Index 
 Previous 
 Next 
 Full text 
Verbatim report of proceedings
Thursday, 21 June 2007 - StrasbourgOJ edition
 ANNEX (Written answers)
QUESTIONS TO THE COUNCIL (The Presidency-in-Office of the Council of the European Union bears sole responsibility for these answers)
QUESTIONS TO THE COMMISSION

QUESTIONS TO THE COUNCIL (The Presidency-in-Office of the Council of the European Union bears sole responsibility for these answers)
Question no 17 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (H-0398/07)
 Subject: Risk of extinction of the red tuna
 

At the meeting of ICATT in November 2006 a recovery plan was adopted for the red tuna. However, the transposition of this plan into Community law is still dependent on its approval by the Council, in a context of pressure being applied by certain Member States.

Both biologists and fishermen, and in particular the Cofradía (fishermen's organisation) of Formentera (Balearic Islands), have been issuing warnings for years concerning the perilous consequences which the disappearance of this species would have for the delicate balance of flora and fauna in the Mediterranean, including a proliferation - as observed already - of jellyfish, the tuna's main competitor in the consumption of zooplankton. They have accordingly urged the EU to adopt a prolonged moratorium on fishing so as to allow the species to recover.

Can the Council confirm whether consideration is being given to temporary moratoriums on industrial fishing, and, if so, for how long a period? Are measures envisaged to raise the minimum catchable size? Will a monitoring system be introduced for tuna caught for fattening purposes?

 
 

Question no 18 by Teresa Riera Madurell (H-0400/07)
 Subject: Red tuna in danger of extinction
 

The November 2006 ICATT meeting adopted a Recovery Plan for the red tuna; the Plan's transposition into Community law is still waiting for approval by the Council, due to the pressure brought to bear by certain Member States.

In the last few days, the President of the Cofradia de Formentera (Spain) had denounced the fact that since 2000, large tuna boats have been using light aircraft, equipped with the very latest technology, to spot tuna shoals. These tuna boats are, furthermore, damaging the sea bed and the local fishing industry's nets by caging their live catches, intended for fattening, these cages are then dragged, at depths of up to 35 metres, to their destination, in the process destroying the fishing lines and nets of the local small-scale fishermen.

When does the Council intend to adopt the red tuna Recovery Plan? Can it confirm whether the Plan covers the banning of tuna-shoal detection by means of light aircraft?

 
  
 

(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 June 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

At its meeting of 11–12 June 2007, the Council reached agreement on the Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) No 41/2007 as concerns the recovery plan for bluefin tuna recommended by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas.

As regards temporary moratoriums on industrial fishing, Article 80e provides for the following fishing bans:

from 1 June to 31 December 2007 for large-scale pelagic longline vessels over 24 m in length in the East Atlantic and Mediterranean, with the exception of the area delimited by west of 10°W and north of 42°N,

from 1 July to 31 December 2007 for purse seine vessels in the East Atlantic and Mediterranean,

from 15 November 2007 to 15 May 2008 for bait boats in the East Atlantic and Mediterranean,

from 15 November 2007 to 15 May 2008 for pelagic trawlers in the East Atlantic.

the use of aeroplanes and helicopters to search for bluefin tuna is prohibited in the Convention Area, as laid down in Article 80f.

Article 80g lays down minimum landing sizes.

A monitoring system is provided for in the case of tuna caught for fattening purposes. The details of this are set out in Article 80o (caging).

 

Question no 19 by Paulo Casaca (H-0399/07)
 Subject: Opposition in the Council to the democratic movement in Turkey
 

The author of this question has been deeply shocked by the extensive coverage in the Western press of the positions assumed on behalf of the EU, notably by the Council Secretary-General, characterised by opposition to respect for the basic principles of any democratic system in Turkey - including secularism or the separation of church and state.

With what democratic legitimacy are the Council's leaders assuming the right to denigrate the basic principles of freedom of religion, as enshrined in Article 10 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights?

Can the Council clarify whether it endorses the statement made on 11 July 2006 by Mr Erdogan, the Turkish Prime Minister, in support of Yassin Al-Qadi, a financial backer of fanatical religious networks who is listed as such by the UN?

Can the Council state whether it endorses the multiple appeals to sharia law made by that same Islamist leader, who has even criticised the Constitution drawn up by secular Turkish leaders because its authors were wine-drinkers?

 
  
 

(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 June 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

I should like to mention at the outset that the Council does not comment on press articles as a matter of principle.

Nevertheless, I wish to assure the honourable Member that the EU continues to take a clear position on the respect for and advocacy of the basic principles of democracy referred to in his question. As a country negotiating its accession with the EU, Turkey must meet the political criteria laid down at the Copenhagen European Council, namely stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities.

As is stated in the negotiating framework adopted by the Council in October 2005, the European Union expects Turkey to sustain its process of reform and to work towards further improvement in terms of respect for the principles of liberty, democracy, the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms. The EU also expects Turkey to consolidate and broaden its legislation and implementation measures specifically in relation to provisions relating, inter alia, to freedom of expression and religion and to minority rights. Recently, in its conclusions of 11 December 2006, the Council noted that further significant efforts were required on Turkey’s part to strengthen freedom of expression and religion. All of these issues are raised regularly in the course of political dialogue between the EU and Turkey.

Finally, regarding Yassin Al-Qadi, I should like to remind the honourable Member that, in accordance with the October 2001 decision of the UN Security Council Sanctions Committee, the Commission, in its Regulation (EC) No 2062/2001, an implementing regulation, placed Mr Qadi on the list of persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources.

 

Question no 20 by Brian Crowley (H-0410/07)
 Subject: Debt relief programmes for poorer third countries
 

Will the European Council make a statement as to the success or otherwise of debt relief programmes for poor third world countries that are being operated by the European Union at this time?

 
  
 

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

As things stand at present, the European Council does not intend to discuss this matter at its next meeting on 21/22 June 2007.

 

Question no 21 by Seán Ó Neachtain (H-0412/07)
 Subject: Safety measures at EU airports
 

Will the European Council make a statement as to the progress that is being made to put in place reciprocal security arrangements at both EU and American/Canadian airports?

 
  
 

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

A statement by the European Council on the matter in question is not planned.

 

Question no 22 by Eoin Ryan (H-0414/07)
 Subject: Supporting the economies of North Africa
 

Can the European Council make a statement as to the level of financial support that it gives the countries of North Africa so as to help these countries grow economically? Does the European Council not recognise that by developing these countries economically this will, in turn, help halt the level of illegal immigration from these countries into the European Union?

 
  
 

(DE) This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding either on the Council or its members, was not given orally during Question Time to the Council at the European Parliament's June 2007 part-session in Strasbourg.

The European Union has long maintained economic relations with the countries of North Africa under the Europe-Mediterranean partnership agreements and the European Neighbourhood Policy.

Through the Barcelona Process, the EU has demonstrated its consistent commitment to socioeconomic development and the consolidation of prosperity throughout the Mediterranean region, and in the countries of North Africa in particular. Under the MEDA Regulation, the countries of North Africa received a total of € 5.2 billion over the period 2000-2006, the main aim being to create in those countries an economic climate conducive to faster growth. Under the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI), which has superseded MEDA as from 2007, the EU has increased funding for its neighbouring countries by a third. Out of a total of roughly € 5 bn for the period 2007-2010, € 3.4 bn has been earmarked for the Union's southern neighbouring countries. The primary purpose of the ENPI is to implement the action plans drawn up as part of the European Neighbourhood Policy. The efforts in this area include measures to open up markets, modernise undertakings and develop the private sector, to foster trade and industrial cooperation, to create jobs and to improve economic infrastructure. In addition to the ENPI funding, the European Investment Bank (EIB) has made loans totalling € 10.7 bn available to the North African Mediterranean countries for the period 2007-2013.

Sustainable economic development in North Africa will certainly help to stem the flow of illegal immigrants into the European Union.

 

Question no 23 by Liam Aylward (H-0416/07)
 Subject: Palestine
 

Can the European Council make a comprehensive statement as to the political situation in Palestine at present?

 
  
 

(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 June 2007 part-session in Strasbourg.

No final decision has yet been taken as to whether the European Council will issue a declaration on the current political situation in Palestine at its meeting on 21 and 22 June, as referred to by the Honourable Member in his question.

The Presidency refers the Honourable Member to the speech by Mr Solana at the European Parliament’s plenary sitting of 6 June 2007 and the conclusions of the General Affairs and External Relations Council of 18 June 2007.

 

Question no 24 by Athanasios Pafilis (H-0419/07)
 Subject: UK Government's new anti-terrorism measures a 'British Guantanamo'
 

There has been an outcry at the new anti-terrorism measures proposed by the UK Home Secretary, John Reid, which give police the power to stop citizens anywhere, interrogate them and even arrest them without prior evidence or suspicion that they are involved in criminal activity. Politicians and organisations upholding individual and civil liberties describe these measures as a 'British Guantanamo' since they are the kind of procedures applied in wartime and have already been rejected by the UK Parliament and courts, even after the attacks on the London underground in July 2005.

Does the Council condemn these UK Government measures as a direct violation of democratic rights which will constitute a dangerous precedent for all the peoples of the countries of Europe?

 
  
 

(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 June 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council wishes to point out that Article 33 TEU precludes it from commenting on national measures concerning the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security.

 

Question no 25 by Johan Van Hecke (H-0423/07)
 Subject: Economic growth higher priority for China than climate protection
 

China has presented a programme which it says is designed to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

However, the programme contains few concrete measures. Under China's national plan, economic growth of developing countries is given higher priority than tackling climate change.

The plan mainly lists the steps which China intends to take in order to achieve a previously-announced improvement in energy use. However, China continues to insist that it is unfair to impose mandatory cuts on countries still in the process of industrial development, when 'global warming was largely caused by 200 years of unrestrained industrialisation by the West'.

What is the Council's response to this position? Was this discussed at the G8 Summit in Germany? How far are climate measures treated as a priority in trade talks with China?

 
  
 

(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 June 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

As the honourable Member is aware, the EU is firmly resolved to take on a leading role in the fight against climate change. It has also promised to help developing countries meet their commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol, in accordance with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.

The honourable Member will also be aware of the firm commitments to reduce emissions that the EU made recently, at the March 2007 European Council. It is vital that, as well as industrialised countries making absolute emission reductions, the economically more advanced developing countries, too, contribute adequately to reducing their emissions levels according to their responsibilities and capabilities, including by means of new and flexible types of obligation and increased cooperation on technology.

In addition, it was agreed recently, at the G8 meeting in Heiligendamm, that our approach to climate protection must be such as to support growth in developing, industrialised and newly industrialised countries alike, whilst avoiding detrimental economic effects. It was also decided to draw up long-term strategies with countries whose economic activities produce high emission levels (including Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa). China, too, declared its commitment to making a fair contribution to the fight against climate change.

Even though China’s climate-protection plan does not currently contain any absolute reduction targets, it nevertheless represents a welcome and clear indication of movement towards the development of the international climate-policy regime under the umbrella of the UNFCCC. China regards increased climate protection as a national challenge and is prepared to continue along the path of sustainable development. In 2007, China’s Premier Wen Jiabao has repeatedly announced measures to cool the overheated economy (approximately 11% growth in the first quarter, approximately 18% in April/May) and to control rising environmental pollution and energy consumption, but has admitted to difficulties in practical implementation.

By way of conclusion, I should like to assure the honourable Member that the EU is making a serious effort to cooperate with China in climate matters, whilst taking commercial issues into account. Firstly, the EU–China Partnership on Climate Change, which was established in 2005, covers the elimination of obstacles to the development, use and transfer of technology. Secondly, the EU–ASEM meetings in 2007 have presented the opportunity to put the spotlight on climate change. There is no doubt about the need to raise the issue of climate change in other contexts, including that of commercial relations. The issue of climate change was also raised at the EU–China troika of ministers for foreign affairs in Hamburg on 28 May 2007, where Minister for Foreign Affairs Steinmeier mentioned the common responsibility to protect the climate and the EU’s readiness to help China reduce its emissions.

 

Question no 26 by Linda McAvan (H-0424/07)
 Subject: European commitments on overseas development assistance
 

In 2005 European ministers reiterated their collective goal of reaching the UN target of spending a minimum of 0.7% of GNI on development aid by 2015. Aid levels in recent years and the proposed spending plans for the coming years all indicate that these targets will not be met. What initiatives is the Council considering to get the EU back on track with their commitments to increase aid levels?

 
  
 

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

The Council's 2005 agreement to increase official development aid went beyond merely confirming the UN objective of spending 0.7% of GNI on official development aid, since the Council agreed to achieve this goal by a set time, namely 2015. The real and substantial increases in the budgets of the EU Member States mean that the prospects for ODA are encouraging, even though major challenges remain.

The Council recently gave a clear statement of its position on this matter (conclusions of the Council of 15 May 2007).

In 2002 the EU pledged to spend 0.39% of gross national income (GNI) on development aid in 2006; in 2005 it agreed to raise this percentage to 0.56% by 2010 and to 0.7% by 2015.

In 2006 the EU reached a total of 0.42% of GNI, thereby exceeding the target of 0.39%. This represents a record sum of EUR 48 billion.

Within this overall amount, some Member States have gone beyond their respective targets, whilst others have failed to reach them for various reasons. However, the efforts made by the European Union as a whole must be considered highly satisfactory.

The Council is aware that some of the measures that have produced this satisfactory overall figure are one-off measures, and consequently additional efforts will be necessary to reach future targets.

The honourable Member is doubtless aware that the quality of aid is just as important as the quantity. In this connection the Council also adopted key conclusions on making development cooperation more effective by means of joint programming and increased division of labour among donors. In keeping with the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, this should help ensure that development aid has a greater impact as regards fighting poverty, achieving the Millennium Development Goals and reducing the administrative burden in recipient countries.

 

Question no 27 by Elspeth Attwooll (H-0427/07)
 Subject: EU Convention on Driving Disqualifications
 

With reference to written question E-1673/07 and Article 19 of the EU Convention on Driving Disqualifications (98/C 216/01) I would like to ask the Council, as the depositary of the Convention, what progress is being made towards ratification, and when the Secretary-General expects that all Member States will fulfil the requirements of the Convention. Does the answer to written question E-1673/07 mean that the Council no longer feels it is required to act as depositary for this Convention?

