Index 
 Previous 
 Next 
 Full text 
Verbatim report of proceedings
Thursday, 19 January 2006 - StrasbourgOJ edition
 ANNEX
QUESTIONS TO COUNCIL (The Presidency-in-Office of the Council of the European Union bears sole responsibility for these answers)
QUESTIONS TO THE COMMISSION

QUESTIONS TO COUNCIL (The Presidency-in-Office of the Council of the European Union bears sole responsibility for these answers)
Question no 14 by Georgios Toussas (H-1180/05)
 Subject: Use of anti-terrorism legislation by Bulgarian authorities
 

The Bulgarian authorities used anti-terrorism legislation to hold in custody for 96 hours, with all visits prohibited, V. Tritskov and S. Antonov, members of the youth organisation 'The Resistance Movement of the 23rd of September', who were arrested and brutally beaten on 11 December for pasting up posters announcing a demonstration against foreign bases in Bulgaria.

Does the Council condemn the arrest and assault of the two youths by the Bulgarian police, the use of anti-terrorism legislation for pasting up posters, and the blanket ban on visits for four days from lawyers, parents and even members of parliament? Will it take initiatives to put an end to the arbitrary and high-handed conduct of authorities which, in the name of combating terrorism, violate the democratic rights and freedoms of the people of the Member States as well as of countries acceding to the European Union?

 
  
 

(DE)This answer, which was drafted by the Presidency and by which neither the Council nor the Member States are bound, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the January 2006 plenary session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

As the honourable Member will be aware, the EU, on 25 April 2005, signed the accession treaty with Bulgaria on the basis of that country’s ongoing compliance with the Copenhagen accession criteria, especially with the political criteria requiring observance of human rights and of the principle of the rule of law. Bulgaria is, nevertheless, enjoined not only to maintain the standard it has reached to date, but also to make further improvements, and, as the Commission observed in its comprehensive monitoring report in 2005, there is still room for them in certain areas. The point therefore needs to be made that the EU will continue to give close attention to the progress Bulgaria makes in the full transposition of the acquis communautaire right up to the date of accession.

While the Council is familiar with the specific case to which the honourable Member has referred, it must, at present, await a precise and comprehensive investigation of the circumstances. It should be noted at the outset that the EU, generally speaking, expects Bulgaria to continue to transpose and apply the acquis and also to discharge its international obligations, notably those required by the Council of Europe and by the European Convention on Human Rights. All cases in which the police are suspected of abusing their powers or of mistreating persons in custody must be investigated thoroughly and without delay, and, where proven, the competent authorities must punish them severely.

 

Question no 15 by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (H-1143/05)
 Subject: Food scandals and irregularities in the EU
 

Over the last few days, a wave of food scandals has come to light in certain EU Member States. In Italy, for example, eggs dangerously unfit for consumption which should have been destroyed were, according to the Italian NAS food watchdog body, being supplied to the food processing industry, while a further 32 million eggs were recalled. In neighbouring Greece, the Central Food Standards body (EFET) revealed that most of the labels on pasteurised and evaporated milk (85%) contained misleading consumer information regarding its origin and provenance.

Will the Council take action in response to what is a steady increase in the number of such incidents, the protection of European consumers (against fraudulent and misleading practices, food adulteration and other attempts to deceive) being a priority of European food policy? Does it consider that the action being taken and operating methods of the European Food Safety Authority are proving effective? Will it recommend to the Commission close cooperation with the European Food Safety Authority and the relevant Member State authorities (in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 178/2002(1)) so as to ensure that the necessary scientific and technical resources are brought to bear in order to contain the problem?

 
  
 

(DE)This answer, which was drafted by the Presidency and by which neither the Council nor the Member States are bound, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the January 2006 plenary session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

I would like to start by thanking Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou for her extremely relevant question. The end of the last decade saw the EU’s systems for ensuring the safety of food put under unprecedented pressure on account of crises in feedingstuffs and food. The weaknesses that came to light during these crises necessitated immediate action on the part of the competent bodies – notably the Commission, the Member States and Parliament – in order to reinforce, improve and further develop the existing systems. One important step was the establishment by Parliament and the Council in 2002 of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which, by acting as an independent source of advice on food safety issues, helps bring about a high standard of consumer protection in this area. For the sake of its own greater effectiveness, the EFSA works closely with the national scientific agencies and institutions dealing with food safety. The Council and the Member States also actively support it by ensuring that it is adequately funded and staffed and by taking full account of its findings.

It should also be noted that the 2002 regulation of Parliament and Council that established the Authority also set up what is termed an Advisory Forum to support it. The Forum is composed of representatives of competent institutions in the Member States performing similar functions to those of the Authority.

This Advisory Forum meets between three and four times a year and facilitates both the exchange of information on potential risks associated with food and the amassing of the most up-to-date knowledge relating to it.

Over the coming months, the Commission will continue to keep Parliament and the Council informed of the results of the ongoing independent assessment of the authority’s performance since its establishment and will make any necessary recommendations for the improvement of its working methods.

 
 

(1) OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1.

 

Question no 16 by Gay Mitchell (H-1150/05)
 Subject: EU budget
 

What lessons have been learnt to date by the Council in its attempts to broker a 6-year draft budget? Given that the Irish and Cypriot Presidencies will find themselves with the same responsibility in six years time, are there any pitfalls which the Council can highlight at this stage?

 
  
 

(DE)This answer, which was drafted by the Presidency and by which neither the Council nor the Member States are bound, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the January 2006 plenary session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council has not yet discussed this question. That being so, no summary conclusions can be established at present.

 

Question no 17 by Åsa Westlund (H-1162/05)
 Subject: Council's work on alcohol policy strategy
 

Alcohol is one of the factors which has an extremely negative impact on public health in the EU. Nearly five years ago, therefore, the European Council meeting in Göteborg stated in its conclusions that it would like to see an alcohol policy strategy for the Union. That strategy has still not been presented. How does the Council intend to ensure that no longer than five years will elapse before the strategy is presented and how does the Austrian Presidency intend to manage the strategy, once presented, so that it leaves its mark in practical terms on Union policy?

 
  
 

(DE)This answer, which was drafted by the Presidency and by which neither the Council nor the Member States are bound, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the January 2006 plenary session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council wishes to thank the honourable Member for her question.

The Council is giving this important matter the attention it deserves and has already, some time ago, asked the Commission to support the Member States in their efforts. We are given to understand that the Commission is expected to adopt a communication on the EU’s alcohol strategy in April 2006, and it will then be put before the Council and the European Parliament for their scrutiny.

In order that the communication be properly followed up, the annual - 2006 - Council programme drafted jointly by the Austrian and Finnish presidencies lists the EU alcohol strategy as one of the topics to be considered by the Council as a matter of priority.

It is for that reason that the draft agenda for the Council meeting on ‘Employment, social policy, health and consumer protection’ on 1-2 June 2006 includes an exchange of views on the part of the ministers on the Commission communication subsequent to its being forwarded to the Council.

 

Question no 18 by Esko Seppänen (H-1170/05)
 Subject: Debate on the Constitution
 

The draft treaty known as the EU Constitution was not approved in France and Holland. Its entry into force would have required unanimous approval, and consequently the draft cannot enter into force in any other country. Is the Presidency prepared to accept this fact, or will it attempt to raise the failed Constitution from the dead?

