In the light of the Council's upcoming European Civic Conference, can the Council elaborate on its proposal to create a European Statute of Association? Can the Council indicate when such a statute would be put in place?

The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the April 2010 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

(EN) The honourable Member is aware that the proposal on the ‘Statute for a European association’ submitted in December 1991 by the Commission was withdrawn in 2006 together with a number of proposals that were considered to be no longer relevant and coherent with the ‘Better Regulation’ criteria.

Since then, no new proposal concerning this matter has been submitted to the Council, and the Council has no knowledge as to the Commission's intention to adopt such a proposal.

As the honourable Member mentioned in this question, the Spanish Presidency will organise the ‘European Civic Days 2010’ on 7-9 May 2010. The objective of this conference is to bring the European Union closer to its citizens by exchanging ideas on how to encourage civil dialogue from local to European level, and on the possible ways to actively involve citizens in the European project to fight poverty and social exclusion, to promote the new intercultural society and education on civic values.

What measures promoting EU-Ukraine cooperation is the Council planning, both under the Eastern Partnership and outside it?

The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the April 2010 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

(EN) Ukraine is a neighbour of considerable strategic importance to the EU. The EU is committed to strengthening its relationship with Ukraine and conveyed this message to President Yanukovych during his visit to Brussels on 1 March.

The key to closer relations between the EU and Ukraine is reform. Ukraine faces a number of political and economic challenges which require urgent reform steps in order to ensure long-term stability and prosperity. To address political stability, the new Ukrainian leadership must be ready to work with a wide political constituency, including the opposition. Ultimately a sustainable response will depend upon a constitutional reform.

As regards the economic situation in Ukraine, the new administration should implement a number of reforms. First and foremost Ukraine must get back on track with the IMF stand-by-agreement. It should also implement reforms in the gas sector, adopt a budget for 2010 and continue the work of recapitalising the banking sector. It must make serious efforts to combat corruption.

The European Union will continue to support Ukraine in addressing its needs in practical and tangible ways. In particular it will maintain the process of strengthening EU-Ukraine relations – a process which has been particularly dynamic over the past years. Negotiations on the new EU-Ukraine Association agreement which the EU and Ukraine have been conducting since 2007 are of particular importance for EU-Ukraine relations. The new agreement should be ambitious and forward-looking and should aim to promote Ukraine’s political association and economic integration with the EU. It should include as an integral part a deep and comprehensive free trade area with the EU. The EU will also continue to provide financial and technical support to Ukraine, enhanced through the additional resources and mechanisms of the Eastern Partnership.

In 2009, the EU-Ukraine Association Agenda was agreed. It is an important instrument which will prepare for and facilitate the entry into force of the Association Agreement and promote further political association with and economic integration of Ukraine into the EU. It creates comprehensive and practical framework through which these objectives can be realized and identifies the priorities on a sector by sector basis.

As regards possible incentives to Ukraine, the EU has identified macro financial assistance, continuing support to the reform and modernisation of the gas sector and targeted financial and technical cooperation.

The Spanish Presidency of the European Union has adopted as one of its priorities the strengthening of the dialogue between the European Union and Latin America and the Caribbean. The Spanish Council Presidency has undertaken to lay emphasis on the strategic nature of the relationship between the EU and Mexico and to move forward the negotiations on agreements between the EU and Central America, the Andean Countries and Mercosur. One facet of the dialogue between the EU and Mexico is the adoption of a Council decision on the signing of an agreement between the European Community and the United Mexican States on certain aspects of air services. In view of the importance of that agreement for cooperation between the EU and Mexico, could the Council indicate what stage has been reached in the adoption of that decision?

The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the April 2010 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

(EN) On 5 May 2009, the Council adopted its Decision on the signature of the Agreement on certain aspects of air services between the European Community and the United Mexican States.

Following linguistic revision, an adaptation of the text to the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty has become necessary - the Council has now finished this adaptation which has been submitted to the Mexican side. After their approval of the final text, the Council will be able to adopt a new Decision on the signature of the Agreement, which is planned to take place in March/April 2010. Afterwards, the Agreement can be signed. However, no date for the signature is yet decided.

After signature, the Council will prepare a draft Council Decision on the conclusion of such an Agreement. This Decision, as well as the text of the Agreement, will be transmitted to the European Parliament for its consent.

What steps will the Council take to strengthen Europe's diplomatic presence outside the European Union under the powers conferred in the newly enacted Lisbon Treaty?

The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the April 2010 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

(EN) The Lisbon Treaty has created the Union Delegations and has placed them under the High Representative. They represent the Union and will increasingly assume the tasks previously carried out by the rotating presidency of the EU.

As far as infrastructure and personnel are concerned, the EU already has one of the world’s largest diplomatic networks (around 120 EU delegations plus delegations at international Organisations such as the UN, OECD, WHO, etc.). This presence will now gradually be strengthened by personnel and expertise coming from the EU Member States’ diplomatic services, the Council Secretariat and the Commission. These staff will be members of the European External Action Service.

Delegations' infrastructures will have to be adapted, particularly to take into account increasing security needs.

The reinforcement of EU delegations will also help ensure a strengthening of the EU's political influence and they will be able to transmit the EU's message in a more forceful and credible way.

The treaty requires the delegations to act in close cooperation with Member States' diplomatic and consular missions. At the same time, the ties between the delegation and Member States embassies will become stronger.

All this will improve the EU's capacity to serve its citizens and to defend more efficiently their interests in an increasingly globalised world.

Would the Council Presidency state what policy it is proposing with regard to Cuba in the wake of the death of the political prisoner Orlando Zapata Tamayo and the scandalous and repeated violations of human rights in Cuba?

The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the April 2010 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

(EN) I fully share the regret for the death of Mr. Orlando Zapata and the concern of the honourable Member about the question of civil and political rights in Cuba.

The President of the Council made the position very clear through the statement issued after the unfortunate death of Mr. Orlando Zapata, calling for the unconditional release of political prisoners and the respect of fundamental freedoms and expressed deep concern about the situation of the political prisoners, notably those currently pursuing hunger strikes.

This position was also made clear during the European Parliament Plenary session on 10 March.

The best context in which the EU should address the situation is within the political dialogue rather than on the basis of ad-hoc initiatives. A multiplication of initiatives (démarches, declarations) could have, at this delicate moment, a counterproductive effect. It is not to be excluded that the next days and weeks will be marked by various developments that would put further pressure on the EU to react. The channels available through the political dialogue should be preserved and used to pass to the Cuban authorities the firm positions of the EU. At this stage, discreet diplomacy is the best way forward.

Within this context, it will be extremely important to made every effort to maintain the organisation of the Ministerial meeting scheduled to take place on 6 April. We should concentrate our efforts on preparing this important meeting in order to try to attain concrete results.

At the extraordinary EU Council meeting of 11 February 2010 concerning the economic situation of Greece, it was decided that the Commission, in collaboration with the European Central Bank (ECB), would closely monitor the implementation of the recommendations and propose any further measures judged to be necessary in the light of the experience acquired by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The reference to the IMF in the above Council decision creates a dangerous institutional precedent, since it gives the IMF, together with the Commission and the ECB, joint authority to monitor the implementation of the measures to be taken by Greece.

Firstly, neither Article 126 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (which contains the most detailed provisions), nor Protocol (No 12) on the excessive deficit procedure, nor any other EU legal instrument provides for the involvement of the IMF or any other international body in these monitoring procedures. Secondly, a case could only be made for such involvement, and a dubious one at that, if the Member State in question had requested IMF assistance. In view of this: Is it aware that its reference to the IMF is an infringement of the treaties in so far as an institutional and political precedent is being set without following the requisite procedures? Has Greece actually requested IMF assistance?

The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the April 2010 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

(EN) The Statement approved by Heads of State or Government at the informal meeting of the European Council on 11 February 2010 is of a political nature and does not constitute the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure as set out in the treaties.

In order to respond to the first question at stake a distinction must be made between the excessive deficit procedure, on the one hand, and the possible mechanisms of financial assistance to Member States suffering budgetary problems, on the other hand.

The excessive deficit procedure enshrined in Article 126(2) to (13) TFEU is a procedure aimed at encouraging and, if necessary, compelling the Member State concerned to reduce a budgetary deficit which may be identified. An excessive deficit procedure was opened against Greece in April 2009 by the Council adopting a decision under Article 104(6) TEC -current Article 126(6) TFEU-, upon a recommendation from the Commission. At its meeting of 16 February 2010 the Council adopted a Decision pursuant to Article 126(9), giving notice to Greece to take measures for the deficit reduction judged necessary in order to remedy the situation of an excessive deficit.

As the excessive deficit procedure is an issue conceptually unrelated to the question of providing financial assistance to Member States suffering budgetary problems, the recourse to the IMF as a possible source of financing to Greece would not breach the treaties' provisions on the excessive deficit procedure, nor the decisions and recommendations adopted by the Council on the basis of those provisions.

A different question is the issue related to the possible mechanisms of financial assistance to Member States, and more precisely the conditionality on the financial assistance which could be granted to Greece. It is recalled that in the statement of the Heads of State or Government of the euro area of 25 March, the modalities of financial assistance to Greece were agreed as a combination of substantial IMF assistance and a majority of European financing. The statement made clear that the disbursement of the European financing would be made ‘subject to strong conditionality’.

It is recalled that Article 136 TFEU, which empowers the Council to adopt measures specific to those Member States whose currency is the euro to, inter alia, ‘strengthen the coordination and surveillance of their budgetary discipline’, could be used as an instrument for such conditions to be imposed on Greece.

In what concerns the second question, it is underlined that at present the Council is not aware of Greece having requested for IMF assistance.

It is well-known that the Spanish Presidency of the EU is seeking normalisation of relations between the EU and Cuba. The Council’s conclusions of 15 to 16 June 2009 indicate that the Council will decide in June 2010 on possibly modifying the current common position on Cuba. In this connection, account would be taken of progress on human rights.

Does the Council agree with the position of the Spanish Presidency? If so, what progress has Cuba made on human rights? Does Cuba apply the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as called for by the Council in 2009? Has Cuba given a concrete (binding) pledge to abolish the ‘dangerousness law’, which makes it possible to imprison someone on the basis of pure suspicion?

The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the April 2010 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

(EN) The Council, in its conclusions of June 2009, decided in June 2010 to do the annual review of the Common Position, including an assessment of the future of the political dialogue, taking into account progress on issues in the Council conclusions, in particular in the field of human rights. This has been a yearly exercise since the adoption of the common position and will take place again this year.

The Spanish Presidency considers that a reflection process on EU-Cuba relations on the future of EU-Cuba policy could be useful. I would like to recall that our discussion here at the March part-session underlined the importance of the Common Position. That discussion also showed that there is a large consensus on the importance of human rights as values which the EU seeks to promote worldwide.

The Council follows closely the situation of human rights in Cuba. Substantive and regular discussions on human rights take place at the ministerial-level political dialogue meetings which have been held with Cuba twice a year since 2008. The Council also publicly expresses its concerns regarding the human rights situation in Cuba through public declarations, its conclusions and in démarches to the Cuban authorities, such as the one delivered on 23 March 2010.

With regard to the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights, I would like to recall that Cuba has signed but not ratified these two covenants, although the Council has called upon Cuba to do so.

As far as the legislation referred to by the honourable Member is concerned, the Cuban authorities have not made any commitment in the framework of EU-Cuba political dialogue to abolish this.

I can ensure the honourable Members that the Council will continue to follow developments in Cuba closely, and will use every appropriate opportunity to express its concerns whenever human rights are violated.

France has recently embarked on negotiations with Russia on the possible sale of four Mistral warships. Such talks have sparked claims from a number of EU Member States, including Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Poland, that the sale of Mistral warships would have negative consequences for their own security, as well as for that of some of the EU's neighbours. Those countries point out that the Mistral class is clearly offensive in nature.

Since the Treaty of Lisbon outlines common defence aspirations and includes a clause on solidarity in the area of security and defence, does the Spanish Presidency see a need for a common set of rules, in the EU, concerning arms sales by EU Member States to third countries?

Is the Presidency ready to initiate such discussions?

The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the April 2010 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

(EN) The EU has long acknowledged the need for common EU rules regarding the sale of arms to third countries.

In 1991 and 1992, the European Council agreed on eight criteria that Member States should take into account when assessing requests for arms export licences.

