With regard to my oral question H-0806/07 of 11.10.2007 and the written reply of 14.11.2007, I would like to point out that according to what the European Parliament adopted in its resolution of 15 November 2007 on 'The European interest: succeeding in the age of globalisation' (P6_TA(2007)0533), the appreciation of the euro-exchange rate as the result of mounting imbalances in third countries and sluggish demand in the euro area.

In this connection, what role does the Council think that the EU should play in correcting this sluggish demand, which means both a lack of consumer demand and a lack of investment on the part of companies?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 January I part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

As has already been said in the answer to question H-0806/07 of 14 November 2007, the EU is implementing the economic policies defined by the Lisbon Strategy in order to boost employment in the EU and strengthen economic efficiency.

It has been shown that domestic demand in the EU, which should compensate for slow growth in some other important economic areas, has actually increased in the last few months. This was helped by significant success in employment, which should facilitate strong domestic demand in the future too.

In the spring the Council, within the framework of the integrated guidelines, will update the Broader Economic Policy Guidelines (BEPG) for the Community and the Member States and, in accordance with Article 99(2) of the Treaty, will inform the European Parliament about its recommendation regarding BEPG. This recommendation will very clearly define measures for supporting the realisation of the Lisbon Strategy targets at Member States and EU level, including measures for stimulating consumer demand and promoting investment.

In an attempt to reduce its dependence on the monopolistic supply of gas from Russia, the European Union has launched the Nabucco project. The project plans to connect the Caspian region, the Middle East and Europe. A pipeline would run from Iran, via Turkey, to Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary. One branch would be routed towards Austria, and another, via Slovakia to Poland. Joining Poland up to the EU’s gas networks would help solve the problem of connecting the EU gas ‘island’ of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland to the EU networks.

In the context of the Nabucco project, what is the Council’s view of the agreement between the Italian company Eni and the Russian company Gazprom to set up a gas export company, South Stream, that would own a gas pipeline to southern Europe, with a branch to central Europe? When is it anticipated that the Nabucco will be implemented?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 January I part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

Honourable Member, to start with I must mention that, in the guidelines for all-European energy networks, the Nabucco pipeline was granted the status of a project of European interest. It reflects the importance given to the Nabucco project by the Council and Parliament. However, the Council cannot comment on the actual agreement between Eni and Gazprom because of its private nature. It can, however, comment on the South Stream project, as can be seen in publicly available information, because, if it is realised according to plan, it will contribute to securing the diversity of energy supply lines in the European Union. In this regard the Council draws attention to the fact that the action plan Energy Policy for Europe, adopted by the European Council at the spring 2007 session, ‘underlines the need to enhance security of supply for the EU as a whole, as well as for each Member State, by means of effective diversification of energy sources and transfer routes, which will also contribute to a more competitive internal energy market’.

Based on information from investors and the Commission’s coordinator for the Nabucco project, the construction of the Nabucco pipeline will commence in 2009. The pipeline should be operational in 2012.

On 26 November 2007, the French Minister for European Affairs presented to the Political Affairs Committee of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly a plan, previously announced by the French President, to create a 'Mediterranean Union'. In his speech, Mr Jean-Pierre Jouyet stated that all efforts to revive the Barcelona Process had failed. The initiative had been fully taken on board by the Commission and the cooperating countries, whose reactions were positive.

What measures will the Council take to revive the Barcelona Process? What are its views on the proposal to create a 'Mediterranean Union'?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 January I part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

In November 2007 the Ministers of Foreign Affairs had a very successful meeting in Lisbon. Among other things they approved an extensive work programme for 2008 and welcomed two new countries (Albania and Mauritania) to the Barcelona Process. An historic ministerial meeting on migration took place in Albufeira.

The Barcelona Process is and will remain a central element of relations between the EU and Mediterranean countries.

We welcome all initiatives that may contribute to improving the profile of the region and the living conditions of its population. The European Union will continue to search for the most effective ways of harmonising efforts to improve conditions in the region.

The Council is yet to discuss the French proposal to establish a ‘Mediterranean Union’, which is why we cannot make any comment on that question.

Following the outcome of the latest court case in the UK, how soon will the Council formally decide to implement the ruling of the ECJ that the EU’s proscribing of the People’s Mujehadeen of Iran (PMOI) as a terrorist organisation was unlawful?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 January I part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

With regard to the UK Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission – POAC – the Council has been informed that the United Kingdom Home Secretary intends to submit a complaint, but it is not in a position to comment on national procedures.

In 2001, the EU ruled that motorised scooters (used by disabled people for transport) should be classified as a ‘vehicle for transport’ rather than a ‘carriage for disabled persons’. This classification means that for the three Members States who import these vehicles, a 10% import tax would have to be applied. The decision to impose an import tax was based on a World Customs Organisation opinion which suggested that these motorised vehicles may be used for transport on a golf course. The US, on the other hand, dismissed the same opinion.

Would the Council be sympathetic to the elimination of import duty for motorised vehicles?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 January I part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

It is true that ‘motorised scooters’ are classified as ‘vehicles for transport’ under tariff number EU 8703 10 18, to which 10% duty is applied.

This classification is based on regulations governing the internationally agreed clarifications of customs nomenclature which were included in the Community legislation. The duty levels pursuant to EU tariff regulations are the result of international negotiations within the World Trade Organisation and are a compromise among all interested parties. This also included the security of EU suppliers.

Mr Martin is surely aware that the rates of duty are determined by the Commission’s regulation on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff⁽¹⁾ (adopted in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987).

The Council could only debate the lifting of autonomous duties for the products in question, under the common customs nomenclature, if proposed by the Commission.

There are increasing reports that Kosovo intends to declare independence in the near future and that it is not ruling out the possibility of doing so unilaterally. A single EU position on this question is essential. Unless it speaks with one voice, the EU will not be in a position to meet the greatest EU foreign policy challenge – successfully implementing an administration mission in an independent Kosovo.

What measures is the Council taking, and what measures does it intend to take, in order that EU Member States demonstrate unity over this question? How does the Council assess the EU’s level of readiness to administer Kosovo? How, specifically, is it planned that this mission will be implemented?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 January I part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

At the European Council meeting on 14 December 2007, the heads of state or government of the EU Member States agreed with the UN Secretary-General that the current situation in Kosovo was not acceptable, and they stressed that an agreement should be reached which would be of fundamental significance for the stability of the region.

The European Council also stressed the willingness of the EU:

to take over a leading role in strengthening regional stability and implementing an agreement on the future status of Kosovo;

to help Kosovo achieve lasting stability, including an ESDP mission (in respect of the above, the General Affairs and External Relations Council should determine the methods and the date the mission will start operating);

to help establish an International Civilian Office within the framework of international mediation.

To facilitate this, the EU sent two preparatory units to the area last year with the task of preparing the ground for a possible cooperation to resolve the Kosovo problem. The preparations are going well.

The unit for preparing the International Civilian Office (ICO/EUSR PT) began its operation in October 2006. Its task is to plan the next International Civilian Office, including the PPEU Office, and to prepare for the implementation of a possible agreement on the status of this region.

The unit for planning a possible mission in the area of a legal state (EUPT Kosovo) has been operating in Kosovo since May 2006. The planned mission within ESDP should provide mentoring, supervision and counselling in the wider area of a legal state. It should also have executive competences in some areas of police work, including the securing of public order and peace, and the judiciary and customs. The mission should employ about 1 800 international members.

Council Common Position 2007/120/CFSP⁽¹⁾ of 19 February 2007 extended sanctions against Zimbabwe - including a travel ban on Mugabe and his close colleagues - until 20 February 2008. The sanctions were introduced in 2002 in response to serious violations of human rights committed by Zimbabwe.

At the start of December 2007 the United States announced the stepping up of sanctions against Zimbabwe. In particular, the travel ban is to be extended to 38 persons. Five children of high-ranking members of the regime are to be banned from studying in the United States. Financial sanctions are also to be extended to certain persons.

Does the Council also intend to step up sanctions against Zimbabwe? If so, in what way? If not, for what reasons?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 January I part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council has yet to debate the question asked by the Honourable Member. However, the debate on this question is scheduled to take place shortly. The EU is closely following the events in Zimbabwe, especially in the light of the coming presidential elections planned for March 2008. The EU is supporting the efforts of the South African Development Community (SADC) to solve the situation in that country and is waiting for its report, which will be used to facilitate further decisions.

Can the Council clarify the situation regarding international travel bans on individual politicians and organisations? Who decides on the content of this list, who is currently on it and when is it reviewed? How effective does the Council consider the relevant bans to have been?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 January I part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

Entry limits are part of the limitation measures which the Council may use within the Common Foreign and Security Policy. Those measures must be in line with the CFSP targets defined in Article 11 of the Treaty on European Union.

The entry limits are always determined by the Council Common Position, which establishes a sanction, explains the reasons for adopting a measure and lists the measures used. All common positions are published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

The common positions usually apply for one year and are also reviewed for their effectiveness at least once every 12 months.

It should be pointed out that the common positions also contain provisions on appropriate exceptions to entry limits, which take into account the international obligations of the host countries and the humanitarian needs of the persons in question.

Can the Council outline what specific measures it intends to pursue so as to promote a greater level of political and economic cooperation between Europe and America in the coming months?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 January I part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

1. The EU and the USA cooperate in all the most important foreign policy challenges. Current issues include:

close cooperation on questions concerning the Balkans, especially Kosovo;

cooperation on the ground in Afghanistan, especially in the training of the police, where EUPOL is active;

cooperation on issues concerning Iran – dual approach;

cooperation on the Middle East peace process, especially within the Quartet;

the EU and USA action plan for crisis management, adopted by the Council in December 2007.

The plan approves close cooperation and consultation between the EU and the USA in the areas of conflict prevention, stabilisation and renewal, and crisis management.

2. Economic cooperation was reinforced at the last EU-USA Summit, when the decision was adopted to set up a framework for strengthening the Transatlantic Economic Partnership and the Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC). The first meeting of this Council has already taken place and the next is planned for spring this year, before the EU-USA Summit.

At the last EU-USA Summit an agreement was reached regarding special cooperation in other areas of the new framework for strengthening the Transatlantic Economic Partnership.

3. Climate change and energy policy: climate change is a priority for the EU, within the framework of its relations with the USA as well. Both parties were key participants at the Bali Conference on Climate Change in December last year, held within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and are cooperating in bilateral initiatives on climate change and energy policy.

At the summit in 2007 an agreement was reached on closer cooperation between the EU and the USA in three main areas: political and security matters, economic partnership, and climate change and energy policy.

Can the Council state what initiatives it is pursuing or intends to pursue in the future so as to help bring about a peaceful agreement based on mutual respect and co-existence between the Palestinian and Israeli peoples?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 January I part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

A political dialogue between Israel and the Palestinians was established last year and culminated in meetings between Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas. The EU Council praised both parties’ efforts, which resulted in the Annapolis Conference on 26 and 27 November 2007. At the meeting on 14 December 2007, the European Council stated that it fully supported the negotiations between the Palestinians and Israel which started at the Annapolis Conference and continued at the Donor Conference in Paris. The EU welcomed the participation of many Arab partners at both conferences and called on them to continue their constructive cooperation.

Regarding the role of the EU, especially the role of the Council, in the matter mentioned in the question by Mr Ó Neachtain, the Secretary-General/High Representative, working closely with the Commission, has prepared the ‘EU Action Strategy’, which aims to study all EU activities in order to find additional support for both parties in the current negotiations and in the implementation period to follow. At the Paris Donor Conference on 17 December 2007, the EU expressed its support for the Palestinian reform and development plan presented by President Fayyad. It has committed itself to continuing to offer the Palestinian government considerable support in the peace process initiated by the Annapolis Conference. At the meeting of the Quartet on 17 December 2007, the EU reiterated its commitment to continuing its close cooperation with, and support for, both parties in their efforts to reach a peace agreement before the end of 2008. The Quartet decided to meet regularly in 2008 in order to review progress and support both parties’ efforts. On 17 December 2007 the leaders of the Quartet also met the Arab Foreign Ministers and discussed the way forward. In cooperation with the representative of the Quartet, Tony Blair, the EU intends to reinforce its programmes that support the shaping of the institutions, good governance, contributions by civilian society and development of the Palestinian economy.

The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs has recently warned of the disastrous consequences of the blockade imposed by Israel for several months on the Gaza Strip, a measure compounded by tactical armed incursions. A UN representative has observed that the blockade is likely to cause irreparable damage to the local economy, making the populace even more dependent on foreign aid, adding that extremely low food reserves, price increases, growing unemployment and loss of revenue are already taking a heavy toll. The International Committee of the Red Cross and a large number of other international organisations are also levelling criticism at the Israel authorities for their blockade of the Palestinian people.

