Further to the conclusions of the General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting on 26-27 May, 2008:

What is the Council planning to do in order to encourage and push for an inclusive political dialogue among all parties?

What actions will the Council take to enforce the application of international humanitarian and human rights law and to ensure the investigation of violations in order to put an end to the present climate of impunity?

What actions will the Council take to ensure unhindered humanitarian access and to push the Temporary Federal Government to comply with their expressed intention of creating a humanitarian focal point?

This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its Members, was not given orally during Council Question Time at the July 2008 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council is examining various possibilities for ensuring that all the commitments in the conclusions on Somalia that it adopted on 26 May and 16 June are fulfilled.

The Council encourages an all-inclusive dialogue involving all the parties present in Somalia, through a political dialogue with members of the Transitional Federal Institutions, moderate members of the opposition and civil society. With this in mind, the Council fully supports the agreement made in Djibouti on 9 June between the Transitional Federal Government and the Alliance for the Re-Liberation of Somalia and will continue to provide political and financial support for the efforts made by the UN.

The Council is deeply troubled by the extremely serious humanitarian situation in Somalia. It has welcomed the intention expressed by the Transitional Federal Government to create a focal point for the humanitarian crisis.

The Council supports the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, including the Independent Expert for Somalia, and has encouraged them to undertake an independent fact-finding and assessment mission to address the human rights situation.

In response to the request in the Council conclusions on Somalia of 16 June, the Secretariat General of the Council and the Commission are examining the possibilities for implementing Resolution 1816 regarding combating piracy and armed robbery in the waters off the coast of Somalia.

Could the Council indicate what measures it hopes to push forward to ensure that the EU meets its target of halving road deaths by 2010, and what other measures it will look to introduce during the lifetime of the current Presidency?

This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its Members, was not given orally during Council Question Time at the July 2008 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

With regard to the measures to be promoted over the next six months with a view to reducing the number of road accident victims in the EU, the French Presidency of the Council will ensure the adoption of the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on road infrastructure safety management⁽¹⁾, on which the Council and the European Parliament have just reached an agreement at first reading.

The aim of this proposal is to ensure that safety is integrated in all phases of planning, design and operation of road infrastructure in the Trans-European Network. Along with economic and environmental considerations, safety will be paramount in the design of new infrastructures. The proposed directive will also provide managers of road infrastructure with access to the guidelines, training and information required to ensure safety in the road network.

The French Presidency also attaches particular importance to the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council facilitating cross-border enforcement in the field of road safety⁽²⁾. This legislative proposal has already undergone an initial examination phase under the Slovenian Presidency, and this work will continue under the French Presidency, which has made it one of its priorities for transport. The aim of this text is to enable the enforcement of sanctions against drivers who commit an offence in another Member State than the one where their vehicle is registered. Its aim is to improve safety on European roads whilst putting an end to discrimination against resident drivers.

This proposal for a directive will complement the legislation established by the Council Framework Decision on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties. This Framework Decision, adopted in February 2005, will help ensure that individuals and companies no longer avoid paying fines. It will enable a judicial or administrative authority to transmit a financial penalty direct to an authority in another Member State and have that penalty recognised and executed without further formalities.

Finally, it should be noted that on 11 and 12 September in Paris, the French Presidency is organising a seminar on coordinating the improvement of road safety, focused on the issue of monitoring and penalties. It will also host a conference in Paris on 13 October on ‘Road Safety in our Cities’ organised by the Commission as part of European Road Safety Day.

Has the Council addressed the new but very serious concern about global food security? Does the Council accept that part of the reason for the problem of food insecurity is the years of neglect in terms of spending on research and development in agriculture and food production? What steps does the Council regard as essential in order to address the crisis?

This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its Members, was not given orally during Council Question Time at the July 2008 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

Regarding the steps to be taken in order to provide a long-term political response to the global food crisis, the Council refers the Honourable Member to the answer to oral question H-0358/08 asked by Dimitrios Papadimoulis.

In addition, as the Honourable Member is surely aware, at its last meeting on 20 June, the European Council examined the political consequences of the rise in food and oil prices. I refer her to the Presidency conclusions on this point.

In the agricultural sector, the Union has already acted to moderate the pressure on food prices by selling intervention stocks, reducing export refunds, removing the set-aside requirement for 2008, increasing milk quotas and suspending import duties on cereals, thus improving supply and helping to stabilise agricultural markets.

The Council also underlines that in the EU and globally there is a need to pursue work on innovation, research and development relating to agricultural production. These activities will be particularly important because of climate change, which will require the agricultural sector to make considerable efforts to adapt. This issue was examined informally on 19 May 2008 by the Agriculture Ministers, with the participation of Commissioners Janez Potočnik and Mariann Fischer Boel, in particular with the aim of defining future research and development priorities.

Finally, the Honourable Member is surely aware that on 3 July, in partnership with the Commission and the European Parliament, the French Presidency organised a conference on the theme ‘Who will feed the world?’. The aim of this conference was to discuss the challenges that agriculture must take up today, including the future of agriculture in developing countries.

The project of a Union of the Mediterranean is a welcome development in relations between the EU and countries bordering the Mediterranean. What plans does the Council have at this preliminary stage to ensure that this Union strengthens and furthers the Barcelona Process? Is it clear that this Union will not be set up in competition with the Barcelona Process? Have there been any discussions on what role the European Parliament would play in a Union for the Mediterranean?

This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its Members, was not given orally during Council Question Time at the July 2008 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

At its meeting on 13 and 14 March 2008, the European Council invited the European Commission to present the necessary proposals for defining the modalities of the ‘Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean’. The link between the ‘Barcelona acquis’ and the next phase of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership is therefore guaranteed. It goes without saying that they are absolutely not rival structures.

The partners in the process are currently discussing the text of a statement, with a view to the Paris Summit, which will take place on 13 July. It is envisaged that this statement will clearly welcome the important role that the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly is playing and will continue to play in this partnership. In this respect, the Resolution adopted by the European Parliament on 5 June 2008 is a very positive element.

What measures does the new Presidency intend to take to ensure that the European Alliance for Families is promoted and applied as widely as possible so as to meet the special needs of vulnerable categories of family (large families, single-parent families etc.), to ensure that they find employment and safeguard their income and to help achieve a better balance between professional and family life in EU Member States? Will the Council also say whether, in drawing up family-friendly policies, it intends to propose a reduction in VAT rates for children’s goods, specifically in cases where similar products are already covered by derogation?

This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its Members, was not given orally during Council Question Time at the July 2008 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Honourable Member raised the important issue of family policy, and she is right to point out that we need to support the most vulnerable families. The Council is also resolved to take strong measures in this field.

In the conclusions that it adopted in May 2007, the Council gave its support to the creation of the European Alliance for the Family and called on the Member States ‘to make intensive use of the opportunities for exchanges of opinion and experience offered by the Alliance for Families’.⁽¹⁾

As the Honourable Member is well aware, the Council regularly re-examines the issues relating to employment policy in the context of the Lisbon strategy. In February this year, the EPSCO Council adopted a set of key messages that it forwarded to the Spring European Council⁽²⁾, in which it called for more and better jobs and pointed out that it was important to have inclusive labour markets and for the gender equality dimension to be taken into account. These key messages were adopted by the European Council in March 2008.

With regard to the balance between family and working life, it should be recalled that in 2000 the Council adopted a resolution on the balanced participation of women and men in family and working life⁽³⁾. This issue remains among the Council’s priorities, and it recently adopted conclusions entitled ‘Balanced roles of women and men for jobs, growth and social cohesion’, in which it called on the Member States ‘to promote effective policies to reconcile work, family and private life that do not compel women and men to choose between family and work or to prioritise one to the detriment of the other’.⁽⁴⁾

With regard to the Council’s future work in this field, I am pleased to announce that the French Presidency will present its programme to the European Parliament’s Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality on 15 July 2008. The French Presidency also presented its programme to the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs on 25 June 2008.

Finally, I am happy to note that the Council and the European Parliament have agreed to make the issue of families, in particular large families and single parents, one of the priorities of the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion (2010), which will soon be announced by a decision that both institutions will adopt together. I would like to thank the Honourable Member, who was the rapporteur for this matter, for her constructive cooperation during the negotiations.

With regard to VAT rates, the Honourable Member is aware that the Council acts on the basis of proposals from the Commission; so far it has not presented any proposals of the type suggested by the Honourable Member.

A discussion on VAT rates should take place soon, but it would be premature for the Council to prejudge the results of the forthcoming discussions.

In the Treaty of Amsterdam, Strasbourg is specifically named as the sole seat – not, as is often thought, the second seat – of the European Parliament. This makes it the seat of Europe’s Parliament, symbolising a democratic, decentralised, political-cultural concept of Europe which is close to citizens and is characterised by understanding among peoples. What is the Council’s view of the above definition in the Treaty, and what measures are planned to reinforce the position of Strasbourg in an organisational, political and legal context? Does the Council share my opinion that better concentration of Parliament’s work in the city, for example by means of part-session weeks (which would revert to five days’ duration) and a reduction in the expensive mini-sessions in Brussels, would enable large amounts of money to be saved and improved efficiency and visibility to be achieved?

This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its Members, was not given orally during Council Question Time at the July 2008 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

By virtue of Article 289 of the Treaty establishing the European Community and Article 189 of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, ‘The seat of the institutions of the Community shall be determined by common accord of the governments of the Member States.’ In accordance with paragraph (a) of the sole article of the eighth protocol, on the location of the seats of the institutions, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaties establishing the European Communities, ‘The European Parliament shall have its seat in Strasbourg where the 12 periods of monthly plenary sessions, including the budget session, shall be held. The periods of additional plenary sessions shall be held in Brussels. The committees of the European Parliament shall meet in Brussels. The General Secretariat of the European Parliament and its departments shall remain in Luxembourg.’

It is not for the Council to express an opinion on the internal organisation of the other institutions.

In 2006 the Council was invited by the Commission to review Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002⁽¹⁾ establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund. In the two years since then, there has been intense discussion in the Council on such issues as the scope of the fund. Disasters such as industrial accidents or terrorist attacks, in particular, should also qualify for assistance from the Solidarity Fund in future. Has the Council reached agreement on this and, if so, what amendments to the Regulation on the Solidarity Fund can be expected?

This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its Members, was not given orally during Council Question Time at the July 2008 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Court of Auditors has drawn up a Special Report (No 3/2008) on the application of the European Union Solidarity Fund.

In the report, the Court of Auditors concluded, inter alia, that:

management by the Commission had proved to be efficient;

there were no cases where the Fund showed a lack of flexibility in its treatment of applications;

all applicants who had replied to the survey were satisfied with the Fund and that the Fund had therefore achieved its underlying objective, which was to demonstrate solidarity with Member States in disaster situations.

The Council intends to adopt conclusions on this special report, in which it will state that it does not consider it necessary at this stage to review Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002.

Compared to previous ones, the latest ICES recommendation on Baltic cod for 2009 takes a substantially different approach to the evaluation of stocks in this fishing ground. For the first time the ICES explicitly recognises that the forecasting method using reference points was based on dubious (possibly false) data. According to the new assessment, cod fishing possibilities are much higher than in recent years.

What then are we to interpret from the provision contained in recital 6 of the most recent proposal for a Council regulation of 2nd April [2008/0063(CNS)], which states that 'provisions should be established to ensure that a TAC can be set in a consistent manner even under data poor conditions'? This could result in a further reduction in Baltic cod catch quotas for Polish fishermen.

The Council may be guided by the noble aim of ensuring the recovery of cod stocks at all costs, but, in the light of the latest ICES findings, can the unfair restrictions imposed on Polish fishermen be justified?

This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its Members, was not given orally during Council Question Time at the July 2008 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council would like to point out that it is for the Commission to present a proposal on the possibilities for cod fishing in the Baltic in 2009, in the light of the recommendations made by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and on the basis of the scientific opinions issued by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). The Council will then examine the proposal.

Recital 6 of the proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 423/2004⁽¹⁾ as regards the recovery of cod stocks in the Kattegat, the North Sea, the Skagerrak and the eastern Channel, as well as to the west of Scotland, in the Irish Sea and the Celtic Sea, provides for a total allowable catch (TAC) to be set in a consistent manner even under data poor conditions. This recital is linked to Article 6a, which establishes the procedure to follow for setting TACs in data poor conditions, and to Article 7, which establishes an evaluation clause allowing changes to be made based on new information and scientific opinions.

The Council would also like to point out that Council Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007⁽²⁾ establishing a multiannual plan for the cod stocks in the Baltic Sea does not contain any equivalent articles.

Finally, the Council would like to remind the Honourable Member that it is for the Court of Justice, at last resort, to interpret legal acts.

Former US President Jimmy Carter recently criticised the Middle East Quartet's continued embargo on Gaza. In the view of the Council, can the continued embargo help resolve Palestine's internal difficulties peacefully? Would the Council consider the formation of a unity government involving Hamas as an acceptable step towards a solution?

This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its Members, was not given orally during Council Question Time at the July 2008 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The EU has expressed its serious concern on several occasions regarding the continued deterioration of the humanitarian situation in Gaza. The Quartet, meeting at the highest level, in its statement of 2 May and then in its statement of 24 June, called for continued emergency and humanitarian assistance and the provision of essential services to Gaza without obstruction. It also strongly encouraged Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and Egypt to work together to formulate a new approach on Gaza that would provide security to all Gazans, end all acts of terror and provide for the controlled and sustained opening of the Gaza crossings for humanitarian reasons and commercial flows. The Egypt-brokered truce that entered into force on 19 June is a positive step in that direction. The EU Presidency welcomed this truce in its statement of 18 June 2008. It is important for it to be respected by all the parties.

With regard to ‘the formation of a unity government involving Hamas as an acceptable step towards a solution’, in its conclusions of 23 and 24 April 2007, the Council said that it was ready to work with a Palestinian Government whose policies and actions reflected the Quartet principles. In 2007, the EU initiated cooperation with members of the National Unity Government who had accepted these principles. The EU has noted the inter-Palestinian reconciliation initiative begun last month by President Mahmoud Abbas. We support any step that could strengthen the peace efforts of the Palestinian President. The aim is still the creation of an independent, democratic and viable Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza that will unite all Palestinians, living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its neighbours.

The theory is put forward that it is essential to fingerprint children from the age of six (or lower) since this would be useful in the fight against child trafficking. The same argument is used to support the proposal that children under 12 should have a separate passport.

There is, however, a lack of objective data to substantiate these assertions. Is the Council aware of any studies that confirm the link between the taking of fingerprints at an early age and a decreased risk of child trafficking?

This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its Members, was not given orally during Council Question Time at the July 2008 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council is not currently aware of any studies that confirm the link between the taking of fingerprints at an early age and a decreased risk of child trafficking.

During the Strasbourg part-session in April, the European Parliament adopted a report advocating dialogue with China concerning Africa. In the report, the European Parliament points out that China is guilty of corruption and violates environmental standards. It therefore calls upon the EU to enter into talks with China with a view to outlining a sustainable future for the continent, together with Africa itself. In addition to China's growing presence in Africa, such countries as India and Brazil are also taking an interest in the continent. At present, Brazil is increasing its agricultural aid to Africa, with the focus on biofuels. In the light of rising food prices, however, many questions arise concerning the use of land for bioenergy in developing countries.

