Index 
 Previous 
 Next 
 Full text 
Verbatim report of proceedings
Thursday, 16 February 2006 - StrasbourgOJ edition
 ANNEX (Written answers)
QUESTIONS TO THE COUNCIL (The Presidency-in-Office of the Council of the European Union bears sole responsibility for these answers)
QUESTIONS TO THE COMMISSION

QUESTIONS TO THE COUNCIL (The Presidency-in-Office of the Council of the European Union bears sole responsibility for these answers)
Question no 10 by Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (H-1112/05)
 Subject: Elimination of barriers within European labour markets by 2005
 

The European Council meeting in Barcelona in March 2002 wholeheartedly approved the Commission's action plan to eliminate the barriers within European labour markets by the end of 2005 and called on the Council to take the necessary steps to put the proposed measures into practice for those working in education, research and innovation.

Does the Council have any specific data on the progress achieved in reducing the obstacles to recognition of vocational qualifications, formal qualifications and informal education? Does it also have specific data concerning the acquisition of basic qualifications - particularly in relation to the new information and communications technologies - by all citizens and specific groups such as unemployed women?

 
  
 

(DE)The coordination of social security systems and the transferability of pensions entitlements are the subject of a recently amended regulation, as well as of a proposal for a directive which is currently being examined by the departments of the Council that deal with the preparation of legislation.

As regards social security benefits, the honourable Member will no doubt be aware that the new regulation on the coordination of social security systems (Regulation No 883/2004/EC), which will enter into effect simultaneously with the appendant Implementing Regulation, will replace Regulation No 1408/71/EC, which is currently applicable. The intention is that the new regulation should, as a legal instrument in the field of mobility between Member States, be more uniform in its application, easier to transpose and more contemporary in its approach, thereby helping not only to improve the insured persons’ entitlements to social security, but also to simplify the procedures involved.

The honourable Member will no doubt also be aware that the proposal recently presented by the Commission for a directive improving the portability of supplementary pension rights is aimed at making employees more mobile and improving job mobility overall, by enabling mobile workers, right up to the end of their working lives, to acquire sufficient supplementary pension rights. This proposal resulted from consultations at European level, lasting over a period of years, on the need for improvements in the functioning of additional pension systems and the means whereby these may best be achieved.

As the honourable Member has rightly observed, one of the major hindrances to people who want to work or study in another EU Member State, or, indeed, to transfer from one part of the labour market to another, is that their qualifications and skills may well not be recognised. The explicit goal of Community policy is that these obstacles be removed, and recent years have seen various Community instruments introduced and initiatives taken with a view to making the transfer of academic and professional qualifications easier. It should however be borne in mind that this is a step-by-step process, and one moreover subject to Article 149 of the Treaty, which states that the goals of Community action in the field of education include ‘encouraging the academic recognition of diplomas and periods of study’. This process is, inevitably, a matter of subsidiarity.

As regards academic qualifications, the national academic recognition information centres (NARIC) provide relevant information on the recognition of diplomas and study periods abroad, and positive contributions are also being made by the European Credit Transfer System and the recently introduced Diploma Supplement.

As regards professional qualifications, a network of national contact points was set up in the Member States to be the first port of call for questions concerning them. In parallel with the Diploma Supplement, which relates to university education, the certificate supplement was devised to meet the needs of professional qualifications, and, at the same time, a common European model for curricula vitae was proposed with the aim of making it possible to set out an individual’s qualifications and skills in a simple and effective way. Since then, another instrument has been adopted in the shape of what is termed the Europass, which helps to promote mobility in work-linked training and apprenticeship by facilitating a voluntary and Europe-wide system for accounting for periods of education and training outside the ‘home’ Member State.

There is increasing acknowledgment of the benefits of informal education, to which the honourable Member referred, and initiatives in the fields of education and youth are being used to encourage Member States to develop the machinery for this type of learning to be recognised. It was in 2004, under the Irish Presidency, that the Council adopted final conclusions on common European principles for the identification and validation of non-formal and informal learning processes, and the Council working party on youth issues is currently examining a draft resolution on that subject.

Turning to the subject of the acquisition of basic qualifications, it should be noted that the Commission recently – as part of the Lisbon Strategy’s ‘Education and Training 2010’ work programme – made a recommendation on core competences, with specific reference to the IT field, and the Council and Parliament are currently examining it. The recommendation is principally intended to identify and define the core skills needed in a knowledge-based society in terms of that society’s cohesion and individuals’ self-development and employability; it is also about ensuring that, firstly, all young people, by the end of their basic education, possess the core skills needed in order to embark on adult life, and, secondly, that adults too can develop and update these skills throughout their lives.

It should also be noted that the Member States are currently being consulted on the possible creation of a European qualifications framework, the main purpose of which would be to ensure the inter-relation of national and sectoral qualification systems and thereby make it easier for individual citizens’ qualifications to be transferred and recognised.

 

Question no 11 by Justas Vincas Paleckis (H-0037/06)
 Subject: Opening up of the Austrian labour market to workers from the new EU Member States
 

The United Kingdom, Ireland and Sweden have all opened up their labour markets to nationals of the countries of Eastern Europe. In welcoming workers from Lithuania, Poland and other new EU Member States, the former countries have managed to integrate workers from the latter countries in their labour markets and have increased their own GDP. However, the key problem of illegal labour involving the citizens of the new Member States arises in other EU Member States, in particular Germany and Austria, where restrictions on the migration of workers are being maintained. In view of this situation, does Austria still intend to maintain immigration restrictions for workers from the new EU Member States for three or five more years? What kind of example would the country currently holding the Presidency of the EU be setting for the other Member States which have not yet opened up access to their labour markets?

 
  
 

(DE)It should be borne in mind at the outset that an increase in the illegal employment of citizens from the new EU Member States is not a problem in Austria. As confirmed by the recent study by Biffl, Huber, and Walterskirchen: ‘Übergangsregelung zur Freizügigkeit’ [transitional arrangements for freedom of movement], Österreichisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, [Austrian Institute for Economic Research – WIFO], February 2006, illegal employment has not become noticeably more widespread in Austria.

Austria intends to maintain the transitional arrangements relating to the free movement of workers for another three years. Extension of the transitional measures is not about any one country setting an example, but rather – as is clear from the accession documents – it is for each country to take a well-considered decision on the basis of its specific situation and of the state of development of its labour market.

The individual and autonomous decisions by each Member State must take into account the states of their respective economies and their position in the growth cycle. One essential element in this is the potential for each labour market to absorb new workers, since responsibility towards migrants requires that they be able to meet the conditions for integration and be able to maintain themselves through their own labours. The geographical location also has to be taken into consideration, since the distance between the country of origin and the place of work will determine the extent of migration. Austria, which shares borders with the new Member States of the EU, is a good example of a country whose requirements for controlling the migration of workers differ in every respect from those of such distant countries as Ireland and the United Kingdom. It is in these outcomes and in the ways in which they develop that the Member States differ from one another, so that, for the purpose of the decision on the extension of the transitional arrangements, it is of only limited usefulness to cite any one country as an example for another to follow.

 

Question no 12 by Mihael Brejc (H-0043/06)
 Subject: Free movement of persons
 

Within its borders the European Union ensures four freedoms – free movement of persons, services, goods and capital. It also guarantees freedom of establishment. These are fundamental freedoms and the EU will struggle to fulfil its potential if they are not extended to each and every citizen.

This year will see the end of the two-year transitional period in relation to the free flow of persons introduced by certain Member States at the time of the 2004 enlargement.

What is the Austrian Presidency’s position on the decision by certain countries to extend the transitional period for a further three years?

 
  
 

(DE)Under the terms of the 2003 accession treaty, decisions on whether or not to continue with the application of transitional measures relating to freedom of movement are a matter solely and exclusively for the Member States concerned. Those Member States desirous of applying the transitional measures for another three years following 30 April 2006 must inform the Commission of their intention to do so by that date.

The Austrian Presidency takes the view that the Member States should come to their decisions on the basis of the Commission’s report on the application of transitional measures relating to freedom of movement, and that such decisions should be balanced, taking into account all the various outcomes in each case and all significant factors connected with labour migration – primarily, that is, the state of the economy and of the labour market in the Member States in question, which will be crucial in determining whether it is certain, at least for an appropriate and predictable period of time, that the migratory workers’ income from work will be sufficient to cover their living expenses. Another significant factor is likely to be geographical location, since the extent of migration is likely to be determined by the distance between a person’s country of origin and the place where they work.

 

Question no 13 by Maria Matsouka (H-0088/06)
 Subject: Relation between worker mobility and high unemployment in the EU
 

2006 has been declared European Year for Workers' Mobility in order to make workers aware of the advantages of working in another country or in a new sector of employment. It is asserted that this policy, which means moving from one region to another within the same country or from one country to another within the European Union with the purpose of finding work, broadening work experience or improving the skills/knowledge of workers, will contribute to the implementation of the revised Lisbon strategy. However, unemployment is still high (over 8% in the EU of 15 and over 9% in the EU of 25 at the beginning of 2005). The slight reduction is due either to State subsidisation of jobs (France) or to a reduction in the workforce actually in employment (United Kingdom 1991-2003).

If there are not enough jobs in one country or region, what is the sense in workers from other Member States seeking work there? Is there not a risk that they will move in search of jobs which are precarious and of limited duration, with all the attendant consequences for social, personal and family life?

 
  
 

(DE)The Council agrees with the honourable Member that mobility for workers can involve them facing difficulties and having costs to bear.

It is for this reason that the Commission is endeavouring, through the EURES (European Employment Services) international cooperation network, to coordinate the European labour market as best it may. EURES has members and partners in the 25 EU Member States, as well as in Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland, and fosters the international mobility of workers by offering such services as information, advice and job placement to workers and employers wishing to avail themselves of the right to free movement. The portal is currently used by 500 000 enquirers a month and it carries at present 1.5 million job vacancies.

The network’s advice service also, however, provides jobseekers with information on living and working conditions (accommodation, education, the cost of living, health services, social security legislation, etc) in the individual Member States.

The year of mobility in 2006 aims to guarantee the free movement of persons as a fundamental right, and to promote both the professional and geographical mobility of workers and their efficient allocation in line with sectors’ need for labour and its productive and profitable use in the Member States. The labour market is subject to pronounced dynamics right across Europe, with jobs being extensively shifted around in the course of a year in consequence of the growth and shrinkage of industries in response to constantly changing demand, along with redundancies and recruitments. Furthermore, the European central statistical office works on the assumption that an assumed increase in new jobs of 1-2% per annum in some regions of the EU will result in a sectoral labour shortage in 2010 if there is too small an influx of labour.

It is, in any case, improbable that a worker seeking a quite specific job will want to move to a country or a region where such jobs are available only in small numbers. Although the total jobless figure in the European Union continues to be regrettably high, unemployment rates do vary very considerably from one sector or region to another.

 

Question no 14 by Elizabeth Lynne (H-1115/05)
 Subject: Health and safety
 

What are the Austrian Presidency's priorities in employment and social policy, does the Presidency agree that, in principle, any new health and safety strategy should be more focused on the implementation of existing legislation across all 25 Member States than the creation of new legislation?

 
  
 

(DE)The honourable Member asks for details of the Austrian Presidency's priorities in the sphere of employment and social policy. Austria will hold the Presidency for the first half of 2006 and during that period employment issues will be one of the focal points of the Council's work. Last year, the Council laid down the employment policy guidelines for the period from 2005 to 2008, guidelines which in principle remain valid in 2006. This year, the Council will concentrate on examining how those guidelines are implemented by the Member States. Measures in the employment sphere are of course chiefly taken using the so-called open method of coordination, i.e. without legislation being enacted.

At the start of the Austrian Presidency, the focus will not only be on employment issues, but also on issues relating to social inclusion and welfare protection, since the Council, drawing on work carried out by the Commission, will submit a report on these matters to the European Council at its Spring Summit in March. Further key priorities for the Austrian Presidency are: the amendment of the working time directive, continuation of the work on the coordination of laws in the sphere of social security, and consideration of the recent Commission proposal on the viability of old-age pension systems.

The honourable Member asks in particular whether the Presidency agrees that any new health and safety strategy should focus more closely on the implementation of existing legislation than on the enactment of new legislation. In that connection, the honourable Member is no doubt referring to the fact that, in its annual policy strategy for 2006, the Commission has announced that one of its key initiatives in 2006 will be a proposal for a new Community strategy on health and safety at work. However, that proposal will not be submitted until late 2006, when the Austrian Presidency is already over. For that reason, the Austrian Presidency will not be able to initiate discussion of that initiative itself in the Council. However, Austria intends to continue the preliminary discussions on the new Community strategy on health and safety begun under the UK Presidency. Accordingly, the Thematic Day of the Senior Labour Inspectors' Committee (SLIC), to be held in Vienna on 27 March 2006, will be devoted to a discussion of that issue.

I can assure the honourable Member that the Austrian Presidency will actively seek to achieve progress on the reform of the regulatory framework, as stated, for example, in the Joint Declaration on that subject. The Presidency will attach particular priority to implementing measures designed to bring about better lawmaking.

 

Question no 15 by Reinhard Rack (H-0079/06)
 Subject: 'Better Regulation'
 

The words 'Better Regulation' are currently on everyone's lips. Nevertheless, there is widespread dissatisfaction in Europe with many aspects of the EU, one frequent criticism being that it is a bureaucratic monster.

What steps does the Austrian Presidency plan to take to deal with this problem?

 
  
 

(DE)Simply talking about "Better Regulation" is not enough: businesses and citizens demand visible results that have a direct effect on them. The important groundwork that makes these possible has already been done at Community level and in many of the Member States. They now have to become reality, and without delay. The following are particularly important:

Simplification of EU rules and regulations, which have tangible effects on businesses and members of the public. Taken together with the other ongoing efforts at (horizontal) simplification, Commissioner Verheugen’s screening initiative and the current plans for sectoral simplification get us on the right track.

The measurement and reduction of administrative burdens has direct effects on the persons involved. The instruments required are available to us at the European level, and now we have to make use of them.

The effects of EU law must be known in advance if it is to be possible to reach deliberate and well-informed decisions. Such decisions are facilitated by impact assessments, which must be produced to the highest possible quality and then made use of in the negotiating process. In this area, what is particularly crucial to the economy is the competitiveness test.

There is nevertheless the risk that the public and the business world will be but little aware of these activities and that these will have no real influence on their basically negative attitudes. One way of counteracting that would be to provide better information on the actual measures currently being taken to reform regulation – measures that affect the individuals concerned; a wide variety of measures are currently being taken in this area, and it is often difficult even for specialists in this field to get and keep an overview of what is going on.

In the final analysis, our activities must, as already mentioned, result in manifest benefits for all concerned, in the shape of cost reductions or work being made easier, for it only thus that we will reach our goal. I believe that the measures I have mentioned take us in the right direction in this respect.

Another important way of involving the public and businesses is certainly to consult them on regulations that will affect them. There are many initiatives to this end, but it must still be the case that the interested parties must be fully informed about the options available to them as regards consultation, with their opinions listened to at the policy-making stage, and they must also be given effective feedback about those opinions.

Both members of the public and businesses often tell us that important decisions and regulations tend more and more to emanate from ‘Brussels’, with the nation state’s role receding more and more into the background, so that they end up feeling powerless in relation to the EU.

It is surely too simple to blame ‘Brussels’ alone for this development. After all, the reason why we joined together in this Community was that we would all derive clearly measurable benefits from it. To take an example: after ten years of the single market, the EU’s GDP was 1.8%, or EUR 165 billion, greater than it had been before the advent of the single market, with 2.5 million jobs having been created and the standard of living rising by EUR 877 billion (equivalent to EUR 5 700 for each household).(1)

The question nevertheless arises as to whether maximising centralisation of regulation in Brussels is entirely beneficial. It is for that reason that the topic of ‘subsidiarity’ and the allocation of competences is also an important aspect of regulatory reform, raising the question as to which matters should be regulated at which level in the interests of maximum effectiveness. It is to consider this subject area that a conference on subsidiarity will be held on 18 and 19 April this year in St. Pölten.(2)

 
 

(1)"Der Binnenmarkt– Zehn Jahre ohne Grenzen." [‘The internal market – ten years without borders’] European Commission, Economic and Financial Affairs Directorate-General, 2003.
(2) Organised by the BKA.

 

Question no 16 by Agnes Schierhuber (H-0092/06)
 Subject: Establishing economic links between the Mediterranean States and the EU
 

The economic stability and development of the EU's neighbouring States and the establishment of links between them and the Community are fundamental to the process of creating an area of security and prosperity surrounding the European Union.

What practical measures will be taken in the first half of 2006 with a view to establishing closer economic links between the Mediterranean States and the European Union (Euromed process)?

 
  
 

(DE)The most important event of recent years was the summit meeting on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the Barcelona Declaration. The meeting was held in Barcelona on 29 and 30 November and, in the course of it, a five-year work programme focusing on political and economic reform was adopted. This meeting also gave priority to educational issues and aspects of legal and illegal immigration.

On 24 March 2006, a conference of trade ministers will be held in Marrakesh. The annual European and Mediterranean conference on economic change will be held in Brussels on 19 and 20 June 2006, and, on 25 and 26 June 2006, the finance ministers will meet together in Tunis to discuss the Facility for Euro-Mediterranean Investment and Partnership (FEMIP), to put in place arrangements for peer review and mutual support in the reform process and to raise specific matters of common interest.

As regards the economic side, the Presidency has set itself the task of transposing the relevant parts of the work programme, which means:

further liberalisation of the trade in agricultural produce, on which the Council has accepted a negotiating mandate;

further liberalisation of the provision of services. It is intended that negotiations should be officially opened at the meeting of Euro-Mediterranean trade ministers on 24 March 2006 in Marrakesh.

The Presidency will also, jointly with the Euro-Mediterranean partners, work towards the following:

Incorporation of the original Pan-European-Mediterranean Protocol into the remaining Euro-Mediterranean agreements;

convergence on standards, technical regulations and conformity assessments;

closer analysis of the effects of economic reforms and cooperation in the region;

speedy development of a timetable for the removal of pollution from the Mediterranean by 2020, including providing support to the Commission in preparing for a conference on this subject;

subregional energy projects to promote an energy market in the Euro-Mediterranean area.

