Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

## C 341
# Official Journal
#### of the European Union

**Volume 57**
##### English edition Information and Notices 30 September 2014

_Notice to reader_

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

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

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 1

IV

_(Notices)_

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES

AND AGENCIES

###### EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

**WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER**

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

**by a European Union institution**

(2014/C 341/01)

Contents Page

**E-003301/14** by Nicole Sinclaire to the Commission
_Subject:_ Access to finance for businesses

English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 13

**E-003302/14** by Nicole Sinclaire to the Commission
_Subject:_ Labour force sample survey

English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 14

**E-003304/14** by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission
_Subject:_ Ukraine aid ending up in Russia

English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 15

**E-003305/14** by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission
_Subject:_ Legal basis for fast track association agreements with Georgia and Moldova

English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 16

**E-003306/14** by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission
_Subject:_ Legal basis for fast-track Association Agreements with Georgia and Moldova

English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 16

**E-003307/14** by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission
_Subject:_ Provisions for air traffic control in the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement

English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 17

**E-003308/14** by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission
_Subject:_ Fraud safeguards for macro-financial assistance to Ukraine

English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 18

**E-003309/14** by Marina Yannakoudakis to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Lion welfare in South Africa

English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 19

C 341 / 2 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

**E-003310/14** by Lorenzo Fontana to the Commission
_Subject:_ Grant of Community funding for the Pompeii archaeological site

Versione italiana .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 20
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 21

**E-003311/14** by Francesco Enrico Speroni to the Commission
_Subject:_ SES2 — ENAV monopoly of airspace management services, assignment by decree, and failure to issue ad hoc invitations
to tender

Versione italiana .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 22
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 23

**E-003312/14** by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Wave of executions in Iran

Versione italiana .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 24
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 25

**E-003313/14** by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission
_Subject:_ Animal welfare and Law 394/91

Versione italiana .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 26
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 27

**E-003314/14** by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission
_Subject:_ Seaside concessions: possible revision of Directive 2006/123/EC (the Services Directive)

Versione italiana .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 28
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 29

**E-003315/14** by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission
_Subject:_ Funds granted to Albania as a pre-accession country

Versione italiana .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 30
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 31

**E-003316/14** by Lorenzo Fontana to the Commission
_Subject:_ Fears over wolves preying on livestock in Lessinia

Versione italiana .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 32
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 33

**E-003317/14** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ International Year of Family Farming

Versione italiana .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 34
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 35

**E-003318/14** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ Fast food and risk of obesity

Versione italiana .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 36
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 38

**E-003319/14** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ Environment and international expos

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

**E-003320/14** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ World Down Syndrome Day

Versione italiana .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 42
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 44

**E-003502/14** by Aldo Patriciello to the Commission
_Subject:_ World Down Syndrome Day

Versione italiana .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 42
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 44

**E-003527/14** by Diane Dodds to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU action on Down syndrome

English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 45

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 3

**E-003321/14** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ Water-saving corrugated cardboard

Versione italiana .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 46
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 47

**E-003322/14** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ Women entrepreneurs in Africa

Versione italiana .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 48
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 49

**E-003323/14** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ Mannequins with physical disabilities: an opportunity to confront diversity

Versione italiana .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 50
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 51

**E-003324/14** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ Programmes providing direct funds, town of San Marco in Lamis

Versione italiana .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 52
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 53

**E-003325/14** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ Climate hubs for gathering and analysing data for the farming sector

Versione italiana .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 54
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 55

**E-003326/14** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ Decommissioning of Ukrainian armed forces in Crimea

Versione italiana .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 56
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 57

**E-003327/14** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ Tensions over elections in Algeria

Versione italiana .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 58
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 59

**E-003328/14** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ Benefits of the growing number of women in the farming sector

Versione italiana .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 60
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 61

**P-003331/14** by Zbigniew Ziobro to the Commission
_Subject:_ Russian embargo on Polish meat products

Wersja polska .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 62
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 64

**E-003332/14** by Iñaki Irazabalbeitia Fernández to the Commission
_Subject:_ Illegal organ transplants

Versión española ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 66
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 67

**E-003333/14** by Iñaki Irazabalbeitia Fernández to the Commission
_Subject:_ Organ trafficking in the Middle East

Versión española ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 68
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 69

**E-003334/14** by Iñaki Irazabalbeitia Fernández to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Situation in Libya (1)

Versión española ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 70
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 71

**E-003335/14** by Iñaki Irazabalbeitia Fernández to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Situation in Libya (2)

Versión española ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 72
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 73

C 341 / 4 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

**E-003336/14** by Iñaki Irazabalbeitia Fernández to the Commission
_Subject:_ Violation of civil liberties in Kazakhstan

Versión española ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 74
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 75

**E-003337/14** by Iñaki Irazabalbeitia Fernández to the Commission
_Subject:_ Arms trafficking in Libya

Versión española ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 76
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 77

**E-003338/14** by Diane Dodds to the Commission
_Subject:_ Treatment for multiple sclerosis

English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 78

**E-003340/14** by Diane Dodds to the Commission
_Subject:_ Corruption in sport

English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 79

**E-003343/14** by Diane Dodds to the Commission
_Subject:_ Unregulated gold mining in northern Nigeria

English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 80

**E-003344/14** by Diane Dodds to the Commission
_Subject:_ Reform of agricultural sector in Africa

English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 81

**E-003345/14** by Diane Dodds to the Commission
_Subject:_ Counterfeiting of euro coins

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

**E-003346/14** by Diane Dodds to the Commission
_Subject:_ Transparency in combating illegal fuel trade

English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 83

**E-003347/14** by Diane Dodds to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Employment of religious minorities in Pakistan

English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 84

**E-003348/14** by Diane Dodds to the Commission
_Subject:_ Protecting the sovereignty of Crimea

English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 85

**E-003349/14** by Diane Dodds to the Commission
_Subject:_ Fuel self-sufficiency in Crimea

English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 86

**E-003350/14** by Diane Dodds to the Commission
_Subject:_ Promoting disability sport

English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 87

**E-003351/14** by Diane Dodds to the Commission
_Subject:_ Support for efforts to locate missing airliner

English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 88

**E-003352/14** by Diane Dodds to the Commission
_Subject:_ Regulation of payday lending firms

English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 89

**E-003353/14** by Diane Dodds to the Commission
_Subject:_ Competition in general insurance add-on market

English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 90

**E-003355/14** by Diane Dodds to the Commission
_Subject:_ International Women's Day

English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 91

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 5

**E-003356/14** by Diane Dodds to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Supporting aid efforts in South Sudan

English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 92

**E-003357/14** by Diane Dodds to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Terrorism in Nigeria

English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 93

**E-003358/14** by Martin Kastler to the Commission
_Subject:_ Details of the negotiations on the TTIP agreement

Deutsche Fassung ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 94
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 95

**E-003359/14** by Marietta Giannakou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Arms shipments to Nigeria by Turkish Airlines

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

**E-003360/14** by Geoffrey Van Orden to the Commission
_Subject:_ Commission's commitment to cutting regulation

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

**E-003361/14** by Sandrine Bélier to the Commission
_Subject:_ Animal welfare and dolphinariums

Version française ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 99
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 100

**E-003362/14** by Dubravka Šuica to the Commission
_Subject:_ Preserving biodiversity

Hrvatska verzija .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 101
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 102

**E-003363/14** by Dubravka Šuica to the Commission
_Subject:_ Freedoms in candidate countries and potential candidate countries for EU membership

Hrvatska verzija .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 103
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 104

**E-003364/14** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ United Nations compound under siege in South Sudan

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

**E-003365/14** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Israeli attack on Syrian military bases

Versione italiana .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 107
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 108

**E-003366/14** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ Ukrainian soldier killed in shooting incident

Versione italiana .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 109
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 110

**E-003367/14** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ New method for recovering and recycling abandoned fishing nets

Versione italiana .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 111
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 112

**E-003368/14** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ New high-speed passenger transport system put forward in the United States

Versione italiana .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 113
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 114

C 341 / 6 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

**E-003369/14** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ Underground cultivation project

Versione italiana .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 115
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 116

**E-003370/14** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ Promotion of use of public transport

Versione italiana .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 117
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 119

**E-003371/14** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ Staple crops close to their physiological growing limits

Versione italiana .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 121
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 122

**E-003372/14** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ New charging system for electric vehicles

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

**E-003373/14** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ Global warming and European security

Versione italiana .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 125
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 126

**E-003375/14** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ Increase in the global incidence of cancer

Versione italiana .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 127
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 128

**E-003376/14** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ Europe of the land and regions — fairs and social farms

Versione italiana .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 129
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 130

**E-003377/14** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ Transport integration as an incentive for tourism

Versione italiana .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 131
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 132

**E-003378/14** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ Robotic prostheses that restore independence

Versione italiana .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 133
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 134

**E-003379/14** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ Domestic accidents

Versione italiana .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 135
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 136

**E-003380/14** by Philippe De Backer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Difficulties in complying with Directive 2012/33/EU on the sulphur content of marine fuels

Nederlandse versie ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 137
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 138

**E-003382/14** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Danger posed to vultures by pharmaceutical product

Versão portuguesa ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 139
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 140

**E-003383/14** by João Ferreira and Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission
_Subject:_ Impact of bad weather and coastal erosion in Portugal: Caparica coast

Versão portuguesa ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 141
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 143

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 7

**E-003384/14** by João Ferreira and Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission
_Subject:_ European citizens' initiative: ‘Water is a Human Right’

Versão portuguesa ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 145
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 146

**P-003385/14** by Patrice Tirolien to the Commission
_Subject:_ The sugar industry in Cambodia and the Everything But Arms initiative

Version française ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 147
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 148

**P-003386/14** by Francesco Enrico Speroni to the Commission
_Subject:_ Referendum in Crimea

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

**P-003387/14** by Janusz Władysław Zemke to the Commission
_Subject:_ Award criteria for public procurement contracts for the construction of roads and motorways in EU Member States

Wersja polska .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 151
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 152

**E-003388/14** by Rosa Estaràs Ferragut to the Commission
_Subject:_ Extended maternity leave for women with a disability

Versión española ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 153
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 154

**E-003389/14** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — IAHRC ruling on the ousting of Gustavo Petro

Versión española ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 155
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 156

**E-003390/14** by Andreas Mölzer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Onslaught of refugees on Melilla

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

**E-003391/14** by Andreas Mölzer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Bank charges

Deutsche Fassung ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 159
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 160

**E-003392/14** by Andreas Mölzer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Dubious food imports from China

Deutsche Fassung ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 161
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 162

**E-003393/14** by Jörg Leichtfried to the Commission
_Subject:_ Free internal market

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

**E-003395/14** by Derek Vaughan to the Commission
_Subject:_ Hedge cutting

English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 165

**E-003397/14** by Andrea Zanoni to the Commission
_Subject:_ Vivisection, alternative/replacement tests and activity of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Versione italiana .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 166
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 168

**E-003398/14** by Adam Gierek to the Commission
_Subject:_ Climate change and the Fifth IPCC Report

Wersja polska .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 169
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 170

C 341 / 8 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

**E-003399/14** by Marek Henryk Migalski to the Commission
_Subject:_ Media freedom in Russia

Wersja polska .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 171
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 172

**E-003400/14** by Konrad Szymański to the Commission
_Subject:_ The possibility of supporting the construction of pedestrian border crossings on the Polish-Ukrainian border from EU
funds

Wersja polska .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 173
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 174

**P-003401/14** by Salvador Sedó i Alabart to the Commission
_Subject:_ Regionalisation of the Youth Guarantee

Versión española ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 175
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 176

**P-003402/14** by Claudette Abela Baldacchino to the Commission
_Subject:_ Gender dimension of the green economy

Verżjoni Maltija ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 177
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 178

**E-003404/14** by Salvador Sedó i Alabart to the Commission
_Subject:_ A new narrative for Europe

Versión española ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 179
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 180

**E-003405/14** by Marc Tarabella, Franco Frigo and Jean Louis Cottigny to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU bullfighting subsidies

Version française ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 181
Versione italiana .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 182
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 183

**E-003406/14** by Marc Tarabella to the Council
_Subject:_ Orphacol — Cholic

Version française ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 184
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 185

**E-003407/14** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Orphacol — cholic acid

Version française ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 186
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 188

**E-003566/14** by Gilles Pargneaux to the Commission
_Subject:_ Doubts over the commercial exclusivity of Orphacol

Version française ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 186
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 188

**E-003408/14** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Water — a Citizen's Initiative

Version française ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 190
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 191

**E-003409/14** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Commission fines bearings manufacturers

Version française ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 192
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 194

**E-003411/14** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ The EU and AIDS

Version française ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 195
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 196

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 9

**E-003412/14** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Horse-riding accidents

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

**E-003413/14** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Suspension of the EU-US agreement

Version française ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 199
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 200

**E-003414/14** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Labelling of nanomaterials

Version française ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 201
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 202

**P-003418/14** by Luís Paulo Alves to the Commission
_Subject:_ Assessment of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership's impact on the outermost regions

Versão portuguesa ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 203
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 204

**E-003419/14** by Cornelis de Jong to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU subsidies to Israeli companies contributing to the illegal occupation of Palestine

Nederlandse versie ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 205
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 206

**E-003420/14** by Catherine Stihler to the Commission
_Subject:_ Fuel charging with rental cars

English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 207

**E-003421/14** by Marina Yannakoudakis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Firearms and the internal security of the EU: protecting citizens and disrupting illegal trafficking

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

**E-003422/14** by Claudette Abela Baldacchino to the Commission
_Subject:_ Access to public e-services

Verżjoni Maltija ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 209
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 210

**E-003423/14** by Claudette Abela Baldacchino to the Commission
_Subject:_ Tracking devices for dementia patients

Verżjoni Maltija ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 211
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 212

**E-003424/14** by Claudette Abela Baldacchino to the Commission
_Subject:_ Organ transplants in the EU

Verżjoni Maltija ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 213
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 214

**E-003425/14** by Claudette Abela Baldacchino to the Commission
_Subject:_ Roadmap for equality between women and men

Verżjoni Maltija ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 215
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 216

**E-003426/14** by Claudette Abela Baldacchino to the Commission
_Subject:_ Gender and mental health

Verżjoni Maltija ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 217
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 218

**E-003427/14** by Gaston Franco to the Commission
_Subject:_ Smart Textiles

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

C 341 / 10 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

**E-003428/14** by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission
_Subject:_ Illness in Italian prisons

Versione italiana .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 221
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 222

**E-003429/14** by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission
_Subject:_ Ready meals with an effect similar to drugs

Versione italiana .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 223
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 225

**E-003430/14** by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission
_Subject:_ Electrosmog-free ‘White Zones’

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

**E-003431/14** by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission
_Subject:_ Shale gas

Versione italiana .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 229
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 231

**E-003432/14** by Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy to the Commission
_Subject:_ Reasons for the drafting of the European Court of Auditors' Special Report on the reliability of the results of Member
States' checks on agricultural expenditure

Nederlandse versie ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 233
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 234

**E-003433/14** by Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă to the Commission
_Subject:_ Family farming

Versiunea în limba română ........................................................................................................................................................................ 235
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 236

**E-003434/14** by Teresa Riera Madurell to the Commission
_Subject:_ Updating the Small Business Act

Versión española ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 237
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 238

**E-003435/14** by Teresa Riera Madurell to the Commission
_Subject:_ Visas for Chinese tourists

Versión española ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 239
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 240

**E-003436/14** by Teresa Riera Madurell to the Commission
_Subject:_ Lightening of regulatory burdens and respect for the fundamental rights of workers

Versión española ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 241
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 242

**E-003437/14** by Teresa Riera Madurell to the Commission
_Subject:_ Consequences of doing away with the 7th framework programme grant ‘negotiations’ process

Versión española ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 243
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 244

**E-003438/14** by Claudette Abela Baldacchino to the Commission
_Subject:_ Historical sites in the EU-28

Verżjoni Maltija ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 245
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 246

**E-003439/14** by Claudette Abela Baldacchino to the Commission
_Subject:_ Gender equality in sport

Verżjoni Maltija ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 247
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 248

**E-003440/14** by Claudette Abela Baldacchino to the Commission
_Subject:_ Data concerning sexual abuse of children

Verżjoni Maltija ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 249
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 250

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 11

**E-003441/14** by Claudette Abela Baldacchino to the Commission
_Subject:_ Young people living with their parents

Verżjoni Maltija ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 251
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 252

**E-003442/14** by Claudette Abela Baldacchino to the Commission
_Subject:_ Leprosy in the EU

Verżjoni Maltija ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 253
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 254

**E-003443/14** by Claudette Abela Baldacchino to the Commission
_Subject:_ Whistle-blowing in the Member States

Verżjoni Maltija ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 255
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 256

**E-003444/14** by Fiorello Provera to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — UN Secretary-General condemns Iran's human rights record

English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 257

**E-003446/14** by Fiorello Provera to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Ukrainian Svoboda party links to neo-Nazism

Versione italiana .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 258
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 259

**E-003447/14** by Jacek Włosowicz to the Commission
_Subject:_ Killing of Indian soldiers by Pakistani troops along the Line of Control

Wersja polska .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 260
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 261

**E-003448/14** by Nathalie Griesbeck to the Commission
_Subject:_ Protecting sheep farms against wolf attacks

Version française ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 262
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 263

**E-003449/14** by Nathalie Griesbeck to the Commission
_Subject:_ Origin labelling for meat, in particular sheep meat

Version française ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 264
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 266

**E-003450/14** by Aldo Patriciello to the Commission
_Subject:_ State aid for rolling stock and freight train operators — second response

Versione italiana .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 267
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 268

**E-003453/14** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ Drop in per-capita income in Italy and Europe

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

**E-003454/14** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ Decline in the ‘cash for gold’ sector in Italy

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

**E-003455/14** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ Implementation of Islamic law in the Sultanate of Brunei

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

**E-003457/14** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ Invention of ‘electronic nose’ for monitoring air quality

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

C 341 / 12 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

**E-003458/14** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ New research into artificial organs

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

**E-003459/14** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ Crowdsourcing and crowdfunding platforms

Versione italiana .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 279
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 281

**E-003460/14** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ Recycling of waste from electrical and electronic equipment

Versione italiana .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 282
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 283

**E-003461/14** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Anti-piracy strategy in the Gulf of Guinea

Versione italiana .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 284
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 285

**E-003462/14** by Jacek Włosowicz to the Commission
_Subject:_ Mitigating the effects of restructuring

Wersja polska .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 286
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 287

**E-003463/14** by Jacek Włosowicz to the Commission
_Subject:_ Meeting between representatives of the WHO and the EU

Wersja polska .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 288
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 289

**E-003464/14** by Jacek Włosowicz to the Commission
_Subject:_ Combating VAT fraud

Wersja polska .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 290
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 291

**E-003465/14** by Małgorzata Handzlik to the Commission
_Subject:_ Purchase of agricultural property in Bulgaria — violation of the freedom of movement of capital

Wersja polska .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 292
English version ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 293

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 13

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003301/14**

**to the Commission**
**Nicole Sinclaire (NI)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Access to finance for businesses

In its country recommendations of 2013, the Commission advised the UK to encourage banks to lend more to SMEs, whilst avoiding
excessive risk-taking. Can the Commission share its best practice on how to achieve this through an example of another Member
State where European legislation helped in achieving this goal?

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

_(26 May 2014)_

The Commission’s Country-Specific Recommendations for the UK in 2013 included the advice to take ‘further steps to improve the
availability of bank and non-bank financing to the corporate sector, while ensuring that the measures primarily target viable
companies, especially SMEs.’

The UK has taken some steps. It has extended to 2014 its government-backed guarantees for lending scheme, known as ‘Funding for
Lending’ and focused it solely on business. It is also setting up the British Business Bank which will act as a one-stop-shop for nonbank financing. Furthermore a consultation process was launched to allow banks to share information on their SME customers to
other lenders through credit reference agencies ( [1] ).

An additional measure to address the funding gap in bank financing for SMEs is a loan guarantee scheme. There are different
approaches, but the general aim is to increase the amount of available debt financing for viable businesses. This would otherwise not
be provided due to lack of collateral or higher risk perceived by financial intermediaries. Many countries are developing different
guarantee programmes — detailed fact sheets of national sources of finance, including guarantees, can be consulted on the dedicated
website ( [2] ).

At the EU level there are several programmes aimed at improving SME access to loans, including:

— debt facilities of COSME and Horizon 2020

— microfinance axis of EaSI

—
cohesion policy instruments

—
European Investment Bank resources for lending.

Mobilising financial intermediaries in UK to become a financial intermediary for the abovementioned programmes should also
increase lending to SMEs.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) the scope would be to allow challenger banks and alternative finance providers to conduct SME credit scoring to make it easier for SMEs to seek a loan.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/finance/guide-to-funding/indirect-funding/index_en.htm#h2-2

C 341 / 14 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003302/14**

**to the Commission**
**Nicole Sinclaire (NI)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Labour force sample survey

As the main aim of the proposal regarding the labour force sample survey is to introduce a legal basis for future grants to the national
statistical institutes, in the form of lump sums and without calls for proposals, I would like to know whether the Commission
undertook an impact assessment on the effect of such a measure in the UK.

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

_(19 May 2014)_

The introduction in Council Regulation (EC) No 577/98 on the organisation of a labour force sample survey in the Community of a
legal basis for future lump sum grants for the Labour Force Survey (LFS) ad-hoc modules will allow the UK and other Member States
to benefit from co-financing from the Union budget, with limited administrative burden as regards applying for grants and reporting
on costs incurred.

The statistical burden to produce a LFS ad-hoc module every year will not increase because the obligation to run ad-hoc modules will
remain unchanged.

It is too early to quantify the amount of Union co-funding to the UK. The Commission is presently in the process of preparing the
lump sum mechanism. The information gathered in this process will allow the Commission to assess the impact of the lump sum
grants system within national authorities.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 15

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003304/14**

**to the Commission**
**William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Ukraine aid ending up in Russia

It has been reported in the press that much of the aid promised by the EU to Ukraine will end up in Russian hands, due to the fact that
much of this aid will be used to buy fuel from Russia ( [1] ). In light of this, has the Commission properly considered this aspect? That is
to say, does it feel that granting massive amounts of aid to Ukraine would be wise, given that the money will likely end up in the
hands of the country the Commission wishes to punish?

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

_(20 May 2014)_

On 5 March, the European Commission agreed on a number of concrete measures worth 11 billion euros for the short and medium
term to help stabilise the economic and financial situation in Ukraine, assist with the transition, encourage political and economic
reforms and support inclusive development for the benefit of all Ukrainians. These measures were welcomed by Heads of state and
Government during their extraordinary meeting on 6 March. Implementation of this package has already advanced, and following
discussions with the Ukrainian authorities, a ‘European agenda for reform’ is being finalised to match the EU's short‐ and mid-term
support actions with Ukraine needs. The newly created Support Group for Ukraine will provide a focal point, structure, overview and
guidance for the Commission's work to support Ukraine.

Furthermore, it must be highlighted that EU assistance is conditioned to a set of eligibility criteria and mutually agreed conditions,
including on Public Finance Management and budget transparency. In addition to these conditions, during the visit of
Commissioners Füle and Lewandowski on 25-26 March, OLAF agreed to provide expertise for the establishment of an antifraud/anti-corruption authority, which will focus on the effective disbursement of the EU aid.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) ‘How Western Aid to Ukraine Will End Up in Moscow’, Breitbart.com, 13.3.2014: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/03/13/How-Western-Aid-to-UkraineWill-End-Up-In-Moscow

C 341 / 16 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003305/14**

**to the Commission**
**William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Legal basis for fast track association agreements with Georgia and Moldova

It has been reported in the press that the EU is seeking to ‘fast track’ association agreements with Georgia and Moldova ( [1] ). This is
presumably in response to the events in Ukraine. Could the Commission provide the legal basis for this ‘fast track’ procedure?

**Question for written answer E-003306/14**

**to the Commission**
**William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Legal basis for fast-track Association Agreements with Georgia and Moldova

It has been reported in the press that the EU is seeking to fast-track Association Agreements with Georgia and Moldova ( [2] ). Could the
Commission provide examples of previous Association Agreements which have been fast-tracked?

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

_(15 May 2014)_

These Association Agreements with their Deep & comprehensive Free trade Area component constitute a new generation of
agreements between the European Union and third countries. The decision to accelerate the signature of the Association Agreements
with Georgia and the Republic of Moldova was taken by EU Heads of State and Government at the European Council meeting which
took place in Brussels on 20 and 21 March 2014. This acceleration refers only to the technical work done to prepare the texts for
signature; it does not imply any deviation from established procedures defined under the Treaty. As such, the signature of both
agreements will fully comply with EC law.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) refer to ‘EU puts Georgia, Moldova on fast track to association’ Euractiv 20.12.2013 http://www.euractiv.com/europes-east/eu-puts-georgia-moldova-fast-tra-news
532544

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.euractiv.com/europes-east/eu-puts-georgia-moldova-fast-tra-news-532544

( **|**

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 17

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003307/14**

**to the Commission**
**William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Provisions for air traffic control in the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement

Could the Commission provide details of any aspects of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement that are related to air traffic control
and/or cooperation in the field of aviation management?

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

_(22 May 2014)_

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement does not provide
specific provisions regarding air traffic management. As regards Air Transport in general, this Agreement contains a reference to the
conclusion and implementation of a comprehensive Common Aviation Area Agreement between EU and Ukraine.

In this respect, the Commission would like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member that the comprehensive Common
Aviation Area Agreement was initialled in November 2013. The Commission transmitted the proposals for decisions on its signature
and conclusion to the Council on 16 April 2014.

This Agreement comprises provisions concerning air traffic management. These provisions are the standard stipulations that are
used in other agreements of this kind and provide for the implementation by Ukraine of the EU requirements and standards in this
field, while requiring that the Parties cooperate to ensure their effective application.

C 341 / 18 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003308/14**

**to the Commission**
**William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Fraud safeguards for macro-financial assistance to Ukraine

It has been reported in the press that the EU has promised EUR 1.6 billion in macro-financial assistance to Ukraine ( [1] ). Given the
breakdown of the rule of law in Ukraine, and the potential for corruption and wastage, could the Commission detail how the transfer
of funds will be safeguarded?

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

_(28 May 2014)_

A ‘European agenda for reform’ has been agreed at the meeting of the Ukrainian Government with the European Commission on
13 May, to match the EU's short‐ and mid-term support actions with Ukraine needs. The newly created Support Group for Ukraine
will provide a focal point, structure, overview and guidance for the Commission's work to support Ukraine and to implement this
Agenda.

[On 19 March, the European Commission proposed to provide Ukraine with a further EUR 1 billion in macro-financial assistance](http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-281_en.htm)
(MFA) in the form of medium-term loans. This is in addition to the existing programme of EUR 610 million, which has been
available since 2010 but has not yet been released. The Memorandum of Understanding between the EU and Ukraine and the loan
agreement has recently been signed and the first disbursement is imminent. The loan comes in parallel to the funds provided by the
IMF.

EU assistance is conditioned to a set of eligibility criteria and mutually agreed conditions, including on Public Finance Management
and budget transparency. In addition to these conditions, during a visit by Commissioners Füle and Lewandowski on 25-26 March,
OLAF agreed to provide expertise for the establishment of an anti-fraud/anti-corruption authority, which will focus on the effective
disbursement of the EU aid.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/european-commission-to-approve-eur-16-bln-macro-financial-aid-to-ukraine-on-march-19-339389.html

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 19

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003309/14**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Lion welfare in South Africa

I have been contacted by a concerned London constituent who has made me aware of ‘canned lion hunts’. This is an abhorrent
practice that allegedly occurs in South Africa where cubs are first removed from their captive mothers to be hand reared, after which
they are given to tourist petting zoos, where they are very often drugged to ensure they are docile. Once they become too large for
the petting zoos, they are used for ‘walk with lions’ experiences, and when they grow out of this phase they are kept in cramped cages
waiting to be ‘hunted’ for human profit. It is estimated that there are 8 000 lions in these programmes; double the number that can
be found naturally in the wild.

For moral and conservation reasons, would the European External Action Service (EEAS) agree that these magnificent animals must
be protected and we must do our utmost to encourage the South African Government to use whatever means it has at its disposal to
bring an end to this cruel practice?

Does the EEAS intend to raise this issue with the South African Government directly in the near future?

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

_(26 May 2014)_

The HR/VP is well aware of the issue referred to by the Honourable Member. According to the information in our possession South
Africa introduced in 2007 precise specific legislative measures to restrict the practice of captive or ‘canned’ hunting by requiring an
animal to roam free for two years before it could be hunted.

In November 2010 though, following an appeal by the South African Predator Breeder’s Association, the South African Supreme
Court of Appeal upheld an earlier ruling preventing captive bred lions from being hunted before the two years period and also
challenging the inclusion of lions as a listed large predator in the South African Threatened or Protected Species Regulations of 2007.

In light of this situation and in order to clarify the provisions actually in force and the intentions of South Africa on the matter the EU
will request to discuss the issue with South African counterparts in the framework of its regular policy dialogue on environmental

matters

Finally with regard to the provisions applying to the import of hunting trophies in the EU, the Honourable Member is kindly referred
to the answer provided by Commissioner Potočnik to Written Question E-004369/2014.

C 341 / 20 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003310/14**

**alla Commissione**

**Lorenzo Fontana (EFD)**

_(20 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Erogazione di finanziamenti comunitari al sito archeologico di Pompei

Dopo i 29 crolli verificatisi nel sito archeologico di Pompei negli ultimi cinque anni, fonti di stampa riportano la notizia della
sottrazione di alcuni reperti dal medesimo sito. Nello specifico, si tratta di un pezzo di affresco raffigurante Artemide, che decorava
uno dei cubicoli della Casa di Nettuno, la domus numero 3 della regio VI, insula 5, sulla via Consolare.

Considerando che, secondo quanto riportato dalla stampa, il sito avrebbe beneficiato di fondi comunitari, può la Commissione far

sapere:

1. se è al corrente del recente episodio sopra descritto;

2. se effettivamente sono stati stanziati contributi per il sito in questione e a quali programmi si riferiscono gli eventuali fondi;

3. a quanto ammontano i fondi stanziati e quali sono gli organismi beneficiari;

4. quali sono i risultati dei monitoraggi effettuati dalla Commissione per appurare il corretto utilizzo dei contributi di cui sopra?

**Risposta di Johannes Hahn a nome della Commissione**

_(14 maggio 2014)_

1. La Commissione è a conoscenza di questi sviluppi. Pompei è la più vasta area archeologica del mondo e comprende più di
66 ettari. Gli scavi di Pompei sono iniziati nel 1748, utilizzando tecniche rudimentali e lasciando i resti archeologici esposti agli
elementi per più di 250 anni.

2. Nel marzo 2012 la Commissione ha approvato il grande progetto «Pompei». Tale progetto è parte del programma «Cultura e
Turismo» del Fondo europeo per lo sviluppo regionale (FESR), gestito dal ministero italiano della Cultura. Il progetto ha lo scopo di
arrestare il deterioramento del sito creando le condizioni per una sua conservazione duratura.

3. L'importo totale ammissibile del progetto ammonta a 104 milioni di euro, con un contributo FESR di 78 milioni. Il beneficiario
del grande progetto è la «Soprintendenza Speciale per i Beni Archeologici di Napoli e Pompei».

4. In linea con il principio della gestione condivisa, le autorità nazionali competenti — il ministero italiano della Cultura e la
«Soprintendenza Speciale per i Beni Archeologici di Napoli e Pompei» — sono responsabili per l'attuazione, il monitoraggio del
progetto. La Commissione riceve aggiornamenti periodici sulle varie fasi di attuazione del progetto, che sono regolarmente oggetto
di discussione con le autorità italiane.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 21

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003310/14**

**to the Commission**

**Lorenzo Fontana (EFD)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Grant of Community funding for the Pompeii archaeological site

There have been 29 collapses at the archaeological site of Pompeii in the past five years. Now press sources are reporting the removal
of some finds from the site, in particular a piece of a fresco depicting Artemis. This was part of the décor of a bed chamber in the
House of Neptune, domus 3, regio VI, insula 5, on the Via Consolare.

The press reported that the site has received Community funds.

1. Is the Commission aware of this recent news?

2. Have contributions actually been allocated to Pompeii and, if so, under which programmes?

3. How much money has been allocated, and which bodies are the beneficiaries?

4. What have been the results of the Commission’s monitoring of the proper use of the above contributions?

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

_(14 May 2014)_

1. The Commission is aware of these developments. Pompeii is the largest archaeological site in the world, extending over an area
of more than 66 hectares. Excavations in Pompeii started in 1748, adopting poor techniques and leaving the remains exposed to the
elements for more than 250 years.

2. In March 2012 the Commission approved the major project ‘Pompeii’. This project is part of the European Regional
Development Fund (ERDF) 2007-2013 ‘Culture and Tourism’ programme, which is managed by the Italian Ministry for Culture. The
project aims at halting the deterioration of the site creating the conditions for its permanent conservation.

3. The total eligible amount of the project is EUR 104 million with an ERDF contribution of EUR 78 million. The beneficiary of
this major project is the ‘Soprintendenza Speciale per i Beni Archeologici di Napoli e Pompei’.

4. In line with the shared management principle, the responsibility for project implementation, monitoring and evaluation lies
with the competent national authorities, the Italian Ministry for Culture and the ‘Soprintendenza Speciale per i Beni Archeologici di
Napoli e Pompei’. The Commission receives regular updates on the progress of the project, which is also regularly discussed with the
Italian authorities.

C 341 / 22 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003311/14**

**alla Commissione**
**Francesco Enrico Speroni (EFD)**

_(20 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ SES2, monopolio ENAV nella gestione dei servizi dello spazio aereo, assegnazione tramite decreto e mancata previsione di
gare d'appalto ad hoc

Sembrerebbe che il governo italiano abbia assegnato con decreto ministeriale la gestione dei servizi dello spazio aereo nazionale MET
(meteorological service) alla società Enav S.p.A.,ente controllato al 100 % dal ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze. La direttiva
dell'UE relativa al cielo unico europeo (Single European Sky 2) prevede, invece, l'apertura alla concorrenza nell'assegnazione dei
servizi relativi allo spazio aereo nazionale e la previsione di gare d'appalto ad hoc aperte anche a società di gestione europee private e
certificate.

Ritiene la Commissione che l'assegnazione, da parte del ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, dei predetti servizi all'Enav (che
di fatto opera in un regime di monopolio) senza l'indizione di alcuna gara pubblica, sia avvenuta in contrasto con le vigenti
normative europee e con le disposizioni di SES 2?

**Risposta di Siim Kallas a nome della Commissione**

_(2 maggio 2014)_

La fornitura di servizi meteorologici da utilizzare nell'ambito della gestione del traffico aereo nell'Unione è soggetta agli obblighi
stabiliti dal regolamento (CE) n. 550/2004 ( [1] ), modificato dal regolamento (CE) n. 1070/2009 ( [2] ).

A norma dell'articolo 9, paragrafo 1, di tale regolamento _«Gli Stati membri possono designare un fornitore di servizi meteorologici affinché_
_fornisca la totalità o una parte dei dati meteorologici in regime di esclusiva per la totalità o una parte dello spazio aereo di loro responsabilità,_
_tenendo conto di considerazioni inerenti alla sicurezza.»_ Al riguardo non è prevista un'ulteriore normativa e pertanto non sussiste l'obbligo
di ricorrere a una gara d'appalto.

Per quanto riguarda la normativa sul cielo unico dell'Unione europea a cui si fa riferimento nell'interrogazione, sembrerebbe
pertanto che le autorità italiane siano autorizzate a designare ENAV S.p.A. come fornitore di servizi meteorologici nello spazio aereo
nazionale italiano con le modalità ritenute opportune. Tuttavia, ciò non pregiudica gli obblighi che possono derivare, in base alle
circostanze del caso di specie, da altre norme del diritto dell'Unione europea, tra cui le direttive dell'Unione in materia di appalti
pubblici e il trattato sul funzionamento dell'Unione europea.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regolamento (CE) n. 550/2004 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 10 marzo 2004, sulla fornitura di servizi di navigazione aerea nel cielo unico europeo

(regolamento sulla fornitura di servizi) (GU L 96 del 31.3.2004, pag. 10).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Regolamento (CE) n. 1070/2009 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 21 ottobre 2009, recante modifica dei regolamenti (CE) n. 549/2004, (CE) n. 550/2004,

(CE) n. 551/2004 e (CE) n. 552/2004 al fine di migliorare il funzionamento e la sostenibilità del sistema aeronautico europeo (GU L 300 del 14.11.2009, pag. 34).

( **|**

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 23

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003311/14**

**to the Commission**
**Francesco Enrico Speroni (EFD)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ SES2 — ENAV monopoly of airspace management services, assignment by decree, and failure to issue ad hoc invitations to
tender

Apparently, the Italian Government has issued a ministerial decree assigning the management of the national airspace
meteorological service (MET) to ENAV S.p.A., a company 100% controlled by the Italian Ministry of the Economy and Finance.
However, the EU directive on the Single European Sky 2 (SES2) states that the assignment of services associated with national
airspace should be open to competition, and makes provision for ad hoc invitations to tender that are also open to private, accredited
European management companies.

Does the Commission consider the assignment of the aforementioned services by the Italian Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport
to ENAV (which is in fact operating as a monopoly), without the announcement of a public invitation to tender, to be in
contravention of current European legislation and the provisions concerning SES2?

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

_(2 May 2014)_

The provision of meteorological services for use in the field of air traffic management in the Union is subject to the requirements of
Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 ( [1] ) as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1070/2009 ( [2] ).

In accordance with Article 9(1) of that regulation, ‘Member States may designate a provider of meteorological services to supply all
or part of meteorological data on an exclusive basis in all or part of the airspace under their responsibility, taking into account safety
considerations.’ In this respect no further rules, and therefore also no obligation to have recourse to an open call for tender, are
foreseen.

In as far as the Union's Single European Sky legislation referred to in the question is concerned, it would therefore appear that the
Italian authorities are entitled to designate ENAV SpA as a provider of meteorological services in the Italian national airspace in the
manner it deems appropriate. This is however without prejudice to the obligations that may result, depending on the circumstances
of the case at hand, from other rules of EC law, including the EU's directives on public procurement and the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 on the provision of air navigation services in the single European sky

(the service provision Regulation), OJ L 96, 31.3.2004 p. 10-19.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Regulation (EC) No 1070/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 amending Regulations (EC) No 549/2004, (EC) No 550/2004,

(EC) No 551/2004 and (EC) No 552/2004 in order to improve the performance and sustainability of the European aviation system, OJ L 300, 14.11.2009, p. 34‐50.

( **|**

C 341 / 24 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003312/14**

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

**Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)**

_(20 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Ondata di esecuzioni in Iran

Il 4 marzo, nella prigione di Isfahan, è stata impiccata Farzaneh Moradi, una venticinquenne, nota come la «sposa quindicenne». Il
3 marzo un giovane di 23 anni, di nome Mehrass, è stato impiccato a Jooybar. Al momento dell'arresto aveva 17 anni. Il 2 marzo un
altro ragazzo di 23 anni è stato impiccato in segreto nella prigione centrale di Zahedan. Anche lui aveva 17 anni all'epoca del suo
arresto. Il 26 febbraio sono stati giustiziati in segreto e collettivamente sei prigionieri nella prigione di Gohardasht a Karaj. Uno di
loro, Reza Ganjloo, aveva 20 anni e ne aveva meno di 16 quando fu arrestato. Solo tra il 26 febbraio e il 4 marzo sono stati perciò
impiccati tre prigionieri che erano minorenni al momento del loro arresto. Nei primi 65 giorni dell'anno il numero delle esecuzioni è
arrivato a 150.

L'Alto Rappresentante:

1. Non ritiene che rendere visita agli aguzzini che governano l'Iran contribuisca a diffondere l'illusione di un regime moderato e
incoraggi a continuare con le esecuzioni indiscriminate?

2. Non considera che la visita a Teheran venga considerata come un'approvazione della politica del massacro e della repressione
violenta?

3. Quali iniziative intende intraprendere per condannare il comportamento barbaro del regime e salvare tante vite umane
innocenti, colpevoli soltanto di vivere in un regime teocratico feroce, la cui Corte Suprema ha approvato recentemente la
condanna per un ragazzo a cui verrà cavato un occhio e tagliati l'orecchio destro e il naso, come ha pubblicato il quotidiano di
Stato Shraq?

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

_(21 maggio 2014)_

L'Unione europea ha una ferma posizione di condanna della pena di morte, che vale in tutti i casi e in ogni circostanza, a maggior
ragione quando viene applicata ai minori, in violazione delle norme minime internazionali. Questa posizione è stata
sistematicamente ribadita alle autorità della Repubblica islamica dell'Iran tramite contatti diretti, canali ufficiali, dichiarazioni
pubbliche e sostegno alle risoluzioni delle Nazioni Unite.

L'Unione si è sistematicamente appellata all'Iran chiedendo la sospensione delle esecuzioni e l'abolizione della pena di morte e in tal
senso continuerà a dar voce a una profonda apprensione per il numero elevato di esecuzioni nel paese.

L'Unione conduce una politica di sanzioni contro chi commette gravi violazioni dei diritti umani e ritiene importante impegnarsi con
l'Iran nel settore dei diritti umani. La visita in Iran dell'Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente lo scorso marzo è stata un'occasione per
intavolare la questione e esprimere le preoccupazioni dell'Unione.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 25

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003312/14**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Wave of executions in Iran

On 4 March Farzaneh Moradi, aged 25 and known as the ‘15-year-old bride’, was hanged in Isfahan prison. On 3 March a young man
of 23 named Mehrass was hanged in Jouybar. He had been 17 at the time of his arrest. On 2 March another youth of 23, who had
also been 17 when arrested, was secretly hanged in Zahedan central prison. On 26 February six prisoners were secretly executed
together in Gohardasht prison in Karaj. One of them, Reza Ganjlu, was 20 and had been arrested at the age of 16. This means that,
from 26 February to 4 March alone, three prisoners were executed who were minors at the time of their arrest. In the first 65 days of
the year, the number of executions in Iran has risen to 150.

1. Does the High Representative not consider that paying a visit to the executioners who govern Iran helps to spread the illusion
that this is a moderate regime, and encourages indiscriminate executions to continue?

2. Does she not consider that her visit to Tehran is taken as an endorsement of the policy of massacre and violent repression?

3. What initiatives does she intend to take to condemn the barbaric behaviour of the regime and save many innocent human
lives? Their only fault has been to live under a ferocious theocratic regime, whose Supreme Court recently sentenced a young man to
have one eye gouged out and his right ear and nose cut off, according to the state daily newspaper Shargh.

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

_(21 May 2014)_

The European Union has a stated position against death penalty in all cases and under any circumstances, even more so when applied
to minors, in violation of the international minimum standards. This position has been consistently reiterated to the Islamic Republic
of Iran through direct contacts, official demarches, public statements and support to UN Resolutions.

The EU regularly reiterates its call on Iran to halt all pending executions and to introduce a moratorium on the death penalty. The EU
will continue to make this call expressing its serious concerns with the very high number of executions in Iran.

The EU conducts a policy of sanctions against individuals who have committed grave human rights offences. The EU considers it
important to engage with Iran on Human Rights. The High Representative/Vice-President's visit to Iran in March was used as an
opportunity to address human rights issues and voice the EU's concerns.

C 341 / 26 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003313/14**

**alla Commissione**
**Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)**

_(20 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Benessere animale e legge 394/91

La riforma della legge 394/1991 è stata proposta dalla commissione Ambiente del Senato italiano. La nuova legge permetterebbe
l'ingresso dei cacciatori nei parchi naturali, senza eliminare i problemi di sovrannumero di alcune specie come i cinghiali, ma
favorendo invece il rischio di eliminazione di altre, come dimostrano i recenti massacri di Lupi in Abruzzo. Verrebbe inoltre
introdotto il criterio del silenzio assenso per i nullaosta relativi ai progetti di realizzazione di nuove opere nelle aree interessate, in
assenza di risposta da parte delle pubbliche amministrazioni entro 60 giorni, il che favorisce la cementificazione visti i tempi biblici
delle pubbliche amministrazioni italiane. Inoltre il sistema di finanziamento dei parchi attraverso le royalty darebbe a molti la
possibilità di utilizzarli per attività spesso non compatibili con la specifica qualità ambientale dei parchi italiani. La creazione dei
parchi geologici, categoria non riconosciuta a livello internazionale, non pone limiti alla caccia in suddette aree e favorisce taluni
parchi a dispetto di altri. In ultimo la Federparchi, associazione di categoria che non rappresenta tutte le realtà che gestiscono i parchi
naturali protetti, avrà un ruolo esclusivo di rappresentanza degli enti gestori.

Può la Commissione specificare:

1. se ritiene che la normativa proposta al Senato abbia elementi che contrastano con le legislazioni europee sul benessere
animale;

2. se ritiene che ci sia il rischio di una procedura di infrazione nei confronti dell'Italia qualora il punto sul controllo della fauna
selvatica nelle aree naturali protette venisse approvato;

3. se è a conoscenza di altre aree all'interno degli Stati membri con la denominazione di «parchi geologici»;

4. se ritiene discriminatorio e contrario ai principi di rappresentanza l'affidamento unico a Federparchi del ruolo esclusivo di
rappresentanza degli enti gestori?

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

_(30 maggio 2014)_

Anche se la Commissione non ha proceduto a una specifica disamina giuridica della proposta di riforma oggetto dell'interrogazione,
non risulta che la normativa italiana quale presentata nella predetta interrogazione violi la legislazione unionale vigente in materia di
benessere degli animali. L'articolo 13 del trattato sul funzionamento dell'Unione europea (TFUE) dispone che l'Unione e gli Stati
membri tengano pienamente conto delle esigenze in materia di benessere degli animali nella formulazione e nell'attuazione di
determinate politiche dell'Unione. Non è dimostrato che la legislazione italiana in questione incida su uno o più dei settori politici
menzionati dall'articolo ( [1] ).

La legislazione dell'UE non vieta l'abbattimento delle specie selvatiche nelle zone protette, tuttavia, per quanto riguarda le specie
disciplinate dalle direttive «Habitat» e «Uccelli» ( [2] ), devono essere rispettate le pertinenti disposizioni stabilite dagli articoli 12, 14, 15 e
16 (direttiva «Habitat») nonché 5, 7, 8 e 9 (direttiva «Uccelli»).

La Commissione conferma di essere a conoscenza di altri parchi geologici in Europa ( [3] ), ma non sono disciplinati dalla legislazione
dell'UE.

Tale questione è integralmente di competenza delle autorità nazionali.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Ossia le politiche dell'UE in materia di agricoltura, pesca, trasporti, mercato interno, ricerca e sviluppo tecnologico e spazio.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) GU L 206 del 22.7.1992 e GU L 20 del 26.1.2010.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.europeangeoparks.org/

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 27

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003313/14**

**to the Commission**
**Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Animal welfare and Law 394/91

The Environmental Commission of the Italian Senate has proposed reforming Law 394/1991 to admit hunters to national parks.
This would not solve the problems of overpopulation in species such as wild boar, but would tend to heighten the risk of
exterminating others, as the recent slaughter of wolves in Abruzzo shows. The reform would also introduce the concept of tacit
acceptance: if the authorities do not reply within 60 days, this can be taken as permission to proceed with new building projects in
these parks. This will encourage unregulated development, as the Italian authorities operate on a Biblical timescale. Furthermore,
funding Italian parks by a royalty system would create many opportunities to use them for activities incompatible with their specific
environmental quality. A new category of geology parks, unrecognised at international level, would offer unrestricted hunting in
parkland and promote some parks at the expense of others. Finally Federparchi, the federation for the parks sector, which does not
represent all the managing bodies of protected natural parks, would act as their sole representative.

1. Does the Commission consider that some of the regulations proposed to the Senate infringe European animal welfare
legislation?

2. Does it see Italy as risking infringement proceedings if the provision for culling wildlife in protected natural areas is passed?

3. Is it aware of other ‘geology parks’ in Member States?

4. Does it consider that making Federparchi the sole representative of park managers is discriminatory and contrary to the
principles of fair representation?

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

_(30 May 2014)_

While the Commission has not proceeded to a specific legal examination of the proposed reform referred to in the question, it does
not appear that the Italian law as presented in the question would infringe any current EU animal welfare rule. Article 13 of the
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) requires that the Union and the Member States pay full regard to the
welfare requirements of animals in formulating and implementing certain policies of the Union. There is no evidence that the
relevant Italian law would affect one or more of the policy areas mentioned in that Article ( [1] ).

EU legislation does not forbid wildlife culling in protected natural areas. However, as far as species covered by the Habitats and Birds
Directives ( [2] ) are concerned, the relevant provisions set by Articles 12, 14, 15 and 16 (Habitats Directive) and 5, 7, 8 and 9 (Birds
Directive) must be respected.

Yes, the Commission is aware of other geological parks in Europe ( [3] ), but they are not regulated by EU legislation.

This issue falls entirely under the competence of national authorities.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) These are the Union's agriculture, fisheries, transport, internal market, research and technological development and space policies.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992 and OJ L 020, 26.1.2010.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.europeangeoparks.org/

C 341 / 28 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003314/14**

**alla Commissione**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(20 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Concessioni balneari: possibile revisione della direttiva Servizi 2006/123/CE

Lo scorso 17 marzo 2014 ad Atene il Commissario europeo agli affari marittimi Maria Damanaki ha dichiarato che la Commissione
modificherà la direttiva Servizi 2006/123/CE, cosiddetta direttiva Bolkestein, nella parte che riguarda le concessioni balneari perché
«i vincoli applicati alle concessioni demaniali sono troppo rigidi».

La Commissione aveva già annunciato che la direttiva sarebbe stata rivista durante la prossima legislatura e dal dibattito in corso nella
commissione per il Mercato interno del Parlamento europeo è emerso chiaramente che la futura eventuale revisione di questo
provvedimento andrà nel senso opposto agli interessi dei gestori balneari. Nelle risposte alle mie precedenti interrogazioni
E-010266/2012 e E-001198/2013 il Commissario al mercato interno Michel Barnier, competente nel merito su questo
provvedimento, ha sempre saldamente difeso la direttiva ribadendo, anche a fronte di mie precise richieste di modifica, di non
volerne assolutamente cambiare la ratio in tema di concessioni demaniali né di poterla disapplicare.

Stante che qualora venisse presentata una nuova proposta di normativa, l'iter di un testo così complesso occuperebbe almeno l'intero
2015, anno in cui l'Italia dovrebbe applicare la direttiva e indire la gare per le concessioni balneari, può la Commissione precisare:

1. se la dichiarazione della Commissaria alla pesca e agli affari marittimi Maria Damanaki è condivisa anche dal Commissario al
mercato interno, Michel Barnier;

2. se intende presentare a breve una nuova proposta di direttiva o modificare il testo della cosiddetta direttiva Bolkestein per
introdurre maggiore flessibilità in materia di turismo balneare e garantire una rimodulazione della disciplina europea coerente
con le peculiarità di ogni singolo Stato membro e, se sì, quando intende pubblicare la nuova proposta?

**Risposta di Michel Barnier a nome della Commissione**

_(5 giugno 2014)_

La direttiva 2006/123/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, relativa ai servizi nel mercato interno (la «direttiva Servizi») è stata
adottata il 12 dicembre 2006. La Commissione ritiene che il livello di attuazione della direttiva debba essere migliorato poiché
potrebbe apportare importanti benefici in termini di occupazione e crescita. Per questo motivo ha intrapreso una serie di iniziative
per migliorare la qualità e il ritmo di attuazione negli Stati membri ( [1] ). Il 31 marzo 2014 la Commissione ha pubblicato un
documento di lavoro che definiva l'attuale stato di attuazione della «direttiva Servizi».

Questa strategia è stata pienamente sostenuta dal Consiglio europeo nell'ottobre 2013 e dal Parlamento europeo nel settembre 2013.

Pertanto, la Commissione si sta attualmente concentrando sul miglioramento dell'attuazione della «direttiva Servizi» e, senza
pregiudicare le intenzioni del prossimo Collegio, non ritiene necessario presentare una nuova proposta di direttiva o modificare in
questo momento il testo della direttiva in vigore.

Le dichiarazioni del membro della Commissione responsabile degli Affari marittimi e della pesca riguardavano solo la
comunicazione della Commissione sul turismo marino (COM(2014) 86 final) e la proposta di direttiva sulla pianificazione dello
spazio marittimo (COM(2013) 133 final), entrambe finalizzate a promuovere, fra gli altri, il settore turistico in Europa.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Comunicazione sull'attuazione della direttiva sui servizi. Un partenariato per una nuova crescita nel settore dei servizi. 2012-2015
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/IT/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52012DC0261&rid=1.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 29

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003314/14**

**to the Commission**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Seaside concessions: possible revision of Directive 2006/123/EC (the Services Directive)

During a meeting held in Athens on 17 March 2014, the European Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Maria
Damanaki, announced that the Commission would amend Directive 2006/123/EC (the Services Directive, also known as the
Bolkestein Directive) in the section relating to seaside concessions because ‘the constraints applied to public concessions are too
restrictive’.

The Commission had already announced that the directive would be revised during the next parliamentary term; however, from the
discussions currently taking place in the European Parliament’s Internal Market Committee, it has clearly emerged that any future
revisions made to the directive will be to the detriment of seaside service providers. In the answers given to my earlier questions
(E-010266/2012 and E-001198/2013), the internal market Commissioner Michel Barnier, who is responsible for the directive,
steadfastly defended it by reiterating, even when faced with my specific amendment requests, that there was absolutely no intention
to change the proportion of public concessions granted or make it possible for this proportion to be disregarded in certain
circumstances.

If a new regulatory proposal is submitted, the implementation of such a complex text would take at least the whole of 2015, the year
in which Italy is required to apply the directive and call for bids for seaside concessions.

1. In light of the above, can the Commission indicate whether the internal market Commissioner Michel Barnier also agrees with
the statement made by the European Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Maria Damanaki?

2. In short, does the Commission intend to submit a new directive proposal or amend the text of the so-called Bolkestein
Directive in order to introduce greater flexibility in matters concerning seaside tourism and ensure that the European framework can
be adapted to specific cases in each individual Member State? If so, when does it intend to publish this new proposal?

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

_(5 June 2014)_

Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on services in the internal market (the ‘Services Directive’) has
been adopted on 12 December 2006. The Commission considers that the current level of implementation of the Services Directive
must be improved since full implementation could bring important benefit in terms of jobs and growth. For this reason, the
Commission has taken a series of initiatives to enhance the quality and pace of the implementation in Member States ( [1] ). On
31 March 2014, the Commission services published a staff working document setting out the current state of implementation of the
Services Directive.

Such a strategy has been fully supported by the European Council in October 2013 and by the European Parliament in
September 2013.

This Commission is therefore currently focusing on improving the implementation of the Services Directive and, without prejudging
the next College intentions, does not consider necessary to submit a new directive proposal or amend its text at this point in time.

The statements of the Member of the Commission responsible of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries related only to the Commission
Communication on marine tourism (COM(2014) 86 final) and the proposed Directive on maritime spatial Planning (COM(2013)
133 final), both of which intend to promote, amongst others, the European tourism sector.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Communication on the implementation of the Services Directive. A partnership for new growth in services 2012-2015
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52012DC0261&from=EN

C 341 / 30 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003315/14**

**alla Commissione**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(20 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Fondi erogati all'Albania in quanto paese in fase di preadesione

Può la Commissione indicare l'ammontare dei fondi ricevuti, a titolo di preadesione, dall'Albania dall'acquisizione dello status di
candidato a oggi?

**Risposta di Štefan Füle a nome della Commissione**

_(28 maggio 2014)_

In quanto paese candidato potenziale, durante il quadro finanziario 2007-2013 l'Albania ha beneficiato di due componenti dello
strumento di assistenza preadesione, la componente I — Sostegno alla transizione e sviluppo istituzionale e la componente II —
Cooperazione transfrontaliera In questo periodo sono stati messi a disposizione del paese circa 588,7 milioni di EUR di assistenza
preadesione.

Il Consiglio europeo non ha ancora concesso all'Albania lo status di paese candidato.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 31

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003315/14**

**to the Commission**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Funds granted to Albania as a pre-accession country

Can the Commission indicate how much pre-accession funding has been received by Albania since it was granted candidate status?

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

_(28 May 2014)_

As a potential candidate country, during the financial framework 2007-13, Albania has benefited from two components of the
Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance, notably component I — Transition Assistance and Institution Building — and component II
— Cross-border Cooperation. During this period, around EUR 588.7 million of pre-accession assistance has been made available to
the country.

Albania has not been granted candidate status by the European Council yet.

C 341 / 32 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003316/14**

**alla Commissione**

**Lorenzo Fontana (EFD)**

_(20 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Predazione del lupo in Lessinia

Da alcune segnalazioni pervenute da parte dei cittadini, a proposito della ripopolazione del lupo nella Regione del Veneto, si evince
una situazione di disagio degli allevatori locali.

Una convenzione stipulata tra il Parco naturale delle Alpi Marittime e la Regione Veneto per il progetto LIFE 12 NAT/IT/000807 LIFE
WOLFALPS, comprenderebbe, infatti, nel progetto anche il territorio del Parco naturale regionale della Lessinia.

Il programma in favore della ripopolazione del lupo nell'arco alpino vedrebbe quindi coinvolte anche ampie zone di parco che, di
fatto, sono proprietà privata e vengono principalmente impiegati nell'allevamento di bestiame bovino.

Stante che:

—
il lupo è tra le principali cause di morte degli animali da allevamento nella zona,

—
il riconoscimento tardivo delle carcasse produce danno economico agli allevatori, impedendo loro di ottenere un giusto
indennizzo,

—
le associazioni di allevatori non sono state consultate in fase di sottoscrizione della suddetta convenzione di partnership,

può la Commissione far sapere se:

1. è al corrente della situazione sopra esposta;

2. ritiene possibile l'adozione di provvedimenti a maggior tutela delle associazioni di allevatori;

3. intende prendere provvedimenti al riguardo sapendo che i danni provocati agli allevatori provengono da un progetto LIFE+
finanziato attraverso fondi europei a gestione diretta;

4. la Regione Veneto può rivedere e/o rinegoziare i termini contrattuali che la vincolano nell'approvazione del progetto onde
trovare misure adeguate per aiutare gli allevatori?

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

_(15 maggio 2014)_

Il progetto LIFE12 NAT/IT/000807 prevede una serie di azioni esplicitamente finalizzate a evitare conflitti tra le esigenze di
ripopolazione del lupo e quelle degli allevatori. Queste iniziative comprendono lo studio delle più adeguate tecniche preventive, la
loro attuazione in collaborazione con gli allevatori e la verifica della loro efficacia.

Il regolamento (CE) n. 1698/2005 sullo sviluppo rurale ( [1] ) comprende la misura «investimenti non produttivi» nel cui ambito è
possibile sovvenzionare gli investimenti (ad esempio le recinzioni agricole) destinati a evitare che gli animali selvatici arrechino danni
agli animali d'allevamento. Una disposizione analoga è stata inclusa nel regolamento sullo sviluppo rurale concernente il prossimo
periodo di programmazione 2014-2020. In numerose decisioni in materia di aiuti di Stato la Commissione ha autorizzato misure
nazionali di indennizzo dei danni causati da animali selvatici protetti. La Commissione sta inoltre esaminando la possibilità di
inserire disposizioni specifiche nei futuri orientamenti per gli aiuti di Stato nel settore agricolo e forestale. Per i danni causati da
animali selvatici gli Stati membri possono concedere agli agricoltori aiuti fino a 15 000 EUR nell'arco di un triennio nell'ambito del
regolamento «de minimis» ( [2] ).

Le disposizioni e condizioni della convenzione di sovvenzione del progetto LIFE12 NAT/IT/000807 sono conformi alle norme del
regolamento LIFE+. La Regione Veneto è un beneficiario associato del progetto e si è impegnata a collaborare alla sua attuazione; il
progetto sarà realizzato in stretta collaborazione con tutte le parti interessate, allevatori compresi.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) GU L 277 del 21.10.2005.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Regolamento (CE) n. 1408/2013, GU L 352 del 24.12.2013, pag. 9.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 33

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003316/14**

**to the Commission**

**Lorenzo Fontana (EFD)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Fears over wolves preying on livestock in Lessinia

Several concerns raised by citizens over the wolf repopulation programme in the Italian region of Veneto have led to unrest amongst
the local farming community.

The Maritime Alps Nature Park and the Veneto Region have reached an agreement concerning the project LIFE 12 NAT/IT/000807
LIFE Wolfalps, with Lessinia Regional Nature Park being included within the scope of the project.

The wolf repopulation programme in Italy’s Alpine regions will therefore also be rolled out on vast swathes of privately owned
parkland that is principally used for rearing cattle.

Given that

— wolves are one of the main causes of livestock death in the area,

— if farmers do not find the carcasses straightaway, they will not receive fair compensation for their losses, and their businesses will
suffer as a result,

— farmers’ associations were not consulted when the abovementioned partnership agreement was being drawn up,

can the Commission please answer the following questions:

1. Is it aware of the situation described above?

2. Does it believe that measures could be adopted to offer greater protection to farmers’ associations?

3. Does it intend to take any action in this respect, given that farmers could suffer damage as a result of a LIFE+ project financed
through funds directly managed by the European Union?

4. Is it possible for the Veneto Region to review and/or renegotiate the contractual terms that bind it in respect of the approval of
the project, so that it can find appropriate ways of assisting the farming community?

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

_(15 May 2014)_

The project LIFE12 NAT/IT/000807 foresees a series of actions explicitly aimed at avoiding conflicts between wolves and livestock
breeders. These actions will investigate the most appropriate preventive techniques, implement them in collaboration with the
livestock holders and verify their effectiveness.

The Rural Development (RD) regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 ( [1] ) allows support for investments that prevent damage caused by wild
animals to farmed animals (such as agricultural fencing) under the measure ‘non-productive investments’. A similar provision has
been included in the RD regulation for the next programming period 2014-2020. In several State Aid decisions, the Commission has
authorised national measures which compensate for damages caused by protected wild animals. The Commission is also considering
specific provisions in the future Guidelines for State Aid in the agricultural and forestry sector. Member States may grant to farmers
aid in relation to damages caused by wild animals up to EUR 15 000 over a three-year-period under the agricultural de minimis
Regulation ( [2] )

The terms and conditions of the Grant Agreement of the project LIFE12 NAT/IT/000807 follow the rules of the LIFE+ Regulation.
The Veneto Region is an Associated Beneficiary of the project and is committed to collaborate in the project's implementation and
which will be carried out in close collaboration with all concerned stakeholders including the livestock breeders.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 277, 21.10.2005.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Regulation (EU) No 1408/2013, OJ L 352/9, 24.12.2013.

C 341 / 34 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003317/14**

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

_(20 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Anno internazionale dell'agricoltura familiare

Le Nazioni Unite hanno dichiarato il 2014 Anno internazionale dell'agricoltura familiare allo scopo di porre in risalto il potenziale
degli agricoltori a livello familiare nella lotta alla fame e per la preservazione delle risorse naturali in linea con gli Obiettivi di sviluppo
del Millennio, il dibattito sull'agenda post-2015 e la Sfida fame zero. Nei paesi in via di sviluppo le aziende agricole a conduzione
familiare rappresentano in media l'80 % del totale delle aziende agricole. Tuttavia, gran parte degli agricoltori familiari, i pescatori, i
pastori, le popolazioni indigene e le comunità tradizionali sono tra le fasce di popolazione più vulnerabili a livello mondiale, motivo
per cui, a detta del direttore generale della FAO, l'agricoltura familiare deve essere posta al centro dei programmi di sviluppo
nazionali e regionali.

Gli agricoltori familiari svolgono anche un importante ruolo nella promozione della crescita economica, dal momento che sono
generalmente ben integrati nella rete territoriale locale e reinvestono i propri guadagni soprattutto nei mercati locali e regionali,
generando posti di lavoro direttamente o indirettamente legati all'agricoltura, motivo per cui potrebbe giocare un ruolo
fondamentale per la crescita economica e sociale soprattutto nelle aree più povere.

In merito a quanto precede, può la Commissione chiarire:

1. quali sono gli strumenti di promozione dell'agricoltura familiare e di piccola scala nel contesto della politica di aiuto allo
sviluppo dell'UE;

2. quali sono le principali misure a livello europeo in difesa e promozione dell'agricoltura familiare nell'UE;

3. se l'UE ha organizzato eventi o campagne in occasione dell'Anno internazionale dell'agricoltura familiare?

**Risposta di Dacian Cioloş a nome della Commissione**

_(15 maggio 2014)_

Una delle pietre angolari della cooperazione allo sviluppo dell'UE nel settore dell'agricoltura, della sicurezza alimentare e nutrizionale
è sostenere lo sviluppo dell'agricoltura familiare allo scopo di migliorare i mezzi di sussistenza in modo sostenibile ed equo. L'UE
aiuta i paesi partner a definire le proprie politiche agricole e promuove, fra le altre cose, la realizzazione di investimenti sensibili per i
piccoli coltivatori in pratiche agricole sostenibili, il potenziamento dei mezzi di sussistenza nelle zone rurali, le catene di valore, la
formazione di gruppi di agricoltori, la messa a punto di meccanismi appropriati di reti di sicurezza sociale per i più vulnerabili, il
rafforzamento del settore finanziario locale. Molti paesi in via di sviluppo hanno individuato nell'agricoltura sostenibile e nella
sicurezza alimentare e nutrizionale i settori fondamentali per i programmi di cooperazione allo sviluppo dell'UE 2014-2020. Dando
seguito al nostro documento «Agenda for a change», che mette in evidenza l'importanza dell'agricoltura sostenibile, concentrandosi
sulle piccole proprietà agricole, sulle condizioni di vita nelle zone rurali, e sulla formazione e sul rafforzamento dei gruppi di
produttori, le piccole aziende agricole a conduzione familiare saranno i principali beneficiari nel nuovo periodo di programmazione.

La Commissione riconosce l'importanza dell'agricoltura familiare nell'UE e rimanda l'onorevole parlamentare alle interrogazioni
scritte E-013748/2013 del signor Nicholson e P‐000827/2014 della signora do Céu Patrão Neves, che indicano misure finalizzate a
sostenere e a sviluppare le aziende a gestione familiare nell'UE nonché l'impegno della Commissione a dare grande risalto all'Anno
internazionale dell'agricoltura familiare. L'evento più recente è stata la conferenza regionale europea della FAO tenutasi a Bucarest
all'inizio di aprile.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 35

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003317/14**

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

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ International Year of Family Farming

The United Nations has made 2014 the ‘International Year of Family Farming’, to highlight the potential of farming families to relieve
hunger and conserve natural resources. This aim is in line with the Millennium Development Goals, the debate on the Post-2015
Development Agenda and the Zero Hunger Challenge. Family-run farms account for an average of 80% of all farming businesses in
the developing economies. However, many family farmers, fishermen, shepherds, indigenous people and traditional communities
are among the most vulnerable sections of the world’s population. Hence, as the Director-General of the FAO has stated, family
farming must become the central focus of national and regional development programmes.

Family farmers also play an important role in driving economic growth. Because they are generally well integrated into local country
networks, and reinvest mainly on local and regional markets, they generate employment linked directly or indirectly to agriculture.
Hence, they could play a fundamental role in economic and social growth, especially in the poorest areas.

Can the Commission explain:

1. What means of promoting smallholdings and family farms exist within the scope of EU development aid policy?

2. What main measures exist at European level to safeguard and promote family farming in the EU?

3. What events or campaigns, if any, the EU has organised to mark the International Year of Family Farming?

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

_(15 May 2014)_

One of the cornerstones of EU development cooperation in the area of agriculture, food and nutrition security is to support
smallholder focused agricultural development with the view to improving livelihoods sustainably and equitably. The EU helps
partner countries in designing their agriculture sector policies and promotes smallholder-sensitive investments in sustainable
agricultural practices, enhancement of rural livelihoods, value chains, formation of farmer groups, establishment of social safety net
mechanisms for the most vulnerable, strengthening the local financial sector, amongst other things. Many developing countries have
identified sustainable agriculture and food and nutrition security as focal sectors for the EU development cooperation programmes
2014-2020. As follow-up from our ‘Agenda for Change’, which highlights the importance of sustainable agriculture, focusing on
smallholder agriculture, rural livelihoods and the formation and strengthening of producer groups, smallholder family farmers will
be major beneficiaries in the new programming period.

The Commission recognises the importance of family farming in the EU and refers the Honourable Member to Written Questions
E-013748/2013 by Mr Nicholson and P-000827/2014 by Ms do Céu Patrão Neves, which outline measures to support and develop
family farms in the EU as well as Commission's engagement in marking the International year of Family Farming. The most recent
event was the FAO European Regional Conference in Bucharest in early April.

C 341 / 36 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003318/14**

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

_(20 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Cibo da asporto e rischio obesità

I ricercatori di un'università britannica hanno rivelato, in un recente studio, che un consumo eccessivo di cibi da asporto può essere
dannoso per la salute umana, nello specifico aumenta il rischio di sovrappeso o addirittura obesità, che a loro volta possono portare a
problemi più gravi, in particolare di natura cardiovascolare.

Lo studio in questione ha messo in evidenza una sorta di circolo vizioso legato al fatto che, essendo i cibi pronti generalmente più
sapidi, inducono a un consumo maggiore e a una sorta di dipendenza, che raddoppia il rischio di obesità. È stato calcolato che chi
consuma cibo da asporto mangia in media 5,7 grammi in più: una differenza minima a prima vista, ma che può causare un aumento
significativo dell'indice di massa corporea. Il cibo preparato in casa, con i giusti alimenti e ingredienti sani risulta invece più salutare
per l'organismo.

In merito allo studio citato, si chiede alla Commissione:

1. quali sono state le principali iniziative dell'UE in materia di sensibilizzazione della cittadinanza e promozione di uno stile
alimentare sano e basato su ingredienti salutari, secondo lo stile alimentare dello slow food;

2. dispone essa di dati relativi alla variazione dell'incidenza dell'obesità tra i cittadini europei?

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

_(12 maggio 2014)_

La strategia europea sugli aspetti sanitari connessi all'alimentazione, al sovrappeso e all’obesità ( [1] ) del 2007 promuove una dieta
equilibrata e uno stile di vita attivo per tutti. Essa incoraggia collaborazioni finalizzate ad interventi ed atte a coinvolgere gli Stati
membri dell'UE (gruppo ad alto livello sulla nutrizione e l'attività fisica ( [2] )) nonché la società civile (piattaforma d'azione europea per
l'alimentazione, l'attività fisica e la salute ( [3] )).

La Commissione sta collaborando con gli Stati membri per promuovere stili di vita più sani e mediante i programmi europei di
distribuzione di frutta, verdura e latte nelle scuole ( [4] ) ( [5] ) contribuisce a promuovere abitudini alimentari più sane tra gli alunni. Il
24 febbraio 2014 il gruppo ad alto livello sulla nutrizione e l’attività fisica ha concordato un piano d’azione sull’obesità
infantile ( [6] ) ( [7] ).

La Commissione ha avviato tre progetti pilota ( [8] ): due di questi mirano ad incrementare il consumo di frutta e verdura fresche nelle
comunità in cui il reddito delle famiglie è inferiore al 50 % rispetto alla media UE, mentre il terzo si occupa di promuovere
un'alimentazione sana tra bambini, donne in gravidanza e anziani.

I dati disponibili ( [9] ) mostrano che il 52 % della popolazione adulta nell’UE è obesa o in sovrappeso. Nel 2010 inoltre circa 1 bambino
europeo su 3 di età compresa tra i 6 e i 9 anni risultava obeso o in sovrappeso, con un incremento sostanziale rispetto al 2008, anno
in cui la stima era di 1 su 4 ( [10] ). Si calcola che ogni anno il 7 % dei bilanci sanitari dell’UE venga speso per malattie legate
all’obesità ( [11] ). Ulteriori spese risultano dalla perdita di produttività dovuta a problemi di salute e morte precoce (2.8 milioni di
decessi l’anno per cause legate a sovrappeso e obesità) ( [12] ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )
⋅7∙ **|** )
⋅8∙ **|** )
⋅9∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2007) 279.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/nutrition_physical_activity/high_level_group/index_it.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/nutrition_physical_activity/platform/index_it.htm
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sfs/index_it.htm
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/milk/school-milk-scheme/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Con riserva dei Paesi Bassi.
( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/nutrition_physical_activity/docs/childhoodobesity_actionplan_2014_2020_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅8∙ **|** ) SANCO/2011/C4/01, SANCO/2012/C4/02 e SANCO/2013/C4/02.
( **|** ⋅9∙ **|** ) Relazione congiunta della Commissione e dell'OCSE «Health at a Glance — Europe 2012»

http://www.oecd.org/els/healthpoliciesanddata/HealthAtAGlanceEurope2012.pdf

( **|** ⋅10∙ **|** ) Organizzazione mondiale della sanità. European Childhood Obesity Surveillance Initiative (iniziativa europea per monitorare l’obesità infantile), COSI, 2008 e 2010.
( **|** ⋅11∙ **|** ) «Obesity — preventing and managing the global epidemic», relazione di una consultazione dell'OMS, 2000, (Technical Report Series, n. 894, pag. 79),

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_894_(part2).pdf

( **|** ⋅12∙ **|** ) Organizzazione mondiale della sanità. Relazione del 2010 sulle malattie non trasmissibili http://www.who.int/nmh/publications/ncd_report2010/en/

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

( **|**

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

**|** )

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 37

L’indagine europea sulla salute condotta mediante interviste ( [13] ) fornisce informazioni sui livelli di obesità dichiarati. Ulteriori
informazioni si possono trovare nell'ambito dei progetti NOPA ( [14] ) e COSI ( [15] ), condotti dall'OMS con il sostegno dell'UE.

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

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

( **|** ⋅13∙ **|** ) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/health/health_status_determinants/data/database indagine europea sulla salute condotta mediante interviste.
( **|** ⋅14∙ **|** ) Banca dati europea sull’alimentazione, l’obesità e l’attività fisica: http://data.euro.who.int/nopa/
( **|** ⋅15∙ **|** ) Banca dati europea sulla Childhood Obesity Surveillance Initiative (iniziativa europea per monitorare l’obesità infantile):

http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/disease-prevention/nutrition/activities/monitoring-and-surveillance/who-european-childhood-obesity-surveillanceinitiative-cosi

C 341 / 38 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003318/14**

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

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Fast food and risk of obesity

According to a study carried out by researchers at a UK university, eating large quantities of fast food may be harmful to health. More
specifically, it may increase the risk of becoming overweight or obese, which can in turn lead to more serious health problems such
as cardiovascular disease.

The study points to a vicious circle in which people tend to consume greater quantities of fast food because it is usually very highly
flavoured. This also leads to a form of dependency, which ultimately doubles the risk of obesity. The study revealed that people who
eat fast food consume on average 5.7 grams more per day than those who do not. This may seem like a small amount at first glance,
but over time it can lead to a significant increase in body mass index. Preparing meals at home with good-quality, healthy ingredients
is by far the healthier option.

1. What steps is the EU taking to educate people about healthy eating and encourage them to use healthy ingredients, as
advocated by the slow food movement?

2. Does the Commission have any information on obesity rates in the Member States?

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

_(12 May 2014)_

The 2007 Strategy for Europe on Nutrition, Overweight and Obesity-related Health Issues ( [1] ) promotes a balanced diet and active
lifestyle for all. The strategy encourages action-oriented partnerships involving the 28 EU Member States (High Level Group for
Nutrition and Physical Activity ( [2] )) and civil society (EU Platform for Action on Diet, Physical Activity and Health ( [3] )).

In cooperation with the Member States, the Commission works on promoting healthier lifestyles. Through the EU School Fruit and
Vegetables Scheme and School Milk Scheme ( [4] ), ( [5] ) the Commission contributes to establishing healthier eating habits among school
children. On 24 February 2014 the High Level Group on Nutrition and Physical Activity agreed upon an Action Plan on Childhood
Obesity ( [6] ) ( [7] ).

The Commission has launched three pilot projects ( [8] ): two aim to increase consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables in
communities where the household income is below 50% of the EU average; one aims to promote healthy diets among children,
pregnant women and the elderly.

Based on the available data ( [9] ), 52% of the adult population in the EU are overweight or obese. Furthermore, around 1 in 3 children in
the EU aged 6-9 years old were overweight or obese in 2010, a substantial increase from 2008, when estimates were 1 in 4 ( [10] ). It is
estimated that 7% of EU health budgets are spent on diseases linked to obesity each year ( [11] ). Additional costs result from loss of
productivity due to health problems and premature death (2.8 million deaths per year from causes associated with overweight and
obesity) ( [12] ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )
⋅7∙ **|** )
⋅8∙ **|** )
⋅9∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2007) 279.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/nutrition_physical_activity/high_level_group/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/nutrition_physical_activity/platform/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sfs/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/milk/school-milk-scheme/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) With reserve of The Netherlands.
( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/nutrition_physical_activity/docs/childhoodobesity_actionplan_2014_2020_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅8∙ **|** ) SANCO/2011/C4/01, SANCO/2012/C4/02 and SANCO/2013/C4/02.
( **|** ⋅9∙ **|** ) Joint Commission/OECD report ‘Health at a Glance — Europe 2012’ http://www.oecd.org/els/healthpoliciesanddata/HealthAtAGlanceEurope2012.pdf
( **|** ⋅10∙ **|** ) World Health Organisation. European Childhood Obesity Surveillance Initiative, COSI, rounds 2008 and 2010.
( **|** ⋅11∙ **|** ) ‘Obesity — preventing and managing the global epidemic’, Report of a WHO Consultation, 2000, (Technical Report Series, No 894, p79),

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_894_(part2).pdf

( **|** ⋅12∙ **|** ) World Health Organisation. Global Status Report on Non-Communicable Diseases 2010 http://www.who.int/nmh/publications/ncd_report2010/en/

( **|**

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

**|** )

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 39

The European Health Interview Survey ( [13] ) provides information on self-reported levels of obesity. The NOPA ( [14] ) and COSI ( [15] )
projects carried out by the WHO with EU support provide additional information.

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

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

( **|** ⋅13∙ **|** ) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/health/health_status_determinants/data/database
( **|** ⋅14∙ **|** ) European Database on Nutrition, Obesity and Physical Activity: http://data.euro.who.int/nopa/
( **|** ⋅15∙ **|** ) European Database on Childhood Obesity Surveillance Initiative: http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/disease-prevention/nutrition/activities/monitoring-and
surveillance/who-european-childhood-obesity-surveillance-initiative-cosi

C 341 / 40 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003319/14**

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

_(20 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Ecologia e vetrine internazionali

Le politiche ambientali rivestono certamente grande importanza per le società odierne, rappresentando la risposta a sfide ineludibili,
che scaturiscono da una gravosa eredità ambientale.

In riferimento a tali consapevolezze, la costituzione di reti e ambiti di discussione e confronto, di respiro internazionale, si attesta
quale risorsa capace di veicolare e socializzare informazioni, strategie e nuovi atteggiamenti «eco-compatibili».

Secondo tale linea si presenta il salone Ecomondo che, nella città di Rimini, offre un'interessante piattaforma, deputata
all'accoglimento e rielaborazione di proposte, strategie, tecnologie funzionali, alla preservazione degli ecosistemi e alla logica del
riciclaggio e del riutilizzo delle risorse.

Alla luce di quanto sopra illustrato, si chiede alla Commissione:

1. un'informativa che presenti dati relativi alle strategie ambientali effettivamente implementate nei vari Stati membri,
segnandone risultati, successi e criticità;

2. informazioni in merito alla presenza di reti e contesti di confronto transnazionali, nell'ambito dell'area europea.

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

_(28 maggio 2014)_

La Commissione non tiene traccia di tutte le strategie a favore dell'ambiente degli Stati membri, in quanto non esiste a livello di UE
l'obbligo giuridico o politico di comunicare tali strategie.

La Commissione è a conoscenza di numerose iniziative positive portate avanti in tutta l'UE per dare nuova vita a prodotti e materiali
usati, anche attraverso centri di riutilizzo e riparazione. Il sito web della Commissione dedicato all'argomento elenca una serie di
[migliori prassi relative alla prevenzione dei rifiuti: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/prevention/index.htm](http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/prevention/index.htm)

La Commissione sta valutando la possibilità di pubblicare un invito a presentare proposte sulla ricerca, a livello di UE, sulle strategie
per l'estensione della durata di vita dei prodotti e sullo sviluppo di modelli di business circolari sostenibili nell'ambito del programma
di ricerca e innovazione Orizzonte 2020.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 41

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003319/14**

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

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Environment and international expos

Environmental policies are of crucial importance to all of us as we struggle to address the unavoidable challenges posed by a legacy of
environmental irresponsibility.

A number of networks and discussion groups have sprung up in response to these challenges, pooling their resources on an
international scale to raise awareness and exchange green knowledge, strategies and perspectives.

Ecomondo, an expo to be held in Rimini, Italy, is in keeping with this approach, providing a platform for gathering and building on
ideas, strategies and technologies which help to protect the environment and promote reuse and recycling.

1. Can the Commission provide a report on the green strategies which have been implemented in the Member States, detailing the
outcomes and specific successes and failures of each?

2. Can it provide information on transnational groups and networks operating in the EU?

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

_(28 May 2014)_

The Commission does not keep track of all green strategies in the Member States as there is no EU policy or legal requirement to
provide such strategies.

However, the Commission is aware of many good initiatives throughout the EU aimed at giving used products and materials a new
life including through reuse and repair centres. The Commission's dedicated website includes a selection of best practices in relation
to waste prevention: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/prevention/index.htm

The Commission is considering the possibility to launch a call for proposals on EU-wide research on product life extension strategies
and development of sustainable circular business models within the Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme.

C 341 / 42 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003320/14**

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

_(20 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Giornata mondiale della sindrome di Down

Il prossimo 21 marzo ricorrerà la Giornata mondiale della sindrome di Down, il cui tema principale sarà il benessere delle persone
affette dalla trisomia 21, inteso come piena integrazione nella società, pieno godimento di diritti e condizioni di vita paritarie.

Il tema è stato scelto appositamente perché racchiude tutti i traguardi che possono fare la differenza per tutte le persone affette dalla
sindrome: andare a scuola, viaggiare, ottenere una posizione lavorativa retribuita, raggiungere un elevato grado di indipendenza,
talvolta fino alla possibilità di vivere da soli. Si tratta di traguardi normalissimi nella vita quotidiana di ognuno, ma che per
pregiudizio o poca informazione sono spesso negati a chi è affetto dalla sindrome di Down. Tramite questa iniziativa si intende
migliorare l'informazione e la conoscenza della sindrome e dei suoi effetti su chi ne è affetto al fine di abbattere diversi pregiudizi
culturali.

In merito a quanto precede, può la Commissione chiarire:

1. se ha programmato eventi specifici promossi dall'UE nel contesto della giornata mondiale della sindrome di Down;

2. se dispone di dati aggiornati in merito alla diffusione della sindrome tra i cittadini dell'UE;

3. se, nel contesto di politiche di inclusione sociale e pari opportunità, l'UE abbia adottato atti legislativi in materia di promozione
dell'inclusione sociale delle persone affette da sindrome di Down?

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003502/14**

**alla Commissione**
**Aldo Patriciello (PPE)**

_(24 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Giornata mondiale della sindrome di Down

Il 21 marzo è una data particolarmente importante, in quanto ricorre la Giornata mondiale della sindrome di Down, che viene
organizzata ogni anno dal Coordinamento nazionale delle Associazioni delle persone con sindrome di Down (CoorDown), fautrice
anche della campagna internazionale «Dear Future Mom».

La sindrome di Down o Trisomia 21 — individuata dal medico John Langdon Down nel 1866 — si caratterizza per la presenza di un
cromosoma in più nella coppia cromosomica, tre invece che due, attribuibile a un difetto di meiosi (i cromosomi non si separano
correttamente e quindi i gameti ne presentano uno in più).

Secondo l'Organizzazione mondiale della sanità un neonato su 200 corre il rischio di essere affetto da una anomalia cromosomica,
tra cui la sindrome di Down è la più frequente. Il rischio in cui incorre il nascituro è in funzione dell'età della madre e passa da 1 su
1400 a 22 anni, a 1 su 625 a 33 anni e a 1 su 200 a 40 anni. In media si ha 1 su 700, ma visto che circa i 2/3 dei concepimenti di feti
con sindrome di Down terminano con l'aborto, il rischio potenziale è più elevato.

La durata media di vita della persona affetta da sindrome di Down si è molto allungata, grazie allo sviluppo della medicina e alle
maggiori cure dedicate, con un'aspettativa di vita di 62 anni. In Italia si stima che vivano circa 38.000 persone con sindrome di
Down, di cui il 61 % ha più di 25 anni.

Il tema proposto per la Giornata mondiale sulla sindrome di Down è anche quello del benessere, che per una persona con disabilità si
ottiene tramite l'integrazione sociale: dalla più scontata possibilità di andare a scuola fino a trovare un lavoro e/o andare a vivere da
solo e, perché no, con la persona amata.

Inoltre ci si ripropone di superare i pregiudizi esistenti e diffondere una nuova cultura, sensibilizzando la coscienza comune.
Indubbiamente la diversità esiste, ma solo laddove la creiamo noi.

Può la Commissione far saper se è in grado di promuovere iniziative interessate a una maggiore sensibilizzazione a tutela dei diritti
delle persone Down e in che modo è possibile rendere più consapevole la persona, una madre, una famiglia?

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 43

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

_(3 giugno 2014)_

La Commissione ha l'intenzione di sostenere e integrare gli sforzi degli Stati membri nel settore delle malattie congenite, come la
sindrome di Down, nel contesto della sua azione nel campo delle malattie rare. Tale azione comprende una strategia per le malattie
rare e il sostegno a progetti integrati nel programma in materia di salute e nei programmi quadro di ricerca.

La Commissione sostiene la rete EUROCAT (sorveglianza delle anomalie congenite) sin dal 1979. Secondo i dati EUROCAT ( [1] ) la
prevalenza della sindrome di Down è attualmente di 22 ogni 10 000 nascite.

La Commissione ha inoltre dedicato 3,8 miliardi di euro per finanziare la ricerca sulla sindrome di Down nell'ambito del settimo
programma quadro della Comunità europea per le attività di ricerca, sviluppo tecnologico e dimostrazione 2007‐2013 ( [2] ).

Mediante la Strategia europea sulla disabilità, inoltre, la Commissione promuove la partecipazione dei disabili alla vita sociale,
compresi quelli affetti da sindrome di Down, in linea con la Convenzione delle Nazioni Unite sui diritti dei disabili, della quale l'UE è
parte contraente.

Il diritto dell'UE tutela i cittadini contro la discriminazione basata sulla disabilità nei settori dell'occupazione e delle condizioni di
lavoro ( [3] ). È attualmente in discussione al Consiglio una proposta della Commissione per estendere questa tutela ad altri settori ( [4] ).

La Commissione sostiene inoltre la European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (Agenzia europea per i bisogni
educativi speciali e l'istruzione inclusiva) ( [5] ) che facilita lo scambio di informazioni sulle iniziative nazionali. In questo contesto, gli
alunni affetti da sindrome di Down partecipano alle attività d'informazione organizzate dall'agenzia.

Le limitate risorse disponibili da destinare al tema della salute pubblica non consentono tuttavia alla Commissione di organizzare
eventi su tutte le malattie degne di attenzione. Per questo motivo la Commissione non ha organizzato un evento in occasione della
giornata mondiale della sindrome di Down 2014.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Eur J Hum Genet. 2013 Jan;21(1):27-33, Twenty-year trends in the prevalence of Down syndrome and other trisomies in Europe: impact of maternal age and prenatal

screening.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/health/home_en.html
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Direttiva 2000/78/CE del Consiglio, del 27 novembre 2000, che stabilisce un quadro generale per la parità di trattamento in materia di occupazione e di condizioni di

lavoro (GU L 303 del 2.12.2000).

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Proposta di direttiva della Commissione recante applicazione del principio di parità di trattamento tra le persone indipendentemente dalla religione o dalle

convinzioni personali, la disabilità, l'età o orientamento sessuale al di fuori del mercato del lavoro. COM(2008) 426 def.

