Rapporti verbatim tad-dibattiti
PDF 558k
Il-Ħamis, 7 ta' Settembru 2006 - Strasburgu Edizzjoni riveduta
1. Ftuħ tas-seduta
 2. Dokumenti mressqa: ara l-Minuti
 3. Trasferiment ta' approprjazzjonijiet: ara l-Minuti
 4. Użu ta' data personali tal-passiġġieri - Ftehima ma' l-Istati Uniti ta' l-Amerika dwar l-użu tad-data personali tal-passiġġieri (PNR) (dibattitu)
 5. Il-wirt naturali, artkitettoniku u kulturali ewropew tar-reġjuni rurali u insulari (dibattitu)
 6. Komunikazzjoni tal-pożizzjonijiet komunit tal-Kunsill: ara l-Minuti
 7. Ħin tal-votazzjonijiet
  7.1. L-adeżjoni tal-KE għall-Konferenza dwar il-liġi internazzjonali privata ta' The Hague (votazzjoni)
  7.2. Relazzjonijiet bejn l-UE u ċ-Ċina (votazzjoni)
  7.3. Ittikkettar ekoloġiku għal prodotti tal-ħut (votazzjoni)
  7.4. Sitwazzjoni fil-Lvant Nofsani (votazzjoni)
  7.5. Nirien fil-foresti u għargħar (votazzjoni)
  7.6. Is-sospensjoni tan-negozjati dwar l-Agenda ta' Doha għall-izvilupp (ADD) (votazzjoni)
  7.7. Falsifikar tal-mediċini (votazzjoni)
  7.8. Liġi Ewropea tal-kuntratti (votazzjoni)
  7.9. Il-parteċipazzjoni tal-Parlament Ewropew fil-ħidma tal-Konferenza ta' The Hague wara l-adeżjoni tal-Komunita' (votazzjoni)
  7.10. Ftehima ma' l-Istati Uniti ta' l-Amerika dwar l-użu tad-data personali tal-passiġġieri (PNR) (votazzjoni)
  7.11. Il-wirt naturali, artkitettoniku u kulturali ewropew tar-reġjuni rurali u insulari (votazzjoni)
 8. Spjegazzjonijiet tal-vot
 9. Korrezzjonijiet u intenzjonijiet għall-vot: ara l-Minuti
 10. Approvazzjoni tal-Minuti tas-seduta ta' qabel: ara l-Minuti
 11. Dibattiti dwar każijiet ta' ksur tad-drittijiet tal-bniedem, tad-demokrazija u ta' l-istat tad-dritt (dibattitu)
  11.1. Sri Lanka
  11.2. Persuni mill-Korea ta' Fuq li jfittxu kenn politiku, speċjalment fit-Tajlandja
  11.3. Żimbabwe
 12. Ħin tal-votazzjonijiet
  12.1. Sri Lanka (votazzjoni)
  12.2. Persuni mill-Korea ta' Fuq li jfittxu kenn politiku, speċjalment fit-Tajlandja (votazzjoni)
  12.3. Żimbabwe (votazzjoni)
 13. Kompożizzjoni tal-Parlament: ara l-Minuti
 14. Kompożizzjoni tal-kumitati u tad-delegazzjonijet: ara l-Minuti
 15. Deċiżjonijiet dwar ċertu dokumenti: ara l-minuti
 16. Dikjarazzjonijiet bil-miktub imniżżla fir-reġistru (Artikolu 116 tar-Regoli ta' Proċedura): ara l-Minuti
 17. Tressiq ta' testi adottati matul is-seduta attwali: ara l-Minuti
 18. Dati tas-seduti li jmiss: ara l-Minuti
 19. Interruzzjoni tas-sessjoni
 ANNESS (Tweġiba bil-miktub)



1. Ftuħ tas-seduta

(Zasedání začalo v 10:05)


2. Dokumenti mressqa: ara l-Minuti

3. Trasferiment ta' approprjazzjonijiet: ara l-Minuti

4. Użu ta' data personali tal-passiġġieri - Ftehima ma' l-Istati Uniti ta' l-Amerika dwar l-użu tad-data personali tal-passiġġieri (PNR) (dibattitu)

  Předseda. Dalším bodem je společná rozprava o

- prohlášení Komise o používání osobních údajů cestujících


- zprávě, kterou předložila Sophia in 't Veld za Výbor pro občanské svobody, spravedlnost a vnitřní věci o návrhu doporučení Evropského parlamentu Radě k jednáním o dohodě se Spojenými státy americkými o využívání údajů jmenné evidence cestujících (PNR) k předcházení a potírání terorismu a přeshraničních trestných činů, včetně organizovaného zločinu (2006/2193(INI)) (A6-0252/2006).


  Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. Mr President, as you know, the European Court has stated that the Council and the Commission decision on the transfer of PNR data to the United States Bureau of Customs and Border Protection serves the purpose of protection of public security and concerns public activities in the area of criminal law. Therefore, these activities are excluded from the scope of the European Data Protection Directive and Article 95 of the European Treaty, even when the data being processed was originally for the supply of commercial services.

The situation in general concerning legal bases underlines the need for a single system of legal bases for justice, liberty and security issues. This is what I call the ‘Communitarisation’ of the so-called Third Pillar; therefore, I called upon the Council of Ministers for Justice and Home Affairs to ensure a clear legal framework for justice, freedom and security by favouring the use of the so-called passerelle clause, Article 42. I know that the European Parliament shares the Commission’s point of view on this very important matter, which I will raise again during the informal Council in Tampere in a few days’ time.

I believe that this new agreement under negotiation with the United States should have the same content and include the same level of safeguards regarding legal certainty for air carriers, respect for human rights, notably the right to privacy, and the purposes for which the PNR data may be used. In addition, it could integrate the current undertakings, as requested in the draft recommendation attached to the annulled Commission decision, and which the United States currently implements.

As you know, these undertakings provide for rules and procedures, which effectively restrict the use of PNR data by the United States authorities. In order not to endanger public security, all efforts should be made to ensure that this agreement replaces the current one at the time when it expires, by 30 September at the latest. The Commission is doing its utmost to start negotiations with the United States as soon as possible. In accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 24 of the EU Treaty, negotiations are led by the Council Presidency, assisted by the Commission. The negotiations should start tomorrow in Brussels. A draft text has been transmitted to the United States authorities by the Presidency, which, as I said, is leading the negotiations.

I am aware of your request to the Presidency to make the text of the draft agreement available to you. I am personally in favour and I can assure you that for its part the Commission intends to fulfil its obligations under the Framework Agreement between our two institutions and therefore I will keep Parliament informed throughout the negotiations. It is indeed my intention to report to Parliament regularly on this issue and, as you probably know, I shall be participating in a meeting of the LIBE Committee next week, on 12 September.

Finally, I want to recall that, should no new agreement be in place on 1 October, air carriers flying from Europe to the United States risk legal complaints from citizens based on divergent national legislation on the transfer of PNR data to the United States. For that reason, it is extremely important to ensure legal certainty through an agreement concluded at European level as of 1 October, whilst continuing to ensure a high level of security and at the same time privacy protection for our citizens.


  Sophia in ‘t Veld (ALDE), rapporteur. – Mr President, today we are discussing the PNR Agreement with the United States. However, we are all fully aware of the fact that this issue can only be debated in a wider context, particularly in the light of the information received last night to the effect that President Bush has finally admitted that secret CIA detention camps actually exist. We should look at this issue in the wider context of the methods used to combat terrorism – the methods that we in Europe want to use in the fight against terrorism and the methods that are used by our friend and ally, the United States.

The case of the CIA detention camps and rendition flights and the case of the PNR Agreement demonstrate very clearly the urgent need for Europe to speak with a single voice. We urgently need a single European policy in this area. I welcome what Commissioner Frattini has said, because in my view a common EU policy is not one designed by a handful of ministers that meet behind closed doors, in informal meetings. An EU policy is one made following a proper democratic procedure that involves Parliamentary scrutiny, i.e. in codecision with Parliament. You therefore have my wholehearted support for the proposal on the bridging clause. I hope that the governments too will now realise how urgent that is.

With regard to the PNR issue itself, we should distinguish three phases. One is the short-term renegotiation of the current agreement, which is very urgent and needs to be concluded by the end of the month. I have heard rumours which seem to indicate that the US is in no great hurry to conclude the Agreement and might actually ultimately prefer bilateral agreements. It is therefore very important that all European countries and the EU institutions close ranks and adopt a united stance.

I very much welcome the much more forthcoming attitude adopted by the Council and Commission this week. That is the best way forward. Were there to be no agreement it would be absolutely catastrophic for the European Union and for the protection of our citizens’ personal data.

With regard to this agreement, we all seem to agree that the substance of the agreement should preferably be left untouched. We would have preferred to improve the agreement, but the US would like to move in another direction. I therefore feel that the best we can achieve at the moment is to have the same agreement but on a new legal basis.

During the negotiations, however, you should insist that the undertakings made in the current agreement be implemented without delay, because assessments have shown that even if there is an agreement it is not being fully and correctly implemented. I would notably point to: the switch from the ‘pull’ to the ‘push’ system, which is long overdue; information to passengers, which is key but which is apparently still not happening; and purpose limitation – which is a more difficult issue, but an absolutely crucial one. I hope you can see to it that the undertakings are integrated into the agreement rather than being a sort of appendix that is not legally binding.

With regard to the medium and long term – i.e. the post-2007 review – we very much hope that by then the passerelle clause will have been adopted, that Parliament will have secured codecision and that everything will be dealt with as part of a proper democratic procedure. At that point, Parliament will insist on proportionality, which is to say that there should be data-sharing, because we all want a safer world and to fight the scourge of terrorism, but that this should be proportional. We should not share more data than is strictly needed to achieve our purpose. It goes without saying that there should be adequate protection of personal data and procedural safeguards. That is quite clear.

One of the proposals in the report, which fortunately received the support of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, is that we start a parliamentary transatlantic dialogue. I feel that this rift with the US needs to be healed. We must fight terrorism together. It cannot be that while we call the Americans ‘cowboys’ they call us ‘cowards’, and we are deeply divided.

At the same time, there are proposals circulating on a European PNR policy. I am rather unhappy that we only learned about this through the media. We have heard that this idea was presented at an informal meeting in London a couple of weeks ago. That is not the way forward. If there is to be such a policy then we would prefer that it were presented here in Parliament.

Finally, I should like to make a very urgent appeal to the Council to adopt proper arrangements for data protection under the Third Pillar, along the lines set out by our rapporteur, Mrs Roure.



  Carlos Coelho, em nome do Grupo PPE-DE. – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Vice-Presidente Frattini, Senhoras e Senhores Deputados, somos solidários com o objectivo de prevenir e combater o terrorismo pois é uma ameaça que já se fez sentir em alguns dos nossos Estados-Membros e que paira permanentemente sobre todos. Queremos cooperar com outros Estados na luta contra o terrorismo e, designadamente, com os Estados Unidos da América.

Uma das maiores preocupações dos nossos cidadãos neste momento é a sua segurança e as respostas serão tanto mais eficazes quanto a União estiver unida neste esforço. Por isso é preferível um acordo entre a União e os Estados Unidos da América em vez de 25 acordos bilaterais. Isso permite uma posição mais forte da União, não só na prevenção e na luta contra o terrorismo, como também na protecção dos direitos fundamentais.

Temos de evitar que a partir de 1 de Outubro de 2006 possa vir a existir um vazio jurídico ao nível europeu no que diz respeito à transferência dos dados dos passageiros. O Comissário Frattini tomou a opção certa face à decisão tomada pelo Tribunal de Justiça ao denunciar o acordo existente e, ao mesmo tempo, abrir negociações para um novo acordo com os Estados Unidos. O Grupo PPE apoiou claramente o pedido da Comissão ao Conselho para lhe ser atribuído um mandato para o reinício das negociações. Sabemos que é um acordo a curto prazo para completar o tempo restante do acordo denunciado e um outro de longo prazo, que pode e deve ser pensado desde já.

No âmbito das futuras negociações gostaria de sublinhar o exemplo dos acordos com a Austrália e o Canadá, que nos parecem aceitáveis sob o ponto de vista do princípio da proporcionalidade e onde são fixados limites correctos quanto ao âmbito, ao tempo e ao número de dados e onde existe um controlo por uma autoridade judicial.

Apoio, assim, a ideia de iniciar, ainda este ano, um diálogo entre a União Europeia, os Estados Unidos, o Canadá e a Austrália, com vista a preparar em conjunto a revisão de 2007 e a estabelecer uma norma global para a transmissão de dados PNR.

Gostaria também de saudar a vontade já aqui expressa pelo Comissário Frattini de manter uma cooperação estreita com o Parlamento Europeu. Faço votos para que essa vontade expressa se traduza em actos concretos e não se limite à retórica e que o Conselho siga o seu exemplo.


  Martine Roure, au nom du groupe PSE. – Monsieur le Président, tout d'abord, bien sûr, je souhaite, au nom de mon groupe, apporter mon soutien plein et entier au rapport de ma collègue, Sophie in't Veld.

Nous souhaitons une stratégie en deux temps: la conclusion d'un accord intermédiaire avant le 30 septembre, pour assurer la continuité et afin de ne pas causer de désagréments aux citoyens européens qui voyagent vers les États Unis, et la négociation d'un nouvel accord sur de meilleures bases, lors de la révision initialement prévue en 2007. Deux temps, donc.

Cependant, l'accord conclu avant la fin du mois ne doit pas être négocié à la hâte. M. Frattini nous propose de conserver le même texte en changeant uniquement la base légale dénoncée par la Cour. Nous ne pouvons l'accepter qu'à deux conditions. Tout d'abord, le Parlement européen doit être pleinement informé des discussions en cours avec les Américains et doit y être associé politiquement. D'ailleurs, les parlements nationaux doivent eux aussi être informés. Ensuite, nous devons avoir la certitude que l'ensemble des déclarations d'engagement seront effectivement respectées et mises en œuvre par les autorités américaines. Je songe notamment à la possibilité de passer du système PULL au système PUSH, comme le prévoit la déclaration d'engagement 13, et à l'instauration de procédures de recours judiciaire en cas d'abus, comme le prévoient les accords conclus avec l'Australie et le Canada. À plus long terme, le nouvel accord de 2007 doit offrir aux ressortissants européens le même niveau de protection de leur vie privée que celui garanti en Europe, et c'est bien le moins.

Enfin, M. Frattini a, lors du sommet informel de Londres, fait plusieurs propositions concrètes concernant un PNR européen et un système de profiling positif biométrique sur la base du volontariat. Je voudrais savoir quel est le statut exact de ce sommet, où d'importantes propositions ont été discutées sans que le Parlement en ait été informé. Concernant un éventuel PNR européen, il est clair que nous ne pourrons pas accepter des propositions qui permettent de contourner la législation communautaire et les législations nationales sur la protection des données personnelles des citoyens. Nous ne pourrons pas non plus accepter une procédure qui contourne le rôle et la fonction démocratique des parlements nationaux dans ce secteur. Par ailleurs, je rappelle que des propositions de la Commission sur ces sujets ne sauraient être acceptables sans l'adoption de la décision cadre sur la protection des données dans le contexte du troisième pilier. Ma collègue, Sophie in't Veld, l'a rappelé, c'est un aspect que nous ne perdons pas de vue.


  Sarah Ludford, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, it is not clear that there is any current use for PNR data in the US for the purposes for which the original agreement was signed – i.e. by the Customs and Border Protection Service – because CAPS II and the Secure Flight programme are dead.

In his article ten days ago, the US Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff complained of being handcuffed and prevented from using all available resources. He wants to analyse PNR records in conjunction with current intelligence, to identify high-risk travellers who are ‘unnamed threats’, and to share the information routinely with other homeland security sections, such as immigration, as well as the FBI and, indeed, ‘our allies in London’. So we do not need a European PNR system: we will get it by the back door.

The Chertoff vision is of data-mining and profiling on the basis of past and assumed future behaviour and stereotypes of potential terrorists. This takes us well beyond the simple checking of people against watch lists, for which APIS data – i.e. name, date of birth, nationality and passport number – is quite sufficient. We have not begun to tackle the risks of this, so we need a very good explanation of what PNR data is being used for in the United States and what profiling techniques are being used. We need strict and legally-binding purpose- and access-limitation provisions.

Similar concerns arise in the context of the EU plans for European PNR and so-called ‘positive profiling’. Under the 2004 EU APIS Directive, governments gave themselves the power to use the personal data for law-enforcement purposes ‘in accordance with their national law and subject to the data protection provisions under Directive 95/46/EC’. Surely the Court judgment on the US PNR agreement has shown that Directive 95/46/EC cannot be the legal basis for data used for security purposes? Therefore we need the third-pillar measure. Has the Commission thought about this?

I agree with Commissioner Frattini and Mrs in ‘t Veld on the need for a coherent EU policy. If you look at this PNR topic, the SWIFT scandal or CIA rendition, you see a pattern of a disunited Europe: Member States running round like headless chickens, subject to divide and rule by the United States. We are not even a reliable partner: we are not even ratifying the agreements like Europol protocols, which would allow cooperation with the FBI. We are ineffective, dysfunctional and we are letting our citizens down. We must stop this incoherence and achieve a clear and assertive EU competence, but that policy must be determined to safeguard our privacy. Can we trust the Commission on that?


  Cem Özdemir, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, meine Damen und Herren! Ich glaube, die große Mehrheit in diesem Hause richtet sich nicht gegen die Verstärkung der Sicherheit, wo es notwendig ist; sie richtet sich auch nicht gegen die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika und eine sinnvolle Zusammenarbeit dort, wo wir sie bereits in der Vergangenheit hatten und auch in Zukunft brauchen werden.

Dass die Zusammenarbeit zwischen der Europäischen Union und den Vereinigten Staaten auch in Sicherheitsfragen notwendig ist, das lehrten und lehren uns die Anschläge in europäischen Metropolen. Aber — und das ist die grundsätzliche Kritik wohl der Mehrheit dieses Hauses — die Vereinbarung über die Weitergabe von Flugpassagierdaten im Kampf gegen den Terror sollte Sinn machen und kohärent sein. Beides ist bei dem, was uns hier vorgelegt wird, eindeutig nicht der Fall.

Es gibt grundsätzliche Probleme, auf die Vorrednerinnen und Vorredner von verschiedenen Fraktionen bereits hingewiesen haben. Erstens der Verwendungszweck der Daten, und zweitens die Rechtsgrundlage, auf die sich die Weitergabe hier stützt. Beides wird nicht nur von meiner Fraktion grundsätzlich in Zweifel gezogen. Die Verwendung der Daten sollte ausschließlich auf Terrorismusbekämpfung beschränkt sein und nicht andere Zwecke mit einschließen. Und schließlich ist es rechtlich gesehen in höchstem Maße problematisch, Bürgerinnen und Bürger der Europäischen Union den US-Bürgern und -Bürgerinnen nicht gleichzustellen. Es ist nicht akzeptabel, dass unsere Bürgerinnen und Bürger weniger Rechte haben sollen als US-Bürgerinnen und -Bürger.

Wir brauchen eine ausgewogene und konsistente Vereinbarung, die den Schutz der Daten garantiert und den Verwendungszweck gezielt auf die Bekämpfung von Terror und Terrorismus beschränkt. Wir dürfen politische Zwecke nicht über die Grundrechte stellen. Es gibt einen unveräußerlichen Kern an Grundrechten für alle unsere Bürgerinnen und Bürger in der Europäischen Union. Wir beobachten mit großer Sorge die langsame Erosion derselben.


  Giusto Catania, a nome del gruppo GUE/NGL. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, domani comincia una discussione e la cosa paradossale è che non siamo a conoscenza neanche della base di questa discussione. Il Parlamento europeo è escluso dalla discussione su un problema che sta coinvolgendo tutti i cittadini europei. Il primo paradosso della vicenda è proprio questo. Il mio gruppo è molto d'accordo con le cose che propone la collega in 't Veld, in particolare la necessità di passare a un sistema push rispetto a un accordo a breve termine e sulla necessità di evitare il trasferimento diretto all'autorità giudiziaria rispetto a un accordo a medio termine.

Capisco la necessità di utilizzare come base l'accordo bocciato dalla Corte, anche perché gli Stati Uniti d'America chiedono ancora di più all'Europa. Bisogna però ragionare anche sull'assurdità di alcune proposte contenute nell'accordo bocciato dalla Corte. Penso ai trentaquattro dati che bisogna trasferire agli Stati Uniti d'America, quando sappiamo benissimo che in grandissima parte questi dati sono inutili, per testimonianza diretta dalle autorità americane solo sette o otto di questi dati vengono da loro utilizzati. Allora bisognerebbe ragionare anche sulla necessità di istituire una protezione reale, una protezione giuridica dei dati dei passeggeri e tutelare i dati dei cittadini europei è un dovere delle istituzioni.

Il controllo sistematico dei cittadini in nome della lotta al terrorismo rappresenta una torsione autoritaria dello Stato di diritto e paradossalmente in questo modo favoriamo proprio il raggiungimento degli obiettivi cui punta il terrorismo. Il controllo sistematico dei cittadini ha la stessa vocazione autoritaria delle carceri segrete della CIA, Bush ieri ha finalmente pensato di annunciare al mondo e di non continuare a nascondere questa evidenza, speriamo che anche i paesi europei evitino di continuare a essere più realisti del re. Dobbiamo evitare di assumere lo stesso atteggiamento su questa materia, evitiamo di essere più estremisti degli USA nel controllo dei cittadini in nome di questa falsa guerra al terrorismo!



  Gerard Batten, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, this report states that the EU-US agreement in this sphere is going to become ‘the standard, both for European legislation and globally’. Well, what a reference standard to have! It is already an embarrassment. The European Court of Justice has annulled the original agreement, and yet the replacement agreement only differs in its legal basis.

This Parliament challenged the original agreement between the US and the EU because it believed that the legal basis was wrong and disagreed with the substance. However, despite this Parliament appearing to win the case in the European Court of Justice, nothing substantial has changed. The legal basis will be altered, but since the European Court of Justice did not comment on the substance, in real terms nothing has changed except, of course, the fact that the European Court of Justice will not have competence over the new agreement.

It is clear that the Council is going to continue with this agreement in its original form, just changing the legal basis but still ignoring Parliament in the process. So why is this Parliament again indulging in pointless activity by writing, debating and voting on this report? It will be ignored by the Council.

In-fighting within the European institutions brought about the premature termination of the original agreement. This whole process illustrates the chaotic nature of the European Union. This indicates clearly once again why the United Kingdom would be so much better served by organising such international agreements and arrangements on a bilateral basis.


  Frank Vanhecke (NI). – Voorzitter, de bezorgdheid over de burgerlijke vrijheden van de Europeanen die uit het debat blijkt, is natuurlijk aandoenlijk en ook terecht. Ik wil wel van dit forum eens gebruik maken om te zeggen dat ik die fundamentele verdediging van de burgerlijke vrijheden niet hoor, wanneer bijvoorbeeld in mijn eigen land België de telefoons van democratisch verkozen parlementsleden van mijn partij openlijk worden afgeluisterd door de Staatsveiligheid, zoals onlangs nog het geval was met de telefoon van onze fractieleider in het Vlaams Parlement, Filip De Winter.

Als de burgerlijke vrijheden en de privacy nota bene van verkozen parlementsleden in het hart van de Europese Unie, in Brussel, geschonden worden, dan hoor ik jammer genoeg al die collega's niet die hier staan te springen om de grote boze satan in Washington op de vingers te tikken. Laten we dus niet de verongelijkte maagden uithangen.

Natuurlijk moeten de rechten van Europeanen en reizigers zoveel mogelijk gevrijwaard blijven, maar wie na de verijdelde terreuraanslagen van deze zomer, nog twijfelt aan het nut van veel strengere controlemaatregelen in het internationale vliegverkeer, die is eigenlijk bijna misdadig naïef. Het is jammer genoeg de prijs die wij moeten betalen voor meer veiligheid en voor meer vrijheid.


  Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Vizepräsident, geschätzte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Nach dem EuGH-Urteil, das uns nunmehr vorliegt, muss es das erste Ziel sein, einen vertragslosen Zustand zu vermeiden, weil die Konsequenzen negativ wären, für die Fluggesellschaften genauso wie für die Passagiere. Das kann bis hin zum Landeverbot gehen, in jedem Fall führt es für die Passagiere, die in die USA fliegen, zu Wartezeiten, da sie dort die Daten auf den Flughäfen liefern müssen.

Daher unterstützen wir und unterstütze ich sehr wohl, dass Herr Kommissar Frattini in diese Verhandlungen eintritt, und zwar mit einer geänderten Rechtsgrundlage nach dem Urteil des EuGH, aber mit dem alten Vertragsinhalt, der genau das umfasst, was wir damals vorgeschlagen haben und was eingearbeitet wurde.

Für alle, die den Vertrag nicht mehr gelesen haben: Er beinhaltet die Reduktion der Datensätze auf 34, die Zweckbindung, die Infopflicht an Reisende, die Datenübermittlung ausschließlich an eine Behörde, nämlich das Ministerium für Heimatschutz, das Überprüfungsrecht und auch das Beschwerde- und Klagerecht, ebenso wie die Informationspflicht an die Europäische Union, wenn Terrorverdacht besteht. Das heißt, er bringt uns auch ein Mehr an Sicherheit, und das sollten wir vor allem nutzen.

Daher ist es meines Erachtens jetzt notwendig, Herrn Kommissar Frattini zu unterstützen, ihn auch zu ermuntern, in die Verhandlungen zu gehen, dabei natürlich auch einzufordern, was noch nicht gänzlich erfüllte Punkte sind — das ist klar. Aber im Prinzip muss es darum gehen, dass wir keinen vertragslosen Zustand haben, und zwar im Interesse der Sicherheit der Bürger der Union, im Interesse der Flugpassagiere und im Interesse der Fluggesellschaften.


  Σταύρος Λαμπρινίδης (PSE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, το θέμα της μεταφοράς προσωπικών δεδομένων των ευρωπαίων πολιτών μέσω του PNR είναι ένα θέμα που, όπως είναι φυσικό, έχει απασχολήσει πολύ το Κοινοβούλιο. Λαμβάνοντας υπόψη τη σοβαρότητα με την οποία πρέπει να αντιμετωπίζονται τα θέματα αντιτρομοκρατίας και θεμελιωδών δικαιωμάτων, μπορεί κάποιος να μας ενημερώσει τί ακριβώς ήταν αυτή η άτυπη συνάντηση ορισμένων Υπουργών των κρατών μελών στο Λονδίνο, στα μέσα του καλοκαιριού, με τη συμμετοχή μάλιστα και της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής, συνάντηση κατά την οποία, από ό,τι φαίνεται, προτάθηκαν και σοβαρά νέα μέτρα αντιτρομοκρατίας; Με ποια δικαιοδοσία έγινε; Ποίος συγκάλεσε τη συνάντηση αυτή; Ποίος νομιμοποίησε τους πρόθυμους που συνευρέθηκαν στη συνέχεια για να εκδώσουν δελτία Τύπου, 'δήθεν' με τα νέα ευρωπαϊκά απαραίτητα μέτρα;

Δεύτερον, όσον αφορά την ίδια τη συμφωνία PNR. Παρακαλούμε κύριε Αντιπρόεδρε, όπως είχατε ρητά δεσμευθεί, να μας ενημερώσετε για το περιεχόμενό της, για το αν υπάρχουν ουσιαστικές αλλαγές και κυρίως για το αν οι προαιρετικές δεσμεύσεις των ΗΠΑ καθίστανται δεσμευτικές. Είπατε εδώ: "they could become binding", δεν είπατε: "they will become binding".

Η Αμερική τις τελευταίες μέρες δίνει έντονα την εντύπωση ότι αποφεύγει τη διαπραγμάτευση, ότι απειλεί να μην υπογράψει διμερή συμφωνία και, αντ' αυτού, να προχωρήσει σε ακόμη χειρότερες διμερείς συμφωνίες για την PNR με τα κράτη μέλη. Μας εκβιάζει δηλαδή. Γιατί ανέχεστε αυτόν τον εκβιασμό από μία χώρα η οποία εχθές ομολόγησε ότι διατηρούσε μυστικές φυλακές σε όλο τον κόσμο παραβιάζοντας κάθε έννοια διεθνούς δικαίου;

Τέλος, παρακαλούμε κύριε Αντιπρόεδρε, ενημερώστε μας για την ιστορία του ευρωπαϊκού PNR που, από ό,τι φαίνεται, συζητήσατε στο Λονδίνο. Τί θα πει αυτό; Γιατί είναι απαραίτητο; Γιατί είναι αναλογικό; Θα είναι αποτελεσματικό μέτρο όταν η Αμερική, ακόμη και σήμερα, αρνείται να μας παράσχει στοιχεία για το πόσο απαραίτητη ή αποτελεσματική ήταν η χρήση PNR με την Αμερική; Πώς θα είχε αποτρέψει τους βρετανούς ή δανούς πολίτες που κατηγορούνται σήμερα ως επίδοξοι βομβιστές; Πώς θα είχε αποτρέψει την 11η Σεπτεμβρίου ή τα χτυπήματα στο Λονδίνο ή στη Μαδρίτη;

Απαιτείται λοιπόν άμεση ενημέρωση του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου. Κανείς εδώ δεν αρνείται ότι χρειάζεται αντιτρομοκρατική πολιτική και συνεργασία. Αλλά ο νόμος είναι σαφής: σε μία Δημοκρατία τα μέτρα πρέπει να είναι απαραίτητα, αποτελεσματικά και αναλογικά. Τα εθνικά κοινοβούλια και το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο πρέπει να έχουν λόγο.


  Alexander Alvaro (ALDE). – Herr Präsident! Ich glaube, dass spätestens der Rat — wenn er da wäre, aber die Kommission ist durch den Vizepräsidenten vertreten — wahrnehmen wird, dass das Parlament, das fraktionsübergreifend mit einer Stimme spricht, durchaus die Notwendigkeit — teils mehr, teils weniger — einsieht, aber auch gleichzeitig einfordert, dass hier auf gleicher Augenhöhe mit den Vereinigten Staaten über entsprechende Bestimmungen datenschutzrechtlicher Natur verhandelt wird. Das sollte den anderen Institutionen doch mal zu denken geben.

Das Urteil des Europäischen Gerichtshofs hat uns nicht sehr viel weitergebracht. Es hat uns erklärt, dass wir die falsche Rechtsgrundlage gewählt haben, hat uns aber nicht gesagt, wie wir es besser machen könnten. Das ist auch nicht die Aufgabe eines Gerichts; es ist unsere Aufgabe, darauf zu achten, wie wir dies machen.

Ich möchte auf die Umsetzungsschritte, die vor uns stehen, eingehen. Ich glaube, wir werden eine ganze Menge Probleme bekommen, wenn wir so weitermachen. Erstens möchte ich bezweifeln — unabhängig davon, dass es uns lieber wäre, wir könnten es als Union machen, anstatt dass die Nationalstaaten es im Alleingang machen —, dass wir tatsächlich eine rechtliche Kompetenz dazu haben. Da bin ich mir, ehrlich gesagt, nicht sicher. Selbst wenn, ist die Frage, ob wir es in der zeitlichen Umsetzungsfrist schaffen werden.

Nehmen wir tatsächlich entweder die dritte Säule oder eine Kombination aus zweiter und dritter Säule, um dieses Verfahren weiter voranzubringen, werden wir, zumindest in den meisten Mitgliedstaaten, auf Umsetzungsprobleme stoßen. Wir werden nationale verfassungsrechtliche Probleme bekommen — das kann ich von Deutschland sagen, und ich bin mir sicher, dass die meisten Mitgliedstaaten auf ähnliche verfassungsrechtliche Hindernisse stoßen werden, was die Umsetzung dieses Abkommens angeht. Insofern müssen in den einzelnen Mitgliedstaaten erst die entsprechenden Voraussetzungen geschaffen werden.

Darüber hinaus werden wir Probleme datenschutzrechtlicher Natur haben, weil wir eben, abgesehen von der ersten Säule, über keinen wirksamen Datenschutz in der Europäischen Union verfügen, was bedeutet, dass in den Mitgliedstaaten erst einmal die datenschutzrechtlichen und gesetzgeberischen Voraussetzungen geschaffen werden müssen.

Ich befürchte also, dass zumindest entweder vor dem Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte oder vor dem Europäischen Gerichtshof selber — falls es rechtlich möglich sein wird, abhängig von der Rechtsgrundlage — oder vor den nationalen Verfassungsgerichten durchaus einige Verfahren auf uns zukommen werden, die ein Inkrafttreten erst einmal behindern werden. Insofern sollten wir im formellen Bereich — mal abgesehen von Inhalten — jetzt äußerst sorgfältig handeln, um uns eine weitere Blamage zu ersparen, denn genau das können wir uns auf dem internationalen Parkett und gerade in dieser Frage nicht erlauben.

Abschließend möchte ich doch auch einmal die Frage stellen, warum niemand innerhalb der Europäischen Union es gewagt hat, unseren Partnern auf der anderen Seite des Atlantiks wenigstens einmal den volkswirtschaftlichen Schaden vorzuführen, der entstehen würde, nachdem die Vereinigten Staaten gesagt haben: Wenn ihr das nicht unterzeichnet, dann dürfen eure Fluggesellschaften bei uns nicht landen!


  Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann (GUE/NGL). – Herr Präsident, Herr Vizepräsident! Um es ganz klar zu sagen: Das Parlament hat zu Recht gegen das PNR-Abkommen geklagt. Leider hat sich der Europäische Gerichtshof nicht inhaltlich zu dem Abkommen geäußert, da er ja schon die Rechtsgrundlage, auf die es gestellt worden war, für falsch erachtete. Ich bin der Meinung, dass dieses Schicksal im Übrigen auch die Richtlinie zur Vorratsdatenspeicherung ereilen könnte.

Nach dem Urteilsspruch der Richter soll oder muss nun jedoch sehr kurzfristig ein neues Abkommen beschlossen werden, damit nicht alle 25 Mitgliedstaaten einzeln bilaterale Abkommen mit den USA abschließen müssen, was einem hohen und vor allem einheitlichen Schutz der europäischen Bürgerinnen und Bürger ganz sicher nicht dienlich wäre.

Natürlich kann in so kurzer Zeit kein völlig neues Abkommen ausgehandelt werden, aber es gibt doch Punkte, die mit Blick auf das beabsichtigte kurzfristige einjährige Abkommen realisiert werden müssen. So muss aus meiner Sicht die EU vor allem darauf bestehen, dass die USA die von ihnen gemachten Zusagen endlich einhalten, das heißt, die Verpflichtungserklärungen der USA müssen in den Vertragskörper überführt werden.

Die Praxis der vergangenen zwei Jahre hat doch gezeigt, dass die USA diese Verpflichtungen nicht sonderlich ernst nehmen, ja, dass sie sich einfach darüber hinwegsetzen. Dies gilt insbesondere für den Grundsatz der Zweckbindung der Daten, und es liegt im ureigensten Interesse der Bürgerinnen und Bürger Europas, dass die PNR-Daten von den US-Zoll- und Einwanderungsbehörden nicht beliebig weitergegeben werden dürfen.


  Ιωάννης Βαρβιτσιώτης (PPE-DE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Αντιπρόεδρε της Επιτροπής, είναι δυσάρεστο που το Ευρωπαϊκό Δικαστήριο δεν αποφάνθηκε επί της ουσίας στο ερώτημα που του είχε θέσει το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο και έτσι σήμερα βρισκόμαστε σ' αυτή την περίπλοκη κατάσταση.

Τώρα καλούμαστε να δώσουμε μια λύση κάτω από την πίεση του χρόνου, διότι αν μέχρι τις 30 Σεπτεμβρίου δεν δοθεί λύση τότε περισσότεροι από 100.000 ευρωπαίοι επιβάτες την εβδομάδα κινδυνεύουν να μην μπορούν να ταξιδέψουν προς τις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες.

Αντιλαμβάνομαι ακόμη ότι τα πρόσφατα γεγονότα στο Λονδίνο έχουν αυξήσει το ενδιαφέρον, σε μερικά κράτη μέλη, για τη μεταβίβαση των δεδομένων. Όμως, θα ήθελα να τονίσω ότι ο κοινός μας στόχος, της διαφύλαξης της δημόσιας ασφάλειας, είναι αυτονόητος. Η μέθοδος όμως που ακολουθούμε για να τον πετύχουμε θα καθορίσει και το ποιόν των κοινωνιών μας και θα δηλώσει το επίπεδο και την ωριμότητα του πολιτισμού μας.

Πρέπει να καταβληθεί προσπάθεια ώστε τα στοιχεία που ενδέχεται να ζητηθούν να περιορισθούν στα εντελώς απαραίτητα και με σαφή εξαίρεση των ευαίσθητων προσωπικών δεδομένων. Σε κάθε όμως περίπτωση, σε ένα τόσο σοβαρό θέμα, θα έπρεπε να υπάρχει στενή συνεργασία μεταξύ των θεσμικών οργάνων, με ενεργό - επαναλαμβάνω - με ενεργό συμμετοχή του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου και ιδιαίτερα της Επιτροπής Ελευθεριών. Και αυτό, σε όλα τα επίπεδα των διαπραγματεύσεων.

Δέχομαι τη θέση του κυρίου Frattini ότι θα μας ενημερώνει. Δεν φθάνει όμως αυτό. Το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο δεν μπορεί να καλείται κάθε φορά να καλύψει αποφάσεις οι οποίες έχουν ήδη ληφθεί. Το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο έχει υποχρέωση να μετέχει ενεργά σε όλα αυτά τα ευαίσθητα θέματα.

Με αυτές τις παρατηρήσεις νομίζω ότι θα ψηφίσουμε την άποψη την οποία εκφράζει η έκθεση της συναδέλφου.


  Edith Mastenbroek (PSE). – Mr President, I fully endorse the approach of our rapporteur, Mrs in ‘t Veld. It is only normal that we, as Members of the European Parliament, seek the protection of our citizens’ rights as we fight against terrorism. These two things do not exclude each other; on the contrary, they are complementary. But I also endorse our other criticisms. Of course, we need full parliamentary involvement and a free, open and transparent debate. If we cannot even honour the principles of democracy when we decide on the fundamental rights of our citizens, then when can we?

But let us face it, even though all these things are, as we say in Holland, ‘completely open doors that do not need to be kicked in’, the PNR case is becoming a bit of a farce. It somehow seems incredibly difficult to solve the problems and make sure that the rights of our citizens are adequately protected. Why is this? Is it Mr Frattini’s fault? Is it due to the Council? After PNR, Swift, the CIA scandal and various other recent problems, I believe that it is highly unlikely that the current United States Government can be persuaded to be sensitive to our very simple and logical demands.

Maybe we, as a parliament, should change our tactics. Maybe we should take up the issue directly with the United States Congress – I have much more faith in our democratic counterparts on the other side of the pond. I hope for a joint session of the European Parliament and the United States Congress, as I am sure that American parliamentarians are more subject to reason than the Bush Government.


  Marco Cappato (ALDE). – Signor Presidente, signor Vicepresidente della Commissione, onorevoli colleghi, sono abbastanza pessimista sull'esito di questo accordo, sostengo le cose dette in particolare dalla relatrice in 't Veld, ma il problema è quello che abbiamo rinunciato, come Unione europea e come Commissione europea, al nostro potere negoziale: questa è la ragione per cui c'è da essere pessimisti.

Abbiamo rinunciato al nostro potere negoziale quattro anni fa, quando per un anno e mezzo sono stati trasferiti nella totale illegalità i dati dei passeggeri negli Stati Uniti. E' stato fatto un accordo, che poi si è rivelato illegale e di fatto è servito semplicemente a recepire quell'illegalità e a correggerla in piccolissima parte. In realtà avremmo un potere negoziale enorme, si tratta di decidere se vogliamo, come Europa, che si rispetti la nostra legge sulla nostra terra, è un principio dello Stato di diritto. Forti di questo fatto potremo andare a negoziare con gli Stati Uniti, se invece ci rinunciamo, evidentemente gli Stati Uniti sono nella posizione di chi dice: "Beh, se se tra trenta giorni non si fa un accordo, noi faremo come ci pare". Il piccolo particolare è che loro, se noi vogliamo, non possono fare come gli pare.

Il ragionamento di chi dice: "Qui si rischia che vengano bloccati i voli delle compagnie aeree negli Stati Uniti" è un ragionamento del tutto falso da un punto di vista legale, le nostre leggi sulla privacy non proteggono in funzione della nazionalità della compagnia di bandiera aerea, proteggono rispetto al paese dove vengono raccolti i dati personali. I dati raccolti per fini commerciali non possono essere sistematicamente utilizzati per fini di sicurezza, né negli Stati Uniti, ma nemmeno in Europa, nemmeno se lo volessimo usare in questo modo i nostri dati!

Allora, se inizieremo a far rispettare la nostra legge riusciremo ad avere un potere negoziale per concludere un accordo con gli Stati Uniti. Un accordo del genere significa che vanno trasmessi solo i dati rilevanti ai fini di sicurezza e non dati assolutamente irrilevanti come accadde oggi.


  Αθανάσιος Παφίλης (GUE/NGL). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η συζήτηση για την προστασία των προσωπικών δεδομένων θυμίζει κάθε φορά θέατρο του παραλόγου. Γιατί; Υπάρχει ακύρωση της απόφασης από το Ευρωπαϊκό Δικαστήριο και από την έκθεση και από την Επιτροπή ουσιαστικά προτείνεται η ίδια συμφωνία, ακριβώς η ίδια, η οποία έχει ακυρωθεί.

Δεύτερον, καταγγέλλεται η παράδοση στοιχείων συναλλαγών εκατομμυρίων πολιτών από τη SWIFT και την ίδια στιγμή, στην ίδια ολομέλεια του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου, ψηφίζεται έκθεση η οποία νομιμοποιεί αυτή την παράδοση.

Τρίτον, καταγγέλλεται η ύπαρξη μυστικών φυλακών από αυτούς οι οποίοι συμμετείχαν στις κυβερνήσεις, είχαν υπογράψει συμφωνίες με τις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες της Αμερικής και έρχονται μέσα στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο και διαμαρτύρονται.

Τέταρτον, γίνεται συζήτηση για την προστασία των προσωπικών δεδομένων και των δημοκρατικών δικαιωμάτων και την ίδια στιγμή το Κοινοβούλιο εγκρίνει το στήσιμο ενός γιγαντιαίου συστήματος ηλεκτρονικού φακελώματος με βιομετρικά δεδομένα, σύστημα Σένγκεν ΙΙ, κλπ.

Συμπέρασμα: όσο περισσότερο μιλάτε για προστασία των ατομικών δικαιωμάτων και ατομικών ελευθεριών, τόσο περισσότερο τα κατακρεουργεί η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Και αυτό αποτελεί μια κοροϊδία απέναντι στους λαούς. Η ονομαζόμενη "αντιτρομοκρατική εκστρατεία" έναν στόχο έχει: να τρομοκρατήσει τους λαούς και να τους υποτάξει, αλλά πιστεύουμε όμως ότι τελικά δεν θα το καταφέρει!


  Charlotte Cederschiöld (PPE-DE). – Herr talman! Ärade kommissionsledamot! Kampen mot terrorismen har ökat. Efter vad som har hänt är det förstås nödvändigt, men vi måste klara det utan att skada grundläggande demokratiska idéer och värderingar. Det är viktigt att ha rigorösa säkerhetsrutiner, men att gå över gränsen och förlora balansen mellan terrorbekämpning och grundläggande rättigheter gynnar långsiktigt ingen av oss.

Efter EG-domstolens beslut i maj att upphäva PNR-avtalet kommer vi nu att få ett nytt avtal med samma innehåll, tyvärr utan parlamentets medverkan, vilket innebär att medborgarna inte kan påverka frågor som gäller övervakningen av dem eller systematisk kartläggning av deras beteende.

Den enskildes friheter borde skyddas bättre i det nya avtalet. Amerikanska myndigheter borde göra en begäran från fall till fall enligt push-systemet. Rättsskyddet för europeiska medborgare ligger under det för amerikanska medborgare. Därför uppmanar jag Franco Frattini att försöka finna politisk innovation i den nödvändiga gränsöverskridande dialogen. Annars lär vi aldrig komma framåt på denna punkt.

EU och USA kan komma varandra närmare. Det har diskussionen mellan de parlamentariska grupperna, den interparlamentariska dialogen, mellan vår delegation för förbindelserna med Förenta staterna och deras motsvarande delegation tidigare visat. Låt dialogen successivt bidra till en kvalitetshöjning även innehållsmässigt. Det är viktigt med ett parlamentariskt deltagande i denna process.

Avslutningsvis vill jag gratulera Sophia in 't Veld till ett klart och tydligt budskap. Hon har sagt det som måste sägas. Jag stöder verkligen hennes uppmaning till medlemsstaterna att hålla ihop och inte sluta bilaterala avtal. Europa måste tala med en röst.


  Michael Cashman (PSE). – Mr President, it has been an interesting debate and I should just like perhaps to add a note of realism. We must remember that we are not talking about travel within the EU: we are talking about travel to the United States. We are talking about travel through US air space.

I believe an agreement is essential if we want to protect the fundamental rights of the EU. But if we are to have this agreement we have to be willing to negotiate, we have to move. We have to recognise that in the absence of any agreement, the Americans will do quite legally what they have done in other instances: they will say to every passenger travelling to the United States of America, ‘we wish you to sign a data waiver, i.e. that your data can be transferred to the United States’. Let me tell colleagues now that if that happens, any notion of EU-wide data protection is absolutely and fundamentally lost.

Furthermore, let me say that America is not the problem. An attack upon the United States, an attack in Germany, an attack in Denmark, an attack in Madrid, an attack in the United Kingdom, or attempted attacks, are attacks upon every single one of us because we have common values. The United States wants to make the world a safer place. We need to work with the United States to make that a reality. America is not the problem: terrorism and extremism are the problem. My colleague Mr Coelho cited some brilliant examples of negotiations and agreements currently in place. We should look at those agreements, we should emulate them and we should give our citizens their fundamental rights and their fundamental freedoms.


  Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (PSE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar! Die Weitergabe von Fluggastdaten an Drittländer ist eine der sensibelsten Fragen, der wir uns als Europäische Union zu stellen haben. Wie schützen wir die Menschen vor terroristischer Gewalt, ohne ihre Grundrechte oder ihre Privatsphäre preiszugeben? Das bedeutet in diesem konkreten Fall: „Wenn die EU ein Abkommen zur Weitergabe von persönlichen Daten von Flugpassagieren abschließt, dann muss der hinreichende Schutz dieser Daten elementarer Bestandteil einer solchen Vereinbarung sein.“ Dies war bei dem getroffenen Abkommen nicht der Fall, und es scheint mit, dass auch die Neuauflage diesem Anspruch nicht gerecht werden wird.

Natürlich müssen Informationen im Kampf gegen organisierte Kriminalität und Terrorismus ausgetauscht werden, keine Frage! Aber es muss rechtsverbindlich geregelt sein, wer wo wie Zugang zu den Daten erhält. Deshalb brauchen wir im nächsten Jahr eine komplette Neuaushandlung dieses Abkommens mit den USA.