 
  
 

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

So far only three Member States of the European Union (Cyprus, Slovakia and Spain) have ratified the 1998 Convention. The details of the ratifications by these Member States were published on the Council's official website.

Since the Council is not a contracting party to the Convention and is not bound by the Convention to monitor its implementation, this matter is not being verified by the Council at present.

 

Question no 28 by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (H-0428/07)
 Subject: New Treaty for the European Union
 

In recent weeks, the newly elected President of the French Republic, Nicolas Sarkozy, has been actively promoting the adoption of a new, simplified version of the Constitutional Treaty which was rejected by France and the Netherlands. The French President has already presented his proposal to the Chancellor of Germany and President-in-Office of the EU (Merkel), the President of the Commission (Barroso) and to the Prime Ministers of the UK (Blair), the Netherlands (Balkenende), Belgium (Verhofstadt), Luxembourg (Junker) and Italy (Prodi). The Prime Ministers of Spain (Zapatero) and Portugal (Socrates) have already agreed to the initiative.

What are the Council's views on this proposal? With a view to the Council summit on 21-22 June, will the Council's initiatives be based on promoting the above French proposal or on a compromise proposal from the Presidency? Has it already contacted the Member States, particularly those which are more reticent about the Constitutional Treaty, and what is its assessment of future developments around this proposal?

 
  
 

(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 June 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council has not taken a position on any proposal from any Member State regarding the EU Treaty, nor would this be appropriate.

The issue of a new Treaty is being discussed at the European Council meeting of 21–22 June 2007 on the basis of a report by the Presidency that was requested by the June 2006 European Council. It would be inappropriate for the Council to express an opinion on the preparations for this meeting, for which the Presidency is responsible, or on the anticipated outcome.

 

Question no 30 by Ryszard Czarnecki (H-0434/07)
 Subject: Idea of appointing an EU Special Representative for energy policy
 

What is the Council's opinion of the idea of appointing an EU Special Representative for energy policy (along the same lines as the representatives for foreign policy and terrorism)?

 
  
 

(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 June 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

Under Title V: ‘Provisions on a common foreign and security policy’, Article 18(5), of the EU Treaty, the Council may indeed appoint a special representative with a mandate in relation to particular policy issues.

On the subject of energy policy, I am sure the honourable Member is aware that the European Council declared back in March 2006 that the Energy Policy for Europe (EPE) was to help increase security of supply via the development of a common approach to external energy policy. The measures mentioned in connection with realising the EPE included the development of a common voice in support of energy-policy objectives when addressing third countries.

The general principles of this approach were then further specified by the Commission and the Secretary-General/High Representative in their joint paper entitled ‘An external policy to serve Europe’s energy interests’, which the June 2006 European Council welcomed, asking the Presidency, the Commission and the High Representative to further the work on implementing this external energy policy. The Presidency, the Commission and the High Representative have spoken with this ‘common voice’ many times already in energy-policy dialogue with third countries or groups of third countries.

Most recently, the Spring European Council of March 2007 laid down the aspects essential for the further development of the EU’s common voice.

The Council has not decided to appoint a Special Representative for energy policy, but the EU’s external energy policy is being dealt with at the highest level, and is being represented appropriately to third countries.

 

Question no 31 by Georgios Toussas (H-0437/07)
 Subject: G8 Conference in Heiligendamm
 

The ostensibly anti-terrorist measures taken by the German Government in preparation for the G8 Conference in Heiligendamm bringing together the leaders of the eight most powerful capitalist countries involved the 'preventive arrest' of large numbers of workers and use of police forces and troops to seal off the resort, thereby provoking anger and indignation among those working and living in and around the area. At protests organised in Hamburg and Rostock, hundreds of demonstrators were injured by police and dozens arrested. This deployment of force by the State and the brutal attacks carried out by the forces of law and order are in flagrant violation of civil rights and freedoms.

What view does the Council take of these inadmissible acts of State violence and terror unleashed by the Government against workers and young people?

 
  
 

(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 June 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Presidency wishes to point out that Article 33 TEU precludes the Council from commenting on national measures concerning the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security.

 

Question no 32 by Pedro Guerreiro (H-0438/07)
 Subject: Defending the legitimate rights of the Saharawi people, including their right to self-determination
 

It has recently been reported that students and other activists defending the most basic rights of the Saharawi people were subjected to brutal repression by the Moroccan authorities. The 2006 report on the mission by the delegation from the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees described the human rights situation in the Western Saharan territories unlawfully occupied by Morocco as extremely critical. Furthermore, UN Security Council Resolution 1754 (2007) reaffirms the right to self-determination of the people of Western Sahara.

In view of all this, can the Council say what its reaction is to the recent wave of repression directed by the Moroccan authorities against students and other activists demonstrating in support of the Saharawi people's legitimate rights and what measures it will take to make a real contribution to ensuring respect for their right to self-determination?

 
  
 

(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 June 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The events to which the honourable Member refers are concurrent with the opening of negotiations on Western Sahara under the auspices of the United Nations. (Subject to current developments, the direct negotiations between Morocco and the Polisario Front were to begin on 18/19 June in Long Island, United States.) This is the moment for negotiations, which the international community called for in UN Security Council Resolution 1754 of 30 April 2007. The United Nations has the unqualified support of the European Union. Considerable efforts have been made towards preparing these negotiations, and important contributions have been made in the run-up to these. The people of Western Sahara hope for a better future and a fair and lasting solution to the conflict. We call upon all parties concerned to take this opportunity to exercise restraint and refrain from any action that could endanger the talks.

The next time the European Union and Morocco are due to meet is on 23 July at the meeting of the Association Council. This, too, will present an opportunity to discuss these issues further. In addition, the Heads of Mission in Rabat and the Presidency raise human-rights issues regularly, including the treatment of students, in their dealings with the Moroccan Government.

 

Question no 33 by Diamanto Manolakou (H-0442/07)
 Subject: Infringement of fundamental democratic rights by the use of plastic bullets and paint balls
 

The Greek Government is seeking the immediate introduction of new counter-demonstration measures involving the firing of plastic or rubber bullets and the use of paint balls to mark demonstrators for subsequent arrest. The announced measures have sparked a storm of protest by human rights organisations on the grounds that such missiles have been shown to cause intense pain or serious injury, and could blind or even kill a demonstrator if they strike a vulnerable part of the body, something which is acknowledged by police officers also. Furthermore the use of such measures is in direct infringement of the very right to assembly and protest and constitutes a serious violation of individual rights since the 'marking' of demonstrators will save as a pretext for the forces of law and order to fabricate charges against them and initiate criminal proceedings.

Does the Council approve these counter-demonstration procedures, which are highly dangerous to the public, directed against popular movements and blatantly infringe basic democratic rights and freedoms?

 
  
 

(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 June 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Presidency wishes to point out that Article 33 TEU precludes the Council from commenting on national measures concerning the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security.

 

Question no 34 by Laima Liucija Andrikienė (H-0446/07)
 Subject: Environmental impact assessment of the north Europe gas pipeline project
 

The construction of the north Europe gas pipeline raises many concerns over the negative impact that it could have on the Baltic Sea. According to international environmental standards, EU legal requirements and practice, a project cannot be implemented without a comprehensive environmental impact assessment study, carried out by independent bodies.

Has the Council taken action to ensure that the environmental impact assessment study for the north Europe gas pipeline project will be conducted and if so, what independent bodies make up the assessment team? Does the Council already have preliminary results of the environmental impact assessment study, which could provide conclusions on the environmental impact of the construction of the north Europe gas pipeline on the Baltic Sea?

 
  
 

(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 June 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Presidency is well aware that the project mentioned by the honourable Member has given rise to concerns on the part of several EU Member States, third countries and environmental organisations as to possible adverse environmental effects. It is also true that international agreements, particularly the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (‘Espoo Convention’), Community law and domestic law lay down rules and obligations relating to environmental impact assessments (EIA).

Nevertheless, the Council has no legal basis whatsoever for taking specific measures to ensure that an EIA is carried out; it is incumbent on the Commission to ensure that Community law is properly applied, and to take such measures as it deems appropriate in the event of infringements.

As regards the initial results of an EIA, all the Presidency can do is note the publicly available information, which states that all the countries concerned have been officially informed about the project and that there are plans to draw up an EIA report by autumn 2007, which is then to be presented to the competent authorities for approval.

As the honourable Member should also be aware, Decision 1364/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down guidelines for trans-European energy networks makes several references to a gas pipeline between Russia and Germany via the Baltic Sea or ‘via the offshore route’.(1)

In Annex I to this Decision, the Council and Parliament have designated a ‘North European gas pipeline’ a ‘project of European interest’ – a term denoting the projects given ‘the highest priority’ (see recital 8 and Article 8).

I should like to refer the honourable Member specifically to Article 13 of this Decision, which reads as follows: ‘This Decision shall be without prejudice to the results of the environmental impact assessment of projects, plans or programmes which define the future framework for such projects. The results of the environmental impact assessments, where such an assessment is requested in accordance with relevant Community legislation, shall be taken into consideration before a decision on the carrying out of the projects is actually taken in accordance with the relevant Community legislation.’

 
 

(1) OJ L 262, 22.9.2006, p. 1

 

QUESTIONS TO THE COMMISSION
Question no 41 by Georgios Toussas (H-0445/07)
 Subject: Increase in European Central Bank base rate
 

The imminent rise in the European Central Bank (ECB) base rate to 4% from the current 3.75% and the prospective increase to 4.25% in September 2007 are exacerbating the acute problems already suffered by working-class households repaying loans on unfavourable terms determined by the banks. It is indicative that the seven consecutive increases since December 2005, when the base rate was 2%, have resulted in soaring profits for the banks, multiple increases in monthly mortgage repayments and in conjunction with falling wages and pensions have, in general, dealt a severe blow to the standard of living of working-class families.

What are the Commission's views on these anti-working class choices made by the European Central Bank?

 
  
 

(EN) Following its Treaty mandate to preserve price stability, the European Central Bank sets monetary policy for the euro area in an independent manner, based on a comprehensive assessment of the economic, financial and monetary situation.

Both inflation and interest rates (in nominal and real terms) have been historically low in the euro area since the introduction of the Euro. It should be stressed that inflation typically acts as a regressive tax, hitting harder the poorer segments of the population that often rely exclusively on wage (or pension) income and do not possess real assets. Therefore, striving to preserve price stability certainly cannot be defined as an 'anti-social' policy.

 

Question no 46 by Leopold Józef Rutowicz (H-0391/07)
 Subject: Financial resources to combat the adverse effects of climate change
 

Many climate changes are occurring at present, causing crop failures, floods, drought, environmental change, and so on. In order to combat the effects of such phenomena, a reserve of funds is needed. Will the Commission make provision for a constant increase in the funds available for combating these phenomena?

 
  
 

(EN) Climate change is happening and its financial consequences, both in terms of mitigating emissions of greenhouse gases and adapting to the unavoidable consequences of climate change need to be considered. For 2007-2013 the EU budget is fixed and it is too early to anticipate the financial perspective after 2013. However, climate change risk prevention, mitigation and adaptation measures can already be financed through the current Community structural fund programmes. Further action will be needed to promote the inclusion of such measures in the current programmes. Climate proofing of projects financed by these Funds must be ensured to guarantee the sustainability of these projects.

For the 2007-2013 period the LIFE+ programme has climate change as one of its principal objectives. LIFE+ will fund innovative or demonstration projects promoting adaptation across borders, i.e. demonstrating cost-efficient adaptation technologies, innovative approaches.

The European Union Solidarity Fund is not an instrument specifically designed to respond to climate change. However in cases of major natural disasters of a European dimension, whether provoked by climate change or other natural causes, it may grant financial assistance. It is financed outside the EU budget on a case by case basis.

Moreover, Council has adopted in March a civil protection financial instrument which aims at supporting and complementing the efforts of Member States for the protection of people, the environment and property in the event of natural and man-made disasters.

Furthermore, to support the Community's ambitious climate change objectives and as part of a wider reform of rules on national state aid, the Commission has recently presented new draft Community guidelines on environmental state aid. The updated guidelines will apply a more economics-based approach to ensure that Member States can support measures in favour of the environment whilst causing the least possible distortion of competition.

The concern about climate change will influence EU relations with third countries. In developing countries, adaptation to the consequences of climate change will be important because of the increased vulnerability and limited capacity of poor communities. Several policies and funding mechanisms exist and need to be further developed to face the adaptation challenge globally.

The Community's research programmes have invested in targeted climate change research over several years to build a solid knowledge base in support of policy making. Spending on adaptation research will increase further.

The Commission will adopt before the summer a Green Paper on adapting to the impacts of climate change which will elaborate in greater detail on the cost and policy responses proposed for adaptation.

 

Question no 47 by Zita Gurmai (H-0402/07)
 Subject: Environmental impact of the Yacht Port La Punta project, Ibiza
 

The island of Ibiza is suffering severe urban and environmental deterioration as a result of overly large-scale public works which are turning a fragile and rare territory into a concrete desert. The Yacht Port La Punta project in Ibiza forms part of a plan to build a dual carriageway and a golf course. These projects have caused a huge public uproar since they will have a clear negative impact on the Parque Reserva Natural de Ses Salines natural park, an EU Birds Directive Special Protection Area declared site of Community importance.

What measures will the Commission take to guarantee compliance with the Birds and Habitats Directives?

 
 

Question no 48 by Jörg Leichtfried (H-0403/07)
 Subject: Environmental impact of the Yacht Port La Punta project, Ibiza
 

The Yacht Port La Punta project, in Ibiza, with a capacity of 885 yachts up to 40 metres long, will have irreversible consequences for marine ecosystems, the adverse impact including the destruction of around 120 000 m2 of the protected plant species Posidonia oceanica, as the project developers themselves recognise. The construction of the yacht port will affect the Parque Reserva Natural de Ses Salines natural park − an 0EU Birds Directive Special Protection Area declared a site of Community importance − and the Reserva Marina de Es Freus de Eivissa y Formentera maritime reserve, located next to the projected port, which benefits from EU structural funds under the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG).

What measures will the Commission take to guarantee compliance with the Habitats Directive?

