I was recently contacted by a constituent concerned about the situation of political prisoners of the Cuban Government.

In June 2006 the Council affirmed the relevance and validity of its 1996 Common Position on Cuba which among others, is aimed at encouraging 'the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms' in Cuba. According to highly respected human rights organisations such as Human Rights Watch, it is a well-established fact that of 75 political dissidents, independent journalists and human rights advocates who were summarily tried in April 2003, 60 remain imprisoned. Serving sentences of on average 20 years, the incarcerated dissidents endure poor conditions and punitive treatment in prison.

What is the state of the dialogue between the EU and Cuba on human rights issues? What positive steps are being taken in order to achieve the release of political prisoners in Cuba?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the Presidency and is not binding either on the Council or on its members, was not presented orally at Council Question Time at Parliament’s May 2007 part-session in Strasbourg.

The Council has condemned the extremely harsh punishments imposed in 2003 on 75 Cuban citizens. The EU has repeatedly made representations to the Cuban authorities about the unsatisfactory human rights situation in Cuba and demanded the release of all political prisoners. The Council regrets the fact that only a few prisoners have been released, and even then, in some cases, only on account of severe health problems. It also condemns the fact that, purely for exercising their right to freedom of speech and expression, other Cuban citizens have recently been sentenced to lengthy terms of imprisonment.

It is up to Cuba to put matters right, especially in view of its membership of the Human Rights Council and the resulting obligation to apply and advocate particularly high standards. On high-level visits human rights issues are invariably raised, including the fate of political prisoners. The Council notes with satisfaction that this approach is clearly and unreservedly endorsed by the vast majority of MEPs.

The considerations set out by the German Presidency in its reply to question H-0277/07⁽¹⁾ on EU relations with Cuba not only fail to answer a straightforward question, but also increase grounds for concern as to the purpose of the 'current internal consultations' and the attempt to 'reassess' EU policy on Cuba.

This is all the more so given that it is the EU – and not Cuba in relation to any Member State – which has a 'common position' adopted in 1996, which explicitly states that its goal is to 'encourage a process of transition' and 'facilitate peaceful change in Cuba'. If this is not interference, what is?

The German Presidency goes on to claim that EU policy on Cuba is independent of the USA. How then does it explain that at the recent EU-US Summit on 30 April in Washington, it was claimed that 'throughout the year, we have consulted on Latin America, and in this context also on Cuba, including the prospect for democracy in the future. In mid-2006, the EU renewed its Common Position on Cuba. Meanwhile, the United States released the second report of the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba (CAFC)'?

I would therefore again ask Council: what is this debate it is currently holding on Cuba, and what is its objective?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the May 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council has nothing to add to the answer it has already given to question H-0277/07, which was put in April.

Scientific data concludes that, if used as the front-line primary test, HPV DNA testing is the next logical advance in best practice for cervical cancer prevention. It not only offers a higher level of sensitivity and increased disease detection rate, but also allows for less frequent screenings, ultimately saving time and resources within a health system. Despite the introduction of new vaccines, if countries do not offer more organised and better quality screening programmes using the most advanced technologies, Europeans will face an increase, not a decrease, in the incidence of cervical cancer. Since the adoption of the 2003 Recommendation on Cancer Screening, a new wealth of European data provides overwhelming evidence to favour HPV DNA testing over cytology (smears) as a better predictor for identifying women at risk for developing cervical cancer.

What steps will the Council take to ensure that in its considerations of the Commission’s upcoming review of the 2003 Recommendation on Cancer Screening it will adequately reflect current advances and developments and update the Recommendation to reflect newly published evidence and recent European clinical guidelines to ensure rapid advances towards eliminating this preventable disease across Europe?

(DE) This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is binding on neither the Council nor the Member States, was not given orally during Question Time to the Council at the European Parliament's May 2007 part-session in Strasbourg.

The Council thanks the Honourable Member for her interest in this important issue, and also wishes to refer her to its answer to her oral question H-0084/07.

The Commission intends to present the first edition of the EU guidelines on quality assurance in cervical cancer screening and diagnosis in the first half of 2007. This will lay down a European reference standard for cervical cancer screening; this is a measure to implement the Council Recommendation of 2 December 2003 on cancer screening⁽¹⁾, in which it was suggested to the Member States that they should carry out screening programmes in accordance with European guidelines on best practice.

As soon as those guidelines are published, the Council Presidency will refer to them and decide on appropriate follow-up measures, taking account of the most recent advances and developments in this field, so that rapid progress can be made throughout the European Union with overcoming this preventable disease.

Following the undemocratic presidential elections in Belarus in 2005 the EU began to apply sanctions against Belarus. It banned A. Lukaschenko and 30 officials from entering the EU and froze their European bank accounts.

In view of the totalitarian regime of the Belarus President, the restriction of opposition rights and human rights violations the sanctions against Belarus have been extended until 10 April 2008. The Council of the EU has also taken the decision to exclude Belarus from the EU trade preferences scheme.

The armed conflict in Darfur involving the regular army has been running for a number of years. Violent attacks on the civil population, torture and the forced recruitment of adults and children for military service – typical human rights violations and breaches of international humanitarian law in Darfur – are on the increase.

What sanctions is the Council imposing on Sudan for human rights violations and what sanctions does it propose to apply? Are such sanctions suitably proportionate to the situation in Belarus and to the sanctions imposed on that country?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the May 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

Comparison of the measures taken in relation to Sudan and Belarus is, in principle, possible and reasonable only to a limited degree, since the political circumstances of the two countries are completely different.

The EU imposed an arms embargo on Sudan in 1994, and it is still applicable. The sanctions (restrictions on travel and the freezing of assets) specified in UN Security Council Resolution 1591 (2005) as being applicable to persons obstructing the peace process and/or committing offences against international law or human rights or committing other acts of cruelty in Darfur were incorporated into EU and EC law. In accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1672 (2006) of 1 June 2006, the Council decided to impose sanctions on four persons.

The Council has repeatedly stressed its willingness to take appropriate action – including targeted sanctions – against all the parties to the conflict in the event of failure to make visible progress in Darfur, and has furthermore expressed its support for the use of sanctions in accordance with Resolution 1591 against anyone obstructing the peace process, committing violations of human rights or breaching the agreed cease-fire or the arms embargo, while applying the measures described in the Resolution to their fullest extent.

The Council has argued that the Security Council should, as a matter of urgency, examine the possibility of further measures of the kind provided for in its own Resolution 1591 of 2005, and is itself willing to consider additional measures, in particular under UN aegis, against any party obstructing the implementation of the UN’s package of measures in support of the Mission of the African Union in Sudan (AMIS).

The Turkish chief of diplomacy and the head of the country's armed forces have both announced that Turkey is prepared for military intervention in northern Iraq, General Yasar Buyukanit commenting that such an offensive was inevitable.

In view of the fact that an incursion into northern Iraq will create further problems in that country, and the surrounding territory, what view does the Council take of possible Turkish military intervention in that area? What action will it take to ensure that any such moves are thwarted?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the May 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

It is not open to the Council to express views on public statements of this kind. Although it is following closely developments in the area to which the honourable Member refers, no official statement has yet been made.

It needs nevertheless to be pointed out that Turkey, as a country applying for accession to the EU, and engaged in negotiations to that end, is required to endorse the values and objectives of the European Union, as set out in the Treaties. Turkey is therefore required to demonstrate beyond all doubt its commitment to good neighbourly relationships and to the resolution of outstanding border disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the UN Charter.

This, together with the principles in accordance with which negotiations are to be conducted, is stipulated in the negotiating framework for the accession negotiations with Turkey, and the peaceful settlement of border disputes is also listed as a short-term priority in the accession partnership with Turkey adopted by the Council on 23 January 2006. The EU and Turkey are together giving systematic consideration to these issues.

The Council will be aware of the deteriorating situation in Sri Lanka. What discussions have taken place in Council in particular covering any positive measures to help alleviate the tensions of violence in this country?

(DE) This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on the Council’s members, was not delivered orally at the Council’s question time in Parliament’s plenary sitting in Strasbourg in May 2007.

While the Council has not held an exchange of views on Sri Lanka recently, the EU is of course following developments there on a continuing basis at working level. The EU is also playing a major role as one of the four co-chairs of the Tokyo Conference on the Reconstruction and Development of Sri Lanka (2003), and continues to support without restriction Norway’s role as mediator in the peace process.

The Commission refers to budget heading 16 02 02 regarding funding for the broadcasting of Euronews in Arabic. However, the original amendment specifically referring to the addition of a channel in Arabic as one of the measures under this heading was rejected on first reading. It was retabled and adopted on second reading by the European Parliament. However, the justification regarding the funding makes only general reference to measures within the framework of neighbourly relations with the Mediterranean countries and no specific mention of a specific broadcasting channel, other media or European funding for programmes in Arabic. In view of this, can the Council explain how it justifies projected funding under heading 16 02 02 for the broadcasting of Euronews in Arabic also, as announced by the Directorate-General responsible for communications? Have the shareholders of this private undertaking been informed of plans to use the funding in question for this purpose and are they in agreement?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the May 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council has given due attention to the position of the European Parliament on the issue addressed by the honourable Member as expressed in paragraph 32 of the resolution of the European Parliament on the European Union general budget for the financial year 2007, adopted on 14 December 2006.

As regards its implementation, the Council begs to point out to the honourable Member that this, under Article 274 of the European Communities Treaty, is a matter for the Commission

On its decision on complaint 1273/2004/GC, the European Ombudsman concluded that Article 5 (1) of Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003⁽¹⁾ had only come into force on 1 August 2004 and considered erroneous the Commission's other interpretations, and furthermore considered maladministration the inconsistent remarks made by the Commission in this respect.

Does the European Council agree with the decision of the Ombudsman on what constitutes the date of entry into force of the above-mentioned article?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the May 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

It is not open to the Council to interpret Community law.

Moreover, the Council does not customarily comment on the Ombudsman’s decisions, particularly when these do not refer to it itself.

Finally, to the best of my knowledge, numerous requests have been made of the Court of First Instance to rule on the validity of the Regulation 1954/2003, and, since it has not yet ruled on this point, it would be inappropriate for me to make comments here that might affect this case.

Will the European Council support putting into place an information programme which would advise EU citizens of the legal and taxation pitfalls that they should watch out for when an EU citizen purchases a property in another EU jurisdiction?

(DE) This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is binding on neither the Council nor the Member States, was not given orally during Question Time to the Council at the European Parliament's May 2007 part-session in Strasbourg.

As the Member is no doubt aware, the Council works on the basis of a Commission proposal and, at present, there is no such proposal on the issue in question.

Where there are no harmonised measures, Member States are free to draft their own legislation in line with their domestic objectives and requirements, provided they exercise this power in a way that is compatible with Community law.

It is not the Council's role to describe or interpret national legislation. Nor is it appropriate for the Council to judge when national measures alone or in conjunction with national measures in another Member State do not correspond with the requirements of the Treaty.

Does the European Council believe that there is a level playing pitch operating within the 27 Member states of the European Union in terms of the rules and standards that are in place before a pharmacist can set up in another EU jurisdiction?

Will the European Council review the operation of the rules under EU rights of establishment provisions so as to confirm or otherwise whether a level playing pitch exists within different EU Member States before a pharmacist from one EU Member State can set up in another EU jurisdiction?

(DE) This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is binding on neither the Council nor the Member States, was not given orally during Question Time to the Council at the European Parliament's May 2007 part-session in Strasbourg.

As the Member is aware, Article 43 of the Treaty enshrines the freedom of establishment as one of the basic freedoms crucial to the effective operation of the European Union's internal market.

Council Directive 85/433/EEC of 16 September 1985⁽¹⁾ concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas in pharmacy, most recently amended by Council Directive 2006/101/EC of 20 November 2006⁽²⁾, sets out the professional qualifications needed to practise as a pharmacist and states that national qualifications should be treated as equally valid in the assessment of compliance with professional entry criteria.

With regard to other conditions governing entry to the profession, Member States may adopt additional legislation within the boundaries set out in the Treaty.

