2011 is the European Year of Volunteering, and the Hungarian Presidency of the EU Council has announced that it intends to sponsor that initiative. Can the Council state what steps the Hungarian Presidency of the EU Council intends to take to promote the European Year of Volunteering in the first half of 2011?

(EN) The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the February 2011 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

In its Decision designating 2011 as the European Year of Voluntary Activities Promoting Active Citizenship⁽¹⁾, the Council acknowledged that voluntary activities constitute a rich learning experience, enable the development of social skills and competences and contribute to solidarity.

Actions carried out by volunteers of all ages are crucial to the development of democracy, one of the founding principles of the EU. Moreover, voluntary activities have the potential to contribute to the well-being of individuals and the harmonious development of European societies.

According to the abovementioned Decision, the European Year of Voluntary Activities promoting Active Citizenship includes active participants at three different levels, namely EU, Member States and civil society level.

On 8 January 2011 the Hungarian Presidency organised the opening ceremony for the European Year on Voluntary Activities in Budapest. This high level conference with more than 200 participants from civil society, governments and businesses examined the issue of the 'Recognition of Volunteering'.

Moreover, a series of events to take place during the first six months of the year has been planned. In particular, the Hungarian Presidency envisages to organise a ministerial policy debate on 'voluntary activities of young people and their contribution to the development of local communities' at Council in May.

The Commission's Report on the memory of the crimes committed by totalitarian regimes in Europe (COM(2010)0783) contains good proposals on how to preserve and promote the memory at EU level. The Commission also states that this issue will be kept under review, which is of utmost importance.

Reconciliation of European Histories is important for the solidarity and unity of the EU, as also stressed in the letter to Commissioner Reding signed by six Foreign Affairs Ministers (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania) and another signed by the Estonian and Polish Ministers of Justice. What steps are envisaged to be taken by the Presidency to ensure implementation of the recommendations contained in the Report? Does the Presidency plan to have a discussion on the issue at the Justice and Home Affairs Council? How does the Presidency plan to encourage a discussion and sharing of experiences and best practices in order to keep alive the memory of atrocities committed by totalitarian regimes?

(EN) The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the February 2011 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Presidency:

welcomes the Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the memory of the crimes committed by totalitarian regimes in Europe published 22/12/2010;

aligns itself with the approach taken by the Commission;

stresses the importance of keeping the memory of the crimes committed by the totalitarian regimes alive at the level of the European Union by encouraging common efforts for the education and awareness raising of European citizens through the “Europe for Citizens” programme as well as other, e.g. financial, programmes of the European Union;

underlines the significance of a Europe-wide Day of Remembrance;

undertakes to put it on the agenda at the next meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs ministers where the Commission’s Report will be presented.

The Turkey progress report covering 2009-2010 contains no official position on the constant violations by the Turkish armed forces of Greek airspace and territorial waters; it merely mentions Greek 'complaints'. The Greek prime minister, addressing a meeting of Turkish ambassadors in Erzurum on 07.01.2011, referred publically to the constant overflights by Turkish military aircraft even over Greek islands. Since the violations are no longer disputed by anyone since they are also fully recorded by NATO radar, will the Council say: Has the Greek government asked it specifically to condemn Turkey for the constant violations and if so, when? What position has it taken on the constant violations and what steps is it taking vis-à-vis Turkey to put an immediate end to these provocative acts which pose a threat to peace in the region?

(EN) The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the February 2011 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council is aware of this issue, and a considerable number of complaints has been made by Greece about continued violations of its airspace and territorial waters by Turkey.

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

The Council, most recently in its conclusions of 14 December 2010, underlined that Turkey needs to commit itself unequivocally to good neighbourly relations and to the peaceful settlement of disputes in accordance with the United Nations Charter, having recourse, if necessary, to the International Court of Justice. In this context, the Union urged the avoidance of any kind of threat, source of friction or actions which could damage good neighbourly relations and the peaceful settlement of disputes. Furthermore, the EU stressed again all the sovereign rights of EU Member States which include, inter alia, entering into bilateral agreements, in accordance with the EU acquis and international law, including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Against this background, the Council can assure the honourable Member that the issue will continue to be closely followed and systematically raised at all levels as appropriate, as good neighbourly relations are one of the requirements against which Turkey's progress in the negotiations is being measured.

On 3 November 2010 I tabled a written question to the Commission and the Council with the subject ‘Measuring the impact of EU sanctions on Iran’. The deadline for answering my question lapsed on 5 January. Why has the Council failed to comply with the Rules of Procedure?

(EN) The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the February 2011 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council would like to remind the honourable Member that the European Parliament's Rules of Procedure are not legally binding on the other EU institutions. That being said, the answer to the question mentioned by the honourable Member was forwarded by the Council to the European Parliament on 25 January 2011.

The programme of the Hungarian presidency of the EU Council for the period from 01.01.2011 to 30.06.2011, which is posted on the http:// www. eu2011. hu/a> or http:// www. eu2011. hu/ files/ bveu/ documents/ HU_ PRES_ STRONG_ EUROPE_ EN_3. pdf/a>, ends with a list of the following donors or 'sponsors': the business groups Audi, Volkswagen, Škoda Auto, Samsung, Budapest Airport, Saab, Citroen, Művészetek Háza, Magyar Posta, MOL, Theodora, Malév Hugarian Airlines, StreamNET , Polycom, T-Systems, Sió, Microsoft, OkFon, Herend, Magyar Nemzeti Bank and Magyar Penzvero Zrt.

Will the Council say: on which decision or legislation is the advertising of business groups in the documents of the EU Council Presidency in the form of donors or 'sponsors' based? What sums have these advertised companies, the 'sponsors', paid, and to whom?

(EN) The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the February 2011 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

Insofar as the organisation and the content of its website is concerned, the acting Presidency of the Council is to be kept distinct from the Council as a European institution and its General Secretariat, which are neither supported nor endorsed by any sponsor. The list of companies to which the honourable Member refers appears in a publication within the sole responsibility of the Hungarian Presidency of the Council : it includes those partners which are sponsoring the Member State holding the rotating Presidency, in accordance with the rules in force in that Member State.

The EU Sport Forum will take place in Budapest this weekend. The timing has added significance in terms of the recent Communication from the Commission on Developing the European Dimension in Sport. Of particular note is the passing in this House of the Written Declaration on Sport for All (WD 62/2010), which places a strong emphasis on grassroots sport.

In light of these developments, how does the Hungarian Presidency foresee prioritising these issues in Council? Will the Presidency push for a proactive and effectively supported EU sports policy and, if so, what concrete measures does it seek to progress during its term?

(EN) The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the February 2011 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council would like to remind the honourable Member that the Council has held exchanges of views on the possible future priority areas in the field of sport, notably in May⁽¹⁾ and November ⁽²⁾.

In the May 2010, Members of the Council discussed EU sports policy for the first time in a Council setting, given that the Treaty of Lisbon has added specific EU competence for cooperation on sports issues. They suggested the following areas for possible EU action:

Social and educational functions of sport, e.g. social inclusion through sport and health enhancing physical activity, dual careers for athletes;

Sport structures, in particular those based on voluntary activity;

Fairness and openness in sport, including the fight against racism, discrimination andviolence;

Physical and moral integrity of sportsmen and sportswomen, especially the fight against doping and the protection of minors;

Dialogue and close cooperation with the sports movement.

In November 2010, the Council adopted a resolution establishing a high-level structured dialogue with sport stakeholders⁽³⁾. Such a dialogue will allow an ongoing exchange of views on priorities, implementation and follow-up to EU cooperation in the field of sport.