In 1998, the Council adopted a common set of rules regarding the sale arms to third countries in the form of the European Union Code of Conduct on Arms Exports. The Code contained expanded versions of the eight criteria agreed in 1991 and 1992, established a notification and consultation mechanism for denials and included a transparency procedure through the publication of the EU annual reports on arms exports. The Code contributed significantly to the harmonisation of national arms export control policies. Operative provision 9 of the Code stated that:

‘Member States will, as appropriate, assess jointly through the CFSP framework the situation of potential or actual recipients of arms exports from Member States, in the light of the principles and criteria of the Code of Conduct.’

On December 8 2008, the Council adopted Common Position 2008/944/CFSP, a significantly updated and upgraded instrument which replaces the Code of Conduct. Article 9 of the Common Position reflects operative provision 9 of the Code, and states:

‘Member States shall, as appropriate, assess jointly through the CFSP framework the situation of potential or actual recipients of military technology and equipment from Member States, in the light of the principles and criteria of this Common Position.’

Such assessments take place regularly, inter alia in the context of the Council bodies, and at all appropriate levels, at the request of a Member State.

What progress is the Council making with its plans for an ambitious EU position with regard to the Millennium Development Goals?

The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the April 2010 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

(EN) 2010 is a key staging part in progress towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals by 2015. The EU attaches particular importance to ensuring the success of the High Level Plenary Meeting on the MDGs in September of this year.

Over the past nine years, significant efforts have been made towards achieving the MDGs, although progress has been uneven, both across sectors and regions. The Sub-Saharan African region in particular is lagging behind. The economic and financial crisis calls into question the ability to meet the MDGs by 2015, and risks undermining progress made so far.

With only five years remaining before 2015, the Council sees the September High Level Plenary Meeting as a unique opportunity to take stock and assess what has been achieved so far, and to set out what more needs to be done by 2015. We have to use this opportunity to galvanize a coordinated international effort in order to accelerate further progress towards the MDGs.

In terms of the process, the EU will continue to play a leading role as the world's largest donor, and will make all necessary efforts to ensure a focused and action-oriented outcome of the High Level Plenary Meeting. As part of its preparations for this meeting, the Council is expected to adopt an updated EU position which it will submit to the June European Council, taking into account the Commission’s ‘Spring Package’ on development cooperation and the Report established by the UN Secretary-General for the High Level Plenary Meeting which was presented last month.

Under Lithuanian income tax legislation, the income of Lithuanian sailors working on third-country vessels is subject to 15% tax. Sailors on vessels flying a European Economic Community flag are not subject to this tax.

It is the practice in other EU countries that sailors at sea for not less than 183 days are subject to a zero rate of tax or are not required to pay tax. This practice is not applied in Lithuania.

Does the Council not think that taxes on sailors’ income should be regulated at Community level to ensure that the principles of the single internal market are respected?

Does the Council agree that the application of a standardised rate of income tax to all EU sailors and the standardisation of tax systems might help protect EU citizens’ jobs?

The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the April 2010 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

(EN) The question submitted by the honourable Member concerns direct taxation. In that respect, some important points need to be mentioned.

First, the Council recalls that, as personal income taxes are not harmonised across the EU, Member States are free to adopt their own laws so as to meet their domestic policy objectives and requirements, provided that they exercise that competence consistently with the fundamental Treaty principles of free movement of workers, services and capital and the freedom of establishment. It is for the Commission to monitor the compatibility of national legislation with EU law.

The Council would like also to recall that the Council can adopt legislation only on the basis of a proposal from the Commission. There is, at this moment, no Commission proposal concerning the matters referred to by the honourable parliamentarian. In its Communication of 2001 ‘Tax policy in the EU - Priorities for the years ahead’, the Commission has indicated that personal income taxes may be left to the Member States even when the EU achieves a higher level of integration than at present and that their co-ordination at EU level only becomes necessary to prevent cross-border discrimination or obstacles to the exercise of the freedoms provided for in the treaties.

In the energy sector, EU representatives have expressed a will to improve relations with Russia and have spoken of moving towards a business relationship.

There are two rival pipelines in the south-east of the Mediterranean: Nabucco and South Stream. South Stream will carry Russian gas. The Nabucco pipeline is ready for action, but there is no gas to supply it. With deadlock on the Turkey-Armenia issue blocking the way for gas to come from Azerbaijan, and the EU not willing to do business with Iran, where is the EU going to get the gas to supply Nabucco?

In a business context, is the Council contemplating the possibility of holding talks with Russia on Nabucco and South Stream? Is the Council thinking of ways in which the two projects could be collaborating rather than competing projects? If so, how will the Council achieve this?

The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the April 2010 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

(EN) The Council underlines that diversification of fuels, sources and routes is a long-standing EU policy. This policy has been communicated in a transparent manner to both transit and supplier countries.

Both projects named by the honourable Parliamentarian, i.e. Nabucco and South Stream, continue to receive the Council's support, since both contribute to the diversification that the EU seeks. That said, the Council recalls that these projects are to the largest extent driven by private companies: it is therefore ultimately up to the companies involved to select and work with partners of their choice.

The appropriate instrument to discuss the Nabucco and South Stream projects with Russia is the EU-Russia Energy Dialogue, in particular the Subgroup on infrastructure, from the Group on Energy Market Developments. Specific projects were not addressed in recent meetings of such Subgroup. Indeed, it should be pointed out that the current political context and problems described by the honourable Parliamentarian as regards the difficulty to find gas supplies should be considered in the long term perspective (30 years or more) of such large infrastructure projects.

In this context, the Council has agreed to exploring the feasibility of a mechanism which would facilitate access to new gas sources through the Caspian Development cooperation. The envisaged Caspian Development Cooperation (CDC) aims at demonstrating to potential suppliers, such as Turkmenistan, that the EU represents a credible volume of demand that justifies that significant volume of gas are committed to this market over the medium and long term.

On 17 December 2009, the Commission and the competent Moroccan authorities signed an agreed minute concluding negotiations with a view to 'improving bilateral trade conditions for products from the agri-food and fisheries sector'.

The Mediterranean Member States of the European Union and south-east Mediterranean countries are known to produce many similar products at the same times of the year. Furthermore, European producers are required to comply, inter alia, with stringent product safety and quality standards.

How does the Council view the agreement in question, in particular the impact on European agriculture of a greater opening up of the EU market under the terms negotiated by the Commission?

The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the April 2010 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

(EN) As mentioned by the honourable Member, negotiations were concluded on 17 December 2009 by the Moroccan and the EU negotiators in the form of an agreed minute on a future agreement aimed at improving bilateral trade conditions for products from the agri-food and fisheries sector in the context of the Euro-Mediterranean roadmap for agriculture (Rabat roadmap) adopted on 28 November 2005.

At the EU-Morocco Summit which took place in Granada on 7 March 2010, the two Parties ‘welcomed the significant progress achieved in recent months in trade negotiations, which has made it possible to conclude negotiations on trade in agricultural products, processed agricultural products and fishery products, as well as on the agreement on settling trade disputes, an important step towards a deep and comprehensive Free Trade Agreement.’ It was agreed that ‘Parties undertake to carry the procedures forward with a view to signing the Agreement on trade in agricultural products, processed agricultural products and fishery products and bringing it into force as soon as possible.’

The conclusion of the agreement is subject to the approval of the respective authorities. As far as the European Union is concerned, according to the procedure provided for in Article 218(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Council has to adopt the decision to conclude the agreement on the basis of a proposal by the EU negotiator (the Commission) and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament. The Commission has yet to submit its proposal to Council. The Council is therefore not in a position to take a view on this agreement at this stage.

Around the world oppressive regimes stand in contravention to the ideas of tolerance, democracy and freedom that are the cornerstones of the European Union. Not a day goes by when we don't hear of some regime around the world repressing its own citizens, be it on the basis of religious belief, freedom of conscience or political dissent.

In light of the European Union's new coordinated arrangements for foreign affairs, how will the Council step up its efforts and bring real pressure to bear on nations and governments that act in ways abhorrent to us yet still enjoy cooperation with the EU in areas such as trade or development assistance?

The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the April 2010 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

(EN) The EU's action on the international scene is guided by the principles and aimed at the range of objectives laid out in Art. 21 of the Treaty on EU⁽¹⁾, including the promotion of human rights, the rule of law and democracy. In line with the European Security Strategy, the EU has strengthened its efforts ‘to build human security, by reducing poverty and inequality, promoting good governance and human rights, assisting development, and addressing the root causes of conflict and insecurity’.

The EU has a wide range of tools for its external action in line with these objectives. Among these, human rights dialogues, political clauses in trade and development agreements and restrictive measures are used by the EU to promote respect for freedom, human rights and the rule of law throughout the world. The human rights dialogues constitute an essential part of the EU's overall strategy towards third countries. So far the EU has established nearly 40 forms of discussion focused on human rights in order to raise individual cases of concern and catalyse real, tangible improvements in respect for human rights across the globe. Human rights issues are also raised in the framework of regular political dialogue.

As regards trade relations and development cooperation, it is customary to include ‘political clauses’ in comprehensive agreements between the EU and third countries. The clauses regarding respect for human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law are considered ‘essential elements’ and their violation entails consequences, including the partial or total suspension of the relevant agreement.

In order to bring about a change in policy, the EU can also decide to impose restrictive measures against third countries which do not respect democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Where possible and in line with the European Union's overall strategy towards the third country concerned, the legal instruments imposing restrictive measures may also refer to incentives to encourage the required change in policy or activity. In addition to the full and effective implementation of restrictive measures agreed in that respect by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the EU can also impose autonomous sanctions in full conformity with EU obligations under international law.

The main EU autonomous sanctions regimes in this field concern Burma/Myanmar, Guinea (Conakry), Zimbabwe.

The Treaty of Lisbon has provided a renewed framework for the EU's action on the international scene, with a broad range of instruments at its disposal. With the full implementation of the provisions set out in the Treaty of Lisbon, the EU will be in a better position to use these instruments in a more comprehensive and mutually reinforcing way. The European External Action Service will be key in delivering this.

Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, which were amended on 25 November 2009, the future 18 Members may take part as observers in the work of the European Parliament until the additional protocol is ratified and do not have the right to vote.

How does the Council intend to implement the Lisbon Treaty with regard to the additional 18 seats in the European Parliament?

What initiative will the Council take in order to speed up the ratification of the additional protocol by the EU Member States?

What does the Council intend to do in order that France complies with the conclusions of the European Council of 18 and 19 June 2009 and designates additional Members of the European Parliament?

The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the April 2010 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

(EN) As you all know, under Article 14 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), as introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, the number of Members of the European Parliament must not exceed 750, plus the President. As the elections to the European Parliament of June 2009 took place on the basis of the former Treaty (i.e. 736 elected MEPs), on 4-7 June 2009, the European Council agreed to add 18 additional seats to the 736 seats filled in the June elections, in the event that the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force⁽¹⁾. The implementation of this agreement of the European Council requires the adoption and the ratification by the 27 Member States of a Protocol amending Article 2 of the Protocol (36) on transitional measures annexed to the Lisbon Treaty, following the procedure laid down in Article 48(3) of the TEU. On 4 December 2009 the Spanish Government submitted a proposal for the amendment of the treaties to that effect.

The European Council decided on 10-11 December 2009⁽²⁾ to consult the European Parliament and the Commission with a view to examining this proposal. Pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 48(3) TEU, the European Council specified that it did not intend to convene a Convention (composed of representatives of national parliaments, of the Heads of State or Government of Member States, of the European Parliament and of the Commission) before the conference of representatives of governments of the Member States, since in the view of the European Council, this was not justified by the scope of the proposed amendments. The representatives of the European Council therefore requested the consent of the European Parliament to that effect, as required by Article 48(3) TEU.

The estimated timetable for the opening of the conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States depends on the receipt of European Parliament’s position on these two issues, which, according to our information, will only arrive after the mini-plenary session of May, i.e. the 4 and 5 May.

Our intention is to have a short conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States followed by the ratification, by each Member State, according to its constitutional requirements, of this revision of the Treaty.

Concerning the manner in which France will designate the two additional French members of the European Parliament, let me remind you that according to our initiative for revising Protocol 36 to the Lisbon Treaty envisaged, on the basis of the European Council conclusions of June 2009, three possibilities are envisaged for the designation of the future MEPs by the Member States concerned:

either ad hoc elections by direct universal suffrage in the Member State concerned, in accordance with the provisions applicable for elections to the European Parliament;

or by reference to the results of the European elections from 4 to 7 June 2009;

or by designation by the national parliament of the Member State concerned from among its members, according to the procedure determined by each of those Member States

For the three options, the designation has to be done in accordance with the legislation of the Member State concerned and provided that the persons in question have been elected by direct universal suffrage.

This is, of course, only applicable for a transitional period, i.e. for the current term of the European Parliament. All members of the European Parliament from 2014 onwards will have to be designated according to the Electoral Act.