 

Question no 17 by Claude Moraes (H-0018/06)
 Subject: Austrian Presidency and the Lisbon Strategy
 

What direction is the Austrian Presidency taking with the Lisbon Strategy? In particular, what will be the direction regarding jobs and the take-up of new technology as well as with barriers to employment faced by particular sections of the community including young workers and older workers and those facing discrimination in the labour market?

What assessment does the Austrian Presidency make of the National Action Plans to combat social exclusion?

 
  
 

(DE)The general direction taken by the Austrian Presidency with regard to the Lisbon Strategy

The Lisbon Process and its focus on growth and employment, which was decided in March 2005, are the basis for the direction taken by the Austrian Presidency in the fields to which the honourable Member refers.

As Chancellor Schüssel said when presenting the Presidency's programme(1), during the first three months of its term of office - i.e. until the Spring Summit in March - the Austrian Presidency will concentrate on employment. Such subjects as job creation, the role of small and medium-sized enterprises in creating jobs, and education are of are the greatest interest to the citizens of Europe.

The direction taken by the Austrian Presidency with regard to employment issues (including the adoption of new technologies and obstacles to the employment of certain groups)

The main theme of the Austrian Presidency in the field of employment policy is 'Flexicurity - flexibility through security'. This entails striking a balance between flexibility and social security in Europe. These two principles are not to be regarded as alternatives but rather as complementary elements: only on the basis of properly functioning social security and insurance systems can the flexibility be achieved on the labour market which is required in the interests of international competitiveness. At the same time, preserving competitiveness is the most important precondition for the sustainability of social security systems.(2)

Only qualified workers can adopt new technologies. The Austrian Presidency therefore believes that the focus should be on knowledge, innovation and optimisation of human capital.(3)

During its Presidency, Austria undertakes to continue the work which was begun during previous Presidencies. In the field of employment we continue to subscribe to the objective of getting more people into employment and keeping them there. The Council adopted this objective last year in the Employment Policy Guidelines for the three-year period 2005-2008(4). Guideline 18, in particular, calls on all Member States to:

– reduce youth unemployment,

– take measures to increase female participation and reduce gender gaps in employment and pay,

– work towards better reconciliation of work and private life,

– support active ageing, including appropriate working conditions for older workers, and discourage early retirement.

On 25 January 2006, the Commission submitted the progress report on the Lisbon Strategy, which also incorporated a draft of the Joint Employment Report. This report shows that the individual Member States, like the European Union as a whole, have adopted the right approach: for example, all the national reform programmes emphasise efforts to get more people into employment and keep them there. Special efforts are being made to improve the employment situation of women, older workers, young people and the disabled.

The Council (Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Protection) and the Commission will finalise the Joint Employment Report. The Austrian Presidency will try to ensure that the key messages of the Council (Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Protection) to the European Council in March 2006 also take up the principal theme of 'Flexicurity - flexibility through security' and - in the context of the demographic challenges which face us - devote special attention to improving the entry of young people into the labour market. On the basis of the report submitted to it, the European Council will draw its conclusion concerning the first year of the renewed Lisbon Strategy in the field of employment.

Combating social exclusion

As the honourable Member is undoubtedly aware, the Social Protection Committee is currently drafting the second joint report by the Commission and the Council on social protection and social inclusion, so that it can be adopted at the March meeting of the Council (Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Protection) and submitted to the European Council at its Spring Summit. In this connection it will be for the Social Policy Committee and the Council (Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Protection) to make a political assessment of the national action plans to combat social exclusion.

This second joint report should assign due weight to the tasks which were defined at the informal summit at Hampton Court and which are derived from the review of the Lisbon Strategy in the spring of 2005. The report will therefore be based on the thesis that the interaction between the open method of coordination and the revised Lisbon Process should be reciprocal: social protection and social inclusion should promote the attainment of the growth and employment objectives, and the policy for growth and employment should yield social benefits. The joint report will be based on the plans and political declarations submitted by the Member States during 2005 concerning the three fields of policy 'social inclusion', 'pensions' and 'health and long-term care'.

Conclusion

The Austrian Presidency, for its part, will ensure that the most important results of the Joint Employment Report and of the Second Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion are duly taken into account in the key political recommendations on employment and social policy to be submitted to the European Council at its Spring Summit.

 
 

(1) Agence Europe, 9 January 2006.
(2) Source: Programme of the Presidency in the fields of employment, social policy and equal opportunities (foreword); also available in German.
(3) Source: Programme of the Presidency in the fields of employment, social policy and equal opportunities (priorities for employment); also available in German.
(4) Council Decision of 12 July 2005, OJ L 205, 6.8.2005.

 

Question no 18 by Brian Crowley (H-0073/06)
 Subject: Youth Unemployment within the EU
 

In the context of both the Lisbon strategy and the adoption of the European Youth Pact by EU Heads of State in March 2005, can the Council state what measures it is implementing to reduce the youth unemployment rate in Europe, which is presently running at twice the overall unemployment rate in Europe ?

 
  
 

(DE)On 25 January 2006 the Commission presented the first annual progress report in accordance with the revamped Lisbon Strategy for growth and employment. The contents, particularly the draft report on employment, will be discussed in the Council (employment, social policy, health and consumer protection) on 10 March and subsequently at the European Council's spring meeting on 23 to 24 March.

The national reform programmes attach particular importance to combating youth unemployment and integrating young people in the labour market. Most Member States give special emphasis to this target group in their national reform programmes.

In the national reform programmes, Member States focus particularly on increasing employment opportunities by combining training and work and thus increasing the employment rate. Greater coordination between education, training, mobility, employment and integration policy will facilitate the transition from school to working life. Training systems are to be modernized and better adapted to the requirements of the economy, and entrepreneurship is to be promoted. Since youth unemployment is closely linked to failure at school, the proportion of young people who complete their secondary education or complete a university education (more rapidly) is to be increased. Subsequently efforts will be concentrated on pursuing an active labour market policy and improving the quality of vocational further training.

A number of Member States have specifically set national targets for 2010 for reducing the school dropout rate and increasing the proportion of young people who complete their secondary education. A large proportion of the additional targets in the employment sector are specifically concerned with reducing youth unemployment.

In areas in which some Member States have already implemented interesting and successful policies, it is intended to exploit the potential that exists there, to learn from one another and to adapt and/or adopt measures.

The Lisbon Strategy's 'European Pact for Youth' is intended to improve general education and vocational training, mobility and professional and social integration of young people and, at the same time, to make it easier to meet the conflicting requirements of professional and family life. This Pact is intended to ensure the proper coordination of all initiatives by involving youth organisations at all levels.

The Pact sets targets in the fields of employment, integration and upward social mobility; general education and vocational training, mobility and the compatibility of professional and family life (see annex). The reactions of most Member States in their national reform programmes are reassuring, according to the Commission.

An important new target in the progress report is to ensure that all young job seekers are given a job, or an apprenticeship, or a place in a training or similar employment measure.:

- within six months/by 2007;

- within 100 days of completing school or university/by 2010.

Enterprises are to be given financial and other incentives to offer for students and unemployed young people work experience.

From 28 to 31 May 2006 a 'Youth Event' is being organised in Vienna and Bad Ischl at the invitation of the BMSG as part of the Austrian Presidency of the EU. There will be a special workshop on 'Youth and Jobs'. The following employment policy issues, inter alia, will be discussed there: youth unemployment and measures to combat it, labour market policy vs. employment policy and work life balance.

 

Question no 19 by Paul Rübig (H-0091/06)
 Subject: Sixth WTO Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong
 

How does the Council assess the outcome of the Sixth WTO Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong?

 
  
 

(DE)From the beginning to the end of the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference, the Council presided over in-depth discussions of the most important issues, which were the focus of the deliberations with a view to composing a draft ministerial statement.

The Council observed and evaluated the progress of the negotiations on the basis of reports from Commissioners Mandelson and Fischer Boel. At various stages of the negotiations, the Council expressed its unreserved support for the Commission’s approach and actions.

At its last meeting, on 18 December 2005, the Council examined the final wording of the draft WTO Ministerial Statement that had emerged from the negotiating process. The Council informed Commissioners Mandelson and Fischer Boel that, in its estimation, despite certain defects and the lack of sufficient real progress on certain points, the outcome was generally acceptable. It accordingly approved the wording of the statement and noted the Commission’s intention to inform the final session of the conference that the European Community and its Member States approved the statement.

The Council underlined the EU’s determination to further pursue all its objectives in order that, in the next stages of the negotiations in the coming year, it might be possible to achieve far-reaching results that would be satisfactory to all parties.

The Council noted the Commission’s intention to state, at the meeting of the heads of delegations,

how important it would be for the EU to ensure, in the remaining stages of the negotiations, that non-agricultural products would be treated, for the purposes of market access, in the same way as agriculture;

that, in the Commission’s view, the text did not run counter to the EU’s desire that the abolition of agricultural subsidies should be given a monetary value;

how important it would be to the EU that an acceptable result be achieved on non-trade issues, including geographical indications.

The Council furthermore took note of the Commission’s statement to the effect that the progressive abolition of export subsidies should be fully consonant with the agreed reforms to the common agricultural policy.

The Council has taken note of the European Parliament’s debate of 16 January 2006 on the WTO Ministerial Conference and of the statements made by Commissioner Mandelson on that occasion. The Council looks forward with great interest to the evaluation of the results of Hong Kong that Parliament is to present before the end of April 2006.

At its meeting on 23 January 2006, the Agriculture and Fisheries Council discussed the agricultural aspects of the Hong Kong Conference, which were then examined in more general terms at the 30/31 January meeting of the General and Foreign Affairs Council, which had been preceded by an exchange of views between trade ministers on Sunday 29 January.

The Council will continue to closely monitor the further progress of the negotiations following the Hong Kong Ministerial Statement.

 

Question no 20 by Hubert Pirker (H-0094/06)
 Subject: 'Flexicurity' strategy
 

What practical measures in the sphere of employment law is the Austrian Presidency supporting with a view to implementing the 'flexicurity' strategy?

 
  
 

(DE)The flexicurity approach is founded on the idea that the creation and maintenance of adequate social security apparatus is an indispensable requirement in terms of the development of flexibility and competitiveness, and the concern is not only with supporting the unemployed until they find another job. It is rather more about making available the facilities and programmes to ensure that, when people’s employment circumstances change, and in such ‘transitional stages’ as training and parental leave, they suffer no disadvantages and are offered pro-active support.

One example drawn from the European level is the Commission’s current proposal for portable supplementary pension entitlements, which operates on the ‘rucksack principle’. The object of this is to reduce obstacles to freedom of movement between and within the Member States in so far as they affect occupational pensions credits. When a worker moves from one job to another within one Member State, or where that new job involves him or her moving to another Member State, it is intended that he or she should, as a matter of principle, have the choice as to whether to leave their entitlements in the previous system – putting them on ice, so to speak – or to transfer the entitlements into the new one.

An example at Member State level is the introduction of modern, market-oriented forms of labour law in the formerly Communist new Member States. The establishment of unemployment support and of statutory pension schemes played an important part in creating the conditions for the market economy in that they enabled workers to move out of the big state concerns that had hitherto provided most social security benefits.

Another example is the Austrian creation, in 2002, of occupational severance pay and pensions funds (2002), which made employment much more flexible but no less secure. Before the reform, workers were responsible for their own severance payments, a requirement founded on the presupposition that employment would be for many years or indeed lifelong. This obligation was transferred to independent employee welfare funds, to which employers make monthly contributions. The consequence of this was that employees would be entitled to severance pay irrespective of any change of employer, while, at the same time, employers would be able to divide up their severance benefits regularly over a period of time and thereby have a better idea of their financial position.

The Employment Committee (EMCO), too, considered the topic of “Flexicurity – Flexibility through Security" when it met in Bad Ischl on 9 February. At this meeting, various case studies were presented from Austria, Poland and Norway, and it was agreed that the specific situation in each country was crucial in determining not only the practical aspects of the introduction of flexicurity-oriented measures but also the costs involved.

The committee also welcomed what the Commission had to say about flexicurity in its country-by-country progress report. As well as including flexicurity in the draft Key Issues Paper for the forthcoming Employment and Social Affairs Council, the Committee will be setting up a smaller group of experts under Danish chairmanship. This group will produce a working paper, on whose conclusions the Employment and Social Affairs Council in June will draw.

We expect the Green Paper on developments in labour law, which the Commission has announced and which is due to appear before the end of the Austrian Presidency, to trigger general discussion of current trends in the development of new work structures and the demands these will make of labour law at both the national and European level. It is intended that not only the European institutions and the Member States should engage in this discussion, but also and in particular the social partners at national and European level.

It follows that it is, at this stage, still premature to think in terms of specific legislative action, which can in any case be embarked on only as and when the Commission has presented the relevant proposals. The Commission will no doubt wish, in the first instance, to await the outcome of consultations on the subject of the forthcoming Green Paper before deciding whether actual legislation should form part of any future initiatives.

 

Question no 21 by Eoin Ryan (H-1121/05)
 Subject: Single Payments Area
 

Can the European Council make a statement as to the progress that is being made to implement a Single Payments Area within the European Union, as this would result in the provision of better banking services of a cross-border nature to the consumers of Europe?

 
  
 

(DE)On 1 December 2005 the Commission presented a proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on payment services in the internal market. This proposal is currently being examined in the Council’s working party on financial services. The Presidency will do its utmost to achieve agreement between ECOFIN and the European Parliament so that the directive can be adopted as quickly as possible under the codecision procedure.

This directive on financial services in the internal market will raise the ‘level playing field’ for providers of financial services and, in addition, guarantee equal market access, as well as modernising and promoting payment transaction infrastructures. Early agreement would therefore be welcomed, so that the objective of boosting competition in the payment services sector can soon be achieved.

 

Question no 22 by Seán Ó Neachtain (H-1123/05)
 Subject: Interreg programme
 

Can the European Council make a statement as to whether it supports the continuation of the Interreg programme in the context of the budgetary framework 2007-2013, in light of the fact that this initiative successfully promotes cross border economic and social development in Europe ?

 
  
 

(DE)At its meeting of 15 and 16 December 2005, the European Council agreed to maintain measures to support crossborder, transnational and interregional cooperation in the forthcoming programming period (2007 to 2013), under the objective of 'territorial cooperation'. Approximately 2.4% of the overall cohesion policy budget was allocated to this objective.

However, the Council and Parliament still need to discuss the regulations applicable to this form of cooperation and reach an agreement, particularly with regard to the general regulation and the regulation on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).

 

Question no 23 by Ryszard Czarnecki (H-1168/05)
 Subject: Regional financial support
 

How long does the Council think that financial support will be provided to EU regions that are wealthy but come inside special geographical categories, such as the mountain areas of Austria?

 
  
 

(DE)Although the European Council, at its meeting on 15-16 December 2005, came to an agreement on the financial framework for the period from 2007 to 2013, including expenditure on the Cohesion Policy, the inter-institutional agreement on the financial perspective has not been concluded, since this can be done only following negotiations with the European Parliament.

The arrangements specific to the areas with major geographical or natural handicaps will be the subject of regulations on the Cohesion policy, which are currently the subject of negotiations in which the European Parliament is deeply involved.

At the present time, therefore, the Council is unable to give any indication as to the details of how the regions in special geographical categories, to which the question refers, will be dealt with.

 

Question no 24 by Pedro Guerreiro (H-1183/05)
 Subject: CIA activities
 

Following the build-up of facts and accusations relating to the activities of the USA's security services, and particularly the CIA, including the transport, kidnapping and illegal holding of citizens, particularly in European countries, and their subsequent subjection to the most inhuman isolation, cruel treatment and torture, and considering that the situation is one which needs to be resolutely denounced and condemned; given that this appalling violation of international law and the Convention Against Torture forms part of a systematic policy of illegal activity carried out by the US authorities, who, under the cloak of the so-called 'war on terror' disregard the UN Charter and international law,

what efforts has the Council made and what initiatives has it taken to ascertain the whole truth in this matter, and what measures have been taken so as to prevent such criminal activities continuing in the future?

 
  
 

(DE)On 21 November, the General Affairs and Foreign Relations Council considered the issue of media reports on breaches of international law by the United States, involving the alleged imprisonment of suspected terrorists in EU Member States or, as the case may be, their alleged transfer through EU Member States. It was decided that the Presidency would ask the United States to clarify the content of these media reports, and Mr Straw, the UK Foreign Secretary, did so in a letter on 29 November 2005 to the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, who then made public statements relating to this issue.

Freedom, democracy, respect for human and fundamental rights and the rule of law are values held in common by all the Member States, and it is on fundamental rights, and the EU’s adherence to them, that Community law is founded. In its political dialogue with third countries, the Council avails itself of every opportunity to address human rights issues, and it does so at all levels, and on a regular basis, with the United States.

 

Question no 25 by Avril Doyle (H-1187/05)
 Subject: Inquiry into alleged State collusion in Northern Ireland
 

In view of the Council´s commitment to promoting peace and reconciliation through its support for the International Fund for Ireland, restated at the European Council meeting of 15-16 December 2005, and given the recommendation by Judge Cory, who examined six cases of alleged State collusion in murders carried out in Northern Ireland, that an independent public inquiry into the matter be established, is the Council satisfied that the UK Government´s Inquiries Act 2005 will provide for such an inquiry?

 
  
 

(DE)The International Fund for Ireland was set up by the Irish and United Kingdom Governments in 1986 as an independent international organisation. The object of this fund is promote economic and social progress, as well as to support contacts, dialogue and reconciliation between nationalists and unionists throughout Ireland. The EU makes contributions to this fund.

At its meeting of 15-16 December 2005 the European Council noted the important work done by the International Fund for Ireland in promoting peace and reconciliation. It called on the Commission to take the necessary steps to continue the EU’s support for the fund, since it is now about to enter the decisive phase of its activity up to 2010.

The specific cases raised by the MEP are not a matter for the Council.

 

Question no 26 by Eva-Britt Svensson (H-0009/06)
 Subject: Circumstances surrounding the withdrawal of a report critical of Israel
 

On Monday 12 December 2005, the Council stopped the publication of a report on the situation in East Jerusalem. The report had been requested by the Commission and proved to be very critical of Israel, particularly in regard to settlers' activities and the construction of the security barrier. The decision not to publish the report was welcomed by Israeli diplomats, who have been lobbying intensely against the report in recent weeks in Brussels. They have declared the report to be 'very unpleasant' and say that it threatens to exacerbate relations between Israel and the EU.