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://www.european-agency.org/

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

( **|**

( **|**

C 341 / 44 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003320/14**

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

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ World Down Syndrome Day

World Down Syndrome Day (WDSD) takes place on 21 March each year and is dedicated to improving the lives of people with
Down syndrome by working for greater social inclusion, equal rights and equal treatment.

WDSD focuses specifically on these issues as they make a real difference to people living with Down syndrome. For most people,
going to school, travelling, finding a job, becoming more independent and, eventually, being able to live independently, are normal
parts of life, but these activities can prove to be very difficult for those with Down syndrome because of the prejudice or ignorance
they often face. The aim of initiatives such as WDSD is to raise awareness of Down syndrome and how it affects those who suffer
from it, in an effort to combat prejudice towards them.

Can the Commission say:

1. whether the EU organised any events as part of WDSD 2014?

2. whether it has up-to-date figures on the incidence of Down syndrome in the Member States?

3. whether the EU has introduced legislation to encourage greater social inclusion of people with Down syndrome as part of its
equal opportunities agenda?

**Question for written answer E-003502/14**

**to the Commission**
**Aldo Patriciello (PPE)**

_(24 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ World Down Syndrome Day

21 March is a crucial date because it is World Down Syndrome Day, organised each year by Coordown, Italy’s umbrella body for
organisations for people with Down Syndrome, which also promotes the international ‘Dear Future Mom’ campaign.

Down Syndrome, or Trisomy 21, identified by the physician John Langdon Down in 1866, is characterised by the presence of an
additional chromosome (three instead of two) in the chromosome pair, attributable to meiotic non-disjunction (where the
chromosomes fail to divide correctly, resulting in one extra gamete).

According to the World Health Organisation, 1 out of 200 new born babies is at risk of being affected by a chromosomal
abnormality, of which Down Syndrome is the most common. The risk to the unborn child depends on the age of the mother, rising
from 1 in 1 400 at the age of 22, to 1 in 625 at the age of 33 to 1 in 200 at the age of 40, with an average risk of 1 in 700. However,
in view of the fact that around 2/3 of foetuses conceived with Down Syndrome are aborted, the potential risk is higher.

The average life expectancy of a person affected by Down Syndrome has increased considerably thanks to developments in medicine
and better treatment, currently standing at 62 years. It is estimated that there are currently around 38 000 people affected by Down
Syndrome, 61% over the age of 25, currently living in Italy.

The proposed theme for this year's World Down Syndrome Day is well-being. For a person suffering from a disability, this can be
achieved through social integration, ranging from the more obvious opportunity to go to school to finding a job and/or living alone
and (why not?) with a loved one.

The aim is also to overcome existing prejudices and promote a new culture by raising public awareness. Undoubtedly diversity exists,
but only where we ourselves create it.

Can the Commission tell us whether it is able to promote initiatives to heighten awareness in order to safeguard the rights of persons
affected by Down Syndrome and identify ways of ensuring that the person affected, his/her mother and family are better informed?

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 45

**Question for written answer E-003527/14**

**to the Commission**

**Diane Dodds (NI)**

_(24 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ EU action on Down syndrome

Friday, 21 March 2014 marked the 9th anniversary of World Down Syndrome Day and each year the voice of people with Down
syndrome, and of those who live and work with them, grows louder.

What did the Commission do to mark this important date and to raise awareness of this issue?

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

_(3 June 2014)_

The Commission is keen to support and complement Member States' efforts in the field of congenital diseases, such as Down
Syndrome, in the context of its action on rare diseases. This encompasses a strategy on rare diseases and support to projects under
the Health Programme and the research framework programmes.

The Commission supports the Eurocat (Surveillance of Congenital Anomalies) network since 1979. According to Eurocat data ( [1] ) the
prevalence of Down Syndrome stands at 22 per 10 000 births.

In addition, the Commission has devoted EUR 3.8 million to support research related to Down Syndrome within the Seventh
Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities 2007‐2013 ( [2] ).

Furthermore, through the European Disability Strategy, the Commission promotes the participation of people with disabilities in
society, including those with Down syndrome, in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to which
the EU is a Party.

EC law provides protection against discrimination on the ground of disability in the fields of employment and occupation. ( [3] ) A
Commission's proposal to extend such protection to other areas ( [4] ) is under discussion in the Council.

The Commission further supports the European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education ( [5] ) which facilitates the sharing of
information on national initiatives. In this context, learners with Down syndrome participate in information activities organised by
the Agency.

However, the European Commission's limited resources on public health do not enable the Commission to convene events to put the
spotlight on all important days and diseases. As such, the Commission did not convene an event around World Down Syndrome
Day 2014.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Eur J Hum Genet. 2013 Jan;21(1):27-33, Twenty-year trends in the prevalence of Down syndrome and other trisomies in Europe: impact of maternal age and prenatal

screening.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/health/home_en.html
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ L 303, 2.12.2000).
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Commission's proposal COM(2008) 426 final for a directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief,

disability, age or sexual orientation in matters outside the area of employment.

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://www.european-agency.org/

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

( **|**

C 341 / 46 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003321/14**

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

_(20 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Il cartone ondulato salva-acqua

Studi recenti, condotti in partnership da istituti universitari italiani — e promossi dal mondo del packaging nazionale — hanno
rilevato come la procedura di produzione del cartone ondulato preservi maggiormente le riserve idriche e registri, di conseguenza, un
basso livello di consumo in relazione al «water footprint».

Oltretutto, tale modalità di imballaggio si dimostra altamente efficace rispetto alla conservazione dei cibi nel lungo periodo,
andando, di conseguenza, a segnare un ulteriore risultato sul versante degli sprechi alimentari.

Alla luce di quanto sopra esposto, si chiede alla Commissione:

1. Può fornire informazioni dettagliate in merito alle strategie impiegate nei Paesi dell'UE per un utilizzo razionale dell'acqua?

2. Può fornire informazioni relative a un utilizzo sostenibile delle risorse idriche nel settore industriale e agroalimentare?

3. Può fornire informazioni in merito all'impegno dell'UE riguardo alla promozione di prodotti e ritrovati — quale ad esempio il
cartone ondulato — funzionali alla preservazione dell'acqua?

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

_(15 maggio 2014)_

La Commissione, nel «Piano per la salvaguardia delle risorse idriche europee» ( [1] ) e nei relativi documenti di corredo, ha esaminato gli
sviluppi della politica in materia di carenza idrica e siccità, presentando dati dettagliati per ciascun paese e un'analisi delle opzioni
strategiche. La Commissione sta lavorando insieme agli Stati membri e ai portatori di interesse per attuare tali opzioni, che
comprendono anche interventi sul fronte del riutilizzo dell'acqua e della riduzione delle perdite, allo scopo di integrare
maggiormente l'efficienza idrica nel quadro strategico generale.

La Commissione non è in grado di fornire informazioni sull'uso sostenibile dell'acqua nel settore industriale e agroalimentare per
l'intero territorio dell'UE. Eurostat pubblica ( [2] ) i dati sulle risorse idriche e sull'uso dell'acqua in vari settori, tra cui industria
manifatturiera e agricoltura, ma non per il settore agroalimentare. Vi sono poi molte imprese che rendono noti i loro obiettivi in
materia di gestione dell'acqua, ad esempio in sede di strategia di responsabilità sociale d'impresa.

Fermo restando che la Commissione non promuove prodotti specifici, nell'ambito di determinate categorie di prodotti è tuttavia
possibile promuovere quelli compatibili con l'ambiente utilizzando l'Ecolabel UE ( [3] ), un sistema volontario che punta a incoraggiare
le imprese a commercializzare prodotti e servizi che hanno un minore impatto sull'ambiente.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 673 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) WEI e Water abstraction.
( ⋅3∙ ) www.ecolabel.eu.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 47

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003321/14**

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

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Water-saving corrugated cardboard

Recent studies carried out by several Italian university institutes working in partnership — and promoted by the national packaging
industry — have shown that the corrugated cardboard production process requires only low levels of water consumption, thus
leading to major savings in terms of water reserves and giving it a small ‘water footprint’.

In addition, this type of packaging is highly effective in conserving food for long periods, thus also having a positive impact in terms
of reducing food waste.

In the light of the above, can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. Can it provide detailed information on the strategies being used in EU countries to rationalise the use of water?

2. Can it provide information on the sustainable use of water resources in the industrial and agrifood sectors?

3. Can it provide information on the EU’s commitment in terms of promoting products and findings — for example, corrugated
cardboard — that help to conserve water?

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

_(15 May 2014)_

In the ‘Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's Waters’ ( [1] ) and accompanying documents, the Commission reviewed developments in water
scarcity and droughts policy in Europe and presented detailed country-specific information as well as an analysis of policy options.
The Commission is working jointly with Member States and stakeholders to implement these, including water reuse, leakage
reduction, aiming at integrating water efficiency more fully into the overall policy framework.

The Commission is not in a position to report Union-wide information on sustainable water use connected to the industrial or
agrifood sector. Eurostat reports ( [2] ) on water resources and on water use in different sectors including manufacturing industry and
agriculture, but not specifically on the agrifood sector. A number of individual companies also report on their own water
management targets, for instance as part of Corporate Social Responsibility strategies.

The Commission does not promote specific products. Within certain specific product categories however, environmentally friendly
products can be promoted through the EU Ecolabel ( [3] ), a voluntary scheme to encourage businesses to market products and services
with less impact on the environment.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM/2012/0673 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) WEI and Water abstraction.
( ⋅3∙ ) www.ecolabel.eu

C 341 / 48 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003322/14**

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

_(20 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Imprenditoria femminile in Africa

Un articolo recente riporta della creazione di un marchio di moda da parte di un consorzio di donne senegalesi, in partnership con
alcune ONG italiane e soggetti istituzionali.

L'esperienza di cui si dà nota, naturalmente, riflette aspetti importanti in merito a tematiche quali imprenditoria femminile,
occupazione, sviluppo dei paesi del Sud del mondo e valorizzazione del retaggio storico-antropologico.

Peraltro, la neonata realtà imprenditoriale trova spazio — nei prossimi giorni — in un contesto espositivo nazionale, dedicato al
consumo critico.

In ordine a quanto sopra, può la Commissione fornire informazioni in merito ad esperienze similari — nate dalla felice
collaborazione fra attori istituzionali, del terzo settore e consorzi dei Paesi del Sud del mondo — nel contesto europeo?

**Risposta di Andris Piebalgs a nome della Commissione**

_(21 maggio 2014)_

Il Programma di cambiamento evidenzia il ruolo del settore privato locale nella crescita inclusiva e sostenibile, partendo dal
presupposto che un lavoro dignitoso è il modo migliore per uscire dalla povertà. L'imprenditorialità femminile ne è un buon
esempio.

La Commissione sostiene lo sviluppo delle imprese locali nei paesi in via di sviluppo, prestando particolare attenzione alle
componenti più vulnerabili, quale quella femminile. Le donne sono poco presenti nel mondo produttivo, spesso per effetto di
normative che ne limitano le possibilità di avviare un'attività e di accedere al credito o a altri servizi.

Il sostegno all'imprenditorialità femminile dei paesi partner passa per una serie di strumenti di cooperazione allo sviluppo ( [1] ).
L'Unione favorisce il rafforzamento di diverse organizzazioni: associazioni di categoria, cooperative, organizzazioni di mutua
assistenza. La Commissione collabora inoltre con numerosi partner per offrire maggiori opportunità economiche alle donne,
aiutandole a avviare, formalizzare o ampliare la propria impresa ( [2] ).

In Europa il rafforzamento della responsabilità sociale delle imprese, lo sviluppo dell'imprenditoria sociale ( [3] ), la promozione tra i
cittadini europei di commercio e consumi equi e solidali e il trasferimento di conoscenze tecniche nord-sud nel quadro di programmi
di volontariato aziendali sono tutti esempi di una cooperazione fruttuosa in questo campo.

La comunicazione sulla società civile nelle relazioni esterne dell'UE ( [4] ), pubblicata a settembre 2012, mette l'accento sulla necessità di
estendere il dialogo politico al settore privato, alla società civile e a altri attori e di rafforzare i partenariati multilaterali.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Il programma tematico non-state actors and local authorities fornisce sostegno nello specifico a attori non statali e autorità locali

http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/finance/dci/non_state_actors_en.htm

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/international/promoting-neighbourhood/mediterranean/index_en.htm: esempi di attività che promuovono l'imprenditoria

femminile vengono condivisi a livello euromediterraneo nel quadro del processo di cooperazione industriale che la Commissione coordina con i paesi del nord Africa
e del Medio oriente dal 1995.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/social_business/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/promoting-entrepreneurship/social-economy/

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/IT/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52012DC0492&rid=1

( **|**

( **|**

( **|**

⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 49

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003322/14**

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

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Women entrepreneurs in Africa

An article was published recently about a fashion label launched by a consortium of Senegalese women, in partnership with several
Italian NGOs and other institutions.

The project obviously touches on some important issues, such as female entrepreneurship, employment, the development of
countries in the southern hemisphere, and historical and anthropological heritage.

In the next few days, this new business will also be taking part in a national exhibition focusing on responsible consumption.

Can the Commission provide information on any similar projects — based on positive collaboration among institutions, not-forprofit organisations and consortia in the southern hemisphere — in Europe?

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

_(21 May 2014)_

The Agenda for Change highlights the role of local private sector for inclusive and sustainable growth, in recognition that having a
decent job is the best way out of poverty. Women entrepreneurship is a good example of it.

The Commission supports the development of local enterprises in developing countries, with a special focus on vulnerable
population, such as women. Women are under-represented in business community, often as a result of regulatory frameworks
undermining opportunities to start a business and access finance and other services.

In partner countries, women entrepreneurship is addressed through a variety of development cooperation instruments ( [1] ). The EU
supports the strengthening of organisations such as producer associations, cooperatives and other member-owned self-help
organisations. The Commission works with a wide range of partners to increase women economic opportunities by supporting them
in starting, formalizing and expanding their enterprises. ( [2] )

In Europe, examples of positive cooperation in this field include the strengthening of corporate social responsibility, the
development of social entrepreneurship ( [3] ), the promotion of ethical consumerism and fair trade among European citizens or the
North-South transfer of technical knowledge through corporate volunteer programmes.

The communication on Civil Society in external relations issued in September 2012 ( [4] ) highlights the need to involve the private
sector alongside civil society and other actors in policy dialogue and to strengthen multi-stakeholder partnerships.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) A specific Non State Actors and Local Authorities thematic programme is devoted to the support of NSAs and Local Authorities.

http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/finance/dci/non_state_actors_en.htm

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/international/promoting-neighbourhood/mediterranean/index_en.htm Example of experience in promoting women

entrepreneurs is shared at the Euro-Mediterranean level as part of the industrial cooperation process that the Commission has coordinated with countries in North
Africa and the Middle East since 1995.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/social_business/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/promoting-entrepreneurship/social-economy/.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0492:FIN:EN:PDF

( **|**

( **|**

( **|**

⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

C 341 / 50 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003323/14**

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

_(20 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Manichini diversamente abili: un'opportunità per il confronto

Una recente campagna di sensibilizzazione, promossa da un'associazione svizzera, ha portato all'attenzione dell'opinione pubblica il
tema della diversabilità declinandolo in maniera nuova, creativa e anticonformista.

In sostanza, sono stati realizzati diversi manichini riproducenti le fattezze di alcune persone diversamente abili — che si son prestate
come modelli — e, successivamente, sono stati esposti nelle vetrine di negozi di abbigliamento soppiantando i tradizionali manichini
«normodotati».

Particolarmente interessante è stato rilevare il modo in cui i passanti reagivano alla vista dei nuovi manichini in vetrina, abbigliati di
tutto punto.

Ora, alla luce di quanto sopra, si chiedono alla Commissione informazioni in merito a iniziative di sensibilizzazione, riguardanti la
diversabilità, dal tono «provocatorio» e miranti al superamento di una visione assistenzialista della stessa, condotte negli Stati
membri.

**Risposta di Johannes Hahn a nome della Commissione**

_(13 maggio 2014)_

La sensibilizzazione è uno strumento essenziale della strategia dell'UE in materia di disabilità ( [1] ), che contribuisce a realizzare gli
obiettivi specifici nelle diverse aree tematiche. La Commissione promuove la diversità e la non discriminazione anche sostenendo le
campagne di sensibilizzazione delle ONG, a livello europeo e nazionale.

Nel 2012 la Commissione ha lanciato la campagna pubblicitaria «La discriminazione è illegale. Combattila» ( [2] ) al fine di sensibilizzare
il pubblico a tutte le cause di discriminazione, tra cui la disabilità, e migliorare la comprensione della legislazione dell'UE in materia di
parità. I poster della campagna in tutte le lingue dell'UE sono disponibili sul sito EU Bookshop ( [3] ).

Per sensibilizzare il pubblico alla disabilità la Commissione pubblica inoltre inviti annuali a presentare proposte ( [4] ) volte a sostenere
le autorità nazionali nella lotta alla discriminazione e nella promozione della parità.

Il Forum europeo sulla disabilità, che riceve finanziamenti dell'UE nell'ambito del programma PROGRESS ( [5] ), potrebbe fornire
maggiori informazioni sulle campagne di sensibilizzazione alla disabilità organizzate a livello nazionale dalle organizzazioni
nazionali aderenti. Anche gli organismi nazionali per la parità ( [6] ) potrebbero fornire ulteriori informazioni sui rispettivi paesi.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/disabilities/disability-strategy/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/awareness/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://bookshop.europa.eu/it/vorresti-poter-nascondere-un-tuo-handicap-per-fare-carriera--pbDS3212124/?CatalogCategoryID=cWuep2Ixvv8AAAEuyyUD0Ufc
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/files/call_2013_prog_ag_ad_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=89&newsId=1093
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) http://www.equineteurope.org/-Member-organisations

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 51

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003323/14**

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

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Mannequins with physical disabilities: an opportunity to confront diversity

A recent awareness campaign launched by a Swiss association drew public attention to the issue of physical disability by confronting
it in an innovative, creative and nonconformist way.

Several mannequins were made, representing people with varying physical disabilities — who acted as models — and were then
displayed in the windows of clothes shops instead of conventional ‘able-bodied’ mannequins.

The way in which passers-by reacted to the sight of the new, fully-clothed mannequins in shop windows was especially interesting.

In the light of this, can the Commission provide information on any disability awareness campaigns being conducted in the Member
States that take a provocative stance and aim to overturn the ‘welfarist’ view of disability?

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

_(13 May 2014)_

Awareness-raising is an essential tool of the EU Disability Strategy ( [1] ) to support specific objectives in its different thematic areas. The
Commission also promotes diversity and non-discrimination through awareness-raising campaigns at EU and national level by
supporting the work of NGOs.

In 2012, the Commission launched an advertising campaign ‘Discrimination is illegal, fight it’ ( [2] ) with the aim to raise awareness on
all grounds of discrimination, including disability, and to increase the understanding of EU equality legislation. The posters produced
in all EU languages are available at the EU Bookshop ( [3] ).

Raising awareness on disability is also addressed in the annual calls for proposals ( [4] ) aiming at supporting national authorities in their
fight against discrimination and the promotion of equality.

The European Disability Forum, which receives EU funding under the Progress programme ( [5] ), could provide you with more
information regarding disability awareness campaigns organised at national level by its national member organisations. National
equality bodies ( [6] ) may also have additional information on their country.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/disabilities/disability-strategy/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/awareness/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/wish-you-could-hide-your-disability-to-get-a-promotion--pbDS3212124/?CatalogCategoryID=cWuep2Ixvv8AAAEuyyUD0Ufc
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/files/call_2013_prog_ag_ad_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=89&newsId=1093
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) http://www.equineteurope.org/-Member-organisations

C 341 / 52 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003324/14**

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

_(20 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Programmi per fondi diretti, città di San Marco in Lamis

Gli enti territoriali, quali Comuni e Province, sono tra i primi possibili beneficiari dei fondi diretti programmati ed erogati da parte
delle direzioni generali della Commissione europea. Tra i fondi disponibili ci sono, ad esempio, il programma Cultura, il programma
per la cittadinanza «Europa per i cittadini», quello per l'ambiente «Life +», quello per gestire i flussi migratori «Solidarietà e gestione dei
flussi migratori», quello dedicato alle risorse umane «Investire nelle persone» e altri ancora.

In merito a questo e ad altri programmi disponibili, può la Commissione far sapere:

1. Ci sono programmi per i quali la città di San Marco in Lamis ha fatto richiesta?

2. In caso affermativo, quali sono i progetti che hanno avuto accesso a fondi europei e con quali risultati i suddetti programmi
sono stati portati a termine?

**Risposta di Andris Piebalgs a nome della Commissione**

_(2 maggio 2014)_

La Commissione non può, per rispondere a un'interrogazione scritta e fornire all'onorevole parlamentare le informazioni richieste,
effettuare ricerche lunghe e costose. Le informazioni relative a determinati beneficiari dei finanziamenti del bilancio UE versati dalla
Commissione direttamente dal 2007 sono disponibili sul sito web della Commissione creato per il Sistema di trasparenza
finanziaria ( [1] ), che permette all'utente di effettuare una ricerca nella base di dati in base a diversi criteri.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/budget/fts/index_en.htm

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 53

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003324/14**

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

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Programmes providing direct funds, town of San Marco in Lamis

Local bodies such as municipal and provincial authorities are among the first potential beneficiaries of direct funds programmed and
granted by the European Commission’s general directorates. Funds are available under, for example, the Culture Programme, the
‘Europe for Citizens’ citizenship programme, the ‘LIFE+’ environment programme, the ‘Solidarity and the Management of Migration
Flows’ programme to manage migration flows, the ‘Investing in People’ human resources programme, and various others.

With regard to this and to other programmes under which funds are available, can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. Has the town of San Marco in Lamis applied for funds under any of these programmes?

2. If so, which projects have been given access to European funds and what end results have these programmes achieved?

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

_(2 May 2014)_

The Commission cannot undertake, for the purposes of answering a written question, the lengthy and costly research that would be
required to provide the Honourable Member with the information requested. Information on identified beneficiaries of funding from
the EU budget paid by the Commission directly from 2007 onwards is available at the Commission’s website established for the
Financial Transparency System (FTS) ( [1] ), which enables the user to perform searches in the database on the basis of several criteria.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/budget/fts/index_en.htm

C 341 / 54 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003325/14**

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

_(20 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Sistema di hub climatici per la raccolta e l'analisi di dati sul settore agricolo

Negli Stati uniti è stata annunciata la creazione di sette «hub climatici», vale a dire centri regionali per aiutare gli agricoltori ad adattare
le proprie coltivazioni al cambiamento climatico. Lo scopo di questi hub è essenzialmente quello di prevenire alcuni degli effetti del
cambiamento climatico sul settore agricolo, soprattutto dal punto di vista economico: essi raccoglieranno e condivideranno
informazioni scientifiche da diffondere tra agricoltori e allevatori per aiutare le comunità rurali a rispondere efficacemente alle
trasformazioni climatiche. Inoltre, in alcune regioni sorgeranno dei «sub-hub» dedicati a categorie specifiche di agricoltori, come ad
esempio i viticoltori californiani.

I problemi principali che gli hub dovranno fronteggiare sono il declino delle coltivazioni e della produzione di carne, il degrado del
suolo dovuto alla crescente aggressività delle precipitazioni, i cambiamenti in relazione alle stagioni di raccolta.

Un aspetto particolarmente interessante della proposta è che gli hub partiranno da dati «locali», che permetteranno di individuare
rischi specifici e soluzioni ad hoc per le singole aree, creando un forte rapporto col territorio.

In merito a quanto detto, può la Commissione chiarire se:

1. esiste un sistema di raccolta e analisi dei dati simile nell'UE;

2. ritiene che il modello sia esportabile in Europa e in altri Stati il cui settore agricolo risente particolarmente dei cambiamenti
climatici?

**Risposta di Dacian Cioloş a nome della Commissione**

_(17 giugno 2014)_

La politica agricola dell'UE sostiene un'ampia gamma di misure agroambientali per aiutare gli agricoltori ad adeguarsi ai cambiamenti
climatici e per ridurre le emissioni derivanti dalla produzione agricola. Mitigazione e adattamento ai cambiamenti climatici sono un
obiettivo trasversale per la politica di sviluppo rurale per il periodo 2014-2020. Rendere la PAC «a prova di clima» rientra nella
strategia di adattamento dell'UE e a questo fine le misure che contribuiscono ad aiutare gli agricoltori ad adattarsi ai cambiamenti
climatici, il trasferimento di conoscenze e le azioni di informazione, così come i servizi di consulenza, svolgono un ruolo di primo
piano. Attraverso l'attuazione di queste misure gli Stati membri e le regioni beneficeranno di un sostegno per realizzare corsi di
formazione, attività di dimostrazione e visite alle aziende agricole, così che gli agricoltori e altri soggetti interessati potranno
migliorare le loro conoscenze e far fronte in modo più efficace ai cambiamenti climatici.

Il servizio Copernicus per il cambiamento climatico della Commissione sta costruendo l'infrastruttura centrale per consentire
l'accesso alle informazioni per il monitoraggio e la previsione dei cambiamenti climatici. Lo sviluppo di ulteriori servizi a valle è
sostenuto ulteriormente nell'ambito del programma Orizzonte 2020. Inoltre, la Commissione ha avviato un'iniziativa di
programmazione congiunta (IPC) «Clima» per permettere a 14 paesi europei di collaborare coordinando e finanziando la ricerca.

L'Agenzia europea dell'Ambiente ospita lo «sportello unico» della Commissione per le informazioni sull'adattamento climatico ( [1] )
sostenuta dal Centro comune di ricerca ( [2] ).

Gli Stati membri impiegano le loro competenze nazionali per informare e sostenere le parti interessate del settore agricolo e per
aiutare gli agricoltori ad adeguarsi ai cambiamenti climatici.

La Commissione deve studiare il modello americano e valutarne l'utilità per l'Unione europea, in aggiunta alla gamma di misure e
iniziative già esistenti.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Il Centro comune di ricerca della Commissione offre l'accesso in tempo reale a mappe su scala europea di indicatori rilevanti per il clima (ad es. proiezioni sul clima,

inondazioni, siccità, incendi, cambiamenti dei periodi di maturazione ecc.).

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 55

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003325/14**

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

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Climate hubs for gathering and analysing data for the farming sector

It has been announced in the United States that seven ‘climate hubs’ are to be set up. These regional centres will help farmers adapt
their crops to climate change, the purpose being essentially to prevent some of the effects of climate change on the farming sector,
especially in economic terms. The hubs will collect scientific information and share it with farmers and ranchers to help rural
communities respond effectively to changing weather patterns. In some regions there will also be ‘sub-hubs’ for particular kinds of
farmers, such as Californian grape growers.

The main problems that the hubs should address are declining crop yields and meat production, soil degradation due to increasingly
heavy rainfall, and changing harvest seasons.

A particularly interesting aspect of the proposal is that the hubs will start with ‘local’ data, which will enable them to identify specific
risks and ad hoc solutions for individual areas, thereby establishing strong links with their regions.

1. Can the Commission say whether there is a similar data collection and analysis system in the EU?

2. Does the Commission believe that the model can be exported to Europe and other countries where the agricultural sector is
particularly badly affected by climate change?

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

_(17 June 2014)_

The EU agricultural policy supports a wide range of agro-environmental measures to help farmers to adapt to changing climatic
conditions and to mitigate emissions stemming from agricultural production. Climate change mitigation and adaptation is a cross
cutting objective for the rural development policy for the period 2014-2020. ‘Climate-proofing of the CAP’ is part of the EU
Adaptation Strategy. Measures that contribute to help farmers adapt to climate change, knowledge transfer and information actions
as well as advisory services play a prominent role. Through implementation of these measures, Members States and regions will
receive support to conduct trainings, demonstration activities and farm visits allowing farmers and other beneficiaries to improve
their knowledge for coping with climate change.

The Commission's Copernicus Climate Change service is constructing the core infrastructure to give access to information for
monitoring and predicting climate change. The development of additional downstream services, are further supported under
[Horizon 2020. In addition the Commission has started a Joint Programming Initiative (JPI) Climate for collaboration between 14](http://www.jpi-climate.eu/programme/membercountries)
[European countries to coordinate and fund research.](http://www.jpi-climate.eu/programme/membercountries)

The European Environment Agency hosts the Commission's ‘one-stop shop’ for Climate Adaptation information ( [1] ) supported by the
Commission's Joint Research Centre ( [2] ).

Member States use their national competences to inform and support agricultural stakeholders to help farmers adapt climate change.

The Commission needs to study the American model to assess its usefulness for the European Union, adding to the already existing
range of measures and initiatives.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) The Commission's Joint Research Centre provides real-time access to its European-scale maps of climate relevant indicators (e.g. climate projections, floods, droughts,

forest fires, changes in growing season etc.).

C 341 / 56 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003326/14**

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

_(20 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Smantellamento delle forze armate ucraine in Crimea

Alcuni siti specializzati italiani hanno annunciato questa mattina che le unità militari ucraine presenti in Crimea saranno sciolte dal
governo locale. La fonte della notizia sarebbe lo stesso «Premier» della penisola sul Mar Nero. In risposta a questa decisione il
parlamento ucraino ha autorizzato la mobilitazione di 40mila riservisti, che saranno inquadrati nelle forze armate e nella neonata
Guardia Nazionale.

Può la Commissione chiarire:

1. Se è a conoscenza della notizia e se può verificarne la veridicità?

2. Come interpreta questa scelta delle autorità locali della Crimea?

3. Se è in contatto con le autorità politiche e militari ucraine per valutare costantemente il rischio di escalation militare e cercare
di impedire lo scontro diretto tra Ucraina e Russia?

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

_(2 giugno 2014)_

Le autorità ucraine hanno deciso di ritirare le truppe dalla Crimea il 24 marzo 2014.

Le autorità de facto della Crimea non hanno alcun potere decisionale per quanto riguarda la composizione delle forze armate ucraine
e i luoghi in cui sono distaccate.

L'Alta Rappresentante prosegue le iniziative diplomatiche volte ad allentare le tensioni in Ucraina e nel territorio circostante.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 57

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003326/14**

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

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Decommissioning of Ukrainian armed forces in Crimea

Several specialist Italian sites have this morning announced that Ukrainian military units in Crimea are to be dissolved by the local
government. The source of the news is the ‘Premier’ of the Black Sea peninsula himself. In response to this decision, the Ukrainian
Parliament has authorised the mobilisation of 40 000 reservists, who will be incorporated in the armed forces and the newly formed
National Guard.

Can the Commission clarify the following:

1. Is it aware of this news and can it verify it?

2. How does it interpret this decision by the local authorities of Crimea?

3. Is it maintaining constant contact with the Ukrainian political and military authorities in order to assess the risk of a military
escalation and to try to prevent direct conflict between Ukraine and Russia?

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

_(2 June 2014)_

The Ukrainian authorities decided to evacuate their units stationed in Crimea to mainland Ukraine on 24th March 2014.

The de facto authorities of Crimea do not have decision powers over the composition and stationing places of the Armed Forces of
Ukraine.

The High Representative continues the diplomatic efforts aiming at de-escalating the situation in and around Ukraine.

C 341 / 58 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003327/14**

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

_(20 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Tensioni in vista delle elezioni in Algeria

Mentre l'Algeria si avvicina alle elezioni del prossimo 17 aprile, i primi casi di presunta violazione dei principi democratici si sono già
verificati. Un noto attivista franco-algerino, che a ottobre aveva rinunciato alla cittadinanza francese per potersi candidare alla guida
del paese nordafricano, non ha avuto modo di presentare la propria candidatura, dal momento che i documenti contenenti le 62mila
firme necessarie a sostenere la sua candidatura sono stati trafugati pochi giorni prima della data di scadenza per il deposito, per poi
essere ritrovati sparpagliati lungo le vie di una stradina secondaria della capitale Algeri.

La denuncia dello staff non ha però trovato il supporto necessario da parte delle autorità di governo, che hanno bollato il fatto come
una farsa messa in atto dal momento che l'attivista non avrebbe raggiunto il numero necessario di firme. Sono quindi montate in
maniera ancora più forte le proteste contro l'attuale presidente, accusato da alcuni oppositori di essere il mandante del furto messo in
atto per impedire all'oppositore di ostacolare la sua quarta candidatura. Le proteste hanno portato a diversi arresti, tra cui anche
quelli di alcuni giornalisti.

In vista delle prossime elezioni, ritiene la Commissione che:

1. L'Algeria rischi di ricadere in una spirale di violenza pre — o post-elettorale e che vi sia il rischio concreto di violazioni diffuse e
sistematiche dei diritti fondamentali, incluso quello alla libertà di espressione?

2. Vi sia un concreto rischio di brogli elettorali?

3. Sia opportuno organizzare, in seno ad altre organizzazioni internazionali, come ad esempio le Nazioni Unite, un team di
monitoraggio che garantisca la trasparenza delle votazioni e dello spoglio?

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

_(16 maggio 2014)_

La Commissione segue attentamente gli sviluppi della fase preparatoria delle prossime elezioni presidenziali in Algeria. In seguito
all'invito rivolto dal ministro degli Esteri algerino R. Lamamra all'Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente il 21 gennaio 2014, si è deciso
di inviare una missione di esperti elettorali (EEM). Il 31 marzo è stata inviata una missione di due esperti, il cui mandato è quello di
effettuare una valutazione tecnica del processo elettorale nonché di riferire in merito all'attuazione delle raccomandazioni formulate
dalla missione di osservazione elettorale dell'UE (EOM) durante le elezioni legislative tenutesi nel 2012.

In base alla metodologia standard l'invio di una missione di osservazione elettorale è preceduto da una missione esplorativa, che si
svolge diversi mesi prima della data delle elezioni al fine di valutare la presenza delle condizioni necessarie per rendere efficaci le
attività di osservazione. Nel contesto delle prossime elezioni presidenziali, quando ci è pervenuto l'invito il tempo a nostra
disposizione era troppo poco per poter inviare una missione di osservazione elettorale.

La EEM ha preso contatti con le autorità algerine incaricate di organizzare e sorvegliare il processo elettorale, con i candidati e gli
attori della società civile, nonché con altre équipe internazionali di osservazione inviate nel paese. Siamo al corrente del fatto che,
mentre l'Unione africana e la Lega degli Stati arabi destineranno équipe di osservatori più corpose, le Nazioni Unite e l'Istituto
nazionale democratico degli Stati Uniti avranno soltanto gruppi di esperti sul posto.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 59

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003327/14**

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

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Tensions over elections in Algeria

As Algeria approaches elections on 17 April, the first alleged violations of democratic principles have been reported. A well-known
Franco-Algerian activist, who gave up his French citizenship last October so that he could stand for leadership of the North African
country, has been unable to file his candidacy because the documents containing the 62 000 signatures required to support his
candidacy were stolen a few days before the final date for submission. They were later found scattered along a small street in the
capital Algiers.

However, the complaint made by staff has not received the necessary support from the government authorities, which have branded
the incident as a farce set in play when the activist failed to get the necessary number of signatures. Protests have since intensified
against the current president, who is accused by some members of the opposition of arranging the theft to prevent his opponent
from hampering his chances of securing a fourth term. The protests have led to several people being arrested, including journalists.

In view of the coming elections, can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. Does it think Algeria is at risk of falling once again into a spiral of pre‐ or post-election violence, or that there is a real risk of
widespread and systematic violations of fundamental rights, including the right to freedom of expression?

2. Does it think there is a real risk of electoral fraud?

3. Does it think it would be appropriate — within other international organisations, such as the UN — to set up a monitoring
team to guarantee voting and counting transparency?

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

_(16 May 2014)_

The Commission follows closely developments in the run up to the forthcoming Presidential elections in Algeria. Following an
invitation addressed by Algerian Foreign Minister R. Lamamra to HR/VP on 21 January 2014, it was decided to send an Elections
Expert Mission (EEM). The mission of two experts was deployed on 31 March. The mandate of the mission is to carry out a technical
evaluation of the electoral process as well as to report on the implementation of the recommendations made by the EU Election
Observation Mission (EOM) during the legislative elections held in 2012.

According to standard methodology the deployment of an EOM is preceded by an Exploratory Mission, which takes place several
months before the Election Day in order to assess the presence of the necessary conditions in order to undertake effective
observation activities. In the context of the upcoming Presidential elections, the time at our disposal was too short for sending an
EOM when the invitation arrived.

The EEM has taken contacts with the Algerian authorities entrusted with the organisation and overseeing of the electoral process,
with candidates and civil society actors as well as with other international observation teams deployed in the country. We understand
that while the African Union and the League of Arab States will deploy larger observer teams, the UN and the (US) National
Democratic Institute will only have expert teams on the spot.

C 341 / 60 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003328/14**

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

_(20 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Vantaggi dell'incremento della presenza femminile nel settore agricolo

In Italia sono 227.894 le imprese agricole guidate da donne, circa un terzo del totale delle aziende agricole presenti sul territorio, e la
cifra è in progressivo aumento. L'incremento delle donne nell'agricoltura italiana ha dato un forte impulso all'innovazione e ha
ampliato le attività a essa connesse, come il settore dell'agribenessere, le fattorie didattiche, gli agriasilo, la pet-therapy, e così via. Di
conseguenza la maggiore partecipazione delle donne ha dato anche un certo contributo all'occupazione nel settore agricolo e in
quelli connessi.

Secondo l'organizzazione italiana di rappresentanza dei coltivatori diretti, la principale fonte di attrazione per le donne nel settore è
rappresentata dalla capacità di coniugare le esigenze di mercato con il rispetto dell'ambiente, il contatto con l'ambiente, il
miglioramento della qualità della vita e la promozione delle tipicità locali.

In merito a quanto detto, può la Commissione:

1. Disporre di dati in merito alla penetrazione della presenza femminile nel settore agricolo, negli altri Stati membri e a livello
europeo?

2. Chiarire quali sono i principali strumenti di inclusione e promozione della parità di genere nel settore agricolo?

**Risposta di Dacian Cioloș a nome della Commissione**

_(5 maggio 2014)_

1. La situazione delle donne nelle zone rurali è assai diseguale da uno Stato membro all’altro. Nonostante la crescita generale
dell’occupazione femminile, la partecipazione delle donne al mercato del lavoro dell’Unione europea è ancora indietro rispetto a
quella degli uomini. Nel 2010 soltanto il 64 % della popolazione femminile attiva (15‐64 anni) lavorava o cercava lavoro rispetto ad
oltre il 78 % della popolazione maschile. Più di un terzo delle donne che lavorano in agricoltura sono titolari delle aziende, mentre tra
gli uomini la percentuale è quasi doppia ( [1] ).

2. L’articolo 7 del regolamento (UE) n. 1303/2013 sulle disposizioni comuni ( [2] ) sancisce il principio della parità tra uomini e
donne e la non discriminazione per quanto riguarda i Fondi strutturali e di investimento europei: prescrive specificamente agli Stati
membri e alla Commissione di provvedere a prevenire qualsiasi discriminazione durante la preparazione e l’esecuzione dei
programmi. Nei rispettivi programmi di sviluppo rurale gli Stati membri devono dimostrare un approccio pertinente alla parità di
genere, una delle condizionalità tematiche ex ante specificate nell’allegato XI, parte II, del regolamento (UE) n. 1303/2013. Inoltre, il
regolamento (UE) n. 1305/2013 ( [3] ) prevede un’ampia gamma di misure volte a migliorare la situazione socioeconomica delle donne
nelle zone rurali, tra l’altro creando sottoprogrammi tematici mirati alle esigenze specifiche delle donne in questi settori. Misure quali
il sostegno ai giovani agricoltori, la diversificazione delle attività economiche, lo sviluppo delle microimprese, l’approccio Leader e la
formazione professionale possono aiutare le donne a rafforzare la loro partecipazione alle attività economiche nella vita rurale.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Dati più dettagliati sul numero di donne nel settore agricolo in tutta l’UE sono disponibili sul seguente sito web: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rural-area
economics/briefs/pdf/07_en.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Regolamento (UE) n. 1303/2013 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 17 dicembre 2013, recante disposizioni comuni sul Fondo europeo di sviluppo

regionale, sul Fondo sociale europeo, sul Fondo di coesione, sul Fondo europeo agricolo per lo sviluppo rurale e sul Fondo europeo per gli affari marittimi e la pesca e
disposizioni generali sul Fondo europeo di sviluppo regionale, sul Fondo sociale europeo, sul Fondo di coesione e sul Fondo europeo per gli affari marittimi e la pesca,
e che abroga il regolamento (CE) n. 1083/2006 del Consiglio (GU L 347 del 20.12.2013, pag. 320).

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Regolamento (UE) n. 1305/2013 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 17 dicembre 2013, sul sostegno allo sviluppo rurale da parte del Fondo europeo

agricolo per lo sviluppo rurale (FEASR) (GU L 347 del 20.12.2013, pag. 487).

( **|**

( **|**

⋅3∙ **|** )

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 61

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003328/14**

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

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Benefits of the growing number of women in the farming sector

There are 227 894 farming businesses managed by women in Italy, about one-third of all the farming companies in the country, and
the number is rising steadily. Having more women in Italian agriculture has given a major boost to innovation and has expanded
associated activities, such as the health farm industry, educational farms, farm-based pre-schools and pet therapy, amongst others. As
a result, the growing number of women has also to some extent improved employment prospects in the farming and associated

sectors.

According to the Italian organisation representing independent farmers, the main attraction for women in the sector is the ability to
combine the demands of the market with respect for and contact with the environment, a better quality of life and the promotion of
local specialities.

1. Does the Commission have data on the number of women in the farming sector in other Member States and in the European
Union as a whole?

2. What are the main instruments ensuring that gender equality is embraced and encouraged in the farming sector?

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

_(5 May 2014)_

1. The situation of women in rural areas is very diverse across the Member States. Despite the general growth in female
employment, the participation of women in the EU labour market still lags behind that of men. Only 64% of the female working
population (aged 15-64) was either working or looking for a job in 2010, compared to more than 78% of the male population. More
than one third of women working in agriculture are farm holders, whereas among the men this share is almost double. ( [1] )

2. Article 7 of the Common Provision Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 ( [2] ) is stating the principle of equality between man and
women and non-discrimination for the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF). It specifically requires Member States and
the Commission to ensure that any discrimination is prevented in the preparation and implementation of programmes. Member
States must demonstrate in their Rural Development Programmes a pertinent approach towards gender equality being one of the
general _ex-ante_ conditionalities as specified in part II of Annex XI of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013. Furthermore, Regulation (EU)
No 1305/2013 ( [3] ) provides for a wide range of measures enhancing the socioeconomic situation of women in rural areas, among
others by establishing thematic sub-programmes in order to focus on the specific needs of women in those areas. In addition,
measures like support to young farmers, diversification of economic activities, development of micro enterprises, the Leader
approach or vocational training can help women boost their economic participation in rural life.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) More detailed figures the number of women in the farming sector across the EU are made available on the following website: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rural
area-economics/briefs/pdf/07_en.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional

Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and
Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p.320.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural

Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p.487.

( **|**

( **|**

⋅3∙ **|** )

C 341 / 62 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej P-003331/14**

**do Komisji**
**Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD)**

_(20 marca 2014 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Rosyjskie embargo na polskie produkty mięsne

Do mojego biura zgłosili się hodowcy trzody chlewnej oraz producenci wędlin z południowej Polski. Skarżyli się na narastające
problemy z eksportem polskiego mięsa oraz przetworów mięsnych do Rosji. Strona rosyjska stara się wykorzystać fakt, że przy
granicy z Białorusią znaleziono dzika zarażonego afrykańskim pomorem świń, do tego, aby całkowicie zablokować ekspert
polskiego mięsa. Jak dotąd w Polsce zanotowano pojedyncze przypadki wystąpienia tej choroby, co więcej tylko u dzików.
Tymczasem dochodzi do prób porozumienia między producentami z Austrii, Danii, Francji i Holandii, którzy bezpośrednio
negocjują z Rosją zniesienie embarga na ich produkty. Dzieje się to mimo tego, że w wymienionych państwach stwierdzono wiele
ognisk afrykańskiego pomoru świń, a KE przyjęła na siebie rolę negocjatora w imieniu wszystkich państw unijnych.

Zauważono również pewne nasilenie rosyjskich sankcji wobec polskich producentów oraz hodowców po stanowczym potępieniu
przez Polskę działań Moskwy na Krymie.

1. Czy Komisja ma informacje o zakulisowych rozmowach przedstawicieli rządów Austrii, Danii, Francji i Holandii z Rosją,
w celu zniesienia rosyjskiego embarga na zachodnią wieprzowinę? Jak Komisja ocenia takie postępowanie?

2. Jakie działania podjęła Komisja, aby znieść rosyjskie embargo na produkty mięsne?

3. Jak Komisja ocenia sytuację w Polsce po wystąpieniu pojedynczych przypadków afrykańskiego pomoru świń? Na ile polskie
hodowle są zagrożone? Czy strona polska dopełniła wszelkich starań związanych z zapewnieniem utylizacji padłych zwierząt
i bezpieczeństwa hodowli?

4. Czy Komisja planuje objęcie polskich rolników, którzy stracili na embargu lub musieli wybić swoje stada, dodatkową pomocą
finansową?

5. Czy planowane jest wsparcie finansowe w celu odbudowy pogłowia trzody chlewnej? Jeśli tak, to z jakiego funduszu i w jakiej
wysokości?

6. Czy ze względu na nagły spadek cen trzody chlewnej w skupach rolnicy mogą liczyć na wsparcie finansowe ze strony Komisji?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Tonia Borga w imieniu Komisji**

_(14 kwietnia 2014 r.)_

Komisja dokłada wszelkich starań, aby zapewnić niezwłoczne uchylenie nieuzasadnionego embarga nałożonego przez Rosję.
Komisja zwróciła się do Rosji o ponowne otwarcie handlu z nienarażoną częścią UE poprzez zastosowanie regionalizacji zapisanej
w standardach WTO. Po miesiącach intensywnej wymiany na wszystkich szczeblach Rosja nie wykazuje chęci do współpracy.

Komisja wielokrotnie wzywała państwa członkowskie do zachowania jedności UE i powstrzymania się od działań na rzecz
przywrócenia wymiany handlowej wyłącznie na ich rachunek w drodze umów dwustronnych.

Władze polskie realizują wszystkie środki zwalczania choroby wymagane przepisami UE. Obszary poddane pewnym ograniczeniom
w Polsce w związku z podwyższonym ryzykiem zostały zmodyfikowane w dniu 27 marca 2014 r. ( [1] ).

Ceny spadły w drugiej połowie lutego i na początku marca – w okresie roku, gdy normalnie ma miejsce sezonowy wzrost.
Szczególnie mocno dało się to odczuć w regionach objętych ograniczeniami sanitarnymi w Polsce i na Litwie. W pozostałych
państwach UE ceny już jednak wzrastają w wyniku stosunkowo niewielkiej produkcji wieprzowiny i dobrze rozwiniętego wywozu
na rynki zewnętrzne inne niż Rosja.

Na wniosek Polski i po dokonaniu oceny sytuacji rynkowej, która powstała na terytoriach objętych ograniczeniami, Komisja przyjęła
na mocy rozporządzenia (UE) nr 1308/2013 ( [2] ) nadzwyczajne środki wspierania rynku, które zostaną wprowadzone, aby złagodzić
sytuację, w jakiej znaleźli się niektórzy producenci wieprzowiny.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Decyzja wykonawcza Komisji 2014/178/UE, Dz.U. L 95 z 29.3.2014, s. 47.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:347:0671:0854:PL:PDF](http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:347:0671:0854:PL:PDF)

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 63

W nowych ramach prawnych państwa członkowskie mają możliwość włączenia środków zarządzania ryzykiem do swoich
programów rozwoju obszarów wiejskich, co ma pomóc rolnikom przywrócić zdolności produkcyjne, które ucierpiały w wyniku
poważnych problemów sanitarnych.

C 341 / 64 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-003331/14**

**to the Commission**
**Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Russian embargo on Polish meat products

My office has been receiving reports from pig breeders and producers of cold meat products in the south of Poland complaining
about increasing problems with exporting Polish meat and meat products to Russia. The Russians are trying to use the fact that wild
boar infected with African swine fever have been found near the border with Belarus as a pretext for imposing a complete ban on
imports of Polish meat. So far only a number of isolated cases of the disease have been recorded in Poland, with only wild boar
affected. However, producers in Austria, Denmark, France and the Netherlands are negotiating directly with the Russians in an
attempt to have the embargo on their products lifted, in spite of the many outbreaks African swine fever which have been identified
in these countries and the fact that the Commission has assumed the role of negotiator on behalf of all the Member States.

I should also note an intensification of Russian sanctions vis-à-vis Polish producers and breeders in the wake of Poland’s strong
condemnation of Moscow’s actions in Crimea.

1. Does the Commission have any information on the behind-the-scenes talks between representatives of the Austrian, Danish,
French and Dutch governments and Russia aimed at having the Russian embargo on pork from western countries lifted? What view
does the Commission take of this?

2. What steps has the Commission taken to have the Russian embargo on meat products lifted?

3. What is the Commission’s view of the situation in Poland following the individual outbreaks of African swine fever? How many
farms in Poland are at risk? Have the Polish authorities done all they can to dispose of dead animals and ensure the safety of farms?

4. Does the Commission intend to give extra financial assistance to Polish farmers who have suffered losses because of the
embargo or had to destroy their animals?

5. Are there plans for financial support to help restore pig numbers? If so, which fund will it come from, and how much will be
made available?

6. In view of the sudden decline in the purchase price of pigs, can farmers count on financial support from the Commission?

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

_(14 April 2014)_

The Commission is doing its utmost to ensure that the unjustified ban imposed by Russia is lifted without delay. The Commission
requested Russia to reopen trade from the non-affected part of the EU by applying regionalization as enshrined in the WTO
standards. After months of intense exchanges at all levels, Russia is not being cooperative.

The Commission has repeatedly urged Member States to preserve EU unity and refrain from efforts to achieve resumption of trade
for their account only by means of bilateral arrangements.

The Polish authorities are implementing all disease control measures required by Union legislation. The areas subjected to
restrictions in Poland due to higher risk have been modified on 27/03/14 ( [1] ).

Prices declined during the second half of February and beginning of March in a period of the year when normally there is a seasonal
increase. The regions under sanitary restrictions in Poland and Lithuania are particularly affected. However in the rest of the EU,
prices are already quickly recovering in a context of relative tight pig meat production and of good development of exports to
external markets other than Russia.

The Commission, at the request of Poland, and after assessment of the market situation created in the restricted territories, has
adopted exceptional market measures under Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 ( [2] ) that will be implemented with the view to relieve the
situation of affected pig producers.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Commission Implementing Decision 2014/178/EU: OJ L95, 29.3.2014, p.47.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:347:0671:0854:EN:PDF

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 65

Under the new legal framework Member States have the possibility to include risk management measures in their rural development
programs helping farmers to restore the production capacity affected by serious sanitary problems.

C 341 / 66 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003332/14**

**a la Comisión**
**Iñaki Irazabalbeitia Fernández (Verts/ALE)**

_(20 de marzo de 2014)_

_Asunto:_ Trasplantes con órganos ilegales

Según la Organización Mundial de la Salud, un 10 % de los trasplantes de órganos realizados en el mundo proceden del comercio
ilegal. La pobreza y la miseria, como la que padecen los refugiados de la guerra en Siria, llevan a miles de personas en todo el mundo a
vender sus órganos a mafias que a su vez los venden a ciudadanos de países ricos.

¿Posee la Comisión datos sobre la incidencia del comercio ilegal de órganos en los trasplantes realizados en la Unión?

¿Qué mecanismos tiene en marcha la Unión para combatir el tráfico de órganos y los trasplantes con órganos procedentes del
comercio ilegal dentro de las fronteras de la misma?

¿Impulsa la Unión algún tipo de medidas para controlar y evitar que ciudadanos de la Unión reciban órganos trasplantados
procedentes del comercio ilegal en terceros países?

¿Qué medidas impulsa la Unión para combatir el tráfico de órganos en terceros países?

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

_(23 de mayo de 2014)_

En la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea se consagra el derecho a la integridad de la persona y se prohíbe que
el cuerpo humano o partes del mismo se conviertan en objeto de lucro (artículo 3, apartado 2, tercer guion). Las instituciones de la
UE cumplen la Carta, que a su vez es vinculante para los Estados miembros cuando estos aplican el Derecho de la Unión.

En la Directiva 2010/53/UE ( [1] ) se establece un marco para las actividades legítimas de donaciones y trasplantes en los Estados
miembros. Asimismo se establecen normas sobre la designación de las autoridades competentes, los programas de autorización de
centros de trasplante y el establecimiento de condiciones de obtención y de sistemas de trazabilidad del donante al receptor. Además,
se obliga a los Estados miembros a establecer sanciones aplicables a las infracciones de estas normas.

Por otra parte, en el Plan de acción sobre donación y trasplante de órganos ( [2] ) se hace un llamamiento a los Estados miembros para
que establezcan acuerdos a escala de la UE para supervisar el tráfico de órganos. El 25 de abril la Comisión presentó un examen
intermedio de este Plan de acción en el que se evalúa si se han puesto en marcha los citados acuerdos de supervisión y en qué
medida ( [3] ).

En la Directiva 2011/36/UE ( [4] ) se regula un aspecto específico del tráfico de órganos: se establecen normas mínimas relativas a la
definición de la trata de seres humanos, incluida la explotación para extraer órganos. En el artículo 10 de esta Directiva se prevé que
los Estados miembros establezcan su competencia judicial en lo relativo a las infracciones relacionadas con la trata de seres humanos
en determinadas condiciones, incluso en terceros países.En el marco de la Estrategia de la UE contra la Trata de Seres Humanos,
Eurostat recopila periódicamente datos relativos a las víctimas presuntas e identificadas, así como a los traficantes; quedan incluidos
aquí los casos de tráfico para extraer órganos ( [5] ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directiva 2010/53/UE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 7 de julio de 2010, DO L 207 de 6.8.2010, p. 14.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2008) 819/3, Plan de acción sobre donación y trasplante de órganos (2009-2015): cooperación reforzada entre los Estados miembros.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/blood_tissues_organs/docs/midtermreview_actionplan_organ_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Directiva 2011/36/UE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 5 de abril de 2011, DO L 101 de 15.4.2011, p. 1.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Disponible en: http://ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking/download.action?nodePath=/Publications/Trafficking+in+Human+beings+-+DGHome
Eurostat_EN.pdf&fileName=Trafficking+in+Human+beings+-+DGHome-Eurostat_EN.pdf&fileType=pdf

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 67

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003332/14**

**to the Commission**
**Iñaki Irazabalbeitia Fernández (Verts/ALE)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Illegal organ transplants

According to the World Health Organisation, 10% of the organs transplanted worldwide come from illegal trafficking. The poverty
and misery suffered by refugees such as those fleeing from the war in Syria lead thousands of people throughout the world to sell
their organs to mafias who then sell them in turn to people in rich countries.

Does the Commission have data on the incidence of illegal organ trafficking in transplants carried out within the EU?

What mechanisms does the EU have in place to combat the trade in human organs and transplant of organs from illegal trafficking
within EU borders?

Is the EU adopting any measures to control this trade and prevent any EU citizen from receiving a transplanted organ that has come
from illegal trafficking in third countries?

What measures is the EU fomenting to combat organ trafficking in third countries?

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

_(23 May 2014)_

The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights enshrines the right to the integrity of the person and the prohibition of making the human
body and its parts a source of financial gain (Article 3.2c). The EU institutions respect the Charter which binds the Member States
when they are implementing Union law.

Directive 2010/53/EU ( [1] ) establishes a framework for legitimate donations and transplantation activities within Member States. This
directive lays down rules on the establishment of competent authorities, authorisation schemes for transplantation centres, and the
establishment of conditions of procurement and systems of traceability from donor to recipient. Furthermore, it obliges Member
States to lay down penalties for infringements of such rules.

In addition, the action plan on Organ Donation and Transplantation ( [2] ) calls on Member states to establish EU-wide agreements to
monitor organ trafficking. On 25 April, the Commission presented a mid-term review of this Action Plan which assesses the extent
to which such monitoring agreements have been put in place ( [3] ).

A specific aspect of organ trafficking is regulated by Directive 2011/36/EU ( [4] ). It establishes minimum rules concerning the definition
of trafficking in human beings, including their exploitation for the purposes of organ removal. Article 10 of this directive provides
for Member States to establish their jurisdiction for trafficking in human beings offences under certain conditions, including in third
countries. Within the framework of the EU Strategy against Trafficking in Human Beings, Eurostat regularly collects data on
identified and presumed victims and on traffickers including for the purposes of organ removal ( [5] ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2010/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010, OJ L 207, 6.8.2010, p. 14.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2008) 819/3 Action Plan on Organ Donation and Transplantation (2009-2015): Strengthened Cooperation between Member States.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/blood_tissues_organs/docs/midtermreview_actionplan_organ_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011, OJ L 101, 15.4.2011, p.1.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) [Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking/download.action?nodePath=/Publications/Trafficking+in+Human+beings+-+DGHome-](http://ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking/download.action?nodePath=/Publications/Trafficking+in+Human+beings+-+DGHome-)

Eurostat_EN.pdf&fileName=Trafficking+in+Human+beings+-+DGHome-Eurostat_EN.pdf&fileType=pdf

C 341 / 68 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003333/14**

**a la Comisión**
**Iñaki Irazabalbeitia Fernández (Verts/ALE)**

_(20 de marzo de 2014)_

_Asunto:_ Comercio de órganos en Oriente Medio

Como consecuencia de la guerra de Siria, miles de personas se han refugiado en países vecinos en condiciones de vida difíciles, con
pobreza y miseria. Ello ha generado que las mafias que controlan el tráfico de órganos humanos hayan encontrado un ecosistema
adecuado para llevar al cabo ese inhumano negocio. En el Líbano y en otros países de Oriente Próximo, refugiados procedentes de
Siria venden sus órganos a mafias para poder sobrevivir.

En el contexto de los programas desarrollados para paliar las consecuencias de la guerra de Siria, ¿tiene la Unión alguno dedicado a
combatir el tráfico de órganos?

En caso de existir, ¿qué medios y objetivos tiene?

En caso de no existir, ¿considera la Comisión necesario implementar alguno?

**Respuesta de la alta representante y vicepresidenta Ashton en nombre de la Comisión**

_(23 de junio de 2014)_

La Comisión está al corriente de las informaciones de la prensa a que se hace referencia en la pregunta, pero no tiene ningún dato
comprobado al respecto. La UE sigue estando a la cabeza de la comunidad internacional en la prestación de asistencia para hacer
frente a las consecuencias de la crisis para todos los sirios necesitados, contribuyendo con un importe total de 2 800 millones EUR.
Entre estos esfuerzos, la Comisión está financiando programas destinados a apoyar el desarrollo económico, la generación de
ingresos y las oportunidades de subsistencia de los más afectados por la crisis en Siria y en los países vecinos, a fin de contribuir a
paliar las dificultades económicas de estas comunidades.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 69

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003333/14**

**to the Commission**
**Iñaki Irazabalbeitia Fernández (Verts/ALE)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Organ trafficking in the Middle East

Due to the war in Syria, thousands of refugees have crossed over into neighbouring countries and are living there in precarious
conditions of poverty and misery. This situation offers an attractive eco-system to the mafias that control the inhuman trade in
human organs. In Lebanon and other Middle Eastern countries Syrian refugees are selling their organs to these mafias in order to
survive.

In the context of its programmes developed to mitigate the effects of the war in Syria, does the EU have one designed to combat the
trade in organs?

If so, what are its goals and what resources does it have?

If not, does the Commission consider there is a need to implement such a programme?

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

_(23 June 2014)_

The Commission is aware of press reports quoted in the question, but it does not have any verified information on the subject. The
EU continues to lead the international community in providing assistance to address the consequences of the crisis for all Syrians in
need with a total contribution of EUR 2.8 billion. Among these efforts, the Commission is funding programmes aimed at supporting
economic development, income generation and livelihoods opportunity for those most affected by crisis in Syria and in he
neighbouring countries so as to help mitigate economic hardship for these communities.

C 341 / 70 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003334/14**

**a la Comisión (Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante)**

**Iñaki Irazabalbeitia Fernández (Verts/ALE)**

_(20 de marzo de 2014)_

_Asunto:_ VP/HR — Situación en Libia (1)

En respuesta a mi pregunta E-012930/2013, la Alta Representante me contestó textualmente: «La UE seguirá respaldando las
instituciones libias en su camino hacia una transición democrática y a lo largo de las distintas etapas fijadas en la hoja de ruta
constitucional libia».

Empero, la situación en Libia es un desastre y dista mucho de ser un proceso de transición democrática. El pasado día 11 de marzo, el
primer ministro Alí Zidán fue depuesto a raíz de una moción de censura y huyó del país; no se conoce el nivel de autoridad del
Gobierno en funciones; muchos miembros del Parlamento ha dejado de acudir a sus sesiones; grupos armados incontrolados se
pasean por Trípoli; amplias zonas del país escapan al control del gobierno y rebeldes controlan varios de los puertos del país y
trafican con el petróleo.

Vista la situación,

¿Qué estrategia tiene la Alta Representante para impulsar una transición democrática en Libia que traiga la paz, la democracia, la
convivencia y la prosperidad al país?

¿Considera necesario la Alta Representante modificar la hoja de ruta constitucional libia? ¿En qué sentido?

¿Considera necesario la Alta Representante estudiar el despliegue en Libia de alguna fuerza internacional de paz para intentar
restablecer la autoridad del Gobierno?

**Respuesta de la Alta Representante y Vicepresidenta Ashton en nombre de la Comisión**

_(16 de mayo de 2014)_

El objetivo de la UE en Libia es contribuir a la consecución de una nación democrática, estable y próspera. Esto implica promover
«una democracia profunda y sostenible», basada en unas instituciones fuertes, transparentes y responsables y en una sociedad civil
floreciente. En el ámbito de la seguridad, implica abordar las causas profundas del conflicto, apoyar a las instituciones de seguridad
del Estado y luchar contra el tráfico ilícito. La UE promueve también la integración de Libia en la región y en el resto del mundo. La
UE continuará buscando un acuerdo con Libia (sobre la base de los acuerdos de asociación celebrados con los países vecinos), a fin de
formalizar y normalizar las relaciones en un marco jurídico mutuamente beneficioso. Esto creará la base para incrementar el diálogo
y la cooperación en muchos ámbitos de interés común.

El plan constitucional libio ya ha sufrido varias modificaciones con el fin de reflejar los diferentes compromisos políticos alcanzados
en la actual fase de transición. La UE ha ayudado a diferentes instituciones libias, principalmente la Alta Comisión Electoral Nacional
y el Congreso Nacional General, con el objetivo de aumentar su capacidad para gestionar las arduas tareas que se les han
encomendado. La UE también ha desplegado diferentes tipos de misiones con motivo de los dos principales hitos electorales
acaecidos hasta la fecha: la elección del Congreso Nacional General, en julio de 2012, y las elecciones a la Asamblea Constituyente, el
20 de febrero de 2014.

A falta de una solicitud de las autoridades libias, la posibilidad mencionada por Su Señoría no ha lugar.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 71

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003334/14**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Iñaki Irazabalbeitia Fernández (Verts/ALE)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Situation in Libya (1)

In response to my Written Question E-012930/2013, the High Representative answered as follows: ‘The EU will continue
supporting the Libyan institutions on their way forward towards democratic transition and throughout the different stages
established in the Libyan constitutional roadmap’.

However, the situation in Libya is a disaster and is a long way from representing a process of democratic transition. On 11 March
last, the Prime Minister, Ali Zidan, was deposed following a vote of no confidence and fled the country. The degree of authority held
by the interim government is unknown; many members of parliament have given up attending parliamentary sessions; armed
groups move around Tripoli without opposition; broad swathes of the country are not controlled by the government, while rebels
have taken over several ports and are trading in the oil.

In view of this situation,

What strategy does the High Representative have in mind to foment a democratic transition in Libya and bring peace, democracy,
social harmony and prosperity to that country?

Does the High Representative consider that the Libyan constitutional roadmap should be modified in any way? If so, how?

Does the High Representative believe that consideration should be given to the deployment in Libya of an international peacekeeping
force with a view to restoring the government’s authority?

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

_(16 May 2014)_

The EU's objective in Libya is to help to achieve a democratic, stable and prosperous nation. This involves promoting ‘deep and
sustainable democracy’, based on strong, transparent and accountable institutions and a vibrant civil society. In the area of security it
involves addressing the root causes of conflict, supporting State's security institutions, while tackling illicit trafficking. The EU is also
promoting the integration of Libya within the region and the world at large. The EU will continue to seek a comprehensive
agreement with Libya (drawing on the Association Agreements concluded with neighbouring countries) in order to formalise and
normalise relations in a mutually beneficial legal framework. This will create the basis for increased dialogue and cooperation on
many areas of common interest.

The Libyan constitutional roadmap has already undergone several amendments in order to reflect different political compromises
reached throughout the ongoing transition. The EU has assisted different Libyan institutions, mainly the High National Electoral
Commission and the General National Congress, with the objective to increase their capacity to manage the very challenging tasks
they have been entrusted with. The EU has also deployed different kinds of missions to accompany the two main electoral milestones
so far: election of the General National Congress in July 2012 and the elections for the Constituent Drafting Assembly (CDA) on
20 February 2014.

In the absence of a request from the Libyan authorities the possibility mentioned by the Honourable Member of the European
Parliament is not under consideration.

C 341 / 72 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003335/14**

**a la Comisión (Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante)**

**Iñaki Irazabalbeitia Fernández (Verts/ALE)**

_(20 de marzo de 2014)_

_Asunto:_ VP/HR — Situación en Libia (2)

La situación en Libia es un desastre y dista mucho de ser un proceso de transición democrática. El pasado día 11 de marzo, el primer
ministro Alí Zidán fue depuesto a raíz de una moción de censura y huyó del país; no se conoce el nivel de autoridad del Gobierno en
funciones; muchos miembros del Parlamento ha dejado de acudir a sus sesiones; grupos armados incontrolados se pasean por
Trípoli; amplias zonas del país escapan al control del Gobierno; rebeldes controlan varios de los puertos y trafican con el petróleo, y
el país se ha convertido en el paraíso del tráfico de armas.

En vista de la situación,

¿Cómo valora la Alta Representante los resultados de la intervención militar multinacional de 2011, en la que participaron varios
Estados de la Unión?

¿Considera la Alta Representante que la intervención militar ha tenido éxito en el sentido de crear las condiciones para el
establecimiento de una Libia democrática?

¿Qué factores han influido, en opinión de la Alta Representante, para que la situación en Libia sea tan difícil y desastrosa?

¿Hubiera podido la Unión llevar a cabo alguna otra política que hubiese tenido como consecuencia una transición democrática
exitosa?

**Respuesta de la alta representante y vicepresidenta Ashton en nombre de la Comisión**

_(11 de junio de 2014)_

[La operación «Protector Unificado», la operación de la OTAN que hace cumplir las resoluciones 1970 y 1973del Consejo de](http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resoluci%C3%B3n_del_Consejo_de_Seguridad_de_las_Naciones_Unidas)
[Seguridadde las Naciones Unidas, desempeñó un papel clave en la protección de los civiles libios. La combinación de distintos](http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consejo_de_Seguridad_de_las_Naciones_Unidas)
factores, como la escasa capacidad institucional heredada del régimen anterior, la falta de una cultura del diálogo político o la
potencia militar adquirida por algunos grupos después de la revolución, tiene un impacto negativo en la estabilidad del país.

La ayuda de la UE en Libia se ha centrado en el fomento de las instituciones de gobernanza democrática, cuyas funciones se definirán
de acuerdo con la Constitución. Esto incluye el apoyo a las funciones públicas centrales, a las elecciones y la democratización, a las
capacidades de gobernanza subnacional, a los derechos humanos y al Estado de Derecho, a la justicia transicional y a la
reconciliación.

La UE ayuda también a Libia en otros ámbitos como la migración, la salud y la educación, la formación profesional y técnica, la
reforma del sector de la seguridad y el control o la destrucción de municiones. El programa total de la UE en Libia asciende
actualmente a 130 millones EUR, lo que se suma a los 80,5 millones EUR facilitados en concepto de ayuda humanitaria durante el
conflicto de 2011. Además, la UE ha puesto en marcha una misión civil sobre la gestión integrada de las fronteras en el marco de la
política común de seguridad y defensa. El objetivo estratégico de EUBAM Libia es apoyar a las autoridades libias para su capacitación
al efecto de mejorar la seguridad de las fronteras terrestres, marítimas y aéreas a corto plazo, así como para fomentar una amplia
estrategia de gestión integrada de las fronteras a largo plazo.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 73

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003335/14**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Iñaki Irazabalbeitia Fernández (Verts/ALE)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Situation in Libya (2)

The situation in Libya is a disaster and is far from representing a process of democratic transition. On 11 March last, the Prime
Minister, Ali Zidan, was deposed following a vote of no confidence and fled the country. The degree of authority held by the interim
government is unknown; many members of parliament have given up attending parliamentary sessions; armed groups move around
Tripoli without opposition; broad swathes of the country are not controlled by the government, while rebels have taken over several
ports and are trading in the oil; and the country has turned into an arms-trafficking paradise.

In view of this situation,

What is the High Representative’s assessment of the outcome of the multinational military intervention in 2011, in which various
Member States took part?

Does the High Representative consider that the military intervention has been successful in the sense of creating the conditions for a
democratic Libya to be established?

What factors, in the High Representative’s view, have contributed to making the situation in Libya so problematic and indeed
disastrous?

Could the EU have pursued some other policy that might have brought about a successful transition to democracy?

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

_(11 June 2014)_

[Operation Unified Protector, the NATO operation enforcing UN Security Council resolutions 1970 and 1973 played a critical role in](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO)
the protection of Libyan civilians. The combination of different factors, such as the weak institutional capacity inherited from the
previous regime, the lack of a culture of political dialogue or the military strength acquired by some groups after the Revolution, has
a negative impact on the stability of the country.

EU support in Libya has focused on developing the institutions of democratic governance whose roles will be defined under the
constitution. This includes support to core government functions; elections and democratisation; capacities for sub-national
governance; human rights and rule of law; transitional justice and reconciliation.

The EU is also supporting Libya in other areas such as migration; health and education; professional and technical education; security
sector reform and arms and ammunition control/destruction. EU's total programme in Libya now stands at EUR 130 million. This is
in addition to EUR 80.5 million provided for humanitarian assistance during the conflict in 2011.

Moreover the EU has launched a civilian mission on Integrated Border Management under the Common Security and Defence Policy.
The strategic objective of EUBAM Libya is to support the Libyan authorities to develop capacity for enhancing the security of their
land, sea and air borders in the short term, and to develop a broader Integrated Border Management strategy in the long term.

C 341 / 74 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003336/14**

**a la Comisión**
**Iñaki Irazabalbeitia Fernández (Verts/ALE)**

_(20 de marzo de 2014)_

_Asunto:_ Violación de las libertades civiles en Kazajistán

Como consecuencia de la devaluación de la moneda nacional el pasado 19 de febrero, se han producido en Kazajistán varias
manifestaciones y concentraciones de protesta pacíficas que han sido reprimidas por las autoridades. Más de 40 manifestantes han
sido llevados a comisaría. Tras esas detenciones los manifestantes han sido sancionados por las autoridades judiciales con multas e
incluso uno de ellos con varios días de arresto por aplicación de la restrictiva ley kazaja.

Por otra parte, un activista que expuso su crítica al Gobierno en Facebook fue retenido por las autoridades y su ordenador confiscado.

¿Conoce la Comisión los hechos?

¿Es consciente la Comisión de la degradación del derecho de manifestación y de que la libertad de expresión en Kazajistán está
deteriorándose?

¿Cree la Comisión que Kazajistán cumple los estándares europeos en el ámbito de los derechos políticos fundamentales de la
ciudadanía, como la libertad de expresión y el derecho de manifestación?

¿Piensa la Comisión tomar alguna iniciativa para alentar a las autoridades kazajas a que garanticen a todos sus ciudadanos los
derechos fundamentales de expresión y manifestación, así como los otros derechos?

¿Considera la Comisión que esos hechos y la represión más amplia contra las libertades civiles y los derechos humanos en Kazajistán
son aceptables en el marco de las conversaciones sobre la ampliación del Acuerdo de Asociación y Cooperación y la próxima EXPO
2017?

**Respuesta de la alta representante y vicepresidenta Ashton en nombre de la Comisión**

_(21 de mayo de 2014)_

El SEAE está muy atento a la situación de Kazajistán por lo que se refiere al respeto de los derechos humanos y las libertades
fundamentales, incluidas la libertad de expresión y la libertad de reunión, y mantiene estrechos contactos con las organizaciones de la
sociedad civil del país.

La UE fomenta activamente los derechos humanos mediante varios proyectos financiados al amparo del programa del Instrumento
Europeo para la Democracia y los Derechos Humanos. Estos proyectos abordan una amplia gama de temas, tales como el acceso a la
información pública, la capacidad de la sociedad civil para defender los derechos humanos, la promoción de la educación en materia
de derechos humanos, la asistencia a las víctimas de la trata de seres humanos, la eliminación de la violencia contra los menores en
las instituciones en régimen cerrado, el acceso a la justicia de los grupos vulnerables y la abolición de la pena de muerte.

A través del diálogo sobre derechos humanos entre la Unión Europea y Kazajistán, la UE ha alentado a Kazajistán a respetar sus
compromisos internacionales en materia de derechos humanos y a revisar los proyectos de legislación para garantizar su
conformidad con las normas internacionales sobre la protección de los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales, incluidas
las libertades de expresión, de reunión y de asociación. La UE también ha animado a Kazajistán a aplicar todas las recomendaciones
del Examen Periódico Universal en el seno del Consejo de Derechos Humanos de las Naciones Unidas, incluidas las relativas a la
libertad de reunión pacífica.

El SEAE sigue alentando a Kazajistán a cumplir todos sus compromisos internacionales. El respeto de los derechos humanos es uno
de los principios fundamentales de la UE, lo que se reflejará en el nuevo Acuerdo de colaboración y cooperación reforzada.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 75

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003336/14**

**to the Commission**
**Iñaki Irazabalbeitia Fernández (Verts/ALE)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Violation of civil liberties in Kazakhstan

Following devaluation of the national currency on 19 February this year, there have been several peaceful demonstrations and
protests in Kazakhstan, which have been repressed by the authorities. More than 40 demonstrators have been arrested by the police
and fined by the courts. One of them was subjected to several days’ detention under the repressive laws of that country. Another
activist who criticised the government on Facebook was held by the authorities and had his computer confiscated.

Is the Commission aware of these events?

Is the Commission aware of the degradation of the right to demonstrate and freedom of speech in Kazakhstan?

In the Commission’s opinion, does Kazakhstan meet European standards as regards the fundamental political rights of its citizens,
such as freedom of expression and the right to demonstrate?

Does the Commission intend to take any steps to encourage the Kazakh authorities to guarantee the fundamental rights of
expression and demonstration, as well as other rights, for all its citizens?

Does the Commission consider that these incidents, along with the broader repression of civil liberties and human rights in
Kazakhstan, are acceptable in the context of the discussions on the extension of the partnership and cooperation agreement and the
upcoming EXPO 2017?

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

_(21 May 2014)_

The EEAS is closely following developments in Kazakhstan with regard to respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms,
including freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, and maintains close contacts with the civil society organisations in the
country.

The EU is actively involved in promoting human rights through a number of projects funded under the European Instrument for
Democracy and Human Rights programme. These projects address a broad range of issues, such as access to public information, the
capacity of civil society to advocate for human rights, the promotion of human rights education, assistance to victims of human
trafficking, the elimination of violence against children in closed institutions, access to justice for vulnerable groups and the abolition
of the death penalty.

Through the EU-Kazakhstan Human Rights Dialogue, the EU has encouraged Kazakhstan to respect its international commitments
in the field of human rights, and to review draft legislation as to ensure its compliance with international standards for the protection
of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedoms of speech, assembly and association. The EU has also
encouraged Kazakhstan to implement all outstanding recommendations made during the Universal Periodic Review at the UN
Human Rights Council, including those relating to the freedom of peaceful assembly.

The EEAS continues to encourage Kazakhstan to adhere to all its international commitments. Respect for human rights is a core
principle for the EU, which will be reflected in the new Enhanced Partnership and Cooperation agreement.

C 341 / 76 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003337/14**

**a la Comisión**
**Iñaki Irazabalbeitia Fernández (Verts/ALE)**

_(20 de marzo de 2014)_

_Asunto:_ Tráfico de armas en Libia

Recientemente, la organización de Naciones Unidas publicó un informe sobre el embargo de armas decretado en Libia. Dicho
embargo es más bien teórico, vista la realidad de la situación. En dicho informe se señala que existe un tráfico continuo de armas
hacia y desde Libia y que se ha convertido en una de las principales fuentes de armas ilícitas. Señala el informe textualmente: «La
mayoría de las armas sigue estando bajo el control de agentes no estatales».

¿Piensa la Comisión dar algún paso efectivo para intentar acabar o limitar el comercio ilegal de armas en Libia?

**Respuesta de la alta representante/vicepresidenta Ashton en nombre de la Comisión**

_(16 de mayo de 2014)_

La UE considera sumamente preocupante la ingente acumulación de armas en Libia, armas que, con frecuencia, acaban en algún país
vecino, o incluso más allá. Resulta muy complicado hacer frente a esta situación, pues en muchos casos esas armas escapan al control
de las autoridades libias. Dentro de los esfuerzos realizados a escala internacional para poner freno a la proliferación de armas, la UE,
en colaboración con Alemania, aporta 6,6 millones EUR a un programa relativo a la seguridad física y la gestión de arsenales (PSSM,
por sus siglas en inglés), que coadyuvará en:

—
el desarrollo de una estrategia nacional y de procedimientos operativos normalizados para la seguridad física y la gestión de
arsenales;

—
el establecimiento de un marco de formación sobre temas relacionados con la seguridad física y la gestión de arsenales;

—
la rehabilitación y gestión de la seguridad de las instalaciones de almacenamiento de municiones;

—
la provisión de unidades de almacenamiento temporal para arsenales de armas y municiones convencionales;

—
la reubicación de instalaciones de almacenamiento de municiones que se encuentren en zonas pobladas;

—
el fomento de la cooperación regional sobre cuestiones relacionados con la seguridad física y la gestión de arsenales.

Las Naciones Unidas, el Reino Unido, Francia y Alemania se cuentan entre los otros importantes agentes internacionales que
proporcionan ayuda en este ámbito.

Asimismo, la UE ha comprometido 2,4 millones EUR con cargo al Instrumento de Estabilidad, con vistas a reforzar la capacidad de
respuesta de las autoridades libias frente a la crisis. Puesto en práctica por el «Small Arms Survey», con base en Ginebra, el proyecto
tiene por objeto contribuir a desarrollar la capacidad de las autoridades libias para garantizar la seguridad interna y la protección de la
población. Los objetivos específicos consisten en: a) reforzar la capacidad interna de delimitación, evaluación y análisis de las
intervenciones de las autoridades públicas en el sector de la seguridad, y b) respaldar el desarrollo de estrategias y planes operativos
destinados a atender a la protección de la comunidad, concretamente en lo que respecta al problema de las armas ligeras y de
pequeño calibre. La ejecución ha comenzado en marzo de 2014 y se centrará en dos ámbitos experimentales, que se determinarán en
concertación con las autoridades libias.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 77

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003337/14**

**to the Commission**
**Iñaki Irazabalbeitia Fernández (Verts/ALE)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Arms trafficking in Libya

The United Nations has recently published a report on the arms embargo decreed in Libya, which, given the reality of the situation
there, is rather more theoretical than practical. The report says that there is non-stop trafficking of arms to and from Libya and that
the country has become one of the main sources of illegal weaponry. It also says that most of the weapons are still under the control
of non-state actors.

Does the Commission intend to take any effective steps to try to put an end to or limit the trade in illegal arms in Libya?

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

_(16 May 2014)_

The EU is most worried about the enormous weapon stockpiles in Libya which often find their way to neigboring countries and
beyond. Dealing with this situation is complex as indeed the Libyan authorities are often not in control of these weapons. As part of
an international effort to stem the weapon proliferation, the EU in cooperation with Germany is providing EUR 6.6 million to a
Physical Stockpile Security Management (PSSM) programme which will support in:

—
developing a national strategy and standard operating procedures for PSSM;

—
the establishment of a training framework on PSSM issues;

—
the rehabilitation and security management of ammunition storage areas;

—
providing temporary storage units for conventional weapons and ammunition stockpiles;

—
the relocation of ammunition storage areas that are based in populated areas;

—
fostering regional cooperation on PSSM issues.

The UN, the United Kingdom, Fance and Germany are among the other key international actors providing support in this area.

In addition, the EU has committed EUR 2.4 million under the Instrument for Stability to build the crisis response capacity of the
Libyan authorities. Implemented by the Geneva based ‘Small Arms Survey’ the project aims to contribute to developing the Libyan
authorities’ capacities to provide internal security and public safety. The specific objectives are to a) build national capacities to map,
assess and analyse interventions by government authorities in the security sector, and b) to provide support to develop strategies and
operational plans to address community safety, including on the issue of Small Arms and Light Weapons. Implementation has
started in March 2014 and will focus on two pilot areas to be determined in cooperation with the Libyan authorities.

C 341 / 78 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003338/14**

**to the Commission**

**Diane Dodds (NI)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Treatment for multiple sclerosis

According to UK research findings published in _The Lancet_, statins, normally used for lowering cholesterol, may be useful in
effectively treating patients diagnosed with advanced multiple sclerosis. The study was conducted by researchers at University
College London (UCL), who found that the pills slow brain shrinkage.

In this context, can the Commission detail what steps it has taken — and will take — to combat this awful disease, including what, if
any, EU funding streams will be present in the new programming period with specific actions to focus on prevention and treatment
of multiple sclerosis?

**Answer given by Ms Geoghegan-Quinn on behalf of the Commission**

_(21 May 2014)_

Research relevant to multiple sclerosis has been supported throughout the Seventh Framework Programme for Research,
Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (FP7, 2007‐2013) ( [1] ) through 38 projects for a global budget of
EUR 91 million. Research supported in the field aimed at modelling and better understanding risk factors and processes underlying
disease, developing new diagnostics methods, delivering new, safer and more effective medicines for patients, analysing psychosocial
difficulties associated with neurological diseases and providing new tools for clinical decision-making.

Horizon 2020, the framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) ( [2] ), through its ‘Health, demographic change
and wellbeing’ societal challenge, may provide further opportunities to support research in this area. Information on current funding
opportunities can be obtained through the Research and Innovation Participant Portal ( [3] ).

EU research funding is granted on the basis of competitive calls for proposals, following an independent peer-review evaluation.

A recent public health project co-financed from the EU Health Programme (2008-2013) is the project ‘European Register for
Multiple Sclerosis’ (EUReMS, 2011-2014). In addition, the European Multiple Sclerosis Platform received between 2010 and 2012
operating grants from the Health Programme.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/health/home_en.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 808 final, COM(2011) 811 final.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/index.html

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 79

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003340/14**

**to the Commission**

**Diane Dodds (NI)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Corruption in sport

World football has once again been dragged through the mud by allegations of corruption and possible bribery within the world’s
governing body, with press claims that there is evidence that a Qatari former Vice-President of FIFA made significant payments to
Jack Warner, who at the time was a fellow board member. Qatar, of course, is due to host the FIFA World Cup in 2020.

Football is enjoyed by a huge number of fans across the globe, bringing many their happiest memories, and, despite intense rivalries,
it has been used as a tool to encourage respect and good relations between nations and communities. Sport is something that inspires
many of our children and is where they look to find heroes and role models to whom they can aspire. It is important, therefore, in
many respects that FIFA and its associated bodies do all they can to end the odour of corruption that has unfortunately been present
at times within the increasingly business-led and money-driven world of football.

What is the Commission doing at European level to put pressure on FIFA and other relevant bodies to genuinely combat corruption
in the sport, whether on the field or in the corridors of power?

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

_(30 May 2014)_

The Commission is aware of the developments mentioned in the question raised by the Honourable Member by way of reports and
articles that have appeared in the media.

The Commission respects the autonomy of sport's governing bodies. The Commission takes note of the changes in FIFA's internal
governance that were made at the FIFA Congress in May 2013. These resulted in enhanced measures and structures, notably in
relation to ethics and integrity, as well as on compliance and control. Such changes included the opportunity for the FIFA Congress
to have the final vote to decide on the host country of FIFA's World Cup and to have the power to elect the members of the FIFA
Ethics Committee.

The Commission will continue to raise the issues of good governance, the fight against corruption, and the promotion of fairness and
openness in sporting competitions in its bilateral meetings with FIFA and in its structured dialogue with other sports stakeholders.

The Commission recalls that work on good-governance principles in sport has been undertaken by the Expert Group ‘Good
Governance’ which was established under the EU Work Plan for Sport, adopted by the Council in May 2011. This work will continue
under the second EU Work Plan for Sport.

C 341 / 80 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003343/14**

**to the Commission**

**Diane Dodds (NI)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Unregulated gold mining in northern Nigeria

Unregulated gold mining in northern Nigeria is causing blindness, brain damage and paralysis among children, as well as making
adults infertile and even causing death through what Human Rights Watch has called the worst incident of lead poisoning in modern
history. In Bagega and the rest of the Zamfara countryside, at least 460 children died and nearly 2 000 were poisoned as families tried
to exploit the area’s natural resources to stave off poverty.

How can the Commission help Nigerian and other international agencies to try to prevent and/or deter unregulated, dangerous
mining in northern Nigeria and other similar areas, while working to ensure that there are other options available for the povertystricken local families who currently feel that they have few options but to mine?

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

_(22 May 2014)_

The Commission is aware of the issues surrounding unregulated gold mining in northern Nigeria and is very concerned by the health
problems that have been registered due to lead poisoning, particularly among children.

The EU's development cooperation with Nigeria has a special focus on social development nationwide and particularly in the North,
with ongoing programmes focusing on health and sanitation, notably for women and children and the primary healthcare system.

These activities, amongst others, have a long-term focus on expanding social equity, access to basic services and creating jobs, serving
to offer other options to the most vulnerable populations.

Our international partners are providing more immediate responses to the situation in Zamfara, most notably Médecins sans
Frontières, which has treated 4500 children in their mobile clinics since 2010 and helped put in place preventative measures. EU
Member State Denmark also published a handbook jointly with the government of Nigeria to help improve the performance of
artisanal and small scale mining operators.

Finally, the Commission recently presented a draft Regulation setting up a Union system for supply chain due diligence selfcertification of responsible importers of certain minerals, including gold, originating in conflict or high-risk areas ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Proposal for a regulation of the EP and of the Council setting up a Union system for supply chain due diligence self-certification of responsible importers of tin,
tantalum and tungsten, their ores, and gold originating in conflict affected and high-risk areas (COM(2014) 111 final).

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 81

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003344/14**

**to the Commission**

**Diane Dodds (NI)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Reform of agricultural sector in Africa

The New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, launched by the G8 in 2012, is an initiative aimed at transforming the way in
which agriculture and food production are carried out in Africa, attempting to use reforms to boost the agri-food sector on the
continent and in doing so to relieve poverty in some of the poorest corners of Africa. As part of the initiative, African governments
have said that they will make their countries more attractive to private investors.

What contribution can Europe make to the cultivation and reform of the agricultural sector in Africa to make it more efficient and
effective as a means to alleviate poverty?

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

_(14 May 2014)_

The Commission believes that investment in agriculture plays an important role in reforming the agricultural sector in Africa. Since
farming largely is a private sector activity, this private sector, in particular small-scale farmers as economic actors, have a major role
to play.

The EU supports smallholders according to their specific situation: i) strengthen competitiveness of commercially oriented
smallholders; ii) move smallholders from subsistence to commercial orientation and integration into value chains; iii) create off-farm
employment by diversification of the rural economy in cases where agricultural production is not sustainable in the long-term; iv)
strengthen resilience of the most vulnerable rural households.

As follow-up from the ‘Agenda for Change’ ( [1] ) smallholder family farmers will be major beneficiaries in the new programming
period.

Secure access to land is key prerequisite for investment. The EU therefore supports the implementation of the ‘Voluntary Guidelines
on the responsible governance of tenure of land, fisheries and forests in the context of national food security’, and promotes the
development of principles for responsible agricultural investment in the context of the Committee on Food Security (CFS).