The Council held also a policy debate on social inclusion in and through sport. All ministers underlined that sport is an activity that can bring people together and be a powerful tool to strengthen cohesion in European societies, with professional athletes being role models for society. They mentioned that relevant activities in their countries were targeted at youth, disabled sportsmen, the elderly and those from disadvantaged and migrant communities. Delegations specifically requested that exchanges of experience and of best practices be among the priorities of EU action in the field of sport.

At the same meeting the Council adopted also conclusions on the role of sport as a source of and a driver for active social inclusion⁽⁴⁾. The conclusions identify three common priorities for promoting social inclusion through sport: the accessibility of sport activity for all citizens ("sport for all" principle), better use of the potential of sport as a contribution to community building, social cohesion and growth, and transnational exchanges of strategies and methodologies.

The Presidency intends to invite the Council to respond to the Commission Communication entitled "Developing the European Dimension in Sport" by adopting a resolution in May 2011. Such a resolution could set out a limited number of priority areas and establish an EU work plan in the field of sport for the next three years.

ETS III will bring energy-intensive manufacturing industries under the umbrella of Europe’s cap and trade system from 2013. Is the Council aware of the serious concerns of the European fertiliser manufacturing industry and studies that conclude the probable extra cost due to the Emissions Trading Directive, even in the mildest scenario, would be so high that there would be no possibilities to cover the losses by increasing productivity?

Given the global market situation, fertiliser manufacturers in the EU are not able to pass increasing costs further to final consumers. Is the Council concerned about the possible demise of the fertiliser manufacturing industry within the European Union?

(EN) The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the February 2011 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 Emissions Trading Scheme (the ETS Directive) established a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community, a key instrument in reducing emissions from energy-intensive industries and in contributing towards deploying the necessary low-carbon technologies.

The European Parliament and the Council revised the Emissions Trading Scheme Directive at first reading in December 2008, as a part of an ambitious climate and energy legislative package, and introduced the concept of an EU-wide, harmonised approach for the allocation of allowances.

In particular, the revised Directive provides for an EU-wide cap on total emissions allowances with an annual downwards emissions trajectory and the gradual introduction of auctioning of allowances.

From 2013 onwards full auctioning will be the rule for the power sector while a transitional system for free allocation, based on benchmarks, will be put in place for industry and heating sectors.

Pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC⁽¹⁾, the Commission is to adopt Community wide and fully-harmonised implementing measures for the allocation of the allowances in the EU's Emission Trading Scheme from 2013 onwards, including the benchmarks used for determining the number of free allowances.

Those measures, designed to amend non-essential elements of the Directive by supplementing it, have to be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny. Therefore, the Commission submitted a draft Decision to the Climate Change Committee composed of experts from the Member States. The Committee having given a favourable opinion on the draft decision, in January 2011 the Commission has submitted it to the European Parliament and the Council for a three-month scrutiny period. At the end of that period, unless the adoption of the draft measure is opposed on the grounds that it exceeds the implementing powers conferred upon the Commission in the basic act, is not compatible with the aim or the content of the basic act, or does not respect the principles of subsidiarity or proportionality, the Commission will adopt the decision.

The Directive provides for those sectors deemed at significant risk of carbon leakage to receive 100% of their allocated allowances for free, based on a benchmark. The fertiliser sector has been deemed at risk and will therefore receive a higher level of free allocation.

What initiatives will the Presidency introduce to improve job opportunities for young people in the European Union?

(EN) The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the February 2011 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

Already in the beginning of the Presidency, the issue of youth employment was on the agenda of the Informal Meeting of the Employment Ministers, held on 17-18 January in Hungary. In the concluding remarks of the Presidency stressed that tackling the challenges that young people face, and improving their labour market integration, necessitates the cooperation of several policy areas including overarching measures that impact both the demand and supply side of the labour market. Aligning education and training systems to labour market needs, facilitating transition of young people to the labour market with apprenticeships and other work-experience schemes, incentives and strengthened services provided by public employment services as well as stimulating job creation are key areas in respect of improving the employment situation of young people. Also, the Presidency considered that the Member States should place particular attention on the most disadvantaged young people (such as the low-skilled, young people with unfavourable socio-economic background, disabled, migrants or ethnic minorities).

Moreover, the Presidency will put on the agenda of the Council session on 7 March 2011 the Joint Employment Report, whereby the Council will be invited to conclude that education and training can make an important contribution to enhancing employment prospects, especially for young people who face exceptional difficulties in entering the labour market. It is important to recognise the importance of implementing and strengthening policies for lifelong learning, starting with early childhood education, by encouraging participation in learning through targeted intervention, of making learning more relevant to labour market needs, by promoting enterprise training through partnership schemes, and by seeking to develop more flexible learning pathways. In this context, the Presidency wishes to stress the need to combat early school leaving as well as promoting smoother transitions between education and employment.

During its Presidency, Hungary will organise several conferences which deal with youth employment. The first one will take place in Budapest, from 4 to 5 April 2011, in connection with the meeting of the Employment Committee. It will focus on three key topics, namely the anticipation of skill needs of the economy, facilitating transitions from school to work and stimulating labour demand towards young people.

The second conference will be held on 28 and 29 of April in Budapest and concentrates on the role of Public Employment Services and on the European Employment Services (EURES), with a specific focus on assisting young professionals starting their careers. In order to enhance a more practical oriented approach, this conference will be coupled with a job fair for young people.

Next June, in order to draw further attention to this priority theme, the Hungarian Presidency will submit a set of draft Conclusions promoting the labour market integration of young people to the Council, that will be invited to discuss and adopt them.

What initiatives will the Presidency introduce to improve the competitiveness of the European economy?

(EN) The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the February 2011 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Hungarian Presidency will focus on three priorities to improve the competitiveness of the European economy during its term in office, namely the new Europe-2020 strategy for growth and jobs, small and medium enterprises policy, including the full implementation of the 2008 Small Business Act, and the follow-up to the EU's 2008 strategy on raw materials.

Concerning Europe-2020 strategy for growth and jobs, full attention is being given to the Annual Growth Survey released by the Commission on 12 January last. On 10 and 11 March, the Council will conduct a strategic discussion on the basis of the findings of such Survey and the orientations of the 4 February European Council. Work will concentrate on implementing the Flagship Initiatives included in the EU 2020 strategy and achieving those Headline Targets for which the Council is responsible.

The Hungarian Presidency believes that the success of our competitiveness strategy depends on small and medium-sized enterprises. To address their needs and boost international activities of highly competitive and innovative small and medium-sized enterprises, focus will be important files: (a) first, the mid-term review of the Small Business Act from June 2008; (b) second, the Commission's upcoming proposals for reinforcing support to European SMEs in markets outside the EU will be of great interest to the Council, because are an important vector for future growth and employment.

On the follow-up to the EU's strategy on raw materials. The third important priority of our Presidency is to improve Europe's security of supply of raw materials. On 2 February, the Commission has released a follow-up communication to its earlier communication from November 2008. In the Council's conclusions that were adopted in 2009 the three pillars of the EU's raw materials strategy were firmly established: fair conditions for access to raw materials on the global market, the development of sources within the European Union, and efforts for improving resource efficiency and recycling.

Nonetheless, with a view to the holistic approach of the Single Market Act the Hungarian Presidency attaches great importance to the agreement on this action plan in the Council.

The priorities in the field of energy stated in the programme of the Hungarian Presidency indicate that one of the most important points will be deciding the priorities for the EU’s external cooperation with a view to attaining the EU’s energy policy objectives.

What view does the Council take of the possibility of denouncing the bilateral agreements with external energy suppliers in order to guarantee that the EU negotiates unanimously on the conditions and pricing of energy purchases?

What view does the Council take of the proposal by the President of the European Parliament, Mr Buzek, that an EU energy purchasing group should be set up?