The decision not to publish the report was taken by the EU's Foreign Ministers with Jack Straw as chairman. One of those sharply criticising the report is the UK Member of Parliament Phyllis Starkey, who is chair of the Labour Middle East Council.

To withhold and keep secret such a document obviously raises questions and concerns.

Can the Council explain why the decision was taken not to publish the report and whether it was taken in consideration of the interests of the State of Israel?

 
  
 

(DE)The EU continues to be concerned about the situation in East Jerusalem, which the EU foreign ministers discussed at their meetings on 21 November and 12 December 2005.

At their meeting on 12 December, the EU ministers, considering the change in the situation in Israel and in the occupied territories, as well as the forthcoming elections on both sides, resolved that publication of the report would be counter-productive. Issues relating to East Jerusalem will continue to have priority for the EU in its dealings with the Israeli authorities at all levels.

 

Question no 27 by Daniel Caspary (H-0020/06)
 Subject: European pre-standard
 

European pre-standard ENV 14383-2 (Prevention of crime. Urban planning and design) is a pre-standard of the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN). The pre-standard contains details of urban planning measures in support of a strategy to prevent crime and combat the public’s sense of insecurity. The European institutions have no legal competence in the area of urban development. Instead, measures such as this can be implemented in a better and more targeted fashion at regional or municipal level. In Germany, therefore, the ministries responsible, as well as the relevant umbrella organisations, reject this pre-standard.

To what extent are the Council or the relevant Council working parties involved in the work on the pre-standard, and what is the position of the members of the Council on its content?

 
  
 

(DE)Since the Council played no part in the work on the pre-standard, it is unable to give the honourable Member information concerning the Member States’ positions on its content.

 

Question no 28 by Irena Belohorská (H-0039/06)
 Subject: Women's reproductive health
 

In no EU Member State do women constitute fewer than 50 % of the population. The Austrian Presidency has identified women’s health as a priority, in connection with the problem of Europe’s ageing population. Women’s health, and reproductive health in particular, are therefore an integral part of the Lisbon strategy.

Taking into account the principle of subsidiarity, what steps does the Austrian Presidency intend to take towards improving women’s health in the EU-25, with specific emphasis on the field of gynaecology and obstetrics, for example premature births, miscarriages, infertility, the menopause and cancer prevention?

 
  
 

(DE)The Council wishes to thank the honourable Member for bringing this important issue to its attention.

The Treaty requires that the ultimate goal of all health-related activities should be the improvement of the health of the European public. Women’s health, which includes their reproductive health, is vitally important to the welfare of people in the EU and is also significant in view of Europe’s ageing population and of the falling fertility rates. The Austrian Presidency therefore regards it one of its priorities that this issue should be given greater prominence at European level.

Issues relating to women’s health, notably cardiovascular diseases and the increased incidence of lung cancer consequent upon a rise in the numbers of women who smoke will therefore be key points in the discussions at the informal meeting of EU health ministers in April, which will also give particular attention to such diseases as endometriosis and osteoporosis.

The Austrian Presidency intends to present the Council’s June meeting with draft conclusions on women’s health, in which the Commission will be asked to produce a report on the situation as regards women’s health in the EU of 25 and to attach greater importance to the gender dimension in health policy.

At its June meeting, the Council will also consider the proposal for a European Parliament and Council resolution in favour of a Community action programme on health and consumer protection, which is also relevant to women’s health. The Presidency will therefore endeavour to reach political agreement on this important proposal, although this will be dependent on the outcome of the European Parliament’s vote, on the negotiations on the 2007-2013 financial framework and on the timetable envisaged for this.

 

Question no 29 by Paulo Casaca (H-0042/06)
 Subject: Intensified persecution of religious dissidents in Iran
 

Following a statement by Amnesty International(1) concerning the death in prison of Dhabihullah Mahrami, a Baha'i prisoner of conscience, the NGO Compass Direct has publicly revealed the facts of the murder of Gabor Dordi Tourani.

These cases are but two among countless instances of persecution of religious dissidents. Another is that of the trial and sentencing of Colonel Hamid Pourmand (see questions P-0400/05, E-1044/2005 and P-1466/2005) for supposedly converting to Catholicism.

The case of Gabor Tourani is especially shocking, by reason of the macabre details surrounding his death. He was kidnapped and stabbed to death, and his body was deposited at his house door. According to Compass Direct(2), the Iranian secret police also carried out several searches with the objective of confiscating religious material and arresting or threatening his landlord's family.

By what means will the Council protest to the Iranian Government over the intensification of religious persecution in Iran?

 
  
 

(DE)The EU regards the treatment of religious minorities in Iran with grave concern. There will be no progress in relations between the EU and Iran without greater respect for human rights.

The EU raises the issue of discrimination on religious grounds not only in international fora, but also in its dealings with the Iranian Government.

The EU endorsed last December’s resolution of the UN General Assembly on the human rights situation in Iran, which expressed grave concern over the ongoing discrimination against religious minorities, and called on Iran to desist from all types of discrimination against members of religious minorities, and from other violations of their human rights.

The EU also raises these and other human rights issues directly with the Iranian Government. In January, the EU lodged a complaint with Tehran on behalf of Dhabihullah Mahrami and Ghorban Tori (3). The Iranian Government agreed to comply with this request and to supply the EU with the information requested. The EU also expressed its concerns about the Mahrami case in the course of the EU/Iran human rights dialogue.

The human rights dialogue between the EU and Iran dates back to 2002; the last meeting was held in the summer of 2004, since when, despite repeated attempts, the EU has not been able to arrange another meeting. The EU has called on Iran to demonstrate its respect for human rights and its commitment to dialogue with the EU. Despite the lack of any visible positive commitment on Iran’s part, the EU is still willing to engage in discussions with it on human rights, not least as part of the process of dialogue.

 
 

(1) MDE 13/004/2006-http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engmde130042006
(2) http://www.compassdirect.org/en/newslongen.php?idelement=4090
(3)The Parliamentary question refers to a Gabor Dordi Tourani, but would appear to have the same case in mind.

 

Question no 30 by Erna Hennicot-Schoepges (H-0048/06)
 Subject: Member States' commitment to public research in the context of the Lisbon Strategy
 

The Lisbon Strategy commits the Member States to invest 1% of their GNI per year in public research.

Given that, according to the Commission’s answer to Question P-3230/05, statistics indicate that between 1999 and 2003 - the most recent year available - the level of R&D investment as a percentage of GDP did not increase substantially in the EU, but, rather, virtually stagnated, what is the Council planning to do to ensure that Member States abide by their commitment?

 
  
 

(DE)Following the introduction of the revived Lisbon strategy and of a new system of administration, in 2005, the Member States were urged to include in their national reform programmes (NRPs) quantitative targets for expenditure on research.

In the first NRP, which was submitted to the Commission at the end of 2005, 18 Member States set themselves quantifiable targets. None of these have achieved the expenditure target set for 2010, namely 3% of GDP, two-thirds of which, it should be noted, is meant to be funded by the private business sector, although it must be stressed that the targets set by the Member States correspond to an increase in (public and private) research expenditure to 2.6% of GDP by 2010 – a marked improvement over the present state of affairs, which the honourable Member rightly described as amounting to virtual stagnation (with current research spending amounting on average to 1.9% of GDP, 55% of it coming from business and industry). (1)

Encouraging though the political will expressed in these quantified targets certainly is, the target aimed for is still rather less than the 3% set by the European Council at its meeting in Barcelona in 2002.

The Presidency will therefore constantly reiterate the importance of the shared Barcelona target, which will be crucial in enabling us to achieve the necessary edge over our competitors, although it is of course left to the individual Member States to take the necessary action to get more funding made available for research and development.

We are working continually towards this goal by means of the open coordination procedure, which is the only means available at Community level for encouraging the Member States to redouble their efforts in this area.

 
 

(1)See Annex to the Commission communication for the Spring Summit of the European Council: "Time to move up a gear", Doc. 5745/06 ADD 2, p. 19.

 

Question no 31 by Katerina Batzeli (H-0081/06)
 Subject: Administration of the directive on genetically modified organisms (GMOs)
 

The Presidency has included among its priorities the continuation of talks to adopt common rules on the coexistence of GMOs with other forms of agricultural production. The Presidency is also aware of the demands of consumers, environmental organisations and producers, which have tended towards national preferences for organic and certified products. The present directive on GMOs and the Commission's approach to its administration is impeding the implementation of such policies, which has economic - and other - repercussions for the Member States, such as evidence of the effects of the coexistence of GMOs with conventional or organic crops and compensation for producers in the event of contamination. Furthermore, it has also been pointed out that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) bases its assessments solely on laboratory criteria, which are often far removed from reality.

Will the Presidency take the above considerations into account in order to improve the method of taking decisions at Community level and avoid implementing the current system across the board?

Will the Council change the manner in which the EFSA makes its risk assessments and, at the same time, strengthen its role?

 
  
 

(DE)I am very glad that the honourable Member has put this question, which perfectly reflects the concerns of the Austrian Presidency. Parliament’s support will be of great value to the Presidency in its efforts to introduce a Community-wide policy on GMOs that will be guided by the public’s expectations and concerns while also taking full account of the need for health and the environment to be protected.

As the honourable Member has emphasised, GMOs raise a whole range of issues around their long-term effects on health and the environment, and it is also to be borne in mind that (following a highly favourable assessment by the EFSA), the Commission is set to approve a number of GMOs despite the frequent votes by simple majority of the Member States in the Council against such approval.

The Environment Council will be having an in-depth discussion of this problem on 9 March 2006, in which issues of how to improve the assessment of GMOs’ safety, and also greater transparency in the approval procedure, will be considered.

The other important problem thrown up by GMOs is that of how they are to coexist with conventional and organic crops, that is to say, how to put in place more effective protection of conventional and organic crops against unintentional contamination by GMOs.

I can confirm to you that a conference prepared by the Commission will be held in the Austrian capital at the beginning of April and that what emerges from it will be taken as the basis for in-depth discussion at Council level in May, when the Council will – or so I hope – produce conclusions or recommendations concerning the introduction of common mandatory rules for coexistence with GMOs. This would be a way of avoiding the adverse effects of which the honourable Member was so rightly critical.

Finally, I would like to point out that the Austrian Presidency is planning to hold a scientific conference on the precautionary principle in GMO policy, to be held in Vienna on 18 and 19 April.

I can therefore assure the honourable Member that the Presidency will do its utmost to address the issues relating to GMOs that she has raised.

 

Question no 32 by Diamanto Manolakou (H-0096/06)
 Subject: Intervention of the Czech Government in affairs of the Czech Communist Youth Union
 

The Czech Government is intervening arbitrarily in the affairs of the Czech Communist Youth Union (KSM) and threatening to close it down with the aim of controlling the youth movement in the Czech Republic. This crude and provocative intervention by the Czech Government in the affairs of the KSM is a response to the ideological and political positions of the organisation and the broad support it enjoys among young people. The attack on the KSM essentially extends to the Communist party of Bohemia and Moravia which is very active politically and has 6 MEPs. These actions form part of a growing anti-Communist campaign which is rejected by the overwhelming majority of peoples.

What measures does the Council intend to take to ensure that the Czech Communist Youth Union can continue to function and, more generally, that Czech youth continues to enjoy basic democratic freedoms?

 
  
 

(DE)The European Union’s institutions not being competent to deal with these matters, the Council has never discussed this issue.

 

QUESTIONS TO THE COMMISSION
Question no 46 by Ioannis Gklavakis (H-0010/06)
 Subject: Review of the Common Organisation of the Market in Fruit and Vegetables
 

In Greece, as well as in other EU countries, the fruit and vegetable sector is very important for agriculture. Over the last few years this sensitive sector of agricultural production has been seriously affected by the EU's preferential agreements with third countries. As a result, it is becoming increasingly uncompetitive. It therefore needs Community protection if it is to survive, especially in EU regions where it is the only area of activity of the agricultural population.

Will the Commission set a timetable for reviewing the COM in fruit and vegetables? Is it likely to be radical, or does it agree that it should be restricted to ad hoc improvements, as the most important producer Member States demand?

Does it intend to include in its proposals specific new measures for a European strategy aimed at more effectively promoting European fruit and vegetables by launching advertising campaigns, conducting market research and setting up commercial networks for Community fruit and vegetables?

Does it intend seriously to consider the positions and observations of the European Parliament or will we see a repeat of what happened with the review of the COM in sugar when Parliament was ostentatiously ignored?

 
  
 

(EN)The Commission’s Working Program for 2006 includes the presentation of the Reform of the Common Organization of the Markets in fresh and processed fruit and vegetables products during the second half of 2006.

Further to the Dutch Presidency Conclusions (November 2004), the Commission is respecting its commitments regarding the impact assessment and the evaluations on the Common Market Organisation (CMO) before presenting legislative proposals.

At present, evaluations on the CMO are being carried out by an external consultant. At the same time, the impact assessment study on the different options for the reform is also being prepared by an inter-services group inside the Commission. The final outcomes of both studies are expected to be ready at the end of the first semester 2006.

Once the Commission adopts draft legislative proposals, the Parliament will have the opportunity to issue its opinion on the proposed reform. The Commission will take into consideration the positions and observations of the Parliament, as it has done on past reforms, including the recent Sugar Reform that was not only built on the basis of a restructuring Fund originally proposed by the Parliament, but which also bears a number of concrete examples of the Parliament’s influence.

 

Question no 47 by María Isabel Salinas García (H-0012/06)
 Subject: Reform of the COM in fruit and vegetables
 

In its programme of work for 2006, the Commission has included, as promised, the presentation of its proposal for the reform of the fruit and vegetables regulation.

Can the Commission state when it intends to present this proposal? Can it supply advance information on the initial conclusions it is in process of reaching while drawing up the impact assessments?

 
  
 

(EN)The Commission’s Working Program for 2006 includes the presentation of the reform of the Common Markets’ Organization (COM) in fresh and processed fruit and vegetables products in the second semester of 2006.

At present, evaluations on the COM are being carried out by an external consultant. At the same time, the impact assessment study on the different options for the reform is also being prepared by an inter-services group inside the Commission.

As regards evaluations, the outcome of these studies will be ready by the end of the first semester of 2006. The Commission will publish them on its web site.

Concerning the impact assessment, a document on the analysis of the different options to reform the fruit and vegetables Common Market Organization will be attached to the legislative proposals.

Taking into account the above, the Commission considers that it is too early to make any comment about the content of the future proposals.

 

Question no 48 by Dimitrios Papadimoulis (H-0024/06)
 Subject: Financial perspective for 2007-2013 and revision of agricultural policy
 

Paragraph 80 of the compromise on the Financial Perspective for 2007-2013 states: 'The European Council therefore invites the Commission to undertake a full, wide ranging review covering all aspects of EU spending, including the CAP, and of resources, including the UK rebate, to report in 2008/2009. On the basis of such a review, the European Council can take decisions on all the subjects covered by the review. The review will also be taken into account in the preparatory work on the following Financial Perspective.'

Does the Commission consider that the above wording implies a revision of agricultural policy, in particular the method and level of funding for the CAP, which may also take place before 2013?

 
  
 

(EN)In 2003, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was the object of a major reform. The new single payment scheme has since been extended to include the majority of the CAP market sectors, with the notable exception of the wine, bananas and fruit and vegetables sectors, which are up for their own review in 2006/2007.

Though the reform included review clauses for the new instruments, and certain market sectors, in the period 2007-2010, the 2003 Reform was agreed in accordance with the conclusions of the Berlin, Göteborg and Brussels Summits, within an agriculture budgetary framework for the enlarged EU, set at the time until 2013.

The honourable Member is correct in stating that, in December 2005, the European Council reached a political agreement on the 2007-2013 financial perspectives, which requests the Commission to make "a full wide-ranging review covering all aspects of EU spending, including the CAP, and of resources, including the United Kingdom rebate, to report in 2008/2009”.

However, the 2007-2013 financial perspectives are currently the object of trialogue discussions between the Parliament, the Council and the Commission.

Consequently, until the wording of the final decision is known, the Commission is not yet in a position to comment on what implications the agreement may have for the method and level of funding of the CAP. The ceiling agreed in Brussels in 2002 will be respected up to 2013.

 

Question no 49 by Mairead McGuinness (H-0033/06)
 Subject: Implications of financial perspectives for agriculture and rural development
 

Could the Commission outline its view of the future of agriculture and rural development in light of the recent proposal from Member States on the financial perspectives, in particular the proposal to allow Member States to transfer up to 20 per cent of the Single Farm Payment to rural development.

As this 20 per cent can be used in whatever way a Member State see fit, does the Commission have concerns that this approach signifies the beginning of the end of a common approach to agricultural policy in the EU and as such is inappropriate and should be resisted?

 
  
 

(EN)Reply to oral question

H-0033/06

by Ms McGuinness

February II 2006

The agreement reached by the Heads of Government in December 2005 offers clarity on the financial resources available for farmers and rural communities. It respects the agreement made in Brussels in 2002 concerning expenditure for direct payments and expenditure. However, all market and direct aid expenditure related to the enlargement with Bulgaria and Romania will have to be financed within the ceiling for EU-25. This increases the probability that financial discipline will have to be applied and lead to a limited reduction of direct incomes support payments for farmers in the old Member States.

As regards rural development, the amount agreed by the Heads of Government is less than the amount proposed by the Commission and also smaller than the amount available in the current period. This can of course affect our ability to meet the challenges facing rural areas, particularly in the context of ongoing Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform, the Lisbon agenda or Natura 2000.

However, what is important now is to start the programming of rural development for the new period. The Parliament opinion on the Rural Development Strategic Guidelines to be adopted during this session will therefore be a very important step forward.

Voluntary modulation, shifting funds from direct payments to rural development, was introduced for the first time in Agenda 2000, which allowed Member States to transfer up to 20% of their direct payments on a voluntary basis. Very few Member States made use of this possibility and it was replaced by an EU wide compulsory modulation system during the 2003 CAP reform based on a franchise of € 5000. It is the Commission’s view that this system is a fairer, more coherent and more effective way of achieving this shift.

In the Commission’s view the proposed system of voluntary modulation, presents a number of technical difficulties. The application of modulation on market related expenditure seems technically impossible. The lack of a cofinancing obligation will reduce the overall financial effort devoted to rural areas, while the derogation from the rule that expenditure should be balanced between objectives may undermine the contribution to certain EU priorities. In all cases, the system should be established in a manner which does not cause delays in the agreement of programmes, particularly for those Member States which do not wish to make use of the system.