With regard to the G8 New Alliance for Food and Nutrition Security, the EU is the lead donor for the Country Cooperation
Frameworks in Malawi and Ivory Coast. The EU is also supporting the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program
(CAADP) process and following closely the activities led by the African Union to commemorate its Year of Agriculture and Food
Security.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 637 final.

C 341 / 82 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003345/14**

**to the Commission**

**Diane Dodds (NI)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Counterfeiting of euro coins

The UK Government has announced that a new one pound coin will be introduced in 2017. The Royal Mint, which believes 3% of
existing one pound coins are fake, said the move would increase ‘public confidence’ in the UK’s currency and reduce costs for banks
and other businesses.

What assessment has the Commission made of the scale of counterfeit of euro coins and what steps are being taken to tackle fake
coins and notes across the EU?

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

_(20 May 2014)_

The Commission would invite the Honourable Member to consult OLAF ( [1] )’s annual report on ‘The protection of euro coins in
2012 ( [2] )’. A new report on the protection of euro coins in 2013 will be published on OLAF’s website. With respect to coins, national
authorities in all Euro area countries withdrew a total of 175 900 counterfeit euro coins in 2013 ( [3] ).

The European Parliament adopted a first reading agreement on 16 April 2014 on a directive of the European Parliament and the
Council on the protection of the euro and other currencies against counterfeiting by criminal law ( [4] ). _Inter alia_, the directive will
introduce efficient investigative tools and improve prevention by allowing the analysis of counterfeits by the competent authorities
even whilst they are held as evidence in proceedings by judicial authorities.

The Commission would furthermore like to refer the Honourable Member to its replies to the parliamentary questions E-11900/13
and E-813/14.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) European Anti-Fraud Office.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/documents/reports-euro_cf/2012_annual_report_euro_coins_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) EC press release of 30th January 2014.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the euro and other currencies against counterfeiting by criminal law, and

replacing Council Framework Decision 2000/383/JHA COM(2013) 42 final.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2013-0441+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 83

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003346/14**

**to the Commission**

**Diane Dodds (NI)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Transparency in combating illegal fuel trade

In Northern Ireland, 467 fuel filling stations have been found to be selling illegal fuel by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC).
However, HMRC has so far refused to name those responsible for perpetrating this illegal trade.

Can the Commission state whether it believes there can be any valid reason for such information being withheld from consumers
and whether it believes the refusal to make such information public is a contravention of the EU’s commitment to transparency,
quality and safety for consumers?

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

_(24 June 2014)_

The collection and dissemination of information about a specific group of persons according to specific criteria is considered as
blacklisting, which generally implies prejudicial effects for the individuals concerned ( [1] ). It may constitute a processing of personal
data subject to data protection law. This would be the case if the publication of the details on specific filling stations involved in the
illegal trade of fuel would allow the identification of a natural person such as the owner or tenant ( [2] ).

When personal data of natural persons are being processed, Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of personal data ( [3] ) is the main
instrument at EU level which sets out the rights of individuals. All Member states have transposed this directive into national law.
National authorities, in particular data protection supervisory authorities and courts (Article 28 of Directive 95/46/EC), are
competent to supervise and monitor data protection legislation and its application at the national level without prejudice to the
powers of the Commission as Guardian of the Treaties.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) See Working Document on Blacklists, WP 65 of 3.10.2002 of Art. 29 Data Protection Working Party.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Joined Cases C-92/09 and C-93/09, Volker und Markus Schecke GbR and Hartmut Eifert, Judgment of the Court of Justice of 9.11.2010, point 52: ‘it must be

considered that the right to respect for private life with regard to the processing of personal data, recognised by Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, concerns any
information relating to an identified or identifiable individual’.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24.10.1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and

on the free movement of such data, OJ L 281 of 23.11.1995, p. 31.

( **|**

⋅3∙ **|** )

C 341 / 84 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003347/14**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Diane Dodds (NI)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Employment of religious minorities in Pakistan

In May 2009, the Federal Government of Pakistan passed a law requiring 5% of jobs to be allocated to religious minorities.

The University of Sargodha has hired hundreds of employees since this legislation was implemented in Punjab in 2010, but
continues to use bureaucratic tactics to avoid hiring non‐Muslims. It is believed that this is just one example showing that the law
requiring 5% of jobs to be allocated to minorities is being flouted.

Will the Vice-President/High Representative detail her assessment of the employment of minorities in Pakistan and take action to
raise this issue with the Pakistan authorities as a matter of urgency?

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

_(13 May 2014)_

Discrimination against religious minorities represents a widespread and substantial problem in Pakistan at all levels. As such, it is
closely monitored by the EU Delegation in Islamabad and is one of the issues addressed by the Human Rights Strategy for Pakistan.
Indeed, the EU has repeatedly brought to the attention of the Pakistani authorities the need to protect the interests and the lives of all
Pakistani citizens, Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Such need is certain to feature ever more prominently in the strengthened
dialogue resulting of Pakistan being granted access to GSP+ benefits.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 85

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003348/14**

**to the Commission**

**Diane Dodds (NI)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Protecting the sovereignty of Crimea

What is the Commission doing to ensure that Europe does not stand idly by as the Russian Federation violates the sovereignty of
another state by not only staging an unlawful invasion but annexing that state in a land grab? Will the Commission reiterate its
absolute condemnation of Russia’s actions and, in doing so, assure us that Russia will face serious consequences if it continues to
show utter contempt for international law and borders?

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

_(17 June 2014)_

The European Council and the Foreign Affairs Council have repeatedly condemned the illegal annexation of Crimea, and made it very
clear that the European Union will not recognise it. Moreover, an increasing number of persons and entities responsible for or
associated with the annexation and the violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity have been subjected to visa bans
and asset freezes. Moreover, the relevant Council conclusions have made it very clear that further restrictive measures including in
economic areas are to be prepared in case of further escalation.

The Commission is implementing these decisions. The legal consequences of our non-recognition policy are being determined.

C 341 / 86 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003349/14**

**to the Commission**

**Diane Dodds (NI)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Fuel self-sufficiency in Crimea

In light of the recent crisis in the Crimea region of Ukraine, along with a number of previous instances involving Russia using its gas
supply to intimidate and bully neighbouring countries who dared to show dissent to Moscow, what steps are being taken at
European level to open new fuel sources so that Member States will be less dependent on Gazprom?

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

_(20 May 2014)_

In addition to on-going efforts to reduce energy dependency, following the conclusions of the 20-21 March European Council, the
European Commission was asked to conduct an in-depth study of EU energy security and present by June 2014 a comprehensive
plan for the reduction of EU energy dependence. This work is currently on-going.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 87

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003350/14**

**to the Commission**

**Diane Dodds (NI)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Promoting disability sport

The Winter Paralympic Games have just finished in Sochi and we have witnessed a great showcase and celebration of Paralympic
sport — a fantastic source of inspiration for all those with disabilities, and indeed for all of us, providing role models who have had
similar experiences in overcoming obstacles and demonstrating the great heights of excellence that can be achieved. I was especially
proud to watch Kelly Gallagher from Bangor, in my constituency, take Team Great Britain and Northern Ireland’s first ever Winter
Paralympics gold.

What is being done at a European level by the Commission to support and encourage disability sport within the Member States?

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

_(15 May 2014)_

The European Disability Strategy 2010-2020 ( [1] ), in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to which
the EU is a party, looks at sport as an important vehicle for the participation and inclusion in society of persons with disabilities.

In the context of this Strategy, the Commission develops and disseminates accessibility standards for sport, leisure and recreational
organisations, activities, events and venues; and promotes the participation of people with disabilities in European sport events as
well as the organisation of disability-specific events.

The Commission supported the EURO Special Olympic Summer Games in Poland in 2010, the World Special Olympic Games in
Greece in 2011 and the Youth Paralympic Games in the Czech Republic in 2012. Erasmus+ Sport 2014-2020 supports sport for
people with disabilities through incentive measures in the field of dual careers for athletes and social inclusion in and through sport.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0636:FIN:EN:PDF

C 341 / 88 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003351/14**

**to the Commission**

**Diane Dodds (NI)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Support for efforts to locate missing airliner

In light of the recent events in south-east Asia involving missing airliner MH370, is anything being done at a European level to ensure
that aircraft can be adequately tracked within European airspace?

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

_(2 May 2014)_

The European airspace is well covered by both civilian and military Air Traffic Control surveillance systems. These two systems rely
on redundant primary surveillance radars (PSR) and secondary surveillance radars (SSR).

PSR information enables the detection of non-cooperative aircraft for safety and security reasons. In other words, primary
surveillance radars can track aircraft having a technical malfunction/power loss or other onboard problem that prevents it from
transmitting its position. Therefore, aircraft can be adequately tracked within the European airspace.

For the near future, the SESAR (Single European Sky ATM Research) programme will give Europe a high-performance Air Traffic
Management infrastructure which will enable to further develop air transport in a safe and environmentally friendly manner.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 89

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003352/14**

**to the Commission**

**Diane Dodds (NI)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Regulation of payday lending firms

Having become very much aware of the problems debt can cause in society and in individual and family lives if people don’t have the
right guidance, and having put together a booklet myself to give such advice to those struggling, I am glad to see that the payday
lending industry, which has sprung up particularly strongly during the recent economic downturn, with extortionate and dangerous
levels of interest and often preying on those most financially vulnerable members of society, will face an inquiry by new City of
London regulators, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). This will focus upon how that sector deals with debt collection and those
who are struggling to repay.

What more is being and can be done by the Commission on a European level to regulate payday lending firms and protect those who
have fallen into trouble with debt?

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

_(19 May 2014)_

The Commission pays close attention to the issue of payday loans and its particular risks for consumers which have indeed risen
during the recent economic developments.

Directive 2008/48/EC on Consumer Credit ( [1] ) contains provisions to ensure the necessary protection of consumers. It obliges
creditors to provide to borrowers all necessary information before taking the credit, in particular the Annual Percentage Rate of
charge which gives a real figure of the total cost of the credit. Thus the consumer can take an informed decision whether to enter or
not in the credit contract.

Some Member States have adopted additional measures to tackle the problem of payday loans by capping the Annual Percentage
Rate of charge. As all charges and fees are included in it, this limits boosting any credit costs by creditors and protect consumers, in
particular vulnerable ones.

The Commission follows the implementation and enforcement of the directive and facilitates the exchange of best practices between
the national authorities responsible for the area of consumer credit.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L133 of 22.5.2008.

C 341 / 90 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003353/14**

**to the Commission**

**Diane Dodds (NI)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Competition in general insurance add-on market

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in the UK has proposed a shake-up of the GBP 1 billion general insurance ‘add-on’ market,
which it says ‘treats consumers as pound signs’ and is poor value for money. Proposals to address the issue include banning preticked boxes to ensure consumers actively choose to buy add-ons and forcing firms to publish claims ratios to highlight which
products are low value.

What is being done at European level to improve the way in which competition operates in the insurance add-on market and to
pressure providers to deliver better value to their customers?

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

_(3 June 2014)_

EU legislation ensures that insurance distribution practices are fair and transparent, for example by requiring insurance agents and
brokers to know their products and only sell products that meet the needs of the customer ( [1] ). There is no specific legislation to
regulate insurance add-ons.

However, general EU legislation which protects consumers from unfair treatment ( [2] ) applies to the insurance market, like to all other
markets. This legislation requires traders to operate in accordance with professional diligence and to provide in a clear, intelligible
and timely manner material information that consumers need in order to take an informed purchase decision, such as the main
characteristics and the price of a product. EU legislation also ensures that products meet acceptable standards ( [3] ) and enables redress
in case of problems ( [4] ).

A new Consumer Rights Directive ( [5] ) which enters into force on 13 June 2014 will strengthen consumer rights, whether purchasing
online or offline. The new Directive requires enhanced price transparency, bans on pre-ticked boxes on the Internet, introduces
better refund rights, and bans online traps, amongst others. Consequently, consumers in the EU will no longer be trapped into — for
example — buying unwanted insurance products when purchasing products or services online.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2002/92/EC (Insurance Mediation Directive).
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directive 2005/29/EC (Unfair Commercial Practices Directive).
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Directive 2001/95/EC (The General Product Safety Directive).
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Directive 2013/11/EU (Directive on consumer ADR).
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Directive 2011/83/EU (Consumer Rights Directive).

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 91

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003355/14**

**to the Commission**

**Diane Dodds (NI)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ International Women's Day

We recently marked International Women’s Day, which provided a good opportunity to reflect on the fact that equality for women is
not only an issue of justice and fair treatment, but also something that brings with it benefits for all, economic progress and a more
attractive, welcoming modern society for everyone. It is also an opportunity to consider the plight of girls and women less fortunate
than ourselves.

Can the Commission detail what action it is taking to facilitate women’s access to education and the labour market?

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

_(2 June 2014)_

Promoting the employment of women is an integral part of the EU's strategy for economic growth (Europe 2020). In 2013, thirteen
Member States received country-specific recommendations on gender equality, the bulk of recommendations being on childcare
facilities, which is a key determinant of female employment. To support Member States, significant funding is offered. Over the past
7 years, an estimated EUR 3.2 billion from the Structural Funds was allocated to invest in childcare facilities and promote gender
equality, having a significant leverage effect. Since 2007, the proportion of young children cared for in formal childcare facilities
increased: from 26% in 2007 to 30% in 2011 for children under the age of three, and from 81% to 86% for children between three
and compulsory school age.

The performance and participation of women in education shows significant positive trends: girls drop out of school less often than
boys (10% versus 14% on average in the EU) ( [1] ), and their rate of tertiary education attainment is considerably higher than it is
amongst men (41% versus 33%). However, other trends show less encouraging results: men outnumber women in STEM fields and
in senior posts at all levels of education, boys outnumber girls in VET and, in some cases, Roma children — especially girls —
experience difficulties in accessing compulsory-level education.

The 2011 Council Recommendation on combating early school leaving highlighted the importance of prevention policies to tackle
gender-specific issues, and the Commission Communication ‘Rethinking Education’ of 2012 advocated greater efforts to prioritise
STEM related skills, to make this field more attractive to women and to better understand the career pathways followed by STEM
graduates.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Education and Training Monitor 2013 (http://ec.europa.eu/education/tools/et-monitor_en.htm) and Eurostat data released on 11.4.2014 (the 2013 data update from
the EU Labour Force Survey).

C 341 / 92 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003356/14**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Diane Dodds (NI)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Supporting aid efforts in South Sudan

On 23 February 2014, Oxfam withdrew four aid workers who had been trapped in Malakal since fighting began between opposition
and South Sudanese government forces on the morning of Tuesday 18 February 2014.

Oxfam has been working on long-term development and emergency relief in the region covered by South Sudan since 1986. In
response to the conflict, Oxfam has been providing food, water, sanitation and hygiene to around 120 000 displaced people in three
locations across the country: Juba, Mingkaman and Malakal.

Will the High Representative detail what role the EU is playing in supporting aid efforts in this region and bringing an end to this
continued conflict?

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

_(4 June 2014)_

The EU is deeply concerned about the continued violence in South Sudan and is alarmed by the current humanitarian situation and
reports of human rights violations against civilians.

The EU has had a continuous presence on the ground since the conflict broke out. It allocated in early 2014 EUR 50 million to
respond to most urgent needs, such as protection of civilians, malnutrition or vaccination campaigns to avoid epidemics. This
humanitarian support will be increased by an additional EUR 45 million from the European Development Fund. To link more
strongly humanitarian and development action, the Commission is re-programming and adjusting its development portfolio
(totalling EUR 285 million in health, education, food security and governance since 2011 to date) to focus on support to direct needs
of the population in education, health, food security and justice.

The protection of the South Sudanese people is at the heart of the EU's efforts in the country. To this effect, the EU is active in trying
to prevent the crisis descending into an ethnic-based civil war and to avoid further instability in the region. The EU Special
Representative for the Horn of Africa, Alex Rondos, is involved in the peace talks in Addis Ababa, facilitated by the African Union
(AU) and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD). The EU is also providing support to IGAD for the negotiation
process and has offered support to the ceasefire monitoring mechanism. The EU also supports the revision of the mandate of the
United Nation's Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS), as well as the work of the AU Commission of Enquiry into the violations and
abuses of human rights committed by the two parties to the conflict.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 93

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003357/14**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Diane Dodds (NI)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Terrorism in Nigeria

More than 150 people were killed between 14 March and 17 March 2014 in central and northern Nigeria in separate attacks on
villages populated by a concentration of Christians.

Can the Vice-President/High Representative detail what correspondence she has had with the Nigerian Government on the continued
terrorist activity in Nigeria, and what action she will take in response to this latest bloodshed on the streets in Nigeria?

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

_(16 May 2014)_

The continued violence in several parts of Nigeria is of great concern.

The terrorist attacks target both Christians and Muslims. They are perpetrated by an amalgam of variously motivated terrorist groups
seeking to destabilise the State of Nigeria by all means, especially by seeking to widen all differences, including religious (which in
recent years have not been a problem in Nigeria).

The HR/VP has issued several statements on the continuing violence in Nigeria, the latest on 15 April following the attacks on a bus
park in the Nyanya suburb of Abuja.

The EU is working with the government and people of Nigeria to help bring an end to the cycle of violence. It does so through
dialogue and targeted aid interventions focusing on the underlying root causes of violence.

The 10th European Development Fund is supporting a broad range of actions in the field of democratisation, rule of law, water,
sanitation and maternal health. The Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace is supporting several peace and mediation
programmes in the Niger Delta and the Middle Belt and projects to reform the criminal justice system and to strengthen the Office of
the National Security Advisor. The European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights funds several actions to protect human
rights, particularly with NGOs.

C 341 / 94 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-003358/14**

**an die Kommission**
**Martin Kastler (PPE)**

_(20. März 2014)_

_Betrifft:_ Verhandlungsdetails zum TTIP-Abkommen

Die Verhandlungen zum EU-USA-Handelsabkommen TTIP laufen vorrangig geheim. Das ist ein demokratischer Missstand, der die
Gerüchteküche brodeln lässt und die Bürger verunsichert.

Kann die Kommission garantieren, dass das Abkommen konkret und dauerhaft

1. eine Öffnung des europäischen Binnenmarktes für sogenannte „Chlorhühner“, die in den USA nach der Schlachtung in ein
Chlorbad gelegt werden, um Keime abzutöten, ausschließt?

2. den Bereich der öffentlichen Daseinsfürsorge — vorrangig den sensiblen Sektor der Trinkwasserversorgung — vom TTIP
ausnimmt und keine neue, konkurrierende Sonderstellung erwirkt für US-Unternehmen, die in den Bereichen Energie, Transport
oder Wasserwirtschaft tätig sind?

3. den Import von US-amerikanischem Klon- und Hormonfleisch in den europäischen Binnenmarkt untersagt?

Kann die Kommission all das anhand offizieller Dokumente belegen, die Teil der Verhandlungen mit den USA sind?

**Antwort von Herrn De Gucht im Namen der Kommission**

_(20. Juni 2014)_

Die Verhandlungen über eine Transatlantische Handels- und Investitionspartnerschaft (TTIP) werden nicht geheim geführt. Die
Kommission informiert den Ausschuss für Handelspolitik (Rat) und den Ausschuss für internationalen Handel (Europäisches
Parlament) regelmäßig über den Verhandlungsfortschritt. Positionspapiere der EU können auf der Website der GD Handel öffentlich
eingesehen werden ( [1] ).

Die Kommission wird dafür sorgen, dass das Schutzniveau der EU nicht abgesenkt wird, auch nicht bei den Lebensmittelstandards.
Was die Verwendung von Chlor anbetrifft, so liefern Vorschriften der EU ( [2] ) die Rechtsgrundlage für die Genehmigung der
Verwendung anderer Stoffe als Trinkwasser bei der antimikrobiellen Behandlung zum Zwecke der Entfernung von
Oberflächenverunreinigungen von Erzeugnissen tierischen Ursprungs. Die Zulassung dieser Stoffe bedarf einer befürwortenden
Risikobewertung der Europäischen Agentur für Lebensmittelsicherheit (EFSA). Die antimikrobielle Behandlung ist kein Ersatz für die
Hygienevorschriften der EU; sie ist vielmehr als zusätzliches Mittel zur Erhöhung der Lebensmittelsicherheit anzusehen. Da keine
Stellungnahme der EFSA bezüglich der Verwendung von Chlor bei Geflügelfleisch vorliegt, ist dessen Verwendung verboten, und
zwar sowohl innerhalb der EU als auch bei importiertem Geflügelfleisch.

Keines der bilateralen Handelsabkommen der EU verpflichtet dazu, die Wasserversorgung oder andere öffentliche Dienstleistungen
wie z. B. Gesundheit, Verkehr oder Bildung zu liberalisieren oder zu privatisieren. Entsprechend steht es den Mitgliedern der WTO
nach dem multilateralen Allgemeinen Übereinkommen über den Handel mit Dienstleistungen frei, ihre öffentlichen oder privaten
Monopole beizubehalten und zu regeln. Auf dem Gebiet der öffentlichen Beschaffung lassen Verhandlungen über bilaterale
Handelsabkommen wie die TTIP die Privatisierung öffentlicher Dienstleistungen unberührt. Die Gespräche mit den USA betreffen die
Regeln (insbesondere die Regeln der Nichtdiskriminierung), denen öffentliche Stellen bei der Beschaffung von Waren und
Dienstleistungen unterliegen.

Was die dritte Teilfrage des Herrn Abgeordneten betrifft, so verweist die Kommission auf ihre Antwort auf die schriftliche
Anfrage E-3933/14.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Artikel 3 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 853/2004 (ABl. L 139 vom 30.4.2004, S. 55).

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 95

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003358/14**

**to the Commission**
**Martin Kastler (PPE)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Details of the negotiations on the TTIP agreement

The negotiations on the TTIP trade agreement between the EU and the United States are primarily held in secret. This is an abuse of
democracy that allows the rumour mill to run wild and alienates citizens.

Can the commission guarantee that the agreement concretely and permanently

1. excludes an opening-up of the European internal market to so-called ‘chlorine chickens’, which in the United States are placed
in a chlorine bath after they have been slaughtered in order to kill germs?

2. removes the area of public infrastructure — primarily the sensitive sector of drinking water supply — from TTIP and does not
obtain any new, competing special status for US companies that are active in the areas of energy, transportation or water
management?

3. forbids the import of American cloned and hormone-containing meat into the European internal market?

Can the Commission prove all of this with official documents that are part of the negotiations with the United States?

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

_(20 June 2014)_

The negotiations of a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) are not held in secret. The Commission regularly
informs the Trade Policy Committee (Council) and International Trade Committee of the European Parliament about progress. EU
position papers are publicly available on the website of DG Trade ( [1] ).

The Commission will ensure that the levels of EU protection, including for food standards, are not lowered. Regarding the use of
chlorine, EU legislation ( [2] ) provides a legal basis to approve the use of Anti Microbial Treatment substances other than potable water
to remove surface contamination from products of animal origin. The approbation of such substances is subject to a favourable
European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) risk assessment. This AMT does not replace EU hygiene requirements but must be considered
as an additional tool to increase food safety. Since no EFSA opinion is available on the use of chlorine for poultry meat, its use is
prohibited both within the EU, as well as on imported poultry meat.

None of EU's bilateral trade agreements obliges to liberalise or privatise water distribution or any other public services, such as
health, transport or education. Likewise, under the multilateral General Agreement on Trade in Services, members of the WTO are
free to keep their public or private monopolies and to regulate. As for public procurement, negotiations on bilateral trade
agreements, such as the TTIP, do not concern privatisation of public services. The scope of discussions with the US concerns the rules
(in particular non-discrimination) which public entities are subjected to when they procure goods and services.

For the third sub-question the Commission refers the Honourable Member to the reply to Written Question E-3933/14.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 OJ L139 of 30.4.2004, p. 55.

C 341 / 96 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-003359/14**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Marietta Giannakou (PPE)**

_(20 Μαρτίου 2014)_

_Θέμα:_ Μεταφορά όπλων στη Νιγηρία μέσω των Τουρκικών Αερογραμμών (Turkish Airlines)

Σύμφωνα με πρόσφατη αποκάλυψη του Γαλλικού Πρακτορείου Ειδήσεων, οι Τουρκικές Αερογραμμές (Turkish Airlines) φέρεται ότι
μετέφεραν όπλα σε άγνωστες ένοπλες ομάδες στη Νιγηρία.

Όπως προκύπτει από πρόσφατα δημοσιοποιηθέν ηχητικό ντοκουμέντο, ο Μεχμέτ Καρατάς, υψηλόβαθμο στέλεχος των Τουρκικών
Αερογραμμών, εμφανίζεται να λέει στον Μουσταφά Βαράνκ, σύμβουλο του Ταγίπ Ερντογάν, ότι νιώθει ενοχές για τη μεταφορά όπλων από
την εταιρεία στη Νιγηρία.

Σημειώνεται ότι οι Τουρκικές Αερογραμμές ανήκουν κατά 49% στου τουρκικό κράτος, ενώ η φερόμενη μεταφορά όπλων είχε ως αποδέκτη
άγνωστες ένοπλες μονάδες στη Νιγηρία, μία χώρα που μαστίζεται από τις αιματηρές συγκρούσεις ανάμεσα στο στρατό και τους αντάρτες της
οργάνωσης Μπόκο Χαράμ.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

1. Είναι εν γνώσει του συγκεκριμένου περιστατικού και σκοπεύει να ζητήσει περαιτέρω πληροφορίες από τις τουρκικές αρχές;

2. Στην περίπτωση που επιβεβαιωθούν οι κατηγορίες, προτίθεται να επιβάλει κυρώσεις, μεταξύ άλλων, και στις Τουρκικές Αερογραμμές
για παράνομη εξαγωγή όπλων σε τρίτη χώρα και μάλιστα σε εμπόλεμη κατάσταση;

**Απάντηση της Ύπατης Εκπροσώπου/Αντιπροέδρου Ashton εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(16 Μαΐου 2014)_

Η Επιτροπή/ΕΥΕΔ δεν σχολιάζει ισχυρισμούς στον τύπο (οι οποίοι διαψεύσθηκαν, στη συνέχεια, από τις τουρκικές αεροπορικές γραμμές).

Η ΕΕ διατηρεί στενή επαφή με την Τουρκία για θέματα κοινού ενδιαφέροντος όσον αφορά την εξωτερική πολιτική, ιδίως στο πλαίσιο του
ενισχυμένου διαλόγου ΕΕ-Τουρκίας επί θεμάτων εξωτερικής πολιτικής.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 97

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003359/14**

**to the Commission**
**Marietta Giannakou (PPE)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Arms shipments to Nigeria by Turkish Airlines

The Agence France-Presse (AFP) has recently revealed that Turkish Airlines has allegedly carried out arms shipments to unknown
armed groups in Nigeria.

A recently published audio document records Mehmet Karatas, a senior Turkish Airlines executive, apparently telling Mustafa
Varank, an adviser to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, that he feels guilty about arms shipment by the airline to Nigeria.

It should be noted that Turkish Airlines is 49% owned by the Turkish state, and the alleged arms shipment was intended for
unknown armed units in Nigeria, a country plagued by bloody clashes between the army and Boko Haram rebels.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

1. Is it aware of this specific incident and does it intend to seek further information from the Turkish authorities?

2. If the accusations are confirmed, does it intend to impose penalties, including on Turkish Airlines, for the illegal exporting
arms to a third country in a state of war?

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

_(16 May 2014)_

The Commission/EEAS do not comment on allegations made on the press (which were subsequently denied by Turkish airlines).

The EU remains in close contact with Turkey on foreign policy issues of common interest in particular in the framework of the
enhanced EU-Turkey foreign policy dialogue.

C 341 / 98 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003360/14**

**to the Commission**
**Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Commission's commitment to cutting regulation

In view of the Commission’s commitment to cutting regulation:

1. based on the Commission’s own impact assessments across Europe, what is the estimated total cost for each DG of new
legislation proposed over the life of the current Commission?

2. what savings have been made by each DG as a result of legislation being annulled or changed during the same period?

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

_(13 May 2014)_

As indicated in the 2012 Communication on EU Regulatory Fitness, the Commission is committed to meeting EU policy goals in a
cost-effective way, avoiding all unnecessary regulatory burdens.

Under its administrative burden reduction programme of 2007-2012, actions to reduce so-called ‘red tape’ in 13 priority areas
amounting to potential savings of EUR 30.8 billion were launched. The Commission is now examining if those savings were realised
in practice.

The Commission does not make quantitative estimates of the total cost, or indeed benefits, of every new proposed legislation.
Impacts are assessed quantitatively only if this is possible, given data availability, and proportionate in view of their expected size and
their relevance for decision making. Moreover, simply adding up the cost and benefit figures in each impact assessment would not
give a full or accurate picture. Often the Commission's proposal is changed during the legislative procedure, following which
Member States make implementation choices. Therefore the costs and benefits of the final legislation can differ from the estimates in
the Commission's impact assessments.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 99

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-003361/14**

**à la Commission**
**Sandrine Bélier (Verts/ALE)**

_(20 mars 2014)_

_Objet:_ Bien-être animal et delphinariums

La question du bien-être animal se trouve au cœur des traités européens, qui, à l'instar de l'article 13 du traité sur le fonctionnement
de l'Union européenne, garantissent sa prise en compte dans certaines politiques de l'Union. D'autres législations recouvrent cette
thématique sans la relier aux traités, et l'étendent aux animaux sauvages, comme la directive 1999/22/CE du 29 mars 1999 relative à
la détention d'animaux sauvages dans un environnement zoologique et le règlement (CE) n° 338/97 relatif à la protection des espèces
de faune et de flore sauvages par le contrôle de leur commerce.

La Commission a prévu, dans le cadre de la mise en œuvre de sa stratégie 2012-2015 sur le bien-être animal, de proposer une
nouvelle directive sur le sujet. Le Commissaire Tonio Borg l'a lui-même rappelé à maintes reprises lors de son allocution devant
l'Intergroupe pour le bien-être animal au Parlement européen, ainsi qu'à l'occasion de la conférence de presse du 18 décembre 2013.

Par ailleurs, une étude rédigée en 2011 par l'organisation «Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society» atteste que de nombreux
manquements à la directive 1999/22/CE ont été constatés auprès de delphinariums européens. Cette situation, si elle s'avérait exacte,
contreviendrait à la Convention internationale sur le commerce des espèces sauvages (CITES) et à la législation européenne
applicable.

Face à ces constats, je formule les questions suivantes:

1. Comment la Commission compte-t-elle agir pour favoriser l'adhésion de l'Union européenne à la CITES d'ici à 2015, année
des 40 ans de l'entrée en vigueur de ce texte au niveau international?

2. La Commission prendra-t-elle position sur le problème de l'attribution d'un statut juridique à l'animal, à l'occasion du dépôt de
sa proposition directive sur le bien-être animal en 2015?

3. La Commission compte-t-elle renforcer le contrôle et les sanctions pour les manquements des opérateurs économiques à la
directive 1999/22/CE?

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

_(19 mai 2014)_

1. L'Union européenne a eu jusqu'à ce jour un statut d'observateur à la CITES dans la mesure où le texte initial de la convention ( [1] )
prévoyait uniquement l'adhésion d'États. Toutefois, un amendement à la convention permettant l'adhésion d'organisations
d'intégration économique régionale, telles que l'Union européenne, est entré en vigueur le 29 novembre 2013 («l'amendement de
Gaborone»). L'Union européenne est donc désormais en mesure de devenir partie à la convention. Une proposition de décision du
Conseil permettant à l'UE de le faire a été adoptée par la Commission européenne en décembre 2013 et est actuellement examinée
par le Conseil et le Parlement européen.

2. La Commission tient à renvoyer à sa réponse à la question écrite E-2124/2014.

3. La Commission n'envisage pas actuellement de modifier la directive 1999/22/CE ( [2] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.cites.org/sites/default/files/fra/disc/F-Text.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) JO L 94 24, du 9.4.1999, p. 24.

C 341 / 100 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003361/14**

**to the Commission**
**Sandrine Bélier (Verts/ALE)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Animal welfare and dolphinariums

The issue of animal welfare is at the heart of the European Treaties: like Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union, they provide that it must be taken into account in a number of EU policies. Other legislation — such as Directive 1999/22/EC
of 29 March 1999 relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos and Regulation (EC) No 338 /97 on the protection of species of
wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein — covers this topic without linking it to the Treaties, and extends its scope to cover
wild animals.

As part of the implementation of its 2012-2015 Strategy on Animal Welfare, the Commission intends to propose a new directive on
the subject. Commissioner Tonio Borg himself repeatedly stressed this in his speech before the Parliament European’s Intergroup on
the Welfare and Conservation of Animals and during the press conference of 18 December 2013.

Furthermore, a study prepared in 2011 by the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society points out that many breaches of
Directive 1999/22/EC have been recorded at European dolphinariums. This situation, if it turns out to be true, would violate the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and the relevant European legislation.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

1. How does it intend to act to promote the accession of the European Union to CITES by 2015, the 40th anniversary of the entry
into force of this text internationally?

2. Will it adopt a position on the issue of granting legal status to animals when it tables its proposal for a directive on animal
welfare in 2015?

3. Does it intend to strengthen controls on and penalties for breaches of Directive 1999/22/EC by economic operators?

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

_(19 May 2014)_

1. The European Union has been to date an observer to CITES as the initial text of the Convention ( [1] ) only foresaw membership by
States. However, an amendment to the Convention allowing accession by regional economic integration organisations, such as the
European Union, entered into force on 29 November 2013 (‘the Gaborone amendment’). The European Union is therefore now able
to become a Party to CITES. A proposal for a Council Decision allowing the EU to do so was adopted by the European Commission
in December 2013 and is currently being considered by the Council and the European Parliament.

2. The Commission would like to refer to its reply to Written Question E-2124/2014.

3. The Commission currently has no plans to amend Directive 1999/22/EC ( [2] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/E-Text.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 94, 9.4.1999, p.24.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 101

_(Hrvatska verzija)_

**Pitanje za pisani odgovor E-003362/14**

**upućeno Komisiji**
**Dubravka Šuica (PPE)**

_(20. ožujka 2014.)_

_Predmet:_ Očuvanje biološke raznolikosti

Zastupnici Europskog parlamenta 11. ožujka 2014. većinom su glasova odbili prijedlog Uredbe Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća o
proizvodnji i stavljanju na raspolaganje na tržište biljnog reprodukcijskog materijala (zakon o biljnom reprodukcijskom materijalu).

Genetski resursi već su iznimno ugroženi dok na tržištu Europske unije dominira svega nekoliko kompanija, a u slučaju sjemena
povrća svega 5 kompanija kontrolira 95 % tržišta. Dodatna ograničenja ne bi jamčila sigurnost potrošačima nego bi dodatno
smanjila broj poljoprivrednika, vrtlara, malih gospodarstava, uzgajivača domaćih i tradicijskih sorti. Biološka raznolikost treba imati
prednost pred komercijalnim interesom jer isključivo industrijski standard ne smije biti prihvaćen s obzirom na to da podrazumijeva
samo tehničke i pravne definicije s kojima se biljke kao dio prirode ne mogu poistovjetiti.

S obzirom na Deklaraciju o ljudskim pravima i Međunarodni ugovor o biljnim genetskim izvorima (ITPGR-FA) može li se Komisija
izjasniti o tome koje konkretne mjere poduzima da se ljudima, bez obzira na to jesu li poljoprivrednici ili vrtlari, ne nameće obveza
kupovanja sjemena ili drugog „biljnog reproduktivnog materijala” od komercijalnih dobavljača?

**Odgovor g. Borga u ime Komisije**

_(12. svibnja 2014.)_

Prijedlogom uredbe o proizvodnji i stavljanju na raspolaganje na tržište biljnog reprodukcijskog materijala ne bi nastala nova ili
dodatna ograničenja za potrošače niti bi se smanjio broj poljoprivrednika, vrtlara ili uzgajivača tradicijskih sorti. Odredbama
prijedloga osigurao bi se velik izbor za poljoprivrednike i vrtlare te bi se podržalo očuvanje i održiva uporaba biljnih genetskih
resursa. Za više pojedinosti uvaženu se zastupnicu upućuje na odgovore na parlamentarna pitanja E-001472/2014,
E-001490/2014, E-001509/2014 i E-001695/2014.

C 341 / 102 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003362/14**

**to the Commission**
**Dubravka Šuica (PPE)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Preserving biodiversity

On 11 March 2014, a majority of MEPs voted to reject the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council
on the production and making available on the market of plant reproductive material (plant reproductive material law).

Genetic resources are already at great risk, since a handful of companies completely dominate the EU market. In the case of vegetable
seeds, five companies control 95% of the market. Further restrictions would not provide consumers with security; rather, they would
only serve to reduce the number of farmers, gardeners, small‐scale farms and growers of traditional, native varieties. Biodiversity
should have precedence over commercial interests, because a standard that is purely industrial is unacceptable, given that it implies
exclusively technical and legal definitions that seeds — as a part of nature — cannot fulfil.

With reference to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources (ITPGRFA),
can the Commission state openly what precise steps it is taking to ensure that people — be they farmers or gardeners — are not
forced to buy their seeds or other ‘plant reproductive material’ from commercial suppliers?

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

_(12 May 2014)_

The proposal for a regulation on the production and making available on the market of plant reproductive material would not have
led to new or further restrictions of consumers and not reduce the number of farmers, gardeners or growers of traditional varieties.
The provisions of the proposal would have ensured a broad choice for any farmer or gardener and would have supported the
conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources. For details, the Honourable Member is referred to the replies to
Parliamentary Questions E-001472/2014, E-001490/2014, E-001509/2014 and E-001695/2014.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 103

_(Hrvatska verzija)_

**Pitanje za pisani odgovor E-003363/14**

**upućeno Komisiji**
**Dubravka Šuica (PPE)**

_(20. ožujka 2014.)_

_Predmet:_ Slobode u državama kandidatkinjama i potencijalnim državama kandidatkinjama za članstvo u EU-u

Postoje mnogi dokumenti koji uređuju područje slobode medija, a u Povelji Europske unije o temeljnim pravima navodi se obveza da
se „poštuju sloboda i pluralizam medija”. Države kandidatkinje i potencijalne države kandidatkinje za članstvo u EU-u suočavaju se s
prijetnjom slobodi medija, a najveće su prijetnje snažan utjecaj politike, ekonomski pritisak te nasilje prema novinarima, što direktno
utječe na nepristrano izvješćivanje i protivi se demokratskim načelima Unije.

Prilikom potpisivanja Sporazuma o stabilizaciji i pridruživanju EU-u zemlje potpisnice obvezale su se na profesionalno i objektivno
izvješćivanje te pluralizam medija, no u praksi se preuzete obveze redovito krše.

Koje mjere Komisija može poduzeti i kani primijeniti u području medijskih sloboda u cilju jačanja novinarskih sloboda i pluralizma
medija u potencijalnim državama kandidatkinjama i državama kandidatkinjama za članstvo u EU-u?

**Odgovor g. Fülea u ime Komisije**

_(26. svibnja 2014.)_

Komisija u svojem Strateškom dokumentu ( [1] ) te nastavno na konferenciju Speak-up!2 koju je organizirala u lipnju 2013. stavlja
poseban naglasak na slobodu izražavanju i slobodu medija, područje u kojem države kandidatkinje za pristupanje moraju odgovoriti
na niz važnih izazova poput nasilja nad novinarima i zastrašivanja novinara te ostalih oblika nedopuštenog pritiska na medije.

Komisija se zalaže za osiguravanje daljnjeg napretka u tom području. Komisija nastavlja promicati slobodu izražavanja i slobodu
medija te naglašavati važnost tog područja za članstvo u EU-u putem redovitih političkih dijaloga s državama kandidatkinjama za
pristupanje. Također, ona osigurava da se ta pitanja dosljedno rješavaju kao prioritet u pristupnim pregovorima.

U razdoblju od 2007. do 2013. državama kandidatkinjama osigurano je više od 27 milijuna EUR pretpristupne pomoći kako bi im
se pomoglo u rješavanju izazova povezanih sa slobodom izražavanja. Komisija u okviru IPA-e ( [2] ) II razvija dugoročnu viziju
financijske pomoći EU-a namijenjene slobodi izražavanja, surađujući pritom s ključnim partnerima (npr. Vijećem Europe, OESSom ( [3] ), OECD-om ( [4] )).

Pomoć Komisije temelji se na sljedećim prioritetima:

—
stvaranju okruženja pogodnog za slobodu izražavanja putem novih zakona (npr. o javnim radijskim i televizijskim
nakladnicima, tijelima za regulaciju medija), osiguravanju neovisnosti javnih radijskih i televizijskih nakladnika te tijela za
regulaciju medija, dekriminalizaciji klevete, obuci sudaca;

—
pružanju potpore pojedinačnim medijima u poboljšavanju njihova unutarnjeg upravljanja putem etičkog kodeksa,
odgovarajućih ugovora o radu, transparentnosti financiranja i mehanizama za rješavanje pritužbi;

—
pružanju potpore novinarskim organizacijama putem izgradnje kapaciteta, promicanja solidarnosti unutar medijske zajednice
i dijaloga s vladama.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 700 završna verzija (objavljena u listopadu 2013.).
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Instrument pretpristupne pomoći.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Organizacija za europsku sigurnost i suradnju.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Organizacija za gospodarsku suradnju i razvoj.

C 341 / 104 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003363/14**

**to the Commission**
**Dubravka Šuica (PPE)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Freedoms in candidate countries and potential candidate countries for EU membership

There are many pieces of legislation governing freedom of the media, including the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which
stipulates that ‘the freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected’. Candidate countries and potential candidate countries for
EU membership face threats to the freedom of their media, with the greatest of these threats being the strong influence of politics,
economic pressure and violence against journalists. These are a direct threat to unbiased reporting and go against the EU's
democratic principles.

When signing Stabilisation and Association Agreements with the EU, signatory countries made commitments regarding professional
and objective reporting and media pluralism, but in practice these commitments are regularly violated.

What measures can the Commission adopt and implement in the area of media freedoms, with a view to strengthening journalistic
freedoms and media pluralism in candidate countries and potential candidate countries for EU membership?

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

_(26 May 2014)_

In its Strategy Paper ( [1] ) and as a follow-up to the Speak-up!2 conference hosted in June 2013, the Commission put particular
emphasis on freedom of expression and of the media, where a number of important challenges need to be addressed by the
enlargement countries, including violence and intimidation against journalists and other undue pressure on the media.

The Commission is committed to ensuring further progress is made in this area. The Commission continues to promote freedom of
expression and media and to stress its importance for EU membership through its regular political dialogues with the enlargement
countries and is ensuring these issues are consistently addressed as a priority in the accession negotiations.

In the period 2007-2013, over EUR 27 million of pre-accession assistance has been provided to help countries address the
challenges related to freedom of expression. Through IPA ( [2] ) II, the Commission is developing a long term vision of EU financial
assistance on freedom of expression, by also working together with key partners (e.g. Council of Europe, OSCE ( [3] ), OECD ( [4] )).

The Commission's assistance is based on the following priorities:

—
Creating an environment favourable to freedom of expression through new legislation (e.g. on Public Service Broadcasters —
PSBs, media regulators), ensuring the independence of PSBs and media regulators, decriminalisation of defamation, training of
judges;

—
supporting individual media outlets in improving their internal governance through codes of ethics, proper labour contracts,
transparency of finances, mechanisms to handle complaints;

—
supporting journalists' organisations through capacity building, promoting solidarity within the media community and
dialogue with governments.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 700 final (published in October 2013).
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Instrument for Pre-Accession.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 105

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003364/14**

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

_(20 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Assedio di un compound ONU in Sud Sudan

Nuovi scontri nel Sud Sudan sono scoppiati negli ultimi giorni, quando un gruppo di ribelli ha attaccato la città petrolifera di
Malakal. In particolare gli scontri si stanno concentrando intorno alla sede dell'UNMISS e dell'aeroporto della città.

Il portavoce delle forze armate sud-sudanesi sostiene che la città sia di nuovo in mano alle forze regolari, ma le strutture delle Nazioni
Unite si sono trovate sotto il fuoco incrociato delle due fazioni. Gli stessi operatori dell'ONU hanno riportato violazioni dei diritti
umani da ambo le parti, tanto che l'esercito sud-sudanese ha rinviato 20 militari per uccisione di civili.

Circa 27 000 persone hanno cercato riparo nel compound delle Nazioni unite, che per tale motivo è stato assediato dai gruppi
armati, a detta di un membro di una nota ONG che opera nel paese.

In merito a questo grave evento, può la Commissione rispondere ai seguenti quesiti:

1. è la Commissione a conoscenza del fatto?

2. può la Commissione chiarire se la situazione nella città si sia effettivamente normalizzata?

3. può far sapere se erano presenti civili o militari europei tra le vittime e i feriti dell'azione armata?

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

_(23 maggio 2014)_

L'Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente è a conoscenza della situazione a cui si riferisce l'onorevole deputato. Da dicembre, quando è
scoppiato il conflitto, l'opposizione armata, che l'ha conquistata per la prima volta alla vigilia di Natale, e le forze governative si
contendono il controllo di Malakal, che hanno saccheggiato e distrutto in gran parte. Entrambe le fazioni hanno commesso gravi
violazioni dei diritti umani. Si stima che 200 civili siano morti il 13 gennaio, quando la loro imbarcazione si è rovesciata nelle acque
del Nilo mentre cercavano di fuggire dopo la ripresa dei combattimenti. Malakal è una delle città più colpite dall'attuale conflitto.

Purtroppo, la situazione è ben lungi da un ritorno alla normalità. L'SPLA ha riconquistato Malakal per la terza volta il 19 marzo, ma
in passato si è dimostrato incapace di assicurare una difesa sostenibile e con l'avvicinarsi della stagione delle piogge si temono nuovi
attacchi. La città è tuttora praticamente deserta, in quanto la maggior parte dei civili è fuggita o si è rifugiata nel campo dell'UNMISS,
che è sovraffollato e presenta un rischio sanitario sia per gli sfollati interni che per il personale dell'ONU. Le agenzie umanitarie si
sono sforzate di fornire un minimo di assistenza alle persone bisognose. È improbabile che la situazione si normalizzi totalmente
fintanto che l'accordo di cessazione delle ostilità non sarà rispettato da entrambe le parti. L'UE sostiene l'invio, sotto l'egida dell'ONU,
di una forza incaricata di proteggere il meccanismo di monitoraggio e verifica approvato dall'IGAD. All'AR/VP non risulta la
presenza di europei tra le vittime di Malakal.

C 341 / 106 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003364/14**

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

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ United Nations compound under siege in South Sudan

Further clashes have broken out in South Sudan in recent days, after a rebel group attacked the oil town of Malakal. The clashes are
centring particularly on the area around the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) base and the town’s airport.

A spokesperson for the South Sudanese armed forces has claimed that the town is back in the hands of the regular army, but the UN
base has found itself caught in the crossfire between the two factions. The UN staff have reported human rights violations on both
sides, to the extent that the South Sudanese army has charged 20 soldiers with murdering civilians.

Some 27 000 people have sought safety in the UN compound, which as a result has been besieged by armed groups, according to a
member of a well-known non-governmental organisation that operates in the country.

In view of this serious situation, can the Commission say:

1. whether it is aware of this incident;

2. whether the situation in the town has in fact returned to normal;

3. whether any European civilians or military personnel were among the casualties of the armed attacks?

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

_(23 May 2014)_

The HR/VP is aware of the situation the Honourable Member mentions in his question. Malakal has changed hands several times
since the beginning of the conflict last December and has suffered from large-scale looting and destruction at the hands of both the
armed opposition, which took the town for the first time on Christmas Eve, and the Government forces. Grave human rights
violations have been committed by both sides. On 13 January, an estimated 200 civilians died when they tried to flee renewed
fighting in Malakal and their boat capsized on the Nile. Malakal has been one of the worst-affected towns in the ongoing conflict.

Unfortunately, the situation is far from normal. The SPLA has taken back Malakal for the third time on 19 March, but its capacity to
provide a sustainable defence has in the past proven insufficient, and renewed attacks have to be feared as the rainy season
approaches. The town remains largely deserted, the most of the civilians have fled or sought refuge at the UNMISS camp, which is
overcrowded and presents a health risk for the IDPs as well as for UN personnel. Humanitarian agencies have struggled to provide
minimum assistance to people in need. A full normalization is unlikely to occur until and unless the cessation-of-hostilities
agreement is respected by both parties. The EU supports the deployment of a force, under a UN umbrella, to protect the Monitoring
and Verification Mechanism agreed by IGAD. We are not aware of any Europeans being among the casualties in Malakal.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 107

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003365/14**

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

**Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE)**

_(20 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Attacco di Israele contro basi militari siriane

La scorsa notte l'aviazione israeliana ha colpito in serie alcune basi dell'esercito siriano, portando a segno il più vasto attacco mosso
da Tel Aviv durante la guerra contro le truppe regolari di Assad e neutralizzando diverse postazioni di artiglieria, un centro di
addestramento e il quartier generale nei pressi di Quneitra. Le forze armate israeliane affermano che si è trattato di una reazione
all'attacco a una pattuglia di confine che ha provocato il ferimento di quattro soldati israeliani e non escludono altri possibili attacchi.

Secondo alcune fonti mediatiche l'attacco contro la pattuglia è stato mosso da un gruppo jihadista, ma Tel Aviv ritiene che il governo
di Damasco abbia permesso gli attacchi al fine di aumentare la situazione di attrito al confine tra i due paesi.

In merito all'aumento della tensione tra lo stato ebraico e Damasco, può il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante chiarire cosa l'Unione
europea stia facendo al momento per placare le tensioni nella regione? Quali progressi sono stati fatti nella mediazione per la
risoluzione del conflitto civile siriano?

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

_(17 giugno 2014)_

Gli eventi descritti nell’interrogazione sottolineano quanto sia necessario che Israele e tutte le parti in causa si astengano da
intraprendere azioni che possano aggravare o estendere il conflitto in corso e rispettino la sovranità, l’indipendenza, la stabilità,
l’unità e l’integrità territoriale della Siria, di Israele e dei paesi vicini.

L’UE lavora con tutte le parti interessate, compresi tutti i paesi vicini della Siria e altri attori regionali, per giungere a una soluzione
politica del conflitto siriano. L’UE continua a sostenere le Nazioni Unite e a chiedere al regime siriano di impegnarsi senza ambiguità
al tavolo e al metodo di lavoro negoziali, trattando in particolare parallelamente le questioni connesse al terrorismo e alla transizione,
come sottolinea la relazione del rappresentante speciale congiunto Brahimi al Consiglio di sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite e
all’Assemblea generale delle Nazioni Unite del 13 e 14 marzo. L’Unione europea invita il regime siriano a rispettare tutti gli elementi
del comunicato di Ginevra, sancito dalle risoluzioni 2118 e 2139 del Consiglio di sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite.

C 341 / 108 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003365/14**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Israeli attack on Syrian military bases

Last night Israel launched a series of air strikes on Syrian army bases in Tel Aviv’s most extensive attack so far in the war against
President Assad’s regular army, knocking out a number of artillery batteries, a training facility and a headquarters near Quneitra. The
Israeli armed forces have stated that it was in retaliation for an attack on a border patrol in which four Israeli soldiers were wounded,
and they do not rule out further possible strikes.

Some media sources have claimed that the attack on the patrol was carried out by a jihadi group, but Tel Aviv believes the
government in Damascus allowed the attacks to take place in order to increase friction along the border between the two countries.

In view of the growing tension between Israel and Damascus, can the Vice-President/High Representative say what the European
Union is doing at the moment to ease tensions in the region? What progress has been made in the mediation to resolve the civil war
in Syria?

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

_(17 June 2014)_

The events described in the question underscore a need for Israel and all other actors to refrain from any actions that could aggravate
or broaden the on-going conflict that should respect the sovereignty, independence, stability, unity and territorial integrity of Syria,
Israel and neighbouring countries.

The EU has been engaged with all relevant actors, including all neighbours of Syria and other regional actors, to bring about a
political solution to the conflict in Syria. The EU continues its support to the UN and calls on the Syrian regime to show a clear
commitment to the negotiation agenda and the method of work, in particular treating in parallel the issues of terrorism and
transition, as outlined in JSR Brahimi's report to the UNSC and the UNGA on 13 and 14 March. The EU calls upon the Syrian regime
to respect all elements of the Geneva Communiqué, which was enshrined in the UNSC resolutions 2118 and 2139.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 109

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003366/14**

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

_(20 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Militare ucraino ucciso in un conflitto a fuoco

Oggi il Premier russo ha accolto l'annessione della penisola di Crimea al territorio russo, dopo la secessione avvenuta tramite
referendum popolare lo scorso 16 marzo. Il governo di Kiev non riconosce l'annessione, ed anzi oggi ha dato l'ordine alle forze
armate di difendere le proprie basi militari in Crimea, anche utilizzando la forza se necessario. Nel frattempo il conflitto militare
registra la sua prima vittima, un militare regolare ucraino ucciso in uno scontro a fuoco davanti a una base militare nella periferia di
Simferopoli. Secondo le forze di polizia locali, anche un membro delle forze di autodifesa della Crimea sarebbe rimasto ucciso.

Altre strutture militari ucraine, che non hanno accettato di ammainare la bandiera e consegnare le armi, sono state circondate dalle
forze armate russe, provocando una situazione estremamente tesa, che nel giro di poche ore potrebbe tradursi in un conflitto diretto
tra i due eserciti.

In merito a tale situazione, può la Commissione chiarire quale strategia adotterebbe in caso di conflitto armato tra l'esercito ucraino,
da un lato, e l'esercito russo e le forze di autodifesa della Crimea, dall'altro? Ritiene che le sanzioni adottate ieri dal Consiglio Affari
esteri siano sufficienti come deterrente contro un'escalation militare?

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

_(14 maggio 2014)_

L'evacuazione delle truppe dalla Crimea, decisa dalle autorità ucraine il 24 marzo, è tuttora in corso. L'UE deplora la morte di un
soldato ucraino disarmato che sarebbe stato ucciso il 6 aprile da un soldato russo non durante un combattimento, ma mentre si
preparava all'evacuazione.

L'UE segue con attenzione i preoccupanti sviluppi nell'Ucraina orientale, compreso il sequestro di edifici pubblici in diverse città
quali Kharkiv, Donetsk, Sloviansk, Kramatorsk e Horlivkaand Luhansk. L'Unione apprezza la moderazione dimostrata dalle autorità
ucraine nell'ambito delle operazioni di mantenimento dell'ordine.

Oltre a sospendere i colloqui con la Russia sulle questioni relative ai visti e sul nuovo accordo, i capi di Stato e di governo e il
Consiglio Affari esteri hanno introdotto due serie di restrizioni ai viaggi e di misure di congelamento dei beni nei confronti delle
persone responsabili di azioni che compromettono o minacciano l'integrità territoriale, la sovranità e l'indipendenza dell'Ucraina.
Come ribadito il 14 aprile dal Consiglio Affari esteri, eventuali ulteriori iniziative da parte della Federazione russa per destabilizzare la
situazione in Ucraina comporterebbero altre profonde conseguenze per le relazioni tra l'Unione europea e i suoi Stati membri, da un
lato, e la Federazione russa, dall'altro, in un ampio numero di settori economici. A questo proposito, è in corso un lavoro
preparatorio da parte della Commissione e degli Stati membri su altre eventuali misure mirate.

L'UE prosegue gli sforzi diplomatici volti ad allentare le tensioni in Ucraina. In questo contesto, il 17 aprile l'Alta Rappresentante ha
incontrato a Ginevra i ministri degli Esteri degli Stati Uniti, della Federazione russa e dell'Ucraina.

C 341 / 110 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003366/14**

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

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Ukrainian soldier killed in shooting incident

The Russian President has today welcomed the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula into Russian territory, after the secession which
took place by means of a referendum on 16 March. The Kiev government does not recognise this annexation, and has today ordered
its armed forces to defend its military bases in Crimea, by force if necessary. Meanwhile the military conflict has taken its first victim,
a regular Ukrainian soldier killed in an armed exchange in front of a military base on the outskirts of Simferopol. According to local
police, a member of the Crimean self-defence forces has also been killed.

Other Ukrainian military installations which have not agreed to lower the flag and hand over their weapons have been surrounded by
armed Russian troops, leading to an extremely tense situation, which in the space of a few hours could turn into a direct conflict
between the two armies.

In the light of this situation, can the Commission clarify what strategy it would adopt in the case of armed conflict between the
Ukrainian army, on one hand, and the Russian army and the Crimean self-defence forces on the other? Does it consider that the
sanctions put in place yesterday by the Foreign Affairs Committee are a sufficient deterrent against military escalation?

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

_(14 May 2014)_

The Ukrainian authorities decided on 24 March to evacuate their soldiers from Crimea and this process is on-going. The EU deplores
the death of an unarmed Ukrainian soldier who reportedly was shot dead in non-combat conditions by a Russian soldier on 6 April
while preparing to evacuate.

The EU is closely following the worrying developments in Eastern Ukraine, including the forcible seizure of public buildings in
several cities, such as Kharkiv, Donetsk, Sloviansk, Kramatorsk, Horlivkaand Luhansk. It commends the Ukrainian authorities for
pursuing their law and order operations in a measured manner.

In addition to suspending talks with Russia on visa matters and the New Agreement, the Heads of State and Government and Foreign
Affairs Council have introduced two waves of travel restrictions and asset freezes against persons responsible for actions which
undermine or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine. As reiterated by the Foreign Affairs Council
on 14 April, any further destabilising steps by Russia would lead to additional and far reaching consequences for relations in a broad
range of economic areas between the EU and its Member States, on the one hand, and the Russian Federation, on the other hand. In
this respect, preparatory work by the Commission and Member States is underway on possible further targeted measures.

The EU is continuing with diplomatic efforts aimed at de-escalating the situation in Ukraine. In this context, the High Representative
met the Foreign Ministers of the US, Russian Federation and Ukraine on 17 April in Geneva.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 111

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003367/14**

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

_(20 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Nuovo metodo di recupero e riciclo delle reti da pesca abbandonate

Secondo un rapporto congiunto della FAO e dell'UNEP, esistono nel mondo circa 640 mila tonnellate di reti da pesca abbandonate
dall'industria ittica sui fondali marini e oceanici, vale a dire circa un decimo dell'intera quantità di spazzatura che fluttua sulle
correnti. Questa pratica provoca danni trasversali e intrecciati tra loro, che vanno dall'impoverimento delle risorse ittiche
commestibili all'inquinamento da plastica delle acque. Recuperare e smaltire le reti abbandonate può essere un processo molto
costoso e talvolta con altre ricadute negative sull'ambiente, ad esempio legate all'incenerimento delle reti, per cui occorre trovare un
sistema che risolva il problema in maniera sostenibile per l'ambiente.

A cercare una soluzione in questo senso è il progetto « _Healthy Seas_ », inteso a riutilizzare queste reti. Il progetto è stato avviato a
Lubiana, in Slovenia da un'impresa che ha messo a punto un percorso di riciclo in cui le reti in nylon vengono sottoposte a una
decomposizione idrolitica che isola il caprolattame, ingrediente di base del nylon, che viene «ripolimeralizzato» e lavorato fino a
divenire un filamento estremamente sottile, utilizzabile per la produzione di nuovi prodotti, come tute da sci, costumi da bagno,
calze o altri indumenti sportivi.

Anche se il problema delle reti da pesca è solo un aspetto dell'inquinamento da materiali plastici delle acque (e che solo le reti a base
di nylon possono per ora subire il trattamento descritto), il progetto segna una tappa importante nella conservazione e protezione
dei fondali oceanici e la riduzione dell'inquinamento delle acque.

In merito al progetto in esame, può la Commissione chiarire se:

1. È a conoscenza del progetto in oggetto?

2. Il progetto ha ricevuto finanziamenti europei?

3. Ritiene che un sistema maggiormente cooperativo tra autorità pubbliche, impresa e operatori ittici possa rendere questo
sistema più efficiente onde contribuire alla lotta contro l'inquinamento delle acque?

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

_(26 maggio 2014)_

La Commissione è a conoscenza dell'iniziativa «Healthy Seas», si compiace della cooperazione che essa promuove tra autorità
pubbliche, imprese private e operatori del settore ittico e riconosce che per far fronte al problema dei rifiuti marini secondo un
approccio integrato è necessario incoraggiare tale cooperazione.

Il progetto «Healthy Seas» non beneficia di finanziamenti della Commissione. Tuttavia un rappresentante dell'impresa cui fa
riferimento l'onorevole parlamentare è stato invitato a illustrare tale sistema innovativo di riciclaggio degli attrezzi da pesca
abbandonati in mare in occasione della conferenza della settimana verde che si terrà quest'anno ( [1] ). Una presentazione analoga è stata
fatta in occasione della conferenza sugli oceani sani e gli ecosistemi produttivi ( [2] ) svoltasi nel marzo di quest'anno.

Diversi altri progetti finanziati nell'ambito del 7 [o] programma quadro di ricerca e sviluppo dell'UE dovrebbero contribuire a mitigare
il problema dei rifiuti (tra cui le reti da pesca) nell'ambiente marino ( [3] ).

La DG MARE sta inoltre sviluppando il progetto pilota «Guardiani del mare», che si propone di promuovere un miglior equilibrio tra
la flotta peschereccia dell'UE e le risorse disponibili preservando nel contempo i posti di lavoro nelle comunità costiere. Presso la
DG ENV è in corso il progetto pilota MARELITT, il cui obiettivo è esaminare i progetti presenti in Europa in materia di eliminazione
dei rifiuti marini e di mettere a punto una serie di strumenti basati sul web.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.greenweek2014.eu/
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/hope-conference/index.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Tra questi, Cleansea «Towards a Clean, Litter-Free European Marine Environment through Scientific Evidence, Innovative Tools and Good Governance»

http://www.cleansea-project.eu/drupal/index.php

C 341 / 112 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003367/14**

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

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ New method for recovering and recycling abandoned fishing nets

According to a joint FAO/UNEP report, there are around 640 000 tonnes of fishing nets around the world abandoned by the fishing
industry on sea and ocean beds, equivalent to around one tenth of the entire quantity of litter floating on the currents. This practice
causes widespread and interrelated damage, from the reduction of edible fish stocks to pollution of the seas by plastic. To recover and
dispose of abandoned nets can be a very costly process and may have other negative effects on the environment, such as those related
to burning the nets, and therefore a system needs to be found which solves the problem in a way which is sustainable for the
environment.

In search of a solution to this problem is the project ‘Healthy Seas’, which is aimed at reusing these nets. The project was launched in
Ljubljana, Slovenia, by a company which has developed a recycling process in which the nylon nets undergo hydrolytic
decomposition which isolates caprolactam, the basic component of nylon, which is then ‘repolymerised’ and processed until it
becomes an extremely soft yarn, which may be used in the manufacture of new products, such as ski suits, swimwear, socks or other
sportswear items.

Although the fishing net problem is only one aspect of pollution of the seas by plastic materials, (and only nylon-based nets can
currently be treated in the manner described), the project marks an important stage in the conservation and protection of the ocean
beds and the reduction of pollution of the seas.

In relation to the above project,

1. Is the Commission aware of the project in question?

2. Has the project received any European funding?

3. Does the Commission consider that a more cooperative system between public authorities, companies and fishing operators
may make this system more efficient and contribute to the fight against pollution of the seas?

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

_(26 May 2014)_

The Commission is aware of the Healthy Seas initiative, welcomes the cooperation it entails between public authorities, private
companies and fishing operators, and recognises that such cooperation is generally to be encouraged in order to address the issue of
marine litter in an integrated manner.

The Commission does not provide funding to the Healthy Seas project. However, a representative from the company referred to by
the Honourable Member has been invited to discuss the innovative approach to recycling of abandoned, lost and discarded fishing
gear at this year’s ‘Green Week’ conference. ( [1] ) A similar presentation was made at the Healthy Oceans — Productive Ecosystems
conference ( [2] ) in March of this year.

A number of projects funded under the EU 7th Framework Programme for Research and Development are also expected to
contribute to the reduction of the impacts of litter (including fishing nets) in the marine environment. ( [3] )

In addition, DG MARE is developing the pilot project ‘Guardians of the Sea’ to promote a better balance between the EU fishing fleet
and the available resources while at the same time preserving jobs in coastal communities. DG ENV is developing the pilot project
Marelitt whose objective is to survey existing marine litter removal projects in Europe and to develop a web-based toolkit.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.greenweek2014.eu/
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/hope-conference/index.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) For example, Cleansea ‘Towards a Clean, Litter-Free European Marine Environment through Scientific Evidence, Innovative Tools and Good Governance’

http://www.cleansea-project.eu/drupal/index.php

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 113

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003368/14**

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

_(20 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Nuovo sistema di trasporto passeggeri ad alta velocità presentato negli Stati Uniti

Una nota piattaforma di crowdsourcing/crowdfunding californiana ha intenzione di promuovere una nuova società la cui missione
sarà lo studio e lo sviluppo di un sistema di trasporto in grado di oltrepassare i 1200 km/h, autosufficiente da un punto di vista
energetico e in grado di resistere a eventi ambientali di ampia portata, come terremoti.

La società collaborerà con alcune università e aziende, sia per la valutazione della fattibilità generale che per aspetti specifici di natura
tecnica. Il progetto del sistema prevede che i passeggeri siano accomodati in capsule di alluminio, che verranno proiettate all'interno
di tubi di acciaio sollevati a sei metri da terra e sostenuti da piloni di cemento, raggiungendo la velocità massima di 1223 km/h.
L'energia necessaria a proiettare le capsule dovrebbe essere raccolta tramite pannelli solari installati sulla struttura per tutta la sua
lunghezza e l'accelerazione sarà gestita tramite magneti alloggiati sul fondo dei tubi in cui si muoveranno le capsule, tubi in cui la
pressione atmosferica verrà ridotta fino a ridurre di mille volte la resistenza al movimento.

In merito al progetto descritto, può la Commissione chiarire se:

1. è a conoscenza del progetto?

2. ritiene che un progetto simile possa garantire progressi in termini di riduzione dell'impatto ambientale del settore trasporti nel
lungo periodo o ritiene che gli investimenti necessari e l'impatto sull'ambiente e sulle comunità locali generato dalla
costruzione del sistema generi costi economici, ambientali e sociali insostenibili?

3. ritiene che un sistema simile possa essere in futuro anche studiato per l'Unione europea, al fine di rendere più fluida la
circolazione transfrontaliera dei cittadini europei?

**Risposta di Siim Kallas a nome della Commissione**

_(15 maggio 2014)_

La Commissione non è a conoscenza dei dettagli del progetto citato dall’onorevole deputato, sebbene idee analoghe sull'utilizzo di
tubi sottovuoto per ridurre la resistenza all’aria siano già circolate in passato. In assenza di uno studio dettagliato, la Commissione
non è in grado di esprimersi sul possibile impatto ambientale ed economico del progetto — ma va osservato che le condizioni
climatiche e la densità di popolazione in Europa sarebbero probabilmente meno indicate per lo stesso.

La Commissione si impegna fermamente per sostenere lo sviluppo di soluzioni innovative nel settore ferroviario (compresa l'alta
velocità) — come mostra la recente adozione della proposta della Commissione di istituire l'impresa comune Shift2Rail ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 922 final.

C 341 / 114 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003368/14**

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

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ New high-speed passenger transport system put forward in the United States

A well-known Californian crowdsourcing and crowdfunding platform plans to back a start-up company to research and develop a
transport system that can go faster than 1 200 km/h, is self-powered and can withstand large-scale environmental events such as
earthquakes.

The start-up will collaborate with a number of universities and businesses both to assess the overall feasibility of the project and to
address specific technical aspects of it. Passengers in the proposed system would travel in aluminium pods propelled through steel
tubes raised six metres above the ground on concrete pylons, reaching a maximum speed of 1 223 km/h. The energy needed to
propel the pods would be collected by solar panels installed along the entire length of the structure, and acceleration would be
controlled by magnets housed in the floor of the tubes in which the pods move. Atmospheric pressure in the tubes would be reduced
so as to diminish air resistance by 1 000 times.

1. Is the Commission aware of this project?

2. Does it believe that a similar project could help ensure that the transport sector reduces its environmental impact in the long
term, or does it believe that the investment needed and the impact on the environment and local communities caused by building
such a system would result in unsustainable economic, environmental and social costs?

3. Does it believe that a similar system could also be investigated by the European Union in future, with a view to facilitating the
cross-border movement of its citizens?

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

_(15 May 2014)_

The Commission is not aware of the details of the project mentioned by the Honourable Member, though similar ideas using
evacuated tubes to reduce air resistance have been circulated in the past. Without undertaking a detailed study, the Commission is
unable to comment on the likely envionmental and economic impact of the project — but it should be noted that climatic and
population density conditions in Europe would probably be less favourable to it.

The Commission is fully committed to assisting the development of innovative (including high speed) rail solutions to facilitate
European citizen's future travel — as shown by the recent adoption of the Commision's proposal to establish the ‘Shift2Rail’ Joint
Undertaking ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 922 final.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 115

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003369/14**

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

_(20 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Progetto di sviluppo di coltivazioni sotterranee

Un ambizioso progetto agricolo è stato avviato nella capitale londinese, dove circa 10mila m [2] di superficie sotterranea ricavata da
tunnel della metropolitana abbandonati sono stati convertiti in un orto sotterraneo in grado di produrre ortaggi a km zero.

Il progetto, chiamato _Growing Undergrounded_, unisce in sé due ambizioni specifiche: il recupero di zone urbane non utilizzate e la
produzione di prodotti agricoli genuini, la cui qualità è stata anche testata da uno chef di fama internazionale. Questi ortaggi
crescono a circa 30 metri sotto il livello del suolo, a una temperatura costante di circa 16 °C, tramite l'utilizzo di particolari luci al
LED a basso consumo energetico e un sistema di raccolta di acqua piovana dalla falda sottostante l'orto.

In merito a quanto esposto, la Commissione può chiarire se:

1. Era già al corrente del progetto?

2. Ritiene che questo genere di produzioni possano dare un contributo all'aumento della produzione agricola al fine di soddisfare
la crescente domanda di cibo a livello europeo?

3. Dispone di informazioni relativamente agli accertamenti della qualità di prodotti coltivati in un ambiente sotterraneo, mai a
contatto con la luce solare diretta?

**Risposta di Dacian Cioloș a nome della Commissione**

_(22 maggio 2014)_

1. La Commissione è a conoscenza di iniziative quali il progetto Growing Underground, un orto sotterraneo sperimentale
nell'ambito di un progetto più ampio sotto la Northern Line della metropolitana di Londra. L'orto consiste in letti di canapa su cui si
coltivano insalate ed erbe aromatiche con acque ricche di sostanze nutritive e luci LED.

2. Poiché attualmente gli orti sotterranei sembrano essere un fenomeno marginale, la Commissione non è in grado di valutarli da
un punto di vista quantitativo. Nel caso specifico, pur trattandosi di un'area coltivata di dimensioni significative per una zona urbana,
la superficie interessata è comunque molto piccola rispetto alla superficie agricola utilizzata (SAU) complessiva (10 000 m [2 ]

equivalgono a un ettaro; nel 2010 la SAU del Regno Unito era di 16 882 000 ettari). Il contributo di quest'orto all'aumento della
produzione agricola, preso individualmente, rimane dunque trascurabile.

3. Ciò nonostante, l'agricoltura urbana è un approccio innovativo per produrre ortaggi pregiati con catene di
approvvigionamento brevi per la vicinanza ai consumatori. Potrebbe essere un elemento interessante per lo sviluppo delle città
intelligenti. L'agricoltura urbana e periurbana è coperta dal programma quadro di ricerca, che finanzia progetti quali «Short urban
and peri‐urban supply chains (Supurbfood)» (catene di approvvigionamento brevi urbane e periurbane). Supurbfood svolge attività di
ricerca e innovazione in sette città-regione europee (Rotterdam (NL), Roma (IT), Gent (BE), Vigo (ES), Bristol (UK), Zurigo (CH) e Riga
(LV)) in collaborazione con un gruppo diversificato di PMI. Il progetto individua modalità innovative di approvvigionamento
alimentare, gestione di sostanze nutritive, acqua e rifiuti e uso multifunzionale dello spazio in contesti urbani e periurbani. Inoltre,
un'azione COST sull'agricoltura urbana in Europa mette a disposizione una piattaforma aperta per sviluppare ulteriormente questo

concetto.

C 341 / 116 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003369/14**

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

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Underground cultivation project

An ambitious agricultural project has been launched in London, where around 10 000 m [2] of underground space from abandoned
London Underground tunnels have been converted into a subterranean vegetable garden able to produce locally grown vegetables.

The project, known as _Growing Undergrounded_, has two specific aims: the recovery of unused urban areas and the production of
genuine agricultural products, the quality of which has been tested by a world-famous chef. These vegetables are grown
approximately 30 metres under ground level, at a constant temperature of around 16 °C, by means of the use of special lowconsumption LED lights and a system which collects rainwater from the water table underlying the vegetable garden.

In view of the above,

1. Was the Commission already aware of the project?

2. Does the Commission consider that production of this kind may contribute to the growth of agricultural production intended
to meet the growing demand for food at a European level?

3. Does the Commission have any information regarding the assessment of the quality of products cultivated in an underground
environment, with no contact with direct sunlight?

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

_(22 May 2014)_

1. The Commission is aware of initiatives such as the project Growing Undergrounded, which is an underground test garden as
part of the project under the Northern Line in London. The ‘garden’ consists of beds of hemp in which salads and herbs are being
grown with nutrient-rich water and low energy LED lights.

2. As subterranean vegetable gardens seem to be a marginal phenomenon at present, the Commission has no means to assess
them from a quantitative point of view. For instance, for the present case, although the garden area is quite big for agricultural
production within an urban area, the surface at stake remains very marginal if compared to the overall Utilised Agricultural Area
(UAA) (10 000 m [2] is 1 hectare, out of the 16 882 000 hectares of total UAA in UK in 2010). The individual contribution to the
growth of agricultural production remains thus, individually, extremely marginal.

3. Urban Agriculture is, however, an innovative approach to produce high value horticultural products with short supply chains
close to the consumer. It could be an interesting feature of smart city development. Urban and peri-urban farming is covered in the
research framework programme. Projects such as ‘Short urban and peri-urban supply chains (Supurbfood)’ are funded. Supurbfood
carries out research and innovation in seven European city-regions (Rotterdam (NL), Rome (IT), Ghent (BE), Vigo (ES), Bristol (UK),
Zürich (CH) and Riga (LV)) in collaboration with a diverse group of SMEs and identifies innovate modes of urban and peri-urban food
provisioning, nutrient, water and waste management, and multifunctional use of urban and peri-urban space. Furthermore a COST
action on Urban Agriculture in Europe provides an open platform to develop the concept further.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 117

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003370/14**

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

_(20 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Promozione dell'utilizzo dei sistemi di trasporto pubblico

Una nota ONG italiana ha condotto uno studio sulle abitudini degli studenti italiani nell'utilizzo dei mezzi di trasporto per recarsi a
scuola rilevando che circa un terzo dei ragazzi utilizza mezzi propri come motorini o automobili private.

Nello specifico, tra i 15 e i 16 anni l'uso di veicoli privati a motore (come conducente o come passeggero) si attesta al 30 % circa per
poi aumentare al compimento della maggiore età, tanto che a 19 anni il 40 % degli studenti usa esclusivamente un veicolo privato a
motore e a 20 la percentuale sale al 50 %. A Roma, ad esempio, il 68,9 % degli studenti adopera un mezzo privato a motore (anche se
la scuola è vicina a casa). Anche se l'86 % circa delle famiglie italiane vive a meno di un quarto d'ora a piedi dall'istituto scolastico,
almeno dieci milioni di persone preferiscono effettuare il tragitto in automobile, partecipando alla congestione del traffico e
all'aumento delle emissioni inquinanti nonché stimolando nei giovani l'abitudine allo spostamento motorizzato. Infatti, la scelta
della bicicletta o dei mezzi pubblici da parte degli studenti è generalmente meno consapevole e spesso forzata.

Dall'indagine risulta che lo scarso livello di indipendenza dei giovani dai mezzi della famiglia dà adito a una vera e propria assenza di
«cultura del mezzo pubblico», che dovrebbe invece essere incentivata tramite abbonamenti o sgravi fiscali ai fornitori di servizi.

In merito all'uso dei mezzi pubblici nell'UE si chiede alla Commissione di chiarire gli aspetti di seguito elencati.

1. Esiste un problema simile a quello descritto anche in altri Stati membri dell'Unione europea?

2. Esistono sistemi di condivisione di buone pratiche per lo sviluppo e la promozione dell'utilizzo dei sistemi di trasporto
pubblico?

**Risposta di Siim Kallas a nome della Commissione**

_(15 maggio 2014)_

1. Nell'UE non esistono dati dettagliati e comparabili sull'utilizzo dei mezzi di trasporto per recarsi a scuola.

La ripartizione tra modi di trasporto per le città dei diversi Stati membri può essere consultata attraverso la mappa della ripartizione
modale EPOMM: http://www.epomm.eu/tems/index.phtml.

Per alcune zone sono disponibili informazioni comparabili. Per esempio, si può fare riferimento al piano ciclistico regionale
dell'Andalusia ( [1] ), al piano nazionale generale della Francia per la mobilità attiva ( [2] ) e ai risultati del censimento sui modi di trasporto
e le distanze dal luogo di lavoro in Inghilterra e Galles ( [3] ).

2. L'UE sostiene il libero accesso al Servizio europeo di informazione sul trasporto locale (Sito internet ELTIS ( [4] )), che fornisce
numerose informazioni e l'accesso al know-how nel settore della mobilità urbana in Europa, compresi i trasporti pubblici.

La settimana europea della mobilità istituita dalla Commissione ( [5] ) intende sensibilizzare i cittadini in merito alla mobilità urbana
sostenibile e incoraggia ad abbandonare l'uso delle auto private nelle città a favore di mezzi di trasporto più sostenibili, aumentando
la disponibilità di alternative più ecologiche.

L'analoga campagna a livello europeo «Do the right mix» ( [6] ) promuove la multimodalità e il cambiamento dei comportamenti tutto
l'anno. Parte dell'iniziativa è attuata attraverso campagne nazionali mirate in sei Stati membri (Bulgaria, Grecia, Italia, Lettonia,
Romania e Regno Unito) caratterizzati da poca consapevolezza riguardo alle questioni di mobilità urbana, da un elevato potenziale
di miglioramento o con bassi livelli di partecipazione alla Settimana europea della mobilità. Per il pubblico italiano sono stati creati
tre videoclip che propongono metodi per ridurre le emissioni di CO 2 dei trasporti e sono stati ampiamente diffusi, ad esempio nelle
stazioni ferroviarie a livello nazionale, alle fermate del tram a Firenze e nella metropolitana di Perugia ( [7] ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/fomentoyvivienda/portal-web/web/areas/transportes/plan_bici
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/DP_-_mobilites_actives_-_05-03-14.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census-analysis/distance-travelled-to-work/index.html;

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census-analysis/method-of-travel-to-work-in-england-and-wales/art-method-of-travel-to-work.html#tab-Commutingby-all-other-modes-of-transport

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.eltis.org
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://www.mobilityweek.eu/
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) www.dotherightmix.eu
( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) https://www.facebook.com/TrovaIlGiustoMix

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

⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )
⋅7∙ **|** )

C 341 / 118 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

A livello nazionale e locale esistono numerose campagne e progetti dedicati ai giovani e agli spostamenti per recarsi a scuola ( [8] ).

( **|** ⋅8∙ **|** ) http://eduscol.education.fr/semaine-du-velo/; http://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-services/what-we-do/getting-young-people-active; http://conbicialcole.conbici.org/

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 119

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003370/14**

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

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Promotion of use of public transport

A well-known Italian NGO has carried out a study of the regular use of public transport by Italian students for their journeys to
school; this has shown that around one third of them use their own means of transport such as mopeds or private cars.

Specifically, between the ages of 15 and 16, the use of private motor vehicles (as a driver or as a passenger) is around 30% and
increases with age, such that by the age of 19, 40% of students use only a private motor vehicle, and by 20 the percentage increases
to 50%. In Rome, for example, 68.9% of students use a private motor vehicle (even where the school is near the home). Although
around 86% of Italian families live less than fifteen minutes walking distance from the school, at least ten million people prefer to
make the journey by car, contributing to traffic congestion and an increase in pollution, as well as getting young people into the
habit of driving everywhere. Indeed, the choice by young people to go by bicycle or on public transport is generally less of a
conscious decision and often forced.

The survey shows that the heavy reliance by young people on family means of transport gives rise to a genuine lack of a ‘public
transport culture’, which should instead be encouraged by means of season tickets or tax benefits for service providers.

In relation to the use of public transport in the EU, the Commission is asked to clarify the following aspects.

1. Does a problem similar to the one described also exist in other Member States of the European Union?

2. Are there any systems in place for sharing good practice in the development and promotion of the use of public transport?

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

_(15 May 2014)_

1. There is no comparable, detailed data for ‘travel to school’ throughout the EU.

The transport modal split for cities in different Member States can be consulted via the EPOMM modal split map:
http://www.epomm.eu/tems/index.phtml

Comparable information may be available for some areas. For example you may refer to Andalusia's regional cycling plan ( [1] ), to
France's national master plan for active mobility ( [2] ) and to census results on transport modes and distances to work in England and
Wales ( [3] ).

2. The EU supports a freely available European Local Travel Information Service (ELTIS ( [4] ) website) which provides a wealth of
information and access to know-how in the field of urban mobility in Europe, including public transport.

The Commission's European Mobility Week ( [5] ) raises awareness about issues related to sustainable urban mobility and encourages a
shift away from the use of private cars in cities towards more sustainable means of transport by increasing the availability of greener
alternatives.

Its Europe-wide sister campaign ‘Do the Right Mix’ ( [6] ) promotes multimodality and behavioural change all year round. Part of the
initiative is implemented through targeted national campaigns in six Member States (Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Romania and the
UK) with low awareness of urban mobility issues, high potential for improvement, or with low levels of participation in European
Mobility Week. Three video clips highlighting ways to reduce transport CO 2 emissions were created for the Italian public and broadly
disseminated, for example at public railway stations nationwide, at tram stations in Florence and in the metro in Perugia ( [7] ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/fomentoyvivienda/portal-web/web/areas/transportes/plan_bici
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/DP_-_mobilites_actives_-_05-03-14.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census-analysis/distance-travelled-to-work/index.html

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census-analysis/method-of-travel-to-work-in-england-and-wales/art-method-of-travel-to-work.html#tab-Commutingby-all-other-modes-of-transport

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.eltis.org
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://www.mobilityweek.eu/
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) www.dotherightmix.eu
( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) https://www.facebook.com/TrovaIlGiustoMix

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

⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )
⋅7∙ **|** )

C 341 / 120 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

At the national and local levels there are many campaigns and projects addressing travel to school and young people. ( [8] )

( **|** ⋅8∙ **|** ) http://eduscol.education.fr/semaine-du-velo/

http://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-services/what-we-do/getting-young-people-active
http://conbicialcole.conbici.org/

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 121

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003371/14**

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

_(20 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Raggiungimento dei limiti fisiologici di crescita delle colture di base

Un istituto specializzato nella ricerca in ambito di politica ed economia alimentare ha rivelato che molti paesi europei, così come
diversi paesi extra-europei, potrebbero non essere più in grado di aumentare la quantità di cibo che producono, in quanto diverse
colture di base hanno quasi raggiunto i loro limiti fisiologici di crescita. Secondo un altro noto istituto, tra il 1950 e il 1990, la resa di
granaglie nel mondo è aumentata in media del 2,2 % all'anno, con un progressivo rallentamento.

Non è della stessa opinione la FAO, la quale aveva stimato che la produzione cerealicola mondiale nel 2013 sarebbe aumentata di
circa il 7 % rispetto all'anno precedente, anche se ammette che i limiti fisiologici di crescita esistono e prima o poi verranno raggiunti
in diversi paesi.

In merito al problema esposto, può la Commissione chiarire:

1. Se dispone di dati che protendano maggiormente verso l'ipotesi della FAO o quella opposta?

2. Quali sono le principali strategie che la Commissione intende porre in essere per fronteggiare il raggiungimento di questi limiti
fisiologici?

**Risposta di Dacian Cioloş a nome della Commissione**

_(15 maggio 2014)_

Nell'ultima edizione delle previsioni di breve termine sui seminativi la Commissione indica per il 2013 un aumento della resa
cerealicola a livello europeo pari all'8 % da un anno all'altro (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/markets-and-prices/short-termoutlook/pdf/2014-03_en.pdf).

Tale cifra è conforme all'aumento della resa cerealicola a livello mondiale indicata dalla FAO ed è dovuta essenzialmente alle migliori
condizioni climatiche rispetto al 2012.

Nel complesso, se si guarda alle rese cerealicole negli ultimi dieci anni, si osservano differenze significative all'interno dell'UE. Per i 28
Stati membri dell'UE, l'aumento annuo della resa cerealicola è dell'1 % circa. Gli aumenti annui della resa per i 15 Stati membri
dell'UE prima del 2004 e per gli altri 13 Stati membri sono pari rispettivamente allo 0,7 % e all'1,7 %.

Come è stato indicato in una riunione scientifica sulla produttività del frumento, organizzata dal CCR nel 2013, se si guarda alla
tendenza sul lunghissimo periodo (a partire dal 1966) ci si accorge che gli aumenti della resa del frumento a livello dell'UE sono
stagnanti, ovvero che la tendenza media è rimasta invariata rispetto agli anni scorsi.
(http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pub.cfm?CFID=1be97e2e-1b87-4850-9353-8cf0a29795dd&CFTOKEN=0&id=6242).
Non possiamo tuttavia arrivare alla stessa conclusione per il granturco.

Le differenze riscontrate sul territorio dell'UE per quanto riguarda il divario in termini di resa agricola, ovvero il divario tra la resa
potenziale e quella effettiva, stanno ad indicare chiaramente un significativo potenziale di miglioramento costante nella produzione
agricola. Mantenere e migliorare la produttività in modo sostenibile è uno degli obiettivi della PAC, che conferisce grande
importanza agli aspetti «verdi» (interventi migliorativi della qualità del suolo), alla ricerca (ad esempio nel settore della genetica) ed al
Partenariato europeo per l'innovazione (EIP). Inoltre, il sistema obbligatorio di consulenza aziendale nel settore agricolo dovrebbe
sfociare in un'intensificazione del trasferimento delle conoscenze compensando anche il rallentamento della crescita della
produttività nell'Unione europea.

C 341 / 122 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003371/14**

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

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Staple crops close to their physiological growing limits

A research institute specialising in food politics and economics has revealed that many countries in Europe and elsewhere may no
longer be able to increase the amount of food they produce because many staple crops are close to their physiological growing limits.
Another well-known institute has said that between 1950 and 1990 the world grain yield increased by an average of 2.2% a year and
is gradually slowing down.

The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) does not agree. It estimated that world cereal production in 2013 would increase by
7% over the previous year’s figure, although it admits that physiological growing limits exist and sooner or later will be reached in
various countries.

In view of this problem, can the Commission say:

1. whether it has data that incline more to the FAO viewpoint or to the opposing one;

2. what main strategies it intends to put in place to deal with the problem of reaching these physiological limits?

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

_(15 May 2014)_

In its latest issue of the Short Term Outlook on arable crops the Commission shows for 2013 a cereal yield increase at EU level from
year-to-year of 8% (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/markets-and-prices/short-term-outlook/pdf/2014-03_en.pdf). This figure is in
line with the year-to-year yield increase at world level as indicated by the FAO and it is caused mainly by better climatic conditions as
compared to 2012.

As a whole, when looking at cereal yields in the last 10 years there are significant differences within the EU. For the 28 EU Member
States, the yearly increase in cereal yields amounts to around 1%. The yearly increases in yield for the 15 EU Member States before
2004 and for the 13 other Member States are respectively of 0.7% and 1.7%.

As depicted by a scientific meeting on wheat productivity organised by the JRC in 2013, if we look at a very long term trend (since
1966) EU wheat yield increases are stagnating, i.e. the average trend is flat compared to the past behaviour.
(http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pub.cfm?CFID=1be97e2e-1b87-4850-9353-8cf0a29795dd&CFTOKEN=0&id=6242), but
we cannot conclude the same for maize.

