Parliament's Delegation for relations with the Palestinian Legislative Council recently visited the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

From the contacts and meetings which the Delegation had with Palestinian and Israeli officials, it drew the conclusion that the withdrawal of the Israeli settlers from Gaza last summer and other measures, such as the construction of the wall - which is still going on - and the cutting-off of Jerusalem from the rest of the occupied Palestinian territories are unilateral acts carried out by Israel and not part of the Road Map or a new peace process, the aim of which is to establish a state of affairs which benefits the Israeli side alone.

How does the Presidency of the Council intend to help ensure that Israel ends its unilateral acts which leave the Palestinians in a 'fait accompli' situation, and how does it plan to help relaunch the peace process?

(EN)The Council welcomed Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, as a significant step towards implementing the Roadmap. It is essential that this delivers economic benefits to the Palestinian people. In this regard the Council welcomed the agreement on Movement and Access between Israel and the Palestinian Authority on 15 November. The Council has of course launched an ESDP mission to monitor the operation of the Rafah border crossing point between Gaza and Egypt and provided assistance to reinforce Palestinian border management capacities. We have urged the Israeli Government to cease all activities in the Palestinian territories in and around East Jerusalem, including settlement building, the construction of the separation barrier and the demolition of Palestinian homes, all of which are contrary to international law. Neither side should take actions what could prejudice final status negotiations. The EU has repeatedly called upon both Israel and the Palestinian Authority to meet their Roadmap commitments.

The UK Council Presidency set up an ‘ad-hoc group of experts’ which drew up a set of ‘Conclusions’ on the introduction of biometrics (fingerprints) and an RFID chip into national ID cards.

It was intended to be adopted as an ‘A’ Point at the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 1-2 December.

‘Conclusions’ are ‘soft-law’, non-binding, and not subject to any national or European parliamentary scrutiny.

Does the President-in-Office of the Council agree that this is no way to bring in such a far-reaching policy, one which will affect millions of people? It is particularly objectionable that the Council is using a ‘proper’ EC committee to draw up the text of these Conclusions, without being accountable under the normal rules for these committees and exceeding the committee’s powers as set out in legislation. This method of decision-making has no place in a democracy.

(EN)Conclusions on common minimum security standards for Member States' national identity cards were agreed on 1 December by the Member States of the European Union working together on an intergovernmental basis.

The Conclusions represent one element of work being taken forward on ensuring the security of travel and other identity documents. They respond to a specific mandate in the Hague Programme for the strengthening of freedom, security and justice in the European Union. In particular the Programme which called on Member States to prepare for the development of minimum standards for national identity cards, taking into account International Civil Aviation Organisation standards. That mandate was reinforced at the special Council of 13 July, called in response to the London bombings. This Council called on Member States to agree on common standards for security features and secure issuing procedures for ID cards no later than this month.

The Conclusions adopted on 1 December meet this mandate. The working methods chosen in the preparation of the Conclusions reflected the intergovernmental nature of the task, something which was stressed at each stage of the process.

I would like to point out that the Conclusions themselves make clear that the mandate given to Member States by the Hague Programme and the 13 July Council related only to security standards, and not to any domestic uses of national identity cards. No legally binding standards or timetables were imposed. The Conclusions also make clear that they are not intended to affect the right of each Member State to decide whether or not to issue national identity cards, and whether to use biometric identifiers. The Conclusions therefore represent a recognition of the need for a coherent approach on the improvement of the security of identity cards, as is the case with other documents used for the purposes of travel.

In light of the outgoing problems relating to coastal erosion in Europe, is it not time to bring forward an EU-backed initiative to help communities most affected in the peripheral parts of Europe?

(EN)The honourable Member will be aware that the threat of erosion of Community coastal zones has been raised at EU level for a number of years. The European Parliament and the Council adopted a Recommendation in May 2002 which called on Member States to draw up national strategies to implement the principles of an integrated management of coastal zones. The Commission was asked to review the implementation of the Recommendation by 2006 and to submit to the European Parliament and the Council an evaluation report accompanied, if appropriate, by a proposal for further Community action.

In parallel, the Commission has reviewed measures to manage the risk of coastal erosion in the framework of the so-called Eurosion project.

Management of erosion will also be addressed in the Thematic Strategy on Soil Protection, which is expected to be submitted by the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council within the next few months.

The Council is reviewing the need for further steps in managing the risk from coastal erosion.

Will the European Council make a statement on the present political situation in the Congo, focusing too on what support measures the EU is putting in place so as to help create peace in the region?

(EN)Earlier this week the Council adopted Conclusions in which it reaffirmed its commitment to a peaceful, democratic and prosperous DRC as part of a stable Great Lakes region.

The Council asked all parties to do their utmost to ensure a peaceful and successful outcome to the constitutional referendum taking place on 18-19 December.

It emphasised that it was vital that elections are held before June 2006. The EU has contributed substantial political, financial and technical support to the election process. It is crucial that the government sticks to the timetable and ensures the elections are free and fair.

It highlighted the importance of army reform to building the future stability of the country. The EU provides valuable support and technical advice to the Congolese through its security sector reform mission (EUSEC). The EU continues to urge the DRC Government to adopt the EUSEC recommendations.

Can the European Council make a statement as to the progress being made to set up the different regional advisory councils for the fishing industry in Europe and whether it believes that these regional advisory Councils provide an adequate voice for fishing representatives to air their views concerning the operation of the Common Fisheries Policy?

(EN)There are currently three Regional Advisory Councils in operation. They are for the North Sea, the North Western Waters and the Pelagics, or shoaling fish, such as herring and mackerel. Two other Councils will soon be operational for the Baltic Sea and the South Western Waters. Two further Councils for the Mediterranean Sea and the High Seas may also be established.

Although still bedding in, the Regional Advisory Councils have taken a constructive role in discussions with stakeholders. The formal positions already produced by the Councils have had a real influence on the Commission’s thinking and the Council’s decision-making, for example on the Shetland Box, where it suggested limiting the number of larger fishing vessels (over 26m long) that could fish together in the area. The Commission will report to Parliament and the Council before 30 June 2007 on the functioning of the Councils and that should be the time to get a fuller picture of their impact.

Can the European Council specifically state what it is doing to help redress the information deficit concerning EU issues within the different EU Member States, and in particular in Ireland?

(EN)In November 2004 the European Council underlined the responsibility borne by political authorities, both at national and European level, in communicating the relevance of the European Union and in involving Europeans in decision-making. In its conclusions of 10 December 2004 the Council pointed out that "it is for the Member States to provide information on the European Union" and indicated that Member States' activities carried out in this field would be "more effective if they are carried out in coordination with those of the Community institutions, which should produce comprehensive and objective basic information."

The Council provides EU citizens with access to a wide array of information sources on the role of, and in particular the legislative activities of the Council. Such information is provided in addition to the information provided by other EU institutions and bodies and by Member States.

The process of ratification of the Constitutional Treaty has provided an important opportunity to inform the public about European issues. Following the rejection of the Treaty in the referenda in France and the Netherlands, the European Council adopted a declaration in June calling for a period of reflection in order to "enable a broad debate to take place in each of our countries, involving citizens, civil society, social partners, national parliaments and political parties".

Pending the Commission White Paper on Communication and Democracy which was announced by the Commission as a follow-up to its contribution to the period of reflection (Plan-D), national debates have been or are being launched in order to raise the EU citizens' awareness.

Ireland played and active role in promoting the "Communicating Europe" initiative by organising the first informal ministerial Conference on this issue in April 2004. The successful experience of the National Forum on Europe, established by the Irish Government in 2001 to debate Ireland’s role in the enlarging EU and to discuss the future of Europe, is regularly cited as a model for the promotion of free exchanges of views.

In the context of EU Directive 2003/30/EC⁽¹⁾, which states that vegetable oil can be used as a biofuel, can the Council explain its reclassification of crude vegetable oil as a fuel substitute from the earlier classification as a biofuel? How does the Council justify the subsequent increase in tax duty, which has had financially damaging effects on Oz Oils in Somerset and Plymouth Bio-Fuels Devon, especially when vegetable oil is environmentally friendly and in light of the fact that the Council biofuel use for 2005 has reached just 0.3% when the EU Biofuel Directive calls for 2%?

(EN)The Council acknowledges the importance of promoting alternative fuels, including "pure vegetable oil", and to that effect, together with the EP, adopted the Directive referred to by the MEP. Article 3 of this Directive sets a first reference value of 2% by 2005 for the national indicative targets to be adopted by Member States. The Directive clearly provides for the possibility of Member States adopting national targets deviating from the reference values, provided that this different action is motivated. It is for the Commission to ensure that these provisions are properly implemented.

The Directive does not in itself reclassify crude vegetable oil in any particular way.

The Energy Tax Directive laid down the rules governing taxation of vegetable oils. Vegetable oils are listed among energy products in this Directive and therefore should be taxed if they are intended for use as heating fuel or motor fuel.

In order to promote biofuels, the Directive allows Member States to apply an exemption or reduced rates of taxation (under fiscal control) on these products. Member States thus have the option to tax, or to tax at a reduced rate, or to exempt from tax, biofuels under certain conditions, notably to avoid overcompensation.

What assessment does the Council make of Labour standards in the 15 countries that have applied for GSP-plus?

(EN)One of the conditions for granting the Special Incentive Arrangement known as GSP+ is of course the ratification and effective implementation of the eight core ILO Conventions, along with the core UN human rights Conventions. The Commission is responsible for assessing compliance with the required Conventions under the comitology procedure set out in the Council Regulation on the GSP scheme⁽¹⁾.

The Council is satisfied that all of the applicant countries have ratified and effectively implemented the core Conventions of the International Labour Organisation, with the exception of El Salvador, which has committed itself to sign and ratify the two outstanding Conventions before December 2006. It is covered by a derogation established in the Regulation. The final list of beneficiary countries will be published before the end of the year.

The Commission’s assessment has taken into account the views of the relevant ILO supervisory committees. The Council welcomes the efforts made by applicant countries to comply with the requirements for GSP+ within the short deadlines established and will continue to monitor compliance until 2008. GSP+ beneficiary countries have also undertaken to ratify and effectively implement the entire list of 27 Conventions mentioned in Annex III of the GSP Regulation by 2008.

The Commission will present a report to the Council on GSP+ implementation of before the next GSP Regulation is discussed, including recommendations by monitoring bodies.

In the event of serious violations of core labour rights, GSP+ benefits and even the general GSP advantages may be temporarily withdrawn with respect of a country, on the basis of ILO assessments⁽²⁾.

In its press release concerning the Third Maritime Safety Package, the Commission stated that its objective was 'to require Member States to thoroughly check that ships flying their flags comply with international standards, and therefore to have a maritime administration which strictly applies the quality criteria. Stepping up responsibility in this way is the precursor to the future development of a European flag.'

Given the fact that Parliament threw out the previous Commission attempt to introduce the European flag in our merchant shipping, and given the outcry in response to this latest suggestion, can the Council guarantee that no further attempts will be made to replace or disfigure our national flags through the introduction of an EU symbol or flag on the merchant shipping of the European Member States?

(EN)The third maritime safety package, announced by Commission Vice-President Barrot to the press on 23 November, and which has not yet been officially transmitted to the Council, does not contain a proposal to introduce a European Flag.

As to former or future proposals for legislative measures, the honourable Member will be well aware of the fact that the right of initiative lies with the Commission, not the Council.

The EU and Member States are parties to the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (done: Jamaica, 10 December 1982). Article 91 provides that: 'Every State shall fix the conditions for the grant of its nationality to ships, for the registration of ships in its territory, and for the right to fly its flag. Ships have the nationality of the State whose flag they are entitled to fly. There must exist a genuine link between the State and the ship'.

How is the requirement for the existence of a ‘genuine link’ between a flag state and a ship reflected in the relevant legislation of the EU? In particular, how are the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 789/2004⁽¹⁾ of 21 April 2004 on the transfer of cargo and passenger ships between registers within the Community compatible with the Convention provisions? What steps does the Council propose to take to ensure that registers of Member States are not used to facilitate the registration of ‘flags of convenience’ in breach of the provisions of the Convention, including in particular Article 91 thereof?

(EN)The question of the existence of a "genuine link" between a flag state and a ship is not a Community competence⁽²⁾. It is therefore not for the Council to comment on the subject.

The objective of the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the transfer of cargo and passenger ships between registers within the Community⁽³⁾ is to eliminate technical obstacles to the transfer of these ships between the registers of different Member States. It is, however, for the Member State of the receiving register to decide whether to grant a ship the right to fly its flag under the conditions it has defined. The two texts of the 1982 Convention and the Community Regulation are therefore perfectly compatible.

Any other measures or proposals on the question raised by the honourable Member would fall within the Commission's right of initiative.

The US alliance is unable to create the security promised to the population of Iraq. Furthermore, the alliance is using prohibited weapons, destroying the environment and violating human rights. In its capacity as occupying power, the USA bears a great responsibility for the abuse of prisoners committed by Iraqi police. In the light of such events, it is reasonable for the EU to mark its disapproval of these acts in vigorous terms and severely criticise the perpetrators.

What does the Council intend to do to persuade the US alliance to end its bombing of Iraqi towns, the destruction of the environment and the conditions under which people can live in Iraq, and to repair the damage which the US alliance has caused in Iraq.

What does the Council intend to do, within the EU and the UN, to take up the issue of the US alliance's use of prohibited arms and weapons of mass destruction, and the violations of human rights committed against Iraqi prisoners?

(EN)All EU Member States have ratified the 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons including its third protocol concerning incendiary weapons. The US is also a Party to the Convention and to the first two protocols, but has never ratified the third protocol. The EU attaches the greatest importance to the universality of and compliance with the Convention and all its protocols, as well as to any multi-lateral non-proliferation, disarmament and arms control instrument.

The EU condemns all instances of abuse whether by Iraqi police or other members of the security forces. For example, following the recent discovery of 173 maltreated Ministry of Interior detainees last month, the EU Presidency issued a statement condemning the abuses and welcoming Prime Minister Ja'afari’s announcement of a full and transparent investigation. The EU will continue to exert pressure on the Iraqi government to ensure that this investigation is carried out and the perpetrators of this and other abuses are prosecuted.

On 7 November, the Council publicly expressed its concern about reports of human rights abuses by Iraqi security forces and urged the Iraqi Transitional Government to address all such allegations in a decisive and transparent manner.

However, the specific issue the honourable Member raises, the use of prohibited weapons by the Multi-National Forces in Iraq, has not been discussed by the Council nor by Council Working Parties. The circumstances surrounding the use, by the Multi-National Forces, of white phosphorous remains somewhat unclear. Whilst its use is subject to strict controls it is not prohibited under the Convention.

Security remains a real concern in Iraq. Mindful that the Multi-National Force in Iraq has been mandated to provide security under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1546 and 1637, the EU has been playing a key role in providing assistance to the Iraqi Security Forces through rule of law training, under EUJUST LEX, and other police and security force training and capacity building. The Community is providing substantial assistance for the reconstruction of Iraq. During the period 2003-2005 Community assistance was of the order of EUR 520 million. This assistance is being disbursed to Iraq in close partnership with Iraq in accordance with Iraqi priorities.

Would the Council please comment on the proposal of the British Government to impose financial penalties on Public Schools. Would the Council not agree that such a move would not only be highly damaging to the provision of education in the United Kingdom but is also in conflict with the EU's guiding economic principles of encouraging choice and openness?

Would the Council please give its view on whether this matter should be considered by the European Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights?

(EN)The Council has never debated this question, as it is not within the sphere of competence of the European Union's institutions.

What has the Council done to give effect to the aims of the 'Year of Africa'?

(EN)The European Council on 16-17 June recalled the importance it attaches to relations between the European Union and Africa. The EU and its Member States agreed the collective goal of doubling development aid to Africa. The European Council also invited the Council to draw up a long-term global strategy towards Africa in light of the UN Summit, to be approved by the European Council in December.

The Presidency, the Commission and the High Representative have presented contributions to this strategy. A long-term and global strategy paper will be submitted to this week’s European Council for adoption. It outlines a strategy for the next 10 years and will include long-term approaches to assist African efforts in the fields of peace and security, good governance and development, with a special emphasis on the promotion of the Millennium Development Goals.

Throughout the year, the EU has worked actively to promote peace, good governance, human rights and democracy in the countries and regions of Africa. The EU has supported a number of electoral processes with financial and technical assistance and in some cases (Ethiopia, Liberia and Burundi), through the deployment of electoral observation missions in the field.

The EU has also sustained its engagement in efforts to end the conflict in Darfur, tackle the humanitarian crisis there and promote lasting peace and sustainable development in Sudan as a whole through the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. Substantial financial and technical assistance has been provided to the African Union in this regard. EU efforts have aimed to consolidate peace and build lasting stability in the Great Lakes Region. Particular emphasis is placed on encouraging an effective transition in DRC, including preparation for elections and on the success of the EU police and security sector reform missions. The EU has continued its efforts to build lasting peace and stability in the Mano River Union and to end the conflict in Côte d'Ivoire.

According to the latest data from the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (Annual Report for 2005), drug use was at a record high last year. In particular, the use of cocaine and cannabis is the main and most alarming phenomenon. Moreover, drug use is concentrated in the 15-34 age group, among young people in urban areas. In the new Member States there is also a severe problem with substitutes.

Since the drug problem effects a wide area of Europeans' everyday lives (e.g. in France it is estimated that 40% of young people killed in car accidents had used cannabis), does the Council intend to promote a global, coordinated policy on drugs and their consequences? Given that the data shows that there is a strong link between cocaine use, heart problems and other diseases, will the Council ask the Commission to promote scientific research programmes and information campaigns on all the health risks entailed by the use of drugs?

(EN)The Council thanks the honourable Member for her attention to this important question.

The Council agrees that this is a worrying trend and hopes that the EU Drug Strategy, which runs from 2005 to 2012 will go some way to addressing this problem. The European Council endorsed this Strategy in December last year.

The EU Drug Strategy is designed to work alongside, and add value to, national strategies. It also outlines the ways in which national strategies can contribute to the EU strategy. Issues such as international co-ordination and research into drug use are also integral parts of the Strategy.

The EU also uses information and prevention campaigns as a tool to tackle the problem of drug use. These projects complement the action being taken by individual Member States in helping to reduce drugs-related health problems.

The drugs problem is a global issue. The EU therefore attaches great importance to international coordination and initiates action and dialogue on drugs with other regions of the world.