I also welcome the balanced approach taken on 7th of April by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. This committee considered that the spirit of the 1976 Electoral Act had to be respected for the designation of the supplementary members of the European Parliament but that indirect elections could be accepted in case of insurmountable technical or political difficulties.

Elena Salgado, the Spanish Minister of Economy and Finance, and Diego López Garrido, State Secretary for European Affairs, have both undertaken to seek ways of remedying structural economic weaknesses and guaranteeing genuine coordination. Given that the mechanisms for monitoring the financial policies of the Member States have already been established under Articles 121 and 126 of the Lisbon Treaty, can the Council Presidency provide the following information:

How would it define more effective monitoring and coordination procedures? Have specific proposals been made regarding ways of achieving a more sustainable and better balanced economic model, given the major economic disparities currently dividing the eurozone? If so how are these proposals being received by the Member States?

The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the April 2010 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

(EN) The economic and budgetary surveillance procedures set out in Articles 121 and 126 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union (TFEU) remain the cornerstone of our economic and budgetary policy coordination respectively.

The European Council, in its March 2010 conclusions, stated that the overall economic policy coordination will be strengthened by making better use of the instruments provided by Article 121 TFEU.

Concerning the eurozone and in light of the need for close economic cooperation inside, the Lisbon Treaty has introduced the possibility of adopting measures to strengthen economic coordination between eurozone Member States, under Article 136 TFEU. Such measures would always be taken ‘in accordance with the relevant procedure from among those referred to in Articles 121 and 126’, thus following the existing procedures under the coordination and surveillance mechanisms and the excessive deficit procedure while allowing for enhanced coordination within the eurozone.

The European Council also called on the Commission to present by June 2010 proposals making use of the new instrument for economic coordination offered by Article 136 TFEU so that coordination at the level of the eurozone is strengthened. Until now no proposal or recommendation has been submitted by the Commission to the Council.

Furthermore, the Heads of State or Government of the Member States of the euro area, in the meeting of the March 2010 European Council, committed themselves to promote a strong coordination of economic policies in Europe and considered that it is for the European Council to improve the economic governance of the European Union. They proposed to increase its role in economic coordination and the definition of the European Union growth strategy.

It is finally recalled that the same European Council also invited its President to establish in cooperation with the Commission a task force with representations of Member States, the rotating Presidency and the ECB to present to the Council before the end of this year the measures needed to reach the objective of an improved crisis resolution framework and better budgetary discipline, exploring all options to reinforce the legal framework.

What means and instruments does the Council use to guarantee a focus on respect for the right to education in minority languages in its ongoing political dialogue with Ukraine?

How does it monitor and ensure that Ukraine fully implements the Association Agenda regarding its commitments on respect for minority rights?

The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the April 2010 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

(EN) The issue of respect for human rights and the rights of persons belonging to national minorities is a priority for EU-Ukraine relations. The February plenary debate has shown that the Parliament puts particular emphasis on the development of the rule of law, democracy and the reform process in Ukraine. The importance of the national minority issue is enshrined in the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the EU and Ukraine, which was signed in June 1994 and entered into force in March 1998. Article 2 of this agreement defines respect for democratic principles and human rights as a general principle which constitutes an essential element of the agreement. Furthermore, the agreement provides for the issue of respect for human rights and the rights of persons belonging to minorities to be addressed in the framework of the EU-Ukraine political dialogue, which may also include discussions on related OSCE and Council of Europe matters. Issues relating to persons belonging to minorities are also addressed in Cooperation Council and JLS sub-committee meetings with Ukraine. At the 12th EU-Ukraine Cooperation Committee, which took place in Brussels on 26 November 2009, the Council highlighted the need to take effective measures to ensure that policies aimed at promoting the Ukrainian language in education do not obstruct or limit the use of minority languages.

The EU-Ukraine Association agenda, which prepares and facilitates the early implementation of the new EU-Ukraine association agreement through agreement on concrete steps towards attainment of its objectives, established a political dialogue aiming in particular at strengthening respect for democratic principles, the rule of law and good governance, human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities as enshrined in the core UN and Council of Europe Conventions and related protocols. Such dialogue and cooperation includes the exchange of best practices on measures to protect minorities from discrimination and exclusion in accordance with European and international standards, with the objective of developing a modern legal framework, developing close cooperation between the authorities and representatives of minority groups as well as cooperation on measures to combat the growth in intolerance and the incidence of hate crimes.

The EU has consistently encouraged Ukraine to co-operate with the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities, including on issues related to minority languages.

It should also be noted that the respect of the rights of persons belonging to minorities figures prominently in the Association Agreement currently under negotiation between the EU and Ukraine, as the one of the key common values on which a close and lasting EU-Ukraine relationship is based.

The Renewed Social Agenda and the Council Resolution on Youth Policy of November 2009 have identified and targeted youth and children as a main priority for the period up to 2018. Tackling the challenges of youth unemployment and the drop in levels of young people participating in education or training have been identified as priorities.

Given that, in its resolution, the Council agreed to create more and equal opportunities for all young people in education and in the labour market in the period up to 2018, can it give practical examples of how this will be achieved? Can we expect new programmes and initiatives in this regard and what is the immediate timeline?

The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the April 2010 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

(EN) On 27 November 2009, the Council agreed on a renewed framework for European cooperation in the youth field for the next nine years. In this framework, the Council agreed that in the period from 2010 - 2018, the overall objectives of such an European cooperation in the youth field should be to create more and equal opportunities for all young people in education and in the labour market; and to promote the active citizenship, social inclusion and solidarity of all young people, while respecting Member States' responsibility for youth policy and the voluntary nature of the European cooperation in the youth field.

The Council also agreed that during this period European cooperation in the youth field should be implemented by means of a renewed open method of coordination, and should draw on the overall objectives, dual approach and eight fields of action established in the framework, including ‘education and training’ as well as ‘employment and entrepreneurship’. It also sets youth employment as an overall priority for the current trio presidency.

The Annex I of the Council Resolution establishing such a framework proposed a number of general initiatives for Member States and for the Commission for all fields, followed by a series of specific youth-related aims and possible initiatives for each field of action which can also be taken by Member States and/or the Commission within their respective competences and with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity.

Moreover, in March 2010, the European Council⁽¹⁾ agreed on a number of headline targets, which constitute shared objectives guiding the action of the Member States and of the Union within the Strategy for Jobs and Growth for the years from 2010 to 2020. Two headline targets deal directly with the young people:

aiming to bring to 75% the employment rate for women and men aged 20-64, including through the greater participation of youth (as well as of the other groups with low participation);

improving education levels, in particular by aiming to reduce school drop-out rates and by increasing the share of the population having completed tertiary or equivalent education.

While these youth-related targets are not of a regulatory nature and do not imply burden-sharing, they represent a common aim to be pursued through a mix of national and EU level actions.

Lastly, the aim of the Spanish Presidency is that the Council adopts in May a Resolution on the active inclusion of young people aiming at combating unemployment and poverty with a view to establish common principles in this area and to incorporate the youth dimension into other policies.

On 28 January 2010 in London, the Member States of the European Union backed Afghan President Hamid Karzai's national reconciliation plan and promised to help finance it.

Did the Member States express disapproval of the fact that the plan had not been discussed in advance, either in Parliament or with representatives of civil society in Afghanistan?

Did the EU obtain guarantees that women's fundamental rights would be respected before approving and helping to finance this plan?

Did the EU insist at the London meeting that any agreement with the insurgents should include a clear commitment to upholding human rights?

If national reconciliation is to be effected by the Afghans themselves, how will the presence of EU representatives at the ‘consultative peace jirga’ to be held from 2 to 4 May make it possible to ensure that democratic rights are respected?

The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the April 2010 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

(EN) Human rights, especially women's and children's rights, are at the centre of the EU political dialogue with the Afghan government - as stated in the EU Action Plan on Afghanistan and Pakistan, adopted by the Council on 27 October 2009.

During the London Conference, the Government of Afghanistan reiterated its commitment to protect and promote the human rights of all Afghan citizens and to make Afghanistan a place where men and women enjoy security, equal rights, and equal opportunities in all spheres of life. The international community welcomed the Government of Afghanistan’s commitment to implement the National Action Plan for Women of Afghanistan and to implement the Elimination of Violence against Women Law. Furthermore, Conference participants welcomed the Government of Afghanistan’s commitment to strengthen the participation of women in all Afghan governance institutions including elected and appointed bodies and the civil service.

The EU continues to encourage the Afghan government to take concrete actions towards full respect of human rights. Reconciliation and reintegration has to be an Afghan-led process. Participants in the London Conference welcomed the plans of the Government of Afghanistan to offer a place in society to those willing to renounce violence, participate in the free and open society and respect the principles that are enshrined in the Afghan constitution, cut ties with al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, and pursue their political goals peacefully.

Economic growth, respect for Rule of Law and human rights alongside creation of employment opportunities, and good governance for all Afghans are also critical to counter the appeal of the insurgency, as well as being vital to greater stability in Afghanistan.

The EU's engagement in Afghanistan is long term. The EU is committed to assisting the Afghan government in the political challenge of reintegration and reconciliation. Through the Afghan government, the EU aims to strengthen Afghan capacity and improve governance at all levels. Improving the election system, fighting corruption, supporting the rule of law and human rights are central to good governance. During the London Conference, Conference participants welcomed the Government of Afghanistan's commitment to reinvigorate Afghan-led reintegration efforts by developing and implementing an effective, inclusive, transparent and sustainable national Peace and Reintegration Programme. The Peace Jirga, to be held in May, is part of that process.

The Committee on Budgetary Control of the European Parliament has not granted the Council discharge for implementation of the 2008 budget. This recalls the situation last year, when the Council was granted discharge for implementation of the 2007 budget only in November 2009. What steps will the Council take to introduce more transparent financial mechanisms and clearer rules on accountability? When might this happen?

The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the April 2010 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

(EN) In the view of the Council, there seems to be no objective reason to put into question the implementation by the Council of the budget for 2008: neither the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors nor the analysis by the Committee on Budgetary Control of the accounts of 2008 have revealed any irregularities.

The position of the Committee on Budgetary Control on this issue seems to based on doubts about the level of transparency practised by the Council.

On this point, I can be very clear: the Council considers that it is fully transparent on the way it has implemented its budget in the past.

In this sense, the Council considers that it complies with all reporting requirements foreseen in the Financial Regulation. In addition, the Council publishes on its website a report on its financial management for the previous year. I would like to draw your attention on the fact that today the Council is the only institution which has published a report on the preliminary accounts for 2009 for the general public.

Moreover, the President of Coreper and the Secretary-General of the Council have met a delegation of the Committee on Budgetary Control on 15 March 2010. For this meeting, ample information was provided regarding the questions raised by the Committee on Budgetary Control related to implementation of the Council's 2008 budget.

The so called ‘gentlemen's agreement’ has governed relations between our institutions on each other's administrative budget.

If the European Parliament wishes to review this arrangement, the Council would be ready to consider entering into discussions on a new arrangement, provided both branches of the budgetary authority are treated on a strictly equal footing.

The permanent President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, has stated that Member State competitiveness should be improved with regular controls and additional indicators.

What is the Spanish Council Presidency’s view on Mr Van Rompuy’s proposals?

What control mechanisms will the Spanish Council Presidency roll out to check Member State competitiveness more efficiently and to detect incorrect behaviour more rapidly?

What indicators will the Spanish Council Presidency introduce to measure Member State competitiveness more efficiently and to produce more transparent guidelines on the action to be taken?

The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the April 2010 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

(EN) Competitiveness is one of the key parameters of the Europe 2020 Strategy that was discussed at the Spring European Council, on 25 and 26 March 2010.

The Spring European Council agreed, in particular, on five headline targets, that may be seen as indicators for competitiveness and shared objectives guiding the action of the Member States:

75% employment rate for women and men aged 20-64;

3% of GDP for research and development, combining public and private investment;

20% less gas emissions, according to the ‘20/20/20’ target, whereby, compared to 1990 levels, also the share of renewables and energy efficiency should be increased by 20%;

improving education levels: numerical rates will be fixed by the Summer European Council, in June 2010;

reduction of poverty, according to indicators to be set out by the European Council, at its June 2010 meeting.

In the light of the headline targets, Member States will set their national targets, in a dialogue with the Commission. The results of this dialogue will be examined by the Council by June 2010.

National Reform Programmes drawn up by the Member States will set out in detail the actions they will undertake to implement the new strategy.

The Spring European Council also concluded that efficient monitoring mechanisms are key for the successful implementation of the strategy. These include:

once a year, an overall assessment by the European Council of progress achieved;

regular debates at European Council level dedicated to the main priorities of the strategy;

overall strengthening of economic policy coordination.

