The Bulgarian authorities, most notably chief prosecutor Boris Velchev, have admitted recently that cooperation with OLAF investigations into fraud and misuse of EU funds in that country needed to be improved upon and much swifter.

How does the Council plan to ensure that this expedient cooperation does occur?

How will the Council go about sending a strong message to current and future member nations that corruption has no place within the European Union and especially not relating to expenditure and distribution of European taxpayers’ money?

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

The European Union attaches great importance to combating corruption. Specific evidence of this is the European Convention of 26 May 1997 on the fight against corruption involving officials of the European Communities or officials of Member States of the European Union⁽¹⁾ and the Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA of 22 July 2003 on combating corruption in the private sector⁽²⁾. In addition to these, there are the various instruments on the protection of the financial interests of the European Communities, and in particular the Convention on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests⁽³⁾, and the decision establishing OLAF. A decision by the Council on the creation of a contact-point network against corruption is also at a very advanced stage in the consideration process⁽⁴⁾.

Within this context, the Council believes it is of the utmost importance that European Union funds are managed in the various Member States in total compliance with the applicable Community rules. To this end, the Council regularly receives reports and proposals from the Commission, which it studies very closely. Thus, the Council attaches great importance to stepping up cooperation between the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the Member States.

In 2005, the Council adopted conclusions in which it 'urge[d] OLAF and Member States to strengthen their cooperation in order to enhance coordination of their activities in the field of protection of EU financial interests and fight against fraud, consider[ed] it useful to improve procedures for information exchange to that end and share[d] the Court's view on the possibility of creating a special structure dedicated to coordination and assistance operations.'

That said, it should be borne in mind that the way in which OLAF's work is organised, including the practical details of its cooperation with the Member States, is a matter on which the Office has administrative independence.

With particular reference to the issue of the management of EU funds in Bulgaria, a recent report has been compiled on this subject by the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council⁽⁵⁾, and this is currently being examined by the relevant Council bodies.

Finally, in its conclusions of 15 September 2008⁽⁶⁾, the Council noted that the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism put in place for Bulgaria and Romania was an appropriate tool and that it would remain in place pending the results expected in that framework.

The Council will continue to pay careful attention to developments in this area.

Road haulage accounts for 72.2% of all land-based goods transport in the Community. Around 600 000 enterprises and 4.5 million people work in the European road transport sector, which is therefore of importance for the economic development of the Union. In these circumstances, road traffic safety and the improvement of drivers’ social conditions are matters of extreme importance. Under European regulations, drivers must comply with certain conditions as regards driving time, working time and rest times. However, there are insufficient secure parking areas. Statistics published by the incident reporting service show that 8.2 thousand million euros are lost every year in the Union as a result of thefts of goods in transport, with 70% of the incidents reported taking place when vehicles are at a standstill.

Can the Council state what Community measures and initiatives are envisaged for the construction of secure parking areas, especially for Romania and Bulgaria, and how are these reflected in the EU budget?

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

The construction of parking areas is primarily a matter for the Member States, and therefore there have been no Community measures on the subject. ⁽¹⁾However, in the 'road safety' chapter, the European Parliament and the Council have just agreed, at first reading, on a directive on road infrastructure safety management⁽²⁾. The Council officially adopted the directive on 10 October.

In the directive, the European Parliament and the Council stress that it is important to have sufficient roadside parking areas, 'not only for crime prevention but also for road safety'. Parking areas enable drivers to take rest breaks in good time and continue their journey with full concentration. The provision of sufficient safe parking areas should therefore form an integral part of road infrastructure safety management.

Annexed to the directive is also a provision setting out the criteria for producing safe parking areas. The Member States are encouraged to apply the above criteria in particular for the construction of a sufficient number of safe parking areas, in order to improve road safety.

The food security situation in Ethiopia has deteriorated to alarming levels in the wake of drought conditions throughout the country, according to the United Nations. Some 4.6 million people in Ethiopia are in need of food aid due to a combination of drought and high food prices, according to a statement issued by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).

Can the Council inform as to how much assistance the EU and its Member States are presently giving to Ethiopia, and can food aid be boosted specifically given the present dire circumstances in this country?

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

Mr Burke, I remember that when we spoke at the last part-session, you in fact expressed your support for an ambitious development aid policy. On the specific issue of food security in Ethiopia, the Presidency of the Council shares your concerns. You mention a statement from the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, stating that over 4.6 million people are in need of food aid in Ethiopia. Since then, the situation has unfortunately become even worse. In fact, on 17 September, the Ethiopian Government revised this figure and estimates that there are now over 12 million people affected by the drought, a phenomenon whose consequences have been made worse by the sharp rise in food prices. The number of people under direct threat of famine and malnutrition is currently thought to be 6.4 million.

In view of this situation, the European Union is reacting on two levels:

firstly, through emergency food aid; emergency measures are being taken that aim to meet the needs of the vulnerable population groups in the short term.

then, in the longer term, the EU's development policy has put in place programmes to guarantee food security and to enable the country to dispense with the need for food aid in the long term.

With regard to emergency food aid, this takes the form of gifts to partners such as the World Food Programme (WFP). I would like to stress that, of the 10 largest donors to the WFP in 2008 for the crisis in the Horn of Africa, five are from the European Union. By way of example, in 2008 the European Union allocated EUR 28.7 million for food aid for Ethiopia with reference to the WFP.

In addition to the aid granted by the EU through the WFP, many Member States have supplied food aid to Ethiopia through other mechanisms, such as the United Nations Central Emergency Response Fund for humanitarian emergencies (CERF) or the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Fund for Ethiopia.

In general, there is a plan to step up aid to the region very swiftly, with the European Commission having announced on 16 October that EUR 15 million in additional emergency funds had been released for five countries in the Horn of Africa suffering from the drought and the rise in food prices.

In total, over 10 million people should benefit from this new financial allocation, including 4.6 million in Ethiopia, and the remainder in Somalia, Kenya, Uganda and Djibouti. To date, in 2008 the Commission has granted EUR 134.5 million in humanitarian aid to the Horn of Africa – in addition to the aid given to Sudan – of which EUR 64 million was food aid. However, since the EU's food aid is managed by the European Commission, the latter should have more detailed information on the subject.

As you can see, the aid granted by the EU, together with that given by the Member States on a bilateral basis or within the framework of multilateral bodies, demonstrates the EU's decisive action to tackle the humanitarian situation in Ethiopia.

Since 2003, the People's Mojahedin of Iran (PMOI) organisation has been listed in the Council's list of terrorist organisations. This decision was based on a decision by the UK Home Office to include the PMOI in the UK list of proscribed organisations.

The PMOI has challenged the decision of the competent authority in the UK. As a result of judgements of the Proscribed Organisations Appeals Commission and the Court of Appeal, the PMOI was removed from the UK list of proscribed organisations in June 2008.

Since 24 June 2008, the Council decision has therefore been lacking the basis of a decision taken by a judicial authority or an equivalent competent authority. However, during its review of the list of terrorist organisations on 15 July 2008 the Council did not decide to de-list the PMOI. What are the reasons for the Council to keep the PMOI on its list of terrorist organisations?

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

The previous decisions by the Council to include and then to keep the People's Mojahedin of Iran (PMOI) on the European anti-terrorist list were prompted by the fact that it was included on the list of terrorist organisations proscribed in the United Kingdom.

Since the UK Government had taken the decision on 24 June to remove the PMOI from its list, the issue was raised as to whether the organisation should be removed from the European list.

The Council was, however, made aware of other information and as a result concluded, on 15 July, that grounds remained for the inclusion of the PMOI on the European list, in accordance with the criteria set out in Common Position 2001/931/CFSP.

I would like to emphasise that this decision by the Council as well as an explanation of the reasons for its inclusion on the list were notified to the organisation. In this context, and in accordance with the rules in force, the PMOI was informed that it had the option to request a review of the decision and to bring an appeal before the Tribunal of First Instance of the European Communities.

The PMOI took exactly that approach when it decided to appeal the decision, bringing an appeal before the Tribunal of First Instance on 21 July. The case is currently being considered, and it is not for the Council to comment on that process.

Considering the EU goals of creating an area of free movement, of common justice and of shared environmental objectives, does the Council agree that it makes sense for drivers who fail to respect local, regional or national traffic laws within the EU, for instance through non-payment of a road user charge, breach of a low emission or green zone, or driving or parking in a reserved bus or tram lane, to have a penalty enforced against them whatever their Member State of nationality or residence? What is the Council doing to progress that objective of comprehensive enforcement?

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

The issue of dealing with road traffic offences committed by a European citizen in EU territory outside his country of origin is a priority for the French Presidency in relation to transport.

The Presidency intends to use as a basis the proposal submitted by the Commission in April 2008. This proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council is intended to facilitate the cross-border enforcement of sanctions for certain types of offence laid down by the laws of the Member States in the field of road safety (not using a seat belt, speeding, driving under the influence of alcohol and failing to stop at a red light)⁽¹⁾. Specifically, it proposes setting up an EU electronic data exchange network in order to identify the holder of a vehicle, so that the authorities in a Member State where an offence has been committed can send out a notification to the vehicle holder, regardless of the EU Member State in which he is located. In reality, the fact that some of those who commit offences are not resident in the Member State in which the offences are recorded complicates or prevents investigation, prosecution and the successful enforcement of sanctions.

An initial exchange of views took place at the sitting on 9 October of the Council of Transport Ministers. This produced a wide consensus on the need to complete discussion of the proposal quickly. This would enable us to achieve the objectives set in the White Paper on Road Safety (halving the number of fatalities on Europe's roads by 2010).

In addition, the Council has already adopted, within the framework of Title VI TEU, several acts designed to improve the cooperation and exchange of information between the Member States' police and justice departments, which cover public action against road traffic offences, including:

Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties⁽²⁾. The aim of this decision is to ensure that financial penalties imposed in a Member State are enforced in the Member State where the person concerned is normally resident or has property or income;

the Convention on Driving Disqualifications (1998)⁽³⁾;

the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States (2000)⁽⁴⁾;

Council Framework Decision 2006/960/JHA on simplifying the exchange of information and intelligence between law enforcement authorities of the Member States⁽⁵⁾;

the decision on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (2008)⁽⁶⁾ and the decision on that decision's implementation⁽⁷⁾.

This decision includes, in particular, provisions on automated cross-border searching of vehicle registration data.

The European Parliament sent an observer delegation to the elections on Monday 15 September in Rwanda, with its membership determined in accordance with the D’Hondt system. The delegation was made up of politicians of differing political affiliations and nationalities. I myself, a non-attached Member of the European Parliament, was supposed to be a member of this delegation. Last year I was present at the annual EU-ACP meeting in Kigali and was granted a visa on that occasion. However, this time the Rwandan Embassy in Brussels refused to issue me with a visa, without stating any reason – in spite of being repeatedly urged to do so – with the result that the delegation had to set off one member short. In doing this, the Rwandan government has demonstrated that it wishes to decide for itself who may be a member of an electoral observation mission, thus undermining the credibility of the European Parliament as an independent political institution.

What is the Council's opinion of the attitude of the Rwandan authorities? Has the Council asked why Rwanda did not wish to issue a visa to a member of this delegation? What representations will the Council make in future to the Rwandan authorities to prevent such arbitrary action?

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

The Council deplores the refusal by the Rwandan Embassy in Brussels to issue you with a visa and its failure to explain the reason for this refusal. The Presidency of the Council on the ground and the Head of the Delegation of the European Commission have made representations to the Rwandan authorities in Kigali regarding the failure to issue visas to some of the electoral observers selected by the European Commission. While this led to a significant improvement in the situation, unfortunately it did not have a positive effect in your case.

In its regular contacts with Rwanda, the Council will continue to stress the independence of the EU in its actions, which is weakened by such a refusal to issue visas to those appointed to participate in the EU's missions to Rwanda within the framework of relations between the EU and Rwanda.

In order to avoid other EU electoral observation missions being in future confronted with similar difficulties, the Council has encouraged the Commission to look at possible avenues. One step might be to include a clause on non-discrimination against European Union observers in memorandums of agreement entered into with states having asked for an observation team to be sent.

In its recent resolution (P6_TA(2008)0404) on the situation of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, Parliament stressed that 'more than 11 000 Palestinians, including hundreds of women and children, are being held in Israeli prisons', expressed 'its concern at the situation of Palestinian women and vulnerable prisoners, who are reportedly subjected to mistreatment and a lack of access to health care' and called on Israel 'to guarantee that minimum standards on detention be respected, to bring to trial all detainees, to put an end to the use of 'administrative detention orders', and to implement adequate measures for minors and prisoners' visiting rights, in full compliance with international standards including the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the UN Convention Against Torture ...'.

What steps has the Council already taken to protect the rights of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, in particular children, and what measures will it take in response to Parliament's resolution?

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

As we have already discussed this issue together at the part-session last July, I would like to confirm to you once again that the EU is extremely active on this issue. At all levels, the EU is continuing to tell Israel of its major concerns with regard to the human rights situation: it does so at every high-level meeting between the two parties and at political dialogue meetings.

At these meetings, all subjects are considered:

− respect for human rights, including freedom of religion and belief;

− the expansion of the settlements;

− international humanitarian law; and

− administrative detention, including individual cases – which is the point that the honourable Member has expressly brought up.

On the specific issue of children, at the third meeting of the informal EU-Israel working group on human rights, which took place on 30 April 2008, more detailed consideration was given to a whole series of issues such as the situation of minorities, human rights defenders and the rights of children. On this occasion, the EU reiterated the need for an appropriate follow-up of these issues.

