Presidente. Segue-se o período de perguntas (B6-0676/2005).

Foram apresentadas as seguintes perguntas à Comissão.

Pergunta nº 21 do Deputado Bill Newton Dunn (H-1146/05)

Assunto: Bases de dados da Interpol

A Interpol, que é uma organização admirável e útil e que está situada no território da União Europeia, mantém uma série de bases de dados: sobre documentos roubados, sobre obras de arte roubadas, sobre delinquentes procurados, sobre impressões digitais, etc. Estas bases de dados são acessíveis aos serviços policiais do mundo inteiro.

A Comissão considera que o funcionamento destas bases de dados é inteiramente conforme com as leis da União sobre protecção de dados pessoais?

  Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. The Commission supports cooperation between Interpol and European Member States as well as EU bodies such as Europol. At the same time, as pointed out in the 2004 Commission proposal for a Council common position on the transfer of certain data to Interpol, applicable data protection rules must be respected.

This was confirmed by the Council common position of 24 January 2005 on exchanging certain data with Interpol. It notably concerns lost or stolen passports. It underlined that the conditions of the exchange shall be agreed with Interpol in order to ensure – and I would like to stress the following – that the data exchanged will respect the data protection principles that lie at the heart of data exchange within the Union, particularly with regard to the exchange and automatic processing of such data.

I should add that the control of personal data by Interpol shall be ensured by the rules on the control of information and access to Interpol’s files. In particular these rules establish a commission for the control of Interpol’s files and govern the composition, role and functions of that commission. The current chairman of the commission is Mr Hustinx, who is currently also the EU data protection supervisor.

  Bill Newton Dunn (ALDE). – I wish to ask a supplementary question. I want to thank the Commissioner for his very careful reply and, although I am taking Italian lessons, I appreciate the fact that he gave it in his very good English.

It is a complicated reply, and therefore difficult to take on board. However, I noted that he referred to the Council position of January 2005 covering stolen passports. That is clearly in order. However, I wonder whether he could assure me that the other databases I mentioned – on works of art, wanted criminals and fingerprints – are also satisfactorily covered by the Council position?

  Franco Frattini, Vicepresidente della Commissione. Signor Presidente, onorevoli deputati, ringrazio l'onorevole interrogante anche per la sua domanda supplementare. Posso dire che il Consiglio ha indicato un orientamento molto chiaro e che la Commissione vigilerà sul rispetto di queste regole, che si applicheranno a tutte le basi sulle quali Interpol lavorerà. Mi riferisco, in particolare, ad alcuni principi chiave relativi alla protezione dei dati: chi ha diritto ad accedere ai dati; per quali finalità specifiche e predeterminate; per quanto tempo i dati potranno essere custoditi e soprattutto chi avrà diritto ad utilizzarli e in quali ambiti?

Come lei sa, abbiamo recentemente presentato una proposta di decisione quadro sulla protezione dei dati nell'ambito del cosiddetto terzo pilastro. Si tratta della prima proposta in assoluto di questo genere, che amplia ulteriormente il campo di protezione dei dati nell'ambito della cooperazione di polizia.

  Presidente. Pergunta nº 20 do Deputado Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (H-1144/05)

Assunto: Risco de seca na região mediterrânica

As conclusões da última reunião (Novembro de 2005) dos Ministros do Ambiente dos países mediterrânicos apresentam uma situação extremamente preocupante no que respeita à disponibilidade e gestão dos recursos hídricos na região. Em particular, 50% das zonas húmidas desapareceram, o que se repercute negativamente na flora e na fauna de toda a região; calcula-se, por outro lado, que apenas 60% das regiões agrícolas das costas da região meridional do Mediterrâneo têm acesso a água potável segura.

À luz destes dados e atendendo às estimativas dos cientistas, segundo as quais, no futuro, 38% da população da região mediterrânica viverá em zonas em que a água será insuficiente, tenciona a Comissão tomar iniciativas concretas no quadro da cooperação euro-mediterrânica visando tratar este fenómeno, conjuntamente com os países parceiros, usando como modelo a Directiva relativa à política da água (Directiva 2000/60/CE(1), que estabelece um quadro de acção comunitária no domínio da política da água)? Considerando que, no quadro do SMAP (programa de acções prioritárias a curto e médio prazo em matéria de ambiente), a gestão da água, mas também dos resíduos, constitui um domínio prioritário, dispõe a Comissão de uma avaliação das acções e programas aplicados neste domínio? Tenciona a Comissão promover, no quadro do programa em questão, novas acções e iniciativas?

  Σταύρος Δήμας, Μέλος της Επιτροπής. Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η διαχείριση των υδάτινων πόρων στην περιοχή της Μεσογείου αποτελεί πρόκληση για όλους μας τόσο από πλευράς ποιότητας όσο και διαθεσιμότητας του νερού. Το πρόβλημα της λειψυδρίας στη Μεσόγειο εντείνεται αφενός λόγω της αυξημένης ζήτησης νερού σε ορισμένους τομείς και περιοχές και αφετέρου από τις επιπτώσεις των κλιματικών αλλαγών.

Σχετικά με τις κλιματικές αλλαγές θα ήθελα να παρατηρήσω ότι από επιστημονική άποψη είναι δύσκολο να υποστηριχθεί ότι μεμονωμένα φαινόμενα ξηρασίας συνδέονται άμεσα με την κλιματική αλλαγή· παρόλα αυτά γνωρίζουμε ότι η αλλαγή του κλίματος συνεισφέρει σε δριμύτερα φαινόμενα τα οποία εκδηλώνονται όλο και πιο τακτικά και σε όλο μεγαλύτερες γεωγραφικές εκτάσεις.

Έχουμε ζητήσει, και μας έχει υποβληθεί, μία έκθεση από το Κοινό Κέντρο Ερευνών της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης για τις σχέσεις μεταξύ των κλιματικών αλλαγών και του νερού, της λειψυδρίας και των ξηρασιών.

Γενικότερα η προστασία των υδάτινων πόρων μας είναι ανάμεσα στις προτεραιότητες της περιβαλλοντικής πολιτικής της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Πράγματι, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση αναδιάρθρωσε ριζικά την πολιτική της στον τομέα των υδάτων με την σχετική οδηγία πλαίσιο. Έστειλε με αυτό τον τρόπο ένα πολιτικό μήνυμα πολύ πέρα της επικράτειάς της.

Μια από τις βασικές αρχές της πολιτικής της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης στον τομέα των υδάτων είναι η συνεργασία ανάμεσα σε περιφέρειες διαφόρων κρατών μελών που μοιράζονται κοινούς υδάτινους πόρους. Για το σκοπό αυτό υιοθετήθηκε η λεγόμενη πρωτοβουλία της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης για τα ύδατα, στο πλαίσιο της οποίας η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και τα κράτη μέλη της έχουν δεσμευθεί να επιτύχουν τους στόχους της Χιλιετίας σε ό,τι αφορά τον τομέα των υδάτων.

Κατόπιν αυτού, η Επιτροπή δρομολόγησε κοινή διαδικασία μεταξύ της οδηγίας πλαισίου και της πρωτοβουλίας της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης για τα ύδατα, διαδικασία στην οποία η Ελλάδα τέθηκε επικεφαλής σχετικά με το σκέλος εκείνο της πρωτοβουλίας που αφορά τη Μεσόγειο. Επιδίωξη της συνεργασίας αυτής είναι να διευκολύνει την εφαρμογή πολιτικών χρηστής διοίκησης των υδάτινων πόρων στις χώρες της Μεσογείου, με την τήρηση των αρχών της κοινοτικής οδηγίας πλαισίου για τα ύδατα.

Κατά συνέπεια, με τη συνεργασία μεταξύ των κρατών μελών της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και τρίτων μεσογειακών χωρών, συγκροτήθηκαν ομάδες εργασίας, μια από τις οποίες θα ασχοληθεί ειδικά με το θέμα της λειψυδρίας και θα καταρτισθούν μέχρι το τέλος αυτού του έτους κατευθυντήριες γραμμές που θα απευθύνονται τόσο στις χώρες της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης όσο και στις άλλες μεσογειακές χώρες και επίσης θα προταθούν μέτρα για την πρόληψη και διαχείριση των καταστάσεων λειψυδρίας και ξηρασίας.