Will the Council, at the next summit, take steps to initiate such dialogue? What form will this dialogue take? Does the Council believe that dialogue with the other new players is likewise desirable?

This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its Members, was not given orally during Council Question Time at the July 2008 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council has taken note of the European Parliament’s report on China’s policy and its effects on Africa. Among the issues the report tackles, it sets out the challenges that the EU will have to take up as a player on the world stage. At the last summit, held in June, some of the issues of global interest mentioned by the Honourable Member were debated, and are mentioned in the Presidency’s conclusions.

In recent years, both the EU and China have reviewed and strengthened their political, economic and development partnership with Africa. The EU thus adopted a Joint EU-Africa Strategy at the Lisbon Summit in 2007. China and Africa signed a joint declaration at the China-Africa Cooperation Forum, at the Summit held in Beijing in 2006.

Since 2005, Africa has been on the agendas of the meetings that the EU has held with China as part of the bilateral dialogue. The Council has also, through an initial official meeting of the Troika held in Beijing last year, begun a regular dialogue with top-level Chinese officials, which is solely focused on issues of mutual interest in Africa.

In this context, the Commission has further stepped up its activities and has stated that it is going to adopt a communication on China and Africa in October this year with the aim of possible trilateral cooperation between Africa, China and the EU. Subject to further consultations and an agreement with China and Africa, it will also be proposed that cooperation be established in important fields such as sustainable development of natural resources, infrastructures, peace and security. China has said that it is not opposed to this type of trilateral cooperation, provided that Africa agrees to this approach.

With regard to the other new players, such as Brazil and India, the Council considers that the major global problems can only be dealt with in a multilateral framework based on a strong UN. We need to ensure that the third countries that have an interest in Africa also support the principle of effective multilateralism, which is the best way of preserving peace and security at international level and meeting the challenges, safeguarding against the risks and taking advantage of the opportunities offered by the interdependent world that we know today. Some initial steps have been taken towards India, where the general development of the situation in Africa is already among the concerns. Discussions are under way with Brazil with the aim of adopting an action plan, one of the chapters of which should be devoted to Africa.

In Algeria on 3 June 2008, suspended prison sentences were handed down to four people who had converted to Christianity for 'the illegal practice of a non-Islamic religion'. More particularly, they were punished in this way because they had not practised their religion within the framework laid down by the Law of 28 February 2006. This law provides, in particular, that the place where a religion is practised must be approved by the Minister for Religious Affairs. The sentenced persons had installed a prayer area in their flat ('Quatre chrétiens condamnés en Algérie', Le Figaro.fr, 3 June 2008; Ryma Achoura, 'De la prison avec sursis pour des chrétiens d'Algérie', Libération.fr, 4 June 2008).

Article 2 of the Association Agreement of 22 April 2002 between the European Communities and the Member States, of the one part, and Algeria of the other part⁽¹⁾, lays down that respect for democratic principles and fundamental human rights is an 'essential element' of the Agreement.

Does the Council consider that the prosecution and conviction of the four converted Christians constitutes a violation of freedom of religion? If not, why not? If so, what further steps will the Council take under the Association Agreement?

This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its Members, was not given orally during Council Question Time at the July 2008 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

With regard to freedom of religion in Algeria, the Council notes with regret the events mentioned by the Honourable Member, which are among a series of cases that have taken place recently.

Having already expressed its concern at the last EU-Algeria Association Council on 10 March 2008, the Council is continuing to monitor these developments closely. The Council therefore considers that the application of the existing laws governing the practice of all religions in Algeria should remain compatible with the standards that Algeria has agreed to in international law, in particular with regard to combating all discrimination and promoting tolerance in the areas of culture, religious worship, minorities and fundamental rights.

The Council will continue to call on the Algerian authorities to do this, in particular in the context of the political dialogue provided for in the Association Agreement.

A Member State has submitted to the SIS Working Party a proposal (Working Document 8204/08) that a list be drawn up under the Schengen Information System of ‘violent offenders’ who take part in international demonstrations. Apart from the vagueness of its content, this proposal is at odds with the guarantees on human rights and freedoms enshrined in Community law.

The national delegation in question proposes that the SIS should record the names of persons who, it is believed on the basis of certain events, will commit serious crimes involving violence or the threat of violence. It is thought that possible grounds on which this negative projection will be based are whether a person has been suspected of, charged with or sentenced for carrying out a serious crime.

How does the Council view the above proposal? Does the French Presidency intend to pursue this initiative which is being justifiably criticised by organisations for the protection of human rights and freedoms?

This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its Members, was not given orally during Council Question Time at the July 2008 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

In its Conclusions of 13 July 2001⁽¹⁾, the Council acknowledged the need to use all the legal and technical possibilities for stepping up and promoting rapid, more structured exchanges of data on violent troublemakers on the basis of national files. In its conclusions of 5 and 6 June 2003 on the second generation of the SIS⁽²⁾, the Council noted that a certain interest existed on the proposal to include violent troublemakers in the SIS II, but that there needed to be more study on the feasibility, usefulness and practical implementation, and invited the relevant working groups to discuss this. In Decision 2007/533/JHA on the establishment, operation and use⁽³⁾ of the SIS II the Council did not take up this proposal.

A discussion is still in progress in the relevant working groups, in particular with a view to defining the concept of ‘violent troublemaker’. In its discussions, the Council is obviously taking into account the guarantees offered to citizens by Community law on human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The British Court of Appeal, on 7 May 2008, rejected an appeal from the UK Government and ordered the Home Secretary to remove the Iranian resistance movement, People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (PMOI), from its list of proscribed organisations.

A decision to include PMOI on the European black list was annulled by the European Court of First Instance in December 2006. The EU, however, included the PMOI in the new update of the black list in June 2007, explaining that this was based on a ‘decision of a competent authority’ within EU – the British Home Secretary. Now the UK Home Secretary's decision has been declared unlawful by the highest legal authority and can no longer be appealed.

Is the EU going to ask for respect for the rule of law in the upcoming Council meetings and endorse the removal of the PMOI from the EU list of terrorist organisations?

This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its Members, was not given orally during Council Question Time at the July 2008 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council has noted the judgment issued on 7 May by the United Kingdom Court of Appeal in the case of the People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (PMOI).

As stated in the Council’s working methods for implementing Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, any new facts relating to previous listings are duly taken into account when assessing whether the grounds for those listings are still valid.

In this context, the Council is currently considering the implications and consequences of the judgment issued in the United Kingdom with a view to taking a decision at EU level as quickly as possible.

With regard to the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of December 2006 that the Honourable Member refers to, it should be noted that it concerns the procedure for the adoption of the decision to include the PMOI on the list of persons and entities involved in terrorist acts, rather than its content. Following the judgment of the Court of First Instance, during the first six months of 2007 the Council conducted a detailed examination and consolidated its procedures for including persons, groups and entities on the aforementioned list and removing them from it under Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001⁽¹⁾. Following this examination, clear and transparent procedures were put in place. In particular, a statement of reasons is now provided for each person entity subject to a freezing of assets.

The persons, groups and entities listed may:

- ask the Council to re-examine their listing, on the basis of supporting evidence;

- challenge the decision of the competent national authority, in accordance with the national procedures;

- if they are subject to restrictive measures under Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001, challenge the Council’s decision before the Court of First Instance, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 230(4) and (5) of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

- if they are subject to restrictive measures under Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001, ask for exemptions to be applied on humanitarian grounds in order for their essential needs to be met.

Hamas, which the European Union recognized as a terrorist organisation in September 2003, has launched a television station called 'Al-Aqsa', modelled on Hezbollah’s television station 'Al-Manar'. As the press frequently reports, Al-Aqsa-TV’s children’s programming uses Disney-like characters to encourage children to aspire to be suicide bombers.

Is the Council aware that the European satellite provider Eutelsat, broadcasts 'Al-Aqsa' on Atlantic Bird 4, which it leases to the Jordanian satellite provider Noorsat? What steps has the Council taken to stop Eutelsat from broadcasting Al-Aqsa TV? Has the Council raised the matter with the Conseil Supérieur de l’Audiovisuel (CSA) in France?

In its reply to question E 1666/08, the Commission pointed out that it 'shares … concern with regard to incitement to hatred broadcast under the jurisdiction of one of the Member States.' Hamas’ TV station Al-Aqsa uses European satellite capacity of the French company Eutelsat’s Atlantic Bird 4, which Eutelsat leases to the Jordanian satellite provider Noorsat, to incite violence and hatred and justify terrorism in Europe and beyond. As on Hezbollah’s TV station Al-Manar, on Al-Aqsa programming children dress up as suicide bombers and are presented as heroes. In one segment, Assud, a popular bunny character, advocates martyrdom and suicide bombings as the ideal goal for every child who phones into the show. In another segment the cartoon character says that he will 'bite and eat up' the Danes because a Danish newspaper published political cartoons they did not like. Assud the bunny accepts a phone call on the show from someone who says that 'we will manage to kill, to assassinate' the cartoonist, to which Assud wholeheartedly agrees.

What is the Council planning to prevent Al-Aqsa broadcasting on European satellite capacity? Given the similarities between Al-Manar and the incitement to violence and terrorism broadcast on Al Aqsa, does this not amount to a violation of Article 3b ('Incitement to hatred') of the revised Audiovisual Without Frontiers Directive (Directive 2007/65/EC⁽¹⁾), as was the case with 'Al-Manar'?

This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its Members, was not given orally during Council Question Time at the July 2008 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The broadcasting of television programmes containing incitement to racial or religious hatred is incompatible with the values that are the basis of our democracies, and is totally intolerable.

Article 2(4) and (6) of the Directive on audiovisual media services (Directive 89/552/EEC last amended by Directive 2007/65/EC) states that service providers established in third countries may, in certain cases, fall under the jurisdiction of a Member State.

Member States, to which the Directive in question is addressed, must apply it under the supervision of the Commission. Under the aforementioned Directive it is up to the national authorities concerned to carefully consider the issue raised by the Honourable Members.

In addition, the European Union rejects all public provocation to commit a terrorist offence, as demonstrated by the amendment recently made to the Council Framework Decision on combating terrorism (2002/475/JHA), which includes three new offences: public provocation to commit a terrorist offence, recruitment for terrorism and training for terrorism. It is also envisaged that all the Member States will ratify the Council of Europe Convention for the Prevention of Terrorism (2006), which obliges the parties to criminalise pubic provocation to commit a terrorist offence.

According to the e-newsletter 'Hands off Cain' (No 105, 4 June 2008), the Iranian regime is about to execute (or may already have executed) Foroud Fouladvand, a European citizen with a British passport, Alexander Valizadeh, a European citizen with a German passport, and Nazem Schmidtt, a US citizen.

Dr Foroud Fouladvand is an academic and Koranic scholar who has publicly condemned the Iranian regime and its tyrannical rule.

Is the Council aware of these sentences and planned executions? Can it state what measures it has taken to protect the European citizens concerned?

This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its Members, was not given orally during Council Question Time at the July 2008 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council is aware that these three people disappeared in Yüksekova, a district of the province of Hakkari in Turkey, near the border with Iran. In Tehran, the embassies of the EU Member States are currently collecting additional information and are closely monitoring this case, but are not in a position to confirm that these people have been detained by the Iranian authorities.

The Council has instituted an EU travel ban on a number of Zimbabwean officials and politicians including President Robert Mugabe. However, President Mugabe has in the past been able to flout this ban by travelling to Italy and exercising his right under the Italian government's headquarters agreement with the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) to attend FAO meetings in Rome.

Generally, what efforts will the Council make to tighten the travel ban in the light of the most recent events? In the specific case of Mugabe and FAO, what efforts can the Council make to encourage the Italian government to renegotiate its headquarters agreement with FAO so as to allow Italy to implement the EU travel ban in full and deny Mugabe the chance to exploit this loophole? What is the Council's view of the worth and effectiveness of such a ban if it can be breached with such ease?

This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its Members, was not given orally during Council Question Time at the July 2008 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council has not considered the issue of tightening the travel ban in the light of the most recent events, but in the Presidency conclusions of the European Council of 19 and 20 June, the European Council reiterated its readiness to take additional measures against those responsible for violence.

It is for each Member State to implement the travel ban, in accordance with its national legislation. Italy is not the only country to conclude headquarters agreements, which have on several occasions allowed Zimbabwean leaders to enter various EU Member States.

Since 2002, the Council has renewed the travel ban imposed on the members of the Zimbabwean Government each year.

Soaring price increases (inflation), the continuing rapid increase in oil and wheat prices and a failure to take adequate measures to assist European citizens, the economies of Member States or the EU itself are extremely alarming developments. What are the EU's policy guidelines for tackling the soaring prices of oil, wheat and the cost of living generally in conjunction with Member States? Do any plans for specific measures exist? If so, what are they exactly and what exactly do they consist of?

This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its Members, was not given orally during Council Question Time at the July 2008 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The significant issues raised in this question have been discussed within the Council on several occasions, in particular on the basis of the Communications from the Commission ‘Tackling the challenge of rising food prices’⁽¹⁾ and ‘Facing the challenge of higher oil prices’⁽²⁾.

The European Council of 19 and 20 June 2008 discussed this subject on the basis of a report by the Ecofin Council on ‘Recent developments in food prices – main drivers and policy responses’⁽³⁾. The Presidency Conclusions therefore establish a series of specific measures to be carried out, the majority of which must be implemented before December 2008.

In its conclusions the Presidency also notes the specific measures already taken by the European Union, in particular in the agriculture sector, in order to moderate the pressure on food prices by selling intervention stocks, reducing export refunds, removing the set-aside requirement for 2008, increasing milk quotas and suspending import duties on cereals, thus improving supply and helping to stabilise agricultural markets. In addition, the successive reforms of the common agricultural policy have contributed to increased efficiency in the agricultural sector in Europe. The Council will examine other measures for tackling these issues in the context of the CAP health check.

With regard to the measures to be taken, the European Council has highlighted the importance of ensuring the sustainability of bio-fuel policies, by setting sustainability criteria for the production of first-generation bio-fuels and by encouraging the development of the second-generation bio-fuels made from by-products, as well as the need to assess without delay possible impacts on agricultural products for food and to take action, if necessary, to deal with any problems.

The European Council has also declared its determination to continue to strive for a comprehensive, ambitious and balanced conclusion of the Doha Round and to discourage third countries from imposing food export restrictions and export bans. The European Union will raise this issue in the WTO and other relevant international fora.

The European Council has welcomed the Commission’s initiative to examine the issue of restrictive regulations in the retail sector and the Commission’s intention to closely monitor activities in commodity-related financial markets, including speculative trade, and their impact on price movements as well as any policy implications. It has invited the Commission to report back on this issue in advance of the December 2008 European Council and to consider proposing adequate policy responses, including measures aimed at improving market transparency.