In general, the EU believes that it is vital to maintain contact via all diplomatic and political channels. The EU has always placed strong emphasis on the path of dialogue. Dialogue on respect for international law and humanitarian law, conducted in a constructive manner in accordance with the provisions laid down by the treaties entered into with Israel, is the most effective method for transmitting the EU's views and messages on all subjects of concern.

On 16 June this year, at the eighth meeting of the EU-Israel Association Council, discussions took place with a view to upgrading relations between the EU and Israel. Within this context, the dialogue between the EU and Israel on human rights is a key element of this process, since the EU is proposing to set up a subcommittee on human rights within the framework of the Association Agreement; this subcommittee would replace the existing informal working group. Parliament has welcomed this initiative, demonstrating our shared approach to the situation.

Why is the Lisbon Treaty necessary at all? The Draft EU budget for 2009 shows that the Commission continues to fund the new measures contained in the unratified Treaty, despite the fact that no legal base exists, so if this is possible then why is the Treaty actually required?

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

It is not for the Council to comment on the Treaty of Lisbon, which has been signed by the Member States but for which the ratification process has not been completed.

The attention of the honourable Member is, however, drawn to the conclusions of the European Council of 19-20 June 2008⁽¹⁾, according to which the purpose of the Treaty of Lisbon is to help the Union to act more effectively and more democratically.

Does the Council Presidency agree with the comments from Valery Giscard d'Estaing that countries who do not wish to adopt the Lisbon Treaty could simply have a different type of membership of the European Union, leading to a so-called 'two-speed' Europe?

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

It is not for the Council to comment on statements made by political figures.

Does the Council Presidency believe that the people of other Member States - for example France - would have rejected the Lisbon Treaty in a referendum, had they been granted one?

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

It should be borne in mind that the Member States ratify amendments to the Treaties in accordance with their respective constitutional rules. If such ratification is conducted by means of a referendum, it is for the Member State involved to accept the conclusions arising as a result of the referendum.

It is not for the Council to give suggestions regarding the question tabled by the honourable Member.

Last week in the Askos-Profitis region of Greece (Thessaloniki), the Eurocorps "Hellbrock" combat group, under Greek command, carried out a military exercise named 'Europe-II/2008', which included - as revealed by photographs in the Greek press - the army confronting demonstrators carrying a banner with the words 'EU go home'!

What are the Council's views on such exercises by EU military forces? Does it consider that every people, whether inside or outside the EU, has the right to give public expression to its views, which naturally includes opposition to EU policy and calling into question its sovereignty?

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

The Council would like to point out that not only is the conduct of exercises of this type a national responsibility, but also that Eurocorps is not a body that forms part of the European Union.

Since France had failed to comply with EU rules on the size of fish caught, the European Court of Justice issued a judgment on 12 July 2005 instructing that country to pay an EUR 20 million fine and a half-yearly penalty of EUR 57.8 million.

On what date did France comply with the rulings contained in the judgment? What are the actual amounts of the fine and the penalties paid by France since that date?

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

Mrs Isler Béguin, I do not feel that I would be correct in replying to you as President-in-Office of the Council, since it is not for the Council to take a view on the implementation by a Member State of a judgment by the Court of Justice. As French minister, I can assure you that France has fully complied with the judgment issued.

As is common knowledge, five Cuban patriots – Gerardo Hernández, René González, Ramón Labañino, Fernando González, and Antonio Guerrero – have for some ten years (since 12 September 1998) been held in American jails by the US. These are five Cuban citizens who have done nothing more than defend their country and their people and who have fallen victim to numerous illegalities.

They are continuing all the while to be denied their basic human rights, not least the right to visits from family members. A number of MEPs, myself included, have likewise been refused permission to visit them.

What will the Council do to convey its views to the US Administration regarding the failure to respect the most basic human rights, and the cruel obstacles and restrictions being put in the way of visits to the five prisoners by family members?

Has it told the Administration what it thinks about the fact that Members of the European Parliament, myself included, have been prevented from visiting the five Cuban patriots?

Ten years have already elapsed since the US authorities arrested the five Cuban patriots Gerardo Hernández, Antonio Guerrero, Ramón Labañino, Fernando González and René González on trumped up, groundless charges. They are still being detained in US prisons in violation of basic rules of law and under barbaric conditions and are banned from receiving any visits, even from their relatives and from a delegation of Members of the European Parliament which had officially asked to visit them.

The US is violating the basic human rights of the five prisoners and, more generally, fundamental principles of international and humanitarian law.

Will the Council condemn the continuing illegal imprisonment of the five Cubans?

What is the Council's position in respect of the appeals by national parliaments and representative international and national bodies for the immediate release of the five imprisoned Cuban patriots?

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

The European Union reiterates its opposition to any arbitrary detention and deplores any situation in which human rights and respect for individuals is not properly guaranteed.

The Council is aware of the fact that, in certain cases, the authorities of the United States have not allowed members of prisoners' families, or other persons, including Members of the European Parliament, to contact the five Cuban nationals imprisoned and accused of spying by the US authorities. However, according to the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the majority of the relatives of the detainees have been granted visas to visit their families.

Does the Council Presidency agree with me that free trade is a good thing, and that government intervention in markets – including by the EU – is a bad thing? Does the Council further agree that one of the major flaws of the Lisbon Treaty is that it does not endorse this principle?

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

Like the honourable Member, the Council believes in the market economy. It is at the heart of the Community approach, as we are reminded by Article 4 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which calls for respect for the principle of an open market economy with free competition.

The financial crisis we are experiencing at the moment has, however, reminded us that the market may be defective, if it is not subject to discipline and rules. This is not an ideological debate, but an observation: there are cases where public intervention is necessary to ensure that the market functions effectively, responsibly and in a way that encourages growth.

With regard to the Treaty of Lisbon, it should be borne in mind that it has not yet entered into force and that it is not for the Council to interpret it.

The ECJ judgment of 3 September 2008 (joined cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P) annulled, insofar as Mr Y.A. Kadi and the Al Barakaat International Foundation are concerned, Regulation (EC) No 881/2002⁽¹⁾.

The text of the judgment stated that 'the applicable procedures must also afford the person concerned a reasonable opportunity of putting his case to the competent authorities'. This did not apply to the case in question.

Can the Council guarantee that the inclusion of legal persons, groups and organisations in the annex to that regulation is carried out on a basis of scrupulous respect for citizens' and organisations' basic rights?

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

First of all, I would like to reject the label 'blacklist' as applied to the European arrangements for sanctions aimed at individuals and entities belonging to or associated with Al-Qaida or the Taliban, which transpose the sanctions decisions taken by Committee 1267 of the United Nations Security Council. This is a mechanism that implements certain restrictions whose primary aim is to prevent acts of terrorism. The lists are well-known and public, as are the measures connected with them.

With regard to the joined cases involving Mr Kadi and the Al Barakaat Foundation, the Council has noted the judgment of the Court of Justice of 3 September 2008. In order to respect the rights of defence alluded to by the Court of Justice, the information providing grounds for inclusion on the list of European sanctions targeted at individuals and entities belonging to or associated with Al-Qaida or the Taliban will be notified to the parties involved. In response, Mr Kadi and the Al Barakaat Foundation will thus be able to make comments.

The Council will also consider what changes might be made to the procedure for the transposition in Europe of the United Nations sanctions targeting individuals and entities belonging to or associated with Al-Qaida or the Taliban. In any event, the Council will ensure that the measures necessary to implement the judgment are taken within an appropriate timeframe.

In reply to my oral question H-0647/08⁽¹⁾, the Council expressed the view that deployment of the EULEX mission would significantly improve the situation in northern Kosovo. Why is the deployment of EULEX throughout Kosovo proceeding so slowly, what is the projected timetable up to the end of this year, and when, in the Council's opinion, will EULEX be fully operational and able to take over from UNMIK, completely or to a large extent?

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

The deployment of EULEX has been delayed because of the process of reconfiguring UNMIK, which was only decided on in June 2008. In addition, the deployment of the mission is also dependent upon the transfer of premises and equipment from UNMIK. The agreement in principle on this transfer was only reached on 18 August, and implementation has been extremely slow because of complex administrative procedures, both at the United Nations and on the European side.

On 21 September, the Council decided to relaunch deployment of the mission, in weekly waves of approximately 100 people. At the end of October, the request for deployment of integrated police units (IPUs) will also be sent, for inclusion in the mission at the end of November. Finally, the staff selected for EULEX, currently working within UNMIK, are due to be transferred to the mission in late November.

To date, approximately 300 posts are still vacant. The Member States and the five non-EU contributing states have recently been asked again, this week, to make their contributions as a matter of urgency, so as to fill in the gaps currently existing. The Council has also decided to invite another non-EU state, Canada, to join the mission.

If deployment takes place as planned and if the procedures for the purchase and transfer of the necessary equipment are dealt with as swiftly as the Council requires, then in early December the mission will reach its initial operational capacity and will be able to assume the responsibilities that make up its mandate.

In the last week of September, Italy’s Guardia di Finanza (police whose duties include customs and excise enforcement) confiscated 1,700,000 pairs of shoes. The shoes seized bore counterfeit trademarks and 84,000 of them were wrongly labelled ‘made in Italy’. Many of them were found to contain alarming levels of hexavalent chromium, a carcinogenic substance.

What is the Council’s opinion of this incident, and what measures does it intend to take to prevent future incidents? Does the Council intend to urge the Commission to initiate anti-dumping proceedings against China more frequently? Does the Council consider it should strengthen quality standards for products by approving the Commission's proposal of December 2005 (COM(2005)0661) for a regulation on compulsory origin marking for goods imported from third countries? Does the Council consider it should urge the Commission to submit legislative proposals and/or tighten up existing legislation on the traceability and health standards of textiles, shoes, cosmetics, jewellery and similar products produced in non-EU countries?

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

Counterfeiting is a real scourge that jeopardises the competitiveness of European businesses, and the health and safety of consumers. In view of the worrying dimensions of the phenomenon, the French Presidency has recently launched an initiative in the form of a resolution on a comprehensive European anti-counterfeiting and anti-piracy plan, which was adopted on 25 September at the Competitiveness Council meeting. Thus, the European Union will set up a European counterfeiting and piracy observatory, based on the Commission's existing structures; more action will be taken in the sphere of communication with and awareness raising of consumers, and public-private partnership agreements will be developed to promote collaboration between professionals.

Combating counterfeiting is vital for the competitiveness of our businesses. For this reason, the Commission and the Member States have worked on the negotiation of a plurilateral anti-counterfeiting trade agreement (ACTA, Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) with major partners, including in particular the United States and Japan. This draft agreement, which will reinforce existing international cooperation, is intended in the long term to involve the major emerging states, including China. Any bilateral agreements with non-EU countries that the European Union enters into include clauses on the protection of intellectual property. International cooperation will also be stepped up in forums such as the WTO and through the G8. We have already achieved good results with the US Customs, making significant seizures, and we must continue this work.

With regard to China, things are also improving. The Chinese have revised their legal and regulatory provisions and introduced export checks. While much still remains to be done in China – and we will be particularly vigilant on this issue – we should nonetheless congratulate the country on the efforts it is willing to make in order to equip itself with relevant legislation and implement it effectively. In this context, it is anticipated that we will be able to welcome the adoption of a joint EU-China Customs action plan at the EU-China summit on 1 December 2008.

With regard to anti-dumping procedures, as you known, application of such procedures requires first and foremost a complaint by the Community industry involved. It is then for the Commission to launch an investigation and to check whether dumping is actually taking place. Therefore, the number of complaints determines the number of investigations, and businesses need to be better informed on this point. It is a matter for regret, as they themselves have emphasised during a recent study carried out in Europe on this subject, that the current procedures are bureaucratic, lengthy and often ambiguous. We should not discourage businesses that consider themselves to have been damaged by anti-competitive practices from turning to the European institutions to re-establish fair competition. To encourage them to do so, it is undoubtedly necessary to help them, to facilitate the steps, to streamline and speed up procedures, while maintaining a very high level of rigour in the fight against dumping, wherever it originates.

With regard to the marking of the country of origin on imported products, to date the European Community does not have any legislation on the marking of the origin of industrial products imported from countries outside the EU ('made in' labels). During the consultation organised by the Commission in 2004, some Member States and various interested bodies (industries, trade unions, consumers and other institutions) declared that they were increasingly worried by the growing numbers of misleading and/or fraudulent indications of origin appearing on imported products and asked for rules to be drawn up making it mandatory for imports and/or EU products to be marked with their origin. The proposal submitted in 2005 by the Commission made it possible to envisage determining the origin of a product, at least partially, through Customs rules. As you know, however, the political and legal requirements necessary for this proposal to be adopted have still not been achieved. This means that we must certainly continue to work on the issue, because such a project requires consensus. I must also stress that the Council has noted the declaration on origin marking adopted by the European Parliament in November 2007⁽¹⁾.

With regard to legislation on traceability and health and safety standards, it is for the Commission to submit proposals in this sphere.

According to the Portuguese Presidency's report on 'Health and Migration in the EU' (last six months of 2007), migrants and refugees arriving in the EU exhibit a higher rate of communicable and non-communicable diseases which they either bring with them from their countries of origin or develop later as a result of the sudden change in environment or difficult living conditions in the host countries.