Finally, it should be pointed out that the European Council, to better define control mechanisms and checking Member States competitiveness, has asked its President to establish, in cooperation with the European Commission, a Task Force with representatives of the Member States, the rotating Presidency of the Council, and the European Central Bank, to present to the Council, before the end of this year, the measures needed to reach the objective of an improved crisis resolution framework and better budgetary discipline, exploring all options to reinforce the legal framework.

Following the adoption of Parliament’s resolution of 10 March 2010 on the 2008 report on the Common Foreign and Security Policy (A7-0023/2010), what concrete measures have been undertaken by the European Council to persuade China to drop its opposition to Taiwan joining international organisations such as the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)?

The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the April 2010 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

(EN) Cross-Straits relations have improved dramatically after the election of Ma Ying-jeou in 2008. This is a welcome development for stability in the region.

Fundamentally, the Council takes the firm view that the Taiwan question must be resolved peacefully through constructive dialogue between all concerned parties. It is in this spirit that the Council has always supported - and will continue to support - any pragmatic solution, mutually agreed by the two sides of the Straits, towards Taiwan's participation in relevant international organisations.

Taiwan is currently seeking observer status in the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The Council will welcome any discussion by the two sides of concrete steps aiming at its meaningful participation in these two fora, to the extent that this participation may be important to EU and global interests.

Can the Council provide an updated assessment of the status of the Middle East Peace Process?

What actions have been undertaken by the Council to promote the implementation of the Goldstone Report?

Can the Council provide an update on efforts to release the captured Israeli soldier Mr Gilad Shalit?

The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the April 2010 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

(EN) The Middle East Peace Process continues to face a lack of progress. Intense international efforts to resume negotiations on all final status issues and relaunch the Middle East Peace Process continue. The Quartet met in Moscow on March 19 and declared that negotiations should lead to a settlement negotiated between the parties within 24 months.

The European Union has taken careful note of the investigations being carried out by Israel and the Palestinians into alleged violations of human rights and International Humanitarian Law. At the same time, the Council encourages Israel, as it does similarly the Palestinians, to assume a constructive approach to a further credible and fully independent investigation into the allegations. Such investigations accomplished by all parties to the conflict are essential for ensuring accountability for human rights and International Humanitarian Law violations, ruling out impunity and, ultimately, contributing to reconciliation and durable peace. As the honourable Member might remember, the Council took part in the EP debate on the Goldstone report, held on 24 February 2010 and took note of the resolution subsequently adopted by the EP.

Efforts to release the abducted Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit continue with the support of the European Union. The Council has consistently and repeatedly called for the full respect of international humanitarian law in Gaza.

Turkey has intensified harassment manoeuvres using fighter planes and warships in the Aegean Sea. This provocation stems from ongoing efforts by Turkey and an imperialistic desire on NATO’s part to split the Aegean in two by creating a ‘grey zone’ to the east of the 25th meridian, thereby undermining Greece’s sovereign rights over the airspace and waters of the Aegean and its own towns and islands. Turkish fighter planes and ground-based radar systems are harassing harbour-police planes and helicopters and civil aviation within Greek airspace. Turkish navy ships are sailing in proximity to the Greek coast, as was the case on 24 March 2010 when the Turkish corvette Bafra entered Greek territorial waters, creating a situation of extreme danger which compromised the security of the entire region.

Is the Council ready to condemn this intimidation, threatening as it does Greece’s sovereign rights, and NATO's plans to split the Aegean in two, which represent a very serious threat to peace and security in the entire south-west Mediterranean region?

The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the April 2010 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

(EN) The Council is aware of this issue, since a considerable number of formal complaints have been made by Greece about continued violations of its airspace by Turkey.

The Council would like to recall that Turkey as a candidate country must share the values and objectives of the European Union as set out in the treaties. In this light, unequivocal commitment to good neighbourly relations and the peaceful settlement of disputes is essential. This issue is covered by the Negotiating Framework, and constitutes a short-term priority in the revised Accession Partnership.

The Council, in its conclusions of 8 December 2009, underlined that Turkey needs to commit itself unequivocally to good neighbourly relations and to the peaceful settlement of disputes in accordance with the United Nations Charter, having recourse, if necessary, to the International Court of Justice. In this context, the Union urged the avoidance of any kind of threat, source of friction or actions which could damage good neighbourly relations and the peaceful settlement of disputes.

Against this background, the Council can assure the honourable Member that the issue will continue to be closely followed and raised on all levels as appropriate, as good neighbourly relations are one of the requirements against which Turkey's progress in the negotiations will be measured. This message is systematically stressed to Turkey at all levels - most recently at the EU - Turkey Political dialogue meeting, held in Ankara on 10 February 2010, as well as at the Association Committee meeting of 26 March 2010.

Is the Council aware of the most recent mass atrocities having taken place in Plateau State, Nigeria, on 19 January 2010 and 7 March 2010?

Is it aware that these mass atrocities are no isolated incidents, but rather part of a continuous cycle of violence between different ethnic and religious groups in central Nigeria?

Is it aware of reports that local authorities have sometimes been involved in the violence, and often act only as passive bystanders?

Will it urge the Nigerian Government and public authorities to do more to stop the cycle of violence between ethnic and religious groups in central Nigeria by: stepping up security for communities at risk, including those in rural areas; bringing the perpetrators of mass atrocities to justice; and addressing the root causes of sectarian violence, including social, economic and political discrimination against certain segments of the population?

The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the April 2010 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

(EN) The Council attaches great importance to the rights of freedom of religion, belief and expression in its dialogues with third countries. Freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief is one of the fundamental human rights and as such is enshrined in a number of international instruments.

The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Ms Ashton has publicly condemned the violence and tragic loss of lives in Nigeria.

The EU has urged all parties to exercise restraint and seek peaceful means to resolve differences between religious and ethnic groups in Nigeria and has also called on the Federal Government of Nigeria to ensure that the perpetrators of acts of violence are brought to justice and to support interethnic and interfaith dialogue.

Under Article 8 of the Cotonou Agreement, the EU engages in regular political dialogue with Nigeria on human rights and democratic principles, including ethnic, religious and racial discrimination.

The EU believes that Nigeria's continued commitment and adherence to its democratic norms and values are key to addressing the many challenges it faces, including electoral reform, economic development, inter-faith discord and transparency.

Along with its main international partners, the EU is committed to continue working with Nigeria on the internal issues it faces while working together as partners on the global stage.

A provision of the Treaty of Lisbon on children’s rights enables the Community to adopt measures to ensure that children’s rights are incorporated into all major policy areas. It is alarming that child sexual abuse remains a serious problem in the EU. In certain Member States there are children’s homes where there is no guarantee of adequate living and care standards and where cases of sexual abuse occur. Investigation of these is very slow.

Do you not think that there needs to be monitoring at Community level of how the protection of children’s rights is implemented, as well as stricter supervision as regards how the Member States ensure that children’s rights are protected and whether the institutions responsible for doing so are carrying out their work properly with a view to protecting the most vulnerable section of society – children?

(EN) The Commission shares the honourable Member's determination to ensure a high level of protection and promotion of children's rights in the EU.

Sexual exploitation and violence against children are unacceptable. To address this problem the Commission has recently adopted a proposal for a Directive to fight sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography⁽¹⁾.

The 2006 Communication ‘Towards an EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child’⁽²⁾ laid the basis for an EU policy on children's rights aiming at the promotion and safeguarding of the rights of the child in European Union's internal and external policies. The Commission is committed to provide support to Member States in their efforts to protect and promote children's rights in their policies. In this respect, the Commission will continue to support mutual cooperation, exchange of good practices and funding to the Member States in their actions having an impact on children's rights. The Commission does not have the power to carry out monitoring of children's rights abuses in matters where there is no link to EU law.

The Commission Communication on the new multi-annual programme 2010-2014 in the field of Justice, Freedom and Security⁽³⁾ as well as the European Council conclusions on the same issue of 11 December 2009⁽⁴⁾ (the ‘Stockholm Programme’) have reiterated the importance of developing an ambitious Strategy on Children's Rights, identifying as priority areas: fighting violence against children and children in particularly vulnerable situations, notably in the context of immigration (unaccompanied minors, victims of trafficking, etc.).

The Commission will be adopting at the end of 2010 a new Communication to present how it intends to ensure that all internal and external EU policies respect children's rights in accordance with the principles of EU law, and that they are fully compliant with the principles and provisions of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).

Although we proclaim the creation of a single gas market in the EU, the same third-country company (Gazprom), occupying what is essentially a monopoly position on the gas market, manages gas supply, transmission and distribution networks in certain Member States, either directly or through intermediaries. This has an adverse effect on those Member States’ contracts with gas suppliers and often leads to unfavourable gas prices for end users.

How is the Commission planning to safeguard transparency and competition on the EU energy market in view of the EU’s third energy package and particularly the provisions of Article 11 of Directive 2009/73/EC⁽¹⁾ of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas? When it comes to gas price negotiations, does the Commission intend to assist those countries that are largely dependent on one external source in order to prevent price distortion? Is the Commission planning to investigate whether or not Gazprom’s monopoly position in individual Member States distorts competition rules and whether or not this allows Gazprom to abuse its dominant market position?

(EN) According to the Third Internal Energy Market Package, a Transmission System Operator (‘TSO’) can only be approved and designated as a TSO following the certification procedure laid down in the Electricity and Gas Directives. These rules must be applied to all TSOs for their initial certification, and subsequently at any time when a reassessment of a TSO’s compliance with the unbundling rules is required.

Where certification is requested by a potential TSO which is controlled by a person from a third country, e.g. the Russian Federation, the procedure of Article 10 is replaced by the procedure of Article 11 Electricity and Gas Directives concerning certification in relation to third countries.

Under Article 11 of the Electricity and Gas Directives, the regulatory authority must refuse the certification of the TSO which is controlled by a person from a third country if it has not been demonstrated:

that the entity concerned complies with the requirements of the unbundling rules. This applies equally to the different unbundling models: ownership unbundling, Independent System Operator (‘ISO’) and Independent Transmission Operator (‘ITO’); and

that granting certification will not put at risk the security of energy supply of the Member State and the European Union. This assessment is to be carried out by the regulatory authority or another competent authority designated by the Member State.

The competent authority must in particular take into consideration for its assessment the international agreements between the European Union and/or the Member State in question and the third country concerned which address the issue of security of energy supply, as well as other specific facts and circumstances of the case and of the third country concerned.

The burden of proof as to whether the above conditions are complied with is put on the potential TSO which is controlled by a person from a third country. The Commission must provide a prior opinion on the certification. The national regulatory authority, when adopting its final decision on the certification, must take utmost account of this Commission opinion.

The certification procedure shall apply to TSOs controlled by persons from third countries as from 3 March 2013. National regulatory authorities must ensure compliance of TSOs with the provisions on unbundling and certification of the Third package. To do this, national regulatory authorities have the power to take binding decisions, including the imposition of fines on the company concerned.

Regarding transparency, the Third Internal Energy Market Package will improve market transparency on network operation and supply. This will guarantee equal access to information, make pricing more transparent, increase trust in the market and help avoid market manipulation. The new 10-year investment plan for EU energy grids will make investment planning more transparent and coordinated between the Member States. It promotes security of supply and enhance the EU market at the same time.

The Commission's role is to define the appropriate legal framework for a functioning internal gas market and not to be involved in commercial negotiations between individual energy companies. It is up to each individual company buying gas to negotiate contractual conditions with gas suppliers, according to its needs.

In countries that are well integrated into the EU's energy market, with access to spot markets and different gas suppliers, consumers can profit from the lower prices on the spot markets that prevail today. Isolated countries however, either because they have no physical links or all network capacity is booked in long-term contracts do not benefit since they do not have a choice. Therefore interconnections are of key importance for these countries, allowing integration into the EU's energy market and benefiting from the choice market provides to consumers.

In a case of interconnected and integrated and efficient market, prices tend to converge. The Commission has adopted the Third Internal Energy Market Package to tackle this issue with the objective of promoting competition and market integration. The Commission is aiming to establish equal conditions for all market players where prices are set by the workings or market mechanism. The Commission, however is not negotiating prices of imported energy resources.

The Commission has followed the development of competition in the energy markets across Europe very closely in recent years, as evidenced by the Sector Inquiry and the large number of cases it has carried out. Whilst the Commission does not comment on specific cases, it should be noted that the simple existence of a dominant position is not by itself an infringement under competition law. In any event, the Commission will remain vigilant in ensuring that no companies engage in anti-competitive behaviour and will continue carrying out antitrust cases that defend competition in the European energy markets.