 
 

Question no 49 by Britta Thomsen (H-0404/07)
 Subject: Environmental impact of the La Punta Yacht Port project, Ibiza
 

According to the formal complaint lodged with DG Environment and DG Fisheries and Maritime Affairs, the Yacht Port La Punta project in Ibiza will have an extremely negative impact on the island's littoral and will cause irreversible destruction of the marine and land ecosystems. The projected works seem excessive in relation to the needs of the port, which contradicts the objectives of the related acquis communautaire. Is the Commission aware that this project breaches EC law?

 
 

Question no 50 by Inés Ayala Sender (H-0409/07)
 Subject: Impact of the Leisure Harbour of La Punta (Ibiza, Spain) scheme on nature reserves protected by the European Union
 

From the outset, the European Union has taken an positive interest in preserving the environment, and has actively congributed to defending nature reserves. However, the scheme to build the Leisure Harbour of La Punta in Ibiza (Spain) will directly affect both the Es Freus de Eivissa y Formentera Marine Reserve and the Ses Salines Nature Reserve, both of which receive European funding (Fisheries and LIFE respectively).

Is the Commission aware of the impact of this scheme on these protected areas, and what does it intend to do to prevent this impact constituting an abuse of the Community funding being invested in them?

 
  
 

(EN) Projects relating to yacht ports are covered in Annex II section 10 part "e" of Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(1) as amended by Directives 97/11/EC(2) and 2003/35/EC(3) (the Environmental Impact Assessment – EIA - Directive). It is therefore for the Member State to determine, before giving the development consent for a project, if it is likely to have significant effects on the environment. If this is the case, an environmental impact assessment has to be carried out.

The site "Ses Salines d'Eivissa i Formentera" has been designated as a site of Community importance under Directive 92/43/EEC(4) (the Habitats Directive) and as a special protection area under Directive 79/409/EEC(5) (the Birds Directive). For projects likely to have a negative impact on such sites an assessment must be carried out in accordance with Articles 6.3 and 6.4 of the Habitats Directive. On the basis of this assessment the relevant authorities have to decide if the project can go ahead, and if so, under what conditions.

According to the available information, the project and the environmental impact assessment were the subject of a public information procedure in May 2006. Moreover, in April 2007, the competent authority of the Balearics issued a favourable opinion on the project under certain conditions. The Commission also understands that the project is planned in an area outside the Natura 2000 site, that it will not significantly affect any Natura 2000 site, and that the impacts the project would have on the priority natural habitat "Posidonia oceanica" will not be significant.

The Commission does therefore not believe there is evidence to suggest that EU legislation has not been respected.

 
 

(1) OJ L 175, 05.7.1985
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997
(3) OJ L 156, 25.6.2003
(4) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992
(5) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979

 

Question no 51 by Lambert van Nistelrooij (H-0405/07)
 Subject: EU emissions trading scheme
 

The EU has allocated emission allowances for each Member State. In the ‘Strategic European Energy Review’ dated 10 January 2007, it was proposed that the emissions trading scheme be modified and harmonised. Under the current scheme, smaller emitters, i.e. with less than 20 Mw capacity, also have emission allowances, though they do not now come under the trading scheme. The EU allocation of emission allowances has not been cut for small users, however.

In the Netherlands, small firms’ emission allowances are traded via power generators. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) fear that power generators will pass on the cost of emission allowances to SMEs. That would not encourage SMEs in the Netherlands to pursue an active emissions reduction policy.

How does the Commission view measures which may possibly deter SMEs from reducing emissions? What scope does the Commission see for having SMEs make a more effective contribution to EU emissions policy?

 
  
 

(EN) A clarification is needed on the question of the Honourable Member. Indeed, installations with a capacity below 20 Megawatts (MW) do not fall under the scope of the EU Emissions Trading Directive(1). This also means that they do not have emission allowances, or indeed have any other obligations related to emissions trading.

A basic design principle of the EU emissions trading scheme (ETS) is that it only includes direct emitters of greenhouse gases. This means that only the producers but not the end-users of electricity participate in emissions trading. Therefore, the allowances that are surrendered by electricity producers to compensate for greenhouse gases emitted in the course of generating electricity that will be consumed by – inter alia – small and medium enterprises cannot be regarded as allowances "belonging" to such small and medium enterprises.

Power generators might pass on any potential increases in the cost of power generation to power consumers. This could extend to costs associated with emissions allowances. High costs of energy encourage end-users such as small and medium-sized enterprises to further save on their power consumption. However the Commission will consider possible measures to address any windfall profits, notably through the review of the EU ETS and by increasing the competitive pressure in the EU energy markets.

The Commission considers that all sectors of the economy should contribute to the necessary greenhouse gas emission reductions in order to restrict climate change to 2°C above pre-industrial level. The currently ongoing review of the EU Emissions Trading Directive will provide an opportunity to evaluate how and to what extent small and medium-sized companies should participate in emission trading and ensure that they do so in a cost-efficient manner.

 
 

(1) Directive 2003/87/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, OJ L 275, 25.10.2003.

 

Question no 52 by Michl Ebner (H-0420/07)
 Subject: Differences in rules governing waste in the various EU Member States
 

Europe's waste mountains are constantly growing. So far, waste has been 'disposed of' in different ways in all 27 EU States.

There are hardly any counter-measures to be found: the 'green point' system only exists in 20 Member States and the EMAS Regulation on the certification of environmentally friendly undertakings depends on purely voluntary action. This system not only causes problems for members of the public and the environment: it also permits economic exploitation of waste disposal (by waste mafias).

How and when will the Commission introduce uniform minimum standards so that waste disposal and recycling of the ever growing volumes of waste generated in the EU Member States become more comprehensible to the public, environmentally sounder and more equitable?

 
  
 

(EN) The EU has taken extensive action in the area of waste over the past thirty years. Indeed, it was one of the very first environmental issues tackled at the European level. The EU now has 14 pieces of waste legislation in place, ranging from general legislation such as the Waste Framework Directive(1), to specific legislation dealing with waste management techniques or particular waste flows.

With legislation such as the Landfill Directive(2), the Waste Incineration Directive(3), or the IPPC Directive(4), high, uniform and detailed standards are put in place to ensure that the environment and human health is protected from waste installations, no matter where they may be in the EU. Similarly, legal measures such as the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE)(5) or End of Life Vehicles(6) Directives ensure that a common approach is taken by the Member States to difficult waste streams, protecting the environment and preventing obstacles to the Internal Market.

There are, however, still varying approaches to waste management in the Member States. Some of these are normal and inevitable, the result of varying geographical and cultural circumstances. In other cases, as set out in the Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste(7) of December 2005, the Commission is working towards greater co-ordination and additional minimum standards for waste. One example is waste prevention, where the Commission has proposed in the revision of the Waste Framework Directive(8) to improve co-ordination and information exchange as there are significant differences in the amount of progress being made by the Member States.

 
 

(1) Directive 2006/12/EC on Waste, OJ L 114, 27.4.2006
(2) Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste, OJ L 182, 16.7.1999
(3) Directive 2000/76/EC on the incineration of waste, OJ L 332, 28.12.2000
(4) Directive 96/61/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, OJ L 257, 10.10.1996
(5) Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), OJ L 37, 13.2.2003
(6) Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of life vehicles OJ L 269, 21.10.2000
(7) COM(2005)666 final
(8) COM(2005)667 final

 

Question no 53 by Athanasios Pafilis (H-0441/07)
 Subject: Coastal areas are public property
 

Over the last eight years, Greek governments have proceeded to privatise large - usually public - areas of coastal land, Olympic installations and important tourist areas, either by giving them directly to entrepreneurs for speculative investment or by awarding such entrepreneurs contracts to manage them through the Public and Private Partnerships (PPPs). The result, on the one hand, is that business has made huge profits, and has managed and dictated policy in these sectors and, on the other hand, that workers are unable to enjoy areas which are actually public property and are compelled to pay exorbitant charges in order to swim or for any other services.

Trade unions and workers' organisations in Greece consider that coastal areas are public property to which workers have the right to free access and that, therefore, they should not be subject to business operations.

What is the Commission's position on this matter?

 
  
 

(EN) Should coastal land be public or private? This is the key point of the Honourable member's question. However, ownership of land is not a matter that falls under EU competence. The Commission has no opinion on whether coastal land should be private or public.

Adequate public access to the coast is nonetheless covered by the EU Recommendation on Integrated Coastal Zone Management, of 2002.

It is important to underline that this Recommendation talks about "adequate" access. This does not imply that each beach or the whole coastline must be open to the general public. Whether in a particular case the coastline is, or is not, accessible to the public – and on what conditions – is strictly a matter of subsidiarity.

The Recommendation on Integrated Coastal Zone Management is a non-binding legal instrument. It aims at sustainable development of coastal areas, in particular through better coordination and involvement of stakeholders. Member States are invited to set up Strategies for Integrated Coastal Zone Management, based on general principles. In line with the principles of subsidiarity, the Recommendation does not impose particular issues or address specific sites.

 

Question no 57 by Iles Braghetto (H-0363/07)
 Subject: Quality of spa waters
 

One of the points highlighted by Parliament in its March 2007 resolution on cross-border healthcare P6_TA(2007)0073 was the need to ensure a high level of human health protection in all Community policies and to create a legal framework for cross-border healthcare provision which best guarantees patients' timely access to appropriate and high-quality healthcare. The spa industry is an asset in that it is widely used by patients in Europe, but it lacks a European legal framework which would guarantee quality standards and enable it to be exploited as a natural resource. In fact, there are no European provisions governing the quality of spa waters, unlike bathing water, groundwater, drinking water, and so on. The same is true of other resources in this sector, such as mud, etc.

Does the Commission intend to recognise therapeutic spa treatments in the context of cross-border healthcare provision? If so, will it draw up a proposal setting out the quality requirements to be met by spa waters, mud and steam, so that natural spa resources can be used for therapeutic purposes, while ensuring uniform standards for European patients?

 
  
 

(EN) Thermal waters are used for therapeutic purposes in some Member States.

However the extent of their use and the kind of treatments provided varies considerably from country to country.

According to the Treaty, it is Member States that are responsible for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care.

It is their responsibility to ensure the appropriate quality and safety of health services provided.

In the case of the use of thermal waters, it is therefore for Member States to ensure that all aspects of the treatments provided are safe, including the quality of the water. Nevertheless, the Commission will meet soon representatives of the European Spas Association in order to explore further possible ways of cooperation on this subject. This meeting should take place on 9 July 2007.

 

Question no 58 by Markus Pieper (H-0367/07)
 Subject: New strategies to combat classical swine fever
 

New disease prevention strategies aim to restrict slaughtering as a means of combating classical swine fever to a minimum. How does the Commission view the practicability of 'eradication through testing'?

Action to combat classical swine fever in North Rhine-Westphalia last year was marred by inadequate coordination and communication. Are efforts being made to enlist regional experts in the competent Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health in the event of an outbreak, who would be familiar with local circumstances and could help improve communication and coordination?

 
  
 

(EN) Council Directive 2001/89/EC and Commission Decision 2002/106/EC include detailed measures to ascertain the classical swine fever free status of animals, holdings and zones, after an outbreak in a Member State.

The Commission is aware that German experts have proposed a new procedure for these purposes, which envisages a large scale use of the Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction.

This test is already foreseen by Community legislation and its use has also been approved in the context of the measures taken to control swine fever in Germany in 2006.

However, the confidence in the guarantee of freedom of disease after a negative result of this or any other similar test is much dependent on the sampling procedures and the on-farm bio-security measures applied to prevent infection immediately before and after sampling.

These issues will be further discussed between experts at a seminar on disease control measures that will be held at the Community Reference Laboratory in Hannover in September 2007, to which local experts will also be invited. Indeed, the Commission had regularly consulted experts from North-Rhine Westphalia in preparation of the Community measures adopted during the swine fever outbreaks in 2006.

 

Question no 59 by John Bowis (H-0388/07)
 Subject: Hospital-acquired infections
 

There is increased concern across the European Union about hospital-acquired infections, including methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and clostridium difficile (c-difficile), notably following the recent outbreak of a virulent strain of c-difficile which caused fatalities in the United Kingdom. Can the Commission tell us what the surveillance measures of healthcare acquired infections (HCAI) set up in 2000 show us, and what does the Commission propose to do to combat this increasing health threat?

 
  
 

(EN) Commission Decision 2000/96/EC on the communicable diseases to be progressively covered by the Community network under Decision 2119/98/EC foresees surveillance on healthcare-associated infections in its Annex I.

A specific surveillance network for healthcare-associated infections (HELICS) is funded by the Public Health Programme.

Surveillance data estimate that every year, 3 million patients in the EU acquire a healthcare-associated infection, corresponding to 10% of hospitalised patients. Approximately 50,000 deaths are estimated to occur every year as a consequence of such infections.

EU surveillance networks rely on data from national surveillance systems which are heterogeneous in nature and which, in numerous cases, are not readily available.

As the EU is progressively covering surveillance of communicable diseases via the European Centre for Disease Control (ECDC), the quality and comparability of data is critical.

In their 2007 annual epidemiological report, the ECDC identified healthcare-associated infections as one of the major communicable disease threats in the EU.

The Commission held a public consultation from December 2005 to January 2006 on a document called "Strategies for improving patient safety by prevention and control of healthcare-associated infections".

This document is meant to form the basis for a Council Recommendation on the prevention and control of healthcare-associated infections to be adopted in 2008 as part of a wider package on patient safety and quality of healthcare services.

The principal recommendations will cover the establishment or strengthening of:

- control and preventive measures to support containment of infections;

- infection prevention and control programmes in healthcare institutions;

- surveillance systems according to commonly agreed standards:

- education, training, research and information exchange.

The ultimate aim of any future proposal for a Council Recommendation is to increase patient safety and to bring down the significant burden of healthcare-associated infections on EU societies.

 

Question no 60 by James Nicholson (H-0395/07)
 Subject: Brazilian beef
 

In order to ensure that European consumers can have total confidence in their beef supply, will the Commission not consider imposing an immediate ban on the export of beef from Brazil to the European Union rather than waiting until the end of this year?

 
  
 

(EN) A Commission inspection was recently carried out in Brazil in March 2007 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(1), in accordance with the normal procedures.