In the light of the above data and the conclusions of the December 2007 Council meeting, and given the concern of local residents about public health in those regions taking in waves of illegal immigrants, will the Council say which of the Portuguese Presidency's proposals it has implemented? Which are under consideration? What is the current situation in the Member States and what measures are being developed or planned in the EU in regard to monitoring and combating diseases when migrants enter the host countries and thereafter? What proposals or plans are there for protecting the health of those who work in reception centres for migrants?

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

The importance of the issue raised by the honourable Member was recognised by the Council in its conclusions of 6 December 2007⁽¹⁾ on health and migration. In these conclusions, the Council called on the Member States to facilitate access to health care for migrants and to ensure that they can access health care in accordance with the applicable Community, international and national instruments.

In the same conclusions, the Council pointed out that Article 152 of the Treaty establishing the European Community states that a high level of human health protection shall be ensured by the Community, with the proviso that Community action in the field of public health fully respects the responsibilities of the Member States for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care and can therefore only complement national policies.

Thus, there are no plans for a European Union strategy on health checks on migrants on entry, since this is a matter for the Member States.

It is for that reason that there has never been any specific Community legislation on the protection of the health of those working in reception centres for migrants and refugees. That said, Directive 89/391/EEC⁽²⁾, and in particular Article 6 thereof, imposes on employers a general obligation to evaluate any risk to which workers might be exposed and to take the measures necessary to protect their health and safety.

In addition, the health of migrants and their access to health care is a concern that the Council has taken into account, particularly in its most recent work. The Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, adopted on 18 June this year, lays down:

– an obligation to take into account 'the state of health of the third-country national concerned' (Article 5) when implementing the directive;

– a requirement for Member States to provide to migrants, pending their return, 'emergency health care and essential treatment of illness' (Article 14), particularly when they are under detention (Article 16).

In addition, the proposal for a Council directive on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member State, currently being negotiated, includes among the rights that third-country nationals should enjoy in a manner equivalent to citizens of the European Union a working environment that is safe and not injurious to health (Article 12).

The European Union and China have agreed to a joint surveillance system relating to exports of certain categories of textile and clothing products from China to EU Member States. As 31 December 2008 draws near, will the Council state how it intends to avoid a recurrence after 2008 of what occurred in 2005 when textile and clothing imports from China rose exponentially?

Does the Council intend to propose extending the double surveillance mechanism beyond 31 December 2008? What is the current situation regarding the proposed regulation on 'made in' markings?

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

The Council is fully aware that we are reaching the end of the period of validity of the memorandum of understanding between the European Commission and the Ministry of Trade of the People's Republic of China on exports of certain textile and clothing products. The same applies to Commission Regulation No 1217/2007 pursuant to which the export of certain Chinese products to the Community was transferred to the double checking system during 2008.

In general, in the sphere of the common trade policy, it is for the Commission to submit proposals to the Council. For the moment, the Council has not received any proposals from the Commission on this subject. It also seems that, to date, no request has been made by the relevant European industries.

With regard to the marking of the country of origin on imported products, to date the European Community does not have any legislation on the marking of the origin of industrial products imported from countries outside the EU ('made in' labels).

During the consultation organised by the Commission in 2004, some Member States and various interested bodies (industries, trade unions, consumers and other institutions) declared that they were increasingly worried by the growing numbers of misleading and/or fraudulent indications of origin appearing on imported products and asked for rules to be drawn up making it mandatory for imports and/or EU products to be marked with their origin. The proposal submitted in 2005 by the Commission made it possible to envisage determining the origin of a product, at least partially, through Customs rules.

As you know, however, the political and legal requirements necessary for this proposal to be adopted have still not been achieved. This means that we must certainly continue to work on the issue, because such a project requires consensus. I must also stress that the Council has noted the declaration on origin marking adopted by the European Parliament in November 2007⁽¹⁾.

Does the Council intend to take up a position on the potentially major economic crisis threatening Europe, and if so, what will that position be?

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

Our first priority is, naturally, to respond to the financial crisis. We have all – the Council, the European Parliament, the Commission, the Central Bank – assumed our responsibilities.

The European Council has just unanimously given its support to the plan and principles that were agreed at the summit of Heads of State or Government of the euro zone countries, when they met on 12 October in Paris. The 27 Member States now have a clear response and a clear reasoned basis with which to tackle the financial crisis. In the short term, that was the priority: to enable the European Union to take coordinated and consistent action.

Naturally, we are not unaware of the effects of the crisis on the economy and the risks for the growth rate. At the informal meeting in Nice in September, and then at the Council of 7 October, the ministers of finance set out the initial elements of a coordinated response to the economic slowdown. Conclusions were adopted on this subject.

With the same aims, the European Council of 15 and 16 October 2008 stressed its determination to take the necessary steps to support growth and employment. To this end, a mandate was given to the Commission to make 'appropriate proposals by the end of the year, in particular to preserve the international competitiveness of European industry'.

Over the last few days the Turkish military has once more been sending war planes to bomb the Avasin-Basyan area of Northern Iraq, thereby racking up the tension along the border between the two countries and breaching the principle of border inviolability embodied in international law, with devastating consequences for the local populace.

Does the Council condemn these fresh attacks by Turkey on the territory of another country, which constitute an infringement of the inviolability of borders, a principle embodied in international law?

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

The European Union is monitoring the situation very closely. In its conclusions of 10 December 2007, the Council condemned all terrorist attacks and violence perpetrated in Turkish territory and expressed its solidarity with the people of Turkey. The Council also supported Turkey's efforts to protect its population and fight terrorism, while respecting human rights, fundamental freedoms and international law and preserving regional peace and stability.

In a statement published on 3 October 2008, the Presidency condemned in the strongest terms the attack carried out by the PKK against a military outpost in south-east Turkey. The Presidency also reiterated that the European Union stood firm beside Turkey in its fight against terrorism.

In an earlier statement, published on 25 February 2008, the Presidency of the Council 'while recognising Turkey's need to protect its population from terrorism' called on Turkey 'to refrain from taking any disproportionate military action and to respect Iraq's territorial integrity, human rights and the rule of law.' It also called on Turkey 'to limit its military activities to those which are absolutely necessary for achieving its main purpose – the protection of the Turkish population from terrorism.'

In addition, with regard to eastern and south-eastern Turkey, the Council reiterated that it was necessary to promptly develop and implement a comprehensive strategy that would guarantee the economic, social and cultural development of the region.

Reinforcing dialogue and cooperation between Turkey and Iraq to combat this problem is of the utmost importance. The Council has called on the Iraqi Government and the Kurdistan Regional Government to take appropriate measures to ensure respect for the Turkish border and to ensure that the Iraqi territory is not used for violent action against Iraq's neighbours. There is a cooperation agreement on combating terrorism, signed on 28 September 2007 by Iraq and Turkey, which is the appropriate framework within which the EU encourages continued dialogue and cooperation between Turkey and Iraq.

The EU reiterates that it is necessary to step up this cooperation so that Iraq's territory does not serve as a base for terrorist action against Turkey.

In view of the above, the honourable Member may rest assured that the European Union will continue to monitor the situation closely and to urge that a solution be sought based on cooperation between Turkey and Iraq.

In addition to COREPER, the Council has over 163 preparatory bodies. In 2007 a total of 4 183 meetings of the preparatory bodies took place.

Are these meetings of the preparatory bodies open to the public or to Members of the European Parliament? Are the dates and venues of the meetings publicised? Are minutes kept of the meetings? Does only one representative of each Member State take part in any given meeting? Who else attends the meetings? What was the highest, and the lowest, number of participants at a meeting of this kind in 2007? Are simultaneous interpreters used for the meetings?

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

I note that this question follows up on the written question that the honourable Member put to the Council on 30 June 2008, to which a very detailed answer was supplied in September⁽¹⁾. It was, in fact, this answer by the Council that has enabled Mr Martin to raise seven additional questions, to which I will respond today, concerning:

(1) the opening to the public of meetings of the Council's preparatory bodies, (2) the publicising of certain information concerning these meetings, (3) access to minutes (4) the number of participants and (5) possible participation by persons other than representatives of the Member States in the meetings, (6) attendance figures and (7) the use of interpreters at these meetings.

First of all, I would like to point out that, in accordance with Article 8(1) of its Rules of Procedure and under the terms laid down in those rules, the Council's deliberations are open to the public in cases where it is acting as co-legislator with the European Parliament under the codecision procedure. In other cases, the Council's work may be open to the public if the Council so decides. This is the case in particular for the Council's deliberations on important legislative proposals other than those adopted under the codecision procedure, and public debates on important issues affecting the interests of the European Union and its citizens.

Except for these cases, the Council's deliberations are not open to the public. The same applies to the work of all the Council's preparatory bodies (Coreper, committees and working groups). As a result, attendance at the Council's sittings and the meetings of its preparatory bodies is restricted to representatives of the Member States and authorised officials. Pursuant to Article 5 of the Council's Rules of Procedure, the Commission is invited to take part in meetings of the Council and in meetings of its preparatory bodies. The same applies to the European Central Bank in cases where it exercises its right of initiative. That said, the Council may decide otherwise on a case by case basis, and thus it may happen that, exceptionally, representatives of other Community institutions or bodies are asked to attend meetings of the Council or of its preparatory bodies, their presence being dependent on the issue being discussed and advisability.

With regard to practical information on the meetings of the Council and the preparatory bodies, this is easy to access, since it is published on the Council's website under the heading 'Documents – Legislative Transparency – Timetables and agendas'.

With regard to minutes, the Rules of Procedure make provision for minutes to be drawn up for Council meetings. They do not make such provision for the preparatory bodies. However, the key activities by the Council's preparatory bodies are apparent from the Council's working documents, which are distributed to the representatives of the Member States and archived in the public register of Council documents.

With regard to the number of participants, in most cases the number of representatives present for a particular item on the agenda is one or two per Member State. In some meetings, and provided that the capacity of the room is adequate, the number may be higher.

With regard to attendance figures for these meetings, in the vast majority of cases the representatives of all the Member States and the Commission take part in the meetings of the preparatory bodies.

Finally, I can inform you that, with regard to interpreting, the provisions of SG/HR Decision No 111/07 of 23 July 2007 apply.

In the context of the EU 2009 budgetary procedure what is the Council's position on a separate budget line for the implementation of the Baltic Sea Region Strategy (starting from 2009 and continuing in the years to follow), as was stated in the EP resolution P6_TA(2006)0494 of 16 November 2006 on a Baltic Sea Region Strategy for the Northern Dimension, where the European Parliament called for its own EU budget line for the Baltic Sea Strategy?

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

The Council agrees with the honourable Member in believing that the development of a strategy for the Baltic Sea is important. In this context, it should be stressed that the European Council of 14 December 2007 called on the Commission to present an EU strategy for the Baltic Sea region at the latest by June 2009.

The Council always examines the European Parliament's position very closely and will certainly do so within the context of its second reading of the budget for 2009. Should an amendment on the issue raised by the honourable Member be adopted by the European Parliament at its first reading of the budget for 2009, on 23 October 2008, the Council will certainly adopt a position on such an amendment at its second reading of the budget, on 21 November 2008.

Despite several recent Commission initiatives, particularly the information document responding to specific questions on the application of the most controversial provisions of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004⁽¹⁾ on the rights of airline passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, airlines are still getting round the Regulation, randomly citing ‘force majeure’ or ‘exceptional circumstances’ to avoid taking account of the legitimate claims of aggrieved passengers.

Since dialogue with and self-regulation of airlines has failed, does the Commission finally intend to adopt major sanctions or change the Regulation to protect and compensate European citizens whose rights have been infringed?

(FR) The Commission stated in its communication of April 2007⁽²⁾ that an appropriate period of time should be allowed for the interested parties (national enforcement bodies and airlines) to give time for any agreements entered into between them to produce their results.

The Court of Justice is to issue judgments shortly on a series of preliminary questions, appearing in a single case, which ought to throw light on several points in the regulation that are under dispute⁽³⁾, including the concept of 'extraordinary circumstances'. The forthcoming judgment will help the interested parties to improve the definition of this concept.

The Commission maintains regular contacts with the national enforcement bodies in order to monitor the application of the regulation. It takes a particular interest in the way in which these bodies follow up complaints by passengers. The Commission also pays the utmost attention to respect for the voluntary agreements entered into by the national authorities and the airlines in late 2007.

By the end of the year, the Commission will analyse all the information available to it⁽⁴⁾ in order to evaluate whether these voluntary agreements have provided appropriate remedies to the deficiencies observed in the application of the regulation.

It will inform the other institutions of the results of its evaluation in a communication expected to be issued in the first quarter of 2009, which will also specify, if necessary, any additional measures that ought to be taken.

What negotiations has the Commission had with the relevant authorities in the 27 Member States to monitor the progress and enforcement of the report concerning the rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air?

Is the Commission considering any other disability-access legislation in the field of transport?

(FR) Passengers' rights are one of the priorities in the mandate of the Commissioner responsible for Transport. This is a sphere in which the European Union can take specific action and have a positive impact on the lives of citizens. That applies to all modes of transport.

In air transport, all the provisions of the regulation concerning the rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility entered into force in July 2008. There was a transition period of two years from the regulation's adoption, which has come to an end.

The Commission welcomes the fact that all the operators in the sector, in particular airlines and European airports, have been very involved to ensure that the regulation has been a success.

The Commission has no doubt that this will also be the case for the national authorities. It is already monitoring their work very closely, through frequent contacts.