(EN) The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the February 2011 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council considers that safe, secure, sustainable and affordable energy contributing to European competitiveness remains a priority for Europe. Action at the EU level can and must bring added value to that objective. The Council recognises that there is a need for better coordination of EU and Member States' activities with a view to ensuring consistency and coherence in the EU's external relations with key producer, transit, and consumer countries. The European Council on 4 February invited the Commission to submit by June 2011 a Communication on security of supply and international cooperation aimed at further improving the consistency and coherence of the EU's external action in the field of energy, and invited Member States to inform from 1 January 2012 the Commission on all their new and existing bilateral energy agreements with third countries ⁽¹⁾.

That said, political support has been expressed for action that may include examining the option of a purchase mechanism: in 2009, Council invited the Commission, in cooperation with Member States, to rapidly present the detailed actions required to realise the priority areas identified in the Strategic Energy Review: as far as external projects are concerned this covers the Southern Corridor and the Mediterranean Energy Ring. In particular, Council agreed on the priority to exploring the feasibility of a mechanism, in line with EU competition rules, which would facilitate access to Caspian gas with a view to enabling competitive new gas sources to come onto the European market and the necessary infrastructure to be constructed. In this context, the attention of the Honourable Parliamentarian is drawn to the recent European Council conclusions of 4 February 2011 (point 12) in which the Commission is invited to continue its efforts to facilitate the development of strategic corridors for the transport of large volumes of gas such as the Southern Corridor.

A further example of action which the EU undertook in this context is the signature of a "Joint Declaration on the Southern Gas Corridor" signed by the President of Azerbaijan and Mr. Barroso on 13 January 2011.

As regards a possible energy procurement group at EU level as suggested by the President of the European Parliament, the Council recalls that the EU does not purchase energy, nor does it negotiate prices or terms of contracts for the delivery of energy: this remains a task of private companies. The Council has not taken a view on this, and the Presidency cannot therefore offer a reaction to the proposal.

What are the Hungarian Presidency’s views on possible reforms of the eurozone bailout fund, in particular the issue of debt buy-backs for bailout recipients and lower interest rates on rescue loans?

(EN) The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the February 2011 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

In May 2010, a comprehensive package of measures to preserve financial stability in the euro area was agreed on, with a total volume of up to € 500 billion. A smaller part of this package (up to € 60 billion) is covered by a Union instrument, the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism (EFSM). The conditions for activation of this part of the support are laid down in Council Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 of 11 May 2010 establishing a European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism . The remaining, major part of the package falls out of the scope of the Treaties, as it is covered by the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF), established by the euro area Member States. For this reason the Presidency cannot comment on the issues raised by the honourable Member, and it would in any case not be appropriate to speculate on issues such as revision of interest rates and possible debt buy-backs.

The honourable Member will be aware that the Heads of State or government of the euro area, the Commission and the ECB declared on 4 February their intention to finalize, by the end of March, a comprehensive strategy to preserve financial stability in the euro area, including strengthening of the EFSF so as to ensure the necessary effectiveness to provide adequate support.

Looking ahead, the European Council of 16-17 December mandated the Finance Ministers of the euro area Member States and the Commission to finalise work on the intergovernmental arrangement setting up the future European Stability Mechanism by March 2011. This future mechanism should become operational in 2013 and consequently replace the instruments currently in place.

In 2009, the CALYPSO preparatory action was launched to tackle issues of seasonality in the EU tourism sector, to foster best practice in tourism development, and to increase participation in tourism from groups including senior citizens, young people, disabled citizens and families facing difficult social circumstances.

This is an appropriate and innovative measure and dovetails effectively with the EU's new competence in tourism. What concrete measures have been initiated as of February 2011 to implement this action, and has the Commission compiled any preliminary assessments of its effectiveness? Finally, to what extent have synergies been developed with other EU programmes, such as the ERDF and Interreg?

(FR) CALYPSO was launched in 2009 to promote social tourism in four target groups (senior citizens, young people, disabled citizens and families facing social or financial difficulties), through transnational low season tourism exchanges.

CALYPSO can therefore help:

- improve regional economies through the development of social tourism;

- extend the seasonality spread in tourism;

- enhance employment (more jobs of better quality);

- strengthen European citizenship.

The main actions in CALYPSO’s first two years (2009-2010) were

- the CALYPSO study ‘Tourism exchanges in Europe’ (with the participation of 21 Member States/candidate countries),

- cofinancing the actions of public authorities aiming to undertake transnational low season tourism exchanges for the CALYPSO target groups,

- organising seven awareness-raising meetings (seeking to identify good practices and the best mechanisms for facilitating attractively-priced tourism exchanges between different countries in the low season)

- producing communication material (creating a logo, the production of ‘lamàs’ and a promotional leaflet in all the official languages of Europe).

The increased budget of EUR 1.5 million in 2011 is a clear sign that the work programme introduced by the Commission was greatly appreciated by the European Parliament.

So far, the action has been implemented successfully, even though formal synergies have not been developed with other EU programmes, given, amongst other things, the limited lifespan of the preparatory action. However, as part of its communication on tourism⁽¹⁾, adopted on 30 June 2010, the Commission will endeavour to scale up its efforts to encourage an extension of the tourist season, including through a better use of synergies with other initiatives at national or European level.

The incompatibility of chargers for mobile phones causes major inconvenience and expense for consumers. Can the Commission provide information on the progress to date on establishing European standards for a common charger for data-enabled mobile phones, as set down in the agreement announced in June 2009?

In the Commissioner’s view, when are EU consumers likely to have compatible mobile phone chargers available to them?

Does the Commission foresee these standards for a common charger being extended to include other makers and brands of mobile phones?

(FR) Following a mandate from the European Commission, in December 2010 the European standardisation bodies CEN-CENELEC⁽¹⁾ and ETSI⁽²⁾ made available the harmonised standards needed for the manufacture of data-enabled mobile phones compatible with a new common charger.

The standard prepared by http://www.etsi.org/website/homepage.aspx" \t "_blank" takes account of safety risks and electro-magnetic emissions and ensures that common chargers have sufficient immunity to external interference. The interoperability standard developed by http://www.cen.eu/cen/pages/default.aspx" \t "_blank" -http://www.cenelec.eu/Cenelec/Homepage.htm" \t "_blank" allows for interoperability, i.e. the common charger is compatible with mobile phones of different brands.

This is the most recent development in the process towards a global common mobile phone charger initiated by the European Commission. It follows the June 2009 agreement of 14 leading mobile phone producers to harmonise chargers for data-enabled mobile phones (i.e. that can be connected to a computer) sold in the European Union.

The first generation of mobile phones with common chargers should be on the market during 2011.

The development of European Standards was needed to ensure the compatibility and the functionality of the new generation of Micro-USB⁽³⁾ chargers and only new chargers which comply with the new European Standards will be considered as a ‘common charger’.

It is important to keep in mind that the introduction of the common charger will be gradual and depend much on consumers' behaviour and the rate of replacement of old phones. On the other hand, the European Commission cannot decide on the manufacturer's marketing and distribution strategies, but it is confident that the common chargers will be available to the public through the regular marketing channels during 2011.

For the time being there are no plans for a special action to extend the agreement of the 14 companies that signed the memorandum of understanding to all manufacturers of mobile phones.

In connection with the preparations for laying down the principles underpinning an EU raw-materials policy, the institutions have a strategic choice to make regarding the role that recycling is to play in that policy.

What potential does recycling have as regards the sourcing of the various categories of raw materials that are of strategic importance to economic development in the EU?

What percentage contribution could recycling (urban mining) make, as compared with indigenous resources and imported raw materials?

(EN) The Commission thanks the honourable Member for providing the opportunity to explain the Commission's position on the role of recycling in the EU's raw materials strategy. Recycling is one of the priorities of the Commission, both within the Raw Materials Initiative and within the Thematic Strategy on Waste Prevention and Recycling.