Following this inspection the Commission assessment is that import of beef from Brazil into the Community does not present a health risk to our consumers and livestock and does not warrant any immediate changes to the extensive import requirements currently in place. A ban would therefore not be proportionate to the situation at hand.

According to normal procedures following a Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) mission, once the draft report is drawn up, the Brazilian authorities have the possibility to comment on it and if appropriate provide evidence that the identified shortcomings are being tackled. The Commission then reserves the right to reassess the situation and consider further action.

In this regard, the Commission remains in close contact with the Brazilian authorities to ensure that the shortcomings identified as regards implementation of Community import conditions for beef are properly addressed.

 
 

(1) http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/index_en.htm

 

Question no 61 by Justas Vincas Paleckis (H-0396/07)
 Subject: Prevention of smoking
 

My question begins with a self-criticism: sadly, the European Parliament is not setting a good example and is unable to impose a ban on smoking in its public spaces. Some EU states, however – Ireland, Italy, France, the UK, Belgium and Lithuania – are successfully implementing the ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces (admittedly with some exceptions). Although the regulation of smoking falls within the sphere of responsibility of the Member States, in my view the Commission could achieve a great deal in the area of smoking prevention by drafting proposals on how the good example of these EU Member States could be followed.

What measures is the Commission taking to prevent smoking? Does it have any plans to draw general conclusions from the positive and negative experiences of all Member States with their bans on smoking in public places, and to make recommendations accordingly?

 
  
 

(EN) The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for the question on tobacco control, in particular smoke-free policies. The Commission welcomes all Member States that have already strengthened their smoke free laws, and hopes that others will follow their example towards a smoke free Europe.

In January 2007 the Commission adopted a Green Paper which launched a public consultation on the best way forward to promote smoke-free environments in Europe.

This consultation closed on 1 June 2007. More than 250 responses have been received and the Commission is currently analysing them with a view to publishing a summary of responses during the summer. A preliminary assessment of the submissions showed that further EU action is needed. This will need to take into account the differing situation in Member States. The Commission will be guided by the experience from those that already have successful smoking bans.

In this regard, the recent discussions in the Environment Parliamentary committee and in the Health Council in May were very helpful.

Once the Parliament has delivered its opinion in September, the Commission will complete the analysis and will propose EU level measures in a follow-up communication in 2008.

Of the wide range of tobacco control measures in the EU, the Commission would like to underline one.

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. Sadly, the pictorial warnings which have been supported by the Parliament, are only used in a handful of countries. The Commission asks Honourable Members to support the promotion of their introduction in more EU countries.

 

Question no 62 by Maria Badia i Cutchet (H-0401/07)
 Subject: Subsidising the cost of specific gluten-free products for celiacs
 

Action on specific illnesses remains the responsibility of the Member States, but on the basis of the Second Community Action Programme on Public Health (2008-2013), it will be possible to monitor the incidence of celiac disease, support exchanges of scientific knowledge and best practice with regard to treating it, and implement the collection, analysis and dissemination of information about it at European Union level.

Given that one of the Programme's objectives is to promote health in order to increase prosperity and solidarity, and that under Objective 2, it is stated that measures are to be taken to encourage an active old age in good health, and reduce inequalities with regard to health, would the Commission agree to propose, within the framework of Objective 2, subsidies for the additional costs to celiacs of buying specific gluten-free products, knowing that this is the only possible treatment, and that such products are deemed to be essential for sufferers? Does the Commission not think that if measures to this effect are not established, this could exacerbate a situation of discrimination on health grounds, to which the EU is opposed?

 
  
 

(EN) The Commission is well aware of the potential risks for people with celiac disease associated with eating foods or use of products containing gluten.

As mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Community Action Programme on Public Health can provide support to initiatives aimed at monitoring the incidence of celiac disease, exchanging scientific knowledge and good practice with regard to prevention and treatment.

However, the Commission has no role in reimbursement for foods for special dietary requirements, which remains the direct responsibility of Member States. The public health programmes do not provide a legal basis for such payments.

As the respect of a gluten-free diet is crucial for people with celiac disease, proper labelling is crucial. The food labelling legislation requires that food producers indicate cereals containing gluten in the list of ingredients.

In addition, the legislation on dietetic foods indicates that the Commission will define the conditions for making claims concerning the absence of gluten in foods. To this end the Commission is working in close collaboration with Member States, and taking into account developments at the international level within the Codex Alimentarius.

Such labelling measures are important in enabling people with celiac disease to make informed dietary choices.

 

Question no 63 by Stavros Arnaoutakis (H-0408/07)
 Subject: Illegal transplants
 

The long waiting lists for transplants (e.g. in Europe there are 65,000 patients waiting for a kidney transplant) are inducing many patients to seek a transplant on the 'black market' for a large fee and even through advertisements on the Internet. According to figures produced by the World Health Organisation, illegal trafficking in human organs accounts for 10% of transplants worldwide. Even though organs may be donated freely, any form of transaction between recipient, donor and their families or any other person is prohibited and punishable by law. How is the Commission promoting transparency in the field of transplants? What measures are being taken to promote and safeguard the legal link between the Member States' national bodies responsible for transplants in order to ensure that organs for transplant are used more efficiently and promptly? Is it possible to restrict the publication of such advertisements on the Internet without thereby affecting the individual freedoms and digital rights of European citizens?

 
  
 

(EN) Fighting organ trafficking and strengthening cooperation between Member States in this area are among the topics addressed in the Communication adopted by the Commission on 30 May.

At the moment, there is no clear-cut data on organ trafficking, although the problem is estimated to be much smaller in Europe than in other parts of the world.

The ban on trafficking in human organs is already in force via international legal instruments. The Commission is consistently referring to these international instruments and will closely monitor any developments in the organ trafficking field both inside the EU and worldwide.

The future legal instrument proposed in the Communication will complement these actions by setting common standards for the authorisation of establishments and programmes of organ donation and procurement in Europe.

This legal instrument will urge Member States to take all necessary measures to ensure that any promotion and publicity activities in support of organ donation comply with guidelines or legislative provisions.

Such provisions will entail appropriate restrictions or prohibitions on advertising organ donation with a view to offering or seeking financial gain.

The increasing mobility of people within the EU creates a need for enhanced transparency of the transplant system rules. It is important to secure EU-wide agreements.

The Commission is working on a action plan to promote cooperation between Member States, in order to share experience and best practices for facing the shared problems.

 

Question no 64 by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (H-0426/07)
 Subject: Organ donation and transplantation
 

According to a recent Eurobarometer survey (30 May 2007), although eight out of ten Europeans are in favour of organ donor cards and 56% would be willing to donate their organs posthumously, only 12% of Europeans currently hold such a card. To what does the Commission believe such discrepancies are due? Recently it issued a communication recommending measures to achieve closer cooperation between Member States regarding organ donation and transplants (for example a Directive on safety and quality standards regarding organ donation, public information and awareness campaigns on obtaining donor cards etc.). What measures does the Commission intend to take regarding the enormous disparities between the various Member States concerning willingness to donate organs and the number of donor-card holders? What policies does it recommend with regard to illegal trafficking in human organs at a time when 40 000 sufferers in Europe are on transplant operation waiting lists and what measures does it intend to take to heighten public awareness, particularly in those population sectors and social categories (the elderly, the less well educated) which are showing the least concern for this problem, especially in the new Member States?

 
  
 

(EN) The Eurobarometer survey showed that the willingness to donate varies from 29% to 81% in the EU. Several reasons have been identified to explain these differences:

Societies have different attitudes towards organ donation, based on cultural and social factors.

The level of public understanding of organ donation and related ethical issues as well as variations in legal procedures for donor consent influence willingness to donate.

On the top of willingness to donate come differences in the actual transplantation systems. Each Member State has its methods of organising and carrying out transplantations, based on the type of health system, available resources and the attention given to increasing the number of transplants;

The Commission adopted on 30 May a Communication on Organ Donation and Transplantation, which aims to:

Improve the quality and safety of organs for transplantation;

Increase the availability of organs for transplant; and

Make transplantation systems more efficient and accessible.

These actions will particularly benefit those Member States with lower level donation rates.

The Commission seeks to achieve these goals through:

An Action Plan to enhance cooperation and the exchange of best practice between Member States. Discussions with experts on concrete possibilities will start in July; adoption of a proposal by the Commission is foreseen in late 2008 or 2009.

A proposal for a legislative instrument, to be proposed in late 2008, on safety and quality of organs.

At the moment, there is no clear-cut data on organ trafficking, although the problem is estimated to be much smaller in Europe than in other parts of the world.

The Commission will closely monitor any developments in organ trafficking both inside the EU and worldwide. The legislative instrument will help to combat trafficking by setting common standards for the authorisation of establishments and programmes of organ donation and procurement in Europe.

The Eurobarometer shows that eight out of ten Europeans approve of organ donor cards, but only 12% carry one. This is due to multiple factors; probably one of the main reasons is that this option is not clearly presented to citizens.

The Commission also believes a European donor card could help to increase public awareness and close this gap. It is also needed in view of the increasingly mobile European citizens.

 

Question no 65 by Saïd El Khadraoui (H-0433/07)
 Subject: Banning of the preservative E211
 

In its answer to my Question P-2223/07 of 24 May 2007 the Commission says that it is not at present planning to propose specific legislation on the formation of benzene in soft drinks. It now transpires from recent research by Professor Peter Piper of Sheffield University that in addition to forming benzene by combining with Vitamin C, the preservative E211 can also have directly harmful effects. In soft drinks such as Sprite or Pepsi Max, E211 may cause damage to cells, which can result in such illnesses as cirrhosis of the liver and Parkinson’s disease. Is the Commission aware of these problems? Could this lead to a general ban on the preservative E211? Is the Commission considering making it a requirement to use a harmless substitute to benzoic acid, namely sorbic acid, for E211?

 
  
 

(EN) Before food additives are approved for use within the European Community they must first be evaluated for safety by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Prior to the establishment of the EFSA this task was undertaken by the Scientific Committee on Food which most recently evaluated the safety of benzoic acid in 2002. At this time the Committee established an acceptable daily intake for benzoic acid and its salts.

The Commission is aware of recent press coverage relating to a 1999 study undertaken by Professor Peter Piper which examined the effect of benzoic acid on yeasts. In its conclusions the study raised the question of whether this effect could be relevant to human exposure to this additive. The Commission is not however aware of any further studies which have been undertaken in this area.

In relation to the proposal on food additives which is part of the Commission's package of proposals on food improvement agents, the Commission has asked the EFSA to undertake a re-evaluation of all currently permitted food additives. This re-evaluation has started and EFSA are currently in the process of re-evaluating the permitted food colours.

The Commission will ask EFSA to consider this study when re-evaluating benzoic acid and in particular will ask EFSA to consider whether in light of this single study, the re-evaluation of benzoic acid and its salts needs to be prioritised.

 

Question no 66 by Bill Newton Dunn (H-0440/07)
 Subject: Preparing for the coming pandemic
 

A worldwide pandemic - probably of influenza - is inevitable. There were three in the twentieth century. The last one was 39 years ago. The first one, immediately after World War One, killed more people, indiscriminately, than the bubonic plague centuries before.

Behavioural scientists in the USA are looking at the consequences of restricting international travel as the next pandemic arrives.

Is the Commission working on coordinating the plans of the Member States in order to minimise deaths inside the Union when the pandemic happens?

 
  
 

(EN) Since the emergence of avian influenza, pandemic preparedness has been a priority for the Commission and the Member States.

Across the EU, all have been working hard on preparations. Now it is time to take stock.

In 2005, the Commission asked the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) to survey pandemic influenza preparedness in the EU.

What did ECDC’s interim report – published in January 2007 – find?

First, all countries have been working hard. Europe is far better prepared than it was in 2005. Never before have Member States and the Commission worked in such a concerted way, preparing for an impending - but not current - health threat.

But the ECDC also found that getting countries adequately prepared is not a quick job. It is a continuous process.

There are national plans and contracts in place for H5N1 and pandemic vaccines. Simulation exercises have been done and all countries have antiviral stockpiles.

In the ECDC’s view, endorsed by national experts, this work has to continue. A number of gaps have been identified – with five particular areas needing work:

- Moving from health sector planning to national plans encompassing all sectors,

- Addressing ‘interoperability’ so that we all do broadly the same things in the event of a pandemic,

- Operational research,

- Making national plans operational at local levels,

- Responding better to seasonal influenza.

The need to get other Ministries involved is self-evident, as a pandemic will affect many aspects of society.

Concerning interoperability, it is time to start working on what should be done collectively in the early moments of a pandemic on issues such as restriction of international travel. The value of restriction of movement measures on the outer EU-borders would in the early progression of the pandemic only yield a limited delay of import of new cases, but even then, its value and possible modes of implementation must be further considered.

It is to be doubted that all countries will agree on policies. Probably "one size will not fit all" given our diversity of circumstance.

It is important, however, to discuss this together and to pool scientific thinking as will be done again at the 4th Joint EC/ECDC/WHO Workshop on Pandemic Preparedness which the Commission is organising in Luxembourg in September 2007.

So that is where we stand on pandemic influenza preparedness.

A lot done, but a lot more to do.

We must sustain the momentum of work so that by the end of the decade Europe is adequately prepared to meet all the challenges.

 

Question no 67 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (H-0444/07)
 Subject: Health system's hidden economy
 

A country-wide survey carried out in 2006 concerning private health expenditure in Greece reveals that the hidden economy accounts for 1.8 billion euro of a total of 7 billion euro of private expenditure on health. Most of the hidden economy is attributable to tax evasion (not providing receipts) while a smaller part is attributable to ‘informal additional payments’ by patients to healthcare professionals. Can the Commission say whether similar phenomena occur in other Member States of the EU and what measures - in the context of the health service debate - it proposes to reduce the size of the hidden economy?

 
  
 

(EN) The Commission is aware of research data suggesting a significant issue of "informal payments" in the health sector in Greece. This may also be an issue in some other Member States.

However, as Honourable Members know, the Member States are primarily responsible for the organisation and financing of health services and medical care. It is therefore up to the Member States to evaluate whether there are problems with their systems in practice, such as the question of any "informal payments", and to address them.

The Commission supports Member States in sharing experience and good practice in relation to health systems. However, the responsibility for ensuring that healthcare rules are obeyed in practice is tackled by national, or even regional and local authorities.