In December 2008, the Commissioner responsible for transport will personally open the first working meeting with the national enforcement bodies, in Brussels. The aim is to identify the initial difficulties linked to the implementation of the regulation and the best way to put them right together.

This meeting will be the departure point for a process that we hope will be a productive one. It goes without saying that, if problems persist, the Commission will assume its responsibilities and, if necessary, make use of the means placed at its disposal by the Treaty.

With regard to the rights of rail passengers, the regulation that will enter into force on 3 December 2009 will guarantee, among other points, non-discriminatory access to rail transport for disabled passengers and passengers with reduced mobility.

On maritime transport and transport by bus and coach, by the end of 2008 the Commission will propose legislative measures for adoption.

The rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility, covering non-discrimination and assistance, will form an important part of each of these proposals, which will also cover the following issues: a system of liability for operators; assistance in the event of cancellation or delay; the handling of complaints and means of redress; and the provision of information to passengers.

There are still reports that air passengers travelling from third countries who are transiting through EU hub airports are continuing to have their liquid duty-free purchases confiscated.

Can the Commission give an update on the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 915/2007⁽¹⁾ which amends Regulation (EC) No 622/2003⁽²⁾ laying down measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security?

Since the entry into force of Commission Regulation (EC) No 915/2007⁽³⁾, a number of third countries have expressed an interest in having an exemption from the Community general rules on liquids, aerosols and gels (LAGs). This Regulation allows for an exemption to the restriction of LAGs for those obtained by passengers in duty-free shops at third country airports, provided that certain conditions are met. Upon request from third countries, the Commission has informed these countries of the conditions to be met without delay.

To date, two States have successfully completed this procedure – Singapore and Croatia. As a consequence liquids bought at seven airports in these two States are exempted from confiscation at security points at Community airports (provided the liquid is in a tamper-evident bag and that it also displays satisfactory proof of purchase on airside at the airport within the preceding thirty-six hours).

The Commission is actively involved in dialogue with other third countries to see if the number of airports exempted can be extended, without prejudicing security at Community airports.

The Commission is committed to lifting the ban on liquids in cabin baggage as soon as technology permits the deployment of machines at airports that can quickly analyse the contents of sealed bottles to determine whether or not they contain liquid explosives. Following consultations with industry and Member States, the Commission hopes this will be the case by April 2010.

However, until such equipment is available the view of the Commission is that current rules on liquids in hand luggage have to be maintained, in order to ensure the protection of EU citizens and prevent the risk of a terrorist attack using liquid explosives on an aircraft.

The Swansea-Cork ferry service provided a vital link between the economies of the south of Ireland and Wales. It added immense value to the tourism sectors in both regions and also led to reduced CO2 emissions by taking freight off the roads.

However, this service was halted in 2006, with no explicit plans afoot to reinstate it, due to the short-time financial perspectives of the service provider.

Therefore I ask the Commission if it would be possible under State Aid law for the Irish Government to subsidise a reinstatement of the route for the first three years of the service? This is based on the immense added value in terms of public service, support to the tourism sector and the reduced environmental impact vis-à-vis the use of alternatives such as road freight and air travel.

Each Member State is free to set up public service contracts on maritime routes, be it within this Member State or between the latter and another Member State, as is the case in the question raised by the honourable Member, provided that these contracts comply with the Maritime Cabotage Regulation (Council Regulation n° (EC) 3577/92) and meet the four criteria established by the Altmark case-law, in which case the contracts in question will not be qualified as State aid within the meaning of the EC Treaty. The undertaking which is to discharge public service obligations, is chosen pursuant to a public procurement procedure which would allow for the selection of the tenderer capable of providing those services at the least cost to the community or if this is not the case, the level of compensation needed must be determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with means of transport, would have incurred. Quite often public service contracts have be awarded on the basis of public tenders in order to be considered as not falling under State aid rules. Otherwise, public service compensation is subject to the State aid rules of the Treaty, and here in the present case, to the Community Guidelines on State aid to maritime transport, and in particular their Section 10 concerning start-up aid for short-sea shipping.

In addition, Member States can award aid to ship-owners for the start-up of a new maritime line, after the Commission, notified of the intended aid, has taken a decision allowing it to do so. Indeed, under the Community guidelines on State aid to maritime transport⁽¹⁾, start-up aid can be considered compatible with the common market, provided that certain conditions are met.

The European Road Safety Charter has been a great success for the EU and has shown that communities and businesses are willing to play their part in helping reduce road deaths. Given that the Road Safety Charter plans submitted have a termination date of 2010 will the Commission be working with and encouraging the signatories of the Charter to re-evaluate their schemes with a view to extending them as part of the next road safety strategy?

The Commission shares the opinion expressed by the honourable Member that the European Road Safety Charter is a great success. 1130 signatories are currently registered and the number is constantly increasing.

During the first phase, from 2004 to 2007, the main objective was to create a "Charter Community" engaging civil society on road safety actions. This phase successfully triggered commitments from all countries and all sectors of civil society.

During the second phase, ending in 2010, the main objectives are to create a network for exchange of best practices between members and to stimulate a systematic evaluation of the actions undertaken in order to get more efficient commitments.

The Charter initiative will certainly be evaluated for the complete period 2004-2010.

Nevertheless, the Commission does not envisage terminating this initiative in 2010. On the contrary, it expects the participation of civil society in general and of the Charter's signatories in particular in the public consultation which will be launched in order to prepare the 4th European Road Safety Action Programme.

With their inputs and with the evaluation of the Charter actions the next Commission could consider the continuation and the new content of the initiative.

Road haulage accounts for 72.2% of all land-based goods transport in the Community. Around 600 000 enterprises and 4.5 million people work in the European road transport sector, which is therefore of importance for the economic development of the Union. In these circumstances, road traffic safety and the improvement of drivers’ social conditions are matters of extreme importance. Under European regulations, drivers must comply with certain conditions as regards driving time, working time and rest times. However, there are insufficient secure parking areas. Statistics published by the incident reporting service show that 8.2 thousand million euros are lost every year in the Union as a result of thefts of goods in transport, with 70% of the incidents reported taking place when vehicles are at a standstill.

Can the Commission state what Community measures and initiatives are envisaged for the construction of secure parking areas, especially for Romania and Bulgaria, and how are these reflected in the EU budget?

The Commission shares the view of the honourable Member that the lack of parking areas and secure parking areas is a problem for the European transport and logistic sector. However, with respect to the principle of subsidiarity, the technical planning for the development of the transport infrastructure is to be carried out within the Member States, mostly at local or regional level.

Unfortunately, not every Member State has taken all the necessary measures and therefore professional drivers may still face at certain parts of the road network problems to find in due time appropriate rest places.

In order to raise the awareness of the Member States to the problematic situation and in order to encourage the investments to improve the situation, the Commission launched in 2007, with the assistance of Parliament, a pilot project to develop along the trans-European network five secure rest places that can serve as models for the exchange of best practice. The first model site was handed over to drivers already in June 2008 (http://www.setpos.eu). In a follow-up project, standards for labelling parking sites are to be elaborated.

In addition, the Commission took the initiative to propose a new directive on road infrastructure safety management. The Directive will oblige Member States to take into account the provision of safe parking areas when planning and constructing road infrastructure projects to develop the trans-European road network. The Directive has recently been adopted by Parliament and Council⁽¹⁾.

Moreover, Member States that are eligible for Cohesion and Structural Funds can apply for respective Community financial support to improve their transport infrastructure. In the context of the preparation of a Green Paper on the future of trans-European network policy, due to be adopted early next year, the Commission is also examining how to further promote the development of adequate parking areas.

With the growing interest among Europe's cities and regions in forms of road pricing and green zones, what action is the Commission taking to facilitate the cross-border enforcement of non-compliance by foreign drivers with such schemes? Does the Commission recognise that an effective enforcement regime which applies fairly to all drivers is essential if such schemes are to be accepted by citizens?

On 19 March 2008, the Commission has proposed a Directive facilitating cross-border enforcement in the field of road safety⁽¹⁾. The purpose of this legislation is to significantly reduce the number of road victims through a better enforcement of traffic rules. Against this background, the scope of the proposal is restricted to the four most dangerous offences in terms of road safety: speeding; drink-driving; non-use of a seat-belt; and, failing to stop at a red traffic light. It excludes other offences which are not safety-related. As for the "green zones" and the road pricing for private vehicles (regulatory or congestion charges, in particular in urban areas), there is no Community competence and no specific common rules on low emission zones or environmental zones exist at Community level. Nevertheless, the Commission is following closely the increasing number of initiatives that are taken at national, regional or local level. The objective is to ensure that a fair implementation of rules in force does not lead to a discrimination against foreign users entering occasionally in such areas. This issue will be addressed in the forthcoming Action Plan on Urban Mobility to be adopted by the Commission before the end of 2008.

Rising living standards and passenger transport innovations are bringing new types of vehicles onto EU roads. These include quad bikes, the number of which is rising at a dramatic rate. In some Member States, there are no laws governing the registration and use on the roads of such vehicles. As a result, quad bikes are being used on roads by children or adults without the necessary qualifications and skills to drive them. There have been a large number of accidents in which both the drivers of such vehicles and third parties have been killed.

What steps can the Commission take to ensure that appropriate amendments are made to road traffic legislation in the Member States in response to the introduction of new types of vehicle, with reference to Article 71(1)(c) of the EC Treaty and the measures set out in the Commission communication on a European road safety action programme (COM(2003)0311) and the White Paper entitled 'European transport policy for 2010: time to decide' (COM(2001)0370)?

The Commission shares the concerns of the honourable Member about the so-called "off road quads" which may be dangerous if they are used in an inappropriate manner.

The problem should be considered from several points of view: the type-approval of quads; the right to drive such vehicles; the access to public roads; and the controlling and sanctioning of illegal behaviour.

As for the type approval, the current EU legislation⁽¹⁾ may possibly be revised. For the time being, the Commission is investigating the possible content of such a revision which is planned for 2009. It may then provide for a more comprehensive framework for the type approval of these vehicles.

As for the driving licence, the current EU legislation does not cover the driving of quads. This is due to the lack of harmonisation of national rules about quads. Once the legislation of type approval, just mentioned, has clarified the situation, and in particular once it has defined the characteristics of quads allowed on public roads, an inclusion of quads in the Directive on driving licences may be envisaged.

As for the access to public roads and the organisation of controls of, and sanctions for illegal behaviour, these issue do fall within the competence of the Member States.

What is the current state of financial planning for the Brenner base tunnel, and what are the implications for this priority project's construction timetable?

(FR) The financial plan for the Brenner Base Tunnel is at a final and decisive stage. The two Member States, Austria and Italy, have made firm political commitments to carry out this project, which is part of the 'Berlin-Palermo' priority project. This commitment has already materialised, with the joint request of the two Member States to receive Community cofinancing under the TEN-T budget. This cofinancing, which was decided on by the Commission, following consultation with Parliament, amounts to EUR 786 million for the period 2007-2013 and links up substantial national budgets. 50% of the Community cofinancing will be spent on research and 27% on works.

Implementation of the financial plan goes hand in hand with the progress of the project. For the moment, the Member States have carried out preparatory studies, including on exploratory tunnels. The procedures that will result in planning permission being issued for the Base Tunnel have been under way since March 2008, and the project is scheduled to begin in early 2009. By this time, the two Member States shall have to have incorporated the Brenner Base Tunnel project into their multiannual programming and shall have to have provided firm guarantees regarding the finalisation of this work.

The Commission, together with the European Coordinator appointed by the Commission in July 2005, Professor Karel Van Miert, has always emphasised the need to have the necessary guarantees from the two Member States. The Commissioner for Transport is personally convinced that these guarantees will be achieved in spring 2009. Genuine progress has been made with the project and with the lines of access to the tunnel, and the Commissioner personally inspected the work under way, and the tunnel access lines in particular, at the beginning of October 2009.

Does the Commission have all the necessary information to sufficiently complete its investigation into subsidies paid to Scottish ferry companies NorthLink and CallMac?

Does the Commission know when the results of the investigation will be available?

(FR) The Commission has received a very large volume of documents and contributions from the United Kingdom authorities, as well as from many interested parties. All of this information is being analysed.

Formal investigation procedures last 18 months on average but may sometimes take longer in difficult cases. The Commission will, however, do its utmost to prepare a final decision as soon as possible. This decision will explain the results of the investigation launched on 16 April 2008. Once adopted, this decision will be included in a press release on the same day in which it is adopted, and will subsequently be published in the Official Journal of the European Union in a non-confidential version.

Having contacted the major European airlines, I have discovered that the compensation provided under Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004⁽¹⁾ concerning the rights of European passengers is never granted. This is because the airlines classify the three basic reasons for cancelling a flight, i.e. a strike by employees of the company or the airport, a technical fault of the aircraft, or weather conditions, as extraordinary circumstances which, therefore, exempt them from the obligation to pay compensation (on a per kilometre basis for the journey) to passengers. Thus, the derogation which the Commission provides from passengers rights operates as a get-out clause for the airlines to avoid paying passengers compensation.

Does the Commission consider that the term 'extraordinary circumstances' should be clearly defined in relation to the cancellation of a flight in order to determine precisely when passengers are to be compensated? How are passengers ultimately protected when, even in regard to their 'rights', the airlines receive more protection?