Does the Council intend to take specific measures to induce the Israeli authorities to suspend their ‘reprisals’ which are paralysing the Gaza Strip and West Bank with disastrous consequences for all Palestinians living in these areas?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 January I part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The EU Council has frequently stressed its concern for the humanitarian situation in Gaza and appealed for a further guarantee of basic services. For humanitarian and economic reasons, all conflicting parties were invited to work on the opening of crossings into Gaza. The EU has welcomed the first step, namely the recent opening of the crossing for exporting farm produce. Such measures will contribute to progress in the political sphere. On 14 December 2007 the European Council expressed its full support for the negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis which started at the Annapolis Conference and continued at the Donor Conference in Paris.

With respect to the role played in this matter by the EU and the Council, mentioned in the question by the Honourable Member, the High Representative, with the full cooperation of the Commission, prepared the EU Action Strategy ‘State-building for Peace in the Middle East’. In accordance with this strategy, all EU activities will be considered in order to ensure support for both parties in the current negotiations and in the implementation period to follow.

Can the Council state how many economic partnership agreements have been put in place by the European Union and African countries for the period commencing January 2008 and outline what are the clear benefits of these EPAs for African states?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 January I part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

For the sake of greater clarity in this field, it is advisable to differentiate between full economic partnership agreements (EPAs) and interim agreements that are followed by an EPA decision.

Economic partnership agreements remain the aim of the negotiations and will have a wide regional and sectorial coverage. In view of the arrangements among the signatories, in addition to provisions on goods trading and provisions for developmental cooperation, these agreements should include services and trade-related provisions. In the opinion of the EU, such full agreements should be the most effective means of implementing the Cotonou Agreement and should guarantee maximum effectiveness in the development of EPAs. In May 2007, at the last meeting of the ACP-EC Council, both parties confirmed their commitment to EPAs. At the end of 2007 a full EPA with the CARIFORUM region was initialled, but other regions will need more time to fully and successfully complete this complex process.

After 31 December 2007 it was necessary to look for a solution which was compatible with the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in order to avoid obstructing trade with ACP countries which are not classified as least developed countries. In other words, the preferential trade regime of the Cotonou Agreement, approved by the WTO in accordance with the waiver, ceased to be in force after that date. Interim agreements are one such solution because they are compatible with the WTO rules. These agreements include goods trading and all other aspects on which the signatories have reached an accord, and are a interim phase that will be followed by the conclusion of full EPAs. Interim agreements that will be followed by the conclusion of EPAs were initialled by all interested ACP partners, including the majority of African countries which are not classified as least developed countries, as well as many African countries from the group of least developed countries. Such agreements, that is to say their effect on the regulations on goods trading between EU and ACP countries, have been incorporated into EU legislation through the regulation on market access.

Interim agreements, which do not yet have the developmental potential of full EPAs, are already an improvement on the Cotonou system and bring direct benefits to our ACP partners. Firstly, all ACP signatory countries are guaranteed full access to the EU market free of customs and quotas (transitional periods are envisaged for sugar and rice markets). Pursuant to the ‘Everything But Arms’ regulation, access is currently available only to least developed countries. Secondly, interim agreements also include more favourable rules of origin. They will enable ACP countries to take full advantage of access to the EU market. These new rules of origin are more beneficial than those offered by the ‘Everything But Arms’ system, which is why interim agreements are of interest to least developed countries as well.

In May 2007 the European Parliament called upon the Council and Commission to investigate Somaliland's request for independence. This northern part of Somalia already declared itself independent in 1991. Somaliland is making an effort to pursue good governance and stability. The parliamentary elections in 2005 were relatively orderly and transparent, and the region presents itself as a young and active democracy. However, there are still a few human rights problems, and the Government of Somaliland also recently blotted its copybook with regard to the protection of refugees from Somalia.

Has the Council considered this matter?

It was recently reported in the press that growing numbers of members of the Bush administration are in favour of independence for Somaliland. In military circles in particular, the view is said to be held that there is not enough support for the Transitional Government of Somalia and that it would be better to apply a strategy of containment for Somalia. Recognition of an independent Somaliland is essential for this purpose.

Will the EU continue to await recognition of Somaliland by countries in the region and/or by the Somali Transitional Government before recognising Somaliland's independence, or could a change in the US position lead to a review of the European position?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 January I part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council has repeatedly stated that it is supporting Somalia’s Transitional Federal Government and the implementation of measures in accordance with the Transitional Federal Charter. As expressed in its decisions of 10 December 2007, the Council attaches great importance to the respect of human rights in the whole territory of Somalia.

The EU is a member of the International Somalia Contact Group. The Council will continue consulting other international partners in this group, including the USA, about events in Somalia.

Concerning Iran’s nuclear programme, a recent report has come to public attention in which the 16 American intelligence agencies admit that, since as long ago as 2003 at least, Iran has not been seeking to develop nuclear weapons and does not pose a threat. This comes in addition to a statement made a short time previously by the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Dr El Baradei, to the effect that Iran had cooperated to the full with its investigations. However, the USA and certain other countries, pointedly ignoring this, are insisting on sanctions being imposed on Iran by the UN General Assembly.

Further to my Oral Question H-0937/07⁽¹⁾,does the Council consider that Iran has a legitimate right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes? Will it put an end to attempts to impose sanctions on Iran on the pretext that it is failing to respects its commitments to the International Atomic Energy Agency? Has it weighed up the consequences of possible withdrawal by Iran from the international Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in response to the unjust and unacceptable political interventions by the USA and its Allies?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 January I part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The latest assessment by US intelligence agencies does not contextually change the EU assessment of the situation. The report states that until 2003 Iran had been involved in a build-up of armaments. That in itself is a violation of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT). If Iran decides to give up and not merely temporarily suspend its efforts, it will have to disclose all its activities in this area and invite the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to confirm that development of this programme has been completely halted. There are still two other reasons for concern – uranium enrichment and the ballistic missile programme – and Iran is not complying with the IAEA Committee or the United Nations Security Council requirements.

Therefore, on 14 December 2007 the European Council repeated its apprehension regarding the Iranian nuclear programme and emphasised that it would be unacceptable for Iran to obtain a nuclear military capability. In that respect it expressed its regret that Iran had not fulfilled its international obligations, laid down in United Nations Security Council resolutions Nos 1696, 1737 and 1747, to stop all activities connected with uranium enrichment and uranium processing, this being a condition for establishing confidence in the fact that the development of the programme is solely for peaceful purposes. The European Council therefore invited Iran to respond fully, clearly and convincingly to all questions asked by the IAEA regarding past and present nuclear activities. The Council fully supported the work of the United Nations Security Council in adopting further measures within the framework of Chapter 7, Article 41, of the United Nations Charter.

The EU has always maintained that Iran has the right to peaceful use of nuclear energy. Iran must cease sensitive activities involving the nuclear fuel cycle until international confidence has been restored. Let me remind you that the offer made in June 2006 by the EU High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Affairs still stands and should enable Iran to develop a civilian nuclear programme to satisfy its needs.

All emerging evidence points to the fact that once again the USA with the complicity of similar reactionary forces in Europe is at the forefront of a strategy designed to overthrow President Evo Morales so as to prevent the adoption of the new Bolivian Constitution and the progressive changes being sought by the national Government, which was elected by a large majority in 2005. Violent incidents in Sucre and other areas, leading to bloodshed, have been sparked off by armed reactionary groups no compunction in targeting civilians. The Bolivian Communist Party, the Movement towards Socialism (MAS) and other progressive forces have provided documentary evidence of reactionary initiatives by the USA and their allies in Bolivia.

Does the Council condemn these reactionary attempts by the USA and its allies to undermine President Evo Morales and the democratically elected Bolivian Government? Will the wishes of the Bolivian people for the progressive changes necessary to satisfy workers' present-day needs be respected?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 January I part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council would like to point out to Mr Toussas that everyone, especially President Morales (something he expressed in recent meetings and discussions with EU representatives), greatly values the proactive role of the EU, and of the leaders of EU missions in particular, in maintaining and encouraging dialogue among all the partners in Bolivia. The Bolivian Minister for Foreign Affairs, David Choquehuanca, also welcomed EU mediation when he recently visited some European capitals.

We also welcome the talks which President Morales recently held with the prefects in the spirit of cooperation and with the aim of re-establishing national dialogue.

The EU will continue in its role of promoter if it is the wish of all the partners in Bolivia.

Sovereign wealth funds (SWF) are a new type of investment vehicle, with the very significant difference that they are owned by states, and often by undemocratic ones. New, more active investment strategies have caused concern in some Member States, especially when investing in companies seen as being of national strategic importance.

Examples of recent investments by SWF are the investment in Citigroup by Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, but also the bid on OMX by the Bourse Dubai, and of course the Russian interest in energy infrastructure in Europe.

In Brazil the Government is planning to set up an SWF to offset the appreciation of the real, thus directly intervening in the financial market.

I urge the Council to defend the openness of the financial system, but at the same time demand transparency from state-controlled funds, to ensure that any investment strategies are carried out with economic and not strategic goals in mind.

How does the Council plan to act on the issue of SWF? There have been a number of proposals from the Commission concerning SWFs, such as European golden shares, guidelines, and transparency initiatives. Which route would the Council like to see?

And finally, does the Council have any plans to monitor the development of the sovereign wealth funds on the European markets?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 January I part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council has not debated the case and therefore does not have an opinion.

As was announced, one of the key priorities for the Slovenian Presidency's six-month term of office will be energy policy.

How does the Presidency plan to boost further the liberalisation of the energy market? How does the Presidency intend to balance the liberalisation of the energy market and implementation of the EU common energy policy? What challenges and obstacles does the Council foresee in this field and how does it plan to overcome them?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 January I part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

In the decisions of March 2007, the European Council agreed that one of the priority tasks of the energy policy was ‘the internal electricity and natural gas market’. The European Council adopted a number of guideline policies in this field aimed at boosting competitiveness, securing effective legal regulations and encouraging investments of benefit to consumers.

In September 2007 the Commission, in response to a decision by the Council, submitted five proposals for legislation. Detailed debates of these proposals led to a progress report, which received the support of the TTE Council on 3 December 2007. Principles and provisions which have wide support have been reviewed within the framework of this debate, together with issues, areas and possibilities which, in the opinion of some Member States, are in need of further discussion and additional guidance on ‘principles’.

The TTE Council is planning two meetings in the first half of 2008 with the aim of reaching political agreement on the total package or just part of the package. Therefore it is essential that the European Parliament submit its opinion on the package in good time before the June meeting of the TTE Council.

On 30 October 2007, I submitted to the Commission a question on irregularities and false advertising on websites selling airline tickets online (E-5538/07), in which I respectfully asked whether any specific measures would be taken to prevent online advertising fraud and to protect the rights of European consumers.

One week later, I read in the press that the Commission was to publish the names of airline companies that practiced deception on the internet, and that it would close down their websites unless, within four months, they had resolved those irregularities, which basically relate to the failure to include airport taxes or credit card payment charges, the advertising of offers that are not actually available and unfair contractual conditions – such as the text of the contract not being available in the language of the user.

In this respect, can the Commission state what steps it will take, besides publishing the names of the airlines and closing down their websites, if those companies fail to conform to the law within the set time limit? Bearing in mind that it is the national or – in the case of Spain – regional governments that have competence for imposing penalties, is the Commission in a position to require that compensation be paid to any consumers affected?

Furthermore, since a European cooperation network exists for cross-border cases, how much room for manoeuvre does the Commission have in this field?

As the Honourable Member is aware, the Commission is using all available instruments to make sure that consumer rights are effectively implemented across the Union.

The Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation provides a framework for a wide cooperation enabling national authorities to combine efforts, for instance in joint market surveillance and enforcement exercises and to share experience as well as best practices.

The Commission promotes these cooperative actions by providing EU-funding and through the coordination of joint market surveillance and enforcement activities.

Concerning the specific follow up of the 'sweep' on air ticket on-line sales of September 2007, the competent authorities of the Member States are at present investigating the sites and in cases of confirmed irregularities, taking appropriate follow-up actions. These may vary according to the legal framework of each Member State. The Commission's role was to coordinate Member States' 'sweep' actions and the monitoring of the follow-up.

Once the ongoing proceedings have been completed, the Commission will present the results of the follow-up given by the Member States to the 'sweep'. This is expected in early 2008.

Referring to the Commission's plans on collective redress, will the Commission state how this ties in with the Commission's forthcoming White Paper on Damages Actions? Will the Commission also state how it will defend against US style class actions that are financially stifling companies in the US?

Regarding the question on the Commission's plans on collective redress:

The Commission's forthcoming White Paper on Damages actions for infringements of EC competition law will contain a section related to collective redress for the harm suffered due to infringements of competition law.

The Commission is currently also examining whether and if so what type of wider collective redress initiative is necessary at EU level for the harm suffered by consumers.

The Commission services dealing with consumer policy and competition are working very closely together in order to ensure that their work on collective redress produces synergies.