However, if national legislation, in whatever form, bars European Union citizens from other Member States from entering the profession or makes it unnecessarily difficult for them to do so, the Commission will then bring infringement proceedings, in line with Article 226 of the Treaty, in order to enforce Community law, or will take the necessary legislative steps to remedy any shortcomings in the aim of ensuring the smooth operation of this area of the internal market.

Can the European Council make a statement as to how much is centrally available from the EU annual budget for information campaigns that promote the positive work of the European Union in the year 2007?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the Presidency and is not binding either on the Council or on its members, was not presented orally at Council Question Time at Parliament’s May 2007 part-session in Strasbourg.

Communication policy has an important part to play in informing the public and the media about Union activities and policies.

The Council would draw the Member’s attention to Title 16 of Section III – Commission – of the Union’s general budget for the financial year 2007, which gives full details of the appropriations earmarked for EU communication policy.

Under Article 274 of the EC Treaty, implementation of the appropriations is the responsibility of the Commission.

The United Nations operates a programme known as the Central Emergency Reserve Fund (CERF). This is a fund which ensures that monies are collected from international donors in advance of a natural disaster such as an earthquake taking place. It ensures that monies are then immediately available for the international community to distribute once a natural disaster has happened.

Will the European Union consider contributing to the UN Central Emergency Reserve Fund and becoming a member of this CERF programme?

(DE) This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on the Council’s members, was not delivered orally at the Council’s question time in Parliament’s plenary sitting in Strasbourg in May 2007.

The Presidency would like to point out that the issue of providing Community funds for the United Nations Central Emergency Reserve Fund has never been addressed in the Council. The question should instead be put to the Commission in its twofold capacity as the initiator of Community actions and implementing body for Community legal acts and budget lines for humanitarian aid.

The Council would also point out that approximately 77 % of committed funds and contributions to the budget of the Central Emergency Reserve Fund already falls to the EU Member States.

The LRA (Lord's Resistance Army), led by rebel leader Kony, has for years been terrorising and destabilising northern Uganda. Talks have been held in Juba in southern Sudan between the LRA and the Government of Uganda. The LRA has abandoned these talks. Kony has now taken refuge in the Garamba National Park in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The International Criminal Court has issued an international warrant for the arrest of Kony and four of his commanders.

So far no initiative at all has been taken. What efforts will the Council make to bring pressure to bear on the Governments of DRC and Sudan so that Kony can be located and surrendered to the International Criminal Court?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the May 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

Following an interruption of many months, peace talks between the Government of Uganda and the ‘Lord’s Resistance Army’ (LRA) rebel movement were resumed on 26 April 2007 in Juba (Southern Sudan). Both sides agreed to extend the ceasefire until 30 June 2007, and so it is that no further acts of violence on the part of the LRA in Northern Uganda have been confirmed since August 2006. An agreement on comprehensive solutions to the conflict in Northern Uganda was signed on 2 May 2007. This agreement, however, addresses only the second point of negotiation on the two parties’ common agenda.

Since talks on how to resolve Northern Uganda’s political problems are continuing, there are encouraging prospects of an end being brought to the conflict that has been going on for 20 years now, and internal refugees are now beginning to return to the areas from which they originate, in which process they are being supported by humanitarian measures put in place by the EU and by many individual states. The International Criminal Court’s warrants for the arrest of the rebel leader Joseph Kony and a number of his commanders on charges of grave violations of human rights remain in force.

Several ambassadors of EU Member States participated in the latest talks in Juba as observers and had additional talks with Joachim Chissano, the UN envoy for the conflict in Northern Uganda, in order to stress the EU’s great interest in a resolution of these issues.

For decades, the Greek State has pointedly and defiantly ignored the cultural identity of the Pomaks of Greek Thrace, whom it is trying to 'Turkicise' by refusing to teach them their own language and forcing them to learn Turkish.

The Pomaks are using every means to protest against this strategy and are calling for an immediate end to the fascist practice of enforced 'Turkicisation'. Recently, a well-known Greek businessman, Mr Prodromos Emfietzoglou, proposed that a 'Chair of Pomak Language and Culture' should be set up at the Democritus University of Thrace in order to record the language, history, customs and traditions of the Pomaks. Can the creation of such a Chair, the aim of which is to preserve a priceless example of Balkans culture and prevent their enforced 'Turkicisation', be placed under the aegis of the EU?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the May 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The honourable Member is reminded that, while the Community does contribute to the flowering of the Member States’ cultures, its activity in the cultural sphere is restricted to the promotion of cooperation between the Member States, and so the establishment of national cultural centres is a matter for the relevant Member State alone.

Will the Council give details of what role it is playing in stopping the use of child soldiers in Africa?

(DE) This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is binding on neither the Council nor the Member States, was not given orally during Question Time to the Council at the European Parliament's May 2007 part-session in Strasbourg.

The promotion and protection of the rights of the child are a priority concern in EU human rights policy. By adopting the EU guidelines on children and armed conflict in December 2003 the European Union has signalled its aim of focusing more closely on measures in this area. The guidelines make it incumbent upon the European Union to take account of the short-, medium- and long-term effects of armed conflict on children through monitoring and reporting by heads of missions, military commanders and EU special representatives, as well as through representations, political dialogue, multilateral cooperation and crisis management operations.

The European Union has expressed its concern about children affected by armed conflict in a number of different forums and has referred to this problem in several declarations. The EU Troika has made representations in a number of States, including Burundi, Uganda, Ivory Coast, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Liberia.

The Council has tabled a strategy for implementing the guidelines (Doc. 8285/1/06 REV 1) which is based on UN Security Council Resolution 1612. The EU special representatives have received specific instructions on this issue, and in June 2006 a checklist for the integration of the protection of children into ESDP operations was published (Doc. 9767/06).

The European Union provides sustained support for the work of the UN Secretary-General's Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict; she recently approached the Political and Security Committee and the Council Working Party on Human Rights.

The Council and Parliament are currently finalising an opinion on the Commission proposal on reducing charges for making mobile phone calls from and to abroad in the EU, and making them more transparent. Following a proposal by Parliament, data communication (SMS and MMS messages) is also likely to be included in the measures.

Research carried out by the Netherlands Consumer Association shows that charges for mobile Internet use (via mobile phones or laptop or handheld computers) are also not transparent and, like current roaming charges, can be excessively high for accessing the Internet abroad in the EU.

With the continual development of this technology, mobile Internet use can only increase. Use of the Internet, like international mobile phone use, is important within the context of the EU's economic and social development model.

Given its concern for the interests of European consumers and companies, does the Council envisage introducing an initiative in the near future to also reduce the costs of international mobile Internet use in the EU, and make them transparent?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the May 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

As the honourable Member has already stated, the Commission proposal for a Regulation on roaming on public mobile networks within the Community is currently before Parliament and the Council for their examination. In its current version, the future Regulation’s provisions on charging structures cover only roaming services for voice calls, and there are two principal reasons for this, which are as follows.

Firstly, the Commission had taken this initiative not only because charges for roaming services were unacceptably high for both end customers and wholesale customers, but also because this problem is not susceptible to effective solution by the national regulatory authorities at the level of the individual Member States. Although the occurrence of unjustifiably high prices in the field of data communication services, for example in short message services (SMS) and multimedia message services (MMS), was noted in the course of the consultations carried out by the Commission, the national regulatory authorities have not as yet been able to observe such problems when conducting their own investigations into SMS services. Secondly, it is, at the present moment, difficult to see what shape development in the MMS field, in other similar data communication services and in the sphere of internet access is likely to take, and there is very definitely a considerable danger that the development of this market might be hindered by the application of inappropriate regulations. It would be helpful in this respect if the Commission were to draft an assessment of the economic and legal impact of such regulation.

As the honourable Member is no doubt aware, both the co-legislators wish to give the Commission a mandate to join with the national regulatory authorities in monitoring the market for roaming services in the field of data communication, including SMS and MMS. It is planned that the Commission should, in its report on the application of the future regulation, also discuss the development of charges for the provision of speech and data communication services, including the forwarding of SMS and MMS, to roaming customers, whether they be end customers or wholesale customers, and that it should, where necessary, make recommendations as to what regulatory measures are needed in this area.

Members of Parliament will also be aware that Parliament and the Council, in the interests of more transparent pricing, want to require service providers to provide their customers, free of charge and on demand, with details of the charges per unit for the sending and receiving of SMS, MMS and other data communication services when roaming within the Community.

In the context of the recent exchange of views, held at the March part-session, with High Representative Javier Solana on the priorities for the Union's common foreign and defence policies, a large number of Members stressed, as a major priority for 2007, the need to deal with the problems of security and stability in the Union's eastern neighbourhood, especially via a more active involvement in settling unresolved conflicts and eliminating their consequences.

What concrete measures will the Council take for the consolidation and further development of the existing efforts in this direction in 2007? In this connection, how will the Council take account of the recent Commission communication on Black Sea synergy, which makes direct reference to 'a more active EU role through increased political involvement in ongoing efforts to address the conflicts'?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the May 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

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

Since the accession of Romania and Bulgaria, the EU has bordered on the Black Sea region, which includes the Eastern European Neighbourhood Policy countries of Ukraine, Moldova, Armenia and Azerbaijan, and whose ‘frozen conflicts’ have considerable potential for bringing about political crises. The region does, however, also have considerable – and as yet unexploited – potential for economic cooperation and growth, and so it is very much in the EU’s interests that its development should move forward.

There are, then, many arguments in favour of the EU having a more active policy in respect of the Black Sea Region, in which, although it is already involved in it, it can today assume an even more prominent role than it has done in the past by promoting cooperation in the region. The EU has therefore embarked on the drafting of a coherent and comprehensive policy in respect of the Black Sea Region aimed at strengthening regional cooperation and developing the region’s relations with the EU at every level.

The Presidency is also able to inform the honourable Member that the Council, on 14 May, adopted the following Conclusions on the Black Sea synergy initiative:

‘The Council welcomed the Commission's Communication “Black Sea Synergy – A new Regional Cooperation Initiative”. The Council underlined that following the accession of two Black Sea littoral states, Bulgaria and Romania, the EU’s interest in furthering stability and prosperity in the Black Sea area has become even greater.

The Council looked forward to further examining the Communication and invited the future Presidencies and the European Commission to continue work on an enhanced and coherent EU engagement in and with the Black Sea area, particularly in the framework of a strengthened European Neighbourhood Policy and building on synergies with regional bodies and initiatives. The aim should be to intensify the regional cooperation in sectors of cross-border relevance such as energy, the environment, transport, telecommunications, science and technology, freedom, justice and security, as well as democracy, human rights promotion, respect for international law and civil society cooperation.

Given the strategic importance of the Black Sea area to the EU, the Council invites the Commission to carry out a review during the first half of 2008 of the development of the Black Sea Synergy Initiative, as a basis for further consideration by the Council of its engagement towards the region as a whole.’

Long-term successful development in the Black Sea Region will be possible only as and when the conflicts in Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh – currently regarded as ‘frozen’ – have been resolved and normal and cooperative relationships have been established between all countries in the region.

The presidency takes the view that the closer regional cooperation envisaged in the Black Sea Synergy Initiative will not only bring economic benefits but will also be able to help build political trust and thereby create an environment in which the resolution of difficult political issues is made easier.

The Council has given its attention to the issue of the unresolved conflicts and has appointed EU special envoys for Moldova and the South Caucasus; it has also established both the EU Border Assistance Mission to Moldova and Ukraine (EU BAM), the head of which is also a high-level political advisor to the EU special envoy for Moldova, and the Border Protection Support Team in Georgia. These instruments need to be in continually active and flexible use if the EU is to make a substantial contribution to the region’s stability, and the EU BAM’s mandate has just been renewed for another two years up to the end of November 2009.

The three ENP action plans for Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia were adopted on 14 November 2006, and each of them include among their main priorities the settlement of the internal conflicts in Georgia and the peaceful resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

The EU-Moldova action plan, adopted in February 2005, lists as a priority the peaceful resolution of the Transnistria conflict.