Eines ist nämlich auch klar: Wenn die Übermittlung von PNR-Daten tatsächlich zu einem größeren Schutz vor terroristischen Anschlägen führen soll, dann kann diese Maßnahme nicht auf Flüge in die Vereinigten Staaten, nach Kanada oder Australien beschränkt sein. Wir werden eine internationale Vereinbarung benötigen, die die Sicherheit des Flugverkehrs weltweit verbessert und dabei den Datenschutz rechtsverbindlich regelt. Da kann die Europäische Union einmal voranschreiten. Nur so können wir die Reisefreiheit als ein herausragendes Merkmal unserer Gesellschaft sichern, ohne sie unnötig zu beschneiden.

Und noch eine Anmerkung zum Rat: Nach dem blamablen Auftritt von Rat und Kommission am Montag in unserem Ausschuss halte ich es für ausgesprochen bedauerlich, dass der Rat heute nicht da ist, denn unter seiner Präsidentschaft soll genau dies ja verhandelt werden. Dies ist eine Blamage für den Rat.


  Franco Frattini, Vicepresidente della Commissione. Signor Presidente, onorevoli deputati, ringrazio quanti hanno dato un contributo importante a questa discussione, ma c'è una prima questione che voglio porre all'attenzione di tutti, con la sincerità dovuta a questo Parlamento.

In alcuni interventi ho ascoltato una lettura francamente sbagliata della sentenza della Corte di giustizia che ha posto di fatto il problema dell'accordo. Ho sentito alcuni citare quella sentenza come una vittoria. Quella sentenza ha bocciato l'accordo: qualcuno ha detto esattamente così.

Onorevoli deputati, quella sentenza è stata una grande sconfitta per l'interesse comunitario, è stata una grande sconfitta per questo Parlamento e per la Commissione europea: quella sentenza ha stabilito che la materia non rientra tra quelle comunitarie; che la materia non rientra tra quelle negoziabili dalla Commissione, tanto è vero che il negoziato lo conduce la Presidenza; che a quella materia non si applica, on. Cappato, la direttiva sulla privacy - non si applica, a noi può piacere o non piacere - ma quella sentenza va rispettata anche se è stata una sconfitta per tutti noi! Bisogna dirlo francamente, non possiamo dire grazie alla sentenza che ha bocciato l'accordo. Quella sentenza, come ha detto l'on. Alvaro, ci ha fatto fare un passo indietro nell'interesse comunitario!

Questa è la base di partenza sulla quale ci muoviamo. Ovviamente, quando parliamo di un accordo da concludere in fretta, entro il 30 settembre, e di negoziare poi entro il 2007 un altro accordo con gli Stati Uniti d'America; dobbiamo seguire la visione reale, vera e pragmatica or ora esposta dall'on. Cashman.

Il vero problema è che se questo accordo non vi sarà, milioni di cittadini europei accetteranno una riduzione delle loro garanzie di protezione dei dati personali, pur di continuare a volare verso gli Stati Uniti d'America. Saranno costretti a farlo con una dichiarazione individuale e l'Europa avrà perso qualsiasi potere di proteggerli a un adeguato livello. Il vero problema è questo: non possiamo pensare di accusare gli Stati Uniti d'America, ognuno di noi che ha cercato di fare il proprio dovere.

C'è un'interpretazione data dalla Corte: a me personalmente quella interpretazione è dispiaciuta, ma ho il dovere di rispettarla e di farla applicare. Devo anche dire con estrema sincerità che se ci sarà l'accordo, la protezione dei diritti individuali dei nostri cittadini almeno non sarà affidata soltanto alla discrezionalità di una singola compagnia aerea, il negoziato bilaterale tra gli Stati Uniti e le singole compagnie ridurrà il livello di protezione, certamente non lo aumenterà. Questa è la visione realistica, dalla quale dobbiamo partire.

La seconda considerazione - concordo di nuovo con l'on. Cashman e l'on. Coelho - è che il nostro problema certamente dipende non dagli Stati Uniti ma dai terroristi. La minaccia del terrorismo è concreta: quello che è successo quest'estate a Londra non ha determinato una riunione semiclandestina o seminformale di ministri degli interni con la Commissione europea.

Siamo stati informati - dirò poi sull'informazione del Parlamento - di quanto poteva accadere nel Regno Unito e abbiamo preso atto con preoccupazione che la minaccia era reale ed è evidente. Ovviamente, quando assistiamo a un'importante operazione della polizia e dei servizi di sicurezza della Danimarca, soltanto pochi giorni fa, ci convinciamo che il pericolo e la minaccia sono concrete e incombono sul territorio dell'Unione europea.

Cosa ci vuole? Ci vuole più cooperazione tra noi, tra i paesi membri dell'Unione europea, ci vuole più cooperazione tra le istituzioni dell'Unione europea. Ecco perché nella mia introduzione ho detto che il Parlamento sarà informato, politicamente informato, anche se a causa della "base giuridica" (uso le virgolette di proposito) non può essere istituzionalmente e legalmente codecisore, comunque sarà politicamente informato dalla Commissione europea e occorre anche una collaborazione più forte con gli Stati Uniti d'America.

In questo momento dobbiamo collaborare di più, non di meno, ovviamente su un piano di evidente parità, l'Unione europea rivendica orgogliosamente questo principio ed concordo in particolare con l'on. Roure, che ha fatto riferimento ai parlamenti nazionali.

Vedete, onorevoli deputati, se riusciremo a concludere il negoziato - il negoziato si fa in due e lo iniziamo domani,non posso dire se il negoziato si chiuderà, lo spero - in ogni caso avremo bisogno che entri in vigore subito, anche in attesa di alcune procedure di ratifica che in qualche paese, come accennava l'on. Alvaro, richiederanno del tempo. Siccome invocheremo una norma dei trattati che prevede l'entrata in vigore immediata, altrimenti sarebbe tutto inutile, è giusto che i parlamenti nazionali siano fin da ora informati nello stesso modo in cui informeremo il Parlamento europeo, visto che a molti di loro si chiederà di intervenire quando l'esecuzione temporanea e immediata dell'accordo sarà già cominciata. E' una questione anche di collaborazione e, come sapete, la Commissione europea la condivide in linea di principio.

La terza e ultima conclusione è: quali sono i punti su cui occorre lavorare, direi nei prossimi giorni se non nelle prossime settimane?

Il primo punto è convincere - lo cominceremo a fare dal Consiglio del mese prossimo - il Consiglio ad approvare la decisione quadro sulla protezione dei dati personali; è un impegno che ho assunto, è un impegno che il Parlamento aveva sostenuto, faccio un ulteriore appello al Consiglio affinché, quando nelle prossime settimane al prossimo Consiglio dei ministri si discuterà ancora una volta la materia della decisione quadro, vengano meno le riserve di alcuni paesi e finalmente si presenti un documento atto a dimostrare la volontà dell'Unione europea di garantire la protezione dei dati personali dei cittadini.

Il secondo obiettivo da realizzare in tempi molto brevi è la realizzazione di quello che la relatrice, che ringrazio, ha chiamato il sistema "push", su cui posso fornire qualche informazione dettagliata. Alcune compagnie di servizi tecnici che assistono le più grandi compagnie aeree europee, hanno già presentato le soluzioni tecniche disponibili per mettere in pratica il sistema "push". Alcune di loro - posso citarne soltanto alcune British, Air France, Iberia, Lufthansa, Alitalia e Klm, insomma quasi tutte - hanno presentato proposte concrete agli uffici competenti dell'Amministrazione americana. Secondo gli accordi che avevamo preso anche con gli Stati Uniti, il sistema "push" potrebbe cominciare a funzionare senza bisogno di modifiche nel giro di poche settimane. Tecnicamente c'è già una proposta, è stata presentata e in alcuni casi anche formalizzata. Questi sono informazioni recenti a mia disposizione, esse dimostrano come si sta camminando proprio nella direzione che tutti noi vogliamo.

L'altro punto è il "positive profiling": l'on. Roure ha chiesto un'informazione generale sulla riunione di Londra, la darò volentieri la settimana prossima alla commissione LIBE, dove sarò molto più dettagliato. Il "positive profiling" è un'iniziativa che non nasce né oggi né ieri, nasce alcuni mesi fa. Si tratta di un'iniziativa volta ad individuare procedure di controllo accelerato alle frontiere aeroportuali e riguarda due elementi: uno, riservato ai soli voli internazionali, non riguarda lo scambio di dati per i voli interni europei, in cui avremmo problemi insormontabili di libertà di circolazione, di spazio Shengen, ecc. Il sistema comprende i voli internazionali dall'Unione europea verso l'Unione europea, attraverso l'Unione europea, solo per i viaggiatori che su base volontaria e individuale accettano di fornire i loro dati, soprattutto biometrici, e in cambio fruiscono di una corsia di identificazione automatica che evidentemente richiederà meno tempo ai controlli. La base è individuale e volontaria, con dati biometrici.

Perché pensiamo a un simile sistema? Per evitare quanto è stato detto a proposito dei "negative profiling", cioè quelli su base etnica o religiosa. Ovviamente in materia non potremmo accettare nessun meccanismo di questo genere, mentre possiamo immaginare, visto che il Consiglio lo ha chiesto, che su base volontaria ognuno di noi possa fornire ad una banca dati rispettosa della riservatezza i propri dati biometrici ed in cambio accelerare le procedure di imbarco. Pensate ai viaggiatori frequenti, è un meccanismo che stiamo studiando, pensiamo di presentare una proposta nell'arco di pochi mesi, forse entro la fine dell'anno.

Concludo dicendo che alla commissione LIBE sarò felice di informare su quanto è stato detto a Londra sulle procedure per potenziare la ricerca per scoprire esplosivi, in particolare liquidi, sull'uso di internet, sul "positive profiling" e su tutto il resto.



Le Président. - La discussion commune est close. Le vote aura lieu aujourd'hui, à midi.


5. Il-wirt naturali, artkitettoniku u kulturali ewropew tar-reġjuni rurali u insulari (dibattitu)

  Le Président. – L'ordre du jour appelle maintenant le rapport de M. Nikolaos Sifunakis, au nom de la commission de la culture et de l'éducation, sur la protection du patrimoine naturel, architectural et culturel européen dans les zones rurales et les régions insulaires (2006/2050(INI) (A6–0260/2006).


  Νικόλαος Σηφουνάκης (PSE), Εισηγητής. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, η σημερινή ημέρα είναι σημαντική, για εμένα προσωπικά αλλά, συγχρόνως, και για τους συνεργάτες μου και την Επιτροπή Πολιτισμού και Παιδείας γιατί, ύστερα από συνολική εργασία ενός περίπου έτους, έχω τη χαρά σήμερα να παρουσιάσω στην ολομέλεια την έκθεσή μου σχετικά με την προστασία της ευρωπαϊκής φυσικής, αρχιτεκτονικής και της εν γένει πολιτιστικής κληρονομιάς της υπαίθρου και των νησιωτικών περιοχών.

Για αιώνες, με απλά υλικά και μέσα, οι κάτοικοι της υπαίθρου και των νησιών της Ευρώπης, υπακούοντας στους βασικούς κανόνες της ανθρώπινης κλίμακας και της ηπιότητας του φυσικού περιβάλλοντος, κατάφεραν να δημιουργήσουν μια κτιστή κληρονομιά μεγάλης αισθητικής αξίας.

Η ταπεινή αυτή κληρονομιά, της οποίας η προστασία και ανάδειξη αποτελεί όχι μόνο πολιτιστικό χρέος αλλά και αναπτυξιακή αναγκαιότητα, έχει σε πολλές χώρες της Ευρώπης, με ευθύνη των κυβερνήσεων, αλλοιωθεί σημαντικά εξαιτίας των κοινωνικών και τεχνολογικών εξελίξεων, της άκρατης οικονομικής εκμετάλλευσης και της υπερδόμησης που οδηγεί αφενός στην αλλοίωση του τοπίου και την καταστροφή - ιδίως στη μικροκλίμακα των νησιών - της θαυμαστής ισορροπίας μεταξύ φυσικού και δομημένου περιβάλλοντος και, αφετέρου, στην καταστροφή της γης υψηλής γεωργικής παραγωγικότητας.

Η έκθεσή μου έχει ως στόχο τη διατύπωση συγκεκριμένων προτάσεων για την προστασία, ανάδειξη και μακροπρόθεσμη διαχείριση της πλούσιας αυτής κληρονομιάς της υπαίθρου και των νησιών της Ευρώπης προς όφελος της ποιότητας ζωής όλων των Ευρωπαίων πολιτών.

Οι προτάσεις που περιλαμβάνονται στην έκθεση απευθύνονται στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, τα κράτη μέλη, τις τοπικές και περιφερειακές αρχές αλλά και στους ευρωπαίους πολίτες που καλούνται να λάβουν συγκεκριμένα μέτρα για τη διατήρηση και ανάδειξή της. Λόγω του περιορισμένου χρόνου, θα σταθώ σε μερικές μόνο από αυτές:

Καταρχάς, είναι αναγκαίο η Ένωση να αποκτήσει μία συνολική στρατηγική για την πολιτιστική κληρονομιά. Αυτό θα πραγματοποιηθεί εφόσον η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή, κατά την εκπόνηση των νομοθετικών της προτάσεων, εξετάζει διεξοδικά τις επιπτώσεις της προτεινομένης νομοθεσίας στον πολιτισμό, την πολιτιστική κληρονομιά και ειδικότερα τη λαϊκή αρχιτεκτονική κληρονομιά που το χέρι του λαϊκού τεχνίτη δημιούργησε ανά τους αιώνες. Με αυτόν τον τρόπο, οι ευνοϊκές προς την κληρονομιά δράσεις θα εντάσσονται σε κάθε πολιτική της Ένωσης.

Δεδομένου ότι τα κοινοτικά προγράμματα στον τομέα του Πολιτισμού δεν προσφέρουν επαρκή χρηματοδότηση, πρόσθετοι πόροι για τη διατήρηση της κληρονομιάς θα πρέπει να αναζητηθούν και σε άλλα κοινοτικά μέσα: στο πλαίσιο της Κοινής Αγροτικής Πολιτικής, στα διαρθρωτικά ταμεία, καθώς και στις κοινοτικές πρωτοβουλίες LEADER, URBAN και INTERREG, οι οποίες προβλέπεται να ενσωματωθούν στην επόμενη δημοσιονομική περίοδο στα νέα χρηματοδοτικά μέσα της πολιτικής συνοχής και της ΚΑΠ.

Επίσης, κάνοντας χρήση των κοινοτικών ταμείων, τα κράτη μέλη θα πρέπει να ενθαρρύνουν τον εναλλακτικό αειφόρο τουρισμό, ο οποίος μπορεί να αποτελέσει παράγοντα προστασίας και ανάδειξης της αρχιτεκτονικής κληρονομιάς των οικιστικών συνόλων που έχουν διατηρήσει το μεγαλύτερο μέρος της φυσιογνωμίας τους.

Το πρόγραμμα "Πολιτισμός", με τον περιορισμένο προϋπολογισμό του, έχει στηρίξει επίσης σε μεγάλο βαθμό σχέδια υπέρ της πολιτιστικής κληρονομιάς, αποκλείοντας ωστόσο τη χρηματοδότηση αναστηλωτικών δράσεων.

Υπάρχουν όμως άλλες δράσεις, οι οποίες θα μπορούσαν να χρηματοδοτηθούν από το νέο πρόγραμμα "Πολιτισμός 2007".

Ειδικότερα, στο πλαίσιο των πολυετών σχεδίων συνεργασίας του προγράμματος, θα μπορούσε να δημιουργηθεί ένα δίκτυο αξιόλογων αρχιτεκτονικά οικισμών από διαφορετικά κράτη μέλη με πληθυσμό έως και 1.000 κατοίκους.

Οι οικισμοί αυτοί θα πραγματοποιούν δραστηριότητες πολιτιστικού χαρακτήρα ανάλογα με τις παραδόσεις κάθε περιοχής έτσι ώστε να ενισχυθεί η συνεργασία ανάμεσα στους αξιόλογους αρχιτεκτονικά και πολιτιστικά οικισμούς της Ευρώπης και να τους δοθεί η δυνατότητα να αναδείξουν τις τοπικές τους ιδιαιτερότητες, ήθη, έθιμα και παραδόσεις.

Πέραν όμως αυτού, η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή καλείται επίσης να δημιουργήσει έναν νέο ευρωπαϊκό θεσμό για τους μικρούς αξιόλογους παραδοσιακούς οικισμούς, αντίστοιχο με εκείνον των "Πολιτιστικών πρωτευουσών", όπου θα επιλέγονται κάθε χρόνο ένα ή δύο ενδιαφέροντα οικιστικά σύνολα στα οποία θα πραγματοποιούνται παρεμβατικές δράσεις αναστύλωσης και αποκατάστασης και πολιτιστικές εκδηλώσεις καθ' όλη τη διάρκεια του έτους.

Με γνώμονα την ανάδειξη των αρχιτεκτονικά αξιόλογων οικιστικών συνόλων της Ευρώπης, προτείνουμε επίσης να δημιουργηθεί, στο πλαίσιο του "Βραβείου της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης για την πολιτιστική κληρονομιά", μία νέα κατηγορία βραβείου το οποίο θα απονέμεται στην καλύτερη συνολική αναστήλωση ενός παραδοσιακού οικισμού.

Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, το δομημένο περιβάλλον της Ευρώπης, το οποίο αποτελείται από υποσύνολα διαφορετικών αρχιτεκτονικών μορφών και εποχών, αλλοιώνεται σημαντικά εξαιτίας της ασφυκτικής υπερδόμησης, αλλά και της ύπαρξης ασύμβατων κατασκευών, οι οποίες δεν συνάδουν με τα ιδιαίτερα ιστορικά αρχιτεκτονικά χαρακτηριστικά της περιοχής στην οποία βρίσκονται.

Συνεπώς, τα κράτη μέλη πρέπει να δώσουν κίνητρα για τη μερική ή ολική απόσυρση των κτηρίων αυτών, ενώ παράλληλα είναι απαραίτητο να μην ενισχύονται με κοινοτικούς πόρους έργα που οδηγούν αποδεδειγμένα στην καταστροφή και αλλοίωση σημαντικών στοιχείων της πολιτιστικής κληρονομιάς.

Τέλος, στην έκθεση προτείνεται επίσης η θέσπιση από την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση ενός «Ευρωπαϊκού Έτους Πολιτιστικής Κληρονομιάς», το οποίο θα έχει ως στόχο την ευαισθητοποίηση των Ευρωπαίων πολιτών σχετικά με τη σημασία της πολιτιστικής κληρονομιάς, ανεξάρτητα από την ευρωπαϊκή, εθνική ή τοπική της διάσταση.

Κλείνοντας, θα ήθελα να ευχαριστήσω ιδιαίτερα τη γραμματεία της Επιτροπής Πολιτισμού, τους ειδικούς που συνεργάστηκαν μαζί μου και, ασφαλώς, τους συναδέλφους μου στην Επιτροπή Πολιτισμού.


  Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. Mr President, I wish to begin by expressing my gratitude and that of my colleague, Mr Figel', to the rapporteur and the Committee on Culture and Education for their constructive efforts in producing this excellent report. This report highlights concerns over the importance attached to cultural heritage. They are concerns which the Commission fully shares.

Much remains to be done in this area. However, the Commission’s involvement has already been demonstrated both through the present Culture 2000 Programme and through other European programmes and financial instruments. Several points raised in the report have already been taken into account by the Commission. However, it is a very helpful report, which gives us the opportunity to stress once more the need to use all the existing possibilities to protect natural and architectural heritage.

Within the framework of the Treaty, the Commission encourages Member States to use all the opportunities offered by European financial instruments – the structural funds, for example – for investment in cultural heritage projects. Such investments are clearly important means for the creation of new employment opportunities and for economic growth. They therefore contribute to regional development and regeneration.

In this respect, the European Commission, and the services of my colleague Mr Figel' in particular, are monitoring all European programmes and ensuring that the financial instruments incorporate cultural aspects into their objectives. As a result, over the last few years, we have witnessed a marked improvement. I am very pleased at this development and could give you examples of Member States, such as Greece or Portugal, that have grasped the opportunities offered by Community support frameworks and have introduced operational programmes for cultural heritage.

The Commission also encourages cooperation between Member States in the field of culture and cultural heritage through the Culture 2000 Programme. In the near future, these efforts will continue through the newly proposed Culture Programme 2007-2013.

Thanks to the sound cooperation between the three institutions – and I should like to take this opportunity to thank, again on behalf of Mr Figel', the rapporteur, Mr Graça Moura – this new programme for 2007-2013 will hopefully be adopted before the end of the year. In this context, partnerships such as those proposed in the report could be considered for funding in the near future.

As the report also recognises, the European Commission is very active in its efforts to increase awareness of the importance of cultural heritage through actions such as the European Prize for Cultural Heritage and the joint action undertaken with the Council of Europe on European Heritage Days. In the future, we could consider ways of enlarging the scope and having the European Parliament’s concerns better reflected in these actions.

In conclusion, I would stress that this report is being discussed at precisely the right time. We are at a juncture when our new culture programme is about to be adopted, when the Commission is reflecting on its actions for the coming years and when many points are up for discussion. This report will certainly be of major interest in that context.


  Vasco Graça Moura, em nome do Grupo PPE-DE. – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, caros Colegas, o reconhecimento da importância do património cultural das regiões rurais e insulares europeias implica que se ultrapasse o plano da mera declaração de princípios em que os responsáveis políticos tantas vezes abundam e se adopte urgentemente toda uma série de medidas com vista a protegê-lo, reabilitá-lo e valorizá-lo.

Para além dos interesses culturais em jogo importa sublinhar que há um manifesto interesse humano, social e económico em levar estas ideias a sério. O relatório Sifunakis tem o mérito de apontar uma série de prioridades políticas para se alcançarem aqueles fins. Do estudo sistemático e de levantamento desse património ao reconhecimento da sua variedade e versatilidade, da elaboração de um quadro legislativo para a promoção e a salvaguarda das construções tradicionais, às ajudas financeiras, às actividades tradicionais, da agricultura até ao artesanato, da salvaguarda dos ofícios e saberes tradicionais à reabilitação dos habitats naturais e populacionais e à formação de artesãos e a adopção de novas metodologias e técnicas, enfim, da promoção de iniciativas no quadro dos programas comunitários à criação de um inventário do património europeu neste plano e à valorização de todos os elementos materiais e imateriais que integram esse património, o eco de aspectos percorridos pelo documento que estamos a apreciar é muito vasto e não se esgota forçosamente nos pontos que enunciei.

Defender nestes termos o património das zonas rurais e insulares é também contrariar a desertificação progressiva de muitas das localidades em questão e criar pólos que assegurem o emprego e gerem riqueza e desenvolvimento sustentado. As autoridades do meu país sublinham que a política de património no mundo rural deve assentar em três eixos principais: o equilíbrio sustentável entre a população e o meio envolvente, a acção integrada traduzida numa real concertação entre diversos sectores do poder executivo e as populações locais e um diálogo permanente com as populações como partes interessadas e reais conhecedoras das suas necessidades.

Alguns dos aspectos enumerados são já propostos pela Comissão para o período que vai de 2007 a 2013 e é de esperar que uma política bem calibrada para o património rural e insular contribua para inverter as tendências negativas que actualmente se detectam. A Carta de Cracóvia de 2000 defende princípios que são plenamente aplicáveis na matéria, assentando na pluralidade de valores e na diversidade dos interesses do património, entre eles, as cidades históricas e os povoados no seu contexto territorial representam uma parte essencial do nosso património universal e devem ser vistos como um todo, com as estruturas, espaços e factores humanos, normalmente presentes no processo de contínua evolução e mudança.


  Christa Prets, im Namen der PSE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar! Dass die Erhaltung und der Schutz des kulturellen Erbes in Europa eine große Rolle spielen und auch eine große Aufgabe darstellen, steht außer Zweifel. Und es gibt ja nicht umsonst verschiedene Übereinkommen, wie beispielsweise der UNESCO und des Europarats und dergleichen mehr, die diese Bemühungen dokumentieren und auch die positive Weiterentwicklung zeigen.

Doch sollte bei der Auseinandersetzung über den Schutz des kulturellen Erbes, das sich ja in erster Linie auf die Erhaltung der kulturellen Errungenschaften konzentriert, bedacht werden, dass Kultur ein dynamischer und vielfältiger Prozess ist. Das heißt, dass Kulturpolitik sich zwar um die Erhaltung und Konservierung des kulturellen Erbes kümmern muss, gleichzeitig aber auch für den Aufbau kultureller Netzwerke für zeitgenössische Kultur und Kunstströmungen verantwortlich sein muss, um so als Basis für ein kulturelles Erbe der Zukunft zu dienen.

Die Sensibilisierung der Bevölkerung für die kulturellen Schätze ihres Landes und Europas ist eine sehr wichtige Maßnahme, und ein europäisches Jahr für das Kulturerbe kann sicher einiges aufzeigen und unterstreichen. Die Fördermittel, die die Europäische Union in Form von Strukturfonds, URBAN, LEADER, INTERREG usw. zur Verfügung stellt, können und sollten verstärkt für das kulturelle Erbe eingesetzt werden, aber die Verantwortung hierfür liegt bei den Mitgliedstaaten. Und dort muss man sich bewusst werden, dass Investitionen in das kulturelle Erbe positive Auswirkungen auf die Lebensqualität der Regionen und natürlich auf den Tourismus haben. In diesem Sinne sollte man auch ans Werk gehen.

Wo ich nicht ganz zustimme, ist, dass wir das Kultur-2000- oder das nachfolgende Kultur-2007-Budget sehr stark heranziehen, denn ein Betrag von 400 Millionen Euro für 27 Länder für sieben Jahre lässt nicht genügend Spielraum, um in die Strukturen zu investieren, gleichzeitig aber auch der zeitgenössischen Kunst Raum zu geben. Wofür wir diese Mittel aber einsetzen sollten, ist Bewusstseinsbildung in Form von Seminaren und Erteilung von Forschungsaufträgen, Klärung von Fragen: Wie weit tauscht man sich aus? Wie ist der jeweilige Stand in den anderen Ländern? Planungsprojekte: Wie schützt man Regionen? Das kann und sollte man mit diesem Programm tun.

Das kulturelle Erbe kann, wie gefordert, als ein unteilbares Ganzes verstanden werden. Es muss aber in Zukunft auch immer Hand in Hand mit dem Zeitgenössischen gehen.


  Helga Trüpel, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar Frattini, meine lieben Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Auch ich beginne mit der Grundsatzfeststellung, dass für mich europäische Kulturpolitik sowohl den Schutz des kulturellen Erbes, die Betonung der kulturellen Vielfalt, aber natürlich auch das Eintreten — und zwar auch das offensive Eintreten — für die zeitgenössische Kunst bedeutet, und dass nur in dieser Zusammenschau die Stärke einer richtig verstandenen europäischen Kulturpolitik liegt.

Trotzdem halte ich diesen Bericht für wichtig, weil er versucht, für die Vielfalt der europäischen Kultur, des europäischen kulturellen Erbes zu sensibilisieren. Jeder, der die Gelegenheit hat, in Europa zu reisen, sei es auf den Inseln wie Madeira, den Kanarischen Inseln, auf Zypern oder Malta, oder die ländlichen Regionen in der Toskana, Schottland, Lettland, Finnland, Polen oder die Provence zu besuchen, der weiß, wie schön und vielfältig dieses europäische kulturelle Erbe ist und dass es leicht ist, die Menschen dafür zu gewinnen, für diesen Reichtum auch einzutreten.

Deswegen ist die Politik — sowohl die europäische Politik mit verschiedenen Programmen als auch die nationale Politik — verpflichtet, für diesen kulturellen Schatz einzutreten. Ich finde es deswegen auch ausgesprochen wichtig, dass wir bei diesem Bemühen um die kulturelle Vielfalt Europas nicht nur das Kulturprogramm 2007 im Auge haben, sondern es wirklich als eine Querschnittsaufgabe, als eine Netzwerkpolitik begreifen, die auch Agrarpolitik und Strukturpolitik umfasst, dass wir die verschiedenen Programme wie URBAN, LEADER, INTERREG nutzen, weil wir klarmachen müssen, dass es sich zwar eine wichtige kulturpolitische Aufgabe handelt, dass es aber auch um die Qualifizierung von Menschen geht — denken wir beispielsweise an Restaurateure — sowie um eine neue Entwicklung im ländlichen Raum. Daher ist es im besten Sinne eine wirklich vielfältige Politik für die verschiedenen europäischen Programme.


  Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański, w imieniu grupy UEN. – Panie Przewodniczący! Sprawozdanie Nikolaosa Sifunakisa ma głęboki sens, zwraca ono bowiem uwagę na potrzebę zajęcia się podstawą kultur narodów, tj. kulturą tradycyjną, która jest nadal żywa, zwłaszcza w społecznościach wiejskich i wyspiarskich.

Dotychczas w Unii Europejskiej, w tym Parlamencie Europejskim i Komisji Europejskiej, główny wysiłek kierowano na budowę uniwersalnej kultury europejskiej – kultury dla wszystkich. Doktryny tej dotychczas nikt nie zrealizował i nie zrealizuje, bo kultura jest zbiorem wartości wypracowanych przez ludzi łączących się w narody. Kultura łączy te narody, ale je także wyróżnia wśród innych narodów poprzez swoje piękno, bogactwo, odrębność kulturową i łączącą narody tradycję, którą często nazywamy dziedzictwem.

Dlatego w Unii Europejskiej musimy zadbać o wielojęzyczność, bo język jest podstawą kultury narodowej, o kulturę ludową, która jest podstawą kultur narodowych, o zabytki kultury materialnej i wartości duchowe, o wartości, które zanikają – tak jak folklor, o umiejętności rękodzielnicze, rzemieślnicze oraz o ginące zawody spychane przez postęp cywilizacyjny i techniczny poprzez masowość wytwarzania.

Zachowanie tych walorów poszczególnych kultur obok piękna krajobrazu i środowiska naturalnego człowieka to szansa na rozwój intelektualny ludzi i lepsze poznanie świata, który nas otacza, to szansa na zrozumienie, wzajemny szacunek i naturalną integrację poprzez wartości, a nie siłę dominacji gospodarczej i kulturowej.


  Thomas Wise, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, I have not met many people who are not in favour of the protection of natural, architectural or cultural heritage. Indeed, much of my constituency, the East of England, fits the bill as a rural area. That is, of course, as long as some of the misguided, unsustainable development plans from Mr John Prescott, our Deputy Prime Minister, can be halted.

Great Britain is an island with its own extensive natural and architectural heritage. However, although at face value this report has noble intentions, it serves to threaten Britain’s heritage. The proposals in the report have the specific aim of subsuming Britain’s distinct and diverse culture into the federalist fairytale creation of a common European culture. Sadly, many MEPs see culture purely as a tool for promoting European integration and pursuing a delusional project called ‘a United States of Europe’. Why can people here not understand that there is so such thing as a common European culture, no common history and no common heritage, just as there is no common architecture or common language? Europe is a continent formed of unique nation-states with very different histories and heritage. That is what makes Europe so very interesting and attractive.

The only way to achieve this report’s declared ambition of convincing Europe’s citizens that they share the same culture would be through lies. That is what frightens me. Today’s political elite seems to have no qualms about such deception. We have seen successive British governments seemingly deliberately and successfully keeping the British public in the dark about ‘project Europe’. What must be recognised is that the European Union’s integration agenda is one of the greatest threats to the heritage of every country in Europe that we have seen for decades. Sadly, reports such as these cannot see their own great contradiction.


  Luca Romagnoli (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il parere dell'on. Sifunakis è certo condivisibile negli intenti, anche a mio parere quanto è sostenuto nel primo capoverso circa l'identità europea va commisurato ad una già acclarata condivisione del medesimo mosaico di culture da parte dei cittadini europei, i quali semmai non comprendono dell'Unione alcuni meccanismi farraginosi dei suoi interventi troppo spesso volti solo a regolare e omologare.

Il patrimonio culturale, naturale ed architettonico - forse sarebbe più opportuno parlare di architettura, di paesaggio e di beni storici e paesistici, termini che in complesso meglio definiscono l'integrazione da ricercare nella sinergia tra paesaggio naturale e paesaggio antropico - è sicuramente fondamentale per diffondere benessere sociale, economico e ambientale, specialmente in quelle aree della nostra Europa che presentano fragilità paesistiche, ma anche del tessuto socioeconomico e demografico. Avrei desiderato anche una più precisa chiarificazione del concetto di piccole comunità tradizionali, quel termine "tradizionali" è troppo generico e si presta ad un possibile utilizzo indifferenziato delle risorse e degli impegni.

Le comunità rurali non solo sono parte della nostra memoria collettiva, sono la culla fondamentale dei valori, la fucina di rapporti sociali spesso assai più equilibrati di quelli delle comunità urbane, oltre ad essere assolutamente essenziali per la salvaguardia della cultura e dell'ambiente.

Questo patrimonio culturale non solo è minacciato, come avverte il collega, ma in tante parti in Europa è perfino a rischio di sopravvivenza funzionale: oltre a strumenti di conservazione e di salvaguardia del territorio e delle culture, l'Unione dovrebbe prevedere insieme agli Stati opportune politiche contro lo spopolamento rurale, soprattutto montano, altrimenti si rischia di investire soldi per ripristinare configurazioni architettoniche abbandonate, per verniciare antiche case che resteranno inabitate, per curare acciottolati che non verranno più calpestati.


  Μανώλης Μαυρομμάτης (PPE-DE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, κατ' αρχήν θα ήθελα να συγχαρώ τον συμπατριώτη μου Νίκο Σηφουνάκη για την πολύ καλή δουλειά του. Κύριε Επίτροπε, η πολιτιστική κληρονομιά αποτελεί σημαντικό στοιχείο της ταυτότητας και της ιστορικής ανάπτυξης των λαών της Ευρώπης.

Επομένως, η προστασία και διατήρησή τους είναι ιδιαίτερα σημαντικές για την εκπαίδευση της νέας γενιάς και τον σεβασμό της ευρωπαϊκής ταυτότητας, ενώ, ανεξάρτητα από την ευρωπαϊκή, η τοπική της διάσταση αποτελεί θεμελιώδη αξία για τους ευρωπαίους πολίτες. Όλοι διαπιστώνουμε ότι οι προβολείς είναι στραμμένοι στις μεγάλες πόλεις όπου βρίσκονται τα πιο γνωστά μνημεία.

Ωστόσο, είναι γεγονός ότι η ευρωπαϊκή ύπαιθρος, που αποτελεί το 90% του ευρωπαϊκού εδάφους, πλήττεται από εγκατάλειψη και οικονομικό μαρασμό. Θα πρέπει λοιπόν να υπάρξει ειδική μέριμνα για την προστασία και την ανάδειξη της φυσικής και αρχιτεκτονικής πολιτιστικής κληρονομιάς των νησιωτικών και των λοιπών αγροτικών περιοχών της Ευρώπης, εφόσον οι περιοχές αυτές διατηρούν σε μεγάλο βαθμό αναλλοίωτα τα χαρακτηριστικά τους.

Με σεβασμό στον παραδοσιακό αγροτικό χώρο και εξασφαλίζοντας ισορροπία μεταξύ του πληθυσμού και του περιβάλλοντος, όλοι οι παράγοντες που δραστηριοποιούνται στον τομέα του πολιτισμού οφείλουν να φροντίζουν για τη διατήρηση και την αξιοποίηση της πολιτιστικής κληρονομιάς της Ευρώπης αλλά και να ενισχύουν την ευαισθητοποίηση των πολιτών για τη σημασία της.

Η αναστήλωση και η διατήρηση ξεχασμένων μνημείων στις περιφέρειες των κρατών μελών θα μπορούσε να συντελέσει και στην ανάπτυξη του αγροτικού τουρισμού και κατά προέκταση να συμβάλει στην πληθυσμιακή ενίσχυση της υπαίθρου.

Τέλος, η αναγνώριση επομένως της κοινής πολιτιστικής κληρονομιάς και η διατήρησή της αποτελεί ένα σημαντικό κληροδότημα προς τις μελλοντικές γενιές.


  Maria Badia i Cutchet (PSE). – Señor Presidente, señor Comisario, señoras y señores diputados, en primer lugar quiero felicitar al ponente de este informe, señor Sifunakis, por su trabajo, que subraya la naturaleza específica y la importancia del patrimonio cultural, natural y artístico europeo, generador de numerosos beneficios, tanto en términos sociales y culturales como medioambientales y económicos.

El rápido crecimiento urbano, el progreso social y tecnológico, los modernos métodos de cultivo agrícola y la explotación económica y urbanística, plantean importantes desafíos a las comunidades rurales e insulares, que, como se ha dicho aquí, forman la mayor parte del territorio de la Unión Europea ampliada.

Así, en un momento en el que, por un lado, el abandono del campo, la despoblación y la crisis económica y, por el otro, los incendios y la proliferación de catástrofes naturales, ponen en evidencia la necesidad imperiosa de profesionales agrícolas que trabajen y cuiden nuestro entorno y que velen por la sostenibilidad y el futuro de nuestro territorio y de nuestro paisaje, este informe es muy oportuno, porque pone énfasis en la necesidad de desarrollar una política efectiva basada principalmente en un equilibrio sostenible entre la población y el medio ambiente, y en un enfoque integrado de las zonas agrícolas tradicionales, especialmente de los medios rurales.

La elaboración de un marco legislativo para conservar el patrimonio cultural, la concesión de la financiación necesaria para su restauración, la formación de profesionales de la conservación de la naturaleza y el apoyo a los artesanos y proveedores de materiales tradicionales son, todas ellas, propuestas que van en la buena dirección.

Y, en este sentido, me gustaría subrayar que promover encuentros internacionales para exponer e intercambiar experiencias y buenas prácticas en el terreno de la conservación paisajística y de la protección del patrimonio en la Unión Europea, constituiría un elemento muy positivo de esta política a nivel comunitario.


  Bernat Joan i Marí (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, firstly I would like to welcome this excellent report and thank the rapporteur for his work. Preserving the natural environment is one of the main goals of the European Union. Our present and future task is to also establish the goal of preserving Europe’s architectural and cultural heritage, and that is especially important for small islands.

It is really important to preserve natural assets, but in small ecosystems, the environment, human settlements and cultural heritage are fully interconnected. I come from Ibiza, an island that is suffering the effects of the construction of two disproportionately large highways. Because of these works, several important elements of cultural heritage have been destroyed. Archaeological sites and traditional homes have been destroyed to enable these highways to be built.

This situation has been repeatedly condemned by civil society organisations and I myself have denounced it before the European Commission and in this very Chamber. If this Parliament and the European institutions as a whole take into account the proposals contained in Mr Sifunakis’ report, this kind of damage could be avoided and small islands, rural sites and cultural heritage could be properly preserved. That is our main goal now.


  Janusz Wojciechowski (UEN). – Panie Przewodniczący! Pragnę wyrazić moje poparcie i uznanie dla sprawozdania pana Sifunakisa i tym samym przyłączyć się do wszystkich ciepłych słów, jakie w odniesieniu do tego raportu, zostały dziś wypowiedziane.

Tym sprawozdaniem Parlament Europejski daje wyraz swojej troski o dorobek kultury materialnej europejskiej wsi. Dorobek ważny, a niestety często niedoceniany i zapomniany. Żyjemy dziś w świecie bardzo szybkich zmian. Wieś, która niewiele zmieniała się przez wieki, w ostatnich dziesięcioleciach przeszła zmiany wręcz "szokowe". Zmieniła się technologia i narzędzia uprawy roli, zasadniczo zmieniła się praca na roli, zmieniła się również architektura wiejska.

W Polsce do lat sześćdziesiątych ubiegłego wieku wieś miała w większości zabudowę drewnianą, potem nastąpił okres szybkiej przebudowy. Nowe domy były wygodniejsze, ale nie zawsze ładniejsze od starych. Dawne wiejskie budownictwo zaczęło bardzo szybko zanikać i dziś niewiele już z niego pozostało. Tym większą powinniśmy przywiązywać troskę, żeby to co zostało skutecznie ochronić.

Sprawozdanie pana Sifunakisa podkreśla wagę tych spraw i wskazuje konkretne sposoby wspierania działań na rzecz zachowania cennych wartości architektonicznych europejskiej wsi. To jest krok w bardzo dobrym kierunku i w bardzo dobrym czasie, gdy jest jeszcze co chronić i zachować dla przyszłych pokoleń.


  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – Herr Präsident, meine Damen und Herren! Wir leben bekanntlich in Zeiten eines rasanten ökonomischen und gesellschaftlichen Wandels, der uns vermehrt nach geistigem Halt und geistiger Sicherheit und Orientierung suchen lässt. Solche Sicherheit können wir unter anderem auch in unserem geistig-kulturellen, aber auch in unserem architektonischem Erbe suchen, was sich auch im gesteigerten Interesse der Bevölkerung und im gesteigerten Bewusstsein und Respekt gegenüber diesem Erbe äußert.

Gerade dieser Respekt muss uns dazu bewegen, zu verhindern, dass es jemals wieder zu einer Zerstörung, zu einer bewussten Zerstörung dieses geistig-kulturellen, auch dieses architektonischen Erbes kommt, wie es im Inferno zweier Weltkriege im 20. Jahrhundert geschehen ist, wie es auch gezielt und geplant im real existierenden Sozialismus, im Stalinismus und Kommunismus im Osten Europas geschehen ist und wie es leider auch in unseren Tagen immer wieder durch einen brutalen Modernismus, den die politische Linke stützt, geschieht.

Ich glaube auch, dass das historische und das kulturelle Erbe Europas, insbesondere auch der ländlichen Gebiete, nicht ausschließlich unter ökonomischen Aspekten gesehen werden dürfen und auch nicht bloß als Mittel des Tourismus dienen sollen.

Es ist meines Erachtens sinnvoll, Projekte wie jenes der europäischen Kulturhauptstadt auch auf den ländlichen Raum auszudehnen. Wenn wir etwa an Sibiu, das alte siebenbürgische Hermannstadt denken, über das gestern eine Fotosausstellung in diesem Hause stattgefunden hat, so halte ich das für beispielgebend dafür, wie sehr die Förderung des kulturellen Erbes auch durch die Europäische Union erfolgen kann.


  Ljudmila Novak (PPE-DE). – Ohranjanje arhitekturne kulturne dediščine na podeželju in na otokih, pomeni tudi ohranjanje evropske kulturne raznolikosti in korenin posameznih narodov. Z njenim uničevanjem pa vsak narod pretrga vez s svojimi predniki in se loči od korenin.

Novejši deli evropskih mest so si zaradi vedno večje povezanosti čedalje bolj podobni. Zato je še kako pomembno, da vsak narod ohrani tiste značilnosti, ki ga zaznamujejo kot narod.

Najbolj pristna kulturna in naravna dediščina se zagotovo nahaja na podeželju. Zanjo pa je potrebno tudi skrbeti, sicer propada in izginja. Prav to pa je težko, saj je obnova kulturno zaščitenih stavb in vaških jeder zelo draga in zamudna, hkrati pa so pogoji bivanja v teh stavbah manj primerni za današnje razmere. Zato je mnogim lastnikom kulturna dediščina prej v breme kot v veselje in ponos. Prav tako izumirajo stare obrti, ker od njih ni mogoče živeti.

Če gledamo kulturno in naravno dediščino zgolj skozi denar in dobiček, nam prinaša le izgubo. Ves čas je potrebno iskati ravnovesje med ohranjanjem in nadaljnjim razvojem.

Strinjam se s predlogom za razglasitev leta evropske kulturne dediščine, da bi se državljani bolj zavedali njenega pomena. Podpiram pa tudi predlog, da namenimo sredstva iz strukturnih skladov za ohranjanje naravne in kulturne dediščine v manjših vaseh, da bodo lastniki in lokalne skupnosti bolj zainteresirani za obnovo, hkrati pa bodo v tem videli tudi možnosti za razvoj in nova delovna mesta.

Biseri so skriti in majhni, zato morajo imeti tudi majhne skupnosti možnost, da dobijo spodbude in denarno pomoč.


  Antonio López-Istúriz White (PPE-DE). – Señor Presidente, señor Comisario, en primer lugar, quiero felicitar al ponente, Nikolaos Sifunakis, por el espléndido informe que ha elaborado. Gracias a ese informe, podemos tener un debate extraordinariamente interesante, porque vuelve a subrayar algo que para mí, y para muchos de los presentes, es absolutamente esencial en la Unión, sobre todo en los últimos años: se ha ido tomando, por fin, conciencia del impacto de la insularidad sobre el desarrollo de las regiones insulares.

Por ello, aplaudo la especial mención que el informe de hoy dedica a la protección y promoción del patrimonio cultural, natural y arquitectónico de las regiones insulares en Europa. En este sentido, la procedencia del ponente, la isla de Creta, cuna de la civilización minoica, la más antigua de Europa, o la mía propia, las Islas Baleares, donde se encuentra la Naveta des Tudons, considerada como la edificación también más antigua de toda Europa, aproximadamente del 1 500 antes de Cristo, nos hacen especialmente sensibles a la hora de alentar a la Unión Europea a adoptar medidas para proteger y rehabilitar el patrimonio cultural europeo.

En este sentido, el Gobierno de las Islas Baleares trabaja en la elaboración y puesta en marcha de políticas de desarrollo sostenible sustentadas en la convergencia de los objetivos de sostenibilidad y competitividad de la actividad turística, y especialmente en la salvaguarda y mejora del patrimonio natural, cultural y arquitectónico. Ése es el camino que ha de seguirse, un camino marcado por una sociedad civil sensible a la especial fragilidad de las regiones insulares y con una alta conciencia ambiental.

Es éste un buen punto de partida para, como se pide en este informe, comenzar desde hoy la puesta en común y el intercambio de experiencias en este importante ámbito que es la protección del patrimonio europeo, asunto de enorme importancia, pues no sólo concierne al ser humano, sino que, además, constituye un elemento importante de la identidad y el desarrollo histórico de las regiones de Europa.


  Giuseppe Castiglione (PPE-DE). – Signor Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, con il trattato di Maastricht l'Unione europea è diventata l'Unione dei popoli, si è dotata di una propria identità culturale nel rispetto delle differenze regionali e locali che, in contrapposizione ad una globalizzazione culturale sempre crescente, costituiscono la vera ricchezza di base di un patrimonio comune. Di questo patrimonio le zone insulari e rurali rappresentano la culla, con le loro tradizioni, la loro architettura, l'artigianato locale, le bellezze naturali e paesaggistiche.

E' dunque prioritario proteggere questo enorme patrimonio, elaborare un progetto di sviluppo locale che miri ad attivare ed incentivare la valorizzazione della cultura e delle risorse ambientali, per farne strumento di crescita di un'economia oggi in difficoltà. Ciò significa in primo luogo una valorizzazione globale del territorio, nella quale - accanto al recupero e alla conservazione dell'architettura intesa sia dal punto di vista monumentale che paesaggistico - occorre anche considerare le persone che vivono e condividono la realtà dei piccoli borghi rurali.