If the system were adopted in its current form, it would be appropriate to review its functioning within the general review of the Community Budget foreseen for 2008/2009. In particular because it would be very difficult to go ahead with further compulsory modulation, as previously suggested by the Commission, if voluntary modulation will be applied.

 

Question no 50 by Georgios Papastamkos (H-0047/06)
 Subject: The protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs
 

Regulation (EEC) 2081/92(1) on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs and proposals for regulations COM/2005/0694 final and COM/2005/0698 final which amends it have a clear international dimension as regards supporting such products on the market. However, the negative experience of many years of intracommunity controversies concerning the exclusive right to use PDOs (protected designations of origin) and PGIs (protected geographical indications), as in the case of the Greek Feta cheese for example, show that the substantial competitive advantage conferred by such a guarantee on a product internationally is being eroded. Will the Commission say what measures it intends to take to ensure that such designations are not in future the subject of lengthy bureaucratic and judicial disputes between EU Member States? Does it intend to propose specific mechanisms for providing moral and material compensation for damages incurred by the producers of products, the validity of whose designation and the procedure on which this designation is based are called into question?

 
  
 

(EN)Feta, a Greek Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) for a cheese, was finally registered by the Commission in 2002. Several Member States applied for annulment of the registration under Article 230 of the Treaty. In its judgment on 25 October 2005 the Court of Justice upheld the name “Feta” as a protected designation of origin for Greece. This subject is now resolved and the result is legal certainty for producers and consumers concerning the protection of Feta as a PDO.

The Commission understands the honourable Member’s concerns about a lengthy legal procedure and the inconvenience and cost that can result. However, the right to bring a case before the Community Courts is enshrined in the Treaty. The Commission has no intention of compensating operators for costs resulting from this type of legal action.

However, with the proposal to modify Regulation (EEC) 2081/92 the Commission seeks to streamline and clarify the registration procedure and this may have the effect of reducing the room for legal disputes.

 
 

(1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992, p.1.

 

Question no 51 by Simon Coveney (H-0056/06)
 Subject: Promotion of energy crops and biofuels
 

In light of EU sugar reform, could the Commission outline its views in relation to the promotion of energy crops or biofuels to provide an alternative crop for farmers, and any financial incentives which could assist farmers in this transition?

 
  
 

(EN)The promotion of energy crops and biofuels to provide for alternative crops for farmers is a topic receiving the greatest attention from the Commission.

In the general context of EU Policy on renewable energies, on 8th February 2006 the Commission adopted “An EU Strategy for Biofuels”, which builds on last year’s Biomass Action Plan. The Biofuels Strategy will focus specifically on how we can help develop the production of feedstocks and promote the use of biofuels for transport.

With regard to the EU sugar sector in particular, developments taking place in biofuels represent an interesting opportunity.

The recently agreed reform of the EU sugar regime, which brings the sugar sector into line with the 2003 reform process, through the introduction of the “decoupled” single payment, will improve market orientation and boost competitiveness. In this context, since there will be no quota restriction on sugar beet grown for bioethanol, the growing of non-food crops for biofuels represents a real possibility for sugar beet farmers.

Furthermore, before the end of 2006, the Commission will come forward with a report on the implementation of the energy crops scheme and if appropriate concrete measures to encourage the cultivation of energy crops. The Commission intends to amend the relevant regulation to allow sugar beet to qualify for set-aside payments, when cultivated as a non-food crop, and to make sugar beet eligible for the energy crop aid of € 45/ha provided under the 2003 Common Agricultural Policy reform.

 

Question no 52 by Leopold Józef Rutowicz (H-0062/06)
 Subject: Regulation on the definition, description, presentation and labelling of spirit drinks
 

There are errors in the proposal for a regulation on the definition, description, presentation and labelling of spirit drinks, namely the imprecise definition of the alcoholic drink vodka and its incorrect classification under category B. It should be listed under category A.

Does the Commission intend to take steps to rectify the above errors?

 
  
 

(EN)The "Proposal for a Regulation of the Parliament and of the Council on the definition, description, presentation and labelling of spirit drinks" adopted by the Commission on 15 December 2005 foresees a classification of spirit drinks into three categories, “spirits”, “specific spirit drinks” and “other spirit drinks”.

This classification is proposed for systemic reasons and is based on objective criteria such as direct alcoholic fermentation and distillation, the use of ethyl alcohol of agricultural origin, and the use of flavouring and sweetening substances.

Products containing ethyl alcohol of agricultural origin are considered as “specific spirit drinks” and the different products falling into this category are clearly defined in Annex II of the proposal.

Vodka is classified in Category B “specific spirit drink” as it is entirely based on ethyl alcohol of agricultural origin. The Commission therefore does not consider that there is any error that needs to be rectified.

 

Question no 53 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (H-0068/06)
 Subject: Timetable for the reform of the COM in wine
 

The Commission has announced that the COM in wine (the current provisions of which are supposed to apply until 2010) is to be reformed this year and it is apparently also considering the possibility of simplifying the agricultural-aid procedure by introducing a single scheme.

Would the Commission say in which marketing year it thinks the reform should take effect and what the likely timetable is for the presentation of the reform and the debate thereon?

Does the Commission intend to use the single scheme for the COM in wine?

 
  
 

(EN)The existing Common Market’s Organisation (CMO) in Wine, one of the few major agricultural sectors untouched by the 2003-2005 CAP(1) Reform process, should be reviewed and no doubt adapted and probably reformed to prepare the EU’s vine growers, producers and traders for the mounting competition in the new global market situation. Therefore, the process of Review and Reform of the Wine CMO has been launched.

Here is the overview of the work ahead:

The Impact Assessment work has just started. It will consist of an in depth economic analysis of the current state of play (market and CMO) and of possible changes. The Impact Assessment report will cover several options (ranging from status quo – the reference scenario – to a substantial liberalization) and their likely effects, and should be finalised by mid-2006.

Within this timetable the Commission will associate all the stakeholders of the sector with the impact assessment and analysis. One initiative will be to organise a stakeholders’ forum on 16 February 2006.

A Commission Communication to the Council and the Parliament will be presented by mid-2006. Following further consultation with stakeholders including the Parliament on the basis on the Communication, an appropriate legislative proposal would follow later in 2006.

At present, it is not possible yet to indicate in which wine year the reform will be applied, as this depends on the process of negotiations of the Commission proposals.

“In its Communication on Simplification and Better Regulation for the Common Agricultural Policy of 19/10/2005(2) the Commission envisages to table a proposal for a draft Regulation comprising the existing Common Market Organisations. In that Communication, the Commission expressed its intention to take a “step-by-step approach”(3) and explicitly indicated that the integration of sectors which are subject to a substantive policy review in the foreseeable future such as fruit and vegetables and wine, could follow at a later stage.

 
 

(1) Common Agricultural Policy
(2) COM(2005)509 final
(3) See page 9 of the Communication

 

Question no 54 by Michl Ebner (H-0086/06)
 Subject: Shipments of slaughter animals
 

At its meeting of 23 December 2005 in Brussels the EU's Management Committee for Beef and Veal decided to discontinue EU subsidies for shipments of slaughter animals with immediate effect. Does this rule apply only to shipments of slaughter animals, or to shipments of breeding animals as well? Does the decision also cover other types of animal shipment? When are the measures to come into force?

 
  
 

(EN)The basic regulation on the Common Market Organisation for beef and veal foresees that within the limits resulting from International Agreements, the difference between the quotations or prices of certain live bovine animals and beef products on the world market and prices in the Community market may be covered by export refunds to the extent necessary to enable their export.

These refunds can therefore not be considered subsidies for the transport of live animals.

On 23 December 2005, the Commission presented at the Beef Management Committee a draft Regulation aiming at eliminating refunds for live bovine animals for slaughter. The Commission adopted this Regulation on the same day and it was published and entered into force on the 24 December 2005.

Since then, export refunds for live cattle are therefore limited to female pure bred bovine animals of a maximum 30 months of age exported to all destinations but Romania and Bulgaria.

This decision reflects the improved situation on the EU beef market and follows growing public concern about the treatment of animals when they are shipped abroad for slaughter.

Furthermore, Regulation (EC) n° 639/03 laying down detailed rules as regards requirements for the granting of export refunds related to the welfare of live bovine animals during transport is in the process of being further reinforced. The adoption of the amended regulation is expected in the near future.

 

Question no 55 by Bart Staes (H-1184/05)
 Subject: Customs and combating illegal waste transport
 

A sample taken by the European network Impel has shown that 48% of all consignments of waste departing from the EU consist of illegal waste, as revealed by customs inspections at various European ports. Will the Commission draw up a coordinated plan to provide training for customs services and cultivate their awareness of this problem? In what form will this be done? Will the Commission coordinate and finance a broader European approach? If so, when, and what means will be made available for this?

 
  
 

(EN)The problem of illegal waste shipments raises serious issues of environmental concern. The Commission has therefore closely monitored the results of inspections carried out by the IMPEL network(1). This network found in 2004 a significant rate of illegal waste shipments in a number of Member States. The results of IMPEL’s inspections were presented to national authorities at a meeting concerning implementation of waste legislation organised by the Commission in September 2004.

IMPEL’s inspections of October 2005 show that illegal waste shipments remain at a high level. The Commission met with waste shipment experts from Member States in November 2005 to deal, inter alia, with these matters. The Commission considers that efforts to increase coordination and awareness should be further intensified in order to combat illegal waste shipments. This year the Commission therefore envisages organising training for national authorities, such as customs services, aimed at raising the awareness and improving co-operation concerning the enforcement of Community legislation on waste shipments.

In the near future Community legislation on waste shipments will be strengthened when a new regulation is adopted by the Parliament and the Council and becomes applicable. This regulation will specifically address the issues of illegal shipments and gaps in enforcement. It will enhance cooperation between Member States to facilitate the prevention and detection of illegal shipments as well as rules on inspections and spot checks.

 
 

(1) European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law

 

Question no 56 by Marian Harkin (H-1185/05)
 Subject: Employment conditions in an enlarged EU
 

In the written answer to my oral question H-1078/05 concerning the Irish Ferries dispute and reactivation of a Ferries Directive, the European Commission said on 13 December 2005 that while no other legislative proposals were foreseen in this regard, it would 'examine all possible means of resolving the problem of employment conditions, particularly in intra-Community passenger transport, from an economic and legal standpoint'.

Can the Commission please elaborate on this planned examination and explain what steps it will take to ensure that the rights of all workers – both third country and EU nationals – are protected?

 
  
 

(EN)The Commission intends, on the one hand, to gather comprehensive and accurate information and statistics concerning the labour market in intracommunity regular maritime transport services and, on the other hand, to study any legal implications of the application of host state social conditions to third countries’ ships engaged in intracommunity trades.

As regards the rights of seafarers, the Commission intends to present in 2006 a Communication on maritime labour standards. This Communication will explore the integration into Community law of the Consolidated Maritime Labour Convention, to be adopted by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) during the 94th Maritime Session of the International Labour Conference in Geneva (7-23 February 2006), possibly through an agreement of social partners. This Convention unites into a coherent international framework the Conventions and Recommendations on maritime labour standards that have been adopted by the ILO since 1920.

 

Question no 57 by David Martin (H-1186/05)
 Subject: Readmission agreements with third countries
 

What progress has the Commission made in negotiating readmission agreements with third countries?

 
  
 

(EN)The Council has so far (January 2006) authorized the Commission to negotiate Community readmission agreements with 11 third countries: Morocco, Sri Lanka, Russia, Pakistan (negotiating directives received September 2000), Hong Kong and Macao (negotiating directives received May 2001), Ukraine (negotiating directives received June 2002) and Albania, Algeria, China, Turkey (negotiating directives received November 2002).

Agreements with Hong Kong, Macao and Sri Lanka have entered into force.

Negotiations with Albania and Russia have been completed. These two agreements are currently in the process of being ratified (anticipated entry into force for Albania early 2006, for Russia early 2007).

Negotiations with Morocco, Pakistan, Turkey and Ukraine are ongoing. We are hopeful that negotiations can be completed first semester of 2006 with Ukraine, Pakistan and Morocco.

Negotiations with China and Algeria have not been formally launched yet.

 

Question no 58 by Avril Doyle (H-1188/05)
 Subject: Inquiry into alleged State collusion in Northern Ireland
 

In view of the Council´s commitment to promoting peace and reconciliation through its support for the International Fund for Ireland, restated at the European Council meeting of 15-16 December 2005, and given the recommendation by Judge Cory, who examined six cases of alleged State collusion in murders carried out in Northern Ireland, that an independent public inquiry into the matter be established, is the Commission satisfied that the UK Government´s Inquiries Act 2005 will provide for such an inquiry?

 
  
 

(EN)Since the end of the 1980s, Northern Ireland has benefited from EU financial support in favour of peace and reconciliation. This is a concrete expression of EU solidarity towards the peace process established by the 1998 Belfast Agreement.

In 1989, the European Community became one of the main sources of funding for the International Fund for Ireland (IFI), an international organisation established by a treaty between the United Kingdom and Irish Governments "to promote economic and social development, and to encourage contact, dialogue and reconciliation between nationalists and unionists throughout Ireland". The European Community currently contributes € 15 million per year to the IFI.

In addition, in 1995, the European Community set up a special Programme for Peace and Reconciliation (the "PEACE Programme"), which operates in Northern Ireland and in the Border Region of Ireland. This programme aims "to reinforce progress towards a peaceful and stable society and to promote reconciliation in the region". From 2000 to date the PEACE II programme has continued work towards this objective and the European Council allocated a further € 200 million for the period 2007 to 2013.

The EU’s commitment to peace and reconciliation has therefore been amply demonstrated.

The appointment of a judge to examine past events in Northern Ireland is a decision on a sensitive matter to be taken by the Member States involved, with the benefit of their specialised knowledge of the region and of the historical background. It is a matter upon which the Commission has no power to comment and it would be inappropriate to offer an opinion on any potential future inquiry.

 

Question no 59 by Andreas Mölzer (H-1191/05)
 Subject: Groups of beggars at the Football World Cup
 

Organised tours of beggars from Eastern Europe are an increasing problem, as since enlargement to the East, the police are less able to take action. A check in the regional capital of Bavaria revealed that all the beggars came from the Slovakian town of Rimavska Sobota, an indication that European cities are being shared out among the Eastern European mafia. During the Football World Cup in Germany in June and July, the police expect massive, professionally-led and well-organised groups of beggars. The increasingly aggressive behaviour of beggars in underground trains and around cars stuck in traffic is particularly alarming.

To what extent is the Commission aware of this problem, and what measures are planned to deal with groups of beggars?

 
  
 

(EN)This issue is of obvious concern to all of Europe’s citizens, particularly in light of the forthcoming World Cup tournament in Germany this year.

Begging is an obvious social problem, with undesirable consequences for both the people who practice it as well as the people who are subject to it.

In the process of building an area of Justice, Freedom and Security, the Commission is involved in increasing coordination, cooperation and information sharing amongst Member State police forces focusing especially on organised crime. Insomuch as organised, begging constitutes criminal activity, for instance when linked with trafficking in human beings and the corresponding measures can be used. On the other hand, due to the cross-border nature of problems related to major sporting competitions such as the World Cup, there are specific measures in place where Member States’ services are collaborating to minimise crime, public disorder and violence often associated with such events.

Under the Hague Programme of 2004(1), the Commission has been tasked with taking forward several initiatives which are likely to be relevant to this particular issue. The specific actions to develop in this context have been detailed in the joint Council and Commission Action Plan implementing the Hague Programme.(2) A key demand of the Hague Programme is that information exchange between Member State law enforcement authorities by subject to the Principle of Availability by 1st January 2008. This means, in effect, that information should move between law enforcement agencies, without the fact that it crosses national borders presenting any sort of impediment. Work is already underway on this issue, with the Commission having recently put a proposal for a Framework Decision before the Council.

General police cooperation has likewise been made a priority. On 18th July 2005 the Commission adopted a proposal on improvement of law enforcement cooperation at the internal borders between Member States, and this has been followed up by monthly meetings of the police cooperation working group.(3) Furthermore, the European Police College has now been given the status of a body of the Union following adoption of a Commission proposal on 20th September 2005,(4) which should be an important move forward in strengthening police cooperation and mutual understanding. Likewise, an exchange programme for police officers has been included as a priority in the AGIS(5) programme for 2006. All of these measures will enhance the ability of national police forces to tackle cross-border crime more effectively.

Insomuch as these gangs of beggars appear to be organised, the Commission is developing a specific strategy on organised crime at an EU level, and indeed a Communication on this subject was recently presented.(6) Key objectives are to improve knowledge of the phenomenon and to strengthen prevention, investigation and cooperation on organised crime in the EU. The strategy is also to involve the intensification of cooperation with third countries and international organisations such as Interpol and Europol.

The honourable Member understandably voices particular concern in relation to the forthcoming World Cup being held in Germany later in the year. In addition to the initiatives outlined above, the Commission actively supports the development of improved crime prevention and control initiatives for international sporting events, and football events in particular. A key area of concentration has been on the exchange of experience between EU Member States in order to establish common standards of safety and public order. In particular, there is Council Resolution of 6th December 2001(7), concerning a handbook with recommendations for international police cooperation, and measures to prevent and control violence and disturbances in connection with football matches with an international dimension, in which at least one Member State is involved. In addition, a Council Working Group deals with aspects of violence occurring at sporting events and at football matches in particular.

The Commission has developed, and is indeed in the process of developing initiatives that should do much to enhance the ability of national police forces to tackle cross border activities with a criminal element.

 
 

(1) 16054/04, JAI 559
(2) 09246/05, JAI 184
(3) COM (2005) 317 final
(4) 2005/681/JHA
(5) Framework programme to help police, the judiciary and professionals from the EU Member States and Candidate Countries co-operate in criminal matters and in the fight against crime
(6) COM (2005) 232 final
(7) OJ C 22, 24/1/2002

 

Question no 60 by Bernd Posselt (H-1193/05)
 Subject: Stem-cell research
 

What view does the Commission take of the ethical concerns felt in many Member States about the use of EU funding to promote research into embryonic stem-cells, and what does it think of the proposal to give more encouragement to research using adult stem-cells instead?