The planned merger between Olympic Air and Aegean Airlines – a result of the privatisation and liberalisation policy promoted by the European Union and the PASOK and ND governments in Greece – fosters the creation of monopolies in the air transport market, with damaging effects for the general public and for workers in the sector. The dismissals, wage cuts and heavier workloads for the remaining staff, ticket price hikes and service reductions – particularly on unprofitable lines – which followed the privatisation of Olympic Airlines (OA) will increase, leading to the further deterioration of air transport. The 4 500 workers already dismissed by Olympic Airlines have not received the payments to which they are legally entitled since 15 December 2009 and the procedures for giving qualifying workers a full pension and transferring remaining workers to other public services are at a standstill.

Were Olympic Airlines privatised in order to benefit monopolistic groups? What is the Commission’s view regarding: a) the planned merger between Olympic Air and Aegean Airlines and b) the deceit and problems to which the workers dismissed by Olympic Airlines are being subjected?

(EN) Regarding the question of whether Olympic Airlines were privatised in order to benefit monopolistic groups, the Commission’s answer is no. The sale of certain assets of Olympic Airlines and Olympic Airways Services was a solution found by the Greek authorities to the long-running problems of these two companies (both of which had over many years received significant amounts of illegal and incompatible state aid).

No notification of the proposed operation has yet been made to the Commission.

Under Council Regulation 139/2004 (‘the Merger Regulation’)⁽¹⁾, the Commission would be competent to assess the compatibility of the proposed merger with the Internal Market if this has a ‘Union dimension’, pursuant to the financial turnover requirements laid down in Article 1 of the Merger Regulation.

Once such a Union dimension has been established and the operation has been notified, the Commission conducts a thorough investigation and assessment of the operation which would seek to maintain effective competition within the internal market as well as to prevent harmful effects on competition and consumers, notably on passengers on the domestic and international routes which the companies serve.

In its analysis of such cases, the Commission takes into account, among other things, the market position and power of the undertakings concerned in the markets where they are active.

On 17 September 2008, and on the basis of a notification made by the Greek authorities, the Commission adopted a decision regarding the sale of certain assets of Olympic Airlines and Olympic Airways Services. The decision stated that if certain assets were sold at market price and the rest of the companies liquidated this would not involve state aid.

The social measures enacted by the Greek authorities in respect of former staff members of Olympic Airways Services and Olympic Airlines do not form part of the Commission decision; the Commission has not been consulted on these social measures and is not aware of their nature or scope.

EU citizens still do not have equal access to material in digital form. For example, Polish Internet users are unable to purchase musical works through the iTunes Internet store. The problem of unequal access also affects other sellers and products.

What measures is the Commission going to take in order to change this situation? When will the effect of these measures be felt?

(EN) The honourable Member's question raises the issue of existing gaps in the Digital Single Market, citing the example that many EU citizens do not have access to legal offers from online music stores cross-border.

One of the reasons invoked by e-commerce traders, such as iTunes, for maintaining national online shops and preventing access of consumer from other countries is the licensing of copyright and rights related to copyright on a national basis. Although, EEA-wide licensing is becoming more frequent for certain rights holders such as music publishers, authors continue to choose to license their rights in public performances on a national territorial basis.

The Commission is currently working on the Digital Agenda for Europe which will address, among others, the existing gaps of the EU Digital Single Market. The aim is to allow free movement of content and services across the EU in order to stimulate demand and to complete the digital single market. In this context the Commission intends to work on measures aimed at simplifying copyright clearance, management and cross-border licensing.

The Commission and, in particular, the Member of the Commission responsible for Internal Market and Services, will host a public hearing on the governance of collective rights management in the EU, will take place on 23 April 2010 in Brussels.

In addition, differences in treatment applied by service providers according to the nationality or the place of residence of the consumers are dealt with specifically by Article 20, paragraph 2 of Directive 123/2006/EC⁽¹⁾ on Services in the Internal Market (the ‘Services Directive’). According to this provision, ‘Member States shall ensure that the general conditions of access to a service, which are made available to the public at large by the provider, do not contain discriminatory provisions relating to the nationality or place of residence of the recipients’. This provision also specifies that not all differences in treatment are forbidden since differences in the conditions of access will be allowed ‘when those differences are directly justified by objective criteria’.

The Services Directive was adopted at the end of 2006 and Member States were required to have it implemented by 28 December 2009 at the latest. Under the Directive refusals to sell will be allowed only if traders demonstrate that the differences in treatment they apply are ‘directly justified by objective criteria’.

The Commission believes that the enforcement of Article 20(2) of the Services Directive, together with the removal of the remaining obstacles still impeding the development of a pan-European digital download market, will lead to a progressive opening up of Internet music stores to customers from all over Europe.

Since the Greek financial policy crisis was revealed and Germany, an EU Member State, was not prepared to provide Greece with unconditional help, some Member States – and also some Commission representatives – have implicitly accused the German Government of acting in an ‘un-European’ fashion.

In the Commission’s view, is a Member State ‘un-European’ if it, in contrast to other Member States, still has the financial power to provide help but, particularly in times of economic crisis, has a duty towards its tax payers to precisely check and, where applicable, reject all additional expenditure?

What message would an unconditional rescue of Greece send to Italy, Ireland, Spain and Portugal, which are also seriously affected by the economic crisis?

(EN) An unconditional rescue of Greece has never been considered by the Commission or the Member States. The successive statements of the Heads of State or Government and of the Eurogroup are clear in saying that any support, if needed, would be accompanied by strict policy conditions, granted on non-concessional interest rates and jointly provided with the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Women in general and single mothers in particular have been most affected by poverty during the economic downturn throughout almost the whole of Europe. Single mothers are confronted with difficulties every day in meeting even the basic needs of their children. More than half of all single mothers live below the poverty line despite their daily efforts to reconcile working hours with childcare, which is far from easy.

Thirty-five years have passed since the 1975 Equal Pay Directive, and yet women in Europe are still subject to discrimination on the labour market and there is still a gap of approximately 17% between women’s and men’s earnings for the same work.

Although EUR 100 million in budget resources was spent last year on implementing employment, social-cohesion and gender-equality programmes, and although the Commission has discussed these important questions for many years, specific EU objectives on how to reduce poverty among women have not been set and remain legally unregulated. That being the case, what further steps does the Commission intend to take to reduce poverty among women in Europe? It should also be borne in mind that without specific measures to help reduce poverty among women it will not be possible to reduce child poverty either.

(EN) The Commission shares the honourable Member’s concern for the need to reduce poverty in the European Union so that all its inhabitants, and in particular the most vulnerable, including women, are able to live with dignity. The proposal to include a headline target on poverty reduction in the Europe 2020 strategy is a reflection of that concern and of the lessons learnt over the last decade. Efforts to meet that target are to be supported by a dedicated flagship initiative, the ‘European Platform against Poverty’. Under that initiative, the European strategy for social inclusion and social protection should be strengthened and efforts should be stepped up to address the situation of the most vulnerable.

Recently, the Commission adopted a Women's Charter⁽¹⁾, which sets out five priority areas for the next five years, and strengthens its commitment to gender equality. Two of the priority areas, namely equal economic independence and equal pay for equal work and work of equal value, are directly relevant to efforts to tackling poverty affecting women.

The Commission plays an important role by promoting action to increase social inclusion and encourage good living standards within the active inclusion framework. Active inclusion strategies are based on three points, namely the individual’s need for access to adequate resources, better links with the labour market, and quality social services. As a next step, the Commission is working on a report on how the active inclusion principles can best contribute to crisis exit strategies. Reducing child poverty is another priority on which the Commission is working closely with the Member States with a view to ensuring that the necessary measures are taken and all children are offered equal opportunities in life.

In addition to the Progress Programme referred to by the honourable Member, the European Social Fund (ESF) targets people in society, including women, who are more vulnerable to unemployment and social exclusion. Over the 2007-2013 period, the ESF will fund projects and programmes in six specific fields, five of which are likely to have a direct or indirect impact on poverty and child poverty, namely reforms in the field of employment and social inclusion (1%); improving social inclusion of less-favoured persons (14%); increasing the adaptability of workers and enterprises (18%); improving access to employment and sustainability (30%); and improving human capital (34%).

According to Eurostat statistics, the tourism sector experienced a decline in 2009, compared to 2008, with the number of overnight stays in hotels (or their equivalent) falling by 5%. That fall was even more marked in the case of non-resident tourists (9.1%). In 2009, 56% of overnight stays were by resident nationals, and only 44% of the total overnight stays by non-residents. The Treaty of Lisbon enables the Union to supplement Member State actions in the tourism sector by promoting competitiveness and creating a favourable environment for the development of EU enterprises in that sector. What steps does the Commission intend to take to make tourist destinations in the EU more attractive and to develop the tourism sector?

(FR) The European Commission is well aware of the latest statistics published by Eurostat concerning the number of nights spent in hotels in the EU27 and acknowledges the decline recorded in 2009 compared to the previous year. The most significant decline was observed in the number of nights spent by non-residents, with a fall of 9.1% compared to a fall of 1.6% for nights spent in hotels by residents in their own countries. The Commission notes, however, that more and more tourists, particularly as a consequence of the impacts of the recent financial and economic crisis, are more inclined to choose destinations in their home countries or in close neighbouring countries for their holidays. This new trend explains, to some extent, the fall in the number of non-resident visitors. The results of the three Eurobarometer surveys carried out by the Commission in 2009 and at the beginning of 2010 also confirm this.

The Commission is certainly mindful of the situation in the tourism industry and will not delay in exercising the new competence the Treaty of Lisbon confers on the EU in the area of tourism. To this effect, the Commission services have begun preparatory work for a Communication identifying a consolidated framework for a European tourism policy.

Within this new framework, the Commission acknowledges, in particular, the strengthening of the image and perception of Europe as a tourist destination, as well as the competitive and sustainable development of European tourism as key priorities. The measures carried out within this framework will certainly be designed, amongst other things, to increase the appeal of tourist destinations in the EU, not only to increase the number of non-resident tourists in Europe, but also to benefit more fully from the potential for EU citizens to holiday in their own countries and in the other Member States. It is on this point that the Commission would like to emphasise that some broad guidelines and proposals for action were submitted to the Commission at the European tourism conference – a true ‘high-level’ conference on the industry and the challenges it faces – which the Commission services organised in collaboration with the Spanish Presidency in Madrid.

In order to accomplish these objectives, however, all those involved in the tourism sector in Europe should offer their support: public authorities at their respective levels, the European Commission itself, businesses, tourists and all other bodies capable of stimulating, supporting and influencing tourism.

In order to improve data protection on the Internet, I would like to propose the following changes to the Data Protection Directive:

Data published on the Internet, should only be used for the purpose agreed at the original time of publication.

Web 2.0 users should always be able to retain control over data once it has been published on the Internet. They should have the right to stipulate an expiry date for self-generated content and to delete personal data.

Every service provider should also allow users to employ a nickname or a pseudonym.

Will the Commission consider these proposals to amend the Data Protection Directive?

(EN) The Commission would like to thank the honourable Member for suggesting several changes to Directive 95/46/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (‘Data Protection Directive’)⁽¹⁾.

The Data Protection Directive is currently undergoing a thorough review. The review of the Data Protection regulatory framework was initiated by a high level conference on the Future of Data Protection in May 2009 which was followed by a broad online public consultation that concluded in December 2009. Issues presented by the honourable Member are attracting the attention of numerous stakeholders and will certainly be considered by the Commission.

The Commission has received a high volume of replies to the consultation, signifying the importance of its initiative. It is currently analysing the feedback received in this consultation exercise, and evaluating possible problems with the regulatory framework which have been identified, as well as possible solutions.

The requirement that data published on the Internet should only be used for the purpose agreed at the time of publication, is already an existing principle as set out in the Data Protection Directive, namely, that data shall be kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the data were collected. It is necessary to ensure respect for this principle in all contexts, in particular on the Internet.

To the extent that web users can be considered data subjects within the meaning of the Data Protection Directive, they have the right to retain control over the data they make accessible online. In the complex Web 2.0 environment, it is extremely challenging to keep the data under control and have a clear understanding where this data has been further transferred to and used. Therefore, a service provider acting as data controller should, in a transparent manner, inform the data subject before uploading data online about the consequences of this step.

The Commission, as well as its advisory body, the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, has advocated in numerous opinions⁽²⁾ the use of pseudonyms rather than revealing one's identity when going online, as well as privacy-friendly default options for users of Web 2.0 applications.

The Commission will take the suggestions of the honourable Member into account when it will prepare its reaction to the outcome of the public consultation.

