Can the European Council make a statement as to what new legislative initiatives it is promoting so as to defeat the ongoing threat of international terrorism in Europe?

(DE)Many of the legislative proposals currently being discussed in the various bodies of the Council are, in part, related to the fight against terrorism. These include, for example, the new structure for the Schengen information system, the draft framework decision on data protection, the directive on the retention of data, the European evidence warrant, the exchange of law enforcement information, implementation of the principle of availability, and so on.

A comprehensive overview of the Council's legislative priorities for the next few years is included in the Council and Commission Action Plan implementing the Hague Programme on strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union, which was adopted on 2/3 June 2005, and in the EU Action Plan on combating terrorism of June 2004, which is updated twice a year. The latest update to the action plan was adopted by the Permanent Representatives Committee in February 2006.

What action will the Council be taking on the Commission Communication concerning 'Terrorist recruitment: Addressing the factors contributing to violent radicalisation', and does the Council plan any activities around this Communication?

(DE)At its meeting on 1 and 2 December 2005, the Council approved the EU strategy for combating radicalisation and recruitment to terrorism. The Council intends to work actively to follow up the proposals and plans included in the strategy. For example, the draft action plan on combating terrorism, which is currently being discussed in the appropriate bodies of the Council, contains numerous proposals. The Austrian Presidency has also given a high priority to combating radicalisation and recruitment to terrorism.

According to the latest evaluation report from EuroPol's Counter-Terrorism Task Force, only six Member States are contributing to its work ‘in a considerable way’, and ‘a very low number’ of officers from national security services have been designated as experts in the Task Force.

Is this a sign of how urgently national governments are treating the threat of terrorism? What is the Council doing, and especially its Joint Situation Centre (SitCen), to improve this situation?

(DE)The report to which the honourable Member refers takes, overall, a positive view of the way in which Europol’s Counter-Terrorism Task Force operates. The fact that only a few Member States have seconded national experts to it, and the remarks on the flow of information, do not allow the conclusion to be drawn that the Member States are not actively engaged in combating terrorism, in that they give no indication as to what use is being made of the Task Force. The fact is that the evaluation report passes an unequivocally favourable judgment on the work of the second Task Force.

As regards SitCen, the Joint Situation Centre, it should be noted that, at the end of October 2005, an agreement was reached between the Council and Europol, according to which the exchange of classified information between Europol and SitCen is permitted. SitCen is also actively collaborating with Europol in many other areas.

On 20 December 2005 Maastricht municipal council in the Netherlands decided to relocate the coffee shops which sell legal drugs in the Netherlands to the border with Belgium to reduce congestion in the town centre.

The Netherlands has, however, subscribed to the joint declaration on Article 71(2) of the Final Act of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, stating that it would take the necessary administrative and penal measures to prevent and punish the illicit export of narcotic drugs to the territory of other contracting parties.

Has the Belgian government already raised this matter with the Council? Does the Council consider that the decision taken by Maastricht municipal council is compatible with the declaration referred to above? What action does the Council intend to take in this matter?

(DE)The Belgian Government has not yet raised this problem with the Council. The honourable Member's question could therefore not be discussed in Council, and the Council does not currently have an opinion on the matter.

The EU now has up to two million dependent drug users, and the use of drugs is now at historically high levels.

Can the Council make a statement as to the practical progress that is being made to fully implement the new EU Drugs Strategy 2005-2012?

(DE)The Council would inform the honourable Member that to give effect to the EU Drugs Strategy (2005-2012) it adopted the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008), setting out practical measures to implement the strategy, in June 2005.

The Plan includes clear definitions on the powers and deadlines for implementing the measures for all the main areas of anti-drugs policy, including the reduction of supply and demand, coordination, international cooperation and information, research and evaluation. The Council’s Horizontal Drugs Group is coordinating the measures to be implemented by the Member States, the Commission, the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) and Europol.

The Commission will be giving the Council and the European Parliament an annual progress report on implementing the action plan and putting forward proposals to eliminate the failings identified and deal with any new challenges. The Commission will be submitting the first progress report in late 2006.

The Horizontal Drugs Group began its deliberations on implementing various measures under the British and Austrian presidencies. A series of subject-related discussions have been held, some of which have concerned the action plan’s implementation. The results of these discussions, on such subjects as cocaine, involving civil society, youth and drugs, and the improved use of research findings, will become apparent in the progress report.

In view of the large numbers of immigrants resident in the EU today, can the Council state what concrete policies it proposes in order to facilitate their reception and integration in our society and economy, especially so as to avoid discrimination against immigrants and the creation of 'two-speed' societies?

(DE)The integration of third-country nationals legally resident in the European Union is a top priority in the Council's admissions policy. The EU has played an important role in the field of integration, and intends to develop its activities in this domain.

Although the Member States have and will continue to have the primary responsibility for adopting and implementing their national integration policies, the EU can support them in this, particularly by promoting the exchange of experiences and good practices.

In November 2004, the Council and the representatives of the governments of the Member States adopted conclusions setting out common principles for the integration of immigrants to the European Union. These conclusions contain 11 principles on which the Member States should base their integration policies.

Moreover, the Hague Programme on strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union, which was approved by the European Council in November 2004, calls on the Member States, the Council and the Commission to promote the structured exchange of experience and information in the field of integration, with this exchange being supported by an easily accessible website.

In order to fulfil this task, on 1/2 December 2005 the Council and the representatives of the governments of the Member States adopted conclusions on the topic of integration. These conclusions, which build on the Commission communication 'A Common Agenda for Integration - Framework for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals in the European Union', call for greater cooperation in this area, in particular via the network of national contact points on integration. This network, which was set up in 2003 and is supported by the Commission, has taken on an important role in the exchange of information and good practices and made a very valuable contribution to drafting the Handbook on Integration for policy-makers and practitioners, which the Commission published in 2004. A second handbook on issues not covered in the first one is expected to be published in Spring/Summer 2006.

Finally, the subject of integration is also referred to in the Policy Plan on legal migration, which the Commission published in December 2005, as one of the areas where the Commission wants to take further action in future.

What measures to implement existing Community legislation or what new initiatives is the Council taking in the field of justice and home affairs to facilitate the mobility of EU citizens who are in training or employment and members of their families?

Does the Council consider that European citizens, as a category, take precedence in terms of facilitating their movement for training or work?

(DE)Freedom of movement for citizens of the European Union, workers and their families is fundamentally laid down in Title III of the Treaty establishing the European Community entitled 'Free movement of persons, services and capital'. Under Article 39 of the Treaty, 'freedom of movement for workers shall be secured within the Community' (paragraph 1) and this freedom of movement 'shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment' (paragraph 2). In line with Article 40 of the Treaty, the European Parliament and the Council have adopted directives and regulations in the codecision procedure to give workers from the Member States freedom of movement. In particular in Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the previous directives were amended and repealed in order to safeguard the right of citizens of the EU and their families to move and live freely in the territory of the Member States.

As regards the precedence of EU citizens, Article 11 of Directive 2003/109/EC concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents contains provisions on equal treatment for third-country nationals who are long-term residents and nationals in matters such as access to employment and to education and vocational training. On the same basis, the Member States may also retain restrictions to access to employment or self-employed activities in cases where, in accordance with existing national or Community legislation, these activities are reserved to nationals, EU or EEA citizens.

This means that, under Article 14 of this directive, which relates to the right of third-country nationals who are long-term residents to reside in the territory of Member States other than the one which granted them long-term resident status, the Member States may give precedence to EU citizens for labour market policy reasons, if the third-country nationals wish to access employment or self-employed activities.

The adoption of the Service Directive is one of the priorities of the Austrian Presidency of the European Union. Following the European Parliament's vote of 16 February, the process of adoption of the Directive could be completed by the end of the Austrian Presidency.

Does the Presidency-in-Office expect a significant increase in immigration into the EU once the Directive enters into force? What short-term and more long-term effects is its implementation likely to have on immigration and worker mobility in the EU? Will it not lead to a further reform of EU immigration policy?

(DE)As the honourable Member is doubtless aware, the proposal to which she refers creates a legal framework that removes the barriers to the freedom of establishment for service providers and to the free movement of services between the Member States. It is therefore a tool to complete the internal market, and should not be used to facilitate the immigration of family members from third countries into the EU.

What steps does the Presidency of the Council suggest to improve police cooperation with Ukraine, Moldova and the countries of south-eastern Europe? What is the current state of the EU’s fight against cross-border crime with these neighbouring countries?

(DE)On 1 December 2005, the European Union set up the EU Border Assistance Mission to Moldova and Ukraine (EUBAM). The mission's mandate is laid down in an agreement between the European Commission, Moldova and Ukraine, and is currently funded by the Commission's rapid-reaction mechanism. The head of the mission also acts as the senior policy advisor to the EU special representative for Moldova. The EUBAM is staffed by police and customs officials from the Member States of the EU. It was established at the joint request of the presidents of the Ukraine and Moldova to the EU.

The mission is now fully operational and reports regularly to the Commission, the relevant bodies of the Council, Member States and partner countries. With this mission, the EU is contributing to the fight against cross-border crime and corruption on the Ukraine-Moldova border. The Presidency and the Council are observing the EUBAM's activities closely and are very satisfied with its work.

In addition, the fight against cross-border crime forms part of the action plans with Ukraine and Moldova under the European Neighbourhood Policy.

The Council Decision of 25 October 2004 added Ukraine and Moldova to the list of third countries with which Europol may enter into negotiations; this list includes, inter alia, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in accordance with the Council Decision of 13 June 2002.

Moreover, cooperation between law enforcement agencies on both sides of the border in the regions at the EU's external frontiers forms part of the management of borders within the framework of the Schengen acquis, which Poland, Slovakia and Hungary – and in future Romania too – are preparing to apply.

What role for the European Parliament does the Council envisage as it considers how to equip Europol as a body able to investigate cross-border crime throughout the EU?

(DE)The European Parliament’s role is set out in Article 34 of the Europol Convention. Once the third Protocol amending the Europol Convention⁽¹⁾ has come into force, the arrangements for informing the European Parliament about Europol’s activities will be further improved. Until then, the Presidency, acting with the support of the Director of Europol, intends to keep the European Parliament regularly informed about Europol’s activities and to start an open dialogue with Parliament on any issues which may arise.

A fundamental debate on the development of Europol has been initiated under the Austrian Presidency and is set to continue over several subsequent Presidencies. Europol’s role as the key instrument in police cooperation in the EU is to be strengthened. In addition to this discussion of the nature of Europol’s future role, Austria is also calling for an exchange of views on a modernisation of Europol’s legal basis.

The interior and justice ministers of the 25 EU Member States have already discussed the future of Europol at their meeting from 12 to 14 January 2006 in Vienna. They gave a clear commitment to strengthening Europol and the Austrian Presidency agreed to draw up an ‘options report’ setting out possible ways of developing Europol’s future role. With a view to improving the EU’s inner security, the Member States called for a strengthening of Europol’s operational capabilities. A clear remit for and a clear allocation of responsibilities to Europol are equally important.

As regards Europol’s future development, an extension of its powers beyond the current legal framework would necessitate the amendment of the Europol Convention. The European Parliament’s role will also have to be considered as part of the debate on Europol’s future tasks. Once formal proposals have been put forward, the European Parliament will be consulted, pursuant to Article 39 of the Treaty on European Union, and due account will be taken of its standpoint.

The press release issued by the Council after the meeting of the Ministers for Justice and Home Affairs (1-2 December 2005) states that, in the context of 'combating terrorism', a series of documents were agreed on, including: (1) a new EU strategy for terrorism (14469/4/05), (2) a report on implementation of the action plan (14734/1/05), (3) a strategy for combating radicalisation and recruitment (14781/1/05), (4) an evaluation of national arrangements, (5) policy recommendations on counter-terrorism, (6) a report on combating terrorism financing, and (7) EU emergency and crisis-coordination arrangements. While the press release states the reference numbers and content of the first three documents, there is no information at all about the other four.

Could the Council provide details of the content of the other four documents and say why they are not available to the public? The press release refers to 'a series of documents'. Did the Council also approve any other documents at this particular meeting in addition to the 7 referred to above?

(DE)In response to both questions, the Council would first of all like to point out that all of the documents that it examined and/or approved at its meeting on 1/2 December 2005 are either on the provisional agenda ⁽¹⁾ or on the list of A points ⁽²⁾, which were drawn up and published on 30 November 2005 in view of this Council.

As can be seen from the press release ⁽³⁾ to which the honourable Member refers, the Council did indeed adopt or approve other documents ⁽⁴⁾ at its meeting on 1/2 December 2005, in addition to the seven documents mentioned in his question. If, however, the question relates only to documents on combating terrorism, the Council did not adopt or approve any documents on this matter other than the seven listed in the press release. Six of these seven documents were made available to the public either shortly before or immediately after the Council.

The Council would also like to inform the honourable Member that, if a document has already been or can be made available to the public, its press service informs the public once the document has been adopted or approved by the Council, putting the number of the relevant document in brackets in its press releases.

The honourable Members will therefore find the references to the documents on combating terrorism on pages 7, 8, 25 and 26 of the aforesaid press release.

The seventh document, which is classified as 'RESTREINT UE' ⁽⁵⁾, contains a range of detailed recommendations for combating terrorism. I am sure that the honourable Member will understand that, in view of the operational importance of these recommendations, the Council is not currently in a position to provide more detailed information regarding the content of this document.

Even though I raised this issue in 2004, the Council, or the Standing Committee on Schengen Evaluation, has thus far refused to carry out effective monitoring of the practices employed by the Member States in connection with the issuing of visas. In the light of events at Austrian and other consulates, does the Council not see a need to change this passive approach?

(DE)When assessing the application of the Schengen acquis with regard to visas, it needs to be determined whether the methods used by the Member States, the human resources they employ, the set-up of their consular services and the measures they take to train their staff are sufficient to guarantee the satisfactory application of the Common Consular Instructions. Investigation of suspected irregularities is not a matter for the Council; nor is investigation in cases where fraud in issuing visas is suspected, which is a matter for the Member States.

The UK's legitimate fight against terrorism has generated a system of laws and practices, including internment, control orders and deportation proceedings, which has led to gross violations of human rights. Legislation has eroded the powers and independence of the judiciary, undermining its role in the enforcement of anti-terrorism legislation. Seeking diplomatic assurances from third countries, to allow for the deportation of persons to countries where they are at risk of torture and failure to meet obligations regarding abuses committed by third states, through the evasion of responsibilities concerning rendition flights, poses a threat to the absolute prohibition of torture. The UK also seeks to circumvent domestic and international obligations in relation to actions of its personnel in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo.

Existing national checks and balances are insufficient to prevent abuses of power by the state. If the EU remains silent in the face of abuses carried out by Member States, it risks losing credibility.

How far does the Council scrutinise national practices in this area? Does the Council see the use of Article 7 TEU as anything more than a theoretical threat? How does the Council plan to use its political power to promote, as a matter of urgency, a real debate on the human rights issues at stake and the EU instruments that can be developed within the EU framework?

(DE)Bilateral agreements and contacts between Member States and third countries concerning deportation of their nationals and their internal legislation referred to by the honourable Member do not fall within the Council's terms of reference.

EU Member States are required to respect their commitments under international law, including the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.

Furthermore, all Member States are signatories to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, of which Article 3 states that no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The European Court of Justice offers effective protective mechanisms against deportation in infringement of this ban, Rule 39 providing for interim measures making it possible to delay wrongful deportation pending a final decision. In addition, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishments provides for the protection of detainees by non-judicial means of a preventive nature, involving regular or, where necessary, ad hoc visits by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPE).

Respect for human rights is central to EU anti-terrorism strategy, a principle which will continue to be given the greatest importance regarding the future development of this strategy.

What specific action will be taken during the Austrian EU Presidency to combat the trafficking of women for sexual exploitation?

What measures are to be taken with regard to trafficking in women and forced prostitution in connection with the 2006 World Cup in Germany and the 2008 European Football Championship in Austria?

(DE)Combating human trafficking is one of the Austrian Presidency's priorities.

The Council adopted the Action Plan for combating trafficking in human beings on 1/2 December 2005, and the Austrian Presidency will observe the follow-up measures necessary to implement it very closely.

At its meeting on 27 and 28 April 2006, the Justice and Home Affairs Council will discuss in detail the question of what measures Germany will take in order to prevent an increase in trafficking in women and prostitution during the football World Cup.