Regarding the question on United States (US)-style class actions:

The Commission does not believe that a class action system such as currently exists in the US should be introduced in the EU.

The Commission cannot interfere with the judicial system of a third country.

What possibilities does the Commission see for protecting consumers from the discriminatory practice of charging tourists and locals different prices – in restaurants, for access to cultural monuments and in shops?

The EC Treaty prohibits any discrimination by Member States based on nationality grounds (e.g. Articles 12, 43 and 49). Accordingly, the Member States may not introduce or maintain unjustified restrictions to intra-Community economic activities.

The practice of double pricing by traders may sometimes have valid economic justifications: e.g. in order to enter new markets or establish their position where they are already present.

However, unjustified double pricing such as charging tourists and locals different prices can deprive consumers of the benefits of the internal market and as such cannot be accepted.

In that respect, discrimination based on nationality applying to access to cultural monuments has been explicitly recognised by the Court as being prohibited under Articles 12 and 49 of the EC Treaty⁽¹⁾. The freedom to provide services set out in Article 49 of the EC Treaty also covers the freedom for recipients of services, including tourists, to go to another Member State in order to enjoy those services under the same conditions as nationals of that Member State. The Court has confirmed that, since visiting museums is one of the determining reasons for which tourists, as recipients of services, decide to go to another Member State, there is a close link between the freedom of movement which they enjoy under the EC Treaty and museum admission conditions. The discrimination with regard to admission to museums may have an effect on the conditions under which services are provided, including the price thereof, and may therefore influence the decision of some persons to visit the country.

However, in the absence of any specific indication of constant practices contrary to these principles in Member States, the Commission has not had the necessity to go further into this question.

In the future, it will be possible to tackle discrimination against recipients of services also on the basis of the Services Directive⁽²⁾ and, in particular of its Article 20 which prohibits discrimination based on the nationality or the place of residence of recipients of services. The Services Directive will have to be implemented by Member States by end of 2009 at the latest.

Unjustified price discrimination may be also assessed under the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, which must be applicable in the Member States by 12 December 2007.

This Directive contains a general clause prohibiting unfair commercial practices. It can not be excluded that , at a certain moment, national courts, and ultimately the European Court of Justice, will have to evaluate whether charging higher prices from tourists in restaurants and shops on nationality grounds is in conformity with professional diligence. For the moment, the Commission would be tempted to think that this is the case.

Can the Commission give an up-to-date assessment outlining all the key measures that it has implemented in recent times and that it intends to implement in the near future so as to ensure that the highest safety standards apply to all toys sold within the European Union?

After the "summer of recalls" many people in Europe are asking this simple question: "what measures are in place or will be in place to ensure the highest safety standards for toys"?

Most of the answers can be found in the stocktaking exercise on product safety, whose results were released in November 2007.

The stocktaking exercise highlights the 3 key "E's" to toys and product safety in general: "Engagement", "Enforcement" and "Engineering":

- Engagement: Economic operators must take the full responsibilities for the products they produce and make available to consumers. Reputable businesses are making significant efforts to ensure the safety of their products. But all the actors involved must raise their game, because there is still a significant stream of unsafe toys circulating in Europe. Industry has agreed to work with the Commission over the next months on a number of measures to rebuild the confidence of consumers, including a "Safety Pact" and a thorough evaluation of measures adopted by business in the toys supply chain. This evaluation will be completed in the first quarter of 2008.

- Enforcement: Market surveillance authorities in the Member States have dug deep over the last months, but the stocktaking exercise has identified that there is still scope for improvement. The Commission is assisting the Member States' market surveillance authorities to identify and share best practices towards more targeted and risk-based controls. Traceability of products will be reinforced: the Commission has already included in the proposed Package on the Internal Market for Goods a provision requiring economic operators to have available the identity of their supplier and thus ensure the transparency and continuity of the supply chain. Peer pressure will be put on the national authorities, since the Commission intends to publish comparative enforcement capacity data in the Consumer Scoreboard in 2008. The market surveillance capacity of the Member States will be also strengthened, since the Commission will continue financing well-designed joint market surveillance projects (in 2007, €1,3 million Community funding). In addition to these actions to improve protection within the EU, various actions are underway to strengthen protection at borders. Recent major changes to the EU Customs legislation will assist in identifying high risk consignments for controls. Secure Customs exchange mechanisms will also enable rapid action to be taken when information becomes available on new types of dangerous products. These mechanisms are used to distribute relevant information available in the Rapid Exchange System for dangerous goods (RAPEX) system in order to alert the competent Customs authorities of specific, potentially dangerous cargo. On the international scene, co-operation with our major trading partners, the US and China, will be deepened and expanded. With China, in particular, the existing co-operation has already yielded tangible results in terms of controls and measures taken against unsafe products of Chinese origin found in Europe. Next to this, the Commission is assisting the Chinese authorities in setting up a domestic alarm system, similar to the European RAPEX, to better track substandard and dangerous products, especially toys.

- Engineering: Toys must be born safe. Safety is not an "add-on" or an optional, but should be built in the toy, since the very early stages of its production process. For this we need clear rules of law that set stringent safety requirements. In this respect, the forthcoming Commission's proposal for revising the Toys Directive contains reinforced safety prescriptions to address physical, mechanical and chemical risks in toys. The Commission is also preparing a temporary measure to require warnings on magnetic toys, pending the revision of the relevant standard to address the risks that these toys could pose.

Article 50, paragraph 3, of Directive 2005/36/EC⁽¹⁾ on the recognition of professional qualifications, which is based on freedom of movement for individuals and services, provides that 'where evidence of formal qualifications, ... , has been issued by a competent authority in a Member State and includes training received in whole or in part in an establishment legally established in the territory of another Member State, the host Member State shall be entitled to verify with the competent body in the Member State of origin of the award: (a) whether the training course at the establishment which gave the training has been formally certified by the educational establishment based in the Member State of origin of the award'.

In which Member States are there post-secondary educational establishments (free study centres) which give training which has been formally certified by the educational establishment based in the Member State of origin of the award? Do Member States have the right (Article 149 of the EC Treaty) to prohibit the operation of educational establishments using the method of certification by educational establishments based in another Member State?

The Commission is aware of the existence of educational establishments giving training which has been formally certified by the educational establishment based in the Member State of origin of the award in the following Member States: Greece, Italy, Germany and Spain. However, it is not excluded that educational institutions of the same kind also exist in other Member States.

Under Article 149 of the EC Treaty, Member States are fully responsible for the content and organisation of their education system and vocational training. However, education delivered through agreements described under Article 50.3 of Directive 2005/36/EC is not part of the education system of the Member State where the institution which gives the training is located. This kind of education is part of the education system of the Member State in which the university certifying the education and delivering the diploma is established. Therefore, Member States may not, on the basis of Article 149 of the EC Treaty, prohibit in their territory the operation of institutions which deliver training on the basis of an agreement concluded with a university established in another Member State.

The European Court of Justice has issued its judgments in the Viking Line and Laval cases. Commissioner McCreevy strongly supported the view of the employers’ side, particularly in the Viking Line case.

What effect does the Commission consider the above-mentioned court rulings have on the right of trade unions to take sympathetic strike action?

In the Viking Line case, a British Court referred several questions to the European Court of Justice about the impact of Article 43 of the EC Treaty, on freedom of establishment, on trade union actions while the Laval case was about the interpretation of the Posting of Workers' Directive and also Article 49 of the EC Treaty on the freedom to provide services.

Although the cases are different, the European Court of Justice has provided, in both cases, some clarifications on the issue referred to by the Honourable Member. Most importantly, the Court has ruled that the right to take industrial action must be recognised as a fundamental right which forms an integral part of the general principles of Community law.

At the same time, the Court has clearly stated that this does not mean that this right to take industrial action falls outside the scope of Community law, or in other words, that it renders Community law inapplicable. The exercise of this right may be subject to certain limitations. This very much reflects the situation in national legal orders: both in Finland and in Sweden, as in other Member States, where this right enjoys constitutional protection, it may not be exercised without any limitation.

Taking into account the Court's rulings, workers and employers will continue to have the right to take action to defend their interests, including sympathetic strike actions on the workers' side. However, when taking action against undertakings established in another Member State which post workers on their territory, or against an undertaking wanting to establish in another Member State, they will have to respect Community law.

In other words, when collective action restricts the freedom of establishment or the free movement of services, it needs to be justified by a legitimate aim, compatible with the Treaty; furthermore it has to be appropriate to attain such an aim and be proportionate. The Court has provided useful guidance and the Commission is convinced that the social partners will continue to be able to defend their rights and will do so in a fully responsible manner.

I asked the Commission for an explanation regarding its decision to delay copyright levy reform and its intention of returning to the matter (H-0147/07). In its written answer of 13 March 2007, the Commission replied that it would ‘closely monitor future developments’ and ‘continue to evaluate how levies interact with digital services and the information technology sector in general’.

Eight months have passed and, to my disappointment, I have not seen any movement on the issue of copyright levy reform by the Commission. I am concerned that the Commission is not giving copyright levy reform the priority it deserves.

I would therefore like to know what the tangible results of the Commission’s monitoring and evaluation efforts announced in its reply of March 2007 have been to date. What will the next concrete steps be and when can we expect the Commission to take specific action to address this very pressing issue of copyright levy reform?

The Commission would like to thank the Parliament for the interest it takes in the ongoing efforts at reforming private copying levies.

The current levy systems are, as we all know, both complex and controversial. Not alone are there huge differences in rates applying to the same or similar equipment used for private copying – there is no uniformity among Member States in setting levies for identical digital equipment. The result is a huge array of different levies imposed on the same products across Europe – with differences in levies of up to 1500% applied to identical products.

Against this background, the Commission is studying how private copying levies affect both the Internal Market and the livelihood of authors and performers. Culture and cultural diversity are, as you know, the core objectives behind all initiatives the Commission pursues in the field of copyright. The policy follows the double objective of making sure that levy-based schemes have little or no negative effect on the Internal Market for digital equipment and blank media carriers while ensuring that creators suffer no economic harm from the widespread practice of private home copying.

Consumers do not like restrictions on how and when they consume copyright-protected material. As a poll published by the Spanish newspaper El País on 20 December 2007 indicates 94% of the respondents support the elimination of private copying levies.

A reasonable compromise between consumers liberty and artists compensation for private copying has to be found. Any reform of this sensitive issue has to be approached with diligence and the utmost care.

Until we see the issues clearer, it is not productive to speculate as to the form of future action.

I would like to draw attention to a problem that has arisen following the adoption of Directive 2005/36/EC⁽¹⁾. In the Directive, legislators did not distinguish between the work of tour leaders in charge of tourist groups on trips and that of guides. A guide’s duties involve not only the successful organisation of trips but also the provision of factual information about the history, traditions and value of works of art or historical buildings. For this reason, guides also take specialised courses, at the end of which they are assessed by examination, prior to entering the occupation. The high level of courses and examinations ensures that a good quality of service is provided. It should be noted that in many European Union Member States, including Poland, the profession of guide is regulated. Documents attesting to the completion of courses and training are required to obtain qualifications. Equating tour leaders with guides will reduce the quality of the services provided for tourists. In order to prevent this from happening, an examination system should be introduced throughout Europe that will certify guides’ proficiency.

Does the Commission envisage developing a system of courses and examinations for guides throughout Europe, the substance and organisation of which would be adapted accordingly by the individual Member States?

The Commission does not envisage developing an EU wide system of courses and examinations for tourist guides.

Within the limits set by the EC Treaty, Member States are free to regulate the access to and the exercise of professions, therefore also for the tourist guide and the tour escort profession. Any proposal for a legislative instrument at EU level by which education and training requirements for either of the professions would be harmonised requires under the current Treaty a vote of unanimity by all EU Member States. Until today the Commission has not received convincing evidence of problems in relation to the cross-border provision of tourist guide services which would justify the adoption of a proposal for a Directive harmonising this profession.

The Commission is informed and in favour of non-legislative initiatives at European level such as the works for a CEN⁽²⁾ standard introducing basic requirements on qualification schemes for tourist guides (EN 15565) which was carried out by the European committee for standardization and has been approved on 1st January 2008. Although not legally binding, such self-regulatory instruments are a most effective starting point for marking a level of knowledge and skills which qualified professionals should have obtained for the exercise of a profession.

Sovereign wealth funds (SWF) are a new type of investment vehicle, with the very significant difference that they are owned by states, and often by undemocratic ones. New, more active investment strategies have caused concern in some Member States, especially when investing in companies seen as being of national strategic importance.

Examples of recent investments by SWF are the investment in Citigroup by Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, but also the bid on OMX by the Bourse Dubai, and of course the Russian interest in energy infrastructure in Europe.

In Brazil the Government is planning to set up an SWF to offset the appreciation of the real, thus directly intervening in the financial market.