During the 2009 European Parliament elections, Estonia was the only country in the European Union whose citizens were able to vote via the Internet.

According to expert data, electronic voting could make elections more effective and ensure greater citizen participation. Electronic voting would also attract younger voters, who are usually passive and indifferent. Electronic voting, with reliable systems and clear instructions for voters, would strengthen democracy and create more comfortable conditions for voting both for disabled people and for citizens who travel constantly.

Has the Commission drawn up recommendations to the Member States on the introduction of electronic voting? Has it examined the possibilities for preparing the necessary measures and funding for Member States to introduce the option of electronic voting in the Member States by the 2014 European Parliament elections?

(EN) The Commission understands how important it is to enhance the involvement of all citizens in the democratic life of the Union and to increase participation in European elections. However, arrangements for the process of voting, such as the possibility for electronic voting, are freely chosen by each Member State.

In fact, common principles of European elections to be respected by the Member States are laid down in the 1976 Act on the elections of the Members of the European Parliament, last amended by Council Decision 2002/772. These principles include, amongst others, the obligation to use the proportional representation and the possibility to fix a threshold for the allocation of seats, of maximum 5 percent of the votes. Nonetheless, the Member States are free to lay down the arrangements for the aspects of the elections that are not covered by the Act. Such an arrangement is the electronic voting.

It lies within the powers of the European Parliament itself to propose amendments to the 1976 Act. The Commission would have no power to propose to use the electronic voting.

As regards facilitating participation of citizens in the elections, including citizens of the Union who move to other Member States, the current EU legislation grants the right for voting in European and municipal elections in the Member State of residence, under the same conditions as the nationals of that state.

With regard to the EU’s commitment to its Strategy on the Rights of the Child, are you willing to move away from an issue-based approach to providing strategic direction and supporting implementation of a children’s rights perspective across EU policy, legislation and programming?

If so, how do you intend to assume positive leadership in promoting the strategy across policies with your colleagues, to inspire them to take a children’s rights perspective and identify specific action in their respective areas – currently being done for invisible children and violence in schools in your DG?

(EN) The 2006 Communication ‘Towards an EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child’ aims at the promotion and safeguarding of the rights of the child in the European Union's internal and external policies.

The role to provide strategic direction for EU policies having an impact on children's rights is already endorsed by the 2006 Communication. The Commission is planning to adopt at the end of 2010 a new Communication to present how it intends to ensure that all internal and external EU policies respect children's rights in accordance with the principles of EU law, and that they are fully compliant with the principles and provisions of the UNCRC and other international instruments.

Further implementation and development of the Strategy should combine a more general approach of strategic orientation of EU policies that have an impact on children with concrete deliveries on clear priorities.

The Commission Communication on the new multi-annual programme 2010-2014 in the field of Justice, Freedom and Security (the ‘Stockholm Programme’) as well as the European Council conclusions of 11 December 2009 have reiterated the importance to develop an ambitious Strategy on Children's Rights identifying as priority areas: fighting violence against children and children in particularly vulnerable situations, notably in the context of immigration (unaccompanied minors, victims of trafficking, etc.).

One issue of particular concern in the future development and implementation of a strong EU strategy on the Rights of the Child is the lack of data. This is why meetings with experts have been organised at technical level on the issues of ‘invisible’ children and violence.

The emphasis of the Commission's consultation document on the future ‘EU 2020’ strategy for growth and jobs is on the creation of new industries, the acceleration of the modernisation of Europe's existing industrial sectors, and the need to strengthen Europe's industrial base. But it is nowhere specifically spelt out that different urban and rural regions have different needs and that important factors of production in the rural economy such as soil, fresh water, biodiversity and other ecological services may require different policy approaches and instruments. It is significant that references to biodiversity are completely absent in the Commission's consultation paper; this despite the fact that nature and natural resources are key underpinnings of economic development.

Can the Commission please advise on how the future ‘EU 2020’ strategy will foster sustainability for rural economy and agriculture and ensure coherent EU investments for preservation and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystem services?

(FR) The ‘Europe 2020’ strategy steers the work of the European Commission towards a target of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. As far as biodiversity, in particular, is concerned, it should be noted that, within the ‘Europe 2020’ strategy, the flagship initiative – ‘a resource efficient Europe’ – aims, amongst other things, to decouple economic growth from the use of natural resources. This initiative will considerably reduce the pressures on biodiversity in Europe. The objectives of safeguarding biodiversity and preserving ecosystems that have just been adopted by the European Council, and which will be at the heart of the new European Union Biodiversity Strategy, are based on this principle.

In light of this, in addition to its role in promoting the viability and competitiveness of the agricultural sector, the CAP has a vital role to play in managing agricultural land for the promotion of biodiversity and other natural resources such as water, air and soil, through the combination of mutually complementary mechanisms such as direct payments, cross compliance and rural development measures. The CAP is the main instrument for promoting the sustainable development of our agriculture and our rural economies, in all their diversity. It does so by supporting the provision, through the agricultural sector, of environmental services such as the safeguarding and restoration of biodiversity.

In particular, rural development policy provides a general framework that can be easily adapted to specific regional requirements and challenges. Having the set of regional priorities incorporated into the programmes allows for an integrated approach, which is required to make the most of the potential synergies between the measures. The concept of ‘producing more with less’ by making better use of all our resources, including easing the pressure on the consumption of energy and other natural resources (water, soil), and sustainable growth, will thus be crucial for the future. It should be stressed that the concept of sustainable growth also comprises the qualitative aspect of the provision of public goods. For example, good land management absolutely must be encouraged in order to maintain and improve biodiversity and landscapes.

Finally, the safeguarding of biodiversity remains a cornerstone for the European Union strategy in support of sustainable development. In its July 2009 progress report on this strategy, the Commission emphasised the need to intensify efforts to safeguard biodiversity. This involves maintaining and promoting sustainable agriculture throughout the EU, by enabling the provision of essential public goods; the safeguarding of an attractive landscape, valuable habitats and biodiversity; the further development of renewable energy sources; the management of natural resources, for example, water and soil; and a positive contribution to climate change.

On 21 December 2007, the Czech Republic became a member of the Schengen area, the ideological basis of which is free movement across internal borders without controls and hold-ups. The German border police are, however, continuing to carry out mobile random or systematic checks without any justification. It is clear from the experiences of travellers that Germany is in breach of the provisions of the Schengen Border Code, and particularly Article 21 thereof, as the purpose of these controls is to protect its borders and they are much more thorough than those carried out on third-country nationals at the Schengen area's external borders. Crossing the border is considered a sufficient reason for carrying out the controls and citizens do not know if these are authorised. In October 2009, the Commission was supposed to present to the European Parliament a report evaluating the implementation of the provisions in Chapter III of the Code concerning the internal borders.

When does the Commission intend to present this report, how does it view its results and do these results support the possible adaptation of Article 21 of the Code to clarify the conditions under which police controls are permitted at borders?

(EN) Pursuant to Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code)⁽¹⁾, the Commission should have submitted to the European Parliament and the Council, by 13 October 2009, a report on the application of Title III (Internal borders).

In July 2009, in order to be able to prepare the report, the Commission sent a questionnaire to the Member States. The Commission received the last replies only at the beginning of 2010 after several reminders. Consequently, the report could be drafted only after and is currently under preparation.

The report will cover all provisions related to internal borders, i.e. the abolition of border control at internal borders, checks within the territory, removal of obstacles to traffic at road crossing points and the temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders, including the experiences and difficulties arising from the application of these provisions since the entry into force of the Regulation.

The Commission will present the conclusions of the report and, where appropriate, proposals aimed at resolving difficulties arising from the application of the above mentioned provisions in due time.

Given the recent revelation that a complete lack of economic and financial regulation existed in Ireland and the wider EU, how does the Commission intend to protect hard-working citizens who find their pensions and life savings dramatically depleted due to the lack of financial regulation?

How will the Commission ensure that such a lack of economic and financial regulation never reoccurs?

(EN) Although there is not, as the honourable Member suggests, a ‘complete lack of economic and financial regulation’ in the EU, the Commission is well aware that lessons need to be drawn from the economic and financial crisis. The Commission is working hard to improve the regulatory framework for financial services. This includes equipping the EU with a more effective supervisory system, strengthening the solidity, risk management and internal controls of financial institutions, as well as closing possible regulatory gaps.

With regard to pensions, the main piece of EU legislation to protect pension holders is Directive 2003/41/EC⁽¹⁾ on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision (‘IORP Directive’). This Directive requires IORPs to have sufficient and appropriate assets to cover technical provisions, but it does not provide detailed guidance for the calculation of these provisions. Member States may adopt further measures that protect pension holders such as own fund requirements, sponsor covenants, pension protection schemes or other forms of security mechanisms. The Committee of European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Supervisors published a report in March 2008 reviewing the provisions concerning technical provisions and security mechanisms in the different Member States.⁽²⁾

The crisis has exacerbated the demographic challenge and revealed vulnerabilities in the designs of some funded pension schemes. In order to address this, the Commission intends to publish a Green Paper on pensions later this year. The aim is to launch a consultation on a wide range of issues concerning the adequacy, sustainability, efficiency and safety of pensions. As part of this, the Green Paper intends to launch a thorough discussion about the regulation of private pension funds, with a possible revision of the IORP Directive.

It should be added that pension holders who hold their money in banks are – as other depositors – protected under Directive 94/19/EC⁽³⁾ on Deposit Guarantee Schemes (DGS). This was amended last year by Directive 2009/14/EC⁽⁴⁾, which stipulates, inter alia, that Member States shall ensure by 31 December 2010 that deposits at banks would be protected up to EUR 100 000 in the event of a bank failure (currently, the minimum coverage level required by the Directive is EUR 50 000). The Commission intends to come forward later this year with proposed amendments to the DGS Directive, aimed at further protecting depositors' savings and strengthening depositors' confidence.

While welcome initiatives have been launched recently to tackle concerns such as cancer and diabetes, there continues to be a lack of adequate support for people with mental health problems at both national and European level. Last week, three unrelated men living within 30 kilometres of each other took their own lives in my constituency. While these men were no doubt ill, they were also let down by a health service which required them to travel up to 100 kilometres to Dublin to seek help. Ironically, while suicide bereavement services exist in nearby towns, there are no services in any of these towns dealing with depression and mental illness, which would help to prevent such suicides in the first place. A strong initiative to tackle the epidemic of suicide and depression is overdue, and the problem is important enough to become a central concern of the new Commission.

How does the new Commission intend to address these issues?

Is the Commission willing to make action to address the epidemic of suicide a key element of its new health agenda?

(EN) Mental health is an important public health challenge and a leading cause of illness in the EU.

The Commission is aware of the fact that suicide is often associated with mental health problems.

Since June 2008, EU-institutions, Member States and professionals from several fields have been working together and sharing good practice on mental health issues under the European Pact for Mental Health and Well-being.

In this context, in December 2009, the Commission co-sponsored, together with the Ministry of Health of Hungary, a conference on the ‘Prevention of Depression and Suicide’. The conference highlighted that Member States should have policies in place against depression and suicide and discussed an evidence based framework for action against suicide.

Of course, the responsibility for focussing national health policies and health services on mental health requirements is the responsibility of Member States themselves.

France has recently embarked on negotiations with Russia on the possible sale of four Mistral warships. Such talks have sparked claims from a number of EU Member States, including Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Poland, that the sale of Mistral warships would have negative consequences for their own security, as well as for that of some of the EU's neighbours. Those countries point out that the Mistral class is clearly offensive in nature.

Since the Treaty of Lisbon outlines common defence aspirations and includes a clause on solidarity in the area of security and defence, does the Commission see a need for a common set of rules, in the EU, concerning arms sales by EU Member States to third countries?

Is the Commission ready to initiate such discussions?

(EN) The export of military equipment from EU Member States to third countries is governed by Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP, adopted on 8 December 2008. The interpretation and implementation of the Common Position is primarily a matter for Member States.

The Common Position contains a number of criteria which Member States are required to take into account in assessing requests for arms export licences. These include the preservation of regional peace, security and stability, and the national security of Member states as well as that of friendly and allied countries.

The Common Position requires Member States to ‘assess jointly through the CFSP framework the situation of potential or actual recipients of military technology and equipment from Member States, in the light of the principles and criteria of this Common Position.’ Such assessments take place regularly, inter alia, in the context of the Council Working Party on conventional arms exports, and at all appropriate levels, at the request of a Member State.

Can the Commission outline its view as to the extent to which and how unemployment among people with disabilities and action to combat the rising numbers should form part of the EU's strategy on growth and jobs?