Cooperation on justice and home affairs at EU level is supposed to be strengthened by the Hague Programme (2005-2010). What objectives has the Council set itself?

(DE)The Hague Programme, adopted by the Council on 4 November 2004, aims to strengthen cooperation between the Member States in the domains of justice and internal affairs in the period 2005-2010, in order to make Europe an 'area of freedom, security and justice'. In this context, the Council and the Commission adopted an action plan on 2 and 3 June 2005 to implement the Hague Programme through specific measures in three fields of action: strengthening freedom, particularly with regard to asylum, immigration and borders; strengthening security, in particular due to police and customs cooperation; and finally strengthening justice, both in the field of criminal law and in the field of civil and commercial law.

Europe is above all an area of freedom.

Europe is also – according to the Hague Programme – an area of security.

Finally, the action plan to implement the Hague Programme will strengthen justice in both criminal and civil law.

In criminal law, the EU is endeavouring to strike an effective balance between fighting crime and protecting fundamental rights. In the first field of action, the Council is extending its application of the principle of mutual recognition and is promoting the harmonisation of legislation: the adoption of the European arrest warrant represents an important first step in this connection; and the European evidence warrant is another important step. In addition, Austria, together with Finland and Sweden, has proposed an initiative for a framework decision on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judicial decisions in criminal matters imposing a custodial sentence, for the purposes of enforcement in the EU; this is currently being discussed at working group level. This initiative, which is one of the Austrian Presidency's priorities, regulates the commitment of convicted persons to their country of origin to serve the sentence imposed in the country of conviction.

In terms of fundamental rights, the Presidency's work programme includes the establishment of a European Fundamental Rights Agency, to supersede the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, as one of its top priorities.

In civil law, the Council is determined to press on with measures for the mutual recognition and enforcement of judicial decisions throughout the territory of the EU, and thus to make it possible to create a true area of justice in civil and commercial matters. In this connection, the adoption of the Rome II proposal on the rules regarding non-contractual obligations should constitute a significant step forward. The Council is working particularly hard to promote cooperation between the individual players and to improve the civil judicial network. A third objective involves ensuring the consistency of civil law in all areas within the European area and in the external actions of the Community. This objective serves, for example, to conclude bilateral or multilateral agreements such as a new Lugano Agreement.

Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters can greatly benefit individual EU citizens if they are confronted with a legal dispute in connection with their cross-border transactions. In many cases, various EU legal acts which have already been adopted and which are implemented in practice make it possible for a more local court to recognise and enforce existing decisions more easily, and also cover the cross-border provision of aid with the cost of legal proceedings for all stages of the procedure.

What measures is the Council taking, or does it plan to take, to make the public aware of what has been achieved to date in making it easier to enforce cross-border legal claims? In what way could the provision of such information be supplemented and extended?

(DE)With regard to judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters, a number of milestones have been placed over the past few years. For example, cross-border consumer protection has been extended and strengthened. However, in sensitive areas too, relating to child welfare, for example, rules are already in existence on the mutual recognition and enforcement of custody and visiting rights. There is no doubt that this ongoing ‘communitarisation’ in ever more numerous areas of the law has made more legal remedies available to individual citizens of the EU. The recently proposed Council regulation on the whole area of the law on maintenance is the next step in this development, and the meetings of working groups on it organised by the Austrian presidency began as long ago as February.

The task of making EU citizens aware of what has been achieved thus far is not for any one presidency alone. A great deal of information is already available to the public and the range is being extended on a continuous basis. One particularly valuable instrument in this respect is the European Commission’s Judicial Atlas on the Internet, which provides comprehensive information and help in all areas of the law. It should always be remembered, though, that not every EU citizen will have regular dealings with the judicial system and with court proceedings. This numerous category of persons was formerly in the fortunate position of not having to commence judicial proceedings in order to defend their rights at law. Austria is therefore supporting all efforts towards supplying the largest possible amount of information to the EU public, so that private individuals know, should the worst happen, what is actually possible and to which offices they should address themselves. Good and comprehensive information can, however, be provided only and always through the joint efforts of all the institutions involved, and so Austria will, specifically at official level, maintain, as it previously has done, intensive contact with the European Parliament and the Commission.

The Council takes the view that judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters is of the utmost importance to the European public, and so such issues as family, business and employment law and good cooperation in these areas between the courts of the Member States assume importance in their lives.

The Council has introduced three types of initiative for informing the European public as to what has been embarked on in this area, and so it was that, in 2005, a book was put together and published containing the most important legal acts adopted by the Council in this area and an explanation of their content. This publication is primarily aimed at members of the legal professions.

The second initiative involved the production of a ten-minute-long film, available on CD-ROM and intended to explain in simple terms what the European Union is doing in this area. The film was produced in 2005 and is aimed at those members of the public who do not necessarily have any direct connection with the legal professions.

The third measure consists in the participation by the responsible officials of the Council in conferences, seminars or other initiatives in the course of which the EU’s work in the field of judicial cooperation in civil matters may be communicated and explained to judges, advocates, notaries, other members of the legal professions and to the general public.

As regards its future efforts, it is the Council’s intention to update the book and the film in 2007 and to continue to participate in relevant conferences and seminars. The Council is currently considering other measures in order to make available even more complete and comprehensive information on European judicial cooperation in civil matters.

However mundane and technical the cross-border service of judicial and extrajudicial documents may appear at first sight, it is of the utmost importance in the interest of the efficiency and public acceptance of a ‘European jurisdiction’ that the system for the service of legal documents should function properly. Rapid progress in this area would be particularly welcome. That being so, what in the Council’s view is the likelihood of the proposed improvement to the Regulation on cross-border service of documents, which is so important for practical reasons, being concluded at first reading under the Austrian Presidency?

(DE)The Council does indeed take the view that it would be reasonable to do everything possible to enable an agreement to be reached with Parliament at first reading stage. It is with that in mind that discussions are currently in progress with representatives of the European Parliament to the end that solutions may be found that are acceptable to Parliament, the Council and the Commission.

What are the strengths of the European Judicial Network (EJN) as compared to other European-level institutions, particularly Eurojust, in terms of improving and speeding up judicial cooperation in criminal matters between the Member States? In the Council's opinion, which tasks should be given priority when expanding the EJN? What steps falling within the competence of the judicial authorities have been taken at EU level on the highly important topic of combating terrorism?

(DE)Both institutions, the European Judicial Network and Eurojust, have their own strengths and functions in improving and speeding up judicial cooperation between the Member States in criminal cases.

The European Judicial Network operates at various levels within the Member States in accordance with the laws of the Member State in question. Its contact points liaise with representatives of the justice authorities of their own country and of others and cooperate with them on a day-to-day basis. The IT tools that the EJN has developed, which help to facilitate communication between the contact points and to circulate information on the various legal systems and the legal remedies that the individual Member States are able to provide, make the EJN, when combined with Eurojust, an indispensable partner in combating cross-border organised crime.

The EJN has often shown itself more suitable as an institution for dealing with bilateral cases, although such cases can also often be of such an order of complexity that they should be handled by Eurojust. The close connection between the two institutions made it necessary for guidelines to be produced on their dealings with one another in practice.

In addition, several Member States have organised practical cooperation between the contact points and the national members of Eurojust, by, for example, designating contact points as deputy national members of Eurojust. Both institutions are responsible for the combating of serious and organised crime and terrorism, although these agreements on mutual cooperation did ensure that scarce resources would be used as efficiently as possible.

The EU regards the fight against terrorism as one of its priorities, even though tackling terrorism is primarily a task for the Member States and their authorities. The EU is able, by means of what it terms its strategic commitment, guided by the principle of 'combating terrorism globally while respecting human rights, and making Europe safer, allowing its citizens to live in an area of freedom, security and justice', to contribute to the fight against terrorism in four areas:

Prevention: We need to prevent people turning to terrorism by tackling the factors or root causes which can lead to radicalisation and recruitment, in Europe and internationally.

Protection: At the same time, we need to protect citizens and infrastructure and reduce our vulnerability to attack, including through improved security of borders, transport and critical infrastructure.

Repression: It is necessary to pursue and investigate terrorists across our borders and globally; to impede planning, travel, and communications; to disrupt support networks; to cut off funding and access to attack materials; and bring terrorists to justice.

Reaction: We need to prepare ourselves to manage and minimise the consequences of a terrorist attack, by improving capabilities to deal with: the aftermath; the coordination of the response; and the needs of victims.

By adopting general legal instruments on judicial cooperation, such as the 2000 agreement on mutual assistance in criminal matters and the European Arrest Warrant, the EU can support the Member States in combating terrorism by guaranteeing efficient cooperation between the judicial authorities. The Council can also, by adopting specific legal instruments, such as the Council decision of 20 September 2005 on the exchange of information and cooperation concerning terrorist offences, ensure that Eurojust (and Europol) have access to specific information on current investigations, in order to be able, in accordance with their mandates, to assist the national authorities in performing their functions.

The Council has decided not to publish the report on Israeli policy in East Jerusalem which has been submitted by diplomats from EU countries who are posted to the Occupied Territories. The report apparently contains a detailed analysis of what those diplomats describe as Israel's deliberate policy of pursuing the annexation of East Jerusalem and draws attention to the fact that the country's action constitutes an infringement of the obligations laid down in international law: Israel has adopted a strategy of completely surrounding the city with settlements and of isolating the Palestinian part of Jerusalem from the other Palestinian territories, thereby compromising the viability of a future Palestinian state.

Is the Council intending to reconsider its position and to publish the report and the recommendations which it contains?

(DE)The issues to which the honourable Member's question refers were discussed by Secretary of State Hans Winkler in his speech to the plenary sitting of the European Parliament on 1 February 2006, and by Mr Jack Straw, the UK Foreign Secretary, at the press conference following the meeting of the General Affairs and Foreign Relations Council on 12 December 2005.

The Council had asked the relevant Council departments to draw up an in-depth analysis of the situation in East Jerusalem on the basis of reports from the EU missions in Jerusalem and Ramallah. The Council decided that this study would not be published by the EU, which would instead continue to make strong representations to the Israeli Government. Secretary of State Winkler informed the European Parliament that, in the meantime, two démarches had been undertaken, one by the EU troika on 19 December 2005 to the Israeli foreign ministry and one by the Presidency to the major Israeli political parties on 23 December 2005.

The Council remains fully aware of every aspect of the East Jerusalem issue.

In line with the numerous provocative acts by the USA against the people and government of Cuba, the US Interests Section in Havana has projected a provocative, laser-illuminated display of messages targeting the Cuban revolution. Such actions are a flagrant violation of the basic principles of international law and are unprecedented in the diplomatic history of international relations.

Does the Council condemn this manifestly hostile act by the USA against Cuba, which violates both international law and the sovereign rights of States?

(DE)The Council has not discussed this issue, which has to do with bilateral relations between third countries.

In the year 2005, EUR 17 million was made available to support 260 projects under the Erasmus programme.

Can the Council state what measures it intends to undertake to expand the operation of the Erasmus programme into the future?

(DE)The Council would respectfully remind the honourable Member that in general the implementation of Community programmes such as the Erasmus programme is the sole responsibility of the Commission and through it the network of national administrative bodies involved. The Council is therefore not in a position to know immediately how many projects will be finally selected and what amounts will be allocated to them.

Regarding the specific question of possible future expansion of the programme referred to by the honourable Member, the Council would like to point out that European Parliament and Council deliberations concerning the financial framework for the future integrated lifelong learning programme, which will encompass the Erasmus and all other programmes related to education, have not yet been concluded. The scope and framework of the Erasmus programme and the allocation of funds to individual programmes within the financial ceiling for the period 2007-2013 will depend on the final outcome of current deliberations between Parliament and Council concerning the financial ceiling, bearing in mind also the conclusions reached by the European Council in December 2005.

What does the Council consider were the major lessons learnt from the enlargement of the EU in 2004? How will these lessons be applied as future enlargement approaches?

(DE)The Council has not carried out any comprehensive evaluation of the outcome and impact of the latest enlargement of the European Union. However, it is clear from initial results that the 2004 enlargement was very successful and that initial fears of institutional paralysis, for example, were exaggerated.

As the honourable Member will no doubt be aware, in the consultation on future enlargement and the Commission's 2005 strategy paper, on 12 December 2005, the Council came to the conclusion that the strategy paper forms a good basis for the further consultations which will have to be held on this topic in 2006. The Council also agreed that the following aspects must be carefully considered in the debate:

EU-wide support for the enlargement process must be consolidated and developed. In this connection particular consideration should be given to publicity work and to the views of citizens, with the Union’s capacity for absorbing new members remaining an important aspect of our deliberations.

The conditionality principle must be applied fairly but strictly at all stages of the process.

The candidate countries and the countries of the Western Balkans must continue to receive strong encouragement, in the form of re-affirmation of their European prospects, as they progress along the road to reform and stability; the effective implementation of agreements with the EU is part of this process.

The Austrian Presidency is currently considering what form such a debate could best take, particularly given that the main objective is greater clarity and better communications, and it will at any event take account of the experience of the 2004 EU enlargement.

In early September 2005, a Member State of the European Union, Germany, signed a bilateral agreement with Russia concerning the construction of a gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea. The pipeline is to run alongside four EU Member States bordering on the Baltic Sea (Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia) and is detrimental to the energy and environmental interests of these states.

Does the Council think that an EU Member State (Germany) should be able unilaterally to conclude an agreement with a third country (Russia) concerning the construction of a gas pipeline in the Baltic Sea, when its implementation will affect and directly harm the very important interests of other EU Member States?

(DE)The North European gas pipeline is a private business project involving the participation of enterprises from Russia and from EU Member States. It is not a joint project between Russia and a single Member State.

The North European gas pipeline is part of the trans-European energy networks (decision of the European Parliament and the Council of 26 June 2003, confirmed by the energy ministers’ decision of 28 June 2005).

The Council does not, as a matter of principle, wish to comment on private business agreements. At the same time, it should be noted that the Council, in view of the latest developments in the energy sector, will be discussing issues relating to energy at the spring summit of the European Council in March 2006.

The proposal for a Council Regulation on the indication of the country of origin is a first step towards providing consumers with honest information and protecting European know-how.

This regulation will help to safeguard employment in the Union by limiting the number of cases of unfair competition: a company from EU country X will no longer be able with impunity to manufacture a product in a third country and affix a label saying ‘made in X’ in order to promote sales fraudulently.

European cutlery industry professionals are asking for cutlery products, which involve a huge variety of artisanal skills, to be listed in the annex to the proposal for a regulation. The future of the European cutlery industry and thousands of skilled jobs are at stake.

Will the Council respond to this request by adding to the regulation’s annex the products in Chapter 82 of the ‘European Combined Nomenclature’, and in particular the following codes: 82.08, 82.11, 82.12, 82.13, 82.14 and 82.15?

(DE)On 16 December 2005, the Commission presented its proposal for a Council Regulation on the indication of the country of origin of certain products imported from third countries. This regulation would be applicable to certain commercial products, which were listed in an annex to it.

As the Council’s departments responsible for the preparation of legislation have only just now started to examine this proposal, it is not possible to predict whether, and if so when, the proposed regulation will be adopted, or to which products it will apply.

The Council is obliged for the suggestions contained in the question and will consider them in its deliberations.

The Latvian Parliament (Seim) recently voted to expel one of its members, Nikolai Kabanov, from the International Affairs Committee as a 'disciplinary measure' in response to his involvement in a screening of a film entitled 'Nazism in the Baltic' depicting the actions of the 'SS legions'. He was accused of acting 'against the interests of the State' and of addressing in Russian a meeting being held in the Latvian parliamentary chamber.

Following this unacceptable political decision which can only be interpreted as a gesture of support for efforts to justify past membership of the SS in Latvia, what view does the Council take of the increasingly pro-Nazi leanings of the Latvian authorities? What does it think of calls for the ban on Communist Party activities to be lifted, the overturning of undemocratic election laws preventing members of the former Communist parties and other organisations from participating in national and local elections and the enfranchisement of a large (Russian speaking ) section of the Latvian population deprived of its civic rights since 1991?

(DE)It is not part of the Council’s competences to intervene in votes in the parliament of one of its Member States.

However, the Council does firmly repudiate assertions of what are claimed to be ‘pro-Nazi leanings’ on the part of the Latvian authorities. Such assertions have no basis in fact. The President, Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Latvia have on many occasions condemned totalitarianism in all its forms. On 14 February 2006, the Latvian Foreign Minister, Mr Pabriks, made the following statement: ‘We categorically condemn the Holocaust and genocide, as well as the activities of those persons who continue to be adherents of such ideologies. The rise in racist and xenophobic offence in various European states is evidence of the fact that the totalitarian ideologies have not gone away. Both society in general and the institutions responsible for maintaining law and order in Latvia must continue to work at uprooting extremism.’