Differences across the EU as regards yield gap, i.e. the gap between potential and actual yield clearly hint at the significant potential
for continuous improvements in crop production. Keeping and improving productivity in a sustainable manner is one of the targets
of the CAP, which puts emphasis on greening aspects (soil quality improvement), research (for instance genetics) and the European
Innovation Partnership. Additionally, the mandatory farm advisory system should lead to improved knowledge transfer also
counteracting the slowdown of productivity growth in the European Union.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 123

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003372/14**

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

_(20 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Sistema innovativo per la ricarica di autoveicoli elettrici

È di origine spagnola il progetto « _Train2car_ », gestito dalla metropolitana madrilena e finanziato dal ministero spagnolo dell'Economia
e competitività. Il sistema permette i recuperare dai treni della rete metropolitana, durante le frenate e i rallentamenti, energia
elettrica che viene poi immagazzinata e convogliata verso un punto di rifornimento per auto elettriche, che possono così essere
«rifornite» a costo zero e senza generare ulteriore inquinamento.

Il progetto risulta particolarmente interessante in quanto permette un recupero di energia che altrimenti andrebbe dissipata e il suo
riutilizzo per rifornire veicoli non inquinanti, riducendo drasticamente l'impatto ambientale della rete metropolitana e
dell'infrastruttura di fornitura elettrica per le autovetture.

In merito a tale progetto, può la Commissione chiarire se:

1. È a conoscenza del progetto in questione?

2. Ritiene che sia un modello replicabile su vasta scala nelle città dotate di rete ferroviaria metropolitana?

3. Ritiene che i risparmi in termini economici e la riduzione delle ricadute negative sull'ambiente giustifichino l'ulteriore sviluppo
e la diffusione di tale sistema?

**Risposta di Siim Kallas a nome della Commissione**

_(27 maggio 2014)_

1. La Commissione è al corrente del progetto in questione e lo sta cofinanziando mediante il FESR.

2. La Commissione ritiene che questo tipo di progetti potrebbe contribuire a promuovere la diffusione di punti di ricarica per auto
elettriche nelle città in conformità all'obiettivo della direttiva sulla diffusione dei combustibili alternativi, adottata il 15 aprile
2014 ( [1] ). Nonostante questo, la fattibilità tecnica ed economica di questi progetti, nonché i loro potenziali vantaggi devono essere
valutati «caso per caso» in quanto la loro attrattiva commerciale dipende in gran parte dalle caratteristiche sia degli impianti tecnici
esistenti che dei regimi di traffico, che presentano notevoli differenze tra i sistemi di rete ferroviaria metropolitana.

3. Progetti come il Train2Car rappresentano una preziosa fonte di informazioni sulla fattibilità finanziaria e tecnica e sui vantaggi
ambientali che iniziative come queste possono offrire.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Non ancora pubblicata nella Gazzetta ufficiale.

C 341 / 124 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003372/14**

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

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ New charging system for electric vehicles

The project _‘Train2car’_, of Spanish origin, is managed by the Madrid underground train system and financed by the Spanish Ministry
of the Economy and Competition. The system enables electrical energy to be recovered from trains on the underground network
during braking and deceleration, which is then stored and channelled to a charging point for electric cars, which can then be
‘recharged’ at zero cost and without causing any additional pollution.

A particularly interesting feature of the project is that it allows energy which would otherwise be dissipated to be recovered and
reused to power non-polluting vehicles, drastically reducing the environmental impact of the underground train network and the
power supply infrastructure for the cars.

In relation to this project,

1. Is the Commission aware of the project in question?

2. Does the Commission consider that this model can be replicated on a large scale in cities which have an underground train
network?

3. Does it consider that the financial savings and the reduction of harmful effects on the environment justify the further
development and roll-out of this system?

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

_(27 May 2014)_

1. The Commission is aware of the project. It is co-financing this initiative via the ERDF.

2. The Commission believes that this kind of projects could contribute to boosting the deployment of electric recharging points in
cities in line with the objective of the directive on the deployment of alternative fuels adopted on 15 April 2014 ( [1] ). Notwithstanding
this fact, the technical and economic feasibility of these projects as well as their potential benefits need to be evaluated on a ‘case-bycase’ basis as their business case largely depend on the characteristics of both the existing technical facilities and the traffic regimes,
which vary widely between underground metro systems.

3. Projects such as Train2car will be a valuable source of information on the financial/technical feasibility and the environmental
benefits of such initiatives.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) The publication in the Official Journal is still pending.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 125

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003373/14**

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

_(20 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Surriscaldamento globale e sicurezza europea

Il Gruppo intergovernativo di esperti sul cambiamento climatico delle Nazioni Unite ha di recente pubblicato una relazione sulle
conseguenze negative dell'inasprirsi dell'effetto serra. Tra le previsioni più allarmanti figurano siccità, inondazioni che
provocheranno migrazioni di massa e diffusione di malattie. La relazione elenca una serie di dati estremamente preoccupanti: entro
la fine del secolo la produttività agricola media mondiale calerà del 2 %, mentre la domanda aggregata di cibo salirà in media del 14 %
su base annua, con una perdita netta del 2 % del valore del PIL mondiale.

Simili cambiamenti esaspereranno le tensioni politiche e provocheranno nuovi conflitti armati, minacciando la stabilità dell'intero
sistema internazionale. Per tutte le ragioni citate, la lotta contro i cambiamenti climatici ha un ruolo fondamentale anche nel settore
della sicurezza e deve pertanto essere analizzata e approcciata in maniera concreta nonché coerente con gli altri strumenti dell'azione
esterna europea.

A tale proposito, intende la Commissione adottare in futuro un approccio all'azione esterna realmente onnicomprensivo che tenga
nella debita considerazione le questioni ambientali? In che modo intende inserire la politica di lotta contro il cambiamento climatico
nel contesto in esame?

**Risposta di Connie Hedegaard a nome della Commissione**

_(15 maggio 2014)_

La Commissione è anch'essa dell'avviso che il cambiamento climatico sia un moltiplicatore dei rischi che incombono sull'ambiente.

Questa posizione è tradotta, ad esempio, nei documenti di riflessione comuni sulla diplomazia in materia di clima, che la
Commissione ha elaborato nel 2011 e nel 2013 di concerto con il servizio europeo per l'azione esterna e che tracciano tre linee di
intervento, una delle quali è il binomio clima — sicurezza internazionale.

Per ulteriori dettagli sulle singole linee di intervento, invitiamo l'onorevole deputato a consultare i suddetti documenti di riflessione
comuni ( [1] ).

La Commissione intende continuare l'opera di sensibilizzazione presso i propri partner riguardo ai rischi per la sicurezza posti dai
cambiamenti climatici, in special modo nelle regioni vulnerabili.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.eu-un.europa.eu/articles/en/article_11220_en.htm e http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/international/negotiations/docs/eeas_26062013_en.pdf

C 341 / 126 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003373/14**

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

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Global warming and European security

The United Nations Intergovernmental Climate Change Panel has recently published a report on the negative consequences of the
proliferation of greenhouse gases. The most alarming predictions include drought, flooding causing mass migration and the spread
of disease. The report lists a series of extremely concerning data: by the end of the century, average agricultural productivity will fall
worldwide by 2%, whereas overall demand for food will increase on average by 14% a year, with a net loss of 2% of GDP worldwide.

Changes of this kind will exacerbate political tensions and lead to new armed conflicts, threatening the stability of the entire
international system. For all these reasons, the fight against climate change also has a fundamental role in the security sector and
must therefore be analysed and approached in a specific manner consistent with the other instruments of European external action.

In this respect, does the Commission intend in future to adopt an approach to truly comprehensive external action which gives due
consideration to environmental matters? How does it intend to situate climate change policy in this context?

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

_(15 May 2014)_

The Commission shares the view that climate change is a multiplier of environmental threats.

This has been reflected, for instance in the 2011 and 2013 Joint Reflection Papers from the European External Action Service and the
Commission on Climate Diplomacy which set out three strands for action, one of them being on climate and international security.

For further details on the respective strands of action we would kindly refer the Honourable Member to the Joint Reflection Papers. ( [1] )

The Commission will continue to raise awareness of the security risks related to climate change with its partners particularly in
vulnerable regions.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.eu-un.europa.eu/articles/en/article_11220_en.htm and http://ec.europa.eu/climPa/policies/international/negotiations/docs/eeas_26062013_en.pdf

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 127

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003375/14**

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

_(20 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Aumento dei casi di neoplasie nel mondo

Uno studio ONU lancia un campanello d'allarme riguardo all'aumento dei casi di neoplasie nel mondo.

In sostanza, si prevede un aumento del 50 % nei prossimi quindici anni, quando già attualmente il cancro si attesta come principale
causa di morte nel mondo, scalzando dalla classifica l'infarto.

La recrudescenza del fenomeno riguarda in particolar modo i paesi sviluppati nonché il genere femminile, considerata la crescita dei
casi di tumore al seno.

Sebbene la ricerca abbia registrato importanti progressi relativamente alla conoscenza della biologia del cancro, appare necessario e
determinante lavorare sul versante della diagnosi e della prevenzione, di modo da poter intervenire tempestivamente all'insorgenza
della patologia.

Alla luce di quanto illustrato sopra, si chiede alla Commissione quali misure concrete l'Unione europea metta in atto al fine di
favorire la lotta contro il cancro, tramite la ricerca, l'allestimento di strutture medico-sanitarie tecnologicamente avanzate e la
diffusione delle pratiche di prevenzione e diagnosi fra la popolazione europea.

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

_(2 maggio 2014)_

Dal 1985 il cancro è stato una priorità della politica sanitaria dell'UE. La Commissione ha rinnovato il suo costante impegno nella
lotta contro il cancro lanciando nel 2009 il Partenariato europeo per l'azione contro il cancro ( [1] ) concentrato sulle azioni volte ad
assistere gli Stati membri nel ridurre l'incidenza del cancro: i piani nazionali contro il cancro in tutti gli Stati membri, la prevenzione,
l'individuazione e la raccolta di dati comparabili.

Per dare continuità alle attività in materia, in particolare nel settore dell'assistenza sanitaria, è stata lanciata una nuova azione
comune: «Elaborazione di una guida europea per il miglioramento della qualità della lotta globale contro il cancro», finanziata
nell'ambito del programma dell'UE in materia di sanità.

È attualmente in corso di preparazione la quarta versione del Codice europeo contro il cancro mediante un finanziamento
all'Agenzia internazionale per la ricerca sul cancro. La versione aggiornata del Codice, che costituisce uno strumento fondamentale di
comunicazione per la prevenzione del cancro, dovrebbe essere disponibile entro il 2014.

La ricerca sul cancro è stata una priorità del Settimo programma quadro delle azioni comunitarie di ricerca, di sviluppo tecnologico e di
dimostrazione (PQ7, 2007‐2013) ( [2] ), che ha destinato 1,4 miliardi di EUR alla ricerca sul cancro allo scopo di sviluppare le
conoscenze di base mediante la diagnosi precoce e approcci preventivi e terapeutici.

Horizon 2020 — Il programma quadro di ricerca e innovazione (2014-2020) ( [3] ), offrirà ulteriori opportunità di sostenere la ricerca
sulla prevenzione del cancro attraverso la sfida sociale «Salute, cambio demografico e benessere» ( [4] ).

Durante il 2014 la Commissione europea intende elaborare una relazione di attuazione avente ad oggetto la comunicazione del
2009 della Commissione sul partenariato per l'azione contro il cancro ( [5] ) e i risultati della raccomandazione del 2003 del Consiglio
sullo screening dei tumori ( [6] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.epaac.eu/
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/health/home_en.html
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0809:FIN:EN:PDF
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/index.html
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/archive/ph_information/dissemination/diseases/docs/com_2009_291_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:327:0034:0038:EN:PDF

C 341 / 128 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003375/14**

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

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Increase in the global incidence of cancer

A UN study has sounded the alarm about the increase in the global incidence of cancer.

In essence, there is expected to be a 50% increase in the number of cases over the next fifteen years, when cancer is already the
leading cause of death in the world, having overtaken heart attacks.

This rise in the number of cases regards developed countries in particular, and women, given the increase in the number of cases of
breast cancer.

Although research has made significant progress in understanding the biology of cancer, it is vital that we work on diagnosis and
prevention, so that we can act quickly at the onset of the disease.

In the light of the above, can the Commission say what specific measures the European Union is taking to promote the fight against
cancer, through research, the establishment of technologically advanced medical and health facilities and the dissemination of
prevention and diagnosis practices among EU citizens?

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

_(2 May 2014)_

Since 1985, cancer has been a priority issue for EU public health policy. The Commission renewed its long-standing commitment to
fighting cancer, by launching the European Partnership for Action against Cancer ( [1] ) in 2009 with a focus on actions aiming to help
Member States to reduce cancer incidence: national cancer plans in all the Member States, prevention, screening, and comparable
data collection.

In order to give a continuity to work on cancer control, especially in the field of healthcare, a new Joint Action for a European Guide
on Quality Improvement in Comprehensive Cancer Control was launched in 2014, funded under the EU Health Programme.

The 4th version of the European Code Against Cancer is currently being prepared through a grant to the International Agency for
Research on Cancer. The updated version of the code which is a key communication tool in cancer prevention should be available
later in 2014.

Cancer research has been a priority throughout the Seventh Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and
Demonstration Activities (FP7, 2007‐2013) ( [2] ), which devoted EUR 1.4 billion to cancer research aimed at bringing basic knowledge
through to early diagnosis, preventive and therapeutic approaches.

Horizon 2020 — The framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) ( [3] ), will offer further opportunities to
support research on cancer prevention through the ‘Health, demographic change and wellbeing’ societal challenge ( [4] ).

During 2014 the European Commission intends to put forward an Implementation Report on the 2009 Commission
Communication on the Partnership for Action against Cancer ( [5] ) and on results on the 2003 Council Recommendation on cancer
screening ( [6] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.epaac.eu/
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/health/home_en.html
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0809:FIN:EN:PDF
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/index.html
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/archive/ph_information/dissemination/diseases/docs/com_2009_291_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:327:0034:0038:EN:PDF

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 129

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003376/14**

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

_(20 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Europa dei territori: fiere e fattorie sociali

Si ripropongono durante la stagione primaverile ed estiva numerosi appuntamenti di interesse antropologico e agricolo: trattasi delle
fiere, che nei paesi europei rinverdiscono — attualizzandoli — antichi contesti di scambio e produzione. Tali appuntamenti
catalizzano l'attenzione di un vasto pubblico, che risponde positivamente alle formule turistiche e agricole concepite da associazioni,
consorzi, fattorie sociali.

In tali cornici si offrono momenti divulgativi e formativi nonché laboratoriali, attraverso l'allestimento di seminari, mostre e tavoli di
degustazione.

Di conseguenza, per quanto legate a epoche passate, le fiere riescono a reinterpretarsi sulla base di temi di non poco rilievo: turismo,
appartenenza territoriale, produzione agricola, creatività, competenza.

In merito a tali esperienze, può la Commissione:

1. fornire informazioni su eventuali mappe che individuino le principali esperienze fieristiche in Europa;

2. informare in merito alle misure poste in essere dall'UE per la promozione di ambiti fieristici che coniugano felicemente
attrattiva turistica, retaggio culturale e identità delle produzioni?

**Risposta di Dacian Cioloş a nome della Commissione**

_(15 maggio 2014)_

La Commissione partecipa regolarmente alle fiere che si tengono sul territorio dell'UE principalmente rivolte ai soggetti interessati ed
al grande pubblico (quali, ad esempio, la _Grüne Woche_ a Berlino, il _Salon International de l'Agriculture_ a Parigi, il _Salone Del Gusto_ in
Italia, il _Royal Highland_ _Show_ nel Regno Unito, ecc.). Attraverso la sua partecipazione, la Commissione intende stimolare la
consapevolezza dell'importanza dell'agricoltura, in particolare per quanto riguarda la sicurezza alimentare, la biodiversità, la gestione
delle risorse naturali e le zone rurali, la mitigazione dei cambiamenti climatici e l'adattamento ad essi.

Il sito web «Events in your Country» (Cfr. il link http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-communication-network/events-in-yourcountry/index_en.htm) offre l'opportunità agli organizzatori interessati di segnalare eventi realizzati nel proprio paese,
connessi all'alimentazione, all'agricoltura e allo sviluppo rurale, conferendo loro maggiore visibilità. Questo sito offre ai soggetti
interessati ed ai cittadini informazioni utili su eventi inerenti alla politica agricola comune (PAC) che si svolgono in tutti gli Stati
membri dell'UE aiutando i soggetti interessati ad individuare le migliori pratiche in tema di comunicazione sulla PAC.

Infine, nel 2014, la Commissione, in collaborazione con la Commissione europea del turismo (CET), ha lanciato un portale (cfr. il
[link www.tastingeurope.com) finalizzato a promuovere la gastronomia in quanto parte dell'intangibile patrimonio culturale](http://www.tastingeurope.com/)
europeo. Si tratta di un nuovo strumento di comunicazione finalizzato ad aiutare i turisti a programmare più efficacemente i propri
viaggi. Gli uffici del turismo nazionali, regionali e locali possono caricare informazioni sui vari saloni e festival alimentari per una
migliore visibilità.

C 341 / 130 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003376/14**

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

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Europe of the land and regions — fairs and social farms

There are certain events of anthropological and agricultural interest that crop up again each spring and summer — more specifically,
fairs, which are becoming popular once again in European countries, reviving and modernising age-old trading and production
traditions. These fairs capture the attention of a wide cross-section of the public, which responds positively to the tourism-related
and agricultural formulas devised by various associations, consortia and social farms.

These fairs also offer information and educational opportunities and workshops, by holding seminars, exhibitions and tasting
sessions.

Accordingly, however much they may be related to past eras, fairs have been able to reinvent themselves focusing on significant
themes — tourism, local and regional identity, agricultural production, creativity and expertise.

Can the Commission therefore:

1. provide information on any maps identifying the main fairs held in Europe;

2. provide information on any measures put in place by the EU for the promotion of fairs that are a successful combination of
tourist attraction, cultural heritage and production identity?

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

_(15 May 2014)_

The Commission regularly takes part in fairs in the EU mainly targeting stakeholders and the general public (i.e. Grüne Woche in
Berlin, Salon International de l'Agriculture in Paris, Salone Del Gusto in Italy, Royal Highland Show in UK, etc.). Through this
participation, the Commission aims at raising awareness on the importance of farming in particular for food security, biodiversity,
management of natural resources and the rural areas, mitigating and adapting to climate change.

The ‘Events in your Country’ web page (See link http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-communication-network/events-in-yourcountry/index_en.htm) gives the opportunity to interested organisers to post their events related to food, agriculture and rural
development and give them additional visibility. This page provides to stakeholders and citizens useful information on Common
Agricultural Policy (CAP) related events taking place in all EU Member States and would also serve stakeholders to identify bestpractices in communicating on the CAP.

Finally, in 2014, the Commission together with the European Travel Commission (ETC) has launched a dedicated portal (see link
[www.tastingeurope.com) to promote gastronomy as part of the European intangible cultural heritage. It is a new communication](http://www.tastingeurope.com/)
tool to help tourists to better plan their trips. National, regional and local tourism offices can upload information on their food fairs
and festivals to achieve better visibility.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 131

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003377/14**

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

_(20 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Integrazione dei trasporti come incentivo al turismo

L'accordo fra gestori dei trasporti in Veneto e in Austria ha permesso di realizzare un interessante piano di mobilità, che va a creare
corsie preferenziali per i turisti austriaci e tedeschi alla volta delle principali località turistiche della regione italiana. Il progetto
razionalizza il sistema dei trasporti veneto, collegando in maniera efficiente le aree di rilievo turistico e paesaggistico, valorizzandone
le risorse e facilitando gli operatori del turismo nell'adempimento del loro lavoro.

Inoltre, formule quali l'integrazione dei biglietti (fra le compagnie di trasporti coinvolte), il potenziamento delle corse, la dislocazione
di dispositivi di comunicazione e orientamento lungo il percorso interessato dal progetto vanno ad avvantaggiare l'intera filiera
turistica.

In merito a tale esperienza, può fornire la Commissione informazioni relative ad esempi analoghi, nell'area europea, basati
sull'instaurazione di partenariati fra territori transfrontalieri?

**Risposta di Siim Kallas a nome della Commissione**

_(15 maggio 2014)_

I viaggi intelligenti devono essere concepiti come mobilità senza ostacoli per tutti. La messa a disposizione di informazioni integrate
concernenti i viaggi multimodali, la programmazione e i servizi di prenotazione permette di fornire ai viaggiatori informazioni
affidabili e aggiornate in merito alle diverse possibilità di viaggio, basate sulle loro preferenze e possibilità finanziarie, consentendo
loro di decidere sulla base di elementi concreti. Ciò permetterà a sua volta un miglior utilizzo delle infrastrutture di trasporto, una
migliore integrazione modale nonché di ridurre l'impatto che hanno i trasporti sull'ambiente.

Già esiste un certo numero di pianificatori di viaggio multimodali, ma non si è ancora arrivati ad una copertura a livello paneuropeo.
La Commissione sta lavorando per definire il quadro di riferimento (ad esempio un più ampio accesso ai dati sui trasporti, il
finanziamento di test pilota, ecc.), per promuovere la nascita di tali servizi. Esempi notevoli di tali servizi di qualità sono: «IDOS»,
pianificatore di viaggio porta a porta per la Repubblica ceca e la Slovacchia, o «Rejseplanen», il pianificatore di viaggio per la
Danimarca e la Svezia meridionale. Esistono anche altre forme di cooperazione regionale, ad esempio, «EU-Spirit», pianificatore
cofinanziato nell'ambito del 5o programma quadro dell'UE per la ricerca e lo sviluppo tecnologico che copre, tra l'altro l'Alsazia e la
Lorena, il Baden-Württemberg e Berlino-Brandeburgo, la Danimarca e le città di Göteborg e Varsavia.

Quello dell'emissione dei biglietti è un settore molto dinamico. Un certo numero di Stati membri offre soluzioni con carta
intelligente integrata a livello nazionale, ad esempio i Paesi Bassi. Molte città inoltre sviluppano sistemi di carte intelligenti. La sfida è
di rendere tali sistemi interoperabili. Vanno tenuti nel debito conto gli sforzi della «Smart Ticketing Alliance» (Alleanza per i biglietti
intelligenti), che cerca di favorire l'interoperabilità tra le specifiche tecniche nazionali: francese, belga, tedesca e inglese con la
partecipazione dell'UITP (Associazione internazionale dei trasporti pubblici).

C 341 / 132 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003377/14**

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

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Transport integration as an incentive for tourism

An agreement between transport operators in Veneto and Austria has enabled an interesting mobility plan to be developed, in which
special lanes are to be created for Austrian and German tourists on their way to the main tourist areas in the Veneto region. The plan
will streamline the Veneto transport system and efficiently connect areas that are important for tourism and for their natural beauty,
enhancing their resources and making it easier for tourism operators to do their work.

In addition, formulas such as ticket integration (among the transport companies involved), an increased number of trains/buses and
the use of communication devices, placed along the routes affected by the project, will benefit the entire tourism industry.

In this regard, can the Commission provide any information on similar examples in Europe, based on the establishment of
partnerships between cross-border areas?

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

_(15 May 2014)_

Smart travel needs to be conceived as seamless mobility for all. The provision of integrated multimodal travel information, planning
and booking services has the potential to provide the travellers with reliable and up-to date information about different travel
options, to suit their preferences, budgets, and enable them to take informed decisions. This in turn will contribute to a better use of
transport infrastructure, better modal integration and reduction of the environmental impact of transport.

A number of multimodal journey planners already exist, yet pan-European coverage is still missing. The Commission is working to
set the framework (e.g. broader access to transport data, funding for pilot trials, etc.) to foster the emergence of such services. Notable
examples of such quality services are: IDOS, door-to-door journey planner for the Czech Republic and Slovakia, or Rejseplanen, the
journey planner for Denmark and southern Sweden. Other regional forms of cooperation also exists, e.g. EU-Spirit, a planner cofunded under the 5th EU Framework Programme for research and technological development, and covering among others Alsace,
Lorraine, Baden-Württemberg, Berlin-Brandenburg, Denmark, Gothenburg, and Warsaw.

The ticketing sector is very dynamic. A number of Member States offer integrated nation-wide smart card solutions, e.g. the
Netherlands. Many cities also develop smartcards schemes. The challenge is to make these systems interoperable. Due note has to be
taken of the efforts of the Smart Ticketing Alliance, trying to foster interoperability between national technical specifications: French,
Belgian, German, and English with participation of UITP (International Association of Public Transport).

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 133

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003378/14**

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

_(20 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Protesi robotiche che restituiscono autonomia

Non sono nuovi studi relativi a dispositivi robotici capaci di restituire autonomia a persone rimaste vittime di amputazioni.
Attualmente, però, destano conforto le nuove acquisizioni e i progressi medici che vanno a affinare in maniera rilevante le
prestazioni delle protesi robotiche conferendo loro una maggiore percezione sensoriale.

Ci si riferisce, in particolare, agli ultimi modelli messi a punto da una compagine scientifica italo-svizzera, che, grazie alla mano
bionica, hanno potuto restituire autosufficienza motoria a un cittadino danese: la prima persona con amputazione che ha
beneficiato, dopo lungo tempo, di nuove percezioni sensoriali raffinate.

Riguardo a tali acquisizioni, può la Commissione fornire informazioni:

1. in merito alla promozione da parte dell'UE di ritrovati e prototipi che rispondono alle esigenze di cittadini che presentano
menomazioni corporee;

2. in merito all'impegno dell'UE nei riguardi di misure e finanziamenti predisposti al fine di rendere concretamente accessibili tali
dispositivi tecnologici ai cittadini che ne avrebbero bisogno?

**Risposta di Neelie Kroes a nome della Commissione**

_(8 maggio 2014)_

1. Il successo clinico della mano bionica si fonda sulle attività di ricerca condotte nell'ambito del Settimo programma quadro
(7° PQ), in particolare il progetto CYBERHAND sulle tecnologie emergenti e future (TEF). Circa 20 progetti che rientrano nel 7° PQ
riguardano prototipi di mani o arti robotici, protesi del ginocchio e impianti visivi e uditivi per disabili. Orizzonte 2020 (H2020)
prevede per il periodo 2014-2015 finanziamenti destinati allo sviluppo di a) interfacce adattive multimodali, comprese le interfacce
neurali che assistono le persone disabili, e b) tecnologie robotiche per le disabilità o le amputazioni degli arti inferiori o superiori. Lo
scopo perseguito è aumentare la maturità tecnologica delle protesi in relazione agli usi previsti, contribuendo alla creazione di una
società inclusiva. Il programma Orizzonte 2020 finanzia anche la ricerca di frontiera ad alto rischio, soprattutto nel campo delle TEF.

2. L'ampia diffusione dei progressi tecnologici in materia di biorobotica, neuroprotesi e interfacce neurali presenta importanti
sfide sotto il profilo etico, giuridico e socioeconomico. Il programma di ricerca sta attualmente esaminando tali sfide attraverso
azioni del 7° PQ come ROBOLAW e nell'ambito del partenariato pubblico-privato nel settore della robotica. Le questioni etiche,
giuridiche e socioeconomiche saranno affrontate anche nel programma di lavoro per la robotica di Orizzonte 2020 per il
periodo 2014-2015. Orizzonte 2020 rafforzerà tale approccio mediante l'innovazione, le dimostrazioni e le verifiche su casi reali,
avvicinando le attività di ricerca alle persone che potrebbero beneficiarne. I progetti di ricerca, ai quali partecipano attivamente
medici e volontari, sono condotti nel rispetto dei principi etici applicabili.

C 341 / 134 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003378/14**

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

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Robotic prostheses that restore independence

Research into robotic devices that can give amputees back their independence is not new. Today, however, they can take comfort in
new medical knowledge and advances that will significantly hone the performance of robotic prostheses and provide them with
greater sensory perception.

I am referring in particular to the latest models developed by a team of Italian and Swiss scientists, who have used a bionic hand to
restore motor independence to a Danish man, the first amputee to have gained new, fine touch sensations after a long time.

With regard to new knowledge of this kind, can the Commission provide information on:

1. how the European Union is promoting inventions and prototypes that address the needs of people with bodily handicaps;

2. what measures and funding the EU is committing to make such technological devices available in practical terms to the people
that need them?

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

_(8 May 2014)_

1. The clinical success of the bionic hand is grounded on past research in the seventh Framework programme (FP7), notably the
Cyberhand project in Future and Emerging Technologies (FET). Some twenty projects across FP7 address prototype solutions for
disabled people via robotic limbs or hands, knee prostheses, visual and auditory implants. Horizon 2020 (H2020) provides for
funding in 2014-2015 for (a) multi-modal, adaptive interfaces, including brain computer interfaces that assist people with
disabilities, and (b) robotics technologies for upper or lower-limb disabilities or amputees. The aim here is to increase the technology
readiness of prosthetic devices for their intended uses, contributing to an inclusive society. H2020 also funds high risk frontier
research, notably in FET.

2. The widespread deployment of technological advances in bio-robotics, neuroprostheses and brain-computer interfaces,
presents important challenges of an ethical, legal and socioeconomic (ELS) nature. The research programme is currently investigating
such challenges through FP7 actions like Robolaw and within the Public-Private Partnership in Robotics. ELS issues will also feature
in the H2020 robotics work programme in 2014-15. H2020 will strengthen this approach through innovation, demonstrations and
validations in real world cases, closer to the people who would benefit from them. Research projects actively involve clinical
practitioners and volunteer subjects, under prevailing ethics rules.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 135

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003379/14**

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

_(20 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Incidenti domestici

Da recenti sondaggi condotti in Italia, si rileva come gli incidenti domestici si ripropongano con una frequenza non irrilevante nella
popolazione di riferimento e come costituiscano causa invalidante nei riguardi di specifiche categorie, quali quella degli anziani. In tal
senso, il problema assume una certa importanza, considerato l'allungamento della vita media, fenomeno che interessa le società
occidentali.

Rispetto ai dati prodotti dalla ricerca statistica, il ministero della salute ha provveduto a predisporre spazi informativi per i cittadini,
al fine di favorire la consapevolezza e socializzare piccole strategie domestiche di sicurezza.

Alla luce di quanto illustrato, si chiede alla Commissione:

1. di elaborare un'informativa statistica relativa agli incidenti domestici nell'area UE.

2. di fornire informazioni riguardanti disposizioni legislative dell’UE che affrontino in maniera trasversale o diretta la questione.

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

_(20 maggio 2014)_

La Commissione raccoglie i dati relativi a diverse cause di decesso a seguito di incidenti. In allegato sono forniti i tassi standardizzati
di mortalità per i decessi causati da cadute ripartiti per gruppi di età e per sesso. Inoltre, l'indagine europea sulla salute condotta
mediante interviste costituisce per alcuni Stati membri un indicatore degli infortuni domestici e del tempo libero autodichiarati,
suddivisi per età, sesso e livello di istruzione. ( [1] )

L'azione comune per il monitoraggio delle lesioni in Europa ( [2] ) ha messo in evidenza il problema delle lesioni nelle persone in età
avanzata nella quarta edizione di «Injuries in the European Union» (Infortuni nell'Unione europea). ( [3] )

Nel 2007 gli Stati membri hanno adottato una raccomandazione del Consiglio sulla prevenzione degli incidenti e la promozione
della sicurezza ( [4] ), incoraggiando gli Stati membri a elaborare piani nazionali o misure equivalenti su questioni di sicurezza prestando
particolare attenzione ai gruppi vulnerabili, tra cui gli anziani.

Il piano strategico di attuazione del partenariato europeo per l'innovazione nell'ambito dell'invecchiamento attivo e in buona
salute ( [5] ) prevede inoltre azioni specifiche destinate a ricercare soluzioni innovative per prevenire le cadute e incoraggiare la diagnosi
precoce negli anziani.

L'obiettivo del gruppo d'azione che porta avanti tali misure è di fornire entro il 2015 in tutta l'UE programmi convalidati basati su
elementi probanti e operativi a fini di prevenzione, di diagnosi precoce e di minimizzazione dei rischi di caduta e della loro
gestione. ( [6] )

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=hlth_ehis_st2&lang=en
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/eahc/projects/database.html?prjno=20102205
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/data_collection/docs/idb_report_2013_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:164:0001:0002:IT:PDF
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/ageing/innovation/index_it.htm
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/active-healthy-ageing/a2_action_plan.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none

C 341 / 136 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003379/14**

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

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Domestic accidents

Recent surveys conducted in Italy have shown that domestic accidents occur rather frequently in that country and cause disability
among specific categories of people, such as the elderly. The problem is therefore becoming rather significant, given the increase in
life expectancy in Western societies.

In relation to the relevant statistical data, the health ministry has launched an information campaign for citizens, in order to promote
awareness and give a few tips on domestic safety.

Can the Commission therefore:

1. draw up a set of statistics regarding domestic accidents in the EU;

2. provide information regarding EC laws that address the issue either directly or indirectly?

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

_(20 May 2014)_

The Commission collects data on different causes of death due to accidents. In annex, standardised death rates are provided for death
caused by falls by age groups and gender. In addition, the European Health Interview Survey provides an indicator on self-reported
home and leisure injuries by age groups, gender and educational level for some Member States ( [1] ).

The Joint Action on Monitoring Injuries in Europe ( [2] ) has highlighted the issue of injuries which occur to older people in the fourth
edition of ‘Injuries in the European Union’ ( [3] ).

In 2007 Member States adopted a Council Recommendation ( [4] ) on the prevention of injury and the promotion of safety,
encouraging Member States to set up national plans or equivalent measures on safety issues paying special attention to vulnerable
groups including elderly citizens.

The Strategic Implementation Plan of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing ( [5] ) further foresees specific
actions on innovative solutions to prevent falls and support early diagnosis for older people.

The objective of the action group bringing forward these actions is to deliver, by 2015, across the EU, evidence-based validated and
operational programmes for prevention, early identification and minimisation of risk and management of falls ( [6] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=hlth_ehis_st2&lang=en
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/eahc/projects/database.html?prjno=20102205
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/data_collection/docs/idb_report_2013_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:164:0001:0002:EN:PDF
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/ageing/innovation/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/active-healthy-ageing/a2_action_plan.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 137

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-003380/14**

**aan de Commissie**
**Philippe De Backer (ALDE)**

_(20 maart 2014)_

_Betreft:_ Moeilijkheden met naleven Richtlijn 2012/33/EU betreffende het zwavelgehalte van scheepsbrandstoffen

Op 1 januari 2015 treedt Richtlijn 2012/33/EU betreffende het zwavelgehalte van scheepsbrandstoffen in werking. De richtlijn legt
strikte regels op voor de zwaveluitstoot binnen de SECA-zones.

Verschillende stakeholders hebben mij gewezen op de moeilijkheden die zij zullen ervaren als de richtlijn in werking treedt, en de
zware gevolgen die de toepassing van de richtlijn kan hebben voor de Europese spelers op de markt.

In navolging van schriftelijke vraag E‐008623/2013 stel ik hierbij opnieuw een aantal vragen aan de Commissie met betrekking tot
de gevolgen van de inwerkingtreding van de nieuwe zwavelrichtlijn:

1. Is de Commissie nog steeds van mening dat de inwerkingtreding van de 0,1% zwavellimiet in 2015 geen „modal backshift”
teweeg zal brengen? Kan de Commissie een overzicht geven van haar verwachtingen hieromtrent?

2. Kan de Commissie een up-to-date overzicht geven van de verschillende maatregelen die ze zal nemen om de verschillende
stakeholders te ondersteunen bij de overgang naar alternatieven met lagere zwavelemissies?

3. Is de Commissie van plan zich flexibel op te stellen op het gebied van tijdelijke uitzonderingen en eventuele overgangsregimes?
Op die manier zou het voor reders bijvoorbeeld haalbaarder worden om tegemoet te komen aan de strenge zwavelnormen.

**Antwoord van de heer Potočnik namens de Commissie**

_(22 mei 2014)_

1. De Commissie heeft het risico van „modal shift” (verschuiving tussen vervoerswijzen) onderzocht in de effectenbeoordeling ( [1] )
voor de herziene zwavelrichtlijn 2012/33/EU ( [2] ). Er werd geen algemene tendens vastgesteld voor de veranderingen in het
transportpatroon; deze veranderingen zouden afhangen van de specifieke route, het schip en het type lading, de lengte van het
diepzeesegment en of een scheepsexploitant de verhoogde brandstofprijzen aan zijn klanten kan doorberekenen. Sinds de
aanneming van de richtlijn lijkt op brandstof gebaseerde naleving het te winnen van wassers (wat voordien als de goedkoopste optie
werd beschouwd), aangezien de bijkomende kosten van brandstof met een laag zwavelgehalte rond de 30 % blijken te liggen, in
plaats van tussen de voorspelde 60 tot 70 %. Elk risico van „modal shift” lijkt dus nog minder uitgesproken dan tot nu toe werd

aangenomen.

2. De Commissie biedt financiële steun aan instrumenten voor de tenuitvoerlegging zoals het trans-Europees vervoersnetwerk. De
lidstaten mogen steun verlenen aan getroffen exploitanten in overeenstemming met de toepasselijke regels inzake staatssteun. De
Commissie werkt samen met de relevante belanghebbenden uit de maritieme sector om te zorgen voor een coherente en
kostenefficiënte uitvoering van alternatieve nalevingsoplossingen in het kader van het European Sustainable Shipping Forum (ESSF),
dat de 28 lidstaten en 32 maritieme organisaties verenigt. Het ESSF in het bijzonder bevordert de ontwikkeling van LNG als
alternatieve brandstof, in overeenstemming met de voorgestelde richtlijn ( [3] ) betreffende de uitrol van infrastructuur voor alternatieve
brandstoffen.

3. De koplopers op dit gebied hebben openlijk uiting gegeven aan hun wil om de wetgeving toe te passen en vinden dat een
uniforme handhaving van groot belang is. De Commissie voorziet geen tijdelijke vrijstellingen of overgangsregelingen en brengt in
herinnering dat de IMO-bepalingen die door de herziene richtlijn worden omgezet, werden goedgekeurd in 2008.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52011SC0918.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) PB L 327 van 27.11.2012, blz. 1.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 18 definitief.

C 341 / 138 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003380/14**

**to the Commission**
**Philippe De Backer (ALDE)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Difficulties in complying with Directive 2012/33/EU on the sulphur content of marine fuels

On 1 January 2015, Directive 2012/33/EU on the sulphur content of marine fuels came into force, laying down strict rules for
sulphur emissions within SECAs.

A number of stakeholders have expressed concern at the difficulties they will encounter when the directive enters into force and at
the major consequences it will have for European market operators.

Following question for written answer E-008623/2013 regarding the consequences of the entry into force of the new sulphur
directive:

1. Is the Commission still convinced that the entry into force of the 0.1% sulphur limit in 2015 will not result in a modal
backshift? What developments does it anticipate in this connection?

2. Can it give an up-to-date outline of the various measures envisaged to assist stakeholders with the change to alternative fuels
with lower sulphur emissions?

3. Does it intend to be flexible regarding temporary exemptions and possible transition arrangements, thereby making it easier
for ship owners to comply with the strict sulphur limits?

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

_(22 May 2014)_

1. The Commission examined the risk of modal shift in the impact assessment ( [1] ) for the revised Sulphur
Directive 2012/33/EU ( [2] ). No overall trend was identified for changes to the transport pattern; those changes would depend on the
specific route, the ship and cargo type, length of sea segment and whether a ship operator can pass on increased fuel prices to its
customers. Since the adoption of the directive, fuel-based compliance seems to have gained ground against scrubbers (previously
considered the cheapest option), as the incremental cost of low sulphur fuel appears to be in the 30% range rather than the predicted
60-70%. Thus any risk of modal shift would appear to be even less marked than previously assessed.

2. The Commission financially supports implementation through instruments such as the trans-European transport network.
Member States may provide support to operators affected in accordance with the applicable state aid rules. The Commission is
working with the relevant maritime stakeholders to ensure a cost-efficient and coherent implementation of alternative compliance
solutions in the context of the European Sustainable Shipping Forum (ESSF), which brings together the 28 Member States and 32
maritime organisations. The ESSF in particular promotes the development of LNG as an alternative fuel, in line with the proposed
Directive ( [3] ) on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure.

3. Early movers in the field have publicly declared their readiness for application of the legislation and are concerned that there
should be uniform enforcement. The Commission does not plan temporary exemptions or transitional arrangements and recalls that
the IMO provisions which the revised Directive transposes were adopted in 2008.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52011SC0918
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 327/1, 27.11.2012.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 18 final.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 139

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003382/14**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(20 de março de 2014)_

_Assunto:_ Fármaco ameaça abutres na Europa

Segundo notícia veiculada pela comunicação social portuguesa, as autoridades responsáveis pelos medicamentos em Espanha e Itália
aprovaram o uso veterinário de diclofenaco.

Considerando que:

—
O uso veterinário de diclofenaco é apontado como a principal causa de morte de 99 % da população de abutres na Índia em
15 anos;

—
Espanha e Portugal são os países que concentram a maioria dos abutres na Europa;

—
É muitíssimo provável a ocorrência de uma catástrofe semelhante à que ocorreu na Índia;

—
O diclofenaco é um anti-inflamatório que pode ser usado para tratar gado bovino, mas que permanece no organismo dos
animais durante algum tempo após a morte e é altamente tóxico para os abutres, que se alimentam das carcaças deixadas ao ar
livre;

—
Há inúmeras alternativas sem as referidas consequências;

—
O uso veterinário de diclofenaco deveria estar banido da UE;

Pergunto à Comissão:

Não considera grave a situação descrita?

Não entende que deve ser interditado, pelas razões mencionadas, o uso de diclofenaco para fins veterinários em toda a UE?

**Resposta dada por Tonio Borg em nome da Comissão**

_(24 de abril de 2014)_

O diclofenac (um medicamento anti-inflamatório) é autorizado a nível nacional apenas em alguns Estados-Membros, incluindo a
Itália e a Espanha.

A autorização de medicamentos veterinários na UE e nos seus Estados-Membros tem por base a avaliação dos dados científicos sobre
a qualidade, segurança e eficácia do medicamento, em conformidade com os requisitos da Diretiva 2001/82/CE ( [1] ) e tendo em conta
a segurança para o ambiente. A legislação da UE ( [2] ) também regulamenta de forma rigorosa a eliminação de animais mortos na UE,
limitando o risco de exposição dos abutres às carcaças contaminadas pelo diclofenac.

A segurança dos medicamentos veterinários autorizados na UE e nos seus Estados-Membros, incluindo a segurança para o ambiente,
é de importância primordial para a Comissão Europeia. A Comissão está a aguardar os resultados das deliberações sobre a questão do
diclofenac, que estão a decorrer entre as autoridades competentes dos Estados-Membros no âmbito do Grupo de coordenação para
os reconhecimentos mútuos e os processos descentralizados — Veterinário (CMDv), para decidir sobre a direção a seguir.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Diretiva 2001/82/CE do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 6 de novembro de 2001, que estabelece um código comunitário relativo aos medicamentos

veterinários (JO L 311 de 28.11.2001, p. 1).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Regulamento (CE) n.° 1069/2009 do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 21 de outubro de 2009, que define regras sanitárias relativas a subprodutos animais e

produtos derivados não destinados ao consumo humano e que revoga o Regulamento (CE) n.° 1774/2002 (JO L 300 de 14.11.2009, p. 1).

( **|**

C 341 / 140 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003382/14**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Danger posed to vultures by pharmaceutical product

It has been reported in the Portuguese media that drug authorisation authorities in Spain and Italy have approved the use of
diclofenac for veterinary use.

Given that:

—
The use of diclofenac has been identified as mainly responsible for the death of 99% of India’s vulture population in the last
15 years;

—
Most of Europe’s vultures are found in Spain and Portugal;

—
It is highly likely that a disaster could take place, similar to that which has occurred in India;

—
Diclofenac is an anti-inflammatory drug which can be used to treat cattle, but which remains in the animal’s body for some
time after death and is highly toxic to vultures, which feed on carcases left out in the open;

—
Numerous alternatives exist which are not toxic to vultures;

—
The veterinary use of diclofenac should be banned in the EU;

I wish to ask the Commission:

Does it not consider this a serious situation?

Does it not conclude that the use of diclofenac for veterinary purposes should, for these reasons, be banned throughout the EU?

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

_(24 April 2014)_

Diclofenac (an anti-inflammatory medicine) is authorised at national level only in a limited number of Member States, including Italy
and Spain.

The authorisation of veterinary medicines in the EU and its Member States is based on the assessment of scientific data on the quality,
safety and efficacy of the product, in line with the requirements of Directive 2001/82/EC ( [1] ) and taking into account safety to the
environment. EU legislation ( [2] )also strictly regulates the disposal of fallen stock in the EU, limiting the risk of exposure of vultures to
carcasses contaminated with diclofenac.

The safety of veterinary medicines authorised in the EU and its Member States, including safety to the environment, is of paramount
importance to the European Commission. The Commission is awaiting the outcome of the deliberations on the issue of diclofenac
which are taking place between the competent authorities of the Member States at the Coordination Group for Mutual Recognition
and Decentralised Procedures — Veterinary (CMDv) to decide on a course of action.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community Code relating to veterinary medicinal products (OJ L

311, 28.11.2001, p. 1).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and

derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (OJ L 300, 14.11.2009, p. 1).

( **|**

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 141

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003383/14**

**à Comissão**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) e Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(20 de março de 2014)_

_Assunto:_ Efeitos do mau tempo e da erosão costeira em Portugal — Costa da Caparica

Este inverno foi marcado pelo mau tempo e pela forte agitação marítima.

Em Portugal, várias regiões costeiras têm sido gravemente afetadas, nomeadamente com vários danos ao longo da orla costeira,
pondo em risco pessoas e bens.

A Costa da Caparica tem sido uma das zonas mais fustigadas, tendo o mar, desde do início de 2011, já causado diversos e avultados
estragos no espaço público e equipamentos de praia, bares e restaurantes, o que põe em maior risco a já frágil costa litoral.

A primeira grande intempérie ocorreu a 6 de janeiro, destruindo parte do cordão dunar na Praia de São João e, durante o mês de
fevereiro, o mar galgou o paredão da Costa da Caparica várias vezes, tendo provocado elevados prejuízos.

Para além dos prejuízos ambientais, os prejuízos para os concessionários dos apoios às praias, bares e restaurantes têm vindo a
acumular-se, já que, para além dos prejuízos materiais, se somam os dos dias em que ficam impedidos de trabalhar.

Em face do exposto, solicitamos à Comissão que nos informe sobre o seguinte:

1. Que apoios da UE poderão ser mobilizados em cada uma destas vertentes — reparação dos estragos e medidas estruturais de
prevenção de novas catástrofes?

2. Que medidas de apoio podem ser mobilizadas para a reabilitação das infraestruturas públicas destruídas e para obras de
consolidação das zonas envolventes, indispensáveis à segurança das populações?

3. Tendo em conta as recomendações feitas pelo Parlamento Europeu, no relatório Ferreira, aprovado em Setembro de 2010,
relativo à prevenção de catástrofes, quais dessas recomendações foram, até à data, implementadas pela Comissão?

4. Qual o ponto de situação relativamente à revisão do Regulamento do Fundo de Solidariedade da UE? Quais as principais
propostas da Comissão para a revisão deste Fundo?

**Resposta dada por Johannes Hahn em nome da Comissão**

_(27 de maio de 2014)_

1. e 2. O Fundo de Coesão, através do programa «Valorização do Território», pode financiar ações estruturais para a proteção das
zonas costeiras, no âmbito da prioridade II; Estas devem demonstrar a sua relevância para o reforço da proteção das zonas costeiras e
para a redução das áreas de risco. A identificação, seleção, execução e acompanhamento de projetos individuais é da
responsabilidade das autoridades competentes. Por conseguinte, para mais informações, a Comissão sugere que o Senhor Deputado
contacte as autoridades de gestão do programa ( [1] ).

3. A Comissão está a aplicar uma série de medidas para promover o reforço da avaliação nacional dos riscos e a gestão dos riscos
de catástrofes, a melhoria dos conhecimentos no domínio das catástrofes, e integrar a prevenção de catástrofes e promover ações de
adaptação adequadas para atenuar os riscos conexos. A nova legislação relativa ao Mecanismo de Proteção Civil da União ( [2] ) obriga
os Estados-Membros a desenvolver avaliações de risco e avaliações de capacidades de gestão dos riscos, e coloca a prevenção como
um primeiro passo de uma política de gestão integrada de catástrofes informando ações de resposta e preparação.

A solidariedade está na base da Diretiva Inundações. Os Planos de Gestão dos Riscos de Inundações (PGRI) preparados pelos EstadosMembros podem incluir a criação de espaço para os rios, medidas naturais e ordenamento do território. O grupo de trabalho das
inundações no âmbito da Estratégia Comum de Implementação da Diretiva-Quadro Água e das Diretivas Inundações faz o
intercâmbio de experiências, as organizações sociais podem participar. Os PGRI devem ser revistos e atualizados, com o impacto das
alterações climáticas.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Autoridade de Gestão do POVT, Programa Operacional Temático Valorização do Território, Av. Columbano Bordalo Pinheiro, 5, 1099-019 Lisboa, (+351) 211 545

000; (povt@povt.qren.pt); (www.povt.qren.pt).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Decisão n.° 1313/2013/UE do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho de 17 de dezembro 2013 sobre o Mecanismo de Proteção Civil da União, Jornal Oficial da União

Europeia, L(347), 20.12.2013.

( **|**

C 341 / 142 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

4. O Fundo de Solidariedade da UE pode intervir se o Governo português apresentar um pedido no prazo de 10 semanas a contar
da ocorrência da catástrofe e se forem reunidas as condições específicas do regulamento do Fundo de Solidariedade. Não foi recebido
qualquer pedido de Portugal.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 143

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003383/14**

**to the Commission**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) and Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Impact of bad weather and coastal erosion in Portugal: Caparica coast

This winter was characterised by bad weather and extremely turbulent seas.

A number of coastal areas in Portugal were seriously affected, particularly in terms of damage along the length of the coastal strip
which poses a threat to people and property.

The Caparica coast was one of the areas hardest hit, with the sea having inflicted varied and significant damage to public areas and
beach facilities, bars and restaurants since the beginning of 2011. This has further endangered the already fragile coastal zone.

The first major storm, on 6 January 2014, partially destroyed the cordon of dunes at Praia de São João beach and in February the sea
broke over the sea wall of the Caparica coast on several occasions, causing considerable damage.

Apart from the environmental damage, the cost to operators of beach facilities, bars and restaurants has been cumulative, as they
have not only suffered material losses but also been unable to work for many days.

In light of the above, can the Commission answer the following:

1. What EU support can be mobilised for each of these areas: to repair the damage and prevent similar disasters in the future?

2. What support can be mobilised to rehabilitate public infrastructure which has been destroyed and for consolidation work in
the areas involved, which is vital to people’s safety?

3. Which of Parliament’s recommendations from the Ferreira report on disaster prevention, adopted in September 2010, has the
Commission implemented to date?

4. What is the situation as regards revision of the EU’s Solidarity Fund Regulation? What are the Commission’s main proposals
concerning revision of the Fund?

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

_(27 May 2014)_

1 and 2. The Cohesion Fund, through the programme ‘Valorização do Território’ can finance structural actions for coastal
protection, within priority II; these must demonstrate relevance to the strengthening of coastal protection and to reducing risk areas.
The identification, selection, implementation and follow-up of individual projects is the responsibility of the relevant authorities.
Therefore, the Commission suggests that the Honourable Member contact the managing authority of the programme ( [1] ) for further
information.

3. The Commission is implementing a number of measures to promote national risk assessment and risk management, improve
disaster knowledge, and mainstream disaster prevention and promoting appropriate adaptation actions to mitigate the related risks.
The new Union Civil Protection Mechanism legislation ( [2] ) obliges Member States to develop risk assessments and assessments of risk
management capabilities and puts prevention as a first step in an integrated disaster management policy informing preparedness and
response actions.

Solidarity underpins the Floods Directive. Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) prepared by Member States may include giving
rivers space, natural measures and spatial planning. The Floods Working Group under the Common Implementation Strategy of the
Water Framework and Floods Directives exchanges experience, social organisations may participate. FRMPs shall be reviewed and
updated, with the impacts of climate change.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Autoridade de Gestão do POVT,Programa Operacional Temático Valorização do Território, Av. Columbano Bordalo Pinheiro, 5, 1099-019 Lisboa, (+351) 211 545

000; povt@povt.qren.pt; www.povt.qren.pt

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Decision No 1313/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism, OJ L (347), 20.12.2013.

( **|**

C 341 / 144 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

4. The EU Solidarity Fund can intervene if the Portuguese Government submits an application within 10 weeks of the occurrence
of the disaster and if the specific conditions of the Solidarity Fund Regulation are met. No application from Portugal has been
received.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 145

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003384/14**

**à Comissão**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) e Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(20 de março de 2014)_

_Assunto:_ Iniciativa Europeia de Cidadãos — «A Água é Um Direito»

Notícias recentes dão conta de que a Comissão Europeia irá recusar o pedido da Iniciativa Europeia de Cidadãos «A Água é Um
Direito», subscrita por mais de 1,8 milhões de cidadãos europeus. Alegadamente, a Comissão terá considerado, através de
informação veiculada por um seu alto funcionário, que «será politicamente difícil para a administração Barroso propor legislação que
teria, então, de ser negociada pela próxima Comissão, que deverá assumir funções em 1 de novembro».

Tendo em conta esta importante iniciativa, os seus objetivos e a impressionante mobilização dos cidadãos europeus na exigência do
direito à água, bem público, rejeitando qualquer tipo de privatização, perguntamos à Comissão:

1. Confirma as notícias supramencionadas?

2. Agora que este processo «iniciativa europeia de cidadãos» foi concluído (de facto, o primeiro em que os cidadãos conseguiram
cumprir todas as exigências estipuladas), que medidas vai tomar a Comissão?

**Resposta dada por José Manuel Durão Barroso em nome da Comissão**

_(19 de maio de 2014)_

Em 19 de março de 2014, a Comissão Europeia adotou uma comunicação em que expõe a sua resposta à iniciativa de cidadania « _A_
_água e o saneamento são um direito humano! A água não é um bem comercial, mas um bem público!»_ COM(2014)177.

A Comunicação pode ser consultada no seguinte sítio ( [1] ). Apresenta em pormenor todas as medidas concretas que a Comissão
tenciona tomar em resposta à iniciativa da cidadania europeia. Por conseguinte, a Comissão convida os Senhores Deputados a
consultar a informação e as respostas dadas na comunicação acima referida.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/initiatives/finalised/answered.

C 341 / 146 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003384/14**

**to the Commission**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) and Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ European citizens' initiative: ‘Water is a Human Right’

It was recently reported that the Commission intends to reject the petition by the European citizens’ initiative ‘Water is a Human
Right’, which was signed by 1.8 million European citizens. According to information provided by a high-ranking official at the
Commission, the institution sees it as ‘politically difficult’ for the Barroso administration to propose legislation which would then
have to be negotiated by the next Commission after it takes office on 1 November 2014.

Given the importance of this initiative, its aims, and the impressive number of European citizens who have mobilised to demand the
right to water as a public asset which should not be privatised, we wish to ask the Commission:

1. Can it confirm this information?

2. Now that this European citizens’ initiative process has been completed (and is, in fact, the first in which citizens have managed
to meet all the required conditions), what action does the Commission intend to take?

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

_(19 May 2014)_

On 19 March 2014, the European Commission adopted a communication setting out its response to the citizens' initiative ‘Water
and Sanitation are a human right! Water is a public good not a commodity!’ COM(2014) 177.

[The communication is available at the following address: http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/initiatives/finalised/answered](http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/initiatives/finalised/answered)

It presents in detail all the concrete steps that the Commission intends to take in response to the ECI. The Commission therefore
invites the honourable Members to refer to the information and answers provided in the abovementioned Communication.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 147

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite P-003385/14**

**à la Commission**
**Patrice Tirolien (S&D)**

_(20 mars 2014)_

_Objet:_ Agro-industrie sucrière au Cambodge et initiative «Tout sauf les armes»

Le Cambodge est classé par les Nations unies parmi les 48 pays les moins avancés. Ce pays bénéficie, à ce titre, d'un accès en franchise
de droits au marché européen, que lui offre l'UE à travers l'initiative «Tout sauf les armes». Ce régime commercial a participé à l'essor
d'un secteur agricole dynamique, notamment à travers l'expansion rapide de l'industrie sucrière, attirée par les conditions tarifaires
avantageuses que l'UE offre sur le sucre, entièrement exempt de quota et de tarif douanier depuis 2009. En 2012, ce sont plus de
100 000 hectares de terres qui ont été accordés aux industriels du sucre. Entre 2010 et 2013, les exportations de sucre du Cambodge
vers l'Europe sont passées de 10 000 à 64 917 tonnes.

Comme l'ont maintes fois démontré les communautés locales, la société civile et le rapporteur spécial des Nations unies sur la
situation des Droits de l'homme au Cambodge, cet essor semble néanmoins se faire au prix de sérieuses violations des droits humains
et causerait des dégâts écologiques et sanitaires considérables (expropriations forcées, travail des enfants, limitation d'accès aux
ressources naturelles, déforestation massive, y compris de certains espaces protégés, etc.).

L'article 19, paragraphe 6, du règlement (UE) n [o] 978/2012 du Parlement européen et du Conseil énonce que la Commission est tenue
de rechercher «toutes les informations qu'elle juge nécessaires, entre autres, le cas échéant, les évaluations, observations, décisions,
recommandations et conclusions des organes de surveillance pertinents» lorsqu'il est question de retirer temporairement le bénéfice
des préférences tarifaires.

Au vu des rapports du 16 juillet et du 24 septembre 2012 du rapporteur spécial des Nations unies sur la situation des Droits de
l'homme au Cambodge, des résolutions du Parlement européen du 26 octobre 2012 et du 16 janvier 2014 sur la situation au
Cambodge, et des nombreuses initiatives prises par la société civile, la Commission peut-elle préciser si elle a ouvert une procédure
consultative afin d'enquêter sur la multiplication des cas de violations des Droits de l'homme au Cambodge résultant de l'octroi de
concessions foncières à des fins de développement agro-industriel pour l'exportation de produits agricoles vers l'Union européenne?

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

_(29 avril 2014)_

L'UE est préoccupée par l'impact des concessions foncières accordées à des fins économiques au Cambodge, et elle a déployé toute
une série d'efforts diplomatiques à cet égard. La Commission aborde cette question ouvertement à toutes les réunions avec les
autorités cambodgiennes; la dernière en date a été une réunion que j'ai eue avec le ministre du commerce, M. Sun Chanthol, à Phnom
Penh le 18 mars 2014.

En ce qui concerne les préférences au titre de l'initiative «Tout sauf les armes» (TSA), la Commission renvoie à sa réponse aux
questions écrites P-002679/2013 et E-010792/2013. La Commission examine en permanence si les conditions pour engager une
procédure de retrait sont réunies.

La Commission a analysé les dernières évaluations du rapporteur spécial des Nations unies, Monsieur Subedi, publiées en août 2013
et janvier 2014, et la résolution du Conseil des Droits de l'homme des Nations unies de septembre 2013, qui s'est félicitée des progrès
accomplis par les autorités cambodgiennes, et notamment du moratoire sur les nouvelles concessions et de la campagne
d'établissement des titres de propriété, tout en faisant pression en faveur de l'adoption de nouvelles mesures. En 2013, aucune
nouvelle concession foncière économique n'a été accordée. La Commission est également attentive à la préparation de l'examen
périodique universel sur le Cambodge et accueille favorablement les observations formulées par la société civile, sur la base
d'informations adéquates et fiables.

Une autre étape positive récente a été la création, en janvier 2014, d'un groupe de travail interministériel ad hoc incluant des
représentants de sociétés agroalimentaires impliquées dans les différends et chargé de trouver des solutions aux conflits fonciers liés
au sucre. L'Union européenne encourage les autorités du Cambodge à trouver rapidement des solutions concrètes et satisfaisantes,
comportant la mise en œuvre d'une évaluation externe et de plans d'action correctifs, sur la base de normes reconnues au niveau
international.

C 341 / 148 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-003385/14**

**to the Commission**
**Patrice Tirolien (S&D)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ The sugar industry in Cambodia and the Everything But Arms initiative

The United Nations ranks Cambodia among the 48 least developed countries in the world. As such, Cambodian goods enjoy zero
import duty status on the EU market, via the Everything But Arms initiative. These trade arrangements have given a major boost to
the country’s agriculture industry, not least through the rapid expansion of the sugar industry, which has been stimulated by the
advantageous tariff conditions the EU offers on sugar, as this has been completely exempt from quotas and customs tariffs since
2009. In 2012, over 100 000 hectares of land were granted to sugar producing companies. Between 2010 and 2013, exports of
sugar from Cambodia to Europe rose from 10 000 tonnes to 64 917 tonnes.

As has been demonstrated time and again by local communities, civil society and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the
situation of human rights in Cambodia, it would appear that this rapid growth is being achieved at the expense of serious human
rights violations and considerable damage to the environment and to health (forced expropriations, child labour, restriction of access
to natural resources and wholesale deforestation, including in protected areas, etc.).

Article 19(6) of Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council states that the Commission ‘shall seek all
information it considers necessary, inter alia, the available assessments, comments, decisions, recommendations and conclusions of
the relevant monitoring bodies, as appropriate’ when considering whether to temporarily withdraw tariff preferences.

In the light of the reports of 16 July and 24 September 2012 by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human
rights in Cambodia, the European Parliament resolutions of 26 October 2012 and 16 January 2014 on the situation in Cambodia
and the many initiatives taken by civil society, can the Commission state whether it has launched a consultation process to
investigate the growing number of human rights violations in Cambodia arising from the granting of land concessions for agro‐
industrial development linked to the export of agricultural goods to the European Union?

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

_(29 April 2014)_

The EU is concerned by the impact of economic land concessions (ELCs) in Cambodia and has deployed a range of diplomatic efforts.
The Commission openly addresses this issue at all meetings with the Cambodian authorities, most recently in a meeting I had with
the Minister of Commerce Sun Chanthol in Phnom Penh on 18 March 2014.

Regarding Everything But Arms (EBA) preferences, the Commission refers to its response to written questions P-002679/2013 and
E-010792/2013. The Commission continuously examines whether the conditions for withdrawal procedures are met.

The Commission has analysed the latest assessments of the UN Special Rapporteur Subedi of August 2013 and January 2014 and the
Resolution of the UN Human Rights Council of September 2013 which welcomed the positive steps by the Cambodian authorities,
notably the moratorium on new ELCs and the land titling campaign, while pressing for further actions to be taken. In 2013, no new
ELC has been granted. The Commission is also following the preparation of the Universal Periodic Review on Cambodia and
welcomes submissions by civil society, based on adequate and reliable information.

Another recent positive step is the establishment in January 2014 of an ad hoc inter-ministerial working group, including agrobusiness companies involved in the disputes, to find solutions to land conflicts related to sugar. The EU has been pressing the
Cambodian authorities to swiftly find concrete and satisfactory solutions, including implementation of an external assessment and
remedial action plans, based on recognised international standards.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 149

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta P-003386/14**

**alla Commissione**
**Francesco Enrico Speroni (EFD)**

_(20 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Referendum in Crimea

L'Unione europea ha dichiarato illegittimo, secondo le norme internazionali, il recente referendum sull'autodeterminazione tenutosi
in Crimea.

Può la commissione precisare quale specifica norma internazionale (trattato, convenzione o altro) sarebbe stata violata?

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

_(30 aprile 2014)_

Il referendum in Crimea è illegale ai sensi della Costituzione ucraina, come statuito dalla Corte costituzionale dell’Ucraina e decretato
dalla commissione di Venezia in un parere pubblicato il 21 marzo.

La conseguente annessione della Crimea da parte della Federazione russa viola il diritto internazionale e gli impegni internazionali
della Russia a norma della carta delle Nazioni Unite, dell’atto finale di Helsinki, del memorandum di Budapest del 1994 e del trattato
bilaterale di amicizia, cooperazione e partenariato del 1997.

C 341 / 150 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-003386/14**

**to the Commission**
**Francesco Enrico Speroni (EFD)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Referendum in Crimea

The European Union has declared the recent referendum on self-determination in Crimea to be illegitimate under international law.

Can the Commission specify which specific international law (treaty, convention or other international agreement) has been
infringed?

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

_(30 April 2014)_

The referendum in Crimea was illegal under the Ukrainian constitution, as ruled by the Ukrainian Constitutional Court and judged by
the Venice Commission in an opinion published on 21 March.

The ensuing annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation was in breach of international law and Russia's international
commitments under the UN Charter, the Helsinki Final Act, the 1994 Budapest Memorandum and the Bilateral Friendship
Cooperation Treaty of 1997.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 151

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej P-003387/14**

**do Komisji**
**Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D)**

_(20 marca 2014 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Kryteria udzielania zamówień publicznych na budowę dróg i autostrad w państwach członkowskich UE

W Parlamencie Europejskim pracuję w Komisji TRAN. Od dłuższego czasu zwracają się do mnie liczne osoby z pytaniami
o wskazanie, jakie kryteria oceny ofert są stosowane w państwach członkowskich UE przy postępowaniach o udzielenie zamówienia
publicznego na: (a) wykonanie robót budowlanych dotyczących dróg i autostrad oraz (b) zaprojektowanie i wykonanie robót
budowlanych dotyczących dróg i autostrad.

Tego rodzaju informacje, związane z wykonaniem inwestycji finansowanymi ze środków UE, powinny być na bieżąco
monitorowane przez Komisję Europejską. W związku z tym, uprzejmie proszę o szczegółową odpowiedź na temat wspomnianych
kryteriów ofert, a także, czy instytucje zamawiające używają tylko kryterium najniższej ceny, czy też udzielają zamówień wybierając
tzw. ofertę najkorzystniejszą ekonomicznie, a więc nie tylko na podstawie kryterium ceny. Jeśli używają też innych kryteriów,
wówczas, jakie one są i jaką wagę do tych kryteriów przywiązują (tzn. jak te kryteria wpływają na wynik postępowania
przetargowego).

Jednocześnie, czy w innych państwach członkowskich UE występują jakiekolwiek specjalne regulacje dotyczące zamówień
publicznych na budowę dróg i autostrad oraz na zaprojektowanie i budowę dróg i autostrad?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Michela Barniera w imieniu Komisji**

_(28 kwietnia 2014 r.)_

Według statystyk Komisji opartych na informacjach opublikowanych w bazie danych TED w 2009 r. na szczeblu UE 34 %
zamówień związanych z budową dróg i autostrad udzielono na podstawie kryterium najniższej ceny. W roku 2010 i 2011 liczba ta
wzrosła do 36 %, a w 2012 r. osiągnęła 40 %.

Dyrektywy 2004/18/WE i 2004/17/WE transponowane do prawodawstwa krajowego wszystkich państw członkowskich UE
przewidują dwa kryteria udzielenia zamówienia: ofertę najkorzystniejszą ekonomicznie oraz najniższą cenę. Oba kryteria są
jednakowo umocowane i w związku z tym instytucje zamawiające mają swobodę wyboru jednego z nich na potrzeby udzielenia
zamówienia.

W nowych dyrektywach 2014/24/UE i 2014/25/UE z dnia 26 lutego 2014 r., które będą musiały zostać transponowane przez
państwa członkowskie do dnia 18 kwietnia 2016 r. i które zastępują dyrektywy 2004/18/WE i 2004/17/WE, przewiduje się, że
instytucje zamawiające udzielają zamówień publicznych w oparciu o kryterium oferty najkorzystniejszej ekonomicznie. Ponadto
nowe dyrektywy wyjaśniają, że kryterium oferty najkorzystniejszej ekonomicznie można zidentyfikować na podstawie ceny lub
kosztów, oraz umożliwiają państwom członkowskim ustanowienie takich przepisów, żeby instytucje zamawiające nie mogły
stosować wyłącznie ceny lub wyłącznie kosztów jako jedynego kryterium udzielenia zamówienia.

Nowa dyrektywa 2014/23/UE z dnia 26 lutego 2014 r. w sprawie udzielania koncesji, która ma być transponowana przez państwa
członkowskie do dnia 18 kwietnia 2016 r., również pozwala instytucjom zamawiającym na uwzględnianie wszystkich czynników
wpływających z ich punktu widzenia na wartość oferty.

C 341 / 152 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-003387/14**

**to the Commission**
**Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Award criteria for public procurement contracts for the construction of roads and motorways in EU Member States

I am a Member of Parliament’s Transport and Tourism Committee. For a long time now, many people have been asking me to specify
what criteria are taken into consideration in the EU Member States when evaluating tenders for public procurement contracts for:
(a) the execution of construction work in relation to roads and motorways, and (b) the design and execution of construction work in
relation to roads and motorways.

Such information, relating as it does to the implementation of investment projects which draw on EU funds, should be subject to
regular scrutiny from the Commission. In this connection, could the Commission please say in detail what the aforementioned
criteria for tenders are? Is the only criterion which the contracting authorities take into account the lowest price, or are public
procurement contracts awarded by selecting which tender represents the best value for money, i.e. not only according to which
tender offers the lowest price? If other criteria are taken into account, what are they and how much importance is attached to these
criteria, i.e. how do these criteria affect the outcome of the bidding procedure?

Are there any special rules in other EU Member States relating to public procurement contracts for the construction of roads and
motorways and for the design and construction of roads and motorways?

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

_(28 April 2014)_

According to the Commission's statistics based on the information published in TED, at EU level in 2009 34% of contracts related to
the construction of road and motorways were awarded on the basis of the lowest price criterion. In 2010 and 2011 this number
increased to 36% and reached 40% in 2012.

Directives 2004/18/EC and 2004/17/EC, transposed in national legislation of all EU Member States, provide for two contract award
criteria related to the most economically advantageous tender (‘MEAT’) and the lowest price. Both criteria are placed on equal footing
and therefore, the contracting authorities remain free to choose any of them for awarding their contracts.

The new Directives 2014/24/EU and 2014/25/EU of 26 February 2014, which have to be transposed by Member States by
18 April 2016, and which replace Directives 2004/18/EC and 2004/17/EC, provide that contracting authorities shall base the award
of public contracts on the MEAT criterion. Moreover, the new Directives clarify that the MEAT criterion may be identified on the
basis of the price or cost and allow Member States to provide that contracting authorities may not use price only or cost only as the
sole award criterion.

The new Directive 2014/23/EU of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts, which should be transposed by Member
States also by 18 April 2016, more generally allows the contracting authorities to take into account all factors influencing the value
of a tender from their point of view.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 153

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003388/14**

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

_(20 de marzo de 2014)_

_Asunto:_ Permiso por maternidad ampliado para las mujeres con discapacidad

En mi pregunta sobre la ampliación del permiso por maternidad para las mujeres con discapacidad se menciona una Resolución del
Parlamento de 11 de diciembre de 2013 y en la respuesta dada por la Comisión Europea (E-000915/2014) se hace referencia a unos
actos de la Comisión en el 2008.

¿Qué medidas tiene pensado llevar a cabo la Comisión para alcanzar el objetivo fijado en el apartado 24 de la Resolución del
Parlamento de 11 de diciembre de 2013?

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

_(13 de mayo de 2014)_

La Comisión acogió con satisfacción la Resolución del Parlamento Europeo de 11 de diciembre de 2013 sobre las mujeres con
discapacidad.

La importancia de atender a la situación de estas mujeres se subraya tanto en la Estrategia para la igualdad entre mujeres y hombres
(2010-2015) como en la Estrategia Europea sobre Discapacidad 2010-2020, sobre cuyo nivel de aplicación y repercusiones se está
elaborando actualmente un estudio.

Como ya se ha indicado en la respuesta a la pregunta E-000915-14, la Comisión adoptó en 2008 una propuesta de modificación de
la Directiva 92/85/CEE del Consejo que, entre otras cosas, obligaría a los Estados miembros a asegurarse de que se conceden
permisos adicionales en casos especiales, disposición en cuyo ámbito de aplicación se situarían las medidas relativas a las mujeres con
discapacidad.

En su informe en primera lectura, el Parlamento propuso añadir explícitamente determinadas medidas destinadas a las madres con
discapacidad. La propuesta está actualmente bloqueada en el Consejo, situación que la Comisión se está esforzando al máximo por
resolver. Por ello, requiere tanto al Parlamento como al Consejo para que den todos los pasos necesarios a fin de ponerse de acuerdo
sobre un texto común, de forma que pueda aprobarse la Directiva.

C 341 / 154 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003388/14**

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

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Extended maternity leave for women with a disability

My question concerning extended maternity leave for women with a disability mentions an EP resolution of 11 December 2013
while the response from the European Commission (E‐000915/2014) refers to some action taken by the Commission in 2008.

What measures does the Commission intend to take to achieve the objective set out in paragraph 24 of the Resolution of the
European Parliament of 11 December 2013?

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

_(13 May 2014)_

The Commission welcomed the EP resolution of 11 December 2013 on Women with Disabilities.

The importance of addressing the situation of women with disabilities has been underlined in both the strategy for Equality between
Women and Men (2010-2015) and in the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020. A study is currently being carried out as to the
progress made in implementing the European Disability Strategy and its impacts.

As already pointed out in the reply to Question E-000915-14, the Commission adopted a proposal in 2008 amending Council
Directive 92/85/EEC, which would, _inter alia_, oblige Member States to ensure that additional leave in special cases is granted.
Measures concerning women with disabilities would fall within the scope of that provision.

The European Parliament in its first reading report proposed to explicitly add special measures for mothers with disabilities. The
proposal is currently blocked in Council and the Commission is making all efforts to unblock the situation and invites both the
Parliament and Council to take every possible step to agree on a common text and have the directive adopted.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 155

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003389/14**

**a la Comisión (Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante)**

**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(20 de marzo de 2014)_

_Asunto:_ VP/HR — Fallo de la CIDH sobre la destitución de Gustavo Petro

El pasado 19 de marzo el Presidente de Colombia, Juan Manuel Santos, realizaba unas polémicas declaraciones en las que afirmaba
que su Gobierno «no acoge las medidas cautelares» planteadas la noche anterior por la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos
Humanos en relación con el caso de la destitución del Alcalde de Bogotá, Gustavo Petro.

Junto a las declaraciones del Sr. Santos, la Canciller colombiana, María Ángela Holguín, calificaba de «injerencia» el fallo de la citada
Comisión. Estas posiciones demuestran, una vez más, el nulo respeto de la Administración de Juan Manuel Santos por los derechos
humanos y las instituciones internacionales que tratan de vigilar su implementación como la CIDH. La actitud del Gobierno de
Colombia pone en riesgo la consideración de dicho país como un Estado de Derecho y la calidad democrática de sus instituciones al
no hacer valer su compromiso con los derechos humanos.

Colombia queda así en manos de un Gobierno que no respeta los derechos humanos como vienen denunciando numerosos sectores
de la sociedad civil. El mismo Gustavo Petro, tras las declaraciones de Santos afirmaba que «el voto en Colombia no sirve de nada»,
puesto que tras su victoria electoral ha sido destituido sin la más mínima garantía para poder ejercer la política.

1. ¿Conoce la Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante el fallo de la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos?

2. ¿Cómo valora las declaraciones del Sr. Santos y la Sra. Holguín? ¿Cree que Colombia está respetando las mínimas garantías
democráticas y los derechos humanos en el país?

3. ¿Piensa instar a Colombia a que acate el fallo de la CIDH sobre la destitución de Gustavo Petro?

4. ¿Piensa congelar el proceso de ratificación del Acuerdo de Asociación UE-Colombia y Perú hasta que la Administración del Sr.
Santos acate el citado fallo de la CIDH y demuestre que Colombia es un Estado que respeta las garantías democráticas fundamentales?

**Respuesta de la alta representante y vicepresidenta Ashton en nombre de la Comisión**

_(5 de junio de 2014)_

La AR/VP es muy consciente de la cuestión planteada por Su Señoría, que sus servicios están siguiendo con atención. Parece que los
procedimientos judiciales están todavía en curso en este asunto ante los órganos jurisdiccionales colombianos, en particular en el
Consejo de Estado y el Tribunal Constitucional. El diálogo político de la UE con Colombia es el foro natural para abordar tales
cuestiones, en caso de que fuera conveniente adoptar cualquier medida a la luz de la evolución posterior.

Cabe señalar que el proceso de ratificación del acuerdo comercial multilateral ha sido finalizado en lo que respecta a las instituciones
de la UE implicadas (Parlamento Europeo y Consejo).

C 341 / 156 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003389/14**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — IAHRC ruling on the ousting of Gustavo Petro

On 19 March, the President of Colombia, Juan Manuel Santos, made some controversial statements to the effect that his government
‘does not accept the injunction’ filed the previous night by the Inter-American Human Rights Commission regarding the ousting of
the Mayor of Bogotá, Gustavo Petro.

Echoing the statements from Mr Santos, the Colombian Foreign Minister María Ángela Holguín described the Commission’s ruling as
‘interference’. This demonstrates once again that the government of Juan Manuel Santos has no respect for human rights and
international institutions such as the IAHRC that attempt to monitor compliance. The Colombian Government’s attitude and failure
to assert its commitment to human rights cast doubt on the existence of the rule of law in that country and the democratic quality of
its institutions.

Colombia is therefore in the hands of a government which, as many sections of civil society have complained, does not respect
human rights. Gustavo Petro himself, following the statements from Mr Santos, declared ‘there’s no point voting in Colombia’, as he
was ousted following his electoral victory with no guarantee whatsoever that he would be able to return to political life.

1. Is the Vice-President/High Representative aware of the Inter-American Human Rights Commission ruling?

2. What is her assessment of the statements from Mr Santos and Ms. Holguín? Does she think Colombia is respecting minimum
democratic safeguards and human rights in the country?

3. Does she plan to urge Colombia to heed the IAHRC ruling on the dismissal of Gustavo Petro?

4. Is she considering freezing the ratification process for the EU Colombia-Peru free trade agreement until Mr Santos’s
government heeds the IAHRC ruling and demonstrates that Colombia is a state where fundamental democratic safeguards exist?

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

_(5 June 2014)_

The HR/VP is well aware of the matter raised by the Honourable Member, which her services are closely following. It appears that
judicial procedures are still underway in this case in Colombian Courts, in particular the Council of State and the Constitutional
Court. The EU's political dialogue with Colombia is the natural forum for taking up such issues should it appear appropriate to take
any measures in the light of further developments.

It should be noted that the ratification process of the Multi-Party Trade Agreement has been completed as far as the relevant EU
institutions (the European Parliament and the Council) are concerned.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 157

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-003390/14**

**an die Kommission**
**Andreas Mölzer (NI)**

_(20. März 2014)_

_Betrifft:_ Flüchtlingssturm auf Melilla

Nach dem letzten großen Flüchtlingsansturm im Oktober 2005 baute Spanien die Befestigungen an der Grenze zu Marokko aus und
erhöhte auch die Grenzzäune. Am 18. März 2014 berichteten die Medien von einem Flüchtlingssturm tausender Flüchtlinge von
Marokko aus auf die spanische Exklave Melilla. Im Schutz des dichten Nebels sollen es etwa 500 Afrikaner auf spanisches Gebiet
geschafft haben und dabei auch gewaltsam gegen Sicherheitskräfte vorgegangen sein.

Die Massenanstürme auf die spanischen Exklaven Ceuta und Melilla sollen in den vergangenen Monaten deutlich zugenommen
haben. Allein in den ersten zweieinhalb Monaten dieses Jahres sollen mehr als tausend Flüchtlinge aus Ländern südlich der Sahara die
Grenzzäune von Melilla überwunden haben. Das sind nach Erhebungen der Zeitung „El País“ in etwa so viele wie im gesamten
Jahr 2013. Nach den jüngsten Versuchen, die Grenze zu überwinden, kündigte Madrid eine Verstärkung der Polizeikräfte in Melilla

an.

1. Kann die Kommission die Zunahme an Massenanstürmen auf die spanischen Exklaven Melilla und Ceuta bestätigen?

2. In welchem Ausmaß wird Frontex zur Sicherung der spanischen Exklaven Melilla und Ceuta eingesetzt?

3. Nachdem die Flüchtlingsrouten ständigen Schwankungen unterliegen, wie schnell können die Einsatzkräfte von Frontex ihren
Standort ändern?

4. Ist Frontex nach Einschätzung der Kommission für eine Zunahme an Massenanstürmen in anderen Gebieten gerüstet?

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

_(12. Mai 2014)_

Die Kommission verweist den Herrn Abgeordneten auf ihre Antwort auf die schriftliche Anfrage E-002074/2014 ( [1] ).

Die Kommission steht mit den spanischen Behörden und Frontex in Kontakt, um sich alle erforderlichen Informationen über die
Lage in Ceuta und Melilla zu verschaffen, darunter auch zur Zahl ankommender Migranten. Detailliertere Informationen dazu stehen
noch aus, so dass die Kommission derzeit nicht eingehender Stellung nehmen kann.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2014-002074&language=DE

C 341 / 158 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003390/14**

**to the Commission**
**Andreas Mölzer (NI)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Onslaught of refugees on Melilla

After the last major onslaught by refugees in October 2005, Spain expanded the fortifications on its border with Morocco and
increased the height of the border fences. On 18 March 2014 media reports referred to an onslaught by thousands of refugees from
Morocco on the Spanish exclave of Melilla. Under the cover of thick fog, some 500 Africans are said to have reached Spanish
territory and engaged in violent clashes with security forces.

The mass onslaughts on the Spanish exclaves of Ceuta and Melilla have reportedly increased significantly in the past few months. In
the first two-and-a-half months of this year alone, more than a thousand refugees from sub-Saharan countries are said to have scaled
Melilla’s border fences. According to figures published by the newspaper _El País_ that is about as many as in the whole of 2013. After
the latest attempts to breach the border, Madrid announced an increase in police numbers in Melilla.

1. Can the Commission confirm the increase in mass onslaughts on the Spanish exclaves of Melilla and Ceuta?

2. How many Frontex agents are being deployed to secure the Spanish exclaves of Melilla and Ceuta?

3. Given that the routes taken by refugees are constantly changing, how quickly can the Frontex forces relocate?

4. In the Commission’s view, is Frontex equipped to cope with an increase in mass onslaughts in other areas?

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

_(12 May 2014)_

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-002074/2014. ( [1] )

The Commission is in contact with the Spanish authorities and Frontex to obtain all necessary information on the situation in Ceuta
and Melilla, including information on the number of arrivals. The Commission is awaiting more detailed information and is therefore
not yet in a position to answer in more depth.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2014-002074&language=EN

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 159

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-003391/14**

**an die Kommission**
**Andreas Mölzer (NI)**

_(20. März 2014)_

_Betrifft:_ Bankgebühren

Bankgebühren sind Ermessenssache des jeweiligen Instituts. Zahlreiche Finanzinstitute haben anscheinend die SEPA-Umstellung
dazu genutzt, neue Geschäftsbedingungen einzuführen, und verlangen für immer mehr Leistungen horrende Gebühren.
Beispielsweise kostet die Benachrichtigung über eine geplatzte SEPA-Lastschrift (weil nicht genug Geld auf dem Konto war) zwei bis
drei Euro. Fremdabheben am Automaten kann fünf Euro kosten, der Ausdruck eines länger zurückliegenden Kontoauszugs sechs
Euro etc. Für Kleingeldzählen und den Umtausch in Scheine fallen bis zu zehn Euro an Gebühr an.

1. Inwieweit gibt es im Zuge der von der EU forcierten SEPA-Umstellung Bemühungen, dass diese nicht zur Erhöhung bzw.
Wieder-oder Neueinführung von überhöhten Bankgebühren genutzt wird?

2. Gibt es, nachdem Fremdabhebungen am Automaten mit bis zu fünf Euro Gebühren recht teuer ausfallen können, auf EU-Ebene
Regelungen hinsichtlich Geldabhebungen an einem Bankomaten in einem anderen Mitgliedstaat?

**Antwort von Herrn Barnier im Namen der Kommission**

_(13. Juni 2014)_

1. Mit Ausnahme eines Falles, der mit der Unterstützung der Kommissionsdienststellen auf nationaler Ebene gelöst werden
konnte, sind der Kommission keine Fälle bekannt, in denen die Umstellung auf das SEPA-System dazu geführt hat, dass systematisch
EU-übergreifend Bankgebühren erhöht oder neue Gebühren eingeführt wurden. Falls dem Herrn Abgeordneten solche Fälle bekannt
sind, wäre die Kommission für die Übermittlung der entsprechenden Belege dankbar. Es obliegt allerdings den nationalen Behörden,
gegen etwaige abgestimmte Verhaltensweisen oder missbräuchliche Praktiken von Banken gemäß dem Wettbewerbsrecht der EU
vorzugehen.

2. Auf Barabhebungen in Euro an Geldautomaten findet die Verordnung (EG) Nr. 924/2009 ( [1] ) Anwendung. Mit dieser
Verordnung werden im Einklang mit dem Grundsatz, dass Zahlungsdienstleister (z. B. Banken) für grenzüberschreitende Zahlungen
und für Inlandszahlungen in gleicher Höhe die gleichen Entgelte erheben, die Gebührenunterschiede zwischen
grenzüberschreitenden und nationalen Zahlungen in Euro beseitigt. Konkret muss die Bank gemäß Artikel 3 für
grenzüberschreitende Barabhebungen in Euro an einem Geldautomaten die gleichen Entgelte erheben, wie sie sie für entsprechende
Inlandsabhebungen in gleicher Höhe erhebt. Eine entsprechende Inlandsabhebung ist in der Regel eine Barabhebung an einem nicht
zum Netz der Bank gehörenden Geldautomaten.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Verordnung (EG) Nr. 924/2009 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates über grenzüberschreitende Zahlungen in der Gemeinschaft, ABl. L 266 vom 9.10.2009,
S. 11.

C 341 / 160 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003391/14**

**to the Commission**
**Andreas Mölzer (NI)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Bank charges

Banks are free to set charges as they see fit. Many financial institutions have apparently taken advantage of the SEPA migration to
introduce new terms and conditions, and are demanding horrendous fees for an increasing number of services. For example,
forwarding of a notification of a bounced SEPA debit (because there was not enough money in the relevant account) costs between
two and three euros, withdrawing money from cash dispensers operated by a bank other than your own can cost five euros, and
printing out a bank statement which dates back more than a few days can cost six euros. The charge for counting small change and
exchanging it for notes can be as high as ten euros.

1. In the context of the SEPA migration pushed through by the EU, what efforts are being made to prevent banks from exploiting
the migration to increase, reintroduce or introduce excessive bank charges?

2. Given that withdrawals from cash dispensers operated by a bank other than your own can be very expensive (charges of up to
five euros), are there EU rules on withdrawals from cash dispensers in another Member State?

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

_(13 June 2014)_

1. The Commission is not aware of any systematic, EU-wide increases in bank fees or introduction of new fees that could be
associated with SEPA migration except for one isolated example which has been already addressed at national level, with the
assistance of the Commission services. If the Honourable Member has evidence of other cases, the Commission would be grateful to
have that evidence. In case of collusion or other violations of competition law on the occasion of SEPA migration, the European
Commission or, depending on the case, the national competition authorities, would be responsible to take the necessary action.

2. Cash withdrawals in euros at cash dispensers (ATMs) are subject to Regulation (EC) No 924/2009 ( [1] ). This regulation eliminates
the differences in charges for cross-border and national payments in euro, in accordance with the principle that charges for payment
transactions offered by a payment service provider (e.g. a bank) have to be the same, for the payment of the same value, whether the
payment is national or cross-border. More precisely, in accordance with Article 3 of the regulation, the bank of the consumer is
obliged to charge exactly the same amount for a cross-border ATM withdrawal in euro as for a corresponding national withdrawal of
the same value. In practice, a corresponding national withdrawal is most often a withdrawal at a cash dispenser that does not belong
to the bank’s network.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regulation (EC) No 924/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on cross‐border payments in the Community, OJ L 266, 9.10.2009, p. 11.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 161

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-003392/14**

**an die Kommission**
**Andreas Mölzer (NI)**

_(20. März 2014)_

_Betrifft:_ Bedenkliche Lebensmittelimporte aus China

Nachdem Lebensmittel aus China oft um einiges günstiger sind als heimische, sind die Importe aus dem Reich der Mitte in den
vergangenen Jahren kontinuierlich angestiegen. Problematisch ist indes, dass in der chinesischen Landwirtschaft Pestizide erlaubt
sind, die in EU-Staaten verboten sind. Vor allem Fisch, Äpfel, Erdbeeren oder Marmelade stammen nach einem Zeitungsbericht
immer öfter aus China.

