic/rup2012/rup_com2012287_en.pdf

C 310 E / 364 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-009852/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(29 Οκτωβρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Ανταπόκριση των εθνικών συνομοσπονδιών στη δράση «Ευρωπαϊκή σύμπραξη στον αθλητισμό»

Η «Ευρωπαϊκή σύμπραξη στον αθλητισμό» δημοσιεύθηκε στην Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της ΕΕ τον Απρίλιο του 2012, με στόχο
την πρόσκληση υποβολής προτάσεων, (προϋπολογισμός 3,5 εκατ. ευρώ) για διακρατικά έργα που αποβλέπουν στην
πρόληψη στημένων αγώνων μέσα από την εκπαίδευση και την ενημέρωση των σχετικών ενδιαφερομένων, ιδίως των αθλητών,
των διαιτητών, των υπευθύνων των αγώνων και των διοικητικών στελεχών αθλητικών εγκαταστάσεων. Η προθεσμία υποβολής
των αιτήσεων έληξε στις 31 Ιουλίου 2012 ενώ τα έργα θα πρέπει να ξεκινήσουν μεταξύ 1ης Ιανουαρίου και 31ης Μαρτίου
2013.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

—
Ποιες εθνικές αθλητικές ομοσπονδίες ανταποκρίθηκαν στην πρόσκληση; Συμπεριλαμβάνεται η ελληνική αθλητική
ομοσπονδία σε αυτές;

—
Ποια έργα εγκρίθηκαν τελικά;

**Απάντηση της κ. Βασιλείου εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(6 Δεκεμβρίου 2012)_

Σε συνέχεια της δημοσίευσης της πρόσκλησης υποβολής προτάσεων του 2012 (EAC/S06/2012 που δημοσιεύτηκε στις
17 Απριλίου 2012) στο πλαίσιο της προπαρασκευαστικής δράσης «Ευρωπαϊκή σύμπραξη στον αθλητισμό» υποβλήθηκαν 76
αιτήσεις. 21 διακρατικά έργα επελέγησαν για επιχορήγηση από την ΕΕ συνολικού ύψους 3,5 εκατομμυρίων ευρώ.

Καμία εθνική αθλητική συνομοσπονδία δεν ανταποκρίθηκε στην πρόσκληση υποβολής προτάσεων.

Ο πλήρης κατάλογος των επιτυχόντων υποψηφίων έχει αναρτηθεί στον ιστότοπο της Επιτροπής στην ακόλουθη διεύθυνση:
http://ec.europa.eu/sport/news/20121115-eu-supports-21-projects_en.htm

Ελληνικοί οργανισμοί συμμετέχουν ως εταίροι σε τέσσερα από τα επιλεγέντα έργα.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 365

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009852/12**

**to the Commission**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Response of national confederations to the action ‘European Partnership on Sports’

The ‘European Partnership on Sports’ was published in the EU Official Journal in April 2012 and called for proposals
(with a budget EUR 3.5 million) for transnational projects aimed at preventing match-fixing through education and
information measures targeting the relevant stakeholders, especially sportsmen and women, referees and the
managers of matches and sports facilities. The application deadline expired on 31 July 2012 and projects are due to
start between 1 January and 31 March 2013.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

—
Which national sports confederations responded to the call for proposals? Was the Greek sports confederation
one of them?

—
Which projects were finally adopted?

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

_(6 December 2012)_

Following the publication of the 2012 call for proposals (EAC/S06/2012 published on 17 April 2012) within the
framework of the Preparatory Action European Partnership on Sports, 76 applications were submitted. 21
transnational projects have been selected for an EU grant for a total amount of EUR 3.5 million.

No national sports confederations responded to the call for proposals.

The full list of successful applicants is available on the Commission website at the following address:
[http://ec.europa.eu/sport/news/20121115-eu-supports-21-projects_en.htm.](http://ec.europa.eu/sport/news/20121115-eu-supports-21-projects_en.htm)

Greek organisations participate as partners in four selected projects.

C 310 E / 366 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-009853/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(29 Οκτωβρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Απορρόφηση κοινοτικών πόρων από την Ελλάδα την περίοδο 2010-2012

Στο μνημόνιο συνεργασίας το οποίο υπέγραψε το 2010 η ελληνική κυβέρνηση με την Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή, την ΕΚΤ και το
ΔΝΤ προβλεπόταν απορρόφηση πόρων από τα ευρωπαϊκά διαρθρωτικά ταμεία ύψους τουλάχιστον 3,5 δισ. ευρώ για την
περίοδο 2010-2012.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

—
Διαθέτει στοιχεία για το κατά πόσον επετεύχθη ο συγκεκριμένος στόχος;

—
Ποιο είναι το ύψος του ποσού που έχει τεθεί ως στόχος ειδικά για το 2012;

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

_(21 Δεκεμβρίου 2012)_

Το πρόγραμμα οικονομικής προσαρμογής θέτει συγκεκριμένους στόχους για την Ελλάδα με σκοπό να αυξηθούν τα ποσοστά
απορρόφησης από τα διαρθρωτικά ταμεία. Το 2010 η Ελλάδα πέτυχε, και μάλιστα υπερβαίνοντας τα 70 εκατομμύρια ευρώ,
τον ποσοτικό στόχο των 2 750 εκατομμυρίων ευρώ. Ο στόχος του 2011 (3 350 εκατομμύρια ευρώ) σχεδόν επετεύχθη, με
ποσοστό απορρόφησης 99%. Για το 2012 η Ελλάδα πρέπει να υποβάλει αιτήσεις καταβολής πληρωμών ύψους 3 730
εκατομμυρίων ευρώ. Κατά τον χρόνο σύνταξης του παρόντος κειμένου, η Ελλάδα έχει υποβάλει αιτήσεις καταβολής
πληρωμών ύψους 1 234 εκατομμυρίων ευρώ.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 367

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009853/12**

**to the Commission**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Take-up of EU funds by Greece in 2010-2012

The Memorandum of Cooperation signed in 2010 between the Greek Government and the Commission, the ECB and
the IMF provided for the take-up of at least 3.5 billion euros from the European Structural Funds for the period 20102012.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

—
Does it have any data showing to what extent this target has been achieved?

—
What is the target amount specifically for 2012?

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

_(21 December 2012)_

The Economic Adjustment Programme sets specific targets for Greece to raise the absorption rates of Structural
Funds. In 2010, Greece successfully fulfilled, and even exceeded by EUR 70 million, the quantitative target of
EUR 2 750 million. The 2011 target (EUR 3 350 million) was almost achieved, with a rate of 99%. For 2012, Greece
has to submit payments claims of EUR 3 730 million. At the time of writing, Greece has submitted payment claims of
EUR 1 234 million.

C 310 E / 368 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-009854/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(29 Οκτωβρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Δάνειο για επιχειρήσεις και επενδύσεις στην Ελλάδα

Σε πρόσφατη συνέντευξή του στην αυστριακή εφημερίδα «Kleine Zeitung» (19.10.2012), ο αντιπρόεδρος της Ευρωπαϊκής
Τράπεζας Επενδύσεων, κ. Βίλχελμ Μόλτερερ, ανέφερε ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Τράπεζα Επενδύσεων προετοιμάζει αυτή τη στιγμή ένα
μεγάλο δάνειο-πλαίσιο για επιχειρήσεις και επενδύσεις στην Ελλάδα.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Μπορεί να παραθέσει περισσότερες πληροφορίες σχετικά με το δάνειο αυτό;

Προσανατολίζονται στοχευμένες επενδύσεις σε συγκεκριμένο παραγωγικό τομέα; Ποιο είναι το προσδοκώμενο ύψος των
πιστώσεων αυτών και ποιο το χρονοδιάγραμμα χορήγησης τους;

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

_(18 Δεκεμβρίου 2012)_

Η Επιτροπή βρίσκεται σε συνεχή επαφή με τις ελληνικές αρχές και την ΕΤΕπ σε όλα τα επίπεδα, με σκοπό την εξεύρεση
βιώσιμων λύσεων για την ελληνική οικονομία. Η έλλειψη ρευστότητας στην ελληνική χρηματοπιστωτική αγορά αποτελεί
σήμερα σημαντικό πρόβλημα για την ελληνική οικονομία και, επομένως, η Επιτροπή ενθαρρύνει την ΕΤΕπ να στηρίζει τις
ελληνικές ΜΜΕ, χορηγώντας συνολικά δάνεια στις ελληνικές τράπεζες εταίρους.

Στο πλαίσιο των διαρθρωτικών ταμείων συστάθηκε ταμείο εγγυοδοσίας ύψους 500 εκατ. ευρώ, ώστε να καταστεί δυνατό να
χορηγήσει η ΕΤΕπ δάνεια στις ΜΜΕ συνολικού ύψους μέχρι 1 δισεκατ. ευρώ μέσω των τραπεζών εταίρων στην Ελλάδα έως τα
τέλη του 2015. Επιπλέον, η ΕΤΕπ πρόκειται να εκταμιεύσει ποσό ύψους 440 εκατ. ευρώ βάσει παρόμοιων συνολικών δανείων
προς τράπεζες εταίρους με εγγύηση του Ελληνικού Δημοσίου.

Το Ταμείο Εγγυοδοσίας για ΜΜΕ θα καλύψει τον κίνδυνο της ΕΤΕπ έναντι των ελληνικών τραπεζών. Οι ελληνικές αρχές
εφαρμόζουν συμπληρωματικά μέτρα ως εξασφαλίσεις (collateral) για τις ΜΜΕ. Η πρώτη δόση ύψους 150 εκατ. ευρώ στο
πλαίσιο του Ταμείου Εγγυοδοσίας για ΜΜΕ (συνολικού ύψους 500 εκατ. ευρώ) έχει ήδη καταβληθεί από τις ελληνικές αρχές
στο Ταμείο, και η χορήγηση αυτών των πρώτων 150 εκατ. ευρώ αναμένεται να ξεκινήσει σύντομα. Σύμφωνα με τους κανόνες
για τα διαρθρωτικά ταμεία, η δανειοδότηση της ΕΤΕπ στο πλαίσιο του Ταμείου Εγγυοδοσίας για ΜΜΕ δεν περιορίζεται σε
συγκεκριμένους τομείς.

Η χρηματοδότηση των ΜΜΕ έχει καίρια σημασία για την αναθέρμανση της ανάπτυξης, τη διασφάλιση και τη δημιουργία
θέσεων απασχόλησης, καθώς και για την ενίσχυση της ανταγωνιστικότητας της ελληνικής οικονομίας. Το μέσο αυτό αντλεί
κονδύλια της ΕΕ που διατίθενται στη χώρα και παρέχει στήριξη στον τραπεζικό τομέα, προκειμένου να βελτιωθεί η πρόσβαση
των ΜΜΕ στη χρηματοδότηση και να μειωθεί το κόστος της χρηματοδότησής τους.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 369

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009854/12**

**to the Commission**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Credit for businesses and investments in Greece

In a recent interview with the Austrian newspaper ‘Kleine Zeitung’ (19.10.2012), the Vice-President of the European
Investment Bank, Mr Wilhelm Molterer, said that the European Investment Bank is currently drawing up a large
framework loan for businesses and investments in Greece.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

Can it provide further information about this loan?

Are targeted investments being directed towards a specific productive sector? What is the expected amount of these
funds and what is the timetable for their disbursement?

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

_(18 December 2012)_

The Commission is in constant contact with the Greek authorities and the EIB at all levels in order to build sustainable
solutions for the Greek economy. A major problem for the Greek economy is currently the lack of liquidity in the
Greek financial market, and the Commission thus encourages the EIB to support Greek SMEs with global loans to
Greek partner banks.

A guarantee fund of up to EUR 500 million was created with Structural Funds to allow the EIB to lend up to a total of
EUR 1 billion to SMEs via partner banks in Greece by the end of 2015. In addition, the EIB is set to disburse an
amount of EUR 440 million under similar global loans to partner banks backed up by a Greek state guarantee.

The SME Guarantee Fund will cover EIB's risks towards Greek banks. The Greek authorities are implementing
additional measures as collateral for SMEs. A first instalment of EUR 150 million under the SME Guarantee Fund (of
the EUR 500 million) has already been paid by the Greek authorities to the Fund, and the implementation of these
first EUR 150 million is expected to start shortly. In line with the rules for Structural Funds, the EIB lending under the
SME guarantee fund is not limited to any specific sectors.

SME financing is key in re-launching growth, securing and creating jobs, as well as strengthening the competitiveness
of the Greek economy. This instrument leverages EU funds allocated to the country and provides support to the
banking sector in order to improve access to finance for SMEs and reduce their cost of financing.

C 310 E / 370 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-009855/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(29 Οκτωβρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Δηλώσεις του Επιτρόπου Γ. Χαν για το ζήτημα ρευστότητας στις μικρομεσαίες επιχειρήσεις στην Ελλάδα

Κατά τη διάρκεια προγραμματισμένης επίσκεψής του στην Ελλάδα και σε συνέντευξη Τύπου που παραχώρησε, ο Επίτροπος Γ.
Χαν εξέφρασε την απογοήτευση του για το θέμα της ρευστότητας για τις μικρομεσαίες ελληνικές επιχειρήσεις και την
πρόσβασή τους σε δάνεια.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Για ποιο λόγο το Ταμείο Εγγυήσεων για τις ΜΜΕ δεν έχει τα αναμενόμενα αποτελέσματα;

Ποιες δράσεις αναμένεται να αναλάβει ο αξιότιμος Επίτροπος προκειμένου να ξεπεραστούν τα προβλήματα αυτά;

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

_(21 Δεκεμβρίου 2012)_

Το Ταμείο Εγγυήσεων για τις ΜΜΕ σκοπό έχει να αντιμετωπίσει το οξύ πρόβλημα ρευστότητας των ΜΜΕ εξ αιτίας της
χρηματοπιστωτικής και οικονομικής κρίσης στην Ελλάδα. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Τράπεζα Επενδύσεων (ΕΤΕπ) χορηγεί δάνεια στο
Ταμείο, το οποίο με τη σειρά του δίνει τη δυνατότητα στις ελληνικές τράπεζες να δανειοδοτούν τις ελληνικές ΜΜΕ.

Η ανάγκη ανακεφαλαιοποίησης των ελληνικών τραπεζών, η μακρά προεκλογική περίοδος του 2012, καθώς και οι
παρατεταμένες διαπραγματεύσεις μεταξύ των ελληνικών αρχών και της ΕΤΕπ σχετικά με τους όρους της σύμβασης
χρηματοδότησης καθυστέρησαν την αποτελεσματική εφαρμογή αυτού του μέσου.

Για τον λόγο αυτό, η Επιτροπή παρότρυνε τα δύο μέρη να συνάψουν τελική συμφωνία για την παροχή ρευστότητας στα
συγχρηματοδοτούμενα έργα για τις ΜΜΕ του Ευρωπαϊκού Ταμείου Περιφερειακής Ανάπτυξης, πριν από την αναμενόμενη
ανακεφαλαιοποίηση των ελληνικών τραπεζών.

Τον Οκτώβριο του 2012 το διοικητικό συμβούλιο της ΕΤΕπ ενέκρινε μερική παρέκκλιση που επιτρέπει στην ΕΤΕπ να
χορηγήσει στις ελληνικές τράπεζες, πριν ολοκληρωθεί η διαδικασία ανακεφαλαιοποίησης, δάνειο ύψους 150 εκατ. ευρώ, το
οποίο θα καλύπτεται από ισοδύναμο ποσό που θα δεσμευτεί στο Ταμείο Εγγυήσεων για τις ΜΜΕ. Επιπλέον, η ΕΤΕπ
ολοκλήρωσε τις υπογραφές συνολικών δανείων ύψους 440 εκατομμυρίων ευρώ βάσει ελληνικών κρατικών εγγυήσεων. Ένα
σημαντικό μέρος του ποσού αυτού προβλέπεται να εκταμιευτεί σε επιλεγμένες τράπεζες μέχρι το τέλος του 2012 και το
υπόλοιπο το 2013, σύμφωνα με την πρόοδο που θα έχουν σημειώσει οι εν λόγω τράπεζες, όσον αφορά τη χορήγηση
κονδυλίων σε ΜΜΕ.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 371

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009855/12**

**to the Commission**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Statement by Commissioner Hahn on the liquidity problem facing SMEs in Greece

During his scheduled visit to Greece, Commissioner G. Hahn gave a press conference, expressing his disappointment
at the liquidity problem facing Greek SMEs and their access to loans.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

Why has the SME Guarantee Fund not had the desired effect?

What actions is the Commissioner expected to take in order to resolve these problems?

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

_(21 December 2012)_

The SME Guarantee Fund was designed to respond to the acute liquidity problems facing SMEs in the context of the
financial and economic crisis in Greece. The European Investment Bank (EIB) provides lending to the Fund, which in
turn enables Greek banks to further lend to Greek SMEs.

The need for the recapitalisation of Greek banks, the long 2012 pre-election period, as well as the prolonged
negotiations between the Greek authorities and the EIB on the terms of the financial agreement delayed the effective
implementation of this instrument.

Therefore, the Commission urged both parties to conclude a final agreement on providing liquidity for European
Regional Development Fund-co-financed investment projects for SMEs, before the expected recapitalisation of the
Greek banks.

The EIB Board approved in October 2012 a partial derogation which allows the EIB to lend to Greek banks, prior to
having completed the recapitalisation process, an amount of EUR 150 million, backed by an equivalent amount set
aside in the SME Guarantee Fund. Moreover, the EIB has completed the signatures of global loans for EUR 440 million
under the Greek State Guarantee. A significant part of this amount is foreseen to be disbursed to the selected banks by
the end of 2012 and the remainder in 2013, in line with the progress made by these banks in allocating funds to
SMEs.

C 310 E / 372 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite P-009856/12**

**à la Commission**
**Michèle Striffler (PPE)**

_(29 octobre 2012)_

_Objet:_ Hausse du prix du blé

Le prix du blé a augmenté de près d'un tiers depuis le début de l'année 2012, avec une hausse spectaculaire en juillet et
en août (respectivement + 20 % et + 29 %). Cette flambée des prix touche principalement les industriels de
l'alimentaire qui utilisent la farine comme ingrédient principal de leurs produits (fabricants de pâtes, de pâtes
ménagères, de pains, biscuitiers) et qui voient leurs coûts de revient s'envoler.

1. Face à la gravité de la situation, quelles actions d'urgence la Commission compte-t-elle mettre en œuvre afin de
contrôler davantage la spéculation sur les denrées alimentaires qui dérègle toute la filière?

Hormis le rôle néfaste de la spéculation excessive dans la formation des prix des denrées alimentaires, les producteurs
et les fabricants de ce secteur sont confrontés à l'intransigeance de la grande distribution qui ne souhaite pas remettre
en cause le prix de vente des produits alimentaires.

2. Quelles actions la Commission compte-t-elle mettre en œuvre afin de rééquilibrer les rapports entre les
fabricants de produits alimentaires et la grande distribution, sans pour autant altérer le pouvoir d'achat des
consommateurs européens?

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

_(4 décembre 2012)_

1. Dans sa communication de février 2011 ( [1] ), la Commission a demandé que des actions supplémentaires soient
menées afin d'améliorer l'intégrité et la transparence sur ces marchés. Conformément aux engagements pris au niveau
du G20, la Commission a lancé un certain nombre d'initiatives réglementaires ayant pour objectif d'accroître
l'intégrité et la transparence des marchés des produits dérivés des produits de base. Elles incluent des propositions
visant à préciser dans quels cas les négociations menées sur les marchés des produits de base constituent des abus et à
garantir que tous les marchés et transactions soient adéquatement réglementés ( [2] ). Il est également proposé d'imposer
que les produits dérivés des produits de base soient négociés exclusivement sur des marchés organisés, d'exiger la
transparence des activités commerciales soient transparentes et de requérir une vue d'ensemble plus complète des
positions existantes, en prévoyant notamment la possibilité d'imposer des limites de position s'il y a lieu ( [3] ).

2. La Commission, en association avec les parties prenantes et les représentants des États membres, examine la
compétitivité et le bon fonctionnement de la chaîne d'approvisionnement alimentaire au sein du forum à haut niveau
sur l'amélioration du fonctionnement de la chaîne d'approvisionnement alimentaire. Après s'être mis d'accord sur des
principes de bonne pratique en novembre 2011, les représentants de tous les acteurs de la chaîne alimentaire
travaillent actuellement, dans le cadre de la plateforme «business to business» du forum, à l'élaboration d'un
mécanisme pour les faire appliquer.

La plupart des pratiques commerciales déloyales ne relèvent pas des règles de concurrence au niveau de l'UE (ou de la
plupart des États membres), comme l'explique le rapport publié récemment par le Réseau européen de la
concurrence ( [4] ). Certaines des autorités nationales de la concurrence ont également déjà commencé à étudier les
incidences à long terme que des pratiques commerciales déloyales pourraient avoir sur la concurrence à l'échelle de la
chaîne d'approvisionnement alimentaire nationale.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Relever les défis posés par les marchés des produits de base et les matières premières », février 2011, COM(2011)25 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) «Proposition de règlement du Parlement européen et du Conseil sur les opérations d'initiés et les manipulations de marché (abus de marché)»,

COM(2011)651 final, et «Proposition de directive du Parlement européen et du Conseil relative aux sanctions pénales applicables aux opérations
d'initiés et aux manipulations de marché», COM(2011)654 final du 20.10.2011.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) «Proposition de directive du Parlement européen et du Conseil concernant les marchés d'instruments financiers, abrogeant la directive

2004/39/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil (refonte)», COM(2011)656 final et «Proposition de règlement du Parlement européen et du
Conseil concernant les marchés d'instruments financiers et modifiant le règlement [EMIR sur les produits dérivés négociés de gré à gré, les
contreparties centrales et les référentiels centraux]», COM(2011)652 final du 20.10.2011.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) «ECN Activities in the Food Sector — Report on competition law enforcement and market monitoring activities by European competition

authorities in the food sector», mai 2012, rapport (en anglais) disponible à l'adresse suivante:
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/ecn/documents.html#reports

( **|**

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|**

⋅4∙ **|** )

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 373

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-009856/12**

**to the Commission**
**Michèle Striffler (PPE)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ The soaring price of wheat

Wheat prices have risen by almost a third since the start of 2012, with a spectacular leap in July and August in
particular (of +20% and +29% respectively). Hardest hit by this surge in prices are manufacturers of food products
using flour as their main ingredient (pasta, dough and pastry, bread, biscuits), whose production costs have shot up.

1. In view of the serious situation, what emergency action does the Commission plan to take in order to reign in
food price speculation, which is distorting the entire sector?

Aside from the detrimental effects of excessive speculation on food price formation, producers and manufacturers in
this sector are also faced with a refusal by the big retailers to agree to price rises that will raise consumer prices for
food products.

2. What action does the Commission plan to take in order restore the balance between food product
manufacturers and the large retailers without this having an adverse effect on European consumers' purchasing
power?

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

_(4 December 2012)_

1. In its communication of February 2011 ( [1] ), the Commission called for further action to improve integrity and
transparency on these markets. In line with G20 commitments, the Commission has launched a number of regulatory
initiatives to increase the integrity and transparency of commodity derivatives markets. This includes proposals to
clarify the types of trading in commodity markets that constitute abuse, and to ensure that all venues and transactions
are properly covered ( [2] ) as well as proposals to require that commodity derivative products are traded exclusively on
organised trading venues, transparency of trading activities, and more comprehensive oversight of commodity
derivative positions, including the imposition of position limits where deemed necessary. ( [3] )

2. The Commission together with stakeholders and Member State representatives addresses the competitiveness
and proper functioning of the food supply chain in the High Level Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain.
Having agreed in November 2011 on principles of good practice, representatives of all actors of the food chain under
the Business to Business platform of the Forum are now working on an enforcement mechanism.

Most of the unfair commercial practices do not fall within the scope of competition rules at the EU level (or in most of
the Member States), as explained in the recently published Report of the European Competition Network ( [4] ). Some of
the National Competition Authorities have also started to look into the possible long-term impact of unfair
commercial practices on competition in the national food supply chain.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Tackling the challenges in commodity markets and on raw Materials, February 2011, COM(2011) 25 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Regulation on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse), COM(2011) 651 final, and Directive on criminal sanctions for insider

dealing and market manipulation, COM(2011) 654 final, 20.10.2011.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Directive on markets in financial instruments repealing Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (Recast) COM(2011)

656 final, and Regulation on markets in financial instruments and amending Regulation [EMIR] on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and
trade repositories, COM(2011) 652 final, 20.10.2011.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) ‘ECN Activities in the Food Sector — Report on competition law enforcement and market monitoring activities by European competition

authorities in the food sector’ (May 2012), available at http://ec.europa.eu/competition/ecn/documents.html#reports.

( **|**

( **|**

⋅4∙ **|** )

C 310 E / 374 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-009857/12**

**to the Commission**
**Emer Costello (S&D)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Preparatory action ‘Youth Guarantee’

When does the Commission expect to be in a position to announce the results of the preparatory action ‘Youth
Guarantee’, which is aimed at supporting partnerships for activation measures targeting young people through
projects in the context of Youth Guarantee schemes at national, regional or local level (Employment, Social Affairs &
Inclusion call for proposals No VP/2012/012, Budget Heading 04.04.17)?

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

_(26 November 2012)_

In order to implement the European Parliament preparatory action on ‘Youth Guarantees’, aimed at supporting
partnerships for activation measures targeting young people through projects in the context of Youth Guarantee
schemes at national, regional or local level, the Commission launched a call for proposals ( [1] ) in August 2012. By the
deadline of 22 October 2012, 115 proposals from 17 different Member States were submitted.

The Commission will organise the evaluation procedure as described in the call for proposals and the results of the
evaluation are expected to be announced within six months from the abovementioned submission date.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) VP/2012/012 — http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=631&langId=en&callId=362&furtherCalls=yes.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 375

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite P-009858/12**

**à la Commission**
**Françoise Grossetête (PPE)**

_(29 octobre 2012)_

_Objet:_ Mise en œuvre de la directive 2011/62/EU visant à lutter contre les médicaments falsifiés — acte d'exécution de
l'article 111 _ter_

À la suite de l'adoption de la directive 2011/62/EU portant sur la lutte contre les médicaments falsifiés, il sera illégal, à
partir du 2 juillet 2013, de fabriquer des médicaments à usage humain au sein de l'Union européenne en utilisant des
substances actives importées de pays tiers dont les autorités compétentes n'auront pas signé une déclaration écrite
indiquant que ces substances sont conformes aux normes de bonnes pratiques de fabrication applicables au sein de
l'Union Européenne.

Il est ainsi prévu à l'article 111 ter de la directive que la Commission établisse, par le biais d'actes d'exécution, une liste
des pays se conformant aux exigences de qualité de l'Union européenne. Certains pays tiers ont déjà demandé à être
inscrits sur cette liste, mais la Commission n'a jusqu'à présent transmis aucune réponse officielle à ces demandes ni
publié les actes d'exécution.

Par conséquent, la Commission peut-elle nous informer sur les points suivants:

1. Quelle date est prévue pour la publication des actes d'exécution visés à l'article 111 _ter_ ?

2. Quelles seront les étapes qui permettront d'évaluer la conformité des demandes formulées par les pays tiers?

3. Quel délai la Commission propose-t-elle de fixer entre le dépôt par un pays tiers de la demande d'inscription sur
la liste, et la publication de sa décision?

4. La Commission dispose-t-elle du nombre suffisant d'inspecteurs pour évaluer les demandes des pays tiers?

5. Enfin, nous savons également que la mise en place de ces mesures nécessitera des négociations diplomatiques
avec les pays tiers et les exportateurs de substances actives qui ne formuleront pas de demande d'inscription sur
ladite liste et refuseront ainsi de fournir des confirmations écrites. Dans ces conditions, qu'entend faire la
Commission vis-à-vis de ces pays afin d'éviter toute pénurie de médicaments sur le marché européen?

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

_(26 novembre 2012)_

1. L'acte d'exécution sera publié en 2013. Le calendrier de mise en œuvre de la directive 2011/62/UE modifiant la
directive 2001/83/CE en ce qui concerne la prévention de l'introduction dans la chaîne d'approvisionnement légale de
médicaments falsifiés ( [1] ) est consultable dans son intégralité sur le site de la Commission ( [2] ). Faisant suite aux
demandes formulées par certains pays tiers, la Commission s'occupe de déterminer, parallèlement au processus
d'adoption de l'acte d'exécution, si le cadre réglementaire de ces pays garantit un niveau de protection équivalent à
celui qu'apporte l'Union.

2. Une évaluation de l'équivalence des cadres réglementaires sera effectuée, conformément à l'article 111 _ter_ . Elle
comportera une analyse sur pièces et, si nécessaire, un examen _in situ_ du système du pays tiers concerné ainsi que des
inspections sous observation des lieux de fabrication.

3. Les délais peuvent varier considérablement, en fonction des caractéristiques du pays formulant la demande.

4. Comme le prévoit l'article 111 _ter_, les évaluations seront effectuées par la Commission, en coopération avec les
États membres et l'Agence européenne des médicaments (EMA). La Commission met tout en œuvre avec eux pour
garantir une évaluation rapide et complète des demandes.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) JO L 174 du 1.7.2011, p. 74.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/files/counterf_par_trade/planning.pdf

C 310 E / 376 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

5. La Commission a engagé très en amont un dialogue avec l'ensemble des acteurs et, en particulier, avec les
principaux pays exportateurs, pour les sensibiliser à la réglementation européenne et éviter que leurs demandes
entraînent des lourdeurs inutiles. Les États membres et l'EMA se préparent actuellement à assurer un suivi de la
situation; ils veilleront à ce que toutes les possibilités qu'offre la directive relative aux médicaments falsifiés soient
dûment exploitées et à ce que les nécessaires mesures de réduction des risques soient prises. Pour des raisons
juridiques, techniques et politiques, la Commission exclut l'éventualité de reporter l'entrée en vigueur de la nouvelle
réglementation.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 377

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-009858/12**

**to the Commission**
**Françoise Grossetête (PPE)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Implementation of Directive 2011/62/EU combating falsified medicines — implementing act pursuant to
Article 111(b)

Following the adoption of Directive 2011/62/EU on the fight against falsified medicines, as of 2 July 2013 the
European Union will outlaw the production of medicines for human use containing active substances imported from
third countries whose authorities have not signed a statement attesting that these substances comply with EU
standards for good manufacturing practices.

Article 111(b) of the directive provides that the Commission shall use implementing acts to establish a list of
countries complying with the EU’s quality requirements. Certain third countries have already asked to be included on
the list, but the Commission has not yet given an official response or published the implementing acts.

1. When will the implementing acts referred to in Article 111(b) be published?

2. How will the Commission ascertain whether the requests made by these third countries are in accordance with
the relevant rules?

3. How much time does the Commission think should elapse between a third country submitting an application to
be placed on the list and the publication of a decision?

4. Does the Commission have enough inspectors to assess the applications from third countries?

5. We know that these measures will entail diplomatic negotiations with those third countries exporting active
substances who will neither apply to be put on the list nor provide such statements. What does the Commission
intend to do in such cases so as to avoid any shortage of medicines on the European market?

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

_(26 November 2012)_

1. The Implementing act will be published in 2013. A full schedule of the implementation of the
directive 2011/62/EU amending Directive 2001/83/EC as regards the prevention of the entry into the legal supply
chain of falsified medicinal products (FMD) ( [1] ) can be found on the Commission website ( [2] ). In parallel to the adoption
process of the Implementing act, the Commission is assessing, following applications from certain third countries,
whether their regulatory frameworks ensure a level of protection equivalent to that in the Union.

2. By carrying out the equivalence assessments provided for by Article 111(b), consisting of a desk-based
assessment and, if necessary, an on-site review of a third country's regulatory system and observed manufacturing site
inspections.

3. Timelines may vary considerably based on the characteristics of the applicant country.

4. As provided for by Article 111(b), the assessments will be performed by the Commission in cooperation with
the Member States and the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The Commission is working hard with them to ensure
a swift, comprehensive assessment of their applications.

5. The Commission has engaged from a very early stage with all the relevant stakeholders, and in particular the
main exporting countries, to promote awareness of the incoming rules end ensure that their application is not
unnecessarily burdensome. Preparations are ongoing with the Member States and EMA to monitor the situation and
ensure that full use is made of all the options offered by the FMD and that the necessary risk-reduction measures are
taken. The Commission excludes, for legal, technical and political reasons, the possibility to postpone the entry into
force of the new rules.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 174/74, 1.7. 2011.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/files/counterf_par_trade/planning.pdf

C 310 E / 378 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-009859/12**

**aan de Commissie**
**Judith A. Merkies (S&D)**

_(29 oktober 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Microplastics

Steeds meer bedrijven verwerken micro‐ en nanodeeltjes plastic in producten die uiteindelijk in rivieren en oceanen
terechtkomen. Een voorbeeld hiervan zijn microdeeltjes plastic in scrubcreams, of micro‐ en nanodeeltjes die
vrijkomen bij het wassen van kleren. Deze deeltjes zijn te klein om uit het water te filteren of uit de zee te vissen, ze
zijn vaak even klein als plankton. Deze deeltjes worden opgenomen door planten en dieren en worden uiteindelijk
een onderdeel van de voedselketen. De gevolgen hiervan zijn onbekend voor het milieu en de volksgezondheid.

De Commissie heeft aangegeven een dialoog te hebben met de industrie en consumentenverenigingen, om mogelijke
maatregelen en acties aan te geven en te evalueren.

1. Wanneer komt de Commissie met de resultaten van deze dialoog c.q. green paper?

2. Welke maatregelen neemt de Commissie om de producentenverantwoordelijkheid te verhogen om zo de
hoeveelheid microplastics in producten drastisch te verlagen en zelfs te weren?

3. Welke voorstellen doet de Commissie om consumenten op de hoogte te brengen van microplastics in
producten bijvoorbeeld door labelling?

4. Welke acties onderneemt de Commissie om inzicht te krijgen in de gezondheidseffecten van microplastics in
voedsel?

**Antwoord van de heer Potočnikon namens de Commissie**

_(9 januari 2013)_

De Commissie zal begin 2013 een groenboek over plastic afval in het milieu publiceren, dat de aanzet zal zijn voor
een breed publiek debat over alle aspecten van plastic afval. Het zal betrekking hebben op producteigenschappen van
plastic aan het begin van de levenscyclus van het product en zal aandacht hebben voor de bedreigingen van
microplastic, waaronder plastic dat nanodeeltjes bevat, voor de gezondheid van de consument en voor het mariene
milieu.

Het groenboek zal een aantal vragen aan de orde stellen over mogelijke opties om ook nieuwe uitdagingen aan te
pakken. Het zal worden gevolgd door een publieksraadpleging, die zal worden meegenomen in concrete maatregelen
die de Commissie in de toekomst eventueel zal voorstellen.

Momenteel zijn nog geen specifieke maatregelen gepland om iets te doen tegen microplastic in levensmiddelen. Begin
2013 gaat een onderzoeksproject in het raam van het 7e kaderprogramma van start. Het zal zich toespitsen op de
fysieke en chemische gevolgen van zwerfvuil op zee, in het bijzonder microplastic, voor mariene organismen.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 379

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009859/12**

**to the Commission**
**Judith A. Merkies (S&D)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Microplastics

More and more businesses are incorporating micro and nano particles of plastic in products which in due course find
their way into rivers and oceans. Examples include microparticles of plastic in scrub creams, or micro and nano
particles released when washing clothes. These particles are too small to be filtered out of water or fished out of the
sea: in many cases they are just as small as plankton. These particles are absorbed by plants and animals and
ultimately enter the food chain. The impact of this on the environment and public health is unknown.

The Commission has indicated that it wishes to engage in dialogue with industry and with consumers’ associations in
order to indicate and assess possible measures.

1. When will the Commission submit the results of this dialogue or a green paper?

2. What measures will the Commission take to increase manufacturers’ liability so as to drastically reduce the
quantity of microplastics in products and even eliminate them altogether?

3. What proposals will the Commission make with the aim of informing consumers about microplastics in
products, for example by means of labelling?

4. What action will the Commission take to ascertain the impact on health of microplastics in food?

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

_(9 January 2013)_

The Commission will publish early in 2013 a Green Paper on plastic waste in the environment which will launch a
broad public discussion on all aspects of plastic waste. It will cover product properties of plastic at the beginning of
the product life-cycle and it will include the aspect of threats to consumer health and the marine environment
stemming from microplastic, including plastic containing nano particles.

The Green Paper will raise number of questions on possible options to also address emerging challenges. It will be
followed by a public consultation which will feed into any further concrete potential action the Commission may
need to propose in the future.

No specific action is envisaged yet to tackle the issue of potential microplastics in food. A research project under the
7th Framework Programme will start early 2013. It will address physical and chemical impacts of marine litter, esp.
microplastics, on marine organisms.

C 310 E / 380 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris P-009860/12**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Elena Băsescu (PPE)**

_(29 octombrie 2012)_

_Subiect:_ Pre-suspendarea plăților pentru 3 programe operaționale sectoriale din România

Pe data de 25 octombrie 2012, Comisia Europeană a transmis autorităților române o scrisoare prin care se comunică
intrarea în procedura de pre-suspendare cu posibilitatea suspendării plăților intermediare pentru Programul
Operațional Creșterea Competitivității Economice, Programul Operațional Regional și respectiv pre-suspendarea
parțială pentru anumite proiecte din cadrul Programului Operațional Sectorial Transport.

Principalele argumente ale Comisiei se referă la deficiențele serioase de management și din sistemul de control ale
acestor programe.

După două luni de zile, Comisia poate decide suspendarea plăților intermediare pentru cele trei programe
operaționale și ulterior poate aplica corecții financiare, în cazul în care autoritățile române nu remediază deficiențele

constatate.

La ce sumă se pot ridica aceste corecții financiare și ce măsuri ar trebui să îndeplinească autoritățile române pentru
evitarea suspendării totale sau parțiale a plăților intermediare și ulterior a corecțiilor financiare, dacă este cazul?

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

_(4 decembrie 2012)_

La data de 25 octombrie 2012, Comisia a informat autoritățile române cu privire la o posibilă suspendare a plăților
pentru cea mai mare parte a programului de transport, a programului regional și a programului de creștere a
competitivității economice. Aceasta a fost consecința identificării unor deficiențe în ceea ce privește achizițiile
publice, buna gestiune financiară și prevenirea și detectarea fraudei și a conflictelor de interese. Ca urmare a acestei
acțiuni, care are la bază o analiză aprofundată, nu se vor efectua plăți până când autoritățile române nu iau măsuri
adecvate pentru remedierea problemelor.

Măsurile corective care trebuie implementate au fost comunicate autorităților române prin scrisorile din 25
octombrie și se bazează pe angajamente anterioare, care au fost deja asumate de autoritățile române în 2011 și 2012.
Măsurile sunt menite să prevină repetarea deficiențelor identificate și pot face obiectul unei verificări din partea
Comisiei.

După ce primește răspunsul din partea autorităților române, Comisia va lua o decizie corespunzătoare.

În plus, în urma auditurilor, Comisia a propus corecții financiare pentru cele trei programe menționate mai sus și, de
asemenea, pentru programul de mediu. Comisia a propus o corecție forfetară; autoritățile române vor trebui să
calculeze suma exactă care trebuie corectată. Sumele corectate ar urma să fie retrase din proiectele afectate, însă ar
putea fi reutilizate pentru alte proiecte care nu sunt afectate de nereguli, în cadrul programului în cauză, dacă
România acceptă corecția propusă.

Comisia așteaptă din partea României să remedieze deficiențele identificate, să implementeze corecțiile financiare
necesare și să se asigure că sistemul de management și control funcționează în mod eficient.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 381

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-009860/12**

**to the Commission**
**Elena Băsescu (PPE)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Pre-suspension of payments under three sectoral operational programmes in Romania

On 25 October 2012, the Commission forwarded to the Romanian authorities a notification of pre-suspension and
possible suspension of interim payments under the Operational Programme for Increase of Economic
Competitiveness and the Operational Regional Programme and of partial pre-suspension in respect of certain projects
under the Operational Transport Programme.

The Commission’s principal objections relate to serious management and monitoring shortcomings with regard to
these programmes.

After two months the Commission may decide to suspend interim payments under the three operational
programmes and subsequently impose financial penalties should the Romanian authorities fail to remedy matters.

What could be the amount of the penalties and what measures must be taken by the Romanian authorities to forestall
total or partial suspension of interim payments and possible subsequent penalties?

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

_(4 December 2012)_

On 25 October 2012, the Commission informed the Romanian authorities of a possible suspension of payments for
the greater part of the Transport, Regional and Increase of Economic Competitiveness programmes. This was as a
result of deficiencies identified in the areas of public procurement, sound financial management, and in the
prevention and detection of fraud and conflicts of interest. This action follows an in-depth analysis and means that no
payments will be made until adequate measures to remedy these problems are taken by the Romanian authorities.

The corrective measures to be implemented were communicated to the Romanian authorities through the letters of
25 October and build on previous commitments already taken by the Romanian authorities in 2011 and 2012. The
measures are to prevent the recurrence of the identified deficiencies and may be subject to verification by the
Commission.

Once it receives the reply from the Romanian authorities, the Commission will take an appropriate decision.

In addition, following audits, the Commission has proposed financial corrections for the three programmes
mentioned above and also for the Environment programme. The Commission has proposed a flat rate correction; the
Romanian authorities will need to calculate the exact amount which needs to be corrected. The amounts corrected
would be withdrawn from the affected projects, but could be re-used for other projects not affected by irregularities
within the programme concerned, if Romania accepts the suggested correction.

The Commission expects Romania to remedy the identified deficiencies, implement the financial corrections needed
and to ensure that the management and control system functions effectively.

C 310 E / 382 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta P-009861/12**

**alla Commissione**
**David-Maria Sassoli (S&D)**

_(29 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Arresto Vaxevanis e difesa libertà di informazione

Il 28 ottobre 2012 il giornalista greco Costas Vaxevanis, direttore di Hot Doc, è stato arrestato dopo aver pubblicato
una lista di 2.059 nomi di cittadini greci che hanno depositato soldi in Svizzera evadendo il fisco. La notizia ha
suscitato molto clamore anche perché nella lista ci sarebbero i nomi di 3 esponenti politici greci.

Sulla base di quanto previsto:

—
dall'articolo 11 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell'Unione europea secondo cui «Ogni individuo ha diritto
alla libertà di espressione. Tale diritto include la libertà di opinione e la libertà di ricevere o di comunicare
informazioni o idee senza che vi possa essere ingerenza da parte delle autorità pubbliche e senza limiti di
frontiera. La libertà dei media e il loro pluralismo sono rispettati»;

—
dall'articolo 19 della Dichiarazione universale dei diritti dell'uomo, secondo cui ogni cittadino ha diritto alla
libertà di espressione;

—
dagli articoli 6 e 7 del Trattato sull'Unione europea che elenca i principi comuni degli Stati membri «libertà,
democrazia, rispetto dei diritti dell'uomo e delle libertà fondamentali, nonché dello Stato di diritto»;

1. Non ritiene la Commissione che l'intervento della polizia greca abbia violato un diritto sancito e riconosciuto
dall'Unione europea?

2. Non ritiene inoltre la Commissione che, alla luce di quanto accaduto nell'ultimo anno a moltissimi giornalisti di
alcuni paesi europei, sia opportuna una profonda riflessione a livello comunitario sulla reale esigenza di una
direttiva europea sul pluralismo e la libertà dei media?

**Risposta di Viviane Reding a nome della Commissione**

_(7 dicembre 2012)_

La libertà di espressione costituisce uno dei fondamenti della nostra società democratica ed è sancita dalla Carta dei
diritti fondamentali dell’Unione europea.

La divulgazione di dati personali è disciplinata dalla direttiva 95/46/CE, relativa alla tutela delle persone fisiche con
riguardo al trattamento dei dati personali, nonché alla libera circolazione di tali dati. La diffusione delle informazioni
nell'ambito di un'attività giornalistica rientra nel campo d'applicazione dell'articolo 9 di tale direttiva. A norma di
questa disposizione, gli Stati membri prevedono, per il trattamento di dati personali effettuato a scopi giornalistici, le
esenzioni o deroghe alle prescrizioni in materia di protezione dei dati che si rivelino necessarie per conciliare il diritto
alla vita privata con le norme sulla libertà d'espressione.

Fatte salve le competenze della Commissione in quanto custode dei trattati, l'applicazione di queste disposizioni è di
competenza delle autorità nazionali, che sono tenute al rispetto delle disposizioni della Carta nell'attuazione del
diritto dell'UE. Ciò significa che ai fini dell'applicazione dell'articolo 9 della direttiva 95/46/CE occorre tenere
pienamente conto dell’articolo 11 della Carta e della giurisprudenza della Corte europea dei diritti dell'uomo in
materia di libertà d'informazione (art. 10 della CEDU ( [1] )).

In base alle informazioni disponibili, alla Commissione risulta che il giornalista sia stato assolto. Data l’importanza di
tale questione, l'evolversi della situazione sarà seguita attentamente.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Cfr. cause FRESSOZ e ROIRE/FRANCIA (n. 29183/95) e VERLAGSGRUPPE NEWS GMBH/AUSTRIA (n. 2) (n. 10520/02).

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 383

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-009861/12**

**to the Commission**
**David-Maria Sassoli (S&D)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Arrest of Costas Vaxevanis and defence of freedom of information

On 28 October 2012, the Greek journalist Costas Vaxevanis, director of Hot Doc, was arrested after having published
a list of 2 059 names of Greek citizens who had deposited money in Switzerland, thereby evading tax. The news
caused a considerable stir, partly because the list apparently included the names of 3 Greek political representatives.

Having regard to the provisions of:

—
Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which reads: ‘Everyone has the right to
freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information
and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. The freedom and pluralism of the
media shall be respected’,

—
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, stipulating that all citizens have the right to freedom
of expression,

—
Articles 6 and 7 of the Treaty on European Union, listing as principles common to the Member States ‘freedom,
democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law’,

1. does not the Commission consider that the action by the Greek police breached a right ratified and recognised
by the European Union?

2. does not the Commission furthermore consider that, in the light of what has happened to a great many
journalists in certain European countries during the past year, it is desirable to think in depth, at Community
level, about the real need for a European directive on pluralism and freedom of the media?

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

_(7 December 2012)_

Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of our democratic societies, enshrined in the
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

The disclosure of personal data is a matter covered by Directive 95/46 on the protection of individuals with regard to
the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. The dissemination of information within the
scope of journalistic activity falls within the scope of Article 9 of the directive on data protection. This provision
obliges Member States to exempt or derogate from data protection requirements as regards processing of personal
carried out for journalistic purposes, if they are necessary to reconcile the right to privacy with the rules governing
freedom of expression.

Without prejudice to the competences of the Commission as guardian of the Treaties, the application of these
provisions falls under the competence of the national authorities, which are bound by the provisions of the Charter
when implementing EC law. This means that full account should be given to Article 11 of the Charter as well as of the
jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights on freedom of information (Art. 10 of the ECHR ( [1] )) for the
application of Article 9 of Directive 95/46.

According to available information, the Commission understands that the journalist has since been acquitted. Given
the importance of this matter the development of the situation will be closely monitored.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) See cases FRESSOZ AND ROIRE v. FRANCE appl no (29183/95), and VERLAGSGRUPPE NEWS GMBH v. AUSTRIA (No 2) (Appl. no.
10520/02).

C 310 E / 384 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord P-009863/12**

**aan de Commissie**
**Kartika Tamara Liotard (GUE/NGL)**

_(29 oktober 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Opvraging ontwerpversies nieuwe tabaksrichtlijn

1. Kan de Commissie, in het kader van transparantie van de Commissie, de nieuwe tabaksrichtlijn of een concept
hiervan, zoals dit eruit zag op het moment dat commissaris Dalli opstapte, overleggen aan het Parlement?

2. Hoeveel eerdere voorlopige versies van de tabaksrichtlijn zijn er, en kan de Commissie ook al deze eerdere
versies met spoed overleggen aan het Parlement?

**Antwoord van de heer Šefčovič namens de Commissie**

_(27 november 2012)_

De Commissie kan het geachte Parlementslid meedelen dat de leden van de Europese Commissie noch hun respectieve
diensten tot nu toe overleg hebben gepleegd over het aanstaande voorstel om de richtlijn inzake tabaksproducten te
herzien. Het overleg tussen de diensten van de Commissie heeft nog niet plaatsgevonden en er is nog geen ontwerp ter
goedkeuring aan het college voorgelegd. In deze omstandigheden meent de Commissie dat het voor het directoraatgeneraal Gezondheid en Consumenten te vroeg is om interne ontwerpen toe te zenden aan het Europees Parlement.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 385

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-009863/12**

**to the Commission**
**Kartika Tamara Liotard (GUE/NGL)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Request for drafts of the new Tobacco Directive

1. Can the Commission — upholding the principle of Commission transparency — forward to Parliament the new
Tobacco Directive or a draft thereof, in the form in which it existed when Commissioner Dalli resigned?

2. How many previous provisional versions of the Tobacco Directive were there, and can the Commission also, as
a matter of urgency, forward these previous versions to Parliament?

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

_(27 November 2012)_

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that so far, neither the Members of the European Commission
nor their respective services have discussed the upcoming proposal to revise the Tobacco Products Directive. The
Commission inter-service consultation has not yet taken place and no draft has been submitted to the College for adoption.
In these circumstances, the Commission considers that transmission to the European Parliament of internal drafts by the
Directorate-General for Health and Consumers is premature.

C 310 E / 386 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009864/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Michael Cramer (Verts/ALE)**

_(29. Oktober 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Kosteneffizienz des Baltisch-Adriatischen Korridors („Connecting Europe Facility“)

In ihrer Antwort auf meine Frage E-005596/2012 behauptet die Kommission, eine Führung des Baltisch-Adriatischen
Korridors (siehe Vorschlag zur „Connecting Europe Facility“, KOM(2011)0665) durch die Pannonische Tiefebene
stelle keine Alternative zu dem von ihr vorgeschlagenen Verlauf des Korridors dar. Denn diese Strecke sei „erheblich
länger, eingleisig und teilweise nicht elektrifiziert“ und „der Ausbau auf TEN-V-Standards […] [erfordere] auch neue
Tunnel“ Sie kommt zu dem Schluss: „entsprechende Maßnahmen werden von den Mitgliedstaaten voraussichtlich
nicht vor 2030 umgesetzt“. Ich bitte ich um einzelne Beantwortung folgender Anschlussfragen:

1. Impliziert die Aussage der Kommission, dass sie die Kosten für den Bau der Alternativroute inklusive des
Semmering‐ und des Koralmtunnels für niedriger hält als die für die Ertüchtigung der Alternativroute über die
Pannonische Tiefebene? Wenn ja, warum? Wenn nein, warum nicht?

2. Welchen Kostenunterschied legt die Kommission der Ablehnung der Alternativroute zugrunde?

3. Von welcher Länge der Alternativroute über die Pannonische Tiefebene geht die Kommission aus und welche
Längenunterschiede nimmt die Kommission an? Auf welcher Länge ist die Alternativstrecke nicht elektrifiziert
bzw. eingleisig?

4. Den Bau welcher Tunnel und mit welcher Länge hält die Kommission zur Erreichung der TEN-V-Standards auf
der Alternativroute für erforderlich? Von welcher Länge geht sie für den Koralm‐ und den Semmeringtunnel
aus?

5. Nimmt die Kommission an, dass der Semmering‐ sowie der Koralmtunnel bis 2030 fertiggestellt werden,
obwohl die österreichische Regierung im Rahmen des 2012 beschlossenen Sparpakets eine Kürzung der
Finanzierung für beide Projekte um 300 Mio. EUR beschlossen und die Finanzierung des Brenner-Basistunnels
um 3 Jahre verschoben hat?

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

_(19. Dezember 2012)_

Die den TEN-V und CEF-Vorschlägen zugrunde liegende Methodik wurde mit den Mitgliedstaaten ausführlich
erörtert. Eine Streckenführung über die Pannonische Tiefebene wurde weder von Ungarn noch von Slowenien ins
Auge gefasst. Der Kommission sind keine Planungen im Vorfeld bekannt.

Die Kommission geht davon aus, dass die Kosten für beide Streckenführungen ähnlich hoch sein werden, nämlich
etwa 7 bis 7,5 Mrd. EUR für den zur Einhaltung der TEN-V-Leitlinien erforderlichen Ausbau in Ungarn und Slowenien
(Wiener Neustadt-Pragersko-Ljubljana) und für den Ausbau der Strecke Ljubljana-Triest. Die Investitionen für die
Koralmstrecke und den Semmering-Tunnel summieren sich auf 7,6 Mrd. EUR. Die Verlängerung bis Venedig wurde
in Italien bereits über die Pontebbana-Strecke fertig gestellt.

Die Weiterführung der laufenden Arbeiten in Österreich ist gesichert. Bis 2026 wird es in Österreich und im TEN-VNetz insgesamt zum Nutzen aller EU-Bürger eine bessere und schnellere Verbindung geben. Dies steht voll im
Einklang mit dem TEN-V-Zeitplan. Die Investitionen in die Semmering‐ und Koralm-Tunnel sind Teil des
österreichischen „Ausbauplans Bundesverkehrsinfrastruktur“, der jüngst im Zusammenhang mit dem Sparpaket
geändert wurde. Die Finanzierung beider Tunnel wird über den „ÖBB-Rahmenplan 2013-2018“ sichergestellt. Der
Koralm-Tunnel (32,9 km) dürfte bis 2023 und der Semmering-Tunnel (27,3 km) bis 2024 betriebsbereit sein. Bis
Ende 2012 wurden etwa 25 % der insgesamt zur Verfügung gestellten Mittel ausgegeben oder gebunden. Weitere
Einzelheiten hierzu unter: http://www.bmvit.gv.at/verkehr/gesamtverkehr/ausbauplan/index.html

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 387

§Die österreichische Strecke der Verbindung Wien‐Venedig hat eine Gesamtlänge von 600 km, die Strecke über
Sopron-Ormoz-Ljubljana (285 km eingleisig, nur 60 km elektrifiziert) eine Gesamtlänge von 750 km. Zwischen
Pragersko und Ljubljana windet sich die kurvenreiche Strecke über 140 km durch Täler. Für den Ausbau der Strecke
müssten Tunnel von insgesamt etwa 25 km Länge gebaut werden, um höhere Geschwindigkeiten zu ermöglichen. Ein
Ausbau der Alternativroute auf TEN-V-Standards wird nicht vor 2030 umzusetzen sein.

C 310 E / 388 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009864/12**

**to the Commission**
**Michael Cramer (Verts/ALE)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Cost-efficiency of the Baltic-Adriatic corridor (‘Connecting Europe Facility’)

In its response to my Question E-005596/2012, the Commission claims that routing the Baltic Adriatic corridor (see
the proposal establishing the Connecting Europe Facility, COM(2011) 665) through the Pannonian lowlands is not an
alternative to its proposed route for the corridor. It states that this line is ‘considerably longer, single-track and partly
non-electrified’ and that ‘[u]pgrading to TEN-T standards would also include new tunnels’, and concludes that this ‘is
not considered to be implemented until 2030 by the Member States’. Please could you provide a separate answer for
each of the following follow-up questions:

1. Does the Commission's statement imply that it considers the costs of building the route including the
Semmering and Koralm tunnels to be lower than those of upgrading the alternative route via the Pannonian
lowlands? If so, why? If not, why not?

2. What cost difference is the Commission basing its rejection of the alternative route on?

3. How long is the Commission assuming the alternative route via the Pannonian lowlands to be, and what does it
consider to be the difference in length? How much of this alternative route is non-electrified and/or singletrack?

4. Which tunnels does the Commission consider need to be built in order to bring the alternative route up to TENT standards, and how long would they be? How long does it assume the Koralm and Semmering tunnels will
be?

5. Does the Commission think that both the Semmering and Koralm tunnels will be completed by 2030, despite
the fact that, as part of the austerity package adopted in 2012, the Austrian government has cut funding for
both projects by EUR 300 million and postponed funding for the Brenner Base Tunnel for three years?

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

_(19 December 2012)_

The methodolgy underpinning the TEN-T and CEF proposals was extensively discussed with the Member States. A
routing via the Pannonian Lowland was not considered by HU or SI. The Commission is not aware of any preliminary
planning.

The Commssions estimates the costs of the implementation of the two aligments to be close: Roughly EUR7 to 7.5bn
for the upgrades needed to comply with TEN-T guidelines in HU and SI (Wiener Neustadt‐ Pragersko-Ljubljana) and
for an upgrade of Ljubljana-Triest line. The investment for Koralmline and Semmering-Tunnel adds up to
EUR7.6billion. The continuation to Venice is already finished via the Pontebbana line in Italy.

The works in Austria are ongoing and secured. By 2026 a better and quicker connection will be achieved in AT and in
the TEN-T network for the sake of all EU citizens. This fully complies with the TEN-T deadlines. The investments to
implement Semmering‐ and Koralm-Tunnel are part of the Austrian ‘Ausbauplan Bundesverkehrsinfrastruktur’ as
recently amended in the context of austerity package. The ‘ÖBB Rahmenplan 2013-2018’ secures the financing for
both tunnels. They are expected to be operational by 2023 (Koralm, 32,9km tunnel) and 2024 (Semmering, 27.3 km
tunnel).By the end of 2012 about 25% of the total investmenthas been spent or committed. Please consult for details:
http://www.bmvit.gv.at/verkehr/gesamtverkehr/ausbauplan/index.html

The connection Vienna-Venice adds up to 600 km via AT and up to 750 km via Sopron‐Ormoz–Ljubljana (285 km
single-tracks, only 60 km electrified). Between Pragersko and Ljubljana (140 km) the tracks follow winding valleys.
Upgrading would mean building tunnels with a total length of about 25 km to enhance the line speed. An
improvement of the alternative route to TEN-T standards is not considered to be implemented until 2030.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 389

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009865/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Michael Cramer (Verts/ALE)**

_(29. Oktober 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Fahrradmitnahme in Fernverkehrszügen

In Artikel 5 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1371/2007 über die Rechte und Pflichten der Fahrgäste im Eisenbahnverkehr ist
festgelegt: „Die Eisenbahnunternehmen ermöglichen den Fahrgästen die Mitnahme von Fahrrädern im Zug,
gegebenenfalls gegen Entgelt, wenn sie leicht zu handhaben sind, dies den betreffenden Schienenverkehrsdienst nicht
beeinträchtigt und in den Fahrzeugen möglich ist.“ Vor diesem Hintergrund frage ich die Kommission:

1. Wie bewertet sie es, dass in den zwischen Stuttgart und Paris verkehrenden TGV-Zügen („Trains à grande
vitesses“) der französischen SNCF nur auf den französischen bzw. grenzüberschreitenden Abschnitten die
Mitnahme von Fahrrädern möglich ist, nicht jedoch zwischen den Halten in Deutschland — obwohl es sich
exakt um denselben Zug handelt?

2. Welche Begründung rechtfertigt die Verweigerung der Fahrradmitnahme auf dem innerdeutschen Abschnitt
zwischen Stuttgart und Karlsruhe, insbesondere vor dem Hintergrund dass die Fahrzeuge — wie von der SNCF
auf dem eigenen Netz demonstriert — die Fahrradmitnahme erlauben und diese „leicht zu handhaben ist“ und
„den betreffenden Schienenverkehrsdienst nicht beeinträchtigt“?

3. Liegen die Ergebnisse der in Analyse zu Artikel 5 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1371/2007, auf die sich die
Kommission in der Antwort auf die schriftliche Frage E-002656/2012 bezog, bereits vor? Wenn ja, wo sind
diese einsehbar? Wenn nein, wann werden diese vorliegen und wo werden sie einsehbar sein?

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

_(19. Dezember 2012)_

1. und 2. Die Kommission wird die zuständigen nationalen Behörden kontaktieren und sie auffordern, die vom
Herrn Abgeordneten angesprochenen Fragen zu prüfen. Sie wird den Herrn Abgeordneten über das Ergebnis ihrer
Schritte unterrichten.

3. Die Kommission hat den entsprechenden Bericht auf ihrer Website veröffentlicht ( [1] ). Der Bericht wurde
außerdem dem Ausschuss für Verkehr und Fremdenverkehr des Europäischen Parlaments übermittelt.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/passengers/rail/index_en.htm

C 310 E / 390 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009865/12**

**to the Commission**
**Michael Cramer (Verts/ALE)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Bringing bicycles onto long distance trains

Article 5 of Regulation 1371/2007 (EC) on rail passengers’ rights and obligations specifies that: ‘Railway undertakings
shall enable passengers to bring bicycles onto the train, where appropriate for a fee, if they are easy to handle, if this
does not adversely affect the specific rail service, and if the rolling-stock so permits.’ In the light of the above, I put the
following question to the Commission:

1. How does the Commission view the fact that, on TGVs (the high-speed trains of the French rail company,
SNCF) travelling between Stuttgart and Paris, it is possible to bring bicycles onto the train only on the French
and cross-border stretches of the line and not between stops in Germany — even though it is exactly the same
train?

2. What justification is there for refusing to allow bicycles onto the train on the German stretch of line between
Stuttgart and Karlsruhe, especially given that, as SNCF demonstrates on its own network, rolling-stock permits
bicycles to be brought onto trains, ‘they are easy to handle’ and they do not ‘adversely affect the specific rail
service’?

3. Are the findings of the analysis of Article 5 of Regulation 1371/2007 (EC) which the Commission referred to in
its answer to Written Question E-002656/2012 already available? If so, where may they be accessed? If not,
when will they become available and where may they be accessed?

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

_(19 December 2012)_

1 and 2: The Commission will contact the relevant national enforcement authorities and invite them to look into the
issues raised by the Honourable Member. It will directly inform the Honourable Member of the results of these

contacts.

3: The Commission has published the report concerned on its website ( [1] ). It has also been sent separately to the
Transport and Tourism Committee of the European Parliament.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/passengers/rail/index_en.htm

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 391

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009866/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Franz Obermayr (NI)**

_(29. Oktober 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Keine Notwendigkeit einer Flugausfallversicherung

Seit Beginn des Jahres 2012 haben eine ganze Reihe Fluggesellschaften aus dem europäischen Raum und weltweit
Insolvenz anmelden müssen. In solchen Fällen erhalten Passagiere in aller Regel für bereits erworbene Flugtickets
keine Kostenerstattung. Obwohl im Bereich der Pauschalreisen sogenannte Sicherungsscheine bereits vorgeschrieben
sind, sieht die Kommission im normalen Personenflugverkehr keinen Handlungsbedarf. Für den Verbraucher ergeben
sich daraus offensichtliche Risiken.

Plant die Kommission mittlerweile eine Gesetzesvorlage zur Einführung einer verpflichtenden
Flugausfallversicherung? Wenn nein, warum nicht?

1. Sieht die Kommission keinen Handlungsbedarf, um den Verbraucher vor Flugausfall zu schützen?

2. Ist die Kommission nicht der Meinung, dass eine einheitlich verpflichtende Flugausfallversicherung den
Wettbewerb verbessern würde?

3. Sieht die Kommission andererseits nicht auch einen Schutz für finanzschwächere Fluglinien, durch eine
Flugausfallversicherung dennoch Vertrauen auf dem Markt zu genießen?

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

_(14. Dezember 2012)_

Die Kommission plant derzeit nicht, Legislativvorschläge zur Einführung einer obligatorischen
Flugausfallversicherung vorzulegen, die die Erstattung von Tickets im Falle der Insolvenz von Fluggesellschaften
deckt. Analysen der Kommission haben gezeigt, dass ein solcher Versicherungsschutz aufgrund von Beschränkungen
innerhalb des Versicherungsmarktes nicht universell erworben werden könnte und dass eine derartige Verpflichtung
unter bestimmten Umständen ein Handelshemmnis wäre.

Die Kommission ist sich der Folgen bewusst, die die Insolvenz von Fluggesellschaften für die betroffenen Passagiere
haben kann. Sie ist jedoch der Ansicht, dass eine angemessene Anwendung vorhandener Rechtsvorschriften, wie z. B.
der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1008/2008, bereits einen wirksamen und unmittelbaren Schutz bietet. Eine rasche
Weiterbeförderung gestrandeter Passagiere sowie zwischenzeitliche Versorgungs‐ und Unterstützungsleistungen sind
dabei die Prioritäten der Kommission.

Die Kommission plant, dem Parlament und dem Rat Anfang 2013 eine Mitteilung zum Thema Insolvenz von
Fluggesellschaften vorzulegen.

C 310 E / 392 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009866/12**

**to the Commission**
**Franz Obermayr (NI)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ No need for flight cancellation insurance

Since the beginning of 2012 a whole raft of airline operators in Europe and worldwide have had to file for
bankruptcy. In such cases passengers are not usually reimbursed for flight tickets already purchased. Although a
guarantee scheme is already mandatory in the case of package holidays, the Commission sees no need to take action
in the case of normal passenger travel. The risks to consumers are obvious.

Is the Commission now planning a legislative proposal to introduce compulsory flight cancellation insurance? If not,
why not?

1. Does the Commission think no action need be taken to protect consumers from flight cancellation?

2. Does the Commission not think that a universally binding flight cancellation insurance scheme would improve
competition?

3. Does the Commission not also think that flight cancellation insurance protection would also boost market
confidence in less financially robust airline operators?

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

_(14 December 2012)_

The Commission is not presently planning the introduction of legislative proposals requiring the provision of
mandatory flight cancellation insurance to cover the reimbursement of tickets where an airline becomes insolvent.
Analysis by the Commission indicates that due to limitations within the insurance market, insurance cover could not
be obtained universally and that a requirement of this nature could, in certain circumstances, act as a barrier to trade.

The Commission is aware of the impact that airline insolvency can have on affected passengers, but considers that the
appropriate application of existing legislation, such as Regulation (EC) 1008/2008, provides already an effective and
immediate response to the issue. The timely rerouting of stranded passengers and the provision of care and assistance
in the interim is the Commission's priority.

The Commission plans to submit a communication to the Parliament and Council on the issue of airline insolvency in
early 2013.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 393

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009867/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Franz Obermayr (NI)**

_(29. Oktober 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Aufweichung der strengen Grenzwerte bei gentechnisch verunreinigten Lebensmitteln

Um Lebensmittel als explizit „gentechnikfrei“ kennzeichnen zu dürfen müssen in der EU strenge Richtlinien
eingehalten werden. Lebensmittel dürfen mit maximal 0,9 % von in der EU zugelassenen gentechnisch veränderten
Organismen verunreinigt sein. Die Kommission plante nun auch eine Toleranzgrenze von 0,1 % für in der EU nicht
zugelassene gentechnisch veränderte Organismen einzuführen.

Daraus ergeben sich folgende Fragen:

1. Was ist der gegenwärtige Status der Beratungen?

2. Plant die Kommission trotz massiver zivilgesellschaftlicher Gegenwehr immer noch eine solche
Toleranzgrenze für nicht zugelassene gentechnisch veränderte Organismen einzuführen?

3. Sieht die Kommission in der Einführung dieser Toleranzgrenze eine erste Aufweichung der strengen
Richtlinien in der Frage der gentechnisch manipulierten Lebensmittel?

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

_(17. Dezember 2012)_

Die Kommission beabsichtigt nicht, die EU-Politik hinsichtlich der Nulltoleranz für nicht zugelassene GVO zu ändern.
Die Verordnung (EU) Nr. 619/2011 ( [1] ), mit der die Durchführung der Nulltoleranzpolitik im Hinblick auf genetisch
veränderte Ausgangserzeugnisse in Futtermitteln harmonisiert wird, betrifft die Rechtsunsicherheit der Unternehmer
in der EU beim Inverkehrbringen von aus Nicht-EU-Staaten eingeführten Futtermitteln. Die Kommission ist der
Auffassung, dass die Regeln für die Interpretation der Untersuchungsergebnisse harmonisiert werden sollten, damit in
der gesamten Europäischen Union für dieselben Untersuchungsergebnisse dieselbe Schlussfolgerung gezogen wird.
Die obengenannte Verordnung betrifft weder die strenge Sicherheitsbewertung noch die in den Vorschriften über
GVO festgelegte Kennzeichnungsanforderung.

Die Kommission prüft derzeit die Durchführung der obengenannten Verordnung und bewertet dabei insbesondere,
ob ihr Anwendungsbereich auf Lebensmittel ausgedehnt werden könnte.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) ABl. L 166 vom 25.6.2011.

C 310 E / 394 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009867/12**

**to the Commission**
**Franz Obermayr (NI)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Relaxing of the strict limits on genetically contaminated food

In the EU, strict guidelines must be met if food is to be explicitly labelled as ‘GM-free’. Food may be considered as
contaminated if the level of EU-approved GMOs that it contains exceeds 0.9%. The Commission is now planning to
introduce a tolerance limit of 0.1% for genetically modified organisms that are not approved in the EU.

This leads us to the following questions:

1. What is the current status of the discussions?

2. Despite massive opposition from civil society, is the Commission still planning to introduce such a tolerance
limit for non-authorised genetically modified organisms?

3. Does the Commission regard the introduction of this tolerance limit as an initial move towards relaxing the
strict guidelines on the issue of genetically engineered foods?

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

_(17 December 2012)_

The Commission has no intention of changing the EU policy on zero tolerance for non-authorised GMOs. Regulation
(EC) No 619/2011 ( [1] ) harmonising the implementation of the zero-tolerance policy on non-authorised genetically
modified (GM) material in feed (referred to as ‘Low Level Presence (LLP) feed Regulation’ here below) addresses EU
business operator's legal uncertainty when marketing feed imported from non-EU countries. The Commission
considers it is appropriate to harmonise the rules for the interpretation of the results of the analysis, to ensure that
throughout the European Union the same conclusion is drawn from the same analytical results. The LLP feed
Regulation does not affect neither the strict safety assessment nor the labelling requirement required under the GMO
legislation.

The Commission is examining the implementation of the LLP feed Regulation, and in particular is evaluating whether
an extension of the scope to food could be envisaged.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 166, 25.06.2011.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 395

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009868/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Franz Obermayr (NI)**

_(29. Oktober 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Bedrohung durch Monsanto Produkt Roundup

In Deutschland wurden erstmals Rückstände von dem vom Monsanto-Konzern hergestellten Breitbandherbizid
Roundup in Lebensmitteln (z. B. Brot) nachgewiesen. Betroffen waren fast drei Viertel aller Proben. Laut neuestem
Wissensstand bleiben Reste des Pflanzengiftes sogar bei Backtemperaturen übrig. Untersuchungen führender
Forscher, wie des Embryologen Dr. Andreas Carrasco, zeigen, dass jene Roundup-Rückstände zu Schädigung bei
ungeborenen Tieren und wahrscheinlich auch bei Menschen führen.

1. Wie bewertet die Kommission diese Untersuchungsergebnisse?

2. Gibt es seitens der Kommission beziehungsweise der EFSA Untersuchungen, die dieses Ergebnis bestätigen?

3. Wenn nicht, plant die Kommission solche in Auftrag zu geben?

4. Wird die Kommission auf den US-Konzern Druck ausüben, das Herbizid Roundup vom Markt zu nehmen,
beziehungsweise einen Importstop zu verhängen?

5. Wenn nein, warum nicht?

6. Wird die Kommission das Herbizid Roundup aufgrund dieser Ergebnisse in Europa verbieten?

7. Wenn nein, warum nicht?

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

_(18. Dezember 2012)_

1) Bezüglich der Bewertung der Untersuchungsergebnisse von Herrn Dr. Carrasco möchte die Kommission den
Herrn Abgeordneten auf ihre Antworten zu den schriftlichen Fragen E‐007874/2010 (Punkt 1) und P-010522/2010
(Absätze 3 und 4) ( [1] ) verweisen.

2, 3) Die Kommission oder die Europäische Behörde für Lebensmittelsicherheit (EFSA) führen selbst keinen
Überwachungsplan für Rückstandskontrollen aus. Sie verwenden die Ergebnisse der Untersuchungen, die von den
Mitgliedstaaten durchgeführt werden. Die Art der über das Schnellwarnsystem für Lebensmittel und Futtermittel
übermittelten Meldungen zu Glyphosat-Rückständen veranlasst die Kommission in diesem Bereich nicht zur Sorge.

4-7) Aus den in diesen Antworten genannten Gründen gibt es nach Ansicht der Kommission derzeit keine solide
Grundlage, die Verwendung von Glyphosat in der EU zu verbieten oder weiter einzuschränken. Außerdem wurde im
Mai 2012 die Verlängerung der Zulassung von Glyphosat beantragt. Derzeit wird eine Bewertung des Dossiers
vorgenommen, bei der die von der Fachwelt begutachteten wissenschaftlichen Veröffentlichungen sorgfältig
berücksichtigt werden. Das gesamte Verfahren wird voraussichtlich 2014 abgeschlossen sein.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/de/parliamentary-questions.html

C 310 E / 396 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009868/12**

**to the Commission**
**Franz Obermayr (NI)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Threat from Monsanto product Roundup

In Germany, for the first time, traces of Monsanto's broad-spectrum herbicide, Roundup, have been detected in food
(such as bread). Almost three quarters of samples tested were affected. The latest research has shown that traces of this
herbicide remain even at baking temperatures. Investigations by leading researchers such as the embryologist
Dr Andreas Carrasco show that these traces of Roundup are harmful to animal, and probably also human, foetuses.

1. What is the Commission's assessment of these research findings?

2. Has the Commission and/or the EFSA carried out any investigations that confirm these results?

3. If not, does the Commission plan to commission such investigations?

4. Will the Commission put pressure on this US company to withdraw the herbicide Roundup from the market, or
prohibit its import?