It was on 10 September 1991 that the Latvian parliament voted to ban the Latvian Communist Party, which, at the time, constituted a sub-group of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and had, for as long as the Soviet Union lasted, operated as a de facto part of the government.

Where it is established that rights under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of assembly) or the First Protocol thereto (right to free elections), appeal can be made to the European Court of Human Rights.

As regards the general issue of promotion of the principle of non-discrimination in the EU, the Council has adopted a package of measures to combat such occurrences, notably two directives⁽¹⁾, to which a Community action plan on the combating of discrimination, to run for a period of six years, has been added.

The European Union’s Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, based in Vienna, is also giving additional assistance. In December 2003, the European heads of state and of government resolved that the mandate of the EUMC should be extended with the effect of making it an Agency for Fundamental Rights and an addition to the existing machinery for protecting fundamental rights. The Agency will assist and advise the EU institutions and the Member States, thereby constituting a further step towards the realisation of a more effective and more coherent human rights policy in the EU.

What was the outcome of the Presidency’s conference on diabetes?

(DE)Type 2 diabetes is a serious chronic disease which is becoming more widespread and which is increasingly affecting younger people. For this reason, the prevention of type 2 diabetes and its concomitant complications constitutes an important public health concern.

In order to step up the transfer of knowledge and consider possible steps to be adopted at EU level, the Austrian Presidency brought this issue to the fore and, with the support of the European Commission, organised a conference which brought together 200 experts from all the Member States and the applicant countries, in order to consider what initiatives were necessary and to put forward suggestions for future strategies. The experts represented various professions (healthcare, national authorities, diabetes and patient associations as well as representatives of the European Commission, the European Parliament and the WHO).

The following four issues were given particular consideration in four parallel working parties:

Prevention of cardiovascular diseases in conjunction with diabetes

Disease management –reduction of diabetes-related complications

Primary prevention of type 2 diabetes

Social and gender-specific aspects of type 2 diabetes

The experts concluded that the Council should issue a recommendation on the prevention, early diagnosis and disease management of diabetes. This should contain suggested European data standards for diabetes and should explicitly address issues such as disadvantaged social groups, women of child-bearing age and the danger of discrimination.

Moreover, it was noted that appropriate measures to tackle diabetes required coordinated national diabetes programmes in all Member States covering, inter alia, prevention and early diagnosis. Particular importance should be attached to raising awareness of healthy lifestyles, since this was proven to be effective and could, if broadly implemented, have an effect on the health of future generations. The swift implementation of national diabetes programmes should be a priority.

The results of the conference would be documented in a conference report and presented in a summarised form to the health ministers at the informal meeting on 25/26 April 2006.

The six-monthly report by the Commission’s Directorate-General for the Internal Market regarding the incorporation of Community law into the national legislation of the Member States has revealed numerous cases of non-compliance. It would appear that Austria is the country which acts most promptly in this respect, given that, on 1 December 2005, only 1.5% of directives remained to be fully implemented, while in Luxembourg, for example, the figure was 4.4%. What action does the Council intend to take to remedy shortcomings regarding the transposition and implementation of internal market provisions?

(DE)The Council has stated repeatedly that it regards the prompt and correct transposition of the internal market directives into Member States’ domestic legislation as extremely important, since it is indispensable to the functioning of the internal market. At its meetings in 2001 in Stockholm and the following year in Barcelona, the European Council set quantitative goals for the reduction of the transposition deficit, laying down a maximum of 1.5%, and it is evident that this prompted the Member States to redouble their efforts in this regard. It is clear from the Commission’s latest information (Internal Market Scoreboard 14a, February 2006) that all 25 Member States have made remarkable progress in reducing the transposition deficit, some of them reducing it to as low as 1.6%. This does not, admittedly, achieve the 1.5% target, but it is the best result yet achieved. This progress notwithstanding, the level of transposition varies from one Member State to another. It therefore follows that even more needs to be done to create the conditions for a fully-functioning internal market. The Council and the European Council will therefore follow with close attention the further developments in the transposition of the internal market directives, and will, in so doing, rely on the documentation regularly presented in the Internal Market Scoreboard and on other relevant Commission communications. They may well have to further insist on all Member States transposing Community law, giving effect to it and implementing it to its fullest extent, so that members of the public and businesses may be able to avail themselves of the benefits of the internal market.

On 4 February 2006, the Jordanian authorities arrested Mr al-Mu'mani and Mr Hashim al-Khalidi, the publishers of Mehwar, because the newspaper had published the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed which had first appeared in Jyllands-Posten in Denmark. On 12 February 2006 the publishers were released on bail, but they are shortly to appear in court.

In Algeria, the authorities have apparently closed down two daily newspapers, Panorama and Essafir, and arrested two publishers, Mr Kamel Bousaad and Mr Berkana Bouderbala, for publishing the same cartoons.

What will the Council do to ensure that Algeria and Jordan respect their obligations regarding human rights and democracy pursuant to their association agreements with the EU? What sanctions does the Council envisage imposing if these obligations are not complied with?

(DE)Last year, the European Union and Jordan agreed on an extensive action plan under the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP). The objects of this action plan include support for the reform process that Jordan has initiated. One of the four priorities set by this reform strategy is to strengthen the media and to make them more professional while also developing an independent media sector. Despite the difficult geographical and political conditions in that country, Jordan, its government, and King Abdullah personally, have set themselves the task of moving political reform forward and consolidating democracy, accountability, transparency and justice, and to become a model of a modern, knowledge-based, Islamic and Arab country. It has to be said, though, that Jordan is itself well aware of the fact that this process will be a long one and not always easy.

It is with specific reference to the press that action is to be taken, as a priority under the ENP action plan, to further develop freedom of the media and of the expression of opinion. At the meeting in June last year of the EU-Jordan sub-committee on human rights, democracy and governance, the EU and Jordan discussed the current position of Jordanian legislation, the legal framework and the training programmes for journalists. These discussions will continue. The EU regards itself as under an obligation to support Jordan in this process.

On Algeria

The first meeting of the EU/Algeria Association Council will be held on 21 March 2006. It will represent a resumption of bilateral contacts at ministerial level between the EU and Algeria, the last ministerial troika meeting having been held in Algiers in November 2003.

The honourable Member may be assured that the EU will, in the course of the political dialogue on democracy and human rights, raise its concerns about the freedom of the press in Algeria and in particular about the way in which many journalists have, by means of the systematic and inappropriate use of the law on defamation, been harassed, fined and imprisoned.

Over the last few days an extended seamen's strike in Greece has caused major difficulties in terms of territorial economic and social cohesion (regarding the supply of food and fuels to island communities, the transport of invalids, etc.). While the right of workers to strike is indisputably established being codified in Article 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union Article 36 of the same Charter and Article II-96 of the European Constitution state that the European Union recognises and respects access to services of general economic interest as provided for in national laws and practices in order to promote the social and territorial cohesion of the Union and its competitivity.

Does the Council agree that massive strike action of this kind infringes the right of European citizens to access to basic services and undermines the proper function of internal market mechanisms? Does the Council have any comparative studies and information on responses to such situations in the various Member States? Does it agree that measures should be taken to ensure the compulsory provision of minimum services as is already the case in certain Member States?

(DE)Although the honourable Member is right to say that Article 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights accords workers the right to take collective action in defence of their interests, including going on strike, the same article does go on to state that they enjoy that right subject to Community law and to the legislation and practice of individual Member States. Since, however, the EC Treaty removed the right to strike from the scope of Article 137, issues connected with strike action are matters of solely national responsibility.

The Council takes note of the difficulties caused by the latest strikes of seafarers in Greece. No comparative studies are available to the Council of how similar situations are handled in other Member States, and it may be that the Commission is in possession of such information.

Has the Austrian Presidency made an assessment of the increase in the number of workers from the 'new' Member States following the removal of barriers to an EU-wide labour market, particularly in countries such as Austria and Germany, which are clearly delaying this process?

(DE)Under the 2003 accession treaty, the decision as to whether or not to continue with the transitional arrangements applicable to freedom of movement is solely a matter for the Member States concerned. Those Member States that wish to continue to apply the transitional arrangement for a further three years after 30 April 2006 must notify the Commission to that effect by that date.

The Austrian Presidency takes the view that the Member States should take their decisions without bias and on the basis of the report, presented by the Commission on 8 February 2006, on the implementation of the transitional rules laid down in the 2003 accession treaty and of the differing situations obtaining in them, while also taking into account all relevant factors relating to the migration of workers. Prime among these factors is the condition of the economy and labour market in the Member States concerned, since it is this that will determine whether it can be guaranteed, at least within a reasonable and predictable period, that migrant workers will be able to support themselves with their income from labour. In addition to that, it is to be expected that the geographical situation will play a crucial part in reaching the decision, since the extent of migration is likely to be determined largely by the distance between the country of origin and the place of work.

Following the presentation and discussion of the Commission’s report at the meeting of the Council (Employment, social policy, health and consumer protection) on 10 March 2006, the Member States are currently examining all factors of relevance to their decision on the continuation of the transitional arrangements, in particular the situation in their own labour markets. It goes without saying that the Member States will come to this decision only after careful consideration and on the basis of an objective evaluation.

Maintenance payments are often vital to those in need, and the fact that this area of legislation is subject to unanimity in the Council causes problems and delays.

In view of this, what position does the Presidency think the Council should take on the Commission’s request that the proposal for a Community regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions, and cooperation in matters relating to family maintenance obligations should be subject to the codecision procedure, rather than requiring unanimity? In short, what role does the Presidency think the European Parliament should play in this matter? Should it have a merely consultative role (as would be the case if unanimity is retained), or a legislative role (codecision)?

(DE)The Council would remind the honourable Member of the Commission’s statement, in its proposal for a regulation on maintenance obligations, that such matters are subject to family law and that the hearings procedure laid down in the Treaty is therefore applicable.

The Council has also already started to deliberate the question of whether it is desirable to do as the Commission suggested in its communication to the Council and apply Article 251 of the Treaty to the measures taken under Article 65 of the Treaty establishing the European Community to deal with maintenance obligations.

Following initial deliberations in the relevant Council departments, the Council has decided to consult the European Parliament regarding a regulation on maintenance obligations, without, however, thereby pre-empting further proceedings in respect of the proposal put forward by the Commission in its communication for applying the procedure under Article 251 to issues relating to maintenance obligations.

Gratifyingly, there is a tendency for general alcohol consumption in Europe to decline, but in the case of young people the opposite trend may be observed. Girls, in particular, are drinking more, and young people are drinking at earlier and earlier ages. This is indicated by an as yet unpublished report produced for the Commission. There are many causes. The social climate has become harsher, with unemployment and growing demands, but young people have also become more independent and have more money nowadays. The alcohol industry is naturally responding to all these trends and focusing on young people in the range of beverages it offers and in advertising.

One death in four in the 15-29 age group in Europe is due to alcohol-related road accidents, poisonings, suicides and murders, according to statistics supplied by the WHO, which is calling for higher taxes on alcohol in order to stem the trend. What will the Presidency do to alter this tragic trend in alcohol consumption among young people in Europe?

(DE)The Council is obliged to the honourable lady Member for taking up this important issue.

Alcohol is one of the health issues included in the Council work programme for 2006 as presented by the Austrian Presidency and by its Finnish future successor.

The Commission will, in Spring 2006, be presenting its communication on the European Union’s strategy against alcohol abuse and will be explaining it to the Council at its meeting on 1-2 June 2006.

Following the presentation of this communication, it is the Council’s intention that an exchange of views should take place at ministerial level and should give particular attention to the problem of increasing alcohol consumption by young people.

The Health Group will also consider the question of what action should be taken following this communication.

It is known that some 560 Roma in Kosovo have been living as internally displaced refugees in camps in the Mitrovica area. These camps are heavily contaminated, especially with heavy metals, resulting in serious health problems. In February the European Roma Rights Centre, which is located in Budapest, brought an action against UNMIK before the European Court of Human Rights. UNMIK is working hard on a solution and is now offering relocation to KFOR's former Camp Osterode as an interim solution. A genuine solution is the resettlement of those concerned to their home, Roma Mahala. Rebuilding houses is very expensive, and so far only Germany has made € 500 000 available.

What are the EU Member States doing to make a financial contribution to the long-term resettlement of the Kosovo Roma families in southern Mitrovica?

(DE)The EU Member States’ financial commitments to Roma Mahalla amount – besides the EUR 500 000 provided by Germany, which the question mentions – to EUR 800 000 from Sweden and EUR 250 000 promised by Ireland, whilst Greece is expected to commit itself to EUR 10 000, but has not yet done so.

In addition to these commitments by the Member States, the European Agency for Reconstruction has made EUR 1.12 million available through the offices of the Danish refugee aid agency. Norway has undertaken to give EUR 600 000, and the provisional institutions of self-government EUR 200 000, while UNMIK has committed itself to giving EUR 250 000.

These sums will be used for reconstruction, for employment and education measures and for comprehensive assistance with repatriation.

Given the fundamental right of workers, their families, and all EU citizens to travel and reside freely within the territories of the Member States;

Taking into account the Commission´s report, published on 8 February, which advocated the lifting of 'transitional measures' and restrictions on the free movement of workers from the 10 new Member States in place, in 12 of the EU 15, since May 1st 2004;

With a view to the Member States´ upcoming decision in April 2006 on whether to keep restrictions on migrant workers in place, what measures is the Council taking to encourage the lifting of transitional measures? What conclusions does the Council draw as to the benefits or otherwise of the work permit system operated by Member States, especially in relation to its effect on the black economy? What steps are being taken to simplify and harmonise the procedure for applying for such work permits in those Member States which choose to extend their transitional measures for a further two years?

(DE)As the honourable Member will know, the Accession Treaty with the ten new Member States provides for a transitional period of up to seven years for the free movement of workers. During that period the EU-15 Member States are entitled to apply national measures regulating access to their labour markets to nationals of the new Member States with the exception of Cyprus and Malta. A special provision in the Treaty also allows Germany and Austria to take measures to counteract serious disruption in sensitive service industries that may result from the transitional dispatch of labour as part of the cross-border provision of services. Three new Member States may also, on a reciprocal basis, apply restrictions to nationals from the old Member States which are applying restrictions themselves.

The first transitional period of two years from accession does indeed expire on 30 April. The Council is now required to review the operation of the transitional provisions in the light of a Commission report, which was adopted on 8 February 2006. In this report the Commission recommends that the Member States consider carefully whether it is necessary to continue with the transitional regulations.

The Presidency plans to hold an exchange of views on the Commission report in the Council before the end of April. The Member States are currently reviewing the situation on their labour markets in the light of the Commission report and their own experience. Some Member States have already stated that they intend to discontinue the labour restrictions; but not all Member States have completed their own country’s review or informed the Commission whether they wish to continue with their national measures.

It should be borne in mind that the decision on whether to continue to apply the national measures, and the nature of those measures, is a matter for each individual Member State.

During his five years in office Mr Brüner has faced severe criticism on numerous occasions. Yet on 14 February the Commission decided to reappoint him even though the COCOBU and the Council had found other candidates more suitable. This decision clearly indicates that the Commission's promises of reform, improvement of financial control and fighting fraud are not a priority.

Does the Commission not agree that the reappointment will have consequences for OLAF's credibility and independence, with Mr Brüner owing so much to the good will of the Commission and influential lobbying in order to be reappointed, making it difficult to investigate fraud? Under these circumstances, how can the Commission describe this as a strong mandate?

(EN)The Commission reminds the Honourable Member that it followed the procedure laid down in the Regulation 1073 of 1999 for the appointment of the OLAF (European Anti-Fraud Office) Director General in a transparent and participative way. The Commission took decision to re-appoint Mr Brüner in full agreement with the Parliament and the Council who had had ample opportunity to participate in the selection. All three institutions were duly represented when the agreement was reached during the trialogue of 7 February and on that day all three institutions voiced their support for Mr Brüner.

The Commission does not share the opinion of the Honourable Member that the Council and Parliament had found other candidates more suitable. Mr Brüner was short-listed as a suitable candidate by all three Institutions. The COCOBU⁽¹⁾ at the hearings in October 2005 confirmed his suitability for the post and retained his amongst only two names. The Council retained his amongst three names shortlisted. It is worth remembering that the initial list comprised 180 names, and that the COCOBU was impressed by the quality and expertise of the five candidates on the shortlist.