With regard to oil and gas prices, the Presidency has been invited, in cooperation with the Commission, to examine the feasibility and impact of measures to smooth the effects of sudden oil and gas price increases and report before the October 2008 European Council. The European Council has also invited Member States, the Commission and the European Investment Bank to support measures aimed at facilitating investments by households and industry in energy efficiency and use of renewable energy sources as well as a more environmentally-friendly use of fossil fuels. It has called on the Member States and the Commission to expedite the implementation of the 2006 Action Plan on energy efficiency and consider its possible revision.

These same conclusions encouraged the Commission to monitor, in addition to food and oil prices, developments in other commodity-related markets, and invited the General Affairs and External Relations Council to follow closely the work conducted in the other relevant Council configurations on the issues linked to food and oil prices and to report to the European Council by October 2008.

In Colombia the Supreme Court is establishing that 64 parliamentarians supporting President Uribe's Government are linked to paramilitary groups (death squads). The President asked his close parliamentarians to impede the National Congress's adoption of a law to reform the congress in order to impede political parties from replacing parliamentarians linked to paramilitary forces by substitutes. The logical conclusion is that this Government is relying on politicians linked to paramilitary groups and that the re-election of the President depends on those parliamentarians.

Will the Council continue to negotiate an Association Agreement with a government supported by paramilitary forces? If there is a human rights clause in the new agreement, is it reasonable to sign such an agreement with a government that is violating human rights even before signing?

This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its Members, was not given orally during Council Question Time at the July 2008 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council has taken note of information reporting possible links between political figures and members of Colombian paramilitary groups, and will closely monitor the development of the situation. The Association Agreement that is under negotiation with the Andean Community will obviously include the standard clause on human rights and democratic principles. In this case, it is appropriate to point out that in its conclusions on Colombia adopted at the end of 2007:

‘The Council […] expresses the EU’s total solidarity with the Colombian people, its full support for the Colombian Government in its search for a negotiated solution to the internal armed conflict, and underlines the importance the EU attaches to the ongoing implementation of the Justice and Peace Law (JPL) and its related legal framework and the development of the demobilisation, disarmament and reintegration (DDR) process under the JPL.

The Council reconfirms the readiness of the EU and its Member States to assist the Colombian Government, state institutions, civil society and international organisations in providing support for activities that promote peace, truth, justice, reparation and reconciliation and in providing support for activities that advance DDR processes.

The Council welcomes the steps that have been taken by the Colombian Government and Colombian authorities to implement the JPL in a transparent and effective manner, the work of the National Reconciliation and Reparation Commission and the role played by the Constitutional Court. It also welcomes the appointment and the work of the High Commissioner for the Social and Economic Integration of Armed Individuals and Groups.

While recognising what has been achieved, the Council also takes note that the implementation of the JPL is far from complete. It urges the Colombian government to support and resource the quick and efficient implementation of all aspects of the JPL – including by providing adequate staffing to the Justice and Peace Law unit within the Office of the Attorney General – in a manner that gives priority to victims’ rights to truth, justice and reparation.’

The Council also encouraged ‘the Colombian Government’s determination to improve the armed forces’ respect for human rights and welcomes the progress which has been made in this respect. However, it note[d] with real concern the persisting problem of human rights violations by some members of the security forces, including extra-judicial killings.’

Finally, the Council said it was ‘concerned by the emergence of new paramilitary and other armed criminal groups. It takes note of the efforts already taken by the authorities to fight these emerging groups and calls on the Colombian Government to increase its ongoing efforts and step up the measures it is taking to fight these groups.’

There have been a number of reports in the media suggesting that the EU Member States are seriously considering lifting their sanctions against Cuba, regardless of the fundamental objections raised by Human Rights Watch and other human rights organisations.

Can Cuban citizens invoke all the provisions of the UN Convention on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights? According to the Council, what significant, tangible and proven progress has been made in Cuba in the areas of freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of movement, press freedom and the reform of the judicial system since sanctions were first imposed in 2003?

This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its Members, was not given orally during Council Question Time at the July 2008 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

On 28 February 2008, Cuba signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which the EU Presidency welcomed in its statement of 4 March 2008.

Until these covenants have been ratified, Cuban citizens cannot invoke their provisions. However, the Council points out that, by signing them, Cuba has already declared its intention to respect the civil and political rights listed in these covenants, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other human rights agreements that Cuba has ratified.

In its conclusions of 23 June 2008 on Cuba, the Council called upon the Cuban authorities to ratify and implement these covenants and once again called on the Cuban Government to make real the commitment to human rights that it has demonstrated through the signing of these two human rights covenants.

In the same conclusions, the Council noted the changes undertaken so far by the Cuban Government. It said that it supported liberalising changes in Cuba and encouraged the Government to introduce them.

The Council called upon the Cuban Government to improve effectively the human rights situation by, inter alia, releasing unconditionally all political prisoners, including those who were detained and sentenced in 2003. This remains a key priority for the EU. The Council also called upon the Cuban Government to facilitate access for international humanitarian organisations to Cuban prisons.

The Council indicated that it remained committed to the common position of 1996, which was still entirely relevant, and reaffirmed its determination to pursue a dialogue with the Cuban authorities as well as with representatives of civil society and the democratic opposition, in accordance with EU policies, in order to promote respect for human rights and real progress towards a pluralist democracy. The Council underlined that the EU would continue to offer to all sectors of society practical support towards peaceful change in Cuba. The EU also reiterated its call on the Cuban Government to grant freedom of information and expression, including access to the Internet, and invited the Cuban Government to cooperate on this matter.

The EU reiterated the right of Cuban citizens to decide independently about their future and said that it remained ready to contribute positively to the future development of all sectors of Cuban society including through development cooperation instruments.

The Council added that the EU was ready to resume a comprehensive and open dialogue with the Cuban authorities on all topics of mutual interest. Since June 2007, preliminary discussions on the possibility to launch such a dialogue have taken place at Ministerial level between the EU and Cuba and bilaterally. This dialogue should include the whole range of potential fields of cooperation including the human rights sphere as well as the political, economic, scientific and cultural spheres, and should take place on a reciprocal, unconditional, non-discriminatory and result-oriented basis. Within the framework of this dialogue, the EU will outline to the Cuban Government its views on democracy, universal human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Council reaffirmed that its policy for EU contacts with the democratic opposition remains valid. During high level visits, human rights issues should always be addressed; when appropriate, meetings with the democratic opposition will be part of high level visits.

The Council therefore agreed to pursue the above mentioned comprehensive political dialogue with the Cuban Government. In this context, the Council agreed to the lifting of the already suspended 2003 measures as a means to facilitate the political dialogue process and enable the full use of the instruments of the 1996 Common Position.

On the occasion of the annual review of the Common Position, the Council will proceed in June 2009 to an evaluation of its relations with Cuba, including the effectiveness of the political dialogue process. Following that date, the dialogue will continue if the Council decides that it has been effective, taking into account in particular the elements contained in paragraph 2 of the conclusions.

Does the Council intend to pursue, through any available means, the legal competence in the area of sport envisaged in Article 149 of the Lisbon Treaty, now that the Treaty can no longer be implemented in its own right after the ‘No’ vote in the Irish referendum?

This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its Members, was not given orally during Council Question Time at the July 2008 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

By law, the Union has only the competence conferred on it by the Treaties. It is not therefore possible for the Council itself to confer new competences on the Union.

Regarding legal competence in the area of sport envisaged in Article 149 of the Lisbon Treaty, it should be pointed out that the European Council on 19 and 20 June noted the outcome of the referendum in Ireland and agreed that more time was needed to analyse the situation. It also recalled that the purpose of the Lisbon Treaty is to help an enlarged Union to act more effectively and more democratically and stated that the parliaments of 19 Member States had ratified the Treaty and that the ratification process was continuing in the other Member States⁽¹⁾.

In November 2007, the US-backed military regime of the dictator Musharraf of Pakistan imposed martial law, made numerous arrests and inflicted brutal violence on the Pakistani people. The dictatorship also had its sights trained on the country's legal profession who had opposed it, imprisoning thousands of lawyers, whilst dismissing 45 senior members of the judiciary from their posts, including the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Iftikhar Chaudhry, and subjecting them to political persecution. The dismissed judges had also protested against the abduction and imprisonment of their compatriots in various Guantanamo-type punishment camps and the selling off of the country's wealth. Four months after the defeat of Musharraf and the election of a new government, the dismissed judges have yet to be reinstated, while US pressure intensifies on Pakistan to remain a loyal ally of the USA in its hysterical 'war on terror'.

What measures will the Council take to bring about the reinstatement of the judges dismissed on political grounds, and to restore democratic rights and freedoms to the Pakistani people?

This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its Members, was not given orally during Council Question Time at the July 2008 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The EU is firmly committed to respect for the independence of the judiciary, which is a constituent element of democracy, guarantees the rule of law and protects constitutional order and individual freedoms.

With regard to Pakistan, the EU was deeply concerned at the suspension of the Chief Justice and several other judges, a decision that threatened the fundamental principles of constitutionality and the rule of law.

The EU generally supports human rights defenders, including those who fight for the independence of the judiciary.

In general, the EU encourages the new Pakistani Government to firmly commit itself to respecting human rights and fundamental freedoms and to consolidating the democratic system, re-establishing the independence of the judiciary. These issues are an integral part of the dialogue between the European Union and Pakistan.

The European Union is committed to helping the Pakistani people to build a prosperous and stable society, based on human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

On 20 May 2008, Mohammed Barakeh, a member of the leadership of the Communist Party of Israel, President of Hadash and leader of the Hadash parliamentary party in the Israeli Parliament, was interrogated by the Israeli police on trumped up charges of allegedly assaulting a police officer during the demonstrations against the war in Lebanon in 2006. Mohammed Barakeh, who took part in the European Parliament hearings on 13-14 May 2008, is known for his views advocating peace and security in the Middle East.

Does the Council condemn these acts by the Israeli authorities, which constitute a direct attack on the policy of Hadash and the Communist Party of Israel to bring about a just settlement of the Palestinian question and the peaceful coexistence of the Israelis and Palestinians?

This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its Members, was not given orally during Council Question Time at the July 2008 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

Israeli judicial proceedings are in progress and it is not up to the Council to interfere in these proceedings, which are the domestic affair of the State of Israel. However, the Council has expressed an opinion on several occasions in favour of a fair, comprehensive and sustainable settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

On Tuesday, 17 June, the Lithuanian Parliament adopted a new draft law henceforth prohibiting the use in public of communist and fascist symbols.

This is an unacceptable, historically unsound and dangerous case of equating the two movements which, inter alia, is an affront to the memory of millions of communists who gave their lives to crush fascism.

This decision, taken by the sovereign political powers of Lithuania, a country in which the Communist Party is banned, also provides for financial penalties. Once the new law is signed by the President, anyone using the hammer and sickle symbol in public will have to pay a fine of 150 to 300 euro.

It is well-known that many communist parties, including the Communist Party of Greece, use the hammer and sickle as a symbol and an election emblem.

What is the Council's position on this unacceptable and historically unsound act? What are the Council's views on the fact that, during elections to the European Parliament, this law will prohibit the activities of communist parties, such as the Communist Party of Greece seeking the votes of Greek citizens living in Lithuania?

This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its Members, was not given orally during Council Question Time at the July 2008 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council has not discussed this issue, given that it does not fall within its competence.

Moscow has raised the prospect that the recent Irish ‘no’ vote on the Lisbon Treaty could affect the talks on a new strategic partnership pact between the European Union and Russia (www.euobserver.com). What is the position of the French Presidency concerning the possible impact of the Lisbon Treaty ratification process on the negotiations on a new Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with Russia? Is Russia ready to start negotiations on the new Partnership and Cooperation Agreement? What was Russia’s reaction to the EU negotiating mandate which covers long-standing and still unresolved problems included at Lithuania’s instigation?

This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its Members, was not given orally during Council Question Time at the July 2008 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

There is no direct link between the Lisbon Treaty ratification process and the negotiations to conclude a new agreement with Russia. These negotiations will not therefore be affected by the outcome of the referendum in Ireland and may continue as planned. Russia and the EU are in fact ready to begin negotiations on a new bilateral agreement to replace the current Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. These negotiations were launched at the recent EU-Russia Summit in Khanty-Mansiysk, where a joint statement indicating the following was adopted:

‘We agreed that the aim is to conclude a strategic agreement that will provide a comprehensive framework for EU/Russia relations for the foreseeable future and help to develop the potential of our relationship. It should provide for a strengthened legal basis and legally binding commitments covering all main areas of the relationship, as included in the four EU/Russia common spaces and their road maps which were agreed at the Moscow Summit in May 2005.

The New Agreement will build on the international commitments which bind the EU and Russia.’

The first round of negotiations took place in Brussels on 4 July 2008 and an agreement was reached on how to move forward with the negotiation process.

French Agriculture Minister Michel Barnier has called for Europe to establish a food security plan and resist further cuts in Europe’s agriculture budget. However, such a move could be counterproductive, raise worldwide food prices at a time of crisis and do nothing for the long-term health of European agriculture. Would the Council outline its view on the impact of the CAP on food prices?

This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its Members, was not given orally during Council Question Time at the July 2008 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council is fully aware of the need to seek relevant, effective responses to rising food prices.

As the Honourable Member knows, the subject was examined by the European Council on 19-20 June⁽¹⁾, on the basis of the Council’s work and the Communication presented by the Commission⁽²⁾.

The price surge is a complex phenomenon, with many root causes and consequences.

The reasons cited include, in particular, the climate issue and the recent poor harvests in some countries of the world, largely due to unfavourable climate conditions; the increase in global demand for certain foods, in particular from some emerging countries; the development of biofuels worldwide; the effect of speculation on the financial markets on price volatility and rises, and the increased food production and transport costs due to the rise in oil prices.

Given this complex situation, the European Council stresses the importance of adequate monitoring by all the relevant bodies, and mentions a range of possible avenues. In this context, among other aspects it identifies agriculture as being able to make a useful contribution and being one of the elements of possible responses to the current crisis.

In this respect the European Council states in its conclusions that ‘the Union has already acted to moderate the pressure on food prices through the sale of intervention stocks, the reduction in export refunds, the removal of the set-aside requirement for 2008, the increase in milk quotas, and the suspension of import duties for cereals, thus improving supply and helping to stabilise agricultural markets’.

The European Council also states, in substance, that the successive reforms of the common agricultural policy (CAP) ‘have enhanced its market orientation […] and made EU farmers more responsive to price developments’; according to the European Council it is therefore important to continue and improve this orientation, ‘while ensuring fair competition and fostering sustainable agriculture across the EU and ensuring an adequate food supply’.

For the future, the European Council points out that, ‘In the context of the CAP Health Check, the Council will consider further steps to address these issues’.

Specific measures to assist the poorest people, both in Europe and in the world, are also being prepared in the Commission services, and the Council will examine them when the time comes. We must also continue our efforts to give a higher priority to the agricultural sector in our cooperation policy.

Finally, forecasts of an increased harvest for the next agricultural year should help to reduce pressure on agricultural prices.