The EU Drug Strategy sets the framework, objectives and priorities for two consecutive four-year Action Plans to be brought forward by the Commission. The main objective of the current EU Drugs Action Plan, which runs from 2005 to 2008, is to reduce the prevalence of drug use among the population and the social harm and damage to health caused by the use of and trade in illegal drugs. This Action Plan was endorsed by the Council in June this year.

The Action Plan also contains specific actions on the promotion of scientific research programmes and targeted information campaigns.

What is the average rate of corporate tax in the European Union and to what extent does the Council consider that the level of corporate tax is an important factor in the success or failure of the Lisbon agenda?

(EN)The Commission Communication, “Towards an Internal Market without Tax Obstacles” provides information on the average rate of corporate tax in the European Union.

To date, the Council has not expressed any position on whether the level of corporate tax is an important factor in the success or failure of the Lisbon agenda.

The Council of Transport Ministers on 6 October asked the Commission to draw up various initiatives to alleviate the impact of oil prices on the road-transport sector. In particular there was a proposal regarding diesel fuel for professional use and another for the introduction of price review clauses in the area of road-transport services.

Can the Council say which delegations backed the proposals? Does it have an idea of the timetable for their adoption?

(EN)At its meeting of 6 October the Council took note of a submission by the French delegation concerning the impact on road transport of the rise in the price of fuel and the reply given by the Commission, indicating its intentions and actions in this respect.

The honourable Member will be well aware that the right of initiative lies with the Commission and no specific proposal has so far been presented on diesel fuel for professional use.

The Hague Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Cooperation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children entered into force on 1 January 2002. It applies to 6 of the 25 Member States - those who ratified it before their accession to the Union.

On 22 October 2003, European Parliament adopted at first reading the report on the Commission proposal authorising the Member States to ratify that Convention in the interests of the European Community. The legislative process is still unfinished.

Does the Council support the accession of the Member States to this Convention? When might the Council complete its work thereon?

What impact has the postponing of this decision had on the credibility of the external dimension of the EU's Justice and Home Affairs policy, on the credibility of the EU Strategy to shape this policy and on the standing of the EU and Member States in the Hague Conference on International Private Law?

(EN)The Council refers the honourable Member to the reply given to question H-0322/05 at the May 2005 session.

In the Council's view, what progress in strengthening the single market has the UK Presidency made to date?

(EN)The internal market, competitiveness and the Lisbon agenda have been priorities for the Council under the United Kingdom Presidency. We have made good progress both on horizontal issues such as better regulation and on individual dossiers.

In the area of better regulation the Parliament, the Council and the Commission recently reached agreement on a common approach to the use of impact assessments. This represents an important step towards a more effective legal framework. Simplification of existing legislation has been another important topic in the Council under the UK Presidency, with the aim of speeding up ongoing work both in the Union and at national level to improve the functioning of the internal market.

As regards specific dossiers which have received particular attention under the UK Presidency, we secured political agreement on the REACH proposal on chemicals yesterday. Technical work on clarifying the provisions of the draft Directive on Services has advanced well and a number of first-reading agreements between Council and Parliament have been reached in key sectors such as company law and technical harmonisation in particular agreement on the machinery directive and 4th/7th and 8th company law directives.

Allegations have come to light that US military forces used white phosphorus bombs in Iraq to crush the resistance in Fallujah in 2004, causing the horrific death of hundreds of women and children. White phosphorus is a chemical normally used to illuminate enemy positions because, when it explodes, it produces a great flash of thermal energy and anyone exposed to it is totally consumed or suffers irreversible burns to the skin. The use of this weapon is prohibited by the Geneva Convention and the UN has already expressed its concern at its deployment.

Does the Council intend to condemn this inhuman act by the USA, which has not denied using this weapon? Does it consider acceptable the USA's view that this weapon is not classed as a chemical weapon but as a conventional weapon and can, therefore, be used even against the civilian population? Will the Council intervene effectively to prevent the Iraqi civilian population being used as guinea pigs for the arms industry?

(EN)The honourable Member will know that the prohibition or restrictions on the use of incendiary weapons, including white phosphorous bombs, are governed by the third protocol of the 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects. This protocol prohibits the use of incendiary weapons in locations where there is a concentration of civilians.

All EU Member States have ratified this Convention and its third protocol. The US is also a Party to the Convention and to the first two protocols, but has never ratified the third.

The issues raised in the honourable Member's question have not yet been discussed by the Council nor by Council Working Parties. Certainly, the EU attaches the greatest importance to the universality of and compliance with the Convention and all its protocols, as to any multilateral non-proliferation, disarmament and arms control instrument. Any EU initiative would be taken in the light of this fundamental guideline of EU foreign policy.

In view of the current round of WTO negotiations (in particular as regards market access for non-agricultural products, including textiles and clothing), the recent agreement between the United States and China on textiles and clothing (which applies to 34 categories and is valid until 2008) and the steady increase in textile and clothing imports into the EU (which faces the risk of import quotas being exceeded again), does the Council not consider that measures must be taken as a matter of absolute urgency to protect this important industry in the European Union, in particular by: activating the safeguard clauses for all products whose import levels have already exceeded the alert levels, renegotiating the agreement concluded with China with a view to including new categories and reducing import growth levels, and renegotiating the liberalisation of the sector within the WTO?

(EN)The honourable Member is certainly well aware of the overall institutional architecture in trade policy. This is an area that lies within the sphere of competence of the Commission. I would like to react to the questions concerning the Council’s position.

Firstly, on safeguard clauses and their activation, the Council is not called upon to act in this area. The Commission’s Guidelines on these clauses state that the first step in triggering the safeguards can be taken on the Commission's own initiative or at the request of a Member State.

Secondly, concerning the re-negotiation of the Memorandum of understanding agreed between the Commission and the Chinese government in June and the subsequent additions agreement made in September. They reflect negotiations with the Chinese and the difficult balance the Commission had to strike between retailer, importer, producer and consumer interests.

Finally, any future renegotiations of the WTO agreement would require a Council mandate. The Commission plays its role in the ongoing WTO DDA negotiations on the basis of a Council mandate and to date, renegotiation of the expiry of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing or a return the situation prior to liberalisation of the sector has never been part of this mandate.

How many million euros have the EU and the EU Member States paid over to NATO in return for the use of NATO capabilities in connection with the EUFOR operation ALTHEA?

(EN)According to Article 28 of the Treaty of the European Union, EU operations having military or defence implications cannot be financed out of the Community budget. For that reason, the Council established in 2004 the ATHENA mechanism, a mechanism to administer the financing of the common costs of EU operations having military or defence implications.

The costs are borne by the Member States contributing to operation Althea.

Pursuant to the Berlin+ arrangements, NATO can be refunded for incremental costs incurred by the use of NATO common assets and capabilities. It is not possible to offer figures for the overall incremental costs to be charged by NATO for operation Althea.

Is the Council planning a common strategy for countries with a large percentage of immigrants, in order to guard against events such as those that took place recently in France?

Is there any reason to believe that disturbing events of this kind might also occur in other countries, particularly in the 'old' Union?

(EN)The honourable Member will be aware that the Union promotes cooperation on policies relating to integration of third-country nationals, irrespective of the proportion of third-country nationals residing in the Member States.

While the Member States are, and remain, primarily responsible for the adoption and implementation of their national integration policies, the Union intends to provide support to them, in particular by promoting the exchange of experience and best practice. Effective integration of migrants is an ongoing challenge for all Member States, which is why it is so important to share best practice on this issue.

The Council adopted Conclusions on the establishment of Common Basic Principles for immigrant integration policy in the European Union in November 2004. These conclusions identify eleven principles on which the Member States are invited to build their integration policies.

Moreover, the Hague Programme for strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union, which was approved by the European Council in November 2004, invited Member States, the Council and the Commission to promote the structural exchange of experience and information on integration, supported by the development of a widely accessible website on the Internet.

This month the Council adopted Conclusions on integration. These Conclusions, which build on the Commission Communication A common Agenda for Integration of Third-Country Nationals in the European Union, call for reinforcing cooperation in this area, in particular via the network of National Contact Points on Integration.

This network, established in 2003 and supported by the Commission, has played an important role in the framework of the exchange of information and best practice, and provided very valuable contributions to the drafting of the 'Handbook on integration for policy-makers and practitioners' published by the Commission in 2004. A second Handbook, which will address issues not covered in the first Handbook, is expected in 2006.

There is expected to be a sharp rise in world fuel prices, which could damage the European economy and export sector. With a view to guarding against such a situation, the European Union should ready itself to make the greatest possible use of bio-fuels and of existing coal deposits. It could, for instance, make use of German industry's past experience in the production of liquid and gaseous fuels from coal and the research carried out in this area in Poland.

Are there any European Union programmes that seek to ensure the supply of liquid and gaseous fuels from existing coal deposits and biomass in the event of the collapse of the fuel market and a sharp rise in fuel prices?

(EN)The Council is well aware of the uncertainties likely to affect the fuel market in the short to medium term. It supports an active policy of supply diversification, both of supply countries and regions and fuels, including fuels of domestic origin. It also promotes energy efficiency.

The Council, together with the Parliament, adopted a Directive⁽¹⁾ on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport, which explicitly set targets for the minimum proportion of biofuels and other renewable fuels that Member States should place on their markets by certain deadlines. Biofuels are further supported in the framework of an Action Plan on Biomass, adopted by the Commission on 7 December; this plan should reduce Europe's dependence on imported energy, cut greenhouse gas emissions, protect jobs in rural areas and extend the EU's technological leadership in these sectors. The measures in favour of transport biofuels, in particular, are a practical response to the problem of high oil prices.

The Council has long recognised the value of maintaining, as a precautionary measure, a minimum quantity of indigenous coal production to guarantee access to reserves and adopted a Regulation⁽²⁾ on State aid to the coal industry.

As the honourable Member notes, several Member States are already engaged in R & D projects on the production of liquid and gaseous fuels from coal. Such projects are also supported by the Community, in particular under its Framework Research Programme.

Belgium is currently negotiating with the United States concerning the sale of twenty F16s. As the USA has promised Pakistan 76 fighter aircraft, it is therefore very likely that the Belgian jet fighters will end up in Pakistan.

Like its neighbour India, Pakistan has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and has developed nuclear weapons. The two countries are involved in a nuclear arms race.

What view does the Council take of the possibility of this sale, and would it not contravene the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports?

(EN)As the honourable Member rightly implies, the responsibility for granting or refusing applications for licences to export military equipment lies with Member States. In certain cases, end-use certificates are required by licensing authorities to assist assessment of the licence application. Member State licensing authorities assess export licence applications against the criteria contained in the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports.

The possibility of the ultimate transfer to Pakistan of the items the sale of which Belgium is currently negotiating with the United States has not been brought to the attention of the Council, nor has it been discussed in any of the Council bodies.

With regard to the period from 1 July 2005 to the date in which the Council answers this question - and given the new system of consulting all other Member States before an answer is submitted - what successes and failures of the British Presidency can the Council identify?

(EN)The UK Presidency inherited a number of challenges, such as the rejection of the EU Constitutional Treaty by France and Netherlands in national referendums, and the failure to secure agreement on 2007-2013 budget under the Luxembourg Presidency.

The UK Presidency has already made progress, including opening accession negotiations with Turkey and Croatia on 3 October; driving ahead the fundamental debate over the Future of Europe, with the Hampton Court Informal Summit, which agreed on new work to meet the challenges of globalisation; taking practical steps on economic and social reform, including agreeing to reform the EU Sugar Regime, agreeing a compromise text on REACH, endorsing the EU Financial Services Action Plan and taking forward better regulation; agreeing a new EU Counter-Terrorism Strategy and the Council has agreed the text of a Directive on data retention. This Presidency has also seen the launch of an ESDP mission to monitor the Rafah border crossing and a monitoring mission in Aceh.

I welcome the cooperation that the Presidency has enjoyed with the Parliament in pursuing so many of these measures. Head of Government will discuss the budget at the European Council tomorrow and Friday. I hope very much that we will be able to reach a deal.

To what extent does the Council consider membership of the euro - in principle - to be permanent and irrevocable?

(EN)The terms of membership of the single currency for Member States are set out in Article 4 and Articles 116 through to 124 of the Treaty establishing the European Community.

The UK Presidency stated that one of its top priorities was the development of a long-term strategy for Africa, building on the EU's historic commitment to double ODA. This would be centred on governance, peace and security, access to basic services, growth and trade and would be emphasised at the UN Millennium Review Summit in New York in September, 2005.

To what extent does the Presidency believe it has been successful in achieving these aims? To which hard facts can the Council point which illustrate the Presidency's achievements in this priority area? What shortcomings and failures does the UK Presidency identify in this specific policy area?

(EN)The 16-17 June European Council, recalling the importance of relations between the EU and Africa, invited the Council to draw up a long-term global strategy towards Africa in the light of the UN Summit, with a view to the European Council in December. I very much hope and expect that such a strategy will indeed be adopted at this week’s European Council.

The objective of the strategy will be to establish clear priorities for EU action in order to assist African efforts to promote development, peace and security and good governance, including through the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, building on the principles of partnership and mutual accountability. The Strategy will set out a medium and long-term perspective, including measures to be taken during the next 10 years.

The Strategy will draw on various elements, most notably the European Commission's "EU Strategy for Africa: Towards a Euro-African pact to accelerate Africa’s development" of 12 October, and a contribution to the Strategy from the High Representative for CFPS, principally focussed on issues related to peace and security and governance, as well as contributions from Member States.

As a part of this process, on 22 November the Council adopted Conclusions on an EU Strategy for Africa. In these conclusions, the Council called for a comprehensive strategy, based on shared values and agreed UN principles, which includes development, security and human rights, and which, covering all African countries, entails a prioritised approach aiming at the promotion of peace and security and sustainable economic and social development in Africa.

The UN Millennium Review Summit on 14-16 September welcomed the decisions taken by the EU in support of Africa's development efforts.

Why has the Presidency not made any progress towards securing unanimous agreement in Council to renew or to make permanent Directive 1999/85/EC⁽¹⁾ which allows Member States to apply reduced VAT rates to renovation and maintenance work on residential property?

How well would such a VAT-incentive scheme, encompassing both renovation and maintenance work on residential dwellings and energy-efficient building work, complement the Lisbon Strategy on jobs and the EU's aim to cut carbon emissions while maximising energy efficiency?

To what extent does the Presidency agree that such a provision should cover the alteration of buildings to meet the special requirements of vulnerable people, such as the old and the disabled?

What interim measures will the Presidency propose both now and to the next Presidency with a view to ensuring that homeowners and construction companies are protected from additional VAT in the event that Council fails to reach an agreement before the Directive expires on 31 December 2005?

(EN)The Presidency has made substantial efforts to arrive at a compromise solution on the question of the application of reduced VAT rates, including on renovation and maintenance work on private dwellings. Several Member States have reported positive employment effects resulting from such reduced VAT rates.

At the Council of 6 December it was agreed to submit the issue to the European Council of 15 and 16 December with a view to reaching an agreement.

What was the average difference in growth rates during the past five years between the 12 Member States of the eurozone and the three (UK, Denmark and Sweden) which opted not to join the single currency?

(EN)The information requested is public and is available on the Eurostat Internet site. For the period 2000 to 2004, the growth in combined GDP of Sweden, Denmark and the UK was 0.4% more than the rate of growth of the combined GDP of the countries within the Eurozone.

In May, it was revealed that the UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, had decided to replace the Trident missile submarines by a new generation of nuclear weapons, although Trident's life could be extended for 20 years. Britain's nuclear weapons factory at Aldermaston has been given a GBP 2 billion budget for the next three years. This follows the earlier decision taken by France to replace its M-45 nuclear missile by new M-51 models by 2010.

What could be seen as falling within the exclusive competence of national governments would have considerable consequences for the EU as a whole. Such enhanced nuclear armaments would clearly discredit E3/EU efforts to convince Iran and others to refrain from acquiring nuclear weapons and the EU position in favour of the establishment of Nuclear Weapons-Free Zones in various parts of the world. It would also devalue the position of most EU Member States, who wish to see an end to the nuclear weapons threat, and the EU's longstanding support for the international rule of law, including the illegality of nuclear weapons.

How does the EU Presidency respond to views that see the British Government's move as being in breach of Article VI of the NPT treaty⁽¹⁾? How can the EU Presidency justify its intentions, given serious threat of a complete breakdown of the worldwide nuclear weapons control regime and of a nuclear arms race, in the light of the failure of the NPT review conference and the UN Reform Summit?

(EN)The EU supports the integrity of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has adopted a substantial and comprehensive Common Position in preparation for the 2005 NPT Review Conference, which has been welcomed by many experts.

Article VI of the Treaty represents the essential basis for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament. The EU acknowledges the reductions in nuclear armaments since the end of the cold war, including those undertaken in EU Member States equipped with nuclear weapons. It underlines the necessity of a reduction globally of nuclear arsenals in the pursuit of systematic and progressive efforts towards nuclear disarmament.

As the honourable Member rightly points out, questions related to the possible modernisation of some of their nuclear weapons fall within the exclusive competence of national governments.

Some 20.4% of the 455 million EU citizens have German as their mother tongue. It is all the more surprising, therefore, that the request made by the Verein Deutscher Sprache (German Language Association) (22 000 members) that the UK Council Presidency should run an Internet site in German was rejected. By way of comparison, French (14.3%) and English (13.9%) are much less well represented as mother tongues among EU citizens. According to information from the Commission, there are no rules governing the Council Presidency’s Internet site. Proper use should therefore be made of the Internet as a simple and cheap means of communicating directly with members of the public, in keeping with our understanding of how modern democracies should work.

Why did the UK Council Presidency set up its Internet site only in English and French? When it next holds the Presidency, does the United Kingdom also plan to communicate via its homepage in German, one of the ‘main EU languages’?

(EN)The websites run by a Member State holding the Presidency of the Council are set up, financed and managed under the responsibility of that Member State, and not the Council.

The current Presidency website has been provided in English and French in accordance with well established precedent that such websites are produced in English, French and the national language of the Member State holding the Presidency, if different. At this stage the UK has not made any decisions regarding its website for its next EU Presidency, which is after all, a few years away.

78-year-old Mykolas Burokevicius, who has been held in prison in Vilnius for 12 years for his political views and activities, underwent a complicated heart operation on 25 November. The authorities, however, demanded on 29 November that he be transferred back to prison despite the obvious risks that would entail for his health. Moreover, the unjust and unjustifiable sentence imposed on him expires on 14 January 2006.

What steps will the Council take to ensure that the life of Mr Burokevicius is not endangered and that the Lithuanian authorities retract their decision to hasten him back to prison, a decision which is tantamount to an attempt physically to exterminate a communist leader whose only offence, for which he was in effect convicted, is his refusal to sign a recantation.