Anscheinend führt China die Statistik der bei der Einfuhr in die EU auffällig gewordenen Lebensmittel mit großem Abstand an. Eine
EU-Lebensmittelbehörde soll im Jahr 2013 ganze 435-mal einen China-Import an das unionsweite Schnellwarnsystem gemeldet
haben. Proben zeigen genveränderte Inhaltsstoffe, Pestizide oder gar Schwermetalle auf.

1. Wie hoch ist der Anteil von Erzeugnissen aus China an den Lebensmittelimporten in die EU?

2. Welche Konsequenzen werden hinsichtlich der Kontrollen von Lebensmittelimporten aus Ländern gezogen, die derart oft im
unionsweiten Schnellsystem gemeldet werden?

**Antwort von Tonio Borg im Namen der Kommission**

_(13. Mai 2014)_

1. Beim Handel mit Agrar- und Fischereierzeugnissen insgesamt ist China der viertwichtigste Partner der EU; 2012 stammten
4,85 % der EU-Einfuhren solcher Erzeugnisse aus diesem Land.

2. Als Teil der derzeit geltenden umfassenden Rechtsvorschriften zur Gewährleistung der Sicherheit der in die Union
eingeführten Lebensmittel erstellte die Kommission 2010 eine Liste der Futtermittel und Lebensmittel nicht tierischen Ursprungs, die
aufgrund bekannter oder neu auftretender Risiken verstärkten Kontrollen vor ihrer Verbringung in die EU unterliegen. Die Liste
findet sich in Anhang I der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 669/2009 ( [1] ) und wird regelmäßig aufgrund von Informationen aus verschiedenen
Quellen aktualisiert, u. a. Daten aus Meldungen, die im Schnellwarnsystem für Lebensmittel und Futtermittel eingegangen sind.
Derzeit werden in der Liste z. B. gefrorene Erdbeeren, „Chinesischer Brokkoli“, Pampelmusen und Tee mit Ursprung in China geführt.

Bei Bedarf werden strengere Auflagen gemacht, beispielsweise die Vorlage von Proben- und Analyseergebnissen und einer von
befugten Vertretern des Ursprungslandes geprüften Genusstauglichkeitsbescheinigung. Eine solche Regelung gilt derzeit für mehrere
Waren; betroffen sind z. B. Erdnüsse aus China, weil sie mit Aflatoxinen verunreinigt sein könnten ( [2] ) und Reiserzeugnisse aus China,
weil nicht zugelassener genetisch veränderter Reis enthalten sein könnte ( [3] ). Wenn nötig können auch besondere Maßnahmen
ergriffen werden, beispielsweise ein Verbot der Einfuhr des fraglichen Lebens- oder Futtermittels.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Verordnung (EG) Nr. 669/2009 der Kommission, ABl. L 194 vom 25.7.2009, S. 11.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1152/2009 der Kommission, ABl. L 313 vom 28.11.2009, S. 40.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Durchführungsbeschluss 2013/287/EU der Kommission, ABl. L 162 vom 14.6.2013, S. 10.

C 341 / 162 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003392/14**

**to the Commission**
**Andreas Mölzer (NI)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Dubious food imports from China

Since food from China is often considerably lower priced than domestic food, imports from the Middle Kingdom have been steadily
increasing in the past few years. However, this is problematic because certain pesticides are allowed in Chinese agriculture that are
forbidden in the Member States. According to a newspaper report, increasing quantities of fish, apples, strawberries and jam in
particular are from China.

It seems that China is way ahead in terms of statistics for food that has attracted attention on arrival in the EU. In 2013 an EU food
authority is said to have reported Chinese imports to the EU-wide Rapid Alert System no fewer than 435 times. Tests show the
presence of genetically-modified ingredients, pesticides and even heavy metals.

1. How high is China’s share of food products imported into the EU?

2. What consequences can be drawn for inspections of food imports from countries that are reported so many times in the EUwide Rapid Alert System?

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

_(13 May 2014)_

1. China is the fourth commercial partner of the EU as regards the total trade in agricultural and fishery products and accounted
for 4.85% of the imports into the EU of these products in 2012.

2. As part of the comprehensive body of legislation in place to ensure that food imported into the Union complies with EU safety
requirements, the Commission established in 2010 a list of food and feed of non-animal origin which on the basis of known or
emerging risk require an increased level of controls prior to their introduction into the EU. The list appears in Annex I to Regulation
(EC) 669/2009 ( [1] ) and is regularly reviewed on the basis of information sources which include data resulting from notifications
received through the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed. At present the list features, amongst others, frozen strawberries, ‘Chinese
Broccoli’, pomelos and tea originating from China.

When required, more stringent import conditions such as the compulsory presentation of results of sampling and analysis and of a
health certificate verified by authorised representatives of the country of origin are adopted. This regime is at present applicable to a
number of commodities including groundnuts originating from China due to the possible contamination with aflatoxins ( [2] ) and rice
products originating from China due to the possible presence of unauthorised genetically modified rice ( [3] ). Special conditions such as
the suspension of imports of the food or feed in question can also be imposed if needed.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Commission Regulation (EC) 669/2009, OJ L 194, 25.7.2009, p. 11-21.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1152/2009, OJ L 313, 28.11.2009, p. 40‐49.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Commission Implementing Decision 2013/287/EU, OJ L 162, 14.6.2013, p. 10‐14.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 163

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-003393/14**

**an die Kommission**
**Jörg Leichtfried (S&D)**

_(20. März 2014)_

_Betrifft:_ Freier Binnenmarkt

Das Verkaufsportal „Willhaben.at“ ist ein österreichisches Online-Anzeigenportal. Das Angebot der Anzeigen-Plattform umfasst die
Bereiche Immobilien, Auto & Motor, Jobs & Karriere sowie einen Marktplatz für Gegenstände und Dienstleistungen jeglicher Art. Die
Plattform verkauft Anzeigen, warnt jedoch gleichzeitig vor Käufen aus dem Ausland.

Das Verkaufsportal „WILLHABEN.AT“ schreibt in seinem Portal auf der Seite „Sicher kaufen & bezahlen“, dass die Besucher des
Portals „von Verkäufen aus dem Ausland und Überweisungen ins Ausland Abstand nehmen“ sollen.

1. Ist dies mit dem freien innergemeinschaftlichen Handel der EU vereinbar?

2. Führt dies nicht zu einer Ausgrenzung bzw. Diskriminierung der Anbieter aus dem Ausland?

3. Stellt dieser Umstand nicht eine Wettbewerbsverzerrung dar?

**Antwort von Herrn Barnier im Namen der Kommission**

_(21. Mai 2014)_

Nach Ansicht der Kommission sind grenzüberschreitende Online-Verkäufe von Waren und Dienstleistungen eine wichtige Quelle
für Wachstum und Arbeitsplätze. Die Vollendung des digitalen Binnenmarkts ist daher von entscheidender Bedeutung. Vor diesem
Hintergrund legte die Kommission die Mitteilung „Ein kohärenter Rahmen zur Stärkung des Vertrauens in den digitalen Binnenmarkt
für elektronischen Handel und Online-Dienste“ ( [1] ) vor. Die Förderung des grenzüberschreitenden elektronischen Handels ist auch ein
Eckpfeiler der „Digitalen Agenda für Europa“ ( [2] ). Nachrichten und Meldungen, die Verbraucher und Unternehmen davon abhalten,
Waren und Dienstleistungen über die Grenzen hinweg online zu kaufen und zu verkaufen, kann die Kommission daher nur
bedauern.

Die Kommission ist sich der Tatsache bewusst, dass die Bürger sich aufgrund von Bedenken hinsichtlich der Betrugsgefahren und der
mangelnden Sicherheit der Zahlungsverfahren nur ungern auf Online-Aktivitäten einlassen.

Daher hat die Kommission einen überarbeiteten Vorschlag für die Richtlinie über Zahlungsdienste im Binnenmarkt ( [3] ) verabschiedet,
die auf die Verbesserung der Situation im Hinblick auf die Sicherheit, die Wahlmöglichkeiten und die Kosten von Online-Zahlungen
zielt. Um das Vertrauen in die Online-Dienste allgemein zu stärken, hat sie außerdem einen Vorschlag für eine Richtlinie über Netz‐
und Informationssicherheit verabschiedet und arbeitet in diesem Bereich mit allen Beteiligten zusammen ( [4] ).

Davon abgesehen hätte eine auf der Website eines privaten Anbieters gepostete Sicherheitswarnung wohl nicht die generelle
Ausgrenzung oder Diskriminierung von Lieferanten aus anderen Ländern zur Folge. Dass eine derartige Warnung gegen die
Wettbewerbsregeln der EU verstoßen würde, scheint ebenfalls unwahrscheinlich.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Aktionsplan zum elektronischen Handel, KOM(2011)942.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) KOM(2010)245.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) KOM(2013)547.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/nis-public-private-platform-%E2 %80 %93-call-expression-interest

C 341 / 164 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003393/14**

**to the Commission**
**Jörg Leichtfried (S&D)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Free internal market

‘Willhaben.at’ is an Austrian online sales and advertising portal. Its offerings cover real estate, cars and accessories, jobs and careers,
and it acts as a marketplace for goods and services of all kinds. The platform sells advertisements, but at the same time warns against
making purchases from foreign countries.

‘Willhaben.at’ writes on its portal, on the page headed ‘Buy and pay safely’, that users of the portal should ‘not make purchases from
or transfer money to foreign countries’.

1. Is this recommendation compatible with the principle of the free movement of goods and capital in the EU?

2. Will this not lead to suppliers from foreign countries being excluded or discriminated against?

3. Does this state of affairs not represent distortion of competition?

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

_(21 May 2014)_

The Commission believes that the cross-border online sale of goods and services is an important source of growth and jobs and that
the completion of the Digital Single Market is therefore essential. In this vein, the Commission put forward a coherent framework for
building trust in the Digital Single Market for e-commerce and online services ( [1] ). Boosting cross-border e-commerce is also one of
the cornerstones of the Digital Agenda for Europe ( [2] ).The Commission can therefore only regret messages that discourage consumers
and businesses from going online to buy and sell goods and services across borders.

The Commission is aware that citizens may be reluctant to engage in online activities due to concerns as regards safety and security
of payments and the risks of fraud in that context.

This is why the Commission adopted the proposal for a revised Payments Services Directive ( [3] ) to improve the situation in terms of
security, choice and cost of online payments. It also proposed a directive on Network and Information Security to improve the trust
in the general online environment and is working with stakeholders in that context ( [4] ).

This having been said, a security warning as such, posted on a website of a private operator, would not appear to lead to a general
exclusion of or discrimination against suppliers from other countries. It also seems unlikely that such a warning would breach the EU
competition rules.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) E-commerce action plan, COM(2011) 942.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2010) 245.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 547.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/nis-public-private-platform-%E2%80%93-call-expression-interest

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 165

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003395/14**

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

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Hedge cutting

There is concern in the farming community in Wales that the hedge-cutting period is too short, especially given the current wet
weather. Can the Commission confirm that the rules governing the hedge-cutting period come under European legislation? If so,
please indicate whether there is any way in which the hedge‐cutting season can be extended.

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

_(10 May 2014)_

The Commission confirms that there are EU rules governing hedge cutting.

While the duration and dates determining the hedge-cutting season are decided by the relevant authorities in the Member States, they
should be consistent with the requirements under Article 5 of the Birds Directive (Directive 2009/147/EC ( [1] )). These prohibit _inter_
_alia_ the deliberate destruction of, or damage to, birds' nests and eggs and the deliberate and significant disturbance of birds
particularly during the period of breeding and rearing.

The current EU rules for the cross-compliance system, which provide a link between the full payment to farmers for support under
the common agricultural policy (CAP) and the compliance with rules relating to land management, agricultural production and
agricultural activity, include the Birds Directive.

Furthermore, from 1st January 2015, pursuant to the new Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 ( [2] ) on the financing, management and
monitoring of the CAP, the cross-compliance system will include a standard of good agricultural and environmental condition
(GAEC), which aims to maintain landscape features and to ban cutting hedges and trees during the bird breeding and rearing season.
In order to implement this standard, Member States will set a hedge-cutting banning period, which should also be consistent with the
requirements under Article 5 of the Birds Directive.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 20, 26.1.2010.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 347/549, 20.12.2013.

C 341 / 166 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003397/14**

**alla Commissione**
**Andrea Zanoni (S&D)**

_(20 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Vivisezione, test alternativi/sostitutivi e attività dell'Agenzia europea delle sostanze chimiche (ECHA)

Secondo l'articolo 4 della direttiva 2010/63/UE sulla protezione degli animali utilizzati a fini scientifici, gli Stati membri devono
assicurare il principio della sostituzione, della riduzione e del perfezionamento. Secondo la stessa direttiva gli Stati membri
assicurano, a livello nazionale, la promozione di approcci alternativi e la divulgazione delle relative informazioni (articolo 47,
paragrafo 4). In Italia fino al 28 marzo vige il Decreto Legislativo 116 del 1992 (attuazione della precedente direttiva 86/609/CEE)
nel quale viene chiaramente espresso come gli esperimenti possano essere eseguiti soltanto quando, per ottenere il risultato ricercato,
non sia possibile utilizzare altro metodo scientificamente valido, ragionevolmente e praticamente applicabile, che non implichi
l'impiego di animali. Secondo lo stesso Decreto, nell'autorizzazione dei progetti deve essere inserita la valutazione sugli scopi del
progetto che giustificano l'uso dell'animale e l'analisi dei danni e dei benefici derivanti dal progetto, al fine di comprendere, tenuto
conto anche delle considerazioni di natura etica, se il danno arrecato agli animali in termini di sofferenza, dolore, angoscia o danno
prolungato è giustificato dal risultato atteso in termini di benefici per gli esseri umani, per gli animali e per l'ambiente. L'ECHA ha
diffuso un documento relativo all'attuazione del regolamento (CE) n. 1907/2006 (REACH, articoli 50 e 51) intitolato «Decision on a
compliance check of a registration pursuant to article 41 (3) of regulation (EC) no 1907/2006» (decisione sulla verifica di conformità
di una registrazione conformemente all'articolo 41, paragrafo 3, del regolamento (CE) n. 1907/2006) dove vengono richiesti test in
vivo per cui esistono alternative (irritazione oculare e cutanea o tossicità acuta) e altri per i quali è possibile ovviare al ricorso a
modelli animali (come sensibilizzazione cutanea e mutagenicità). L'ECHA non è nuova nel non presentare correttamente i metodi
alternativi e sostitutivi dei test su animali e ciò è ancora più grave visto che il regolamento REACH, all'articolo 13, sancisce
chiaramente come siano da considerarsi prioritari mezzi diversi dai test su animali vertebrati, attraverso l'uso di metodi alternativi, ad
esempio metodi in vitro o relazioni qualitative o quantitative struttura-attività o dati relativi a sostanze strutturalmente affini.

In considerazione di quanto sopra, può la Commissione chiarire quale sia stato il criterio per il quale l'ECHA ha suggerito, come test
di riferimento, il modello in vivo nonostante siano state validate alternative che non comportano l'utilizzo e l'uccisione di animali?
Per quale motivo in tale documento il ricorso a metodi in vitro è solo suggerito tra le note finali? Quali iniziative intende
intraprendere per far rispettare all'ECHA il ricorso a metodi sostitutivi ai test su animali previsti dal regolamento REACH e dalla
direttiva 2010/63/UE?

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

_(30 maggio 2014)_

Nel periodo 2009-2013 l’Agenzia europea per le sostanze chimiche (ECHA) ha emesso 780 decisioni in merito a controlli di
conformità. Non è possibile stabilire a quale documento l’onorevole parlamentare fa riferimento né le condizioni esatte alle quali
sono stati imposti i test menzionati.

I test in vivo costituiscono i test di riferimento in un certo numero di prescrizioni in materia di informazioni standard ai sensi del
regolamento (CE) n. 1907/2006 ( [1] ) (Regolamento REACH) Tuttavia, i test su animali vertebrati vanno effettuati solo in ultima
istanza ( [2] ). Gli allegati da VII a X del regolamento REACH contengono norme specifiche che stabiliscono i casi in cui non deve essere
condotto un determinato test su animali. Gli organismi che si registrano possono anche adeguare i regimi di sperimentazione
standard ai sensi dell’articolo 13 e dell’allegato XI del regolamento REACH per acquisire informazioni sulle proprietà intrinseche
delle sostanze senza ricorrere a test su animali.

Coloro che intendono registrarsi devono verificare di essere in grado di soddisfare l’obbligo di informazione relativo ad irritazione
cutanea/corrosività con mezzi alternativi alla sperimentazione animale.

Gli orientamenti REACH (CSR R.7.2) descrivono una strategia a tappe che prevede l'esame di tutti i dati esistenti prima di eseguire o
di proporre la sperimentazione in vivo ( [3] ). ECHA fornisce inoltre sul suo sito web numerose informazioni sull’uso di metodi in vitro.
Per esempio, il metodo sperimentale B.46 costituisce un’alternativa adeguata al saggio di irritazione cutanea in vivo per la maggior
parte delle sostanze.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) GU L 396 del 30.12.2006.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Come previsto dall’articolo 25 del regolamento REACH.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Disponibile sul sito: http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13632/information_requirements_r7a_en.pdf, pag.200.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 167

Nell'ambito della valutazione del controllo di conformità, l’ECHA fa richiesta dei test di riferimento solo quando sia confermata una
lacuna informativa e l'organismo registrato abbia disatteso il suo dovere di informazione mediante uno dei metodi sopra indicati. A
seconda del caso specifico, sono imposte ulteriori condizioni per massimizzare l'applicazione, da parte dell'organismo registrato, di
strategie sperimentali integrate che riducono al minimo l'uso di animali.

C 341 / 168 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003397/14**

**to the Commission**
**Andrea Zanoni (S&D)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Vivisection, alternative/replacement tests and activity of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Under Article 4 of Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes, Member States must ensure
compliance with the principle of replacement, reduction and refinement. Under the same directive, Member States must ensure, at
national level, the promotion of alternative approaches and the dissemination of information thereon (Article 47(4)). In Italy, until
28 March, Legislative Decree 116 of 1992 will be in force (implementation of the previous Directive 86/609/EEC). This decree
clearly stipulates that experiments must not be performed if another scientifically satisfactory method of obtaining the result sought,
not entailing the use of an animal, is reasonably and practicably available. Under the same decree, the approval of projects should
include an assessment of the aims of the project that justify the use of animals and an analysis of the harm and benefits deriving from
the project, in order to understand whether, also taking ethical considerations into account, the harm done to the animals in terms of
suffering, pain, distress or lasting harm is justified by the expected outcome in terms of benefits for humans, animals and the
environment.

ECHA has published a document on the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH, Articles 50 and 51), entitled
‘Decision on a compliance check of a registration pursuant to Article 41(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006’ in which some in vivo
tests are required when alternatives to such tests exist (eye and skin irritation or acute toxicity) and others are required when the use
of animal models could be avoided (such as skin sensitisation and mutagenicity tests). This is not the first time ECHA has failed to
properly present alternative and replacement methods to animal testing and is all the more serious in that Article 13 of the REACH
Regulation clearly states that priority is to be given to means other than vertebrate animal tests, through the use of alternative
methods, for example, _in vitro_ methods or qualitative or quantitative structure-activity relationship models or from information from
structurally related substances.

In view of the above, can the Commission clarify why ECHA has suggested, as a reference test, the _in vivo_ model in spite of the
existence of valid alternatives that do not involve the use and killing of animals? Why, in this document, is the use of _in vitro_ methods
only suggested in the final notes? What measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure that ECHA does indeed use
alternative methods to replace animal testing as provided for by the REACH regulation and by Directive 2010/63/EU?

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

_(30 May 2014)_

In the period 2009-2013 the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has issued over 780 compliance check decisions. It is not possible
to identify the document that the Honourable Member refers to or the exact conditions under which the mentioned tests were
imposed.

In vivo tests are the reference tests in a number of standard information requirements under REACH Regulation (EC)
No1907/2006 ( [1] ). However, testing on vertebrate animals shall be undertaken only as a last resort ( [2] ). Annexes VII to X to REACH
contain specific rules which outline when a particular animal test does not have to be conducted. Registrants may also adapt the
standard test regimes in accordance with Article 13 and Annex XI to REACH for generation of information on the intrinsic
properties of substances by means other than animal tests.

The Registrants shall examine the possibility to meet the information requirement for skin irritation/corrosion by alternatives to
animal testing.

REACH Guidance (CSR Guidance R.7.2) ( [3] ) details a stepwise strategy to examine all existing data before performing or proposing _in_
_vivo_ testing. ECHA also provides a wealth of information on the use of _in vitro_ methods on its website. For example, test method B.46
is a suitable alternative to _in vivo_ skin irritation test for most substances.

Under compliance check evaluation, ECHA will request the reference test only when it has confirmed that there is an information
gap and the registrant failed in his/her duty to fulfil the information requirement by any of the means identified above. Depending on
the specific case, further conditions are imposed to maximise the registrant's application of integrated testing strategies that minimise
animal use.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 396, 30.12.2006.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) As provided by Article 25 of REACH.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Available at http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13632/information_requirements_r7a_en.pdf, p200

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 169

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-003398/14**

**do Komisji**
**Adam Gierek (S&D)**

_(20 marca 2014 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Zmiany klimatu a Piąty Raport IPCC

W nawiązaniu do odpowiedzi komisarza Stavrosa Dimasa w imieniu KE z dnia 18 stycznia 2010 r. na moje pytanie odnośnie do
wiarygodności informacji przekazywanych przez IPCC w związku z tzw. Climategate oraz w nawiązaniu do stwierdzenia pana
komisarza, iż najbardziej wiarygodne badania zostaną uwzględnione dopiero w Piątym Raporcie IPCC w 2014 r., pragnę stwierdzić,
co następuje:

a. IPCC większość swojego obecnego raportu poświęca wielkim rzeczywiście zachodzącym i obserwowanym zmianom
klimatycznym, co rzekomo ma dowodzić, iż wzrost CO 2 zachodzący w tymże czasie jest tego przyczyną;

b. twierdzenie dotyczące wpływu CO 2 na zmiany klimatu w związku z zanotowaniem takich zmian nadal nie jest w tym raporcie
wprost udowodnione i pozostaje jedynie hipotezą;

c. wątpliwości budzi więc założenie, iż to wzrost CO 2 w atmosferze jest wyłącznie skutkiem działalności człowieka, co według
IPCC ma stanowić przyczynę zmian klimatycznych, a nie odwrotnie.

W związku z tym mam następujące pytania:

1. W oparciu o jakie dane statystyczne (współczynniki korelacji i regresji wielorakiej oraz estymatory rozkładu) bierze się
bezkrytyczna wiara Komisji w hipotezę IPCC, że to człowiek w 95 % odpowiada za te zmiany klimatu?

2. W oparciu o jakie dane Komisja odrzuca tezę głoszoną przez liczne grono uczonych (wcale nie mniejsze od liczby autorów
Piątego Raportu IPCC), że to właśnie nie wzrost CO 2 jest przyczyną zmian klimatu, lecz zmiany klimatu z przyczyn
naturalnych powodują podniesienie się poziomu CO 2 w atmosferze?

Moje pytania mają znaczenie zasadnicze dla problemu przyszłego rozwoju Unii Europejskiej, albowiem już zauważalne obecnie
bardzo istotne zmiany klimatyczne wymagają dostosowawczego ingerowania społeczeństw w celu zabezpieczenia się przed ich
skutkami. Myślę, że wiara Komisji, której nie poddały się przecież kraje trzecie, bez szczegółowej i pewnej wiedzy, może skutkować
błędnymi decyzjami w zakresie alokacji środków finansowych, utratą konkurencyjności oraz regresem cywilizacyjnym.

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarz Máire Geoghegan-Quinn w imieniu Komisji**

_(20 maja 2014 r.)_

W odniesieniu do związku przyczynowo-skutkowego między emisjami CO 2 i globalnym ociepleniem, w ramach prac nad 5.
Raportem Międzyrządowego Zespołu ds. Zmian Klimatu (IPCC) ( [1] ) setki naukowców poddało dogłębnej ocenie tysiące
recenzowanych publikacji badawczych i doszło przy tym do zdecydowanego wniosku, że obserwowanego od połowy XX. wieku
ocieplenia naszej planety nie można wyjaśnić jedynie wpływem czynników naturalnych. Te naturalne czynniki obejmują między
innymi wybuchy wulkanów, zmiany w cyrkulacji wód w oceanach i w natężeniu promieniowania słonecznego oraz zmiany orbity
Ziemi. Dowody naukowe wskazują natomiast, że ocieplenie to jest związane ze zmianą bilansu cieplnego Ziemi spowodowaną
emisjami gazów cieplarnianych i aerozoli w związku z działalnością człowieka od czasów sprzed epoki przemysłowej, i że
największy udział w tym procesie ma dwutlenek węgla. Dane paleoklimatyczne pokazują bez wątpienia, że zmiany średniej
temperatury na Ziemi na przestrzeni wieków – objawiające się cyklami zlodowaceń i ociepleń – mimo że wywoływane
wymuszaniem orbitalnym i zmianami w położeniu kontynentu powodowanymi ruchami tektonicznymi, były dodatkowo
potęgowane powiązanymi zmianami w stężeniu gazów cieplarnianych w atmosferze, a nie odwrotnie ( [2] ).

W Raporcie IPCC stwierdza się zatem, że jest bardzo prawdopodobne, iż skutki działalności człowieka są główną przyczyną
obserwowanego ocieplenia od połowy XX. wieku ( [3] ).

Stwierdzenie to jest również zgodne z wynikami badań naukowych finansowanych przez UE.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Pierwsza grupa robocza (WGI) – Climate change 2013: The physical science basis.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Wkład pierwszej grupy roboczej IPCC (WGI) do 5. Raportu IPCC – Rozdział 5: zob. www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Zob. Podsumowanie dla decydentów politycznych, D 3: www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf; bardzo prawdopodobne”

(extremely likely) oznacza w języku IPCC prawdopodobieństwo rzędu 95-100 %.

C 341 / 170 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003398/14**

**to the Commission**
**Adam Gierek (S&D)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Climate change and the Fifth IPCC Report

With reference to Commissioner Stavros Dimas’ answer on behalf of the European Commission dated 18 January 2010 to my
question regarding the reliability of information provided by the IPCC in connection with so-called ‘Climategate’ and with respect to
the Commissioner’s comment that the most reliable research will only be incorporated into the Fifth IPCC Report in 2014, I state as
follows:

(a) The IPCC dedicates the majority of its current report to substantial climate changes that are actually occurring and observable,
which is allegedly meant to prove that they are caused by increases in CO 2 that have occurred during this period;

(b) The assertion concerning the impact of CO 2 on climate change in connection with such recorded changes is still not directly
proven in the report and remains a mere hypothesis;

(c) Therefore, the assumption that the increase in CO 2 in the atmosphere is exclusively due to human activity, which according to
the IPCC constitutes the cause of climate change rather than vice versa, gives rise to doubt.

In connection with the above, I have the following questions:

1. On what statistical data (correlation and multiple regression coefficients as well as decay estimates) does the Commission base
its uncritical faith in the IPCC’s hypothesis that humans are 95% responsible for these changes to the climate?

2. On the basis of what data does the Commission reject the hypothesis of a large number of scientists (certainly no less than the
number of authors of the Fifth IPCC Report) that rather than an increase in CO 2 being responsible for climate change, it is
climate change for natural reasons that is increasing the level of CO 2 in the atmosphere?

My questions are of fundamental importance for the European Union’s future growth, as the very serious climatic changes that can
currently be observed require adaptive interference among communities to protect themselves from the consequences of climatic
changes.

I believe that the Commission’s faith, which no third countries have accepted in the absence of detailed and certain knowledge, may
give rise to erroneous decisions regarding the allocation of financial resources as well as a loss of competitiveness and societal
regression.

**Answer given by Ms Geoghegan-Quinn on behalf of the Commission**

_(20 May 2014)_

Regarding the causal connection of CO 2 emissions and global warming, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC)
5th Assessment Report ( [1] ), through the work of hundreds of scientists, has thoroughly assessed thousands of peer-reviewed scientific
papers and come to the robust conclusion that the warming of the planet observed since the mid-20th century cannot be explained
by natural factors alone. These natural factors include, among others, volcanic eruptions, changes in ocean circulation, variations in
solar irradiance and changes in the Earth's orbit. Instead, the scientific evidence shows that this warming is due to a change in the
Earth's energy budget caused by emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols from human activities since pre-industrial times, and
that the largest contribution is from carbon dioxide. Palaeo‐climate data show undoubtedly that the changes of Earth average
temperature along ages — represented by glacial/interglacial cycles — even though initiated by changes in orbital forcing and the
continent’s position provoked by tectonic dynamics, have been further triggered and amplified by the related changes in atmospheric
greenhouse gas concentrations, and not vice versa ( [2] ).

The IPCC Report therefore states that ‘It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed
warming since the mid-20th century’ ( [3] ).

This is also consistent with evidence from EU-funded research.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) WGI — Climate change 2013: the physical science basis.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) IPCC WGI contribution to the 5th Assessment Report — Chapter 5: see www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) See Summary for Policymakers, D3: www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf ‘extremely likely’ in the IPCC language on uncertainty

means a probability between 95-100%.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 171

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-003399/14**

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

_(20 marca 2014 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Wolność mediów w Rosji

W ubiegłym tygodniu pojawił się szereg niepokojących informacji dotyczących wolności mediów w Rosji.

13 marca Roskomnadzor zablokował dostęp do opozycyjnych stron internetowych: Grani.ru, Kasparow.ru i EJ.ru, a także do blogu
Aleksieja Nawalnego. Serwisy te zostały na wniosek Prokuratury Generalnej Federacji Rosyjskiej wpisane do rejestru zakazanych
stron, gdyż zdaniem władz „publikują wezwania do nielegalnych działań i udziału w masowych imprezach, organizowanych
z naruszeniem prawa”.

12 marca zwolniona została redaktor naczelna niezależnego serwisu internetowego Lenta.ru, Galina Timczenko, co zostało uznane
przez dziennikarzy za bezpośrednią presję na redakcję i naruszenie ustawy o mediach, mówiącej o niedopuszczalności cenzury.
Wcześniej redakcja otrzymała od Roskomnadzoru oficjalne upomnienie za opublikowanie wywiadu z jednym z przywódców
ukraińskiego ultranacjonalistycznego Prawego Sektora, Andrijem Tarasenką.

W ciągu ostatnich kilku lat przestrzeń dla wolnego dziennikarstwa w Rosji dramatycznie się zmniejszyła. Ostatnie przykłady
pokazują, że cenzura stała sie silną bronią w rękach rosyjskich władz.

W związku z tym zwracam się z zapytaniem, czy Komisja posiada informacje na temat blokowania opozycyjnych mediów
i wywierania presji na niezależnych dziennikarzy w Rosji oraz zamierza podjąć interwencję w tej sprawie?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez Wysoką Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodniczącą Komisji Catherine Ashton w imieniu Komisji**

_(26 maja 2014 r.)_

Wysoka Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodnicząca Komisji jest świadoma presji wywieranej na niezależnych dziennikarzy, media oraz
opozycję w Federacji Rosyjskiej.

Jak przedstawiono w odpowiedzi na pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi na piśmie E-002858/2014 złożone przez Szanownego Pana
Posła, Unia Europejska wyraziła jasno i w niebudzący wątpliwości sposób swoje obawy dotyczące wspomnianych działań podczas
posiedzenia Stałej Rady OBWE w dniu 27 marca 2014 r.

Unia Europejska będzie nadal poruszać te kwestie z władzami rosyjskimi na wszystkich szczeblach stosunków UE z Rosją, zwłaszcza
podczas konsultacji UE-Rosja na temat praw człowieka oraz na forach wielostronnych.

C 341 / 172 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003399/14**

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

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Media freedom in Russia

Last week a series of worrying reports emerged concerning media freedom in Russia.

On 13 March Roskomnadzor blocked access to the following opposition websites: Grani.ru, Kasparow.ru and EJ.ru as well as Alexei
Navalny’s blog. These sites were entered into the register of prohibited sites at the request of the General Public Prosecutor’s Office of
the Russian Federation, as in the authorities’ opinion ‘they are publishing calls to take part in unlawful activities and participate in
mass events organised in breach of law.’

On 12 March the editor-in-chief of independent website Lenta.ru, Galina Timczenko, was sacked, which was regarded by journalists
to constitute direct pressure on the editorial office and to breach the Media Act, which refers to the unlawfulness of censorship.
Earlier, the editorial office received an official admonition from Roskomnadzor for publishing an interview with one of the leaders of
the Ukrainian far-right party ‘Right Sector’, Andrij Tarasenko.

During recent years, the space for free journalism in Russia has been dramatically reduced. Recent examples show that censorship
has become a strong weapon in the hands of the Russian authorities.

In connection with the above, I wish to ask whether the Commission has any information regarding the blocking of opposition
media and pressure exerted against independent journalists in Russia and whether it is attempting to intervene in this matter?

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

_(26 May 2014)_

The HR/VP is well aware of the pressure on independent journalism, media outlets as well as on opposition in the Russian Federation.

As outlined in the answer to the question for written answer E-002858/2014 asked by the Honourable member, the European
Union expressed in clear and unequivocal terms its concerns with those developments during the session of the OSCE Permanent
Council held on 27 March 2014.

The European Union will continue raising those issues with the Russian authorities at all levels of the EU-Russia relationship, notably
during the EU-Russia human rights consultations, as well as in multilateral fora.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 173

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-003400/14**

**do Komisji**
**Konrad Szymański (ECR)**

_(20 marca 2014 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Możliwość wspierania ze środków UE budowy pieszych przejść granicznych na granicy polsko-ukraińskiej

Obecna sytuacja geopolityczna stawia przed Unią Europejską istotne wyzwania w zakresie wspierania procesu integracji Ukrainy
z Unią Europejską. Poza krokami politycznymi dużego formatu niemniej istotne jest wspieranie współpracy na niższych poziomach,
w tym np. na poziomie zwiększania swobody w ruchu granicznym. Istotnym problemem jest obecnie mała liczba przejść
granicznych na granicy polsko-ukraińskiej (zaledwie 7 drogowych, podczas gdy na podobnej długości granicy polsko-słowackiej jest
ich 51), a w szczególności przejść pieszych i rowerowych, które są najtańsze w realizacji.

Konsekwentna polityka budowy niedrogich, dostępnych dla wszystkich (nie tylko dla ruchu przygranicznego) przejść pieszych
i rowerowych jest dobrym sposobem integracji społeczeństwa ukraińskiego ze społeczeństwami krajów UE.

W związku z tym pragnę zapytać:

1. Czy Unia Europejska uwzględnia w swojej strategii relacji z Ukrainą kwestię zwiększenia liczby przejść granicznych, w tym
w szczególności przejść pieszych i rowerowych?

2. Czy tego rodzaju cele mogą być wspierane ze środków europejskich takich jak np. Europejski Fundusz Rozwoju
Regionalnego, Fundusz Spójności, i TEN-T?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Siima Kallasa w imieniu Komisji**

_(22 maja 2014 r.)_

Zgodnie z art. 8 ust. 1 lit. a) rozporządzenia (UE) nr 1315/2013 (wytyczne dotyczące TEN-T) ( [1] ), który dotyczy współpracy
z państwami trzecimi w zakresie inwestycji w infrastrukturę transportową, Unia może wspierać, w tym finansowo, projekty będące
przedmiotem wspólnego zainteresowania w celu łączenia transeuropejskiej sieci transportowej z sieciami infrastrukturalnymi
państw sąsiadujących, o ile takie projekty łączą sieć bazową na przejściach granicznych.

Jeśli chodzi konkretnie o piesze i rowerowe przejścia między państwem członkowskim a państwem trzecim, związane z nimi prace
mogą być realizowane w ograniczonym zakresie jako część większych projektów transgranicznych będących przedmiotem
wspólnego zainteresowania. Ponadto odcinek transgraniczny kwalifikuje się do finansowania jedynie wówczas, gdy została zawarta
pisemna umowa między państwem członkowskim a zainteresowanym państwem trzecim ( [2] ).

Zgodnie z motywem 9 wytycznych TEN-T przy wdrażaniu projektów będących przedmiotem wspólnego zainteresowania
konieczne jest należyte uwzględnienie szczególnych uwarunkowań każdego odpowiedniego projektu oraz wykorzystanie, w miarę
możliwości, synergii z innymi strategiami politycznymi, na przykład przez włączenie do obiektów inżynierii lądowej i wodnej,
takich jak mosty lub tunele, infrastruktury rowerowej długodystansowych szlaków rowerowych.

W ramach EFRR ( [3] ) lub Funduszu Spójności tego rodzaju inwestycje powinny być zgodne ze strategią rozwoju terytorialnego
i przyczyniać się do realizacji celów określonych w priorytetach polityki spójności. Inwestycje te będą musiały wpisywać się w ramy
kompleksowego rozwoju transportu, który stanowi podstawowe kryterium wyboru priorytetowych inwestycji transportowych.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Rozporządzenie Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (UE) nr 1315/2013 z dnia 11 grudnia 2013 r. w sprawie unijnych wytycznych dotyczących rozwoju

transeuropejskiej sieci transportowej i uchylające decyzję nr 661/2010/UE.
(Dz.U. L 348 z 20.12.2013, s. 1-128).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Rozporządzenie Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (UE) nr 1316/2013 z dnia 11 grudnia 2013 r. ustanawiające instrument „Łącząc Europę”, zmieniające

rozporządzenie (UE) nr 913/2010 oraz uchylające rozporządzenia (WE) nr 680/2007 i (WE) nr 67/2010.
(Dz.U. L 348 z 20.12.2013, s. 129-171).

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Europejski Fundusz Rozwoju Regionalnego.

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|**

⋅3∙ **|** )

C 341 / 174 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003400/14**

**to the Commission**
**Konrad Szymański (ECR)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ The possibility of supporting the construction of pedestrian border crossings on the Polish-Ukrainian border from EU funds

The current geo-political situation is posing a significant challenge to the European Union as regards support for the integration
process between Ukraine and the European Union. Apart from large-scale political steps, it is important to support cooperation at
lower levels, e.g. at the level of facilitating border traffic. The low number of border crossings on the Polish-Ukrainian border is
currently posing a significant problem (only 7 road crossings, whereas there are 51 on the Polish-Slovakian border of similar length),
in particular pedestrian and bicycle crossings which are the cheapest to implement.

A consistent policy of building inexpensive pedestrian and bicycle border crossings for all (rather than solely for local cross-border
traffic) would constitute a good means of integrating Ukrainian society with the societies of EU countries.

In connection with the foregoing, I wish to ask:

1. Has the European Union incorporated the issue of increasing the number of border crossings, in particular pedestrian and
bicycle crossings, into its strategy of relations with Ukraine?

2. Can these types of objectives be financed from European funds such as, for example, the European Regional Development
Fund, Cohesion Fund and TEN-T?

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

_(22 May 2014)_

Article 8 (1) point a) of Regulation No 1315/2013 (TEN-T guidelines) ( [1] ) on the cooperation with the third countries as regards the
transport infrastructure investments states that the Union may support, including financially, projects of common interest in order
to connect the trans-European transport network with infrastructure networks of neighbouring countries in so far as such projects
connect the core network at border crossing points.

When it comes more specifically to the pedestrian and bicycle crossings between a Member State and a third country, works related
to these can be carried out to a limited extent as a part of a bigger cross-border project of common interest. In addition, the crossborder section is eligible for funding only if there is a written agreement between the Member State and the third country
concerned ( [2] ).

Recital 9 of the TEN-T guidelines states that in the implementation of projects of common interest, due consideration should be
given to the particular circumstances of the individual project concerned and where possible, synergies with other policies should be
exploited, for instance by including, within civil engineering structures such as bridges or tunnels, bicycle infrastructure for longdistance cycling paths.

In the framework of ERDF ( [3] ) or Cohesion Fund, such investments should be in line with the territorial development strategy and
contribute to deliver the objectives of the cohesion policy priorities. These investments will have to be in line with the
comprehensive transport development, which serves as a basis for the choice of transport investment priorities.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European

transport network and repealing Decision No 661/2010/EU OJ L 348, 20.12.2013, p. 1‐128.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Article 7 (2) of Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing the Connecting Europe Facility,

amending Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 680/2007 and (EC) 67/2010. OJ L 348, 20.12.2013, p. 129-171.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) European Regional Development Fund.

( **|**

( **|**

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 175

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita P-003401/14**

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

_(20 de marzo de 2014)_

_Asunto:_ Regionalización de la Garantía Juvenil

Una de las consecuencias de la crisis económica es la pérdida de empleos, que en muchos países de la Unión Europea alcanza cifras
insostenibles. Especialmente dramática resulta la tasa de desempleo juvenil que registran algunos Estados miembros. Ciertamente, las
cifras son dispares. Así, mientras en Alemania la tasa de desempleo juvenil apenas supera el 7 %, en Grecia o en España más del 50 %
de los jóvenes se encuentran sin trabajo.

Para ello, la Unión Europea ha puesto en marcha la ambiciosa propuesta de la Garantía Juvenil. Esta propuesta prevé que la Garantía
Juvenil se implante a escala regional, precisamente en aras de una mayor eficacia y a fin de que las instancias regionales, desde el
conocimiento cercano de su territorio, puedan determinar las necesidades específicas de cada zona. Debemos ser conscientes de que
el desempleo juvenil puede desembocar, en el futuro, en un aumento de la exclusión social y de las bolsas de pobreza. Por eso
consideramos la Garantía Juvenil una herramienta de vital importancia para mejorar el funcionamiento de nuestras economías y de
los mercados de trabajo.

En Catalunya, el Consell Nacional de la Joventut ha manifestado su desacuerdo con el plan de implantación de la Garantía Juvenil
presentado por el Gobierno español, ya que, en su opinión, supone un retroceso respecto de los principios marcados por la Comisión
Europea para el desarrollo de la Garantía y la lucha contra el desempleo juvenil. Considera que el plan del Gobierno español desvirtúa
la recomendación del Consejo Europeo, al reinterpretar las medidas destinadas a combatir el desempleo juvenil y dirigir la Garantía
exclusivamente a los jóvenes sin formación ni trabajo (los mal llamados «NiNi»), marginando de este modo al colectivo de jóvenes
que, pese a contar con una buena formación, no encuentran empleo. Tampoco respeta la territorialización de la totalidad de los
fondos, tal y como estaba previsto, ni incide en la orientación profesional personalizada e integral.

En vista de lo anterior:

—
¿Tiene previsto la Comisión llevar un seguimiento específico de la Garantía Juvenil en cada una de las regiones en las que se
implante?

—
¿Instará la Comisión a los Gobiernos de los Estados miembros a que, en aras de una mayor eficacia, cumplan la condición de
territorializar la Garantía Juvenil, de modo que esta pueda ser gestionada por las administraciones más próximas a cada región,
conocedoras de las realidades y la problemática de los jóvenes que allí residen?

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

_(23 de abril de 2014)_

La Garantía Juvenil, siguiendo la Recomendación del Consejo, se dirige a todos los jóvenes menores de veinticinco años que se hallen
en situación de desempleo o hayan abandonado la educación formal, incluidos los jóvenes con un nivel educativo elevado.

La Comisión está haciendo un seguimiento de la aplicación de los sistemas de Garantía Juvenil a través de la vigilancia multilateral
realizada por el Comité de Empleo en el marco del Semestre Europeo. Puesto que los Estados miembros se han comprometido a
diseñar sistemas nacionales de Garantía Juvenil, la Comisión efectuará un seguimiento de los resultados a nivel nacional, teniendo en
cuenta en su evaluación las diferencias regionales pertinentes en cuanto a rendimiento.

En la Recomendación del Consejo se afirma que la «Garantía Juvenil debe […] ajustarse conforme a las circunstancias nacionales,
regionales y locales». En los planes nacionales de implantación de la Garantía Juvenil deben señalarse con claridad las medidas
pertinentes de carácter específicamente regional.

C 341 / 176 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-003401/14**

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

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Regionalisation of the Youth Guarantee

One of the consequences of the economic crisis is job losses, which in many EU countries are reaching unsustainable levels. The level
of youth unemployment in some Member States has reached particularly dramatic levels. The figures differ widely. Thus, while youth
unemployment in Germany is just over 7%, in Greece and Spain over 50% of young people are jobless.

The EU has launched the ambitious Youth Guarantee proposal to assist them. This proposal provides for the Youth Guarantee’s
introduction at regional level, specifically to increase its effectiveness and ensure that regional authorities are able to use their indepth knowledge of their region to determine each area’s specific needs. It is important to be aware that youth unemployment can
lead to greater social exclusion and an increased number of poverty pockets in the future. We therefore see the Youth Guarantee as a
vital tool with which to improve the functioning of our economies and labour markets.

In Catalonia, the National Youth Council has expressed its disagreement with the Spanish Government’s plan for setting up the
Youth Guarantee, since it considers it a step backwards from the principles set out by the Commission for developing the guarantee
and combating youth unemployment. Catalonia’s Youth Council feels that the Spanish Government’s plan distorts the Council’s
recommendation by reinterpreting the measures aimed at combating youth unemployment and directing the Youth Guarantee
exclusively towards young people without training or employment (the so-called NEETs), thereby marginalising the sector of young
people who, despite their high level of education or training, are unable to find work. The plan does not allow the territorialisation of
the funding as a whole, as proposed, nor does it include comprehensive, personalised careers guidance.

In light of the above:

Does the Commission plan to carry out specific monitoring of the Youth Guarantee in each of the regions in which is implemented?

Will the Commission urge Member State governments to comply with the requirement to territorialise the Youth Guarantee, in order
to increase its effectiveness, so that it can be managed by the authorities most closely involved with each region and most familiar
with the situation and problems of young people living there?

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

_(23 April 2014)_

The Youth Guarantee, following the Council Recommendation, covers all young people under the age of 25 years who are
unemployed or who have left formal education, including highly educated young people.

The Commission is monitoring the implementation of Youth Guarantee schemes through the multi-lateral surveillance of the
Employment Committee within the framework of the European Semester. As Member States have committed to design national
Youth Guarantee schemes, the Commission will monitor the outcomes at national level, while taking into account in its assessment
any relevant regional differences in performance.

The Council Recommendation states that ‘The Youth Guarantee should […] be geared to national, regional and local circumstances’.
Relevant, regional-specific measures should be clearly outlined in Member States' national Youth Guarantee Implementation Plans
(YGIPs).

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 177

_(Verżjoni Maltija)_

**Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub P-003402/14**

**lill-Kummissjoni**
**Claudette Abela Baldacchino (S&D)**

_(20 ta' Marzu 2014)_

_Suġġett:_ Id-dimensjoni tal-ġeneru fl-ekonomija ħadra

Il-kostruzzjoni, it-trasport u l-manifattura huma industriji b'possibilità kbira li jibbenefikaw mill-ekonomija ħadra f'termini ta'
ħolqien tal-impjiegi. Fl-UE, il-persentaġġ ta' mpjieg tan-nisa f'dawn l-industriji huwa biss ta' 9.2 %, 21.9 % u 29.6 % rispettivament.

Il-gvernijiet għandhom jistimulaw l-involviment tan-nisa fl-ekonomija ħadra billi jħeġġu lin-nisa u lit-tfajliet jidħlu għal edukazzjoni
fix-xjenza, fit-teknoloġija, fl-inġinerija u l-matematika, jew billi joħolqu fondi għall-benefiċċju ta' intrapriżi mmexxija min-nisa.

1. Il-Kummissjoni wettqet xi studji biex tinvestiga r-raġunijiet għaliex il-parteċipazzjoni tan-nisa fil-kostruzzjoni, it-trasport u lmanifattura hija tant baxxa?

2. Il-Kummissjoni tista' tindika liema proġetti u inizjattivi nbdew mill-Istati Membri biex jistimulaw l-involviment tan-nisa flekonomija ħadra billi jħeġġu lin-nisa u lit-tfajliet jidħlu għal edukazzjoni fix-xjenza, fit-teknoloġija, fl-inġinerija u l-matematika, jew
billi joħolqu fondi għall-benefiċċju ta' intrapriżi mmexxija min-nisa? Il-Kummissjoni tista' tagħti lista dettaljata ta' liema Stati Membri
għamlu dan b'rabta ma' din il-kwistjoni?

3. Il-Kummissjoni nnifisha x'inhi tagħmel biex tistimola l-involviment tan-nisa fl-ekonomija ħadra billi jħeġġu lin-nisa u lit-tfajliet
jidħlu għal edukazzjoni fix-xjenza, fit-teknoloġija, fl-inġinerija u l-matematika, jew billi toħloq fondi għall-benefiċċju ta' intrapriżi
mmexxija min-nisa?

4. Il-Kummissjoni xi proġetti fuq medda qasira u twila ta' żmien stabbiliet biex tħeġġeġ iktar nisa jipparteċipaw fl-ekonomija
ħadra?

5. Il-Kummissjoni temmen li l-miri għall-2020 fir-rigward tal-iżvilupp sostenibbli se jintlaħqu mill-Istati Membri?

**Tweġiba mogħtija mis-Sur Andor f'isem il-Kummissjoni**

_(23 ta' April 2014)_

Il-Kummissjoni ma wettqet l-ebda studju speċifiku fuq il-parteċipazzjoni tan-nisa fl-oqsma msemmija. Madankollu, qiegħda tagħmel
studju sabiex tanalizza d-dejta statistika kumparabbli l-aktar riċenti disponibbli fuq l-intraprendituri nisa.

L-istħarriġ PISA fil-matematika u x-xjenza, li sar fost iż-żgħażagħ Ewropej ta’ 15-il sena, ma żvelax differenzi ċari u konsistenti bejn
is-sessi. Billi ġiet eliminata d-differenza bejn is-sessi fil-litteriżmu fost in-nies ta' bejn is-16 u l-24 sena, il-livell iktar baxx ta’
involviment tan-nisa fl-ekonomija ekoloġika huwa relatat ma’ fatturi oħrajn, mhux edukattivi, bħad-diskriminazzjoni.

L-Istrateġija tal-Kummissjoni għall-ugwaljanza bejn in-nisa u l-irġiel kellha l-għan li tinkoraġġixxi n-nisa biex “jagħżlu professjonijiet
mhux tradizzjonali, pereżempju fis-setturi ‘ħodor’ u dawk innovattivi” ( [1] ). Is-segwitu konkret ta’ dan huwa deskritt fir-reviżjoni ta’
nofs it-term ta' din l-Istrateġija ( [2] ).

Il-Fond Soċjali Ewropew jappoġġa t-taħriġ ekoloġiku u t-titjib tal-kapaċità tas-servizzi pubbliċi tal-impjiegi li jgħinu fittranżizzjonijiet fis-suq tax-xogħol ekoloġiku. Il-Faċilità Ewropea ta' Mikrofinanzjament Progress għandha l-għan li żżid l-aċċess
għall-finanzi għal dawk li għandhom aċċess limitat għas-suq tal-kreditu konvenzjonali, bħalma huma n-nisa.

Il-Kummissjoni għandha tadotta Komunikazzjoni dwar l-Impjieg Ekoloġiku dalwaqt, li se tippromwovi approċċ tal-politika integrat
sabiex tiżgura li l-kwistjonijiet tal-ħiliet u tal-impjiegi jkunu mdaħħlin fil-qalba tal-politiki ekoloġiċi. In-nisa huma mistennija
jibbenefikaw mill-azzjonijiet meħuda skont din l-inizjattiva.

Dan l-aħħar, il-Kummissjoni ippubblikat Komunikazzjoni ( [3] ) dwar kif l-UE u l-Istati Membri qed jimxu 'l quddiem lejn il-miri tal2020. Il-gvernijiet nazzjonali għandhom rwol ewlieni biex jintlaħqu dawn il-miri. Il-Kummissjoni timmonitorja l-progress filkuntest tas-Semestru Ewropew, u toffri gwida lill-Istati Membri dwar ir-riformi ta' prijorità għall-UE kollha u pajjiż pajjiż.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/MT/ALL/;jsessionid=VRNVTCBCl2cG8vn4D1hzPm62b5jTCtxSYmbzMxk2pvpbT8nCNZgz!-2095688871?

uri=CELEX:52010DC0491

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/strategy_women_men/131011_mid_term_review_en.pdf, p. 16 u 88.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/europe2020stocktaking_mt.pdf

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

C 341 / 178 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-003402/14**

**to the Commission**
**Claudette Abela Baldacchino (S&D)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Gender dimension of the green economy

Construction, transport and manufacturing are industries which are likely to benefit from the green economy in terms of job
creation. In the EU, female employment in these industries stands at only 9.2%, 21.9% and 29.6%, respectively.

Governments could stimulate women’s involvement in the green economy by encouraging women and girls to pursue education in
science, technology, engineering and mathematics, or by creating funds to benefit female-run enterprises.

1. Has the Commission conducted any studies to investigate why female participation in construction, transport and
manufacturing is so low?

2. Can the Commission state what projects and initiatives are being initiated by Member States to stimulate women’s involvement
in the green economy, by encouraging women and girls to pursue education in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, or
by creating funds to benefit female-run enterprises? Can the Commission give a detailed list of what Member States have been doing
in this regard?

3. What is the Commission itself doing to stimulate women’s involvement in the green economy, by encouraging women and
girls to pursue education in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, or by creating funds to benefit female-run
enterprises?

4. What short-term and long-term projects does the Commission have in place to encourage more women to participate in the
green economy?

5. Does the Commission believe that the 2020 targets on sustainable development will be reached by each Member State?

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

_(23 April 2014)_

The Commission has not conducted any specific studies on female participation in the areas mentioned. It is however undertaking a
study in order to analyse the most recent comparable statistical data available on women entrepreneurs.

The PISA survey in mathematics and science among European 15-year-olds does not reveal clear and consistent gender gaps. Given
the elimination of the gender gap in literacy among 16-24-year-olds, the lower level of women’s involvement in the green economy
is related to other, non-educational factors, such as discrimination.

The Commission's Strategy for equality between women and men aimed at encouraging ‘women to enter non-traditional
professions, for example in “green” and innovative sectors’ ( [1] ). The concrete follow-up is described in the mid-term term review of
this Strategy ( [2] ).

The European Social Fund supports green training and improving public employment services’ capacity to assist in green labour
market transitions The European Progress Microfinance Facility aims to increase the access to finance for those with limited access to
the conventional credit market, such as women.

The Commission will soon adopt a communication on Green Employment which will promote an integrated policy approach to
ensure that skills and employment issues are embedded at the heart of green policies. Women are likely to benefit from the actions
taken pursuant this initiative.

The Commission has recently published a communication ( [3] ) on how the EU and Member States are advancing towards the 2020
targets. National governments have a major role in reaching these targets. The Commission monitors progress under the European
Semester, offering EU-wide and country-by-country guidance to Member States on priority reforms.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/;jsessionid=VRNVTCBCl2cG8vn4D1hzPm62b5jTCtxSYmbzMxk2pvpbT8nCNZgz!-2095688871?

uri=CELEX:52010DC0491

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/strategy_women_men/131011_mid_term_review_en.pdf, p. 16 and 88.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/europe2020stocktaking_en.pdf

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

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 179

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003404/14**

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

_(20 de marzo de 2014)_

_Asunto:_ Una nueva narrativa para Europa

Las razones que llevaron a la construcción de la Unión Europea y que, gracias a la tenacidad y visión de sus fundadores, han
permitido un periodo de paz, de prosperidad y de crecimiento sin precedentes en los países que conforman la UE necesitan ser
revisadas ante la creciente desafección a la que se enfrenta la UE, principalmente entre el sector más joven de sus ciudadanos. La crisis
económica ha causado estragos en la mayoría de los Estados miembros y, hoy, seis millones de europeos se encuentran sin trabajo.

En España la situación es dramática, con más de la mitad de la población juvenil en el paro. Por ello urge aplicar la nueva narrativa
europea a este sector hoy desencantado, para poder convencer a estos millones de jóvenes de que tienen un futuro brillante dentro de
la UE. Además de la creación de un espacio único europeo que facilita la movilidad laboral, hay una decidida apuesta para potenciar
la educación como mejor mecanismo para poder acceder al mercado laboral. Hay el compromiso de reducir las cifras de fracaso
escolar y de potenciar los programas que facilitan el intercambio entre estudiantes de diferentes países de la UE para mejorar su
concepción de pertenencia europea, para integrarse y conocer otras culturas y para mejorar su nivel de lenguas extranjeras. Sin
embargo, las dificultades económicas de algunos países, principalmente del Mediterráneo, han ralentizado este proceso.

Por ello, ¿cree la Comisión que se está actuando desde los Estados miembros con suficiente celeridad en esta dirección?

¿Tiene prevista la implementación de otras actuaciones para potenciar el sentimiento de pertenencia europea entre la juventud?

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

_(12 de mayo de 2014)_

La Comisión comparte la preocupación de Su Señoría en relación con el desempleo juvenil y la necesidad de restablecer la confianza
de los ciudadanos en la Unión Europea. La UE ha tomado importantes medidas para luchar contra la crisis y reducir el desempleo
juvenil.

En particular, la Garantía Juvenil garantiza que todos los jóvenes menores de veinticinco años reciban una oferta de empleo de buena
calidad, educación continua, formación de aprendiz o período de prácticas en un plazo de cuatro meses tras quedar desempleados o
terminar la educación formal.

Además, la Iniciativa sobre Empleo Juvenil aportará financiación adicional ( [1] ) para las medidas destinadas a los jóvenes que ni
estudien, ni trabajen, ni sigan una formación y que residan en las regiones más afectadas por este problema, y el Marco Estratégico
para la Educación y la Formación 2020 tiene por objetivo apoyar retos como el déficit de cualificaciones en la mano de obra. Otra
destacada iniciativa es la Alianza Europea para la Formación de Aprendices, cuyo objetivo consiste en mejorar la calidad y la oferta de
este tipo de formación en Europa. Es importante apoyar la movilidad laboral y la libre circulación de las personas, una de las cuatro
libertades en que se basa el mercado interior europeo, por lo que la Comisión ha propuesto mejorar y modernizar EURES ( [2] ). El
programa Erasmus+ también está apoyando las reformas efectuadas por los Estados miembros en el ámbito de los sistemas de
educación y formación ( [3] ).

Por otra parte, la Comisión ha puesto en marcha actividades de comunicación para estrechar los lazos entre la Unión y sus
ciudadanos, tales como Diálogos con los Ciudadanos. En particular, en el marco de la Nueva Narrativa para Europa, un grupo de
intelectuales ha adoptado una declaración que subraya la importancia del derecho de los estudiantes y profesionales a circular
libremente con la garantía de la UE a fin de profundizar y ampliar sus conocimientos, dar rienda suelta a su creatividad, y ampliar sus
oportunidades.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) 6 400 millones EUR en precios corrientes.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Portal de la movilidad profesional que permite acceder actualmente a más de 1,7 millones de ofertas de trabajo, y que tiene por objetivo igualar la oferta y la demanda

de trabajo en toda Europa de manera más eficaz.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Para el período 2014-2020 dispone de un presupuesto de 14 700 millones EUR destinado a impulsar las cualificaciones y la empleabilidad, y apoyar la

modernización de los sistemas de educación y de formación profesional, así como de aquellos destinados a la juventud.

( **|**

C 341 / 180 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003404/14**

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

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ A new narrative for Europe

The reasons which led to the construction of the European Union and which, thanks to the tenacity and vision of its founders, have
allowed an unprecedented period of peace, prosperity and growth in its member countries, need to be revised to address the growing
disenchantment felt towards the EU, mainly by its youngest citizens. The economic crisis has had a terrible impact in most of the
Member States and six million Europeans are now jobless.

In Spain the situation is dramatic, with over half of young people unemployed. It is therefore urgent to apply the new European
narrative to this disillusioned sector, in order to convince these millions of young people that they have a brilliant future within
the EU. In addition to creating a single European space which facilitates labour mobility, a firm resolution has been made to promote
education as the best route towards accessing the labour market. There is a commitment to reducing unfinished schooling rates and
promoting programmes which encourage exchange among students from the different EU countries, to increase their feeling of
belonging to Europe, their integration and knowledge of other cultures and to improve their foreign language skills. Nevertheless, the
economic difficulties which beset some countries, particularly those around the Mediterranean, have slowed down this process.

In light of this, does the Commission think that the Member States are moving fast enough in this direction?

Does it intend to take further action to promote a feeling of belonging to Europe among young people?

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

_(12 May 2014)_

The Commission shares the concerns of the Honourable Member regarding youth unemployment and the need to restore the trust of
citizens in the European Union. The EU has taken important steps to fight the crisis and reduce youth unemployment.

In particular, the Youth Guarantee ensures that all young people under the age of 25 years receive a good-quality offer of
employment, continued education, an apprenticeship or a traineeship within a period of four months of becoming unemployed or
leaving formal education.

Furthermore the Youth Employment Initiative will provide additional funding ( [1] ) to measures that target young people not in
employment, education or training living in the regions most affected by this problem, and the strategic framework Education &
Training 2020 aims to support challenges such as skill deficits in the workforce. Another important initiative is the European
Alliance for Apprenticeships that aims to increase the quality and supply of apprenticeships across Europe. Supporting labour
mobility and the free movement of persons, one of the four freedoms underpinning Europe's internal market, is important and the
Commission has proposed to improve and modernise EURES ( [2] ). The Erasmus+ programme is also supporting Member States
reforms in the field of education and training systems ( [3] ).

Moreover the Commission has put in place communication activities to reconnect the Union with its citizens such as Citizens'
Dialogues. In particular, the New Narrative for Europe, a group of intellectuals has adopted a declaration, which underlines the
importance of the right of students and professionals to move in a freeway ensured by the EU ‘in order to deepen and expand their
knowledge, unleash their creativity, and widen their opportunities’.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) EUR 6.4 billion, in current prices.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) The job mobility portal that currently gives access to over 1.7 million job vacancies, to more effectively match labour supply and demand across Europe.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) For 2014-2020 it has a budget of EUR 14.7 billion aimed at boosting skills, employability and supporting the modernisation of education, training and youth

systems.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 181

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-003405/14**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D), Franco Frigo (S&D) et Jean Louis Cottigny (S&D)**

_(20 mars 2014)_

_Objet:_ Subventions de l'Union européenne à la tauromachie

Plusieurs citoyens européens nous ont interpelés pour demander que l'Europe mette fin aux subventions accordées à la tauromachie,
via la politique agricole commune. En effet, selon un député écossais au Parlement européen, le montant de ces subventions
s'élèverait à 130 000 000 euros.

Ces aides sont versées à l'Espagne, au Portugal et au sud de la France, alors que cette activité est illégale dans 24 pays membres.

Les citoyens européens sont majoritairement opposés à la corrida.

Que sait la Commission sur le sujet et quelle est sa position?

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

_(2 mai 2014)_

La Commission renvoie les Honorables Parlementaires à la réponse qu'elle a donnée à la question écrite E-000994/2014, posée par
M [me] Marlene Mizzy.

C 341 / 182 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003405/14**

**alla Commissione**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D), Franco Frigo (S&D) e Jean Louis Cottigny (S&D)**

_(20 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Sovvenzioni dell'Unione europea alla tauromachia

Diversi cittadini europei si sono rivolti a noi per chiedere che l'Europa ponga fine alle sovvenzioni accordate alla tauromachia tramite
la politica agricola comune. Secondo un deputato scozzese al Parlamento europeo, l'importo di tali sovvenzioni ammonterebbe
infatti a 130 000 000 EUR.

Questi aiuti sono erogati alla Spagna, al Portogallo e alle regioni del Sud della Francia, sebbene l'attività in questione sia illegale in 24
paesi membri.

La maggior parte dei cittadini europei è contraria alla corrida.

Di quali informazioni dispone la Commissione al riguardo e quale è la sua posizione in materia?

**Risposta di Dacian Cioloș a nome della Commissione**

_(2 maggio 2014)_

La Commissione rimanda gli onorevoli deputati alla risposta data all'interrogazione scritta E‐000994/2014 presentata dall'onorevole
Marlene Mizzy.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 183

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003405/14**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D), Franco Frigo (S&D) and Jean Louis Cottigny (S&D)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ EU bullfighting subsidies

A number of people have contacted us calling for an end to EU bullfighting subsidies from the common agricultural policy.
According to a Scottish MEP, the payments total EUR 130 000 000.

Even though the sport is illegal in 24 Member States, Spain, Portugal and regions in the south of France continue to receive this aid.

The majority of EU citizens are against bullfighting.

What does the Commission know about the issue and what is its stance?

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

_(2 May 2014)_

The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to the answer to Written Question E-000994/2014 by Ms. Marlene Mizzy.

C 341 / 184 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-003406/14**

**au Conseil**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(20 mars 2014)_

_Objet:_ Orphacol — Cholic

La Commission vient de soumettre aux États membres, par voie de procédure écrite, une proposition de décision autorisant la mise
sur le marché de Cholic Acid FGK, le concurrent américain d'Orphacol.

Comme déjà indiqué, l'Agence européenne des médicaments (AEM) n'a pas révisé ses calculs et les indications propres à
Cholic Acid FGK ont été jugées non efficaces. L'AEM n'a pas évalué Cholic Acid FGK sur ses propres mérites, contrairement à un
principe fondamental. Ceci est donc très grave.

Il importe donc de revenir vers l'AEM, faute de quoi un produit non efficace sera autorisé et ce produit créera en outre une grave
confusion à l'encontre d'Orphacol.

Tout nous porte à croire que la Commission favorise le concurrent américain.

1. Comment réagit le Conseil?

2. Un État membre a le pouvoir de demander l'arrêt de la procédure écrite et l'organisation d'une réunion du comité permanent,
lequel aura à se prononcer sur l'opportunité de revenir ou non vers l'AEM. Le Conseil va-t-il les y exhorter?

**Réponse**
_(28 mai 2014)_

Le Conseil n'a pas examiné la proposition de décision autorisant la mise sur le marché de Cholic Acid FGK.

Les décisions concernant les demandes d'autorisations de mise sur le marché de médicaments présentées selon la procédure
centralisée prévue par le règlement (CE) n [o] 726/2004 sont traitées par le comité permanent des médicaments à usage humain. Le
Conseil, en tant que législateur, n'intervient pas dans les décisions individuelles.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 185

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003406/14**

**to the Council**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Orphacol — Cholic

The Commission has just submitted to the Member States, by written procedure, a proposal for a decision authorising the placing on
the market of Cholic Acid FGK, the US rival to Orphacol.

As mentioned previously, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has not revised its calculations and indications for Cholic Acid FGK
have not been deemed efficacious. The EMA has not assessed Cholic Acid FGK on its own merits, which is contrary to a fundamental
principle. This is very serious therefore.

The matter should therefore be referred back to the EMA, otherwise a product will be authorised that is not efficacious and which
will furthermore create serious confusion in respect of Orphacol.

Everything suggests that the Commission favours the US rival.

1. What is the Council's reaction?

2. All Member States have the right to request that a written procedure be halted and a meeting of the standing committee
organised at which the latter shall decide whether or not the matter should be referred back to the EMA. Will the Council urge them
to do so?

**Reply**
_(28 May 2014)_

The Council has not discussed the proposal for a decision authorising the placing on the market of Cholic Acid FGK.

Decisions on applications for marketing authorisations of medicinal products following the centralised procedure under Regulation
(EC) No 726/2004 are handled by the Standing Committee on medicinal products for human use. The Council, as a legislator, does
not intervene in individual decisions.

C 341 / 186 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-003407/14**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(20 mars 2014)_

_Objet:_ Orphacol — Cholic

La Commission européenne vient de soumettre aux États membres, par voie de procédure écrite, une proposition de décision
autorisant la mise sur le marché de Cholic Acid FGK, le concurrent américain d'Orphacol.

Comme déjà indiqué, l'Agence européenne des médicaments (AEM) n'a pas révisé ses calculs et les indications propres à
Cholic Acid FGK ont été jugées non efficaces. L'AEM n'a pas évalué Cholic Acid FGK sur ses propres mérites, contrairement à un
principe fondamental. Il faut souligner la gravité de ce constat.

1. Partagez-vous notre conclusion à savoir qu'il importe de revenir vers l'AEM, faute de quoi un produit présumé non efficace sera
autorisé?

2. D'autre part, reconnaissez-vous que ce produit créera une grave confusion à l'encontre d'Orphacol?

3. Tout nous porte à croire que le concurrent américain est favorisé. Comment la Commission justifie-t-elle cela?

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-003566/14**

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

_(24 mars 2014)_

_Objet:_ Remise en cause de l'exclusivité commerciale de l'Orphacol

À la suite de longues procédures incluant deux recours auprès de la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne, une autorisation de mise
sur le marché (ci-après «AMM») avec dix ans d'exclusivité a été octroyée à l'Orphacol via une décision d'exécution adoptée par la
Commission, le 12 septembre 2013.

Cependant, il semble qu'un produit similaire, le _Cholic Acid FGK_, soit en cours d'autorisation au niveau européen. Le projet de
décision d'AMM du produit concurrent — _Cholic Acid FGK_ — a en effet été soumis, le 13 mars 2014, au comité permanent des
médicaments à usage humain par la Commission européenne.

Comment la Commission peut-elle justifier ce projet d'AMM d'un produit aux indications similaires, alors que l'Orphacol est censé
bénéficier d'une exclusivité commerciale?

En tenant compte des antécédents du dossier, et en particulier du traitement favorable d'Asklepion par la DG SANCO, la Commission
garantit-elle toute la transparence nécessaire sur ce dossier?

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

_(2 mai 2014)_

La Commission a adopté le 4 avril 2014 la décision autorisant la mise sur le marché, dans des circonstances exceptionnelles, du
médicament orphelin à usage humain Cholic Acid FGK ( [1] ). Cette décision a été adoptée conformément à l'avis favorable du comité
permanent.

Ce médicament orphelin a des indications différentes de celles d'Orphacol, un autre médicament orphelin contenant de l'acide
cholique auquel la Commission a accordé, dans des circonstances exceptionnelles, une autorisation de mise sur le marché le
12 septembre 2013 ( [2] ).

L'exclusivité commerciale d'Orphacol est respectée, puisque c'est le seul médicament autorisé pour le traitement des carences
identifiées dans l'autorisation de mise sur le marché. Il n'existe pas de risque de confusion pour les professionnels de santé qui
prescrivent ces médicaments parce que les indications pour chacun d'eux sont clairement mentionnées dans le résumé des
caractéristiques du produit.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/documents/community-register/html/h895.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/documents/community-register/html/h870.htm

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 187

La décision de la Commission est fondée sur l'avis positif révisé du comité des médicaments à usage humain du 23 janvier 2014 qui,
sur la base des données soumises relatives à sa qualité, à sa sûreté et à son efficacité, conclut qu'il existe un rapport bénéfice/risque
favorable pour Cholic acid FGK et recommande donc que l'autorisation de mise sur le marché soit accordée dans des circonstances
exceptionnelles ( [3] ).

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Summary_of_opinion_-_Initial_authorisation/human/002081/WC500155422.pdf

C 341 / 188 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003407/14**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Orphacol — cholic acid

The Commission has just submitted to the Member States, by written procedure, a proposal for a decision authorising the placing on
the market of Cholic Acid FGK, the US rival to Orphacol.

As already mentioned, the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) has not revised its calculations and Cholic Acid FGK has been
deemed ineffective. The EMEA has not evaluated Cholic Acid FGK on its own merits, contrary to a fundamental principle. It is
important to stress the gravity of this finding.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

1. Does it agree with our conclusion that the matter should be referred back to the EMEA, otherwise a product that is presumed
to be ineffective will be authorised?

2. Does it also recognise that this product will create serious confusion in respect of Orphacol?

3. Everything suggests that the US rival is being favoured. How does it justify this?

**Question for written answer E-003566/14**

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

_(24 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Doubts over the commercial exclusivity of Orphacol

Following lengthy procedures, including two appeals before the Court of Justice of the European Union, a marketing authorisation
(MA) with ten-year market exclusivity was granted to Orphacol through an implementing decision adopted by the Commission on
12 September 2013.

However, it would appear that a similar product — Cholic Acid FGK — is currently in the process of being authorised at EU level.
The draft MA decision for this rival product, Cholic Acid FGK, was, indeed, submitted by the Commission to the Standing Committee
on Medicinal Products for Human Use on 13 March 2014.

How can the Commission justify this draft MA decision on a product with similar therapeutic indications when Orphacol is
supposed to enjoy commercial exclusivity?

Taking into account the background to this dossier, and in particular the favourable treatment given to Asklepion by DG SANCO,
does the Commission guarantee that this case will be as transparent as possible?

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

_(2 May 2014)_

The Commission adopted on 4 of April 2014 the decision granting, in exceptional circumstances, marketing authorisation for
Cholic Acid FGK, an orphan medicinal product for human use ( [1] ). This decision was adopted in accordance with the favourable
opinion of the Standing Committee.

This orphan medicinal product has different indications than Orphacol, another cholic acid containing orphan medicinal product to
which the Commission granted, in exceptional circumstances, a marketing authorisation on 12 September 2013 ( [2] ).

The market exclusivity of Orphacol is respected, as it is the only medicinal product authorised for the treatment of the deficiencies
identified in the marketing authorisation. There is no risk of confusion for healthcare professionals prescribing these medicinal
products as the indications for each of the medicinal products are clearly mentioned in the summary of product characteristics.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/documents/community-register/html/h895.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/documents/community-register/html/h870.htm

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 189

The Commission decision is based on the revised positive opinion from the CHMP of 23 January 2014 which, on the basis of quality,
safety and efficacy data submitted concluded that there is a favourable benefit-to-risk balance for Cholic acid FGK and therefore
recommends the granting of the marketing authorisation under exceptional circumstances ( [3] ).

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Summary_of_opinion_-_Initial_authorisation/human/002081/WC500155422.pdf

C 341 / 190 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-003408/14**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(20 mars 2014)_

_Objet:_ Eau — Initiative citoyenne

La Commission européenne a accepté, le 19 mars 2013, la première initiative citoyenne (ICE) ayant réussi à réunir plus d'un million
de signatures.

Cette initiative, Right2water, visait à ce que le droit à l'eau et à l'assainissement soit reconnu comme droit de l'homme et appelait la
Commission à proposer une législation qui garantisse ce droit. La mise en place d'un service public et l'exclusion du marché de l'eau
de la libéralisation faisaient également partie des revendications de l'ICE.

C'est un moment historique pour la démocratie européenne.

1. Pourquoi la Commission n'a-t-elle pas soumis de proposition législative à ce jour? Le symbole aurait été porteur.

2. Comment la Commission compte-t-elle traduire cette demande légitime dans des actes concrets?

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

_(12 mai 2014)_

Le 19 mars 2014, la Commission européenne a adopté une communication qui définit sa réponse à l'initiative citoyenne intitulée
« _L'eau et l'assainissement sont un droit humain ! L'eau est un bien public, pas une marchandise !» (_ [1] ), conformément aux dispositions du
règlement (UE) n° 211/2011 du Parlement européen et du Conseil relatif à l'initiative citoyenne.

Cette communication est disponible à l'adresse suivante:
http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/initiatives/finalised/answered?lg=fr

Elle présente en détail toutes les mesures concrètes que compte prendre la Commission en réponse à l'ICE. Aussi la Commission
invite-t-elle l'honorable membre à se référer aux informations et aux réponses qui y sont fournies.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM,(2014)177.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 191

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003408/14**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Water — a Citizen's Initiative

On 19 March 2013, the Commission accepted the first Citizens' Initiative (ECI) that had managed to attract more than one million
signatures.

This initiative, Right2water, called for the right to water and sanitation to be recognised as a human right and urged the Commission
to propose legislation that would safeguard this right. The establishment of water as a public service and the exclusion of
deregulation from the water market were some of the other demands made in the ICE.

This is an historic moment for European democracy.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

1. Why has it still not submitted a legislative proposal on this subject? It would have been a highly symbolic move.

2. How will it translate this legitimate demand into practical action?

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

_(12 May 2014)_

On 19 March 2014, the European Commission adopted a communication setting out its response to the citizens' initiative ‘Water
and Sanitation are a human right! Water is a public good not a commodity!’ ( [1] ), in line with the provisions of Regulation (EU)
No 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the citizens' initiative.

The communication is available at the following address: http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/initiatives/finalised/answered

The communication presents in detail all the concrete steps that the Commission intends to take in response to the ECI. The
Commission therefore invites the honourable Member to refer to the information and answers provided in the abovementioned
communication.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2014) 177.

C 341 / 192 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-003409/14**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(20 mars 2014)_

_Objet:_ Fabricants de roulement à l'«amende»

À l'issue d'une enquête ouverte en 2011, la Commission européenne a établi la culpabilité de six producteurs de roulements dans un
cas d'entente sur les prix: les européens, SKF et Schaeffler, et les japonais JTEKT, NSK, NFC et NTN, avec sa filiale française NTN-SNR.

Ces équipementiers ont coordonné leur stratégie tarifaire d'avril 2004 à juillet 2011 dans l'ensemble de l'Union européenne. Ces
entreprises se sont entendues pour répercuter les hausses du prix de l'acier sur leurs clients de l'industrie automobile, explique la
Commission européenne. «Elles se sont entendues sur les demandes de devis et les demandes de réduction annuelles de prix
introduites par les clients et elles ont échangé des renseignements commercialement sensibles», ajoute l'exécutif.

JTEKT a bénéficié d'une immunité pour avoir révélé l'existence de l'entente à la Commission européenne. Les cinq autres fabricants
ont été condamnés à payer une amende d'un montant total de 953 000 000 euros.

C'est l'allemand Schaeffler qui s'est vu infliger la plus forte amende, d'un montant de 370 000 000 euros. Le suédois SKF
qui avait annoncé provisionner 333 000 000 euros en prévision de cette amende, devra finalement payer la somme de
315 000 000 euros. NTN devra payer pour sa part 201 000 000 euros, NSK 62 000 000 euros et NFC près de 4 000 000 euros.

Cette décision entre dans le cadre d'une immense enquête antitrust dans le secteur des pièces détachées automobiles. La Commission
européenne a déjà condamné des fournisseurs de faisceaux de fils électriques (141 000 000 euros d'amende) et de mousses souples
utilisées dans les sièges automobiles (114 000 000 euros d'amende).

1. Comment la Commission a-t-elle précisément déterminé le montant des amendes?

2. À combien se monte le chiffre d'affaires annuel de chacune de ces entreprises?

3. À combien estime-t-elle les bénéfices réalisés par ces entreprises suite à ce cartel?

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

_(16 mai 2014)_

Pour déterminer le montant des amendes, la Commission a appliqué les principes exposés dans les lignes directrices de 2006 pour le
calcul des amendes ( [1] ), la communication sur la clémence ( [2] ) et la communication relative aux procédures de transaction ( [3] ). Le
montant de base de l'amende a été calculé, pour chaque entreprise, à partir des moyennes des ventes annuelles de roulements destinés
à l'industrie automobile ( [4] ) au cours des six années entières qu'a duré l'infraction, c'est-à-dire de 2005 à 2010. La Commission a
appliqué un pourcentage de 16 % pour la gravité de l'infraction et un coefficient multiplicateur pour refléter la durée de l'entente,
d'un peu plus de 7 ans. En ce qui concerne le montant supplémentaire, le pourcentage a été fixé à 16 %. Une réduction de 15 % a été
accordée à NFC pour sa participation limitée. NSK, NFC, SKF et Schaeffler ont bénéficié de réductions de 40 %, 30 %, 20 % et 20 %
respectivement, accordées en vertu de la communication sur la clémence. NTN n'a présenté aucune demande de clémence. Enfin, les
amendes de toutes les parties ont été réduites de 10 % (récompense au titre de la transaction). Des explications plus détaillées sur le
calcul des amendes seront fournies dans la version non confidentielle de la décision, qui sera publiée sur le site internet ( [5] ) de la
Commission d'ici quelques semaines.

Au cours du dernier exercice complet précédant la décision, les entreprises ont enregistré les chiffres d'affaires totaux suivants à
l'échelle mondiale (en euros): JTEKT 9 967 404 800; NSK 6 852 000 000; NFC 1383 495 413; SKF 7 351 000 000; Schaeffler
11 125 000 000; NTN 5 038 200 000

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) JO C 210 du 1.9.2006, p. 2.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) JO C 298 du 8.12.2006, p. 17.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) JO C 167 du 2.07.2008, p. 1.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) (roulements vendus à des fabricants de pièces pour voitures et camions et d'équipementiers automobiles).
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/competition/cartels/cases/cases.html

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 193

La décision ayant conclu que l'objet de la collusion était précisément de restreindre la concurrence sur le marché des roulements
destinés à l'industrie automobile, il n'a pas été nécessaire pour la Commission d'aller plus loin et d'apprécier les effets réels de l'entente
sur ce marché. Par conséquent, la Commission n'est pas en mesure d'évaluer les bénéfices effectivement réalisés par les parties grâce à
cette collusion. Les parties lésées par cette entente peuvent néanmoins introduire des actions privées en dommage et intérêts contre
les entreprises en cause, en expliquant en détail les pertes économiques subies.

C 341 / 194 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003409/14**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Commission fines bearings manufacturers

In 2011 the Commission launched an investigation into alleged price fixing by six automotive bearings manufacturers: the European
firms SKF and Schaeffler, and the Japanese producers JTEKT, NSK, NFC and NTN (including its French subsidiary, NTN-SNR).

The Commission has now established that these parts manufacturers coordinated their pricing strategies across the EU between
April 2004 and July 2011, more specifically by colluding to pass on steel price increases to their customers in the automotive
industry. The Commission found that ‘they colluded on requests for quotations and annual price reductions from customers and
exchanged commercially sensitive information.’

As it disclosed the existence of the cartel to the Commission, JTEKT was afforded immunity from further proceedings. The other five
members were fined a total of EUR 953 million.

The German firm Schaeffler received the stiffest fine, amounting to EUR 370 million. Sweden’s SKF, which had previously reported
making provisions of EUR 333 million to cover a possible fine, will ultimately have to pay EUR 315 million. NTN will be fined
EUR 201 million, NSK EUR 62 million and NFC almost EUR 4 million.

This decision comes as part of a much wider investigation into suspected cartels in the automotive parts sector. The Commission has
already fined suppliers of electrical wire harnesses a total of EUR 141 million, and suppliers of flexible foam used in car seats
EUR 114 million.

1. Could the Commission explain how exactly it calculated these fines?

2. What is the annual turnover of each of the firms involved?

3. Can the Commission put a figure on the profits earned by these firms as a result of the collusion?

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

_(16 May 2014)_

In setting the fines, the Commission applied the principles laid down in its 2006 Fines Guidelines ( [1] ), the Leniency Notice ( [2] ) and the
Settlement Notice ( [3] ). The basic amount of the fine per undertaking was calculated on the basis of the average annual sales of
automotive bearings ( [4] ) during the full six years of the infringement, i.e. from 2005 to 2010. The Commission applied a percentage
of 16% for gravity and a multiplier to reflect the duration of the cartel of a bit more than 7 years. For the additional amount the
percentage was set at 16%. NFC was granted a reduction of 15% for its limited participation. NSK, NFC, SKF, Schaeffler received
leniency reductions of 40%, 30%, 20% and 20% respectively. NTN did not apply for leniency. Finally, the fines for all parties were
reduced by 10% (settlement reward). A more detailed explanation of the calculation of the fines will be contained in the nonconfidential version of the decision, to be published on the Commission's website ( [5] ) in some weeks.

The total worldwide turnovers of the undertakings in the last full business year preceding the decision were (in euro): JTEKT
9 967 404 800; NSK 6 852 000 000; NFC 1383 495 413; SKF 7 351 000 000; Schaeffler 11 125 000 000; NTN 5 038 200 000.

As the decision finds that the object of the collusion was precisely to restrict competition in the market for automotive bearings, it
was not necessary for the Commission to go further and assess the actual effects of the cartel in that market. Hence, it is not in a
position to measure the actual profits earned by the parties as a result of the collusion. However, the parties affected by the cartel can
bring private damages actions against its participants, detailing the economic losses suffered.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ C 210, 1.9.2006, p. 2.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ C 298, 8.12.2006, p. 17.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) OJ C 167, 2.07.2008, p. 1.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) (i.e. bearings sold to car, truck and component manufacturers).
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/competition/cartels/cases/cases.html

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 195

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-003411/14**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(20 mars 2014)_

_Objet:_ UE et SIDA

En 2012, plus de 131 000 nouveaux cas d'infection au VIH ont été signalés en Europe et en Asie centrale, ce qui correspond à une
hausse de 8 % depuis 2011. Par ailleurs, 29 000 de ces nouveaux cas ont été signalés dans l'Union européenne et l'Espace
économique européen (UE/EEE), soit une progression de 1 % par rapport à l'année précédente.

L'urgence est donc de réduire le nombre de nouvelles infections dans les pays européens et d'améliorer l'accès universel à la
prévention, aux soins et aux traitements du VIH mais aussi des coïnfections. Il s'agit également de combattre les discriminations et de
favoriser les politiques de réduction des risques.

La Commission compte-t-elle adapter son plan d'action en fonction de ces nouveaux chiffres?

Quelles sont les priorités de la Commission pour les cinq prochaines années?

Quels sont les objectifs chiffrés?

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

_(19 mai 2014)_

La communication de la Commission sur la lutte contre le VIH/sida dans l'Union européenne et les pays voisins, 2009‐2013 ( [1] ), et le
plan d'action qui lui est annexé établissent le cadre politique de l'action de l'UE concernant le VIH/sida.

Le 14 mars 2014, la Commission a présenté un «plan d'action sur le VIH/sida dans l'Union européenne et les pays voisins: 20142016» ( [2] ), qui prolonge le plan d'action de 2009 et assure ainsi la continuité de l'action de l'UE. Le plan d'action prolongé renforce
l'accent mis sur les actions contre la stigmatisation et la discrimination, sur le traitement et la prévention intégrés du VIH/sida et des
coïnfections ainsi que sur l'accès au traitement en tant que mesure préventive.

Une évaluation externe indépendante de la communication et du plan d'action de 2009 est en cours et devrait être prochainement
achevée. Ses résultats contribueront à l'examen des options et priorités en vue de la création d'un cadre politique de l'UE concernant
le VIH/sida.

Des indicateurs qualitatifs ou quantitatifs ont été mis au point pour permettre le suivi et l'évaluation des progrès accomplis pour
chacune des actions définies dans le plan d'action.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2009) 569 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) SWD(2014) 106 final.

C 341 / 196 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003411/14**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ The EU and AIDS

More than 131 000 new cases of HIV infection were reported in 2012 for Europe and central Asia, a rise of 8% on 2011. Of these,
some 29 000 cases were in the EU and the European Economic Area (EEA), a 1% increase on the previous year.

We must therefore, as a matter of urgency, seek to reduce the number of new cases of HIV infection in Europe, improve universal
access to means of preventing the spread of the virus, and improve access to care and treatment for infected and coinfected carriers.
We must also fight discrimination against people living with HIV and promote policies geared towards reducing the risks of
infection.

Does the Commission intend to revise its action plan in the light of these new figures?

What are the Commission’s priorities in this regard for the coming five years?

What numerical targets has the Commission set?

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

_(19 May 2014)_

The Commission Communication on combating HIV/AIDS in the European Union and neighbouring countries, 2009-2013 ( [1] ), and
the action plan annexed to it, set the policy framework for EU action on HIV/AIDS.

On 14th March 2014 the Commission presented an ‘Action Plan on HIV/AIDS in the EU and neighbouring countries: 20142016’ ( [2] ), which prolongs the 2009 action plan, thereby providing continuity in EU Action. The prolonged action plan adds
increased focus to actions addressing stigma and discrimination, the integrated treatment and prevention of HIV/AIDS and coinfections, as well as access to treatment as a preventive measure.

An independent external evaluation of the 2009 Communication and action plan is ongoing, and is due to be concluded soon. The
results will contribute to the consideration of options and priorities for a possible future EU policy framework on HIV/AIDS.

For each of the actions outlined in the action plan, qualitative or quantitative indicators have been set up to enable the monitoring
and evaluation of progress in its implementation.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2009) 569 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) SWD(2014) 106 final.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 197

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-003412/14**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(20 mars 2014)_

_Objet:_ Accidents équestres

L'équitation est une activité très populaire et saine pour personnes de tous âges. C'est un sport varié et familial, qui fait la joie des amis
des chevaux. Mais que l'on préfère les randonnées hors des sentiers battus, dans les champs, dans les allées cavalières ou ailleurs, il y a
toujours des consignes de sécurité à respecter.