It is the procedure followed to reach this decision which allows the Commission to now assert that the new Director General has a necessary end strong mandate. The procedure, its thoroughness, its transparency, a broad comparison of candidates, the participation of the OLAF Supervisory Committee and of the three institutions, and finally the consensus of the three institutions on one name are a solid guarantee of the joint and firm support, which will help the new Director General to lead the Office independently.

The appointment of Mr. Bruener was made because he was the person that all three institutions considered in the end to be the best candidate. Mr Brüner’s experience and professionalism were considered as key factors, amongst others, in the decision making process leading to the appointment.

The Commission can not agree with the Honourable Member either when he says that this decision clearly indicates that the Commission's promises of reform, improvement of financial control and fighting fraud are not a priority. The Commission has over the last years demonstrated that it is serious on this subject. A new staff statute, a new financial regulation, a new internal audit service, a new accounting system and radical changes in the organisation can be cited. The opinion of the European Court of Auditors on its financial management has gradually improved. The hearing held by the Parliament in July 2005 on the strengthening of OLAF allows the Commission to conclude that what the fight against fraud at European level needs is constant improvement and not radical change. As concerns the fight against fraud,

The Commission cannot see how this appointment can negatively affect OLAF’s credibility and independence. Again the hearing last summer and the European Court of Auditors said that the independence of OLAF was never jeopardized by the Commission. The newly appointed Supervisory Committee has furthermore already demonstrated its commitment to fulfil its responsibilities to be a ‘critical friend of OLAF’, in particular by ensuring the independence of OLAF. Quite on the contrary, the appointment should be seen as an expression of trust and lend credibility to the new Director General.

With reference to the cases of international adoption still pending after the entry into force of the new law in Romania and to my two previous questions on the subject, the answers to which were evasive and incomplete, can the Commission say:

what progress has been made by the expert working party that, according to statements made on several occasions by the Romanian government, was supposed to decide, on a case-by-case basis, on the advisability of proceeding with international adoptions applications for which were submitted before 1 January 2005;

what progress the Romanian government is making in this direction, following the promises repeatedly given by the representatives of the authorities and the formal requests made by the European Parliament in its resolutions on the accession of Romania with regard to finding a solution for these unsettled cases;

whether it considers that Romania is really able to guarantee a family, a home, education and health care for the 84 000 children currently in the care of the social services?

(EN)The Romanian authorities are on track concerning the solution of pending petitions for adoption that were filed in before the entry into force of the new law on 1 January 2005.

The Romanian authorities have activated a working group that will finalise its work on 31 March 2006. The Commission is committed to a follow-up on the issue and will report back in its May Commission Monitoring Report.

With this in view the Romanian authorities are following up the European Parliament’s repeated statements as last formulated under point 23 of Parliament resolution dated 15 December 2005.

The current 82.000 children under social protection (residential care, foster-care and placement in enlarged families) are benefiting from a child protection structure in line with the United Nations Charter for the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). This is also the case for access to health care and education.

Is the Commission aware of the use of caged beds for disturbed children in Romania and will they discuss this with the Romanian Government with a view to bringing the practice to a speedy end?

(EN)The Commission is committed to following up developments in the area of child protection in Romania.

During the Commission’s 15 years of follow up, it has never had any suspicion about the use of caged-beds in Romania.

However, the Commission will follow up the issue within the framework of its regular contacts with various non-governmental organisations.

Last year, the Commission stated that Romania met the political criteria for EU membership. However, the Romanian Senate's rejection of anti-corruption legislation on 9 February in addition to claims in the international media that the Romanian Government supports certain interest groups that benefit financially from this arrangement prompt the question of whether Romania is ready for this final, decisive step in the accession process. The Commission is currently drafting a monitoring report on the country's progress in fulfilling membership requirements. The fight against corruption should be one of the main priorities, as it is a threat to the correct application of the European Union's policies.

What specific measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure that Romania steps up its efforts to implement anti-corruption legislation effectively?

(EN)The Commission very much welcomes the decisive vote on 3 March by the Romanian Senate to reverse the earlier decision referred to by the Honourable Member. This follows intense domestic discussions at the highest political levels in Romania and there is now a broad political consensus behind the Government’s anti-corruption programme.

Following this vote, the National Anti-Corruption Directorate has been given a solid legal base to continue its investigations into high-level corruption, including allegations against Members of Parliament. At this crucial moment in Romania’s preparations for EU membership this shows the political will to ensure no one is above the law.

The Commission can confirm that progress in the fight against corruption will be among the most important issues in the Commission’s Report to be published on 16 May 2006.

The Commission takes every opportunity to raise these matters in dialogue with the Romanian authorities. Our assessment will be based on a number of indicators such as: existence of an anti-corruption strategy ; state of legislation on anti-corruption strategy ; state of legislation on anti-corruption issues; evidence of effective criminal investigations leading to prosecutions.

The talks on the future status of Kosovo and its forthcoming independence led by UN special envoy Martti Athisaari will probably involve an exit strategy for the UN in which the EU will be asked to take on even greater responsibility in the region, particularly as the vast majority of Kosovo's population eventually want to join the EU.

To what extent does the EU intend to devise a strategy for the economic development of the region that goes beyond the existing initiatives under the fourth pillar of UNMIK?

(EN)The Commission cannot predict the exact outcome of the Kosovo status process led by the United Nations (UN) Special Envoy Marti Ahtisaari until an agreement is reached. However, the Commission expects that the settlement of the future status of Kosovo will consolidate peace, stability and progress achieved to date. It also expects that the future status settlement will contribute to sustainable economic development and the achievement of the common objective of Western Balkans to become members of the European Union family.

Currently and beyond the initiatives under the EC-funded UNMIK (United Nation Mission in Kosovo) Pillar IV, the Community contributes to the economic development of Kosovo by various means. These include, among others, considerable financial support mainly through the CARDS programme (e.g. € 80 million in 2005), trade facilitation measures, support to the participation of Kosovo in regional initiatives like the Energy Community Treaty and advice and guidance in sectors of particular economic importance. In this respect, the Commission has issued a Communication on “A European Future for Kosovo”⁽¹⁾. The Commission has also appointed a liaison officer with the UN Status Envoy inter alia to contribute to a proper handling of status-related economic issues. In addition, the Commission is actively involved in the design of the post-status international presence in Kosovo in the area of economy.

Regarding the future strategy to foster the economic development of Kosovo, the Commission intends to continue with all available instruments, including future pre-accession financial assistance, to further promote EU compatible reforms and socio-economic development. The European Partnership adopted by the Council on 30 January 2006⁽²⁾ will be a key tool for guiding Kosovo’s efforts.

The European Partnership addresses a series of precise recommendations to the Kosovo authorities in the economic field, in particular the need to advance in the formulation of a medium term development strategy. The EC financial assistance will help Kosovo’s authorities to prepare and implement this strategy and to benefit from any other regional economic development initiatives, such as the ones outlined in the recent Communication from the Commission on the Western Balkans⁽³⁾.

Both the statement issued by the Contact Group on Kosovo (London, 31 January 2006) and the recent report of the UN Secretary-General (25 January 2006) emphasise the particular importance which the international community attaches to the full and effective implementation of the conditions laid down in accordance with Security Council resolution 1244/1999 in the context of negotiations on the final status of Kosovo. In particular, Mr Annan's report highlights the serious delays and problems in implementing all the conditions affecting the minorities, principally the Serbian minority, because of the continuing insecurity, the uncertainty surrounding final status and the guarded attitude of the Kosovan authorities.

What representations will the Commission make to the Kosovan authorities to facilitate implementation of the conditions, given that the Commissioner responsible is a member of the Contact Group? In the event that the delays and problems persist, will it consider postponing the negotiations, insofar as the international community now agrees on the parallel nature of the two processes, in contrast to the relevant provisions of Resolution 1244/1999? Will this adverse situation affect progress towards European partnership which the Commission proposed for Kosovo on 12 December 2005?

(EN)As the Honourable Member rightly observes, the respect of the ongoing implementation of standards is an issue of paramount importance.

In his recent visit to Pristina, the President of the Commission voiced concern over the slow progress in the implementation of the standards for Kosovo and called for implementation to be accelerated. The Commissioner in charge of enlargement has also made clear that democratic values are an integral part of European integration and that the implementation of standards is vital to move forward both in the status process and towards EU membership.

However, the ultimate responsibility in decision-making regarding the speed of the political process designed to determine Kosovo’s future status is in the hands of the United Nations (UN) Special Envoy appointed by the UN Secretary-General, Martti Ahtisaari.

The Commission has made sure that the recommendations in the European Partnership⁽¹⁾ are consistent and mutually reinforcing with the implementation of the Kosovo standards. The European Partnership should be a key tool for guiding Kosovo’s efforts in the respect of human and minority rights during the status process and in view of the approximation to EU legislation in due course.

It is known that some 560 Roma in Kosovo have been living as internally displaced refugees in camps in the Mitrovica area. These camps are heavily contaminated, especially with heavy metals, resulting in serious health problems. In February the European Roma Rights Centre, which is located in Budapest, brought an action against UNMIK before the European Court of Human Rights. UNMIK is working hard on a solution and is now offering relocation to KFOR's former Camp Osterode as an interim solution. A genuine solution is the resettlement of those concerned to their home, Roma Mahala. Rebuilding houses is very expensive, and so far only Germany has made € 500 000 available.

What are the EU Member States doing to make a financial contribution to the long-term resettlement of the Kosovo Roma families in southern Mitrovica?

(EN)The Commission is aware that the situation of the Roma, Ashkali and Egyptian communities in Kosovo is very difficult. The 2005 Commission progress report for Kosovo provided an assessment of the situation of minorities including Roma.

As part of our wider effort to support non majority communities in Kosovo, in December 2005 an EC funded project to support Roma returns to the Roma Mahalla in Mitrovica started.

The project will last for 12 months and the Swedish development agency Sida has pledged additional funds. In total, some 57 families should be able to return.

The EC contribution is € 1.2 million. The EC components of the project include plans to reconstruct 35 houses with its necessary infrastructure works, employment possibilities and income generation activities and community projects.

However, the local Roma leaders have not always acted in the interest of their constituency: for instance by delaying their move to uncontaminated sites in the north before being repatriated eventually to southern Mitrovica. The Commission understands the concern about so called temporary solutions which turn semi-permanent (as is the case in northern Mitrovica) but here the health of the Internally Displaced Person (IDP) community is at risk.

How does the Commission intend to overcome the obstructive approach taken by the President of Cyprus towards the Commission's proposals for providing Turkish Cypriots with financial assistance and direct trade links?

(EN)The Commission welcomed the adoption of the Aid Regulation by the General Affairs and External Relations Council on 27 February 2006.

At this occasion, the Commissioner in charge of Enlargement stated the following: “The Commission welcomes today’s decision of the General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) to adopt the Regulation establishing an instrument of financial support for encouraging the economic development of the Turkish Cypriot community.

Adopting this Regulation enables the EU to bring assistance where it is urgently needed in fields such as energy and environment. Many concrete projects can now be realised which bring the Turkish Cypriot community closer to the European Union. The Aid Regulation will also allow the Commission to prepare the Turkish Cypriot community for the future application of EU Law following a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem.

The adoption of the aid package should be seen as a first step by the EU towards putting an end to the isolation of the Turkish Cypriot community and facilitating the reunification of Cyprus as laid down in the conclusions of the General Affairs and External Relations Council on 26 April 2004. The Commission encourages the Council to move towards adoption of the proposal made in 2004 on trade between the EU and the Turkish Cypriot community.

In line with its long-standing position, the Commission remains fully committed to supporting a resumption of United Nations-led talks for a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus issue as soon as possible.”

What role does the issue of the minorities in Vojvodina and in the Presevo valley play in the EU’s negotiations with Serbia and Montenegro?

(EN)Respect for human and minority rights is an essential element of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) which is currently under negotiation. This means that once the SAA is in force, its application can be suspended in case human and minority rights are violated. Therefore, in the course of the negotiations of the SAA, a particular attention is paid to the situation of human and minority rights.

In this context, the Commission is closely monitoring the situation in Vojvodina and the Preševo Valley, as well as other ethnically diverse parts of Serbia and Montenegro, including Sandžak.

The Commission is using every occasion to stress the importance of minority rights. In November 2005, a meeting of the Enhanced Permanent Dialogue (EPD) took place back-to-back with the first official round of the SAA negotiations. The EPD meeting reviewed the situation of minority rights in Serbia and Montenegro. Issues of particular relevance to the Preševo Valley and Vojvodina, such as education, police and the judiciary, were raised in this forum.

A referendum is due to be held in the spring of this year in which the people of Montenegro will be asked whether they wish to live in an independent state. If the answer is no, the status quo will be maintained, but it would appear that the Commission is also preparing for the other eventuality.

If the referendum results in a vote in favour of independence for Montenegro, how would this affect the EU’s negotiations with Serbia and Montenegro on a stabilisation and association agreement? Would the Commission immediately open negotiations on stabilisation and association agreements with the two separate countries? Would the break-up delay negotiations while the two countries settle the formalities of separation?

(EN)With regard to the forthcoming referendum in Montenegro, the Commission attaches the greatest importance to the full respect of internationally recognised democratic standards in line with the agreement on the modalities of the referendum reached between the Montenegrin government and opposition. This is a prerequisite for the legitimacy of the outcome of the referendum process. As the Commission has already mentioned to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Parliament on 23 February, should the referendum in Montenegro results in the withdrawal of this Republic from the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, the Commission may seek new negotiating directives for a Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) with Montenegro. This would be subject to the international recognition of an independent Montenegro by the Member States of the European Union and to the establishment of diplomatic relations.

In the event of Montenegro’s independence, it is the intention of the Commission to build on –subject to Council approval and depending on the fulfilment of all criteria related to the conduct and conclusion of the negotiations– the results of the current twin-track SAA negotiations and therefore make sure that the technical progress achieved so-far in ongoing negotiations will not be lost.

In November 2004 Ibermanagement Bulgaria EOOD (IB), a business set up with Spanish capital, acquired machinery and equipment produced by DGF Dragor EOOD, completely free from any burden or obligations, from Mr Wilfrid Birk, a German citizen. In May 2005 Mr Birk, apparently providing false dates and forged signatures, alleged that the machinery stood as surety for a prior debt of EUR 600 000 which DGF Dragor owed to the off-shore company Lodicort. This led to the seizure of the machinery legally acquired by IB, which is protesting against what it sees as a case of bribery and corruption. The investigations made by the regional police department in Pazardzhik, inter alia, came to the conclusion that the documents relating to the prior debt were false. Judgment 605/31.10.2005 of Pazardzhik district court ordered that the seizure be annulled, as did other rulings handed down by various judges. However, the executive judge in Pazardzhik, Mr Veselin Ljungov, executed the seizure without notifying IB, appointed a personal friend of Mr Birk to act as custodian of the machinery and allowed his associates to use IB's machinery and equipment for their own ends. It is possible that this is a case of bribery and corruption.

Can the Commission raise this case at its meetings with the Bulgarian Government with a view to clarifying matters and ensuring that justice is done in accordance with the principles and rights enshrined in the acquis communautaire?

(EN)First of all, the Commission wishes to underline that it cannot intervene in individual legal cases.

However, the Commission is closely following problems related to the overall functioning of the judicial system in Bulgaria. These issues were also clearly outlined in the Comprehensive Monitoring Report of October 2005.

The Commission has particularly insisted on the fact that efforts to combat corruption efficiently have to be strengthened, including the investigation and prosecution of high level corruption.

Furthermore, in the framework of its monitoring role, the Commission has carried out a peer review on Justice and Home Affairs in Bulgaria in the week of 20 February. The results of this peer review will have an impact on the Commission’s assessment of Bulgaria’s judiciary system in the upcoming report to be issued in May 2006.

Since 2005, a twinning project is underway in Bulgaria in cooperation with Austria which aims at reforming the Civil Procedural Code. This twinning project also includes activities related to the execution of judgements.

On 7 February 2006 five well-known Turkish journalists went on trial in Istanbul, charged under Article 301 of the TPC with perverting the course of justice: they had dared to criticize a court's decision banning the holding of a conference on the Armenians.