5. If not, why not?

6. Will the Commission, on the basis of these results, ban the herbicide Roundup in Europe?

7. If not, why not?

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

_(18 December 2012)_

1. Regarding the assessment of the research findings by Dr Carrasco, the Commission would refer the Honourable
Member to its answers to written questions E-007874/2010 (point 1) and P-010522/2010 (paragraphs 3 and 4) ( [1] ).

2 and 3. The Commission or the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) do not carry out themselves a monitoring
plan for residues control. They rely on the results of the investigations carried out by the Member States. Based on the
profile of notifications on glyphosate residues transmitted through the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed, the
Commission has no reason for concerns on this aspect.

4-7. For reasons set out in these answers, the Commission does not consider there is currently a solid basis to ban or
impose additional restrictions on the use of glyphosate in the EU. Moreover, in May 2012, an application has been
submitted to renew the approval of glyphosate. The evaluation of the dossier is currently ongoing and will take any
peer reviewed open scientific literature carefully into account. The entire process is expected to be finalised by 2014.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 397

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009869/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Franz Obermayr (NI)**

_(29. Oktober 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Lebensmittelinformationsverordnung undurchsichtig und zu kompliziert

Mit der 2011 in Kraft getretenen Lebensmittelinformationsverordnung sind Produzenten von Lebensmitteln nun
gezwungen auf den Verpackungen detailreiche Informationen über Inhaltsstoffe und Mengen abzugeben.
Untersuchungen zufolge kommt die komplexe Kennzeichnung dem flüchtigen Konsumverhalten vieler Verbraucher
nicht entgegen. Auch für Produzenten, insbesondere wenn sie ihre Produkte international anbieten, verteuert die neue
Auszeichnungspflicht die Produktion. In vielen Fällen müssen für jedes Land neue Etiketten gedruckt werden, da eine
Auszeichnung in mehreren Sprachen aus Platzgründen nicht mehr möglich ist. Auch mit der Health Claims
Verordnung wird massiv reguliert, ohne jedoch in angemessenem Tempo Anträge der Lebensmittelindustrie zu
bearbeiten.

Daraus ergeben sich folgende Fragen:

1. Welche Informationen liegen der Kommission bezüglich der Verbraucherfreundlichkeit der neuen
Auszeichnungspflicht vor?

2. Gibt es Pläne das gegenwärtige Auszeichnungssystem für Verbraucher und Produzenten zu vereinfachen?
Wenn ja, wie sehen diese Pläne aus?

3. Wird das sogenannte Ampelsystem wieder in Erwägung gezogen?

4. Ist der Kommission bekannt, aus welchen Gründen von der EFSA von über 40 000 Werbebotschaftsanträgen
weniger als 300 bearbeitet wurden?

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

_(17. Dezember 2012)_

Die geltenden EU-Vorschriften über die Kennzeichnung von Lebensmitteln stammen aus dem Jahr 1978. Die
Ansprüche der Verbraucherinnen und Verbraucher sowie die Vermarktungsformen haben sich seitdem erheblich
verändert. Der Annahme der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1169/2011 ( [1] ) ging ein langes und breit angelegtes
Konsultationsverfahren ( [2] ) voraus, das zeigte, dass die Verbraucherinnen und Verbraucher besser informiert werden
möchten, wenn sie Lebensmittel kaufen, und dass sie eine einfache, lesbare, verständliche und nicht irreführende
Etikettierung wünschen. Mit den neuen Kennzeichnungsvorschriften wird den aus dieser Konsultation
hervorgegangenen Ansprüchen der Verbraucherinnen und Verbraucher angemessen entsprochen.

Die neue Verordnung vereinfacht das Regelungsumfeld beträchtlich, indem sie die horizontalen
Kennzeichnungsbestimmungen neu fasst. Sie ermöglicht eine rasche Anpassung der Regeln mittels delegierter
Rechtsakte durch die Aufnahme technischer Bestimmungen in Anhänge. Sie ermöglicht ferner die künftige
Verwendung von Symbolen und alternativen Informationsinstrumenten. Außerdem sieht sie einen einheitlichen
Geltungsbeginn für neue Regeln vor, damit die häufige Änderung von Lebensmitteletikettierungen vermieden wird.
Daher sind weitere Änderungen der EU-Vorschriften über die Kennzeichnung von Lebensmitteln nicht geplant.

Die Kommission plant auf EU-Ebene keine erneute Prüfung freiwilliger Systeme zur Angabe der
Nährstoffzusammensetzung eines Lebensmittels. Solche Systeme, darunter auch die Kennzeichnung über Farb-Codes,
dürfen verwendet werden, sofern sie objektiv und nicht diskriminierend sind, sofern sie nachweislich von den
Verbraucherinnen und Verbrauchern verstanden werden, sofern die betroffenen Kreise dazu angehört wurden und
sofern sie keine Störungen auf dem Binnenmarkt verursachen.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) ABl. L 304 vom 22.11.2011.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) „Evaluierung des Lebensmittelkennzeichnungsrechts“ — endgültiger Bericht:

http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/labellingnutrition/foodlabelling/effl_conclu.pdf; Reaktionen auf das Konsultationspapier: Kennzeichnung:
Wettbewerbsfähigkeit, Verbraucherinformation und bessere Gesetzgebung:
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/labellingnutrition/betterregulation/docs/individual_resp_en.pdf, Folgenabschätzungsbericht zu allgemeinen Fragen
der Kennzeichnung von Lebensmitteln:
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/labellingnutrition/foodlabelling/publications/ia_general_food_labelling.pdf; Folgenabschätzungsbericht zu Fragen
der Nährwertkennzeichnung: http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/labellingnutrition/foodlabelling/publications/ia_nutrition_labelling.pdf

C 310 E / 398 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

Die Kommission hat zusammen mit den Mitgliedstaaten eine konsolidierte Liste mit 4 637 Einträgen erarbeitet,
denen die vom Herrn Abgeordneten genannten Anträge für 40 000 gesundheitsbezogene Angaben zugrunde liegen.
Diese konsolidierte Liste wurde der Europäischen Behörde für Lebensmittelsicherheit (EFSA) zur Bewertung
vorgelegt, die bereits mehr als die Hälfte der Einträge bewertet hat.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 399

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009869/12**

**to the Commission**
**Franz Obermayr (NI)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Food information regulation opaque and over-complicated

With the regulation on provision of food information, which came into effect in 2011, food producers are now
required to indicate on packaging details of ingredients and amounts of substances in products. Studies have shown
that the complicated labelling system is not appropriate given the volatile consumption patterns of many consumers.
For producers, too, the new information requirements make production more expensive, especially where products
are sold on international markets. New labels often have to be printed for each country because there is now no room
on the label for the information in several languages. The health claims regulation also provides for a plethora of
rules, but applications from the food industry are not being processed quickly enough.

This raises the following questions:

1. What information does the Commission have on the consumer-friendliness of the new information

requirements?

2. Are there plans to simplify the current labelling system for consumers and producers, and if so what do they
consist of?

3. Is the ‘traffic-light’ system being considered again?

4. Is the Commission aware why the EFSA has processed fewer than 300 of the more than 40 000 advertising
applications submitted to it?

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

_(17 December 2012)_

The current EU food labelling rules date back to 1978. Consumer demands and marketing practices have changed
significantly since then. The adoption of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 ( [1] ) was preceded by a long and wide
consultation process ( [2] ) that showed that consumers want to be better informed when buying food and to have labels
that are simple, legible, understandable and not misleading. The new labelling requirements adequately address
consumer demands as emerged from the consultation.

The new Regulation considerably simplifies the regulatory environment by recasting horizontal labelling provisions;
it enables fast adaptation of the rules via delegated acts, by the inclusion of technical provisions in Annexes; it enables
the future use of symbols and alternative tools of information; it provides for uniform implementing dates of new
rules to avoid frequent changes of food labels. Therefore, there are no plans for further changes of the EU food
labelling rules.

The Commission is not reconsidering at EU level any voluntary systems for the expression of the nutritional
composition of a food. Such schemes, including colour-coded forms, may be used provided they are objective and
non-discriminatory, based on evidence of consumer understanding, have been subject to stakeholder consultation
and do not disrupt the internal market.

The Commission has worked with Member States to produce a consolidated list of 4,637 entries out of the 40,000
health claims applications referred to by the Honourable Member. This consolidated list was submitted to the
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for evaluation. EFSA has assessed more than half of these entries.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 304 of 22.11.2011.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) ‘Evaluation of the food labelling legislation’- Final report http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/labellingnutrition/foodlabelling/effl_conclu.pdf;

Answers to the consultation paper: Labelling: competitiveness, consumer information and better regulation for the EU,
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/labellingnutrition/betterregulation/docs/individual_resp_en.pdf;
Impact Assessment report on general food labelling issues
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/labellingnutrition/foodlabelling/publications/ia_general_food_labelling.pdf
Impact Assessment report on nutrition labelling issues
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/labellingnutrition/foodlabelling/publications/ia_nutrition_labelling.pdf

C 310 E / 400 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009870/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Franz Obermayr (NI)**

_(29. Oktober 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Das Instrument für Entwicklungszusammenarbeit (EZI) — Förderungen in Paraguay

Das Instrument für Entwicklungszusammenarbeit (EZI) fördert international die Bekämpfung von Armut. In erster
Linie erhalten Entwicklungsländer diese Fördermaßnahmen aus EU-Geldern. Auch Paraguay gehört zu den
Zielländern des EZI.

Daraus ergeben sich folgende Fragen:

1. In welcher Höhe fließen EU-Gelder durch das EZI nach Paraguay?

2. Welche Projekte werden durch das EZI in Paraguay gefördert?

3. Sind im Bereich „Menschliche Entwicklung“ neben der Sicherstellung der Grundversorgung auch
Rehabilitationskliniken vorgesehen?

4. Gibt es neben dem EZI weitere EU-Fördermittel und ‐institutionen, die den Ausbau des Gesundheitssystems in
Paraguay unterstützen?

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

_(13. Dezember 2012)_

Paraguay ist berechtigt, an Programmen teilzunehmen, die aus dem Instrument für die
Entwicklungszusammenarbeit ( [1] ) finanziert werden. Die Europäische Union (EU) unterstützt Paraguay im Rahmen
der bilateralen und regionalen Zusammenarbeit sowie aufgrund einer 1992 unterzeichneten Rahmenvereinbarung
über thematische Programme.

Zu Frage 1) Im Programmierungszeitraum 2007-2013 unterstützt die EU Paraguay durch bilaterale Hilfe in Höhe von
130 Mio. EUR und mit weiteren 10 Mio. EUR über thematische Finanzinstrumente.

Zu Frage 2) Die folgenden Bereiche fallen unter die bilaterale Zusammenarbeit zwischen der EU und Paraguay:

— Unterstützung des Bildungssektors — derzeit eine Maßnahme _(„_ Programm zur Unterstützung der Politik im
Bildungssektor _“) im Rahmen des Jahresaktionsprogramms 2008_

—
Unterstützung der wirtschaftlichen Integration Paraguays — derzeit zwei Projekte („Unterstützung für die
wirtschaftliche Integration des ländlichen Sektors in Paraguay“, Jahresaktionsprogramm 2010 und
„Unterstützung der wirtschaftlichen Integration Paraguays“, Jahresaktionsprogramm 2008)

—
Unterstützung der Politik für soziale Entwicklung — derzeit eine Maßnahme („Programm zur Unterstützung
der öffentlichen Politik für soziale Entwicklung in Paraguay“, Jahresaktionsprogramm 2011)

Zu Frage 3) Im Rahmen der bilateralen Zusammenarbeit mit Paraguay ist das Thema Gesundheit kein
Schwerpunktbereich. Rehabilitationskliniken erhalten keine Fördermittel aus dem Instrument für die
Entwicklungszusammenarbeit. Das EU-Programm zur Unterstützung der Politik für soziale Entwicklung beinhaltet
allerdings eine Reihe von Reformen im Gesundheitswesen, insbesondere zur Erleichterung des Zugangs lokaler
Gemeinschaften zu Gesundheitsdiensten. Darüber hinaus betreffen einige Projekte mit lokalen nichtstaatlichen
Akteuren auch den Gesundheitsbereich.

Zu Frage 4) Paraguay erhält außerdem Mittel aus dem Globalen Fonds zur Bekämpfung von AIDS, Tuberkulose und
Malaria, der von der EU unterstützt wird.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1905/2006 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 18. Dezember 2006.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 401

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009870/12**

**to the Commission**
**Franz Obermayr (NI)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ The European Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) — Support measures in Paraguay

The European Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) supports the fight against poverty worldwide. Developing
countries are the main recipients of these support measures from EU funds. Paraguay is also a DCI beneficiary.

This raises the following questions:

1. What level of EU funding goes to Paraguay via the DCI?

2. What projects are supported in Paraguay through the DCI?

3. In the ‘human development’ field, are rehabilitation clinics included alongside the provision of basic healthcare?

4. Alongside the DCI, are there other EU support instruments and institutions which support the development of
the health system in Paraguay?

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

_(13 December 2012)_

Paraguay is eligible to participate in programmes financed under the Development Cooperation Instrument ( [1] ). The
European Union (EU) supports Paraguay via bilateral and regional cooperation, as well as through thematic
programmes, based on a Framework Agreement signed in 1992.

1. During the programming period 2007-2013, the EU is supporting Paraguay with EUR 130 million in bilateral
aid, with a further EUR 10 million in aid under the thematic instruments.

2. The fields covered by the EU-Paraguay bilateral cooperation are:

—
Support for the education sector, one action ongoing (‘Education Sector Policy Support Programme’) under the
Annual Action Plan (AAP) 2008;

—
Support for the economic integration of Paraguay, two projects ongoing (‘Support to the economic integration
of Paraguayan rural sector’ AAP 2010 and ‘Support to the economic integration of Paraguay’ AAP 2008);

—
Support for social development policy, one action ongoing (‘Social Development Public Policy Support
Programme in Paraguay’, AAP 2011).

3. Health is not a focal sector for bilateral cooperation with Paraguay. Rehabilitation clinics are not supported
through bilateral funds under the DCI. However, the EU support to social development policy includes a
number of reforms in the health sector, notably to bring health services closer to local communities.
Furthermore, a number of projects with local non-state actors work in the area of health.

4. In addition, Paraguay benefits from the EU support to the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006.

C 310 E / 402 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009871/12**

**to the Commission**
**Andrew Henry William Brons (NI)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Public image of the President of the Commission

The Commission is asked to answer the following questions with reference to its answer to Written Question
E-008110/2012.

1. Do the relevant chapters of the EU budget specify the level of funding for this particular purpose, i.e. reports and
advice on the President’s image?

2. The Commission’s answer does not specify whether reports and advice regarding the President’s public image
which have been paid for from public funds will be made available to the public. If not, will they be made available to
me?

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

_(18 December 2012)_

The relevant EU budget line covers public opinion analysis and media monitoring on the EU, the Commission and
other Institutions without specifying the levels of funding for each. Public opinion analysis of the Eurobarometer,
including on the image of the institutions, is available on the Internet ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/index_en.htm

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 403

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-009872/12**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Adina-Ioana Vălean (ALDE)**

_(29 octombrie 2012)_

_Subiect:_ Proiectul revizuit al orientărilor UE pentru aplicarea normelor privind ajutorul de stat în cazul dezvoltării
rapide a rețelelor în bandă largă

Proiectul revizuit al orientărilor UE pentru aplicarea normelor privind ajutorul de stat în cazul dezvoltării rapide a
rețelelor în bandă largă prevede posibilitatea acordării de ajutor de stat pentru rețelele în bandă largă ultrarapide. Unul
dintre obiectivele declarate ale noului text este ca rețelele finanțate din bani publici să ofere o „schimbare treptată” în
ceea ce privește capacitățile tehnice în comparație cu infrastructurile de bandă largă existente.

1. Articolul 107 alineatul (3) litera (c) din TFUE prevede că măsurile de ajutor de stat din sectorul benzii largi
trebuie să vizeze obiective bine definite de interes comun. Sprijină actuala jurisprudență și actuala practică de luare a
deciziilor concluzia că o astfel de „schimbare treptată” poate fi considerată un obiectiv de „interes comun”? Nu este
acest concept străin legislației UE în materie de ajutoare de stat? Există vreun risc ca acesta să conducă la duplicarea
infrastructurii existente în zonele urbane, în loc să vizeze ajutoare de stat pentru zone rurale și subdeservite? Cum pot
fi asigurați contribuabilii că nu se vor risipi fonduri publice pentru zone în care rețelele existente sunt în măsură să
facă față cererii de viteză mai mare în bandă largă?

2. Care este compatibilitatea dintre această „schimbare treptată” și comunicarea Comisiei din 20 septembrie 2010
intitulată „Banda largă europeană: o investiție într-un promotor digital al creșterii”, potrivit căreia concurența dintre
diferitele tehnologii (fixe și fără fir) va avea un rol decisiv în îndeplinirea obiectivelor stabilite în Agenda Digitală?

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

_(19 decembrie 2012)_

1. În proiectul revizuit al Orientărilor UE pentru aplicarea normelor privind ajutorul de stat în cazul dezvoltării
rapide a rețelelor în bandă largă, cu privire la care serviciile Comisiei au deschis o consultare publică, este menționat
conceptul de „schimbare semnificativă”, conform căruia investițiile publice trebuie să asigure nu doar o îmbunătățire
marginală a conectivității cetățenilor, ci una substanțială. Acest concept vizează limitarea „ajutoarelor excepționale”
care se acordă doar pentru îmbunătățiri minore, care nu îmbunătățesc semnificativ performanțele rețelei în beneficiul
cetățenilor și al întreprinderilor. În zonele în care există deja rețele în bandă largă, aplicarea unei schimbări
semnificative ar trebui să garanteze faptul că ajutorul de stat nu are ca efect simpla duplicare a infrastructurii existente,
ci că reprezintă o valoare adăugată considerabilă pentru cetățeni și pentru întreprinderi. Totodată, proiectul de
orientări prevede o serie de măsuri de protecție prin care să se evite denaturările nejustificate ale concurenței.

Comisia consideră că toate proiectele de rețele în bandă largă, atât din mediul urban, cât și din cel rural, ar trebui
concepute de autoritățile competente cu asigurarea unui grad înalt de transparență. Este esențial ca toate părțile
interesate să fie informate în prealabil, prin intermediul unei consultări publice. Sfera unei astfel de consultări ar putea
face obiectul discuțiilor cu Comisia.

2. Măsurile adoptate în domeniul rețelelor în bandă largă ar trebui concepute astfel încât să nu privilegieze nicio
platformă tehnologică sau de rețea, lăsând operatorilor comerciali sarcina de a propune soluțiile tehnice optime
pentru a furniza servicii de comunicații în bandă largă la viteze mari și foarte mari utilizatorilor finali.

C 310 E / 404 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009872/12**

**to the Commission**
**Adina-Ioana Vălean (ALDE)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Draft revised EU Guidelines for the application of state aid rules in relation to the rapid deployment of
broadband networks

The draft revised EU Guidelines for the application of state aid rules in relation to the rapid deployment of broadband
networks provide for the possibility of state support for ultra-fast broadband networks. One of the stated aims of the
new wording is for publicly funded networks to provide a ‘step change’ in terms of technological capabilities as
compared with existing broadband infrastructures.

1. Article 107(3)(c) TFEU requires that state aid measures in the broadband sector be aimed at well-defined
objectives in the common interest. Do current case-law and decision‐making practice support the conclusion that
such a technological ‘step change’ may qualify as an objective of ‘common interest’? Is this concept not alien to EU
state aid law? Is there a risk that it may lead to a duplication of existing infrastructure in urban areas, as opposed to
targeting state aid on rural and underserved areas? How can taxpayers be reassured that public funds will not be
wasted on areas where existing networks are in a position to gradually meet the demand for higher broadband
speeds?

2. How does this ‘step change’ approach fit with the Commission’s communication of 20 September 2010 entitled
‘European Broadband: investing in digitally driven growth’, which stresses that competition between different
technologies (fixed and wireless) will be instrumental for meeting the targets set out in the Digital Agenda?

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

_(19 December 2012)_

1. The draft revised Broadband Guidelines, on which the Commission services hold a public consultation, include
the concept of ‘step change’, which implies that public investment cannot just bring marginal improvement in
citizens' connectivity but substantial improvement. This concept aims to limit ‘windfall aid’ granted to only marginal
improvements, which do not significantly improve the network performance for the benefit of citizens and business.
In areas where broadband networks already exist, application of the step change should ensure that state aid does not
lead to the mere duplication of existing infrastructure, but brings a significant value added to the citizens and
business. At the same time, the draft guidelines foresee a number of safeguards to avoid undue distortions of
competition.

The Commission considers that all broadband projects, whether urban or rural, should be designed by the competent
authorities with a high level of transparency. It is essential that all stakeholders be informed in advance in a public
consultation. The scope of any consultation could be discussed with the Commission.

2. The design of broadband measures ought to be done so that it does not favour any technology or network
platform, leaving it to commercial operators to come up with the most appropriate technological solutions to
provide high or very high speed broadband services to end users.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 405

_(българска версия)_

**Въпрос с искане за писмен отговор E-009873/12**

**до Комисията**
**Mariya Gabriel (PPE)**
_(29 октомври 2012 г.)_

_Относно:_ Конфискация и повторна употреба на активите на организираната престъпност

Както на равнище ЕС, така и на равнище държави членки, вниманието, което се отделя на крайното местоназначение
на активите, които са конфискувани от престъпни организации, е ограничено.

Парламентарната комисия по граждански свободи, правосъдие и вътрешни работи призовава за ново европейско
законодателство, което би позволило активите, които са конфискувани от престъпни организации, да бъдат използвани
за гражданското общество и по-специално за социални цели.

Имайки предвид факта, че Комисията вече е представила предложение за директива за обезпечаване и конфискация на
облаги от престъпна дейност в Европейския съюз, сега е повече от спешно да се проучи въпросът за повторната
употреба на конфискуваните активи. Нуждата от ново законодателство, което да позволява активи, конфискувани от
престъпни организации, да бъдат използвани за гражданското общество, и по-специално за социални цели, е сериозна.

1. С оглед на това би ли могла Комисията да каже дали ще бъде представено предложение за директива относно
повторната употреба за социални цели на активите, които са конфискувани от престъпни организации? Ако да, кога?

2. Ако да, какви мерки са предвидени относно повторната употреба на конфискувани активи?

3. И накрая, Комисията ще вземе ли предвид препоръките на Парламента относно създаването на Европейска база
данни за възстановяване на активите, Европейски фонд за възстановяване на активите и Европейска служба за
възстановяване на активите?

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

_(19 декември 2012 г.)_

Комисията не възнамерява да предложи нова директива за повторната употреба за социални цели на конфискуваните
активи. Съществуват опасения, свързани с правното основание в Договора за функционирането на Европейския съюз
по отношение на правните разпоредби относно повторната употреба за социални цели. Освен това, с такива
разпоредби се повдигат въпроси по отношение на принципа на субсидиарност.

Комисията улеснява обмена на най-добри практики, свързани с повторната употреба на конфискуваните активи.
Посредством Платформата на Службите на ЕС за възстановяване на активи, която се председателства съвместно от
Комисията и Европол, бе учредена подгрупа относно повторното използване на конфискуваните активи с цел
споделянето с другите държави членки на опита, придобит от публичните органи и гражданското общество в някои
държави. Очаква се подгрупата да завърши доклада си през 2013 г.

Редица инициативи вече успешно се прилагат на национално ниво. По-специално в Решение 2007/845/ПВР на Съвета
от държавите членки се изисква да учредят или определят национални служби за възстановяване на активи (СВА). 26
държави членки са определили такива служби и мрежата от СВА функционира добре. Ето защо създаването на
Европейска база данни за възстановяване на активите, Европейски фонд за възстановяване на активите и Европейска
служба за възстановяване на активите не изглежда оправдано, особено поради това, че добавената стойност на
създаването на общи структури на равнище ЕС не е доказана.

C 310 E / 406 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009873/12**

**to the Commission**
**Mariya Gabriel (PPE)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Confiscation and reuse of assets of organised crime

At the level of both the EU and the Member States, only limited attention has been paid to the final destination of
assets confiscated from criminal organisations.

Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs has called for new EU legislation enabling assets
confiscated from criminal organisations to be used for civil society and in particular for social purposes.

Considering the fact that the Commission has already put forward a proposal for a directive on the freezing and
confiscation of the proceeds of crime in the European Union, it is now more than urgent to examine the issue of the
reuse of such confiscated assets. The need for new legislation enabling assets confiscated from criminal organisations
to be used for civil society and in particular for social purposes is serious.

1. In view of this, could the Commission say whether a proposal for a directive on the social reuse of assets
confiscated from criminal organisations will be submitted? If so, when?

2. If so, what measures are planned concerning the reuse of confiscated assets?

3. Finally, will the Commission take into account Parliament’s recommendations concerning the creation of a
European Asset Recovery Database, a European Asset Recovery Fund and a European Asset Recovery Office?

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

_(19 December 2012)_

The Commission does not intend to propose a new Directive on the social reuse of confiscated assets. There are
concerns with respect to the legal basis in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union for legal provisions
on social reuse. Moreover, such provisions raise questions with respect to the principle of subsidiarity.

The Commission facilitates the exchange of best practices on the reuse of confiscated assets. The EU Asset Recovery
Offices’ Platform, co-chaired by the Commission and Europol, established a Subgroup on the reuse of confiscated
assets in order to share with the other Member States the experience acquired by public authorities and civil society in
some countries. The Subgroup is expected to finalise its report in 2013.

A number of initiatives are already successfully implemented at national level. In particular Council
Decision 2007/845/JHA requires Member States to establish or designate national Asset Recovery Offices (AROs).
26 Member States have done so and the network of AROs is well functioning. Therefore, the establishment of a
European Asset Recovery Database, Fund, and Office at European level does not appear justified, notably since the
added value of creating overarching structures at EU level has not been demonstrated.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 407

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-009875/12**

**à la Commission**
**Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL)**

_(29 octobre 2012)_

_Objet:_ Autorisation de l'importation du maïs MIR162 de Syngenta

La Commission européenne a décidé de valider l'importation commerciale du maïs OGM MIR162 de Syngenta,
résistant à des insecticides.

Cette autorisation ne manque pas de surprendre. Elle intervient alors même que le débat sur les OGM bat son plein en
Europe depuis la publication de l'étude de Gilles-Éric Séralini.

Celle-ci est contestable, certes, au même titre que toute étude scientifique. Elle demande à être vérifiée. Mais elle n'est
pas plus contestable que les études des producteurs de ces semences transgéniques sur lesquelles l'Autorité
européenne de sécurité des aliments (AESA) se base pour approuver ou non l'importation d'OGM. Quant à
l'indépendance de l'AESA, elle reste à prouver.

Je rappelle à la Commission que l'innocuité des OGM n'est toujours pas prouvée et que l'étude de Gilles-Éric Séralini
renforce les craintes qui pèsent sur les conséquences qu'ils peuvent avoir sur la santé et sur l'environnement dans son
ensemble.

1. Comment la Commission peut-elle prendre une telle décision alors même que les citoyens européens
s'inquiètent pour leur santé?

2. Pourquoi la Commission n'a‐t‐elle pas répondu positivement aux demandes de l'agence française Anses et du
Comité économique, éthique et social du HCB (Haut Conseil des biotechnologies, France) sur la conduite d'études
indépendantes?

3. À quelle logique répond cette décision de la Commission?

4. Pourquoi la Commission ne s'inquiète‐t‐elle pas de la santé des citoyens et ne propose‐t‐elle pas, en
conséquence, de mettre en place un moratoire européen sur toute importation et mise en culture des OGM tant que
leur innocuité ne sera pas prouvée?

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

_(11 janvier 2013)_

1-3-4. L'objectif de la législation européenne sur les OGM est de préserver la santé humaine et animale et
l'environnement. Les OGM ne peuvent être autorisés sans avoir préalablement été soumis à une évaluation
approfondie de leur innocuité par l'EFSA ( [1] ). Le maïs MIR162 a fait l'objet d'une telle évaluation, d'où il ressort qu'il est
sans danger pour la santé et pour l'environnement. La Commission a donc lancé le processus d'autorisation prévu par
la législation, lequel a débouché, le 29 septembre 2012, sur l'autorisation du maïs en question.

Le 28 novembre 2012, l'EFSA a rendu sur l'étude Séralini et al. un avis ( [2] ) dans lequel elle met en évidence, à l'instar de
six agences sanitaires des États membres, le fait que des insuffisances significatives dans la conception, l'analyse et le
rapport de l'étude ne permettent pas d'en valider les conclusions. L'EFSA et ces six agences concluent que cette étude
ne remet pas en cause les évaluations précédentes du maïs NK603 et du glyphosate. Ces conclusions confortent la
proposition de règlement de la Commission sur l'autorisation des OGM ; cette proposition vise à rendre obligatoires
les études de toxicité à 90 jours, qui suffisent normalement à déterminer les effets toxiques éventuels d'un OGM et
peuvent servir d'études sentinelles à partir desquelles il est possible de demander, au cas par cas, des études de toxicité
à plus long terme.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Autorité européenne de sécurité des aliments.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/121128.htm

C 310 E / 408 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

2. La Commission a pris bonne note des recommandations de l'ANSES et du HCB sur la conduite d'études
indépendantes. L'Union contribue depuis plusieurs années au financement d'études relatives à l'incidence des OGM
sur la sécurité alimentaire et l'environnement. Ainsi les projets GMSAFOOD ( [3] ) et GRACE ( [4] ), lancés dans le contexte
du septième programme-cadre de recherche, concernent la conduite d'études à long terme sur la toxicité des OGM.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.gmsafoodproject.eu/
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://pure.au.dk/portal/en/projects/gmo-risk-assessment-and-communication-of-evidence(4f70b540-e08d-4abe-8d8 [e] -2173 [e] 52396d1).html

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 409

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009875/12**

**to the Commission**
**Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Authorisation of Syngenta's genetically modified maize MIR162

The Commission has authorised the placing on the market by the firm Syngenta of the insecticide-resistant GM maize
MIR162.

This move by the Commission is startling. It comes at a time when the debate on genetically modified foods is in full
swing in Europe, prompted by the recent publication of Gilles-Éric Séralini’s study.

The study’s findings are, of course, open to question, as is the case with all scientific research, and they should be
verified. But Séralini’s research is no more open to question than the studies carried out by the producers of these
genetically modified seeds, upon which the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) bases its decisions on whether to
authorise imports of the GMOs in question. The EFSA’s impartiality in these matters has yet to be demonstrated.

I would remind the Commission that the safety of GMOs has not yet been established, and that Séralini’s study has led
to increased fears about the effects that they could have on health and the environment.

1. How can the Commission take such a decision at a time when people in Europe are concerned about the effects
that GMOs could have on their health?

2. Why has the Commission not acted on the calls from the French Agency for Food, Environmental and
Occupational Health and Safety (ANSES) and the Economy, Ethics and Social Committee of the French High Council
for Biotechnology for independent studies to be conducted?

3. What was the thinking behind the Commission’s decision?

4. Why is the Commission not concerned about public health, and why has it not imposed a moratorium on all
marketing and production of GMOs in Europe until it has been proved that they are safe?

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

_(11 January 2013)_

1, 3 and 4. European legislation on GMOs is designed to safeguard human and animal health and the environment.
GMOs cannot be authorised without first having undergone a thorough assessment of their harmlessness by EFSA ( [1] ).
Maize MIR162 underwent such an assessment which concluded that it posed no danger to health or to the
environment. The Commission accordingly launched the authorisation process foreseen in the legislation, resulting
on 29 September 2012 in the authorisation of maize MIR162.

On 28 November 2012, EFSA issued an opinion ( [2] ) on the study by Séralini et al. in which it noted, as had been the
case with the health agencies of six Member States, that major shortcomings in the design, analysis and report of the
study had made it impossible to validate its conclusions. EFSA and these six agencies conclude that this study does not
cast doubt on the earlier evaluations of maize NK603 and of glyphosate. These conclusions lend support to the
proposed Commission regulation on authorising GMOs, which seeks to introduce obligatory 90-day toxicity tests;
these are normally sufficient to identify any toxic effect of a GMO and may serve as sentinel studies for requiring, on a
case-by-case basis, longer term toxicity tests.

2. The Commission has taken careful note of the ANSES and HCB recommendations on the carrying out of
independent studies. For a number of years, the Union has helped fund studies into the impact of GMOs on food
safety and the environment. For example, the projects GMSAFOOD ( [3] ) and GRACE ( [4] ) launched under the seventh
framework programme for research concern long-term studies on the toxicity of GMOs.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) European Food Safety Authority.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal/pub2910.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.gmsafoodproject.eu/.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://pure.au.dk/portal/en/projects/gmo-risk-assessment-and-communication-of-evidence(4f70b540-e08d-4abe-8d8e-2173e52396d1).html

C 310 E / 410 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Verżjoni Maltija)_

**Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub E-009876/12**

**lill-Kummissjoni**
**David Casa (PPE)**
_(29 ta' Ottubru 2012)_

_Suġġett:_ Vjolenza fi Spanja u fil-Greċja

Fi żminijiet riċenti, kemm Spanja kif ukoll il-Greċja raw episodji ta' vjolenza b'reazzjoni għall-miżuri ta' awsterità
imposti mill-gvernijiet rispettivi tagħhom.

Fid-dawl ta' dawn l-avvenimenti, il-Kummissjoni kif tista' tappoġġa lill-Istati Membri biex inaqqsu l-impatt negattiv li
dawn il-miżuri ta' awsterità jista' jkun li qed ikollhom fuq iċ-ċittadini, u kif tista' tgħin biex tiżgura li tinżamm listabilità soċjali matul dawn iż-żminijiet ta' taqlib?

**Tweġiba mogħtija mis-Sur Rehn f'isem il-Kummissjoni**

_(6 ta' Frar 2013)_

Il-konsiderazzjonijiet soċjali huma prominenti fil-programm ta’ aġġustament Grieg. Ir-riformi fis-sistema talpensjonijiet, biex jiżguraw is-sostenibbiltà tagħhom, ilhom jipproteġu lill-pensjonanti bi dħul l-aktar baxx. Irreviżjoni ta' programmi soċjali u tan-nefqa pubblika għandha l-għan li tindirizza aħjar ir-riżorsi disponibbli biex
jappoġġjaw lil dawk li l-iktar huma vulnerabbli. Il-politiki tas-suq tax-xogħol huma mfasslin aħjar biex itejbu lprospetti tax-xogħol għaż-żgħażagħ u dawk li għandhom biss ftit ħiliet, u ambjent aktar favorevoli għan-negozji se
jgħin biex jinħolqu impjiegi ġodda. Ir-riforma tat-taxxa tiffavorixxi lil dawk li għandhom pagi u salarji baxxi; aktar
minn miljun persuna se tinħareġ mis-sistema tat-taxxa għalkollox.

Spanja nediet riformi komprensivi biex tavvanza t-trasformazzjoni strutturali meħtieġa tal-ekonomija, inkluż issettur finanzjarju, is-swieq tax-xogħol u tal-prodotti, il-pensjonijiet, l-edukazzjoni u t-taħriġ. L-implimentazzjoni talistrateġija Ewropa 2020 tgħin biex tqiegħed dawn ir-riformi f'kuntest usa', filwaqt li tiżgura li r-riformi jkunu
konsistenti ma' finanzi pubbliċi sostenibbli u mal-protezzjoni ta' dawk li huma l-iktar vulnerabbli.

L-Unjoni Ewropea tipprovdi għajnuna lill-Greċja u lil Spanja fl-isforzi tagħhom biex jippreservaw l-istabbiltà soċjali.
Intervenzjonijiet attivi fis-suq tax-xogħol appoġġjati mill-Fond Soċjali Ewropew (FSE) għandhom l-għan li jindirizzaw
il-faqar u l-esklużjoni soċjali billi jiġi ffaċilitat l-aċċess għall-impjieg u biex jiġi miġġieled il-qgħad. Għal dan il-għan, lFSE warrbet madwar EUR 2.26 biljun għall-Greċja, fil-Programm Operattiv għall-Iżvilupp tar-Riżorsi Umani 20072013. Fi Spanja, EUR 290 miljun riċentement ġew riallokati taħt diversi Programmi Operattivi tal-FSE lejn azzjonijiet
għall-impjegabilità taż-żgħażagħ; sabiex jappoġġjaw is-servizzi tal-impjiegi pubbliċi u jsaħħu l-miżuri biex
jikkumbattu t-tluq bikri mill-iskejjel u jippromwovu t-taħriġ vokazzjonali.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 411

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009876/12**

**to the Commission**

**David Casa (PPE)**
_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Violence in Spain and Greece

In recent times, both Greece and Spain have witnessed outbursts of violence in reaction to the austerity measures
imposed by their respective governments.

In light of these events, how can the Commission support Member States in reducing the negative impact that these
austerity measures may be having on citizens, and how can it help to ensure that social stability is maintained during
these times of turmoil?

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

_(6 February 2013)_

Social considerations are prominent in the Greek adjustment programme. Pension system reforms to ensure their
sustainability have been protecting the lowest income pensioners. The review of social programmes and public
expenditure aims at better targeting the available resources to support the most vulnerable. Labour market policies
are better designed to improve job prospects for young people and the lower-skilled, and a more favourable
environment for businesses will help creating new jobs. The tax reform favours low income wage and salary earners;
over a million people will be taken out of the tax system altogether.

Spain has launched comprehensive reforms to advance the needed structural transformation of the economy,
including the financial sector, labour and product markets, pensions, education and training. The implementation of
the Europe 2020 strategy helps putting these reforms in a wider context, ensuring that reforms are consistent with
sustainable public finances and the protection of the most vulnerable.

The European Union provides support to Greece and Spain in their effort to preserve social stability. Active Labour
Market interventions supported by the European Social Fund (ESF) aim to tackle poverty and social exclusion by
facilitating the access to employment and to combat unemployment. To this end, the ESF has earmarked around
EUR 2.26 billion for Greece, in the 2007-2013 Human Resources Development Operational Programme. In Spain,
EUR 290 million have been recently redirected under several ESF Operational Programmes towards actions for youth
employability; supporting public employment services and reinforcing measures to combat early school leaving and
promote vocational training.

C 310 E / 412 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Verżjoni Maltija)_

**Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub E-009877/12**

**lill-Kummissjoni**
**David Casa (PPE)**
_(29 ta' Ottubru 2012)_

_Suġġett:_ Emissjonijiet tal-karbonju mis-settur tal-avjazzjoni

Is-Senat tal-Istati Uniti reċentament għadda liġi li potenzjalment se twaqqaf lil-linji tal-ajru Amerikani milli jħallsu ttaxxa fuq l-emissjonijiet tal-karbonju għal titjiriet lejn l-Unjoni Ewropea u titjiriet li joriġinaw minnha. Barra dan, kien
hemm reazzjoni qawwija miċ-Ċina u mill-Indja, u pajjiżi oħra qablu biss kontra qalbhom ma' dawn il-kundizzjonijiet.
L-Istati Uniti, b'mod speċifiku, se taqbel biss mal-iskema għan-negozjar tal-emissjonijiet fis-settur tal-avjazzjoni jekk
jiġu proposti emendi, reviżjonijiet jew alternattivi serji. Peress li r-relazzjonijiet fis-settur tal-avjazzjoni ma' pajjiżi
bħall-Istati Uniti u ċ-Ċina huma importanti għall-Unjoni Ewropea, il-Kummissjoni kif biħsiebha tindirizza dawn ilprotesti minn pajjiżi oħra li mhumiex fl-UE?

**Tweġiba mogħtija mis-Sinjura Hedegaardon f'isem il-Kummissjoni**

_(21 ta' Diċembru 2012)_

Fid-9 ta' Novembru 2012, il-Kunsill tal-Organizzazzjoni tal-Avjazzjoni Ċivili Internazzjonali (ICAO) iddeċieda li jieħu
passi ulterjuri lejn ftehim globali biex jiġu regolarizzati l-emissjonijiet tal-gassijiet serra mill-avjazzjoni
internazzjonali, billi jingħata bidu għal proċess politiku ta' livell għoli.

Il-Kummissjoni minn dejjem għamlitha ċara li s-soluzzjoni ppreferuta hija approċċ globali għall-indirizzar talemissjonijiet mill-avjazzjoni internazzjonali. Skont ir-riżultati inkoraġġanti tal-laqgħa tal-Kunsill tal-ICAO tad9 ta' Novembru 2012 — u l-impenn tas-sħab internazzjonali fid-diskussjonijiet rilevanti — il-Kummissjoni tqis li
jista' jintlaħaq ftehim globali fl-Assemblea tal-ICAO li jmiss, f'Settembru 2013.

Sabiex jiġi appoġġat il-proċess politiku fl-ICAO, il-Kummissjoni, fl-20 ta' Novembru 2012, ippreżentat proposta
leġiżlattiva ( [1] ) biex “twaqqaf l-arloġġ” sa wara l-assemblea tal-ICAO tal-2013 rigward l-infurzar tal-iskema tal-UE
għan-negozjar ta' emissjonijiet (EU ETS) għal titjiriet lejn/minn ajruporti li mhumiex Ewropej. Dan ifisser li l-operaturi
tal-inġenji tal-ajru mhux se jkunu meħtieġa li josservaw il-kwoti ta' emissjonijiet għal emissjonijiet minn titjiriet lejn u
mill-Ewropa li jseħħu matul l-2012. Madankollu, l-obbligi relatati mal-attivitajiet kollha tal-operaturi bejn
destinazzjonijiet Ewropej se jibqgħu l-istess u l-konformità mal-liġi tal-UE se tiġi infurzata f'dan ir-rigward, anke għal
operaturi tal-inġenji tal-ajru li mhumiex Ewropej.

Il-proposta mill-Kummissjoni hija leġiżlazzjoni kodeċiżjonali li se jkollha bżonn tiġi approvata mill-Parlament u millIstati Membri tal-UE.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 697 final.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 413

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009877/12**

**to the Commission**

**David Casa (PPE)**
_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Aviation carbon emissions

The US Senate recently passed a bill that will potentially bar US airlines from paying the carbon emissions tax for
flights to and from the European Union. In addition, there has been a serious backlash from China and India, and
other countries have agreed to the terms only reluctantly. The United States, specifically, will only agree to the
aviation trading emissions scheme if serious amendments, revisions or alternatives are proposed. Given that aviation
relations with countries like the United States and China are important for the European Union, how does the
Commission intend to address these outcries from other non-EU countries?

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

_(21 December 2012)_

[On 9 November 2012, the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) decided to take further](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=icao&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.icao.int%2F&ei=M0erUJjaGpKV0QW1nYE4&usg=AFQjCNG8dkiYhcc28714BpVjwwGI7nytkA)
steps towards a global agreement to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from international aviation, including
through the initiation of a high-level political process.

The Commission has always made it clear that a global approach to addressing the emissions from international
aviation is the preferred solution. Based on the encouraging results of the ICAO Council meeting of
9 November 2012 — and the engagement of the international partners in the relevant discussions — the
Commission considers that a global agreement can be within reach at the next ICAO Assembly in September 2013.

To support the political process at ICAO, the Commission presented on 20 November 2012 a legislative proposal ( [1] )
to ‘stop the clock’ until after the 2013 ICAO assembly with regard to the enforcement of the EU's Emission Trading
System (EU ETS) for flights to/from non-European airports. This means that aircraft operators will not be required to
surrender emission allowances for emissions from flights to and from Europe taking place during 2012. However, the
obligations relating to all operators' activities between European destinations will remain unchanged and compliance
with EC law will be enforced in this respect, also for non-European aircraft operators.

The proposal by the Commission is co-decision legislation that will need to be approved by the Parliament and the EU
Member States.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 697 final.

C 310 E / 414 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Verżjoni Maltija)_

**Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub E-009878/12**

**lill-Kummissjoni**
**David Casa (PPE)**
_(29 ta' Ottubru 2012)_

_Suġġett:_ Tnaqqis f'turiżmu ta' kwalità

Fl-Opinjoni tiegħu tal-2011 dwar il-Komunikazzjoni tal-Kummisjoni bl-isem “L-Ewropa, l-ewwel destinazzjoni
turistika fid-dinja — qafas politiku ġdid għat-turiżmu Ewropew”, il-Kumitat Ekonomiku u Soċjali Ewropew enfasizza
l-appoġġ tiegħu għal politika Ewropea globali għat-turiżmu, li tinkoraġġixxi lill-persuni jieħdu vantaġġ middestinazzjonijiet kollha fl-Ewropa. Madankollu, problema waħda nnutata mil-Kumitat fit-taqsima 3.23 hija l-intensità
tal-kompetizzjoni bejn l-operaturi differenti tat-turiżmu, li wasslet għal tnaqqis fil-kwalità tas-servizzi pprovduti.
Barra dan, il-vjaġġaturi għandhom perċezzjoni negattiva ta' ċerti reġjuni minħabba preokkupazzjonijiet relatati massikurezza, b'mod li, sabiex jattiraw il-konsumaturi, in-negozji qed ikunu kostretti jbiegħu bi prezzijiet li huma anqas
mill-kostijiet u jadottaw is-soluzzjonijeit l-aktar sempliċi u irħas meta dan ikun possibbli. Il-Kummissjoni x'għamlet
biex tindirizza dawn iż-żewġ problemi speċifiċi, u l-Kummissjoni rat żieda fit-turiżmu u titjib fil-kwalità tal-industrija
tat-turiżmu mill-2011 'l hawn?

**Tweġiba mogħtija mis-Sur Tajani f'isem il-Kummissjoni**

_(10 ta' Diċembru 2012)_

Il-Kummissjoni ilha tenfasizza l-importanza tal-kwalità tas-servizzi tat-turiżmu bħala wieħed mill-vantaġġi
kompetittivi li joffri t-turiżmu Ewropew. Biex jittejbu l-konsistenza u l-informazzjoni lill-konsumaturi dwar il-kwalità
tas-servizzi tat-turiżmu kif ukoll biex jittejbu l-inċentivi għan-negozji biex ikomplu jinvestu fil-kwalità, ilKummissjoni qiegħda tikkunsidra l-possibbiltà ta' Tikketta tat-Turiżmu Ewropew għal Skemi ta' Kwalità volontarja ( [1] ).
Din it-tikketta ġenerali tista’ tistabbilixxi kriterji komuni tal-kwalità fil-livell tal-UE u tirrikonoxxi, fuq bażi _opt-in_, liskemi tal-kwalità eżistenti u futuri. Attwalment, il-Kummissjoni qed tanalizza l-impatti ta' tali strateġija.

Ċerti standards ta' sikurezza fit-turiżmu diġà ġew stabbiliti minn korpi ta’ standardizzazzjoni ( [2] ) Ewropej u
internazzjonali bħal dawk relatati ma’ kwistjonijiet ta’ sikurezza ta' attivitajiet avventurużi u tal-għads, kif ukoll
faċilitajiet ta’ spa u ta’ benessri ( [3] ). Il-Kummissjoni wkoll issegwi b'interess u tappoġġja inizjattivi tal-industrija.
Pereżempju, metodoloġija tas-Sistemi ta' Ġestjoni tal-Bini (MBS) ( [4] ) żviluppata minn HOTREC ( [5] ), tħeġġeġ lillukandiera li jżommu reġistri regolari ta’ fatturi ta' sikurezza ewlenin tal-proprjetà ta’ akkomodazzjoni u tas-sistemi ta’
sikurezza fis-seħħ. Il-Kummissjoni tinkoraġġixxi l-industrija tal-ospitalità biex iżżid l-isforzi tagħha flimplimentazzjoni ta’ din l-inizjattiva mmexxija mill-industrija.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Tikketta ETQ.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) CEN u ISO.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_tc_browse.htm?commid=375396.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.hotrec.eu/policy-issues/fire-safety-in-hotels.asp.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Lukandi, restoranti u kafeterji fl-Ewropa, www.hotrec.org.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 415

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009878/12**

**to the Commission**

**David Casa (PPE)**
_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Decline in quality tourism

In its 2011 Opinion on the Commission Communication entitled ‘Europe, the world’s No 1 tourist destination — a
new political framework for tourism in Europe,’ the European Economic and Social Committee emphasised its
support for a global European tourism policy, encouraging people to take advantage of all the destinations in Europe.
However, one problem noted by the Committee in Section 3.23 is the intensity of competition between different tour
operators, which has led to a decline in the quality of services provided. In addition, certain regions are perceived
negatively by travellers due to safety concerns, so that, in order to attract consumers, businesses are forced to sell at
prices below cost and to cut corners when possible. What has the Commission done to address these two specific
problems, and has the Commission seen an increase in tourism and an improvement in the quality of the tourism
industry since 2011?

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

_(10 December 2012)_

The Commission has been emphasising the significance of the quality of tourism services as one of the competitive
advantages of the European tourism offer. To improve consistency and information to consumers on the quality of
tourism services as well as to improve the incentives for business to further invest in quality, the Commission is
considering the possibility of a voluntary European Tourism Label for Quality Schemes ( [1] ). This umbrella label could
set common quality criteria at EU level and would recognise, on an opt-in basis, existing and future quality schemes.
At present, the Commission is analysing the impacts of such an approach.

Certain safety standards in tourism have already been established by European and international standardisation
bodies ( [2] ) such as those related to safety issues of adventurous activities and scuba diving, as well as spa and wellness
facilities ( [3] ). The Commission also follows with interest and supports industry initiatives. For example, the
Management, Building Systems (MBS) ( [4] ) methodology developed by HOTREC ( [5] ), prompts hoteliers to keep regular
records of key safety features of the accommodation estate and of the safety systems in place. The Commission
encourages the hospitality industry to step up its efforts in implementing this industry driven initiative.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) ETQ Label.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) CEN and ISO.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_tc_browse.htm?commid=375396.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.hotrec.eu/policy-issues/fire-safety-in-hotels.asp.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Hotels, restaurants and cafés in Europe, www.hotrec.org.

C 310 E / 416 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Verżjoni Maltija)_

**Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub E-009879/12**

**lill-Kummissjoni**
**David Casa (PPE)**
_(29 ta' Ottubru 2012)_

_Suġġett:_ Il-kawża tal-Boeing u d-WTO

Fil-kawża tal-Boeing u d-WTO, id-WTO iddeċidiet f'konformità mal-ilment tal-UE li s-sussidji li rċieva l-Boeing millGvern tal-Istati Uniti kienu kompatibbli mar-regoli tad-WTO. Madankollu, wara valutazzjoni tal-UE li tindika l-fatt li
l-Gvern tal-Istati Uniti minn dakinhar naqas li jneħħi s-sussidji, l-UE għamlet talba lill-Korp tad-WTO għas-Soluzzjoni
tat-Tilwim għall-impożizzjoni ta' kontromiżuri.

Tista' l-Kummissjoni tirrapporta dwar kwalunkwe żviluppi oħra ulterjuri li diġà seħħew f'dan il-każ?

**Tweġiba mogħtija mis-Sur De Guchton f'isem il-Kummissjoni**

_(17 ta' Diċembru 2012)_

Fit-23 ta' Ottubru 2012, fuq talba tal-UE il-Korp għall-Ftehim fuq Tilwim tal-Organizzazzjoni Dinjija tal-Kummerċ
(id-WTO) stabbilixxa bord tal-konformità fuq il-każ tal-Boeing biex jirrevedi l-miżuri ta' implimentazzjoni li ġew
innotifikati mill-Istati Uniti fit-23 ta' Settembru. Waslu biex jibdew il-proċeduri fil-bord tal-konformità.

Rigward il-kontramiżuri, l-Istati Uniti oġġezzjonaw għat-talba tal-UE għall-awtorizzazzjoni biex il-Korp għall-Ftehim
fuq Tilwim jissospendi l-konċessjonijiet jew obbligi oħrajn. Għaldaqstant, skont ir-regoli tad-WTO se jkollu jiddeċiedi
dwar it-talba tal-UE bord ta' arbitraġġ. Il-bord ta' arbitraġġ jibda l-ħidma tiegħu ġaladarba jitlestew il-proċeduri talbord tal-konformità.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 417

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009879/12**

**to the Commission**

**David Casa (PPE)**
_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ WTO Boeing

In the WTO Boeing case, the WTO ruled in line with the EU’s complaint by deciding that the subsidies Boeing
received from the US Government were incompatible with WTO rules. However, following an EU assessment that
points to the fact that the US Government has since failed to remove the subsidies, the EU made a request to the
WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body for the imposition of countermeasures.

Can the Commission report on any further developments that have since taken place in this case?

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

_(17 December 2012)_

On 23 October 2012, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) established, upon
request by the EU, a compliance panel in the Boeing case in order to review the implementation measures that were
notified by the United States on 23 September. Proceedings in the compliance panel are about to start.

With respect to the countermeasures, the United States objected to the EU request for DSB authorisation to suspend
concessions or other obligations. In accordance with WTO rules an arbitration panel will therefore have to decide on
the EU request. The arbitration panel will begin its work once the compliance panel proceedings are finished.

C 310 E / 418 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Verżjoni Maltija)_

**Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub E-009881/12**

**lill-Kummissjoni**
**David Casa (PPE)**
_(29 ta' Ottubru 2012)_

_Suġġett:_ L-enerġija mir-riħ

L-UE dan l-aħħar kisbet ammont totali ta' 100 gigawatt ta' kapaċità mir-riħ, li tirrappreżenta pass kbir f'termini ta'
progress lejn l-iżvilupp ta' sorsi alternattivi ta' enerġija nadifa. Fil-komunikazzjoni tagħha lill-Parlament Ewropew, ilKunsill, il-Kumitat Ekonomiku u Soċjali Ewropew u l-Kumitat tar-Reġjuni dwar “L-Enerġija mir-Riħ lil hinn mix-Xtut:
Azzjoni meħtieġa biex twassal għall-Għanijiet tal-Politika dwar l-Enerġija għall-2020 u aktar 'il quddiem”, ilKummissjoni rrappurtat li “approċċ iktar strateġiku u kordinat se jkun importanti biex nisfrutta r-riżorsi Ewropej tarriħ b'mod effettiv għall-ispiża”. Il-koordinazzjoni kienet ferm importanti matul dan il-proċess, minħabba li huwa
meħtieġ li tinħoloq sistema tad-distribuzzjoni definita tajjeb, speċifikament għall-proġetti lil hinn mill-kosta. Tali
sistema tad-distribuzzjoni se tgħin biex titnaqqas il-konċentrazzjoni qawwija f'ċerti żoni sabiex l-enerġija tar-riħ tista'
tkun imqassma b'mod aktar faċli u ugwali madwar l-UE. Ċertament sar progress fir-rigward tal-enerġija mir-riħ fuq ilkosta minn meta dak ir-rapport deher fl-2008. Madankollu, tista' l-Kummissjoni tirrapporta dwar il-progress li sar
s'issa fl-iżvilupp ta' sistema tad-distribuzzjoni aktar koordinata għall-proġetti lil hinn mill-kosta?

**Tweġiba mogħtija mis-Sur Oettinger f'isem il-Kummissjoni**

_(18 ta' Diċembru 2012)_

Il-Kummissjoni tqis li l-enerġija eolika mis-sistemi ta’ distribuzzjoni fil-baħar jista’ jwassal għal kontribut sinifikanti
fit-taħlita tal-enerġija tal-Ewropa. Skont il-Pjanijiet ta’ Azzjoni Nazzjonali tal-Istati Membri, is-sehem tal-enerġija
eolika mis-sistemi ta’ distribuzzjoni fil-baħar fil-konsum tal-elettriku totali se jiżdied għal 4,7 % fl-2020, li
jikkorrispondi għal kapaċità installata ta’ 41GW

Fir-rigward tal-iżvilupp ta’ sistema ta’ distribuzzjoni fil-baħar integrata, din hija waħda mill-prijoritajiet tematiċi
tal-“Pakkett dwar l-Infrastruttura tal-Enerġija” li ppropniet il-Kummissjoni f’Ottubru 2011 u li attwalment qed jiġi
diskuss fil-Kunsill u mal-Parlament Ewropew. Fost oħrajn, huwa previst li l-UE tista’ tappoġġa proġetti talinfrastruttura tat-trasmissjoni fl-Ibħra tat-Tramuntana biex jittrasportaw l-elettriku prodott mill-parks eoliċi fil-baħar
lill-konsumaturi fuq l-art.

Barra minn hekk, il-Kummissjoni qed tikkofinanzja għadd ta’ proġetti relatati mal-integrazzjoni tas-sistema ta’
distribuzzjoni tal-parks eoliċi fil-baħar fil-qafas tal-Programm Ewropew ta’ Irkupru Ekonomiku (EEPR). Issubprogramm tal-Energija Eolika fil-Baħar tal-EEPR jikkonsisti minn disa’ proġetti f’żewġ oqsma ġrinċipali ta’
attivitajiet, li waħda minnhom hija relatata b’mod espliċitu mal-iżvilupp ta’ soluzzjonijiet bbażati fuq modulu għallintegrazzjoni tas-sistema ta’ distribuzzjoni mal-ġenerazzjoni tal-elettriku mir-riħ. Il-baġit sħiħ disponibbli mill-EEPR
għal dan is-subprogramm huwa ta’ EUR 565 miljun li huma impenjati kollha kemm huma ( [1] ).

Fl-aħħar nett, il-Kummsisjoni qed tappoġġa b’mod attiv il-ħidma li qed issir fil-qafas tan-North Seas Countries
Offshore Grid Initiative (Inizjattiva ta’ Sistema ta’ Distribuzzjoni fil-Baħar tal-Pajjiżi tal-Ibħra tat-Tramuntana) li
timmira lejn il-massimizzazzjoni tal-potenzjal tas-sorsi tal-enerġija rinnovabbli tal-Ibħra tat-Tramuntana billi
tiffaċilita l-iżvilupp strateġiku, koordinat u kosteffettiv ta’ sistemi ta’ distribuzzjoni fuq l-art u fil-baħar u billi tneħħi lostakli regolatorji relatati.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 445 finali.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 419

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009881/12**

**to the Commission**

**David Casa (PPE)**
_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Wind energy

The EU recently attained a total figure of 100 gigawatts of wind capacity, which represents a milestone in terms of
progress towards developing alternative sources of clean energy. In its communication to the European Parliament,
the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on ‘Offshore Wind
Energy: Action needed to deliver on the Energy Policy Objectives for 2020 and beyond’, the Commission reported
that ‘a more strategic and coordinated approach will be important for exploiting Europe’s wind resources in a costeffective way’. Coordination has been key throughout this process, as it is necessary to create a well-defined grid
system, specifically for offshore projects. Such a grid system will help reduce heavy concentration in certain areas so
that wind energy can be more easily and evenly distributed throughout the EU. Progress has certainly been made with
regard to onshore wind energy since that report appeared in 2008. However, can the Commission report on the
progress made so far in developing a more coordinated grid system for offshore projects?

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

_(18 December 2012)_

The Commission considers that offshore wind can deliver a significant contribution to the European energy mix.
According to Member States' National Renewable Action Plans, the share of offshore wind in total electricity
consumption will rise to 4.7% in 2020, corresponding to a level of installed capacity of 41GW.

As regards the development of an integrated offshore grid, this is one of the thematic priorities of the ‘Energy
Infrastructure Package’ that the Commission proposed in October 2011 and which is currently being discussed in the
Council and with the European Parliament. Amongst other things, it is envisaged that the EU could support
transmission infrastructure projects in the Northern Seas to transport electricity produced by offshore wind parks to
consumers onshore.

Moreover, the Commission is co-financing a number of projects related to the grid integration of offshore wind in the
framework of the European Economic Recovery Programme (EEPR). The EEPR Offshore Wind Energy subprogramme consists of nine projects in two main areas of activities, one of which relates explicitly to the development
of module-based solutions for the grid integration of wind electricity generation. The full available EEPR envelope for
this sub-programme is EUR 565 million all of which has been committed ( [1] ).

Finally, the Commission is actively supporting the work undertaken in the framework of the North Seas Countries
Offshore Grid Initiative which aims at maximising the potential of the renewable energy resources of the North Seas
by facilitating a strategic, coordinated and cost-effective development of offshore and onshore grids and removing
related regulatory barriers.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 445 final.

C 310 E / 420 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Verżjoni Maltija)_

**Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub E-009882/12**

**lill-Kummissjoni**
**David Casa (PPE)**
_(29 ta' Ottubru 2012)_

_Suġġett:_ Is-superviżjoni ta' apparat mediku

Fid-dawl tal-iskandlu reċenti li jinvolvi impjanti tas-sider frodulenti, li rriżulta f'kuxjenza akbar tan-nuqqas ta'
trasparenza u responsabbiltà fl-industrija tal-apparat mediku, il-Kummissjoni pproponiet żewġ regolamenti ġodda
biex tindirizza din il-kwestjoni. Il-Kummissjoni timmira li ttejjeb it-traċjabbiltà tal-apparat mediku u tiżgura kontrolli
ta' kwalità konsistenti. X'inhuma l-ispejjeż għan-negozji li l-Kummissjoni qiegħda tantiċipa għal din il-leġiżlazzjoni, u
dawn l-ispejjeż se jostakolaw il-kompetizzjoni internazzjonali bejn kumpaniji tal-UE li qegħdin ifornu apparat
mediku u l-kontrapartijiet internazzjonali tagħhom?

**Tweġiba mogħtija mis-Sur Borg f'isem il-Kummissjoni**

_(18 ta' Diċembru 2012)_

Fl-2011 il-Kummissjoni wettqet stima tal-impatt ( [1] ) iddettaljata bi tħejjija għar-reviżjoni tal-qafas regolatorju kurrenti
għall-apparati mediċi.

Il-każ tal-impjanti tas-siliċju fis-sider tal-PIP ( _Poly Implant Prothèse_ ) difettużi, li sar magħruf biss fl-aħħar tal-2011, kien
is-suġġett ta' analiżi (“test tal-istress”) tal-Kummissjoni fl-ewwel semestru tal-2012. Din l-analiżi sabet aktar
nuqqasijiet fir-regolamenti eżistenti, li ġew meqjusa fil-proposti.

L-istima tal-impatt tinkludi analiżi ddettaljata tal-kosti tal-miżuri proposti għall-industrija tal-apparati mediċi
Ewropea u tal-impatt ta' dawn il-miżuri fuq il-kompetittività internazzjonali tagħha.

Il-kostijiet ewlenin huma marbuta mar-reġistrazzjoni ċentrali tal-operaturi ekonomiċi u tal-apparati mediċi, massistema tat-traċċabbiltà, mar-rappurtaġġ ċentrali ta' inċidenti u mal-adozzjoni tal-klassifika tat-Task Force għallArmonizzazzjoni Globali għall-apparati mediċi dijanjostiċi _in vitro._

Dawn il-kostijiet huma ġustifikati minn raġunijiet ta' saħħa pubblika. Xi wħud minnhom, bħalma huma dawk li huma
marbutin mar-reġistrazzjoni u t-traċċabbiltà, u li jammontaw għal madwar EUR 21.6 miljuni, huma inqas ukoll millkostijiet li jkollha tiffaċċja l-industrija kieku dawn l-istess miżuri kellhom jittieħdu mill-Istati Membri b'mod separat, li
huma stmati għal bejn EUR 81.6 miljuni u EUR 157.1 miljuni. L-adozzjoni ta' regoli li jintgħarfu b'mod
internazzjonali wkoll se twassal għall-benefiċċji marbuta mal-kummerċ u l-kompetittività.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Ara: http://ec.europa.eu/health/medical-devices/documents/revision/index_en.htm

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 421

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009882/12**

**to the Commission**

**David Casa (PPE)**
_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Supervision of medical devices

In the light of the recent scandal involving fraudulent breast implants, which has resulted in increased awareness of
the lack of transparency and accountability in the medical device industry, the Commission has proposed two new
regulations to address this issue. The Commission aims to improve the traceability of medical devices and ensure
consistent quality controls. What costs for businesses does the Commission anticipate for this legislation, and will
these costs hinder international competition between EU companies supplying medical devices and their
international counterparts?

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

_(18 December 2012)_

A detailed impact assessment ( [1] ) was carried out by the Commission in 2011 in preparation for the revision of the
current regulatory framework for medical devices.

The case of the defective PIP ( _Poly Implant Prothèse_ ) silicone breast implants, which became known only at the end of
2011, was the subject of an analysis (‘stress test’) by the Commission during the first semester of 2012. This analysis
detected further shortcomings in the existing regulations, which were taken into account in the proposals.

The impact assessment includes an in-depth analysis of the costs of the proposed measures for the European medical
devices industry and of the impact of these measures on its international competitiveness.

The main costs are related to the central registration of economic operators and of medical devices, to the traceability
system, to the central reporting of incidents and to the adoption of the Global Harmonisation Task Force
classification for _in vitro_ diagnostic medical devices.

These costs are justified for reasons of public health. Some of them, such as those linked to registration and
traceability, which amount to around EUR 21.6 million, are also lower than the costs industry would face if the same
measures were taken seperately by the Member States, which are estimated between around EUR 81.6 million and
EUR 157.1 million. The adoption of internationally recognised rules will also lead to benefits in terms of trade and
competitiveness.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) See: http://ec.europa.eu/health/medical-devices/documents/revision/index_en.htm

C 310 E / 422 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Verżjoni Maltija)_

**Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub E-009883/12**

**lill-Kummissjoni**
**David Casa (PPE)**
_(29 ta' Ottubru 2012)_

_Suġġett:_ Pakkett tal-ferrovoji

L-UE attwalment qiegħda taħdem fuq ir-raba' pakkett ferrovjarju tagħha mill-2001. Il-ferroviji qegħdin iħabbtu
wiċċhom ma' diffikultajiet akbar biex jikkompetu ma' mezzi oħra tat-trasport minħabba spejjeż għoljin marbuta malimmodernizzar tas-sistema ferrovjarja. Barra minn hekk, teżisti frammentazzjoni bejn l-Istati Membri fir-rigward tarregoli u r-regolamenti li japplikaw għall-ferroviji. X'bidliet se jġib miegħu r-raba' pakkett ferrovjarju li se jgħinu listabbiliment ta' standards komuni bejn l-Istati Membri fis-suq ferrovjarju uniku Ewropew? Il-Kummissjoni se tieħu xi
miżuri biex tiżgura li l-ferroviji se jibqgħu kompetittivi fil-konfront ta' mezzi oħra tat-trasport?

**Tweġiba mogħtija mis-Sur Kallas f'isem il-Kummissjoni**

_(8 ta' Jannar 2013)_

Biex nerġgħu nagħtu l-ħajja lit-trasport ferrovjarju u nagħmluh kompetittiv ma' mezzi oħra tat-trasport, ilKummissjoni diġà daħħlet miżuri bil-għan li jiftħu s-swieq tat-trasport tal-merkanzija (kemm nazzjonali u kemm
internazzjonali), kif ukoll is-swieq internazzjonali tat-trasport tal-passiġġieri. Ir-Raba' Pakkett Ferrovjarju se
jikkonkludi l-politika tal-ftuħ tas-swieq, billi jiftaħ is-swieq nazzjonali tat-trasport tal-passiġġieri. Fl-istess nifs, ilKummissjoni se tipproponi miżuri li jsaħħu l-governanza tal-maniġers tal-infrastruttura, u li jżidu s-separazzjoni
tagħhom mill-operaturi ferrovjarji, li hija prekundizzjoni għas-suċċess tal-ftuħ tas-swieq.

Ir-Raba' Pakkett Ferrovjarju jimmira wkoll li jegħleb ix-xkiel li għad hemm għar-regoli armonizzati ta’
interoperabbiltà u sikurezza, ngħidu aħna billi jiċċara r-rwol tar-regoli nazzjonali u l-applikazzjoni ta’
speċifikazzjonijiet tekniċi ta’ interoperabbiltà (TSI) fejn vetturi jew stallazzjonijiet eżistenti jiġġeddu jew jiġu
modernizzati; dan jenfażizza l-importanza tar-rwol u tal-funzjonament xieraq tal-korpi nnotifikati, u jiżgura li lvetturi jkunu jistgħu jintużaw mal-Unjoni Ewropea kollha, mingħajr xkiel bla bżonn. Dawn il-miżuri se jitwettqu
permezz ta’ rwol imsaħħaħ tal-Aġenzija Ferrovjarja Ewropea, b'mod partikulari fejn tidħol il-valutazzjoni tar-regoli
nazzjonali, kif ukoll il-ħruġ ta’ ċertifikati tas-sikurezza u awtorizzazzjonijiet ta’ vetturi li għandhom jitqiegħdu fis-suq.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 423

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009883/12**

**to the Commission**

**David Casa (PPE)**
_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Railway package

The EU is currently working on its fourth railway package since 2001. The railways have faced increasing difficulty
competing with other modes of transport as there are high costs associated with modernising the railway system. In
addition, there is fragmentation between Member States with regard to rules and regulations for railways. What
changes will this fourth railway package make that will help establish common standards between Member States in
the single European railway market? Will any measures be taken by the Commission to ensure that railways remain
competitive with other transport modes?

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

_(8 January 2013)_

To revitalize rail transport and make it competitive with other transport modes, the Commission has already
introduced measures aimed at opening the freight markets (both national and international) and the international
passenger markets. The Fourth Railway Package will conclude the policy of market opening with the opening of
domestic passenger markets. At the same time the Commission will propose measures to strengthen the governance
of infrastructure managers and increase their separation from the railway operators, which is a precondition for the
success of market opening.

The Fourth Railway Package also intends to tackle remaining obstacles to harmonised rules for interoperability and
safety, for example by clarifying the role of national rules and the application of technical specifications for
interoperability (TSIs) when existing vehicles or installations are renewed or upgraded, emphasising the importance
of the role and correct functioning of notified bodies, and ensuring that vehicles may be used throughout the
European Union without unnecessary obstacles. These measures will be brought about through a reinforced role of
the European Railway Agency notably concerning the assessment of national rules as well as the issuing of safety
certificates and vehicle authorisations for placing on the market.

C 310 E / 424 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009884/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Francesco De Angelis (S&D)**

_(29 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Situazione smaltimento rifiuti nel Lazio meridionale

Lo scorso 24 ottobre 2012 la Commissione europea ha deciso di deferire l'Italia alla Corte di giustizia dell'Unione
europea in merito alla mancata bonifica di un numero consistente di discariche illegali e incontrollate di rifiuti.

La procedura di deferimento attivata dalla Commissione segue la messa in mora (febbraio 2008), il parere motivato
(giugno 2009) e infine la richiesta formale (giugno 2011) con cui la Commissione ha invitato l'Italia a presentare un
calendario credibile per la regolarizzazione di tutti i siti in questione entro un lasso di tempo ragionevole, pur non
ricevendo adeguata risposta da parte delle autorità italiane preposte.

Tenuto conto di quanto precede e data la drammatica situazione ambientale dell'area della Valle del Sacco (Lazio
meridionale), in cui a discariche già esistenti (Collefagiolara) si starebbero aggiungendo ulteriori progetti per la
costruzione di nuovi impianti di smaltimento, si chiede alla Commissione:

1. Può precisare se la procedura di infrazione interessa anche la discarica di Collefagiolara (FR)?

2. Può verificare la compatibilità dei progetti (realizzati e programmati) per la gestione e lo smaltimento dei rifiuti
nell'area della Valle del Sacco con il diritto comunitario in materia di tutela dell'ambiente e salvaguardia della
salute dei cittadini?

3. Intende sollecitare interventi urgenti di risanamento e riqualificazione di un'area fortemente compromessa dal
punto di vista ambientale e paesaggistico, e della tutela della salute pubblica?

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

_(9 gennaio 2013)_

La discarica di Collefagiolara è una delle discariche ufficialmente autorizzate presenti nel Lazio e non rientra quindi
nella procedura di infrazione n. 2003/2077, del 24 ottobre 2012, sulle discariche abusive.

Tuttavia, la Commissione ha altresì avviato la procedura di infrazione n. 2011/4021, volta a garantire che le autorità
italiane sviluppino capacità sufficienti a trattare tutti i rifiuti che vengono smaltiti nelle discariche del Lazio, compresa
quella di Collefagiolara.

Per quanto riguarda eventuali progetti di nuovi impianti di gestione dei rifiuti nel Lazio, la Commissione non ha
alcuna competenza in merito agli impianti che le autorità nazionali decidono di creare e al luogo in cui vengono
costruiti, a condizione che tali impianti siano costruiti, gestiti e monitorati conformemente alla legislazione UE in
materia, come la direttiva 2011/92/UE ( [1] ), la direttiva 1999/31/CE ( [2] ) e la direttiva 2008/98/CE ( [3] ). In questa fase la
Commissione non dispone di prove di violazioni della legislazione UE in relazione all’eventuale apertura di nuovi
impianti per rifiuti nel Lazio.

La bonifica delle zone colpite da problematiche ambientali e di salute pubblica è uno degli obiettivi del programma
2007-2013 cofinanziato dal FESR nella Regione Lazio. In effetti, nell’ambito della priorità II «Ambiente e prevenzione
dei rischi», l’obiettivo operativo II è finalizzato alla bonifica di siti industriali inquinati o zone contaminate.

Tuttavia, in base al principio di gestione condivisa applicato all’attuazione dei fondi strutturali, la selezione dei
progetti e la loro attuazione competono alle autorità nazionali. La Commissione invita pertanto l’onorevole
parlamentare a contattare direttamente l’autorità di gestione del programma ( [4] ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Direttiva 2011/92/UE concernente la valutazione dell’impatto ambientale di determinati progetti pubblici e privati, GU L 26 del 28.1.2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Direttiva 1999/31/CE relativa alle discariche di rifiuti, GU L 182 del 16.7.1999.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Direttiva 2008/98/CE relativa ai rifiuti e che abroga alcune direttive, GU L 312 del 22.11.2008.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Autorità di gestione del programma operativo regionale della Regione Lazio 2007-2013. Via R. R. Garibaldi, 7 — 00145 Roma;

adgcomplazio@regione.lazio.it.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 425

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009884/12**

**to the Commission**
**Francesco De Angelis (S&D)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Waste disposal in southern Lazio

On 24 October 2012 the Commission decided to refer Italy to the Court of Justice of the European Union in relation
to its failure to reclaim a large number of illegal and uncontrolled landfills.