Does the Commission believe that within the European Employment Strategy guidelines specific indicators should be set for people with disabilities?

(EN) The Commission is aware of the difficulties facing people with disabilities in the European Union as regards access and retention in employment. Under the Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Jobs, the situation of disabled people on the labour market has been covered by the three overarching objectives outlined in Guideline 17 of the Guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States⁽¹⁾. In the Commission’s proposal for a Europe 2020 strategy, the priority of inclusive growth clearly addresses people with disabilities too. The Commission is also fully committed to a disability mainstreaming approach, and it will thus ensure that people with disabilities are able to benefit under all proposed flagship initiatives covering smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.

Specific indicators on the employment situation of people with disabilities could certainly be useful for the future European employment strategy. However, the lack of a consistent definition of disability across the EU is a major obstacle to identifying comparable indicators. Furthermore, the Commission underlines that the five headline targets proposed are representative of what Europe 2020 tries to achieve: high economic and employment growth (employment rate target), which is smart (R&D/innovation target and tertiary education target along with the early school leavers target), inclusive (reducing poverty target) and green (20/20/20 targets). The headline targets are not supposed to reflect all the aspects of Europe 2020 and should by definition be of a limited number.

In the energy sector, EU representatives have expressed a will to improve relations with Russia and have spoken of moving towards a business relationship.

There are two rival pipelines in the south-east of the Mediterranean: Nabucco and South Stream. South Stream will carry Russian gas. The Nabucco pipeline is ready for action, but there is no gas to supply it. With deadlock on the Turkey-Armenia issue blocking the way for gas to come from Azerbaijan, and the EU not willing to do business with Iran, where is the EU going to get the gas to supply Nabucco?

In a business context, is the Commission contemplating the possibility of holding talks with Russia on Nabucco and South Stream? Is the Commission thinking of ways in which the two projects could be collaborating rather than competing projects? If so, how will the Commission achieve this?

(EN) The Commission's objective is to ensure a high level of energy security. In this sense, the Commission is committed to opening the Southern Corridor and to act as a facilitator for the projects' promoters of any project which helps meeting that objective, notably in its contacts with third countries. The commercial aspects of the projects, however, are of the sole responsibility of the projects' promoters.

According to the information available to the Commission, there is enough gas in the Southern Corridor region to develop any of the Southern Corridor projects. As indicated to the Commission, the initial commitment needed for those projects is of approximately 8 bcma.

To the Commission’s knowledge, none of the Southern Corridor projects is strictly predicated on Iranian gas supply.

At a number of visits to and meetings with organisations which play a role in the community, my attention has been drawn to the lack of visibility of the European Year for Combating Poverty and, above all, the lack of resources available to step up measures and activities in the field, given that, in Portugal, some 23% of children and young people up to the age of 17 are living in poverty.

The situation is extremely serious at present, with unemployment and precarious and low-paid work, which mainly affect young people and women, on the increase.

Will the Commission state what measures are already being taken as part of the European Year for Combating Poverty, what activities are due to take place and what funding is involved?

(EN) Children and young people tend to face a higher risk of poverty than the rest of the population. Two types of households are at greater risk than others, namely single-parent households with dependent children and ‘large family’ households, as is the case in Portugal.

Portugal has designated the Instituto da Segurança Social IP, a public body linked to the Ministry of Labour and Social Solidarity, as the national authority responsible for the organisation of Portugal’s participation in the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion and for national coordination.

Portugal is implementing the European Year’s objectives through a partnership between the regional and local authorities, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and the media. At national level, the following four priorities have been chosen:

contribute to reducing poverty (and preventing risks of exclusion) through practical actions with real impact on people’s lives;

contribute to understanding poverty and its multidimensional nature and increasing its visibility;

empower and mobilise society as a whole in efforts to eradicate poverty and exclusion;

assume that poverty is a problem of all countries (‘transcending borders’).

Portugal will address the issue of youth during April 2010 and will focus on child poverty in June 2010. Several awareness-raising activities are underway, including regional events for the general public. Portugal has received positive feedback from the media and its large-scale online information campaign (comprising newsletters, a website and social networks) underway is one of the most successful among those of the participating countries.

The EU-cofinanced budget for the implementation of the European Year in Portugal amounts to EUR 600,000. In addition, the national communication and dissemination campaign, which includes seminars and other events, is entirely financed from national funds.

Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, which were amended on 25 November 2009, the future 18 Members may take part as observers in the work of the European Parliament until the additional protocol is ratified and do not have the right to vote.

How does the Commission intend to implement the Lisbon Treaty with regard to the additional 18 seats in the European Parliament?

What initiative will the Commission take in order to speed up the ratification of the additional protocol by the EU Member States?

What does the Commission intend to do in order that France complies with the conclusions of the European Council of 18 and 19 June 2009 and designates additional Members of the European Parliament?

(EN) The Commission has been asked by the European Council according to Article 48 (3) TEU to give its opinion on a proposal from the Spanish Government for the amendment Protocol (No 36) on Transitional Provisions. The Commission is currently preparing its opinion in order to contribute to the additional deputies taking up their mandate as soon as possible after the necessary treaty amendment and the ratification of the required act of primary law.

The ratification of the required act of primary law is a competence of the Member States. It is not in the competence of the Commission to influence this process.

The Presidency Conclusions of the European Council of 18 and 19 June 2009 stipulate in Annex 4 that in order to fill the additional seats, the Member States concerned will designate persons, in accordance with their national law and on the condition that they have been elected through direct universal suffrage, notably either in an ad hoc election, or with reference to the results of the European elections of June 2009, or by having their national parliament appoint, from its midst, the requisite number of members.

Through what means and instruments does the European Commission guarantee that attention is focused on respect for the right to education in minority languages in its ongoing political dialogue with Ukraine? How does the Commission monitor whether, and ensure that, Ukraine fully implements the Association Agenda with regard to its commitments concerning the respect for minority rights? In the answer she gave on behalf of the Commission on 3 February to a parliamentary question by Ms Kinga Gál (P-6240/09), Ms Ferrero-Waldner declared that the Commission had noted the contents of Ukrainian Ministerial Decree No 461 (2008) and Resolution No 1033 (2009), as well as new provisions regarding school-leaving examinations, and would continue to monitor the situation. What have been the results of this monitoring process, and by what means does the Commission consider that access of minorities to education in their own language can be improved?

(EN) The relationship between the EU and Ukraine is based on common values including respect for human rights, the rule of law and democratic principles. These issues are discussed with Ukraine as part of the regular political dialogue between the EU and Ukraine and within the cooperation framework established by the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. In particular human rights concerns are regularly raised at Summit Level, during the EU-Ukraine Cooperation Council and at the JLS Sub-Committee as well as in bilateral meetings and standard dialogue meetings.

In addition, human rights issues are extensively covered in the recently agreed Association Agenda (as was the case for the former EU-Ukraine European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) Action Plan). The Commission reports regularly on the implementation of such commitments in its annual ENP Action Plan Progress Reports. The report for 2009 will be published shortly.

Further support for the promotion of human rights, rule of law and democracy is provided by the EU through the ENP Instrument (equivalent to 20-30 per cent of the National Indicative Programme 2011-2013), and other funding instruments that support local human rights organisations such as the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights as well as through the mechanisms and resources of the Eastern Partnership (for example the Platform on Democracy, Good Governance and Stability).

As regards the question of the treatment of minorities, notably in the area of education, the Commission continues to follow this issue closely. In the course of political dialogue meetings it has consistently raised with Ukraine the importance of respect for the rights of minorities and ensuring that provisions related to education do not discriminate either directly or indirectly against non-Ukrainian speakers. It has also discussed this issue with other relevant international organisations (Council of Europe, Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)). The Commission will continue to discuss this issue with its Ukrainian partners, in particular in the light of the recent changes of government in Ukraine.

The overall objective of the EU's multilingualism policy is to value all languages, including regional and minority languages. Respect for linguistic and cultural diversity is one of the cornerstones of this policy.

The Black Sea is a sub-region within the remit of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM). To date, however, only three Black Sea states (Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey) are members of the GFCM and only two of them are EU Member States. The three remaining Black Sea states (Ukraine, Russia and Georgia) are not part of the GFCM. This often hinders the collection of data on fish stocks and the environmental situation. Moreover, the GFCM has not yet adequately addressed the problems of the Black Sea: that much is clear from its annual session documents which make absolutely no mention of, for example, scientific research or projects for this marine area relatively new to the EU.

Does the Commission intend to initiate the establishment of a body for the Black Sea, separate from the GFCM, to monitor the state of the fish stocks and the ecosystem there?

While the Black Sea basin remains within the GFCM framework, does the Commission intend to put more practical emphasis on it with regard to fisheries management?

(EN) The General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) will deliver better results if the contracting Parties engage effectively and ensure the proactive participation of their scientists in the relevant working groups, as this represents an important first step in the overall decision-making process.

The GFCM has steadily expressed its commitment to reinforce its action in the Black Sea, in particular since its 32nd session in 2008, and in that context specific initiatives have been taken with the aim of formulating and implementing a cooperative regional research project. Nonetheless, the fact that for the time being only three out of six Black Sea states are members of the GFCM is a serious constraint to a more effective GFCM role in the region.

The Commission, given the EU's exclusive competence in fisheries matters and while enhancing GFCM actions in the Black Sea, stands ready to explore all possible initiatives to further promote cooperation in the region with a view to ensuring sustainable fisheries through an ecosystem approach to fisheries management, as a self-standing arrangement, or through the Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution (Bucharest Convention).

The Commission supports a reinforced dialogue with all coastal states, to find common ground and agree on concrete cooperation projects, and in parallel to promote and enhance GFCM actions in the Black Sea.

On 28 January 2010 in London, the European Union backed Afghan President Hamid Karzai's national reconciliation plan and promised to help finance it.

Did the EU obtain guarantees that women's fundamental rights would be respected before approving and helping to finance this plan?

If national reconciliation is to be effected by the Afghans themselves, how does the Commission intend to ensure democratic rights are respected at the 'consultative peace jirga' to be held on 2, 3 and 4 May in Kabul?

At the Kabul conference planned for June 2010, will the EU make the provision of financial aid conditional on the Afghan Government fulfilling its commitments to introduce structural reforms in order to ensure good governance and free parliamentary elections and combat corruption?

(EN) The EU is strongly committed to upholding human – and in this context gender – rights in the context of its programmes and political dialogue with Afghanistan. The Commission therefore welcomes this question – which rightly highlights the enormous challenges Afghan women continue to face – and this despite some progress made in the field of legislation, notably in 2009. The Commission is pleased to inform that a COHOM⁽¹⁾ meeting in Brussels in December 2009 was dedicated only to the situation of women in Afghanistan, on the occasion of presentation of a report by Human Rights Watch and in the presence of various NGO representatives sharing their insights from the field.

A particular challenge will be the consolidation and further development of these rights in the context of those processes of reintegration and reconciliation – as set out on the occasion of the London Conference (28 January 2010). This process will be Afghan-led and details have not been finalised, only once these are known it be possible to examine possible EU support to the reintegration fund.

An important step in this context will be the upcoming Peace Jirga, from 2 to 4 May 2010 in Kabul. It will only be a first step and – to be noted – has no constitutional powers but will rather present an advisory voice on the process. Preparations are under way, notably with respect to the still evolving issue of participation, i.e. composition of Delegations. At this point in time it is already clear that women representatives will have a distinct role and place in this venue. Having said this, too little is known yet by the international community to assess the possible impact of the Peace Jirga in terms of ‘gender and reconciliation’.

The Commission is also aware of concerns Afghan women themselves continue to raise these days publicly, involving notably parliamentarians and civil society representatives. The EU (together with EU Heads of Missions) will monitor any developments in this respect carefully, notably through its human rights experts on the ground.

The EU will continue to raise specific issues with the Afghan Government when this is warranted – in 2009 there were numerous interventions by the EU, in public and bilaterally on human rights issues, notably on media freedom and freedom of expression and the Shi’s personal status law – and has done so already. In brief, there is no doubt that for the EU adherence to the Afghan Constitution and Afghanistan’s international human rights commitments are a red line in the context of the planned reintegration process.

There is no conditionality of EU assistance with respect to human rights, instead EU assistance aims at strengthening Afghanistan’s institutions – notably in the rule of law sector – as this is indispensable to empower Afghanistan to uphold the human rights standards to which it has committed itself. Furthermore, the EU raises these issues where appropriate through its political dialogue with the Afghan Government – and has done so, notably with respect to follow-up to the EU Election Observation Mission for last year’s presidential elections.