Ciò vuol dire combattere l'esodo rurale, incentivare la formazione dei giovani, recuperare l'artigianato locale e le pratiche agricole tradizionali, dare nuovo slancio a mestieri antichi e a nuove professionalità, anche finanziando la ricerca e l'uso di nuove tecnologie, nonché garantire il mantenimento del paesaggio inteso non solo come conservazione degli spazi verdi, ma soprattutto come utilizzazione delle essenze e delle specie autoctone per non alterare la cultura dei luoghi.

Bisogna dare alle popolazioni che abitano questi territori tutti gli strumenti necessari per poter portare avanti le loro tradizioni nei loro borghi, villaggi o isole. Occorre rafforzare e potenziare i programmi appositamente dedicati. E' necessario che la strategia globale per il patrimonio culturale dell'Unione europea diventi realmente un elemento trasversale alle altre politiche, al pari della sostenibilità ambientale, tutte le politiche devono al riguardo integrarsi tra loro.

Sono convinto che uno sfruttamento equilibrato, razionale e coerente e coordinato e soprattutto più efficace delle risorse anche sul piano finanziario consisterà di vincere questa doppia sfida. Salvaguardare il patrimonio culturale locale e regionale significa consentire uno sviluppo socioeconomico equilibrato del mondo rurale.


  Franco Frattini, vice-président de la Commission. Monsieur le Président, je voudrais d'abord remercier vivement tous ceux qui ont apporté une contribution importante à ce débat, sous la forme d'idées, de suggestions franchement intéressantes, et je compte bien en informer M. Figel'. Je voudrais revenir sur deux points seulement: celui du financement du projet Culture 2000 et celui de la proposition, avancée notamment par le rapporteur, de faire de 2009, l'Année européenne de l'héritage culturel.

Sur le premier point, comme vous le savez beaucoup mieux que moi, le projet Culture 2000 qui bénéficiait d'un budget de 167 millions d'euros, va se voir affecter à présent 400 millions d'euros. Forte augmentation du budget, donc, grâce à la contribution et à l'appui politique du Parlement européen.

S'agissant de la seconde question qui concerne l'année européenne, la Commission prend très au sérieux la proposition qui a été faite et nous l'évaluerons dans le contexte de nos objectifs et des plans prioritaires pour les prochaines années. Cette proposition mérite d'être soigneusement analysée. J'en profite d'ailleurs pour vous rappeler que mon collègue Ján Figel' a fait récemment une proposition importante visant à faire de l'année 2008, l'Année du dialogue interculturel, que la Commission a adoptée. J'ose espérer que l'avis que rendra le Parlement ira dans le même sens.

Ceci dit, comme je l'ai affirmé, j'informerai M. Figel' des résultats de ce débat, dans l'esprit d'une coopération constructive entre la Commission et le Parlement.


  Le Président. – Le débat est clos.

Le vote aura lieu aujourd'hui, à midi.

(La séance, suspendue à 11h55 dans l'attente de l'Heure des votes, est reprise à 12 heures)

Déclarations écrites (article 142)


  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE). – Takmer 90 % územia rozšírenej EÚ tvorí poľnohospodárska krajina, na ktorej sa nachádzajú prírodné rezervácie so vzácnou faunou a flórou i kultúrne pamiatky tvoriace európske kultúrne dedičstvo.

Napriek tomu mnohé politické riešenia, ktoré sa týkajú vidieckych oblastí, neprihliadajú v dostatočnej miere na ich špecifickú povahu a skutočné potreby. Príkladom môže slúžiť aj slovenský vidiek tvoriaci 85 % územia Slovenska so 48 % populáciou, ktorý je v súčasnosti charakterizovaný odlivom mladých ľudí, vymieraním vidieckych oblastí, ohrozovaním kultúrneho dedičstva a hlavne vysokou mierou nezamestnanosti.

Považujem túto správu za vysoko aktuálnu, pretože analyzuje súčasný stav a hľadá riešenia na podporu vidieckych a ostrovných oblastí Európy. Zaoberá sa aj budúcnosťou malých tradičných komunít s počtom obyvateľov do 1000. Upriamuje pozornosť na podporu mikropodnikov, mladých farmárov, tradičných remesiel a živností, miestnych tradícií a zvykov, ktoré pomôžu zaručiť zatraktívnenie a skvalitnenie života na vidieku a tvorbu pracovných miest.

Kultúrnemu dedičstvu je potrebné venovať väčšiu pozornosť a hlavne viac financií. EÚ musí zaviesť komplexný prístup ku kultúrnemu dedičstvu, aby boli ustanovenia o jeho podpore zahrnuté do všetkých oblastí politiky. Vítam iniciatívu „Európske dni kultúrneho dedičstva“ a výmenu skúseností v tejto oblasti prostredníctvom medzinárodných konferencií.

EP prerokovaním tejto správy potvrdzuje, že mu nie je ľahostajný trvalo udržateľný rozvoj európskeho vidieka.


  John Attard-Montalto (PSE). – As Malta and Gozo are the smallest nation in the European Union it is only natural that one refers to their architecture and cultural heritage in a holistic way. With the little available resources and an enormous architectural and cultural heritage it is impossible to preserve same using only our resources. This is why we have to look to the EU to come to our aid. Few know that the earliest free standing buildings in the world have been found in Malta. Notwithstanding, they need immediate attention. Perhaps the most impressive temple complex Ggantija in Gozo is in dire need of immediate professional attention. Valletta, one of the most beautiful cultural capitals in Europe, is still in a disastrous state. Fifty years have passed since the end of World War II yet the capital is still war-scarred – in particular the ruins of the once magnificent Opera House. I appeal to the German and Italian governments to make a gesture of goodwill by rebuilding the Opera House which was destroyed through aerial bombings thus enhancing Valletta architecturally and contributing to its cultural heritage.




6. Komunikazzjoni tal-pożizzjonijiet komunit tal-Kunsill: ara l-Minuti

7. Ħin tal-votazzjonijiet

  Le Président. – L'ordre du jour appelle l'Heure des votes.

(Pour les résultats des votes et autres détails les concernant, voir procès-verbal)


7.1. L-adeżjoni tal-KE għall-Konferenza dwar il-liġi internazzjonali privata ta' The Hague (votazzjoni)

7.2. Relazzjonijiet bejn l-UE u ċ-Ċina (votazzjoni)

- après le vote sur le paragraphe 53


  Charles Tannock (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I would like to propose the following oral amendment: ‘Calls upon the Chinese authorities to reveal the whereabouts of human rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng and to release him unless he is to be charged with a recognised criminal offence; similarly calls for the release of Chen Guangcheng, who has helped citizens in their attempts to sue their local authorities for carrying out forced abortions and sterilisations, and of Bu Dongwei, who has been assigned to two and a half years of “Re-education through Labour” (RTL) and who is detained at an undisclosed location; therefore urges the authorities to ensure that all human rights defenders can carry out peaceful and legitimate activities without fear of arbitrary arrest, torture or ill-treatment and that they be given access to proper legal representation in the event of arrest;’.


(L'amendement oral est retenu)

- Après le vote de l'amendement 2


  Hannes Swoboda (PSE). – Herr Präsident! Auch wir hätten diesem wichtigen Bericht über China gerne unsere Zustimmung gegeben, aber da das Prinzip „one China – two systems“ nicht akzeptiert worden ist, können wir nicht zustimmen. Da aber viele berechtigte Menschenrechtsanliegen in diesem Bericht enthalten sind, werden wir nicht dagegen stimmen, sondern uns der Stimme enthalten.


  Georg Jarzembowski (PPE-DE). – Herr Präsident! Um Legendenbildungen hier zu verhindern: Das Haus hat mit großer Mehrheit den Änderungsantrag 33 angenommen, in dem anscheinend auf das Prinzip hingewiesen worden ist. Insofern ist Ihre Begründung falsch. Sie müssten für den Bericht stimmen!



  Le Président. – Nous n'allons pas rouvrir le débat et nous poursuivons le vote.

- Après le vote sur l'ensemble de la proposition de résolution

Le Président. – Madame Muscardini, en référence à quel article du règlement souhaitez-vous intervenir?


  Cristiana Muscardini (UEN). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il regolamento prevede che le dichiarazioni di voto si fanno dopo avere votato e non prima. Se dobbiamo cambiare il regolamento sono favorevole, ma la regola deve valere per tutti i gruppi e non soltanto per alcuni.


  Le Président. – J'en prends bonne note, Madame Muscardini.


7.3. Ittikkettar ekoloġiku għal prodotti tal-ħut (votazzjoni)

7.4. Sitwazzjoni fil-Lvant Nofsani (votazzjoni)

7.5. Nirien fil-foresti u għargħar (votazzjoni)

- Avant le vote


  Martin Schulz (PSE). – Herr Präsident! Ich beziehe mich auf Artikel 150 Absatz 6 der Geschäftsordnung und möchte vor Beginn der Abstimmung folgende Bemerkung machen, die ich auch mit einer Frage an meinen Kollegen Poettering verbinde: Es gibt einen Änderungsantrag 5, eingereicht von Kollege Hatzidakis. In diesem Änderungsantrag wird – was allgemeiner Konsens ist – darauf hingewiesen, dass wir eine Delegation in die besonders betroffenen Gebiete schicken sollen. Jetzt wird hier aber nur von den besonders betroffenen Regionen in Spanien gesprochen. Gebrannt hat es aber auch in Portugal, Griechenland, Frankreich und in anderen Ländern.

Es stellt sich die Frage: Ist das ein Irrtum? Dann müsste man – wie wir das beantragt haben – Spanien herausnehmen, so dass es dann heißt: „Delegation in die besonders betroffenen Gebiete“. Oder aber man müsste zu Spanien hinzufügen: „Portugal, Griechenland, Frankreich“. Es sei denn, es steckt eine politische Absicht dahinter. Dies könnte nicht ganz ausgeschlossen sein. Dann würde ich aber bitten, keine Parteipolitik auf dem Rücken der Opfer in Griechenland, Portugal und anderen Ländern auszutragen. Deshalb: Entweder nehmen wir Spanien heraus oder wir nehmen alle anderen Länder, in denen es gebrannt hat, mit hinein.

Ich wäre dankbar, wenn wir darüber vor der Abstimmung eine Aufklärung der PPE-DE-Fraktion bekommen könnten.


  Gerardo Galeote (PPE-DE). – Señor Presidente, el señor Schulz, naturalmente, no estuvo presente el lunes pasado, cuando intervino aquí la Comisión Europea. En su declaración, el Comisario Dimas dijo que el único país en el que se aplicó el mecanismo europeo de protección civil este verano fue España.

Y eso tiene su lógica porque el 50 % de los incendios acaecidos este verano han tenido lugar, lamentablemente, en mi país. Ahora, sí sabrá el señor Schulz que en el Parlamento Europeo, el próximo día 6 de octubre, tendremos una audiencia pública, justamente sobre el cuerpo europeo de protección civil, propuesta por nuestro amigo el ex Comisario señor Barnier.

Por lo tanto, como queremos que esa delegación viaje antes del 6 de octubre, es físicamente imposible visitar todos los países que él ha mencionado. Yo propongo que se mantenga el viaje a España antes del 6 de octubre y, si su Grupo quiere que visitemos otros países después del 6 de octubre, tenga la seguridad de que yo le daré mi voto positivo.


  Le Président. – J'ai d'autres demandes de parole mais je ne voudrais pas rouvrir le débat.

Cela dit, si j'ai bien compris, le moment venu, M. Schulz présentera un amendement oral. L'Assemblée pourra alors se prononcer et chacun pourra exprimer ce qu'il pense au travers de son vote.

- Avant le vote sur l'amendement 5


  Martin Schulz (PSE). – Herr Präsident! Nach den sehr erleuchtenden Ausführungen von Herrn Galeote — wir haben das auch so vermutet, wie er es dargestellt hat —, bitte ich hinter „in Spanien“ hinzuzufügen: „in Portugal, in Griechenland, in Frankreich und in den anderen besonders betroffenen Ländern“.



(L'amendement oral n'est pas retenu)


7.6. Is-sospensjoni tan-negozjati dwar l-Agenda ta' Doha għall-izvilupp (ADD) (votazzjoni)

7.7. Falsifikar tal-mediċini (votazzjoni)

7.8. Liġi Ewropea tal-kuntratti (votazzjoni)

7.9. Il-parteċipazzjoni tal-Parlament Ewropew fil-ħidma tal-Konferenza ta' The Hague wara l-adeżjoni tal-Komunita' (votazzjoni)

7.10. Ftehima ma' l-Istati Uniti ta' l-Amerika dwar l-użu tad-data personali tal-passiġġieri (PNR) (votazzjoni)

7.11. Il-wirt naturali, artkitettoniku u kulturali ewropew tar-reġjuni rurali u insulari (votazzjoni)

- Avant le vote sur le paragraphe 19


  Νικόλαος Σηφουνάκης (PSE), Εισηγητής. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, θα ήθελα να προτείνω μία αλλαγή στο δεύτερο μέρος της παραγράφου 19 με την εξής προφορική τροπολογία:

"να υλοποιηθούν πολυετή σχέδια για την προβολή καλά διατηρημένων παραδοσιακών οικισμών, ενδεχομένως με πληθυσμό μικρότερο των 1000 κατοίκων·"


(L'amendement oral est retenu)

Le Président. – L'Heure des votes est close.


8. Spjegazzjonijiet tal-vot

– Rapport: Wallis (A6-0250/2006)


  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), par écrit. – En adhérant à la Conférence de La Haye de droit international privé, dont le mandat est d'oeuvrer à l'"unification progressive" des règles de droit international privé, le Parlement fait un pas pour une fois réaliste vers l'harmonisation des règles juridiques propres à chaque État membre.

Il y a en effet deux façons de parvenir à l'harmonisation juridique. Celle, prônée par les eurofédéralistes forcenés, qui consiste à uniformiser de façon contraignante les règles substantielles de droit de chacun des vingt-cinq États membres. Et la seconde, qui satisfait à la fois à l'exigence fondamentale de la sécurité et de l'efficacité juridiques, qui consiste à uniformiser seulement les règles de conflit des lois et de juridiction, c'est-à-dire à déterminer à la fois le tribunal compétent et la loi nationale applicable à un rapport juridique. Dans cette logique, les États préservent leurs propres règles, systèmes et traditions juridiques, mais pour autant les incertitudes pouvant naître de l'application et de la confrontation de lois nationales sur différents territoires de l'Union sont très sensiblement atténuées.

C'est pourquoi nous donnons un avis favorable au rapport et à l'adhésion de la Communauté européenne à la Conférence de La Haye.


– Rapport: Belder (A6-0257/2006)


  Philip Claeys (NI). – Voorzitter, ik heb voor het verslag-Belder gestemd en ik zou de verslaggever willen feliciteren met het geleverde werk. De houding van de socialistische fractie is in deze eigenlijk een argument om voor het verslag te stemmen, want de kritiek was dat er in het verslag te veel aandacht wordt besteed aan de situatie van de mensenrechten in China.

Welnu, het is een feit dat de situatie daar de jongste jaren helemaal niet verbeterd is, ook niet sinds de gebeurtenissen op het Tienanmen-plein, en wat wij vaststellen is dat er een te grote bereidheid is bij de regeringen in de Europese Unie, bij het bedrijfsleven en andere instanties in Europa, om zomaar handel te gaan drijven met een communistisch regime in China, zonder dat daar tegenover de verplichting wordt gesteld om de situatie van de mensenrechten te verbeteren.


  Jan Andersson, Ewa Hedkvist Petersen och Inger Segelström (PSE), skriftlig. Vi tycker att det är bra att Europaparlamentet förstärker sina ansträngningar i arbetet med mänskliga rättigheter i Kina. Däremot saknar vi de bilaterala strävanden och de delar om handel som bör vara de centrala punkterna i betänkandet. Eftersom Kina är EU:s näst största handelspartner är det viktigt att kontakterna fungerar väl.


  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), par écrit. – Le rapport de M. Belder se veut exhaustif sur l'ensemble des violations commises par la République populaire de Chine, tant en ce qui concerne ses engagements commerciaux internationaux à l'OMC (dumping de toutes natures, contrefaçons et piratage, entraves à l'accès au marché chinois pour ses partenaires commerciaux, etc.), qu'en ce qui concerne les droits de l'homme. Sur ce dernier point, la litanie est bien longue: camps de concentrations (les laogaïs), travail forcé, trafic d'organes des condamnés à mort exécutés, persécutions religieuses, notamment des minorités catholiques, martyrs du Tibet...

Ce qui est étonnant, c'est que le rapport Belder parvient à déplorer ces situations sans jamais mentionner que la Chine est un pays communiste, une dictature marxiste, se revendiquant, sur le plan politique, de l'idéologie la plus meurtrière du XXème siècle.

Plus étonnant encore - mais est-ce vraiment étonnant dans cette maison? - le rapport ne conclut pas à une demande de sanctions, pas même à une condamnation, mais à la nécessité d'un marché libre, concurrentiel et transparent en Chine! Décidément, dans l'Europe que vous nous préparez, l'argent sera toujours plus important que les hommes.


  Hélène Goudin (IND/DEM), skriftlig. För Europeiska unionen är Kina en mycket viktig handelspartner. EU och Kina har under det senaste årtiondet haft en nära handelsrelation. Betänkandet är att se som ett steg mot förbättring av Kinas ekologiska och sociala situation. Junilistan anser att krav på förbättring på dessa områden är en förutsättning för ett långt och hållbart handelssamarbete.

Jag röstar således ja till betänkandet i sin helhet.


  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), por escrito. De forma não surpreendente a maioria do PE aprovou uma resolução sobre as relações entre a UE e a China que, nas suas dezenas de parágrafos, contém escassas referências às relações bilaterais, optando pela clara ingerência face à China.

De entre múltiplos aspectos que mereceriam um comentário apenas gostaria de sublinhar o apoio do PE à subalternização das relações UE-China ao quadro da "iniciativa norte-americana de lançar um diálogo estratégico com a Europa sobre o desenvolvimento da China - um novo elemento essencial na política do "Novo" Mundo perante o "Velho" Mundo -", encorajando "a União Europeia e os seus Estados-Membros a desenvolverem, em conjunto com os EUA, um consenso estratégico no que diz respeito às relações com a China".

Ou ainda quando "manifesta a sua preocupação com o aumento das disparidades e com a distribuição não equitativa da riqueza, com o desemprego maciço e a urbanização descontrolada, o aumento da taxa de criminalidade e de corrupção e ainda com os graves problemas ambientais na China", preocupações que revelam a hipocrisia por quem, afinal, não tem qualquer moral para as fazer, veja-se a brutal ofensiva anti-social promovida na UE e a gravíssima degradação da situação social em diferentes países que a integram.

Por isso o nosso voto contra.



  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), por escrito. A relação com a China é uma das situações que mais questões deve colocar aos responsáveis da política externa dos Estados-Membros da União Europeia, e não só.

Por um lado trata-se de um Estado totalitário que não revela o menor respeito pelos direitos humanos, não tem qualquer tipo de preocupação humanista, ambiental, de desenvolvimento integrado, de promoção da liberdade e de respeito dos valores mínimos exigíveis à comunidade humana. Ao mesmo tempo é uma economia com uma importância incontornável, com tendência para crescer cada vez mais e, como vai sendo evidenciado, o progresso económico - para o qual o reforço das relações comerciais UE China tem contribuído - tem produzido o efeito desejado de desenvolvimento de uma classe média urbana que, a seu tempo, promoverá, esperamos, um impulso democrático.

Entretanto, e como fizemos constar do relatório, a experiência de Macau e de Hong-Kong, acompanhada de perto pela UE, prova que é possível um sistema melhor do que aquele que é vivido na restante China.

Finalmente, uma nota para lamentar a atitude do PSE que antecipando um resultado contrário aos seus interesses queria suprimir temporariamente o relatório. É um mau hábito.


  Kathy Sinnott (IND/DEM), in writing. I oppose China’s one child policy and other human rights abuses. I do not support a one-China policy!


– Rapport: Fraga Estévez (A6-0219/2006)


  Charlotte Cederschiöld, Christofer Fjellner, Gunnar Hökmark och Anna Ibrisagic (PPE-DE), skriftlig. Vi har idag röstat för betänkandet om inledning till en debatt om en gemenskapsmodell för miljömärkningsprogram för fiskeriprodukter. Vi är positiva till att EU fastställer gemensamma minimiregler för miljömärkning av fiskeriprodukter, samt att dessa ska följa gällande internationella standarder.

Vi anser dock, i rak motsats till betänkandet, att det är bra att det finns olika privata märkningar och att all miljömärkning av fiskeriprodukter bör ske genom privata aktörer. Vi delar inte heller föredragandens övertygelse om att den gemensamma fiskeripolitiken ger det mest miljövänliga fisket. Tvärtom är vi övertygade om att den gemensamma fiskeripolitiken är en stor del av orsaken till utfiskning och miljöproblem.


  Hélène Goudin (IND/DEM), skriftlig. Åtgärder som syftar till att bekämpa olagligt, orapporterat och oreglerat fiske är positiva. Jag ifrågasätter dock behovet av att EU centralt skall införa ett miljömärkningsprogram för fiskeriprodukter. Inrättandet av en gemensam EU-miljömärkning riskerar att skapa överflödig byråkrati och kan begränsa företagens, fiskeriorganisationernas och medlemsstaternas möjligheter att ta fram egen miljömärkning.

Jag röstar således nej till detta betänkande.


  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), por escrito. Como o debate evidenciou, a criação de uma rotulagem ecológica do pescado capturado suscita questões importantes.

Afirma a relatora que um tipo de critério poderia ser o que se baseia na objectividade - como as análises científicas - que decorre da aplicação das normas comunitárias que têm por objectivo assegurar que todas as actividades de pesca exercidas nos diferentes países que integram a União Europeia sejam sustentáveis.

No entanto admite-se a introdução de outro tipo de critério, por exemplo relacionado com os métodos de produção mais selectivos, o que originaria a aplicação de um critério a posteriori, invertendo o princípio de que é na decisão sobre as medidas técnicas que os efeitos sobre os recursos deveriam ser analisados e não depois.

Ou ainda a introdução de critérios relativos à segurança alimentar, o que levantaria a questão da admissão de que os produtos da pesca, capturados em ambiente selvagem, possam não ser seguros para a alimentação humana. Nesse caso a questão não é de rótulo. Esse pescado não poderia, pura e simplesmente, ser apresentado para venda nem ser capturado. É, aliás, o que acontece quando se considera que existe um qualquer tipo de poluição marinha que conduz à interdição da pesca.

Daí reafirmarmos o que defendemos na nossa intervenção.


– Situation au Moyen-Orient (B6-0469/2006)


  Marco Cappato (ALDE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, volevo semplicemente sottolineare che, pur avendo sostenuto la risoluzione sul Libano, troppo spesso in questo emiciclo, anche da parte dell'Alto Commissario Solana, si usano come sinonimi i termini "Unione europea" e "Stati membri dell'Unione europea" e si dice che l'Unione europea sta svolgendo e ha svolto un grande ruolo nella crisi in Libano e anche nell'invio della missione Unifil. Questa non è la realtà, alcuni Stati membri, alcuni Stati nazionali stanno svolgendo un ruolo.

L'Unione europea purtroppo ha rinunciato anche ad attivare quei piccoli e poveri strumenti di politica estera della quale disporrebbe. Il ruolo che l'Unione europea potrebbe giocare è aprire una prospettiva di adesione agli Stati dell'altra sponda del Mediterraneo, alla Turchia, a Israele, ma anche alle altre democrazie dall'altra parte del Mediterraneo; la politica invece degli Stati nazionali per Israele, per la Palestina, è una politica perdente.


  Romano Maria La Russa (UEN). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ferma restando la mia totale approvazione alla missione Unifil 2, permettetemi di esprimere le mie riserve in merito alla mobilitazione reale degli Stati europei che, a eccezione di Italia, Francia e Spagna, si limiteranno a fornire più o meno un contributo simbolico.

Finora gli appelli dell'Europa sono stati flebili, le parole dell'Alto Rappresentante per la politica estera Solana, che chiedeva una forte risposta da tutti i paesi dell'Unione, si sono dissipati nell'aria di Bruxelles. Qualora volessi sorvolare su un velato orientamento filopalestinese che pervade le istituzioni europee, che talvolta sembra sfociare in antisemitismo, non potrei comunque esimermi dal ribadire ancora una volta l'incapacità dell'Europa che, mossa dalla consueta ricerca del politicamente corretto non ha voluto prendere una posizione chiara e netta.

Mi chiedo tuttavia come sia possibile parlare di equidistanza.

(L'oratore è interrotto dal Presidente)


  Αδάμος Αδάμου (GUE/NGL), γραπτώς. – Για 34 μέρες ο κόσμος παρακολουθούσε μια στρατιωτική επιχείρηση, ενός υπερεξοπλισμένου στρατού που- χάρη στην πρόνοια των ΗΠΑ και των υπερσύγχρονων πυραύλων που έστελναν μέχρι τέλους- ισοπέδωσε εισβάλλοντας τον νότιο Λίβανο, σκότωσε εκατοντάδες αμάχους, προσφυγοποίησε το ένα τρίτο του πληθυσμού και πήγε την οικονομία της χώρας είκοσι χρόνια πίσω. Το Ισραήλ είναι ένοχο για πάμπολλα εγκλήματα πολέμου που διεπράχθησαν- αυτό επιβεβαιώνουν και οι εκθέσεις της Διεθνούς Αμνηστίας και της Human Rights Watch.

Η σύλληψη των ισραηλινών στρατιωτών από τη Χιζμπολλάχ υπήρξε πρόφαση για εφαρμογή ενός προσχεδιασμένου πλάνου. Έχοντας, ως Κύπριοι, ίδια εμπειρία στρατιωτικής επέμβασης, απορρίπτουμε τη λογική των ίσων αποστάσεων που τηρείται στο κείμενο του ψηφίσματος του Κοινοβουλίου και κάθε πιθανότητα εξίσωσης θύτη και θύματος.

Υποστηρίζουμε το εμπάργκο στην αποστολή στρατιωτικού εξοπλισμού στο Ισραήλ, προκειμένου να ανακοπεί η λειτουργία της στρατιωτικής αυτής μηχανής και να περάσει το μήνυμα ότι η διεθνής κοινότητα διαφωνεί με τη γενοκτονία που επιχειρείται ενάντια στον Παλαιστινιακό και τους γειτονικούς του λαούς. Απαιτούμε τη δημιουργία στην περιοχή μας, συμπεριλαμβανομένου και του Ισραήλ, ζώνης ελεύθερης από πυρηνικά.

Απαιτείται ξεκάθαρη καταδίκη της πολιτικής του Ισραήλ όσο αφορά την Παλαιστίνη και απόφαση για άμεση επιστροφή στις συνομιλίες με στόχο την ταχεία επίτευξη τελικής λύσης.


  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), por escrito. É lamentável que o Parlamento Europeu tenha enveredado pelo caminho que esta resolução toma ao colocar em pé de igualdade Israel e a Palestina, ou seja, agressor e agredido, quando se impõe uma condenação clara dos autênticos crimes de guerra que Israel cometeu no Líbano, das agressões e do verdadeiro terrorismo de Estado que continua a praticar contra os Territórios Ocupados da Palestina, designadamente em Gaza. É um mau começo.

Num momento particularmente complexo e perigoso o que se impõe é que a União Europeia, no mínimo, exija que Israel cumpra as decisões da ONU quanto à ocupação dos territórios da Palestina, a cessação imediata das operações israelitas nos territórios palestinianos ocupados, o levantamento imediato do bloqueio a Gaza, nomeadamente a reabertura da fronteira com o Egipto e a garantia da livre circulação de pessoas e mercadorias, a restituição dos Montes Golã e das quintas de Sheeba à Síria e ao Líbano, a libertação imediata dos ministros e deputados eleitos palestinianos e a abertura de negociações para a troca de prisioneiros, bem como o fim dos colonatos e a retoma, por Israel, da transferência das receitas fiscais e aduaneiras palestinianas.

Uma paz duradoura no Médio Oriente exige o respeito pelos direitos dos povos da Palestina, da Síria e do Líbano à sua soberania.


  Glyn Ford (PSE), in writing. In this debate on the situation in the Middle East, I want to remind Members that on 31 May 2005, Parliament voted through a resolution entitled ‘The Assyrian community and the situation in Iraqi prisons’.

I am afraid to have to report that the situation of Christians in Iraq, and the Assyrians in particular, continues to deteriorate. We have just learnt that Dr Donny George, Director of the Iraq Museum and one of the most high-profile Assyrians within the country, has fled to Syria with his family.

The outgoing United Kingdom ambassador, William Patey, has indicated that Iraq is already in an undeclared civil war.

What is to be done? We must get fully behind church leaders and the Save the Assyrians campaign, which I support and which supports me, in the campaign they are taking to northern Iraq later this month.

We in Europe and the United Nations need to press for this indigenous Iraqi community, like the Kurds, Sunnis and Shia, to have their own administration area within a united Iraq, as mentioned in the Iraqi constitution. Otherwise, the prospect is that the Middle East Christian community which, at one time, was 20% of the population, will be driven out completely.


  Patrick Gaubert (PPE-DE), par écrit. – Dans mon intervention du 6 septembre en séance plénière, j'ai plaidé pour une appréciation équilibrée de la situation avant, pendant et après le conflit israélo-libanais, ses conséquences pour les populations concernées et l'avenir de cette région.

La proposition de résolution commune ne m'apparaît pas comme répondant à ce souci d'équilibre au vu, entre autres, des considérants A et B, ainsi que des paragraphes 17, 20 et 25.

En conséquence de quoi, j'ai exprimé un vote défavorable à cette résolution.


  Hélène Goudin (IND/DEM), skriftlig. Junilistan beklagar djupt den rådande situationen i Libanon. I ett krig är det alltid de skyddslösa och oskyldiga som får betala det högsta priset. Konflikten i Libanon är ett skolexempel på att våld föder våld, och vi tar starkt avstånd från alla slags våldshandlingar som utförs från båda sidor. Betänkandet som helhet innehåller många bra förslag och idéer, men vi anser att FN bör vara det organ med högst auktoritet på området. Betänkandet berör dessutom en känslig utrikespolitisk fråga som medlemsstaternas regeringar är oense om. Vi anser att det är upp till varje medlemsstats regering att ta ställning i frågan. Vi anser att frågan i sin helhet är en fråga för FN och inte för EU.

Junilistan lägger därför ner sin röst.


  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), por escrito. Entre outros aspectos merecedores de crítica, o PE, uma vez mais, insiste, de forma inaceitável, no branqueamento das profundas responsabilidades e crimes perpetrados por Israel, procurando confundir o agressor, Israel, e a sua acção criminosa, com as suas vítimas, os povos palestiniano e libanês, e o seu legitimo direito à resistência face à agressão e ocupação.

Assim como não resiste a insistir na colagem exaustiva da resolução 1701 à resolução 1559 do Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas, sublinhando que "o objectivo final deverá ser o desarmamento de todas as milícias, nomeadamente do Hezbollah", ao mesmo tempo que remete as resoluções 242, 338, 426 e 520 para uma mera referência.

No entanto e pela força da evidência da gravidade da evolução na situação no Médio Oriente, face à brutal agressão de Israel à Palestina e ao Líbano e, sobretudo, face à firme e corajosa resistência dos povos destes dois países, o PE reconhece o que há muito é uma exigência, ou seja, "que uma solução justa e durável do conflito israelo-palestiniano é imperativa para instaurar a paz e a segurança em toda a região", uma "solução global, durável e viável" para a região, com base nas "resoluções pertinentes do Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas".


  David Martin (PSE), in writing. I welcome the European Parliament’s resolution on the Middle East. Progress towards a lasting peace in the Middle East will only be made when the mutual coexistence of an Israeli and Palestinian State, both with secure and recognised borders, is respected and endorsed by the international community. In light of this, I call on the EU to do everything possible to secure that conclusion.

Whilst the conflict persisted in Lebanon, international attention was ignoring the 250 air strikes, 1000 artillery shells, and more than 200 killings inflicted on the people of Gaza as well as, at the most recent count, around 300 Palestinian child prisoners being held captive in Israeli jails. I believe that there is no military solution to this crisis and that the EU should call on Israel to desist from offensive military action in the region and immediately release the Palestinian child prisoners arrested by the Israeli army.


  Mary Lou McDonald (GUE/NGL), in writing. The humanitarian catastrophe witnessed in Lebanon, with hundreds of deaths and injuries on both sides, damage to vital infrastructure and hundreds of thousands of people displaced has not ended with the ceasefire. It is clear that a just and lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is essential to the peace and stability of the entire region.

Strong and positive leadership is required to bring the Middle East peace process back to the top of the international political agenda. The European Union can have a role tin providing some of this leadership, including through rethinking its approach on aid to Palestine and its relations with Hamas.


  Willy Meyer Pleite (GUE/NGL), por escrito. Nos pronunciamos hoy sobre una propuesta de resolución sobre la crisis en Oriente Próximo, lo cual demuestra que el Parlamento, a diferencia del Consejo Europeo, está a la altura de las circunstancias. Mi voto es favorable ya que en esta resolución se recogen algunas claves para afianzar la frágil tregua entre el ejército de Israel y la milicia de Hezbolá. La solución a este conflicto, tal como recoge el texto, no puede ser otra que el diálogo político, nunca la vía militar.

A pesar de ello, quedan algunos interrogantes sobre la mesa, como, por ejemplo, la impunidad con la que sale Israel del conflicto. La UE debería ser valiente y encabezar la demanda de corresponsabilidad de Israel en los gastos de la reconstrucción de la devastación causada por sus bombardeos sobre infraestructuras y objetivos civiles.

Sobre todo porque no podemos olvidar que la ocupación y las agresiones a Palestina continúan, se hace imprescindible una Conferencia Internacional para la solución de la crisis de Oriente Próximo, donde se prevean las medidas sancionadoras al Estado de Israel y el retorno de éste a la legalidad internacional, y donde se clarifique la Hoja de Ruta para la solución del conflicto.


  Αθανάσιος Παφίλης (GUE/NGL), γραπτώς. – Tο ΚΚΕ καταψηφίζει το απαράδεκτο κοινό ψήφισμα που υπογράφτηκε από εκπροσώπους όλων των πολιτικών ομάδων.

Ταυτίζεται με τη στάση της ΕΕ που έχει εγκρίνει το σχέδιο ΝΑΤΟ- ΗΠΑ "νέα Μέση Ανατολή" συνέπεια του οποίου ήταν και ο πόλεμος κατά του Λιβάνου τον οποίο ονομάζει ως "σύγκρουση" αθωώνοντας το Ισραήλ.

Επιχειρώντας να παρουσιασθεί η ΕΕ με ίσες αποστάσεις βάζει στην ίδια μοίρα θύτες και θύματα, ενοχοποιεί την αντίσταση των λαών κατά της ιμπεριαλιστικής πολιτικής του Ισραήλ- ΗΠΑ.

Εγκρίνει το ψήφισμα 1701, χαιρετίζει την αποστολή Ευρωπαϊκών κατοχικών στρατευμάτων, πιέζει για αφοπλισμό λαϊκών δυνάμεων που αντιστάθηκαν ηρωικά στον άδικο επιθετικό πόλεμο. Με αυτόν τον τρόπο συναινεί στην υλοποίηση των ιμπεριαλιστικών σχεδίων. Αποδίδει τις ευθύνες στους Παλαιστίνιους χωρίς να καταγγέλλει τη γενοκτονία τους από το Ισραήλ.

Δεν αναφέρεται στην αναγνώριση παλαιστινιακής κυβέρνησης ούτε στην απελευθέρωση χιλιάδων κρατουμένων Λιβανέζων- Παλαιστινίων στις Ισραηλινές φυλακές.

Χαιρετίζει την κατοχική παρουσία της ΕΕ στη Μέση Ανατολή που δεν εγγυάται ειρήνη σε όφελος των λαών, αλλά θα πυροδοτήσει όξυνση της κατάστασης στοχεύοντας στην υλοποίηση του ΝΑΤΟϊκού σχεδίου για τον έλεγχο της περιοχής

Οι πολιτικές δυνάμεις που υπογράφουν έχουν τεράστιες ευθύνες απέναντι στους λαούς, τις λαϊκές δυνάμεις και οργανώσεις που μάχονται μακροχρόνια δίνοντας ποταμούς αίματος.

Στον αγώνα αυτό, το ΚΚΕ εκφράζει την αλληλεγγύη του καλώντας τούς λαούς να δυναμώσουν την πάλη κατά του Αμερικανοευρωπαϊκού ιμπεριαλισμού.


  Tobias Pflüger (GUE/NGL), schriftlich. Zustimmung zur Truppenentsendung in den Libanon ohne Kenntnis der Einsatzregeln

Obwohl es positiv zu werten ist, dass sich das Europäische Parlament für die Einberufung einer Friedenskonferenz für den Nahen Osten ausgesprochen hat, stimmten die Abgeordneten leider für eine Truppenentsendung in den Libanon auf Grundlage eines völlig unklaren Mandats. Eine Vorlage oder eine Information über die immer noch geheimen Einsatzregeln der UNIFIL erfolgte nicht.

In der Entschließung des Europäischen Parlaments ist die Rede davon, dass ein „starkes Mandat“ der Libanon-Truppe begrüßt werde. Eine Entwaffnung der Hisbollah als eine mögliche Aufgabe der Soldaten der UNIFIL und damit auch der Soldaten aus den EU-Mitgliedstaaten wird in der Entschließung des Europäischen Parlaments nicht explizit ausgeschlossen. Die Befürwortung dieses Militäreinsatzes ist abenteuerlich. Damit wird de facto einem Kampfeinsatz europäischer Truppen im Libanon grünes Licht erteilt.

Beschämend ist, dass der Libanon-Krieg in der Entschließung des Europäischen Parlaments lediglich als „Überreaktion“ Israels auf die Hisbollah-Angriffe bezeichnet wird. Angesichts der vielen zivilen Opfer im Libanon kann dies nur als Zynismus verstanden werden.

Manche können offensichtlich nie genug bekommen: In der Entschließung wird der „Anwesenheit einer multinationalen Truppe im Libanon eine Vorbildfunktion für den Verhandlungsprozess zur Beilegung des israelisch-palästinensischen Konflikts“ zugeschrieben. Nein, es ist eine politische Lösung notwendig, nicht immer neues Truppenentsenden.


  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), por escrito. Por vezes é necessário falar apenas de paz. Há um tempo que não deve ser de recriminações, de comparações, de ajuste de contas. A paz no Médio Oriente só se construirá entre povos, países, Estados livres e democráticos, responsáveis pelos seus actos e capazes de administrar o seu território. A democracia, a liberdade e o desenvolvimento são o melhor antídoto contra as ideologias que fazem dos desafortunados reféns do terrorismo e do extremismo.

Neste tempo é também necessário falar de segurança. Não se constrói paz sem segurança. É por isso que o envio de uma força militar significativa e com capacidade operacional para o sul do Líbano é uma resolução que pode mudar o rumo dos acontecimentos, que pode evitar a repetição dos ataques e das guerras.

Tenhamos, no entanto, consciência dos riscos. Nem todos são Homens de boa-vontade, nem todos os regimes prosseguem a conciliação. Mas isso não impede a paz, apenas impede as ingenuidades.


  Bart Staes (Verts/ALE), schriftelijk. Ik ondersteun de compromistekst inzake het Midden-Oosten. Er bestaat geen militaire oplossing voor de problemen in deze regio. Zowel het grove en bewust willekeurige gebruik van geweld aan de zijde van Israël, met name het bombarderen van burgerdoelen, het gebruik van illegale wapens, de grootschalige vernietiging van de civiele infrastructuur en de ernstige vervuiling van de kustgebieden, als de willekeurige raketaanvallen van Hezbollah verdienen onze afkeuring.

De lidstaten moeten een nieuwe wapenwedloop in de regio voorkomen door de EU-gedragscode inzake wapenexport voor alle wapenleveringen aan de regio strikt na te leven. Na het mislukken van het VS-beleid in de regio is het belangrijk een nieuwe regionale vredesconferentie te beleggen - een Madrid II - om een allesomvattende, duurzame en haalbare oplossing te vinden, op basis van het recht van de staat Israël om binnen veilige en erkende grenzen te leven en het recht van de Palestijnen op een levensvatbare staat, gebaseerd op de bezette gebieden, waarbij uitgebreid ingegaan wordt op de veiligheids- en ontwapeningsaspecten.

De Unie moet de dialoog met Syrië hervatten en het land bij de vredesinspanningen betrekken, o.m. door de ondertekening van de gezamenlijke associatieovereenkomst als belangrijke stap naar een efficiëntere aanpak van de mensenrechten in Syrië.


  Κυριάκος Τριανταφυλλίδης (GUE/NGL), γραπτώς. – Για 34 μέρες ο κόσμος παρακολουθούσε μια στρατιωτική επιχείρηση, ενός υπερεξοπλισμένου στρατού που- χάρη στην πρόνοια των ΗΠΑ και των υπερσύγχρονων πυραύλων που έστελναν μέχρι τέλους- ισοπέδωσε εισβάλλοντας το νότιο Λίβανο, σκότωσε εκατοντάδες αμάχους, προσφυγοποίησε το ένα τρίτο του πληθυσμού και πήρε την οικονομία της χώρας είκοσι χρόνια πίσω. Το Ισραήλ είναι ένοχο για πάμπολλα εγκλήματα πολέμου που διεπράχθησαν- αυτό επιβεβαιώνουν και οι εκθέσεις της Διεθνούς Αμνηστίας και της Human Rights Watch.

Η σύλληψη των ισραηλινών στρατιωτών από τη Χιζμπολλάχ υπήρξε πρόφαση για εφαρμογή ενός προσχεδιασμένου πλάνου. Έχοντας ως Κύπριοι ίδια εμπειρία στρατιωτικής επέμβασης, απορρίπτουμε τη λογική των ίσων αποστάσεων που τηρείται στο κείμενο του ψηφίσματος του κοινοβουλίου και κάθε πιθανότητα εξίσωσης θύτη και θύματος.

Υποστηρίζουμε το εμπάργκο στην αποστολή στρατιωτικού εξοπλισμού στο Ισραήλ, προκειμένου να ανακοπεί η λειτουργία της στρατιωτικής αυτής μηχανής και να περάσει το μήνυμα ότι η διεθνής κοινότητα διαφωνεί με τη γενοκτονία που επιχειρείται ενάντια στον Παλαιστινιακό και τους γειτονικούς του λαούς. Απαιτούμε τη δημιουργία στην περιοχή μας, συμπεριλαμβανομένου και του Ισραήλ, ζώνης ελεύθερης από πυρηνικά.

Απαιτείται ξεκάθαρη καταδίκη της πολιτικής του Ισραήλ όσο αφορά την Παλαιστίνη και απόφαση για άμεση επιστροφή στις συνομιλίες με στόχο την ταχεία επίτευξη τελικής λύσης.


– Incendies de forêts et inondations (B6-0460/2006)


  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur de la résolution commune présentée par six groupes politiques au sujet des forêts et des inondations. Tout d'abord, je suis heureux que, en plus des incendies, les inondations aient été rajoutées au texte initial. Sur le fond, on voit bien, au fil du temps, que l'ampleur croissante des catastrophes naturelles et autres désordres qui affectent les territoires et les populations, dépassent parfois les capacités de traitement par certains Etats membres et interpellent l'Union européenne. Or, l'Union européenne apparaît insuffisamment présente dans le traitement de ces problèmes et je regrette que la résolution ne soutienne pas clairement et plus fermement l'idée de créer une force européenne de sécurité civile. Il ne s'agit pas de recruter des fonctionnaires chargés de la sécurité civile mais d'avoir un Etat-major de haut niveau à l'échelle de l'Europe qui ait le pouvoir de coordonner certaines forces de sécurité civile sur le territoire de l'Union et, ce, à la demande d'un Etat membre qui ne peut pas faire face à une situation précise.


  Charlotte Cederschiöld, Christofer Fjellner, Gunnar Hökmark och Anna Ibrisagic (PPE-DE), skriftlig. Vi har idag röstat emot den gemensamma resolutionen om skogsbränder.

Vi beklagar de många och omfattande skogsbränder och översvämningar som drabbat Europa. Vi anser att EU i vissa fall bör stödja drabbade länder och regioner ekonomiskt när extrema naturkatastrofer inträffar. Stöden får däremot inte leda till att skogsbränder kan leda till ekonomisk vinning.

Vi anser inte att de årligt återkommande bränderna och översvämningarna i samma regioner motiverar gemensamma instrument för att bekämpa dessa och gemensam finansiering för att kompensera drabbade. Vi anser tvärtom att det viktigaste arbetet för att bekämpa dessa bränder och dess orsaker bör ske, initieras och finansieras lokalt och nationellt.


  Den Dover (PPE-DE), in writing. British Conservatives sympathise with the victims of the summer forest fires. However, this resolution does not sufficiently address the fact that most of these fires seem to have been deliberately started by arsonists. Even the Spanish Government’s own Environment Minister suggested that some of the fires could have been started by forestry workers angry at not being drafted over the summer by the regional firefighting brigades. It is imperative that individual Member States take more preventive action to stop these deliberate acts from re-occurring. For this reason, British Conservatives will not be supporting the joint motion.


  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), por escrito. Votámos favoravelmente o relatório mas lamentamos que tenha sido rejeitada a proposta que apresentámos a solicitar à Comissão apoios comunitários extraordinários a Portugal, nomeadamente financeiros, com vista ao apoio da recuperação das áreas florestais ardidas do Parque Nacional da Peneda-Gerês e do Parque Natural das Serras D'Aire e Candeeiros, em virtude do seu inestimável interesse ecológico, paisagístico e económico.

No entanto, consideramos positivo que mais uma vez o Parlamento Europeu tenha exigido da Comissão uma aplicação flexível do Fundo Europeu de Solidariedade de forma a facilitar a sua aplicação em casos como estes das tragédias resultantes de catástrofes provocadas por fogos florestais. É que não só provocam enormes prejuízos como afectam o modo de vida das populações, em especial nas regiões menos prósperas que têm de fazer face aos efeitos adversos sobre as infra-estruturas, o potencial económico, o emprego, o património natural e cultural, o ambiente e a actividade turística, o que se reflecte de forma negativa na coesão económica e social.

Igualmente consideramos positiva a insistência na necessidade de o FEADER e o Forest Focus darem atenção às políticas de prevenção de fogos florestais no países do sul.


  Hélène Goudin (IND/DEM), skriftlig. Junilistan välkomnar internationell solidaritet då ett land drabbas av skogsbränder eller översvämningar. Vi beklagar dock att EU-institutionerna försöker använda denna typ av tragiska händelser till att förstärka unionens inflytande över olika politikområden. Det åligger främst medlemsstaterna att vidta åtgärder som minskar sannolikheten för att till exempel bränder utbryter. Samordning av resurser och gemensamma aktioner kan genomföras utanför EU-samarbetet.

Jag röstar därmed nej till denna resolution.