Economically, sustained pressure on non-energy raw materials means that the value of the EU's 'urban' recycable materials has increased significantly. As an industrialised society the EU has large stocks of recycable material. Let us exploit this potential. In environmental terms, increased recycling, and indeed resource efficiency, helps us reduce energy needs and other environmental pressures. In economic terms, it creates activities in the European Union and provides jobs – around 1.2 millions jobs today.

Europe is one of the leading regions for recycling. On the one hand, recycling of municipal waste in the EU has doubled in 10 years with significant disparities between Member States, some of them recycling nearly 70% of the municipal waste, others still landfilling more than 90% of their waste. On the other hand, many rare, or critical, metals are not recycled at all. We have to work to change this situation.

That said, recycling 'urban mines' is not the solution to all our problems: - even though recycling can mitigate the need for raw materials, it cannot satisfy all of the demand in the context of a growing world economy. The EU still needs to foster and promote resource efficiency, sustainable production and consumption and efficient mining. In short, while recycling significantly eases the pressure on our resources, it is not a 'silver bullet'. Nevertheless it remains a vital indigenous source of material.

With regards to the potential of recycling to meet more of our material needs, it has to be remembered that some materials are technically easier to recycle than others. There are also different economic and legal considerations. Therefore, there is no one recycling target for materials.

Hence, these challenges (and solutions) are threefold:

first the EU needs to improve the technologies used for recycling. The EU has been at the forefront of innovation here, but still lacks the means to recycle many rarer metals, such as rare earths. This is one of the reasons why we are working on an innovation partnership for raw materials;

second, the EU needs to have a level-playing field. We need to give new impulsions to make recycling economically interesting in the European Union by reinforcing the recycling markets and improving the profitability of the sector.

third, the EU needs to ensure the enforcement of the waste legislation notably the waste framework Directive and the waste shipment rules in order to be sure that EU minimum recycling targets will be met and that EU waste traded inside and outside the EU is treated in the same environmentally-friendly manner. This is why the Commission proposes actions to facilitate the greater enforcement of the Waste Legislation;

last but not least, the EU needs to optimise collection by ensuring that the less performing Member States develop appropriate strategies based on the experiences of the most performing Member States.

In conclusion, recycling and resource efficiency is a top priority for the Commission. We will work hard to further the proposals recently made in the Communications on Raw Materials and on resource efficiency, as well as contained in the Thematic Strategy on Waste. The Commission would expect and appreciate that the European Parliament gives the necessary support to the concrete proposals that are contained in the Commission's strategies.

Bearing in mind the impact of the abolition of internal borders in the single market, particularly in regions situated on those borders, as well as the imbalances that exist between undertakings based in different Member States in terms of labour costs, raw materials and tax policies, which create significant variations in prices for the same product or service in different Member States, what is the situation as regards the competitiveness of undertakings located on the internal borders of the single market?

What support can be provided, within the framework of the Small Business Act, for small and medium-sized undertakings in cross-border regions affected by imbalanced conditions, and what can be done to realise their potential for development and innovation without undermining action to strengthen the single market and conditions of competition?

What wider initiatives is the Commission taking or will it take to ensure that the single market is better adjusted to the current needs of SMEs in cross-border regions, thereby enabling them to achieve better results and reap greater, more balanced benefits?

(FR) Each year the European Commission publishes a report on European industrial competitiveness as part of the new Europe 2020 strategy. The 2010 report identifies a number of challenges faced by companies in the context of the current crisis and analyses the measures taken by Member States to improve their competitiveness. By supporting entrepreneuralism as part of the industrial policy flagship initiative, the Europe 2020 strategy aims to help companies face up to the challenges raised by globalisation, the economic crisis and the transition to a sustainable economy.

Helping small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) face up to the specific challenges dictated by their size is one of the objectives of the new Europe 2020 strategy, pursued in particular under the flagship initiative for a ‘New industrial policy for the globalisation era’. In more general terms, the Europe 2020 strategy should reduce the disparities between Member States in terms of business climate and the conditions in which companies operate, by encouraging those States lagging furthest behind to catch up.

Helping SMEs benefit more from the opportunities provided by the single market is one of the guiding principles of the Small Business Act for Europe (SBA) and it will remain one of the areas for priority action in the SBA review to be adopted in late February 2011.

The first thing that the Commission intends to do is raise awareness of the information and support services available to SMEs to increase access to cross-border trade. Emphasis will be placed on existing networks and instruments such as Enterprise Europe Network, Solvit, Your Europe – Business Portal, and the European portal for SMEs (Small Business Portal).

The integration of the single market is not perfect and disparities prevail among Member States. For this reason, there will be a continued effort to identify and minimise the failures of the single market.

The new Single Market Act, the core objective of which is to add new momentum to integration, has acknowledged the need to create an environment that fosters the development of SMEs. Specific actions have been proposed to improve access for SMEs access to the money markets or to simplify the administrative environment.

The Commission is aware that the different levels of development that exist between European regions lead to economic disparities (including labour costs and prices). The role of the cohesion policy is firstly to reduce disparities and secondly to foster the competitiveness of companies and in particular SMEs. The SBA makes no provision for specific support actions for SMEs in cross-border regions. The initiative is more about creating identical framework conditions for all SMEs, provided that the fields fall under the jurisdiction of the EU.

There is a huge range of support measures in place for SMEs as part of the regional policy directed at cross-border areas. In this context, it should be emphasised that each operational progamme has a list of support options adapted to local needs. Some of the most common measures include: supporting applied research, technology transfer, raising awareness in business of innovation management, creating centres of competitiveness, networking, support for start-ups, help to promote environmentally-friendly products and patterns of production, or support with setting up bilingual websites.

Parliament was recently asked to give its opinion on the Council draft decision on the full application of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in Bulgaria and Romania. However, as has been the case in the past, Parliament does not have access to certain Council documents essential to producing this opinion.

Given that Commissioner Šefčovič has previously stressed the need to strengthen the European Parliament in line with the Lisbon Treaty and given that his mandate includes ensuring that the European institutions can work together effectively, does the Commission not agree that such lack of access to documents damages interinstitutional relations and that it goes against the very spirit of the Lisbon Treaty, which demands loyal cooperation between the Council and Parliament? What does the Commission feel its role is in finding a solution to this recurring issue?

(EN) In accordance with the 2005 Act of Accession, joining the Schengen area without internal border control requires a decision by the Council, after consultation of the European Parliament and after verification in accordance with the applicable Schengen evaluation procedures that the necessary conditions for the application of all parts of the Schengen acquis concerned have been met.

This Schengen evaluation process is under the full responsibility of the Member States, and the decision on the lifting of internal border control taken in unanimity by the Council. Therefore also the access to documents, which are established by the Council, falls under the responsibility of the Council.

The documents mentioned in the Rt. Hon. Member's question are classified documents. The Commission has taken notice that contacts have been established between the Council and the European Parliament with the aim of reaching an agreement on modalities for the access for Members of the European Parliament to classified information of the Council.

The Commission has also taken notice that in the meantime the Council has agreed to the declassification of the evaluation documents, which should facilitate it for Members of the European Parliament to have access to the information contained therein.

How does the Commission view the development of economic conditions, cross-border infrastructure and democracy and the rule of law in West Africa, particularly in the light of the problems in Cameroon and Ivory Coast?

(EN) The political and economic situation varies significantly in West Africa from country to country. The region is confronted with fragile situations and criminal trafficking activities which contribute to its chronic instabilty. Yet, the overall development in the region gives also reason for optimism. Guinea, Mauritania and Niger went through very difficult periods over the last few years but they are returning back to democratic paths; others have further consolidated democracy and the rule of law. Overall, economic development makes hope for the whole region after a slow down as a consequence of the global financial and economic crisis. Yet, more needs to be done to reduce still widespread poverty and to progress towards the Millenium Development Goals. Among the positive features in the region is also the strong commitment for regional integration as a means to overcome poverty and bad governance.