In 2007, the European Union’s special envoy to the South Caucasus will be continuing to endeavour to create the conditions for the settlement of conflicts in the region, in which his first step will be to establish channels of communication between the parties to the conflicts and to take action to foster trust between them and him. In settling the conflicts, he will, in accordance with his mandate, liaise closely with the existing machinery for the resolution of conflicts. Two of the joint chairmen of the Minsk Group, Ambassador Bernard Fassier and Mr Matthew Brysa, reported to the Council in April on the current state of negotiations on Nagorno-Karabakh.

In the course of 2007, the EU special envoy for Moldova will also be working on a solution to the Transnistria conflict, representing the EU in conflict resolution talks and actively engaging in bilateral consultations with Moldova and other partners including Russia.

2007 will also see the Council endeavouring to bring about settlement of the ‘frozen conflicts’, and it is prepared to play its part in implementing any solution to them. It has held an internal discussion on the results of the special envoy’s and experts’ mission sent by the Commission to Georgia and the breakaway regions in January 2007 and will now embark on putting into effect the measures agreed on.

The Council is also ready and willing to help with Nagorno-Karabakh, although precisely what form the EU’s contribution will take will be determined only as and when the political parameters for the resolution of the conflict are known.

On 1 May, demonstrators were arrested en masse and dozens of others injured in a barbaric attack by Turkish riot police in Istanbul. At least 1100 demonstrators, approximately 600 of whom are members of the Turkish Communist Party, were arrested by Turkish police, while some 30 demonstrators were injured during the May Day demonstration in Taksim Square in Istanbul. The demonstration, which had been organised by the Turkish Communist Party, the Patriotic Front, the Labour Party EMEP, the trade union movement DISK and other left-wing parties and trade unions, was dedicated to the memory of the 34 demonstrators who were killed on May Day 1977 when special police forces dispatched from Ankara tried to break up the demonstration by pouring in chemicals, tear gas, water cannon, armoured vehicles and helicopters, etc.

Does the Council condemn this barbaric attack? What steps will it take to secure the immediate release of those arrested and to protect the right of workers to strike, their freedom of assembly and the right to organise trade union and political action?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the May 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The presidency is following developments in Turkey with close attention.

In a more general context, however, it should be borne in mind that the negotiating framework adopted by the Council in October 2005 states, in its ‘outlines for the negotiations’, that negotiations are opened with Turkey on the presupposition that Turkey will comply sufficiently with the political criteria laid down by the European Council in Copenhagen in 1993 and later largely incorporated into Article 6 (1) of the Treaty on European Union and promulgated in the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

It is quite clear from this that what the EU expects of Turkey is that it should press on with its process of reform and work to bring about further improvements in the fundamental areas of freedom, democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights and basic freedoms, including the relevant European case law, and that it should consolidate and extend its legislation and implementing measures with especial attention to a zero-tolerance policy in combating torture and mistreatment and the application of provisions relating to the free expression of opinion, freedom of religion, the rights of women, ILO standards – including the rights of trade unions – and the rights of minorities. The Council, furthermore, in its conclusions on 11 December 2006, noted that further considerable efforts would be needed in order to extend, inter alia, free expression of opinion and the rights of trades unions. All these issues are regularly raised in the course of political dialogue with Turkey.

The presidency will continue to monitor developments in Turkey and will address all issues arising in an appropriate manner.

In the light of recent serious football violence and security problems across Europe, including my team's matches in Lille on 20 February 2007, and in Rome on 4 April 2007:

What role can the Commission play in ensuring that Member States take responsibility for high quality and preventative policing and stadium safety?

Does the Commission think that citizen and consumer safety and public order could be enhanced by the introduction of EU-wide standards and a common approach to football policing?

Does the Commission think there is a possibility of extending the UK banning orders for football risk supporters across Europe?

(EN) The Commission is strongly committed to preventing incidents in which sporting passions turn into disturbances and violent conduct. Our aim is that football matches with a European dimension should not just be regarded as a potential source of ructions relating to breaches of law and public order and security. It is not acceptable that groups of determined hooligans have tarnished the image of the majority of peaceful football fans.

Based on the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, the EU should collect national experiences, generate synergies and develop further data exchange among national services. For the Commission, European added value can be achieved through:

Developing legislative instruments where necessary

Enhancing practical exchanges of experience and best practice between Member States, including law enforcement authorities, in order to establish common standards of safety and public order

Reinforcing operational cooperation at EU-level, particularly information exchanges on disorder assessments and on football supporters, their movements between countries and their classification as peaceful or violent supporters; developing further the National Football Information Points

Supporting the coordination and development of these and other activities through financial programmes.

To meet these objectives, the Commission intends to:

Develop a multidisciplinary approach based on prevention and law enforcement, including socio-educative activities for supporters and cooperation with international and national football bodies, supported by EC funding

Look into the possibility of developing further binding regulations or recommended standards

Support the development of existing CEPOL training courses on public order/crowd management and crowd control/hooliganism

Promote the use and dissemination of best practices including the Handbook on police cooperation in major football matches

In this perspective, the Commission with the Council Presidency and UEFA⁽¹⁾ will organise, at the end of 2007, a large EU high level conference with all stakeholders to consider the development of a European policy to prevent sport violence.

As regards the use by Member States of banning from stadiums all the individuals previously guilty of violent conduct at football matches, the Council already adopted a resolution on 17 November 2003. The Member States are invited to examine the possibility of introducing relevant provisions in their legal system and take appropriate steps ensuring their recognition in another Member States, hosting football matches. Following this Resolution, only few Member States adopted criminal or administrative provisions allowing banning orders. It can also be recalled that the Council has recently adopted, on the 4th of December 2006, a Resolution concerning an updated handbook with recommendations for international police cooperation and measures to prevent and control violence and disturbances in connection with football matches with an international dimension, in which at least one Member State is involved.

Recently, the pharmaceuticals company, Abbott Laboratories Ellas AEVE, a subsidiary of a US multinational, informed its workers by letter that it was collecting and processing sensitive personal data, including information relating to workers' activities away from their places of work, maintaining its right to forward that data to companies in the Abbott Group and to the USA, or to government authorities. The company claims that it is applying the 'Abbott international principles' and taking part in the EU-USA 'Safe Harbour Programme' of personal data exchange.

Does the Commission condemn the companies' creation of their own arbitrary and uncontrolled regulations which violate the right to privacy and the relevant national and international provisions on the protection of personal data? What is its response to this unlawful activity on the part of the company in question, in particular its forwarding of personal data to third parties, especially to the USA, where personal data do not benefit from effective protection?

(EN) The transfer of personal data to which the Honourable Member refers is made to an entity in the United States (US) which has adhered to the Safe Harbour scheme.

The Data Protection Directive contains specific provisions with respect to the transfers of personal data to third countries. The Directive provides that an international transfer of personal data may lawfully take place when the third country in question ensures an appropriate level of protection. With regard to transfers of personal data to the US, the Commission declared in 2000 that transfers to the US organizations having joined the Safe Harbour offer an adequate level of protection in accordance with the Data Protection Directive (Decision of 26 July 2000).

The Safe Harbour is a specifc scheme put in place by the US in order to facilitate transfers of EU personal data to US entities and meets the requirement of the EU Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC to ensure an adequate level of protection level for a transfer to a third country. Safe Harbour sets out privacy principles (i.e., access, notice, choice, onward transfer, enforcement, security and data integrity) that US organisations wishing to join this scheme must commit to observe and publicy disclose before they are certified by the US Department of Commerce. The US Federal Trade Commission is the main body of the US Government competent to enforce compliance with Safe Harbour privacy principles by Safe Harbour organisations.

Transfers of personal data to a US organisation in the field of employment and human resources are covered by Safe Harbour. In this case, Safe Harbour contains specific provisions aimed at ensuring the protection of personal data of employees of EU entities, as well as their sensitive data. Any US Safe Harbour member which receives personal data must commit to cooperate and comply with the advice of competent EU data protection authorities. A panel of EU data protection authorities has been set up by Safe Habour. It is the competent body to examine and resolve complaints lodged by individuals for alleged infringement of Safe Harbour principles. If the entity in question fails to comply with the advice of the EU data protection authorities panel, the latter will inform the US Federal Trade Commission to take enforcement action over the entity or to inform the Department of Commerce so that it can be removed from the register of Safe Harbour members.

The US entity receiving personal data from the EU is included in the the official register of entities members of Safe Harbour held by the US Department of Commerce. The inclusion in this register indicates that the US Department of Commerce has certified that this entity has taken the necessary measures to comply with the privacy principles required to join the Safe Harbour with a view to accepting transfers of personal data from the EU.

An EU entity that transfers personal data to a US entity that adheres to the Safe Harbour scheme is not in breach of the EU Data Protection Directive.

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that data subjects may in any case address their complaint to their EU national data protection authority which shall examine whether the EU entity complies with national data protection law as regards its processing activities.

What information does the Commission have concerning the living conditions of prisoners in jails (including those held on remand) in the various Member States? Does it have information concerning measures taken by the Member States to facilitate the reintegration of prisoners into society? Insofar as the Treaties allow, does the Commission intend to take measures - or propose that the Member States do so - to ensure that minimum standards apply to prisoners' living conditions in the Union or that best practices are exchanged between the Member States in order to help prisons acquire a more human face and give prisoners a 'second chance'? With particular regard to those in custody on remand, does the Commission know in which Member States remand prisoners live side by side with prisoners serving sentences? In which Member States does the number of remand prisoners cause overcrowding in prisons? What alternative means of judicial supervision are in operation in the various Member States and with what outcome?

(EN) The Commission does not collect specific information regarding living conditions for prisoners, including pre-trial detainees in the European Union - such as statistics regarding cell space, the ratio of prison wards to inmates etc – since this falls under the responsibility and competence of the Member States.

The Commission has, however, gathered some statistical data on detention in the Member States in connection with the drafting of the Proposal on the European supervision order (for instance, statistical data on the prison population, including pre-trial detention that the Commission drew up in 2003 at the request of the Italian Presidency, show that there are considerable differences between the EU Member States both as regards the rate of pre-trial detention per 100 000 inhabitants and the proportion of own nationals in relation to foreign detainees )⁽¹⁾⁽²⁾. It should be pointed out that the Commission is aware of the fact that when action in the field of prison policy is considered, the possible impact must be analysed in the light of available statistics. On 7 August 2006 the Commission presented a Communication⁽³⁾ developing a strategy to measure crime and criminal justice – an EU Action Plan 2006 – 2010, which also aims at including background information on nationality and residency for prison populations, which is urgently needed for EU policy on criminal justice.

A recent study on prison overcrowding in 24 European countries demonstrates that overcrowding exists in 50% of these countries. Overcrowding seriously undermines reintegration of prisoners into society. The Commission, in cooperation with Member States, has thus proposed a series of measures to reduce the number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees.

First of all, on 29 August 2006 the Commission adopted a "Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the European supervision order in pre-trial procedures between Member States of the European Union"⁽⁴⁾. This draft Framework Decision, once adopted, would allow judicial authorities in the different Member States to release persons suspected of having committed a criminal offence but who are not resident in the Member State in which they are suspected from custody and transpose it into a non-custodial pre-trial supervision measures, which could be transferred across the borders into the Member State where this person is normally resident. As many as 8,000 persons could be affected by this measure, which corresponds to the total pre-trial detention population of the United Kingdom some years ago.

Moreover, in February 2007 Germany and France took an initiative with a view to the adoption by the Council of a Framework Decision on the recognition and supervision of suspended sentences and alternative sanctions. This Framework Decision, once adopted, would facilitate social reintegration of sentenced persons, who will be allowed to return to their home State. Moreover, it would diminish the risk of recidivism thereby reinforcing public security and the security of victims. And last but not least, it would reduce prison overcrowding.

It should also be mentioned that the Council and Commission Action Plan implementing the Hague Programme⁽⁵⁾ provides that an "analysis of minimum standards in pre-trial detention procedures and the routines for regular review of the grounds for detention" should be undertaken before the end of 2007.⁽⁶⁾ A study will be launched soon to examine this question and should be completed in 2008.