(EN)The Council has never debated this question, as it is not within the sphere of competence of the European Union's institutions.

The statistics of the Community Road Accident Database show that on average the number of males killed on our roads is almost triple the number of women. The Verona Declaration, which was articulated in the presence of Mr. Barrot's predecessor, Ms de Palacio, stressed the need for a pro-active policy to 'discourage those behaviours and expressions of popular culture' which are contrary to a 'safety-orientated culture'?. What specific action is the Commission taking to encourage a greater culture of safe driving among men, particularly young men?

(FR)The Commission can confirm that three out of every four victims of road accidents are men. Some even more shocking statistics could be cited, such as the fact that young adults (persons aged between 18 and 25) account for 23% of the total number of road accident deaths, although they make up only 10% of the population.

There are three areas in which action can be taken to improve road safety: road infrastructure, vehicle design and driver behaviour. The European Community and its Member States implement measures in all these areas, in keeping with their powers, but the area which offers the greatest potential for improvement is that of driver behaviour.

The European Community has already taken a number of measures in that area, of which the most important are:

- a directive, adopted in 2003, which requires the Member States - by 2006 at the latest - to make the use of seatbelts compulsory in all vehicles, including coaches, and to make the use of specific child-restraint devices compulsory;

- a recommendation concerning the best practices to be employed with a view to curbing the most dangerous forms of behaviour (excessive speed, drink-driving and failure to wear a seatbelt);

- a guide to the best practices to be employed with a view to educating children and young people, in the form of a handbook and recommendations to incorporate road safety into the school curriculum, from primary school to the end of secondary education;

- substantial financial support for several pan-European campaigns, including 'EuroBOB' (the designated driver, who stays sober), 'EUCHIRES' (seatbelts and child-restraint devices) and the campaigns conducted by the Red Cross, directed at children on holiday.

The target set in the White Paper on European transport policy and endorsed by the European Union is to reduce the number of road deaths from 50 000 in 2001 to fewer than 25 000 in 2010. The figure for 2005 is 41 000. The progress is encouraging, but further efforts are needed at all levels: European, national or federal, local and in firms.

Over the next few months the Commission will present a mid-term review of the measures taken. That review will indicate the measures still to be presented at European Community level with a view to achieving the joint objective referred to above.

Has the Commission completed its study into the issue of airline insolvency due by the end of August? What were the key conclusions and recommendations and when might these be implemented? Will a copy of the study be placed before the Parliament?

(FR)The Commission has just received the final report (prepared by Oxford University) on the functioning of the internal market in air transport services, which deals in particular with the issue of the insolvency of airlines which declare bankruptcy. The Commission is currently analysing the report and considering the action to be taken on it. The report will shortly be made available on the Commission's website and placed before Parliament.

An initial analysis highlights the fact that the vast majority of bankruptcies occur during the early stages of an airline's existence. Over the period 2000-2004, out of a total of 60 airline bankruptcies more than 50% occurred during the first four years of activity on the air transport services market, and half of those during the first year of the airline's existence.

The report also analyses the problems faced by passengers left stranded following the bankruptcy of an airline. Between 300 and 1500 passengers were affected in the worst cases. Happily, the number of passengers forced to organise their own return journeys was not so high: either the bankrupt airline's competitors flew the passengers home, or, in some other cases, the State took responsibility for repatriating them, in particular if the bankrupt airline had an obligation to provide a public service.

On the basis of the report, the Commission intends to improve the situation regarding airline bankruptcies, for example by making the conditions governing the award of operating licences more stringent or by monitoring airlines' economic performance more closely.

A legislative proposal might be presented as part of the 2006 work programme, which is set to include an updating of the legislation underpinning the European air transport services market.

The issue of 'outsourcing' has become commonplace in the transport sector. This reflects modern business trends, and this phenomenon is evident in a wide range of sectors of Europe's economy. However, the outsourcing of crews working on ferries, where the ferry in question is registered outside the EU, highlights a serious anomaly with regard to the rights of persons working in this part of the transport sector. In particular, the flag state (i.e. the state where the ship is registered) has the exclusive right to exercise legislative and enforcement jurisdiction over its ships on the high seas. Therefore, the terms and conditions of employment on foreign-registered ships are a matter for the flag state, in accordance with international maritime law and practice. This situation brings the existing labour legislation of the EU and its Member States into disrepute.

In December 2004, the Commission published a working paper on a possible European-level social partner agreement on manning conditions for ferries. Can the Commission clarify what steps have been taken since the publication of this working paper and whether it intends to submit a proposal for legislation in this area?

(EN)As the honourable Member has pointed out, in December 2004 the Commission reopened discussions between the social partners on conditions of employment for crews of vessels providing passenger and ferry services within the Community, with a view to the possible conclusion of an agreement on the basis of Article 139 of the Treaty.

Discussions have been taking place since that date, but have not yet been concluded. For its part, the Commission does not intend, at this stage, to submit a new legislative proposal in this area.

Given the further delay of the Mid-term Review of the Third Road Safety Action Programme, is the European Commission still committed to achieving the EU target of halving road deaths by 2010 and proposing road-safety-relevant legislation including infrastructure management?

In the Third Road Safety Action Programme, the Commission committed itself to submitting a proposal for a framework directive on infrastructure safety and to drawing up technical guidelines for low cost infrastructure measures, audit methods, urban safety management, speed moderation techniques and forgiving roadsides.

In light of the fact that road infrastructure improvements can make a significant contribution towards reducing the frequency and seriousness of road traffic accidents and can thereby represent an important step forward in reaching the EU target, when does the Commission intend to come forward with this long-awaited infrastructure package?

(FR)Everyone in the EU of 25 Member States subscribes to the goal of reducing the number of deaths from 50 000, which was the figure in 2001, to less than 25 000 in 2010. So far in 2005 there have been 41 000 deaths. This is encouraging progress, but greater efforts will be needed at all levels, whether European, national, federal or local or within businesses.

In the near future, the Commission intends to present a mid-term review of the implementation of the 2003 Road Safety Action Programme. This review could provide a starting point for the Commission to prepare a proposal for a directive, calling on the Member States to ensure that the safety of trans-European network infrastructures is taken into account, starting from the planning and design stages and continuing through to the operational stage. This could be translated into concrete terms by putting in place a comprehensive system for road infrastructure safety management.

More generally, the mid-term review will also include other information and proposals regarding the contribution that the Community could make towards the shared objective of halving the number of road deaths by 2010.

In 2001, the European Commission published the White Paper entitled:' European Transport Policy for 2010: time to decide' which includes an ambitious target for revitalising the European railways system. This challenge was met by the adoption of the First and Second Railway Packages. Then, moving further, the Commission presented a Third Railway Package. I welcome and support its efforts to create a genuinely common EU railway market through the gradual liberalisation of the railway market. However, the recent enlargement of the European Union has changed the geography of the EU’s internal market in such a way that application of the rail-freight liberalisation Directive 2004/51/EC⁽¹⁾ might be very controversial and even counter-productive. Did the European Commission consider the specific situation of the railway sector, in the context of the recent EU enlargement from 15 to 25 Member States, and, in particular, any possible implications for Lithuania before submitting the Third Railway Package?

(FR)The Commission is closely following developments in the railway sector, in particular in the new Member States. It is paying special attention to the potential impact of the total opening up of the market for rail freight services in 2007 as a result of the implementation of Directive 2004/51/EC. The Commission is also following developments in the market in the Baltic States, where the railway sector is unquestionably a success story since rail freight enjoys a market share of over 50%. There is also a consistently high level of interest among foreign investors in the sector, unlike in other countries. The likely effect of such investments, which take the shape of new railway companies in these Member States, is to stimulate the sector, and they provide a source of additional income for the beneficiary countries.

It should be noted, however, that the policy of establishing a common railway area in the European Union is primarily targeted at traffic within the Community. Its aim is not to provide benefits to traffic that is merely transiting through the EU if nothing is offered in return.

Documents outlining this approach were discussed within the Council during the first reading of the proposal to open up the market for international passenger services, which formed part of the Third Railway Package, and an effective solution, which is compatible with the Community’s international commitments and which avoids any discrimination, was reached by the Council when it adopted a political agreement on the Third Railway Package during its meeting of 5 December 2005.

The Commission believes that this solution, which applies primarily to the transit of goods, is also compatible with the provisions adopted in order to facilitate the transit of passengers to Kaliningrad via Lithuania.

In its press release concerning the Third Maritime Safety Package, the Commission stated that its objective was to require Member States to thoroughly check that ships flying their flags comply with international standards, and therefore to have a maritime administration which strictly applies the quality criteria. Stepping up responsibility in this way is the precursor to the future development of a European flag.

Given the fact that Parliament threw out the previous Commission attempt to introduce the European flag in our merchant shipping, and given the outcry in response to this latest suggestion, can the Commission guarantee that no further attempts will be made to replace or disfigure our national flags through the introduction of an EU symbol or flag on the merchant shipping of the European Member States?

(EN)The proposal for a Directive on the conformity requirements of flag states, addressed to the European Parliament and the Council, does not provide for the adoption of a European flag but contains measures which it is hoped will lead to the establishment of a high-quality European fleet.

It has never been the Commission’s intention to abolish Member States’ flags or replace them by a European flag.

The EU and Member States are parties to the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (done: Jamaica, 10 Dec 1982). Article 91 provides that: 'Every State shall fix the conditions for the grant of its nationality to ships, for the registration of ships in its territory, and for the right to fly its flag. Ships have the nationality of the State whose flag they are entitled to fly. There must exist a genuine link between the State and the ship'.

How is the requirement for the existence of a ‘genuine link’ between a flag state and a ship reflected in the relevant legislation of the EU? In particular, how are the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 789/2004⁽¹⁾ of 21 April 2004 on the transfer of cargo and passenger ships between registers within the Community compatible with the Convention provisions? What steps does the Commission propose to take to ensure that registers of Member States are not used to facilitate the registration of ‘flags of convenience’ in breach of the provisions of the Convention, including in particular Article 91 thereof?

(EN)According to Article 91 of UNCLOS⁽²⁾, there must exist a genuine link between a ship and the Flag State whose flag the ship flies. The goal of this provision is to enable Flag States to effectively exercise jurisdiction over ships.

There is however no definition of “genuine link” in the UNCLOS Convention, nor in any other international instrument. An ad hoc agreement containing detailed criteria for this purpose has never entered into force, since it has never been ratified by a sufficient number of States⁽³⁾.

It is therefore up to the Parties to the Convention to determine the way in which they implement the principle of the “genuine link”.

As for Community law, there are currently no rules on vessel registration which is left to the competence of Member States. The latter, however, have to respect the principle of freedom of establishment which, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, implies that a citizen or company of a Member State must be allowed to register a vessel in another Member State, without being obliged to set up a new company there⁽⁴⁾. In order to allow Member States to comply with the “genuine link” principle, however, the Court has held that it is not contrary to Community law for a Member State to stipulate as a condition for registration in its register that the vessel be managed, and its operations directed and controlled, from within that Member State⁽⁵⁾.

Finally, the scope of Regulation (EC) n° 789/2004 of the 21 April 2004 on the transfer of cargo and passenger ships between registers within the Community⁽⁶⁾ is clearly different. It aims at eliminating technical barriers to the transfer of ships between registers of Member States in order to facilitate the full functioning of the internal market, whilst promoting at the same time a high level of ship safety and environmental protection. To this purpose, it merely obliges Member States not to withhold ships registered in other Member States from registration in their own register for technical reasons arising from four maritime safety and environmental protection international conventions: the 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, (SOLAS), the 1966 International Convention on Load Lines (LL 66), the 1969 International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships and the 1973 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL).

Does the Commission consider the maximum period allowed in France for the provision of road cabotage services (a one-off period of 30 days in succession and a maximum of 45 days per year) to be consistent with Article 1(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3118/93⁽¹⁾ and with the interpretation of the concept of ‘temporary’ given by the Commission in its Interpretative Communication on cabotage? In France, drivers who provide cabotage services for seven or more days in succession are considered posted workers.

Does the Commission consider this interpretation to be in keeping with Article 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 3118/93? How does Regulation (EEC) No 3118/93 relate to the Posting of Workers Directive 96/71/EC⁽²⁾ as regards road transport? Does the Commission consider that the maximum period allowed in France for operators to provide cabotage services over inland waterways (90 days in succession) is in keeping with Regulation (EEC) No 3921/91⁽³⁾?

Can the Commission, as guardian of the Treaty, indicate to what extent the time limits laid down by France regarding road cabotage and cabotage over inland waterways are consistent with the freedom to provide services, as well as with the policy pursued by the Commission regarding completion of the internal market and the Lisbon Strategy?

(FR)The Commission’s Interpretative Communication, to which the honourable Member refers, sets out the criteria for assessing the temporary character of cabotage operations, namely duration, frequency, continuity and periodicity of service provision. As far as duration is concerned, the Commission believes that a time limit set on a national level of one to two months is acceptable. In its opinion, therefore, the French rules do not violate Regulation (EEC) No 3118/93.

With regard to the application to road cabotage of Directive 96/71/EC on the posting of workers, in the Commission’s view this Directive applies to cabotage operations carried out within the framework of Regulation (EEC) No 3118/93. Drivers providing road cabotage services may therefore be considered as posted workers, and this is all the more true if they provide cabotage services for seven or more days.

As regards cabotage over inland waterways, the Commission is of the opinion that the maximum period allowed in France for providing cabotage services complies with Regulation (EEC) No 3921/91.

In conclusion, the Commission believes that the harmonious functioning of the internal market in the transport sector is essential if the Lisbon goals are to be met. The current rules on cabotage help to further this objective, and the Commission sees to it that they are applied correctly in its capacity as guardian of the Treaties.

Although the 'Rail Baltica' project has been included on the list of EU guidelines on trans-European transport networks, to date neither the modernisation work on this railway line, nor even the practical preparations for such work, have started. It would be extremely important to the Baltic countries and the eastern Baltic region as a whole for a solution to be found to this problem.

I wish to point out that the special importance of infrastructure projects was emphasised in the 'roadmaps' signed by the European Union and Russia. In this connection, would it not be advisable to extend 'Rail Baltica' as far as St Petersburg? In my view, this link would heighten interest in the 'Rail Baltica' project. The project also comprises an important environmental dimension, given that roads near the Baltic Sea are currently congested by haulage traffic.

(FR)In the eyes of the Commission, the ‘Rail Baltica’ project is a sustainable transport project that will make it possible to link Finland and the four new Member States in the Baltic region with the heart of Europe and to bring them closer together.

There have recently been two major developments in connection with this project. Firstly, the Commission appointed Pavel Telička as European Coordinator for the project on 20 July. Secondly, an agreement on the preparation of a feasibility study for the project was signed several weeks ago, and the Commission is expecting an interim report before Christmas 2005. Using the results of this feasibility study as a basis, it will be possible to start the process of authorising the measures necessary to implement the project.

Turning to the question of whether Saint Petersburg could be linked to the Tallinn-Warsaw stretch of ‘Rail Baltica’, the ‘Rail Baltica’ project is by definition aimed at linking the three Baltic States, via Poland, to the heart of Europe. That said, the idea of using the project to establish a link to Saint Petersburg and the surrounding region, which is home to a large number of people, was mentioned a few days ago during talks held by the High-Level Group, chaired by Mrs Loyola de Palacio, on the possibility of extending the current trans-European transport network.

Finally, there are two points that must be emphasised from an environmental point of view. The first of these is that the north-south rail axis is in essence a sustainable alternative to the road network, which suffers heavy congestion in this rapidly developing region. Secondly, detailed environmental impact assessments will need to be carried out for the project, taking into account the need to protect the environment in this region, in particular in the north-east of Poland.

In light of the escalating and worsening situation in Irish Ferries will the Commission not agree that there is an urgent need to re-activate the Ferries Directive on manning conditions for regular passenger and ferry services operating between Member States or at the very least propose an adequate legislative response?

(FR)The Commission intends first of all to give greater encouragement to discussions between the social partners, which have been ongoing since 2003, with a view to achieving an agreement based on Article 139 of the Treaty.

It is also planning to bring forward legislation next year transposing the International Labour Organisation’s consolidated Convention on maritime labour standards into Community law. This crucial step will address part of the problem of employment conditions in intra-Community passenger transport as it will ensure fair competition for all operators in the sector.

At this stage the Commission does not intend to submit any other legislative proposals. However, it will examine all possible means of resolving the problem of employment conditions, particularly in intra-Community passenger transport, from an economic and a legal standpoint.

In view of the growing importance of logistics for transport rationalisation, for the transport of goods and people, and for the planning of energy expenditure so as to reduce its adverse effects on sustainable development (emissions problems, congestion, energy wastage, social costs, safety problems, etc), what measures does the Commission intend to introduce to promote the modernisation and improved use of logistics in its revision of the white paper on transport?

(FR)The Commission is currently reviewing the situation with regard to logistics, with a view to presenting a communication in June 2006. Without wishing to pre-empt the conclusions of this review, the main decisions in the field of logistics are taken by businesses.

At the same time, however, several of the EU’s policies and programmes in the field of transport, which have been launched in the wake of the White Paper on European Transport Policy, could well encourage businesses to make changes to their logistics chains. They include:

The ‘Marco Polo Programme’, which provides co-financing for pilot projects in the field of intermodal transport. Funding for this Programme is however limited under the Financial Perspective.

Decision 884/2004/EC of the Parliament and of the Council on guidelines for the trans-European transport network allows the Member States to propose funding for motorways of the sea as part of the trans-European transport networks.

The EU also contributes to the deployment of advanced technologies, such as Galileo, the European satellite navigation programme, and it helps to implement infrastructure networks that reduce transport costs. The Commission has proposed a budget of over EUR 20 billion to boost the trans-European networks in the 2007-2013 period. It will be particularly important to ensure that businesses profit fully from these new technological and infrastructure opportunities.

Finally, in April 2003, the Commission submitted to the Council and Parliament a proposal for a directive on standardised intermodal loading units, which would make it possible to save up to 2% on logistics costs. Although Parliament has already delivered its opinion at first reading, the Council has unfortunately not yet examined this proposal.

Passenger transport is also one of the fields of action identified in the White Paper. The latter proposes that continuity of journeys, for example intermodality between high-speed trains and air routes, and the future of urban transport should be promoted in line with the principle of subsidiarity.

Finally, the Commission wishes to inform the honourable Member that the Finnish Presidency will hold a conference on logistics in September 2006.

The InterRail pass for use on the railways has enabled many young Europeans to get to know Europe. There are complaints that fares are rising, the period of validity is becoming shorter and there is less and less flexibility. There is a risk that the InterRail pass will disappear from the market, thereby restricting the freedom of movement of as many as 150 000 young people who use it to travel each year.