  Αθανάσιος Παφίλης (GUE/NGL), γραπτώς. – Δυστυχώς κ. Πρόεδρε στο ψήφισμα υπάρχει περιορισμένη μόνο αναφορά στη δυνατότητα μη αναδάσωσης των ιδιωτικών περιοχών που είναι χαρακτηρισμένες ως δασικές. Ο αποχαρακτηρισμός δασών και δασικών εκτάσεων που οδηγούν σε αλλαγές χρήσης γης, οι νομιμοποιήσεις των μεγάλων καταπατητών αποτελούν, τουλάχιστον για την Ελλάδα, βασική αιτία εκδήλωσης των πυρκαγιών που σε μεγάλο βαθμό οφείλονται σε εμπρησμούς.

Ηθικός αυτουργός αυτών των εγκλημάτων είναι οι πολιτικές εμπορευματοποίησης, ιδιωτικοποίησης, και εκμετάλλευσης της δασικής γης, για άλλες δραστηριότητες θυσιάζοντας έτσι στο βωμό του κέρδους σημαντικούς πνεύμονες ζωής και επιβαρύνοντας σημαντικά το περιβάλλον.

Στην Ελλάδα μάλιστα προτείνεται ακόμα και η αλλαγή του σχετικού άρθρου του συντάγματος που προστατεύει τα δάση, ό,τι δηλαδή έχει απομείνει από αυτά, κυρίως γύρω από τις μεγάλες πόλεις και στις αναπτυσσόμενες τουριστικά και οικιστικά περιοχές ώστε να μην υπάρχουν εμπόδια στην υλοποίηση αυτής της αντιλαϊκής αντιπεριβαλλοντικής πολιτικής.

Στις εγκληματικές πολιτικές συμβάλλει η ανεπάρκεια των μέσων και της έλλειψης προσωπικού, αναδεικνύονται άμεσα οι πολιτικές ευθύνες ΕΕ και κυβερνήσεων και οι απάνθρωπες και αντιπεριβαλλοντικές συνέπειες των πολιτικών που εφαρμόζουν.

Η ανάγκη αποζημιώσεων και ενισχύσεων στους πληγέντες είναι και μεγάλη και άμεση. Ακόμα μεγαλύτερη είναι όμως η ανάγκη μιας άλλης πολιτικής.


  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), por escrito. Voltamos agora de férias. Normalmente, descansados e com energia.

Não. Este ano voltamos mais pobres - os incêndios devastaram florestas, atacaram casas e suprimiram vidas humanas. Estamos cansados de desculpas e sem dúvida, desiludidos.

Nos últimos anos o cenário repete-se, sem falha - seca, verões quentes, incêndios. Não basta contentarmo-nos com o cálculo exacto da época de crises. Muito mais pode e deve ser feito.

Os Estados-Membros são responsáveis pela gestão das emergências no seu território. E devem ser responsabilizados quando não fazem tudo o que está ao seu alcance para a prevenção destes desastres. Por isso não posso deixar de lamentar a falha do meu governo na limpeza das matas de que é responsável, nomeadamente, do Parque Nacional Peneda-Gerês. Esta falha é incompreensível. Esta falha foi incendiária.

Não posso deixar de lamentar as vidas humanas perdidas em vários incêndios, tanto no meu país, como noutros países europeus. Se necessitamos de razões para sermos mais eficazes então que as acções dos nossos países, bem como as medidas de assistência da União se comprometam com estas vidas perdidas. Devemos ser implacáveis na luta contra os incêndios, implacáveis contra a destruição dos bens e das nossas florestas, implacáveis na preservação do futuro.


  Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE), in writing. Mr President, I have reluctantly supported this resolution though do so having voted against the idea within it that a full blown delegation of the Parliament be sent to view fire damage in various places. I do not see that this is proportionate to the issues and that the funds likely to be used in this venture would be better used elsewhere.


– Suspension des négociations concernant l'Agenda de Doha pour le developpement (ADD) (B6-0465/2006)


  Glyn Ford (PSE), in writing. It is a tragedy that this failed over agriculture when it is less than 5% of the GDP for the European Union and the United States and yet so vital for developing countries. While India has made the offer to end farm subsidies by 2013, the US seems hell-bent on increasing agricultural subsidies. We can only hope sanity returns to these negotiations so important and so vital for so many!


  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), por escrito. Na linha das declarações da UNICE e do Comissário Mandelson dramatiza-se a suspensão das negociações na OMC vendendo a ideia de que serão os países menos desenvolvidos os mais prejudicados, branqueando o conteúdo da Agenda de Doha, que procura avançar na liberalização do comércio dos bens e serviços, insistindo na ideia de que é pelo comércio livre de qualquer obstáculo para as grandes multinacionais que se promove o desenvolvimento e de que existe uma contradição entre os acordos de liberalização comercial multilaterais e bilaterais regionais. Ora, nada mais longe da verdade.

A OMC está ao serviço dos interesses das grandes multinacionais, garantindo a expansão dos mercados, potenciando os lucros e o acesso a matérias-primas e eliminando os obstáculos a uma maior exploração da periferia capitalista.

Actualmente verifica-se uma limitação da expansão dos mercados e o fortalecimento de potências emergentes, o que aumenta as rivalidades do centro e torna mais difícil a aceitação cega da periferia, mas também uma maior resistência às ruinosas políticas do FMI, BM ou OMC e ao domínio avassalador das transnacionais.

Por isso a pressão negocial para a aceitação da Agenda por parte da periferia, aliás como aconteceu com a Ronda do Uruguai, que levou 8 anos a ser concluída.

Daí o voto contra.



  David Martin (PSE), in writing. I hope this resolution on the suspension of the Doha Round will send a clear signal to the negotiating parties of this Parliament's ongoing commitment to multilateralism as a driver of global development.

It is true that countries do not come to the table as equals in international trade. This means we need to honour our Doha commitments to ‘less-than-full reciprocity’ in NAMA, to special and differential treatment and Aid for Trade for the poorest countries. It means especially that we cannot continue to allow agriculture, accountable for only 2% of our economy, to remain the stumbling block of these talks.

I hope that this period of stocktaking at the WTO will enable parties to reflect not only on how that organisation must change, but also on the merits of that organisation – a unique body in international law. Bilateralism - with its unequal terms – is a poor substitute for developing countries who will be forced to accept less favourable terms on market access and intellectual property rights. I voted for a renewed commitment to this WTO round, as an ambitious trade round but also as the development round it was originally intended to be.


  Jean-Claude Martinez (NI), par écrit. – À la session de Genève en juin 2006, l'Europe s'est montrée flexible jusqu'à la soumission lors des négociations commerciales de l'OMC. Après avoir accepté, le 18 décembre 2005 à Hong Kong, l'abandon de nos restitutions aux aides à l'exportation agricole, à partir de 2013, Peter Mandelson, notre commissaire, chef de la négociation, a fait le cadeau royal à Genève pour qu'un accord planétaire intervienne: la baisse jusqu'à 50 % de la protection douanière de notre marché agricole.

Mais le Brésil, qui a des élections présidentielles, et les USA, qui ont des élections au Congrès, n'ont pas pris le moindre risque: baisser leurs aides internes pour les USA, ouvrir leur marché industriel pour le Brésil.

Les négociations finiront par reprendre mais, déjà, on sait que la Commission européenne a cédé sur les aides aux exportations et sur la protection de notre agriculture et de notre viticulture contre le dumping social des pays tiers, où des multinationales produisent sans droit du travail et sans droit social.

La solution pour 2007 et sortir de l'impasse, c'est d'avoir l'imagination d'inventer des droits de douane modulables, remboursables et bonifiables, c'est-à-dire des droits de douane déductibles.


  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), por escrito. Quem acredita que o comércio é uma das forças motrizes do desenvolvimento económico e, não menos importante, da aproximação entre os povos, só pode lamentar a decisão de Julho passado de suspender sine die as negociações da Ronda de Doha. A impossibilidade de progredir nas negociações é uma péssima notícia.

Não se trata de defender a abertura total e imediata de todas as fronteiras ou de pôr termo imediato a todos os apoios estaduais. Em economia as utopias costumam ser perigosas e as precipitações caras. No entanto, é inteiramente desejável que o comércio mundial se abra, que permita um cada vez maior número de trocas entre o norte e o sul, entre o próprio sul, entre os países mais e menos desenvolvidos. E que o faça de forma justa e equilibrada. Trata-se de assegurar vantagens aos produtores mais competitivos, aos exportadores mais empenhados e, não menos importante mas tantas vezes esquecidos, aos consumidores.

A União Europeia devia ser capaz de dar um passo em frente, chegar a um acordo suficiente entre os seus membros e apresentar-se nas negociações da OMC com um papel de liderança. Um mundo com um comércio mais livre é um mundo mais livre.


  Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE), in writing. Mr President, trade issues must be dealt with globally, where at all possible, and it is worth the effort of continuing if we presently cannot find agreement. The alternative is a morass of unequal bilateral deals which will in the main disadvantage the developing world, we are already seeing this trend worsening. Agreement will evidently take more time, though in the short term there are other weapons in our armoury. The "Aid for Trade" agenda provides a useful means of working towards effective development and I would like to see it progress, while of course hoping that the Commission will continue to press for substantive progress in the WTO itself.


– Contrefaçon de médicaments (B6-0467/2006)


  Brigitte Douay (PSE), par écrit. – La presse française a publié à plusieurs reprises ces derniers mois des reportages sur les dommages que la contrefaçon de produits et de marques génère pour l'économie. C'est la preuve que ce phénomène, avec la mondialisation, prend des proportions très inquiétantes, dont les pouvoirs publics et les citoyens sont de plus en plus conscients. On estime ainsi à 100 000 le nombre d'emplois perdus en Europe du fait de la fabrication et de la mise en circulation de produits contrefaisants.

Mais au-delà de la protection de la propriété intellectuelle, les conséquences peuvent aussi être dramatiques pour la santé. C'est le cas de la contrefaçon de médicaments et de vaccins, qui met en danger la vie de millions de personnes, en particulier dans les pays en développement, et surtout en Afrique.

La protection des consommateurs est une attribution importante de l'Union européenne. Celle-ci doit donc harmoniser et renforcer sa législation visant à lutter contre ce fléau qui prend des proportions inquiétantes. Elle doit aussi contribuer à renforcer la réglementation dans les pays tiers.

J'ai donc voté avec un grand intérêt la résolution sur la contrefaçon de médicaments.


  David Martin (PSE), in writing. I had no problems in supporting this resolution. The counterfeiting of medicines is the most serious and most amoral form of counterfeiting given that it endangers the health of millions of consumers. This problem is particularly prevalent in developing countries where medicines without essential active ingredients are circulating (in some countries as high as 50% of the medicines available) and are being used to treat fatal conditions such as HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria.

There is no reason why counterfeiting of medicines and their distribution within or across borders should not constitute a criminal offence in international law. I and my colleagues would like to see greater coordination of national and transnational bodies involved in the fight against piracy. I also support the EU taking a leading role in strengthening the regulatory and quality-control capacity for medicinal products and medical equipment placed on the market in resource-poor countries.

I would call on the authorities and pharmaceutical companies to continue to guarantee the origin and quality of medicines available, recognising the utmost importance of fighting this dangerous form of piracy.


– Droit européen des contrats (B6-0464/2006)


  Bruno Gollnisch (NI). – Monsieur le Président, on constate aujourd'hui dans ce Parlement une démarche quelque peu contradictoire. D'un côté, nous avons un rapport, celui de Madame Wallis, qui nous propose d'adhérer à la Conférence de La Haye pour unifier les règles des conflits de loi, ce qui me paraît une excellente démarche. Et d'un autre côté, nous avons cette tendance à vouloir unifier la règle de fond du contrat européen. Je pense que la première démarche est la bonne, tandis que la deuxième est beaucoup plus contestable.

S'agissant du contrat européen, il me semble qu'il suffirait de décider par exemple que la loi applicable, c'est celle que les parties ont choisie, et s'ils n'ont pas choisi de loi applicable, que la loi applicable est celle du lieu où le contrat a été conclu et, enfin, si le contrat a été conclu entre des parties qui se trouvent dans des endroits différents, que la loi applicable au contrat est celle du lieu de son exécution. L'énoncé de cette règle, très simple, suffirait à répondre au légitime besoin de sécurité juridique sans avoir nécessairement à unifier de façon quelque peu arbitraire et autoritaire le droit interne de chacun des États membres.


– Rapport: in 't Veld (A6-0252/2006)


  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), por escrito. As companhias aéreas que efectuam voos de passageiros para os EUA fornecem às agências de segurança deste país, por exigência das suas autoridades e a pretexto da dita "luta contra o terrorismo", dados pessoais constantes dos Registos de Identificação dos Passageiros (PNR). Estes contemplam cerca de 34 tipos de informação, que poderão incluir: as reservas de hotéis e de viaturas, números de telefone, endereços electrónicos, endereços privados e profissionais, preferências de refeição, números de cartões de crédito, entre muitas outras.

O PE considerou ilegal este acordo entre a UE e os EUA, criticando a sua base e falta de clareza jurídica e o seu carácter excessivo tendo em conta a salvaguarda dos direitos, das liberdades e das garantias dos cidadãos e a protecção dos dados pessoais estabelecida na Convenção Europeia dos Direitos do Homem. O Tribunal de Justiça veio dar razão ao PE quanto à base jurídica, anulando a decisão do Conselho, com efeitos a partir de 1 de Outubro de 2006.

Trata-se de mais uma situação inaceitável que deverá terminar, pois coloca em causa direitos, liberdades e garantias, no quadro da actual deriva securitária e que subjuga o exercício da soberania de cada país à soberania dos EUA, pois o acordo declarara aplicável a legislação actual e futura dos Estados Unidos neste domínio.


  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), por escrito. Um acordo da União Europeia com os EUA sobre a utilização dos dados do Registo de Identificação de Passageiros é da maior urgência perante a lacuna jurídica que se avizinha para 1 de Outubro de 2006. É pois necessário termos claros os princípios a levar para a mesa das negociações.

A protecção dos direitos fundamentais dos nossos cidadãos é, sem dúvida, o pilar de qualquer negociação neste domínio. Mas não podemos ignorar que estamos perante um terrífico mundo novo em que a prevenção e o combate do terrorismo são um objectivo e um valor cada vez mais fulcral.

Assim como a globalização abriu novos mundos e novas trocas, permitindo aos cidadãos explorarem novos territórios, permitiu também que novos monstros mostrassem as suas garras. O terrorismo e o crime organizado são disso exemplo.

Assim, há medidas a tomar, de forma célere e com base em princípios claros e precisos, para a protecção dos nossos cidadãos de qualquer ataque às suas vidas, aos seus bens, aos seus direitos fundamentais. Estou, por isso, certo de que são estes os mesmos princípios que guiam os nossos parceiros na mesa negocial não havendo dúvidas de que o acordo a negociar será feito em benefício da protecção dos nossos cidadãos.


– Rapport: Sifunakis (A6-0260/2006)


  Bernadette Bourzai (PSE), par écrit. – Je voudrais saluer le travail remarquable de mon collègue, Monsieur Sifunakis, relatif à la protection du patrimoine culturel, naturel et architectural européen dans les zones rurales et les régions insulaires.

Comme élue d'une région rurale dont le patrimoine naturel est préservé, le patrimoine architectural ancien et le patrimoine culturel riche, je mesure l'intérêt de ce rapport.

Je crois aussi que le caractère multiforme et fortement identitaire du patrimoine de nos régions rurales et insulaires fait leur particularité et leur richesse.

Je souscris pleinement aux préconisations du rapport quant aux mesures de protection appropriées, de réhabilitation et de valorisation des petits habitats traditionnels.

Les moyens nécessaires doivent être mobilisés tant au niveau des fonds structurels que des crédits propres à l'environnement et des crédits nationaux.

Toutes les initiatives européennes comme le "Prix de l'Union européenne pour le patrimoine culturel" et les "Journées européennes du patrimoine" doivent être encouragées et mieux connues afin de valoriser la diversité et la richesse du patrimoine européen, facteur de cohésion sociale.

Par ailleurs, je pense qu'il faudrait attacher plus d'importance au maintien et à la transmission des langues régionales, des dialectes et patois de nos campagnes et îles qui font aussi partie de notre patrimoine.


  Edite Estrela (PSE), por escrito. Votei favoravelmente o relatório Nikolaos Sifunakis (A6-0260/2006) sobre a protecção do património natural, cultural e arquitectónico europeu nas zonas rurais e nas regiões insulares pois acredito que a dimensão do património cultural deve ser reforçada e totalmente incorporada nas políticas e nos meios de financiamento da União Europeia, designadamente pela possibilidade de utilização dos Fundos Estruturais.

Considerando que as zonas rurais cobrem cerca de 90% do território da Europa alargada e constituem uma preciosa reserva de vida natural e de capital cultural, é fundamental apostar mais no desenvolvimento das economias locais enquanto forma de travar a desertificação incentivando e apoiando, nomeadamente, um "turismo alternativo e sustentável" e salvaguardando os saberes e ofícios tradicionais.


  Emanuel Jardim Fernandes (PSE), por escrito. Votei favoravelmente o relatório do meu colega Nikolaos Sifunakis (PSE, GR) relativo à protecção da herança natural, arquitectónica e cultural das regiões rurais e ilhas, já que, na minha opinião, aponta claramente para o valor excepcional que o património histórico-cultural das regiões culturais e ilhas deve ter como contributo substancial para alicerçar o desenvolvimento social e económico dessas regiões.

Também considero que o valor deste relatório reside na valorização do conceito de desenvolvimento sustentável, capaz de englobar um equilíbrio fundamental entre as populações locais e o ambiente e na atitude integrada que defende para as zonas tradicionalmente agrícolas. Ao nível da participação cívica da sociedade civil considero importante relembrar a ênfase dada pelo meu colega socialista Sifunakis à necessidade de envolver as populações locais na preparação e implementação de políticas, sendo algumas destas propostas no relatório, a saber: uma análise sistemática do património rural e a criação de um quadro jurídico para permitir a sua protecção, financiamento para restaurar monumentos locais e formas tradicionais de cultivo, recuperação substancial de habitats e formas tradicionais de arquitectura, conhecimentos passados de geração em geração e profissões, etc.

Assim o meu voto positivo a este relatório baseia-se na qualidade do mesmo, pelo que volto a congratular o meu colega Sifunakis.


  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), por escrito. Apesar de algumas contradições no relatório e de discordâncias pontuais votámos favoravelmente a resolução final por considerarmos que é importante apoiar a protecção e a conservação do património cultural através dos Fundos Estruturais bem como através das iniciativas comunitárias existentes LEADER +, URBAN II, INTERREG III, que, no próximo período orçamental (2007-2013), serão integradas nos novos instrumentos financeiros da PAC.

Consideramos igualmente positivo que se incentive a Comissão a adoptar medidas que permitam melhorar as acessibilidades, incentivar as micro-empresas, os saberes e ofícios tradicionais, os usos e costumes locais, apostando numa forte campanha de promoção das aldeias e lugares situados no interior dos Estados-Membros, de modo a contribuir, de forma decisiva, para o desenvolvimento da economia local e uma maneira de suster a desertificação.

O mesmo se passa com o convite à Comissão e aos Estados-Membros para colaborarem com o Conselho da Europa de modo a, no âmbito das Jornadas Europeias do Património, reforçar a dimensão que visa pôr em evidência os aglomerados tradicionais e o património arquitectónico das zonas rurais e das regiões insulares a fim de sensibilizar os cidadãos para o valor das identidades culturais locais e regionais.


  Hélène Goudin (IND/DEM), skriftlig. Junilistan anser att det i enlighet med subsidiaritetsprincipen är medlemsstaterna, regionerna och kommunerna som kan och skall handha skyddet av natur-, byggnads- och kulturarv.

Att på ett konstlat sätt skapa ett gemensamt EU-kulturarv på EU-nivå tar vi bestämt avstånd från. Idén att skapa en rättslig ram på EU-nivå för att skydda landsbygdens kulturarv är inte realistisk. Detta skall handhas på medlemsstatsnivå.

Som alltid fantiserar Europaparlamentets kulturutskott fritt i sina betänkanden. I förslaget till betänkande, punkt 21 föreslås ett system med insatser till förmån för traditionella småsamhällen i likhet med systemet med kulturhuvudstäder. Det skulle innebära nya kostnader för EU:s budget.

I förslaget till betänkande, punkt 24 föreslås att man skall främja inrättandet av ett europeiskt kulturarvsår. Europaparlamentet föreslår ofta att olika temaår skall genomföras, men att genomföra dem alla skulle i praktiken vara omöjligt.

Jag röstar nej till betänkandet i sin helhet.


  Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE), por escrito. Felicito o colega Nikolaos Sifounakis pelo importante e oportuno relatório produzido sobre a protecção do património natural e arquitectónico das regiões rurais e insulares da Europa, ao qual dou o meu apoio, em especial no que se refere à necessidade de a União Europeia tomar medidas comuns de protecção do património, que inclui tanto a arquitectura como o património natural das regiões, marcado pelo modo de vida humana dessas regiões ao longo dos tempos.

A preservação de inúmeros elementos do património cultural constitui a base na qual se deverá alicerçar, no futuro, o desenvolvimento social e económico de muitas regiões da Europa, permitindo assim melhorar a salvaguarda do ambiente, preservar de forma mais adequada as oportunidades de emprego e garantir uma melhor integração europeia e evitar o abandono e a desertificação populacional.


9. Korrezzjonijiet u intenzjonijiet għall-vot: ara l-Minuti

(La séance, suspendue à 12h40, est reprise à 15 heures)




10. Approvazzjoni tal-Minuti tas-seduta ta' qabel: ara l-Minuti

11. Dibattiti dwar każijiet ta' ksur tad-drittijiet tal-bniedem, tad-demokrazija u ta' l-istat tad-dritt (dibattitu)

11.1. Sri Lanka

  Presidente. L'ordine del giorno reca la discussione su sei proposte di risoluzione sullo Sri Lanka(1).


  Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE), author. – Mr President, I welcome the opportunity to speak this afternoon, but regret the need to do so because it seems not very long ago that this Parliament adopted a resolution on the situation in Sri Lanka. Since then, we have seen a return to, or a continuation of, the destruction, the deaths, the displacement of people, and indeed the recurrence of bloodshed in a way that all of us in this House would have hoped would have ceased by now.

I am sure that every one of us in this Chamber wants an end to the bloodshed and that we want a peaceful settlement in Sri Lanka. We may disagree about the path we should take, but we are united on that goal as this resolution makes clear. As our resolution says, the fact that there is no peace settlement is due to intransigents on both sides who trample on the aspirations of the majority and who are so concerned with their own role, their own future, their own vision of Sri Lanka that they are unwilling to let forces wanting peace work to that end.

The European Union now has to find its own way forward. For some of us, placing the LTTE on the terrorist list has led to a totally predictable reaction and the SLMM is no longer able to operate at full force or as effectively as we would want. Nevertheless, we still have to move forward. We have to look for the resumption of peace negotiations. We have to participate in those as fully as we are able and with all the contacts that we have in order to find a way forward, so that we can get on with distributing the tsunami aid properly and look to a peaceful future for all.


  Marcin Libicki (UEN), autor. – Panie Przewodniczący! Nie po raz pierwszy zajmujemy się tym tematem i wiemy, że Sri Lanka była wielokrotnie przedmiotem naszego zainteresowania w tej izbie.

Mówiliśmy już o sprawach historycznych, ja w każdym razie już mówiłem ostatnio o tych problemach, jakie stwarza przed nami konieczność zajęcia stanowiska w sytuacji różnych stron sporu. Bo jedna sprawa to są bieżące krzywdy tych wszystkich, którzy padają ofiara tych konfliktów, ale z drugiej strony jednak nie możemy zapominać, że jest pewna przeszłość, która ciąży na dniu dzisiejszym, i nie możemy automatycznie przyjmować od razu, że to są tylko pokrzywdzeni i ślepy los, który się przeciwko nim przysiągł.

Istnieje konieczność zajęcia pewnego stanowiska określenia, kto jest w Sri Lance - nie chce użyć takiego ryzykownego określenia, ale powiedzmy - pierwotnym gospodarzem, a kto jest tam tym gościem, który rozepchnął się i którego aktywność powoduje krzywdę tych, do których oni przybyli. Ja nie chcę wymieniać nazw, nie chcę mówić o żadnych stronach i partiach, ale chcę zwrócić na to uwagę, że nigdy osąd dnia dzisiejszego nie może być pozbawiony pewnej analizy i osądu tego, co się działo dawniej i pewnego podziału na agresora i ofiary. Bo to nie jest prosty podział, że każdy cierpiący jest niewinny, a każdy kto jest, górą, w tym momencie jest winny. Chociaż oczywiście my, jako organizacja międzynarodowa, przede wszystkim powinniśmy zająć się tym, żeby jak najprędzej ustały krzywdy zwykłych ludzi, ale nie może być to pozbawione pewnej analizy historycznej, pewnego pojęcia katów i ofiar. Wydaje mi się, że aktywność naszego Parlamentu powinna być znacznie większa, niż była dotychczas.


  Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL), Auteur. – Voorzitter, na tientallen jaren oorlog en intensieve Noorse bemiddeling hebben achtereenvolgende regeringen van Sri Lanka verklaard dat ze met de opstandige Tamil-tijgers overeenstemming willen bereiken. Daarbij zou het zelfs kunnen gaan om een confederatie waarbij de centrale regering niet kan ingrijpen in het democratisch gekozen bestuur van het autonome noordoosten rond Javna. Helaas is die goede toezegging inzet geworden van politieke strijd binnen de Singalese bevolkingsgroep, waarvan een deel vindt dat de Tamil-opstandelingen met minder genoegen moeten nemen. Die verdeeldheid binnen de meerderheidsgroep ondermijnt binnen de minderheid het vertrouwen in een vreedzame oplossing.

Zolang de Tamil-minderheid nog niet zeker is van politieke overeenstemming binnen de Singalese meerderheidsgroep of van eerdere beloften, mogen wij er niet op rekenen dat zij in goed vertrouwen een aanbod zal afwachten. Inmiddels hebben beide partijen het geweld hervat. Europa moet consequent geen partij kiezen, maar alles doen om vrede en overeenstemming te bevorderen.

De opstandige organisatie LTTE is binnen Sri Lanka niet verboden, maar staat binnen de Europese Unie sinds mei 2006 helaas wel op de lijst van terroristische organisaties. Dat bemoeilijkt onderhandelingen en nodigt uit tot eindeloze voortzetting van het geweld. Wie een organisatie op de terroristenlijst zet, bedoelt daarmee dat met die organisatie niet onderhandeld mag worden en dat alle aandacht wordt toegespitst op vernietiging ervan.

Van deze organisatie weten we al vele jaren dat die niet vernietigd en uitgeschakeld kan worden, zelfs als we dat zouden willen. Daarom wordt er al vele jaren mee gepraat. We hebben de LTTE nodig om overeenstemming en vrede te bereiken. Daarom moeten we alles doen om een eind te maken aan de wanhoop die haar opnieuw tot het gebruik van gewelddadige middelen heeft gedreven.


  Neena Gill (PSE), author. – Mr President, I should like to condemn strongly the recent spate of violence in Sri Lanka. At the weekend government patrol boats engaged Tamil Tiger rebels in the northern seas. This marks yet another outbreak of violence between government forces and the rebel movement but, as we know, violence is not the way to resolve complex and sensitive conflicts.

Ever since the Tamil Tigers were classified as terrorists by the Council, the situation in Sri Lanka has worsened. The labelling of this group has undoubtedly driven that movement further away from the negotiating table. My approach as chairwoman of Parliament's Delegation for relations with the countries of South Asia and the South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation is that both parties should be brought together and both held equally responsible for the recent violence. Neither side can be immune from blame, and both must accept responsibility.

The Sri Lankan Government has failed to adopt a measured approach to the rebel threat. It must be careful not to adopt the terrorist approaches currently associated with the rebel movement it so violently pursues.

The targeting of schools and hospitals in northern Sri Lanka is not the action of a responsible, democratic and peace-seeking government. As we all know from other terrorist flashpoints in the world, the root causes of any conflict need to be analysed closely. We need to deal with the causes of the conflict. The heavy-handed approach adopted by the government does not help address these root causes.

Let us not forget that many people have lost their lives, including 17 EU nationals working as aid monitors. No longer can we tolerate violence against innocent people, aid agencies, NGOs and monitors in the region. It is time for good sense and negotiation to prevail in Sri Lanka.


  Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE), Author. – Mr President, Sri Lanka is a beautiful country, located at a key economic crossroads, with an enterprising and industrious people. What a terrible shame that the hopes and ambitions of a generation of Sri Lankans have been blighted by terrorism. Sri Lanka has made progress in recent years; how much more could have been achieved in terms of rapid economic and social development if there had been stability and security?

I do not want to underestimate the strength of feeling among many Tamil citizens, in particular, that they were not getting a fair deal, but we can be certain that terrorism has not improved their opportunities one iota. The Tamil-speaking population is very mixed. Of a population of four million, one quarter or so are so-called hill Tamils, who have never been associated with the LTTE, while a further quarter are Muslims, who certainly find little attraction in the LTTE. Most of the Tamil peoples of Sri Lanka live in the centre and south of the island, outside areas that have been under LTTE control. Those living in those areas have little opportunity to express their true feelings about the terrorist masters who dominate their lives.

I have no doubt that over the years there have been abuses of Tamils and that on occasion security forces have acted with insufficient regard for ordinary Tamil people in the areas of conflict. I therefore congratulate the Sri Lankan Government on the commitment it has made to investigate atrocities and serious human rights violations and to bring the perpetrators to justice. Of course, the greatest human rights violators are the terrorists.

Successive Sri Lankan Governments have sought to improve the situation of the Tamils and have offered various devolutionary proposals that would give the Tamil population considerable autonomy, while preserving the unity of the country. Each of those proposals has been rejected by that same intransigent leadership at the LTTE.

In our resolution today, we are calling upon all parties to the conflict and troubles in Sri Lanka to pull back from the brink. We are calling for an immediate, comprehensive and verifiable end to hostilities, respect for human rights, unhindered access throughout the country for humanitarian workers, and for the Government and opposition in Sri Lanka to come forward with a bold gesture of reconciliation, including constitutional revision, as a matter of urgency.

Meanwhile, the Council, Commission and Member States must redouble their efforts to help bring a stable and just peace to Sri Lanka and restore security and prosperity, and that includes bearing down hard on the agents of terrorism.


  Elizabeth Lynne (ALDE), author. – Mr President, the end to the violence seems to be further away than ever. One of the reasons for this was the failure to have a second round of the Geneva peace talks, with the LTTE pulling out. Hopes of further talks have been damaged by the Council proscribing the LTTE as a terrorist organisation on 29 May 2006. I am personally pleased that an amendment has been tabled to that effect and I am sorry that it is not in the resolution. The banning of the LTTE only leads to further isolation. They are not permitted to travel, so another Geneva conference is impossible.

We should be realistic here. However much we condemn the terrorist acts by the LTTE – and we do – the government is certainly not blameless. We just have to look at the 17 French aid workers who were killed on 4 August 2006. Evidence points to the government security forces being responsible – we do not know as yet. This incident and all the others perpetrated by the LTTE and the government need further investigation by an independent human rights expert. What I find so reprehensible is that neither the government security forces nor the Tamil Tigers do enough to protect civilians. Persistent uncertainty about what has actually occurred and who is responsible for alleged war crimes and other violations of international law is fuelling fear and panic among the civilian population. We must have a strong, effective monitoring operation, but it must have the support of the government, the LTTE, the United Nations and its members.


  Thomas Mann, im Namen der PPE-DE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Die seit 2002 bestehende Waffenruhe in Sri Lanka wurde immer wieder gebrochen. Beim schwersten Anschlag Mitte Juni gab es 60 Tote. Die Regierung machte die LTTE dafür verantwortlich. Anfang August wurden Tsunami-Helfer der französischen Organisation „Aktion gegen den Hunger“ ermordet, Mitte August gab es über 100 Verletzte und 61 Tote, alles Kinder und Jugendliche — ein Massaker, vermutlich verübt von staatlichen Sicherheitskräften.

Das Jahr 2006 erinnert mich an das Jahr 2001. Wir waren mit der SARC-Delegation in Jaffna und sahen die Auswirkungen des Bürgerkrieges: zerstörte Dörfer, verbranntes Land, Zehntausende von ratlosen und hoffnungslosen Flüchtlingen. Bei Gesprächen mit Regierung und Opposition, Menschenrechtlern, Buddhisten und Moslems haben wir immer die Friedensinitiative der Norweger unterstützt. Sie versuchten auch in diesem Jahr zu vermitteln — und scheiterten.

Es ist nicht hinnehmbar, wenn Fakten geschönt werden. Die LTTE trägt die Verantwortung für die Bombenattentate gegen Zivilisten, für monatelange Blockaden von Trinkwasseranlagen und für die Weigerung, auf die Rekrutierung von Kindersoldaten zu verzichten.

Es gibt aber auch Positives: Zwei Tamilenparteien haben sich entschlossen, der Regierungskoalition beizutreten. Der Staatspräsident ist bereit, Menschenrechtsverletzungen durch Armee und Polizei untersuchen zu lassen. Und bei vielen politisch Verantwortlichen nimmt die Erkenntnis zu, dass die tamilische Bevölkerung aus ihrer empfundenen Zweitklassigkeit herausgeführt werden muss. Mögen diese erfreulichen Meldungen zunehmen und die vielen bisherigen Horrormeldungen abnehmen. Sri Lanka, eine der ältesten Demokratien in Asien, hat eine solche Entwicklung verdient!


  Robert Evans, on behalf of the PSE Group. – Mr President, this item on the agenda, as we know, is about debates on breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. The situation in Sri Lanka at the moment is tragic, and there have indeed been many breaches of human rights. This motion refers to the work of the Sri Lankan Monitoring Mission. That independent body has blamed the LTTE for the attack on 15 June and, as Mrs Lynne has said, it has blamed the Sri Lankan Government for the murder of the 17 aid workers in Muttur at the beginning of August.

This shows the seriousness of the situation. Regrettably though, some people involved in the debate – not just the one this afternoon, but also others – are trying to assign all the blame to one side or the other. We have to accept that in any conflict situation there is grave fault on both sides, and that the military responses have in many cases been disproportionate. What started out as a little local dispute over water supply has cost hundreds of lives, displaced thousands of people and brought the country to the brink of civil war.

All sides – the LTTE, Colonel Karuna and the Sri Lankan Government – must realise that there can be no military solution and that peace negotiations without preconditions are the only way forward. It is in this spirit that Amendment 5 seeks to keep the negotiations open. Everyone accepts that the LTTE is a player, and yet the EU has effectively washed its hands of negotiations through its proscriptions.

Let me make something clear. Just because I am saying this, and because Mrs Lynne said something similar, as did Mrs Lambert and Mr Meijer, that does not make us terrorists or apologists for terrorism, which we condemn. It just means that we need to keep negotiations open. Equally, we need to do everything we can, as mirrored in Amendment 4, to help the ordinary people of Sri Lanka, who have suffered for so long and need a peaceful solution.


  Marios Matsakis, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, tragically the incidents of bloodshed in Sri Lanka continue to occur and the responsibility lies with both Government and Tamil forces. Evidence from the SLMM shows that: Government forces have killed 17 aid workers; the LTTE have bombed a bus, killing 64 civilians; and the Sri Lankan Air Force has bombed a campsite in the north, killing 51 young people.

Whilst in the short term there is an urgent need for an independent commission to investigate the recent disappearances, abductions and extra-judicial executions, in the long term we must repeat the call made by this House in the last resolution for a wide-ranging human rights agreement between the parties involved in the civil war and its facilitation by an effective independent international monitoring mission. The lessons learned from the weaknesses of the SLMM demonstrate that for human rights to be a fundamental building block of a just and enduring resolution of the conflict, that body must have real enforcement mechanisms and unhindered access to both Government- and LTTE-controlled areas.

Let us hope that a political solution that would be acceptable to Sri Lanka’s minority communities will soon be found and that lasting peace and prosperity will replace violence and poverty.


  Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). – Herr Präsident! In Sri Lanka bzw. Ceylon leben Singhalesen und Tamilen seit über 2000 Jahren zusammen. Es gab dort schon singhalesische Königreiche vor dem Aufstieg Roms, vor Cäsar, vor Christi Geburt, und es gab auch Ableger tamilischer südindischer Reiche. Deshalb ist es umso tragischer, dass in unserem 21. Jahrhundert dort eine solch explosive Situation herrscht, wobei wir schon sagen müssen, dass wir selbst als Europäer in der Kolonialzeit dazu beigetragen haben, dass sich die Situation verschärft hat durch Siedlungspolitik, durch Plantagenbesitzerinteressen und durch vieles andere.

Heute sollten wir dazu beitragen — und das ist der entscheidende Punkt —, dass es zu einer friedlichen Lösung kommt. Und zu einer friedlichen Lösung kann es nur kommen, wenn man zwischen dem Anliegen und den Terroristen unterscheidet. Die Terroristen wollen keine Lösung. Die Machthaber und Extremisten wollen keine Lösung, weil ihre persönliche Macht auf dem ethnischen Konflikt aufgebaut ist. Der ethnische Konflikt ließe sich durchaus lösen.

Ich möchte die Gelegenheit nutzen, dass wir hier unter einem italienischen Präsidenten tagen: Es ist doch ein phantastisches Modell, das zwischen Italienern und Südtirolern geschaffen wurde, und es hat sich herausgestellt, dass beide Seiten davon profitieren. Nicht nur die Minderheit, sondern auch die Mehrheit profitiert von einem solchen Autonomiemodell.

Ich glaube, es ist höchste Zeit, dass wir ein solches Autonomiemodell auch für Sri Lanka mit seiner gefährlichen Situation anstreben. Deshalb begrüße ich die vorliegende, sehr ausgewogene Entschließung und unterstütze natürlich die Änderungsanträge unserer Fraktion. Ich bedauere aber, dass wir uns hier zwischen den Fraktionen zum Teil einen ideologischen Krieg liefern, statt dass wir uns einigen und in dieser sensiblen politischen Frage als Parlament geschlossen auftreten, was unser Gewicht gegenüber den Bürgerkriegsparteien in Sri Lanka wesentlich erhöhen würde.


  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (PSE). – Panie Przewodniczący! W ostatnich tygodniach na Sri Lance ponownie dochodzi do gwałtownych walk między partyzantami tamilskimi a siłami rządowymi. Efektem brutalnych aktów przemocy, tylko od początku roku, jest już ponad 800 ofiar śmiertelnych. Słaby system wymiaru sprawiedliwości na Sri Lance nie reaguje na nagminne przypadki łamania praw człowieka, zabójstwa przedstawicieli organizacji humanitarnych czy rekrutację dzieci do działań wojennych.

Obie strony: rząd w Kolombo i Tamilskie Tygrysy, obarczają się wzajemnie odpowiedzialnością za złamanie porozumienia. Coraz bardziej przybierające na sile starcia grożą wybuchem wojny domowej. Przedstawiciele misji pokojowej ONZ ze względu na brak bezpieczeństwa ze strony Tamilskich Tygrysów zostali zmuszeni, pierwszego września, do wycofania się z kraju. Szczególnie niepokojące jest również to, iż narastający konflikt hamuje rozwój ekonomiczny wyspy blokując pomoc dla poszkodowanych przez tsunami.

Należy zatem szczególnie wesprzeć realizację planu pomocy humanitarnej ONZ, będącą dodatkowym elementem dla przyznanych już wcześniej środków. W obliczu tak nabrzmiałego konfliktu wspólnota międzynarodowa musi apelować do obu stron o zawieszenie broni i podjęcie rozmów w sprawie rozejmu. Nie można dłużej tolerować agresji, której ofiarami codziennie padają niewinni cywile.


  Marianne Mikko (PSE). – Kallid kolleegid, minu kui meie parlamendi Lõuna-Aasia maade delegatsiooni liikme jaoks on Sri Lankal juba saavutatu kaotsi minek halvaendeline elamus. Tamili Tiigrite poolt 15. juunil toime pandud terroriakt on väga kahetsusväärne, samuti ka abiorganisatsiooni kaastööliste maha laskmine valitsusvägede poolt Muturis.

Et olla usaldusväärsed partnerid peavad pooled suutma ära hoida taolised intsidendid. Inimõiguste austamine ja elanikkonna heaolu seadmine esikohale on ainus väljapääs ummikust. Relvarahu taastamine on praegu tungivaim ülesanne, kuid konflikti külmutamine üksi ei ole lahendus. Parlamendi Moldova delegatsiooni juhina tunnetan seda iga päev. Külmutatud konflikt, pean silmas ebaseadusliku Transnistria režiimi, on teinud Moldovast Euroopa vaesema maa.

Euroopa Liit ei tohi tagasilöökidest hoolimata pikaajalisi eesmärke silmist lasta. LTTE lisamine terroriorganisatsioonide nimekirja oli formaalselt õiglane, sisuliselt aga vale samm. Selle tagajärjel kaotas SLMM suurema osa oma teovõimest. Euroopa Liit peab tegema kõik temast oleneva, et Sri Lankal ei kõneleks kuulid, vaid sõnad. See on meie kätes. Peab olema.


  Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. The European Commission is deeply concerned at the growing violence which is seriously unravelling the ceasefire agreement and peace process in Sri Lanka. The intensification of hostilities between the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and the Sri Lankan army that has taken place over the last months is a matter of great concern. A full-scale war has to be avoided at all costs and parties must recommit to respecting the ceasefire agreement.

The Commission has repeatedly called on both parties to make the utmost effort to prevent a further escalation of violence and loss of life. The Commission and the co-chairs of the Tokyo Donor Conference on Sri Lanka have stated many times that violence is not the way to resolve the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. The suffering inflicted on innocent civilians is intolerable.

The European Commission is very concerned about the deteriorating human rights situation there. We share the concerns expressed in the draft resolution in relation to the recent violations and we are concerned about the climate of impunity and non-respect of human rights by both sides.

The Commission has been particularly shocked by the atrocious killing of 17 aid workers from the NGO 'Action Contre la Faim' and has urged the authorities in Sri Lanka to investigate these killings immediately and thoroughly and to give assurances that they will do everything possible to ensure a safe humanitarian space in the country. The recent call by President Rajapakse for an international independent commission – which we support – is a positive step which will have to be followed up by concrete action.

We continue to follow the situation in Sri Lanka very closely and welcome the interest shown by Parliament in this draft resolution with a view to encouraging both parties to ensure full respect for human rights.

These new developments are important for the European Union in its role as a co-chair of the Tokyo Donor Conference. A co-chairs' meeting will take place in Brussels on 12 September and the European Commission will take an active part in ensuring that a strong message is put across to both parties, urging them to commit to a peaceful negotiated resolution of the conflict and full respect for human rights.


  Presidente. La discussione è chiusa.

La votazione si svolgerà al termine della discussione.


(1)Vedasi processo verbale.

11.2. Persuni mill-Korea ta' Fuq li jfittxu kenn politiku, speċjalment fit-Tajlandja

  Presidente. L'ordine del giorno reca in discussione cinque proposte di risoluzione sui richiedenti asilo in provenienza dalla Corea del Nord, in particolare in Tailandia(1).


  Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL), Auteur. – Voorzitter, gedurende ruim 60 jaar isolement heeft zich in Noord-Korea een bestuursmodel en een levensstijl ontwikkeld die sterk afwijken van alles wat je elders op de wereld aantreft. Bovendien ziet het er naar uit dat meer aandacht wordt gegeven aan raketten en atoombommen dan aan een toereikende voedselproductie. Mensen die zich onder die levensomstandigheden niet meer thuis voelen, zitten in een val. De grens met Zuid-Korea is nog steeds gesloten.

Buurland China biedt evenmin een oplossing, zolang het sommige vluchtelingen terugstuurt naar een land dat afwijkingen waarschijnlijk zwaar bestraft. Van de mensen die worden teruggestuurd, horen we nooit meer iets. Daarom moet voor diegenen die willen vluchten, een alternatief beschikbaar komen. Deze mensen komen nu terecht in arme landen als Vietnam en Cambodja, maar in toenemende mate ook in het veel welvarender Thailand. Thailand zou dit vooralsnog naar verhouding kleine aantal mensen gemakkelijk naar behoren kunnen opvangen.

Hoewel de vluchtelingenorganisatie van de Verenigde Naties hen erkent als vluchtelingen, ziet de Thaise regering ze helaas in de eerste plaats als illegale grensoverschrijders. Dat leidt ertoe dat ze na alle ellende die ze reeds hebben meegemaakt, ook nog eens tot dertig dagen gevangenisstraf worden veroordeeld plus een voor hun maatstaven hoge boete. In plaats daarvan moet Thailand ze goed opvangen of ervoor zorgen dat ze desgewenst kunnen doorreizen naar Zuid-Korea of een ander land dat ze gastvrijheid verleent.

Wij hopen dat ook Thailand de maatstaven zal hanteren die in Europa algemeen gebruikelijk zijn geweest, tegenwoordig overigens niet al te consequent worden nageleefd, maar wel een traditie waren. Als Thailand een democratie wil zijn, waar best problemen aan vast zitten, dan zou het ook op deze manier met deze vluchtelingen moeten omgaan.


  Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE), Verfasser. – Herr Präsident! Der Kollege Albert Deß und ich haben schon vor 1989 gemeinsam gegen den Eisernen Vorhang, gegen die Teilung Deutschlands und Europas gekämpft.

Damals haben dies viele für eine Illusion gehalten, so wie sie heute glauben, die Wiedervereinigung Koreas sei eine Illusion. Es scheint auch so: Eine fest gefügte Diktatur, die noch dazu über Atomwaffen verfügt, unterdrückt brutal ihre Bevölkerung. Aber wir geben es nicht auf, für ein freies, wieder vereinigtes Korea einzutreten. Solange das allerdings nicht der Fall ist, müssen wir den Menschen, die dort verfolgt werden, Schutz gewähren.

Ich glaube, gerade Thailand sollte hier an seiner großen Tradition festhalten, die es vor Jahrzehnten gegenüber Millionen von Kambodschanern an den Tag gelegt hat. Es wird immer wieder vergessen, dass der große Teil der Kambodschaner den Terror der Roten Khmer überleben konnten, weil ihnen Thailand — mit europäischer Hilfe, aber immerhin Thailand — Schutz und Hilfe gegeben hat. Und was gegenüber Millionen Kambodschanern möglich war, sollte auch gegenüber einigen Tausend Nordkoreanern, die vom Kommunismus verfolgt werden, möglich sein. In diesem Sinne unterstützt meine Fraktion die vorliegende Entschließung.


  Marcin Libicki (UEN), autor. – Panie Przewodniczący! Nie ulega wątpliwości, że są jeszcze dwa dyktatorskie reżimy komunistyczne, bo komunistyczne nie mogą być inne niż dyktatorskie. To jest Kuba i Korea Północna. Świat powinien zrobić wszystko co jest w jego możliwościach, żeby zlikwidować oba te reżimy komunistyczne.

Dzisiaj mówimy o tych biednych uchodźcach z Korei Północnej. To nie są uchodźcy ekonomiczni. Doskonale rozumiemy, że państwa bronią się często przed uchodźcami ekonomicznymi. Odesłanie uchodźców ekonomicznych choćby było bolesne powoduje dla nich tylko powrót do złej sytuacji ekonomicznej. Odesłanie uchodźców politycznych sprowadza na nich najgorsze zagrożenie. Dlatego pierwsza rzecz, którą powinna zrobić wspólnota międzynarodowa, to nie dopuścić do odesłania nawet jednego emigranta z powrotem do Korei Północnej. Czeka ich tam najbardziej okrutny los, jaki można sobie wyobrazić. To powinno być pierwszym celem całej naszej aktywności.