I urge the Commission to defend the openness of the financial system, but at the same time demand transparency from state-controlled funds, to ensure that any investment strategies are carried out with economic and not strategic goals in mind.

How does the Commission plan to act on the issue of SWF? There have been a number of proposals from the Commissioners concerning SWFs, such as European golden shares, guidelines, and transparency initiatives. Which route will the Commission take?

And finally, does the Commission have any plans to monitor the development of the sovereign wealth funds on the European markets?

The Commission is fully committed to defending the openness of the financial system in Europe. Besides, the Commission fully concurs with the principle that investment should take place on the basis of economic rather than political or other strategic criteria. The Commission notes the concerns that have been expressed about sovereign wealth fund recently but also wishes to stress that a number of such funds have been operating for decades providing the EU economy with valuable investment. The Commission also urges third countries to offer proportionate level of openness to EU investors.

The Commission holds the question under close review. At this stage, it does not favour the option of producing new legislative instruments, but there are good reasons to develop a common approach within the EU to present a coordinated position in the Single Market with regards to the activities of Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs). Some guidelines to increase the transparency and governance of SWFs might be required. Last October 2007, the G7 asked the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to study the possibility of transparency guidelines or a code of conduct for Sovereign Wealth Funds and recipient countries. In the Transatlantic Economic Council last 9th November 2007, the Commission had the opportunity to exchange views on these matters with the United States (US) administration and concurred with it on the utility of having these rules developed at an international level.

In summary, the Commission is working internally and in international fora to develop suitable and effective instruments that can dispel the concerns that the activities of these investors may raise. It intends to develop a common EU position on this that preserves the fundamental freedoms set out in the Treaty. Member State initiatives in the area of Sovereign Wealth Funds must also be assessed in this context. It is in this context that monitoring the activities of SWFs becomes particularly important. The Commission monitors developments closely and in cooperation with international organisations (OECD, IMF). Separately, the US-EU Investment dialogue and the Financial Services Regulatory dialogue offer the Commission an opportunity to review SWFs matters in close cooperation with the US Treasury and other US departments.

Retail consumers are essential in the single market of financial services. Retail services, including products such as current accounts and consumer credit, are a key pillar of the EC financial services action plan launched in 1999. Since then the integration of financial markets is lagging behind, and there are still many discrepancies between EU Member States' financial services, e.g. fees for financial transactions between banking institutions of different Member States, fees on credit cards, etc. For example, transaction fees from Lithuanian to Belgian banks are four times higher than those from Belgian to Lithuanian banks.

What action does the Commission plan to take to increase the pace of integration in retail financial markets? How will retail consumers benefit from those actions taken by the Commission?

Significant progress has been made in delivering a Single Market for retail financial services. However, retail financial services integration has not yet reached its full potential and competition in some markets is insufficient, particularly in areas like payments and retail banking. This leaves EU consumers unable to take full advantage of the benefits of the Single Market. Against this background and in the context of the Single Market Review, the Commission adopted a Green Paper on Retail Financial Services in the Single Market⁽¹⁾. The Green Paper built on the Commission's White Paper on Financial Services 2005–2010⁽²⁾, the results of the Commission's sector inquiry into retail banking⁽³⁾ and the interim report on business insurance⁽⁴⁾. It also set out the Commission's overarching objective to develop integration in EU retail financial services markets by: ensuring that properly regulated open markets and strong competition deliver products that meet consumers' needs; enhancing consumer confidence by ensuring that consumers are properly protected and that providers are financially sound and trustworthy; empowering consumers to make the right decisions for their financial circumstances through improved financial literacy, clear, appropriate and timely information and high-quality advice. The publication of the Green Paper launched a public consultation on the Commission's retail financial services strategy which received almost 190 responses. The public hearing held on 19 September 2007 was also well attended with over 300 participants.

On 20 November 2007, alongside the Commission Communication on a Single Market for 21st Century Europe⁽⁵⁾, a Staff Working Paper on Initiatives in the area of retail financial services⁽⁶⁾ was published. It proposes a number of targeted initiatives designed to: improve customer choice and mobility, in particular for bank accounts, a financial product used by the vast majority of European citizens; help retail insurance markets work better, for instance by designing a "scoreboard " for car insurance premiums in Europe; investigate the need for a more coherent approach to product disclosures and distribution requirements for retail investment products (such as investment funds, unit-linked life insurance, etc.); and promote financial education, financial inclusion (e.g. access for all to a basic bank account) and adequate redress for consumers.

The Commission seeks to bring concrete benefits to European consumers in terms of lower prices and wider choice by improving the competitiveness and efficiency of retail financial services markets. For these reasons, the Commission strongly supports the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) project, a banking industry initiative to create an integrated and more competitive market for euro payments which is planned to become fully operational by the end of 2010. The Payment Services Directive, which must be implemented into national law by November 2009, should also generate more competition in the provision of payments services and thus lead to lower prices. It also includes provisions improving transparency and enabling the free termination of framework contracts after a period of 12 months which will facilitate customer mobility and promote competition.

Referring to the specific issue of bank accounts, as part of the Single Market Review package, the Commission announced its policy plans to facilitate customer mobility in relation to bank accounts thereby also promoting competition and efficiency. The Commission will encourage the development by industry, by mid-2008, of a Code of Conduct, which would contain a switching service, to be made available to customers within each EU Member State, which should make the switching process from one bank account to another easier. The Commission has also made clear to industry that there should be no discrimination against customers on the basis of nationality or residence when opening bank accounts cross-border. It should be easy for customers to open bank accounts in other Member States.

Are the budgetary appropriations currently earmarked for Frontex in 2008 sufficient to allow it to discharge its responsibilities in respect of controls on illegal immigration?

Following the second reading by the Budgetary Committee, an amendment was voted by the Parliament whereby an additional €30 million were added to the budget of the Frontex Agency in 2008. Most of the amount will be for operational expenditure of the Agency.

This amendment represents an increase of 79% when compared to the original Preliminary Draft Budget. This increase results in a total EC subsidy of €68 million, therefore considerably strengthening the Agency's financial resources and thereby contributing to enhancing its capacity to implement its tasks in relation to illegal immigration.

Frontex has adapted its work programme for 2008 on the basis of the increased budget. The revised work programme foresees a substantial increase in the duration of joint operations at those sections of the external borders most exposed to irregular migratory pressure.

On this basis the Commission is confident that the impact of operations coordinated by Frontex will be substantially enhanced compared to 2007.

In the course of 2008 the Commission shall monitor closely the situation with regard to the expenditure and financial needs of the Agency.

Bearing in mind that 99.8% of European businesses are small and medium-sized undertakings which therefore are Europe's economic mainstay and principal source of employment, and that, in many Member States, many of them are family businesses and very small undertakings, what measures does the Commission intend to take to enable them to remain competitive, take better advantage of the opportunities offered by the internal market and comply with their obligations under European legislation without needing to incur excessive costs?

Furthermore, what measures does the Commission intend to take to support these undertakings and encourage new undertakings able to compete with the large multinational undertakings and chain stores operating throughout the Union? Does the Commission consider that the introduction of internal market monitoring centres in each Member State will reduce the risk of family businesses and very small undertakings disappearing?

Small and medium sized firms (SMEs) indeed play a significant role in the European economy providing two-thirds of total private employment. Consequently they are key players to achieve the targets set in the Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs.

The Commission has been active for many years promoting entrepreneurship and improving the business environment for SMEs, in particular for small enterprises which constitute 90 % of SMEs. In 2000 the European Council has endorsed the Charter for Small Enterprises, aiming at improving their business environment. The Charter is today the reference frame for 44 countries and several regions.

Since the adoption of the Modern Small and Medum Enterprise (SME) policy in November 2005 the Commission follows closely actions in five key areas: promoting entrepreneurship, reducing administrative burdens, supporting SMEs’ access to markets, supporting SMEs’ growth and reinforcing the dialogue with SME stakeholders. The Mid-term review, adopted in October 2007, has shown that the SME dimension is increasingly taken into account in the community programmes and policies. However, this does not go far enough yet, and the Commission has decided to put SMEs even higher on the political agenda when, based on its assessment of the first 3-year cycle of the reviewed growth & jobs strategy, it announced the adoption of the “Small Business Act” for Europe for 2008. Preparation of this new initiative is ongoing and an extensive consultation will take place in the coming weeks.

Some of the measures undertaken by the Commission specifically aim at helping SMEs to benefit from the possibilities offered by the internal market. Improving their access to the public procurement market is one example. The Commission is currently conducting an impact assessment to prepare the proposal for a European Private Company Statute (2008) to facilitate cross-border operations for SMEs. The Commission has also been helping small enterprises since 20 years via a support network, which will be strengthened in 2008 to further raise awareness on EU policies and programmes and to advise, mentor and listen to SMEs.

Concerning the costs for SMEs to apply European legislation, small enterprises spend relatively up to 10 times more to meet the administrative requirements than large enterprises⁽¹⁾. For this reason the Commission is committed to simplifying the administrative burdens and considers the better regulation process one of its key priorities. It envisages cutting administrative burdens of Community origin by 25% by 2012 and also encourages Member States to actively contribute to this process. Through the “Think Small First” principle SME specific provisions are introduced in new proposals whenever appropriate, for instance in simplified reporting requirements, for instance for smaller food companies in the field of hygiene.

The application of standards and EU legislation is another difficulty for SMEs. That is why the Commission will substantially increase its support to better involve SMEs in the European and national standardisation processes, to facilitate their access to standards and further offers assistance to SMEs a community assistance programme in the field of EU environmental legislation.

As far as family businesses are concerned, most small firms are family businesses and are targeted by the initiatives in favour of small businesses. However, the Commission is currently analysing potential specific difficulties they may be confronted with.

On 10 November 2005 at a speech to the European Business Initiative on Taxation, Commissioner McCreevy said: 'I didn't come to the Berlaymont to tiptoe about in my slippers.' He added that 'taxation harmonisation is not on the agenda, nor will it be'. Moreover, this May the Commissioner said that a common consolidated corporate tax base (CCCTB) proposal: 'would undermine competition, undermine small and emerging markets, undermine inward investment and undermine the long term growth and employment prospects of the Union.'

In the light of the importance of ratifying the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland, can the Commission confirm that the present CCCTB proposal will be taken off the agenda? That the Commission will not 'tiptoe about' but will robustly defend Member State competence in matters of taxation and tax competition in the corporate taxation area?

The Commission follows the ratification process of the Lisbon Treaty in all Member States with the utmost attention. The Commission's position on a CCCTB⁽¹⁾ is set out in the Commission's Legislative and Work Programme 2008⁽²⁾. An impact assessment has been launched to examine the options and their implications.

At present, aid granted to ACP countries by the EU comes from two different sources: the Community budget and the European Development Fund. For the part which falls outside the budget, cooperation with the ACP countries is therefore not entirely subject to public scrutiny by the European Parliament, thus excluding it from one of the most important decision-making procedures of the Union. If aid to ACP countries were incorporated into the EU budget, this would enhance the legitimacy of this aid. It would also make it possible to ensure genuine transparency and greater efficiency, which is a major concern in development cooperation.

What stage has been reached with the Commission proposal to incorporate into the EU budget aid to ACP countries under the EDF and what initiatives does the Commission intend to take to make this incorporation of the EDF into the general Community budget a reality?

For a considerable time now the Commission has been calling for the incorporation of the financing of geographical cooperation with the African, Caribbean and Pacific states (ACP) into the Community budget. This request is based on the grounds of efficiency and harmonisation of Community development assistance instruments, and on the coherence and political visibility of our external activities in the field of development.

During the preparations for the period after the 9th European Development Fund (EDF), the Commission had drawn up a detailed outline of its position in the communication entitled ‘Towards the full integration of cooperation with ACP countries in the EU budget’⁽¹⁾. The meeting of the European Council on 15-16 December 2005 finally opted (para. 70) to keep the financing of geographical cooperation with ACP countries within the EDF intergovernmental framework. It also established the 10th EDF period, aligning it with the timescale of the financial perspective (2013), and the level of contribution of each Member State to the 10th EDF. These contributions are generally midway between the contributions to the 9th EDF and the Member States’ contributions to the Community budget.

The Commission firmly intends to raise the matter of EDF budgeting again whenever appropriate:

at the December 2005 European Council the Commission was invited to submit a review of the budget in 2008-2009. The Commission hopes to resume the debate on incorporation of the EDF into the budget within this context, particularly in the light of the reform of the Treaty adopted by the European Council in December 2007, which, in the area of external activities, extends the codecision procedure to the entire Community budget and strengthens the role of Parliament;

Article 1(10) of the Internal Agreement on the 10th EDF⁽²⁾ stipulates that in 2010 the Commission will prepare a performance review, which will contribute to a decision on the amount of financial cooperation after 2013. A parallel discussion shall run within the framework of the debate arising from the Green Paper on relations between the European Union and the Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs) and the review of the Association Agreement with the OCTs required for 2011.