Is the Commission already aware of the problem, has it contacted those responsible for the InterRail consortium in order to ensure appropriate steps are taken to support the pass, and does it agree that a revision of the conditions for the InterRail pass needs to be approved?

(FR)Although the Commission acknowledges that the InterRail pass has made it possible for many young people to get to know Europe better, it does not have the authority to intervene as far as the price or terms of sale of this pass are concerned. The InterRail pass is a purely commercial product, and it is entirely up to the railway companies participating in the scheme to decide on the terms of its sale. Furthermore, it falls within the responsibility of the Member States to put in place reduced fare systems for groups such as young travellers.

The Turkish forces occupying the northern part of Cyprus have quite recently renewed their acts of destruction of its cultural heritage, carrying out ground-levelling operations in the Karpasia area with the intention of flying the flags of Turkey and the 'Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus', the latter being considered 'non-valid' under Security Council Resolutions 541 and 550. The digging operations have destroyed the 7000-year-old 'Kastros' neolithic archaeological site, while the Church of St Anastasia in Lapitho has been converted into a hotel.

Will the Commission call on the Turkish authorities or take action itself and, if so, what action, to end the destruction of the cultural heritage belonging to the occupied northern territory of Cyprus and forming an integral part of Europe's own cultural heritage?

(EN)The Commission regrets and disapproves of any damage to the cultural heritage mentioned by the honourable Member.

It is clear that a political settlement in Cyprus would enable issues of cultural heritage to be adequately addressed between the two communities. Even before an overall solution to the Cyprus problem, a serious dialogue between the two communities on the island could help in the protection of cultural heritage.

The Commission recalls that responsibilities in the field of protection of cultural heritage remain with the Member States.

The Commission also recalls that the proposal for a Council Regulation establishing an instrument of financial support for encouraging the economic development of the Turkish Cypriot community of 7 July 2004⁽¹⁾ is still pending in the Council. Should it be adopted, projects concerning the restoration of cultural heritage in the northern part of the island could be developed.

While 72m people in the EU-15 (19% of the total population) lived in convergence regions (regions with a GNP below 75% of the EU average), the figure in the EU-25 is now 123m (27%). Turkey's population is predicted to reach 80m people in 2014, all of whom would come under 'Objective 1' of the Structural Funds. Forecasts show that with a 3% GDP growth difference between the EU and Turkey it would take more than 50 years for Turkey's level of income to reach that of the EU-15.

What costs would Turkish EU accession mean for the Union's regional policy and what consequences is it expected to have for the present convergence regions?

(EN)The issue raised by the honourable Member has been addressed in the document entitled “Issues arising from Turkey’s Membership perspective”, which accompanied the Commission’s recommendation of 6 October 2004 to the Council to open accession negotiations with Turkey. The Commission concluded that, “As regards regional policy, with a level of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita at about 28.5 % of the EU25 average at purchasing power standards, close to the level of Bulgaria and Romania (29% and 30% respectively), Turkey would - based on current rules and were it already a Member State - be eligible for significant levels of structural operations expenditure”. The existing rules, however, have never been applied to a country of similar size, similar level of economic development and similar intensity of regional disparities as Turkey. On the one hand, this may justify the introduction of specific mechanisms which take into account the specificities of Turkey. On the other hand, as economic development in the coming twenty years is uncertain, it is not self-evident that the existing upper limit of 4% of GDP on the level of total annual structural and cohesion funds transfers would be reached by Turkey or any other country. On the basis of these considerations, it is difficult to provide a meaningful estimate of the impact, both on Turkey and on other Member States or candidate countries, of extending the EU’s cohesion and regional policy to Turkey.

In its progress report on Turkey, the Commission repeats the assertion that Turkey 'sufficiently' fulfils the political criteria. In its report it describes the violations which have been observed merely as 'incidents' and 'road accidents'. Nowhere in the report is the denial of the cultural, political and civil rights of the Kurdish minority mentioned as such. Nonetheless, many of the so-called 'isolated incidents' are indicators of Turkey's obstinate refusal to bring about a just and democratic solution. A solution would require recognition and mutual respect. The refusal by both Turkey and the Commission to acknowledge this problem accordingly stands in the way of a peaceful solution.

I should therefore appreciate it if the Commission would indicate how it sees the wider Kurdish question. How does it envisage a peaceful and democratic solution to this problem being attained? And what is the Commission's position regarding the restriction of the political freedom of Kurdish political leaders, as recently pilloried by the EU Turkey Civic Commission?

(EN)Minority rights, cultural rights and the protection of minorities are part of the Copenhagen political criteria.

In its last Regular Report adopted on 9 November 2005, the Commission noted that Turkey’s commitment to further political reforms should be translated into more concrete achievements for the benefit of all Turkish citizens regardless of their origin. This of course includes Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin.

In particular, it was mentioned that notwithstanding a greater tolerance for the use of languages other than Turkish, the exercise of cultural rights is still precarious. No local broadcasting in Kurdish has yet been authorised, Kurdish language courses have closed down and politicians continue to be convicted for using the Kurdish language in certain contexts. Turkey continues to adopt a restrictive approach to minorities and cultural rights.

The Progress Report also makes reference to the problems encountered by political parties in general, including DEHAP⁽¹⁾. For example, a specific reference is made to the conviction of DEHAP deputy leader Resit Yardimci, who in October 2005 was sentenced to six months imprisonment for greeting a DEHAP conference in Kurdish in 2003.

Under the Accession Partnership adopted by the Commission on 9 November 2005, there is a detailed list of priorities related to further efforts in relation to the protection of minorities and cultural rights. In particular, Turkey is required to ensure cultural diversity and to promote the respect and protection of minorities in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights and the principles laid down in the Council of Europe's Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and in line with best practice in Member States.

The Commission will continue its monitoring of the human rights situation in Turkey, including our regular dialogue with the Turkish authorities on cultural rights and the situation in the Southeast.

Following the adoption by the Commission of the progress report for 2005 regarding Turkey and the report concerning the revised partnership arrangements, can the Commission outline the next stages of the accession negotiations?

How and when specifically will the EU review and assess the assimilation of the Community acquis into Turkish legislation?

What action will the Commission take if Turkey refuses to lift the casus belli in the course of accession proceedings?

(EN)Accession negotiations were opened with Turkey on 3 October 2005 on the basis that it sufficiently meets the political criteria set by the Copenhagen European Council in 1993. The principles for the conduct of the accession negotiations are described in detail in the Negotiating Framework for Turkey.

Turkey’s progress will be measured against its fulfilment of the Copenhagen criteria, including its further progress on political reforms and its capacity to effectively adopt and implement the EU legislation.

The Commission will continue to monitor and assess Turkey’s political reform process and report regularly on its progress in this area.

As regards Turkey’s ability to accept the rights and obligations of the acquis, the Commission has started the process of screening with the Turkish authorities. This process allows the Commission to:

provide the Turkish authorities with an explanation of the EU legislation;

assess the state of preparation of Turkey for opening negotiations in specific areas;

obtain preliminary indications of the issues that are likely to come up in the negotiations.

As regards Turkey’s relations with its neighbours, the negotiating framework states that Turkey’s progress will depend on its “unequivocal commitment to good neighbourly relations and its undertaking to resolve any outstanding border disputes in conformity with the principle of peaceful settlement of disputes”. Similarly, the revised Accession Partnership proposed by the Commission on 9 November 2005 includes a priority that Turkey should continue efforts to resolve outstanding border disputes.

In its letter of 7 November to the Romanian and Bulgarian Foreign Ministers, the Commission drew attention to areas of weakness on which both countries would still have to work if they were to adopt and implement the Community acquis. Those areas included cooperation in justice and home affairs and border-control requirements.

In view of the fact that on 30 June 2005 the European Agency for the Management of External Borders (FRONTEX) was opened in Warsaw for the purpose of providing support for the Member States in the implementation of Community legislation and coordinating operational cooperation in the management of external borders, has the Commission implemented the guidelines for FRONTEX cooperation with the accession countries? Does it believe that cooperation between FRONTEX and Romania/Bulgaria could help to improve border management? Does it think that it would be feasible for a trio of agencies (such as Europol-FRONTEX-Customs Agency) to be set up in the medium term in order to improve compliance with the Community acquis in this area, with a view to future enlargements and pursuant to the neighbourhood policy?

(EN)The European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (FRONTEX) is an independent Community body established in May 2005. Co-operation between the Agency and the acceding countries Romania and Bulgaria and their participation in the operational activities organised or coordinated by FRONTEX are not subject to the adoption or the implementation of any specific guideline by the Commission but may be based on a decision of the Agency itself. The Management Board rules of procedure provide that it may invite states that have been accepted as candidates for membership of the EU to attend its meetings as observers when the accession negotiations have been finalised. On this basis, representatives of both acceeding countries already participate in the Management Board meetings as observers.

The Commission believes that co-operation between the acceding countries and Member States within the framework of the FRONTEX Agency may contribute to the efficiency of controls on persons and surveillance of the external borders. Therefore the Commission representatives in the Management Board of the Agency will support the participation of these countries in the Agency’s activities.

With regard to the future institutional development, the Action Plan implementing the Hague Programme on Strengthening Freedom, Security and Justice already foresees an evaluation of the External Border Agency in 2007. This evaluation will include a review of the tasks of the Agency and an assessment of whether it should concern itself with other aspects of border management, including enhanced co-operation with customs and other authorities responsible for goods-related security matters. As the Agency has just started its activities, it is far too early to draw any conclusions about its future scope.

The positive decisions taken by the Commission concerning the setting of timescales for the negotiating process for Croatia, Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina are to be welcomed, but what are the accession prospects for Serbia, Montenegro and Albania? While Turkey's aspirations should be supported, it would be logical to admit the above countries before rather than after Turkey?

(EN)According to the “own merit principle” it has always applied, the Commission can not have any predetermined view on the order or of the grouping in which the different candidate and potential candidate countries should accede to the EU. Such an order only depends on the individual progress of the countries themselves. Instead, the framework is as follows:

As regards the Western Balkans, each of the countries has the prospect of EU membership once it fulfils the necessary conditions. Each country will advance towards this goal on its own merits, depending on its progress in meeting the requirements. Therefore, the Commission does not fix specific dates for the accession of these countries to the EU; this would be counterproductive. The Commission set out in the Enlargement Strategy Paper of 9 November 2005 the road-map along which the countries progress towards the EU. Clearly, the countries of the Western Balkans are at different stages along their path towards the EU. The Commission hopes that their progress will be mutually reinforcing, but at the end of the day each country is engaged in its own process.

Following the same approach, Turkey will also advance towards accession on the basis of its own merits. The pace of the accession negotiations will depend on Turkey's progress in meeting the requirements for membership. The negotiating framework for Turkey states that Turkey’s accession would have substantial financial consequences; as the European Council stated in December 2004, accession negotiations with countries whose accession would have substantial financial consequences can only be concluded after the establishment of the Financial Framework for the period from 2014. As described in the negotiating framework, the Union side will decide in due course whether the conditions for the conclusion of negotiations have been met.The shared objective of the negotiations is accession but at the same time the negotiations are an open-ended process, the outcome of which cannot be guaranteed beforehand.

Many European citizens want to know what form the further enlargement of the Union will take, which countries are likely to join and under what conditions. Does the Commission have a plan or programme for this?

(EN)On 9 November 2005, the Commission approved an Enlargement Strategy Paper⁽¹⁾ that was addressed to the Parliament and to the Council. In that document, the Commission outlines its approach to enlargement based on three main principles:

consolidating the EU’s commitments on enlargement,

applying fair and rigorous conditionality,

communicating the enlargement policy.

The current enlargement agenda covers Turkey and the Balkans. The Commission’s plans on enlargement are set out in further detail in the Strategy Paper, which is available to the general public on the Enlargement website of the Europa server (http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/report_2005/index.htm).

The Chinese Sports Utility Vehicle Jiangling Landwind has been crash-tested by the German automobile club ADAC in accordance with the Euro NCAP protocols. The test results were appalling and frightening. In the frontal crash, performed at a test speed of 64 km/h, the steering wheel intruded into the occupant compartment so violently that it would have killed the driver instantly.

The FIA held a conference in Brussels on 29 November 2005 to address the issues at stake and the above-mentioned loophole in the European legislation.

What will the Commission do to close this loophole and protect the lives of EU citizens? Does the Commission think that the 2500 kg limit for crash testing is still appropriate, given the trend towards heavier vehicle types, e.g. SUVs, and increased weight resulting from additional comfort and safety equipment? How is the Commission planning to make car designs more compatible in the event of a crash between cars?

Therefore, my question to the European Commission is as follows: What are the next concrete steps, and what is their timetable, that the Commission intends to take so as to urgently prevent the introduction of patently dangerous cars on the European common market?

(FR)The Commission can assure the honourable Member that the promotion of road safety has always been and always will be one of its primary concerns.

In its response to Written Question P-3751/05 of 9 November 2005 by the honourable Member, the Commission outlined the current situation concerning ‘one-off’ type approvals and the type of frontal crash tests required for vehicles of category M1 (cars) with a mass of over 2 500 kg.

The Commission believes that the technical legislation currently in force on active and passive safety means that there is no possibility of potentially dangerous vehicles being placed on the Community market. Furthermore, the permanent system for monitoring conformity of production makes it possible to ensure that each vehicle that is produced and placed on the market conforms to a vehicle having obtained a Community type approval.

An inquiry is underway in order to ascertain whether this legislation was applied correctly in the case of the vehicles referred to by the honourable Member.

Two measures have been proposed by the Commission with a view to increasing the safety of vehicles put into service in the Community.

The first involves revising Framework Directive 70/156/EEC so that it includes harmonised provisions intended to ensure that the same level of safety and the same rules apply to ‘one-off’ type approvals, in order to make possible the free movement of such vehicles within the Community. The Council will be asked to adopt a common position on this revision in the very near future, and the new framework directive could be adopted before the end of 2006. Immediately afterwards, the Commission will present a proposal for a regulation laying down the minimum technical conditions for the ‘one-off’ type approval of vehicles.

With regard to frontal crashes, the Commission is considering extending the scope of the Directive to include heavier vehicles by revising the test protocols. The aim, however, is for this measure to form part of a wider programme of research into vehicle compatibility in frontal crashes, which is still ongoing.

The research currently in progress will provide information on the way in which Directive 96/79/EC, on the protection of occupants in the event of a frontal impact, should be amended. The Commission is therefore participating in the funding of a research project (VC-Compat) whose aim is to develop impact test procedures that will increase the chances of survival of occupants in the event of a collision involving vehicles of very different masses. The deadline for this project is March 2006.

In 2005 China started to establish an aggressively dominant position on the world markets for textiles and other products. The EU sectors affected cannot compete with cheap Chinese products manufactured with total disregard for the laws in force within the EU and with aid from the State, that are sold on a dumping basis. When the EP report on prospects for trade relations between the EU and China was drawn up, on behalf the ALDE Group I put forward a proposal calling on the Commission to draw up a long-term development forecast for the EU economy up to 2030-2050, based on an economic analysis of the EU, which could then be used to shift the focus of economic activity in the Member States towards new growth sectors, with the necessary investment being made in scientific research and human resources. Parliament rejected this proposal. There would appear to be concerns that forecasts of this kind might lead to the creation of a common industrial policy. It should be pointed out, however, that in the absence of such a policy the EU does have a common commercial policy: the Commission negotiates within the WTO on behalf of all the EU Member States. What is the Commission's opinion, with a view to the future, on the compatibility of EU enterprise policy with the common commercial policy?

(EN)In October, the Commission defined its approach to industrial policy⁽¹⁾. Industrial policy is about providing “the right framework conditions for enterprise development in order to make the EU an attractive place for industrial investment and job creation”. Major policy areas in this respect are Knowledge, Better Regulation, Environment & Energy, Structural Change and, last but not least, Trade.

The Commission analysed the competitiveness of 27 industrial sectors regarding these areas and presented its findings in the Communication. The in-depth sector analysis showed that international trade (including the ways to tackle unfair competitive practices, the violation of intellectual property rights and non-tariff barriers as well as access to third markets for European companies) is an important issue for a number of sectors.

The Commission is constantly working on these issues. It is notably preparing a renewed Market Access Strategy for 2006, while also giving a particular attention to selected sectors and countries. Notably, a specific market access action plan has already been introduced for textiles and has been expanded to cover also leather and footwear products.

Regarding more specifically the case of China, the Commission is preparing a Communication on External Aspects of Competitiveness, which it expects to conclude in the first half of 2006. A separate Communication on EU and China, notably on the trade and investment relations for the next five years, will follow.

Against this background, the Commission is committed to use its broad competences in the trade area as an important instrument to support its industrial policy. This will help to improve framework conditions for European companies and to create a level playing field on world markets.

What steps is the Commission taking in its pharmaceutical policy to stop counterfeit drugs?

(EN)The problem of counterfeit medicinal products inside and outside the EU is a subject of ongoing concern in the European Union, at the Council of Europe and at World Health Organization (WHO).

Over recent years, the Commission has taken action to address the counterfeit problem at a horizontal level: intellectual property rights and customs action. Within the framerwork of the implementation of its industrial policy the Commission will launch in 2006 a dialogue including all relevant stakeholders to determine what more might usefully be done to fight counterfeit in many sectors including the pharmaceutical sector.

The legal framework has been changed and amended several times in order to improve the enforcement of intellectual property rights and customs action.

In addition, in September 2005, the Council of Europe published a survey report, which provides an update on the extent of counterfeiting in the pharmaceutical sector. The Council of Europe is currently evaluating the possibility of further action based on this report. At the same time the WHO has proposed a framework convention to combat counterfeit medicinal products at a global level.

Member States are responsible for the enforcement of any activities against counterfeiters. Therefore, Member States are currently evaluating the results of a survey with the aim of identifying the extent of the problem of counterfeit medicines and the development of an anti-counterfeit strategy.

While the above mentioned actions of the Commission and the Member States are far-reaching, the Commission continuously monitors and analyses the situation for possible legal implications within the EU and opportunities for future international co-operation.

The significant occupational risks faced by healthcare workers from contaminated needles was brought to the attention of the European Commission more than two years ago, and since then many communications on the subject have been sent to Commissioner Špidla, from myself and numerous concerned Members of the Parliament.