Europe is determined to fight terrorism in all its forms. Is the Council aware that leading politicians in certain European nations have been known to attend meetings organised by extremist Khalistani leaders with the sole aim of coordinating the activities of all terrorist and secessionist groups in India in order to disrupt the unity and integrity of that democratic, liberal and secular country?

This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its Members, was not given orally during Council Question Time at the July 2008 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council has not discussed the issue of the presence of European political figures at meetings organised by extremist Khalistani leaders.

In the context of the fight against terrorism that it is conducting with determination, the European Union has issued a list of persons and entities involved in terrorist acts, which includes the Khalistan Zindabad Force, whose assets are therefore frozen in the whole of the Union.

In view of the decisions by the Council to adopt the directive on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (requiring unanimity), as well as the proposal for amendment of the directive concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (requiring QMV), can the Council provide information on how each Member State voted (against/for/abstention) for each of those decisions?

This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its Members, was not given orally during Council Question Time at the July 2008 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

With regard to the directive on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals: the Council would like to point out that the proposal in question is based on Article 63(3)(b) of the EC Treaty. Consequently, the codecision procedure applies and the Council will decide by qualified majority.

At the plenary sitting on 18 June 2008, Parliament adopted amendments to the Commission’s proposal. As these amendments correspond to those that the Chairman of Coreper had indicated to the Chairman of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs by letter on 4 June 2008 as being acceptable to the Council, it can be recorded that an agreement has been reached at first reading⁽¹⁾. A vote has not therefore yet taken place in the Council, but rather talks during which an informal agreement was reached on the content of that letter.

Currently, a legal and language revision of the text resulting from Parliament’s vote is being conducted by experts from the two institutions. Afterwards, the European Parliament and the Council, deciding by qualified majority, will adopt the legislative text.

With regard to the directive concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time: on 9 June 2008, the Council reached an agreement by qualified majority on an overall compromise proposed by the Presidency regarding this directive. Four delegations (Greek, Hungarian, Maltese and Spanish) were not able to accept the Presidency compromise proposal, and three other delegations (Belgian, Cypriot and Portuguese) abstained. Five delegations (Belgian, Cypriot, Greek, Hungarian and Spanish) made a joint statement to be entered in the Council Minutes⁽²⁾, explaining their position. In this statement, the delegations also underlined that they were willing to explore, in a constructive manner, possible alternatives for reaching an overall compromise agreement with the Presidency, the Commission and the European Parliament, at the final adoption stage of the draft Directive.

In 2005, the high-level expert group chaired by Loyola de Palacio drew up a report on extending the TEN-T networks with a view to integration in the field of transport between the Union and its neighbours. In early 2008, the Commission published a communication on the matter. That year saw the start of the Union's practice of analysing the state of play regarding the priority TEN-T projects, with the consequent proposals for extending the list of 30 priority projects approved in 2004. 6 May 2008 witnessed an informal meeting in Ljubljana of the EU's transport ministers, whose agenda included extending the TEN-T networks to take account of the requirements of the 27.

Can the Council provide information on the state of the talks and the timetable for extending the TEN-T networks, as well as specifying which of the Union's transport projects (maritime, high-speed rail, rail freight, air or road) will impact positively on the EU's Black Sea outlets?

This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its Members, was not given orally during Council Question Time at the July 2008 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Honourable Member is well aware that the Council cannot examine amendments to be made to legal instruments in force on the basis of a proposal from the Commission. The Commission has not yet presented a proposal to amend Decision No 884/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network, which contains a list of 30 priority projects. According to the Commission, a proposal to revise these guidelines and the list of priority projects is planned for 2010, in accordance with Article 19(3) of the above decision.

It should be noted that priority project No 7, which is in progress (Motorway axis Igoumenitsa/Patra-Athina-Sofia-Budapest, including a branch towards Bucuresti and Constanţa) and priority project No 18 (Rhine/Meuse-Main-Danube inland waterway axis), part of which corresponds to the definition of pan-European corridor VII, contribute to the connection with the Black Sea.

The Council attaches great importance to the need to take into account the changes that have taken place in the EU since the adoption of the guidelines for the trans-European transport network (TEN-T) and to respond to the needs of the growing trade and transport flows, as stated in the conclusions on the extension of the major trans-European transport axes to the neighbouring countries, adopted by the ‘Transport, Telecommunications and Energy Council’ in June 2007.

Could the Commission indicate if it has any concerns regarding the practice of hiring staff in primary and secondary level schools on contracts based on the school term which are subsequently renewed at the start of the school year, only to lapse again for summer recess periods, leaving staff such as school secretaries and grounds staff without the same rights as permanent staff, even though they provide the same service and often work for a long number of years in this position?

The main aims of Council Directive 1999/70/EC⁽¹⁾ concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC⁽²⁾, UNICE and CEEP are to improve the quality of fixed-term work by ensuring the application of the principle of non-discrimination and to establish a framework to prevent abuse arising from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships.

In order to prevent abuse arising from the use of successive fixed-term contracts, Clause 5 of the framework agreement obliges the Member States to introduce one or more of the following measures:

(a) objective reasons justifying the renewal of such contracts or relationships;

(b) the maximum total duration of successive, fixed-term employment contracts or relationships;

(c) the number of renewals of such contracts or relationships.

All Member States have introduced one or more such measures. The result is that fixed-term contracts cannot be renewed more than a certain number of times, or after a certain period of time, or unless there are objective reasons for so doing. The consequences of such transposing legislation should be that fixed-term contracts cannot be renewed or extended indefinitely.

With the exception of Spain, where the legislation was changed to bring teachers of religion within the scope of the Directive, the Commission is not aware of systematic use of repeated fixed-term contracts for staff in primary and secondary schools.

Community law is designed to prevent abuse of repeated fixed-term contracts. The Honourable Member is invited to communicate any relevant information on where and how such practices are taking place to the Commission. On this basis, the Commission will decide on the most appropriate course of action.

The EU now has a modern and ambitious anti-discrimination legal framework which is to be bolstered and supplemented by the adoption of a new European directive, which will extend the principle of equal treatment beyond the field of employment. However, as experience of transposing the provisions of the previous two anti-discrimination directives (2000/78/EC⁽¹⁾ and 2000/43/EC⁽²⁾) shows, incorporation into national law is not tantamount to achieving equal treatment in practice.

What new practical measures does the Commission put forward in the new proposal for a directive to prevent discrimination, harassment and victimisation, improve the operation of equal opportunity bodies, support the victims of discrimination and strengthen the right to seek legal redress in the event of discrimination with a view to effective enforcement of the law?

On 2 July 2008, as part of the Renewed Social Agenda⁽³⁾ the Commission adopted a proposal⁽⁴⁾ for a Directive prohibiting discrimination on grounds of age, disability, sexual orientation and religion or belief outside the employment sphere. It also adopted a Communication Non-Discrimination and Equal Opportunities: A Renewed Commitment⁽⁵⁾, which sets out its general policy in this area.

The proposed Directive includes provisions against harassment and victimisation as well as a requirement for equal opportunity bodies to be established, in particular to support the victims of discrimination. These provisions are broadly in line with similar provisions in Directive 2000/43/EC⁽⁶⁾. If properly transposed into national law and implemented, the Commission believes that these provisions would offer adequate guarantees for victims of discrimination seeking redress.

Data produced by the National Statistical Service of Greece show that, in the first quarter of 2008, registered unemployment totalled 8.3%, those primarily affected being first-time job-seekers (33.4%), young people (17.3%) and young women (22.2%). 46.7% (200 000) are long-term unemployed who cease to receive the pittance of an unemployment benefit of 404 euro after 12 months out of work.

What measures will the Commission take, at a time when uncontrolled price rises, poor pay and benefits are plaguing the working classes, to meet the proposals of the trade union movement for effective protection of the unemployed in the Member States, for unemployment benefit amounting to 80% of basic pay and for social security for the unemployed throughout the entire period of unemployment until they find full-time, stable work?

The Commission is aware of the challenges facing the Member States in tackling rising prices and unemployment.

As the March 2008 European Council confirmed, the fundamentals of the European Union's economy remain sound: public deficits have more than halved since 2005 and public debt has also declined to just under 60%; economic growth reached 2.9% in 2007, but is likely to be lower in 2008; 6.5 million jobs were created in the last two years. Although cyclical factors have played a role, these developments have been aided by the structural reforms undertaken over the last few years under the Lisbon Strategy and the beneficial effects of the euro and the single market. As a result, unemployment and long-term unemployment rates are on the decline and employment of female and old-age workers is progressing.

Nonetheless, further efforts are still needed in the area of inclusive labour markets. The inclusion of people at the margins of the labour market (the low-skilled, the disabled, migrants and disadvantaged youth) needs to be stepped up in order to meet the employment targets set for 2010 and foster the social dimension of the renewed "Growth and Jobs Strategy".

The inclusion of vulnerable groups is one of the priorities of the Open Method of Coordination on social protection and social inclusion. Through this process, the European Union coordinates and encourages the Member States' action to combat poverty and social exclusion and to reform their social protection systems on the basis of exchanges of good practice and mutual learning. To promote the integration of those most disadvantaged, the Commission is promoting a new 'active inclusion' strategy which combines the provision of an adequate level of income support, stronger links to the labour market, and better access to services. As regards the effects of rising food prices and oil prices in particular, the Honourable Member is referred to the Commission's recent Communications on these issues, including the Communication on "Tackling the challenge of rising food prices: directions for EU action"⁽¹⁾.

Furthermore, the EU's food distribution programme for the most deprived persons in the Community⁽²⁾, under which food aid has been made available to the most deprived for more than 20 years, is now being reviewed with a number of potential innovations. The programme seeks to supplement Member State initiatives and the budget has increased from under €100 million in 1987 to over €305 million in 2008.

On the evening of 11 June, an offensive on the rights of workers and the freedom of trade unions was launched when employers deliberately removed a mobile container providing the provisional headquarters of five trade unions representing workers at the Schistos Industrial Park in Attiki, Greece. The clear intention behind this move was to create an industrial relations ghetto in which collective agreements and regulations regarding safety and health at work would not apply. Thousands of workers immediately came out in protest demanding the reinstatement of their trade unions in the industrial park.

Does the Commission condemn the action taken by the employers, which constitutes a direct attack on the unrestricted freedom of action and expression of trade unions?

The Commission would point out that freedom of association should be regarded as a fundamental right. It is therefore to be respected in any situation falling within the scope of application of Community law.

In the Bosman ruling, the Court of Justice stated that ‘freedom of association, [...] enshrined in Article 11 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and resulting from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, is one of the fundamental rights […] which are protected in the Community legal order.’

Furthermore, Article 12 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union provides that everyone has the right to freedom of association, in particular in trade union matters. The Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers contains a similar provision (Section 13)⁽¹⁾.

However, there is no EC legislation expressly providing for a right of association. Pursuant to Article 137 paragraph 5 of the EC Treaty, the right to adopt measures in the field of social policy does not apply to the right of association.

The Commission would emphasise that the EC Treaty does not empower the Commission to take action against private undertakings which may have infringed the right to freedom of association. In such cases, it is for the national authorities, and in particular the courts, to ensure that that right is respected within their territory on the basis of all the pertinent facts of the specific case and in accordance with national, Community and international law.

Earlier than planned, i.e. on the very first day of its EU Presidency, France lifted the restrictions on freedom of movement for workers from the new EU Member States (except Romania and Bulgaria).

In 2006 nationals of the eastern European Member States were granted free access to employment in France, although that right was restricted to certain professional groups, so that only 40% of the French labour market was in fact accessible to the individuals in question. Even before the expiry of the transitional period in 2009, France has now decided to remove all obstacles to the free movement of workers. The fears that the partial opening-up of the labour market would lead to a massive influx of workers from eastern Europe proved unfounded and the embodiment of those fears, the 'Polish plumber', did not destroy the French labour market.

Restrictions on workers from the eastern European Member States still apply in Germany, Austria, Denmark and Belgium, however.

In the Commission’s view, how will this example set by France as one of the largest EU Member States influence the countries in which the restrictions still apply? What impact will the removal of obstacles to freedom of movement have on the French economy?

The transitional arrangements in the 2003 Treaty of Accession allowing Member States to restrict access to their labour markets are divided into three distinct phases. The current (second) phase will end on 30 April 2009. During this phase, the Member States that still restrict access to their labour markets by workers from eight of the 10 Member States that joined on 1 May 2004 may each decide whether to restrict access until the end of the phase or to lift the restrictions earlier.

In principle all restrictions should end on 30 April 2009; only Member States that experience a serious disturbance of their labour markets, or a threat thereof, may continue — subject to notification to the Commission by 30 April 2009 — to restrict access to their labour markets for a maximum of two more years.

The impact on the French economy of France's decision to open its labour market is likely to be positive as French firms will be able to tap into a bigger labour pool, which will allow them more easily to fill vacancies which cannot be filled with local workers. Experience in all Member States that have opened their labour markets earlier than required indicates that labour migration from the 'new' Member States has eased bottlenecks on the labour market, increased the flexibility of the labour force, reduced inflationary pressures, and contributed to economic growth, without having any significant negative impact on unemployment or wages of local workers.

The general anti-immigrant policy and the 'immunity' given to companies are creating situations in which workers are subjected to barbaric treatment. A typical example is the clothing manufacturer, 'Lady Fashion', where the employers use terror and brutal violence on workers who protest at unacceptable working conditions. At the same time, they use every means to prevent the intervention of the trade union. Several workers have been attacked by employers' thugs with piping and clubs because they did not turn up for work on Sunday. In response to the workers' protests at the beatings, the company stated that it was firing them all. Similar violence also occurred in the past when an immigrant worker demanded his outstanding pay.

Does the Commission condemn these acts and the obstruction of trade-union activity, which is becoming more widespread as a result of the anti-labour policy being pursued?

The Commission considers the exploitation of workers and the violation of their fundamental human rights as unacceptable. All persons, regardless of nationality, have a right to respect for their dignity and their integrity, both physical and mental. These rights are enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union solemnly proclaimed in Nice in 2000. Moreover, pursuant to Directive 89/391/EEC⁽¹⁾, the employer has a general duty to ensure the safety and health of workers in every aspect related to the work.

As concerns immigrants who are illegally resident in the EU, the Commission adopted a proposal for a Directive in May 2007 providing for sanctions against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals⁽²⁾. Under the proposal, employers would be liable to sanctions, including fines and repayment of outstanding wages. In addition, employers would be liable to criminal penalties in the most serious cases, including where particularly exploitative working conditions are found. Member States would be required to set up effective complaint mechanisms by which relevant third-country nationals could lodge complaints directly or through designated third parties, such as trade unions or other associations.

As regards the Honourable Member's specific question concerning action by employers to hinder the activity of trade unions, the Commission would point out that freedom of association should be regarded as a general principle of Community law. It is therefore to be respected in any situation falling within the scope of application of Community law.

In the Bosman ruling, the Court of Justice stated that ‘freedom of association, [...] enshrined in Article 11 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and resulting from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, is one of the fundamental rights […] which are protected in the Community legal order. Furthermore, Article 12 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union provides that everyone has the right to freedom of association, in particular in trade union matters. The Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers contains a similar provision (Section 13)⁽³⁾.