The Commission feels that much progress has already been made in terms of facilitating a decision on the incorporation of the EDF into the budget and will continue to pursue this objective within the framework of the period following the 10th EDF. It would emphasise, however, that the decision on this issue lies with the Member States.

Is the Commission aware of, and is the Commission able to do anything about, the announcement by the French Government that, from 5 January 2008, ‘according to European Directive 2004/38/EC⁽¹⁾’, French health care is to be withdrawn from, and private health insurance must be purchased by, all non-French EU citizens residing in France?

Previously it was illegal for them to hold private health insurance in France because EU citizens coming to live in France were forced to terminate their existing insurance policies and to join the state system instead. Now, the French Government is acting retrospectively, and the rule is being reversed.

A particular problem this will create is that sufferers with existing medical conditions will be caught in a trap: their previous pre-condition private insurance had to be cancelled, but now with the condition they will be unable to buy new private insurance.

Retrospective legislation is always to be deplored. What can the Commission do to correct this injustice?

The Commission has received letters from several British nationals residing in France who have been informed by the relevant French authorities that they will not be able to continue benefiting from the universal sickness coverage (couverture maladie universelle, CMU) on the basis of the corresponding contribution.

According to the information available to the Commission, the CMU introduced by Law 99-641 of 27 July 1999, guarantees membership of the general sickness insurance scheme for all stable and regular residents who do not have sickness insurance cover under a basic scheme. Consequently, under the law all persons residing in France in a stable and regular manner, whatever their nationality, must join the CMU if they are not covered by any other legal sickness insurance regime in France or another country.

Directive 2004/38/CE provides that the right of residence of non active Union citizens is subject to the condition that they have sufficient resources not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during their period of residence and have comprehensive sickness insurance cover. The Directive also provides that once the Union citizen has acquired the right of permanent residence normally after five years of legal and continuous residence, this right is no longer submitted to the abovementioned conditions.

In addition, Article 24 of the Directive provides that subject to such specific provisions as are expressly provided in the Treaty and secondary law, all Union citizens residing on the basis of the Directive in the territory of the host Member State shall enjoy equal treatment with the nationals of that Member State within the scope of the Treaty. In the framework of the Directive, equal treatment is subject to compliance with the conditions of residence.

Community law in the field of social security, contained in Regulation (EC) No 1408/71⁽²⁾ aims at coordinating the social security schemes of the Member States so that the application of the different national legislations does not adversely affect persons exercising their right to free movement within the European Union. Each Member State is therefore free to determine the details of its own social security systems, including which benefits shall be provided, the conditions of eligibility and how many contributions should be paid. Nevertheless, the Member States must comply with Community law when exercising that power. Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 establishes common rules and principles which must be observed by all national authorities when applying national law.

Under this Regulation, workers and pensioners, as well as the members of their family, residing in a Member State other than the one in which they work or which pays their pension, are entitled to sickness benefits in the Member State of residence under the same conditions as a national of this Member State, but on behalf of the Member State where they work or which pays their pension. In order to benefit from this health care, the persons concerned have to register with the sickness insurance institution of the Member State of residence on the basis of an E106 form (workers) or an E121 form (pensioners).

In order to complete the examination of the compatibility of the exclusion from the French CMU regime of inactive Union citizens regularly residing in France with Community law, the Commission has taken contact with the French authorities on this issue and is waiting for a reply.

I would like to know whether the mandate for the new European Commission expert group on human trafficking has been approved, and if so, I would like to access the document.

I would also like to know the process and time frames for Member States and NGOs to propose potential new members to the European Commission expert group on human trafficking.

Since its appointment in 2003, the Experts Group on Trafficking in Human beings has provided the Commission with opinions and views about many important subjects. In 2004 it issued its Report, which still constitutes a source of inspiration for further activities.

The Decision setting up a new Group of Experts and specifying its mandate was adopted on 17 October 2007⁽¹⁾. The Decision takes into account the necessary changes deriving from enlargement, and the need to ensure specific expertise especially in the field of labour exploitation.

The Group of Experts will be composed of 21 members, out of whom up to 11 members from administrations of the Member States, up to 5 members from inter-governmental, international and non-governmental organisations, up to 4 members from social partners and employers' associations, 1 member from Europol⁽²⁾, up to 2 members from universities or other research institutes.

The call for application will be published shortly in the Official Journal and on the website of the Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security with an application deadline of mid-February 2008.

In autumn 2007, the Commission published the third energy package, which sets out the EU’s future energy policy objectives, including liberalising the energy market through legal and functional unbundling and/or ownership unbundling of production and distribution networks in the electricity and gas sectors.

The gas supplier Gazprom, which enjoys a monopoly in the EU, is a shareholder in many European gas distribution networks.

Can the Commission indicate in which of the largest European gas distribution networks Gazprom is a shareholder? What effect will implementation of the third energy package have on Gazprom? How many EU companies hold shares in Russian gas distribution networks, and what proportion of the shares do they hold?

The Commission's internal energy market package of 19 September 2007 proposes ownership unbundling of the transmission systems and transmission system operators or, alternatively, the establishment of independent system operators (ISOs) responsible for the management and development of the transmission system. With respect to the distribution systems, the third package does not alter the current legal requirements which consist in the legal and functional unbundling of large distribution system owners and which entered into force only on 1 July 2007. The third country clause (Article 7a in the proposed Gas Directive) applies also only to transmission system operators.

Annex VIII of the impact assessment of the third package proposals⁽¹⁾gives details about the non-EU ownership in transmission systems. With respect to the three Baltic States, for example, Gazprom holds shares of about one third in each of the national gas transmission and distribution companies, which in all three Member States operate and own both the transmission and distribution networks. With respect to the share of EU companies in Russian gas distribution networks, such information is unfortunately not available to the Commission as the underlying agreements are usually treated as business secrets.

As regards the proposed provisions on unbundling, the effect on Gazprom is identical to the effect on any other EU or non-EU company: Any supply or production company active anywhere in the EU must separate the operator of its transmission system in any Member State of the EU in the manner proposed by the Commission. The package contains safeguards to ensure that in the event that companies from third countries wish to acquire a significant interest or even control over an EU network, they will have to demonstrably and unequivocally comply with the same unbundling requirements as EU companies. Moreover, the Commission has proposed a requirement that third country individuals and countries cannot acquire control over a Community transmission system or transmission system operator unless this is permitted by an agreement between the EU and the third country. The aim is to guarantee that companies from third countries respect the same rules that apply to EU based undertakings.

Faced with the prospect of a unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo, fears have been voiced in several quarters that recognition of the new state by the international community will also send a positive signal to other separatist movements around the world, particularly in Europe.

What does the Commission propose to do in the event of Kosovo taking such a step? What initiatives will it take to prevent the proliferation of such movements contrary to decisions taken by the international community?

The United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1244 adopted in the aftermath of the Kosovo conflict of 1999 envisaged a UN-led interim civilian administration to ensure the development of provisional institutions for democratic and autonomous self-government pending a political settlement.

The UN Secretary General launched the process for defining Kosovo's final status with the appointment of a Special Envoy, former President Athisaari, in November 2005. After 14 months of engagement of both parties, Mr Athisaari tabled a Comprehensive Proposal for the Kosovo Status Settlement in March 2007 that was discussed in the UN Security Council during several months without agreement.

In this context, the UN Secretary General agreed to a 120-day process of further engagement under the auspices of a troika composed of the EU, Russia and US to give another further opportunity to both parties to come to an understanding.

The European Union has done everything possible to achieve a negotiated solution. We deeply regret that no such solution was reached between Belgrade and Pristina in the process led by the international Troika.

The European Union has consistently underlined the special character of the Kosovo issue without any precedent function for other regions in the world. Most recently, the 2007 December European Council has underlined its conviction that resolving the pending status of Kosovo constitutes a sui generis case that does not set any precedent.

It is in the European Union and the western Balkans region best interest that Kosovo's status is urgently resolved to secure peace and stability. This is also the ultimate objective of the UNSCR1244. This is why this process has nothing in common with, what the Honourable Member calls, “other separatist movements around the world”.

At a press conference held on 26 November 2007, Dr Georgi Katsiev, who has been director of the Bulgarian Atomic Energy Commission for many years, appealed to the Commission to put an immediate stop to the nuclear programme at Belene because of the lack of qualified staff experienced in the running and monitoring of the reactor, as well as the fact that the region is highly prone to earthquakes. Is the Commission aware of these matters and how will it take them into account when assessing the Belene nuclear programme? What immediate measures will the Commission take? What can be done to protect neighbouring countries from the possible risk of an accident?

On 7 December 2007 the Commission gave its opinion on the establishment of a new nuclear power plant at Belene in the form of Point of View and communicated it to the Bulgarian authorities.

The Commission took the view, that in the light of the assessment under the Euratom Treaty and discussion with the nuclear operator, Natsionalna Elekrticheska Kompania (NEK), all the aspects of the investment in question are in line with the objectives of the Euratom Treaty. It has to be noted, that the assessment has been carried out under the provisions of the Euratom Treaty, without prejudice to any additional assessments to be carried out, the case being, under the EC Treaty and the obligations stemming from it and from secondary legislation, such as the provisions on competition or on environment, including the environmental impact assessment.

The Commission, in its opinion, took into account the information from the investor that the chosen design at Belene includes various passive safety systems as well as improved protection against external hazards, such as earthquakes and air crashes.

Seismic risks and emergency planning will be furthermore assessed by the Commission in the framework of radiation protection according to Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty. It includes also the assessment of the possible consequences of unplanned discharges on other Member States, and bilateral or multilateral arrangements to facilitate emergency response.

In addition, the Commission drew special attention to the need for Bulgaria to develop plans for the long-term management of the radioactive waste arising from the operation and later decommissioning of the plant, in particular as regards High Level Waste.

Under Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71⁽¹⁾, all insured persons who are unable to obtain appropriate treatment on the territory of their Member State of residence shall be authorised to travel to another Member State in order to obtain this treatment. However, the Bulgarian national sickness insurance fund is refusing to issue the requisite E112 form to Mr Maxime Vaniov Petkov, who suffers from spasmodic torticollis, despite the fact that he is unable to obtain appropriate treatment for his condition in Bulgaria. Furthermore, this is not the first time that the organisation in question is unjustifiably refusing to comply with Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71.

What pressure will the Commission bring to bear in order to end the infringements of the above regulation?

The Commission wishes to point out that, in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice, authorisation must be granted when the treatment required cannot be provided in the state of residence within an acceptable period of time in medical terms, taking into account the person’s current state of health and the likely progression of the illness. This implies that there are grounds for taking account of the patient’s medical condition and not related administrative considerations, for example the existence of waiting lists. In any case, a refusal to grant authorisation cannot be permitted without the grounds being justified.

In due consideration of the above, the Commission intends to seek an explanation from the Bulgarian authorities in order to ascertain whether the criteria laid down by Community law for authorisation to be granted have been met in the case referred to by the honourable Member.

When the referendum was held, two-thirds of citizens entitled to vote were in favour of Austria's accession to the EU. For several years since, Austria has been languishing near the bottom of the table in the standard Eurobarometer survey. In spring 2007, 25% of Austrians said that membership of the EU was 'a bad thing' (second from last in the table), and 43% saw disadvantages in EU membership (making Austria one of the most EU-critical Member States).

This can certainly be attributed in part to a lack of knowledge about the European Union among the general public. What strategies is the Commission following in order better to bring across the impact of European legislation, the workings of the institutions and the possibilities that membership offers for individual citizens in social, cultural and economic terms in Austria?

The Commission is fully committed to facilitating public understanding and debate on European issues by adapting communication on Europe to the national, regional and local environment. The Commission Representation in Austria promotes communication on the European agenda and priorities with Austrian citizens, the media, politicians and other stakeholders.

Dialogue with citizens is top priority for the Commission. In the framework of Plan D, the Commission Representation organizes events to stimulate debate on EU policies, including in cooperation with the Information Office of the Parliament in Vienna. Cooperation of the Commission Representation with stakeholders at national, regional and local levels is also a crucial element of our approach. The work of the Representation in the regions is complemented by 11 Europe Direct information relays in the Länder as well as 9 European Documentation Centres and 27 members of Team Europe, a highly qualified panel of speakers on EU issues.

Improving knowledge about the EU is key to encouraging citizens' participation in the EU integration process. Therefore, focusing particularly on younger students, the Commission Representation in Austria regularly organises "Open Days" for schools on its premises. In 2007, the Representation hosted 46 such events with approximately 1000 participants overall.