 
  
 

(DE)This answer, which was drafted by the Presidency and by which neither the Council nor the Member States are bound, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the January 2006 plenary session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

Although the Presidency is not itself able to take any decisions relating to the Constitutional Treaty, there will, in line with the statement made by the Heads of State or Government on the occasion of the meeting of the European Council on 16-17 June 2005 and on the basis of the results of the extensive debates held in the Member States on the future of Europe, be a general assessment of the issue in June 2006, and agreement will be reached as to how to proceed in future. We will prepare this evaluation with very great care and, in the process, maintain absolute impartiality. As the debates in the Member States have not yet been completed, the Presidency should not, at the present time, indulge in speculations as to their possible outcomes.

 

Question no 19 by Catherine Stihler (H-1176/05)
 Subject: Bringing Council closer to the citizen
 

A goal of the UK Presidency was to bring the Council closer to the citizen. Were any decisions taken at the December Council meetings so as to implement a plan of action to bring the Council closer to the citizen? If so, what actions will now follow?

 
  
 

(DE)The answer below, which was prepared by the Presidency and which is not binding on the Council or on the Member States, was not given orally during Council Question Time at the European Parliament plenary session in January 2006 in Strasbourg.

The Presidency can confirm to the Honourable Member that progress was made under the UK Presidency with regard to the aim of bringing the Council closer to the citizen. In this connection, at its session of 21 December 2005, the Council adopted a number of conclusions on improving openness and transparency(1).

These conclusions make provision for current practice to be changed in a total of five areas:

All legislative proposals under the codecision procedure presented orally by the Commission in a Council session, and the ensuing debate on them, will be open to the public (point 1 of the Council conclusions).

Previously, the debates on the most important legislative proposals tabled by the Commission were only to a limited extent open to the public.

Final Council deliberations on legislative proposals under the codecision procedure, i.e. all debates that take place once the other institutions or bodies have submitted their opinions, will be open to the public (point 2 of the Council conclusions).

In practice, this means that the number of public deliberations on such legislative proposals will increase by around 20 %.

When drawing up the agenda for each Council session, Coreper may consider making other deliberations on codecision items at the Council open to the public (point 3 of the Council conclusions).

This means that public deliberations on codecision items can be held not only at the initial and closing stages but also at the ‘interim’ stage.

The Council will in the future hold more debates in public on important new legislative proposals on items other than those covered by the codecision procedure (point 5 of the Council conclusions).

Under the Council’s current Rules of Procedure, the Council holds at least one public debate on legislative proposals other than those covered by the codecision procedure; in the future, this will be the case more often.

The Council may decide that its deliberations on non-legislative items be held in public if they involve important issues affecting the interests of the Union and its citizens (point 6 of the Council conclusions).

Article 8(3) of the Council’s Rules of Procedure already provides for ‘other public debates […] to be held on important issues affecting the interests of the Union’. In the light of the conclusions, more frequent used should be made of this possibility in future

 
 

(1) See the draft Council conclusions as set out in document 15834/05.

 

QUESTIONS TO THE COMMISSION
Question no 28 by Frederika Brepoels (H-1147/05)
 Subject: Progress report on procedure relating to training grants in Wallonia
 

In its reply (E-2197/05) of 3 October 2005 (to Written Questions P-3070/04 and P-0926/05) concerning the system of training grants in Wallonia, the Commission stated that it had investigated the legislation in question and initiated a procedure pursuant to Article 226 of the EC Treaty.

What reply have the Belgian authorities given to the letter from the Commission? What further steps has the Commission taken? Has the Commission already delivered a reasoned opinion? Are service-providers which are established in a Member State other than that where the services are provided indeed suffering discrimination? Has the Member State concerned complied with the opinion? Will an action be brought before the Court of Justice?

 
  
 

(EN)As the Commission informed the Honourable Member in its last reply on this subject in October 2005, the Commission services addressed a letter to the Belgian authorities on August 10, 2005. The answer of the Belgian authorities containing various documents on the system of training grants in Wallonia was received by the Commission's services on November 18, 2005.

Having analysed this reply, the Commission's services consider that the arguments brought forward by the Belgian authorities are not convincing. In particular, the Commission services do not share the justifications for the obligation to be established in Wallonia in order to be accepted as a company allowed to provide training to employees benefiting from the special grants accorded by Wallonia. Such a restrictive measure, discriminating in particular against undertakings from other Member States, without being justified, could be contrary to article 49 of the Treaty on the free movement of services.

In the absence of a satisfactory response from the Belgian authorities, the Commission services are in the process of preparing a letter of formal notice to the Belgian authorities, as provided for in Art. 226 of the Treaty.

 

Question no 29 by Gay Mitchell (H-1151/05)
 Subject: Liberalisation of services
 

It is generally believed that the 'No' vote in the referendums on the European Constitution which were held last year in the Netherlands and France resulted to some extent from the great unease felt by European citizens towards the liberalisation of services in the EU.

What plans does the Commission have to dispel the myths surrounding the Services Directive and actively to promote and advertise the advantages which freedom to provide services will bring to the Community?

 
  
 

(EN)The reasons for the "no" votes in the French and Dutch referenda on the European Constitution are complex and varied. However, an undeniable common factor was poor EU economic performance and concerns about high unemployment. It is therefore clear that in order to restore citizens' faith in the EU there is a need to achieve better economic performance: higher employment and growth. The Internal Market, including the services sector, which constitutes almost 70% of Gross National Product (GNP) and jobs in the EU, is essential for economic growth and employment creation in Europe.

Since the adoption of the draft Directive on Services in the Internal Market(1) in January 2004, the Commission has been active in explaining the benefits that EU economy and employment draws from a properly functioning Internal Market and is contributing to a high level of growth and employment. It has also been active in disseminating factual information explaining the provisions of the draft Directive. This has taken the form of numerous contacts, presentations and discussions with all stakeholders, at political and technical level, all around Europe, as well as publication of a wide variety of documents all of which are publicly available on the Commission's website. Every effort will continue to be made to address questions and issues raised and to explain the advantages, for citizens and businesses, of a properly functioning Internal Market for services.

The Commission is also convinced that the working being carried out by the co-legislator in the Parliament and Council will help dissipate misunderstandings about the purpose of the Directive. The Commission has constantly held that it would make every effort to work with the Parliament and Council in order to reach a broad consensus on this Directive.

On a broader level, the Commission constantly seeks to improve the way in which it communicates with EU citizens. In October 2005, the Commission launched its “Plan D” - Democracy, Dialogue and Debate – which aims to inject more democracy into the Union, to stimulate a wide public debate and build a new consensus on the future direction of the European Union.

 
 

(1) COM(2004) 2 final.

 

Question no 30 by Esko Seppänen (H-1171/05)
 Subject: Directive on trade in services
 

In his speeches, Commissioner McCreevey has called into question the fundamental pillars of the Nordic collective agreement system: the right to strike and the universal validity of agreements. Does the Commission wish to discard the entire tradition of the Nordic countries' labour market system, under which minimum levels of pay and social benefits for workers are decided collectively?

 
  
 

(EN)The "speeches" the Honourable Member is referring to were made in the very specific context of the Swedish "Vaxholm" or "Laval" case. Both the Commission’s President and the Commissioner in charge of Internal Market and Services have made it very clear, including before this Assembly in October 2005, that the Commission does not intend to, and has never intended to, call into question the social model of any Member State or the way in which it organises labour relations. Member States do, however, have the obligation to fulfil their duties under the Treaty, particularly to ensure that our businesses and citizens benefit from the four freedoms and that their basic rights are being respected. The case has been referred by the Swedish Labour Court to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. This is now a matter for the European Court of Justice. The Commission does not believe that the respect of the four freedoms under the European Treaties is incompatible with the social models chosen by the Member States. The role of the Commission, as the guardian of the Treaty, is to ensure that both the social acquis and the Internal Market rules are respected and fully implemented in all Member States, without discrimination.