Pursuant to Article 137(5) of the EC Treaty, the right to adopt measures in the field of social policy does not apply to the right of association. Furthermore, the Commission would emphasise that the EC Treaty does not empower the Commission to take action against private undertakings which may have infringed the right to freedom of association. In such cases, it is for the national authorities, in particular the courts, to ensure that that right is respected within their territory on the basis of all the pertinent facts of the specific case and in accordance with the relevant national, Community and international law.

Does the Commission believe that industry in the European Union will be stronger or weaker now that the Lisbon Treaty is unable to be implemented? How does the Commission think industry will be affected by the fall of the Lisbon Treaty, caused by its not being ratified in all 27 Member States?

The Commission's President has underlined in his speech before the Parliament on 18 June 2008 that the Lisbon Treaty remains essential to help responding to the challenges that the European Union faces today, such as building a more democratic Union, increasing the powers of the Parliament, recognizing the role of national parliaments, enhancing the Union's capacity to act in areas like migration, energy, climate change and internal security as well as increasing its coherence and effectiveness on the global stage.

As regards industrial policy, Article 157 of the current Treaty establishing the European Community already provides for a clear mandate to pursue an industrial policy on the Community level. This policy aims at providing the right framework conditions for the competitiveness and innovation of our industry taking into account that most businesses are small and medium-sized enterprises. It includes horizontal and sectoral initiatives to assist companies in overcoming the challenges of globalisation, fast technological change, and the adaption to climate change in order to improve their competitiveness and to foster growth, innovation and job creation.

The Lisbon Treaty foresees the following modifications in the new Article 173: “The Commission may take any useful initiative to promote such coordination, in particular initiatives aiming at the establishment of guidelines and indicators, the organisation of exchange of best practice, and the preparation of the necessary elements for periodic monitoring and evaluation. The Parliament shall be kept fully informed.” The Treaty would make the Commission's role in industrial policy more explicit, especially in coordinating its own work with that of the Member States. It would also strengthen the role of the Parliament in achieving the objectives set out in the Treaty.

The Lisbon Treaty would not, however, result in any fundamental reorientation of the EU’s current industrial policy The changes of the Lisbon Treaty in the area of industrial policy are not indispensable to permit the Commission to continuously pursue this modern industrial policy.

Given the issues raised at the World Food Security Conference which the FAO has just held in Rome, what measures is the Commission intending to put forward to adapt the common agricultural policy to the results of this Conference?

In the Commission’s Communication (COM(2008)0321) on Tackling the Challenge of Rising Food Prices – Directions for EU Action, a number of lines of intervention were outlined to tackle the crisis and mitigate the worse effects of the situation, particularly on countries in the developing world where we have seen food riots and increased hunger and malnutrition. In the Communication, only brief reference was made of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy, pointing out some of the minor changes which have been made in the light of the emerging concerns about food production. Could the Commission make a clear statement on the need for the EU to maintain and expand food production given concerns about global food security? Could the Commission also outline its assessment of the complex interaction between climate change mitigation measures, reduced input use at farm level and food production and the need to put sustainable food production centre-stage?

The food crisis, in combination with the sustained rise in the price of oil, is threatening to undo the great development strides of the previous decade and a half. The world food crisis demands strong EU leadership. Against this background, what is the status of the Commissioner’s plans to give unspent farm subsidies to developing world farmers to help meet rising prices and to provide much-needed finance for agricultural development?

Is the EU serious about helping to tackle the developing world food crisis? If it is, should it not be doing much more to realise the potential offered by its own farmers and growers?

The Commission still seems reluctant to ask EU farmers and growers to play their full part in helping to secure world food production. There is an obvious move that food production around the world, including the EU, needs to increase.

Serious investment is required in research and development and, accompanied by a genuine attack on the red tape which is holding us back, this would make a huge difference.

How is the European Commission planning to react to this challenge and develop a productive and competitive EU food supply chain that benefits global food security and EU consumers?

The Commission's first general remark partially replies to all four questions concerns the link with the Health Check.This proposal includes policy changes responding to the concerns about food production and the growing food demand: set-aside is proposed to be abolished and the milk quota system will be phased-out. These measures add to the setting to zero of set-aside and the increase of milk quota earlier in 2008, which have already had impacts on this year's production. These production impacts constitute cumulative, important responses to the food security concerns over time. That is why the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), also in the future, is part of the solution to ease the global pressure on food prices.

Mr. Medina Ortega asked for the follow up on the FAO⁽¹⁾ Conference on Food Security from 3 to 5 June 2008 in Rome. The Commissioner in charge of Agricultural and Rural Development participated in this conference and the Commission has already responded to the declaration, which asks for an "urgent and coordinated action to combat the negative impacts of soaring food prices on the world's most vulnerable countries and populations". The Commission is also actively engaged to a rapid and successful conclusion of the Doha Development Agenda. The Commission's commitment is to reach a deal which will be conducive to improving the food situation in developing countries. In addition, and this issue was also raised by the Commissioner in charge of Development and Humanitarian Aid, the Commission is preparing a proposal for a new fund to support agriculture in developing countries. The EU will support a strong agricultural supply response in developing countries, providing in particular the necessary financing for agricultural inputs and assistance. The Commission is intending to put forward a concrete proposal later in July 2008. This comprehensive package answers also to the questions put forward by Mr. Smith.

Ms. McGuinness asks for the Commission's assesment on climate change and its link to sustainable food production. The Commission considers that its effects on agricultural production in Europe differs widely between regions and sectors, whereby there is no single solution to deal with all the concerns the Union is faced with. As the Commissioner in charge of Agriculture and Rural Development said in her answer to the previous questions, the Commission has proposed in the Health Check to address the increasing concerns related to climate change and sustainable food production through Pillar II measures.

Karlsbad Wafers, a world-famous speciality, were made for centuries by Sudeten-German confectioners in the ‘Spa Triangle’ area of Bohemia (Karlsbad-Marienbad-Franzensbad) and then, in the 19th and 20th centuries, in other parts of Europe and the world. Today one of the top producers of the best quality variety is the Wetzel company in Dillingen an der Donau, Bavaria, where its owner, Marlene Wetzel-Hackspacher, began production again after being expelled from her native Bohemia following the Second World War. Can the Commission guarantee that the Wetzel-Hackspacher family will be able to continue producing and marketing this speciality under the name ‘Karlsbader Oblaten’? What is the current situation regarding certain attempts in the Czech Republic to bring this valuable tradition to an end?

The Commission confirms that the Commission has received objections to the proposal to register "Karlovarské oplatky" as a Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) and that consultations are in train between the parties concerned. While that process is continuing, the Commission cannot intervene, and it would be wrong of it to comment on the merits of the arguments on either side of this case.

Let the Commission point out however, that, if the name "Karlovarské oplatky" were to be registered, then use of that name would be protected against, inter alia, any "misuse, imitation or evocation even if the protected name is translated". In the event of a dispute and again assuming the name "Karlovarské oplatky" were registered, which is not yet decided, then it would be for the national courts, and if necessary in the last resort for the European Court of Justice, to determine whether or not the usage of "Karlsbader Oblaten" referred to by the Honourable Member fell under the scope of this or any other provision of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs⁽¹⁾.

Following the release of the revised Agriculture text and the support expressed by the majority of Member States for that text, can the Commission outline whether there have been any positive signs from other WTO powers relating to the agriculture negotiations? Does the Commission believe that the conditions now exist for a successful conclusion to the round by the end of this year?

The current draft modalities text on agriculture is generally considered among World Trade Organisation (WTO) Members as an acceptable basis for further negotiations. However, some issues still remain to be settled. The Commission therefore is working together with other WTO-Members in Geneva to allow the Chair of the agriculture negotiating committee to finalize a text which could constitute a suitable basis for negotiations at Ministerial level.

On the question of whether the conditions now exist for a successful conclusion to the round by the end of 2008, the Commission thinks it is perfectly imaginable that this deal can be done, and it is doing its best to achieve this goal on the basis of the Council mandate. However, a lot of hard work needs to be done first.

WTO Director General Mr Lamy has now made clear that he intends to call a Ministerial meeting to agree on modalities around the 21st of July 2008. Whether the round will be closed before the end of 2008 will very much depend on the outcome of this ministerial meeting, and on the goodwill of all members in pursuing the negotiations thereafter.

In any event, any final deal must be comprehensive and cover issues of clear interest to the EU. In particular, the ambitious result which is contemplated in agriculture must be fully matched in other areas of the negotiations, including NAMA⁽¹⁾, Services and Rules, as well as Geographical Indications.

In its written answer of 17 June 2008 (H-0387/08) to my question on the introduction of modulation in the new Member States, the Commission states that in 2012 direct payments will be identical in the old and new Member States (after the introduction of modulation) and will stand at 87% of the full payment rate.

Regrettably, the amount payable per hectare of farm land will not be identical, despite the fact that by 2012 production costs will be much the same in the new and old Member States.

When will per-hectare support amounts in the old and new Member States be brought into line with each other?

Decoupled support is based on historical or regional production references for EU-15 and most reliable data available at the time for EU-10, agreed in the Accession Treaty. Therefore the level of direct aid payment is differentiated not only between old and new Member States, but between all Member States as well as regions and individual farmers (depending on the model of decoupled payment chosen).

The Impact Assessment of the Health Check has shown that the same flat rate payment for all of the EU-27 would not improve the overall "uneven" distribution of payments among farms, but lead to huge budgetary redistributions between Member States. Moreover, it would distort income relations between the farming sector and other sectors of the economy, as agricultural incomes in the EU-12 have already grown strongly since EU accession.

But the Health Check proposal facilitates a move towards a flatter rate of support within a Member State since the redistribution of support it would imply can be targeted by each Member State with more objective criteria. However any major reallocation of funds between Member States can only be considered in the context of the budgetary review and the overall level of fund allocation, not just the one related to direct support.

Climate change is already impacting on all EU Member States. In the coming years, the Union will have to be able to fight its causes effectively and adapt to new forms of climate. In particular, the southern and eastern Member States will suffer constantly from drought, heatwaves and the desertification of agricultural regions. The results will be devastating for food crops. In addition, scientific studies point to future shortages of water, and especially drinking water.

Can the Commission state what measures it has in mind with a view to developing an efficient irrigation system enabling the above-mentioned Member States to practise an efficient agriculture that will both feed their regions' population and ensure agricultural exports to third countries? Can it explain which Community funds are devoted to such measures, and provide information on future EU policy as regards agricultural irrigation?

The Common Agricultural Policy already offers financial assistance to encourage change in agricultural practices. This concerns, for example, replacing old irrigation systems by new ones which are less water-consuming, converting arable into grassland, reducing water use in existing crops, and creating ponds or other features. This assistance is provided, in particular, through agri-environmental measures and support for investments.

In addition, the Commission has recently made proposals to review the 2003 reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, the so-called Health Check proposals. Some proposed measures would help meeting water quantity concerns. The proposed new standard of good agricultural and environmental conditions will require the respect of authorisation procedures for using water for irrigation. The proposal to increase compulsory modulation up to 13% by 2013 would provide fresh funding for reinforcing their rural development programmes, inter alia for improving water management. In addition the Commission brings to the attention of the Honourable Member that regarding droughts the Commission adopted a Communication on "Addressing the challenge of water scarcity and droughts in the European Union" in July 2007 which highlights the key policy orientations for future action. This Communication highlights the important water saving potential existing in Europe and the need to exhaust this potential before considering any additional water supply solution. This is valid for agricultural activities and irrigation in particular, where improved irrigation technologies and practices and upgraded irrigation networks can lead to significant amounts of water saved. The Commission is committed to adopt a follow up report of the Communication before the end of 2008.

Given that over 100 million Europeans volunteer every year, and that volunteering promotes intergenerational solidarity, intercultural dialogue and social cohesion, which are all part of the EU’s values and objectives as laid down in the Treaties, does the Commission agree that a European Year of Volunteering in 2011 would be an ideal way for the Commission to give targeted support to all volunteers throughout the EU?

The Commission is fully aware of the importance of volunteering in Europe and its valuable contribution to social cohesion, active European citizenship, intergenerational solidarity and intercultural dialogue among many things.

The Commission has closely followed the work of the Parliament, Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee in the area of volunteering in the past few months.

In particular, the report on the contribution of volunteering to economic and social cohesion presented by the Honourable Member is an important step in supporting volunteering in the European Union and contains very good advice. The importance of volunteering in promoting social inclusion through informal and non-formal learning as highlighted by the report is a view that is entirely shared by the Commission.

The Commission will launch a study on volunteering in the European Union highlighting the state of play, the critical issues and challenges for the EU in this area in order to help policy-makers to determine how best to proceed and what the scope of possible future initiatives at the European level might be.

On the basis of the results of the above mentioned study the Commission will examine what would be the best initiatives to be undertaken in the area of volunteering including a reflection on a future European Year of Volunteering.

On 23 January 2008 the European Commission put forward a far-reaching package of proposals that will deliver on the European Union’s ambitious commitments to fight climate change and promote renewable energy up to 2020 and beyond. Central to the strategy is a strengthening and expansion of the Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), the EU’s key tool for cutting emissions cost-effectively.

Under any international agreement, the risk of carbon leakage could well be negligible. However, such an agreement is not yet in place.

More information is needed to determine which energy-intensive industries would be most affected by carbon leakage. To this end, DG Enterprise is currently collecting the results from a questionnaire sent out to various different sectors included in the EU ETS.

Given the level of concern on this issue, could the Commissioner please comment on progress to date and indicate any preliminary results he might be able to share with us?

When can the European Parliament expect a detailed report on the Commission’s findings?

The Commission's overriding priority is to achieve an ambitious and comprehensive international climate agreement for the period post-2012 when the current Kyoto commitments end. In the absence of an international agreement, certain energy-intensive industries risk moving production outside Europe, resulting in increasing global emissions (carbon leakage).

The Commission is currently not in a position to identify precisely the sectors and/or sub-sectors subject to risks of carbon leakage. This task should be performed on the basis of all objective and relevant criteria, notably the ability of the concerned sectors to pass-on increase in costs due to the new rules in the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) without losing significant market shares to less carbon efficient installations outside the Community, the ability of these sectors to reduce emissions further and the climate change policies implemented in the countries where competitors are active.

The Commission, therefore, is examining this issue and proposes to determine the sectors or sub-sectors exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage at the latest by June 2010.

The Commission will assess the situation of these energy-intensive industries based on the outcome of the international climate agreement or any sectoral agreements that may have been concluded. On the basis of that assessment, the Commission will submit a report to Parliament and to the Council at the latest by June 2011 and propose any additional measures if necessary. Such measures could cover an adjustment of free allocations or the inclusion of importers in the ETS, or a combination.

The Commission has already started specific work on the issue of carbon leakage. On the basis of a questionnaire which was sent to associations of European industries, the Commission has received data, which is now subject to a detailed analysis and for which an analytical framework is currently being developed.