 
  
 

(EN)The Commission respects the ethical concerns expressed by many Member States. The Commission’s proposals for the 7th EU R&D Framework Programme (FP7) clearly state that research activities funded should respect fundamental ethical principles, including those reflected in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Account will be taken of the Opinions of the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies.

In the FP6, any funding decision regarding human embryonic stem cell research is based on a thorough evaluation of the scientific excellence(1) and European added value of the R&D proposal, a strict double ethical review at national and EU level, and the approval of a Regulatory Committee representing all 25 Member States.

The EU is to a large extent funding research in adult stem cells. Today, only 6 funded projects of the FP6 have a research component dealing with human embryonic stem cells, whereas more than 60 funded projects deal with adult stem cells (i.e. more than 90% of all EU funded stem cell research projects).

However, the FP7 proposals do not pre-empt possible amendments in the further legislative procedure and following open debates at Parliament and Council level.

 
 

(1) Where the experts also assess whether the use of human embryonic stem cells is necessary in order to achieve the scientific objectives set forth in the proposal

 

Question no 61 by Frank Vanhecke (H-0001/06)
 Subject: Ban by Turkey on vessels flying the flag of Cyprus
 

On 29 July 2005, Turkey signed an additional protocol extending the customs union between the EC and Turkey to the ten new Member States. At the same time, Turkey issued a declaration stating that this protocol did not imply any recognition of Cyprus. On 21 September 2005, the EU issued a kind of counter-declaration stating that Turkey's declaration had been unilateral, did not form part of the protocol and did not affect Turkey's obligations under the protocol (Commission, Progress Report on Turkey, SEC(2005)1426, 9 November 2005, p. 40).

In December 2005, the Turkish Government formally stated that Turkey would not open its ports and airports to vessels and aircraft registered in Cyprus. In its progress report of November 2005, the Commission stated that this constituted a violation of the principle of the free movement of goods (p. 56).

A Commission source has said that, at the beginning of each chapter, the Commission will lay down clear conditions. In connection with previous enlargements, this strategy was employed very exceptionally.

When does the Commission expect the negotiations on the chapter concerning free movement of goods to begin? Will the Commission make it a condition for the opening of these negotiations that Ankara should lift its ban on vessels and aircraft registered in Cyprus?

 
  
 

(EN)It is not possible at this stage to predict when accession negotiations with Turkey on the specific chapter concerning free movement of goods will begin. The screening of this chapter is scheduled to be completed during the first quarter of 2006; subsequently, the Commission will report on the results of this exercise to Member States.

As for all chapters, the screening report will include a recommendation as to whether the chapter is ready to be opened for negotiation. If the Commission considers that negotiations should not begin on a given chapter, it may propose benchmarks to be met in order to allow the opening of that chapter. According to the procedures set out in the framework for accession negotiations, benchmarks will include inter alia, depending on the chapter, “the fulfilment of commitments under the Association Agreement, in particular those pertaining to the EC-Turkey customs union and those that mirror requirements under the acquis”. In this respect, the Council Decision on the Accession Partnership with Turkey, which is monitored in the bodies established by the Association Agreement, lays down, among the short term priorities, the need to “remove all restrictions to free circulation of goods due to discrimination against carriers of Member States, on the ground of their nationality or previous dockings”.

In addition, the Commission refers the honourable Member to the declaration of the EU of 21 September 2005, which stresses that “the opening of negotiations on the relevant chapters depends on Turkey’s implementation of its contractual obligations to all Member States”.

 

Question no 62 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (H-0002/06)
 Subject: Multilingualism in the EU and its institutions
 

The Commission recently announced a plan for a reduction in translator numbers which will seriously affect the Spanish language and Europe's Spanish-speaking citizens.

Can the Commission explain how it sees the budgetary implications of this decision?

Does the Commission believe that the language budget represents excessive spending when the aim is to allow citizens full access to the Union, especially given the special communication effort which the EU has to make at a moment of institutional crisis like the present one?

Can the Commission provide an estimate of the costs of the translation and interpretation into other non-official languages recently promoted by certain Member States?

 
  
 

(EN)As the honourable Member is no doubt aware, the 2004 enlargement was an unprecedented challenge for the translation services of the EU, in particular that of the Commission. Faced with a severe lack of translation capacity in the new languages, drastic measures had to be taken. These measures consisted of decreasing demand and increasing translation capacity(1), so as to ensure that the Commission would be able to fulfil its legal obligation of translating legislation and politically important documents into all official languages.

The human resources strategy of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Translation is an internal management tool which aims to make the most efficient use of existing resources.

The Commission would like to assure the honourable Member that the overall number of linguistic staff will not be reduced; part of the existing translation capacity will be allocated to tasks linked with multilingualism such as web translation, terminology, etc., which are in increasing demand as they constitute a means of communicating directly with the citizens.

There will be no budgetary implications, nor will there be any negative consequences for the EU’s communication with the citizens.

For the translation into languages other than the official EU languages, the Commission refers the honourable Member to the Council Conclusion of 13 June 2005(2), which states that the direct or indirect costs associated with the implementation of any administrative arrangements concerning translation into these languages will be borne by the Member State concerned.

 
 

(1) See Communication “Matching Supply and Demand for Translation” [SEC(2004) 638]
(2) OJ C148, 18.06.2005

 

Question no 63 by María Esther Herranz García (H-0026/06)
 Subject: Multilingualism in the EU and its institutions
 

On 29 November 2005 the Commission announced a plan to reduce its numbers of translators. This plan particularly affects its Spanish-language translators, whose number would be cut by 33%. This is an especially severe cut in the case of Spanish, a language spoken by over 45 m EU citizens and more than 400 m people worldwide.

Furthermore, Spanish is the language with the fifth highest number of speakers in the EU, the fourth most widely taught as a foreign language, and the fastest-growing EU language in terms of numbers of speakers both within and outside the Union. The cut in the number of translators would, paradoxically, place Spanish in sixth place in terms of translation.

Can the Commission provide the exact details of this plan to reduce the numbers of translators, of which so far we are aware only from media reports? What is the legal basis for the Commission's distinction between 'procedural languages' and the other official languages?

 
  
 

(EN)The Commission would like to assure the honourable Member that the Commission remains as committed as ever to the principle of multilingualism. According to Article 1 of Regulation No 1/1958 of the Council(1), all official EU languages are to be treated on an equal basis as far as the publication of legislation and other documents of general application is concerned.

This means that Spanish has the same status as any other official language. Moreover, no translator will lose his or her job. There will be no disadvantages for the translators concerned with respect to grade, salary, career development or any other similar aspects.

The principle of multilingualism is not linked to the number of speakers of a language, but is a democratic necessity: citizens of the EU must be able to read documents that directly apply to them in the official language of their country, whether they have 40 million or 400 000 native speakers. It is therefore logical that Spanish, Slovak, Dutch, Swedish and all the other official languages are treated equally, so that all EU citizens are granted the same democratic rights.

However, the Commission may, under Article 6 of Regulation No 1/1958 of the Council, decide which of the official and working languages are to be used for its internal communication. This should not be confused with the obligation to fully respect the principle of multilingualism in the translation of documents of a legislative or regulatory nature.

The human resources strategy of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Translation is an internal management tool which aims to make the most efficient use of existing resources. In general, the English, French and German language departments require more staff needed for the editing of originals, translating incoming documents from the Member States, etc.

Translating staff will be used appropriately to respond to new and growing demand, also in other linguistic areas such as web translation, editing, and in general reinforcing multilingualism in all aspects of the Commission’s activities.

 
 

(1) Regulation No 1/1958, OJ P 17, 6.10.1958, as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 920/2005 of 13 June 2005 amending Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the language to be used by the European Economic Community and Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the language to be used by the European Atomic Energy Community and introducing temporary derogation measures from those Regulations, OJ L 156, 18.6.2005.

 

Question no 64 by Cristina Gutiérrez-Cortines (H-0029/06)
 Subject: Multilingualism in the European Union and its institutions and promoting the official languages
 

The Commission has announced that it intends to reduce the number of translators. This will have a dramatic impact on Spanish and will clearly discriminate against this official language. Article 290 of the Treaty establishing the European Community provides that 'the rules governing the languages of the institutions of the Community shall, without prejudice to the provisions contained in the Statue of the Court of Justice, be determined by the Council, acting unanimously'. On the basis of this article, in 1958 the Council of Ministers adopted Regulation No 1 determining the language rules, which has since been amended on various occasions and contains a list of the EU's official languages, which currently number 21. It also provides that the institutions may stipulate their language arrangements in their rules of procedure.

What is the substance of the Commission's decision? What is its legal basis?

 
  
 

(EN)The Commission would like to assure the honourable Member that the overall number of linguistic staff will not be reduced. The new strategy of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Translation is an internal management tool – not a Commission decision – which aims to make the most efficient use of existing resources.

Translating staff will be used appropriately to respond to new and growing demand, also in other linguistic areas such as web translation, editing, and in general reinforcing multilingualism in all aspects of the Commission’s activities.

The Commission remains as committed as ever to the principle of multilingualism and the application of Council Regulation 1/1958(1).

 
 

(1) Regulation No 1/1958, OJ P 17, 6.10.1958, as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 920/2005 of 13 June 2005 amending Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the language to be used by the European Economic Community and Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the language to be used by the European Atomic Energy Community and introducing temporary derogation measures from those Regulations, OJ L 156, 18.6.2005.

 

Question no 65 by Maria Badia I Cutchet (H-0038/06)
 Subject: The role of languages in the EU's communication strategy
 

In July 2005, the Commission agreed on an ‘action plan to improve communicating Europe’. At the end of 2004, the Spanish Government submitted a proposal to the Council of the European Union seeking authorisation for Spain’s co-official languages (Catalan, Galician and Basque) to be used in certain circumstances, including in written correspondence between Spanish citizens and EU institutions. This would be financed by the Spanish Government.

While other institutions have already agreed to this, I am aware of the political difficulties surrounding the proposal that may arise at Parliament. However, as there are no problems with funding, I think that the Community’s political representatives should realise how important the request is. Not only is it a way of safeguarding a rich linguistic and cultural pluralism: it is also a way of bringing speakers of Catalan, Galician and Basque – without prejudice to Castilian – closer to EU institutions and policies.

In view of the fact that the Commission shares the wish to make it easier for the public to read about and communicate with the Community institutions in their own languages, does the Commission not think that adopting this agreement could also bring the public closer to and increase their political involvement in the EU?

 
  
 

(EN)The Commission shares the view of the honourable Member about the importance of communicating with citizens in their own language to bring them closer to the EU Institutions.

Following the invitation formulated by the Council, the Commission signed an Administrative Agreement with Spain on 21 December 2005. This will permit all Spanish citizens and residents to correspond in writing with the Commission in any language that has official status recognized by the Spanish constitution (Basque, Catalan and Galician). This Agreement will be implemented in the course of 2006.

 

Question no 66 by Carlos Carnero González (H-0041/06)
 Subject: Maintaining or modifying the decision to reduce the number of Spanish translators at the Commission
 

On 18 January 2006 the Commission replied to my written question P-4568/05 on the reduction of the number of Spanish translators in its services. I do not agree with the arguments advanced in Commissioner Figel's reply, and I feel it does not provide a full answer as to whether the Commission is maintaining the plans made public in early November 2005, which entailed, inter alia, an unacceptable reduction in the numbers of Spanish translators which takes no account of such crucial factors as the number of Spanish speakers and the remarkable growth of the language both within and outside the Union. Can the Commission state whether it intends to continue with those plans or whether it has decided to modify them in line with public opinion, the stand taken by the Spanish Government and my own position, in order to avoid damaging the remarkable value added represented for the Union by the use of Spanish as one of its main official languages and ensure it is not discriminated against by comparison with English, French and German?

 
  
 

(EN)The Commission reiterates its statement that, according to Regulation No 1/1958 of the Council(1), Spanish has the same status as any other official language.

In fulfilling its obligations under this Regulation, the Commission must make the most efficient use of existing resources, which means that for its internal communication, translation is provided according to real needs. This does not affect, however, the full respect of the principle of multilingualism concerning the translation of documents of a legislative or regulatory nature.

The Commission would like to assure the honourable Member that the overall number of linguistic staff will not be reduced; part of the existing translation capacity will be allocated to tasks related to multilingualism such as web translation, terminology, etc., which are in increasing demand as they constitute a means of communicating directly with the citizens.

In light of the above, the Commission sees no reason to change its policy.

 
 

(1) Regulation No 1/1958, OJ P 17, 6.10.1958, as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 920/2005 of 13 June 2005 amending Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the language to be used by the European Economic Community and Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the language to be used by the European Atomic Energy Community and introducing temporary derogation measures from those Regulations, OJ L 156, 18.6.2005.

 

Question no 67 by Pilar del Castillo Vera (H-0067/06)
 Subject: Translation within the Commission
 

The Spanish press has recently reported that the Commission is planning to reduce the number of Spanish translators it employs.

Will the Commission say exactly what its plans are for cutting back its Spanish translation service? How many Spanish translators is it intending to shed? Upon what criteria are the cuts to be based? Is any account being taken of Spain's inhabitants and of the number of people in the world who speak Spanish?

 
  
 

(EN)The strategy of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Translation is an internal management tool which aims to make the most efficient use of existing resources, following the Demand Management Strategy put in place after the 2004 enlargement to cope with the severe lack of translation capacity in the new languages(1). This strategy has lead to a reduction of the number of documents to be translated, which in turn has reduced the need for translators in the languages of the old Member States. In this context, it has proven necessary to allocate part of the existing translation capacity to tasks linked with multilingualism such as web translation, terminology, etc., which are in increasing demand as they constitute a means of communicating directly with the citizens.

This strategy involves all linguistic departments and does not by any means affect the status of any of the official EU languages.

The Commission would like to assure the honourable Member that the overall number of linguistic staff will not be reduced; no translator will lose his or her job. Translating staff will be used appropriately to respond to new and growing demand, also in other linguistic areas such as web translation, editing, and in general reinforcing multilingualism in all aspects of the Commission’s activities.

There will be no disadvantages for the translators concerned with respect to grade, salary, career development or any other similar aspects.

The principle of multilingualism is not linked to the number of speakers of a language in the world, but is a democratic necessity: citizens of the EU must be able to read documents that directly apply to them in the official language of their country, whether they have 40 million or 400 000 native speakers. It is therefore logical that for example Spanish, Slovak, Dutch, Swedish and all the other official languages are treated equally, so that all EU citizens are granted the same democratic rights.

The Commission would like to assure the honourable Member that it remains as committed as ever to the principle of multilingualism and the application of Council Regulation 1/1958(2).

 
 

(1) See Communication “Matching Supply and Demand for Translation” [SEC(2004) 638].
(2) Regulation No 1/1958, OJ P 17, 6.10.1958, as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 920/2005 of 13 June 2005 amending Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the language to be used by the European Economic Community and Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the language to be used by the European Atomic Energy Community and introducing temporary derogation measures from those Regulations, OJ L 156, 18.6.2005.

 

Question no 68 by Yiannakis Matsis (H-0004/06)
 Subject: Statements by General Hilmi Özkök about the presence of the Turkish army in Cyprus
 

In his New Year's message, General Hilmi Ozkok, the Chief of the Turkish Armed Forces, referred to the Cyprus problem. He asserted, inter alia, that the Turkish forces were stationed in Cyprus in order to protect the interests of Turkey itself and preserve its geostrategic role in the region. General Özkök's position confirms Turkey's intention of continuing its illegal occupation of part of the Republic of Cyprus, a Member State of the European Union. This is a violation of the independence of the Republic of Cyprus and is contrary to the principles and values of the EU and international law.

What measures does the EU intend to take to ensure the withdrawal of Turkish troops from the Republic of Cyprus, a Member State of the European Union? As part of these measures, would the EU support the beginning of the withdrawal of Turkish troops from the Republic of Cyprus at the earliest opportunity and their replacement by a European force in cooperation with the United Nations?

 
  
 

(EN)As it has stated on numerous occasions, the Commission remains fully committed to supporting a resumption of talks under the auspices of the United Nations for a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus issue, addressing all core issues such as security, constitution, property and territory. The Commission hopes that such talks will be re-launched as soon as possible.

 

Question no 69 by Antonio Masip Hidalgo (H-0014/06)
 Subject: Nomenclature for the plastic surgery speciality
 

The EU's new nomenclature for medical specialities, published by the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities' CONSLEG system (CONSLEG: 1993L0016-01/05/2004), refers to the speciality of plastic, reparative and cosmetic surgery as 'cosmetic surgery'.

This designation is not acceptable: plastic surgery consists of far more than cosmetic surgery, no recognised qualification in cosmetic surgery exists in Europe, and this attitude will effectively legalise the practice of cosmetic surgery by unqualified persons calling themselves 'specialists in cosmetic surgery', thus endangering those who resort to their services believing them to be properly trained and qualified.

Can the Commission state what action it intends to take on the matter?

 
  
 

(EN)Several professional organisations representing plastic surgeons have already drawn the attention of the Commission to the fact that in the French text of Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications(1) the heading for the specialisation of plastic surgery is by error worded as "Chirurgie Esthéthique" instead of "Chirurgie Plastique" and have asked the Commission what it will do to correct this.

As the Commission has already informed the professional organisations concerned, in the original version of Directive 93/16/EEC the heading was correctly worded as "Chirurgie Plastique". In 2001 the said Directive was amended by Directive 2001/19/EEC. During the legislative process in Council and Parliament and the translation into French of the later Directive, the heading of "Chirurgie Plastique" was changed by error into "Chirurgie Esthétique".

As Directive 93/16/EEC, amended by Directive 2001/19/EEC, has recently been recast as part of the new Directive 2005/36/EC on professional qualifications, the Commission has already drawn this error to the attention of the Council Secretariat General with a view to having it rectified and included in a "corrigendum" to the new Directive 2005/36/EC on professional qualifications which is currently under preparation.

 
 

(1) Official Journal L 165, 07/07/1993

 

Question no 70 by John Purvis (H-0017/06)
 Subject: Transparency rules
 

According to an article in the Financial Times (11 January 2006), fears that a company might be sanctioned for not releasing price-sensitive information immediately under new rules in the Market Abuse Directive, is making them reluctant to give press conferences or interviews or hold informal meetings with the press. Is the Commission concerned that disclosure rules are making companies more cautious and therefore more reluctant to provide information to investors and the media?