Το νερό είναι μια από τις προτεραιότητες του περιβαλλοντικού προγράμματος δράσης βραχυπρόθεσμου σχεδιασμού, γνωστού ως SΜΑΡ, που εφαρμόζεται σε περιφερειακό επίπεδο. Η παρακολούθηση των δράσεων του SMAP αποτελεί μέρος του προγράμματος και υπάρχουν διαθέσιμες εκθέσεις για τις περισσότερες από τις δράσεις αυτές. Λεπτομερής αξιολόγηση του προγράμματος θα πραγματοποιηθεί φέτος και τα αποτελέσματα θα είναι στη διάθεσή σας.

Ως τώρα οι μαρτυρίες από την εφαρμογή του SΜΑΡ είναι θετικές και συμβάλλουν στην προώθηση και ανταλλαγή εμπειριών και ορθών πρακτικών, ειδικότερα στον τομέα των υδάτων. Στο πρόγραμμα SΜΑΡ 2, μεταξύ του 2000 και του 2005, δύο από τα οκτώ έργα- με κοινοτική συνεισφορά 6,2 εκατ. ευρώ- αφορούσαν άμεσα τη διαχείριση των υδάτων.

Η επόμενη γενιά του προγράμματος SΜΑΡ, το SΜΑΡ 3, θα επικεντρωθεί στην προετοιμασία σχεδίων συνολικής διαχείρισης παρακτίων ζωνών και θα προβλέπει την παροχή τεχνικής βοήθειας στις κυβερνήσεις των κρατών μελών. Ήδη διάφορα σχετικά σχέδια βρίσκονται στο στάδιο της υπογραφής και αναμένεται να διαρκέσουν μία τριετία υπολογιζόμενη από τον Ιανουάριο του 2006.

  Ρόδη Κράτσα-Τσαγκαροπούλου (PPE-DE). – Κύριε Επίτροπε ευχαριστώ πολύ για τις πληροφορίες που μου δώσατε στην απάντησή σας όσον αφορά την πολιτική της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης στο πλαίσιο των 25 χωρών, τη συνεργασία της με τις τρίτες χώρες για την επίτευξη των αναπτυξιακών στόχων της Χιλιετίας αλλά και ειδικότερα στο πλαίσιο της Λεκάνης της Μεσογείου.

Ήθελα να ρωτήσω αν αυτή τη στιγμή διαθέτετε πιο λεπτομερείς και πιο συγκεκριμένες πληροφορίες για το θέμα των κατευθύνσεων που θα δώσει η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή όσον αφορά τις δημόσιες και ιδιωτικές επενδύσεις στο πλαίσιο του Βαρκελώνη 2, διότι ο τομέας των υδάτων είναι ένας τομέας πολύ σημαντικός για την ποιότητα ζωής και την ισομερή ανάπτυξη που θέλουμε να πετύχουμε στη Λεκάνη της Μεσογείου.

  Σταύρος Δήμας, Μέλος της Επιτροπής. Πιο συγκεκριμένα, θα ήθελα να αναφέρω πρώτα απ' όλα ότι έχουμε διάφορα χρηματοδοτικά μέσα τα οποία είναι διαθέσιμα τόσο για τις χώρες της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης όσο και για τις γειτονικές χώρες. Τα αναφέρω απλώς: το Ταμείο Συνοχής, το Ταμείο Περιφερειακής Ανάπτυξης, το Ταμείο Αγροτικής Ανάπτυξης, κλπ. Υπάρχουν όμως και κεφάλαια για τις γειτονικές χώρες.

Βεβαίως, όλα αυτά θα εξαρτηθούν και από την πορεία της υιοθέτησης από το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο και το Συμβούλιο των οικονομικών προοπτικών για το 2007-2013.

Επίσης έχουμε μια σειρά μέτρων τα οποία θα είναι διαθέσιμα τόσο στις ευρωπαϊκές όσο και στις γειτονικές μεσογειακές χώρες από την πρωτοβουλία της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης για το νερό και ειδικότερα την πρωτοβουλία για το νερό στη Μεσόγειο και, επίσης, μία σειρά οδηγιών για τις καλύτερες πρακτικές οι οποίες, βεβαίως θα έχουν και τη σχετική χρηματοδοτική υποστήριξη.

  Josu Ortuondo Larrea (ALDE). – Señor Comisario, la Agencia Europea de Medio Ambiente, en su informe de 2004, constataba que en Europa se había incrementado en un grado la temperatura por encima de la media en el resto del mundo. ¿Ha estudiado la Comisión la implantación de un Observatorio Europeo de la Sequía?

Otra de las consecuencias de la sequía son los incendios devastadores. ¿Ha estudiado la Comisión alguna ayuda financiera para la prevención de incendios y para paliar las consecuencias de los mismos en las zonas rurales afectadas?

  Σταύρος Δήμας, Μέλος της Επιτροπής. Πράγματι, ο Ευρωπαϊκός Οργανισμός Περιβάλλοντος σε έκθεσή του, την οποία υπέβαλε πριν από δύο μήνες, έχει σημειώσει και έχει υπογραμμίσει ότι στις περιβαλλοντικές προτεραιότητες για την περιοχή της Μεσογείου περιλαμβάνονται η ξηρασία, η πρόληψη και η διαχείριση των καταστάσεων ξηρασίας και λειψυδρίας, η οποία ιδιαίτερα αυτό το χρόνο έπληξε χώρες όπως η Πορτογαλία και η Ισπανία.

Σχετικά με τα φαινόμενα ξηρασίας που είχαμε στην Πορτογαλία και στην Ισπανία, το Ταμείο Συνοχής της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης διέθεσε πόρους για την αναπροσαρμογή και στήριξη των μέτρων που έχει ήδη χρηματοδοτήσει από καιρό για την αντιμετώπιση παρόμοιων καιρικών φαινομένων.

Και όσον αφορά για μακροπρόθεσμα μέτρα, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση θα χρηματοδοτήσει την Ισπανία με περισσότερο από 1300 εκατ. ευρώ για την υποστήριξη του νέου ισπανικού σχεδίου σχετικά με τη διαχείριση και χρήση του νερού. Στο μέλλον, ιδιαίτερη θα είναι η προσοχή που θα δοθεί στα μέτρα πρόληψης και διαχείρισης καταστάσεων ξηρασίας και λειψυδρίας.

Πρέπει να τονίσω επίσης ότι ο Οργανισμός Περιβάλλοντος υπογράμμισε στην έκθεσή του πόσο σημαντικές είναι άλλες αναδυόμενες απειλές στην περιοχή της Μεσογείου, ιδίως για τα οικοσυστήματα, προερχόμενες από τις αλλαγές της θερμοκρασίας αλλά και των βροχοπτώσεων στην περιοχή, οι οποίες έχουν διάφορες συνέπειες.

  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar, meine sehr geehrten Damen und Herren! Heute Nachmittag haben wir mit Kommissar Piebalgs schon über Energieversorgungssicherheit gesprochen. Wie sehen Sie eigentlich hier in der Wasserrahmenrichtlinie die erneuerbare Energie, die ja zukünftig eine ganz wesentliche Strategie für unsere Energieversorgungssicherheit darstellt?

  Stavros Dimas, Member of the Commission. Renewable energy is one of our priorities at the moment. We have a green paper on renewable energy, which we are trying to promote by various means. We also have targets for the European Union for 2002 and 2020. We have not succeeded yet, but we hope to achieve those targets through the various means and measures we are proposing. To this effect, we have the second phase of the European climate change programme, which promotes renewable energy sources, and we are proposing a series of measures in support of such energy sources.

At the same time, the Commission is currently discussing a strategy for biofuels, which provide a means not only of securing energy resources within the European Union, but also of answering the problems that will be created for farmers by the new agricultural policy, as well as limiting greenhouse gases and dealing with other environmental problems.