Equisafe est un nouveau projet, financé par l'Union européenne et lancé en novembre dernier, qui vise à réduire le nombre élevé
d'accidents équestres, y compris ceux qui ne sont pas communiqués.

Quel en est le modus operandi?

Quel en est le budget?

Quelles sont les statistiques sur le sujet au niveau européen?

Quels sont les objectifs chiffrés de la Commission?

**Réponse donnée par M** **[me]** **Geoghegan-Quinn au nom de la Commission**

_(21 mai 2014)_

Les activités équestres, proposées dans plus de 30 pays en Europe, ont des retombées économiques considérables sur les attractions
touristiques; offrant aux cavaliers une réelle proximité avec la nature, elles font de plus en plus d'adeptes.

Le projet Equisafe ( [1] ) est financé par la Commission au titre du volet «Recherche au profit des PME» du septième programme-cadre
pour des actions de recherche, de développement technologique et de démonstration (7 [e] PC, 2007-2013). Il a pour objectif le
développement d'un nouveau système de surveillance des risques liés aux activités équestres ainsi que de surveillance et de gestion de
la santé des chevaux, l'accent étant plus particulièrement mis sur les utilisateurs inexpérimentés et la surveillance dans les centres
équestres et lors des randonnées. Dans le cadre de ce projet seront développés des dispositifs capables de localiser le cheval, de suivre
ses déplacements et de surveiller sa santé, ainsi que de surveiller la sécurité et la santé du cavalier, notamment grâce à un capteur de
chute qui déclenchera une alarme au centre équestre.

Le budget prévu pour ce projet de 24 mois, qui a débuté le 1 [er] novembre 2013, s'élève à 1 506 977 euros; la contribution maximum
de l'Union est fixée à 1 136 000 euros.

La Commission reconnaît la nécessité de faire des efforts pour réduire le nombre d'accidents et de blessures survenant dans la
pratique de disciplines sportives, notamment l'équitation, mais pas exclusivement. Pour l'heure, elle ne dispose d'aucune statistique
en la matière.

La Commission est bien consciente que le risque de blessure est susceptible de constituer un frein à la pratique d'une activité physique
et sportive, mais elle n'a pas l'intention, dans l'immédiat, de fixer des objectifs en rapport avec les accidents d'équitation.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.equisafe-project.com/about-us/

C 341 / 198 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003412/14**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Horse-riding accidents

Equestrianism is an extremely popular and healthy activity for people of all ages. It is a diverse and family-friendly sport which brings
great pleasure to horse lovers. But whether we choose to ride off-road, in fields, on bridleways or elsewhere, there are always safety
issues that need to be taken into account.

Equisafe is a new EU-funded project, launched last November, which aims to help combat the high number of horse-riding accidents,
including those that go unrecorded.

How will the project be implemented in practical terms?

What is the project’s budget?

What statistics does the EU have on the issue?

Has the Commission set any targets?

**Answer given by Ms Geoghegan-Quinn on behalf of the Commission**

_(21 May 2014)_

Horse-riding attractions are available in more than 30 countries across Europe with considerable economic impact on tourist
attractions and are becoming more popular due to the close contact of the riders with nature that such activities offer.

The Equisafe project ( [1] ) is funded by the Commission under the Research for the Benefit of SMEs theme of the Seventh Framework
Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (FP7, 2007-2013). Its objective is to develop a
novel system for the monitoring of horse activity risks and horse health monitoring and management, with a special focus on nonexpert users and ‘in home’ and outdoor monitoring. The project will develop devices that can monitor the location, movements and
health of the horse as well as monitor the security and health of the horse rider, including a sensor for falling off the horse, which will
trigger an alarm at the base station.

The project has a duration of 24 months and started on 1st November 2013 with a foreseen budget of EUR 1 506 977 and a
maximum EU contribution of EUR 1 136 000.

The Commission agrees that efforts should be made to reduce the incidence of accidents and injuries in sports, including but not
limited to horse-riding. It has no statistics in the field.

The Commission is aware that the risk of injury may act as a deterrent to participation in sport and physical activity, but it has no
immediate plans to set any targets related to horseback riding accidents.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.equisafe-project.com/about-us/

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 199

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-003413/14**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(20 mars 2014)_

_Objet:_ Suspension de l'accord UE-USA

Le Parlement européen a adopté une résolution importante condamnant les programmes de surveillance européens et américains.
Malheureusement, les résolutions du Parlement européen ne sont pas contraignantes.

Si la Commission européenne l'exigeait, la suspension de cet accord représenterait une mesure concrète et effective, étape
indispensable pour mettre un terme à la surveillance massive des citoyens européens. Elle conduirait également à une renégociation
des relations transatlantiques à ce sujet.

La Commission compte-t-elle remplir son rôle en instaurant des mesures effectives, afin de mettre un terme au transfert illimité de
données personnelles vers les États-Unis, et par conséquent d'encourager ces derniers à adapter leurs lois aux normes existantes et à
venir de l'Union européenne dans ce domaine?

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

_(27 juin 2014)_

En vue de vérifier la crédibilité des allégations des médias concernant l'accès par les États-Unis aux données du fournisseur désigné
dans l'UE en violation de l'accord TFTP entre l'UE et les États-Unis (ci-après «l'accord»), la Commission a organisé une consultation
conformément à l'article 19 de l'accord. Ces consultations et le dialogue avec le fournisseur désigné n'ont pas révélé d'éléments
indiquant une violation de l'accord par les États-Unis. En outre, les États-Unis ont fourni des assurances écrites que le gouvernement
américain n'a pas, depuis l'entrée en vigueur de l'accord, intercepté de données de messagerie financière du fournisseur désigné dans
l'UE, sauf comme autorisé par l'accord.

L'accord règlemente rigoureusement le traitement et le transfert des données de messagerie financière du fournisseur désigné de
l'Union européenne aux États-Unis aux fins du programme de surveillance du financement du terrorisme (TFTP). Il contient un
ensemble de garanties solides et étendues en matière de protection des données et de contrôles. Le TFTP présente un intérêt notable
pour la prévention et la lutte contre le terrorisme et son financement, et contribue à la sécurité au sein de l'UE et aux États-Unis.

Compte tenu de ce qui précède, la Commission n'a pas de raison de proposer la suspension de l'accord qui a été respecté par les ÉtatsUnis et sans lequel la sécurité des citoyens de l'UE serait compromise.

C 341 / 200 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003413/14**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Suspension of the EU-US agreement

Parliament has adopted an important resolution condemning the European and American surveillance programmes. Unfortunately,
European Parliament resolutions are not binding.

If the Commission were to demand the suspension of this agreement, this would be a practical and effective measure, a necessary
step with a view to putting an end to the mass surveillance of European citizens. It would also lead to a renegotiation of transatlantic
relations in this regard.

Will the Commission fulfil its role by establishing effective measures to put an end to the unlimited transfer of personal data to the
United States, and thus to encourage the latter country to adapt its laws to existing and future EU rules on this subject?

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

_(27 June 2014)_

With a view to verify credibility of the media allegations about the US accessing the data of the Designated Provider in the EU
contrary to the EU-US TFTP Agreement (‘Agreement’), the Commission carried out a consultation under Article 19 of the
Agreement. These consultations and the dialogue with the Designated Provider have not revealed any elements indicating a breach of
the Agreement by the US side. Furthermore, the United States has provided written assurances that the US government has not, since
the Agreement entered into force, collected any financial payment messages from the Designated Provider in the EU, except as
authorised by the Agreement.

The Agreement thoroughly regulates the processing and transfer of the financial messaging data of the Designated Provider from
the EU to the US for the purposes of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (TFTP). It contains a set of robust and extensive data
protection safeguards and controls. The TFTP has significant value in preventing and combatting terrorism and contributes to the
security in the EU and the US.

Considering the above, the Commission does not have grounds or reason to propose suspension of the Agreement, which has been
complied with by the US side and a lack of which would affect the security of EU citizens.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 201

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-003414/14**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(20 mars 2014)_

_Objet:_ Étiquetage des nanomatériaux

Le Parlement européen a rejeté par 402 voix pour, 258 contre et 14 abstentions le projet de règlement proposé par la Commission
sur l'étiquetage des nanomatériaux dans les produits alimentaires. Origine de ce blocage? La Commission a exclu les additifs
alimentaires de l'exigence d'étiquetage.

Le Parlement confirme ainsi le vote de la commission de l'environnement, de la santé publique et de la sécurité alimentaire (ENVI).

Ce rejet est un vote en faveur de la protection des consommateurs, pour que ces derniers soient en mesure de connaître tous les
nanomatériaux contenus dans les aliments qu'ils consomment, y compris les additifs alimentaires.

Quelle est la réaction de la Commission et que compte-t-elle faire à présent?

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

_(28 avril 2014)_

Les nouvelles exigences en matière d'étiquetage des «nanomatériaux manufacturés» présents dans les denrées alimentaires
s'appliquent à compter du 13 décembre 2014 sur la base de la définition énoncée dans le règlement (UE) n° 1169/2011 ( [1] ).

La Commission a pris bonne note de la résolution du Parlement européen et des discussions du Conseil relatives au projet de
règlement délégué concernant la définition du «nanomatériau manufacturé». La Commission examine actuellement les différentes
options et réfléchit au meilleur moyen d'adapter ladite définition à la lumière des dernières évolutions scientifiques et technologiques,
tout en répondant aux préoccupations exprimées par le Parlement.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Règlement (UE) n° 1169/2011 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 25 octobre 2011 concernant l'information des consommateurs sur les denrées alimentaires
(JO L 304 du 22.11.2011, p. 18).

C 341 / 202 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003414/14**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Labelling of nanomaterials

Parliament rejected by 402 votes to 258, with 14 abstentions, the draft regulation proposed by the Commission on the labelling of
nanomaterials in food products. Why? Because the Commission had excluded food additives from the labelling requirements.

Parliament has thus confirmed the vote of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI).

This rejection is a vote in favour of consumers, so that they can be informed of all the nanomaterials in the foods they consume,
including food additives.

What is the Commission’s reaction to this and what does it intend to do now?

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

_(28 April 2014)_

The new requirements on the labelling of ‘engineered nanomaterials’ present in food apply from 13 December 2014 on the basis of
the definition laid down in Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 ( [1] ).

The Commission has taken good note of the Resolution of the European Parliament and of the discussions in the Council regarding
the draft delegated Regulation on the definition of ‘engineered nanomaterial’. The Commission is currently discussing the options
and reflecting on the best way forward so as to adapt the definition in the light of new scientific and technological developments
whilst addressing the concerns expressed by the Parliament.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers (OJ L 304,
22.11.2011, p. 18).

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 203

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita P-003418/14**

**à Comissão**
**Luís Paulo Alves (S&D)**

_(20 de março de 2014)_

_Assunto:_ Avaliação de impacto do TTIP nas regiões ultraperiféricas

No âmbito do Acordo de Parceria Transatlântica de Comércio e Investimento UE/EUA (TTIP), existe um conjunto de avaliações que é
necessário realizar, tendo em conta o alcance e o forte impacto que o Acordo tem em toda a União Europeia e nas suas regiões.

O Regulamento (UE) n.° 228/2013 do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 13 de março de 2013, que estabelece medidas
específicas no domínio da agricultura a favor das regiões ultraperiféricas da União e revoga o Regulamento (CE) n.° 247/2006 do
Conselho, apresenta, no seu artigo 32.°, n.° 4, a seguinte redação: «A Comissão deve incluir um capítulo específico nas análises,
estudos e avaliações que efetuar no âmbito dos acordos comerciais e da política agrícola comum relativamente a todas as matérias
em que as regiões ultraperiféricas tenham um interesse relevante».

1. Neste contexto, está a Comissão a ter conta, nos estudos que está a efetuar, o impacto deste acordo comercial nas regiões
ultraperiféricas, no cumprimento do artigo 32.° do Regulamento (UE) n.° 228/2013 do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 13 de
março de 2013?

2. Neste âmbito, que resultados e conclusões foram até agora obtidos?

3. Se ainda não existem resultados destes estudos, quando espera a Comissão poder apresentá-los?

**Resposta dada por Karel De Gucht em nome da Comissão**

_(28 de abril de 2014)_

Como indicado na sua comunicação sobre «As regiões ultraperiféricas da União Europeia: Parceria para um crescimento inteligente,
sustentável e inclusivo» (COM(2012)287 final) e em conformidade com as conclusões do Conselho de junho de 2010, a Comissão
Europeia esforça-se para ter em conta «sempre que necessário, a dimensão das RUP (…) nas avaliações de impacto e outros trabalhos
preparatórios de novas iniciativas políticas».

Além disso, o caderno de encargos da «Avaliação de Impacto da Sustentabilidade do Comércio (“Trade SIA”) em apoio das
negociações para um acordo abrangente sobre comércio e investimento entre a União Europeia e os Estados Unidos da América» ( [1] )
destaca que o estudo «é necessário para que a UE possa continuar a adotar uma abordagem global que conduza a maiores benefícios
em termos de bem-estar, ajudando assim a União Europeia a respeitar o seu objetivo de criar crescimento económico, melhorando a
inclusão social e promovendo o desenvolvimento sustentável em todo o mundo, incluindo as regiões ultraperiféricas da União
Europeia».

O relatório final SIA deverá estar concluído até ao fim do ano/início do próximo ano. As conclusões preliminares serão apresentadas
no relatório técnico intercalar esperado no final do verão. Para mais informações sobre o SIA, bem como sobre o recentemente
publicado projeto de relatório, consultar:
http://www.trade-sia.com/ttip/

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/august/tradoc_151696.pdf

C 341 / 204 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-003418/14**

**to the Commission**
**Luís Paulo Alves (S&D)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Assessment of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership's impact on the outermost regions

The scope and major impact throughout the EU and its regions of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between
the EU and the United States makes it necessary for a series of assessments to be carried out in relation to it.

Article 32(4) of Regulation (EU) No 228/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 March 2013 laying down
specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 247/2006
(OJ L 32, 20.3.2013, p. 4) states that: ‘The Commission shall include a specific chapter in the analyses, studies and assessments it
carries out in the context of trade agreements and the common agricultural policy for any topic in which the outermost regions have
a particular interest’.

1. In light of this, will the studies being carried out by the Commission take into account the impact of this trade agreement on the
outermost regions, pursuant to Article 32 of Regulation (EU) No 228/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of
13 March 2013?

2. What results and conclusions have already been reached in relation to this matter?

3. If the results of this study have yet to be finalised, when does the Commission expect to be able to present them?

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

_(28 April 2014)_

As indicated in its communication on ‘The outermost regions of the European Union: towards a partnership for smart, sustainable
and inclusive growth’ (COM(2012) 287 final) and in line with the Council conclusions of June 2010, the European Commission
strives to ensure that, ‘where appropriate, the outermost regions dimension is taken into account in impact assessments and other
preparations for new policy initiatives’.

In addition, the Terms of reference of the on-going ‘Trade Sustainability Impact Assessment (Trade SIA) in support of negotiations of
a comprehensive trade and investment agreement between the European Union and the United States of America’ ( [1] ) point out that
the study ‘is necessary to enable the EU to pursue an approach which brings the greatest overall welfare gains, thereby helping the EU
to meet its objective of creating economic growth, enhancing social inclusion and promoting sustainable development throughout
the world, including the EU’s Outermost regions’.

The final SIA report is expected to be finalised by the end of the year/beginning of next year. Preliminary findings will be presented in
the interim technical report due by the end of the summer. More information on the SIA, as well as the recently published draft
inception report, is available under http://www.trade-sia.com/ttip/

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/august/tradoc_151696.pdf

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 205

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-003419/14**

**aan de Commissie**
**Cornelis de Jong (GUE/NGL)**

_(20 maart 2014)_

_Betreft:_ EU-subsidies aan Israëlische bedrijven waarmee wordt bijgedragen aan de illegale bezetting van Palestina

Uit een recent bericht op de website Electronic Intifada ( [1] ) blijkt dat de EU via subsidies voor wetenschappelijk onderzoek financiële
steun verleent aan Cargo Airlines en zijn dochteronderneming Liège Air Cargo Holding Services (LACHS); dit vervoersbedrijf houdt
zich bezig met de afhandeling van groenten en fruit uit Israël en Palestina, ook uit de illegale Israëlische nederzettingen in Palestina.
Door financiële steun aan deze vervoersbedrijven te verlenen, rechtvaardigt de EU de illegale bezetting van Palestina en draagt er zelfs
toe bij, ook al uit de EU officieel kritiek op deze nederzettingen, die zij illegaal noemt.

Is de Commissie bereid deze zaak te onderzoeken en aan te dringen op beëindiging van de contracten en terugvordering van de
onderzoeksubsidies die ten onrechte zijn uitgekeerd aan Israëlische organisaties en bedrijven die economische activiteiten in de
illegale nederzettingen ontplooien? Zo nee, kan zij dan uitleggen waarom zij daartoe niet bereid is?

Hoe verklaart de Commissie het voorgaande, gelet op het feit dat in haar eigen richtsnoeren, die pas vorig jaar zijn opgesteld,
duidelijk staat dat bedrijven en organisaties die in Israëlische nederzettingen actief zijn, niet in aanmerking komen voor subsidies van
de EU?

**Antwoord van mevrouw Geoghegan-Quinn namens de Commissie**

_(22 mei 2014)_

De Israëlische soevereiniteit over de gebieden die Israël sinds juni 1967 bezet, wordt door de EU niet erkend en de toepassing van
overeenkomsten met Israël is beperkt tot het Israëlisch grondgebied dat door de EU wordt erkend. Sinds 1996 is Israël geassocieerd
met de kaderprogramma’s voor onderzoek van de EU waardoor de in aanmerking komende Israëlische entiteiten kunnen deelnemen
en financiering kunnen ontvangen op dezelfde basis als entiteiten uit EU-lidstaten.

Er zijn verschillende mechanismen om ervoor te zorgen dat EU-fondsen niet worden gebruikt voor activiteiten die zouden kunnen
indruisen tegen het internationale recht. Zo worden de onderzoekprogramma’s van de EU bijvoorbeeld ten uitvoer gelegd via
openbare en op concurrentie gebaseerde oproepen, en worden de in aanmerking komende voorstellen beoordeeld door
onafhankelijke deskundigen. Indien een project ethische kwesties oproept, wordt een ethische beoordeling uitgevoerd, waaronder
een beoordeling van mogelijk tweeërlei gebruik en van de overeenstemming met de internationale en de EU-wetgeving. Het Europees
Bureau voor fraudebestrijding (OLAF) mag onderzoeken hoe de EU-fondsen worden gebruikt, wanneer er een ernstig vermoeden is
van fraude of onregelmatigheid.

Overeenkomstig de onlangs goedgekeurde richtlijnen ( [2] ) komen alleen Israëlische entiteiten die gevestigd zijn en projectactiviteiten
uitvoeren binnen de Israëlische grenzen van voor 1967 in aanmerking voor financiële steun via Horizon 2020, het EUkaderprogramma voor onderzoek en innovatie (2014-2020). De richtlijnen zijn alleen van toepassing op de activiteiten die een
bepaalde entiteit uitvoert in het kader van het gefinancierde project, niet op zijn activiteiten in het algemeen.

Het Israëlisch bedrijf Cargo Airlines heeft samen met partners uit zes EU-lidstaten deelgenomen aan een project dat in het kader van
het zevende kaderprogramma wordt gefinancierd: „IDETECT 4ALL” ( [3] ). Het project, dat volledig in overeenstemming met de regels
voor deelneming aan het zevende kaderprogramma ten uitvoer werd gelegd, is nu afgelopen.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/david-cronin/transporter-israeli-settlement-goods-benefits-eu-science-grant.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Richtlijnen betreffende de mogelijkheid van Israëlische entiteiten en hun activiteiten in de door Israël sinds juni 1967 bezette gebieden om in aanmerking te komen

voor subsidies, prijzen en financieringsinstrumenten die na 2014 door de EU worden gefinancierd.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/security/docs/idetect4all_en.pdf

( **|**

C 341 / 206 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003419/14**

**to the Commission**
**Cornelis de Jong (GUE/NGL)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ EU subsidies to Israeli companies contributing to the illegal occupation of Palestine

From a recent post on the website Electronic Intifada ( [1] ), it is clear that the EU provides financial support, through scientific research
grants, to Cargo Airlines and its subsidiary, Liège Air Cargo Holding Services (LACHS), a transport company which handles fruits and
vegetables from both Israel and Palestine, including Israel’s illegal settlements in Palestine. By providing financial support to these
transport companies, the EU is justifying the illegal occupation of Palestine and even contributes to it, despite the official EU policy
denouncing these settlements as illegal.

Is the Commission willing to investigate this matter and call for the termination of contracts and the recovery of research grants paid
inappropriately to Israeli organisations and companies conducting economic activities in the illegal settlements? If not, can it please
explain why?

How does the Commission explain the above, considering the fact that its own guidelines, developed only last year, clearly state that
companies and organisations active in Israeli settlements are not eligible to receive EU subsidies?

**Answer given by Ms Geoghegan-Quinn on behalf of the Commission**

_(22 May 2014)_

The EU does not recognise Israel’s sovereignty over the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967 and the application of
agreements with Israel is limited to the territory of Israel as recognised by the EU. Since 1996, Israel has been associated to the EU
research framework programmes enabling eligible Israeli entities to participate and receive funding on the same basis as entities from
the EU Member States.

Several mechanisms have been put in place to ensure that EU funds are not used for activities that could be contrary to international
law; for example, the EU research programmes are implemented through open and competitive calls and eligible proposals are
evaluated by independent experts. If a project raises ethical questions, it undergoes an ethical review, including dual-use assessment
and compliance with EU and international legislation. The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) may carry out investigations to verify
the use of EU funds in case of serious suspicions of fraud or irregularity.

In line with the newly adopted Guidelines ( [2] ), only Israeli entities established and carrying out project activities within Israel's pre1967 borders are eligible for funding through Horizon 2020, the EU funding Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020).
The guidelines apply only to the activities of a given entity carried out in the context of the funded project, not to its activities in
general.

The Israeli company Cargo Airlines has participated together with partners from six EU Member States in one project funded under
the Seventh Framework Programme : ‘Idetect 4ALL’ ( [3] ). The project, which was implemented fully in line with the FP7 rules for
participation, has now finished.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/david-cronin/transporter-israeli-settlement-goods-benefits-eu-science-grant
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Guidelines on the eligibility of Israeli entities and their activities in the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967 for grants, prizes and financial instruments

funded by the EU from 2014 onwards.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/security/docs/idetect4all_en.pdf

( **|**

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 207

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003420/14**

**to the Commission**
**Catherine Stihler (S&D)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Fuel charging with rental cars

Mandatory fuel charging is the practice whereby customers are required to pay the cost of a full tank of fuel upon collection of their
rental car, despite this charge not being made clear at the time the vehicle was booked.

Does the Commission agree that mandatory fuel charging in the car rental sector is in conflict with the Unfair Commercial Practices
Directive (2005/29/EC)? If so, what action is the Commission taking to end this practice?

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

_(13 June 2014)_

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its response to parliamentary Question E-011289/2011 ( [1] ), sharing the
view that it is unacceptable if consumers must pay for fuel they have not consumed.

The Commission is aware of such practices taking place in Spain. The Spanish authorities have issued a notice on four practices
violating consumers' economic interests in the car rental sector ( [2] ), including this fuel policy. Traders have been informed and
requested to correct such practices. If consumers still face such problems, they should complain to the relevant local authorities, or to
the European Consumer Centre in their country ( [3] ). The Commission has informed the European car rental association Leaseurope of
this notice.

On 3 April 2014, together with European Consumer Centres and national enforcement authorities cooperating in the Consumer
Protection cooperation network, the Commission, major car rental companies and Leaseurope discussed issues affecting European
consumers when renting cars. At the meeting, the industry representatives agreed to develop solutions to ensure better consumer
protection.

The communication on the application of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive ( [4] ) and the accompanying Report, adopted on
14 March 2013, identify key areas where enforcement of this directive should be strengthened. This includes travel and transport,
e.g. car rentals. The Commission is working towards updating the Guidance on the implementation and application of this directive.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2011-011289&language=EN
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://consumo-inc.gob.es/informes/docs/CCC_CONSULTAS_2013.pdf notice No3.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/ecc/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 138 final.

C 341 / 208 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003421/14**

**to the Commission**
**Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Firearms and the internal security of the EU: protecting citizens and disrupting illegal trafficking

Can the Commission please comment on its recent communication entitled ‘Firearms and the internal security of the EU: protecting
citizens and disrupting illegal trafficking’, making reference, in particular, to the actions that it has already taken, or intends to take,
to ensure that existing EU rules on legal firearms (laid down in the firearms directive) are upheld and enforced to the highest
standards by the Member States?

Can the Commission please respond to the many accusations from my concerned constituents who claim that it is planning an
unnecessary full review of these rules?

My constituents argue that rather than overhauling the firearms directive, the Commission should fulfil its enforcement obligations
and focus on ensuring that the Member States better comply with the legally binding provisions already in place.

Would the Commission agree that it should be helping to fight the criminal organisations responsible for the illicit trafficking of
firearms, rather than diverting limited public resources to make life harder for legal owners, who are already subject to strict
regulation at EU level?

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

_(27 June 2014)_

The Commission's strategy sets out a blueprint on how the EU can better tackle gun-related crime, while protecting the legal sale and
ownership of firearms. This strategy has taken stock, from a law enforcement perspective, of existing EU actions to reduce trafficking
in firearms.

The Commission is evaluating the implementation of the EU legislation in all EU Member States. The Commission has outsourced
three studies to evaluate the discrepancies in the application of the EU legislation and possible measures to improve such legislation
and to reduce the risk of its circumvention by criminals. With regards to the strict EU regulation on legal firearms, the Commission
is, amongst others, particularly interested in assessing the effectiveness of the Firearms Directive 91/477/EEC as amended in 2008 in
terms of achieving its objectives of the efficient functioning of the internal market while at the same time ensuring a high level of
security in the EU.

A comprehensive evaluation is necessary to have a clear idea of potential weaknesses in EU legislation and to assess which legislative
tool can best ensure effective implementation by all Member States.

This evaluation is being developed in close collaboration with the European Associations of gun manufactures and owners and the
Permanent International Commission for firearms testing. The assessment is considering the benefits of some best practices for the
whole EU — which are already current practice in many Member States. No additional specific steps are planned against the
legitimate use of firearms by law-abiding people.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 209

_(Verżjoni Maltija)_

**Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub E-003422/14**

**lill-Kummissjoni**
**Claudette Abela Baldacchino (S&D)**

_(20 ta' Marzu 2014)_

_Suġġett:_ L-aċċess għas-servizzi elettroniċi pubbliċi

Hemm 'il fuq minn 761 000 websajt tas-settur pubbliku fl-UE, li kollha kemm huma joffru aċċess għal informazzjoni u servizzi.
Madankollu, terz minnhom biss jissodisfaw l-istandards internazzjonali ta' aċċessibilità għall-internet. Minbarra dan, aktar minn
100 miljun ċittadin tal-UE sabu diffikultà jaċċesaw websajts pubbliċi biex jużaw is-servizzi elettroniċi, inkluż għall-finijiet ta'
preżentazzjoni ta' dikjarazzjoni tat-taxxa, ta' tressiq ta' klejm għall-benefiċċji soċjali jew ta' ħlas ta' kontijiet. Fi Frar tal-2014, ilParlament approva proposta għal direttiva mmirata li tiżgura li l-websajts kollha ġestiti minn korpi tas-settur pubbliku fl-UE‐28
ikunu aċċessibbli għal kulħadd, inklużi l-anzjani u l-persuni b'diżabilità. Għandha tiġi stabbilita awtorità indipendenti f'kull Stat
Membru biex tissorvelja u tinforza r-regoli, u tiżviluppa mekkaniżmu ta' lmenti biex ikunu rappurtati problemi fl-aċċessibilità għallinternet. Kien hemm qbil ukoll li l-kontenut ġdid kollu tal-websajt għandu jkun konformi mar-regoli ġodda mill-bidu tal-2015 u
mal-kontenut eżistenti kollu mill-bidu tal-2017, b'sentejn addizzjonali għal kontenut awdjo dirett.

1. Il-Kummissjoni tista' tipprovdi lista ta' Stati Membri li diġà implimentaw il-leġiżlazzjoni f'konformità mad-direttiva, u tindika lprogress li sar minn Stati Membri oħra fir-rigward tal-implimentazzjoni?

2. Xi strateġija qed tiġi implimentata biex tiżgura li l-gvernijiet kollha tal-Istati Membri jagħtu prijorità lill-aċċessibilità għasservizzi elettroniċi għaċ-ċittadini kollha?

**Tweġiba mogħtija mis-Sinjura Kroes f'isem il-Kummissjoni**

_(5 ta' Mejju 2014)_

Skont l-aktar studji riċenti 23 Stat Membru diġà għandhom fis-seħħ xi tip ta’ obbligu għall-aċċessibbiltà tal-internet. ( [1] ) Dawn lobbligi jinkludu mhux biss dispożizzjonijiet regolatorji iżda wkoll tipi oħra ta’ obbligi bħal rakkomandazzjonijiet, linji gwida u
ftehimiet.

Il-proposta tal-Kummissjoni Ewropea għal Direttiva dwar l-aċċessibbiltà tas-siti elettroniċi tal-entitajiet tas-settur pubbliku ( [2] ) għadha
qed tiġi diskussa fil-Kunsill u fil-Parlament Ewropew. Ladarba tiġi adottata formalment fil-livell tal-UE, l-Istati Membri għandhom
jittrasponuha f'leġiżlazzjoni nazzjonali.

Il-Komunikazzjoni tal-Kummissjoni “Il-Pjan ta’ Azzjoni Ewropew dwar il-gvern elettroniku 2011-2015 — L-użu tal-ICT għallpromozzjoni ta’ Gvern intelliġenti, sostenibbli u innovattiv” ( [3] ) tistabbilixxi li l-aċċessibilità tas-servizzi tal-Gvern elettroniku
għandha tittejjeb. Din tirrifletti wkoll l-impenn tal-Kummissjoni li tappoġġja lill-Istati Membri biex jiżviluppaw Gvern elettroniku
aċċessibbli b’“appoġġ effikaċi u konkret ta’ soluzzjonijiet ta’ aċċessibbiltà, skont standards rilevanti Ewropej u internazzjonali meta
disponibbli, permezz ta’ dimostrazzjoni”.

Barra minn hekk, il-Komunikazzjoni tal-Kummissjoni “Strateġija Ewropea tad-Diżabilità 2010-2020: Impenn mill-Ġdid għal
Ewropa Mingħajr Ostakoli” ( [4] ) għandha l-għan li “tagħti s-setgħa lill-persuni b’diżabilità sabiex ikunu jistgħu jgawdu d-drittijiet sħaħ
tagħhom, u jibbenefikaw bis-sħiħ milli jipparteċipaw fis-soċjetà u fl-ekonomija Ewropea notevolment permezz tas-Suq Uniku”. Filqasam speċifiku tal-aċċessibbiltà, għandha l-għan li tiżgura “l-aċċessibbiltà għal prodotti, servizzi, inklużi servizzi pubbliċi u apparat
ta’ assistenza għal persuni b’diżabilità.”

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/study-assessing-and-promoting-e-accessibility.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Proposta għal Direttiva tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill dwar l-aċċessibbiltà tas-siti elettroniċi tal-entitajiet tas-settur pubbliku COM(2012) 721 final.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Komunikazzjoni mill-Kummissjoni lill-Parlament Ewropew, lill-Kunsill, lill-Kumitat Ekonomiku u Soċjali Ewropew u lill-Kumitat tar-Reġjuni. Il-Pjan ta' Azzjoni

Ewropew dwar il-Gvern Elettroniku bejn l-2011 u l-2015.
L-użu tal-ICT għall-promozzjoni ta' gvern intelliġenti, sostenibbli u innovattiv. COM(2010) 743 final.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Komunikazzjoni mill-Kummissjoni lill-Parlament Ewropew, lill-Kunsill, lill-Kumitat Ekonomiku u Soċjali Ewropew u lill-Kumitat tar-Reġjuni. L-Istrateġija Ewropea

tad-Diżabilità għal 2010-2020: Impenn mill-Ġdid għal Ewropa Mingħajr Ostakoli. COM/2010/0636 final */.

( **|**

⋅4∙ **|** )

C 341 / 210 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003422/14**

**to the Commission**
**Claudette Abela Baldacchino (S&D)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Access to public e-services

There are over 761 000 public sector websites in the EU, all of which offer access to information and services. However, only one
third meet international web accessibility standards. Furthermore, over 100 million EU citizens have experienced difficulty in
accessing public websites to use e-services, including for the purposes of submitting a tax declaration, making a claim for social
benefits or paying bills. In February 2014, Parliament approved a proposal for a directive aimed at ensuring that all websites
managed by public sector bodies in the EU‐28 are accessible to everyone, including the elderly and the disabled. An independent
authority should be established in each Member State to monitor and enforce rules, and to develop a complaint mechanism for
reporting problems with web accessibility. It was also agreed that all new website content should comply with the new rules as from
the beginning of 2015 and with all existing content as from the beginning of 2017, with an additional two years being provided for
live audio content.

1. Can the Commission provide a list of the Member States that have already implemented legislation in compliance with the
directive, and indicate the progress made by other Member States in terms of implementation?

2. What strategy is being implemented to ensure that all Member State governments prioritise the accessibility of e‐services for all
citizens?

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

_(5 May 2014)_

According to the latest studies 23 Member States have already some kind of web accessibility obligations in place ( [1] ). These
obligations include not only regulatory provisions but also other type of obligations such as recommendations, guidelines and
agreements.

The European Commission's proposal for a directive on the accessibility of public sector bodies' websites ( [2] ) is still under discussion
in Council and European Parliament. Once it is formally adopted at EU level Member States will transpose it into national legislation.

The Commission's Communication ‘The European eGovernment Action Plan 2011-2015 Harnessing ICT to promote smart,
sustainable & innovative Government’ ( [3] ) establishes that the accessibility of eGovernment services should be improved. It also
reflects the Commission's commitment to support Member States in developing accessible eGovernment by ‘supporting effective
and concrete accessibility solutions, compliant with relevant European and international standards when available, through
demonstration’.

Moreover, the Commission's Communication ‘European Disability Strategy 2010-2020: A Renewed Commitment to a Barrier-Free
Europe’ ( [4] ) aims to ‘empower people with disabilities so that they can enjoy their full rights, and benefit fully from participating in
society and in the European economy, notably through the single market’. In the specific area of accessibility, it aims to ‘ensure
accessibility to goods, services including public services and assistive devices for people with disabilities.’

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/study-assessing-and-promoting-e-accessibility
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the accessibility of public sector bodies' websites COM(2012) 721 final.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.

The European eGovernment Action Plan 2011-2015.
Harnessing ICT to promote smart, sustainable & innovative Government. COM(2010) 743 final.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.

European Disability Strategy 2010-2020: A Renewed Commitment to a Barrier Free Europe. COM/2010/0636 final.

( **|**

⋅4∙ **|** )

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 211

_(Verżjoni Maltija)_

**Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub E-003423/14**

**lill-Kummissjoni**
**Claudette Abela Baldacchino (S&D)**

_(20 ta' Marzu 2014)_

_Suġġett:_ Tagħmir ta' rintraċċar għal pazjenti tad-demenzja

F'artiklu ppubblikat mill- _Malta Independent_ nhar it-Tlieta 25 ta' Frar 2014, ġie suġġerit li dawk li jbatu bid-demenzja jkunu rintraċċati
elettronikament ħalli jkun evitat tertiq il-qalb mhux meħtieġ f'każ li jintilfu. L-artiklu jsostni li bir-rintraċċar elettroniku pazjenti bħal
dawn ikunu jistgħu jiġu faċilment misjubin mill-membri tal-familja, u b'hekk tkunilhom salvata ħajjithom. L-artiklu jissokta jgħid li
għal dan il-fini, it-tagħmir tar-rintraċċar jistgħu jintlibsu madwar għonq il-pazjent jew ma' ċinturin, jew imqabbdin ma' mazz
ċwievet. It-tagħmir tar-rintraċċar fih buttuna li tippermetti lill-pazjenti jitkellem direttament ma' operatur f'call centre li jkun miftuħ
24 siegħa kuljum. Il-familja u l-ħbieb ikunu jistgħu jidħlu fis-sistema u jimmonitorjaw fejn ikun l-anzjan.

1. Tista' l-Kummissjoni tgħid liema Stati Membri daħħlu tagħmir teknoloġiku ta' dan it-tip għall-ħarsien ta' min ibati middemenzja?

2. B'liema modi tista' l-Kummissjoni tikkontribwixxi għall-iżvilupp ta' tagħmir teknoloġiku bħal dan fl-istrateġiji tagħha dwar issaħħa?

**Tweġiba mogħtija mis-Sinjura Kroes f'isem il-Kummissjoni**

_(14 ta' Mejju 2014)_

Billi l-politiki tas-saħħa jistgħu jiġu determinati fil-livelli nazzjonali, reġjonali u lokali, il-Kummissjoni ma tistax tipprovdi
deskrizzjoni ġenerali dwar liema Stati Membri introduċew tagħmir ta’ rintraċċar biex jipproteġu l-persuni li jbatu bid-dimenzja.
Ġabra ta’ inizjattivi tas-saħħa u l-benessri mentali min-naħa tal-awtoritajiet nazzjonali u reġjonali madwar l-UE tinsab disponibbli
għall-pubbliku ( [1] ).

Il-Kummissjoni Ewropea qed tikkontribwixxi għall-iżvilupp ta’ firxa wiesgħa ta’ apparat teknoloġiku li jwieġeb għall-isfidi taddimenzja bħala parti minn strateġija aktar wiesgħa li tkopri s-saħħa, il-bidla demografika u l-benessri. Dan jinkludi appoġġ għarriċerka u l-innovazzjoni (R &I) ( [2] [). Il-programm ta’ ħidma kurrenti ta’ Orizzont 2020 jistieden azzjonijiet R &I speċifiċi li jgħinu lin-](http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2014_2015/main/h2020-wp1415-health_en.pdf)
nies bi problemi konjittivi biex jgħixu b’mod indipendenti u li jappoġġjaw il-benessri mentali tagħhom.

Il-koordinazzjoni u l-kollaborazzjoni f’dan il-qasam ta’ riċerka huma żgurati permezz tal-Inizjattivi Konġunti ta’ Programmazzjoni
mmexxija mill-Istati Membri dwar “Aktar Snin, Ħajjiet Aħjar” u “Riċerka dwar Mard Newrodeġenerattiv”.

Minbarra din ir-riċerka iktar fit-tul, il-Programm Konġunt ta’ Għajxien Attiv u Assistit (AAL JP — Active and Assisted Living Joint
Programme) jappoġġja r-riċerka orjentata lejn is-suq għal ħajja indipendenti ( [3] ) u s-Sħubija Ewropea għall-Innovazzjoni dwar itTixjiħ Attiv u b’Saħħtu (EIP AHA — European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing) qed trawwem innovazzjoni
kollaborattiva mmexxija mill-partijiet interessati biex tiżgura t-tixrid u l-promozzjoni tal-aħjar prattiki fl-Ewropa u sabiex titjieb ilkwalità tal-ħajja, fost l-oħrajn, fir-rigward tal-ambjenti li jagħtu appoġġ lil nies bid-dimenzja, tan-nuqqas tal-kapaċitajiet konjittivi u
ta’ soluzzjonijiet għal għajxien indipendenti.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/mental_health/policy/national_authorities/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Eżempji ta’ proġetti li bħalissa qed jiġu ffinanzjati jinkludu: VERVE http://www.verveconsortium.eu/ ; Dem@care http://www.demcare.eu/ ;.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Eżempji ta’ proġetti AAL jinkludu: My Guardian http://myguardian-project.eu/ and CONFIDENCE http://www.salzburgresearch.at/en/projekt/confidence_en/

C 341 / 212 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003423/14**

**to the Commission**
**Claudette Abela Baldacchino (S&D)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Tracking devices for dementia patients

In an article published in the _Malta Independent_ on Tuesday, 25 February 2014, it was suggested that people suffering from dementia
be electronically tagged to prevent undue anxiety if they go missing. The article claims that by electronically tagging such patients,
they could easily be tracked down by family members, thereby saving their lives. The article goes on to say that tracking devices to
this end could be worn around a patient’s neck, clipped to a belt or attached to a set of keys. The tracking devices feature a button
which enables the wearer to speak directly to an operator in a 24-hour call centre. Family and friends can log in to the system and
monitor the whereabouts of the elderly person.

1. Can the Commission state which Member States have introduced technological devices of this kind to protect people suffering
from dementia?

2. In what ways does the Commission contribute to the development of such technological devices in its health strategies?

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

_(14 May 2014)_

The Commission cannot give an overview about which Member States have introduced tracking devices to protect people suffering
from dementia, since health policies can be determined at national, regional and local level. A collection of mental health and
wellbeing initiatives by national and regional authorities across the EU is publicly available ( [1] ).

The European Commission is contributing to the development of a wide range of technological devices responding to the challenges
of dementia as part of a larger strategy spanning health, demographic change and wellbeing. This includes support for research and
innovation (R&I) ( [2] ). The current work programme of Horizon 2020 calls for specific R&I actions to help people to live
independently with cognitive impairment and to support their mental wellbeing.

Coordination and collaboration in this area of research is ensured by the Member State driven Joint Programming Initiatives on
‘More Years Better Lives’ and '‘Neurodegenerative Diseases Research’'.

In addition to this longer term research, the Active and Assisted Living Joint Programme (AAL JP) supports market-oriented research
for independent living ( [3] ) and the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (EIP on AHA) is fostering
stakeholder-driven collaborative innovation to ensure the wider dissemination and scaling-up of best practices across Europe and to
improve quality of life, among others, regarding dementia supportive environments, cognitive decline and independent living
solutions.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/mental_health/policy/national_authorities/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Examples of projects currently being funded include: VERVE http://www.verveconsortium.eu/ and Dem@care http://www.demcare.eu/
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Examples of AAL projects include: My Guardian http://myguardian-project.eu/ and Confidence http://www.salzburgresearch.at/en/projekt/confidence_en/

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 213

_(Verżjoni Maltija)_

**Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub E-003424/14**

**lill-Kummissjoni**
**Claudette Abela Baldacchino (S&D)**

_(20 ta' Marzu 2014)_

_Suġġett:_ It-trapjanti tal-organi fl-UE

L-istatistika uffiċjali ppubblikata mill-Kummissjoni fl-2012 turi li sa tmiem l-2011 kien hemm aktar minn 61 500 pazjent jistennew
trapjant tal-organi fl-Istati Membri. Minn dawn, kważi 6 000 kienu qed imutu. Iċ-ċifri juru wkoll li 42 000 minn dawn il-pazjenti
kienu qed jistennew trapjant tal-kilwa, 10 000 trapjant tal-fwied, 4 000 trapjant tal-qalb u 2 300 trapjant tal-pulmun.

1. Il-Kummissjoni tista' tagħtina l-aħħar ċifri dwar l-għadd ta' persuni fl-Istati Membri li attwalment qed jistennew trapjant talorgani? L-informazzjoni tista' tingħata skont l-età, il-pajjiż u t-tip ta' organu meħtieġ?

2. Xi strateġiji qed jiġu adottati mill-Kummissjoni biex tikkumbatti n-nuqqas ta' donaturi fl-UE-28?

**Tweġiba mogħtija mis-Sur Borg f'isem il-Kummissjoni**

_(2 ta' Mejju 2014)_

1. F'Ottubru 2013, il-Kummissjoni ppubblikat fuq il-websajt tagħha ( [1] ) informazzjoni dwar il-listi ta' stennija li kien hemm sal31/12/2012 (total ta' 64 000 pazjent). Dawn iċ-ċifri ġejjin miċ-Ċirkolari annwali dwar it-Trapjanti ( [2] ).

2. Il-promozzjoni tad-donazzjoni tal-organi taqa' taħt il-kompetenza nazzjonali. Madankollu, il-Kummissjoni tappoġġa l-isforzi
tal-Istati Membri permezz tal-“Pjan ta” Azzjoni dwar id-Donazzjoni u t-Trapjanti tal-Organi (2009-2015)'. Wieħed mill-għanijiet
prinċipali huwa li jgħin biex jiżdiedu l-organi disponibbli u għalhekk jitnaqqsu l-listi ta' stennija. Ħafna proġetti ( [3] ) ffinanzjati millProgramm tal-UE dwar is-Saħħa għandhom l-iskop li jgħinu fil-kisba ta' dan il-għan (eż. EDD ( [4] ), FOEDUS ( [5] ) u ACCORD ( [6] )).

Il-Kummissjoni hija wkoll involuta b'mod attiv biex tqajjem kuxjenza dwar id-donazzjoni tal-organi permezz tas-Sessjonijiet ta'
Ħidma tal-Ġurnalisti ( [7] ), il-Premju fil-Ġurnaliżmu tal-UE fil-Qasam tas-Saħħa ( [8] ), iċ-Ċirkolari Saħħa-UE ( [9] ) jew permezz ta'
pubblikazzjonijiet dwar il-proġetti tat-trapjanti ( [10] ).

Sar studju ( [11] ) biex jiġi vvalutat il-progress tal-Pjan ta' Azzjoni. Il-Kummissjoni qed tippjana wkoll li tniedi reviżjoni ta' nofs il-perjodu
dwar il-Pjan ta' Azzjoni.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )
⋅7∙ **|** )
⋅8∙ **|** )
⋅9∙ **|** )

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/blood_tissues_organs/docs/ev_20131007_rd3_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/blood_tissues_organs/docs/ev_20131007_rd4_en.pdf (id-dejta dwar il-listi ta' stennija tinsab fil-paġni 41-43).
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Il-lista ta' proġetti hija disponibbli fuq http://ec.europa.eu/health/blood_tissues_organs/projects/index_mt.htm
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.europeandonationday.org
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://www.foedus-ja.eu/about-foedus
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) http://www.accord-ja.eu
( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/blood_tissues_organs/events/journalist_workshops_organ_en.htm#fragment0
( **|** ⋅8∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health-eu/journalist_prize/index_mt.htm
( **|** ⋅9∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/newsletter/newsletter_mt.htm
( **|** ⋅10∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/eahc/news/news281.html
( **|** ⋅11∙ **|** ) Studju ACTOR: http://ec.europa.eu/health/blood_tissues_organs/docs/organs_actor_study_2013_en.pdf

C 341 / 214 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003424/14**

**to the Commission**
**Claudette Abela Baldacchino (S&D)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Organ transplants in the EU

Official statistics published by the Commission in 2012 show that at the end of 2011 there were over 61 500 patients waiting for an
organ transplant in the Member States. Of these, almost 6 000 were dying. The figures also suggest that 42 000 of these patients
were waiting for a kidney transplant, 10 000 for a liver transplant, 4 000 for a heart transplant and 2 300 for a lung transplant.

1. Can the Commission provide us with the latest figures on the number of people in the Member States who are currently
waiting for an organ transplant? Can the information be broken down according to age, country and type of organ required?

2. What strategies are being adopted by the Commission to combat the shortage of donors in the EU-28?

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

_(2 May 2014)_

1. In October 2013, the Commission published on its website data ( [1] ) information on waiting lists on 31/12/2012 (in total
64.000 patients). These numbers come from the annual Transplant Newsletters ( [2] ).

2. The promotion of organ donation falls into national competence. The Commission, however, supports Member States in their
efforts through the ‘Action Plan on Organ Donation and Transplantation (2009-2015)’. One of the main objectives is to help
increase organ availability and thus reduce waiting lists. Many projects ( [3] ) funded under the EU Health Programme aim at helping to
achieve this objective (e.g. EDD ( [4] ), Foedus ( [5] ), Accord ( [6] )).

The Commission is also actively involved in raising awareness on organ donation, via Journalist Workshops ( [7] ), the EU Health Prize
for Journalists ( [8] ), the Health-EU Newsletter ( [9] ) or publications on transplantation projects ( [10] ).

To assess the progress of the action plan, a study ( [11] ) was carried out. The Commission also plans to issue a mid-term review of the
action plan.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )
⋅7∙ **|** )
⋅8∙ **|** )
⋅9∙ **|** )

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/blood_tissues_organs/docs/ev_20131007_rd3_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/blood_tissues_organs/docs/ev_20131007_rd4_en.pdf (waiting list data pages 41-43).
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) The list of projects is available at http://ec.europa.eu/health/blood_tissues_organs/projects/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.europeandonationday.org
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://www.foedus-ja.eu/about-foedus
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) http://www.accord-ja.eu
( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/blood_tissues_organs/events/journalist_workshops_organ_en.htm#fragment0
( **|** ⋅8∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health-eu/journalist_prize
( **|** ⋅9∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/newsletter/newsletter_en.htm
( **|** ⋅10∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/eahc/news/news281.html
( **|** ⋅11∙ **|** ) ACTOR study: http://ec.europa.eu/health/blood_tissues_organs/docs/organs_actor_study_2013_en.pdf

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 215

_(Verżjoni Maltija)_

**Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub E-003425/14**

**lill-Kummissjoni**
**Claudette Abela Baldacchino (S&D)**

_(20 ta' Marzu 2014)_

_Suġġett:_ Pjan direzzjonali għall-ugwaljanza bejn in-nisa u l-irġiel

Il-pjan direzzjonali għall-Ugwaljanza bejn in-Nisa u l-Irġiel 2010‐2015 jiddeskrivi l-bosta oqsma prijoritarji għall-azzjoni tal-UE
dwar l-ugwaljanza bejn is-sessi. Il-pjan direzzjonali jibni fuq l-esperjenza tal-Istrateġija ta’ Qafas għall-ugwaljanza bejn in-nisa u lirġiel għall-perjodi 2001-2005 u 2005-2010. L-oqsma prijoritarji identifikati mill-Kummissjoni jinkludu indipendenza ekonomika
ekwa għan-nisa u l-irġiel; ir-rikonċiljazzjoni tal-ħajja privata u professjonali; ir-rappreżentanza ugwali fit-teħid tad-deċiżjonijiet; ilqerda mill-bidu ta’ kull forma ta’ vjolenza sesswali; it-tneħħija tal-istereotipi sessisti u l-promozzjoni tal-ugwaljanza bejn is-sessi filpolitiki esterni u dawk ta’ żvilupp. Għal kull qasam, dan il-pjan jidentifika objettivi u azzjonijiet. Il-Kummissjoni ma tistax tilħaq
dawn l-objettivi waħedha, billi f'bosta oqsma, l-azzjoni tiddependi mill-Istat Membru kkonċernat. Għaldaqstant, dan il-pjan
direzzjonali jirrappreżenta l-impenn tal-Kummissjoni li tmexxi ’l quddiem l-aġenda dwar l-ugwaljanza bejn is-sessi, issaħħaħ issħubija bejn l-Istati Membri u parteċipanti oħra.

1. X'riżultati inkisbu s'issa permezz ta' dawn il-Pjanijiet Direzzjonijiet b'rabta mal-ugwaljanza bejn is-sessi fl-UE28?

2. X'inhuma l-pjanijiet tal-Kummissjoni għal meta jiskadi dan il-pjan direzzjonali fl-2015?

**Tweġiba mogħtija mis-Sur Hahn f'isem il-Kummissjoni**

_(2 ta' Mejju 2014)_

1. Fl-2010, il-Kummissjoni saħħet l-impenn tagħha dwar l-ugwaljanza bejn is-sessi u l-integrazzjoni tas-sessi fil-politiki kollha talUE u adottat il-Karta tan-Nisa u l-Istrateġija tal-Kummissjoni għall-ugwaljanza bejn in-nisa u l-irġiel (2010-2015). Kull sena, firrapporti ta’ progress annwali tagħha dwar l-ugwaljanza bejn in-nisa u l-irġiel ( [1] ), il-Kummissjoni tipprovdi valutazzjoni dettaljata talprogress li sar fir-rigward tal-ugwaljanza bejn in-nisa u l-irġiel fl-Ewropa mal-oqsma kollha ta’ prijorità tal-Istrateġija. Ir-rieżami ta'
nofs it-terminu tal-Istrateġija ( [2] ) sab li, f'nofs triq tal-perjodu ta' żmien ta' ħames snin tal-istrateġija, il-Kummissjoni qiegħda twettaq limpenji tagħha u tistipula l-azzjonijiet li għandhom jitwettqu bejn l-2013 u l-2015.

2. Meta l-Istrateġija tasal fi tmiemha fl-2015, il-Kummissjoni se tidentifika l-isfidi li fadal u tikkunsidra li tipproponi azzjoni xierqa
li għandha tittieħed fuq livell Ewropew.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/document/index_en.htm#h2-2.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) SWD (2013) 300 finali.

C 341 / 216 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003425/14**

**to the Commission**
**Claudette Abela Baldacchino (S&D)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Roadmap for equality between women and men

The Roadmap for equality between women and men 2010‐2015 outlines the various priority areas for EU action on gender equality.
This Roadmap builds on the experience of the framework strategies for equality between women and men for the periods 2001‐
2005 and 2005‐2010. The priority areas identified by the Commission include equal economic independence for women and men;
the reconciliation of private and professional life; equal representation in decision-making; eradication of all forms of gender-based
violence; elimination of gender stereotypes and promotion of gender equality in external and development policies. For each area, it
identifies objectives and actions. The Commission cannot achieve these objectives alone, as, in many areas, action depends on the
Member State in question. Thus, this Roadmap represents the Commission’s commitment to driving forward the gender equality
agenda, reinforcing partnership with Member States and other actors.

1. What results have been achieved so far thanks to these Roadmaps when it comes to gender equality in the EU-28?

2. What are the Commission’s plans for when this Roadmap expires in 2015?

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

_(2 May 2014)_

1. In 2010, the Commission strengthened its commitment to gender equality and gender mainstreaming in all EU policies and
adopted the Women's Charter and the Commission's Strategy for equality between women and men (2010-2015). Every year, in its
annual progress reports on equality between women and men ( [1] ), the Commission provides a detailed assessment of the progress
being made with regard to equality between women and men in Europe across the priority areas of the strategy. The mid-term review
of the strategy ( [2] ) found that, half-way through the strategy’s five-year time scale, the Commission is delivering on its commitments
and sets out the actions to be carried out between 2013 and 2015.

2. When the strategy comes to an end in 2015, the Commission will identify remaining challenges and consider proposing
appropriate action to be taken at European level.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/document/index_en.htm#h2-2
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) SWD (2013) 300 final.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 217

_(Verżjoni Maltija)_

**Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub E-003426/14**

**lill-Kummissjoni**
**Claudette Abela Baldacchino (S&D)**

_(20 ta' Marzu 2014)_

_Suġġett:_ Il-ġeneru u s-saħħa mentali

Il-kwistjoni tal-ġeneru u s-saħħa mentali hija waħda kumplessa. Id-differenzi bejn is-sessi fis-saħħa mentali huma identifikati filgruppi kollha, inklużi diversi gruppi soċjoekonomiċi, diversi gruppi etniċi u diversi gruppi ta' età. Huwa meħtieġ approċċ integrat
biex jiġu ffaċċjati kwistjonijiet ta' saħħa mentali fil-livell Ewropew, u dan għandu jgħaqqad is-setturi rilevanti kollha, mhux biss issettur tas-saħħa. Il-kwistjonijiet tal-ġeneru għandhom jikkostitwixxu waħda mill-kwistjonijiet ewlenin integrati permezz ta' politika
dwar is-saħħa mentali, kemm jekk tittratta s-saħħa mentali fuq il-post tax-xogħol, l-esklużjoni soċjali jew l-aċċess għat-trattament. LUE tista' tappoġġa lill-Istati Membri fid-diżinn u fl-implimentazzjoni ta' strateġiji ta' saħħa mentali li jinkludu enfasi fuq l-ugwaljanza
bejn is-sessi, billi jipprovdu inventorju ta' prattika tajba minn madwar il-Komunità.

1. Il-Kummissjoni tista' tipprovdi data dwar pazjenti li bħalissa qed jiġu trattati għal mard mentali fl-UE28, skont l-Istat Membru u
s-sess?

2. Il-Kummissjoni taqbel li politiki dwar saħħa mentali skont il-ġeneru għandhom ikunu prijorità?

3. Il-Kummissjoni tista' tindika x'passi qed tiegħu biex tiżgura li l-politiki tagħha ta' saħħa mentali jkunu skont il-ġeneru?

**Tweġiba mogħtija mis-Sur Borg f'isem il-Kummissjoni**

_(15 ta' Mejju 2014)_

Il-Kummissjoni ma tiġborx dejta dwar pazjenti li jkun qed jirċievu trattament għal disturbi mentali fl-Istati Membri tal-UE. Xi
informazzjoni dwar l-użu ta’ servizzi tas-saħħa mentali fl-Istati Membri hija inkluża fl-istudju “Mental Health Systems in the EU
Member States, Status of Mental Health in Populations and benefits to be expected from Investments into Mental Health” — (Sistemi
ta' Saħħa Mentali fl-Istati Membri tal-UE, l-Istatus ta' Saħħa Mentali fil-Popolazzjonijiet u l-benefiċċji mistennija mill-Investimenti fisSaħħa Mentali) ( [1] ), ippubblikat fl-2013. Id-dejta pprovduta f’dan l-istudju madankollu ma tagħmilx distinzjoni bejn is-sessi.

Biex jirreaġixxu għall-ħtiġijiet kemm tan-nisa kif ukoll tal-irġiel, il-politiki tas-saħħa mentali jeħtieġ li jkunu sensittivi għad-differenza
bejn is-sessi. Il-konklużjonijiet tal-konferenza “Is-Saħħa Mentali: Sfidi u Possibilitajiet”, li saret taħt il-Presidenza Litwana fl-2013,
enfasizzat il-ħtieġa għal approċċ sensittiv għad-differenza bejn is-sessi għall-promozzjoni tas-saħħa mentali u l-prevenzjoni taddisturbi mentali. Il-prijoritajiet ta’ din il-konferenza ġew approvati mill-Grupp ta’ Esperti Governattivi dwar is-Saħħa u l-Benessri
Mentali.

F’dan il-kuntest, il-Kummissjoni tappoġġja proġetti li huma sensittivi għall-bżonnijiet tan-nisa u l-irġiel. Il-Programm tas-Saħħa talUE jikkofinanzja proġetti fil-qasam tas-saħħa mentali indirizzati lejn gruppi ta’ mira differenti. Pereżempju, il-proġett “ProYouth” li ( [2] )
jipprovdi informazzjoni u appoġġ biex jiġu indirizzati d-disturbi tal-alimentazzjoni qed jitratta problema tas-saħħa mentali li
taffettwa b’mod predominanti n-nisa żgħażagħ. Min-naħa l-oħra, l-għodda “iFightDepression” żviluppata permezz tal-proġett “PrediNu”, hija ( [3] ) reazzjoni għall-preferenza li wieħed jikkontrolla d-depressjoni huwa nnifsu, liema preferenza hija aktar komuni fost lirġiel.

Fl-aħħar nett, il-programm tas-Saħħa tal-UE qed jipprovdi kofinanzjament għal Azzjoni Konġunta mal-Istati Membri dwar is-Saħħa
u l-Benesseri Mentali ( [4] ), li bħalissa qed tfassal qafas komuni ta’ azzjoni dwar is-saħħa mentali.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/mental_health/docs/europopp_full_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) https://www.proyouth.eu/home.html
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.predi-nu.eu/
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.mentalhealthandwellbeing.eu/

C 341 / 218 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003426/14**

**to the Commission**
**Claudette Abela Baldacchino (S&D)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Gender and mental health

The issue of gender and mental health is a complex one. Gender differences in mental health are identified within all groups,
including different socioeconomic groups, different ethnic groups and different age groups. An integrated approach to tackle mental
health issues is needed at a European level and this should bring together all relevant sectors, not simply the health sector. Gender
issues should be one of the key issues mainstreamed throughout any mental health policy, whether it tackles mental health in the
workplace, social exclusion, or access to treatment. The EU can support Member States in the design and implementation of mental
health strategies that include a focus on gender equality, by providing an inventory of good practice from across the Community.

1. Can the Commission provide data on patients who are currently undergoing treatment for mental illnesses in the EU-28,
according to Member State and gender?

2. Does the Commission share the view that gender-specific mental health policies should be a priority?

3. Can the Commission state what it is doing to ensure that its mental health policies are gender-specific?

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

_(15 May 2014)_

The Commission does not collect data on patients undergoing treatment for mental disorders in EU-Member States. Some
information on the use of mental health services in Member States is included in the study ‘Mental Health Systems in the EU Member
States, Status of Mental Health in Populations and benefits to be expected from Investments into Mental Health’ ( [1] ), published in
2013. The data provided in this study does not however distinguish between genders.

To respond to the needs of both women and men, mental health policies need to be gender-sensitive. The conclusions of the
conference ‘Mental Health: Challenges and Possibilities’, which took place under the Lithuanian Presidency in 2013, underlined the
need for a gender-sensitive approach to the promotion of mental health and prevention of mental disorders. The priorities of this
conference were endorsed by the Group of Governmental Experts on Mental Health and Well-being.

In this context, the Commission supports projects which are sensitive to the needs of women and men. The EU Health Programme
co-funds projects in the area of mental health addressed to different target groups. For example, the ‘ProYouth’ project ( [2] ) providing
information and support to tackle eating disorders is addressing a mental health problem which affects predominantly young
women. On the other hand, the ‘iFightDepression’ tool developed through the ‘Predi-Nu’-project ( [3] ) responds to the preference of
mostly men to self-manage depression.

Finally, the EU Health programme is co-funding a Joint Action with Member States on Mental Health and Well-being ( [4] ), which is
currently shaping a common framework of action on mental health.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/mental_health/docs/europopp_full_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) https://www.proyouth.eu/home.html
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.predi-nu.eu/
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.mentalhealthandwellbeing.eu/

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 219

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-003427/14**

**à la Commission**

**Gaston Franco (PPE)**

_(20 mars 2014)_

_Objet:_ Textiles intelligents

Actuellement, les textiles intelligents font l'objet de plusieurs programmes européens. Financé par le 7 [e] programme-cadre pour la
recherche et le développement (PCRD), le projet SimpleSkin du 1 [er] juillet 2013 a pour objectif de déboucher sur la conception d'un
tissu spécifique et d'un réseau de capteurs intégrés qui suivraient les signes vitaux de l'utilisateur et les communiqueraient à un
Smartphone. Le projet EASY-IMP, lancé mi-septembre au Centre allemand de recherche sur l'intelligence artificielle de Kaiserslautern
(DFKI) par des industriels et des universités européens, vise, quant à lui, à créer un environnement collaboratif de design et de
production pour le développement de produits textiles intelligents.

Plus récemment, le Professeur Serge Mordon, Directeur de l'unité de recherche Inserm au CHRU de Lille, a mis au point un tissu
lumineux thérapeutique pouvant traiter certains types de cancer.

1. La Commission compte-t-elle faire des textiles intelligents l'une de ses priorités à l'horizon 2020 dans les domaines de la
recherche et de l'innovation afin de développer la compétitivité de l'Union européenne?

2. Quels soutiens spécifiques la Commission entend-elle accorder à la recherche sur les textiles intelligents dans le domaine de
la santé?

**Réponse donnée par M** **[me]** **Geoghegan-Quinn au nom de la Commission**

_(12 mai 2014)_

1. La recherche et l'innovation dans le domaine des textiles intelligents englobent les matériaux (tels que des fibres techniques, des
nanomatériaux/biomatériaux et matériaux fonctionnalisés, des textiles électroniques), le traitement et la production et leurs
applications intelligentes dans différents domaines. La recherche dans ces domaines est soutenue dans le cadre du programme
Horizon 2020, le programme-cadre de l'UE pour la recherche et l'innovation (2014-2020). La recherche dans le domaine des
matières textiles intelligentes, du traitement et de la production est couverte par la «primauté industrielle» au titre des technologies
génériques essentielles, les applications intelligentes elles-mêmes entrant dans le cadre des «défis de société». Dans le cadre des
programmes de travail «Primauté industrielle» d'Horizon 2020 pour 2014 et 2015, les textiles intelligents bénéficient, par exemple,
d'un soutien au titre du thème d'appel TIC 3‐2014: Électronique fine avancée, électronique organique et macroélectronique  ( [1] )
(Advanced Thin, Organic and Large Area Electronics ou TOLAE) et au titre du thème d'appel NMP 22‐2015: Matériaux à base de
fibres pour des applications autres que l'habillement (Fibre-based materials for non-clothing applications) ( [2] ).

2. L'un des défis de société est «la santé, l'évolution démographique et le bien-être». Dans le cadre de ce défi, la recherche sur les
textiles intelligents dans le domaine de la santé bénéficiera d'un soutien informel. L'un des objectifs les plus importants est la
personnalisation des soins de santé. La recherche dans le domaine des nouvelles formes de thérapie répondant à cet objectif peut en
principe bénéficier de financements, par exemple au titre du thème d'appel PHC 16‐2015: Outils et technologies pour des thérapies
innovantes ( [3] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topics/80-ict-03-2014.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topics/2506-nmp-22-2015.html
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topics/2279-phc-16-2015.html

C 341 / 220 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003427/14**

**to the Commission**

**Gaston Franco (PPE)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Smart Textiles

Smart textiles are currently the subject of several EU programmes. Funded under the 7th Framework Programme for Research and
Development (FP7), the SimpleSkin project launched on 1 July 2013 is intended to design a specific tissue and a network of
integrated sensors that monitor the user’s vital signs and communicate them to a Smartphone. The EASY-IMP project, launched in
mid-September by industrialists and European universities at the German Research Centre for Artificial Intelligence in Kaiserslautern
(DFKI), is intended to create a collaborative design and production environment for the development of smart textile products.

More recently, Professor Serge Mordon, Director of the Inserm research unit at the University Hospital of Lille, has developed a
therapeutic luminous fabric that can treat certain types of cancer.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

1. Does it intend to make smart textiles one of its priorities for 2020 in the areas of research and innovation so as to promote the
competitiveness of the European Union?

2. What specific support does it intend to grant to research on smart textiles in the field of health?

**Answer given by Ms Geoghegan-Quinn on behalf of the Commission**

_(12 May 2014)_

1. The domain of smart textiles encompasses research and innovation in the areas of materials (such as technical fibres,
nano-/bio‐ and functionalised materials, electronic textiles), processing and production and its smart applications in various
domains. Research in these areas is supported within Horizon 2020, the EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation
(2014-2020). Research in smart textile materials, processing and production is covered by the ‘Industrial Leadership’ as ‘Key Enabling
Technologies’, while the smart applications themselves are covered under the Societal Challenges. In the Horizon 2020 Industrial
Leadership work programmes for 2014 and 2015, smart textiles are, for example, supported under call topic ICT 3 — 2014:
Advanced Thin, Organic and Large Area Electronics (TOLAE) technologies ( [1] ) and under call topic NMP 22 — 2015: Fibre-based
materials for non-clothing applications ( [2] ).

2. One of the Societal Challenges is ‘Health, demographic change and wellbeing’. Under this challenge, research on ‘smart textiles
in the field of health’ will be implicitly supported. One of the most important objectives is personalising health and care. Research on
new forms of therapy aiming at this objective can in principle apply for funding, for example under call topic PHC 16 — 2015: Tools
and technologies for advanced therapies ( [3] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topics/80-ict-03-2014.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topics/2506-nmp-22-2015.html
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topics/2279-phc-16-2015.html

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 221

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003428/14**

**alla Commissione**
**Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)**

_(20 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Malattie nelle carceri italiane

Recenti dati statistici presentati dalla Società italiana di medicina penitenziaria, evidenziano una situazione infernale all'interno delle
carceri italiane: l'80 % dei detenuti ha qualche malattia, il 32 % è tossicodipendente, il 27 % ha problemi psichiatrici, il 17 % soffre di
malattie osteoarticolari, il 16 % ha problemi cardiovascolari e il 10 % ha problemi di metabolismo. Sono molto diffuse anche le
malattie infettive, tra cui l'epatite C (32,8 %), la tubercolosi (21,8 %) e l'epatite B (5,3 %). Questa situazione è aggravata dalle scarse
risorse che le carceri hanno a disposizione per le cure mediche, dalle condizioni igieniche scandalose delle celle e dal loro
sovraffollamento.

Posto che la gestione delle carceri rientra tra le competenze esclusive degli Stati membri, può la Commissione far sapere:

1. se dispone di dati organici sulle malattie nelle carceri dei diversi Stati membri;

2. se ritiene che l'UE debba fissare standard sanitari minimi di igiene e di metri quadri a disposizione di ogni detenuto nelle celle;

3. se gli Stati membri possono ricorrere agli stanziamenti del Fondo sociale europeo per migliorare le condizioni di vita dei
carcerati;

4. se ritiene che l'aumento dei casi di TBC anche fuori dalle carceri sia un grave rischio e dovrebbe comportare una campagna
europea di prevenzione?

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

_(30 maggio 2014)_

La Commissione non raccoglie dati sulle malattie nelle carceri negli Stati membri dell'UE. I dati sulla tubercolosi nelle carceri sono
raccolti dall'Organizzazione mondiale della sanità e sono pubblicati in collaborazione con il Centro europeo per la prevenzione e il
controllo delle malattie (CEPCM). Nella relazione pubblicata nel 2014 sono stati riferiti in totale 796 nuovi casi di tubercolosi nelle
carceri in 16 Stati membri dell'UE/SEE ( [1] ).

L'andamento del numero di nuovi casi di tubercolosi nell'Unione europea negli ultimi 5 anni indica un calo di circa il 5 % all'anno.
Nel 2008 i casi di tubercolosi segnalati nell'Unione europea sono stati 83 123 mentre nel 2012 sono stati 68 423. Nel 2012 l'1,9 %
dei nuovi casi di tubercolosi segnalati nei paesi dell'UE e del SEE è stato riscontrato nelle carceri.

Nel 2008 il CEPCM ha pubblicato un «Piano d'azione quadro volto a combattere la tubercolosi nell'Unione europea» ( [2] ). Il piano
d'azione definisce i principi fondamentali per garantire la prevenzione e il controllo della tubercolosi nell'Unione europea, ivi
compresa l'identificazione delle categorie più vulnerabili come i detenuti. La Commissione segue regolarmente la situazione relativa
alla tubercolosi ma non considera per il momento la possibilità di proporre una campagna di prevenzione di portata europea.

Le condizioni di detenzione sono essenzialmente di competenza degli Stati membri, che sono vincolati dalle norme del Consiglio
d'Europa ( [3] ).

Nel corso del periodo di programmazione 2014-2020, i contributi del Fondo sociale europeo (FSE) non possono essere utilizzati
direttamente per migliorare le condizioni di vita nelle carceri. Il FSE tuttavia può sostenere misure attive per il mercato del lavoro con
il principale obiettivo di fornire alle persone distanti dal mercato del lavoro, quali ad esempio i detenuti, le competenze e le qualifiche
necessarie per aiutarle ad integrarsi nel mercato del lavoro e nella società.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Controllo e monitoraggio della tubercolosi in Europa 2014, tabella 20, pagina 111, del Centro europeo per la prevenzione e il controllo delle malattie e dell'Ufficio

regionale dell'OMS per l'Europa, Stoccolma: Centro europeo per la prevenzione e il controllo delle malattie, 2014 —
http://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/tuberculosis-surveillance-monitoring-Europe-2014.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Piano d'azione quadro volto a combattere la tubercolosi nell'Unione europea, Centro europeo per la prevenzione e il controllo delle malattie, Stoccolma: Centro

europeo per la prevenzione e il controllo delle malattie, 2008 —
http://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/tuberculosis-surveillance-monitoring-Europe-2014.pdf

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Raccomandazione Rec (2006)2 del Comitato dei ministri del Consiglio d'Europa agli Stati membri, dell'11 gennaio 2006, sulle regole penitenziarie europee,

https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=955747

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|**

⋅3∙ **|** )

C 341 / 222 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003428/14**

**to the Commission**
**Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Illness in Italian prisons

Recent statistics from the Italian society for prison healthcare highlight the dire situation that exists within Italian prisons: 80% of
prisoners have an illness of some kind, 32% are drug addicts, 27% have psychiatric problems, 17% suffer from osteoarticular
diseases, 16% have cardiovascular problems and 10% have problems with their metabolism. Infectious diseases are also very
common, amongst them hepatitis C (32.8%), tuberculosis (21.8%) and hepatitis B (5.3%). This situation is exacerbated by the fact
that prisons have scant resources for healthcare, they are overcrowded and the hygiene conditions in cells are scandalous.

Prison management is a matter for which Member States have exclusive competence.

1. This being so, does the Commission have physical data on illness in prisons in the various Member States?

2. Does it consider that the EU ought to set minimum standards for health and hygiene and the number of square metres per
prisoner per cell?

3. Can Member States draw on monies from the European Social Fund to improve prisoners' living conditions?

4. Does the Commission consider that the rise in the number of cases of TB, and not just in prisons, constitutes a serious risk and
should warrant a European prevention campaign?

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

_(30 May 2014)_

The Commission does not collect data on illness in prisons in EU Member States. Data on tuberculosis in prisons is collected by the
World Health Organisation and published jointly with the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). In the report
published in 2014, a total of 796 new cases of tuberculosis in prisons were notified by 16 EU/EEA Member States ( [1] ).

The trend in the number of new cases of tuberculosis in the European Union in the last 5 years indicates a decrease of about 5% per
year. In 2008 there were 83 123 tuberculosis cases notified in the European Union and in 2012 there were 68 423 tuberculosis cases
notified. In 2012 1.9% of all new Tuberculosis cases notified by EU and EEA countries were in prisons.

The ECDC published in 2008 the ‘Framework Action Plan to fight tuberculosis in the European Union’ ( [2] ). The action plan defines the
key principles in securing tuberculosis prevention and control in the European Union, including the identification of most vulnerable
categories like prisoners. The Commission keeps the situation regarding tuberculosis under regular review and is not currently
considering proposing a Europe wide prevention campaign.

Detention conditions are primarily a competence of the Member States who are bound by the Council of Europe standards ( [3] ).

During the programming period 2014-2020, the European Social Fund (ESF) cannot be used directly to improve living conditions in
prisons. However, the ESF can support active labour market measures with the primary aim of equipping people far from the labour
market, such as prisoners, with necessary skills, competences and qualifications to help them to integrate in the labour market and
society.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Tuberculosis surveillance and monitoring in Europe 2014, Table 20, page 111, European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control/WHO Regional Office for

Europe, Stockholm: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, 2014 — http://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/tuberculosissurveillance-monitoring-Europe-2014.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Framework action plan to fight tuberculosis in the European Union, European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, Stockholm: European Centre for Disease

Prevention and Control, 2008 — http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/publications/0803_spr_tb_action_plan.pdf

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Council of Europe, committee of ministers, recommendation Rec(2006)2 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the European Prison Rules, Adopted

11 January 2006 — https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=955747

( **|**

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 223

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003429/14**

**alla Commissione**
**Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)**

_(20 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Cibo pronto come droga

Il vincitore del premio Pulitzer nel 2010 ha affermato in un libro inchiesta uscito recentemente che le multinazionali del cibo creano
nuovi desideri, che non sono innati nell'uomo, come la «brama» di sale. Ha spiegato in un'intervista che è stato scoperto che
massimizzando la quantità di sale, zucchero e grassi negli alimenti i consumatori li apprezzano e ne consumano sempre di più.
L'utilizzo di queste tre sostanze non è indiscriminato, in laboratorio si studiano le dosi «perfette» per raggiungere quello che gli
addetti ai lavori definiscono il bliss point o punto di beatitudine.

Si tratta di formule studiate a tavolino per aumentare le vendite e è inquietante scoprire come la scienza della nutrizione sia finanziata
dall'industria alimentare. Altrettanto inquietante è scoprire come alcuni dei più grandi produttori alimentari del mondo abbiano
negli ultimi anni condotto proprie ricerche sul cervello per valutare l'intensità del potere di attrazione dei grassi. La sola Unilever ha
investito 30 milioni di dollari per costituire un gruppo di 20 ricercatori incaricati di analizzare i poteri sensoriali del cibo, grassi
inclusi, attraverso l'utilizzo di risonanze magnetiche del cervello e altri strumenti neurologici avanzati. Il cervello, infatti, è il luogo
dove si palesa una preoccupante analogia tra alimentazione e droghe.

Sale, zucchero e grassi una volta ingeriti compiono i medesimi percorsi e usano gli stessi circuiti neurologici per raggiungere le aree
cerebrali deputate alla gratificazione, quelle che inducono il cervello a credere che si stia facendo la scelta giusta. Cibo come droga?
Forse è un'affermazione eccessiva, ma senza dubbio si può parlare di cibo come dipendenza.

Può la Commissione chiarire:

1. se nelle sue direttive sulla sicurezza alimentare ha tenuto conto di questa realtà di tipo scientifico, soggiacente alla produzione
di alimenti pronti e fast food;

2. quali accorgimenti ha considerato per controllare gli alimenti importati e se tiene conto del Made in, laddove esiste, e della
trasparenza delle indicazioni figuranti nelle etichette;

3. non riterrebbe opportuno eliminare dalle etichette quegli elementi di puro marketing che nulla hanno a che vedere con le
sostanze reali contenute nel prodotto;

4. cosa propone per evitare che quello denunciato diventi l'unico cibo in vendita nei grandi empori?

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

_(23 maggio 2014)_

La cronica eccessiva assunzione di grassi, zuccheri e sale non sono un problema di sicurezza degli alimenti ma una questione di
sanità pubblica, poiché una dieta malsana e squilibrata costituisce uno dei principali fattori di rischio per lo sviluppo di malattie
croniche. Per consentire ai cittadini di fare scelte dietetiche informate, il regolamento (UE) n. 1169/2011 ( [1] ) introdurrà le indicazioni
nutrizionali obbligatorie entro il 13 dicembre 2016, comprese informazioni obbligatorie sul contenuto di grassi, zuccheri e sale
sull'etichetta della maggior parte dei prodotti alimentari preimballati.

Secondo le norme UE, le etichette dei prodotti alimentari non devono indurre in errore i consumatori per quanto riguarda le
caratteristiche dell'alimento (natura, identità, proprietà, composizione, origine e metodo di produzione). Le indicazioni di origine
non sono un fattore rilevante per la valutazione della sicurezza degli alimenti.

Le informazioni volontarie fornite sulle etichette a fini promozionali rientrano nell'ambito della libertà commerciale dei produttori e
non devono pertanto essere rimosse dalle etichette, purché non inducano in errore il consumatore e siano conformi alle norme
applicabili in materia di corrette prassi commerciali.

Gli Stati membri hanno la responsabilità di garantire che tutti gli aspetti della normativa alimentare dell'UE, sia obbligatori che
volontari, siano rispettati dagli operatori del settore alimentare.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regolamento (UE) n. 1169/2011 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 25 ottobre 2011, relativo alla fornitura di informazioni sugli alimenti ai consumatori
(GU L 304 del 22.11.2011, pag.18).

C 341 / 224 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

La selezione dei prodotti alimentari venduti nei supermercati è una questione di organizzazione del mercato. Per quanto riguarda le
misure volontarie, la Commissione ha lavorato in collaborazione con gli Stati membri nell'ambito del gruppo di alto livello sulla
dieta e l'attività fisica ( [2] ) e della piattaforma europea per l'alimentazione, l'attività fisica e la salute ( [3] ), incoraggiando tutte le parti
interessate ad adottare azioni volte a ridurre l'assunzione di elementi nutritivi consumati in eccesso. Il lavoro comprende la
riformulazione degli alimenti, in modo tale da diminuire il loro contenuto, ad esempio, di grassi, zuccheri e sale. Il tema è integrato
nel piano di azione sull'obesità infantile ( [4] ), concordato nell'ambito del gruppo ad alto livello il 24 febbraio 2014. ( [5] )

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

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

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/nutrition_physical_activity/high_level_group/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/nutrition_physical_activity/platform/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/nutrition_physical_activity/docs/childhoodobesity_actionplan_2014_2020_en.pdf
( ⋅5∙ ) Con la riserva dei Paesi Bassi.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 225

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003429/14**

**to the Commission**
**Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Ready meals with an effect similar to drugs

The winner of the 2010 Pulitzer Prize has stated in a recently published investigative book that food multinationals are creating new
artificial appetites in humans, such as the ‘craving’ for salt. He explained in an interview that it had been discovered that maximising
the amount of salt, sugar and fat in food made consumers like and consume such food more and more. These three substances are
not used in random quantities, since in laboratories research is conducted to find the ‘perfect’ dose to achieve what experts call the
‘bliss point’.

These are formulas specifically designed to boost sales, and it is disturbing to find out how the science of nutrition is funded by the
food industry. Equally disturbing is how some of the largest food manufacturers in the world have in recent years conducted their
own research to assess how attractive fat is to the brain. Unilever alone has invested USD US 30 million to set up a group of 20
researchers responsible for analysing the sensory powers of food, including fats, through the magnetic resonance imaging of the
brain and other advanced neurological technologies. A disturbing similarity has come to light between the way food and drugs act on
the brain.

When ingested, salt, sugar and fat take the same routes and use the same neurological circuits to reach the brain areas reserved for
gratification — those that cause the brain to believe that the right choice is being made. Can food be a drug? Perhaps that would be an
exaggeration, but one can undoubtedly talk about food as a dependency.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

1. In its directives on food safety, has it taken account of this scientific reality underlying the production of prepared foods and
fast food?

2. What arrangements has it considered to control imported foods and does it take into account the ‘made in’ designation, where
it exists, and the transparency of the information displayed on the labels?

3. Does it not agree that the purely promotional content unrelated to the actual substances contained in the product should be
removed from the labels?

4. What measures does it propose to prevent the food criticised above from becoming the only food sold in supermarkets?

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

_(23 May 2014)_

Chronically excessive intake levels of fat, sugars and salt are not an issue of food safety but one of public health as an unbalanced,
unhealthy diet is one of the risk factors leading to development of chronic diseases. In order to enable citizens to make informed
dietary choices, Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 ( [1] ) will introduce mandatory nutrition labelling by 13 December 2016, including
mandatory information on the fat, sugars and salt content on the majority of pre-packed foods.

According to EU rules, the labels of foods must not be misleading as to the characteristics of the foodstuff (nature, identity,
properties, composition, origin and production method). Origin indications are not a relevant factor in food safety assessment.

Voluntary information given on food labels for promotional purposes are within the scope of the manufacturer's commercial
freedom and should therefore not be removed from labels by law provided that it does not mislead the consumer and complies with
relevant rules on fair commercial practices.

Member States are responsible to ensure that all aspects of EU food law, both mandatory and voluntary are respected by food
business operators.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011on the provision of food information to consumers (OJ L 304,
22.11.2011, p.18).

C 341 / 226 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

The selection of foods sold in supermarkets is a question of market organisation. Regarding voluntary measures, the Commission has
worked with Member States in the High Level Group on Diet and Physical Activity ( [2] ) and the EU Platform for Action on Diet,
Physical Activity and Health ( [3] ), encouraging stakeholders' actions on the reduction of the intake of nutrients consumed in excess.
The work includes reformulation of foods, decreasing their content of e.g. fat, sugars and salt. This concern is included in the action
plan on Childhood Obesity ( [4] ), agreed by the High Level Group on 24 February 2014. ( [5] )

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

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

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/nutrition_physical_activity/high_level_group/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/nutrition_physical_activity/platform/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/nutrition_physical_activity/docs/childhoodobesity_actionplan_2014_2020_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) With reserve by The Netherlands.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 227

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003430/14**

**alla Commissione**
**Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)**

_(20 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Spazi bianchi contro l'elettrosmog

I cosiddetti spazi bianchi sono il traguardo di chi vorrebbe essere riparato dalle onde elettromagnetiche e non subirne l'influsso. Si
possono creare con schermature particolari, in modo da creare oasi disconnesse: niente telefono, niente wi-fi, niente elettricità. Pare
che alcuni paesi stiano pensando alla loro realizzazione attraverso una legge.

Può la Commissione riferire:

1. se ne è a conoscenza;

2. se vi sono paesi in cui queste aree libere da elettrosmog sono già operanti;

3. quale rischio per la salute rappresenta l'elettrosmog presente normalmente nei nostri centri urbani;

4. quale livello di inquinamento non dovrebbero superare gli smartphone così in voga e in continua crescita nei consumi per non
essere nocivi alla salute degli utilizzatori e all'ecologia dell'ambiente;

5. se ha proposte da presentare al di là delle normative in vigore per la tutela dell'ambiente?

**Risposta di Neelie Kroes a nome della Commissione**

_(14 maggio 2014)_

Il comitato scientifico della Commissione sui rischi sanitari emergenti e recentemente identificati (CSRSERI) effettua revisioni
periodiche sia dei dati scientifici disponibili sulle radiazioni elettromagnetiche sia dei potenziali effetti di queste ultime sulla salute.
Ad oggi il comitato ritiene che non sussistano prove scientifiche che giustifichino una modifica delle motivazioni sulla base delle
quali sono stati stabiliti gli attuali limiti di esposizione. Il livello di esposizione alle onde elettromagnetiche nell'UE è di gran lunga
inferiore ai livelli massimi raccomandati, stabiliti dal CSRSERI. Inoltre, gli studi sulla salute realizzati non ravvisano prove
dell'esistenza di rischi legati all'impiego di sistemi e dispositivi senza fili.

È possibile, tramite leggi nazionali o regionali, stabilire livelli di esposizione inferiori a quelli raccomandati. La Francia ha introdotto
una legge che limita, in casi molto specifici, l'utilizzo di dispositivi e il livello di esposizione, in particolare vietando i sistemi senza fili
nelle scuole per i bambini più piccoli.

Considerato l'interesse pubblico dell'esposizione alle onde elettromagnetiche nel contesto della proliferazione di dispositivi e reti
senza fili, la Commissione sta finanziando progetti di ricerca che sviluppano tecnologie ad emissione elettromagnetica molto bassa
per le future generazioni dei sistemi senza fili, comprese le reti 5G (progetto LEXNET).

C 341 / 228 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003430/14**

**to the Commission**
**Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Electrosmog-free ‘White Zones’

People who would like to escape the effects of electromagnetic waves are calling for electrosmog-free ‘White Zones’ to be set up. This
can be done through special protection measures to establish disconnected oases free of phones, Wi-Fi and electricity. Some
countries are apparently considering establishing such zones by law.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

1. Is it aware of this situation?

2. Are there countries in which such electrosmog-free zones already exist?

3. What health risk does the usual level of electrosmog found in our urban centres pose?

4. What should the maximum level of pollution be for Smartphones that are so popular and increasingly sought after by
consumers if they are not to pose a health risk to users or the environment?

5. Does it intend to make new proposals going beyond existing legislation to protect the environment?

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

_(14 May 2014)_

The Commission's Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (Scenihr) is regularly reviewing the available
scientific data on electromagnetic radiations and their potential effects on health. Its opinion is so far that no scientific evidence
justifies a change in the rationale used to set up the current exposure limits. The level of exposure to electromagnetic waves in the EU
is much below the maximum recommended levels defined by the Scenhir. In addition, health studies conclude with no evidence of
risks in using wireless systems and devices.

National or regional laws can set lower levels of public exposure to electromagnetic waves than the recommended limits. France has
established such a law to limit in very specific case the use of devices and the level of exposure, notably by prohibiting Wi-Fi systems
at school for low-age children.

Having regard to the public concern of exposure to electromagnetic waves in the context of pervasive devices and wireless networks,
the Commission is funding research projects developing very low electromagnetic emission technologies for the future generations
of wireless systems, including 5G networks (Lexnet Project).

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 229

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003431/14**

**alla Commissione**
**Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)**

_(20 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Gas di scisto

Un settimanale italiano afferma che entro il 2020 si esauriranno negli USA i giacimenti di scisto migliori e i costi di estrazione
cresceranno ancora. È ormai noto che il prezzo basso dello shale gas è un paradosso, dato che la frantumazione è più costosa
dell'estrazione tradizionale e un pozzo rimane attivo pochi mesi. Tale basso prezzo deriva dal fatto che deve essere venduto appena
estratto e al meglio, non essendoci un giacimento in cui immagazzinarlo. Per questo motivo — afferma un chimico dell'Università di
Firenze — la frantumazione praticata negli USA è in perdita: nel 2012 i 7.000 nuovi pozzi necessari a mantenere la produzione sono
costati 42 miliardi di dollari e la vendita del gas ne ha fatto introitare solo 32. Lo shale gas americano, tuttavia, costa meno della metà
del metano in Europa e risulta competitivo persino con il carbone, che emette il doppio di CO 2 . Dal 2008 perciò dozzine di centrali a
carbone sono state chiuse in USA, a vantaggio degli impianti di gas di scisto che hanno contribuito a far calare le emissioni.