 

Question no 37 by Manuel Medina Ortega (H-1111/05)
 Subject: Hurricanes in the European Union
 

As a result of climate change, tropical storms are affecting areas of the European Union hitherto spared them, such as the south of the Iberian Peninsula and the Canary islands.

What measures has the Commission taken, or does it intend to take with a view to preventing disasters of this kind and, if necessary, making good the damage suffered by the local populations and areas affected?

 
  
 

(EN)The Commission shares concerns that climate change might contribute to exacerbate the risk of severe storms and other extreme weather events. The 2005 hurricane season set an unprecedented record for having the most named tropical cyclones in a single year in known history, many of which displayed unusual paths and location. Hurricane Vince for instance developed in the eastern Atlantic, tracked north-eastwards, it passed northwest of the Madeira Islands, and as it weakened, became the first known instance of a tropical cyclone making landfall in Spain as a tropical depression. The current evidence suggests that hurricanes might become more destructive as ocean surface temperatures rise. As such, the level of hurricane activity observed this year in the Atlantic is consistent with these scientific models. However, it should be emphasised that the uncertainty of the current hurricane destruction trends and of their potential relation to global warming is high due to the relatively short observation record and coarse climate models.

The Commission launched, in October 2005, the Second European Climate Change Programme (ECCP II), which addresses the need for adaptation strategies through the establishment of a specific Working Group. The general objective of the Working Group is to define the EU’s role in adaptation policies so as to integrate adaptation fully into relevant European policy areas and to identify good, cost-effective practice in the development of adaptation policy.

The Commission has also made proposals to strengthen the rapid response and preparedness capacity of the European Civil Protection Mechanism to provide assistance in case a disaster can not be avoided. These proposals are currently with the Council for consideration.

Within EU regional and agricultural policy and funding areas, there are opportunities for Member States to support actions designed to counter or mitigate the effects of extreme weather events. In cases of major disasters the EU Solidarity Fund may also grant financial assistance. The Community has been funding climate research in particular through the 5th and 6th Framework Programmes (FP) and will continue to do so in the 7th FP. Within these research activities in particular the regional downscaling of climate models will be important in order to support designing and to devising adequate policy responses to climate impacts at the regional and local level.

 

Question no 38 by Sarah Ludford (H-1114/05)
 Subject: Commission Legislative and Work Programme 2006
 

How can the Commission substantiate its claim that its 2006 Legislative and Work Programme for the EU will deliver a balance between measures ‘to protect its citizens and promote their freedoms’ when there are very few proposals envisaged for upholding liberty compared to the number designed to tighten security?

 
  
 

(EN)The Commission’s Legislative and Work Programme 2006 contains a number of proposals that will have an impact on the protection and promotion of the freedom of citizens under each of the four strategic objectives adopted by the Commission at the start of its mandate (prosperity, solidarity, security, and the external dimension of the Union).

Proposals under the ‘security’ objective aim at enhanced cooperation to protect European citizens against different serious threats, including terrorism. At the same time, these initiatives are being proposed to uphold fundamental human rights, such as the right to life, the right to liberty and security, the freedom to circulate, or the right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence. Other items proposed to support security focus on e.g. strengthening consumer protection or targeting sexual violence against children.

Under the other objectives, the Commission proposes measures to expand the freedom of movement of citizens, e.g. by getting their competences recognised throughout the EU, and measures to implement the rights of the child throughout the Union and beyond. Also, questions related to the right to vote in elections to the Parliament and the publication of election results will be assessed.

The Commission Legislative and Work Programme 2006 strikes an appropriate balance between promoting the freedom of citizens and protecting them from serious threats. In parallel to the proposal of new policy initiatives, the Commission puts high emphasis on evaluating the implementation and the results of policies. Also in this context, ensuring the balance between Freedom and Security is one of its main concerns.

 

Question no 39 by Elizabeth Lynne (H-1116/05)
 Subject: Trafficking in human beings
 

According to the International Labour Organisation study ‘Human Trafficking and Exploitation in Germany’, 360 000 of the 12.3 million people worldwide categorised as modern slaves live in industrialised countries, and an estimated 15 000 of them in Germany. As Germany is hosting the World Cup in 2006, there is a real concern that the number of women trafficked into this country for the purposes of forced prostitution will rise significantly. What initiatives can and will the Commission take to prevent this gross human rights abuse?

 
  
 

(EN)The prevention of and the fight against trafficking in human beings for the purpose of sexual and labour exploitation is continuously addressed by the Commission. Most recently, on 18th October 2005 the Commission has issued a Communication on “Fighting trafficking in human beings - an integrated approach and proposals for an action plan”(1). In this context the Commission stressed that in order to effectively address trafficking in human beings an integrated approach is needed, having as its fundament the respect of human rights and taking into account its global nature. This approach calls for a coordinated policy response notably in the area of freedom, security and justice, external relations, development cooperation, employment, gender equality and non discrimination. It also aims to reinforce the broad public-private dialogue in this area.

The Commission’s Communication was an important contribution to the Action Plan on trafficking in human beings, which was adopted on 1st December 2005 by the Justice and Home Affairs Council. According to the Action Plan, EU institutions and Member States should promote, for example, gender specific prevention strategies as a key element to combat trafficking in women and girls. This includes implementing gender equality principles and eliminating the demand for all forms of exploitation, including sexual exploitation and domestic labour exploitation. Inter alia, campaign material aimed at reducing trafficking shall be developed in 2006. The Commission is committed to the quick implementation of the Action Plan, which shall be reviewed and updated, if necessary. Furthermore, the Commission is evaluating the implementation of existing EU legislation against human trafficking, notably the Council Framework Decision of 2002 on combating trafficking in human beings. A report will be issued very soon.

 
 

(1) COM (2005) 514 final

 

Question no 40 by Brian Crowley (H-1118/05)
 Subject: Biometrics
 

Can the European Commission make a statement as to what initiatives it is undertaking to promote the use of biometrics in Europe?

 
  
 

(EN)The Commission does not promote a particular technology but supports in general the investigation and evaluation of new technologies as well as its practical and economical exploitation. This includes the examination of its advantages and disadvantages and its potential to increase European competitiveness, either directly or indirectly.

In the field of Justice, Liberty and Security, there was a consensus, in the immediate aftermath of 11 September 2001, that the use of biometric identifiers in databases and travel documents should be developed in order to enhance the level of security and fight terrorism more effectively. It should be underlined that the use of biometrics is becoming necessary in that field because querying such large scale databases using alphanumerical data only (such as name, date of birth, etc) is now showing its limits. Biometrics can help here in increasing the level of accuracy in identifying or verifying the identity of a person and thus increasing the efficiency of the corresponding data processing. Since then, important technical work on biometrics has been carried out, in particular in the framework of the security of travel documents, such as passports, and in the context of visa policy. As regards passports, the objective is to render the passport more secure by integrating two biometric identifiers: a digitized image of the face and the image of two fingerprints; the security of passports is important for reasons relating to border controls: on the one hand, bona fide citizens will pass through border controls more smoothly; on the other hand, those who use forged or fraudulent passports will have fewer chances of entering our territory. This is about two basic elements of our area of freedom and security.

In the context of visa policy it is a well-known fact that the Commission is currently developing a visa system, the VIS, designed to share visa data between Member States with a view to improving the Common Visa Policy.

Commission services have launched a call for tender for a Biometric Matching System (BMS) so that the VIS will be ready for biometric processing by the end of 2006, thereby allowing Member States to start integrating their national visa systems with a VIS that includes biometrics. The BMS will be the largest biometric system in the world, with around 70 million records.