  Paulo Casaca (PSE), Autor. – Estamos efectivamente perante aquilo que é uma das piores ditaduras existentes no nosso mundo. Uma ditadura que ameaça o mundo inteiro através do seu programa nuclear, mas que conseguiu transformar o seu país num enorme campo de concentração.

Perante essa situação e pese embora o facto de eu também, como o colega Posselt, e naturalmente, todos nós, façamos os melhores votos para que deixe de existir aquela divisão, para que deixe de existir aquela Coreia do Norte, tal como ela existe hoje em dia, não podemos esperar por esse fim para dar a nossa máxima solidariedade aos refugiados da Coreia do Norte.

Aquilo que nós pedimos às autoridades tailandesas é um mínimo de justiça, um mínimo de humanidade e de dignidade, não criminalizar aqueles que são apenas vítimas de uma feroz ditadura, prestar todo o auxílio possível e também apelar às instituições europeias para cooperarem nesses esforços de auxílio aos refugiados da Coreia do Norte.


  Marco Cappato (ALDE), Autore. – Signor Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, si tratta effettivamente di un episodio molto grave, segno di una situazione di una portata amplissima, come già i colleghi hanno sottolineato e si afferma nel testo di risoluzione; non mi quindi rimane che chiedere al Commissario, al Vicepresidente Frattini, i modi, le possibilità, per sollevare il problema, in particolare in occasione del vertice ASEM.

Il problema riguarda la Corea del Nord, naturalmente anche la Tailandia, riguarda ovviamente noi come Unione europea e l'Alto Commissario ONU per i rifugiati. Ho l'impressione, non so cosa ne pensa il Commissario, che troppo spesso in quella regione del mondo, e non solo in quella regione, l'Alto Commissario per i rifugiati dell'ONU tende ad avere paura di prendere posizioni che possono risultare, come dire politiche - il caso per esempio delle minoranze "montagnard" del Vietnam - inoltre molti sono gli altri casi in cui l'ONU sembra prudente nel garantire, nell'assicurare, l'effettivo rispetto dello status di rifugiato, perché ha paura che ciò possa essere inteso negativamente dai governi o dai regimi dell'area.

In materia l'Unione europea può giocare un grande ruolo per dare coraggio alle istituzioni internazionali e in particolare all'ONU; per garantire, assegnare, consentire lo status di rifugiato laddove ve ne sono le condizioni. Ovviamente sul caso della Corea del Nord sono d'accordo con quello che dicevano i colleghi prima, si tratta chiaramente di migrazioni non semplicemente economiche, è il risultato o il prodotto di una delle peggiori e più violente dittature ancora rimaste sulla faccia del pianeta.


  Marios Matsakis, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, North Korea has rapidly come to be symbol of an anachronistic, backward-looking communist state. The sharp deterioration in standards of living that has ensued and the unbearable repression of its people by the increasingly brutal totalitarian regime have in recent years caused tens of thousands of North Koreans to flee their home country in search of a kinder destiny.

Thailand, in particular, has become a major transit destination for North Korean refugees. Sadly, we have recently seen unacceptable treatment of North Korean asylum seekers by the Thai authorities, with arrests, heavy fines, imprisonment and repatriation. Such conduct runs contrary to the otherwise much-envied Thai tradition of hospitality and violates Thailand’s obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.

We call upon the Government of Thailand to show proper respect for the rights of North Korean asylum seekers and to collaborate fully with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. In addition, we call upon the Council and Commission to monitor closely the situation of North Korean refugees.


  Kathy Sinnott, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group . – Mr President, North Korea has one of the world’s most repressive regimes. This prison state is, as far as we can tell, run in the worst Stalinist tradition, with starvation, terror and indoctrination. We read of horrors of the past regimes of Pol Pot and Stalin and it haunts me to think that the same situation exists in North Korea today.

Understandably, people risk their lives to escape. If thousands have escaped, how many more thousands have died trying? Most people in North Korea qualify for the UN status of ‘persons of special concern’. If they manage to escape they must be given help and given the protection they need. Thailand experienced the world’s solidarity only recently after the tsunami. It must show that same solidarity by not harassing North Koreans who struggle to its borders, but Thailand must be helped to bear this burden by others.

The EU and European nations must be willing to give shelter and resources, too. Might I remind this House that after the Second World War we from the countries of Western Europe allowed Polish soldiers from German prisoner-of-war camps to be returned and fed to Stalin, who consumed them instantly, or slowly in Siberian gulags. In the dire situation of North Korea, we are being given an opportunity to make amends for the terrible wrong done to Poland’s prisoners. In helping the North Korean asylum seekers, by keeping them from being returned to North Korea for imprisonment, forced labour or liquidation, we will be paying an old debt and making the right decision.


  Marek Aleksander Czarnecki (NI). – Panie Przewodniczący! Sprawą Korei Północnej zajmujemy się nie po raz pierwszy i niestety z przykrością stwierdzam, że w ostatnich latach niewiele się w tym kraju zmieniło na korzyść. Nadal nagminnie łamane są tam prawa człowieka.

Dziś poruszamy kolejny problem uchodźców, których głód, represje we własnej ojczyźnie popychają do podejmowania najtrudniejszej w życiu decyzji, ucieczki z własnego kraju, często z narażeniem życia. Zwłaszcza Tajlandia staje się przejściowym domem dla wielu z nich, zaś władze tego kraju utrzymując dobre kontakty z Koreą chcą i egzekwują wobec nich prawo dotyczące nielegalnej emigracji.

Zwracam się do władz Tajlandii, znanej z gościnności, z apelem, aby nie odsyłali uchodźców z powrotem do kraju, narażając ich i ich rodziny na niewspółmierne prześladowania, a przekazywali ich do innego kraju. Nie zostawiajcie tych ludzi na pastwę reżimu.


  Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. Mr President, you know very well the sad story of the many North Koreans seeking asylum, and the latest case is now in Thailand.

The Commission deeply regrets that these refugees were not treated in accordance with international humanitarian law and urges the Thai authorities to respect the principle of non-refoulement, as they usually do, and to ensure safe passage to a third country where the refugees can be resettled. We hope that ongoing discussions between Thailand, the South Korean authorities and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees will result in the transfer of these persons to South Korea or another third country in the coming days. In this context, I would also like to highlight that the situation of the H’mong refugees from Laos living in Thailand is of great concern.

For North Koreans, asylum-seeking is the symptom and not the cause of an issue which is quite well known, namely, the undemocratic regime in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, with widespread poverty, the collapse of the economy and human rights concerns.

The European Union has an engagement policy with North Korea involving humanitarian aid, some EUR 345 million of European assistance since 1995, and people-to-people contacts and director-level Troika contacts, including on human rights. A Human Rights resolution was adopted by the United Nations in November 2005. This dealt, among other things, with the return of North Korean nationals to their country. The resolution angered the North Koreans, who suspended the humanitarian aid, which was only resumed a few months ago.

The European Union will continue with its support for the six-party talks and with its engagement policy in an attempt to obtain practical improvements and treat the cause of the problem.

I can assure you, on behalf of my colleague Mrs Ferrero-Waldner, that the Commission will also continue to follow events involving the refugees in Thailand closely, in the context – as Mr Cappato has just said – of EU-Asia dialogue.


  Presidente. La discussione è chiusa.

La votazione si svolgerà al termine della discussione.


(1)Vedasi processo verbale.

11.3. Żimbabwe

  Presidente. L'ordine del giorno reca in discussione cinque proposte di risoluzione sullo Zimbabwe(1).


  Jaromír Kohlíček (GUE/NGL), Autor. – Vážení kolegové, milé kolegyně, Zimbabwe, to je bývalá Jižní Rhodesie. Režim, který zde vládne, by všude v Evropě byl považován za tvrdou osobní diktaturu. Po předání moci do rukou současných vládců byli farmáři z velkých farem rychle vyhnáni a země je stále na pokraji hladomoru. Mugabeho vláda proto opět pozvala tyto bílé potomky kolonialistů do země a farmy jim předla. Situace se tím rychle zlepšila. Dnes jsou opět postupně vyháněni příp. zabíjeni, přičemž vláda ani nezahájila výuku zemědělců k racionálnímu hospodaření. Rovněž podpora družstev a zajištění podpory nákupu odpovídající techniky chybí. To jsou klíčové problémy v ekonomice.

O politických problémech hovoří návrh rezoluce, který obsahuje některé nepřijatelné či poněkud diskutabilní návrhy. Protestuji otevřeně proti hloupé výzvě směrované do Jihoafrické republiky bojkotovat Zimbabwe ve světovém poháru FIFA. To snad není míněno vážně? Rovněž nevím proč v bodu odůvodnění D deklarují autoři, že se hlavní politická opozice bohužel rozdělila v říjnu 2005 na dvě frakce. Pokud tímto konstatováním něco vytýkáme Mugabeho režimu, pak to ve své podstatě nechápu. Chceme-li se skutečně ztrapnit, můžeme vyzvat místní šamany k tomu, aby vyschly řeky a Viktoriiny vodopády zmizely.

Ještě jednu poznámku k bodu 5 rezoluce. V některých státech Evropské unie se různých voleb účastnilo také extrémně málo voličů. Neuznáváme proto legitimitu takto zvolených zastupitelů, poslanců, senátorů, některých našich kolegů? Dovolte mi nad tímto bodem rezoluce vyslovit oprávněné zděšení. Při hlasování se skupina GUE/NGL na přijetí rezoluce podílet nebude.

Závěrem otázku pro komisaře. Pane komisaři, jak podpoříme vládu Jihoafrické republiky, kterou vyzýváme, aby lépe nakládala s uprchlíky ze Zimbabwe?


  Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE), Author. – Mr President, for over six years, Parliament has consistently called for robust action to effect change for the better in Zimbabwe, but we continue to witness the desperate plight of millions of ordinary Zimbabwean people. They suffer on a daily basis from intense political oppression, a collapsed economy and shortages of vital food, water and medical supplies. The United Nations World Food Programme expects to dispense aid to almost four million malnourished people this year – over one third of the population.

HIV/Aids has had a devastating effect on the country, with one in five adults being HIV positive and over one million children orphaned through the loss of their parents from Aids. Unemployment afflicts 70% of the population. Zimbabwe’s political and economic fortunes are at their lowest point in its 26-year history as an independent nation. Action taken by the international community has been at best lukewarm and lacked the commitment necessary to have a real impact on the situation in Zimbabwe.

South Africa should be at the forefront of international efforts to pressure the Mugabe regime into making democratic concessions, but I am afraid quiet diplomacy by President Mbeke has achieved nothing tangible. Through its provision of electricity, maize and credit, South Africa could exert enormous leverage on the Mugabe regime. It has not done so.

Now we see a resurgence of Chinese interest in many parts of Africa, including Zimbabwe. The Chinese Government seems to have no inhibitions about bolstering tyrannical regimes and supplying them with weapons of oppression in exchange for access to natural resources. I see little evidence of diplomatic effort by the EU or by the governments of Member States to close down those international sources of support that keep Mugabe in power. The EU has been less than robust in strictly implementing its own sanctions regime. No wonder Mugabe takes none of this seriously.

If the international community is serious about tackling the appalling conditions in Zimbabwe, then the United Nations Security Council should urgently investigate the situation in that country. Unless we give greater priority to Zimbabwe, the Mugabe regime will stagger on until the point where Zimbabwe fails completely, unable to revive itself without immense international assistance. Action now by the international community could help avert this situation.


  Karin Scheele (PSE), Verfasserin. – Herr Präsident! Wir diskutieren nicht die erste Entschließung über die Situation in Simbabwe, aber ich gestehe, wir haben schon inhaltlich bessere Entschließungen in diesem Parlament diskutiert.

Auch in der Zusammenarbeit mit den AKP-Staaten sind fehlende Demokratie, massive Menschenrechtsverletzungen in Simbabwe sowie die schwere Wirtschaftskrise, die von Lebensmittelknappheit, Arbeitslosigkeit und Hyperinflation begleitet wird, immer wieder Anlass für Kritik und Diskussionen. Wenn man alle Probleme dieses Landes aufzählt, das einst „der Brotkorb des südlichen Afrikas“ genannt wurde, muss man auch über die vielen mutigen Menschen sprechen, die in einem Klima starker Unterdrückung den Mut haben, die Missstände immer wieder anzuprangern.

Wir sollten danach trachten, dass wir genau diesen Menschen mit unseren Entschließungen in ihrem Kampf um Freiheit, Demokratie und Entwicklung den Rücken stärken. Bei manchen Passagen dieser heutigen Entschließung habe ich nicht dieses Gefühl, und ich finde es einfach falsch, bei einer Dringlichkeitsentschließung auf die im Jahr 2010 stattfindende Fußballweltmeisterschaft Bezug zu nehmen.

Ab dem 13. September – also hier sehr wohl dringend – werden in Simbabwe breit angelegte und landesweite Aktionen stattfinden, die von den Gewerkschaften und anderen Organisationen organisiert werden. Man wird auf das zunehmende Elend der Bevölkerung aufmerksam machen und Mindestgehälter, die über der Armutsgrenze liegen, sowie soziale Verantwortung von der Regierung fordern. Präsident Mugabe kündigt bereits jetzt an, dass jede Demonstration unterdrückt werden wird.

Es ist wichtig, dass wir dafür sorgen, dass diese friedlichen Protestaktionen, die auf die schrecklichen Lebensbedingungen der Bevölkerung hinweisen, ohne polizeiliche Schikanen stattfinden können, und, Herr Kommissar, wir sollten uns auch überlegen, wie wir es bei der Struktur, die in dieser Region vorhanden ist, schaffen, Beobachterinnen und Beobachter zu entsenden, um das Recht auf Meinungs- und Demonstrationsfreiheit zu garantieren.


  Marcin Libicki (UEN), autor. – Panie Przewodniczący! Zimbabwe jest przykładem jak może wziąć górę zła strona procesu dekolonizacji. Jak mówiła moja poprzedniczka, swego czasu Rodezja Południowa czyli dzisiejsze Zimbabwe było spichlerzem znacznej części Afryki. Dzisiaj nie jest w stanie wyżywić swojej własnej ludności.

W wielu krajach, szczególnie w krajach afrykańskich obserwowaliśmy właśnie te negatywne strony dekolonizacji, kiedy władza oddana w ręce nieodpowiedzialnych i niegodziwych sił politycznych, doprowadziła do jak najgorszych skutków właśnie dla tych państw, które miały się cieszyć wyzwoleniem spod władzy kolonialnej. Tymczasem obróciła się na zgubę ich własnych obywateli. Dzisiaj propozycja szefa Zimbabwe zwrotu farm ich dawnym właścicielom, jest oczywiście spóźniona i nie budzi najmniejszego zaufania.

Myślę, że to co przede wszystkim powinniśmy robić, to pomoc humanitarna i oświatowa, bo nie bardzo widzę jakiegokolwiek innego wyjścia z sytuacji, jakiejkolwiek innej możliwej akcji.


  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), Autor. – Señor Presidente, la situación de crisis política y la de los derechos humanos en Zimbabue siguen siendo un asunto grave y preocupante. A ello también hay que sumar el deterioro de las condiciones de vida y la creciente pobreza. Pero me querría centrar, sobre todo, en un aspecto concreto que también se menciona y que, además, es un tema de actualidad que tratamos a menudo en estas sesiones de urgencia, y que tiene que ver con la libertad de expresión.

Ayer mismo, hablábamos de China y lamentábamos el alto grado de control gubernamental que, en estos momentos, existe sobre los medios de comunicación, y sobre Internet en particular. Pues bien, parece que en Zimbabue se han inspirado en la fórmula china para desarrollar su propia ley relativa a la interceptación de comunicaciones, que se añade a un sistema legislativo ya de por sí altamente restrictivo en términos de libertades.

La inspiración china no es menor, ya que, como «Human Rights Watch» manifestó recientemente en un informe, el sistema de control chino, llamado en inglés great firewall, es el más avanzado del mundo.

Así, según esta ley, el ejército, los servicios de inteligencia, la policía e incluso la oficina del Presidente podrán controlar e interceptar correos electrónicos, escuchar conversaciones telefónicas y censurar Internet, todo ello sin necesidad de un mandato judicial. Ello afectaría a la relación entre los doctores y sus pacientes, por ejemplo, entre los abogados y sus clientes, entre los periodistas y sus fuentes, y supone, sin duda, un riesgo enorme para la privacidad, las ONG y la gente que trabaja en favor de los derechos humanos.

Por todo ello, creo nuestra obligación solicitar que dicha ley sea retirada. Pero, en cualquier caso, deseo dejar muy claro que esta preocupación no me viene sólo por el hecho de que hablemos de Zimbabue, ni tampoco exclusivamente con relación a China. Se trata de una preocupación que debemos entender como universal y sobre la que debemos alertar tanto respecto de estos países mencionados como, por ejemplo, también de los Estados Unidos y la propia Unión Europea.

El respeto a la libertad de expresión y el derecho a la privacidad deben ser elementos fundamentales de cualquier sociedad moderna. Hoy hablamos de Zimbabue, pero, insisto, éste es un tema que no podemos reducir solamente a este país.


  Marios Matsakis (ALDE), author. – Mr President, a grave and long-standing humanitarian, political and economic crisis sadly continues to torment this former British colony, with no sign or hope of an early improvement forthcoming. The inefficient and corrupt governing regime led by Robert Mugabe continues to oppress the people, and harassment of political opponents, trade union activists, farmers, human rights organisations, journalists and the judiciary is still widespread.

We call upon the Government of Zimbabwe to start demonstrating the necessary respect of international conventions and human rights and to guarantee the independence of the judiciary. Furthermore, we are of the opinion that an important step towards saving the country from an even worse future is for Mr Mugabe finally to relinquish power as soon as possible. Such an action, facilitated by the opening of positive transitional negotiations between Zanu-PF, MDC parties and other opposition movements will, we feel, bring about the much-needed revival of the society, politics and economy of Zimbabwe and bring peace and prosperity to its people in their traumatic transition from British colonisation to independence and freedom.


  Michael Gahler, im Namen der PPE-DE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Durch alle Jahre meiner Parlamentszugehörigkeit begleiten uns Debatten über die Situation in Simbabwe, eine Situation, die sozial, wirtschaftlich und politisch ständig schlechter geworden ist. Appelle an Mugabe haben ebenso wenig gewirkt wie die Aufforderung an die Nachbarstaaten, insbesondere Südafrika, sich stärker zu engagieren. Und das, was wir als EU an Maßnahmen ergriffen haben, hat diejenigen, die es treffen sollte, auch nicht sonderlich beeindruckt.

Wie ist die Lage? Geschätzte 2 Millionen Menschen haben sich in die Nachbarländer geflüchtet und leben dort meist illegal. Allein die so genannte Operation Muramba-tsvina hat 700 000 Menschen im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes entwurzelt. 4 Millionen haben nicht genügend zu essen. 70 % sind arbeitslos. Die Inflationsrate ist die höchste der Welt. Der Kampf gegen Aids wird durch die Zwangsumsiedlungen erschwert. Jede Woche sterben 3 200 Menschen an Aids. Die Gesetzgebung zur Kontrolle und Unterdrückung der Bevölkerung hat inzwischen das Ausmaß von vor der Unabhängigkeit erreicht.

Was können wir tun? Achten wir darauf, dass die internationalen Agenturen, die im Rahmen der UN vor Ort tätig sind, ihre Unterstützung der Bevölkerung möglichst unmittelbar leisten. Sorgen wir dafür, dass das Rote Kreuz seine Tätigkeit unbeeinträchtigt fortsetzen kann.

Ich fordere insbesondere die Kommission auf: Unterstützen wir auch aus dem Haushaltstitel der europäischen Initiative für Demokratie und Menschenrechte die dortige Zivilgesellschaft, die vielen mutigen Menschen, sei es in den Gewerkschaften, in den Menschenrechtsorganisationen, in den Kirchen oder in den unabhängigen Medien. Fragen wir China, mit wem es sich auf Dauer in Simbabwe arrangieren will. Mit der Regierung oder mit dem Volk? Und sagen wir unseren südafrikanischen Gesprächspartnern bei allen Gelegenheiten, dass sie durch ihre Untätigkeit weder die Dinge für sich selbst leichter machen noch den Menschen in Simbabwe einen guten Dienst erweisen.


  Józef Pinior, w imieniu grupy PSE. – Panie Przewodniczący! W Zimbabwe w ostatnich latach jesteśmy świadkami pogarszającej się sytuacji politycznej, społecznej oraz zdrowotnej społeczeństwa tego kraju.

Dyktaturze politycznej Roberta Mugabe towarzyszy katastrofa społeczna na terytorium Zimbabwe. W wyniku operacji Murambatsvina pozostało ok 700 tysięcy bezdomnych osób. Około 4 milionom osób w Zimbabwe grozi obecnie głód, wzrasta liczba zachorowań na AIDS. Dochodzi w tej chwili do takiej sytuacji, w której tygodniowo umiera w tym kraju ponad 3 tysiące osób. Ostatnie ruchy dyktatury Mugabe polegające na próbie kontroli nad Czerwonym Krzyżem tego kraju budzą szczególny niepokój.

Uwaga Parlamentu Europejskiego powinna być w tej chwili skupiona na działalności związków zawodowych Zimbabwe, szczególnie na akcjach protestacyjnych, które związki zawodowe podejmą w najbliższych tygodniach w Zimbabwe. Z naszej strony związkom zawodowym tego kraju należy się szczególna pomoc.


  Alyn Smith, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, the dreadful self-inflicted situation in Zimbabwe needs no reiteration in this House. It shows the limits of our power. To cut off aid would hit only the most vulnerable and yet that is the only real leverage we have in this House over the Zimbabwe regime.

Can we find other means? With regard to that I would refer to paragraph 8 of the motion for resolution, suggesting excluding Zimbabwe from the 2010 World Cup. I would suggest, unlike my colleagues, that it is a good idea. I would be grateful to hear the Commission’s views on that.

We saw this week the fraternity and friendship that emanates from international football. My team – Scotland – was in Lithuania recently and I have no doubt a number of friendships were made. However, participation is a privilege, not a right. Exclusion from the 2010 World Cup would underline international disgust with Mr Mugabe’s regime without hurting the people of Zimbabwe, and yet it would be noticed throughout that football-mad country. It strikes me as a positive and useful idea. I would be grateful to hear the Commissioner’s view on it.


  Koenraad Dillen (NI). – Collega's, mijnheer de Voorzitter, de schrijnende mensenrechtensituatie in Zimbabwe, dat weten we allemaal, is al langer dan vandaag een dringende kwestie en het is ook niet de eerste keer dat ze wordt geagendeerd in dit Parlement. Hoeveel jaar is de marxistische dictator Mugabe nu al bezig met zijn racistisch beleid jegens de blanke boeren in zijn land? Ongestraft voert hij een beleid van etnische zuivering, waarvan in de eerste plaats de overgrote meerderheid van de zwarte bevolking van Zimbabwe het slachtoffer van is.

Ooit was Zimbabwe immers een landbouwland dat als een der weinige landen ten zuiden van de Sahara zijn landbouwproducten kon exporteren. Mugabe heeft met zijn waanzin de ellende onder zijn eigen volk gecreëerd. De landbouw stort in elkaar en de hongersnood grijpt om zich heen.

Het wordt hoog tijd dat er effectief tegen die man wordt opgetreden. Net zoals Charles Taylor van Liberia moet Mugabe door de internationale gemeenschap als een misdadiger tegen de menselijkheid behandeld worden en ter verantwoording worden geroepen. Ook in Afrika mag geen politiek van twee maten en twee gewichten worden gevoerd.


  John Attard-Montalto (PSE). – Mr President, it appears that, as time goes by, the European Union is becoming more and more ineffectual where certain dictatorships are concerned.

It is a great pity that a wonderful country like Zimbabwe has been allowed to deteriorate into its current state while, except for the few measures we have taken to combat the dictatorship of Mr Mugabe, we look on. We talk about what is happening and perhaps restrict the travel arrangements of the perpetrators and their immediate families, and then think we are doing something to help those who are feeling the brunt: not only the whites but also a sizeable faction of native black Zimbabweans. It is about time we stood up and really started to act rather than just talk.


  Ryszard Czarnecki (NI). – Panie Przewodniczący! Ma rację nasza koleżanka z Austrii, która mówi o tym, że po raz kolejny w naszym Parlamencie mówimy o Zimbabwe. To jest taka never-ending story i rzeczywiście jest to kraj, który jest rekordzistą świata: 70% bezrobocia, największa na świecie inflacja, 3200 osób umiera tygodniowo na AIDS, a gdy dochodzi do wyborów, frekwencja wyborcza jest najniższa z kolei na świecie. Wynosi ona 15%.

W tym kraju 4 miliony ludzi jest zagrożonych głodem. Ta sytuacja jest wyzwaniem dla całego świata, w tym także dla Unii Europejskiej. Mam nadzieję, że nie skończymy na mówieniu i zgadzam się z tym, co powiedział przed chwilą nasz kolega z Hiszpanii, pan Rueda, aby nie stosować podwójnych standardów, oczywiście mówić o Zimbabwe, ale nie tylko o Zimbabwe ponieważ w innych krajach na świecie również łamane są podstawowe prawa człowieka oraz, że tych podwójnych standardów stale musimy unikać. Dobrze, że w tej kwestii Parlament Europejski zabiera głos po raz kolejny, miejmy nadzieję, że po raz ostatni.


  Franco Frattini, Vicepresidente della Commissione. Signor Presidente, onorevoli deputati, la Commissione europea segue con grande attenzione gli eventi in Zimbabwe e siamo sempre più preoccupati per il deterioramento della situazione politica, soprattutto di quella economica e sociale che colpisce persone, civili, cittadini.

Sulla base delle condizioni che registriamo oggi - siccome non ci sono misure adeguate, non c'è nessuna misura presa dal governo dello Zimbabwe per affrontare seriamente la crisi democratica, la protezione dei diritti e la tragica crisi economica - è fuori discussione ogni eventuale alleggerimento o revoca delle misure adottate dall'Unione europea nei confronti dello Zimbabwe: in altri termini, non se ne parla nemmeno!

Nei confronti dello Zimbabwe l'Unione europea non cambia attitudine e il suo atteggiamento di fermezza è stato recentemente ribadito dal mio collega Louis Michel nei suoi contatti con le autorità del governo dello Zimbabwe, nei quali è stato sottolineato che la Commissione è assolutamente ferma nell'esercitare un ruolo attivo per cercare di sbloccare la situazione. Nello stesso tempo non possiamo rinunciare a nessuna delle condizioni che abbiamo posto, anzitutto il ripristino di regole democratiche per la vita quotidiana dei cittadini. Quanto è stato detto conferma le nostre preoccupazioni.

Ho ascoltato con attenzione, con molto interesse, l'idea di escludere lo Zimbabwe dalla Coppa del mondo di calcio del 2010. Gli onorevoli parlamentari sanno che una simile decisione viene adottata dalla Federazione internazionale di calcio, ma, detto questo, personalmente la ritengo un'idea seria, da prendere sul serio, da sottoporre alla discussione con gli Stati membri e con la Federazione internazionale; non sono in grado di dire oggi se il risultato sarà quello che alcuni parlamentari auspicano, ma posso dire che informerò il collega Louis Michel, la collega Ferrero-Waldner di questa aspettativa: la questione va presa davvero sul serio.

Certamente vi è un altro aspetto: come ho detto prima, l'Europa auspica che lo Zimbabwe torni verso un percorso di ristabilimento delle condizioni di vita democratica e di progresso economico. Ovviamente siamo pronti a indicare alcune strade, ad esempio nell'ambito del decimo programma di priorità per il Fondo europeo di sviluppo, all'interno del quale esistono possibilità concrete, ma non possiamo oggi rinunciare a porre una condizionalità molto chiara allo Zimbabwe: se non si avvia una strada seria verso la democrazia, non possiamo modificare il nostro atteggiamento di fermezza.

Nel contempo, la Commissione ha un dialogo molto stretto con paesi vicini allo Zimbabwe, in particolare con i paesi membri della Comunità per lo sviluppo dell'Africa meridionale e con il governo del Sudafrica. Condivido quanto ho sentito: saremo sempre più attivi nel chiedere che questi paesi vicini facciano ancora di più!

Sosteniamo le iniziative delle Nazioni Unite e a mio parere è molto importante una pressione di autorevoli capi di Stato e di governo africani sul governo dello Zimbabwe, affinché siano finalmente migliorate le condizioni politiche e umanitarie e si apra la strada verso la riconciliazione nazionale.

Nel frattempo ci preoccupiamo della popolazione: è evidente che mentre con il governo dello Zimbabwe l'atteggiamento è di assoluta fermezza, nei confronti della popolazione invece, la quale non ha colpa per un regime che la priva della libertà e anche dei mezzi economici, dobbiamo preoccuparci di un'assistenza diretta. Posso confermare che il Commissario Michel è intenzionato a proseguire il sostegno e anche il finanziamento a progetti concernenti i settori socio-economici, l'assistenza medica, il ruolo delle organizzazioni sul terreno. Ricordo che il ruolo della Croce rossa deve essere assolutamente consentito e incoraggiato, così come i progetti riguardanti la governance, la democratizzazione, il rispetto per i diritti umani e lo Stato di diritto. A nostro parere l'assistenza diretta alla popolazione dello Zimbabwe deve proseguire proprio in tutti questi settori .


  Presidente. La discussione è chiusa.

La votazione si svolgerà immediatamente.


(1)Vedasi processo verbale.

12. Ħin tal-votazzjonijiet

  Presidente. L'ordine del giorno reca il turno di votazioni.

(Per i risultati dettagliati della votazione: vedasi processo verbale)


12.1. Sri Lanka (votazzjoni)

Prima della votazione sul paragrafo 5:


  Michael Gahler (PPE-DE). – Herr Präsident! Ich bitte zu ersetzen:

To replace ‘commission to inquire into recent killings, disappearances and abductions’ by the correct wording ‘independent group of eminent persons as observers of investigations into abductions, disappearances and extrajudicial killings’.

Das ist wohl der korrekte Fachterminus, der da zum Einsatz kommen soll.


(L'emendamento orale è accolto)

– Prima della votazione sul paragrafo 15:


  Michael Gahler (PPE-DE). – Das ist hier wohl im Text falsch ausgedruckt: „delete two times the words and INGO“. Es geht eigentlich nur um eine redaktionelle Änderung.


(L'emendamento orale è accolto)

– Prima della votazione sull'emendamento 1:


  Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I should like to change the last phrase of our amendment to read as follows: 'Consideration can be given to lifting proscription if there is an effective cease-fire, an end to terrorism and resumption of serious negotiations on a constructive basis.' That would replace the last phrase that appears in the amendment at the moment.


(L'emendamento orale è accolto)

– Prima della votazione sull'emendamento 5:


  Robert Evans (PSE). – Mr President, this is a technical amendment. I am advised that the final part of Amendment 5, which refers to the fact that ‘… Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner shares this concern’ would read better as ‘… this is a view shared by many international bodies’.


(L'emendamento orale non è accolto)


12.2. Persuni mill-Korea ta' Fuq li jfittxu kenn politiku, speċjalment fit-Tajlandja (votazzjoni)

12.3. Żimbabwe (votazzjoni)

Prima della votazione:


  Michael Gahler (PPE-DE). – Herr Präsident! Mir ist eben aufgefallen, dass bei den Adressaten der Entschließung zu Simbabwe zwar der Vorsitzende des Exekutivrates der Afrikanischen Union aufgeführt ist — also die Exekutive, die Regierungsseite —, dass wir in der Aufzählung aber das Panafrikanische Parlament vergessen haben. Da wir ja gerade mit ihnen Kontakt herstellen wollen, schlage ich als mündlichen Änderungsantrag vor, noch das Panafrikanische Parlament hinzuzufügen.


  Presidente. Ciò conclude il turno di votazioni.


13. Kompożizzjoni tal-Parlament: ara l-Minuti

14. Kompożizzjoni tal-kumitati u tad-delegazzjonijet: ara l-Minuti

15. Deċiżjonijiet dwar ċertu dokumenti: ara l-minuti

16. Dikjarazzjonijiet bil-miktub imniżżla fir-reġistru (Artikolu 116 tar-Regoli ta' Proċedura): ara l-Minuti

17. Tressiq ta' testi adottati matul is-seduta attwali: ara l-Minuti

18. Dati tas-seduti li jmiss: ara l-Minuti

19. Interruzzjoni tas-sessjoni

  Presidente. Dichiaro interrotta la sessione del Parlamento europeo.

(La seduta è tolta alle 16.20)


ANNESS (Tweġiba bil-miktub)
QUESTIONS TO COUNCIL (The Presidency-in-Office of the Council of the European Union bears sole responsibility for these answers)
Question no 20 by Bill Newton Dunn (H-0646/06)
 Subject: Serious terrorist attacks in Member States

The Presidency-in-Office of the Council replied to my question in June (H-0462/06)(1) that the experienced police officers who are being drawn from the G-6 EU Member States and formed into back-up teams ready to assist in the case of serious terrorist attacks (the EU Commission was represented at the G-6 lunch) will be empowered to be active in any of the six G-6 territories whatever their own nationality – but will not be able to assist in a Member State which is not a member of the G-6.

Who will exercise political control over the police teams ? What will their powers be ? Will they wear the same uniforms ? Will they have power of arrest ?


Tätä puheenjohtajavaltion laatimaa vastausta, joka ei sinänsä sido neuvostoa eikä sen jäseniä, ei esitetty suullisesti neuvoston kyselytunnilla Euroopan parlamentin Strasbourgissa syyskuussa 2006 pidetyllä ensimmäisellä istuntojaksolla.

Kysyjän mainitsemat poliisijoukot perustetaan G6-ryhmän sisällä, joten ne eivät toimi EU:n puitteissa.

Rajat ylittävästä poliisiyhteistyöstä saadun kokemuksen perusteella voitaisiin kuitenkin antaa seuraava yleisluontoinen vastaus.

Poliisiryhmät ovat sen valtion valvonnassa, jonka alueella ne toimivat. Tämä koskee sekä yhteisiä tutkintaryhmiä että jäsenvaltioiden keskinäistä virka-apua poliisiasioissa.

Näin ollen valtio, jossa poliisiryhmä toimii, on periaatteessa poliittisessa vastuussa ryhmän toiminnasta.

Ryhmän valtuudet määritellään sen valtion kansallisessa lainsäädännössä, jossa se toimii. Yhteisten tutkintaryhmien osalta EU:n lainsäädännössä määritellään oikeudelliset puitteet rajojen kummallakin puolella tapahtuvaa tarkkailua ja rajat ylittävää takaa-ajoa varten.

Siitä, käyttääkö ryhmä yhtenäistä virkapukua, päätetään yhteisesti sekä sen valtion kansallisen lainsäädännön, jossa ryhmä toimii, että poliiseja lähettäneen valtion lainsäädännön mukaisesti.

Muun muassa jalkapallohuliganismin torjunnassa on tavallinen käytäntö, että ulkomaiset tukiryhmät käyttävän oman maansa virkapukua.

Omassa maassaan toimivilla ryhmän jäsenillä on kansallisina poliiseina pidättämisoikeus.

Se, onko ryhmän ulkomaisilla jäsenillä pidättämisoikeus, määritellään sen valtion lainsäädännössä, jossa ryhmä toimii.


(1) Written answer of 16.6.2006


Ερώτηση αρ. 21 του κ. Δημητρίου Παπαδημούλη (H-0651/06)
 Θέμα: Δίκαιο της θάλασσας και Τουρκία

Η Σύμβαση των Ηνωμένων Εθνών για το Δίκαιο της Θάλασσας έχει κυρωθεί από την Ευρωπαϊκή Κοινότητα και αποτελεί μέρος του κοινοτικού κεκτημένου. Τα 10 νέα κράτη μέλη, δυνάμει των διατάξεων του άρθρου 6 της πράξης που αφορά του όρους προσχώρησης των νέων κρατών μελών, κύρωσαν τη Σύμβαση για το Δίκαιο της Θάλασσας, ως όφειλαν. Σημειώνεται ότι όλα τα κράτη μέλη της Κοινότητας έχουν επωφεληθεί από τις διατάξεις της σύμβασης, επεκτείνοντας τα χωρικά τους ύδατα στα όρια που θέτει η Σύμβαση. Η Ελλάδα, όμως, εμποδίζεται να την εφαρμόσει διότι η Τουρκία, με τον πλέον επίσημο τρόπο, έχει δηλώσει ότι τυχόν εφαρμογή της από την Ελλάδα αποτελεί αιτία πολέμου (casus belli). Έχουμε φτάσει, λοιπόν, στην «παράδοξη» κατάσταση κράτος μέλος της ΕΕ να απειλείται με πόλεμο από υποψήφιο κράτος μέλος, σε περίπτωση που εφαρμόσει το κοινοτικό κεκτημένο.

Προτίθεται το Συμβούλιο να επισημάνει στην Τουρκία ότι η απειλή πολέμου σε βάρος κράτους μέλους σε περίπτωση εφαρμογής του κοινοτικού κεκτημένου για το Δίκαιο της Θάλασσας αποτελεί μη ανεκτή κατάσταση; Τι μέτρα θα λάβει για να άρει άμεσα η Τουρκία την απειλή πολέμου;


Tätä puheenjohtajavaltion laatimaa vastausta, joka ei sinänsä sido neuvostoa eikä sen jäseniä, ei esitetty suullisesti neuvoston kyselytunnilla Euroopan parlamentin Strasbourgissa syyskuussa 2006 pidetyllä ensimmäisellä istuntojaksolla.

Kysyjän mainitsema asia koskee Turkin suhteita naapurimaahansa Kreikkaan. Haluaisin tässä yhteydessä jälleen muistuttaa Helsingin vuoden 1999 ja Brysselin joulukuun 2004 Eurooppa-neuvostojen asianomaisista päätelmistä. Turkin on ehdokasvaltiona noudatettava perussopimuksissa määriteltyjä Euroopan unionin arvoja ja tavoitteita. Sen on sitouduttava yksiselitteisesti pyrkimään hyviin naapuruussuhteisiin ja ratkaisemaan rajakiistat riitojen rauhanomaisen selvittelyn periaatetta noudattaen YK:n peruskirjan mukaisesti. Tällöin on vältettävä kaikkia sellaisia toimia, jotka voisivat vaikuttaa kielteisesti riitojen rauhanomaista ratkaisua koskevaan prosessiin, kuten 15. ja 16. kesäkuuta 2006 kokoontuneen Eurooppa-neuvoston päätelmissä todettiin.

Edellä mainitut asiat, jotka myös kuuluvat neuvottelukehykseen, ovat tarkistetun liittymiskumppanuuden lyhyen aikavälin avainalueita, ja EU ottaa ne järjestelmällisesti esille poliittiseen vuoropuheluun kuuluvissa kokouksissa Turkin kanssa. Näin tapahtui myös EU:n ja Turkin assosiaationeuvoston viimeisimmässä kokouksessa Luxemburgissa 12.6.2006, jolloin EU nimenomaisesti pahoitteli Egeanmerellä hieman aiemmin tapahtunutta välikohtausta, erityisesti koska se oli johtanut ihmishenkien menetykseen, ja totesi, että mainitunlaisilla tapauksilla on kielteinen vaikutus hyviin naapuruussuhteisiin.

Neuvosto voi näin ollen vakuuttaa kysyjälle, että edellä mainittuja asioita seurataan edelleen tiiviisti ja ne otetaan esille tarvittaessa kaikilla tasoilla, sillä hyvät naapuruussuhteet ovat yksi kriteereistä, joilla Turkin edistymistä kohti EU-jäsenyyttä mitataan. On selvää, että edistyminen tässä suhteessa edistää myös neuvotteluprosessia.


Question no 22 by David Martin (H-0652/06)
 Subject: Russian membership of the WTO

Does the President-in-Office believe that the EU should revisit its support for Russian membership of the WTO?


Tätä puheenjohtajavaltion laatimaa vastausta, joka ei sinänsä sido neuvostoa eikä sen jäseniä, ei esitetty suullisesti neuvoston kyselytunnilla Euroopan parlamentin Strasbourgissa syyskuussa 2006 pidetyllä ensimmäisellä istuntojaksolla.

Puheenjohtaja kiittää parlamentin jäsentä tästä kysymyksestä.

EU:lla ei mielestäni ole syytä harkita uudelleen tukeaan Venäjän WTO-jäsenyydelle. Jäsenyys tuo etuja kummallekin osapuolelle - sekä EU että Venäjä hyötyvät siitä. Se luo avoimemmat ja vakaammat edellytykset kaupalle ja investoinneille sekä antaa EU:lle otollisen foorumin kauppaan liittyvien kiistojen selvittämiseksi Venäjän kanssa. Mahdollisuus WTO-jäsenyyteen antoi niin ikään Venäjälle lisäsyyn ratifioida Kioton pöytäkirja. Lisäksi neuvotteluprosessi antaa EU:lle vaikutusvaltaa Venäjän suhteen EU:ta koskevissa pulmallisissa kysymyksissä, jollaisia ovat muun muassa terveyteen ja kasvien terveyteen, Siperian ylilentojen maksuihin, ulkomaille menevien tai sieltä tulevien rautatiekuljetusten syrjimättömyyteen tai tulliselvitysmaksuihin liittyvät kysymykset.

Näin ollen olisi EU:n taloudellisten ja kaupallisten etujen vastaista vetää pois EU:n tuki Venäjän WTO-jäsenyydeltä.


Question no 23 by Bairbre de Brún (H-0654/06)
 Subject: Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights

In May 2001 the European Court ruled on controversial state killings, including the killing of Sinn Féin member Patrick Shanaghan killed by loyalists in the north of Ireland, that the British Government was not compliant with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Given that, the office of the Public Prosecution Service, formerly the DPP, remains unaccountable for its decision-making process regarding non-prosecutions in cases where prima-facie evidence exists, up to 40 inquests into controversial state killings have been delayed, in some cases for more than ten years, and the Inquiries Act has been introduced to protect state interests and to suppress information that might emerge regarding the killing of human rights lawyer Pat Finucane in 1989. The office of the Police Ombudsman has not been granted the legislative authority or adequate resources to conduct effective investigations into the conduct of police officers, and the Historical Enquiries Team (HET) fails to meet the requirements of Article 2 in so far as it is subject to the PSNI, the NIO and the former RUC Chief Constable Sir Ronnie Flanagan in his capacity as a member of Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary.

Does the Council accept that Britain is still not Article 2 compliant in this regard? What actions can the Council take to ensure that Britain complies with Article 2 as soon as possible?


Tätä puheenjohtajavaltion laatimaa vastausta, joka ei sinänsä sido neuvostoa eikä sen jäseniä, ei esitetty suullisesti neuvoston kyselytunnilla Euroopan parlamentin Strasbourgissa syyskuussa 2006 pidetyllä ensimmäisellä istuntojaksolla.

Neuvosto ei ole keskustellut tästä asiasta, koska se ei kuulu neuvoston toimivaltaan.


Vraag nr. 24 van Lambert van Nistelrooij (H-0656/06)
 Betreft: Europees Nabuurschaps- en Partnerschapsinstrument

Het Parlement stemde in juli over een eerste-lezing-akkoord over het European Neighborhood and Partnerschip Instrument (ENPI - COM(2004)0628 def.). Per jaar wordt tussen 2007 en 2013 ca. 700 miljoen Euro uit het Europees Fonds voor Regionale ontwikkeling vrijgemaakt. Grensoverschrijdende programma's kunnen vanaf 1 januari 2007 worden ondersteund.

Voor de grensoverschrijdende samenwerking wordt de decentrale methodiek van de Interreg-programma´s voortgezet. Uit de grensregio's van de Europese Unie hoor ik dat de lidstaten betrokken bij de opstelling van de programma's nog grote moeite hebben de programma's 'bottom-up' voor te bereiden. Het opzetten en opleiden van staf voor het gezamelijke management van de projecten is in het verleden aan de binnengrenzen steeds essentieel gebleken voor het uiteindelijke succes van de programma's.

Welke initiatieven voorziet het Voorzitterschap voor de opbouw van de menselijke capaciteiten voor de grensoverschrijdende projecten in het ENPI?

Welke monitoring van de voortgang terzake is voorzien in de periode 2007-2013?


Tätä puheenjohtajavaltion laatimaa vastausta, joka ei sinänsä sido neuvostoa eikä sen jäseniä, ei esitetty suullisesti neuvoston kyselytunnilla Euroopan parlamentin Strasbourgissa syyskuussa 2006 pidetyllä ensimmäisellä istuntojaksolla.

Neuvosto myöntää, että yhden ainoan välineen käyttö rajatylittävän ja alueellisen yhteistyön tukemiseksi on haasteellista, erityisesti maille, jotka eivät ole Euroopan unionin jäseniä ja joilla on vähemmän kokemusta ohjelmasuunnittelusta. Euroopan naapuruus- ja kumppanuusvälineessä kuitenkin laajalti sovelletaan kauden 2004–2006 sääntöihin perustuvien naapuruuspoliittisten ohjelmien täytäntöönpanosta saatuja kokemuksia. Uudet ohjelmat tulevat hyötymään näiden kolmen vuoden aikana saaduista kokemuksista. Henkilöstön koulutus ja kokemusten vaihto ovat mahdollistaneet ohjelmien toimintakyvyn kehittymisen.

Kun seurantaprosessia koskevat järjestelyt ovat valmiina vuosia 2007-2013 varten, rajatylittävää yhteistyötä koskevien ohjelmien arvioinnin tuloksista keskustellaan Euroopan naapuruus- ja kumppanuusvälinettä koskevan asetusehdotuksen 24 artiklan mukaisesti hallintokomiteoissa, joiden lausunnot vaikuttavat ohjelmasuunnitteluun ja määrärahojen jakamiseen.


Fråga nr 25 från Anna Hedh (H-0657/06)
 Angående: Införselkvoter för alkohol

Varje gång en resenär passerar gränsen mellan två EU-länder får de för personligt bruk ta med sig totalt 230 liter alkohol fördelat på öl, vin och sprit. Mängden alkohol är så stor att den fyller nästan en liten lastbil och motsvarar 2,5 års förbrukning. En jämförelse med tobak visar att man i det fallet bara får ta med sig 800 cigaretter vilket motsvarar 40 dagars förbrukning.

Enligt Världshälsoorganisationen, WHO, dog 600 000 européer under 2002 av alkoholrelaterade skador, vilket var en ökning med 15 procent på två år. 7,7 miljoner barn växer upp i familjer där missbruk finns och en stor del av trafikskadorna är orsakade av alkohol. Alkohol är, med all tydlighet, ingen vanlig vara.

Jag vet att ni har tänkt ta upp frågan om minimiskatter på alkohol, därför undrar jag om ni också kommer att ta upp frågan om att göra en översyn av införselkvoterna under ert ordförandeskap?