 

Question no 68 by Glenis Willmott (H-0368/07)
 Subject: Cosmetic lenses
 

Plano cosmetic lenses are not currently regulated as medical devices in Europe, contrary to other markets including the US, even though they have the same effects and potential health risks on the eye if improperly manufactured or used without the consultation and supervision of an eye care practitioner.

Does the Commission find this acceptable? Following the recent first reading agreement between the European Parliament and the Council on the update of the Medical Devices Directives, in which the democratic will of the European Parliament's Internal Market and Environment and Public Health committees to tackle the problem of safely regulating decorative or plano contact lenses was ignored, does the Commission intend to take measures to improve the present unsatisfactory situation?

 
  
 

(EN) In the EU, contact lenses fall under different regulatory regimes depending on whether or not they have corrective functions. If so, they fulfil the definition of a medical device. This is not the case by contrast for non-corrective ("plano") contact lenses because, in this case, they do not alleviate or compensate for an handicap. The latter is one of the elements of the definition of a medical device.

The prevention of potential health risks that may occur from non-corrective contact lenses is regulated within the EU by the General Product Safety Directive.(1) With regard to the improper use of such contact lenses, it is mainly up to the manufacturer to ensure that misuse cannot occur or be minimised as much as possible, specifically through appropriate instructions for use.

The Commission considers that this regulatory framework has proven effective and appropriate. This view was confirmed by the Parliament's vote in the framework of the recent revision of the Medical Device Directives, which was not vote in favour of including non-corrective contact lenses in the regulatory framework for medical devices.(2)

Finally, the Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that it has not been informed of a significant increase of the number of cases of eye infections or complications associated with the use of contact lenses, either corrective or non-corrective. For more details, the Honourable Member is referred to the answer to her Written Question E-2633/06.

 
 

(1) Directive 2001/95/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety, OJ L 11, 15.1.2002.
(2) Parliament legislative resolution of 29 March 2007 on the proposal for a directive of the Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directives 90/385/EEC and 93/42/EEC and Directive 98/8/EC of the Parliament and of the Council as regards the review of the medical device directives (COM(2005)0681 – C6-0006/2006 – 2005/0263(COD)).

 

Question no 69 by Georgios Karatzaferis (H-0370/07)
 Subject: Take-up rate of resources in Greece
 

Recently, Commissioner Hübner has provided increasingly vague answers to specific questions which I have asked concerning the take-up rate of EU resources. This was also the case in reply to my Question E-0898/07 when she referred me to the address www.hellaskps.gr

, which, however, does not provide answers to the questions I raised. I am therefore compelled to put the matter before the plenary of the European Parliament and I am certain that the Commission has information to give in response to the simple questions I am asking. What Community appropriations have so far been allocated under the third CSF in the prefectures of Lesbos, Aetolia-Akarnania and Evvia in Greece, and for which initiatives? What was the take-up rate of resources under the third CSF in these prefectures?

 
  
 

(EN) In his previous written question (E-0898/07) on the same subject matter, the Honourable Member requested financial data on the absorption rate in three prefectures in Greece, namely Lesvos, Aetolokarnania and Evia. In its reply, the Commission noted that the allocation of Structural Funds including absorption rates at prefecture level should be obtained from the Greek Authorities, as the Commission does not dispose of detailed financial data of this level.

The Commission would like to point out that, in application of the subsidiarity principle, the implementation of Community assistance is the responsibility of the Member States, as stated in Article 8, paragraph 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/99 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1). The Member States are not obliged to inform the Commission on the allocation of Structural Funds or absorption rates at prefecture level. Nor is the Commission involved in the geographical distribution of credits within each regional operational programme. The selection of projects and the day-to-day project implementation fall within the competence of the national authorities. Therefore, the question of obtaining detailed information about co financing in each of the prefectures referred to in the oral question should be addressed to the Greek Authorities.

 
 

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 173/2005, OL L 29, 2.2.2005.

 

Question no 70 by Hélène Goudin (H-0372/07)
 Subject: Press subsidies
 

The newspaper Journalisten reported on 17 April 2007 that the Commission disapproves of subsidies to newspaper groups which actively operate on an international scale. Is this assertion correct and, if so, why does the Commission not consider that Sweden should take totally independent decisions on the amount of subsidies it grants to the press?

 
  
 

(EN) In the field of state aid, the role of the Commission is not to interfere with Member States’ responsibilities with regard to the use of public resources, but to prevent possible distortions of competition and trade resulting from the granting of public subsidies. The Commission recognizes the importance of media pluralism for the cultural, democratic and public debate in Member States. The Commission has approved numerous aid schemes through which Member States grant financial support to the publishing sector.

Each case must be seen in its own right and whether or not an aid scheme can be declared compatible with the common market depends on the details of each aid scheme: the specific objective of the aid, the duration of the scheme, the type of expenses that are financed, and the intensity of the aid in relation to costs, among others. Aid granted to small and medium size companies may be more likely to be compatible with the internal market than aid to larger ones, insofar as smaller companies have more difficulty in raising capital and credit, for example. However, it is certainly not the case that subsidies are incompatible as a matter of principle purely because intended beneficiary companies are active internationally.

The Swedish press aid regulation came under review by the Commission because the Swedish Government notified amendments to the regulation, for which they sought prior approval under the state aid rules. Furthermore, the Commission also received a complaint concerning the press aid regulation, alleging distorting effects both on the newspaper market and with regard to advertisement sales. In these circumstances, the Commission is under an obligation to investigate. Once the investigation is complete, the Commission's final decision will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

 

Question no 71 by Robert Evans (H-0376/07)
 Subject: EU candidate status
 

Could the Commission clarify the criteria used for considering whether or not a State is eligible to apply for candidate status for future membership of the EU?

What 'European links' are considered, for instance geography, geology, culture, heritage, membership of the Council of Europe, etc., when determining this eligibility, and are some criteria considered more significant than others?

 
  
 

(EN) The criteria for basic eligibility for Union membership are set out in Article 49 of the Treaty, the first sentence of which reads:

"Any European State which respects the principles set out in Article 6(1) may apply to become a member of the Union. […]"

The Commission bases its recommendation on basic eligibility for Union membership exclusively on this provision.

For those countries which have been granted a membership perspective, the Conclusions of the 1993 Copenhagen European Council membership spell out the political, economic, and acquis related criteria for accession.

In accordance with the Copenhagen conclusions, the Commission's enlargement strategy also takes into consideration the Union's capacity to integrate new Members States. The December 2006 Council conclusions confirmed that this strategy provides a basis for our renewed consensus on enlargement.

Obtaining candidate status constitutes one step on the path towards EU membership. In its 2005 strategy paper, the Commission outlined a membership roadmap for the Western Balkans, including the meaning of - and requirements for – obtaining candidate status:

"Following a membership application, and on the basis of the Commission’s Opinion, the EU may decide to grant an applicant country candidate status.

This status is a political recognition of a closer relationship with a country on its way towards membership. In practice, it implies that EU assistance can be used in all areas relevant to the ability of the country eventually to assume the obligations of membership, such as preparation for the implementation of the structural funds. However, it does not mean any automatic increase in the overall sum of assistance allocated to the country.

Candidate status implies that the country concerned opens a new stage in its relationship with the EU, and it will benefit from more intense political dialogue and economic cooperation with the Commission and Member States."

 

Question no 72 by Inger Segelström (H-0377/07)
 Subject: Age discrimination
 

Under Directive 2000/78/EC(1), all Member States are required to have implemented legislation against age discrimination by 31 December 2006 at the latest. Sweden is the only Member State not to have such legislation. The Swedish media reports the responsible minister as having stated that she has no plans to fulfil the requirements stipulated by the directive within the prescribed period.

What measures is the Commission planning to take against Sweden in response to the Swedish Government's reluctance to implement this important and, furthermore, legally binding directive?

 
  
 

(EN) Sweden took advantage of the possibility, under article 18 of Directive 2000/78/EC, to delay transposition of the age discrimination provisions until 2 December 2006. The Commission is currently examining the transposition of Directive 2000/78/EC in all the Member States and will not hesitate to fulfil its duty as guardian of the Treaties where it finds that a Member State has not transposed a Directive fully, or has not done so correctly.

 
 

(1) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16.

 

Question no 73 by Philip Bushill-Matthews (H-0379/07)
 Subject: Possible age discrimination towards pilots
 

Are public transport operations such as police helicopters or air ambulances flown by a single pilot within the airspace of a single Member State able under EU law to continue to employ suitably competent and medically certificated people as pilots beyond the age of 60?

Does the UK Air Navigation Order 2005 constitute a breach of the EU age discrimination law? (Reference to Air Navigation Order: Basic Commercial Pilot's Licence (Aeroplanes) ...... (3) He shall not—........(e) fly such an aeroplane on a flight for the purpose of public transport after he attains the age of 60 years unless the aeroplane is fitted with dual controls and carries a second pilot who has not attained the age of 60 years and who holds an appropriate licence under this Order entitling him to act as pilot in command or co-pilot of that aeroplane;)

 
  
 

(EN) Council Directive 2000/78/EC establishes a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. It prohibits discrimination in employment and training on the grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation as regards employment and occupation. The Directive applies to all the Member States.

Article 2(5) of Directive 2000/78/EC provides that it is without prejudice to measures laid down by national law which are necessary in a democratic society for public security and for the protection of health.

Article 6 of the Directive allows for the justification of differences of treatment on the grounds of age in certain circumstances, as long as this is objectively justified by a legitimate aim, and the means of achieving that aim are proportionate and necessary. In addition, article 4(1) of the Directive allows differences of treatment based on age (as well as the other protected characteristics) where this is necessary for a genuine and determining occupational requirement.

The Commission is not aware of the details relating to the particular situation of the question. However, the Commission is of the opinion that the setting of a compulsory retirement age for pilots arising from the differences of treatment based on age could be justifiable under the above-mentioned provisions in order to ensure the air safety and protection of the public.

 

Question no 74 by Frank Vanhecke (H-0383/07)
 Subject: Tunnel between Europe and Africa
 

In 2008, the construction of a tunnel between Europe and Africa is apparently to begin. Designers from Switzerland, France, Spain and Morocco are currently said to be working on the final plans for it. This tunnel will undoubtedly act as a magnet for people from Africa looking for a better economic future, who will try to reach Europe using it.

Does the Commission know where this tunnel is to begin and end? What bodies and countries took the initiative to build it? Does the Commission have any estimates of the total cost of the tunnel? What bodies and countries are financing its building? How much will the EU contribute, according to initial estimates?

 
  
 

(FR) The idea of a fixed link between Spain and Morocco was first voiced a number of years ago. Several alternative technologies have been suggested, including a bridge and a tunnel. It is this last option that appears to have been taken up by the Spanish and Moroccan authorities for more in-depth technical and economic studies. According to Spain’s strategic plan(1), the fixed link is an important, but longer-term, project.

The Commission recently adopted the ‘Guidelines on transport in Europe and its neighbouring countries’ Communication(2). In this Communication, the Commission has endorsed five major transnational routes, including the link between Spain and Morocco. Following Morocco’s proposal, the fixed link has been included in the list of long-term projects to be carried out after the year 2020. As the Communication points out, this list is purely indicative. Any project that appears in the list must be subject to in-depth economic, social and environmental studies before a financing decision may be taken.

According to the information available to the Commission, the fixed link requires a large number of very complex technical (geological, marine, etc.) studies and innovative solutions before the construction can begin. 2008 would therefore seem too early a date for the construction work to begin.

The Commission has not helped to fund the project. No funding is envisaged for this project within the context of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund, for the period 2007-2013. In the future, the ERDF could possibly help to fund the Spanish part of such a project, if the Member State so requests and in so far as the provisions laid down for the use of the fund are fulfilled.

A funding request from the Spanish and Moroccan authorities would in principle be eligible under the cross-border cooperation programme within the framework of the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument. However, given the limited resources of the Community budget for this purpose, any support would be limited, rather, to technical assistance measures.

 
 

(1) PEIT – Plan estrategico de infraestructuras y transportes
(2) COM(2007) 32 of 31 January 2007

 

Question no 75 by Antonio López-Istúriz White (H-0384/07)
 Subject: Arrival of pateras on the Majorcan coast from Algeria: a new point of entry for illegal immigration to Europe
 

At the end of April, two pateras (small boats) from Algeria reached the coast of the Balearic Islands, putting ashore in the south of Majorca. Since September 2006, four such vessels have illegally reached the Balearic Islands. The Spanish Government has failed to take effective measures as a matter of urgency to stop the arrival of fresh pateras, and prevent the Balearic Islands being used as a new route for illegal immigrants into Europe; this means that there is a risk that we will shortly be seeing scenes in the Balearic Islands no less tragic than those witnessed in recent years in regions like the Canaries. The Balearic Government believes that we should not wait until further boats reach the Islands before the Spanish Government takes special measures, including stepping up cooperation with Algeria in order to control the departure of illegal immigrants. There should be an increase in air and sea surveillance of the Balearic coasts and the Mediterranean in general. The present Spanish Government irresponsibly decided on a mass regularisation of immigrants two years ago, provoking a 'pull factor' which could now also have consequences for the Balearic Islands.

Does the Commission know whether the Spanish Government has asked the European Frontex Agency to collaborate on Mediterranean surveillance, so as to prevent the establishment of a new route for illegal immigration from Africa into Europe? Is the Commission going to take measures to prevent the consolidation of this new route to the Balearic Islands?

 
  
 

(EN) According to the experiences, gathered by the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (FRONTEX) and by the Member States, illegal migratory routes and the intensity of using those routes are constantly changing. FRONTEX, in accordance with its mandate, carries out regular as well as ad hoc risk and threat assessments in order to prepare and coordinate operational responses to those changes. As far as the Balearic Islands are concerned there were a few incidents in 2006 and 2007 when illegal immigrants landed there, but the assessments made by FRONTEX do not confirm this as developing into a major new route yet.

In accordance with the Annual Programme of Work 2007 of FRONTEX, several joint operations are planned and will be carried out in the course of 2007, under the co-ordination of FRONTEX along the external borders of the European Union. Joint operations may be held in the area of the Balearic Islands during the year if the development of the situation so requires and subject to further planning and availability of necessary funds.