It also has to be noted that the study of the advantages and disadvantages of the technology has been continuously explored within the Research Framework Programmes. In the current 6th Framework Programme (FP6), this activity was part of the Information Society Technology Programme (IST) under the heading of “Towards a global dependability and security framework” (see http://www.cordis.lu/ist/trust-security/projects.htm). The overall volume of funding for biometrics related projects was within FP6 about € 30 million. In addition, a biometrics webportal (http://www.europeanbiometrics.info/) has been developed which has been already operational for three months. It is also expected that research support for biometrics technologies will be continued in Framework Programme 7 for which the Specific Work programmes will be developed early summer 2006.

Research in the field of multimodal biometrics is also covered by the Preparatory Action for Security Research, more particularly in the 2006 call for proposals that will be launched early February 2006.

It should also be stressed, that the Commission is devoting particular attention to the protection of personal data. The Commission recalls that Directive 95/46/EC on data protection(1) applies to the processing of personal data –including biometric data.

 
 

(1) Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data.

 

Question no 41 by Liam Aylward (H-1120/05)
 Subject: Renewable energies
 

Can the European Commission state exactly the value of the programmes that it is supporting to promote the use of renewable energies in Europe?

 
  
 

(EN)The following programmes are relevant:

The Fifth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP5)

This programme was active during the 4-year period 1998/2002; many of the projects are still ongoing and producing results now. The programme has as a main objective the promotion of clean and efficient energy technologies in the fields of renewable energy sources (RES), Energy efficiency and fossil fuels. As regards the RES it includes photovoltaics, solar thermal (both solar power and solar heat), wind, small hydro, marine/ocean, biomass and wastes and geothermal, and technologies supporting large scale introduction of RES, including projects on electricity grids, socio-economic research, etc.

The amount spent for RES was around € 425 Million.

The Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP6)

This programme is run over the 4-year period 2003/2006. The programme has as a main objective the promotion of clean and efficient energy technologies in the fields of RES and Energy Efficiency as explained for FP5.

The 4th call for proposals was launched recently.

Since the results of the last calls are still pending, the total final budget for RES is not yet known; but, considering what has been already allocated in the previous calls, the foreseen amount for RES will be around € 450 Million.

The ALTENER programme

This programme was active during the 4-year period 1998/2002; some of the projects are still ongoing. The programme had as only objective the promotion of RES mainly through the removal of non-technological barriers in the market. The ALTENER programme was included in a larger programme, the Energy Framework Programme (EFP). The EFP included also other programmes with the same objective as SAVE for Energy Efficiency, CARNOT for Clean Coal, SYNERGY for International cooperation and ETAP for Socioeconomic studies and analyses.

The ALTENER programme had a budget of € 78 Million (around 45% of the total budget for the EFP).

The Intelligent Energy Europe Programme (IEE)

This programme started in 2003 and will come to an end in 2006. The programme promotes Sustainable Energy mainly through the support to the implementation of legislation and the removal of non-technological barriers in the market. The programme has 4 fields of activity:

ALTENER (II) for the promotion of Renewable Energy Sources (RES), including photovoltaics, solar thermal (high and low temperature), wind, small hydro, marine, biomass and wastes and geothermal;

SAVE for the promotion of Energy Efficiency in buildings and in the tertiary and industry;

STEER for the promotion of the energy aspects of clean and efficient transport;

COOPENER for the promotion of international cooperation with developing countries.

The total budget for the IEE programme is € 250 Million. The foreseen amount for RES will be around € 110 Million. The IEE programme will continue after 2006 in the Competitiveness and Innovation programme (CIP)

The total approximate contribution for the development of RES of all above mentioned programmes will be in total M€ 1063. It has to be noted that the budget of FP6 has been calculated on the basis of RES projects. The budget in FP5 has been calculated on the basis of RES only funding.

 

Question no 42 by Eoin Ryan (H-1122/05)
 Subject: Pension rights
 

Can the European Commission make a statement as to the progress being made to enact a new directive dealing with the portability of pension rights in Europe so as to help EU workers acquire, preserve or transfer pension entitlements in the event of professional mobility?

 
  
 

(FR)On 20 October 2005 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Parliament and Council directive on improving the portability of supplementary pension rights(1). This proposal is an initial important stage in ensuring that supplementary pension schemes in an enlarged European Union contribute to the objectives laid down at EU level with a view to a smooth-functioning labour market and a high level of social protection for workers. It is also in line with the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy.

The proposal is designed to simultaneously reduce the obstacles to freedom of movement across Member States and to mobility within any Member State stemming from provisions contained in these supplementary pension schemes. These obstacles relate to: the conditions of acquisition of pension rights, the conditions of preservation of dormant pension rights and the transferability of acquired rights. The proposal also seeks to improve the information given to workers on how mobility may affect supplementary pension rights.

The proposal was forwarded to Parliament and the Council, as well as to the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Discussions in the Council's Working Party on Social Questions began at the end of October under the UK Presidency.

The adoption of the proposal will require unanimity within the Council and codecision with Parliament

 
 

(1) COM(2005) 507 of 20.10.2005

 

Question no 43 by Seán Ó Neachtain (H-1124/05)
 Subject: European Peace Fund
 

Can the European Commission make a statement as to whether it supports the continuation of the European Peace Fund post 2006 in light of the fact that this initiative has achieved so much in terms of promoting cross-border economic and social development in Ireland ?

 
  
 

(EN)The EU is supporting the peace process in Northern Ireland and the whole or part of Ireland in two ways:

Since 1989, a financial contribution to the International Fund for Ireland.

Since 1995, the PEACE Programme, a unique and distinctive programme among Structural Funds.

The Financial Perspectives 2007-2013, agreed in Brussels on 16 December 2005, establish that in recognition of the special effort for the peace process in Northern Ireland, a total of € 200 million will be allocated for the PEACE Programme for the period 2007-2013. This programme will be implemented in full respect of additionality of Structural Fund interventions.

Moreover, the European Council noted the important work carried out by the International Fund for Ireland (IFI) in promoting peace and reconciliation, and asked the Commission to take the necessary steps with a view to continued EU support for the Fund as it enters the crucial final phase of its work up to 2010.

The PEACE Programme and the International Fund for Ireland are very important instruments of European solidarity and the Commission fully supports the continuation of the EU contribution towards peace and reconciliation process in Northern Ireland and notes the European Council’s conclusions in this regard.

It would also be important that all the Members of Parliament, especially those from Northern Ireland and Ireland, work together towards this objective to give their support for the continuation of the Programmes as well.

 

Question no 44 by Luis de Grandes Pascual (H-1125/05)
 Subject: Madrid-Lisbon high-speed rail link
 

The Madrid-Lisbon high-speed rail link is a priority project covered by Decision 884/2004/EC(1). It has recently been announced that the Portuguese Government has delayed the entry into operation of this link, initially scheduled for 2010, by three to five years.

Does the Commission know the reasons for this hold-up of one of the major transeuropean transport networks? What budgetary consequences could it have? Does the Commission not believe that the EU loses credibility when a project of such major importance, initially included in the Quickstart Programme, and then deemed a priority project, is held up like this?

 
  
 

(FR)The Commission considers this project to be crucial in terms of cohesion and the development of rail interoperability in the Iberian Peninsula. It is for this reason that this project was classified as a priority project by Parliament and the Council within the framework of Decision 884/2004/EC.

To date, the Commission had not been formally informed of any changes to the timetable for completion or to the financial commitments of the Spanish or Portuguese authorities. It has therefore requested precise information on this issue from the Portuguese public administration.