Secondly, in its media work, the Commission Representation continues its pro-active approach to set national issues in a broader European context. In order to ensure high visibility of EU topics as well as wide media coverage, the Representation works closely with the media, including on Commissioners' visits to Austria, where they are frequently involved in public debates (20 in 2007). 11 information visits to Brussels for journalists and multipliers were carried out in 2007, offering them the opportunity to receive first hand information and to discuss EU issues with experts and policy decision-makers. To allow better access to the broader public, the Commission develops its activity on the web, including by using innovative tools such as web-streaming.

Finally, all of this activity should be strengthened in the framework of a management partnership agreement between the Commission, the Parliament and the Austrian Government, which the Commission hopes to set up from 2008. This partnership, co-financed by the Commission, would enable both partners to better liaise and coordinate their communication strategies and plan common activities, thus improving public perception on the EU. Special focus will be on explaining institutional issues as well as energy and climate change.

According to some media outlets, the EU and Switzerland have launched a campaign in a few countries in Africa to dissuade Africans from coming to Europe.

Are the reports true? Is this a joint initiative by the EU and Switzerland? Who or which institution has taken this initiative? In which countries is the campaign taking place, and how is it taking place and with what resources? Is the Commission considering extending the campaign to other African states? How much is the campaign costing?

The Commission is funding information campaigns in West African countries such as Mauritania, Senegal, Niger, Mali, Ghana, Nigeria, Congo and Cameroon on the risks of irregular migration. These campaigns are prepared and implemented by the International Organisation for Migration, within the framework of a project supported by the 2004 budget of the AENEAS⁽¹⁾ programme. The project - selected for funding through a Call for Proposals in 2004 - started to be implemented during 2005.

In some of the countries targeted by the project, the International Organisation for Migration cooperated with other donors and organisations, so as to establish synergies and avoid duplication or sending contradictory messages. In the case of Senegal, for instance, the information campaign funded by the EU was supported by Spain. The campaign in Nigeria and Cameroon was promoted also by the Swiss federal Migration Office.

The cost of the information campaigns under the project run by the International Organisation for Migration amounts to €265.000.

The AENEAS programme and its successor, the Thematic Programme for the cooperation with third countries in the areas of migration and asylum, support information campaigns to raise awareness of the risks linked to irregular migration, and which in many cases lead to death, extreme conditions, detention, trafficking, exploitation, and forced repatriation.

In pursuit of their anti-working class policies, the EU and the Member States' governments have taken provocative and unjust measures to release banking groups from their contractual obligations, thereby gifting the banks billions of euro owed to workers' insurance funds and burdening the public purse, i.e. the workers, by increasing taxation. By making legislative provision to incorporate the workers' fund of the former Credit Bank into the Single Insurance Fund for Bank Employees (ETAT), the New Democracy government is furthering a policy previously introduced by the PASOK government when it gifted the Alpha Bank 600 million euro by incorporating the Personnel Insurance Fund of the Ionian and Popular Bank of Greece into the Social Insurance Institute (IKA). These anti-working class policies have given the green light to monopoly banking groups to make predatory raids on workers' insurance fund assets.

What is the Commission's position on the measures taken by New Democracy to release Alpha Bank from fulfilling its contractual obligations relating to workers' insurance funds?

With respect to the transfer of pension obligations, the Commission can, as a preliminary remark, refer to Decision 597/2006 of 10 October 2007 on the reform of the organisation of the supplementary pension regime in the Greek banking sector. In this decision the Commission concluded that the transfer of first pillar pension obligations from a special regime to the general social security regime did not involve State Aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.

The Commission is currently examining a complaint in relation to the situation referred to by the Honourable Member alleging a violation of Directive 2002/14/EC⁽¹⁾. It has addressed a letter to the Greek authorities requesting further information in this regard. Moreover, the Commission is currently examining the possible State Aid issues that may arise in this particular situation referred to by the complainant.

In the wake of Cyclone Sihr on 15 November the European Union was one of the first organisations actually to deliver financial assistance to Bangladesh. Could the Commission detail what aid has been given since and what long-term plans are being considered?

Within hours of the cyclone striking, the Commission released € 1.5 million to address the most urgent needs of the victims, thus being among the first donors to commit funds to this humanitarian crisis. The four Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) partners in this initial operation started their distributions of food and basic non-food items within a week of the cyclone striking. Early warning and evacuations programs (about 3,200,000 people evacuated) were triggered 24 hours before the cyclone hit, which greatly limited the number of casualties compared to other cyclones that had hit Bangladesh in the past decades.

Based on further information from the field describing considerable emergency humanitarian needs, the Commission approved a further emergency decision of € 5 million on 3 December 2007. This will be completed by a new emergency decision of € 1,925,000 under the 2007 budget, bringing the total allocation to the cyclone victims to more than € 8.4 million. The new funds are meeting vital needs for water, food, shelter, basic household items, emergency health care, improvement of water and sanitation conditions to avoid the spreading of water-born diseases, and to support livelihoods and early rehabilitation. Activities will be as usual implemented by the Commission's Humanitarian Aid Department's partners: NGOs, United Nations (UN) agencies and the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.

The 4 NGOs contracted under the primary Emergency Decision of € 1.5 million have completed their operations. They have reached 278 000 persons with food, non-food items and improvement of water supplies. This aid had a tremendous impact on the local population.

However, the devastation brought by Cyclone Sidr is considerable with more than 8.5 million people affected including more than 2.6 million still needing emergency assistance; more than half a million houses have been destroyed as well as public infrastructure; crops and livestock destruction are also twice as large as initially estimated.

On 3 December 2007, at a meeting of the Head of Government of Bangladesh with the International Community, the longer-term reconstruction needs were confirmed at around USD⁽¹⁾ 1 billion, mainly for infrastructure: coastal embankments, additional cyclone shelters, schools, roads and bridges as well as reforestation in the Sunderbans mangrove forest World Heritage Site.

The Commission remains fully mobilised through its Delegation in Dhaka working in a coordinated manner with the Government, and other aid agencies. A joint EC-World Bank-UN post-disaster damage and needs assessment, is to be undertaken by the end of 2007 or the beginning of 2008.

Under these circumstances, the Commission is looking into the possibility of allocating additional assistance to Bangladesh including additional humanitarian assistance. The Commission is also considering the use of the Instrument for Stability to support early recovery efforts. Another option may be to redirect or intensify ongoing activities in the 9 districts most affected by the cyclone in particular from current EC funded programmes in education, health and food security.

It is clear that Bangladesh – the most densely populated and one of the poorest countries in the world – will require sustained support for several years in order to address effectively the impact of Sidr and to further enhance preparedness for natural disasters in the context of the threat posed by climate change.

The Commission is the main donor in disaster preparedness in Bangladesh. € 5.9 million have been committed since 1994 in community-based projects in the framework of Disaster preparedness interventions (DIPECHO programme), which aim at strengthening the response capacities of the populations at risk. The Commission is contributing (€ 9 million) to the Government of Bangladesh's Comprehensive Disaster Management Programme.

This should soon be complemented by another contribution on climate change and disaster preparedness.

The Commission is currently negotiating an association agreement with the CAN. According to the Latin-American negotiators, the Commission is insisting on the Andean countries signing a free-trade agreement that goes further in terms of liberalisation than the WTO and than the agreement with Chile in respect of, for example, intellectual property rights. At the same time, for the European negotiators, fulfilling the obligation to give special and differentiated treatment to all developing countries requiring such treatment means no more than giving the poor five or seven years to catch up.

Can the Commission say what qualitative measures it intends to take with a view to fulfilling this obligation to give developing countries special and differentiated treatment?

Can it confirm that it will not include the Singapore issues and the question of services in the negotiations?

Would it not agree that, if Chile and Mexico were unable to implement some sections of the agreement, countries such as Peru and Bolivia are hardly likely to be able to do so?

In accordance with the Negotiating Directives approved by the Council in April 2007, the Commission is currently negotiating an Association Agreement (AA) with the Andean Community of Nations (CAN), which will cover political dialogue, cooperation and trade relations. The latter part should aim to progressive and reciprocal liberalization, by means of an ambitious, comprehensive and balanced Free Trade Area, fully compliant with the rules and obligations of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) while going beyond the WTO's basic rules.

As a general principle, the Commission and the CAN have agreed that the AA, and particularly its trade part, will include asymmetries and special and differential treatment (SDT), both on a region to region basis where necessary and inside the CAN although limiting to a minimum differentiation of commitments between its countries. The precise content of this principle in each chapter of the future agreement is part of the negotiation, and has not yet been specified, but the Commission does not necessarily limit its scope to the calendar for trade in goods liberalization. The Commission is ready to examine any further suggestions from the CAN on the asymmetries and SDT which are compatible with the general objectives of trade liberalization and with WTO rules and obligations.

The Commission can confirm that trade in services and the so-called Singapore issues (trade facilitation, investment, government procurement and competition) are included in the negotiations, in accordance with the Council Directives and in full agreement with the CAN. The Commission is convinced that these issues are of utmost importance for the EU but also for the CAN regional integration process and the sustainable development of its members.

The Commission considers that the EU-Chile and EU-Mexico Agreements have been implemented successfully by its partners in all areas covered, and does not see any reason a priori why this should not be possible for the member countries of the CAN in a future Association Agreement. Of course, appropriate support and cooperation will be provided, particularly in terms of institutional and technical capacities.

The Court of Justice has ordered Denmark (Case C-382/02) to amend its legislation concerning VAT on the sale of aircraft, fuel supplies for aircraft and supplies to flying schools. The grounds for the decision are that the Danish rules are contrary to Article 15, paragraphs 6, 7 and 9 of Council Directive 77/388/EEC⁽¹⁾.

The UK, however, continues to have VAT-free supplies to aircraft and exemption from VAT on the sale of aircraft to private individuals.

Will the Commission say on what basis in Community law a country, such as the UK, may grant VAT exemption on sales of aircraft to private individuals and on supplies to airlines which primarily operate domestic routes?

Article 148 of Directive 2006/112/EC⁽²⁾ ("the VAT Directive"), in connection with Article 169(b) thereof, provides for an exemption with deductibility of the VAT paid at the preceding stage ("zero rate") for, inter alia, the supply of aircraft "used by airlines operating for reward chiefly on international routes". It is clear that on the basis of this provision no Member State is allowed to grant a zero rate to supplies of aircraft made to private individuals and/or to airlines operating chiefly on domestic routes.

Other transitional provisions of the VAT Directive (such as, for instance, Article 110 or Article 371, in connection with category (11) of Annex X, Part (B) thereof) do not seem capable either of covering as wide an application of the zero rate as the one allegedly taking place in the United Kingdom. For this reason, the Commission intends to contact the United Kingdom authorities as regards their present VAT treatment of aircraft.

Can the Commission state what new initiatives it intends to pursue this year so as to promote a greater level of economic activity in the field of aquaculture in Europe?

The Commission is of the view that aquaculture, as a high quality food industry, is of strategic importance if the increasing demand for healthy seafood is to be met. Therefore, as already announced in its Legislative and Work Programme for 2008⁽¹⁾, the Commission intends to adopt in 2008 a Communication on Sustainable Development of Community Aquaculture as a priority initiative.

Given that the growth objectives of the 2002 strategy for aquaculture⁽²⁾ have not been fully met, the primary aim of this Communication will be to identify and address the main challenges hampering sustainable growth of this economic activity. Based on a wide consultation that began in 2007, it will seek to assess which role should be played by all actors concerned, in particular by public authorities, to promote and provide an adequate business and regulatory framework to encourage entrepreneurship and innovation and ensure compliance with high environmental and public health standards. It is however too early to say which precise actions may be identified in this context.

In 2008, the Commission also intends to adopt implementing rules for two important Council Regulations that were adopted in 2007 on the use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture⁽³⁾ and on the organic production and labelling of organic products, including aquaculture products⁽⁴⁾.

Can the Commission state what mechanisms it has in place so as to ensure and guarantee that the Commission does not bring forward unnecessary or unwarranted proposals to regulate the operation of the European economy?

The Commission wishes to reassure the Honourable Member of its strong commitment to the full implementation of its Better Regulation strategy. Transparency and high quality analysis are key components of the Commission's impact assessment system which constitutes a fundamental instrument for developing sound legislative proposals. Its aim is to ensure that only such proposals that bring added value and comply with the subsidiarity principle are put forward and tailored to meet the policy objective most effectively. If those criteria are met, further checks and balances exist to ensure that all proposals are proportionate and effective in addressing the identified problem. For example, since March 2006 the Impact Assessment Guidelines request the use of the Standard Cost Model for identifying any impacts related to possible administrative burdens.

The Commission is committed to produce, in principle, impact assessments for every initiative on its Legislative and Work Programme. Moreover, an increasing number of other initiatives are accompanied by an analysis proportionate to their impacts. Impact assessment allows the Commission to carefully assess different policy options by drawing on the results of stakeholder input. Public consultations are always compliant with the Commission's Minimum Standards for Consultation which include a proactive approach to ensuring that stakeholders are given the opportunity to share their expert opinions. Furthermore, the newly established Impact Assessment Board provides independent quality support and control for impact assessments prepared by the Commission. In some cases, the impact assessment has lead to a decision not to put forward an EU policy initiative.