 
  
 

(EN)The Market Abuse Directive (Directive 2003/6/CE and its implementing measures: Directives 2003/124/EC, 2003/125/EC, 2004/72/EC and Regulation 2273/2003) has only recently been implemented in the Member States. It introduces more comprehensive and consistent rules of handling inside information throughout the financial markets in Europe. As a rule, issuers are now required to inform the public as soon as possible of inside information which directly concerns them. When they disclose inside information to any third party in the normal exercise of their duties, they must make effective public disclosure of the same information either simultaneously (in the case of intentional disclosure) or promptly (non-intentional disclosure). This obligatory disclosure does not apply if the third party owes a duty of confidentiality to the issuer.

The Market Abuse Directive has indeed made the issuers (and other persons concerned) more watchful of the proper handling of inside information disclosure. They now take greater responsibility for the access of third parties to inside information. The Commission thinks this is a good development. The Commission is also confident that existing and prospective shareholders will recognise the efforts of companies to comply with disclosure rules from the Market Abuse Directive while ensuring a steady and meaningful flow of information on their activities to the public.

The Commission is confident that in this early period of application of the Market Abuse Directive issuers will receive guidance from the national securities regulators responsible for supervision and enforcement of market abuse rules. The Commission will of course closely monitor and evaluate the impact of the Market Abuse Directive and its implementing measures on the functioning of EU securities markets.

 

Question no 71 by Claude Moraes (H-0019/06)
 Subject: Commission funding for SMEs
 

What assistance exists to help SMEs in dealing with the European Commission? A reputable engineering firm in my constituency was subject to an EU audit, and they experienced great difficulty when appealing the results. The European Commission has extensive resources available to it which SMEs often lack. How can the Commission guarantee that small businesses are fairly treated in their dealings with the Commission? How can SMEs access detailed, appropriate and expert advice?

 
  
 

(EN)The honourable Member refers to a specific case of a company which has been the subject of an EU financial audit. This is difficult for the Commission to comment on, in the absence of more precise information. As a general rule however, it is a condition of Commission funding that projects financed from the EU budget may be subject to such an ex-post control, as foreseen in Article 60.4 of the Financial Regulations. The Commission reviews the Financial Regulation regularly, as foreseen within Article 184 thereof. The last review took place in 2005 and led to a proposal for the amendment of the Financial Regulation(1), which is currently being negotiated with Council and Parliament and which the Commission proposes will come into force on 1 January 2007. As Article 184 provides for a revision of the Financial Regulation every three years or whenever it proves necessary, a further revision can be expected to start in 2007/2008, for entry into force in 2010.

When carrying out such audits, the Commission applies the relevant international standards. They include the possibility to comment on the auditor's findings and recommendations: a company or any other body that has been audited therefore has the possibility, during what is known as the "contradictory procedure", to bring further information to the Commission’s attention that may cause a revision with regard to the initial position. This should be done in writing (letter or e-mail), a means which is affordable for a Small and Medium-sized Enterprise (SME).

On the more general point raised, the Commission means to assist SMEs and wishes to highlight the following:

- The Commission adopted a Communication on Modern SME Policy for Growth and Jobs, aiming at creating a comprehensive policy framework for SME actions, in November 2005. It foresees actions to be taken to ensure that SMEs are taken into account when assessing or preparing EU legislation, and to simplify the rules and reduce the procedures for SMEs to participate in Community programmes. The Commission would welcome parliamentary support to further reduce the administrative burden for SMEs and strengthen their participation in Community programmes.

- The Commission has upgraded the role of SME Envoy, which is now carried out by the Deputy Director General of DG ENTR(2). The SME Envoy and her team are in charge of mainstreaming the SME dimension in EU policies, listening to SMEs and their representatives and highlighting their concerns to the different Commission services. The SME Envoy can be contacted directly at ENTR-SME-ENVOY@cec.eu.int

.

- The Euro Info Centre (EIC) network provides detailed, appropriate and expert advice to SMEs on EU matters - including Community programmes. There are nearly 270 EICs and over 300 local EIC relay points across Europe. Indeed the Commission has developed two new mechanisms in order to improve the feedback from SMEs into community policy-making via the EIC network: “SME feedback” and the “SME panel”. “SME feedback” will identify difficulties encountered by SMEs in the implementation of European legislation or policies while the “SME panel” will test a piece of legislation or a policy in preparation among a panel of local SMEs. Therefore the nearest EIC may be able to look at the issue with the SME in question.

- In addition specific tools and actions have been developed or are under consideration to improve information available to SMEs on ongoing and forthcoming programmes and to support their participation in EU programmes, including SME help-desks, local contact points or dedicated calls for proposals.

 
 

(1) COM(2005)181 of 03.05.2005
(2) DG Enterprise and Industry

 

Question no 72 by Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca (H-0022/06)
 Subject: Application of Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of personal data
 

It has recently been disclosed that the Generalitat of Catalonia has been using clinical case-histories to assess the use of Catalan in the health service. Articles 8, 11, 14 and 18 of Directive 95/46/EC(1) on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data ban the processing of data relating to health without the explicit consent of the person concerned, lay down an obligation to inform the person concerned of the main elements of the processing of data, grant individuals the right to object to the processing of data and stipulate that data-processing operations must be notified to the supervisory authority for prior assessment. Article 6 stipulates that data must be 'collected for (...) explicit and legitimate purposes'.

Does the Commission consider that all these conditions have been met in the above case? Bearing in mind how important it is to guarantee the fundamental rights of citizens, particularly privacy, will the Commission demand an explanation from the Spanish Government?

 
  
 

(EN)As laid down in Directive 95/46/EC, personal data concerning the health status of a person is considered to be “sensitive data” which requires special protection. Article 8 of the Directive subjects the processing of personal data relating to the health status of a person to special conditions. In substance their processing requires the consent of the data subject, or a national law allowing their processing and laying down appropriate safeguards, for instance in the framework of the provision of medical care of the management of health care services, or when it is necessary to protect the vital interests of the data subject. The Directive allows Member States the processing of these sensitive data for other reasons of substantial public interest provided that they set up suitable safeguards.

The Commission must point out that under the system laid down by the Directive on data protection, Member States data protection authorities are the competent authorities to monitor the lawfulness of personal data processing activities performed within their territory. These authorities must take appropriate measures to enforce data protection legislation and to prevent or put an end to unlawful data processing activities, namely by means of controls or sanctions.

The Commission will ask the Spanish authorities for information about the facts referred to in the question to verify that the enquiry conducted by the Generalidad de Cataluña complies with the provisions of Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of personal data, namely Articles 7, 8, 10, 11, 18 and 20. On the basis of the information provided, the Commission will decide on the appropriate follow up.

 
 

(1) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31.

 

Question no 73 by Albert Deß (H-0025/06)
 Subject: E. coli in foodstuffs (hard-type cheese); differing limit values for imports in Australia and the EU
 

The legal situation in the EU is as follows: pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005(1) of 15 November 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs, valid since 1 January 2006, E. coli are to be regarded as a process hygiene criterion. Two of five sample units may lie between 100 and 1000 E. coli per gram.

The legal situation in Australia is as follows: the authorised limit value for five sample units of E. coli is completely different from that in the EU. Here no more than one of five units may lie between 10 and 100 E. coli per gram, and this is not a process hygiene criterion, but a marketing criterion designed to protect consumers.

This constitutes an immense distortion of competition and stands in the way of EU cheese exports to Australia.

What is the Commission doing to remove this enormous barrier to trade?

If identical limit values cannot be decided upon, I call upon the Commission to ensure that in the case of imports into the EU of the products in question the low Australian limit values apply.

 
  
 

(EN)The Commission thanks the honourable Member for bringing this issue to its attention, and assures the Parliament that the issue will be raised with Australia with view to clarifying the situation.

It should be noted, however, that it is the right of Word Trade Organisation’s (WTO) Members within the context of the WTO Agreement on the application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the SPS Agreement) to define their own appropriate level of protection, as long as it is not a disguised, arbitrary or discriminatory restriction on trade. The Commission will, in due course, examine the Australian measure to determine whether it is in conformity with the SPS Agreement, and inform the Parliament accordingly.

 
 

(1) OJ L 338, 22.12.2005, p. 1.

 

Question no 74 by Gay Mitchell (H-0028/06)
 Subject: Communicating plight of developing world
 

The European Commission wants to reconnect the EU with the people of Europe. Would the Commission agree that there is huge concern among EU citizens about the plights of our neighbours in the developing world as witnessed by many public manifestations? Will the Commission make this a communication priority?

 
  
 

(EN)The character of the EU, its institutional complexity and the absence of a unified and homogenous “European” public opinion are important challenges when defining Communication priorities.

The Commission agrees that the European public has a relatively weak perception of the EU’s external assistance and its role in the world. While European public opinion surveys have revealed that Europeans are extremely positive towards the idea of providing development aid, only few associate the European Union with Development Policy. The Commission is very much aware of this and, together with Member States, other EU institutions and International organisations, is taking up this challenge. The communication action plan of Directorate General (DG) Development foresees a large variety of activities, both in all EU Member States and in our partner countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific (ACP), to promote European development policy. To reach best the various target groups, the Commission has put a special emphasis on information support to press and media. Special training seminars for journalists from the new Member States and from partner countries are organised in Brussels and weekly and monthly newsletters are sent electronically. The Commission has also developed various audiovisual products during 2005 to support the visibility of development policy and in particular Europe’s support to the MDGs (Millennium Development Goals). Some of these products were also part of an information campaign targeted at the public at large at the occasion of the United Nations World Summit in September 2005. The Commission has produced and marketed various TV spots, it has also produced and distributed various VideoNewsReleases as a service to the audiovisual media. Not to forget our publications. A special website on the main European initiatives in development policy during 2005 and, in particular on Europe’s support to the MDGs was put online in September 2005 and will be further developed this year. To connect with people in Europe, the Commissioner in charge of Development and Humanitarian Aid is also happy to the response to his web page and he has been happy to organise an Internet Chat with European citizens. The Commission will continue to strengthen its efforts in this area during 2006. It considers these communication activities important for the visibility of its foreign actions. It is important that with the different policy and communication initiative taken we communicate that European engagement is a value added for Africa and African development is a value added to Europe. The Commission shall do its part but success is dependent on other positive engagements. The EU as such provides more than half of the Worlds Official Development Aid. Clearly the EU deserves more visibility for its huge contribution to combat and eradicate poverty, also for the part that goes directly from Member States or via International organisations.

Heads of States and Governments declared at the end of the June 2005 European Council, a “period of reflection”, following the negative votes in France and the Netherlands on the European Constitution. Already in July 2005 the Commission agreed an action plan to improve communicating Europe. The action plan was followed by a Plan D agreed by the Commission, in October 2005. The Plan D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate sets out a structured process to stimulate a public debate on the future of the European Union. As part of the ambition of informing people on EU’s role through concrete achievements and projects and listening to people’s expectations about what should be done in the future, there is a clear reference to Europe’s borders and its role in the world. The Group of RELEX (External Relations) Commissioners is taking this task seriously and is jointly approaching the challenge.

The challenges of today’s world are big, but the Commission has a good story to tell. Together with Member States, other EU institutions, other international organisations and the civil society, the Commission shall tell that story and shall hear what the citizens have to say.

The Commissioner in charge of Development and Humanitarian Aid is personally engaged together with the Vice President for Institutional Relations and Communication Strategy and other colleagues to respond to this challenge.

Communicating the achievements of the EU development policy and the external assistance to the citizens was, is and it will be one of the Commission’s priorities.

 

Question no 75 by Georgios Toussas (H-0031/06)
 Subject: Coastal shipping in Greece
 

The Commission has sent a reasoned opinion to Greece for failing to implement Community legislation, calling on that country to take arbitrary measures which will further exacerbate the problems of seafarers and workers in general living on the islands and, at the same time, will increase the risks posed to the safety of shipping and protection of the environment, thereby provoking an outcry.

Does the Commission consider that abolishing the objective criteria of tonnage and engine power to determine the composition of the crew, the age-limit for withdrawing superannuated vessels from service and the total liberalisation of economy-class tickets are in the interests of the users of these services, and of employment and development on the Greek islands or do they exclusively serve the interests and the profitability of the shipping companies and should the Commission, therefore, reconsider its position?

 
  
 

(FR)In its reasoned opinion addressed to Greece on 19/12/2005, the Commission pointed out the need to comply with Regulation (EC) 3577/1992(1) which applies the fundamental principle of the free provision of coastal shipping services.

Opening these services up to competition allows them to be provided at a lower cost for passengers and the community in general. In the event that private initiative is insufficient, public service obligations may be imposed. Although the EC Treaty takes account of the special nature of island regions, island coastal shipping services cannot, however, all be automatically classed as public services. Greece must justify the need for the public service obligations imposed for each of the lines in question.

In its reasoned opinion, the Commission has not expressed any grievance relating to the age-limit established by Greek legislation for the withdrawal of superannuated vessels.

The Commission’s reasoned opinion does not imply the total liberalisation of economy-class tickets. The Commission has only noted that almost all of the island lines are subject to price cap measures without any proof being reported, and even researched, to show that, on the lines in question as a whole, market forces alone will not be sufficient to ensure satisfactory price levels in terms of public service requirements. There are several lines with a significant amount of traffic throughout the year and on which there are several operators, for which such a framework has not been demonstrated.

With regard to the determination of crews, the Commission has stated that for each category of seafarers, Greek legislation stipulates the number of them that must be employed on a vessel, solely on the basis of its tonnage, the number of passengers authorised to be carried and the time of year. By prohibiting operators from being able to take account of the type of vessel in question and of its specific needs, this legislation hinders the freedom of operators to chose the manner in which they provide their services to users, without the usefulness of the legislation in question in terms of safety and environmental protection concerns having been demonstrated.

 
 

(1) Council Regulation, of 7 December 1992, applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) OJ L 364 of 12.12.1992

 

Question no 76 by Michael Gahler (H-0034/06)
 Subject: Commission's language policy
 

Why is there a Commission rule whereby prospective heads of unit have to undergo a preparatory training programme given exclusively in French and English, thus artificially reducing the required linguistic skills to those languages and, as a result, discriminating against German which is the second most widely understood language in the EU and a Commission working language? How is this practice consistent with the Commission's policy of promoting 'multilingualism', i.e. mother tongue plus two foreign languages? Is the Commission prepared to offer the required training programme in a form whereby the individuals concerned can themselves choose two of the three languages in which they would like to follow the courses?

Would the Commission prefer an arrangement which does not allow the choice of a candidate's mother tongue as one of the two languages to be selected so that 'only' those candidates whose mother tongue is one of the 17 'non-working languages' would have a 'free choice' between the three languages? Is the Commission also prepared, where comparable situations and configurations are concerned, to try in an appropriate way to bring about a situation in which German and French are treated equally - not merely on a formal basis - either in a positive sense, i.e. French is available and, therefore, so is German, or in a negative sense, i.e. German is not available and, therefore, neither is French?

 
  
 

(EN)The Commission’s preparatory management course, ‘First Steps in a Managing People’, is designed to provide prospective Heads of Unit with the management skills required to carry out their roles effectively. The course is not intended to test the participant’s linguistic abilities or to develop his/her language skills. The decision to offer this specific course in French and English only was determined by taking into account the languages in which, as a matter of fact, managers mostly operate in their day-to-day work (as opposed to those they can use) and by ensuring a balance between considerations of multilingualism and the sound and efficient management of the financial resources of the central training budget.

Language skills are developed in separate specific courses, covering 28 languages. All staff are able to develop their language competence in any of these languages, in line with both the multilingualism policy of the Commission and specific work-based needs. In addition, Commission managers are offered individual and intensive language training as an alternative to standard courses, with a particular focus on German, French and English.

 

Question no 77 by Georgios Karatzaferis (H-0035/06)
 Subject: Take-up rate of Community appropriations by the Ministry of Culture
 

The Greek press reports (To Vima of 24 January 2006) that the Greek Prime Minister, Mr Karamanlis - who has also been Minister of Culture for almost two years - has spent only 9.5 hours in total during that period in his office at the Ministry of Culture meeting people from the world of the arts, while convening one single meeting of the Committee on Education and Culture, whose members are paid and have regularly collected their salaries for one year now. Moreover, the take-up rate of Community appropriations by the Ministry of Culture for contemporary culture is only 6%. Why is this take-up rate so low?

 
  
 

(FR)In his question, the honourable Member mentions the Greek Ministry of Culture’s take-up rate of Community appropriations for ‘contemporary culture’.

The Commission would refer the honourable Member to its detailed reply to written question P-5020/05 by Mr Sifounakis, which deals with the same subject.

 

Question no 78 by Irena Belohorská (H-0040/06)
 Subject: Women's reproductive health
 

Without a healthy young population it will not be possible to achieve the objectives of the Lisbon strategy. Women’s reproductive health is therefore vital to improving the European economy.

In 1997 a report was drawn up on the state of women’s health in the EU-15 (COM(1997)0224 final). Following the accession of 10 new Member States, does the Commission intend to start compiling data on the state of women’s health, and is the Commission planning to draw up a similar report for the EU-25? If so, will this report include data from the field of gynaecology and obstetrics?

 
  
 

(EN)In the framework of the Community Public Health Programme, the Commission has launched the EU Project REPROSTAT (Reproductive Health Indicators in the European Union

). This project contains a final recommended minimum list of indicators that EU countries can use to monitor reproductive health. Core indicators are defined as those essential for monitoring reproductive health and related health care. Sexual health and sexual violence have been also identified as important aspects of reproductive health.

The current Work Plan 2006 for the implementation of the Community Public Health Programme includes an action on ‘Operating the health information and knowledge system’ which includes the preparation of EU-25 reports on gender specific health problems and sexual and reproductive health.

The Work Plan 2006 includes also as an EU priority the development and definition of indicators to improve relevant information for gynaecological and menopausal health.

There is a strong interest of the Commission to produce an updated EU-25 Women’s health report which should include reproductive health and gynaecological problems. This report should be produced following the rules of the Work Plan 2006 for the implementation of the Community Public Health Programme, and the Commission looks forward to receiving relevant project proposals to enable this work to be taken forward.