Though the Portuguese Government’s commitment to completing the Madrid-Lisbon high-speed rail link is confirmed, the expected date for the completion of the work on the section connecting Lisbon to the Spanish border has been put back to 2013. As regards the Spanish authorities, they have confirmed the date of 2010 for the completion of the Madrid/Badajoz extension.

Nevertheless, the Commission has been told that no change is expected in relation to the substance and the aid granted within the framework of the TEN-T budget for 2001-2006. This support relates exclusively to the studies on the extension of the section connecting Lisbon to the Spanish border (Caia/Badajoz).

The Commission is still awaiting official information from the authorities in question about the reasons for these delays.

 
 

(1) OJ L 167, 30.4.2004, p. 1.

 

Question no 45 by Jacek Protasiewicz (H-1130/05)
 Subject: Discriminatory charges for service providers in Germany
 

With regard to Article 49 of the EC Treaty, concerning the free movement of services, Articles 14(1)(a), 14(1)(b) and 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71(1) on insurance and social security schemes and the provisions of Directive 96/71/EC(2) on the posting of workers, in particular Articles 1(3) and 3(1), is the Commission aware that the German health insurance body the DVKA is calling for employees from other Member States, posted to Germany for the provision of services, to be required to pay social security contributions to the DVKA?

This question arises as a result of the introduction of new requirements by the DVKA, of which the Polish social security agency (the ZUS) was informed at bilateral meetings on 29 and 30 September this year.

 
  
 

(EN)The Commission is not aware of the circumstances mentioned by the Honourable Member nor of the introduction of new requirements following which the German health insurance body DVKA would be calling for employees from other Member States, posted to Germany in the framework of the provision of services, to be required to pay social security contributions to the DVKA. It should be noted that the Commission in its role as guardian of the Treaty will take the necessary steps in the event that such circumstances are incompatible with Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71(3), should these allegations be substantiated by further documents or more detailed information.

The Honourable Member mentioned in this respect also Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services(4) and in particular the articles 1(3) and 3(1) hereof. However, this directive does not deal with social security issues.

As far as coordination of social security schemes is concerned, the Commission would like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the fact that Community law – notably Regulations (EEC) No 1408/71 and (EEC) No 574/72(5) - protects the social security rights of migrant workers by coordinating the different national social security schemes of Member States. One of the main principles of this coordination is to determine the social security legislation which is applicable to a migrant worker. As a rule, such a worker is subject to the social security legislation of the Member State where he or she is employed.

 
 

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2
(2) OJ L 18, 21.1.1997, p. 1
(3) Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community - OJ L 149 of 05/07/1971.
(4) OJ L 018 of 21.01.1997.
(5) Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community - OJ L 074 of 27/03/1972
Last consolidated version: Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 amending and updating Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - OJ L 028 of 30/01/1997.

 

Question no 46 by Lapo Pistelli (H-1132/05)
 Subject: Brussels II European School - transfer of the Italian section
 

At the end of November 2005 the Secretary General of the Board of Governors of the European Schools proposed that the Italian section of the Brussels II (WSL) European School be transferred to Brussels IV, the European School that is to be built in Laeken. This proposal will be submitted in January 2006 for approval by the Board of Governors of the European Schools, on which the Commission is represented and has voting rights.

This proposal clearly runs counter to the criteria adopted by the Board of Governors of the European Schools on 26 October 2005, particularly criteria F and N thereof on the distribution of language sections among central and outlying schools, and the account to be taken of the areas where the families affected live.

Does the Commission intend to propose to the Board of Governors that the decision be postponed so that the question can be studied in more depth? If not, how does the Commission intend to instruct its representative on the Board of Governors to vote?

 
  
 

(FR)The Commission would like to begin by pointing out that the creation of a fourth Brussels European School became inevitable as a result of the expected increase in pupils which will soon lead to a general overcrowding of the three existing schools. This academic year, so many children of staff of the European institutions were registered in the Brussels II (Woluwé) and Brussels III (Ixelles) schools that not all requests could be met for the schools initially chosen by the parents.

At its meeting of 25 and 26 October 2005, the Board of Governors of the European Schools adopted a list of criteria, on the one hand, for the choice of language sections to be placed in Brussels IV and, on the other, for the manner in which the establishment of the sections intended to make up the Laeken school will be carried out.

This decision of the Board of Governors(1) thereby establishes a framework for joint reflection by all of the interested parties with a view to a distribution of sections that should allow the fourth school to become operational in September 2009, when the sites planned in Laeken will be made available by the Belgian authorities. This reflection is taking place within a working group of the Secretariat-General of the European Schools known as ‘groupe de suivi Bruxelles IV’ in which parents associations, the Brussels European Schools, teachers and the Commission are represented.

It now falls to that group to prepare the dossier that will be submitted to the Board of Governors presenting it with various options conforming to the criteria set and proposing the manner of transition for each option.

Within this framework, the Secretary-General of the European Schools has presented to the Groupe de Suivi for discussion various possible alternatives involving different numbers of language sections being created in the future European School in Laeken.

The work of the Group is not yet complete. Its priority is to ensure that the proposals put forward conform fully to the criteria adopted by the Board of Governors.

The group also has the task of defining the manner of transition for each possible scenario that would reduce as far as possible any inconvenience resulting from any transfer of language sections for children currently being taught in one of the three existing European schools in Brussels and for their families.

Not until the work of this Group is complete will this dossier be included on the agenda of the Board of Governors. Nevertheless, the Commission feels that it is important not just that the options presented be accompanied by the best possible manner of transition, but also that the necessary decisions can be taken by the Board of Governors sufficiently quickly to allow the families to be informed as soon as possible.

 
 

(1) 2005-D-4310-fr-2 : ‘Criteria for placement of language sections in Brussels IV’

 

Question no 47 by Sepp Kusstatscher (H-1167/05)
 Subject: European Schools in Brussels - transfer of language sections
 

The Board of Governors of the European Schools is due to take a decision on the transfer of the Italian, German and Dutch language sections from Woluwé and Ixelles to Laecken.

What arguments will the Commission use as a basis for any position it adopts, including possible abstention, vis-à-vis this transfer?

Is the Commission prepared to ask the Board of Governors of the European Schools why it has chosen these three specific language sections for the transfer and subsequently to publish the reply?

Is the Commission prepared to ask the Board of Governors of the European Schools to provide the reasons for any future decision to transfer other language sections and to publish any such decision?

 
  
 

(FR)The Commission would like to begin by pointing out that the creation of a fourth Brussels European School became inevitable as a result of the expected increase in pupils which will soon lead to a general overcrowding of the three existing schools. This academic year, so many children of staff of the European institutions were registered in the Brussels II (Woluwé) and Brussels III (Ixelles) schools that not all requests could be met for the schools initially chosen by the parents.

The Commission would refer the honourable Member to its reply to oral question H-1132/05 by Mr Lapo PISTELLI in which it pointed out that the Secretary-General of the European Schools has presented to the Groupe de Suivi Bruxelles IV for discussion various possible alternatives involving different numbers of language sections being created in the future European School in Laeken.

The work of this group, in which parents associations and the Commission participate, has not been completed. The priority concern of the group is to ensure that the proposals made conform to the criteria adopted by the Board of Governors of the European Schools at its meeting of 25 and 26 October 2005.

The group also has the task of defining the manner of transition for each possible scenario that would reduce as far as possible any inconvenience resulting from any transfer of language sections for children currently being taught in one of the three existing European schools in Brussels and for their families.

Not until the work of this Group is complete will this dossier be included on the agenda of the Board of Governors. The Commission will take great care to ensure that each of the options presented is accompanied by the best possible manner of transition, but also that the necessary decisions can be taken by the Board of Governors of the European Schools sufficiently quickly to allow the families to be informed as soon as possible.