It is important to underline that the aim of an impact assessment is to provide political decision-makers with a full and objective picture of all potential impacts and to highlight any trade-offs and synergies. The final decision remains of course a political one and is taken in the normal inter-institutional process. As part of this process, the Commission, the Parliament and the Council agreed an inter-institutional Common Approach to Impact Assessment.

Does the Commission not recognise that EU leaders gave clear guarantees to Irish and European farmers concerning the level of CAP payments farmers would receive for the period 2007 - 2013?

Is it not the case then that the Commission should not be allowed to re-open the financial commitments given to Irish and European farmers for the period 2007 - 2013 in the context of the CAP Health Check 2008?

The European Council in October 2002 set a ceiling, which ensured a financial resource perspective for the Common Agricultural Policy’s (CAP) First Pillar (market measures and direct aids expenditure) for the period 2007-2013. The 2003 CAP Reform was adopted by the Agriculture Council in June 2003 in full respect of that financial framework. At the European Council in December 2005 that agreed ceiling for First Pillar remained untouched, with the exception of the integration of expenditure for Bulgaria and Romania (phasing in) under the ceiling, while the net effect on Second Pillar funding was a reduction.

The Commission considers that the new challenges stemming from the issues identified in the Communication "Preparing for the Health Check of the CAP Reform"⁽¹⁾ make a further strengthening of the Second Pillar (rural development measures) necessary within the current financial perspectives, in particular in the light of the current constraints that Member State are facing. Reinforcement is also necessary in order to respond to the need for increased efforts in innovation to address those new competitive and environmental challenges. With the CAP budget now fixed until 2013, a strengthening of Pillar II funds could only be achieved through increased compulsory modulation.

During 2008 the Commission will further develop its approach to the budgetary review 2008/2009 as set in the Communication "Reforming the budget, changing Europe"⁽²⁾. The "Health Check" of the CAP contributes to the discussion on future priorities in the field of agriculture and aims to prepare EU agriculture to adapt better to a rapidly changing environment. It therefore does not represent a re-opening of the financial commitments regarding the CAP and does not prejudge the outcome of the budget review.

In the context of the EU-Africa summit and the pledges of cooperation to use science and investment to tackle water-related challenges, which practical science-based joint measures does the Commission envisage to address the need for greater water security and higher standards of hygiene and to positively impact upon climate change?

Water research has been a major component of successive EU environmental research programmes for over three decades. Research activities with a strong international co-operation component have been funded under the 6th Research and Technological Development (RTD) Framework Programme (FP6) to support the objectives of the EU Water Initiative and the water related Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) targets. They address, through integrated research approaches, the multi-dimensionality of water governance (participatory approaches, socio-economic and gender aspects, institutional frameworks….), promote capacity building through on-the-job training and awareness and better knowledge and innovation management in developing countries. Furthermore, regarding impact of climate change, some FP6 research projects analyse, quantify and predict the components of current and future global water cycle, evaluating uncertainties and clarifying the overall vulnerability for water resources. Stakeholders and public at large are part of research planning and implementation right from the start in most of these projects to ensure applicability and uptake of the research results.

For instance, the NEWATER project⁽¹⁾ addresses the transition from currently prevailing regimes of river basin water management into more integrated and adaptive regimes to global changes in the future. NEWATER is focussing its work in seven international transboundary catchments (two of them being in Africa) giving special attention to the EU Water Initiative. The ANTINOMOS project⁽²⁾ devotes attention to link state-of-the-art technological advancement in water supply and sanitation with local resources and grassroots innovations. The NETSSAF project⁽³⁾ aims to develop a participative multi-stakeholder sanitation management support tool aimed for the end-users to be able to apply large scale sanitation concepts and technologies adapted to the different conditions prevailing in Africa. Through the TECHNEAU project⁽⁴⁾, the development and application of innovative and cost effective European strategies and technologies for safe drinking water supply is going to be stimulated. Based on experiences and trends in different representative European regions and in sub-saharan Africa, TECHNEAU addresses the tremendous challenges that face the water supply sector worldwide (climate change, new emerging contaminants, aging infrastructures, shortage of good quality and readily treatable resources and more demanding regulators and consumers needs) with emphasis on adaptive strategies, novel technologies and operational practices. The SWITCH project⁽⁵⁾ addresses the problems that increasing global change pressures, escalating costs and other risks inherent to conventional urban water management, are causing to major cities in the world (two of them situated in Africa). The SWITCH program is centred around the concept of city based learning alliances and demand driven research and demonstrations. Learning alliances aims to link up stakeholders at city and global level to interact productively and to create win-win solutions along the water chain, foster a new form of “demand-driven” research through close collaboration with local stakeholders, improve the communication between water sector institutions in the demonstration cities, increase the transparency and scientific basis for decision making processes, help to break down the political barriers to solving global urban and water issues, allow better representation of all stakeholders in the decision making processes and show to other sectors (public health management, agriculture, spatial planning, etc.) that using the learning alliance approach is feasible and results in more rapid adoption. Finally, the ROSA project⁽⁶⁾ promotes resource-oriented sanitation concepts as a route to sustainable and ecologically sound sanitation in order to meet the Millennium Development Goals. These concepts are applied in four cities in East-Africa.

The Research Component of the EU Water Initiative provides a platform for pooling together research activities interlinked both at EU level, through continued support by the Directorate General Research Framework Programme, and at the Member States level, through the European Research Area Network (ERA-NET) scheme. The AFRICAN WATER project⁽⁷⁾ helped several EU Member States to establish a framework for the long term improvement in the involvement of African researchers in water research and fulfil their political commitments to strengthen African water research capacity. This leads to a successful ERA-NET project (SPLASH)⁽⁸⁾ which was funded under FP6. The ERA-NET consortium comprises 15 research programme owners/managers from 11 countries and aims to improve communication, collaboration and coordination of national research programmes in order to increase their reduce duplication and repetition and enhance synergies between EU-funded RTD and national research programmes by Member States.

Efforts continue under the 7th Framework Programme (FP7). In this process, FP7 places important emphasis progressing on the analysis of impacts of global change on water resources and its availability in quantitative and qualitative terms. Moreover, actions addressing water security are contemplated in different aspects.

As example, in the 1st call of FP7 research projects are already under negotiation in this field. Some of these are; i) assessing climatic change and impacts on the quantity and quality of water specifically in vulnerable mountain regions, ii) bridging the gap between adaptation strategies of climate change impacts and European water polices, and iii) assessing research needs and policy choices in areas of drought.

Furthermore, for the coming years there are planned activities exploring changes in extreme hydrological events in Europe and associated impacts on the water cycle (including related global threats on regional/ global water security).

Will the Commission explain to what extent Ryanair's ticket price policy is having a detrimental impact on healthy competition in the air transport sector? To what extent is it endangering passenger safety by using - according to the company's own press releases of 8 November 2007, 22 November 2007 and 28 November 2007, for example - 'regional and secondary airports' whose safety standards are under investigation? In the light of these points, does the Commission consider that the company is in a position to meet safety standards in general?

According to the applicable legislation to the Air Transport Single market, in particular on fares, airlines are free to decide on the fares they apply. It does not appear that Ryanair's ticket price policy is having a detrimental impact on healthy competition in the air transport sector. The business model it applies is well-known and based on reducing at a maximum the costs for the airline and targeting a very high load factor on point to point routes.

The Commission is not aware of allegedly lower safety standards of regional and secondary airports and related investigations.

With regard to the air safety of the carrier "Ryanair" it must be noted that the operator's license and the Air Operator Certificate of that company is issued by the State of Ireland which executes the related oversight.

Based on the data available today, to include the results of Ramp Inspections performed in the scope of the European SAFA⁽¹⁾ programme, the Commission received no indication of adverse air safety aspects by the operator in question.

The answers given to my questions H-0663/07⁽¹⁾ and H-0775/07⁽²⁾ on hexavalent chromium in drinking water are not entirely clear. What is the Commission's definitive opinion on the use of drinking water containing 1-50 mg/l of hexavalent chromium? The Commission also states that the results of several studies carried out in the USA into the ingestion of hexavalent chromium are pending. However, the document 'Toxicological Profile for Chromium '(US Department of Health and Human Services, September 2000, p. 329) quotes the figure of 0.05 mg/l of hexavalent chromium as the European standard for drinking water with reference to WHO publications (1970, 2nd ed. Geneva 33, 'European Standard for Drinking Water' and 1988, ed. Geneva 197, 'Environmental Health Criteria: Chromium 6'). In Regulation (EC) No. 1907/2006⁽³⁾ (REACH), hexavalent chromium and its compounds are classified as PBTs in Annex XVII.

In the light of this additional data, does the Commission persist in refusing to recognise the limit of 0.05 mg/l for hexavalent chromium in drinking water? Does it consider it necessary to take exceptional measures with regard to the distribution and consumption of drinking water containing 8-15 or 50 mg/l of hexavalent chromium, as in the case of the River Asopos?

The Commission does recognise the maximum concentration of 0.05 mg/l of chromium in drinking water. The Drinking Water Directive⁽⁴⁾ specifies that the limit value for chromium (all valences confounded) in drinking water is 50µg/l, which is identical to 0.05 mg/l. The current Drinking Water Directive parameter value for chromium is based on the World Health Organisation (WHO) Guidelines of 1992, and the WHO 2004 Guidelines did not introduce changes in relation to chromium.

The Drinking Water Directive's limit value applies to drinking water as it is delivered to the consumers (at the tap) and not to river water.

As regards the presumed pollution of the Asopos River, the Commission launched an own initiative investigation with the purpose of verifying whether Greece complies with its obligations under EC environmental law. The Commission has addressed a letter to the Greek authorities requesting to be informed in detail on the actions taken. The Commission is assessing all information available and will take all necessary measures, including, if appropriate, the initiation of an infringement procedure, to ensure that EC environmental legislation is complied with.

Flows of dangerous goods transported through the European Union are constantly increasing. In the period 1990-2002, there was a rise of 13%, with an increase in particular in dangerous goods carried by road (+27.4%) and also in waterway and maritime transport of goods (+11.1%). Transport operators are pressing for self-declaration for dangerous goods to become the norm. That would increase the risk of disasters occurring. The European Union has a responsibility here. It must take all necessary preventive measures.

Does the Commission not intend to ban all forms of self-declaration for dangerous goods carried on Union territory, soundly applying the precautionary principle?

The European legislation on the transport of dangerous goods does not contain the concept of 'auto-declaration'. It does, however, impose on consignors and transport operators the obligation to transport dangerous goods in full respect of the rules which include classification, packaging, labelling, documentation and vehicle construction requirements. Respect of these rules is controlled by the national authorities. Regarding roadside controls, it is worth mentioning a recent Commission report⁽¹⁾.

Spain transposed Directive 2003/98/EC⁽¹⁾ belatedly through Law 37/2007. Article 7(3) of this Law states that if a public sector authority or body re-uses documents as a basis for commercial activities unrelated to the duties assigned to it, the provision of documents for these activities should be subject to the same public fees and conditions applicable to other users.

Does the Commission consider this paragraph to be in line with the Directive?

Moreover, does the Commission not consider that the Directive could be applied by some Member States in such a way as to render services that have thus far been free of charge subject to payment? Is the Commission aware of this having occurred in any of the Member States?

National legislation implementing the Directive in Spain was adopted on 16 November 2007 and will enter into force on 17 January 2008.

The Commission would first like to underline the main objectives of the public sector information Directive. The Directive aims at making public sector information widely available for re-use in the information economy. This is the case for example in mapping and car navigation services. Key aspects are facilitating cross-border re-use of public sector information and limiting distortions of competition. The Directive’s core provisions regulate in particular non-discrimination, upper limits for charging, transparency and practical tools to easily find and re-use public documents.

The first part of the question concerns essentially the implementation into national law of Article 10 (2) of the Directive. This Article precludes cross-subsidies in situations where public sector bodies exercise, in addition to their public tasks, purely commercial activities. As an example one could mention a public sector body that produces basic data and that also sells added-value products in competition with other economic operators. This is the case in several Member States in sectors such as geographic or meteorological information. To avoid a distortion of fair competition, the competitors should be able to re-use the basic data under the same conditions as the commercial branch of the public sector body.

The Spanish implementation law addresses the above described cross-subsidy issue regulated by Article 10 (2) of the Directive in terms close to those of the Directive.

The second part of the question refers to the possibility that Member States apply the Directive in a way that renders services that so far have been free of charge subject to payment. The Commission is not aware of concrete situations where this would have happened and it is certainly not intended by the Directive. Indeed, the Directive calls upon Member States to promote a wide re-use of public sector documents. In its Preamble it encourages Member States to make documents available at marginal costs or at no charges at all. For situations where charges are made, the Directive fixes conditions and an upper ceiling to admissible charges.