The objective of the Commission's work in this area is to assess the risk of carbon leakage, taking into account the criteria included in the Commission’s proposal for amending the ETS Directive. The Commission will continue, as was already done at a meeting on 11 April 2008, to inform the stakeholders of the outcome of this work when relevant results are available. One such meeting is provisionally foreseen for the end of September 2008.

The Commission will also keep the Parliament and the Council informed of progress made and results obtained from this work, with the aim of reaching an agreement on the Climate and Energy package by the end of 2008.

At this stage of the work, however, the Commission does not intend to issue an official report on preliminary results of the ongoing work.

According to an interview with a Spanish newspaper on June 2007, given by Philippe Cayla, the President and Executive Director of EuroNews, EuroNews won the Commission competition for an international Arabic-language news channel to be broadcast 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Will the Commission state which TV companies took part in this competition and what the selection criteria were? Does the Commission intend to continue funding for the creation of a TV news channel in other European languages too? What criteria will govern the order in which the languages will be selected?

As provided in the Financial Regulation, the tender specifications (including the exclusion, selection and award criteria) for the creation of the Arabic version of an international news TV channel have been published in the Official Journal⁽¹⁾, as well as the results of the procedure⁽²⁾.

There are no plans to create TV news channels in another European language at the moment.

According to information received from citizens, UK civil partnerships are not recognised by the French authorities as equivalent to marriage, or even as equivalent to a PACS (French civil partnership). Furthermore, couples registered as civil partners in the UK cannot move to France and enter a PACS, as they need a ‘certificat de coutume’ stating that the partners are not already in a civil/married/PACS relationship in the UK. In the event of the death of one of the civil partners, the French authorities will tax the surviving partner at 60%, and he or she will have no rights under French law. If a French national wishes to enter into a PACS with a British national at the French embassy in London, the ‘certificat de coutume’ is not required even though they are already in a civil partnership with each other in the UK. Article 25 of the double taxation treaty between France and the UK also states that nationals in France and the UK should not be treated differently as regards tax if they are in the same situation.

Does the Commission not think that such a situation is an obstacle to free movement of citizens and their families and that these different requirements relating to the ‘certificat de coutume’ and to tax laws constitute discrimination based on sexual orientation? What will the Commission do to overcome this situation? Will it ask the Member States concerned to practise mutual recognition of such contracts in order to ensure free movement of EU citizens?

The Honourable Member draws the attention of the Commission to the difficulties on the non-recognition by the French authorities of the United Kingdom civil partnerships, as equivalent to marriage, or to PACS⁽¹⁾.

Mutual recognition in the area of family law is indeed a priority for the Commission. Currently, Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility⁽²⁾ (the Brussels II a Regulation) represents the main legal instrument dealing with mutual recognition in the area of family law. The Brussels II a Regulation provides for the mutual recognition of certain judgments relating to divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment.

However, there is no existing Community legislation providing for the recognition of marriages or same-sex civil partnerships across the European Union. Consequently, the Commission has no competence to examine whether there is discrimination between married couples and couples engaged in a civil partnership.

Differences perceived in some Member States, relating to the way they deal with civil partnerships concluded in other Member States, and their tax effects, are a consequence of a lack of unified rules on the recognition of marriages and civil partnerships in the European Union.

The European Community does not hold any power to adopt legislation on issues linked to civil status, which have a direct impact on the daily life of European citizens. As long as no additional powers are conferred on the Community, the Commission has no legal basis to act in this area.

However, a comparative study on civil status records has been launched by the Commission, to answer the need for mutual recognition of these records, caused by the increasing mobility of citizens within the European Union. This field is currently governed by national law and international conventions. The objective of this comparative study is to provide an overview of the national laws and practices in this field, to identify the practical problems encountered by citizens and indicate possible solutions to these problems. This extensive study is expected to be completed in the course of 2008. It will provide the Commission with a solid basis for assessing possible measures that could be taken at European Union level to improve the mutual recognition of civil status records. In order to redress the fact that the lack of mutual recognition result in adverse personal and financial consequences for the citizens concerned.

In the eyes of Greek consumers, the single market has totally failed to harmonise prices, in particular of basic consumer goods. For many years the consumer price index in Greece has been one of the highest in EU-15 and significantly higher than the Community average. Recently the consumer protection centre conducted a price survey of 86 articles of everyday usage in the same supermarket chain in Berlin and in Thessaloniki. This survey showed that the average price overall in the Thessaloniki store was 32.57% higher than in Berlin with many products being 100% more expensive.

In cases of uncontrolled pricing in intrafirm trade, what resources does the Greek government have to bring levels down to EU levels? What means does it have to put an end to uncontrolled pricing in intrafirm trade? Are national tax authorities entitled to treat as false data presented by companies in the case of (a) intrafirm trade and (b) import firms of basic consumer goods when product pricing is obviously out of line with prices in other Member States?

The primary objective of EC competition policy is to make markets work better for the benefit of consumers in the EU. The Commission cooperates closely with the National Competition Authorities (NCA) of each Member State regarding the application of EC competition rules (within the framework of Council Regulation 1/2003) to ensure that markets work for the benefit of consumers. Investigations arise whenever the alleged anticompetitive practices are backed by legal and economic evidence.

It must, however, be noted that price differences across different Member States are not necessarily linked to a deficiency in the application of competition rules. Indeed, a number of key factors can have a considerable impact on price formation. The observed price differences may result from a combination of supply-side factors at EU and world levels (structural developments, climatic conditions etc) and demand-side drivers (rise in global commodity demand, changes in dietary patterns, emergence of new markets etc.) or from the structure and the functioning of the retail and distribution sector in each Member State. Such factors include for instance consumer preferences in the relevant markets, tradability of certain goods/services and cost components (cost of infrastructure, human resources etc).

NCAs are well placed to address issues pertaining specifically to the functioning of the retail sector and/or food supply chain within their territories. In particular, the impact of rising consumer prices may be mitigated by ensuring sufficient level of competition, as well as by reducing unjustified regulation that is capable of restricting competition to the detriment of consumers, in the retail sector of each Member State.

EC competition rules prohibit arrangements between competing firms designed to limit or eliminate competition between them, by fixing prices, limiting output, sharing markets, allocating customers or territories, bid rigging or a combination of these specific types of competition. To the extent that intrafirm-specific practices are liable to distort competition (and, in particular, retail prices), competition rules prohibit anti-competitive business practices which a dominant firm may use in order to maintain or strengthen its position in the market. In this context, charging a price that is excessive in relation to the economic value of the product(s) concerned (excessive/exploitative pricing) has been established as a form of abusive conduct.

The Commission continues to monitor the development of comparative price levels. The levels and differences of consumer prices between the Member States are also monitored in the annual Consumer Markets Scoreboard. The first edition of the Scoreboard was published in the beginning of 2008 and the exercise will be carried out yearly. Some price differences, especially in the case of non-tradable goods and services, may be due to differences of income between the Member States. Nevertheless, particularly important differences between the Member States may also suggest the need for further scrutiny.

The Commission's Single Market Review has identified retail trade as one of the sectors that warrants in-depth market monitoring given its key role for consumer and supplier markets and its current level of fragmentation. A monitoring report will be prepared for 2009 to analyse the possible reasons for malfunctioning of retail services seen the perspectives of both consumers and suppliers.

The Commission adopted a Communication on "Tackling the challenge of rising food prices. Directions for EU action" on 20 May 2008⁽¹⁾. This suggests several initiatives to mitigate the impact of the increased food prices in the EU, namely to Monitor price developments; Adjust the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP); Act for the most deprived persons; Investigate the functioning of the food supply chain. The Commission will set up a task force to examine the functioning of the food supply chain, including concentration and market segmentation of the food retail and distribution sectors in the EU.

Hamas, which the European Union recognised as a terrorist organisation in September 2003, has launched a television station called 'Al-Aqsa', modelled on Hezbollah’s television station 'Al-Manar'. As the press frequently reports, Al-Aqsa-TV’s children’s programming uses Disney-like characters to encourage children to aspire to be suicide bombers.

Is the Commission aware that the European satellite provider Eutelsat, broadcasts 'Al-Aqsa' on Atlantic Bird 4, which it leases to the Jordanian satellite provider Noorsat? What steps has the Commission taken to stop Eutelsat from broadcasting Al-Aqsa TV? Has the Commission raised the matter with the Conseil Supérieur de l’Audiovisuel (CSA) in France?

In its reply to question E-1666/08, the Commission pointed out that it 'shares … concern with regard to incitement to hatred broadcast under the jurisdiction of one of the Member States.' Hamas’ TV station Al-Aqsa uses European satellite capacity of the French company Eutelsat’s Atlantic Bird 4, which Eutelsat leases to the Jordanian satellite provider Noorsat, to incite violence and hatred and justify terrorism in Europe and beyond. As on Hezbollah’s TV station Al-Manar, on Al-Aqsa programming children dress up as suicide bombers and are presented as heroes. In one segment, Assud, a popular bunny character, advocates martyrdom and suicide bombings as the ideal goal for every child who phones into the show. In another segment the cartoon character says that he will 'bite and eat up' the Danes because a Danish newspaper published political cartoons they did not like. Assud the bunny accepts a phone call on the show from someone who says that 'we will manage to kill, to assassinate' the cartoonist, to which Assud wholeheartedly agrees.

What is the Commission planning to prevent Al-Aqsa broadcasting on European satellite capacity? Given the similarities between Al-Manar and the incitement to violence and terrorism broadcast on Al Aqsa, does this not amount to a violation of Article 3b ('Incitement to hatred') of the revised Audiovisual Without Frontiers Directive (Directive 2007/65/EC⁽¹⁾), as was the case with 'Al-Manar'?

The Commission shares the Honourable Members concerns with regard to programmes containing incitement to hatred falling under the jurisdiction of one Member State. It actively cooperates with, and promotes cooperation between, the Member States in order to ensure the full application of Community law in this particularly sensitive area.

Article 22a of Directive 89/552/EEC prohibits broadcasts inciting to hatred on grounds of race, sex, religion or nationality. It should also be recalled that the right of freedom of expression is a cornerstone of a democratic and pluralist society.

The Commission is aware that Al-Aqsa TV is transmitted via Atlantic Bird 4 belonging to the French based satellite operator Eutelsat. However, the Commission has not received so far any formal complaint regarding the programmes broadcasted by Al-Aqsa TV.

Where a non-EU broadcaster falls under the jurisdiction of a Member State by virtue of the criteria laid down by the Directive, it is, in the first instance, the task of the national authorities in question to ensure that broadcasts by this broadcaster comply with the rules of the Directive, notably the ban on incitement to hatred based on race, sex, religion or nationality. Hence, it is in first instance within the remit of the French regulator, the Conseil Supérieur de l'Audiovisuel (CSA), to monitor whether the programmes broadcast by Al-Aqsa TV contain incitement to hatred and to take the appropriate measures. Contrary to the case of the TV channel Al Manar, according to the assessment made by the CSA, there is not enough evidence to justify a total ban of the channel Al-Aqsa. So far, the Commission has no reason to put into question the assessment carried out by the CSA.

In view notably of the impact that the assessment of the regulatory authority in one Member State may have on other Member States, the Commission has taken steps to ensure a fruitful and efficient cooperation between Member States' regulatory authorities and provides a forum for exchange of information between regulators. The Commission notably refers to the meeting chaired by the Commissioner in charge of Information Society and Media in March 2005 in the context of the prohibition of the broadcast of Al Manar by the French regulatory Authority.

The Commission will raise the issue of Al-Aqsa TV in the context of the next meeting with national regulatory authorities before the summer break in 2008 and will inform the Honourable Member of the outcome of this meeting subsequently.

The EU-Egypt Action Plan commits Egypt to 'cooperate to combat all forms of discrimination, intolerance, racism and xenophobia and in particular hate or defamatory discourse based on religion, beliefs, race or origin'. Egypt’s state-run satellite Nilesat continues to broadcast into Europe Hezbollah’s satellite channel Al-Manar, thus allowing hate and terrorist messages to reach Europe. The Commission in its reply to question H-0246/08⁽¹⁾ pointed out that the subcommittee on 'Political Matters: human rights and democracy' is the appropriate mechanism for raising issues related to the fight against racism and xenophobia. The subcommittee met on 2 and 3 June in Brussels.

Can the Commission outline whether and how Al-Manar was raised, and what actions have been agreed with Egypt in relation to Al-Manar and Egypt’s commitments to the provisions 'Fight against discrimination, intolerance, racism and intolerance' of the EU-Egypt Action Plan?

Recognising that the hatred and violent content of Hezbollah’s TV station Al-Manar is in contrast with Article 3b of the Television Without Frontiers Directive - 2007/65/EC⁽¹⁾ (former Art. 22a), all European satellite providers have stopped carrying this channel. Similarly, the broadcasting of Al-Manar via Nilesat is in contradiction with the commitments of Egypt in the EU-Egypt Action Plan, specifically related to the fight against intolerance, discrimination, racism and xenophobia and the promotion of respect for religions and cultures.

To what extent did the Commission raise the issue of Al-Manar during the subcommittee meeting and how does the Commission aim to stop Al-Manar from broadcasting the destructive message of hate and terror to Europe via non-European satellite providers?

Convening the first ever subcommittee on political matters was a major step towards deepening political relations with Egypt and towards building confidence in the process of political dialogue through which the Commission will also raise issues of shared concern in a constructive manner based on mutual trust and respect.

The Commission shares the concern of the Honourable Members that material broadcast by the mentioned television station in question might amount to incitement to hatred. The sub-committee on political matters with Egypt is indeed the appropriate mechanism for raising issues related to the fight against racism, xenophobia and intolerance. This includes the undertaking in the joint EU-Egypt Action Plan 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”.

However, in light of the many other pressing political and human rights developments that had to be addressed, as well as the EU’s agreed priorities for this dialogue, it was decided with the Member States that the issue of incitement to hatred via media would not yet be discussed in this very first sub-committee meeting.

The Commission does of course continue to pay close attention to this issue and may raise it on another occasion under the EU’s regular political dialogue with Egypt.

In the first week of June, the PASOK economic affairs spokesman, Mrs Louka Katseli, contacted the office of the Eurostat Director-General seeking to arrange a meeting in Greece between the visiting Eurostat delegation and members of the principal opposition party, so as to bring the latter up to date with Eurostat’s assessment of the economic situation in Greece. The Eurostat representative rejected the proposal on the grounds that the visit was of a purely technical nature and indicated that the delegation would be meeting government officials only.

Does the Commission approve Eurostat’s refusal to hold a meeting with members of the principal opposition party?

Are the reasons given based on specific Commission rules and practices?

Does the Commission consider that such practices are helping to achieve the objective of actively promoting the principle of transparency and equal access to information for all political parties and, by extension, all European Union citizens?

The Commission (Eurostat) carries out dialogue and methodological visits to Member States on a regular basis in order to discuss with relevant Member State authorities outstanding issues relating to the quality of notified deficit and debt statistics. These visits take place in the context of the implementation of Council Regulation 3605/93 as last amended by Council Regulation 2103/2005. A report on these discussions is made available on the website of Eurostat in due course, in conformity with the above mentioned Council Regulation.