Article 301 of the TPC clearly provides ample scope for blatantly violating the freedom of expression of citizens who are prosecuted for publicly insulting the Turkish nation, the Turkish Republic, Turkish justice, the parliament, the government, the justice system or the army.

Amnesty International issued a statement on 1 December 2005 listing a whole series of cases in which Turkish citizens have been charged with violating the provisions of Article 301 of the TPC.

What measures does the Commission intend to take to end these prosecutions? Does it intend to propose amendments to the TPC with a view to putting an end to the arbitrary prosecution of any persons daring to utter public criticisms?

(EN)The Commission is aware of the case of the five Turkish journalists to which the Honourable Member refers.

Freedom of expression is one of the fundamental freedoms on which the European Union is founded and is included in the Copenhagen political criteria. The Commission closely follows up the situation with respect to freedom of expression in Turkey.

Implementation of the important legislative reforms of the past few years remains uneven. Several judgements, including in the cases of novelist Orhan Pamuk and of journalist Hrant Dink, suggest that the judiciary is increasingly acting in accordance with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. However, there have also been a number of recent decisions, in particular in relation to the expression of opinions on traditionally sensitive subjects, which have led to both prosecutions and convictions.

Should similar cases continue to occur, the Commission expects that the Turkish authorities take action to close the loopholes of the Penal Code that give rise to restrictive interpretations. The simplest way would be to amend the Penal Code.

The Commission will continue to monitor closely developments in this area and to raise its concerns relating to freedom of expression in every occasion, including during political dialogue meetings between the EU troika and Turkey, as well as in the regular monitoring of Turkey’s compliance with the Copenhagen political criteria conducted by the Commission.

According to reports in the Greek press, the Commission's Directorate-General for Enlargement has issued instructions to officials in the Directorates-General for Employment, Agriculture and Regional Policy to use the term 'Macedonia' when there are no Greeks present instead of the term (which is recognised by the EU itself) FYROM. Moreover, the author of this outrageous document reportedly notes that it is very important to the Macedonians to call them by their name and not FYROM, which is an insult(!), and he urges officials to use the term 'Macedonia' provided there are no Greeks present(!).

Does such a provocative document actually exist? Why is it still in circulation and why was it not withdrawn by the Commission as soon as it was revealed?

(EN)The Commission's policy is to refer to the country as the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, which is the provisional name agreed at the moment of admission of this country to the United Nations, following its independence.

The Commission uses consistently the full name the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in all its official documents and proposals for draft legislation submitted to the Council.

The Commission fully supports all efforts to find a mutually acceptable solution within the framework of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 817/93 and 845/93, in the interest of regional cooperation and good neighbourly relations.

On 28 September 2005, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the opening of negotiations with Turkey, in which Members of the European Parliament highlighted the basic problems causing serious difficulties to the negotiations, including: Turkey’s embargo on vessels flying the Cypriot flag; the Protocol signed by Turkey on 29 July 2005 and the statement released at the same time, i.e. the unresolved problem of the recognition of Cyprus; the fact that Turkey has not recognised the Armenian genocide, although this is considered by the EU to be a prerequisite for accession; the compatibility of the Turkish criminal code and of certain other laws with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; and issues relating to financial aid and trade facilitation with the northern part of Cyprus.

What is the Commission’s assessment of the process of negotiations with Turkey? What progress has been made towards resolving the problems referred to in the above European Parliament resolution? In the Commission’s view, has there been even minimal progress in the area of safeguarding human rights and freedoms, particularly women’s rights and freedoms, in Turkey – a country that is seeking membership of the EU?

(EN)The first stage of the accession negotiations with Turkey, the screening process, is proceeding normally. The Commission has held screening meetings with Turkey on some ten chapters, and the first reports have been sent to the Council.

The Commission is following all issues set out in the negotiating framework approved by the opening session of the Accession Conference with Turkey on 3 October 2005. This includes the monitoring of Turkey’s progress in complying with the Copenhagen criteria.

Most of the issues set out in the Parliament’s Resolution on the opening of accession negotiations with Turkey adopted on 28 September 2005 are mentioned in the negotiating framework document and/or the Accession Partnership adopted by Council Decision of 23 January 2006.

As regards the political criteria, the Commission’s assessment, as indicated in the Progress Report published in November 2005, is that “political transition is ongoing in Turkey and the country continues to sufficiently fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria. However, the pace of change has slowed in 2005 and implementation of the reforms remains uneven”. In certain areas significant further reforms are needed.

More specifically, on the issues concerning the recognition of Cyprus and other related questions (access to Cypriot ports, Ankara Protocol, etc) the Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to its replies to recent parliamentary questions (H-0001/06, H-0004/06, H-0046/06 and P-0208/06).

On women’s rights, the Progress Report referred to certain positive developments but stressed that significant further efforts are needed to confront a number of concerns.

In the trial of sociologist Pinar Selek and four other defendants, life imprisonment has been demanded. They are accused of involvement in a bombing in Istanbul in 1998. Despite several independent expert opinions, which found that the explosion had been caused by an exploding gas cylinder in the Egyptian Bazaar, Pinar Selek was detained for two and a half years. She was released in December 2000.

Despite expert opinion to the contrary, the Public Prosecutor’s Office took the police report as the basis for renewing its demand in December 2005, seven years on, for life imprisonment for Pinar Selek and her codefendants. The trial is to continue on 17 May 2006.

What action does the Commission propose to take to prevent innocent persons from being sentenced to life imprisonment? How does the Commission propose to prevail upon Turkey’s judicial and political authorities to comply with the rule of law?

(EN)The Commission recalls that ensuring the respect of the rule of law and the independence, efficiency and effectiveness of the judiciary are core elements of the Copenhagen political criteria.

The negotiating framework outlining the principles governing accession negotiations with Turkey, adopted by Member States in October 2005, indicates that the course of negotiations will be guided by Turkey's progress in complying with the Copenhagen criteria, including in the area of the rule of law.

The revised Accession Partnership, approved by the Council in December 2005, includes a number of specific short-term priorities that Turkey is expected to meet to ensure respect of the rule of law and a proper functioning of the judiciary, in line with international best practices, the European Convention on Human Rights and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

The Commission closely follows developments in the light of the Copenhagen political criteria, notably in the framework of the Regular Political Monitoring and in the framework of the relevant institutions under the Association Agreement. Furthermore, the Commission carries out regular advisory visits on the functioning of the judiciary in Turkey with participation of EU Member States experts. While implementation on the ground of the important legislative reforms of the past few years remains uneven, several judgements suggest that the judiciary is increasingly acting in accordance with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

A considerable part of the EU’s pre-accession financial assistance to Turkey is devoted to funding projects supporting Turkish efforts to reform the judiciary and aimed at training judges, public prosecutors and law enforcement bodies on European and international best practices and standards, on the application of the European Convention on Human Rights and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.

How is the Institutional Agreement on Better Lawmaking, which includes impact assessments of any proposed legislation at Council, Commission and Parliament level, working in practice?

(EN)The High Level Technical Group (HLTG), made up of representatives from the Council, Commission and Parliament, was given the mandate to monitor the implementation of the 2003 Inter-Institutional Agreement (IIA) on Better Lawmaking.⁽¹⁾ In monitoring the progress in implementation of the IIA, the HLTG meets on a regular basis. The most recent meeting took place on 16 December 2005.

Although some progress in implementing the terms of the IIA is clearly evident, the Commission believes that better use could be made of the IIA as an instrument to improve inter-institutional cooperation and promote better regulation.

The Commission believes that greater progress could have been achieved in the following areas:

On “Better Coordination of the legislative process”: the technical instrument for inter-institutional programming developed by the Parliament ‘PROBO’ enjoys the support of the Commission. However, it has not yet been possible for the Council to make any commitment in this area and thus it has so far resulted in no real progress for better regulation.

On “Improving the quality of legislation”: the preparation of a “common approach to impact assessment”, setting out some 'traffic rules' on how impact assessments are dealt with throughout the legislative process, is an important forward step. However, negotiating the text was a difficult and lengthy process, and the Commission believes that the outcome could have been more ambitious and balanced in terms of the relative degrees of commitment from the institutions. With regard to the consistency of texts, the Commission is of the opinion that the arrangements put in place to ensure that the wording of amendments put forward to proposals under the co-decision procedure are concordant with the existing text and with the rules on legislative drafting would benefit from a further injection of time and resources.

On “Better transposition and application”: In the IIA, the Council commitment to encourage Member States to draw-up “transposition tables” to facilitate implementation and reduce possible problems of interpretation has yet to result in any concrete improvements. In addition, the task of drawing-up a list of national transposition coordinators remains incomplete.

On “Simplifying and reducing the volume of legislation”: the Council and the Parliament committed, within six months of the entry into force of the IIA, to modify their working methods by introducing, for example, ad hoc structures with the specific task of simplifying legislation. It is clear that concrete improvements to the regulatory environment will only be seen when simplification proposals from the Commission are adopted by the Council and Parliament. There are a significant number of Commission simplification proposals still pending before the Council and Parliament. The need to make rapid progress on modifying working methods is further underlined as a result of the Commission’s launch of a new phase of its simplification programme, which will see more than 200 areas for simplification presented in the next three years.

The disappointing progress to date in implementing the IIA on Better Lawmaking illustrates the need for greater efforts to be made by all three Institutions, and for a greater balance in terms of respective levels of commitment and ambition.

Will the Commission indicate if, when a Member State authority, such as a Director of Consumer Affairs, finds a product which has originated from another Member State to be defective or unsafe, can the EU ensure that the manufacturer will recall the faulty product?

(EN)The revised General Product Safety Directive, which entered into force on 15 January 2004, requires producers to place only safe products on the market.

For any product deemed to be dangerous, the Directive gives power to the Member States to require manufacturers to withdraw such a product from the market and to recall it from consumers.

Should the manufacturer not be present in its territory, a Member State can direct the measures to other appropriate actors such as importers and distributors.

In the case of a product which presents a serious risk, the Member States are obliged to inform the Commission of the measures taken via a rapid alert system called RAPEX⁽¹⁾.

Subsequently, the Commission distributes the information to all other Member States, so that they, in turn, can take the necessary measures to ensure the safety of consumers in their territory.

If Member States fail to take appropriate action, the Commission will in the first instance use the relevant administrative co-operation provisions of the Directive to encourage Member States to act.

Should this not be sufficient, the Commission can adopt a specific Decision to get the Member States to implement the necessary measures to ensure consumer safety across the European Union.

Please note that the General Product Safety Directive addresses product safety. Defective products, which do not present a safety risk, are typically dealt with via normal guarantee provisions.

We all witnessed with concern the events which took place earlier this year relating to the halting of gas supplies by Russia into the European Union.

Can the Commission make a statement as to the progress it is making both in terms of reducing the dependency by the EU on gas supplies from Russia, and can it also state what new alternative energy proposals are being pursued by the Commission at this time?

(EN)Currently, about 25% of natural gas consumption in EU-25 is imported from Russia, the rest being domestic production and imports from other sources, mainly Norway and Algeria.

In a business-as-usual scenario⁽¹⁾, natural gas consumption in the EU is projected to grow substantially. As domestic production is expected to decrease, net imports and import dependence will increase. Net imports are projected to rise from roughly 250 millions tonnes of oil equipment (MTOE) today to over 500 MTOE in 2030. Import dependence is projected to rise from today’s 50% or so to approximately 80% in 2030.

In this scenario, an increase in volume terms in imports from Russia could be expected. However, the potential of other sources of natural gas and the growing development of Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) alongside pipeline gas, will act as a limit on the relative importance of Russia in Europe’s gas imports.

A broad range of actions, both domestic and external, of the EU and Member States would have an impact on the EU dependence on gas imports from Russia. Others would strengthen the framework for the relations between the EU and Russia in the energy field. The Commission has outlined these in its recent Green Paper on a European Strategy for Secure, Competitive and Sustainable Energy for Europe, inter alia.

Can the Commission outline clearly the objectives that it seeks tangibly to achieve by means of the implementation of the new European Commission White Paper on Communication?

(EN)The overall purpose of the White Paper on a European Communication Policy is to propose ways of closing the communication gap between the European Union and its citizens. In spring 2005, the Commission under its President decided to propose a new approach, moving away from institution-centred to citizen-centred communication based on a genuine dialogue between the people and the policymakers.

As a first step, in July 2005, the Commission published its own Action Plan, listing a series of steps it is now taking to put its own house in order as regards public communication. As a second step, in October 2005, it adopted ‘Plan D for democracy, dialogue and debate’, which is the Commission’s contribution to the period of reflection on the future of Europe.

As a third but not final step, in February 2006 the Commission published its White Paper on a European Communication Policy. This opens a period of consultation with all the stakeholders concerned - the EU institutions, Member States’ governments at national, regional and local level, European political parties and civil society. The aim is to mobilize these stakeholders, and in particular the Member States, so that they take concerted action to show citizens how European policies affect their daily lives and to open up European issues for public discussion at national, regional and local levels.

This is the first time the Commission has launched a six-month long consultation on Communication Policy. It focuses on five areas for action, in partnership with the stakeholders, where tangible objectives could be achieved:

defining common principles which could be set out in a European Charter on Communication or a Code of Conduct on Communication;

empowering citizens by improving civic education and better connecting citizens with each other and with public institutions;

working with the media and exploiting the potential of new technologies in order to give Europe a human face and to help citizens understand the European dimension of national and local issues;

improving policy-makers’ understanding of European public opinion, and

improving cooperation between all the key actors at national and European levels.

At the end of the consultation period, the Commission will summarize the results and, as a further step, draw up plans for concrete action by all the stakeholders

The Commission looks forward to hearing the Member States’ and stakeholders’ views and welcomes their active participation in the ongoing consultation process.

The European Union has been a large contributor to the International Fund for Ireland.

Can the Commission state exactly the amount of EU monies that has been given to the IFI and if the Commission intends to continue as a contributor to the International Fund for Ireland in the coming years?

(EN)Since 1989, the European Union has committed €289 million and paid €259 million into the International Fund for Ireland (IFI).

In its meeting of 15-16 December 2005, the European Council noted the important work carried out by the IFI in promoting peace and reconciliation. It asked the Commission to take the necessary steps with a view to continued EU support for the Fund as it enters the crucial final phase of its work up to 2010.

The Commission is now preparing the necessary actions to continue its support for the IFI.

Can the Commission outline clearly the role of European NGOs in terms of implementing the Millennium Development Goals as well as specifying the role that European NGOs play in terms of spending EU development aid monies?

(EN)The bulk of EC financed development assistance channelled through European Non Governmental Organisations (NGO) in support of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) goes to interventions in the field carried out in developing countries. Furthermore, European NGOs are key actors in terms of promoting effective awareness raising and development education in Europe, which are essential conditions for mobilising support to reach the MDG targets, including the renewed commitment by the European Union and the Member States to increase Overseas Development Aid (ODA) levels with a view to achieving a level of 0.7% by 2015. European NGOs also play an important role as advocates, for example through enhancing civil society involvement in the definition of cooperation strategies in partner countries, thereby advancing ownership of the development process.

European NGOs receive financial support both to implement their “own initiatives” and to act as implementing partners within the framework of thematic and geographic priorities as defined in the EC cooperation programmes. In accordance with the Communication on the participation of Non-State Actors (NSA) in development policy⁽¹⁾ the main objective is to facilitate and promote the dialogue between state and non-state actors in partner countries, strengthening the capacity of civil society to make an effective contribution to the development process, and creating conditions for greater equity, the inclusion of the poor in the economic, environmental and social benefits of equitable growth, and the consolidation of democracy.

In 2005, a total of 8.4m tonnes of milk was bought in Poland, an increase of almost 10% on 2004 bringing the amount close to the country's production limit. Dairies are already receiving advance penalty payments from farmers of 20 groszy a litre of milk, which is around 20% of its value. This has caused great disquiet and unrest among farmers.

With regard to Poland's so-called restructuring quota of 416 000 tonnes, is it possible for the quota to be allocated among farmers in 2006 in order to prevent them incurring penalties for milk production?

(EN)The Commission notes with satisfaction that the Polish milk producers and dairy industry has quickly adapted to the new situation created by the commercial opportunities in an extended European market. Encouraged by substantially higher milk prices than before Accession the Polish producers have expanded their production dramatically.

Consequently, in respect of the 2005/06 quota year, a number of producers are likely, to pay the Community super-levy which is claimed from all Community producers who contribute to overshooting the national quota in their respective country.