Uno studio dell'Università del Texas, inoltre, afferma che 38 sulle 100 centrali nucleari americane nei prossimi anni rischiano di
chiudere perché lo shale gas ha reso antieconomiche le migliorie che potrebbero farle funzionare per altri 20 anni. Entro il 2030,
secondo l'autore dello studio, si rischia di perdere il 60 per cento della elettricità prodotta senza CO 2 . Con la scoperta del gas di scisto
molti problemi di emissioni sembravano risolti: approvvigionamento energetico, riduzioni delle emissioni di gas serra, diminuzione
del costo di produzione, ecc., ma questi allarmi lanciati dagli specialisti non lasciano bene sperare per il futuro.

Può la Commissione precisare:

1. qual è il suo parere su queste previsioni;

2. se ritiene che valga ancora la pena di estrarre gas di scisto, laddove si presume possa esistere, nel territorio dell'Unione e con
quali garanzie per la sicurezza del territorio;

3. in caso negativo, come pensa che si possa sopperire alle necessità energetiche e nello stesso tempo alla riduzione delle
emissioni di CO 2 ;

4. come può garantire l'approvvigionamento energetico in Europa di fronte a questi paradossi contradditori che non lasciano
bene sperare per il futuro;

5. conosce progetti per lo sviluppo energetico e nello stesso tempo per la riduzione delle emissioni?

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

_(22 maggio 2014)_

1. L'impatto del gas di scisto sul mix energetico dipende, tra l'altro, dalle risorse economicamente recuperabili disponibili. Queste
incidono anche sul prezzo delle fonti alternative di gas naturale e sui costi di produzione. Poiché questi fattori evolvono, le stime
delle risorse economicamente recuperabili sono costantemente oggetto di revisione ( [1] ).

2. A seconda della disponibilità delle risorse economicamente recuperabili, le fonti nazionali di gas naturale, incluso il gas di
scisto, potrebbero contribuire alla sicurezza dell'approvvigionamento e alla competitività dell'Unione europea e, in determinate
situazioni, potrebbero dar luogo a benefici climatici ( [2] ). Ad integrazione dell'acquis unionale vigente in materia di ambiente, la
Commissione ha adottato una raccomandazione ( [3] ) destinata a sostenere gli Stati membri nella gestione e nell'attenuazione dei
potenziali impatti e rischi ambientali legati alla fratturazione idraulica ad elevato volume qualora uno Stato membro decida di
consentire l'estrazione di gas di scisto.

3. In ogni caso, l'obiettivo a lungo termine della decarbonizzazione del nostro sistema energetico richiederà un miglioramento
costante dell'efficienza energetica, del risparmio energetico e un maggiore ricorso alle tecnologie a basse emissioni di carbonio, in
particolare le energie rinnovabili.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Cfr. il rapporto sull'energia degli sviluppi economici in Europa, SWD(2014)19, allegato al «Quadro per le politiche dell'energia e del clima all'orizzonte 2030»

adottato il 22 gennaio 2014.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Cfr. la comunicazione della Commissione al Consiglio e al Parlamento europeo «Esplorazione e produzione di idrocarburi (come il gas di scisto) mediante la

fratturazione idraulica ad elevato volume nell'UE». COM(2014) 23 final del 22 gennaio 2014.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52014DC0023R(01)

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Raccomandazione della Commissione sui principi minimi applicabili alla ricerca e produzione di idrocarburi (come il gas di scisto) mediante la fratturazione idraulica

ad elevato volume (2014/70/UE) del 22 gennaio 2014: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014H0070.

( **|**

( **|**

⋅3∙ **|** )

C 341 / 230 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

4. La Commissione opera a favore di un mercato mondiale aperto e ben funzionante e della diversificazione degli
approvvigionamenti energetici, che presuppone anche un maggiore sfruttamento delle fonti locali di energia sostenibile, al fine di
evitare la dipendenza da un unico fornitore o gruppo di fornitori.

5. La Commissione è a conoscenza di vari progetti di esplorazione del gas di scisto in corso nellUE in particolare in Polonia.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 231

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003431/14**

**to the Commission**
**Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Shale gas

A report contained in an Italian weekly newspaper predicts the depletion by 2020 of prime shale gas deposits in the USA,
accompanied by a further increase in extraction costs. It is now an acknowledged fact that the price of shale gas is lower than would
normally be expected, given that fracking operations are more costly than traditional extraction techniques and that wells remain
operational for only a few months. The reason for this that the gas deposits, once released, can no longer be naturally stored and
must therefore be sold off immediately on the best terms available. According to a chemical expert at the University of Florence,
fracking in the USA is therefore being carried out at a loss, the 7000 new wells needed to maintain production in 2012 having cost
USD 42 billion, compared with proceeds of only USD 32 billion from the gas produced. At the same time, the cost of American shale
gas is less than half that of methane produced in Europe and is competitive even with coal, which emits twice as much CO 2 . As a
result, dozens of coal-fired power stations in the USA have been closed down since 2008, further promoting shale gas extraction and
helping to cut emissions.

Moreover, according to a study by the University of Texas, 38 out of the 100 American nuclear power plants are likely to be closed
down over the coming years, since shale gas production has made it uneconomical to carry out the improvements necessary to keep
them on line for another 20 years. However, the author of the study also predicts a likely 60% fall-off in CO 2 -free electricity
production by 2030. While many problems, such as the need for security of energy supply, a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions,
lower production costs, etc. appeared to be resolved with the discovery of shale gas, warnings by specialists in the field do not augur
well for the future. In view of this:

1. What view does the Commission take of these predictions?

2. Does it consider it worthwhile to exploit putative shale gas deposits in EU territory and, if so, what guarantees can be given
regarding the safety of such operations?

3. If not, what solutions would it recommend with a view to meeting energy needs while cutting CO 2 emissions?

4. How is it possible to guarantee energy supplies in Europe, given the dilemmas currently facing us and the bleak prospects
resulting?

5. Is the Commission aware of any projects being developed with a view to ensuring energy supplies, while at the same time
cutting emissions?

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

_(22 May 2014)_

1. The impact of shale gas on the energy mix _inter alia_ depends on the economically recoverable resources available. These are also
a factor of the price of alternative sources of natural gas and of the costs of production. Since these factors change, estimates of
economically recoverable resources of shale gas are being continuously revised ( [1] ).

2. Depending on the available economically recoverable resources, domestic sources of natural gas, including shale gas, could
contribute to the European Union's security of supply and competitiveness and could, under certain conditions, bring climate
benefits ( [2] ). As a complement to the existing EU environmental _acquis_, the Commission adopted a recommendation ( [3] ) aimed at
supporting Member States in managing and mitigating potential environmental impacts and risks from high-volume hydraulic
fracturing if a Member State decides to enable shale gas operations.

3. In any case, the long term objective of decarbonising the EU energy system will require continued improvement of energy
efficiency, energy savings and increased uptake of low carbon technologies, in particular renewable energies.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) See also the report on Energy Economic Developments in Europe report, SWD(2014)19, attached to the 2030 Framework for Climate and Energy, adopted on

22 January 2014.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) See Commission Communication on the exploration and production of hydrocarbons (such as shale gas) using high volume hydraulic fracturing in the EU.

COM(2014)23 final, 22 January 2014: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52014DC0023R(01)

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Commission Recommendation on minimum principles for the exploration and production of hydrocarbons (such as shale gas) using high-volume hydraulic

fracturing (2014/70/EU), 22 January 2014: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014H0070

( **|**

( **|**

C 341 / 232 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

4. The Commission works towards a global, open, well-functioning market and the diversification of energy supplies, including
the further exploitation of sustainable indigenous energy sources, so as to avoid dependence on one single supplier or group of
suppliers.

5. The Commission is aware of several shale gas exploration projects which are on-going in the EU, in particular in Poland.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 233

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-003432/14**

**aan de Commissie**
**Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE)**

_(20 maart 2014)_

_Betreft:_ Aanleiding van het speciale verslag van de Europese Rekenkamer over de betrouwbaarheid van de resultaten van de
verificaties van de landbouwuitgaven door de lidstaten

Op 17 maart 2014 publiceerde de Europese Rekenkamer een uiterst kritisch rapport waarin wordt geconcludeerd dat de door de
lidstaten verrichte verificaties van de EU-landbouwuitgaven niet betrouwbaar zijn. De Commissie gebruikt die informatie om
restfoutenpercentages te ramen die aan het Europees Parlement en de Raad worden gepresenteerd in het kader van de
kwijtingsprocedure. De controleverslagen van de lidstaten zijn daarom slechts gedeeltelijk relevant of zijn onvolledig en onjuist, en
daarom ongeschikt om als zodanig te kunnen worden gebruikt in het jaarlijks activiteitenverslag van de Commissie en in de
kwijtingsprocedure.

1. Deelt de Commissie de mening dat de geconstateerde gebreken in het rapport van de Europese Rekenkamer resulteren in
statistieken die op zichzelf geen betrouwbare basis vormen voor de ramingen van het restfoutenpercentage door de Commissie?

2. Waarom heeft de Commissie de lidstaten hier niet op aangesproken en structurele verbeteringen doorgevoerd?

3. Waarom heeft de Commissie de laatste jaren arbitraire correcties toegepast op de door de lidstaten berekende
foutenpercentages, wetende dat deze aanpassingen statistisch niet deugdelijk zijn, evenmin als het verkregen restfoutenpercentage?

4. Kan hieruit geconcludeerd worden dat de Commissie jarenlang onbetrouwbare informatie heeft doorgegeven aan het
Parlement in het kader van de kwijtingsprocedure, waarbij het Parlement de door de Commissie gepubliceerde foutenpercentages —
in haar betrouwbaarheidsverklaring — als belangrijke informatiebron gebruikte?

5. In de antwoorden van de Commissie, opgenomen in het rapport van de Europese Rekenkamer, wordt gesteld dat er
maatregelen zijn genomen om deze tekortkomingen aan te pakken. Kan de Commissie dan ook bevestigen dat deze vanaf 1 januari
2014 ook daadwerkelijk effect zullen hebben? Zo niet, vindt de Commissie het niet noodzakelijk om deze tekortkomingen
onmiddellijk aan te pakken?

**Antwoord van de heer Cioloș namens de Commissie**

_(22 mei 2014)_

1. De Commissie constateerde reeds dat de controlestatistieken van de lidstaten niet in alle gevallen betrouwbaar zijn. Daarom
heeft zij de methode voor het ramen van het restfoutenpercentage aangepast. De methode die in het speciaal verslag wordt
beschreven, is niet meer in gebruik.

2, 3 & 4. In de periode voor 2011 was er enkel sprake van een niet-significante afwijking van het restfoutenpercentage van de
Rekenkamer en de Commissie, en schommelde dit rond de 2 % ( [1] ). Om met problemen in de controlestatistieken rekening te houden,
voorzag de Commissie in een ingebouwde veiligheidsmarge van 25 %.

Nadat de Rekenkamer in 2011 het foutenpercentage voor de twee pijlers had gesplitst, week het restfoutenpercentage significant af,
in het bijzonder voor de tweede pijler. Desondanks maakte de Commissie de vermoedelijke onderschatting bekend, plaatste zij de
tweede pijler voor alle lidstaten onder voorbehoud en stelde zij in samenspraak met de lidstaten herstelmaatregelen op.

In 2012 stroomlijnde de Commissie haar methode om een nauwkeurigere raming van het restfoutenpercentage te verkrijgen door
met alle beschikbare informatie rekening te houden (haar eigen controleverslagen, die van de Europese Rekenkamer en van
certificerende instanties ( [2] )). Op aanraden van de Rekenkamer werd het gebruik van deze nieuwe methode in 2013 uitgebreid naar
alle landbouwuitgaven.

Bijgevolg is het onjuist om te concluderen dat de Commissie onbetrouwbare informatie heeft doorgegeven.

5. De genomen maatregelen zullen een wezenlijke impact hebben, met name vanaf aanvraagjaar 2014 ( [3] ), wanneer de
certificerende instanties een advies zullen formuleren over de wettigheid en de regelmatigheid van de uitgaven.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Materialiteitsdrempel.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Onafhankelijke auditorganen die in een advies moeten nagaan of de rekeningen een getrouw beeld geven, of uitgaven wettig en regelmatig zijn en of de ingevoerde

controlesystemen naar behoren functioneren (Verordening (EU, Euratom) nr. 966/2012, artikel 59, lid 5).

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Aanvraagjaar 2014 heeft betrekking op begrotingsjaar 2015 aangezien de lidstaten de steun reeds vanaf 1/12/2014 uitbetalen, maar pas in 2015 vanuit de EU
begroting worden vergoed.

( **|**

C 341 / 234 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003432/14**

**to the Commission**
**Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Reasons for the drafting of the European Court of Auditors' Special Report on the reliability of the results of Member States'
checks on agricultural expenditure

On 17 March 2014, the European Court of Auditors published an extremely critical report which concluded that the checks on EU
agricultural expenditure performed by the Member States were not reliable. The Commission uses the information derived from
these checks to estimate residual error rates which are presented to the European Parliament and the Council as part of the budget
discharge procedure. The Member States’ reports on the checks they have performed are therefore only partially relevant or are
incomplete and inaccurate, and therefore not suitable for use, as they stand, in the Commission’s annual activity report and in the
discharge procedure.

1. Does the Commission agree that, as a result of the weaknesses noted in the European Court of Auditors’ report, statistics are
compiled which in themselves do not constitute a reliable basis for the Commission’s estimates of the residual error rate?

2. Why has the Commission not raised this matter with the Member States and instituted structural improvements?

3. Why has the Commission made arbitrary corrections to the error rates calculated by the Member States in recent years, in the
knowledge that neither these adjustments nor the residual error rate obtained are statistically valid?

4. Can it be concluded from this that, for years, the Commission has forwarded unreliable information to Parliament in the course
of the discharge procedure, when Parliament used the error rates published by the Commission in its statement of assurance as an
important source of information?

5. The answers given by the Commission, which are included in the report by the Court of Auditors, state that measures have
been taken to tackle these weaknesses. Can the Commission also confirm that these will have a genuine impact from
1 January 2014? If not, does not the Commission consider it necessary to tackle these weaknesses immediately?

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

_(22 May 2014)_

1. The Commission already detected that Member States' control statistics were not always reliable and therefore the method for
the estimation of the residual error rate (RER) was changed. The method described in the special report is no longer in place.

2, 3 and 4. Prior to 2011, the RER of the Court and the Commission did not significantly diverge and oscillated around 2% ( [1] ). The
Commission's practice consisted in catering for problems in control statistics by adding a safety margin of 25%.

In 2011, after the separation by the Court of the error rates for the two Pillars, the RER diverged significantly, notably for Pillar 2.
Nevertheless, the Commission disclosed the likely understatement and put Pillar 2 under reservation for all Member States,
concurrently with remedial action plans engaged with Member States.

In 2012 the Commission streamlined its method to estimate a more comprehensive RER by taking into account all available
information (its own audit reports, those of the European Court of Auditors and certification bodies ( [2] )). In 2013, as recommended
by the Court, this new method was extended to all agricultural expenditure. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the Commission
has sent unreliable information.

5. The measures taken will have a genuine impact, in particular from claim year 2014 ( [3] ), when the certification bodies will give
an opinion on legality and regularity of expenditure.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Materiality threshold.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Independent audit bodies which are required to give an opinion on whether the accounts give a true and fair view, whether expenditure is legal and regular and

whether the control systems in place function properly (Financial Regulation(EU) No 966/2012, Article 59(5)).

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Claim year 2014 relates to financial year 2015 as the aid is paid by the Member States from 1.12.2014 but only reimbursed by the EU budget in 2015.

( **|**

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 235

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-003433/14**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D)**

_(20 martie 2014)_

_Subiect:_ Agricultura familială

2014 este Anul internațional al agriculturii familiale, an în care se promovează agricultura familială și cea practicată de mici
proprietari prin rolul ei semnificativ în eradicarea foamei și a sărăciei, asigurarea securității alimentare și a nutriției, ameliorând
mediul de viață, gestionând resursele naturale, protejând mediul înconjurător și dezvoltarea durabilă, în special în zonele rurale. Atât
în țările în curs de dezvoltare, cât și în țările dezvoltate, agricultura de familie este principala formă de agricultură din sectorul
producției de alimente.

La nivel mondial, fermele familiale reprezintă peste 80 % din ferme. Există mai multe tipuri de agricultură familială, de la cea de
subzistență la cea orientată spre piață, intensivă, bazată pe tehnologii moderne. Această diversitate reprezintă un capital, iar fermele
de familie joacă un rol economic, în termeni de securitate alimentară, dar au și o funcție socială vitală, structurând zonele rurale.

Agricultura de familie reprezintă o oportunitate de a stimula economiile locale, mai ales atunci când acestea sunt combinate cu
politici specifice care vizează protecția socială și bunăstarea comunităților.

În acest context, care este strategia Comisiei în vederea sprijinirii dezvoltării politicilor agricole, sociale și de mediu care să ducă la o
agricultură de familie durabilă? Ar fi Comisia de acord cu ideea că este necesară o mai bună înțelegere a nevoilor agricole de familie și
o promovare mai adecvată a acestei activități, atrăgând atenția lumii asupra rolului său important în ceea ce privește reducerea
foamei și sărăciei, asigurarea securității alimentare și îmbunătățirea mijloacelor de subzistență, protejând în același timp mediul și
biodiversitatea?

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

_(26 mai 2014)_

Comisia dorește să o asigure pe distinsa membră că exploatațiile familiale sunt baza pe care a fost construită politica agricolă comună
europeană și reprezintă una din pietrele de temelie ale cooperării UE în domeniul dezvoltării. Comisia o invită pe distinsa membră să
consulte răspunsurile la întrebările scrise E-013748/2013 adresată de dl Nicholson, P-000827/2014 adresată de dna do Céu Patrão
Neves și E-003317/2014 adresată de dl Silvestris.

C 341 / 236 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003433/14**

**to the Commission**
**Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D)**

_(20 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Family farming

2014 is the international year of family farming, which aims to promote family farming and smallholder farming in the light of its
significant role in eradicating hunger and poverty, providing food security and nutrition, improving livelihoods, managing natural
resources, protecting the environment and achieving sustainable development, in particular in rural areas. Both in developing and
developed countries, family farming is the predominant form of agriculture in the food production sector.

At world level, family farms represent over 80% of all farms. There are several types of family farming, ranging from subsistence
farming to intensive market-oriented farming based on modern technologies. This diversity is an asset, and while family farms play
an economic role, in terms of food security, they also have a vital social function, structuring rural areas.

Family farming represents an opportunity to stimulate the local economy, particularly when combined with specific policies geared
to social protection and community well-being.

In this context, what is the Commission's strategy as regards supporting the development of agricultural, social and environmental
policies that will lead to sustainable family farming? Would the Commission agree that there is a need for a better understanding of
the needs of family farming and more targeted action to promote this type of farming, focusing the world's attention on its
important role in reducing hunger and poverty, safeguarding food security and improving people's livelihoods, whilst at the same
time protecting the environment and biodiversity?

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

_(26 May 2014)_

The Commission would like to assure the Honourable Member that family farms are the foundations on which Europe's Common
agricultural policy was built and one of the cornerstones of EU development cooperation. The Commission would refer to its replies
to written questions E-013748/2013 by Mr Nicholson, P-000827/2014 by Ms do Céu Patrão Neves and E-003317/2014 by
Mr Silvestris.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 237

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003434/14**

**a la Comisión**
**Teresa Riera Madurell (S&D)**

_(21 de marzo de 2014)_

_Asunto:_ Actualización de la «Small Business Act»

En su Comunicación titulada «Por un renacimiento industrial europeo», de enero de 2014, la Comisión Europea señaló que una
actualización de la «Small Business Act» podría crear más sinergias con el proceso de reformas y ayudar a las PYME a crecer y crear
empleo. Asimismo, la Comisión indicó que presentaría nuevas medidas legislativas para que sea posible crear una empresa en
cualquier Estado miembro a un coste máximo de 100 euros y en un plazo de tres días, así como el estudio del objetivo de que en un
mes puedan obtenerse las licencias necesarias. Por último, la Comisión estaría estudiando medidas para reducir la duración de los
litigios sobre recuperación de la actividad crediticia por las empresas, recuperarse de dificultades financieras y evitar la insolvencia
mediante procedimientos de reestructuración de la deuda con una buena relación coste-eficacia, de modo que los empresarios
honrados tengan una segunda oportunidad, y para facilitar el traspaso de empresas.

1. ¿Se propone la Comisión actualizar la «Small Business Act»?

2. ¿Va a presentar la Comisión nuevas medidas legislativas para la reducción de costes y plazos para la creación de empresas?

3. ¿Va a adoptar la Comisión medidas para reducir la duración de los litigios sobre recuperación de la actividad crediticia y de las
dificultades financieras y evitar la insolvencia?

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

_(16 de mayo de 2014)_

1. La Comisión está estudiando la necesidad de actualizar la _Small Business Act_ (iniciativa en favor de las pequeñas empresas) a fin
de que las PYME sigan teniendo prioridad en la agenda política, así como para impulsar su competitividad y su crecimiento. Antes de
que acabe este año, se celebrará una consulta pública a fin de recabar las opiniones de todas las partes interesadas pertinentes.

2. La Comisión anima sistemáticamente a los Estados miembros a que fortalezcan su capacidad institucional y administrativa, y a
que simplifiquen y reduzcan la carga administrativa a la que deben hacer frente las empresas. En 2011 el Consejo de Competitividad
invitó a los Estados miembros «a reducir antes de 2012 el tiempo necesario para constituir una empresa a tres días y el coste a
100 euros». Desde 2008 ( [1] ), el plazo y el coste medios para crear una empresa se han reducido de 9 a 4 días, y de 463 euros a
315 euros en 2013. La Comisión seguirá analizando y controlando la situación de los Estados miembros a fin de «reflexionar y, en
caso necesario, proponer nuevas medidas legislativas para que sea posible crear una empresa en cualquier Estado miembro a un coste
máximo de 100 euros y en un plazo de tres días» ( [2] ).

3. La Comisión está trabajando para reducir la duración de los procedimientos judiciales relativos a cobros de deudas, así como
para ayudar a las empresas que se hallen en dificultades a reestructurarse en una fase temprana para que, de ese modo, eviten la
insolvencia. Una Recomendación de la Comisión ( [3] ) invita a los Estados miembros a adoptar procedimientos adecuados a tal fin.
Exhorta asimismo a los Estados miembros a que reduzcan los periodos de liquidación a un máximo de tres años a fin de brindar una
segunda oportunidad a los empresarios en situación concursal.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Año en el que se adoptó la Small Business Act (iniciativa en favor de las pequeñas empresas).
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Comunicación de la Comisión titulada «Por un renacimiento industrial europeo», COM(2014) 14 final, 22.1.2014.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Recomendación de la Comisión de 12 de marzo de 2014 sobre un nuevo enfoque frente a la insolvencia y el fracaso empresarial, C(2014) 1500 final.

C 341 / 238 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003434/14**

**to the Commission**
**Teresa Riera Madurell (S&D)**

_(21 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Updating the Small Business Act

In its communication ‘For a European industrial renaissance’ of January 2014, the Commission announced that updating the Small
Business Act could create more synergies with the reform process, helping SMEs to grow and create jobs. The Commission also
indicated that it would put forward new legislative proposals to ensure that it is possible to start up a company in any Member State
at a maximum cost of EUR 100 and within three days and would look at the possibility of setting a target of one month for obtaining
the necessary licences. Finally, the Commission said it would study measures to reduce the duration of court litigation on credit
recovery for companies, to recover from financial difficulties and avoid insolvency by having access to cost-effective debt
restructuring procedures and to give a second chance to honest entrepreneurs and to facilitate the transfer of business.

1. Does the Commission plan to update the Small Business Act?

2. Will the Commission present new legislative measures to reduce the costs and time required to create new businesses?

3. Will the Commission adopt measures to reduce the duration of court litigation on credit recovery and recovery from financial
difficulties and to avoid insolvency?

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

_(16 May 2014)_

1. The Commission is reflecting on the need to update the Small Business Act in order to keep SMEs high on the political agenda
and to boost their competitiveness and growth. An open consultation to collect the views of all relevant stakeholders will be
launched by the end of this year.

2. The Commission consistently encourages the Member States to strengthen their institutional and administrative capacity,
simplify and reduce the administrative burden on businesses. In 2011, the Competitiveness Council invited Member States ‘to reduce
the start-up time to 3 days and the cost to EUR 100 by 2012’. Since 2008 ( [1] ) the average time and cost of starting up a business has
been reduced from 9 to 4 days and from EUR 463 to EUR 315 in 2013. The Commission will further study and monitor the
situation in the Members States with a view to ‘consider actions and if appropriate propose new legislative measures, to ensure that it
is possible to start up a company in any Member State at a maximum cost of EUR 100 and within three days’ ( [2] ).

3. The Commission works on reducing the length of court procedures for the recovery of claims and helping enterprises in
difficulty to restructure at an early stage and thus prevent their insolvency. A Commission Recommendation ( [3] ) invites Member
States to put in place appropriate procedures for this purpose. It also urges Member States to reduce discharge periods to maximum
3 years in order to give bankrupt entrepreneurs a second chance.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) When the Small Business Act was adopted.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Commission Communication ‘For a European Industrial Renaissance’, COM(2014) 14 final, 22.1.2014.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Commission Recommendation of 12 March 2014 on a new approach to business failure and insolvency, C(2014) 1500 final.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 239

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003435/14**

**a la Comisión**
**Teresa Riera Madurell (S&D)**

_(21 de marzo de 2014)_

_Asunto:_ Visado para turistas procedentes de China

En su visita a Beijing en julio de 2013, el Vicepresidente y Comisario de Industria, Antonio Tajani, declaró que la Comisión pretendía
agilizar el procedimiento de solicitud de visados para los turistas chinos. El Vicepresidente señaló que unos procedimientos más
sencillos para los nacionales del país asiático atraerían a más turistas hacia Europa.

Ante los enormes potenciales que se derivan de un aumento del turismo de procedencia china en Europa, ¿ha habido algún tipo de
agilización de los visados para los turistas chinos que deseen visitar la UE?

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

_(12 de junio de 2014)_

El 1 de abril de 2014, la Comisión adoptó un paquete de medidas dirigidas a que la política común de visados sea más inteligente y
propicia al crecimiento económico ( [1] ). Este paquete incluye una propuesta de refundición del Código de visados, con vistas a facilitar
y simplificar la expedición de visados para los viajeros de buena fe, al tiempo que se mantiene el nivel de seguridad exigido ( [2] ). Los
principales cambios propuestos son los siguientes: plazo más breve para tramitar las solicitudes de visado, que pasa de 15 a 10 días;
distinción clara entre los viajeros que lo hacen por primera vez y los viajeros frecuentes, los cuales podrán acogerse a varias
facilidades, incluida la emisión de un visado múltiple de una validez más larga; período más extenso (de tres a seis meses) para
presentar una solicitud; lista simplificada y exhaustiva de justificantes; abolición de la necesidad de tener un seguro médico de viaje;
posibilidad para los Estados miembros de contemplar facilidades especiales para los visitantes de acontecimientos importantes. Una
vez adoptada por codecisión, la legislación modificada se aplicará a todos los solicitantes, incluidos los ciudadanos chinos.

Los Estados miembros de Schengen ya pueden adoptar medidas, con arreglo al Código de visados vigente, a fin de acelerar el proceso
de solicitud de visado para los turistas chinos ( [3] ). De hecho, los consulados en China ya utilizan diferentes prácticas destinadas a
facilitar la presentación y la tramitación de las solicitudes de visado, por ejemplo, mediante el aumento del personal consular. Estas
prácticas han contribuido al aumento de las solicitudes de visado en China en más de un 150 % entre 2009 y 2013.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-is-new/news/news/2014/20140401_01_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2014) 164 final.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Reglamento (CE) n° 810/2009 del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 13 de julio de 2009, por el que se establece un Código comunitario sobre visados (Código de

visados), (DO L 243 de 15.9.2009, p. 1).

C 341 / 240 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003435/14**

**to the Commission**
**Teresa Riera Madurell (S&D)**

_(21 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Visas for Chinese tourists

While visiting Beijing in July 2013, Commission Vice-President and Commissioner for Industry Antonio Tajani announced that the
Commission hoped to speed up the visa application process for Chinese tourists. Mr Tajani pointed out that a simpler procedure for
Chinese nationals would encourage more tourists from the country to visit Europe.

Given the huge potential offered by an increase in Chinese tourism to Europe, has any action been taken to speed up the visa
application process for Chinese tourists wishing to visit the EU?

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

_(12 June 2014)_

On 1 April 2014, the Commission adopted a package of measures aimed at making the common visa policy smarter and more
conducive to economic growth ( [1] ). This package comprises a proposal ( [2] ) to recast the Visa Code with a view to facilitating and
simplifying the issuing of visas for _bona fide_ travellers, whilst maintaining the level of security required. The main changes proposed
are: shortened deadline for processing visa applications from 15 to 10 days, clear distinction between first time and regular travellers,
the latter benefitting from a number of facilitations, including the issuance of Multi-Entry Visa with a long period of validity;
increased time span from three to six months for lodging an application; simplified and exhaustive list of supporting documents;
abolition of the need to have a Travel Medical Insurance; possibility for Member States to provide special facilitations to visitors
attending major events. Once adopted by co-decision, the amended legislation will apply to all applicants, including Chinese citizens.

As of now Schengen Member States can already take measures within the current Visa Code ( [3] ) to speed up the visa application
process for Chinese tourists. Indeed, consulates in China already use different practices aimed at facilitating the lodging and
processing of visa applications, e.g. by increasing consular staff. These practices have contributed to the increase of visa applications
in China by more than 150% from 2009 to 2013.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-is-new/news/news/2014/20140401_01_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2014) 164 final.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13.7.2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code), OJ L 243,

15.9.2009, p. 1.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 241

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003436/14**

**a la Comisión**
**Teresa Riera Madurell (S&D)**

_(21 de marzo de 2014)_

_Asunto:_ Simplificación de las cargas normativas y respeto de los derechos fundamentales de los trabajadores

En la Comunicación «Seguimiento, por parte de la Comisión, de la consulta a las PYME sobre las diez medidas más gravosas de la
normativa de la UE», la Comisión vuelve a reiterar su objetivo de simplificar la carga normativa a las PYME.

En opinión de la Comisión, ¿puede este programa de simplificación normativa menoscabar los derechos de los asalariados de la
Unión Europea? ¿Cuáles son las medidas que adoptaría la Comisión para asegurar en todo momento la salud y seguridad en el trabajo
y la protección de los trabajadores, al mismo tiempo que se garantiza que las PYME proporcionen a los empleados un entorno de
trabajo apropiado?

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

_(15 de mayo de 2014)_

La consulta a las PYME sobre las diez medidas más gravosas de la normativa de la UE forma parte del programa REFIT ( [1] ) destinado a
identificar las cargas excesivas, las incoherencias, las lagunas y las medidas ineficaces. REFIT debe garantizar que el marco regulador
de la UE es pertinente, coherente, eficaz y eficiente y no cuestiona los objetivos políticos establecidos ( [2] ). Al proponer iniciativas en
estos ámbitos, la Comisión analiza la justificación de una acción a nivel de la UE y la medida en que están mejor protegidos los
derechos de los trabajadores de las empresas de todos los tamaños, sin que se impongan cargas innecesarias y sin que se reduzca el
nivel establecido de protección. También tiene en cuenta el resultado de las consultas con los interlocutores sociales, de conformidad
con el artículo 154 del TFUE.

La evaluación de la Estrategia comunitaria de salud y seguridad en el trabajo (2007-2012) puso de manifiesto la necesidad de adoptar
medidas complementarias para garantizar el cumplimiento de la legislación de la UE en materia de salud y seguridad en el trabajo ( [3] ).
La Agencia Europea para la Seguridad y la Salud en el Trabajo ( [4] ) ofrece, para mejorar la prevención en las empresas y en particular las
PYME, herramientas y materiales prácticos como la herramienta interactiva en línea de evaluación de riesgos, una aplicación web
gratuita que permite desarrollar instrumentos de evaluación de riesgos mejor adaptados a las microempresas y a las pequeñas
empresas. Además, los servicios de la Comisión han elaborado varias guías no vinculantes para ayudar a los empresarios y a los
trabajadores en la aplicación de la legislación de la UE ( [5] ). La Comisión presentará próximamente un nuevo marco estratégico en
materia de salud y seguridad en el trabajo con el objetivo, entre otros, de facilitar a las PYME el cumplimiento de las normas en dicho
ámbito.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) «Adecuación de la normativa de la UE» (COM(2012) 746 final, de 12 de diciembre de 2012).
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Véase la respuesta de la Comisión a la pregunta E-1606/2014 y su Comunicación titulada «Reducción al mínimo de la carga normativa para las PYME: Adaptación de

la normativa de la UE a las necesidades de las microempresas» (COM(2011) 803 final, de 23 de noviembre de 2011).

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) «Evaluación de la estrategia europea de salud y seguridad en el trabajo 2007-2012» (SWD(2013) 202 final, de 31 de mayo de 2013).
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) https://osha.europa.eu/es
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Por ejemplo, guías no vinculantes sobre la Directiva 92/57/CEE relativa a las obras de construcción, sobre la Directiva 2006/25/CE relativa a las radiaciones ópticas

artificiales y sobre la salud y la seguridad de los trabajadores en la agricultura y la silvicultura:
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=148&langId=es&furtherPubs=yes

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

C 341 / 242 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003436/14**

**to the Commission**
**Teresa Riera Madurell (S&D)**

_(21 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Lightening of regulatory burdens and respect for the fundamental rights of workers

In its communication ‘Commission follow-up to the “TOP TEN” Consultation of SMEs on EU Regulation’, the Commission once
again reiterates its goal of lightening the regulatory burden for SMEs.

In the Commission's view, could this programme of regulatory simplification undermine the rights of employees in the European
Union? What measures will the Commission take to ensure compliance, at all times, with the rules on health and safety at work and
protection of workers, whilst ensuring that SMEs provide employees with an appropriate working environment?

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

_(15 May 2014)_

The Top Ten consultation of SMEs on EU Regulation is part of the larger REFIT exercise ( [1] ), which aims to identify burdens,
inconsistencies, gaps and ineffective measures. REFIT should ensure that the EU regulatory framework is relevant, coherent, effective
and efficient. It does not call established policy objectives into question ( [2] ). When proposing any initiatives in these areas, the
Commission considers the justification for action at EU level and the extent to which the rights of workers in companies of all sizes
are best protected, without imposing unnecessary burdens and without reducing the established level of protection. It also takes the
result of consultations of the social partners into account in accordance with Article 154 TFEU.

The evaluation of the EU Strategy on Health and Safety at Work (2007-12) identified a need for supplementary measures to ensure
compliance with EU occupational safety and health legislation ( [3] ). The European Agency for Safety and Health at Work ( [4] ) makes
available practical tools and materials to improve prevention in companies, in particular SMEs, such as the Online Interactive Risk
Assessment tool, a cost-free web application which allows tailor-made risk assessment tools to be developed for micro-enterprises
and small enterprises. In addition, the Commission departments have drawn up several non-binding guides to help employers and
workers with the implementation of EU legislation ( [5] ). The Commission will soon present a new Strategic Framework on health and
safety at work which will aim at — amongst others — facilitating the compliance of SMEs with health and safety rules.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) ‘EU Regulatory Fitness’ (COM(2012) 746 final of 12 December 2012).
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) See Commission’s answer to Question E-1606/2014 and its communication ‘Minimising regulatory burden for SMEs: Adapting EU regulation to the needs of micro
enterprises’ (COM(2011) 803 final of 23 November 2011).

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) ‘Evaluation of the European Strategy 2007-2012 on health and safety at work’ (SWD(2013) 202 final of 31 May 2013).
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) https://osha.europa.eu/en
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) For example non-binding guides on the Construction Sites Directive 92/57/EEC, the Artificial Optical Radiation Directive 2006/25/EC and health and safety of

workers in agriculture and forestry: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=148&langId=en&furtherPubs=yes

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

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 243

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003437/14**

**a la Comisión**
**Teresa Riera Madurell (S&D)**

_(21 de marzo de 2014)_

_Asunto:_ Consecuencias de la supresión del proceso de «negociación» de las subvenciones en el Séptimo Programa Marco

Tal y como declaró el 4 de marzo de 2014, la Comisión ha decidido que, a fin de lograr el objetivo de un plazo límite de ocho meses
para la concesión de las subvenciones, es necesario acabar con el proceso de «negociación» de las subvenciones para el Séptimo
Programa Marco en su forma actual, en el que algunas propuestas que no estaban totalmente finalizadas pudieron optar a
financiación, ya que existía la posibilidad de mejorarlas/adaptarlas durante la fase de negociación, siempre que los evaluadores
consideraran que tenían potencial.

El hecho de que estas nuevas instrucciones se hayan publicado cerca de la fecha límite de presentación de solicitudes significa que los
participantes estaban trabajando bajo el supuesto de que los mecanismos del Séptimo Programa Marco seguían vigentes.

En estas circunstancias, ¿no teme la Comisión que algunas excelentes propuestas científicas queden excluidas?

**Respuesta de la Sra. Geoghegan-Quinn en nombre de la Comisión**

_(12 de mayo de 2014)_

Los colegisladores decidieron, de resultas de las negociaciones sobre Horizonte 2020 celebradas entre 2012 y 2014, limitar el plazo
para conceder una subvención a ocho meses (uno menos de lo habitual con arreglo al Reglamento Financiero), período que se
subdividiría en dos: cinco meses para informar a los solicitantes y tres meses para preparar una subvención.

Este conjunto de nuevas disposiciones ha obligado a la Comisión a modificar determinados trámites, motivo por el cual no habrá ya
negociación sobre el contenido técnico de las propuestas. Esta situación se ajusta plenamente al Reglamento Financiero en vigor
desde 2012. En consecuencia, no se solicitará a los expertos evaluadores que formulen recomendaciones. Por el contrario, deberán
explicar las deficiencias, si existen, y puntuar las solicitudes en consonancia con ello. En caso de existir insuficiencias graves, o de
haberse exagerado considerablemente el presupuesto, los expertos deberán conceder una puntuación por debajo del umbral. Si una
propuesta obtiene una puntuación suficientemente elevada, dependiendo del presupuesto disponible, se enviará una invitación a
iniciar los preparativos para la subvención. A lo largo de este periodo (dentro del límite de los tres meses), los solicitantes podrán
subsanar las eventuales deficiencias señaladas. Será también el momento de introducir las correcciones necesarias para garantizar que
la eventual subvención se ajuste a la normativa legal y financiera aplicable.

Al igual que en programas precedentes, las convocatorias de propuestas serán muy competitivas, y corresponderá a los solicitantes
preparar unas propuestas que sean de alta calidad. Los expertos las evaluarán en función de los criterios de adjudicación fijados en las
normas de participación [la «evaluación científica» a que se refiere el artículo 20, apartado 2, letra a)].

No hay, por consiguiente, motivo para suponer que vayan a quedar descartadas propuestas científicas excelentes.

C 341 / 244 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003437/14**

**to the Commission**
**Teresa Riera Madurell (S&D)**

_(21 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Consequences of doing away with the 7th framework programme grant ‘negotiations’ process

As stated on 4 March 2014, the Commission has decided that in order to achieve the eight‐month time-to-grant target, it will be
necessary to do away with the grant ‘negotiations’ process for the 7th framework programme (FP7) in its existing form, whereby
proposals not completely finalised had a chance of being funded, as there was a possibility of ‘improving’/‘adapting’ them during the
negotiation phase, provided that evaluators considered them to have potential.

The fact that these new instructions have been published so close to the deadline for applications means that participants were
working under the assumption that FP7 mechanisms were still in place.

Under these circumstances, is the Commission not concerned that excellent scientific proposals will be left out?

**Answer given by Ms Geoghegan-Quinn on behalf of the Commission**

_(12 May 2014)_

The co-legislators decided as an outcome of the negotiations on Horizon 2020 during 2012-2014, to set the Horizon 2020 time-togrant limit to eight months (one month less than the standard period of the Financial Regulation), and decided that this period should
be divided into a period of five months to inform applicants, and one of three months to prepare a grant.

Taken together, the new provisions have required the Commission to change certain processes, and there will indeed no longer be a
negotiation over the technical content of proposals. This is entirely in line with the Financial Regulation, in place since 2012. As a
result, expert evaluators will not be required to make recommendations. Instead, they will explain the shortcomings, if any, and score
accordingly. If there are serious weaknesses, or if the budget is seriously over-inflated, the experts should award a below-threshold
score. If a proposal receives a high enough score, depending on the available budget, an invitation will be sent to begin grant
preparations. During this period (within the three month limit) the applicants may correct any of the shortcomings identified. It is
also the time to make any corrections to ensure that the eventual grant conforms to the relevant legal/financial rules.

As under previous Programmes, calls for proposals will be highly competitive, and the onus is on applicants to prepare first-class
proposals. Experts will evaluate them against the award criteria set out in the Rules for Participation (the ‘scientific evaluation’,
referred to under Article 20.2(a)).

There is therefore no reason to suppose that excellent scientific proposals will be left out.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 245

_(Verżjoni Maltija)_

**Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub E-003438/14**

**lill-Kummissjoni**
**Claudette Abela Baldacchino (S&D)**

_(21 ta' Marzu 2014)_

_Suġġett:_ Siti storiċi fl-UE-28

F'Novembru 2013, numru ta' siti storiċi fl-UE-28 irċevew iċ-Ċertifikat tal-Patrimonju Ewropew. Dan iċ-ċertifikat għandu l-għan li
jżid il-kuxjenza dwar siti li kellhom rwol sinifikanti fl-istorja, il-kultura u l-iżvilupp tal-Unjoni Ewropea, kif ukoll jenfasizza ddimensjoni Ewropea tagħhom permezz ta' informazzjoni u attivitajiet edukattivi. Dawn is-siti ġew rikonoxxuti minn bord tal-għażla
indipendenti mwaqqaf mill-Kummissjoni u jinkludu l-Archäologischer Park Carnuntum, kwartieri ta' belt Rumana rikostruwita f'Bad
Deutsch-Altenburg, l-Awstrija; il-Great Guild Hall Medjevali f'Tallinn, l-Estonja; il-Palazz tal-Paċi fl-Aja li għandu mitt sena, u Camp
Westerbork, kamp ta' tranżitu Nazista tat-Tieni Gwerra Dinjija f'Hooghalen, fil-Pajjiżi l-Baxxi.

1. Kemm hemm siti storiċi elenkati fl-UE-28?

2. Kemm minnhom huma meqjusa bħala siti tal-UNESCO?

3. Kemm minn dan il-wirt kulturali huwa meqjus li qiegħed f'riskju?

4. Il-Kummissjoni xi strateġiji qed tadotta sabiex tgħin tippreserva dan il-wirt kulturali?

**Tweġiba mogħtija mis-Sinjura Vassiliou f'isem il-Kummissjoni**

_(13 ta' Mejju 2014)_

Il-ħarsien, il-konservazzjoni u ż-żamma tal-patrimonju kulturali huma primarjament responsabbiltà nazzjonali, u l-Istati Membri
jiżguraw l-elenkar ta' siti u binjiet li jiffurmaw parti mill-patrimonju fit-territorji rispettivi tagħhom. Għaldaqstant, il-Kummissjoni
ma tinsabx f'pożizzjoni li tipprovdi dejta dwar is-siti storiċi elenkati fl-UE. Il-Kummissjoni lanqas ma għandha tagħrif dwar ilpatrimonju kulturali li huwa meqjus li jinsab f'riskju. Is-siti UNESCO meqjusin li jinsabu f'riskju huma elenkati fuq is-sit tal-internet
tal-UNESCO ( [1] ).

Bil-għan li jiġu appoġġati fil-ħidma tagħhom biex jippreservaw il-patrimonju kulturali tagħhom, l-Istati Membri għandhom għadd ta'
strumenti ta' finanzjament tal-UE għad-dispożizzjoni tagħhom, inklużi l-Fondi Strutturali u ta' Investiment. Barra minn hekk, ilKummissjoni tappoġġa b'mod attiv l-attivitajiet tal-Istati Membri f'dan il-qasam fi ħdan il-qafas ta' kooperazzjoni dwar il-politika
kulturali, l-Aġenda Ewropea għall-Kultura, u l-Programm Ewropa Kreattiva li jinkludi iċ-Ċertifikat tal-Patrimonju Ewropew, il-Jiem
tal-Patrimonju Ewropew li jsiru ta' kull sena, u l-Premju tal-UE għall-Wirt Kulturali/il-Premju Europa Nostra.

Il-Kummissjoni tixtieq ukoll tiġbed l-attenzjoni tal-Onorevoli Membru dwar il-programm ( [2] [) “Is-7 li jinsabu l-iktar fil-periklu” li](http://www.europanostra.org/7-most-endangered/)
tnieda m'ilux minn Europa Nostra flimkien mal-Bank Ewropew tal-Investiment bħala sieħeb fondatur. Dan il-programm jidentifika
monumenti u siti fl-Ewropa li jinsabu f'periklu, u għandu l-għan li jimmobilizza sħab pubbliċi u privati fil-livelli lokali, nazzjonali u
Ewropej biex jinstab futur sostenibbli u vijabbli għal dawk is-siti.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://whc.unesco.org/
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.europanostra.org/7-most-endangered/

C 341 / 246 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003438/14**

**to the Commission**
**Claudette Abela Baldacchino (S&D)**

_(21 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Historical sites in the EU-28

In November 2013, a number of historical sites in the EU-28 received the European Heritage Label. The label aims to raise awareness
of sites which have played a significant role in the history, culture and development of the European Union, as well as to highlight
their European dimension through information and educational activities. These sites were recognised by an independent selection
panel set up by the Commission and include the Archäologischer Park Carnuntum, a Roman reconstructed city quarter in Bad
Deutsch-Altenburg in Austria; the medieval Great Guild Hall in Tallinn, Estonia; the 100‐year-old Peace Palace in The Hague, and
Camp Westerbork, a World War II Nazi transit camp at Hooghalen, in the Netherlands.

1. How many historical sites are listed in the EU-28?

2. How many of them are considered as Unesco sites?

3. How much of this cultural heritage is considered to be at risk?

4. What strategies are being adopted by the Commission to help preserve this cultural heritage?

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

_(13 May 2014)_

The protection, conservation and upkeep of cultural heritage are primarily a national responsibility, and the Member States ensure
the listing of heritage sites and buildings in their respective territories. Therefore, the Commission is not in a position to provide data
on the historical sites listed in the EU. Neither does the Commission have information on the cultural heritage considered to be at
risk. The Unesco sites considered to be at risk are listed on the Unesco website ( [1] ).

To support their work on preserving their cultural heritage, the Member States have a number of EU financing instruments at their
disposal, including the Structural and Investment Funds. Furthermore, the Commission actively supports the activities of the
Member States in this domain within the framework of cooperation on culture policy, the European Agenda for Culture and the
Creative Europe Programme which includes the European Heritage Label, the annual European Heritage Days and the EU Prize for
cultural heritage/Europa Nostra award.

The Commission also draws the Honourable Member's attention to ‘The 7 Most Endangered’ programme ( [2] ) which has recently been
[launched by Europa Nostra with the European Investment Bank as a founding partner. This programme identifies endangered](http://www.eib.org/index.htm)
monuments and sites in Europe and aims to mobilise public and private partners at local, national and European level to find a
sustainable and viable future for those sites.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://whc.unesco.org/
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.europanostra.org/7-most-endangered/

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 247

_(Verżjoni Maltija)_

**Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub E-003439/14**

**lill-Kummissjoni**
**Claudette Abela Baldacchino (S&D)**

_(21 ta' Marzu 2014)_

_Suġġett:_ L-ugwaljanza bejn is-sessi fl-isport

Anke llum fl-2014, in-nisa u l-bniet għadhom qed jirċievu trattament inġust fid-dinja tal-isport. Minkejja li s-settur jitkellem favur lugwaljanza, ir-realtà ħafna drabi hija differenti: il-korpi regolatorji tal-isport għadhom iddominati mill-irġiel, kowċijiet nisa ħafna
drabi jaqilgħu inqas minn kowċijiet irġiel u l-bniet għandhom aktar ċans mis-subien li jkunu vittmi ta' fastidju sesswali fl-isport. IlKummissjoni ssostni li hija impenjata li tiżgura li n-nisa jipprattikaw sport f'ambjent sikur u li jkun hemm aktar opportunitajiet biex
in-nisa jagħtu l-opinjonijiet tagħhom f'korpijiet regolatorji tal-isport.

1. Il-Kummissjoni tista' tipprovdi data dwar in-numru ta' nisa li huma professjonalment involuti fl-attivitajiet sportivi fit-28 Stat
Membru? Il-Kummissjoni hija sodisfatta bis-sitwazzjoni attwali?

2. Il-Kummissjoni x'qiegħda tagħmel biex tattira aktar nisa lejn l-isport?

3. Il-Kummissjoni tista' tiddikjara liema proġetti għandha f'moħħha biex tiżgura li r-rappreżentazzjoni tas-sessi fil-korpi
regolatorji tal-isport tkun aktar ibbilanċjata, u li jinħoloq ambjent aktar sikur għan-nisa fl-isport?

**Tweġiba mogħtija mis-Sinjura Vassiliou f'isem il-Kummissjoni**

_(23 ta' Mejju 2014)_

Il-Kummissjoni ma għandhiex dejta dwar l-għadd ta’ nisa li huma involuti f’attivitajiet sportivi fuq livell professjonali. Hija konxja talfatt li l-bniet u n-nisa għadhom mhumiex rappreżentati biżżejjed fil-qasam tal-isport. Skont l-istħarriġ tal-Ewrobarometru ( [1] ) li ġie
ppubblikat dan l-aħħar, 45% tal-irġiel u 37% tan-nisa jipprattikaw xi tip ta' sport fuq bażi regolari. Ġie stmat ukoll li 20-30% talkowċis huma nisa, filwaqt li ġie stabbilit li minn total ta' 52 federazzjoni sportiva Ewropea, 20 ma għandhomx membri nisa filbordijiet tagħhom.

Il-Kummissjoni nediet diversi inizjattivi mmirati lejn il-ksib tal-ugwaljanza bejn is-sessi fil-qasam tal-isport, pereżempju billi waqqfet
grupp ta’ esperti nkarigat biex iħejji proposta għal pjan koerenti msejjes fuq l-evidenza, sabiex dan l-għan ikun jista' jintlaħaq sal2020; u f’Diċembru 2013 organizzat konferenza tal-UE f’Vilnius dwar l-Ugwaljanza Bejn is-Sessi fl-Isport sabiex titqajjem kuxjenza
dwar din il-kwistjoni u biex jiġu diskussi miżuri konkreti, bħalma huma l-inklużjoni tal-ugwaljanza bejn is-sessi fost l-għanijiet talprogramm Erasmus+ tal-Isport.

Il-Kummissjoni tiffaċilita l-azzjonijiet tal-organizzazzjonijiet sportivi, b’osservanza sħiħa tal-awtonomija tal-moviment sportiv u talprinċipju tas-sussidjarjetà. Il-programm Erasmus+ tal-Isport se jappoġġja inizjattivi fil-qasam tal-ugwaljanza bejn is-sessi, bħat-taħriġ
għan-nisa kif ukoll miżuri edukattivi u ta' prevenzjoni bl-għan li jiġi żgurat ambjent aktar sikur.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) L-Ewrobarometru Speċjali 412 dwar l-Isport u l-Attività Fiżika, 2013.

C 341 / 248 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003439/14**

**to the Commission**
**Claudette Abela Baldacchino (S&D)**

_(21 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Gender equality in sport

Even today in 2014, women and girls are still getting a raw deal in the world of sport. Although the sector talks up equality, the
reality is often different: sport governing bodies are still dominated by men, female coaches often earn less than their male
counterparts and girls are more likely than boys to be victims of sexual harassment in sport. The Commission claims that it is
committed to ensuring that women practice sport in a safe environment and that there are more opportunities for the voice of
women to be heard in sport governing bodies.

1. Can the Commission provide data on the number of women who are professionally involved in sports activities across the
28 Member States? Is the Commission satisfied with the present situation?

2. What is the Commission doing to attract more women to sport?

3. Can the Commission state what projects it has in mind to ensure that gender representation in sport governing bodies is more
balanced, and that a safer environment is created for women in sport?

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

_(23 May 2014)_

The Commission does not have data on the number of women who are professionally involved in sport activities. It is aware of the
fact that girls and women are still under-represented in the field of sport. According to the recently published Eurobarometer ( [1] ), 45%
of men and 37% of women play sport regularly. It is also estimated that 20-30% of the coaches are women and out of 52 European
sport federations 20 have no women on their boards.

The Commission has launched several initiatives to reach gender equality in sport, such as setting up a group of experts to prepare a
proposal for an evidence-based and coherent plan to reach this aim by 2020; and the organisation of an EU conference on Gender
Equality in Sport in Vilnius in December 2013 to raise awareness about the issue and to discuss concrete measures, such as the
inclusion of gender equality as one of the objectives of the Erasmus+ Sport programme.

In full respect of the autonomy of the sport movement and the principle of subsidiarity, the Commission facilitates actions of sport
organisations. Erasmus+ Sport will support initiatives in the field of gender equality, such as leadership training for women as well as
preventive and educational measures to secure a safer environment.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Special Eurobarometer 412 on Sport and Physical Activity, 2013.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 249

_(Verżjoni Maltija)_

**Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub E-003440/14**

**lill-Kummissjoni**
**Claudette Abela Baldacchino (S&D)**

_(21 ta' Marzu 2014)_

_Suġġett:_ Data dwar l-abbuż sesswali tat-tfal

L-abbuż sesswali u l-isfruttament sesswali tat-tfal, inklużi l-pedopornografija u l-prostituzzjoni tat-tfal, huma reati partikolarment
krudili u jikkostitwixxu ksur serju tad-drittijiet fundamentali. L-iżvilupp tal-internet u l-iffaċilitar tal-ivvjaġġar internazzjonali
komplew aggravaw dawn il-fenomeni. Il-vittmi tal-abbuż u tal-isfruttament jeħitiġilhom jirċievu protezzjoni u kura speċjali, filwaqt
li t-trasgressuri jeħitieġ li jinżammu responsabbli u jiġu pproċessati. Studji jindikaw li minoranza sinifikanti ta' tfal fl-Ewropa (bejn
10 % u 20 %) huma attakkati sesswalment matul it-tfulija tagħhom Dan il-fenomenu mhux qed jonqos, u ċerti forom ta' vjolenza
sesswali, bħall-pedopornografija, qed isiru kwistjonijiet ta' tħassib li kulma jmur qed jiżdied. Il-ġlieda kontra dawn ir-reati hija diffiċli
ħafna. It-tfal huma vulnerabbli, u ħafna drabi jkunu imbarazzati u jibżgħu jirrapportaw kwalunkwe inċident.

1. Il-Kummissjoni tista' tipprovdi data għal kull Stat Membru dwar l-għadd ta' nies fl-UE-28 li ttieħdu passi legali kontrihom u li
nstabu ħatja f'dawn l-aħħar 5 snin fir-rigward tal-abbuż sesswali tat-tfal?

2. Il-Kummissjoni tista' tipprovdi analiżi ta' trasgressuri skont il-kategoriji differenti, pereżempju jekk kinux ġenituri, ħbieb,
qraba, għalliema, eċċ.?

3. Il-Kummissjoni tista' tiddikjara sa liema punt qed tiżviluppa strateġiji biex jgħinu fil-ġlieda kontra dawn ir-reati?

**Tweġiba mogħtija mis-Sinjura Malmström f'isem il-Kummissjoni**

_(4 ta' Ġunju 2014)_

Il-Kummissjoni bħalissa m'għandhiex dejta ddettaljata dwar dawk li jwettqu reati ta' abbuż fuq it-tfal fl-Istati Membri. Il-Pjan ta'
Azzjoni tal-Kummissjoni dwar l-istatistika dwar il-kriminalità ( [1] ) jiffoka fuq l-iskambju ta' informazzjoni u l-ġbir ta' statistika floqsma tat-traffikar tal-bnedmin, il-ħasil tal-flus, iċ-ċiberkriminalità u l-korruzzjoni, bil-għan li ftit ftit tiġi estiża l-metodoloġija għallġbir ta' statistika ta' kwalità tajba lejn oqsma oħra ta' attività kriminali, bħal ma hu l-abbuż fuq it-tfal.

Id-Direttiva dwar l-Esplojtazzjoni Sesswali tat-Tfal ( [2] ) tqarreb id-definizzjoni ta' 20 reat, tistabbilixxi livelli minimi ta' penali kriminali
u tiffaċilita r-rappurtar, l-investigazzjoni u l-prosekuzzjoni. Hija testendi l-ġurisdizzjoni nazzjonali biex jiġi kopert l-abbuż minn
ċittadini tal-UE barra pajjiżhom, tagħti lill-vittmi tfal aċċess aħjar għal rimedji legali u tinkludi miżuri għall-prevenzjoni tat-trawma
addizzjonali li tiġi mill-parteċipazzjoni fi proċedimenti kriminali. Dawk li jwettqu r-reati jiġu suġġett għal valutazzjonijiet ta' riskju, u
jkollhom aċċess għal programmi speċjali ta' intervent, u l-verifiki ta' sfond isiru b'mod aktar affidabbli. Il-Kummissjoni qed tissorvelja
l-implimentazzjoni tagħha fl-Istati Membri.

Iċ-Ċentru Ewropew taċ-Ċiberkriminalità inkluda l-ġlieda kontra l-esplojtazzjoni sesswali tat-tfal onlajn bħala waħda mill-prijoritajiet
tiegħu. Il-Kummissjoni sostniet it-tnedija tal-Alleanza Globali kontra l-abbuż tat-tfal onlajn, fejn 53 pajjiż impenjaw ruħhom biex
iħaffu l-pass fl-identifikazzjoni ta' vittmi tfal, itejbu l-investigazzjonijiet, itejbu l-għarfien fost il-pubbliku u jnaqqsu d-disponibilità
tal-pornografija li turi t-tfal.

Il-Kummissjoni tipprovdi fondi għal proġetti fil-ġlieda kontra l-abbuż sesswali mit-tfal, tiġġieled il-vjolenza kontra t-tfal u tipproteġi
t-tfal mill-abbuż onlajn permezz ta' programmi finanzjarji, b'mod partikolari il-“Prevenzjoni tal-Kriminalità u l-Ġlieda kontriha”,
“DAPHNE”, u “Internet b'anqas perikli”.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011)713 KOMUNIKAZZJONI TAL-KUMMISSJONI LILL-PARLAMENT EWROPEW U LILL-KUNSILL Il-kejl tal-Kriminalità fl-UE: Pjan ta' Azzjoni tal
Istatistika 2011 — 2015.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Direttiva 2011/93/UE tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill tat-13 ta’ Diċembru 2011 dwar il-ġlieda kontra l-abbuż sesswali u l-isfruttament sesswali tat-tfal u l
pedopornografija, u li tissostitwixxi d-Deċiżjoni Kwadru tal-Kunsill 2004/68/ĠAI, ; ĠU L 335, 17/12/2011, p. 1‐14.

( **|**

C 341 / 250 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003440/14**

**to the Commission**
**Claudette Abela Baldacchino (S&D)**

_(21 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Data concerning sexual abuse of children

Sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children, including child pornography and child prostitution, are particularly cruel crimes
and constitute serious violations of fundamental rights. The development of the Internet and the facilitation of international travel
have further aggravated these phenomena. Victims of abuse and exploitation must receive special protection and care, while
offenders must be held responsible and prosecuted. Studies suggest that a significant minority of children in Europe (between 10%
and 20%) are sexually assaulted during their childhood. This phenomenon is not decreasing, and certain forms of sexual violence,
such as child pornography, are becoming a matter of growing concern. Fighting these crimes is very difficult. Children are
vulnerable, and often ashamed and afraid to report any incidents.

1. Can the Commission provide data on the number of people in the EU-28 who have been prosecuted and convicted in the last
5 years in relation to child sexual abuse, broken down by Member State?

2. Can the Commission provide a breakdown of offenders according to different categories, for example whether they were
parents, friends, relatives, teachers, etc.?

3. Can the Commission state the extent to which it is developing strategies to help fight these crimes?

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

_(4 June 2014)_

The Commission does not currently have detailed data on child sexual abuse offenders in Member States. The Commission’s Action
Plan on crime statistics ( [1] ) focuses on the exchange of information and the collection of statistics in the areas of trafficking in human
beings, money laundering, cybercrime and corruption, with the aim to gradually extend the methodology for collecting good quality
statistics to other crime areas such as child sexual abuse.

The Child Sexual Exploitation Directive ( [2] ) approximates the definition of 20 offences, sets minimum levels for criminal penalties and
facilitates reporting, investigation and prosecution. It extends national jurisdiction to cover abuse by EU nationals abroad, gives child
victims easier access to legal remedies and includes measures to prevent additional trauma from participating in criminal
proceedings. Offenders will be subject to risk assessments, and have access to special intervention programmes, and background
checks will be more reliable. The Commission is monitoring its implementation by Member States.

The European Cybercrime Centre at Europol has included the fight against online child sexual exploitation as one of its priorities. The
Commission has supported the launch of the Global Alliance against child sexual abuse online, whereby 53 countries have
committed to step up the identification of child victims, improve investigations, enhance public awareness and reduce the availability
of child pornography.

The Commission provides funding for projects to fight child sexual abuse, combat violence against children and protect children
from abuse online through financial programmes, in particular ‘Prevention of and Fight against Crime’, ‘Daphne’, and ‘Safer Internet’.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 713 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council; Measuring Crime in the EU: Statistics Action Plan 2011‐2015.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directive 2011/93/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13.12.2011 on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child

pornography, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA; OJ L 335, 17.12.2011, p. 1‐14.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 251

_(Verżjoni Maltija)_

**Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub E-003441/14**

**lill-Kummissjoni**
**Claudette Abela Baldacchino (S&D)**

_(21 ta' Marzu 2014)_

_Suġġett:_ Żgħażagħ li jgħixu mal-ġenituri tagħhom

Statistika riċenti ppubblikata mill-Eurostat turi li 49 % tal-Maltin li għandhom bejn il-25 u l-34 sena għadhom jgħixu mal-ġenituri
tagħhom. Dawn il-figuri jpoġġu lill-Malta fost l-ewwel erba' pajjiżi fid-dinja tal-Punent fejn adulti żgħażagħ jieħdu aktar żmien biex
jitilqu mid-dar, u hija superata biss mis-Slovakkja, l-Bulgarija u l-Greċja. B'kuntrast ma' dan, fid-Danimarka huma biss 1.8 % ta' dawk
bejn l-20 u t-30 sena li għadhom jgħixu mal-ġenituri. Ħafna pajjiżi oħra, inklużi dawk li kienu milquta l-agħar mill-kriżi ekonomika
bħall-Greċja u l-Italja, ukoll irreġistraw żieda.

Madankollu, dan il-fenomenu laqat ukoll pajjiżi bħar-Renju Unit, fejn wieħed minn kull erba' adulti żgħażagħ, speċjalment irġiel, issa
għadhom jgħixu mal-ġenituri tagħhom. Dawn iċ-ċifri huma influwenzati wkoll minn fatturi kulturali, peress li f'pajjiżi Mediterranji u
f'pajjiżi li huma fil-biċċa l-kbira tagħhom Kattoliċi, il-prevalenza taż-żgħażagħ li jibqgħu d-dar hija ogħla minn f'pajjiżi Nordiċi u
Skandinavi, li tindika attitudnijiet differenti lejn iż-żwieġ u l-koabitazzjoni.

1. Il-Kummissjoni tista' tipprovdi l-aħħar statistiċi dwar in-numru ta' persuni fl-UE-28 ta' bejn il-25 u l-34 sena li għadhom
finanzjarjament dipendenti fuq il-familji tagħhom?

2. Wieħed mill-fatturi ewlenin li jista' jwassal liż-żgħażagħ biex idumu aktar jgħixu mal-familji tagħhom huwa l-fatt li l-prezzijiet
tal-propjetà għadhom għoljin ħafna. Il-Kummissjoni x'qed tagħmel sabiex tiżgura li ż-żgħażagħ Ewropej jiġu pprovduti bl-appoġġ
meħtieġ meta jixtru l-ewwel proprjetà tagħhom?

3. Il-Kummissjoni wettqet studji li jgħinu biex jiġi identifikat kif il-ġenituri qed jadattaw għal sitwazzjoni fejn adulti żgħażagħ
għadhom jgħixu magħhom?

**Tweġiba mogħtija mis-Sur Šemeta f'isem il-Kummissjoni**

_(20 ta' Mejju 2014)_

Skont l-aħħar dejta disponibbli mill-istħarriġ tal-Eurostat dwar l-Istatistika tal-UE dwar l-Introjtu u l-Kondizzjonijiet tal-Għajxien
(UE-SILC), 18.6 miljun żagħżugħ bejn il-25 u l-34 kienu qed jgħixu ma' għall-inqas wieħed mill-ġenituri tagħhom fl-2012, bi ħdax-il
elf fid-Danimarka u 3.4 miljun fl-Italja. Barra minn hekk, fost l-unitajiet domestiċi b'adult wieħed fl-istess grupp ta’ età, kważi 0.8
miljun rċevew trasferimenti regolari ta’ flus bejn il-membri tal-istess unità domestika.

Fil-livell nazzjonali, ta' spiss ikun hemm self b’ipoteka “soċjali” jew skemi ta’ inċentiv biex jiffaċilitaw l-aċċess għal ipoteka lil persuni
finanzjarjament inqas komdi (eż. familji żgħażagħ jew xerrejja ġodda). Pereżempju, ir-Renju Unit stabbilixxa l-iskema ta' “l-ewwel
xiri” li tiffaċilita l-aċċess għall-proprjetà lil partijiet tas-soċjetà li ma jistgħux jaffordjaw li jixtru proprjetà bil-kundizzjonijiet attwali
tas-suq. Id-Direttiva dwar il-Kreditu Ipotekarju (2014/17/KE), li l-Istati Membri għandhom jittrasponu sal-21 ta’ Marzu 2016, tiffoka
l-aktar fuq ipoteki konvenzjonali, li jagħmlu l-parti l-kbira mis-suq. Hemm eżenzjoni li tippermetti lill-Istati Membri li jiddeċiedu li
ma japplikawx ir-regoli tad-Direttiva għal self “soċjali”.

Il-Kummissjoni ma għamlitx studji ffukati fuq kif il-ġenituri qegħdin jadattaw ruħhom għall-fatt li ż-żgħażagħ għadhom jgħixu
magħhom.

C 341 / 252 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003441/14**

**to the Commission**
**Claudette Abela Baldacchino (S&D)**

_(21 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Young people living with their parents

Recent statistics published by Eurostat show that 49% of Maltese people aged between 25 and 34 still live with their parents. The
figures place Malta amongst the top four countries in the Western world in which young adults take longer to leave home, only
surpassed by Slovakia, Bulgaria and Greece. By contrast, in Denmark only 1.8% of people between 20 and 30 still live with their
parents. Most other countries, including those worst affected by the economic crisis such as Greece and Italy, have also registered an
increase.

However, the phenomenon has also hit countries like the UK, where one in four young adults, especially men, now live with their
parents. These figures are also influenced by cultural factors, since in Mediterranean countries and countries which are
predominantly Catholic the prevalence of staying at home is higher than in the Nordic and Scandinavian countries, indicating
differing attitudes towards marriage and cohabitation.

1. Can the Commission provide the latest statistics on the number of people in the EU-28 aged between 25 and 34 who are still
financially dependent on their family?

2. One of the major factors that may lead young people to live longer with their families is the fact that property prices are still
very high. What is the Commission doing to ensure that young Europeans are provided with support when buying their first
property?

3. Has the Commission carried out any studies which help to identify how parents are adapting to having young adults still living
with them?

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

_(20 May 2014)_

According to the latest data available from the European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) survey of
Eurostat, 18.6 million young people aged between 25 and 34 lived with at least one of their parents in 2012, from 11 thousand in
Denmark to 3.4 million in Italy. In addition, among single adult households in the same age group, close to 0.8 million received a
regular inter-household cash transfer.

‘Social’ mortgage loans or incentive schemes to facilitate access to a mortgage for the financially less well off (e.g. young families or
first time buyers) can often be found at national level. The UK established, for instance, a ‘first buy’ scheme to facilitate the access to
property for parts of society who cannot afford to purchase a property under the current market conditions. The Mortgage Credit
Directive (2014/17/EC), which Member States have to transpose by 21 March 2016, focuses mostly on conventional mortgages,
which make up the majority of the market. A waiver allows Member States to decide not to apply the directive's rules to ‘social loans’.

The Commission has not carried out studies focused on how parents are adapting to having young adults still living with them.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 253

_(Verżjoni Maltija)_

**Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub E-003442/14**

**lill-Kummissjoni**
**Claudette Abela Baldacchino (S&D)**

_(21 ta' Marzu 2014)_

_Suġġett:_ Lebbra fl-UE

Studju reċenti ppubblikat mill-Uffiċċju Nazzjonali tal-Istatistika f'Malta juri li fil-Gżejjer Maltin hemm 36 persuna li qed ibatu millebbra. Ir-rapport isostni li dawn il-persuni qed jingħataw “għajnuna għal-lebbra” li tikkonsisti minn allowance ta' EUR 34.94 filġimgħa, li qed tingħata lil kwalunkwe kap tal-familja li jbati mil-lebbra jew li għandu membru f'daru li jbati minnha.

Il-lebbra primarjament taffettwa n-nervituri periferali, il-ġilda, il-passaġġ ta' fuq tan-nifs, l-għajnejn u l-passaġġi tal-imnieħer.
Għalkemm, bis-saħħa tal-mediċina moderna, din il-kundizzjoni illum tista' titfejjaq u mhijiex infettiva, xorta għad hemm stigma
soċjali qawwija marbuta magħha peress li tista' tikkawża leżjonijiet fil-ġilda u deformitajiet fiżiċi severi.

1. Tista' l-Kummissjoni tipprovdi data reċenti dwar in-numru ta' persuni fit-28 Stat Membru li huma milqutin minn din ilkundizzjoni, skont il-pajjiż, is-sess u l-grupp ta' età?

2. Il-Kummissjoni x'tip ta' għajnuna qiegħda tipprovdi lil dawk li jbatu mil-lebbra u lill-familji tagħhom?

3. X'azzjonijiet qegħdin jittieħdu biex jiżdiedu s-sensibilizzazzjoni u l-edukazzjoni dwar il-lebbra, bil-għan li titnaqqas l-istigma
soċjali qawwija marbuta ma' din il-marda?

**Tweġiba mogħtija mis-Sur Borg f'isem il-Kummissjoni**

_(22 ta' Mejju 2014)_

Fil-perjodu 2005-2012, f'24 Stat Membru tal-UE ġew irrappurtati 152 każ ġdid ta’ lebbra, u d-dejta dwar dan tinsab fl-Osservatorju
tas-Saħħa Globali tal-Organizzazzjoni Dinjija tas-Saħħa. ( [1] )

L-Istati Membri rrapportaw li l-ogħla għadd ta’ każijiet matul dan il-perjodu kien fi Spanja (63), ir-Renju Unit (42) u l-Portugall (36).
L-Italja rrappurtat seba’ każijiet, Malta żewġ każijiet u Ċipru u l-Ġermanja każ kull wieħed. Il-Kummissjoni ma għandhiex
informazzjoni dwar il-ġeneru u l-faxxa ta’ età tan-nies milquta, u lanqas dwar jekk dawn laqqtux din il-kundizzjoni fl-UE jew f’pajjiż

terz.

Il-Kummissjoni ma tipprovdix assistenza diretta lin-nies li jsofru mil-lebbra u l-familji tagħhom. L-għoti ta’ din l-assistenza hija rresponsabbiltà tal-awtoritajiet kompetenti fl-Istati Membri. Madankollu, l-UE tipprovdi appoġġ b'mod indirett lill-awtoritajiet
nazzjonali u l-organizzazzjonijiet tas-soċjetà ċivili privati, permezz tal-Fond Globali. Dan jinkludi appoġġ għal kampanji ta'
sensibilizzazzjoni u għall-edukazzjoni.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.who.int/gho/neglected_diseases/leprosy/en/.

C 341 / 254 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003442/14**

**to the Commission**
**Claudette Abela Baldacchino (S&D)**

_(21 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Leprosy in the EU

A recent report published by the National Statistics Office in Malta shows that there are 36 people suffering from Leprosy in the
Maltese islands. The report claims that these people are given ‘leprosy assistance’ consisting of a weekly allowance of EUR 34.94
which is given to any head of household who suffers from leprosy or who has a member in their household suffering from it.

Leprosy primarily affects the peripheral nerves, skin, upper respiratory tract, eyes, and nasal passages. Although, thanks to modern
medicine, this condition is now curable and non‐infectious, there is still a deep social stigma attached to it because it can cause skin
lesions and severe physical deformities.

1. Can the Commission provide recent data on the number of people who are affected by this condition in the 28 Member States,
by country, gender and age group?

2. What kind of assistance does the Commission provide to leprosy sufferers and their families?

3. What actions are being taken to increase awareness of and education about leprosy, in order to reduce the deep social stigma
attached to this disease?

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

_(22 May 2014)_

A total number of 152 new cases of Leprosy were reported in the period 2005-2012 by the 24 EU Member States on which data is
included in the Global Health Observatory of the World Health Organisation ( [1] ).

The Member States reporting the highest numbers of cases during this period were Spain (63), United Kingdom (42), and Portugal
(36). Italy reported seven cases, Malta two cases and Cyprus and Germany one case each. The Commission does not have
information on the gender and age group of the people affected, nor on whether the affected individuals acquired the condition in
the EU or in a third country.

The Commission does not provide direct assistance to leprosy sufferers and their families. The provision of such assistance is the
responsibility of the competent authorities in the Member States. The EU nevertheless indirectly provides support to national
authorities and to private, civil society organisations, through the Global Fund. This includes support for awareness raising and
education.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.who.int/gho/neglected_diseases/leprosy/en/

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 255

_(Verżjoni Maltija)_

**Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub E-003443/14**

**lill-Kummissjoni**
**Claudette Abela Baldacchino (S&D)**

_(21 ta' Marzu 2014)_

_Suġġett:_ Żvelar ta' informazzjoni protetta fl-Istati Membri

Fis-16 ta' Lulju 2013 il-Parlament Malti approva l-Att dwar l-Informatur. Din il-liġi daħlet fis-seħħ fil-15 ta' Settembru 2013 u
tipprevedi diversi forom ta' protezzjoni għall-informaturi li jippreżentaw ruħhom biex jikxfu prattiki ta' korruzzjoni.

Skont rapport ippubblikat reċentement mit-Transperancy International, bit-titolu “Żvelar ta' informazzjoni protetta fl-Ewropa”,
huma biss erbgħa l-Istati Membri li għandhom oqfsa ġuridiċi għall-protezzjoni tal-informatur li huma kkunsidrati avvanzati. Fil-bqija
tal-Istati Membri hemm protezzjoni għall-informatur li hi parzjali, limitata jew ineżistenti. Ir-rapport isostni li din il-prestazzjoni
dgħajfa tħalli maġġoranza kbira tal-pajjiżi tal-UE neqsin mill-istandards attwali, inklużi dawk żviluppati minn Transparency
International.

Ir-rapport jissuġġerixxi wkoll li n-nuqqas ta' protezzjoni b'saħħitha tal-infurmatur fl-Ewropa hu ta' detriment mhux biss għallinfurmaturi, li bir-raġun jistennew li ma jiġux mkeċċija, relegati jew li ma jisfawx vittmi ta' vessazzjonijiet minħabba li rrappurtaw
reat, iżda wkoll għaċ-ċittadini, l-ekonomija, l-istat tad-dritt u l-ambjent fl-Ewropa.

1. Tista' l-Kummissjoni tiddikjara liema Stati Membri għadhom neqsin mill-qafas ġuridiku għall-protezzjoni tal-infurmaturi?

2. X'inhuma r-raġunijiet ewlenin għaliex dawn il-pajjiżi għadhom neqsin minn tali qafas ġuridiku?

3. Il-Kummissjoni qiegħda tikkunsidra li tieħu azzjoni partikolari biex taċċerta ruħha li kull Stat Membru jkollu l-qafas ġuridiku
neċessarju għall-protezzjoni tal-infurmatur?

**Tweġiba mogħtija mis-Sinjura Malmström f'isem il-Kummissjoni**

_(12 ta' Mejju 2014)_

L-Onorevoli Ministru jista’ jsib valutazzjoni qasira tal-qafas ġuridiku għall-protezzjoni ta’ informatur fl-Istati Membri kollha firrapport tal-UE dwar il-Ġlieda Kontra l-Korruzzjoni tal-2014. ( [1] )

Il-Kummissjoni tagħraf ir-rwol tal-informaturi fl-identifikazzjoni u l-prevenzjoni tal-korruzzjoni. Il-ħidma ta’ segwitu dwar irrapport tal-UE dwar il-Ġlieda Kontra l-Korruzzjoni, inkluż programm ta' qsim ta' esperjenza, se tiffoka fuq il-ħtieġa ta’
sensibilizzazzjoni u tistabbilixxi mekkaniżmi effettivi ta’ protezzjoni għall-informaturi fis-setturi pubbliċi u privati.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Disponibbli fuq http://ec.europa.eu/anti-corruption-report/

C 341 / 256 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003443/14**

**to the Commission**
**Claudette Abela Baldacchino (S&D)**

_(21 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Whistle-blowing in the Member States

On 16 July 2013, the Maltese Parliament approved the Whistle-blowers’ Act. This law came into force on 15 September 2013 and
provides for various forms of protection for whistle‐blowers who come forward to expose corrupt practices.

According to a report published recently by Transparency International, entitled ‘Whistle‐blowing in Europe’, only four Member
States have legal frameworks for whistle‐blower protection that are considered to be advanced. The rest of the Member States have
partial, very limited or no whistle-blower protection in place. The report claims that this poor performance leaves a vast majority of
EU countries short of current standards, including those developed by Transparency International.

The report also suggests that the lack of strong whistle-blower protection in Europe is detrimental not only to whistle-blowers, who
rightly expect not to be fired, demoted or harassed for reporting crimes, but also to citizens, economy, the rule of law and the
environment in Europe.

1. Can the Commission state which Member States still lack the necessary legal framework for whistle-blower protection?

2. What are the main reasons that these countries still lack such a legal framework?

3. Is the Commission considering taking any particular action to make sure that every Member State has the necessary legal
framework for whistle-blower protection in place?

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

_(12 May 2014)_

The Honourable Member will find a brief assessment of the legal framework for whistleblower protection in all Member States in the
2014 EU Anti-Corruption Report. ( [1] )

The Commission recognises the role of whistleblowers in detecting and preventing corruption. Follow-up work on the EU AntiCorruption Report, including an experience sharing programme, will focus in part on the need to raise awareness and establish
effective protection mechanisms for whistleblowers in the public and private sectors.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Available at http://ec.europa.eu/anti-corruption-report/

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 257

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003444/14**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD)**

_(21 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — UN Secretary-General condemns Iran's human rights record

On 11 March 2014, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon claimed that since the election of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in
June 2013, the new president has failed to fulfil promises he made during his campaign to allow greater freedom of expression, and
there has been a sharp increase in executions. Some people also believe that in order to appease the hardliners in the regime, the
president has kept internal reform to a minimum. While many prominent human rights activists have been released, many activists,
lawyers, journalists and political prisoners remain in custody for simply exercising their right to free speech and assembly.

The new administration has not made improvements in promoting and protecting freedom of expression and assembly. Since
December 2013 at least 25 journalists and 16 Internet activists have been held in Iranian prisons. Some of them were arrested for
providing content and developing websites for foreign elements. Moreover, Mehdi Karroubi and Mir-Hossein Mousavi are still under
house arrest, and Iran has not granted access to UN human rights investigators since 2005, despite repeated requests.

1. What steps is the EU taking to push for the Iranian authorities to release Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi from house
arrest?

2. In tandem with the nuclear negotiations, what pressure is being brought to bear on the new administration to allow UN human
rights investigators into the country?

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

_(21 May 2014)_

The EU's stated position remains that Mr Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Mr Mehdi Karroubi should be released.

As for the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Iran, the EU actively supported, including with targeted demarches across the
globe, the Human Rights Council Resolution for the extension of his mandate. The Rapporteur should be given access to Iran by the
Iranian authorities so that he can fulfil his UN mandate.

C 341 / 258 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003446/14**

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

**Fiorello Provera (EFD)**

_(21 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Legami neonazisti del partito ucraino Svoboda

L'Unione pan-ucraina o Svoboda è attualmente il quarto partito del parlamento ucraino e il suo membro Oleksandr Sych è ora il Vice
primo ministro del nuovo governo ad interim. Lo stesso partito non nasconde il suo orientamento nazionalista e adotta la runa
nazista «wolfsangel» nel suo logo. Tale simbolo, che ricorda una svastica, era utilizzato da membri delle Waffen-SS durante la
seconda guerra mondiale ed è stato condannato durante il processo di Norimberga. Il partito Svoboda è stato accusato di
promuovere l'antisemitismo e la xenofobia.

In una relazione del 1999, l'Università di Tel Aviv concludeva che il partito Svoboda era «un'organizzazione estremista, di estrema
destra, nazionalista, che pone l'accento sulla sua identificazione con l'ideologia del nazionalsocialismo tedesco». Il Congresso ebraico
mondiale ha già chiesto all'UE di valutare la possibilità di vietare partiti di estrema destra quali Svoboda.

Nel 2004 il leader del partito Oleh Tyahnybok ha dichiarato in un discorso di voler combattere «la mafia moscovita-ebraica che
controlla l'Ucraina», sostenendo inoltre che «gli ebrei organizzati dominano i media e il governo ucraino, si sono arricchiti mediante
attività criminali e intendono organizzare un “genocidio” della popolazione ucraina cristiana». Si ritiene che il partito abbia legami
con altri gruppi di estrema destra in tutta Europa come il partito nazionale britannico, il partito ungherese Jobbik nonché il partito
nazional-democratico tedesco, di estrema destra. Il 17 marzo 2014, la rivista Der Spiegel ha riportato la notizia secondo cui il partito
avrebbe anche ricevuto sovvenzioni del governo tedesco. Alcuni membri del partito hanno partecipato a un evento organizzato dalla
Fondazione Konrad Adenauer, che è affiliato al partito politico del Cancelliere tedesco Angela Merkel.

1. Quali misure sta adottando l'UE per indagare sui legami del partito Svoboda con le ideologie nazionaliste estremiste e
neonaziste?

2. È il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante pronto a chiedere al Primo ministro ad interim dell'Ucraina, Arsenij Jacenjuk,
delucidazioni sul ruolo del partito Svoboda nel suo governo?

3. È il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante pronto a valutare la riduzione del sostegno dell'UE destinato alle autorità ad interim a
meno che queste non adottino misure per prendere le distanze dalle politiche del partito Svoboda?

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

_(21 maggio 2014)_

L'AR/VP è in stretto contatto con il governo dell'Ucraina e collabora con tutti i partiti per garantire che tutti i membri del governo
operino in linea con gli standard democratici del buon governo e dello Stato di diritto. Nelle conclusioni del Consiglio Affari esteri
del 14 aprile, l'UE invita tutte le parti alla massima moderazione e plaude al modo misurato in cui le autorità ucraine hanno
attuato operazioni di ordine pubblico e incoraggia il governo di Kiev a contribuire all'ulteriore riduzione delle tensioni
[(http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/142228.pdf).](http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/142228.pdf)

In questo contesto, l'Unione europea accoglie con favore la risoluzione del parlamento ucraino del 1 [o ] aprile sul disarmo delle forze
paramilitari non statali.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 259

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003446/14**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD)**

_(21 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Ukrainian Svoboda party links to neo-Nazism

The All-Ukrainian Union Party or Svoboda is currently the fourth largest party in the Ukrainian Parliament, and as part of the new
interim government, Svoboda member Oleksandr Sych is now the Deputy Prime Minister. The party itself has not concealed its
nationalist leanings and adopts the Nazi ‘wolfsangel’ rune in its logo. This symbol, which resembles a swastika, was worn by
members of the Waffen-SS in the Second World War and was condemned at the Nuremberg trials. Svoboda has been accused of
promoting anti-Semitism and xenophobia.

The University of Tel Aviv concluded in a 1999 report that the Svoboda party is ‘an extremist, right-wing, nationalist organisation
which emphasises its identification with the ideology of German National Socialism.’ The World Jewish Congress has already asked
the EU to consider banning far right parties such as Svoboda.

In 2004, party leader Oleh Tyahnybok declared in a speech that he wanted to fight ‘the Moscow-Jewish mafia ruling Ukraine’. He has
also claimed that ‘organised Jewry dominate Ukrainian media and government, and have enriched themselves through criminal
activities and plan to engineer a “genocide” upon the Christian Ukrainian population’. The party is alleged to have links to other far
right groups across Europe such as the British National Party, Hungary’s Jobbik party and even Germany’s far right National
Democratic Party. On 17 March 2014, Der Spiegel reported that the party has also received support from the German Government.
Members of the party appeared at an event hosted by the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, which is affiliated with German Chancellor
Angela Merkel’s own political party.

1. What steps is the EU taking to investigate Svoboda’s links with neo-Nazi and hardline nationalist ideologies?

2. Is the Vice-President/High Representative prepared to ask Ukraine’s interim Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk about the role of
Svoboda in his government?

3. Is the VP/HR prepared to consider curtailing EU support for the interim authorities unless they take measures to distance
themselves from the policies of Svoboda?

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

_(21 May 2014)_

The HR/VP is in close contact with the government of Ukraine and is working with all parties to ensure that all government's
members act in line with the democratic standards of good governance and rule of law. As noted in the Foreign Affairs Council
conclusions of 14 April, the EU calls on all parties to keep utmost restraint and commends the Ukrainian authorities for pursuing
their law and order operations in a measured manner and encourages the government in Kyiv to contribute further to reducing
tensions (http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/142228.pdf).

In this regard, the EU welcomes the Ukrainian parliamentary resolution of 1 April on the disarmament of non-state para-military
forces.

C 341 / 260 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-003447/14**

**do Komisji**
**Jacek Włosowicz (EFD)**

_(21 marca 2014 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Zabójstwa indyjskich żołnierzy dokonywane przez pakistańskie oddziały wzdłuż linii demarkacyjnej

Mnożą się przypadki zabójstw indyjskich żołnierzy przez pakistańskie oddziały wzdłuż linii demarkacyjnej w stanie Dżammu
i Kaszmir. W samym 2013 r. Pakistan naruszył warunki zawieszenia broni 57 razy. W dniu 8 stycznia 2013 r. oddział pakistański
zaatakował patrol armii indyjskiej wzdłuż linii demarkacyjnej w sektorze Mendahar w stanie Dżammu i Kaszmir: jednemu
żołnierzowi indyjskiemu ścięto głowę, a drugiego zabito. W dniu 27 lipca 2013 r. inny żołnierz indyjskich sił ochrony granic został
ranny, kiedy pakistańskie oddziały w ciągu 10 godzin dwukrotnie naruszyły warunki zawieszenia broni, atakując indyjskie
stanowiska wzdłuż granicy indyjsko-pakistańskiej w dystryktach Poonch i Kathua. W dniu 6 sierpnia 2013 r. pięciu indyjskich
żołnierzy zginęło w ataku pakistańskiego wojska i pakistańskich terrorystów wzdłuż linii demarkacyjnej w sektorze Poonch w stanie
Dżammu i Kaszmir. Wszystkie te ataki łączy obecność osobników w strojach zakazanych organizacji terrorystycznych, co wskazuje
na potajemną zmowę między pakistańskimi służbami wywiadowczymi (ISI) i ugrupowaniami terrorystycznymi. W rzeczywistości
potwierdziły się doniesienia, że terrorysta Anwar Khan, który ściął głowę indyjskiemu żołnierzowi Lance'owi Naikowi Hemrajowi,
otrzymał od ISI nagrodę w wysokości 5 milionów rupii. Mając powyższe na uwadze:

1. Jakie jest stanowisko Komisji w sprawie niesprowokowanych zabójstw indyjskich żołnierzy przez oddziały pakistańskie?

2. Jakie działania zamierza podjąć Komisja przeciw Pakistanowi w związku z ciągłym naruszaniem warunków zawieszenia broni
i zabójstwami indyjskich żołnierzy?