The Commission, which will not issue its opinion until all of these elements have been presented to the Board of Governors of the European Schools, will ensure that the choices made are clearly and publicly justified.

 

Question no 48 by Claude Moraes (H-1136/05)
 Subject: Age discrimination in recruitment
 

Can the Commission explain the reasons for continuing to ask for dates of birth and copies of passports on job application forms for institutional jobs? Does this not leave the Commission open to accusations of age discrimination?

At a time when research and development is a key priority for the EU, applicants for positions under the 6th Framework Programme continue to be asked to give their dates of birth. Could this not be seen to be discriminatory against older scientists, and may it not discourage them from contributing to this valuable area of the EU?

 
  
 

(FR)Commission job application forms include fields to be filled in by any person applying to take part in a competition/selection procedure, in particular their surname and forename name, address, place of residence, date and place of birth, nationality and gender. The sole purpose of these fields is to identify the person in question. They are not intended to create discrimination based on age, nationality or gender, nor do they have this effect.

A person's date of birth is an element of their identity and, as such, helps to identify them (should there be anybody else with the same name). In practice, database searches are made easier and the risk of error minimised by the use of such data.

The identity document of which applicants are required to provide a copy is considered as proof of their identity and nationality (EU-25 citizenship being a condition for admissibility to any competition/selection procedure).

There is no possibility of age discrimination occurring, given that any reference in the recruitment of staff to an age limit beyond which applications will not be accepted is prohibited. It is also prohibited, in staff recruitment procedures, not only to set an age limit beyond which applications will not be accepted but also, more generally, to use age in any way as a recruitment criterion.

However, the practice of checking an applicant's age is justified in so far as its purpose is objective and reasonable (in the light of the Staff Regulations and the duty to check that the person recruited is an adult and is under 65 years of age).

The above non-discrimination rules and principles are adhered to in respect of all applications for positions as evaluators, contractual staff and officials.

 

Question no 49 by Johan Van Hecke (H-1138/05)
 Subject: Commission approval for capital increase for ABX
 

On Wednesday, 7 December the Commission approved the restructuring plan and capital increase for Belgian logistics group ABX, formerly part of Belgian Railways (NMBS). ABX has cost Belgian taxpayers a total of more than €1 000 million. The restructuring and additional injections of finance should make ABX, and above all its German and Netherlands branches, viable and provide assurances for the future of the 10 000 employees.

What guarantees does the Commission have that the company, if necessary with the involvement of a buyer, will in fact be able to compete in future and make sufficient profits to survive in what is a very competitive sector?

 
  
 

(FR)The Commission’s decision of 7 December 2005 to approve the funding for ABX Logistics’ restructuring plan was taken mainly on the basis of the rules on the approval of aid for the restructuring of companies in difficulty, an important condition of which is that the viability of the company in question should be restored.

In this regard, the Commission notes that the SNCB aid was granted within the framework of an industrial and strategic restructuring plan intended to tackle the sources of the group’s viability problems; it has also noted that the group’s results have already noticeably improved between 2002 and 2004, with a return to operational profits. Finally, the Commission considers that the transfer of all of ABX’s capital to a private investor who will provide a substantial financial contribution to the ABX group is an additional sign that the restoration of the company's viability is credible.

The Commission would point out finally that in accordance with the principle of one-off aid, the ABX group will not be able to receive any further restructuring aid for the next ten years.

 

Question no 50 by Marian Harkin (H-1139/05)
 Subject: Open Aviation Area
 

Is the Commission satisfied that the provisions of the revised bilateral air agreement between Ireland and the USA can be accommodated in the overall Open Aviation Area Agreement and that the fundamental change for Shannon Airport involved can be reconciled with EU principles in the context of Regionality, Peripherality and Subsidiarity?

 
  
 

(FR)The general Open Aviation Area Agreement between the European Community and the United States was negotiated by the Commission on behalf of the European Community and the Member States. The agreement includes special transitional arrangements that will apply to scheduled flights and passenger charter flights on the routes between Ireland and the United States. These arrangements are intended to ensure an appropriate transition for Shannon Airport, in line with the regional policy objectives.

 

Question no 51 by Georgios Karatzaferis (H-1142/05)
 Subject: Suspension of benefit by OAED to Greek citizens of Pomak origin
 

According to the Greek press, the Greek Manpower Employment Organisation (OAED) appears not to be paying some 500 unemployed workers (of Pomak origin) their seasonal benefit of € 740 which workers at the Perama shipyard and repair zone receive once a year. All the Pomaks are Greek Muslim citizens born in Greek Thrace and this decision has provoked a strong reaction from five trade unions in the 'zone', which are talking in terms of 'racist treatment of the unemployed by the government and the OAED administration'. Most of the Pomaks are sandblasters who submitted their supporting documents in the normal way through the trade unions, while the benefit is allegedly being paid only to those with Christian names. A trade union delegation has already made representations to the Governor of the OAED, Mr Vernadakis.

How can the Commission intervene to remedy this unprecedented injustice, with its abhorrent racist connotations, against Greek citizens whom Turkey has tried so oppressively to 'appropriate' for years through the tactics of its consulate in Thrace?

 
  
 

(EN)In the context of the monitoring of the implementation of the Community Support Framework for Greece and its operational programmes, and in particular of the regional operational programme for "Eastern Macedonia - Thrace", the Commission has been repeatedly assured by the Greek authorities that co-financed actions are addressed to ultimate beneficiaries without prejudice to their ethnic origin or religious orientation.

The Commission was not aware of the suspension of the seasonal benefit by the Greek Manpower Employment Organisation (OAED) referred to by the Honourable Member. Although this benefit is not included in the actions co-financed by the Structural Funds, the Commission has requested from the Greek authorities information on the case and it will communicate the results of these enquiries as soon as possible.

 

Question no 52 by Justas Vincas Paleckis (H-1148/05)
 Subject: Relations between the European Union and Belarus
 

The European Union does not support the closed-door policy implemented by the Belarus authorities. Moreover, it has thus far had little success in developing contacts with the inhabitants of Belarus, in particular young people.

Could the Commission state how the European Union enables, or plans to enable, the largest possible number of pupils, students and young people from Belarus to travel to the Member States of the European Union to study, and young people from our countries to travel to Belarus.

In its determination to apply a uniform visa policy, the European Union is seeking to relax as far as possible the formalities to be completed when crossing the border between Belarus and its neighbouring states, to make them more straightforward and less costly for members of the public. Following negotiations with Belarus, Lithuania and Poland have decided, on a reciprocal basis, to reduce the cost of obtaining a visa. What measures does the European Commission plan to take so that similar procedures can be applied at EU level?

 
  
 

(EN)In November 2004 the Council adopted conclusions noting with great concern that the 17 October 2004 parliamentary elections and referendum in Belarus were not conducted in a free and fair manner and strongly condemned the attacks on peaceful demonstrators, individual opposition leaders and journalists that took place after 17 October.

The Council also decided to introduce a visa-ban against the officials directly responsible for the fraudulent elections and referendum and against those responsible for severe human rights violations in the repression of peaceful demonstrators.

At this stage, the Commission believes that it would not be appropriate for the EU to negotiate with Belarus a general agreement on the facilitation of visa issuing procedures including a visa fee exemption.

The Commission recalls that under the current Common Consular Instructions, in individual cases Member States’ diplomatic missions and consular posts can waive or reduce the fee in accordance with national law when this measure serves to protect cultural interests, in the field of foreign policy, development policy or other areas of vital public interest.