  Presidente. Pergunta nº 22 do Deputado Proinsias De Rossa (H-1173/05)

Assunto: Directiva relativa ao destacamento de trabalhadores

Pode a Comissão indicar que medidas tomou em resposta à resolução do Parlamento Europeu sobre a aplicação da Directiva 96/71/CE(2) relativa ao destacamento de trabalhadores no quadro de prestações de serviço (P5_TA(2004)0030), de 15 de Janeiro de 2004, em que se assinala que a aplicação, conforme pretendida pela Directiva, de um núcleo duro de normas laborais à livre prestação de serviços e à prevenção do dumping social frequentemente não é possível na prática, especificando nomeadamente a sua acção em relação ao ponto 10, em que o Parlamento Europeu solicita à Comissão que apresente "propostas destinadas a simplificar e a aperfeiçoar a directiva existente, tendo em vista melhorar a implementação e a aplicação na prática da mesma, bem como obter melhores resultados no que diz respeito aos seus objectivos", e ao ponto 14, em que "convida a Comissão a apresentar ao Conselho e ao Parlamento, o mais tardar até ao final de 2004, um segundo relatório sobre a aplicação da Directiva"?

  Vladimír Špidla, člen Komise. Vážený pane předsedo, vážené poslankyně, vážení páni poslanci. Komise přikládá velký význam usnesení Evropského parlamentu o provádění směrnice 96/71 (ES) o vysílání pracovníků v rámci poskytování služeb v členských státech. Toto usnesení bylo projednáno se sociálními partnery ve všech odvětvích, kteří byli požádáni o poskytnutí dalších informací prostřednictvím obsáhlého dotazníku. Obsáhlý dotazník byl rovněž zaslán také správním orgánům členských států s ohledem na postup navazující na usnesení Evropského parlamentu. Komise podpořila výzkumný projekt Evropské federace pracovníků stavebního a dřevozpracujícího průmyslu, který se zabýval praktickými dopady směrnice o vysílání pracovníků a navazovala na něj také konference. Tato opatření vedla k návrhu druhé zprávy o provádění směrnice 96/71 (ES), která se týká záležitostí stanovených v usnesení Parlamentu. Tento návrh zprávy nyní útvary Komise dokončují a bude brzy přijat. Pokud jde o praktické fungování směrnice a o zlepšení spolupráce ohledně poskytování informací, hrála Komise ve spolupráci se skupinou odborníků z členských států aktivní úlohu.

Práce v rámci skupiny vedla mimo jiné k vypracování kodexu chování, souvisejícího se zásadami spolupráce a mnohojazyčného formuláře pro neformální výměnu informací, jehož cílem je usnadnění komunikace mezi styčnými úřady a monitorujícími orgány. Kromě toho byly vytvořeny zvláštní internetové stránky nazývané „vysílání pracovníků“, které obsahují podstatné informace ve třech jazycích o právním rámci, jimiž se vysílání pracovníků řídí, a odkazy na související texty a internetové stránky členských zemí věnované problematice vysílání pracovníků. Na těchto stránkách byl veřejnosti zpřístupněn rovněž seznam styčných úřadů a monitorovacích orgánů, díky němuž se mohou orgány a jednotlivci informovat o příslušných kontaktních místech v různých členských zemích.

Byl jsem informován o tom, že Výbor pro zaměstnanost a sociální věci rozhodl vypracovat z vlastního podnětu zprávu o důsledcích směrnice 96/71 (ES) o vysílání pracovníků v rámci poskytování služeb. Ohledně této zprávy se bude 26. ledna 2006 konat slyšení. Výsledky tohoto slyšení mne velmi zajímají a uvítal bych možnost spolupracovat v této důležité záležitosti s Parlamentem.

  Proinsias De Rossa (PSE). – Thank you for your reply, Commissioner Špidla. I should like some clarification on whether the report, which you indicate as being finalised, is the report dated 15 November 2005 that has already been circulated in draft form to the social partners. If so, would you undertake to circulate this report to the Members of the European Parliament, in particular to the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs?

Would you not agree that the experience to date of the Posting of Workers Directive indicates that amendments are required in order to clarify the application of that directive to the delivery of services from third countries, such as Turkey, and also from some other Member States? I am thinking in particular of the Vaxholm-Laval case, which is clearly a challenge in my view to the operation of the directive.

Finally, could you indicate what statistics you have with regard to the number of posted workers and labour inspectorates in the various Member States and the effectiveness of those inspectors?

  Vladimír Špidla, člen Komise. Vážený pane předsedo, vážené poslankyně, vážení poslanci. Text, o kterém se zmiňoval pan poslanec, je oním textem, který jsem nazval zprávou. Text, který je teď poskytnut k dispozici sociálním partnerům je originálním textem, se kterým se pracuje. Předpokládáme projednání tohoto textu s Parlamentem.

Pokud jde o záležitosti statistické, budou obsahem této zprávy. Teď ještě některé věci nejsou dokončeny, protože statistická data jsou vždy velmi komplikovaná z hlediska interpretací. Prozatím Komise zastává názor, že nejsou potřeba legislativní změny ve směrnici, nýbrž je třeba lépe uplatnit praktické užívání této směrnice a k tomu jsem popsal některé kroky, které již Komise udělala.

  Andreas Schwab (PPE-DE). – Herr Präsident! Herr Kommissar, vielen Dank für Ihre klaren Äußerungen. Ich gehe doch richtig in der Annahme, dass Sie die Quotierung von Arbeitnehmern aus Drittstaaten nicht als den richtigen Weg für den europäischen Binnenmarkt ansehen, und dass Sie bei den Vorschlägen zur Überarbeitung der Entsenderichtlinie die Studie aus Frankreich, die zu dem Ergebnis kommt, dass das bestehende System der Entsenderichtlinie in den Mitgliedstaaten nicht funktioniert, intensiv in Ihre Arbeiten einbeziehen werden?

  Vladimír Špidla, člen Komise. Vážený pane předsedo, vážené poslankyně, vážení poslanci. Pokud jde o zprávu, kterou zmiňoval pan poslanec, musím říct, že z toho, jak jí citoval, mi není zřejmé, o jakou zprávu se jedná. Ověřím si citaci a pak budu moci odpovědět na otázku přesněji.

Pokud jde o otázku přístupu ze třetích zemí. Tato linie je evropským právem a týká se členských států. Pokud budete chtít ještě upřesnit některé modifikace ve vztahu ke třetím zemím, jsem samozřejmě k dispozici.

  Jan Andersson (PSE). – Jag tackar kommissionären för svaret och ser med tillfredsställelse att kommissionen kommer att samarbeta med sysselsättningsutskottet när vi nu behandlar frågan i ett initiativbetänkande som inletts om utstationeringsdirektivet. Det har ju visat sig - inte minst genom de budskap som har kommit ifrån kommissionen om olika signaler kring Vaxholmsfallet - att utstationeringsdirektivet inte alls är så solklart som man skulle kunna önska.

Det är ju tänkt att utstationerad arbetskraft ska få arbeta på ungefär samma villkor som personerna i det land där de är utstationerade. Jag ställer frågan: är detta direktiv anpassat till alla arbetsmarknadsmodeller inom EU eller bara till de arbetsmarknadsmodeller som har lagstiftning och allmängiltigförklarade kollektivavtal? Tycker ni att det är anpassat till den skandinaviska modellen som innebär icke allmängiltigförklarade kollektivavtal, där man förhandlar med varje företag? Eller behövs det en ändring som också innefattar den arbetsmarknadsmodellen?

  Vladimír Špidla, člen Komise. Tato směrnice, v okamžiku kdy byla projednávána a schválena, nezaznamenávala žádný opting out žádného členského systému. Je to tedy univerzální směrnice, jejíž interpretace může být v některých okamžicích jistě obtížná, to si dovedu představit, ale je to směrnice, která kryje celkovou koncepci Evropské unie a veškeré typy pracovně-právních vztahů.