Concerning the visit to Greece scheduled in 2008, the Commission (Eurostat) can confirm that it was contacted on 3 June 2008 by a representative of Panhellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK) with a request that this political party participate in the dialogue visit meetings with the Greek authorities.

The relevant services of the Commission (Eurostat) informed the above representative that the composition of the Member State delegation attending this kind of meetings is decided by the relevant Member State authorities.

In this context, the Commission (Eurostat) confirms that it is fully committed to the principles of transparency and equal access to information to all EU citizens, according with the existing regulations in force on these matters The Commission (Eurostat) can ensure that an opportunity is given to all the parties concerned to be listened in an appropriate manner.

Who within an EU Member State (Poland) is responsible under European legislation for the designation and operation of plants for the incineration of dangerous category 1 material, e.g. meat and bone meal (when by-products of the treatment of dead animals/cattle, for instance), with reference to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002⁽¹⁾ of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption and Directive 2000/76/EC⁽²⁾ of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste?

Can the Commission clarify the term ‘competent authority, as used in this legislation?

How does the Commission assess the operation of plants treating meat and bone meal (category 1 waste) in Poland from 2005 to 2007 and what is the current situation in this regard?

Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002⁽³⁾ establishes a comprehensive framework for the collection and disposal of animal by-products not intended for human consumption. Under the Regulation, the disposal of Category 1 animal by-products may take place in an approved incineration plant which is operating according to the Waste Incineration Directive.

Each Member State must have a disposal system in place which is capable of handling the amount of animal by-products arising on its territory.

Operators of incineration plants have to respect the applicable legal requirements, and they are subject to official controls by the Member States' competent authorities.

The Regulation on animal by-products defines as competent authority the central authority of a Member State or another authority to which the competence to ensure compliance with the Regulation has been delegated.

The Waste Incineration Directive does not define the competent authority but describes some of its tasks. The Directive requires competent authorities to assess the applications for permits to operate waste incineration and co-incineration plants. The competent authorities are responsible for granting permits including measures to ensure that the requirements of the Directive are met and to periodically reconsider and, where necessary, update permit conditions. Competent authorities shall also take action to enforce compliance if the plant does not comply with the permit conditions, in particular with the emission limit values laid down in the Directive.

Therefore, it is for the Member States to determine the authorities which are responsible for the proper implementation of Community law on their territory.

Since 2005, the veterinary inspection services of the Commission have carried out two visits to Poland to assess the measures taken by the Polish authorities for the proper enforcement of the rules on animal by-products. Their second visit in April 2007 concluded that the measures for the proper disposal of Category 1 animal by-products were largely satisfactory.

Soaring price increases (inflation), the continuing rapid increase in oil and wheat prices and a failure to take adequate measures to assist European citizens, the economies of Member States or the EU itself are extremely alarming developments. What are the EU's policy guidelines for tackling the soaring prices of oil, wheat and the cost of living generally in conjunction with Member States? Do any plans for specific measures exist? If so, what are they exactly and what exactly do they consist of?

The EU and the world as a whole are facing a serious food and fuel crisis. Is the Commission devising a strategy to meet the new challenges of rising fuel and food prices in the EU and in the world? What impact are these developments having on the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy in the EU?

The Commission's response to increases in food prices and increases in oil prices has been set out in two recent Communications that steered the discussion with Member States at the meeting of the European Council on 19 and 20 June 2008. The Commission would like to underline the support that was given to the Commission's approach by the European Council.

Concerning oil, rising prices are largely the result of major structural shifts in the global economy. We are moving away from the era of cheap and easily available oil. This trend is inevitable and generally/globally applicable. This calls for a clear distinction between short term measures to alleviate the hardship on vulnerable sectors of society, and longer term measures to accompany and promote the transition to a low carbon economy.

Governments in consumer countries, and increasingly in producer countries, have little influence on prices in global oil markets in the short term. Political pressure from citizens and companies therefore focuses on subsidies to help vulnerable groups to afford energy at a time of rising prices. A balance is needed to ensure that targeted, time-limited support to the vulnerable does not send the signal to suppliers that taxpayers are prepared to absorb price rises, rather than pass these on to the consumer. It is equally important to ensure that the incentive provided by the high price to save and change our energy consumption is transmitted to all users, while complementing policy measures should focus on energy savings and energy efficiency improvements. It is therefore necessary to avoid fiscal measures or other public interventions that could have distorting effects as they prevent economic actors from undertaking the necessary adjustments.

It is also important to improve cooperation between oil producing and oil consuming countries in order to clarify how the market is functioning and avoid future price volatility. The example of the recent summit in Jeddah should be followed up. At the same time, our existing dialogues with key suppliers such as Russia, Norway and OPEC⁽¹⁾ will be reinforced. Increased transparency on oil stocks could also help. In this respect, the Commission will continue to study the feasibility of ensuring public availability of data on commercial stocks and will present a proposal for the revision of the existing Community legislation on emergency stocks by the end of the year.

As the European Council confirmed, the appropriate response to high oil prices is a structural shift of the European energy system towards clean forms of energy and a more efficient use of energy. The Commission's proposal from 23rd of January 2008 on the climate and energy package provides for a shift towards a low-carbon economy. This will reduce Europe's energy imports and make it less vulnerable to market fluctuations. With the rising price of energy, the benefits of the climate and energy package are ever more obvious and its adoption is therefore a priority for the Commission and should be shared by Parliament and Member States.

The EU should take the challenge of energy efficiency more seriously if we wish to reach the objective of saving 20% of energy consumption by 2020. The Commission will continue to push for full implementation of the existing energy efficiency action plan with the Member States. Later in 2008, the Commission will present a proposal for the recast of the directive on the energy performance of buildings.

Concerning food prices, the EU has already acted. It temporarily suspended the obligation to set aside 10 percent of arable land for the 2008 harvest, increased milk quotas by 2 percent and temporarily suspended import duties on most cereals. The reformed Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) allows our farmers more and more to base their production decisions on what the market is telling them rather than on where they get the biggest subsidy. That is because subsidies are increasingly delinked from production. The Health Check of the CAP will further remove restrictions on farmers to allow them to react flexibly to growing demand. It will abolish permanently set-aside, further reduce the role of market intervention, and phase out milk quotas gradually between now and 2015. Most remaining production-linked subsidies will be decoupled from production, so that farmers are largely free to produce what the market requires.

Three specific actions should be mentioned in particular. Firstly, the Commission will soon put forward a proposal for a Regulation establishing a rapid response instrument to the food price crisis in developing countries. The Commission foresees a time-limited instrument that would be strictly related to agricultural production in the countries that are hardest hit. This will use unspent resources from the agricultural budget to stimulate home-grown production in developing countries. Secondly, in order to address the concerns of the most vulnerable people inside the EU, the Commission will propose a Regulation for the revision of the food aid programme in order to increase the amount of funding available. The goal is to increase support; to ensure it is targeted to the most needy, and to ensure that the right mix of commodities is covered. Thirdly, the Commission will carry out an examination of the food supply chain, monitor the evolution of prices and further analyse developments in financial markets related to commodities.

Concerning the implementation of the Lisbon strategy, the Commission would recall that its last report on the strategy noted the role of renewable energies and low-carbon and resource-efficient products, services and technologies. Increased oil prices demonstrate that it is in the interest of the European economy to implement the shift towards a low carbon economy.

On Sunday, 31 May President Uribe harshly attacked Senator Alexander López and described him and other politicians working with the social movement as ' politicians who ruined Emcali and are leading terrorist acts in Cali, in conspiracy with the ELN and Farc ...' and as 'party hacks who sow class hatred'.

At the same time the Attorney-General, a former deputy minister in President Uribe's government, is launching legal proceedings against various representatives and senators and recognised opponents of the Colombian government who are alleged to have links with Farc, based on information found on a laptop belonging to the guerrilla leader Raúl Reyes. According to an Interpol report, the laptop had been manipulated by the Colombian intelligence services between 1 and 3 March 2008.

What steps is the Commission taking to ensure that a degree of political opposition and freedom of opinion is still possible in Colombia? What initiatives is the Commission taking following the publication of the declaration by the Slovenian Presidency on Colombia, which refers to the murders of human rights defenders, some of whom were involved in programmes funded by the EU?

The Commission is following the situation in Colombia closely, and shares the Honourable Member’s concerns about the political polarisation in the country and its repercussions for the functioning of the country’s democratic system.

Colombia’s democracy is one of the oldest and most entrenched in Latin America. Despite President Uribe’s very high public approval ratings and his parliamentary majority, the political opposition, represented notably by the Liberal Party and the ‘Polo Democrático Alternativo’, enjoys a strong representation in the Colombian congress, and is governing a number of departments and municipalities, amongst it the city of Bogotá. Opposition voices are strong also in the media, where they are represented by influential periodicals such as ‘El Nuevo Siglo’ and ‘Semana’.

The Commission considers that links between politicians and officials and Colombia’s armed groups strike at the very heart of the country’s democracy. It is therefore crucial that such connections, be they with the former paramilitaries, for which over 60 parliamentarians have already been indicted, or with the guerrilla groups, are investigated fully and sanctioned appropriately. This is a task which should be carried out by the Colombian judicial authorities, acting with their constitutionally guaranteed independence and in full impartiality and neutrality.

While freedom of opinion is guaranteed by the Colombian constitution, its exercise in practice is limited by the threats and attacks against journalists and human rights defenders. Despite government efforts and resulting improvements, Colombia remains one of the most dangerous countries in the world for these groups. There has been a new wave of threats and aggressions since the start of 2008, which is very preoccupying, not least since it has i.a. affected a number of persons closely linked to the EU cooperation programme in Colombia, notably to the EC-funded “peace laboratories” active in Magdalena Medio and in other regions.

The Commission has regularly expressed its concerns vis-à-vis the Colombian government. The threats and attacks against human right defenders have been the subject of a recent démarche of EU Troika Ambassadors in Bogotá, as well as of the declaration by the EU Presidency which the Honourable Member refers to, issued on 19 May 2008. They were also raised by the Commission’s Director General for External Relations when he visited Colombia in mid-May 2008.

Following the declaration, EU Heads of Mission in Bogotá have carried out a visit to Magdalena Medio, during which they met with human rights defenders, community leaders and civil society representatives and expressed the support of the EU for the work of the persons and organisations concerned, as well as EU solidarity in face of the threats they have received. Similar meetings have also taken place in Bogotá.

In order to help protect persons working at grassroots level, the Commission’s Delegation in Bogotá has organised a meeting with representatives of EC-funded projects and the EC’s Regional Security Officer, where recommendations related to the security of project workers were provided. The Peace Laboratory in Magdalena Medio has equally taken some preventive measures, including the temporary departure of project leaders and experts from the southern Bolívar region.

The Commission will continue to support human rights defenders through its cooperation programme. It is, amongst others, supporting journalism at regional level through its peace laboratories; at national level, it is co-financing an emblematic alternative TV programme (Contravía, run by the well-known journalist Hollman Morris, who has been among the recipient of recent death threats). The EC is also supporting the work of the judiciary, through some large-scale activities aiming at strengthening the capacity of the Attorney General’s office and the Supreme Court, aimed at assisting them to deal with the cases of the victims of Colombia’s internal conflict.

On 28 December 2006 the Bulgarian Council of Ministers decided to suspend the tender procedure for the exploration of natural resources in the Black Sea shelf in response to breaches of the law by one of the tendering firms, Melrose Resources SARL, Luxembourg. Almost one year later, on 6 December 2007, the Council of Ministers adopted Decision 2007/848 awarding the exploration contract to that very firm, Melrose Resources. The fact that this decision represented a breach of the official procedure and the illogical actions on the part of the Council of Ministers have given rise to suspicions of corruption at the highest levels of the Bulgarian State, suspicions confirmed by the attitude of Bulgaria’s Supreme Administrative Court and the State Prosecutor’s Office. The Supreme Administrative Court refused to collect evidence against the Council of Ministers, the likely reason being political pressure. Although information pointing to a criminal offence had been submitted to the State Prosecutor’s Office, it halted the legal proceedings without carrying out proper investigations.

What measures will the Commission take to provide the monitoring urgently needed in connection with this scandalous case involving the abuse of administrative power and a refusal to institute proper legal proceedings?

On the basis of the question of the Honourable Member, it appears that the contract in question concerns exploration of natural resources. According to Article 7 of Directive 2004/17/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors, contracts concerning activities relating to the exploitation of a geographical area "for the purpose of exploring for or extracting oil, gas, coal or other solid fuels" are covered by this Directive.

However, it appears from the question of the Honourable Member that the award procedure in question was already on-going in 2006, i.e. before Bulgaria's accession to the European Union. From the information provided, the procedure was merely suspended in December 2006 and there is nothing to indicate that the procedure was officially terminated or ended. The contract was later awarded on 6 December 2007. Therefore, as the procedure was already on-going before Bulgaria's accession to the European Union, the EC public procurement directives do not apply to it.

Air passengers who are transiting through EU/EEA airports on their way home from ‘third countries’ are still facing the prospect of having their liquid duty-free purchases confiscated from them.

In July 2007, Regulation (EC) No. 915/2007⁽¹⁾ was adopted as the means to end this fiasco. A large number of non-EU countries applied under this Regulation to have the security standards at their airports assessed and if they met the required standards to be approved as acceptable to the relevant EU authority.

Why is it that a year after this Regulation being adopted only one country has been approved? Does the Commission intend taking any initiative to facilitate the speedy approval of more countries?

The continuing confiscation of duty-free purchases from air passengers transiting through EU/EEA airports on their way home from non-EU countries is doing untold harm to the duty-free sector and those that supply products to it. Air travellers are unwilling to buy duty-free items because of the fear of confiscation.

The introduction of Regulation (EC) No 915/2007⁽¹⁾ in July 2007 was supposed to resolve this issue. Many third countries have made applications under this regulation to enable passengers to purchase items at their duty-free outlets without fear of having them confiscated.

As many of the third countries which have applied have airport security that is at least as good and in some cases better than that which exists at EU airports, why is it that only one country has been granted such authorisation in the last year?

As was explained in the answer to Parliamentary Question H-0022/08 by Mr Nicholson⁽²⁾ the Commission developed, through Commission Regulation (EC) No 915/2007⁽³⁾, a means of establishing equivalence for security measures for liquids, aerosols and gels (LAGs) sold at third country airports, which would enable exemptions from confiscation at the security checkpoints of Community airports.

Since the entry into force of Regulation No 915/2007, a number of third countries have expressed an interest in having an exemption from the Community general rules on LAGs.

So far, such an exemption has been granted only to Singapore. The Commission shares the disappointment of the Honourable Members that more third country airports have not been exempted. However, it has thus far been impossible for the Commission to grant any further exemptions to airports in other third countries, since none has yet provided all the information required to satisfy the verification process.

The speed of the process of granting equivalence for the security provisions at third country airports is determined largely by the third country itself. In order to be granted equivalence they must demonstrate that their security standards are equivalent, which includes analysis of the national legislation and other pertinent information. In addition, they shall be applying the recommended security control guidelines of the International Civil Aviation Organisation for screening liquids, gels and aerosols and using tamper-evident bags for liquids sold at the airport. After the analysis of this information the Commission may supplement it by means of an inspection.