The Polish authorities are responsible for the implementation in Poland of the Community quota provisions. In that context, they have the right to secure that the super-levy is actually going to be paid by the producers concerned, if need be via an advanced payment.

A supplementary restructuring quota may be granted to Poland as from 1 April 2006, in accordance with the Act of Accession. The release of that quantity is, however, depending on reliable information that a sufficient shift from on-farm consumption of dairy products to commercial sales has taken place. A report from Poland on that issue has been communicated to the Commission.

The Commission is currently studying the report and a final conclusion is expected in March 2006.

The Government of the United States of America has vetoed the sale of 12 aircraft by the Spanish aerospace company CASA, a member of the European consortium EADS, to the Venezuelan Government because the equipment contains US technology.

What are the Commission's views on this US veto on a contract with a European consortium?

(EN)The Commission is aware that the United States (US) has stringent export rules which prohibit or subject to limitations or prior authorisation exports of equipment by foreign countries to certain countries if this equipment includes components covered by the US military and dual use regulations. These restrictions on exports and their negative impact on trade have been mentioned in the yearly Commission reports on US barriers to trade, the last of which was issued on 1st March 2006⁽¹⁾.

The Commission has been regularly raising its concerns with US authorities regarding the application of such controls especially on civilian goods which contains controlled US technology or components, and will continue to seek ways with the US to ease such restrictions as they constitute barriers to trade. However, as regards exports from Member States of military items, these fall outside the European Community’s common commercial policy, and for this reason the means for the Commission to influence US actions are more limited. Nevertheless a dialogue between the US and European countries to review the application of export controls in this area would be welcome.

Could the Commission outline the process of appealing against an EU audit? A constituent of mine was nearly forced into bankruptcy due to demands by the EC, despite his case being under review by the European Ombudsman. What protection is offered to small businesses when trying to appeal against the results of an audit, and what guarantees are offered?

(EN)Audits enable the Commission to check that the action financed with Community money and the provisions of the grant agreement or contract signed by the beneficiary or contractor and the Commission are being properly implemented. Where appropriate, the audit findings may lead to the suspension of payments, the reduction of the grant or recovery decisions by the Commission.

Authorising officers have the duty to take the appropriate measures notably where the agreed action is not carried out properly (Articles 119, 103 of the Financial Regulation). The beneficiary is given the opportunity to present its comments before a reduction of a grant or a request for reimbursement is decided.

The result of the audit as such cannot be challenged but any dispute between a contractor or grant beneficiary and the Commission resulting from the interpretation or application of a contract or grant agreement which cannot be settled amicably can be brought before the competent court as defined in the contract or grant agreement.

Grant beneficiaries or contractors may also refer a complaint to the European Ombudsman which is competent to examine claims of maladministration in the activities of the Community Institutions and bodies. Such complaints do not affect time limits for appeals in administrative or judicial proceedings.

Following the agreement reached on 31 January in conciliation on the directive on F-gases, will the Commission be withdrawing its letter of formal notice of infringement proceedings against Denmark for banning F-gases?

(EN)The Honourable Member will be aware that the infringement procedure in question is still pending. In this context the Commission can confirm that it is currently examining the outcome of the conciliation procedure on the regulation on F-gases which is about to be adopted.

Discussions are taking place on setting up new European agencies. Since the annual operating cost of the 24 decentralised agencies of the European Union was around € 557 million in 2005 and is forecast to be around € 600 million in 2006, will the Commission say how, in practice, their contribution to the operation of the European Union is assessed and how these large sums are justified?

How many people are employed by each of these agencies and are they all essential at this point in time? How many new agencies are there plans to create in the immediate future and what will their set-up and operating costs be?

(FR)There are currently 21 regulatory agencies with a legal base in the first pillar of the European Union Treaty, three with a legal base in the second and a further three in the third. When each regulatory agency is set up, the European legislator assumes responsibility for adopting the new agency’s founding regulation, based on the Commission’s proposal and in codecision if the legal base of the regulation so requires. Three new agencies are in the process of being examined by the legislator, namely the European Chemicals Agency, the European Institute for Gender Equality and the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights⁽¹⁾, the latter set up to replace the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia.

As regards budgetary and human resources allocated to the regulatory agencies, the decision on the final amounts allocated to these bodies rests with the budgetary authority, with the Council’s approval. The Commission would confirm the EU budget subsidy figures quoted by the honourable Member. The amount of human resources in the regulatory agencies depends on the agency’s annual budget, which may consist of third-party revenue and possibly Union budget subsidies⁽²⁾. The details of each agency’s budget, including third-party revenue, notified to the budgetary authority, appear in the budget remarks relating to the relevant budget heading, and the establishment plans are reproduced in volume 1 of the budget. The total number of people employed in the regulatory agencies rose to 2 710 in 2005. For further details, the Commission would invite the honourable Member to refer directly to the agencies themselves. Insofar as they are independent bodies, they enjoy complete autonomy when it comes to human resources management within the limits granted by the statutory rules and the establishment plan adopted by the budgetary authority.

The regulatory agencies perform an important role in support of the executive functions. They are assigned the following tasks:

Adopting individual decisions which are legally binding on third parties;

providing direct assistance to the Commission and, where necessary, to the Member States in the interests of the Community, in the form of technical or scientific advice and/or inspection reports;

creating a network of national competent authorities and organising cooperation between them in the interests of the Community with a view to gathering, exchanging and comparing information and good practice.

Each European regulatory agency will also be responsible for gathering, analysing and transmitting objective, reliable and easy-to-access information concerning its area of activity.

In light of the importance and variety of tasks performed by the regulatory agencies, the above-mentioned global amounts relating to budget and human resources do not appear unreasonable and meet the objectives laid down by the founding regulations.

Given recent events, how does the Commission intend to defuse any intercultural tensions that have arisen?

(EN)The Commission assumes that the question of the Honourable Member refers to the events relating to the publication of the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed. The Commission has already stated on 15 February 2006, during the debate in the European Parliament on this issue, that the publication of cartoons in Danish and other European newspapers and the reactions to this have revealed sensitive and fundamental issues. The cartoons have aggrieved many Muslims all over the world. The Commission respects these sensitivities and the expression of them through peaceful protest.

The Commission shares the views expressed by Prime Minister Fogh Rasmussen, where he made clear that his government respects Islam as one of the world’s major religions and that it has no intention to insult Muslims and does not support activities in this sense.

The Commission’s concern is not with the peaceful response of the majority to the cartoons. It is with the violent reactions of a minority. Reactions which have been disowned by many Muslims.

The Commission condemns, in the strongest possible terms, the violence perpetrated against our office in Gaza, and against the missions of the Member States, in particular those of Denmark. The aim of these missions is to bring real benefits to the lives of the people of their host countries. The Commission expressed its solidarity with the Member States concerned.

Nor is a trade boycott an appropriate way of addressing the issue. It would hurt the economic interests of all parties and could damage the growing trading links between the EU and the countries concerned. Trade, and the greater interconnections it brings, is a means to promote mutual understanding. A boycott of Danish goods is by definition a boycott of European goods.

The Commission will continue to work with the Austrian Presidency and all parties to resolve the problem peacefully and efficiently. In this respect the Commission promotes the idea of using all present instruments and policies for intercultural dialogue (the Barcelona process, the Asia Europe Meeting (ASEM), the Euro Mediterranean Partnership (ENP)…) in the relations with third countries to strengthen mutual tolerance and respect. It should also be noted that the General Affairs and External Relations Council adopted, on 27 February 2006, Conclusions on “Reactions in the Muslim world to publications in European and other media.

Freedom of expression is part of Europe’s values and traditions and is not negotiable. Governments or other public authorities do not prescribe or authorize the opinions expressed by individuals. Conversely, the opinions expressed by individuals engage these individuals, and only them. They do not engage a country, a people, a religion. Freedom of expression is the basis not only of the possibility to publish an opinion, but also to criticize it. Freedom of expression has limits defined and enforced by the law and legal systems of the Member States of the European Union.

Freedom of religion is not negotiable either. Just as Europe respects freedom of speech so it must, and does, respect freedom of religion. Religious freedom is a fundamental right of individuals and communities, it entails respect for the integrity of all religious convictions and all ways in which they are exercised. Muslims must be able to practise their faith in the same way as the adherents of other religions and convictions practise theirs.

The European Union and its Member States have for a long time promoted dialogue between different communities both within the EU and with neighbouring Muslim countries and Muslim countries in other parts of the world. It is through a vigorous but peaceful dialogue of opinions under the protection of the freedom of expression that mutual understanding can be deepened and mutual respect can be built. The Commission is fostering and will continue to foster dialogue between cultures and with religions. This dialogue must be based on tolerance, not prejudice, and on freedom of expression and religion and the values connected with them. Violence is the enemy of dialogue.

The Commission already uses the existing cooperation and intercultural dialogue instruments (Anna Lindh Euro-Mediterranean Foundation for the dialogue between cultures, Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF), etc…) in order to promote a better knowledge and understanding of the different cultures and, to this end, to identify a series of concrete and visible activities, both in the EU and in the partner countries. The Commission is ready to identify also the possibilities to reinforce co-operation in the promotion of mutual understanding with regional organisations.

The Commission has already supported various initiatives to promote intercultural dialogue and is now working to give it a highly visible priority and to develop a coherent long term action. The Commission will promote exchange of best practises and reflect this priority in new Community programmes, in particular in the field of Life Long Learning, Culture, Youth and Citizenship.

Moreover, the Commission proposed to declare the Year 2008 as the Year of Intercultural Dialogue. The preparation of the Year and the Year itself should provide major opportunities to raise awareness of all people living in the EU that the intercultural dialogue is possible and relevant as a tool for managing an increasingly multicultural environment.

Candidate countries will be closely associated to these developments, in particular through their participation in a number of relevant Community programmes. The Commission will also coordinate complementary actions to be developed within the relevant cooperation and dialogue frameworks with the countries of the western Balkans and the partner countries of the European neighbourhood policy.

Finally, the Commission has never suggested imposing a code of conduct on the press, it is up to the media themselves to self-regulate or not, and it is up to the media to formulate such a voluntary code of conduct if it is found necessary, appropriate and useful by them. The Commission has offered to facilitate a dialogue between the media representatives and between them and faith leaders if that would be found useful by both parties.

Developing-country debt is now a key challenge for development and is present on the Commission's and the EU's agenda. The Commission has recently proposed an integrated, long-term global strategy for Africa, as well as a relaunched partnership to help that continent achieve the Millennium Goals. However, it does not seem to view itself as directly concerned by the issue of the writing-off of the debts of the countries in question.

In this connection, does the Commission intend to develop a position on the debt of the African countries, and, if so, what will this position be? Does the Commission not consider that the Union needs to step up its efforts to achieve the writing-off of those countries' debts if it is to help them achieve the Millennium Goals, given that the G8 decision of July 2005 concerns only a limited number of countries and does not guarantee additionality of resources for the beneficiary countries?

(FR)The Commission welcomes the G8 decision taken last summer to go further in writing off multilateral debt for countries that show they are committed to combating poverty.

In order to help countries of the south to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDG), the Commission is convinced that development aid must be increased substantially. Accordingly, it warmly welcomes the commitment of the June 2005 European Council to raising public development aid by some EUR 20 billion, half of which will be earmarked for Africa. It now falls, of course, to the Member States to put this commitment into action. The Commission must now ensure that the quantity and the effectiveness of Community aid increases.

The issue of debt relief is nothing new and has already formed a significant part of the following ongoing political initiatives:

Following the Cotonou Agreement, the European Development Fund (EDF) now works essentially on the basis of donations and no longer increases the debt burden of African Caribbean Pacific (ACP) countries. The Commission is therefore a ‘small’ creditor by comparison with multilateral creditors.

The Commission is involved in the Heavily-Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative as a creditor on EDF resources (to the tune of EUR 680 million). During the period 2000 to 2005, EUR 344.5 million was disbursed. Add to this the EUR 900 million paid into the Trust Fund managed by the World Bank to finance debt relief by other multilateral organisations, in particular the African Development Bank; between 2000 and 2005, USD 697 million was actually spent.

The Commission also went further than the terms of the initiative by writing off all outstanding special loans among the least developed countries.

It has also been involved in writing off multilateral arrears, on a case-by-case basis, for post-conflict countries, to enable them to take part in the HIPC initiative. In the case of the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Commission has provided budgetary support of EUR 106 million to write off arrears on EDF resources and USD 40 million to help write off the arrears of the African Development Bank.

The commitment by a number of our Member States to write off all of the bilateral credit of HIPCs should also be taken on board in this context.

These points explain the place set aside for debt relief in our strategy for Africa.

The incineration of hazardous and pollutant waste from the processing of petroleum coke by the Viokeral tile factory is provoking an outcry from the public and organisations in the Larissa region. The company's use of petroleum coke - since when is unknown - which was declared illegal by the competent authorities until 2004, was subsequently legalised and there is now a risk that the incineration of petroleum coke by tile factories will become more widespread, at least in Thessaly, for competitive reasons.

In view of the danger posed by this waste - which has a particularly high content of sulphur, heavy metals, carcinogenic polyaromatic hydrocarbons and other substances hazardous to human health - and the previous refusals of the competent Greek authorities to grant authorisation for its use, what measures does the Commission intend to take to put an end to the use of petroleum coke, which is in breach of national and Community environment legislation?

(EN)The use of petroleum coke as a fuel is not prohibited in the EU. However, the provisions of the relevant community legislation have to be complied with by the installation.

The applicable legislation varies depending on whether the petroleum coke is considered “waste” as defined under Directive 75/442/EEC on waste⁽¹⁾. In the first instance it is for the designated competent authorities of the Member States to decide on this matter, taking account of the judgments of the European Court of Justice⁽²⁾.

Incineration of waste is covered by Directive 2000/76/EC on the incineration of waste⁽³⁾ (WID). Plants treating only certain types of wastes are excluded from the scope of the WID, but the petroleum coke is not listed among the exclusions.

Should the petroleum coke not be considered as waste, Directive 2001/80/EC on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants⁽⁴⁾ (LCPD) applies, provided that the thermal input of the installation is equal to or greater than 50 Mega Watt.

Whether petroleum coke is considered waste or not Directive 96/61/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and control⁽⁵⁾ (IPPCD) applies, provided that the relevant capacity threshold (10 tonnes per day) is exceeded.

The requirements of the WID must be met by existing incineration plants from 28 December 2005. The deadline for compliance of existing installations is 30 October 2007 in case of the IPPCD, while for the LCPD it is 1 January 2008.

Expert evaluations on hydrotechnical projects receiving EIB loans, drawn up on the instructions of a Polish environmental organisation, have revealed major irregularities and the infringement of Community law.

In 2001, the EIB granted the Polish Government a loan for the rebuilding of infrastructure destroyed during flooding and for the strengthening of flood defences in the Małopolska region. However, during the reconstruction work serious and irreparable damage was inflicted on river and forest fauna. The hydrotechnical work was carried out using old techniques, irreversibly upsetting the balance of river and forest ecosystems. As a result of this work, a sharp decline was noted in 16 bird species covered by the 1979 Birds Directive as part of the Natura 2000 network. The removal of backwaters and islands in order to regulate the river flow has resulted in the disappearance of habitats on many rivers.

On what basis does the EIB award loans in the EU? Why are projects approved by the EIB not carried out in line with the EU's environmental protection policy? What control measures does the Commission intend to take with regard to the above situation?

(EN)Projects in the EU, financed by the European Investment Bank (EIB), should conform to EU environmental law. In this regard, the Bank carries out an environmental assessment of the projects that it finances and assumes responsibility for monitoring projects during implementation.

The Commission is consulted by the EIB on projects prior to approval by the EIB Board, according to article 21 of the EIB statute with a view to providing an opinion on the conformity of such projects with Community legislation and policies, including environment.

As far as the specific project in Poland is concerned, the Bank confirmed that the project was in line with the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive⁽¹⁾ as amended; it was also a condition of financing that the Polish authorities would respect the requirements of the Birds and Habitats Directives and the designation of sites of conservation interest making up Natura 2000.

If the Honourable Member has any further detailed information that indicates that Community legislation is being breached, this should be sent to the Commission for further consideration.