The two regional organisations Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU) are pursuing promising agendas with substantial assistance from the EU and other partners including support to modern cross-border infrastructure. The strong role that ECOWAS is assuming in the international efforts to bring an end to the crisis in Côte d'Ivoire is very encouraging. The Central African country Cameroon has handled the effects of the global financial and economic crisis relatively well but progress towards reducing overall poverty remains insufficient. The overall governance situation shows some improvements and will undergo an important test with the upcoming Presidential elections.

Alongside tour packages, some tour companies offer insurance in the event of the cancellation of a trip, medical assistance in the event of accident or illness and repatriation in the event of death. Those services are provided for the duration of the holiday, for 90 days or for one year. They are popular with tourists, who feel better protected before and during the holiday. Certain tour companies, however, base their offer of repatriation assistance in the event of accident or illness solely on the airline ticket, and base the price of the assistance on the value of that ticket.

This practice affects tourists’ interests, because the assistance which they might need is in no way connected with the value of the airline ticket. What steps will the Commission take, therefore, to regulate these services and to prevent unfair practices in the field of insurance and assistance services for tourists?

(EN) Through travel agencies, insurance companies often sell insurance policies which cover travels by EU citizens outside their home Member State. Such insurance policies are a matter concerning contract law. Travel insurance limited by the price of the relevant air ticket is not a consequence of EU insurance law. To the best of the Commission's knowledge, this is not a common industry practice. Neither would this appear to be an example of product tying.

Generally speaking, the insurance market, as other markets, is driven by supply and demand. Insurance companies attempt to offer products that are tailored to the needs of potential customers. In any event, whether to take out travel insurance or not in a particular situation is of course the choice of the consumer concerned.

However, if the policy-holders concerned believe that the terms of the contract have been infringed or that the conditions of the contract were unreasonable, they dispose of several remedies. First, the matter might be brought to the attention of the national out-of-court complaint scheme which is responsible for handling disputes between policy-holders and their insurers⁽¹⁾. Moreover, according to Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts⁽²⁾, consumer protection associations may challenge unfair contractual terms before national courts. Therefore, the policy-holder concerned may also consider contacting the responsible consumer organisation.

As the Commission will be aware, European air travel was again severely disrupted this Christmas. This was the third such paralysis in 2010, following the heavy snowfall at the beginning of the year and the ash cloud crisis which we will not very easily forget.

Though 2010 was certainly exceptional, evidence suggests that such incidents will become more and more common in future as our climate continues to change. As such it is imperative that the EU continues to plan for such developments, in order to protect both consumers and airlines from the unfortunate delays of 2010.

Does the Commission have any plans to coordinate the preparation of European airports to deal with excessive snow? Has the Commission committed to review compensation policies for such delays, which, having been designed in a different era for air travel, are sufficient for neither the consumer nor the airline of the twenty-first century?

(EN) Air travel in December 2010 was heavily disrupted throughout Europe. Many of EU's larger hubs partially closed during one of the busiest weekend of the year: the beginning of Christmas holidays. Overall, 35,000 flights were cancelled (which is more than for the whole year 2009) and tens of thousands of people were stranded at airports, not to speak about major luggage handling problems. It is the Commission's duty to minimise the impact of these extreme weather conditions if these were to happen again. The Commission is, however, very pleased that no accident occurred and that safety was not compromised.

First, we have to learn from what happened. As announced in December 2010, the Commission met on 19th January 2011with airport Chief Executive Officer's (CEO) to discuss precisely what happened and what could be done to avoid similar situations in the future. There are 5 major areas where the Commission believes action needs to be taken:

Contingency planning for snow at airports must be improved.

Better co-operation needs to be ensured between all those involved in the air and on the ground.

The proper functioning of the airline hubs needs to be ensured. Given the knock-on effects, airports overall must be integrated more strongly so they work as a network. They cannot work in isolation.

Passenger information must be improved, with better and more timely information about delays and re-routing.

And, to achieve all that, minimum service and quality requirements are needed at airports for passengers. Those requirements need to be consistent across Europe.

Such requirements shall, in the Commission's view, be devised on the basis of proposals coming from the industry itself. The Commission has asked European airports to come back as soon as possible with a progress report on contingency planning for next winter. On its side, the Commission is prepared to bring forward specific measures to address the issues outlined above in the Airports Package due in principle before the Summer.

Concerning the issue of delayed flights, the Air Passenger Rights Regulation⁽¹⁾ foresees that air carriers must offer re-routing and provide - where necessary - appropriate care and assistance to their passengers. Theright to a financial compensation for the passengers arises only in certain cases, notably when the circumstances of the incident that affects a particular flight cannot be considered as extraordinary and could have been avoided if all reasonable measures had been taken.

It should however be reminded that Article 13 clearly establishes a shared liability amongst all the relevant operators, whereby the operating carrier has the responsibility to assist passengers, but not the obligation to bear all the costs. The purpose of using the operating carrier as the focal point for the obligations of the Regulation is to ensure and facilitate the effective application of the Regulation to the benefit of passengers, without prejudice to costs to be shared by any other person, private or public, responsible for the disruption.

Taking into account lessons learnt from both the ash cloud crisis in April 2010 and the heavy snowfall in December 2010, the Commission will publish this spring 2011 a Report on the application of the Air Passenger Rights Regulation, which takes stock of the functioning of existing rules so far. Furthermore, it intends to launch in the course of 2011 an Impact Assessment aimed to evaluate, amongst others, the proportionality of the current measures and to assess which would be the best tools to tackle the weaknesses of the existing Regulation. At this stage, it appears likely that a legislative proposal to revise the existing rules will be tabled in 2012. The Commission remains committed to work hard to improve the European air travel system to ensure that European citizens will not have to go through similar experiences again.

Greek economic policy is completely determined by the Memorandum of 'Understanding', signed by the Greek Government with the IMF and the Commission. Even its advocates acknowledge that no plan for economic development has been formulated either within this framework or alongside it. This is exacerbating the financial problems, creating a stifling atmosphere, and having the worst possible psychological effect in the domestic market. Given that the 2007-2013 NSRF is the basic tool of development assistance and worth approximately EUR 24 billion for Greece, will the Commission say:

Can it not update the 2007-2013 NSRF, in cooperation with Greece, in order to meet the new conditions imposed by the economic crisis? Will it at least revise the Regulations in order to reduce Greece's participation in co-funded programmes?

Is it studying the development of joint policies such as, for example, tourism and supporting small businesses or social measures, so as to benefit the Member States and citizens of southern Europe, which are bearing the brunt of the crisis?

(EN) The Commission and the Greek authorities had agreed that no revision of the Greek operational programmes would be initiated in 2010, as Structural Funds absorption in Greece was not advanced enough to allow appropriate conclusions to be made about new directions that could be served by a revision. The Greek authorities were involved in a significant effort to meet the annual absorption targets and other requirements for 2010 set by the Memorandum of Understanding. The time-consuming process of revision would divert efforts away from fulfilling these requirements. The absorption rate had considerably increased by the end 2010. Furthermore, the programmes are providing scope for the investments necessary to respond to the crisis.

The Structural Funds regulations were first modified in the context of the European Economic Recovery Package at the beginning of 2009⁽¹⁾. Subsequently, in order to increase the impact of EU funding on the national economies and labour markets, the regulations were amended again in 2010⁽²⁾ following thorough discussions and approval with the European Parliament and the Council.

Acceptable modifications and flexibilities with regard to national co-financing requirements have been discussed and addressed in the above package of modifications. The Commission considers, moreover, that modification of the regulations, which are applicable to all Member States, is not the appropriate method to respond to particular requirements of one specific Member State.