The Commission services are carefully following the implementation and application of the Directive in the Member States. There are encouraging examples where re-use of public sector information has increased and new innovative services have been created, for the benefit of European businesses and citizens alike. The Commission will carry out, in accordance with article 13 of the Directive, a review of its application in 2008.

There are plans for a European Radio Station which, as from April 2008, will broadcast programmes from a European point of view. Initially, it is expected to broadcast half an hour of political news each day, report on major European cultural events and also broadcast a weekly background magazine.

Although a pan-European radio station is a most laudable initiative, the Commission is allocating rather a lot of money to it. The new station is to receive € 5.8 m per annum in subsidy for five years. That is equivalent to some € 15 890 per day.

Does the Commission consider this sum justified, and can it explain the fact that in return for this money the station will not be broadcasting in the languages of all the countries? Dutch would only be added in 2009, although both a Dutch and a Belgian station are members of the consortium of radio stations which is organising the project.

On 14 December 2007, the Commission signed a one year service contract (renewable 4 times) with a consortium of 16 European radios (and 7 associated members).

In the first year, the amount allocated to the consortium will permit the 16 radios to broadcast 45 minutes of EU information per day. This put the hourly broadcasting cost to €1,377, probably the lowest cost on the radio market. The consortium will produce and broadcast 4,200 hours of programmes on EU affairs in 10 EU languages. Full editorial independence is guaranteed in the contract.

The estimated daily outreach of these programmes will be 19 million Europeans and 50 million people in the rest of the world. The radio broadcasting will be complemented by a multilingual Internet portal, with sound, pod-casting and other technical facilities and information services to the auditors available on demand. The webpages are expected to be viewed approximately 60-80 million times a month.

The consortium will have an open character, with new members accepted, if fulfilling the admission criteria defined by contract. The aim is to attract at least one radio operator by EU Member State and as many associated members as possible. Thus the number of languages covered will increase each year to cover all the 23 EU official languages in 2012. In parallel, the number of hours broadcast should grow regularly as members and associated stations will increase the adaptation of programmes in their respective languages.

The single market is a fundamental economic instrument at the service of European Union citizens and regions. Today it is being called upon to give fresh impetus to Europe, helping it to meet the challenges of globalisation, contribute to development and employment, ensure fair prices for manufacturers and consumers and deal with social and environmental problems.

In the context of its comprehensive internal market review, how does the Commission intend to respond to the continued exclusion of EU islands (in particular small and medium-sized islands) and the residents thereof, including both producers and consumers, thereby denying them access to European markets?

The 4th Report on Economic and Social Cohesion⁽¹⁾– adopted by the Commission on 30 May 2007 – confirms the importance the Commission attaches to achieving greater territorial cohesion in Europe and to the particular difficulties certain territories are facing. Among other things, the report draws attention to the challenges and opportunities arising in the territories with specific natural handicaps.

Already, the Cohesion Report has raised a series of questions as a basis on which to launch the discussion on the future of the policy. Among the questions, the Commission asks "How can cohesion policy better promote harmonious, balanced and sustainable development taking into account the diversity of EU territories, such as least favoured areas, islands, rural and coastal areas but also cities, declining industrial regions, other areas with particular geographic characteristics?". The Commission is looking forward to receiving many responses to this important question and will report on the results in the context of the 5th Progress Report on Cohesion due for spring 2008.

The new regulations for 2007-2013 and the Community Strategic Guidelines contain explicit provisions for areas with geographical and natural handicaps; they thus provide the basis for progress in addressing territorial specificities in programming documents. During the informal ministerial meeting which took place in Leipzig at the end of May 2007, the Commissioner in charge of Regional Policy presented a document which assesses the way in which national strategies for 2007-2013 propose to tackle territorial issues. One of her observations was that only a few Member States set clear and explicit interventions for specific types of territories (i.e. mountainous, coastal, insular, sparsely populated areas). The Ministers present at the meeting requested the Commission to develop this analysis and to present a report on territorial cohesion in 2008.

The Commission thus will present in September 2008 a Green Paper on territorial cohesion will seek to provide an overall and coherent view of territorial challenges, including those specific to mountains, islands and other areas facing geographical difficulties. In that context, the Commission intends to look at how different sector policies such as transport address the issue of territorial cohesion. A comprehensive approach is needed in order to offer a sound basis for Community policies, and cohesion policy in particular, and to provide the appropriate answers to the need for harmonious and balanced development of the Union. This common vision is essential for avoiding the fragmentation of European policies while taking into account the specificities of the concerned areas.

The Green Paper will firstly provide an updated analysis on disparities in the European territory and on specific territorial features. It will discuss the definition and use of concept at the European and the Member States level (legal matters, implementation issues as linked to a survey sent to the Member States, as well as the territorial dimension of the National Strategic Reference Framework Operational Programmes). It will finally propose some questions for debate. Islands and mountain areas will have an appropriate place in this work.

Plans by ΑΓΕΤ-LAFARGE to operate a system for incinerating standardised refuse and factory waste (RDF), following a favourable opinion from the Greek Government, have met with total opposition from the inhabitants of Aliverion. The combustion process is to be supplemented by soap oil, tyres, waste from Psyttalia and other materials. Scientific bodies and studies underscore the risks to public health and the environment ensuing from the pollutant gases produced by the incineration of waste (carcinogens, contribution to the greenhouse effect).

Does the Commission know whether environmental impact studies have been carried out with a view to ΑΓΕΤ-LAFARGE operating an RDF system and, if so, whether they are consistent with Community legislation? Does it consider such an activity to be compatible with the endeavour to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and has it been asked to co-finance the programme concerned?

The co-incineration of waste in cement plants is covered by the Waste Incineration Directive 2000/76/EC⁽¹⁾. The aim of this Directive is to prevent or to limit negative effects on the environment and the resulting risks to human health from the incineration and co-incineration of waste. In order to achieve this aim, the Directive includes stringent operational conditions and technical requirements, as well as emission limit values and monitoring requirements for such plants. The requirements set for co-incineration plants ensure that an equivalent level of environmental protection is achieved as for dedicated waste incinerators.

In addition to the requirements of the Waste Incineration Directive, all cement kilns with a production capacity exceeding 500 tonnes per day are also subject to Directive 96/61/EC⁽²⁾ concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC).

The ΑΓΕΤ-LAFARGE installation falls within the scope of the IPPC Directive and must therefore comply with all of its requirements. It should be stressed that the installation disposes of an environmental permit issued on the basis of the national legislation transposing the IPPC Directive and Directive 85/337/EEC on the environmental impact assessment⁽³⁾. In addition, it should be mentionned that the Decision approving environmental conditions⁽⁴⁾ for the operation of the waste water treatment plant of Psitalleia ⁽⁵⁾provides for possible ways of dealing with the dried sludge produced, including incineration.

The competent authorities have to ensure that these installations are operated in such a way that all the appropriate preventive measures are taken against pollution, in particular through the application of the Best Available Techniques (BAT).

The permits for IPPC installations should include emission limit values for all relevant polluting substances, based on the BAT. These limit values may be more stringent than those required under the Waste Incineration Directive and may be set for further polluting substances. The BAT are determined at EU level through an information exchange between experts, leading to the adoption by the Commission of the BAT reference documents, better known as the BREFs. The 31 BREF documents are publicly available on the website of the European IPPC Bureau.

The BREF on the manufacture of cement was the first one to be adopted in 2001. This BREF document is currently under revision and the updated version will in particular contain new information on the use of waste in cement kilns. It will also include new conclusions on the BAT for this activity.

The co-incineration of waste in cement kilns, when operated in compliance with EU environmental legislation, will not lead to an overall increase of greenhouse gas emissions. The use of waste derived fuels reduces the need to burn conventional fossil fuels in these installations, which, in the case of biomass waste, will also reduce the CO2 emissions.

The Commission has not been asked to co-finance the programme for co-incineration of RDF⁽⁶⁾ at the ΑΓΕΤ-LAFARGE installation.

In accordance with the Community guidelines for the development of a trans-European transport network which were adopted in 2004, the Ijzeren Rijn project is part of a priority project: to be specific, it forms part of Priority Project No 24 (Lyon/Genoa-Basel-Duisburg - Rotterdam/Antwerp railway line).

The list of projects selected for financing in the period 2007-2013 which the Commission announced on 21 November does not include the Ijzeren Rijn project.

Although the implementation of a project depends on a sovereign decision by the Member States concerned, the Commission has committed itself to 'doing everything in its power to ensure that the project is implemented in accordance with the guidelines' (reply to Question H-0759/06⁽¹⁾). What further action will the Commission take on its earlier commitment?

Is the Commission also considering appointing a coordinator for this project who will facilitate dialogue among the Member States concerned and can thus ensure that the work is carried out?

Is there now no longer any prospect that the Ijzeren Rijn project will receive any European funding for the period 2007-2013?

Contrary to the honourable Member’s claim, the Ijzeren Rijn project is in fact included in the list of projects selected for Community financing as part of the trans-European networks for the period 2007-2013, presented to the Member States by the Commission on 28 November 2007. The list of projects was also announced by the Vice-President responsible for transport at a joint meeting of Parliament’s Committee on Budgets (BUDG) and Committee on Transport and Tourism (TRAN) on 21 November 2007.

The Commission’s decision, which will be adopted once Parliament has exercised its right of scrutiny, is due at the beginning of 2008.

Financing totalling €7.29 million, which corresponds to 50% of the eligible costs of the studies proposed, appears in this list as project number EU-24090.

Priority Project 24 (Lyon/Genoa-Basel-Duisburg-Rotterdam/Antwerp railway line) is also monitored by Mr Vinck, the European coordinator for the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS).

On 4 April 2007 the Commission published a progress report (COM(2007)0168) on the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004⁽¹⁾ on the rights of air travellers. It is clear from the report that implementation of the Regulation in the Member States leaves a lot to be desired. The Commission announced in the report that it would be taking measures to reinforce compliance with the rules. In the meantime, figures from various quarters have been published on the number of complaints by passengers. According to answer P-1880/06 to a written question by myself, there was a total of 3 488 complaints to the Commission in 2005. The Commission’s progress report (COM(2007)0168) reported 18 288 complaints collected by the Member States.

In a report of 6 December 2007, the European Consumer Centre Network noted an increase from 1 521 to 2 979 complaints, i.e. almost a doubling of the number. I therefore wish to ask the Commission how far it has come with the measures to strengthen compliance with Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 announced in the progress report. Does it plan legislative initiatives in this connection? What is the number, and the nature, of the complaints received by the Commission and the Member States? Has the Commission collated the fragmentary information currently held about complaints? What measures does the Commission intend to take in the short term to enforce better compliance with Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 by the Member States?

On the complaints received by the Member States, Regulation 261/2004 does not require Member States to give data on complaint handling to the Commission. The Commission therefore has no information on the number of complaints received by National Enforcement Bodies in 2007.

On the complaints received by the Commission, the Directorate General for Energy and Transport received 3819 in 2006, and in 2007 had received 2180 until the end of November.

On 4 April 2007⁽²⁾, the Commission concluded in its Communication that improvement of the level of application by airlines and enforcement by the National Enforcement Bodies is necessary. Difficulties are due to a lack of harmonised procedures for enforcement and some unclear parts of the Regulation, such as on delays and cancellation, departures from non-EU countries, downgrading and information provision to volunteers for denied boarding.

To rectify these weaknesses, the Commission organised six meetings with the National Enforcement Bodies and airline industry in 2007. These resulted in:

agreement on who is responsible for what when it comes to complaint handling and exchanging information,

clarification of parts of the relevant legislation where possibilities for different interpretations exist.

In addition, the Commission is analysing national measures introduced to enforce Community law on air passenger rights to check that appropriate measures are in place.

At the same time in cooperation with National Enforcement Bodies and the airline industry a standard EU Air Passenger Complaint Form has been created. This will be available to the public in early 2008. Information material for passengers on their rights has been redesigned, allowing further clarification.

The outcome of cases concerning the definition of long delays and cancellation currently before the European Court of Justice should also help to give a clear interpretation of the relevant texts.

Is the Commission aware that supermarket chicken is often months old? Does the Commission agree that a tighter definition of 'fresh chicken' is necessary?

Poultry meat is the only meat for which detailed "marketing standards" as such exist.

Marketing standards provide a clear and strict definition⁽¹⁾ of "fresh poultry meat". According to it, fresh poultry meat is to "be kept at a temperature not below -2°C and not higher than 4°C at any time."

Therefore it is not permitted to defrost poultry meat and then sell it as "fresh".

However, the Commission acknowledges that a rewording of the definition would be useful in the future to guarantee that it is not subject to different interpretations in different Member States.

In this respect, the Commission is currently preparing a modification of the poultry meat marketing standards regulations.