Finally, in order to facilitate the re-settlement of (ex)-offenders, and reduce recidivism, more than 100 projects under the 2000-2006 EQUAL Community Initiative have tested new approaches to preventing re-offending through re-settlement support, aftercare or assisting inmates while in prison. Some of these innovations are structural and relate to the management of change in prisons, the introduction of quality systems and the motivation of staff to adopt a more creative, pro-active attitude to the rehabilitation of inmates. Others are concerned with the development of new forms of education and training. Many of these initiatives involve the opening up of prisons to agencies and individuals, including employers, so that offenders are empowered and prepared to play a more positive part in society on their release.

A European Mainstreaming Programme is currently being implemented with the objective to convince key actors who are responsible for penal and/or resettlement policies, to adopt the good practices that are emerging from the EQUAL projects.

The three main foci of this Programme are:

- An Exchange Event of EQUAL DPs held in Portugal, during October 2006, that agreed on a set of topics to be presented at the subsequent Policy Forum;

- A Policy Forum in Poland, in June 2007, to confront policy makers with the good practices that are emerging from EQUAL and to engage their interest in taking some of these forward;

- A Transnational Network, later in 2007, to ensure the continued transfer and the sustainability of relevant EQUAL outcomes, and of relevant outcomes from the new programming period for the Structural Funds, provided there is sufficient interest in the Member States.

The Council and Parliament are currently finalising an opinion on the Commission proposal on reducing charges for making mobile phone calls from and to abroad in the EU, and making them more transparent. Following a proposal by Parliament, data communication (SMS and MMS messages) is also likely to be included in the measures.

Research carried out by the Netherlands Consumer Association shows that charges for mobile Internet use (via mobile phones or laptop or handheld computers) are also not transparent and, like current roaming charges, can be excessively high for accessing the Internet abroad in the EU.

With the continual development of this technology, mobile Internet use can only increase. Use of the Internet, like international mobile phone use, is important within the context of the EU's economic and social development model.

Given its concern for the interests of European consumers and companies, does the Commission envisage introducing an initiative in the near future to also reduce the costs of international mobile Internet use in the EU, and make them transparent?

(EN) The Commission shares the view that the rapid deployment of competitively priced mobile internet services is important for EU social and economic growth.

In its original proposal for a regulation of international mobile roaming charges, the Commission envisaged that developments in prices for roaming data services (which would include mobile internet) should be monitored very closely.

From the discussions which are currently ongoing between the Parliament, the Council and the Commission, it seems clear that monitoring of developments for data roaming prices will be an important element of the final regulation.

In addition, the final regulation is likely to include provisions aimed at enhancing the transparency of data roaming prices for consumers. The Commission is supportive of this approach and intends to monitor this market very closely and will report developments to Council and Parliament.

The industry should now respond with competitive prices for mobile data roaming services so that the possibility of further regulation can be avoided.

Does the Commission not consider that its most recent statement (of 2 May) regarding events in Turkey and the annulment of the first round of presidential elections was excessively indulgent in respect of intervention by the military? Should it not send a more explicit message regarding military interference in politics, making it abundantly clear that the stance adopted by the Turkish military is damaging to the country’s European prospects?

(EN) The statement of 2 May 2007 is only the latest one that the Commission has issued in relation to the recent political developments in Turkey.

As regards more particularly the role of the military and their statement of 27 April 2007, the Commissioner in charge of Enlargement reacted on the following day, by expressing the Commission's deep concern. On 28 April 2007, the Commissioner in charge of Enlargement stated that the military must leave the remit of democracy to the democratically elected Government. He also stressed that this is a test case for the Turkish armed forces to demonstrate full respect of democratic institutions.

Fully aligning civilian control of the military with EU practices is a priority of the Accession partnership and remains one of the main priorities of Turkey on its way to accession.

The Commission expects the upcoming parliamentary and presidential elections in Turkey to be carried out democratically. In this context, the principle of the supremacy of democratic civilian power over the military must be fully respected, as recalled in the statement of 2 May 2007.

The Commission will continue to follow up closely the situation.

In its Written Declaration No 21/2006 of 5 September 2006 (P6_TA(2006)0335) and - on a recommendation from the Committee on Culture and Education - in paragraph 34 of its resolution on the 2007 budget (Ρ6_ΤΑ(2006)0570), the European Parliament called on the Commission to carry out a survey on the condition and estimated cost of restoration of churches situated in the northern part of Cyprus under Turkish military control, which have been desecrated, converted into mosques or damaged.

What steps has the Commission taken or does it intend to take with a view to drawing up the survey and, in general, for the conservation and restoration of churches in the part of the Republic of Cyprus under Turkish military occupation, in accordance with the European Parliament's written declaration and its resolution on the 2007 budget?

(EN) Within the ad-hoc aid programme for the Turkish Cypriot community⁽¹⁾ funding has been made available for actions facilitating the reunification of Cyprus. A study on cultural heritage including religious heritage could in principle be funded under the aid regulation, as a confidence building measure to enhance reconciliation between the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot community.

However, in order to undertake a survey on the conditions and estimated cost of restoration of cultural heritage, the agreement and co-operation of both communities in the island, including the Turkish Cypriot community, would be required.

The Commission can not proceed unilaterally.

The Commission is aware of a recent meeting between religious leaders from both communities where the issue of renovating churches and mosques falling into disrepair was discussed. Would any agreement emerge between the two communities, the Commission would be ready to consider assistance in favour of cultural heritage from the aid regulation.

Whatt measures does the Commission intend to take within the multilateral trade negotiations, to protect the Community's banana producers from the continual efforts of the dollar zone multinationals to put an end to competition from the EU's small producers?

(EN) One of the key objectives of the fundamental reform of the EU banana sector, implemented as of January 2007, is to ensure a fair standard of living for EU banana producers. The Commission will continue to address the needs of small EU banana producers through the EU's domestic regime.

The Commission is closely monitoring market developments to ensure the reform is meeting its objectives. In parallel, the Commission remains strongly committed to a successful outcome of the multilateral trade negotiations at the World Trade Organisation but it is not possible to predict the exact outcome of these negotiations for individual agricultural sectors. Nevertheless, The Commission can assure you that it will continue to take account of the needs of the banana sector and the integrity of EU market reforms in its related discussions.

In order to make a contribution to combating terrorism and to security on European flights, European citizens are not protesting en mass at the confiscation of their personal items in liquid form and the financial burden of having to buy basic articles after passing through security control.

The problems which arise in connection with the above measures are the unjustified confiscation of valuables and refusal to return them after security control, the lack over control of the quality of the services provided by the security staff who abuse their excessive new powers, the lack of cheap or free drinking water, which is a basic survival item, particularly during the summer months, and the disrepute brought on the EU, in whose name the prohibitive measures are announced by megaphone, at least at Greek airports.

As part of its responsibilities for ensuring freedom, security and justice could the Commission, in tandem with the ban, also introduce provisions governing the transport of liquid articles and propose solutions to ensure that drinking water and environmentally-friendly bags are provided free of charge?

Regulation (EC) No 1546/2006⁽¹⁾ amending Regulation (EC) No 622/2003⁽²⁾ on aviation security entered into force on 6 November 2006. The annex to that Regulation directly imposes on the public a set of restrictive measures concerning the liquids passengers are authorised to carry in their hand luggage. The secret nature of that annex makes it impossible for the authorities to conduct any judicial review of the application of the European provision concerned. How does the Commission view the fact that it has itself imposed obligations on European citizens by way of secret rules? Does it feel that it is properly guaranteeing fundamental rights in approving binding secret rules with direct effect whose application is beyond the realm of any possible judicial review?

(EN) The Commission has had the opportunity to express itself on the subject on several occasions in plenary session. It wants to emphasise again that the Commission, the Member States and the Parliament share the view that there is a real threat to civil aviation from home-made liquid explosives.

As regards the question of Mr Guardans Cambo, the regulation on restrictions on liquids does indeed have an unpublished annex which is classified as "EU Restricted" and thus not published in the Official Journal as required by article 8/1 of the Framework Regulation 2320 adopted by the Parliament and the Council in 2002. The Regulation is addressed not directly to citizens, but rather to the appropriate authority of each Member State.

However, passengers should be informed about items that are prohibited. Information is displayed in Community airports telling passengers about the rules on liquids, as well on airline websites, it is fair to say that Community airports and airlines appear to be meeting their obligations to inform the public and that the necessary information is in the public domain.

Furthermore, the main stakeholder organisations representing airports, airlines and airport shops all confirmed that they had been involved by the Commission during the development of Regulation 1546/2006. The measures contained in this regulation were approved by the Member States and the Parliament following the correct procedures. They have not been adopted in secrecy and the possibility of juridical review exists like in every other case.

Turning to the question of Mrs Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou, the Commission sympathises with the issues she raises. It is unpleasant for any passenger to have any item – no matter its value – confiscated. The provision of free drinking water is, indeed, desirable and concerns about the environmental effect of plastic bags are laudible.

It is the normal practise of airlines, on long-haul flights at least, to make non-alcoholic refreshments freely available to passengers in order to avoid deshydratation. Community legislation does not regulate prices at airport shops. Nonetheless, the Commission is looking at this issue very carefully and is encouraging airports and airlines to take all appropriate measures in order to ensure that free drinking water is available cheap, free or market-priced and that passergers are informed of any available sources of free drinking water.

To conclude, the Commission can assure the Parliament that the respect of passenger rights is a cornerstone of our legislation in the field of aviation security. But it should also be noted that one basic right is the right to travel safely, as much as possible free from the threat of terrorist attack.

Pursuant to European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005⁽¹⁾ of 14 December 2005, the Community should direct its activities in the air-transport field towards ensuring that, as a priority, passengers enjoy a high level of protection against safety risks.

With reference to the rules on air safety which were adopted in 2006 and with regard - on the one hand - to the major security challenges facing Europe in a globalising world and relating to issues such as international terrorism and worldwide organised crime, and - on the other - to the fact that since 1993, any person holding the nationality of a Member State is entitled to reside and to move around freely within the European Union, should the Commission not ensure that there is a consistent approach throughout the EU and avoid the situation stemming from a proliferation of rules adopted in individual Member States? Does the Commission not consider it inconsistent and detrimental to security that the rules should be applied differently at each airport and that even transit passengers must at certain airports undergo checks of various kinds?

In the Commission's view, what role should be played by the European Air Safety Agency in the establishment of an effective, consistent approach designed to increase air safety within the Community without hindering the free movement of passengers?

(FR) The Commission agrees with the honourable Member that there is a need to have harmonised rules for aviation security throughout the European Union. For almost five years, since the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002⁽²⁾ there has existed common rules in the field of civil aviation security. Futhermore, under the Regulation the Commission undertakes inspections of Community airports in order to ensure a correct and even application of the common rules throughout the Community.

Any differences in levels of security that apply today are as a result of Member States choosing to apply more stringent measures. These can result in passengers whose journey started within the Community being subject to rescreening when transferring flights at another Community airport, even though the legislation does not require this. However, it should be noted that all transfer passengers at Community airports who arrived on flights from outside the European Economic Area shall be subject to rescreening, in accordance with the requirements of Regulation 2320/2002.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) was established by Regulation No 1592/2002⁽³⁾, which entered into force in September 2002, with the aim of promoting a uniform and high standard of safety and environmental protection in the field of civil aviation and does not play a direct role in security issues. The Agency provides the Commission with all the technical expertise the latter requires and assists it, among other things, in carrying out its legislative and regulatory tasks. It also implements a system for monitoring the application of Community legislation, evaluating its effects and making any useful suggestions on the matter. In this context, EASA plays a part in implementing Regulation 2111/2005 by passing on to the Commission information that is of relevance when it comes to updating the Community list of airlines subject to a ban on use and by helping to distribute this list to the public.