Pokud jde o základní přístup, musím říci, že jak víte, případ Laval čeká na projednání Evropského soudního dvora, a proto by nebylo správné, abych zaujímal konkrétní stanoviska ve věci. Obecně lze říci, že připomínky Komise by v zásadě neměly zpochybňovat sociální model členského státu jako takový, avšak vždy by měly hájit stanovisko, že ekonomické svobody zakotvené ve Smlouvě lze sloučit s různými sociálními modely. Čili směrnice je určena k tomu, aby od prvního okamžiku poskytla ochranu vysílaným pracovníkům na úrovni, která platí v tom daném členském státě, a jak už jsem uvedl, v některých případech může být obtížná interpretace, ale toto je její princip a týká se všech členských států.

  Proinsias De Rossa (PSE). – Commissioner, could you just clarify for me, in your comments regarding the Vaxholm case, that you are not in a position to comment? Is the Commission not, in fact, permitted and indeed obliged to make a submission to the European Court of Justice with regard to its view on the issues at stake in that case? Has it not in fact been asked by the Court to make such a submission?

  Presidente. Senhor Deputado, embora não se tratando propriamente de um ponto de ordem, se o Senhor Comissário puder responder a esta pergunta em quinze segundos, dou-lhe a palavra.

  Vladimír Špidla, člen Komise. Jak víte, případ Laval nyní čeká na projednání Evropského soudního dvora, o tom jsem se již zmínil, a naše útvary v současné době připravují připomínky Komise. Připomínky Komise by v zásadě neměly zpochybňovat sociální model členského státu jako takový, avšak měly by hájit stanovisko, že ekonomické svobody zakotvené ve Smlouvě lze sloučit s různými sociálními modely.

Jak již bylo uvedeno, nemusí existovat rozpor mezi cílem, jakým je podpora spravedlivé hospodářské soutěže na jedné straně a zajištěním ochrany pracovníků na straně druhé. Uplatňování sociálního modelu musí být očividně v plném souladu s cíly a základními zásadami práva Společenství a musí je dodržovat, zejména pokud jde o zásadu legitimního cíle objektivního zdůvodnění a zásadu proporcionality.

Dámy a pánové, Komise připravuje stanovisko, které bude součástí řízení před Evropským soudním dvorem, a jak už jsem uvedl, není možné v tento moment zabíhat do detailů a není to ani správné.

  Presidente. Pergunta nº 23 da Deputada Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (H-1131/05)

Assunto: Proposta de harmonização da tributação directa das empresas

No entender da Comissão, quais as consequências da prevista harmonização da tributação directa das empresas no plano da estabilidade do crescimento económico e do emprego, em particular nas regiões vulneráveis dos Estados-Membros caracterizados por um baixo índice demográfico?

  László Kovács, Member of the Commission. Thank you for the question, in response to which I can state that the Commission has absolutely no plans to harmonise direct company taxation.

As is outlined in the Commission communication of 25 October 2005 on the contribution of taxation and customs policies to the Lisbon Strategy, the Commission intends to carry out the necessary preparatory work towards a common consolidated tax base over the next three years, with a view to presenting a Community legislative measure by 2008. The Commission does not intend to propose a harmonised corporate tax rate, which is just part of the overall area we would like to harmonise.

As regards vulnerable areas of less populous Member States, it should be borne in mind that, under Community state aid rules, Member States have to respect strict conditions when providing for preferential tax regimes in favour of companies undertaking investments in assisted areas, under national regional state aid guidelines for promoting the economic development of certain disadvantaged areas of the European Union. State aid rules remain applicable to any state measures which may be enacted in the context of a common consolidated tax base initiative. The preparatory work by the Commission has not yet reached the stage of examining the impact of a common consolidated tax base on different regions within Member States. Any legislative proposal submitted by the Commission after this work has been carried out will, in any case, be accompanied by an appropriate impact assessment.

On the other hand, I should point out that the common consolidated tax base has been identified as an important tool for helping the Community achieve the Lisbon goals. It will help to reduce compliance costs and to encourage cross-border activities, which will lead to a higher rate of economic growth and employment and a higher level of competitiveness across the whole of the European Union.

  Μαρία Παναγιωτοπούλου-Κασσιώτου (PPE-DE). – Kύριε Επίτροπε, η απάντησή σας με ικανοποίησε πλήρως. Θα ήθελα σας παρακαλώ να σχολιάσετε το θέμα των μικρομεσαίων επιχειρήσεων, αν δηλαδή αυτές θα ληφθούν υπόψη στη μέριμνα της Επιτροπής ως κάποια ιδιαίτερη ομάδα στο σύνολο των ευρωπαϊκών επιχειρήσεων.

  László Kovács, Member of the Commission. My answer is a definite ‘yes’. The Commission considers the SMEs to be a special group which is to be supported as it provides a large number of jobs. According to my judgement, the common consolidated corporate tax base will give a special advantage to the SMEs, which are in a less favourable position than the multinationals. So, if there is one group which will profit from the common consolidated tax base, it will be the SMEs.

  Presidente. Pergunta nº 24 do Deputado Dimitrios Papadimoulis (H-1153/05)

Assunto: Acórdão do TJE relativo à empresa Marks [amp] Spencer

O recente acórdão do Tribunal de Justiça das Comunidades Europeias a favor da Marks [amp] Spencer, que havia apresentado às autoridades britânicas um pedido de dedução fiscal com o objectivo de deduzir ao seu lucro tributável no Reino Unido os prejuízos sofridos pelas suas filiais noutros países europeus, apresenta novos dados e tem repercussões nas receitas dos Estados geradas pela tributação das empresas.

Apesar do texto do acórdão reconhecer que os Estados-Membros podem proibir a empresa-mãe de proceder à dedução fiscal, de modo a que os governos nacionais não sejam prejudicados pelas práticas de empresas multinacionais que pretendem explorar as lacunas na legislação fiscal para aumentarem os seus lucros, entendemos que se abriu um novo sector de concorrência entre os Estados-Membros no que diz respeito à atracção de investimentos. Que comentários se oferecem à Comissão relativamente ao acórdão do TJE? Pretende tomar alguma iniciativa de carácter legislativo?

  László Kovács, Member of the Commission. On 13 December 2005 the Commission welcomed the ruling of the Court of Justice in the Marks [amp] Spencer case on cross-border loss relief. The Court has interpreted the principle of freedom of establishment for cross-border loss relief in a way that is in compliance with the logic and philosophy of the single market and in a way that is supported by the Commission.

The Commission has to continue its efforts to eliminate all obstacles preventing companies from reaping the full benefits of the internal market. The Commission therefore intends to come forward with a communication in the near future in which it will outline its views on cross-border loss relief. This communication will go beyond the specific case of Marks [amp] Spencer and focus on the economic aspects.

The Commission knows that this is a difficult subject as Member States are rightly concerned about the need to protect their tax revenues, but at the same time it is clear that it cannot accept that obstacles to the internal market continue to hamper companies from making investments and creating growth and employment in line with the objectives which it has set itself as part of the Lisbon Strategy.

  Δημήτριος Παπαδημούλης (GUE/NGL). – Κύριε Επίτροπε, η ερώτησή μου δεν πήρε απάντηση. Η υπόθεση Marx [amp] Spencer αναδεικνύει ένα διπλό φορολογικό ντάμπιγκ. Έχουμε διαφορετικούς συντελεστές και διαφορετική αντιμετώπιση ανάμεσα στα κράτη μέλη για τη φορολόγηση πολυεθνικών επιχειρήσεων που έχουν και μητρικές και θυγατρικές επιχειρήσεις στο πλαίσιο της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.

Η απόφαση του Ευρωπαϊκού Δικαστηρίου μάλλον αναδεικνύει το πρόβλημα παρά το αντιμετωπίζει. Σας ερωτώ και πάλι, τί σκοπεύει να κάνει η Επιτροπή για να περιοριστεί η φοροδιαφυγή των μεγάλων πολυεθνικών επιχειρηματικών ομίλων και η διαρροή δημοσίων εσόδων για τα κράτη μέλη;

Σκοπεύει να αναλάβει κάποια νομοθετική πρωτοβουλία; Αλλιώς γιατί μιλάτε για οικονομική και νομισματική ένωση;

  László Kovács, Member of the Commission. The Commission’s interpretation of the ruling of the ECJ on the Marks [amp] Spencer case is fully in compliance with the ECJ’s ruling. The problem in that case was that while United Kingdom law permits loss relief inside the United Kingdom market, the same is not permitted in the case of other companies or branches of Marks [amp] Spencer in different Member States – one in Germany and one in Belgium. The ECJ ruling, in compliance with the philosophy of the internal market, was in favour of Marks [amp] Spencer and the Commission fully supported that.