Tätä puheenjohtajavaltion laatimaa vastausta, joka ei sinänsä sido neuvostoa eikä sen jäseniä, ei esitetty suullisesti neuvoston kyselytunnilla Euroopan parlamentin Strasbourgissa syyskuussa 2006 pidetyllä ensimmäisellä istuntojaksolla.

Kuten kysyjä toteaa, kysymys mahdollisesta alkoholin valmisteveron vähimmäismäärän korotuksesta on yksi Suomen puheenjohtajakauden keskeisistä aiheista veroalalla.

Sen jälkeen kun alkoholijuomien valmisteveron vähimmäismäärä vahvistettiin vuonna 1992, sitä ei ole sisämarkkinoiden aikana muutettu. Kun otetaan huomioon, että EU:n keskimääräinen inflaatio on mainittuna aikana ollut yli 25 prosenttia, on valmisteveron vähimmäismäärä suhteellisesti mitattuna pienentynyt.

Kysyjän mainitsemat määrät ovat valmisteveron alaisten tuotteiden hallussapidosta, liikkumisesta ja valvonnasta annetussa direktiivissä 92/12/ETY määriteltyjä ohjetasoja.

Kyseiset ohjetasot on määritelty vain sen vuoksi, että jäsenvaltioiden veroviranomaiset voisivat niiden perusteella todeta, että kyseessä olevat tuotteet on tarkoitettu henkilökohtaiseen käyttöön eikä myyntiin.

Komissio oli esittänyt neuvostolle ehdotuksen direktiivin muuttamiseksi. Ehdotuksen mukaisesti jäsenvaltioilta poistettaisiin muun muassa mahdollisuus kyseisten rajojen käyttöön.

Komission ehdotuksesta on keskusteltu neuvoston toimivaltaisissa elimissä ilman, että siitä on päästy sopimukseen.

Tarkasteltaessa muita näkökohtia todettakoon, että yksi Itävallan ja Suomen laatimassa neuvoston vuoden 2006 toimintaohjelmassa mainituista terveydellisistä kysymyksistä on alkoholinkulutus.

Puheenjohtajavaltio Suomi aikoo 30.11.2006 pidettävässä työllisyys-, sosiaalipolitiikka-, terveys- ja kuluttaja-asioiden neuvostossa järjestää EU:n alkoholistrategiaa koskevan komission tulevan tiedonannon pohjalta ministerien välisen keskustelun, jossa kiinnitetään erityistä huomiota nuorten lisääntyneeseen alkoholinkäyttöön. Strategialla pyritään alkoholinkäyttöön liittyvien terveydellisten ja yhteiskunnallisten haittojen vähentämiseen sekä vaikuttamaan Lissabonin tavoitteisiin.

Samassa yhteydessä neuvosto aikoo panna merkille komission raportin lasten ja nuorten alkoholinkäytöstä 5 päivänä kesäkuuta 2006 annetun neuvoston suosituksen(1) täytäntöönpanosta jäsenvaltioissa ja yhteisön tasolla.


(1) EYVL L 161, 16.6.2001, s. 38.


Klausimas Nr. 26, pateikė Danutė Budreikaitė (H-0661/06)
 Tema: Dėl Europos Sąjungos dujų rinkos

Tarybai pirmininkaujanti Suomija savo darbų programoje energetikos politikos srityje ruošiasi susikoncentruoti daugiausia į santykius su trečiosiomis šalimis, ES ir Rusijos dialogą. Tai suprantama dėl ES priklausomybės nuo energetinių išteklių importo. Programoje numatyta siekti efektyvios elektros ir dujų vidaus rinkos įgyvendinimo, kuri padės ES tapti konkurencingesnei ir saugesnei.

Tačiau ar Suomija žino, kad siekdama kurti bendrą energetikos vidaus rinką, Europos Komisijai patarianti Europos elektros ir gamtinių dujų reguliuojančių institucijų grupė nutarė kurti 4 regioninius energijos rinkos projektus – Šiaurės Rytų, Šiaurės, Pietų ir Pietryčių. Nė vienas iš jų neapima 4 Baltijos šalių – Lietuvos, Latvijos, Estijos ir Suomijos taip pat. Kokius veiksmus numato pirmininkaujanti šalis bendros, o ne fragmentuotos energetikos rinkos realiam kūrimui skatinti?


Tätä puheenjohtajavaltion laatimaa vastausta, joka ei sinänsä sido neuvostoa eikä sen jäseniä, ei esitetty suullisesti neuvoston kyselytunnilla Euroopan parlamentin Strasbourgissa syyskuussa 2006 pidetyllä ensimmäisellä istuntojaksolla.

EU:n energiamarkkinoiden kehittäminen ja toimitusvarmuuden parantaminen ovat neuvoston keskeisiä toiminta-aloja Suomen puheenjohtajakaudella. Alueellinen energiayhteistyö on hyödyllinen askel kohti täysin integroituja EU:n sisämarkkinoita. On syytä korostaa, että näitä alueellisia markkinoita tulee pitää välivaiheena.

Neuvosto on todennut selvästi energian sisämarkkinoita koskevissa päätelmissään (annettu 9.6.2006), että alueellisen energiayhteistyön koordinoitua kehittämistä olisi vauhditettava samalla kun helpotetaan alueellisten energiamarkkinoiden integroimista EU:n sisämarkkinoihin ja kehitetään edelleen tämän alan sisämarkkinoita. Tämä olisi toteutettava muun muassa riittävillä ja johdonmukaisilla yhteenliitäntätoimenpiteillä sekä yhteenliitäntäkapasiteettiin pääsyllä kiinnittäen erityistä huomiota niihin maihin ja alueisiin, joiden energiaverkot ovat paljolti EU:n energiaverkon ulkopuolella. Tämä näkökohta kattaisi siten myös arvoisan parlamentin jäsenen kysymyksessään mainitseman alueen.

Neuvosto pyytää kysyjää myös tutustumaan äskettäin tehtyyn päätökseen Euroopan laajuisia energiaverkkoja koskevien suuntaviivojen vahvistamisesta. Näihin energiaverkkoihin kuuluu, yhtenä esimerkkinä Euroopan etua koskevista sähköhankkeista, Puola – Liettua -yhteys, joka sisältää Puolan sähköverkon ja PL-DE profiilin tarpeellisen vahvistamisen, jotta mahdollistettaisiin osallistuminen energian sisämarkkinoille.

Neuvosto haluaisi muistuttaa, että verkkoinvestoinneista vastaa ensi sijassa yksityinen sektori. Yhtiöiden, hallitusten, kansainvälisten rahoituslaitosten ja komission välistä yhteistyötä onkin syytä tehostaa investointien toteuttamisen osalta. Komissio on alkanut valmistella tammikuussa 2007 esitettävää tiedonantoa verkkojen yhteenliittämistä koskevasta ensisijaisesta suunnitelmasta. Puheenjohtajavaltion mielestä työssä on keskityttävä koko unionin kannalta tärkeimpiin yhteyksiin, mukaan lukien yhteydet EU:n ulkopuolella sijaitsevista energialähteistä. Puheenjohtajavaltio pitää ensisijaisina myös yhteyksiä alueille, jotka ovat yhteisen eurooppalaisen verkon ulkopuolella.

Eräs kesäkuussa 2006 annetuissa neuvoston päätelmissäkin mainittu näkökohta on myös yhteistyön ja koordinoinnin tiivistäminen erityisesti lainsäätäjien, verkonhaltijoiden, energiavaihdon ja hallitusten välillä.

Neuvosto pyrkii toteuttamaan näitä periaatteita ja tavoitteita tulevina kuukausina yhdessä komission kanssa.


Question no 27 by Laima Liucija Andrikienė (H-0663/06)
 Subject: Preparation for the implementation of Framework Programme 7 (FP7)

In its first reading on FP7 the EP showed support for Commission plans on future EU RD and passed an amendment to bring the budget of FP7 in line with the Financial Perspective agreement: € 50.521 billion for 2007-2013. FP7 is to be the main programme of the EU RD and the expectations in the EU research community on the issue are very high. Unfortunately, the Commission has not managed to prepare new financial regulations for the FP7 yet, but the EU cannot implement FP7 using old financial regulations. All this could delay the announcement of calls for proposals remarkably even until the end of 2007 and will inevitably create obstacles for the development of science and research in the EU as well as contradict with the goals foreseen in the Lisbon strategy.

What is the Council's position concerning this situation? What measures does the Council plan to take in order to make the FP7 effective, progressive and timely?


Tätä puheenjohtajavaltion laatimaa vastausta, joka ei sinänsä sido neuvostoa eikä sen jäseniä, ei esitetty suullisesti neuvoston kyselytunnilla Euroopan parlamentin Strasbourgissa syyskuussa 2006 pidetyllä ensimmäisellä istuntojaksolla.

Kysyjän ilmaisema huoli siitä, että "komissio ei ole [….] kuitenkaan vielä onnistunut laatimaan 7. puiteohjelmalle uusia varainhoitoa koskevia sääntöjä" ja että tämä saattaisi johtaa puiteohjelman täytäntöönpanon huomattavaan viivästymiseen, on syytä asettaa oikeisiin mittasuhteisiin.

Kysyjää pyydetään kiinnittämään huomiota Euroopan parlamentille ja neuvostolle 6.7.2005 toimitettuun komission ehdotukseen neuvoston asetukseksi Euroopan yhteisöjen yleiseen talousarvioon sovellettavasta varainhoitoasetuksesta annetun neuvoston asetuksen (EY, Euratom) N:o 1605/2002 muuttamisesta, Komission kertomus neuvostolle ja Euroopan parlamentille – Kertomus uuden varainhoitoasetuksen säännösten soveltamisesta (KOM(2005) 181 lopullinen – 2005/0090 (CNS)). Komissio esitti 18.5.2006 muutetun ehdotuksensa (KOM(2006) 213 lopullinen – 2005/0090 (CNS)), johon oli suurelta osin sisällytetty muiden toimielinten lausunnot ja jossa oli otettu huomioon kansalaisyhteiskunnan edustajien ilmaisemat huolenaiheet. Komissio muistutti, että ennen kuin neuvosto voi antaa muutosasetuksen (4.3.1975 annetussa yhteisessä julistuksessa tarkoitetulla tavalla), neuvosto ja Euroopan parlamentti neuvottelevat muutoksista komission aktiivisella avustuksella varainhoitoasetuksen 184 artiklan mukaisesti, jos parlamentti tätä vaatii.

Kysyjää pyydetään lisäksi kiinnittämään huomiota talousarviota koskevasta kurinalaisuudesta ja moitteettomasta varainhoidosta toukokuussa 2006 tehtyyn Euroopan parlamentin, neuvoston ja komission väliseen toimielinten sopimukseen. Sopimukseen sisältyvän, varainhoitoasetuksen tarkistamisesta annetun julistuksen mukaan Euroopan parlamentti ja neuvosto ovat vakaasti sitoutuneet viemään varainhoitoasetusta koskevat neuvottelut päätökseen, niin että se voi, jos mahdollista, tulla voimaan 1.1.2007.


Ερώτηση αρ. 28 του κ. Παναγιώτη Μπεγλίτη (H-0667/06)
 Θέμα: Πορεία των διαπραγματεύσεων σχετικά με το καθεστώς του Κοσόβου

Μετά την ολοκλήρωση των έξι γύρων διαπραγματεύσεων μεταξύ αντιπροσωπειών της Σερβίας και του Κοσσόβου, ποιος είναι ο απολογισμός και η αξιολόγηση των αποτελεσμάτων, που κάνει το Συμβούλιο; Πιστεύει το Συμβούλιο ότι οι συνθήκες είναι πλέον ώριμες για την έναρξη των ουσιαστικών πολιτικών διαπραγματεύσεων για το τελικό καθεστώς του Κοσσόβου; Θεωρεί το Συμβούλιο ότι το χρονοδιάγραμμα του τέλους του 2006, που έχει θέσει η διεθνής Κοινότητα για την ολοκλήρωση των διαπραγματεύσεων, είναι ρεαλιστικό; Ποιος είναι ο βαθμός υλοποίησης των όρων (standards) που προβλέπονται στις αποφάσεις του Συμβουλίου Ασφαλείας του ΟΗΕ (απόφαση 1244/99);


Tätä puheenjohtajavaltion laatimaa vastausta, joka ei sinänsä sido neuvostoa eikä sen jäseniä, ei esitetty suullisesti neuvoston kyselytunnilla Euroopan parlamentin Strasbourgissa syyskuussa 2006 pidetyllä ensimmäisellä istuntojaksolla.

Neuvosto vahvisti 17. heinäkuuta 2006 antamissaan päätelmissä täyden tukensa YK:n erityislähettiläälle Martti Ahtisaarelle ja hänen ponnisteluilleen hänen johtaessaan poliittista prosessia Kosovon tulevan aseman määrittelemiseksi. Neuvosto myös piti myönteisenä hänen aikomustaan aloittaa asemaa koskevat suorat poliittiset keskustelut ja kehotti kumpaakin osapuolta osallistumaan rakentavasti neuvottelujen tähän vaiheeseen. Neuvosto pani merkille Kosovoa varten määriteltyjen normien täytäntöönpanoa koskevan raportin, jonka Yhdistyneiden Kansakuntien pääsihteerin erityisedustaja esitteli YK:n turvallisuusneuvostolle 20. kesäkuuta 2006. Neuvosto pani merkille havaitun edistyksen ja korosti uudelleen, että normien täytäntöönpano on ensisijaisen tärkeää ja sitä on edelleen nopeutettava ja tehostettava. Neuvosto kehotti Belgradia rohkaisemaan Kosovon serbejä osallistumaan Kosovon instituutioiden työhön, sillä niissä he voivat parhaiten edistää omia etujaan.


Question no 29 by Proinsias De Rossa (H-0669/06)
 Subject: Small arms and light weapons and an International Arms Trade Treaty

Gun proliferation is a global problem that requires a binding global solution. Around 640 million small arms and light weapons already exist, and eight million are produced every year. These are estimated to kill half a million people each year, the weapons of mass destruction in the developing world. Their long-term impact on sustainable development is undeniable. The October 2005 Council agreed on the need for an International Arms Trade Treaty. The December 2005 Council adopted an EU Strategy to combat illicit accumulation and trafficking of small arms and light weapons and their ammunition. Since the UN Review Conference on the UN Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects and towards the establishment of an International Arms Trade Treaty failed to agree an outcome document, due to the instransigence of a small number of countries, what initiatives is the Council taking to ensure EU objectives are realised?


Tätä puheenjohtajavaltion laatimaa vastausta, joka ei sinänsä sido neuvostoa eikä sen jäseniä, ei esitetty suullisesti neuvoston kyselytunnilla Euroopan parlamentin Strasbourgissa syyskuussa 2006 pidetyllä ensimmäisellä istuntojaksolla.

Euroopan unioni on sitoutunut tehokkaaseen monenvälisyyteen, ja se oli erittäin pettynyt siihen, että New Yorkissa 26.6.–7.7.2006 pidetyssä tarkistuskonferenssissa, jossa käsiteltiin pienaseiden ja kevyiden aseiden laittoman kaupan kaikkien osa-alueiden ehkäisemistä, torjumista ja poistamista koskevan toimintaohjelman täytäntöönpanon edistymistä, ei saavutettu parempia tuloksia. Tämä pettymys välitettiin konferenssille EU:n puheenjohtajavaltion EU:n ja liittyvien maiden puolesta esittämässä loppupuheenvuorossa.

EU tunnustaa tarkistuskonferenssin merkityksen siltä osin, että se vahvisti EU:n sitoutumisen toimintaohjelman periaatteisiin, toimiin ja tavoitteisiin. Tätä sitoumusta tullaan edelleen muuntamaan käytännön toimiksi kansallisella ja alueellisella tasolla sekä maailmanlaajuisesti.

Heikoista tuloksista huolimatta EU aikoo silti edelleen pysytellä eturintamassa pienaseiden ja kevyiden aseiden laittoman kaupan kaikkien osa-alueiden ehkäisemistä, torjumista ja poistamista koskevassa työssä, myös käytännön tasolla.

Tältä osin on aloitettu yhteisen toiminnan valmistelu Euroopan unionin osallistumiseksi pienaseiden ja kevyiden aseiden sekä niissä käytettävien ampumatarvikkeiden laittoman keskittymisen ja kaupan torjumiseen Saharan eteläpuolisessa Afrikassa. Yhteisellä toiminnalla pyritään torjumaan pienaseiden ja kevyiden aseiden sekä niissä käytettävien ampumatarvikkeiden laitonta keskittymistä ja kauppaa Saharan eteläpuolisessa Afrikassa sekä kysynnän että tarjonnan osalta. Näin välitetään voimakas poliittinen viesti tähän maailmankolkkaan, johon pienaseiden ja kevyiden aseiden laiton virta ja liiallinen keskittyminen vaikuttavat eniten.

Tämän lisäksi EU aikoo edelleen edistää kolmansien maiden parissa sen tosiasian tunnustamista, että tarvitaan tarkistuskonferenssissa aikaansaatuun yhteisymmärrykseen perustuvat aseiden siirtoja koskevat maailmanlaajuiset suuntaviivat. Muita EU:n ensisijaisia toiminta-alueita ovat merkinnät ja jäljittäminen, asevälitys, ampumatarvikkeet, pienaseisiin ja kevyisiin aseisiin liittyvien kysymysten valtavirtaistaminen kehitysohjelmissa ja köyhyyden poistamiseen liittyvissä ohjelmissa, siviilien hallussa pitämät aseet, sukupuoleen liittyvät kysymykset, valtioista riippumattomat toimijat, ylijäämävarastojen hallinnointi, kannettavat ilmatorjuntajärjestelmät ja ihmisoikeuskysymykset.

Lopuksi palautetaan kysyjän mieleen, että EU on alusta alkaen tukenut aloitetta kansainvälistä asekauppaa koskevaksi yleissopimukseksi, vaikka sopimuksen valmisteleminen ei kuulunutkaan tarkistuskonferenssin tavoitteisiin. EU tuleekin omaksumaan aktiivisen roolin asekauppaa koskevaa yleissopimusta koskevan päätöslauselman laatimisessa ja sen hyväksymisessä. Tämä päätöslauselma otetaan käsittelyyn YK:n yleiskokouksen ensimmäisen komitean tulevassa istunnossa.


Zapytanie nr 30 skierowane przez Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (H-0675/06)
 Dotyczy: Niewykorzystanych środków w ramch funduszy strukturalnych

Od lat kraje członkowskie Unii Europejskiej nie w pełni wykorzystują dostępne im środki w ramach funduszy strukturalnych.

Dostałam odpowiedź od Rady, że "Rada nie przewiduje utworzenia specjalnego funduszu z niewykorzystanych środków w rubryce 1b." Zatem jakie zalecenia ma Rada w celu lepszego wykorzystania środków, które rok rocznie nie są wykorzystywane w ramach funduszy strukturalnych? Jakie rozwiązania Rada przewiduje, aby niewykorzystane środki były należycie spożytkowane dla rozwoju regionów?


Tätä puheenjohtajavaltion laatimaa vastausta, joka ei sinänsä sido neuvostoa eikä sen jäseniä, ei esitetty suullisesti neuvoston kyselytunnilla Euroopan parlamentin Strasbourgissa syyskuussa 2006 pidetyllä ensimmäisellä istuntojaksolla.

Sen lisäksi, että määrärahojen purkamista ilman eri toimenpiteitä koskevia nykyisiä sääntöjä (Euroopan yhteisöjen yleiseen talousarvioon sovellettavasta varainhoitoasetuksesta 25.6.2002 tehdyn neuvoston asetuksen (EY, Euratom) N:o 1605/2002 11 ja 157 artikla) sovelletaan edelleen, neuvosto pyytää kysyjää kiinnittämään huomiota uuteen määräykseen eli talousarviota koskevasta kurinalaisuudesta ja moitteettomasta varainhoidosta tehdyn Euroopan parlamentin, neuvoston ja komission välisen toimielinten sopimuksen (2006/C 139/01) 17 kohtaan. Sen mukaan alaotsakkeen 1 B käyttämättä jäänyttä osuutta voidaan käyttää kattamaan niiden määrien mukautusten tuloksia, jotka on osoitettu koheesiota tukevista varoista sellaiselle jäsenvaltiolle, joka poikkeaa positiivisesti ±5 prosenttia tätä sopimusta laadittaessa muodostetusta kumulatiivista bruttokansantuloa koskevasta arviosta.

Lisäksi neuvosto on hyväksynyt Euroopan parlamentin pyynnön, joka koski määrärahojen käytön parantamista jatkamalla seuraavan ohjelmakauden (2007–2010) kolmen ensimmäisen vuoden vuotuisten talousarviositoumusten käytön määräaikaa n + 2 vuodesta n + 3 vuoteen. Tätä määräystä sovelletaan jäsenvaltioihin, joiden talous on erityisen heikko ja joiden BKT henkeä kohden on alle 85 prosenttia EU:n keskiarvosta. Myös näiden jäsenvaltioiden osarahoitusosuuden kasvu vähentänee ongelmia, jotka liittyvät kykyyn hyödyntää rahoitusta. (Neuvoston asetus (EY) N:o 1083/2006, annettu 11.7.2006, 93 ja 53 artikla.)


Zapytanie nr 31 skierowane przez Ryszard Czarnecki (H-0677/06)
 Dotyczy: Referendum w sprawie konstytucji europejskiej

Czemu przewodnicząca Radzie Finlandia nie chce ogłosić referendum w sprawie konstytucji europejskiej, tylko pragnie ją przyjąć poprzez decyzję parlamentu fińskiego? Czy nie stoi o w sprzeczności z deklarowanym przez Komisję Europejską "planem D" - D jak demokracja?


Tätä puheenjohtajavaltion laatimaa vastausta, joka ei sinänsä sido neuvostoa eikä sen jäseniä, ei esitetty suullisesti neuvoston kyselytunnilla Euroopan parlamentin Strasbourgissa syyskuussa 2006 pidetyllä ensimmäisellä istuntojaksolla.

Euroopan unionista tehdyn sopimuksen 48 artiklan kolmannen kohdan mukaan tuohon sopimukseen tehdyt muutokset tulevat voimaan, kun kaikki jäsenvaltiot ovat ratifioineet ne valtiosääntönsä asettamien vaatimusten mukaisesti. Euroopan perustuslaista tehdyn sopimuksen IV-447 artiklassa määrätään vastaavasti, että korkeat sopimuspuolet ratifioivat perustuslakisopimuksen valtiosääntönsä asettamien vaatimusten mukaisesti.

Kukin jäsenvaltio tekee valtiosääntönsä asettamien vaatimusten perusteella päätöksen perustuslakia koskevan kansanäänestyksen järjestämisestä. Tämä koskee niin vuorossa olevaa puheenjohtajavaltiota kuin muitakin jäsenvaltioita. Näin ollen kysyjän esittämä asia on kyseisen jäsenvaltion sisäinen asia. Puheenjohtajavaltio ei voi vastata kysymykseen, koska se ei kuulu neuvoston toimivaltaan.


Fråga nr 32 från Nils Lundgren (H-0679/06)
 Angående: Vetorätten inom straffrättsliga och polisiära frågor

Den 28 juni 2006 föreslog kommissionen att det straffrättsliga och polisiära området skall omfattas av beslutsfattande med kvalificerad majoritet. Kommissionen motiverar sitt förslag med att medlemsländernas nuvarande vetorätt gör beslutsprocessen trög och besluten urvattnade. Beslutsfattande med kvalificerad majoritet skulle innebära en ”effektivare” beslutsprocess, enligt argumentationen.

Straffrätten tillhör kärnan i ett lands suveränitet och förslaget är därmed ytterst federalistiskt.

Det förslag kommissionen har presenterat utgjorde en kontroversiell del av den föreslagna EU-grundlagen. Befolkningen i Frankrike respektive Nederländerna har i folkomröstningar sagt nej till EU-grundlagen.

Anser rådet att det är demokratiskt försvarbart att genomföra betydelsefulla delar av den EU-grundlag som medborgarna i två av EU:s medlemsländer, med bred majoritet, har röstat nej till? Hur kan ordförandeskapet anse det vara demokratiskt legitimt att aktivt driva denna fråga?


Tätä puheenjohtajavaltion laatimaa vastausta, joka ei sinänsä sido neuvostoa eikä sen jäseniä, ei esitetty suullisesti neuvoston kyselytunnilla Euroopan parlamentin Strasbourgissa syyskuussa 2006 pidetyllä ensimmäisellä istuntojaksolla.

Euroopan unionista tehdyn sopimuksen 42 artiklan nojalla sekä komissiolla että jäsenvaltiolla on oikeus ehdottaa, että toiminta kysyjän tarkoittamilla aloilla kuuluisi Euroopan yhteisön perustamissopimuksen IV osaston alaan. Tällainen päätös edellyttää neuvoston yksimielistä päätöstä ja suositusta jäsenvaltioille siitä, että ne hyväksyvät tällaisen päätöksen kunkin jäsenvaltion valtiosäännön asettamien vaatimusten mukaisesti.

Koska menettely perustuu nykyiseen perussopimukseen, se ei merkitse perustuslakisopimuksen täytäntöönpanoa. Kyseinen 42 artikla sisällytettiin Euroopan unionista tehtyyn sopimukseen Maastrichtin sopimuksella, ja se laajennettiin Amsterdamin sopimuksella kattamaan poliisiyhteistyö ja rikosoikeus. Kaikki jäsenvaltiot ovat ratifioineet kummankin sopimuksen parlamenteissaan käytyjen demokraattisten keskustelujen tai kansanäänestysten jälkeen

Puheenjohtajavaltio toteaa, että 15.–16.6.2006 kokoontunut Eurooppa-neuvosto pyysi tulevaa puheenjohtajavaltiota Suomea "tarkastelemaan tiiviissä yhteistyössä komission kanssa mahdollisuuksia parantaa päätöksentekoa ja toimintaa nykyisten perussopimusten pohjalta vapauden, turvallisuuden ja oikeuden alalla."

Kaksi viikkoa myöhemmin komissio julkaisi tiedonantonsa "Haagin ohjelman täytäntöönpano: tulevat toimet". Siinä komissio ehdottaa, että käytettäisiin EU:sta tehdyn sopimuksen 42 artiklassa tarkoitettua "siirtymälauseketta" (passarelle), joka sallii rikosasioita koskevaan poliisi- ja rikosoikeudelliseen yhteistyöhön liittyvien toimien siirtämisen EU:sta tehdyn sopimuksen VI osastosta EY:n perustamissopimuksen IV osastoon.

Puheenjohtajavaltio on sitoutunut täyttämään Eurooppa-neuvostolta saamansa toimeksiannon ja aikoo tehdä tämän komission ehdotuksen pohjalta.

Lisäksi puheenjohtajavaltio huomauttaa, että yhdyskäytävälausekkeen käyttö ei sinänsä merkitse sitä, että yksimielisyyttä ei enää tarvitsisi noudattaa. Neuvostolla on mahdollisuus päättää, että joistain arkaluonteisista politiikoista on edelleen päätettävä neuvoston jäsenten yksimielisellä äänestyksellä. Vaikka yksimielisyys jäisi voimaan, EU:sta tehdyn sopimuksen VI osaston siirtämisellä sen IV osastoon olisi useita etuja, joista yksi on Euroopan parlamentin tiiviimpi mukaan ottaminen päätöksentekoprosessiin. Tämä edistäisi päätöksenteon hyväksyttävyyttä asioissa, jotka ovat kansalaisille tärkeitä kaikkialla Euroopan unionissa.


Anfrage Nr. 33 von Hans-Peter Martin (H-0681/06)
 Betrifft: EU und Neutralität

Im Zuge der anhaltenden bewaffneten Konflikte im Nahen Osten wird in den Mitgliedstaaten wieder intensiv über die Frage der Neutralität und Bündnisfreiheit debattiert.

Sieht die finnische Ratspräsidentschaft die österreichische Neutralität weiterhin als gegeben an? Wie ist die Einschätzung der finnischen Ratspräsidentschaft in Bezug auf die österreichische Neutralität, wenn die gegenwärtige EU-Verfassung in Kraft tritt? Wird durch die neue EU-Verfassung die Neutralität Österreichs eher gestärkt oder abgeschwächt?


Tätä puheenjohtajavaltion laatimaa vastausta, joka ei sinänsä sido neuvostoa eikä sen jäseniä, ei esitetty suullisesti neuvoston kyselytunnilla Euroopan parlamentin Strasbourgissa syyskuussa 2006 pidetyllä ensimmäisellä istuntojaksolla.

Perustamissopimusten nykyiset turvallisuus- ja puolustuspolitiikkaa koskevat määräykset saatettiin voimaan vuonna 1997 Amsterdamin sopimuksella. Niissä todetaan muun muassa, että unionin politiikka ei vaikuta tiettyjen jäsenvaltioiden turvallisuus- ja puolustuspolitiikan erityisluonteeseen.

Euroopan perustuslaista tehtyyn sopimukseen sisältyy useita Euroopan turvallisuus- ja puolustuspolitiikan (ETPP) alaan kuuluvia osia (esim. rakenteellinen yhteistyö, Euroopan puolustusvirasto), jotka kaikki jäsenvaltiot ovat hyväksyneet. Sopimuksessa toistetaan yhteistä ulko- ja turvallisuuspolitiikkaa (YUTP) koskevat nykyiset määräykset, joissa ei oteta kantaa tiettyjen jäsenvaltioiden turvallisuus- ja puolustuspoliittiseen erityisluonteeseen.

Neuvoston ei ole soveliasta kommentoida kyseistä erityisluonnetta eikä sitä, missä määrin siihen vaikuttavat tulevaisuudessa Euroopan unionissa eri sopimusten puitteissa mahdollisesti tehtävät sitoumukset.


Ερώτηση αρ. 34 του κ. Νικόλαου Βακάλη (H-0685/06)
 Θέμα: Διεθνής Οργανισμός Ατομικής Ενέργειας (ΔΟΑΕ) και ΕΕ

Το Σεπτέμβριο του 2006 θα διεξαχθεί στη Βιέννη η ετήσια γενική συνέλευση του ΔΟΑΕ, μαζί με μία ειδική εκδήλωση για τις διασφαλίσεις στην παροχή πυρηνικού καυσίμου και τη μη διάδοση πυρηνικών όπλων, στα πλαίσια της οποίας μία σειρά από κράτη μέλη του ΔΟΑΕ έχουν υποβάλει προτάσεις για τη δημιουργία ενός ασφαλούς παγκόσμιου κύκλου πυρηνικού καυσίμου υπό την αιγίδα του ΔΟΑΕ (μεταξύ άλλων, οι ΗΠΑ, με την πρωτοβουλία Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, η Ρωσία, η Γαλλία, η Γερμανία, η Ολλανδία και το Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο). Στις αποστολές της Ευρατόμ συμπεριλαμβάνονται οι πυρηνικές διασφαλίσεις βάσει των εγγυήσεων του ΔΟΑΕ και στο πλαίσιο τριμερών συμφωνιών μεταξύ κρατών μελών, Κοινότητας και ΔΟΑΕ.

Διαθέτει το Συμβούλιο κοινή θέση επί των διεθνών πρωτοβουλιών για τη δημιουργία ενός ασφαλούς παγκόσμιου κύκλου πυρηνικού καυσίμου, που αναπτύσσονται αυτή τη στιγμή στα πλαίσια του ΔΟΑΕ;

Μελετάται για το μέλλον η σύμπηξη ενιαίας διαπραγματευτικής στάσης της ΕΕ εντός του ΔΟΑΕ για θέματα που εμπίπτουν στο πεδίο εφαρμογής της Συνθήκης Ευρατόμ;

Ποια είναι η θέση του Συμβουλίου για την προτεινόμενη από ορισμένα κράτη μέλη, αλλά και από την Επιτροπή, αναθεώρηση της Συνθήκης Ευρατόμ με σκοπό την προσαρμογή της Συνθήκης στις σημερινές ενεργειακές και γεωπολιτικές πραγματικότητες;


Tätä puheenjohtajavaltion laatimaa vastausta, joka ei sinänsä sido neuvostoa eikä sen jäseniä, ei esitetty suullisesti neuvoston kyselytunnilla Euroopan parlamentin Strasbourgissa syyskuussa 2006 pidetyllä ensimmäisellä istuntojaksolla.

Ydinpolttoaineita koskevien monenvälisten vakuutusten kehittämiseksi tehdyillä aloitteilla voi olla tärkeä merkitys luotaessa kannustimia, joista voi olla apua pyrittäessä estämään arkaluontoisen ydinteknologian leviämistä edelleen. Neuvosto seuraa tiiviisti kehitystä tällä alalla, erityisesti IAEA:n puitteissa. Kaikki EU:n jäsenvaltiot osallistuvat tänä vuonna IAEA:n yleiskokouksen yhteydessä pidettävään erityistapahtumaan, jossa käsitellään ydinpolttoaineita koskevia monenvälisiä vakuutuksia. Tilaisuuden yhdeksi pääpuhujaksi kutsuttua korkeaa edustajaa edustaa hänen henkilökohtainen edustajansa.

Jäsenvaltioiden ja komission keskinäiset sekä asiaankuuluvien neuvoston työryhmien puitteissa käytävät neuvottelut on jo aloitettu, jotta voitaisiin saada aikaan EU:n yhteinen lähestymistapa ydinpolttoaineita koskeviin monenvälisiin vakuutuksiin liittyvään kysymykseen. Millainen lähestymistapa lopulta omaksutaankin, sen on joka tapauksessa oltava Euratomin perustamissopimuksen määräysten mukainen ja turvattava kaupallisten ydinenergiamarkkinoiden toimivuus niin EU:ssa kuin sen ulkopuolellakin.

Euroopan unionista tehdyn sopimuksen 48 artiklan mukaisesti jäsenvaltion hallitus tai komissio voi tehdä neuvostolle ehdotuksia niiden sopimusten tarkistamiseksi, joihin unioni perustuu. Koska tällä hetkellä ei ole käsiteltävänä ehdotuksia Euratomin perustamissopimuksen tarkistamiseksi, neuvosto ei ole ottanut tähän asiaan kantaa.


Ερώτηση αρ. 35 του κ. Γεωργίου Τούσσα (H-0686/06)
 Θέμα: Κρατική βία και διώξεις ενάντια σε διαδηλωτές κατά τη διάρκεια του G8

Επιχείρηση βίαιης καταστολής και τρομοκράτησης των εργαζομένων εξαπέλυσε ο Πρόεδρος Πούτιν και η κυβέρνησή του, ενόψει της Συνόδου G8 των ηγετών των οχτώ ισχυρότερων καπιταλιστικών χωρών στην Αγία Πετρούπολη, προκειμένου να εμποδίσουν τις αντιιμπεριαλιστικές εκδηλώσεις των εργαζόμενων και της νεολαίας από τη Ρωσία, αλλά και από άλλες χώρες, ενάντια στην εκμετάλλευση, τους ιμπεριαλιστικούς πολέμους, για την ειρήνη και τη λαϊκή ευημερία. Η αντιδραστική απόφαση της κυβέρνησης Πούτιν να απαγορεύσει τις συγκεντρώσεις και τις διαδηλώσεις στην Αγία Πετρούπολη, κατά τη διάρκεια της συνόδου κορυφής των G8, στις 15-17.7.2006, σε συνδυασμό με την κινητοποίηση των ειδικών δυνάμεων καταστολής, τη σύλληψη 21 νέων στο Λένινγκραντ και άλλων 60 σε άλλες πόλεις της περιοχής, αποτελεί κατάφωρη παραβίαση των λαϊκών ελευθεριών και δικαιωμάτων των εργαζομένων. Άμεση συμμετοχή και ευθύνη για την απαράδεκτη αυτή κατάσταση έχουν όλοι οι ηγέτες του G8.

Τι θέση παίρνει το Συμβούλιο για τις απαράδεκτες ενέργειες κρατικής βίας και τρομοκρατίας που εξαπέλυσε η κυβέρνηση ενάντια στους εργαζόμενους και τη νεολαία;


Tätä puheenjohtajavaltion laatimaa vastausta, joka ei sinänsä sido neuvostoa eikä sen jäseniä, ei esitetty suullisesti neuvoston kyselytunnilla Euroopan parlamentin Strasbourgissa syyskuussa 2006 pidetyllä ensimmäisellä istuntojaksolla.

Vaikka neuvostolla ei ole lopullista mielipidettä kysyjän mainitsemista yksittäisistä tapahtumista, se ottaa Venäjän viranomaisten kanssa säännöllisesti esille huolensa ihmisoikeuksien ja perusvapauksien suojelussa ilmenneistä puutteista, erityisesti kaksi kertaa vuodessa järjestettävissä ihmisoikeuksia koskevissa neuvotteluissa sekä poliittisessa vuoropuhelussa. Myös kansalaisjärjestöjen kokouksia on järjestetty näiden neuvottelujen yhteydessä ja näissä tilaisuuksissa kansalaisyhteiskunnan edustajilla on ollut mahdollisuus tuoda esiin huolenaiheensa ja näkökantansa. Suomen puheenjohtajakaudella EU:n ja Venäjän väliset ihmisoikeuskysymyksiä koskevat neuvottelut järjestetään marraskuussa. Puheenjohtajavaltio on säännöllisin välein toistanut, että menestyvä kansalaisyhteiskunta ja moniarvoinen demokratia ovat kansakunnan vaurauden ja hyvinvoinnin keskeiset elementit.


Ερώτηση αρ. 36 του κ. Αθανασίου Παφίλη (H-0688/06)
 Θέμα: Νέα ωμή επέμβαση στα εσωτερικά της Κούβας από την κυβέρνηση των ΗΠΑ

Την ανατροπή της σοσιαλιστικής κυβέρνησης της Κούβας, τη λήψη άμεσων μέτρων σε περίπτωση θανάτου του Φιντέλ Κάστρο, τη χρηματοδότηση υπονομευτικής δράσης με 80.000.000 δολάρια, την εξόντωση χιλιάδων στελεχών και οπαδών του ΚΚΚ, ακόμα και την αρωγή των ορφανών που θα προκύψουν, προβλέπει έκθεση της αμερικανικής κυβέρνησης για τη μετάβαση της Κούβας στη δημοκρατία τμήματα της οποίας είδαν το φως της δημοσιότητας.

Σκοπεύει το Συμβούλιο να καταδικάσει τη νέα αυτή προκλητική ενέργεια των ΗΠΑ σε βάρος της Κούβας και του λαού της, που αποτελεί ωμή επέμβαση στα εσωτερικά της χώρας αυτής;


Tätä puheenjohtajavaltion laatimaa vastausta, joka ei sinänsä sido neuvostoa eikä sen jäseniä, ei esitetty suullisesti neuvoston kyselytunnilla Euroopan parlamentin Strasbourgissa syyskuussa 2006 pidetyllä ensimmäisellä istuntojaksolla.

Kysyjän esittämä asia koskee Yhdysvaltojen ja Kuuban kahdenvälisiä suhteita. EU:n yhteinen kanta Kuubasta on hyvin Euroopan parlamentin tiedossa, eikä minun ole tarpeen toistaa sitä tässä.


Anfrage Nr. 45 von Reinhard Rack (H-0648/06)
 Betrifft: Europaweit einheitliche Kennzeichnung von Einsatzfahrzeugen

In den Mitgliedstaaten wird immer wieder der Wunsch geäußert, für Einsatzfahrzeuge der Sicherheits- und Einsatzkräfte (Polizei, Feuerwehr, Katastrophenschutz und dergleichen) europaweit einheitliche Zeichen/Kennzeichen einzuführen, wie sie etwa für die Rettung (Rotes Kreuz) seit langem üblich sind.

Sieht die Kommission eine Möglichkeit, diesbezüglich entsprechende Vorschläge vorzulegen und/oder entsprechende Legislativmaßnahmen einzuleiten?


Community law does not include provisions aimed at standardising vehicle identification markings and logos intended for emergency service vehicles.

The situation within the various Member States differs significantly. Only few Member States have legislation dealing with these issues. Generally, each corps has its own identification markings, which is determined under the control of the supervision authorities.

In these conditions, harmonising the laws of the Member States would seem very difficult while providing little added value. Laying down harmonisation measures would create significant problems:

- it would be necessary to require that existing markings and logos be replaced on all emergency service vehicles;

- then, it would be necessary to ‘re-train’ the public to react to the new signals;

- finally, it would be necessary to remove lettering in the language of the Member State, intended specifically to make the identification of most of the emergency service vehicles easier.


The added value of harmonised markings and logos seems limited by the fact that the Vienna Convention of 1968 on Road Traffic lays down the conditions for use of special warning lights. Emergency service vehicles are equipped with light systems emitting a blue light, which must be illuminated when the vehicle is on a priority mission. This has led to a uniform practice, ensuring full understanding of such emergency services in priority missions, throughout the entire Community even if markings and logos of different corps are not harmonised.

Thus, under the better regulation principle there does not seem any justification for the Commission to bring forward proposals and/or introduce legislative measures in this area.


Ερώτηση αρ. 50 του κ. Δημητρίου Παπαδημούλη (H-0621/06)
 Θέμα: Μεταφορά λυματολάσπης στη Γερμανία

Ο υφυπουργός ΠΕΧΩΔΕ στις 8 Ιουνίου 2006 ανακοίνωσε στη Βουλή των Ελλήνων την έναρξη της θαλάσσιας μεταφοράς στη Γερμανία της λυματολάσπης της Ψυττάλειας σε υδατοστεγείς σάκους, προκειμένου να ελαχιστοποιηθεί το ενδεχόμενο θαλάσσιας ρύπανσης. Ωστόσο, σύμφωνα με καταγγελίες της Νομαρχίας Πειραιώς, το πλοίο για την μεταφορά, αφού φορτώθηκε, έδεσε σε ναυπηγείο του Περάματος για εργασίες μετασκευής. Ο νομάρχης Πειραιά κάνει λόγω για "πλοίο - βόμβα"που απειλεί την ευρύτερη περιοχή του Σαρωνικού .

Θα μπορούσε η Επιτροπή να με ενημερώσει ποια είναι η παρούσα κατάσταση όσον αφορά τη διαχείριση και μεταφορά της λυματολάσπης; Δεδομένου ότι η επιλογή μεταφοράς των αποβλήτων δεν φαίνεται ούτε ασφαλής, ούτε ότι λύνει οριστικά το πρόβλημα της διαχείρησης της λυματολάσπης, σε τι ενέργειες προτίθεται να προβεί η Επιτροπή ώστε να διασφαλίσει τόσο την σωστή εφαρμογή της κοινοτικής νομοθεσίας, ιδίως του κανονισμού για τις μεταφορές αποβλήτων και της Σύμβασης της Βασιλείας, όσο και την αποτελεσματική προστασία του περιβάλλοντος και της δημόσιας υγείας;


The operation of the Psyttalia waste water treatment plant creates substantial amounts of sewage sludge that were disposed onto the Ano Liosia landfill site on the mainland, contrary to Directives 2006/12/EC(1) and 91/271(2).

The Commission invited the Greek government to submit its observations on the measures taken to ensure that the treatment of sludge complies with EC environmental legislation. Greece explained, to resolve the problem a drying plant will be constructed and is expected to be operational in July 2007.

As an intermediate solution the Greek authorities have finally decided to transfer the sludge out of the country for recovery or incineration in authorised installations in Germany. A contractor has started the shipping of sludge to Germany. 10.000 tonnes have been sent to Magdeburg and further shipments are under way. There is no evidence of technical problems.

The shipment of sewage sludge for recovery or disposal between Member States falls under the Waste Shipment Regulation N° 259/1993(3). The Regulation transposes the Basel Convention and it is based on the principle of prior informed consent, following the prescribed notification and authorization procedure. In their reply to the Commission's letter of formal notice the Greek authorities have stated that the shipment of sewage sludge would be carried out in accordance with the Waste Shipment Regulation. This is also a specific clause of the contract signed.

The Commission will continue monitoring the situation and will take all necessary measures, including the continuation of the infringement procedure to ensure that the EC environmental legislation is complied with.


(1) OJ L 114, 27.4.2006
(2) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991
(3) OJ L 30, 6.2.1993


Question no 51 by Avril Doyle (H-0640/06)
 Subject: Scientific authorisation procedure for GMOs

Can the Commission confirm that the procedure for scientific substantiation of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), which are the subject of applications for market authorisation, are sufficiently rigorous to categorically and unequivocally reassure the public that the crops in question pose no threat to human health or the environment, in line with the ‘precautionary principle’ of environmental law?


The commission thanks the Honourable Member for this pertinent question, at a time when the Commission is taking action to improve the way the legislative framework on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) is implemented, which should reassure the general public, stakeholders and Member States that Community decisions on GMOs are based on rigorous scientific assessments which deliver a high level of protection of both human health and the environment.

The view of the Commission is that the scientific assessment of GMOs should be beyond reproach and that we all have the necessary confidence in the relevant risk assessment procedures to underpin our decision-making. It is in this spirit that the Commission has developed a package of measures to effectively improve the scientific consistency and transparency for risk assessment procedures, actively engaging European Food Security Agency (EFSA), Member States and notifiers in related discussions on scientific issues.

EFSA and Member States have reacted very constructively to the proposed package during a technical meeting on 19 June 2006 as well as at the Environment Council of 26 June. Notably, EFSA has announced a number of actions for immediate application, which include convening regular meetings with Member States on specific risk assessment issues, including long-term effects, environmental impact assessment and allerginicity. Strengthened collaboration in the risk assessment process should contribute to building greater consensus and confidence on the strict EU regulatory framework on GMOs. The precautionary principle is a central piece of this legal framework, notably in the case-by-case assessment prior to any release. A GMO would certainly not be authorised if a potential risk to human health or the environment was identified during the risk assessment procedure. Potential long-term effects on the environment and biodiversity are importantly accounted for in our legislation, both during the risk assessment phase and as part of risk management, through post-marketing monitoring plans.

The Commission is thus duly engaged to making sure that market authorisations follow a very rigorous risk assessment procedure and that any authorising decision includes the appropriate risk management measures.


Question no 54 by Alexander Stubb (H-0665/06)
 Subject: Pollution in the Baltic Sea

The Baltic Sea is one of the most polluted seas in the world. What kind of actions does the Commission envisage to avoid further pollution of the sea by the Member States and by Russia? How is the Commission participating in the drafting of the Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission's (HELCOM) Baltic Sea Action Plan? What expectations and aims does the Commission have concerning the plan?


The marine environment of the Baltic is indeed under significant pressure. In spite of some important improvements in certain areas under the leadership of the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM), the evidence of the deteriorating status of the Baltic Sea has unfortunately continued to accumulate over the past years.

The Commission adopted last autumn an EU Marine Strategy. For the first time, the European Union is putting in place a policy framework – including a proposal for a Directive currently being discussed in the Council and in the Parliament - which specifically addresses the vital issue of protecting Europe’s seas and oceans in an integrated manner, looking at all pressures and impacts. The objective of the Strategy is to achieve good environmental status of the EU’s marine environment by 2021. The Strategy promotes cooperation within regional seas conventions – including the HELCOM. HELCOM’s long track record of scientific and technical competence and expertise combined with its Baltic-wide coverage and its demonstrated ability to work effectively at regional level makes it an invaluable partner in delivering the Strategy. Cooperation between all countries is indeed a precondition for successful protection of the marine environment.