Following a very strong committee and plenary vote on a motion for a resolution, there has been a formal call for better regulation to protect healthcare workers from needle-stick injuries, included in the European Parliament report on promoting health and safety in the workplace (A6-0029/2005) of February 2005. In the time that has elapsed since this request substantially more than half a million additional injuries will have occurred. Some of these will lead to potentially fatal infections, such as HIV and hepatitis C, being acquired and many more will cause significant emotional anguish for the healthcare workers and their families.

As the European Parliament, and the specific Members concerned, have never received a satisfactory response to our communications and requests for action, would the Commission please indicate when it will be taking decisive action by recommending an amendment to the Biological Agents Directive (2000/54/EC⁽¹⁾) in order to provide legislative protection for workers exposed to these risks?

(FR)The Commission attaches the utmost importance to protecting the health and safety of healthcare workers against all the risks inherent in their work, including the risk of serious infections resulting from puncture wounds caused by needles and other sharp instruments.

As regards the possibility of amending Directive 2005/54/EC⁽²⁾ with a view to dealing specifically with the risks posed by needles and other sharp instruments, without ruling out any kind of action for the moment the Commission would like to emphasise that the directive in question already applies to all activities in the course of which workers, by virtue of their professional duties, are exposed or risk being exposed to biological agents, including the risks referred to by the honourable Member.

When implementing in healthcare establishments the national laws transposing Directive 2000/54/EC, employers must assess all the risks to which workers are or may be exposed, including the risks of infection stemming from wounds caused by needles and other sharp objects. Following that assessment, employers must take all the prevention and protection measures required to eliminate such risks, preferably at source.

The implementation of these provisions and those of Directive 89/655/EEC⁽³⁾ concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work equipment by workers at work (second individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC⁽⁴⁾) requires employers in the healthcare sector to chose and make available to healthcare staff work equipment (e.g. needles) consistent with the key safety requirements imposed on medical devices by the 'internal market' directives.

In particular, Annex I.II to Directive 93/42/EC⁽⁵⁾ concerning medical devices stipulates that 'the devices and manufacturing processes must be designed in such a way as to eliminate or reduce as far as possible the risk of infection to the patient, user and third parties. The design must allow easy handling and, where necessary, minimise contamination of the device by the patient or vice versa during use'. Before being placed on the market, any needle used as a medical device must have received EC type-approval certifying its conformity with the key requirements of the above-mentioned directive.

The Commission is currently in the process of analysing and assessing the practical implementation in the Member States of the directive on 'biological agents at work'. One purpose of that assessment is to identify the specific problems encountered by employers and workers. In that connection, an invitation to tender has been issued and an independent contractor has been selected to provide the Commission with a comprehensive report on this subject. Particular attention will be paid to the problems and risks posed by needles and other sharp instruments. The outcome of that assessment, and the work of the Advisory Committee on Health and Safety at Work on the risks posed to the health and safety of workers in the healthcare sector, will enable the Commission to base future Community initiatives in this area on more detailed information.

All those who, like myself, are opposed to the terrorism promoted by the Tehran regime are now the targets of a defamatory campaign using anonymous letters, aimed at parliamentarians who have questioned the 'terrorist' label placed on the People's Mujahedeen Organisation. This campaign, which is utilising defamatory articles citing 'diplomatic sources', paid advertisements in the press, and the Internet, is covering its activities under the logo 'EU-Citizen'.

Does the Commission believe that the logo 'EU-Citizen' and the symbols of the European institutions can be used by any outside organisation for the purposes of a political campaign in favour of the Iranian regime?

If it has not done so already, can the Commission state what action it has taken, and on what dates, against the abusive use of this symbol in paid advertisements and on the Internet?

(FR)Third parties may only use the European emblem if they have been authorised to do so by the Commission (or the Council of Europe). Such authorisations are granted on an individual basis.

The Commission has not granted any such authorisation in the particular case of ‘EU Citizen’. The use of the European emblem by this organisation (for example on its website at ) is therefore improper.

The Commission wishes to thank the honourable Member for having drawn its attention to this misuse of the European emblem. On 1 December 2005, after the Commission had received the honourable Member’s question, a letter was sent to ‘EU Citizen’ asking it to stop misusing the emblem.

The sixth ministerial meeting of the WTO is to open in Hong Kong in mid-December. Decisions are to be taken on major issues and the EU is one of the players investing a great deal of energy to make the meeting a success. The hope is that it will be possible to conclude the negotiating round begun in Doha in 2001 during the coming year.

If achieved, it will be of great significance for countries throughout the world, both north and south, as well as for relations between men and women, particularly in the developing countries, irrespective of the topic concerned, e.g. agriculture, NAMA or trade in services. Different structures mean that men and women have varying roles and responsibilities in economies. International trade flows, production patterns and rules and regulations therefore affect men and women in different ways.

The Doha Round was meant to be about development. However, a trade policy and a possible outcome to negotiations which do not acknowledge the different impact on men of women of various decisions are in danger of reinforcing an unequal distribution of power where men are systematically favoured at the expense of women.

Does the Commission share the view that the liberalisation of trade has different repercussions for men and women and how has the Commission taken account of the gender perspective in the current WTO negotiations?

(EN)A key objective for the EU in the current World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations is that the Round should promote sustainable development, and sustainable development includes the economic and social position of women. A multilateral trade regime that is stable, transparent and rules-based is a global public good that should be developed hand-in-hand with other public goods such as access to health and environmental protection. The improvement in the position of women will, from this point of view, be strengthened by the multilateral regulation of trade.

A weakening of the multilateral system and a return to unilateral policies would be more detrimental to vulnerable economies than industrialised ones, and particularly adverse to more fragile sections of society in both groups of countries. Women would be the first affected in many cases. Consequently, the EC will continue its efforts to ensure that the WTO works openly and transparently to further sustainable development.

Women's vulnerability in certain sectors in certain countries makes the debate on the relationship between trade and social rights, above all basic labour standards, of particular concern. In the WTO context, a reference to core labour standards was included in the Declaration of the first WTO Ministerial Conference (Singapore 1996). Regrettably, WTO members did not agree to include this issue as part of the Doha Development Agenda. Nevertheless, the Commission is committed to addressing trade and social development, core labour standards and commitment to meaningful dialogue between the WTO and International Labour Organisation (ILO), both in the EU Trade Policy Review (TPR) and in the TPRs of other countries. As part of this process, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) reports on core labour standards are prepared ahead of each Trade Policy Review.

The EC also welcomed the creation of the World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalisation under the aegis of the ILO, as well as the reinforcement of the ILO in order to promote social development, and the adoption of higher labour standards worldwide. In order to contribute to an effective follow-up of the report, the Commission adopted on 18 May 2004 a Communication on the Social Dimension of Globalisation⁽¹⁾. The Commission has been developing a closer relationship with the International Labour Organisation (ILO) on trade-related matters. The EC-ILO Turin Conference in May 2005 examined options for strengthening the EC-ILO partnership including on the assessment of social and labour impacts of trade policy (including impacts on women and men), and on promoting core labour standards through capacity building and enforcement in developing countries. Also, an EC-ILO pilot project is currently developing methodologies for decent work indicators to assess social impacts of trade in developing countries, including impacts on women, men and children.

During the meeting of EU Foreign Ministers held in Luxembourg on 18 October 2005 the Commissioner with responsibility for EU trade, Peter Mandelson, said among other things that the Union must make concessions to other countries in the WTO negotiations because, in short, the EU stands to gain more from exports of industrial goods and services (currently 85% of exports) than it stands to lose from weaker protection for agriculture. This statement means that Commissioner Mandelson intends to 'sacrifice' EU farming in the WTO negotiations.

Has the Commission given Mr Mandelson a mandate to do this? What is its position on the matter?

(EN)On 28 October 2005 the European Union, by way of the Commission, tabled a new offer to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) as regards agriculture and all the other main areas under negotiation in the Doha Development Agenda (DDA). This offer is in line with the mandate agreed by all WTO Members in Doha in November 2001 and as further elaborated in the WTO’s Framework Agreement on the DDA of 1 August 2004. These texts, which have been subscribed to by the EU, call for “substantial reductions in trade-distorting domestic support” ”reduction of, with a view to phasing out all export subsidies” and “substantial improvements of market access”. The 28 October offer shows what the EU is prepared to do to achieve these goals.

This offer is made pursuant to the Commission’s negotiating directives for the DDA negotiations and is in full conformity with these directives.

The EU’s offer on agriculture is by no means a unilateral concession. It is clearly made conditional to simultaneous moves, by all other WTO Members, on the other areas under negotiations, notably industrial tariffs (NAMA⁽¹⁾), services, anti-dumping, geographical indications and development.

Being a key player in these negotiations, it is the EU’s responsibility to build the necessary bridges to ensure the success of these negotiations, including on agriculture, which are key for the further development of the world economy, for the EU economy and for the EU’s competitiveness.

The EU will not subscribe to a deal that would put entire sectors of European agriculture at risk or which would jeopardise the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), but is determined to contribute to the DDA’s objective of fairer and more market-oriented agricultural policies, in line with the 2003 CAP reform which constitutes the limits for the Commission’s negotiating brief in the WTO round. At the same time, the Commission will continue to vigorously pursue its offensive interests, notably in the areas of industrial products and services in order to achieve an overall balanced outcome.

Bearing in mind the importance of banana production in the European Union and the fact that it is concentrated in certain outermost regions, with the consequent social impact, what measures will the Commission adopt to protect banana production in the context of the new tariff-only system which is to come into force on 1 January 2006?

(EN)The Commission is fully aware of the importance of banana production for the social and economic situation of the EU producer regions, which already suffer from natural handicaps and remoteness from the continent.

The EU banana market and the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) have considerably changed since the compensatory aid scheme was set up in 1993. A reform of the compensatory aid scheme for banana producers is therefore highly likely, based on the findings of the independent evaluation completed last summer and presented to the Parliament (COMAGRI) on 23 November last. This was the first step of a wide public debate to be continued in the next months, taking into account also the changes to the import arrangements. In this framework, the Commission is also examining the memorandum put forward by the four main producing Member States on 20 September 2005 and will consider the positions of all the interested parties.

The Commission intends to table a proposal at the beginning of next summer, following the debate on the evaluations and an extended impact assessment of the different options identified as regards reform of the current support scheme.

Can the Commission give its view on the recent disturbances in France and indicate whether there are any lessons to be learned for wider integration and equality issues across the EU?

Will the Commission, for example, give its view on the sharing of best practice on integration policy, using devices such as the open method of coordination, or does it believe that there is a need for further EU proposals?

(FR)The recent events witnessed in the suburbs of Paris and other French and European cities have focused attention upon a state of affairs which prevails in many of Europe's deprived urban areas. No Member State can boast that it has all the answers to the question of how young people from immigant families are to be successfully integrated into our societies.

The European Union has established an innovatory legal framework which will enable it to combat direct and indirect discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin, religion, disability, age, sex and sexual orientation. Although the European Union can pride itself on its achievements in the field of non-discrimination (which make it a world leader in this area), legislation by itself is not enough to enable discrimination to be combated effectively.

Even though practical action to combat exclusion issues must be taken at local level (precisely where young people experience difficulties), the EU can support the Member States' efforts by ensuring that experience and sound practices are exchanged.

Pursuant to the open method of coordination for social inclusion, the priority topics to be entered in the 2006 peer-review programme will include policies and initiatives to promote social inclusion in deprived districts and urban areas. The topic of disadvantaged youth will also be one of those selected for a European conference to be held in the spring of 2006, the purpose of which is to capitalise upon and exploit the results of the Community action programme to combat social exclusion.

At the end of this year the Commission is due to set up a high-level group to deal with the social integation of disadvantaged minorities and the full involvement thereof in the employment market. The group will submit its recommendations in 2007.

The Member States' situations and traditions vary enormously, as do political responses and integration models. With particular reference to the integration of people from non-EU countries, it should be pointed out that (as was acknowledged at the 2003 Thessaloniki European Council) although responsibility for devising and implementing integration policies lies mainly with the Member States, such policies should be developed within a coherent European framework, with due regard to the legal, political, economic, social and cultural differences which exist amongst the Member States.

The Commission - in close cooperation with its network of National Contact Points on Integration - is working on the identification and exchange of sound practices originating in a number of Member States. It has published a Manual on Integration in which the integration measures which deserve to be shared are described.

The Commission has also recently adopted a Communication on a common integration programme which puts forward a framework relating to the integration of non-EU nationals within the European Uniuon. That working framework is based on proposals for practical measures designed to implement the common basic principles on integration (which were adopted by the Council of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers in November 2004) and a set of facilitatory EU support mechanisms (including a website and the European Integration Forum). The integration measures are designed to take into account the local and urban level at which integration actually takes place. These initiatives were strongly supported by the European Council in the conclusions on integration which it adopted on 1 December 2004.

Olive oil adulterated with sunflower oil has been found on the market in Greece: the packaging bears the label of the Belgian brand Super Market, and it was imported into Greece by the corresponding commercial network. Increased public sensitivity to transparency and safety issues regarding food has led to the adoption of a number of measures, including stringent obligations and quality standards for farmers, which increase production costs in anticipation that the market will provide the necessary compensation. Important policies to promote the marketing of standardised olive oil have been implemented to provide guarantees regarding the identity and safety of the product, often at the expense of the direct marketing of olive oil by producers. Since the introduction of compulsory standardisation, there have been cases of adulteration of olive oil standardised by enterprises, and this has affected consumer confidence.

Does the Commission believe that the rules of labelling and the type of controls carried out on olive oil at national and Community level are adequate to ensure the safe marketing of this product? What is the role of the European Food Safety Authority in the system of controls to prevent the adulteration of food?

What measures does it intend to take to protect the reputation of products such as olive oil so as to ensure that market prospects continue to be favourable and that producers face fair competition ?

(EN)Olive oil, blends of vegetables oils and food preparations containing olive oil are becoming increasingly available at retail sales outlets in all European Union countries.

Since 1st November 2002, the labelling of these products has had to comply with Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 on marketing standard for olive oil, which imposes obligations on all Member States, whether they produce olive oil or not.

These specific labelling rules are supplementing those laid down in Directive 2000/13/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) which is in charge of the scientific assessment in the fields of food safety and nutrition is not competent for ensuring official control at EC level. The Commission through its Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) is responsible for the official control of the food safety legislation implementation by the Member States. This control does not usually cover quality issues such as olive oil adulteration.

If quality policy is to be as effective and successful as anticipated, Member States should strengthen their control measures and the cooperation between them as provided by Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002.

It is only in this way that assurances can be obtained regarding the authenticity of the olive oils marketed and the protection of consumers against any deception that may be caused by false allegations and by products whose quality does not correspond to their sales description.

Each year 230.000 people in Germany suffer from aphasia as a result of a stroke or accident. This illness results in the loss of speech and is often associated with one-sided or total paralysis. The Federal centre for aphasia is located in my constituency. In addition to the usual rehabilitation treatment, the centre provides specialist and often lengthy intensive therapy to help aphasia sufferers re-learn how to speak.

Is the Commission aware that sickness insurance schemes virtually never undertake to pay for this treatment? Does the Commission therefore plan to provide support for the treatment of aphasia in the foreseeable future?

(EN)The Commission is well aware of the serious problems posed by aphasia; the loss or impairment of the ability to produce or comprehend language, due to brain damage.

In its 6th Framework Programme the Commission is supporting research on the causes and treatment of stroke. In its proposal for the 7th Framework Programme 2007-2013 a specific area has been foreseen for research on the brain and related diseases, human development and ageing. This area might include research on stroke and other brain damage and their consequences, such as aphasia.

On a more general basis, the Commission gives special attention to improving the monitoring of brain related diseases and disorders. This is identified as a priority in the 2005 work plan of the EU Public Health Programme.

As far as insurance schemes are concerned, the Commission would like to remind the honourable Member that the organisation, delivery, funding and reimbursement of care including the treatment for aphasia are the responsibility of Member States. As such the Commission or the Community have no competence to instruct Member States or health (insurance) providers what medical treatments should be covered by their health care (insurance). Nevertheless, the Commission can provide support and information to Member States in relation to various care-related topics as is the case of aphasia.

It is a fact that not all Member States have free access to stocks of eel fry. This is the case for the majority of the Baltic States, including the 'new' ones. The situation results from the limited opportunities for eel fry to migrate to inland waters. These countries are forced to import stocks from the largest Member States at a cost that unfortunately reflects the high prices applicable to exports to Asia. The Baltic States are understandably keen for fair rules to be drafted for the sharing among all countries concerned of the cost of protecting eel stocks, including among exporters and importers of eel fry. How does the Commission intend to solve this problem?

(EN)Current levels of recruiting glass eel are at a very low point. The quantities of available glass eel are significant only in Western Atlantic areas, especially around the Bay of Biscay, whereas, in the past, glass eel used to be much more widespread.

The long-term solution to this problem can only be the restoration of recruitment to higher levels. The best chance to achieve this is by increasing the escapement of pre-spawning, silver eel towards previous high levels. The Commission has presented a proposal with the objective of achieving this by means of the implementation of national eel management plans. These national eel management plans, to be established by the Member States, would meet a common target agreed at community level.

Member States will therefore be able to opt for a range of measures, leading to the desired objective, that are best suited to the local specificities of each river basin. Until effective plans can be implemented, reductions in fishing are required to improve eel survival, and the proposal calls for a closure during the first 15 days of each month.

Once the Community has put in place these conservation measures, the Commission will be in a position to propose measures related to trade that will favour the use of glass eels for conservation-related purposes.

Why has the Commissioners' Group on Fundamental Rights, Anti-discrimination and Equal Opportunities not reported to the European Parliament so far? How often has the Group met so far? What initiatives has the Group taken? What are the intended activities for the future? Does the Group monitor the implementation of the anti-discrimination directives? Does it envisage a horizontal anti-discrimination directive? How does the Group ensure active promotion of fundamental rights by the European Commission? Please illustrate with examples. When will the Commission present the proposals for an anti-discrimination strategy, as announced by President Barroso on 27 April? Is the Group involved in the application of Articles 6 and 7 of the TEU?

(EN)The creation of the Group followed the new rules on the functioning of the Commission and its internal coordination. It was set up to prepare the work of the College of Commissioners in its particular field and to provide policy input and guidance. The Group has met 6 times so far: the first meeting took place on 22/12/2004 (constitutive meeting). In 2005, it has held 4 regular meetings — 16/02, 27/04, 21/06 and 23/11 — and one extraordinary session on 08/03, to mark the International Women’s Day. The members of the Group are of course fully prepared to explain the Group’s work in the course of their regular appearances before the competent committees of the EP.

The Group does not have decision-making powers. Its main task is to drive policy in the areas of fundamental rights, anti-discrimination and equal opportunities by preparing initiatives for adoption by the College, giving guidelines for forthcoming actions and ensuring the coherence of ongoing work.