(FR) The aim of the regulation on air passenger rights is above all to provide passengers who are delayed with sufficient assistance and information in situ and at the time of the incident, in order to enable them to arrive as quickly as possible at their destination and to do so in the best conditions. The compensation provided for in Article 5 of the regulation concerns in fact only a very small number of passengers in comparison to the volume of air passengers who encounter problems when travelling.

The European legislator preferred not to include the notion of 'exceptional circumstances' as an exhaustive definition in the text of the regulation. This gave rise to differences of interpretation between the airlines and the Member States of which the Commission is well aware.

This is why the Commission, inter alia, raised this matter with the airlines and the control bodies for more than a year and drafted a series of questions and answers that addresses the subject of 'exceptional circumstances'. The guidelines proposed by the Commission within this document, which is accessible to the public⁽²⁾, have been discussed with the Member States, which have accepted them.

Nevertheless, it is the Court of Justice and not the Commission that may provide an interpretation of the legislative texts, when this proves necessary. Moreover, the Court is due to give its verdict on this matter very soon (probably at the beginning of 2009) within the context of two preliminary issues. The Commission will then analyse whether the Court's interpretation is sufficient to properly define circumstances that may be regarded as exceptional.

The honourable Member is kindly asked to send the Commission all the information he has available to him that will make it possible to prove the repeated wrongful conduct that he is denouncing on the part of airlines and the Member States' failure correctly to apply the regulation.

Given the Commission's commitment to reducing the negative environmental effects caused by the rapid growth of air traffic and its recommendation that better use should be made of existing airport capacity, could the Commission clarify its position regarding the proposed expansion of Heathrow Airport in the UK?

Furthermore, what does the Commission plan to do in order to reconcile the apparently conflicting objectives of reducing the 'capacity crunch' at EU airports and meeting strict environmental targets such as those set out in the Kyoto Protocol and the Ambient Air Quality Directive (2008/50/EC⁽¹⁾)?

The decision on the expansion of Heathrow is a matter of the national competence. The Commission expects that in the preparation of the decision and its implementation all relevant Community legislation will be respected. This means for example compliance with the obligations under the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 85/337/EEC⁽²⁾, the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive 2001/42/EC⁽³⁾, and with the environmental standards such as those set in the ambient air quality directives (Directive 1999/30/EC⁽⁴⁾, to be replaced by Directive 2008/50/EC⁽⁵⁾).

As regards the climate change impacts of aviation, the Commission has adopted a comprehensive approach to addressing aviation emissions. This includes improving air traffic management and the inclusion of aviation in the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)⁽⁶⁾.

The Single European Sky initiative and SESAR⁽⁷⁾ will enhance the efficiency of the European air traffic system.

The Council and Parliament have recently agreed legislation to include the aviation sector in the EU ETS. This policy should lead to more effective management of CO2 emissions by the aviation industry and will ensure that the aviation sector contributes to efforts being made by other sectors to reduce emissions.

Decisions on specific measures to ensure the compliance with the ambient air quality standards next to the EU airports is a matter of national competence. The Commission is helping Member States to meet the standards by developing and enforcing Community measures addressing emissions at source (see Commission Declaration attached to publication of Directive 2008/50 in the Official Journal). In addition, the Commission is supporting further research into reducing the environmental impact of planes, vehicles and transport infrastructure under 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development, and investigating the environmental and human health impact of air pollution including transport related air pollution.⁽⁸⁾

Today, we are facing global food insecurity and increased costs for foodstuffs. Since the original impact assessment of the plant protection products package was completed in 2004, environmental issues have changed considerably. Given the fact that world food prices are rising and this has repercussions for EU citizens and developing countries, notably on constraints on food production, can the Commission complete a detailed impact assessment of the Pesticides (plant protection products) package with a focus on the socio-economic elements of the current Common Position with the Council? Also, can the Commission give us an opinion on whether food prices would be greater or less if a risk-based approach was adopted?

The Commission is of the opinion that its original impact assessment was thorough and is still valid. It concentrated on the main differences of the proposed Regulation compared to the current legislation: provisional authorisations, mutual recognition, comparative assessment, data protection and information of neighbours on the use of plant protection products.

The Commission is satisfied that the Common Position, like its initial Proposal, aims to reinforce the high level of protection of human health and the environment whilst at the same time safeguarding the competitiveness of agriculture in the Community. It contains measures, such as the zonal authorisation system and obligatory mutual recognition, simplified rules on data protection, clear deadlines for the approval and authorisation procedures and facilitated authorisation for minor uses, which are measures in favour of agriculture and which will increase availability of pesticides to farmers.

The Commission has examined the effect of the proposed criteria and concluded that they might lead to the withdrawal of a limited number of active substances. The Commission will monitor the situation carefully.

The Commission rejects the criticism that the criteria are cut-off criteria, because exposure is in fact taken into account: these highly hazardous substances can be approved if exposure to them is negligible (e.g. closed system).

Finally, concerning the evolution in food prices during the last years, the Commission believes that it is impossible to make a statistically robust projection about the influence of this measure on food prices against a multiplicity of other factors such as energy prices or climate change.

President Barroso invited Member States to nominate high-level officials to participate in discussions on the strategic aspects of GMOs. The issues being addressed within the group include the functioning of the approval procedures, the impact of asynchronous GM authorisation, and debate within the general public on the question of GMOs. The first meeting of the high-level group was held on 17 July, with another scheduled for this month.

Can the Commission provide advice as to the expected timing for the high-level group to report?

Could the Commission comment on how the objectives of this high-level group might differ from those of the GM working group put in place by the Environment Council?

In 2003 the Parliament and the Council adopted a new regulatory framework governing the marketing of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). The legislation established a very strict pre-market authorisation regime whereby only GMOs that have been proved to be safe for the environment and for human and animal health could be placed on the market.

At the same time, the European Union (EU) adopted strict traceability and labelling rules for GMO products. This legislation ensures that GMO products can be recalled - if necessary - and that consumers can choose to avoid genetically modified (GM) food if they so wish. The EU GMO legislation is now widely recognised to be the most comprehensive and probably the strictest in the world.

Under this legal framework, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) plays a central role as it is responsible for assessing the risk of the GMOs before their commercialisation while the Commission, in its quality of risk manager, has the responsibility to approve or not a given GMO in the light of EFSA opinion and taking into account other legitimate factors where appropriate.

The GMO debate is too often portrayed as being only about environment and food safety. But the issue is a lot more complex. It is also about trade policy, food security – more specifically feed security for Europe - research and competitiveness of a European bio-based industry. It cannot be ignored that the EU has been condemned in the World Trade Organization (WTO) for failing to apply its own rules.

Against this background, the Commission held in May 2008 an orientation debate on GMOs to thrash out all the facets of the issue. During the debate, the Commission took note that the policy on GMO remains a very sensitive issue, for the Commission but also for most of the Member States. There was a general agreement that the existing legal framework is appropriate but its implementation needs to be improved.

The Commission reiterated its confidence in the high quality of the scientific advice provided by EFSA and confirmed that it will continue to fulfil its institutional responsibilities, while respecting its international obligations.

The Commission agreed also that it would be useful to have an informal political discussion with the Member States to take stock of the experience and to seek with them whether there are ways of facilitating the decision-making process, including making improvements to it if appropriate. The objective is to have a better understanding where Europe stands on GMOs and if and how the discussion could be brought forward.

The group met on 17 July 2008 and on 10 October 2008 and discussed on an informal basis. The discussion touched upon a whole range of political issues relating directly or indirectly to the policy area of GMOs: food price, food and feed security, WTO, trade aspects – including the issue of asynchronous approval between the EU and third countries – as well as public opinion.

In parallel, an ad hoc Working Party on GMO has been established in the Environment Council under the auspice of the French Presidency. On the basis of the work of this Working Party, the French Presidency aims at having Council conclusions adopted at the Environment Council on 4-5 December 2008. The Presidency and the Commission are working in close cooperation to ensure a good coordination between the two initiatives.

While the work of the Council working group is focused on specific issues, mostly related to the environmental risk assessment and risk management of GMOs, the discussions of the high level group are broader in nature.

In its reply to question H-0485/08⁽¹⁾ concerning the broadcasting of the terrorist TV-station Al-Aqsa on European satellite capacity via the French broadcaster Eutelsat, the Commission has pointed out that it intended to ‘raise the issue of Al-Aqsa TV in the context of the next meeting with national regulatory authorities before the summer break in 2008’. Can the Commission outline the results of this meeting and the steps it intends to take to stop Al-Aqsa from broadcasting on European satellite capacity in violation of Article 3b of the Audiovisual Media Service Directive (Directive 2007/65/EC⁽²⁾)?

At the meeting of the Commission and the national regulatory authorities on 4 July 2008 the issue of hate speech broadcasting channels originating from third countries was discussed. It was pointed out that the European Platform of Regulatory Authorities (EPRA) did not have the statutory power to adopt binding rules for its Members. Attention was also drawn to the draft of a declaration on content regulation of the Mediterranean Network of Regulatory Authorities (MNRA). This declaration was adopted on Friday 3 October 2008 at their annual meeting in Italy and addresses, inter alia, the respect for fundamental values, principles and rights, such as the respect of human dignity and otherness and the protection of law.

However, not all of the third countries concerned are a member of EPRA or MNRA. Bilateral cooperation between the authorities of a Member State and of the third countries was considered as a way forward. At the same time, the Commission intends to enhance this kind of cooperation by inviting all parties occasionally to common meetings.

The Commission would like to reiterate that – apart from general allegations of violation of Article 3b of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive⁽³⁾– it has not received so far any formal complaint regarding the programmes broadcast by Al Aqsa TV. It should be stressed that no steps vis-à-vis any regulator can be taken without concrete allegations naming at least date, time and nature of the violation. Nevertheless, the Commission has referred the issue to the responsible regulatory authority, the French Conseil Supérieur de l'Audiovisuel (CSA). An answer is expected by November 2008.

There have been several reports in the press that the Commission is finalising a new strategy for Eritrea. Some reports claim that aid will be in increased in the forthcoming five-year plan from the current level of € 80 million to € 110 million. Given that there are a number of question marks over the manner in which the aid is used and that the regime in Aswara constantly violates human rights - the Swedish journalist, Dawit Isaak, for example, has been held prisoner for seven years - how can the Commission justify an increase in aid to that country? Should the opportunity not be seized to demand that countries uphold democratic and human rights in order to receive aid?

What measures will the Commission introduce to attach conditions to aid for Eritrea?

Eritrea is one of the poorest countries in the world with an estimated GDP per capita of US$ 200. The United Nations Development Fund's Human Development Index ranks Eritrea 157 out of 177 countries in 2008 and a majority of Eritreans live below the poverty line. Additionally, Eritrea suffers particularly from the food price crisis. The prime objective of EC cooperation with Eritrea is to improve the plight and the living conditions of these populations.

Taking into account, population, per capita income, ranking on the human development index, demographic evolutions, and vulnerability, but also economic and social performance, the allocation for Eritrea under the 10th European Development Fund (EDF) is €122 million for the period 2008-2013. The allocation is not an entitlement, but an indicative amount, and may be revised at the occasion of the mid- and end-of-term review.

The Government of the State of Eritrea and the European Commission are finalising a cooperation strategy and the multiannual National Indicative Programme to be financed from the 10th EDF.

The planned strategy for the 10th EDF, which will focus on interventions in the food security and infrastructure area, with complementary activities for the accountability sector and towards cooperation with non state actors, is in response to the important development challenges in Eritrea.

The human rights situation in Eritrea is a strong concern. The Commissioner responsible for Development and Humanitarian Aid had the opportunity to raise concerns on the situation in Eritrea especially on human rights and notably the individual case of Mr Dawit Isaak with President Isaias, on several occasions and most recently during his visit to Asmara in June 2008. The Commission is also in regular contact with Eritrean opposition and diaspora movements.

Since then a formal dialogue under Article 8 of the Cotonou Agreement has been re-established and suggestions have been made to improve aspects of the EU/Eritrea relationship, including the Commission's cooperation programme, and the governance situation in Eritrea, including the case of the prisoners of conscience and other human rights issues.

The Commission together with the Member States keep the EU policy under review at all times.

The Commission is looking forward to learning the results of Parliament mission to the Horn of Africa, including Eritrea. The members of the fact-finding mission have met the Commission services in preparation of their visit. The members of the mission will also meet with the Commissioner responsible for Development and Humanitarian Aid shortly before their departure.

A ban on distance selling, under which offenders are liable to prosecution, applies to sales which involve either the vendor or a proxy acting on his behalf sending or transporting to Finland the alcohol which has been sold. The interpretation applied by Finland is based on the principle that only a holder of a licence for the retail sale of alcohol may surrender alcohol to a consumer. By law, only the State alcohol monopoly can obtain such a licence.

Do Finland's law and its administrative application violate Article 28 of the EC Treaty, bearing in mind that they deny vendors operating in other Member States the right to engage in distance selling of alcohol to consumers in Finland?

According to the question, the distance selling of alcohol from other Member states to buyers in Finland is restricted, as only the holder of a licence for retail sale can deliver goods to a buyer in Finland, and apparently only the State alcohol monopoly can obtain such a license.

In this context it should be noted that according to a judgement of the European Court of Justice in case C-170/04 Rosengren, a provision in a national law establishing a commercial monopoly, prohibiting private individuals from importing alcoholic beverages directly without personally transporting them, constitutes a quantitative restriction on imports within the meaning of Article 28 EC, which in the particular system of the Swedish monopoly did not seem to be proportionate.