It should be stressed, that the responsibility for control and surveillance of the external borders lies with the Member States. FRONTEX role is to facilitate the application of Community measures relating to the management of the EU's external borders by ensuring the coordination of Member States' actions in the implementation of those measures. In addition, FRONTEX does not have its own assets, therefore it would not be able to plan and carry out any operations, aiming at effective border control and fighting illegal immigration, without the active contribution and participation of the Member States.

Furthermore, in accordance with Article 14 of the Regulation establishing FRONTEX(1) it may cooperate with the competent authorities of third countries in the framework of working arrangements to be concluded with these authorities. The Annual Programme of Work 2007 of FRONTEX foresees the conclusion of such a working arrangement with the competent authorities of Algeria and the first contacts have been already initiated by the Agency to that effect.

 
 

(1) OJ L 349 of 25.11.2004, p. 1.

 

Question no 76 by Tobias Pflüger (H-0386/07)
 Subject: Human rights violations in Estonia
 

On 27 April the Estonian security police arrested several leaders of the Night Watch (the organisation opposing the removal of the monument by peaceful means), including 18-year-old anti-racist activist Mark Siryk, who due to illness and preparing for school exams did not even participate in the peaceful demonstration on 26 April.

Did the Commission ask the Estonian authorities to investigate all acts of human rights violations committed during riots, and police brutality, excessive use of force and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in an impartial way and point out that the right to a fair trial must be fully guaranteed, or does the Commission not care about human rights violations in EU Member States?

 
  
 

(EN) As regards the arrests which the Honourable Member refers to, the Commission stresses that this is a matter under the responsibility of the Estonian authorities. The latter should act with full respect for fundamental rights.

As regards the violent events in Tallinn, the Commission considers the relocation of the Tõnismäe grave marker (Bronze Soldier) and the transfer of the remains of soldiers buried on Tõnismäe to a war cemetery as sovereign decisions of the Estonian government based on Estonian law. While respecting the right of all inhabitants of Estonia to express their opinion freely on the relocation of the Tonismäe grave marker (Bronze Soldier) and to demonstrate peacefully against these decisions, the Commission strongly condemns the violent character of those demonstrations that followed in Tallinn and other Estonian cities. Such violence, which led to serious casualties both among policemen and rioters, is unacceptable. The Commission deplores the fact that a Russian citizen lost his life in these riots.

 

Question no 77 by Irena Belohorská (H-0389/07)
 Subject: Coloured contact lenses in the Medical Devices Directive
 

Some medical products present significant potential health and safety risks to consumers in Europe but do not fall under the newly revised Medical Devices Directive. Because products such as breast implants or non-corrective contact lenses (coloured lenses) are not always considered as medical devices, they are not adequately regulated. For example, in many EU Member States, coloured lenses can be currently bought in supermarkets without any prescription and without any advice how to use them. In addition, there are no binding manufacturing standards for coloured contact lenses. Poor quality products or wrong use of this kind of contact lenses can cause damage to the eye.

Due to the lack of a legal framework with a high degree of health protection, European citizens are exposed to unnecessary health risks.

What is the Commission’s position on the regulation of these products to protect the health and safety of European citizens

 
  
 

(EN) In the framework of the Medical Device Directive(1), one of the conditions needed in order to meet the definition of a medical device is that the manufacturer intends the product to have a medical purpose. This follows from the definition and is agreed upon by the Commission, the Member States and all stakeholders.(2)

Regarding in particular the regulatory regimes for corrective contact lenses on the one hand and non-corrective contact lenses on the other hand, the Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to the answers given to Written Question E-2633/06 by Mr Titley and Oral Question H-0368/07 by Mr Wilmott.

With regard to the improper use of such contact lenses, it is mainly up to the manufacturer to ensure that unintentional misuse cannot occur or be minimised as much as possible, specifically through appropriate instructions for use.

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that it has not received any new information on a significant increase of the number of cases of eye infections or complications associated with the use of contact lenses, either corrective or non-corrective. The Commission would welcome any information on this increase of eye infections or complications in the EU that the Honourable Member is aware of.

Finally, the Commission would like to indicate that the issue of aesthetic implantable and injectable products is currently being scrutinized by its services in consultation with stakeholders.

 
 

(1) Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993, OJ L 169, 12.7.1993, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003 adapting to Council Decision 1999/468/EC the provisions relating to committees which assist the Commission in the exercise of its implementing powers laid down in instruments subject to the procedure referred to in Article 251 of the EC Treaty, OJ L 284, 31.10.2003.
(2) MEDDEV 2.1/1.

 

Question no 78 by Ioannis Varvitsiotis (H-0397/07)
 Subject: Infringement of Regulation on single hull oil tankers
 

This year's revision (25 April 2007) of Regulation (EC) No. 417/2002(1) on the accelerated phasing-in of double hull or equivalent design requirements for single hull oil tankers states that: 'No oil tanker (...) irrespective of its flag, shall be allowed to enter or leave ports or offshore terminals or to anchor in areas under the jurisdiction of a Member State, unless such tanker is a double-hull oil tanker.'

On the basis of the experience gained to date under Regulation (EC) No. 417/2002, will the Commission say what provision has been made for situations where oil tankers which do not fulfil the stipulated criteria put in at ports or offshore terminals of a Member State of the European Union?

What happens in the case of a vessel flying the flag of a third country? Is there provision for corresponding fines, penalties and/or a ban on entering ports? How are these provisions applied in practice and what details are available to date? Have there been similar cases in the Member States and how were they dealt with?

 
  
 

(FR) Regulation (EC) No 457/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 April 2007 amending Regulation (EC) No 417/2002 on the accelerated phasing-in of double-hull or equivalent design requirements for single-hull oil tankers, refers to the ban on carrying heavy grades of oil in single-hull vessels flying the flag of a Member State irrespective of the waters in which they operate. The ban on transport of heavy grades of oil by single-hull vessels, irrespective of their flag, in Community waters, already appeared in Regulation (EC) 417/2002.

In accordance with Directive (EC) 2002/59, any vessel carrying hazardous or polluting substances, irrespective of its flag, must notify its identity and its cargo as a condition for entering an EU port. On this basis, the competent authorities must ban the entry of vessels in breach of Regulation (EC) 417/2002.

In the event of a falsified or erroneous declaration being made by the captain or operator of the vessel, Directive 2002/59 permits the Member States to impose appropriate sanctions, such as fines.

If, in spite of the ban, the competent authorities discover a vessel in breach of Regulation (EC) 417/2002 in the port, they must take the necessary measures such as the obligation to transfer the vessel’s cargo to a conforming tanker before the vessel departs.

The Commission does not know, thus far, of any cases in which Regulation (EC) 417/2002 has been violated by vessels flying the flag of a third country.

 
 

(1) OJ L 64, 7.3.2002, p. 1

 

Question no 79 by Panagiotis Beglitis (H-0406/07)
 Subject: Unemployment situation in Greece
 

According to Eurostat data of 2 May concerning unemployment in the EU during March 2007, the unemployment rate in Greece (figures for December 2006) is the second highest in the euro zone and the fourth highest in the EU as a whole.

Separate indicators show that the unemployment rates for women and young people in Greece are the highest in the EU as a whole.

According to data from the National Statistical Service of Greece, the unemployment situation deteriorated in February 2007 (compared with December 2006) as there was an increase across the board in overall employment (to 9% from 8.6% in December), unemployment among women (to 13.9% from 13.4% in December) and youth unemployment (to 26.1% from 25.5% in December).

In the light of the objectives of the revised Lisbon Strategy, what is the Commission's assessment of the effectiveness of the measures taken by the Greek authorities, given that unemployment in Greece has remained practically unchanged over the last year (9.2% in March 2006 and 9% in February 2007) whereas it has continued to fall appreciably in the other Member States?

 
  
 

The Greek National Reform Programme (NRP) submitted to the Commission in October 2006 recognises the need to tackle high unemployment, and to develop education and lifelong learning. In its assessment of the Greek NRP, the Commission subscribed to this analysis but underlined the need to reinforce active labour market policies, reform education and training, and reinforce regional and social cohesion.

The Commission noted that the gender employment gap remained high with structural unemployment concentrated amongst women. Youth unemployment also remained high. Measures to address this issue have been launched by Greece, and implementation is expected to be completed by the end of 2007.

The Commission intends to hold discussions with all Member States, including Greece, on the state of implementation of their national reform programme. Furthermore, as part of the completion of the first three-year cycle of the renewed Lisbon Strategy, the Commission will adopt in the autumn a strategic progress report accompanied by individual country assessments.

 

Question no 80 by Paulo Casaca (H-0407/07)
 Subject: Absence of a Common European Asylum Policy
 

The widespread indifference of the European Institutions and the Member States to the Iraqi tragedy, despite its being very visible, in the shape of millions of refugees and displaced persons fleeing the genocidal policy being carried out by armed groups both within and outwith Iraq's State apparatus, undermines the entire credibility of the European project.

The European Voice of 24 May reported shameful behaviour on the part of certain Member States in sending refugees back to Iraq, and the complete absence of any informed, concerted and intelligent policy to respond to the Iraqi humanitarian disaster.

What does the Commission intend to do by way of response to this situation?

 
  
 

(EN) The Commission is closely monitoring the evolution of the influxes of Iraqi asylum seekers in the EU as well as the developments in Iraq itself and its neighbouring countries. To this end, the Commission is in constant contact with several International Organisations, including the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR(1)).

There are two clear and distinct dimensions to the crisis which need to be addressed: an internal dimension, relating to the consequences of the crisis in the EU, and an external dimension, concerning the consequences within Iraq and neighbouring countries. The Commission's efforts aim at tackling both dimensions, in close consultation and cooperation with the Member States. The Commission intends to keep the Parliament informed of all relevant measures to be adopted.

With regard to the internal dimension, it has emerged that, despite the existence of a harmonised legal framework at EU level on the criteria for granting international protection, national policies vis-à-vis Iraqi asylum seekers vary considerably, creating an incentive for secondary movements within the EU.

It appears that the main reason for the divergences noted is that the grounds for protection invoked are very often mixed, so that different weight can be given to each ground in different cases. Member States also assess differently the individual nature, the seriousness and intensity of the alleged threat of persecution or serious harm, which may justify granting a protection status.

There appears to be a significant increase in the overall number of positive decisions granting protection status in the EU. Moreover, most Member States have policies to grant some form of complementary protection on humanitarian or compassionate grounds to Iraq asylum seekers, in particular from Central and Southern Iraq.

On the issue of returns, it seems that the situation in Northern Iraq is considered more stable than in the Central and Southern part of the country. However, currently most States do not forcibly return to Iraq, whereas the numbers of voluntary returns seem to have decreased in proportion to the current influx of asylum seekers.

In general, all relevant discussions demonstrated the complexities involved in the assessment of the protection claims presented by Iraqi asylum seekers and the need for a more thorough analysis of national status determination practices – and of the divergences noted – in light of the relevant EU provisions, with a view to bringing more consistency in decision-making and in granting of protection to this caseload across the EU.

To this end, the Commission intends to organise and facilitate further exchanges of detailed information on the current situation in Iraq and on national policies as a basis for a more exact analysis of the decisions made in Member States.

Moreover, to assist the Member States confronted with increasingly high numbers of Iraqi asylum seekers and whose reception and asylum systems are put at strain, part of the new budget line "Preparatory Action: Migration management – Solidarity in action" will be made available to finance national measures taken to adress these particular pressures. In particular, it will finance actions aiming at the improvement of the quality and capacity of reception at the points of arrival or at the pooling of resources with a view to provide operational assistance to those Member States particularly affected.

As far as the external dimension of the crisis is concerned, the Commission's efforts focus on providing support to Iraq’s neighbouring countries, which are becoming overburdened with the influx of refugees.

The Commission has already mobilised an initial funding package of € 6.2 million for meeting the humanitarian needs of refugees who have fled to countries such as Syria, Jordan, Turkey, Egypt and Lebanon, focusing on the most vulnerable groups. The aid will consist of basic healthcare and education as well as targeted distributions of food and essential household items. Another initial funding package of € 4 million is being drawn up for people suffering inside Iraq, based on a careful assessment of priority needs and aid delivery modalities in a highly volatile security environment. Another € 1 million has been allocated to UNHCR to finance protection related actions in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, notably to provide emergency assistance to the most vulnerable amongst the Iraqi refugees.

Finally, the Commission believes that there would be added value in a coordinated response at the EU level to the appeal by UNHCR regarding the resettlement of Iraqi refugees living in the main three first countries of asylum (Syria, Jordan and Turkey). The Commission has therefore invited Member States to consider providing resettlement opportunities for Iraqi refugees in these countries as a concrete demonstration of burden-sharing vis-à-vis the hosting countries.

 
 

(1) United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

 

Question no 81 by Seán Ó Neachtain (H-0413/07)
 Subject: Regional advisory councils for European fishermen
 

Will the European Commission make a statement as to the success or otherwise of the operation of the regional advisory council programme which acts as a consultative forum between European fishermen and the European Commission?

 
  
 

(EN) There are six Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) already operational: the North Sea RAC (operational as of November 2004), the Pelagic RAC (operational as of August 2005), the North Western Waters RAC (operational as of September 2005), the Baltic Sea RAC (operational as of March 2006), the Long Distance RAC (operational as of March 2007 although its inaugural meeting took place on 29 May 2007) and the South Western Waters RAC (operational as of April 2007). The Mediterranean RAC has just finalised its preparatory work in early June and the Commission hopes that it can become operational before the end of 2007.

So far, the experience with the RACs has been very positive. The Commission has received around 60 recommendations from the 4 RACs that have been operational over the last three years, including several constructive contributions. The Commission believes that RACs have certainly helped to improve communication between the Commission and the stakeholders.

As a result of RACs positive experiences, the Commission has already proposed an amendment to the Council Decision establishing RACs (2004/585/EC) to grant them with permanent EU funding by defining them as bodies pursuing an aim of general European interest. This was adopted by the Council on 11th June 2007.

The Commission is currently undertaking a review of RACs functioning as foreseen by the Council Decision on RACs. This review aims at improving the working arrangements set out for the RACs and will address all aspects related to the operation of the RACs, except financing issues. The Commission's report will be published later this year.