In November 2005, the Commission submitted a proposal for a regulation aimed at extending its powers to air operations and to pilots’ licences. The Commission is confident that this proposal will be adopted by Parliament and by the Council over the next few months. Furthermore, in an effort to promote a fully integrated approach to aviation safety in Europe, the Commission is already making preparations for EASA’s missions to be extended to the areas of airport operations safety and air traffic.

There are no plans at this stage to extend EASA’s powers beyond aviation safety to security, that is to say, to the prevention of illegal acts in the field of aviation.

In the written answer to oral parliamentary question (H-1020/05) by Sophie In't Veld (MEP) in December 2005, the Commission described the activities of the Commissioners' Group on fundamental rights, anti-discrimination and equal opportunities since its inception. Can the Commission now give an update by outlining the main activities of the group in 2006?

Regarding the Commission’s role under article 7 TEU, the Commission said that it 'intends to exercise these powers in full and with a clear awareness of its responsibility. Should a case………emerge which would require a political assessment by the Commission in the light of Article 7 of the EU Treaty, the possibility is not excluded that the Group might contribute in preparing that assessment through discussions'.

Has the group of Commissioners on fundamental rights done a political or legal Article 7 assessment on the issue of CIA ‘extraordinary rendition’, not least in the light of the conclusions of the European Parliament temporary committee report and in particular paragraph 228? If not, why not? What action do the group and the Commission as a whole intend to take on this matter?

(EN) In 2006, the Group continued playing a central role in driving policy initiatives of the Commission for the active promotion of fundamental rights, non-discrimination and equal opportunities, with due regard for the Community competences and the principle of subsidiarity.

In particular in 2006, the Group contributed to the finalisation of the Communication on the rights of the child and the Green Paper on diplomatic and consular protection before their adoption by the Commission; contributed to on-going work in view of the European year for equal opportunities for all 2007, and raised inter-cultural dialogue – including issues related to different beliefs – in the context of the preparation of the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue 2008. The Group considered the creation of the European day against the death penalty and launched the preparations towards a European day against trafficking in human beings.

The Group raised a number of recurrent issues, such as the state of play of institutional negotiations in view of the creation of the Agency on Fundamental Rights and the European Institute for Gender Equality, and of dialogue with the Council of Europe on the accession by the EU to the European Convention on Human Rights. The implementation of the methodology for monitoring fundamental rights compliance in EC legislative proposals was also highly considered.

The Group monitored the implementation of the non-discrimination directives and took stock of the negotiations at United Nations level in view of an International Convention for the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Disabled People. Minorities, racism and xenophobia were on the Group’s agenda too.

The Group held an extraordinary session on the occasion of the International Women’s Day – 8 March 2006. This meeting involved members of the Parliament and was devoted to the presentation and discussion of the main aspects of the Road Map for equality between women and men 2006-2010, which was prepared by the Group and adopted by the Commission on 1 March 2006. In addition, the Group considered gender-related issues, such as the objectives for the recruitment and appointment of women to management posts and other A*/AD posts within the Commission in 2006 or the role of women in science and technology.

As regards the alleged CIA use of European Countries to transport and hold prisoners, the Group has closely followed the work done by the Parliament and the Council of Europe and supported the Commission’s line on this important and sensitive issue. However, the Group held no meetings after Parliament’s adoption, in February 2007, of the resolution on the temporary committee’s final report. In this text the Commission stressed very forcefully that it was essential to fight effectively against terrorism using all the legal instruments available, and that any anti-terrorist measure must at all costs respect fundamental rights and international humanitarian law. The Commission, within the framework of its powers, supported the work of the temporary committee. Like the Parliament, the Commission takes the view that it is essential that the Member States concerned carry out inquiries, and welcomes the fact that judicial or parliamentary inquiries are under way in some countries. The Commission will give careful consideration to calls for action that fall within its remit; to this end, it will carry out a comprehensive evaluation in the light of the results of the various national inquiries.

Has the Commission any statistics regarding the impact within the EU of the up to 66% import tariff on energy-efficient light bulbs from China imposed since 2002? Specifically, what estimates is the Commission working on for the future, in terms of possible quantity and price of imports to the EU if such tariffs were to be abandoned when the issue is reviewed later this year?

(EN) As the Honourable Member is aware, a Commission investigation was initiated in July 2006 to assess whether maintaining anti dumping measures on imports of CFL(i) lamps, originating in the People's Republic of China, would be justified for a further period of five years. The case is still under scrutiny by the Commission and no conclusion as to the final outcome of the case can be drawn at this point in time.

The aim of this investigation is to verify whether unfair competitive distortions which favoured exports originating in China still exist, or, whether they risk reoccurring in the future if anti-dumping measures are removed. In this respect it should be borne in mind that the purpose of anti-dumping measures is neither to prohibit imports nor to hamper supplies to the Community market, but rather to re-establish conditions of fair competition on the Community market.

More generally and without prejudging the final outcome of the case, available statistics show that imports of CFL(i) lamps, originating China, have more than trebled in the period 2001 – 2006. During the same time, consumption in the Community has more than doubled and the Chinese market share is therefore higher than before measures were imposed.

It follows from the import statistics that the measures in place have not restricted trade flows of CFL(i) lamps, but rather they have ensured that they are now traded at prices which should eliminate the injurious effect of the dumping previously found.

It would however be difficult to provide any useful estimation as to how this market will develop in the future.

At their extraordinary summit in Dar-es-Salaam of 28-29 March 2007 the heads of state and government of the Southern African Development Community declared their support for Robert Mugabe and the government of Zimbabwe, and also called for the present sanctions against Zimbabwe to be lifted. The situation there, in political as well as economic terms, is absolutely desperate. In the near future 2 500 Angolan paramilitaries are to be deployed against opponents of the Mugabe regime.

All the countries of the Southern African Development Community are parties to the Cotonou Agreement of 23 June 2000, Article 9(2) of which stipulates that respect for human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law underpin their domestic as well as their international policies and constitute ‘essential elements’ of the Agreement.

What impact will this totally unacceptable signal have on the financial and other assistance for those countries?

(EN) The Commission considers that the most important outcome of the Extraordinary Southern African Development Community (SADC) Summit held in Dar-es-Salaam on 28-29 March 2007 is that for the first time the regional leaders decided to engage in the resolution of the Zimbabwe crisis through the appointment of South African President Mbeki, as a mediator in this process.

The Commission has fully supported the recently issued Council Conclusions welcoming the mandate given to President Mbeki to facilitate a dialogue between the opposition and the Government, and the engagement of President Kikwete as chair of the SADC organ, and standing ready to support the SADC initiative.

The Commission believes that, at this stage, the SADC initiative is the best option available to overcome the Zimbabwe crisis.

This SADC initiative has also been welcomed by some Resolutions adopted this month at the European Parliament Plenary session.

Concerning the information on the deployment of 2 500 Angolan paramilitaries in Zimbabwe, the Commission is aware that there have indeed been reports in the press about it but so far there has been no confirmation or even indication that this has occurred or is intended by the Angolan Government. Indeed, the Angolan Embassy in Harare in a statement of 21 March officially rejected these reports as "completely false" and informed that the purpose of the recent visit to Harare of the Minister of Home Affairs of the Republic of Angola was to sign Agreements of Interest of both countries such as sharing of knowledge and experience and never the reinforcement of Police power of Zimbabwe.

The Commission does not consider that the SADC Statement of 29 March in any way constitutes violation of the articles of the Cotonou Agreement referred to by the Honourable Member.

Therefore the Commission does not intend to review its levels of assistance to theses countries nor to the region.

According to information gathered by the University of Hamburg and published by the German Focus periodical, in one hour of operation the engines of a 50 000-tonne cruiser ship emit into the atmosphere a quantity of suspended particles equivalent to that emitted by 50 000 automobiles travelling at 130 km/h, a quantity of nitrogen monoxide equivalent to that emitted by 45 000 automobiles and a quantity of carbon dioxide equivalent to that emitted by 7000 automobiles. Most cruiser ships keep their engines running for one or two days while on moorings in their various ports of call, an unacceptable situation further aggravated by other passenger and cargo vessels.

At a number of tourist destinations, particularly in the USA, the authorities have provided onshore power points to supply vessels with electricity. In view of this, what action does the Commission intend to take in response to this problem and is it investigating the compulsory installation of onshore power points at popular tourist destinations or in coastal areas facing serious environmental problems?

(EN) The Commission is aware of the problem of large sea-going ships producing a lot of air pollution in ports. This is true not only for cruise ships and passenger boats, but also for cargo ships like tankers and container ships. It is for this reason that the European Commission looks for solutions covering both passenger and cargo ships.

The Commission has published a recommendation on shore side electricity⁽¹⁾, the solution suggested in the Honourable Member's question. It recommends Member States to consider the installation of shore-side electricity for use by ships at berth in ports; particularly in ports where air quality limit values are exceeded or where there is public concern about high levels of noise nuisance, especially in berths situated near residential areas. It also asks Member States to consider financial incentives to promote these installations and to take steps towards the harmonisation of shore side electricity facilities. Nevertheless, the environmental benefits and cost-effectiveness should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. It is primarily the Member State or the local authority that should decide in individual cases if this option is effective, taking into account the local air quality situation. This situation differs from port to port. European legislation obliging such facilities is therefore not considered appropriate.

A measure already taken is Directive 2005/33/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 6 July 2005, amending Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the sulphur content of marine fuels⁽²⁾. This Directive requires the use of fuel with less than 0.1% sulphur for ships at berth as of 2010 and will contribute to reduction of air pollution in ports as of 2010.

At international level (the International Maritime Organization, IMO) the negotiations on reducing air pollution from seagoing ships, including cruise ships and passenger vessels, are now at a decisive stage. The aim is to reduce the air pollution at source, by improved engine technology, emission abatement and/or improved fuel quality. The Commission is pushing for an ambitious reduction of air pollution from ships. Should this not be possible, or not be possible within an acceptable time frame, the Commission will consider coming forward with a proposal for tighter standards in line with the provisions of the Thematic Strategies to reduce atmospheric emissions from seagoing ships of 21 November 2002⁽³⁾ and on air pollution of 21 September 2005⁽⁴⁾ and the subsequent conclusions to these strategies by Council and Parliament.

On 6 February 2007, I tabled a Written Question (E-0662/07) to Commissioner Fischer-Boel on the reform of the fruit and vegetables sector, with particular reference to the solutions proposed for the new Member States. In her reply of 23 March 2007, Ms Fischer-Boel wrote: '(...) in regions of the European Union where the degree of organisation of producers is particularly low, Member States may be authorised, under certain conditions, to pay producer organisations national financial assistance (...)'. In Poland, the lack of interest in forming producer organisations derives from the fact that such groups are subject to corporate income tax and their assets to property tax, whereas individual farmers are subject only to agricultural tax, which is substantially lower.

Could temporary exemptions from income and property tax for producer organisations be recognised by the Commission as national financial assistance of the kind mentioned and accepted by it without challenge?

(EN) In the Commission proposal for the reform of the fruit and vegetables regime, adopted on 24 January 2007, there is a specific group of measures aimed at increasing the concentration of supply through producer organisations (POs) and producer groups (PGs) in the Member States which joined the Community as from 1 May 2004. Among these specific measures a national financial assistance, equal to a maximum of half the financial contribution of producers, could be authorised, under certain conditions, in those regions of the European Union where the degree of organisation of producers is particularly low. This assistance shall be additional to the operational fund.

As far as the Commission is aware, in accordance with domestic Polish tax policy, only primary agricultural activity is exempted from income taxes i.e. Personal Income Tax (PIT) and Corporate Income Tax (CIT). Activities normally carried out by POs or PGs i.e. preparation of products (cleaning, drying, trimming, cutting, packaging) are not regarded as primary agricultural activity and, as a consequence, are liable to income taxes, even in the instance when they are done by individual farmers.

It is important to highlight that the benefits stemming from Community and national support under the current Regulations may clearly outweigh the costs of compulsory taxation in Poland, although as mentioned in the second paragraph, the Commission is not convinced that there are any additional costs coming from the fact that the producer is member of a PO. Therefore, the Polish tax policy can not be considered as potentially discouraging farmers from organising.