The EU Marine Strategy is fully complementary with the work of HELCOM, in particular the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) under preparation. The Strategy will complement and bolster ongoing efforts to protect the Baltic Sea under the aegis of HELCOM by providing a legally enforceable framework at EU level. The BSAP is the cornerstone for further action in the Baltic region.

The BSAP makes HELCOM a front-runner and a model to follow among regional seas conventions in Europe. The Commission strongly backs the BSAP process and is taking an active part in its development.


Vprašanje št. 55 , ki ga je predložil a Romana Jordan Cizelj (H-0671/06)
 Zadeva: Plinski terminali v Tržaškem zalivu

Študije o možnih posledicah gradnje in obratovanja dveh plinskih terminalov v Tržaškem zalivu in njegovem obalnem območju jasno kažejo na to, da bodo imeli predvideni projekti, ki potekajo v Republiki Italiji, dejansko številne čezmejne vplive.

Vlada Republike Slovenije je ugotovila, da Republika Italija ni upoštevala določb 7. člena direktive 2001/42/ES(1) o presoji vplivov nekaterih planov in programov na okolje, 3. člena konvencije o presoji čezmejnih vplivov na okolje ter 7. člena direktive 85/337/EGS(2) o presoji vplivov določenih javnih in zasebnih projektov na okolje, dopolnjene z direktivo 97/11/ES.(3) Italija prav tako ni upoštevala 4. člena konvencije o čezmejnih vplivih industrijskih nesreč.

Komisijo zato sprašujem, kako se ponavadi odzove v primeru tovrstnih kršitev direktiv Evropske unije in kako namerava ukrepati v zgoraj navedenem primeru – torej v primeru gradnje terminala v Tržaškem zalivu brez čezmejnega posvetovanja, brez predhodne presoje vplivov na okolje in ob nespoštovanju mednarodnega prava?


As already indicated in the reply to the Written Question P-2700/06 on the same issue by Mr Drčar Murko in July 2006, the Commission is aware of the projects of two gas terminals in the Gulf of Trieste, although it does not possess detailed information on these projects and the current stage of the relevant authorisation procedure. The Commission also knows that there is a direct contact between the Ministries of the Environment in Slovenia and Italy, even at the Minister level, in order to solve this issue in the most appropriate way.

While there are in fact as the Honourable Member explains, several international conventions that might apply –each of these with its own mechanism for settling the differences between signatories, certain EC environmental Directives may be of application to this case, namely Council Directive 85/337/EEC(4) of 27 June 1985, on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as modified by Council Directive 97/11/EC(5), and Council Directive 96/82/EC(6)of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, - so called Seveso II Directive as modified by Directive 2003/105/EC(7) of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003.

The above mentioned Directives include mechanisms for the information of neighbouring Member States likely to be affected by certain projects.

It is useful to recall here that Member States are entitled to bring issues as the one at stake here before the European Court of Justice, pursuant to article 227 of the Treaty, after submitting the issue to the Commission.

The Commission is currently examining information received from the Italian authorities. However additional information is needed in order to fully assess the situation with respect to the obligations of the Italian authorities on the basis of EU legislation. Should the Commission come to the conclusion that Community law has been breached, it will not hesitate to take all necessary measures, including as the case may be the initiation of formal proceedings pursuant to article 226 of the Treaty to ensure full compliance with EC law in the present case.


(1) UL L 197, 21.7.2001, str. 30.
(2) UL L 175, 5.7.1985, str. 40.
(3) UL L 73, 14.3.1997, str. 5.
(4) OJ L 175, 05.07.1985
(5) OJ L 73, 14.03.1997
(6) OJ L 10, 14.01.1997
(7) OJ L 345, 31.12.2003


Pregunta nº 56 formulada por Rosa Miguélez Ramos (H-0673/06):
 Asunto: Construcción de dos autovías en Ibiza

En la isla de Ibiza (Baleares, España) se está ejecutando un proyecto de autovías impulsado y financiado por el Gobierno de las Islas Baleares junto con el Consejo Insular de Ibiza y Formentera, que está causando un profundo rechazo social debido a su falta de justificación, a su irracionalidad y a sus sobredimensionadas proporciones. Diversas asociaciones ciudadanas han denunciado ante la Comisión las infracciones a la normativa medioambiental comunitaria.

¿Puede la Comisión informar del estado de tramitación de esta denuncia?

¿Qué acciones piensa llevar a cabo para garantizar el respeto de la normativa de la UE en materia medioambiental y de contratos públicos?


Pregunta nº 57 formulada por Teresa Riera Madurell (H-0676/06):
 Asunto: Construcción de dos autovías en Ibiza

En respuesta a la pregunta P-2048/06 formulada en relación a los graves hechos que se están produciendo en Ibiza (Islas Baleares-España), como consecuencia de la ejecución de un macroproyecto de autovías que podría vulnerar el acervo comunitario en materia de medio ambiente, la Comisión respondió que instaría a las autoridades españolas a que investigaran a fondo todo lo acontecido. Diversas asociaciones ciudadanas han denunciado también ante la Comisión dichas infracciones. En este caso la respuesta fue que se había puesto en marcha un procedimiento de oficio.

¿Ha recibido ya alguna respuesta la Comisión del Gobierno español? ¿En qué consiste un procedimiento de oficio y cuándo van a conocerse los resultados del mismo?


The Commission was made aware of the projects by means of written question P-2048/06, tabled by Mrs Miguélez Ramos. An investigation was launched shortly afterwards with the intention to gather all necessary information in order to assess whether EC Environmental Law had been respected in this case. Several EC environmental –mainly on Nature Protection and Environmental Impact Assessment directives may be relevant for this case.

The Commission is currently investigating the case and will address in early September 2006 a formal request to the Spanish authorities to provide the relevant information in order to ensure a proper assessment of the environmental issues raised by the Honourable Members.

As regards EC public procurement rules, the Commission does not have any information on the project leading it to suspect that these rules are not being respected. If the Honourable Members have information suggesting otherwise, the Commission will be happy to examine it.

In any case, should the Commission's investigation bring to the light that EC laws have not been fully complied with, the Commission will take all necessary measures to ensure such full compliance, including as the case may be, the initiation of formal infringement procedures pursuant to Article 226 of the EC Treaty.


Zapytanie nr 58 skierowane przez Leopold Józef Rutowicz (H-0693/06)
 Dotyczy: Likwidacji starych składowisk pestycydów

Pestycydy są zaliczane do środków chemicznych stanowiących jedną z najbardziej toksycznych grup z jaki człowiek ma kontakt. Są to bowiem substancje z natury toksyczne, działające nie tylko na organizmy szkodliwe, ale także na organizmy pożyteczne.

Wzrastające możliwości analityczne wykazały, że człowiek i wszystkie organizmy są narażone na wpływ różnych dawek pestycydów. Rozkład pestycydów zachodzi głównie na drodze biochemicznej (działanie bakterii), jak również może być spowodowany reakcjami fotochemicznymi (rozkład pod wpływem światła słonecznego) i chemicznymi. Należy też zwrócić uwagę na fakt, że produkty rozpadu mogą być bardziej toksyczne niż związek wyjściowy. W związku z tym szybka likwidacja starych, przeterminowanych pestycydów zagrażających ludziom, zwierzętom, jak również zatruciem wód gruntowych jest problemem szczególnie pilnym w nowych krajach członkowskich.

Jakie działania podejmuje Komisja, żeby przyspieszyć proces likwidacji starych składowisk tych bardzo toksycznych substancji?


Old stockpiles of pesticides are considered as waste and Community waste legislation is fully applicable. In accordance with their hazardous properties they must be closely controlled from their generation until final disposal. Member States must draw up waste management plans which include suitable disposal sites or installations.

In addition, Regulation 2004/850/EC on Persistent Organic Pollutants addresses the most malignant obsolete pesticides. Very recently concentration limits have been adopted under the Regulation, above which Persistent Organic Pollutants have to be destroyed via incineration or physical-chemical treatment.

The Commission is of the opinion that the existing Community legislation is sufficient in order to safely manage old stockpiles of pesticides. In addition, activities related to the disposal of stockpiled obsolete pesticides may be eligible for Community funding. The Member States also play an important role to ensure that the stockpiles are properly disposed of in practice. The disposal costs should be allocated in accordance with the "polluter-pays" principle as laid down in article 174(2) of the EC Treaty.


Ερώτηση αρ. 61 του κ. Γεωργίου Καρατζαφέρη (H-0627/06)
 Θέμα: Το κατοχικό καθεστώς μπλοκάρει τις εξαγωγές από το κατεχόμενο τμήμα της Κύπρου

Είναι γνωστό ότι οι Έλληνες της Κύπρου έχουν εξαντλήσει όλη την καλή τους πίστη και έχουν δεχθεί να εξάγονται αγαθά από τα κατεχόμενα, υπό τον αυτονόητο όρο ότι αυτό θα γίνεται μέσω των διεθνώς αναγνωρισμένων λιμανιών, και συγκεκριμένα της Λεμεσού. Εντούτοις το λεγόμενο "Τουρκοκυπριακό Εμπορικό Επιμελητήριο" και οι κατοχικές αρχές συστηματικά παραπλανούν την Επιτροπή και το Ευρωκοινοβούλιο κατηγορώντας τις αρχές της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας, παρότι είναι οι εκείνοι που παρεμποδίζουν την εφαρμογή του "Κανονισμού της Πράσινης Γραμμής ", όπως καταγγέλλει η τουρκοκυπριακή "Cyprus EU Association" και ο εκπρόσωπός της Ali Erel με ανακοίνωση που μοίρασε σε ευρωβουλευτές στις 24.6.2006. Στην ανακοίνωση επισημαίνεται ότι 7.500 τόνοι λεμόνια σαπίζουν στα δέντρα στο κατεχόμενο τμήμα και οι τουρκοκύπριοι παραγωγοί πατάτας χάνουν μεγάλα ποσά λόγω της τακτικής του "Επιμελητηρίου" και των κατοχικών αρχών.

Για ποιo λόγο η Επιτροπή επιμένει ότι δήθεν υπάρχει "εμπάργκο" κατά των Tουρκοκυπρίων ενώ οι ίδιοι οι Tουρκοκύπριοι καταγγέλλουν την τακτική των κατοχικών αρχών;


The Commission has been asked by the Council to develop measures aiming at putting an end to the isolation of the Turkish Cypriot community and to facilitate the reunification and economic integration of the island by encouraging the economic development of the Turkish Cypriot community. The Commission has never used the term "embargo" when describing the situation of the Turkish Cypriot community.

The Commission regrets that the recently planned trade in potatoes across the "Green Line" for onward export was cancelled. It does note however that some smaller trade in potatoes took place for the first time in August 2006 for consumption in the government-controlled areas of the island.

The Commission will continue to monitor the implementation of Regulation No 866/2004 ("Green Line Regulation") and undertake efforts to put conditions in place allowing economic operators to benefit from the trade opportunities under the green line regulation.


Question no 62 by Mairead McGuinness (H-0650/06)
 Subject: Free movement of workers from Bulgaria and Romania after their accession

Would the Commission comment on its expectations in relation to the free movement of workers from Bulgaria and Romania, should these two countries proceed to become full members of the EU in January next?

Given that only Finland, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom have granted full access for the citizens of all 25 Member States to their respective labour markets, is the Commission expecting these countries to extend their welcome to citizens of Romania and Bulgaria? What about those Member States whose borders remain closed?

What indications does the Commission have from the 25 Member States about what they plan to do in January when the two new countries join, as expected?


As a matter of principle, the Commission is in favour of the full application of the four freedoms in the EU, including freedom of movement for workers. This freedom is a fundamental principle of the Treaty of Rome.

The Commission adopted a report on the functioning of the transitional arrangements set out in the 2003 Accession Treaty on 8 February 2006. The available data in this report as well as the results of the extensive consultations with Member States’ authorities and social partners show that there is no real risk of unbalance in the labour market. Quite on the contrary, Member States that have not imposed such measures have enjoyed a positive result for their labour market and economies. Some non-desirable side-effects, such as undeclared work, are to a large extent a consequence of the restrictive measures.

As regards the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, the transitional arrangement on free movement of workers agreed for these two countries follows the same principles as in the previous enlargement. In principle, all EU–25 Member States will apply national measures as regards movement of workers from Bulgaria and Romania. The Member States do not need to notify their decision to the Commission in advance.

So far, the only position that is known to the Commission is from Finland which has indicated its decision not to use the transitional arrangement vis-à-vis Bulgaria and Romania. As regards other countries, United Kingdom and Ireland have expressed their possible intention to use the transitional arrangement this time unlike in the case of EU–8, as well as the Czech Republic among the new Member States.

The Commission expects the other Member States than Finland to make their position known once the accession date of Bulgaria and Romania is clear. However, even then, the Member States have time until the eve of accession to formulate their position.


Question no 63 by David Martin (H-0653/06)
 Subject: Accession of Croatia

Is it true, as reported in the press this summer, that Croatia has jumped ahead before Turkey in the queue for EU membership?


Negotiations formally began with Croatia and Turkey on 3 October 2005. The first stage of negotiations got underway on 20 October 2005 when the Commission launched the so-called screening process with both countries. This process covers all 33 thematic negotiating chapters and will last until October 2006. So far 29 chapters have been screened.

Actual negotiations will start on each chapter once the candidate country concerned is sufficiently prepared in that area of the acquis. Overall progress will be based on each country's own merits and their ability to meet the requirements for membership. Different speeds will be the result of the pace of political and economic reforms in candidate countries themselves, the progress in aligning with the acquis and the capacity to implement it.

The Commission has submitted to the Council a number of screening reports on specific chapters recommending either a) the opening of negotiations or b) the setting of benchmarks that would need to be met first. As of 31 July 2006, this has led in the case of Croatia to an invitation to submit a negotiating position in 2 cases and for Turkey in 1 case. In addition, the Council has set opening benchmarks for Croatia in 4 cases and for Turkey in 1 case.

Actual negotiations have been opened so far on one chapter with each country (science and research). In both cases, progress was deemed to be sufficient also for provisional closure of this chapter.


Ερώτηση αρ. 64 του κ. Ιωάννη Μάτση (H-0672/06)
 Θέμα: Επιστροφή Αμμοχώστου και εμπόριο

Προτίθεται, ή όχι, η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή να συμβάλει μαζί με τη Φινλανδική Προεδρεία στην αποχώρηση του τουρκικού στρατού από την περίκλειστη πόλη της Αμμοχώστου και στην επιστροφή της πόλης στους νόμιμους κατοίκους της, στο πλαίσιο της διευθέτησης του κανονισμού που αφορά στο εμπόριο της τουρκοκυπριακής κοινότητας με την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση;


The proposed Direct Trade Regulation submitted by the Commission in July 2004 remains on the table of the Council and therefore the Presidency has a leading role in talks which may pave the way to its prompt adoption. The Commission supports efforts of the Finnish Presidency to that end.

The return of Varosha has been linked in the past to the United Nations (UN)-led talks on a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem. Therefore, it is up to the parties involved to decide whether to keep this issue within the framework of the comprehensive settlement or to discuss it separately.


Question no 65 by Claude Moraes (H-0596/06)
 Subject: Ageism

Why do the Commission's electoral observation missions prohibit observers over the age of 70 from participating? Is this not discriminatory, and does it fail to take into account the fact that many people over the age of 70 are rich in experience and would be ideal observers? Regardless of perhaps increased insurance costs, will the Commission agree to relax this policy, and choose observers on their skills and experience, rather than age?


In the past, the Commission applied an age limit of 70 years to its EU Election Observation Missions (EOM) in line with restrictions of the insurance policy undertaken for EU Election Observation Missions.

Upon the Commission's request, its insurance provider has agreed to relax its policy and the Commission has decided therefore to lift the age limit, introducing however - in line with the Council Decision 8728/99 - medical examinations required to become an election observer.


In line with above Council Decision and in particular point 4 "appropriate physical condition", the Commission will in the future determine for each EU EOM a medical examination necessary (for example fit to work in tropical country, fit to work in very high altitudes, fit to work under strenuous conditions, such as specific climatic conditions, long work hours, need for extended travel, and high level of psychological stress to ensure that all observers deployed are fit for deployment in the specific EU EOM context).

Member States proposing observers must obtain the corresponding medical certificate by a medical officer from the concerned observer and declare, whether the observer has submitted to them the required medical certificate.

The Commission will therefore not use any age limit for the deployment of observers.


Question no 66 by Elizabeth Lynne (H-0603/06)
 Subject: Elder abuse

Evidence from the United Kingdom suggests that 500 000 older people are being abused at any one time; most of this takes place within older people's own homes, although private care homes are also of concern. A significant proportion of this abuse is perpetrated by paid carers, family or friends of the older person.

Can the Commission provide information from other EU states as to the nature and prevalence of abuse of older people?

What measures would the Commission propose, both under the DAPHNE stream and within its wider remit, to address this violation of human rights within the Member States?


Combating violence in all its forms, against all citizens of Europe, is an important priority for the Commission. The Daphne II Programme (2004-2008) to combat violence against women, young people and children is a key element of the Commission's commitment to combat violence, and elderly women is an important group of the programme’s beneficiaries. The programme supports trans-national partnerships of Non-Governmental Organisations (ONGs) and local public bodies to tackle all forms of gender-based violence comprehensively from the angles of prevention, protection, support and rehabilitation.

In the area of elder abuse, the Daphne Programme has financed several projects dealing with this problem, and has recently put more emphasis on this topic. In fact, 3 out of the 57 projects selected under the 2005 call for proposal covered the abuse of elderly women. Projects dealing with the abuse of elderly women are also included in the proposed selection of 2006 (award decision still to be adopted).

Daphne projects on elder abuse confirm that:

There is a real gap in the services to support older women with very little information available in the EU on the problem or how victims can receive help.

There is no EU, national or local legal framework to deal with the problem of abuse or violence against older women or the protection of older persons who are vulnerable or with dementia.

Existing crime statistics often do not record the age or the sex of the victim, so data on the older population tends to be merged with general statistics about crime.

Older women are at particularly high risk of abuse and older women with cognitive impairments are at especially high risk.

The research found that there are no specific services accessible to older women victims of violence, so they tend to access other support agencies.

No systematic recording of information relating to the service users, such as age, reasons for accessing the service means that there are no concrete figures on how many older women access such support services as a result of experiencing some form of violence.

The Daphne Programme funded a research project in 2000 that looked at the recognition, prevention and treatment of abuse of older women(1). The study reviewed existing prevalence data and concluded that the prevalence of mistreatment among the elderly population may be estimated at approximately 4% (which has later been confirmed by World Health Organisation data published in 2002, suggesting that 4-6% of elderly people have experienced some form of abuse in the home). The prevalence rates for sub-types of elderly mistreatment within all cases of mistreatment were crudely estimated by the project as follows: 31% prevalence rate for physical abuse; 40% prevalence for psychological abuse; 31% for neglect; and 27% for financial abuse. As many as 19% victims may be exposed to more than one sub-type of elder mistreatment. The project also confirmed that elderly women are in general more at risk of all forms of mistreatment than their male counterparts, with women accounting for perhaps as many as 70% of elderly victims.

Community statistics on crime and criminal justice are currently being developed within the framework of a 5-year Action Plan which will be the subject of a Commission Communication to the Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee in the next few weeks. During the period of the Action Plan, the coverage of specific types of crime – including violence against women and domestic violence - will be examined.

Pursuant to Article 152 of the EC Treaty, the Commission has adopted a Communication on Actions for a safer Europe and a proposal for a Council Recommendation on injury prevention and safety promotion in June 2006. In both documents intentional injuries in form of interpersonal violence to which abuse of elderly people belongs are identified as a key priority area. Together with the Member States, the Commission foresees in the Community action plan to establish arrangements for a sound data collection in this sensible area and to develop joint prevention actions based on available data and identified models of good practice in the future.


(1) Daphne project No. 2000/125/W coordinated by the University of Leicester, United Kingdom


Question n° 67 de Alain Hutchinson (H-0605/06)
 Objet: Délocalisation de DBA

Le 12 mai dernier, DBA (Dim Branded Apparel) annonçait, au comité d’entreprise européen, son intention de supprimer 950 emplois en Europe. La France (450 personnes), l’Espagne (300 suppressions) et l’Italie (140 postes de travail) seraient les plus durement touchées. Les syndicats ont dénoncé une (première) série de mesures qui visent principalement la recherche de coûts bas à travers le recours accru à l'externalisation ou aux délocalisations. Selon des informations détenues par l'auteur de la question, il semblerait que DBA ou certaines des sociétés englobées par ce groupe en 2006 auraient bénéficié d’aides européennes. La Commission pourrait-elle dire lesquelles et, dans l’hypothèse d’une délocalisation des activités de DBA, indiquer si elle est prête à récupérer ces aides dans l’hypothèse où ce remboursement pourrait être obtenu sur la base des dispositions contenues dans le règlement (CE) n° 1260/1999(1) du 21 juin 1999 portant dispositions générales sur les Fonds structurels?


La Commission procède à des enquêtes auprès des autorités nationales compétentes en matière de gestion des Fonds structurels en vue de vérifier si le groupe DBA ou les entreprises qui en font partie ont reçu des aides communautaires. Selon des informations incomplètes déjà reçues, la société DIM S.A. située en Bourgogne, a bénéficié d'un concours d'un montant Fonds Social Européen (FSE) de 95.012€ relatif à un projet 2004-2005 portant sur un volet formation et acquisition de savoirs de base. Furthermore, according to the information received from Lazio Region authorities, the Commission can confirm that DBA did not receive any European Social Funds (ESF) contribution under the Operational Programme 2000-2006.

La Commission informera le Parlement si de nouvelles informations lui arrivent des autorités nationales.

S'il s'avère que DBA ou ses filiales ont effectivement reçu des aides au titre des Fonds structurels et n'ont pas respecté par la suite les conditions liées à l'octroi ou la mise en œuvre de ces aides, la Commission pourra demander aux autorités nationales compétentes d’entreprendre les démarches nécessaires pour effectuer les corrections financières adéquates ou obtenir le recouvrement des sommes indûment versées.

Il semble utile de rappeler que les dispositions relatives aux délocalisations d’entreprises ont été renforcées pour la période de programmation 2007-2013 des Fonds structurels et de cohésion. Sur proposition de la Commission, les entreprises devront en effet assurer le maintien des investissements ou des emplois créés pendant une période de cinq ans à compter de la date d’achèvement de l’opération cofinancée, soit parfois plusieurs années après la décision d’octroi des aides(2), ce qui garantit ainsi une période minimale durant laquelle la région aidée devrait pouvoir bénéficier des retombées économiques des investissements concernés.

Il est également prévu que les entreprises qui délocalisent une activité à l’intérieur d’un Etat membre ou vers un autre Etat membre puissent être obligées de rembourser les aides européennes perçues en liaison avec cette activité et que, dans ce cas, elles ne puissent plus par la suite bénéficier d’une contribution des Fonds.


(1) JO L 161 du 26.6.1999, p. 1.
(2) Pour la période de programmation actuelle, la date d’octroi de l’aide est retenue comme point de départ de cette période de cinq ans.


Pregunta nº 68 formulada por Antonio López-Istúriz White (H-0606/06):
 Asunto: Relaciones empresariales turísticas Baleares - China

Las relaciones comerciales entre las Islas Baleares y China se han afianzado a lo largo de los últimos años, como es el caso del comercio de calzado fabricado en las islas.

A pesar de la evolución en las relaciones bilaterales UE - China, los empresarios mallorquines siguen enfrentándose a trabas burocráticas a la hora de abrir sus comercios o empresas hoteleras en China, ya que el Gobierno Chino sigue manteniendo múltiples impedimentos para que los inversores extranjeros establezcan allí sus negocios.

¿Qué medidas va a adoptar la Comisión Europea para reforzar y facilitar las relaciones empresariales UE-China y las relaciones entre los empresarios de los Estados miembros y China?

¿Cómo pueden favorecer estas medidas al sector empresarial hotelero de las Islas Baleares y mejorar sus relaciones empresariales con China y facilitarles el acceso al mercado Chino en estos campos?

¿En qué va a consistir la nueva Estrategia anunciada por la Comisión relativa a las relaciones comerciales y de inversión entre la UE y China?

Puesto que, además de los intercambios comerciales, el flujo de turistas en los dos sentidos (turistas chinos hacia Europa y turistas europeos hacia China) también crece considerablemente cada año y presenta un enorme potencial de negocio para ambas partes, ¿piensa promover la Comisión Europea alguna medida para fomentar este tipo de turismo?


The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member's assessment that tourism in both directions between China and Europe is exhibiting substantial annual growth and offers further business potential on both sides.

Generally speaking, EC service suppliers benefit from China's General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) commitments since China's World Trade Oraganisation accession in November 2001. As regards hotels and restaurant services, EC companies have had access to the Chinese market from the date of accession, although in partnership with Chinese companies. Since November 2005 this requirement of Chinese partners is not applicable any more, and EC hotels and restaurants can own 100% of their subsidiaries in China. EC travel agencies and tour operators also benefit from Chinese GATS commitments in services related to foreign tourists travelling into China, under certain conditions. These restrictions will be removed in November 2007, when 100% foreign ownership will be fully authorised. It goes without saying that the Balearic Islands and their tourist industry as part of the EU can take profit of these developments.

In addition, the EC is also seeking new measures of liberalisation from China in tourism and travel-related services, among other services sectors, in the context of the on going negotiations on GATS within the current round of WTO talks, the so called Doha Development Agenda.

Furthermore, EC service suppliers benefit from significant growth of Chinese tourism in Europe since the implementation in 2004 of the Approved Destination Status Memorandum of Understanding between the European Community and the Chinese National Tourism Administration (ADS).

As the Honourable Member mentioned, the Commission is currently working on a Communication to the Parliament and the Council on EU-China trade and investment relations. This Communication is a strategic review and shall guide the Commission in this relationship for the years to come. The adoption is foreseen for autumn 2006. In this context, the Commission undertook on-line and two public consultations as well as a large scale Conference. The Parliament will be held fully informed on all new developments in this regard.


Zapytanie nr 69 skierowane przez Zdzisław Kazimierz Chmielewski (H-0615/06)
 Dotyczy: Stanu negocjacji pomiędzy UE, a Norwegią

Zgodnie z odnawianymi regularnie bilateralnymi umowami z Królestwem Norwegii Polska posiadała przed majem 2004 r. dostęp do Wyłącznej Strefy Ekonomicznej Norwegii gdzie poławiała głównie czerniaka. Moje pytanie brzmi: czy możliwa jest kontynuacja historycznych praw Polski na tym akwenie oraz w jakiej fazie znajdują się negocjacje pomiędzy UE i Królestwem Norwegii? Czy uwzględniają one możliwość uczestnictwa Polski w połowach prowadzonych w tej Strefie?


The Commission is aware that there was a bilateral agreement on fisheries between Norway and Poland.

This agreement has been denounced by Norway in 2004 just before the accession of Poland to the EU.

The Commission had in the recent past raised the issue of the follow up of this agreement with Norway. The official position of Norway remains unchanged. They consider that such an agreement is not valid anymore because they had already denounced it.

The Commission, when negotiating every year with the Norwegians authorities, tries to take into account the demands for fishing opportunities of the Member states. This exercise takes place before the annual negotiations with Norway.

The next negotiations are scheduled in November 2006: 1st round: 6-10 November 2006, 2nd round: 27 November-1 December 2006.


Ερώτηση αρ. 70 της κ. Κατερίνας Μπατζελή (H-0616/06)
 Θέμα: Συγχωνεύσεις και εξαγορές διεθνών χρηματιστηρίων

Η ανακοίνωση του Χρηματιστηρίου NYSE της Νέας Υόρκης περί εξαγοράς της πανευρωπαϊκής πλατφόρμας χρηματιστηριακών συναλλαγών της Euronext και η κολοσσιαία υπερατλαντική χρηματιστηριακή αγορά η οποία αναμένεται να προκύψει, δημιουργούν νέα δεδομένα στο φαινόμενο των εξαγορών και των συγχωνεύσεων στον κλάδο των χρηματοπιστωτικών αγορών.

Η πορεία υπερσυγκέντρωσης των διεθνών χρηματιστηρίων, η οποία αναδείχθηκε για πρώτη φορά έντονα με την απόκτηση του 25,1% του LSE του Λονδίνου από το αμερικανικό NASDAQ, προωθείται για λόγους εξοικονόμησης κόστους. Παράλληλα όμως από την υπερσυγκέντρωση αυτή δημιουργείται ο κίνδυνος και της συγκέντρωσης της επενδυτικής δραστηριότητας σε συγκεκριμένες μόνο αγορές, όχι μόνο εις βάρος των λεγόμενων περιφερειακών, μικρών αγορών, οι οποίες ενδέχεται να πληγούν, αλλά και των μεγάλων.

Βάσει των νέων αυτών δεδομένων κατά πόσο προτίθεται η Επιτροπή να προωθήσει κοινοτικά μέτρα εποπτείας και διαφάνειας της λειτουργίας των χρηματιστηριακών κολοσσών που πρόκειται να δημιουργηθούν; Θεωρείται σκόπιμη η πρόβλεψη μέτρων για την προστασία της ευρωπαϊκής επενδυτικής αγοράς από ενδεχόμενες μετακινήσεις της ισχυρής επενδυτικής δραστηριότητας προς συγκεκριμένες αγορές;


The Commission and the Member States have in place robust competition regulation so as to prevent concentrations that would significantly impede effective competition. Any international exchange merger or acquisition that meets the thresholds for notification under the EC Merger Control Regulation or national competition laws would need to satisfy these competition rules.

The Commission believes that market forces should determine the optimal shape of European exchanges, subject to competition and regulatory questions being adequately addressed. The European stock and derivatives exchange landscape is at present highly fragmented despite the developments of the last several years. The Commission is not convinced that further concentration of exchanges would lead to detrimental outcomes for users of exchanges, including investors and issuers. Indeed, the Commission believes that in the single market there may be significant efficiency gains to be reaped from exchange consolidation which, with appropriate regulatory safeguards, can be expected to benefit exchange users by providing liquidity, low transaction costs and advisory services, and thus be beneficial to the European economy. Moreover, access to deeper and more liquid capital markets is very much in the interests of expanding firms located in the smaller markets – and, accordingly, also of the smaller economies themselves.

The Commission has just completed a massive program of legislative change which addresses among other matters the transparency of share trading and the transparency obligations of issuers of securities that are admitted to trading on a regulated market. According to the parties it is intended that the merged NYSE/Euronext entity would be dual listed in New York and on Euronext, so these transparency obligations would apply to it. The Commission remains prepared to consider possible changes to the supervisory architecture that might be necessary in order to cope with tomorrow’s challenges.


Fråga nr 71 från Inger Segelström (H-0619/06)
 Angående: Kvinnors mänskliga rättigheter i Iran

Måndagen den 12 juni demonstrerade ett hundratal iranska kvinnoaktivister i Teheran. De krävde förändringar av de lagar som diskriminerar kvinnor i landet. Demonstrationen slogs brutalt ner av polis och 70 demonstranter greps.

Vilka politiska fördömanden och konkreta handlingar ämnar kommissionen att göra i bilaterala kontakter mot den iranska regimens våldsamma attacker mot kvinnosaksaktivister och de brott mot kvinnors mänskliga rättigheter som fortgår i Iran?


The Commission fully shares the Honourable Member's concern with regard to the violent repression of the peaceful demonstration in favour of women’s rights in Tehran on 12 June 2006.

The Commission believes that such crackdowns run counter to Iran’s international legal obligations, including the right to peaceful assembly as guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). As the Honourable Member points out, some 70 demonstrators - both women and men – were arrested on this occasion. It has been reported that a specially trained female police force was particularly violent against the demonstrating women.

In the General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) conclusions of 17 July 2006, the EU drew particular attention to the 12 June 2006 events and the continued discrimination of women in Iran under the Ahmadinejad Government.

Thus, the EU and the Commission remain acutely aware of the situation and monitor with great care the developments. Indeed, in May 2006 and just prior to the demonstrations in question, the GAERC pointed to “….. the increasing violations on freedom of speech and religion […] as well as the intimidation and harassment of human rights defenders, lawyers and minority groups”.

Monitoring is not enough, and the EU has therefore continued to raise its concern regarding human rights and the deterioration of freedom of expression via its diplomatic channels in Tehran. In this regard, a range of individual cases have been and continue to be raised with Iranian authorities. The Commission is actively involved in this, and it keeps reminding the Iranian Ambassador to the EC about its strong disapproval. At the same time, international human rights Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi and her network keep working tirelessly, against a regrettably very negative overall trend in Iran in the field of human rights.

Since December 2002, the EU Troika has – nonetheless – conducted a direct Human Rights Dialogue with Iranian authorities, with the participation of civil society representatives from both the European and Iranian side. As part of this Dialogue also women's rights have been discussed. Regrettably, and although we have kept insisting on its continuation, this dialogue has not been able to take place since summer 2004, due to the reluctance of Iranian authorities. Despite Iran's failure to engage constructively, the EU remains open to discussing human rights, including by means of the Dialogue process.


Question no 72 by Robert Evans (H-0623/06)
 Subject: Veal housing

The EU ban on veal crates comes into operation in 2007, when veal crates will be replaced by group housing, but scientific evidence shows that these standards are still too low and would be rendered illegal in the UK. There is also clear evidence that British calves are being exported to countries such as the Netherlands in appalling conditions through the back door.

Will the Commission look into this situation and into changing the standards for veal calves to a more acceptable level?


Council Directive 91/629/EEC(1) lays down minimum standards for the protection of calves. This Directive provides that the Commission shall submit to the Council and the Parliament a report on intensive calf farming systems. This report will be based on a scientific opinion and take account of relevant socio-economic implications.

Upon a request from the Commission, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) adopted on 7 June 2006 a scientific opinion on this issue(2).

The Commission is currently analysing the EFSA opinion and plans to collect further data on relevant socio-economic aspects and receive stakeholder input.

These elements will be very important in order to address this sensitive issue in a comprehensive manner and always aiming at achieving the necessary animal welfare standards.

According to Article 6 of the Directive (amended by Council Directive 97/2/EC) this report was due for 2006. However because of the need for EFSA contribution and the necessity to proceed to a proper impact assessment, the Commission decided in the Community Action Plan for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2006-2010(3) to submit this report to the Council and the Parliament not before 2008. In addition this will allow the Commission to further consider in its proposal the use of appropriate standardised welfare indicators to ensure in the future the direct monitoring of the different welfare standards for the animals in the farm.


(1) OJ L340, 11.12.1991. As last amended by Commission Decision 97/182/EC (OJ L 76, 18.3.1997).
(2) The EFSA Journal (2006) 366, 1-36, Opinion on “The risks of poor welfare in intensive calf farming systems. An update of the Scientific Veterinary Committee Report on the Welfare of Calves”.
(3) COM(2006) 13 final


Zapytanie nr 73 skierowane przez Zbigniew Krzysztof Kuźmiuk (H-0625/06)
 Dotyczy: Protekcjonistyczne działania władz niemieckich wobec polskich firm budowlanych w Niemczech

W ostatnich tygodniach po raz kolejny nasiliły się akcje niemieckiej policji celnej mające wyraźny cel wyeliminowania polskich firm budowlanych z rynku niemieckiego. Pod pozorem walki z dumpingiem płacowym firmom zabiera się wszystkie dokumenty i komputery tak, aby uniemożliwić im normalne funkcjonowanie. Na poczet ewentualnych przyszłych kar masowo zajmuje się konta spółek, co oczywiście likwiduje ich płynność i może doprowadzić do bankructwa nawet, jeżeli zarzuty ostatecznie się nie potwierdzą. Co więcej, pomimo iż zarzuty dotyczą jedynie spraw płacowych, pracownicy firm traktowani są jak groźni przestępcy: Między innymi dokonuje się na nich upokarzających rewizji osobistych, jak gdyby mogli posiadać broń, co udokumentowała nawet niemiecka gazeta "Braunschweiger Zeitung". Żądam, aby Komisja Europejska natychmiast podjęła działania, mające na celu położenie kresu opisanym powyżej praktykom.


Zapytanie nr 74 skierowane przez Ryszard Czarnecki (H-0678/06)
 Dotyczy: Dyskryminacji polskich firm budowlanych przez władze niemieckie

Polskie firmy budowlane, legalnie działające w RFN, były w ostatnim czasie obiektem dyskryminacyjnych działań ze strony władz niemieckich, w tym policji, działań przeprowadzanych często w upokarzającej formie. Kłóci się to zarówno z prawem niemieckim, polsko - niemieckimi regulacjami, w zakresie budownictwa, jak i swobodami unijnymi. Jaka będzie w tej sytuacji reakcja Komisji Europejskiej?


The Commission has received several letters and parliamentary questions citing alleged violations of the EC Treaty's provisions on the freedom to provide services during checks and inspections carried out by the German authorities of, inter alia, Polish firms in Germany. In this context, the Commissioner in charge of Internal Market and Services would like to refer the Honourable Member to his most recent answer given on behalf of the Commission to the written question by Mr Szymanski (E-4639/05) at the end of 2005.

The Commission is concerned by the manner in which companies from certain Member States encounter difficulties when providing their services in Germany. It is essential that businesses from all Member States are able to enjoy the same fundamental rights as their competitors established in the other Member States, and in particular the right to provide services.

The Commission has therefore contacted the German authorities. In their reply, they referred to the derogations they enjoy under the transitional provisions in the Accession Treaties regarding the free movement of services involving the posting of workers in some sectors. The German authorities, moreover, insisted that all supervisory measures are carried out in a non-discriminatory and proportionate way. In the absence of any concrete evidence of systematic discriminations or violations of the Accession Treaty, the businesses concerned can submit any problems of discriminatory treatment they may encounter in specific cases to SOLVIT or bring the matter before the national Courts. The Commission will monitor the situation closely and undertake every effort to ensure that Community law is correctly applied.

The consultations which take place on a regular basis with the relevant authorities responsible for issues concerning cross border provision of services inter alia in Poland could also provide a good opportunity to discuss and come to grips with the alleged problems.


Otázka č. 75 od Irena Belohorská (H-0629/06)
 Vec: Závažné ochorenia EÚ a akčný program Spoločenstva v oblasti zdravia a ochrany spotrebiteľa na roky 2007-2013

Európska Komisia uvádza, že pre nedostatok finančných prostriedkov v akčnom programe Spoločenstva v oblasti zdravia a ochrany spotrebiteľa na roky 2007-2013 došlo k zmene priorít a bola vypustená zmienka o závažných ochoreniach Európskej únie. Ako chce Komisia riešiť problém najzávažnejších ochorení v rámci EÚ, ak tieto nie sú zahrnuté v akčnom programe? Na základe čoho sa Komisia rozhodla pre politiku tzv. zdravotných determinantov, a nie pre politiku „závažných ochorení“ a prečo sa Komisia nazdáva, že tento postoj bude efektívnejší?


The Commission has no intention to ignore diseases in future Community health action. Promoting health to help prevent disease remains a key area of our programme proposal.

The Commission had to scale down the programme in the light of a much smaller overall budget agreed by the Council and the Parliament. In doing so, it did not want to disrupt on-going action. Instead, it is proposed not to start completely new action strands on diseases and on health systems.

This does not mean diseases are not acted on. The programme will contribute to reducing diseases:

First, by tackling determinants; if acting on smoking under the promotion objective will help reduce cancer;

and secondly, with action on information and exchange of best practice under the knowledge objective.


Klausimas Nr. 76, pateikė Justas Vincas Paleckis (H-0630/06)
 Tema: Dėl aplinkosaugai skiriamų lėšų įsisavinimo

Naujosiose ES narėse stringa iš Sanglaudos fondo finansuojamų aplinkosaugos projektų įgyvendinimas. Kai kurios šalys skiriamas lėšas įsisavina efektyviau, kitoms sekasi prasčiau. Lietuva ne išimtis – tokiems projektams skiriamos lėšos taip pat vangiai įsisavinamos kaip pagrindinė priežastis nurodomos nepalankios techninės aplinkybės: projektai didžiuliai ir sudėtingi, Lietuvoje stinga ekspertų, kurie galėtų parengti aplinkosaugos srities projektus, prastokai veikia pati pinigų įsisavinimo sistema, be to, procesą stabdo kai kurios savivaldybės.

Įdomu tai, kad palyginti su kitų sričių projektais, aplinkosaugos projektams skiriami ES pinigai įsisavinami sunkiausiai. Gal galėtumėte išvardyti, kurios naujosios ES šalys aplinkosaugai skiriamas lėšas įsisavina efektyviai, o kuriose tai daryti sekasi prasčiau, ir pakomentuoti, kodėl matome tokius skirtumus? Kodėl tokia padėtis susidarė būtent aplinkosaugos srityje? Ką ir kaip siūlytumėte keisti, kad lėšos būtų įsisavinamos efektyviau?


Under the Cohesion Fund all of the new Member States have been equally successful in presenting sufficient environment projects to absorb the budget commitment credits available to the environment sector under both Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-Accession (ISPA) and, since 2004, the Cohesion Fund. In all cases the policy objective of having broadly equal shares committed to the Transport and the Environment sectors is expected to be achieved by end-2006.

In relation to absorption of the ISPA and Cohesion Fund commitment credits through payments (advances or interim payment reimbursements based on expenditure on the ground) the progress varies from Member State to Member State. A recent comparison of the absorption of the available commitment credits by the new Member States is expressed in the table below in terms of the percentage paid by the Commission. These figures can sometimes change significantly over a short period, particularly for small Member States, depending on the presentation and treatment of payment claims.

Percentage absorption of ISPA / Cohesion Fund commitment credits 2000-2006 by sector:






Czech Republic



























Differences in the absorption of commitment credits through project expenditure on the ground can vary for many reasons. In relation to past experience, the Commission made available in 2005 an ex-post evaluation report that looked in detail at the experience with 200 Cohesion Fund projects assisted in the period 1993-2002 in the four Cohesion Fund Member States. The report is available on the internet(1)

The reasons for delays and difficulties in project implementation identified in the report and by the Commission include the following: weaknesses in project planning and design, national planning and environmental assessment legislation and procedures, technical weakness in the implementing bodies, procurement difficulties, budgetary or institutional uncertainty or technical difficulties in the physical realisation of the project. A number of these factors vary with the specific national legal, administrative and institutional context and / or according to specific weaknesses in individual beneficiaries.

The potential weaknesses in project implementation mentioned above apply equally to both the transport and environmental sectors. However in the environmental sector there is a marked tendency across many Member States for the division of responsibility for environmental services across a wider number of implementing bodies leading to smaller projects, more diffuse coordination, the fragmentation of expertise and widely different competencies between implementing bodies. This is particular so compared to the relative concentration of implementing bodies and technical expertise in the main transport sectors.

Where responsibilities are diffused in such a way technical expertise is more thinly spread, the spread of good practice is more difficult and, as a result, the incidence of those failings mentioned is higher. Also, there has traditionally been longer experience in most Member States in the construction of transport infrastructures.

The Commission is concerned that the commitment credits made available should be used promptly. The relative lag in absorption of the environmental credits is a matter for concern. Through ongoing dialogues with the Member States the Commission promotes, on both the political and technical levels, a critical appraisal of project generation, identification, selection and monitoring systems. However, it is the Member States responsibility in the first instance to use the opportunity of EU financing to the best effect and to ensure the optimal allocation or responsibilities at national, regional and local levels.

To promote efficient project management the Commission in 2004 presented a document to all Cohesion Fund beneficiaries on Quality Assurance Capability in the project preparation stage. The purpose of that document was to launch a dialogue with each Member State and raise awareness of the importance of pipelines of quality projects to lead to more predictable absorption. Bilaterally the Commission has drawn the attention of the Member States to potential changes that might improve project delivery and absorption.

The 2005 ex-post Synthesis Study makes a number of general recommendations arising from past experience to improve national project management. These conclusions were shared and discussed with all Member States during 2005.

With a view to the Period 2007-2013 the Commission has recently launched the JASPERS initiative (Joint Assistance for Supporting Projects in European Regions) in close cooperation with the European Investment Bank and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Its objective is to provide technical assistance support to national managing authorities to prepare high-quality projects eligible for EU support, have a multiplier effect through the spread of best practice and provide models which the beneficiary countries can replicate themselves. The Commission expects that the environment sector shall receive particular attention in those Member States identified as priorities for JASPERS support.




Question no 77 by Brian Crowley (H-0632/06)
 Subject: Television without Frontiers Directive

At the moment there is no legal obligation on EU Member States or European TV stations to provide TV subtitling which would greatly enhance access to television services for people who are hard of hearing.

Accordingly, will the European Commission review the decision not to demand that European broadcasters provide subtitling services under the provisions of the revised EU Television without Frontiers directive?


There is no requirement in European law for broadcasters in Member States to provide services like subtitling and audio description. In fact, provision of assistive services falls under content regulation which is handled at Member State level, in accordance with the subsidiarity principle. In essence, the “Television Without Frontiers” Directive (hereinafter: “the Directive”) is an Internal Market Directive. The objective of the Directive is to facilitate the free movement of television broadcasts within the European Community. The Directive seeks to attain this objective by laying down minimum standards which must be complied with by broadcasters under the jurisdiction of a Member State and generally prohibiting Member States from subjecting broadcasts from another Member State to any further control before reception or transmission. Equal access to television programmes or audiovisual services is extremely important. However, equal access is not an issue which has implications for the functioning of the Internal Market and therefore the Directive would not be an appropriate instrument for addressing this problem.

The Commission’s aim is to promote dialogue in regulatory and industry groups in order to spread best practices. The Commission has discussed accessibility matters within the Contact Committee of the Directive. In particular enriching content with audio description, audio subtitling, subtitling and sign language were discussed. The Commission has also submitted a questionnaire with regard to “Measures concerning access of visually and hearing-impaired people to television programmes” to the Member States within the Contact Committee. The answers from the Member States can be found on the Commission’s website:

The Commission will continue to address the issues within the Contact Committee.

Promoting equal access for people with disabilities to the information Society is the goal of the actions proposed in the eAccessibility Communication(1). This goal includes, inter alia, access for visually impaired and hearing impaired people to television programmes. Several ongoing actions are specifically addressing this issue. The Commission has been supporting standardisation work on accessibility to television through the European standardisation organisations. Within the Information Society programme, the Commission has supported several Research and Technological Development (RTD) projects that addressed accessibility to television programmes. For example with the automatic generation of subtitles for TV programmes, the development of avatars for automatic sign language for deaf persons and the development and trials of audio description services for blind persons.

The Commission, as stated in the eAccessibility Communication, will also continue to promote a consistent approach to eAccessibility initiatives in the Member States on a voluntary basis and to foster industry self-regulation. Two years after the publication of the Communication an assessment of the eAccessibility situation is foreseen. The Commission may then consider additional measures, including new legislation if deemed necessary.

The Commission is currently working with Member States and consulting stakeholders with a view to define further the European eInclusion agenda that also contains an eAccessibility component.