The Group was a major mover behind the communication in which the Commission set out its methodology for a systematic and vigorous scrutiny of all its legislative proposals to ensure compliance with fundamental rights as set out in particular in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (COM(2005)172 final of 27 April 2005). As the communication states, the Group keeps a close eye on the operation and main results of this internal monitoring of compliance, which is carried out essentially by the Commission departments. To this end, where proposals require a careful balance between several opposing fundamental rights, the Group may produce policy guidelines within the margins of discretion allowed by the Charter. The Group did this, for example, for the Commission’s proposal on data retention.

Furthermore, the Group plays a central role in driving policy initiatives of the Commission for the active promotion of fundamental rights, with due regard for the Community competences and the principle of subsidiarity. In particular, the Group has discussed the main issues concerning the Fundamental Rights Agency; discussed the action plan on the Hague programme; exchanged views on the balance between the security and protection of fundamental rights; contributed to data retention proposals; held discussions on combating trafficking in human beings and racism and xenophobia; proposed the main elements for the forthcoming strategy on the rights of the child; and steered the preparations for the anti-discrimination strategy, the European Year of Equal Opportunities for All and the 5-year road-map to replace the framework strategy on gender equality from 2007. The Group has also analysed the articulation between the European Institute for Gender Equality and the Fundamental Rights Agency, so as to ensure complementarities, and discussed relations with the Council of Europe, particularly as regards the accession to the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).

In 2006, the Group will pursue ongoing work on the protection and promotion of fundamental rights in Commission proposals and will follow up the steps towards the creation of the Fundamental Rights Agency. Some sensitive issues such as human dignity and bio-ethics or the integration of minority groups and migrants will also need to be tackled.

The Commission’s Framework Strategy on non-discrimination and equal opportunities for all was presented on 1 June 2005. The Communication, which was discussed by the Group, builds upon the consultation on the 2004 Green Paper on Equality and non-discrimination in an enlarged EU. Ensuring effective legal protection against discrimination is a central part of this strategy, which will require the full transposition of EU anti-discrimination legislation by all Member States as well as a range of complementary measures to ensure that people are aware of their rights and are able to get access to justice. To this end, the Commission will continue to assess the implementation of the current legal framework and to study the relevance and feasibility of possible new measures to complement it. The results of this feasibility study should be available during 2007. In this context, the Commission does not currently have any plans to propose new legislative measures based on Article 13 of the EC Treaty.

In its communication COM(2003) 606 final of 15 October 2003, the Commission set out its position with regard to the powers conferred on it by Article 7 of the EU Treaty as amended by the Treaty of Nice. As stressed in that communication, the Commission intends to exercise these powers in full and with a clear awareness of its responsibility. However, it considers that it can best contribute to the preservation of common values by insisting on measures based on prevention, strict monitoring of the situation in the Member States, cooperation between the institutions and with the Member States and, lastly, public information and education.

Should a case nonetheless emerge which would require a political assessment by the Commission in the light of Article 7 of the EU Treaty, the possibility is not excluded that the Group might contribute in preparing that assessment through discussions.

The Court of Justice has ruled that, under public procurement law, contracts may not normally be awarded to companies governed by public law without a formal procurement procedure, i.e. on the grounds of fair competition there is no in-house transaction which is not subject to procurement law.

However, under German turnover tax law such companies governed by public law are able to submit tenders in such a procurement procedure net of turnover tax, which is not possible for their private-sector competitors.

Does the Commission consider that the turnover tax exemption applicable in Germany to companies governed by public law in connection with in-house transactions is in breach of Community law – specifically of Article 4(5)(2) of the Sixth Directive (Directive 77/388/EEC⁽¹⁾ of 17 May 1977) – on the grounds of distortion of competition, if private-sector competitors who are not afforded this tax advantage take part in invitations to tender for contracts or services issued by a public contracting authority which simultaneously has an interest in a tenderer who enjoys this tax advantage?

(EN)The first subparagraph of Article 4 (5) of the Sixth VAT Directive provides that states, regional and local government authorities and other bodies governed by public law shall not be considered taxable persons in respect of the activities or transactions in which they engage as public authorities, even where they collect dues, fees, contributions or payments in connection with these activities or transactions.

As the European Court of Justice has held on several occasions, in particular, judgement of 26 March 1987 in the case 235/85 "Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands" and judgements of 12 September 2000 in the cases C-276/97 "Commission v French Republic" and C-359/97 "Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", it is clear from Article 4(5) of the Directive, when examined in the light of the aims of the Sixth Directive, that two conditions must be fulfilled for the rule of treatment as a non-taxable person to apply: the activities must be carried out by a body governed by public law and they must be carried out by that body acting as a public authority. As regards the latter condition, it is the way in which the activities are carried out that determines the scope of the treatment of public bodies as non-taxable persons. It follows from the Court's Case Law that these are two different conditions. In the absence of one of them, the transaction in question will be taxable.

Moreover, the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth VAT Directive stipulates that, if the public bodies engage in the abovementioned activities and transactions, they shall be considered taxable persons in respect of these activities or transactions where treatment as non-taxable would lead to significant distortions of competition. Consequently, a public body is taxable when the condition in Article 4 (5) second paragraph – significant distortions of competition - is met.

In view of the scope of the term economic activities it must be held that, in providing services in return for payment, undertakings associated with municipalities and other municipal public bodies are carrying out an economic activity within the meaning of the Sixth Directive.

If in fact, undertakings or companies governed by public law are engaged in such activities, the Commission considers that treating them as non-taxable persons significantly distorts competition because commercial operators engaged in identical activities must charge VAT. Consequently, if those entities submit to the public market, normally, they cannot do it without issuing a VAT invoice.

According to the available to the Commission, Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive was implemented in Germany by § 2 (3) of the Umsatzsteuergesetz. The main rule is that bodies governed by public law are taxable persons for VAT purposes only when carrying out economic activities as defined by German law.

If the honourable Member had examples at his disposal showing that undertakings in Germany linked with municipalities or other municipal public bodies are entitled to the exemption provided for by Article 4 (5) of the Sixth Directive regarding their activity in the framework of services supplied to public authorities, the Commission would be grateful to receive this information.

Is there any group within the EU, other than Protestants in Northern Ireland, against whom the Commission has sanctioned employment discrimination (by virtue of the derogation granted pursuant to Article 15 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC⁽¹⁾)?

(EN)On 27 November 2000, the Council unanimously adopted Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, including the provisions on Northern Ireland contained in Article 15.⁽²⁾ This Directive was adopted under Article 13 of the EC Treaty, and the Parliament was consulted in accordance with the Treaty.

It should be noted that Article 15 did not form part of the Commission's original proposal and was added by the Council during the negotiations on the Directive in autumn 2000.

Article 15 of Directive 2000/78/EC does not, however, sanction discrimination against Protestants in Northern Ireland. As the preamble of Directive makes clear, the need to promote peace and reconciliation between the major communities in Northern Ireland necessitates the incorporation of particular provisions. These allow the United Kingdom to legislate to authorise differences in treatment in recruitment into the police service of Northern Ireland, in order to tackle the under-representation of one of the major religious communities. It also authorises the United Kingdom to exempt the recruitment of teachers in Northern Ireland from the Directive's provisions on religion and belief, in order to maintain a balance of opportunity in employment while furthering reconciliation between the major religious communities.

On 29 June 2004, the multi-stakeholders' forum on CSR submitted its conclusions to the Commission. The Commission was to draft a communication on it (programme of work for 2005), but has still not done so. Can the Commission indicate when it will submit this communication? We hear that, by way of follow-up to the work of the multi-stakeholders' forum, the Commission intends to confine itself to establishing an 'alliance between businesses for corporate social responsibility'. Were all parties concerned consulted about this, and can the Commission assure us that all actors will be included in this alliance? What further action will the Commission take on the conclusions of the multi-stakeholders' forum and to what extent will account be taken, in this connection, of the recommendations contained in the European Parliament resolution of 30 May 2002 (P5_TA(2002)0278)⁽¹⁾, inter alia concerning social labelling and independent social and environmental reports? How will the Commission shoulder its responsibility in this field?

(FR)In the context of both the Partnership for Growth and Jobs and the Social Agenda, the Commission has highlighted the fact that corporate social responsibility (CSR) can make a key contribution to sustainable development, at the same time as boosting Europe’s potential in terms of innovation and competitiveness.

In March 2005, the European Council decided to revise the Lisbon Strategy and to shift the focus to growth and jobs. In its conclusions, it stressed that ‘in order to encourage investment and to provide an attractive setting for business and work, the European Union must complete its internal market and make its regulatory environment more business-friendly, while business must in turn develop its sense of social responsibility’.

The Commission has therefore decided to review the work done by the EU to date in the field of CSR, in order to ensure that the approach whereby businesses act on a voluntary basis is compatible with the revised Lisbon Strategy. The Commission intends to boost political support for CSR and to increase its visibility as a way of allowing businesses to make a voluntary contribution to the European strategy for growth and jobs and to the sustainable development strategy, in line with the recommendations that emerged from the work of the Stakeholder Forum.

The Commission is currently examining the next steps to be taken in order to advance the CSR agenda at European level, and it will present its conclusions in the next few months.

Parliament's Delegation for relations with the Palestinian Legislative Council recently visited the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

During the visit, the Delegation was personally able to observe the continuing construction of the wall. The wall which will, in future, separate the State of Israel from the State of Palestine continues to be built and, in many instances, within the green line, i.e. the 1967 borders, meaning that the actual land ultimately to be given to the Palestinians to found their State will be less than 22% of their historical territory as provided by the Road Map. Moreover, the wall completely surrounds the city of Jerusalem, thereby excluding East Jerusalem from Palestinian territory, which the Palestinians consider to be a 'red line' as they have repeatedly stated that they cannot accept any solution which does not provide for East Jerusalem to be the capital of their State.

How does the Commission intend to help ensure that Israel stops building the wall which, in addition to all the abovementioned political problems, is also creating enormous humanitarian problems?

(EN)The routing of the separation barrier inside the Palestinian West Bank, and in East Jerusalem, is a source of great concern. The European Council has called on Israel to freeze construction of the barrier inside the occupied Palestinian territories, and in its declaration of June 2005, it stated that it remains concerned by the continuing construction of the separation barrier, which it held to be contrary to the principles of international law. The European Council stressed that such unilateral acts serve only to make it more difficult to achieve a negotiated settlement of the conflict with a two-state solution in mind.

The Council reiterated these concerns in its most recent statement of 21 November 2005 on the Middle East Peace Process. The Council “urges the Israeli Government to cease all activities in the Palestinian Territories contrary to international law, including settlement building, the demolition of Palestinian homes and the construction of the separation barrier on occupied land. These undermine the prospects for a sustainable peace through the co-existence of two viable states. The situation in and around East Jerusalem is a cause of particular concern.”

The Commission is very aware of the humanitarian and economic hardship caused to the thousands of Palestinians affected by the construction of the separation barrier, and the Commissioner in charge of External Relations raised the matter with Prime Minister Sharon during her visit to Israel on 10 November 2005.

The Commission will emphasise its position to the Israeli authorities whenever the opportunity for political dialogue arises. The European Union will continue to collaborate with the international partners in the Quartet and with our partners in the region to work with both sides to bring them back to the political process, as laid down in the Roadmap, and to promote a resolution to the conflict based on tolerance, respect of democracy and human rights.

In November 2003, the Council of Research Ministers lifted the moratorium on stem cells and decided that research on existing cell lines might be financed from the Sixth Framework Programme.

Which projects were supported? Does this compromise also apply to the Seventh FPR? Why is there no reference to this in any Commission document?

(FR)The agreement adopted by the Council and the Commission on 30 September 2002 on the specific programme ‘Integrating and Strengthening the European Research Area’, which implements the sixth European Community framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration (2002-2006)⁽¹⁾, stated that until the Commission had outlined the procedure it would use to evaluate, select and fund research programmes involving the use of human embryos and human embryonic stem cells, it would only be possible to fund research projects involving the use of banked or isolated human embryonic stem cells in culture (e.g. existing stem cells).

On 26 November 2003, the Commission submitted a proposal to the Council on the conditions for Community funding of research activities involving the procurement of human embryonic stem cells from supernumerary embryos⁽²⁾. Since no agreement has been reached within the Council on this proposal, the specific programme ‘Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area’ continues to provide the legal basis for the funding of such research.

At the same time, the agreement of 30 September 2002 provided for procedural arrangements to be put in place for the funding of research activities involving the use of banked or isolated human embryonic stem cells in culture. These arrangements were adopted by the Commission on 11 November 2003⁽³⁾ in line with the rules provided for in Articles 6(3) and 7(3) of the specific programme referred to in the previous paragraph.

To date, the Commission has funded five projects pursuant to Articles 6(3) and 7(3) of the specific programme. Within the framework of this programme, they were submitted to the Regulatory Committee⁽⁴⁾, which is made up of representatives of the Member States, for its opinion. The projects, which use only existing human embryonic stem cell lines, were all approved by a large majority. A key point to note is that research carried out on human embryonic stem cells forms only a small part of the research activities within the framework of each project.

The Commission has proposed that the ethical guidelines provided for in the sixth framework programme be carried over in their entirety into the seventh framework programme⁽⁵⁾. Details of this ethical framework are given in the Commission’s proposals for the specific programmes, which it presented on 21 September 2005⁽⁶⁾. These proposals will of course be discussed with Parliament and the Council as part of the interinstitutional procedure.

Is the Commission satisfied that its website is fully accessible and user-friendly for visually-handicapped citizens, who may compose up to 20% of our society?

For example, are the colour-combinations used on the website easy for colour-blind people to read?

For example, are large tables which contain many rows and columns of data made easy for people with limited narrow vision, when they may not be able to look up to the top or across to the side to verify what the data refers to?

(EN)The Commission is very committed to make their public web site accessible as already indicated in the Commission Communication on web Accessibility⁽¹⁾. The Commission informs the Honorable Member that for its website, it has decided to adopt level A conformity of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines as issued by the W3C consortium, the international issuing guidelines for the Web.

Although some older pages on the site may not completely conform, all new recently updated pages are systematically checked for conformity. More information on the accessibility policy of the Europe site can be found at our page on the subject at .

In light of the ongoing concern relating to the operation of the Sellafield nuclear facility in Cumbria, will the European Commission use the powers vested in it under the Euratom Treaty to carry out a full independent inquiry into safety standards at this plant?

(EN)The Commission makes regularly use of the powers available to it under the existing legislation. Pending adoption of a Directive on the safety of nuclear facilities, the Commission has no competence with regard to the verification of compliance with "safety standards". This is the responsibility of the national regulatory authorities.

However, Article 35 of the Euratom Treaty stipulates that “Each Member State shall establish the facilities necessary to carry out continuous monitoring of the level of radioactivity in the air, water and soil and to ensure compliance with the basic standards” and that “The Commission shall have the right of access to such facilities; it may verify their operation and efficiency”.

With respect to the Sellafield site, the Commission used this right no later than in March 2004. It allowed to confirm that the provisions put in place for monitoring discharges of gaseous and liquid radioactive effluents as well as for the surveillance of levels of radioactivity in the environment were in compliance with Article 35 of the Euratom Treaty.

The Main Findings and Technical Report of the verifications in 2004 were transmitted to the United Kingdom competent authorities. The latter has been put in the public domain on the EC’s EUROPA web site⁽¹⁾.

In addition, the Commission regularly exercises its powers to verify nuclear security issues at the Sellafield site under Chapter VII of the Euratom Treaty. In applying these provisions, the Commission inspects nuclear installations with a view to preventing the diversion of nuclear material from its intended use.

The Commission therefore fully uses the powers as vested in it under the Euratom Treaty to carry out independent inquiries into safety as well as security standards at all nuclear plants in the European Union, including the site of Sellafield.

Is it the view of the European Commission that the availability to EU consumers of cross-border financial services will result in greater competition, and consequently provide better financial services, such as mortgages, to the consumers of Europe?

(EN)Under normal market conditions, the availability of financial services from providers from other Member State creates more competition in EU retail markets. The model of open competition is commonly regarded as beneficial to consumers. In its position on the Green Paper on Financial Services Policy (2005-2010), BEUC (The European Consumers' Organisation) acknowledges that "integration of retail financial services markets could potentially benefit consumers in the form notably of substantial financial gains (lower prices through increased competition)".

The notion of 'better' financial services, referred to by the honourable Member in his question, is a subjective one. However, greater competition in retail financial services can certainly offer to consumers the following gains:

greater choice;

lower prices due to pressure on financial services providers;

introduction of new products⁽¹⁾, taking the specific example of mortgage credit;

And finally, increased growth fostered by financial market integration. Although one cannot expect retail financial services market integration to foster the same growth as wholesale market integration, it still plays an important role. For instance, taking mortgage credit as an example, a study conducted for the Commission by London Economics estimates that by 2015 integration of the EU mortgage credit market would raise EU GDP (gross domestic product) by 0.7% and private consumption by 0.5%⁽²⁾.

A decision was taken in the summer 2005 to accord the Irish language status as an official working language within the European Union. Can the European Commission state what are its plans to implement this decision in terms of recruiting new Irish language translators and interpreters?

(EN)Irish was granted the status of an official and working language of the European Union by the Council on 13 June 2005.

Council Regulation N° 1/58⁽¹⁾, which is the legal basis of the language policy in the EU, was amended to include Irish as the 21st official language.⁽²⁾ The amended Regulation will apply from 1st January 2007.

In the meantime, the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO), in consultation with the other European Union institutions, is actively pursuing plans to meet their recruitment needs in relation to the Irish language. In this respect, a special Task Force has been established by the Inter-Institutional Committee on Translation and Interpretation (ICTI)⁽³⁾. Early November 2005, this Task Force undertook a fact-finding visit to Ireland to assess the market for Irish language translators and interpreters. It is expected to report its findings to the ICTI shortly.

EPSO’s forward planning, as agreed by the EPSO Management Board⁽⁴⁾, included the preparation of a notice for competition for Irish proofreaders for the Office of Official Publications of the European Communities. The publication of this open competition is expected by the end of 2005. EPSO also currently envisages the publication of an open competition for translators having Irish as their main language in the first semester of 2006. Competitions for interpreters have still to be agreed upon by the European Union institutions.

While the demand for interpreting envisaged by the Irish authorities is modest, it must be noted that the number of known interpreters with Irish is extremely low. It would be for the Irish authorities to train the requisite numbers to EU standards.

Can the European Commission state clearly what it is doing to ensure that simplified and up-to-date information can be assessed concerning how EU development aid monies are being spent on an annual basis?