 

Question no 82 by Eoin Ryan (H-0415/07)
 Subject: Combating organised crime in Europe
 

Can the European Commission make a statement as to the measures that it is implementing to combat organised crime within the territories of the EU Member States?

 
  
 

(EN) Organised crime is being seriously tackled by the European Union as a whole and at all different levels in order to strengthen the European Union as an area of Justice, Freedom and Security based on the EU Hague Multiannual Programme (2004) and the Action Plan implementing the Hague Programme prepared by the Commission in 2005. Subsequent to the Hague programme, the Commission issued its Communication on developing a strategic concept on tackling organised crime of June 2005 which sets up strategic priorities and objectives complemented by concrete actions aiming to achieve them. In order to effectively implementing the comprehensive and cross-cutting measures to fight against organised crime in the EU, the Commission is focusing on the following priorities:

Improve knowledge of organised crime by setting up a reliable crime statistics system: The Commission proposed an EU Action Plan for the development of EU statistics on crime and criminal justice over the period 2006 – 2010 in its Communication on developing a comprehensive and coherent EU strategy to measure crime and criminal justice of 8 August 2006. This action plan outlines the stepwise approach, in coordination with EU Member States and other concerned entities, towards the objective of accessible high quality quantitative information to be used for prioritising action to fight crime, benchmarking performance and evaluating implemented measures. The Commission organised the first expert group meeting on the policy needs of data on crime and criminal justice on 2/3 April 2007. Concerning the EU intelligence-led law enforcement mechanism and the setting up of a “European Criminal Intelligence Model”, a key element is the European organised crime threat assessment by Europol. Europol has presented its second Organised Crime Threat Assessment (OCTA) in April 2007.

Trafficking in human beings: The Commission is committed to fully implement the EU Action Plan against trafficking in human beings; this requires close cooperation between EU institutions, EU Member States and civil society organisations. The Action Plan should be regarded as a long-term programme that shall guide continuous EU action in the near future and in any case far beyond summer 2007. It will be revised and updated regularly. The Commission is preparing recommendations with the participation of governments, contact points, NGOs and international organisations to ensure early identification and assistance to trafficking victims, with a special focus on children. In addition, the Commission proposed an EU Anti-Trafficking Day which aims at increasing the visibility of the problems connected with trafficking and which shall be launched on 18 October 2007. One of the main aims of the Conference in Brussels on this day will be to encourage the development of a victim-centred anti-trafficking policy at national and European level. Besides, the Commission's Expert Group on trafficking in human beings will present its work on tools to measure policy progress in the field of combating trafficking in human beings. The Commission is highly committed to raise awareness and reinforce policy means in order to provide quality services for those in need of assistance. A report on the implementation of the EU Action Plan, including proposals for further action will be issued by the end of 2007. The Commission puts the protection of children from sexual exploitation at the highest level, especially on the Internet. This issue is addressed inter alia by the Commission's Communication "Towards a general policy on the fight against cyber crime" which was adopted on 22 May 2007. Specific actions to improve coordination and cooperation between law enforcement authorities and between law enforcement and private sector operators will play an important role in the fight against cyber crime, and complement other actions taken at national, European and international level.

Reducing the proceeds of criminal activities: Regarding financial organised crime, it is a matter of urgency to enhance investigation capabilities among law enforcement forces. The key to fighting criminal activities is to set up appropriate legal instruments aiding rapid identification and tracing of illicit financial transfers and other transactions. In this area, a number of Framework Decisions addresses the freezing and confiscation of assets of crime. The Third money laundering Directive adopted on 26th October 2005 strengthens the existing European Community anti-money laundering legislation by e.g. widening the definition of predicate offences to cover all forms of serious crime and adding new categories of persons subject to reporting obligations. Moreover, the Commission adopted a Communication on the Fight against Terrorist Financing including a Commission Recommendation for EU Member States and a Framework for a Code of Conduct for Non-Profit Organisations to enhance Transparency and Accountability in the non-profit sector to Prevent Terrorist financing and other types of criminal abuse on 29 November 2005.

Improve law enforcement cooperation: The Hague programme stressed the potential of existing EU bodies to be exploited to greater effect especially of Europol. In line with June 2006 Council conclusions, the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council decision in December 2006, which establishes Europol as an EU Agency, financed by the EU Budget and whose staff would be covered by the EU Staff Regulations and Protocol on Privileges and Immunities. Europol's competences will be widened to combating terrorism, organised and other serious crimes.

Strengthened international cooperation: The EU is a major partner on the international scene in the fight against organised crime. Close cooperation has been established through agreements and other instruments with many partner countries, regional and international organisations such as the Council of Europe, OSCE, OECD, G8 and the United Nations. The Commission is implementing the organised crime aspects of the EU Strategy for the external dimension of Justice and Home Affairs (December 2005) in particular through the promotion of multidisciplinary regional law enforcement cooperation in combating organised crime in Western Balkans and EU neighbourhood countries.

Securing finances to underpin Justice, Freedom and Security policies: The Commission, endorsed by the Parliament, has allocated almost € 5 billion to policies in the area of freedom, security and justice in its financial programme for 2007-2013. Combating organised crime is particularly addressed by the new programme on Security and Safeguarding Liberties which includes specific programmes on the Prevention of and Fight Against Crime (ca. € 600 million) and on the Prevention, Preparedness and Consequence Management of Terrorism and other Security related risks (ca. € 140 million). Securing finances to underpin policies in combating organised crime and other areas is an importand step forward.

 

Question no 83 by Liam Aylward (H-0417/07)
 Subject: Sellafield nuclear plant in Cumbria
 

Can the European Commission make a statement as to the number of complaints that it has received concerning the health and safety standards of the Sellafield nuclear plant in Cumbria in England over the past five years

 
  
 

(EN) The Commission has not received any complaints concerning the health and safety standards of the Sellafield nuclear plant in Cumbria in England over the past five years.

However, the Commission pays due attention to this plant and is in regular contacts with the United Kingdom authorities and the operator.

The Commission proceeded with the verification activities at Sellafield site based on Article 35 of the Euratom Treaty on 8-12 March 2004. It was concluded that with regard to the monitoring of gaseous and liquid discharges and of levels of radioactivity in the environment, the situation is broadly satisfactory. However, some shortcomings were noted and lead to recommendations by the Commission to the United Kingdom authorities with the aim to achieve improvements.

The findings of this verification are made public on the Europa website(1).

 
 

(1) http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/radioprotection/verification_en.htm

 

Question no 84 by Ivo Belet (H-0418/07)
 Subject: Restructuring entailing many redundancies at Opel, Antwerp
 

On 31 May 2007 it was announced that in the next few months 2200 jobs will be lost at the Opel works in Antwerp. This restructuring is a direct consequence of the impact of globalisation on the European car industry. It was precisely with the aim of cushioning such disastrous social effects of economic dislocation caused by globalisation in Europe that Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006(1) on establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund EGF) was adopted in 2006. The Regulation entered into force on 19 January 2007.

Can the Commission indicate whether the 2200 redundant workers at Opel's Antwerp works can expect support from the EGF?

According to the Commission's written answer to Oral Question H-0351/07 of 22 May 2007, two applications have so far been submitted for grants from the EGF, both of them from France. Can the Commission say what the cases concerned were?

 
  
 

(EN) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund may provide assistance for workers made redundant as a result of changes in world trade patterns, following the receipt of a formal request for such assistance by a Member State. In the case of Opel in Antwerp, no request has yet been made by Belgium.

If a request is made by Belgium for assistance for the workers made redundant by Opel in Antwerp, or its suppliers or downstream producers, the Commission will assess the application according to the criteria set out in Regulation (EC) N° 1927/2006. If the Commission concludes that the application meets the conditions for assistance, it will make a proposal to the Budgetary Authority to make available the necessary financial resources.

The two applications for assistance, to which the Honourable Member refers, concern suppliers to major car manufacturers in France. One case concerns 1,345 redundancies amongst various suppliers to Peugeot SA, and the other case concerns 1,057 redundancies amongst various suppliers to Renault SA. In both cases, the redundancies are spread over several French regions.The French authorities have proposed to use the EGF in a focussed way in order to assist a proportion of the workers affected, where their employer has gone into bankruptcy and can no longer provide the normal assistance provided for under French law.

 
 

(1) OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

 

Question no 85 by Mia De Vits (H-0421/07)
 Subject: Closure of Nexans Harnesses in Huizingen (B)
 

On Monday, 21 May, the employees of Nexans Harnesses in Huizingen (B) found their plant empty. On the instructions of the management and without the knowledge of the employees, a transport company had removed all the production plant and stocks. Only in the afternoon was a works council meeting held where the management announced their intention of halting production in Belgium and continuing it in Slovakia. 70 workers are losing their jobs. Is the Commission aware of this action, which violates the provisions of the Directive on the establishment of a European Works Council(1)? Is the Commission aware of similar practices in other Member States and if so, what practices? Has Nexans Harnesses - which is involved, inter alia, in the European Galileo project - received any European aid for its plants in Slovakia? Is the Commission considering proposals to combat such practices and penalise those responsible for them, as part of measures to make the Directive more effective?

 
  
 

(FR) According to the information available to the Commission, a European works council was established within Nexans by agreement of 16 July 2003 pursuant to Article 6 of the European Works Councils Directive(2).

Any dispute concerning the implementation of employees’ rights to information and consultation in the context of this agreement must be examined in accordance with the applicable French law and brought before the national authorities and judiciaries.

In addition, Council Directive 98/59/EC on the approximation of laws of the Member States on collective redundancies(3) which lays down that an employer who envisages collective redundancies must provide workers' representatives with specified information concerning the proposed redundancies and must consult with the workers' representatives in good time with a view to reaching an agreement.

The Commission is currently examining the options that will make it possible to ensure that European works councils’ rights to information and consultation are exercised in full. In this context, the Commission takes account of the work done by the social partners in response to the consultations it has addressed to them, and of the views expressed on the subject over recent months by the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee.

According to the information provided by the national authorities, Nexans Harnesses has not received any assistance from the structural funds in Slovakia.

 
 

(1) Directive 94/45/EC (OJ L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 64), as amended by Directive 97/74/EC (OJ L 10, 16.1.1998, p. 22 (extension to the UK)).
(2) Directive 94/45/EC of the Council of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees; OJ L254 of 30.09.1994 
(3) OJ L 225 of 12.8.1998

 

Question no 86 by Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (H-0422/07)
 Subject: European Year of Equal Opportunities for All 2007
 

Despite the noble aims set by the European Year of Equal Opportunities for All, in some Member States (e.g. Poland), no programmes have been launched to date, because of the Commission's failure to conclude agreements to mobilise funds. Will the Commission confirm that this is the case? What progress has so far been made in implementing this initiative?

 
  
 

(FR) In most of the countries participating in the European Year of Equal Opportunities for All, the programmes have already begun or have already taken place, such as, for example, the launch events that took place in almost all of the countries.

With regard to Poland, the grant agreement between the Polish body implementing the European Year 2007 was signed on 7 May 2007, and an advance payment of 80% of the Community package was therefore made on 16 May. The Polish implementing body informed the Commission on 31 May that it would be sending agreements to each of the promoters of the programmes being funded in Poland as part of the European Year.

 

Question no 87 by Katerina Batzeli (H-0425/07)
 Subject: Survey of public opinion regarding the reform of Community arrangements for cotton
 

The European Court of Justice has ruled that the reform of the CMO for cotton is not in accordance with the protocols annexed to the acts of accession of Greece and Spain to the EU, necessitating further amendment. With this in mind, the Commission has decided to carry out a public opinion survey by means of a comprehensive questionnaire.

Does the projected reform seek to introduce new arrangements regardless of the protocols in question? Do the form and content of the questionnaire and the accompanying press release provide an objective and integrated basis for the survey and supply full information for those involved, thereby enabling them to give constructive opinions regarding the future of the sector? For which other CMO reforms has a similar procedure been followed, seeking the opinion of all members of the public, regardless of their degree of competence or involvement in the particular sector? To what extent will the Commission take account of views expressed in response to the survey, which will be open to all, independently of their knowledge of, or involvement with, the sector?

 
  
 

(EN) In September 2007 the Court of Justice annulled the 2004 Council regulation reforming the cotton sector. The basis of this decision was not the fact that the reform did not respect the Accession Protocol n°4, or the objectives of the reform (i.e. the change of the support system) - but that the principle of proportionality had been violated because the Commission had failed to carry out an impact study that included labour costs in its calculation of production costs, and the potential effects of the reform on the local ginning industry.

To avoid legal uncertainty for operators the Court of Justice specified that annulled regime would continue to apply for the time necessary to establish a more soundly based regulation. The Commission is currently preparing a new proposal which will be accompanied by an assessment of the economic, social and environmental impacts of different reform scenarios. Protocol n°4 has been one of the main legislative elements of the past reform and as such it will remain for the reform in preparation.

In order to enrich the information available the Commission is organising a series of meetings with interested parties (Cotton Advisory Committee and Natural Fibres Management Committee). Specific consultation meetings are also being organised on particular aspects of the reform. Two external studies concerning socio-economic and environmental questions are being realised. Moreover, a bilateral meeting has taken place with representatives of the regional government of Andalucía.

An Internet consultation has been launched and remains open till 22 June 2007 to give a wider public the opportunity to express their views. However, this will constitute only one of the sources of information used by the Commission when preparing a new proposal.

Public Internet consultations were also used when reforming other sectors: Common Market Organisation's in fruits and vegetables, bananas and veal.

The Commission will report on the consultation process, once it is completed.

The Commission intends to present a proposal for a Council Regulation in November 2007; it should be adopted before the next sowings in 2008.

 

Question no 88 by Johan Van Hecke (H-0429/07)
 Subject: Discrimination on grounds of nationality in the provision of services
 

A Dutch travel organisation called KRAS offers low-cost tours, but if people from another EU country express interest they are refused because the offers are available only to Dutch nationals. The same applies to the Dutch ‘Van Der Valk’ hotel chain, which grants only customers of Dutch nationality a customer card with credit facilities (a kind of credit card), with which frequent users can obtain attractive financial benefits. Yet this hotel chain also has establishments in other EU countries, particularly in Belgium.