The Commission wants to study carefully the budgetary consequences of such rulings and try to take the initiative to have better coordination within the tax policy of the Member States: if not harmonisation, at least coordination is needed in order to avoid such problems.

To conclude, I want to refer to the first question concerning the common consolidated corporate tax base, which would solve the problem. The difficulty is that, as I have already said, in the best case, if everything goes smoothly and well, we will come up with the legislative proposal no earlier than 2008, so we still have two years in which to provide some temporary solution.

  Presidente. Pergunta nº 25 da Deputada Helène Goudin (H-1133/05)

Assunto: Desregulamentação do mercado no sector postal na UE

A empresa de consultoria independente Wik foi encarregada pela Comissão de avaliar a desregulamentação do mercado no sector postal na UE. De artigos publicados na imprensa sueca depreende-se que a empresa de consultoria propôs, nomeadamente, o seguinte:

Nenhum Estado-Membro poderá impor a um operador postal uma taxa de porte unitária; a fixação de preços é livre e depende das leis do mercado, não da sociedade. Pode, por isso, tornar-se mais barato enviar uma carta dentro de uma grande cidade do que entre duas cidades de um mesmo país que distem muito entre si; além disso, a frequência da distribuição de correio é reduzida para, pelo menos, um dia por semana e não cinco dias por semana.

Como encara a Comissão a proposta acima referida? Considera a Comissão que a supressão de uma taxa de porte unitária pode ter impacto negativo para os habitantes de localidades afastadas em países fracamente povoados como a Suécia e a Finlândia?

  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. The sector study referred to by the honourable Member was commissioned by the Commission in 2004 from Wik Consult in order to assist ongoing work on the gradual opening-up to competition of the European postal market.

The views expressed in the study are those of the consultant. The study is merely one of several elements that the Commission is considering in looking at various options and their possible consequences. In addition to the regular consultation with stakeholders and notably an online public consultation currently under way, the study actually serves as a platform to engage in a transparent and open debate on the conditions for enabling the further phasing-in of competition in the postal market.

It is the understanding of the Commission that the approach taken by the consultancy on the issue of the uniform tariff and the frequency of delivery was an attempt to give more flexibility to the public postal operator in order to sustain a viable and efficient universal service in the long term.

The current Postal Directive 97/67/EC, as amended by Directive 2002/39/EC, does not impose a uniform tariff but requires a minimum frequency of delivery of five days a week.

The Commission can assure the honourable Member that on all aspects of the postal reform in the European Union, including both the issues mentioned, it will try its best to strike the right balance between the necessary degree of harmonisation at EU level and those conditions to be fixed at Member State level, which would reflect the very different characteristics of each national postal market.

  Hélène Goudin (IND/DEM). – Tack herr kommissionär. Jag skulle vilja få svar på det jag frågade avslutningsvis, dvs. om man har tänkt över vad det kan få för konsekvenser för invånare i glesbygden. Detta berör kanske framförallt oss uppe i Norden som har flera mil mellan olika hushåll och olika byar.

  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. As I said in my reply, this consultancy study will form only part of the Commission’s thinking. The purpose of this particular consultant’s report is to inform the Commission on its thinking and it does not prejudge the Commission’s final decision on these matters. The honourable Member may rest assured that this forms only part of our overall deliberative process and does not in any way commit the Commission to making a proposal one way or the other.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE). – I am happy to say that it is not the only consideration, because lots of us use the post and would like it to be delivered each day rather than just once a week. But there is also uncertainty in terms of the actual post offices that will be distributed throughout rural Ireland as well as rural Europe. Can the Commissioner comment on what the Commission is thinking in relation to those services – other than the post – that are offered, and when a decision might be made by the Commission so that there will be more clarity?

  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. As the honourable Member may know, the Commission must come forward with a report, before the end of 2006, on the direction which it considers the liberalisation of the postal market should take. All the reports and consultations effected form part of our deliberative process in arriving at such a decision.

As Mrs McGuinness will be aware, the liberalisation of the postal market has been in progress for some time, and it is as part of that process that the Commission must bring forward its report on the direction to be taken.

The question of universal services is a key part of its deliberative process. It is, of course, a matter for Member States to organise their arrangements regarding rural post offices as they see fit and in line with their own requirements. Our specific role as the Commission is to consider that of the opening-up of the postal market.

  James Hugh Allister (NI). – Will the Commissioner pledge that he will not seek to allow a system to be put in place that will bestow a second-class service on rural communities? What specific steps does he have in mind to safeguard against private entrepreneurs creaming off the easy and the profitable aspects of the postal services, whilst leaving rural residents as the poor relations?

With regard to the recently introduced deregulation in the United Kingdom, does the Commissioner have any plans to monitor that, or any comments to make upon it?

  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. The point raised by the honourable Member will form part of our thinking in whatever proposals are put forward by the end of 2006. And, yes, I am very conscious of the importance of a universal service and particularly the importance of such a service to rural parts of Europe.

  Presidente. Pergunta nº 26 da Deputada Zuzana Roithová (H-1140/05)

Assunto: Os serviços de cuidados de saúde na proposta de directiva relativa aos serviços no mercado interno

Os serviços de cuidados de saúde poderão vir a ser excluídos do âmbito de aplicação da directiva relativa aos serviços no mercado interno, obstando a que os pacientes usufruam dos mesmos direitos que os utilizadores de outros serviços (nomeadamente, o direito a informações sobre os prestadores e a obrigação de contrair um seguro de responsabilidade profissional). Os pacientes haviam já adquirido o direito ao reembolso de despesas de saúde incorridas noutro Estado-Membro graças ao Tribunal de Justiça das Comunidades Europeias. O artigo 23° da referida directiva limitar-se-ia a incluir a jurisprudência na ordem jurídica nacional e, graças à definição de cuidados hospitalares, garantiria melhor protecção jurídica aos pacientes.

Que medidas tomaram os Estados-Membros para incluir nos seus próprios sistemas nacionais de segurança social o direito dos pacientes ao reembolso de despesas de cuidados de saúde dispensados noutros Estados-Membros? O que tenciona a Comissão fazer para salvaguardar estes direitos caso o artigo 23° não seja aprovado?

  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. Article 23 of the proposal for a directive on services in the internal market does, as the honourable Member says in her question, codify existing rights to patient mobility. The case law of the Court of Justice has established that, subject to certain conditions, patients have the right to have the cost of healthcare received in other Member States assumed by the social security system in their own Member State. Patients are, without prior authorisation, entitled to get reimbursement for non-hospital care received in other Member States. For hospital care, prior authorisation may be required before a patient can go abroad to receive health care. Authorisations must be granted when the necessary care cannot be given in the patient’s Member State within a medically justifiable time limit.

Before the proposal for a services directive was tabled, the Commission carried out a study on the implementation of the rights of patients in the Member States. The conclusion was that ‘European citizens are encountering unjustified or disproportionate obstacles when they apply for reimbursement, from their Member State of residence, of costs for non-hospital treatment incurred in another Member State, or for authorisation for assumption of the costs in the case of hospital treatment’.

For an individual citizen, the right to receive treatment in other Member States and to have the cost covered by his or her own social security system is probably one of the most important benefits of the internal market. These are the reasons for the Commission to propose the inclusion of health services in the scope of the services directive and for proposing a specific provision on the assumption of health care costs incurred in other Member States.

The Commission has also been actively involved in the work of the high-level group on cross-border healthcare and patient mobility with a view to establishing how best the framework for guaranteeing and promoting patient rights in the single market can be developed.

This work has shown the clear benefits of cooperation between Member States on health and healthcare related issues, of which the reimbursement of costs is just one aspect. A number of Member States are concerned about the effects cross-border care and patient mobility may have on their national health budgets.