(EN)The main objective of the EC development co-operation policy is to reduce and eventually eradicate poverty, through support for economically, socially and environmentally sustainable development and promotion of the gradual integration of the developing countries into the world economy.

The Commission has a legal obligation to report to the Council and the Parliament on its activities and results in the framework of various regulations regarding assistance programmes. To this end, the Commission produces yearly an Annual Report on the European Community’s development policy and external assistance. The report covers the policies and targets set for the year in question, and measures our achievements against them. It contains an annex with financial tables where updated extensive information can be found on how external aid is financed from the general European Union budget and the European Development Fund.

An electronic version of the Annual Report is available on the EuropeAid’s web site every year in June (http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/reports/index_en.htm

). A printed copy is produced as soon as possible thereafter.

On 23 November 2005 the Commission told the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions that pursuant to the inquiry procedure (2004/2080) which it had opened in response to earlier questions tabled by the present author in February 2004 (P-0494/04) and May 2005 (H-0412/05⁽¹⁾), it had received all the information which it had requested from Spain concerning the excavation of the M-30 which is proceeding under the auspices of the Madrid city authorities. As has been stated once again by Roberto Tornamira on behalf of Southern Interchange Victims' Lobby, the excavation work is being actively opposed by local people.Since the work is proceeding, the Commission must now decide whether it deems an environmental-impact assessment to be mandatory (as the author of this question believes and as is required under Community law).Will the Commission agree to take a decision by 31 December of this year?

(EN)The M-30 project has been the subject of an exchange of information between the Commission and the Spanish authorities. The Commission requested information in particular on the respect of the provisions of Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as modified by Directive 97/11/EC.

The answers of the Spanish authorities are currently under examination and conclusions will be reached shortly. In any case, the Commission will take all the necessary steps to ensure compliance with Community legislation in this case.

The Commission has allocated € 2 000 000 for news broadcasts to Belarus. The project is being carried out by the Deutsche Welle radio station, which is broadcasting the programmes in Russian. For many opposition politicians in Belarus, this represents a slap in the face for Belarus's national culture. The fact that Deutsche Welle is broadcasting the programmes in Russian is seen in Belarus as an attempt by the European Union to 'Russify' the country. This is a paradoxical situation, given that in earmarking funds for radio programmes for Belarus Parliament sought to improve access to independent information in Belarus and to bolster the Belarusian people's efforts to secure the democratisation of their country. These goals are unlikely to be achieved if these programmes are not broadcast in Belarusian, which is a symbol of Belarus' ongoing efforts to achieve true independence.

Is the Commission considering the possibility of programmes being broadcast to Belarus in Belarusian, given that in the last national census 73.7% of Belarusians stated that they considered the language to be their mother tongue?

(EN)Under the "European initiative for democracy and human rights" an EC financial instrument which supports democratisation process in third countries, the Commission has indeed granted a € 138,000 contract to radio Deutsche Welle to broadcast into Belarus, via radio and internet, a 15 minutes programme on a daily basis both in Russian, which remains the language of a sizable part of Belarus population, and in Belarusian.

The Parliament welcomed this support for independent broadcasting in its Resolution on Belarus of 29 September 2005.

This programme will contribute to raising awareness amongst the population about democracy, rule of law, pluralism, freedom of press and human rights, and give them access to independent information about the situation in their country and in the world.

The news reports are posted on the internet in Russian and Belarusian languages. As an initial step, radio broadcasting has started in Russian. The Commission and Radio Deutsche Welle are now actively discussing the next steps to broadcast parts of the news reports in Belarusian This project which has started in October 2005 serves as a preparatory step for a larger-scale € 2 million media programme which is about to be launched. This programme will cover radio/television broadcasting, written press, internet and the training of journalists in line with the request of the Parliament to grant as soon as possible even greater assistance to the free media and to extend broadcasting initiatives. Broadcasting will be both in Russian and Belarusian languages. The tendering is now well-advanced and four media consortia have already been pre-selected to take part in the final selection. The Commission will now assess the projects put forward by each consortium and it will select the best one. The project will start early 2006 at the latest.

What assessment does the Commission make of Labour standards in the 15 countries that have applied for GSP-plus?

(EN)The new “GSP+”⁽¹⁾ arrangement offers additional benefits to those vulnerable countries which are implementing the international standards in human and labour rights, environmental protection, the fight against drugs and good governance.

In accordance with the procedure defined in the new Council Regulation for the GSP⁽²⁾, the Commission has assessed the requests of fifteen applicants, in the light of findings of international organisations and agencies. This examination has taken account of the position of the International Labour Organisation (ILO). Apart from El Salvador, each of these applicant countries has ratified and effectively implemented the requisite eight core labour standards of the ILO, among other international conventions. Faced with specific constitutional constraints as defined under the new GSP Council Regulation, El Salvador could be granted a temporary derogation under which this country would get an additional year to sign, ratify and effectively implement the two missing conventions on labour rights.

The EU’s GSP scheme has played a vital role as an “incentive” for the applicant countries, several of which have recently ratified some key ILO conventions in order to comply with the criteria for the “GSP+”. According to the ILO supervisory committees, most of the applicant countries have made substantial changes to their legal systems in order to comply fully with the rights enshrined in the ILO conventions, in particular regarding the freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining.

New institutions have also been set up to further promote and protect core labour rights in requesting countries. Where exceptional weaknesses in government policy and/or action have been identified, they can be explained by underfunded public services and small public budgets which characterize developing countries and economies in transition to free-market pluralistic societies. Requesting countries’ efforts to tackle difficulties relating to some ILO conventions have been judged against this background.

The Commission supports the key progress and reforms from the fifteen GSP+ applicants. Accordingly, by the end of this year, the Commission will make the final decision to include these countries on the list of GSP+ beneficiaries for the GSP Regulation lifetime (2006-2008).

Promoting or earning money from someone else selling sex amounts to sexual procurement and carries a possible prison sentence of six years in Sweden. Nevertheless, sexual procurement is taking place quite openly on the Internet. On 28 November 2005, as many as 500 prostitutes were being advertised to sex-buyers in some ten European countries. Naked photographs, price lists, suggestions of locations for sex and mobile telephone numbers - everything is stated openly. So far, it has not been possible to prosecute any of the people behind these sites. The problem is that the companies' servers are located in countries with no appropriate legislation or which are difficult to cooperate with for other reasons.

Is the Commission aware of this problem and what does it intend to do to deal with it?

(EN)The Commission is aware of the situation described in this oral question. Currently, two Council Framework Decisions address the problem of sexual exploitation: the Council Framework Decision of 19 July 2002 on combating trafficking in human beings⁽¹⁾ and the Council Framework Decision of 22 December 2003 on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography⁽²⁾. Member States have adapted their legislation or are doing this. The competent authorities of the Member States must be considered to be obliged to prosecute sexual procurement on the Internet where it constitutes an offence according to the Framework Decisions. In the course of their evaluation the need for further legislative action will be assessed.

Furthermore, the Safer Internet plus programme aims to promote safer use of the Internet and new online technologies, particularly for children, and to fight against illegal content and content unwanted by the end-user, as part of a coherent approach by the European Union.

Following the introduction of a toll for HGVs, a charge for cars using German motorways is also being discussed. At the moment, car drivers have to pay motor vehicle tax calculated on the basis of emissions and engine capacity, and excise duty on mineral oil. The proceeds from a possible car toll could be reserved solely for road construction, as this is the motivation behind the charge. Since the cost to German drivers is already substantial, the introduction of a distance- or time-related road-use charge would have to be accompanied by a reduction in motor vehicle tax or mineral oil duty.

If mineral oil duty is cut, then attention must be paid to the minimum tax rates set out under the Energy Tax Directive, below which mineral oil duty could not fall.

Does the Commission consider that the introduction in Germany of a motor vehicle toll based on road use, accompanied by a compensatory reduction in mineral oil duty or the motor vehicle tax imposed by the individual Länder, is compatible with European law, and in particular with the ban on discrimination under Article 12 of the EC Treaty?

(FR)The Commission does not believe that the introduction of a motorway toll system for passenger cars constitutes a violation of Article 12 of the EC Treaty in itself. The Member States must ensure, however, that such systems do not result in direct or indirect discrimination on the basis of the nationality of users. The same principle applies when their introduction is accompanied by a corresponding reduction in national taxes.

As regards reductions of national mineral oil taxes, it is important to note that the applicable directive⁽¹⁾ sets out minimum levels of taxation for energy products, including motor fuels. Member States can choose their general levels of taxation respecting the rules set by the Directive, notably the minimum rates. Differentiations, deviating from this principle, may be applied only if permitted by the Directive.

Following the Bosman case and the question of freedom of movement of footballers within the Member States, football finds itself once again at the centre of disputes between the European Football Federation (UEFA), the International Football Federation (FIFA), the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), other international federations and the Commission's Directorate-General for Competition. The international federations disagree with certain aspects of the forthcoming Directive on 'Television without Frontiers', particularly in regard to the transmission of sporting events and highlights, either as information or as entertainment over the Internet or by means of mobile telephony.

Will the Commission say whether, in the context of competition and the free market, corresponding negotiations, exchanges of views and bargaining took place with the authorities and the counterpart organisations of the Member States? Is the international federations' decision binding on the EU in the field of information? Does it provide for any input from the stakeholders concerned, in this case the clubs and federations, or is this a 'gift' from the EU to the new technologies industry?

(EN)The honourable Member refers both to actions taken on the basis of Competition rules in the EC Treaty and the Television without Frontiers Directive.

Concerning the first aspect, in July 2003 the Commission adopted a decision pursuant to Article 81 of the Treaty in relation to joint selling of the commercial rights of the UEFA Champions League. A second decision was adopted on 19 January 2005 regarding the German Bundesliga. A Sector Inquiry into the provision of sports content over third generation mobile networks has recently been completed and published by the Commission on the website Europa⁽¹⁾, and the Commission intends to keep the situation under review.

Concerning the second aspect, the Commission is presently modernising the Television without Frontiers Directive. The review was prepared with two consultations in 2003 and 2005 and in full transparency - all documents and contributions are publicly available⁽²⁾. Sports federations were involved in this discussion like other stakeholders. It is not clear in which way an “international federation’ decision” could or should be binding on the EU.

One of the issues discussed in the context of the modernisation of the directive is the right for a broadcaster in a member state to access short news reports on a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory basis for events of high interests to the public transmitted by broadcasters under the jurisdiction of another member state. This in no case prevents entertainment rights for events of public interest to be acquired by broadcasters on an exclusive basis.

The European Network of Ombudsmen for Children (ENOC) was formed in 1997. The network consists of a number of national organisations and its aim is to promote children's rights in the individual countries. 26 countries are represented by children's ombudsmen or similar institutions. The aim of the network is to collect and exchange information concerning children's rights throughout Europe.

One way of improving joint European efforts would be to set up a European secretariat to coordinate the ENOC's work.

Will the Commission consider whether it is possible to grant aid for the ENOC's future work, from funds for the Daphne programme, for example?

(EN)The Commission would welcome discussions on the possibility to support a secretariat of the European Network of Ombudsmen for Children (ENOC) in the context of the consultations with civil society that will take place before finalising a Commission communication on the rights of the child, which is foreseen during the first half of 2006.

The Commission can provide funding under the Daphne II Programme to partnerships of European non-governmental organisations that work to combat violence against children. However, co-funding can only be granted for specific actions of a duration of maximum 24 months, and there is currently no possibility to provide operational grants under this Programme to financially support the functioning and operation of organisations or networks of organisations, such as ENOC.

On 26 April 2006, the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster will be commemorated, a disaster which posed an enormous threat to the safety and lives of European citizens. Thousands of young rescuers died or had their health destroyed as a result of their participation in the operations to cope with and limit the consequences of the accident. Yet now these people are not being assessed and are receiving insufficient medical care and social assistance. Because of the radiation to which they were exposed, the former rescuers are seriously ill or dying.

Could the Commission indicate what action has been undertaken to take better account of the social situation and state of health of these rescuers? Would it not be worthwhile to encourage the Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian Governments to allocate more resources to solving these problems? Are there no plans, as part of the new Neighbourhood Policy, to create an aid fund to deal with the social and health problems faced by the rescuers? Such measures could be carried out jointly with the Governments of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova and other countries.

(EN)The Commission carried out and sponsored a large number of projects in the countries most affected by the Chernobyl accident. These included, in the social area, medical supplies and equipment, training of medical staff and projects to help create alternative employment. However relatively little was done concerning specifically the “liquidators”. Currently the Commission is participating in the Cooperation for Rehabilitation (CORE) Programme in Belarus with the objective to improve the living conditions of the inhabitants of selected districts by reaching out to the people themselves.

Current programmes to deal with the consequences of the Chernobyl accident are well publicized. All countries, the EU Member States in particular, are welcome to participate in the ongoing efforts.

The new instruments for external assistance do not refer to specific projects, however it is not excluded that new projects be launched to address Chernobyl problems, if an agreement is reached with the beneficiary countries in this respect.

According to the latest information from the European Environment Agency, the pollution and degradation of the natural environment of the Mediterranean and the coasts of Mediterranean countries are mainly caused by the concentration of population in coastal areas and tourism (urban sewage and solid waste, industrial waste, oil pollution, urbanisation of coasts, etc.). Between 2003 and 2005, several towns and cities from both sides of the Mediterranean took part in the MED'ACT programme with the aim of cooperating on environmental protection. A new programme, MED'PACT, is scheduled for 2006, the aim of which is to improve planning and management relating to Mediterranean cities' environmental problems.

Does the Commission have a qualitative and quantitative assessment of the policy implemented thus far to combat the pollution of the marine environment by urban and tourist centres? Will this topic be included in the Green Paper to be drafted on the future of European shipping and in other initiatives and programmes relating to the marine environment? Will the Commission use MEDA funding to promote systematic cooperation between the EU and the Mediterranean partners to combat the problems associated with the pollution of the waters of the Mediterranean?

(EN)The Commission is fully aware of the importance of the impact of land based activities and sources of pollution on the coastal and marine environments. The European Environment Agency published in November 2005 its report on "Priority issues in the Mediterranean environment". This report was elaborated in close collaboration of the Agency with the Mediterranean Action Plan of the Barcelona Convention. The report concluded that pollution from land-base activities such as urban and touristic centres is the main source of pollution of the Mediterranean. The situation is worsened by inadequate treatment of urban waste and it is exacerbated by the continuous growth of tourism.

There are several Community instruments dealing with this type of pollution:

The EU Water Framework Directive, 2000/60/EC,⁽¹⁾ which is the main instrument addressing the pollution of all water bodies, including coastal areas.

Directives aimed inter alia to avoid eutrophication, such as those on nitrates from agricultural sources, 91/676/EEC,⁽²⁾ and on urban waste water treatment, 91/271/EEC⁽³⁾.

A specific directive on quality of bathing waters, 76/160/EEC,⁽⁴⁾ aimed at reducing the pollution of bathing waters to protect the environment and public health.

Excepting the water framework directive, which is at its first stages of implementation, the Commission regularly informs on the application of these directives. The Third Implementation Report of the urban waste water directive has been published in 2004.⁽⁵⁾ Likewise, the Commission published the Report on the Implementation of the nitrates directive in 2002.⁽⁶⁾ The Implementation Report covering the 2004 season for bathing waters has been published in 2005.⁽⁷⁾

The Commission is aware on the need to define specifically marine-oriented policies at Community level and has been paying particular attention to that over recent years.

Thus, the Thematic Strategy for the Protection and the Conservation of the Marine Environment, recently adopted by the Commission⁽⁸⁾ is the first environmental policy specifically proposed for the marine. Its integrated approach will allow addressing all kind of human induced impacts, included land based originated pollution. This strategy should be seen in the wider process of the initiative set in motion by the Commission to prepare a Green Paper for an all embracing Maritime Policy.⁽⁹⁾ The Green Paper shall be adopted in the first half of 2006 and will be the basis for a broad consultation. The Strategy will constitute the environmental pillar of this Maritime Policy.

In the particular context of the Mediterranean Sea, the Commission, conscious of the urgent need to undertake action, proposed and the Euro-Mediterranean Summit of 27-28 November 2005 agreed an ambitious initiative "to de-pollute the Mediterranean by 2020". The goal is to tackle all the major sources of pollution including industrial emissions, municipal waste and particularly urban wastewater. A road map of actions to meet this goal will be prepared in consultation with all of the relevant stakeholders and submitted to the Euro-Mediterranean Environment Ministers for adoption in 2006. The Commission will be formally launching this initiative at a meeting in Barcelona on 19 December. Representatives of regional and local authorities, as well as the private sector and NGOs have been invited to this meeting, and ask to indicate how they will be able to contribute to the initiative.

In addition it is worthwhile to mention that ship source pollution is adequately addressed with the REMPEC Strategy, which has been endorsed by the parties to the Barcelona Convention and that due account of this strategy has been taken in the new on-going SAFEMED/MEDA project.

Council Regulation (EC) no 1782/2003⁽¹⁾ lays down aid of € 45 per hectare for energy crops. The aid is granted for a maximum guaranteed area of 1 500 000 hectares in the Community as a whole (Articles 88-89).

As the production of biofuel is one of the major political objectives of the EU and all the Member States, when will the division, among the now 25 Member States, of the maximum guaranteed area of 1 500 000 hectares be announced so that it can be taken into account in the agricultural policy to be implemented for energy crops and so the areas for growing those crops can be defined?

In view of the growing need to boost incomes from farming, on the one hand, and the production of biofuels, on the other, will the Commission increase the financial aid to farmers growing energy crops as an incentive to produce them?

(EN)The maximum guaranteed area of 1 500 000 hectares for the production of energy crops is not a limitation of production but is a necessary budgetary tool. In case of an overshoot of the above area, the payments to the farmers would be reduced proportionally.

This budgetary constraint applies at EU level, to provide maximum flexibility for the production of energy crops.

Besides the energy crop regime, the non-food on set-aside scheme is an alternative way of providing community support for the production of biofuels.

The energy crops scheme is a new measure introduced by the 2003 Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) reform. The Commission will make a report by the 31st December 2006, on the basis of the experience gained during the first three years of implementation and taking into account the implementation of the EU biofuels initiative. If appropriate this report will be accompanied by proposals to modify the energy crop scheme.

There is a general trend among employers towards dismissing and prosecuting trade union leaders in order to terrorise workers and attack their pay and social security rights as part of a more general attempt to impose an anti-working-class policy. Typical examples occurred in Greece where, within a few days, 10 trade unionists working for the Fage company were dismissed, Alexandros Kalymnios, a member of the executive of the metalworkers' union 'I Masina' was sacked by Telestar Viomihaniki EPE, and the trade unionist Theodoros Kamberos was fired by the supermarket chain Dia.