In another case concerning a prohibition on the sale by mail order of medicinal products (C-322/01 DocMorris), the Court of Justice held that a national prohibition on the sale by mail order of medicinal products, the sale of which is restricted to pharmacies in the Member State concerned, is a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction prohibited under Article 28 of the EC Treaty.

In the view of the case-law cited above, the ban on distance selling of alcohol in Finland may constitute the infringement of Article 28 EC.

A measure which is held to be contrary to Article 28 of the EC Treaty may however be justified on the grounds of public morality, public policy, public security or protection of health as referred to in Article 30 of the EC Treaty or under the so-called mandatory requirements acknowledged by the Court of Justice. However, the national measure must, in order to be justified, be necessary to achieve the objectives pursued and be proportionate to those objectives.

On the basis of the information available, the Commission can not fully assess the measure at issue.

Sixteen months have passed since the sinking of the cruise liner, the 'Sea Diamond', at Santorini and there is still no conclusion as to the reasons for the shipwreck. The Greek Government, the Ministry of Mercantile Marine and the competent local authorities have all failed to hold the shipping company, 'Hellenic Louis Cruises', to account, whereas that company has already received 55 million dollars in compensation. The wreck of the ship still lies on the bed of the caldera and continues to pollute the waters of Santorini despite vigorous protests from the local inhabitants and authorities and despite promises given by the responsible Greek authorities.

In what way will the Commission contribute towards the rehabilitation of the marine environment of this historic island and satisfy the demands of local inhabitants and organisations for the recovery of the vessel, which still contains oil, lubricants and other toxic liquids? Has the Greek Government submitted a request to that effect?

During the recent months, the Commission has closely monitored the situation with regard to the Sea Diamond shipwreck off the coast of Santorini, with a view to ensuring that Community legislation is correctly applied. After having examined the relevant provisions of the applicable legislation (i.e. Directive 2004/35/EC⁽¹⁾ on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, Directive 2000/60/EC⁽²⁾ establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy and Directive 2006/12/EC⁽³⁾ on waste), the Commission concluded that, given the specific circumstances, it was not possible to establish a breach of the provisions in question. It should be noted that, to date, there is no EC legislation regarding the removal of shipwrecks. The reply given to written question E-1944/08 by Mr Papadimoulis⁽⁴⁾ includes further information in this regard.

However, the Commission has insisted on the need to prevent a significant deterioration to the environment. Following requests for information from the Commission, the Greek authorities indicated that they had taken all necessary measures to avoid pollution, including undertaking a study of the pollution's impact and the continuous monitoring of the affected zone. The study of the Greek Centre of Marine Studies concluded that the effects from the wreck were negligible. Despite that, the Ministry of Mercantile Marine has confirmed that sampling and measuring will continue and that corrective measures will be taken, if required. In parallel, the Ministry has imposed appropriate sanctions.

As regards the rehabilitation actions, there might be a possibility for co-financing within the National Strategic Reference Framework for Greece for the period 2007-2013, which has been approved by the Commission (e.g. the Operational Programme "Environment and Sustainable Development 2007-2013" or the Regional Operational Programme "Crete and Aegean Islands, 2007-2013"). However, the choice of specific actions to be included in these programmes is up to the competent authorities of the Member States, the Commission only verifies the general eligibility criteria and the respect of EU legislation including environmental legislation. In addition, the Operational Programme Environment for the period 2000-2006 co-financed the purchase of 4 oil-recovery ships aiming at the protection of specific protected areas.

Should there be any marine pollution or an imminent threat of such pollution, Greece can request assistance from the Community Civil Protection Mechanism (established by Council Decision 2007/779/EC, Euratom⁽⁵⁾). Such assistance may also involve, if so requested by the national authorities, the mobilisation of pollution-response ships contracted by the European Maritime Safety Agency. So far no specific request for assistance has been issued by the Greek authorities.

As regards the EU Solidarity Fund, it should be noted that this instrument is normally limited to major natural disasters and can be activated only upon request of the State concerned if damage exceeds a threshold, defined for Greece as 0.6% of Gross National Income (GNI) (i.e. € 1.066 billion). Damage for which there is an insurance coverage or third party liability may not be compensated.

On 13 August 2008 the Alevi Bektaşi Federation lodged a complaint with the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe against Turkey concerning compulsory religious instruction in Turkish schools. In particular, Turkey has still not yet enforced the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 9 October 2007 in which the Court clearly stated that compulsory religious instruction contravenes Article 2 of Protocol no. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

How does the Commission view Turkey’s failure to enforce this judgment in the light of the principle of freedom of religion? What measures will the Commission take to ensure that this judgment is enforced? By what date should the judgment be enforced? What influence does such refusal have on the current negotiations?

The Commission is aware of the case mentioned by the honourable Member.

In October 2007, the European Court of Human Rights considered that the religious instruction syllabus in Turkey could not be considered to meet the criteria of objectivity and pluralism necessary in a democratic society. Also, it considered that there was no appropriate method to ensure respect for parents' convictions.

Consequently, the Court requested Turkey to bring its educational system and domestic legislation into conformity with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Turkey needs to implement the Court's ruling. The Commission follows this process closely and raises the issue in its dialogue with the Turkish authorities at all appropriate levels; furthermore, the issue has been raised in the context of the Turkey 2007 Progress Report.

Turkey needs to secure full respect of the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention of Human Rights and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, including freedom of religion. This is a condition for the country's accession to the European Union.

Uncontrolled dumping of untreated industrial waste into drainage channel 66 in the municipality of Irinoupolis (prefecture of Imathia) is causing severe problems for the environment in the area and for the health of local residents. The peach processing factories in the prefectures of Imathia and Pellas are equipped with biological treatment systems but, in order to reduce their operating costs, they do not use them and discharge their waste into the drainage channel. This arbitrary method of disposal constitutes a longstanding environmental crime. Dead fish number in their thousands, the water in the channel is contaminated and the stench is unbearable. Water from channel 66 flows into the River Aliakmonas, which supplies water to the city of Thessaloniki, and ends up in the delta of the Rivers Aliakmonas and Axios (an area protected by the Ramsar Convention), compounding pollution in the Thermaic Gulf. Furthermore, this water is also used to irrigate the fields in the region as a whole, thereby adversely affecting stockfarming and, through the food chain, humans and public health.

Will the Commission take measures to put an end to the pollution of drainage channel 66 caused by the arbitrary disposal of industrial waste, restore the natural environment in the area and protect public health?

What is the Commission's position on the continued pollution of drainage channel 66 caused by the arbitrary disposal of industrial waste and on the need to restore the natural environment in the area and protect public health?

Directive 2008/1/EC⁽¹⁾ concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (the IPPC Directive, codified version of Directive 1996/61/EC⁽²⁾) lists the categories of industrial activities which fall within its scope. The list includes the treatment and processing intended for the production of food products from vegetable raw materials with a finished product production capacity greater than 300 tonnes per day (average value on a quarterly basis).

Based on the information presented in the question, it is unclear whether the peach processing factories in the prefectures of Imathia and Pellas fall under the scope of the IPPC Directive.

The Commission has already taken action in order to ensure that existing IPPC installations comply with the requirements of the Directive. In May 2008, an infringement procedure under Article 226 of the EC Treaty was initiated against nine Member States, including Greece. On the basis of the information received from the Greek authorities, it appears that at least four installations producing food from vegetable raw material operate in the prefecture of Imathia without an appropriate permit. The Commission is currently assessing the information gathered in relation to installations in Greece and will take all necessary steps, including the continuation of the infringement procedure, to ensure that the IPPC Directive is correctly applied.

As regards the overall water quality of rivers, the Water Framework Directive⁽³⁾ obliges Member States to ensure good water quality ('good status') as a rule by 2015. The necessary plans and programmes must be developed by 22 December 2009.

Furthermore, the delta of rivers Axios-Loudias-Aliakmon is a site included in the Natura 2000 network established pursuant to the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC⁽⁴⁾. The Habitats Directive requires that activities which may lead to a deterioration of the conservation value of the site should be avoided.

The Commission will request further information from the Greek authorities about the nature of the pollution, in particular the results of measurements of emissions or of the water quality in the vicinity of the plants in question, and about its impact on the above-mentioned Natura 2000 site.

Annex 8 to the proposal for a Council Regulation establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy of 20 May 2008 lays down ceilings for financial resources under the common agricultural policy in the individual Member States up to 2013 and beyond. Converting the amounts set out in this Annex to hectares of agricultural land used reveals huge differentiation in support per hectare among the individual Member States. The approximate figures are € 489 in Belgium, € 388 in Denmark, € 344 in Germany, € 263 in France and € 237 in the UK. In the new Member States, however, support levels are considerably lower: € 213 in the Czech Republic, € 227 in Hungary, € 200 in Slovakia and just € 187 in Poland.

At a time when production costs in the new and old Member States are very quickly converging and the Commission is proposing decoupling financial support from production, there is no substantive justification in maintaining such differentiation, which is viewed as blatant discrimination against farmers in the new Member States. Maintaining such differentiation in support levels over many years amounts in principle to the existence of two common agricultural policies.

What action does the Commission intend to take in order to eliminate this disproportion?

The level of decoupled support is determined on the basis of the same principles for the EU-15 and the EU-12, namely fixed reference levels for budgetary outlays and area. In the EU-15 the reference is past production, area and support under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) whereas in the EU-12 support levels were agreed in the Accession Treaty taking into account various factors such as recent production levels and the production potential of the Member State.

Due to the fact that historic references were used to determine the payments, direct aid is differentiated not only between EU-12 and EU-15 Member States, but between all Member States as well as between regions and between individual farmers (depending on the model of decoupled payment chosen).

In the Health Check we are proposing to give Member States the possibility to harmonize these differences internally. However, moving towards a harmonization across all Member States would not achieve its intended policy objectives. Direct payments are a tool of income support to farmers, and their level has to be evaluated in relation to the general economic level and developments in the EU Member States.

An alignment of the level of direct payments for all 27 Member States would, on average, boost farm incomes in the EU-12 and lower incomes in the EU-15. This would increase existing divergences in the development of agricultural incomes and incomes in other sectors of the economy. Agricultural incomes in the EU-12 have already grown strongly since EU accession and would surge ahead of other incomes with an EU-wide flat rate payment. In the EU-15, where agricultural incomes are already lagging behind those in other sectors, a flat rate payment would increase this gap.

Furthermore, when the various components of EU expenditure are put into the context of their share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), it becomes clear that the EU-12 are not disadvantaged compared to the EU-15 with respect to agricultural support. In 2007, direct payments as well as market support were roughly at the same level in EU-12 and EU-15 Member States in terms of share of GDP. Rural development expenditure in the EU-12 was seven times higher than for the EU-15, and structural actions four times higher, when measured as shares of GDP.

These considerations show that flat rate direct payments would not be in line with the purpose of direct payments, which is to provide an adequate level of income support to farmers, because they would distort the relation between incomes in agriculture and in other sectors of the economy in the EU-12 as well as in the EU-15.

The latest developments in the financial crisis on the other side of the Atlantic, and particularly the slump in the dollar against the euro, could sound the death knell for the high-added-value industries of the euro zone countries. Monetary dumping from the dollar area will destroy hundreds of thousands of skilled and highly-skilled jobs in the euro zone. The acuteness and extent of the crisis is such that it raises question marks over the cohesion and sustainability of the euro zone. Only the enormous cost to a state of leaving the euro zone is preserving the cohesion of the system.

What economic and political measures does the Commission plan to take to avert the future risk of a break-up of the euro zone?

Although the euro zone has been hit by a combination of severe external shocks, the euro has proved to be a powerful shield against them. Unlike in the seventies, these shocks are not amplified by the instability of internal exchange rates and interest rates. The emergency liquidity management by the European Central Brank (ECB) has been a major asset in the current extraordinary juncture. Moreover, no later than in the October ECOFIN Council, all EU ministers have called for a coordinated response to the current shocks, mirroring the Commission's call to strengthen economic governance expressed in its Communication on EMU@10⁽¹⁾. The Commission has proposed to broaden macroeconomic surveillance to better detect and monitor such divergences within the euro zone. For instance, this could imply a better assessment of competitiveness trends for each euro-zone Member State. In the same Communication, the Commission has called Member States to strengthen the economic governance of the euro zone, both on the domestic and external front, by making better use of the existing framework for economic policy coordination. In particular, domestic policies, given their prominent role, should not be conducted without consideration of their impact on neighbouring euro-zone countries.

The Commission has announced its intention of cutting agricultural subsidies for Greece because of shortcomings in its national monitoring arrangements, indicating that it will proceed with this measure unless the Greek Government provides the necessary guarantees backed up by proof that the monitoring arrangements have been improved. Furthermore, it has recently been revealed that the Greek Audit Council has detected errors and lack of transparency regarding the administration of CAP subsidies and the national reserve, a situation for which the farmers themselves are not responsible.

What stage has been reached by consultations between the Commission and the Greek Government and what progress has been made in implementing the measures needed to avoid jeopardising subsidies for Greek farmers?

Has satisfactory progress been made in improving national monitoring arrangements so as to avoid subsidy cuts by the Commission?

What are the implications for Greek farmers of subsidy cuts resulting from administrative errors and shortcomings in the monitoring arrangements, a problem for which they themselves are not responsible?

The Greek authorities committed themselves in the context of an action plan established in spring 2006 to set up a new operational Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS) by the end of 2008.

An accurate LPIS is essential to ensure the correct management and control of area-based payments.