In the absence of a clear legal framework, we will continue to be confronted with developing ECJ case law. Pending the vote in this House on the first reading of the proposed services directive, it would be inappropriate to speculate on the position on certain articles, but I can confirm that where Member States impose disproportionate or unjustified restrictions, the Commission will act, including by launching infringement procedures.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE). – Děkuji pane komisaři za pečlivou odpověď. Vy jste správně uvedl, že právní jistota na proplacení zdravotní péče v kterémkoli členském státě je zásadní výhodou a má zásadní význam pro volný pohyb občanů a jejich služeb uvnitř evropského trhu.

Dovolte mi, abych položila otázku také jako bývalá ministryně zdravotnictví a ředitelka velké fakultní nemocnice. Je si Komise vědoma, že směrnice o službách je klíčovou příležitostí pro zakotvení jednoznačných podmínek, jednoznačného práva na úhradu neakutní zdravotní péče pro občany dvaceti pěti zemí, aniž by byla narušena subsidiarita a že je již neudržitelné, aby nadále garanci a výklad tohoto práva zajišťoval Evropská soudní dvůr nebo dokonce, že by to mohla zajistit pokračující diskuze skupiny vysokých představitelů, která nemá zákonodárnou moc a nemůže zajistit právní jistotu?

(Předseda poslankyni odejmul slovo.)

  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. As I said in my reply, one of the reasons for the inclusion of health services in the scope of the Services Directive was to deal with some of the issues raised by the honourable Member. However, as the honourable Member will be aware, the debate on the Services Directive in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and in other committees has thrown up a number of other issues, and the Internal Market Committee voted in a particular direction. At next month’s part-session, the first reading of the Services Directive will come before the House and amendments will be debated. Therefore, there are many conflicting viewpoints among parliamentarians on this issue and there are conflicting viewpoints among Member State governments on the scope of the Services Directive to include healthcare costs.

As I have said on this issue and on any others relating to the Services Directive, I remain open to hearing the concerns and opinions of all stakeholders.

  Charlotte Cederschiöld (PPE-DE). – Jag vill särskilt tacka herr kommissionären för det utmärkta svaret till Zuzana Roithová och undrar om inte kommissionen skulle kunna hjälpa till med att skapa förståelse för dessa frågor genom att ta fram ett underlag som visar medborgarna att här finns ett område för verkligt mervärde, dvs. att vi kan få bättre specialistsjukvård, att patienterna skulle kunna få bättre vård av högre kvalitet, ibland till lägre kostnader men framför allt på ett effektivare sätt, att gränsöverskridande vård är ett mervärde för medborgarna. Jag är helt övertygad om att kommissionen skulle kunna ta fram ett underlag som hjälper oss. Jag undrar vad kommissionären tycker om att hjälpa till för att få en bättre debatt i dessa frågor.

  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. As usual, Mrs Cederschiöld makes a very compelling argument for her case. However, as I said in reply to Mrs Roithová, there are differing views on this issue. I await the outcome, in the first instance, of the vote in the European Parliament next month and the various amendments that have been proposed in this and other areas.

Certainly Mrs Cederschiöld makes some very compelling points, but there are other views also.

  Presidente. Pergunta nº 27 da Deputada Katerina Batzeli (H-1141/05)

Assunto: Contratos públicos no domínio do armamento de defesa

Os esforços envidados pela Comissão visando a criação progressiva de um mais transparente e aberto mercado europeu do armamento de defesa seguem vão no bom sentido, não obstante as especificidades que caracterizam este sector.

O procedimento até hoje seguido assenta, por um lado, na legislação comunitária, designadamente a Directiva 2004/18/CE(3) e, por outro lado, no artigo 296º do Tratado, que prevê a possibilidade de derrogações. Em que medida tenciona a Comissão definir, a título transitório, mais claramente os critérios de aplicação do artigo 296º relativamente às derrogações, bem como os critérios de controlo e acompanhamento dos procedimentos nacionais conexos?

Em que medida se considera que as derrogações são conformes às condições de aplicação do artigo 296º relativamente às excepções, quando as autoridades nacionais aplicam um procedimento de negociação com os fornecedores da sua escolha, no respeitante ao fabrico de artigos destinados a investigação, estudo e experiências, bem como no tocante ao fornecimento de material de defesa por pessoas colectivas em cujo capital a participação do Estado é superior a 50%?

  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. The honourable Member’s question can be split into two parts. The first issue is whether the Commission intends to clarify further the criteria governing the use of Article 296 of the Treaty. The second, more specific issue is the Commission assessment on the rules to be applied to research, study and experiment contracts in the field of defence.

On the first issue, we recently outlined our proposals for future initiatives to improve cross-border competition in defence procurement. Our communication of 6 December announced the adoption in 2006 of an interpretative communication on Article 296 in the field of defence procurement and the start of preparatory work on a possible defence procurement directive. Those initiatives are based on the results of the consultation launched with the green paper of 2004. The contribution of Parliament to this debate, voted on 17 November, explicitly supports the Commission in its initiative.

The interpretative communication will give guidance on how to use Article 296 of the Treaty, which allows Member States a derogation from internal market rules and from Directive 2004/18 when their essential security interests are at stake. This provision has to be applied on a case-by-case basis and cannot be interpreted widely. It is for the Member State that seeks to rely on this provision to provide evidence that the derogation is justified and proportionate to the objective pursued.

A possible directive would coordinate procedures for defence procurement in cases where the derogation under Article 296 is not applicable or where a Member State chooses not to take advantage of it. It would provide new, more flexible procurement rules, better suited to the specific nature of the defence sector. The adoption by the Commission of a possible proposal for such a directive is subject to the results of the impact assessment which will be carried out in 2006.

The Commission is not in a position to give an assessment of the facts described by the honourable Member in the second part of the question. Article 296 of the Treaty has to be applied on a case-by-case basis and according to the specific circumstances of each case. However, the principles that should be taken into account when establishing the rules to apply can be briefly outlined.

On the one hand, it is worth noting that public procurement in the field of research, study and experiment benefits, under certain conditions, from specific derogations within the existing directive and within the Government Procurement Agreement of the World Trade Organization. Defence contracts of this kind can also benefit from derogations within the Code of Conduct set up by the European Defence Agency for the Article 296 area.

On the other hand, the question of government ownership of the share capital of potential contractors, and the consequences in terms of the rules to be applied, is not an issue to be addressed on the basis of Article 296: this is linked to the ‘in-house’ derogation, as established by the Court of Justice. However, according to this case law, the derogation only applies in cases of 100% ownership.

  Κατερίνα Μπατζελή (PSE). – Κατ' αρχήν θα ήθελα να ευχαριστήσω τον Επίτροπο για τη σαφήνεια και την ολοκληρωμένη απάντηση την οποία έδωσε στην ερώτηση.

Νομίζω ότι ο προβληματισμός για το θέμα της διαφάνειας των προμηθειών στο δημόσιο τομέα και τη δημόσια άμυνα είναι ένα θέμα το οποίο απασχολεί γενικότερα την ευρωπαϊκή οικονομία, αλλά θα κρατήσω στα υπόψη τη διευκρίνηση του Επιτρόπου ότι θα προβεί σε αποσαφήνιση των παρεκκλίσεων του άρθρου 296 της Συνθήκης με βάση τη σχετική απόφαση του Ευρωπαϊκού Δικαστηρίου, κυρίως το στάδιο της διαδικασίας για την ανάθεση προμηθειών στον τομέα των εξοπλισμών.

Αυτό το οποίο ζητείται περισσότερο κύριε Επίτροπε και είναι επιτακτική ανάγκη, είναι το πώς γίνεται η παρέμβαση των κρατών μελών με ένα μηχανισμό διαβούλευσης σε σχέση με τις προμήθειες που απορρέουν από την έρευνα και τεχνολογία.

  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. The honourable Member, Mrs Batzeli, reminds us of the advantages of having transparency in this particular area of public procurement. However, as she will be aware, Article 296 allows considerable discretion on the part of Member States as to how they organise such activity. Hopefully our recent communication of December 2005 and what we intend to do in cooperation with all stakeholders will open up that area even further.