In its recent Communication 'Regional Policy contributing to smart growth in Europe 2020'⁽³⁾ the Commission encourages national and regional governments to move towards 'smart specialisation strategies' and asks them to redirect European Regional Development Fund support to reinforce investments in education, research and innovation in line with such strategies. It also says that it will support requests for redirecting funds and reprogramming programmes to this end.

Smart specialisation strategies are comprehensive sets of strategic actions supporting regional specialisation and growth through innovation. They aim at supporting and exploiting a region's assets and its competitive advantage and stimulate cooperation across national and regional borders to support critical mass and knowledge flows.

The Commission believes that these strategies should be accompanied by measures to improve the framework conditions for research and innovation through aligning European Regional Development Fund support with national reform programme priorities and making full use of the flexibility in regional policy programmes to redirect funding to this end.

To assist the regions in this process the Commission will launch a ‘Smart Specialisation Platform’ in 2011, to spread information and provide feed-back to the regions, with the establishment of a learning platform to increase the capacities and skills in this field and to support the exchange of experiences.

On 3 November 2010 I tabled a written question to the Commission and the Council with the subject ‘Measuring the impact of EU sanctions on Iran’. The deadline for answering my question lapsed on 5 January. Why has the Commission failed to comply with the Rules of Procedure?

(EN) The Commission thanks the honourable Member for his question and regrets the delay in replying to the written question E-9540/10⁽¹⁾. The delay occurred as the relevant Commission services had already contributed to the reply to the written question E-9539/10, addressed to the Council, which raised the same points. On this subject, the Commission is pleased to confirm that it has now sent its own reply to the written question E-9540/10.

The Commission would like to take this opportunity to underline that the EU decision, in July 2010, to apply restrictive measures against Iran in the key sectors of trade, finance, transport and energy, as well as against the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, reflects the EU’s strong political commitment to swiftly implement UN Security Council Resolution 1929 and to take additional EU accompanying measures.

These restrictive measures are economic tools with a foreign policy purpose: They aim at supporting the resolution of all outstanding concerns regarding Iran’s development of sensitive technologies in support of its nuclear and missile programmes through negotiation, in order to promote a diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear issue.

Importantly, EU sanctions remain targeted on specific areas and persons, with a view to minimizing adverse consequences for those not responsible for the policies that prompted the imposition of sanctions, that is to say primarily the Iranian population. The Commission will continue to highlight the need to ensure that EU sanctions do not harm the Iranian civilian population. This approach is an integral part of the EU’s policy towards Iran.

The High Representative/Vice President (HR/VP) takes good note of concerns about US sanctions and additional restrictions that certain firms apply in their business relation with Iran, that may not be required under EU sanctions regulations. The HR/VP has, on several occasions, discussed with the US the ‘Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Divestment and Accountability Act’ (CISADA) and expressed concern about its potential extraterritorial effects on EU firms. The HR/VP will continue to follow this issue closely and ensure regular dialogue with private operators but would, however, stress that the effect of such decisions by companies should be assessed separately from the impact of EU sanctions.

The EU regulations provide a basis for a uniform implementation of EU sanctions and require Member States to lay down proportionate, effective and dissuasive penalties applicable to infringements. According to the regulation, the Commission and Member States inform each other of implementation and enforcement, but Member States remain responsible for the enforcement of sanctions.

Under Article 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Council shall inform Parliament about EU regulations on sanctions. The HR/VP will also be glad to keep you informed on this matter under the regular dialogue with Parliament on the Common Foreign and Security Policy.

The European ‘Progress’ Microfinance Facility, established by the Commission, is intended to facilitate access to financing (up to EUR 25 000) for people wishing to set up or develop a business who encounter difficulties in obtaining bank loans. Public and private microfinance institutions in the Member States that wish to obtain guarantees can apply to the European Investment Fund (EIF), which is managing the European ‘Progress’ Microfinance Facility on behalf of the Commission.

Does the Commission have any information about the way in which this measure is being implemented in the Member States and can it indicate whether people who would be interested can obtain such financing?

(EN) The Commission would refer the honourable Member to the answers it gave to oral question H-639/10 by Ms Göncz during Parliament's January 2011 session and to written question E-4763/10 by Mr Matula on the same subject⁽¹⁾. In addition, it recalls that ensuring outreach to the target groups and promoting geographical balance are central to the mandate given to the European Investment Fund. More information on the European Progress Microfinance Facility is available on the Commission website⁽²⁾.

Recently, there have been various indications that the Commission intends to review its position on the financing of the European Humanities University (EHU). At the EIDHR meeting in December 2010, the question of the financing o the EHU was not included in the action sheets for 2011 on the grounds that the decision on the methods of financing and the appropriateness of financing would be taken later in 2011.

On 20 January, the European Parliament adopted by an absolute majority a resolution in which it called on the Commission to continue and increase its financial aid to the EHU.

Will the Commission discuss this issue in the near future? What possible decisions could be taken on the financing of the EHU, based in Vilnius?

(EN) The Commission thanks the honourable Member for stressing the importance of maintaining support for the European Humanities University (EHU), subsequent to the crackdown on the opposition and the civil society in the wake of the 19 December Presidential elections in Belarus.

The Commission believes that the EHU makes an important contribution to the future democratic development of Belarus by educating young Belarusians likely to play a leading role in their country’s future. Through the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR), the European Union (EU) has been the main contributor to the EHU Trust Fund providing EUR 1.000.000 per year since 2008. The total EU financial contribution to the EHU since January 2006 amounts to EUR 10.705.089. The EU has constantly encouraged EU Member States and other donors to also provide support.

In the light of recent events in Belarus, maintaining support to the EHU has become even more important. The Commission is thus pleased to confirm that the EU intends to maintain the current level of funding to the EHU for the period 2011-2013 with a view to contributing to the democratisation of Belarusian society.

At the same time we will continue to advocate that in the longer term the EHU becomes more self-sustainable; that some of its activities are relocated to Minsk; and that more students return to Belarus upon the completion of their courses. The EU is glad to note that progress on these three tracks has already been identified.

More generally, the EU has been reviewing its approach towards Belarus. The Foreign Affairs Council of 31 January deplored the violence and called for the immediate and unconditional release of all those detained on political grounds and for an end to the persecution of civil society. Importantly, the Foreign Affairs Council also decided to reinstate and extend sanctions against persons responsible for the fraudulent Presidential elections and the subsequent violent crackdown. Meanwhile, the EU is working to help identify its appropriate response to support civil society, including to the mobility of students, and to strengthen relations with the Belarusian people.

Can the Commission provide comprehensive information about its complaint handling process, explaining clearly its criteria for deciding the priority of a complaint? Does the Commission consider its current rules for relations with the complainant in respect of infringements of Community law demonstrate and follow best practice? Would it describe its process as being: clearly defined; fairly weighted between the complainant and the respondent; always open and transparent and easy-to-follow? Is it right to merely ‘endeavour to take a decision on the substance (either to open infringement proceedings or to close the case) within twelve months of registration of the complaint with its Secretariat-General’? Are the ‘Administrative Guarantees’ a guarantee of anything?

Can the Commission confirm if and where citizens can find detailed information including guaranteed timetables for all stages in the complaint process?

What does the Commission believe should be done to speed the process and deliver more timely conclusions? Does the Commission propose to act in this regard?

(EN) The Commission considers that the complaint-handling process it has put in place offers the administrative guarantees mentioned by the honourable Member. The Commission is however always ready to examine whether the existing measures should be improved.

The new registration process (CHAP project: complaint handling – accueil des plaignants), which has been operating since October 2009, aims to ensure that all correspondence identified by the correspondent as intended to be an enquiry or complaint about the application of EU law is registered accordingly.