The national assistance proposed by the Commission involves a transfer of national budgetary resources and it is additional to the operational fund. It is not the intention of the Commission to grant to the Member States other possibilities to hand out this assistance as this would complicate the system. If the national assistance were to be channelled in other ways than financial transfer it would be difficult to safeguard that it is additional to the operational funds and equal to maximum half the financial contributions of producers to this fund.

In any case, the proposal is still under discussion at the Parliament and the Council. After the adoption of the Council proposal, the corresponding implementing rules will be drafted. Implementing rules on the proportion and details of the national additional assistance will then be studied and the Commission will take into consideration all the proposals from Member States including this one.

Finally, the Commission would like to add that the area of direct taxation is harmonised only to a very limited extent within the European Union. Therefore, the Member States are free to determine their own tax legislation, as long as it remains within the framework of the provisions of the EC Treaty.

The Commission would be grateful if the Honourable Member can provide it with additional information and evidence.

Does the Commission ever consider additional measures to assist communities which have lost or are under threat of losing vital transport links? For example, when a low-cost airline withdraws from a regional airport or Eurostar ceases to stop at Ashford in Kent, the regeneration and growth that has evolved will immediately go into reverse. What support would the Commission feel is appropriate in this field?

(EN) Structural change is an inherent part of the development of regional economies, and is experienced in many fields of activity including transport. The European Union, through its Cohesion Policy, helps the regions to design and implement policies to help regional authorities, businesses and workers to anticipate these changes, adapt more quickly to them and to exploit fully new opportunities. These policies result from strategies based on the strengths and weaknesses of each region, and are defined with the involvement of all local partners and all relevant expertise.

The Commission is currently finalising negotiations with the United Kingdom on its strategy for cohesion policy for the period 2007-2013, the National Strategic Reference Framework. While this strategy does not make specific reference to the transport sector, it is based on the need to promote the sustainable competitiveness of the regions, and their ability to adjust to and to exploit structural change. The strategy for the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in the Regional competitiveness and employment regions is based on four priorities: 1) Promoting innovation and knowledge transfer, 2) Stimulating enterprise and supporting successful business, 3) Ensuring sustainable development production and consumption and 4) Building sustainable communities The strategy for the European Social Fund (ESF) is based on two priorities: 1) Tackling barriers to employment and 2) Improving the skills of the local workforce.

In the specific case of the South East of England, the Commission expects to receive the relevant Regional competitiveness and employment ERDF Operational Programme in late June/ early July, so at this stage cannot comment on the priorities it will identify. Given the amount of money available for this programme, (€ 48 million total cost with an ERDF contribution of € 24 million) it is not expected that it will contain specific actions in support of the transport sector. It is expected, however, that it will concentrate on the promotion of innovation and entrepreneurship which are both essential for sustainable economic development in the South East. The Ashford area will be eligible under this programmes and will therefore have direct accesss to cohesion policy support. The implementation of the programme, once adopted by the Commission, will be the responsibility of the Regional Development Agency (RDA) for the South East.

For the ESF allocation there is one Convergence and Regional competitiveness and employment Operational Programme covering the whole of England. Each region has been given an ESF allocation within the total amount of the programme (2 893 million total for Regional competitiveness and employment of which 229 million is destined for the South East). The ESF Operational Programme has already been submitted to the Commission and contains two Priorities: 1) Extending employment opportunities and 2) Developing a skilled and adaptable workforce. The interventions will concentrate on tackling unemployment and inactivity by helping people with no or low level skills.

On 11 and 12 April a meeting of the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee took place in Moscow. During the meeting held in the Russian Parliament, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Duma, Mr K. Kossatschow, spoke on the subject of Russian membership of the EU. He stressed that this was a hypothetical issue for the time being, as the Russian Government had not yet adopted a position on membership. However, in order to enable a debate on this issue to begin in Russia, it needed to be made clear whether Russia could expect some time - in several decades' time or later - to become a member of the EU, if it decided to apply and fulfilled all of the criteria for EU membership.

What is the Commission's position vis-à-vis this statement by Mr Kossatschow, who has underlined the fact that, unlike the majority of his colleagues in the Duma, he is in favour of Russia pursuing a European course?

(EN) The Russian Federation is a strategic partner for the European Union. Russia is the largest neighbour of the EU, brought even closer by the Union’s 2004 and 2007 enlargements. Russia and the EU are interdependent in many fields: the EU is by far Russia’s most important market, and Russia is the EU’s most important energy supplier. None of the important foreign policy issues in Europe can be settled unless we find a common understanding. We will continue to depend on each other for many years to come.

A key priority of the European Union is to build a strong strategic partnership with Russia based on a solid foundation of mutual respect.

The Russian Federation has not applied for membership of the EU. Various Russian political leaders have continuously expressed their scepticism as to whether Russia should ever apply for EU membership. The issue is therefore not on the table.

The Commission pursues the strengthening of the strategic partnership with Russia, inter alia through the implementation of the Four Common Spaces agreed upon in May 2005. The Commission is committed to conclude with Russia a new comprehensive agreement to replace the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement from 1997 and to therefore further integrate Russia into a common Europe on the basis of respect for values to which both sides are committed and the pursuit of mutual interest.

Can the European Commission make a statement as to how the new EU-US Atlantis programme will operate, how much funding is available for the implementation of this programme and how many universities and third-level colleges will be participating on this scheme, so that a greater level of EU-US transatlantic educational programmes can be put into effect?

(EN) The EU-US Atlantis programme implements the EC-US agreement on higher education and vocational education and training signed on 21 June 2006 and concluded by the Council on 4 December 2006⁽¹⁾. The Atlantis programme is designed, managed and funded jointly by the European Commission and by the United States (US) Department of Education, Fund for the Improvement of Post Secondary Education (FIPSE).

Consortia projects involving EU and US institutions are selected jointly by the Commission and FIPSE through joint calls for proposals. The following actions are funded under Atlantis:

Transatlantic Degree action: providing support to multilateral partnerships of EU and US institutions for the purpose of setting up joint study programmes - including joint/double degrees - and transatlantic mobility of students and faculty;

Excellence Mobility Projects: providing follow-up financial support for student mobility to joint consortia that have a proven track record of excellence in transatlantic cooperation;

Policy-oriented measures: addressing comparative higher education and vocational training issues, and promoting dialogue on recognition of qualifications and accreditations;

The Commission plans to allocate a total of € 43 million to the EU institutions participating in Atlantis in the period 2006-2013. The annual budget increases gradually from € 3,6 million in 2006 to € 7 million in 2013.

The programme is implemented in principle on the basis of matching funding from the EU and US sides.

It is envisaged that the Atlantis programme will fund every year some 45 European Higher Education institutions and 200 EU students. An equivalent number of institutions and students should be funded by the US.

Last month, the Brazilian Government announced that it was tightening up a series of controls in Brazil so as to halt the spread of foot-and-mouth disease there and to ensure the safety and quality standards of beef exports destined for the European Union.

Will the European Commission make a statement as to whether it is satisfied with the assurances that have been given by the Brazilian Government concerning the quality of the beef that is being exported at present into the European Union? What is the level of contact between the European Union and the Brazilian Government on this issue and have EU food and veterinary inspectors travelled to Brazil recently so that our own inspections have been carried out there?

(EN) The Commission is in regular contact with the Brazilian authorities and follows the situation closely.

A Commission inspection was recently carried out in Brazil in order to assess whether animal and public health standards related to export of beef were in compliance with Community rules. The inspection took place in March 2007 and the final report will be published on the Directorate General Health and Consumer Protection (DG SANCO) website, in accordance with the normal procedures.

Following this inspection the Commission has already written to the Brazilian authorities to draw their attention to the need to continue their efforts to further improve their foot and mouth disease control measures.

The Commission has welcomed the announcement of the Brazilian authorities to enhance animal health controls as regards foot and mouth disease and on cattle and beef traceability.

However, the Commission also indicated to the Brazilian authorities that certain discrepancies have not been adequately addressed, informing them that it will reconsider the authorisation of imports of beef from Brazil if the competent authorities have not provided the Commission, by the end of this year, with auditable evidence of the rectification of all the remaining deficiencies.

The Commission will continue to monitor the situation closely.

Can the European Commission make a statement as to whether it supports setting up a centralised structure which could advise SMEs, EU businesses, third level colleges and local authorities in Europe as to how they could draw down part of the 55 billion euro that is available in RTD grants from Europe between now and the year 2013?

(EN) The Commission is already supporting a comprehensive network of National Contact Points in all Member States as well as states associated to Framework Programme (FP) 7, in total 37 countries. The NCP network also extends to other third countries in all continents, and includes so far 33 additional countries. The NCP system is open for all potential participants in the FP and the Commission is financially supporting transnational activities as well as organizing training events for the NCPs.

The Commission believes that such a decentralized one is more efficient than a centralized system which would be more difficult for e.g. SMEs to access. The NCPs are able to give advice and help on a number of issues such as how to apply for grants or in finding partners. Further, the NCP systems in the different countries show a wide variety reflecting the different national and regional research and innovation structures.

An Enquiry Service, provided by the Europe Direct Contact Centre, is in place and questions can be put on any aspect of European research in general and the EU Research FPs in particular by applying a web request (http://ec.europa.eu/research/index.cfm?pg=enquiries

) form. Every enquiry is logged in a database to ensure that a response is given as quickly as possible and then passed through to the relevant department for expert handling.

In addition the Commission has issued a call under the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (CIP) in order to set up a "Services in support for business and innovation".

The aim of this call is to implement a single network providing integrated services in support of business and innovation in Europe, building on the strengths and achievements of the current Euro Info Centres and the Innovation Relay Centres. Under this call, the new network will implement the requirements of Article 21.2(c) of the CIP decision by providing complementary services, especially at regional level, to those services provided by the NCPs, to support the participation of SMEs in FP7. The CIP single network will have around 600 outlets and involve 2,000 to 2,500 staff across the EU. It will start to operate in January 2008 and will provide services to enterprises, notably SMEs.

Finally, the Commission also funds the "IPR-Helpdesk project" (http://www.ipr-helpdesk.org/controlador/principal?seccion=principal&len=en

) which provides free Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) advice, including regarding IPR issues related to FP7.

Commissioner Hübner failed to indicate in reply to my question No. E-1269/07 how it is that the Elanet company (in which she herself admits that the Greek Federation of Industry - SEV - has a vested interest) is involved in the approval of 299 of the 300(!) applications submitted to the Finance Ministry, as pointed out by the Greek press (for example ‘Ethnos’ of 13 December 2006). I am, therefore, compelled, as I also mentioned in my above question, to raise the matter before the European Parliament in plenary in the hope of obtaining a full reply from (the otherwise likeable) Mrs Hübner. Under Community law and the rules governing the implementation of the third CSF and other Community initiatives, is it acceptable for applications to be approved by the representatives of the applicants? What are the Commission's views on the fact that Elanet has approved 299 of a total of 300 applications submitted?

(EN) On the issue of the compatibility with Community rules of the involvement of "ΕΛΑΝΕΤ" (ELANET) in the evaluation of applications for certain co-financed state aid measures and the procedure for the evaluation of such applications, the Commission has already explained, in its answer to the Honourable Member's written questions E-5710/06 and E-1269/07, that private firms can be involved in the implementation of co-funded operations, in particular state aid measures. In accordance with article 9(l) of Council Regulation (EC) N° 1260/1999⁽¹⁾ of 21 June 1999 (the general regulation applicable to the Structural Funds for the period 2000-2006), for the purposes of the Structural Funds, final beneficiaries are defined as "the bodies and public or private firms responsible for commissioning operations. In the case of aid schemes pursuant to Article 87 of the Treaty and in the case of aid granted by bodies designated by the Member States, the final beneficiaries are the bodies which grant the aid".