Whilst many third countries have expressed an interest in having their airports added to the list of exempted airports few have provided this information to substantiate their case or, in some cases, have regrettably not introduced the use of tamper-evident bags in airport shops.

In order to speed up matters, the Commission has made clear to the third countries concerned that it is of first importance that they provide the necessary information and/or guarantees on the structure of security at their airports that is adversely affecting the speed of progress.

On 16 June 2008, the Association Council took a decision on upgrading EU-Israel relations with a view to bringing about enhanced political dialogue, more economic cooperation, a significant degree of integration into the European internal market and collaboration in the field of justice and home affairs. Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner admitted to the press that the text had been deliberately kept vague. A European Parliament delegation which visited the region at the start of June unanimously took the view that, because of the ongoing conflict, there can be no such upgrading now. Gaza is still an open-air jail. Israel is continuing to build settlements. Construction of the wall is proceeding. The President of the European Parliament wrote to the Commissioner on 29 May 2008 to request that Parliament be informed about, and consulted on, possible EU proposals to the Association Council. To date, this has not taken place in any shape or form.

Does the Commission consider that Parliament should not be consulted in advance? If so, why? When is this likely to take place? Why has the text been intentionally kept vague? What does it contain, precisely, and what is the EU seeking to achieve with this upgrading? In what areas, and in what way, will relations with Israel be upgraded? When will this new agreement come into effect? Does the Commission not think that the EU is giving up significant leverage over the peace negotiations? Why has no linkage whatever been established with the current peace process?

Let the Commission start by outlining what was decided on 16 June 2008 at the Association Council: A partner country, and one of the most advanced partner countries in our neighbourhood, has sought closer cooperation with the EU.

The Commission, in its Communication on the European Neighbourghood Policy (ENP) to the Parliament and Council of April 2008, had already spelled out its views on the development of more intense and fruitful relations with our ENP partners on the basis of the principle of differentiation, mentioning Israel’s as one of the frontrunners in the ENP. Any further development of bilateral relations with Israel will remain in this ENP framework.

Ministers, in their statement of 16 June 2008 – which is a public document – have stated that the development of relations with Israel is to be seen in the context of the Middle East peace process.

The Association Council with Israel, on 16 June 2008, saw the start of a process. This process is not leading to a new form of association, but will be based on our existing Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement with Israel.

The EU and Israel have identified areas of mutual interest for deepened cooperation which are listed in the EU statement. Discussions on these will take place over the coming months. Negotiations have not started yet. The Commission stands ready to keep the Parliament informed about any progress made in the areas falling under our competence.

The European Parliament and the Member States of the European Union have always stood for human rights and democracy. Has the European Commission cautioned the Member States that they should not allow themselves to be exploited by extremist Khalistani groups, which are known to have used violence in the past to achieve their aims under the guise of supporting human rights and self-determination?

Is the Commission aware that extremist elements in Europe are seeking to revive the Khalistan movement for a separate Sikh homeland with a view to dismembering India by violent means? If so, what action has the Commission taken, or does it propose to take, to persuade Member States to prevent such activities?

The issue of terrorism associated with the Khalistan movement, seeking independence for a Sikh nation (Khalistan), needs first to be seen in the larger context of Punjab’s recent political history. The Indian state of Punjab, marred by violence for over 15 years due to Sikh separatists in the 1980s, returned to normalcy after the movement was successfully handled in the mid-1990s. After years of direct rule from New Delhi, the democratic process was successfully revived with a democratically elected government in 1997. The latest State election in 2007 resulted in putting back the Akali Dal party (representing exclusively the interests of the Sikhs) at the helm.

There have been various press reports indicating that a surviving network of terrorism continues to exist, in particular outside India, which can partly explain how Sikh militants did manage to trigger a bomb blast inside a cinema hall in Ludhiana (seven dead, including a 10-year old child, and 40 injured) on 14 October 2007. The Commission’s analysis, however, is that the ideology that inspired a decade and a half of terrorism in Punjab has been rejected by the population.

In reply to the Honourable Members questions, the Commission believes that best way to caution Member States about the risk of being exploited by extremist Khalistani groups is to invite them to follow closely EU-India joint efforts in the fight against terrorism and to support meetings between the EU working group on terrorism and Indian experts as well as Indian requests to increase cooperation with Europol.

Over recent years, an increasing number of state-owned industrial plants have come under private ownership, particularly in the new Member States. Unfortunately, no one has given any thought to what is to be done with the manufacturing waste left behind. That waste poses a serious threat to the environment and public health. In the majority of cases, once they have purchased the plants, the new owners do not have enough money to recycle (destroy) the waste left behind, and no monies are available for this purpose from the state. Owing to a lack of domestic legislation on waste and the huge costs involved in destroying the waste, the owners are simply sitting idly by. Should this state of affairs continue, in a couple of years' time it may be too difficult to bring the situation under control.

Does the Commission intend to take any action in this matter?

The management of waste, including manufacturing waste, needs to comply with the provisions of the relevant Community legislation, including in particular Directive 2006/12/EC on waste⁽¹⁾. According to this Directive, Member States shall take all the necessary measures to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment. In particular, waste recovery and disposal must be carried out without risk to water, air, soil, plants or animals, without causing nuisance through noise or odours, and without adversely affecting the countryside or places of special interest. This Directive specifies that, in accordance with the "polluter pays" principle, the cost of disposing of waste must be borne by (a) the holder who has the waste handled by a waste collector or by a waste disposal undertaking; and/or (b) the previous holder or the producer of the product from which the waste came.

Some manufacturing waste may be hazardous. Hazardous wastes pose a greater risk to the environment and human health than non hazardous wastes and thus require a stricter control regime. In such a case, the provisions of Directive 91/689/EC on hazardous waste⁽²⁾ would apply, including additional record keeping, monitoring and control obligations from the “cradle to the grave”, from the waste producer to the final disposal or recovery.

Member States should ensure that all the requirements of the abovementioned legislation are transposed into national legislation and complied with. The Commission regularly monitors the transposition of the Community waste legislation by the Member States. In case of non-transposition into national law, incorrect transposition, or non-compliance with the relevant Community legislation, the Commission can and does take legal steps against the Member State concerned.

As regards the costs of implementing the Community waste legislation, these should be decided on a case-by-case basis by the national competent authorities. Member States can financially contribute to the recovery or disposal of industrial waste, especially where it is no longer possible to identify the current or previous holder or producer of the waste. To this end, Member States can use their own resources or Community funding in line with the applicable procedures.

Community financing of environmental priorities is planned under the major operational programme Infrastructure and Environment of the Cohesion Policy 2007-2013 and 16 regional operational programmes in Poland. For example, there will be approximately € 8.8 billion (about 13.5% of overall funding for 2007-13 programming period) available for the environment and risk prevention projects in Poland, out of which € 1.3 billion is allocated to the waste sector (2% of overall funding) under the category "Management of household and industrial waste". Each new Member State will have its own allocation. Despite these resources, there will be still a significant financial gap for the implementation of the EU legislation, including waste directives, which have transitional periods set up by the Accession Treaty.

As concerns waste management, support from the Infrastructure and Environment Operational Programme will be given to initiatives preventing or limiting the production of municipal waste, introducing recycling technologies and technologies for neutralising municipal waste, as well as eliminating danger of waste disposal, in accordance with national and regional waste management plans, as well as initiatives in the field of rehabilitation of post-industrial and post-military land. As regards land rehabilitation, support is available for large area projects in non-urbanized areas and only in situations when the current land owner is not responsible for the occurrence of pollution or degradation of the environment.

Within this Operational Programme, large enterprises and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) will be also eligible for support to comply with environmental requirements. The assistance will aim, inter alia, to reduce the amount of generated waste other than municipal waste and increase the level of waste reclamation and recycling, as well as to increase the recovery of post-production and dangerous waste.

The funding to the Infrastructure and Environment Operational Programme will be provided by regional operational programmes which can support waste management projects, provided that they are included in the regional waste management plans. Regional operational programmes will also co-finance assistance to SMEs in the area of waste management. For example, they can support systems for environmental management, rationalization of resources and waste management, industrial waste management and dangerous waste management, as well as the implementation of the Best Available Techniques (BAT).

In 2006 the local authority-owned company of Aalborg Havn sold the Østre Havn port area to the private firm of A. Enggaard. The site, 75 000 m2 in area, was sold for DKK 44 million. Experts estimate that this price was far below the market value. Furthermore, the transaction was not put out to tender, and no impartial expert estimate of the sale price was obtained.

Does the Commission consider that this sale infringes the EU’s competition rules? Can it be regarded as illegal state aid? Does the Commission propose to take any action in this matter?

With the Communication of State Aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities⁽¹⁾, the Commission has drawn up general guidance to Member States in order to make its general approach with regard to the problem of State aid through sales of land and buildings by public authorities transparent. This Communication states that when a public authority does not intend to use an unconditional bidding procedure for the sale, an independent evaluation should be carried out by one or more independent asset valuers prior to the sale negotiations in order to establish the market value on the basis of generally accepted market indicators and valuation standards. The market price thus established is the minimum purchase price that can be agreed without granting State Aid.

The case brought forward by the Honourable Member is not known to the Commission. Should the Commission receive more detailed information on the alleged State Aid concerning the sale of a section of the port of Aalborg it could possibly make a more specific assessment and take action in this matter if appropriate. To facilitate State Aid complaints and provide guidance to potential complainants, a complaints form is available on the website of Directorate General for Competition.

According to Greece's Minister of the Interior, Mr Prokopis Pavlopoulos, Turkey is not by any stretch of the imagination complying with its commitments under the repatriation agreement with Greece: indeed, by means of the policy which the country is pursuing, it is even encouraging a massive increase in illegal immigration in Greece. Meanwhile the most recent round of negotiations on a repatriation agreement between the EC and Turkey is said to have been held in December 2006. Apparently, no fundamental progress was made in the negotiations.

How does the Commission assess the implementation of the repatriation agreement between Greece and Turkey and the statements by Greece's Minister of the Interior? How does the Commission explain the fact that there is still no repatriation agreement between the EC and Turkey? What are the obstacles? What influence is Turkey's refusal to conclude a repatriation agreement with the EC and/or to comply with the repatriation agreement with Greece having on the negotiations?

Issues relating to bilateral readmission agreements between Member States and third countries fall into the remit of the specific countries concerned. However, in the regular JLS⁽¹⁾ sub-Committee meetings with Turkey, the Commission will always insist on the need for conclusion of readmission agreements with neighbouring countries and the proper implementation of existing readmission agreements.

As to the EC-Turkey readmission negotiations, the last formal round of negotiations took place in December 2006. Contacts between the Commission and the Turkish authorities have taken place since then but have to date not led to further progress. Signing a readmission agreement with Turkey remains a priority for the EU and that is why the EU is currently reflecting on ways to unblock the impasse.

The Commission is considering a proposal to phase out the use and production of traditional light bulbs in favour of environmentally friendly low-energy light bulbs.

When will the Commission submit its proposal?

What measures will the Commission take to support European producers in switching efficiently to the environmentally friendly technology of low-energy light bulbs?

What impact will this measure, in its most ambitious form, have on European employment, and what accompanying measures are planned for it?

In connection with the timing of the phasing-out of the use of light bulbs: when does the Commission intend to revise the Eco-design directive (in general, but also specifically for light bulbs) and to revise Directive 98/11/EC⁽¹⁾ with regard to energy labelling of household lamps?

The Commission is currently working on a possible implementing measure under the Ecodesign Framework Directive⁽²⁾ for general lighting equipment. The main purpose is to set minimum energy efficiency requirements that lamps used for general lighting (including incandescent lamps) would have to fulfil in order to be placed on the EU market. The proposal is the result of a preparatory technical-economic-environmental study which recommended potential improvement options for the environmental performance of general lighting products, taking into account the life cycle of lamps. An impact assessment is currently carried out that should help evaluating the environmental, social and economic impact of the various policy options.

All the evidence available so far shows that efficiency requirements should be set at levels that would lead in practice to a phase out of traditional incandescent bulbs (GLS) used for general lighting purposes. The impact assessment examines inter alia appropriate timing of the entry into force of the requirements and the effects of the measure on the European lighting industry and employment with a view to preserving the European lighting industry's competitiveness while taking into account the need for rapid action to combat climate change.

The tentative date for adoption of an implementing measure on general lighting by the Commission is spring 2009, after scrutiny of the Parliament. As such, no final decision has been taken yet.

The Commission is to update the Energy Labelling of Household lamps Directive⁽³⁾ in 2010 to accompany the setting of the efficiency requirements. The Eco-design Directive does not need revision in order to adopt an implementing measure on lighting.

The introduction of the digital tachograph has proved to cause problems in practice, and following the European Ombudsman’s decision of 26 May 2008 concerning complaint 284/2006/PB questions may arise on the Commission’s administration of this issue.

What does the Commission propose to do to prevent the recurrence of similar situation to the one complained of in that case?

In its answer to Written Question P-1488/08 the Commission concedes that the technical specification of the digital tachograph is no longer up to date and that it intends therefore to adapt the technical specification to technical progress.

What stage has been reached in this re-evaluation process, and what is the timetable for action?

The Commission has taken note of the European Ombudsman's decision concerning the complaint 284/2006/PB, related to the implementation of Community legislation on the introduction of the digital tachograph in commercial vehicles. The Commission has also taken note of the considerations that have been made to support that decision.

The Commission recalls, however, that the uniqueness of the situation called for immediate action in order to prevent the risk of more substantial delay in implementing the digital tachograph that could have led to a negative impact on the proper functioning of the road transport market across the Community.

The Commission considers that this kind of situation can be prevented by appropriate provisions in the legislation for postponing the entry into force of complex technical measures that depend both on industry and effective coordination at EU level.

As set out in answer to the Honourable Member's priority question P-1488/08, the Commission plans to adapt the technical specifications of the tachograph to technical progress in 2009 and has commissioned a study with a view to defining such updated specifications. The consultation of stakeholders, including the road haulage industry, the tachograph manufacturers and enforcers associations is currently conducted in the framework of this project. In the longer term, based on the results of these consultations and further development, notably in the context of the action plan on Intelligent Transport Systems, the Commission may consider submitting a proposal to Parliament and Council to recast Regulation 3821/85 at a later stage.

In the light of the worsening socio-economic crisis in the fisheries sector as a result of the increase in the price of fuel (petrol and diesel) and following the recent demonstrations organised by the sector in various EU countries (including Portugal) in order to demand emergency action designed to provide effective support, will the Commission answer the following question?

What is the situation regarding each of the proposals which were announced on 17 June (in particular in the light of the conclusions reached at the 23-24 June meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council)?

The Commission is pleased to inform the Honourable Member that it has adopted a legislative package, along the lines of the proposals announced on 17 June 2008 in the College on 8 July 2008. This package has already been transmitted to the Parliament in view of receiving its opinion and has been sent to the Council of Ministers in view of its adoption on 15 July 2008.