By letter of 16 July 2008, a letter was sent to the Greek authorities in view of launching the procedure aimed at suspending part of the payments to Greece for area-based agricultural and rural development aid measures because of continued shortcomings in its control system, mainly concerning the Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS). The Greek authorities have replied to this letter on 28 August 2008.

An audit mission in September 2008 showed that – despite some progress made – the setting up of this key element is not on schedule.

On this basis, the Commission continues to prepare for the suspension of payments as announced in July 2008.

It has to be stressed that a suspension will apply to the monthly reimbursement made by the Commission to the Greek paying agency. This does not reduce at all the obligation for the Greek authorities to pay to the farmers the amounts which they are entitled to at farmer level.

We have recently seen unprecedented turmoil in the financial markets. Each day has brought an extraordinary development that would have seemed astonishing just the day before. The US investment bank Lehman Brothers was allowed to go bust while one of the world’s largest insurers, AIG, was bailed out. A takeover of the UK’s biggest mortgage lender, HBOS, was approved by the government to forestall a run on it by customers. Share prices crashed and then shot up again, and at the time of writing the United States administration is trying to put together a massive 3 trillion dollar rescue package.

Within its areas of competence, what action is the Commission taking to safeguard the interests of EU citizens with regard to the impact of the global financial crisis?

The Commission is committed to and active in safeguarding the interest of EU citizens both during and after the financial crisis. Citizens need adequate consumer, investor and deposit protection; well-functioning and liquid banking markets able to lend to consumers, homeowners and businesses; and a productive economy based on growing businesses.

With this in mind, the Commission has been active on a large number of issues:

It has helped to establish a clear diagnosis on the roots of the crisis and the measures in order to remedy the weaknesses identified in the financial system. It has developed a Road Map agreed by Economic and Finance Ministers in October 2007 to improve market transparency, valuation, prudential requirements and to address the problems related to credit ratings and other market functioning issues;

The Commission has cooperated with finance ministries and supervisors, notably through the Economic and Finance Committee as well as through the Committees of Supervisors (Committee of European Banking Supervisors, Committee of European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Supervisors and Committee of European Securities Regulators) in order to ensure, as much as possible, concerted actions by Member States and the European Institutions. One important result is the euro area action plan of 12 October 2008 and its extension to the whole European Union. Thereby Member States are guaranteeing banks´ funding and the functioning of the interbank market during an interim period, with the aim to restore confidence in financial markets;

The Commission has promptly initiated legislative action in order to improve the existing regulatory framework and has continued to work with the Council and Parliament to find compromises on important initiatives under negotiation:

– Solvency II: the Commission is working to achieve a compromise solution in the negotiations on the proposal. This Directive will modernise the solvency rules for EU insurance companies and strengthen the supervision of cross-border insurance groups.

– Capital Requirements Directive (CRD): The proposal for amendments to the CRD was adopted on 1 October 2008. This initiative covers critical areas, such as large exposures, supervision of cross-border groups, quality of banks' capital and risk management. It will fundamentally strengthen the regulatory framework for EU banks and the financial system.

– Deposit Guarantee Schemes: On 15 October 2008 the Commission made a proposal to revise EU rules on deposit guarantee schemes that puts into action the commitments made by EU Finance Ministers on 7 October 2008 in Luxembourg.

– Accounting: On the basis of a Commission proposal, Member States voted unanimously on 15 October 2008 on changes to accounting regulation including more guidance on fair value and examination of IAS-39 to reclassify financial instruments from the trading book to the banking book.

– Credit Rating Agencies: The Commission is finalising a legislative proposal concerning the conditions for the authorisation, operation and supervision of credit rating agencies in the EU for adoption by the College in early November 2008.

– Derivatives: The Commissioner responsible for Internal Market has announced that he wants to examine closely the derivatives markets and wants a solution in place for the clearing of credit derivatives before the end of the year.

– Future of European supervision: The Commission decided to establish a High Level Group on cross-border supervision in the EU chaired by Jacques de Larosière. The mandate and composition of the group will be published shortly.

– Finally, the Commission is ensuring that the work is internationally coordinated. The Commission is planning a conference with our international partners to reform the global financial system based on the principles of transparency, financial stability, responsibility, integrity and global governance.

In its reply to my oral question H-0929/07⁽¹⁾ on irregularities in the administration of the ESF on the part of the regional government of Navarra (Spain), the Commission said it would ask for further information from a number of authorities. Has the Commission received that information?

Has the Commission also examined whether there has been a breach of Articles 32, 34 and 36 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999⁽²⁾ or of the requirements of paragraph No 1.7 in respect of expenditure eligible for subsidy in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1685/2000⁽³⁾? In the absence in general terms of a mechanism for the validation and control of invoices and supporting documents, and in particular of those corresponding to expenditure charged to diverse operations, has the Commission examined whether there has been full compliance by that administration with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 438/2001⁽⁴⁾? It may be recalled that it was the Cámara de Comptos (the audit tribunal for Navarra) which drew attention to the failure of the regional administration to equip itself with financial and accounting systems capable of ensuring the correction and separate registration of ESF expenditure, payments and revenue.

As indicated in the reply to the written question P-0619/08 of the honourable Member concerning the report of the Court of Auditors of the Autonomous Community of Navarre on "Funds received in Navarre from the European Union - Social Fund Area 1997-2003", the Commission asked the Managing Authority of the European Social Fund in Spain (UAFSE) for additional information on the content of the report and on the measures to remedy the irregularities detected by the Court of Auditors of Navarre.

The Commission underlines that the government of Navarre has withdrawn the amounts considered as non eligible for ESF part-financing corresponding to the controls performed under article 10 of Regulation (CE) 438/01 mentioned in the report of the Court of Auditors of the Autonomous Community of Navarre. Furthermore, UAFSE has informed the Commission that the Government of Navarre has already taken measures to improve the management of ESF in line with the conclusions and recommendations of the findings of the Court of Auditors of the Autonomous Community of Navarre. UAFSE has also underlined that the verifications carried out in the context of the UAFSE's annual control plan showed that the remedial measures were being applied.

However, in order to confirm whether Spain has taken the appropriate measures, the Commission has asked UAFSE to receive copy of the report on the verifications carried out by UAFSE as well as all the reports of the Regional Control Authority on the ESF in Navarre.

Lastly, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) has decided to open a monitoring case. The Commission recalls that OLAF has to ensure that economic operators are not being controlled by both the Commission and Member States' authorities at the same time on the basis of the same facts according to Community sectoral regulations or national legislation and therefore can open monitoring cases to follow national ongoing action.

On 16 September 2008, new research (JAMA study) concerning bisphenol A was published showing that this substance can cause diabetes and heart damage. Bisphenol A is, inter alia, a key monomer in the production of polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins. Polycarbonate plastic is used to make a variety of common products including baby and water bottles. Epoxy resins are used, inter alia as coatings on the inside of almost all food and beverage cans. New restrictions are currently to be imposed under Directive 76/769/EEC⁽¹⁾ in codecision. This Directive will be repealed by REACH on 1 June 2009. It will be practically impossible to prepare and conclude a co-decision process from now until the end of the legislature. Thus, there is currently a legislative paralysis at EU level with regard to the possibility of adopting new restrictions. Temporary national bans could possibly fill the gap.

Will the Commission ask its scientific committee to review its opinion on bisphenol A based on the new research?

Would a national ban be in accordance with EU-legislation, in particular considering the temporary incapacity of the EU to propose restrictions on substances that are not yet restricted?

The Commission is aware of recent research into the possible effects of Bisphenol A on human health. The use of substances in baby and water bottles is regulated by Commission Directive 2002/72/EC relating to plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with foodstuffs⁽²⁾, which sets a migration limit for Bisphenol A of 0.6 mg/kg food based on the risk assessment performed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in 2006. Following a request from the Commission, EFSA has confirmed the tolerable daily intake for Bisphenol A in its statement from 23 July 2008 taking note of the Canadian government’s recent Draft Screening Assessment and the US National Toxicology Program’s draft brief. In addition EFSA is asked to assess the relevance and implications of the recently published studies in the Journal of the American Medical Association⁽³⁾. At this moment the Commission is of the opinion, on the basis of current scientific knowledge, that the migration limit is sufficient to protect the consumer from possible risks to health originating from Bisphenol A. Epoxy resins coating food and beverage cans are covered by national legislation.

Restrictions for other uses would indeed have to be adopted in the framework of Directive 76/769/EEC, which will be repealed and replaced by Title VIII and Annex XVII of REACH as of 1 June 2009. Currently, Directive 76/769/EEC does not contain any restrictions on Bisphenol A. A comprehensive risk assessment performed in the framework of Regulation (EEC) 793/93 was published in 2003 on the website of the European Chemicals Bureau, and an updated assessment was published in April 2008⁽⁴⁾. The conclusions are that with regard to consumers there is no need for risk reductions measures beyond those already applied, but that there is a need for limiting the risks to worker involved in the manufacture of Bisphenol A, the manufacture of epoxy resins and in all occupational exposure scenarios where there is the potential for skin contact with high concentrations of Bisphenol A. As the risk assessment and the risk reduction strategy were not formally adopted under Council Regulation 793/93 (EEC), which was repealed on 1 June 2008, the Member State Rapporteur, in accordance with Article 136 (3) of REACH, has to submit all relevant documentation, including the risk assessment, and the strategy for limiting the risks to the European Chemicals Agency before 1 December 2008.

The Commission would like to clarify that there is no temporary incapacity of the EU to propose restrictions for substances that are not yet restricted by Directive 76/769/EEC. Whilst it is correct that pending the repeal of Directive 76/769/EC it is too late to complete a full co-decision procedure for a proposal for new restrictions under the Directive, the transitional provisions under Article 137 (1) (b) REACH would ensure the follow-up by the Commission of such a proposal, if not yet adopted by 1 June 2009. Rather than preparing national legislation, a Member State can start preparing a restrictions dossier in accordance with Annex XV of REACH, should this be deemed necessary. Following the procedures in REACH, the Member State could then notify its intention to the Agency and submit the Annex XV dossier immediately after entry into force of Title VIII (1 June 2009) in order to initiate the restriction process. Taking into account the deadlines provided in Articles 69 to 73 of REACH the overall time frame would be comparable to a full co-decision procedure.

In recent weeks a total of more than 1 000 redundancies have been declared or carried out in Belgian textile businesses (Bekaert Textiles: 281; Domo Zwijnaarde: 150; Ralos: 200, UCO: 351; Prado: 182; Beaulieu: 387 and so on). These job losses are the result of a combination of factors: the bad economic climate and competition from low-wage countries.

Can the Commission state whether use can be made in this case of the EU Globalisation Fund for the retraining, outplacement and reorientation of the workers concerned?

Article 2(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006⁽¹⁾ establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) provides for the possibility for the Member States to apply for EGF support in cases where at least 1 000 workers are made redundant over a period of nine months in a specific sector in one region or in two contiguous regions (defined at NUTS II level).

When applying for EGF support, the Member States must establish a link between the redundancies in the sector concerned and major structural changes in world patterns. This can be demonstrated by means of trade statistics indicating a substantial increase of imports into the EU or a rapid decline of the EU market share or by information demonstrating a delocalisation of production outside the EU.

Since the entry into force of the EGF Regulation, the Commission has received and positively assessed six applications for EGF support relating to redundancies in the textiles industry (four from Italy, one from Malta and one from Lithuania).

Training and re-training, outplacement and re-orientation of the workers concerned are active labour market measures that fall within the actions eligible for EGF support as defined in Article 3 of the EGF Regulation.

In the last week of September, Italy’s Guardia di Finanza (police whose duties include customs and excise enforcement) confiscated 1,700,000 pairs of shoes. The shoes seized bore counterfeit trademarks and 84,000 of them were wrongly labelled ‘made in Italy’. Many of them were found to contain alarming levels of hexavalent chromium, a carcinogenic substance.

What is the Commission’s opinion of the above incident? What measures does the Commission intend to take to prevent any further such incidents, which benefit certain kinds of commercial operators to the detriment of consumers?

What anti-dumping proceedings have the Commission opened against China with regard to textiles and shoes in the last two years?

Does the Commission consider that it should submit proposals to amend the existing legal framework to strengthen quality standards for textiles, shoes, cosmetics and similar goods imported from third countries and require them to be traceable?

The Commission is collaborating closely with the Presidency, on the establishment of a customs action plan to ensure effective border enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights. This action plan is part of a more global strategy as defined by the Council in its resolution on a comprehensive European anti-counterfeiting plan⁽¹⁾.

As China is an important source of counterfeited goods, it is considered essential to strengthen customs cooperation with this country. The Commission is therefore also involved in the negotiating of a customs Action plan with China, to combat counterfeit and piracy.

Regarding anti-dumping, the Commission had imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam in October 2006 which lasted for 2 years until October 2008. Currently, the Commission is conducting an expiry review of these anti-dumping measures. As to textiles originating in the People's Republic of China no anti-dumping proceedings have been carried out during the last two years.

Concerning the legislative framework and the safety of substances used for the production for clothing and footwear products, there is an obligation to label the fibre composition in textiles and clothing products placed in the EU market and to label materials used in footwear⁽²⁾. In addition, any textile or footwear product circulating in the EU have obviously to comply with the chemical legislation, in particular, with the provisions of the Limitations Directive⁽³⁾, relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations. The Commission has urgently contacted the Italian authorities asking them for detailed information on the actual chromium content in the shoes seized.