On the issue of high number of projects approved by ELANET, the Honourable Member asks for the Commission's judgement. As explained in the Commission's answer to the written question E-1269/07, in line with the subsidiarity principle, the management of the Structural Funds, including the evaluation, selection, implementation and auditing of individual projects is, in the first instance, the responsibility of the Member States. The Commission intervenes when, on the basis of audit reports or otherwise, there would be indications of irregularities in the management process which would not have been satisfactorily dealt with by the Member State authorities.

Despite the ban imposed by the Commission on the hunting of birds during the migration season for many species of bird from and to Africa, and despite major protests from animal welfare organisations, the government of Malta has this year again, at the start of spring, authorised the hunting and shooting of a number of protected bird species. This is in flagrant contravention of the Birds Directive, which is designed, in particular, to protect a number of rare bird species. In 2004 the Commission already instituted proceedings against Malta before the Court of Justice, apparently to no avail.

What is the Commission's response? Will it be applying further sanctions vis-à-vis this serious and repeated violation of European legislation by a Member State?

(EN) Under Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds (hereafter the Birds Directive), the hunting of migratory birds listed in Annex II of the Directive is not allowed during the return to their breeding grounds. Article 9 of the Birds Directive provides the possibility for Member States to apply a derogation but only under exceptional circumstances and only if the strict criteria set out in this article are met. Crucially, derogations are only possible where there are no other satisfactory solutions.

In 2004, the Maltese Government decided to apply this derogation for the hunting of Quails and Turtle Doves during the spring migration. However, the information sent to the Commission by the Maltese authorities was insufficient to demonstrate that the derogations granted were able to meet the requirements set out in the Birds Directive. In particular, the Maltese authorities failed to show that there were no other satisfactory solutions and that the spring hunting takes places under strictly supervised conditions. This is why the Commission concluded that the derogation granted in 2004 infringes Articles 7 and 9 of the Birds Directive. In July 2006, an infringement procedure was launched in accordance with Article 226 of the EC Treaty.

The abovementioned infringement case only concerns the derogation granted in 2004. However, the Commission is aware that spring hunting was permitted in the subsequent years. The Commission considers that the continuation of the spring hunting all these years without a proper justification constitutes a case of systemic bad application of the Birds Directive. Thus, in March 2007, the Commission decided to send a supplementary letter of formal notice aiming at broadening the scope of the infringement case and addressing the generalized practise of the Maltese authorities all these years. It should be stressed that the Commission gave Malta the opportunity to submit its observations on the matter within one month, i.e. a shortened deadline.

In their replies to the letters sent by the Commission, the Maltese authorities affirm that the derogations granted fulfil the criteria of Article 9 of the Birds Directive. The Commission is assessing the information received. If it is established that Malta has not fully complied with the Birds Directive, the Commission will not hesitate to continue the infringement procedure to its conclusion, in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 226 of the EC Treaty.

On 10 May 2007, the Maltese authorities announced that legislation permitting spring hunting in 2007 of Quail and Turtle Dove would be revoked from that date. Spring hunting had commenced on 10 April 2007 and was due to terminate on 20 May 2007. The Commission welcomes the proposal of the Maltese authorities to stop spring hunting earlier than anticipated. The Commission hopes that such a move by the Maltese authorities indicates recognition of their obligations under EU law and that spring hunting in future years will not be permitted, to ensure that the infringement of the Birds Directive in relation to spring hunting may be closed.

Despite the availability of advanced treatments, nearly one in five adult Europeans suffer from long-term pain. These findings were uncovered by Pain in Europe, a study amongst 46 000 people across Europe. According to the survey, people with pain report feeling isolated, desperate and a burden to family, friends and colleagues. One in five have lost their job, a similar number have been diagnosed with depression because of their pain and, for one in six, the pain is sometimes so bad they simply want to die. Chronic pain is a complex condition requiring a multidisciplinary approach to treatment and management. To date, Germany is the only Member State that recognises chronic pain as a condition in its own right. Why are we so slow to accept chronic pain as the medical condition it so clearly is? Can the Commission initiate action at European level to support citizens suffering from long term pain and ensure that they get the necessary treatment?

(EN) The Commission welcomes the initiative of the Honourable Member in raising the issue of chronic pain. This is a serious issue that affects the daily lives of a considerable number of citizens in Europe.

Nevertheless, it is clear that the recognition of chronic pain as a medical condition varies between the Member States. This means that citizens in different parts of the Union get different access to treatment for chronic pain.

The Commission understands the frustration that this can cause, both to the patients concerned and their carers.

However, the primary responsibility for the organisation and financing of health services and medical care lies with the Member States. The Commission cannot therefore impose a single way of dealing with chronic pain at European level.

Nevertheless, it can aim to promote better understanding and best practice through sharing experiences at European level. And it is doing so.

The Commission has included specific questions on how far pain restricts daily living as part of a Eurobarometer survey in 2006, to help assess the extent of this issue. It plans to issue the results in July 2007.

It has also funded relevant projects including "Defining best practice in palliative care" and "Highlighting the impact of headache in Europe".

And for this year, the Commission has specifically included 'pain management' as a topic in its 2007 Call for Proposals under the public health programme, to help support further cooperation on these issues in particular at European level.

This will not change the situation in Member States overnight, but over time, the Commission thinks that this kind of European cooperation can help to improve understanding and disseminate best practices in treating chronic pain throughout the Union.

Nowadays, MP3 players can produce up to 120 decibels. However, the Superior Health Council, a Belgian committee of scientific experts, recommends that a limit of 90 decibels should be the standard applicable to MP3 players. According to the Council, MP3 players are more damaging to hearing than other portable audio devices, because people listen to them more and for longer periods. Damage to hearing can already occur at 80 decibels. Such damage may lead to ringing in the ears, disturbed sleep and deafness.

Is the Commission aware of the recommendation by Belgium's Superior Health Council? Will the Commission adopt a legislative initiative to institute a standard for the noise levels of portable music players, ideally setting a limit of 90 decibels?

(EN) The Commission shares the concerns of the Honourable Member over potential hearing damage and other health effects from MP3 and other music players. Several national authorities have pronounced themselves on this matter.

Community legislation is already in place that restricts the noise level of this type of music player to 100 dB. Therefore, emitting levels above may not be safe and should not be used without additional protective measures. These levels are set by a harmonised standard: EN 60065:2002 “Audio, video and similar electronic apparatus - Safety requirements”.

This standard is referred to by Community product legislation as appropriate to apply for both personal music players and other equipment including such a function.

The regulatory framework governing the safety of this equipment is as follows:

The Radio and Telecommunications Terminal Equipment (R&TTE) Directive⁽¹⁾ 1999/5/EC governing the health and safety aspects of radio equipment, including mobile phones;

The Low Voltage Directive (LVD) 2006/95/EC governing the health and safety of electrical equipment within certain voltage ranges;

The General Product Safety Directive⁽²⁾ (GPSD) seeks to ensure that all consumer products are safe where this aspect is not further detailed in any other “specific” EU legislation (including personal music players).

Notwithstanding that a standard exists, the Commission is preparing a request for scientific advice on this issue. The scientific opinion will inform the Commission, who will then proceed to take the measures deemed appropriate.

In respect of noise limits, a firm view on this will be taken at that time. In this respect the Honourable Member’s attention is drawn to the fact that most research findings on noise currently take into account not only the noise level, but also the length of time and number of exposures.

At the plenary sitting of 24 April in Strasbourg, Amendment No. 8 to the report establishing a quota system in relation to the production of potato starch (A6-0137/2007) was rejected. The amendment provided for a more rational allocation of quotas among Member States. The transfer of unused quotas from old Member States to new Member States would have meant that there was a chance of them being fully utilised and would have been of assistance to Poland and Lithuania, among other countries.

Furthermore, there would have been an improvement in production ratios, which are currently as follows: EU 15 – 90.4% and EU 10 – 9.6% (starch production); EU 15 – 70% and EU 10 – 30% (potato production)). Following the rejection of the above amendment, what steps will be Commission be taking to regulate potato starch production and meet the needs of the new Member States?

(EN) The Commission is well aware that certain new Member States believe that their quotas, negotiated in the Accession Treaty and based on a historic reference period, are too small.

In the new Member State, the quotas were established with the same method as for the existing Member States, i.e. the allocation was based on traditional potato starch production, taking an average of the three reference years (1999–2001 except for Lithuania, where the years 1998–2000 were used). It was not possible to take into account potato areas since data on the part of the potato production used for starch processing were not available.

A reallocation of unused quotas would incite higher potato starch production under quota and weaken the quota regime itself. In view of the supply situation of the potato starch market, where currently 40% of the production has to be exported and where the cereal starch becomes more and more competitive on the domestic market, this should be avoided.

Therefore the Commission proposal is limited to a two years roll-over and does not consider any adaptation or modification of the present quota regime. As far as the future development of the sector is concerned, this will allow reviewing the potato starch regime in the framework of "Health Check".

To what extent is the Commission proceeding with initiatives to encourage policies to make all European work places, including bars and restaurants, smoke free?

(EN) A smoke-free Europe constitutes one of the main priorities of the Commission in the field of health.

This January, the Commission adopted a Green Paper which launched a broad public consultation on the best way forward to promote smoke-free environments in Europe.

On the basis of the comments received, the Commission will decide on the direction of further action. The opinion of the European Parliament will be of crucial importance to us in this respect.

The Commission will propose the way forward in a follow-up communication in 2008.

In addition, our media HELP campaign is now in its third year. So far, the campaign has been highly successful in warning young people of the risks of passive smoking and addiction. The latest HELP TV spot addresses the dangers of second-hand smoke to children.

The new pictorial warnings on tobacco packages are intended to help smokers visualise the nature of tobacco related diseases, including the risks of passive smoking to children and pregnant women.

Finally, the Commission is preparing a report on the implementation of the Council Recommendation on smoking prevention. The report will include an analysis of national smoke-free policies and regulations.

In March, workers at the Quinn radiator factory in Grobbendonk in Belgium learned that the company's Irish management plans to close their plant (making 137 people redundant). This decision coincides with the opening of a new factory in Newport, Wales, where production from Grobbendonk and also from Leigh in the UK is to be continued. The Quinn group operates in a number of very diverse sectors (including building materials, property, hotels, insurance) and employs 6400 people. As there is no European works council, structured communication of information and consultation are not possible.

Could the Commission indicate what European support the Quinn group has received for the factories in Newport and Leigh? Is the Commission prepared to initiate a discussion on how large companies could be compelled to set up a European information and consultation structure? Is the Commission prepared to contact the regional authorities concerned in the UK and Flanders with a view to evaluating this restructuring?

(EN) The old factories in Grobbendonk (Belgium), Leigh (North West England) and the new factory in Newport (Wales) have not received any European Social Fund (ESF) support nor any European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) support.

2) All Member States have implemented the European works council Directive⁽¹⁾. It is up to the competent national authorities, notably courts, to ensure the correct and effective application of the national transposing rules in view of the specific circumstances of each case and to ensure the fulfilment of any employer's duties in this regard. According to the most comprehensive data⁽²⁾, out of the 2204 companies employing a total of 23.6 million workers falling under the scope of the Directive, 772 companies, employing 14.45 million workers, had established European Works Councils in 2005. Negotiations for the establishment of a European Works Council shall be initiated on the own initiative of the central management or at the written request of at least 100 workers or their representatives in at least two undertakings or establishments in at least two different Member States. The Commission is not aware of any initiative or request taken within the Quinn group to this aim.

The Commission reported in 2000 to the Parliament and the Council on the practical and legal application of the European Works Council Directive⁽³⁾. In April 2004, the Commission launched a first phase of consultation on the review of the Directive and in March 2005, in the framework of the Communication "restructuring and employment"⁽⁴⁾, it launched the second phase of this consultation. The proposal of transforming the right to transnational information and consultation into an obligation was nevertheless not addressed in these consultation documents.

3) The Commission has already contacted the Flemish authorities who indicated that in such cases, employment cells are put in place to provide guidance and training to workers for a maximum of two years. The Commission will closely follow the situation with the Flemish Authorities.