Political developments in Iran are very disturbing. The reactionary and anti-democratic mullahs consolidated their power with the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president. It is now highly important that the international community, including the EU, should support the democratic forces operating in Iran. The pressure on those holding political power must increase in response to the lack of respect for human rights, financial support for terrorist organisations, and the development of nuclear weapons. Last week, the US Secretary of State revealed that the Administration is to request a further 75 million dollars to promote democracy in Iran. Much of this funding will be invested in radio and television for the population of Iran. Sustained efforts will also be made to reach the Iranian people via the Internet. The USA also intends to increase its aid to the radio station FARDA, which broadcasts news critical of the regime inside Iran.

What measures does the Commission intend to take within the EU to strengthen independent radio and television stations and other democratic forces in Iran?

(EN)The EU has been supporting Human Rights and Democracy in Iran for a long time already.

For instance, the establishment in 2002 of a Human rights dialogue between the EU and Iran is one of the practical means through which the EU can make a contribution to improving the situation on the ground. It provides a structured forum which allows formal discussion of individual cases, as well as a comprehensive range of Human Rights issues. So far, the majority of our interlocutors have shown a clear understanding of the benefit of engagement over isolation.

It is also one of the only ways of reaching out to, and supporting, Human Rights defenders and reformers in Iran, who otherwise would be more isolated than ever. The EU issued a public statement on the state of the EU-Iran Human Rights dialogue in December 2005⁽¹⁾. As of date, despite difficulties, the EU is still pursuing its efforts to hold a session of the dialogue in the near future.

The EU-Iran Dialogue is not an alternative to, but complementary with other means of action. For instance, through its diplomatic missions in Tehran, the EU is regularly démarching the Iranian authorities over individual cases, such as Mr. Abdolfattah Soltani –released on bail on 6 March- and Mr. Akbar Ganji –still in prison.

Moreover, given the deterioration of the human rights situation over the past couple of years –in fact, even before the election of Mr. Ahmadinejad-, the EU has maintained an overall vigorous public line. This led to a decision by all EU Member States to co-sponsor a Resolution adopted by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran in December 2004, and again in December 2005.

Concerning promotion activities, since 2002, under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR), the EU has devoted € 3.4 million to the promotion of human rights and the rule of law in Iran. This includes three projects for a total amount of € 2.9 million which were initiated in 2004, and launched in 2004-05 (for reference, EU partners have committed around € 2 million in total bilateral assistance in these areas). Two of these projects - Prison & Judiciary Reform and Child Protection & Women Empowerment, are implemented by UN agencies, and are expected to provide a useful complement to the EIDHR-sponsored Human Rights (HR) exchanges which have been taking place since 2002 within the framework of the EU-Iran Human Rights dialogue. EC support to civil society development will be further expanded in 2006 through a new € 1,1 million project in cooperation with United Nations Development Program (UNDP) aiming at fostering human rights and greater access to justice.

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that freedom of expression in Iran deserves to be specifically supported. Indeed, the EIDHR provides funding to Non Governmental Organisation (NGO) projects related to freedom of association and freedom of expression in Iran through an open Call for Proposals (Campaign 3 – “Promoting the Democratic Process). However, the EIDHR is not an appropriate instrument to support large-scale European media projects devoted to reach out to the Iranian public.

Lastly, it should be noted that the EU pursues such activities with a long-term perspective, in an open and transparent way, devoid of any particular political agenda. Indeed, our principled view and practical assessment is that efforts to use the “civil society” channel to “weaken” or “change” the Iranian regime would only backfire on the very people we wish to support.

The Mediterranean is a region of intense seismic activity which constantly endangers ancient and Byzantine monuments, such as the Parthenon in Greece and Aghia Sofia in Turkey. The same problem is also faced by other countries in the Mediterranean basin, such as Italy, Spain, Cyprus and Malta, with their wealth of monuments and historic settlements. Community research programmes on natural risks and disasters, particularly seismic risks, have been adopted and implemented for decades already.

Will the Commission examine the possibility of setting up an agency, in the context of the Euro-Mediterranean cooperation programme, which would operate within the EU to protect all these monuments from the disastrous consequences of earthquakes?

(EN)May the Commission draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the fact that the principle of subsidiarity applies here. Nevertheless the Commission considers that several existing instruments – within Commission competences limits – are already addressing concerns raised by the Honourable Member.

In fact, the need to further strengthen co-operation in the field of natural disaster prevention was highlighted at the Barcelona Summit in November 2005. Although not specifically aimed at protecting monuments from consequences of earthquakes, the 2005-2007 ‘Bridge Programme for the Creation of a Euro-Mediterranean System of Mitigation, Prevention and Management of Natural and Man-made Disasters’ contributes to the development of a regional civil protection system. The system aims at ensuring the effective prevention, preparedness and response to natural and man made disasters, including prevention, risk mitigation and pre-disaster planning. Risks related to earthquakes, to tsunamis and to forest fires are covered by the thematic component of this regional Programme. A long term programme (2008-2013) is being prepared, in consultation with all Euromed partners.

Moreover, it is important to mention here the activities of the Community Civil Protection Mechanism. Created by the Council Decision of 2001, the Mechanism is designed to respond to natural and man made disasters regardless of their location. Its aim is provide the appropriate protection of people, environment and property including cultural heritage.

The Mediterranean is the cradle of many civilisations and its cultural heritage is part of our common legacy: we are all responsible for its conservation and development. Since this unique cultural endowment is a resource under threat and a shared responsibility, another regional programme within the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, ‘Euromed Heritage’, is helping all Euromed Partners to transform their cultural capital into a social and economic asset, and to appreciate their common interests. One of the objectives of Euromed Heritage is to preserve the historical and cultural identity of traditional Mediterranean architecture through the establishing and use of a multidisciplinary working methodology for the rehabilitation and sustainable maintenance of buildings and monuments.

Hence, the Commission does not envisage for the time being to set up a Euromed agency aimed at protecting monuments from consequences of earthquakes.

All EU citizens should enjoy guaranteed recognition of their individual right to freedom of movement and residence within the EU, to vote and stand in EP elections and local elections in their Member State of residence; diplomatic and consular protection on the part of any Member State in a third country where their own national Member State is not represented, access to the Ombudsman, and the right to petition the EP. Given that Union citizenship guarantees the same rights to all its citizens, independently of their place of origin and whether their place of residence is within the Union or in a third country:

Is the Commission in possession of any kind of analysis assessing the conditions which obtain with regard to the exercise of their Union citizenship by EU citizens residing outwith the territory of the Union? If not, does it intend to carry out any such analytical assessment? Does it, furthermore, plan to adopt any measures with a view to, on the one hand, to informing EU citizens residing outwith the Union of their European citizenship rights, and on the other, guaranteeing those citizens the full exercise of these rights?

(FR)In its fourth report on European citizenship of 26 October 2004⁽¹⁾, the Commission stressed the importance of information and communication regarding the rights conferred by EU citizenship. To this end, it is working hard to improve EU citizens’ general knowledge and to provide access to reliable information on the subject⁽²⁾. Information of this nature is published, inter alia, on the Commission’s website and is, as such, accessible to everyone, including people living outside the Union.

Although some EU citizenship rights may be exercised by persons residing outside the EU, most of these rights are intended exclusively or primarily for EU citizens residing in a Member State other than that of their nationality.

According to Article 18 of the Treaty, every citizen has the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. The secondary legislation Community instruments on free movement and residence are based on the provisions governing the exercise of the citizens’ right to enter and reside in a Member State other than that from which they hail. The Commission issues regular reports on the implementation of the different instruments in force. In response to the need to codify and reinforce Community legislation in the area of free movement and residence, the new directive 2004/38/EC⁽³⁾ on the right of Union citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, adopted on 29 April 2004, brought together, in the form of a single instrument, the complex legislative corpus and the copious amount of case law in force, which will clarify this fundamental right and make it more transparent for Union citizens. The directive facilitates the exercise of the right of residence by simplifying the conditions to be met and the formalities to be completed, and creates a permanent leave to remain after five years’ residence in the host Member State. The Member States must bring into force the national provisions needed to comply with this directive by 30 April 2006 at the latest.

The political citizenship rights accorded by Article 19 of the Treaty are not extended to citizens residing in third countries, but to those residing in an EU Member State, under the same conditions as nationals of that State. Directive 94/80/EC sets out the provisions whereby Union citizens residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals can exercise the right to vote and to stand as candidates in municipal elections; Directive 93/109/EC also sets out the provisions whereby citizens residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals can exercise the right to vote and to stand in elections. The Commission has published several reports on the implementation of these directives⁽⁴⁾.

The right to apply to the Ombudsman and to petition Parliament under Article 21 of the EC Treaty is conferred on EU citizens, and in any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State. These instruments were intended as resources at the citizens’ disposal in instances of maladministration in the activities of Community institutions and bodies, and where the citizens’ rights relating to the Community’s areas of activity have been violated.

The fourth report on Union citizenship mentioned above contains detailed information on the number of petitions submitted to Parliament and the Ombudsman during the reference period (May 2001 – April 2004). The Ombudsman is, moreover, preparing an annual report on his activities, including information such as statistics on the geographical origins of the complaints submitted.

The entitlement to protection by diplomatic or consular authorities laid down by Article 20 of the EC Treaty is the only citizenship right specifically created for citizens of EU Member States outside the European Union.

Under Article 20 of the EC Treaty, protection can be accorded by any Member State with a representation (embassy, consulate) in a country outside the EU.

According to Article 20 of the EC Treaty, each Member State must offer protection to the citizens of other Member States ‘on the same conditions’ as the nationals of that State.

Decision 95/553/EC on the protection of EU citizens by diplomatic and consular representations in countries outside the EU has been implemented in the legislation of all Member States, which implies that every EU citizen can enjoy this right. Distressed citizens may apply to any Member State represented in a third country, if the State of the citizen concerned is a national of a country that has neither an embassy nor a consulate in that third country. As the preamble to the above-mentioned decision states, diplomatic and consular protection laid down by Article 20 of the EC will reinforce the perception of common EU citizenship, of an EU identity and of European solidarity.

The concept and definition of ‘distressed state’ are not set in stone on a finite list; far from it, Decision 95/553/EC lays down a range of example situations in which the citizen can be deemed in need of assistance (arrest, detention, death of a spouse, etc). Among the cases provided for by the abovementioned decision, the protection offered by embassies and/or consulates covers assistance in individual cases, such as EU citizens who have lost their passport, those who have been victims of violence, or indeed the relief and repatriation of distressed citizens.

Protection also has a very specific meaning in emergencies, such as those caused by natural disasters, or disasters with a collective impact.

On the abovementioned issues, the Commission will contribute to the ongoing reflections in the Council under the Austrian Presidency and based on the wishes expressed in the Hague Programme.

Furthermore, the Commission, which is currently drafting reports on EU citizenship rights – including the right to diplomatic and consular protection – laid down by Article 22 of the EC Treaty, will draw up a communication on this issue.

Article 22 of the EC Treaty states that, on the basis of these reports, proposals can be made to extend the content of EU citizenship rights, including the right to diplomatic and consular protection. The next report will cover the period until the year 2007, the year in which Decision 95/553/EC is to be reviewed in the light of the experience acquired in five years since its entry into force.

As regards information to the citizens, the subject of the honourable Member’s question, the EU’s institutions have put together an information brochure entitled 'European consular protection’ which is intended for the general public, published in the EU official languages, and which is in the process of being disseminated and distributed. The brochure explains that there is a range of situations in which the Member State cannot be obliged to provide assistance to EU citizens ‘as part of consular and diplomatic protection’ (for example, settlement of lawyers’ fees or legal assistance in the event of legal protection, settlement of transport costs, etc.).

Consequently, the Commission does not deem it useful to devote specific analysis to the issue of the exercise of EU citizenship rights by citizens residing outside the Union. It also wishes to emphasise the regular reports on EU citizenship and on the specific rights relating thereto.

The Commission is expected to approve eight controversial pesticides in the near future, in particular four fungicides with hormone-disrupting properties which have detrimental effects on laboratory animals. Young rats, for example, suffer irreparable damage.

Last year, the Commission notified the manufacturers that the fungicides would be prohibited. Subsequently, sustained pressure was brought to bear on the Commission to persuade it to change its position, which it now has. The Commission is now saying that it may allow limited use of the substances, which implies that they will be released on to the market.

The Nordic Member States are among those outraged at this outcome. The Swedish Environment Minister, for instance, commented that the situation is very, very troubling and implies that the Commission has lowered the bar for the approval of pesticides in the EU.

Can the Commission provide details of its contacts with various companies since the first letter was written to manufacturers last year notifying them that the pesticides would be prohibited? Does the Commission share the Swedish Environment Minister's view that the bar has been lowered for the approval of pesticides in the EU?

(EN)The evaluation of the eight substances has shown that they have hazardous properties. However, the Commission has to take into account the conditions of use. This means that, as provided in Article 5 of Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, a substance which is intrinsically hazardous could be used in a limited way if the risks can be managed by appropriate mitigation measures.

Therefore the Commission has imposed a number of restrictions:

The crops for which the use is authorised are only those evaluated and agreed at EU level.

The inclusion of an active substance in the positive list of the Directive is normally valid for 10 years. In this case it has been restricted to 7 years to ensure early review when more experience on their possible impact on human health and the environment is available. Authorisation holders will have to report annually on any effect on operator health.

As regards conditions of use, the same detailed risk mitigation measures are mandatory throughout the Union.

The suspected endocrine disruptors will be reviewed as soon as OECD⁽¹⁾ protocols for the necessary studies are adopted. Companies will have to provide these studies in given time limits.

To ensure transparency, the Commission wrote to all concerned notifiers that it was considering the possible non-inclusion of their substance. It did not write that prohibition had already been decided. The Commission invited the notifiers to comment and confirmed that it would not examine further studies or accept changes to the evaluated uses.

There have been meetings between the Commission and the notifiers to explain the approach and to discuss their comments.

It is correct that notifiers have opposed the proposed restrictions, in particular the fact that extension of the scope of crops on which the substances could be used should be evaluated at EU level. Nevertheless, the Commission has maintained these restrictions.

The Commission submitted its proposals to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health on 3 March 2006. The Committee did not deliver a favourable opinion on the proposals, which will be transmitted to the Council in accordance with the comitology procedure.

The Commission is no doubt aware of the Dutch lawsuit last year, in which a number of tobacco manufacturers attacked the Tobacco Products Directive's requirement to furnish all additives in tobacco products (see Commission's assessment report on Directive 2001/37/EC dated 27 July 2005, pages 6-7). Seven tobacco manufacturers argued that their trade secrets would be violated.

What does the Commission intend to do about this argument on trade secrets being used, not merely in the Netherlands, to create stalling tactics and unnecessary obstacles to the efficient working of this disclosure provision (Article 6 of the Tobacco Products Directive 2001/37/EC)?

Given that other industries - including cosmetics and medicines - are subject to strict regulations about the ingredients they put into their products, does the Commission agree that the tobacco industry should be brought into line and forced to disclose the ingredients in their products and the smoke released on combustion?

Does the Commission also agree that full disclosure should be a prerequisite for the placing on the market of tobacco products within the EU?

(EN)The Commission would like to state clearly that trade secrets cannot be used as an argument not to disclose all tobacco ingredients to the competent authorities of Member States, as required by Article 6 of the Tobacco Products Directive. The Dutch lawsuit confirms this.

The issue of trade secrets only arises at the second stage, when informing the public. Here the Tobacco Products Directive already requires Member States to take due account of trade secrets.

The Commission has set up a working group to develop a harmonised data reporting format for ingredients – one format for the submission of ingredients data to the authorities and another format for the information of consumers.

The Commission supports the Member States in their efforts to achieve full disclosure of ingredients to the regulator.

Finally, the Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member that the Tobacco Products Directive does not link the obligation to submit ingredients data to the placing on the market of tobacco products

In November 2000, the European Parliament adopted a report comprising a resolution (2000/2025(INI)⁽¹⁾) on participation of women in peaceful conflict resolution. The report urged the Commission and Member States to increase women's participation in conflict prevention and peace-keeping measures and effectively support women who are victims of violence during armed conflicts. The Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality has recently begun work on a follow-up to the resolution from 2000. In this connection, I would ask the Commission what measures have been taken since the adoption of the resolution in November 2000 and what measures, if any, the Commission has planned in this field?

(EN)Women are important actors in peace-building processes and in preventing the outbreak of conflict. However, many times they tend to work at the grass roots level and carry out work that is overlooked, whereas men tend to make up the official delegations that represent the parties to the conflict or the mediators.

We are in this context fully committed to implementing United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 of October 2000 concerning women, peace and security. This commitment is reinstated in the new Commission Communication “Roadmap on gender equality”.