At the same time, trade unionists continue to be prosecuted. Examples are K. Artemiou, chairman of the Greek federation of workers in the bottled drinks industry, A. Organtzis of the federation of the tourism and food supply industries, and V. Rifounas, a metalworker with the 'Carbon Lorraine Hellas' company.

Does the Commission condemn the dismissal and prosecution of trade unionists by companies as unacceptable and undemocratic acts? Will it take measures to ensure that workers' freedoms are respected and that their right to take part in trade union and political activity is not impeded?

(EN)The Commission considers that freedom of association should be regarded as a general principle of Community law. It is therefore to be respected in any situation falling within the scope of application of Community law.

In effect, in its Bosman ruling, the Court of Justice ruled that “freedom of association, […] enshrined in Article 11 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and resulting from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, is one of the fundamental rights […] which are protected in the Community legal order”.

Furthermore, Article 12 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights provides that everyone has the right to freedom of association, in particular in trade unions matters. The Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers contains a similar provision.

Community law may be affected, for example, in relation to Directive 98/59/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States regarding collective redundancies, which makes compulsory the consultation of workers’ representatives where an employer is contemplating collective redundancies. Furthermore, some provisions in a number of EU directives provide for the protection of workers' representatives in certain cases⁽¹⁾.

However, there is no EC legislation expressly providing for a right of association. Article 137 of the EC Treaty provides that it does not constitute an appropriate legal base empowering the Community to adopt measures concerning the right of association.

Moreover, the Commission would like to stress that the Treaty does not empower the Commission to take action against a private undertaking which would breach the right to freedom of association. In such a case, it is for national authorities, in particular courts, to ensure the respect of that right in their territory. Indeed, these authorities are bound by general principles of Community law in all cases falling within its scope of application.

The Commission provided a written answer to question H-0907/05 on 15 November. However, the content of the answer does not correspond totally to the question. Whilst, following the Commission's recommendation, a question has been addressed to the Council asking which delegations backed the proposals regarding professional diesel and review clauses in transport contracts, the answer the Commission may give is still of great interest.

Will the Commission submit a proposal regarding professional diesel and another on review clauses in transport contracts? What is the suggested timetable for their adoption?

(FR)The Commission wishes to inform the honourable Member that it is currently in the process of preparing legislative proposals that will allow the EU to respond to the rise in oil prices. The first of these proposals will be aimed at harmonising contractual clauses that allow oil-price-related costs to be passed on to customers. The second will be concerned with the taxation of commercial diesel.

These proposals will be submitted to the College of Commissioners shortly.

In view of the current round of WTO negotiations (in particular as regards market access for non-agricultural products, including textiles and clothing), the recent agreement between the United States and China on textiles and clothing (which applies to 34 categories and is valid until 2008) and the steady increase in textile and clothing imports into the EU (which faces the risk of import quotas being exceeded again), does the Commission not consider that measures must be taken as a matter of absolute urgency to protect this important industry in the European Union, in particular by: activating the safeguard clauses for all products whose import levels have already exceeded the alert levels, renegotiating the agreement concluded with China with a view to including new categories and reducing import growth levels, and renegotiating the liberalisation of the sector within the WTO?

(EN)The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) agreed with the Chinese authorities on 10 June 2005 and implemented by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1084/2005 of 8 July 2005,⁽¹⁾ is a once and for all deal. The Commission wants to avoid a situation of permanent negotiation in our overall relations with China. This MoU gives a degree of clarity and predictability to operators including the EU industry. Any other option would be detrimental, in particular for industries which need to plan ahead their activities on the longest possible period of time. Furthermore, this agreement covers the most sensitive EU products. It is the most favourable one that was possible in a context were more than half of the Member States made a substantial effort in accepting quantitative limitations that are detrimental to their retailers.

It has to be noticed that the United States followed the EU approach in a similar agreement with the Chinese authorities. The US agreement covers 2008, however it has to be noticed that it will enter into force only in 2006, and does not cover the year 2005, contrary to the EU agreement. Also, the annual increase of quota quantities is more important in the US agreement (up to 18% for the US, only between 8.5 and 12 % for the EU). Both agreements are hardly comparable in terms of products coverage. In particular the definition of textile categories in the EU and the US legislation are different, the US categories being narrower. In order to make any comparison valid in this respect, it must be mentioned that the 34 US categories correspond roughly to 15/18 EU categories.

The Commission considers that during the duration of the MoU there is no justification for introducing safeguard clauses against China with regard to the textile/clothing sector as the most sensitive categories are subject to agreed quantitative limits. Beyond the firm commitment to respect these limits, the Commission has secured with the Chinese authorities a strict management system. Furthermore, as an understanding leading up to the MoU introducing the quota system for the ten categories, it was noted that the Commission would exercise restraint in invoking safeguards for further categories. Against this background, reopening the negotiation is not an option. Opposite demands come from the various EU Member States. The Commission does in the present circumstances not intend to introduce new restrictions, nor to increase the quantitative limits as requested by some Member States.

In 1998, the European Union introduced a twinning facility whereby national experts from a Member State undertook to spend time (usually one or two years) in the administration of an accession country, in order to assist with preparations for the obligations of EU membership and to help them adopt and implement the acquis communautaire.

The experience of this twinning activity has been positive. More than one thousand twinning projects have been carried out to date under the PHARE Programme (for the countries which are now Member States) and under the MEDA and CARDS Programmes.

As regards Russia and the other countries covered by the TACIS Programme, no twinning activity has taken place. A different project, the Institution Building Partnership Programme, has been launched in its stead.

Taking into account both the positive experience gained from the twinning activity in the enlargement process and the enormous need for external exposure, expertise and assistance in the Russian state administration and judiciary, would the Commission consider whether its own extensive experience and the positive results of 'twinning' should not be put to good use in Russia and the other countries covered by the TACIS Programme?

Does the Commission agree that Russia's preparations to join the WTO and its reform of the judiciary are key areas that could benefit greatly from an extended twinning scheme involving senior civil servants and national experts within the EU?

(EN)With the introduction of the Twinning tool, operations have started with countries covered by the European Neighbourhood Policy. The instrument may also be gradually offered to other countries in the future.

All Tacis Neighbourhood countries have now been offered the Twinning instrument. The speed at which operations can begin will depend on the different pace and commitment of each country.

Intensive preparations are on the way to launch the first twinning projects in Ukraine in 2006, as well as in other Tacis Neighbouring countries like Moldova and Azerbaijan.

Regarding Russia, the Commission Delegation in Moscow has recently launched a Call for Proposals to the Member States with regard to the Institution Building Partnership Programme, which includes activities related to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) preparation and judiciary reform. The project is designed to cover activities related to:

Fair Competition development in the financial sector,

Customs control of goods containing intellectual property objects,

Cooperation between constitutional courts of EU countries and the Russian Federation

Legal and Judicial cooperation

As far as WTO accession is concerned, the Commission is already supporting the Russian authorities with a TACIS financed project. The project WTO Accession II, amounting to € 3 million, was contracted in September 2005 and builds on a similar TACIS financed project. Activities are mainly legal support (drafting WTO compliant texts), training of Russian officials, and awareness-raising for business people, academics and journalists to try to defuse the tensions on the subject.

The EC finances a number of projects, which are indirectly related to WTO accession (customs rules, intellectual property, sanitary and phitosanitary rules, and standards).

The revelations are mounting about dangerous food produced and marketed by multinationals, heightening consumers' concerns about hygiene and safety in the food chain. The Italian courts have ordered the seizure throughout the country of baby milk produced by the German multinational Milupa, which is contaminated by the same chemical detected in Nestlé milk. This multinational has announced, however - as did Nestlé - that 'it is convinced that the disputed product did not pose any risk to children's health'.

What measures will the Commission take to curb the impunity of multinational companies and ensure that they stop treating consumers solely as sources of profit and as guinea pigs, and how does it intend to protect the people from public health hazards caused by the use of harmful substances in the food chain?

(EN)On 9 December 2005 EFSA confirmed its previous statement that there is no indication in animal studies that ITX is genotoxic. EFSA advised that its presence in foods, whilst undesirable, does not give cause for health concern at the levels reported.

Tetra Pak is phasing out all uses of this substance in packaging for milk, fatty liquids and juices by end of January 2006.

To avoid similar contamination incidents, the Commission envisages to propose a measure detailing the requirements for good manufacturing practice which the packaging industry should apply. This measure will be proposed to the Member States as an implementing measure of the regulation on food contact materials.

It emerges from a report drawn up in 1945 by archaeologists working for the Greek Ministry of Education and Religions that, during the German occupation of Greece, a large quantity of antiquities was stolen by the occupying authorities. This information was presented to a conference organised in Athens on German reparations, an issue which is still in abeyance since the German authorities have not yet met claims made in relation to the occupation loan, material damage and even the remainder of the reparations in respect of the First World War.

Will the Commission take initiatives or measures to identify and record the stolen antiquities and to trace their current possessors, in cooperation with the German and Greek authorities, to ensure that they are returned to Greece, from where they were stolen?

(FR)The honourable Member raises the issue of the ownership of cultural property looted during the Second World War. Problems relating to this issue, or in other words the legal ownership of such property, do not fall within the scope of the EC Treaty.

Firstly, Article 295 of the EC Treaty states that the Treaty ‘shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership’.

Secondly, Articles 28 to 30 of the EC Treaty, which safeguard intra-Community trade in property that has not been harmonised at Community level, including cultural property, do not deal with the legal ownership of property.

It is of course true that the Community has two legal instruments at its disposal in the field of cultural property. These include Council Regulation (EEC) No 3911/92 on the export of cultural goods to third countries and Directive 93/7/EEC on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State. The ownership of cultural property looted during the Second World War is an issue that falls outside the scope of both of these instruments, however, since their aim is to reconcile the basic principle of the free circulation of cultural property with that of the protection of national treasures. Whereas Regulation (EEC) No 3911/92 aims to prevent national treasures from being taken out of Community territory without controls, Directive 93/7/EEC deals with the arrangements for restoring such treasures to their Member State of origin when they have been unlawfully removed from it. This Directive only applies to cultural property that has been unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State since 1 January 1993, however.

Any disputes over ownership rights to specific cultural property that cannot be settled by amicable agreement between the parties involved may in principle be referred to the competent national courts.

Finally, it is the Commission’s duty to ensure that any action it takes remains strictly within its area of competence. It does not therefore intend to take the measures requested by the honourable Member.

In the 'concluding observations' on the implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights dated 25 November 2005, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 'strongly recommends' that Slovenia, in compliance with the relevant decisions of its Constitutional Court, should restore the status of permanent residents to all individuals who were unlawfully removed ('erased') from the country's registry in 1992.

By announcing its intention to regulate the matter in a special 'Constitutional Act', the Slovenian Government indicated that it does not intend to comply with the Constitutional Court ruling.

Is the Commission informed that similar 'by-passing' of the rulings of the Constitutional Court was abandoned in Austria ten years ago after it had been severely criticized by Mr Roman Herzog, then President of the German Constitutional Court?

Does the European Commission intend to take tangible measures to ensure that Slovenia implements EU standards and its body of law, given that thousands of people, many of them of Roma origin, are still being denied their basic human rights?

(EN)The Commission does not have general competence as regard fundamental rights under the terms of the Treaties on the European Union and establishing the European Community, and may only intervene in the event of fundamental rights violations in the field of the application of Community legislation.

The decision of the Slovenian Constitutional Court concerns a subject – the person who should be registered as Slovenian citizens – which is under the competence of the national authorities and has no relation with Community Law. For this reason, the Commission has no competence to intervene in this particular case.

If a person considers that his or her fundamental rights have been violated, the possibility of appealing to the European Court of Human Rights, after the exhaustion of all domestic remedies, offers him guaranteed protection as the ultimate means.

In July 2000 the Racial Equality Directive 2000/43/EC⁽¹⁾ 'implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin' was adopted. The Directive bans direct and indirect discrimination as well as harassment on grounds of racial or ethnic origin and protects the Roma (as well as other ethnic groups) against discrimination in employment, training, social security, healthcare, housing and access to goods and services. The Commission is examining in detail the legislation of all the Member States which have transposed the Directive into their national law. It will iniate infringement proceedings against Member States whose national legislation is not in conformity with Directive 2000/43/EC.

In addition to the above mentioned legal framework, tackling the problems experienced by the Roma in accessing education and employment has been identified as one of the priorities for funding under the Community Action Programme to combat discrimination.

The task of monitoring and combating anti-Romani sentiment in mainstream society is also one of the priorities of the Vienna-based EU Monitoring Center (EUMC) Against Racism and Xenophobia. The transformation of the EUMC into a Fundamental Rights Agency will not affect the activities of the EUMC as regards racism and xenophobia, as the decision to extend the mandate of the EUMC to become a Fundamental Rights Agency is in line with the specific commitments of the Union to respect and strengthen fundamental rights, as laid down in Articles 2, 6 and 7 of the Treaty on European Union.

Now that EU Directive 2003/87/EC⁽¹⁾ on emissions trading has been in force for almost a year, the underlying problems of the current scheme have become evident. Emissions trading has produced some counterproductive effects which have led in the wrong direction with regard to both the climate and the economy. As a market mechanism with strict targets, the emissions trading scheme is vulnerable to market distortions. The increasing prices of emissions rights create additional costs. It also distorts our energy market and unnecessarily increases the price of electricity, threatening the competitiveness of the EU’s energy-intensive, yet very environmentally-friendly industry. By doing so, it creates a more serious problem, that of carbon leakage. If production is transferred to areas with less strict emission norms, emissions as a whole increase. Similarly, at European level, national emission quotas have upset the emissions trade, which was intended to be a flexible market mechanism, and have turned it into something quite different. Therefore it has to be stated that the emissions trading system used in Europe has more to do with structural politics than with curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

In the light of the evidence secured to date, what tangible measures will the Commission now take in order to further develop the Emissions Trading Scheme, thereby minimising the adverse effects on the economy and the environment?

(EN)As mentioned in the reply to written question E-3444/05 by Mrs Korhola, the instrument of emissions trading is a cost-effective instrument to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Community has adopted the emissions trading Directive in order to assist Member States in complying with their Kyoto targets. Because of the novelty of the instrument for all those involved the first trading period, 2005 to 2007 is a very useful learning phase in order to have a well-functioning scheme for the Kyoto commitment period 2008 to 2012.

It is certainly too early to draw any final conclusions on the functioning of the EU emissions trading scheme (EU ETS). The Commission is currently conducting a review of the EU ETS and will present a report to the Parliament and the Council by the end of June 2006, pursuant to Article 30 of the EU ETS Directive. To this effect, the Commission conducted an extensive stakeholder consultation during the summer of 2005. Several hundred replies were received and first results were published in November of 2005. The Commission will, inter alia, consider in its report the functioning of the allowance market, covering in particular any possible market disturbances, allocation of allowances and the relationship of emissions trading with other policies and measures.

The Commission takes note of recent developments in electricity prices but underlines that a variety of factors have led to the increases, including an increase in energy prices world-wide during 2005, notably through developments in the oil market. The Commission will further examine to what extent the price of allowances has an impact on power price developments.

Could the Commission outline its view on the lack of competition in the mobile and telecom sector across the EU with regard to roaming charges for consumers and business users?

(EN)The Commission is concerned about the apparent lack of competition as to the level of rates charged for international roaming services within the European Union.

The Commission is currently taking action as regards the wholesale tariffs for international roaming services provided by several mobile network operators in the European Union. The Commission is actively using its own enforcement powers under the competition rules of the EC Treaty (Article 82) and recently opened formal proceedings against the Vodafone Group plc, O2 plc and T-Mobile regarding the roaming charges applied to other mobile operators in the UK and Germany⁽¹⁾. The Commission finds that these operators, which account for a sizeable proportion of the EU market, have taken advantage of a lack of effective competition in their markets by charging wholesale abusive tariffs to other EU mobile operators thus keeping retail roaming charges paid by consumers at unduly high levels. These proceedings are conducted under the responsibility of the Commissioner in charge with internal market and services and are still ongoing.

The Commission has also launched an initiative to raise consumer awareness on roaming tariffs by publishing roaming rates on its website. Moreover, National Authorities are requested to undertake market analyses, in accordance with Article 7 of the Framework Directive on Electronic Communications (2002/21/EC), and, after notifying the Commission, are also empowered to put in place remedies in cases where significant market power on the part of one or several operators results in a lack of effective competition in the market. The Commission expects that these analysis and, if and where appropriate, corrective measures are in place within the shortest time frame.

The Commission expects that, as a result of its own initiatives and the complementary initiatives launched by National Authorities, competition would be strengthened with a view to bringing international roaming tariffs down to more competitive levels to the advantage of the millions of consumers which use their mobile phone when traveling to other Member States of the European Union.

In 2004, 80 000 counterfeit banknotes and 50 000 forged coins were confiscated in Germany alone. The quality of the forgeries, which are often produced in Eastern Europe, is steadily improving. Any expansion of the euro zone will inevitably lead to an increase in the scale of counterfeiting.

In addition to counterfeiters, people who knowingly pass on counterfeit money are laying themselves open to criminal prosecution. The victims of counterfeiting receive no compensation for any money they may have lost.

Is the Commission aware of this problem? Does it plan to take measures to deal with it in the foreseeable future?

(EN)The Commission refers to its replies to Parliamentary Questions E-0271/04 and E-0465/05 that already reply to the concerns raised by the Honourable member.

The protection of Euro banknotes and coins is carried out jointly by the competent national authorities, the European Central Bank (ECB), Europol and the Commission.

The Commission oversees the implementation of Community rules concerning the protection of the euro against counterfeiting. It provides training based on the Pericles programme and manages the technical protection of euro coins. The ECB is responsible for coordinating National central bank activities with regard to the protection of euro banknotes. Europol coordinates the activities of law enforcement authorities which have the operational capacity.

As a result of joint efforts, the overall number or euro counterfeits coming out of circulation has been stabilized at levels which are low by historical standards and international comparisons. The yearly number of counterfeit euro banknotes detected in circulation has remained under 600,000 pieces. The corresponding figure for euro coins is below 80,000.

With regard to compensation to the holders of counterfeits, discussions with Member States have shown that if compensation were to be provided, there would be a risk of encouraging counterfeiting activity. Therefore measures in this domain do not appear to be warranted.

The Commission, in cooperation with the ECB and Europol, continues to monitor developments closely and will, when appropriate, take prompt further action for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting.