QUESTIONS TO THE COUNCIL (The Presidency-in-Office of the Council of the European Union bears sole responsibility for these answers)
Question no 10 by Jim Higgins (H-0169/08)
Subject: Illegal drugs
Could the Council indicate its position on the need to do more in order to combat the problems associated with the illegal drugs trade, and would it indicate what plans the Council has in order to combat these problems in the areas of prevention and treatment?
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 April part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
The priority actions for reducing supply are laid down in the EU Drugs Strategy for the period 2005-2012 and the subsequent EU Action Plan on Drugs 2005-2008. These actions include:
– strengthening law enforcement cooperation at EU level and between the Member States,
– prevention and punishment of the import and export of narcotic drugs, including towards the territories of the other Member States,
– enhancing law enforcement, criminal investigation and cooperation in the field of forensic science, and
– intensifying law enforcement efforts directed at non-EU countries, especially producer countries and regions along trafficking routes.
Also of great importance are the EU Presidency’s efforts to reach agreement on a Council resolution on Europol which will increase the powers and adaptability of that organisation and provide Community funding.
The Maritime Analysis and Operational Centre on Narcotics (commonly referred to as MAOC-N), which was set up last autumn in Lisbon (and involves seven Member States), has already made some significant seizures.
To combat effectively the illegal EU market in synthetic drugs, the EU is using a new procedure for information exchange, risk assessment and control of new psychoactive substances. The EU has used this procedure most recently in connection with the new psychoactive substance 1-benzylpiperazine (BZP) on which the EU Council adopted a Decision establishing control mechanisms and criminal sanctions against the new psychoactive substance 1-benzylpiperazine (BZP) in the EU Member States in March this year.
In the field of foreign relations cooperation has been established with the producer countries, in particular through the action plan for Afghanistan and the Latin American and Caribbean Coordination and Cooperation Mechanism on Drugs.
During the Slovenian Presidency of the EU Council there has been a high-level meeting between the EU and LAC at which the Hofburg Declaration, which sets out further EU cooperation with the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean, was adopted.
Particular emphasis is also placed on the Balkan route. In this context mention should be made of the action plan for the Western Balkans. This is an important instrument for assisting the Western Balkan countries with regard to drugs and at the same time provides a certain degree of protection against drug trafficking along the Balkan route.
West Africa has become a new priority area. At the fifty-first session of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs in Vienna the Slovenian Presidency, following the drafting of a text for the Horizontal Working Group on Drugs, proposed, on behalf of the EU, that a resolution on West Africa be adopted. This resolution will make it possible to reduce the flow of cocaine to the EU via the countries of West Africa.
The European Union and the Member States are the largest donors in the world. In their relations with the producer countries they are continuing in particular to focus on alternative development, to exchange intelligence and to strengthen institutions.
As regards prevention and treatment, the strategy for the period 2005–2012 provided for a demand reduction approach based on:
– preventing people from starting to use drugs,
– preventing experimental use becoming regular use,
– early intervention for risky consumption patterns, and
– providing treatment programmes and rehabilitation and social integration programmes.
The EU Action Plan for 2005–2008 lays down 20 action points. The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction in Lisbon is of key importance in this respect.
As part of the action plan, in 2007 the Council discussed the production and cross-border trafficking of heroin, cocaine and cannabis and the exchange of information on drugs, drugs in prisons and drugs on the street. An integrated, evidence-based approach was proposed for all the above.
The Commission departments are currently assessing implementation of the 2005–2008 action plan which will form the basis for drawing up the action plan for the period 2008–2012.
Question no 11 by Mairead McGuinness (H-0171/08)
Subject: New position of President of the European Council
Can the Council make a statement on the new position of President of the European Council as envisaged in the Reform Treaty? What role will the President have? How will the person be selected if and when the Reform Treaty is ratified by all 27 Member States? What powers will the President have?
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 April part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
As regards the questions posed by Mrs McGuinness, the Council can make no comment other than to refer to the relevant provisions of the Lisbon Treaty. For example, Article 15 of the Treaty on European Union (consolidated version of the founding treaties), as amended by the Lisbon Treaty, states, inter alia, as follows. The President of the European Council is to chair it and drive forward its work and to ensure the preparation and continuity of the work of the European Council in cooperation with the President of the Commission, and on the basis of the work of the General Affairs Council. The President of the European Council is to endeavour to facilitate cohesion and consensus within the European Council and present a report to the European Parliament after each of the meetings of the European Council. The President of the European Council is, at his level and in that capacity, to ensure the external representation of the Union on issues concerning its common foreign and security policy, without prejudice to the powers of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.
Question no 12 by Gay Mitchell (H-0173/08)
Subject: Development policy in EU external action
The Lisbon Treaty stipulates that the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy ‘shall ensure the consistency of the Union's external action’. The Treaty explicitly mentions, among the objectives of the Union's external actions, ‘the sustainable economic, social and environmental development of developing countries, with the primary aim of eradicating poverty’. Can the Council state how the importance of development policy as a key objective of EU external action is to be assured?
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 April part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
No decisions have yet been taken on implementation of the Lisbon Treaty, which is not yet in force. Consequently, the Council has not yet adopted a view on this matter.
Question no 13 by Brian Crowley (H-0176/08)
Subject: Energy security
Can the Council make a comprehensive statement outlining what initiatives it is pursuing this year to protect the security of energy supplies into the territories of the European 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 April part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
The Council agrees with the European Parliament that the reliability of energy supplies for Europe is of major importance. The European Council clearly confirmed this fact in its decisions in 2006 and 2007. Thus, it is also one of the Community’s principal internal and external policy objectives to safeguard and strengthen security of energy supplies, together with competition and sustainable development, as was reaffirmed in the European Council decisions of March 2007. Furthermore, the importance of increasing the energy security of the EU and its Member States was also set out by the European Council of March this year. It is important to stress that action on climate change and energy, further liberalisation of the internal energy market and new energy technologies are making an important contribution to this objective.
However, we must continue resolutely to develop the external dimension to energy policy for Europe for the period 2007-2009. The March European Council therefore welcomed the progress made in this field. Progress on implementation and the need for further action on the external dimension to energy policy will be assessed more fully on the basis of the strategic review of energy policy which will be presented by the European Commission in November 2008. This strategic review will be given over in particular to reliability of supplies (including in connection with interconnectors) and external energy policy. The strategic review, which the European Council will confirm in spring 2009, will form the basis for a new energy action plan post-2010.
The main elements of the Community’s internal and external energy policy, which will contribute directly and indirectly to greater reliability of supplies, are:
– Internally:
More legislative instruments, such as the directives on oil stocks, security of gas supplies and security of electricity supplies.
Strengthening the Community’s energy network: the objective of Community energy policy is to create a stronger and better connected energy network and better network management and infrastructure planning and to speed up the incorporation of new power stations into the electricity network; all this helps to increase the network’s ability to deal with shocks, such as interruptions to supplies, accidents and variable flows from renewable resources.
Greater use of renewable resources (binding target of 20% of EU energy use by 2020 and 10% of biofuels in fuel for transport by 2020).
Greater energy efficiency. Reduced energy use will decrease dependence on third countries as regards energy supplies; therefore the Community’s objective is to increase energy efficiency by means of the instruments at its disposal (legislation, research and development, and a promotional campaign).
In connection with the Trans-Europe Energy Network (TEN), the Council would like to draw the Member’s attention to the last year’s appointment of coordinators for four priority projects of European interest – including the Nabucco gas pipeline through which gas from central Europe is supplied from the Caspian region – to promote the implementation of these projects, which are very important for reliable supplies of energy and the operation of the internal energy market.
– Externally:
The European Union is actively seeking greater security of energy supplies through diversity of energy resources, suppliers and supply routes; in addition to the abovementioned TEN projects of European interest this is also done by means of:
regular dialogue on energy and cooperation with major producer countries and organisations, such as Russia, Azerbaijan, Norway and OPEC, and also with major consumer and transit countries such as the USA, Brazil, China, India and Ukraine;
energy partnerships, for example with Africa, established in December 2007, and with Egypt;
close cooperation with the countries of Central Asia, the Caspian region and the Black Sea as part of Euro-Mediterranean cooperation on energy (the Fifth Ministerial Conference was held on 17 December 2007 in Cyprus) etc., and active participation in structures such as the Energy Community and the Energy Charter.
Question no 15 by Seán Ó Neachtain (H-0182/08)
Subject: Millennium Development Goals
Can the Council make a comprehensive statement outlining what initiatives it is pursuing to help combat HIV/Aids in Africa this year?
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 April part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
In 2008 there is an urgent need to speed up progress on meeting the Millennium Development Goals, and in that respect the fight against HIV/AIDS remains a Council priority. The Commission and the Member States are fully committed to implementing the ‘European Programme for Action to Confront HIV/AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis through external action’, which the Council and the Member States adopted in May 2005.
In its conclusions on ‘Recently emerging issues regarding HIV/AIDS’ of 23 April 2007(1) the Council encouraged the Commission and Member States to ensure fulfilment of existing commitments within the ‘EU Programme for Action on HIV/AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis through external action’ and called on the Commission and Member States to report on progress, including on these emerging issues regarding HIV/AIDS, in the context of the joint monitoring and reporting on the European Programme for Action in 2008 and 2010.
In that connection the Council will assess the present state of implementation of the 2005 programme for action(2) and any measures adopted in this field by the Commission and the Member States.
In its ‘Annual Report on the European Community’s Development Policy and the Implementation of External Assistance’ to the European Parliament and the Council the Commission reports each year in particular on the availability of EC funds for implementing the programme for action. The 2007 Annual Report on EC external assistance in 2006(3) contains information which shows that in connection with poverty reduction the European Union is increasingly involved in the fight against diseases linked to poverty, in particular through implementation of the European programme for action. A vast array of instruments and channels of financing are being developed, primarily through bilateral programmes financed by the EC budget and through the European Development Fund, and amount to approximately EUR 245 million a year excluding general budget support .(4)
The Commission and the Member States have been active donors to the ‘Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM)’ since it was established in 2001–2002. The EU is also playing a crucial and visible role in the development of a new and innovative method of international funding, which emphasises its firm commitment to fighting these three diseases. The EU and the Member States together have become the biggest donors to the GFATM since they provided 53% of the cash contributions in 2003–2006. The EU is an extremely important development partner and therefore its political support is of crucial importance to the successful development and operation of the GFATM, for example in the efforts to provide predictable financial flows in connection with the replenishment process.
The EU is at present implementing a European Programme for Action to tackle the critical shortage of health workers in developing countries (2007–2013), in which Africa is a priority geographic goal. A Commission progress report is expected soon.
HIV/AIDS has in fact hit Africa hard. The Cotonou Partnership Agreement between the ACP countries and the EC applies to the majority of African countries. Promoting the fight against HIV/AIDS, protection of sexual and reproductive health, and the rights of women in accordance with the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) are among the areas of support in connection with the cooperation strategy(5) under the Cotonou Partnership Agreement and activities in this field are normally funded by the EDF.
The Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI)(6), which the European Parliament and Council adopted on 18 December 2006, includes addressing poverty diseases, in particular HIV/AIDS, though geographic programmes. The Development Cooperation Instrument’s programme ‘Investing in People’ includes, in the section ‘Good health for all’, the fight against poverty diseases, targeted at the main communicable diseases, HIV/AIDS among them. A financial reference amount of EUR 1 060 million has been earmarked for the period 2007–2013. Dealing with the HIV/AIDS pandemic and its effects on Southern African society is one of the objectives of EU aid for Southern Africa in connection with the Development Cooperation Instrument; a financial reference amount of EUR 980 million is earmarked for that geographical programme for the period 2007–2013.
The fight against HIV/AIDS with particular emphasis on Africa is and remains the most important priority of the EU, both internally and externally. The Council expressed this clearly in the EU statement ‘Keeping the promise to stop HIV/AIDS’ on World AIDS Day on 1 December 2007, as did the European Council in its conclusions of 21/22 June 2007.(7)
Finally, one of the four principle objectives of the EU-Africa Strategic Partnership,(8) which was approved at the Lisbon Summit on 9 December 2007, is ‘to ensure that all the Millennium Development Goals are met in all African countries by 2015’ and HIV/AIDS is among the global challenges and issues of common concern which will be tackled together in this long-term strategic partnership. In that respect a broad range of objectives are planned, such as:
improved access to prevention, treatment, care and support services, including for HIV/AIDS,
greater financial and human resources,
improved access to affordable quality medicines and commodities, and
increased capacity of African countries to train and retain qualified health workers.
In conclusion, 2008 will be a year of measures to implement the policies and instruments for the fight against HIV/AIDS and it is hoped that the positive trend in terms of efforts and success that we noted in 2006 and that was reportedly also seen in 2007 will continue in 2008.
Principles for an EU contribution to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria with a view to the 2006/2007 Replenishment Process; Commission Staff Working Document, SEC(2005) 374, p. 6
Subject: Member State governments and the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty
Were Member State governments involved in any political agreement to avoid a referendum in as many countries as possible?
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 April part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
The Member States ratify international agreements in accordance with their constitutional requirements.
Question no 17 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (H-0187/08)
Subject: Sport in the Lisbon Treaty
Will the addition of the word ‘sport’ in Article 165 of the Treaty give the European Union a legal competence in sport, and what was the motivation behind the inclusion of sport in the Treaty?
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 April part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
Article 165 of the consolidated version of the founding treaties, as amended by the Lisbon Treaty, is to be found under Title XII, Education, Vocational Training, Youth and Sport. It is one of the internal policies and actions of the Union. Article 165 states, inter alia, that the Union is to contribute to the promotion of European sporting issues, while taking account of the specific nature of sport, its structures based on voluntary activity and its social and educational function. However, the Member’s question does not fall within the competence of the Council since it did not participate in the intergovernmental conference which drew up the draft Lisbon Treaty. Furthermore, the Lisbon Treaty is not yet in force. When it is, questions regarding interpretation will be resolved by the Court of Justice.
Question no 18 by Sarah Ludford (H-0189/08)
Subject: Prüm Implementing Decision and UK NDNAD database
In contrast with most other Member States, the UK national police and NDNAD databases contain the fingerprints and DNA not only of convicted persons but also of those arrested, even for minor offences, but never charged, as well as those acquitted. The draft 'Prüm' implementing decision (Council doc. 14611/07) does not, however, circumscribe the type and quality of data that will be exchanged with other Member States.
Will the Council assure me that the initiative will be amended to limit the types of data subjects whose data is exchanged and to communicate their different status to other Member States in the context of a comparison or search, as advised by the European Data Protection Supervisor (Council doc. 5056/08)?
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 April part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
The Council considers that one of the fundamental reasons for the success and swift implementation of the data exchange mechanisms laid down in the Prüm Treaty, which will be set out in the Council Decision on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation (see the ‘Prüm’ Decision),(1) and its implementing decision, is the fact that that the decision does not affect national legislation and national structures. Article 2 of this decision clearly stipulates that it is for the Member States to decide on the treatment of data stored on the national database of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). Each Member State also decides which parts of its DNA database it will make available to the other Member States for searching and comparison purposes. This information is published in a manual drawn up and supplemented by the General Secretariat of the Council.
Therefore, it is not for the Council to determine the kind of persons whose data has to be or could be exchanged.
The United Kingdom authorities decide which data will be used and/or made available for searching and comparison purposes under the ‘Prüm’ Decision.
However, it should be noted that the data exchanged under the Prüm Decision is very limited and the information on the types of persons to which the data relate, and their status, may be exchanged only if and when a ‘match’ is established.
Regarding Article 11 of the Treaty of Lisbon on the principle of participatory democracy, does the Council take the view that a million signatures in favour of a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon have any influence whatsoever?
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 April part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
The Lisbon Treaty is not yet in force. In any event, the procedures for ratifying the treaty are laid down in national legislation and therefore fall within the exclusive competence of the Member States. Consequently, the Council is not competent to give an opinion on this matter.
Question no 20 by Jens-Peter Bonde (H-0194/08)
Subject: Treaty of Lisbon
Do the expressions ‘as openly as possible’ and ‘as closely as possible to the citizens’ have any legal effect?
Is the fact that the Intergovernmental Conference concerning the Treaty of Lisbon was held in camera contrary to the relevant provisions of the Treaty of Nice?
Is the political agreement between the Member States not to hold a referendum contrary to the democratic standards set by the Treaty of Nice?
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 April part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
The Member’s question does not fall within the competence of the Council since the Council did not participate in the intergovernmental conference which drew up the draft Lisbon Treaty. Moreover, the Lisbon Treaty is not yet in force. When it does enter into force, any questions regarding the interpretation thereof will be resolved by the European Court of Justice.
Question no 21 by Martin Callanan (H-0196/08)
Subject: Lisbon Treaty, coordinated action in international forums
Are France and the United Kingdom required to comply with EU decisions in connection with negotiations or decision-making in the UN Security Council, at G8 Summits, etc.?
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 April part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
The Member’s question does not fall within the competence of the Council since the Council did not participate in the intergovernmental conference which drew up the Treaty. Moreover, the Lisbon has not (yet) entered into force.
Question no 22 by Nirj Deva (H-0198/08)
Subject: Space policy in the Lisbon Treaty
Could the research and technological developments contained in Article 179 of the Treaty include the military use of space, and could the joint undertakings contained in Article 187 of the Treaty be undertaken in the area of military use of space?
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 April part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
Article 179 of the consolidated version of the founding treaties, as amended by the Lisbon Treaty, comes under the title ‘Research and Technological Development and Space’. It states, inter alia, that the Union is to have the objective of strengthening its scientific and technological bases by achieving a European research area. The question relating to this article posed by the honourable Member does not fall within the competence of the Council since the Lisbon Treaty is not yet in force. When it is, any questions regarding interpretation will be resolved by the Court of Justice.
Article 187 of the consolidated version of the founding treaties, as amended by the Lisbon Treaty, states that the Union may set up joint undertakings or any other structure. These joint undertakings or any other structure enable Union research, technological development and demonstration programmes to be executed more efficiently. However, the question relating to this article posed by the honourable Member does not fall within the competence of the Council since the Lisbon Treaty is not yet in force. When it is, any questions regarding interpretation will be resolved by the Court of Justice.
Question no 23 by Nils Lundgren (H-0200/08)
Subject: Lisbon Treaty
Article 136 of the Lisbon Treaty concerns the coordination and surveillance of the budgetary discipline and economic policy guidelines of the euro countries. Does the Council consider, on the basis of that Article and of the Lisbon Treaty in general, that Sweden is obliged to take part in euro cooperation if and when the country fulfils the relevant provisions? What measures can be taken on behalf of the euro countries which cannot be taken on behalf of the non-euro countries?
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 April part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
The Member’s question does not fall within the competence of the Council since the Council did not participate in the intergovernmental conference which drew up the draft Lisbon Treaty. Furthermore, the Lisbon Treaty is not yet in force. When it does enter into force, any questions regarding the interpretation thereof will be resolved by the European Court of Justice.
Question no 24 by Syed Kamall (H-0203/08)
Subject: International agreements in Lisbon Treaty
Could the Council list the areas in which, if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, the Union would not be able to conclude international agreements?
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 April part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
The question relates to the interpretation of the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community. The Member will certainly be aware that the Lisbon Treaty has been presented to the Member States for ratification.
This issue does not fall within the Presidency’s competence since the Lisbon Treaty is not in force; when it does enter into force, any questions regarding its interpretation will be resolved by the European Court of Justice.
Question no 25 by David Martin (H-0210/08)
Subject: Kosovan independence
What message does the Council believe Kosovo's declaration of independence sends to other separatist movements within the European 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 April part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
On 18 February 2008 the Council adopted the following conclusion: ‘The Council reiterates the EU's adherence to the principles of the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act, inter alia the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity and all UN Security Council resolutions. It underlines its conviction that in view of the conflict of the 1990s and the extended period of international administration under SCR 1244, Kosovo constitutes a sui generis case which does not call into question these principles and resolutions.’
The fact that the case of Kosovo is unique is emphasised by UN Security Council Resolution 1244 which was adopted by the UN Security Council following the humanitarian tragedy during which almost 800 000 of Kosovo’s inhabitants were forced to leave their homes and regional stability was endangered. This resolution introduced interim UN administration in Kosovo and provides for a political process to determine Kosovo’s future status. On the basis of a report by Ambassador Kai Eide, which was presented to the Security Council on 7 October 2005, the UN Secretary-General recommended that a start be made on the process of determining Kosovo’s future status in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1244 and appointed a special envoy to carry out this process. The process is intended to bring about the effective cooperation of the Kosovar Serbs and other nationalities and communities in Kosovo.
Since Kosovo is a unique case, it is not regarded as a precedent for other situations – including situations within the European Union.
Question no 26 by Frank Vanhecke (H-0213/08)
Subject: Religious freedom in Algeria
In Algeria, Christian bishops recently raised with the Ministry for Religious Affairs the increasing number of expulsions and convictions of Christians in Algeria since the adoption of the February 2006 law regulating the status of religious minorities. Various provisions fundamentally violate religious freedom. For instance, anyone engaging in incitement to convert a Muslim to another faith is liable to a five-year term of imprisonment and a fine of about € 10 000.
Do the provisions concerned violate the 'essential element' clause in Article 2 of the Association Agreement of 22 April 2002? Does the Council intend to contact relevant representatives of the Christian minority in Algeria? What steps will the Council take pursuant to Article 104(2) and as part of political dialogue, as provided for by the agreement?
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 April part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
With regard to religious freedom and freedom of conscience, the Council notes with concern that there have been recent cases of discrimination.
The Council regrets that opportunities for members of non-Muslim religions are very limited, and it expressed its concern about this at the meeting of the EU-Algeria Association Council on 10 March. On that occasion the Council called on Algeria to initiate all necessary measures for the avoidance of discrimination and the encouragement of tolerance with regard to culture, the expression of religious and other convictions, minorities and sexual orientation and to honour its international obligations.
Question no 27 by Daniel Dăianu (H-0215/08)
Subject: Tax evasion
Germany, its citizens and honest politicians have plenty of reasons to be incensed by the revelations that top local business people have defrauded state coffers by making use, illegally, of European tax havens. But, arguably, all EU Member States are faced with this misconduct to a greater or lesser extent. One way to look at this problem is to try to close all loopholes, which would involve the status of current tax havens. But there is a broader aspect at stake here, which is the social responsibility of people at the apex of economic, and sometimes political, power; when they misbehave so blatantly they not only bring their reputation down, but they also deal severe blows to the functioning of our institutions.
How does the Council intend to broaden the scope of the fight against tax evasion to the area of moral accountability and the need to prevent the erosion of our citizens' confidence in democratic institutions? Can we ask citizens at large to undergo painful reforms, were they needed, while some of those much better off disregard fundamental tenets of decency and civic behaviour?
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 April part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
Competence for taxation lies with the Member States. In the absence of harmonisation in this domain, the latter can take measures and draw up provisions on the basis of national objectives and requirements. They must exercise that power, however, in accordance with Community law.
The honourable Member is no doubt aware that the Council can only take decisions on harmonisation in response to proposals from the Commission. There is no current proposal for the kind of measure indicated by the honourable Member.
The decision as to whether measures are to be taken to achieve the objectives to which the honourable Member refers is a matter for the Member States.
Question no 28 by Dimitrios Papadimoulis (H-0220/08)
Subject: European perspective of Serbia
In its recent communication on the European perspective of the Western Balkans (COM(2008)0127), the Commission states that the European Union is committed to signing the Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) with Serbia as soon as the necessary steps have been finalised.
Will the Council say what those steps are and what the timetable for signing the agreement is?
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 April part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
At the start of the negotiations on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) in October 2005, the Council and the Commission decided that they would sign the SAA once progress in the following three areas had been jointly assessed:
development of a legislative framework and establishment of administrative capacities for the proper implementation of any SAA,
efficient implementation of the Constitutional Charter of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, and
full cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.
The Commission was to report to the Council on the outcome of the assessment.
The first point does not present any particular difficulties. In the latest progress report, dated November 2007, the Commission emphasised the progress that had been made in reforming the public administration and found these reforms to be in line with European standards on the whole. In the context of negotiations on the SAA, Serbia has shown that it possesses good administrative capabilities. In view of Serbia’s institutional capacity, the General Affairs and External Relations Council, in the conclusions of its December meeting, expressed confidence that the country would be capable of accelerating its preparations on the road towards the European Union.
The second point is no longer applicable, because the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro no longer exists. As regards the third point, the Council has stressed the importance of full Serbian cooperation with the ICTY several times in the conclusions adopted at its meetings. A satisfactory resolution of these issues is also one of the conditions for the signing of the SAA. An important indicator of fulfilment will be the content of the next report from Serge Brammertz, Prosecutor of the ICTY.
Question no 29 by Bill Newton Dunn (H-0222/08)
Subject: Study requested by the Council and Parliament, but refused by the Commission
In the 2008 budget, Council and Parliament jointly asked the Commission for ‘a study on the feasibility of and obstacles to the creation of a federal police force for the European Union’, entered under Item XX 01 02 11 04, and the two institutions voted money for the study to be carried out.
What is the Council's opinion about the unelected Commission defying the will of the elected governments and of the elected MEPs by refusing to carry out the study?
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 April part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
The study referred to by Mr Newton Dunn was not discussed by the Council.
Question no 30 by Armando França (H-0224/08)
Subject: e-Justice
At the meeting of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers on 1 and 2 October 2007, the Member States agreed that 'justice has to be modernised through existing electronic tools so as to quickly, efficiently, closely and inexpensively satisfy the needs of citizens and companies'. e-Justice has been included in the programmes of the German, Portuguese and Slovenian Presidencies, and was one of the priorities of the Portuguese Presidency, which developed the prototype e-Justice portal.
Given the importance of e-Justice to justice in general and to cooperation in this area of the EU's activities, what stage has been reached with developing the European e-Justice prototype portal, what services is it going to provide, and when will it be finished?
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 April part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
The Council wishes to assure the honourable Member that e-justice is a major priority task, the purpose of which is to create a European technical platform in the realm of the administration of justice which serves to provide access to all present and future national, Community and possibly even international electronic systems.
The Council is examining the scope of the e-justice system and the precise content of the gateway. Regardless of the result of this examination, the future e-justice gateway is intended to give the general public and lawyers uniform access to legal information, judicial authorities, registers, databases and other available services, thereby facilitating their daily work in so far as it relates to European judicial matters.
The Council has already discussed the timetable for opening the gateway the public. The Commission has announced a communication, which the Council will take into consideration in its subsequent debates. It must be emphasised that the Member States will have to check and test the gateway for any technical or organisational problems and ensure that it will operate efficiently before making it publicly accessible. They must also verify that the content of the gateway will actually benefit people in their daily lives.
Question no 31 by Zdzisław Kazimierz Chmielewski (H-0236/08)
Subject: Hydrogen and fuel cells
During the course of my cooperation with experts on the Council regulation setting up the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking, I came across an opinion which I found so surprising that I thought I should bring it to the Council's attention. The author is a well-known authority on atomic physics. In the opinion, hydrogen and fuel cells were presented in such an enthusiastic manner as to appear almost a panacea for all energy and environmental problems. It must be remembered, however, that hydrogen is merely an energy carrier. In order to produce it, other energy sources need to be used, with, depending on the technology employed, varying degrees of efficiency, ranging from a few percent (normal electrolysis at room temperature) to 80% (high-temperature decomposition of water). If methane or natural gas were to be used, it would be necessary either to produce them or to purchase them from somewhere.
What is more, storage and transport are another difficult problem that needs to be addressed in order to make use of this energy carrier.
What are the Council's experts' views on the matter?
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 April part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
The honourable Member may rest assured that the Council is well aware of the complexity of the technical challenges that need to be addressed in connection with the widespread use of hydrogen and fuel cells in the European transport system. This is reflected in the general introduction to the draft Council Regulation setting up the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking, in which the Council states that the challenge posed by fuel cells and hydrogen is of great complexity and scale and that technical skills in these fields are very widely dispersed (document 6935/08, recital 9 on page 4). The task of experts in the field of research and development is therefore to assess the technological and economic potential of fuel cells and hydrogen, identify theoretically promising technological developments and examine the associated technological and economic challenges before a decision is taken on their use on the basis of well-founded and compelling scientific evidence. Scientific documents sometimes tend to present the potential applications of new technology as panaceas. In some cases, such documents merely list all the potential uses of the technology in question which require further study. The findings of a comprehensive study may reveal that few or none of the potentially highly promising applications are likely to prove successful in practice. That, however, is the way in which scientific progress is normally achieved.
Question no 32 by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (H-0238/08)
Subject: The future of the European agencies within the institutional structure of the EU
Following the publication of the Commission's recent communication on the future of the European agencies(1), what, in the Council's view, is the significance of the decentralised agencies in terms of the institutional presence of the European Union on the territory of the Member States? What criteria does the Council use to assess whether they fulfil their tasks and specific objectives, as laid down in the acts establishing the agencies? What view does the Council take of the Commission's proposal to set up a European Electronic Communications Market Authority, a proposal which is still valid according to the above communication? Does the Council consider that the legal basis for setting up the Authority is adequate?
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 April part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
The Council has not yet adopted a position on the Commission communication to which the honourable Member refers on the future of the European agencies.
Some of the legal instruments establishing European agencies stipulate that the progress and working methods of the agency in question are to be assessed, or else they contain a review clause. Under Regulation (EC) No 881/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 establishing a European Railway Agency, for instance, the Agency’s working methods and the results of its activities are subject to evaluation by the Commission, which may present a proposal for changes to the provisions of the Regulation. The Regulation establishing a European Food Safety Authority provides for an independent internal review, to be commissioned at six-yearly intervals by the Authority in cooperation with the Commission. The Council is not involved in that revision unless it is followed by a legislative proposal for the revision of the instrument establishing the Authority.
Nevertheless, the European Parliament and the Council, as the two arms of the budgetary authority, adopted a joint statement on Community agencies on 18 April 2007, in which they invited the Commission:
to provide annually a budgetary overview covering all existing and future Community agencies, including budgetary information regarding their founding instruments, key budgetary indicators and staff numbers and the ratio between operational and administrative expenditure;
to carry out a thorough cost-benefit analysis and systematically apply and promote the procedure envisaged in paragraph 47 of the Interinstitutional Agreement before establishing any new agency,
to assess the Community agencies on a regular basis, focusing particularly on cost-benefit ratios, and
to implement the review clauses contained in the regulations establishing the respective agencies.
The Council is currently examining the Commission’s proposals on electronic communication and the framework for electronic communication and has not yet adopted a position on the Commission’s proposal for the establishment of a European Electronic Communications Markets Authority.
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council 'European Agencies - The way forward', 11.3.2008, COM(2008)0135.
Question no 33 by Johan Van Hecke (H-0242/08)
Subject: Lack of concern for Somalia
Somalia is suffering under violence, rising inflation and continuing drought. Food aid is scarce for the refugees, whose numbers have already reached hundreds of thousands. In 2007 alone, 700 000 residents of the capital, Mogadishu, sought refuge from the violent clashes between Islamic militias and government troops backed by Ethiopia. Somalia is considered the most difficult place in the world for humanitarian organisations to operate. According to some UN officials, the situation in Somalia is possibly worse than in Darfur.
The Council has already stated that it has not discussed the abduction of the Médecins sans Forntières workers at the beginning of 2008 in Somalia. At the beginning of April, two UN workers were abducted. How many aid workers will have to disappear before the Council is convinced of the need to place Somalia on the agenda? The international community must not be allowed to turn a blind eye to the tragic situation in Somalia.
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 April part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
The Council shares the view that the international community must not close its eyes to conditions in Somalia. The Somalian question therefore remains high on the Council agenda.
The High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javier Solana, held a meeting in February 2008 with Nur Hassan Hussein, the new Prime Minister of the Transitional Federal Government (TFG).
The EU Troika visited Mogadishu on 25 March 2008, holding talks with the President and the Prime Minister, with the chiefs of the the Hawiye clan, with representatives of civil society and with the Commander-in-Chief of the African Union Mission to Somalia (AMISOM). The objectives of the Troika visit were:
to signal the support of the EU for the new Government and its planned programme of priority measures,
to proclaim the full support of the EU for the effective strategy of conciliation between the TFG and the Opposition at all levels with a view to ensuring that the transitional period is brought to a successful conclusion,
to express the desire of the EU for better coordination within the leadership structures in the institutions of the Transitional Federal Government, and
to maintain the role of the EU as a player acting in support of a lasting political solution for Somalia and coordinating its activities with those of the international community under the aegis of the UN.
On several occasions the Council has stressed the importance of the leading role of the UN in the provision of international support for the political process in Somalia and of the need to avoid initiatives working at cross-purposes. It has also expressed its support for AMISOM, the African Union Mission to Somalia.
In addition, the Council has stated that the EU must actively support measures designed to promote respect for human rights, to foster a sense of responsibility and to eradicate the culture of lawlessness in Somalia.
Question no 34 by Bernd Posselt (H-0245/08)
Subject: Spielfeld-Maribor-Zagreb motorway
Does the Council know the timetable for the completion of the motorway connection between Styria (Spielfeld-Straß) via Slovenia (Maribor) to Croatia? What is the Council’s assessment of the progress of these works, which are important not only for Bavaria, Austria, Slovenia and Croatia but for the whole of Europe?
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 April part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
The Council wishes to inform the honourable Member that this matter is a national responsibility, and so it has not been discussed by the Council. Since the discussion of this matter does not fall within its competence, the Council cannot express an opinion on it.
Question no 35 by Richard Howitt (H-0248/08)
Subject: Renewal of the regulation on GSP+ status for beneficiary countries
When does the Council expect to take the decision on the renewal of Regulation (EC) No 980/2005(1) on GSP+ trade concessions, and which timetable and mechanisms will the Council use in assessing whether beneficiary countries actually ratify and implement the human and labour rights conventions necessary in order to receive the trade preferences?
What consultation has been or will be undertaken with the European Commission and the European Parliament on this question, and when? What evidence will the Council use in evaluating the impact of the trade preference on trade when considering its decision, and will the Council request further research on the issue in the interim period?
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 April part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
The generalised scheme of preferences (GSP) and the special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance (GSP+) were adopted in the form of multiannual implementing regulations. The first of these, Council Regulation (EC) No 980/2005 of 27 June 2005 on a scheme of generalised tariff preferences, is due to expire on 31 December 2008.
At the request of the Commission, the Council is currently examining the draft of a regulation covering the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2011. The proposal has also been presented to the European Parliament, which has stated its position.
As it does with every legislative proposal, the Council will follow the procedures laid down in the Treaties in the adoption process for the proposed regulation. In so doing, it will respect the institutional balance deriving from these Treaties.
A few days ago, the authorities in Croatia - an applicant for membership of the EU - took measures to intimidate Vinco Draca (house search and interrogation), a member of the 'S.O.S. Youth Union of Croatia' on the grounds that he had in his possession a number of posters for the International Caravan of Solidarity organised by the World Federation of Democratic Youth on 3-6 April 2008 in Balkan capitals, with the participation of numerous communist and anti-imperialist youth organisations. The reason given by the Croatian authorities for this brutal violation of fundamental democratic rights was the visit of US President Bush to Croatia.
Does the Council condemn such acts, which seek to terrorise and obstruct the political activity of progressive youth and which flagrantly violate the fundamental democratic rights of young people?
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 April part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
The Council is not familiar with the details and circumstances of the case of Vinko Drača, to which the question refers.
It nevertheless wishes to assure the honourable Member that the general position of the EU on adherence to the elementary principles of democracy and human rights and its commitment to these principles are crystal-clear. As a state engaged in negotiations on accession to the EU, Croatia must fulfil the political criteria laid down at the Copenhagen meeting of the European Council; in other words, it must possess sufficient institutional stability to guarantee democracy, the rule of law, respect for human rights and protection of minorities.
With regard to the requirements laid down in the framework of the accession negotiations, Croatia is also expected to continue its reform process and make further progress in applying the principles of freedom, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law which underpin the European Union.
All of these matters are discussed at the meetings of the Stabilisation and Association Council, the next of which will be held in Luxembourg on 28 April, as well as at the accession negotiations, under the heading of justice and fundamental rights. In addition, the competent Council bodies will continue to pursue these matters and monitor the implementation of the revised Accession Partnership.
The Council can therefore assure the honourable Member that it will continue to keep a close eye on the issue of fundamental rights and will ensure that it is addressed at the appropriate levels.
Question no 37 by Jean Lambert (H-0252/08)
Subject: Comfort women: wartime sexual enslavement before and during World War II by the Japanese Imperial Army
On 13 December 2007 the European Parliament passed a resolution P6_TA(2007)0632 which, amongst other things, called upon the Japanese Government formally to accept historical and legal responsibility for the subjugation and enslavement of ‘comfort women’, and to refute publicly any claims that these atrocities never occurred. Acknowledging and compensating victims for crimes committed in the past in Japan would send a much needed signal, given that sexual violence against women is still used as a tool of war in conflict-affected areas.
Building on Parliament’s resolution in December and on statements of intent by both the Slovenian and the upcoming French Presidencies to prioritise the rights of women in armed conflicts, what action has the Council taken to follow up on the resolution of the European Parliament? Is the Council planning to use the forthcoming EU-Japan Summit to call for an apology from the Japanese Government and an acknowledgement that what happened to the comfort women constitutes a crime under international law? What further plans does the Council have to take forward this commitment through the use of other relevant upcoming meetings?
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 April part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
The Council has familiarised itself with the resolution adopted by the European Parliament on 13 December 2007 on justice for the ‘comfort women’ (sex slaves in Asia before and during World War II).
The EU attaches particular importance to the rights of women and to the issue of violence against women.
In conformity with international human rights standards and with the ethical and constitutional principles that are common to all Member States of the European Union, the EU calls on non-Community countries time and again to honour the resolutions adopted by the bodies of the United Nations and to begin implementing laws and measures designed to ensure the utmost respect for women’s human rights and fundamental freedoms.
In this context, we point out that the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights in 1993 stated that women’s full and equal enjoyment of human rights was a priority objective of the international community and that governments and the United Nations should intensify their efforts to achieve it.
The EU and Japan regularly discuss human rights issues at the ministerial meetings of the EU Troika and Japan.
The question of the protection of women affected by armed conflicts is also of interest to the Slovenian Presidency.
The EU will continue to devote close attention to this matter.
Question no 38 by Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (H-0253/08)
Subject: State of play - strategic review of energy policy
The March 2008 European Council drew attention to the importance of increasing energy security in the Union, while its March 2007 predecessor declared the Nabucco project to be of European interest in the context of diversifying the Union's energy sources and energy security. Can the Council provide information on the state of play as regards the strategic review of energy policy, whose main themes will be security of energy supply, interconnectivity, and the Union's external policy in the energy field, as announced in March by the European Council?
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 April part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
As the honourable Member says, at its meetings of March 2007 and March 2008 the European Council referred to the importance of energy security in the EU, which is reflected in the European Council Action Plan (2007-2009) – Energy Policy for Europe. In accordance with the conclusions adopted by the European Council in March 2008, the next review of the energy strategy is to take place in November 2008. As the honourable Member is no doubt aware, the Commission is responsible for this review. Detailed information on the current state of play is therefore provided by the Commission.
Question no 39 by Pedro Guerreiro (H-0255/08)
Subject: EU relations with Cuba
Given the sanctions adopted by the EU in 2003 - and so far not applied - and its 1996 common position on Cuba, which sets the objective of promoting political change, in a spirit of open interference in the internal affairs of the sovereign state. What initiatives are being taken by the EU to normalise its relations with Cuba, and, specifically, to remove the obstacles which were, objectively speaking, set up to impede these relations, such as the sanctions and the common position on Cuba?
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 April part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
The measures to which Mr Guerreiro refers were adopted by the Council in 2003. It took this action in response to the prison sentences imposed on 75 members of the peaceful opposition who had been campaigning for freedom of expression. Cuba, for its part, decided to freeze relations with the authorities of those EU Member States whose embassies had invited members of the peaceful opposition to celebratory functions on national holidays. In 2005, the European Union unilaterally revoked the measures enacted in 2003 in an effort to normalise EU-Cuban relations again.
As stated in the European Council conclusions of June 2007, the EU recognises the right of the Cubans to decide on their own future. The Union remains willing to make an active contribution, through development cooperation and in other ways, to the future development of all sections of Cuban society.
The EU will continue to remind the Cuban authorities of their obligation to promote respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of Cuban nationals, not least in view of Cuba’s membership of the UN Human Rights Council.
The Council will further examine the scope for the resumption of a comprehensive and open dialogue with the Cuban authorities, as mooted in the conclusions adopted by the General Affairs and External Relations Council in June 2007, although it is now up to Cuba to accept the offer of political dialogue and the invitation to a meeting in Brussels.
Question no 40 by Laima Liucija Andrikienė (H-0257/08)
Subject: Cancer prevention strategy
Combating cancer is one of the most important priorities of the Presidency-in-Office of the Council. According to experts, the Chernobyl disaster of 26 April 1986 had a significant influence on the spread of oncological illnesses, and the consequences of the disaster are still being felt, not only in Ukraine and Belarus, but also in other countries of the region that are EU Member States: Poland, Latvia and Lithuania. Experts link the increasing number of oncological and cardiovascular illnesses, infertility problems among young families and other issues with the Chernobyl disaster.
What steps is the Council taking to implement its priority of combating cancer? Has an action plan been drawn up to tackle these problems in the European Union? Is there a cancer prevention strategy?
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 April part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
The Council thanks the honourable Member for her interest in this important matter. The fight against cancer is a major priority of the Slovenian Presidency in the realm of public health. Following the recent conference entitled The Burden of Cancer – How Can It Be Reduced?, which was held in Brdo pri Kranju, Slovenia, on 7 and 8 February 2008, the Presidency will present Council conclusions for adoption at the Council meeting of 10 June 2008.
The Presidency will propose that the Council ask the Commission to present an EU action plan for the fight against cancer based on the fundamental principles and strategic objectives set out in the White Paper entitled Together for Health: a Strategic Approach for the EU, 2008-2013;(1) the action plan should cover all aspects of a holistic and interdisciplinary approach to cancer control, including cancer prevention, early detection, diagnosis, treatment, rehabilitation and palliative care.
The European Community and the Member States are making untiring efforts to prevent and control cancer on the basis of the available evidence by means of initiatives and measures designed to promote public health and prevent illness by encouraging healthy lifestyles. These efforts focus on reducing tobacco consumption, promoting healthy diets and physical activity, reducing dangerous and harmful consumption of alcohol, screening for early diagnosis, lessening the impact of physical, chemical and biological carcinogens in the workplace and in the environment and ensuring the safety of food products with a view to minimising the risk of developing cancer.
Prevention remains the most effective long-term strategy for reducing the increasingly heavy burden of cancer. A consistent approach to the promotion of public health and primary prevention with the aid of appropriate measures in various legislative areas and in various fields of activity would help to prevent cancer.
Subject: Repressive action against journalists and the independent media in Belarus
What action can the Council take in response to the repressive measures against journalists and the independent media in Belarus?
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 April part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
The Council followed with grave concern the events of 27 March, when the Belarusian police raided the premises of Radio Racyja, European Radio for Belarus and Belsat TV and arrested and interrogated several independent journalists from the Belapan news agency. On 28 March the Presidency issued a statement on behalf of the European Union in which it expressed deep disappointment at the latest occurrences in Belarus. It also noted that, from 27 March onwards, another alarming series of raids had taken place throughout the country, resulting in the arrest of Belarusian journalists who had contacts with foreign media.
Question no 42 by Hans-Peter Martin (H-0261/08)
Subject: Operating framework for regulatory agencies
In 2005 the Commission submitted a draft Interinstitutional Agreement on the European regulatory agencies. According to a communication of 11 March 2008 from the Commission (COM(2008)0135), this proposal has now been withdrawn. The communication stated that this was partly because negotiations on the draft agreement 'stalled during 2006', as the Council was 'not ready to give attention to the issue' and 'doubts [had been] raised over the use of an inter-institutional agreement as a vehicle'.
What were the Council's reasons for refusing to negotiate on the Interinstitutional Agreement?
What is the Council's view of the Commission communication of 11 March 2008?
In the Council's opinion, what would have to happen in order to arrive at a solution acceptable to all three institutions regarding the operating framework for regulatory agencies before the end of this year?
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 April part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
In 2005 the Council began its examination of the Commission’s draft for an interinstitutional agreement on the operating framework for the European regulatory agencies.(1) The debate was concluded in April 2007. A letter of 22 June 2007 addressed to the President of the European Parliament summarised the outcome of the Council’s debates for the European Parliament.
The letter referred to the Council having agreed that principles such as good governance, better lawmaking, responsibility, transparency, professionalism and evaluation of the agencies on the basis of cost-benefit analyses and impact assessments were to be taken into account when regulatory agencies were established. Nevertheless, there was insufficient support within the Council for the adoption of a legally binding instrument or interinstitutional agreement establishing a general regulatory framework for regulatory agencies.
In the same letter, the Council also expressed its willingness to examine, together with Parliament and the Commission, problems relating to the establishment and operation of regulatory agencies. This is intended not only as a case-by-case examination on the appropriate legal basis but is also to take place on the basis of other existing legal instruments, such as those governing budgetary procedure, and in accordance with Council decisions.
Regarding the honourable Member’s second question, the Council will examine in good time the Commission communication of 11 March 2008 entitled European Agencies – the way forward.(2)
Subject: US 'anti-missile shield' on Polish and Czech territory
The recent NATO Summit held on 4 April 2008 decided to deploy the US anti-missile defence system on the territory of Poland and the Czech Republic and to extend participation to other Member States of the EU. This rash course of action by the USA and NATO launches a new arms race, exacerbates imperialist rivalries and confrontations in the region and is fraught with risks and unforeseen consequences for the peoples of Europe as a whole.
These aggressive plans have met with mass opposition from the Polish and Czech people and resolute condemnation by the European anti-imperialist peace movement.
Does the Council condemn the decision by NATO and the USA to implement this extremely perilous plan despite the opposition and demonstrations of the Polish, Czech and European peoples as a whole?
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 April part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
The debate on the anti-missile shield has so far been conducted at three levels, namely (1) in bilateral talks between the United States and the governments of the countries concerned (the Czech Republic and Poland), (2) in bilateral talks between the United States and Russia, and (3) in debates within the NATO framework, including those that have taken place in the NATO-Russia Council. NATO remains the foundation of its members’ collective defence, and for this reason it has been the main forum for debate on the United States’ plans for an anti-missile shield in Europe.
As far as the European Union is concerned, the matter falls within the competence of the Member States.
Question no 44 by Athanasios Pafilis (H-0265/08)
Subject: Unacceptable ban on the Communist Youth Union of the Czech Republic (KSM)
The decision of the Czech Government in October 2006 to ban the operation of the Communist Youth Union of the Czech Republic (KSM) and the recent confirmation of that decision by the judicial authorities of the country are a flagrant violation of the fundamental rights of freedom of expression and the dissemination of ideas, as well as the freedom to form political organisations. The argument on which this ban is based is unacceptable and dangerous, namely that the Czech KSM is 'in favour of the socialisation of the means of production', which shows that this unacceptable decision forms part of the more general anti-communist campaign unfolding in the EU, which aims to persecute and criminalise communist ideology and anti-imperialist activity.
Does the Council condemn political persecution, the prohibition and criminalisation of the political activity of the Czech KSM, which is taking place at a time of intense popular opposition to the deployment of a US anti-missile system in Europe?
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 April part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
The question from Mr Athanasios Pafilis relates to a matter that falls within the competence of the Member State to which he refers. The Council cannot adopt a position on this matter.
QUESTIONS TO THE COMMISSION
Question no 51 by Sarah Ludford (H-0190/08)
Subject: Employment equality
What view has the Commission reached on whether the UK Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations have correctly implemented Directive 2000/78/EC(1), including as regards the exemptions for religious bodies, the adequacy of protection for heterosexual people who claim discrimination based on ‘gay behaviour’, and the application of a ‘causality test’ of the relationship between the alleged discrimination and the person's sexual orientation?
The Commission is currently analysing the transposition of Directive 2000/78/EC(2) by the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has transposed this Directive in particular through the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003. While it is still too early to give a definitive assessment of the conformity of those Regulations with Directive 2000/78/EC, the Commission would like to comment on the points raised in the question.
Under Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC, it is possible to justify a difference in treatment if a particular characteristic is a genuine, determining occupational requirement. This possibility exists only in relation to the nature of the particular occupational activity concerned.
Under the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003, the Commission notes that an employer can apply a requirement relating to sexual orientation in respect of employment for an organised religion if the aim is to comply with the doctrines of the religion or, in order to avoid a conflict, with the strongly held religious convictions of a significant number of the religion's followers. The Commission considers that such provisions could be held to be compatible with the Directive, provided that there exists a genuine, determining occupational requirement which fulfils a legitimate objective and which is applied in a proportionate manner.
As regards the protection of heterosexual persons against discrimination, it should be noted that the ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation applies in a similar manner to homosexual and heterosexual persons. A heterosexual person would therefore be protected against potential discrimination in the same way as a homosexual person.
The "causality test" in cases of discrimination is laid down in Article 2 of the Directive, which defines discrimination. Direct discrimination based on sexual orientation occurs where a person is treated less favourably than another person in a comparable situation because of his or her sexual orientation. Indirect discrimination occurs where a neutral rule or practice has a disproportionate impact on persons of a given sexual orientation, unless the objective pursued is legitimate and is applied in a proportionate manner. It should also be noted that Article 10 of the Directive allows the burden of proof to be reversed where the person claiming to be the victim of discrimination can establish a presumption of discrimination: in that case, it is for the respondent to prove that there has been no discrimination.
Subject: Employment, social affairs and equal opportunities
Will the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as interpreted in the Lisbon Treaty, be applicable and binding upon UK law, specifically employment law?
Article 6 of the Treaty on the European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon signed in Lisbon on 13 December 2007, provides that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, as solemnly proclaimed in Strasbourg on 12 December 2007, has the same legal value as the Treaties.
In accordance with Article 51(1) of the Charter, the latter is applicable to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union, and it is applicable to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law.
Protocol No 7 of the EU Treaty, as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon, clarifies the application of the Charter in relation to the laws and administrative action of Poland and of the United Kingdom and its justiciability within these Member States.
It states, in particular, that the Charter does not extend the ability of the EU Court of Justice, or any court or tribunal of Poland or of the United Kingdom, to find that the laws, regulations or administrative provisions, practices or action of these Member States are inconsistent with the fundamental rights, freedoms and principles that it reaffirms. It adds, furthermore, that nothing in Title IV (on solidarity, including a number of fundamental social rights of workers) of the Charter creates justiciable rights applicable to Poland or the United Kingdom except in so far as Poland or the United Kingdom has provided for such rights in its national law.
Question no 53 by Nirj Deva (H-0199/08)
Subject: Employment
What are the legal definitions and legal effects of the terms ‘proper social protection’ and ‘lasting high employment’ contained within the Lisbon Treaty?
The terms 'proper social protection' and 'lasting high employment' relate to objectives to be attained in the context of the current social policy, since they are mentioned in Article 136 of the present EC Treaty. The Treaty of Lisbon has confirmed those objectives, since Article 136 of the EC Treaty has not been amended. In addition, the Commission notes that Article 2 of the EU Treaty has been amended by the Treaty of Lisbon, which replaces 'The Union shall set itself the following objectives: to promote economic and social progress and a high level of employment' with 'the Union … shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on … a highly competitive social economy, aiming at full employment'.
The Commission wishes to inform the honourable Member that the Community institutions have not yet produced a final legal definition of those objectives.
For the achievement of those objectives, amongst others, the Community supports and supplements action by the Member States in a number of areas listed in Article 137 of the EC Treaty, such as social security and social protection, as well as several forms of protection of workers.
Question no 54 by Nils Lundgren (H-0201/08)
Subject: Lisbon Treaty
In the Commission's opinion, do Articles 145-148 mean that the EU institutions can adopt legally binding rules on employment policy? Which aspects of employment policy adopted at national level cannot be affected by EU laws and legal review by the Court of Justice? What are the legal effects of the terms used in Article 151 such as 'harmonisation while the improvement is being maintained', 'proper social protection' and 'lasting high employment'? How does the Commission define the concept of 'lasting high employment'?
Following the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon, Articles 145 to 148, to which the honorable Member refers, will be the articles relating to employment policy, which is to be one of the policies to be developed under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Those articles are, in fact Articles 125 to 128 of the prsent EC Treaty and have not been amended by the Treaty of Lisbon. The European institutions will not therefore be able to adopt binding employment measures as they do at present. Hence European cooperation on employment is derived from the European Employment Strategy, which is based on the open method of coordination, in which the Council and Commission agree on the broad lines and joint objectives and on the possibility of adopting specific recommendations.
The Commission informs the honorable Member that Article 151 of the Treaty of Lisbon reproduces the exact wording of the present Article 136 of the EC Treaty, as well as its objectives. As at present, the achievement of those objectives will entail the Community supporting and supplementing s action by the Member States in a number of areas listed in Article 137 of the EC Treaty, such as social security and social protection, as well as several forms of protection of workers.
The Commission emphasises, however, that neither the Community institutions nor the Court of Justice of the European Communities have produced a legal definition of 'lasting high employment'.
Question no 55 by Bernd Posselt (H-0206/08)
Subject: Child-raising salary and demography
Has the Commission looked, as it promised in its answer to a previous question, at the impact of a child-raising salary on population trends in those countries which have such an allowance (e.g. Norway)?
Has the Commission been in contact with NGOs working in this field?
The Commission notes that demographers tend to be very cautious when it comes to attributing demographic phenomena, such as a change in the number of births, to any specific social policy measure. The relatively high birth rates in Norway are likely to result from a range of different socio-economic and cultural factors. While the Commission has not carried out evaluations of specific measures, it has concluded, on the basis of a wide range of available evidence, that family support which promotes better reconciliation of work, private and family life is most likely to reduce the gap between the desired and the actual number of children people have.
The Norwegian parental benefit scheme promotes reconciliation of work and family life by offering a high level of benefits (80% to 100% of previous earnings up to a limit of around € 50 000 per annum) for a short period of 44 or 54 weeks (the longer period only at the lower rate of 80% of previous earnings). Six weeks of the paid parental leave are reserved for the father and cannot be taken by the mother. Thus the scheme encourages a rapid return to the labour market and, notably by offering a full replacement of lost earnings up to a high ceiling, creates the conditions for fathers with higher earnings than their partners to take parental leave(1).
In order to support Member States wishing to modernise their family policies, and especially to improving the work-life balance, the Commission has taken a series of initiatives with a strong focus on reconciliation and close links with the Lisbon strategy and gender-equality policy, including the following:
In May 2007 the Commission published a Communication "Promoting inter-generational solidarity"(2) which includes an overview of family support policies in the EU and responds to the European Council's call for a European Alliance for Families, a European platform for the exchange of information, good practice and research results in the area of family policies;
The Commission has launched a consultation of the European social partners in accordance with Article 138(3) of the EC Treaty on the subject of reconciliation of private, family and work life, including the possible revision of Directive 96/34/EC(3) on parental leave. The consultation procedure has advanced to the second stage and, depending on the final outcome, the Commission may decide to put forward proposals to supplement existing legislation in the area of reconciliation;
In June 2007, the Commission set up a new government-expert group on demographic issues comprising representatives of all 27 Member States. In 2008, the expert group decided to focus on the evaluation of family policies and policies in the field of active ageing;
Various projects funded under the EU framework research programmes and studies on family-related topics will increase knowledge of demography and family policies. The Commission is also supporting the OECD in order to speed up the development of its new family indicators database;
The Commission will continue the series of biennial demography forums and reports. The next demography forum is scheduled to take place in Brussels on 24 and 25 November 2008 and the second demography report is to be published in time for the forum. Both the forum and the report will give attention to reconciliation policies.
The Commission is in contact with a wide range of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) on family related issues. In particular, meetings and seminars, to which NGO representatives are invited, have been held in connection with the meetings of the government expert group on demographic issues. One of these seminars, which took place in November 2007, focused on child care and a further seminar on family policies is envisaged for June 2008. Furthermore, the web portal of the European Alliance for Families will provide a forum for contacts and exchange of information between relevant organisations.
For further details on this parental leave scheme as well as schemes in other European countries: see MISSOC (comparative tables on social protection) at http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/spsi/missoc_en.htm
Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, OJ L 145, 19.6.1996.
Question no 56 by Glenis Willmott (H-0209/08)
Subject: Third-party violence (from members of the public)
A recent study from the UK's Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (USDAW) on shopworkers' experience of work-related violence and abuse shockingly details the awful abuse, threats, harassment and violence meted out by the very customers they seek to serve(1).
In addition to this, the British Crime Survey has shown that over a 12-month period there were approximately 339 000 threats of violence and 317 000 physical assaults by members of the public on British workers.
As the European Parliament's rapporteur on the recently adopted Health and Safety at Work Strategy (P6_TA(2008)0009), I have raised this issue with numerous groups. I am aware that the European framework agreement on harassment and violence at work, signed on 26 April 2007, refers to violence from third parties such as clients, customers, patients and pupils. However, this issue is not included in its provisions.
Is the Commission actively supporting the conclusion of a multi-sector agreement on this issue and is the Commission prepared to come forward with proposals should such an agreement not be attainable?
Following the consultation initiated by the Commission in 2005 under Article 138 of the EC Treaty, on 26 April 2007 the social partners concluded an independent agreement on harassment and violence at work. The Commission suggests that the honourable Member refer to the answer to written question E-1130/08 by Mr De Rossa, which describes the purpose and content of the agreement.
In particular, the introduction to the agreement recognises all the possible forms of harassment and violence that might occur in the workplace. Violence by 'third parties', such as customers, patients, school pupils, etc., are expressly referred to and covered by the agreement, but are not the subject of specific provisions.
The Commission shares the concerns of the honourable Member as to the need to take all forms of violence into account, including third-party violence. That form of violence often requires a different response that might be outside the scope of the company. At the request of several organisations of social partners in certain sectors affected by problems of third-party violence at work, such as private security, hospitals and commerce, the Commission held a multi-sector seminar on third-party violence in Brussels on 14 March 2008. The social partners in those sectors jointly expressed the intention of considering the possibilities of adding to the interprofessional agreement to make it more specific, sectoral and/or multi-sector. The seminar is the first stage in that process, which might lead to the opening of multi-sector negotiations.
The Commission considers that the independent agreement on harassment and violence at work makes a very positive contribution to the prevention of all forms of violence and harassment at work and that it would be appropriate to await the results from its implementation and any sectoral additions before assessing the need for other Community initiatives in this area.
Crystalline silica is a basic component of soil, sand, granite, and many other minerals. Quartz is the most common form of crystalline silica. It causes silicosis, a slow, progressive, disabling disease. It also causes lung cancer and there is evidence that it causes chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
The WHO already classifies crystalline silica as a class 1 carcinogen to which 3.2 million workers are exposed for over 75% of their working time. In addition to this, 2.7% of deaths from lung/bronchial cancers are due to crystalline silica (source: European Agency for Occupational Safety and Health).
I would like to see crystalline silica included in a revised carcinogens directive and for the SCOEL (Scientific Committee on Occupational Exposure Limits) to set a binding exposure limit as soon as possible.
Does the Commission share my wish? If so, can it set out a timeframe for this to be achieved? If not can it set out how it intends to ensure that the 3.2 million workers referred to above can be adequately protected?
The main effect in humans of inhaling silica dust is silicosis. Epidemiological studies reveal, in addition, an association between exposure to crystalline silica dust and an increased probability of developing lung cancer. As a result, crystalline silica has been classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is part of the World Health Organisation, as a group 1 carcinogen to humans. The EU has not yet classified crystalline silica as a carcinogenic substance.
There is sufficient scientific information to conclude that the relative lung cancer risk is increased in persons with silicosis, but not, apparently, in employees exposed to silica dust in quarries or in the ceramic industry but without silicosis. The first step to reducing the cancer risks is therefore to prevent silicosis. The full implementation and enforcement of the prevention strategy laid down in Directive 98/24/EC(1) will be effective in preventing the onset of silicosis, it will also reduce the cancer risk, and it will ensure that the 3.2 million workers exposed to crystalline silica are protected.
The Scientific Committee on Occupational Exposure Limits has discussed respirable crystalline silica extensively and has issued a Recommendation to the Commission(2). It concludes that, although a clear threshold for silicosis development cannot be identified, the occupational exposure limit should lie below 0.05 mg/m3 of respirable silica dust.
The Commission agrees that workers exposed to respirable crystalline silica should be adequately protected. It will evaluate the effects of the practical implementation of Directive 98/24/EC in terms of reducing exposure levels to crystalline silica dust and, in particular, the results achieved as a result of the implementation of the multi-sectorial social dialogue agreement on "Workers health protection through good handling and use of crystalline silica and products containing it"(3). If this proves necessary, the Commission will not hesitate to present further initiatives, including for setting a binding exposure limit, to strengthen the protection of workers from the risks of exposure to respirable crystalline silica.
Council Directive 98/24/EC of 7 April 1998 on the protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks related to chemical agents at work (fourteenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ L 131, 5.5.1998, p. 11).
Subject: Effective measures to combat poverty among workers in Europe
According to the Council's 'Joint report on social protection and social inclusion 2008' (7274/08 SOC 151), 8% of citizens of the EU are threatened by poverty despite the fact that they work. This fact shows that employment is not always a guarantee of avoiding poverty or social exclusion. Given that our current efforts under the Lisbon Strategy are focused on growth and employment, what measures will the Commission take effectively to combat 'work poverty', which affects a significant percentage of workers? What is the percentage of the working poor in each Member State?
Efforts at EU level to combat poverty and social exclusion mainly take place under the Open Method of Coordination. Each year the Joint Report on social protection and social inclusion informs the Spring European Council of developments in the fight against poverty and exclusion(1). The Council has just adopted the 2008 Joint Report.
The analysis in that Joint Report shows that there are worrying indications of persistent joblessness in households in the EU: approximately 10% of children and the same percentage of adults aged 18-59 (excluding students) live in households where no one works. This rate has not improved over the last six years. Another significant factor is "in-work poverty": 8% of the working-age population fall into this category, and one poor person in four is in employment (Eurostat data, 2005 income year).
Improving the situation of people on the margins of the labour market, including the working poor, by addressing their specific needs is therefore a key challenge for Europe. Periods of economic growth that stimulate job creation provide in principle an opportunity for many people on the outer edges of the labour market to find a (better) job. But the right conditions have to be in place to ensure they can actually make use of those opportunities.
The Lisbon Strategy, underpinned by the Integrated Guidelines for Growth and Jobs (and in particular Guideline 19), provides a framework for the Member States to develop employment policies specifically addressing the needs of people on the fringes of the labour market. In 2006 the Commission conducted a public consultation on the scope for European action on active inclusion and minimum income. The concept of active inclusion is based on three policy pillars: a link to the labour market through job opportunities or vocational training; income support at a level that is sufficient to live in dignity; and better access to basic services.
On the basis of an analysis of replies to the consultation(2), the Commission decided to launch the second-stage consultation in which it announced its intention of issuing a recommendation on common principles for implementing the active inclusion approach.
The in-work poverty rate ranges from 3% to 14% across the EU. It is:
- 3% in the Czech Republic;
- 4% in Finland and Belgium;
- 5% in Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Slovenia and Malta;
The objectives of the Open Method of Coordination, the national reports and the Joint Reports to date are available at: http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/social_inclusion
Question no 59 by Justas Vincas Paleckis (H-0228/08)
Subject: EU 'health tourism'
In 2006, the European Union examined the issue of what is popularly known as EU ‘health tourism’. It was discussed how to ensure that an EU citizen not receiving treatment in his or her own country would be able to do so in another EU country. It was proposed that the cost of treatment in such a case would be covered by funds from the health care sector of the Member State of which the patient was a citizen. Regrettably, in December 2007, publication of the EU’s ‘health tourism’ plan was postponed indefinitely.
What steps is the Commission taking to speed up consideration of the EU’s ‘health tourism’ plan and the establishment of a clear procedure for patients undergoing treatment in a foreign country, in the light of the growing numbers of people travelling as a result of the expansion of the Schengen area?
The question raised by the honourable Member relates to cross-border health care. As regards payment for health care in another Member State, under Community law patients can already be reimbursed for treatment in another Member State.
Under Regulation 1408/71 on the coordination of social security systems, the insured person uses his health insurance and treatment is paid for at the rates of the State in which the treatment is provided, with, if necessary, a differential supplement if the reimbursement rate for the treatment is more favourable in his own Member State than in the Member State where he receives the treatment. The nationality of the person is immaterial. That system covers the treatment required during a stay, using the European sickness insurance card, and non-urgent treatment for which the competent authorities have authorised the patient to seek treatment in another Member State. The Court has clarified the conditions in which such authorisation cannot be refused. The rules are explained on the Commission website in all the official languages.
The European Court of Justice has ruled that, by application of the principles of free movement to health services, patients may be reimbursed for health care received in another Member State. In the case of non-hospital treatment, patients may obtain a refund without prior authorisation. In such cases, reimbursement is based on the charges of the State to whose health care scheme the patient belongs. For hospital treatment, the Court has agreed that Member States may continue to require prior authorisation in the interests of public health, to enable services to be planned nationally. In that instance, the Court stated that any authorisation granted under Regulation 1408/71/EEC for treatment in another Member State would require application of the coordination mechanisms under Regulation 1408/71/EEC.
The rights brought to light by the Court of Justice judgments in the various cases are clear, but patients need to be more aware of them. As confirmed by the public consultation organised by the Commission in 2006, there is a need to clarify the position with the mechanisms guaranteeing rights to reimbursement of health care provided in another Member State, and the efficiency and safety of cross-border health care.
With a view to attaining those objectives, a proposal for a directive on the exercise of rights of patients with regard to cross-border health care will be submitted to the Commission for adoption in June 2008.
Question no 60 by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (H-0239/08)
Subject: Reform of social security systems in Europe
Greece recently adopted a draft law reforming its social security system. Further to this and similar reforms in other Member States, has the Commission collected comparative data and studies on these reforms? What results have these reforms produced to date and what conclusions has the Commission drawn which would be useful for other countries embarking on this process? Does it intend to highlight the best practices that experience of these reforms has already identified? What is its view on the raising of the retirement age for men and women? What is its assessment of the approach and courses of action selected in the recent social security reform in Greece? What additional social policy measures - with particular regard to the reconciliation of family life and work - does the Commission consider necessary if these reforms are to be a success?
The Commission invites the Honourable Member to refer to the answer given to the question H-0160/08 by Ms Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou.
As regards the question of gender differences, the Commission has not received notification of the draft law reforming the Greek social security system and cannot therefore provide any assessment of the retirement ages or of the issue of reconciling work and family life.
However, an infringement procedure against Greece is ongoing, and the matter of the difference in retirement ages for men and women in the public sector was referred to the European Court of Justice by the Commission on 27 June 2007.
As regards the last point in the question, it appears from the Commission's assessment in the annual implementation report that Greece has taken action to promote female employability and reconcile work and family life, including targeted training and counselling actions; nevertheless, the situation for elderly females remains difficult, and indicates a need to refocus attention. Furthermore, employment and unemployment gender gaps remain significant, highlighting the need to keep up efforts.
Question no 61 by Richard Howitt (H-0240/08)
Subject: The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
When does the European Commission expect to publish its proposal on a decision to accede to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities?
What consultation has the European Commission had or will it undertake with disabled people and with the organisations representing disabled people, including the European Disability Forum, prior to publishing its proposal?
Can the European Commission confirm that it will recommend the signing up to, and the ratification of, the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities?
Can the European Commission confirm that it has undertaken a screening exercise, or will do so, in relation to current EU legislation in order to identify where changes are needed in order to comply with the UN Convention and the timescale in which it expects to complete this task?
What arrangements does the Commission anticipate with regard to the monitoring of compliance with the Convention by the European Union itself?
The Commission is currently drafting a proposal for a Council Decision concerning the conclusion, by the European Community, of the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol. The Commission is expected to adopt the proposal in May 2008.
The Commission regularly consults the Member States and the organisations representing disabled people, including the European Disability Forum, through the High-Level Group on Disability. At its last meeting, for instance, replies to an extensive questionnaire on progress in ratification/conclusion and implementation of the UN Convention were dealt with. Such consultations will continue.
On 27 February 2007 the Commission presented a proposal for a Council Decision on the signing, on behalf of the European Community, of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol (COM(2007)77). The Council adopted a Decision dated 20 March 2007 authorising the Community to sign the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and issued a declaration on the Optional Protocol (Annex II to the Decision) to the effect that the Council would reconsider as soon as possible the question of the signing by the European Community of the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Commission considers that the Council is now in a position to take a final decision on how to proceed with the Optional Protocol.
As required by Article 44(1) of the UN Convention and Article 12 of the Optional Protocol, at the time of formal confirmation the European Community has to declare the extent of its competence regarding matters governed by the Convention. The extensive screening Community legislation has been carried out in the meantime.
The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities contains provisions that fall within both the Community sphere of competence and that of the Member States. The Community and the Member States should jointly define the precise mechanisms for monitoring compliance with the Convention in areas of shared competence. The nature of those mechanisms will be set out in the Commission proposal for a Council Decision concerning the conclusion of the Convention.
Question no 69 by Zdzisław Kazimierz Chmielewski (H-0244/08)
Subject: Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing
The efforts currently in progress to devise a rational legislative basis for eliminating (restricting) illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing require the involvement of all parties concerned. The Commission's latest proposal on standardising the penalties for IUU fishing is arousing particular controversy among fishermen.
Would it not be appropriate to consider gearing the system of penalties based to the fishing capacity of the vessel in question, since the income level of the vessel's operator is clearly related to this?
The Commission is convinced that it is necessary to harmonise administrative sanctions in order to effectively fight Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing.
The Proposal aims (i) to strengthen the ability of Member States to ensure that, in a single market, operators do not take advantage of different sanction systems at national level to the detriment of the common policy and (ii) to take provisional action to prevent the continuation of the IUU activity identified.
It is up to each Member State to ensure that Community law is properly enforced and Member States may regulate their own sanctions' system in the manner they consider most appropriate as long as the sanctions have a deterrent effect in accordance with the Proposal.
The IUU proposal will harmonise the levels of administrative sanctions to be applied by Member States in case of a serious infringement by operators carrying out IUU fishing activities.
The Commission believes that levels of sanctions must be harmonised in order to ensure that any economic advantage will be more than offset by the sanctions imposed. Operators will only stop carrying out IUU fishing once the administrative sanctions reach a level that is no longer regarded as part of normal operating costs.
Question no 74 by Colm Burke (H-0168/08)
Subject: Food traceability
Food traceability is a cornerstone of the EU's food safety policy, and consumers in the EU expect clear information.
It has come to my attention that, in my own Member State, there are cases where food products are marketed in a way which gives a misleading impression as to the source of the raw material.
Can the Commission comment on whether it is aware of such concerns, and whether any action can be expected on enhancing food traceability?
Food traceability and food information are distinct instruments with different objectives.
As far as traceability is concerned, it is a risk management tool to be used in order to assist in containing a food safety problem, by allowing the control authorities to trace back a food that has been deemed unsafe in the food chain. Food information intended for consumers is designed so as to enable the purchaser to make an informed choice and not to be misled as regard the characteristics of the food.
Therefore, where the origin, provenance or source of a food is indicated on its label, it is not in the context of traceability. The EU labelling legislation states that such information is mandatory only in cases where its omission could mislead the purchaser.
The recently adopted Commission proposal for a Regulation on food information to consumers lays down specific conditions to be fulfilled where such information is provided, in order to ensure that consumers cannot be misled. This proposal is currently being examined by the Parliament and Council.
Question no 75 by Mairead McGuinness (H-0172/08)
Subject: EU food production standards
The EU prides itself on the value it places on food safety issues and on offering consumers a fully-traceable EU food production regime.
However, while this system prevails within the EU, there is a serious problem with the standards under which imported food products are produced – an issue which came to light in relation to the importation of Brazilian beef.
In addition, many of the practices that are to be prohibited in the EU, among them producing eggs from caged production systems by 2012, will continue to be permitted by the non-EU countries from which we import.
Can the Commission comment on this important issue and how it intends to address the inconsistency in policy and standards?
On the question of banning caged egg production systems, what action is the Commission planning to prevent the relocation of the intensive egg sector in the EU to outside its borders after 2012? In this likely scenario, caged production banned in the EU will move outside the EU, and we will in turn be importing large volumes of egg products (dried egg) for the food processing industry, which come from caged egg production systems, without consumers being any the wiser.
As regards animal welfare and trade issues, there are no binding multilateral agreements in force directly addressing this issue and animal welfare is in particular not explicitly addressed in the Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary agreement under the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
This is a major cause for concern for the Commission. As a consequence, the Commission developed in 2002 a specific strategy to address the competitiveness implications for EU producers resulting from animal welfare systems for caged birds. Several initiatives to promote animal welfare as a competitive advantage, as stated in the Action Plan for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2006-2010, have already been undertaken.
Bilateral agreements with Chile and Canada already include a chapter on animal welfare. Furthermore, a co-operation agreement with New Zealand was signed in 2007. An increasing number of trading partners are today monitoring the developments with interest and are evaluating possibilities on how to co-operate with the EU on this issue that is of growing importance especially in developed countries.
A Eurobarometer survey of 2006 stated that 89% of the consumers think that imports should be produced under the same animal welfare conditions as those originating from the EU. Therefore the Commission is presently evaluating the options for an animal welfare labelling system and intends to submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council in 2009. Such a system should be WTO compatible and would allow EU producers to highlight the high animal welfare standards in the Community to consumers, who in turn are increasingly insisting on such higher standards in their purchasing decisions.
The ban of the "unenriched cages" systems was adopted by Council in 1999(1), prohibiting new installations from 2003 and giving more than 10 years to the European poultry sector to convert into alternative systems. Already some EU producers have moved to alternative systems(2) of production. The Commission considers that it is up to each producer to make its own choice in this regard and for the Member States to enforce the Directive.
Information available shows that consumers are increasingly concerned by the ethical and sustainable aspects of food production in Europe, including for food processed products, although they are in general unaware on current farming standard and actual requirements. The Commission will continue to study the best possible options so as to support producers that are meeting those expectations.
According to recent studies of DG for Agriculture, in 2006, the following percentage of egg production were under alternative systems in the following Member States: Germany 32.4%, Netherlands 52.6%, UK 36.2%, Ireland 34.1%, France 18.8% and Italy 12%
Question no 76 by Gay Mitchell (H-0174/08)
Subject: Mental health and suicide prevention
Will the Commission comment on what it plans to achieve at the high-level conference on mental health in June 2008. At this stage can the Commission give an outline of plans it has in mind to complement Member States' policies regarding mental health and in particular suicide. The rates of suicide are at an alarming rate: in Ireland suicide is one of the most common causes of death amongst men under the age of 35.
The high-level conference on mental health on 13 June 2008 will highlight that mental well-being in the population supports public health in the EU. It also contributes to successful learning and working, and to social cohesion.
However, mental disorders belong to the most prevalent and serious illnesses in Europe. In extreme cases, they can lead to suicide.
In recent years, suicide levels declined slightly from 11.9 cases per 100 000 of population in 2000 to 10.6 cases in 2006.
But the situation remains unsatisfactory, given that the EU seeks to ensure a high level of human health protection in its Community policies and activities:
- suicide still causes more deaths in the EU than road traffic accidents;
- enlargement increased the inequalities between Member States. In several of them, suicide rates belong to the highest in the world.
The June 2006 European Council confirmed the need for action: it made "Improving mental health and tackling suicide risks" an objective of the Renewed EU-sustainable development strategy.
The high level conference will therefore invite Governments to engage in an exchange to identify how they can most effectively reduce levels of suicide, and depression, which is one of the key risk factors. The purpose is the adoption of a Mental Health Pact which could serve as the basis for future actions in the promotion of good mental health, the prevention of mental ill health in young people, the elderly and minorities as well as the fight against social exclusion and discrimination against people in mental ill health.
Partners in the health sector, regions and communities, in schools and at workplaces will be invited to join the efforts.
As an outcome, a thematic conference could in a next step establish commonly endorsed principles and an action plan to prevent suicide and depression.
Question no 77 by Syed Kamall (H-0204/08)
Subject: Health in the Lisbon Treaty
Pursuant to the references to health in the Lisbon Treaty, will the Commission or Member State governments draw up a systematic list of various sectors of the health field and state for each one the extent of the EU’s competence, including whether it is covered by the Treaty and subject to review by the Court of Justice?
The Treaty of Lisbon confirms the growth of interest in health matters in today's world. It maintains the current competences in health and does not extend the legislative powers of the EU, while reinforcing the scope for supporting action for public health at EU level.
The Commission would like to highlight just a few novelties that the Lisbon Treaty will bring for EU citizens in the area of health:
- The "well-being" of the peoples of the EU is added as an overall aim of the Union.
- The Charter of Fundamental Rights gets a binding legal force, including the right to health care.
- A strengthened basis is introduced for incentive measures concerning monitoring, early warning of and combating serious cross border threats to health, including measures on tobacco and the abuse of alcohol.
It is the Commission's intention to continue developing the EU health policy taking into account the novelties of Lisbon Treaty. The new Health Strategy for 2008-2013 outlines the areas and provides for a methodology where the Commission sees the need for EU wide action to provide health gains.
The text of the Health Strategy can be found on the website of the Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection at the following address:
There have been reports of horses being transported for slaughter in very poor conditions across Europe; being kept in crowded conditions for long hours.
What is the Commission doing to ensure that all Member States implement Regulation (EC) No 1/2005(1) on the protection of animals during transport and related operations? Also, when is the Commission planning to come out with proposals to address the issues of journey times and stocking densities?
The Commission is aware of the reports from animal welfare organisations about the problems for the horses transported for slaughter.
The correct implementation of the Regulation on the protection of animals during transport is a top priority for the Commission.
Member States have the primary responsibility to give effect to EU legislation in this respect.
Since the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005, Commission's experts have performed missions in Member States to verify that the competent authorities have put in place the appropriate measures to apply the EU legislation.
In particular, specific missions on the transport of horses were conducted in 2007 in Romania, Poland, Lithuania and Italy where significant trade of horses takes place and follow-up missions are foreseen for 2008.
The Commission has also initiated actions against the Member States which failed to implement measures to enforce EU rules.
Furthermore, several new instruments to improve enforcement have been introduced by the new Regulation in 2007 such as the use of navigation system for long journeys.
This tool will improve controls and make targeted actions possible. For that purpose, the Commission has presented to the Standing Committee on Food Chain and Animal Health a draft Regulation setting out harmonised standards for navigation systems in December 2007. The Commission expects the standards to be adopted before summer 2008.
The Commission is preparing an impact assessment in order to examine the possibility of bringing forward by the end of this mandate a proposal on travelling times and space allowances which takes into account available scientific knowledge.
Question no 79 by Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (H-0254/08)
Subject: Epidemiological studies on radiation from mobile phone masts
As a result of the development and use on a large scale of mobile telephony, there are now increasing numbers of masts, some of them located near people's houses. There is considerable concern in many of the Member States over exposure to radiation from these masts, which some studies argue could be damaging to health. Regular epidemiological studies would make a significant contribution to removing the anxieties of part of the population regarding the impact of GSM masts on human health, as also to adopting rules to reduce that impact. Does the Commission intend to carry out such a study?
The Commission is well aware of concerns of the public about exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) from mobile telephony, in particular base stations ("masts"). However, it is scientifically generally accepted that most of the exposure of the public from mobile telephony comes from the use of the handsets and not from the base stations.
The Commission has already supported research on EMF from mobile telephony under the Framework Programmes for Research. It is continuing to do so. One epidemiological study worth mentioning is the INTERPHONE project, due to produce its final results within a few months.
In the absence of EU competence to legislate on the matter, the Council adopted in 1999 Recommendation 1999/519/EC on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0-300 GHz), based on the best science available. Since then, the Commission has been monitoring its implementation regularly and has consulted several times its Scientific Committees to see whether it should be adapted in view of new scientific developments.
In 2007, the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) has confirmed that for Radio Frequency (RF) fields, so far no health effect has been consistently demonstrated at exposure levels below the limits established by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and proposed in the Council Recommendation.
In addition, the Commission is funding through the Sixth Framework Programme a high-level experts group under the project EMF-NET. This group has evaluated all evidence known up to 2006 on potential health risks related to masts. Its main conclusion is that 'the balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk to health due to radiofrequency and microwave exposure (that is the working frequencies of the radio masts)'.
In order to strengthen future opinions, the SCENIHR has recommended the following research for the RF frequency range:
- A long term prospective cohort study to overcome limitations found in existing epidemiological studies;
- A specific study on the health effects of RF exposure in children;
- A study of the exposure distribution in the population now made possible through the advent of personal dosimeters;
- The replication of several experimental studies using high-quality dosimetry.
The Commission is continuing to promote research in this area. The most recent call for proposals under the Environment theme of the 7th Framework Programme for Research contains a topic on health impacts of RF exposure in children and adolescents.
Question no 80 by Ryszard Czarnecki (H-0260/08)
Subject: Mad cow disease
In connection with the death of two people from mad cow disease in Spain, what likelihood does the Commission believe there to be of the disease spreading in Spain and in other Member States and what action will it be taking in the matter?
The Commission shares the concern of the Honourable Member regarding the two fatal cases of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease identified in Spain.
While these cases are tragic and unfortunate, there is currently no need to take extra risk management measures above those which are already in place and are very strict.
With regard to Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, a decrease in positive cases has been detected in Spain and there are no elements which indicate that the situation is not under control.
Provisions of the current EU legislation have been followed, and the two cases were promptly communicated to the Early Warning and Response Authorities in the Member States, and to the Commission.
The Commission continues to monitor the epidemiological trends of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) through the EURO-CJD project, funded under the EU Public Health Programme, in collaboration with the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control.
As of April 2008, a total number of 201 variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease cases have been reported by 7 Member States.
Since the beginning of the epidemic, the United Kingdom has reported 166 cases, including the 3 cases acquired by blood transfusion; France 23; Ireland 4; Italy 1; The Netherlands 2; Portugal 2 and Spain 3. The time-trends confirm that the number of cases has been declining since 1999.
Three cases of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease have been associated to blood transfusion. This link has been excluded in these two Spanish cases. Nonetheless, the blood issue must remain a concern for the future.
The two Directives on Blood and Tissues and Cells require the exclusion from donation of any person who could be a potential vector of transmission of the variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.
Question no 81 by Georgios Papastamkos (H-0156/08)
Subject: European legislation on cosmetics and protection of public health
What are the reasons for the frequent amendments to European legislation on cosmetics? How many times has it been amended to date? Does the European regulatory framework provide clarity and legal certainty? What requirements does Community legislation impose in respect of the safety of cosmetics production and public health?
Two kinds of modification of the Cosmetics Directive should be distinguished. Amendments to the corpus of the Cosmetics Directive, which aims at modifying or introducing new Articles into the Directive and adaptations of the Annexes of the Directive, which are based on technical progress and new scientific knowledge. At the beginning of 2008, the Cosmetics Directive, adopted in 1976, had already been amended seven times and adapted forty eight times. The frequent adaptations result from management decisions to amend the annexes in order to implement opinions from the Scientific Committee on Consumer Products.
The Cosmetics Directive is based on the principle that the person responsible for placing the cosmetic product on the Community market is liable for the product’s safety. To this end, this person must keep available to the competent authorities, by means of a “product information file”, information demonstrating the safety of the product. In particular, the assessment of the safety for human health of the finished product, taking into consideration the general toxicological profile of the ingredients, their chemical structure and their level of exposure must be available within this “product information file”, which is checked on an ad hoc basis by the competent authorities.
The principle of manufacturer responsibility is supplemented by detailed regulation of selected individual cosmetic ingredients. Indeed, the Cosmetics Directive sets out a list of substances which cannot be included in the composition of cosmetic products (Annex II) and a list of substances which cosmetic products may not contain, outside the restrictions and conditions laid down (Annex III). The Directive also contains “positive lists” for colorants (Annex IV), preservatives (Annex VI) and UV filters (Annex VII). Concerning these groups of ingredients, only the substances listed in the respective annex are allowed for use in cosmetics in the EU. Adaptations of these annexes require the prior consultation of the Scientific Committee on Consumer Products to ensure that the regulation takes into account the present state of scientific knowledge.
The modifications over a span of more than 30 years have led to inconsistent terminology and rules appearing in the wrong context. This was aggravated by the fact that the Cosmetics Directive does not contain lists of definitions and has never been codified (i.e. all the amendments have never been formally incorporated into a single legal text). Clarification was required in particular as to the notion of “person responsible for placing the cosmetic product on the market”. Lastly, the need of more coherent terms in the annexes, which is by and large a scientific and technical exercise, was stressed by stakeholders.
For these reasons and with the objective to significantly simplify the Community's cosmetics legislation, the Commission adopted on 5 February 2008 a proposal for a recast of the Regulation on cosmetic products. In addition, the proposal adapts the legislation in view of innovation and developments in order to ensure the safety of cosmetics products. The impact assessment report accompanying this proposal contains more detailed explanations of the current system and the background for the recast(1).
Subject: Non-prescription (over-the-counter) drugs and European pharmaceuticals policy
The rules governing non-prescription (over-the-counter) drugs vary from one Member State to another. The criteria for classifying various pharmaceutical products in this category differ and there is, therefore, no uniform system of defining drugs as over-the-counter.
Over-the-counter drugs are used by a large number of European citizens; they are allowed to be advertised in the written and electronic press and help to restrict the amount of expenditure on drugs since they are not reimbursed by the social security systems.
Is any study being carried out into drawing up a single list of over-the-counter drugs, valid in all Member States, to avoid the confusion caused among the public through the existence of numerous lists of non-prescription drugs?
Does the Commission intend to organise a European information campaign to highlight the correct use of over-the-counter drugs since, in many Member States, these products are also available from points of sale other than pharmacies, without responsible information from a pharmacist as to their correct use, which poses a possible risk to public health?
The criteria for classification of medicinal products as prescription or as non-prescription are harmonised in Community legislation. Directive 2001/83/EC specifies the situations in which medicinal products shall be subject to medical prescription. In this regard it is foreseen that a medicinal product shall be subject to medical prescription if, when utilised without medical supervision, it is frequently and to a very wide extent used incorrectly, or if, even when used correctly, it is likely to present a direct or indirect danger to human health. The directive also allows for the possibility, at Member State level, to provide for certain sub-categories of medicinal products subject to special medical prescription.
For medicinal products authorised by the Commission, the supply status is determined in the authorisation and applies throughout the Union. For nationally authorised medicinal products, it is up to the competent authorities of each Member State to classify medicinal products when granting a marketing authorisation according to the existing criteria of Community law. Decisions on prescription status can vary from one Member State to another. The Commission's proposal to harmonise the supply status of nationally authorised medicines was not retained by the legislator during the last revision of the Directive 2001/83/EC.
As only national authorities have comprehensive knowledge about the medicinal products authorised in the respective Member States, the Commission does not possess the necessary information to draw up a single harmonised list of over-the-counter medicines. However, according to Article 55 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 the European Medicines Agency is building up a database on medicinal products which is accessible to the general public(1). As foreseen in the Regulation, priority is given to medicinal products authorised by the Community, but the database shall subsequently be extended to include all medicinal products placed on the market within the Community.
The retail distribution of medicinal products is not regulated by Community law. It is up to each Member State to decide where non-prescription medicinal products are available which has led to different retail systems as the Honourable Member rightly observes. The Community law provides however for obligatory package leaflets for every medicinal product in order to ensure full information of the patient irrespective of the retail system. The package leaflet has to reflect the results of consultations with target patient groups to ensure that it is legible, clear and easy to use. In addition, for non-prescription medicinal products, instructions for use have to appear also on the labelling. The Commission considers this framework to function effectively so that a campaign at European level does not seem appropriate. If the Honourable Member possesses more detailed information, the Commission would be happy to look into this in order to see together with the Member States whether further action is needed.
Article 1, paragraph 24, relating to Chapter 1, Article 10 A, paragraph 2, (Principles and aims) states that the Union shall ‘(d) foster the sustainable economic, social and environmental development of developing countries, with the primary aim of eradicating poverty'.
Does the Commission consider that this wording has any bearing on the legality of measures against imports from developing countries, unequal partnership agreements with developing countries (European Partnership Agreements) and the EU’s fisheries agreements with developing countries?
Whereas paragraph 2 of Article 10A of the Treaty on European Union refers to the objectives, which include for the first time the eradication of poverty as a primary aim, paragraph 3 specifies that these objectives shall be pursued in the implementation of the different areas of the Union's external action and that the Union shall ensure consistency between the different areas of its external action and between these and its other policies. Thereby the Treaty of Lisbon gives, if and when ratified, a solid legal base to Policy Coherence for Development (PCD), a principle that is already a legal obligation under the current Treaty Establishing the European Community (Title XX on development cooperation).
The EU through its concept of Policy Coherence for Development aims to build synergies between the relevant internal and external policies and the development objectives. In 2005 the EU took PCD commitments in 12 policy areas(1). These commitments were confirmed at the highest political level in the European Consensus on Development(2). The EU has been paying considerable attention to increasing the coherence of its policies with development objectives including in the fisheries and trade sector.
With its trade policy the EU has established a market access regime which is quite favourable for developing countries. The average Most-Favoured Nation (MFN) import duty rate is 6.9% overall (4% for non-agriculture products and 18.6% for agriculture products)(3). In the context of the EU Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) exports from Developing Countries (DCs) enjoy a 0% duty rate or receive a 3,5 percentage points discount on this rate (see section on GSP below). Goods from Least-Developed Countries (LDCs) and the great majority of ACP Countries enjoy quota- and tariff-free access to the EU market under the 'Everything But Arms Initiative' (EBA), or under interim and full Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) that also improve rules of origin.
However, to facilitate developing countries' closer integration into the world economy, it is important not only to reduce market access barriers, but also address a range of other factors, including those relating to individual DCs' own competitiveness and supply side capacity.
EU trade policy is multi-dimensional – multilateral, regional/bilateral and autonomous. Under each of these dimensions, it includes elements that respond to the particular needs of DCs and support their further development and beneficial integration into the global trading system, including through achieving an improved performance on the EU market.
The EU is also very actively engaged in the provision of Aid for Trade to DCs to support them in tackling the challenges of integration both at the regional and global level. In this context, regional integration is one important way to improve the position of DCs and their ability to compete in international markets, by creating larger regional markets and improving the general business environment.
The Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) that are being negotiated with the ACP countries are conceived as long-term partnerships based on a comprehensive approach to development. They are a tool to support regional integration and sustainable development and will therefore contribute to enhanced policy coherence. The full regional agreements to be negotiated on the basis of the interim agreements will accommodate the specific interests and situations of the regions. The comprehensive EPA concluded with the Caribbean is the example of a balanced and development-friendly agreement. Its trade provisions fully exploit, for the benefit of Caribbean countries, the asymmetry and flexibility offered by international trade law. More importantly, these provisions are embedded in a broader development framework that includes strong social and environmental chapters and detailed provisions on development cooperation.
Since the 2002 reform of the Fisheries Policy, the EU has undertaken to replace all existing fisheries agreements with a new generation of Fisheries Partnership Agreements by 2008. The objective of this new generation of agreements is no longer to just secure access for the European fleet, but also to support the partner country's fisheries policy with a view to introducing responsible and sustainable fishing. A percentage of the financial contribution attached to the agreements is set aside for this purpose.
Joint Statement by the Council and the representatives of the governments of the Member States meeting within the Council, the European Parliament and the European Commission – 'The European Consensus on Development', December 2005 (OJ 2006/C46/01)
WTO European Communities Trade Policy Review 2007.
Question no 84 by Jim Higgins (H-0170/08)
Subject: Healthy eating in schools
Could the Commission indicate what programmes it supports that promote the provision of healthy food in schools, at both primary and secondary level?
Over recent months various stakeholders and the media have put particular focus on healthy eating in schools. The Commission is pleased to take this opportunity to inform the Honourable Member about the current Community programme being applied in the educational establishments, and possible future programmes.
The school milk scheme:
The school milk scheme aims to provide healthy dairy products to pupils in kindergartens and primary schools (also in secondary schools if the Member State chooses) at a reduced price compared with normal commercial prices. The reduction is obtained through a subsidy granted by the Community. In 2007, the subsidy was increased to €18.15 /100 kg of milk, irrespective of its fat content.
The school milk scheme has an important role to play given its social and health-oriented character. By providing quality products containing important vitamins and minerals the scheme encourages a healthy way of eating while ensuring a proper nutritional education and establishing a positive long-term impact on consumption of agricultural products.
The Commission is aware that in order to increase the success rate of the school milk scheme, the implementing provisions should be as simple as possible.
Currently, the Commission's services are reviewing the school milk scheme in view of simplifying its management and enlarging the list of beneficiaries and eligible products. The proposed changes in the system will soon be presented in the Management Committee concerned with a view, once adopted, to apply them from the beginning of the new school year.
The possible school fruit scheme:
When approving the Common Market Organisation for Fruit and Vegetables reform, the Council issued the following declaration: "In light of the dramatic increase in obesity amongst schoolchildren, which has been highlighted in the recently published Commission White Paper, the Council invites the Commission to come forward with a proposal for a school fruit scheme as soon as possible based on an impact assessment of the benefits, practicability and administrative costs involved."
In keeping with the Commission's commitment to better legislation, the presentation of a 'School Fruit Scheme' proposal will be conditional on the conclusions of an Impact Assessment demonstrating its value added at European level and analysing the advantages and drawbacks of different options. To help bring together the range of expertise necessary for this assessment and to facilitate the preparation of the proposal, this work has been entrusted an Inter-Service Group (ISG) made up of representatives of the Commission.
So far, the ISG has elaborated four options for a European "School Fruit Scheme", which have been submitted to a public consultation from 18 December 2007 to 29 February 2008. The Commission now continues to work on the Impact Assessment report, which will include and integrate the results of the public consultation. A proposal is scheduled for adoption by the Commission in July 2008.
Question no 85 by Liam Aylward (H-0181/08)
Subject: 12-day derogation period for coach tour operators in Europe
The removal of the 12-day derogation period for the international coach sector in Europe in April 2006 created a major crisis for the coach tourism market in Europe.
Since then, coach tour operators have reported a dramatic 20-25% increase in costs resulting from this lost derogation as well as bringing negative consequences for the welfare of drivers.
When does the Commission intend to reintroduce this 12-day derogation period for the coach sector operating within the European Union, in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006(1)?
The new rules under Regulation (EC) No 561/2006(2) on social legislation relating to road transport, which were agreed by Parliament and Council following conciliation, are meant to ensure a level playing field, enhance road safety, improve working conditions for drivers and make more effective and uniform checks possible throughout the Community. The removal of the 12-days exemption for coach tour operators has to be seen in this general context.
This being said, the Commission monitors the road passenger transport market, including the impact of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 on road safety, the coach tourism business, social conditions of drivers and other relevant developments through various sources of information, including reports from Member states, contacts with industry and workers representatives, and studies. In particular, the Commission has launched a study into occasional international transport, which will also address the impact of the removal of 12-day rule on the industry. The results of the study are expected to be available towards the end of 2008.
The Commission has taken note of the amendments introduced by the Committee on Transport and Tourism of the Parliament into the Ticău report on the Commission's proposal for a recast of the Directive on common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport services(3). The Commission will continue to monitor the legislative process carefully as well as the social dialogue that has been launched on this issue.
Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (Text with EEA relevance) – Declaration, OJ L 102, 11.4.2006.
Question no 86 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (H-0188/08)
Subject: Equal opportunities
Does the Commission believe that European citizens have been denied equal opportunities regarding the Lisbon Treaty? Irish citizens will have the opportunity to vote in a referendum on the Treaty but this opportunity will not be equally available to the citizens of other Member States, such as the United Kingdom.
Does the Commission believe that citizens in other Member States should be granted the equal opportunity to exercise their democratic right to vote on the Treaty?
The Commission reminds the Honourable Member that in accordance with Article 48 of the Treaty on the European Union, ratification of the Lisbon Treaty is a matter for Member States, and has to be completed according to their own constitutional rules. The Commission has neither the power nor the intention to interfere in the choice of the ratification procedure and its subsequent developments in any of the Member States.
Question no 87 by Jens Holm (H-0193/08)
Subject: Objectives and measures in the field of consumer protection
Regarding Article 169 of the Treaty of Lisbon on objectives and measures in the field of consumer protection, could the Commission clarify what a 'high level of consumer protection' actually means? Does it mean the highest level in a particular country, a level in the highest quartile or an above-average level, and should consumer protection be regarded as an overarching issue taking precedence over other provisions?
Article 169 of the Lisbon Treaty does not differ from Article 153 of the present EC Treaty.
Both Article 153 in the present EC Treaty and Article 169 in the Lisbon Treaty provide for a high level of consumer protection all over the EU.
The Commission's position on the meaning of "a high level of consumer protection" is detailed in the Consumer Policy Strategy 2007-2013 which it adopted on 13 March 2007(1).
This makes clear that the level of consumer protection is not defined in a mechanistic way (quartiles, countries, averages) but in the light of what is appropriate to ensure a proper functioning of the Internal Market both for the consumers and businesses. Thus, the strategy's main objectives are:
to empower EU consumers
to enhance EU consumers' welfare in terms of price, choice, quality, diversity, affordability and safety.
to protect consumers effectively from the serious risks and threats that they cannot tackle as individuals.
To achieve these objectives the strategy identifies five priorities:
better monitoring of consumer markets and national consumer policies
better consumer protection regulation
better enforcement and redress
better informed and educated consumers
putting consumers at the heart of other EU policies and regulation
In the framework of the Treaties consumer protection does not constitute an overarching issue which takes precedence on other issues. However, the consumer protection dimension must be properly integrated into all relevant Community policies and activities.
Do the expressions ‘as openly as possible’ and ‘as closely as possible to the citizens’ have any legal effect?
Is the fact that the intergovernmental Cnference concerning the Treaty of Lisbon was held in camera contrary to the relevant provisions of the Treaty of Nice?
Is the political agreement between the Member States not to hold a referendum contrary to the democratic standards set by the Treaty of Nice?
Article 1 of the present Treaty on European Union already states that 'decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen'. The effects of this take various forms, including consultations with interested parties before the adoption of Commission proposals, ex ante studies of the impact of proposals, the role of Parliament as a co-legislator in the European decision-making process, and application of the principle of subsidiarity.
The existing treaties have been revised by the Treaty of Lisbon in accordance with the procedure laid down for that purpose in Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union.
Also in accordance with Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union, the Member States have exclusive competence for the arrangements for ratification in the Member States.
Question no 89 by Koenraad Dillen (H-0207/08)
Subject: Freedom of the press in South Africa
At its party congress in December 2007, the ANC adopted a resolution on the establishment of a media tribunal. It would be a State institution answerable solely to Parliament.
Many independent journalists fear that this institution would undermine the system of self-regulation inherent in the media. Self-regulation in the media is one of the most important criteria for ascertaining whether a country is genuinely democratic. This principle is also supported by the human rights commission of the African Union. In a word, in a country where a State institution controls what journalists write, freedom of the press is jeopardised.
What view does the Commission take of this proposal? Will the Commission raise this issue and remind South Africa of its obligations with regard to human rights and democratic principles?
The Commission is actively following the issue of freedom of expression in South Africa and has some concerns over recent events such as the investigation concerning the Sunday Times editor Mr Makhanya, the case of blacklisting of certain journalists and political analysts by the South African Broadcasting Corporation, the proposed Film and Publications amendment and, more recently, the attempted take-over bid of media company Johncom by Koni Media Holdings.
The Commission is also aware of the resolution adopted at the 52nd National Conference of the African National Congress last December, and in particular of the recommendation "that the establishment of a Media Appeals Tribunal be investigated". Since this is a recommendation by the party to investigate the establishment, the Commission sees no reason to intervene at this stage.
On the whole, the Commission takes the view that the media situation in South Africa remains satisfactory. Print and broadcast media operate in a free environment and the judiciary actively defends the freedom of expression.
The Trade, Development and Cooperation Agreement between South Africa and the EU qualifies respect for democratic principles and fundamental human rights as an essential element of the Agreement (Article 2) and as a subject for political dialogue (Article 4). Political dialogue now takes place twice a year at ministerial or even at summit level. The Commission will not hesitate to bring the subject of freedom of expression to the table, whenever it feels this is required.
Question no 90 by David Martin (H-0211/08)
Subject: Protected designation of origin (PDO)
According to Annex II of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006(1), wool can be given PDO status. Can the Commission clarify whether a PDO could be granted for wool only in its natural form or could it equally apply to a processed or manufactured form of wool such as a textile garment? In addition, could the Commission confirm whether there are currently any wool products with PDO status or whether there have been any recent applications for PDO status for wool products?
As the Honourable Member mentions, wool is covered by Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs.
The Commission would like to clarify that wool, in this context, covers only the natural fibre produced by sheep or lambs, and which is neither carded nor combed. This excludes processed or manufactured forms of wool, as well as textile garments.
No name of a wool product has so far been granted protection as protected design of origin or protected geographical indication, the reason being that until now, no application for registration has been submitted to the Commission.
Subject: The Commission's suit against Finland (case C-10/08) on the basis of the discriminative effect of collecting so-called non-VAT, and infringement of the 6th VAT directive
The Commission has filed a suit against Finland (case C-10/08) on basis of the discriminative effect of collecting so-called non-VAT on the private import of cars, and the infringement of the 6th VAT directive (77/388/EEC(1)) due to deductibility of a non-VAT, which is a surcharge of car tax. Thousands of on-going disputes in the Finnish national courts depend on the outcome of the procedure the Commission has started in the ECJ. In this never-ending saga, the national courts have rejected taxpayers’ claims similar to the Commission’s claims, and refused to ask for a preliminary ruling of the ECJ. Now the Finnish Ministry of Finance has announced that it is considering negotiating with the Commission in order to find an out-of-court settlement in the dispute. Apparently Finland is planning to apply for time-limitation of the effect of the ECJ’s ruling and is thus trying flagrantly to ignore the approximately 18 000 cases pending in the national courts.
Regarding the situation in Finland – contrary to Sweden where EU laws are obeyed in this domain – and believing that free movement of goods is the core of the EU's raison d'être, I want to ask: how will the Commission make sure that equal treatment among EU citizens will prevail and how will it finally stop EU law from being arbitrarily applied to Finnish car buyers?
As guardian of the Treaties, the Commission monitors the correct application of Community law and the general principles of the EC Treaty. In that connection, the Commission has brought infringement proceedings against Finland, particularly in regard to the 'ELV' tax, a tax levied by Finland to compensate for the fact that it cannot charge VAT on intra-Community acquisitions by non-taxpayers of second-hand vehicles over six months old or with at least 6 000 kilometers on the clock. The case is currently before the Court of Justice and has been assigned case number C-10/08.
The Commission is awaiting the judgment by the Court.
A holistic approach to the ecosystem is one of the most important basic principles of environmental and nature conservation, and of a competitive fisheries policy. All this is currently under threat from the cormorant problem. Cormorants are water birds whose numbers have been rising sharply in central Europe over the past few decades as a result of strict EU protection measures. There has been a 75-fold increase in bird populations, and this is causing severe damage to fisheries. The feeding pressure on species of fish that are already at serious risk and the damage to the European fishing industry have taken on unacceptable proportions.
Is the Commission aware of this problem? What steps will it take to tackle it, particularly with a view to fishing enterprises and fishing waters?
As with all wild bird species naturally occurring in the European territory of the Member States, the Cormorant, Phalacrocorax carbo, is covered by the general scheme of protection of Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds(1) and its deliberate capture and killing, disturbance, destruction of its nest or taking of its eggs can only be allowed by Member States in accordance with the derogation system of the directive.
The Commission is aware that there are conflicts between fisheries interests and Cormorants in certain parts of the Community and it has encouraged Member States to make full use of the derogations provisions of the Birds Directive, where this is justified in the absence of alternative solutions, in order to prevent serious damage to fisheries. This derogation system is being used in different Member States.
While there may well be situations where Cormorants present a serious risk to endangered species of fish, the derogation system is equally applicable in this context as there is an explicit provision in the Birds Directive for use of derogations 'for the protection of flora and fauna'.
It is for each Member State to take the measures it considers necessary to manage populations and any conflicts that arise in relation to fisheries interests. Nevertheless, the Commission encourage co-operation between Member States on this issue and has on a number of occasions initiated discussions on this subject with the committee for adaptation to technical and scientific progress, set up pursuant to Article 16 of the Directive (the so-called Ornis Committee).
The Community has also supported multinational cooperative research projects aimed at reducing the conflict between cormorants and fisheries on a pan-European scale. The completed REDCAFE(2) project highlights the dynamic and complex nature of this issue not only from an ecological perspective but also within the social, cultural and economic perspectives. One of the conclusions of this project was that calls for a common standard ‘solution’ to Cormorant-fisheries ‘problems’ are perhaps premature and may well, ultimately, be inappropriate. The work started under REDCAFE is being further developed under a more recent project called INTERCAFE(3). The Commission has encouraged anglers and fishermen to fully engage with the multidisciplinary forum so that their expertise, views and concerns are fully taken into account in the context of any scientific conclusions and recommendations that emerge from it.
REDCAFE ("Reducing the conflict between Cormorants and fisheries on a pan-European scale") http://ec.europa.eu/research/quality-of-life/ka5/en/projects/qlrt_1999_31387_en.htm
INTERCAFE (“Interdisciplinary Initiative to Reduce pan-European Cormorant-Fisheries Conflicts) http://www.intercafeproject.net/
Question no 93 by Daniel Dăianu (H-0216/08)
Subject: CAP and land as a strategic asset
The international economic milieu is burdened by a deepening credit crisis, bouts of protectionism, and growing concerns about the impact of climate change and the formidable industrial rise of Asia (China and India, in particular) on the prices of basic commodities. The struggle for scarce resources is likely increasingly to involve good land, as the mainstay for food production. As a matter of fact, good land is turning into a strategic asset, reflecting the way other countries use non-renewable energy resources as strategic assets. Is it not ominous that, already, we are facing a visible trade-off between the prices of food and energy produced from grain? In view of this geopolitical and economic background how does the Commission envisage the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) over the longer run? Can narrowly formulated cost-benefit considerations and the risk of excessive dependency on unsecure sources of food supply lie behind a reform of the CAP?
Agricultural prices increased in 2006 and 2007 and most analysts share the view that the the market will remain firm in the medium-term. At the global scale, there is broad agreement on the reasons why demand is currently outstripping supply – production disruptions, rise in commodity demand, changes in dietary patterns, high global economic growth rates and new market outlets like biofuels.
This contrasts with our experience in the past, where there has been rather a problem of too much supply and too low prices, and explains the introduction of supply control measures like quotas and set aside and the general thrust for Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform, since 1992, to strengthening competitiveness and increasing market orientation by moving away from a policy of price and production support to direct producer support.
In the context of the 2003 CAP reform, the positive market signals in many sectors can now be much better transmitted to EU farmers and can be expected to give rise to a corresponding production response. On the other hand, in the forthcoming "Health Check" of the CAP, the Commission is of the view that the various adjustments being considered, and in particular the removal of the set-aside and phasing-out of the milk quota regimes, will provide the additional land and supply potential necessary to help meet the current increase in demand.
In the longer timeframe, food supply and land use issues have consistently been a feature of the Union’s discussions regarding the CAP and we can expect them to remain so in discussions on the future of the CAP, which are taking place in the context of ongoing EU Budget Review.
Question no 94 by Dimitrios Papadimoulis (H-0219/08)
Subject: Legal protection of relationships between people of the same sex in the European Union
The Hellenic Ministry of Justice has submitted a draft law introducing cohabitation agreements for heterosexual couples without securing the same right for same-sex couples. The draft law enables heterosexual couples to formalise their relationship in a written agreement, which will confer on both parties almost all the rights accorded through marriage and can be annulled ipso jure by notary deed. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is critical of the draft law and has announced a public hearing on the legal recognition of relationships between homosexual couples.
In the light of Article 13 of the Treaty establishing the European Community and Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which expressly prohibits any form of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, will the Commission say in which Member States homosexual relationships are protected by law either in the form of marriage or a cohabitation agreement? Does it consider that the draft law submitted by the Ministry of Justice is consistent with Article 13 of the Treaty, which encourages the elimination of discrimination based on sexual orientation?
The Commission has no powers to intervene on the particular issue of the proposed Greek legislation, which is under the competence of this Member State.
The unelected Commission refuses to carry out the joint wish of the elected Council and the elected Parliament by making a study for which money was allocated by them in the 2008 Commission Budget.
The Commission written answer to H-0135/08 (11 March 2008) tries to defend itself by stating that its policy ‘aims to improve cooperation between the Member States’ respective police forces’.
Leaving aside the question of its apparently closed mind to examining new ideas, what are the changes that make the Commission confident that such cooperation, until now extremely poor in the face of exponentially increasing cross-border crime, will improve?
If cooperation does not improve, how long will the Commission wait before recognising that fighting cross-border crime requires law enforcement with cross-border powers?
The Commission considers that police coopération in the EU is already producing encouraging results, although there is, of course, still room for improvement. Thus Europol, the European Police Office, is playing an important role in the fight against organised crime, as demonstrated recently by the success of Operation Koala against an international paedophile network and the dismantling of illegal printing works involved in counterfeiting euros.
Its future legal framework should further improve the quality of the support it provides for Member States, whilst allowing closer democratic scrutiny of its activities with the Community financing of the European Police Office.
Eurojust, the European Union judicial cooperation unit, also plays a prominent role by coordinating investigations and criminal prosecutions of cross-border organised crime at European level. The implementation of the framework decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (2002/584/JAI) should also be mentioned in that connection.
In addition, incorporation of the provisions of the Prüm Treaty in European law will facilitate the exchange of information, particularly on DNA data. The initial results of the treaty are very positive; several criminal cases have been solved by a comparison of national data files and, as the system becomes stronger, it should soon be more efficient.
The Commission does not believe that it is required to carry out a study, as it is with pilot projects and preparatory action. In this instance, the Commission does not consider it appropriate to have a study made of what the honorable Member calls 'a federal European police force'. Such a police force is not feasible at the moment, when the Member States are cooperating bilaterally in dealing with cross-border crime as pragmatically as possible. That is mainly the role of the police and customs cooperation centres that several Member States have set up on their common borders.
Question no 96 by Nickolay Mladenov (H-0226/08)
Subject: Tolls for crossing the Ruse-Giurgiu bridge between Bulgaria and Romania
With the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the EU on 1 January 2007, the border between the two countries became an internal border of the EU. This border plays an important role in allowing the free movement of people, goods and services between the two Member States.
Unfortunately, there is only one bridge (Ruse-Giurgiu) over the 350-km river border between Bulgaria and Romania, which hinders contacts between citizens on either side of the Danube.
At the same time, both countries are continuing to impose tolls on all vehicles crossing the bridge, which hinders free movement between the two new Member States. In many of its judgments, the European Court of Justice has ruled in favour of protecting freedom of movement from tolls that may have a negative impact on the internal market.
Is the Commission aware that such tolls are still payable in order to cross the bridge over the Danube (Ruse-Giurgiu)?
What does the Commission intend to do to remove this obstacle to the smooth running of the internal market, and when?
The Commission is aware that tolls are applied on the bridge over the Danube between Ruse and Giurgiu.
The principle of charging a fee for the use of infrastructure does not conflict with the principles of free movement within the Community. Indeed, Directive 1999/62 on charging of heavy goods vehicles(1) for the use of infrastructure (the so-called “Eurovignette” directive) enables Member States to introduce tolls provided that their imposition is not discriminatory and they are based on the principle of the recovery of infrastructure costs only. The Directive prescribes that the application and collection of tolls must cause as little hindrance as possible to the free flow of traffic, avoid any mandatory controls or checks at the Community's internal borders and avoid any discrimination between infrastructure users. Member States are obliged to provide adequate facilities at the points of payment for tolls. Member States that apply a system of time-related user charges (“vignettes”) for the use of infrastructure, such as Romania and Bulgaria, are explicitly allowed also to apply tolls on bridges, tunnels and mountain passes.
Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures (OJ L 187/42 of 20 July 1999) as amended by Directive 2006/38/EC, OJ L 157/8 of 9 June 2006.
Question no 97 by Struan Stevenson (H-0227/08)
Subject: EU relations with Iran
Can the European Commission confirm how much money has been paid to the Iranian authorities for 'poverty alleviation', to whom is this money paid and how is the proper utilisation of this money being monitored?
Can the Commission reveal how many Iranian students are studying in EU universities under the Erasmus Mundus programme, which EU universities are involved and what courses are being undertaken by these students?
The Commission is currently not providing direct assistance to the Iranian authorities. However, under the thematic budget lines, a number of actions are implemented in support of human rights and the development of civil society in Iran. These actions are implemented through NGOs and UN agencies. Finally, Iran is a beneficiary of the Erasmus Mundus programme.
With regards to Erasmus Mundus programme, for the academic year 2007-2008, there are 33 Iranian students enrolled in 28 Erasmus Mundus Masters Courses developed by 127 European universities from 19 EU Member States.
Moreover, under the first call for proposals within the Erasmus Mundus External Cooperation Window Programme funded by the Commission's external aid financial instruments, the number of Iranian students selected in the academic year 2007-2008 is 51.
The EU Member State universities involved in the selected partnership are: Freie Universität Berlin (DE), Universidad de Deusto (ES), Université Bordeaux 1 (FR), Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL), Uniwersytet Warszawski (PL), Universidade do Algarve (PT), Lunds Universitet (SE), University of Southhampton (UK).
An exact description of the courses offered by the universities to these students is not available as it depends on the match between the individual choice of the students and the availability of disciplines and courses offered by the partnership throughout the academic year.
Question no 98 by Olle Schmidt (H-0229/08)
Subject: Human rights in Cuba
In 2003, the EU introduced sanctions against Cuba in response to human rights violations. In 2005, some of those sanctions were lifted after the EU decided to seek dialogue with Cuba on human rights.
Raúl Castro's assumption of power has brought changes. In February, Cuba signed two UN conventions on human rights. I, therefore, support the Commission's view that a favourable development is possible but I consider that we should not abolish our sanctions until Cuba has complied in full with its commitments on human rights.
What measures will the Commission now take to improve the human rights situation in Cuba?
It is first of all important to clarify that the EU never introduced sanctions against Cuba, but diplomatic measures which were all suspended in January 2005(1).
The Commission follows closely the situation of human rights in Cuba. As a rule, the Commission Delegation in Havana coordinates its action with the EU Member States in the field, notably in the context of the work of the EU Human Rights Working Group. As cooperation with the Commission and with most Member States was suspended in 2003 by the Cuban authorities (following the 2003 diplomatic measures), the intervention capacity of the Commission in this area, as in any other area in Cuba, in the field is at present very limited.
During the contacts between the Commission and the Cuban authorities, in Brussels and in Havana, a wide range of issues are discussed including human rights matters. The Commission is of the opinion that these questions would be best addressed in the framework of a formal EU-Cuba political dialogue. In 2007, Cuba established a bilateral human rights dialogue with Spain, but it has made the lifting of the diplomatic measures a condition of the possibility of establishing a human rights dialogue with the EU, as well as the resuming of EC-Cuba development cooperation.
Inviting dissidents to National Day celebrations; limiting high level visits to Cuba; lowering the level of diplomatic representation in cultural events on the ground.
Question no 99 by Frank Vanhecke (H-0230/08)
Subject: Integration of Turkey in Community foreign policy
In its 2007 progress report on Turkey the Commission stated that Turkey was in full support of the Middle East peace process and that in general terms the country was closely associated with and involved in the Community’s foreign and security policy, one of the criteria of the acquis communautaire.
The question of Palestine was one of the major themes of the recent summit of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) held in Dakar in mid-March 2008. At this conference the Turkish OIC Secretary-General, Mr Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu, laid all blame at the feet of Israel. In particular, according to him, Israel alone is responsible for undermining the peace process. He also considers it necessary to document ‘Israel’s crimes’ and to bring the ‘criminals’ before an international court.
How does the Commission explain its findings in the progress report in the light of these statements?
Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoğlu took office as Secretary General of the Organisation of Islamic Conference in January 2005 and was re-elected for a new term in March 2008. Professor Ihsanoğlu is an international official and his views do not represent the official Turkish position.
Turkey maintains constructive policies vis-à-vis the Middle East. Turkey has good relations both with Israel as well as with the Palestinian side. In November 2007, Turkey hosted Israeli President Peres and Palestinian President Abbas, who both delivered speeches, one after the other, at the Turkish Grand National Assembly.
Question no 100 by Yiannakis Matsis (H-0231/08)
Subject: Illegal visit by Yaşar Büyükanıt to occupied Cyprus
On 26-29 March, the Commander-in-Chief of the Turkish armed forces, Yaşar Büyükanıt, is making an illegal visit to the Turkish-occupied northern sector of the Republic of Cyprus, a Member State of the European Union. How does the Commission intend to respond, bearing in mind that it is inconceivable that a country applying for membership of the EU should continue to occupy territory of a Member State of the EU? Does the Commission condemn Büyükanıt's illegal visit? In what practical ways is the Commission supporting the Republic of Cyprus in terms of EU principles and the policy of solidarity?
The well-known position of the European Community and its Member States is that except for the Sovereign Base Areas of the United Kingdom, the whole territory of the island of Cyprus is part of the Republic of Cyprus. The EU Member States do not recognise the so-called "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus".
The Commission is pleased to see not only willingness on all sides to put aside the difficulties of the past but also agreement to start a new negotiation process for a comprehensive solution to the Cyprus problem.
It is in our common interest to see the reunification of the island and the end of this 40-year-old conflict on European soil. The division of Cyprus is unacceptable within the European Union.
The issues of security and presence of foreign troops on the island raised by the Honourable Member highlight the urgent need for a rapid solution to the Cyprus problem.
The EU and the Commission firmly stand behind a renewed United Nations (UN) process and will fully support both communities on the island to make the necessary, difficult compromises.
We all know that achieving a solution will not be easy. It will require a lot of hard work and compromise, but the Commission is confident that in the end, with the guidance of the UN and the support of the EU, it will be achieved.
The Commission is also confident that Turkey will put all its weight behind a solution.
The Commission strongly believes that this year provides an opportunity that will not be repeated – and must not be missed.
Question no 101 by Carl Schlyter (H-0232/08)
Subject: Aid for pastureland
The proposed amendments to Article 8, paragraph 1, and Article 2, paragraph 2, of Regulation (EC) No. 794/2004(1) may have serious implications for Swedish grassland and its biodiversity since the proposed method of counting trees on pastureland is not compatible with the Swedish tradition of trees on grassland. Pastureland can and should take different forms within the EU. Excessively strict harmonisation of the rules - such as an absolute rule laying down a maximum number of 50 trees per hectare - threatens to diminish diversity and increase the quantity of unused and overgrown grassland since less and less grassland can be defined as pastureland. It has been rumoured in the media that the Commission is considering demanding repayment of up to 70 million euro, which would be a deathblow to Sweden's ambition to preserve the agricultural landscape.
EU aid is intended to support the agricultural landscape but must it support a European monoculture or are traditional Swedish variations acceptable?
What steps has the Commission taken to resolve these problems?
How can the rules be formulated to enable the diversity of pastureland in the Union to be accepted and preserved?
Contrary to the Honourable Member's information there is no change proposed to Article 2(2) and Article 8(1) of the Regulation (EC) No. 796/2004. The definition of pastureland in force has remained unchanged since many years.
Under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) direct payments to farmers made in the form of the Single Payment Scheme are based on the available agricultural land on a farm.
In order to safeguard the financial interest of the European Union, the Commission has established rules that permit to determine eligible agricultural land and to exclude non-eligible areas.
The legislation referred to lays down the types of land eligible for receiving CAP payments and in particular forage / pastureland in which there is mixed vegetation and that is used for an agricultural activity.
To define if a land with trees falls under this category of land or is to be considered as a "forest", and is thus not eligible for aid, the Commission has established already in 2003 and made available to all Member States a document (AGRI/60363/2003) indicating that "areas of trees inside an agricultural parcel with a density of >50 trees/ha should, as a general rule, be considered ineligible. Exceptions may be envisaged for tree classes of mixed-cropping such as for orchards and for ecological/environmental reasons. Eventual exceptions must be defined beforehand by the Member States". The rule is thus not new.
As the Honourable Member can see, the Commission does not lay down an absolute rule for the whole of the Community. Sweden can thus for the future for ecological/environmental reasons define for particular types of pasture land a different threshold, if it is proven that the higher number of trees per hectare does not render the land unsuitable for agricultural activities, and thus ineligible for aid.
That the land recognised in this manner is indeed compliant with the applicable EU-legislation and is thus eligible for aid will be assessed in the context of the audits under the clearance of accounts procedure.
In respect of the € 70 million repayment referred to by the Honourable Member, this figure cannot be traced in any decision of the Commission and therefore the Commission is not in the position to provide any details on that issue.
Subject: Non-compliance of the European Commission with the judgment of the CFI in case T-58/05
Can the Commission explain why it has not respected the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-58/05, Centeno v Commission, delivered on 11 July 2007, under which the Commission was ordered to bear its own costs and to pay half the costs incurred by the applicants?
Can the Commission explain on what legal basis it is trying to 'bargain' with the applicants in the aforementioned case, and is refusing to pay the applicants’ legal costs of EUR 23 000?.
Contrary to what is indicated by the Honourable Member, the Commission fully respects the judgment of the Court of First Instance in case T-58/05 and recognises its obligation to pay half the Applicants' costs. However, like all other judgments of the Community courts in direct actions, the judgment only lays down the principle as to who shall bear which costs but does not set the amounts to be paid. Article 92 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance ("RP") lays down a procedure under which the Court can fix the amount of costs if the parties are unable to agree it. It is only if there is such an order that there is an obligation to pay a particular amount. That is not the case here.
In the present case, there is a dispute between the parties about what is a reasonable amount of costs. The Commission does not agree with the amount claimed by the Applicants which seems to be well in excess of what could be justified in the light of the case-law on recoverable costs in the Community courts. The Commission believes that for sound financial management requires it to keep to the principle of that case law.
The Commission does not however wish to force the Court of First Instance to rule on this case under Article 92 RP, if that can be avoided. It has therefore made what it regards as a reasonable offer to the applicants' counsel, taking account of the principles in the case-law, and also the particular features of the present case. Applicants remain of course free to have recourse to Article 92 RP and ask the Court to fix the amount.
Question no 103 by Zbigniew Krzysztof Kuźmiuk (H-0237/08)
Subject: Commission support for building of North European gas pipeline despite massive increase in costs
At the end of March, the Russian company Gazprom announced that the approximate cost of the North European gas pipeline between Russia and Germany would be 7.4 billion euro. In 2005 when the project began, the estimated cost was 4 billion euro, whereas six months ago it was 6 billion euro.The final cost of the project will certainly be even higher.
It is European consumers who in future will bear the cost of supplies from this highly expensive pipeline, bearing in mind the virtual monopoly enjoyed by the majority owner of the pipeline, the Russian company Gazprom.
Why then is the Commission supporting this very expensive project and why is it not interested in overland pipelines such as Jamal 2 or Amber, which are twice as cheap?
The Commission is supporting the Nord Stream project in the interests of the whole Union. It is a major project (55 billion cubic metres of gas per year), which will make it possible to meet the growing demands of the industries and citizens of the Union (over 100 billion more cubic metres will be needed by 2015). The project was declared of European interest in the latest guidelines for trans-European energy networks adopted by the Council and Parliament in September 2006(1).
However, the Commission has not allocated financial support for investment in Nord Stream, which is financed solely by its private shareholders and by loans. It is for the shareholders alone to decide whether the project is too expensive and hence a financial risk for them.
It is not true to say that the Commission is not interested in other gas pipeline projects. Yamal II has the same level of priority as Nord Stream in the trans-European network guidelines adopted in 2006 and Amber is also considered to be a project of common interest.
The Commission agreed to co-finance a feasibility study for Yamal II and Amber submitted by the Polish gas company PGNiG in 2005 (for the sum of EUR 950 000). Unfortunately it has not been possible to complete the study, due to lack of interest on the part of the gas companies in some of the countries concerned.
Decision No 1364/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 laying down guidelines for trans-European networks and repealing Decision 96/391/EC and Decision No 1229/2003/EC, OJ L 262 of 22.9.2006.
Question no 104 by Ivo Belet (H-0241/08)
Subject: Sport as a force for social inclusion
In its White Paper on sport the Commission states it belief that in their policies, measures and programmes the European Union and the Member States should make better use of the opportunities which sport offers to foster social inclusion.
The Commission indicates that it intends to propose to the Member States that, under the Progress programme (and under the Lifelong Learning, Youth in Action and A Citizen's Europe programmes), support should be given to measures which foster sport as a force for social inclusion and combat discrimination in sport.
What proposals has the Commission already put forward?
Will this have practical implications for the calls for proposals which the Commission issues?
Has support been given in the past to measures which could serve as examples?
How is the Commission honouring its pledge to encourage the Member States to support measures under the European Integration Fund?
The Action Plan "Pierre de Coubertin" annexed to the White Paper on Sport and which will guide the Commission's sport-related activities during the next years underlines in its proposed actions under chapter A.5 the need for a better use of the opportunities which sport offers to foster social inclusion in and through sport.
To make the implementation of the White Paper a success, the Commission will rely on an improved structured dialogue with the sport movement and an enhanced political cooperation with EU Member States.
Within the framework of the Open method of coordination (OMC) on social protection and social inclusion, the social inclusion strand highlights, through the 2006-2008 national strategic reports submitted by the Member States, the importance of participating in sport activities as a means to prevent and tackle social exclusion of children on the one hand, and on the other hand as a tool for promoting the social inclusion of immigrants and ethnic minorities. It should be also noted that within the context of the OMC, a number of indicators on the well-being of children have been envisaged and participation in sport activities is included in the elements to be taken into consideration. The OMC will therefore continue to include sport as a tool and indicator, without creating new structures or new working methods.
With regards to the practical implications of the White Paper on specific EU programmes and their calls for proposals/tenders, the Commission will be supporting social inclusion in and through sport and physical activity actions through a number of instruments available at EU level.
PROGRESS is the EU’s employment and social solidarity programme which started in 2007 and which will run until 2013 covering actions against discrimination, equality between men and women, employment measures and the fight against social exclusion. Ways need to be found under this programme to address the issue of accessibility to sport activities and the specific needs and situation of the vulnerable groups, as well as to take into account the special role that sport can play for disabled persons and the need to ensure gender equality in sport. Another issue to be addressed under this programme is the need to better use the potential of sport as an instrument for social inclusion, including its potential as an employment creation factor, particularly in disadvantaged areas.
The general call for proposals 2008-2010 in the framework of the Lifelong Learning Programme has included physical education and sport among its priorities. This has opened new funding opportunities for sport and physical activity projects to be supported. Promoting participation in educational opportunities through sport is thus a new priority topic for school partnerships supported by the Comenius programme and for thematic networks and mobility in the field of higher education supported by the Erasmus programme.
The Youth in Action Programme acknowledges the vital role that sport plays in young people's physical and social development. This is reflected in a double focus within the Programme on the role of sport as a means to promote healthy lifestyles on the one hand, and social inclusion and active citizenship on the other hand. Since the adoption of the White Paper on Sport, the integration of both dimensions has been strengthened by the addition of specific annual priorities in the Youth in Action Programme Guide, which has the status of a permanent call for proposals and is the main tool to implement the Programme. Consequently, in 2008 priority will be given to youth projects highlighting the role of sport as a tool to promote active citizenship and social inclusion or healthy lifestyles through physical activities among young people.
The Europe for Citizens Programme is open for a large variety of civil society organisations, including those in the area of amateur sport. Since the adoption of the White Paper on Sport, a specific annual priority on sport and active citizenship was added. Consequently, in 2008 priority will be given to applications dealing with the role of sport as a tool to promote active citizenship and social inclusion.
The European Integration Fund is also of relevance. Its main objective is to support the efforts made by Member States in enabling third-country nationals of different economic, social, religious, linguistic and ethnic backgrounds to fulfil conditions of residence and to facilitate their integration in to the European societies. The Integration Fund aims in particular at putting Common Basic Principles (CBP) approved at EU level on integration into practice. One of the CBP affirms that "mainstreaming integration policies and measures in all relevant policy portfolios and levels of government is an important consideration in public-policy formation and implementation" and that "Integration occurs in all spheres of public and private life. Numerous non-governmental actors influence the integration process of immigrants and can have additional value. Examples in this respect are trade unions, businesses, employer organisations, political parties, the media, sports clubs and cultural, social and religious organisations. Cooperation, coordination and communication between all of these actors are important for effective integration policy. The involvement of both immigrant and the other people in the host society is also necessary". Within the framework of the preparatory actions (INTI programme) to the establishment of this Fund, the Commission has co-financed in 2005 a project called "Integration at sports" coordinated by Zeitbild, a German organisation, in partnership with five other organisations from Austria, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and United Kingdom. More information can be found on this project on the following website: http://www.united-by-sports.net/en
Question no 105 by Alexander Alvaro (H-0246/08)
Subject: EU funding for the Egyptian satellite provider Nilesat despite broadcasting al-Manar
According to the website of the European neighbourhood policy, the European Union will provide Egypt with EUR 558 million over the next four years.
Is the Commission aware that this funding is being used in part to finance projects indirectly or directly connected to the Egyptian satellite provider Nilesat? If so, does the Commission consider such financing to be justified, particularly in view of the fact that Nilesat broadcasts the radical Islamist television station ‘al-Manar’, which, according to Viviane Reding, Commissioner for the Information Society and the Media, is in breach of the ‘Television without Frontiers’ Directive (97/36/EC(1)) (answer of 17 May 2005 to Written Question E-0909/05)?
The Commission would like to thank the Honourable Member for the question regarding his concerns that EU funded projects might be connected with the Egyptian satellite provider Nilesat which is broadcasting Al-Manar TV to Europe.
Audiovisual cooperation as provided for in the Action Plan under the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) is essentially concerned with upgrading the regulatory framework and therefore cannot be seen as supporting objectionable content directly or indirectly.
There are currently no Commission funded projects in the audiovisual sector in Egypt. EU financial assistance is targeted to support the priorities as set out in the ENP Action Plan. This is clearly reflected in the National Indicative Programme (NIP) which provides € 558 million for the period 2007-2010 to assist Egypt in addressing a number of challenges of its political, economic and social reform agenda and to encourage further reform steps.
Both the NIP and the Annual Action Programmes which define the specific programmes on a yearly basis are prepared according to strict rules and procedures. They need to receive the positive opinion of the EU Member States, and are reviewed by the European Parliament under a scrutiny procedure.
The Commission is aware that Al-Manar TV can be received in Europe via the Egypt owned satellite provider Nilesat. The Commission fully shares concerns raised on the ground that material broadcast by this channel might amount to incitement to hatred.
In the joint Action Plan under the ENP the EU and Egypt agreed to cooperate in the fight against intolerance, discrimination, racism and xenophobia and in the promotion of respect for religions and cultures.
In this context another important priority for action is to “strengthen the role of media in combating xenophobia and discrimination on the grounds of religious belief or culture” and encouraging the media “to assume its responsibilities in this regard”.
The appropriate mechanism for raising issues related to the fight against racism and xenophobia with Egypt is the sub-committee on political matters, including human rights, which we hope to convene for the first time in the near future.
Dialogue is by definition a two way process and will allow us to discuss issues of mutual concern both in the EU and in the partner country.
Subject: Insurance Fund for Solidarity between Generations
Article 149 of Greek Law No. 3655/2008 (Greek Government Gazette No. 58 A' of 3.4.2008) concerning the administrative and organisational reform of the social security system and other insurance provisions creates a reserve entitled the Insurance Fund for Solidarity between Generations to be used after 2019 to deal with problems which the social security system may encounter in the future. The resources of the Fund will be made up of 10% of the total annual revenue from the privatisation of public enterprises and organisations, 4% of the total annual revenue from VAT and 10% of the sums collected by social security bodies.
Will the Commission factor into its estimates of the Greek budget deficit - and what method will it use to do so - the sums which will gradually accrue to this Fund, given that its main source of stable income will come from VAT resources?
Does the Commission know how the Greek Government intends to cover the gap in budget revenue which will arise when the financing of the new Insurance Fund absorbs 4% of revenue from VAT and 10% of the total annual revenue from privatisations?
According to ESA 95 accounting rules(1), the Insurance Fund for Solidarity between Generations will be classified in the Social security fund sub-sector within the General Government sector. This classification implies that the annual deficit/surplus of the fund will contribute to the general government deficit/surplus. Moreover, as transactions between the fund and other government units (e.g. transfers of value added tax, social contributions) will be consolidated, they will have no impact on the government deficit. The rationale of these rules is that, basically, these revenue transfers appear as internal adjustments in the balance sheet of the general government, with no change in wealth, nor no flow of income.
However, the way the Insurance Fund for Solidarity between Generations will invest its funds may have an impact on the government gross debt(2), after 2009. If investment is mainly directed to assets other than government bonds, the general government consolidated gross debt may increase by the amount of those investments, as compared to a situation where they investment is directed exclusively to government bonds.
The definition of government gross debt is given by Art. 1(5) of Council Regulation 3605/93, as amended.
Question no 107 by Anne E. Jensen (H-0249/08)
Subject: The EASA's handling of Dash 8 Q400 emergency landings
Three accidents involving Dash 8 Q400 aircraft occurred in the autumn of 2007 in Aalborg, Vilnius and Copenhagen respectively. A subsequent investigation by the airline concerned revealed that 16 of their 18 Dash 8 Q400 aircraft had the same design error as the aircraft involved in the emergency landing in Copenhagen. Furthermore, Austrian Airlines, amongst others, has also had problems with the landing gear on this type of aircraft. Further to Question H-0051/08(1), can the Commission answer:
When the EASA has the power to issue airworthiness directives in the event of design errors and defects, should the EASA not order an inquiry into all Dash 8 Q400 aircraft within its remit?
Does the EASA have an overview of the maintenance procedures (inspection and, if needs be, replacement of filters) used by airlines within its remit?
Does the EASA have the instruments necessary to ensure air safety in Europe or is this an area of tension with the national authorities?
As the Commission informed the honourable Member in its answer to Oral Question H-0051/08, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has published airworthiness directives prescribing corrective measures.
In particular, in October 2007 an airworthiness directive required the inspection of all aircraft of the Dash 8 Q400 type registered in the Member States of the European Union. If analysis of the results of these inspections were to show that other measures were required, the EASA would take the necessary steps.
The EASA has reviewed maintenance procedures in relation to the Dash 8 Q400 and considers them satisfactory. It should nevertheless be noted that the approval of the maintenance programmes of each individual operator is the task of the national authorities which are themselves subject to EASA standardisation inspections.
If it is fully to perform its role, the EASA has to be able to draw on all relevant information in relation to safety, particularly information from occurrence reports and investigation reports. The Commission is promoting the establishment of close cooperation between the EASA and the competent national authorities and intends to place this cooperation on a formal footing when the relevant directives are revised. This kind of cooperation is especially important as not all safety tasks have been fully transferred to the EASA and responsibilities are therefore shared between the EASA and Member States.
Subject: Installation of wind generators on the island of Skyros
The Greek Government is planning to install 111 wind generators with a total capacity of 333 MW on the island of Skyros in the prefecture of Evvia in the north central Aegean, thereby creating one of the biggest wind power parks in the world. This plan will have a particularly negative impact on the economy of the island, especially on stock farming, bee-keeping and tourism. Moreover, it will ruin the island's landscape and lead to the extinction of the unique Skyrian horse, which is protected under Regulation (EEC) No. 2078/92(1) and lives in the area where the park is planned, also designated a special protection area for wild birds (SPA GR 115). All the organisations on the island have expressed their firm opposition in line with the written petition of the great majority of the inhabitants who have appealed to the Greek Government to annul its decision.
Is the Commission familiar with the plans to install wind generators? Does it know whether these plans will be accompanied by environmental studies and what measures will it take to prevent the installation of wind generators on the island?
Community environmental legislation does not prohibit the construction of wind generators on a Natura 2000 site. Article 6(3) and (4) of Directive 92/43/EEC(2) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora lays down a series of formal and substantive measures covering projects likely to have a significant effect on a protected site, with a view to conserving the site and ensuring the integrity of the network.
In the case of Skyros, those provisions are applicable to the 'Skyros: Oros Kochylas' site (GR2420006) which Greece has designated for the Natura 2000 network under Directive 92/43/EEC and Directive 79/409/EEC(3) on the conservation of wild birds.
According to the information available, which has also been sent to the Commission by local associations, the assessment and environmental authorisation procedure for the project, in accordance with the national rules transposing Directives 85/337/EEC(4) and 92/43/EEC, is in progress, but it has been unsuccessful. The fact that the local community has been able to express its views shows that the obligation to inform and consult the public has been fulfilled. However, public opinion is not binding.
In the light of the above, it is not possible to establish that Directive 85/337/EEC or Directive 92/43/EEC has been infringed. The Commission will continue to monitor the situation closely.
Subject: Situation of the current WTO negotiations
Given the revised proposals on agriculture and market access for non-agricultural products within the WTO negotiations, what point are the negotiations currently at? Which revised proposals is the Commission putting forward for negotiation, with regard to agriculture, non-agricultural products (including textiles and clothing) and services?
In mid-February, the Chairs of the respective negotiating groups on agriculture and on industrial goods ("NAMA") issued new versions of their negotiating texts. Further negotiations have taken place in the meantime, and the Chairs may choose to reflect progress made by issuing further revised texts. World Trade Organisation (WTO) members will then have to decide whether a sound basis to move towards a Ministerial negotiation is in place. Such negotiations will seek to agree on so-called "modalities" for the final stretch of the negotiations. There is some prospect that this Ministerial meeting could be convened in the coming months.
In the area of agriculture, the Commission has sought to engage with third countries, so as to find mutually agreeable solutions. In doing so, the Commission is working strictly within the limits of the mandate given by the Council on the basis of the 2003 Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. Although there seems to be growing convergence among the negotiating partners on the treatment of sensitive products, there are still a number of difficult and politically sensitive outstanding issues mostly on market access which are not yet ripe for Ministerial involvement.
The negotiating text on NAMA from February lacked clarity on the contribution of emerging economies. The EU position is that these emerging economies should contribute to creating real new trade opportunities in industrial goods, as specified in the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) mandate. This position has been made clear to other WTO Members. As regards specific sectors, the EU has tabled a proposal for a sectoral agreement on textiles (whereby trade in textiles would be further liberalised) and will continue to push hard to target tariff peaks in developed countries and emerging economies.
In the area of services, it will be essential that any WTO Ministerial agrees on the need for an ambitious outcome in this area. In the margins of the WTO Ministerial, a special meeting with key industrial and emerging economies will be held, where these countries will signal in which areas they can make further liberalisation offers ("plurilateral signalling conference"). The results of this Conference will therefore feed into the EC's overall assessment of the balance likely to be achieved across the negotiations as a whole.
Any negotiated outcome which could emerge in the weeks ahead must be comprehensive and cover issues of clear interest to the EU. The ambition in agriculture must be fully matched by the other areas of the negotiations, including NAMA, Services and Rules, as well as Geographical Indications. The Commission will not compromise on this: an overall outcome which would not be balanced would not be acceptable.
Question no 110 by Laima Liucija Andrikienė (H-0258/08)
Subject: Combating the consequences on human health of the Chernobyl disaster
The Chernobyl disaster occurred on 26 April 1986, causing enormous damage to the environment and to human health, particularly because the Soviet leadership of the day criminally sought to conceal the very fact of the accident. The consequences of the disaster are still being felt today, 22 years later, not only in Ukraine and Belarus, but also in other countries of the region that are EU Member States: Poland, Latvia and Lithuania. Experts link the increasing number of oncological and cardiovascular illnesses, infertility problems among young families and other issues with the Chernobyl disaster.
Has the Commission drawn up an action plan to tackle these problems in the European Union? Has a cancer prevention strategy been established assessing the environmental factors and the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster on the environment and on human health? Does the Commission plan to help Ukraine and Belarus in this area?
A comprehensive report on the health consequences of the Chernobyl accident, including mortality among emergency workers, the enhanced incidence of thyroid cancers, as well as the estimated possible incidence of other cancers and leukaemia, has been published by World Health Organisation (WHO)(1).
This report came to the conclusion that there is no scientific evidence indicating that there might be decreased fertility in the general population as a direct result of the Chernobyl accident. As regards cardiovascular diseases due to radiation, the above report, while not fully substantiating an increase, could nevertheless not exclude a small effect. In order to try to bring clarity on this topic, the Commission has decided to organise a Scientific Seminar on radiation induced circulatory diseases in November 2008.
The exposure of the EU population from the Chernobyl accident represented a small increase in comparison with that received from natural background radiation. Statistically, it can be postulated that this exposure might lead to an increased incidence of cancer in the population but, any increase (should it occur) would be small in relation to that which could be postulated to arise from natural radiation. Moreover, any increase would be statistically undetectable against the relatively high incidence of cancer in the population from other causes.
Doses to the European population have been estimated and levels of radioactivity in the environment are kept under review on the basis of the information provided by Member States under Article 36 of the EURATOM Treaty.
A substantial programme of research (about € 40 million) on the health and environmental consequences of the Chernobyl accident has been supported by the Commission in its Framework Programmes (mainly EURATOM) since 1990. Much of this research was carried out in the first half of the 1990s in collaboration with Belarus, Russian Federation and Ukraine. Currently the research is restricted to a few key issues, in particular the increased incidence of thyroid cancer in the three countries. More generally, the risks from radiation exposures at low doses has been and continues to be the main focus of radiation protection research in past and current EURATOM Research Framework Programmes.
In terms of assistance, the Commission has contributed € 250 million so far to the Shelter Implementation Plan. The Commission has also contributed € 92million to projects for treatment and management of radioactive waste and € 96 million supporting the regulatory authorities in Ukraine to ensure the proper nuclear framework.
The Commission has launched over 100 projects to address the environmental, healthcare and social-economic consequences, with a total contribution of € 60 million. This has included medical effect studies on radiation sickness, eco-system studies, emergency information centres, grants to create employment sources in the effected area, education on radiological culture, farming, improving professional health care, and the CORE programme in Belarus, which supports an integrated approach to the issues of social and economical rehabilitation in a context of radiological contamination
Projects currently being implemented include, a social-economic project, a medical project to improve peri-natal diagnostics and treatments in the Ukrainian provinces affected by the accident, a project with UNICEF to improve the healthcare of children and mothers, and a contribution of € 2.7 million to the UNDP project to “Combat the negative effects of the Chernobyl disaster in Belarus”.
“Report of the UN Chernobyl Forum, Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident and Special Healthcare Programmes”, Geneva, 2006 (available on www.who.int).
Question no 111 by Hans-Peter Martin (H-0262/08)
Subject: Costs and benefits of marketing campaign for EU agencies
The Commission has organised a marketing campaign under the slogan 'Whatever we do, we work for you', in order to improve the image of the EU agencies.
What was the total cost and over what period did the campaign extend? Which agencies helped to cover the total cost, and how much did they contribute to this? What activities did the campaign comprise? Was the success of the campaign analysed, and if so, what was the result?
The Commission would like to recall that regulatory agencies are independent bodies from the Commission with their own legal personality. As such, each agency conducts its own communication policy. The communication campaign referred to by the Honourable Member was undertaken exclusively by agencies and is an example of coordinated communication policy, which is an approach, favoured by the Commission.
As regards the factual information requested by the Honourable Member – total cost, financial contribution by agencies, level of participation, duration and a success analysis – the best placed to answer is the agency that coordinated the campaign. Therefore, the Commission has asked the European Training Foundation to provide the information needed. The Commission will submit this factual data to the Honourable Member as soon as possible.