Recently there have been calls for investment in holiday homes in Greece, principally in island and coastal areas and sites of outstanding national beauty, involving the construction of one million new residences and measures to cater for the movement of 40 million tourists. The restricted settlement areas, overcrowding and the lack of infrastructures for tourism on such a scale, present us with a major housing, environmental and social problem for the immediate future.

Is the Commission aware of this problem? Have studies been carried out into the impact of the investment projects in question? What measures and policies will be adopted to discourage investment projects on such a scale offering no guarantees of sustainability in practice?

(EN) The Commission is not aware of the issue raised by the Honourable Member or of any studies that may exist concerning the calls for large scale investments for holiday homes in Greece.

The Recommendation on Integrated Coastal Zone Management⁽¹⁾ provides general principles for sound and sustainable coastal planning and management. Under the principle of subsidiarity land use planning issues fall under the responsibility of Member States. It should be stressed however that any such development should be carried out in conformity with EU legislation including environmental legislation and more specifically on environmental impact assessment and nature protection. Indeed, this type of development is covered by Annex II of Council Directive 85/337/EC⁽²⁾ as modified, on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. Member States have to determine whether projects included in this Annex shall be made subject to an environmental impact assessment. In addition any project having a potential impact on nature protected areas has to respect the requirements of corresponding legislation, and in particular Council Directives 409/79/EEC⁽³⁾ on the conservation of wild birds and 92/43/EC⁽⁴⁾ on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

The Delphi company recently announced that it was closing its Puerto Real (Cádiz) plant in southern Spain. This closure involves 1600 direct, and a further 2500 indirect jobs in an economically vulnerable area with high unemployment.

Since 1986, the company has been in receipt of over 60 million euros of public subsidy. Furthermore, it had committed itself to an Industrial Plan running to 2010, which offered its employees specific commitments with regard to stable employment.

Is the Commission going to ask the Spanish Government to take steps to prevent the Delphi closure in the light of the Industrial Plan commitment to 2010, under which it has received public funding?

Is the Commission going to demand that the Spanish Government insist that Directives 94/45/EC⁽¹⁾ and 2002/14/EC⁽²⁾ on information and consultation of workers, and 98/59/EC⁽³⁾ on collective redundancies be complied with, and should they not be, does the Commission intend to call on the Spanish Government to act on its responsibilities?

(EN) The Commission is attentive to cases of restructuring in the automotive sector and is particularly concerned by the negative consequences of plant closures for the workers affected, their families and the regions in which they are situated. However, the Commission has no authority to prevent or defer the decisions of individual companies in relation to company restructurings or site closures and cannot interfere in a company's decision unless that decision violates Community law.

The Spanish authorities have informed the Commission that Delphi Automotive España SL has received support through the European Regional Development Fund as follows:

€ 9 974 577 under the Operational Programme "Competitividad y Mejora del € Tejido Productivo"⁽⁴⁾;

€ 4 365 151 under the Integrated Operational Programme for Andalucía⁽⁵⁾.

Delphi Automotive España SL has not received any direct assistance from the European Social Fund.

If it appears that the closure of Delphi's site in Puerto Real is in breach of the rules concerning the maintenance of Structural Funds operations⁽⁶⁾, the competent national authorities should take the necessary measures to make the financial corrections required, including the recovery of sums unduly received.

As regards the financial support that Spain has granted to Delphi in the form of State aid, the Spanish authorities have informed the Commission that, in addition to some public aid to specific R&D projects under approved State aid schemes⁽⁷⁾, on 17/10/2006 a decision to grant the company a subsidy of € 4.26 million. was taken by the Consejería de Innovación, Ciencia y Empresa of the Junta de Andalucía⁽⁸⁾, for an investment project to be implemented before 30/05/2006. However, since Delphi has so far not proved the implementation of the project in question, the corresponding aid has not been paid out to the company.

Spain has adopted the necessary measures to transpose into its national legal order Council Directive 98/59/EC on the approximation of laws of the Member States on collective redundancies⁽⁹⁾, Council Directive 94/45/EC the European Works Councils⁽¹⁰⁾ and Council Directive 80/987/EEC on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer⁽¹¹⁾. It is therefore up to the competent national authorities, notably courts, to ensure the correct and effective application of the national rules in view of the specific circumstances of each case and to ensure the fulfilment of any employer's duties in this regard. The Commission has sent a letter to the company recalling the need to respect the legislation in force.

As regards Directive 2002/14/EC of the Parliament and of the Council establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community⁽¹²⁾, the Commission has launched an infringement procedure against Spain for failure to transpose this directive into national law within the required deadline. The case is currently pending before the European Court of Justice⁽¹³⁾.

According to the 'Independent' newspaper, in 2006, in the United Kingdom alone 22 000 people entered rehabilitation programmes to cure them of their addiction to cannabis, 9 600 of whom were under 18. At the same time, according to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, 12 million Europeans take cannabis, 25% of them on a daily basis, while 20% of rehabilitation requests are cannabis related. Recent research has established a link between cannabis and mental disorders caused by the increased content in cannabis of the psychotropic drug tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).

It has been shown that the decriminalisation in certain EU Member States of 'soft' drugs such as cannabis is resulting in a dramatic increase in the number of users and drug addicts, particularly among young people, with tragic consequences for their health and even their lives.

What is the Commission's response to the findings of scientific surveys showing that not only are 'soft' drugs no less dangerous, but also their decriminalisation is resulting in a sharp rise in drugs dependency and drug addiction, particularly among young people?

(EN) Cannabis use in Europe is a public health problem. Evidence shows that its use, in particular when intensive, and in young people, can be detrimental to physical and mental health.

The use of cannabis has increased over the past two decades. However, the speed and signs of the increase vary throughout Europe.

There is an overall increase in the level of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in cannabis products, however, this increase is not yet visible in every country and rates differ considerably between countries. This issue is taken into account very seriously by all Member States.

Much research exists on cannabis, on its medical use as on mental problems. However the suggested link ‘between cannabis and mental disorders’ has not yet been fully explored by researchers.

Cannabis use is the most widely used drug in the European Union, and indeed in the world. It is a public health concern.

Therefore selective interventions on prevention and treatment should be made available to curb the current level of use. This is reflected in the EU Action Plan (2005-2008).

In Greece and more generally in all the EU Member States, the number of workers being 'hired out', that is to say subjected to a modern form of slavery, is increasing exponentially. While they are employed for years at a time to meet the recurrent and ongoing needs of undertakings in the public and private sector, they are not directly recruited by these undertakings but indirectly through private employment agencies which treat them like slaves. The 'hired out' workers are not covered by collective bargaining agreements and are constantly denied their freedom at the workplace and their civil liberties. In this way the agencies concerned are clearly seeking to maximise their profits by keeping earnings and benefits for workers to a minimum. In Greece, for example, according to the incomplete information available (in fact the situation is much worse) the National Bank of Greece alone employs 700 of its staff on this basis while the total number of workers employed in this way exceeds 15 000 and is steadily increasing.

Does the Commission consider that this type of recruitment infringes the rights of workers to permanent and stable employment and the principle of equal pay for equal work under collective bargaining agreements?

(FR) The honourable Member highlights the situation of workers who are recruited in Greece and in the other EU Member States by private employment agencies in order to be placed at the disposal of user enterprises, the apparent objective of which procedure is to reduce the latter’s labour costs and social security contributions. At the same time, the employees concerned have little job security and are not covered by collective agreements. The situation described by the honourable Member corresponds to the triangular relationship more commonly referred to as ‘temporary work’, where agencies, as employers, make their employees available for a fixed term, with a view to providing a service to a user enterprise.

Many Member States, including Greece, have adopted national legislation that covers this type of situation and guarantees temporary workers adequate protection. Most of these laws establish the principle of equal treatment – not least regarding pay – between the temporary workers and permanent workers employed by user enterprises. In this case, temporary workers benefit from the provisions of the collective agreements applicable in the user enterprises. In some Member States, it is the social partners at national or sectoral level who have decided to conclude collective agreements with the specific aim of providing the workers concerned with a protective framework.

On 20 March 2002⁽¹⁾ the Commission adopted a proposal for a directive on the working conditions of temporary workers. After the European Parliament issued its opinion at first reading, the Commission adopted an amended proposal on 28 November 2002⁽²⁾. This text lays down the general principle of equal treatment, in accordance with which the basic working and employment conditions (in particular pay and working time) of temporary workers will be at least those that would apply if the workers had been recruited directly by the user enterprise to fill the same post. This text is still awaiting discussion by the Council.

The 'Memorandum of Understanding' on imports of textile and clothing products from China to EU countries, which was signed on 10 June 2005 and covers 10 of some 35 categories of products imported from China, is due to expire on 31 December 2007.

This agreement introduced, albeit to a limited extent, special safeguard measures relating to Chinese exports, as distinct from EU imports from other countries.

Various organisations in the sector have drawn attention to the need maintain the measures restricting the exponential growth of textile and clothing imports into the European Union. The continued application of such measures will help to guarantee the future of this important sector, to create or save millions of workers' jobs and to ensure the socio-economic development of EU disadvantaged regions in particular, in which the sector is concentrated.

Against this background, what measures, including import restrictions, will the Commission take to support productive capacity and jobs in the textile and clothing sector, which is of major socio-economic importance to EU countries?

(EN) The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) agreed between the EU and China in June 2005 was a "once and for all" agreement. It comprises agreed levels for ten textile and clothing categories until 31 December 2007. It was intended to give an extra breathing space to the EU industry to adapt to the new environment after the end of the Agreement for Textiles and Clothing (ATC), foreseen since 1995. The Commission is convinced that the industry put the extra time since 2005 to good use. In fact, the social partners representing European textile and clothing industry did not demand any extension of the Memorandum. They call instead for priority being given to policies guaranteeing equal market access and respect of agreed rules.

After the end of the MoU the textile sector will be subject to the same rules as all other economic sectors in the EU.

Nevertheless, the Commission is monitoring and will continue to monitor the situation of trade in the textile and clothing sector and in particular the imports originating in China.

Should the situation warrant it, the Community has at its disposal instruments to ensure that World Trade Organisation and EU rules are respected.

Since 1 January 2007, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund has been in operation. Can the Commission supply figures on the number of cases currently under consideration? Have any decisions already been taken on particular cases? What action was taken on them?

(FR) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) entered into force on 19 January 2007, following the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006⁽¹⁾ by the European Parliament and by the Council.

To date, two requests for EGF funding have been made to the Commission. Both of these requests were made by France, pursuant to the criterion⁽²⁾ that provides for EGF intervention in the case of at least 1000 redundancies in an enterprise, over a four-month period, including workers made redundant from its suppliers or downstream producers.

In accordance with Article 5(5) of the Regulation⁽³⁾, the two requests are in the process of being examined within the Commission. This examination, which is designed to determine whether or not the conditions under which a financial contribution may be made have been met, should soon be completed. Where appropriate, a proposal for authorising appropriations corresponding to the sum of the contribution concerned will be submitted by the Commission to the budgetary authority, as provided for in Article 12(3) of the Regulation⁽⁴⁾.

The recent events in Estonia clearly show that Russia is consciously worsening its relations with the European Union. The European Union must not be silent when one of its Members, in this case Estonia, is threatened.

How will the Commission react to the events in Estonia? What is the opinion of the Commission concerning the events in Estonia and future implementation of agreements with Russia on readmission and visa facilitation in particular?

(EN) The Commission has immediately called on Russia to honour its obligations under the Vienna Convention to protect Estonian diplomats in Moscow and participated in a demarche on 2 May to that effect. The EU has strongly contested Russian claims that Estonia has breached international obligations when Russia raised the matter at the human rights consultations in Berlin on 3 May. The Commission calls for restraint and for Estonia and Russia to discuss in good faith their differing interpretations of this part of history. The matter will also be discussed at the EU-Russia Summit of 17/18 May 2007.

The Visa Facilitation and Readmission Agreements with Russia will enter into force on 1 June. We shall certainly take full account of Parliament’s concerns on respecting human rights in the implementation of the Agreements. This is reflected in the joint Council/Commission statement which has been presented to Parliament.