Regarding exchanges between Belarusian and Member States’ universities, the EC has been supporting Tempus joint European projects with Belarus since 1994. These projects also provide for support to students’ mobility. Up to € 1.9 million have been earmarked for Tempus programme with Belarus in 2005-2006 and the Commission intends to maintain a focus on exchanges between universities for professors and students in the next programming period. This represents a useful tool for fostering European democratic values in Belarus, in particular reaching out to the young generation.

 

Question no 54 by Ilda Figueiredo (H-1155/05)
 Subject: Closure of the Delphi plant in Linhó
 

The US multinational Delphi has recently announced the closure of one of its plants - namely, the cable factory in Linhó. This will put nearly 320 workers out of a job, even though the group is known to be making large profits, with a turnover running into the millions of euros in its Portuguese factories.

What Community aid has the Delphi Group received for its factories in EU or accession countries?

What action is the Commission intending to take in order to put a stop to unacceptable situations of this kind, to protect workers' rights, to provide jobs for women and to prevent regional development from becoming stalled?

 
  
 

(FR)The Commission’s services are currently being provided with information from the national authorities relating to any structural funds that the Delphi group may have received. The Commission will inform the honourable Member of the information it receives as soon as possible.

The Commission is aware of the possible negative effects of the closure of a plant, if confirmed, on the workers in question, their families and the region. It does not however fall to the Commission to issue an opinion or intervene in decision making within companies unless Community law is being violated. It should be pointed out in this regard that the Community framework provides for numerous provisions in relation to the justification and adequate management of restructuring, including plant closures, in particular Council Directive 98/59/EC on the approximation of laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies(1), Council Directive 2001/23/EC regarding transfers of undertakings(2), Council Directive 94/45/EC, concerning the European Works Councils(3), Directive 2002/74/EC on insolvency(4) and Directive 2002/14/EC establishing a general framework relating to information and consultation of workers in the EC(5).

On 31 March 2005(6) the Commission adopted a communication entitled "Restructuring and Employment" in which it draws up a global and coherent European Union approach to situations of restructuring. It specifies Community policies intended to anticipate and accompany economic transformations, to support employment and to encourage regional development. The Commission’s industrial policy in the automobile sector, the employment strategy, equal opportunities actions and structural fund assistance are particularly important in the situation raised by the honourable Member. The European Council of 15-16 December 2005 also recently accepted the principle of creating an additional globalisation adjustment fund in order to assist workers laid off as a result of the major upheaval caused by globalisation to receive training and find new jobs.

 
 

(1) OJ L 225 of 12.8.1998
(2) OJ L 82 of 22.03.2001
(3) OJ L 254 of 30.9.94
(4) OJ L 270 of 8.10.2002
(5) OJ L 80 of 23.3.2002
(6) COM(2005) 120 of 31.3.2005

 

Question no 55 by Milan Gaľa (H-1156/05)
 Subject: Implementation of Europass document at EU Member State level
 

At the beginning of 2005, on the basis of the single Community framework for the transparency of qualifications and competences, the Luxembourg Presidency of the Council of the European Union and the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Education and Culture put Europass into practice. In the period that followed, individual Member States of the European Union were required to set up National Europass Centres. At what stage are Member States currently as regards the implementation of Europass?

 
  
 

(EN)On 15 December 2004, the decision 2241/2004/EC of the Parliament and of the Council on a single Community framework for the transparency of qualifications and competences (Europass) was adopted. Europass is designed to encourage mobility and lifelong learning in an enlarged Europe. It aims to help citizens make their qualifications and skills easily understood throughout Europe by 2010.

Following the Commission’s request, all Member States and the three EFTA/EEA(1) countries designated their National Europass Centres in the first months of 2005.

On 3 March 2005, the Commission invited the National Europass Centres to submit an application for an operating grant to cover the period May – December 2005. Most National Europass Centres were operational as of 1 May 2005. Four of them started a few weeks later.

In 2005, the priority for National Europass Centres consisted in establishing the implementation structures and launching the initiative in their countries. Most National Europass Centres launched Europass through specific national conferences, often accompanied by regional seminars or workshops. Participation in such events showed a high level of interest from stakeholders. National Internet sites have already been opened by the majority of centres to complement the European portal. In 2005, several thousands of “Europass Mobility” documents have been issued for citizens undertaking a learning period in another country.

The Commission plans to prepare, by June 2006, an activity report on Europass in 2005.

 
 

(1) European Free Trade Association/European Economic Area

 

Question no 56 by Jan Andersson (H-1161/05)
 Subject: Rules governing temporary provision of services
 

If a company from a Member State temporarily provides services in another Member State, does the Commission consider that it is the labour market rules and collective agreements in the company's country of origin or those in effect in the country where the services are provided that should apply?

 
  
 

(EN)When a company from a Member State temporarily provides services in another Member State and, within this framework, posts its workers to this other Member State, then this does not alter the law already applicable to the existing employment relationship between the posted workers and the company, his employer, that provides the service.

In order to coordinate the different national rules that may apply as a consequence of early case law of the Court of Justice, provided that they comply with certain conditions, Directive 96/71/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services(1) provides for a 'hard core' of clearly defined rules that should be observed by the provider of the services.

Thus, a number of important protective provisions concerning certain terms and conditions of employment, among which the minimum rates of pay, maximum work periods and minimum rest periods and minimum paid annual holidays, that are in force in the Member State where the work is being carried out and laid down by way of law, regulation or administrative provisions or, in as far as the construction industry is concerned, by way of collective agreements or arbitration awards that have been declared universally applicable in the sense of article 3 (8) of Directive 96/71/EC, have to be guaranteed to the posted workers during the period of posting.

 
 

(1) OJ L 18 of 21.1.1997

 

Question no 57 by Åsa Westlund (H-1163/05)
 Subject: Commission's timetable for alcohol policy strategy
 

Alcohol is one of the factors which has an extremely negative impact on public health in the EU. Work on the drafting of an alcohol policy strategy in the EU will soon have gone on for five years. When does the Commission intend to present the strategy?

 
  
 

(EN)Based on requests from the Council in 2001 and 2004, the establishment of a comprehensive Community strategy to reduce alcohol related harm is now reaching its decisive phase.

Given the wide scope and complexity of the issue the strategy has been developed in close co-operation with experts from the Member States and representatives of the main stakeholders.

The consultation process has identified areas where joint or coordinated actions need to be strengthened at EU level. The intention is to structure a Commission Communication into actions on six key areas:

To create evidence,

To protect young people,

To protect third parties,

To combat drink-driving,

To prevent alcohol-related harm among adults,

To inform and raise awareness on the impact of alcohol.

The alcohol policy strategy is included in the Commission’s Legislative Work Plan for 2006. The strategy is planned to be adopted by the Commission in September 2006. The proposal will be finalised following an impact assessment of its economic, social and environmental impacts, which is currently ongoing. After adoption the strategy will be transmitted to the other Institutions, including the Parliament.

 

Question no 58 by Ivo Belet (H-1164/05)
 Subject: Imports of apples from third countries
 

Apple growers in the EU are seriously concerned about the quantity of apples being imported from third countries. According to the EU customs services' website, by 30 June 2005, 276 000 tons had been imported. Other sources quoted a figure of around 700 000 tons.

This shows that the systems provided for by EU rules to protect the internal market are unworkable, as their operation is based on inaccurate information. How can the Commission ensure that the Member States supply correct import statistics? And is it possible to reduce the import ceilings in order to allow for the margin of error?

Moreover, apples have been offered for sale at prices of € 3 and € 8 per 18 kg, which do not even cover the transport costs. Will the Commission investigate these dumping practices and solve the problem?

What is the Commission's position concerning a measure - to be reviewed annually - making it possible to open the EU market to imported apples only from 1 June?