  Glyn Ford (PSE). – I believe it is important to have a single European market in the defence production and procurement sector, which is vital for the future of the European Union. I believe that the Commission – in the past at least – has given an unreasonably generous and wide interpretation of Article 296. Could you say whether you would narrow that interpretation in future? Most importantly, if you do not have it, will you do an estimate at Commission level of the costs of not having a single market in the defence sector, in terms of the costs of purchases from overseas that might have been purchased in-house and the costs of having a fragmented and divided defence market in Europe with batch production rather than mass production?

  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. I understand that the sum total of defence budgets in the EU is in the order of EUR 169 billion, of which about EUR 82 billion is for procurement. Therefore, as the honourable Member implies in his question, any opening-up of the market in this area could lead to very substantial savings on the defence budget of many Member States, which would be much to the betterment of the public finances in all those Member States. So there is indeed considerable potential in this area.

On the other hand, if we are to open up this particular market even further, there must be cooperation among the Member States as to how to proceed. I wish to put these facts on this House’s record just to show the amount of money involved in this area.

  Presidente. Às perguntas 28 a 30 serão dadas respostas por escrito.

Pergunta nº 31 do Deputado Bernd Posselt (H-1127/05)

Assunto: UE-Ucrânia

Como avalia a Comissão o desenvolvimento da Ucrânia nos últimos doze anos e quais as estratégias que preparou para 2006, de forma a possibilitar uma aproximação mais forte à EU deste país importante e inteiramente europeu?

  László Kovács, Member of the Commission. Thank you for the question. The European Neighbourhood Policy has brought and will continue to bring Ukraine closer to the European Union. Our cooperation with Ukraine can be seen as most successful. The European Neighbourhood Policy Action Plan adopted in February 2005 has proved to be an essential and efficient tool for encouraging reform through deeper political cooperation and closer economic integration between the EU and Ukraine.

Following the Orange Revolution, a renewed willingness on the Ukrainian side to boost EU-Ukraine cooperation could be observed. The implementation of the Action Plan by Ukraine in the course of 2005 can be assessed positively. At the summit with Ukraine in December 2005, President Barroso confirmed progress by Ukraine in political and economic reform. Progress in the EU-Ukraine relationship could be registered on economic integration; granting of market economy status by the EU to Ukraine; cooperation in the key sectors of energy and transport; a memorandum of understanding on energy cooperation; justice and home affairs; the opening of visa facilitation negotiations in parallel to negotiations on a readmission agreement; as well as in the area of foreign and security policy, namely, the launching of the EU border assistance mission on the Transnistrian segment of the Ukraine-Moldova border.

However, important steps remain to be taken by Ukraine in the implementation of the Action Plan, in areas such as the rule of law and in particular on the economic side: the fight against corruption; adopting relevant legislation for WTO accession; and improving the business climate.

The Commission hopes to build on the additional impetus given by the summit – the first with a Ukrainian Government fully committed to reform – to the development of our relationship with Ukraine. In February 2005 the EU committed to initiating early consultations on an enhanced agreement between the EU and Ukraine as soon as the main political priorities of the Action Plan have been addressed. That commitment remains valid; when we are able to do so depends on Ukraine and perseverance in the reform process to tackle outstanding issues. The March 2006 parliamentary elections will be an important test of Ukraine's continued commitment to democracy and will be essential in opening further perspectives in the relationship with Ukraine.

The future relationship will be based on several essential conditions: the success of the political reform, respect for fundamental rights and freedoms, and WTO membership, so as to fully integrate Ukraine into the world market. This will also open up prospects for the establishment of a free trade area between the EU and Ukraine.

The way ahead lies in a close partnership with Ukraine, based on common values and the objective of economic integration, as well as strengthened cooperation in a number of areas. The policy of constant progress and small, continued and common steps in the EU-Ukraine relationship has proved to be successful over the past year since the Orange Revolution and will allow us to tackle the challenges ahead.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). – Herr Präsident! Ich bedauere es einerseits, dass Frau Kommissarin Ferrero-Waldner nicht da ist – ich finde das nicht richtig, wenn sie auf der Tagesordnung steht –, aber ich freue mich, dass die österreichisch-ungarische Zusammenarbeit in der Kommission so gut funktioniert.

Ich habe zwei kurze Fragen, Herr Kommissar. Erstens: Welche personellen und finanziellen Beihilfen halten Sie im kommenden Jahr für denkbar, um zu verhindern, dass der Reformprozess in der Ukraine scheitert oder wieder umkippt, wie gewisse Nachbarstaaten ja offenbar kalkulieren.

Zweitens: Was tut die Kommission konkret, um die Verkehrsverbindungen zwischen der Europäischen Union und der Ukraine zu verbessern und gemeinsame Infrastrukturkonzepte zu entwickeln, die die Anbindung der Ukraine an den Westen – was die Energie und den Verkehr betrifft – verstärken?

  Laszló Kovács, Member of the Commission. I am afraid it is too early to answer these questions. Perhaps Mrs Ferrero-Waldner has something in mind, but as far as the Commission is concerned, we have not reached the point of being able to answer this question because, first, political and economic reforms are needed to get Ukraine closer to the European Union. Then comes further and deeper cooperation.

  Inger Segelström (PSE). – Jag skulle vilja skicka med en fråga till kommissionen. Det är så att Europaparlamentet idag med nästan fullständig enighet har antagit ett mycket kraftfullt betänkande om människohandel. Den här frågan har engagerat oss väldigt mycket, och vi har också tagit upp den i de kontakter som vi har haft med Ukraina. I och med dagens beslut flyttar parlamentet fram positionerna. Jag skulle vilja att kommissionen särskilt beaktar denna fråga som har fått ett otroligt stort stöd idag här i Europaparlamentet.

  László Kovács, Member of the Commission. I think that it will take a long time to bring Ukraine closer to the European Union and it will be a long road. Using my personal experience as a former foreign minister of neighbouring Hungary, I can say that Ukraine has come a long way, and since the Orange Revolution there is now no major question that Ukraine wants to get closer, that Ukraine wants to be a democratic country, wants to be a market economy. Nevertheless, it is still has a long way to go before it completely complies with EU norms and principles.

We have two options. Either we can be too demanding and push Ukraine away from the European Union, or we can be more tolerant, more cooperative, and bring Ukraine closer, bearing in mind that the domestic political situation in the country is not that simple. Ukraine is now facing general elections that will be a test of democracy in the country, whatever the outcome. What we have to take into consideration is not the outcome of the election, but the democratic nature of that event, which will be a test for Ukrainian democracy.

  Presidente. Pergunta nº 32 do Deputado Sajjad Karim (H-1128/05)

Assunto: Sri Lanca: a resposta da UE ao resultado das eleições presidenciais no Sri Lanca e à declaração de Pirapaharan

Em 27 de Novembro de 2005, Velupillai Pirapaharan, líder dos Tigres de Libertação do Eelam Tamil (LTTE), lançou "um último apelo urgente" ao Presidente do Sri Lanca eleito recentemente, Mahinda Rajapaske, para que retome as negociações de paz e "satisfaça as aspirações políticas do povo Tamil". Pirapaharan ameaçou que, caso não seja proposto brevemente "um acordo político razoável", os LTTE intensificarão a sua luta pela autodeterminação, recorrendo eventualmente a actos violentos. Qual é a resposta da Comissão ao tom e ao conteúdo do discurso de Pirapaharan no Dia dos Heróis?

Perante o impasse no processo de paz desde a retirada dos LTTE, em 2003, e as posições aparentemente irreconciliáveis de Rajapaske (que durante a sua campanha prometeu não partilhar poder com os LTTE) e Pirapaharan, não entende a UE que detém uma enorme responsabilidade, na condição de co-presidente da Conferência de Tóquio e principal doadora, de iniciar um diálogo imediato com ambas as partes, antes que estas recorram novamente à violência, afim de encontrar uma solução que reconheça o direito de Tamil à autodeterminação no âmbito de um Sri Lanca unitário?