3. Czy Komisja zamierza domagać się od Pakistanu wyjaśnienia powiązań między ISI a zakazanymi ugrupowaniami
terrorystycznymi Lashkar-e-Taiba i Jaish?

(źródło: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/08/us-india-pakistan-idUSBRE97707Y20130808)

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez Wysoką Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodniczącą Komisji Catherine Ashton w imieniu Komisji**

_(16 maja 2014 r.)_

Zdarzenia mające miejsce na kaszmirskiej linii kontrolnej są dwustronną sprawą Pakistanu oraz Indii, jednak UE zachęca do
podejmowania wszelkich wysiłków na rzecz trwałego dialogu i poprawy stosunków między tymi dwoma sąsiadującymi ze sobą
państwami. W tym względzie EU ubolewa z powodu przypadków wymiany ognia, które miały miejsce w ciągu dwudziestu jeden
następujących po sobie dni w okresie między 6 a 27 sierpnia 2013 r. i które doprowadziły do śmierci pięciu indyjskich oraz trzech
pakistańskich żołnierzy. Z zadowoleniem przyjęto decyzję, podjętą podczas szczytu indyjsko-pakistańskiego w dniu 29 września
2013 r., aby wzmocnić kontakty między dowództwem wojskowym po obu stronach linii kontrolnej; podjęcie tej decyzji
przyczyniło się do ograniczenia dalszych zdarzeń dotyczących bezpieczeństwa.

UE przyjęła stanowisko polegające na zachęcaniu tych dwóch państw do działania na rzecz dalszych postępów w ich dwustronnych
stosunkach. Sytuacja w Kaszmirze została poruszona w kontekście regularnych rozmów prowadzonych zarówno z Indyjskim
Ministerstwem Spraw Zagranicznych, jak i Ministerstwem Spraw Zagranicznych Pakistanu. UE zachęca obie strony do
kontynuowania dialogu i współpracy w kwestiach regionalnych. Systematycznie podkreśla się, że kluczowym warunkiem dla
trwałego rozwiązania jest integracja w ramach tego procesu, poprzez zaangażowanie przedstawicieli kaszmirskich. UE zachęca do
podejmowania dalszych inicjatyw w kontaktach międzyludzkich w tym zakresie.

Jeśli chodzi o powiązania między Pakistanem a niektórymi grupami terrorystycznymi, nie istnieją żadne dowody w tym zakresie.
Jednak aktywnie angażujemy się w kontakty z rządem Pakistanu, aby wspierać jego starania na rzecz walki z terroryzmem oraz na
rzecz normalizacji stosunków z sąsiadami.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 261

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003447/14**

**to the Commission**
**Jacek Włosowicz (EFD)**

_(21 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Killing of Indian soldiers by Pakistani troops along the Line of Control

There have been increasing incidences of Indian soldiers being killed by Pakistani troops along the Line of Control (LoC) in Jammu
and Kashmir. In 2013 alone, Pakistan violated the ceasefire 57 times. On 8 January 2013, Pakistani troops attacked an Indian army
patrol party along the LoC in the Mendhar sector of Jammu and Kashmir. An Indian soldier was beheaded and another was killed by
Pakistani troops. On 27 July 2013, another Indian Border Security Force (BSF) soldier was injured when Pakistani troops violated
ceasefire twice in the space of 10 hours by targeting Indian posts along the Indo-Pak border in the Poonch and Kathua districts. On
6 August 2013, five Indian soldiers were ambushed and killed by the Pakistani army and terrorists along the LoC in the Poonch
sector of Jammu and Kashmir. A common feature of all these attacks is the presence of members of banned terrorist outfits, which
points to a clandestine collusion between Pakistan’s Inter‐Services Intelligence (ISI) agency and the terrorist groups. In fact, there
were confirmed reports that the terrorist Anwar Khan, who beheaded Indian soldier Lance Naik Hemraj Singh, was rewarded INR
5 000 000 by ISI. In the light of these facts:

1. What is the Commission’s position on the unprovoked killing of Indian soldiers by Pakistani troops?

2. What action does the Commission intend to take against Pakistan for its continuing violation of ceasefire agreements and the
ensuing killing of Indian soldiers?

3. Does the Commission intend to seek justification from Pakistan regarding the links between its ISI agency and the banned
terrorist groups Lashkar‐i‐Toiba and Jaish?

( _Source:_ http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/08/us-india-pakistan-idUSBRE97707Y20130808)

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

_(16 May 2014)_

The Kashmir Line of Control (LoC) incidents are a bilateral matter for Pakistan and India, but the EU encourages all efforts towards
continued dialogue and improving of relations between the two neighbours. In this respect, the EU regretted the cross-firing
incidents which took place over twenty-one consecutive days between 6 and 27 August 2013 and resulted in the death of five Indian
and three Pakistani soldiers. The decision taken at the occasion of the India-Pakistan Summit on 29 September 2013 to strengthen
contacts between military commanders on both sides of the LoC has been welcomed and contributed to curb further security
incidents.

The position of the EU is to encourage the two countries to continue to make progress in their bilateral relations. The situation in
Kashmir is raised in the context of regular EU dialogues with both the Indian Ministry of External Affairs and the Pakistani Ministry
for Foreign Affairs. The EU encourages both parties to pursue their dialogue and to continue cooperation on regional matters.
Inclusiveness in the process, through involvement of Kashmiri representatives, is systematically highlighted as a key condition for a
sustainable solution. The EU further encourages people-to-people initiatives in that regard.

As far as links between Pakistan and some terror groups are concerned, there are no official proofs of this connection. We are,
however, actively engaging the government of Pakistan to support its efforts in the fight against terrorism and in the normalisation
process with its neighbours.

C 341 / 262 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-003448/14**

**à la Commission**
**Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE)**

_(21 mars 2014)_

_Objet:_ Protéger les élevages ovins contre les attaques du loup

Depuis de nombreuses années, les éleveurs ovins français et européens font face à de grandes difficultés, la production et la
consommation de viandes ovines étant toutes deux en baisse constante.

Dans ce cadre, la recrudescence du loup et donc des attaques du prédateur sur les troupeaux — 1874 en 2012 — est particulièrement
problématique. En effet, si le maintien de la population de loups sauvages dans un bon état de conservation est essentiel à la
préservation de la biodiversité européenne, ces attaques multiples affectent profondément les éleveurs et les territoires.

Le fait est que la marge de manœuvre des éleveurs et des gouvernements européens est très limitée lorsqu'il s'agit de faire face aux
attaques du loup. Étant classé par la «Directive Habitats» comme «animal d'intérêt communautaire strictement protégé», le canis lupus
bénéficie d'une protection particulière qui empêche notamment tout prélèvement, si ce n'est dans des conditions dérogatoires
extrêmement précises. Pourtant, depuis l'adoption en 1992, de la «Directive Habitats», la population de loups a beaucoup augmenté,
au point que le prédateur devrait prochainement retrouver son implantation d'origine en France. Dans ces conditions et dans une
logique de soutien à l'agriculture européenne, il me paraît essentiel de protéger les éleveurs contre les dégâts causés par les loups.

1. La Commission européenne envisage-t-elle de sortir le loup de l'annexe IV de la «Directive Habitats» et d'ainsi rendre moins
restrictive sa protection?

2. La Commission envisage-t-elle d'assouplir les conditions de prélèvement des loups pour permettre une plus grande réactivité
des éleveurs lorsqu'ils font face à des attaques?

3. La Commission affirme dans sa réponse à la question E-012947/2013 avoir mis en place un groupe de travail sur les grands
carnivores. Ce groupe de travail s'est-il réuni? Combien de fois? Quels sont les résultats de ce dialogue? La question du loup a-t-elle été
spécifiquement abordée?

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

_(3 juin 2014)_

La Commission ne prévoit pas de proposer des modifications du statut du loup au titre de la directive «Habitats» (92/43/CEE ( [1] )).
L'article 16 de la directive offre déjà une flexibilité suffisante, qui permet aux États membres de déroger au régime de protection des
loups dans le but de prévenir d'importants dommages, à condition que la dérogation ne nuise pas au maintien de la population de
l'espèce dans un état de conservation favorable.

La Commission promeut actuellement un dialogue constructif entre les parties prenantes visant à atténuer l'intensité du conflit
autour des grands carnivores. Elle a organisé deux ateliers avec les parties prenantes consacrés à ces questions, en janvier et
décembre 2013, et lancera prochainement une plateforme de l'Union sur les grands carnivores dans le but de fournir un cadre pour
un dialogue structuré, sur une base volontaire, avec les principales parties prenantes. Des informations sur cette initiative sont
disponibles en ligne ( [2] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) JO L 206 du 22.7.1992.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/carnivores/promoting_dialogue.htm

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 263

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003448/14**

**to the Commission**
**Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE)**

_(21 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Protecting sheep farms against wolf attacks

For a number of years, the fact that sheep meat has been produced and consumed in ever-decreasing quantities has led to sheep
farmers in France and other Member States facing severe difficulties.

Against this background, the increase in the wolf population and in the number of attacks on sheep — 1 874 in 2012 — is
particularly alarming. Protecting the wild wolf population is vital to safeguarding EU biodiversity, but these attacks pose a significant
threat to farmers and local communities.

EU farmers and governments have very little leeway when it comes to dealing with wolf attacks. Wolves have a special status under
the Habitats Directive as a ‘strictly protected animal species of Community interest’ which, among other things, prohibits culling,
except under extremely narrow conditions. However, since the adoption of the Habitats Directive in 1992, the wolf population has
risen dramatically and in France looks set to return to former levels. Given these circumstances, it is essential to help EU farmers to
protect their sheep against wolf attacks.

1. Is the Commission considering removing wolves from Annex IV to the Habitats Directive, thus making measures to protect
them less restrictive?

2. Is the Commission considering making the conditions for culling wolves more flexible so that farmers can respond more
effectively to wolf attacks?

3. In its answer to Question E-012947/2013, the Commission stated that it had set up a working group on large carnivores. Has
the working group met? If so, how many times? What has been the outcome of that dialogue? Has the wolf issue been specifically
broached?

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

_(3 June 2014)_

The Commission does not plan to propose changes to the wolf status under the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC ( [1] )). Article 16 of the
directive already offers sufficient flexibility for Member States to derogate from the wolf protection regime in order to prevent serious
damage, provided that the derogation is not detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species at a favourable
conservation status.

The Commission is promoting a constructive dialogue between stakeholders aimed at reducing the level of conflict around large
carnivores. It has organised two workshops with stakeholders to discuss these issues in January and December 2013, and will soon
launch a dedicated EU Platform on Large Carnivores in order to provide a framework for voluntary, structured dialogue involving
key stakeholders. Information about this initiative is available online ( [2] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/carnivores/promoting_dialogue.htm

C 341 / 264 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-003449/14**

**à la Commission**
**Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE)**

_(21 mars 2014)_

_Objet:_ Étiquetage de l'origine des viandes, notamment ovines

Les récents scandales alimentaires en Europe, dont celui de la viande de cheval utilisée frauduleusement à la place de viande bovine,
ont prouvé la nécessité de règles plus strictes en matière de traçabilité des viandes et d'information du consommateur. Il est donc
essentiel — et c'est là l'esprit de la résolution du Parlement européen du 6 février 2014 relative à l'indication du pays d'origine ou du
lieu de provenance des viandes porcine, ovine, caprine et des volailles (P7_TA(2014)0096) — que ces viandes se voient appliquer des
règles plus rigoureuses incluant l'indication obligatoire sur l'étiquette des lieux de naissance, d'élevage et d'abattage de l'animal. Il
s'agirait simplement d'aligner la réglementation concernant les porcs, moutons, chèvres et poulets, à celle qui s'applique déjà à la
viande de bœuf.

Dans ce contexte, je m'interroge en particulier sur les règles relatives à l'étiquetage de la viande ovine, établies par le règlement
d'exécution (UE) n [o] 1337/2013 de la Commission, en date du 13 décembre 2013. Suite à une étude d'impact, la Commission a
décidé que, du fait des coûts potentiels que représenterait un système généralisé de traçabilité concernant le lieu de naissance de
l'animal, l'étiquetage ne mentionnerait que le pays où l'animal a été élevé pendant une «période représentant une part substantielle du
cycle normal de l'élevage», période fixée à 6 mois pour les ovins. Ceci signifie donc qu'un mouton né dans un pays tiers mais ayant
passé une période d'engraissement de 6 mois dans l'Union européenne pourrait être identifié comme européen. Ce règlement
n'assure pas un niveau d'information suffisant pour le consommateur.

Dans ce cadre:

1. La Commission considère-t-elle que la règlementation actuelle offre suffisamment d'informations aux consommateurs
européens?

2. La Commission envisage-t-elle de suivre la recommandation très claire du Parlement européen, figurant dans la résolution du
Parlement européen du 6 février 2014 relative à l'indication du pays d'origine ou du lieu de provenance des viandes porcine,
ovine, caprine et des volailles (P7_TA(2014)0096)?

3. La Commission envisage-t-elle ainsi de réviser son règlement d'exécution et de proposer une version incluant l'étiquetage
obligatoire des lieux de naissance, d'élevage et d'abattage de toutes les viandes? Peut-elle nous faire part de son calendrier?

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

_(27 mai 2014)_

La Commission renvoie aux réponses précédentes apportées sur le même sujet aux questions E-14232/2013, P-446/2014
et E-1535/2014.

Le règlement d'exécution (UE) n [o ] 1337/2013 ( [1] ) prévoit l'indication obligatoire de l'État membre ou du pays tiers d'élevage et
d'abattage sur la base d'une période d'élevage minimale pour chaque espèce de manière à ce que les animaux passent la majeure partie
de leur vie dans le pays indiqué comme lieu d'élevage. Ledit règlement prévoit également, pour les producteurs, la possibilité de
remplacer l'indication du lieu d'élevage et d'abattage par l'indication, sous la forme «origine», de l'État membre ou du pays tiers où les
animaux sont nés, ont été élevés et abattus lorsque les opérateurs peuvent le prouver. Par conséquent, la viande d'un mouton né dans
un pays tiers, élevé pendant au moins 6 mois dans un État membre et qui y est abattu sera étiquetée avec la mention élevé et abattu
dans cet État membre mais ne peut pas être étiquetée comme originaire de cet État membre.

Ces nouvelles règles donnent aux consommateurs des informations supplémentaires en ce qui concerne le lieu d'élevage. Ces règles
sont satisfaisantes, car elles permettront aux consommateurs de bénéficier d'une plus grande transparence sur la base d'exigences
communes pour l'ensemble de l'Union, tout en évitant les coûts excessifs et les charges administratives pour les opérateurs et
les autorités.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) JO L 335 du 14.12.2013.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 265

La Commission a réagi à la résolution du Parlement du 6 février 2014 ( [2] ) en s'engageant à faire un rapport au Conseil et au Parlement
concernant la gestion de l'indication d'origine obligatoire sur les étiquettes pour les viandes porcine, ovine, caprine et de volailles
en 2020, tel qu'il est prévu dans l'article 26, paragraphe 4, du règlement (UE) n [o ] 1169/2011 ( [3] ).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Résolution B7-0087/2014 du Parlement européen.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) JO L 304 du 22.11.2011.

C 341 / 266 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003449/14**

**to the Commission**
**Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE)**

_(21 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Origin labelling for meat, in particular sheep meat

The recent European food scandals, including the fraudulent substitution of horsemeat for beef, have demonstrated the need for
stricter rules on meat traceability and consumer information. It is therefore vital, in keeping with the spirit of the European
Parliament resolution of 6 February 2014 relating to the indication of the country of origin or place of provenance for meat of swine,
sheep, goats and poultry (P7_TA(2014)0096), that stricter rules be applied to these types of meat, including a mandatory labelling
requirement for the places of birth, rearing and slaughter of the animal. This would merely entail bringing the regulations on swine,
sheep, goats and poultry into line with those which already apply to beef.

With this in mind, I am particularly curious about the rules on sheep meat labelling laid down in Commission Implementing
Regulation (EU) No 1337/2013 of 13 December 2013. Following an impact study, the Commission decided that, given the potential
costs of a uniform traceability system providing information on the place of birth of the animal, the label would only specify the
country where the animal has been reared for a ‘period representing a substantial part of the normal cycle of rearing’ — six months in
the case of sheep. This means that a sheep born outside the EU which then undergoes a six-month fattening period in the EU could be
classed as European. This regulation does not provide consumers with sufficient information.

In this context:

1. Does the Commission believe that the current rules give EU consumers enough information?

2. Does the Commission plan to follow the extremely clear recommendation laid down by Parliament in its resolution of
6 February 2014 relating to the indication of the country of origin or place of provenance for meat of swine, sheep, goats and
poultry (P7_TA(2014)0096)?

3. Does the Commission consequently plan to review its implementing regulation and to propose a version which includes a
mandatory labelling requirement for the places of birth, rearing and slaughter for all types of meat? Please could it inform us of
the timescale for completing this work?

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

_(27 May 2014)_

The Commission refers to previous answers on the same issue to questions E-14232/2013, P-446/2014 and E-1535/2014.

Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1337/2013 ( [1] ) provides for the compulsory indication of the Member State or third country of
rearing and of slaughter based on a minimum rearing period for each species so that animals have to spend the substantial part of
their life in the country indicated as place of rearing. This regulation also provides for producers the option of replacing the
indication of the place of rearing and of slaughter by the indication, as ‘origin’, of the Member state or third country where animals
were born, reared and slaughtered when operators can prove it. Therefore, the meat from a sheep born in a third country, reared for
at least 6 months in a Member State and slaughtered therein will be labelled as reared and slaughtered in such Member State but
could not be labelled as originating therein.

These new rules will give the consumers additional information as regards the place of rearing. These rules are satisfactory, since they
will provide consumers with enhanced transparency on the basis of common requirements for the whole Union while avoiding
excessive costs and administrative burdens for both operators and authorities.

The Commission responded to the Parliament's Resolution of 6 February 2014 ( [2] ) by committing to report to both the Council and
the Parliament on the operation of compulsory origin labelling for meat of swine, sheep, goats and poultry in 2020, as foreseen
under Article 26(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 ( [3] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 335, 14.12.2013.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) European Parliament Resolution B7-0087/2014.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) OJ L 304 of 22.11.2011.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 267

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003450/14**

**alla Commissione**
**Aldo Patriciello (PPE)**

_(21 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Aiuti di Stato per materiale rotabile ad operatori del trasporto merci — Replica II

Con riferimento all'interrogazione E-011030/2013 rivolta alla Commissione in data 27.9.2013 e all'interrogazione E-004934/2013
rivolta alla Commissione in data 6.5.2013, alla luce degli elementi in esse menzionati vi sono taluni aspetti che la Commissione
dovrebbe tenere in considerazione al fine di rivedere la posizione espressa.

La Commissione europea ha lanciato una consultazione pubblica su «Un meccanismo di finanziamenti a favore di servizi di trasporto
merci sostenibili ed efficienti», volta a migliorare l'efficienza e la sostenibilità del trasporto merci nell'UE.

Considerando la legge 27 dicembre 2013, n. 147, della Repubblica italiana, recante la legge di stabilità 2014, ampliata e modificata
nel corso dell'esame parlamentare, e considerando il settore dei trasporti: «Prevedono la destinazione di 100 milioni di euro per
ciascuno degli anni 2014, 2015, 2016 per l'acquisto di materiale rotabile su gomma e di 200 milioni di euro per l'anno 2014 per
l'acquisto di materiale rotabile ferroviario, in entrambi i casi da destinare al trasporto pubblico locale (comma 83)»;

considerando che le società (comma 556) destinatarie di affidamenti nel settore del trasporto pubblico locale non conformi alla
disciplina dell'Unione europea in materia, e la cui durata ecceda il limite del 3 dicembre 2019, non possono partecipare ad alcuna
procedura per l'affidamento dei servizi, anche se già avviata; che l'esclusione non si applica nei confronti delle imprese affidatarie del
servizio oggetto di procedura concorsuale;

alla luce di quanto sopraindicato, non ritiene la Commissione che, in mancanza di una prassi decisionale, risulti necessario o
appropriato codificare le norme applicabili agli aiuti per il materiale rotabile per il trasporto merci nelle linee guida in materia di
trasporti ferroviari?

**Risposta di Joaquín Almunia a nome della Commissione**

_(2 giugno 2014)_

Alla luce dello scarso interesse dimostrato in passato dagli Stati membri per il finanziamento del materiale rotabile per il trasporto
merci e data l’assenza di una prassi decisionale della Commissione in questo settore, è al momento prematuro codificare norme in
materia di aiuti di Stato per finanziare questo tipo di materiale nelle linee guida sugli aiuti alle imprese ferroviarie. Tuttavia, qualora
decida in futuro di modificare queste linee guida, la Commissione terrà eventualmente conto della proposta dell'onorevole deputato
e dell’esperienza acquisita in casi futuri.

C 341 / 268 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003450/14**

**to the Commission**
**Aldo Patriciello (PPE)**

_(21 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ State aid for rolling stock and freight train operators — second response

Further to my Written Questions E-004934/2013 of 6 May 2013 and E-011030/2013 of 27 September 2013, I should like to make
some additional points, with a view to persuading the Commission to review its position.

The Commission has launched a public consultation on a funding scheme supporting sustainable and efficient freight transport
services, with a view to improving the performance and sustainability of freight transport in the EU.

Article 1(83) of Italian Act 147 of 27 December 2013 (the 2014 stability law), which was fleshed out and amended during its
passage through parliament, states that EUR 100 million is to be allocated annually for the purchase of road vehicles for the years
2014, 2015 and 2016, and EUR 200 million is to be allocated in 2014 for the purchase of rolling stock. In both cases, the funding
may be used only for local public transport services.

Article 1(556) stipulates that companies holding local public transport contracts that do not comply with the relevant EU rules and
that run until after 3 December 2019 may not take part in any current or future invitations to tender for service contracts. This does
not apply to companies that have been awarded a service contract following a tender procedure.

In the light of the above, would the Commission not agree that, given the lack of uniform rules, it is necessary and appropriate to
codify the rules governing aid for freight rolling stock in the Railway Guidelines?

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

_(2 June 2014)_

Given the lack of interest among Member States in the past for financing freight railway rolling stock and the absence of a
Commission decision-making practice in this area, it is currently premature to codify state aid rules for the financing freight railway
rolling stock in the Railway Guidelines. Nevertheless, the Commission may take into account your proposal and the experience it will
have gained in future cases, if it eventually decides to modify those Guidelines.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 269

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003453/14**

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

_(21 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Calo del reddito pro capite in Italia e in Europa

Un recente studio dell'OCSE intitolato «Uno sguardo sulla società: Italia, la crisi e le sue conseguenze» ha messo in luce come agli inizi
della crisi economica avviatasi nel 2007-2008 il sistema di previdenza sociale fosse scarsamente preparato ad affrontare l'aumento
del tasso di disoccupazione, facendo sì che venisse meno un efficace sistema di protezione, e ciò ha colpito in particolare le fasce di
reddito più basse, allargando la forbice delle disuguaglianze.

Secondo la relazione, dal 2007 ad oggi il reddito pro capite è diminuito in media di circa 2 400 euro e il 10 % più povero della
popolazione ha subito una flessione del reddito del 12 %.

In merito a quanto esposto, può la Commissione fornire dati analoghi a quelli sopra elencati, relativi agli Stati membri e alla media
generale dell'area dell'euro e dell'UE-28?

**Risposta di Algirdas Šemeta a nome della Commissione**

_(19 maggio 2014)_

Gli ultimi dati forniti dall'indagine UE sul reddito e sulle condizioni di vita (EU-SILC) svolta da Eurostat nel 2012 mostrano che in tale
anno il valore mediano del reddito disponibile equivalente nazionale delle famiglie in Italia era di 16 029 EUR (redditi relativi
all'anno 2011). Per lo stesso anno il valore mediano del reddito equivalente era in media di 15 205 EUR nell’UE-28 e 17 098 EUR
nella zona euro. Nell'indagine SILC 2007 (redditi relativi all’anno 2006) tali dati erano rispettivamente 15 005 EUR in Italia,
13 898 EUR (UE-27) e 15 264 EUR (zona euro).

Per quanto riguarda il 10 % più povero della popolazione, in Italia il valore soglia più alto per il 1 [o] decile della ripartizione del reddito
(reddito disponibile equivalente più elevato per le famiglie appartenenti al decile più basso) risultava di 7 280 EUR nel SILC 2012
(redditi relativi all'anno 2011) e di 7 007 EUR nell'EU-SILC 2007 (redditi relativi all’anno 2006). Tali dati erano in media 7 674 e
7 052 EUR nell’UE nonché 8 573 e 7 798 EUR nella zona euro.

I dati ripartiti per Stato membro sono disponibili nella banca dati online di Eurostat ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database, table ilc_di01

C 341 / 270 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003453/14**

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

_(21 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Drop in per-capita income in Italy and Europe

A recent study by the OECD entitled: ‘Society at a Glance: Italy. The crisis and its aftermath’ has highlighted how at the start of the
economic crisis which hit in 2007-2008, the welfare system was poorly prepared to tackle the rise in unemployment. There was no
reliable safety net system as a result and this hit the lowest income brackets in particular, widening the inequality gap.

The report states that since 2007 per-capita income has fallen by EUR 2 400 on average and the poorest 10% of the population have
seen their income slump by 12%.

Can the Commission supply figures similar to the aforementioned for the Member States and for the overall average in the euro area
and in the EU‐28?

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

_(19 May 2014)_

According to the latest data available from Eurostat’s 2012 EU-SILC survey, the national median equivalised disposable income of
households in Italy in 2012 (incomes referring to year 2011) was EUR 16 029. On average in the EU for the same year, the median
equivalised income was EUR 15 205 in the EU28 and EUR 17 098 in the euro area. In SILC 2007 (incomes referring to year 2006)
these data were respectively EUR 15 005 in Italy, EUR 13 898 (EU-27) and EUR 15 264 (euro area).

Concerning the poorest 10% of the population, the top cut-off value for the 1st decile of income distribution (highest equivalised
disposable income for the households belonging to this lowest decile) was EUR 7 280 in SILC 2012 (incomes referring to year 2011)
and EUR 7 007 in EU-SILC 2007 (incomes referring to year 2006) in Italy. For the EU these data were on average EUR 7 674 and
EUR 7 052 and EUR 8 573 and EUR 7 798 in the euro area.

Data by Member State are available in the online database of Eurostat ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database, table ilc_di01

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 271

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003454/14**

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

_(21 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Calo nel settore dei «compro oro» in Italia

In Italia il settore di mercato dei «compro oro» ha conosciuto un'accelerazione notevole negli ultimi anni, influendo addirittura sul
volume generale delle esportazioni del metallo prezioso verso l'estero, passate da 40 tonnellate nel 2008 a quasi 194 nel 2012. Si
calcola infatti che, nel solo 2013, circa 17 milioni di italiani (27 %) abbiano venduto almeno un gioiello presso una di queste attività.

Nonostante ciò, oggi questi esercizi commerciali cominciano a vedere un certo calo di queste attività, che taluni cominciano a
definire «crisi», altri un semplice «assestamento» del mercato. Basti pensare che se nel gennaio 2013 esistevano circa 35mila esercizi,
oggi questi sono scesi a 23mila, provocando anche un calo del fatturato medio, che nel giro di due anni è calato del 50 % circa.

In merito a questa situazione, può la Commissione chiarire se:

1. Il settore in questione è altrettanto sviluppato anche in altri Stati membri dell'UE?

2. Il trend italiano rispecchia una realtà più vasta, che interessa anche altri Stati membri?

3. Ritiene che il calo nel rendimento del settore sia legato al riassorbimento della crisi economica o sia da imputare ad altri fattori?

4. Ritiene che una maggiore regolamentazione del settore possa sostenerne la ripresa o, al contrario, creare ulteriori oneri sugli
esercenti?

**Risposta di László Andor a nome della Commissione**

_(15 maggio 2014)_

La Commissione ringrazia l'onorevole deputato per le informazioni trasmesse. Per quanto riguarda le questioni sollevate
dall'onorevole deputato:

1. La Commissione non dispone di dati sul settore di mercato dei «compro oro» negli Stati membri dell'UE.

2. A causa della mancanza di informazioni, la Commissione non può valutare se la situazione in Italia rispecchi la tendenza negli
altri Stati membri.

3. La Commissione non è in grado di stabilire se il calo del fatturato del settore «compro oro» sia legato al riassorbimento della
crisi economica o ad altri fattori.

4. Dato che la regolamentazione del settore «compro oro» rientra nelle competenze degli Stati membri, la Commissione non è in
grado di valutare il suo potenziale impatto.

La Commissione rinvia inoltre l'onorevole deputato alla risposta data all'interrogazione E-008391/2013 ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

C 341 / 272 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003454/14**

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

_(21 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Decline in the ‘cash for gold’ sector in Italy

The Italian ‘cash for gold’ market has grown substantially in recent years, contributing directly to the overall increase in exports of
gold from Italy, which shot up from 40 tonnes in 2008 to almost 194 tonnes in 2012. The statistics suggest that in 2013 alone some
17 million Italians (27% of the country’s nationals) sold at least one jewel to a ‘cash for gold’ business.

Now, however, these businesses are starting to see a decline in their turnover, which some of them have described as a ‘crisis’, and
others simply as the market ‘settling down’. This feeling is confirmed by two things, namely that in January 2013 there were some
35 000 ‘cash for gold’ businesses in Italy, as against 23 000 today, and that the value of the average sale has dropped by some 50% in
two years.

1. Can the Commission say whether the ‘cash for gold’ sector is as large in other EU Member States?

2. Does the situation in Italy reflect a broader trend which is being seen in other Member States as well?

3. Is the drop in the sector’s turnover linked to the easing of the economic crisis or can it be traced back to other factors?

4. Would more effective regulation of the sector help it to recover, or merely impose additional burdens on the businesses
involved?

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

_(15 May 2014)_

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for the information provided. As to the questions raised by the Honourable
Member:

1. The Commission does not have data on ‘cash for gold’ business in the EU Member States.

2. Due to lack of information, the Commission cannot assess if the situation in Italy reflects the trend in other Member States.

3. The Commission is unable to assess if the decrease in the turnover of the sector of ‘cash for gold’ is linked to the easing of
economic crisis, or to any other factors.

4. Since the regulation of the ‘cash for gold’ sector is within the remit of the Member States, the Commission is not in a position
to assess its potential impact.

The Commission also refers the Honourable Member to the answer it gave to QE-008391/2013 ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 273

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003455/14**

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

_(21 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Attuazione della legge islamica nel Sultanato del Brunei

Il capo di Stato del Brunei alcuni giorni fa ha comunicato che, a partire dalle prossime settimane, il piccolo Stato del Borneo avvierà
una revisione delle propria legislazione per renderla maggiormente aderente alla shariah, introducendo un nuovo codice penale
particolarmente severo.

Le parole del sultano hanno provocato una forte ondata di proteste tra la popolazione locale, in particolare i cristiani e i buddhisti del
piccolo Stato, che rappresentano un terzo della popolazione totale. Anche diverse ONG che si occupano di diritti umani hanno
palesato i propri timori, sostenendo che anche se tradizionalmente la legge islamica nel sud-est asiatico è interpretata in maniera
molto più liberale che nel Medio Oriente, in futuro gli abitanti del sultanato potrebbero vedere i propri diritti sensibilmente ridotti.

In merito a questa situazione, può la Commissione chiarire:

1. se è a conoscenza della situazione;

2. se l'UE mantiene relazioni consolidate con il Sultanato del Brunei e, in caso affermativo, in che modo il tema dei diritti umani
sia trattato nel dialogo tra le due parti?

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

_(28 maggio 2014)_

L'AR/VP è al corrente del fatto che il 22 ottobre 2013 il Sultanato del Brunei ha adottato un nuovo codice penale basato sulla Sharia
la cui entrata in vigore è prevista all'inizio di aprile 2014. Il codice sarà applicato progressivamente in tre fasi, l'ultima delle quali
inizierà dopo 24 mesi dalla sua pubblicazione come atto legislativo.

L'UE non intrattiene un dialogo regolare sui diritti umani con il Brunei. L'Unione sta negoziando con questo paese un accordo di
partenariato e di cooperazione (APC) contenente l'impegno da parte del Brunei a rispettare i diritti umani fondamentali, in aggiunta
agli impegni già assunti dal paese in tema di diritti umani, nonché ad aderire alla Dichiarazione universale dei diritti dell'uomo, alla
Carta dell'ASEAN e alla dichiarazione dell'ASEAN sui diritti umani. I negoziati sull'APC permetteranno all'UE di esprimere le proprie
preoccupazioni.

L'Unione si avvarrà inoltre del processo di riesame periodico universale (UPR) in sede di Consiglio dei diritti umani per esaminare la
questione in modo più approfondito. Il prossimo UPR si svolgerà a Ginevra nel maggio 2014.

C 341 / 274 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003455/14**

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

_(21 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Implementation of Islamic law in the Sultanate of Brunei

The Head of State of Brunei announced a few days ago that, within the next few weeks, the small state of Brunei would be revising its
legislation to bring it largely into line with Sharia law by introducing a new and particularly harsh penal code.

The Sultan’s words have triggered a storm of protest among local people, in particular Brunei’s Christians and Buddhists, who
account for one third of the total population. Various human rights NGOs have also voiced their concern, arguing that even though
Islamic law has traditionally been interpreted much more liberally in Southeast Asia than in the Middle East, inhabitants of the
Sultanate may see a significant erosion of their rights in future.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

1. Is it aware of this situation?

2. Does the EU maintain regular ties with the Sultanate of Brunei and, if so, how is the issue of human rights addressed in the
dialogue between the two parties?

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

_(28 May 2014)_

The HR/VP is aware that the Sultanate of Brunei adopted a new Sharia Penal Code on 22 October 2013 which, it was announced, will
come into force beginning from April 2014. The Code will be applied progressively in three phases, with the final phase entering
into force 24 months after gazetting of the Sharia Procedural Code.

The EU does not maintain a regular human rights dialogue with Brunei. The EU is currently in the process of negotiating a
Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with Brunei. The PCA includes commitments to respect fundamental human rights, which
would form an additional commitment by Brunei to human rights, to sit alongside Brunei's adherence to the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, the ASEAN Charter and the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration. Negotiating the PCA will give the EU opportunity to
address its concerns.

Furthermore, the EU will use the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process in the UN Human Rights Council to explore the issue
further. Brunei's next UPR is scheduled for May 2014 in Geneva.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 275

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003457/14**

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

_(21 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Invenzione di un «naso elettronico» per il monitoraggio dell'aria

L'Agenzia nazionale per le nuove tecnologie, l'energia e lo sviluppo economico sostenibile ha realizzato un nuovo sensore portatile
per il monitoraggio della qualità dell'aria, una sorta di «naso elettronico» in grado di misurare l'inquinamento atmosferico in città che
funziona in connessione con un qualsiasi smartphone. In questo modo ogni individuo sarà in grado di conoscere in tempo reale la
propria esposizione qualitativa agli inquinanti atmosferici, identificando le aree maggiormente inquinate, e di condividere, mediante
le piattaforme «social», i percorsi alternativi per minimizzare l'esposizione a tali agenti inquinanti.

La Commissione:

1. è a conoscenza del nuovo strumento in questione;

2. ritiene che questo strumento possa dare un contributo significativo al benessere quotidiano dei cittadini europei;

3. ritiene che questa tecnologia possa portare a un effetto spillover in altri settori della protezione ambientale, come ad esempio
lo studio delle acque?

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

_(5 maggio 2014)_

1. La Commissione è a conoscenza dell'esistenza del cosiddetto «naso elettronico» e ha finanziato lo sviluppo di sensori simili
attraverso il programma LIFE ( [1] ).

2. Tali sensori possono fornire indicazioni utili sul livello di concentrazione delle sostanze inquinanti. La Commissione riconosce
inoltre che, se forniscono misurazioni sufficientemente precise, possono rafforzare la consapevolezza dei cittadini dell'UE. Tuttavia,
non è ancora stato dimostrato se questi sensori rispettano gli obiettivi di qualità dei dati previsti dall'allegato I della
direttiva 2008/50/CE ( [2] ), relativa alla qualità dell'aria ambiente, e pertanto non possono essere utilizzati a fini di regolamentazione.

3. La Commissione non è in grado di valutare le possibili ricadute che questa particolare tecnologia può avere. In generale, a
seconda della sostanza misurata si utilizzano sensori di monitoraggio diversi, che variano anche in base all'elemento (aria, acqua,
ecc.) in cui la sostanza è contenuta. In pratica, pertanto, una tecnica di monitoraggio dell'aria può avere un effetto spillover limitato
sulle tecniche di monitoraggio utilizzate in altri contesti.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.rescatame.eu/
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) GU L 152/1 dell'11.6.2008.

C 341 / 276 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003457/14**

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

_(21 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Invention of ‘electronic nose’ for monitoring air quality

The Italian Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development has devised a portable air quality
monitoring sensor or ‘electronic nose’ capable of measuring urban air pollution levels. This device, which is connectable to any
smartphone, provides users with access to real-time information regarding air quality and their current exposure to pollution,
identifying locations where pollution levels are highest and making it possible to use social platforms to indicate alternative routes,
thereby reducing exposure thereto.

In view of this:

1. Is the Commission aware of the existence of this new device?

2. Does it consider that it could make a significant contribution to the everyday quality of life of European citizens?

3. Does it consider that this technology could have a significant spillover effect on other environmental protection sectors, for
example the aquatic environment?

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

_(5 May 2014)_

1. The Commission is aware of the existence of so-called ‘electronic noses’. It has in fact financed the development of similar
sensors through the LIFE programme. ( [1] )

2. Such sensors could be a useful indication of pollutant concentration level and the Commission recognises they may enhance
awareness of EU citizens if they deliver sufficiently accurate measurements. However, such sensors have not yet been demonstrated
to fulfil the data quality objectives indicated in Annex 1 of the Ambient Air Quality Directive 2008/50/EC ( [2] ), and thus cannot be
used for regulatory purposes.

3. The Commission is not in a position to assess the potential spillovers associated with this particular technology. In general,
monitoring sensors are highly specific to the compound measured and sometimes to the matrix (e.g. air, water) in which this
compound is contained. Thus spillover from an air monitoring technique to monitoring techniques in other matrices may in practice
be limited.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.rescatame.eu/
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 152/1, 11.6.2008.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 277

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003458/14**

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

_(21 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Nuovi studi nel campo degli organi artificiali

Un team scientifico composto da ricercatori di due note università, l'una statunitense, l'altra australiana, è stato in grado di
raggiungere un sorprendente risultato nel campo delle protesi mediche: utilizzando avanzate tecnologie in micro scala e un idrogel
realizzato a partire dalla proteina tropoelastina, caratterizzata da particolare elasticità, l'équipe è stata in grado di riprodurre un
tessuto cardiaco artificiale capace di imitare perfettamente la meccanica e le proprietà biologiche di un cuore umano naturale.

Al fine di permettere alle cellule di riprodurre la giusta struttura, la squadra ha utilizzato la micro tecnica 3D per ricreare dei modelli
con l'idrogel, riuscendo ad allineare le cellule cardiache per batteria, in sincronia, nei supporti elastici.

La prossima fase dello studio prevede l'impianto di organi su animali di grandi dimensioni e, in futuro, si proverà a ricreare anche
altri tipi di tessuti.

In merito a quanto esposto, può la Commissione chiarire se:

1. È a conoscenza dell'esperimento?

2. È a conoscenza di studi simili condotti da centri di ricerca o università europee?

3. Ritiene che sia possibile finanziare questo genere di studi tramite i fondi europei, alla luce delle importanti implicazioni che
potrebbero avere sul progresso medico?

**Risposta di Máire Geoghegan-Quinn a nome della Commissione**

_(12 maggio 2014)_

1. La Commissione è a conoscenza degli ultimi sviluppi nei campi della stampa 3D e dell'ingegneria tissutale recentemente
pubblicati da ricercatori statunitensi e australiani. Questi risultati possono aprire nuove prospettive nella medicina rigenerativa per la
riparazione di tessuti e organi nonché, a termine, per la creazione di organi artificiali. Occorreranno ulteriori investimenti in ricerca e
sviluppo prima che questa promettente tecnologia diventi disponibile per l'uso clinico ( [1] ).

2. Ricerche analoghe sono in corso anche in Europa, ad esempio da parte di gruppi di ricerca di Edimburgo ( [2] ), Oxford ( [3] ),
Barcellona ( [4] ) e Bordeaux ( [5] ).

3. Il programma quadro Orizzonte 2020 per la ricerca e l'innovazione (2014-2020) sostiene la ricerca in terapie e tecnologie
avanzate, in particolare nell'ambito della sfida sociale «Salute, evoluzione demografica e benessere». In particolare, il programma di
lavoro 2014-2015 contiene opportunità di finanziamento per questi sviluppi medici recenti nell'ambito dei temi PHC 15 «Clinical
research on regenerative medicine» (ricerca clinica in medicina rigenerativa) e PHC 16 «Tools and technologies for advanced
therapies» (strumenti e tecnologie per terapie avanzate) ( [6] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) La stampa 3D nell'ingegneria tissutale è una nuova tendenza importante e ampiamente discussa (cfr. la piattaforma «Futurium» di discussione delle politiche dell'UE

su: http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/futurium/en/content/advances-bio-artificial-and-3d-printed-organs).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://bmg.hw.ac.uk/research/rsh-001.html
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://bayley.chem.ox.ac.uk/theme5/
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.ibecbarcelona.eu/biomaterials
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://www.teal.u-bordeaux2.fr/
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/health-demographic-change-and-wellbeing

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

C 341 / 278 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003458/14**

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

_(21 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ New research into artificial organs

A team of researchers from two prominent universities, one in the United States and the other in Australia, have made a remarkable
breakthrough in the field of prosthetics. The team has succeeded in engineering organ tissue which exactly mimics the mechanical
and biological properties of the human heart by combining new advanced micro-scale technologies with a hydrogel made from an
extremely elastic protein called tropoelastin.

To make the cells form the right structure, the team used 3D printing techniques to create patterns in the gel. The end result was
small patches of heart muscle cells, neatly lined up, that beat in synchrony with the grooves formed on the elastic substrates.

The next stage is to implant the artificial organs in large animals. Following that, attempts will be made to engineer other types of
tissue.

1. Is the Commission aware of this experiment?

2. Does it know if any European universities or research centres are carrying out similar research?

3. Can EU funding be provided for this kind of research, given that it could lead to major advances in medicine?

**Answer given by Ms Geoghegan-Quinn on behalf of the Commission**

_(12 May 2014)_

1. The Commission is aware of the new advance in 3D-printing and tissue engineering technology recently published by
researchers from the United States and Australia. These results may open new perspectives in regenerative medicine for the repair of
tissues and organs, or eventually the creation of artificial organs. Further investment into research and development will be needed to
make this promising technology readily available for clinical use ( [1] ).

2. Similar research is also carried out at sites in Europe, for example by research groups in Edinburgh ( [2] ), Oxford ( [3] ), Barcelona ( [4] )
or Bordeaux ( [5] ) .

3. Horizon 2020, the framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020), offers support for research into
advanced therapies and technologies especially under the Societal Challenge ‘Health, Demographic Change and Wellbeing’.
Specifically, the Work Programme 2014-2015 may offer funding possibilities under the topics PHC 15 ‘Clinical research on
regenerative medicine’ and PHC 16 ‘Tools and technologies for advanced therapies’ for such new medical developments ( [6] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) 3D-printing for tissue engineering is an important and widely discussed new trend (see for example the EU policies discussion platform ‘Futurium’ at:

http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/futurium/en/content/advances-bio-artificial-and-3d-printed-organs).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://bmg.hw.ac.uk/research/rsh-001.html
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://bayley.chem.ox.ac.uk/theme5/
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.ibecbarcelona.eu/biomaterials
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://www.teal.u-bordeaux2.fr/
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/health-demographic-change-and-wellbeing

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

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 279

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003459/14**

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

_(21 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Piattaforme di crowdsourcing e crowdfunding

In anni recenti lo sviluppo di piattaforme digitali di crowdfunding e crowdsourcing ha vissuto un momento di forte diffusione. Il
crowdfunding è un processo collaborativo di finanziamento dal basso al fine di sostenere idee, persone e organizzazioni.
Diversamente, il crowdsourcing è un sistema basato sulla partecipazione attiva di utenti per la progettazione, lo sviluppo e la
realizzazione di un'idea o un progetto.

Queste piattaforme sono spesso utilizzate da coloro che hanno in mente un progetto, ma necessitano di fondi per realizzarlo o da
coloro che decidono di mettere in comune le proprie forze e idee per raggiungere un determinato obiettivo. Nonostante la loro
origine popolare, anche grandi nomi hanno fatto uso di questi sistemi, come ad esempio il presidente statunitense in carica durante la
sua campagna elettorale. Inoltre, importanti marchi industriali si affidano sempre più spesso a queste piattaforme, al fine di trovare
idee creative fra i singoli utenti in cambio di visibilità e anche denaro.

In merito alla diffusione di queste piattaforme, può la Commissione chiarire:

1. quanto esse siano diffuse negli Stati membri dell'UE;

2. se esistono casi registrati di frodi ai danni degli utenti riguardo a queste piattaforme nell'UE;

3. se esistono atti legislativi di diritto europeo che disciplinino il funzionamento di tali piattaforme?

**Risposta di Michel Barnier a nome della Commissione**

_(10 giugno 2014)_

All'inizio del 2014 in Europa erano presenti, secondo le stime, circa 230 piattaforme di crowdfunding ( [1] ). Nel 2012 dette piattaforme
hanno raccolto in Europa circa 735 milioni di euro ( [2] ). Per quanto riguarda il crowdsourcing per il lavoro non retribuito, le ricerche
stimano che al momento in Europa siano attive almeno 60 organizzazioni di volontari online ( [3] ) e 2 000 piattaforme di banche del
tempo ( [4] ).

Al di là dei numerosi potenziali benefici, il crowdfunding comporta anche alcuni rischi. In base ai risultati della recente consultazione
pubblica, il rischio principale è quello della frode, che rimane tuttavia raro ( [5] ). La Commissione non raccoglie informazioni sui
reclami dei consumatori, ma da uno studio è emerso che su 381 progetti, meno dello 0,5 % del totale dei fondi raccolti aveva cessato
di rispondere ai finanziatori a causa di fallimento del progetto, frode o altri motivi. I principali rischi inerenti al crowdsourcing per il
lavoro retribuito si riferiscono al reddito non dichiarato e al riciclaggio di denaro. Finora sono stati rilevati entrambi ( [6] ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Repertorio del crowdsourcing, dati dell'8 gennaio 2014: www.crowdsourcing.org/directory.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Dati basati su una stima di settore: Massolution (2013) Crowdfunding Industry Report 2012, disponibile sul sito: http://www.crowdsourcing.org/research.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Cravens, J.(2014) Internet-mediated Volunteering in the EU. Stewart J (Ed). JRC Scientific and Policy Report Series, EUR 26603 EN. Istituto di studi delle prospettive

tecnologiche, Centro comune di ricerca, Commissione europea, disponibile sul sito: http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC85755.pdf

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Boyle, D. (2014) The Potential of Time Banks to support Social Inclusion and Employability. Stewart J (Ed). JRC Scientific and Policy Report Series, EUR 26346 EN.

Istituto di studi delle prospettive tecnologiche, Centro comune di ricerca, Commissione europea, disponibile sul sito: http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC85642.pdf

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Mollick E. (2013) The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing 29(1): 1-16.
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Stewart, J. (forthcoming 2014) From Cloud to Crowd: Online work exchanges for global contract and crowdsourced labour. JRC Scientific and Policy Report Series,

Istituto di studi delle prospettive tecnologiche, Centro comune di ricerca, Commissione europea, disponibile sul sito:
http://is.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pages/EAP/eInclusion/employability.html

( **|**

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

C 341 / 280 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

Attualmente a livello dell'UE sono disponibili diversi strumenti giuridici per far fronte ai rischi del crowdfunding e del
crowdsourcing, compreso il rischio di frode. Tra questi figurano la direttiva sul commercio elettronico ( [7] ), che stabilisce norme in
materia di responsabilità per gli intermediari online, o la direttiva sulle pratiche commerciali sleali ( [8] ), che mira a proteggere i
consumatori. Al crowdlending e al crowdinvesting può essere applicata una legislazione finanziaria più specifica, ad esempio la
direttiva concernente la commercializzazione a distanza di servizi finanziari ( [9] ), la MiFID ( [10] ), la direttiva relativa al prospetto ( [11] ), la
direttiva sulla moneta elettronica ( [12] ) o la direttiva relativa ai servizi di pagamento ( [13] ), a seconda del modello commerciale e
dell'importo raccolto. La Commissione ha adottato una comunicazione intitolata «Sfruttare il potenziale del crowdfunding
nell'Unione europea» il 27 marzo 2014 ( [14] ), nella quale delinea il suo approccio politico al crowdfunding.

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

⋅7∙ **|** )
⋅8∙ **|** )
⋅9∙ **|** )

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

( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) Direttiva 2000/31/CE.
( **|** ⋅8∙ **|** ) Direttiva 2005/29/CE.
( **|** ⋅9∙ **|** ) Direttiva 2002/65/CE.
( **|** ⋅10∙ **|** ) Direttiva 2004/39/CE.
( **|** ⋅11∙ **|** ) Direttiva 2003/71/CE modificata dalla direttiva 2010/73/UE.
( **|** ⋅12∙ **|** ) Direttiva 2009/110/CE.
( **|** ⋅13∙ **|** ) Direttiva 2007/64/CE.
( **|** ⋅14∙ **|** ) COM(2014) 172 final.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 281

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003459/14**

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

_(21 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Crowdsourcing and crowdfunding platforms

The last few years have seen a rapid increase in the number of web‐based crowdfunding and crowdsourcing platforms.
Crowdfunding is a collaborative, bottom‐up funding process for supporting ideas, individuals and organisations, while
crowdsourcing is a system based on the active participation of platform users in the planning, development and implementation of
an idea or project.

The platforms are often used by people who have an idea for a project but need funding to carry it out, or who decide to join forces
and share ideas with others in order to achieve a specific goal. Despite their grass-roots origin, they have also been used by well‐
known figures, including Barack Obama during his presidential election campaign. Major industrial brands are also turning
increasingly to these platforms for creative ideas from users, who, in return, are paid for their input and gain increased exposure.

1. Can the Commission say how common platforms of this kind are in the Member States?

2. Have any of the users of the platforms been victims of fraud?

3. Are any rules governing such platforms in place at EU level?

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

_(10 June 2014)_

There were an estimated 230 crowdfunding platforms across Europe at the beginning of 2014 ( [1] ) In 2012, crowdfunding platforms
raised about EUR 735 million in Europe. ( [2] ) With regard to crowdsourcing for unpaid work, research estimates that at least 60
organisations involving online volunteers ( [3] ) and 2000 time-bank platforms ( [4] ) are operating in Europe at present.

Besides its numerous potential benefits, crowdfunding also involves some risks. According to the recent public consultation results,
the main risk is that of fraud which still remains rare ( [5] ). The Commission does not collect information on consumer complaints but a
study showed that out of 381 projects less than 0.5% of the total funds raised had stopped responding to funders due to either
project failure, fraud or other reasons. The main risks concerning crowdsourcing for paid work relate to undeclared income and
money laundering, and anecdotal evidence collected so far points to both. ( [6] )

Currently at EU level there are a number of legal instruments in place to address the risks of crowdfunding and crowdsourcing,
including the risk of fraud. The Electronic Commerce Directive ( [7] ) that lays down liability rules of online intermediaries, or the
directive on Unfair Commercial Practices ( [8] ) that aims to protect consumers. More specific financial legislation, such as the Distance
Marketing of Financial Services Directive, ( [9] ) the MiFID, ( [10] ) the Prospectus Directive, ( [11] ) the e-money Directive ( [12] )or the Payment
Services Directive ( [13] ) might apply to crowd lending or crowd investing depending on the business model and the amount raised. The
Commission adopted a communication ‘Unleashing the potential of Crowdfunding in the European Union’ on 27 March 2014, ( [14] )
in which it outlines its policy approach to crowdfunding.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Crowdsourcing directory on 8.1.2014, at: www.crowdsourcing.org/directory
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Based on an industry estimate: Massolution (2013) Crowdfunding Industry Report 2012 at: http://www.crowdsourcing.org/research.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Cravens, J.(2014) Internet-mediated Volunteering in the EU. Stewart J (Ed). JRC Scientific and Policy Report Series, EUR 26603 EN. Institute for Prospective

Technological Studies, Joint Research Centre, European Commission. Available at: http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC85755.pdf

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Boyle, D. (2014) The Potential of Time Banks to support Social Inclusion and Employability. Stewart J (Ed). JRC Scientific and Policy Report Series, EUR 26346 EN.

Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Joint Research Centre, European Commission. Available at: http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC85642.pdf

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Mollick E. (2013) The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing 29(1): 1-16.
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Stewart, J. (forthcoming 2014) From Cloud to Crowd: Online work exchanges for global contract and crowdsourced labour. JRC Scientific and Policy Report Series,

Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Joint Research Centre, European Commission. Available at:
http://is.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pages/EAP/eInclusion/employability.html

( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) Directive 2000/31/EC.
( **|** ⋅8∙ **|** ) Directive 2005/29/EC.
( **|** ⋅9∙ **|** ) Directive 2002/65/EC.
( **|** ⋅10∙ **|** ) Directive 2004/39/EC.
( **|** ⋅11∙ **|** ) Directive 2003/71/EC as amended by Directive 2010/73/EU.
( **|** ⋅12∙ **|** ) Directive 2009/110/EC.
( **|** ⋅13∙ **|** ) Directive 2007/64/EC.
( **|** ⋅14∙ **|** ) COM(2014) 172 final.

( **|**

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

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

⋅7∙ **|** )
⋅8∙ **|** )
⋅9∙ **|** )

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

C 341 / 282 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003460/14**

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

_(21 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ Riciclaggio dei rifiuti di apparecchiature elettriche e elettroniche

È stato recentemente presentato il rapporto annuale 2013 sul sistema di ritiro e trattamento dei rifiuti di apparecchiature elettriche e
elettroniche in Italia, da cui emerge un sistema ormai piuttosto consolidato, anche se con una tendenza a una flessione rispetto al
2012 (-5 %). A influire su questo calo è stata probabilmente la contrazione generale delle vendite di apparecchi elettrici e elettronici o
il completamento del passaggio al digitale terrestre con tutte le implicazioni in termini di sostituzione di apparecchi televisivi
obsoleti.

Tuttavia, occorre tenere conto dei traffici illegali connessi a questa specifica categoria di rifiuti. Secondo una ONG italiana, tra il 2009
e il 2013 sono state sequestrate in Italia ben 299 discariche illegali, i cui rifiuti contengono materiali tossici come mercurio, cromo
esavalente, cadmio, piombo o nichel.

In merito alla lotta contro questo fenomeno criminale, può la Commissione chiarire:

1. se il fenomeno è in crescita anche in altri Stati membri;

2. se esistono sistemi di gestione efficiente di questa categoria di rifiuti in grado di garantire un ampio recupero e riutilizzo del
materiale e ridurre le infiltrazioni criminali, che possano fungere da esempi di buone pratiche nell'UE?

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

_(19 maggio 2014)_

Il commercio illegale e lo smaltimento dei rifiuti di apparecchiature elettriche ed elettroniche (RAEE) è riconosciuto come un
problema sia nell’UE sia a livello mondiale e alcune informazioni circa la portata e la natura di questo problema sono state pubblicate
dall’Agenzia europea dell’ambiente nel 2012 ( [1] ). Nel 2013 Europol ha definito il traffico illecito di rifiuti come una minaccia
emergente nell’UE ( [2] ).

Nel contesto delle spedizioni transfrontaliere di rifiuti illegali, la Commissione ha proposto di recente un’azione legislativa per
potenziare le ispezioni sui flussi di rifiuti problematici e ad alto rischio, ai sensi del regolamento (CE) n. 1013/2006 relativo alle
spedizioni di rifiuti ( [3] ). È stato raggiunto un accordo politico tra il Parlamento europeo e il Consiglio su un nuovo regolamento che è
stato poi votato dal Parlamento in data 17 aprile.

Inoltre, la direttiva RAEE riveduta ( [4] ) è concepita per migliorare i controlli alle frontiere europee sulle esportazioni di apparecchiature
elettriche ed elettroniche (AEE) usate e di RAEE.

In tutti gli Stati membri i produttori di AEE hanno istituito dei sistemi che consentono ai detentori finali e ai distributori di restituire i
RAEE e che prevedono almeno il finanziamento della raccolta, del trattamento, del recupero e dello smaltimento ecocompatibile di
questi prodotti. La Commissione sta svolgendo un’analisi e un confronto degli attuali regimi di responsabilità estesa dei produttori in
funzione negli Stati membri per individuare le buone pratiche e proporre alcuni principi guida per la loro attuazione ( [5] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/movements-of-waste-EU-2012
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) https://www.europol.europa.eu/content/eu-serious-and-organised-crime-threat-assessment-socta
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) GU L 190 del 12.7.2006.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Direttiva 2012/19/UE (GU L 197 del 24.07.2012).
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://epr.eu-smr.eu/

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 283

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003460/14**

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

_(21 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Recycling of waste from electrical and electronic equipment

The 2013 annual report on the collection and processing of waste from electrical and electronic equipment in Italy was published
recently and paints a picture of a system that is reasonably well established now. Although figures fell slightly (‐5%) compared to
2012, the general downturn in sales of electrical and electronic equipment and the completion of the switchover to digital terrestrial
broadcasting, with all that that implies in terms of replacing obsolete television sets, were probably contributory factors.

Nevertheless, account must be taken of the illegal trade connected with this particular waste category. According to an Italian NGO,
299 illegal waste disposal sites were seized between 2009 and 2013. Waste at these sites contained toxic materials such as mercury,
hexavalent chromium, cadmium, lead or nickel.

1. Could the Commission say whether crime of this kind is on the increase in other Member States too?

2. Do systems for the efficient management of waste in this category exist which are capable both of guaranteeing large-scale
recovery and reuse of materials and of reducing criminal infiltration, as such systems might serve as examples of good practice in the
EU?

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

_(19 May 2014)_

Illegal trade and disposal of waste from electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) is recognised as a problem in the EU and globally,
and some information on the scale and nature of the matter was published by the European Environment Agency in 2012 ( [1] ). In
2013, Europol identified illegal waste trafficking as an emerging threat in the EU. ( [2] )

Against the background of illegal cross-border shipments of waste, the Commission has recently proposed legislative action to
strengthen inspections of waste, targeting problematic and high-risk waste streams, under Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 on
shipments of waste ( [3] ). A political agreement on a new Regulation has been reached between the European Parliament and Council,
and voted on by the European Parliament on 17 April.

In addition, the revised WEEE Directive ( [4] ) is designed to improve European border controls regarding the export of used EEE and
WEEE.

In all Member States producers of EEE have set up systems allowing final holders and distributors to return WEEE and they provide at
least for the financing of the collection, treatment recovery and environmentally sound disposal of WEEE. The Commission is
carrying out an analysis and comparison of the existing Extended Producer Responsibility schemes operating in Member States in
order to identify good practices and propose some guiding principles for their implementation ( [5] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/movements-of-waste-EU-2012
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) https://www.europol.europa.eu/content/eu-serious-and-organised-crime-threat-assessment-socta
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) OJ L 190, 12.7.2006.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Directive 2012/19/EU (OJ L 197, 24.7.2012).
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://epr.eu-smr.eu/

C 341 / 284 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003461/14**

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

**Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE)**

_(21 marzo 2014)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Strategia antipirateria nel Golfo di Guinea

L'Africa occidentale e nello specifico l'area del Golfo di Guinea rappresenta una zona di particolare interesse per la sicurezza europea.
Nell'area del golfo il fenomeno della pirateria sulle tradizionali rotte commerciali si sta intensificando e diverse associazioni di
rappresentanza di armatori hanno cercato di attrarre l'attenzione delle istituzioni, che è maggiormente concentrata sull'area del golfo
di Aden nell'Oceano Indiano.

Solo nella seconda metà del 2013 sono stati registrati 118 attacchi e il loro numero pare destinato a aumentare. Inoltre, si tratta di un
tipo di pirateria differente da quello così efficacemente combattuto lungo le coste somale, dal momento che i pirati non mirano a
riscatti tramite il sequestro delle navi quanto piuttosto al saccheggio delle imbarcazioni e il rapimento dei marinai (56 sequestri di
persona nel 2013). Questa attività è legata al fatto che le imbarcazioni hanno spesso carichi particolarmente preziosi, per lo più
petrolio, che viene rubato tramite piccole navi cisterna e con il supporto di una «nave madre» che permette di estendere il raggio
d'azione dei pirati fino a mille miglia dalla costa.

Proprio in questi giorni il Consiglio Affari esteri ha adottato una strategia per il Golfo di Guinea in cui si afferma che l'UE mira a
costituire una concezione comune della scala della minaccia nel golfo e a sostenere i governi locali a costituire istituzioni robuste e
far valere lo Stato di diritto lungo le coste.

A tal proposito, può il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante:

1. quantificare gli interessi economici dell'UE nell'area del Golfo di Guinea;

2. indicare se intende avviare missioni di addestramento o di rafforzamento dello Stato di diritto nella regione, adottando un
approccio strategico globale, così come avvenuto per il Corno d'Africa;

3. chiarire, alla luce del parziale fallimento dell'approccio strategico globale per la regione del Sahel, quali sono le principali
minacce all'attuazione della strategia per il Golfo di Guinea?

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

_(22 maggio 2014)_

1. L'UE e i paesi della regione del golfo di Guinea condividono interessi fondamentali nell'ambito economico, commerciale, dello
sviluppo e della sicurezza. La regione del golfo di Guinea è ricca di risorse che sono determinanti per l'occupazione e il consumo
locali nonché per gli scambi con l'Europa. Il commercio marittimo, sia verso il golfo di Guinea che in provenienza da quest'ultimo, si
svolge in gran parte con l'UE e la regione rappresenta per gli investimenti europei un'attrazione crescente che acquisisce importanza
man mano che la sua crescita economica accelera. Di qui l'esigenza di un partenariato reciprocamente vantaggioso, volto a
promuovere la crescita e l'occupazione garantendo la sicurezza, compresa quella delle rotte di navigazione globali necessarie al
commercio, e la stabilità, al fine di tutelare i cittadini di entrambe le parti dalla droga, dal terrorismo, dagli atti di pirateria e di
depredazione armata e da altre forme di criminalità diffuse nella regione.

2. La strategia afferma la necessità di aiutare i governi regionali a creare istituzioni e capacità intese a garantire la sicurezza, la
buona _governance_ e lo Stato di diritto. Nei prossimi mesi saranno definite le modalità di sviluppo delle capacità volte a sostenere gli
organismi regionali e adeguate alle esigenze e alle opportunità.

3. Le minacce per l'attuazione di tale strategia sono costituite dalla mancanza di volontà politica, dalla corruzione e dalle tattiche
elusive dei pirati e dei trafficanti, che, aggiungendosi agli effetti della povertà e del danno ambientale, potrebbero limitare le azioni
che sono previste. Il nostro approccio strategico intende rafforzare il coordinamento tra l'UE e i partner internazionali cui spetterà un
ruolo essenziale per il successo dei nostri sforzi. Mentre la strategia dell'UE per il Sahel era antecedente alla crisi nel Mali, l'evoluzione
politica dal 2011 — comprese le conseguenze delle crisi politiche e militari in Libia e nel Mali — ha confermato la validità dell'attuale
approccio strategico, che costituisce una buona base per l'azione dell'UE sia a livello individuale che collettivo.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 285

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003461/14**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE)**

_(21 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Anti-piracy strategy in the Gulf of Guinea

European security has become a particularly sensitive issue in Western Africa, especially in the Gulf of Guinea, where pirate attacks
on traditional trade routes are becoming increasingly commonplace, a problem that associations of ship-owners have been seeking
to bring to the attention of the institutions, which are tending to focus more on the Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Eden in particular.

118 acts of piracy were committed in the second half of 2013 alone, a number that appears likely to increase. Furthermore, the
methods used here are different to those that have been effectively countered along the Somali coast, since the pirates are not seeking
to hold vessels to ransom but are instead stealing their cargoes and kidnapping their crews (56 kidnappings in 2013). In fact, the
vessels frequently carry very valuable cargo, generally oil, which the pirates transfer to small tankers. With the back-up of a ‘mother
ship’, they are able to extend their operations further afield, up to 1000 miles from the coast.

The Council of Foreign Ministers has recently adopted a strategy for the Gulf of Guinea, requiring the EU to make a joint assessment
of the scale of the threat and help the governments in the area to set up bodies sufficiently effective to the impose the rule of law
along their coasts.

In view of this:

1. Can the Vice-President/High Representative quantify EU economic interests in the Gulf of Guinea?

2. Can she say whether she intends to send units to provide training or reinforcements to enforce the rule of law in the area
concerned in accordance with a global strategy similar to that adopted in respect of the Horn of Africa?

3. Can she identify the principal hazards regarding strategy implementation in the Gulf of Guinea, given the partial failure of the
global strategy adopted in the Sahel region?

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

_(22 May 2014)_

1. The EU and the countries of the Gulf of Guinea region share major economic, development, commercial and security interests.
The Gulf of Guinea region is rich in resources which are crucial for local employment and consumption, as well as trade with Europe.
Maritime trade to and from the Gulf of Guinea is largely conducted by the EU, and the region is an increasing magnet for European
investment, rising in importance as the region's economic growth accelerates. This calls for a mutually beneficial partnership to
promote growth and jobs by ensuring security, including of global shipping lanes necessary for commerce, and stability, to protect
each other's citizens from drugs, terrorism, piracy and armed robbery, and other forms of crime emanating from the region.

2. The strategy sets out the need to help regional governments create institutions and capabilities to ensure security, good
governance and the rule of law. Capacity building in support of regional bodies, adapted to needs and opportunities, will be defined
in the coming months.

3. Hazards to implementation are lack of political will, corruption, and evasive tactics by pirates and traffickers, inter-linked with
the effects of poverty and environmental damage that could diminish our intended actions. Our strategic approach envisages
increasing EU coordination with international partners, which will be critical to success. While the EU Sahel Strategy predated the
Mali crisis, political developments since 2011 — including the effects of the political and military crises in Libya and Mali — have
confirmed the relevance of this strategic approach, providing a good basis for EU action, individually and collectively.

C 341 / 286 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-003462/14**

**do Komisji**
**Jacek Włosowicz (EFD)**

_(21 marca 2014 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Łagodzenie skutków restrukturyzacji

Unia Europejska przedstawiła najlepsze sposoby na złagodzenie skutków restrukturyzacji i zwolnień dotykających pracowników
i pogarszających ogólną sytuację społeczną. Gdy chodzi o recesję gospodarczą, restrukturyzacja przedsiębiorstw jest problemem.
Odbiła się ona na ekonomii każdego państwa w Europie. Od 2002 r. zarejestrowano ponad 16 tys. działań restrukturyzacyjnych.
W ich efekcie strata netto wynosi ponad 2 mln miejsc pracy.

W jaki sposób Komisja planuje wesprzeć przedsiębiorstwa w utrzymaniu konkurencyjności w perspektywie długoterminowej?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Michela Barniera w imieniu Komisji**

_(22 maja 2014 r.)_

Komisja przyjęła niedawno komunikat ( [1] ) dotyczący odrodzenia przemysłu europejskiego mającego na celu osiągnięcie wzrostu
gospodarczego i utworzenie nowych miejsc pracy, który został poparty przez Radę Europejską w marcu. Aby dokonać ponownej
industrializacji Europy poprzez zwiększenie do 2020 r. udziału produkcji w PKB do 20 %, jej aspekty powinny zostać uwzględnione
we wszystkich obszarach polityki mających wpływ na konkurencyjność. Zapewni to usytuowanie konkurencyjności przemysłu
w centrum kształtowania polityki. Wzywa się również państwa członkowskie do przyjęcia takiego samego podejścia.

Odnośnie do finansowania, aby wzmocnić pozycję konkurencyjną przedsiębiorstw, do dyspozycji państw członkowskich, regionów
i przemysłu zostanie oddanych coraz więcej instrumentów finansowych dzięki programom „Horyzont 2020” i COSME oraz
europejskim funduszom strukturalnym i inwestycyjnym.

Ponadto plan działania na rzecz przedsiębiorczości do 2020 r. jest jednym z głównych filarów strategii „Europa 2020” oraz
komunikatu w sprawie polityki przemysłowej, które mają na nowo pobudzić kulturę przedsiębiorczości w Europie w perspektywie
długoterminowej oraz sprawić, by Europa stała się jednym z najbardziej przedsiębiorczych obszarów na świecie.

W przypadkach restrukturyzacji Komisja wzywa wszystkie przedsiębiorstwa do stosowania dobrych praktyk w zakresie
przewidywania i społecznie odpowiedzialnego zarządzania, jak przedstawiono w komunikacie z dnia 13 grudnia 2013 r. w sprawie
ustanowienia unijnych ram jakości na rzecz przewidywania zmian i restrukturyzacji.

Należy dodać, że Komisja nie ma uprawnień do ingerowania w decyzje żadnego konkretnego przedsiębiorstwa. Komisja
zobowiązuje się jednak dołożyć wszelkich starań w celu zapewnienia, aby Europa stała się najbardziej atrakcyjnym miejscem dla
inwestycji w badania naukowe i innowacje oraz dla produkcji przemysłowej. Stanowi to podstawę strategii „Europa 2020”, nowej
inicjatywy dotyczącej polityki przemysłowej oraz polityki przedsiębiorczości.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2014)14, Bruksela, 22.1.2014.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 287

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003462/14**

**to the Commission**
**Jacek Włosowicz (EFD)**

_(21 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Mitigating the effects of restructuring

The European Union has put forward the best strategies for mitigating the effects of restructuring, the laying off of workers and the
worsening general social situation. In the context of an economic recession, the restructuring of businesses is problematic. It has an
impact on every EU Member State. Since 2002, over 16 000 restructuring events have been registered. These events resulted in a net
loss of over 2 million jobs.

How does the Commission plan to help businesses to maintain competitiveness in the long term?

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

_(22 May 2014)_

The Commission has recently adopted a communication ( [1] ) for a European Industrial renaissance to achieve growth and jobs which
was supported by the European Council of March. To be able to reindustrialize Europe by increasing manufacturing’s share of GDP
to 20% by 2020, all policy areas having an impact on competitiveness should take its aspects into account. This will ensure that
industrial competitiveness is put at the centre of policy making. Member States are also called upon to adopt the same approach.

Regarding funding, an increasing share of financial levers will be put at the disposal of Member States, regions and industry thanks to
the Horizon 2020 Programme, COSME and European Structural and Investment Funds to develop firms’ competitive position.

Moreover, the Entrepreneurship 2020 Action Plan is a key supporting pillar of the Europe 2020 strategy and the Industrial Policy
Communication aiming to re-ignite the culture of entrepreneurship in Europe in the long term and making Europe one of the most
entrepreneurial areas in the world.

In cases of restructuring, the Commission urges all companies to follow good practice on anticipation and socially responsible
management as outlined in its communication of 13 December 2013 establishing an EU Quality Framework for Anticipation of
Change and Restructuring.

Finally, the Commission has no mandate to interfere in any specific company decisions. However, it is strongly committed to ensure
that Europe is the most attractive location for investments in research and innovation and for manufacturing production. This is at
the core of the Europe 2020 strategy, the new initiative on Industrial Policy, and entrepreneurship policy.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2014) 14, Brussels 22.1.2014.

C 341 / 288 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-003463/14**

**do Komisji**
**Jacek Włosowicz (EFD)**

_(21 marca 2014 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Spotkanie przedstawicieli WHO i Unii Europejskiej

W dniu 20 lutego reprezentanci Komisji Europejskiej dyskutowali razem ze Światową Organizacją Zdrowia nad przyszłą
współpracą w kontekście wspólnej deklaracji podpisanej przez Unię Europejską i Komisję Europejską w 2010 r. Program dyskusji
zawierał również przygotowanie do następnego spotkania wyższych rangą urzędników Komisji Europejskiej i WHO. Od czasu
podpisania w 2010 r. deklaracji wzmocnienia dialogu politycznego i technicznej współpracy nad zdrowiem publicznym Regionalny
Dyrektor Światowej Organizacji Zdrowia w Europie regularnie spotykał się z reprezentantami Dyrekcji Generalnej. Celem spotkań
była kontynuacja dyskusji i monitorowanie postępu w realizacji zobowiązań.

1. Czy Komisja mogłaby udzielić więcej informacji na temat konferencji ze Światową Organizacją Zdrowia?

2. Na kiedy planowane jest następne spotkanie Komisji i Światowej Organizacji Zdrowia?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Tonia Borga w imieniu Komisji**

_(2 maja 2014 r.)_

Stosunki między Komisją a Światową Organizacją Zdrowia wchodzą w zakres zasad ustalonych w 2000 r. w drodze wymiany listów
między Komisarzem ds. Zdrowia i Polityki Konsumenckiej a Dyrektorem Generalnym Światowej Organizacji Zdrowia ( [1] ).
Porozumienie to przewiduje organizowanie regularnych spotkań urzędników wyższego szczebla. Wyniki tych spotkań są
przekazywane państwom członkowskim przez obie strony. Ostatnie takie spotkanie zostało zorganizowane przez WHO w Genewie
w czerwcu 2013 r. ( [2] ) Było ono poświęcone współpracy na szczeblu europejskim i światowym.

Współpraca między Komisją a Biurem Regionalnym WHO dla Europy koncentruje się obecnie wokół kwestii wspólnej deklaracji ( [3] ),
którą sporządzono w Moskwie we wrześniu 2010 r. (ale której nie podpisano) z udziałem Komisarza ds. Zdrowia i Polityki
Konsumenckiej i Dyrektora Biura Regionalnego WHO dla Europy. Deklaracja ta stanowi ramy współpracy na poziomie europejskim
w następujących siedmiu obszarach tematycznych: informacja zdrowotna, bezpieczeństwo zdrowia, innowacje w dziedzinie
zdrowia, choroby niezakaźne, systemy opieki zdrowotnej, nierówności pod względem stanu zdrowia i dostępu do opieki
zdrowotnej oraz współpraca na miejscu między delegaturami UE i krajowymi biurami WHO.

Urzędnicy Komisji spotkali się ze swymi odpowiednikami z WHO w dniu 20 lutego 2014 r. w celu omówienia aktualnej współpracy
z biurem regionalnym w siedmiu wymienionych powyżej obszarach. Przy tej okazji odbyła się również pierwsza dyskusja w sprawie
rozwiązań logistycznych dotyczących następnego spotkania urzędników wyższego szczebla, które prawdopodobnie odbędzie się
w lutym 2015 r.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Wymiana listów między Światową Organizacją Zdrowia a Komisją Wspólnot Europejskich dotycząca konsolidacji i intensyfikacji współpracy. Dz.U. 2001/C/1-7

z 4.1.2001.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/eu_world/events/ev_20130607_en.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/eu_world/docs/moscow_declaration.pdf

( **|**

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

**|** )

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

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 289

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003463/14**

**to the Commission**
**Jacek Włosowicz (EFD)**

_(21 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Meeting between representatives of the WHO and the EU

On 20 February 2014, representatives of the Commission were in discussions with the World Health Organisation (WHO) on future
cooperation in view of the joint declaration signed by the EU and the Commission in 2010. During discussions, the subject of
preparations for the next meeting between high‐ranking Commission and WHO officials was raised. Since the 2010 signing of a
declaration on strengthening political dialogue and technical cooperation in the area of public health, the WHO Regional Director
for Europe has met regularly with representatives of the Directorate‐General. The aim of these meetings has been to continue
discussions and to monitor progress towards implementing commitments.

1. Could the Commission provide more information regarding the conference with theWorld Health Organisation?

2. When is the next meeting scheduled between the Commission and the WHO?

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

_(2 May 2014)_

Relations between the Commission and the World health Organisation fall within the modalities agreed in the exchange of letters
between the Commissioner for Health and Consumers and the Director-General of the World Health Organisation in 2000 ( [1] ). That
agreement foresees the organisation of regular Senior Officials Meetings. The outcomes of such meetings are reported to the Member
States by both parties. The last such meeting ( [2] ) was hosted by the WHO in Geneva on June 2013. It covered cooperation at European
and global levels.

Cooperation between the Commission and the WHO Regional Office for Europe currently takes place around the themes of the joint
declaration ( [3] ) made (but not signed) between the Commissioner for Health and Consumers and the WHO Regional Director for
Europe in Moscow in September 2010. That Declaration frames the cooperation at European level within the following seven subject
areas — health information, health security, health innovation, non-communicable diseases, health systems, health inequalities, and
in-country cooperation between EU Delegations and WHO country offices.

Commission officials met with their counterparts at the WHO on 20 February 2014 to discuss ongoing cooperation with the
Regional Office in the above seven areas. On that occasion, a first discussion also took place on the logistics of the next Senior
Officials Meeting which is likely to take place in February 2015.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Exchange of letters between the World health Organisation and the Commission of the European Communities concerning the consolidation and intensification of

cooperation. OJ 2001/C/1-7 of 4.1.2001.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/eu_world/events/ev_20130607_en.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/eu_world/docs/moscow_declaration.pdf

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

C 341 / 290 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-003464/14**

**do Komisji**
**Jacek Włosowicz (EFD)**

_(21 marca 2014 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Walka z oszustwami przy podatku VAT

Unia Europejska wznowiła program walki z oszustwami związanymi z podatkiem VAT. Największą liczbę oszustw podatkowych
wykrywa się w sektorze usług internetowych. Unia kładzie nacisk na kontrolę szczególnie w branży telekomunikacyjnej. W celu
zintensyfikowania walki z oszustwami podatkowymi Unia Europejska zacieśnia współpracę z krajami sąsiadującymi. Podatek VAT
jest jednym z głównych źródeł dochodów podatkowych państw. Ponad 700 mld EUR trafia do budżetów krajów UE z tego tytułu.
Mimo to co roku blisko jedna piąta wszystkich potencjalnych dochodów z podatku VAT w Unii Europejskiej nie jest pobierana.
Szacuje się, że około 193 mld EUR z dochodów VAT nie trafiły do budżetu przynajmniej w części z powodu oszustw związanych
z podatkiem i uchylaniem się od niego.

1. W jaki sposób Komisja zamierza zachęcić krajowe organy podatkowe do dzielenia się między sobą danymi dotyczącymi
aktywności podatników oraz do udostępnienia swoich baz danych?

2. Czy Komisja mogłaby podać więcej szczegółów na temat propozycji podjęcia formalnych negocjacji z Rosją i Norwegią
dotyczących zacieśnienia współpracy w sprawach administracyjnych związanych z podatkiem VAT?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Algirdasa Šemetę w imieniu Komisji**

_(5 maja 2014 r.)_

Zarządzanie krajowymi podatkowymi bazami danych leży w wyłącznej gestii władz krajowych poszczególnych państw
członkowskich. Jednak zgodnie z rozporządzeniem Rady (UE) 904/2010 w sprawie współpracy administracyjnej oraz zwalczania
oszustw w dziedzinie VAT, państwa członkowskie przyznają właściwym organom innych państw członkowskich
zautomatyzowany dostęp do szeregu danych przechowywanych w ich krajowych bazach danych za pośrednictwem systemu
elektronicznego. Dane te odnoszą się głównie do numerów identyfikacyjnych VAT oraz kwoty podatku należnego od transakcji
wewnątrzwspólnotowych krajowych podatników z podatnikami mających siedzibę w państwie członkowskim, które wnosi
o udzielenie dostępu. Od dnia 1 stycznia 2015 r. dostęp do danych zostanie poszerzony o dane identyfikacyjne oraz deklaracje VAT
podatników w ramach mini systemu punktów kompleksowej obsługi umożliwiającego przedsiębiorstwom rejestrację do potrzeb
podatku VAT w jednym z państw członkowskich UE, w zakresie usług telekomunikacyjnych, nadawczych i elektronicznych.

W dniu 19 marca 2014 r. Komisja przedłożyła Grupie Roboczej Rady ds. zagadnień fiskalnych dwa zalecenia. Zalecenia te mają na
celu uzyskanie upoważnienia do rozpoczęcia negocjacji w sprawie umów w dziedzinie współpracy administracyjnej VAT pomiędzy
Norwegią a UE oraz pomiędzy Rosją a UE. Celem takich umów jest objęcie Norwegii i Rosji narzędziami współpracy
administracyjnej, które istnieją obecnie między państwami członkowskimi UE, w tym przepisy szczególne dotyczące handlu
elektronicznego. Ze względu na ostatnie wydarzenia na Krymie wszelkie decyzje w sprawie Rosji zostały zawieszone, natomiast
zalecenie dotyczące Norwegii jest obecnie rozpatrywane przez Radę.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 291

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003464/14**

**to the Commission**
**Jacek Włosowicz (EFD)**

_(21 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Combating VAT fraud

The EU has resumed a programme to combat VAT fraud. The greatest number of tax frauds has been uncovered in the Internet
services sector. The EU is placing emphasis on monitoring, in particular, the telecommunications sector. In order to step up the fight
against tax fraud, the European Union is engaging in closer cooperation with neighbouring countries. VAT is one of the state’s main
sources of tax revenue, bringing more than EUR 700 billion into the budgets of EU Member States. In spite of this, every year one‐
fifth of all potential VAT revenue in the EU goes uncollected. It is estimated that roughly EUR 193 billion in potential VAT revenue
was not collected by the tax authorities, which is at least partly attributable to tax fraud and tax evasion.

1. How does the Commission intend to encourage national tax authorities to share data withone another on the activities of
taxpayers and to make their databases accessible?

2. Could the Commission provide more details on the proposal to undertake formalnegotiations with Russia and Norway
concerning closer cooperation in administrativematters related to VAT?

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

_(5 May 2014)_

Management of national tax databases is an exclusive national competence of individual Member States. However, according to
Council Regulation (EU) 904/2010 on administrative cooperation and combating frauds in the field of VAT, Member States shall
grant the competent authorities of other Member States automated access via an electronic system to a number of data stored in their
national databases. These data mainly relate to VAT identification numbers and the amount of intra-Community transactions of
national taxpayers with taxpayers established in the Member State that requires the access. As from 1 January 2015 the access will be
extended to identification data and VAT returns of taxable persons which will register for the so called Mini One Stop Shop in one of
the Member States of the EU, for telecommunication, broadcasting and electronic services.

On 19th March 2014 the Commission submitted to the Council Working Party on fiscal questions two Recommendations. The
recommendations aim at obtaining an authorisation to open negotiations for agreements in the field of VAT administrative
cooperation between Norway and the EU and between Russia and the EU. The objective of such agreements are to extend to Norway
and Russia the tools for administrative cooperation which today exist between EU Member States, including special provisions for
the electronic commerce. Because of the recent events in Crimea any decision as regards Russia was suspended, while the
recommendation for Norway is currently before Council.

C 341 / 292 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2014

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-003465/14**

**do Komisji**
**Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE)**

_(21 marca 2014 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Zakup nieruchomości rolnych w Bułgarii – naruszenia swobody przepływu kapitału

Podpisując traktat akcesyjny, Bułgaria zobowiązała się jednocześnie do nieprzyjmowania od momentu przystąpienia do Unii
Europejskiej aktów prawnych mających ograniczyć nabywanie gruntów rolnych, lasów, gruntów leśnych przez obywateli innych
krajów Unii Europejskiej.

Otrzymuję jednak sygnały, że tamtejszy parlament wprowadził obostrzenia, które uniemożliwiają swobodny zakup ziemi rolnej
przez obywateli krajów UE po 1 stycznia 2014 r. Obostrzenie to polega na wprowadzeniu trzyletniego okresu, w którym kupujący
musi na stałe zamieszkiwać na terenie Bułgarii, aby nabyć uprawnienia do zakupu. Chciałabym w związku z tym zapytać Komisję,

czy:

1. uważa, że Bułgaria łamie w ten sposób przepisy podpisanego traktatu akcesyjnego?

2. wie o tych praktykach i ma możliwość interwencji w tej sprawie?

3. sygnalizowano już Komisji tego rodzaju praktyki w innych krajach członkowskich stanowiące naruszenie zasady swobodnego
przepływu kapitału na jednolitym rynku?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Michela Barniera w imieniu Komisji**

_(27 maja 2014 r.)_

Zgodnie z ogólną zasadą ustawodawstwo krajowe dotyczące nabywania gruntów rolnych i leśnych musi uwzględniać prawo UE,
w szczególności w odniesieniu do swobodnego przepływu kapitału i swobody przedsiębiorczości. Ograniczenia tych wolności
określonych w Traktacie mogą być dopuszczalne tylko wtedy, gdy są należycie uzasadnione i zgodne z zasadami proporcjonalności
i niedyskryminacji na mocy prawa UE. Ograniczenia powinny być ocenione w ich kontekście, biorąc pod uwagę, że cele polityki
i okoliczności mogą różnić się w całej UE.

W celu zapewnienia przestrzegania prawa UE Komisja analizuje obecnie sytuację w państwach członkowskich, w których okres
przejściowy przyznany na mocy traktatów o przystąpieniu z 2003 r. i 2005 r. wygasł odpowiednio w dniu 31 grudnia 2013 r.
i w dniu 30 kwietnia 2014 r., w tym bułgarski projekt ustawy regulującej transakcje dotyczące gruntów rolnych.

W odniesieniu do pytań zadanych przez Szanownego Pana Posła dotyczących wymogu pobytu jako kryterium kwalifikowalności
dla potencjalnych nabywców gruntów rolnych Komisja zauważa, że zgodnie z odnośnym orzecznictwem Trybunału
Sprawiedliwości UE taki wymóg może budzić wątpliwości co do jego zgodności z prawem UE, nie tylko w odniesieniu do
swobodnego przepływu kapitału, lecz również do prawa podstawowego, jakim jest prawo nabywcy do swobodnego wyboru
miejsca zamieszkania.

30.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 341 / 293

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003465/14**

**to the Commission**
**Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE)**

_(21 March 2014)_

_Subject:_ Purchase of agricultural property in Bulgaria — violation of the freedom of movement of capital

When it signed the Accession Agreement, Bulgaria undertook, from the moment it joined the EU, not to adopt any legal acts which
would restrict the purchase of agricultural land, forests or woodland by citizens of other Member States.

I have been informed, however, that the Bulgarian Parliament has now introduced a requirement which makes it impossible for
citizens from other Member States freely to purchase agricultural land after 1 January 2014. From that date on, purchasers must have
been permanently resident in Bulgaria for three years to be entitled to make such a purchase.

1. Does the Commission believe that in introducing this requirement Bulgaria is acting in breach of the provisions of the
Accession Treaty?

2. Is it aware of this development, and can it intervene?

3. Is it aware of similar practices in other Member States that are in breach of the principle of free movement of capital in the
single market?

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

_(27 May 2014)_

As a general principle, national legislation governing the acquisition of agricultural and forestry land has to respect EC law, in
particular the free movement of capital and the freedom of establishment. Restrictions to these Treaty freedoms may only be
acceptable if they are duly justified and comply with the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination under EC law.
Restrictions are to be assessed within their given context, taking into consideration that policy objectives and circumstances may
vary across the EU.

The Commission is currently analysing the situation in Member States where the transitional period granted under the 2003 and
2005 Accession Treaties expired on 31 December 2013 and respectively expired on 30 April 2014, including the Bulgarian draft law
regulating the transactions with agricultural land, with a view to ensuring respect of EC law.

As regards the questions raised by the Honourable Member on the requirement of residence as an eligibility criteria for the potential
purchasers of agricultural land, the Commission notes that according to the related jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the EU,
such requirement may raise concerns as of its compatibility with EC law, not only in relation to the free movement of capital but also
to the fundamental right of the acquirer to choose freely the place of residence.

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
ISSN 1725-2423 (paper edition)

# Publications Office of the European Union EN

2985 Luxembourg
LUXEMBOURG