Is this practice of reserving financial benefits, together with specific services in the travel sector, not an infringement of the EU principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality, or the free movement of persons and services? Will the Commission be investigating this matter, or what steps can people who may have been duped do to deal with it themselves?

 
  
 

(EN) The conduct described by the Honourable Member could indeed constitute discrimination on ground of the nationality or the residence of recipients of services. According to the settled case-law of the Court of Justice, rights of recipients of services are part of the freedom to provide services enshrined in Article 49 of the EC Treaty.

However, the alleged discrimination consists in this case in behaviours adopted by private operators and to date the Court of Justice has applied Article 49 of the EC Treaty to private parties only in relation to measures regulating collectively the provision of services (e.g. measures adopted by sporting associations or professional bodies)(1). This seems not to be the case of the behaviours of the Dutch operators in question. Yet, Article 49 of the EC Treaty being of direct effect in the national legal orders, citizens affected by the described practice are of course fully entitled to rely on this provision before national judges and authorities, which, as the case may be, will decide taking also account of the case-law of the Court of justice cited above.

As far as the Commission is more directly concerned, it regrets to inform the Honourable Member that it cannot directly intervene in cases such as this one since it does not have competence to take action against private undertakings on the basis of the powers of monitoring the application of EC law conferred on it by Article 226 of the EC Treaty.

Nevertheless, the Commission also wants to inform that in the future it will be possible to tackle discriminatory behaviours adopted against recipients of services on the basis of the recently adopted Directive 2006/123/EC of 12 December 2006 on Services in the Internal Market(2). In particular, according to Article 20 (2) of this Directive, Member States will have to ensure that the general conditions of access to a service, which are made available to the public at large by private service providers, do not contain discriminatory provisions relating to the nationality or place of residence of the recipient. At the same time, as it is explicitly clarified in the same provision, service providers will be entitled to demonstrate that differentiations in treatment are motivated by objective criteria and are thus justified. The Commission is currently working along with Member States in order to make sure that the Services Directive, including the above mentioned provision, be properly implemented into national legal orders by the deadline of end of 2009.

 
 

(1) See judgments of 12 December 1974, Walrave, Case 36-74 and of 19 February 2002, Wouters, Case C-309/99.
(2) OJ L 376 of 27.12.2006

 

Question no 89 by Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański (H-0430/07)
 Subject: European constitution
 

In 2005, in a referendum - and hence by a collective decision taken in a manner as close as possible to the ideal of direct democracy - the citizens of France and the Netherlands rejected the Treaty establishing a European constitution. This treaty aims to reduce the sovereignty of the Member States, particularly the smaller ones. The citizens of the countries in question are fully aware of that and their decisions must be respected. Why then are politicians paying so little heed to decisions taken by nations with a population of millions and persisting in their efforts to force through an unwanted treaty? What has been the cost of these efforts so far and what amounts have been set aside for continuing this work? Would these resources not be better spent on other socially important objectives?

 
  
 

(FR) The ratification of the Constitutional Treaty, signed by all the Heads of State or Government in October 2004, has been approved by 18 Member States, while two have rejected it.

The Commission should like to remind the honourable Member that any amendment to the existing Treaties is ratified by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional rules.

The Commission supports the efforts of the current Presidency to reach a new consensus and to thus increase the efficiency, democracy and transparency of the Union.

The Commission would remind the honourable Member that the reform of the Treaties is designed to enable the Union to provide itself with the instruments necessary to face the challenges of an increasingly globalised world and to better meet Europeans’ expectations in extremely important political fields, such as external policy or the area of freedom, security and justice.

 

Question no 90 by Silvia Ciornei (H-0431/07)
 Subject: Cutting red tape in the EU
 

The Commission has set the objective of cutting back on the pointless red tape imposed on business by EU legislation. However, at Member State level the size of bureaucracies far exceeds that required under Community law. For instance, a major administrative burden is placed on companies by the complex system of notifications, authorisations and licenses required for the commencement and cessation of a business activity, many of which have to be renewed annually and are accompanied by complicated issuance procedures.

By what means does the Commission believe it should be possible to stimulate the involvement of all Member States in the process of cutting back on red tape (other than that required under EU law)? Does it consider that a European Year of Reducing Bureaucracy could contribute to accelerating that process?

 
  
 

The Commission has presented an ambitious Action Programme for Reducing Administrative Burdens on Businesses.(1) In this Programme, it clearly states the need for all actors – Commission, Member States and the Parliament – to fulfill their responsibilities.

In order to secure real progress on this issue, the Commission proposed in the Action Programme that the 2007 Spring European Council should set as its target a 25% reduction of the administrative burdens by 2012. This target, along with the Action Programme, was endorsed by the Spring Council in March this year. The European Council also invited Member States to set their own national targets of comparable ambition within their spheres of competence by 2008.

The Commission will monitor this and actively engage Member States and stakeholders in the measurement and reduction of administrative burdens.

Reducing administrative burdens and creating better regulation is a process – not a one-off event. In its Action Programme the reduction target date is 2012 and the work is programmed for this period, so in fact the Commission suggests that not just one year, but all the next 5 years should be dedicated to reducing administrative burdens.

 
 

(1) COM(2007) 23

 

Question no 91 by Erna Hennicot-Schoepges (H-0436/07)
 Subject: Taking account of the special professional status of workers in the cultural sector in the future draft directive on the European Green Card
 

Commissioner Frattini recently announced that a specimen 'Green Card' was to be drawn up to attract the most skilled workers and enable such workers, whose qualifications would be checked, to take up residence for five years in the Union and move around without a visa.

Does the Commission plan to take specific account of the special status of artists and workers in the cultural sector in its future draft directive?

Will this Green Card facilitate coordination between the administrations of Member States in the field of taxation, social security and retirement pensions, and will it take account of the specific mobility problems faced by artists

 
  
 

According to its 2005 Policy Plan on legal migration(1), the Commission will - in September 2007 - adopt two legislative proposals which may directly and positively impact the situation of third-country artists who apply to be admitted to the EU, i.e.:

A proposal for a directive which is intended to create a single residence and work permit - in order to reduce administrative red-tape - and define the minimum rights which should be granted to any third-country national legally employed in a Member State of the European Union, including artists;

A proposal for a Directive on the admission of highly skilled workers. This Directive may – in certain cases - directly apply to third country artists and grant them facilitated access to the EU labour market, as well as other favourable residence conditions.

In respect of what is now called the "Blue Card" scheme, it will only be applicable to the third-country nationals who qualify to be admitted under the terms of the highly skilled third-country workers proposal. Its details are however still to be defined.

As to the possibility of moving to other Member States to work, in the Commission's opinion this might constitute one of the main elements of attractiveness of the scheme. It should however be subject to certain conditions.

In respect of the coordination of social security schemes (including statutory pensions) for persons who move legally to other Member States, Council Regulations 1408/71 and 574/72 have been already extended by Council Regulation 859/2003 to third-country nationals who are legally resident in the territory of an EU Member State and are in a situation which is not confined in all respects within a single Member State. Apart from equal treatment with nationals of the Member State of residence in respect of tax benefits, no further measures are currently foreseen in the field of taxation.

The policy plan, however, does not envisage proposing measures focusing exclusively on the conditions of entry, residence and mobility of third-country artists. The policy plan, in fact, also proposes other non-legislative measures.

 
 

(1) COM(2005)669 final of 21.12.2005

 

Question no 92 by Pedro Guerreiro (H-0439/07)
 Subject: Revision of the COM in fisheries and aquaculture products
 

Ín its resolution P6_TA(2006)0390 of 28 September 2006 on improving the economic situation in the fishing industry, Parliament observed that falling incomes in the fisheries sector are caused inter alia by the 'maintenance of low first-sale prices arising from the structure of the industry' and by the 'poor distribution of added value'. Parliament further considered that in certain cases the existing common organisation of the market (COM) in fisheries and aquaculture products 'has not succeeded in making a sufficient contribution to improving first-sale prices and the distribution of added value across the value chain in the industry'. The Commission has, furthermore, recognised that in recent years market prices have failed to keep pace with the trends in production costs. In its communication of 9 March 2006 on the economic situation in the fishing industry, the Commission stresses the need for a revision of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000(1) establishing the COM in fisheries products.

In this connection, and given the delay of almost a year in submitting the evaluation report on the COM, can the Commission state when it intends to submit its guidelines for the revision of the COM in fisheries products? Can it also state its position on the proposals put forward by Parliament for creating new market intervention mechanisms, such as capping rates of profit or a compensatory payment for sardines?

 
  
 

(EN) The Commission is well aware of the concerns which the Honourable Member expresses concerning the income situation in the fisheries sector. In this context, it is important to recall that any policy approach to address problems in this area has to take account of the fact that the evolution of first-sale prices and the distribution of added value may be affected by a variety of factors which require in-depth scrutiny.

In its current form, the common organisation of the markets (CMO) provides a number of instruments aimed at increasing the financial returns of producers. The ongoing evaluation of the CMO is intended to look at the effectiveness and efficiency of the existing mechanisms as well as to explore possible new tools in order to improve the marketing of fishery products. The evaluation is essential in order to obtain a full and accurate picture of the elements that are fully functional as well as of those which require improvement. It has to be emphasised that the evaluation of financial instruments of the CMO is an obligation upon the Commission under the terms of the Financial Regulation.

The CMO evaluation consists of a series of studies which are being carried out during a period of two years. These studies cover the various financial and non-financial instruments of the CMO as well as topics related to the economy of the sector, supply of the industry, consumption, consumer expectations, and linkage to conservation policy. At this stage of the evaluation process it is therefore premature to consider the shape of a future CMO including the possible addition of new intervention mechanisms. Legislative proposals for a reform and revision of the CMO can only be envisaged when the evaluation is completed in 2008. An acceleration of the evaluation process would adversely affect the Commission’s ability to properly assess the need for either maintaining or changing the market organisation and thus to come up with proper operational proposals in this particularly important field of the Common Fisheries Policy.

 
 

(1) OJ L 17, 21.1.2000, p. 22.

 

Question no 93 by Diamanto Manolakou (H-0443/07)
 Subject: Aid accorded to the Aegean islands for the transport of animals for slaughter
 

Implementation of Regulation (EC) 1914/2006(1) laying down a number of specifications to be met by vehicles used to transport live animals for slaughter is causing major problems for breeders on the smaller Aegean islands where there are no slaughterhouses, since shipping lines are refusing to transport vehicles meeting the specifications or are charging fares which are so high as to nullify any incentive schemes for stockbreeding on these islands.

Will the Commission amend the regulation so as to provide special incentives for the transport of live animals for slaughter or grant exemptions from these requirements, in particular for the Aegean islands?

 
  
 

(EN) Animal protection is important for the European citizen and the transport of animals is a particularly sensitive issue.

From January 2007, a new Community regulation(2) applies for the protection of animals during transport.

This regulation provides upgraded standards in particular regarding vehicles transporting livestock (horses, cattle, sheep, goat and pigs) over eight hours (in particular mechanical ventilation, monitoring and recording system for temperature, drinking facilities for the animals and, for new vehicles, satellite positioning system) to ensure better conditions for the transported animals.

To take into account the remoteness of certain regions from the mainland of the Community, Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 foresees the possibility for the Commission to grant derogation by the comitology procedure from certain requirements.

The Commission would be ready to study the particular case of the Aegean islands. However, the procedure requires a request of the Greek authorities to the relevant Commission services (DG SANCO).

With regards to the transport of livestock for slaughter, no actions are possible under Commission Regulation (EC) 1914/2006. This Commission Regulation sets out detailed rules for the smaller Aegean islands as regards, in particular, the content, implementation and subsequent amendment of the support programme, as well as checks, notifications and reporting arrangements.

 
 

(1) OJ L 365, 21.12.2006, p. 64.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97

 

Question no 94 by Laima Liucija Andrikienė (H-0447/07)
 Subject: Environmental impact assessment of the north Europe gas pipeline project
 

The construction of the north Europe gas pipeline raises many concerns over the negative impact that it could have on the Baltic Sea. According to international environmental standards, EU legal requirements and practice, a project cannot be implemented without a comprehensive environmental impact assessment study, carried out by independent bodies.

Has the European Commission taken action in order that environmental-impact assessment study for North Europe gas-pipeline project would be conducted and if yes, what independent bodies are parts of the assessment team? Can the Commission confirm the independence of those institutions or scientists? Does the Commission already have preliminary results of the environmental impact assessment study, which could provide with the conclusions on the environmental impact of the construction of the North Europe gas-pipeline to the Baltic Sea?

 
  
 

(EN) International environmental standards, and EU legal requirements and practice, require a comprehensive environmental impact assessment study prior to the construction of a gas pipeline such as the North Europe gas pipeline. The relevant EU legislation states that it is for the developer to carry out the studies to collect and prepare the relevant environmental information required; and for the Member States concerned to make sure that the respective standards and legal requirements are respected. As far as EU legislation is concerned, this includes in particular the application of the relevant provisions of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(1) and of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(2). The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) directive has been amended by Directive 97/11/EC in order to bring the EIA Directive into line with the requirements of the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Espoo Convention).

According to the information provided for to the Commission by the promoter of the North Europe gas pipeline project (now called "Nord Stream") it appears that a full EIA is being undertaken by "Nord Stream" in the frame of the Espoo Convention to which all nine Baltic States are parties, with a view to fulfilling the requirements of the permitting procedure and getting the necessary authorisations. This procedure is already under way and expected to end in 2008, when the final environmental report (expected in autumn 2007) will have been validated.

According to the same information, an official project notification on the basis of the Espoo Convention has been submitted on 14 November 2006 to all involved countries around the Baltic Sea, in order to commence the permitting process. Pursuant to such information, it also appears that over 20 open public hearings and 100 authorities' meetings have been held, with 129 statements received. Based on the recommendations received, additional studies are to be launched. The Members of the EIA Group were also informed in their 10th meeting held in Geneva from 21-23 May 2007, about the results of such consultation.

The Commission is closely following these developments in view of its political sensibility and of the fact that the North Stream gas pipeline is a priority project declared of European Interest by the Council and the Parliament.(3)

 
 

(1)OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, last amended by Council Directive 2003/35/EC, OJ L 156, 25.6.2003
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992
(3) Decision No 1364/2006/EC, OJ L 262, 22.9.2006

 
Legal notice - Privacy policy