 

Question no 79 by Panagiotis Beglitis (H-0046/06)
 Subject: Set of proposals by Mr Gül, Turkish Foreign Minister, about the Cyprus issue and statements by Commissioner Rehn
 

The statement by Mr Rehn of 25 January 2006 raises serious questions regarding the institutional and political role of the Commission as a guardian of the Treaties, the Community acquis and the European legal order. Does the Commissioner really believe that the attempt by the Turkish Government to conflate the issue of the obligations it has incurred, through its signature of the Customs Union and the decision of the Council of Ministers of 3.10.2005 initiating accession negotiations, and the strengthening of ties with, and the upgrading of, the Turkish Cypriot regime is worthy of serious consideration and constitutes an attempt to move forward on the Cyprus issue? Will the Commission say why, instead of insisting, as it should, on the timely ratification and smooth implementation of the Customs Union Protocol, it has rushed out a statement that it agrees essentially to changes in the agenda of the obligations of Turkey, a candidate country, thereby contributing to the 'deculpabilisation' of Turkey in respect of its contractual obligations? What purposes does this Commission move actually serve, since it allows Turkey to engage in haggling with the European Union, thus ultimately undermining and invalidating the decisions taken by the European Council and the Council of Ministers?

 
  
 

(EN)The Commission is prepared to consider any effort to achieve progress in the current deadlock with regard to the Cyprus problem. Its long-standing position is to support a resumption of UN(1)-led talks for a comprehensive settlement as soon as possible.

This position is reflected in Commissioner in charge of Enlargement’s statement of 25 January 2006 on Turkey’s Cyprus initiative. The statement did not comment on the substance of the proposal but referred to the need to analyse it carefully. The Commission is ready to contribute to the discussion of the proposal if it is taken up by the parties concerned.

In the Commission’s view, there is no conditionality or ‘trade-off’ between the Additional Protocol to the Ankara Agreement, extending the Agreement, including the EC-Turkey customs union, to the 10 new Member States, and the direct trade regulation for northern Cyprus.

On 29 July 2005, Turkey signed the Ankara Protocol and is expected to implement it fully. The Commission will monitor this process.

On 26 April 2004, the Council expressed its determination to put an end to isolation of the Turkish Cypriot community. In response to the Council’s invitation, the Commission proposed on 7 July 2004 a package of aid and trade measures with this objective and hopes that the Council will soon take a decision on this basis.

 
 

(1) United Nations

 

Question no 80 by Erna Hennicot-Schoepges (H-0049/06)
 Subject: Mobile social security arrangements for artists
 

One of the greatest obstacles to the mobility of artists within the European Union is the lack of a social security scheme which takes account of their mobility. As the periods for which contributions are made in various Member States are subject to national rules, contributions do not always give entitlement to benefits.

Is the Commission not considering taking account of mobility by launching a pilot mobile social security project reflecting the specific nature of the profession of artist?

 
  
 

(FR)The social security systems of the Member States are not harmonised at Community level. The Member States therefore have the competence to determine their own social security systems. There is, however, coordination of these national social security systems.

This coordination, laid down by means of Regulations 1408/71(1) and 574/72(2), is intended to allow persons to move within the European Union without losing their social security entitlements. This coordination applies to workers who are or have been subject to the social security legislation of one or more Member States who move within the European Union, and in this regard it also applies to artists.

In order to prevent a person from losing their social security rights when they move within the Union, the coordination is intended in particular to establish a principle of aggregation according to which periods of insurance in one Member State are taken into account when establishing entitlements to services in accordance with the legislation of another Member State, so that periods of insurance are never lost.

The Commission would remind the honourable Member of the fact that, under current Community law, there is no legal basis for establishing a social security system at Community level that is applicable to artists.

 
 

(1) 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 No L 149 of 05/07/1971
(2) 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 No L 074 of 27/03/1972

 

Question no 81 by Astrid Lulling (H-0050/06)
 Subject: Beekeeping and plant-protection products
 

In its resolution P5(2003)0410(1), the European Parliament called on the Commission to adopt preventive measures to tackle the use of new generations of long-residue neurotoxic products, in particular by setting up a committee of internationally recognised beekeeping specialists to adapt plant protection product approval protocols in order to deal with problems relating to the health of hives.

What action has the Commission take in response to these requests? How can the Commission continue to authorise neurotoxic molecules on the basis of approval procedures using evaluation protocols that are obsolete and which fail to take account of the sub-lethal effects of such molecules (often linked to chronic toxicity in the long-term)? Is the Commission prepared to study the links between the presence of such neurotoxins which are widespread in the environment(2) and the decline in bee populations observed in several Member States and which are having a significant impact on European honey production?

 
  
 

(EN)Following the Parliament resolution on the difficulties faced by the European beekeeping sector in 2003, the Commission has taken into consideration economic losses caused by bee mortality in its support policy on beekeeping.

When Council Regulation concerning national beekeeping programmes has been modified in 2004, eligible actions within those programmes have been explicitly extended to the restocking of hives to consider bee mortality (which is a reality in some regions of the EU).

Under this new action, purchase of colonies and breeding queens can be financed by the Commission and Member States within the national beekeeping programmes in order to limit the economic impact of bee mortality on European beekeepers.

Among the € 23 million available in the EU budget for 2005 for beekeeping programmes, national beekeeping programmes sent by the Member States to the Commission showed that around € 1.5 million had been allocated to this specific action.

The placing on the market and authorisation of plant protection products is regulated by Council Directive 91/414/EEC. This Directive provides that pesticides may only be used if it has been demonstrated that their use bears no unacceptable effects on human and animal health, and the environment. This assessment covers the risks to honeybees and their larvae and the tests applied are based on standards developed by intergovernmental organisations such as the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organisation, in which 47 governments collaborate. Its standards are periodically reviewed. The part on honeybees has been revised in 2002/2003 and the Commission is therefore not convinced of their obsolete nature.

Currently, the Community is running a wide programme of re-evaluation of old pesticides which started in 1993 and must be concluded in 2008.

The honourable Member is surprised that some of the substances continue to be on certain markets. However, it must be underlined that pending a Commission act national rules remain applicable.

This is also the case for the two insecticides that French beekeepers hold responsible for the increased mortality of their bees, namely fipronil (commercial name Regent®) and imidacloprid (commercial name Gaucho®) and to which the honourable Member is most probably referring.

These substances have been suspended by the French authorities since several years and their safety assessment by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is ongoing.

The Commission is awaiting the results from this assessment. For fipronil, the conclusions of EFSA are expected by March 2006 and for imidacloprid after the summer. After submission of this scientific assessment, the Commission will have six months to take a decision on whether the use of these substances is acceptable.

 
 

(1) OJ C 77 E, 16.3.2004, p.329.
(2) 2005 Interim Report of the Prospective multifactoral study of bee disorders.

 

Question no 82 by Johan Van Hecke (H-0053/06)
 Subject: Elections in Angola
 

It is barely four years since the war in Angola came to an end. There is still chaos in a large part of the country, the civilian population is still heavily armed and large areas are inaccessible because of landmines and the devastation of infrastructure. In September this year, elections would normally have to be held in Angola.

What measures will the Commission take to make it possible to organise elections in Angola in 2006?

 
  
 

(FR)The Commission is treating the legislative elections in Angola as a particular priority, since they are a significant test of the government’s and the country’s commitment to moving towards democracy. The general situation in Angola four years after the end of the war, as described in the oral question, leads to enormous practical and logistical challenges in terms of organising the elections. President dos Santos has not yet officially announced the date of the elections, but the latest information suggests that it is less and less likely that they will be held in 2006.

With regard to the measures supported by the Commission in Angola, the ‘emergency mine action program for sustainable return and resettlement’, with a contribution of € 26 million, is directly aimed at the challenges identified and contributes to creating the conditions for holding elections.

A significant effort is also being made with a view to contributing to national reconciliation, both at central and at local level, with direct support for projects in the field of human rights and support for the democratic process, with organisations from Angolan local society, with appropriations from the Democracy and Human Rights budget line.

Furthermore, and as pointed out recently in the reply to written question 2512/05 by Mr Ribeiro-Castro, the Commission has informed the Angolan Government on several occasions of its willingness to contribute actively and more directly to the preparations for the elections, but the government has not yet responded officially to this offer of support. However, the Commission believes that the Angolan Government may take up the offer of support for the preparations for the elections, when the date of the elections is announced officially.

 

Question no 83 by Bill Newton Dunn (H-0057/06)
 Subject: Dispensing medicines by doctors
 

A medical doctor in my constituency ‘has been receiving reports that the European Union is again threatening to remove the right of five thousand British doctors to dispense medicines to their patients directly without the intervention of a pharmacist.’

What is the truth of this allegation?

 
  
 

(EN)The Community’s legislation on medicinal products harmonizes the granting of marketing authorization for medicinal products. It also addresses certain aspects of the distribution of medicinal products such as the requirement for a medical prescription and the wholesale business. By contrast, the retail trade is not covered by this legislation.

The Commission is not aware of an action at the level of the European Union that aims at regulating or restricting the possibility of doctors in Great Britain to dispense medicines to their patients directly without the intervention of a pharmacist.

 

Question no 84 by Albert Jan Maat (H-0058/06)
 Subject: Consequences of ECJ ruling of 6 December 2005
 

Following the ECJ's ruling on the issue of labelling of animal feed, could the Commission inform the EP about its intention regarding the announced simplification of EU feed labelling rules, taking into account the necessary adaptation following the recent ECJ judgment?

Would the Commission be prepared to present a single, consolidated legislative proposal for a harmonised feed labelling regulation to the EP and the Council?

What is the Commission's view on the effects of quantitative labelling rules on feed and food safety, consumer information and intellectual property rights?

How does the European Commission intend to assure the right balance between protecting consumers and avoiding misleading information to feed customers on the one hand, and protecting intellectual property rights and providing legal certainty to feed business operators and customers on the other?

 
  
 

(EN)Following the preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of 6 December 2005, the Commission will of course take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment.

The Court of Justice declared invalid only one specific provision of the feed labelling legislation, and the Commission is currently reflecting what legal follow-up to give to the judgment.

The Commission has also committed to present a proposal to recast the feed labelling legislation by the first quarter of 2007, which is included in the Commission Simplification Rolling Programme. An impact assessment study and a round of consultations with stakeholders have been concluded.

On that basis, the Commission will prepare an integrated impact assessment before submitting a single proposal to the Parliament and the Council, which will also take into account the judgment of the Court of Justice.

As the future proposal will be drafted on the basis of the outcome of the impact assessment, it is premature to indicate how the Commission will deal specifically with quantitative labelling, which was per se not declared invalid by the Court.

The objectives of the future proposal will be to ensure food and feed safety and facilitate smooth functioning of the internal market, but also to protect the economic interests of all feed business operators.

 

Question no 85 by Proinsias De Rossa (H-0060/06)
 Subject: Transposition of the Posting of Workers Directive in Ireland
 

The Commission's July 2003 Communication (COM(2003)0458 final) on the implementation in the Member States of the Posting of Workers Directive (96/71/EC(1)) noted (p. 8 English version) that no specific measure transposing this legislation into Irish law was adopted in Ireland but that a provision in the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act 2001, transposing other EC legislation, states that certain provisions of Irish law apply to posted workers in Ireland.

Is the Commission of the view that the Posting of Workers Directive has been fully and correctly transposed in Ireland, in line with criteria established by the case law of the European Court of Justice? What correspondence has the Commission entered into with Irish authorities on this matter and what has been their response? What action will the Commission take if it takes the view that Ireland has not correctly transposed this Directive?

 
  
 

(EN)According to the information available to the Commission's services, Ireland has transposed Directive 96/71/EC on posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services(2) by providing in the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act that a number of Acts apply to posted workers. The Acts referred to in this provision cover the terms and conditions of employment enumerated in article 3 (1) of the Directive.

As indicated in the Commission's Communication on the implementation of Directive 96/71/EC(3), several problems were detected as regards, inter alia, the transposition of the Directive into Member States' legal systems, particularly those Member States that have not deemed it necessary to adopt specific and explicit transposition measures. The Commission further indicated that this could be considered not to be in conformity with the criteria established by the Court's case law regarding the transposition of Community directives.

As far as the honourable Member's question is concerned, the Commission will, therefore, contact the Irish authorities for further clarification.

 
 

(1) OJ L 18, 21.1.1997, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 18 of 21.1.1997
(3) COM(2003) 458 final of 25.7.2003

 

Question no 86 by Andrzej Jan Szejna (H-0063/06)
 Subject: Polish rejection of the VAT agreement
 

Since 1999, nine of the 25 Member States have been allowed to apply a lower rate of VAT to 'labour-intensive services': home renovations, domestic care, window cleaning, small repairs to bicycles and clothes and hairdressing. Lately, Austria had proposed that they should continue to be allowed to do so until 2010. Poland and the Czech Republic were granted a derogation period until the end of 2007, allowing them to charge a reduced level of VAT on new housing. However, the proposal to extend this period after 2007 was not approved. On Monday, 30 January 2006, Poland rejected a deal agreed by all 24 other members of the European Union. The Polish refusal means that other EU countries are breaking the law when continuing to levy a lower rate of VAT on the above services, and legal action can be taken against them.

What further plans regarding this problem does the Commission have?

 
  
 

(FR)Poland has accepted the compromise initially reached by 22 Member States at the meeting of the ECOFIN Council on 24 January 2006 and then agreed to by two further Member States.

The problems raised by the honourable Member have therefore been resolved.

 

Question no 87 by Diamanto Manolakou (H-0064/06)
 Subject: Mass redundancies at Coca Cola factory in Greece
 

On 19 January 2006, 'Coca Cola 3E' announced the closure of its factory in Athens and its warehouses on Rhodes, Corfu and at Messolonghi, with the loss of hundreds of jobs and immediate redundancy for 150 workers. In view of the fact that the company's profits rose during the first six months of 2005 alone to € 205 million, from € 156 million for the same period in 2004 - an increase of 17% - it appears that what the company calls 'restructuring' is no more than an expression of its intent to increase its enormous profits even further. This situation confirms that it is not only loss-making companies which carry out redundancies but even the most profitable and 'sound' because, in the name of 'competitiveness', they treat workers as expendable commodities.

What measures will the Commission take to prevent mass redundancies of workers and, in general, to ensure that jobs are preserved, expanded and improved?

 
  
 

(FR)The Commission is aware of the possible negative consequences of the closure of a factory, if confirmed, on the workers in question, their families and the region. It does not, however, fall to the Commission to give its opinion or interfere in decision making within companies, unless a breach of Community law is involved.

In this regard, it should be pointed out that Community legislation contains various provisions aimed at ensuring the appropriate management and justification of restructurings, particularly in the event of the closure of a company. These include, in particular, Directive 98/59/EC relating to collective redundancies(1), Directive 2001/23/EC on transfers of undertakings(2), Directive 94/45/EC on the European works council(3), Directive 2002/74/EC on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer(4) and Directive 2002/14/EC establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees(5).

On 31 March 2005(6), the Commission adopted a communication entitled "Restructuring and employment" in which it lays out a global and coherent European Union approach to situations of restructuring. It stipulates the Community policies to be implemented in order to anticipate and accompany economic transformations, support employment and encourage rural development.

The Commission’s industrial policy, the employment strategy, actions in the field of equal opportunities as well as the use of Structural Funds, are of particular importance in the situation raised by the honourable Member. Furthermore, the European Council of 15-16 December 2005 very recently accepted the principle of the additional creation of a globalisation adjustment fund to assist workers laid off following major shocks resulting from globalisation to receive training and find new jobs.

 
 

(1) Directive 98/59/EC of the Council of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies - OJ L225 of 12.08.98
(2) Directive 2001/23/EC of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses - OJ L82 of 22.03.2001
(3) Directive 94/45/EC of the Council of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees, OJ L254 of 30.09.1994
(4) Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 80/987/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer
(5) Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community - OJ L80 of 23 March 2002
(6) COM(2005) 120 of 31.3.2005

 

Question no 88 by Herbert Reul (H-0066/06)
 Subject: Revision of the legal framework for telecommunications
 

The Lisbon Agenda cites the information and communications sector as a key area for promoting growth in the EU. However, it is in the telecommunications sector in particular that Europe is in danger of lagging behind the United States. In the United States deregulation has triggered a boost in investment in super-fast fibre-optic networks. Major European network operators, on the other hand, are still subject to double supervision by the competition authorities and regulatory authorities. The current legal framework was created more than 10 years ago as a purely transitional measure to bring monopolies within a competitive environment. It has since proved to be a curb on investment in new networks and markets.

Will the European Commission take the opportunity of the forthcoming review of the telecommunications framework legislation to opt out of sector-specific price and access regulation or, in the interests of investment certainty, at least set a clear deadline for ending such regulation?

Will the European Commission use the opportunities available to it within the existing legal framework to give new networks relief from regulation in order to encourage the investment that is urgently needed now?

 
  
 

(EN)It is somewhat misleading to suggest that the telecoms sector in the EU lags behind the United States (US); in broadband communications, for example, several Member States have higher penetrations than the US. Competition between US cable companies and incumbents is driving investment in fibre. Competition between infrastructures has allowed regulatory authorities in the US to relax the access rules on the fibre networks of incumbents. Nevertheless, US incumbents are still subject to supervision by state and national authorities(1). Many European incumbents have decided to exploit fully their existing copper access networks rather than invest in fibre at present. To some extent this is due to significant differences in network architectures in the US and EU, and particularly to technical limitations in US networks, where the length of the local loop makes xDSL deployment impossible for up to 60% of US households.

Recent data from the European Competitive Telecommunications Association (ECTA) indicates that investment in Europe has grown at a faster rate than in North America or the Asia Pacific since the introduction of the current regulatory Framework, which was in 2002(2), and not ten years ago, albeit with significant differences between Member States. For example, telecoms investment in Germany was € 57 per capita compared with € 154 per capita for the United Kingdom(3).

The honourable Member urges the Commission to consider introducing an opt-out of sector-specific regulation or the inclusion of a sunset clause in the interests of investment certainty during its forthcoming review of the EU legislation. Withdrawal of price and access regulation is already foreseen in the current framework whenever markets are effectively competitive, as is the principle that emerging markets should not be regulated inappropriately. While investment certainty is important, experience with the growth of broadband in the EU since 1995 demonstrates that competition and not relief from regulation is the major factor driving investment. A study by SPC(4) Network found in 2005 that broadband penetration in Europe increased by 3% for every 1% increase in competitiveness between different delivery routes (including cable, local loop unbundling/shared access and bitstream)(5).