Cannot Community preference pursuant to the Treaty of Rome be invoked to require apple importers to sell all their apples before Europe's own harvest arrives in August?

 
  
 

(EN)2005 showed problems with both delayed and incorrect reporting of import data by Member States.

By the beginning of 2007, a new system for data transmission will become operational. From 2007 similar problems should not recur.

In order to avoid a similar situation in 2006, at the Management Committee of 13th December, a first draft proposal for the establishment of import licenses was discussed.

If implemented, this transitional measure should ensure proper reporting of all imports due to a new deposit of € 15/tonnes. It could come into effect as of 1st February 2006.

The Commission is only allowed to use a Special Safeguard Clause if quantities of imported apples - communicated by Member States customs services - reach the respective ‘trigger volume’ and when all relevant World Trade Organisation (WTO) provisions on the issue are met.

This procedure, including the method of calculating the ‘trigger volume’ is in conformity with Article 5 of the ‘Agreement on agriculture’ of the Uruguay Round on International Trade.

If any breach of international trade rules under WTO is brought to the attention of the Commission, it will act promptly. This concerns for example evidence of dumping.

However, at present, no tangible evidence of possible dumping has been made available to the Commission.

Regarding the question of measures to restrict the import or marketing of apples from Third countries, the Commission would like to draw your attention to the rules of International Trade and, in particular, the WTO provisions which need to be fully complied with by the EU. In this respect, to restrict imports to a limited period (i.e. after 1st June each year) would not be consistent with our international and WTO obligations.

 

Question no 59 by Catherine Stihler (H-1166/05)
 Subject: Braille information for consumers
 

Can the Commission indicate the extent to which companies are now obliged to provide consumer information in Braille?

 
  
 

(EN)The consumer protection legislation at European level, which is intended to protect the average consumer, does not foresee any general obligation for companies to provide consumer information in Braille.

However, an obligation for consumer information in Braille has been established in the pharmaceutical area, in particular for labelling and package leaflet – Directive 2001/83/EC as amended by the Directive 2004/27/EC. Article 56a of the Directive requires that the name of the medical product be also expressed in Braille on the packaging. The marketing authorization holder has to ensure that the package information leaflet is made available upon request from patients' organizations in formats appropriate for the blind and partially-sighted. Guidance to companies concerning the Braille requirements for labelling and the package leaflet has been issued by the Commission services dated 13 April 2005: http://pharmacos.eudra.org/F2/pharmacos/new.htm.

 

Question no 60 by Mairead McGuinness (H-1174/05)
 Subject: Misrepresentation of services being sold to businesses across the Internal Market
 

Is the Commission aware of the serious and ongoing problem concerning the misrepresentation of services being sold to businesses in the EU?

The case of European City Guides, which is currently the subject of a written declaration in the European Parliament, is a notable example - they misrepresent their product and tend to target small businesses. They subsequently pursue these businesses for payment on the basis of their original fraudulent proposition.

While the Internal Market has, in general, provided both businesses and consumers with significant benefits, the activities outlined above are an example of where the Internal Market gives rise to serious difficulties for businesses for which there is no effective remedy.

Can the Commission clarify its position on these issues? In addition, does the Commission intend to propose new legislation or amend existing legislation in order to remove this weakness from the Internal Market?

 
  
 

(EN)The Commission is aware of the problem referred to by the Honourable Member. It has received a number of complaints relating to the practices of the European City Guide, directly from businesses as well as through MEPs.

In general, practices such as those described in the Honourable Member's question amount to misleading advertising, which is addressed by Council Directive 84/450/EEC on misleading and comparative advertising. The Directive provides for the use of cessation orders or other legal proceedings to prohibit the continued use of misleading advertising.

It is for the competent law courts and/or public enforcement authorities of the Member States to decide in each individual case whether a commercial communication is to be considered misleading and to take appropriate enforcement actions against individuals or companies.

In the case of the European City Guide the Commission was informed that the Catalan authorities decided in 2003 to close down the company and to impose a fine on it. The European City Guide has appealed this decision and appears to have moved its activities from Barcelona to Valencia.

Although it cannot intervene in individual cases, the Commission will continue to monitor the activities of the national enforcement authorities. The Commissioner in charge of Health and Consumer Protection has personally written to his Spanish counterpart to draw her attention to this matter and inquire about any further actions the Spanish authorities have taken.

As regards the Honourable Member’s question on whether the Commission intends to propose new legislation or amend existing legislation, while the Commission is not ruling out this possibility in the future, it would first have to be established that there are loopholes or a lack of clarity in the Community legislation or that additional Community legislation is the most appropriate response. Currently, we have no evidence that the problems can be attributed to shortcomings of the legislation.

 

Question no 61 by Diamanto Manolakou (H-1179/05)
 Subject: Increase in cases of AIDS
 

According to data produced by the Hellenic Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (KEELPNO), there was a marked increase in 2005 of cases of AIDS in Greece, more than 18% compared with 2004 and close to 30% compared with 2002. This data also shows that there has been a significant increase in the transfer of the virus by means of heterosexual contact, close to 25% compared with 2002, while the percentage of women infected is also on the rise. At the same time, according to the UN's Annual Report on AIDS for 2005, cases of the disease are also on the increase at world level, a trend attributable in large measure to a laxer attitude towards contraceptive measures and a consequent lowering of the level of vigilance.

Will the Commission intensify its efforts to promote correct information to the public, prevention and the treatment of AIDS sufferers? Are there initiatives to draw up national action plans in the Member States and what measures will the Commission take to fund them?

 
  
 

(EN)The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for her question on the important issue of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Europe, and in particular on raising the awareness of Europeans’ on HIV/AIDS.

Tackling the HIV/AIDS(1) epidemic is our common task. Working together provides a real opportunity to pool expertise and knowledge to identify the best tools for prevention, support, treatment and care.

The immediate response of the Commission to the re-emergence of HIV in Europe was to mobilise the stakeholders and the Member States and to distil what needed to be done in the working paper ‘coordinated and integrated approach to combat HIV/AIDS within the EU and in its Neighbourhood’ in September 2004. You will find there a strong commitment for immediate actions.

These actions are now being implemented with partners in the Member States. Progress and next steps are contained in the Commission’s Communication ‘on combating HIV/AIDS within the EU and in the neighbouring countries’ that was adopted on 15 December 2005. The Communication builds on the priorities identified in the working paper and sets out the main lines for action until the end of 2009, focusing on the areas where strengthening the efforts is urgently needed.

The Honourable Member quite rightly points out the fact that it is crucial to strengthen all prevention activities; through education and awareness raising as well as through promoting the use of condoms and the implementation of harm reduction services for injecting drug users, such as the exchange of clean needles and syringes.

In this regard the Commission has started, together with Member States and partners like the World AIDS Campaign, European Broadcasting Union (EBU), MTV, and other supportive businesses, a long term initiative targeted at the general public with the main messages on stigma and discrimination.

The Commission has established structures to coordinate HIV/AIDS activities within its services in charge of relevant policy sectors and also with the Member States, neighbouring countries, international organisations, and civil society. The structure that coordinates all the external partners is the HIV/AIDS Think Tank.

The Think Tank has developed into a platform to exchange experience and information on various matters, including updated and/or new national HIV/AIDS plans. The Commission is now considering how to develop this further in order to facilitate the development of national plans in the Member States and in the neighbouring countries.

The Commission has made an attempt to help the Member States to increase the money available for health activities, like implementing the national HIV/AIDS action plan, by introducing health as one of the key funding areas of the European Regional Development Fund from 2007 on. However, now it is up to the Council and Parliament to seize this opportunity.

 
 

(1) Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)

 
Legal notice - Privacy policy