The referral procedure initiated by the Commission comes in the wake of the formal notice (February 2008), the
reasoned opinion (June 2009) and, lastly, the formal request (June 2011) in which the Commission called on Italy to
submit a credible timetable for the regularisation of all the sites in question within a reasonable time frame. It did not,
however, receive an appropriate reply from the Italian authorities responsible.

In view of the above, and given the dramatic environmental situation of the area of Valle del Sacco (southern Lazio) in
which, in addition to existing landfills (e.g. Collefagiolara), further projects for the construction of new waste disposal
plants are allegedly in the pipeline, can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. Does the infringement procedure also concern the Collefagiolara landfill (Frosinone)?

2. Can it check whether the projects (those implemented and those planned) relating to the management and
disposal of waste in the Valle del Sacco area are compatible with Community law on environmental and public
health protection?

3. Will it call for urgent action to reclaim and restore an area that has been so adversely affected from an
environmental, landscape and public health point of view?

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

_(9 January 2013)_

The Collefagiolara landfill is one of the officially authorised landfills existing in Lazio, and it is therefore not covered
by infringement procedure 2003/2077 of 24 October 2012, on illegal landfills.

However, the Commission has also launched the infringement procedure 2011/4021, aimed at ensuring that the
Italian authorities build enough capacity to treat all the waste which is disposed of in the Lazio landfills, including the
Collefagiolara landfill.

As regards possible projects for new waste management installations in Lazio, the Commission has no competence
on which installations the national authorities decide to build and where they decide to build them, provided that
these installations are built, managed and monitored according to relevant EC law, such as Directive 2011/92/EU ( [1] ),
Directive 1999/31/EC ( [2] ) and Directive 2008/98/EC ( [3] ). The Commission has no evidence, at this stage, of breaches of
EC law in connection to the possible opening of new waste installations in Lazio.

The reclaiming of the areas affected by environmental and public health issues is one of the objectives of the 20072013 programme co-financed by ERDF in the region of Lazio. In fact, under priority II ‘Environment and risk
prevention’, operational objective II aims at the reclaiming of polluted industrial sites or contaminated areas.

In line with the shared management principle used for the implementation of Structural Funds, however, project
selection and implementation is the responsibility of the national authorities. The Commission therefore suggests the
Honourable Member contacts directly the managing authority of the programme ( [4] ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ L 26, 28.1.2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste, OJ L 182, 16.7.1999.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Directive 2008/98/EC on waste and repealing certain Directives, OJ L 312, 22.11.2008.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Autorità di gestione del programma operativo regionale della Regione Lazio 2007-2013, Via R. R. Garibaldi, 7, 00145 Roma;

adgcomplazio@regione.lazio.it.

C 310 E / 426 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung P-009885/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Franz Obermayr (NI)**

_(29. Oktober 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Vereinigte Arabische Emirate, Dubai: Verurteilung Eugen Adelsmayr 21.10.2012

Am 21.10.2012 wurde der österreichische Arzt Dr. Eugen Adelsmayr in Abwesenheit in Dubai zu lebenslanger Haft
verurteilt. Die Staatsanwaltschaft forderte die Todesstrafe für Adelsmayr, weil dieser Anweisung gegeben hätte, einen
Patienten nicht wiederzubeleben. Adelsmayr wies diese Vorwürfe immer wieder vehement zurück. Nun befand
Dubais Justiz Adelsmayr für schuldig und verurteilte ihn zu lebenslanger Haft. Hierbei ist anzumerken, dass
Medienberichten zufolge drei Fachgutachten zugunsten Adelsmayrs unberücksichtigt blieben und jenes der
zuständigen Behörde bei der Übersetzung aus dem Englischen ins Arabische von 25 auf 6 Seiten schmolz. Die
verschwundenen 19 Seiten hätten Adelsmayr entlastet. Die Vorgehensweise im Fall Adelsmayr erhärtet auch den USMenschenrechtsbericht 2010: Dubais Verfassung schreibe zwar eine unabhängige Justiz vor, die politische Führung
überprüfe dennoch Urteile, was fragwürdige Beweisführungen und Vetternwirtschaft begünstigt. Im Rahmen der
parlamentarischen Debatte zur Lage der Menschenrechte in den Vereinigten Arabischen Emiraten am 26.10.2012 hat
der Verfasser die Causa Adelsmayr zur Sprache gebracht. Die für Forschung zuständige EU-Kommissarin, Maire
Geoghegan-Quinn, erklärte daraufhin, dass sie bereit sei, eventuell notwendige Schritte zu ergreifen, damit die
Behörden in Dubai den Fall lösen.

1. Wie steht die Kommission zu der fragwürdigen Beweiswürdigung in der Sache Adelsmayr? Welche konkreten
Maßnahmen gedenkt die Kommission zu ergreifen, um auf die Behörden in Dubai Druck auszuüben?

2. Gedenkt die Kommission noch tätig zu werden, bevor ein allfälliger internationaler Haftbefehl (eine sogenannte
„Red Notice“ — enthält Auslieferungsantrag) verhängt wird?

3. Gibt es Rechtsmittel gegen einen internationalen Haftbefehl? Wenn ja, wird die Kommission gegebenenfalls
entsprechende rechtliche Schritte einleiten?

4. Jeder Staat kann befinden, ob er einen internationalen Haftbefehl weiterverfolgt. Wie wird die EU im Falle eines
internationalen Haftbefehls reagieren? Wird es eine gemeinsame Vorgehensweise geben, welche es Dr. Adelsmayr
zumindest ermöglicht, sich im Unionsgebiet frei zu bewegen? Wenn nein, widerspräche dies nicht den Rechten von
Dr. Adelsmayr als Unionsbürger gemäß Artikel 21 Absatz 1 AEUV?

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009886/12**
**an die Kommission (Vizepräsidentin/Hohe Vertreterin)**

**Franz Obermayr (NI)**

_(29. Oktober 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ VP/HR — Vereinigte Arabische Emirate, Dubai: Verurteilung Eugen Adelsmayr 21.10.2012

Am 21.10.2012 wurde der österreichische Arzt Dr. Eugen Adelsmayr in Abwesenheit in Dubai zu lebenslanger Haft
verurteilt. Die Staatsanwaltschaft forderte die Todesstrafe für Adelsmayr, weil dieser Anweisung gegeben hätte, einen
Patienten nicht wiederzubeleben. Adelsmayr wies diese Vorwürfe immer wieder vehement zurück. Nun befand
Dubais Justiz Adelsmayr für schuldig und verurteilte ihn zu lebenslanger Haft. Hierbei ist anzumerken, dass
Medienberichten zufolge drei Fachgutachten zugunsten Adelsmayrs unberücksichtigt blieben und jenes der
zuständigen Behörde bei der Übersetzung aus dem Englischen ins Arabische von 25 auf 6 Seiten schmolz.

Die verschwundenen 19 Seiten hätten Adelsmayr entlastet. Die Vorgehensweise im Fall Adelsmayr erhärtet auch den
US-Menschenrechtsbericht 2010: Dubais Verfassung schreibe zwar eine unabhängige Justiz vor, die politische
Führung überprüfe dennoch Urteile, was fragwürdige Beweisführungen und Vetternwirtschaft begünstigt. Im
Rahmen der parlamentarischen Debatte zur Lage der Menschenrechte in den Vereinigten Arabischen Emiraten
am 26.10.2012 habe ich die Causa Adelsmayr zur Sprache gebracht. Die für Forschung zuständige EU-Kommissarin,
Maire Geoghegan-Quinn, erklärte daraufhin, dass sie bereit sei, eventuell notwendige Schritte zu ergreifen, damit die
Behörden in Dubai den Fall lösen.

1. Wie steht die Kommission zu der fragwürdigen Beweiswürdigung in der Sache Adelsmayr? Welche konkreten
Maßnahmen gedenkt die Kommission zu ergreifen, um auf die Behörden in Dubai Druck auszuüben?

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 427

2. Gedenkt die Kommission noch tätig zu werden, bevor ein allfälliger internationaler Haftbefehl (eine sogenannte
„Red Notice“ — enthält Auslieferungsantrag) verhängt wird?

3. Gibt es Rechtsmittel gegen einen internationalen Haftbefehl? Wenn ja, wird die Kommission gegebenenfalls
entsprechende rechtliche Schritte einleiten?

4. Jeder Staat kann befinden, ob er einen internationalen Haftbefehl weiterverfolgt. Wie wird die EU im Falle eines
internationalen Haftbefehls reagieren? Wird es eine gemeinsame Vorgehensweise geben, welche es Dr. Adelsmayr
zumindest ermöglicht, sich im Unionsgebiet frei zu bewegen? Wenn nein, widerspräche dies nicht den Rechten von
Dr. Adelsmayr als Unionsbürger gemäß Artikel 21 Absatz 1 AEUV?

**Gemeinsame Antwort von Frau Ashton — Hohe Vertreterin/Vizepräsidentin im Namen der Kommission**

_(4. Dezember 2012)_

Die EU hat den Fall von Herrn Dr. Adelsmayr in den Vereinigten Arabischen Emiraten von Anfang an mitverfolgt und
wird dies in enger Zusammenarbeit mit den österreichischen Behörden auch weiterhin tun.

Die EU hat mit den Vereinigten Arabischen Emiraten kein Rechtshilfe‐ oder Auslieferungsabkommen geschlossen.
Daher fallen die mit diesem Land getroffenen Vorkehrungen in den Bereichen gegenseitige Rechtshilfe und
Auslieferung in die Zuständigkeit der Mitgliedstaaten. In der Praxis bedeutet dies, dass die Mitgliedstaaten ihre
bilateralen Abkommen anwenden, sofern vorhanden. Ist dies nicht der Fall, können sie sich auf den völkerrechtlich
verankerten Grundsatz der Gegenseitigkeit berufen.

C 310 E / 428 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-009885/12**

**to the Commission**
**Franz Obermayr (NI)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ United Arab Emirates, Dubai: sentencing of Dr Eugen Adelsmayr on 21.10.2012

On 21.10.2012, the Austrian physician Dr Eugen Adelsmayr was sentenced in absentia in Dubai to life
imprisonment. The prosecution had demanded the death penalty for Dr Adelsmayr, because he had allegedly issued
instructions not to resuscitate a patient. Dr Adelsmayr has repeatedly strenuously denied these allegations. Now the
Dubai justice system has found Dr Adelsmayr guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment. It should be noted that,
according to media reports, three technical reports in favour of Dr Adelsmayr were ignored and that of the competent
authority was reduced in the translation from English into Arabic from 25 to 6 pages. The missing 19 pages would
have exculpated Dr Adelsmayr. The procedure in the case of Dr Adelsmayr gives additional weight to the findings of
the 2010 U.S. Human Rights Report: while Dubai's Constitution provides for an independent judiciary, the political
leadership still vets judgments, which favours the presentation of dubious evidence and nepotism. During the
parliamentary debate on the situation of human rights in the United Arab Emirates on 26/10/2012, the author of this
question raised the case of Dr Adelsmayr. The EU Research Commissioner, Maire Geoghegan-Quinn, then declared
that she was prepared to take any necessary steps to ensure that the Dubai authorities find a solution to this case.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

1. What view does it take of the dubious evaluation of evidence in the case of Dr Adelsmayr? What practical
measures will it take in order to exert pressure on the Dubai authorities?

2. Does it intend to take action before a possible international arrest warrant (a so-called ‘red notice’ — together
with extradition request) is issued?

3. Are there any legal remedies against an international arrest warrant? If so, will it take appropriate legal action?

4. Each State is free to decide whether or not to implement an international arrest warrant. How will the EU
respond in the event of an international arrest warrant? Will there be a common approach, which would at
least allow Dr Adelsmayr to move freely in the territory of the Union? If not, would this not represent a breach
of Dr Adelsmayr's rights as an EU citizen under Article 21, paragraph 1, TFEU?

**Question for written answer E-009886/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Franz Obermayr (NI)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — United Arab Emirates, Dubai: sentencing of Dr Eugen Adelsmayr on 21.10.2012

On 21.10.2012, the Austrian physician Dr Eugen Adelsmayr was sentenced in absentia in Dubai to life
imprisonment. The prosecution had demanded the death penalty for Dr Adelsmayr, because he had allegedly issued
instructions not to resuscitate a patient. Dr Adelsmayr has repeatedly strenuously denied these allegations. Now the
Dubai justice system has found Dr Adelsmayr guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment. It should be noted that,
according to media reports, three technical reports in favour of Dr Adelsmayr were ignored and that of the competent
authority was reduced in the translation from English into Arabic from 25 to 6 pages.

The missing 19 pages would have exculpated Dr Adelsmayr. The procedure in the case of Dr Adelsmayr gives
additional weight to the findings of the 2010 U.S. Human Rights Report: while Dubai's Constitution provides for an
independent judiciary, the political leadership still vets judgments, which favours the presentation of dubious
evidence and nepotism. During the parliamentary debate on the situation of human rights in the United Arab
Emirates on 26/10/2012, the author of this question raised the case of Dr Adelsmayr. The EU Research
Commissioner, Maire Geoghegan-Quinn, then declared that she was prepared to take any necessary steps to ensure
that the Dubai authorities find a solution to this case.

1. What view does the Commission take of the dubious evaluation of evidence in the case of Dr Adelsmayr? What
practical measures will it take in order to exert pressure on the Dubai authorities?

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 429

2. Does the Commission intend to take action before a possible international arrest warrant (a so-called ‘red notice’
— together with extradition request) is issued?

3. Are there any legal remedies against an international arrest warrant? If so, will the Commission take appropriate
legal action?

4. Each State is free to decide whether or not to implement an international arrest warrant. How will the EU
respond in the event of an international arrest warrant? Will there be a common approach, which would at least allow
Dr Adelsmayr to move freely in the territory of the Union? If not, would this not represent a breach of Dr Adelsmayr's
rights as an EU citizen under Article 21, paragraph 1, TFEU?

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

_(4 December 2012)_

The EU has followed the case of Dr E Adelsmayr in the United Arab Emirates since the very beginning and will
continue to do so, in close cooperation with the Austrian authorities.

The EU has not concluded any agreement on mutual legal assistance or extradition with the United Arab Emirates.
Consequently, the legal arrangements of mutual legal assistance and extradition with this country remain in the
competence of the Member States. In practice, the Member States either apply the bilateral agreement or, if there is no
bilateral agreement in force, the general principle of reciprocity according to public international law may be invoked.

C 310 E / 430 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009887/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Ingeborg Gräßle (PPE)**

_(29. Oktober 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Absenzen bei Delegationen der EU in Drittstaaten

Die Anzahl der Abwesenheitstage von Bediensteten der EU bei Delegationen in Drittstaaten setzt sich aus folgenden
Komponenten zusammen: Anwendung der Personalvorschriften, Flexitime (nur bei der Kommission), Urlaub,
Feiertage, Erholungsurlaub, Reisetage und Fortbildungen in der Zentrale.

Wie hoch sind die Absenzen der Beamten, Beschäftigten auf Zeit und Vertragsbediensteten bei den einzelnen
Delegationen in den jeweiligen Besoldungsgruppen (absolut)? Wie hoch sind die Absenzen in Prozent bei den
einzelnen Delegationen im Durchschnitt?

Im Jahr 2007 führte die Kommission ihr Programm „Flexitime“ ein, das einen Freizeitausgleich für zusätzliche
Arbeitszeit in Form von zwei freien Tagen alle vier Wochen ermöglicht.

Wie viele freie Tage nahmen die Bediensteten der Laufbahngruppe AD und der Besoldungsgruppen AST 5 bis 16 im
Rahmen des Freizeitausgleichs bei den Delegationen in Drittstaaten in Anspruch?

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009888/12**
**an die Kommission (Vizepräsidentin/Hohe Vertreterin)**

**Ingeborg Gräßle (PPE)**

_(29. Oktober 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ VP/HR — Absenzen in Delegationen in Drittstaaten der EU

Die Anzahl der Abwesenheitstage von Bediensteten der EU in Delegationen in Drittstaaten setzt sich aus folgenden
Komponenten zusammen: Anwendung der Personalvorschriften, Flexitime (nur in der Kommission), Urlaub,
Feiertage, Erholungsurlaub, Reisetage und Fortbildungen in der Zentrale.

Wie hoch sind die Absenzen der Beamten, Beschäftigten auf Zeit und Vertragsbediensteten in den einzelnen
Delegationen in den jeweiligen Besoldungsgruppen (absolut)? Wie hoch sind die Absenzen (in %) in den einzelnen
Delegationen im Durchschnitt?

Im Jahr 2007 führte die Kommission ihr „Flexitime“-Programm ein, das einen Freizeitausgleich für zusätzliche
Arbeitszeit in Form von zwei freien Tagen alle vier Wochen ermöglicht.

Wie viele freie Tage nahmen die Bediensteten der Dienstgrade AD und AST 5 bis 16 im Rahmen des Freizeitausgleichs
in den Delegationen in Drittstaaten in Anspruch?

**Gemeinsame Antwort von Frau Ashton — Hohe Vertreterin/Vizepräsidentin im Namen der Kommission**

_(16. Januar 2013)_

Es wäre sehr schwierig und kostenaufwendig, die erbetenen Daten zu ermitteln und übersichtlich darzustellen. Der
Europäische Auswärtige Dienst (EAD) steht im Kontakt mit der Frau Abgeordneten und wird ihr die bestmöglichen
Informationen zu dieser Thematik zur Verfügung stellen.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 431

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009887/12**

**to the Commission**
**Ingeborg Gräßle (PPE)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Absences in EU delegations in third countries

Absences of staff in the EU delegations in third countries fall into the following categories: application of the staff
rules, flexitime (Commission staff only), annual leave, official holidays, leave for health reasons, travelling time and
training courses at headquarters.

What are the figures for absences of officials and temporary and contract staff in the individual delegations in the
various grades (in total)? What are the average figures for absences in each delegation in percentage terms?

In 2007, the Commission introduced flexitime arrangements that enable staff to accumulate time credits for extra
hours worked in the form of two compensatory days off every four weeks.

How many such compensatory days off have been taken by AD category officials and AST officials in grades 5 to 16
in the delegations in third countries?

**Question for written answer E-009888/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Ingeborg Gräßle (PPE)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Absences in EU delegations in third countries

Absences of staff in the EU delegations in third countries fall into the following categories: application of the staff
rules, flexitime (Commission staff only), annual leave, official holidays, leave for health reasons, travelling time and
training courses at headquarters.

What are the figures for absences of officials and temporary and contract staff in the individual delegations in the
various grades (in total)? What are the average figures for absences in each delegation in percentage terms?

In 2007, the Commission introduced flexitime arrangements that enable staff to accumulate time credits for extra
hours worked in the form of two compensatory days off every four weeks.

How many such compensatory days off have been taken by AD category officials and AST officials in grades 5 to 16
in the delegations in third countries?

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

_(16 January 2013)_

It would be very complicated and costly to extract and present the data requested in a meaningful way. The European
External Action Service (EEAS) is in contact with the Honourable Member and will provide her with the best available
information on these topics.

C 310 E / 432 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009889/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Ingeborg Gräßle (PPE)**

_(29. Oktober 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Goldener Handschlag — Vorruhestand ohne Abschläge

Gemäß Artikel 50 des Statuts der Beamten der Europäischen Union können höhere Führungskräfte aus dienstlichen
Gründen durch Verfügung der Anstellungsbehörde ihrer Stelle enthoben werden.

1. In wie vielen Fällen gingen in den Jahren 2011 und 2012, gegliedert nach der jeweiligen Generaldirektion sowie
innerhalb dieser Besoldungsgruppe und Funktion, Beamte und Bedienstete auf Zeit ohne Abschläge in den
Vorruhestand?

2. Was waren die Gründe für die jeweiligen individuellen Stellenenthebungen?

3. Wie oft erfolgte im konkreten Fall eine Wiederbesetzung der Stelle?

4. Wie viele Pensionsempfänger gab es in den Jahren 2010, 2011, 2012 in der Kommission insgesamt?

5. Auf welchen Betrag belief sich die tatsächlich gezahlte höchste und niedrigste Pension? Wie hoch ist die
durchschnittliche Pension der unter das Statut fallenden Beamten und Bediensteten auf Zeit der Kommission im
Jahr 2011 und 2012?

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

_(18. Dezember 2012)_

Die Kommission muss zunächst darauf hinweisen, dass der Artikel 50 des Statuts keinen „goldenen Handschlag“ für
Beamte einführen sollte. Ein besonderes Vertrauensverhältnis zwischen den Mitgliedern eines Organs und dessen
höheren Führungskräften ist unerlässlich, wenn dieses Organ ordnungsgemäß und wirksam funktionieren soll. Mit
Artikel 50 des Statuts hat der Gesetzgeber den Organen ermöglicht, Abhilfemaßnahmen zu treffen, wenn das
Vertrauensverhältnis nicht mehr gewährleistet ist. Vergleichbare Bestimmungen bestehen auch in den nationalen
Gesetzen der Mitgliedstaaten (siehe beispielsweise § 54 des deutschen Bundesbeamtengesetzes).

Artikel 50 des Statuts betrifft ausschließlich höhere Führungskräfte (auf Generaldirektoren‐ oder Direktorenebene).

Die Anwendung von Artikel 50 des Statuts führt nicht unmittelbar zur Gewährung eines Ruhegehalts. Der betroffene
Beamte erhält gemäß Anhang IV des Statuts für den dort festgelegten Zeitabschnitt eine monatliche Vergütung.
Einkommen, das der Beamte während dieses Zeitabschnitts aufgrund eines neuen Beschäftigungsverhältnisses
bezieht, wird von der Vergütung abgezogen, wenn die Summe dieses Einkommens und der Vergütung über den
letzten Gesamtbezügen des Beamten liegt. Erlischt der Anspruch des Beamten auf die Vergütung (was spätestens mit
Erreichen des 65. Lebensjahrs der Fall ist), hat er Anspruch auf ein Ruhegehalt.

In den Jahren 2011 und 2012 hat die Kommission keinen Beschluss über eine Stellenenthebung aus dienstlichen
Gründen nach Artikel 50 des Statuts angenommen.

Die Anwendung von Artikel 50 des Statuts ist von der normalen Versetzung in den Ruhestand (Artikel 52 des Statuts)
und der (in Ausnahmefällen erfolgenden) frühzeitigen Versetzung in den Ruhestand ohne Kürzung der
Versorgungsbezüge (Artikel 9 Absatz 2 des Anhangs VIII des Statuts) zu unterscheiden.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 433

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009889/12**

**to the Commission**
**Ingeborg Gräßle (PPE)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Golden handshake — early retirement without reduction of pension rights

Under Article 50 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, senior managers may be retired
in the interests of the service by decision of the appointing authority.

1. In how many cases did officials and temporary staff take early retirement without reduction of pension rights in
2011 and 2012, broken down by DG, salary group and function?

2. What were the reasons for the relevant early retirement decisions?

3. In how many cases were the posts filled again?

4. How many recipients of pensions were there in total at the Commission in 2010, 2011 and 2012?

5. What was the amount of the highest and lowest pensions actually paid? What was the amount of the average
pension of Commission officials and temporary staff covered by the Staff Regulations in 2011 and 2012?

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

_(18 December 2012)_

The Commission must in the first place emphasise that Article 50 of the Staff Regulations (SR) has not been adopted
with the purpose of granting a ‘golden handshake’ to officials. A specific relationship of trust between the Members of
an institution and its senior officials is indispensable for the proper and effective functioning of that institution. With
the adoption of Article 50 SR, the legislator has enabled the institutions to remedy the situation in cases where this
relationship of trust is no longer guaranteed. Provisions comparable to Article 50 SR also exist in the national law of
the Member States (see, for instance, § 54 of the German Bundesbeamtengesetz).

Article 50 SR only concerns senior officials (at Director-General and Director level).

The application of Article 50 SR does not directly lead to the granting of a retirement pension. The official concerned
receives, under the conditions and for the period set out in Annex IV to the SR, a monthly allowance. Income received
by the official from any new employment during this period is deducted from the allowance if that income and the
allowance together exceed his last total remuneration. When the official's entitlement to the allowance ends (which is
at the latest the case at the age of 65), he is entitled to a retirement pension.

During the years 2011 and 2012, the Commission did not adopt any decision on the retirement in the interests of the
service of officials under Article 50 SR.

The application of Article 50 SR is to be distinguished from retirement under the normal pension scheme (Article 52
SR) and from the (exceptional) early retirement without reduction of pension rights (Article 9(2) of Annex VIII to the
SR).

C 310 E / 434 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009890/12**

**al Consejo**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(29 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Productos cosméticos

Mediante el Reglamento (CE) n° 1223/2009 (considerando 4), se pretende armonizar íntegramente las normas
comunitarias a fin de lograr un mercado interior para los productos cosméticos, garantizando al mismo tiempo un
elevado nivel de protección de la salud humana y diferenciando dichos productos de los medicamentos, los productos
sanitarios o los biocidas (considerando 6). El artículo 8 incluye, dentro del ámbito de aplicación del Reglamento, la
actividad de fabricación de productos cosméticos. En el considerando 7 del Reglamento se establece, a su vez, la
inclusión de los depilatorios en la categoría de los productos cosméticos. El artículo 40 dispone que dicho
Reglamento sea aplicable a partir del 11 de julio de 2013 y en las disposiciones transitorias (artículo 39) se establece
que, no obstante lo dispuesto en la Directiva 76/768/CEE, los productos cosméticos que cumplan el Reglamento
podrán introducirse en el mercado antes del 11 de julio de 2013. Por su parte, la legislación española regula los
productos cosméticos determinando su carácter sanitario en el artículo 1 del Real Decreto 1599/1997, de 17 de
octubre.

El Real Decreto mencionado tiene por objeto definir los productos cosméticos, las condiciones técnico-sanitarias que
deben reunir, su control sanitario, los requisitos que han de cumplir las instalaciones donde se elaboren y las de
importación de productos procedentes de terceros países, la regulación del etiquetado y la publicidad, así como la
inspección, las infracciones y las sanciones. Asimismo, en su artículo 18, el Real Decreto 1599/1997 establece que los
productos cosméticos deberán estar previamente autorizados por la Agencia Española de Medicamentos y Productos
Sanitarios, las condiciones de fabricación y los requisitos de la misma.

En vista de lo anterior y teniendo en cuenta también el Anexo I del Real Decreto 1599/1997, ¿considera el Consejo

que:

1. existe una contradicción entre el Reglamento (CE) n° 1223/2009 y el Real Decreto 1599/1997 en cuanto a la
naturaleza sanitaria de los cosméticos en general y, en concreto, de los depilatorios;

2. son vigentes y aplicables para la fabricación de cosméticos en España las disposiciones contenidas en el Real
Decreto 1599/1997 y, en particular, las contempladas en su artículo 18, sobre autorización de actividades y sus
condiciones, atendiendo al Reglamento (CE) n° 1223/2009;

3. es posible, con arreglo a las disposiciones transitorias del Reglamento (CE) n° 1223/2009, que se fabriquen
cosméticos, en concreto, depilatorios, antes del 11 de julio de 2013 en el Estado español?

**Respuesta**
_(16 de enero de 2013)_

No corresponde al Consejo interpretar las normas jurídicas de los Estados miembros ni del Derecho de la Unión.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 435

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009890/12**

**to the Council**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Cosmetic products

Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council seeks to comprehensively harmonise
the rules in the Community in order to achieve an internal market for cosmetic products while ensuring a high level
of protection of human health (Recital 4) and to distinguish cosmetics from medicinal products, medical devices and
biocidal products (Recital 6). The regulation also covers the manufacture of cosmetic products (Article 8) and lists
depilatories as a type of cosmetic (Recital 7). It will enter into force on 11 July 2013 (Article 40). The transitional
provisions set out in Article 39 stipulate that, by way of derogation from Directive 76/768/EEC, cosmetic products
which comply with the regulation may be placed on the market before that date. In Spain, cosmetics are regulated by
Royal Decree No 1599/1997 of 17 October 1997, Article 1 of which defines them as medical products.

The decree defines cosmetic products, establishes the technical and medical criteria they must fulfil, the checks to
which they are subject, the requirements to be met by premises where they are manufactured or imported from third
countries, and lays down provisions relating to labelling, advertising, inspections, infringements and penalties.
Article 18 of the decree states that cosmetic products must be approved by the Spanish Agency for Medicines and
Medical Products (Agencia Española de Medicamentos y Productos Sanitarios) and lays down the requirements that
must be met in order to gain such approval.

In the light of the above and of the list of categories of cosmetic products contained in Annex I to Royal Decree
No 1599/1997:

1. Does the Council think that there is a contradiction between Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 and Royal
Decree 1599/1997 with regard to whether cosmetics, and depilatories in particular, are medical or nonmedical products?

2. In the light of the forthcoming entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009, do the provisions of Royal
Decree No 1599/1997, in particular Article 18 on manufacturing and import approval and requirements, still
apply to cosmetics manufactured in Spain?

3. May cosmetic products, with specific reference to depilatories, be manufactured in Spain prior to 11 July 2013
under the transitional provisions set out in the regulation?

**Reply**
_(16 January 2013)_

It is not for the Council to interpret legal provisions of the Member States or of Union law.

C 310 E / 436 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009891/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(29 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Productos cosméticos

Mediante el Reglamento (CE) n° 1223/2009 (considerando 4), se pretende armonizar íntegramente las normas
comunitarias a fin de lograr un mercado interior para los productos cosméticos, garantizando al mismo tiempo un
elevado nivel de protección de la salud humana y diferenciando dichos productos de los medicamentos, los productos
sanitarios o los biocidas (considerando 6). El artículo 8 incluye, dentro del ámbito de aplicación del Reglamento, la
actividad de fabricación de productos cosméticos. En el considerando 7 del Reglamento se establece, a su vez, la
inclusión de los depilatorios en la categoría de los productos cosméticos. El artículo 40 dispone que dicho
Reglamento sea aplicable a partir del 11 de julio de 2013 y en las disposiciones transitorias (artículo 39) se establece
que, no obstante lo dispuesto en la Directiva 76/768/CEE, los productos cosméticos que cumplan el Reglamento
podrán introducirse en el mercado antes del 11 de julio de 2013. Por su parte, la legislación española regula los
productos cosméticos determinando su carácter sanitario en el artículo 1 del Real Decreto 1599/1997, de 17 de
octubre.

El Real Decreto mencionado tiene por objeto definir los productos cosméticos, las condiciones técnico-sanitarias que
deben reunir, su control sanitario, los requisitos que han de cumplir las instalaciones donde se elaboren y las de
importación de productos procedentes de terceros países, la regulación del etiquetado y la publicidad, así como la
inspección, las infracciones y las sanciones. Asimismo, en su artículo 18, el Real Decreto 1599/1997 establece que los
productos cosméticos deberán estar previamente autorizados por la Agencia Española de Medicamentos y Productos
Sanitarios, las condiciones de fabricación y los requisitos de la misma.

En vista de lo anterior y teniendo en cuenta también el Anexo I del Real Decreto 1599/1997, ¿considera la Comisión

que:

1. existe una contradicción entre el Reglamento (CE) n° 1223/2009 y el Real Decreto 1599/1997 en cuanto a la
naturaleza sanitaria de los cosméticos en general y, en concreto, de los depilatorios;

2. son vigentes y aplicables para la fabricación de cosméticos en España las disposiciones contenidas en el Real
Decreto 1599/1997 y, en particular, las contempladas en su artículo 18, sobre autorización de actividades y sus
condiciones, atendiendo al Reglamento (CE) n° 1223/2009;

3. es posible, con arreglo a las disposiciones transitorias del Reglamento (CE) n° 1223/2009, que se fabriquen
cosméticos, en concreto, depilatorios, antes del 11 de julio de 2013 en España?

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

_(17 de diciembre de 2012)_

La Comisión no ve ninguna contradicción entre el Reglamento (CE) n° 1223/2009, sobre los productos
cosméticos ( [1] ), y el Real Decreto 1599/1997 en lo referente a la definición de los productos cosméticos y a la
inclusión de los depilatorios en esta categoría de productos, como bien se pone de manifiesto en el anexo I del Real
Decreto, por el que se transpone el anexo I de la Directiva 76/768/CEE ( [2] ), sobre productos cosméticos, y en el
considerando 7 del citado Reglamento, que menciona los depilatorios como ejemplo de productos cosméticos.

De conformidad con el artículo 39 del Reglamento (CE) n° 1223/2009, «no obstante lo dispuesto en la Directiva
76/768/CEE, los productos cosméticos que cumplan [el] Reglamento podrán introducirse en el mercado antes del
11 de julio de 2013. No obstante lo dispuesto en la Directiva 76/768/CEE, a partir del 11 de enero de 2012 la
notificación efectuada con arreglo al artículo 13 [del] Reglamento se considerará que cumple el artículo 7, apartado 3,
y el artículo 7 bis, apartado 4, de dicha Directiva.». Esta disposición implica que, hasta el 10 de julio de 2013 incluido,
los productos cosméticos pueden ajustarse a la Directiva 76/768/CEE (conforme a su transposición en cada Estado
miembro) o al Reglamento (CE) n° 1223/2009.

Además, en relación con el artículo 18 del Real Decreto 1599/1997, los Estados miembros son y seguirán siendo,
como se indica en el considerando 56 del citado Reglamento, libres de regular, «en cumplimiento del Derecho
comunitario, el establecimiento de operadores económicos en el ámbito de los productos cosméticos».

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) DO L 342 de 22.12.2009, p. 59.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) DO L 262 de 27.9.1976, p. 169.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 437

Por consiguiente, los productos cosméticos y, en particular, los depilatorios, pueden fabricarse en España durante la
transición entre la Directiva 76/768/CEE y el Reglamento (CE) n° 1223/2009 en virtud de las disposiciones
transitorias establecidas en este último.

C 310 E / 438 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009891/12**

**to the Commission**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Cosmetic products

Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council seeks to comprehensively harmonise
the rules in the Community in order to achieve an internal market for cosmetic products while ensuring a high level
of protection of human health (Recital 4) and to distinguish cosmetics from medicinal products, medical devices and
biocidal products (Recital 6). The regulation also covers the manufacture of cosmetic products (Article 8) and lists
depilatories as a type of cosmetic (Recital 7). It will enter into force on 11 July 2013 (Article 40). The transitional
provisions set out in Article 39 stipulate that, by way of derogation from Directive 76/768/EEC, cosmetic products
which comply with the regulation may be placed on the market before that date. In Spain, cosmetics are regulated by
Royal Decree No 1599/1997 of 17 October 1997, Article 1 of which defines them as medical products.

The decree defines cosmetic products, establishes the technical and medical criteria they must fulfil, the checks to
which they are subject, the requirements to be met by premises where they are manufactured or imported from third
countries, and lays down provisions relating to labelling, advertising, inspections, infringements and penalties.
Article 18 of the decree states that cosmetic products must be approved by the Spanish Agency for Medicines and
Medical Products (Agencia Española de Medicamentos y Productos Sanitarios) and lays down the requirements that
must be met in order to gain such approval.

In the light of the above and of the list of categories of cosmetic products contained in Annex I to Royal Decree
No 1599/1997:

1. Does the Commission think that there is a contradiction between Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 and Royal
Decree 1599/1997 with regard to whether cosmetics, and depilatories in particular, are medical or nonmedical products?

2. In the light of the forthcoming entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009, do the provisions of Royal
Decree No 1599/1997, in particular Article 18 on manufacturing and import approval and requirements, still
apply to cosmetics manufactured in Spain?

3. May cosmetic products, with specific reference to depilatories, be manufactured in Spain prior to 11 July 2013
under the transitional provisions set out in the regulation?

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

_(17 December 2012)_

The Commission does not see any contradiction between the Cosmetics Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 ( [1] ) and the
Spanish Royal Decree 1599/1997 as regards the definition of cosmetic products and the inclusion of depilatories in
the category of cosmetic products. This is demonstrated by Annex I of the Royal Decree, which transposes Annex I of
the Cosmetics Directive 76/768/EEC ( [2] ), and by Recital 7 of the Cosmetics Regulation, which mention depilatories as
examples of cosmetic products.

According to Article 39 of the Cosmetics Regulation, ‘by way of derogation from Directive 76/768/EEC, cosmetic
products which comply with this regulation may be placed on the market before 11 July 2013. As from
11 January 2012, by way of derogation from Directive 76/768/EEC, notification carried out in accordance with
Article 13 of this regulation shall be considered to comply with Article 7(3) and Article 7a(4) of that directive.’ This
means that, until 10 July 2013 included, cosmetic products may comply either with the Cosmetics Directive (as
transposed by each Member State) or with the Cosmetics Regulation.

In addition, with reference to Article 18 of Royal Decree 1599/1997, Member States are, and will remain, as indicated
by Recital 56 of the Cosmetics Regulation, free to regulate, in compliance with EC law, the establishment of economic
operators in the area of cosmetic products.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 342, 22.12.2009, p.59.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L262, 27.9.1976, p.169.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 439

Cosmetic products, and in particular depilatories, may, therefore, be manufactured in Spain during the transition
between the Cosmetics Directive and the Cosmetics Regulation, under the transitional provisions set out in the
regulation.

C 310 E / 440 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-009892/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)**

_(29 Οκτωβρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Οι εγγυήσεις λειτουργίας του θεσμού των συλλογικών διαπραγματεύσεων στο πλαίσιο του Ελληνικού Μνημονίου

Στο πλαίσιο των πρόσφατων διαπραγματεύσεων της Ελληνικής Κυβέρνησης με την Τρόικα, εγείρεται από την πλευρά της
τελευταίας απαίτηση για ψήφιση νομοθετικής ρύθμισης, σύμφωνα με την οποία ο κατώτατος μισθός στο πεδίο του ιδιωτικού
τομέα θα καθορίζεται αποκλειστικώς με απόφαση κανονιστικού περιεχομένου του αρμόδιου Υπουργού. Κατόπιν τούτου,
ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Κατά πόσον είναι συμβατή ιδίως με διατάξεις του άρθρου 28 του Χάρτη των Θεμελιωδών Δικαιωμάτων της Ευρωπαϊκής
Ένωσης καθώς και με τις διατάξεις των οικείων Διεθνών Συμβάσεων Εργασίας (κυρίως δε των Διεθνών Συμβάσεων Εργασίας
98/1949, άρθρο 2, 151/1978, άρθρο 8 και 154/1981, άρθρο 5), οι οποίες εγγυώνται τη λειτουργία του θεσμού των
συλλογικών διαπραγματεύσεων, ρύθμιση με την οποία ο κατώτατος μισθός στο πεδίο του ιδιωτικού τομέα καθορίζεται
αποκλειστικώς και μόνο με απόφαση κανονιστικού περιεχομένου του αρμόδιου Υπουργού, ακόμη και αν οι κοινωνικοί
εταίροι (συνδικάτα και εργοδότες) έχουν συμφωνήσει διαφορετικά ως προς το ύψος του κατώτατου μισθού, ασκώντας,
καθένας από την πλευρά του, το δικαίωμα συλλογικής αυτονομίας;

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης P-010013/12**

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

_(6 Νοεμβρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Συλλογικές διαπραγματεύσεις στην Ελλάδα και ευρωπαϊκό κεκτημένο

Σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 28 (περί δικαιώματος διαπραγμάτευσης και συλλογικών δράσεων) του Χάρτη Θεμελιωδών
Δικαιωμάτων της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης προβλέπονται ρητά, αφενός το δικαίωμα των εργαζομένων και των εργοδοτών ή των
αντίστοιχων οργανώσεών τους να διαπραγματεύονται και να συνάπτουν συλλογικές συμβάσεις στα ενδεδειγμένα επίπεδα με
βάση το κοινοτικό δίκαιο, τις εθνικές νομοθεσίες και πρακτικές, και, αφετέρου, η αντίστοιχη υποχρέωση των κρατών μελών να
απέχουν από κάθε παρέμβαση στο σύστημα των ελεύθερων διαπραγματεύσεων, καθώς και να σέβονται τα αποτελέσματα των
ελεύθερων διαπραγματεύσεων, όπως αυτά αποτυπώνονται στις διατάξεις των συλλογικών συμβάσεων εργασίας. Σε αυτήν την
κατεύθυνση και με δεδομένο ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, με το άρθρο 6 της Συνθήκης της Λισαβόνας, αναγνωρίζει τα
δικαιώματα, τις ελευθερίες και τις αρχές που περιέχονται στο Χάρτη — ο οποίος έχει το ίδιο νομικό κύρος με τις Συνθήκες
— ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

1. Πώς κρίνει την ενέργεια της προηγούμενης ελληνικής κυβέρνησης να προχωρήσει σε νομοθετική ρύθμιση για τη
μείωση του κατώτατου μισθού, από τις 14 Φεβρουαρίου, στο πλαίσιο του 2ου Μνημονίου;

2. Πώς αξιολογεί την απαίτηση της τρόικα (στην οποία και συμμετέχει) για καθορισμό της κατώτατης αμοιβής με
νομοθετική ρύθμιση — απόφαση κανονιστικού περιεχομένου από τον αρμόδιο υπουργό —, χωρίς να λαμβάνονται
υπόψη τα αποτελέσματα του κοινωνικού διαλόγου;

3. Πόσο συμβατή είναι μια τέτοια ρύθμιση με τις αρχές, τις αξίες και τους στόχους του ευρωπαϊκού κοινωνικού μοντέλου
και του ευρωπαϊκού κεκτημένου;

4. Θεωρεί πως μια τέτοια εξέλιξη μπορεί να οδηγήσει σε παραβιάσεις θεμελιωδών εργασιακών δικαιωμάτων και
κοινωνικών ελευθεριών;

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

_(15 Ιανουαρίου 2013)_

Η προώθηση του διαλόγου μεταξύ των εργοδοτών και των εργαζομένων αποτελεί στόχο της τόσο της Ένωσης όσο και των
κρατών μελών και το δικαίωμα των συλλογικών διαπραγματεύσεων προβλέπεται από τον Χάρτη των Θεμελιωδών
Δικαιωμάτων της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, τον οποίο έχει δεσμευτεί να τηρεί η Επιτροπή.

Οι τρέχουσες μεταρρυθμίσεις όσον αφορά τις μισθολογικές διαπραγματεύσεις είναι το αποτέλεσμα των ειδικών δυσκολιών
που αντιμετωπίζει τώρα η Ελλάδα και της ανάγκης για καλύτερη εναρμόνιση των μισθών με την οικονομική δραστηριότητα
με στόχο την αναχαίτιση και τη μείωση της πολύ μεγάλης ανεργίας και το ξεπέρασμα της ύφεσης.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 441

Ο ρόλος των κοινωνικών εταίρων όσον αφορά τον καθορισμό του κατώτατου νόμιμου μισθού καθορίζεται ρητά στο θεσμικό
πλαίσιο που τίθεται τώρα σε ισχύ. Ο καθορισμός των διαδικασιών ως προς αυτό επαφίεται στον έλληνα νομοθέτη και στην
πρακτική που θα διαμορφωθεί στη συνέχεια. Αναθεώρηση του συστήματος όσον αφορά τον ελάχιστο μισθό προβλέπεται για
το 2014, με στόχο να βελτιωθεί και να γίνει πιο αποτελεσματικό όσον αφορά την αύξηση της απασχόλησης και τη βελτίωση
της ανταγωνιστικότητας της οικονομίας. Οι κοινωνικοί εταίροι θα συμμετάσχουν σε αυτήν την αναθεώρηση.

Η Επιτροπή πιστεύει ότι ο κατώτατος νόμιμος μισθός είναι σύμφωνος με το _κεκτημένο_ της ΕΕ καθώς και με το άρθρο 28 του
Χάρτη των Θεμελιωδών Δικαιωμάτων της ΕΕ ( [1] ), υπό τον όρο ότι οι κοινωνικοί εταίροι θα συμμετέχουν δεόντως στη
διαδικασία λήψης των αποφάσεων. Αυτό αποδεικνύει άλλωστε η πρακτική που ακολουθείται σε πολλά κράτη μέλη της ΕΕ.

Όσον αφορά τις συμβάσεις της ΔΟΕ, τα μνημόνια συμφωνίας προβλέπουν ότι οι μεταρρυθμίσεις όσον αφορά τις εργασιακές
σχέσεις πρέπει να γίνονται σύμφωνα με τους βασικούς κανόνες εργασίας.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Το άρθρο 28 του χάρτη προβλέπει ότι «οι εργαζόμενοι και οι εργοδότες, ή οι αντίστοιχες οργανώσεις τους, έχουν, σύμφωνα με το δίκαιο της Ένωσης και

τις εθνικές νομοθεσίες και πρακτικές, δικαίωμα να διαπραγματεύονται και να συνάπτουν συλλογικές συμβάσεις στα ενδεδειγμένα επίπεδα». Σύμφωνα με το
άρθρο 52 παράγραφος 1 του Χάρτη επιτρέπονται περιορισμοί των δικαιωμάτων που προβλέπει ο Χάρτης, τηρουμένης της αρχής της αναλογικότητας,
«εφόσον είναι αναγκαίοι και ανταποκρίνονται πραγματικά σε στόχους γενικού ενδιαφέροντος που αναγνωρίζει η Ένωση ή στην ανάγκη προστασίας των
δικαιωμάτων και ελευθεριών των τρίτων.».

C 310 E / 442 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009892/12**

**to the Commission**
**Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Guaranteed application of collective agreements under the Greek Memorandum

During recent negotiations with the Greek Government, the Troika called for a legislative arrangement whereby the
minimum wage in the private sector is set solely, in a regulatory decision, by the competent minister. Will the
Commission therefore answer the following:

Is an arrangement whereby the minimum wage in the private sector is set solely and exclusively in a regulatory
decision by the competent minister, even though the social partners (trade unions and employers) have each exercised
their right of collective autonomy and agreed on a different minimum wage, compatible with the provisions of
Article 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and with the provisions of the relevant
International Labour Conventions (especially Article 2 of Convention 98/1949, Article 8 of Convention 151/1978
and Article 5 of Convention 154/1981), which guarantee the system of collective bargaining?

**Question for written answer P-010013/12**

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

_(6 November 2012)_

_Subject:_ Collective Bargaining in Greece and the EU _acquis_

Article 28 (on the right of collective bargaining and action) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European
Union specifically provides both for the right, in accordance with Community law and national laws and practices, of
workers and employers, or their respective organisations, to negotiate and conclude collective agreements at the
appropriate levels, and also for the corresponding obligation of Member States to refrain from any interference in the
system of free negotiations, and to respect the results of free negotiations, as reflected in the provisions of collective
bargaining agreements. In this connection, given that the European Union, by Article 6 of the Treaty of Lisbon,
recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter, which has the same legal status as the Treaties,
will the Commission say:

1. How does it view the decision by the previous Greek Government to proceed with statutory legislation to
reduce the minimum wage from 14 February under the second Memorandum?

2. How does it assess the demand of the Troika (of which it is a member) that the minimum wage should be set by
statutory legislation — a regulatory decision by the Minister responsible — without taking into account the
results of the social dialogue?

3. How compatible is such an arrangement with the principles, values and goals of the European Social Model and
the European _acquis_ ?

4. Does it consider that such a development could lead to violations of fundamental labour rights and social
freedoms?

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

_(15 January 2013)_

The promotion of dialogue between management and labour is an objective of the Union and of the Member States,
and the right to collective bargaining is recognised in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which the Commission
is bound to respect.

The reforms in wage bargaining under way were triggered against the background of exceptional circumstances
confronted by Greece, and the need to promote a stronger responsiveness of wages to economic activity in order to
contain and reduce the very high joblessness and to overcome the recession.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 443

A role for social partners in the setting the statutory minimum wage in Greece is explicitly called for in the framework
that is entering into force. The modalities of that specific involvement are left to the Greek legislator and to the
practise that will follow. A review of the minimum wage system is provided for in 2014, with a view to possibly
improve its simplicity and effectiveness to promote employment and fight unemployment and help the
competitiveness of the economy. Social partners will have a role to play in this review.

The Commission is of the view that a statutory minimum wage is compatible with the EU _acquis_, including Article 28
of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights ( [1] ), provided that appropriate role is given to social partners in related
decision-making process. This is testified also by the practice in many EU Member States.

As regards the ILO Conventions, the Memoranda of Understanding insist on labour reforms to be taken also in
compliance with Core Labour Standards.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Article 28 of the Charter provides that ‘workers and employers, or their respective organisations, have, in accordance with Union law and national

laws and practices, the right to negotiate and conclude collective agreements at the appropriate levels.’ According to Article 52(1) of the Charter,
limitations to the rights recognised under the Charter may be made, subject to the principle of proportionality, ‘if they are necessary and genuinely
meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.’.

C 310 E / 444 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-009893/12**

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

_(29 Οκτωβρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Αναλογία έμμεσων και άμεσων φόρων στην Ελλάδα

Οι έμμεσοι φόροι, όπως παραδέχεται το σύνολο της οικονομικής σκέψης, αποτελούν ένα κοινωνικά άδικο μοντέλο
φορολόγησης, καθώς επιβαρύνουν όλους τους πολίτες ανεξάρτητα από το ύψος του εισοδήματός τους, ενώ η προβολή τους
στη σφαίρα τις πραγματικής οικονομίας — μέσα και από τη διακύμανση της κατανάλωσης — επιφέρει δυσμενείς επιπτώσεις
στη ρευστότητα της αγοράς και τη βιωσιμότητα της επιχειρηματικότητας, κυρίως της μικρομεσαίας, που είναι η
«ραχοκοκκαλιά» της ελληνικής οικονομίας. Όπως παρατηρούμε τα τελευταία δύο χρόνια στην Ελλάδα, ο λόγος έμμεσων και
άμεσων φόρων συνεχώς αυξάνει και ανέρχεται πλέον στο 1,58 (δηλαδή για κάθε 1 ευρώ άμεσων φόρων καταβάλλεται 1,58
ευρώ για έμμεσους!) με την αναλογία να διαμορφώνεται στο 62,2% προς 37,8% _(και χωρίς να υπολογίζονται απολύτως οι_
_τελευταίες αυξήσεις σε έμμεσους φόρους)_ πλήττοντας ιδιαίτερα τα χαμηλότερα εισοδηματικά στρώματα. Σε αυτό το
πλαίσιο, ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

1. Πώς κρίνει αυτή την αναλογία και πώς αξιολογεί ενδεχόμενες συνέπειές της στην κοινωνική συνοχή, αλλά και την
πραγματική οικονομία;

2. Διαθέτει στοιχεία για την αναλογία έμμεσων και άμεσων φόρων στα άλλα κράτη μέλη της ΕΕ, αλλά και της «Ζώνης του
Ευρώ»; Αν ναι, σε ποια θέση των αντίστοιχων κατατάξεων βρίσκεται η Ελλάδα;

3. Ποιo είναι το ενδεδειγμένο ύψος της αναλογίας,προκειμένου αφενός να συμβάλλει στην ανάπτυξη της οικονομίας και
αφετέρου να διασφαλίζει την κοινωνική συνοχή και την πρόσβαση των οικονομικά ασθενέστερων σε αγαθά και
υπηρεσίες πρώτης ανάγκης;

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

_(21 Δεκεμβρίου 2012)_

Στην Ετήσια Επισκόπηση της Ανάπτυξης 2012, καθώς και στην αντίστοιχη επισκόπηση του 2013, η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή
τόνισε την ανάγκη για στροφή από τη φορολόγηση της εργασίας (άμεση φορολογία) σε φόρους που είναι λιγότερο επιζήμιοι
για την ανάπτυξη, όπως οι φόροι κατανάλωσης και περιβάλλοντος ή οι επαναλαμβανόμενοι φόροι ακίνητης περιουσίας (που
συνήθως αποτελούν έμμεσους φόρους). Ανάλογη στροφή, που προτείνεται να προωθήσει τη δημιουργία θέσεων εργασίας και
να βελτιώσει την ανταγωνιστικότητα των οικονομιών των κρατών μελών της ΕΕ, υποστηρίζεται από εμπειρικά στοιχεία. Η ως
άνω μεταβολή ενδέχεται να έχει όντως συνέπειες όσον αφορά την ισότιμη αντιμετώπιση των φορολογουμένων και η
Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή αποδίδει ιδιαίτερη προσοχή σε αυτό το ζήτημα. Ορισμένα μέτρα — όπως η μείωση των φορολογικών
δαπανών που ωφελεί πρωτίστως άτομα υψηλού εισοδήματος — θεωρούνται καθολικής χρησιμότητας καθότι μπορεί να
καταστήσουν αποτελεσματικότερο και δικαιότερο το φορολογικό σύστημα. Εναλλακτικά, αμφότεροι οι ως άνω στόχοι είναι
επίσης δυνατόν να επιτευχθούν με άρτιας σχεδίασης δέσμες μέτρων φορολογικής μεταρρύθμισης.

Τα πλέον πρόσφατα στοιχεία εσόδων διατίθενται στα παραρτήματα της δημοσίευσης «Φορολογικές τάσεις» (Taxation
Trends) και αφορούν το 2010. Με τη χρήση των αντίστοιχων πινάκων είναι δυνατός ο υπολογισμός της αναλογίας
έμμεσων/άμεσων φόρων. Για την Ελλάδα, η αναλογία ανέρχεται σε 1,57, ήτοι είναι παρόμοια με την αναφερόμενη στην
ερώτηση. Συνεπώς, η Ελλάδα θα κατατάσσετο 10η το 2010 μεταξύ των κρατών μελών της ΕΕ όσον αφορά την υψηλότερη
αναλογία έμμεσων φόρων. Ο αριθμητικός μέσος όρος της ΕΕ είναι 1,43.

Εν προκειμένω δεν υπάρχει «ιδανική» αναλογία, πρόκειται, ως επί το πλείστον, για θέμα εθνικών προτιμήσεων και δέοντος
γενικού σχεδιασμού των φορολογικών συστημάτων και των εξισορροπητικών τους συστατικών στοιχείων.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 445

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009893/12**

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

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Ratio between indirect and direct taxes in Greece

Economic experts agree that indirect taxes are a socially unfair tax model, because they are paid by everyone,
irrespective of their level of income, and the way in which they project on the real economy, via fluctuations in
consumption, has an adverse impact on money in circulation and the viability of businesses, especially the small and
medium-sized enterprises that form the ‘backbone’ of the Greek economy. The ratio between indirect and direct taxes
has increased consistently in Greece over the last two years and is now 1.58:1 (meaning that, for every EUR 1 paid in
direct taxes, EUR 1.58 is paid in indirect taxes), giving a ratio of 62.2% to 37.8% ( _disregarding the most recent increases in_
_indirect taxes_ ). This is impacting on low incomes in particular. In this context, will the Commission answer the
following:

1. How does it view this ratio and assess its potential impact on social cohesion and the real economy?

2. Does it have data on the ratio between indirect and direct taxes in other EU Member States and in the euro area?
If so, where does Greece rank?

3. What is the ideal ratio, in terms of helping the economy to grow, on the one hand, and safeguarding social
cohesion and access to vital goods and services for the poorest members of society, on the other?

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

_(21 December 2012)_

In its Annual Growth Survey 2012, and again in the survey of 2013 the European Commission has stressed the need
to shift taxation away from labour (direct tax) towards taxes that are less detrimental to growth such as taxes on
consumption, environment or recurrent property taxes (which are usually indirect taxes). Such a shift is proposed to
promote job creation and to improve the competitiveness of the economies of the EU Member States and is backed by
empirical evidence. Such a shift may indeed have consequences on fairness and the European Commission is attentive
to this aspect. Some measures — such as reducing tax expenditures that mainly benefit high-income earners — are
win-win as they can increase both, the efficiency and fairness of the tax system. Alternatively, well-designed packages
of tax reforms can also achieve both goals.

The latest revenue data available in the annexes of the Taxation Trends publication is for 2010. Using the relevant
tables allows finding the indirect to direct tax ratios. For Greece, this ratio is of 1.57, similar to the one referred to in
the question. Greece would thus rank 10th in 2010 amongst the EU Member States in terms of the highest
proportion of indirect taxes. The EU arithmetic average stands at 1.43.

There is no ‘ideal’ ratio and it remains largely a question of national preference and the appropriate overall design of
tax systems and the balancing elements that constitute such systems.

C 310 E / 446 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009894/12**

**to the Commission**
**Nessa Childers (S&D)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Funding for disabled farmers

Can the Commission assist in the identification of a funding stream which disabled farmers may access in order to
make the necessary physical adaptations/upgrades to their physical environment (pathways/lanes etc.) to facilitate
their ability to continue farming rather than being forced to retire?

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

_(11 December 2012)_

Physical adaptations / upgrades to allow disabled farmers continuing farming can be co-financed by the European
Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), which is provided for under Council Regulation (EC)
No 1698/2005 ( [1] ).

Support is available for investments in the modernization of agricultural holdings aimed at, _inter alia_, improving the
environmental, occupational safety, hygiene and animal welfare status of the farm. Assistance is also available for
infrastructure related to the development and adaptation of agriculture and forestry to cover, for example, operations
related to access to farm. Moreover, in case of reduced ability to farm due to his physical conditions, a farmer can
receive support to diversify into non-agricultural activities, for example agro-tourism businesses or provision of onfarm social services.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 277, 21.10.2005.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 447

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009895/12**

**to the Commission**
**Nessa Childers (S&D)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Establishment of a Youth Entrepreneurship Fund in Ireland

The unemployment rate in Ireland currently stands at 14.8%, with youth unemployment in the 18‐ to 25-year-old
demographic consistently and significantly higher. As a country, we need to do everything we can to prevent
joblessness among an entire generation, as it destroys the confidence of individuals, who see their job prospects
declining the longer they are out of work. Skills erosion on a mass scale due to unemployment may also hinder the
country’s long-run growth prospects. For this reason, it would be of considerable benefit to establish a Youth
Entrepreneurship Fund.

Although there are many forms of state support available via Enterprise Ireland and the local County Enterprise
Boards, there is no specific Youth Entrepreneurship Fund for the young people of Ireland — yet it is something that
exists in many countries around the world. Many young entrepreneurs are struggling to access credit, and unless a
business idea involves or demonstrates manufacturing and export potential, state funding is not available.

Such an initiative could really make a difference and could gain significant support.

Examples include:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2012/06/young-entrepreneurs
http://www.virgin.com/entrepreneur/blog/support-the-youth-investment-fund
http://www.nfib.com/yef/yef-programs/young-entrepreneur-awards
http://www.destl.ca/default.aspx?page=157&lang=en-us
http://www.youthfund.go.ke/index.php/about-us/about-yedf

and the following initiatives identified on the Commission’s own website:

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/documents/education-training-entrepreneurship/
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/documents/erasmus-entrepreneurs/index_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/youth/youth-policies/employment-entrepreneurship_en.htm

1. Can the Commission identify funding streams applicable specifically to young entrepreneurs?

2. Can the Commission comment on any plans to introduce a funding stream to assist young entrepreneurs in line
with the examples cited above? Young Irish entrepreneurs are ideally placed to engage in a pilot study for a scheme of
this nature — can the Commission comment?

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

_(20 December 2012)_

1. Supporting self-employment and new businesses is one of the priorities of the current European Social Fund
(ESF) programming period.

At EU level, EUR 203 million (comprising contributions over four years from the EU and the European Investment
Bank) is also available under the European Progress Microfinance Facility to increase the supply of microcredit to
people, including vulnerable groups like young people, wishing to start their own micro-enterprises. An Irish
microcredit provider is among those receiving support ( [1] ).

The Commission cooperates with the OECD on identifying ways and means of supporting young entrepreneurs. A
‘Policy brief on youth entrepreneurship’ ( [2] ), issued recently by the OECD with financial support from the
Commission, sets out several good practice examples of funding schemes for young entrepreneurs, including the
‘Bridging allowance’ ( _Überbrückungsgeld_ ) and ‘Start-up subsidy’ ( _Ich-AG_ ) programmes in Germany.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=983&langId=en.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/youth/news/20120504-youth-entrepreurship-employment_en.htm

C 310 E / 448 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

2. In addition to such programmes as Erasmus for Entrepreneurs, which the Honourable Member mentions, the
Commission wants to enable the ESF managing authorities in all Member States and regions, including Ireland, to
include targeted activities on entrepreneurship in their ESF programmes for 2014-20. This inclusive entrepreneurship
approach is primarily directed at providing support for under-represented and disadvantaged groups, including
young people, to start up businesses.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 449

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009896/12**

**to the Commission**
**Nessa Childers (S&D)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Funding for academic studies

Can the Commission assist in the identification of a funding stream for an Irish citizen who wishes to undertake the
following academic studies.

1. MBA stage 1 — Management: Perspectives and Practice — The Open University ( [1] ).

Mode of learning: distance learning

— There is no national funding stream to support an Irish student taking a course delivered through distance
learning;

2. MBA in Social Marketing and Behaviour Change — University of Stirling (Scotland, UK) ( [2] ).

Modes of study: part-time study, block study and distance learning. Students may study for individual single modules
or multiple modules simultaneously.

— An Irish citizen may be eligible for financial support for fees for the MBA in Social Marketing and Behaviour
Change at the University of Stirling, but not for a maintenance grant. Can that citizen make an application for
Erasmus funding to facilitate travel to and study within the university as required?

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

_(18 December 2012)_

The Erasmus programme does not support full degree mobility such as that mentioned by the Honourable Member.
The Erasmus Mundus programme does provide support for full degree mobility, but only in the framework of
selected joint masters courses ( [3] ).

The Commission's proposal for the new programme ‘Erasmus for All’ 2014-2020 foresees a new action, the ‘Student
Loan Guarantee Facility.’ This Facility aims to make studying abroad for a full-programme masters course easier by
incentivising financial intermediaries to lend to students on preferential terms. It is planned that this Facility would be
operational from 2014.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www3.open.ac.uk/study/postgraduate/course/b716.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.stir.ac.uk/postgraduate/programme-information/prospectus/management/socialmarketingandbehaviourchange/
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) See: http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/erasmus_mundus/results_compendia/selected_projects_action_1_master_courses_en.php

C 310 E / 450 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-009897/12**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D)**

_(29 octombrie 2012)_

_Subiect:_ Ancheta de examinare a stării de sănătate la nivel european

În ianuarie 2011, în răspunsul să la întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-9841/2010 privind lipsa de date fiabile
disponibile referitoare la obezitatea din UE, Comisia a confirmat că desfășura o „Anchetă de examinare a stării de
sănătate la nivel european”. Proiectul era destinat să înregistreze măsurătorile principale, inclusiv înălțimea și
greutatea, colectate de profesioniști din domeniul sănătății, pentru a furniza date fiabile, comparabile și armonizate.
Proiectul-pilor a colectat date de la participanți din categoria de vârstă 25-64 de ani.

1. Are Comisia intenția de a crea, pe baza proiectului-pilot, o bază de date cuprinzătoare privind nivelurile de
obezitate din UE?

2. Există planul de a include într-o asemenea bază de date copiii, pentru a oferi date cu privire la obezitatea în
rândul copiilor?

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

_(21 decembrie 2012)_

Măsurarea nivelurilor obezității printr-o anchetă de sănătate europeană prin examinare și crearea unei baze de date
cuprinzătoare privind obezitatea ar avea implicații financiare importante care depășesc posibilitățile de finanțare ale
Programului UE în domeniul sănătății. Prin urmare, în prezent sunt explorate alte posibilități de finanțare.

Includerea sau nu a copiilor într-o astfel de anchetă de sănătate europeană prin examinare este o chestiune care poate
fi soluționată numai după stabilirea finanțării și a domeniului general de aplicare al acestui proiect.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 451

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009897/12**

**to the Commission**
**Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ European Health Examination Survey

In January 2011, in its answer to Written Question E-9841/2010 about the lack of reliable data available on obesity
in the EU, the Commission confirmed that it was piloting the ‘European Health Examination Survey’. This project was
designed to record key measurements, including height and weight, collected by health professionals in order to
provide reliable, comparable and harmonised data. The pilot project collected data from participants in the 25‐64 age

group.

1. Does the Commission have any plans to build on the pilot project and to create a comprehensive database of
obesity levels in the EU?

2. Are there any plans to include children in such a database, so as to provide data on childhood obesity?

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

_(21 December 2012)_

Measuring obesity levels through a European health examination survey and creating a comprehensive database of
obesity would have important financial implications which exceed the financing possibilities of the EU health
programme. Other financing possibilities are therefore currently being explored.

Whether children might be included in such a European Health Examination Survey is a question which can only be
answered once the funding and the general scope of this project is established.

C 310 E / 452 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009898/12**

**to the Commission**

**Seán Kelly (PPE)**
_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Review of the Commission's position on the composition of elements used to measure EU carbon output

1. Does the Commission have any plans to review its position on the composition of the elements used to measure
EU carbon output?

2. Specifically, does it have any plans to consider the possibility of including carbon absorption effects in the
calculation of a country’s net carbon output?

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

_(7 January 2013)_

The greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the European Union are measured in accordance with international rules
under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), reported annually in the EU GHG
inventory. Within the Union, the legal act that governs compiling of the Union inventory is the Monitoring
Mechanism Decision ( [1] ). The Commission has proposed to revise this decision by repealing it and replacing it with a
Monitoring Mechanism Regulation that will expand reporting to ensure compliance with newly arising international
monitoring and reporting obligations and commitments, in particular those relating to the second Kyoto
commitment period. The proposal ( [2] ) is currently undergoing the ordinary legislative procedure.

With regard to the ‘carbon absorption effects’ mentioned, which we understand to refer to removals from carbon
sinks, these are already covered in the GHG inventory, under the section on Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry
(LULUCF). In the Union, the LULUCF sector is currently a net carbon sink; this results as removals by sinks are higher
than emissions from sources. Within this sector, forests are a significant net carbon sink, while croplands are a source
and grasslands are a small carbon sink. This situation varies significantly amongst Member States.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Decision 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning a mechanism for monitoring Community greenhouse gas

emissions and for implementing the Kyoto Protocol.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2011)789 final.

( **|**

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 453

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009899/12**

**to the Commission**

**Seán Kelly (PPE)**
_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Measurement of net carbon output

1. Has the Commission, within the past two years, conducted any investigation or research into technologies
and/or methodologies for measuring the absorption of carbon by the forestry sector, which could be used to offset a
country’s net carbon output figure?

2. If so, could the Commission outline what technologies and/or methodologies it has considered and the
outcome of such deliberations?

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

_(7 January 2013)_

Over the years a framework to ensure comparability, accuracy, transparency and methodological consistency has
been developed.

The Commission's recent work on measuring emissions and removals of carbon by the forestry sector is included in
its proposal for a decision on accounting rules and action plans on greenhouse gas emissions and removals resulting
from activities related to land use, land use change and forestry ( [1] ), accompanied by an impact assessment
(SWD(2012) 41 final).

A support project of the Commission's Joint Research Centre currently analyses and enhances monitoring, reporting
and verification of emissions and removals from land use, land use change and forestry in the EU Member States.
Furthermore, the EU 7th Framework Programme for Research also funds a large scale pan-European project (GHGEUROPE ( [2] )) which aims to quantify the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and removals from European terrestrial
ecosystems including the forestry sector.

An overview of the current methods used by Member States to estimate GHG emissions and removals in the forestry
sector can be found in the EU GHG inventory ( [3] ). Different methodologies, as developed by the forestry sector or
management authorities, can be used to estimate carbon stock changes in living biomass, soils and dead organic
matter, and these can be combined in a number of ways.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 93 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.ghg-europe.eu/.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/european-union-greenhouse-gas-inventory-2012.

C 310 E / 454 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009900/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Barbara Lochbihler (Verts/ALE) und Matthias Groote (S&D)**

_(29. Oktober 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Menschenrechte und Klimawandel

Ein großer Teil der Bevölkerung auf der Erde lebt bereits unter Bedingungen, die gegen die grundlegendsten
Menschenrechte verstoßen. Ohne entsprechende Maßnahmen wird der Klimawandel diese Situation aufgrund der
sinkenden Nahrungsmittel‐ und Wasserversorgungssicherheit, der Beschädigung und Zerstörung von Häusern und
der physischen Risiken für gefährdete Menschen als Folge der extremen Wetterbedingungen noch verschärfen.

Die Führungsrolle der EU im Hinblick auf die Verteidigung der Menschenrechte und die Förderung des Umweltrechts
kann nur glaubwürdig sein, wenn die EU konsequent handelt und doppelte Standards sowohl in Bezug auf ihre
Menschenrechtspolitik und andere externe Politiken als auch auf ihre interne und externe Umweltpolitik vermeidet.

1. Welche spezifischen Maßnahmen trifft die Kommission, um die negativen Folgen des Klimawandels auf die
wirksame Wahrnehmung der Menschenrechte in der EU und weltweit zu bewältigen?

2. Was unternimmt die Kommission, um die aufgrund der Auswirkungen des Klimawandels gefährdetsten
Menschen — insbesondere Frauen, Kinder, ältere Menschen, Menschen mit Behinderungen, ethnische Minderheiten
und indigene Gruppen — zu schützen?

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

_(4. Dezember 2012)_

1. Bei der Weiterentwicklung der Klimapolitik bezieht die Kommission den Klimawandel auch in externe
Politikbereiche und insbesondere in die Entwicklungszusammenarbeit mit ein. Die Anpassung an den Klimawandel
ist Teil des Gesamtansatzes für Migration und Mobilität, in dem die auswärtige Migrationspolitik der EU zur
effektiveren Steuerung der Migrationsströme festgelegt ist. Im Vorschlag der Kommission für ein
Katastrophenschutzverfahren der Europäischen Union wird erklärt, dass ein integrierter Ansatz für das
Katastrophenmanagement aufgrund des Klimawandels zunehmend wichtiger wird und dass die EU Maßnahmen der
Mitgliedstaaten im Bereich des Katastrophenschutzes unterstützen sollte, um Systeme zur Prävention und Abwehr
von Katastrophen zu verbessern. Der Handlungsrahmen zur Gewährleistung der wirksamen Wahrnehmung der
Grundrechte wird durch Artikel 6 Absatz 1 EUV und Artikel 51 Absatz 2 der Charta der Grundrechte der
Europäischen Union festgelegt. Dort heißt es, dass durch die in der Charta anerkannten Rechte weder die
Zuständigkeiten der Europäischen Union erweitert noch neue Zuständigkeiten oder neue Aufgaben für die
Europäische Union begründet werden.

2. Bei der Einbeziehung des Klimawandels in die Politikbereiche der EU stehen insbesondere gefährdete
Bevölkerungsgruppen im Vordergrund, die bei der Bewältigung der Auswirkungen des Klimawandels unterstützt
werden sollen. Dass der Kampf gegen Armut und soziale Ausgrenzung in die Strategie Europa 2020 miteinbezogen
wird, ist von hoher Bedeutung, denn dadurch kann die Anpassungsfähigkeit der Menschen gestärkt und ihre
Gefährdung verringert werden. Im Rahmen der Anpassungsstrategie der EU, die im Frühjahr 2013 angenommen
werden soll, will die Kommission Leitlinien für Maßnahmen einführen, die die Anpassungsfähigkeit der Bevölkerung
im Allgemeinen und insbesondere die der am meisten betroffenen Gruppen stärken könnten. Die Umsetzung dieser
Leitlinien durch die Mitgliedstaaten kann dazu beitragen, weitreichende Auswirkungen von extremen
Wetterereignissen wie z. B. Hitzewellen für gefährdete Gruppen abzuschwächen oder zu vermeiden.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 455

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009900/12**

**to the Commission**
**Barbara Lochbihler (Verts/ALE) and Matthias Groote (S&D)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Human rights and climate change

A large proportion of the planet’s population already lives in conditions which deny people their most basic human
rights. Without appropriate action, climate change will exacerbate this situation on account of diminishing food and
water security, damage to and destruction of homes, and physical risks to vulnerable people themselves as a result of
extreme weather.

The EU’s leading role in defending human rights and promoting environmental law can be credible only if the EU acts
consistently, avoiding double standards both between its human rights policy and other external policies, and
between internal and external environmental policies.

1. What specific action is the Commission taking to address the negative impact of climate change on the effective
enjoyment of human rights in the EU and internationally?

2. What is the Commission doing to protect those most vulnerable to the impact of climate change, notably
women, children, the elderly, people with disabilities, ethnic minorities and indigenous groups?

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

_(4 December 2012)_

1. In the development of climate change policies, the Commission integrates climate change into external policies,
in particular, development cooperation. Adaptation to climate change is now part of the Global Approach to
Migration and Mobility, the EU's external migration policy to manage migration flows more effectively. The
Commission proposal for a Union Civil Protection Mechanism states that because of climate change an integrated
approach to disaster management is increasingly important, and the EU should support Member State actions in civil
protection to improve systems for disaster prevention and response. Scope for further specific action to ensure the
effective enjoyment of fundamental rights is delimited by Article 6(1) TEU and Article 51(2) of the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union, stating that the rights recognised by the Charter shall neither extend the
field of application of Union law nor create any new power for the Union.

2. As part of mainstreaming climate change into EU policies, particular focus is spent on vulnerable groups to help
them cope with impacts. Inclusion of fight against poverty and social exclusion in Europe 2020 is important in
increasing people's adaptive capacity and reducing their vulnerability. As part of the EU Adaptation Strategy foreseen
for adoption in spring 2013, the Commission intends to adopt guidelines for policies that could enhance the adaptive
capacity of the population in general, and particularly of the groups most affected. Their implementation by Member
States can reduce or avoid that large-scale impacts caused through extreme events such as heat waves would highly
affect vulnerable groups.

C 310 E / 456 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-009901/12**

**à la Commission**

**Gaston Franco (PPE) et Struan Stevenson (ECR)**

_(29 octobre 2012)_

_Objet:_ Révision de la législation européenne en matière d'emballages et de déchets d'emballages

Le recyclage des déchets est essentiel pour une croissance européenne durable, inclusive et respectueuse de
l'environnement. Alors que la demande mondiale de matières premières, par ailleurs limitées, ne cesse d'augmenter, et
que l'Union dépend de plus en plus des importations, ce recyclage devient plus que jamais une nécessité. Malgré la
directive relative aux emballages et aux déchets d'emballages (94/62/CE), adoptée en 1994 et révisée en 2005, certains
produits recyclables ne sont pas recyclés; les emballages en aluminium de petite taille en sont le meilleur exemple.

L'annexe I de la directive relative aux emballages et aux déchets d'emballages a été récemment modifiée afin d'inclure
une liste d'exemples de critères illustrant ce qui constitue et ce qui ne constitue pas un emballage dans le contexte du
recyclage des déchets. Plusieurs exemples donnés dans l'annexe I modifiée pourraient représenter un véritable
obstacle à la liberté et à la responsabilité des États membres quant à l'accessibilité de leurs systèmes de collecte et de
recyclage des déchets pour les biens des entreprises souhaitant recycler de façon efficace.

Encourager les États membres à collecter ce type de déchets augmenterait la quantité de matériaux collectés et recyclés
et leur permettrait également de percevoir des recettes supplémentaires qu'ils pourraient utiliser à des fins de
modernisation des infrastructures de recyclage.

1. La Commission connaît-elle le pourcentage exact de matériaux recyclables qui ne sont actuellement pas recyclés
au sein de l'Union?

2. À la suite de la demande des États membres adressée à la Commission de fournir une liste d'exemples de critères
illustrant ce qui constitue un emballage (annexe I de la directive 94/62/CE), comment la Commission peut-elle
promouvoir le recours aux infrastructures de collecte, de tri et de recyclage des emballages pour les déchets qui ne
sont pas des emballages (comme les marteaux), afin d'éviter la mise en décharge dans la mesure du possible?

3. La Commission envisage-t-elle de réviser et d'améliorer la législation actuelle portant sur les emballages et les
déchets d'emballages, au vu des innovations sociales et technologiques en matière de recyclage intervenues
depuis 1996?

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

_(18 décembre 2012)_

1. On ne dispose pas de suffisamment de données globales sur la proportion de matériaux recyclables qui sont
effectivement recyclés. L'Union européenne a atteint un taux de recyclage d'environ 40 % pour les déchets
municipaux, qui peut être utilisé comme indicateur de la performance globale. Les États membres les plus
performants atteignent des taux compris entre 70 et 80 %. Des améliorations sont donc toujours possibles au niveau
de l'Union.

2. La législation de l'Union intègre plusieurs objectifs juridiquement contraignants en matière de recyclage pour les
différents flux de déchets (les déchets d'équipements électroniques et électriques, les piles, les déchets municipaux, les
véhicules hors d'usage, par exemple) ainsi que pour les emballages. La directive-cadre sur les déchets ( [1] ) contient un
ensemble de dispositions et d'objectifs généraux visant à garantir des taux de recyclage plus élevés. Parmi ceux-ci
figurent des objectifs concernant la préparation en vue du réemploi et le recyclage des déchets ménagers (50 % d'ici
à 2020) ainsi que le réemploi, le recyclage et les autres formules de valorisation de matière pour les déchets de
construction et de démolition (70 % d'ici à 2020). La hiérarchie des déchets visée par la directive-cadre sur les déchets
invite les États membres à encourager et à favoriser la création de réseaux de réemploi et de réparation, qui sont
préférables au recyclage. Le recyclage est préférable à l'incinération avec valorisation énergétique et l'élimination ne
doit être envisagée qu'en dernier ressort. La Commission soutient l'échange des meilleures pratiques, notamment en
encourageant l'utilisation d'instruments économiques pour inciter au recyclage, compte tenu de leur efficacité
prouvée ( [2] ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) JO L 312 du 22.11.2008, p 3.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) BiolS, 2012, Use of economic instruments and waste management performances. Rapport final, (en anglais uniquement),

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/final_report_10042012.pdf et ses annexes: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/index.htm

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 457

3. Comme elle l'a indiqué dans son programme de travail pour l'année 2013, publié le 23 octobre 2012 ( [3] ), la
Commission a l'intention de procéder à une évaluation ex post de cinq directives relatives aux flux de déchets (y
compris la directive sur les emballages) et d'entamer une révision des objectifs prévus par la directive-cadre sur les
déchets, la directive sur les décharges et la directive sur les emballages. En fonction des résultats de cette révision, des
objectifs révisés peuvent être proposés d'ici à 2014.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 629 final, disponible à l'adresse suivante: http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/pdf/cwp2013_fr.pdf

C 310 E / 458 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009901/12**

**to the Commission**
**Gaston Franco (PPE) and Struan Stevenson (ECR)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Revision of EU legislation on packaging and packaging waste

Recycling waste is critical for sustainable, inclusive and green growth in Europe. In the face of increasing world
demand for scarce raw materials and the EU’s growing dependence on imports, it is becoming more of a necessity
than ever. Notwithstanding the directive on packaging and packaging waste (94/62/EC), adopted in 1994 and revised
in 2005, some recyclable products are not recycled, the most significant example being small aluminium packaging.

Annex I to the directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste was recently amended to include a list of illustrative
examples of criteria for what does and what does not constitute packaging in the context of waste recycling. Several
examples given in the amended Annex I could represent a real obstacle to Member States’ freedom and responsibility
in relation to opening their waste collection and recycling systems to goods that companies would like to recycle
efficiently.

Encouraging Member States to collect this type of product would increase the quantity of material collected and
recycled, and would also permit the receipt of additional revenue that could be used to help modernise packaging
recycling infrastructure.

1. Does the Commission know the exact percentage of recyclable materials that are not currently recycled in the
EU?

2. Following the Member States’ request to the Commission to provide a list of illustrative examples of criteria for
what constitutes packaging (Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC), how can the Commission incentivise the use of
packaging collection, sorting and recycling infrastructure for recycling non-packaging products (such as hammers) in
order to avoid using landfill as far as possible?

3. Does the Commission envisage revising and improving the existing legislation on packaging and packaging
waste in view of the social and technological innovations that have occurred in the recycling field since 1996?

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

_(18 December 2012)_

1. There is a lack of global statistics on the proportion of recyclable materials actually being recycled. The EU has
achieved a recycling rate of around 40% on municipal waste, which can be used as a proxy for overall performance.
Best performing Member States achieve rates between 70-80%. This shows that the EU still has room for
improvement.

2. EU legislation integrates several legally binding recycling targets for the different waste streams (e.g. Waste
Electronic and Electric Equipment, batteries, municipal waste, End-of-Life Vehicles) as well as for packaging. The
Waste Framework Directive (WFD) ( [1] ) includes a set of general requirements and objectives to ensure higher recycling
rates. These include targets on the preparation for reuse and recycling for household waste (50% by 2020), and reuse,
recycling and other material recovery for construction and demolition waste (70% by 2020). The Waste Hierarchy of
the WFD requires Member States to encourage and support the establishment of reuse and repair networks, which are
preferred to recycling. Recycling is preferred to incineration with energy recovery and disposal should only be
considered as a last resort. The Commission is promoting the exchange of best practices, in particular by encouraging
the use of economic instruments to incentivise recycling, given their proven efficiency ( [2] ).

3. As laid out in the Commission Work Programme for 2013, published on 23 October 2012 ( [3] ), the Commission
intends to undertake an Ex-Post evaluation of five waste stream directives (including the Packaging Directive) and the
launch of a review of the targets as foreseen by the WFD, the Landfill Directive and the Packaging Directive.
Depending on the results of this review, revised targets might be proposed by 2014.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 312/3, 22.11.2008.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) BioIS, 2012. Use of economic instruments and waste management performances. Final report,

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/final_report_10042012.pdf; and Annexes: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/use.htm

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 629 final, available at http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/pdf/cwp2013_en.pdf

( **|**

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 459

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009902/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Iva Zanicchi (PPE)**

_(29 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Haiti e il flagello del colera

Secondo un rapporto di MSF (Médecins sans frontières), oltre 350 000 sopravvissuti al terremoto vivono ad oggi nei
campi di Port-au-Prince e migliaia di persone abitano nelle baraccopoli, dove le condizioni sanitarie sono terribili e il
rischio di contrarre il colera è molto elevato. Dall'ottobre 2010, la malattia ha causato oltre 7 500 morti su i circa
600 000 casi accertati (circa il 6 % della popolazione). Gli abitanti di Haiti non dispongono ancora dei mezzi per
implementare condizioni igieniche adeguate.

Dall'inizio dell'anno, oltre 12 000 pazienti sono stati curati nei cinque centri per il trattamento del colera (CTC),
gestiti da MSF a Port-au-Prince e a Léogâne. Il numero è calato rispetto allo stesso periodo del 2011 ma resta ancora
alto, i nuovi casi sono infatti circa 250 a settimana.

A tale complessa situazione, si aggiunge una problematica ulteriore: i finanziamenti internazionali sono diminuiti, e
ciò ostacola l'azione delle agenzie umanitarie.

MSF sostiene che la sconfitta del colera è ancora lontana, in quanto le misure di prevenzione e trattamento sono
insufficienti. Non aiuta poi la lenta capacità di reazione del Ministero della Salute: MSF ha trattato più del 70 % dei casi
registrati a Port-au-Prince, durante il picco più recente dello scorso maggio.

Il colera è facilmente curabile, ma è fondamentale che i centri specializzati siano accessibili e che i pazienti siano
ricoverati il prima possibile dopo la comparsa dei primi sintomi. Bastano delle semplici misure per far inserire il
trattamento del colera nei servizi forniti dalle strutture sanitarie di Haiti.

Quali misure intende dunque intraprendere la Commissione per sostenere le autorità sanitarie haitiane e fornire
sostegno tecnico e logistico alle strutture sanitarie al fine di agevolare l'inserimento del trattamento del colera?

**Risposta di Andris Piebalgs a nome della Commissione**

_(14 dicembre 2012)_

Il colera resta uno dei principali problemi sanitari che il paese deve affrontare attualmente. Una pluralità di donatori
tra cui l'UE sostiene il governo di Haiti perché possa gestire i casi di colera nelle strutture sanitarie generali e a
procurare un maggior accesso all'acqua potabile e a servizi igienici così da prevenire futuri focolai di colera. In linea
con l'efficacia e la titolarità degli aiuti, tutte le attività dei donatori sono organizzate delle autorità governative
nell'ambito di due gruppi di coordinamento settoriale di donatori nei settori della salute e dello sviluppo urbano.

In tale contesto la Commissione continua a fornire sostegno per prevenire e per curare il colera. Utilizzando i fondi
del bilancio umanitario dell'UE la Commissione ha sostenuto la prestazione di cure idonee nonché la fornitura di
acqua potabile e d'impianti igienico-sanitari adeguati. L'UE interviene inoltre sotto il profilo tecnico per rafforzare le
capacità del ministero della Salute e delle autorità sanitarie di rispondere alla malattia, sia mediante corsi di
formazione del personale sia sostenendo l'amministrazione e la gestione della catena di approvvigionamento di
medicinali alle strutture di assistenza sanitaria. Per quanto riguarda la prevenzione del colera, nell'ambito di
un'impostazione diretta a collegare aiuto, risanamento e sviluppo l’UE sostiene la costruzione d'infrastrutture idriche
e igienico-sanitarie in determinate aree urbane nell'ambito di un più ampio programma di sviluppo urbano integrato
(46,5 milioni di euro).

In seguito all’uragano Sandy che ha colpito Haiti poche settimane fa la Commissione segue da vicino l'evolversi
dell'epidemia di colera. Parte dei fondi umanitari destinati agli interventi successivi all'uragano (240 000 euro) è
impiegata nella prevenzione, nel controllo e nella cura dei casi di colera nell'intento di rendere più efficaci le misure
anticolera già esistenti nel paese.

C 310 E / 460 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009902/12**

**to the Commission**

**Iva Zanicchi (PPE)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Haiti and the scourge of cholera

According to a report by Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), more than 350 000 earthquake survivors are still being
housed in camps in Port-au-Prince. Thousands of people are living in shanty towns, where sanitary conditions remain
deplorable and the risk of being infected with cholera is extremely high. Since October 2010, the disease has infected
approximately 600 000 Haitians (roughly six per cent of the country’s population) and has killed more than 7 500
people. Haitians no longer have the resources to put in place appropriate standards of hygiene.

Since the start of the year, more than 12 000 patients have been treated in five cholera treatment centres (CTCs) run
by MSF in Port-au-Prince and Léogâne. This is a decrease compared with the same period in 2011, but given that there
are around 250 new cases each week, this is still a high number.

The overall situation is further complicated by another problem: the work of humanitarian agencies is being impeded
due to reduced international funding.

MSF maintains that, as long as cholera prevention and treatment measures remain inadequate, it will still take a long
time to eradicate the disease. A further issue is the slow response capability of the Ministry of Health. As a result,
during the most recent spike of new cases in May, MSF treated more than 70% of patients registered in Port-au-Prince.

Cholera is an easily treatable disease, but it is crucial that specialised treatment centres are made accessible and that
patients are brought to them as soon the first symptoms appear. Simple measures are all that are needed to integrate
cholera treatment into the services provided by Haiti’s healthcare facilities.

What measures does the Commission therefore intend to take to support the Haitian health authorities and provide
technical and logistical support to healthcare facilities in order to facilitate the integration of cholera treatment?

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

_(14 December 2012)_

Cholera remains one of the main health challenges the country is currently facing. A number of donors, including
the EU, are supporting the Government of Haiti to integrate cholera case management into its general health
structures and to provide increased access to safe water and sanitation in an effort to prevent future cholera
outbreaks. In line with aid effectiveness and ownership, all donor activities are coordinated by government authorities
in the framework of the two sectorial donor coordination groups in the areas of health and urban development.

In this context, the Commission continues to provide support for both the prevention and response to cholera. Using
funds from the EU's humanitarian budget the Commission has been supporting the provision of adequate treatment,
safe water and proper sanitation and hygiene. In order to increase the capacities of the Ministry and health authorities
to respond to the disease, the EU delivers technical support through training of personnel, support to administration
and management of drug supply chains to healthcare facilities. In the area cholera prevention, the EU has adopted a
‘Linking Relief Rehabilitation and Development’ approach through supporting the construction of water and
sanitation infrastructure in a selected number of urban areas as part of a wider integrated urban development
programme (EUR 46.5 million).

Following Hurricane Sandy which struck Haiti a few weeks ago the Commission is closely monitoring the cholera
epidemic. Part of the EU humanitarian funds allocated to the response to Hurricane Sandy (EUR 240 000) includes
prevention, surveillance of and response to cholera in order to reinforce the already existing anti-cholera measures in
the country.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 461

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009903/12**

**à Comissão**
**Elisa Ferreira (S&D), Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), António Fernando Correia de Campos (S&D),**
**Ana Gomes (S&D), Vital Moreira (S&D), Edite Estrela (S&D) e Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos (S&D)**

_(29 de outubro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Possível tratamento preferencial à Irlanda

Considerando a comunicação conjunta, de 21 de outubro, dos Governos da Alemanha e da Irlanda, qualificando a
Irlanda como um caso especial entre os Estados-Membros sob assistência financeira, e a subsequente declaração do
Presidente da República Francesa, na qual expressa a sua concordância com a supracitada comunicação,

Solicitamos resposta às seguintes questões:

1. Admite a Comissão conceder à Irlanda um tratamento preferencial, nomeadamente recomendando a
recapitalização direta retroativa dos bancos irlandeses por parte do Mecanismo Europeu de Estabilização, sem
garantir que tratamento equivalente seja concedido aos bancos sedeados nos outros Estados-Membros sob
assistência _financeira?_

2. Não constituiria tal facto uma grosseira violação das regras de concorrência no mercado financeiro, bem como
do princípio fundamental de tratamento igual entre Estados‐Membros _?_

**Resposta dada por Joaquín Almunia em nome da Comissão**

_(24 de janeiro de 2013)_

Na Cimeira do Euro de 29 de junho de 2012, os Chefes de Estado e de Governo da zona do euro chegaram a um
acordo em relação à necessidade de quebrar o ciclo vicioso entre os bancos e as obrigações soberanas. Após a criação
de um mecanismo de supervisão único, o Mecanismo Europeu de Estabilidade (MEE) poderá ser autorizado a
recapitalizar os bancos diretamente ( [1] ). A declaração indica também que o Eurogrupo irá examinar a situação do setor
financeiro irlandês e que casos semelhantes serão tratados da mesma forma.

A esta declaração seguiu-se uma comunicação conjunta dos ministros das finanças da Finlândia, Alemanha e Países
Baixos no dia 25 de setembro de 2012 ( [2] ) e a comunicação de 21 de outubro de 2012 ( [3] ) do Taoiseach irlandês e da
chanceler alemã.

A Comissão sublinha que todas estas comunicações foram feitas no contexto do Eurogrupo. O Tratado do MEE é um
tratado internacional entre os Estados-Membros da zona do euro. Ao abrigo do Tratado do MEE, são os EstadosMembros que decidem as condições subjacentes a uma recapitalização direta do MEE.

A Comissão salienta que é provável que uma recapitalização do MEE tenha implicações em matéria de auxílios
estatais, colocando a Comissão em posição de aplicar as regras em matéria de auxílios estatais. Nesse caso, a Comissão
irá garantir que a ajuda pública está em conformidade com as regras de auxílio estatal no contexto da crise financeira.
Em concreto, isto significa que a Comissão irá certificar-se de que os instrumentos de auxílio previstos pelo MEE são
suficientemente remunerados e que os bancos que recebem a ajuda serão reestruturados. A aplicação das regras em
matéria de auxílio estatal garantiria, consequentemente, a manutenção de condições equitativas nos mercados
financeiros, uma vez que tais regras se aplicam a todos os Estados-Membros, tanto aos que fazem parte da zona do

euro como aos restantes.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) A Declaração da Cimeira do Euro pode ser encontrada em: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/131359.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) A comunicação de 25 de setembro de 2012:

http://www.vm.fi/vm/en/03_press_releases_and_speeches/01_press_releases/20120925JointS/name.jsp

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) A comunicação de 21 de outubro de 2012: http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/News/Government_Press_Releases_2012/Joint_Communique_from

_Taoiseach_Enda_Kenny_and_Chancellor_Angela_Merkel.html

( **|**

C 310 E / 462 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009903/12**

**to the Commission**
**Elisa Ferreira (S&D), Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), António Fernando Correia de Campos (S&D),**
**Ana Gomes (S&D), Vital Moreira (S&D), Edite Estrela (S&D) and Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos (S&D)**

_(29 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Possible preferential treatment of Ireland

Given the joint statement issued by the German and Irish Governments on 21 October, describing Ireland as a special
case among Member States receiving financial assistance, and given the French President’s subsequent agreement with
this statement,

We would ask the Commission:

1. Does it admit to granting Ireland preferential treatment, particularly by recommending the retroactive direct
recapitalisation of Irish banks using the European Stability Mechanism, without ensuring that equal treatment
is being given to banks domiciled in other Member States receiving financial assistance?

2. _Does this not constitute a gross violation of competition rules in the financial market, as well as the fundamental principle_
_of equal treatment between Member States?_

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

_(24 January 2013)_

At the Euro summit of 29 June 2012, the Heads of State and Government of the Eurozone agreed on the need to
break the vicious circle between banks and the sovereign. After a single supervisory mechanism is established, the
European Stability Mechanism (ESM) could be allowed to recapitalise banks directly ( [1] ). The statement also indicates
that the Eurogroup will examine the situation of the Irish financial sector and that similar cases will be treated equally.

This statement was followed by a joint-statement by the Finnish, German and Dutch Ministers for Finance on
25 September 2012 ( [2] ) and the statement of 21 October 2012 ( [3] ) by the Irish Taoiseach and the German Chancellor.

The Commission emphasises that all these statements have been made in the context of the Eurogroup. The ESM
Treaty is an international treaty between Eurozone Member States. Under the ESM Treaty it is the Member States who
decide upon the conditions attached to an ESM direct recapitalisation.

The Commission points out that a direct recapitalisation by the ESM is likely to have state aid implications, placing
the Commission in a position to apply the state aid rules. In that case, the Commission will ensure that public support
will be in line with state aid financial crisis rules. Concretely, this means that the Commission will verify that the aid
instruments provided by the ESM are sufficiently remunerated and that the banks receiving the aid will be
restructured. The application of the state aid rules would therefore ensure that the level playing field on financial
markets is maintained, as they apply to all Member States, both inside and outside the Eurozone.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) The Euro summit statement can be found in http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/131359.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) The statement of 25 September 2012 http://www.vm.fi/vm/en/03_press_releases_and_speeches/01_press_releases/20120925JointS/name.jsp
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) The statement of 21 October 2012 http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/News/Government_Press_Releases_2012/Joint_Communique_from

_Taoiseach_Enda_Kenny_and_Chancellor_Angela_Merkel.html

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 463

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite P-009904/12**

**au Conseil**
**Christine De Veyrac (PPE)**

_(30 octobre 2012)_

_Objet:_ Cadre financier pluriannuel 2014-2020

Les députés du Parlement européen réunis cette semaine à Strasbourg ont voté mardi 23 octobre 2012 une résolution
à une large majorité concernant les promesses effectuées par les dirigeants de l'Union européenne lors du sommet de
juin 2012 sur les futurs budgets de la recherche et de la compétitivité pour la période 2014-2020.

Les députés européens ont donc, par la même occasion, mis en garde les États membres concernant les éventuelles
coupes budgétaires dans les domaines qui encouragent la croissance et la compétitivité de l'Union.

Les États membres se doivent de maintenir leurs engagements concernant les grands programmes qui font la réelle
valeur ajoutée de l'Union, notamment les programmes GMES, Galileo ou encore ITER. Pendant plusieurs mois, une
forme d'incertitude a plané sur ces grands projets. Les députés européens ont, de leur côté, trouvé un accord au cours
des travaux parlementaires à Bruxelles et à Strasbourg pour assurer leur financement sur la période 2014‐2020.

Néanmoins, cette incertitude n'est pas entièrement levée car certains États membres menacent toujours de faire des
coupes budgétaires dans la proposition de budget de la Commission. Le Parlement européen défend, quant à lui, au
minimum le statu quo par rapport à la période 2007-2013.

Le Conseil européen se réunira les 22 et 23 novembre 2012 à Bruxelles lors d'un sommet spécial et celui-ci donnera
sa position concernant le cadre financier pluriannuel 2014-2020.

Le Conseil, s'il décidait de réduire le budget de l'Union contrairement à l'avis du Parlement européen, justifierait-il
publiquement et assumerait-il cette prise de position qui pourrait mettre en péril l'avenir de certains grands projets
européens créateurs d'emplois et donc de croissance et de compétitivité en Europe?

**Réponse**
_(21 janvier 2013)_

Lors de sa réunion des 22 et 23 novembre 2012, le Conseil européen n'est pas parvenu à dégager un consensus sur le
cadre financier pluriannuel de l'Union pour la période 2014‐2020. Les négociations bilatérales et les discussions
constructives qui ont été menées au sein du Conseil européen ont fait apparaître un degré suffisant de convergence
potentielle pour qu'un accord soit possible au début de l'année prochaine. Le Conseil n'a donc pas encore pris position
sur les questions soulevées par l'Honorable Parlementaire.

C 310 E / 464 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-009904/12**

**to the Council**
**Christine De Veyrac (PPE)**

_(30 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Multiannual financial framework 2014-2020

On Tuesday 23 October 2012 Parliament adopted, by a large majority, a resolution on the promises made by EU
leaders at the June 2012 summit regarding the research and competitiveness budgets for the period 2014‐2020.

Parliament warned the Member States against making budget cuts in areas which are of key importance to growth
and competitiveness in the EU.

Member States must abide by the commitments they have made with respect to major programmes that provide real
added value for the EU, such as the GMES, Galileo and ITER programmes. For several months now, the fate of these
major projects has been in doubt. Despite Parliament having reached an agreement during discussions in Brussels and
Strasbourg on arrangements that will ensure that these projects are funded over the period 2014‐2020, doubts have
not been entirely dispelled, since some Member States are still threatening to make cuts to the Commission's budget
proposals. For its part, Parliament maintains that the budget should, at the very least, be kept at the same level as in
the 2007‐2013 period.

The Council is set to meet on 22 and 23 November 2012 in Brussels for a special summit at which it will state its
position on the multiannual financial framework 2014‐2020.

If the Council decides to reduce the EU budget in the face of Parliament's opposition, will it publicly state its reasons
for doing so and take full responsibility for a stance which could jeopardise the future of major European projects that
create jobs and thus promote growth and competitiveness in Europe?

**Reply**
_(21 January 2013)_

The European Council did not reach a consensus on the Union's Multiannual Financial Framework for the period
2014-2020 at its meeting on 22-23 November 2012. The bilateral talks and the constructive discussion within the
European Council showed a sufficient degree of potential convergence to make an agreement possible at the
beginning of next year. The Council has therefore not yet reached a position on the issues raised by the Honourable
Member.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 465

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009906/12**

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

**Fiorello Provera (EFD)**

_(30 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Sventato attentato di al-Qaida in Giordania

Il 21 ottobre 2012, numerose fonti di informazione hanno riferito che l'intelligence giordana avrebbe scongiurato
uno dei maggiori attacchi terroristici organizzati nella regione da al-Qaida. Il gruppo aveva intenzione di provocare
esplosioni in diverse zone della capitale, Amman. Undici militanti sono stati arrestati. Secondo i funzionari giordani,
gli attentatori intendevano sferrare un attacco di portata maggiore rispetto a quello del 2005, durante il quale vennero
fatte esplodere bombe in tre alberghi della città, con un bilancio di oltre 60 vittime.

I militanti pianificavano di utilizzare armi provenienti dalla Siria per compiere due attentati suicidi all'interno di
altrettanti centri commerciali. Ciò avrebbe creato un diversivo prima di sferrare un altro attacco ad Abdoun, il
quartiere più ricco di Amman. Il risultato sarebbe stato simile a quello degli attacchi a Mumbai nel 2008. Tra gli
obiettivi figuravano alcuni diplomatici occidentali.

Samih al-Maayatah, ministro giordano dell'informazione, ha affermato che i sospetti terroristi erano giunti dalla Siria,
ma di fatto erano tutti cittadini giordani che operavano su istruzione delle forze di al-Qaida in Iraq. I militanti sono
stati catturati mentre il gruppo selezionava gli attentatori suicidi per gli attacchi. I soggetti interessati sono accusati di
cospirazione mirata ad attacchi terroristici, nonché di detenzione di esplosivi.

La Giordania si trova ad affrontare numerose minacce per la sicurezza scaturite dal conflitto in Siria. Le truppe
statunitensi sono impegnate a consigliare i militari giordani su come gestire il pericolo che la situazione pone per la
stabilità interna del paese.

1. È il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante al corrente del progetto di attentato terroristico sventato in Giordania?

2. Qual è la valutazione del Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante in merito alla probabilità di ulteriori cospirazioni
terroristiche in Giordania?

3. Qual è il ruolo di al-Qaida nell'orchestrare operazioni terroristiche in Giordania e in Siria?

4. È l'Unione europea preparata a sostenere le autorità giordane offrendo assistenza per contrastare il terrorismo?

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

_(22 gennaio 2013)_

La stampa giordana e internazionale ha dato ampia copertura al presunto piano terroristico di Al‐Qaeda, sventato dai
servizi segreti giordani, e al relativo arresto di 11 cittadini giordani.

In passato la Giordania, come altri paesi vicini, è stata bersaglio di attentati terroristici che hanno causato decine di
vittime, un alto prezzo in termini di vite umane. L’intera regione ha fatto fronte alle minacce terroristiche di gruppi
attivi sia a livello nazionale che internazionale.

La cooperazione internazionale è essenziale per garantire una lotta efficace a questo problema trasversale. A tale
riguardo, il piano di azione UE-Giordania prevede il rafforzamento della cooperazione in quest’ambito, in particolare
attraverso il necessario potenziamento del ruolo dell’ONU nella lotta multilaterale contro il terrorismo, compresa la
piena attuazione delle risoluzioni pertinenti del Consiglio di sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite.

L’UE ha attuato programmi di assistenza a favore della Giordania, tra l’altro nei settori delle forze di polizia e della
giustizia penale in generale, ma nessuno di essi è incentrato principalmente sulla lotta al terrorismo. L’UE e la
Giordania sono entrambe membri del forum globale antiterrorismo (GCTF), nel cui ambito condividono analisi e
buone prassi con altri principali membri della comunità internazionale.

C 310 E / 466 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009906/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD)**

_(30 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Foiled al-Qaeda attack in Jordan

On 21 October 2012, various media sources reported that Jordanian intelligence had thwarted one of the largest
terror attacks planned in the region by al-Qaeda. The group had been intending to detonate a number of explosives
around the capital, Amman. Eleven militants were arrested; according to Jordanian officials, they had intended the
attack to exceed the scale of the 2005 bombing of three hotels in the city, which claimed more than 60 lives.

The militants planned to use weapons from Syria to launch two suicide bombings in two shopping malls as a
diversionary attack before launching another attack in Abdoun, Amman’s most prosperous district. The result would
have been similar to the Mumbai attacks of 2008. The list of targets included Western diplomats.

Jordan’s Minister for Information, Samih al-Maayatah, said that the suspected terrorists had come from Syria, but in
fact they are all Jordanian nationals. They were acting on the instruction of al-Qaeda forces in Iraq. The militants were
captured as the group was selecting suicide bombers for the attacks. The individuals concerned have been charged
with conspiracy to launch a terrorist attack, and possession of explosives.

Jordan is facing a number of security threats as a spillover from the conflict in Syria; US troops are working to advise
the Jordanian military on how to handle the danger this poses to the country’s internal stability.

1. Is the Vice-President/High Representative aware of the discovery of a terrorist plot in Jordan?

2. What is the assessment of the Vice-President/High Representative as to the likelihood of further terrorist plots in
Jordan?

3. What is the role of al-Qaeda in orchestrating terrorist operations in both Jordan and Syria?

4. Is the EU prepared to support the Jordanian authorities by offering counter-terrorism assistance?

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

_(22 January 2013)_

The Jordanian and international press widely reported on the allegedly foiled terrorist plot by Al-Qaeda and the
related arrest of 11 Jordanian nationals.

Jordan, like other neighbouring countries, has been a target of terrorist attacks in the past paying a heavy price with
dozens of casualties. The whole region has faced terrorist threats from groups operating both nationally and with an
international reach.

International cooperation is a key element to ensure the effectiveness of combating this transnational phenomenon.
In this respect, the joint EU-Jordan ENP Action Plan foresees the strengthening of the cooperation in this area, notably
by emphasising the need to reinforce the role of the UN in the multilateral fight against terrorism including through
full implementation of relevant UNSC Resolutions.

The EU has extensive programmes of assistance to Jordan _inter alia_ in the areas of police and criminal justice generally,
although none of these programmes focus on countering terrorism in particular. The EU and Jordan are both
members of the Global Counter-Terrorism Forum, and in that context share analyses and best practices with other
key members of the international community.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 467

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009907/12**

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

**Fiorello Provera (EFD)**

_(30 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ VP / HR — Sostegno per una strategia dei diritti delle donne in Afghanistan

Il 19 ottobre 2012, Human Rights Watch (HRW) (Osservatorio dei diritti umani) ha chiesto al Segretario di Stato
USA, Hillary Clinton, di preparare una strategia per la salvaguardia dei diritti delle donne in Afghanistan. Si teme che,
una volta completato il ritiro delle truppe straniere alla fine del 2014, le donne si troveranno ad affrontare gravi
minacce. Secondo un portavoce HRW, «undici anni dopo la fine del regime talebano, le donne non dispongono di
alcun impegno in tal senso; le donne afghane hanno bisogno di una strategia di salvaguardia dei loro diritti nei difficili
anni a venire».

Nel maggio 2012, il governo degli Stati Uniti ha firmato un partenariato strategico con il governo afghano che
sottolinea l'impegno dell'Afghanistan a «garantire e far progredire il ruolo fondamentale delle donne nella società,
cosicché possano godere pienamente dei loro diritti economici, sociali, politici, civili e culturali» .

L'HRW ha osservato che ci sono settori che vanno affrontati quali: un migliore accesso all'istruzione, i matrimoni
precoci e forzati; l'alto tasso di mortalità materna, la mancanza di accesso alla giustizia e la detenzione di donne per
«reati morali», tra cui il «reato» di fuga da abusi domestici.

Il 25 ottobre 2012, Radio Free Europe (Radio Europa libera) riferiva anche di una preoccupante tendenza a realizzare
attacchi contro le donne nell'Afghanistan occidentale, con almeno una dozzina di donne assassinate quest'anno.
L'Afghanistan registra inoltre uno dei più alti tassi di suicidi femminili al mondo; nella città di Herat, almeno
80 donne sono morte per autoimmolazione.

1. La Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante è disposta a sviluppare una strategia UE per i diritti delle donne afghane?

2. La Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante è disposta a discutere una strategia con il Segretario di Stato USA,
Hillary Clinton?

3. Alla luce del progettato ritiro delle truppe occidentali dall'Afghanistan nel 2014, la Vicepresidente/Alto
Rappresentante ha discusso la questione della protezione e preservazione dei diritti delle donne allorché il ritiro sarà
completato?

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

_(20 dicembre 2012)_

L'Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente nutre un interesse personale particolare nei confronti dei problemi delle donne
e dei bambini in Afghanistan e ha affrontato questo tema cruciale con molti dei suoi omologhi, tra cui il segretario di
Stato americano, Hillary Clinton. Entrambe hanno sollecitato le autorità afghane a mostrarsi più attente al punto di
vista delle donne, per esempio favorendo decisamente la presenza di rappresentanti delle donne in occasione delle
ultime conferenze internazionali.

Durante le conferenze di Bonn e Tokyo il governo afghano si è fermamente impegnato a migliorare la posizione delle
donne e il loro accesso alla giustizia, garantendo l’applicazione rapida, equa e trasparente della costituzione e di altre
leggi fondamentali, nonché ad attuare la legge sulla lotta contro la violenza nei confronti delle donne e il piano
d'azione nazionale per le donne.

L’UE continuerà ad aiutare il governo a rispettare questi impegni specifici, concentrandosi in particolare sul
rafforzamento delle istituzioni giudiziarie quale elemento indispensabile per la difesa dei diritti delle vittime di
violenza contro le donne. Realizzare progressi sostanziali in questo senso, in particolare per quanto riguarda la
finalizzazione del piano di priorità afghano per il settore della giustizia, è un presupposto importante per la continuità
dell'assistenza dell'UE.

In una prospettiva che guarda oltre il 2014, la posizione dell'Unione europea sulle norme che devono essere rispettate
in ogni eventuale accordo di pace è stata illustrata durante la conferenza di Bonn. Un eventuale accordo deve
rispettare la costituzione afghana, comprese le disposizioni in materia di diritti umani, in particolare per quanto
riguarda i diritti delle donne.

C 310 E / 468 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

L'UE continuerà a sottolineare l’importanza della tutela e della salvaguardia dei diritti delle donne direttamente con il
governo afgano. I diritti delle donne, pertanto, avranno un ruolo rilevante nell'accordo di cooperazione, che è
attualmente in fase di negoziato.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 469

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009907/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD)**

_(30 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Support for a women's rights strategy in Afghanistan

On 19 October 2012, Human Rights Watch (HRW) called on US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to prepare a
strategy in order to protect women’s rights in Afghanistan. There are concerns that once foreign troops have left at
the end of 2014, women will face greater threats. According to an HRW spokesperson, ‘11 years after the end of
Taliban rule, women have no such commitment; Afghan women need and deserve a strategy of their own for the
protection of their rights in the perilous years ahead’.

In May 2012, the US Government signed a strategic partnership with the Afghan Government which emphasises
Afghanistan’s commitment to ‘ensure and advance the essential role of women in society, so that they may fully enjoy
their economic, social, political, civil and cultural rights’.

HRW has noted that there are areas which need to be addressed, such as: improving access to education; early and/or
forced marriage; high maternal mortality rates; lack of access to justice; and imprisonment of women for ‘moral
crimes’, including the ‘crime’ of fleeing domestic abuse.

On 25 October 2012, Radio Free Europe reported that there is also a disturbing trend of attacks on women in western
Afghanistan, with at least a dozen women having been murdered this year. Afghanistan also has one of the highest
female suicide rates in the world: in the city of Herat, at least 80 women have died as a result of self-immolation.

1. Is the Vice-President/High Representative prepared to develop a strategy for the EU with regard to the rights of
Afghan women?

2. Is the Vice-President/High Representative prepared to discuss a strategy with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?

3. In the light of the planned pullout of western troops from Afghanistan in 2014, has the Vice-President/High
Representative discussed the issue of protecting and preserving women’s rights after that operation has taken place?

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

_(20 December 2012)_

The HR/VP takes a close personal interest in the problems faced by women and children in Afghanistan. She has
discussed this critical issue with many of her counterparts, including the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Both
have pressed for the Afghan authorities to listen more to women's views, such as by strongly supporting the presence
of women's representatives at the recent international conferences.

At the conferences in Bonn and Tokyo, the Afghan Government made firm commitments to improve the position of
women and their access to justice by ensuring that the Constitution and other fundamental laws are enforced
expeditiously, fairly and transparently. This includes the commitment to implement the ‘Elimination of Violence
Against Women Law’ and the ‘National Action Plan for Women’.

The EU will continue assisting the Government in implementing these detailed commitments. The EU focuses on
strengthening the justice institutions as an indispensable element of upholding the rights of victims of violence
against women. Substantial progress in this regard, notably the finalisation of the Afghan National Priority Plan for
the justice sector, is an important condition for EU's continuing assistance.

Looking beyond 2014, the EU's position on the standards that must be respected in any eventual peace settlement
was set out at the Bonn conference. Any settlement must respect the Afghan constitution, including its human rights
provisions, in particular those related to the rights of women.

The EU will continue raising this task of protecting and preserving women’s rights directly with the Government of
Afghanistan. Women's rights will therefore feature prominently in the cooperation agreement which is currently
being negotiated.

C 310 E / 470 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita P-009909/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Ricardo Cortés Lastra (S&D)**

_(30 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Una política europea que asegure una vivienda digna

Debido a las dramáticas consecuencias sociales de la crisis, a las tasas de desempleo del 25,02 % en España y a la
ineficacia del Gobierno español para poner en marcha una regulación sobre los contratos de créditos para bienes
inmuebles de uso residencial, encontramos que en el primer trimestre 2012 se han ordenado 46 559 desahucios y se
han efectuado en el segundo trimestre 18 668 desalojos, 18,5 % más que la cifra registrada en el mismo periodo
de 2011.

Un drama que ha llevado a la desesperación a miles de familias e incluso al suicidio. Sin embargo la solidaridad
española sigue patente en las movilizaciones pacíficas y en la promoción de iniciativas para que el Congreso español
regule la dación en pago, la paralización de los desahucios y dé apoyo al alquiler social.

Esta tragedia humana no es única en España, en Italia más de 150 000 familias corren el riesgo de perder sus casas por
el impago de la hipoteca, y un 4,8 % de la población británica, así como un 4,2 % de la población francesa tienen
créditos hipotecarios impagados o están en proceso de embargos.

Aunque la UE no tiene competencias específicas en materia de vivienda, ¿no piensa la Comisión que hay una
necesidad urgente de poner en marcha una política de vivienda europea amparada en el artículo 34.3 de la Carta de
los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea?

1. ¿Piensa la Comisión proponer a los Estados miembros una directiva para asegurar el derecho ejecutable a una
vivienda adecuada?

2. ¿Piensa la Comisión proponer a los Estados miembros una directiva para reforzar las regulaciones nacionales en
favor del derecho a la vivienda?

3. ¿Cómo puede la Comisión alentar a los Gobiernos nacionales para asegurar que los bancos actúen ante los
desahucios bajo el principio de responsabilidad social y acepten la dación en pago y den más tiempo para hacer frente
al pago de las hipotecas?

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

_(4 de diciembre de 2012)_

Como señala correctamente Su Señoría en su pregunta, la Comisión no tiene competencias o poderes específicos
directamente relacionados con la vivienda. No obstante, sobre la base del artículo 114 del TFUE, la Comisión presentó
una propuesta de Directiva sobre los contratos de crédito para bienes inmuebles de uso residencial ( [1] ) con vistas a
fomentar en el futuro los empréstitos y los préstamos responsables en el mercado interior. Esta propuesta abarca
asuntos tales como la publicidad, la información precontractual, las evaluaciones de la solvencia y los empréstitos
responsables. El objetivo es garantizar el comportamiento responsable de los prestamistas y prestatarios antes de
firmar los contratos. La Comisión ECON del Parlamento Europeo ha introducido un artículo sobre atrasos y
ejecuciones hipotecarias que incluye algunas disposiciones generales sobre este tema. Esta enmienda será evaluada
detenidamente en el diálogo tripartito con el Parlamento Europeo y el Consejo.

Además, la Comisión publicó un documento de trabajo sobre las medidas nacionales destinadas a prevenir las
ejecuciones hipotecarias ( [2] ). Su finalidad es recabar la atención de los Estados miembros sobre los distintos
mecanismos existentes a escala nacional en la EU para ayudar a las personas con dificultades para reembolsar sus
hipotecas, de modo que se están formulando y aplicando mejores prácticas.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 142.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) SEC(2011) 357.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 471

A este respecto, en lo referido al artículo 34, apartado 3, de la Carta de los derechos fundamentales de la Unión
Europea, la Comisión recuerda que, de conformidad con su artículo 51, apartado 2, la Carta no puede utilizarse como
tal como base jurídica de la actuación de la UE, ya que ni amplía el ámbito de aplicación del Derecho de la Unión, ni
crea ninguna competencia o función nuevas de la Unión. Las instituciones de la Unión y los Estados miembros deben
observar la Carta al aplicar el Derecho de la Unión.

C 310 E / 472 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-009909/12**

**to the Commission**
**Ricardo Cortés Lastra (S&D)**

_(30 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ A European policy to ensure decent housing

As a result of the dramatic social consequences that the crisis has had on Spain, an unemployment rate of 25.02% and
the inability of the Spanish Government to implement a regulation on credit agreements relating to residential
property, 46 559 eviction notices were issued in the first quarter of 2012. In the second quarter of the year, there
were 18 668 evictions, a number 18.5% more than in the equivalent period of 2011.

This drama has driven thousands of families to despair and, in some cases, has even led to suicide. However, the
Spanish people are still working together to challenge the current situation; they have been participating in peaceful
demonstrations and calling for the Spanish Parliament to regulate non-recourse debt arrangements, suspend evictions
and support social housing.

Spain is not the only country affected by this problem. In Italy, more than 150 000 families are in arrears with their
mortgage payments and at risk of losing their homes. In the UK and France, 4.8% and 4.2% of the population,
respectively, are behind with their mortgage repayments or facing foreclosure.

Whilst the EU does not have specific powers relating to housing, does the Commission agree that a European housing
policy should be established as a matter of urgency, in accordance with Article 34(3) of the Charter of Fundamental
Rights of the European Union?

1. Does the Commission intend to propose a directive to Member States in order to uphold people's legal right to
adequate housing?

2. Does it intend to propose a directive to Member States with a view to strengthening national laws relating to the
right to housing?

3. What can the Commission do to encourage national governments to ensure that banks actin a socially
responsible manner when the issue of eviction arises, accept non-recoursedebt arrangements and give people longer
to pay off their mortgages?

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

_(4 December 2012)_

As the Honourable Member rightfully points out in his question, the Commission does not have specific competence
or powers directly related to housing. However, on the basis of Article 114 TFEU, the Commission came forward with
a proposal for a directive on credit agreements relating to residential property ( [1] ) with a view to promote responsible
lending and borrowing in the future in the internal market. This proposal covers issues such as advertising, precontractual information, creditworthiness assessments and responsible borrowing. The objective is to ensure
responsible behaviour by lenders and borrowers before contract signature. The ECON Committee of the European
Parliament has introduced an article on ‘Arrears and Foreclosures’ containing some general provisions on this matter.
This amendment will be carefully assessed in the trilogue with the European Parliament and the Council.

Furthermore, the Commission published a staff working paper on national measures to avoid foreclosure ( [2] ). The
purpose of this paper is to draw Member States attention to the different mechanism in place at national level
throughout the EU to help people with difficulties in repaying their mortgages, so that best practices are developed
and implemented.

In this context, as regards more particularly the reference to Article 34(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
European Union, the Commission recalls that, according to its Article 51(2), the Charter cannot be used, as such, as a
legal basis for EU action, as it does not extend the field of application of Union law or establish any new power or task
for the Union. The Charter should be respected by Union institutions and by Member States when implementing
Union law.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 142.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) SEC(2011)357.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 473

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009910/12**

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

_(30 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Proyecto de pedrera en la sierra de la Tossa d'Algerri

El gobierno de la Generalitat de Catalunya, a través del Departamento de Territorio y Sostenibilidad, está tramitando a
petición de la empresa Benito Arnó e Hijos, S. A. un expediente de autorización ambiental —número LA20100059
— de explotación y tratamiento de recursos minerales —rocas, gravas, arcillas y arenas— incluida su fragmentación y
tratamiento, en el polígono 2, parcela 194 de la sierra de la Tossa d’Algerri, Lérida. Dicho proyecto de explotación al
aire libre, afecta a una superficie de 377 880 m [2] de terreno, tiene prevista una extracción de 4 000 000 m [3] de roca,
por el sistema de arrancada mediante voladuras con explosiones frecuentes, con una duración prevista de 20 años, la
construcción e instalación de una planta de tratamiento en su entorno y una circulación de 146 vehículos diarios de
gran tonelaje para la retirada de materiales.

La zona está calificada urbanísticamente como suelo rústico de especial protección, incluida en el Plan Territorial
Parcial de Ponent, dentro de la Red Natura 2000-Secanos de La Noguera, con un Plan Especial de Espacio de Interés
Natural vigente, que prohíbe la implantación de actividades extractivas de nueva implantación (Zona ZEPA código
ES5130021 y LIC código ES5130021). Valores naturales a preservar: la subsistencia de aves estépicas amenazadas —
zona de campeo del águila cuabarrada— hábitat de máxima protección de los arbustos yeseros, fauna, bosque y
prados secos mediterráneos. En el expediente de autorización ambiental no se ha previsto, ni mucho menos
justificado, la existencia de razones que motiven la modificación de las figuras de protección existentes:

1. ¿Tiene conocimiento la Comisión de este proyecto de autorización ambiental de la actividad de explotación y
tratamiento de recursos minerales —rocas, gravas, arcillas y arenas— incluida su fragmentación y tratamiento,
en el polígono 2, parcela 194 de la sierra de la Tossa d’Algerri, en Algerri, Lérida, Cataluña, así como de sus
características y de los impactos ambientales de la actividad prevista?

2. ¿Cree la Comisión que tal actividad en una zona incluida en las figuras de protección Red Natura 2000-Secanos
de La Noguera, con un Plan Especial de Espacio de Interés Natural vigente, que prohíbe la implantación de
actividades extractivas de nueva implantación (Zona ZEPA código ES5130021 y LIC código ES5130021),
puede vulnerar una o varias directivas europeas?

3. ¿Cree la Comisión que tal actividad puede ser autorizada en cualquier caso, y en qué condiciones?

4. ¿Qué medidas piensa adoptar la Comisión Europea para evitar la vulneración de directivas europeas en dicho
supuesto?

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

_(12 de diciembre de 2012)_

La Comisión no tiene constancia del proyecto de explotación de una cantera en la Serra de la Tossa d’Algerri (Lleida) a
que hace referencia Su Señoría.

La responsabilidad de garantizar el cumplimiento de la Directiva 92/43/CEE (Directiva sobre Hábitats) y de la
Directiva 2009/147/CE (Directiva sobre aves silvestres) ( [1] ) recae primordialmente en las autoridades nacionales.

De conformidad con el artículo 6, apartado 3, de la Directiva sobre Hábitats ( [2] ), cualquier plan o proyecto que pueda
afectar de manera negativa a lugares Natura 2000 debe someterse a una adecuada evaluación, teniendo en cuenta los
objetivos de conservación de los lugares de que se trate. A la vista de las conclusiones de la evaluación, las autoridades
nacionales competentes sólo se declararán de acuerdo con dicho plan o proyecto tras haberse asegurado de que no
causará perjuicio a la integridad del lugar en cuestión. Si no pueden obtenerse tales garantías, el plan o proyecto
únicamente podrá llevarse a cabo en las condiciones excepcionales previstas en el artículo 6, apartado 4, de la
Directiva y debe quedar sujeto a la aplicación de medidas compensatorias adecuadas.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directiva 2009/147/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 30 de noviembre de 2009, relativa a la conservación de las aves silvestres

(DO L 20 de 26.1.2010, p. 7), que codifica la Directiva 79/409/CEE del Consejo, de 2 de abril de 1979, relativa a la conservación de las aves
silvestres (DO L 103 de 25.4.1979).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directiva 92/43/CEE del Consejo, de 21 de mayo de 1992, relativa a la conservación de los hábitats naturales y de la fauna y flora silvestres

(DO L 206 de 22.7.1992).

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

C 310 E / 474 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

En esta fase del proyecto, dado que las autoridades autonómicas todavía no han dado su aprobación a la petición de
autorización medioambiental y, por consiguiente, el proyecto carece de autorización, la Comisión no está en
condiciones de solicitar información complementaria.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 475

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009910/12**

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

_(30 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Proposed quarry in the Serra de la Tossa d'Algerri

The Regional Government of Catalonia, through its Department of Territory and Sustainability, is currently
processing an environmental authorisation request (No. LA20100059) submitted by the firm Benito Arnó e
Hijos S.A., for the extraction and processing of mineral resources — stone, gravel, clay and sand — including
fragmentation and transformation, at zone 2, plot 194 of the Serra de la Tossa d’Algerri, Lerida. This proposed opencast quarry will take up a surface area of 377 880 m [2] and extract 4 000 000 m [3 ] of stone over a 20-year period, by
means of blasting, involving frequent explosions. A processing plant is to be built in the vicinity, with heavy trucks
making 146 trips each day to transport the material.

In planning terms, the area is classified as specially protected rural land and included in the Ponent Urban
Development Plan. It forms part of the Natura 2000 network‐Secanos de la Noguera protected site, and is covered by
a Space of Natural Interest Special Plan according to which the introduction of new extractive activities is prohibited
(Special Protection Area (SPA) ES5130021 and Site of Community Interest (SCI) ES5130021). The natural assets
requiring preservation include the habitat of threatened steppic birds — the area is a nesting ground for the Bonelli’s
eagle — and a habitat requiring maximum protection characterised by Mediterranean dry meadows, woodland, fauna
and shrubs. The environmental authorisation application does not allow for, let alone justify, the existence of factors
leading to changes in the existing level of protection.

1. Is the Commission aware of this proposed environmental authorisation for activities involving the quarrying
and processing of mineral resources (stone, gravel, clay and sand), including their fragmentation and transformation,
at zone 2, plot 194 of the Serra de la Tossa d’Algerri, Lerida, Catalonia, and of the characteristics and environmental
impact of this proposed activity?

2. Does the Commission believe that such an activity, in an area which forms part of the Secanos de la Noguera
Natura 2000 site and is covered by a Space of Natural Interest Special Plan which prohibits the introduction of new
extractive activities (Special Protection Area (SPA) ES5130021 and Site of Community Interest (SCI) ES5130021), is
likely to infringe one of more European directives?

3. Does the Commission consider that this activity can be authorised in any case and if so, under what conditions?

4. What measures does the Commission intend to adopt to prevent European directives from being infringed by
this activity?

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

_(12 December 2012)_

The Commission is not aware of the proposed quarry in the Serra de la Tossa d'Algerni (Lleida) mentioned by the
Honourable Member.

The responsibility for ensuring compliance with both the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC and the Bird
Directive 2009/147/EC ( [1] ) lies primarily with the national authorities.

In accordance with Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive ( [2] ) any plan or project likely to have a negative effect on
Natura 2000 sites has to undergo an appropriate assessment having regard to the sites' conservation objectives. In the
light of the conclusions of the assessment, the competent authorities shall agree to this plan or project only after
having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site. If this cannot be ascertained, the plan or
project can only proceed under the exceptional conditions set out in Article 6(4) of the directive and must be subject
to implementing adequate compensatory measures.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ L 20/7,

26.1.2010) that codifies the Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ L 103, 25.4.1979).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Council Directive 92/43/EEC, of 21 May 1992, on the protection of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora. OJ L 206 of 22.07.1992.

( **|**

C 310 E / 476 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

At this stage of the project, as the environmental authorisation request has not been yet granted by the Regional
Authorities, and therefore, the project has not been authorised, the Commission is not in a position to seek further
information.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 477

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009911/12**

**to the Commission**
**Nicole Sinclaire (NI)**

_(30 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Retirement age of Commission officials

Could the Commission please tell me the average age of those officials who retired from its service in 2010 and 2011?

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

_(18 December 2012)_

The average age of the retired officials in the Commission was 61,42 for 2010 (for a total of 414) and 61,66 for 2011
(for a total of 509).

C 310 E / 478 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009912/12**

**to the Commission**
**Nicole Sinclaire (NI)**

_(30 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Single European Sky initiative — infringement proceedings against Member States

The Commission has plans to launch infringement proceedings against Member States that fail to implement
legislation on the Single European Sky initiative.

Could the Commission please advise me as to what type of penalty is envisaged for those Member States failing to
implement the legislation in question?

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

_(3 December 2012)_

The Commission performs a continuous monitoring of the legislation concerning the Single European Sky. In this
context, it effectively plans to launch infringement procedures against Member States that will fail to implement the
legislative provisions on the establishment of Functional Airspace Blocks which is due by 4 December 2012.

The infringement procedure as such does not foresee any penalty. This possibility is, according to the treaty TFEU,
only envisageable after the second judgment of the Court for failure to comply with a Court judgment in accordance
with Article 260 of the TFEU.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 479

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009913/12**

**to the Commission**
**Nicole Sinclaire (NI)**

_(30 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Construction of European External Action Service headquarters

1. Could the Commission please advise me as to the progress on the construction of the European External Action
Service headquarters as of the date of this question?

2. Specifically, is work on schedule and is it within budget?

3. Also, can the Commission update me as to the date scheduled for the handover of the building?

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

_(18 December 2012)_

1. During the course of the first half of 2012, the European External Action Service (EEAS) headquarters services
moved progressively into the EEAS building situated at the Schuman roundabout (n°9). The move was completed on
schedule by September 2012.

2. Installation works were carried out by the owner of the building within the technical and financial specifications
foreseen in the contract and were finished on schedule and within the budget in conformity with the proposal
presented to the Budget Authority in June 2011. This proposal received a favourable opinion from the Parliament
Committee on budgets on 14 July 2011.

3. The final handover of the works implemented by the owner of the building was done in September 2012 as
foreseen in the usufruct agreement signed on 6 August 2011 for a duration of 30 years (starting 1st December 2011).

C 310 E / 480 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-009914/12**

**à la Commission**
**Rachida Dati (PPE)**

_(30 octobre 2012)_

_Objet:_ Obligation de la Commission de prendre le principe de subsidiarité au sérieux

La Commission a présenté une proposition de règlement (COM(2012)0380) visant à harmoniser les règles en matière
de contrôle technique des véhicules à moteur et de leurs remorques.

Le Sénat français a adopté le 22 octobre 2012 une résolution considérant que cette proposition de règlement ne
respecte pas le principe de subsidiarité. En effet, celle‐ci n'apporte pas les justifications suffisantes en termes
d'influence sur les défaillances techniques et les accidents, ou encore de trafic transfrontalier des motocycles,
permettant de conclure à la pertinence d'une intervention européenne sur le sujet.

Or, cette question du respect de la subsidiarité semble devenir récurrente. En effet, le Parlement européen a adopté en
septembre un rapport faisant état de sa préoccupation sur le fait que, dans plusieurs avis déjà, les parlements
nationaux ont souligné l'insuffisance, voire l'absence de justification concernant le principe de subsidiarité.

Alors que celui‐ci devrait être au fondement de l'intervention de la Commission, il semblerait qu'elle le considère
désormais plutôt comme une formalité, à peine un obstacle que l'on balaie d'un revers de paragraphe stéréotypé.

Ces tentatives, volontaires ou non, de la Commission, sont inacceptables. Si nous voulons construire une Europe
basée sur la confiance des citoyens, le respect des prérogatives des États membres doit en être la pierre angulaire.

J'invite la Commission à prendre en compte ces préoccupations sérieuses. Je demande donc à la Commission de
fournir les éléments de droit et de fait adéquats afin de déterminer si cette adaptation du contrôle technique serait
mieux réalisée au niveau de l'Union qu'au niveau national.

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

_(21 janvier 2013)_

La Commission reconnaît en effet que la question du respect du principe de subsidiarité est un sujet important dont
elle tient toujours dûment compte lorsqu'elle propose des initiatives législatives.

Dans les orientations politiques pour la sécurité routière de 2011 à 2020 ( [1] ), la Commission s'est fixé pour objectif de
continuer à réduire de moitié le nombre de victimes des accidents de la route dans l'Union européenne d'ici à 2020.
L'un des moyens pour atteindre cet objectif est l'harmonisation et le renforcement progressifs du contrôle technique
des véhicules et le contrôle technique routier qui ont obtenu le soutien du Parlement européen ( [2] ) et du Conseil ( [3] ).

Comme expliqué dans l'analyse d'impact ( [4] ), l'une des causes principales du problème cerné réside dans la grande
diversité et parfois dans la qualité insuffisante du contrôle technique dans les différents États membres. C'est la
conséquence de la législation de l'UE en vigueur, la directive 2009/40/CE relative au contrôle technique des véhicules
à moteur et de leurs remorques ( [5] ) qui autorise toute une série de dérogations. Étant donné que le trafic routier ne
s'arrête pas aux frontières nationales, les objectifs d'amélioration de la sécurité routière et de réduction des polluants
du trafic routier dans l'ensemble de l'Union nécessitent une action concertée au niveau de l'Union européenne. La
Commission a néanmoins élaboré sa proposition d'une manière qui permettra aux États membres d'adapter le régime
de contrôle technique à leurs exigences nationales, en particulier dans les domaines de la formation des inspecteurs et
de la supervision des centres de contrôle technique dans les cas où seule une ossature générale a été proposée, alors
que, dans d'autres cas, des exigences minimales ont été inscrites dans cette initiative.

Par ailleurs, la Commission tient à souligner que le droit d'agir de l'UE dans le domaine des transports, et notamment
la sécurité routière, est défini à l'article 91 du traité sur le fonctionnement de l'Union européenne.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2010) 389 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) A7-0264/2011 / P7_TA(2011)0408.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Conclusions du Conseil Transports 16951/10.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) SWD(2012) 206 final.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) JO L 141 du 6.6.2009.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 481

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009914/12**

**to the Commission**

**Rachida Dati (PPE)**

_(30 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Commission must take the principle of subsidiarity seriously

The Commission has submitted a proposal for a regulation (COM(2012)0380) that aims to harmonise the rules
governing roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers.

On 22 October 2012, the French Senate adopted a resolution declaring that the proposal for a regulation is not
consistent with the principle of subsidiarity on the grounds that it fails to provide sufficient evidence, in terms of the
impact of the proposed provisions on technical problems, accidents and cross-border motorbike trade, to warrant the
conclusion that action at EU level is appropriate.

The issue of compliance with the principle of subsidiarity seems to be arising more and more frequently. In
September 2012, Parliament adopted a report outlining its concern at the fact that national parliaments have
produced several opinions emphasising that Commission proposals contained only inadequate evidence — or no
evidence at all — demonstrating that their provisions are consistent with the principle of subsidiarity.

Despite the fact that subsidiarity should underpin all its work, it would appear that the Commission now sees this
principle as a mere formality — a minor hurdle that can easily be brushed aside in one standard paragraph.

These moves by the Commission — which serve, whether intentionally or otherwise, to undermine the principle of
subsidiarity — are unacceptable. Respect for Member States’ prerogatives must be a cornerstone of our efforts to
build a Europe founded on public trust.

Will the Commission take these serious concerns into account and provide the legal and factual arguments required
to demonstrate that it would be more appropriate to regulate roadworthiness tests at European rather than at national
level?

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

_(21 January 2013)_

The Commission indeed recognices that the issue of compliance with the principle of subsidiarity is an important
subject which is always thoroghly considered when proposing legislative initiatives.

In the Policy Orientations on Road Safety 2011-2020 ( [1] ) the Commission has set the target to further half the number
of road fatalities in the Union until 2020. One of the objectives to reach this goal is the progressive harmonisation
and strengthening of roadworthiness tests and technical roadside inspections which has gained support by the
European Parliament ( [2] ) and the Council ( [3] ).

As elaborated in the impact assessment ( [4] ), one of the main drivers of the identified problem is the result of the high
diversity and sometimes insufficient quality of roadworthiness testing in the different Member States. This is a result
of the existing EU legislation, Directive 2009/40/EC on roadworthiness testing ( [5] ) allowing for a range of possible
derogations. Taking into consideration that road traffic is not limited to national borders, the objectives to increase
road safety and reduce pollutants from road traffic throughout the Union need concerted action at EU level.
Nevertheless, the Commission has drafted its proposal in a way that would allow Member States to adopt the
roadworthiness regime to its national requirements especially in the areas of training for inspectors or supervision of
test centres where only a general skeleton has been proposed while in other areas minimum requirements have been
put into this initiative.

Furthermore, the Commission would like to highlight, that the right to act for the EU in the field of transport, and
especially road safety, is set out in Article 91 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2010) 389 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) A7-0264/2011 / P7_TA(2011)0408.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Council Conclusions TRANS 16951/10.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) SWD(2012)206 final.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) OJ L 141, 6.6.2009.

C 310 E / 482 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009915/12**

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

_(30 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Sentenza terremoto in Abruzzo

Lo scorso 23 ottobre il giudice monocratico Marco Billi ha condannato in primo grado i membri della Commissione
nazionale per la previsione e la prevenzione dei grandi rischi (struttura di collegamento tra il Servizio nazionale della
protezione civile e la comunità scientifica). La sentenza prevede per i sette imputati (Franco Barberi, Enzo Boschi,
Mauro Dolce, Giulio Selvaggi, Gian Michele Calvi, Claudio Eva e Bernardo De Bernardinis) una pena di sei anni di
reclusione per omicidio colposo plurimo e lesioni colpose. I sette sono stati condannati anche all'interdizione
perpetua dai pubblici uffici e al pagamento di 7,8 milioni di euro come risarcimenti.

Secondo quanto riportato dalle agenzie di stampa, i magistrati ritengono colpevoli i membri della Commissione
grandi rischi di non aver allertato la popolazione e di aver minimizzato i rischi del terremoto che il 6 aprile del 2009
devastò la città dell’Aquila in Abruzzo.

La comunità scientifica internazionale ha reagito compatta contro la sentenza e a favore degli scienziati condannati.

Nonostante questa chiara presa di posizione, da più parti sembra emergere l’idea che i terremoti si possano prevedere.

I media hanno dato ampio spazio a voci che stanno instillando nell’opinione pubblica la convinzione che gli esperti
siano capaci di localizzare in anticipo il sisma calcolandone anche l’intensità.

Alla luce delle conseguenze che queste affermazioni potrebbero avere in campo scientifico, può la Commissione
comunicare se finanzia degli studi sulle cause dei terremoti e se questi studi sono in accordo con quelli usati dai
giudici italiani?

**Risposta di Máire Geoghegan-Quinn a nome della Commissione**

_(15 febbraio 2013)_

In base alle conoscenze tecniche attuali e stando all’opinione diffusa del mondo scientifico, non è ancora possibile
predire in modo affidabile i terremoti in senso deterministico a breve termine: come indicato nel rapporto finale
dell’ICEF ( [1] ), la ricerca di precursori diagnostici non ha ancora prodotto uno schema per la previsione deterministica a
breve termine che possa avere successo. La comunità scientifica sta comunque collaborando attivamente a livello
internazionale per migliorare la previsione e la predicibilità (predictability) dei terremoti nonché la capacità di allerta

precoce.

A livello europeo, sia il precedente sia l’attuale programma quadro di ricerca e sviluppo tecnologico promuovono le
pertinenti attività di ricerca connesse ai terremoti. In particolare, il progetto REAKT ( [2] ) del Settimo programma
quadro (Strategie e strumenti per la riduzione dei rischi di terremoto in tempo reale) attua una collaborazione con
istituzioni di punta negli Stati Uniti e in Giappone e mira a integrare qualsiasi nuova conoscenza o informazione
proveniente da precursori, previsioni sismiche a breve e lungo termine, allerta precoce e vulnerabilità in un sistema di
riduzione dei rischi sismici in tempo reale che contribuisca a definire le priorità per ridurre i rischi. Inoltre, il progetto
SHARE ( [3] ) del Settimo programma quadro (Valutazione dei rischi sismici in Europa) sta sviluppando metodi e un
modello europeo armonizzato di valutazione probabilistica dei rischi sismici. Il progetto elaborerà anche mappe dei
rischi sismici che serviranno da riferimenti armonizzati per l’attuazione nazionale delle norme europee per la
progettazione di strutture antisismiche ( [4] ).

La Commissione non si pronuncia sui procedimenti giudiziari in corso negli Stati membri.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Rapporto della International Commission on Earthquake Forecasting for Civil Protection (ICEF — Commissione internazionale sulla previsione

dei terremoti per la protezione civile), Annals of Geophysics, 54, 4, 30 maggio 2011.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) www.reaktproject.eu.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) www.share-eu.org.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) EN 1988 — European Standard for the design of earthquake resistant structures leading to a more uniform level of earthquake safety in Europe

(norma europea per la progettazione di strutture antisismiche volte a garantire un livello più uniforme di sicurezza sismica in Europa).

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

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 483

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009915/12**

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

_(30 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Abruzzo earthquake ruling

On 23 October 2012, Marco Billi, sitting as sole judge, convicted the members of the National Commission for the
Forecast and Prevention of Major Risks (Commissione nazionale per la previsione e la prevenzione dei grandi rischi)
at the Court of First Instance. The Commission is the intermediary between the National Department of Civil
Protection _(_ Servizio nazionale della protezione civile) and the scientific community. The seven defendants (Franco
Barberi, Enzo Boschi, Mauro Dolce, Giulio Selvaggi, Gian Michele Calvi, Claudio Eva and Bernardo De Bernardinis)
were sentenced to six years in prison for multiple manslaughter and injuries. They were also barred from ever holding
public office again and were ordered to pay EUR 7.8 million in compensation.

According to news agency reports, the judges found members of the National Commission for the Forecast and
Prevention of Major Risks guilty of not having warned those living in the area and of having downplayed the risks of
the earthquake which devastated the city of Aquila in Abruzzo on 6 April 2009.

The international scientific community has voiced its opposition to the ruling and spoken out in favour of the
convicted scientists.

Despite the scientific community taking such a clear position, some people seem to take the view that earthquakes
can be predicted.

The media has devoted ample coverage to those who are spreading the notion among the public that experts are
capable of pinpointing earthquakes in advance and calculating their intensity.

Given the consequences that these statements may have within the scientific community, is the Commission funding
studies into the causes of earthquakes and are these studies in line with those utilised by Italian judges?

**Answer given by Ms Geoghegan-Quinn on behalf of the Commission**

_(15 February 2013)_

According to the current state-of-the-art knowledge and broad consensus amongst scientists, a reliable deterministic
prediction of earthquakes on short time scales is still not possible: as stated in the ICEF ( [1] ) final report, the search for
diagnostic precursors has not yet produced a successful short-term prediction scheme. Nevertheless, the scientific
community is actively collaborating at international level to improve forecasting, predictability and early warning
capacity related to earthquakes.

At the European level, the previous and ongoing Framework Programmes for Research and Technological
Development have promoted relevant research activities related to earthquakes. In particular, the FP7 REAKT ( [2] )
project (Strategies and tools for real time earthquake risk reduction) collaborates with key institutions in the US and
Japan and intends to integrate any new knowledge and information coming from precursors, earthquake short term
— long term forecast, early warning and vulnerability into a real-time earthquake risk reduction system that can help
define priorities for risk mitigation. Furthermore the FP7 SHARE ( [3] ) project (Seismic Hazard Assessment in Europe) is
developing methods and a harmonised European probabilistic seismic hazard assessment model to evaluate the
earthquake hazard. The project will also provide seismic hazard maps that serve as harmonised references for the
national implementation of European Standards for the design of earthquake-resistant structures ( [4] ).

The Commission refrains from making any comments on ongoing judicial proceedings in EU Member States.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Report by the International Commission on Earthquake Forecasting for Civil Protection, Annals of Geophysics, 54, 4, 30 May 2011.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) www.reaktproject.eu
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) www.share-eu.org
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) EN 1988 — European Standard for the design of earthquake resistant structures) leading to a more uniform level of earthquake safety in Europe.

C 310 E / 484 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-009916/12**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu (S&D)**

_(30 octombrie 2012)_

_Subiect:_ Recoltarea ilegală de organe în China

Dat fiind gravitatea acuzațiilor legate de recoltarea de organe de la persoane aflate în stare de detenție în China și,
implicit, a existenței continue a pieței negre pentru organe în această țară, aș dori să întreb Comisia:

1. dacă este în posesia unor date de actualitate cu privire la situația pieței negre pentru organe din China;

2. care sunt măsurile pe care le-a luat și cele pe care le prevede în vederea stopării acestor practici inumane în
China (de exemplu îmbunătățirea legislației chineze cu privire la sistemul donării de organe; condiționarea
pregătirii medicilor chinezi în tehnici chirurgicale de transplant)?

3. are în vedere Comisia susținerea pregătirii unei echipe profesionale independente de investigație care să
supravegheze investigația asupra practicilor de recoltare forțată de organe în China?

**Răspuns dat de Înaltul Reprezentant/Vicepreședintele, dna Catherine Ashton în numele Comisiei**

_(21 decembrie 2012)_

Comisia împărtășește preocuparea onorabilului deputat european cu privire la recoltarea de organe de la cetățeni
chinezi care au fost executați. De aceea, Comisia salută anunțul recent făcut de guvernul chinez de a pune capăt
acestor practici și de a încuraja donarea voluntară de organe. Într-adevăr, China a adoptat o reglementare privind
transplantul de organe umane care a intrat în vigoare la 1 iulie 2006 și care prevede obligativitatea acordului scris al
donatorului. Cu toate acestea, regulamentul nu abordează în mod adecvat problema consimțământului donatorilor,
în special în cazul persoanelor care au decedat în timpul detenției sau care au fost executate. UE este, de asemenea,
îngrijorată de lipsa de transparență menținută de autoritățile chineze cu privire la statisticile referitoare atât la
pedeapsa cu moartea, cât și la transplantul de organe, ceea ce face imposibilă obținerea unei imagini exacte asupra
sursei organelor transplantate. Îngrijorarea UE este legată și de acuzațiile conform cărora multe organe sunt recoltate
de la prizonierii care se află în lagărele de reeducare prin muncă. UE a abordat deja acest aspect în cadrul ultimelor
runde ale dialogului UE-China privind drepturile omului și va continua să facă acest lucru.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 485

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009916/12**

**to the Commission**
**Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu (S&D)**

_(30 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Illegal organ harvesting in China

Serious allegations have been made regarding the harvesting of organs from prisoners in China and the continued
existence of a black market for organs in that country. In view of this:

1. Does the Commission have any updated information concerning the black market for organs in China?

2. What measures has it taken or is it envisaging with a view to ending such inhuman practices in China (for
example, improving Chinese organ donation legislation or making transplant training for Chinese doctors
subject to conditions)?

3. Will the Commission support the setting up of an independent professional team to supervise investigations
into compulsory organ harvesting in China?

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

_(21 December 2012)_

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern regarding organs harvested from Chinese citizens who
have been executed. Therefore the Commission welcomes the recent announcement by the Chinese Government that
the practice will be stopped and genuine voluntary organ donations will be encouraged. Indeed China has adopted a
regulation on human organ transplants which came into effect on 1st July 2006, which requires the written
agreement of the donor. However, the regulation does not adequately address the issue of donor consent, especially
for those who have died in custody or have been executed. The EU is also concerned at the secrecy which surrounds
both death penalty and organ transplant statistics, which makes it impossible to gain an accurate picture of the source
of transplanted organs, and at allegations that many organs are harvested from prisoners in Re-Education through
Labour camps. The EU has already addressed this point in the framework of past rounds of the EU-China Human
Rights Dialogue and will continue to do so.

C 310 E / 486 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-009917/12**

**do Komisji**
**Bogdan Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz (PPE), Andrzej Grzyb (PPE), Jolanta Emilia Hibner (PPE), Tadeusz**

**Zwiefka (PPE) oraz Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE)**

_(30 października 2012 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Konsultacje publiczne w sprawie przeglądu czasowych profili aukcyjnych Europejskiego Systemu Handlu
Emisjami

Komisja Europejska przeprowadziła – trwające do 16 października – konsultacje publiczne w sprawie przeglądu
czasowych profili aukcyjnych Europejskiego Systemu Handlu Emisjami.

1. Jakie są wstępne rezultaty przeprowadzonych konsultacji?

2. Czy zaobserwowane są różnice w odpowiedziach otrzymanych z poszczególnych krajów Unii i jak one
wyglądają?

3. Kiedy Komisja w stosownej analizie przedstawi indywidualne rozwiązania problemów zgłoszonych przez
poszczególne państwa członkowskie?

4. 15 listopada, Komitet ds. Zmian Klimatu spotyka się, aby omówić kwestie zmiany Rozporządzenia
„backloading”. Czy do tego czasu będzie znany całościowy raport przedstawiający wyniki konsultacji społecznych?

5. Czy Komisja przedstawi w nim ocenę aktualnej sytuacji na rynku uprawnień do emisji oraz zaproponuje
rozwiązania uwzględniające sytuację gospodarczo-ekonomiczną indywidualnych państw członkowskich, co będzie
miało kluczowe znaczenie przy przezwyciężaniu obecnego kryzysu?

6. W jakim stopniu uwzględniony zostanie w raporcie nadrzędny cel (wyraźnie zresztą zaznaczony w dyrektywie)
wprowadzenia systemu handlu emisjami, którym jest obniżanie emisji przy jak najmniejszych kosztach?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarz Connie Hedegaard w imieniu Komisji**

_(7 stycznia 2013 r.)_

Jak wynika z odpowiedzi na konsultację społeczną, istnieje szerokie poparcie dla unijnego systemu handlu
uprawnieniami do emisji (ETS), jako najważniejszego instrumentu polityki przeciwdziałania zmianie klimatu.
Respondenci mają różne opinie na temat znaczenia podejmowania środków krótkoterminowych wobec faktu, że
rzeczywistość gospodarcza nie odpowiada już podstawowym parametrom uzasadniającym decyzje w sprawie
zmiany EU ETS w 2008 r. Między państwami członkowskimi istnieją ponadto różnice pod względem udziału
w systemie i opinii na jego temat, ale rozbieżności poglądów są bardziej wyraźne wewnątrz poszczególnych
państwach członkowskich, w zależności od interesów wchodzących w grę. Spośród 151 otrzymanych odpowiedzi
27 pochodzi z Polski, a także z organizacji działających na poziomie UE (23 odpowiedzi otrzymanych od wszystkich
zarejestrowanych organizacji) i z Niemiec (14 odpowiedzi otrzymanych w znacznej większości od zarejestrowanych
organizacji). Pełne wyniki konsultacji społecznej zostały udostępnione publicznie na stronie internetowej
poświęconej konsultacji ( [1] ) w dniu 24 października 2012 r.

W dniu 12 listopada 2012 r. ( [2] ), również na wniosek Parlamentu w kontekście negocjacji dotyczących efektywności
energetycznej ( [3] ), Komisja przedstawiła proporcjonalną ocenę skutków oraz projekt rozporządzenia Komisji
dotyczącego przeglądu harmonogramu aukcji. W dniu 14 listopada 2012 r. Komisja, podejmując drugie działanie
w odpowiedzi na wniosek Parlamentu Europejskiego, przyjęła sprawozdanie zawierające ocenę aktualnej sytuacji na
rynku oraz przedstawiające szereg możliwych środków strukturalnych, które mogą stanowić trwałe rozwiązanie
w dłuższej perspektywie. Wszelkie wnioski legislacyjne będą przedmiotem konsultacji oraz oceny skutków.
W sprawozdaniu uwzględniono fakt, że brak równowagi będzie wpływać na zdolność EU ETS do zrealizowania
długoterminowego celu polegającego na ograniczeniu emisji o 80‐95 % w sposób efektywny pod względem
kosztów.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/clima/consultations/0016/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/clima/news/articles/news_2012111203_en.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Zob. załącznik na stronie: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2012-0306+0+DOC+XML+V0//PL.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 487

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009917/12**

**to the Commission**
**Bogdan Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz (PPE), Andrzej Grzyb (PPE), Jolanta Emilia Hibner (PPE),**

**Tadeusz Zwiefka (PPE) and Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE)**

_(30 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Public consultations on the review of the auction time profile for the EU Emissions Trading System

The Commission has carried out public consultations, which concluded on 16 October 2012, on the review of the
auction time profile for the EU Emissions Trading System.

1. What are the preliminary results of these consultations?

2. Were differences noted between the responses received from individual EU Member States? If so, what were
these differences?

3. When will the Commission submit an appropriate assessment setting out solutions to the problems reported by
the Member States?

4. On 15 November 2012, the Climate Change Committee will meet to discuss the issue of amending the proposal
for a regulation on ‘backloading’. Will a full report setting out the results of public consultations be made available by
this time?

5. Will the Commission include an assessment of the current situation on the emissions allowances market in the
report, and will it put forward solutions that take into account the economic situation of individual Member States —
an issue that will be of key importance in overcoming the current crisis?

6. To what extent will consideration be given in the report to the overriding aim — as clearlyset out in the directive
— of introducing the emissions trading system: reducing emissionsat the lowest possible cost?

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

_(7 January 2013)_

The results reveal that there is a broad support for the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) as the central instrument in
EU climate policy. Opinions differ as to how important it is to take a short-term measure to address that the
(economic) reality is no longer in line with the fundamental parameters that informed the decisions on the revised EU
ETS in 2008. Some differences in the participation and opinions across Member States exist, but opinions typically
differ more within individual Member States subject to the interests involved. Out of 151 responses received, 27 have
been from Poland, followed by EU-level organisations (23, all registered organisations), and Germany (14, with a large
majority from registered organisations). Full results of the public consultation have been made available on the
consultation website ( [1] ) on 24 October 2012.

The Commission presented a proportionate impact assessment and the draft Commission Regulation to revise the
auction time profile, also requested by the Parliament in the context of the negotiations on the Energy Efficiency ( [2] ),
on 12 November 2012. ( [3] ) On 14 November 2012, the Commission adopted a report which includes an assessment
of the current situation on the market and sets out a range of possible structural measures that can be provide a
sustainable solution in the longer term, which is the second step in responding the Parliament's request. Any legal
proposal put forward will be subject to a consultation and an impact assessment. The report gives consideration to
the fact that the imbalance will affect the ability of the EU ETS to meet the EU long-term target of 80-95% reduction in
a cost-effective manner.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/clima/consultations/0016/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) See Annex at:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2012-0306+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN#BKMD-22

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/clima/news/articles/news_2012111203_en.htm

( **|**

C 310 E / 488 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009918/12**

**to the Commission**
**Bill Newton Dunn (ALDE)**

_(30 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Glyphosate

My constituent has complained about ‘the EU’s decision to agree with Monsanto’s request to increase 100 fold the
max amount of glyphosate (likely Roundup) residue in lentils and pulses which came into effect some time in 2012. It
appears that some samples tested in the UK have been found to be over even this higher limit.’

Will the Commission explain why it approved this decision?

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

_(18 December 2012)_

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question P-003739/2011.

An application was made under Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 for modification of the existing
maximum residue level (MRL) for glyphosate in lentils (not pulses). The modification in Commission Regulation (EU)
No 441/2012 is based on an assessment of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). EFSA concluded that all
requirements with respect to data were met and that the modification to the MRL was acceptable with regard to
consumer safety on the basis of a consumer exposure assessment for 27 specific European consumer groups. Since
the proposed modification to the MRL fulfilled the requirements of Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, the
MRL was amended accordingly.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 489

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009919/12**

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

_(30 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ CIE de Aluche, Madrid

El Grupo de Trabajo sobre la Detención Arbitraria del Consejo de Derechos Humanos de las Naciones Unidas
considera, en su resolución de 30 de agosto de 2012, que la privación de libertad cautelar en el CIE de Aluche
(Madrid) de Adnam el Hadj, inmigrante de origen marroquí y solicitante de asilo en España, fue arbitraria y
discriminatoria por razón del origen nacional y étnico de la víctima ( [1] ). Por ello, recomienda al Gobierno que repare
proporcionalmente el daño causado.

Además, el Grupo de Trabajo constató que la víctima había sido objeto de malos tratos, de gravedad equivalente a la
tortura, mientras estuvo detenida en el CIE de Aluche, que fue torturado el 7 de mayo de 2012 y luego fue expulsado a
Marruecos, sin permitirle el auxilio médico, jurídico y judicial al que la víctima tenía derecho. Otros
pronunciamientos de organismos internacionales en el marco de la ONU, han condenado las políticas españolas y
europeas de internamiento preventivo de inmigrantes en situación legal irregular. La privación de libertad en los CIE
es muchas veces declarada arbitraria, ya que generalmente el «inmigrante no dispone de recurso judicial ni
administrativo para impugnar su detención». Muchas detenciones están, a su vez, motivadas por discriminación por
origen nacional, étnico y social, desconociéndose la igualdad esencial de todas las personas en el reconocimiento y
goce de sus derechos humanos. El Grupo de Trabajo también se hizo eco de las pésimas condiciones de salubridad del
CIE de Aluche y la falta de asistencia sanitaria, así como de otras violaciones a los derechos humanos que se cometen
en su interior. En este sentido, recordó la «falta de reglamentación adecuada».

Pese a que el Gobierno español no se ha pronunciado sobre la denuncia,

1. ¿Considera la Comisión que el internamiento de migrantes sin papeles en los CIE constituye una flagrante
violación del derecho a la libertad y a la seguridad de las personas, así como del principio de no discriminación por
razón del origen nacional, racial o social?

2. ¿Conoce la Comisión por qué España no ha adoptado un reglamento sobre funcionamiento de los CIE, que
debería haberse promulgado hace más de dos años?

3. ¿Exigirá a España que se pronuncie frente a la denuncia del Grupo de Trabajo de la ONU, siga sus
recomendaciones y ofrezca una reparación a la víctima?

4. ¿Cómo influirá este hecho en la revisión y evaluación de la Directiva de Retorno?

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

_(6 de diciembre de 2012)_

La Directiva 2008/115/CE, relativa a procedimientos y normas comunes en los Estados miembros para el retorno de
los nacionales de terceros países en situación irregular, establece importantes salvaguardias aplicables directamente y
concernientes a unas condiciones de detención humanas y dignas en los Estados miembros, incluida la obligación de
asistencia sanitaria de urgencia y tratamiento básico de enfermedades, así como a facilitar los contactos con los
representantes legales y organizaciones no gubernamentales competentes. La Comisión espera que todos los Estados
miembros, incluida España, respeten los compromisos contraídos en virtud de dicha Directiva y que garanticen unas
condiciones humanas y dignas en todos los centros de internamiento de su territorio.

España notificó la transposición plena de la Directiva sobre retorno en 2011. Actualmente, la Comisión está
evaluando la transposición y, en tal marco, estudiará la legislación y las prácticas de cada Estado miembro.

Además, en 2013 se realizará un estudio sobre la aplicación práctica de dicha Directiva en los Estados miembros. La
Comisión solicitará al contratista encargado de realizarlo que preste una especial atención a la situación de los centros
de detención, incluido el Centro de Internamiento de Extranjeros de Aluche (Madrid) al que se refiere Su Señoría.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.periodistas-es.org/derechos-humanos/cie-de-aluche-la-onu-condena-a-espana-por-detencion-arbitraria-discriminacion-racial-y
torturas.

C 310 E / 490 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009919/12**

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

_(30 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Immigrant detention centre (CIE) in Aluche, Madrid

In its resolution of 30 August 2012, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention of the United Nations Human Rights
Council expressed the view that the precautionary detention in the CIE in Aluche (Madrid) of Adnam el Hadj, a
Moroccan immigrant and asylum-seeker in Spain, was arbitrary and discriminatory on grounds of the victim's
national and ethnic origin ( [1] ). It therefore recommends that the government make good the damage done, in a
proportionate manner.

In addition, the Working Group found that while detained in the CIE in Aluche, the victim had been abused in such a
serious way as to be equivalent to torture and that he was tortured on 7 May 2012 and then deported to Morocco
without being offered the medical, legal and judicial aid to which he was entitled. Other international UN
organisations have condemned Spanish and EU policies relating to the precautionary detention of illegal immigrants.
The deprivation of freedom in the CIEs has often been declared arbitrary, since, generally speaking, immigrants have
no administrative or judicial remedies with which to contest their detention. Many arrests are, in turn, motivated by
discrimination on national, ethnic and social grounds, disregarding the essential equality of all human beings in the
recognition and enjoyment of their human rights. The Working Group also referred to the appalling sanitation and
lack of healthcare in the Aluche CIE, in addition to other human rights violations committed inside the centre. In this
regard, it pointed out that there was a lack of appropriate regulation.

Although the Spanish Government has not reacted to this complaint:

1. Does the Commission not agree that the detention of illegal migrants in the CIE detention centres is a flagrant
violation of people's right to freedom and security and of the principle of non-discrimination on national, racial
or social grounds?

2. Does the Commission know why Spain has failed to adopt a regulation concerning the operation of the CIEs,
which it should have done over two years ago?

3. Will it call on Spain to respond to the UN Working Group's condemnation, follow its recommendations and
offer the victim compensation?

4. How will this affect the review and evaluation of the Returns Directive?

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

_(6 December 2012)_

Directive 2008/115/EC on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying thirdcountry nationals contains important directly applicable safeguards relating to humane and dignified detention
conditions in Member States, including the obligation to provide for emergency healthcare and essential treatment of
illness as well as to allow contacts with legal representatives and competent non-governmental organisations. The
Commission expects all Member States, including Spain, to live up to the commitments under this directive and to
ensure humane and dignified conditions in all detention facilities on their territory.

Spain notified the full transposition of the Return Directive in 2011. The Commission is currently assessing the
transposition of this directive, and in this framework it will consider both the legislation and the practices of each
Member States.

In addition, a study relating to the practical application of the Return Directive in Member States will be carried out in
2013. The Commission will ask the contractor who will carry out this study to pay specific attention to the practical
situation in detention centres, including the Aluche (Madrid) immigrant detention center (CIE) referred to by the
Honourable Member.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.periodistas-es.org/derechos-humanos/cie-de-aluche-la-onu-condena-a-espana-por-detencion-arbitraria-discriminacion-racial-y
torturas.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 491

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-009920/12**

**aan de Commissie**

**Auke Zijlstra (NI)**

_(30 oktober 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Grieks uitstel kan EUR 30 tot 38 miljard kosten

1. Is de Commissie op de hoogte van de berichten over een tweejarig uitstel voor Griekenland om te voldoen aan
de eerder afgesproken bezuinigingen en afgesproken hervormingen ( [1] )?

2. Volgens deze berichten kost dit uitstel EUR 30 miljard. Volgens het IMF zelfs EUR 38 miljard ( [2] ). Deelt de
Commissie deze berekeningen? Zo nee, hoeveel kost het dan? Zo ja, op grond van welke overwegingen zou er dan
opnieuw zoveel geld naar Griekenland moeten?

3. Griekenland heeft zich keer op keer op keer niet aan zijn afspraken gehouden om te bezuinigen en te
hervormen. Is de Commissie van mening dat het dit keer wel lukt? Zo ja, op grond waarvan? Zo nee, waarom zou er
dan nog een cent belastinggeld naar Griekenland moeten?

4. Kan de Commissie aangeven op welke wijze die EUR 30 tot 38 miljard, c.q. dat tweejarig uitstel, gefinancierd
gaat worden?

5. Volgens de Griekse minister van Financiën, Yannis Stournaras, is het uitstel al goedgekeurd door de trojka( [2] ).
Volgens sommige EU‐ en IMF-officials zijn de uitspraken van Stournaras voorbarig. Kan de Commissie hierover
uitsluitsel geven?

6. Is de Commissie van mening dat Griekenland in staat mag worden geacht een onvermijdelijk faillissement af te
wenden? Zo ja, kan de Commissie dan aangeven hoeveel miljarden daar nog voor nodig zijn en binnen welke
termijn?

7. Er gaan tevens geruchten dat de trojka een nieuwe haircut van de Griekse schulden heeft voorgesteld voor
overheden [2] . Kan de Commissie dit bevestigen? Zo ja, om hoeveel miljarden euro's gaat het deze keer?

**Antwoord van de heer Rehn namens de Commissie**

_(21 januari 2013)_

De Raad heeft de uiterste termijn voor de correctie van het buitensporig tekort verlengd, zodat Griekenland ten
laatste in 2016 een einde zal maken aan het bestaande buitensporig tekort ( [3] ). Met het aanpassingstraject in de
richting van de correctie van het buitensporige tekort wordt de verwezenlijking beoogd van een primair
overheidstekort (tekort minus rente-uitgaven) van ten hoogste 2 925 miljoen EUR (1,5 % van het bbp) in 2012 en van
een primair overschot van ten minste 0 miljoen EUR (0,0 % van het bbp) in 2013, 2 775 miljoen EUR (1,5 % van het
bbp) in 2014, 5 700 miljoen EUR (3,0 % van het bbp) in 2015 en 9 000 miljoen EUR (4,5 % van het bbp) in 2016.
Deze streefcijfers voor het primaire tekort/overschot houden een totaal ESR-overheidstekort in van 6,9 % van het bbp
in 2012, 5,4 % van het bbp in 2013, 4,5 % van het bbp in 2014, 3,4 % van het bbp in 2015 en 2,0 % van het bbp in
2016.

De lidstaten van de eurozone hebben op hun bijeenkomsten van 26/27 november 2012 en 13 december 2012
overeenstemming bereikt over een reeks schuldverminderende maatregelen, waaronder uitstel van rentebetalingen op
EFSF-leningen, een verlaging van de rentemarge van de Griekse kredietfaciliteit en de overmaking van een bedrag dat
gelijk is aan de SMP-inkomsten van de nationale centrale banken. Daarnaast heeft Griekenland een aanzienlijk bedrag
van zijn overheidsschuld teruggekocht. Opgemerkt zij dat dit schuldverminderingspakket geen „haircut” van de
uitstaande hoofdschuld omvat.

Over het geheel genomen hebben de schuldverminderende maatregelen de Griekse overheidsfinanciën weer op een
houdbaar pad gebracht. Volgens berekeningen van de Trojka zal Griekenland, dankzij de door de Eurogroep
overeengekomen maatregelen en mits het economisch aanpassingsprogramma volledig tenuitvoer wordt gelegd, een
schuldquote kunnen bereiken van 124 % in 2020 en van minder dan 110 % in 2022.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/25/us-eurozone-greece-idUSBRE89O0M920121025.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/greek-creditors-propose-new-debt-haircut-for-athens-a-863999.html
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://eurozone.europa.eu/media/861041/cd_greece_4.12.12._st15649.en12.pdf

C 310 E / 492 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009920/12**

**to the Commission**

**Auke Zijlstra (NI)**

_(30 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Deferral for Greece could cost between EUR 30 and 38 billion

1. Is the Commission aware of the reports concerning a two-year deferral to allow Greece to achieve the spending
cuts and reforms previously agreed ( [1] )?

2. According to these reports, this deferral will cost EUR 30 billion. The IMF even puts the figure at EUR 38
billion ( [2] ). Does the Commission agree with these calculations? If not, how much will the plan really cost? If so, on the
basis of what considerations should so much money again be provided for Greece?

3. Time and time again, Greece has failed to abide by its promises to cut spending and to implement reforms. Does
the Commission consider that it will be as good as its word this time? If so, on what basis? If not, why should Greece
receive a single further cent of taxpayers’ money?

4. Can the Commission indicate how this EUR 30 to 38 billion, or to put it another way, the two-year deferral, is
to be financed?

5. According to Greece’s Minister of Finance, Yannis Stournaras, the deferral has already been approved by the
troika [2] . Some EU and IMF officials, on the other hand, describe the statements by Stournaras as premature. Can the
Commission shed any light on this?

6. Does the Commission consider that Greece can be assumed to be capable of averting an inevitable bankruptcy?
If so, can the Commission indicate how many billions will be needed for this and within what period?

7. It is also rumoured that the troika has proposed a fresh debt haircut for the Greek authorities [2] . Can the
Commission confirm this? If so, how many billions of euros will be involved this time?

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

_(21 January 2013)_

The Council has now extended the deadline for the correction of the excessive deficit and Greece shall put an end to
the present excessive deficit, at the latest, by the deadline of 2016 ( [3] ).

The adjustment path towards the correction of the excessive deficit shall aim to achieve a general government
primary deficit (deficit excluding interest expenditure) not exceeding EUR 2 925 million (1.5% of GDP) in 2012, and
general government primary surpluses of at least EUR 0 million (0.0% of GDP) in 2013, EUR 2 775 million (1.5% of
GDP) in 2014, EUR 5 700 million (3.0% of GDP) in 2015 and EUR 9 000 million (4.5% of GDP) in 2016. These
targets for the primary deficit/surplus imply an overall ESA-government deficit of 6.9% of GDP in 2012, 5.4% of GDP
in 2013, 4.5% of GDP in 2014, 3.4% of GDP in 2015 and 2.0% of GDP in 2016.

In the meetings of 26/27 November 2012 and 13 December 2012, euro area Member States have agreed on a set of
debt-reducing measures which include deferral of interest payments on EFSF loans, reductions of the Greek Loan
Facility (GLF) interest margin and transfer of amount equivalent to the income on the SMP portfolio accruing to their
National Central Banks. In parallel, Greece has carried a significant buy-back of its public debt. Note that this debtreducing package does not include a haircut on outstanding debt principal.

Overall, the debt-reducing measures adopted have moved Greece back onto a sustainable trajectory for public
finances. According to Troika calculations, the measures agreed by the Eurogroup together with a full
implementation of the economic adjustment programme put Greece on course to achieve a debt to GDP ratio of
124% in 2020 and below 110% in 2022.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/25/us-eurozone-greece-idUSBRE89O0M920121025.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/greek-creditors-propose-new-debt-haircut-for-athens-a-863999.html
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://eurozone.europa.eu/media/861041/cd_greece_4.12.12._st15649.en12.pdf

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 493

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-009921/12**

**to the Commission**

**Vicky Ford (ECR)**

_(30 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ French Government support for PSA Peugeot Citroën

The French Government has announced that it will be supporting PSA Peugeot Citroën by providing up to
EUR 7 billion in refinancing guarantees for new bond issues.

Can the Commission confirm whether this state-financing package has the approval of DG Competition and, if so,
can it please explain why it considers the package to be compliant with EU state aid rules?

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

_(4 December 2012)_

France has informed the Commission of the intended support measure. At this stage, no notification has been sent to
the Commission.

The Commission intends to remain vigilant to ensure that European state aid rules will be correctly applied.

C 310 E / 494 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord P-009922/12**

**aan de Commissie**
**Cornelis de Jong (GUE/NGL)**

_(30 oktober 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Wijziging ambtenarenstatuut

De Commissie gaat in de meerjarige begroting uit van een reductie in het aantal ambtenaren met 5 % over de
periode 2014-2020.

1. Kan de Commissie mij voorzien van een overzicht van de gevolgen als niet het aantal ambtenaren, maar de
personeelskosten met 5 % worden teruggebracht?

2. Kan de Commissie instemmen met de regel dat de externe inhuur maximaal 10 % mag bedragen van het
personeelsbudget?

3. Hoe denkt de Commissie te gaan snijden in onnodige managementlagen om het budget verder te korten?

4. Wat zijn de besparingsmogelijkheden indien een persoon niet ieder jaar automatisch wordt gepromoveerd?
Is de Commissie het ermee eens dat promotie moet plaatsvinden op basis van aantoonbare verbeteringen in het werk
en het promotiepercentage waarschijnlijk kan dalen naar 10 tot 15 %? Ziet de Commissie meer
besparingsmogelijkheden door op hogere functieniveaus het promotiepercentage te verminderen?

**Antwoord van de heer Šefčovič namens de Commissie**

_(18 december 2012)_

1. De Commissie heeft niet onderzocht wat de gevolgen zouden zijn van een vermindering van de
personeelskosten in plaats van een personeelsinkrimping. Het voorstel van de Commissie betrof een personeelskrimp
van 5 % voor alle EU-instellingen/-agentschappen, wat een besparing van ongeveer 1 miljard euro in het volgend
meerjarig financieel kader zou opleveren. Deze personeelskrimp wordt met name gecompenseerd door een stijging
van het aantal werkuren tot 40 uur per week zonder salariscompensatie. De werkweek van de Europese ambtenaren
zou daarmee tot de langste van alle overheidsdiensten in Europa behoren.

2. De Commissie heeft niet overwogen om een maximum in te stellen voor de aanwerving van extern personeel.
Volgens het Statuut van de ambtenaren en de regeling welke van toepassing is op de andere personeelsleden, kan
extern personeel overigens geen ambtenaren vervangen.

3. De Commissie streeft voortdurend naar een verbetering van de efficiëntie en de productiviteit en werkt aan een
herziening van haar structuur en managementmodellen om dit te bereiken. Wat de andere instellingen betreft, kan de
Commissie deze vraag niet beantwoorden.

4. De personeelsleden worden niet elk jaar automatisch bevorderd. Overeenkomstig artikel 45, lid 1, van het
Statuut wordt bevordering uitsluitend gebaseerd op de verdiensten, en in het bijzonder op het jaarlijkse
beoordelingsrapport, het niveau van verantwoordelijkheid en het gebruik van vreemde talen. Bevordering kan slechts
plaatsvinden wanneer de ambtenaar een diensttijd van twee jaar in zijn rang heeft volbracht. De Commissie heeft een
vermindering van de bevorderingspercentages in de rang AST 9 voorgesteld, zodat de twee hoogste rangen in deze
functiegroep worden voorbehouden aan personeel dat veel verantwoordelijkheid draagt, zoals reeds het geval is voor
het AD-personeel. In het financieel memorandum bij het voorstel is aangegeven welke besparingen dat oplevert.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 495

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-009922/12**

**to the Commission**
**Cornelis de Jong (GUE/NGL)**

_(30 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Amendment of the Staff Regulations

In the Multiannual Financial Framework, the Commission assumes that the number of officials will be reduced by 5%
over the period 2014-2020.

1. Can the Commission provide me with an overview of the consequences if staff costs, rather than the number of
officials, were to be reduced by 5%?

2. Can the Commission accept the rule that the hiring of external staff must not exceed 10% of the staff budget?

3. How does the Commission intend to cut unnecessary tiers of management in order to further reduce the
budget?

4. What savings could be made if a person were not automatically promoted every year? Does the Commission
agree that promotion should be based on demonstrable improvements in staff’s work, and that the promotion rate
can probably be reduced to 10 to 15%? Is the Commission aware of any further potential for savings by reducing the
promotion rate in higher grades?

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

_(18 December 2012)_

1. The Commission has not carried out an assessment of the consequences in staff costs — as opposed to staff —
cuts. The Commission incorporated in its proposal a 5% staff cut in all EU institutions/agencies, giving rise to savings
of approximately EUR 1 billion over the next MFF. This cut is partially compensated by an increase of working time to
40h/week for staff without salary compensation. Working hours would consequently be among the highest in public
administrations in Europe.

2. The Commission has not deliberated on the issue on whether there should be any caps on hiring external staff. It
is worth noting that external staff cannot replace staff under the Staff Regulations and the Conditions of Employment
of Other Servants.

3. The Commission is constantly looking for efficiency gains and greater productivity and is revising its structure
and management models in order to achieve them. With regard to other institutions, the Commission cannot answer
the question.

4. Staff is not automatically promoted every year. In accordance with Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations,
promotion is based exclusively on merit, in particular on annual appraisal reports of officials, their level of
responsibility and the use of foreign languages. Promotion may take place only if an official has completed two years
in the grade. The Commission has proposed a reduction of promotion rates in grade AST 9 in order to reserve the two
highest grades in this function group for positions requiring a high level of responsibilities as this is already the case
for AD staff. The resulting savings are included in the financial statement accompanying the proposal.

C 310 E / 496 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-009923/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)**

_(30 Οκτωβρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Συγχρηματοδοτούμενο έργο διασύνδεσης των Κυκλάδων Ηπειρωτικής Ελλάδας με υποβρύχια καλώδια

Δημοσιεύματα του ελληνικού Τύπου αναφέρονται σε «σκάνδαλο» που αφορά σε διεθνή δημόσιο διαγωνισμό που είναι σε
εξέλιξη στην Ελλάδα, για το συγχρηματοδοτούμενο έργο διασύνδεσης των Κυκλάδων Ηπειρωτικής Ελλάδας με υποβρύχια
καλώδια. Στον διαγωνισμό, υποψήφιες εταιρίες ήταν αφενός η κοινοπραξία των εταιριών Siemens, Nexans, Prysmian, και
αφετέρου η εταιρία Ελληνικά Καλώδια. Σύμφωνα με τα δημοσιεύματα, ο ΑΔΜΗΕ (Αναθέτουσα Αρχή), αγνόησε όχι μόνο
παραλείψεις και παρατυπίες από την κοινοπραξία των εταιριών Siemens, Nexans, Prysmian αλλά αγνόησε και 33
αποκλίσεις, οικονομικών και τεχνικών όρων, στο δεύτερο στάδιο του διαγωνισμού, όπως η ίδια η Αναθέτουσα Αρχή
διαπίστωσε. Μεταξύ των αποκλίσεων που έχουν καταγραφεί, ενδεικτικά αναφέρω α) την άρνηση της κοινοπραξίας να
ευθύνεται για το έργο στο 100% της αξίας του έργου (όπως προέβλεπαν οι όροι του διαγωνισμού), αλλά δεσμεύτηκε μόνο
για το 10% β) ότι η κοινοπραξία αρνείται να δεσμευτεί ουσιαστικά επί χρονοδιαγράμματος αφού δεν δέχεται ποινικές ρήτρες
για τυχόν υπέρβασή του και γ) η εταιρία Siemens, μέσω των εγγυητικών επιστολών της τράπεζάς της, ζητά την εφαρμογή του
γερμανικού δικαίου, ενδεχομένως για να αντιμετωπίσει το ενδεχόμενο εξόδου της Ελλάδας από το ευρώ, όρος που δεν
υπήρχε φυσικά στα τεύχη δημοπράτησης όπου προβλέπονταν η εφαρμογή του ελληνικού δικαίου, ούτε υπήρχε προηγούμενο
σε οποιοδήποτε έργο κατασκεύασε μέχρι σήμερα η ΔΕΗ.

Δεδομένου ότι: α) στην κοινοπραξία συμμετέχει η εταιρία Siemens η οποία έχει καταδικαστεί σε πολλές χώρες για το αδίκημα
της δωροδοκίας κατά τη διεκδίκηση δημοσίων συμβάσεων, αδίκημα που έχει διαπράξει και στην Ελλάδα β) η Επιτροπή ερευνά
υπόθεση (IP/11/839) για «καρτέλ εταιριών στα υποβρύχια και υπόγεια καλώδια και σε σχετικά προϊόντα και υπηρεσίες» γ) ότι
το έργο είναι συγχρηματοδοτούμενο από την ΕΕ και δ) ότι σύμφωνα με την οδηγία 2004/17 καθώς και την νομολογία του
Δικαστηρίου, οι προσφορές πρέπει να συνάδουν με τις προδιαγραφές της συγγραφής υποχρεώσεων και δεν επιτρέπεται να
αποκλίνουν από αυτές, ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

1. Μπορεί να αναφέρει τον προϋπολογισμό, το χρηματοδοτικό σχήμα και το χρονοδιάγραμμα μέσα στο οποίο το έργο
πρέπει να ολοκληρωθεί;

2. Μπορεί να αναφέρει αν και σε ποιες από τις εταιρίες τις κοινοπραξίας έχει σταλεί αιτιολογημένη γνώμη στα πλαίσια της
έρευνας που διεξάγει η Επιτροπή για το καρτέλ;

3. Προτίθεται να παρέμβει άμεσα, προκειμένου να διερευνηθεί γιατί ο ΑΔΜΗΕ ως Αναθέτουσα Αρχή δέχτηκε τόσο
σοβαρές παρεκκλίσεις όπως αυτές που προανέφερα, γεγονός το οποίο συνιστά προνομιακή μεταχείριση υπέρ της
κοινοπραξίας και εις βάρος των υπόλοιπων διαγωνιζομένων;

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

_(3 Ιανουαρίου 2013)_

1. Το έργο στον τομέα της ενέργειας που αφορά τη διασύνδεση των νησιών στις Κυκλάδες μέσω ενός ηπειρωτικού
δικτύου υψηλής τάσεως συνιστά ένα από τα 181 έργα προτεραιότητας που οι ελληνικές αρχές συμφώνησαν να υλοποιηθεί
πριν από το τέλος του 2015. Το εν λόγω έργο πρόκειται να συγχρηματοδοτηθεί από το ελληνικό ΕΣΠΑ και την ΕΤΕπ. Ο
συνολικός προϋπολογισμός εκτιμάται σε 400 εκατομμύρια ευρώ (οι δημόσιες δαπάνες σε 156 εκατομμύρια).

2. Στις 30 Ιουνίου 2011, η Επιτροπή εξέδωσε ανακοίνωση αιτιάσεων στο πλαίσιο της υπόθεσης AT.39610 Καλώδια
Ρεύματος. Σύμφωνα με τη συνήθη πρακτική που ακολουθείται, η Επιτροπή όρισε τα βασικά της θέματα σε ένα δελτίο τύπου
(IP/11/839). Αρκετοί από τους παραλήπτες επιβεβαίωσαν δημοσίως την παραλαβή της ανακοίνωσης αιτιάσεων,
συμπεριλαμβανομένων και των εταιριών Nexans και Prysmian (υποψήφιες εταιρίες).

3. Σύμφωνα με την ελληνική ανεξάρτητη αρχή μεταφοράς ηλεκτρικής ενέργειας (ΑΔΜΗΕ), και οι δύο υποψήφιες εταιρίες
απορρίφθηκαν· η εταιρία Ελληνικά Καλώδια ΑΕ λόγω έλλειψης εμπειρίας και η κοινοπραξία των εταιριών Siemens ΑΕPrysmian Powerlink SRL-Nexans Norway AS λόγω της προσφερόμενης τιμής. Επομένως, η πρόσκληση υποβολής
προσφορών κηρύχθηκε άκυρη ή ακυρώσιμη. Δυστυχώς, αυτή η εξέλιξη θέτει σε κίνδυνο την έγκαιρη ολοκλήρωση του έργου
έως το τέλος του 2015. Ωστόσο, μια πιθανή ολοκλήρωσή του σε δύο στάδια πρέπει να αποτελέσει αντικείμενο
διαπραγμάτευσης με την Επιτροπή.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 497

Η Επιτροπή έλαβε καταγγελία σχετικά με την προαναφερθείσα διαδικασία πρόσκλησης υποβολής προσφορών. Καθώς η εν
λόγω διαδικασία κηρύχτηκε άκυρη ή ακυρώσιμη, δεν υπάρχει λόγος για να διεξαχθεί περαιτέρω έρευνα σχετικά με τις πιθανές
παραβάσεις στην νομοθεσία της ΕΕ για τις δημόσιες συμβάσεις.

C 310 E / 498 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009923/12**

**to the Commission**
**Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)**

_(30 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Co-financed project to link the Cyclades and mainland Greece via submarine cables.

The Greek press has reported on the ‘scandalous’ international public competition under way in Greece for the cofinanced project to link the Cyclades and mainland Greece via submarine cables. The bidders in the competition were
the consortium of: a) Siemens, Nexans and Prysmian, and b) Hellenic Cables SA. According to articles in the press,
ADMIE SA (the contracting authority) ignored not only omissions and irregularities in the bid by the
Siemens/Nexans/Prysmian consortium; it also ignored 33 derogations from financial and technical terms during the
second stage of the competition which the contracting authority itself had identified. These derogations included, but
were not limited to: a) the consortium’s refusal to assume liability for the project equal to 100% of the value of the
project (as required under the terms of the competition), with liability limited to 10%; b) the consortium’s refusal to
commit to a proper timetable and to accept penalty clauses for any delay and c) Siemens’ demand, via the bonds
provided by its bank, that German law should apply, possibly in order to allow for the eventuality of Greece’s exit
from the euro. Naturally, there was no such term in the tender documents, which made provision for Greek law to
apply, nor is there any such precedent from any project constructed by the Greek PPC to date.

Given that: a) the consortium includes Siemens, which has been convicted in numerous countries of bribery during
public procurement procedures, an offence which it has also committed in Greece; b) the Commission is investigating
a case (IP/11/839) of a ‘cartel for submarine and underground power cables and related products and services’; c) the
project is being co-financed by the EU and d) according to Directive 2004/17/EC and the case-law of the Court, bids
must be in keeping with specifications in the tender documents and cannot derogate from them, will the Commission
answer the following:

1. What are the budget, financing vehicle and timetable for completion of the project?

2. On which companies in the consortium has it issued a reasoned opinion during the course of its investigation
of the cartel?

3. Does it intend to intervene directly in order to investigate why, as the contracting authority, ADMIE SA
accepted serious derogations such as those referred to above, thus providing preferential treatment to the
consortium and acting to the detriment of the other bidders?

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

_(3 January 2013)_

1. The energy inter-connection project of the Cyclades islands with the continental high voltage grid is one of the
181 Priority Projects agreed by the Greek authorities to be implemented before the end of 2015. It is to be co-funded
through the Greek NSRF and by the EIB. The total budget is estimated at EUR 400 million (public expenditure at
EUR 156 million).

2. On 30 June 2011, the Commission issued a Statement of Objections in Case AT.39610 Power Cables. As is
common practice, the Commission has set out its key issues in a press release (IP/11/839). Several addressees have
publicly confirmed receipt of the Statement of Objections, including Nexans and Prysmian (bidders).

3. According to the Greek electric current transmission Independent Authority (ADMIE), both bids have been
rejected; the ‘Greek Cables S.A.’ because of lack of experience and the consortium ‘Siemens S.A-Prysmian Powerlink
SRL-Nexans Norway AS’, because of the proposed price. Therefore the call has been declared null and void.
Unfortunately, this puts the timely completion of the project by end of 2015 at risk. A possible split in two phases has
to be negotiated with the Commission.

The Commission received a complaint about the aforementioned tendering procedure. As the tendering was declared
null and void, there are no grounds for further investigation into possible infringements of EU public procurement
legislation.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 499

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009924/12**

**to the Commission**
**Bill Newton Dunn (ALDE)**

_(30 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Hairdressers

It is reported in the UK media that proposals have been submitted to the Commission which include the stipulation
that ‘workers shall wear shoes with non-slip soles’ (i.e. no high heels or fashionable shoes in salons) and ‘shall not
wear jewellery on their hands or arms during work, because the skin underneath them is particularly prone to disease
as a result of dampness or chemicals’ (so no wristwatches or rings).

Whose proposals are these? Has the Commission accepted them and formally incorporated them into proposed
legislation?

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

_(3 January 2013)_

The European Framework Agreement on the protection of occupational health and safety in the hairdressing
sector ( [1] ) was signed by the European sectoral social partners, Coiffure EU (employers) and UNI Europa Hair & Beauty
(workers), on 26 April 2012. The signatory parties have asked the Commission to present a proposal for legislation to
the Council for the implementation of the framework Agreement, in accordance with Article 155 TFEU.

The Commission has not yet taken a decision on that request. It is currently assessing the appropriateness of EU
action, including the costs and benefits of the Agreement, the representativeness of the parties and their mandate, the
legality of the Agreement's provisions in relation to EC law and the provisions regarding small and medium-sized
enterprises.

As the Commission made clear in its answer to Written Question E-2354/2012 ( [2] ), the aim of the Agreement is to
protect the occupational health and safety of workers in the hairdressing sector more effectively from sector-specific
risks. According to the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, hairdressers are at a high risk of
musculoskeletal disorders, respiratory ailments and skin diseases, which can cause absenteeism from work, high staff
turnover rates and applications for social security benefits at a relatively young age ( [3] ).

The Agreement contains no provision prohibiting the wearing of high heels or fashionable shoes. Following
misleading reports in some UK media, the Commission representation in London has published clarifications on its
website ( [4] ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=7697&langId=en
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2012-002354&language=EN
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/e-facts/efact34
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/the-sun-barmy-eu-plans-for-hair-salons/ and http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/hair-hitlers-or-simply
employers-and-trade-unions-working-together-to-improve-health-and-safety-for-workers-in-the-hairdressing-sector/

C 310 E / 500 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-009925/12**

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

_(30 octobre 2012)_

_Objet:_ Hausse de la TVA applicable aux services à la personne

Le secteur des services à la personne regroupe les métiers liés à l'assistance des personnes dans leurs tâches
quotidiennes. Ils peuvent concerner les services à la famille, les services de la vie quotidienne ou les services aux
personnes fragiles qui ont besoin d'une aide à la vie quotidienne. Le secteur des services à la personne bénéficie en
France d'un taux réduit de TVÀ qui a fortement incité à la création d'emplois, faisant de lui le secteur le plus créateur
d'emplois dans l'économie française.

Selon la fédération du service aux particuliers, la Commission exigerait l'application du taux plein à la TVA opposable
à cinq activités de service aux particuliers en France, incluant également celles assurées via les entreprises
d'intermédiation et les entreprises mandataires. La hausse de la TVA aurait de lourdes conséquences sur la pérennité
du secteur et nuirait à l'émergence de nouvelles entreprises.

— La Commission envisage‐t‐elle d'exiger l'application de la TVA à taux plein aux activités de service aux particuliers
en France?

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

_(5 décembre 2012)_

La Commission considère que pour un nombre limité de services à la personne, l'application par la France d'un taux
réduit de TVA est incompatible avec la législation de l'Union européenne relative à la TVA (directive 2006/112/CE).
En effet, cette législation permet l'application d'un taux réduit aux «soins à domicile», notion plus étroite que celle de
«services à la personne».

En tant que gardienne des traités, la Commission doit veiller au respect de cette législation par les États membres. Elle
a donc demandé à la France de mettre sa réglementation en conformité avec le droit de l'Union.

Il appartient à la France, si elle l'estime justifié, de prendre des mesures alternatives pour soutenir l'emploi et la
création d'entreprises, dans le respect du droit de l'Union.

Pour plus d'informations, l'Honorable Parlementaire voudra bien se reporter au communiqué de presse IP/12/673 du
21 juin 2012 disponible à l'adresse suivante:
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/common/archive/news/archives_fr.htm

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 501

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009925/12**

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

_(30 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ VAT increase for personal services

The personal services sector includes jobs relating to assisting people in their daily tasks. They may concern services
for families, services relating to everyday life or services for vulnerable people who need assistance in their daily lives.
In France, the personal services sector has a reduced rate of VAT which has strongly boosted job creation, making it
the sector that is creating the highest number of jobs in the French economy.

According to the Federation of Services for Private Individuals, the Commission is about to demand that the full rate
of VAT be applied to five types of service for private individuals in France, including those provided through
intermediary companies and authorised representatives or agencies. The VAT increase would have serious
consequences on the sustainability of the sector and would undermine the emergence of new businesses.

— Is the Commission indeed planning to require the application of VAT at the full rate for services for private
individuals in France?

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

_(5 December 2012)_

The Commission is of the opinion that, for a limited number of ‘personal services’, the application by France of a
reduced rate of VAT is incompatible with European Union law on VAT (Directive 2006/112/EC). The legislation
authorises a reduced rate of VAT to be applied to ‘domestic care services’, a much narrower concept than ‘personal
services’.

As guardian of the Treaties, the Commission has a duty to ensure compliance with this legislation by Member States.
It has therefore asked France to bring its regulations into line with European Union law.

It is up to France, if it considers it necessary, to take alternative measures to support employment and business
creation in accordance with European Union law.

For more information, may I refer the Honourable Member to Press Release IP/12/673 of 21 June 2012 available at:
[http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/common/archive/news/archives_en.htm.](http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/common/archive/news/archives_en.htm)

C 310 E / 502 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-009926/12**

**aan de Commissie**
**Lucas Hartong (NI) en Laurence J. A. J. Stassen (NI)**

_(30 oktober 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Steun aan Kosovo weggegooid geld

De Europese Rekenkamer kwam vandaag met een speciaal rapport over Kosovo ( [1] ). In dat rapport staan de
volgende conclusies: bij de politie blijven grote uitdagingen en dan met name bij de bestrijding van de
georganiseerde misdaad; het juridisch systeem vertoont nog steeds fundamentele zwakheden; corruptie blijft een
groot probleem; in het noorden van Kosovo ontbreekt de wetgever praktisch geheel; er lijkt in Kosovo sprake van een
gebrek aan politieke wil om hier iets aan te (gaan) doen.

Kosovo ontvangt per hoofd van de bevolking de meeste financiële EU-bijstand ter wereld en herbergt de
grootste civiele crisisbeheersingsmissie (Eulex) die de Unie ooit op touw heeft gezet ( [2] ). In dat kader de
volgende vragen:

1. Welke „toegevoegde Europese waarde” ziet de Commissie in de afgelopen steun van de EU aan Kosovo?

2. Hoe is het überhaupt mogelijk dat Kosovo, als land niet door ieder land erkend, zoveel steun vanuit de EU
ontvangt?

3. Vindt de Commissie het geen tijd worden om deze steun aan Kosovo per direct stop te zetten, nog afgezien van
de uiterst povere resultaten?

**Antwoord van de heer Füle namens de Commissie**

_(18 december 2012)_

Kosovo ( [3] ) maakt integraal deel uit van het stabilisatie‐ en associatieproces (SAP), het beleidskader van de EU voor de
Westelijke Balkan. Het doel van het SAP is om vrede en veiligheid te bevorderen door middel van stabilisatie, een
snelle overgang naar een markteconomie, regionale samenwerking en het vooruitzicht op toetreding tot de EU.

De financiële steun voor Kosovo in het kader van het instrument voor pretoetredingssteun maakt deel uit van het
meerjarig indicatief kader, dat wordt opgesteld aan de hand van een aantal objectieve en transparante criteria,
waaronder een inventarisatie van de behoeften, de absorptiecapaciteit, de mate waarin wordt voldaan aan de
voorwaarden en de beheerscapaciteit. Alle 27 EU-lidstaten zijn het erover eens dat de sociaal-economische
ontwikkeling van Kosovo moet worden bevorderd.

De Raad Algemene Zaken van 5 december 2011 heeft herhaald dat de EU bereid is om de economische en politieke
ontwikkeling van Kosovo te ondersteunen door middel van een duidelijk Europees perspectief, parallel aan het
Europese perspectief van de regio. In dit verband zal de Commissie Kosovo blijven steunen en zal zij nauwlettend
blijven toezien op de uitvoering van de EU-steun om de doeltreffendheid en de impact ervan te waarborgen.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eca.europa.eu/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/17764743. PDF.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eca.europa.eu/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/17794754. PDF.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Deze benaming laat de standpunten over de status van Kosovo onverlet en is in overeenstemming met resolutie 1244 van de VN-Veiligheidsraad

en het advies van het Internationaal Gerechtshof over de onafhankelijkheidsverklaring van Kosovo.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 503

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009926/12**

**to the Commission**
**Lucas Hartong (NI) and Laurence J.A.J. Stassen (NI)**

_(30 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Aid to Kosovo is a waste of money

The European Court of Auditors today issued a Special Report on Kosovo ( [1] ), which came to the following
conclusions: the police are still faced with major challenges, in particular in the fight against organised crime; the
judicial system continues to suffer from fundamental weaknesses; corruption remains a major concern; in the north
of Kosovo the rule of law is almost entirely lacking; and there seems to be a lack of political will in Kosovo to do
anything about it.

Kosovo receives the highest per capita EU financial aid of any country in the world and hosts the largest civil crisis
management mission (Eulex) which the Union has ever established ( [2] ). That being so, we have the following questions:

1. What ‘European added value’ does the Commission see in the EU’s aid to Kosovo so far?

2. How can it be that Kosovo, as a country which is not recognised by every other country, is receiving so much
aid from the EU?

3. Does not the Commission consider it is time to put a stop to this aid to Kosovo right now, quite apart from the
very meagre results it has achieved?

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

_(18 December 2012)_

Kosovo ( [3] ) is an integral part of the Stabilisation and Association Process (SAP), which is the EU’s policy framework
for the western Balkans. The SAP aims to promote peace and security through stabilisation, a swift transition to a
market economy, regional cooperation and the prospect of EU accession.

The volume of financial assistance allocated to Kosovo under the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance is part of
the multi-annual indicative framework, which is elaborated on the basis of a set of objective and transparent criteria,
including a needs assessment, absorption capacity, respect of conditionalities and capacity of management. All 27 EU
Member States agree to promote Kosovo's socioeconomic development.

The General Affairs Council of 5 December 2011 recalled the EU's willingness to assist the economic and political
development of Kosovo through a clear European perspective, in line with the European perspective of the region. In
this context, the Commission will continue to support Kosovo, and will continue to monitor closely the
implementation of EU assistance to ensure its effectiveness and impact.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eca.europa.eu/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/17764743.PDF
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eca.europa.eu/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/17794754.PDF
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo Declaration of

Independence.

C 310 E / 504 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-009927/12**
**aan de Commissie (Vicevoorzitter / Hoge Vertegenwoordiger)**

**Peter van Dalen (ECR)**

_(30 oktober 2012)_

_Betreft:_ VP/HR — Deelname aan voorbede door Egyptische president Morsi

Op 8 augustus 2012 schreef de vicevoorzitter/hoge vertegenwoordiger dat president Morsi van Egypte heeft
verklaard gesloten internationale overeenkomsten, waaronder met Israël, te honoreren (antwoord E-006363/2012).

Op 19 oktober 2012 heeft president Morsi deelgenomen aan de voorbede van de Egyptische geestelijke Futouh Abd
Al-Nabi Mansour. Tijdens deze bijeenkomst, die live werd uitgezonden op kanaal 1 van de Egyptische staatsomroep,
werd het volgende gebeden: „Allah, reken af met de joden en degenen die hen steunen. O Allah, verspreid hen, scheur
hen aan stukken.” President Morsi heeft van deze uitlatingen, die expliciet oproepen tot geweld, geen afstand
genomen, integendeel.

1. Heeft de vicevoorzitter/hoge vertegenwoordiger kennis genomen van de bewuste uitzending van 19 oktober
2012 van de Egyptische staatstelevisie?

2. Is de vicevoorzitter/hoge vertegenwoordiger met mij van mening dat deelname van president Morsi aan
dergelijke bijeenkomsten, waarin de hoop wordt uitgesproken dat met de joden wordt afgerekend, het zoeken naar
vrede en stabiliteit in het Midden-Oosten en het zuidelijke Middellandse Zeegebied in de weg staat, en dat president
Morsi daarmee impliciet aangeeft gesloten internationale overeenkomsten met Israël niet te honoreren?

3. Is de vicevoorzitter/hoge vertegenwoordiger met mij van mening dat president Morsi publiekelijk afstand dient
te nemen van deze voorbeden die oproepen tot geweld en die werden uitgezonden op de Egyptische staatstelevisie, en
zal zij hem daarop aanspreken? Zo nee, waarom niet?

4. Is de vicevoorzitter/hoge vertegenwoordiger bereid de financiële steun van de EU aan Egypte en de Europese
diplomatieke dienst in te zetten om president Morsi te corrigeren en te bewegen zich meer in te zetten voor het
vredesproces in het Midden-Oosten?

**Antwoord van hoge vertegenwoordiger/vicevoorzitter Ashton namens de Commissie**

_(4 januari 2013)_

Ondanks de hardere uitspraken van de Moslimbroederschap over Israël en het vredesproces in het Midden-Oosten
hebben de nieuwe Egyptische leiders, onder aanvoering van president Morsi, en Israël aangegeven dat zij een
vreedzame relatie met elkaar willen blijven onderhouden. Na de terroristische aanslagen in Noord-Sinaï vorige zomer
is de samenwerking en het contact tussen Israëlische en Egyptische militairen en inlichtingendiensten op het hoogste
niveau voortgezet om veiligheid aan beide kanten van de gemeenschappelijke grens te verbeteren. Sinds de recente
militaire escalatie in Gaza/het zuiden van Israël heeft Egypte een actieve rol gespeeld in de onderhandelingen over een
wapenstilstand tussen Hamas en Israël. Egypte speelt ook een belangrijke rol in de Palestijnse verzoening. De EU
dringt er op aan dit beleid voort te zetten omdat Egypte als een van de eersten baat zou hebben bij een vreedzame
regeling van het conflict tussen Israël en de Palestijnen.

In deze context rekent de EU op Egypte om zijn inzet voor vrede en regionale stabiliteit voort te zetten, onder andere
via het vredesverdrag met Israël.

De EU beschouwt vrede en stabiliteit in de hele regio als een strategisch doel. Zij zet ook al haar diplomatieke
middelen en samenwerkingsinstrumenten in om de vrijheid van godsdienst of overtuiging in de regio te bevorderen
en heeft herhaaldelijk het geweld tegen religieuze minderheden en hun gebedshuizen veroordeeld. Zij dringt er bij de
autoriteiten op ervoor te zorgen dat de vrijheid van godsdienst of overtuiging wordt gerespecteerd.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 505

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009927/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Peter van Dalen (ECR)**

_(30 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Participation in prayers by Egypt's President Morsi

On 8 August 2012, in answer to a written question (E-006363/2012), the Vice-President/High Representative wrote
that President Morsi of Egypt had declared that he would uphold previously concluded international agreements,
including those with Israel.

On 19 October 2012 President Morsi took part in prayers led by the Egyptian cleric Futouh Abd Al-Nabi Mansour.
During this meeting, which were broadcast live on Channel 1 of Egyptian State TV, the following prayers were said:
‘Oh Allah, deal with the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, disperse them, rend them asunder.’ President Morsi did
not distance himself from these explicit incitements to violence; on the contrary.

1. Is the Vice-President/High Representative aware of the deliberate broadcasting of these prayers by Egyptian
State TV on 19 October 2012?

2. Does the Vice-President/High Representative agree that President Morsi’s participation in such prayers,
expressing the wish for the Jews to be ‘dealt with’, is an obstacle to the search for peace and stability in the Middle East
and the Southern Mediterranean, and that by doing so President Morsi is implying that he will not uphold previously
concluded international agreements with Israel?

3. Does the Vice-President/High Representative agree that President Morsi should publicly distance himself from
these prayers which call for violence and which were broadcast on Egyptian State TV, and will she approach him on
this matter? If not, why not?

4. Is the Vice-President/High Representative prepared to use the EU’s financial aid to Egypt, and the European
diplomatic service, to correct President Morsi’s attitude and ensure that he works harder to support the peace process
in the Middle East?

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

_(4 January 2013)_

Despite Muslim Brotherhood's harsher rhetoric on Israel and on the Middle East Peace Process (MEPP), the new
Egyptian leadership under President Morsi as well as Israel have given signs that they remain committed to
maintaining peaceful relations with each other. Following the terrorists attacks of last summer in Northern Sinai, the
collaboration and contacts between Israeli and Egyptian military and intelligence officials have resumed at the highest
level with the aim of improving the security situation on both sides of the common border. Thus, after the recent
military escalation in Gaza/South Israel, Egypt has taken an active role in the truce negotiations between Hamas and
Israel. Egypt is also playing a major role in the Palestinian reconciliation. The EU is calling for this policy to be pursued
because Egypt would be among the first beneficiary of a peaceful settlement of the conflict between Israel and the
Palestinians.

In this context, the EU counts on Egypt to maintain its commitment to peace and regional stability including through
the Peace Treaty with Israel.

Peace and stability of the whole region is a strategic objective for the EU. The EU is also using the full range of its
diplomatic and cooperation instruments to promote Freedom of Religion or Belief in the region and has condemned
repeatedly the acts of violence committed against the religious minorities and their places of worship, calling on the
authorities to ensure that Freedom of Religion or Belief is respected.

C 310 E / 506 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009928/12**

**à Comissão**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**
_(30 de outubro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Défice Público Português — Programa de rescisões amigáveis

Considerando que:

—
Portugal assinou um memorando de entendimento a 17 de maio de 2011 sobre as condicionalidades da
política económica, em que apresenta a necessidade de uma política orçamental de redução da despesa pública;

—
Na 5.° avaliação da Troika, os objetivos do défice público foram revistos em alta para 5 % do PIB em 2012,
4,5 % do PIB em 2013 e 2,5 % do PIB em 2014, abaixo do limiar de 3 % estabelecido no Pacto de Estabilidade e
Crescimento, uma vez que o défice público apresentado nos primeiros 6 meses do ano foi de 6,8 % do PIB;

—
A 5.° avaliação da Troika pede uma racionalização da administração pública como uma das reformas
necessárias para o ajustamento orçamental;

—
O governo Português já afirmou que irá apresentar um plano de cortes na despesa pública de 4 mil milhões de
euros entre 2013 e 2014 ( _in_ Jornal Expresso 27.10.2012), através do emagrecimento das empresas de Estado,
de cortes na saúde, educação e prestações sociais e através da redução dos funcionários públicos;

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

1. Com o objetivo de reduzir a despesa na administração pública, o governo Português pondera um programa de
rescisões amigáveis. Contudo, para o financiar será necessária uma receita extraordinária. Tem conhecimento
desta informação?

2. Está a Comissão aberta a negociar o pagamento deste programa de rescisões através dos fundos da União? Ou,
por outro lado, está disposta a não contabilizar esta despesa no défice público, uma vez que representa uma
reforma estrutural essencial da administração pública?

**Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão**

_(18 de dezembro de 2012)_

A Comissão está a par dos planos do Governo Português para rever as funções do Estado na economia. O objetivo do
exercício é racionalizar o Estado, conseguindo, para efeitos orçamentais, poupar quatro mil milhões de euros em
2013-2014.

A Comissão não tem conhecimento de nenhuma receita extraordinária relacionada com estas medidas. Na realidade,
os Fundos Estruturais da UE já prestam apoio significativo às áreas em apreço. Por exemplo, cerca de 25 % (5320
milhões de euros) da dotação total dos Fundos Estruturais da UE para o período 2007-2013 destinam-se à formação,
ao ensino e a melhorar o mercado de trabalho. Além disso, os exercícios de reprogramação efetuados recentemente
vieram reforçar os fundos disponíveis para algumas das áreas referidas, por exemplo o financiamento de políticas
ativas ligadas ao mercado de trabalho. É ainda de referir que se aumentou a taxa média de cofinanciamento da UE
aplicada aos projetos realizados em Portugal, o que veio aliviar o esforço orçamental do país para completar o
financiamento necessário.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 507

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009928/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**

_(30 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Portuguese budget deficit — friendly cuts programme

Given that:

—
on 17 May 2011, Portugal signed a memorandum of understanding on specific economic policy
conditionality, which presents the need for a fiscal policy to reduce public spending;

—
in the Troika’s fifth evaluation, budget deficit targets were revised upwards to 5% of GDP in 2012, 4.5% of GDP
in 2013, and 2.5% of GDP in 2014. This is below the 3% threshold established in the Stability and Growth Pact,
since the budget deficit recorded in the first six months of the year was 6.8% of GDP;

—
the Troika’s fifth evaluation calls for public sector rationalisation as a necessary reform for the budgetary
adjustment;

—
the Portuguese Government has said that it will submit a plan to cut public spending by EUR 4 billion between
2013 and 2014 (in _Jornal Expresso_ 27 October 2012), by streamlining state-owned enterprises, making cuts to
health, education and social services and reducing the number of civil servants.

I would ask the Commission:

1. In order to reduce public spending, the Portuguese Government is planning a programme of friendly cuts.
However, it will need an extraordinary amount of revenue to fund this. Is the Commission aware of this?

2. Is it open to negotiating the payment of this cuts programme using EU funds? Or, on the other hand, is it
unwilling to account for this expenditure in the budget deficit, since it represents an essential structural reform
of the public sector?

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

_(18 December 2012)_

The Commission is aware of the Portuguese government's plans to carry out a review of the functions of State in the
economy. The purpose of this exercise is to streamline the state which in budgetary terms should yield savings of
EUR 4 billion over the period 2013‐2014.

The Commission is not aware of any ‘extraordinary amount of revenue’ related to these measures. As a matter of fact,
the EU Structural Funds already provide significant support to the areas referred to. For instance, approximately 25%
(EUR 5.32 billion) of the entire EU Structural Funds envelope over the period 2007-2013 focuses on training,
education and improving the labour market. In addition, recent re-programming exercises have reinforced the funds
available for some of these areas such as active labour market policies. Moreover, the average EU co-financing rate
provided to projects carried out in Portugal has been increased, thus alleviating the budgetary effort of the country in
providing the required co-financing.

C 310 E / 508 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009929/12**

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

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**
_(30 de outubro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — A normalização do Estado de Direito na Guiné-Bissau

Considerando que:

—
A Guiné-Bissau sofreu um golpe de Estado em abril de 2012, na véspera do início da campanha para a segunda
volta das eleições presidenciais, em que os militares ocuparam a rádio nacional, a sede do PAIGC e a residência
do Primeiro-Ministro;

—
A Cedeao, Comunidade Económica dos Estados da África Ocidental, ao contrário de outras organizações
internacionais e regionais, legitimou o governo de transição, mas, simultaneamente, impôs um calendário de
normalização que os militares não parecem cumprir;

—
A Comunidade de Países de Língua Portuguesa já condenou a atuação do governo de transição imposto e o
poder que os militares mantêm no país, assim como as Nações Unidas, a UA e a UE, apelando para a
normalização e a aplicação de um Estado de Direito democrático e legítimo;

Pergunta-se à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante:

1. Tem conhecimento de que o Primeiro-Ministro deposto, Carlos Gomes Júnior, requereu uma conferência com
os parceiros do país, nomeadamente a ONU, a UE, a UA, a Cedeao e a CPLP, para alcançar uma solução que
ponha o país no caminho da democracia? Em caso afirmativo, quando pensa que se realizará a mesma?

2. Quais têm sido as ações da UE para alcançar um consenso face à turbulência que o país vive e para restaurar
plenamente a legalidade e a ordem constitucional em prol do desenvolvimento socioeconómico?

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

_(18 de dezembro de 2012)_

A UE está a trabalhar em conjunto com os seus principais parceiros internacionais, em particular com as Nações
Unidas (ONU), a União Africana (UA), a Comunidade Económica dos Estados da África Ocidental (Cedeao) e a
Comunidade dos Países de Língua Portuguesa (CPLP) que, juntamente com a UE formam o «P5», com o objetivo de
apoiar a criação de condições de estabilidade democrática na Guiné-Bissau. Prevê-se que o P5 realize uma missão de
avaliação conjunta na Guiné-Bissau logo que se chegue a acordo sobre o mandato dessa missão.

A UE está determinada, em cooperação com outras organizações internacionais, em garantir o restabelecimento de
uma situação na Guiné-Bissau em que os cidadãos tenham liberdade para eleger o governo e as forças armadas se
encontrem subordinadas às autoridades civis legítimas.

No âmbito do artigo 96.° do Acordo de Cotonu, a UE adotou uma série de medidas apropriadas relativas ao regresso à
ordem constitucional e à supressão do controlo pelos militares dos poderes civis, que está na origem do problema.
Estas medidas continuam a ser pertinentes. Não obstante a suspensão da cooperação com o Governo da GuinéBissau, a UE mantém os programas que beneficiam diretamente a população, estando outros programas a ser
atualmente identificados.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 509

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009929/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**

_(30 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Return to the rule of law in Guinea-Bissau

Given that:

—
Guinea-Bissau suffered a coup in April 2012, on the eve of the campaign for the second round of presidential
elections, in which the military occupied the national radio station, the PAIGC (African Party for the
Independence of Guinea-Bissau and Cape Verde) headquarters and the Prime Minister’s residence;

—
Ecowas, the Economic Community of West African States, unlike other international and regional
organisations, legitimised the transitional Government, but simultaneously imposed a normalisation schedule,
to which the military does not appear to be adhering;

—
the Community of Portuguese-Speaking Countries (CPLP), the United Nations, the African Union (AU) and
the EU have already condemned the actions of the self-imposed transitional Government and the military’s
continued power in the country, and have called for a return to and the implementation of a democratic and
legitimate rule of law.

I would ask the Vice-President/High Representative:

1. Is she aware that the deposed Prime Minister, Carlos Gomes Júnior, has requested a conference with the
country’s partners, including the UN, the EU, the AU, Ecowas and the CPLP, to reach a solution that puts the
country on the path to democracy? If so, when does she think that it will take place?

2. What has the EU done to reach a consensus in the light of the turmoil that the country is experiencing and to
fully restore legality and constitutional order in aid of its socioeconomic development?

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

_(18 December 2012)_

The EU is working together with its main international parties (mainly the United Nations (UN), the African Union
(AU), the Economic Community of Western African States (Ecowas), Community of Portuguese-Speaking Countries
(CPLP) who, together with the EU form the ‘P5’) with the objective of assisting in the establishment of the conditions
for democratic stability in Guinea-Bissau. A Joint Assessment Mission to Guinea-Bissau by the P5 is expected to take
place as soon as the relevant terms of reference will be agreed upon.

The EU is determined, in cooperation with other international organisations, to ensure the restoration of a situation
where the citizens of Guinea-Bissau are free to elect a government of their choice, and where the armed forces play a
role subordinate to the legitimate civil authorities.

In the framework of Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement, the EU has adopted a series of appropriate measures
related to the return to constitutional order and the removal of military control of civilian powers, which is the root
problem. These appropriate measures remain relevant. Despite the suspension of cooperation with the Government
of Guinea-Bissau, the EU maintains its programmes directly benefitting the population and others are being currently
identified.

C 310 E / 510 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009930/12**

**à Comissão**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**
_(30 de outubro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Para além do Ano Europeu do Envelhecimento Ativo e da solidariedade entre as gerações

Considerando que:

—
O ano de 2012 é o Ano Europeu do Envelhecimento Ativo e da solidariedade entre as gerações, incidindo em
três domínios do envelhecimento ativo: emprego, participação na sociedade e autonomia;

—
Segundo dados do Eurostat de 2010, na UE27 as pessoas com 80 ou mais anos são 23,3 milhões, enquanto nas
economias emergentes estes valores são bastantes baixos, por exemplo, 18,2 milhões na China, 8,2 milhões na
Índia e 2,9 milhões no Brasil;

—
As alterações demográficas obrigam os Estados a tomar medidas de adaptação e a criar as condições necessárias
para um envelhecimento ativo e o reforço da solidariedade entre as gerações;

—
O programa Intergerações da cidade de Lisboa aponta para números dramáticos, como por exemplo o facto de
92 % das pessoas com mais de 65 anos residentes em Lisboa estarem inativas, sendo estes números apenas uma
parte da realidade portuguesa;

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

1. Já pode fazer um balanço das atividades do Ano Europeu do Envelhecimento Ativo? Consegue mostrar que
houve avanços nas políticas dos Estados-Membros, de modo a melhorar a vida de milhões de pessoas idosas?

2. Sendo esta uma realidade da sociedade europeia, que medidas/ações pensa tomar para melhorar a situação dos
idosos da UE após o término do ano de 2012, dedicado ao envelhecimento ativo?

**Resposta dada por László Andor em nome da Comissão**

_(4 de janeiro de 2013)_

É ainda demasiado cedo para avaliar o Ano Europeu de 2012. Em 2013, será realizada uma avaliação por um
contratante externo. Como previsto na Decisão relativa ao Ano Europeu de 2012, em 2014 a Comissão vai
apresentar às outras instituições europeias um relatório sobre a implementação do Ano Europeu.

O Ano Europeu mobilizou um vasto leque de partes interessadas na Europa, com o objetivo de criar melhores
oportunidades para o envelhecimento ativo e reforçar a solidariedade entre gerações. Deu origem a centenas de novas
iniciativas e eventos a nível europeu, nacional, regional ou local ( [1] ).

Vários Estados-Membros adotaram novas iniciativas políticas. A Áustria apresentou um plano nacional sobre a
integração social e a qualidade de vida dos cidadãos mais idosos. A Irlanda decidiu que cada autarquia local na Irlanda
teria o seu próprio programa adaptado aos idosos, a nível de condado. Em agosto, a Polónia adotou um «Programa
governamental para a atividade social dos cidadãos idosos» para o período de 2012-2013.

A Comissão elaborou, em maio de 2012 ( [2] ), uma publicação sobre «A contribuição da UE para o envelhecimento
ativo e a solidariedade entre gerações», que descreve uma vasta gama de medidas, a nível da UE, em diferentes
domínios políticos. Também tem apoiado o desenvolvimento, juntamente com a Comissão Económica para a Europa
das Nações Unidas e o European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research, em Viena, de um índice de
envelhecimento ativo. Esse índice foi apresentado na conferência de encerramento do Ano Europeu, em 10 de
dezembro de 2012, em Chipre. Destina-se a ajudar os responsáveis políticos e as partes interessadas nos EstadosMembros a identificar o potencial inexplorado do envelhecimento ativo das mulheres e dos homens, bem como a
desenvolver estratégias políticas adequadas.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://europa.eu/ey2012
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=6920&type=2&furtherPubs=yes

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 511

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009930/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**

_(30 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Beyond the European Year for Active Ageing and Solidarity between Generations

Given that:

—
2012 is the European Year for Active Ageing and Solidarity between Generations, focusing on three areas of
active ageing: employment, participation in society and independent living;

—
according to 2010 Eurostat data, 23.3 million people in the EU-27 are aged 80 or above, while in emerging
economies these figures are quite low, for example: 18.2 million in China, 8.2 million in India and 2.9 million
in Brazil;

—
demographic changes require States to take measures to adapt and create the necessary conditions for active
ageing and greater solidarity between generations;

—
the Lisbon ‘Intergenerational’ programme highlights alarming figures, such as the fact that 92% of people over
the age of 65 living in Lisbon are inactive. These numbers are only part of the Portuguese reality.

I would ask the Commission:

1. Can it now take stock of the European Year for Active Ageing initiatives? Can it demonstrate that there have
been advances in the Member States’ policies to improve the lives of millions of older people?

2. Since this is a reality of European society, what steps/actions will it take to improve the situation of the elderly
in the EU after 2012, the year dedicated to active ageing?

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

_(4 January 2013)_

It is still too early to assess the European Year 2012. An evaluation will be carried out in 2013 by an external
contractor. As stipulated by the decision on the European Year 2012, the Commission will present in 2014 a report
to the other European institutions on the implementation of the European Year.

The European Year has mobilised a wide range of stakeholders across Europe with the aim of creating better
opportunities for active ageing and strengthening solidarity between generations. It gave rise to hundreds of new
initiatives and events at European, national, regional or local level ( [1] ).

Several Member States have taken new policy initiatives. Austria presented a national plan on the social integration
and quality of life of senior citizens. Ireland has decided that every local authority area in Ireland will have its own
Age-Friendly County Programme. Poland adopted in August a ‘Government Programme for Senior Citizens Social
Activity’ for the years 2012-2013.

The Commission has produced in May 2012 ( [2] ) a publication on ‘The EU Contribution to Active Ageing and
Solidarity between Generations’ which describes a wide range of measures at EU level in different policy areas. It has
also supported the development, with the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe and the European
Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research in Vienna of an active ageing index. This index was presented at the
European Year closing conference on 10 December 2012 in Cyprus. It is intended to help policy-makers and
stakeholders in the Member States identify untapped active ageing potentials of women and men and develop
appropriate policy strategies.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://europa.eu/ey2012
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=6920&type=2&furtherPubs=yes

C 310 E / 512 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009932/12**

**to the Commission**
**Daniel Hannan (ECR)**

_(30 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Justice for property buyers in Cyprus

Tens of thousands of property buyers in Cyprus have developer mortgages on their homes thanks to the corrupt
actions of property developers, banks and lawyers. The Government of Cyprus is complicit in these crimes owing to
its failure to publicise and enforce the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD), as per official complaint
CHAP(2011)3252. Unless the Commission punishes the Cypriot Government for this and offers redress to the
victims, is it not also complicit in these crimes?

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

_(14 December 2012)_

The Commission has been, and continues to be, active in addressing the problems faced by many immovable
property buyers in Cyprus because of the practices of developers, banks and lawyers.

In this respect, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written questions
E-008121/2012 and E-006765/2012 ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 513

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009933/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(30 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Il governo del Bahrein nega il diritto di protestare

Il 30 ottobre 2012, il governo del Bahrein ha vietato tutte le riunioni e le proteste a seguito degli agli scontri tra
manifestanti e polizia. Il Ministro degli interni del Bahrein, Sheikh Rashid Al Khalifa, ha cercato di giustificare il
divieto, affermando che «l'abuso ripetuto» del diritto alla libertà di parola e di espressione non poteva più essere
accettato. Ha aggiunto che le proteste saranno consentite soltanto allorché la sicurezza e la stabilità saranno sufficienti
a mantenere l'unità nazionale.

Le riunioni comuni annuali del Consiglio e ministeriali tra i ministri degli esteri dell'Unione europea e del Consiglio di
cooperazione del Golfo (GCC), e quelle tra alti funzionari in un Comitato misto di cooperazione, sono state istituite
nel 1988. Ciò detto e considerando le informazioni di cui sopra può la Commissione rispondere alle seguenti
domande:

1. La Commissione è a conoscenza del fatto che il governo del Bahrein ha recentemente, e ancora una volta,
negato il diritto di protestare? Qual è il suo atteggiamento in merito a questa situazione?

2. La Commissione ha discusso, o intende discutere, l’erosione dei diritti umani fondamentali in Bahrein nelle
riunioni annuali congiunte?

3. Qual è lo stato attuale dei negoziati su un accordo di libero scambio con il CCG? Nel dar forma a siffatto
potenziale accordo la Commissione terrà conto dello scarso rispetto dei diritti umani da parte del governo del
Bahrein fin dalle proteste all’inizio del 2011?

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

_(19 dicembre 2012)_

L'UE è pienamente consapevole della situazione del Bahrein, su cui si è espressa chiaramente in molte occasioni,
anche attraverso dichiarazioni dell'Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente. L'ultima dichiarazione è stata pubblicata il
7 novembre 2012.

I diritti umani e le libertà fondamentali sono regolarmente discussi nelle riunioni ufficiali con il Consiglio di
cooperazione del Golfo, anche a livello ministeriale. Su questi argomenti vengono intrattenuti anche contatti
bilaterali, sia nel Bahrein sia a Bruxelles.

I negoziati su un accordo di libero scambio con il Consiglio di cooperazione del Golfo sono ancora in corso e l'UE ha
sottolineato a più riprese la propria disponibilità a discutere gli ultimi punti sui quali non è ancora stato raggiunto un
accordo tra le parti. Il progetto di testo include una clausola concordata sui diritti umani.

C 310 E / 514 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009933/12**

**to the Commission**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(30 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Bahraini Government denies right to protest

On 30 October 2012, the Government of Bahrain banned all gatherings and protests, following clashes between
protesters and police. Bahrain’s Interior Minister, Sheikh Rashid Al Khalifa, tried to justify this ban by stating that
‘repeated abuse’ of the rights of freedom of speech and expression could no longer be accepted. He added that protests
would be permitted only once security and stability were sufficient to maintain national unity.

Joint annual Council/Ministerial Meetings between the EU and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) foreign ministers,
as well as between senior officials in a Joint Cooperation Committee, were established in 1988. Considering this and
the above information, can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. Is the Commission aware of the fact that Bahraini Government has recently and once again denied the right to
protest? What is its stance on this matter?

2. Has the Commission discussed or does it intend to discuss the erosion of fundamental human rights in Bahrain
at the joint annual meetings?

3. What is the current state of negotiations on a free trade agreement (FTA) with the GCC? Is the Commission
taking into consideration the current poor human rights record of the Bahraini Government since the protests
of early 2011 when drawing up this potential agreement?

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

_(19 December 2012)_

The EU is fully aware of the situation in Bahrain, on which it has made its views clear on many occasions, including
through statements issued by the HR/VP. The latest statement was issued on 7 November 2012.

Human rights and fundamental freedoms are regularly discussed in official meetings with the GCC, including at the
ministerial level. Bilateral contacts on these topics also take place, both in Bahrain and in Brussels.

The negotiations on a Free Trade Agreement with the GCC are still open and the EU has repeatedly stated its readiness
to discuss the last points on which an agreement between the parties still has to be found. An agreed human rights
clause is included in the draft text.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 515

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009934/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(30 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Peggioramento della situazione della sicurezza in Nigeria dopo che una chiesa cattolica è stata presa di mira
in un attacco suicida

Il 28 ottobre 2012, i funzionari nigeriani hanno annunciato che almeno sette persone sono state uccise e altre decine
ferite in un attentato suicida compiuto con un autobomba, durante la messa in una chiesa cattolica nel nord della
Nigeria. L’attacco ha avuto luogo a Kaduna, che è situata sulla linea di demarcazione tra il nord, dove vive una
maggioranza musulmana, e il sud, popolato soprattutto da cristiani. Il gruppo militante islamista Boko Haram ha già
preso di mira Kaduna nel recente passato.

Il presidente Goodluck Jonathan ha promesso di «raddoppiare» gli sforzi del governo per contrastare il terrorismo e la
violenza. Il decimo programma del Fondo europeo per lo sviluppo (FES) per la Nigeria, che copre il periodo 20082013, ha una dotazione di 677 milioni di euro per finanziare programmi e progetti in tre aree focali, la prima delle
quali è la pace e la sicurezza. Il comunicato congiunto Nigeria‐UE emesso al termine della riunione ministeriale della
Troika svoltasi a Praga il 9 giugno 2009, promuove il rafforzamento del dialogo politico sulla pace e la sicurezza a più
livelli, compreso quello locale.

1. La Commissione è a conoscenza di quest’ultimo attacco a una chiesa cattolica durante la messa?

2. La Commissione è convinta che il governo nigeriano stia facendo abbastanza per promuovere la pace e la
sicurezza nel paese, in particolare nella regione tra il nord e il sud? Che cosa si potrebbe fare di più?

3. La Commissione è convinta che i suoi sforzi per promuovere la pace e la sicurezza in Nigeria attraverso il
programma FES abbia migliorato la sicurezza della popolazione nigeriana?

4. Il dialogo congiunto UE-Nigeria sulla pace e la sicurezza comprendeva anche il dialogo sulla costruzione della
pace tra cristiani e musulmani in Nigeria? In caso contrario, non ritiene la Commissione che alla luce di questo attacco
sarebbe utile aggiungere siffatte questioni al quadro della discussione?

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

_(11 dicembre 2012)_

I recenti attacchi dei militanti islamici in Nigeria hanno preso di mira oltre alle chiese, edifici del governo e dei servizi
di sicurezza, mercati, scuole e civili innocenti, sia musulmani che cristiani. L’Unione europea condanna questi
attentati che rappresentano veri e propri atti criminali. A tal proposito si veda altresì la dichiarazione dell’AR/VP
Catherine Ashton del 19 giugno 2012.

L’UE collabora con la Nigeria, sia direttamente sia con l’ECOWAS su base regionale, per sostenerla nel difficile
tentativo di creare condizioni di sicurezza durature e di agire sui molteplici fattori socioeconomici e politici che
conducono alla radicalizzazione. L’Unione ha già reindirizzato parti del programma di cooperazione con la Nigeria
— precedentemente destinato in larga parte alla regione del delta, dove ha permesso di migliorare la sicurezza —
verso il nord del paese, anche per velocizzare le iniziative per la lotta alla povertà e all’indigenza nella regione.
Quest’anno l’UE ha approvato un’azione nel settore della salute materna in due Stati settentrionali della Nigeria e, in
collaborazione con le agenzie dell’ONU UN Women e UNICEF, sta elaborando un progetto sulle donne, la pace e la
sicurezza, incentrato altresì sulla Nigeria settentrionale.

Stiamo attualmente valutando la possibilità di rivolgere un’attenzione particolare anche alla regione settentrionale nel
quadro del prossimo — 11° — FES (2014-2020).

Nel luglio 2012 l’UE ha sostenuto lo sviluppo delle capacità di mediazione in una delle regioni più fragili della Nigeria
settentrionale, attivando i fondi del progetto per il sostegno alla mediazione, un’iniziativa del Parlamento europeo
(SEAE linea di bilancio 2238). Inoltre, nell’ambito dello strumento per la stabilità è in preparazione una decisione
relativa a un ulteriore progetto dedicato in particolare alla prevenzione dei conflitti e all’occupazione giovanile in
questa zona.

C 310 E / 516 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-010082/12**

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

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 de novembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Nigéria — novo ataque a uma igreja

Mais uma vez chegam notícias preocupantes da Nigéria. Desta feita, uma igreja no norte do país foi atacada à bomba
por um suicida que fez embater um jipe armadilhado no edifício causando oito mortos e uma centena de feridos. Até
ao momento, não era conhecida a autoria do atentado, mas diversas fontes apontam para a possibilidade de ter sido
uma ação do grupo terrorista Boko Haram que advoga a conversão da Nigéria num Estado islâmico, não obstante ter
a sua população dividida entre cristãos e muçulmanos.

Assim, pergunto à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante:

—
Em que medida pode a União Europeia contribuir para promover a paz entre as comunidades e auxiliar as
autoridades a reprimirem estes ataques à vida e à liberdade de religião de cidadãos inocentes?

—
Que medidas tomou ou prevê tomar neste tocante?

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

_(11 de dezembro de 2012)_

Os recentes ataques perpetrados por militantes islamitas na Nigéria tiveram por alvo edifícios do governo e das forças
de segurança, mercados, escolas e civis inocentes, muçulmanos e cristãos, bem como igrejas. Todos esses ataques são
atividades criminosas e como tal foram condenados pela União Europeia. Remetemos igualmente para a declaração
de 19 de junho de 2012 da Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente Catherine Ashton.

A UE está a trabalhar em conjunto com a Nigéria, tanto diretamente como por intermédio da Cedeao, numa base
regional, para ajudar o país a enfrentar o desafio de criar uma situação de segurança duradoura e dar uma resposta aos
múltiplos fatores socioeconómicos e políticos conducentes à radicalização. A UE já reorientou partes do seu
programa de cooperação na Nigéria — que estava em grande medida concentrado na região do Delta, contribuindo
para melhorar a segurança nessa zona — para o norte do país, a fim de permitir também acelerar as ações de luta
contra a pobreza e a miséria. Este ano, a UE aprovou uma ação no domínio da saúde materna em dois Estados do
norte da Nigéria e está a elaborar um projeto, juntamente com a Unwomen e a Unicef, sobre Mulheres, Paz e
Segurança, que se centra também no norte da Nigéria.

Estamos atualmente a examinar a possibilidade de conceder uma atenção especial ao norte no âmbito do próximo —
11.° — FED (2014-2020).

Em julho de 2012, a UE apoiou o desenvolvimento de capacidades de mediação numa das zonas mais frágeis do norte
da Nigéria, recorrendo aos fundos do projeto de apoio à mediação, uma iniciativa do Parlamento Europeu (SEAE
rubrica orçamental 2238). Além disso, no âmbito do Instrumento de Estabilidade está a ser preparada uma decisão
relativa a outro projeto que incide sobre a prevenção de conflitos e o emprego dos jovens nessa zona.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 517

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009934/12**

**to the Commission**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(30 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Worsening security situation in Nigeria after Catholic church was targeted in suicide attack

Nigerian officials announced on 28 October 2012 that at least seven people had been killed and dozens more injured
in a suicide car bombing, which took place during mass at a Catholic church in northern Nigeria. The attack
happened in the city of Kaduna, which is situated on the dividing line between the north, where there is a large
Muslim majority, and the south, which is populated mainly by Christians. The Islamist militant group Boko Haram
has already targeted Kaduna in the recent past.

President Goodluck Jonathan has promised to ‘redouble’ his government’s efforts to tackle terrorism and violence.
The 10th European Development Fund (EDF) programme for Nigeria, covering the 2008-2013 period, has an
allocation of EUR 677 million to fund programmes and projects in three focal areas, the first of which is peace and
security. The Joint Communiqué issued following the Nigeria‐EU Ministerial Troika Meeting held in Prague on
9 June 2009 promotes increased political dialogue on peace and security at multiple levels, including the local level.

1. Is the Commission aware of this latest attack on a Catholic church during mass?

2. Does the Commission believe that the Nigerian Government is doing enough to promote peace and security in
Nigeria, especially in the region between the north and the south? What more could be done?

3. Does the Commission believe that its efforts to promote peace and security in Nigeria through the EDF
programme have improved the security of the Nigerian people?

4. Does the joint EU-Nigeria peace and security dialogue include dialogue on building peace between Christians
and Muslims in Nigeria? If not, does the Commission not think, in the light of this attack, that it would be beneficial to
include such issues in the discussion framework?

**Question for written answer E-010082/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(7 November 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Nigeria — another attack on a church

Worrying reports have reached us from Nigeria once again. This time, a church in the north of the country was
attacked by a suicide‐bomber who drove a booby‐trapped jeep into the building leaving eight dead and around a
hundred injured. The perpetrator of the attack is as yet unknown, but various sources believe that it may have been
carried out by the terrorist group Boko Haram, which advocates the conversion of Nigeria to an Islamic State, even
though the population is split between Christians and Muslims.

In the light of this, the following questions are submitted for the consideration of the Vice‐President / High
Representative:

—
To what extent can the European Union contribute to fostering peace between the communities and help the
authorities to curb these attacks on the lives and religious freedom of innocent citizens?

—
What steps has the Commission taken or does it plan to take in this regard?

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

_(11 December 2012)_

The recent attacks by militant islamists in Nigeria have targeted government and security buildings, markets, schools
and innocent civilians both Muslims and Christians, as well as churches. All such attacks are criminal activities and
have been condemned as such by the EU. Please also refer to HRVP Ashton's statement of 19 June 2012.

C 310 E / 518 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

The EU is working together with Nigeria, both directly and with Ecowas on a regional basis, to help it tackle the
challenges of creating durable security and dealing with multiple socioeconomic and political factors conducive to
radicalisation. The EU has already reoriented parts of its cooperation programme in Nigeria — which was previously
concentrated largely in the Delta, and has improved security there — to the North of the country to also accelerate
action against poverty and deprivation there. The EU has this year approved an action on Maternal health in two
Northern states in Nigeria, and is designing an action together with UNWOMEN and Unicef on Women, peace and
security also focusing on northern Nigeria.

We are currently examining the possibility of introducing a special focus within the next — 11th — EDF (2014-20)
also on the North.

In July 2012 the EU provided capacity building for mediation in one of the most fragile areas of Northern Nigeria
making use of funds from the mediation support project initiative by the European Parliament (EEAS Budget Line
2238). Furthermore, the Instrument for Stability is in the process of preparing a decision for another project focusing
on conflict prevention and youth employment for this area.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 519

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-009936/12**

**aan de Commissie**
**Laurence J. A. J. Stassen (NI)**

_(30 oktober 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Investeringen in wind‐ en zonne-energie

Op 16 oktober jl. hebben 50 wetenschappers en 130 bedrijven een notitie getekend tegen vergroening. Zij leggen uit
dat windenergie nooit rendabel zal worden ( [1] ).

1. Is de Commissie het met de PVV eens dat het tijd wordt om te erkennen dat het nutteloos is om ongeremd
miljarden te pompen in wind ‐en zonne-energie? Zo neen, waarom niet?

2. Is de Commissie het met de PVV eens dat wind ‐en zonne-energie economisch onrendabel zijn en alleen in stand
kunnen worden gehouden door onhoudbare overheidssubsidies? Zo neen, waarom niet?

**Antwoord van de heer Oettinger namens de Commissie**

_(18 december 2012)_

De Commissie is het hier niet mee eens. Hernieuwbare energie — ook zonne-energie, windenergie of andere vormen
— draagt bij tot de verwezenlijking van EU-doelstellingen, met name ter bestrijding van klimaatverandering.

De Commissie is van mening dat wind‐ en zonne-energie economisch levensvatbaar kunnen worden. In haar recente
mededeling over de interne energiemarkt ( [2] ) wordt een overzicht gegeven van de door haar voorgestelde maatregelen
om ervoor te zorgen dat deze energievormen geleidelijk concurrerender kunnen worden.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.dagelijksestandaard.nl/2012/10/vergroening-ramp-voor-economie.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Mededeling van de Commissie aan het Europees Parlement, de Raad, het Economisch en Sociaal Comité en het Comité van de Regio's — De

interne energiemarkt doen werken — COM/2012/0663 final.

C 310 E / 520 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009936/12**

**to the Commission**
**Laurence J.A.J. Stassen (NI)**

_(30 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Investment in wind power and solar energy

On 16 October 2012, 50 scientists and 130 businesses signed a memorandum against greening. They say that wind
power will never become viable ( [1] ).

1. Does the Commission agree with the PVV that it is time to acknowledge that it is pointless to pump untold
billions into wind power and solar energy? If not, why not?

2. Does the Commission agree with the PVV that wind power and solar energy are not economically viable and
can only be maintained by means of unsustainable public subsidies? If not, why not?

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

_(18 December 2012)_

The Commission does not agree. Renewable energy, whether solar, wind, or other forms, contributes to achieving
EU's objectives, notably to fight climate change.

The Commission believes that wind power and solar energy can become economically viable. It's recent
communication of the Internal Energy Market ( [2] ) details the measures it proposes to ensure that these forms of energy
can progressively become more competitive.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.dagelijksestandaard.nl/2012/10/vergroening-ramp-voor-economie.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the

Regions — Making the internal energy market work — COM/2012/0663 final.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 521

_(Suomenkielinen versio)_

**Kirjallisesti vastattava kysymys E-009937/12**

**komissiolle**
**Hannu Takkula (ALDE)**

_(30. lokakuuta 2012)_

_Aihe:_ Ekologisesti ja eettisesti kestävä kalastus

Lähtökohtana Euroopan unionin alueella harjoitettavalle kalastukselle tulee olla ekologisesti ja eettisesti kestävän
kalastuksen periaate kalastuspolitiikan tulevaisuutta linjattaessa. Kuitenkin saaliiksi tullutta kalaa heitetään edelleen
kuolleena takaisin mereen ja markkinoilta ostetaan valtavia määriä kalaa pelkästään hävitettäväksi kalan
markkinahinnan pitämiseksi kohtuullisena. On perusteltua pyrkiä tukemaan kalastajia ja huolehtia heidän
tulotasostaan, mutta pelkkä kalan tuhoaminen on ympäristön ja yleisen oikeustajun kannalta kestämätöntä. Saaliin
poisheitto, valtavat tukiostot ja ostetun kalan hävittäminen koetaan järjettömänä.

1. Tekeekö komissio kaiken voitavansa tämänkaltaisten kalastuksen epäkohtien ja vinoutumien korjaamiseksi?

2. Mikäli saaliskalan poisheittokielto astuu voimaan, tuleeko komissio noudattamaan nollatoleranssia
kalastussopimusten rikkomisen suhteen ja määritelläänkö sanktiot sen mukaisiksi?

**Maria Damanakin komission puolesta antama vastaus**

_(20. joulukuuta 2012)_

Saaliin poisheittäminen on tuhlaava käytäntö, josta luopuminen on kestäväpohjaisen kalastuksen turvaamiseksi
välttämätöntä.

Komissio ehdotti yhteisen kalastuspolitiikan (YKP) uudistuksen yhteydessä poisheittämistä koskevan kiellon
asettamista lähes kaikille sellaisille kalakannoille, joihin sovelletaan saalisrajoituksia. Ehdotusta käsitellään parhaillaan
muissa lainsäädäntövaltaa käyttävissä toimielimissä.

Saaliiden poisheittämisen lopettamiseksi on ensisijaisen tärkeää parantaa pyydysten valikoivuutta ja pyrkiä siihen,
ettei ei-toivottuja saaliita saada lainkaan. Valikoivuuden parantamiseksi toteutettavia toimenpiteitä – kuten verkkojen
suuremmat silmäkoot ja pakoikkunat – sisältyy jo unionin lainsäädäntöön, mutta parannuksia tarvitaan kuitenkin
edelleen. Ehdotetusta uudesta rahoitusvälineestä, Euroopan meri‐ ja kalatalousrahastosta, voidaan osoittaa tukea
entistä valikoivampien pyydysten käyttöönottoon sekä tällaisten toimenpiteiden arvioimiseksi toteutettaviin
kokeiluhankkeisiin.

Komissio on esittämänsä poisheittämiskiellon yhteydessä ehdottanut myös tukijärjestelmän uudistamista, koska
nykyinen järjestelmä, jossa julkisia varoja käytetään kalojen hävittämiseen, ei enää ole perusteltavissa.
Siirtymätoimenpiteenä ehdotetaan yksinkertaistettua varastointijärjestelmää, joka mahdollistaa kalastustuotteiden
ostamisen hintojen laskiessa tietyn tason alapuolelle ja tuotteiden varastoinnin niiden saattamiseksi markkinoille
myöhemmin. Tällainen järjestelmä lisää markkinoiden vakautta.

Valvonta-asetuksella ( [1] ) on jo otettu käyttöön tiukka seuraamusjärjestelmä, jossa lainsäädännön noudattamatta
jättäminen johtaa sanktioihin, joita jäsenvaltioiden on sovellettava poisheittämiskiellon osalta sen voimaantulosta
alkaen. Kyseisen asetuksen mukaan jäsenvaltioiden määräämillä sanktioilla on oltava todellinen pelotevaikutus, jotta
varmistetaan tehokkaat ja oikeasuhtaiset rangaistukset rikkomistapauksissa. Sanktiot voivat vaihdella sakoista aina
kalastuslupien peruuttamiseen vakavissa ja toistuvissa rikkomisissa.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) EUVL L 343, 22.12.2009, s. 1.

C 310 E / 522 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009937/12**

**to the Commission**
**Hannu Takkula (ALDE)**

_(30 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Environmentally and ethically sustainable fishing

When formulating the future of fisheries policy, the European Union should start from the principle of
environmentally and ethically sustainable fishing. However, fish catches are still being thrown back dead into the sea
and huge quantities of fish are purchased from the market simply in order to destroy it so as to keep the market price
favourable. It is fair to try and support fishermen and protect their income levels, but simply destroying fish is
environmentally unsustainable and offends against a general sense of justice. The discarding of catches, and massive
intervention buying of fish which is then destroyed, is felt to be senseless.

1. Is the Commission doing everything in its power to combat such unjustified and perverse practices in fishing?

2. If a ban on discarding catches enters into force, will the Commission observe zero tolerance for offences against
fisheries agreements, and will sanctions be imposed accordingly?

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

_(20 December 2012)_

Ending the wasteful practice of discards is crucial in moving towards sustainable fisheries.

In the context of the reform of the common fisheries policy (CFP), the Commission has proposed to introduce a
discard ban for most stocks under catch limits. .The Commission proposal is currently being discussed by the colegislators.

Central to eliminating discards is improving fishing gear selectivity as the best way to reduce discards is by avoiding
catching them in the first place. Measures to increase selectivity such as larger mesh sizes and the use of escape panels
have been introduced into Union law. However, further improvements will be necessary and under the proposed
European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) support for adoption of more selective gears as well as for participating
in pilot projects to assess these measures will be available.

In the context of the discard ban, the Commission has also proposed an overhaul of the intervention regime as the
current system of spending public money to destroy fish is no longer justifiable. By way of transition, a simplified
storage mechanism is proposed, which will allow fish to be bought up when prices fall under a certain level, and
stored for placing on the market at a later stage. This system will foster market stability.

There is already in place under the control regulation ( [1] ) a stringent system of sanctions for non-compliance with the
legislation which Member States would have to apply to the discard ban upon its introduction. Under this regulation,
Member States are required to put sanctions in place that provide a real deterrent to ensure infringements are
punished effectively and proportionally. Sanctions can range from fines up to withdrawal of licences for serious and
persistent offences.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 523

_(Suomenkielinen versio)_

**Kirjallisesti vastattava kysymys E-009938/12**

**komissiolle**
**Hannu Takkula (ALDE)**

_(30. lokakuuta 2012)_

_Aihe:_ Kehitysvammaisten mahdollisuudet osallistua kansainvälisiin ohjelmiin

Kaikilla vähemmistöryhmillä pitäisi olla samanlaiset mahdollisuudet osallistua Euroopan unionin tarjoamiin
kansainvälisiin vaihto-ohjelmiin (esim. Comenius-ohjelma). Ohjelmaan osallistumisen ikäraja muodostaa kuitenkin
kehitysvammaisille esteen mukaan pääsemiselle. Normaalikuntoisilla kansalaisilla ikäraja on perusteltu mutta
kehitysvammaisilla vaikkapa musiikkikerhoon osallistuvien ikä voi olla 30‐40 vuotta, mutta henkinen kehitys saattaa
vastata 10-vuotiaan ikää.

1. Mikä komissio tekee, että myös kehitysvammaiset voivat päästä mukaan EU:n tukemiin vaihto-ohjelmiin?

2. Onko mahdollista, että EU:n ohjelmissa sovellettaisiin harkinnanvaraisesti joustavampia ikärajoja osallistujien
iän suhteen?

**Androulla Vassilioun komission puolesta antama vastaus**

_(18. joulukuuta 2012)_

Comenius-ohjelma on suunniteltu joustavaksi työkaluksi, joka vastaa kaikkien kouluopetuksen kanssa tekemisissä
olevien sidosryhmien tarpeisiin EU:ssa. Osallistujilla on mahdollisuus ehdottaa tietyt tarpeet huomioivia liikkuvuus‐
ja muita hankkeita ohjelman suomissa laajoissa puitteissa. Kehitysvammaisiin tai muuten erityistarpeita omaaviin
oppilaisiin kohdennetut hankkeet ovat useiden vuosien ajan olleet päätöksenteossa etusijalla.

Comenius-toimintaan osallistuville kehitysvammaisille oppilaille ei ole yläikärajaa, kunhan nämä ovat kirjoilla
oppilaitoksessa, jonka osallistujamaa on nimennyt tarkoitukseen sopivaksi. Hankkeiden kautta on kehitetty
opettajankoulutusta varten aineistoa ja menettelytapoja, jotka helpottavat työskentelyä kehitysvammaisten
oppilaiden kanssa. Comeniuksen kautta näille oppilaille on luotu monia mahdollisuuksia olla tekemisissä muiden
maiden samanlaisten oppilasryhmien kanssa.

Myös Euroopan komission aikuiskoulutusohjelma Grundtvig tarjoaa runsaasti erilaista toimintaa, josta
erityistarpeiset aikuiset voivat suoraan tai välillisesti hyötyä. Vuoden 2011 osalta keskimääräinen osuus toiminnasta,
johon erityistarpeiset aikuiset ( [1] ) osallistuivat tai josta he hyötyivät välillisesti, oli 11,5 prosenttia.

Elinikäisen oppimisen ohjelmaa käsittelevä opas sisältää juuri erityistarpeisille aikuisille suunnattuja rahoitustoimia.
Lisäksi joka vuosi useat elinikäisen oppimisen ohjelmaan osallistuvista maista nimeävät kehitysvammaisten aikuisten
kanssa työskentelevien opettajien ja henkilökunnan ja/tai erityistarpeisten oppijoiden osallistumisen yhdeksi
ensisijaisista kansallisista tavoitteistaan.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Luvuissa ei erotella kehitysvammaisuutta ja fyysistä vammaisuutta.

C 310 E / 524 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009938/12**

**to the Commission**
**Hannu Takkula (ALDE)**

_(30 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Opportunities for people with intellectual disabilities to participate in international programmes

All minority groups should have the same opportunities to participate in the international exchange programmes
offered by the European Union (e.g. the Comenius programme). However, the age limit for participation in the
programme is an obstacle to involvement for people with intellectual disabilities. The age limit for those with normal
intellectual capacities is justified, but for people with intellectual disabilities the age of those participating in a music
club, for example, may be 30 to 40, while their mental development may correspond to that of a 10-year-old.

1. What is the Commission doing to ensure that people with intellectual disabilities are also able to participate in
exchange programmes supported by the EU?

2. Is it possible for more flexible participant age limits to be applied for EU programmes on a discretionary basis?

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

_(18 December 2012)_

The Comenius programme is designed to be a flexible instrument that meets the needs of the full range of
stakeholders involved in school education across the EU. It is open to participants to propose projects and mobility
activities addressing particular needs within this broad framework, and projects targeted at pupils with special needs,
including intellectual disabilities, have been a policy priority for several years.

In Comenius actions, there are no upper age limits for the participation of pupils with intellectual disabilities,
provided that they are enrolled in an eligible school as designated by the participating country. Projects have
developed teacher education materials and methodologies which facilitate work with pupils with intellectual
disabilities. Many opportunities for these pupils to interact with their counterparts abroad have been created within
Comenius.

The Grundtvig Programme, the adult education programme of the European Commission, also offers a large range of
activities from which adults with special needs can benefit, directly or indirectly. For 2011, the average share of
activities in which adults with special needs ( [1] ) participated or from which they indirectly benefited was 11.5%.

The Lifelong Learning Programme Guide includes specific financing measures for participants with special needs.
Moreover, each year, several of the countries participating in the Lifelong Learning Programme define as one of their
national priorities the participation of teachers and staff working with disabled adults and /or the participation of
learners with special needs.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) The figures do not differentiate mental from physical disabilities.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 525

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-009939/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Michael Cashman (S&D)**

_(31 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Implementation of the EU guidelines on children and armed conflict

The creation of the EU guidelines on children and armed conflict (CAAC) provides evidence of a strong commitment
by the EU to promoting the rights of children affected by violence, abuse and neglect in some of the most volatile
places in the world.

A recent study ( [1] ) commissioned by War Child and conducted by the Europe External Policy Advisors (EEPA) group
confirms reports from civil-society organisations and relevant policy‐makers on the ground suggesting that the
effective implementation of the EU policy framework on CAAC, in particular the aforementioned guidelines, varies
significantly from country to country. Furthermore, the approach to CAAC adopted by the different EU services is
neither integrated nor consistent. As a critical player in the international development sector, and having set a
precedent with its guidelines, the EU is a principal actor in ensuring the safety and protection of these children around
the world.

1. Given the EU’s stated commitment to this issue and the fact that there are more than one billion children living
in countries or territories affected by armed conflict, what practical measures are being taken to ensure compliance
with, and effective implementation of, the guidelines by all EU delegations?

2. What action (e.g. annual debate, resolution, etc.) could the EP take to ensure the proper and coherent
implementation of the EU’s CAAC guidelines?

3. Does a coordination unit need to be established within the European External Action Service in order to ensure
that an integrated and consistent approach to CAAC is pursued by the different EU services, thereby supporting EU
delegates in CAAC target countries and addressing long-term funding strategies?

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

_(16 January 2013)_

1. In December 2010, the Council of the EU adopted the Revised Implementation Strategy to the EU Guidelines on
Children and Armed Conflict to facilitate the implementation of the Guidelines. The EU delegations in the countries
of concern have been instructed in 2011 to implement the strategy accordingly, including via local human rights
country strategies. Implementation is monitored via annual update of these local strategies.

Recent mapping of the EU assistance confirmed that in 2009-2012, the EU and its Member States spent more than
EUR 200 million in support of children affected by armed conflict. The project covered psychological and
socioeconomic reintegration of child soldiers, education, empowerment of children, community awareness raising
activities, etc. The recent decision to use the Nobel Prize awarded to the EU for the benefit of children in war and
conflict zones is another testimony of the importance attributed to this issue.

2. The EP has an important role to play in the promotion of child protection, including by discussing the situation
of children affected by armed conflict during annual debates or during MEP visits or meetings with the delegations of
the countries concerned.

3. The Human Rights Guidelines Unit within the EEAS ensures coordination among various EU services that
support children affected by armed conflict worldwide. The EEAS focuses on mainstreaming the child protection
within different territorial departments and CSDP structures instead of creating a coordination unit. Capacity building
is also a way to improve implementation of EU policy on children and armed conflict.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Van Reisen, M. and Hrabovszky, G., EEPA report: ‘EU Policy on Children Affected by Armed Conflict (CAAC) — Assessment of the policy
framework and its implementation’, 2012.

C 310 E / 526 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-009940/12**

**to the Commission**
**Keith Taylor (Verts/ALE)**

_(31 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Commission's analysis of proposal concerning good practice in the food supply chain

I have the following questions in relation to the final proposal for an enforcement framework set out in the document
entitled ‘Vertical relationships in the Food Supply Chain: Principles of Good Practice’ ( [1] ), drafted by the ‘Core Group’
of business associations against criteria set by Commissioner Michel Barnier on 29 November 2011 at the High Level
Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain ( [2] ).

1. The enforcement model makes no provision for proactive investigation, which is one of the tools needed if
enforcement is going to be successful, given the systematic application of unfair practices found to occur before,
during and after the contract stage, and the climate of fear amongst weaker suppliers. Does the Commission agree
that the enforcement mechanism must be able to undertake proactive inquiries?

2. I am worried that the independence of any governing structure may be compromised without the participation
of public authorities to balance out any possible conflict of interests arising from the involvement of business
associations. How will this be addressed, and how will the mechanism operate in a manner which addresses the
climate of fear amongst the supplier enterprises, particularly small suppliers and farmers?

3. How will the enforcement model be effective when there are no credible sanctions?

4. I feel that the proposal submitted by the Core Group of business associations has not met the criteria set out by
Commissioner Barnier, and note that two associations within the Core Group do not support the proposed
framework, while one small business association has abstained from expressing a view. Bearing this in mind, what
credible and strong enforcement mechanism will the Commission bring forward speedily in order to reduce the
unfair trading practices occurring in EU food supply chains?

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

_(19 December 2012)_

A core group of stakeholders of the Expert Platform on Business-to-Business (B2B) Contractual Practices of the High
Level Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain agreed in November 2011 to design a suitable enforcement
mechanism for the principles of good practice in the food chain. On 29 November 2011 at the High level Forum, the
Member of the Commission responsible for Internal Market and Services set out assessment criteria for this
mechanism.

The need to address what the Honourable Member describes as a ‘climate of fear’ is at the heart of this ongoing work.
The Commission asked the core stakeholder group to show progress on this issue as well as on deterrent sanctions.
As regards the independence of any governing structure and credible sanctions, the Commission considers that a
balance needs to be struck between a framework setting out principles at European level and effective enforcement
mechanisms as regards individual complaints at Member State level. An internal reflection is ongoing within the
Commission on possible options to tackle unfair contractual practices in the food chain.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/food/files/competitiveness/good_practices_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) HLF home page: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/food/competitiveness/forum_food/index_en.htm

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 527

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009941/12**

**à Comissão**
**Carlos Coelho (PPE) e Ioan Enciu (S&D)**

_(31 de outubro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ O acervo de Schengen

O acervo de Schengen, tal como integrado na União Europeia aquando da entrada em vigor do Tratado de
Amesterdão, em 1 de maio de 1999, foi objeto de uma pequena publicação, com a mesma data, elaborada pelo
Secretariado-Geral do Conselho, na qual o acervo de Schengen era apresentado de forma cronológica e de acordo

com o tema.

Depois disso, o acervo de Schengen foi publicado no Jornal Oficial, em todas as versões linguísticas — L239, 22 de
setembro de 2000.

Posteriormente, e ao longo dos últimos 12 anos, o acervo de Schengen foi objeto de contínuas modificações, tendo
dois novos tratados, o Tratado de Nice e do Tratado de Lisboa, entrado em vigor.

É muito importante podermos seguir o atual acervo de Schengen e saber exatamente o que se aplica a cada um dos
países que são membros de Schengen.

1. Poderá a Comissão informar se existe uma versão oficial recente de atualização da coletânea do acervo real de
Schengen?

2. Em caso negativo, poderá a Comissão explicar por que motivo não existe essa versão e indicar qual a instituição
europeia que tem a competência necessária para proceder à sua elaboração?

**Resposta dada por Cecilia Malmström em nome da Comissão**

_(19 de dezembro de 2012)_

A publicação, no JO L 239 de 22 de setembro de 2000, do acervo Schengen então em vigor, esteve associada ao único
caso de integração do acervo de Schengen na União Europeia, aquando da entrada em vigor do Tratado de
Amesterdão (1 de maio de 1999).

Esta publicação cumpriu o disposto no n.° 2 do artigo 1.° da Decisão 1999/435/CE do Conselho, de 20 de maio
de 1999, relativa à definição do acervo de Schengen com vista a determinar, nos termos das disposições pertinentes
do Tratado que institui a Comunidade Europeia e do Tratado da União Europeia, o fundamento jurídico de cada uma
das disposições ou decisões que o constituem (JO L 176 de 10.7.1999, p. 1).

Uma vez que o acervo de Schengen foi integrado na União, os atos que constituem o desenvolvimento destas
disposições são publicados da mesma forma que quaisquer outros atos da União. Sempre que for adotado um ato que
constitui um desenvolvimento do acervo de Schengen, os seus considerandos refletem esta circunstância e o ato é
publicado no Jornal Oficial.

Os operadores públicos e privados podem produzir compilações não oficiais de qualquer aspeto ou ramo do direito
da União. A Comissão não tem atualmente quaisquer planos de realizar uma compilação do acervo de Schengen.

C 310 E / 528 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-009941/12**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Carlos Coelho (PPE) şi Ioan Enciu (S&D)**

_(31 octombrie 2012)_

_Subiect:_ Acquis-ul Schengen

Acquis-ul Schengen, în forma sa de la 1 mai 1999, când a fost integrat în cadrul legislativ al UE la intrarea în vigoare a
Tratatului de la Amsterdam, a fost redactat într-o broșură cu data respectivă, pregătită de Secretariatul general al
Consiliului; broșura prezenta acquis-ul Schengen în ordine cronologică și tematică.

Acquis-ul Schengen a fost ulterior publicat în Jurnalul Oficial, în toate versiunile lingvistice (JO L 239, 22.9.2000).

În următorii 12 ani acquis-ul Schengen a fost obiectul unor schimbări continue și două noi tratate, Tratatul de la Nisa
și Tratatul de la Lisabona, au intrat în vigoare.

Este foarte important să se poată înțelege acquis-ul Schengen în forma sa actuală și să se știe exact care sunt
dispozițiile aplicabile fiecărei țări în parte care aparține zonei Schengen.

1. Ar putea Comisia să precizeze dacă există o actualizare oficială recentă care să reunească dispozițiile acquis-ului
Schengen?

2. În caz contrar, ar putea Comisia să explice motivul pentru care nu există o astfel de actualizare și să indice
instituția UE care are competența necesară pentru a realiza această actualizare?

**Răspuns dat de dna Malmström în numele Comisiei**

_(19 decembrie 2012)_

Publicarea în JO L 239 din 22.9.2000 a acquis-ului Schengen valabil la momentul respectiv era legată de evenimentul
unic reprezentat de integrarea acquis-ului Schengen în cadrul Uniunii Europene la data intrării în vigoare a Tratatului
de la Amsterdam (1 mai 1999).

Se punea astfel în aplicare articolul 1 alineatul (2) din Decizia Consiliului 1999/435/CE din 20 mai 1999 privind
definirea acquis-ului Schengen în scopul stabilirii, în conformitate cu dispozițiile relevante din Tratatul de instituire a
Comunității Europene și Tratatul privind Uniunea Europeană, a temeiului juridic pentru fiecare dintre dispozițiile sau
deciziile care constituie acquis-ul (JO L 176, 10.7.1999, p. 1).

De la integrarea acquis-ului Schengen în Uniune, actele care se bazează pe acesta sunt publicate în același mod ca
orice alte acte ale Uniunii. Ori de câte ori se adoptă un act care are la bază acquis-ul Schengen, acest lucru se
menționează în considerentele actului respectiv, iar actul se publică în Jurnalul Oficial.

Operatorii privați și publici sunt liberi să elaboreze compilații neoficiale privind orice aspect sau secțiune a dreptului
Uniunii. În prezent, Comisia nu intenționează să publice nicio compilație a acquis-ului Schengen.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 529

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009941/12**

**to the Commission**
**Carlos Coelho (PPE) and Ioan Enciu (S&D)**

_(31 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Schengen _acquis_

The Schengen _acquis_ as it stood on 1 May 1999, when it was integrated into the EU’s legal framework on the entry
into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, was set out in a booklet bearing that date, prepared by the General Secretariat
of the Council; the booklet presented the Schengen _acquis_ in chronological order and by topic.

The Schengen _acquis_ was subsequently published in the Official Journal, in all language versions (OJ L 239,
22.9.2000).

Over the intervening 12 years the Schengen _acquis_ has been subject to continuous changes, and two new Treaties, the
Treaty of Nice and the Treaty of Lisbon, have entered into force.

It is very important to be able to follow the current Schengen _acquis_ and to know exactly what applies to each of the
countries belonging to the Schengen area.

1. Could the Commission say whether there is a recent official update compiling the current Schengen _acquis_ ?

2. If not, could the Commission explain why there is no such update and indicate which EU institution has the
necessary competence to produce one?

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

_(19 December 2012)_

The publication in OJ L 239 of 22.9.2000 of the then valid Schengen _acquis_ was related to the unique event of the
integration of the Schengen _acquis_ into the European Union on the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam
(1 May 1999).

That publication implemented Article 1(2) of Council Decision 1999/435/EC of 20 May 1999 concerning the
definition of the Schengen _acquis_ for the purpose of determining, in conformity with the relevant provisions of the
Treaty establishing the European Community and the treaty on European Union, the legal basis for each of the
provisions or decisions which constitute the _acquis_ (OJ L 176, 10.7.1999, p. 1).

Since the Schengen _acquis_ has been integrated into the Union, the acts building upon it are published in the same
manner as any other acts of the Union. Whenever an act which is building upon the Schengen _acquis_ is adopted, its
recitals mention this circumstance and the act is published in the Official Journal.

Private and public operators are free to produce unofficial compilations of any aspect or section of Union law. The
Commission is currently not planning any compilation of the Schengen _acquis._

C 310 E / 530 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-009942/12**

**aan de Commissie**
**Patricia van der Kammen (NI)**

_(31 oktober 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Transport en Logistiek Nederland (TLN) wil aanpak tegen misstanden in vervoer

Transport en Logistiek Nederland (TLN) pleit voor een onderzoek dat de omvang van misstanden in de Europese
transportmarkt en de werking van wet en regels beter in kaart moet brengen. Ook wil TLN dat Nederland en Brussel
maatregelen nemen voor meer uniform toezicht en handhaving om overtredingen beter te bestrijden en te
voorkomen.

1. Is de Commissie bekend met het bericht „TLN wil aanpak tegen misstanden in vervoer” ( [1] )?

2. Herkent de Commissie de geschetste problemen? Kan de Commissie de omvang van de problemen in kaart
brengen?

3. Denkt de Commissie dat het verwezenlijken van een „eerlijke” transportmarkt mogelijk is? Kan de Commissie
hierover ook een uitspraak doen in het licht van artikel 5 VEU, waarin het subsidiariteitsbeginsel is neergelegd?

4. Concludeert de Commissie dat de Brusselse regelgeving haar doel voorbij is geschoten, vooral als het op
handhaving aankomt?

5. Gaat de Commissie nader onderzoek verrichten naar de berichtgeving inzake vervalste opleidingsdocumenten?
Zo ja, op welke termijn en op welke wijze?

**Antwoord van de heer Kallas namens de Commissie**

_(9 januari 2013)_

1. De Commissie stelt het op prijs dat het geachte Parlementslid de aandacht vestigt op de bezorgdheid waarvan
Transport en Logistiek Nederland kennis heeft gegeven.

2. De Commissie ziet toe op de handhavingsactiviteiten van de lidstaten op het gebied van sociale voorschriften en
tachograafbepalingen op basis van de verslagen die zij indienen. Gedetailleerde informatie over de handhaving door
de lidstaten staat op de website van de Commissie ( [2] ). Bovendien is er een verslag over de tenuitvoerlegging van
Richtlijn 2003/59/EG ( [3] ) beschikbaar ( [4] ).

3. De EU-wetgeving inzake wegvervoer wordt voortdurend bijgewerkt om een markt tot stand te brengen waarop
verkeersveiligheid, eerlijke concurrentie en veilige arbeidsvoorwaarden en ‐omstandigheden optimaal zijn geregeld.
Voor de handhaving zijn de lidstaten bevoegd, terwijl de Commissie ernaar streeft een kader te bieden waarbinnen zij
ervoor kunnen zorgen dat de regels correct worden toegepast. Hierbij hoort het controleren van de tenuitvoerlegging
en overleg over handhavingsproblemen met de lidstaten en de sociale partners. Indien nodig kan de Commissie
inbreukprocedures inleiden of nieuwe wetgeving voorstellen. De Commissie gaat ervan uit dat de regels beter worden
nageleefd als haar voorstel inzake een slimme tachograaf snel wordt vastgesteld.

4. Het EU-acquis inzake wegvervoer volgt de ontwikkelingen op de markt voor goederenvervoer over de weg en
op het gebied van handhavingsmethoden en wordt derhalve regelmatig gewijzigd om ervoor te zorgen dat de
bovengenoemde doelstellingen beter worden verwezenlijkt. De Commissie is van plan om in 2013 een
wegvervoerpakket te presenteren met mogelijke maatregelen inzake de geharmoniseerde indeling in categorieën van
ernstige inbreuken, gemakkelijkere toegang tot de markt voor goederenvervoer en een betere handhaving.

5. De Commissie heeft geen onderzoek op dit gebied gepland. Als de wetgeving inzake opleiding op een later
tijdstip wordt herzien, kan zij overwegen het probleem van fraude met opleidingsdocumenten te onderzoeken en
indien nodig een desbetreffend voorstel op te stellen.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.tln.nl/tln.html?id=39735&page=1.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Het recentste verslag is hier beschikbaar:

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/road/social_provisions/driving_time/doc/swd-2012-270.pdf

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Richtlijn 2003/59/EG van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 15 juli 2003 betreffende de vakbekwaamheid en de opleiding en nascholing

van bestuurders van bepaalde voor goederen‐ en personenvervoer over de weg bestemde voertuigen, tot wijziging van Verordening (EEG)
nr. 3820/85 van de Raad en Richtlijn 91/439/EEG van de Raad en tot intrekking van Richtlijn 76/914/EEG van de Raad.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/pdf/professional_drivers/report_on_periodic_training_of_professional_drivers_nl.pdf

( **|**

( **|**

⋅4∙ **|** )

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 531

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009942/12**

**to the Commission**
**Patricia van der Kammen (NI)**

_(31 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Transport en Logistiek Nederland (TLN) wants action to address transport abuses

The Dutch hauliers’ association Transport en Logistiek Nederland (TLN) is calling for an investigation to give a clearer
picture of the scale of abuses in the European transport market and the impact of legislation and rules. TLN also wants
the Netherlands and Brussels to take measures with a view to more uniform monitoring and enforcement so that
violations can be better combated and prevented.

1. Is the Commission aware of the report entitled ‘TLN wil aanpak tegen misstanden in vervoer’ [TLN wants action
to address transport abuses] ( [1] )?

2. Does the Commission recognise the problems outlined here? Can the Commission quantify the scale of these
problems?

3. Does the Commission think that the creation of an ‘honest’ transport market is possible? Can the Commission
make a statement on this in the light of Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union, which enshrines the principle of
subsidiarity?

4. Does the Commission conclude that the Brussels legislation has failed to achieve its aims, particularly as regards
enforcement?

5. Will the Commission have further studies carried out into the reports on forged training documents? If so, how,
and by what deadline?

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

_(9 January 2013)_

1. The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for drawing its attention to the concerns expressed by
Transport en Logistiek Nederland.

2. Based on Member States' reports, the Commission monitors enforcement activities in the fields of social rules
and of tachograph provisions. Detailed information on enforcement by Member States of these rules can be found on
the Commission's website ( [2] ). A report on the implementation of Directive 2003/59/EC ( [3] ) is also available ( [4] ).

3. EU road transport legislation is under constant development to create a market in which road safety, fair
competition and safe working conditions are of the highest level. Enforcement is a competence of Member States
while the Commission strives to provide the appropriate framework for them to ensure that rules are correctly
applied. This includes monitoring implementation and reviewing enforcement issues with Member States and social
partners. If appropriate, the Commission may launch infringement procedures or propose new legislation. The
Commission considers that the quick adoption of its proposal on a smart tachograph would improve compliance
with the rules.

4. The EU road transport _acquis_ follows new developments on the road haulage market and in enforcement
methods and is therefore also regularly subject to changes to better achieve the aims set out above. In 2013 the
Commission plans a road package which could include actions on the categorisation of serious infringements, on
easier access to the road haulage market and on enhanced enforcement.

5. The Commission has not planned any studies on this subject. Should the legislation on training be revised at a
later stage, it could consider examining the issue of fraud of training documents and prepare a proposal if
appropriate.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.tln.nl/tln.html?id=39735&page=1.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Most recent report available here: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/road/social_provisions/driving_time/doc/swd-2012-270.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) DIRECTIVE 2003/59/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 15 July 2003 on the initial qualification and periodic

training of drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers, amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 and Council
Directive 91/ 439/EEC and repealing Council Directive 76/914/EEC.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/pdf/professional_drivers/report_on_periodic_training_of_professional_drivers_en.pdf

( **|**

⋅4∙ **|** )

C 310 E / 532 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-009943/12**

**aan de Commissie**
**Laurence J. A. J. Stassen (NI)**

_(31 oktober 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Europees systeem van emissiehandel

De Europese Commissie heeft besloten om emissierechten voor koolstofdioxide te backloaden. Hiermee probeert de
Commissie de prijs van koolstofdioxide te laten stijgen ( [1] ).

Is de Commissie het met de PVV eens dat ETS nutteloos is, dat ETS de consument extra geld kost en dat het belasten
van het gebruik van koolstof niets gaat veranderen aan wetenschappelijk onbewezen klimaatverandering?

**Antwoord van mevrouw Hedegaard namens de Commissie**

_(7 januari 2013)_

Nee, daar is de Commissie het niet mee eens. De Commissie verwijst het geachte Parlementslid naar haar antwoord op
schriftelijke vraag E-008053/2012 ( [2] ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.endseurope.com/29816/ets-backloading-proposal-due-on-14-november.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fTEXT%2bWQ%2bE-2012-008053 %2b0 %2bDOC%2bXML%2bV0

%2f%2fEN&language=EN.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 533

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009943/12**

**to the Commission**
**Laurence J.A.J. Stassen (NI)**

_(31 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ European Emissions Trading System

The Commission has decided to backload CO 2 emission certificates, in an attempt to bring about a rise in the price of
CO 2. (1 )

Does the Commission agree with the Dutch Party for Freedom that the EETS is useless, that it costs the consumer
more money and that taxing the use of carbon will make no change to scientifically unproven climate change?

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

_(7 January 2013)_

No, the Commission does not agree. The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written
Question E-008053/2012 ( [2] ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.endseurope.com/29816/ets-backloading-proposal-due-on-14-november.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fTEXT%2bWQ%2bE-2012-008053%2b0%2bDOC%2bXML

%2bV0%2f%2fEN&language=EN.

C 310 E / 534 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung P-009944/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Josef Weidenholzer (S&D)**

_(31. Oktober 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Deutsches Flugzeug im Auftrag von Frontex/Gibraltar

Die spanische Organisation „Andalucía acoge“ veröffentlichte am 26. Oktober einen Bericht, in dem schwere
Anschuldigungen gegen ein deutsches Flugzeug, das im Auftrag von Frontex flog, erhoben wurden. Das Flugzeug
machte Fotos des überladenen Flüchtlingsbootes vor Gibraltar, leitete aber keine Hilfsaktion ein. 14 Menschen
ertranken, 40 werden noch vermisst, und nur 17 Menschen konnten gerettet werden.

1. Ist der Kommission dieser Vorfall bekannt? Gibt es Informationen über den geschilderten Vorfall? Wie stellen
sich die Ereignisse aus Sicht der Kommission dar?

2. Welchen Auftrag haben Piloten, die im Auftrag von Frontex unterwegs sind, wenn sie ein stark überladenes
Flüchtlingsboot entdecken, das Gefahr läuft unterzugehen?

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

_(30. November 2012)_

1. Der Kommission ist dieser tragische Vorfall bekannt, und sie bedauert den Verlust von Menschenleben zutiefst.

Die Kommission hat Frontex um genaue Informationen gebeten. Danach hat SASEMAR ( [1] ) dem Internationalen
Koordinierungszentrum für gemeinsame Frontex-Einsätze am 24. Oktober das Auslaufen eines Bootes mit
71 Menschen an Bord von Marokko aus gemeldet. Ein maltesisches Flugzeug, das an dem gemeinsamen Einsatz
„Indalo“ teilnahm, machte sich am 24. Oktober um 22.25 Uhr auf den Weg; am 25. Oktober um 01.20 Uhr entdeckte
es das Boot 25 Seemeilen nördlich von Marokko — 15 Seemeilen vom gemeinsamen Einsatzgebiet entfernt.
SASEMAR wurde alarmiert. Das Flugzeug blieb auf Position, bis ein Auftanken nötig wurde. SASEMAR informierte
die marokkanische Seenotrettungsleitstelle, da sich das Boot in der Such‐ und Rettungszone Marokkos befand. Ein
SASEMAR-Flugzeug und ‐Schiff sowie ein Schiff der Guardia Civil wurden abkommandiert. Das Boot kenterte
11,5 Seemeilen nördlich der marokkanischen Küste; das Flugzeug warf zwei Schlauchboote ab. Die Schiffe retteten
17 Personen und fanden 14 Tote.

Such‐ und Rettungsmaßnahmen auf See werden vom internationalen Seerecht geregelt. Frontex und die spanischen
Behörden haben gemäß diesen Bestimmungen gehandelt.

2. Die Sicherheit menschlichen Lebens ist die vorrangige Priorität bei von Frontex koordinierten gemeinsamen
Einsätzen, wie aus den Einsatzplänen hervorgeht. Wenn ein an einem Einsatz teilnehmendes Flugzeug ein sich
wahrscheinlich in Seenot befindliches Schiff entdeckt, meldet es dies an das Koordinierungszentrum für gemeinsame
Einsätze, das Patrouillenboote entsendet und die zuständige Seenotrettungsleitstelle informiert. Die Such‐ und
Rettungseinsätze werden von der Leitstelle des Landes koordiniert, in dessen Such‐ und Rettungszone der Vorfall sich
ereignet, und nicht vom Internationalen Koordinierungszentrum für gemeinsame Frontex-Einsätze.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Spanische Organisation für Seerettungseinsätze, http://www.salvamentomaritimo.es/.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 535

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-009944/12**

**to the Commission**
**Josef Weidenholzer (S&D)**

_(31 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ German aircraft on a Frontex mission over Gibraltar

The Spanish organisation ‘Andalucía acoge’ published a report on 26 October which contains serious accusations
made against a German aircraft which was engaged in a mission for Frontex. The aircraft took photographs of an
overloaded vessel carrying refugees off the coast of Gibraltar but did not initiate a rescue attempt. 14 people drowned,
40 are missing and only 17 could be rescued.

1. Is the Commission aware of this incident? Is any information about the incident available? What is the
Commission’s view of these events?

2. What orders do pilots flying on Frontex missions have for a situation in which they spot a heavily-overloaded
refugee vessel which is in danger of sinking?

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

_(30 November 2012)_

1. The Commission is aware of this tragic incident and deeply regrets the loss of human lives.

The Commission asked Frontex to provide detailed information. According to the Agency, SASEMAR ( [1] ) informed
the International Coordination Centre for Frontex Joint Operations (ICC) of the departure of a boat from Morocco
with 71 people on 24 October. A Maltese aircraft participating in OJ Indalo took off on 24 October at 22:25; on
25 October at 01:20 it detected the boat 25 nautical miles (NM) North of Morocco, 15 NM away from the operational
area of the joint operation. SASEMAR was alerted. The aircraft orbited in position until refuelling was needed.
SASEMAR informed the Moroccan Maritime Search and Rescue Coordination Centre (MSRCC) since the boat was in
the Morocco Search and Rescue (SAR) zone. A SASEMAR aircraft and vessel, and a vessel of the Guardia Civil were
dispatched. The boat capsized 11.5 NM North of the Moroccan coast and the aircraft launched 2 inflatable rubber
rafts. The vessels rescued 17 persons and found that 14 persons had died.

Search and rescue at sea is regulated by international maritime law. Frontex and the Spanish authorities acted in
accordance with those rules.

2. The safety of life is an overriding priority of joint operations at sea coordinated by Frontex as reflected in the
operational plans. When an airborne asset participating in an operation detects a boat likely to be in distress, it reports
to the ICC which dispatches patrol vessels and informs the responsible Maritime Search and Rescue Coordination
Centre (MSRCC). Search and Rescue operations are coordinated by the MSRCC of the country in whose SAR zone the
incident takes place and not by the ICC for Frontex Joint Operations.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Spanish Maritime Rescue Organisation, http://www.salvamentomaritimo.es/.

C 310 E / 536 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-009945/12**

**à la Commission**
**Christine De Veyrac (PPE)**

_(31 octobre 2012)_

_Objet:_ Taux de TVA réduit

Dans un rapport datant de 2008, la Commission a proposé des catégories de services auxquelles les États membres
peuvent appliquer un taux réduit de TVA. Parmi ces catégories, la Commission a proposé les services de jardinage.

Le 21 juin 2012, la Commission européenne a officiellement demandé à la France de soumettre au taux normal de
TVA (19,6 %) certains «services à la personne» qui ne constituent pas, selon elle, des soins à domicile au sens de la
législation de l'Union européenne.

La Commission estime donc que l'application d'un taux réduit de TVA aux services suivants n'est pas compatible avec
la législation de l'Union européenne: les travaux de jardinage, les cours à domicile (distincts du soutien scolaire),
l'assistance informatique et Internet à domicile, les services de maintenance, l'entretien et la vigilance temporaire de la
résidence principale et secondaire.

La Commission justifie son choix en déclarant qu'elle ne s'oppose pas au principe de taux de TVA réduit, mais que,
selon elle, la mesure est trop «largement» appliquée en France.

Ayant pris connaissance des avis divergents de la Commission, cette dernière pourrait-elle préciser sa position sur les
services de jardinage quant au taux de TVA à appliquer, et plus généralement sur sa politique de TVA à taux réduit?

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

_(13 décembre 2012)_

La Commission a effectivement proposé en 2008 de permettre l'application d'un taux réduit de TVA notamment
pour les services de jardinage ou d'aménagement paysager et l'entretien de jardins ( [1] ). Toutefois, le Conseil, qui dispose
du pouvoir de décision, n'a pas retenu cette proposition. Elle n'a donc pas été intégrée dans la législation de l'Union
lors de l'adoption de la directive 2009/47/CE. L'accord politique unanime auquel le Conseil a abouti à cette occasion
restreint la liste des services éligibles à un taux réduit proposée par la Commission.

La Commission confirme que la législation actuelle de l'Union en matière de TVA ne permet pas d'appliquer un taux
réduit aux services mentionnés par l'Honorable Parlementaire. En tant que gardienne des traités, la Commission doit
veiller au respect de cette législation par les États membres.

Concernant l'approche de la Commission en matière de taux réduits, l'Honorable Parlementaire voudra bien se
reporter à la Communication de la Commission du 6 décembre 2011 sur l'avenir de la TVA, COM(2011)851 final,
pages 11 à 13.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2008)428 final.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 537

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009945/12**

**to the Commission**
**Christine De Veyrac (PPE)**

_(31 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Reduced rate of VAT

In a 2008 report the Commission proposed categories of services to which Member States could apply a reduced rate
of VAT. Among the categories proposed by the Commission was gardening services.

On 21 June 2012, the Commission officially asked France to apply the normal VAT rate (19.6%) to certain ‘personal
services’ which, according to the Commission, do not constitute domestic care services within the meaning of EC law.

The Commission believes that applying a reduced rate of VAT to the following services is incompatible with EC law:
gardening jobs, home courses (as distinct from learning support), IT and Internet help at home, maintenance, upkeep
and temporary security services for a principal and secondary residence.

The Commission substantiated its decision by saying that it was not opposed to the principle of a reduced rate of
VAT, but that it considered that the measure was applied too ‘broadly’ in France.

In view of the different opinions coming from the Commission, could it specify its position on gardening services and
the rate of VAT to apply, and more generally on its policy concerning reduced-rate VAT?

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

_(13 December 2012)_

In 2008 the Commission indeed proposed allowing a reduced rate of VAT for gardening or landscaping services and
maintenance of gardens. ( [1] ) However, the Council ‐which has the decision-making power — did not take the proposal
on board and it was consequently not incorporated into EU legislation when Directive 2009/47/EC was adopted. The
unanimous political agreement in the Council on that occasion resulted in a more limited list of reduced-rate services
than that proposed by the Commission.

The Commission confirms that current EU legislation regarding VAT does not allow the application of a reduced rate
to the services referred to by the Honourable Member. As guardian of the Treaties, the Commission has to ensure that
the Member States comply with this legislation.

As regards the Commission’s position on reduced rates, the Honourable Member may wish to consult the
Commission Communication of 6 December 2011 on the future of VAT, COM(2011)851 final, pages 11-13.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2008)428 final.

C 310 E / 538 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-009946/12**

**à la Commission**
**Christine De Veyrac (PPE)**

_(31 octobre 2012)_

_Objet:_ Marché des médicaments en Europe

Le 13 septembre dernier, deux professeurs de médecine reconnus ont publié en France un livre intitulé «Le Guide des
4 000 médicaments utiles, inutiles ou dangereux».

Les conclusions de cet ouvrage sont alarmantes: 50 % des médicaments seraient inutiles, dont 20 % présenteraient des
risques pour les utilisateurs et 5 % seraient même potentiellement dangereux pour la santé. Dans le même temps,
75 % de ces médicaments sont remboursés, ce qui, selon les auteurs, coûterait chaque année entre 10 et 15 milliards
d'euros à la sécurité sociale française. Le livre s'en prend plus particulièrement aux stalines, le médicament contre le
cholestérol utilisé par environ 4 millions de Français.

En 2001, une autre étude avait jugé que 45 % des médicaments présents sur le marché français étaient inutiles ou
insuffisants, ce qui montre bien que le problème n'est pas nouveau.

1. La Commission a-t-elle eu connaissance d'études similaires au sein des autres pays de l'Union?

2. A-t-elle prévu de charger l'Agence européenne des médicaments de la vérification des résultats de cette enquête?

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

_(21 décembre 2012)_

La Commission renvoie l'Honorable Parlementaire aux réponses qu'elle a apportées aux questions écrites
E-008213/2012 et E-009335/2012 ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/fr/parliamentary-questions.html

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 539

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009946/12**

**to the Commission**
**Christine De Veyrac (PPE)**

_(31 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Pharmaceuticals market in Europe

On 13 September 2012, two well-known professors of medicine published a book in France entitled _Le Guide des_
_4 000 médicaments utiles, inutiles ou dangereux_ (‘Guide to 4 000 Useful, Useless or Dangerous Medicines’).

This study produced some alarming conclusions: half of all medicines are prescribed unnecessarily, 20% pose a risk to
users and 5% are potentially dangerous. Moreover, some 75% of these medicines are reimbursed, costing the French
social security system, according to the authors, between EUR 10 and 15 billion every year. The book is particularly
critical of statins, a drug used by around four million people in France against cholesterol.

In 2001, another study found that 45% of medicines on the market in France were of no use or insufficient. So the
problem is not new.

1. Is the Commission aware of similar studies in other EU countries?

2. Does it plan to instruct the European Medicines Agency to verify the results of this survey?

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

_(21 December 2012)_

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answers to written questions E‐008213/2012 and
E-009335/2012 ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

C 310 E / 540 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009948/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Ingeborg Gräßle (PPE)**

_(31. Oktober 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Untersuchungen von OLAF bezüglich Schmuggelvorwürfen gegen Japanese Tobacco Inc.

Eine Tochtergesellschaft der Japanese Tobacco Inc. (JTI) wird des Zigarettenschmuggels von Zypern nach Syrien
beschuldigt. Angaben zufolge sollen 450 000 Stangen Zigaretten an einen auf einer schwarzen Liste geführten
Verbündeten von Maher al-Assad, dem Bruder des syrischen Präsidenten Bashar al-Assad verkauft worden sein. Es
besteht der Verdacht, dass diese Zigaretten entweder zur Bezahlung der Löhne von Militärangehörigen verwendet
oder zu einem höheren Preis weiterverkauft werden, wodurch ein Gewinn entsteht, der der Finanzierung des Regimes
von al-Assad dient. Zu all diesen Vorwürfen führt OLAF derzeit Ermittlungen durch.

1. Wie hoch ist der Gesamtwert dieser geschmuggelten Zigaretten?

2. Fällt der Verstoß gegen ein Embargo — da es hier um die Ausfuhr von Waren geht — in die Zuständigkeit von
OLAF? Wenn ja, wie genau sind die Tatsachen, die OLAF untersucht, rechtlich qualifiziert?

3. Welcher Betrag wird den Untersuchungen zugrunde gelegt? Ist der illegale Betrag, um den es laut
Presseberichten geht, bestätigt worden?

4. Welche Einnahmen hat die EU infolge dieses Schmuggels eingebüßt?

5. Wann erwartet OLAF von den Justizbehörden Zyperns ein endgültiges Urteil zu diesem Fall?

6. Wie plant die Kommission, die Zusammenarbeit mit den Behörden Zyperns zu suchen? Welche Kontakte
bestehen zwischen dem Europäischen Auswärtigen Dienst und OLAF in Bezug auf die Untersuchung dieses Falls?

7. Bei Tabakschmuggel geht es üblicherweise um Ware, die in einen Mitgliedstaat hinein geschmuggelt wird. Gab
es in der Vergangenheit bereits andere Fälle, in denen Tabak aus einem Mitgliedstaat hinaus geschmuggelt wurde?

8. Ist die Kommission der Auffassung, dass es sich, da JTI an dem Fall beteiligt ist, um einen Verstoß gegen
Artikel 5 Absatz 9 Buchstabe h des im Jahr 2007 zwischen JTI und der Kommission unterzeichneten
Kooperationsabkommens handelt? Wenn ja, wie wird sich dies auf das künftige Verhältnis zwischen der Kommission
und JTI auswirken?

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

_(18. Januar 2013)_

Die Kommission weist darauf hin, dass in der von der Frau Abgeordneten angesprochenen Angelegenheit klar
unterschieden werden sollte. Das OLAF hat nicht den Auftrag, angebliche Verstöße gegen Handelssanktionen an sich
zu untersuchen. Somit untersucht das OLAF nicht diesen spezifischen Fall, sondern eine ganze Reihe von Vorwürfen
gegen Japan Tobacco International (JTI). Falls im Zuge der OLAF-Untersuchung jedoch Beweise dafür gefunden
werden sollten, dass gegen Handelssanktionen verstoßen wurde, so würden die betreffenden Informationen an die
zuständigen nationalen Behörden und die zuständige Dienststelle der Organe weitergeleitet. Diese Vorgehensweise
entspricht den Verfahrensvorschriften und der allgemeinen Praxis des OLAF, wenn es auf Hinweise auf illegale
Tätigkeiten stößt. Im vorliegenden Fall meldete das OLAF die mutmaßlichen Verstöße gegen die restriktiven
Maßnahmen dem EAD.

Durch seine Untersuchung will das OLAF feststellen, ob es Beweise für eine Schädigung der finanziellen Interessen der
EU gibt und ob möglicherweise gegen das Kooperationsabkommen zwischen der EU, den Mitgliedstaaten und JTI
verstoßen wurde. Da die Untersuchung noch andauert, können derzeit keine weiteren Informationen übermittelt
werden.

Was die Frage 7 angeht, so liegen dem OLAF keine Informationen über Fälle in der Vergangenheit vor, in denen Tabak
aus einem Mitgliedstaat in einen Drittstaat geschmuggelt wurde, da das OLAF nicht dafür zuständig ist, solche
Betrugsfälle, die keine Auswirkungen auf den EU-Haushalt haben, zu untersuchen. Mehrwertsteuer und
Verbrauchsteuern werden im Land des Verbrauchs und nicht im Herstellungsland erhoben.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 541

Die Kommission weist auf Artikel 15 der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 442/2011 ( [1] ) hin, der besagt, dass die Mitgliedstaaten
dafür zuständig sind, geeignete Maßnahmen bezüglich der bei Verstößen gegen die restriktiven Maßnahmen zu
verhängenden Sanktionen zu ergreifen.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Verordnung (EU) Nr. 442/2011 des Rates vom 9. Mai 2011 über restriktive Maßnahmen angesichts der Lage in Syrien. Diese Verordnung wurde

zwar in den Zwischenzeit durch die Verordnung (EU) Nr. 36/2012 ersetzt, doch galt die erstgenannte Verordnung zu dem Zeitpunkt, zu dem der
Sachverhalt festgestellt wurde.

C 310 E / 542 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009948/12**

**to the Commission**
**Ingeborg Gräßle (PPE)**

_(31 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ OLAF investigation of Japanese Tobacco Inc — smuggling accusations

A subsidiary of Japanese Tobacco Inc (JTI) has been accused of smuggling cigarettes from Cyprus into Syria. 450 000
cartons of cigarettes were allegedly sold to a black-listed associate of Maher al-Assad, the brother of Syrian President
Bashar al-Assad. It is suspected that these cigarettes are either being used to pay military salaries or being sold at a
higher price, thereby generating profit used to fund al-Assad’s regime. OLAF is currently investigating these
allegations.

1. What is the total value associated with these smuggled cigarettes?

2. Since the case involves the export of goods, is the breach of an embargo a crime for which OLAF is competent?
If so, what is the exact legal qualification of the facts that OLAF is investigating?

3. What is the amount under investigation? Has the alleged illegal amount, as reported in the press, been
confirmed?

4. How much revenue has the EU lost as a result of this smuggling?

5. When does OLAF expect the Cypriot national judicial authorities to give a final judgment on this case?

6. How does the Commission intend to seek cooperation with the Cypriot authorities? What contact has there
been between the European External Action Service and OLAF in relation to the investigation of this case?

7. Usually tobacco smuggling cases involve contraband being smuggled into a Member State. Are there other
precedents involving cases in which tobacco was smuggled out of a Member State?

8. Since JTI is involved in the case, does the Commission consider it to involve a violation of Article 5(9)(h) of the
cooperation agreement signed between JTI and the Commission in 2007? If so, what impact will this have on the
relationship between the Commission and JTI in the future?

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

_(18 January 2013)_

The Commission would like to highlight that a clear distinction should be made in respect of the matter raised by the
Honourable Member: OLAF has no mandate to investigate alleged breaches of trade sanctions as such. OLAF is thus
not investigating this specific matter but it is investigating a range of allegations against Japan Tobacco International
(JTI). Nevertheless, if evidence that trade sanctions have been breached were to be found during OLAF's investigation,
this information would be transmitted to the appropriate national authorities and the competent service of the
institutions, complying with the procedural requirements and in accordance with OLAF's general practice whenever it
comes across indications of illegality of any kind. In this case, OLAF reported to the EEAS the alleged violations of the
restrictive measures.

In its investigation, OLAF is seeking to establish whether there is any evidence of damage to the financial interests of
the EU and whether the cooperation agreement between the EU, the Member States and JTI may have been breached.
As the investigation is ongoing, no further information can be provided.

Regarding question 7, OLAF has no information of other precedents involving cases in which tobacco was smuggled
out of a Member State to a third country since it is not competent to investigate such fraud cases which have no
impact on the EU budget. Indeed, VAT and excise duties are due in the country of consumption and not in the
country of production.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 543

In that respect, the Commission would recall that Article 15 of Regulation 442/2011 ( [1] ) states that the Member States
are competent to take appropriate measures on penalties applicable to infringements of the restrictive measures.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Council Regulation 442/2011 of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria. Since then this regulation has been
replaced by Regulation 36/2012. However, the first Regulation was applicable when the facts were discovered.

C 310 E / 544 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-009950/12**

**do Komisji**
**Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D)**

_(31 października 2012 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Zakaz sprzedaży marihuany cudzoziemcom na terenie Niderlandów

Od 1 maja 2012 r. na południu Holandii, a od 1 stycznia 2013 r. na całym jej terytorium obowiązywać będzie zakaz
sprzedaży marihuany cudzoziemcom. Wstęp do popularnych coffee shopów będą mieli jedynie mieszkańcy
Niderlandów, którzy wylegitymują się ważnym holenderskim dowodem tożsamości.

Czy powyższe przepisy mogą zostać wprowadzone nie naruszając podstawowej zasady o przeciwdziałaniu
dyskryminacji ze względu na narodowość wyrażonej w art. 10 Traktatu o funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej?

Napisy „Tylko dla Holendrów” przypomną niechlubne „brunatne” czasy w Europie.

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

_(4 stycznia 2013 r.)_

Komisja potwierdza, że począwszy od dnia 1 stycznia 2013 r. sprzedaż marihuany w coffee shopach w Niderlandach
będzie dostępna wyłącznie dla osób zamieszkujących legalnie na terytorium tego państwa, niezależnie od
posiadanego obywatelstwa. Niemniej jednak stosowanie powyższych przepisów mieści się w obszarze kompetencji
organów krajowych.

Komisja pragnie zwrócić uwagę szanownej Pani Posłanki na wyrok Trybunału Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej
z dnia 16 grudnia 2010 r. w sprawie Marc Michel Josemans przeciwko Burgemeester van Maastricht ( [1] ), wydany
w następstwie wprowadzenia przez burmistrza gminy Maastricht zakazu wstępu do coffee shopów dla osób
niebędących mieszkańcami Niderlandów.

Trybunał orzekł, że sprzedaż środków odurzających jest zakazana we wszystkich państwach członkowskich,
z wyjątkiem ściśle kontrolowanego handlu takimi produktami lub substancjami w celu wykorzystania ich do celów
medycznych lub naukowych, przy czym środki te z samej swej natury objęte są zakazem przywozu i wprowadzania
do obrotu we wszystkich państwach członkowskich. Sąd zatem rozstrzygnął, że ani swoboda przemieszczania się,
ani zasada niedyskryminacji nie stanowią przeszkody dla wprowadzenia przepisów zezwalających na sprzedaż
konopi wyłącznie mieszkańcom Niderlandów.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=pl&num=c-137/09

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 545

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009950/12**

**to the Commission**
**Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D)**

_(31 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Banning the sale of marijuana to foreigners in the Netherlands

A ban on the sale of marijuana to foreigners has been in effect in the southern Netherlands since May 2012, and it will
be extended nationally on 1 January 2013. Only residents of the Netherlands able to produce a valid Dutch identity
card will be permitted to enter the country’s popular coffee shops.

Can the aforementioned provisions be introduced without violating the basic principle of combating discrimination
on the grounds of nationality enshrined in Article 10 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?

Signs saying ‘Dutch only’ would serve as an appalling reminder of Europe’s fascist past.

_(Version française)_

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

_(4 janvier 2013)_

La Commission confirme qu'à partir du 1 [er] janvier 2013, la vente de marijuana dans les coffee shops aux Pays-Bas sera
limitée aux personnes qui résident légalement dans ce pays quelle que soit leur nationalité. Néanmoins, l'application
de cette loi reste dans la sphère de responsabilité des autorités nationales.

La Commission souhaite référer l'Honorable Parlementaire au jugement de la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne
en date du 16 décembre 2010 dans l'affaire Marc Michel Josemans/Burgemeester van Maastricht ( [1] ), qui faisait suite à
l'interdiction par le maire de la commune de Maastricht d'admettre dans les coffee shops des personnes autres que des
résidents des Pays-Bas.

La Cour a dit pour droit que la commercialisation de stupéfiants était interdite dans tous les États membres, exception
faite d'un commerce strictement contrôlé en vue d'une utilisation à des fins médicales et scientifiques, qui relèvent, par
leur nature même, d'une interdiction d'importation et de mise en vente dans tous les États membres. Dès lors, la Cour
en a conclu que ni les libertés de circulation ni le principe de non-discrimination ne peut s'opposer à une
réglementation restreignant la commercialisation de cannabis aux seuls résidents des Pays-Bas.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=fr&num=c-137/09.

C 310 E / 546 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Svensk version)_

**Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-009951/12**

**till kommissionen**
**Olle Schmidt (ALDE)**

_(31 oktober 2012)_

_Angående:_ Människohandel i Sinai

Många flyktingar från Afrikas horn som söker skydd i Israel färdas ofta dit via Egypten. Det betyder att de måste korsa
Sinaiöknen. Sinaiöknen är ett ingenmansland som den egyptiska regeringen inte verkar kunna kontrollera. Resan
genom öknen görs med bistånd av beduiner och människosmugglare, som utnyttjar flyktingarnas svåra situation.
Kvinnor våldtas; människor låses in månader i sträck så att ännu mer pengar ska kunna pressas ur dem; andra dödas
för sina organ eller bara för att det är möjligt.

Offer för människohandel måste behandlas humant. Flyktingar bör inte skickas tillbaka till länder där de riskerar att
torteras och misshandlas igen.

Inför plenardebatten den 15 mars 2012 uppmanas kommissionen att redogöra för framstegen på följande områden:

1. Vad gör kommissionen för att se till att dess partner, de egyptiska myndigheterna, bekämpar människohandel
samtidigt som de respekterar sina internationella åtaganden för mänskliga rättigheter?

2. Under vilka förutsättningar kommer kommissionen att utöva ytterligare påtryckningar på de egyptiska
myndigheterna för att se till att emigranters och flyktingars mänskliga rättigheter respekteras?

3. Vad tänker kommissionen göra för att se till att FN:s flyktingkommissariat får fullständiga möjligheter att
genomföra sitt uppdrag på Egyptens hela territorium, inklusive Sinaiområdet?

**Svar från den höga representanten/vice ordförande Catherine Ashton på kommissionens vägnar**

_(18 december 2012)_

Svaret på frågan finns i det gemensamma svaret till de tidigare ställda frågorna för skriftligt besvarande
E-008621/2012 och E-008830/2012 ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/sv/parliamentary-questions.html

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 547

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009951/12**

**to the Commission**
**Olle Schmidt (ALDE)**

_(31 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Human trafficking in Sinai

Refugees from the Horn of Africa seeking safety often travel to Israel via Egypt. That means that they have to cross the
Sinai Desert. This desert is a no-man’s-land on which the Egyptian Government seems unable to get a grip. The
journey through the desert is facilitated by Bedouins and people smugglers who exploit the vulnerability of these
refugees. Women are raped, people are locked up for months on end in order to extort even more from them, and
others are killed for their organs or just because it is possible.

Victims of human trafficking must be treated humanely. Refugees should not be returned to countries where a
renewed risk of torture and ill-treatment awaits them.

With regard to the plenary debate on 15 March 2012, could the Commission clarify what progress has been made in
the following matters:

1. What is the Commission doing to ensure that its partners, the Egyptian authorities, fight human trafficking
while fulfilling their international human rights commitments?

2. Under what conditions will the Commission put additional pressure on the Egyptian authorities to ensure that
the human rights of migrants and refugees are respected?

3. What does the Commission intend to do to ensure that the UNHCR is given full possibility to implement its
mandate throughout the entire territory of Egypt, including the Sinai region?

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

_(18 December 2012)_

The reply to this question can be found in the joint reply to previous written questions E-008621/2012 and
E-008830/2012 ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

C 310 E / 548 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009952/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE) y Ramon**

**Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Utilización de fondos de la UE para la integración de la comunidad gitana en Rumanía

La evaluación de las estrategias nacionales de integración de los gitanos revela que la mayoría de los Estados
miembros no han asignado recursos presupuestarios suficientes para la integración de los gitanos. Tan solo unos
pocos Estados miembros han previsto recursos presupuestarios y asignado importes específicos para las medidas
políticas de integración de la comunidad gitana.

En Rumanía, la estrategia nacional de integración de los gitanos depende en gran medida de los Fondos Estructurales.
El porcentaje de absorción en Rumanía es el más bajo de toda la UE. Según el diario semanal _The Economist_, Rumanía
corre el riesgo de perder 100 millones de euros a finales de 2012, y más de 1 000 millones de euros en 2013 en el
sector de los recursos humanos como consecuencia de los problemas de corrupción y otras irregularidades.

¿Ha recibido la Comisión alguna información sobre las medidas que se están llevando a cabo para mitigar el impacto
nefasto que va a tener esta situación en los proyectos de integración de los gitanos a corto plazo, y de las medidas que
el Gobierno de Rumanía tiene previsto adoptar para mejorar su capacidad de absorción a más largo plazo?

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

_(18 de diciembre de 2012)_

Los Fondos Estructurales se ejecutan de acuerdo con el principio de gestión compartida y los responsables de su uso
eficaz para apoyar la integración de la población romaní son los Estados miembros. En 2011, la Comisión organizó
una reunión de alto nivel en Rumanía para reforzar este proceso y debatir los retos de una utilización efectiva de los
Fondos Estructurales para la inclusión de los romaníes en el Estado rumano.

En la evaluación de la Estrategia Nacional Rumana de Integración de los Romaníes ( [1] ), la Comisión señaló que, a la luz
de la considerable dependencia de los Fondos Estructurales en apoyo de los proyectos que tratan de las prioridades
definidas, debe ser prioritario mejorar de modo significativo la capacidad de absorción. Se espera que, al aplicar las
medidas, los Estados miembros tengan en cuenta los resultados de la evaluación de la Comisión. Las autoridades
rumanas están actualmente dando pasos destinados a colmar las lagunas y las deficiencias.

Hay también conversaciones en curso entre la Comisión y el Ministerio de Desarrollo Regional y Turismo en relación
con el uso reforzado del FEDER para proyectos piloto a favor de las comunidades marginadas, incluida la población
romaní, en cuatro localidades.

Además, se celebró un contrato con el Banco Mundial, en el contexto del apoyo de las instituciones financieras
internacionales a la administración rumana para elaborar estrategias integradas par las zonas más pobres y las
comunidades desfavorecidas.

Por último, se espera que las nuevas disposiciones de los proyectos de reglamentos de los Fondos Estructurales (es
decir, las condiciones _ex ante_ y el análisis de eficacia) contribuyan a mejorar los resultados, también por lo que se
refiere a la integración de la población romaní.

La Comisión estará atenta para garantizar la financiación al elaborar los informes sobre los avances en la aplicación de
las estrategias nacionales en la primavera de 2013.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) El Informe de evaluación de la Comisión de 21 de mayo de 2012 está compuesto por la Comunicación Un primer paso para la aplicación del
marco de la UE, COM(2012)226 y el Documento de trabajo de los servicios de la Comisión adjunto a ella, SWD (2012)133.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 549

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009952/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE) e Ramon**

**Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Utilizzo dei fondi UE per l'inclusione dei Rom in Romania

La valutazione delle strategie nazionali d'integrazione dei Rom dimostra che la maggior parte degli Stati membri non
è riuscita ad assegnare risorse di bilancio sufficienti per l'inclusione dei Rom. Soltanto alcuni Stati membri hanno
individuato risorse di bilancio e stanziato specifici importi a favore di misure politiche volte all'inclusione dei Rom.

In Romania le strategie nazionali d'integrazione dei Rom dipendono in larga misura dai fondi strutturali. Il tasso di
assorbimento in tale paese è il più basso dell'UE. Secondo il settimanale The Economist, la Romania rischia di perdere
100 milioni di euro entro la fine di quest'anno e oltre 1 miliardo di euro il prossimo anno nel settore delle risorse
umane, a fronte di sospetti di corruzione ed altre irregolarità.

È la Commissione a conoscenza di ciò che viene fatto per mitigare l'impatto disastroso che tale situazione avrà
nell'immediato sui progetti d'integrazione dei Rom e di quali sono i provvedimenti che il governo rumeno intende
adottare al fine di migliorare la capacità di assorbimento a lungo termine?

**Risposta di Viviane Reding a nome della Commissione**

_(18 dicembre 2012)_

I fondi strutturali sono attuati conformemente al principio di gestione condivisa e spetta agli Stati membri verificare
che vengano utilizzati efficacemente per promuovere l'integrazione dei Rom. La Commissione ha organizzato una
riunione di alto livello in Romania nel 2011 per sostenere tale processo e discutere delle difficoltà incontrate dal paese
nell'utilizzare efficacemente i fondi strutturali per l’inclusione dei Rom.

Nella valutazione della strategia nazionale rumena di integrazione dei Rom ( [1] ), la Commissione ha indicato che è
essenziale migliorare considerevolmente la capacità di assorbimento, dato che il sostegno ai progetti volti ad
affrontare le priorità individuate dipende in larga parte dai fondi strutturali. Gli Stati membri sono tenuti a prendere in
considerazione i risultati della valutazione della Commissione nella messa in atto delle misure previste. Le autorità
rumene stanno agendo per ovviare alle carenze e alle debolezze individuate.

Inoltre, sono in corso tra la Commissione e il ministero per lo Sviluppo regionale e il Turismo discussioni
sull’incremento del ricorso al FESR per progetti pilota destinati alle comunità emarginate, compresi i Rom, in quattro
località.

Si è altresì concluso un contratto con la Banca mondiale, nell’ambito del contributo dato all'amministrazione rumena
dalle istituzioni finanziarie internazionali (IFI), al fine di elaborare strategie integrate per le zone povere e le comunità
svantaggiate.

Infine, nuove disposizioni del progetto di normativa per i fondi strutturali (tra cui, ad esempio, le condizionalità ex
ante, l’analisi dei risultati) dovrebbero contribuire a conseguire migliori risultati, anche per quanto riguarda
l'integrazione dei Rom.

La garanzia dei finanziamenti sarà un elemento cui la Commissione presterà particolare attenzione nel comunicare,
nella primavera del 2013, i progressi compiuti nell'attuazione delle strategie nazionali.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) La relazione di valutazione della Commissione del 21 maggio 2012 si compone della comunicazione «Strategie nazionali di integrazione dei Rom:

un primo passo nell’attuazione del Quadro dell’UE» (COM(2012)226) e del relativo documento di lavoro dei servizi della Commissione
(SWD(2012)133).

C 310 E / 550 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-009952/12**

**aan de Commissie**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE) en Ramon**

**Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 oktober 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Gebruik van EU-fondsen voor de integratie van de Roma in Roemenië

Uit de beoordeling van de nationale strategieën voor integratie van de Roma (NRIS) blijkt dat de meeste lidstaten er
niet in geslaagd zijn om toereikende begrotingsmiddelen voor de integratie van de Roma uit te trekken. Slechts enkele
lidstaten hebben begrotingsmiddelen en concrete geldbedragen toegewezen voor beleidsmaatregelen inzake
integratie van de Roma.

In Roemenie zijn de NRIS voornamelijk afhankelijk van structuurfondsen. De absorptiegraad van Roemenië is de
laagste in de EU. Volgens _The Economist_ loopt Roemenië het risico om tegen het eind van het jaar 100 miljoen EUR
mis te lopen in de sector van de human resources en meer dan 1 miljard volgend jaar, naast zorgen omtrent corruptie
en andere onregelmatigheden.

Heeft de Commissie enige indicatie gekregen over wat er gedaan wordt om de rampzalige effecten te verzachten die
dit op korte termijn zal hebben op de projecten voor de integratie van Roma alsmede over wat de Roemeense
regering voornemens is te doen om haar absorptiegraad op de lange termijn te verbeteren?

**Antwoord van mevrouw Reding namens de Commissie**

_(18 december 2012)_

De structuurfondsen worden volgens het beginsel van gedeeld beheer uitgevoerd en de lidstaten zijn verantwoordelijk
voor het doeltreffende gebruik ervan ter ondersteuning van de integratie van de Roma. In 2011 heeft de Commissie
in Roemenië een bijeenkomst op hoog niveau georganiseerd om dit proces te ondersteunen en de problemen te
bespreken die een belemmering vormen voor een doelmatig gebruik van de structuurfondsen voor de integratie van
de Roma door de Roemeense staat.

In haar beoordeling van de Roemeense nationale strategie voor de integratie van de Roma ( [1] ) heeft de Commissie erop
gewezen dat in de eerste plaats de absorptiecapaciteit aanzienlijk moet worden verbeterd, omdat de
gestelde prioriteiten voornamelijk worden aangepakt door middel van projecten die worden gefinancierd uit de
structuurfondsen. De lidstaten worden geacht bij de uitvoering van maatregelen rekening te houden met de uitkomst
van de beoordeling door de Commissie. De Roemeense autoriteiten ondernemen momenteel stappen om de
vastgestelde tekortkomingen te verhelpen.

Voorts zijn besprekingen tussen de Commissie en het ministerie van Regionale Ontwikkeling en Toerisme aan de
gang met betrekking tot een intensiever gebruik van het EFRO in vier proefprojecten voor
gemarginaliseerde gemeenschappen, waaronder de Roma.

Bovendien werd in het kader van de steun van de IFI's aan de Roemeense overheid een contract met de Wereldbank
gesloten voor de uitwerking van geïntegreerde strategieën voor arme regio's en achtergestelde gemeenschappen.

Ten slotte moeten nieuwe bepalingen van de ontwerp-verordeningen inzake structuurfondsen (d.w.z. exantevoorwaarden, prestatiebeoordeling) leiden tot betere resultaten, ook wat betreft de integratie van de Roma.

Het regelen van financiering is een van de punten waaraan de Commissie zeker aandacht zal besteden wanneer zij in
het voorjaar van 2013 verslag uitbrengt over de vooruitgang bij de uitvoering van de nationale strategieën.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Het beoordelingsrapport van de Commissie van 21 mei 2012 bestaat uit de mededeling betreffende de eerste stap van de uitvoering van het EUkader COM(2012)226 en het begeleidende werkdocument van de diensten van de Commissie SWD(2012)133.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 551

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-009952/12**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE) şi Ramon**

**Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 octombrie 2012)_

_Subiect:_ Utilizarea fondurilor UE pentru integrarea romilor în România

Evaluarea strategiilor naționale de integrare a romilor (SNIR) arată că majoritatea statelor membre nu au reușit să
aloce resurse bugetare suficiente pentru integrarea acestora. Doar câteva state membre au identificat resurse bugetare
și au alocat sume specifice pentru politici vizând integrarea romilor.

În România, SNIR se bazează în principal pe fondurile structurale. Rata de absorbție a acestora în România este cea
mai scăzută din UE. Potrivit publicației _The Economist_, în contextul îngrijorărilor privind corupția și alte neregularități,
România se confruntă cu perspectiva de a pierde 100 de milioane de euro până la sfârșitul acestui an și peste un
miliard de euro anul viitor în sectorul resurselor umane.

A primit Comisia vreo informație cu privire la eventualele măsurile luate pentru diminuarea impactului dezastruos pe
care acest lucru îl va avea, pe termen foarte scurt, asupra proiectelor de integrare a romilor și ce măsuri intenționează
să adopte Guvernul României în vederea îmbunătățirii, pe termen lung, a capacității sale de absorbție?

**Răspuns dat de dna Reding în numele Comisiei**

_(18 decembrie 2012)_

Fondurile structurale sunt puse în aplicare potrivit principiului gestionării partajate, statele membre fiind responsabile
pentru utilizarea eficace a acestora în vederea sprijinirii integrării romilor. În 2011, Comisia a organizat în România o
reuniune la nivel înalt pentru a sprijini acest proces și a supune discuției problemele care împiedică utilizarea eficace
de către statul român a fondurilor structurale pentru incluziunea romilor.

În evaluarea Strategiei naționale a României de integrare a romilor ( [1] ), Comisia a menționat că, întrucât sprijinirea
proiectelor care răspund priorităților identificate este asigurată în mare măsură prin fondurile structurale, o
îmbunătățire semnificativă a capacității de absorbție ar trebui să reprezinte o prioritate. În privința punerii în aplicare
a măsurilor, se așteaptă ca statele membre să țină cont de rezultatele evaluării Comisiei. Autoritățile române adoptă în
prezent măsuri pentru a remedia lacunele și deficiențele identificate.

De asemenea, între Comisie și Ministerul Dezvoltării Regionale și Turismului se desfășoară în prezent discuții cu
privire la intensificarea utilizării FEDER în cazul unor proiecte-pilot destinate comunităților marginalizate, inclusiv
romii, în patru localități.

În plus, în contextul sprijinului IFI pentru administrația publică din România, a fost încheiat cu Banca Mondială un
contract în scopul elaborării unor strategii integrate pentru zonele sărace și comunitățile defavorizate.

În cele din urmă, noile dispoziții ale proiectelor de regulamente privind fondurile structurale (de exemplu,
condiționalitățile ex-ante, evaluarea performanței) ar trebui să contribuie la obținerea unor rezultate mai bune,
inclusiv în ceea ce privește integrarea romilor.

Obținerea finanțării este un aspect căruia Comisia îi va acorda o atenție specială atunci când va prezenta, în primăvara
anului 2013, rapoarte privind progresele înregistrate în punerea în aplicare a strategiilor naționale.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Raportul de evaluare al Comisiei din 21 mai 2012 este compus din Comunicarea privind o primă etapă în punerea în aplicare a cadrului UE [COM
(2012) 226] și documentul de lucru al serviciilor Comisiei SWD (2012) 133.

C 310 E / 552 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Svensk version)_

**Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-009952/12**

**till kommissionen**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE) och**

**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 oktober 2012)_

_Angående:_ Användning av EU-medel för integrering av romer i Rumänien

Utvärderingen av de nationella strategierna för integrering av romer visar att de flesta medlemsstaterna inte har
anslagit tillräckliga budgetmedel för integrering av romer. Bara ett fåtal medlemsstater har öronmärkt budgetmedel
och anslagit specifika belopp till integreringspolitiska åtgärder för romer.

I Rumänien vilar den nationella strategin till största delen på strukturfondsmedel. Rumäniens utnyttjandegrad är EU:s
lägsta. Enligt _The Economist_ riskerar Rumänien att bli av med 100 miljoner euro vid slutet av 2012 och över 1 miljard
euro 2013 på området för mänskliga resurser, till följd av problem med korruption och andra oegentligheter.

Har kommissionen fått några uppgifter om vad som görs för att avhjälpa de katastrofala effekter detta kommer att ha
för projektet med integrering av romer på kort sikt, och vad den rumänska regeringen tänker göra för att förbättra sin
utnyttjandegrad på längre sikt?

**Svar från Viviane Reding på kommissionens vägnar**

_(18 december 2012)_

Strukturfonderna genomförs på grundval av principen om delad förvaltning. Medlemsstaterna har ansvaret för att
strukturfondsmedel till stöd för integrering av romer används på ett ändamålsenligt sätt. Kommissionen anordnade
under 2011 i syfte att understödja integreringsprocessen ett högnivåmöte i Rumänien för att ta upp hinder för en
ändamålsenlig användning från den rumänska statens sida av strukturfondsmedel för integrering av romer.

Kommissionen anger i sin bedömning ( [1] ) av Rumäniens nationella strategi för integrering av romer att en väsentlig
förbättring av landets absorptionsförmåga (förmåga att utnyttja anslag) bör vara en prioritet med beaktande av att
landet i väsentlig utsträckning förlitar sig på strukturfondsmedel för att stödja projekt som är inriktade på de
prioriteter för åtgärder som kommissionen identifierat i bedömningen. Medlemsstaterna förväntas ta kommissionens
bedömning i beaktande vid genomförandet av åtgärder. De rumänska myndigheterna håller för närvarande på att
vidta åtgärder för att komma till rätta med de brister i strategin som kommissionen identifierat.

Diskussioner pågår mellan kommissionen och ministeriet för regional utveckling och turism om utökad användning
av medel från Europeiska regionala utvecklingsfonden (Eruf) för pilotprojekt på fyra platser som riktar sig till
marginaliserade befolkningsgrupper (inbegripet romer).

Inom ramen för Världsbankens stöd till den rumänska förvaltningen har det ingåtts ett kontrakt om utformning av
integrerade strategier för fattiga områden och missgynnade befolkningsgrupper.

De nya bestämmelserna i utkasten till förordningar för strukturfonderna (särskilt bestämmelserna om förhandsvillkor
och resultatbedömning) torde bidra till att resultaten förbättras, även vad beträffar integreringen av romer.

Tryggandet av medel är en av de frågor som kommissionen kommer att ägna uppmärksamhet åt i samband med att
den under våren 2013 avlägger rapport om framstegen i genomförandet av de nationella strategierna.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Kommissionens bedömning av den 21 maj 2012, som utgörs av meddelandet Nationella strategier för integreringen av romer: ett första steg i

genomförandet av EU-ramen (KOM(2012) 226) och det arbetsdokument från kommissionens avdelningar (SWD(2012) 133) som åtföljer
meddelandet.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 553

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009952/12**

**to the Commission**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE) and**

**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Use of EU funds for Roma inclusion in Romania

The assessment of the national Roma integration strategies (NRIS) shows that most Member States have failed to
allocate sufficient budgetary resources for Roma inclusion. Only a few Member States have identified budgetary
resources and allocated specific amounts for Roma inclusion policy measures.

In Romania, the NRIS relies largely on structural funds. Romania’s absorption rate is the lowest in the EU. According
to _The Economist_, Romania faces the prospect of losing EUR 100 million by the end of this year and more than
EUR 1 billion next year in the human resources sector, amid concerns over corruption and other irregularities.

Has the Commission received any indication as to what is being done to mitigate the disastrous impact this will have
on Roma integration projects in the immediate term, and what the Romanian Government intends to do to improve
its absorption capacity in the longer term?

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

_(18 December 2012)_

Structural funds are implemented under the shared management principle and Member States are responsible for
their effective use to support Roma integration. The Commission organised a high-level meeting in Romania in 2011
to bolster this process and discuss challenges to an effective use of structural funds for Roma inclusion by the
Romanian State.

In the assessment of the Romanian National Roma Integration Strategy ( [1] ), the Commission mentioned that, in the
light of the considerable reliance on Structural Funds to support projects addressing the identified priorities, a
significant improvement of the absorption capacity should be a priority. Member States are expected to take into
account the results from the Commission's assessment in the implementation of measures. The Romanian authorities
are currently taking steps to address the identified gaps and weaknesses.

Discussions between the Commission and the Ministry of Regional Development and Tourism are also ongoing
regarding the reinforced use of ERDF for pilot projects for marginalised communities, including the Roma, in four
localities.

In addition, a contract was concluded with the World Bank, in the context of the IFIs support to the Romanian
administration, for elaborating integrated strategies for poor areas and disadvantaged communities.

Finally, new provisions of the draft structural funds regulations (i.e. _ex-ante_ conditionalities, performance review)
should contribute to better results, also as regards Roma integration.

Securing funding is one item the Commission will pay attention to when reporting on progress on the
implementation of the national strategies in spring 2013.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) The Commission's assessment report of 21st May 2012 is made of the communication on a first step in the implementation of the EU Framework
COM(2012)226 and the accompanying Staff Working Document SWD (2012)133.

C 310 E / 554 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009953/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE) y**

**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Hostilidad hacia la población romaní en Italia

La estrategia nacional italiana de integración de la población romaní (NRIS) ha manifestado su deseo expreso de
relegar al pasado la «emergencia nómada» de Silvio Berlusconi. El intento del Gobierno de anular la decisión del
Consejo de Estado por la que se declara ilegal la «emergencia nómada» es totalmente contraria a la estrategia, como lo
es el hecho de que se siga construyendo un campamento segregado en las inmediaciones de Roma. Por añadidura, la
última revisión de gastos del Gobierno ha reducido la plantilla del órgano italiano competente en materia de igualdad,
que se encarga oficialmente de la aplicación de la NRIS, a tan solo cuatro personas y un director. Con esto se reduce
aún más la credibilidad en cuanto al compromiso italiano de poner en práctica la NRIS. Nils Muižnieks, Comisario de
Derechos Humanos del Consejo de Europa, ha instado al Gobierno a que declare de forma inequívoca que se ha
abandonado el enfoque basado en la emergencia y a que vele por que se ponga fin de inmediato a cualquier operación
de construcción de campamentos segregados y de desalojos.

El Sr. Muižnieks también ha declarado que sigue acusándose claramente un sentimiento de hostilidad hacia la
población romaní en el discurso político y los medios de comunicación, y ha expresado su malestar ante la
persistencia de la violencia hacia la población romaní y la inadecuación de la respuesta del sistema judicial penal
italiano frente a la misma.

1. ¿Ha recibido la Comisión garantías del Gobierno italiano de que el recurso incoado contra la decisión del
Consejo de Estado así como la drástica reducción reciente de los efectivos del órgano italiano competente en materia
de igualdad, al que se ha encomendado la aplicación de la NRIS, no desbaratará los compromisos asumidos en el
marco de la NRIS?

2. ¿Ha recibido la Comisión alguna indicación del Gobierno italiano de que este se propone tener en cuenta la
declaración de la Comisión, según la cual la lucha incrementada contra la discriminación y el racismo, incluidas
aquellas modalidades que afecten a la población romaní, debe formar parte de un enfoque firme en cada uno de los
Estados miembros, sobre la base del pleno cumplimiento de las normativas de la UE y nacionales?

3. ¿Ha recibido la Comisión alguna indicación en lo que respecta a la utilización de los datos personales recabados
durante la «emergencia nómada» o ha facilitado el Gobierno italiano pruebas fehacientes de que dichos datos han sido
eliminados?

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

_(18 de diciembre de 2012)_

El órgano italiano competente en materia de igualdad (UNAR), que también actúa como punto de contacto nacional
para la integración de los romaníes, participó en la primera reunión de la red de puntos de contacto y se adhirió
asimismo al «grupo piloto» compuesto por los Estados miembros especialmente afectados por la cuestión de la
población romaní. La UNAR confirmó que Italia está comprometida en la lucha contra el racismo y la discriminación
que afectan, en particular, a la población romaní.

La Comisión no ha recibido indicación directamente relacionada con las cuestiones en materia de protección de datos
vinculadas a la recogida de datos durante la «emergencia nómada».

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 555

No obstante, queremos destacar que, durante la reunión del Comité sobre la eliminación de la discriminación racial
(en lo sucesivo, CERD) de 5 de marzo de 2012, el delegado para Italia «confirmó que los datos recogidos relativos a la
población romaní habían sido enteramente destruidos, y manifestó que no existe base de datos específica sobre los
perfiles étnicos» ( [1] ). El 9 de marzo de 2012, en sus conclusiones, el CERD reconoció «la declaración efectuada por el
Estado Parte de que los datos han sido destruidos desde entonces» y recomendó que «el Estado Parte se abstenga de
llevar a cabo los censos de emergencia sobre grupos minoritarios e informe a las comunidades interesadas de que se
han destruido los datos del censo de emergencia anterior» _[ (]_ [2] _[)]_ .

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Dicha declaración está disponible en:

http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B9C2E/(httpNewsByYear_en)/3B034DEA5E441945C12579B8006063AC?
OpenDocument&cntxt=B0DA4&cookielang=en.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/docs/CERD.C.ITA.CO.16-18.pdf

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

C 310 E / 556 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009953/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE) e**

**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Atteggiamento anti-Rom in Italia

La Strategia nazionale italiana per l’integrazione dei Rom (SNIR) auspica esplicitamente di consegnare al passato
«l'emergenza nomadi» di Berlusconi. Il tentativo del governo di rovesciare la sentenza del Consiglio di Stato che
dichiara illegale «l'emergenza nomadi» e la continuazione della costruzione di un campo segregato nei pressi di Roma
è direttamente in contrasto con tale strategia. Inoltre, l'ultima spending review ha ridotto il personale dell’organo
italiano competente in materia di uguaglianza, formalmente incaricato dell'attuazione della SNIR, a solo quattro
persone e un direttore. Ciò diminuisce ulteriormente la credibilità dell'impegno italiano per l'attuazione della SNIR.
Nils Muižnieks, Commissario per i diritti umani del Consiglio d'Europa, ha chiesto al governo di dichiarare senza
ambiguità che l'approccio di emergenza è stato abbandonato e di garantire che cessino immediatamente i lavori per la
costruzione di campi segregati e le evacuazioni.

Muižnieks ha altresì dichiarato che l'atteggiamento anti-Rom continua ad essere diffuso nel dibattito politico e nei
media e ha rilevato di essere turbato per la persistente violenza nei confronti dei Rom e per l'inadeguatezza della
risposta del sistema giudiziario penale italiano.

1. Ha la Commissione ricevuto assicurazioni dal governo italiano che il suo appello contro la sentenza del
Consiglio di Stato e la sua recente drastica riduzione del personale dell'organo competente in materia di uguaglianza,
incaricato dell'attuazione della SNIR, non comprometteranno gli impegni assunti nell’ambito della Strategia stessa?

2. Ha ricevuto indicazioni dal governo italiano da cui risulti che esso intende prestare ascolto alla dichiarazione
della Commissione secondo cui il potenziamento della lotta contro la discriminazione e il razzismo, comprese le
forme riguardanti il popolo Rom, deve essere parte in ogni Stato membro di un approccio forte, basato sul pieno
rispetto delle normative UE e nazionali?

3. Ha ricevuto indicazioni per quanto concerne l'uso dei dati personali raccolti durante «l'emergenza nomadi»
ovvero ha fornito il governo italiano prove credibili da cui risulti che i dati sono stati cancellati?

**Risposta di Viviane Reding a nome della Commissione**

_(18 dicembre 2012)_

L’organismo italiano preposto alla parità di trattamento (UNAR — Ufficio Nazionale Antidiscriminazioni Razziali),
che opera anche in quanto punto di contatto nazionale per l'inclusione dei Rom, ha preso parte al primo incontro
della rete dei punti di contatto e ha altresì aderito al «gruppo pilota» composto dagli Stati membri particolarmente
interessati dalla questione Rom. L’UNAR ha confermato l'impegno dell’Italia nella lotta al razzismo e alla
discriminazione, in particolare nei confronti dei Rom.

La Commissione non ha ricevuto alcuna notifica direttamente connessa ad aspetti della protezione dei dati in
riferimento alla raccolta di dati avvenuta durante l’«emergenza nomadi».

Ciononostante sottolineiamo che, durante l'incontro del _Comitato per l'eliminazione della discriminazione razziale_ (qui di
seguito, CERD), tenutosi il 5 marzo 2012, il delegato per l'Italia ha confermato che i dati raccolti sui Rom sono stati
interamente distrutti e ha precisato che non è stata creata alcuna banca dati specifica relativa alla definizione di profili
in base all’etnia ( [1] ). Il 9 marzo 2012, nelle osservazioni conclusive, il CERD ha riportato la dichiarazione dello Stato
parte sull’avvenuta eliminazione dei dati e ha raccomandato allo Stato in questione di astenersi dall’effettuare
censimenti di emergenza destinati a gruppi minoritari e di informare le comunità interessate che i dati raccolti nel
precedente censimento di emergenza sono stati distrutti ( [2] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) La dichiarazione è consultabile al seguente indirizzo internet:

http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B9C2E/(httpNewsByYear_en)/3B034DEA5E441945C12579B8006063AC?
OpenDocument&cntxt=B0DA4&cookielang=en.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/docs/CERD.C.ITA.CO.16-18.pdf

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 557

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-009953/12**

**aan de Commissie**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE) en**

**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 oktober 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Vijandigheid tegenover zigeuners in Italië

In de nationale Roma-strategie van Italië werd duidelijk te kennen gegeven dat de „nomadennoodtoestand” van
Berlusconi moest worden opgeheven. De pogingen van de Italiaanse overheid om de uitspraak van de Raad van State
waarin deze nomadennoodtoestand onwettig werd verklaard, teniet te doen en de voortzetting van de bouw van een
afgezonderd kamp in de buurt van Rome gaan lijnrecht tegen deze strategie in. Bovendien is het personeelsbestand
van de Italiaanse instantie voor gelijkheid, die officieel verantwoordelijk is voor de uitvoering van de strategie, tijdens
de laatste beoordeling van de uitgaven herleid tot één directeur en vier medewerkers. Dit verlaagt nog de
geloofwaardigheid van het engagement van Italië om de nationale Roma-strategie uit te voeren. Nils Muižnieks,
commissaris voor de mensenrechten van de Raad van Europa heeft de Italiaanse overheid verzocht om op
ondubbelzinnige wijze te verklaren dat de noodtoestandaanpak wordt opgegeven en ervoor te zorgen dat er
ogenblikkelijk een eind komt aan de bouw van afgezonderde kampen en aan de uitwijzingen.

Muižnieks merkte eveneens op dat vijandigheid tegenover zigeuners hoogtij blijft vieren in politiek en media en
toonde zich ontsteld over het aanhoudende geweld ten opzichte van de Roma en de ontoereikendheid van het
optreden hiertegen van de Italiaanse strafrechtelijke instanties.

1. Heeft de Italiaanse overheid de Commissie verzekerd dat de aanvechting van de uitspraak van de Raad van State
en de recente drastische verlaging van het personeelsbestand van de instantie voor gelijkheid die belast is met de
uitvoering van de nationale Roma-strategie, de in deze strategie vastgelegde verbintenissen niet zullen dwarsbomen?

2. Heeft de Italiaanse overheid de Commissie te kennen gegeven dat zij van plan is acht te slaan op de verklaring
van de Commissie dat de strijd tegen discriminatie en racisme, waaronder de vormen daarvan die tegen de Roma zijn
gericht, door elke lidstaat moet worden opgevoerd middels een krachtige aanpak en in overeenstemming met de
wetgeving van de EU en de nationale wetten?

3. Heeft de Commissie aanwijzingen ontvangen met betrekking tot het gebruik van de persoonsgegevens die
tijdens de nomadennoodtoestand verzameld zijn, of heeft de Italiaanse overheid geloofwaardig bewijsmateriaal
voorgelegd waaruit blijkt dat deze gegevens vernietigd zijn?

**Antwoord van mevrouw Reding namens de Commissie**

_(18 december 2012)_

De Italiaanse overheidsinstantie voor gelijkheid (UNAR), die ook optreedt als nationaal contactpunt voor de integratie
van de Roma, heeft deelgenomen aan de eerste bijeenkomst van het netwerk van contactpunten en is ook toegetreden
tot de stuurgroep die is samengesteld uit lidstaten die meest met het Roma-vraagstuk te maken hebben. De UNAR
heeft bevestigd dat Italië vastbesloten is om racisme en discriminatie, waarvan met name de Roma het slachtoffer zijn,
te blijven bestrijden.

De Commissie beschikt niet over directe aanwijzingen dat bij de gegevensverzameling tijdens de
„nomadennoodtoestand” de gegevensbescherming in het gedrang is gekomen.

Overigens heeft de Italiaanse delegatie tijdens de bijeenkomst van 5 maart 2012 van de Commissie voor de
uitbanning van rassendiscriminatie (hierna „CERD” genoemd) bevestigd dat de verzamelde gegevens over de Roma
volledig waren vernietigd en verklaard dat er geen specifieke databank voor etnische profilering bestond ( [1] ). Op
9 maart 2012 heeft de CERD in haar eindconclusies gewezen op de verklaring van de overeenkomstsluitende staat dat
de gegevens sedertdien zijn vernietigd en de overeenkomstsluitende staat aanbevolen af te zien van „spoedtellingen”
die gericht zijn op minderheidsgroepen en de desbetreffende gemeenschappen in kennis te stellen van de vernietiging
van de gegevens die tijdens vorige noodtellingen zijn verkregen ( [2] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Voor een dergelijke verklaring, zie:

http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B9C2E/(httpNewsByYear_en)/3B034DEA5E441945C12579B8006063AC?OpenDocument ocument
& cntxt=B0DA4&cookielang=en

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/docs/CERD. C. ITA. CO.16-18.pdf

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

C 310 E / 558 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-009953/12**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE) şi**

**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 octombrie 2012)_

_Subiect:_ Atitudinea de ostilitate împotriva țiganilor din Italia

Strategia națională de integrare a romilor a Italiei este clară în dorința sa de a adopta măsuri prin care „situația de
urgență cauzată de nomazi” să fie relegată trecutului. Încercarea guvernului de a anula hotărârea Consiliului de Stat
prin care „situația de urgență cauzată de nomazi” este declarată ilegală contravine în mod direct strategiei, la fel ca și
continuarea construcției unei tabere segregate lângă Roma. Pe lângă aceasta, în cadrul celei mai recente analize a
cheltuielilor efectuată de guvern, personalul organismului cu atribuții în materie de egalitate din Italia, însărcinat în
mod oficial cu implementarea SNIR, a fost redus la un număr de patru lucrători și un director. Acest lucru reduce și
mai mult credibilitatea angajamentului Italiei cu privire la implementarea SNIR. Nils Muižnieks, Comisarul pentru
Drepturile Omului din cadrul Consiliului Europei, a invitat guvernul să declare în mod clar că abordarea de urgență a
fost abandonată și să adopte măsurile necesare ca orice activități legate de construcția unor tabere segregate și de
expulzări să fie sistate imediat.

Dl Muižnieks a mai declarat că atitudinea de ostilitate împotriva țiganilor în discursul politic și în mass-media
continuă să fie larg răspândită și că este deranjat de persistența actelor de violență comise împotriva romilor, precum
și de caracterul neadecvat al reacției sistemului judiciar penal al Italiei.

1. A primit Comisia asigurări din partea guvernului italian că apelul acestuia împotriva hotărârii Consiliului de Stat
și recenta reducere semnificativă a personalului organismului cu atribuții în materie de egalitate, entitate însărcinată
cu implementarea SNIR, nu vor împiedica realizarea angajamentelor luate în cadrul SNIR?

2. A primit Comisia informații din partea guvernului italian referitoare la eventuala intenție a acestuia de a ține
cont de declarația Comisiei, potrivit căreia „intensificarea luptei împotriva discriminării și a rasismului, inclusiv a
acelor forme ce afectează romii, trebuie să facă parte dintr-o abordare robustă, în fiecare stat membru, bazată pe
respectarea deplină a legislației UE și a statelor membre”?

3. A primit Comisia informații referitoare la utilizarea datelor cu caracter personal colectate în timpul „situației de
urgență cauzată de nomazi”, sau a prezentat guvernul italian dovezi credibile că aceste date au fost șterse?

**Răspuns dat de dna Reding în numele Comisiei**

_(18 decembrie 2012)_

Organismul italian de promovare a egalității de tratament a persoanelor ( _Ufficio Nazionale Antidiscriminazioni Razziali_
_—_ UNAR), care acționează, de asemenea, în calitate de centru național de contact pentru incluziunea romilor, a luat
parte la prima reuniune a rețelei punctelor de contact și, de asemenea, a aderat la „grupul-pilot” compus din statele
membre care sunt preocupate în mod deosebit de problema romilor. UNAR a confirmat faptul că Italia s-a angajat în
lupta împotriva rasismului și a discriminării, care afectează cu precădere populația de etnie romă.

Comisia nu a primit nicio notificare legată direct de aspectele privind protecția datelor referitoare la colectarea de date
în timpul „situației de urgență cauzată de nomazi”.

Cu toate acestea, menționăm că la reuniunea din 5 martie 2012 a Comitetului privind eliminarea discriminării rasiale
( _Committee on the elimination of racial discrimination — CERD_ ), delegatul pentru Italia „a confirmat că datele colectate cu
privire la romi au fost distruse în întregime și a precizat că nu exista o bază de date specifică privind stabilirea de
profile întemeiate pe etnie” ( [1] ). La 9 martie 2012, în observațiile sale finale, CERD a consemnat „declarația dată de
către statul-parte referitoare la faptul că datele au fost distruse între timp” și a recomandat „ca statul-parte să nu
efectueze recensăminte în regim de urgență care vizează grupurile minoritare” și să informeze comunitățile în cauză
cu privire la faptul că datele obținute din recensămintele de urgență anterioare au fost distruse ( [2] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Această declarație este disponibilă la:

http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B9C2E/(httpNewsByYear_en)/3B034DEA5E441945C12579B8006063AC?
OpenDocument&cntxt=B0DA4&cookielang=en

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/docs/CERD.C.ITA.CO.16-18.pdf

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 559

_(Svensk version)_

**Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-009953/12**

**till kommissionen**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE) och**

**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 oktober 2012)_

_Angående:_ Antizigenska strömningar i Italien

I sin nationella strategi för integrering av romer slår Italien fast att landet önskar lämna bakom sig Silvio Berlusconis
koncept med ”undantagstillstånd för nomader”. Consiglio di Stato (Italiens högsta förvaltningsdomstol) har i ett
domslut förklarat att detta ”undantagstillstånd för nomader” var lagstridigt. Regeringens försök att riva upp detta
domslut står i direkt strid med strategin, och det gör även det fortsatta arbetet med att bygga upp ett segregerat läger i
närheten av Rom. Dessutom har regeringen i sin senaste översyn av statens utgifter dragit ner på bemanningen av
Italiens jämlikhetsorgan, som formellt ansvarar för att genomföra den nationella strategin för integrering av romer,
till bara fyra anställda och en direktör. Detta minskar ytterligare trovärdigheten i Italiens engagemang för att
genomföra strategin. Nils Muižnieks, Europarådets kommissionär för mänskliga rättigheter, har uppmanat regeringen
att otvetydigt slå fast att undantagstillståndet inte längre tillämpas och att se till att allt arbete med segregerade läger
och vräkningar omedelbart avbryts.

Nils Muižnieks konstaterade också att antizigenska strömningar i politik och medier fortfarande är starka, och han är
bestört över det ihållande våldet mot romer och hur otillräckligt det italienska rättssystemet bemöter detta våld.

1. Har kommissionen fått några försäkringar från den italienska regeringen om att dess överklagande av högsta
förvaltningsdomstolens domslut och dess kraftiga nedskärningar av personalen i Italiens jämlikhetsorgan nyligen –
det organ som ansvarar för att genomföra den nationella strategin för integrering av romer – inte kommer att inverka
negativt på de åtaganden som gjorts inom den nationella strategin?

2. Har kommissionen fått några tecken från den italienska regeringen om att den tänker följa kommissionens
uppmaning: ”En intensifierad kamp mot diskriminering och rasism, också de former som drabbar romerna, måste
vara del av en väl fungerande strategi i varje medlemsstat. Den bör grunda sig på att EU-lagstiftningen och den
nationella lagstiftningen på området följs fullt ut.”?

3. Har kommissionen fått någon information om användningen av de personuppgifter som samlades in under
perioden med ”undantagstillstånd för nomader”, eller har den italienska regeringen lämnat trovärdiga bevis för att
uppgifterna har förstörts?

**Svar från Viviane Reding på kommissionens vägnar**

_(18 december 2012)_

Det italienska jämlikhetsorganet (UNAR) – som också fungerar som nationell kontaktpunkt för integration av romer
– deltog i det första mötet inom nätverket för sådana kontaktpunkter, och anslöt sig även till den ”pilotgrupp” av
medlemsstater som är särskilt berörda av frågan om romernas situation. UNAR bekräftade att Italien aktivt deltar i
kampen mot rasism och diskriminering, inte minst den som drabbar romer.

Kommissionen har inte fått några uppgifter som direkt berör uppgiftsskyddsproblem i samband med den omfattande
datainsamling som skedde under utvisningsvågen ( _emergenza nomadi_ ).

Vid det möte som kommittén för avskaffande av rasdiskriminering höll den 5 mars 2012 försäkrade emellertid
Italiens delegat att de uppgifter som samlats in om romer hade förstörts i sin helhet och att det inte finns någon
särskild databas för s.k. etnisk profilering ( [1] ). I sina slutsatser av den 9 mars 2012 noterade kommittén Italiens
försäkran att de insamlade uppgifterna senare förstördes, och kommittén uppmanade vidare Italien att avstå från att i
fortsättningen på förhastade grunder samla in personuppgifter om människor av en viss minoritetsgrupp, samt att
informera de berörda folkgrupperna om att de insamlade uppgifterna förstörts. ( [2] )

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Uttalandet finns tillgängligt på

http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B9C2E/(httpNewsByYear_en)/3B034DEA5E441945C12579B8006063AC?
OpenDocument&cntxt=B0DA4&cookielang=en

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/docs/CERD.C.ITA.CO.16-18.pdf

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

C 310 E / 560 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009953/12**

**to the Commission**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE) and**

**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Anti-Gypsyism in Italy

Italy’s national Roma integration strategy (NRIS) is explicit in its desire to consign Silvio Berlusconi’s ‘nomad
emergency’ to the past. The government’s attempt to overturn the Council of State ruling declaring the ‘nomad
emergency’ unlawful runs directly counter to the strategy, as does the continuing construction of a segregated camp
near Rome. In addition, the government’s latest spending review reduced the staff of Italy’s equality body, which is
formally entrusted with the implementation of the NRIS, to only four staff and a director. This further reduces the
credibility of Italy’s commitment to implementing the NRIS. Nils Muižnieks, Commissioner for Human Rights of the
Council of Europe, has called on the government to state unambiguously that the emergency approach has been
abandoned, and to ensure that any work on segregated camps and evictions ceases immediately.

Mr Muižnieks has also stated that anti-Gypsyism in political discourse and the media ‘remains rampant’, and is
perturbed at the persistence of violence against Roma and the inadequacy of the Italian criminal justice system’s

response.

1. Has the Commission received any assurances from the Italian Government that its appeal against the Council of
State ruling and its recent sharp reduction in the staff of Italy’s equality body, the entity entrusted with the
implementation of the NRIS, will not thwart the commitments made in the NRIS?

2. Has the Commission received any indication from the Italian Government that it intends to heed the
Commission’s statement that ‘stepping up the fight against discrimination and racism, including those forms affecting
Roma people, must be part of a strong approach in each Member State, based on full compliance with EU and
national laws’?

3. Has the Commission received any indication concerning the use of personal data collected during the ‘nomad
emergency’, or has the Italian Government provided credible proof that the data have been deleted?

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

_(18 December 2012)_

The Italian equality body (UNAR), which also acts as the national contact point for Roma inclusion, participated in
the first meeting of the network of contact points and also joined the ‘pilot group’ composed by Member States
particularly concerned by the Roma question. The UNAR confirmed that Italy is committed in the fight against racism
and discrimination, notably affecting the Roma.

The Commission has not received indication directly related to data protection issues related to the collection of data
during the ‘nomadic emergency’.

Nonetheless, we point out that during the meeting of the _Committee on the elimination of racial discrimination_ (hereafter,
CERD) of 5 March 2012, the delegate for Italy ‘confirmed that data collected on Roma people had been entirely
destroyed, and said that there was no specific database on ethnic profiling’ ( [1] ). On 9 March 2012, in its Concluding
Observations, CERD noted ‘the declaration made by the State party that data has since been destroyed’ and
recommended ‘that the State party refrain from conducting emergency censuses targeted at minority groups’ and to
inform the communities concerned that data from the previous emergency census have been destroyed. ( [2] )

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Such statement is available at: http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B9C2E/(httpNewsByYear_en)/3B034DEA5E441945C12579B8006063AC?

OpenDocument&cntxt=B0DA4&cookielang=en.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/docs/CERD.C.ITA.CO.16-18.pdf

( **|**

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 561

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009954/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE) y**

**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Resolución del Consejo Constitucional de Francia sobre los romaníes nómadas

El 5 de octubre de 2012, el Consejo Constitucional de Francia dictó una resolución ( [1] ) en relación con una ley de 1969
que tiene por objeto a la comunidad romaní nómada. Solo se abolirán algunas de las disposiciones de la ley de 1969.
Se mantendrán la cuota de un 3 % de personas nómadas por «municipio de incorporación» y uno de los documentos
de circulación existentes.

¿Qué puede hacer la Comisión para facilitar la abolición de los artículos restantes de la legislación de 1969 como
parte de los debates sobre la versión definitiva de la estrategia nacional de Francia para la integración de los romaníes?

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

_(18 de diciembre de 2012)_

La Comisión tiene constancia de la existencia de la Ley 69-3, de 3 de enero de 1969, de la decisión del Consejo
Constitucional, de 5 de octubre de 2012, por la que se derogan algunas de sus disposiciones y de los llamamientos
para derogar las disposiciones restantes.

Se espera que, al aplicar las medidas, los Estados miembros tengan en cuenta los resultados de la evaluación de la
Comisión ( [2] ).

El 22 de agosto de 2012, tras una reunión interministerial, se hizo pública una serie de compromisos tendentes a
impulsar la integración de la población romaní ( [3] ). Uno de ellos consiste en la revisión de la Estrategia Nacional de
Integración de los Romaníes francesa.

Con el fin de respaldar esta revisión, se celebraron sendas reuniones bilaterales entre la Comisión y responsables de la
toma de decisiones franceses el 31 de agosto en Bruselas y el 20 de septiembre en Paris, en las que se sometieron a
debate los resultados detallados de la evaluación realizada por la Comisión de la Estrategia francesa ( [4] ) y se extrajeron
enseñanzas de las prácticas existentes.

En este marco, la Comisión destacó que el grupo destinatario del Marco de la UE para las estrategias nacionales de
integración de los romaníes incluye claramente a los colectivos itinerantes y que se espera que las estrategias
nacionales aborden asimismo los obstáculos a su integración.

La Comisión informará sobre los avances registrados en la aplicación de las estrategias nacionales en la primavera
de 2013.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/espanol/cuestion-prioritaria-de-constitucionalidad/resoluciones/2012/decision-n
2012-279-qpc-de-5-de-octubre-de-2012.115910.html

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) El informe de evaluación de la Comisión de 21 de mayo de 2012 está compuesto por la Comunicación un primer paso para la aplicación del

marco de la UE, COM(2012) 226, y el Documento de trabajo de los servicios de la Comisión adjunto a ella, SWD(2012)133.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Comunicado de prensa del Gabinete del Primer Ministro de 22 de agosto de 2012,

http://www.gouvernement.fr/sites/default/files/communiques/08.22_cp_-_communique_du_premier_ministre.pdf

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Un sumario sucinto de estos elementos se presentó en el Documento de trabajo de los servicios de la Comisión SWD(2012)133 de 21 de mayo

de 2012.

( **|**

( **|**

( **|**

C 310 E / 562 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009954/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE)**

**e Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Decisione della Corte costituzionale in Francia per quanto concerne la comunità nomade Rom

Il 5 ottobre 2012, la Corte costituzionale francese ha emesso una decisione concernente una legge del 1969 che
riguardava la comunità nomade Rom ( [1] ). Solo alcune disposizioni della legge del 1969 verranno abolite. Saranno
mantenuti il 3 % della quota di nomadi «per municipio di appartenenza» e uno dei documenti di viaggio esistenti.

Che cosa può fare la Commissione per agevolare l'abolizione dei restanti articoli della legge del 1969 nell'ambito delle
discussioni sulla versione finale della Strategia nazionale francese per l’integrazione dei Rom?

**Risposta di Viviane Reding a nome della Commissione**

_(18 dicembre 2012)_

La Commissione è a conoscenza della legge 69-3 del 3 gennaio 1969, della decisione della Corte costituzionale del
5 ottobre 2012 che ne abolisce alcune disposizioni, nonché delle richieste di eliminarne le parti restanti.

Gli Stati membri sono tenuti a prendere in considerazione i risultati della valutazione della Commissione ( [2] )
nell'attuazione delle misure indicate.

Il 22 agosto 2012, in seguito a un incontro interministeriale, sono stati pubblicamente annunciati diversi impegni
assunti al fine di promuovere l'integrazione dei Rom ( [3] ), tra cui quello di rivedere la strategia nazionale in materia.

Per dare impulso alla revisione si sono tenuti incontri bilaterali tra la Commissione e i decisori francesi, il 31 agosto a
Bruxelles e il 20 settembre a Parigi, al fine di discutere dei risultati dettagliati della valutazione della Commissione
sulla strategia della Francia ( [4] ) e trarre insegnamenti dalle pratiche esistenti.

In tale contesto, la Commissione ha sottolineato che il gruppo cui è destinato il Quadro dell'UE per le strategie
nazionali di integrazione dei Rom include anche le comunità nomadi (Gens du voyage) e che le strategie nazionali
devono far fronte altresì agli ostacoli alla loro integrazione.

La Commissione comunicherà i progressi compiuti nell'attuazione delle strategie nazionali nella primavera del 2013.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Il link della decisione è: http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/francais/les-decisions/acces-par-date/decisions-depuis
1959/2012/2012-279-qpc/decision-n-2012-279-qpc-du-05-octobre-2012.115699.html

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) La relazione di valutazione della Commissione del 21 maggio 2012 si compone della comunicazione «Strategie nazionali di integrazione dei Rom:

un primo passo nell’attuazione del Quadro dell’UE» (COM(2012)226) e del relativo documento di lavoro dei servizi della Commissione
(SWD(2012)133).

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Comunicato stampa del 22 agosto 2012 dall’ufficio del primo ministro:

http://www.gouvernement.fr/sites/default/files/communiques/08.22_cp_-_communique_du_premier_ministre.pdf

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Nel documento di lavoro dei servizi della Commissione SWD(2012)133 del 21 maggio 2012 se ne presenta una sintesi.

( **|**

( **|**

( **|**

⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 563

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-009954/12**

**aan de Commissie**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE)**

**en Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 oktober 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Uitspraak van het Franse constitutionele hof inzake reizende Roma

Op 5 oktober 2012 heeft het Franse constitutionele hof een uitspraak ( [1] ) gedaan over een wet uit 1969 die van
toepassing is op de reizende Roma-gemeenschap. Slechts enkele bepalingen uit de wet van 1969 zullen buiten
werking worden gesteld. Het quotum van 3 % reizenden per „woongemeente” wordt gehandhaafd evenals een van de
bestaande reisdocumenten.

Wat kan de Commissie in het kader van de discussie over de definitieve versie van de Franse nationale strategie voor
de integratie van Roma doen om de afschaffing van de resterende artikelen van de wet uit 1969 te vergemakkelijken?

**Antwoord van mevrouw Reding namens de Commissie**

_(18 december 2012)_

De Commissie is op de hoogte van Wet 69-3 van 3 januari 1969, van het besluit van het Constitutionele Hof van
5 oktober 2012 waarbij enkele bepalingen van deze wet buiten werking werden gesteld en van de oproepen om de
resterende bepalingen van de wet buiten werking te stellen.

Lidstaten worden geacht bij de tenuitvoerlegging van de maatregelen rekening te houden met de resultaten van de
evaluatie van de Commissie ( [2] ).

Op 22 augustus 2012 werden na een interministeriële vergadering verscheidene toezeggingen gedaan om de
integratie van de Roma te bevorderen ( [3] ). Er is onder andere voorgesteld om de Franse nationale strategie voor de
integratie van de Roma te herzien.

Om deze herziening te ondersteunen, vonden op 31 augustus 2012 in Brussel en op 20 september 2012 in Parijs
bilaterale vergaderingen plaats tussen de Commissie en de Franse beleidsmakers. Hierbij werden de
gedetailleerde resultaten van de evaluatie van de Commissie van de Franse strategie ( [4] ) besproken en werden lessen
getrokken uit de bestaande praktijken.

In dit kader heeft de Commissie benadrukt dat de _„gens du voyage”_ (woonwagenbewoners) duidelijk deel uitmaken van
de doelgroep van het EU-kader voor de nationale strategieën voor de integratie van Roma. In de nationale strategieën
moeten derhalve ook de belemmeringen voor hun integratie worden aangepakt.

In het voorjaar 2013 zal de Commissie verslag uitbrengen over de geboekte vooruitgang bij de tenuitvoerlegging van
de nationale strategieën.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/francais/les-decisions/acces-par-date/decisions-depuis-1959/2012/2012-279
qpc/decision-n-2012-279-qpc-du-05-octobre-2012.115699.html

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Het evaluatierapport van de Commissie van 21 mei 2012 bestaat uit een mededeling over een eerste stap van de uitvoering van het EU-kader

COM(2012) 226 en het begeleidende werkdocument van de diensten van de Commissie SWD(2012) 133.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Zie het persbericht van 22 augustus 2012 van het kabinet van de eerste minister,

http://www.gouvernement.fr/sites/default/files/communiques/08.22_cp_-_communique_du_premier_ministre.pdf

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Een beknopte samenvatting van deze punten is opgenomen in het werkdocument van de diensten van de Commissie SWD(2012)133 van

21 mei 2012.

( **|**

( **|**

( **|**

C 310 E / 564 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-009954/12**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE)**

**şi Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 octombrie 2012)_

_Subiect:_ Hotărârea Curții Constituționale a Franței referitoare la romii nomazi

La 5 octombrie 2012, Curtea Constituțională a Franței a pronunțat o hotărâre ( [1] ) privind o lege din 1969 având drept
obiect comunitatea romilor nomazi. Vor fi abolite doar anumite prevederi ale legii din 1969. Vor fi menținute cota de
3% de persoane nomade pentru fiecare „localitate de apartenență” și unul dintre documentele de circulație existente.

Ce demersuri poate întreprinde Comisia pentru a facilita abolirea articolelor din legislația din 1969 care au fost
menținute, în cadrul dezbaterilor pe marginea versiunii definitive a strategiei naționale a Franței de integrare a
romilor?

**Răspuns dat de dna Reding în numele Comisiei**

_(18 decembrie 2012)_

Comisia a luat cunoștință de Legea 69-3 din 3 ianuarie 1969, de Decizia Curții Constituționale din 5 octombrie 2012
de abrogare a anumitor dispoziții ale acestei legi și de cererile de a abroga celelalte părți ale legii respective.

În privința punerii în aplicare a măsurilor, se așteaptă ca statele membre să țină cont de rezultatele evaluării ( [2] )
Comisiei.

La 22 august 2012, în urma unei reuniuni interministeriale, au fost făcute publice ( [3] ) mai multe angajamente pentru a
susține integrarea romilor. Unul dintre acestea este de a revizui strategia națională a Franței privind integrarea
romilor.

Pentru a sprijini această revizuire, la 31 august la Bruxelles și la 20 septembrie la Paris, au avut loc reuniuni bilaterale
între Comisie și factorii de decizie din Franța pentru a discuta rezultatele detaliate ale evaluării de către Comisie a
strategiei Franței ( [4] ) și pentru a trage învățăminte din practicile existente.

În acest context, Comisia a evidențiat faptul că grupul-țintă al cadrului UE pentru strategiile naționale de integrare a
romilor îi include în mod clar pe romii nomazi ( _gens du voyage_ ) și că se așteaptă ca strategiile naționale să abordeze și
obstacolele în calea integrării acestora.

Comisia va prezenta în primăvara anului 2013 un raport privind progresele înregistrate cu privire la punerea în
aplicare a strategiilor naționale.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/francais/les-decisions/acces-par-date/decisions-depuis-1959/2012/2012-279
qpc/decision-n-2012-279-qpc-du-05-octobre-2012.115699.html

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Raportul de evaluare al Comisiei din 21 mai 2012 este compus din Comunicarea privind o primă etapă în punerea în aplicare a cadrului UE [COM

(2012) 226] și documentul de lucru al serviciilor Comisiei SWD (2012) 133.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Comunicat de presă din 22 august 2012 din partea Cabinetului prim-ministrului francez,

http://www.gouvernement.fr/sites/default/files/communiques/08.22_cp_-_communique_du_premier_ministre.pdf

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Un rezumat al acestor elemente a fost prezentat în documentul de lucru al serviciilor Comisiei SWD (2012) 133 din 21 mai 2012.

( **|**

( **|**

( **|**

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 565

_(Svensk version)_

**Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-009954/12**

**till kommissionen**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE)**

**och Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 oktober 2012)_

_Angående:_ Frankrikes författningsdomstols domslut om resande romer

Den 5 oktober 2012 avgav Frankrikes författningsdomstol ett domslut ( [1] ) angående 1969 års lag om resande romer.
Det är endast vissa bestämmelser i lagen från 1969 som kommer att upphävas. Kvoten på 3 % resande per kommun
och en av de befintliga identitetshandlingarna för resande kommer att bibehållas.

Vad kan kommissionen göra för att bidra till att kvarstående artiklar i 1969 års lag upphävs, som en del i
diskussionerna om den slutliga versionen av Frankrikes nationella strategi för integrering av romer?

**Svar från Viviane Reding på kommissionens vägnar**

_(18 december 2012)_

Kommissionen känner till lag nr 69-3 av den 3 januari 1969 och det beslut av franska författningsdomstolen om
upphävande av vissa bestämmelser i den lagen som offentliggjordes den 5 oktober 2012. Den känner också till att det
finns krav på att resten av lagen ska upphävas.

Medlemsstaterna förväntas ta kommissionens bedömning ( [2] ) i beaktande vid genomförandet av åtgärder.

Frankrikes premiärminister sammankallade den 22 augusti 2012 ett ministermöte efter vilket ett flertal åtaganden
rörande integreringen av romer offentliggjordes ( [3] ). Ett av dessa åtaganden var att se över Frankrikes nationella
strategi för integrering av romer.

Till stöd för denna översyn hölls ett par bilaterala möten mellan kommissionen och franska beslutsfattare –
den 31 augusti i Bryssel och den 20 september i Paris – för att diskutera resultatet av kommissionens bedömning av
Frankrikes nationella strategi ( [4] ) och dra lärdom av de befintliga förfarandena.

Kommissionen betonade vid mötena att målgruppen för EU-ramen för de nationella strategierna för integrering av
romer helt klart omfattar ”resande” (Gens du voyage, _Travellers_ ) och att medlemsstaterna i sina nationella strategier
även förväntas gripa sig an hindren för integrering av dessa.

Kommissionen kommer under våren 2013 att avlägga rapport om framstegen i genomförandet av de nationella
strategierna.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/francais/les-decisions/acces-par-date/decisions-depuis-1959/2012/2012-279
qpc/decision-n-2012-279-qpc-du-05-octobre-2012.115699.html

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Kommissionens bedömning av den 21 maj 2012, som utgörs av meddelandet Nationella strategier för integreringen av romer: ett första steg i

genomförandet av EU-ramen (KOM(2012) 226) och det arbetsdokument från kommissionens avdelningar (SWD(2012) 133) som åtföljer
meddelandet.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Pressmeddelande av den 22 augusti 2012 från premiärministerns kansli:

http://www.gouvernement.fr/sites/default/files/communiques/08.22_cp_-_communique_du_premier_ministre.pdf

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) En kort sammanfattning av resultatet av kommissionens bedömning finns i det ovan nämnda arbetsdokumentet av den 21 maj 2012 från

kommissionens avdelningar (SWD(2012) 133).

( **|**

( **|**

( **|**

⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

C 310 E / 566 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009954/12**

**to the Commission**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE) and**

**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Decision by France's Constitutional Court regarding travelling Roma

On 5 October 2012, the Constitutional Court of France issued a decision ( [1] ) regarding a 1969 law which targets the
travelling Roma community. Only some provisions of the 1969 law will be abolished. The 3% quota of Travellers per
‘municipality of attachment’ and one of the existing travelling documents will be maintained.

What can the Commission do to facilitate the abolition of the remaining articles of the 1969 legislation as part of the
discussions on the final version of France’s national Roma integration strategy?

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

_(18 December 2012)_

The Commission is aware of Law 69-3 of 3 January 1969, of the decision of the Constitutional Court of
5 October 2012 repealing some of its provisions and of the calls to repeal the remaining parts of the law.

Member States are expected to take into account the results from the Commission's assessment ( [2] ) in the
implementation of measures.

On 22 August 2012, following an inter-ministerial meeting, several commitments to bolster Roma integration were
made public ( [3] ). One is to revise the French national Roma integration strategy.

In order to support this revision, bilateral meetings between the Commission and France's decision-makers took place
on 31 August in Brussels and on 20 September in Paris so as to discuss the detailed results from the assessment by the
Commission of France's strategy ( [4] ) and draw lessons from existing practices.

In this frame, the Commission highlighted that the target group of the EU Framework for national Roma integration
strategies clearly includes gens du voyage and that it is expected that the national strategies also tackle the obstacles to
their integration.

The Commission will report on progress on the implementation of the national strategies in spring 2013.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/francais/les-decisions/acces-par-date/decisions-depuis-1959/2012/2012-279
qpc/decision-n-2012-279-qpc-du-05-octobre-2012.115699.html

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) The Commission's assessment report of 21st May 2012 is made of the communication on a first step in the implementation of the EU Framework

Com(2012)226 and the accompanying staff working document SWD (2012)133.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Press release of 22 August 2012 from the Prime Minister's office, http://www.gouvernement.fr/sites/default/files/communiques/08.22_cp_
_communique_du_premier_ministre.pdf

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) A succinct summary of these elements was presented in the Commission Staff Working Document SWD(2012)133of 21st May 2012.

( **|**

( **|**

( **|**

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 567

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009955/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE) y Ramon**

**Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Educación en la República Checa

La Comisión ha recomendado a los Estados miembros que, como parte de un enfoque integrado, concedan una
mayor prioridad a los siguientes objetivos en el ámbito de la educación:

—
erradicar la segregación escolar y la mala utilización de la educación especial;

—
imponer una enseñanza completa y obligatoria y fomentar la formación profesional;

—
aumentar la tasa de inscripción en las guarderías;

—
mejorar la formación de profesores y la mediación escolar;

—
sensibilizar a los padres en cuanto a la importancia de la educación.

Han transcurrido ya cinco años desde que el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos dictara sentencia en el asunto
D. H. y otros contra la República Checa. Hasta el día de hoy no ha habido muchos progresos ni esfuerzos dirigidos a
ejecutar dicha sentencia.

1. ¿Va a recurrir la Comisión a alguno de sus instrumentos para influir en la ejecución de la sentencia con el fin de
poner fin a la segregación racial en el sistema educativo de la República Checa?

2. En los cinco meses transcurridos desde que la Comisión publicara su Comunicación sobre los gitanos, ¿ha
respondido la República Checa a las recomendaciones de la Comisión?

3. ¿Ha recibido la Comisión alguna indicación de que el Gobierno Checo prevea modificar su estrategia nacional
para la integración de los gitanos con el fin de actuar de acuerdo con dichas recomendaciones?

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

_(18 de diciembre de 2012)_

La Comisión Europea carece de competencia para ejecutar las sentencias del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos;
es el Estado miembro interesado el que debe garantizar el cumplimiento de las obligaciones en materia de derechos
fundamentales que le imponen sus leyes nacionales y los acuerdos internacionales pertinentes. Ahora bien, llegado el
caso, la Comisión puede utilizar la sentencia y los informes de evaluación de su ejecución como material para sus
investigaciones sobre el cumplimiento del Derecho de la UE por parte del Estado miembro.

Además, se espera de los Estados miembros que tengan en cuenta los resultados de la evaluación de la Comisión ( [1] ) a
la hora de aplicar las medidas correspondientes. Las bajas tasas de presencia de menores gitanos en el nivel preescolar,
el problema específico de la segregación escolar y los «errores de diagnóstico» de los alumnos gitanos son aspectos
que limitan el acceso de estos a una enseñanza de buena calidad y que la Comisión ha planteado en la evaluación del
Programa nacional de reforma y el Programa de estabilidad de la República Checa para 2012 que se inscriben en el
Semestre Europeo de Europa 2020.

Se espera que la República Checa aborde estos problemas. El Ministerio de Educación de ese país ha anunciado que
está preparando una serie de mejoras cuya aplicación comenzará el año próximo (por ejemplo, cambio de tests
psicológicos para preescolares).

En la primavera de 2013, la Comisión informará acerca de los progresos registrados en la aplicación de las estrategias
nacionales.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) El informe de evaluación de la Comisión de 21 de mayo de 2012 se compone de la Comunicación sobre el primer paso para la aplicación del
marco de la UE, COM(2012)226, y el documento de trabajo de los servicios de la Comisión adjunto, SWD(2012)133.

C 310 E / 568 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009955/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE) e Ramon**

**Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Istruzione nella Repubblica ceca

La Commissione ha raccomandato che, nel quadro di un approccio integrato, gli Stati membri diano maggiore
priorità ai seguenti obiettivi in materia di istruzione:

—
eliminare la segregazione scolastica e l'abuso dell'istruzione differenziale;

—
dare applicazione completa all'istruzione obbligatoria e alla promozione della formazione professionale;

—
aumentare il livello di scolarità e di assistenza della prima infanzia;

—
migliorare la formazione degli insegnanti e la mediazione della scuola;

—
sensibilizzare i genitori sull'importanza dell'istruzione.

Sonno trascorsi cinque anni da quando la Corte europea dei diritti umani ha emesso la sua sentenza nella causa DH e
altri contro Repubblica ceca. Ad oggi, non si sono fatti molti progressi, né molti sforzi per conformarsi a tale

sentenza.

1. La Commissione utilizzerà uno dei suoi strumenti per influenzare l'esecuzione della sentenza, onde porre
termine alla segregazione razziale nel sistema di istruzione ceco?

2. Nei cinque mesi da quando la Commissione ha pubblicato la Comunicazione sui rom, la Repubblica Ceca ha
risposto alle raccomandazioni della Commissione?

3. La Commissione ha ricevuto qualche indicazione che il governo ceco intenda modificare la propria strategia
nazionale di integrazione dei rom (SNIR), in adempimento a tali raccomandazioni?

**Risposta di Viviane Reding a nome della Commissione**

_(18 dicembre 2012)_

La Commissione europea non ha la facoltà di dare esecuzione alle sentenze della Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo.
Spetta allo Stato membro interessato garantire il rispetto degli obblighi in materia di diritti fondamentali,
conformemente alla legislazione nazionale e agli accordi internazionali in materia. Tuttavia, se del caso, la
Commissione può servirsi della sentenza e delle relazioni sul rispetto di quest’ultima nello Stato membro come
materiale per le indagini relative all’ottemperanza dello Stato membro al diritto dell'UE.

Gli Stati membri sono tenuti a prendere in considerazione i risultati della valutazione della Commissione ( [1] )
nell’attuare le misure previste. La Commissione ha esposto alcuni problemi che limitano l'accesso dei bambini Rom a
un'istruzione di qualità, quali la scarsa frequenza all’istruzione prescolare, la questione specifica della segregazione
scolastica e l’errata valutazione degli alunni di etnia Rom, anche nella valutazione del programma nazionale di
riforma per il 2012 e del programma di stabilità per la Repubblica ceca nell'ambito del semestre europeo di Europa
2020.

La Repubblica ceca dovrà affrontare tali questioni e il ministero dell’Istruzione ceco ha annunciato che è in
preparazione una serie di miglioramenti che verranno attuati il prossimo anno (tra cui, ad esempio, la modifica dei
test psicologici per i bambini in età prescolare).

Nella primavera del 2013 la Commissione comunicherà i progressi compiuti nell'attuazione delle strategie nazionali.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) La relazione di valutazione della Commissione del 21 maggio 2012 si compone della comunicazione «Strategie nazionali di integrazione dei Rom:

un primo passo nell’attuazione del Quadro dell’UE» (COM(2012)226) e del relativo documento di lavoro dei servizi della Commissione
(SWD(2012)133).

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 569

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-009955/12**

**aan de Commissie**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE)**

**en Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 oktober 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Onderwijs in Tsjechië

De Commissie beveelt de lidstaten in het kader van een geïntegreerde aanpak aan een hogere prioriteit te verlenen aan
de volgende doelstellingen op onderwijsgebied:

—
het tegengaan van segregatie in het onderwijs en misbruik van het onderwijs voor kinderen met bijzondere
behoeften;

—
het volledig handhaven van de leerplicht en het bevorderen van het beroepsonderwijs;

—
het bevorderen van de deelname van kinderen aan kinderopvang en kleuteronderwijs;

—
het verbeteren van de opleiding van docenten en schoolbemiddeling;

—
het voorlichten van de ouders over het belang van onderwijs.

Vijf jaar zijn verstreken sinds het arrest van het Europees Hof voor de rechten van de mens in de zaak DH e.a. / de
Tsjechische Republiek. Sindsdien is er niet veel vooruitgang geboekt, noch zijn er veel inspanningen geleverd om zich
naar deze uitspraak te schikken.

1. Is de Commissie van plan gebruik te maken van de beschikbare instrumenten om invloed uit te oefenen op de
uitvoering van het arrest opdat een einde komt aan de rassensegregatie in het Tsjechische onderwijssysteem?

2. Vijf maanden geleden publiceerde de Commissie haar mededeling over de Roma heeft Tsjechië al gereageerd op
de aanbevelingen van de Commissie?

3. Heeft de Commissie signalen ontvangen die erop wijzen dat de Tsjechische regering haar nationale
integratiestrategie voor Roma wil aanpassen aan deze aanbevelingen?

**Antwoord van mevrouw Reding namens de Commissie**

_(18 december 2012)_

De Europese Commissie is niet bevoegd om de arresten van het Europees Hof voor de rechten van de mens ten
uitvoer te leggen. De lidstaten dienen er zelf op toe te zien dat zij hun verplichtingen op het gebied van de
grondrechten uit hoofde van het nationale recht en de desbetreffende internationale overeenkomsten naleven. In
voorkomend geval kan de Commissie evenwel het arrest en de evaluatierapporten over de handhaving in de lidstaat
gebruiken als bewijsstukken bij haar onderzoek naar de naleving van de EU-wetgeving door de lidstaat.

Voorts worden de lidstaten geacht bij de tenuitvoerlegging van maatregelen rekening te houden met de resultaten van
de evaluatie van de Commissie ( [1] ). De geringe deelname van Roma-kinderen aan het kleuteronderwijs, de specifieke
kwestie van segregatie in het onderwijs en de verkeerde onderwijsoriëntatie van Roma-leerlingen, die hun toegang tot
onderwijs van goede kwaliteit beperken, heeft de Commissie ook aan de orde gesteld in de beoordeling van het
nationale hervormingsprogramma voor 2012 en het stabiliteitsprogramma van Tsjechië in het kader van de
procedure van het Europees Semester van Europa 2020.

Van Tsjechië wordt verwacht dat het deze kwesties zal aanpakken. Het Tsjechische ministerie van Onderwijs heeft
bekendgemaakt dat verbeteringen worden voorbereid die begin volgend jaar zullen worden uitgevoerd (bv. wijziging
van psychotechnische testen voor kleuters).

In het voorjaar 2013 zal de Commissie verslag uitbrengen over de geboekte vooruitgang bij de tenuitvoerlegging van
de nationale strategieën.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Het evaluatierapport van de Commissie van 21 mei 2012 bestaat uit een mededeling over een eerste stap van de uitvoering van het EU-kader
(COM(2012) 226) en het begeleidende werkdocument van de diensten van de Commissie (SWD (2012) 133).

C 310 E / 570 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-009955/12**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE) şi Ramon**

**Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 octombrie 2012)_

_Subiect:_ Educația din Republica Cehă

Comisia a recomandat ca, în cadrul unei abordări integrate, statele membre să acorde prioritate într-o mai mare
măsură următoarelor obiective din domeniul educației:

—
eliminarea segregării școlare și a utilizării abuzive a educației pentru persoanele cu nevoispeciale;

—
aplicarea completă a măsurilor referitoare la învățământul obligatoriu și promovarea filierei vocaționale;

—
creșterea numărului înscrieri în instituțiile de educație a copiilor preșcolari;

—
îmbunătățirea nivelului de formare a cadrelor didactice și a medierii școlare;

—
sensibilizarea părinților cu privire la importanța educației.

S-au împlinit cinci ani de când Curtea Europeană a Drepturilor Omului a pronunțat hotărârea în cauza _DH și alții_
_contra Republicii Cehe_ . Până în prezent, nu s-au realizat numeroase progrese și nu s-au depus eforturi vizibile în vederea
respectării hotărârii menționate mai sus.

1. Intenționează Comisia să facă uz de instrumentele sale pentru a influența punerea în aplicare a hotărârii cu
scopul de a pune capăt segregării rasiale din sistemul ceh de învățământ?

2. În cele cinci luni care s-au scurs de când a fost publicată Comunicarea Comisiei privind romii, a oferit Guvernul
Republicii Cehe vreun răspuns la recomandările Comisiei?

3. A primit Comisia indicii din care să reiasă că Guvernul Republicii Cehe intenționează să modifice strategia
națională de integrare a romilor (SNIR) pentru a transpune în fapte recomandările respective?

**Răspuns dat de dna Reding în numele Comisiei**

_(18 decembrie 2012)_

Comisia Europeană nu are competența de a executa hotărârile Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului. Statul membru
în cauză este cel care trebuie să asigure respectarea obligațiilor care îi revin cu privire la drepturile fundamentale, astfel
cum se prevede în legislația sa națională și în acordurile internaționale relevante. Cu toate acestea, Comisia poate
utiliza hotărârea și rapoartele de evaluare a executării acesteia în statul membru în cauză, după caz, ca documentație
în cadrul investigației sale privind respectarea legislației UE de către statul membru respectiv.

În plus, în privința punerii în aplicare a măsurilor, se așteaptă ca statele membre să țină cont de rezultatele evaluării ( [1] )
Comisiei. Gradul scăzut de frecventare a instituțiilor de învățământ preșcolar de către copiii romi, chestiunea specifică
a segregării școlare și a încadrării nejustificate a elevilor romi în categoria elevilor cu nevoi educaționale speciale,
aspecte care limitează accesul acestora la o educație de calitate, sunt probleme pe care Comisia le-a semnalat, de
asemenea, în documentul său de evaluare a programului național de reformă și a programului de stabilitate din 2012
ale Republicii Cehe, evaluare efectuată în cadrul semestrului european, instituit în urma strategiei Europa 2020.

Se așteaptă ca Republica Cehă să remedieze aceste probleme. Ministerul Educației din Republica Cehă a anunțat că
pregătește o serie de îmbunătățiri începând cu anul viitor (și anume modificarea testelor psihologice destinate
preșcolarilor).

Comisia va prezenta în primăvara anului 2013 un raport privind progresele înregistrate cu privire la punerea în
aplicare a strategiilor naționale.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Raportul de evaluare al Comisiei din 21 mai 2012 este compus din Comunicarea privind o primă etapă în punerea în aplicare a cadrului UE [COM
(2012) 226] și documentul de lucru al serviciilor Comisiei SWD (2012) 133.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 571

_(Svensk version)_

**Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-009955/12**

**till kommissionen**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE) och**

**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 oktober 2012)_

_Angående:_ Utbildning i Tjeckien

Kommissionen har utfärdat rekommendationer om att medlemsstaterna, som en del av en samlad lösning, på
utbildningsområdet främst bör prioritera att

— avskaffa segregering i skolan och missbruk av utbildning för elever med särskilda behov,

— genomdriva fullständig obligatorisk skolgång och främja yrkesutbildning,

— öka deltagandet i förskoleundervisning och tillsynsverksamhet för små barn,

— förbättra fortbildningen av lärare och möjligheterna till rådgivning i skolan,

— främja föräldrarnas förståelse för vikten av utbildning.

Det är nu fem år sedan Europeiska domstolen för de mänskliga rättigheterna utfärdade sin dom i målet DH m.fl. mot
Republiken Tjeckien. Situationen är inte mycket bättre idag, och inte heller har det gjorts några större ansträngningar
för att följa domslutet.

1. Kommer kommissionen att använda något av sina instrument för att påverka domens verkställande, så att
rassegregationen i det tjeckiska utbildningssystemet kan få ett slut?

2. Har Tjeckien, under de fem månader som gått sedan kommissionen utfärdade sitt meddelande om romer,
reagerat på kommissionens rekommendationer?

3. Har kommissionen fått några uppgifter om att den tjeckiska regeringen tänker ändra sin nationella strategi för
integrering av romer i syfte att följa dessa rekommendationer?

**Svar från Viviane Reding på kommissionens vägnar**

_(18 december 2012)_

Europeiska kommissionen har ingen formell behörighet att se till att medlemsstater rättar sig efter domar från
Europeiska domstolen för de mänskliga rättigheterna. Det är varje medlemsstats ansvar att uppfylla de skyldigheter i
fråga om skydd av mänskliga rättigheter som fastställs i nationell lagstiftning och i internationella överenskommelser.
Däremot kan kommissionen använda sig av uppgifter ur domar och rapporter om deras efterlevnad när den bedömer
om den berörda medlemsstaten tillämpar EU:s lagstiftning korrekt.

Medlemsstaterna förväntas vidare ta hänsyn till resultaten av kommissionens bedömning ( [1] ) när de genomför sina
åtgärder. Problemen med de romska barnens låga deltagande i förskoleundervisning, segregationen i fråga om skolor
och felaktiga diagnoser och bedömningar av romska elevers kapacitet – vilket i sin tur begränsar deras tillgång till
utbildning av god kvalitet – är frågor som kommissionen också diskuterade i sin bedömning av Tjeckiens nationella
reformprogram 2012, som ett led i den europeiska planeringsterminen inom Europa 2020-strategin.

Tjeckien förefaller vara på väg att åtgärda de brister som tagits upp. Landets utbildningsministerium har meddelat att
man planerar ett antal förbättringar som ska genomföras från och med nästa skolår (t.ex. förändringar av de
psykoligiska testerna för förskolebarn).

Kommissionen kommer att rapportera om framstegen med genomförandet av de nationella strategierna på våren
2013.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Kommissionens bedömning, offentliggjord den 21 maj 2012, består av meddelandet med titeln Strategier för integreringen av romer: ett första

steg i genomförandet av EU-ramen (KOM(2012) 226 slutlig) samt det därtill fogade arbetsdokumentet från kommissionens avdelningar
(SWD(2012) 133).

C 310 E / 572 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009955/12**

**to the Commission**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE) and**

**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Education in the Czech Republic

The Commission has recommended that, as part of an integrated approach, Member States should give greater
priority to the following goals in the area of education:

—
eliminating school segregation and misuse of special needs education;

—
enforcing full compulsory education and promoting vocational training;

—
increasing the level of enrolment in early childhood education and care;

—
improving teacher training and school mediation;

—
raising parents’ awareness of the importance of education.

It is five years since the European Court of Human Rights handed down its judgment in the case of DH and others v
the Czech Republic. To date, not much progress has been made, nor much effort expended in order to comply with
that judgment.

1. Will the Commission use any of its instruments to influence the implementation of the judgment in order to
bring an end to racial segregation in the Czech education system?

2. In the five months since the Commission issued its Roma communication, has the Czech Republic responded to
the Commission’s recommendations?

3. Has the Commission received any indications that the Czech Government intends to amend its national Roma
integration strategy (NRIS) in order to act on those recommendations?

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

_(18 December 2012)_

The European Commission does not have the competence to enforce the judgments of the European Court of Human
Rights. It is for the Member State concerned to ensure compliance with their obligations regarding fundamental rights
as laid down in its national law and the relevant international agreements. However, the ruling and the reports
assessing its enforcement in the Member State may be used by the Commission, when relevant, as materials in its
investigation concerning the compliance of the Member State with EC law.

In addition, Member States are expected to take into account the results from the Commission's assessment ( [1] ) in the
implementation of measures. Low attendance of pre-school education by Roma children, the specific issue of school
segregation and misdiagnosis of Roma pupils, that are limiting their access to good quality education, are issues that
the Commission has also raised in the Assessment of the 2012 national reform programme and stability programme
for the Czech Republic within the European Semester of Europe 2020.

It is expected that the Czech Republic will address these issues. The Education Ministry of the Czech Republic
announced that it is preparing a number of improvements starting next year (i.e. change of psychological tests for
pre-schoolers).

The Commission will report on progress on the implementation of the national strategies in spring 2013.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) The Commission's assessment report of 21st May 2012 is made of the communication on a first step in the implementation of the EU Framework
COM(2012)226 and the accompanying Staff Working Document SWD(2012)133.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 573

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009956/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE)**

**y Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Educación en Rumanía

Se han constatado grandes lagunas en lo que respecta a la educación en la estrategia nacional de integración de los
gitanos de Rumanía. La estrategia no incluye medidas para que todos los niños completen la educación primaria, no
identifica objetivos educativos claros y tampoco se basa en pruebas suficientes.

Del mismo modo, las medidas en materia de empleo, atención sanitaria y vivienda también se han calificado de
insuficientes, inapropiadas y desproporcionadas. Básicamente, en opinión de la Comisión, la estrategia no satisface el
enfoque integrado deseado.

Dado que Rumanía cuenta con la comunidad gitana más grande y pobre de la UE, ¿ha dado el Gobierno rumano a la
Comisión alguna muestra de su intención de hacer caso de las recomendaciones de la Comisión, asumir seriamente el
marco de la UE y revisar su estrategia nacional de integración de los gitanos, con el fin de cumplir con las expectativas
mínimas de la Unión Europea? ¿Piensa la Comisión compartir la información de que dispone al respecto?

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

_(18 de diciembre de 2012)_

Se espera que, al aplicar las medidas, los Estados miembros tengan en cuenta los resultados de la evaluación de la
Comisión ( [1] ).

En una reunión bilateral con las autoridades rumanas sobre la aplicación de la Estrategia Nacional de Integración de
los Romaníes que tuvo lugar en Bucarest el 22 de octubre de 2012, la Comisión pidió a Rumanía que colmara las
lagunas detectadas en su Estrategia por la Comisión en el contexto de su revisión regular de las políticas. Entre otros
puntos clave, la Comisión reiteró la necesidad de abordar la cuestión de la educación, en particular, la construcción de
escuelas primarias, así como los problemas relacionados con la vivienda.

Las autoridades rumanas informaron a la Comisión de que se va a proceder a una revisión de la Estrategia de ese país y
que se van a abordar las deficiencias y puntos débiles identificados por la Comisión.

La Comisión informará sobre los avances registrados en la aplicación de las estrategias nacionales en la primavera
de 2013.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) El informe de evaluación de la Comisión de 21 de mayo de 2012 está compuesto por la Comunicación un primer paso para la aplicación del
marco de la UE, COM(2012) 226, y el Documento de trabajo de los servicios de la Comisión adjunto a ella, SWD(2012)133.

C 310 E / 574 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009956/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE) e Ramon**

**Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Istruzione in Romania

Nella strategia nazionale di integrazione dei rom della Romania sono state rilevate gravi lacune per quanto concerne il
settore dell'istruzione. La strategia non prevede il completamento della scuola primaria da parte di tutti i bambini, né
individua obiettivi chiari per quanto riguarda i risultati scolastici, oltre a non essere fondata su prove adeguate.

Analogamente, le misure in materia di occupazione, salute ed edilizia residenziale sono state descritte di volta in volta
come insufficienti, inappropriate e inadeguate. Riassumendo, il giudizio della Commissione è che la strategia non
riflette un approccio integrato.

Dato che in Romania si trova la più grande e povera comunità rom dell'UE, il governo rumeno ha espresso alla
Commissione la propria intenzione di prestare ascolto alle raccomandazioni che gli ha fornito, di prendere sul serio il
quadro dell'UE e di rivedere la propria strategia nazionale di integrazione dei rom, al fine di conformarsi ai requisiti
minimi previsti dall'Unione europea? Può la Commissione fornire le informazioni di cui dispone a questo proposito?

**Risposta di Viviane Reding a nome della Commissione**

_(18 dicembre 2012)_

Gli Stati membri sono tenuti a prendere in considerazione i risultati della valutazione della Commissione ( [1] ) nel
mettere in atto le misure previste.

In occasione di un incontro bilaterale con le autorità rumene sull'attuazione della strategia nazionale rumena in
materia di integrazione dei Rom, organizzato a Bucarest il 22 ottobre 2012, la Commissione ha chiesto alla Romania
di colmare, nel quadro della revisione periodica delle politiche, le lacune individuate nella strategia per i Rom. Tra altri
aspetti cruciali, la Commissione ha ribadito che è necessario affrontare la questione dell’istruzione, in particolare il
completamento dell’istruzione primaria, nonché le problematiche relative all'alloggio.

Le autorità rumene hanno comunicato alla Commissione che la strategia nazionale verrà riveduta e che affronterà le
lacune e le debolezze individuate dalla Commissione.

Nella primavera del 2013 la Commissione comunicherà i progressi compiuti nell'attuazione delle strategie nazionali.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) La relazione di valutazione della Commissione del 21 maggio 2012 si compone della comunicazione «Strategie nazionali di integrazione dei Rom:

un primo passo nell’attuazione del Quadro dell’UE» (COM(2012)226) e del relativo documento di lavoro dei servizi della Commissione
(SWD(2012)133).

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 575

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-009956/12**

**aan de Commissie**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE) en Ramon**

**Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 oktober 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Onderwijs in Roemenië

In de Roemeense nationale strategie voor de integratie van Roma (NSIR) zijn grote tekortkomingen op
onderwijsgebied vastgesteld. Voltooiing van de lagere school door alle kinderen maakt geen deel uit van de strategie,
die ook geen duidelijke streefcijfers inzake de onderwijsdoelen bevat en niet gebaseerd is op adequate gegevens.

Ook de maatregelen op het gebied van werkgelegenheid, gezondheidszorg en huisvesting zijn nu eens aangemerkt als
onvoldoende, dan weer als niet geschikt en niet passend. Kortom, de Commissie is van oordeel dat in de strategie geen
sprake is van een geïntegreerde benadering.

Heeft de Roemeense regering, gezien het feit dat Roemenië de grootste en armste Roma-gemeenschap heeft, de
Commissie enigerlei aanwijzingen gegeven dat zij de aanbevelingen van de Commissie wil volgen, het EU-kader
serieus zal nemen en haar nationale strategie voor Roma-integratie zal herzien om aan de minimumverwachtingen
van de Europese Unie te voldoen? Kan de Commissie de informatie die zij ter zake heeft, aan ons verstrekken?

**Antwoord van mevrouw Reding namens de Commissie**

_(18 december 2012)_

Lidstaten worden geacht bij de tenuitvoerlegging van maatregelen rekening te houden met de resultaten van de
evaluatie van de Commissie ( [1] ).

Na een bilaterale bijeenkomst met de Roemeense autoriteiten over de tenuitvoerlegging van de Roemeense nationale
strategie voor de integratie van de Roma, die op 22 oktober 2012 in Boekarest plaatsvond, heeft de Commissie de
Roemeense autoriteiten verzocht om een einde te maken aan de tekortkomingen die zij in het kader van een
periodieke beleidsevaluatie had vastgesteld in de nationale Roma-strategie. De Commissie vestigde daarbij onder meer
opnieuw de aandacht op de noodzaak om zowel de huisvestingsproblemen als het onderwijsvraagstuk aan te pakken,
in het bijzonder de voltooiing van de lagere school.

De Roemeense autoriteiten hebben de Commissie ervan in kennis gesteld dat de Roemeense strategie wordt aangepast
en dat de door de Commissie vastgestelde lacunes en tekortkomingen worden verholpen.

In het voorjaar van 2013 zal de Commissie verslag uitbrengen over de geboekte vooruitgang bij de tenuitvoerlegging
van de nationale strategieën.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Het evaluatierapport van de Commissie van 21 mei 2012 bestaat uit een mededeling over een eerste stap van de uitvoering van het EU-kader
(COM(2012) 226) en een begeleidend werkdocument van de diensten van de Commissie (SWD (2012) 133).

C 310 E / 576 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-009956/12**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE) şi Ramon**

**Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 octombrie 2012)_

_Subiect:_ Educația din România

În Strategia națională a României de integrare a romilor (SNIR) au fost constatate lacune majore care privesc sectorul
învățământului. Strategia nu prevede măsuri prin care să se asigure absolvirea ciclului primar de către toți copiii, nu
identifică obiective clare în ceea ce privește gradul de școlarizare și nu se bazează pe dovezi adecvate.

Prin analogie, măsurile în materie de ocupare a forței de muncă, asistență medicală și locuințe au fost calificate drept
insuficiente, necorespunzătoare și disproporționate. Pe scurt, verdictul Comisiei este că strategia nu reflectă o
abordare integrată.

Având în vedere faptul că în România trăiește cea mai numeroasă și mai pauperă comunitate romă din UE, a oferit
guvernul acestei țări vreun indiciu Comisiei din care să reiasă că intenționează să acorde atenție recomandărilor
Comisiei, să-și asume în mod serios cadrul Uniunii Europene în materie și să-și revizuiască strategia națională de
integrare a romilor, astfel încât să răspundă cerințelor minime pe care Uniunea Europeană se așteaptă să le
îndeplinească? Intenționează Comisia să pună la dispoziție informațiile de care dispune în acest sens?

**Răspuns dat de dna Reding în numele Comisiei**

_(18 decembrie 2012)_

În privința punerii în aplicare a măsurilor, se așteaptă ca statele membre să țină cont de rezultatele evaluării ( [1] )
Comisiei.

În cadrul unei reuniuni bilaterale cu autoritățile române privind punerea în aplicare a Strategiei naționale de integrare
a romilor, organizată la București la 22 octombrie 2012, Comisia a solicitat României să remedieze deficiențele din
strategia sa privind romii, pe care Comisia le-a identificat în contextul analizei periodice a politicii în acest domeniu.
Printre alte puncte esențiale, Comisia a reamintit necesitatea de a rezolva problema educației, în special absolvirea
ciclului primar, precum și problemele legate de locuințe.

Autoritățile române au informat Comisia că strategia română va fi revizuită și va remedia lacunele și deficiențele
identificate de Comisie.

Comisia va prezenta în primăvara anului 2013 un raport privind progresele înregistrate cu privire la punerea în
aplicare a strategiilor naționale.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Raportul de evaluare al Comisiei din 21 mai 2012 este compus din Comunicarea privind o primă etapă în punerea în aplicare a cadrului UE [COM
(2012) 226] și documentul de lucru al serviciilor Comisiei SWD (2012) 133.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 577

_(Svensk version)_

**Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-009956/12**

**till kommissionen**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE) och**

**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 oktober 2012)_

_Angående:_ Utbildning i Rumänien

Stora brister vad gäller utbildning har konstaterats i Rumäniens nationella strategi för integrering av romer. Strategin
omfattar inga åtgärder för att alla barn ska fullgöra grundskolans sex första år, den fastställer inga tydliga mål för
utbildningsnivån och den vilar inte på någon tillfredsställande faktabas.

På samma sätt har åtgärder på områdena för sysselsättning, hälso‐ och sjukvård samt boende beskrivits som antingen
otillräckliga, olämpliga eller oproportionerliga. Kort sagt anser kommissionen inte att strategin motsvarar det
efterfrågade samlade angreppssättet.

Har den rumänska regeringen, med tanke på att Rumänien har EU:s största och fattigaste romska befolkning, gett
kommissionen några uppgifter om att den tänker rätta sig efter kommissionens rekommendationer, ta EU-ramen på
allvar och revidera sin nationella strategi för integrering av romer för att uppfylla EU:s minimiförväntningar?
Kommissionen uppmanas att dela med sig av de uppgifter den har i ärendet.

**Svar från Viviane Reding på kommissionens vägnar**

_(18 december 2012)_

Medlemsstaterna förväntas ta kommissionens bedömning ( [1] ) i beaktande vid genomförandet av åtgärder.

Vid ett bilateralt möte den 22 oktober 2012 i Bukarest mellan kommissionen och de rumänska myndigheterna om
genomförandet av Rumäniens nationella strategi för integrering av romer uppmanade kommissionen de rumänska
myndigheterna att i samband med den regelbundna policyöversynen ta itu med de brister i strategin som
kommissionen identifierat. Kommissionen betonade vid mötet bl.a. vikten av att frågan om utbildning (särskilt
fullgörande av grundskoleutbildningen) och de problem som har med bostäder att göra behandlas närmare i
strategin.

De rumänska myndigheterna meddelade kommissionen att Rumäniens nationella strategi kommer att ses över så att
de brister som kommissionen identifierat behandlas närmare i strategin.

Kommissionen kommer under våren 2013 att avlägga rapport om framstegen i genomförandet av medlemsstaternas
nationella strategier.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Kommissionens bedömning av den 21 maj 2012, som utgörs av meddelandet Nationella strategier för integreringen av romer: ett första steg i

genomförandet av EU-ramen (KOM(2012) 226) och det arbetsdokument från kommissionens avdelningar (SWD(2012) 133) som åtföljer
meddelandet.

C 310 E / 578 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009956/12**

**to the Commission**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE) and**

**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Education in Romania

Major gaps in the Romanian national Roma integration strategy (NRIS) have been identified in the field of education.
The strategy does not cover completion of primary school by all children or identify clear targets on educational
attainment, and is not based on adequate evidence.

Similarly, in employment, health and housing, measures have been variously described as insufficient, not
appropriate and not commensurate. In short, the Commission’s verdict is that the strategy does not reflect an
integrated approach.

Given that Romania has the largest and poorest Roma community in the EU, has its government given the
Commission any indication that it intends to heed the Commission’s recommendations, take the EU Framework
seriously and revise its national Roma integration strategy to comply with the minimum expectations of the
European Union? Will the Commission provide any information it has on the matter?

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

_(18 December 2012)_

Member States are expected to take into account the results from the Commission's assessment ( [1] ) in the
implementation of measures.

At a bilateral meeting with the Romanian authorities on the implementation of the Romanian National Roma
Integration strategy, organised in Bucharest on 22 October 2012, the Commission requested Romania to address the
gaps in its Roma strategy identified by the Commission in the context of their regular policy review. Among other key
points the Commission reiterated the need to address the issue of education in particular completion of primary
schools, as well as the problems related to housing.

The Romanian authorities informed the Commission that the Romanian strategy will be revised and will address the
gaps and weaknesses identified by the Commission.

The Commission will report on progress on the implementation of the national strategies in spring 2013.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) The Commission's assessment report of 21st May 2012 is made of the communication on a first step in the implementation of the EU Framework
Com(2012)226 and the accompanying staff working document SWD (2012)133.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 579

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009957/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE) y Ramon**

**Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ La educación en Eslovaquia

Según un reciente estudio del Banco Mundial, apenas el 28 % de los niños romaníes eslovacos de entre tres y seis años
asisten a un centro de educación preescolar. La asistencia a escuelas especiales está aumentando en Eslovaquia, al igual
que la segregación escolar. En una generación, el porcentaje de asistencia de los romaníes a centros especiales se ha
duplicado. Según los datos, más de un tercio (el 36 %) de los niños romaníes asisten a clases en los que solo hay
alumnos de su etnia o estos son mayoría, y el 12 % de los alumnos romaníes asisten a escuelas especiales.

¿Ha recibido la Comisión alguna respuesta de las autoridades eslovacas en relación con sus recomendaciones, o
alguna indicación sobre qué tienen previsto hacer para truncar esta tendencia y poner fin a la segregación en la
escuela, que es ilícita y discriminatoria y perjudica las oportunidades de aprendizaje y de acceso al mercado de trabajo
de los niños romaníes?

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

_(18 de diciembre de 2012)_

Se espera que los Estados miembros tengan en cuenta, en la aplicación de las medidas, los resultados de la evaluación
de la Comisión ( [1] ).

La República Eslovaca deberá introducir una serie de medidas destinadas a eliminar la segregación en la escuela, y
recientemente ha hecho públicos los elementos educativos de su reforma a favor de los romaníes en los que, entre
otras cosas, hace obligatoria la educación preescolar y aspira a eliminar los centros o clases «especiales» para los niños
romaníes. La Comisión informará sobre los avances registrados en la aplicación de las estrategias nacionales en la
primavera de 2013.

Por otra parte, la Comisión ha subrayado la importancia de aumentar el acceso de los romaníes a una enseñanza
(preescolar) convencional y de calidad y de luchar contra la segregación escolar también en el ámbito del Semestre
Europeo 2012 (tanto en las recomendaciones específicas por país como en el Documento de trabajo de los servicios
de la Comisión sobre la República Eslovaca). Asimismo, en el marco del Semestre Europeo 2013 verificará los
esfuerzos desplegados.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) El Informe de evaluación de la Comisión de 21 de mayo de 2012 consta de la Comunicación sobre un primer paso para la aplicación del marco de
la UE, COM(2012)226 y del documento de trabajo de los servicios de la Comisión que la acompaña, SWD (2012)133.

C 310 E / 580 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009957/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE) e Ramon**

**Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Istruzione in Slovacchia

Stando a una recente ricerca della Banca mondiale, solo il 28 % dei bambini rom slovacchi tra i tre e i sei anni
frequenta la scuola materna. In Slovacchia il numero di bambini iscritti alle scuole speciali è in aumento, come pure la
segregazione scolastica. Nello spazio di una generazione, la percentuale di rom che frequentano scuole speciali è
praticamente raddoppiata. Oltre un terzo (36 %) dei bambini rom farebbe parte di classi composte esclusivamente o
prevalentemente da rom, e il 12 % degli alunni rom frequenterebbe scuole speciali.

La Commissione ha ricevuto risposte da parte delle autorità slovacche in merito alle proprie raccomandazioni, ovvero
indicazioni sulle misure che le autorità intendono adottare per invertire questa tendenza e porre fine alla segregazione
scolastica, che è illegale e discriminatoria, e compromette le opportunità di apprendimento e di inserimento nel
mercato del lavoro dei bambini rom?

**Risposta di Viviane Reding a nome della Commissione**

_(18 dicembre 2012)_

Gli Stati membri sono tenuti a prendere in considerazione i risultati della valutazione della Commissione ( [1] )
nell’attuazione delle misure previste.

La Repubblica slovacca dovrà eseguire una serie di misure per contrastare la segregazione nel sistema scolastico;
recentemente, ha comunicato la parte destinata all'istruzione nell’ambito della riforma per i Rom, che, tra altri aspetti,
rende obbligatoria l'istruzione prescolare e mira ad abolire le scuole o classi speciali per i bambini Rom. La
Commissione comunicherà nella primavera del 2013 i progressi compiuti nell'attuazione delle strategie nazionali.

Inoltre la Commissione ha sottolineato l’importanza di accrescere l'accesso dei Rom a un'istruzione (prescolare)
ordinaria di qualità e di lottare contro la segregazione scolastica, anche nell’ambito del semestre europeo 2012 (tanto
nella raccomandazione specifica per paese, quanto nel documento di lavoro dei servizi della Commissione sulla
Repubblica slovacca), e verificherà le iniziative intraprese nel quadro del semestre europeo 2013.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) La relazione di valutazione della Commissione del 21 maggio 2012 si compone della comunicazione «Strategie nazionali di integrazione dei Rom:

un primo passo nell’attuazione del Quadro dell’UE» (COM(2012)226) e del relativo documento di lavoro dei servizi della Commissione
(SWD(2012)133).

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 581

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-009957/12**

**aan de Commissie**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE) en Ramon**

**Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 oktober 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Onderwijs in Slowakije

Volgens recent onderzoek door de Wereldbank gaat slechts 28 % van de Slowaakse Romakinderen tussen drie en zes
jaar oud naar de kleuterschool, stijgt het aantal leerlingen in het bijzonder onderwijs in Slowakije en neemt ook de
schoolsegregatie toe. In één generatie tijd is het aantal Romakinderen in het bijzonder onderwijs ongeveer
verdubbeld, ruim een derde (36 %) van alle Romakinderen zit in klassen met voornamelijk of alleen maar
Romakinderen en 12 % van alle Romaleerlingen gaat naar een bijzondere school, zo blijkt voorts.

Heeft de Commissie antwoord ontvangen van de Slowaakse autoriteiten op haar aanbevelingen met betrekking tot
deze problematiek, of heeft zij aanwijzingen ontvangen over de manier waarop de Slowaakse autoriteiten deze
tendensen willen omkeren en een eind willen maken aan de segregatie in het onderwijs, die namelijk onwettig en
discriminerend is en negatieve gevolgen heeft voor de onderwijs‐ en arbeidskansen van Romakinderen?

**Antwoord van mevrouw Reding namens de Commissie**

_(18 december 2012)_

Lidstaten worden geacht bij de tenuitvoerlegging van maatregelen rekening te houden met de resultaten van de
evaluatie van de Commissie ( [1] ).

Van Slowakije wordt verwacht dat het in zijn onderwijsstelsel maatregelen tot opheffing van segregatie zal opnemen.
Recentelijk heeft Slowakije het onderdeel van de „Roma-hervorming” bekendgemaakt dat betrekking heeft op
onderwijs. Het voorziet onder andere in verplicht kleuteronderwijs en moet leiden tot de afschaffing van speciale
scholen of klassen voor Roma-kinderen. In het voorjaar 2013 zal de Commissie verslag uitbrengen over de geboekte
vooruitgang bij de tenuitvoerlegging van de nationale strategieën.

Daarnaast heeft de Commissie ook in het kader van het Europees Semester 2012 (in zowel de landenspecifieke
aanbevelingen als het werkdocument van de diensten van de Commissie met betrekking tot Slowakije) gewezen op
het belang van een betere toegang voor Roma tot het gewone (kleuter)onderwijs en de bestrijding van
schoolsegregatie en zal zij tevens nagaan welke inspanningen in het kader van het Europees Semester 2013 worden
geleverd.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Het evaluatierapport van de Commissie van 21 mei 2012 bestaat uit een mededeling over een eerste stap van de uitvoering van het EU-kader
(COM(2012) 226) en het begeleidende werkdocument van de diensten van de Commissie (SWD (2012) 133).

C 310 E / 582 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-009957/12**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE) şi Ramon**

**Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 octombrie 2012)_

_Subiect:_ Învățământul din Slovacia

Conform unui recent studiu efectuat de Banca Mondială, doar 28% din copiii romi din Slovacia cu vârste între trei și
șase ani frecventează învățământul preșcolar, în condițiile în care numărul elevilor înscriși în școli speciale este în
creștere în Slovacia, la fel ca și segregarea școlară. Practic, într-o generație, procentajul copiilor romi care frecventează
școli speciale s-a dublat. Potrivit statisticilor, peste o treime (36%) dintre copiii romi sunt înscriși în clase compuse
exclusiv sau preponderent din elevi romi, iar 12% din elevii romi sunt înscriși în școli speciale.

A primit Comisia vreun răspuns din partea autorităților slovace cu privire la recomandările sale sau vreun indiciu din
care să reiasă că autoritățile ar urmări să inverseze această tendință și să pună capăt segregării școlare, care este ilegală
și discriminatorie și compromite posibilitățile copiilor romi de a învăța și a se integra pe piața muncii?

**Răspuns dat de dna Reding în numele Comisiei**

_(18 decembrie 2012)_

În privința punerii în aplicare a măsurilor, se așteaptă ca statele membre să țină cont de rezultatele evaluării ( [1] )
Comisiei.

Se așteaptă ca Republica Slovacă să instituie măsuri de desegregare în cadrul sistemului său educațional. Recent,
Republica Slovacă a făcut public capitolul privind educația din „Reforma privind romii”, care, printre altele, face
învățământul preșcolar obligatoriu și vizează desființarea școlilor sau claselor speciale pentru copiii romi. Comisia va
prezenta în primăvara anului 2013 un raport privind progresele înregistrate în ceea ce privește punerea în aplicare a
strategiilor naționale.

În plus, Comisia a subliniat, de asemenea, importanța de a oferi romilor un acces sporit la sistemul de învățământ
(preșcolar) de calitate aflat la dispoziția majorității populației și de a combate segregarea școlară în cadrul semestrului
european 2012 (atât în recomandarea specifică adresată Slovaciei, cât și în documentul de lucru al serviciilor Comisiei
privind Republica Slovacă) și va monitoriza eforturile depuse în acest sens și în cadrul semestrului european 2013.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Raportul de evaluare al Comisiei din 21 mai 2012 este compus din Comunicarea privind o primă etapă în punerea în aplicare a cadrului UE [COM
(2012) 226] și documentul de lucru al serviciilor Comisiei SWD (2012) 133.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 583

_(Svensk version)_

**Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-009957/12**

**till kommissionen**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE) och**

**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 oktober 2012)_

_Angående:_ Utbildning i Slovakien

Enligt ny forskning från Världsbanken går bara 28 % av romska barn mellan 3 och 6 år i Slovakien i förskola. Allt fler i
Slovakien går i särskolor, och antalet segregerade skolor ökar också. På bara en generation har antalet romska barn i
särskolor praktiskt taget fördubblats. Enligt uppgift går över en tredjedel (36 %) av de romska barnen i klasser med
enbart, eller till största delen, andra romska barn, och 12 % av de romska eleverna går i särskolor.

Har kommissionen fått något svar på sina rekommendationer från de slovakiska myndigheterna, eller någon
indikation på vad myndigheterna avser att göra för att bryta denna tendens och sätta stopp för segregerade skolor,
som är olagliga och diskriminerande och skadar de romska barnens chanser till utbildning och jobb?

**Svar från Viviane Reding på kommissionens vägnar**

_(18 december 2012)_

Medlemsstaterna förväntas ta hänsyn till resultaten av kommissionens bedömning ( [1] ) vid genomförandet av sina
åtgärder.

Slovakien bedöms vara på väg att vidta åtgärder för att bekämpa segregation i sina utbildningssystem. Man har inlett
ett reformarbete som ska gynna integrationen av romer, och presenterade nyligen utbildningsdelen av denna reform.
Den medför bland annat obligatorisk förskola, och syftar till att avskaffa särskilda skolor eller klasser för romska barn.
Kommissionen kommer att rapportera om framstegen med genomförandet av de nationella strategierna på våren
2013

Även inom ramen för den europeiska planeringsterminen 2012 (både i den landspecifika rekommendationen och i
det arbetsdokument från kommissionens avdelningar som gällde Slovakien) betonade kommissionen vikten av att
underlätta romers tillträde till vanliga förskolor av god kvalitet, och de fortsatta framstegen kommer att bedömas i
samband med den europeiska planeringsterminen 2013.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Kommissionens bedömning, offentliggjord den 21 maj 2012, består av meddelandet med titeln Strategier för integreringen av romer: ett första

steg i genomförandet av EU-ramen (KOM(2012) 226 slutlig) samt det därtill fogade arbetsdokumentet från kommissionens avdelningar
(SWD(2012) 133).

C 310 E / 584 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009957/12**

**to the Commission**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE) and**

**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Education in Slovakia

According to recent World Bank research, only 28% of Slovak Roma children aged three to six attend preschool;
attendance at special schools is on the increase in Slovakia, as is school segregation. In the space of a generation, the
attendance rate of Roma at special schools has more or less doubled. Over one third (36%) of Roma children are
reported to be in all or mostly Roma classes, and 12% of Roma pupils are reported to be in special schools.

Has the Commission received any response from the Slovak authorities vis-à-vis its recommendations, or any
indication as to what the authorities plan to do to reverse this trend and bring an end to school segregation, which is
unlawful and discriminatory, and damages learning and labour market opportunities for Roma children?

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

_(18 December 2012)_

Member States are expected to take into account the results from the Commission's assessment ( [1] ) in the
implementation of measures.

It is expected that the Slovak Republic will put into place desegregation measures in its educational system. Recently,
the Slovak Republic has announced the educational part of ‘Roma Reform’ which, among others, enforces
compulsory pre-school education and aims at abolishing of special schools or classes for Roma children. The
Commission will report on progress on the implementation of the national strategies in spring 2013.

In addition, the Commission has highlighted the importance of providing increased access for Roma to mainstream
quality (pre-school) education and fighting school desegregation also within the 2012 European Semester (both in the
Country Specific Recommendation and Commission Staff Working Document on the Slovak Republic) and will
monitor efforts in the framework of the 2013 European semester as well.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) The Commission's assessment report of 21st May 2012 is made of the communication on a first step in the implementation of the EU Framework
COM(2012)226 and the accompanying Staff Working Document SWD (2012)133.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 585

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009958/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE)**

**y Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Asistencia sanitaria en Bulgaria

Como parte de un enfoque integrado, la Comisión ha recomendado que los Estados miembros deben adoptar, con
carácter prioritario, las siguientes medidas en el ámbito de la sanidad:

—
ampliar la cobertura y los servicios básicos sanitarios y de seguridad social (atendiendo también a la cuestión
del registro ante las autoridades locales);

—
mejorar el acceso de los gitanos y de otros colectivos vulnerables a los servicios básicos, de urgencia y de
especialistas;

—
organizar campañas de sensibilización acerca de la necesidad de someterse a chequeos médicos periódicos, la
atención pre y postnatal, la planificación familiar y la vacunación;

—
asegurarse de que las medidas sanitarias preventivas estén efectivamente al alcance de la población gitana, y, en
particular, de las mujeres y los niños;

—
mejorar las condiciones de vida, especialmente en los asentamientos segregados.

El Comité Europeo de Derechos Sociales constató en 2008 que Bulgaria infringía la Carta Social Europea, basándose,
en concreto en el hecho de que las autoridades búlgaras no han adoptado las medidas apropiadas para hacer frente a
los problemas de salud pública que afectan a las comunidades gitanas como consecuencia de sus condiciones de vida
a menudo insalubres, y por su difícil acceso a los servicios sanitarios — los servicios médicos disponibles para las
personas pobres o socialmente vulnerables que han perdido el derecho a la asistencia social. Una resolución aprobada
en 2010 por el Comité de ministros del Consejo de Europa concluía que existen pruebas suficientes para demostrar
que las comunidades gitanas corren riesgos desproporcionados para la salud y que viven en ambientes poco
saludables.

La estrategia nacional búlgara de integración de los gitanos no ha abordado estas cuestiones.

En los cinco meses transcurridos desde que la Comisión emitiera su Comunicación sobre la comunidad gitana, ¿han
comunicado las autoridades búlgaras a la Comisión cuándo piensan revisar la estrategia nacional de integración de los
gitanos con el objetivo de cumplir su obligación a nivel internacional de abordar los riesgos de exclusión,
marginalización y ambientales a los que están expuestas las comunidades gitanas en Bulgaria, así como los problemas
a los que se enfrentan muchos de sus miembros a la hora de acceder a los servicios sanitarios?

¿Puede la Comisión facilitar alguna información al respecto?

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

_(18 de enero de 2013)_

Al aplicar las medidas, los Estados miembros deben tener en cuenta los resultados de la evaluación de la Comisión ( [1] ).

Los resultados detallados de esta evaluación fueron analizados durante una reunión bilateral entre representantes del
punto de contacto nacional de los gitanos búlgaros y varios servicios de la Comisión.

En esa ocasión, se hizo especial hincapié en el acceso de los gitanos a una asistencia sanitaria de calidad, incluidos
servicios de prevención, como uno de los aspectos fundamentales en los que se esperan nuevos avances. En particular,
se abordó la necesidad de redoblar los esfuerzos para garantizar una inmunización generalizada de las comunidades
gitanas, de reforzar la asistencia social y las acciones para lograr condiciones de vida saludables, y de afrontar el grave
problema de la falta de cobertura de un seguro de enfermedad (que afecta a un gran número de gitanos en Bulgaria).
Además, con el fin de controlar mejor las necesidades sanitarias de la población gitana y los resultados de las políticas,
se puso de relieve el interés de recopilar datos e información sobre este aspecto.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) El informe de evaluación de la Comisión de 21 de mayo de 2012 comprende la Comunicación relativa a un primer paso para la aplicación del
marco de la UE [COM(2012) 226] y el documento de trabajo de los servicios de la Comisión SWD (2012) 133 que la acompaña.

C 310 E / 586 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

En la primavera de 2013, la Comisión informará sobre los avances en la aplicación de las estrategias nacionales.
El año próximo también podría organizarse una visita de seguimiento a todas las autoridades búlgaras competentes.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 587

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009958/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE)**

**e Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Assistenza sanitaria in Bulgaria

La Commissione ha raccomandato che, nel quadro di un approccio integrato e in via prioritaria quanto al settore della
sanità gli Stati membri debbano:

—
estendere la copertura dell'assistenza sanitaria e della sicurezza sociale di base e i servizi (anche affrontando la
questione della registrazione con le autorità locali);

—
migliorare l'accesso dei rom e di altri gruppi vulnerabili ai servizi di base, di emergenza e specialistici;

—
avviare campagne di sensibilizzazione sui controlli medici regolari, l'assistenza pre, peri e post natale, la
pianificazione familiare e l'immunizzazione;

—
far sì che le misure sanitarie preventive arrivino anche ai rom, in particolare donne e bambini;

—
agire per migliorare le condizioni di vita, con particolare attenzione agli insediamenti segregati.

Nel 2008 il Comitato europeo dei diritti sociali ha accertato che la Bulgaria violava la Carta sociale europea, proprio
per motivi di mancata introduzione da parte delle autorità di misure adeguate per affrontare i problemi di salute delle
comunità rom, derivanti dalle loro condizioni di vita spesso malsane, e per le difficoltà di accesso ai servizi sanitari —
i servizi medici disponibili per le persone povere o socialmente vulnerabili che hanno perso il diritto all'assistenza
sociale. Una risoluzione approvata nel 2010 dal Comitato dei Ministri del Consiglio d'Europa, concludeva che «vi
sono prove sufficienti per dimostrare che le comunità rom si trovano ad affrontare rischi sproporzionati per la salute
e che non vivono in un ambiente sano».

La strategia nazionale bulgara di integrazione dei rom (SNBI) non ha affrontato questi problemi.

Nei cinque mesi da quando la Commissione ha pubblicato la Comunicazione sui rom, le autorità bulgare hanno
segnalato alla Commissione quando intendano rivedere la propria SNBI in modo da adempiere ai loro obblighi a
livello internazionale di affrontare i rischi di esclusione, emarginazione e ambientali cui sono esposte le comunità
rom in Bulgaria, così come i problemi incontrati da molti rom nell'accesso ai servizi sanitari?

Può la Commissione far conoscere eventuali dettagli pertinenti?

**Risposta di Viviane Reding a nome della Commissione**

_(18 gennaio 2013)_

Gli Stati membri sono tenuti a prendere in considerazione i risultati della valutazione della Commissione ( [1] )
nell'attuare le misure previste.

Per quanto concerne la Bulgaria, i risultati della valutazione sono stati comunicati in dettaglio durante una riunione
bilaterale tra i rappresentanti dei punti di contatto nazionali bulgari per i Rom e diversi servizi della Commissione.

In tale occasione, si è sottolineato che l'accesso dei Rom a servizi sanitari di qualità, compresi i servizi di prevenzione,
è un fattore essenziale da cui si attendono diversi sviluppi. In particolare, si è rilevata la necessità di intraprendere
ulteriori iniziative per garantire una maggiore immunizzazione delle comunità Rom, per potenziare l'assistenza
sociale e le attività volte ad assicurare condizioni di vita sane e per far fronte alla questione fondamentale della
copertura assicurativa sanitaria, di cui dispone soltanto un numero limitato di Rom in Bulgaria. Si è inoltre
evidenziato che, per verificare in modo migliore le esigenze sanitarie dei Rom e gli esiti delle politiche attuate, è
fondamentale raccogliere dati e informazioni su tale aspetto.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) La relazione di valutazione della Commissione del 21 maggio 2012 si compone della comunicazione «Strategie nazionali di integrazione dei Rom:

un primo passo nell’attuazione del Quadro dell’UE» (COM(2012)226) e del relativo documento di lavoro dei servizi della Commissione
(SWD(2012)133).

C 310 E / 588 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

La Commissione comunicherà i progressi compiuti nell'attuazione delle strategie nazionali nella primavera del 2013
e, sempre nel corso del prossimo anno, è prevista una visita di controllo presso tutte le autorità bulgare coinvolte.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 589

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-009958/12**

**aan de Commissie**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE)**

**en Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 oktober 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Gezondheidszorg in Bulgarije

De Commissie heeft aanbevolen dat de lidstaten in het kader van een geïntegreerde benadering op het gebied van
gezondheidszorg prioritair aandacht besteden aan:

—
uitbreiding van de gezondheidszorg‐ en elementaire socialzekerheidsdekking en ‐diensten (waaronder via
registratie bij plaatselijke autoriteiten);

—
verbetering van de toegang van Roma en andere kwetsbare groepen tot elementaire, nood‐ en
gespecialiseerde diensten;

—
bewustmakingscampagnes over regelmatige medische check-ups, pre‐ en postnatale zorg, gezinsplanning en
immunisering;

—
waarborging van preventieve gezondheidszorg voor Roma in het bijzonder vrouwen en kinderen;

—
verbetering van de huisvestingsomstandigheden, met bijzondere aandacht voor gesegregeerde nederzettingen.

In 2008 heeft het Europees Comité inzake Sociale Rechten vastgesteld dat Bulgarije zich niet aan het Europees Sociaal
handvest hield. In concreto werd erop gewezen dat de autoriteiten „geen passende maatregelen nemen voor het
aanpakken van de gezondheidsproblemen waar de Roma-gemeenschappen mee kampten ten gevolg van hun vaak
ongezonde huisvestingsmstandigheden”, en dat „armen en sociaal kwetsbare groepen die hun recht op sociale
bijstand hebben verloren, moeilijk toegang hebben tot gezondheidszorg”. In een in 2010 door de ministers van de
Raad van Europa aangenomen resolutie staat dat er „voldoende bewijsmateriaal is waaruit blijkt dat Romagemeenschappen met onevenredig grote gezondheidsrisico's te maken hebben” en dat ze „niet in
gezonde omgevingen” leven.

De Bulgaarse nationale strategie voor de integratie van Roma heeft hieraan niets kunnen veranderen.

Vijf maanden geleden publiceerde de Commissie haar mededeling over Roma. Hebben de Bulgaarse autoriteiten de
Commissie inmiddels laten weten op welke wijze zij hun nationale Roma-strategie gaan hervormen, teneinde zich te
houden aan hun internationale verplichting iets te doen aan de uitsluiting, marginalisering en de milieurisico's waar
de Roma-gemeenschappen in Bulgarije aan worden blootgesteld, alsook aan de problemen waarop veel Roma stuiten
wanneer zij van gezondheidszorgdiensten gebruik willen maken?

Graag ontvangen wij een gedetailleerd antwoord.

**Antwoord van mevrouw Reding namens de Commissie**

_(18 januari 2013)_

De lidstaten moeten bij de uitvoering van maatregelen rekening houden met de resultaten van de beoordeling ( [1] ) van
de Commissie.

De zeer precieze resultaten van deze beoordeling zijn besproken tijdens een bilateraal gesprek tussen de
vertegenwoordigers van het Bulgaarse nationaal contactpunt voor Roma en verschillende diensten van de Commissie.

De toegang tot hoogwaardige gezondheidszorg voor Roma en tot preventiediensten was één van de belangrijke
punten van deze ontmoeting waarop zal worden voortgebouwd. In het bijzonder werd aangehaald dat het belangrijk
is om moeite te blijven doen voor een verdere immunisatie binnen in de Roma-gemeenschappen en om de sociale
bijstand en het creëren van gezonde levensomstandigheden te bevorderen. Het is ook nodig om de problemen inzake
de ziekteverzekering, die veel Roma in Bulgarije niet hebben, aan te pakken. Bovendien werd benadrukt dat het
verzamelen van gegevens en informatie van belang kan zijn voor een betere controle over beleidsresultaten en de
behoeften op vlak van gezondheid van de Roma.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) De beoordeling van de Commissie van 21 mei 2012 is gebaseerd op de Mededeling over een eerste stap van de uitvoering van het EU-kader
COM(2012)226 en het begeleidende werkdocument van de diensten van de Commissie WDC(2012)133.

C 310 E / 590 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

De Commissie zal in de lente van 2013 verslag uitbrengen over de vooruitgang van de uitvoering van de nationale
strategieën. Ook een follow-upbezoek aan alle betrokken Bulgaarse autoriteiten zou volgend jaar kunnen
plaatsvinden.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 591

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-009958/12**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE) şi Ramon**

**Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 octombrie 2012)_

_Subiect:_ Îngrijirea sănătății în Bulgaria

Comisia a recomandat ca, în cadrul unei abordări integrate, statele membre să adopte, în mod prioritar, următoarele
măsuri în domeniul îngrijirii sănătății:

—
extinderea accesului la serviciile de îngrijire a sănătății, precum și la asigurările sociale de bază (inclusiv prin
abordarea, împreună cu autoritățile locale, a chestiunii înscrierii);

—
îmbunătățirea accesului romilor și al altor grupuri vulnerabile la serviciile de bază, de urgență și de specialitate;

—
lansarea unor campanii de sensibilizare privind controalele medicale periodice, îngrijirea prenatală și
postnatală, planificarea familială și imunizarea;

—
asigurarea disponibilității măsurilor de sănătate preventivă pentru romi, în special pentru femei și copii;

—
ameliorarea condițiilor de viață, în special în așezările segregate.

În 2008, Comitetul european pentru drepturile sociale a constatat că Bulgaria încalcă Carta socială europeană, în mod
concret, pentru că „autoritățile nu au adoptat măsurile cuvenite pentru soluționarea problemelor de sănătate cu care
se confruntă comunitățile de romi, ce-și au originea în condițiile de viață deseori nesănătoase ale acestora” și din cauza
„accesului dificil la serviciile de îngrijire a sănătății — serviciile medicale disponibile persoanelor sărace sau
vulnerabile din punct de vedere social, care și-au pierdut dreptul la asistență socială”. O rezoluție adoptată în 2010 de
Comitetul de Miniștri al Consiliului Europei a constatat că „există dovezi suficiente care arată că comunitățile de romi
se confruntă cu riscuri disproporționat de mari în ce privește sănătatea și că acestea nu locuiesc într-un mediu
sănătos”.

Strategia națională bulgară de integrare a romilor (SNIR) nu a abordat aceste chestiuni.

În cele cinci luni de când Comisia a publicat Comunicarea sa privind romii, au comunicat autoritățile bulgare
Comisiei când intenționează să-și revizuiască propria SNIR pentru a-și îndeplini obligația, luată la nivel internațional,
de a aborda riscurile de excludere, de marginalizare și ambientale cu care se confruntă comunitățile rome din Bulgaria,
precum și problemele cu care se confruntă mulți romi atunci când accesează serviciile de îngrijire a sănătății?

Poate Comisia să prezinte eventuale detalii pertinente?

**Răspuns dat de dna Viviane Reding în numele Comisiei**

_(18 ianuarie 2013)_

În privința punerii în aplicare a măsurilor, statele membre au obligația să țină seama de rezultatele evaluării
Comisiei ( [1] ).

Rezultatele extrem de detaliate ale acestei evaluări au fost comunicate părților cu ocazia unei discuții bilaterale
desfășurate între reprezentanții punctului de contact național pentru romii din Bulgaria și diferite servicii ale Comisiei.

Cu această ocazie, s-a subliniat faptul că accesul romilor la servicii medicale de calitate, inclusiv accesul la servicii de
prevenție, constituie un aspect-cheie care se așteaptă să cunoască o serie de evoluții importante. În special, a fost
evidențiată necesitatea de a depune eforturi suplimentare pentru a asigura un grad mai ridicat de imunizare în cadrul
comunităților rome, de a sprijini serviciile de asistență socială și acțiunile care vizează crearea unor condiții de trai
sănătoase și de a aborda problema importantă a acoperirii sistemului de asigurări de sănătate, de care nu beneficiază
în Bulgaria un număr semnificativ de romi. În plus, pentru a monitoriza mai bine necesitățile medicale ale populației
rome și rezultatele politicilor, a fost subliniată necesitatea de a culege date și informații cu privire la acest aspect.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Raportul de evaluare al Comisiei din 21 mai 2012 este compus din Comunicarea privind o primă etapă în punerea în aplicare a cadrului UE [COM
(2012) 226] și din documentul de lucru al serviciilor Comisiei SWD (2012) 133.

C 310 E / 592 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

Comisia va prezenta, în primăvara anului 2013, un raport privind progresele înregistrate cu privire la punerea în
aplicare a strategiilor naționale. Este, de asemenea, posibil ca în cursul anului viitor să aibă loc o vizită de urmărire a
progreselor la toate autoritățile bulgare implicate.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 593

_(Svensk version)_

**Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-009958/12**

**till kommissionen**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE)**

**och Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 oktober 2012)_

_Angående:_ Hälso‐ och sjukvård i Bulgarien

Kommissionen har utfärdat rekommendationer om att medlemsstaterna, som en del av en samlad lösning, på hälso‐
och sjukvårdens område bör prioritera att

— utvidga sjukförsäkringen och den grundläggande socialförsäkringen (täckning och tjänster), också genom att
främja registrering hos de lokala myndigheterna,

— förbättra romernas, och andra sårbara gruppers, tillgång till grundläggande tjänster och akut‐ och
specialisttjänster,

— starta informationskampanjer om regelbundna hälsokontroller, pre‐ och postnatal vård, familjeplanering och
immunisering,

— se till att förebyggande hälsoinsatser når ut till romerna, särskilt kvinnor och barn,

— agera för att förbättra levnadsvillkoren, med fokus på segregerade bostadsområden.

Den europeiska kommittén för sociala rättigheter konstaterade 2008 att Bulgarien bröt mot den europeiska sociala
stadgan. Enligt kommittén hade de bulgariska myndigheterna inte vidtagit nödvändiga åtgärder för att ta itu med de
hälsoproblem som är vanliga bland romer och som beror på deras ofta ohälsosamma levnadsvillkor. Kommittén
påpekade också att det var svårt att få tillgång till vård för fattiga eller socialt sårbara personer som har förlorat sin rätt
till socialt bistånd. Europarådets ministerkommitté antog en resolution 2010 där det påpekas att det finns klara
belägg för att romer proportionellt sett utsätts för större hälsorisker och att de inte lever under hälsosamma
förhållanden.

Bulgarien har inte inkluderat några åtgärder för dessa problem i sin nationella strategi för integrering av romer.

Har de bulgariska myndigheterna, under de fem månader som gått sedan kommissionen utfärdade sitt meddelande
om romer, meddelat kommissionen när de tänker se över sin nationella strategi för integrering av romer, i syfte att
uppfylla sina internationella skyldigheter att ta itu med det utanförskap, den marginalisering och de miljörisker som
romerna utsätts för i Bulgarien och de svårigheter att få tillgång till vård som många romer upplever?

Kan kommissionen lämna ytterligare upplysningar av relevans?

**Svar från Viviane Reding på kommissionens vägnar**

_(18 januari 2013)_

Medlemsstaterna förväntas ta kommissionens bedömning ( [1] ) i beaktande vid genomförandet av åtgärder.

De synnerligen detaljerade resultaten från denna bedömning lades fram vid en bilateral diskussion mellan företrädare
för den bulgariska nationella kontaktpunkten för integrering av romer och olika avdelningar vid kommissionen.

Vid detta tillfälle lyfte man fram romers tillgång till hälso‐ och sjukvård av hög kvalitet, inklusive förebyggande
hälsovårdstjänster, som en viktig aspekt där en ytterligare utveckling förväntas. Man tog särskilt upp behovet av
ytterligare åtgärder för en mer omfattande immunisering inom de romska befolkningsgrupperna, en förstärkning av
det sociala stödet och åtgärder för att skapa sunda levnadsförhållanden samt den viktiga frågan om sjukförsäkring –
som ett mycket stort antal romer i Bulgarien inte omfattas av. För att bättre kunna följa upp romers vårdbehov och
resultaten av politiken uppmärksammades också betydelsen av att samla in uppgifter på detta område.

Kommissionen kommer under våren 2013 att rapportera om framstegen med genomförandet av de nationella
strategierna. Uppföljningsbesök hos alla berörda bulgariska myndigheter kommer eventuellt att genomföras nästa år.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Kommissionens bedömning, offentliggjord den 21 maj 2012, består av meddelandet med titeln Strategier för integreringen av romer: ett första

steg i genomförandet av EU-ramen (COM(2012) 226 final) samt det därtill fogade arbetsdokumentet från kommissionens avdelningar
(SWD(2012) 133).

C 310 E / 594 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009958/12**

**to the Commission**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE) and**

**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Healthcare in Bulgaria

The Commission has recommended that, as part of an integrated approach, Member States should, as a matter of
priority in the area of healthcare:

—
extend health and basic social security coverage and services (including via addressing registration with local
authorities);

—
improve access for Roma and other vulnerable groups to basic, emergency and specialised services;

—
launch awareness-raising campaigns on regular medical checks, pre‐ and post-natal care, family planning and
immunisation;

—
ensure that preventive health measures reach out to Roma, in particular women and children;

—
act to improve living conditions, with a focus on segregated settlements.

In 2008 the European Committee of Social Rights found Bulgaria to be in breach of the European Social Charter,
precisely on the grounds of the ‘failure of the authorities to take appropriate measures to address the health problems
faced by Roma communities stemming from their often unhealthy living conditions’, and of the fact of ‘difficult
access to health services — the medical services available for poor or socially vulnerable persons who have lost
entitlement to social assistance’. A resolution adopted in 2010 by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of
Europe found that ‘there is sufficient evidence showing that Roma communities are faced with disproportionate
health risks and that they do not live in healthy environments’.

The Bulgarian national Roma integration strategy (NRIS) has failed to address these issues.

In the five months since the Commission issued its Roma communication, have the Bulgarian authorities indicated to
the Commission when they intend to review their NRIS so as to fulfil their obligation at international level to address
the exclusion, marginalisation and environmental hazards to which Romani communities are exposed in Bulgaria, as
well as the problems encountered by many Roma in accessing healthcare services?

Can the Commission provide any relevant details?

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

_(18 January 2013)_

Member States are expected to take into account the results from the Commission's assessment ( [1] ) in the
implementation of measures.

The very detailed results from this assessment have been shared within a bilateral discussion between representatives
of the Bulgarian national Roma contact point and various Commission services.

On this occasion, access of Roma to quality healthcare including the access to prevention services was highlighted as
one key aspect on which various further developments are expected. In particular, the need to undertake further
efforts in order to ensure wider immunisation within the Roma communities, to bolster social assistance and actions
to create healthy living conditions and to address the important issue of health insurance coverage — lacking to a
very high number of Roma in Bulgaria — was raised. In addition, so as to better monitor Roma health needs and
outcomes of policies, the interest to collect data and information on this aspect was highlighted.

The Commission will report on progress on the implementation of the national strategies in spring 2013. A followup visit to all involved Bulgarian authorities may also take place next year.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) The Commission's assessment report of 21st May 2012 is made of the communication on a first step in the implementation of the EU Framework
Com(2012)226 and the accompanying staff working document SWD (2012)133.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 595

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009959/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE)**

**y Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Escaso registro de romaníes en Rumania

En su reciente Comunicación sobre los romaníes, la Comisión afirma que la solución de la escasez de registro y
documentos de identidad es una condición previa absolutamente necesaria para asegurar el acceso a los servicios
públicos, y que se necesitan urgentemente medidas concretas para incrementar la cobertura del seguro de enfermedad
en la población romaní.

En los cinco meses que han transcurrido desde la publicación de la Comunicación, ¿ha recibido la Comisión alguna
indicación sobre las medidas adoptadas por las autoridades rumanas, o que éstas piensan adoptar, en cuanto a esta
cuestión fundamental? Se pide a la Comisión que facilite detalles, de haberlos.

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

_(18 de diciembre de 2012)_

Se espera que los Estados miembros tengan en cuenta los resultados de la evaluación de la Comisión ( [1] ) en la
aplicación de las medidas.

En una reunión bilateral con las autoridades rumanas sobre la aplicación de la Estrategia Nacional de Integración de la
Población Romaní, organizada en Bucarest el 22 de octubre de 2012, la Comisión pidió a Rumanía que colmara las
lagunas de su Estrategia identificadas por la Comisión en el contexto de su revisión periódica de las políticas. Entre
otros puntos clave la Comisión reiteró la falta de registro de la población romaní en el censo de población nacional.
La Comisión subraya que dotar de documentos de identidad y de cobertura del seguro médico a la población romaní
es una condición imprescindible para garantizar la igualdad de acceso a los servicios públicos, incluido el acceso a los
servicios de asistencia sanitaria de calidad.

Las autoridades rumanas informaron a la Comisión de las medidas que están tomando actualmente y sobre los
resultados cuantificables de las operaciones de inscripción en el censo, así como sobre sus planes a corto y medio
plazo.

La Comisión informará sobre los avances en la aplicación de las estrategias nacionales en la primavera de 2013.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Informe de evaluación de la Comisión de 21 de mayo de 2012 está compuesto por la Comunicación Un primer paso para la aplicación del marco
de la UE COM (2012) 226, y el documento de trabajo de los servicios de la Comisión adjunto a ella (2012) 133.

C 310 E / 596 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009959/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE) e Ramon**

**Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Mancata registrazione dei rom in Romania

Nella sua recente comunicazione sui rom, la Commissione dichiarava che affrontare la mancata registrazione dei rom
e il conseguente essere sprovvisti di documenti di identità è un prerequisito assoluto per assicurare la parità di accesso
ai servizi pubblici, e che sono necessarie azioni urgenti e misure concrete per aumentare la copertura di assicurazione
sanitaria della popolazione rom.

Nei cinque mesi successivi a tale comunicazione, la Commissione ha ricevuto qualche indicazione su quali azioni e
quali misure hanno intrapreso o intendono prendere le autorità rumene su detta questione fondamentale? Si prega di
far conoscere eventuali dettagli.

**Risposta di Viviane Reding a nome della Commissione**

_(18 dicembre 2012)_

Gli Stati membri sono tenuti a prendere in considerazione i risultati della valutazione della Commissione ( [1] ) nella
messa in atto delle misure previste.

In occasione di un incontro bilaterale con le autorità rumene sull'attuazione della strategia nazionale rumena di
integrazione dei Rom, organizzato a Bucarest il 22 ottobre 2012, la Commissione ha chiesto al paese di colmare,
nell’ambito della revisione periodica della politica in materia, le lacune da essa individuate nella strategia per i Rom.
Tra i punti principali la Commissione ha ricordato che i Rom non sono iscritti nei registri anagrafici nazionali e ha
sottolineato che far sì che la popolazione Rom disponga di documenti di identità e di una copertura assicurativa
sanitaria è essenziale per garantire un accesso equo ai servizi pubblici, ivi compresi servizi di assistenza sanitaria di
qualità.

Le autorità rumene hanno comunicato alla Commissione le misure che stanno prendendo e i risultati quantificabili
delle operazioni di iscrizione, nonché i piani in materia a breve e medio termine.

La Commissione riferirà in merito ai progressi compiuti nell'attuazione delle strategie nazionali nella primavera del
2013.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) La relazione di valutazione della Commissione del 21 maggio 2012 si compone della comunicazione «Strategie nazionali di integrazione dei Rom:

un primo passo nell’attuazione del Quadro dell’UE» (COM(2012)226) e del relativo documento di lavoro dei servizi della Commissione
(SWD(2012)133).

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 597

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-009959/12**

**aan de Commissie**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE) en Ramon**

**Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 oktober 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Ontbreken van registratie van Roma in Roemenië

In haar recente mededeling over Roma stelt de Commissie dat veel Roma niet geregistreerd staan en geen
identiteitsbewijs hebben en dat hieraan absoluut iets moet worden gedaan om tot een voor iedereen gelijke toegang
tot openbare diensten te komen. Voorts is er dringend behoefte aan concrete maatregelen om een groter deel van de
Roma-bevolking onder de ziektekostenverzekering te laten vallen.

Heeft de Commissie in de vijf maanden die sinds deze mededeling zijn verstreken, enigerlei aanwijzingen ontvangen
over de acties en maatregelen die de Roemeense autoriteiten ten aanzien van dit fundamentele vraagstuk hebben
genomen of van plan zijn te nemen? Gelieve hierover nadere informatie te verstrekken, als deze beschikbaar is.

**Antwoord van mevrouw Reding namens de Commissie**

_(18 december 2012)_

Lidstaten worden geacht bij de tenuitvoerlegging van maatregelen rekening te houden met de resultaten van de
evaluatie van de Commissie ( [1] ).

Na een bilaterale bijeenkomst met de Roemeense autoriteiten over de tenuitvoerlegging van de Roemeense nationale
strategie voor de integratie van de Roma, die op 22 oktober 2012 in Boekarest plaatsvond, heeft de Commissie de
Roemeense autoriteiten verzocht de tekortkomingen in hun Roma-strategie, die door de Commissie in het kader van
een periodieke beleidsevaluatie waren vastgesteld, te verhelpen. De Commissie verwees daarbij onder meer opnieuw
naar de gebrekkige registratie van de Roma in de nationale bevolkingsregisters. De Commissie benadrukte er nog
altijd teveel Roma niet over identiteitsdocumenten of een ziektekostenverzekering beschikken. Daarin moet absoluut
verandering worden gebracht, willen zij gelijkwaardige toegang tot openbare voorzieningen krijgen, inclusief toegang
tot hoogwaardige gezondheidszorgdiensten.

De Roemeense autoriteiten hebben de Commissie in kennis gesteld van de maatregelen die zij momenteel ten uitvoer
leggen en van de kwantificeerbare resultaten van de registratie. Voorts hebben zij hun plannen op korte en
middellange termijn aan de Commissie medegedeeld.

In het voorjaar 2013 zal de Commissie verslag uitbrengen over de geboekte vooruitgang bij de tenuitvoerlegging van
de nationale strategieën.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Het evaluatierapport van de Commissie van 21 mei 2012 bestaat uit een mededeling over een eerste stap van de uitvoering van het EU-kader
(COM(2012) 226) en het begeleidende werkdocument van de diensten van de Commissie (SWD (2012) 133).

C 310 E / 598 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-009959/12**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE) şi Ramon**

**Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 octombrie 2012)_

_Subiect:_ Absența înregistrării romilor în România

În recenta sa Comunicare privind romii, Comisia a declarat că soluționarea absenței înregistrării romilor în România,
precum și a lipsei actelor de identitate a acestora reprezintă o condiție prealabilă esențială pentru asigurarea unui
acces egal la serviciile publice, fiind necesare acțiuni urgente și măsuri concrete pentru a îmbunătăți gradul de
asigurare medicală a populației rome.

În cele cinci luni ce au trecut de la acea comunicare, a primit Comisia eventuale informații cu privire la acțiunile și
măsurile adoptate de autoritățile române, sau la cele pe care acestea intenționează să le adopte, în privința acestor
chestiuni fundamentale? Comisia este rugată să prezinte detalii, în cazul în care sunt disponibile.

**Răspuns dat de dna Reding în numele Comisiei**

_(18 decembrie 2012)_

În privința punerii în aplicare a măsurilor, se așteaptă ca statele membre să țină cont de rezultatele evaluării ( [1] )
Comisiei.

În cadrul unei reuniuni bilaterale cu autoritățile române privind punerea în aplicare a Strategiei naționale de integrare
a romilor, organizată la București la 22 octombrie 2012, Comisia a solicitat României să remedieze deficiențele din
strategia sa privind romii, pe care Comisia le-a identificat în contextul analizei periodice a politicii în acest domeniu.
Printre alte puncte esențiale, Comisia a reamintit problema neînregistrării romilor în registrele naționale ale
populației. Comisia a subliniat că soluționarea problemei lipsei documentelor de identitate în rândul romilor și a
faptului că populația romă nu este acoperită de asigurarea de sănătate reprezintă o condiție prealabilă esențială pentru
asigurarea unui acces egal la serviciile publice, inclusiv a accesului la servicii de sănătate de calitate.

Autoritățile române au informat Comisia cu privire la măsurile pe care le întreprind în prezent și cu privire la
rezultatele cuantificabile ale operațiunilor de înregistrare, precum și cu privire la planurile pe termen scurt și mediu.

Comisia va prezenta în primăvara anului 2013 un raport privind progresele înregistrate în ceea ce privește punerea în
aplicare a strategiilor naționale.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Raportul de evaluare al Comisiei din 21 mai 2012 este compus din Comunicarea privind o primă etapă în punerea în aplicare a cadrului UE [COM
(2012) 226] și documentul de lucru al serviciilor Comisiei SWD (2012) 133.

25.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 310 E / 599

_(Svensk version)_

**Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-009959/12**

**till kommissionen**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE)**

**och Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 oktober 2012)_

_Angående:_ Bristfällig registrering av romer i Rumänien

I sitt nyligen utfärdade meddelande om romer konstaterade kommissionen att åtgärder för att komma till rätta med
den bristfälliga registreringen av romer och deras avsaknad av ID-handlingar är en absolut nödvändig förutsättning
för att garantera lika tillgång till offentliga tjänster. Omgående och konkreta åtgärder behövs för att fler romer ska
omfattas av sjukförsäkring.

Har kommissionen, under de fem månader som gått sedan meddelandet utfärdades, fått några uppgifter om vilka
åtgärder de rumänska myndigheterna har vidtagit, eller har för avsikt att vidta, i denna avgörande fråga?
Kommissionen uppmanas att lämna ytterligare information, om sådan finns.

**Svar från Viviane Reding på kommissionens vägnar**

_(18 december 2012)_

Medlemsstaterna förväntas ta hänsyn till resultaten av kommissionens bedömning ( [1] ) vid genomförandet av sina
åtgärder.

I Bukarest den 22 oktober 2012 höll kommissionen och de rumänska myndigheterna ett bilateralt möte om
Rumäniens nationella strategi för integrering av romer. Kommissionen uppmanade de rumänska myndigheterna att
åtgärda de brister i strategin som kommissionen uppmärksammat i samband med den reguljära översynen av
politiken. Jämte andra viktiga frågor påminde kommissionen om problemen med bristande folkbokföring av romer i
de nationella befolkningsregistren. Kommissionen betonade att en likvärdig tillgång till offentliga tjänster, inklusive
sjukvård av god kvalitet, inte kan bli verklighet förrän man åtgärdat problemet att romer ofta saknar
identitetshandlingar och sjukförsäkring.

De rumänska myndigheterna redogjorde för de åtgärder de genomför för närvarande samt för tillgängliga
sifferuppgifter om folkbokföringsprocessen. De förklarade också sina planer på kort och medellång sikt.

Kommissionen kommer att rapportera om framstegen med genomförandet av de nationella strategierna på våren
2013.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Kommissionens bedömning, offentliggjord den 21 maj 2012, består av meddelandet med titeln Strategier för integreringen av romer: ett första

steg i genomförandet av EU-ramen (COM(2012) 226 final) samt det därtill fogade arbetsdokumentet från kommissionens avdelningar
(SWD(2012) 133).

C 310 E / 600 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-009959/12**

**to the Commission**
**Renate Weber (ALDE), Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Cecilia Wikström (ALDE) and**

**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(31 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Lack of registration of Roma in Romania

In its recent Roma communication, the Commission stated that addressing the lack of registration of Roma and their
lack of identity papers is an absolute pre-condition for ensuring equal access to public services, and that urgent action
and concrete measures are needed to increase health insurance coverage among the Roma population.

In the five months since that communication, has the Commission received any indication as to what action and what
measures the Romanian authorities have taken, or intend to take, on this fundamental issue? Please provide details, if

any.

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

_(18 December 2012)_

Member States are expected to take into account the results from the Commission's assessment ( [1] ) in the
implementation of measures.

At a bilateral meeting with the Romanian authorities on the implementation of the Romanian National Roma
Integration strategy, organised in Bucharest on 22 October 2012, the Commission requested Romania to address the
gaps in its Roma strategy identified by the Commission in the context of their regular policy review. Among other key
points the Commission reiterated the lack of registration of Roma in the national population registers. The
Commission stressed that addressing the lack of identity papers and lack of health insurance coverage among the
Roma population is an absolute precondition for ensuring equal access to public services including access to quality
healthcare services.

The Romanian authorities informed the Commission about the measures they are currently taking and about the
quantifiable outcomes of the registration operations, as well about their plans in the short and medium run.

The Commission will report on progress on the implementation of the national strategies in spring 2013.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) The Commission's assessment report of 21st May 2012 is made of the communication on a first step in the implementation of the EU Framework
Com(2012)226 and the accompanying staff working document SWD (2012)133.

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