  László Kovács, Member of the Commission. Thank you for the question. There are strong reasons for concern about the situation in Sri Lanka. The year 2005 was a bad one for the peace process. The assassination of Foreign Minister Kadirgamar, the electoral boycott enforced by the LTTE in the north and east, and the numerous killings in the east and in Jaffna have put the ceasefire in jeopardy.

The failure of the post-tsunami operations management structure, the mechanism within which the government, the LTTE and Muslim representatives were to decide jointly about tsunami reconstruction in the north and east, has also been a heavy drawback, creating huge resentment among the Tamils.

What we are seeing now is a dangerous spiral. The Sri Lankan military has now lost more than 60 soldiers in indirect attacks by the LTTE in Jaffna and other parts of the north and east. So far, the government has acted with a remarkable sense of restraint, but this cannot last forever.

The European Union, and the Commission in particular, plays a strong part in the peace process. Sri Lanka is a personal priority of the Commissioner responsible for external relations, Mrs Ferrero-Waldner. She went there last March and fought hard to obtain an agreement on P-TOMS. She still feels this would have made a major difference. The EU passed strong messages to both sides throughout the year. In particular, the EU declaration of September 2005 announcing that high-level delegations of the LTTE would no longer be received in EU capitals was a major signal that, while seeking a balanced approach to the conflict, the EU would not tolerate further violence from the LTTE.

The Commission has also been instrumental in raising the profile of the co-chairs. The Commissioner responsible for external relations personally attended three of the four co-chair meetings held in 2005. Indeed, two of them were held in Brussels.

The Commission continued to support Norway’s facilitation through public, as well as private, messages throughout the year. The Commission also supported the idea that the next co-chair meeting should take place in Sri Lanka close to the fourth anniversary of the ceasefire agreement.

The Commission will intensify its efforts into the next year. Two priorities have been set for the Commission’s action. Firstly, the Commission will work towards an even stronger role for the co-chairs, including direct visits at ministerial level. The Commissioner responsible for external relations herself intends to return there in February, hopefully with all the co-chairs. She wants to be able to speak to Mr Pirapaharan in person and pass him the direct message that Europe will react very soon if the LTTE shows no sign of change.

Secondly, now that P-TOMS have failed, the Commission is working on an alternative base to deliver reconstruction to the north and east. It may seek to work more locally, say in one or two districts, to compensate for the absence of a larger consensus between the key players.

  Sajjad Karim (ALDE). – I thank the Commissioner for his detailed response. I have one issue that I wish to raise, following on from today's mine attack which resulted in the deaths of two civilians and the injury of 12 soldiers. That is the latest in a month of bloodshed. Given that both sides have agreed, in principle, to review the implementation of the ceasefire agreement, is the EU, as co-chair of the peace process, planning on taking this opportunity to push for a human rights declaration signed by both the government and the LTTE in order to put the protection of fundamental human rights at the heart of the peace process?

  László Kovács, Member of the Commission. Thank you for the supplementary question. As I am not the Commissioner responsible I can only give my personal view, and not that of the Commission, on this new development which the Commission has not had time to discuss. However, it would seem to me that an initiative such as the one you suggest as a possible option is fully in line with the Commission’s policy on the situation in Sri Lanka.

  Presidente. A pergunta nº 33 não será chamada dado que o seu tema já figura na ordem do dia do presente período de sessões.

Por não se encontrar presente o seu autor, a pergunta nº 34 caduca.

Pergunta nº 35 da Deputada Inger Segelström (H-1160/05)

Assunto: Colômbia

Assistimos com inquietação aos distúrbios que se vivem na Colômbia e que continuam a entravar o processo democrático do país. Constatamos com preocupação que prosseguem as violações dos direitos humanos. Assiste-se a uma escalada do conflito armado e o tráfico de estupefacientes processa-se de forma intensa. Tudo isso constituem entraves graves ao desenvolvimento e à paz na Colômbia. Diversas organizações suecas de voluntários enviam pessoal para a Colômbia, a fim de participar em projectos de paz e projectos que visam proteger os direitos das populações locais e autóctones, designadamente os direitos fundiários. Ao mesmo tempo, como em numerosos outros países da América Latina, assiste-se ao rápido desenvolvimento de grandes empresas, nomeadamente no sector da produção de óleo de palma. A Comissão pode indicar se tenciona propor medidas específicas para apoiar o processo de democratização na Colômbia?

  László Kovács, Member of the Commission. The Commission shares the concern of the honourable Member regarding the continuing human rights violations and the persisting threats to democracy in the regions of Colombia affected by the longstanding internal armed conflict. Therefore the EU strategy for Colombia mainly aims at supporting comprehensive peace initiatives, with the strong involvement of local communities. It is thus the intention to directly contribute to the strengthening of democracy with an integrated set of instruments.

Among these, over the period from 2001 to 2005, more than EUR 16 million was committed for Colombia from the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights, for 53 projects supporting human rights and democratisation, and which have been implemented or are still under way.

  Inger Segelström (PSE). – Tack herr kommissionär. Att jag ställde den här frågan beror just på att Colombia håller på att bli den näst största flyktingkatastrofen som vi har. Det som är annorlunda med Colombia jämfört med andra länder är att det fortfarande finns ett markinnehav mellan de lokala och de regionala markägarna. Det är det som gör att det fortfarande finns en möjlighet att hjälpa lokalbefolkningen och se till att de får ha kvar sitt land, vilket ju kommer att vara det viktiga när vi försöker lösa den här konflikten. Jag tackar så mycket för svaret och jag hoppas naturligtvis att vi gemensamt kommer vidare i dessa fredsinitiativ som EU tar.

  László Kovács, Member of the Commission. I do not wish to take the floor on that, as I am not aware of the problem that the Member raised.

  Presidente. Pergunta nº 36 do Deputado Ryszard Czarnecki (H-1169/05)

Assunto: A cimeira da ASEAN e a protecção dos direitos humanos

Qual é a opinião da Comissão sobre os resultados da cimeira da ASEAN, realizada em Dezembro, nomeadamente no que diz respeito à protecção dos direitos humanos nos países membros da ASEAN como Myanmar (Burma)?

  László Kovács, Member of the Commission. The Commission follows with interest the attempts by institutions and individuals in ASEAN countries to establish a human rights mechanism. The Commission supports those efforts and other human rights issues through various cooperation programmes in several ASEAN countries. An EC-sponsored ASEAN-wide human rights conference will be held in Manila in 2006.

We are encouraged to note that for the first time an ASEAN summit called for the release of political prisoners in Myanmar. ASEAN leaders also agreed to dispatch the foreign minister of Malaysia, the current chair of ASEAN, to assess the democratic process during a visit.

While those initiatives by ASEAN are positive, we should remain cautious about the prospects of immediate changes in Myanmar and especially about the release of Aung San Suu Kyi.

  Ryszard Czarnecki (NI). – Panie Komisarzu! Rzeczywiście jest postęp, przynajmniej w postaci apelu o przestrzeganie praw człowieka w dawnej Birmie. Natomiast sądzę, i nie jest to pytanie, ale prośba - mam propozycję wobec Komisji Europejskiej, aby w tej sprawie – przy pomocy naszego Parlamentu oczywiście – prowadzić stały monitoring, ponieważ tylko presja międzynarodowa tak naprawdę, nie tylko azjatycka ale także europejska, może w tej sprawie przynieść konkretne efekty. O to stałe zainteresowanie bardzo proszę Komisję Europejską.

  László Kovács, Member of the Commission. Thank you for your proposal, which I will certainly forward to Mrs Ferrero-Waldner. I think that the possibilities available to the European Union, which is not in the region, are more limited than those available to ASEAN, for instance. I think ASEAN could do more, but your proposal is certainly worthy of consideration.

  Presidente. As perguntas que, por falta de tempo, não obtiveram resposta obtê-la-ão ulteriormente por escrito (ver Anexo).

O período de perguntas está encerrado.

(A sessão, suspensa às 19h05, é reiniciada às 21h05)

PRZEWODNICZY: J. ONYSZKIEWICZ
Wiceprzewodniczący