An acknowledgement of receipt should be sent within 15 working days, containing the official reference number, the department in charge, specific statement of data confidentiality and a detailed explanation of the procedure for non-compliance with European Union law.

The Commission is committed to give an answer to the complainant as soon as possible after the sending of the acknowledgement of receipt.

The Commission targets always having either taken a first formal step in an infringement proceeding or having closed the file at the latest within a year of its first registration. Subject to the necessary confidentiality to apply in infringement procedures, the Commission takes care to inform the complainant of each main action taken or to give them one months' notice, including an explanation why, when it is intended to close the file.

Information on the complaints process is published on the Europa website. Complainants can correspond with the Commission and, at their own request, can visit the Commission to provide further explanations. There are therefore extensive possibilities for complainants to follow the complaints procedure. The content and context of different complaints varies and so varies the necessary work required.

Complaint-handling is largely devoted to the identification and clarification of the issues concerned and decisions on the kind of action which seems most appropriate. The 2007 Communication⁽¹⁾ on 'A Europe of results - applying Community law' has identified three types of priorities, two Commission-wide which are the non transposition cases and those for which a Court judgment has declared the existence of the infringements, and one more sector-specific concerning cases raising issues of principle or having particularly far-reaching negative impact for citizens, such as those concerning the application of Treaty principles and main elements of framework regulations and directives⁽²⁾.

The Commission has recently introduced the EU Pilot project as part of a new commitment of the Commission and Member States to respond more quickly and better to citizens' enquiries and complaints. This reflects the importance that is attached to these matters in addition to the earlier creation of SOLVIT dealing with cross-frontier issues in the Single Market. The Commission has also been reviewing and developing the actions which it takes in connection with the adoption, implementation and management of new EU legislation to avoid problems arising later on. A permanent dialogue is maintained with Member States. Through such means the Commission intends to continue to work towards better and more timely application of EU law and the resolution of problems arising.

Commission President Barroso stated in his ‘State of the Union’ address in September 2010, in relation to red tape, that the Commission had put proposals on the table to generate annual savings of € 38 billion for European companies.

Can the Commission outline what concrete actions it has taken to date so as to reduce the levels of red tape affecting companies based in Europe?

(EN) The European Commission launched an Action Programme in 2007 with the ambitious objective of reducing administrative burdens on European businesses by 25% by 2012. Since then, the Commission regularly reported on overall progress as well as on individual measures adopted to meet this target.

The latest update was published in December 2010. In short, the Commission reported that it had already proposed measures that reduce administrative burdens on businesses by more than 31%. Out of this, measures representing a reduction of 9.3% were still pending before the Council or the European Parliament.

In practice, 70 administrative burden reduction measures were adopted so far in the 13 policy areas covered by the programme. Examples range from the facilitation of electronic invoicing (estimated savings of EUR 18.4 billion per year) to the simplification of fruit and vegetable labels (EUR 970 million of annual savings). For a full list, the Honorable Member is invited to consult the last update of the Sectoral Reduction Plans adopted by the Commission in October 2009 available at the following address: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/better-regulation/administrative-burdens

.

The Communication on the CAP, presented by Commissioner Cioloş in November 2010 (IP/10/1527), mentions innovation as a vital component in policies implemented under the second pillar of the common agricultural policy (CAP) post 2013.

Does the Commission view the implementation of innovation policies that are in synergy with the demands of the agriculture and rural development sector as being possible?

What lines of action might be envisaged?

(EN) Innovation is a cross-cutting issue that is needed to deliver on CAP priorities and to attain smart, green, and inclusive growth. Research is needed to provide the basis for innovative ideas and concepts for both processes and products in view of enhancing agricultural productivity hand in hand with fostering sustainable resource use and preserving the environment. The establishment of a European Innovation Partnership (EIP) for agriculture is referred to in the Communication "Innovation Union" (Flagship Initiative of Europe 2020) which mentions, among others, the EIP "Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability". It follow multiple request for bridging the gap between the research world and the farming community, thereby helping with a faster application of innovative approaches to farming practice and a systematic feedback on practice needs to researchers.

The key actors for innovative action in the field of agriculture would be operational groups involving farmers, scientists, advisers, and enterprises. Those operational groups would test and apply innovative processes, products, and technologies. They would form themselves at the regional, national or EU level, and make use of actions provided by Rural Development Programmes and EU research policy. EU wide network would need to facilitate the information flow between research and the farming sector, encourage the exchange among actors concerning innovation approaches and best practice. Via the innovation network, operational groups can share experience, communicate practical questions, and give advice. Given the significant role that advisory services play as an intermediary between research and farm levels, the possibility to strengthen the contribution of the farm advisory system (FAS) towards the end of fostering innovation will also be investigated as part of the CAP post-2013 exercise.

Promoting innovation through rural development policy can build on experience with measures that this policy already offers for various types of innovation. For example, Article 29 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005⁽¹⁾ offers support for cooperation in the development of new products, processes and technologies in the agriculture, food and forestry sectors; Article 63 of the same Regulation offers support for implementing novel local development projects through the "Leader" approach; and various articles provide for support for training, which stimulates innovation.

Thus far, innovation-related measures have been used only to a limited degree. Therefore, further efforts will be made to better exploit the potential of rural development policy for supporting innovation after 2013. Emphasis will be given to informing and encouraging actors to make use of measures fostering innovation for products, processes and technologies in a commercial context. In this respect, the EIP network will have a key role to nurture and spread new ideas.

Under the EU’s regional policy, areas with maritime borders that are no more than 150 km apart are eligible for cross-border cooperation, with adjustments being made to ensure the coherence and continuity of the cooperation.

Despite this flexibility, however, some island regions, with borders that are further than 150 km apart, are not deemed eligible. As a result, these areas have been deprived of the cross-border cooperation that would have been the ideal framework within which to address the problems common to them and other islands and areas with maritime borders. This clearly affects the coherence and continuity of the cooperation.

With this in mind, and in the light of the conclusions of the Fifth Cohesion Report, which support the continuation of revised territorial cooperation, is the Commission considering withdrawing the arbitrary 150 km limit in the case of island regions, as Parliament requested in its resolution of 22 September 2010 on the European strategy for the economic and social development of mountain regions, islands and sparsely populated areas (P7_TA(2010)0341)?

(FR) The European Commission welcomes the interest shown in territorial cooperation by the honourable Member as it is effectively the cornerstone of the cohesion policy.

The Commission is obviously aware of the problems that this matter raises.

On 31 October 2006, the Commission adopted Decision 2006/769/EC drawing up the list of regions and areas eligible for funding from the European Regional Development Fund under the cross-border and transnational strands of the European territorial cooperation objective for the period 2007 to 2013⁽¹⁾ and has no intention of amending this decision, which forms the basis for decisions approving operational programmes adopted in 2007 and 2008 and for their implementation, which is already well-advanced, right in the middle of a programming period.

However, the Commission would like to point out that Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006⁽²⁾ makes explicit provision for the possibility of including bilateral cooperation in transnational cooperation programmes between maritime regions not covered under the cross-border strand, with the same thematic priorities as those provided for cross-border cooperation. Such cooperation could in fact also be considered with the option of interregional cooperation as provided for in Article 37(6) (b) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006⁽³⁾.

The conditions under which territorial cooperation programmes are to be implemented, including how to define which regions are eligible for cross-border cooperation, are currently being explored by the Commission for the post-2013 programming period. The Commission intends to present its legislative proposals during the course of 2011.

Access to agricultural markets and the liberalisation of trade in fisheries products are a key focus of the negotiations on a comprehensive trade agreement with Canada.