Important recommendations in this regard exist also in the operational paper of September 2005 by the Council on practical measures for implementing United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 in planning and implementation of European Security and Defence Policy missions.

Through the European Initiative on Democracy and Human Rights the Commission is supporting training in the area of crisis management. This training, intended for Member States experts to be deployed in the field, has as its integral part the promotion of gender equality in crisis management and conflict resolution.

Support to non governmental organisations including women’s organisations in this field plays a key role. An ongoing project example in this field is the training of women in peaceful conflict resolution in Rwanda (€ 350.000). There has also been support to strengthen women’s active participation in peace processes and long-term peace building in other parts of the world, including in the cases of Georgia and Colombia.

Through the European Initiative on Democracy and Human Rights, we are expecting a number of civil society organisations to soon submit to us project proposals for funding under the theme of rights of vulnerable groups in armed conflict. Particular accent is put on gender based violence.

The disgraceful decision of the Greek Government of 21 February 2006 to draft the seamen who have come out on strike in support of their legitimate claims is a direct infringement of the Constitution, in particular Article 22(2) thereof prohibiting any form of compulsory work, the EHCR, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Articles 29 and 105 of the International Labour Convention, which have been ratified by Greece and are binding on it.

This unacceptable treatment of seamen and workers in other sectors, to which both ND and PASOK governments have resorted in the past, seriously undermines the basic civil rights and freedoms, including the right to strike, hard won by the working class through their sweat and blood. The order for the seamen to be drafted must therefore be immediately countermanded and this reactionary and repressive measure revoked.

Does the Commission condemn these unacceptable government attempts to restrict the undeniable basic social rights and freedoms of the entire Greek working population?

(EN)Article 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union provides that workers or their respective organisations have, in accordance with Community law and national laws and practices, the right, in cases of conflicts of interest, to take collective action to defend their interests, including strike action⁽¹⁾.

The right to strike is also enshrined in several international conventions and constitutions of EU Member States.

However, it should be noted that the right to adopt, by means of directives, minimum requirements under the social policy provisions of the EC Treaty is excluded as regards the right to strike pursuant Article 137(5) of the EC Treaty.

Over the last few days an extended seamen's strike in Greece has caused major difficulties in terms of territorial economic and social cohesion (regarding the supply of food and fuels to island communities, the transport of invalids, etc.). While the guaranteed right of workers to strike is undisputed, being codified in Article 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 36 of the same Charter and Article II-96 of the European Constitution explicitly state that the European Union recognises and respects access to services of general economic interest as provided for in national laws and practices in order to promote the social and territorial cohesion of the Union and its competitivity.

Does the Commission agree that massive strike action of this kind infringes the right of European citizens to access to basic services and undermines the proper functioning of internal market mechanisms? Does the Commission have any comparative studies and information on responses to such situations in the various Member States? Does it agree that measures should be taken to ensure the compulsory provision of a minimum level of services as already provided for in certain Member States? Has it raised the matter in the context of the European social dialogue?

(EN)Article 28 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights provides that workers or their respective organisations have, in accordance with Community law and national laws and practices, the right, in cases of conflicts of interest, to take collective action to defend their interests, including strike action⁽¹⁾.

The right to strike is also enshrined in several international conventions and constitutions of EU Member States.

At EU-level, Article 137(5) of the EC Treaty provides that the provisions in Article 137 EC (Chapter on Social Policy) do not apply to the right to strike. Therefore, there is no EC legislation specifically regulating this right. In the present case, the Commission notes that the questions put by the Honourable Member refer to difficulties linked to the territorial, economic and social cohesion of Greece caused by a strike (impossibility to supply food and fuels to island communities, impossibility to transport sick persons, etc). On the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member, the situation seems to be of an internal and not of a cross-border nature. It is for the Greek competent authorities, including courts, to appreciate the legality of the strike in accordance with national law and with due respect to the international obligations of the country.

At a recent meeting in Marrakesh the Transport Ministers from the EU and the neighbouring countries around the Mediterranean agreed to cooperate more extensively in the transport sector (including travel by air and sea).

Will the Commission explain what benefits will accrue to the parts of the EU which are closest to the countries in the Mediterranean basin?

Will the Commission explain whether the more extensive cooperation referred to above includes any specific measures for EU regions in the area which are insular in nature - such as the Balearic Islands?

Lastly, does the Commission expect that the increase in cooperation with regard to transport by air and sea will have a positive impact on the tourist industry?

(EN)At the Ministerial Conference of Marrakech on 15 December 2005, the Transport Ministers of the European Union and the Mediterranean Partners affirmed their commitment to achieving the main objective of the Barcelona Process in the field of transport, namely the setting up of an integrated, efficient, safe and secure transport system in the Mediterranean region. The Ministers also welcomed the fact that the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) will contribute to identify the cooperation towards more integration between the EU and the Mediterranean Partners through the implementation of ENP Action plans, including in the transport sector. The development of this transport system will promote the intra-regional trade and cross-border co-operation which will have a positive impact on economic growth and job creation in EU, especially those countries which are closest to the Mediterranean basin.

The EU financial support, by means of technical assistance to the Mediterranean partners, but also the realisation of missing infrastructure interconnections (both at North-South and South-South levels) opens new markets for the transport industry of the EU Mediterranean territories.

Sea and air transport are the main transport modes in the Mediterranean area. The implementation of international standards on maritime and air safety and security as well as the approximation to the relevant EU legislations are essential measures for the development of a safe and secure transport system. Therefore the implementation of these measures is of utmost importance for the tourist industry of the Mediterranean region as a whole, and islands like the Balearic Islands, will benefit from the improvement of the regional transport system they belong to. The tourist industry will also benefit from the open aviation agreements that the Commission may negotiate with the different Mediterranean Parties, as it has done with Morocco, the agreement having been initialled in Marrakech in the margins of the Euromed Ministerial meeting.

The closure of the BFL phosphate fertiliser plant in Thessaloniki and the prospect of the closure of another plant belonging to the same banking consortium in Kavala, resulting in hundreds of job losses, have understandably provoked indignation and ongoing mass protests by workers. Other workers in Thessaloniki are also expressing their solidarity in the face of continued job losses and mass redundancies, with the support of farmers objecting to the impact of the CAP on the dwindling rural populace.

What view does the Commission take of this wave of mass redundancies being caused by structural adjustments under the Lisbon Strategy and the growing unemployment situation, which is still being further aggravated by the revised CAP?

(FR)The Commission is aware of the detrimental impact that a factory closure can have on the workers affected, on their families and on the region in question. The Commission may not, however, express its opinion or interfere in companies’ internal decision-making, except where Community law has been violated.

The Commission would point out in this regard that Community legislation comprises different directives intended to ensure that cases of restructuring are both justified and appropriately managed – that is, ensuring that the workers are informed and consulted – especially when companies close down.

On 31 March 2005⁽¹⁾, the Commission adopted a communication entitled ‘Restructuring and employment’ in which it set out a global, coherent EU approach to restructuring.

Different Community policies help to pre-empt and keep pace with economic change, to support employment and to encourage regional development. Alongside the two pillars of agricultural policy, the Commission’s industrial policy, the employment strategy and the intervention of the structural funds are especially important in the situation raised by the honourable Member. For example, the mobilisation of the different Community instruments and a coordinated approach were in a position to be activated as part of the process of accompanying the profound restructuring relating to the reform of the sugar common market organisation (CMO), in particular by setting up a contact group between the social partners and the various services of the Commission.

Furthermore, following an invitation by the European Council of 15 and 16 December 2005, the Commission adopted on 1 March 2006 a proposal relating to the creation of a European globalisation adjustment fund to support workers made redundant in the regions and sectors affected by the major structural changes taking place in world trade.

What progress has been made in the fight against corruption in the new EU Member States since they joined the Union in May 2004?

(EN)Countries preparing to join the European Union must meet certain criteria which were established by the European Council in Copenhagen in 1993. These criteria include the requirement to incorporate the “Acquis Communautaire”, and hence the existing EU instruments relating to corruption, into national law. The Member States had to fulfil the requirements in that area to join the EU. Following the enlargement of the Union on 1 May 2004, the new Member States became subject to the same monitoring and evaluation procedures as the existing Member States.

Since they are members of the EU, there is therefore no special mechanism in place at present to specifically monitor any Member State’s “progress in fighting corruption”. They are treated in the same manner as the other member states.

Legal instruments in the area of police and judicial cooperation in relation to the prevention of, and fight against, corruption are drawn up under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union. Such instruments may include provisions whereby Member States are required to inform the Commission and the Council of the steps taken for their transposition.

Work is currently underway, however, within the overall context of the development of comparable crime statistics, to develop a methodology over the coming years for recording and sharing comparable statistics on crime and criminal justice, including corruption. In addition, for the first time questions on corruption were included within a Eurobarometer survey, as carried out in late 2005. All twenty five Member States were included in the survey. This was the first occasion on which a Eurobarometer survey was used to ascertain European Union citizens’ perceptions and experience of corruption, and it is anticipated that its results will be published in the coming weeks. Both of these initiatives will, in due course, enable the Commission and Member States alike to gain a clearer understanding of the corruption phenomenon in all Member States.

The radical Palestinian movement Hamas won the Palestinian elections held on 25 January 2006. The European Union now finds itself in a very complex situation because Hamas features on the EU’s list of terrorist organisations. At the same time, however, it is impossible to ignore the fact that Hamas was victorious in a democratic election, which the EU helped to organise and which was monitored by the EU itself. As a member of the Delegation to the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly, I would therefore be interested to know: what is the Commission’s position on the new situation in the Middle East after the Palestinian legislative elections, and what is its position on the Hamas movement? What further steps can the EU take towards fostering peace politics between Palestine and Israel? What specific steps does the EU intend to take to help create two sovereign states: Palestine and Israel?

(EN)The Commission has recognised the right of the Palestininian people to express their democratic will and supported the organisation and holding of democratic and transparent elections in line with international standards.

Following the victory of Hamas, the Quartet and the General Affairs and External Relations Council set out, on 30 January 2006, the principles for political engagement with the future Palestinian Authority (PA), namely that new government should pursue peace by peaceful means, work with Israel and accept previous agreements and obligations, including the Roadmap. The Commission fully subscribes these principles.

We will therefore need to see how – or indeed if - the election victory of Hamas will translate into a platform for the next Palestinian Government that will allow continued engagement with the Palestinian Authority on the basis of these principles.

In the intervening period, the interim Palestinian administration is facing a severe fiscal crisis. The Commission has responded by providing over €120 million to help the caretaker government stabilise PA finances and meet the needs of the population. This commitment has been endorsed by the Council and supported by the Quartet.

Looking beyond the period of the caretaker government, the Commission is ready to continue humanitarian and emergency aid to ease the plight of the Palestinians. The rest of the Commission programme will need to be reviewed against the evolving political situation and will depend on the composition and programme of the new Palestinian Government and its commitment to pursuing peace by peaceful means.

The Commission will continue its civil society intiatives and trilateral EU-Israel-Palestinian dialogue as part of its ongoing effort to foster mutual understanding and to promote a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

In July and September 2005 I tabled questions to the Commission concerning the evident difficulties experienced by Slovenian gaming operators in advertising their activities in Austria. A Slovenian company recently submitted an official complaint to Commissioner McCreevy concerning this unjustified restriction on the freedom to provide services in the tourism sector, together with a request for an official procedure to be initiated against Austria over this infringement.

I would like to remind the Commission that, for example, the Slovenian company Hit Nova Gorica, which operates games of chance, is not permitted to advertise its activities in Austria, while no such restriction applies to Austrian operators. Austria is thereby infringing the basic principles of free trade, and in particular Article 49 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which concerns the freedom to provide services.

What has the Commission ascertained on the basis of the documents and detailed account submitted by the aforementioned Slovenian company with regard to this practical example? Has the Commission examined the Austrian law (amended in 2003) to determine whether it is in compliance with Community law? What has the Commission decided on the question of initiating an infringement procedure against Austria?

(EN)The Commission can confirm that it received the complaint referred to on the 20th of February 2006. It will examine the complaint, in particular the Austrian law's compatibility with Article 49 of the EC Treaty. As with all complaints it will carefully assess not only the restrictive elements of the law but also if the relevant restrictions (1) are justified by imperative reasons relating to the public interest, and (2) are not disproportionate i.e. are not excessive and cannot be replaced by less restrictive measures. The Commission will then decide on the basis of this examination, whether or not to open an infringement procedure.

The Commission can assure the Honourable Member that it will keep the complainant informed of progress in this matter.

The Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs, Joaquín Almunia, met the Romanian Prime Minister, Călin Popescu Tăriceanu, and the Minister for Public Works, Sebastián Vladescu, in Bucharest on 23 February 2006 to discuss macro-economic developments in Romania in 2005 and tax policy priorities for 2006. At the meeting, the Commissioner drew attention to the adverse impact that a cut in taxation could have in the medium term on the collection of the revenue required for infrastructure and education reforms and the cofunding of European projects. He also said that inflation control and bringing the trade balance into equilibrium were priority objectives.

How, in the Commission's view, is Romania going to be able to meet these challenges in order to achieve the necessary economic convergence and ensure that its forthcoming accession is a success for all Romanians and for the European Union as a whole?

(EN)In the assessment of the Commission, in terms of the Copenhagen economic criteria for accession, Romania continues to comply with the criterion of being a functioning market economy.

Romania has broadly maintained macroeconomic stability, but the policy mix turned less prudent in 2005 and raised concerns about the sustainability of recent stabilisation achievements. Romania would be advised to re-establish a prudent fiscal policy, notably by taking additional measures to strengthen permanently revenues and by a cautious public sector wage policy. This would contribute to sustaining macroeconomic stability, in particular by keeping the widening of external imbalances in check and by contributing to a further decline in inflation. The Commission welcomes that the 2006 budget increasingly reflects these objectives. The Commission also notes the recent tightening of the monetary policy stance, which may help to further reduce inflation.

Current efforts to broaden the tax base and improve further revenue collection are welcome. This would contribute to achieve Romania’s objective of significantly raising the revenue-to-Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ratio, which remains low compared to other countries in the region.

Romania is currently experiencing an upward pressure on public expenditure, which may further increase in the years to come, not only due to co-financing of EU projects, but also because of the needs for public spending on infrastructure, education, health and administrative capacity. The Commission would encourage a clearer prioritisation of public expenditure, aiming at increasing the quality of public finances by directing expenditures towards accession-related areas and towards areas strengthening the economy’s growth potential. Such strategy should equally give emphasis to the sustainability of public finances, notably by addressing problems in the labour market and by undertaking more comprehensive reforms of the pension and health systems.

Can the Commission please inform Members what is being done to stop international con-merchants from scamming citizens of non-Member States by using an e-mail or postal address in the EU to give them legitimacy in the eyes of the inhabitants of developing countries?

As Chairman of the EP Delegation to SAARC and South Asian countries I have been contacted by people living in that area of the world, most recently the Maldives, who have been conned into transferring their personal savings into supposed EU country firm accounts in order, they are told, to be able to receive lottery winnings. The people of developing countries are particularly vulnerable to such dishonest practices and easily fall victim to cons that we in the West are more aware of and have been working to try to stamp out at home.

Is the Commission sensitive to this problem and what steps are being taken to ensure that the reputation of the EU is not damaged by such criminal activity?

(EN)Scamming is a worldwide type of fraud that does not affect developing country nationals only. This form of fraud does not involve specific target Countries. In many cases (e.g. Nigerian letter scams) the centre of fraud dissemination is actually based in third Countries. These types of fraud are particularly difficult to counter due to the little costs and time involved for criminals to send e-mails on a very large scale. Normally the best response against these scams is consumer awareness.

Even if Member State and third country authorities have primary responsibility for fighting this type of fraud, it is widely recognised that the Commission’s involvement in fraud prevention in certain areas provided an added value. From a general point of view the Commission is promoting a better information exchange; it is raising awareness and strengthening cross-border cooperation. In particular cases (non-cash fraud), it established a framework where fraud prevention specialists could meet and create synergies, including the exchange of best practices and educational material.

As a result, the co-operation to prevent fraud has intensified, notably at cross-border level. The Commission and EU Member States support international cooperation among law enforcement agencies on spam, on fraud and on cybercrime. During the World Summit of the Information Society (WSIS) which took place in Tunisia in November 2005, the EU supported the Agenda for Action, stressing, inter alia, the importance of enforcement, including for acts committed in one jurisdiction but having effects in another, which is the case here.