(1) COM(2005) 425


Question no 78 by Liam Aylward (H-0634/06)
 Subject: Brazilian beef imports into the European Union

Can the European Commission make a comprehensive statement as to the state of play of Brazilian beef imports into the European Union in light of the fact that the EU has found that Brazilian beef is fundamentally unsafe, and could the latest figures accounting for the amount of Brazilian beef imports into the European Union be given?


The Commission takes these concerns raised by the Honourable Member very seriously and its priority is the protection of the health of European consumers and the animal health status of the Community. The Commission has undertaken everything necessary to ensure that imports of beef from Brazil do not place the EU at unnecessary risk.

The Commission constantly applies the principle of regionalisation recognised at the international level by the world organisation for animal health (OIE) as the most appropriate response to such threats. It is on the basis of this same principle that it requires third countries to react in relation to similar cases emerging in the EU.

In this context, following a Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) outbreak reported in Brazil in October 2005, the Commission immediately suspended imports of all kinds of beef (except heat treated meat) from the Brazilian States of Mato Grosso do Sul, Paraná and Sao Paulo. The disease initially affected the State of Mato Grosso do Sul and extended further to Paraná. The State of Sao Paulo was not affected by FMD, but taking into account the movement pattern of livestock and the epidemiological links between these three states, the Commission together with the Member States decided, as a precautionary measure, to also suspend the imports from this latter State. Only heat treated (>80°C) meat products are still authorised as this treatment ensures the inactivation of the virus. The Commission would like to draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that no FMD outbreak has occurred within the regions approved by the EU for imports into the EU.

Only imports from the non-infected areas of Brazil continue but subject to the standing import conditions that apply to Brazil. Considering that these limit imports to de-boned and maturated bovine meat (this ensures the inactivation of the FMD virus) without offal, it is considered at this stage that the measure is sufficient and proportionate to maintain our level of protection. Furthermore, the EC has requested from Brazil additional guarantees within the health certificate in relation to vaccination and contact with animals of lower status due to the deficiencies found in the latest mission inspections carried out in this country. The Commission wishes to point out that it is determined to see the Brazilian authorities fully complying with these guarantees. Failure to do so will trigger further Commission action.

The Commission is very closely monitoring the evolution of the animal health situation in Brazil and a further mission inspection has recently taken place. The outcome of this mission will be of the utmost importance in order to further assess the situation in Brazil. The Commission wishes to assure the Honourable Member that it will take all necessary measures to ensure that the EU market is fully protected against any risk likely to emerge in this context.

The latest figures accounting for the amount of imports of meat of bovine animals from Brazil into the European Union (EU25) are 168,004 tonnes in 2004 and 175,833 tonnes in 2005.


Question no 79 by Eoin Ryan (H-0636/06)
 Subject: Joint selling TV arrangements for European football matches

The European Commission has taken three principled decisions on media rights for football matches. Firstly, the European Commission has allowed clubs to sell broadcasting rights jointly, despite running the risk that football clubs will raise prices excessively. Secondly, the European Commission has intervened to limit the extent to which all the valuable rights to a given competition can be bought by a single buyer. Thirdly, the European Commission has insisted that broadcasting rights should be divided and sold separately to different buyers.

Can the European Commission state what the economic impact of these decisions actually is, and if not, will the European Commission give an undertaking that it will carry out a comprehensive economic analysis into the implementation, consequences and effects of these three policy decisions?


In the first part of the question, the Honourable Member lists three principles concerning football media rights that the Honourable Member extracted from Commission decisions and on which the Commission will briefly comment.

First, it is correct that the Commission has allowed clubs to jointly sell broadcasting rights under certain conditions. The reasons why the Commission considered this to be in compliance with EC competition law (and beneficial for consumers) can be found, e.g., in the Commission decision concerning the joint selling of UEFA Champions League rights(1). The Commission would also like to note that the risk that “football clubs raise prices excessively” referred to by the Honourable Member, also exists where football clubs market their rights individually (e.g., in Spain), in particular for football media rights of the top clubs.

Second, the “no single buyer rule” referred to by the Honourable Member was to date only imposed by the Commission in the FA Premier League case (and not, e.g., in the UEFA Champions League case) due to the specific circumstances of the case. This rule therefore does not constitute a general principle.

Third, it is correct that the Commission insists to split up football media rights into several separate packages in order to allow a larger number of competitors to acquire the rights.

In the second part of the question, the Honourable Member inquires about the economic impact of the Commission decisions on football media rights and asks whether the Commission undertakes to carry out an economic analysis of these decisions. The Commission believes that the economic impact of the decisions has been significant. While the Commission cannot, at this stage, undertake to carry out further ex post economic analyses of the decisions, it is important to note that the Commission took into account the economic impact of the decisions prior to their adoption. Also, the Commission and the national competition authorities will continue to closely monitor the sector of football media rights and may intervene where it is deemed necessary. Finally, the Commission is committed to put increasing emphasis on economic analysis in its decision-making process in EC competition law cases as is reflected, e.g., in the creation of the office of the Chief Economist in 2003.


(1) OJ 2003 L 291


Fråga nr 80 från Jonas Sjöstedt (H-0641/06)
 Angående: Brister i Dublinkonventionen

Ett stort antal flyktingorganisationer har skickat ett öppet brev (27 juni 2006) till kommissionen med kritik av Dublinkonventionen. Organisationerna menar att de nuvarande förhållandena i EU riskerar flyktingarnas liv och orsakar onödigt lidande. Fyra krav ställs till kommissionen angående garantier för en rättvis asylprocess för alla asylsökande, bättre garantier för familjeåterförening, garantier för att ensamkommande barn undantas från att flyttas från ett EU-land till ett annat om inte tydligt skäl föreligger samt garantier för att samtliga sökande tas emot under rimliga förhållanden.

På vilket sätt är kommissionen redo att ta itu med de stora brister som finns i Dublinreglerna och tillgodose de krav som organisationerna framför?


The Commission is currently working on a comprehensive assessment of the Dublin system, which will comprise the evaluation of both the Dublin Regulations and the Eurodac Regulations. This examination will be completed by the end of 2006. The evaluation will also contain considerations and recommendations for possible improvement of the system. In this respect, particular attention will be paid to the issues mentioned in the letter sent to the Commission by a series of organizations which are active in the defence of asylum seekers and refugees rights which has been mentioned by the Honourable Member.

Some of those issues might be addressed in the short term as they can be solved by specific clarifications concerning the correct application of the current system or the introduction of technical improvements in its operation. This is true in particular with regard to the issues of family's reunification and unaccompanied minors.

Other matters, however, need to be considered in the wider context of the evaluation and development of the whole of the European Asylum Policy. The evaluation of the Dublin system represents the first step of a larger debate on the future of the Common European Asylum Policy which will be the object of a comprehensive Green Paper to be issued in 2007.


Question no 81 by Gay Mitchell (H-0643/06)
 Subject: Home State taxation

Will the Commission outline the successes so far of the new pilot scheme on Home State taxation, announced by the Commission last January?


Home State Taxation (HST) can only be implemented by bilateral or multilateral agreements between Member States. The Commission has provided the outline for HST agreements, and it is now up to Member States to take the initiative to actually enter into any such agreements. To date the Commission is not aware of the implementation of any such scheme. However the Commission understands that one Member State is currently considering taking an initiative in order to implement this pilot scheme with its neighbouring EU States.


Question no 82 by Bill Newton Dunn (H-0647/06)
 Subject: Unpaid parking fines and unpaid road taxes

With ever-increasing numbers of visits by EU citizens to other Member States in their motor cars, both short-term and long-term, there is an equally rising incidence of parking fines, and of road taxes, which are left unpaid by the visitors and therefore cost local citizens extra taxes instead. Will the Commission propose a mechanism for recovering these unpaid debts, which would surely be received with joy and unanimously by the Council of Ministers ?


The Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA(1) of 24 February 2005, on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, applies the principle of Mutual Recognition to the enforcement of financial penalties in a Member State other than the one in which such a financial penalty has been imposed. In other words, it aims to facilitate the cross-border recognition and enforcement in the EU of decisions, within the scope of article I of the Framework Decision, which impose a financial penalty upon conviction for an offence.

Therefore, parking fines and/or road taxes which can not be executed in the Member State in which they were imposed can be executed in the Member State where the person against whom a decision has been passed has property or income, is normally resident, or in the case of a legal person has its registered seat, if they fall within the scope of article I of the Framework Decision.

However, the obligation to execute a financial penalty which falls within the scope of the Framework Decision is not an absolute one, as it contains optional grounds of non- execution or non-recognition for the executing Member States. Finally, Article 20 contains possibilities for temporarily limiting the scope of the instrument as regards decisions and as regards the applicability to legal persons.

The Commission would also like to inform the Honourable Member that the Member States have to transpose the obligations of the Framework Decision in their internal legal order by 22 March 2007. In view of this, the Commission will be in a better position to consider whether there is need for proposing further legislative measures for dealing with the problem of unpaid fines in the EU after the Framework Decision on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties has been transposed by the Member States.


(1) OJ L 76, 22.3.2005


Pregunta nº 83 formulada por Maria Badia I Cutchet (H-0649/06):
 Asunto: Deporte y discriminación de género

El deporte constituye un ámbito de desarrollo muy importante, no sólo de la salud y del físico, sino también de la formación de los niños, los jóvenes y las personas adultas. Juega, pues, una función social, y sus valores sociales y pedagógicos desempeñan un papel esencial. Entre estos valores, el deporte debe transmitir también el de la igualdad —por motivos de raza, de origen, de religión o de género— y el de la no discriminación, especialmente cuando se trata de deportes-espectáculo, que se convierten en el centro de atención de la opinión pública.

El Torneo de Tenis de Wimbledon es un gran slam donde no existe la igualdad entre hombres y mujeres. Se trata del único torneo donde los premios que perciben unos y otros aún difieren, en un sentido discriminatorio para ellas, que ganan 42 000 euros menos.

De acuerdo con los artículos 2 y 3 del TCE sobre la integración de la dimensión de género, así como del artículo 141 sobre igualdad entre hombres y mujeres en materia de trabajo o empleo y del artículo 13 sobre la discriminación por motivos de sexo en el lugar de trabajo o fuera, ¿no cree que la UE debería tomar medidas para poner fin a esta desigualdad que se produce en un Estado Miembro de la Unión, teniendo en cuenta que refleja una discriminación no digna de ser reproducida socialmente?


L’article 2 du Traité établit qu’un des objectifs de la Communauté est de promouvoir l'égalité entre les hommes et les femmes. L’article 3 consacre le principe d’égalité entre les hommes et les femmes dans tous les domaines d’action de la Communauté. Ces principes sont aussi consacrés aux articles 21 et 23 de la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne.

Selon la jurisprudence constante de la Cour de Justice des Communautés européennes (CJCE), le sport relève du droit communautaire lorsqu’il y a activité économique au sens des libertés économiques du Traité(1) et à la lumière de l’article 2 de celui-ci. Ainsi, d’après la CJCE(2), la participation d'un athlète de haut niveau à une compétition internationale est susceptible d'impliquer la prestation de plusieurs services distincts qui peuvent relever de l'article 59 du Traité même si certains de ces services ne sont pas payés par ceux qui en bénéficient.

Par ailleurs, l'article 141 du Traité CE impose aux Etats membres l'obligation d'assurer "l'application du principe de l'égalité des rémunérations entre travailleurs masculins et travailleurs féminins pour un même travail ou un travail de même valeur". Le droit communautaire comprend également un ensemble de directives visant à mettre en œuvre le principe de l'égalité de traitement entre travailleurs masculins et travailleurs féminins(3).

Cependant, la situation exposée par l'honorable parlementaire ne semble pas tomber sous le champ d'application de l'article 141 et du droit dérivé qui en découle, étant donné que les joueurs de tennis n'ont pas une relation d'emploi avec les organisateurs de tournois, leur activité relevant davantage de la prestation de services.

Enfin, le Conseil a adopté, le 13 décembre 2004, la directive 2004/113 mettant en œuvre le principe de l'égalité de traitement entre les femmes et les hommes dans l'accès à des biens et services et la fourniture de biens et services. Cette directive a pour objet d’établir un cadre pour lutter contre la discrimination fondée sur le sexe dans l’accès à des biens et services et la fourniture de biens et services, en vue de mettre en œuvre, dans les Etats membres, le principe de l’égalité de traitement entre les hommes et les femmes.

Selon l'article 4 de la directive, le principe de l’égalité de traitement entre les hommes et les femmes signifie: a) qu’il ne peut y avoir de discrimination directe fondée sur le sexe, y compris un traitement moins favorable de la femme en raison de la grossesse et de la maternité; b) qu’il ne peut y avoir de discrimination indirecte fondée sur le sexe. Le considérant 16 de la directive précise que les différences de traitement ne peuvent être acceptées que lorsqu’elles sont justifiées par un objectif légitime. La directive 2004/113/CE doit être transposée dans l'ordre juridique des Etats membres au plus tard le 21 décembre 2007.

En conclusion, la situation exposée par l'honorable parlementaire n’est pas susceptible d’être appréhendée par l'article 141 du Traité et le droit dérivé qui en découle mais uniquement par la directive 2004/113/CE. Toutefois vu que les délais de transposition de ladite directive ne sont pas encore écoulés, la situation exposée doit être appréciée à la lumière du droit national applicable.


(1) Arrêts du 12 décembre 1974, Walrave et Koch, 36/74, Rec. p. 1405, point 4, et du 15 décembre 1995, Bosman, C-415/93, Rec. p. I-4921, point 73.
(2) Arrêt du 26 avril 1988, Bond van Adverteerders e.a., 352/85, Rec. p. 2085, point 16
(3) Voir notamment les directives 75/117/CEE, 76/207/CEE, 86/378/CEE, 92/85/CEE, 96/34/CE, 96/97/CE, 97/80/CE.


Fråga nr 84 från Anna Hedh (H-0658/06)
 Angående: Införselkvoter för alkohol

Varje gång en resenär passerar gränsen mellan två EU-länder får de för personligt bruk ta med sig totalt 230 liter alkohol fördelat på öl, vin och sprit. Mängden alkohol är så stor att den fyller nästan en liten lastbil och motsvarar 2,5 års förbrukning. En jämförelse med tobak visar att man i det fallet bara får ta med sig 800 cigaretter vilket motsvarar 40 dagars förbrukning.

Enligt Världshälsoorganisationen, WHO, dog 600 000 européer under 2002 av alkoholrelaterade skador, vilket var en ökning med 15 procent på två år. 7,7 miljoner barn växer upp i familjer där missbruk finns och en stor del av trafikskadorna är orsakade av alkohol. Alkohol är, med all tydlighet, ingen vanlig vara.

Ser du någon anledning att göra en översyn av införselkvoterna och sänka dem för alkohol?


In her question the Honourable Member refers to the movement within the Community of excise products by travellers on which excise duty has been paid in one Member State. This type of movement is regulated by Directive 92/12/EEC(1) which, for tax purposes, makes a distinction between the movement of excise goods by private individuals purchasing excise products for their personal use, and movement for commercial purposes. Under the principles of the internal market, private individuals who acquire excise products in a Member State for their own use, and transport these products to another Member State, shall only have to pay the excise duty in the Member State where the products were purchased.

Certain criteria, including guide levels for each type of excise product are laid down with a view to distinguishing between commercial movements and transactions for personal use. These guide levels, however, should not be compared with import quota as referred to by the Honourable Member, and are solely used as a form of evidence or 'indicative limits' to make the above distinction. For movements within the Community, no import quotas apply as any person is free to buy, possess or move alcohol products without any restriction as long as they are for his personal use

As no import quotas exist between Member States, the Commission can not comment on the possibility to either review, or reduce such quotas specifically for alcohol. However, the Commission has put forward a proposal to simplify and liberalise the rules on intra-EU movements of products (mainly alcohol) on which excise duty has already been paid in a Member State(2) providing for abolition of the guide levels referred to above. In the view of the Commission, such levels, on their own, can not be used as evidence that excisable products are being held for commercial purposes, nor should they be interpreted as tax-free 'threshold' (or import quota). It is simply within the jurisdiction of the Member States to establish the guidelines given to officers to determine the situation when checks should be carried out on excise movements.

As to the health issue related to the consumption of alcohol, the Commission in 2004 presented its Report on the rates of excise duty applied on alcohol and alcoholic beverages(3), which concluded that the majority of Member States usually do not take into account health policy considerations when they fix their rates, even though the present EC legislation, fixing only minimum rates, offers them substantial room for manoeuvre to integrate public health considerations in their tax policies.

The Commission takes the harm caused by alcohol abuse very seriously. Later in 2006, the Commission is to adopt a Communication on Alcohol and Health, which will establish an EU strategy to support Member States to reduce alcohol related harm. This Communication will address the adverse health effects related to harmful and hazardous alcohol consumption, as well as the related social and economic consequences. It is expected to focus on the following main issues: protection of young people, children and the unborn child; reduction of injuries and death from alcohol-related road accidents; prevention of alcohol-related harm among adults; information and education on the impact of alcohol; developing a common evidence base at EU level.


(1) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992
(2) Report from the Commission to the Council, the Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee on the application of Article 7 to 10 of Directive 92/12/EEC, COM (2004) 227 final.
(3) Report from the Commission to the Council, the Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee on the rates of excise duty applied on alcohol and alcoholic beverages, COM (2004) 223 final.


Question no 85 by Gary Titley (H-0659/06)
 Subject: Smoking and blindness

There is increasing evidence that smoking is a causal factor for Age Related Macular Degeneration, the principal cause of blindness. In Australia warnings are posted on cigarette packages saying 'smoking causes blindness.'

Does the Commission intend to add such a warning to the list of graphic warnings which are now permitted in the EU?

Does anything in EU law prevent a Member State 'going it alone' in implementing such a warning in its territory?


The Commission is well aware of the research on links between smoking and blindness. It agrees that a warning on sight loss due to smoking is a powerful message to fight tobacco

Much of the value of health warnings stems from their visibility and novelty. The Tobacco Products Directive did that in 2002 by introducing many new messages and dramatically increasing the size of the warnings.

Now the Commission again seeks the novelty effect from a radical change: from text warnings to picture warnings as adopted in 2005. Belgium will be the first Member State to introduce the warning pictures as from June 2007. The United Kingdom is set to follow in autumn. A number of Member States are reflecting on the measure.

The Commission is aware that the revision of the warnings will be necessary in the future in order to maintain and increase their effectiveness, and to take account of new scientific developments.

When reviewing the warnings, a warning on blindness will certainly be among the first new messages to be considered.

Until that time, Member States are obliged to use the 14 health warnings as set out in the Tobacco Products Directive.

The Commission hopes that Parliament will work with it to promote the adoption of pictorial warnings in all Member States.


Question no 86 by Emilio Menéndez del Valle (H-0660/06)
 Subject: Considering the need for further safeguards against the irregular implementation of EU external relations instruments

‘The European Community must respect international law in the exercise of its powers’(1). Those powers include the conclusion and enforcement of external agreements and the financing of actions carried out by third parties outside the EU.

As proposals for regulations authorising the establishment of several new external relations instruments have come before this Parliament, questions have been raised concerning the appropriateness of introducing provisions that would specifically prevent agreements concluded and measures financed under those instruments from being implemented by third parties in a manner that violates norms and rules of general international law recognised by the Community as customary and binding.

Does the Commission consider that Community law already requires the Community to prevent third parties from implementing Community agreements and Community-financed measures in a manner that violates such norms and rules when it has also been determined that the operation of the agreements or the execution of the measures in question is enabling the systematic commission of particular internationally wrongful acts by a third party?


When the Community concludes an international agreement or adopts a financial instrument it is bound to respect international law, including norms of customary international law. The Commission sees to it that its proposals for such Community instruments are in conformity with the applicable rules of international law; this is inherent in the legal vetting all Commission proposals go through before being sent to Council and Parliament. In the implementation phase, the Commission can only finance projects the purposes of which are in line with the agreement or financial instrument in question. If a third country implements such projects in a manner that violates international law and thereby the agreement or financial instrument on which it is based, the Commission has the full right under Community law to suspend the project and to recover those expenses which have been spent in contravention of the project conditions.

This is why the general conditions of the financing agreements signed with third countries in the framework of the external aid financed from the general budget of the European Community expressly mentions that the Commission may suspend the financing agreement if the Beneficiary breaches an obligation relating to respect for human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law and in serious cases of corruption. Consequently, the Commission may decide to terminate the financing agreement.

The situation related to projects financed from the European Development Fund is directly addressed in the Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement which foresees a special consultation procedure and appropriate measures as regards human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law.


(1) Case C-286/90; Poulsen and Diva Corp, Judgement of the Court of Justice 24 November 1992, para. 9.


Klausimas Nr. 87, pateikė Danutė Budreikaitė (H-0662/06)
 Tema: Dėl antidempingo procedūrų reformos

Komisija 2006 m. antrojo pusmečio veiklos prioritetuose numatė antidempingo sistemos reformą. Numatoma antidempingo tyrimuose atsižvelgti į verslo, iškėlusio savo gamybą už ES ribų, interesus.

Ar Komisija nemano, kad tokie veiksmai prieštarauja Komisijos komunikato „Bendrijos Lisabonos programos įgyvendinimas. Politikos nuostatos gamybai stiprinti siekiant labiau integruoto požiūrio į pramonės politiką” dėl konkurencijos klausimų, bendros rinkos reguliavimo nuostatoms?

Ar Komisija atliko tyrimus, kaip antidempingo tyrimų reforma paveiks ES gamintojus, ypač tekstilės, odos, avalynės, baldų, elektronikos sektoriuose?

Gal Komisija galėtų nurodyti, kokiomis priemonėmis ji didins ES pramonės konkurencingumą?


No decision on a reform of the trade defence system has been taken, only a reflection process has been launched. The aim of the reflection process on trade defence instruments is to check that these instruments produce overall the most efficient results in terms of competitiveness for the EU, including for EC producers having relocated outside Europe. Another aim is to check that they do not disproportionably affect economic operators and people who are not engaged in unfair trade practices, such as poor families in developing countries.

The Commission Communication on "Implementing the Community Lisbon Programme: A policy framework to strengthen EU manufacturing - towards a more integrated approach for industrial policy"(1) states that "international relocations of EU jobs to low cost countries have … been limited in most manufacturing sectors." Therefore, the Commission does not consider that addressing the question of relocation in the framework of the reflection process on trade defence instrument is in any way in contradiction with the above mentioned Communication.

As the Commission is in the middle of a reflection process, it is not clear if and which reform measures for the trade defence system will be proposed. No studies on the impact of such possible measures on economic sectors have been conducted yet.


(1) COM(2005) 474 final, OJ C 185, 8.08.2006.


Anfrage Nr. 88 von Albert Deß (H-0666/06)
 Betrifft: Illegale Importe von Agrarprodukten aus Brasilien in die EU

Durch einen Bericht des EU-Lebensmittel- und Veterinäramts ist bekannt geworden, dass Brasilien illegal Agrarprodukte nach Europa exportiert.

Nach Aussagen des EU-Veterinäramtes exportiert Brasilien seit Anfang 2005 Schweinefleisch nach Europa, obwohl kein einziger Betrieb für den Export zugelassen ist. Bei Honig, der in großen Mengen in die EU eingeführt wird, sind brasilianische Behörden gar nicht in der Lage, die Unbedenklichkeit bei Rückständen zu garantieren, weil gar keine Kontrollen erfolgen. Viele von der Veterinärbehörde angesprochene Missstände wurden schon 2003 festgestellt.

Was hat die EU-Kommission bereits unternommen, um diese illegalen Agrarimporte zu stoppen? Wird die EU-Kommission die Initiative ergreifen, damit endlich EU-Standards auch für Importlebensmittel gelten?


As far as honey is concerned, at the time of the relevant inspection of the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO), import into the EU was still allowed. Following the deficiencies identified, namely as far as residue limits are concerned, imports of honey have been prohibited as from 17 March 2006.

As regards pig meat, the FVO found that this meat was intended for supplying ships sailing international waters and this is not forbidden by Community legislation. The FVO did not find evidence that pork was illegally imported from Brazil into the EU. As a consequence, no action has been necessary to this date. In this regard it is worth mentioning that Community legislation obliges Member States to collect and destroy catering waste from international means of transport such as ships or planes.

The Commission wishes to reassure the Honourable Member that EU food safety rules currently into force are designed to ensure that imported products meet the same standards as those produced in the EU and are also in line with relevant international standards.

Any failure to respect these rules will trigger further Commission action as appropriate.


Ερώτηση αρ. 89 του κ. Παναγιώτη Μπεγλίτη (H-0668/06)
 Θέμα: Ευρωπαϊκό Ταμείο Προσαρμογής στην Παγκοσμιοποίηση

Το Ευρωπαϊκό Συμβούλιο της 14-15 Δεκεμβρίου 2005 αποφάσισε, μετά από πρόταση του Προέδρου της Επιτροπής κ. Μπαρόζο, τη σύσταση του Ευρωπαϊκού Ταμείου Προσαρμογής στην Παγκοσμιοποίηση. Η οικονομική και κοινωνική σημασία αυτής της απόφασης, για την αντιμετώπιση των αρνητικών συνεπειών της παγκοσμιοποίησης στην απασχόληση, αμβλύνεται με την πρόταση Κανονισμού που υπέβαλε η Επιτροπή (COM(2006)0091 τελικό) και ειδικότερα το άρθρο 2 (κριτήρια παρέμβασης).

Με βάση τα προτεινόμενα κριτήρια, ποιες συγκεκριμένες περιφέρειες των κρατών μελών ανταποκρίνονται, με τα σημερινά οικονομικά και κοινωνικά δεδομένα, στα κριτήρια του άρθρου 2; Λαμβάνοντας υπόψη το μέγεθος των ελληνικών επιχειρήσεων, σε αριθμό απασχολουμένων, σε ποιες συγκεκριμένες περιπτώσεις θα μπορούσε να επωφεληθεί η Ελλάδα από τους πόρους του Ταμείου; Εξετάζει η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή τη δυνατότητα επαναπροσδιορισμού των κριτηρίων, στην κατεύθυνση της άμβλυνσής τους, ώστε να μπορούν να τύχουν ισότιμης πρόσβασης στους πόρους του Ταμείου όλα τα κράτη μέλη και οι περιφέρειές τους;


Article 2 of the Commission’s proposal for a Regulation for a European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, sets out the Intervention Criteria for the Fund. Under Art. 2a, Greece, like any other EU Member State could benefit from the Fund in cases where due to structural changes in world trade patterns 1000 workers are made redundant in a company, including upstream suppliers and downstream producers. Given the relation between the number of jobs in large companies, and the up- and downstream companies, it is possible that a magnitude of around 350 jobs being lost in a large company will render an application for assistance under the Fund possible; this is based on the assumption that up to twice as many jobs can be lost in up- and downstream companies, including Small and Medium Enterprises(SMEs).

Under Art. 2a, the Fund only intervenes in cases where the redundancies occur in a region where the unemployment level is higher than the EU or national average. Eurostat data from 2004 shows that 44 (out of 54) Greek departments (Nome) would be covered under this eligibility criterion, with the notable exceptions of Athens, Rodopi, Karditsa, Fthiotida, Korinthia, Lakonia, Messinia, Kyklades, Irakleio and Chania.

Under Art. 2b, the Fund can intervene when in a given sector over a period of 6 months there have been 1000 redundancies, and where these redundancies represent at least 1% of regional employment measured at NUTS II level. Under this Article particularly workers of SMEs can receive support from the Fund.

The draft opinion of the Parliament's Committee for Employment and Social Affairs on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund proposed the introduction of a 'Safeguard clause' to cover cases in which the criteria under Art. 2a and 2b are not met entirely, but where there is a very serious impact on the local economy. The Commission will consider this proposal in the forthcoming negotiations.


Question no 90 by Proinsias De Rossa (H-0670/06)
 Subject: Collective Redundancies Directive

Further to its answer of 8 February 2006 to my written question E-4979/05, what response did the Commission receive from the Irish authorities with regard to its correspondence on the implementation of Council Directive 98/59/EC(1) of 20 July 1998 on collective redundancies by means of the Protection of Employment Act, 1977 (consolidated)? What is the current status of the Commission's correspondence with Ireland and what action is the Commission now proposing to take on this matter?


The Commission asked by letter dated 14 February 2006 for clarifications from the Irish authorities on whether the findings of the European Court of Justice in case C-188/03 (Junk v. Kühnel) had been incorporated in the relevant section of the Irish transposing legislation. To date, the Commission has not received any information on this matter from the Irish authorities.

On the 2nd August 2006 the Commission reminded the Irish authorities to submit the requested information.


(1) OJ L 225, 12.8.1998, p. 16.


Interrogazione n. 91 dell'on. Roberta Angelilli (H-0680/06)
 Oggetto: Crisi settore calzature per bimbi

Per fronteggiare la profonda crisi che ha investito tutto il settore calzaturiero europeo, la Commissione ha emanato il Regolamento (CE) n. 553/2006(1) che istituisce un dazio antidumping provvisorio sulle importazioni di alcuni tipi di calzature con tomaie di cuoio originarie della Repubblica popolare cinese e del Vietnam. Tuttavia, risultano escluse da tale Regolamento le calzature da bambino e quelle cosiddette STAF (Special Techonology Athletic Footwear).

In Italia, la progressiva perdita di competitività sta mettendo in pericolo quasi 5.000 posti di lavoro, con una perdita dell’export pari al 10,8% rispetto al 2004, a fronte di un aumento dell’import pari al 29% rispetto allo stesso anno, con danni economici ed occupazionali enormi, soprattutto in alcune Regioni, prima tra tutte la Regione Marche.

Quali provvedimenti intende la Commissione adottare affinché vengano estese, nel più breve tempo possibile, anche alle scarpe da bambino e STAF le misure antidumping oggi in vigore?


On 30 August 2006, the Commission has adopted a proposal for definitive anti-dumping duties on certain leather shoes from China and Vietnam. Reflecting the finding of both dumping and injury to EU producers, the Commission has proposed a duty of 16.5% for China and 10% for Vietnam for certain leather shoes.

This proposal now passes to Member States in the Council, who have one month to consider it for adoption. The binding deadline for the publication of any definitive measures in the Official Journal of the European Union is 6 October 2006.

The Commission is fully aware of the issues of children shoes and Special Technology Athletic Footwear (STAF). The above proposal for definitive measures includes children’s shoes. This decision was taken in the light of the multiple comments received from the parties concerned on the provisional measures (which excluded children shoes). There are compelling reasons for the inclusion of children shoes, not least the fact that there is a substantial production of children shoes in the Community. In this respect it is worth noting that during the validity of the provisional measures there were very likely false customs' declarations and probably fraud concerning imports of children shoes in order to circumvent the provisional anti-dumping duty.

The decision to exclude STAF shoes from the provisional measures was maintained in the above proposal in the absence of Community production of this type of shoe.


(1) JO L 98 del 6.4.2006, pag. 3.


Anfrage Nr. 92 von Hans-Peter Martin (H-0682/06)
 Betrifft: Pensionierung von EU-Beamten

Wie viele Beamte sind in den Jahren 2000 bis 2004 wegen Dienstunfähigkeit vorzeitig in den Ruhestand versetzt worden?

Wie haben sich die Versorgungskosten für die wegen Dienstunfähigkeit vorzeitig pensionierten EU-Beamten von 2000 bis 2004 entwickelt?

Wie hat sich das Durchschnittsalter der wegen Dienstunfähigkeit vorzeitig pensionierten EU-Beamten von 2000 bis 2004 entwickelt?


Le nombre de fonctionnaires mis en invalidité de 2000 à 2005 s'élève à :

Année Nombre de mises en invalidité

2000 191

2001 203

2002 258

2003 307

2004 260

2005 121

Le coût moyen annuel par invalidité a augmenté en moyenne de 2.96 % par an entre 2000 et 2005.

La moyenne d'âge des fonctionnaires de l'UE mis en invalidité au cours de la période 2000-2005 se situe entre 50 et 52 ans :

Année Age moyen

2000 52,67

2001 51,94

2002 52,4

2003 52,7

2004 51,9

2005 50,38


András Gyürk (H-0683/06) által feltett 93 sz. kérdés
 Tárgy: A Nabucco gázvezeték mielőbbi megépülésének esélyei

Június folyamán Bécsben a Nabucco projektben érintett öt állam energiaügyi miniszterei a gázvezeték megvalósításáról szóló szándéknyilatkozatot írtak alá. Az eseményen Andris Piebalgs energiaügyi biztos is jelen volt és alapvető jelentőségűnek nevezte a projekt megvalósulását. A gázvezeték megépülése – évi 20-30 milliárd köbméteres kapacitásával – mind az energiaellátás biztonsága, mind a beszerzési forrás és a tranzitútvonal diverzifikációja szempontjából óriási előrelépést jelenthet az energetikai kihívásokkal küzdő Európa számára. Tekintettel arra, hogy az Unió földgázellátási forrásainak bővítése szempontjából ma nincs valódi versenytársa a Nabuccónak, kérdezem a Bizottságot, hogy milyen támogatási formával kívánja elősegíteni a Nabucco gázvezeték mielőbbi megépülését? Milyen előzetes menetrenddel rendelkezik a projekt megvalósítására? A többi, Európa gázellátását szolgáló projekthez képest milyennek tartja a Nabucco megépülésének esélyeit?


Concerning the financial support to Nabucco, the Commission has already accepted in 2003 and 2005, to co-finance studies for feasibility and engineering of the project at the level of € 6.5 million. On 24 july 2006, the Council and the Parliament decided new guidelines for the transeuropean energy networks where 10 gas projects have been declared as projects of European interest. Nabucco is one of these projects.

With regard to the timetable, the second study started at the beginning of 2006 and should finish by the end of 2007. The Nabucco company plans to commence the construction of the pipeline in 2009.

The Commission is not in a position to comment on the risks linked to the construction of the Nabucco pipeline, however, the Commission considers the Nabucco route essential to connect the EU to new sources in the Caspian sea and Middle East.

On regulatory issues, the Commission lends its support to all projects that will significantly enhance security of supply and within the context of the Energy Community Treaty is developing a general framework to assist developers.


Ερώτηση αρ. 94 της κ. Ρόδης Κράτσα-Τσαγκαροπούλου (H-0684/06)
 Θέμα: Κοινός ευρωπαϊκός ναυτιλιακός χώρος

Στην ανακοίνωσή της σχετικά με την ενδιάμεση αναθεώρηση της Λευκή Βίβλου για τις μεταφορές - 2001 (COM(2006)0314 τελικό), η Επιτροπή δηλώνει την πρόθεσή της να προβεί στην επεξεργασία ολοκληρωμένης στρατηγικής θαλασσίων μεταφορών, με τη δημιουργία, για πρώτη φορά, ενός κοινού ευρωπαϊκού ναυτιλιακού χώρου και με την έκδοση Πράσινης Βίβλου για το θέμα αυτό, το 2008.

Έχει η Επιτροπή ήδη καθορίσει χρονοδιάγραμμα για την εκκίνηση της διαβούλευσης και την επεξεργασία αυτής της Πράσινης Βίβλου; Γνωρίζει ήδη τους κύριους άξονες στους οποίους θα επικεντρωθεί αυτή η ολοκληρωμένη στρατηγική θαλασσίων μεταφορών και έχουν προσδιορισθεί οι προκλήσεις που θα αντιμετωπίσει; Ποια προστιθέμενη αξία προβλέπει να προσδώσει στην πολιτική μεταφορών, όπως αυτή σχεδιάζεται με την ενδιάμεση αναθεώρηση της Λευκής Βίβλου για τις μεταφορές - 2001, Ποια θα είναι η σχέση και η συνέργεια ενός τέτοιου εργαλείου (κοινός ευρωπαϊκός ναυτιλιακός χώρος) με την ολοκληρωμένη στρατηγική που προωθεί η Πράσινη Βίβλος για το μέλλον της ναυτιλιακής πολιτικής της Ένωσης, αλλά και με τη διεθνή της διάσταση;


Dans sa révision à mi-parcours du Livre Blanc sur la Politique des Transports du 22 juin 2006(1), la Commission a annoncé son intention de présenter en 2008 un Livre blanc proposant la création d’un Espace Maritime Commun Européen.

L’objectif de cette initiative sera de réduire les délais et les coûts résultant des nombreux contrôles et échanges administratifs imposés au transport maritime à courte distance pour les transports effectués entre ports des Etats membres de l’Union européenne. Ces transports sont en effet quasiment soumis aux mêmes exigences que les transports en provenance des pays tiers, ce qui les pénalise par rapport aux transports terrestres équivalents.

Pour fonder sa démarche sur des bases factuelles, la Commission consultera bien entendu les parties qui en seront les bénéficiaires tels que les chargeurs et opérateurs de transport, ainsi que les autorités administratives des divers niveaux qui sont en charge des contrôles et en exploitent les résultats.

La Commission n’a pas encore fixé les axes de son approche, mais il est probable qu’une contribution importante à cet objectif sera apportée par un recours systématique aux technologies de positionnement et de communication avancées et harmonisées entre opérateurs et administrations, technologies qui permettent de réduire considérablement coûts et délais. Les contrôles y seront considérablement réduits en nombre mais leur fiabilité beaucoup améliorée en ne les focalisant que sur des cibles préalablement identifiées par une meilleure analyse.

Conformément à la Communication du 22 juin 2006 sur la politique des transports, une telle initiative ne doit pas être limitée au transport maritime, mais doit considérer l’ensemble de la chaîne logistique dont il constitue un maillon. En réduisant et en uniformisant les contraintes entre les modes de transports, l’espace maritime européen commun contribuera à la réalisation d’un meilleur équilibre modal du transport.

Comme un nombre important d’autorités administratives devra concourir à sa mise en œuvre, il s’inscrit parfaitement dans la stratégie intégrée préconisée dans le Livre Vert sur la Politique Maritime du 7 juin 2006(2).


(1) Communication « Pour une Europe en mouvement – Mobilité durable pour notre continent », COM (2006)314 final du 22 juin 2006
(2) Communication « Vers une politique maritime de l’Union : une vision européenne des océans et des mers » COM (2006)275 final du 7 juin 2006


Ερώτηση αρ. 95 του κ. Γεωργίου Τούσσα (H-0687/06)
 Θέμα: Συνεχίζεται η πολιτική και εργασιακή ομηρία χιλιάδων συμβασιούχων στην Ελλάδα

Η απόφαση C-212/04 του Ευρωπαϊκού Δικαστηρίου, και η απόφαση 18/2006 του Αρείου Πάγου, κρίνουν παράνομη και καταχρηστική τη σύναψη διαδοχικών συμβάσεων ορισμένου χρόνου από οργανισμούς του ελληνικού δημόσιου τομέα, και η Επιτροπή Αναφορών του ΕΚ έκρινε βάσιμη τη σχετική αναφορά της Ένωσης Συντακτών Ημερησίων Εφημερίδων Μακεδονίας-Θράκης (ΕΣΗΕΜ-Θ). Ταυτόχρονα επικρίνονται σφοδρότατα οι διατάξεις των Ν. 3301/2004 και 3388/2005, που δίνουν στο δημόσιο τη δυνατότητα να αρνείται να συμμορφωθεί με δικαστικές αποφάσεις. Οι κυβερνήσεις ΠΑΣΟΚ και ΝΔ, με τα ΠΔ 81/2003 και 164/2004 παραβιάζουν κατάφωρα τα δικαιώματα και επιβάλλουν καθεστώς ομηρίας σε χιλιάδες εργαζόμενους του ιδιωτικού και δημόσιου τομέα, με διαρκώς ανανεούμενες συμβάσεις, ενώ καλύπτουν «πάγιες και διαρκείς ανάγκες». Η Επιτροπή επιτείνει τη σύγχυση και διαιωνίζει το πρόβλημα με δηλώσεις για την εφαρμογή της οδηγίας 1999/70/ΕΚ(1).

Τι μέτρα προτίθεται να λάβει η Επιτροπή, ώστε το ελληνικό Δημόσιο και οι ιδιωτικές επιχειρήσεις να κάνουν σεβαστές τις δικαστικές αποφάσεις και να σταματήσουν να καταστρατηγούν τα δικαιώματα των εργαζομένων;


Greece has notified the Commission that the Directive 1999/70/EC on Fixed-Term Work(2) has been transposed through Presidential Decrees 81/2003, 164/2004 and 180/2004.

The Commission has assessed the compatibility of these Decrees with the Directive: Decree 81/2003 did not contain sufficient measures to prevent abuse of successive fixed-term contracts. However, the necessary rules have been put in place as from the entry into force of the other two Decrees. It should be underlined that there is no requirement under the Directive to transpose fixed-term contracts into permanent contracts as long as there are other effective measures to prevent abuse of successive fixed-term contracts. The judgement of the European Court of Justice of 4 July 2006 in case C-212/04 confirms the Commission's assessment.

The Commission's assessment also takes account of the issues raised in a number of complaints and petitions, including the one referred to by the Honourable Member. The Commission has closed all complaints, indicating in particular that remedies to individual claims arising during the period between the deadline for transposition of the Directive and the entry into force of the national transposition rules must be dealt with by the competent national courts.

The Commission has no indications of any new circumstances that would change its position as regards the transposition of Directive 1999/70/EC in Greece. The Commission, therefore, does not intend to take any measures in that respect.

As regards the complex matters raised by Law 3301/2004 and 3388/2005 concerning enforcement of interim rulings the Commission would refer to its reply to question H-0537/06. The Commission is still investigating the matter.


(1) ΕΕ L 175 της 10.7.1999, σελ. 43.
(2) Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, OJ L 175, 10.7.1999, p. 43.


Ερώτηση αρ. 96 του κ. Αθανασίου Παφίλη (H-0689/06)
 Θέμα: Παραβίαση θεμελιωδών δικαιωμάτων των κρατουμένων στις ελληνικές φυλακές

Τζάμια χωρίζουν τους δικηγόρους από τους κρατουμένους εντολείς τους, στις ελληνικές φυλακές. Η μεταξύ τους επικοινωνία γίνεται μέσω τηλεφώνου σε συνθήκες γενικευμένης παρακολούθησης.

Με αυτό τον τρόπο παραβιάζεται κατάφωρα το θεμελιώδες δικαίωμα του κατηγορουμένου κρατουμένου για απολύτως ελεύθερη και ανεμπόδιστη επικοινωνία με το δικηγόρο του, σε συνθήκες απόλυτης εμπιστευτικότητας, που κατοχυρώνεται από το ελληνικό Σύνταγμα, την Ευρωπαϊκή Σύμβαση για τα Δικαιώματα του Ανθρώπου (ΕΣΔΑ) και τις διατάξεις του ελληνικού ποινικού δικονομικού δικαίου. Ταυτόχρονα, καταπατείται βάναυσα η αξιοπρέπεια του δικηγορικού λειτουργήματος και των δικηγόρων συλλογικά.

Ποια είναι η θέση της Επιτροπής για την παραβίαση του θεμελιώδους δικαιώματος του κατηγορουμένου για εντελώς ελεύθερη και απόρρητη επικοινωνία με το δικηγόρο του, καθώς και του δικαιώματός του για πλήρη και αποτελεσματική υπεράσπισή του;


The Honourable Member seems to refer to the pre-trial situation ("fundamental right of detainees facing charges"). However, many of the points that the Commission will touch upon in its reply to the question, will be of relevance also for the post-trial situation.

Pursuant to the provisions of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, respect of the right of defence is one of the key elements in ensuring protection of individual rights. Moreover a recently adopted recommendation of the Council of Europe (the European Prison Rules) has strengthened the right of confidentiality in the relation between the detainees and their legal advisers.

It could be added that a study on minimum rights in the pre-trial procedure is planned within the framework of the Council and Commission Action Plan implementing the Hague Programme on strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union.

The EU attaches special importance to the respect of fundamental rights.

However, the concrete issue raised by the Honourable Member is not currently covered by EU law.


Ερώτηση αρ. 97 της κ. Διαμάντως Μανωλάκου (H-0691/06)
 Θέμα: Η παντελής έλλειψη μέτρων ασφαλείας οδηγεί εκατοντάδες εργαζομένους στο θάνατο;

Το κυνήγι του κέρδους, η πολιτική του ανταγωνισμού και της εντατικοποίησης της εργασίας αφαιρούν την αξία ακόμα και της ανθρώπινης ζωής. Στην Ελλάδα, κάθε 2-3 ημέρες οι εργαζόμενοι θρηνούν ένα θύμα της εργοδοτικής ασυδοσίας, ενώ, μόνο το πρώτο εξάμηνο του 2006, περισσότεροι από 65 εργαζόμενοι έχασαν τη ζωή τους στο χώρο εργασίας τους. Τα απαραίτητα μέτρα ασφάλειας και υγιεινής στους χώρους εργασίας είναι σχεδόν ανύπαρκτα, όπως επίσης και η παρουσία ιατρών εργασίας. Στις παραπάνω ελλείψεις πρέπει να προστεθεί η απασχόληση ανειδίκευτου και ανεκπαίδευτου προσωπικού, προκειμένου να διατηρηθούν χαμηλά τα μεροκάματα.

Σκοπεύει η Επιτροπή να πάρει τα απαραίτητα μέτρα προκειμένου να σταματήσει η θυσία ανθρώπινων ζωών στην εργοδοτική ασυδοσία, που στην Ελλάδα τα τελευταία 3,5 χρόνια ξεπέρασαν τις 450, σύμφωνα με επίσημες πηγές, και να προωθήσει ένα νομικό πλαίσιο που θα εξασφαλίζει όρους ασφάλειας και υγιεινής στους χώρους εργασίας και αποτελεσματικούς ελέγχους;


La Commission partage le souci de l'honorable parlementaire concernant le nombre inacceptable d'accidents mortels au travail. Comme indiqué par la Commission dans la communication "S'adapter aux changements du travail et de la société: une nouvelle stratégie communautaire de santé et de sécurité 2002-2006"(1), la stratégie visant à réduire le nombre d'accidents au travail repose sur une culture de prévention des risques, la combinaison d'instruments politiques - législation, dialogue social, démarches de progrès et identification des meilleures pratiques, responsabilité sociale des entreprises, incitations économiques - et sur la construction de partenariats entre tous les acteurs de la santé et de la sécurité.

Il existe un acquis communautaire important dans le domaine de la santé et de la sécurité, et notamment la directive 89/391/CEE concernant la mise en œuvre de mesures visant à promouvoir l'amélioration de la sécurité et de la santé des travailleurs au travail(2), ainsi que ses directives particulières.

Les directives communautaires doivent être transposées par les Etats membres. La Grèce a notifié des mesures de transposition de la directive 89/391/CEE et des directives particulières en matière de santé et sécurité au travail. Il appartient aux Etats membres, en l'espèce à l'inspection de travail grecque, d'assurer un contrôle et une surveillance adéquats de la mise en œuvre des dispositions nationales transposant la législation communautaire en matière de santé et de sécurité des travailleurs au travail.

La directive 89/391/CEE et ses directives particulières ne contiennent pas de dispositions sur l'organisation des autorités compétentes nationales. Il incombe à chaque Etat membre de mettre en place l'organisation nécessaire afin d'assurer un contrôle adéquat des dispositions nationales transposant la législation communautaire.


(1) COM (2002) 118 final, du 11.03.2002.
(2) JO L 183, 29.6.1989.

Avviż legali - Politika tal-privatezza