It is important to note that whilst the current legal framework is considered adequate, both customs controls before goods are released for free circulation into the EU as well as market surveillance of products which are already in the market, are the sole responsibility of the Member States. Nonetheless, the Commission facilitates Member State efforts in both areas through a variety of activities, ranging from ensuring the operation of the RAPEX system (EU rapid alert system for dangerous consumer products established under the General Product Safety Directive⁽⁴⁾) to training for enforcement officials and to financially supporting joint market surveillance actions.

Regarding cosmetics, the Cosmetics Directive⁽⁵⁾ provides the safety requirements applicable for cosmetic product placed on the Community market, and this whatever its origin. In this field too, the Commission is supporting the coordination between Member States authorities for market surveillance and in particular at the borders controls.

The Irish Government adopted emergency legislation this week giving six Irish-owned banks a government guarantee. This measure will presumably give those banks an advantage over foreign-owned competitors not covered by the guarantee, which are now watching their customers switch to Irish banks capable of providing depositors with a stronger, government-backed guarantee.

Is this a case of distortion of competition, with the Irish Government giving preferential treatment to nationally-owned over foreign-owned banks?

In view of the current situation in financial markets, the Commission shares Member States' concern to ensure financial stability and fully understands the need to take appropriate action.

This need was recognised in the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) meeting of 7 October 2008, where the Ministers of Finance acknowledged the following principles:

– Interventions should be timely and the support should in principle be temporary;

– The interests of taxpayers should be safeguarded;

– Existing shareholders should bear the due consequences of the intervention;

– The government should be in a position to bring about a change of management;

– The management should not retain undue benefits – governments may have inter alia the power to intervene in remuneration;

– Legitimate interest of competitors must be protected, in particular through the State aid rules;

– Negative spill-over effects should be avoided.

In order to achieve this objective without jeopardising the internal market, national measures must be well designed, necessary and proportionate to the challenge faced, and they must avoid harmful spill-over effects on competitors, and other Member States.

On 14 October 2008, the Commission issued guidance on the application of State aid rules to measures taken in relation to financial institutions in the context of the current global financial crisis. This will permit rapid assessment of the State aid compatibility of national recapitalisation or guarantee schemes, and of individual cases in which such schemes are applied.

The Commission has been in close contact with the Irish authorities on this case, in order that concerns about discrimination and a lack of appropriate limits and controls can be put aside. The Irish measures are now in line with the guidance issued by the Commission and consistent with the coordinated European response to the financial crisis agreed at the 7 October 2008 ECOFIN and the 12 October 2008 Eurogroup meeting and they have been approved by the Commission on 13 October 2008.

The case confirms the value of prior contact and ongoing dialogue with the Commission in order to design, from the beginning, schemes that can achieve their objective of preserving financial stability while also preserving a fair level playing field for other banks and Member States.

According to the Portuguese Presidency's report on 'Health and Migration in the EU' (last six months of 2007), migrants and refugees arriving in the EU exhibit a higher rate of communicable and non-communicable diseases which they either bring with them from their countries of origin or develop later as a result of the sudden change in environment or difficult living conditions in the host countries.

In the light of the above data and the conclusions of the December 2007 Council meeting, and given the concern of local residents about public health in those regions taking in waves of illegal immigrants, will the Commission say which of the Portuguese Presidency's proposals it has implemented? Which are under consideration? What is the current situation in the Member States and what measures are being developed or planned in the EU in regard to monitoring and combating diseases when migrants enter the host countries and thereafter? What proposals or plans are there for protecting the health of those who work in reception centres for migrants?

(FR) The Commission has very carefully examined the important conclusions on health and migration within the EU under the Portuguese Presidency and continues to cooperate closely with the Member States in its monitoring.

As part of the revival of the social agenda and in the Community strategy on health, the Commission has announced its intention to present a communication on tackling health inequalities, in which the health requirements of migrants and other vulnerable groups will be an important consideration.

With regard to entry, the Schengen Borders Code stipulates that third-country nationals may enter if (inter alia) they are not considered to represent a threat to public health.

With regard to the legal residence of third-country nationals, all the existing directives contain provisions pursuant to which the Member States may refuse entry to their territory to third-country nationals for public health reasons. It should be noted that it is the responsibility of the Member States to define the notion of 'public health'.

In the case of asylum seekers, the Member States are obliged to ensure that these persons receive necessary medical care. The same applies in the case of third-country nationals granted international protection status. Furthermore, the Member States may stipulate that asylum seekers undergo a medical examination for public health reasons.

With regard to illegal immigration, the approach consists in providing for 'necessary health care' (which lies somewhere between emergency health care and full access to all health care).

Lastly, the Commission should like to remind the honourable Member that these subjects must be dealt with in full accordance with fundamental rights, in particular with Article 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which stipulates that everyone has the right to receive medical care under the conditions laid down by national laws and practices.

The European Union and China have agreed to a joint surveillance system relating to exports of certain categories of textile and clothing products from China to EU Member States. As 31 December 2008 draws near, will the Commission state how it intends to avoid a recurrence after 2008 of what occurred in 2005 when textile and clothing imports from China rose exponentially? Does it intend to propose extending the double surveillance mechanism beyond 31 December 2008?

Thus far in 2008, which textile and clothing imports into the EU have shown the greatest increases in overall terms and specifically from China, and, in the latter case, within or outside the double surveillance system?

The purpose of the dual monitoring surveillance was to ensure a smooth transition in 2008 in the eight most sensitive categories. The Commission estimates that so far the aim has been achieved. The Commission, while still evaluating the situation, notes that current overall statistics do not suggest any particular disruptive situation in the market. Chinese textiles seem to be absorbed by the EU market as total textiles imports from all suppliers remain stable. This means that as in the past, China's share of EU imports is increasing once the categories are liberalised.

The Commission has been in close contact with all stakeholders and none – apart from a small number of Member States – has called for action. The EU industry has been given extra time to adapt to the new environment and seems to have been overall successful. It does not so far consider that the present situation requires any specific further action. On the other hand, China has also made it clear that it does not consider it appropriate to continue with the dual monitoring surveillance beyond 2008. However both EU and China agree to maintain a smooth development of trade in textiles and should to that end meet within the framework of the China-EU Textiles Dialogue at an early date.

An analysis of the textiles imports in the eight categories under double checking⁽¹⁾ and of the two categories that were subject to agreed growth levels excluded from the dual monitoring⁽²⁾, from China and other main suppliers in 2006 and 2007 show that China has increased its import share in value in all ten categories. China was the first supplier either in value or volume or both in five categories in 2007. In 2008 the same trade pattern of shift is maintained and re-enforced, with China strengthening its position as main supplier overall.

The effect of this shift and of the increase of the China factor in the EU textile import equation is mitigated by the fact that the overall EU textile and clothing imports from third countries has increased to a much lesser extent. In 2008, the greatest increases in the ten categories above occurred in imports from China in Categories 5, 26 and 39. Overall imports increases mainly in Categories 5 and 7.

The textiles sector is at the forefront of the Commission attention. The Commission will continue to monitor the market developments on the basis of the actual import statistics and of the customs monitoring.

Every year the European Union gives considerable financial aid to poor countries to help them develop their economies and combat poverty, but often they do not know how to use it appropriately. A frequent reason for the inappropriate use of these funds is the poor administrative capacity in the countries concerned. In the context of this aid, are funds allocated specifically to improve the administrative capacity of the recipient countries.

The support to the development of administrative capacity in the partner countries is a major area of work for EC cooperation. It is also a key element of the international commitments on aid effectiveness The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (2005) and the Ministerial Declaration at the High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness (Accra Agenda for Action – September 2008).

The Commission's support for the improvement and modernisation of the administrative capacity of the partner countries, currently defined as Technical Cooperation, is mobilized through various channels. Through projects specifically aimed at strengthening local administration. Through technical cooperation components in projects or (sectoral) programmes aimed at wider development results for example in the field of governance or infrastructure. Through sectoral or general budget support. The added value of budget support is that by making use of the partner country's systems ad the same time it reinforces the administrative capacity of a partner country rather than creating parallel channels of public service delivery as may be the case for other aid modalities. The improved administration capacity is expected to deliver concrete results: resolve bottlenecks, change incentive structure, improve performance monitoring, adapt distribution of resources etc.

In addition budget support operations always include Technical Cooperation activities aiming directly at the reinforcement of public administration in particular services in charge of public financial management. In many cases the allocation for capacity building is an integral part of the total project/programme/budget support operation: for instance training on road maintenance in an infrastructure programme, capacity support to local government in a decentralisation programme, capacity building to the office of the Auditor General when providing general budget support.

Moreover within the aid effectiveness debate the question of 'how' to support capacity development better is gaining in prominence and attention. The Commission is now changing the way it designs and implements its Technical Cooperation which usually accompanies development programmes. The Backbone Strategy on Reforming Technical Cooperation and Project Implementation Units for External Aid provided by the European Commission⁽¹⁾ developed by EuropeAid in July 2008 aims at the provision of quality technical cooperation that supports the development of local and national capacities based on partner demand and focused on sustainable results.

There is an increasing tendency for Members of the Commission to resign before the end of their term of office. This was the case with Commissioner Kyprianou, Commissioner Frattini and now Commissioner Mandelson. This cannot be satisfactory for the continuity of the Commission's work.

Can the Commission provide information on the terms regarding pensions, termination of service, etc. for Members of the Commission who leave their posts early? Would these differ if they had completed their term of office?

A degree of turnover is not unusual for a political organisation such as the Commission. The Commission always seeks to minimise the disruption caused by such changes in the work of the College. The replacement of Commissioners is governed by Article 215 TEC. It is also covered by the Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the Commission.

Regarding pensions, transitional allowance and other entitlements, the rights for Members of the Commission who leave their posts early do not differ from those if they had completed their term of office.

A Commissioner is entitled to a transitional allowance for a three year period, family allowances, pension from the age of 65 years onwards, survivor's pension, resettlement expenses, travelling expenses, removal expenses upon leaving office.

Former Commissioners leaving office before the age of 63 continue to qualify for cover under the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme on condition that they are not gainfully employed and cannot be covered by a national sickness insurance system. Commissioners resigning before the end of their term of office would therefore normally not qualify for cover under the Joint Sickness Insurance system.

On the request of the French authorities a number of Greek lawyers were recently summoned to appear before the Athens Examining Magistrate, their business cards having been found in the possession of putative members of the Kurdish PKK fortuitously arrested in France. The Athens Bar Council and other hugely influential bodies have roundly condemned this inadmissible and unprecedented measure which effectively seeks to turn lawyers responsible for defending accused individuals into prosecution collaborators and anti-militant informers or even 'terrorist' suspects.

Does the Commission consider that the freedom on lawyers to engage in their profession and the principle of professional secrecy are being respected? Does it intend to dispense with the 'blacklist' of terrorist organisations and related 'anti-terrorist' legislation, which in fact are seriously undermining basic democratic freedoms?

The Commission is strongly committed to fighting terrorism.

Countering terrorism must go hand in hand with respect for human rights, including the right of defence and assistance by a lawyer. The freedom of lawyers to engage in their profession and the principle of professional secrecy must be fully respected.

As regards the so called ‘blacklists’, the Commission notes that Common Position 2002/402/CFSP concerning Al Qaida and the Taliban and Common Position 2001/931/CFSP concerning other terrorist groups and individuals, were approved in implementation of UN Security Council Resolutions which are binding for Member States in accordance with Article 25 of the UN Charter.

The related 'anti-terrorist' legislation concerns the freezing of assets (Regulations (EC) No 881/2002 and 2580/2001) and has been the subject of a judgement of the Court of Justice of 3 September. The Commission concludes that the Court of Justice found that certain improvements in the designation process are necessary, but that there are no grounds to conclude that asset freezing would be illegal if such improvements are made.

What does the Commission plan to achieve at the Georgia Donors’ Conference, which will take place in Brussels on 22 October 2008? What EU input is envisaged in the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Georgia? What are the EU priorities and how does the EU plan to implement them? What functions are envisaged for the Commission in the coordination and implementation of the international financial assistance for the rehabilitation and reconstruction of Georgia?

As mandated by the extraordinary European Council of 1 September 2008 and the General Affairs and External Relations Council of 15 September 2008, the Commission has been working on contributing to providing support to Georgia. In line with this, the Commission has been preparing an Economic Recovery and Stabilisation package and organising the international donors’ conference for Georgia in cooperation with the World Bank on 22 October 2008 in Brussels. EU Member States, key international donors, International Financial Institutions as well as international and United Nations (UN) agencies have been invited to attend the donors’ conference. The aim of the conference will be to collect pledges from donors to help Georgia address the key challenges it faces after the August 2008 conflict.

At the Conference, the Commission will present its assistance package of up to €500 million covering the period 2008-2010. This package demonstrates the EU’s commitment to address needs related to the conflict.

The Commission has identified priorities and is working on identifying projects, in line with the World Bank-UN Joint Needs Assessment Report and the UN Flash Appeal (which is actually included in the Joint Needs Assessment). Commission’s priority areas for assistance are on the most immediate needs such as resettlement of internally displaced persons (IDPs); rehabilitation and economic recovery; macro-financial stabilisation; and infrastructure support. Subsequently, Commission have taken contact with the Georgian government and international donor organisations to discuss and coordinate with their plans. The donors’ conference will also provide the opportunity to take stock of individual plans and programmes of all the donors, which would then constitute the basis of Commission’s future and continuous cooperation with them.