The honourable Member also raises an important question of how can we best achieve competition and investment in next generation networks. In Europe today, the decision on finding the right balance between competition and investment can no longer be solely a national decision. This is a European process, and the review of the regulatory framework should not encourage fragmented national approaches which may favour only the former national incumbents and could thereby block the development of a true Europe-wide communications market.

 
 

(1) The Federal Communications Commission, State Utility Commissions, the Federal Trade Commission, the US Department of Justice, in addition to the federal courts
(2) Infonetics research Nov 2005 http://www.infonetics.com/resources/purple.shtml?db05sp.2Q05.nr.shtml
(3) OECD Communications Outlook 2005
(4) Strategy and Policy Consultants Network
(5) SPC Network study Feb 2005: Broadband and i2010: The importance of dynamic competition to market growth
http://www.spcnetwork.co.uk/cgi-bin/publisher/search.cgi?dir=news&template=news.html&output_number=1&ID_option=1&ID=1032-1105-71421

 

Question no 89 by Laima Liucija Andrikienė (H-0070/06)
 Subject: Lithuania's entry into the euro zone
 

Lithuania would like to become a member of the euro zone as from 1 January 2007. Last year, projections were brought out to the effect that Lithuania and Estonia were a little too impoverished to join the euro zone and that that would be genuine grounds for not admitting the countries into the euro zone as from 1 January 2007, which is what the two Baltic states hope for.

The mandatory criteria which a country must comply with in order to become a member of the euro zone are well known. Does the Commission envisage the possibility of changing the criteria this year and of introducing new, additional criteria for countries seeking to join the euro zone? Can the Commission confirm that there will be no new additional criteria to be met and that Lithuania, Estonia and the other countries wishing to join the euro zone will be assessed on the basis of the same five criteria: rate of inflation, the long-term interest rate trend, level of government deficit, net government debt and exchange rate stability of the national currency?

 
  
 

(EN)Article 122(2) of the Treaty sets out the procedure which has to be followed to allow the Council to decide on the possible abrogation of a Member State with a derogation (i.e., to allow the Member State to adopt the euro).

The Commission has no intention to change this procedure or to introduce additional criteria.

 

Question no 90 by Pedro Guerreiro (H-0071/06)
 Subject: Textile and clothing imports
 

The Commission has submitted a new proposal aimed at authorising fresh concessions regarding additional possibilities of importing textiles and clothing in quantities exceeding the import quotas that were renegotiated in September 2005, thus acting in the interests of the big importer groups rather than of the textile and clothing industry in the Member States.

The Commission stated in an earlier answer, in which it tried to reject the notion of activating the safeguard clauses, that the memoir of understanding should be considered a definitive agreement whose aim is to avoid a situation of never-ending negotiations, arguing that any other option would have damaging consequences and stating that it has no intention of raising the quotas.

Can the Commission explain why it is not taking the responsibility - without taking measures that would worsen the situation of the textile and clothing industry in the Member States - of alleviating what it admits are certain difficulties facing the business community because it has not been possible to comply with the contracts concluded before 11 June 2005, a situation for which the Commission is primarily responsible?

Why is the Commission not taking the initiative to renegotiate the agreement, in line with the long-standing demands of the representatives of the textile and clothing industry, in order to protect productive capacity and jobs in this sector?

 
  
 

(EN)The Commission did not propose new concessions to the EU textile and clothing importers.

The issue of Chinese textiles, which occurred in 2005, has been solved through a “once for all” Memorandum of Understanding between the EU and China (MoU) of 10 June 2005 as amended by the Agreed Minutes of 5 September 2005. It foresees quantitative limits. The sharp entry into force of the MoU led to transitional difficulties during the summer. In order to apply the quantitative limits as agreed in the MoU in a fair way, a fine-tuning of the MoU has been negotiated with the Chinese on 5 September 2005. On the EU side, the Council endorsed it on 7 September 2005. The Commission recalls that renegotiating this overall agreement is not an option. In this regard, the Commission and the honourable Member are on the same line.

 

Question no 91 by Brian Crowley (H-0074/06)
 Subject: European digital libraries
 

Can the Commission outline the progress made to date in terms of implementing the European Digital Libraries scheme?

 
  
 

(EN)On 30 September 2005 the Commission adopted the Communication ‘i2010: Digital Libraries’ (COM(2005)465), outlining a strategy based on three main pillars: (1) digitisation of content stored in traditional formats; (2) online accessibility of this content; and (3) digital preservation – making sure that our cultural heritage in digital format will also be available for future generations.

The digital libraries strategy is part of the wider efforts of the Commission to foster a better use of the Information and Communication technologies for economic growth, employment and quality of life, as defined in the i2010 initiative. The digital libraries initiative demonstrates the potential of these new technologies in projects for the benefit of citizens.

In the four months following this Communication, discussion and work on digital libraries has gained momentum, both at national and EU level. Progress is being made in various directions, indicating that the Commission’s strategy is well supported by the different actors concerned, including Member States, and cultural institutions such as libraries.

The Communication was discussed in the Culture Council of Ministers of 14 November 2005, where Member States showed strong support for the initiative and endorsed the idea of a European Digital Library based on the networking of national resources and building on existing initiatives.

The Conference of European National Libraries (CENL), an organisation comprised of 45 major European libraries, has committed to contributing to a European digital library based on an incremental and decentralised model, with a preferred multilingual central access point for users. The Commission is contributing to these collaborative efforts.

A High Level Expert Group (HLG) will advise the Commission on how to deal with the challenges for realising digital libraries. It will bring together stakeholders from the cultural institutions (libraries, archives, museums), publishers, rightholders organisations and IT-firms. The HLG will be composed soon; its first meeting is foreseen for the end of March 2006.

An online consultation on digital libraries was launched on 30 September 2005 and closed on 20 January 2006. It has triggered more than 200 contributions, which can be found at the following site: http://europa.eu.int/information_society/activities/digital_libraries/index_en.htm

.

The input of stakeholders, which is currently being analysed, will be considered in drafting a Commission proposal for a Recommendation on digitisation and digital preservation, planned to be adopted by the Commission during the current year. The Commission has also started preparatory work for the announced Communication on digital libraries of scientific information. This is an area with its own specificities and dynamics in view of the need to handle and store huge quantities of digital data, and the rapid growth of publications only available in digital form.

Enhanced co-funding possibilities are being made available for initiatives on digital libraries with a real European scope and added-value. € 60 million are earmarked for projects related to digital libraries through the eContentplus programme (2005-2008). A first batch of projects received under the 2005 eContentplus call for proposals is currently being selected. Finally, the Commission intends to step up its research funding in this area under the 7th Framework programme for Research and Technological Development. The detailed work programme, including the proposals relevant for the digital libraries initiative, is at present being elaborated.

 

Question no 92 by Liam Aylward (H-0078/06)
 Subject: Doping in sport
 

Can the Commission state what concrete measures it is taking to combat the use of illegal substances in sporting activities?

 
  
 

(EN)The Commission attaches great importance to this sensitive and complex issue.

It has to be underlined, first, that legally binding and supporting measures by the European Union would require a legal basis which does not exist under the current Treaty framework. Those measures fall therefore under the competences of Member States and their respective sport organisations.

In the absence of formal instruments, the Commission is supporting, however, at political level Member States in their coordinated actions in the international field. The fight against doping in sport is a standing item on the Rolling Agenda of EU Sport Ministers meetings.

The Commission also places great emphasis on encounters with civil society. In June 2005 the Commission organised a consultation conference with the European sport movement entitled: “The EU and Sport: matching expectations”. In this framework a workshop on the fight against doping was held(1). In October 2005, the same topic was discussed at a one-day expert meeting with representatives from Member States’ governments. At such meetings, the emphasis is on the exchange of experiences and good practice.

Finally, under the framework of the Programme of Community Action in the field of Public Health 2003-2008, the Commission co-financed in 2004 a 3 years’ project on doping and health aiming at especially disseminating developed materials about health side effects of doping and drug abuse with regard to different age-groups, the addictive potential and gender specific differences(2).

 
 

(1) See the meeting report on: http://europa.eu.int/comm/sport/documents/workshop_report_en.pdf
(2) For more information, see http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/ph_projects/2004/action3/action3_2004_26_en.htm

 

Question no 93 by Eoin Ryan (H-0080/06)
 Subject: Asset Management Food industry
 

There is an urgent need to broaden single market freedoms available to fund managers in Europe as this will help to ensure the transition to higher capital funding for pensions.

In this respect, can the Commission state the progress that it has made in terms of developing a European-wide structure for the asset management fund industry?

 
  
 

(EN)An efficient investment fund business is crucial for mobilising savings for investment in the real economy and for helping households to accumulate savings for retirement. EU law in this area is restricted to allowing investment funds to be marketed in other Member States on the basis of their home country authorisation (the 'product/UCITS(1) passport'). While the UCITS passport has encountered some problems in its practical implementation, it has paved the way for cross-border sale of investment funds. However, it has not been enough to facilitate industry consolidation and greater efficiency. The European fund market is still populated by relatively small and inefficient funds.

The question whether the Commission should do more to enable the fund industry to better serve the European investor was at the heart of the July 2005 Green Paper. The Commission invited reactions on a range of new single market freedoms for the fund industry. These included the right of fund managers to manage a fund in another jurisdiction (management company passport); measures to allow more efficient pooling and merger of funds; and the possibility for funds to use custody and depositary services from partner country banks.

Responses received show a high level of interest in expanding the single market framework to include some of these possibilities. These issues are also to the forefront in preparatory discussions on the Parliament 'own initiative' report in response to the Commission Green Paper. However, feedback from industry, investors and national authorities pinpoints a number of commercial and supervisory issues that warrant further exploration. To help identify viable responses that meet these concerns in a cost-effective way, the Commission is taking a number of steps. It has asked an expert group to report on these issues in June: any recommendations will be tested with other stakeholders. The Commission has also launched two studies aiming to analyse the main challenges emerging in the asset management area.

All of this work will feed into reflections on any further steps that might be taken to enhance the single market for investment funds. The Commission will present its definitive conclusions on these issues in the form of a White Paper, which is expected to be adopted in autumn 2006. This could then be quickly followed by any relevant measures to enhance the functioning of the European single market for investment funds.

 
 

(1) Undertakings for Collective Investments in Transferable Securities

 

Question no 94 by Anne E. Jensen (H-0083/06)
 Subject: Introduction of digital tachographs
 

The chaotic run-in to the introduction of digital tachographs, which has been postponed several times, has been described by the industry as a farce. Can the Commission guarantee that digital tachographs and the software required to read and check the data recorded on them will be brought into line with the new rules on driving and rest periods when they enter into force at the beginning of 2007? Can the Commission also give an assurance that it will take action in good time if problems should prove to arise?

 
  
 

(EN)The new Regulation on driving times and rest periods will not affect the proper functioning of the digital tachograph (including the software), however it will establish the firm, mandatory introduction date for the digital tachograph (twenty days after publication of the Regulation in the Official Journal, foreseen effectively for May 2006).

The objective of the digital tachograph and the driver card is to record and store facts, i.e. activities of the vehicle and the driver, irrespective of its duration, in a safer and more secure way than it is the case with the analogue tachograph. It means that the setting of the digital tachograph does not need to be changed when the new rules on driving times and rest periods come into force in 2007.

The enforcement authorities of the Member States are responsible for the interpretation of the data stored in the digital tachograph, according to the rules on driving and rest periods. Their enforcement policies, and also their enforcement tools, will have to be adapted to the new rules.

The Commission will continue to monitor the situation in the Member States. To this end a project called “Monitoring of the Implementation of the Digital tachograph” has been in place since March 2005. In addition to monitoring the implementation process, the project provides valuable support to Member States in setting up a framework for enforcement, including training and information seminars for control officers.

 

Question no 95 by Ryszard Czarnecki (H-0087/06)
 Subject: Construction of a flood prevention reservoir near Racibórz on the River Oder
 

The EU has not allocated Cohesion Fund monies for the building of a flood prevention reservoir near Racibórz on the River Oder. This news has caused widespread dismay among inhabitants of the Oder river basin and led to a loss of confidence in the European institutions. In July 1997 catastrophic flooding occurred in the Oder river basin, causing the death of 54 people and damage costing almost € 5000 million. Directly after the flooding the Polish Government set about repairing the damage. We rebuilt more than 1 000 km of dikes and increased flood water retention capacity by more than 150 million cubic metres. In implementing the programme we are working closely with our German and Czech neighbours. Poland is meeting its accession obligations as regards implementation of the provisions of the framework water directive.

Given the above, why has Poland not been allocated financial aid for the project and what is the likelihood of Cohesion Fund resources being made available in the near future?

 
  
 

(EN)On 24 November 2005 the Directorate-General for Regional Policy of the European Commission received a request from the Managing Authority of the Cohesion Fund in Poland for co-financing for the project “Raciborz Dolny Flood Reservoir on the River Odra”. After verification, this project application was considered admissible. A letter was sent to the Managing Authority in which the admissibility was confirmed and a project number was attributed to the project (2005 PL 16 C PE 020). The co-financing envisaged from the Cohesion Fund is € 130 million.

Meanwhile the Commission services are studying the application and it is foreseen that, on the basis of the project description, questions will be submitted to the Polish authorities. If these questions are answered in a satisfactory way and if sufficient financial resources are available to make the approval of this project possible during the year 2006, a Commission Decision can be expected before the end of 2006.

However for the environment sector, financial resources for the period until the end of 2006 are already fully committed through 88 approved projects. Therefore the availability of financial resources depends on the submission by the Managing Authority, before the end of 2006, to the Commission of a sufficient number of applications to decommit savings generated in these 88 projects. Only on the basis of these savings could the Commission approve before the end of 2006 the above mentioned project as well as 11 other projects in the environment sector for which the Commission has received admissible applications from the Managing Authority, for a total value of € 335 million.

If these financial resources are not made available, then the “Raciborz Dolny Flood Reservoir on the River Odra” could be proposed for Cohesion Fund financing under the Regulations of the next financial perspective (2007-2013).

 

Question no 96 by Lambert van Nistelrooij (H-0090/06)
 Subject: Energy as a priority for the 'convergence' and 'regional competitiveness and employment' criteria in the Structural Funds 2007 - 2013
 

Energy policy should also be part of regional policy. This is made clear in the 'convergence' and 'competitiveness and employment' criteria of the European Fund for Regional Development which is now coming up for its second reading in the European Parliament. What is therefore involved is support for energy investments on environmental grounds, improving energy efficiency, the principle of promoting energy efficiency and the production of renewable energy and the development of effective energy management systems. At a recent conference arranged by the European Parliament with delegations from the national parliaments, it came to light that there is a lack of clarity as to the priorities that the Commission is setting in this area.

How does the Commission see this principle operating in practice and how, more specifically, can scientific research into and the regional development of renewable and sustainable energy production be integrated in practice into European Union policy and the policy of Member States and their regions?

Does the Commission intend to establish priorities that Member States can follow when implementing regional policy?

 
  
 

(EN)The Commission recognises the importance of energy policy action in the framework of the forthcoming period 2007-2013 for European Union regional policy. In addition to the relevant provisions set out in the draft regulation for the European Regional Development Fund, to which the honourable Member is referring to in his question, the Commission had suggested specific priorities for future European Union energy policy action through Community regional development programs in its Communication ‘Cohesion Policy in Support of Growth and Jobs: Community Strategic Guidelines, 2007-2013’(1), notably support projects on energy efficiency, promotion of low energy intensity development models and renewable and alternative technologies (wind, solar, biomass).

The role of the Community funding instruments are further specified in thematic Communications of the Commission, notably such on overriding political challenges for the energy policy of the European Union. Recent examples are the green paper on energy efficiency, the biomass action plan and the EU strategy for biofuels. For the forthcoming Spring European Council the Commission intends to table a green paper on a secure, competitive and sustainable energy policy for Europe, which will open the debate towards an integrated European energy policy. Then, the Commission intends developing a final Communication on energy policy later this year. Taken together, this should give further guidance for the Member States and their regions.

Concerning the integration of scientific research into the European Union policy, it should be highlighted that one of the objectives of the EU research policy is to contribute to the achievement of EU energy policy aims and targets as well as to help to successfully implement EU Directives at national, regional and local levels by supporting research and demonstration projects. Thus, they encompass both the development of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency addressing as well the mitigation of the environmental impact of energy production and use. Main priorities in the energy field proposed by the Commission for the 7th Framework Program (2007-2013) are: electricity, fuels and heat production from renewable sources, energy efficiency and savings, hydrogen and fuel cells, clean coal technologies, zero emission power generation and smart energy networks.

 
 

(1) COM(2005)299

 

Question no 97 by Cristobal Montoro Romero (H-0095/06)
 Subject: Independence of the competition protection tribunals
 

Is the Commission satisfied with the degree of independence of the competition protection tribunals in the Member States vis-à-vis merger processes that affect sectors which are of strategic importance for the completion of the single market and economic growth in Europe, as in the case of energy?

 
  
 

(EN)The organisation of the national merger control system is a competence of the Member States. In this respect, it is also for the Member States to determine the degree of independence of the National Competition Authorities. Having said that, over the last 10 years, a clear evolution towards greater independence can be observed in the status of National Competition Authorities. This is something which the Commission welcomes.

The honourable Member also mentions the impact of mergers in strategic sectors for the internal market and the growth of the European economy, and cites as a particular example the energy sector. The honourable Member will be aware that the Commission has recently expressed some concerns about the allocation of cases between the Commission and National Competition Authorities in this context. In particular, experiences with mergers in the energy sector in recent years have shown that similar cases are sometimes dealt by the Commission and others by National Competition Authorities. It is therefore important to ensure that similar cases, in terms of their impact on the functioning of the common market, are dealt with in a consistent manner.

This is the reason why the Commission has started a re-examination of the 2/3rds rule which has a direct impact on the division of competences between the Commission and Member States. According to this rule, concentrations in which each of the undertakings concerned achieve more than two-thirds of their Community-wide turnover within the same Member State do not fall into the Commission’s competence. The Commission has started to collect relevant data concerning those mergers which would have been looked at in Brussels, in the absence of the rule. It will then be possible to assess how the two-thirds rule has functioned in practice both (a) in terms of the number of cases affected, and (b) in terms of the nature of those cases. Once this fact finding exercise is concluded it will be examined whether there are improvements to the present system that the Commission could propose.

 
Legal notice - Privacy policy