It is important that the Kabul Conference should underpin the Afghan Government’s commitments, not just on corruption – a central topic at London – but also on standards of political behaviour generally, including core governance issues such as the vetting of candidates for high office, transparent and effective electoral laws, disarming illegally armed groups and respect for human rights. Whether abandoning support to what is one of the poorest countries in the world could be risked because of a perceived failure to meet one or several of these objectives, would need to be carefully considered. The most important objective – from the political, economic and social point of view – must be to find a way to put an end to the violence. Without this, none of the targets will be met.

In France, sofas and armchairs manufactured by the Chinese company Linkwise and containing dimethyl fumarate have been sold by the furniture chain Conforama. 128 people are known to have suffered ill effects from these ‘allergenic’ chairs and sofas. Following a number of serious health problems affecting consumers in several European countries (France, Finland, Poland, the United Kingdom and Sweden), the EU banned the marketing of products containing dimethyl fumarate from 1 May 2009 and ordered contaminated products that were still available on the market to be recalled for a period of at least one year.

Can the Commission say whether this temporary ban was followed by a definitive ban throughout the EU as a whole? Can it also say whether manufacturers in non-Member States can still use this unauthorised biocide and then export products containing dimethyl fumarate to the EU?

(EN) As reported in the Commission's reply of 12 March 2010 to the written question P-0538/10⁽¹⁾, the transitional ban of dimethylfumarate (DMF) in consumer products has not yet been followed up by a permanent ban. The proposal for such ban is still under preparation by the French competent authorities within the framework of the REACH Regulation⁽²⁾. It is expected that the proposal for the ban will be submitted to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) during April 2010. It is estimated that the evaluation of the proposal will take approximately 18 months from the submission to ECHA. At the end of the evaluation process, the Commission intends to prepare a proposal on DMF under REACH, on the basis of an opinion from ECHA. The measures that the Commission might propose will take into consideration the French proposal and the opinions of the ECHA committees.

On 11 March 2010, the Commission prolonged the temporary ban until 15 March 2011. The Commission intends to prolong the temporary ban on DMF in consumer products, as laid down in its Decision of 17 March ⁽³⁾, every year until a permanent solution is in force. Consequently, any consumer product containing DMF will remain banned on the EU market, including imports. The ban will continue to be enforced by the Member State authorities according to the arrangements laid down in the Commission's Decision of 17 March 2009.

Finally, it is important to recall that the use of DMF, which is a biocide, is forbidden in the EU for the treatment of consumer products according to the provisions of the Biocides Directive⁽⁴⁾. The problem with DMF substance is therefore limited to consumer products imported from third countries which were treated with DMF in those countries. As a result of the review of the Biocides Directive, in June 2009 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Regulation which, among other measures, allows import of products treated with a biocidal product(s) authorised in the EU⁽⁵⁾. The proposal is currently under examination by Parliament and the Council.

Striking Egyptian fishermen in the region of Michaniona have been subjected to attacks on their lives and physical integrity by thugs hired by their employers, while their right to strike is being flagrantly violated. In particular, during the strike, the Greek Manpower Employment Organisation (OAED) accepted false declarations submitted by the employers of 'voluntary departures' by strikers, without the approval of the fishermen concerned, thereby allowing large numbers of unemployed fishermen to be hired despite the fact that Law 1264/82 prohibits recruitment during a strike. Moreover, a ruling on the complaint filed by the Egyptian fishermen’s trade union has been postponed until 14 April, thus giving the shipowners free rein to continue hiring strike-breakers.

Does the Commission condemn these attacks on immigrant workers by their employers, and the transformation of the OAED into a strike-breaking mechanism?

(EN) The Commission is not aware of the incident referred to by the honourable Member.

It considers acts of violence against workers as wholly reprehensible and entirely unacceptable.

Everyone has the right to respect for his or her physical and mental integrity. Everyone has the right to freedom of association, including in trade union matters. Furthermore, workers have, in accordance with Union law and national laws and practices, the right to take collective action, in cases of conflict, in order to defend their interests, including strike action. All these rights are enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Articles 3, 12 and 28).

However, according to Article 51, the provisions of the Charter are addressed to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member States only when they are implementing EU law.

There is no European legislation specifically providing for the right to strike or governing the conditions of its exercise. Article 153 TFEU, pursuant to paragraph 5 thereof, does not apply to that right.

It is therefore for the competent Greek authorities, including the courts, to assess the legality of the strike at issue as well as the recruitment of staff during the strike, and to enforce the relevant national legislation, with due regard for the applicable international obligations of the Member State.

In January 2010, the Irish Government submitted an application to the Commission for relief to assist those affected by flooding in Ireland in late 2009. Can the Commission provide an update on the status of that application?

(EN) The Irish application was received at the Commission on 27 January 2010 and was subsequently assessed by the Commission services. As the damage of € 500 million claimed by the Irish authorities remains below the normal threshold of 0.6% of GNI - which for Ireland currently represents € 935 million - the Fund could only be mobilised exceptionally if a number of specific criteria laid down in the Solidarity Fund Regulation are met.

The Commission services have written to the Irish authorities in March 2010 requesting additional information necessary to complete the assessment. Among other elements the Irish authorities need to specify the amount of damage caused which in the January application was qualified as ‘to be confirmed’ and ‘indicative at this stage and subject to review’.

The Commission will decide on the application as soon as the requested information has been received and - if the criteria are found to be met - propose an amount of aid to Parliament and the Council.

To be sure of complying with all provisions of the Tunnel Directive (Directive 2004/54/EC⁽¹⁾), the Flemish Government has decided to refer to the Commission the preliminary draft plans for a new tunnel (to complete the ring road round Antwerp, as provided for in the decision on the Trans-European Networks).

Does the Commission have the powers to give formal confirmation that the preliminary draft plans are in conformity with the Tunnel Directive?

How much time does the Commission think will be needed in this case to assess the preliminary draft plans and deliver an opinion?

Do Commission departments themselves carry out on-site inspections to examine the safety report by the relevant inspection service in the light of the 2004 EU directive?

How does the Commission assess the plans to dig a TERN tunnel under a Seveso site, in this instance a Total petrochemical site? Is this feasible? Are there examples of such tunnels or tunnel projects elsewhere in the EU?

From the safety and environmental point of view, is the Commission more in favour of the construction of a bridge or of a tunnel to deal with traffic congestion on the European TERN routes?

(EN) The Commission is aware that a new tunnel, to complete the ring road round Antwerp, is currently under consideration. However, the Commission has not been officially informed of the said plan, nor has it received detailed information.

This tunnel, if built, must obviously meet the requirements of the EU legislation, and in particular the provisions of Directive 2004/54/EC⁽²⁾ on minimum safety requirements for tunnels in the Trans-European Road Network.

Articles 9 & 10 and Annex II of this Directive detail the procedure for approval of the design, safety documentation and commissioning of a new tunnel. In all cases, an ‘Administrative Authority’ is designated by the Member State at national, regional or local level. This Authority has responsibility for ensuring that all aspects of the safety of a tunnel are assured and it takes the necessary steps to ensure compliance with this Directive.

Moreover, pursuant to Article 13 of the Directive, a risk analysis, where necessary, has to be carried out by a body which is functionally independent from the Tunnel Manager. A risk analysis is an analysis of risks for a given tunnel, taking into account all design factors and traffic conditions that affect safety, notably traffic characteristics and type, tunnel length and tunnel geometry, as well as the forecast number of heavy goods vehicles per day. The content and the results of the risk analysis must be included in the safety documentation submitted to the Administrative Authority. The whole procedure for risk analysis is to be launched by the Administrative Authority mentioned above. The Commission does not intervene into this process.

Subject to the provisions above, the Commission ensures the correct implementation of Directive 2004/54/EC by Member States; however, it does not have the responsibility or the power to assess the conformity of new tunnels with the provisions of the Directive. Consequently, it does not have to ‘deliver an opinion’, nor does it carry out on-site inspections.

The land-use planning Article 12 of the Seveso II Directive 96/82/EC⁽³⁾ provides that Member States shall ensure that the objectives of preventing major accidents and limiting the consequences of such accidents are taken into account in their land-use policies and/or other relevant policies, and in particular take account of the need, in the long term, to maintain appropriate distances between establishments covered by the Directive and major transport routes as far as possible. The Article requires the control of, among other things, new developments such as transport links in the vicinity of existing establishments where the developments are such as to increase the risk or the consequences of a major accident. Member States shall ensure that all competent authorities and planning authorities responsible for decisions in this field set up appropriate consultation procedures to ensure that technical advice on the risks arising from the establishment is available when decisions are taken. Responsibility for ensuring compliance with these rules lies with the competent authorities of the Member State. The Commission does not dispose of information about such developments in the EU.

As to the choice between a tunnel or a bridge, the Commission does not favour a priori any specific option. An environmental impact assessment and a safety impact assessment need to be carried out in conformity with applicable EU legislation under the responsibility of the competent authority in order to determine the preferred option in each specific case.

Is the Commission aware of the most recent mass atrocities having taken place in Plateau State, Nigeria, on 19 January 2010 and 7 March 2010?

Is it aware that these mass atrocities are no isolated incidents, but rather part of a continuous cycle of violence between different ethnic and religious groups in central Nigeria?

Is it aware of reports that local authorities have sometimes been involved in the violence, and often act only as passive bystanders?

Will it urge the Nigerian Government and public authorities to do more to stop the cycle of violence between ethnic and religious groups in central Nigeria by: stepping up security for communities at risk, including those in rural areas; bringing the perpetrators of mass atrocities to justice; and addressing the root causes of sectarian violence, including social, economic and political discrimination against certain segments of the population?

(EN) The Commission took action to ensure immediate response to the recent outbreaks of violence in and around Jos during January and March 2010. As soon as news emerged about the conflicts, the Commission services in charge of development aid and humanitarian aid were in contact with the International Red Cross of Nigeria and other local agencies. These agencies were able to confirm that the humanitarian needs of most victims were being met, and that hospitals were able to cope with the inflow of casualties.

The return of Nigeria to democracy in 1999 has seen improvements in human rights but also an increase in tensions and violent conflicts particularly in the central states. In the last ten years violent conflicts have caused the death of over 14 000 people in Nigeria and left over three million internally displaced people. Violence is triggered by a multitude of factors including competing ethno-linguistic groups and competition for access to resources. Religious differences often fuel and amplify existing differences leading to larger clashes. Measures being undertaken by the EU in Nigeria combine immediate diplomatic efforts with longer-term development cooperation.

The EU was amongst the first of Nigeria's international partners to make public its views on the violence that broke out in Jos. In January 2010 the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice President of the Commission, Baroness Ashton, issued a statement jointly with US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, expressing deep regret at the violence and tragic loss of lives in Jos. The statement urged all parties to exercise restraint and seek peaceful means to resolve differences. It also called on the Federal Government to bring the perpetrators of violence to justice and to support interethnic and interfaith dialogue.

Further declarations were issued by the EU on Nigeria in February and March 2010 calling for stability, and underlining the importance of the rule of law, responsible governance and the promotion of accountability. In March 2010 the EU Delegation in Abuja conducted a diplomatic démarche with the Nigerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in order to convey condemnation of the most recent outbreaks of violence in the villages around Jos.

Regarding the conflicts in Jos in January and March 2010, the military played a key role in stepping in to bring the situation under control and preventing the spread of violence. Nevertheless there have been reports of extrajudicial killings by the military and also by police. As yet there is no independent, verifiable confirmation on the numbers of deaths and displaced from the conflicts in January and March 2010, nor on allegations on the role of the Army.

As the honourable Member is aware, inter communal conflict in Jos has been a regular occurrence: major clashes took place in 2001, 2004 and 2008. The outbreak in 2008 led to a particularly high number of fatalities, following which the State Government of Plateau launched an enquiry. In November 2009 the Federal Government launched a federal-level enquiry. The findings of the State level enquiry have not been released, and the Federal Government enquiry has still not concluded. The EU has asked the Federal Government of Nigeria to ensure an investigation of the causes of the most recent violence as well as to bring the perpetrators of violence to justice.

Under the European Development Fund (EDF), the EU supports development cooperation in the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries, including Nigeria. The two most important sectors for support in Nigeria under the cooperation programme are peace and security, and governance and human rights

The EU actively promotes peace and security through its political dialogue with Nigeria under Article 8 of the revised Cotonou Agreement in which supporting policies for peace play a prominent role. The EU attaches particular importance to the rights of freedom of religion, belief and expression in its dialogues with third countries. Freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief is one of the fundamental human rights and as such is enshrined in a number of international instruments. Under Article 8 of the Cotonou Agreement, the EU engages in regular political dialogue with Nigeria on human rights and democratic principles, including ethnic, religious and racial discrimination.