Can the Commission say whether a specific impact assessment has recently been carried out as regards the effects of such an agreement on the Union’s various agricultural and agri-foodstuffs industries? Can it give an update on the progress of the negotiations, and provide details of the offers it intends to make in respect of agriculture?

Bearing in mind the specific situation of the French territory of Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon, whose fisheries exports to the EU are subject to preferential conditions, can the Commission say whether it intends to exclude from the agreement tariff lines relating to activities that are essential to the territory’s economy (such as mackerel, lobster, herrings and meat of scallops), or to maintain restricted import quotas?

(EN) The EU is committed to conducting Trade Sustainability Impact Assessments (SIA) as part of its trade policy-making process since 1999. The Trade SIA should assess the potential impact of proposed trade and economic liberalisation agreements on all pillars of sustainable development in order to optimise policy decision-making and assist with trade negotiations.

It is against this background that a Trade SIA is currently being carried out by external consultants concerning the EU-Canada CETA trade negotiations. The impact analysis will look in detail at social, economic and environmental impacts in the following 3 sectors and 11 sub-sectors; the agriculture, processed agricultural products (PAPs), and fisheries sector, and the sub-sectors of dairy, beverages, other PAPs; the industrial products sector, and the sub-sectors of mining, coal, and oil and petroleum products; the services sector, and the sub-sectors of transportation, financial, telecommunication, and other business services.

The draft final report is planned to be discussed at a meeting with civil society at the end of March 2011.

Further information and earlier preliminary reports can be found on the following website:

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/analysis/sustainability-impact-assessments/assessments

.

The Commission regularly informs the European Parliament, mainly through the INTA Committee, of the developments in the CETA negotiations.

A decision on the treatment in CETA of the fisheries products for which Saint Pierre et Miquelon has an export potential and currently benefits of unilateral preferences (including origin derogations) is part of the preparation of future offers.

The Commission is aware of the particular situation of Saint Pierre et Miquelon, also in the context of the CETA. With this in mind, the Commission has recently accepted the request of Saint Pierre et Miquelon for a further derogation to its rules of origin for specific fisheries products. This derogation extends possible imports of raw fishery products, for example, from Canada, to be considered as originating in Saint Pierre et Miquelon, on the condition that sufficient processing took place locally. The final processed fishery products can then be exported to the European Union, duty-free. The described origin derogation is meant to be valid for a period of eight years and concerns a total annual quantity of 225 tonnes of processed lobster, 600 tonnes of processed herring and mackerel and 250 tonnes of processed mussels, in line with what Saint Pierre et Miquelon requested in order to safeguard its local processing industry and save local jobs in the fishery sector.

In addition, Saint Pierre et Miquelon already benefits from a origin derogation applicable until March 2013 for the following products: 250 tonnes of locally processed scallops; 105 tonnes of frozen lobster tails, claws and legs; 1,290 tonnes of fillets of hake, haddock, pollock, plaice, flounder, sole, codfish, red fish, bream, frozen turbot and Atlantic turbot; frozen meat or stuffed haddock, pollock, hake, codfish; salted cod fillets and whole salted codfish.

Certain third-country companies have won public procurement contracts in the EU because they receive large sums from the public purse in their countries of origin. This has enabled them to force down prices considerably, to the great detriment of their competitors.

Could the Commission please state whether it is appropriate for firms to compete on the basis of the size of their country’s treasury?

Is it problematic when state aid is paid with a view to the firm’s entry to the specific national or regional market, or even to support the actual project?

Is it problematic if the firms accept an inappropriately large amount of state aid over a long period, or on a permanent basis?

Which provisions of EU competition law may be applied to tackle such situations? Which of these provisions have already been applied? Is there a need to adjust the existing regulatory framework?

(EN) The EU competition rules under the EU Treaty, and in particular the rules on State Aid are not applicable to subsidies granted by foreign (non-EU) states.

However, as set in the recent Trade, Growth and World Affairs policy paper⁽¹⁾, the EU has a strategic interest in developing international rules to ensure that European firms do not suffer from unreasonable subsidisation of local companies or anti-competitive practices by third countries.

Therefore, the EU is actively seeking to address this at international level, including through the development of more ambitious international rules on subsidies, in particular in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in the framework of the Doha Round (DDA). The Commission is also following closely the observation of the rules on transparency in the relevant bodies of the WTO. Furthermore, subsidies are actively addressed at the bilateral level in the negotiations on Free Trade Agreements.

As regards the possible breach of trade rules on subsidies, the Commission can initiate investigations on subsidies granted outside the EU on the basis of formal complaints from the relevant EU industry. Trade defence measures can be imposed on imports where necessary to remedy the harmful impact of subsidies on the European industry.

On public procurement, with respect to companies originating from third countries which are a party to the WTO Government Procurement Agreement (GPA), the EU commitments include country specific derogations to the access to some EU procurement markets as reciprocal access for European economic operators could not be ensured in some particular domains. These derogations maintained by the EU under the GPA are a key aspect of the EU strategy in the ongoing market access negotiations and correspond to major offensive interests of the EU.

Companies originating from countries which are not a party to the GPA and with which the EU has not concluded any other Agreement containing provisions concerning access to the EU procurement markets have no legal right to participate in the EU procurement markets. However, European contracting entities are legally speaking not obliged to deny access of such companies to a given procurement procedure.

EU rules (Directive 2004/18/EC⁽²⁾ and Directive 2004/17/EC⁽³⁾) provide that procuring EU entities can request bidders from third countries to justify abnormally low-priced tenders and to reject abnormally low-priced bids when bidders cannot demonstrate that the state aid that explains the price gap has been legally granted.

On 21 October 2010, Parliament called for agricultural imports to be allowed into the EU only if they have been produced in a manner consistent with European consumer protection, animal welfare and environmental protection standards and minimum social standards. Has the Commission carried out a fundamental assessment of the impact of the free trade agreement? What are the results of the assessment? What is the current status of negotiations, and what concessions does the Commission intend to make in the agricultural sector?

The European banana, sugar and beef sectors are particularly strongly exposed to competition from Mercosur countries. What is the Commission doing to strengthen the interests of European farmers in these sectors and ensure that agricultural and processed agricultural imports comply with EU standards? Does the Commission intend to strengthen the current system of health checks on imports and expand it in order that regular checks are carried out in the countries of origin?

(EN) The Commission has carried out a comprehensive Sustainable Impact Assessment (SIA) on the Association Agreement between the EU and Mercosur. The report of the assessment, carried out by an independent body, is publicly available on the website of the Commission's Directorate-General for Trade⁽¹⁾. In addition, the Commission has requested external experts to carry out an updated economic study on Mercosur that will soon be completed.

The negotiations in view of a comprehensive Association Agreement were resumed last year, further to the announcement at the fourth EU-Mercosur Summit on 17 May 2010. Three negotiating rounds have taken place so far, and the next round will be held in Brussels during the month of March. So far, the discussions have focused on the normative part of the agreement, and there was no exchange of offers on market access for industrial or agricultural goods. The Commission is aware of the sensitivities of different European agricultural and food sectors and those sensitivities will be taken into appropriate consideration in the framework of the negotiation.

A cornerstone of EU import policy is that animals, plants and products thereof originating in any third country, and destined to the EU market, must meet the import requirements established in EU legislation. These requirements are verified by "on-the-spot" inspections carried out by the Commission inspection service (FVO – Food and Veterinary Office). The reports of these inspections are available on the Europa website⁽²⁾.

The products from third countries have to be accompanied by health certificates attesting that the relevant EU health requirements concerning food safety, animal and plant health are fulfilled, thus ensuring the same level of protection for food saftey, animal and plant health as for those produced in the European Union. Such basic requirements remain unchanged, even when the EU has negotiated a trade agreement with a third country⁽³⁾. As regards animal welfare, provisions at the time of slaughter or killing are required.